Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
compuls1v3

The Mudd Technique

Recommended Posts

When I think of Mudd, I recall the beauty of the two WR, two TE set with the stretch play and/or the play action off of said stretch play. 

 

Mack showed A LOT more patience last year and I think his one cut and go speed would be reminiscent of pre-Kansas City horsecollar tackle (aka blown knee play) Edge.

 

Plus our lineman are uber athletes and can pull with the best of them if we ran stretch plays out of a 3 wide set too!

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, compuls1v3 said:

Interesting article about our new o-line coach and Howard Mudd.

 

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2019/5/13/18585089/the-mudd-technique-and-how-it-impacts-braden-smith

This is one of the better pieces you will ever find on Stampede Blue!   Really top level.

 

Should be required reading for everyone here who loves O-line play.

 

Hope people like @Coffeedrinker and @Supermanand others will take the time to read it.   Think they will seriously enjoy it.  

 

We didn’t just change our OL coach.   We are changing our OL philosophy.  Feels like for the better. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Four2itus said:

"My name is Mudd....."

 

Kirk always had problems with that guy.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

This is one of the better pieces you will ever find on Stampede Blue!   Really top level.

 

Should be required reading for everyone here who loves O-line play.

 

Hope people like @Coffeedrinker and @Supermanand others will take the time to read it.   Think they will seriously enjoy it.  

 

We didn’t just change our OL coach.   We are changing our OL philosophy.  Feels like for the better. 

It better turn out to be "better" or it will be the unexpected weakness that another post here couldn't find.  If you lead the league in pass protection, it's a high bar to say something completely different will be better.  Perhaps the changes are primarily run blocking? I'll have to read it when I have time to focus on it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JPFolks said:

It better turn out to be "better" or it will be the unexpected weakness that another post here couldn't find.  If you lead the league in pass protection, it's a high bar to say something completely different will be better.  Perhaps the changes are primarily run blocking? I'll have to read it when I have time to focus on it.  

It actually talks about attacking in pass protection, instead of waiting for the rush to come to you. I believe its improving on something they did well last year.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JPFolks said:

It better turn out to be "better" or it will be the unexpected weakness that another post here couldn't find.  If you lead the league in pass protection, it's a high bar to say something completely different will be better.  Perhaps the changes are primarily run blocking? I'll have to read it when I have time to focus on it.  

I think Most are confident and comfortable that there won't be any step back, and are optomistic that there will be at least small improvements in our line under Mudd and the actual OL coach ( i keep forgetting his name!)  Both are highly thought of, one extremely highly....  

 

One point that bears watching..... he's been in the league a few years now and should be coming into his own...  Joe Haeg that is, whom Mudd was VERY high on when he first got to Indy and said he had the most natural talent on the OL (that although it was before our current OL Era, did include Castonzo)  I will be keeping an eye on OL developments, and would like to see them tap into any unfulfilled potential Joe might have....  Clark too, but especially Haeg after knowing Mudd felt that way about his raw ability

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been happy with this offseason, but having Mudd back is the icing on the cake!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 11:18 AM, Four2itus said:

"My name is Mudd....."

Not to be confused with Bill or Jack or Pete or Dennis...

 

Saw Primus open up for Rush at Market Square on that tour. They played a short set even by "opener" standards, but they did play My Name is Mud, but even better, they closed their set with a cover of Metsllicas Master of Puppets...

 

I lost my lid at that show...

 

Everytime i've heard Howard's Mudd's name i automatically hear that bass riff in my head...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think the vast majority of Oline players would prefer to play this way. To be able to be aggressive and take the attack to the defensive players. It's why Olinemen like running plays so much. I think the biggest needs would be fitness and depth. Judging by Nelson and his mentality of  running upfield after every single play last year, I think it is a play style that he is going to love!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Buck Showalter said:

Not to be confused with Bill or Jack or Pete or Dennis...

 

Saw Primus open up for Rush at Market Square on that tour. They played a short set even by "opener" standards, but they did play My Name is Mud, but even better, they closed their set with a cover of Metsllicas Master of Puppets...

 

I lost my lid at that show...

 

Everytime i've heard Howard's Mudd's name i automatically hear that bass riff in my head...

