The problem with Chudzinski

[ThatOneColtFan]

8 hours ago, csmopar said:

Serious question. What is the difference between a Chud Offense and a Pep Offense? 

 

Seems that the only time we actually score or move the ball well is when Luck runs the Offense in the no huddle. And that's been that way for years. So what really has Chud brought to us?

Well, despite playing behind a banged up line, and missing his #2 WR. He's off to the most efficient start of his career.

 

Chud also called last year's game against the defending Champs, which happened to be Luck's best game in a terrible but short season for him.

 

I'm no expert, Chud is A-OK in my book.

[BOTT]

5 hours ago, ColtsFanMikeC said:

 

One thing Peyton had that Luck hasn't (whether this is on Peyton/Luck vs. Moore/Chud) is fast starts.  Peyton generally built leads, allowing for his undersized defense with Freeney, Mathis and crew to just get after the opposing QB all game.

 

Luck can score quick, but too often it happens in come from behind fashion.  This team, IMO, would be much better all around if the O could score in the 1st quarter like they do in the 4th quarter.  Our D is not very good... in part due to injuries... but giving them a cushion should help them tremendously.

 

 

 

 

I believe the colts were generally one of the least penalized teams in the league during the Dungy era.  This squad routinely shoots itself in the foot.

[ColtsFanMikeC]

28 minutes ago, BOTT said:

I believe the colts were generally one of the least penalized teams in the league during the Dungy era.  This squad routinely shoots itself in the foot.

 

We are 27th worst in the league for penalties, averaging 8.0 per game.....

 

I only looked back to 2006, but at that point we were ranked 7th with 5.1 per game.

 

You probably have a point.

 

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/penalties-per-game

[coltsfanatic24]

His play calling is very similar to Arians. Lots of deep routes and not many short crossing routes. We're a top 5 offense so I can't complain. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

21 minutes ago, coltsfanatic24 said:

His play calling is very similar to Arians. Lots of deep routes and not many short crossing routes. We're a top 5 offense so I can't complain. 

While a possibility philosophically, Chud is actually more aligned with Norv Turner's version of the vertical attack than Bruce Arians version. When Norv was HC of the Chargers,  he hired Chud first as TE coach and then also as an Asst. HC for 2 years.  When Chud was hired as Browns HC, and Norv fired as San Diego, HC, Chud hired Norv as the Brown's OC.  Now Norv is at Minnesota, making Teddy Bridgewater and Sam Bradford QB's that can hurt a defense. 

 

A difference between Vikings and Colts?  Vikings replace a piece with a quality replacement.  Lose a QB, trade for a QB (Sam Bradford).  Lose a LT, Vikings sign a LT (Jake Long). Colts lose RT?  We just let a rookie from college player that likely played standing up in a spread with no developed NFL caliber technique man the position. Not only that, but same for the guard right next to him.  At least the other rookie center has some NFL formations experience.

 

But we have no choice, we have to draft and start/develop rookies to begin to catch  up to where we should have already been.

 

 

 

[southwest1]

13 hours ago, Devildog said:

I'm really confused about this thread...

 

 

22 hours ago, DipsyDoodles said:

Is this seriously a thread..for real? 

Yes, I understand some level of frustration particularly on slow starts & we do seem to struggle to be kind when it comes to closing out games this yr. But I agree with Devil Dog & Dipsy Doodles [Great usernames BTW] that all these our HC sucks threads, our OC sucks threads, our GM sucks threads, & probably within the hour our DCs sucks threads are getting old & lame really quick. 

 

If somebody started a 'Let's Examine What INDY Has Improved Upon This Year Thus Far' I think we'd all be in shock wouldn't we. 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

10 hours ago, ColtsFanMikeC said:

 

One thing Peyton had that Luck hasn't (whether this is on Peyton/Luck vs. Moore/Chud) is fast starts.  Peyton generally built leads, allowing for his undersized defense with Freeney, Mathis and crew to just get after the opposing QB all game.

 

 

Ah the Manning days. Just about every week it seemed like they were already up 14-0 halfway through the first quarter. And that's a good point about the defense too, I'd be really interested to see this unit play with a 14 point lead for once. Obviously they still wouldn't be world beaters, but they could be a lot more aggressive with a 2 score cushion to work with.

