Holder article on coaching decisions vs. Steelers

[Superman]

http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2015/12/08/indianapolis-colts-pittsburgh-steelers-chuck-pagano-rob-chudzinski/76990956/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=

Coverage:

Quote

Those are fair points and should be emphasized. Davis, for example, had help from safety Mike Adams when he gave up a 48-yard completion to Brown late in the third quarter. But the fact remains, on the plays that everyone was talking about on Monday morning, a majority came when the Colts were playing single coverage with their cornerbacks playing on an island....

Was there some magic-bullet solution? Of course not. The Steelers possess one of the most potent offenses in the NFL, their collection of skill position players among the league's best. But the Colts knew that coming in. They knew the status quo wouldn't cut it.

Communication:

Quote

The switch to Chudzinski, it seems, is proving more difficult than imagined. The fact that he's largely gotten decent results probably trumps the obstacles faced, but the challenges are real. Chudzinski, an accomplished play-caller on other teams, has a command of the concepts. But the language deficit could slow things down in the heat of the moment.

Special teams:

Quote

 

There were questions about special teams, too. The Colts twice punted from Steelers territory in a game where their offense was struggling to move the ball.

The argument against going for fourth downs in questionable areas of the field is playing for field position. But the Colts had spectacular field position to open the game — the Steelers committed two turnovers deep in their own territory in the first 3 minutes — and Indianapolis came away with three points. It is notable that, on fourth-and-4 from the Steelers 43 with 11:05 left in the third quarter — and the Colts trailing 28-10 — quarterback Matt Hasselbeck was injured on the previous play. That might have contributed to Pagano's decision to punt.

 

 

[Superman]

I have no problem with the coverages we played. We mixed it up a bunch, Ben just figured us out and started eating us up. The real issue is that the corners played poor coverage, and the pass rush didn't show up. Not with the strategy or the play calls. For instance, there's no double covering a stop fade in the end zone. Just great throws.

The decisions to punt were probably influenced by how bad the protection was and how poorly MH was playing. I think Pagano will go for it in those situations with Luck, and has in the past. Although, he has some bad 4th down punt decisions on his record (2013 Pats playoff game).

I don't what they're going to do about the communications issue. Can't keep taking so long to get plays in. They probably should script more plays and give the QB a little more control at the line. We also substituted more than often than we have in previous games against the Steelers. Don't know what's up with that.

[Cynjin]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

I don't what they're going to do about the communications issue. Can't keep taking so long to get plays in. They probably should script more plays and give the QB a little more control at the line. We also substituted more than often than we have in previous games against the Steelers. Don't know what's up with that.

 

What was the problem with getting the plays in on time vs the Steelers?  It didn't seem to be a problem the past few games with Chud calling the plays and Matt at Qb, but it seemed like it was a constant problem on Sunday.

[Coffeedrinker]

The communications issue is weird. A rookie coming in is supposed to have the playbook down by the start of training camp and Chud has been with the Colts for two years now.  He should know it.  If anything he should have taken the bye week and learned it then.

[Superman]

Just now, Cynjin said:

What was the problem with getting the plays in on time vs the Steelers?  It didn't seem to be a problem the past few games with Chud calling the plays and Matt at Qb, but it seemed like it was a constant problem on Sunday.

I don't know. Like I said, I think they subbed more than they have been, so maybe that's part of it. It was also LOUD there, and I don't think Harrison could hear MH calling for the snap a couple of times (which is a pet peeve of mine in general). And MH seemed a little off from the opening drive. 

Hopefully it was an anomaly, because it hasn't seemed to be an issue in any other game.

[akcolt]

That's what I thought MH had a very bad night. 

[ColtRider]

33 minutes ago, akcolt said:

That's what I thought MH had a very bad night. 

His first pass was a complete miss low & away on a quick out. Just seemed a little rattled from there. I think Supes is right. The noise factor could've seriously disrupted things offensively. Not an excuse, as they did adjust somewhat. The whole team seemed out of sync.

