Coaching Matters

[DaveA1102]

 

[Barry Sears]

We were all complaining about this last year and clambering for a change...well, we got it and got the results because of the change!

[BOTT]

That damn Grigson......

 

 

[ztboiler]

Coaching matters...but this is incredibly lopsided in an effort to make the point more dramatic.

 

One team had Andrew Luck and the other one didn’t.

[BOTT]

1 minute ago, ztboiler said:

Coaching matters...but this is incredibly lopsided in an effort to make the point more dramatic.

 

One team had Andrew Luck and the other one didn’t.

And the coaching staff made matters worse by being overly conservative and predictable.

[TheMarine]

5 minutes ago, ztboiler said:

Coaching matters...but this is incredibly lopsided in an effort to make the point more dramatic.

 

One team had Andrew Luck and the other one didn’t.

 

Should read the entire twitter feed: TLDR: With the lead, the Colts were beyond predictable with their playcalling, and made 0 adjustments throughout the entire season

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, ztboiler said:

Coaching matters...but this is incredibly lopsided in an effort to make the point more dramatic.

 

One team had Andrew Luck and the other one didn’t.

 

Just like coaching matters, context matters. Sharp pointed out how absurdly predictable and conservative the play calling was late in games last season, and this is the contrast. 

 

Yes, Luck's absence was a HUGE factor, but the Colts didn't have to lose all those games late in the fourth quarter last year. Coaching got in the way.

[ztboiler]

24 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Just like coaching matters, context matters. Sharp pointed out how absurdly predictable and conservative the play calling was late in games last season, and this is the contrast. 

 

Yes, Luck's absence was a HUGE factor, but the Colts didn't have to lose all those games late in the fourth quarter last year. Coaching got in the way.

Of course....but that story has been done.  Its obvious...and you don't get to make yourself look smarter as a writer using contrast without deference to the context of coaching with an elite QB and without.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, ztboiler said:

Of course....but that story has been done.  Its obvious...and you don't get to make yourself look smarter as a writer using contrast without deference to the context of coaching with an elite QB and without.

 

Sharp was just putting a bow on his story from last season, which was about how poorly coached the offense was late in games. His point was well made last season, regardless how this year turned out.

 

And he did acknowledge not having Luck last season, but it was almost not relevant. The issue was the play calling. These are games in which the Colts had a late game lead, without Luck. It's not like they just couldn't compete at all; the problem is that they couldn't close, and the play calling was a primary factor.

[ztboiler]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Sharp was just putting a bow on his story from last season, which was about how poorly coached the offense was late in games. His point was well made last season, regardless how this year turned out.

 

And he did acknowledge not having Luck last season, but it was almost not relevant. The issue was the play calling. These are games in which the Colts had a late game lead, without Luck. It's not like they just couldn't compete at all; the problem is that they couldn't close, and the play calling was a primary factor.

Absolutely, and the point stands on its own.  It's hollow and weak to come back and say I told you so when this staff is 7-1 with different personnel at the most important position in sports.  There is no further point to be made, and he is merely grandstanding numerically for his own commercial benefit. 

 

I'm fine if he sells that info to someone...we've all got something to sell. 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, ztboiler said:

Absolutely, and the point stands on its own.  It's hollow and weak to come back and say I told you so when this staff is 7-1 with different personnel at the most important position in sports.  There is no further point to be made, and he is merely grandstanding numerically for his own commercial benefit. 

 

I'm fine if he sells that info to someone...we've all got something to sell. 

 

It's like you're saying that the primary reason the Colts finished better in games in which they had late leads is because Luck is back. If you haven't gone through his tweet thread from last offseason, you should. You'll find that going 2-7 in games in which you lead at halftime is almost unprecedented, a statistical anomaly; almost as rare is going 4-5 in games in which you lead going into the 4th quarter.

 

This is the basic jist:

 

I personally believe the primary reason the Colts finished better is because the offensive coaching was better.

 

Luck is great late in games, and he showed that magic a couple times this season (his throw late in the Dolphins game was one of the best of the season). But he didn't have to put the offense on his back, dodge pass rushers and make insane plays all season long. He mostly made plays that were there to be made, within the structure of a well coached offense.

 

The further point to be made -- which I haven't seen Sharp detail so far -- is the improved and less predictable play calling. It is a fallacy to say that the Colts were bad late in games in 2017 because Luck was gone, and it's just as fallacious to say the Colts were good late in games in 2018 because Luck was back.

[ztboiler]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It's like you're saying that the primary reason the Colts finished better in games in which they had late leads is because Luck is back. If you haven't gone through his tweet thread from last offseason, you should. You'll find that going 2-7 in games in which you lead at halftime is almost unprecedented, a statistical anomaly; almost as rare is going 4-5 in games in which you lead going into the 4th quarter.

