Colts have fired OL coach Dave DeGuglielmo

[SOMDColtsfan]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Is there any evidence that Reich and Eberflus have fundamental differences in approach or philosophy?

None that know of. Was referring more to the wasn't a Frank Reich "guy".Not in philosophy terms but just general hiring. Eberflus was also a McDaniels hire, only reason asking. 

[Superman]

45 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

I don't think Reich's philosophy on defense matters. Ballard is the one building the team and brought Eberflus on to coach this particular defense. Reich bought in to ballard's vision, and i can imagine even more so now.

 

The point was that Reich and Gugs obviously had differences, and Reich wanted his guy. I was asked if that means that Eberflus is next, and I'm pointing out that there's no reason to think Reich has any issue with Eberflus.

 

Reich's philosophy matters, maybe not when it comes to specific defensive strategy or approach, but as it relates to how to coach, teach, lead, instruct, discipline, encourage, etc., Reich and Eberflus need to be on the same page. I don't know of any indication that they aren't.

[Coltsman1788]

 

Very interesting. 

[shasta519]

35 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

We held them to 31 points... would have been 24 had we not ran into the punter at the end. That isn't getting exposed, that's playing pretty damn well against an mvp led offense that averages 35 pts a game. Our run defense was a little rough, but this was the exception to the rule this season. First 100 yard rusher all year. Again, don't evaluate a seasons work in one game. They weren't exposed. They played bad. 

 

Nobody is evaluating a season in one game...but you also can't act like it's irrelevant. It might be only be one data point...but it's a big one. This was their toughest opponent all season (where they were healthy). And to win the Super Bowl, they have to be able to beat these types of teams.

 

The defense didn't play well...maybe in the 2nd half when they had nothing to lose...but that game was basically over at half time. If the Colts offense hadn't been so bad and actually had been able to score a TD or two...I would bet that KC puts up another couple of TDs. KC played differently in the 2nd half...but outclassed the Colts defense big time in the 1st half.

 

The run defense was a surprise. But that's what happens when you face a top offense that has a legit passing game. It's hard to stop both...and unfortunately, they struggled to stop either until they were in a huge hole.  

 

The Colts played a poor game...but it wasn't a matter of just playing poorly...this team has some weaknesses that need addressed...WRS, DL, pass coverage, etc.  

 

[aReggie7]

Not totally shocked by this move. DG has his own way and is not changing.

 

Colts Wire listed 4 guys who might be targets. Basically 4 guys who have coached with Reich before.

 

https://coltswire.usatoday.com/2019/01/15/indianapolis-colts-offensive-line-coach-candidates-search-russ-grimm-eugene-chung-joe-dalessandris-pete-metzelaars/

[jvan1973]

Metzelars would be interesting.   They know each other well.   No clue if he is a good coach though

[chrisfarley]

4 hours ago, John Waylon said:

 

Asking about Mudd. 

yea, i knew that, i was just surprised that M. Chappell had heard or seen how rough Mudd was on players. Wouldn't have guessed he rode them so hard.

[ColtStrong2013]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

The point was that Reich and Gugs obviously had differences, and Reich wanted his guy. I was asked if that means that Eberflus is next, and I'm pointing out that there's no reason to think Reich has any issue with Eberflus.

 

Reich's philosophy matters, maybe not when it comes to specific defensive strategy or approach, but as it relates to how to coach, teach, lead, instruct, discipline, encourage, etc., Reich and Eberflus need to be on the same page. I don't know of any indication that they aren't.

 

I wasn't really directing that post to you, more to him. Sorry for that. 

 

I agree with you. Ballard pitched Eberflus to Reich and he obviously bought in. Gugs worked directly with Reich on a weekly basis and possibly didn't work well as Frank was known to be very involved in the offensive line gameplanning. I know Frank is involved in the defense as well but more from a HC and offering his perspective from an offense type of role. I am with you in that there has been nothing to indicate they don't work well together. Clearly Gugs did not... 