[Superman]

46 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

The communications issue is weird. A rookie coming in is supposed to have the playbook down by the start of training camp and Chud has been with the Colts for two years now.  He should know it.  If anything he should have taken the bye week and learned it then.

Chud wasn't working exclusively with the offense, so I get that he didn't have any particular directive to learn the verbiage of the offense. But you're right, it would seem like he'd be able to make play calls at this point. I personally think the issue is a little overblown, especially with the way Collinsworth made it sound; all this stuff about speaking a totally different language and whatnot is definitely exaggerated, IMO.

I think the bigger issue is that they're calling plays from the booth. When it's noisy on the field, CC might be having an issue hearing the play call, and maybe it has to be repeated. And then he has to give it the QB, who might have trouble hearing it. All the while they're subbing and asking for new personnel, and then once 11 guys are on the field and they have a play to the QB, they can huddle up and he'll make the call. Then he has to survey the defense, call out protections, make other adjustments if necessary... and then at least 25% of of our offensive play calls seem to have a motion or a shift... all that has to happen in 40 seconds, over and over again.

Plenty of teams call plays from the booth, so while that does make it harder, that's not the root of the issue. They talked a lot about simplifying on offense, and in ways they have, but they've got to streamline this play calling situation, also.

[ColtRider]

27 minutes ago, Superman said:

Chud wasn't working exclusively with the offense, so I get that he didn't have any particular directive to learn the verbiage of the offense. But you're right, it would seem like he'd be able to make play calls at this point. I personally think the issue is a little overblown, especially with the way Collinsworth made it sound; all this stuff about speaking a totally different language and whatnot is definitely exaggerated, IMO.

I think the bigger issue is that they're calling plays from the booth. When it's noisy on the field, CC might be having an issue hearing the play call, and maybe it has to be repeated. And then he has to give it the QB, who might have trouble hearing it. All the while they're subbing and asking for new personnel, and then once 11 guys are on the field and they have a play to the QB, they can huddle up and he'll make the call. Then he has to survey the defense, call out protections, make other adjustments if necessary... and then at least 25% of of our offensive play calls seem to have a motion or a shift... all that has to happen in 40 seconds, over and over again.

Plenty of teams call plays from the booth, so while that does make it harder, that's not the root of the issue. They talked a lot about simplifying on offense, and in ways they have, but they've got to streamline this play calling situation, also.

Sometimes I just want to tell Collinsworth to clam-up. Yeah, I remember the shot from Chud to Clyde to Chuck. Ridiculous. Totally different language? What the h-e-double-toothpicks did that mean? Chain of events to call a play hasn't changed from a perspective designed playbook. I guess he was speaking about how quickly it's called & implemented. That, I can see. That's not diffferent language, though. 

[RockThatBlue]

2 hours ago, ColtRider said:

Sometimes I just want to tell Collinsworth to clam-up. Yeah, I remember the shot from Chud to Clyde to Chuck. Ridiculous. Totally different language? What the h-e-double-toothpicks did that mean? Chain of events to call a play hasn't changed from a perspective designed playbook. I guess he was speaking about how quickly it's called & implemented. That, I can see. That's not diffferent language, though. 

That "different language" comment from Collinsworth was moronic. Chud is using literally the same exact playbook as Pep. I don't know how that's a totally different language, that doesn't make sense unless Chud has drastically changed some things that we haven't been told about.

[NagelHausForge]

In my humble opinion, it seemed to me that the issue with the offense was MH not being comfortable with the protection he was getting from the O-line.  I think they planned on him getting the ball out as quick as he could, and that caused him to rush some throws and not be as accurate as he normally is.  With the shakeup in the O-line it seemed reasonable, and with the abuse MH took it was clear, that this O-line combo couldn't block a sack of sugar.

I think had we had our starting O-line this game would have been a lot closer.

Also, I would like to see them use Boom more on some of those pitches and outside runs.  Stop trying to run Gore to the edge.  He is a between the tackle, one cut runner.

[ztboiler]

11 hours ago, Superman said:

I have no problem with the coverages we played. We mixed it up a bunch, Ben just figured us out and started eating us up. The real issue is that the corners played poor coverage, and the pass rush didn't show up. Not with the strategy or the play calls. For instance, there's no double covering a stop fade in the end zone. Just great throws.

