Per Rotoworld...expect house cleaning at end of season

[Superman]

On 12/18/2017 at 7:24 PM, Hoose said:

I think Josh McDaniels got a lesson on life and coaching in Denver. You read about how he dealt with the debacle in Denver, and you have to feel he'll be dramatically better in his next coaching job. He got the arrogance slapped out of him; he learned humility. Maybe he'll be great in the future as a head coach; maybe not. But if you read the history, you'll realize he's a different man today. And, I suspect, far more ready for a head coaching position. For my money, I'd be more than fine with him as the Colts' next HC. 

 

That's the angle I'm taking also, but of course, that's not guaranteed in anyway. I'm just speculating based on what McDaniels has said and done since leaving Denver. No question he can run a good offense, IMO, but he'll have to teach and develop players, including a QB who isn't Tom Brady, in his next job. He'll have to manage an entire staff. Those are the areas where he previously failed, and any success he has moving forward will depend partially on how much he learned from those failures.

 

The other question is whether he can break the mold of Belichick assistants who have underwhelming performances away from New England. 

 

But definitely, he'd be on my list of candidates. Near the top, tbh.

[zibby43]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

That's the angle I'm taking also, but of course, that's not guaranteed in anyway. I'm just speculating based on what McDaniels has said and done since leaving Denver. No question he can run a good offense, IMO, but he'll have to teach and develop players, including a QB who isn't Tom Brady, in his next job. He'll have to manage an entire staff. Those are the areas where he previously failed, and any success he has moving forward will depend partially on how much he learned from those failures.

 

The other question is whether he can break the mold of Belichick assistants who have underwhelming performances away from New England. 

 

But definitely, he'd be on my list of candidates. Near the top, tbh.

 

Here is a question for you Superman . . .

 

It seems like the Colts' offense has stagnated a bit.  It has "fallen behind the times."  I realize that Chud has been handcuffed by the cards he's been dealt this year . . . but it seems like he oftentimes fails to use our offensive personnel properly (e.g., putting Hilton in the slot against Logan Ryan, effectively neutralizing one of our few playmakers).

 

Sticking with Hilton, I'm amazed that he's not consistently put in bunches and stacks in order to allow him a clean release (where he can utilize his best attributes: quickness and speed).  Furthermore, it seems like Moncrief was criminally misused for long stretches during the season.   In the instances he's been given simple but effective routes that allow him to utilize his size, he's successful.

 

So the first strike is 1) failing to take advantage of our personnel/failure to create advantageous match-ups.

 

Strike 2) is that his personnel groupings have gotten to the point that they telegraph the forthcoming plays.  Defenses are not confused, at all.  If I can tell what's coming, I guarantee you the guys getting paid can too.

 

Strike 3) would be that the entire offensive system/scheme seems pretty bland in comparison to what teams like the Rams, Eagles, Patriots, Steelers, etc. are running.  These teams add wrinkles nearly every week, and I love that many of the play-callers on these teams use formations and plays to set up new plays later in the season.

 

It's tough to stop these offenses because they A) execute at a high level and B) are constantly evolving and showing defenses looks they haven't seen.

 

. . . so all that said, do you believe that McDaniels could eliminate the 3-strike approach we're seeing from Chud?

 

(TL;DR version: Chud's offense fails to use personnel properly; his personnel groupings and formations are in a word, predictable; the offense seems pretty vanilla compared to what elite offensive teams are doing in the league.  Would McDaniels eliminate these problems?)

[John Waylon]

6 hours ago, zibby43 said:

 

You mean TL;C(an't)R?

 

No, it wasn't sarcasm.  At least not in the way you meant it.  But that's how you're trying to play it now to save face.

 

You were trying to take a swipe at me, discrediting the idea that McDaniels could be successful a 2nd time by suggesting Chuck could become the next Parcells.

 

If McDaniels had ended up as a guy out of the league with no other legacy than that of a failed, one-time head coach/one-year coordinator, then your "sarcastic" quip that Pagano may become the next Parcells would've worked.

 

But, the fact is, McDaniels was a great coordinator for years (and still is), and has worked with one of the greatest NFL coaches ever, Belichick.  Pagano was a DB coach and then a DC for one year.  

 

Unfortunately, all these realities have remained lost on you, and only you.  So lost, in fact, that I'm not sure even being this forward is going to finally clue you in.

