Pagano ranked as best HC in AFCS

[King Colt]

21 hours ago, MacDee1975 said:

 

Chuck Pagano has made it to a AFC Title game without a defense, and with an incompetent hack who ended up being fired because he sucked at his job determining who his personnel was going to be for his entire coaching career.

 

O'Brien wins at barely over a .500 clip, mainly due to the side of the ball that he has no clue whatsoever about keeping his pathetic offenses in close games, where they end up eeking out 1 score victories.

 

Advantage - Pagano

When it comes down to success the winners of the AFC South are barely over 500% in recent years and don't lose sight of how pathetic the division has been so you are almost guaranteed six wins every season.

[life long]

1 hour ago, King Colt said:

When it comes down to success the winners of the AFC South are barely over 500% in recent years and don't lose sight of how pathetic the division has been so you are almost guaranteed six wins every season.

Tell that to the Jags lol

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, life long said:

Tell that to the Jags lol

[Colts_Fan12]

17 hours ago, southwest1 said:

With all due respect CC1, 

 

It's not a wise move on your part to tell me & other fans that we're "fanatics" & not true fans of the Colts simply because we expect Chuck to win a playoff game. He's not a high school coach. He's running an NFL program & there are only 32 of them in our professional league. With lucrative salaries, come high expectations. Every NFL head coach has new talent, young talent, & a mixture of veterans that they must integrate, flow, & get in sync by September or early October. 

 

I seriously think you are Pagano's agent since you continue to defend him at every turn so darn much. 

You are killing me SW1 the agent line was great I always thought he was a relative tho

[southwest1]

19 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Once gain you add your own meaning and twist to what I said.

I made a comment to you earlier about you over thinking stuff and this is an example of that. You seem to think there is some kind of hidden meaning like you are analyzing everything said.

If you are aware of the Pagano era has unfolded then why so critical?

IMO Irsay is no * and he is also well aware of why things went south the last two seasons. He didn't fire Pagano because he is well aware of those reasons.

It's not a point I support Pagano because I am overzealous, it's because I look at facts and the facts speak for themselves. Pagano has yet to have a losing season and you can add all the excuses or reasons why the facts don't add up but yet there are what they are. Nothing you or anyone else can say that changes that.

Your comment about wanting someone fired if this or that don't happen regardless of the reasons is a sign of pure fanatic mindset at it's strongest.

No, I didn't twist your words at all CC1. I simply quoted your words back to you & I'm somehow overthinking things from your perspective. Interesting.

 

So, these facts you speak of that you infer that I am not taking into account...Are you basically blaming our recent division losses [failing to win the AFC South] & missing the playoffs all on our former GM Ryan Grigson then? Perhaps, you think it is an injury or inexperience question then. 

 

It's not a question of ignoring facts at all CC1. It's a question of no coach deserves a version of NFL tenure, which is what Chuck continues to receive. This is a make it or break it yr for Pagano whether you care to admit it or not CC1. 

 

"Your comment about wanting someone fired if this or that don't happen regardless of the reasons is a sign of pure fanatic mindset at it's strongest." 

 

Oh the exulted one has spoken. Am I supposed to bow now? Please...

[crazycolt1]

14 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

No, I didn't twist your words at all CC1. I simply quoted your words back to you & I'm somehow overthinking things from your perspective. Interesting.

 

So, these facts you speak of that you infer that I am not taking into account...Are you basically blaming our recent division losses [failing to win the AFC South] & missing the playoffs all on our former GM Ryan Grigson then? Perhaps, you think it is an injury or inexperience question then. 

 

It's not a question of ignoring facts at all CC1. It's a question of no coach deserves a version of NFL tenure, which is what Chuck continues to receive. This is a make it or break it yr for Pagano whether you care to admit it or not CC1. 

 

"Your comment about wanting someone fired if this or that don't happen regardless of the reasons is a sign of pure fanatic mindset at it's strongest." 

 

Oh the exulted one has spoken. Am I supposed to bow now? Please...

Bow now?? Now you are getting totally ridiculous.

[southwest1]

29 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Bow now?? Now you are getting totally ridiculous.

I'm not the one inferring that everyone who disagrees with you on Pagano is dumb, shortsighted, & foolish. 

 

That my friend is being utterly ridiculous. 

[crazycolt1]

46 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

I'm not the one inferring that everyone who disagrees with you on Pagano is dumb, shortsighted, & foolish. 

 

That my friend is being utterly ridiculous. 

No one is inferring anything. I just have a different opinion on how I process exactly why the things are what they are without overlooking this NFL game is a total team game. If you want to lay all the teams problems on Pagano feel free.

But the facts still remain the same. Pagano has yet to have a losing season but to see some of the things said about him you would think the Colts are at the bottom of the league. Too many fans think that because a team goes 8-8 it's the end of the world and someone needs fired.

You say the Colts needs to fire Pagano because he can't beat the Steelers? Really? I guess Tomlin needs to lose his job because he can't beat the Patriots? Funny how I don't get the Steeler nation calling for Tomlin's job.

Just the fandom of the Colts are so used to winning they cant accept things don't always fall you way and when it don't someone must pay.

I am sure glad we have an owner who can see the bigger picture.