The decisions to punt were probably influenced by how bad the protection was and how poorly MH was playing. I think Pagano will go for it in those situations with Luck, and has in the past. Although, he has some bad 4th down punt decisions on his record (2013 Pats playoff game).

I don't what they're going to do about the communications issue. Can't keep taking so long to get plays in. They probably should script more plays and give the QB a little more control at the line. We also substituted more than often than we have in previous games against the Steelers. Don't know what's up with that.

As I read the article I was surprised by its lack of depth in analysis offered. Then I remembered who wrote it. Holder is trying and just doing his job.

Communication issues were obvious enough and, though understandable, also inexcusable.  But I don't see how the analysis doesn't include an understanding of the real life level of difficulty of calling plays under the compression of gametime conditions in a language you know but have never spoken.  Inexcusable, yes, but simply a reality right now.

The real opportunity for coaching criticism here is not the coverages that they chose and you have already covered that.  The issue with coaching is that the defensive game plan was to simply throw mud against the wall and see what stuck.  There was no effort evident to take anything away from the Steelers to make them play left-handed. Even if it doesn't work you have to consciously take something away rather than simply hope something you do will work.  It looked Ike a helpless defensive game plan. Since everything was a risk they chose to risk nothing.

At the end of the day it seems like the same coaching issues that Irsay and Grigson were stuck on during the last offseason when they failed to make Pagano an extension offer he could accept.  Yes, I suppose it's difficult to look at the same game planning issues in a bad sequel and be very convinced that you have the kind of coaching that will win you a tough playoff game in a chess match.  Fair or not, personnel limitations or not, you have to take something away.  It's fair to say we did not. 

 

 

[UKColt13]

To be honest I think, certainly with Pitt, we are playing 2 no.1 quality receivers and another no.2 quality receiver. Big Ben balled out again, this is nothing new for him since he's been back, he's throwing 400 yards a game right now.  

We played poor coverage at times and our pass rush again failed to show up. This loss wasn't down to the coaches.

Find a competent no.2 corner and a pass rush and we're golden.

[Restored]

15 minutes ago, ztboiler said:

As I read the article I was surprised by its lack of depth in analysis offered. Then I remembered who wrote it. Holder is trying and just doing his job.

Communication issues were obvious enough and, though understandable, also inexcusable.  But I don't see how the analysis doesn't include an understanding of the real life level of difficulty of calling plays under the compression of gametime conditions in a language you know but have never spoken.  Inexcusable, yes, but simply a reality right now.

The real opportunity for coaching criticism here is not the coverages that they chose and you have already covered that.  The issue with coaching is that the defensive game plan was to simply throw mud against the wall and see what stuck.  There was no effort evident to take anything away from the Steelers to make them play left-handed. Even if it doesn't work you have to consciously take something away rather than simply hope something you do will work.  It looked Ike a helpless defensive game plan. Since everything was a risk they chose to risk nothing.

At the end of the day it seems like the same coaching issues that Irsay and Grigson were stuck on during the last offseason when they failed to make Pagano an extension offer he could accept.  Yes, I suppose it's difficult to look at the same game planning issues in a bad sequel and be very convinced that you have the kind of coaching that will win you a tough playoff game in a chess match.  Fair or not, personnel limitations or not, you have to take something away.  It's fair to say we did not. 

 

 

 

I think you raise a very good point about the defensive gameplan. Very rarely do we see this team do something to make the opponent play left-handed. I think last year's game against the Broncos was a prime example of that in forcing Manning to throw to the outside and playing the underneath throws. Outside of that and few other isolated times, you don't see it from the Colts defense.

In regards to the article, there's a few things. For one, I expect the lack of communication issue to sort itself out once Andrew comes back. He knows this offense better than Chud and Matt does which is why he's been assisting with some of the "translating" during this period. Once he's back, the timing of the offense should improve. I also thing the Colts secondary issues has to be largely attributed to the lack of pass rush. Rothlisberger didn't get sacked if I recall and barely got touched most of the game. It's been the achilles heel of this defense all season and will likely continue to be so once this team enters the post-season.