 

Merry Christmas.

 

So what you're saying is that you know what I meant with what I said better than I do?

 

Can someone tell him that's not how the universe actually works?

 

 

[John Waylon]

6 hours ago, zibby43 said:

 

You mean TL;C(an't)R?

 

No, it wasn't sarcasm.  At least not in the way you meant it.  But that's how you're trying to play it now to save face.

 

You were trying to take a swipe at me, discrediting the idea that McDaniels could be successful a 2nd time by suggesting Chuck could become the next Parcells.

 

If McDaniels had ended up as a guy out of the league with no other legacy than that of a failed, one-time head coach/one-year coordinator, then your "sarcastic" quip that Pagano may become the next Parcells would've worked.

 

But, the fact is, McDaniels was a great coordinator for years (and still is), and has worked with one of the greatest NFL coaches ever, Belichick.  Pagano was a DB coach and then a DC for one year.  

 

Unfortunately, all these realities have remained lost on you, and only you.  So lost, in fact, that I'm not sure even being this forward is going to finally clue you in.

 

Merry Christmas.

 

Ok genius. Get a pencil. Take notes. 

 

On 12/18/2017 at 11:57 AM, John Waylon said:

 

So then Pagano could go somewhere else and be the next Parcells...

 

Wooooooow. 

 

The woooooooow is a clear indicator of sarcasm. @chad72, @jet1968, and @Mr. Irrelevant got it. 

 

For whatever reason it blew right past you and you started making these lengthy arguments about which I know nothing because I'm not bothering myself to read your mindless drivel resulting from a response that was..... clearly sarcasm. Like I've said all along. 

 

Now. Care to tell me what I am thinking and mean with this post as well, since you seem so inclined to know better than I actually do?

[Superman]

10 hours ago, zibby43 said:

 

Here is a question for you Superman . . .

 

It seems like the Colts' offense has stagnated a bit.  It has "fallen behind the times."  I realize that Chud has been handcuffed by the cards he's been dealt this year . . . but it seems like he oftentimes fails to use our offensive personnel properly (e.g., putting Hilton in the slot against Logan Ryan, effectively neutralizing one of our few playmakers).

 

Sticking with Hilton, I'm amazed that he's not consistently put in bunches and stacks in order to allow him a clean release (where he can utilize his best attributes: quickness and speed).  Furthermore, it seems like Moncrief was criminally misused for long stretches during the season.   In the instances he's been given simple but effective routes that allow him to utilize his size, he's successful.

 

So the first strike is 1) failing to take advantage of our personnel/failure to create advantageous match-ups.

 

Strike 2) is that his personnel groupings have gotten to the point that they telegraph the forthcoming plays.  Defenses are not confused, at all.  If I can tell what's coming, I guarantee you the guys getting paid can too.

 

Strike 3) would be that the entire offensive system/scheme seems pretty bland in comparison to what teams like the Rams, Eagles, Patriots, Steelers, etc. are running.  These teams add wrinkles nearly every week, and I love that many of the play-callers on these teams use formations and plays to set up new plays later in the season.

 

It's tough to stop these offenses because they A) execute at a high level and B) are constantly evolving and showing defenses looks they haven't seen.

 

. . . so all that said, do you believe that McDaniels could eliminate the 3-strike approach we're seeing from Chud?

 

(TL;DR version: Chud's offense fails to use personnel properly; his personnel groupings and formations are in a word, predictable; the offense seems pretty vanilla compared to what elite offensive teams are doing in the league.  Would McDaniels eliminate these problems?)

 

I agree with all of this. There are other issues with Chud's offense and the way he runs it, and I've been making similar complaints about the Colts' offense since 2012. 

 

When you look at New England's offense, they do all that you're talking about above. But their route concepts are designed to get quick receivers open in space, where they can get yards after catch. That's stacks, bunches, screens, motions, reduced splits, etc. They also have receivers and backs who excel at making defenders miss, and a QB who fires the ball quickly and accurately. This leads to efficiency.

 

The other thing that's unmistakable is that they execute consistently. Everyone is where they're supposed to be, routes are sharp and on time, they don't suffer from drops, sloppy alignments, etc. Because their execution is so reliable, they don't rely on trickery and deception, but they do take advantage of trends and mismatches that become obvious during a game or over the season. 