[ColtStrong2013]

2 hours ago, shastamasta said:

 

Nobody is evaluating a season in one game...but you also can't act like it's irrelevant. It might be only be one data point...but it's a big one. This was their toughest opponent all season (where they were healthy). And to win the Super Bowl, they have to be able to beat these types of teams.

 

The defense didn't play well...maybe in the 2nd half when they had nothing to lose...but that game was basically over at half time. If the Colts offense hadn't been so bad and actually had been able to score a TD or two...I would bet that KC puts up another couple of TDs. KC played differently in the 2nd half...but outclassed the Colts defense big time in the 1st half.

 

The run defense was a surprise. But that's what happens when you face a top offense that has a legit passing game. It's hard to stop both...and unfortunately, they struggled to stop either until they were in a huge hole.  

 

The Colts played a poor game...but it wasn't a matter of just playing poorly...this team has some weaknesses that need addressed...WRS, DL, pass coverage, etc.  

 

 

Sorry but I completely disagree, and I would say anyone who has watched Andrew Luck the past several years would as well. We were down 2 scores a great deal of the game. Actually getting the ball back with about 4 minutes left to work when we got a bonehead running into the kicker call that put it away. As bad as we played, we were one or two plays going our way from being right back in the ballgame. 

 

Every team has weaknesses. KC's run defense and secondary is pretty bad. We should have been able to "exploit" them both, but failed miserably. NE won't and i'll put money on that. At the end of the year, KC isn't going to look at the Indy game and say, man our defense is right where it needs to be. We'll no doubt shore up the holes on our team, but that game doesn't speak for the team this season... at all.

 

They will not replace Braden Smith at RT because he performed poorly in this game. He's had a great rookie season. 

They will not punish Luck for playing poor. 

They won't replace Vinny for having the worst game of his career.

Nor replace most of the defense, which played well enough to give the offense every opportunity to keep us in it...

 

They'll look at it and say it was a bad game, all around. And use it as a teaching point going forward. 

[WoolMagnet]

9 hours ago, MTC said:

I wonder if part of it has to do with the Denzelle Good incident. 

What does that mean?

[WoolMagnet]

This IS odd.  From the outside (a fan), one could argue he was our BEST coach.  I'll bet he was smuggling info to the Evil Empire.  Probably hid notes and top secret stuff inside deflated footballs.

[WoolMagnet]

9 hours ago, DougDew said:

I often wonder what would be the motivation for an assistant coach to take a lateral.  Its easy to say more money, but hiring LB coach Eberflus to be a DC is a natural transition, but I can't say the same for an OL coach who may currently hold the same position with another team.

 

College maybe?

Better team and organization with. Ettsr chance to win, nicer city to live and raise kids, more familiarity with other coaches (friendships), better coaches or players to work with.

all are reason to take lateral besides money.

[DougDew]

9 minutes ago, WoolMagnet said:

Better team and organization with. Ettsr chance to win, nicer city to live and raise kids, more familiarity with other coaches (friendships), better coaches or players to work with.

all are reason to take lateral besides money.

Yeah, I guess that applies to us civilians too. 

 

It matters how much talent there is to coach.  Better chance to succeed at his trade.

[TomDiggs]

 

 

This seems to fall in line w the technique aspects i was referencing earlier in this thread. Seems it is not all personality. It is a coach that can likely teach the small technique adjustments and nuances that it will take to bring this line to the next level. Especially if it is more zone oriented. It sure seemed to be a mix of the two (zone and power) at times this year, but some of our beautifully blocked running plays were some great zone runs. It also fits our RB personnel better as well.

 

 

[WoolMagnet]

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Yeah, I guess that applies to us civilians too. 

 

It matters how much talent there is to coach.  Better chance to succeed at his trade.

Sure. And Some rare individuals prefer the chalkenge of guys who arent as talented.  We all have our reasons to work where we do.  But when you find that place you "fit", it makes ALL the difference.

[WoolMagnet]

3 hours ago, shastamasta said:

 

Nobody is evaluating a season in one game...but you also can't act like it's irrelevant. It might be only be one data point...but it's a big one. This was their toughest opponent all season (where they were healthy). And to win the Super Bowl, they have to be able to beat these types of teams.