[Smonroe]

12 hours ago, Superman said:

I have no problem with the coverages we played. We mixed it up a bunch, Ben just figured us out and started eating us up. The real issue is that the corners played poor coverage, and the pass rush didn't show up. Not with the strategy or the play calls. For instance, there's no double covering a stop fade in the end zone. Just great throws.

The decisions to punt were probably influenced by how bad the protection was and how poorly MH was playing. I think Pagano will go for it in those situations with Luck, and has in the past. Although, he has some bad 4th down punt decisions on his record (2013 Pats playoff game).

I don't what they're going to do about the communications issue. Can't keep taking so long to get plays in. They probably should script more plays and give the QB a little more control at the line. We also substituted more than often than we have in previous games against the Steelers. Don't know what's up with that.

 

I thought the pass coverage wasn't horrible - but like you said, there was no rush.  You can't let a smart QB with a great arm sit back and wait for his receivers to get open.

Totally agree on the decision making and MH just having a horrible game.

[lollygagger8]

With absolutely zero pass rush, no DB is going to be able to cover decent receivers forever. 

 

Especially when one of those DB's is named Greg Toileter 

[CamMo]

2 hours ago, UKColt13 said:

To be honest I think, certainly with Pitt, we are playing 2 no.1 quality receivers and another no.2 quality receiver. Big Ben balled out again, this is nothing new for him since he's been back, he's throwing 400 yards a game right now.  

We played poor coverage at times and our pass rush again failed to show up. This loss wasn't down to the coaches.

Find a competent no.2 corner and a pass rush and we're golden.

I've decided that I agree with this. I've disliked Pittsburgh for years, but it's partly because I'm jealous of their offensive proficiency. lol Sunday it just wasn't fair. We definitely need more pass rush to have a chance...Having Luck would have been nice as well. Burying them 14-0 within the first minutes of the game could have changed our outlook entirely.

[ColtsBlueFL]

22 hours ago, LuckIsAwesome said:

That "different language" comment from Collinsworth was moronic. Chud is using literally the same exact playbook as Pep. I don't know how that's a totally different language, that doesn't make sense unless Chud has drastically changed some things that we haven't been told about.

Well I'll see if I can clear this up some (or make it more muddy it would appear). And I apologize for the length.

It's true, as you point out, NFL offenses are shockingly homogeneous.  There are some variations in the systems, but all have essentially the same plays.

There are essentially three main offensive “systems” in the NFL which all teams use or variants of: West Coast, Air Coryell, and Erhardt-Perkins. Given that every NFL team runs basically the same plays, each of these NFL offensive families is differentiated mostly by how those plays get communicated.  And I feel Pep  used the  Bill Walsh 'West Coast' offensive language (maybe with slight variation), and Chudzinski uses the Air Coryell language, from Norv Turner.

So yes, there are plays in each system that are the same, yet they are 'called' in a totally different manner. West Coast uses a 2 digit numbering system for running plays, and passing plays are identified by the primary receivers route:  "Z-In, X-Hook, and other such as the infamous Green Right Strong Slot Spider 2 Y-Banana, etc..." and the other receivers memorize their tasks in the play.

The Air Coryell system is built around the concept of a route tree. This is based upon the base route being a straight streak up the field (a Go or Fade route).  All of the other routes consist of 'break off points' from that original path. Using the route tree call, a coach can call any pass combination, yet all a receiver needed to know was the route number associated to his position.  Example, Norv Turner often called an 896 in his days in Dallas with Aikman at QB.  Here, one outside receiver was to execute a square-in (a "6"), the tight end to run a seam straight up the field (a "9") and the split end to run a skinny post (an "8"). Add in formation and protection to get the huddle play call. Such as:

"Split Right - Scat Right- 545 F-Post"

So you can see if Chud wants to call a pass play with the "896" route combinations, he hast to call that down to Clyde, who knows who the primary for that play based upon down and distance is, and use the West Coast language to send in to the huddle.  It's not about 'memorizing a playbook.  Believe me, Chudzinski know plays and playbooks, even has one of his own from previous OC work.  It's how to communicate the play he wants into a foreign language.  That is where CC comes in. He knows them form being long tenured in the Colts organiztion (T. Moore, himself, BA, Pep, and now Chud as OC's).