 

They did come up with the unbalanced/ineligible alignments a couple years ago, but that's not something that they rely on to perform. 

 

To answer your question, I do think a McDaniels offense would take better advantage of our personnel, use packages and formations that would be less predictable, and continue to evolve so as to stay ahead of defenses. 

 

My concerns with McDaniels have absolutely nothing to do with how he'd run the offense. 

[The Fish]

I have to remind myself that Lane Kiffen and Josh McDainels aren't the same guy..

[onebad150]

With Colt's history of injuries and the talent that we have had to placed IR. I would like to have Toub involved in our rethinking of our strength and conditioning training. How ever Ballard see as the best way to use his knowledge and expertise. I am anxiously  awaiting a whole new look for the 2018 Colt's, from offensive line blocking schemes, creative play calling, too a whole new aggressive defense scheme and the return of Andrew Luck

GOOD things are coming!!!!

[1959Colts]

Jeff Fisher is “eyeing” several teams; are they eyeing him?

...Mike Jurecki of 98.7 FM reported that Fisher “could be eyeing” the Browns, Bears, and Colts...

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/12/20/jeff-fisher-is-eyeing-several-teams-are-they-eyeing-him/

[krunk]

On 12/18/2017 at 10:28 AM, Coltfreak said:

I'd add in Josh.  And Frank Reich 

apparently Ballard has been grilling Jacoby about josh according to collinsworth on the Thursday game 

My only thing about this "grilling Jacoby about Josh" is that article came out not too long after we acquired Jacoby.   Jacoby didn't have any offseason with us and had to learn the offense on the fly.  I would think it would be natural for Ballard to ask tons of questions about Mcdaniels just to get a feel for what Jacoby learned in New England that would translate to Indy.   I'm not sure how much of that grilling actually had to do with him trying to scoop up Mcdaniels.  I'm sure it's possible he had that on his mind but I think overall it was more to see what Josh gave him that would carry over in his new environment.

[zibby43]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I agree with all of this. There are other issues with Chud's offense and the way he runs it, and I've been making similar complaints about the Colts' offense since 2012. 

 

When you look at New England's offense, they do all that you're talking about above. But their route concepts are designed to get quick receivers open in space, where they can get yards after catch. That's stacks, bunches, screens, motions, reduced splits, etc. They also have receivers and backs who excel at making defenders miss, and a QB who fires the ball quickly and accurately. This leads to efficiency.

 

The other thing that's unmistakable is that they execute consistently. Everyone is where they're supposed to be, routes are sharp and on time, they don't suffer from drops, sloppy alignments, etc. Because their execution is so reliable, they don't rely on trickery and deception, but they do take advantage of trends and mismatches that become obvious during a game or over the season. 

 

They did come up with the unbalanced/ineligible alignments a couple years ago, but that's not something that they rely on to perform. 

 

To answer your question, I do think a McDaniels offense would take better advantage of our personnel, use packages and formations that would be less predictable, and continue to evolve so as to stay ahead of defenses. 

 

My concerns with McDaniels have absolutely nothing to do with how he'd run the offense. 

 

Many thanks for taking the time to respond with such an in-depth answer.  Truly enjoy your objective analysis.

 

And completely agree re: New England's route concepts.  The coaches there take the time to actually scheme guys open instead of constantly relying on guys to win 1-on-1 match-ups.

 

NE, as you pointed out, isn't wholly reliant on long-developing, vertical passing plays off of 5-7 step drops and PA.  I love me some PA, but when the Colts utilize it, they're usually in max protect and despite the time afforded, no one is usually open down the field.  Kind of defeats the purpose.  We rarely get defenders to bite, too.

 

And you're absolutely right about execution, as that was the one elite attribute that I noticed with the other teams I mentioned.  I won't put all of that on Chud, because execution is not only tied in with scheme, but fundamentals and quality of personnel as well. 

 

The Colts' substandard execution, in my mind, also falls on the position group coaches.  Fundamentals are still important at the NFL level.  And technique is what separates the men from the boys at the NFL level.  The level of competition is so good that guys can't rely on their physical attributes alone, they have to be technically competent, and I just don't see that consistently at any level on the Colts.

 

 

[Superman]

28 minutes ago, krunk said:

I would think it would be natural for Ballard to ask tons of questions about Mcdaniels just to get a feel for what Jacoby learned in New England that would translate to Indy.