 

I personally believe the primary reason the Colts finished better is because the offensive coaching was better.

 

Luck is great late in games, and he showed that magic a couple times this season (his throw late in the Dolphins game was one of the best of the season). But he didn't have to put the offense on his back, dodge pass rushers and make insane plays all season long. He mostly made plays that were there to be made, within the structure of a well coached offense.

 

The further point to be made -- which I haven't seen Sharp detail so far -- is the improved and less predictable play calling. It is a fallacy to say that the Colts were bad late in games in 2017 because Luck was gone, and it's just as fallacious to say the Colts were good late in games in 2018 because Luck was back.

No.  We completely agree on the facts.  I completely agree with Sharp on the facts.  Last year was unprecedented.  We were poorly coached in 2017 and we are well coached in 2018.  Those conclusions are easy to support numerically, schematically and in the W-L column....but independently.  You just shouldn't do it comparatively.  It's bad science.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, ztboiler said:

You just shouldn't do it comparatively.  It's bad science.

 

Why? One coaching staff made bad decisions late in games, another staff made good decisions late in games. Independent of the results -- and Luck was able to produce good results in previous seasons -- that part of the process was broken. In what way is that comparison flawed?

[ztboiler]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Why? One coaching staff made bad decisions late in games, another staff made good decisions late in games. Independent of the results -- and Luck was able to produce good results in previous seasons -- that part of the process was broken. In what way is that comparison flawed?

Ahhh, I see now.  OK.  You answered your own question.

This is what bad coaching looks like in 2017.  Verified by numbers and results.

This is what good coaching looks like in 2018.  Verified by same.

Andrew Luck produces results with either staff...the analysis works well independently but not comparatively.

[yankeeclipper]

We have the right coach to lead this team. We had a good draft and scored well with FA signing on Ebron. Defensive scheme is solid. We have a solid defense that will get better with some more experience and another solid draft.  Biggest factor for our turnaround is a healthy Andrew Luck. He is in a class by himself in terms of ability and intelligence. 

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, ztboiler said:

Andrew Luck produces results with either staff...the analysis works well independently but not comparatively.

 

If you're focused on the result, that might make sense. Coaching is about the process, putting your players in position to succeed. 

[ztboiler]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

If you're focused on the result, that might make sense. Coaching is about the process, putting your players in position to succeed. 

This is circular

[yankeeclipper]

I am sure glad we ended up with Reich as head coach. He is perfect for a guy like Luck and he was always a solid QB with Bills and played well when given a chance.

 

[Four2itus]

And again.....my point has always been, why did we blame Pagano for his failures as an X's and O's guy? To my knowledge, he did NOT call the plays. I still say Pagano was a failure at hiring the right coaching staff underneath him, and again failed by being too loyal to them when the obvious results were in his face. 

 

However, I think he was a great motivator, which is a big part of what a head coach is to me. Let me ask this question:

 

Would Pagano come across the same with the current coaching staff?

 

To be clear, he is and should have been let go. I do not question that. I do however question the labels given to him by some. 

[Valpo2004]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Just like coaching matters, context matters. Sharp pointed out how absurdly predictable and conservative the play calling was late in games last season, and this is the contrast. 

 

Yes, Luck's absence was a HUGE factor, but the Colts didn't have to lose all those games late in the fourth quarter last year. Coaching got in the way.

 

I don't know if it was playcalling but Brissett and the offense seemed to go cold in the 2nd half of those games.  The amount of 3 and outs they had was ridiculous.

 

It would be hard for any defense to defend a lead of 2 scores or less for an entire half of football if their offense goes 3 and out on every possession.  

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

And again.....my point has always been, why did we blame Pagano for his failures as an X's and O's guy? To my knowledge, he did NOT call the plays. I still say Pagano was a failure at hiring the right coaching staff underneath him, and again failed by being too loyal to them when the obvious results were in his face. 

 

However, I think he was a great motivator, which is a big part of what a head coach is to me. Let me ask this question:

 

Would Pagano come across the same with the current coaching staff?

 

To be clear, he is and should have been let go. I do not question that. I do however question the labels given to him by some. 

 

I was thinking about this a few days ago. Here are some differences between what Pagano apparently valued and what the Colts are doing now.

 

On defense, Pagano valued size and containment up front, and aggressive coverage in the secondary. The Colts now value disruption up front, and speed everywhere else.

 

On offense, Pagano wanted a power blocking scheme and an aggressive passing attack. This showed in his hiring choices. The Colts now employ a multiple blocking scheme and an efficient passing attack.

 

Pagano also tended to be more conservative in late game situations, protecting a lead, erring on the side of caution, trusting his defense (which was never very good) to get a stop, etc. He made some decisions that appeared to be more aggressive, he'd okay trick plays on special teams and so forth, but for the most part, Pagano was a conservative-minded coach.