 

The defense didn't play well...maybe in the 2nd half when they had nothing to lose...but that game was basically over at half time. If the Colts offense hadn't been so bad and actually had been able to score a TD or two...I would bet that KC puts up another couple of TDs. KC played differently in the 2nd half...but outclassed the Colts defense big time in the 1st half.

 

The run defense was a surprise. But that's what happens when you face a top offense that has a legit passing game. It's hard to stop both...and unfortunately, they struggled to stop either until they were in a huge hole.  

 

The Colts played a poor game...but it wasn't a matter of just playing poorly...this team has some weaknesses that need addressed...WRS, DL, pass coverage, etc.  

 

We knew this at the start of the season.

I expect all those areas to be addressed this year.

[ojsglove]

52 minutes ago, WoolMagnet said:

What does that mean?

I think it's pretty obvious. Goode's version of what happened after his return from his brothers funeral appear to be true.  Might be a great coach, but not a very nice human.  This move will only solidify this team.  Yep, we got us a real coach, I see Frank coaching this team for as long as he wants. 

[WoolMagnet]

27 minutes ago, ojsglove said:

I think it's pretty obvious. Goode's version of what happened after his return from his brothers funeral appear to be true.  Might be a great coach, but not a very nice human.  This move will only solidify this team.  Yep, we got us a real coach, I see Frank coaching this team for as long as he wants. 

Thanks. I must have missed the "back story" when Good was released.  

[ojsglove]

Mystery solved, nothing to see here folks, move along.

[stitches]

 

[Trace Pyott]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

 

This exactly especially the 2 part where it says the truth is somewhere in between. Do I think our o line can get better next year?  I think it will just because we had two rookies playing and they should be much improved next year especially smith. 

[jbaron04]

Smh we had one of the best olines In the nfl, luck didn’t get sacked much and we get rid of him after one year

[Rackeen305]

HOF Russ Grimm is my choice.

[Cynjin]

45 minutes ago, Rackeen305 said:

HOF Russ Grimm is my choice.

 

Didn't he retire?  I guess if he has a really good relationship with Reich then he might consider coming out of retirement.

[jvan1973]

2 hours ago, jbaron04 said:

Smh we had one of the best olines In the nfl, luck didn’t get sacked much and we get rid of him after one year

I'm sure Ballard and company know what they are doing 

[AZColt11]

Interesting.

[pgt_rob]

3 hours ago, jbaron04 said:

Smh we had one of the best olines In the nfl, luck didn’t get sacked much and we get rid of him after one year

 

We also have a brand new 1st rounder and a brand new 2nd rounder on the offensive line that happen to be very good. So I think that has a lot to do with how we've played. 

[Coffeedrinker]

17 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Hmmm. Ouch. Yes, i saw what you did there.  

Sorry, throwing BBZ, I don't know what was in my post to cause this type of response but I can only say, I did not intend anything in my post to be directed towards you.  Just responding to your statement and saying I hope that is not what CB does.

 

Sorry if it came off more harsh than that.

[stitches]

 

 

[Surge89]

19 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Probably what happened was anytime Reich or Sirianni made a suggestion Degugle would say, "Well when I was with the Patriots we did...."

 

I know I personally hate when people do that.  I give a new hire three times, when they say it a fourth time I respond with, "Well I'm sure that company would be happy to have you back since you know the way THEY do things so well."  That usually puts a stop to it.

 

 

I have a feeling that if we ever meet in real life we would get along just fine lol.

 

Of course we could never talk college football lol!

[Surge89]

18 hours ago, TomDiggs said:

When we hired Reich, I strongly questioned keeping Gugs because he is known to be a historically Power run schemed coach. And most of what I read said Reich preferred a lot more zone type schemes. Especially if we have athletic linemen like we now do.

 

It would not surprise me if attitude, personality and scheme preferences all played a part.

 

It might not just be about "getting his guy" but more-so about getting a guy who can properly coach the nuances and intricacies of the zone scheme that Reich wants to run (if so).