But the changes in formations these days, and complexity of defenses have made the 3 digit Coryell system largely incomplete.  Now to call extra routes for other eligible receivers in new formations, the calls start sounding more like those the West coast system applies.  That old "896" now becomes "896 H-Shallow, F-Curl" or "839 F-Flat".  And since the number system doesn't cover all the new route combos for all formations, some Coryell system plays may have to almost tag every receivers route, and thus starting to sound  similar to a Walsh based West Coast offense play call like:

"Scatter-Two Bunch-Right-Zip-Fire 2 Jet Texas Right-F Flat X-Q".

I posted about this in another thread.  Pep used Walsh timing based West Coast offense and language (or close variant) in Stanford.  Luck knew that language, and demonstrated it on Jon Grudens QB camp pre draft by explainng the Spider 2 Y-Banana in detail.  Then the Colts had Bruce Arians as OC.  His Vertical passing attack uses whole new language.  Luck, and and the others (Fleener, Allen, TY Hilton) learned that playbook/language.  BA gets hired by the Arizona Cardinals, and Pep comes over to Indy.  Change back for Luck, maybe not so easy for others. Pep sent on, and Chudzinski is in, but can't implement his playbook terminology.  We just have to deal with it the remainder of the year. This will get addressed in the off season one way or another.

 

 

[CoachLite]

1 hour ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

Well I'll see if I can clear this up some (or make it more muddy it would appear). And I apologize for the length.

It's true, as you point out, NFL offenses are shockingly homogeneous.  There are some variations in the systems, but all have essentially the same plays.

<snip>

The problem with most play calls is the language is too specific, and doesn't take into consideration the "reads" and situational communication. This means the way the actual play plays out is more complex than the tactical description of the play called. It is a form of read and react - not detailed thinking. This isn't high school or college ... these are supposed to be professionals that know themselves and know the competition.

[ColtsBlueFL]

3 hours ago, CoachLite said:

The problem with most play calls is the language is too specific, and doesn't take into consideration the "reads" and situational communication. This means the way the actual play plays out is more complex than the tactical description of the play called. It is a form of read and react - not detailed thinking. This isn't high school or college ... these are supposed to be professionals that know themselves and know the competition.

Yeah certanly. There is some truth there, but also some very specific Play calls.  OTOH, the Erhardt-Perkins system typically uses 'concepts'. And other systems allow determining how many and where safeties are placed, and the type of leverage used by the DB. And then there's the 'Kill Kill' and then audible.

I mentioned in the long winded post that even the Coryell route tree calls are being displaced by long verbiage. Here's one on Carson Palmers wrist band list of plays for their Browns game-

Pstl Str Rt Stk Act 6 Y Crs Dvd.

Carson bellow out in the huddle- "Pistol, Strong left … Stack Act 6, Y Cross Divide.”

I like how Bruce Arians is doing it now.  His game plan vs. the Browns recently was 171 plays on a laminated sheet. They were numbered. All assumed right hash mark placement. When Arians looked on his sheet and called in that play above, he radioed in to Carson  "Flip 17.  Flip 17".  That was play 17 on Carson's wrist band.  Noting that the ball was marked on the the left hash mark, the Flip was to remind Carson of that.  He did it right. Carson moved the tight end to the left side of the line to make it strong, and placed the slot and split end WR's out to the right, and using that slightly changed verbiage to the call in the huddle.

I wish when Chud does the game plan, he calls the play he wants and as Clyde hears it, he finds that play on his and the QB (Luck / Hasselbeck) numbered wrist band.  Actually, if they had time to number Chud's plays, and then have Clyde's/Pep's language cross reference of the same plays numbered the same as Chud's game plan card, and called that in. Then that would be even better, IMHO.