 

Reich appears to be more influenced by statistical analysis and probability of success, including late game situations, 4th down decisions, etc.  He's a more progressive, 21st century kind of in-game decision maker.

 

What I think is unfair is Pagano gets labeled as an incompetent coach that gets blamed for wasting Andrew Luck. But I don't think it's unfair to question his philosophical approach to the game, especially in light of the changes that are happening in the sport over the last decade or so.

 

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

I don't know if it was playcalling but Brissett and the offense seemed to go cold in the 2nd half of those games.  The amount of 3 and outs they had was ridiculous.

 

It would be hard for any defense to defend a lead of 2 scores or less for an entire half of football if their offense goes 3 and out on every possession.  

 

Have you checked out the tweet thread referenced in the OP?

[ztboiler]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I was thinking about this a few days ago. Here are some differences between what Pagano apparently valued and what the Colts are doing now.

 

On defense, Pagano valued size and containment up front, and aggressive coverage in the secondary. The Colts now value disruption up front, and speed everywhere else.

 

On offense, Pagano wanted a power blocking scheme and an aggressive passing attack. This showed in his hiring choices. The Colts now employ a multiple blocking scheme and an efficient passing attack.

 

Pagano also tended to be more conservative in late game situations, protecting a lead, erring on the side of caution, trusting his defense (which was never very good) to get a stop, etc. He made some decisions that appeared to be more aggressive, he'd okay trick plays on special teams and so forth, but for the most part, Pagano was a conservative-minded coach.

 

Reich appears to be more influenced by statistical analysis and probability of success, including late game situations, 4th down decisions, etc.  He's a more progressive, 21st century kind of in-game decision maker.

 

What I think is unfair is Pagano gets labeled as an incompetent coach that gets blamed for wasting Andrew Luck. But I don't think it's unfair to question his philosophical approach to the game, especially in light of the changes that are happening in the sport over the last decade or so.

 

Couldn't agree more...with all of this. 

[BOTT]

28 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

And again.....my point has always been, why did we blame Pagano for his failures as an X's and O's guy? To my knowledge, he did NOT call the plays. I still say Pagano was a failure at hiring the right coaching staff underneath him, and again failed by being too loyal to them when the obvious results were in his face. 

 

However, I think he was a great motivator, which is a big part of what a head coach is to me. Let me ask this question:

 

Would Pagano come across the same with the current coaching staff?

 

To be clear, he is and should have been let go. I do not question that. I do however question the labels given to him by some. 

Pagano would come across much better if he had the current coaching staff. But pointing out a great staff will make the HC look better is obvious. Hiring the right staff is paramount to the teams success.....and Chuck failed at that.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, BOTT said:

Pagano would come across much better if he had the current coaching staff

 

The problem is he likely would never have hired this coaching staff.

[richard pallo]

I think we should give a huge shoutout to Josh McDaniels for hiring Eberflus, Siranni, and Gug's.   Two of them are already going to be interviewed for HC. positions.  He shafted us but he sure knows coaching talent.  

[Superman]

Just now, richard pallo said:

I think we should give a huge shoutout to Josh McDaniels for hiring Eberflus, Siranni, and Gug's.   two of them are already going to be interviewed for HC. positions.  He shafted us but he sure knows coaching talent.  

 

He didn't hire Sirianni, and Ballard was just as hot on Eberflus as McDaniels was, maybe more so.

[Four2itus]

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The problem is he likely would never have hired this coaching staff.

True. I said as much that he failed in his hires. But I also agree with your points on his philosophy. What will be interesting is, if he is hired again somewhere, will he have learned from his experiences as a head coach. 

[DalTXColtsFan]

grunch

 

take the 2018 Colts and make the following replacements:

 - Luck with a Brissett who joined the team a week before the first game

 - Nelson with Vujanovich

 

How many games do the 2018 Colts win?

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

True. I said as much that he failed in his hires. But I also agree with your points on his philosophy. What will be interesting is, if he is hired again somewhere, will he have learned from his experiences as a head coach. 

 

In his interview last week, he said he'd been studying some of the ways the college game is changing the NFL, new offensive approaches, etc. If he adjusts some of his approach to favor a more efficient offense and more speed on defense, I think it could influence his staff hires and some of his team's draft/FA decisions.

 

Sadly, I don't expect him to ever be an elite game manager or tactician.

[jameszeigler834]

4 hours ago, DaveA1102 said:

 

I have said that for years coaching does matter and Pagano was a bad coach sure a nice guy but everybody here knows where nice guys finish.

[WoolMagnet]

I was thinking about how crazy the season has been, looking back.  And i wss thinking about a 1-5 scenario with a certain other coach that almost came here.  I have a gut feeling we'd be sitting here at 5-11 or so with a divided locker room.

its funny how things just work out for the best sometimes.