[Coltsman1788]

Finally...some criticism of Chud. His results haven't been any better than Pep's so far quite frankly. Still a slow starting offense that waits until the 3rd and 4th quarter to get going.  No run game and no pass protection. Whatcha going to do? Same end results. 

[Jason_]

5 minutes ago, Coltsman1788 said:

Finally...some criticism of Chud. His results haven't been any better than Pep's so far quite frankly. Still a slow starting offense that waits until the 3rd and 4th quarter to get going.  No run game and no pass protection. Whatcha going to do? Same end results. 

 

Well, gore is averaging 4.2 per carry...which is just slightly under his career average of 4.4.  So to say "no run game" might be a teensy bit inaccurate.

[Coltsman1788]

Just now, Jason_S said:

 

Well, gore is averaging 4.2 per carry...which is just slightly under his career average of 4.4.  So to say "no run game" might be a teensy bit inaccurate.

He is the only decent runner outside of maybe Luck himself and we don't want to see to much of that. God bless Gore for his toughness but he lacks break away speed and doesn't scare anybody really. His yards are not enough when the team still more often than not fails to exceed 100 yards rushing total.  Not on Gore though as Chud is quick to abandon the run in the second half of most games as Luck plays catch up ball.  Same end results that I have seen with Pep and others. 

[AZColt11]

6 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

Well, gore is averaging 4.2 per carry...which is just slightly under his career average of 4.4.  So to say "no run game" might be a teensy bit inaccurate.

Facts.  You can prove ANYTHING with facts. - Homer Simpson

[NewColtsFan]

27 minutes ago, Coltsman1788 said:

He is the only decent runner outside of maybe Luck himself and we don't want to see to much of that. God bless Gore for his toughness but he lacks break away speed and doesn't scare anybody really. His yards are not enough when the team still more often than not fails to exceed 100 yards rushing total.  Not on Gore though as Chud is quick to abandon the run in the second half of most games as Luck plays catch up ball.  Same end results that I have seen with Pep and others. 

 

I don't mind abandoning the run in the 2nd half under Chud as you put it....

 

What I really minded was abandoning the run in the 1st half under Pep.....

 

By the way,  late in the game,  we iced it with a 12 yard run by Gore to the right --- the rookie side....

 

We don't quite abandon the run anymore.     We're just more selective when we use it.

 

 

[AZColt11]

Question/theory for the masses here:  Usually we try to spread out the defense by using 3 and 4 WR formations when we want to run because we can't seem to block people straight up in typical run formation looks.  What if we did more of the opposite?  One play clicked in my mind last weekend and that was the goal line TD pass to Allen.  We were in a tight run-look formation and Allen was able to slide out for a WIDE open TD.  I haven't noticed us doing too much of this type of thing.  Perhaps I am blind?  Uneducated - I could see that?  Should we perhaps be doing more of this?  Maybe when Moncrief comes back?

[bigt]

15 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

The Texans still have a lot of talent on the defensive side of the ball.    They might eat our o-line for dinner.

 

And if we made the Bears offense look great,  I fear what we might do to Osweiller and the Texans!

 

Color me nervous.......    

 

Do I think we CAN win?      Yes.      Do I think we WILL win?     Don't know.....

 

For what its worth to those who think PFF has some analytical value, Luck is currently ranked 3rd, Hoyer is ranked sixth and Osweiller has taken over the 32nd spot that last week belonged to Mariotta.  Its going to be a tough game, but Osweiller should probably be the least of our worries.  I was over on the Texans forum, and it sounds like they have seen enough of him.  I just wish Melvin would start over Robinson.  Robinson is literally the 4th worst corner in the league.  What do we have to lose.  Give the young guy a shot.  Fuller and Hopkins will be a handful for Davis.  They will be more than a handful for Robinson - they will leave him in the dust and give Osweiller really easy wide open passes.  If they do start Robinson, I hope he fakes another embarrassment injury and pulls himself.

[BOTT]

7 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Ah the Manning days. Just about every week it seemed like they were already up 14-0 halfway through the first quarter. And that's a good point about the defense too, I'd be really interested to see this unit play with a 14 point lead for once. Obviously they still wouldn't be world beaters, but they could be a lot more aggressive with a 2 score cushion to work with.

Just about every week somebody exaggerates the past.....