 

That would be a conversation between Brissett and Chud/Schottenheimer, not Brissett and Ballard.

[richard pallo]

15 minutes ago, zibby43 said:

 

Many thanks for taking the time to respond with such an in-depth answer.  Truly enjoy your objective analysis.

 

And completely agree re: New England's route concepts.  The coaches there take the time to actually scheme guys open instead of constantly relying on guys to win 1-on-1 match-ups.

 

NE, as you pointed out, isn't wholly reliant on long-developing, vertical passing plays off of 5-7 step drops and PA.  I love me some PA, but when the Colts utilize it, they're usually in max protect and despite the time afforded, no one is usually open down the field.  Kind of defeats the purpose.  We rarely get defenders to bite, too.

 

And you're absolutely right about execution, as that was the one elite attribute that I noticed with the other teams I mentioned.  I won't put all of that on Chud, because execution is not only tied in with scheme, but fundamentals and quality of personnel as well. 

 

The Colts' substandard execution, in my mind, also falls on the position group coaches.  Fundamentals are still important at the NFL level.  And technique is what separates the men from the boys at the NFL level.  The level of competition is so good that guys can't rely on their physical attributes alone, they have to be technically competent, and I just don't see that consistently at any level on the Colts.

 

 

It looks like the NE coaches are having a hard time scheming Dorsett open.  Dwayne Allen too.  

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

It looks like the NE coaches are having a hard time scheming Dorsett open.  Dwayne Allen too.  

 

No they aren't. Allen and Dorsett are having a hard time getting/staying on the field. 

[richard pallo]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

No they aren't. Allen and Dorsett are having a hard time getting/staying on the field. 

  BB liked what he saw of them or he wouldn't have traded for them.   He obviously thought they were talented players. I guess he thought he could scheme them open.  So far something is not clicking or the great coach made a mistake. 

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

  BB liked what he saw of them or he wouldn't have traded for them.   He obviously thought they were talented players. I guess he thought he could scheme them open.  So far something is not clicking or the great coach made a mistake. 

 

I don't know what your point is. If it's that Dorsett and Allen aren't performing well, that's obvious.

 

If it's that there's a problem with the Pats offense because Dorsett and Allen aren't performing well, that's something I'll disagree with. They're 2nd in yards, 4th in points, 10th on 3rd down, 1st in yards per pass attempt, 1st in total receptions, etc. Not saying their offense is perfect, but they're doing a good job of scheming other receivers open. They aren't exactly missing anything from Dorsett and Allen.

[ReMeDy]

I for some reason can't picture Ballard hiring Josh McDaniels. Clearly Ballard loves Kansas City staff and players, so I don't see why he wouldn't sign someone from their group.

[zibby43]

9 hours ago, richard pallo said:

It looks like the NE coaches are having a hard time scheming Dorsett open.  Dwayne Allen too.  

 

Must be that bum Gronkowski (8th in the league in receiving yards) taking all of Allen's reps.

 

Meanwhile, Dorsett only has 306 snaps played on the entire season (which is virtually dead last for the entire WR corps).  Brandin Cooks, on the other hand, has played 914 snaps.  And he earned them with 984 receiving yards and 6 TDs.

 

So, yeah.

 

BTW, James White, a RB, #24 in the league in YAC.  Pretty good scheming there (and some talent).

 

 

[jimmy g]

On 12/18/2017 at 12:19 PM, J@son said:

QFT means "Quoted for truth".

Whatever that means?  It might be nice if people had ever heard phrases like that.  Speak in sentences, so people understand...

[Crush22]

On 12/17/2017 at 11:59 AM, Nadine said:

somebody is leaking to the Boston media?

I think any of us could have wrote that article.

Info that we've all known for awhile.

[coltsva]

1 hour ago, jimmy g said:

Whatever that means?  It might be nice if people had ever heard phrases like that.  Speak in sentences, so people understand...

Reminds me of this classic:

 

 

[Jason_]

2 hours ago, jimmy g said:

Whatever that means?  It might be nice if people had ever heard phrases like that.  Speak in sentences, so people understand...

 

That is an incredibly common online acronym. And google helps as well 

[jimmy g]

5 hours ago, J@son said:

 

That is an incredibly common online acronym. And google helps as well 

 

 

Sorry. Shouldn't have gone off. Just responding to the 'putdown' that the term is generally used by all, and it's certainly not.  Must be a cliquish type, Millenial type thing used in specific genres?  I drive coast to coast each week, speaking to any and all.  And post on many different online message boards daily since 1999. Never heard it before in my life...