 

There was a really good article i read from a couple years back where it detailed how Gugs coached more narrow stances and playing higher up and how it did not work well with some of his taller linemen and took away some leverage. It talked about how it helped w dealing w stunts but made a lot of his guys lose one on one, etc.

 

It would not surprise me if this is simply a replacing of a decent coach w a guy who can take us to the next level technique-wise in the scheme we want to run.

 

Ballard's comment about the big difficulty being going from "good" to great" rings home here. If we want the line to be "great" and to progress then maybe a move was needed.

 

I am sure some folks will overreact next year if we "take a step back".

 

News flash, unless we let up the fewest sacks in the league again, we are going to step back a bit. Numerically. It is almost inevitable. You cannot get better than #1 in sacks allowed lol,

 

But We can surely get better in nuances of technique and the ability to run the ball more consistently. We showed flashes but consistency wasn't paramount. Hopefully the new coach brings some more tools to add to the toolbox.

 

Whoa.... Someone who pays attention... 

 

Thank you for typing a paragraph I didn't have to lol. 

[Superman]

18 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

 

 

Nelson is the kind of guy who quietly goes about his business and doesn't say too much, so when he talks, I listen. Good insight from him here.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Nevermind

 

[stitches]

41 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Nelson is the kind of guy who quietly goes about his business and doesn't say too much, so when he talks, I listen. Good insight from him here.

Slauson chimes in too:

 

 

 

... and Ryan Kelly too:

 

 

 

Seems like they are mainly addressing Holder's tweet about him being just a motivator and not good technical coach. 

[CamMo]

All I got to say is I hope they like the next guy, because they obviously liked Guge. :/ 

[Coffeedrinker]

20 hours ago, TomDiggs said:

When we hired Reich, I strongly questioned keeping Gugs because he is known to be a historically Power run schemed coach. And most of what I read said Reich preferred a lot more zone type schemes. Especially if we have athletic linemen like we now do.

 

It would not surprise me if attitude, personality and scheme preferences all played a part.

 

It might not just be about "getting his guy" but more-so about getting a guy who can properly coach the nuances and intricacies of the zone scheme that Reich wants to run (if so).

 

There was a really good article i read from a couple years back where it detailed how Gugs coached more narrow stances and playing higher up and how it did not work well with some of his taller linemen and took away some leverage. It talked about how it helped w dealing w stunts but made a lot of his guys lose one on one, etc.

 

It would not surprise me if this is simply a replacing of a decent coach w a guy who can take us to the next level technique-wise in the scheme we want to run.

 

Ballard's comment about the big difficulty being going from "good" to great" rings home here. If we want the line to be "great" and to progress then maybe a move was needed.

 

I am sure some folks will overreact next year if we "take a step back".

 

News flash, unless we let up the fewest sacks in the league again, we are going to step back a bit. Numerically. It is almost inevitable. You cannot get better than #1 in sacks allowed lol,

 

But We can surely get better in nuances of technique and the ability to run the ball more consistently. We showed flashes but consistency wasn't paramount. Hopefully the new coach brings some more tools to add to the toolbox.

I'm glad @Surge89 quoted this post of yours.  By far the best post in this thread and about this subject.

[CurBeatElite]

On 1/15/2019 at 9:15 AM, 21isSuperman said:

This is interesting.  Many in New England were saying he was to blame for the poor OL play when Scarnecchia retired and DeGuglielmo replaced him.  No question this was McDaniels' guy, but the line did play much better this year than it has in recent years.  I wonder what role he played in that, or if it was just because we had better talent along the OL.  However, I trust Reich in making this decision.

 

see where I quoted @ColtStrong2013 below.   I think a lot of things went into our OL play this year, Guges being a small part of it.

 

 

On 1/15/2019 at 9:37 AM, NewColtsFan said:

 

Is there a way we can blame Chuck Pagano?

 

Just thought I'd ask................

 

 

If Chuck was good enough to not get fired, we probably never would have brought McDaniels in and in turn would probably never have seen Guges on our staff.