[lollygagger8]

20 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Deandre Hopkins and Will Fuller are going to be a handful, and I worry about Castonzo vs Clowney. We're going to have to give him some help over there, because Clowney is really starting to come into his own, and AC has had somewhat of an up-and-down season so far. Hopefully we can continue to improve in the run game, and that will go a long way to neutralize the pass rush, and eventually open some things up downfield.

 

All in all, I do like the Colts in this one. All the pressure is on the Texans right now, they're at home with the division lead on the line, they spent the cash on their shiny new QB, and have been declared the team to beat in the South. We've all seen how they fare vs good opponents this year, and it's been downright pitiful. If the Colts just go out there, play loose, and clean up some of the boneheaded mistakes, they will not lose this game.

 

I totally agree with you, but why would they give Castanzo help, when they will leave a rookie RT (Haeg) out on an island? 

 

I mean, that makes too much sense! 

[Jason_]

8 hours ago, Coltsman1788 said:

He is the only decent runner outside of maybe Luck himself and we don't want to see to much of that. God bless Gore for his toughness but he lacks break away speed and doesn't scare anybody really. His yards are not enough when the team still more often than not fails to exceed 100 yards rushing total.  Not on Gore though as Chud is quick to abandon the run in the second half of most games as Luck plays catch up ball.  Same end results that I have seen with Pep and others. 

 

don't have to have breakaway speed to scare opposing teams.  I'd think any RB that averages over 4 ypc at least somewhat scares other teams because that's an average of more than a first down every 3 touches. 

 

also doesn't matter if the team gets to 100 yards or not, as long as they rushed for enough yards to make play action effective.  yeah it'd be nice to be averaging 125+ yards per game rushing (note I didn't say anything about an individual 100 yard rusher because..who cares...total team rushing yards matters far more than any individual RBs numbers) but you can win in other ways,

[ColtsFanMikeC]

10 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Ah the Manning days. Just about every week it seemed like they were already up 14-0 halfway through the first quarter. And that's a good point about the defense too, I'd be really interested to see this unit play with a 14 point lead for once. Obviously they still wouldn't be world beaters, but they could be a lot more aggressive with a 2 score cushion to work with.

 

I agree... and I have posted this on here before... when Freeney gets to the HOF and if Mathis gets to the HOF, they should both thank Peyton before anyone else.

 

Freeney was sooooo bad against the run, and if we didn't get up early, he got exposed badly.  He was/is a terrific pass rusher and if we got up early and didn't have to be on the field when the other team could afford to run at him, he was an absolute beast.

 

Mathis, while he looks a step slow right now, I think would reap huge rewards from having a lead early on.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

4 hours ago, BOTT said:

Just about every week somebody exaggerates the past.....

 

You should hear my fishing stories.

[Coltfreak]

11 hours ago, Coltsman1788 said:

Finally...some criticism of Chud. His results haven't been any better than Pep's so far quite frankly. Still a slow starting offense that waits until the 3rd and 4th quarter to get going.  No run game and no pass protection. Whatcha going to do? Same end results. 

 

 

All goes back to HCing philosophy....  Remember how different the offense looked with Arians before and after Pags took a leave of absence

[King Colt]

Chud needs to be told there re FOUR quarters in every football game. If the Colts played the first half like the second half especially the fourth quarter, they would be undefeated.

[Coltfreak]

43 minutes ago, King Colt said:

Chud needs to be told there re FOUR quarters in every football game. If the Colts played the first half like the second half especially the fourth quarter, they would be undefeated.

 

 

The defense could be completely exhausted if they dont try to control the clock and the ball.  Uptempo and a three and out could be disaster for this defense

 

So there has to be a balance

[Rally5]

On 10/11/2016 at 9:10 AM, csmopar said:

Serious question. What is the difference between a Chud Offense and a Pep Offense? 

 

Seems that the only time we actually score or move the ball well is when Luck runs the Offense in the no huddle. And that's been that way for years. So what really has Chud brought to us?

 

There's some huge differences from my vantage point: 

 

1. Pep's offense was way to complex, we never ran the same play more than once and in the NFL you must be a master of your playbook and we never were.

2. Pep's gameplans were garbage, I mostly like the way Chud calls a game.

3. Chud doesn't force the running game into three and out's like we did with Pep.

 

So in a nutshell, I would say Pep was overly complex, poorly planned and stubbornly executed.  I don't see that with Chud so far...I'm mostly ok with Chud's game plans, a little more no huddle (which we're adjusting to) and don't go into a shell at the end of games when/if we're up...go for the throat.  I'd like to see us develop more short routes and quick throw concepts but I do like the chunk plays so.....