[aaron11]

On 12/21/2017 at 5:07 AM, zibby43 said:

 

Must be that bum Gronkowski (8th in the league in receiving yards) taking all of Allen's reps.

 

Meanwhile, Dorsett only has 306 snaps played on the entire season (which is virtually dead last for the entire WR corps).  Brandin Cooks, on the other hand, has played 914 snaps.  And he earned them with 984 receiving yards and 6 TDs.

dorsett's problem in NE is he is the same type of player as cooks, just not nearly as good.  they might have  brought him in for injury insurance, and they were cutting brissett anyway 

 

allen has contributed as a blocker, but they dont trust his hands enough to throw to him 

[CheezyColt]

6 hours ago, jimmy g said:

 

 

Sorry. Shouldn't have gone off. Just responding to the 'putdown' that the term is generally used by all, and it's certainly not.  Must be a cliquish type, Millenial type thing used in specific genres?  I drive coast to coast each week, speaking to any and all.  And post on many different online message boards daily since 1999. Never heard it before in my life...

You're not alone... As a millennial I had no idea what QFT meant. I honestly thought is was "quit f'n talking" so I took it as hostile. I can't speak for others though. 

[BOTT]

5 hours ago, CheezyColt said:

You're not alone... As a millennial I had no idea what QFT meant. I honestly thought is was "quit f'n talking" so I took it as hostile. I can't speak for others though. 

I didn't know what it stood for, but I know what I'm using it for going forward........

[Jason_]

17 hours ago, jimmy g said:

 

 

Sorry. Shouldn't have gone off. Just responding to the 'putdown' that the term is generally used by all, and it's certainly not.  Must be a cliquish type, Millenial type thing used in specific genres?  I drive coast to coast each week, speaking to any and all.  And post on many different online message boards daily since 1999. Never heard it before in my life...

 

What 'putdown'? 

[King Colt]

I don't care who gets the HC job, who they draft, who they trade for and who they dump. All I want is double digits in the 2018 win column.

[a06cc]

I’ll be happy with whatever happens. If Chuck stays or goes. Doesn’t matter until this team gets better talent. Also the key guy is Andrew Luck. The main problem is gone. I hate bring up his name, but Grigson screwed us. 

[shakedownstreet]

On 12/17/2017 at 12:29 PM, BlueShoe said:

This is why reporters (journalist) get a bad name.

 

Even if there was a source, it has the appearance of a fluff piece. Appearance is all that matters

 

Anyone writing an article like this is easy to dismiss as lazy or dumb

[Coltsfanforlife12]

On 12/20/2017 at 12:04 AM, Superman said:

 

That's the angle I'm taking also, but of course, that's not guaranteed in anyway. I'm just speculating based on what McDaniels has said and done since leaving Denver. No question he can run a good offense, IMO, but he'll have to teach and develop players, including a QB who isn't Tom Brady, in his next job. He'll have to manage an entire staff. Those are the areas where he previously failed, and any success he has moving forward will depend partially on how much he learned from those failures.

 

The other question is whether he can break the mold of Belichick assistants who have underwhelming performances away from New England. 

 

But definitely, he'd be on my list of candidates. Near the top, tbh.

I saw an interview with Tony Dungy about some of the top coaching candidates in the league.  This was either last season or the season before and McDaniels first call after getting fired was to Dungy to ask what he could do better. I’d love to see McDaniels here with an older defensive coordinator kind of like the Rams are doing with McVey and Phillips.  

[BOTT]

3 hours ago, a06cc said:

I’ll be happy with whatever happens. If Chuck stays or goes. Doesn’t matter until this team gets better talent. Also the key guy is Andrew Luck. The main problem is gone. I hate bring up his name, but Grigson screwed us. 

Barney Fife is just a bad of coach as Big Sweaty was a GM.

[a06cc]

1 hour ago, BOTT said:

Barney Fife is just a bad of coach as Big Sweaty was a GM.

Lmao!

[jimmy g]

On 12/23/2017 at 1:23 PM, J@son said:

 

What 'putdown'? 

The Incedibly Common response, that you could find on Google.  

 

Merry Christmas to All.  And to All, a Good Night!