 

On 1/15/2019 at 9:40 AM, John Waylon said:

 

I do think this had some to do with it. His hard nosed style did not fit the culture Reich wants to build. Though the results were nice. If we fall back into the middle of the pack next year up front I’m gonna be pretty sad. 

 

Exactly.  I won't go as far as saying Reich is as calm as Dungy, but he definitely seems to have more of that mold as a coach (i.e., little yelling or screaming or berating players).  While Good may be one example (and it recently came out, so it may also have something to do with public perception), it sounds as though Guges definitely was a screamer and a yeller.  He got the guys to play hard for him, as Frank acknowledged throughout the season, which was good.... but Frank probably has someone in mind (see link posted about hiring Sirianni below) who he would've selected if Guges wasn't already on board through McDaniels.  Also, I don't see us (barring injury) falling back to middle of the pack with this offense, especially if we get another WR or 2 who can create separation (this was a major problem in the KC game and forced Luck to hold the ball longer than normal).  This unit gave up very few coverage sacks throughout the season because Luck is in a rhythm in this offense which gets the ball out of his hand very quick compared to years past.

 

On 1/15/2019 at 9:47 AM, ColtStrong2013 said:

He was not a fit here. There are too many reports out there how aggressive he was in his coaching. The report of Good was not a good look for a locker room that is working hard to be great. He didn't blame the Colts, he solely blamed this guy for being a butt to him after his brother died. 

 

This unit was night and day better for a number of reasons. This guy is likely pretty far down on the list of why. 

 

1. Better scheme under Reich

2. Adding Quenton Nelson and Braden Smith

3. Veteran leadership from Slauson

4. Glowinski pickup

5. Healthiest and most consistent line we have had in years. 

6. This guy

 

I agree with you, though I may put the healthiest and most consistent line we have had in years a little higher to #3.  However, we still didn't have a totally healthy or consistent OL... Slauson got hurt after starting 5 games, Haeg and Clark were starters early in the year (we didn't really see Braden Smith until week 5), Kelly had some injuries and there were a few games where our 3rd string C (Josh Andrews) had to come in to replace Boehm.  Big Q was the only OL to start all 16 games for us.  In my opinion, that'll be the biggest thing for us going forward.  I tend to think we can upgrade Glowinski/Slauson at RG (whether it be move Smith there and bring in a new RT or whether Haeg or Clark develop enough to win a starting spot on the right side of the line is TBD).  I definitely thought there was an obvious drop-off in the OL when Kelly was out, so hopefully they can figure out how to keep him on the field for the entire season.  Anyway, if we get some WRs that can separate from the defenders and lessen our drops next year, that'll only just help Luck get the ball out faster and have the offense running smoother than it did this year.  I also think Q became a leader of this team over the course of the season.  While I love that Slauson helped a lot of the young guys, I tend to think he's pretty expendable at his age coming off that injury and imagine Q can light a fire under this OL week-in/week-out.  

 

On 1/15/2019 at 9:52 AM, Chloe6124 said:

After seeing the way the oline played against KC I say good ridence. Frank will get his own guy and that is very important.

 

I won’t be suprised if frank eventually gets his own d and o coordinator also if things don’t improve a ton next year.

 

The O coordinator was hand-picked by Reich.  Reich is still responsible for play calling, but Sirianni has a lot to do with planning their offensive attack and is in constant communication with Reich from the booth during Sunday.  Read here: https://www.1070thefan.com/blogs/kevins-corner/colts-coverage/frank-reich-always-knew-nick-sirianni-would-be-his-colts

 

On 1/15/2019 at 10:09 AM, Chloe6124 said:

Well l I am sure he loves football and the colts enough he might. Don’t  frank and him have some history when Reich interned with Dungy.

 

Reich coached in Indy 2006-2011 (Saturday's last year in Indy was 2011).  Reich started as an intern for 2 years than an offensive assistant and then QB coach.  I am sure he and Saturday have some sort of chemistry from spending 5 years together.