[GOCOLTS_ROLLTIDE]

Zone!! blocking!! scheme!!!

[jvan1973]

On 10/11/2016 at 0:45 AM, bap1331 said:

You can leave the Browns, but you can't take the Browns out of you.

 

Bellichick found the cure. The cure of chea...nevermind.

Another awesome thread by you.    Well done. 

[jvan1973]

5 hours ago, King Colt said:

Chud needs to be told there re FOUR quarters in every football game. If the Colts played the first half like the second half especially the fourth quarter, they would be undefeated.

I don't think it has anything to do with chud.  He has superiors.

[BOTT]

5 hours ago, Coltfreak said:

 

 

The defense could be completely exhausted if they dont try to control the clock and the ball.  Uptempo and a three and out could be disaster for this defense

 

So there has to be a balance

They suck when they are fresh and suck when they are tired....so what makes the difference?

[BOTT]

7 hours ago, ColtsFanMikeC said:

 

I agree... and I have posted this on here before... when Freeney gets to the HOF and if Mathis gets to the HOF, they should both thank Peyton before anyone else.

 

Freeney was sooooo bad against the run, and if we didn't get up early, he got exposed badly.  He was/is a terrific pass rusher and if we got up early and didn't have to be on the field when the other team could afford to run at him, he was an absolute beast.

 

Mathis, while he looks a step slow right now, I think would reap huge rewards from having a lead early on.

Except Mathis had his best season post Peyton.

 

Freeney may have had more sacks if he played for a different team.  The colts defense was one of the most vanilla in the league during that era.

 

we all love Peyton, but can we stop giving him credit for everything?

[JPFolks]

On 10/11/2016 at 5:29 AM, TKnight24 said:

Chudzinksi claimed he'd use crossing routes, I don't see them unless I'm sipping my apple juice when they're being called so I miss them

 

But I swore he said there'd be a lot of emphasis on YAC this season by using short routes. Seems like it's 10+ yard routes on every pass play

I've been advocating crossing routes for 3 years...especially with or TEs.  I think an issue might be that we can't send Hilton into the teeth of a crossing route risking injury...you have to max protect him, especially with Moncrief out.  Add to that the underwhelming performance of Dorsett combined with his diminutive stature and our lack of further depth, they may not want to expose him across the middle either.  Now, why he isn't using the TEs is another sad reality...they have to block most of the time to keep Luck alive.  I think these are the realities limiting crossing routes, but I could be wrong, he may just be blowing it for some other reason.  If you want to protect Luck,in my view, crossing routes and back dump downs (which to his credit we do at least) are a better answer than just keeping the TEs in to block.

[ColtsFanMikeC]

3 minutes ago, BOTT said:

Except Mathis had his best season post Peyton.

 

Freeney may have had more sacks if he played for a different team.  The colts defense was one of the most vanilla in the league during that era.

 

we all love Peyton, but can we stop giving him credit for everything?

 

Mathis also somehow tested positive for 'blocking agents' shortly after that season, which is kind of weird.

 

We also had 6 of our 11 wins by 8 or more points (4 by 20 or more points and 1 by 16 points).  Mathis that year had his most sacks when we beat Jacksonville 37-3 (his only game with 3 sacks).

 

Of Mathis' sacks, 9.5 came when we won by 8 or more points and he had at least 1 sack in each of those 6 games.  He had another 5 when we lost and only 5 in the 5 games we won by fewer than 8 points.

 

So that is 1 sack per game in losses, 1 sack per game in tight games and 1.6 in games we won by 8 or more.

 

In 4 games Mathis was held without a sack, 2 were close games which we won (over HOU 27-24, and over TEN 30-27), then there were 2 games we lost where he didn't have  a sack.

 

There is absolutely no doubt that playing with a large lead vastly improves the ability of pass rushers to rush the passer, therefore increasing sack totals.

 

Freeney would most likely not have lasted as long in the league if he was on many other teams.  He was one of the worst DE/OLBs I have ever seen against the run, and if he played for a team that was constantly losing (and therefore not forcing the opponent to throw more than they want) there is no chance he'd put up those numbers and no chance he'd  have been given as many defensive reps as he was here, when it usually didn't matter if other teams ran on us because more often than not we were playing with early leads.