They are such a unique group, I absolutely love them!  Funny, as soon as I read the topic, my mind went to that song.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 2:03 PM, Scott Pennock said:

When I think of Mudd, I recall the beauty of the two WR, two TE set with the stretch play and/or the play action off of said stretch play. 

 

Mack showed A LOT more patience last year and I think his one cut and go speed would be reminiscent of pre-Kansas City horsecollar tackle (aka blown knee play) Edge.

 

Plus our lineman are uber athletes and can pull with the best of them if we ran stretch plays out of a 3 wide set too!

I’m glad you brought up Mack. He is getting a lot better each season. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long post coming, sorry.

 

Finally got a chance to really take this piece in. It's good work. I appreciate them getting into what Mudd teaches, how that's shown up with Strausser in the NFL, and how it will benefit the Colts. 

 

Something that I've been mentioning with OL prospects is the need to get the hands more engaged and use hands/arms to control the rusher. IMO, this is the biggest issue with LeRaven Clark, and it's a shame because he has incredibly long arms, and showed good feet and good movement ability in college. If he can pair those up -- get his hands and arms engaged and on blockers, and connect his feet and his steps to maintain balance and leverage -- he might have some success. And he has the physical tools to play either tackle spot, so he'd provide much needed depth on both sides.

 

As for Smith, the article highlights his role and play at RT last year. The idea is that he's better when attacking than when taking a passive pass pro set, and that's probably true. But the examples shown highlight part of the reason he has to stay back in his set -- I don't think he has the lateral range to take on wide rushers, and still protect against inside counters. If he extends himself to the outside, he'll be vulnerable to a counter because he doesn't have the quickness and change of direction to respond.

 

There are two reps against Dee Ford. On one, he stays back and gets rocked by a bull rush. On the second, he turns to cut off the outside, and gets beat by a spin back to the inside. On both plays, he could have been more aggressive, but the question is whether he could have handled the counter on either play. The first, his aggressiveness probably would have stopped the bull rush, but it was Ford going speed-to-power and getting into Smith's chest that caused the problem; if Ford has countered inside, it might have been a different story. And the second, I think being aggressive would have resulted in the same inside move, which Ford seemed to be waiting to use. 

 

Smith doesn't have the length to extend his range in either direction -- his arms are four inches shorter than Clark's, he's in the 16th percentile for interior OL, 10th percentile for all OL, and would probably be in the 5th percentile among tackles. He doesn't have the foot speed and lateral agility / change of direction to make up for his limited length. 

 

I do think that more aggressive pass pro sets -- treating every pass play like it's play action and taking the fight to the rusher, along with the handshake method to latch on to the rusher, both staples of Mudd's technique -- will help Smith. And he's already very good in the run game, as a result of his overall size and power, as well as being pretty good moving toward the action. I still think he's a better guard prospect than tackle prospect, but hopefully Mudd and Strausser can help him improve with his technique and hand usage at RT.

 

And along the way, maybe they can salvage some of the natural tools and ability that Clark hasn't been able to utilize. Because physically, he fits the profile better than Smith does, IMO.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 11:03 AM, Scott Pennock said:

Plus our lineman are uber athletes and can pull with the best of them if we ran stretch plays out of a 3 wide set too!

 

I would love to see the stretch play come back. But I think Wilkins is the better back for that play than Mack.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 2:03 PM, Scott Pennock said:

When I think of Mudd, I recall the beauty of the two WR, two TE set with the stretch play and/or the play action off of said stretch play. 

 

Mack showed A LOT more patience last year and I think his one cut and go speed would be reminiscent of pre-Kansas City horsecollar tackle (aka blown knee play) Edge.

 

Plus our lineman are uber athletes and can pull with the best of them if we ran stretch plays out of a 3 wide set too!

What comes to mind regarding stretch plays, especially now is more time for both TY and Campbell to get down the field for huge plays. As long as the oline can give luck the extra sec or two for a clean release/throw smh. Like Magic.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I would love to see the stretch play come back. But I think Wilkins is the better back for that play than Mack.

You may be right on that one. He does seem to be a bit more patient and then he cuts upfield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Is what Reich was talking about when he says he wants a better run game.  It has to do with the oline. Not more runs or better better running backs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Dr. T said:

Harcourt Fenton Mudd, that is!

mudd.jpg

 

On 5/16/2019 at 12:53 AM, Smonroe said:

 

Kirk always had problems with that guy.  