 

Where I see Saturday being a good fit is: (1) he's a former Indy player and still very well respected in the organization as a member of 'The Ring of Honor', (2) he was one of the most cerebral centers in NFL history, running the O with Peyton Manning (it sounds like Kelly is responsible for a lot of the O's success by helping Luck orchestrate the line on the field, much like Saturday did with Peyton).

 

Where I may not see Saturday fitting is: (1) He doesn't have prior NFL coaching experience, and we all know that good/great players don't always translate into good/great coaches, and (2) It seems like we're trying to build a more power group in Indy than what Saturday played with in his time.  We were primarily a pass-protection unit during most of Saturday's tenure in Indy (especially after the Edge years) and we very rarely had a 'run it down their throat' mentality.  I get the impression that we want some sort of mix with our line, but are leading toward a dominant physical unit, which we never really had during the the Saturday/Manning era Colts.

 

I would be more in favor of seeing Saturday come in kind of like a Robert Mathis and start more as an assistant positions coach/mentor to see how good of a coach he can be (or is) before flat out offering him the OL coach position... but why would Saturday give up his TV personality gig to do that?

 

 

23 hours ago, MacDee1975 said:

 

2 more playoff performances like that, and they will.

 

You really think the head coach would be the fall guy in his first year?

 

Next time will be coordinators, next time after that will be Reich?

 

Is this the first year you've followed the NFL?  This scenario has happened hundreds of times in the past.

 

Very rarely when a team went 4-12 and had as many holes as our team had is a first year HC let go after leading a team to the playoffs and picking up a dominating win in the first round.

 

 

21 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

My word, I sincerely hope not.  The GM should not have an offensive or defensive system he believes in, should not have any preconceived ideas of standards, it should only come from talking with the coaches and determining the attributes they think are important and watching film and getting examples of what those top traits look like.

 

 

I disagree here.  Ballard came in to build a system which he has seen run successfully in the past (or some modification of that).  Out of respect to Pagano, Irsay gave him a year to work with Ballard after Grigs was fired.  It was pretty clear then, at least defensively, that Ballard was mostly bringing guys in that could transition to a 4-3/cover2 defense if Pags didn't work out.  

 

I do think you are correct that Ballard needs to address the coaches and be very tightly on the same page with them, but I think Ballard had the vision for what kind of coaches and schemes he wanted to see brought into Indy to build this franchise back to legitimacy.  However, Ballard had a vision when he was brought to Indy and he's hired guys who can help him achieve getting there to be coaches.  He definitely has experience as a scout and a good track record in the NFL prior to Indy.  Sure it's important he communicate with the coaches, but he's also got to have a keen eye for the kind of talent and the kind of personalities that he wants to see in Indy.

[CurBeatElite]

From front page of Colts.com:  @Superman was right w/ his Occam's Razor analogy

 

From the front page of Colts.com interview with Reich:

 

On recent changes to the coaching staff, including assistant offensive line coach Bobby Johnson being named the Buffalo Bills’ offensive line coach, and deciding to part ways with offensive line coach Dave DeGuglielmo:

“Obviously in Bobby’s case, it was a tremendous opportunity for him. You know, right after the season, I got a call right after the season — in fact, I got a call from those guys noting there could be some interest. And so it’s a great opportunity for Bobby to go there and be the offensive line coach. And then, of course, after the season, you know, just decided to part ways with Guge. And that was really hard, because I so much respect Guge as a person and as a coach. You know, he played a significant role in us coming in here and the success we had. And it’s hard — it’s hard to explain. It was really odd dynamics the way that he and I got connected, and it’s no reflection on him or anything; it’s just when I had envisioned getting this position, you know, there’s certain things that you just are looking for, in ways that you just want to have ‘my guy,’ for lack of a better way to say. You always envision bringing in the guy that you had envisioned bringing in. But certainly appreciate the contribution Guge made, and I told him that, and love and respect him.”

[Coffeedrinker]

16 hours ago, CurBeatElite said:

I disagree here.  Ballard came in to build a system which he has seen run successfully in the past (or some modification of that).  Out of respect to Pagano, Irsay gave him a year to work with Ballard after Grigs was fired.  It was pretty clear then, at least defensively, that Ballard was mostly bringing guys in that could transition to a 4-3/cover2 defense if Pags didn't work out.  