[BOTT]

1 minute ago, ColtsFanMikeC said:

 

Mathis also somehow tested positive for 'blocking agents' shortly after that season, which is kind of weird.

 

We also had 6 of our 11 wins by 8 or more points (4 by 20 or more points and 1 by 16 points).  Mathis that year had his most sacks when we beat Jacksonville 37-3 (his only game with 3 sacks).

 

Of Mathis' sacks, 9.5 came when we won by 8 or more points and he had at least 1 sack in each of those 6 games.  He had another 5 when we lost and only 5 in the 5 games we won by fewer than 8 points.

 

So that is 1 sack per game in losses, 1 sack per game in tight games and 1.6 in games we won by 8 or more.

 

In 4 games Mathis was held without a sack, 2 were close games which we won (over HOU 27-24, and over TEN 30-27), then there were 2 games we lost where he didn't have  a sack.

 

There is absolutely no doubt that playing with a large lead vastly improves the ability of pass rushers to rush the passer, therefore increasing sack totals.

 

Freeney would most likely not have lasted as long in the league if he was on many other teams.  He was one of the worst DE/OLBs I have ever seen against the run, and if he played for a team that was constantly losing (and therefore not forcing the opponent to throw more than they want) there is no chance he'd put up those numbers and no chance he'd  have been given as many defensive reps as he was here, when it usually didn't matter if other teams ran on us because more often than not we were playing with early leads.

 

yes, and the first time my parents caught me drinking was the first time I drank a beer.

 

I think everyone knows that when you make a team one dimensional it's easier to rush the passer.  But let's not act like the colts were always up 24-0 at half during that era.  Well, maybe 2004.

[ColtsFanMikeC]

2 minutes ago, BOTT said:

 

yes, and the first time my parents caught me drinking was the first time I drank a beer.

 

I think everyone knows that when you make a team one dimensional it's easier to rush the passer.  But let's not act like the colts were always up 24-0 at half during that era.  Well, maybe 2004.

Coincidently, the only time Freeney ever had >15 sacks in his career was 2004, when he had 16.

[Smoke317]

Can't tell if it's Luck or Chud to blame, but I think we are too reliant on TY. I'd like to see more of a focus put on Dorsett because soon teams will begin to take TY away and I fear Luck will struggle because he hasn't built up the chemistry with Dorsett.  And more short & intermediate routes with Dorsett please.  Also, I wish we'd commit more to the run by using a committe approach. I think we'd become a more effective offense. Gore is too old to carry the ball 25 times a game anymore but give another back (Turbin/Todman) 10 carries to go with Gore's 15 and we'd see this offense start clicking on all cylinders. We're improving on offense and I think with a few tweaks from Chud & Luck, we'll have the top offense in the league.  Also, just like our first offensive play of the bears game (where Luck scrambled up the middle for the first down), if you've got Dorsett outside with no safety help, please take the shot. We had a touchdown or at least a BIG gain right out the gates. 

[Coltfreak]

15 hours ago, Rally5 said:

There's some huge differences from my vantage point: 

 

1. Pep's offense was way to complex, we never ran the same play more than once and in the NFL you must be a master of your playbook and we never were.

2. Pep's gameplans were garbage, I mostly like the way Chud calls a game.

3. Chud doesn't force the running game into three and out's like we did with Pep.

 

So in a nutshell, I would say Pep was overly complex, poorly planned and stubbornly executed.  I don't see that with Chud so far...I'm mostly ok with Chud's game plans, a little more no huddle (which we're adjusting to) and don't go into a shell at the end of games when/if we're up...go for the throat.  I'd like to see us develop more short routes and quick throw concepts but I do like the chunk plays so.....

Ha!  You don't think Luck knew that offense???

forcing the run is all Pags. It's what he invisions this team to be     a power running team when we were never built for it 

Peps offense at Stanford looked nothing like what he was forced to run here

 

the blame falls solely on Pagano. For wanting something the team isn't built for 

 

square peg round hole mentality

 

if Pep or Chud would be allowed to run what they want then you would see good offenses with either OC

 

Proof of that is the slow starts that somehow come to life when we fall far enough behind then the playbook opens

 

ive said it before and I'll say it again   Look at the difference between the offense under Pags as head coach and then after Bruce took over.   Same OC different game plan and better results 

 

 