AggressiveIllGrayfox-size_restricted.gif

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Four2itus said:

 

AggressiveIllGrayfox-size_restricted.gif

 

The actor who plays Dwight on the office plays mudd in the new Star Trek disco.  It’s pretty good 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

This Is what Reich was talking about when he says he wants a better run game.  It has to do with the oline. Not more runs or better better running backs.

 

The Colts threw the ball 40 times a game last year.    I think that was either first or second in the NFL last year.

 

If you think Reich wants to throw the ball 40 times a game this year again I think you’re mistaken.    I think that number will be smaller.    Let’s make a note if thus and check back in January and see who is right.   Fair enough?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

The Colts threw the ball 40 times a game last year.    I think that was either first or second in the NFL last year.

 

If you think Reich wants to throw the ball 40 times a game this year again I think you’re mistaken.    I think that number will be smaller.    Let’s make a note if thus and check back in January and see who is right.   Fair enough?

With all the weapons  we may have I'd imagine atleast 30 times a game

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Stephen said:

With all the weapons  we may have I'd imagine atleast 30 times a game

 

Honestly, I still think we’ll throw 35-36 times a game...

 

But that may lead to 4-5 more runs per game which I think Reich wants to help run the clock. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Honestly, I still think we’ll throw 35-36 times a game...

 

But that may lead to 4-5 more runs per game which I think Reich wants to help run the clock. 

 

Ideally, you still want to only be passing 25-35 times a game. Balance is still key to winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Restored said:

 

Ideally, you still want to only be passing 25-35 times a game. Balance is still key to winning.

 

I agree that balance is the key to winning....     and last year,  we had almost 67 plays per game.  40 passing,  and nearly 27 running.     Not the balance you want. 

 

If you go over to NFL.com you'll see that most QB's are throwing 30-40 pass attempts per game.

 

I think right around 35 is the sweet spot.     Below 30 is putting a lot of pressure on the running game to sustain an offense for 60 minutes.     You might get that for a game here or there,  but not for a whole season.

 

Here are the Colts stats for last year:

 

https://www.colts.com/team/stats/

 

And here are the stats for the league from NFL.com

 

Note of caution:   There are lots of categories, and lots of settings to change for your search.   

 

http://www.nfl.com/stats/player

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Balance is more of an organic byproduct, IMO. I'm more concerned with efficiency and situational success than with a focus on run/pass balance. If the offense is efficient and scores a lot of points, and the defense gets stops, that "balance" will be obvious. 

 

But I also think there will be matchups that lend to more passing, and others that will call for more running. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Superman said:

Balance is more of an organic byproduct, IMO. I'm more concerned with efficiency and situational success than with a focus on run/pass balance. If the offense is efficient and scores a lot of points, and the defense gets stops, that "balance" will be obvious. 

 

But I also think there will be matchups that lend to more passing, and others that will call for more running. 

The bolded is right on. If a team defends you with 8 in most of the game, you're run pass #'s will be unbalanced. 

 

Colts certainly have the ability for big plays, stretching the field, and so on. Running the ball effectively when we are 3rd and 2.5 to 3 yards out, has been one of our biggest challenges. The Pats at that same down and distance, have created the ability to do several things effectively by being proficient and consistent with all of them. You know  that Edleman/Welker/Amendola types can get that 3 yard pass, and it seems you have to defend it to the point of weakening your run defense. 

 

The Colts had something similar with Manning/Edge/Marvin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m no expert by any means on Oline technique, so I invite anyone to tell me if I’m on the right tracks with my concern.

 

So with the Mudd technique, if the T ‘misses’ (in other words, the Dlineman slips the block) wouldn’t they be able to get to the QB quicker?

 

Normally, the T is backpedaling, keeping the attacker in front of him.  The D may try to slip or bullrush but the T can keep moving backwards to move his man to the side or past the QB.  If the Mudd T is moving forward and the D slips him, can he recover?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2019 at 12:56 AM, NewColtsFan said:

 

I agree that balance is the key to winning....     and last year,  we had almost 67 plays per game.  40 passing,  and nearly 27 running.     Not the balance you want. 

 

If you go over to NFL.com you'll see that most QB's are throwing 30-40 pass attempts per game.