Wow, you are busy with your quotes.   Good work.  I will give you the system somewhat, Chicago ran a cover 2 type D for a bit while he was there, but not always and KC did not run a cover 2 type at all. But the attributes, that is up to the coaches to decided, it's up to the GM to figure out how to grade players in those attributes.

 

I will say I don't think Pagano staying on for a year was "out of respect" for Pagano, I think @DarkSupermannailed it the other day in his "tanking a season" post.  I think Irsay/CB wanted to tank the season so they could start the rebuild.

 

 

16 hours ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

I do think you are correct that Ballard needs to address the coaches and be very tightly on the same page with them, but I think Ballard had the vision for what kind of coaches and schemes he wanted to see brought into Indy to build this franchise back to legitimacy.  However, Ballard had a vision when he was brought to Indy and he's hired guys who can help him achieve getting there to be coaches.  He definitely has experience as a scout and a good track record in the NFL prior to Indy.  Sure it's important he communicate with the coaches, but he's also got to have a keen eye for the kind of talent and the kind of personalities that he wants to see in Indy.

I completely disagree about an eye for talent because there is no set definition of "talent".  Talent is the combination of attributes and the attributes and priority of those attributes is determined by conversations with the coaches, coordinators and position coaches.  Glowinski is a perfect example.  Glow was not talented enough for Seattle, that is why they let him but he comes to the Colts and does very well.  Did he all of a sudden become more talented?  No, he just came to a team that wanted and was able to teach him how to use his attributes.

 

Anyway, welcome to the board and I hope you keep posting, especially posts like these, they were enjoyable to read.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Wow, you are busy with your quotes.   Good work.  I will give you the system somewhat, Chicago ran a cover 2 type D for a bit while he was there, but not always and KC did not run a cover 2 type at all. But the attributes, that is up to the coaches to decided, it's up to the GM to figure out how to grade players in those attributes.

 

I will say I don't think Pagano staying on for a year was "out of respect" for Pagano, I think @DarkSupermannailed it the other day in his "tanking a season" post.  I think Irsay/CB wanted to tank the season so they could start the rebuild.

 

 

I completely disagree about an eye for talent because there is no set definition of "talent".  Talent is the combination of attributes and the attributes and priority of those attributes is determined by conversations with the coaches, coordinators and position coaches.  Glowinski is a perfect example.  Glow was not talented enough for Seattle, that is why they let him but he comes to the Colts and does very well.  Did he all of a sudden become more talented?  No, he just came to a team that wanted and was able to teach him how to use his attributes.

 

Anyway, welcome to the board and I hope you keep posting, especially posts like these, they were enjoyable to read.

I think the notion of Irsay/Ballard wanting to tank the season opens the can of worms about mild conspiracies.  If they wanted to tank, then they would have encouraged Luck to stay away, in that if he played, he may have led us to a 7-9 or 8-8 season like he did in the past with the same players and coaches.  Also, that would mean at the same time they were encouraging him to stay away, they were telling the fans something else.  I don't buy that Irsay/Ballard was tanking the season, but I think they probably had concerns about Luck's recovery and acquired Brissett with that belief.

 

Also, I think Ballard drafted Hooker and Wilson without the idea of playing a zone the next season since I think their primary values were single high deep play for Hooker and man coverage  for Wilson.  That points more towards Pagano's 34 than to a 43, IMO.

 

As far as talent, I think of talent as something god-given where as skills are something that is acquired.  Many lack talent but make up for that by working hard to acquire greater skill.   I'm not sure how to use the term "attributes" (certain talents and skills in certain areas and not others?), but in the context of your comment, I would say that Glow lacked the skills or skill-level Seattle desired but that the Colts found useful.  Not to mention that he worked hard and acquired more skill as he gained more experience.  For example, I wouldn't say a player's overall talent changes, improves or wanes....unless they get bigger/stronger/quicker/ or injured or get too old.  JMO.