Maybe they already do something similar, and the communications issue is of a different nature.  Who knows?

 

[Superman]

7 hours ago, ztboiler said:

As I read the article I was surprised by its lack of depth in analysis offered. Then I remembered who wrote it. Holder is trying and just doing his job.

...

The real opportunity for coaching criticism here is not the coverages that they chose and you have already covered that.  The issue with coaching is that the defensive game plan was to simply throw mud against the wall and see what stuck.  There was no effort evident to take anything away from the Steelers to make them play left-handed. Even if it doesn't work you have to consciously take something away rather than simply hope something you do will work.  It looked Ike a helpless defensive game plan. Since everything was a risk they chose to risk nothing.

At the end of the day it seems like the same coaching issues that Irsay and Grigson were stuck on during the last offseason when they failed to make Pagano an extension offer he could accept.  Yes, I suppose it's difficult to look at the same game planning issues in a bad sequel and be very convinced that you have the kind of coaching that will win you a tough playoff game in a chess match.  Fair or not, personnel limitations or not, you have to take something away.  It's fair to say we did not. 

Holder is being stubborn, actually. He asked this of Pagano during the Monday presser, and Pagano said 'we did a bunch of different things, we just didn't play well, and we didn't have a good enough pass rush.' Then Holder writes this article basically repeating the same critique -- they didn't switch things up against the Steelers -- when actually they did.

As for your thoughts about the defensive gameplan, I don't see it that way. The gameplan was reliant on having a pass rush. They used multiple coverages, more varied than usual, and that was situational. For a quarter and a half, they contained the Steelers offense, but Ben still made some plays underneath because he had too much time to go through progressions. As the game went on, the coverage got worse -- several big plays happened because the pass defenders made mistakes -- and the pass rush continued to underachieve. 

Strategically, I don't have a problem with the defensive gameplan. The idea was to show different looks and only allow Ben low percentage shots downfield. That worked; the coverage just sucked. Maybe it proved to be naive to think that we could generate a pass rush, but they had five sacks the prior week, the Steelers have a bad OL with several backups in critical positions, and Ben isn't 100%. Our pass rush should have been better; the Steelers got pressure against our makeshift line with their 37 year old OLB, but we couldn't get pressure against their makeshift line with our 34 year old OLB? The corners, especially Toler, should have made more plays (he failed the find the ball a handful of times, despite being in position, almost like he didn't think the ball was even in the air). And then, to add insult to injury, the secondary tackled poorly, or not at all. 

It got even worse when we started losing the edge on run plays, and tackling poorly. Then they were multiple on offense, had a zoned-in QB, a motoring RB, and were going against a shaken secondary. And they knew we couldn't score on offense. Curtains.

Like many of our other losses this year, the problem, IMO, was execution. The secondary got roasted, and I don't think a different coverage strategy would have made a difference. Having a better pass rush would have helped, but if Mathis can't beat Alejandro Villanueva and we can't get pressure up the middle against Cody Wallace, then I don't know what scheme would have done.

On the surface, yeah, we got smoked again by Pittsburgh, so the narrative is that they have our number and that's a coaching issue. But I'd like to hear some ideas about what kind of defensive gameplan would have been better on Sunday night before I can get in line with that idea.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

A good pass rush & our starting OL would have changed many of the issues!

[ztboiler]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

Holder is being stubborn, actually. He asked this of Pagano during the Monday presser, and Pagano said 'we did a bunch of different things, we just didn't play well, and we didn't have a good enough pass rush.' Then Holder writes this article basically repeating the same critique -- they didn't switch things up against the Steelers -- when actually they did.

As for your thoughts about the defensive gameplan, I don't see it that way. The gameplan was reliant on having a pass rush. They used multiple coverages, more varied than usual, and that was situational. For a quarter and a half, they contained the Steelers offense, but Ben still made some plays underneath because he had too much time to go through progressions. As the game went on, the coverage got worse -- several big plays happened because the pass defenders made mistakes -- and the pass rush continued to underachieve. 