 

I think right around 35 is the sweet spot.     Below 30 is putting a lot of pressure on the running game to sustain an offense for 60 minutes.     You might get that for a game here or there,  but not for a whole season.

 

Here are the Colts stats for last year:

 

https://www.colts.com/team/stats/

 

And here are the stats for the league from NFL.com

 

Note of caution:   There are lots of categories, and lots of settings to change for your search.   

 

http://www.nfl.com/stats/player

 

In the games the Colts won last year (not including the playoff game), Andrew threw 31, 23, 31, 29, 29, 37, 41, 27, 47 and 35 times which comes out to an average of 33 passes a game so you're pretty much right on with your assessment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2019 at 11:56 PM, NewColtsFan said:

 

I agree that balance is the key to winning....     and last year,  we had almost 67 plays per game.  40 passing,  and nearly 27 running.     Not the balance you want. 

 

If you go over to NFL.com you'll see that most QB's are throwing 30-40 pass attempts per game.

 

I think right around 35 is the sweet spot.     Below 30 is putting a lot of pressure on the running game to sustain an offense for 60 minutes.     You might get that for a game here or there,  but not for a whole season.

 

Here are the Colts stats for last year:

 

https://www.colts.com/team/stats/

 

And here are the stats for the league from NFL.com

 

Note of caution:   There are lots of categories, and lots of settings to change for your search.   

 

http://www.nfl.com/stats/player

I think we will see 2-3 more jet sweeps per game...... Campbell will see some big runs.... I hope

 

We also need to use the new, bigger RB to soften up the defense a bit, and maybe be used to grind out the clock in the 4th qtr.

 

I also think that some of the 3rd and short distance downs will now get a run vs a pass.

 

All these things collectively, should help implement a more balanced offense... and tip it over to a run first team

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a good article, thanks @NewColtsFan for pointing it out.  The video clips showing some different aspects was nice but it was a bit of a fluff piece.  Yes, Mudd keeps it simple... do whatever it takes to keep the defender off the QB.  But that is not really "the Mudd Technique".  Inside that simple concept is a myriad of technique items that is what had made Mudd one of the top oline coaches for decades.  Things like for years, the technique was to play on the balls of your feet but Mudd taught to stay flat footed for two basic reasons, one when you are all the balls of your feet you are negating one of the strongest muscles in the body, the arch.  If you are on the balls of your feet, then you have about half of your cleats off the ground.  Mudd is also a stickler for hand placement, where the hands, elbows and shoulders need to be, exactly how far to step on the initial power step and each step after, the proper way to shuffle side to side, etc. 

 

So, it was a good article and I like reading anything related to Mudd, and I'm glad they brought in an oline coach that has studied and implemented Mudd's techniques before.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that jumps out at me is that "all passes are play action."

The thing that almost frustrated me the most with Pag's offense

was that Luck would hand the ball off and stare down the RB. 

 

This will work even better this year as there are more offensive

weapons on the roster that need attention by the defense. 

 