How how many coordinators both sides of the ball do we have to replace and end up with the same results for someone to finally see it is coaching philosophy that is killing this team

 

yes Grigs hasn't brought in good players but I attribute that to Pags asking for what he wants and Grigs goes and gets it 

 

all on Pagano 

[King Colt]

Fundamental: The personnel on the OL is like a merry-go-round trying to find a combination that actually protects Luck. Luck is still getting battered at a club  record pace. So, what to do. How bout designing an offense designed for quick release passing game. They have a choice, 1. either protect Luck or 2. get the ball out of his hands quicker. So far the data supports an offense that gets the ball out of his hands quicker.. Why? Because if a problem is not getting better then it is no longer a problem rather, a program and the name of that program is "Failure". After all the OL changes in the OL this season and there is no change then move to something they CAN change. Look at the schedule after the Texans, it is going to get nasty and Luck is going to be a  $140,000,000 punching bag.

[GoBlue12]

On 10/11/2016 at 0:36 PM, ColtsFanMikeC said:

 

I like Rogers and Bray, especially as 4 and 5 WRs.  I still think Dorsett is more talented than both. 

 

One area where we still seem to be struggling, and I don't understand it, is with screen passes that turn into positive yards.

 

You'd think with Dorsett and Hilton both sub 4.4 guys (same with Moncrief when healthy) and Bray and Rogers not being too far behind (4.4-4.5 guys) that we'd have some success in this area... but it just doesn't seem to be happening.

 

Quan, although I think he is our 5th most talented WR (in terms of pure WR), does seem to be the best in space.  I wonder if he could excel if we built a few screen packages for him.

I don't think the reason for opposing teams success on screen passes is any mystery. Poor tackling and below average linebackers.

[dudeski]

On October 12, 2016 at 0:57 AM, AZColt11 said:

Question/theory for the masses here:  Usually we try to spread out the defense by using 3 and 4 WR formations when we want to run because we can't seem to block people straight up in typical run formation looks.  What if we did more of the opposite?  One play clicked in my mind last weekend and that was the goal line TD pass to Allen.  We were in a tight run-look formation and Allen was able to slide out for a WIDE open TD.  I haven't noticed us doing too much of this type of thing.  Perhaps I am blind?  Uneducated - I could see that?  Should we perhaps be doing more of this?  Maybe when Moncrief comes back?

Not exactly.  We should spread them out more to run.  We run a lot from 2 te sets

[Rally5]

5 hours ago, Coltfreak said:

Ha!  You don't think Luck knew that offense???

forcing the run is all Pags. It's what he invisions this team to be     a power running team when we were never built for it 

Peps offense at Stanford looked nothing like what he was forced to run here

 

the blame falls solely on Pagano. For wanting something the team isn't built for 

 

square peg round hole mentality

 

if Pep or Chud would be allowed to run what they want then you would see good offenses with either OC

 

Proof of that is the slow starts that somehow come to life when we fall far enough behind then the playbook opens

 

ive said it before and I'll say it again   Look at the difference between the offense under Pags as head coach and then after Bruce took over.   Same OC different game plan and better results 

 

 

How how many coordinators both sides of the ball do we have to replace and end up with the same results for someone to finally see it is coaching philosophy that is killing this team

 

yes Grigs hasn't brought in good players but I attribute that to Pags asking for what he wants and Grigs goes and gets it 

 

all on Pagano 

 

The question was about Pep, not Pagano, I happen to agree with you on Pagano that doesn't absolve Pep from being terrible.  I didn't say Andrew didn't know the offense I said it was too complex, read my response again, which is true.  Knowing the playbook isn't the same as mastering it through repetition and you can't ignore the other 10 guys on the field and their ability to consume and execute.  Pep was the pits, no debate in my mind. 

[a06cc]

I'm just glad today that he's finally trying to get Dorsett more involved. Can get everything cheap as well as go deep. 

[Coltfreak]

2 hours ago, Rally5 said:

The question was about Pep, not Pagano, I happen to agree with you on Pagano that doesn't absolve Pep from being terrible.  I didn't say Andrew didn't know the offense I said it was too complex, read my response again, which is true.  Knowing the playbook isn't the same as mastering it through repetition and you can't ignore the other 10 guys on the field and their ability to consume and execute.  Pep was the pits, no debate in my mind. 

One of the top offenses in the NFL all the time he was here  even with the cruddy online we had at the time.  So I disagree