Strategically, I don't have a problem with the defensive gameplan. The idea was to show different looks and only allow Ben low percentage shots downfield. That worked; the coverage just sucked. Maybe it proved to be naive to think that we could generate a pass rush, but they had five sacks the prior week, the Steelers have a bad OL with several backups in critical positions, and Ben isn't 100%. Our pass rush should have been better; the Steelers got pressure against our makeshift line with their 37 year old OLB, but we couldn't get pressure against their makeshift line with our 34 year old OLB? The corners, especially Toler, should have made more plays (he failed the find the ball a handful of times, despite being in position, almost like he didn't think the ball was even in the air). And then, to add insult to injury, the secondary tackled poorly, or not at all. 

It got even worse when we started losing the edge on run plays, and tackling poorly. Then they were multiple on offense, had a zoned-in QB, a motoring RB, and were going against a shaken secondary. And they knew we couldn't score on offense. Curtains.

Like many of our other losses this year, the problem, IMO, was execution. The secondary got roasted, and I don't think a different coverage strategy would have made a difference. Having a better pass rush would have helped, but if Mathis can't beat Alejandro Villanueva and we can't get pressure up the middle against Cody Wallace, then I don't know what scheme would have done.

On the surface, yeah, we got smoked again by Pittsburgh, so the narrative is that they have our number and that's a coaching issue. But I'd like to hear some ideas about what kind of defensive gameplan would have been better on Sunday night before I can get in line with that idea.

This has the potential to get a bit circular.  I won't argue that there weren't execution issues, but I saw no attempt by game planning to say "You may score 40+ on us, but you won't do it your preferred way"

I've only watched it once - and deleted it, so there will be no more specific analysis from me beyond what I remember.  I'll accuse Manusky (and I'm pro-Manusky overall) of throwing mud against the wall because mixing coverages and trying to get home with a 4 man rush is not really a plan, unless that's what you do as a team.  Right now, that's not really what we do.  There was very little effort to scheme a pass rush when the game was within reach, and this secondary has only 1 method to lock down receivers - we aren't any good at the others.

We were going to have to risk something to have any prayer of slowing them down.  We risked nothing other than some exposure by Toler to Bryant in one on one coverage....so the risk we did take could probably be questioned as well.  Vontae was in great position on the long ball that Brown caught.  If Adams doesn't knock him off stride when he's trying to jump, he knocks that ball away.  

Scheming would look like sending 5 and 6 regularly in creative packages and playing some zero coverage, or dropping 8 and doubling Brown with Davis isolated on Bryant.  There was much more that we could have done "on purpose" than we did.  We played it safe without the pass rush personnel to do so.  Very poor plan.

[Coltsman1788]

Not knowing the playbook language at this point in the season is just inexcusable.  He was the Assistant Head Coach!  If it was Pep instead of Chud many here would never let him live that down.  Yet Chud somehow gets a virtual pass because we are supposed to just be glad he is not Pep?  Well the honeymoon is OVER!  He needs to come up to speed quick fast and in a hurry.  Learn the friggin language!  The offense is inept enough without having to slow down even more to translate play language for its Coordinator.

 

[Superman]

2 hours ago, ztboiler said:

We were going to have to risk something to have any prayer of slowing them down.  We risked nothing other than some exposure by Toler to Bryant in one on one coverage....so the risk we did take could probably be questioned as well.  

Neither of us wants to go around on this, but I'll ask about this part. If we didn't risk anything and still gave up all those big plays (minus the long Brown catch on Vontae), doesn't that suggest the problem was execution?

My thinking is that they wanted to use a conservative approach to limit big plays. The defense plays a ton of man coverage, and expecting your corners not to get beat over the top is a staple of what they've done for almost four years now. Yet the corners, specifically Toler, got beat over the top. Four man rushes is something they do often, especially against prolific passing attacks (Denver, New England, and now Pittsburgh). And then when they did offer up some single coverage, the coverage failed.

I'll agree that they could have put together a game specific plan. What you mention regarding doubling Brown and shadowing Bryant is basically what New England did to us last year, so it's not this secret strategy that no one has ever seen before. But there's still the issue of Wheaton, who also destroyed us. I think they just expected better coverage and a better pass rush.