Bring on the frickin' Jags. We owe them for that doughnut they

laid on us last year!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • we are in a division that likes to run too.   the titans and texans ranked 7th and 8th in rushing yards, while the colts and jaguars were 19th and 20th.  that was down year for the jaguars, the previous year they were top 5
    • People love to prognosticate. My crystal ball broke so I don't have any insight into the future, but Ballard is using particular criteria (data) that has shown to be better predictors than merely guessing. Let's watch to see whether his approach to dealing with the unknown is better than other teams. I think we will be surprised.
    • Remember,  we are not debating whether Spring is doable.   I've stated from the beginning that I agree.    It's not as bad as some here think it is.    It's doable,   No question.   We are debating whether Spring is preferable, or desireable.    So, when you write,  that you don't think you have to say more about an issue,  any issue,  I'm sorry,   but NO!     You DO have to say more.  A heckuva lot more.    Because YOU have the burden of proof.    My position is the Industry Standard.   Your's has, by comparison,  a handful of examples.   Some are recent.   That's great.   But I view that as a nod to the position that it's doable.    You view it as a possibility that it might soon become the norm.   I'm happy to wait until that actually happens.   As to your primary argument.....    that all the prep work has been done,  and if you make the changes in winter,  that the GM is not up to speed on what the current scouts and player personnel people have done.    Except there is this......   Your argument that you yourself use to others here who complain that changing in the spring is bad.   To quote you....   it's just one draft.    One free agency period.    And there will soon be another,  and then another....   and another.   One season is nothing in the grand scheme of things.   That is what you wrote (roughly) to posters who think making the GM change in the spring is outright terrible and stupid.    Which I strongly disagree with their positin.   Your argument makes my argument for me.    I want the new GM in the building ASAP.    So he can sooner evaluate his players.    His front office.    His scouts.    The entire program.   Waiting until May or June just delays that.    I want it to begin ASAP.   I'd expect that he can and would be able to make some level of difference in his first free agency and draft.    Plus,  I think you way, way over-dramatize the handicap the new GM has arriving in January.   He's the GM.    He's already got a ton of information in his head,  and in his notebooks, his binders.    He's not in as much of a bind as you like to portray.     So, with your desired scenario, this draft could be used for a system that the new GM doesn't even want to run.    Like Chuck running a 3-4,  when Ballard wants to run a 4-3.    Like Chuck wanted to run a power running game and a deep pattern passing game.    While Ballard favors a zone running game and a get rid of the ball quick, move the chains offense.     In your preferred scenario,  you're the one who is burning the first year the GM has,  not me.     I see little of the benefits and mostly an approach that screams....   "Gee,  I hope this works out."   By the way,  I didn't want this post to end without addressing one of your main points.   Your paragraph that starts with this:   My Point:  There are always good candidates...   same is true for head coaches and coordinators.    I'm sorry,  but I'm going to STRONGLY disagree with that argument.  And I think you'll retract that.    Every so often you'll see an article about how did the class of GM's from a previous year turn out?   Or head coach hires?    I used to tell posters here who hated Pagano that the class of head coaches that included Chuck,  that all of the other coaches got fired before Chuck.    That Chuck was the best of his class.   And that happens with GM's too.   A class gets hired,  and quite often most of them, sometimes all of them don't work out.   I believe my position has far more facts to back that up.    There isn't always a Sean McVey.  There isn't always a Kyle Shannahan.   There isn't always a Josh McDaniels.   There aren't 32 good GM's, or 32 good head coaches,  or 32 good offensive or defensive coordinators.   That's why so many teams struggle for years to get those spots right.   So, no, I absolutely reject the idea that there are always good candidates.    Sorry.   I know you believe what you're writing.   But honestly, this feels like one big thought experiment. Like you're trying to make a case for something you really don't believe,  but you're trying to see if you can make a good argument anyway.   And yet I know that's NOT the case.    That you really, honestly do believe this.    That's what I find so astonishing.    There's lots of opinion,  and not a lot of evidence to back this up.    As I've said from the get-go....   I think this is doable.    I just don't think it's desireable or preferable.  
    • To your last paragraph....   yes,  I agree that if a GM,  any GM, inherits a bad roster,  then no matter how OK his draft picks may be,   they will likely stick on the roster.   But if you're a GM inheriting a poor team,  and you draft players that are only somewhat better than what you originally had,  then the improvement in the team will only be so good.   Again,  from 4 wis,  to perhaps 6-7.    That wouldn't be bad.    That would be reasonable.   But when you suddenly pop to 10 wins,  including 9 of the last 10 in the regular season,  and you win on the road in the playoffs,   then there's got to be something more there than just the GM's new guys.    Those guys have got to be good.    You can't do that well simply because they're better than the previous guys.    They're much better.    Yes, the coaching staff is better and the systems the team is running are better,  but so are the players.    They have to execute.    And we did.   Better than we thought possible.    Certainly better than when we were 1-5 and looked like a candidate for a top-10 or even a top-5 draft pick.    The players are good.   They may not be great yet,  but they're really good and much better than what we had.    The results are all the proof you need.   Again,  thanks for the exchange....  
  • Members

    • Behle

      Behle 17

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Btown_Colt

      Btown_Colt 374

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • lincolndefan

      lincolndefan 2

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • PeterBowman

      PeterBowman 2,807

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • IndySouthsider

      IndySouthsider 232

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • jal8908

      jal8908 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • twfish

      twfish 1,516

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nadine

      Nadine 7,321

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • tdblue17

      tdblue17 3

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Smonroe

      Smonroe 9,354

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...