Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Jim Irsay sounds pumped up!


RockThatBlue

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Basically, here's how I see it with Pagano. Is he bottom 5? No, but he's close. People on here complain that we haven't given him enough defensive talent to work with, which is probably true. However, you look at the flipside. We've given him plenty of offensive talent to work with, and it's a disaster most weeks. Inconsistent, slow starts, where we are down by double digit leads most games and have to play catch up. Pagano has plenty of talent to work with on the offense and we still struggle. What makes you think that things would be any different on the defensive side if there was more talent?

 

If we were scoring around 30 points a game and allowing the other team to score after us almost every game and ended up 8-8 the last two years solely because of a great offense but terrible defense, I'd give Pagano the benefit of the doubt that the defense was costing the team games. It's because of bad offense and defense though, even though the offense is solid and we have Luck at QB. You can say statistically we have a top 10 Offense, but it really doesn't do any good when we struggle all game and put garbage time stats most games. The only two games we dominated from start to finish last year were the Jets and Vikings. Have to do better than that.

The offense playing with a less than average defense does effect games and the plays called. Add the lack of a running game and that puts untold pressure on the offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 201
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

The offense playing with a less than average defense does effect games and the plays called. Add the lack of a running game and that puts untold pressure on the offense.

If you are talking about Trent Richardson, I agree. Frank Gore is a fine RB though and even though he is old, he's still more than done his job. It's a lack of playcalling with him that hurt us, not a lack of production from Gore. If we ran him 15-20 times a game, he'd get 80 yards a game. He can also catch the ball. I think Turbin can be a solid #2, though Grigson was messing with that from what I heard. The defense is bad, but Pagano struggles with both units, so I don't believe as much as some that he would use a better defense effectively. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, colts8718 said:

Still can not understand why Pagano is still here 

 

That's okay, we've all reached our apex of compression at some points in our lives.  

 

For some it's quantum physics, for some it's trying to figure out why a coach with one of the best records in the league is still coaching.  

 

We're all doing our best.  You'll catch on one day.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

A 49-31 regular season record with a 6-3 record in the playoffs kind of explains itself. Throw in Grigsons lack of fielding an average defense and Luck missing most of a season also explains it even further.

IMO it is not hard to understand.

Good post overall but Pagano has a 3-3 record in the playoffs not 6-3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

That's okay, we've all reached our apex of compression at some points in our lives.  

 

For some it's quantum physics, for some it's trying to figure out why a coach with one of the best records in the league is still coaching.  

 

We're all doing our best.  You'll catch on one day.   

I prefer quantum mechanics myself.  But to each his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

If you recall Pagano took this team to three 11-5 seasons when he first came to the Colts. He might have done his best coaching job going 8-8 without Luck and 4 other QBs in his 4th year. IMO Pagano's lack of play makers to work with last season was not on his shoulders.

I have no clue as to what the future will bring but Pagano's hands were tied with players that Grigson brought in.

He does have a few up and coming players so I guess we will all just sit back and see.

Under all the negative things that this team has been through his record is still 49-23 in regular season.

No offense not trying to be that guy...but Chuck went 2-2 that first year. Arians was 9-3 as the interim head coach. No doubt I think with better players we've seen the team perform better....however Chuck was still coaching the players Grigson brought in when they were 11-5 anyways. I'm optimistic we can get back to the playoffs again with Ballard doing a good job but I'm not quite sure Pagano is the guy that can be the difference maker in putting us over the top. Jim sounds positive everyone is on the same page...but if the slow starts and the team still flounders and players aren't developed...Chuck won't have anyone left to point the finger at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, dgambill said:

No offense not trying to be that guy...but Chuck went 2-2 that first year. Arians was 9-3 as the interim head coach. No doubt I think with better players we've seen the team perform better....however Chuck was still coaching the players Grigson brought in when they were 11-5 anyways. I'm optimistic we can get back to the playoffs again with Ballard doing a good job but I'm not quite sure Pagano is the guy that can be the difference maker in putting us over the top. Jim sounds positive everyone is on the same page...but if the slow starts and the team still flounders and players aren't developed...Chuck won't have anyone left to point the finger at.

I agree. I have no clue as to what the Colts will be when we start the season for sure.

My only point is I am not going to assume that Pagano is not going to a good job as some believe.

His record overall is not that bad and has yet to have a losing season.

One of the problems is an 8-8 record seems worse than it is after the long history of better seasons. IMO calling the Colts with Pagano as the head coach the bottom of the league is an exaggeration and a knee jerk reaction because of the history over the last few seasons.