[ztboiler]

30 minutes ago, Superman said:

Neither of us wants to go around on this, but I'll ask about this part. If we didn't risk anything and still gave up all those big plays (minus the long Brown catch on Vontae), doesn't that suggest the problem was execution?

My thinking is that they wanted to use a conservative approach to limit big plays. The defense plays a ton of man coverage, and expecting your corners not to get beat over the top is a staple of what they've done for almost four years now. Yet the corners, specifically Toler, got beat over the top. Four man rushes is something they do often, especially against prolific passing attacks (Denver, New England, and now Pittsburgh). And then when they did offer up some single coverage, the coverage failed.

I'll agree that they could have put together a game specific plan. What you mention regarding doubling Brown and shadowing Bryant is basically what New England did to us last year, so it's not this secret strategy that no one has ever seen before. But there's still the issue of Wheaton, who also destroyed us. I think they just expected better coverage and a better pass rush.

Isolating the risk we took with Toler allows us to look at execution deficiency by Toler and game planning deficiency by the coaches at the same time.  To me it demonstrates the presence of both.  Yet, the execution error was pretty predictable against a Bryant match up which makes me lean more towards a failure to game plan risk for your available resources with a better chance of success.

Furthermore, Toler is far better in press man than off, and Manusky took a fair amount of that risk with Toler in off man. 

In fairness to our coaches and in support of your point, execution was significantly less than could be expected.  But that doesn't excuse the lack of an apparent scheme to put your personnel in the best possible place to succeed.  I don't think we got the staff's best work in that regard, especially when it was evident early on that we couldn't muster pressure.

[chrisfarley]

8 hours ago, Coltsman1788 said:

Not knowing the playbook language at this point in the season is just inexcusable.  He was the Assistant Head Coach!  If it was Pep instead of Chud many here would never let him live that down.  Yet Chud somehow gets a virtual pass because we are supposed to just be glad he is not Pep?  Well the honeymoon is OVER!  He needs to come up to speed quick fast and in a hurry.  Learn the friggin language!  The offense is inept enough without having to slow down even more to translate play language for its Coordinator.

 

We're going to find out a lot in the JAX game, the questions will likely get answered on the scoreboard.

[chrisfarley]

8 hours ago, Coltsman1788 said:

Not knowing the playbook language at this point in the season is just inexcusable.  He was the Assistant Head Coach!  If it was Pep instead of Chud many here would never let him live that down.  Yet Chud somehow gets a virtual pass because we are supposed to just be glad he is not Pep?  Well the honeymoon is OVER!  He needs to come up to speed quick fast and in a hurry.  Learn the friggin language!  The offense is inept enough without having to slow down even more to translate play language for its Coordinator.

 

We're going to find out a lot in the JAX game, the questions will likely get answered on the scoreboard.

[coltsfeva]

21 hours ago, Coltsman1788 said:

Not knowing the playbook language at this point in the season is just inexcusable.  He was the Assistant Head Coach!  If it was Pep instead of Chud many here would never let him live that down.  Yet Chud somehow gets a virtual pass because we are supposed to just be glad he is not Pep?  Well the honeymoon is OVER!  He needs to come up to speed quick fast and in a hurry.  Learn the friggin language!  The offense is inept enough without having to slow down even more to translate play language for its Coordinator.

 

According to Chud today (as opposed to what Collins was reporting), by game time, Chud is calling the name and or wrist number that Clyde calls into Matt. There is no translation involved. Other factors like crowd noise may have been an issue.

[ColtsBlueFL]

22 hours ago, Coltsman1788 said:

29 minutes ago, coltsfeva said:

According to Chud today (as opposed to what Collins was reporting), by game time, Chud is calling the name and or wrist number that Clyde calls into Matt. There is no translation involved. Other factors like crowd noise may have been an issue.

There you go.  Clyde Christiansen and Chudzinski are (at least now!) working out the numbers/plays on wristband and play call sheet(s) in prep during the week.. Has to be other factors causing delay issues.