I am going to stay optimistic with the changes made and the new and up coming players already on the roster. Add a decent draft and IMO we will be competitive in the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

So you don't believe in the concept of Parcells when he said if your expected to cook the dinner at least they ought to let you shop for some of the groceries?

 

 

 

Thing about that is Pagano is not a cook.  He's more like a whopper flopper   

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

If you are talking about Trent Richardson, I agree. Frank Gore is a fine RB though and even though he is old, he's still more than done his job. It's a lack of playcalling with him that hurt us, not a lack of production from Gore. If we ran him 15-20 times a game, he'd get 80 yards a game. He can also catch the ball. I think Turbin can be a solid #2, though Grigson was messing with that from what I heard. The defense is bad, but Pagano struggles with both units, so I don't believe as much as some that he would use a better defense effectively. 

Richardson didn't come to mind. Gore at his age is not a 15-20 carry a game RB IMO.

Not to be argumentative but Pagano done a good job before the last two seasons and reasons beyond his control contributed to a 8-8 record over the last two seasons. Taking this team to a 8-8 season the year Luck was out might have been his best job under the circumstances.

It is pretty apparent that the players like and play hard for Pagano and IMO that means a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Say what you like but Pagano has yet to have a losing season. Ignoring facts is a sign of not seeing the bigger picture.

 

No, you don't get it.  For example, Sean Payton is a much better coach, see?  Everyone knows it.  His three years of 7-9 is better than Chucks last three seasons.  

 

Therefor, winning seasons shouldn't be an indicator.   

 

Egad, why can't people see that? It's sooooo simple.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

Richardson didn't come to mind. Gore at his age is not a 15-20 carry a game RB IMO.

Not to be argumentative but Pagano done a good job before the last two seasons and reasons beyond his control contributed to a 8-8 record over the last two seasons. Taking this team to a 8-8 season the year Luck was out might have been his best job under the circumstances.

It is pretty apparent that the players like and play hard for Pagano and IMO that means a lot.

The 8-8 records actually were more due to the poor drafting of Grigson from 2013, and no defensive help besides Vontae from 2012-2014. It finally caught up to us. Not to mention the poor FA classes. I agree going 5-3 without Luck was excellent, but the continued slow starts are unacceptable. Whether it's offense or defense it seems we are struggling. The players may like Pagano, but I don't think they respect him or they wouldn't play so inconsistent, especially the offense which there's no excuse for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

No, you don't get it.  For example, Sean Payton is a much better coach, see?  Everyone knows it.  His three years of 7-9 is better than Chucks last three seasons.  

 

Therefor, winning seasons shouldn't be an indicator.   

 

Egad, why can't people see that? It's sooooo simple.   

Just because someone has a different point of view does not automatically make them wrong.

It has yet to be determined how Pagano is going to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

No, you don't get it.  For example, Sean Payton is a much better coach, see?  Everyone knows it.  His three years of 7-9 is better than Chucks last three seasons.  

 

Therefor, winning seasons shouldn't be an indicator.   

 

Egad, why can't people see that? It's sooooo simple.   

 

Trust me, I get your sarcasm, but in all seriousness, Sean Payton is a better coach than Chuck Pagano. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Trust me, I get your sarcasm, but in all seriousness, Sean Payton is a better coach than Chuck Pagano. 

Absolutely but that's also nothing to be ashamed of either. Sean Payton is one of the best football minds in the NFL imo. The Colts and Saints are very similar right now. Both franchises have great QBs but crappy defenses around them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Luck is Good said:

Absolutely but that's also nothing to be ashamed of either. Sean Payton is one of the best football minds in the NFL imo. The Colts and Saints are very similar right now. Both franchises have great QBs but crappy defenses around them

The difference is that the Saints offense is consistently good. They score points at will and just lose because of their defense. We lose because of a mix of our offense and defense, which isn't a good thing going into year 6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

The difference is that the Saints offense is consistently good. They score points at will and just lose because of their defense. We lose because of a mix of our offense and defense, which isn't a good thing going into year 6.

This is also true. Andrew and the offense need to be more consistent. Colts are not a team that can rely on its defense to hold serve more times than not. And the slow starts absolutely need to end. You can't play comeback most of the season and expect to be an upper echelon team

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Luck is Good said:

Absolutely but that's also nothing to be ashamed of either. Sean Payton is one of the best football minds in the NFL imo. The Colts and Saints are very similar right now. Both franchises have great QBs but crappy defenses around them

 

Yes to all of the above. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I agree. I have no clue as to what the Colts will be when we start the season for sure.

My only point is I am not going to assume that Pagano is not going to a good job as some believe.

His record overall is not that bad and has yet to have a losing season.

One of the problems is an 8-8 record seems worse than it is after the long history of better seasons. IMO calling the Colts with Pagano as the head coach the bottom of the league is an exaggeration and a knee jerk reaction because of the history over the last few seasons.

I am going to stay optimistic with the changes made and the new and up coming players already on the roster. Add a decent draft and IMO we will be competitive in the playoffs.

Seriously dude, its good to have you back. Your facts and logic were sorely missed (by some of us at least!!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

That's okay, we've all reached our apex of compression at some points in our lives.  

 

For some it's quantum physics, for some it's trying to figure out why a coach with one of the best records in the league is still coaching.  

 

We're all doing our best.  You'll catch on one day.   

 

4 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

That's okay, we've all reached our apex of compression at some points in our lives.  

 

For some it's quantum physics, for some it's trying to figure out why a coach with one of the best records in the league is still coaching.  

 

We're all doing our best.  You'll catch on one day.   

Still can not understand why Pagano is still here:thmup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

A 49-31 regular season record with a 6-3 record in the playoffs kind of explains itself. Throw in Grigsons lack of fielding an average defense and Luck missing most of a season also explains it even further.

IMO it is not hard to understand.

Love messing with everyone go crazy one:thmup: ( Still can not understand why Pagano is still here)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, braveheartcolt said:

Can someone define what a 'slow start' is please, and how we actually measure them, versus 'fast starts'. Be interested to see the true rankings. Maybe we start slow 'sometimes' when the opposition starts fast. Which is allowed.

I forget which game it was this year but one of the broadcasters was talking about the Colts slow starts and basically defined it as not putting up any points on the first drive. 

Also -  From an article that came out Oct 2016 (just after the London game):

" Most damning? The Colts have scored only one touchdown on their opening drive of a game since the start of the 2014 season: Luck’s 5-yard touchdown pass to Donte Moncrief against New England in the sixth game of last season. That’s a stretch of 36 games"

 

If that is the actual definition people are using, then yah its probably worth talking about. 

 

I also cant shake the feeling that I have to go back double check the validity of that fact, as I honestly cant believe we are doing that bad. 

 

Source: http://fox59.com/2016/10/06/offensive-approach-isnt-colts-problem-its-execution/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, krunk said:

Doesn't mean that Green can't be better and if you pay attention to what I wrote it was "TJ may improve so it could potentially be 5".  Notice I said may improve.  Morrison didn't suck against the run.  That's what he was brought here for and that is what he is.  A 2 down player.  He does suck against the pass, but that's really not his reason for being here.  As long as they use him for what he was brought here for he'll live up to that and be useful.

I didn't mean any disrespect. I saw Morrison a number of times look lost. Like he had no idea where he was supposed to be. I did not think he played well at all. Green has a long long way to go. I hope Im wrong but I don't think either one will amount to much. This is my opinion. I will gladly eat my words if they do come around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

I forget which game it was this year but one of the broadcasters was talking about the Colts slow starts and basically defined it as not putting up any points on the first drive. 

Also -  From an article that came out Oct 2016 (just after the London game):

" Most damning? The Colts have scored only one touchdown on their opening drive of a game since the start of the 2014 season: Luck’s 5-yard touchdown pass to Donte Moncrief against New England in the sixth game of last season. That’s a stretch of 36 games"

 

If that is the actual definition people are using, then yah its probably worth talking about. 

 

I also cant shake the feeling that I have to go back double check the validity of that fact, as I honestly cant believe we are doing that bad. 

 

Source: http://fox59.com/2016/10/06/offensive-approach-isnt-colts-problem-its-execution/

 

 

Mmmm. This would not be my definition. The score at the end of the first quarter would be more realistic. But all pretty academic really, it's the score at the end of the forth quarter that matters!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember Irsay and Grigsons initial conversation while interviewing Pagano?  That players would run through a wall for him.  We believe That is the main basis on which they hired him and Irsay still obviously values this skill set.  It was never said he was or was going to be Nicolaj Tesla (sp).   Skip to what Ballard said after meeting with Pagano.  He actually said Pagano was smart.  Did anybody else catch that?  He didn't have to use that word but he did.  His reputation is as a straight shooter, so maybe there is more to our coach than meets the eye.  Or his country manners are so that he is overly polite. Main thing is that he will be our coach and the 2 of them are on the same page and we have a great defensive and RB draft class ahead.  I'm excited.

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...