[southwest1]

33 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

No one is inferring anything. I just have a different opinion on how I process exactly why the things are what they are without overlooking this NFL game is a total team game. If you want to lay all the teams problems on Pagano feel free.

But the facts still remain the same. Pagano has yet to have a losing season but to see some of the things said about him you would think the Colts are at the bottom of the league. Too many fans think that because a team goes 8-8 it's the end of the world and someone needs fired.

You say the Colts needs to fire Pagano because he can't beat the Steelers? Really? I guess Tomlin needs to lose his job because he can't beat the Patriots? Funny how I don't get the Steeler nation calling for Tomlin's job.

Just the fandom of the Colts are so used to winning they cant accept things don't always fall you way and when it don't someone must pay.

I am sure glad we have an owner who can see the bigger picture.

"No one is inferring anything." To that I say, Denial is not a river in Egypt CC1. 

 

We play in AFC right? What 2 teams routinely represent that conference on a SB appearance bid? Why the Patriots & the Steelers correct? And what's your #1 objective as a NFL coach? Win a SB. That means beating 1 of these 2 teams usually to compete for a Lombardi trophy. 

 

Did I mention Mike Tomlin once? Nope. Beautiful job of moving the goal post while your Pagano man crush defense is sinking faster than quick sand CC1. I don't care what Tomlin does or even what his playoff record is. The point is how well Pagano puts INDY in the best possible chance to win a freaking Championship for us. 

 

"Funny how I don't get the Steeler nation calling for Tomlin's job."

 

He did win a ring against the AZ Cardinals in SB XLIII did he not? How many SB rings as HC does Chuck have? A big fat doughnut. 

 

"I am sure glad we have an owner who can see the bigger picture."

 

There you go again inferring you're brilliant & the rest of us are merely stupid & unable to grasp your wisdom. Sigh...

 

Obviously, you & I will never see eye to eye on this & that's okay. But, when Chuck gets fired after this season & he will, what will you say then? 

[crazycolt1]

7 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

"No one is inferring anything." To that I say, Denial is not a river in Egypt CC1. 

 

We play in AFC right? What 2 teams routinely represent that conference on a SB appearance bid? Why the Patriots & the Steelers correct? And what's your #1 objective as a NFL coach? Win a SB. That means beating 1 of these 2 teams usually to compete for a Lombardi trophy. 

 

Did I mention Mike Tomlin once? Nope. Beautiful job of moving the goal post while your Pagano man crush defense is sinking faster than quick sand CC1. I don't care what Tomlin does or even what his playoff record is. The point is how well Pagano puts INDY is the best possible chance to win a freaking Championship for us. 

 

"Funny how I don't get the Steeler nation calling for Tomlin's job."

 

He did win a ring against the AZ Cardinals in SB XLIII did he not? How many SB rings as HC does Chuck have? A big fat doughnut. 

 

"I am sure glad we have an owner who can see the bigger picture."

 

There you go again inferring you're brilliant & the rest of us are merely stupid & unable to grasp your wisdom. Sigh...

Your comments are total nonsense with putting what I said and turning it into I am treating anyone anyway. Where did I say someone is stupid. Where did I say I have more wisdom than anyone? Once again you insert your own meaning into what was said. I have a simple opinion that don't match yours and you get all bent out of shape and start imagining things. You are taking this way too personal with your constant analyzing personality and now are letting it get personal. All over a simple difference of opinion.

Sorry, I deal in black and white not imagination.

[southwest1]

22 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Your comments are total nonsense with putting what I said and turning it into I am treating anyone anyway. Where did I say someone is stupid. Where did I say I have more wisdom than anyone? Once again you insert your own meaning into what was said. I have a simple opinion that don't match yours and you get all bent out of shape and start imagining things. You are taking this way too personal with your constant analyzing personality and now are letting it get personal. All over a simple difference of opinion.

Sorry, I deal in black and white not imagination.

Let's take a different stab at Pagano's credentials shall we. Has he revolutionized our secondary or drastically improved it since his arrival in 2012? Vontae Davis was a talented commodity prior to acquiring him from Miami. 

 

Has Pagano shown techniques that elevated our LBs to a new level of tenacity? Robert Mathis probably has, but Pagano not so much. 

 

If Pagano didn't have Luck as his QB, what did you think his win/loss record would be? 

 

You clearly don't see the condescending tone in your responses at all & this evidence you keep asserting as basis for your foundation for this difference of opinion...You have not presented any of it to me. 

 

But, you go ahead & say I'm full of 'total nonsense' if that makes you feel better CC1. 

 

"Sorry, I deal in black and white not imagination."

 

That remark is dripping with condescension CC1 & moral superiority on your part. 

[Dark Superman]

15 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

Let's take a different stab at Pagano's credentials shall we. Has he revolutionized our secondary or drastically improved it since his arrival in 2012? Vontae Davis was a talented commodity prior to acquiring him from Miami. 

 

Has Pagano shown techniques that elevated our LBs to a new level of tenacity? Robert Mathis probably has, but Pagano not so much. 

 

If Pagano didn't have Luck as his QB, what did you think his win/loss record would be? 

 

You clearly don't see the condescending tone in your responses at all & this evidence you keep asserting as basis for your foundation for this difference of opinion...You have not presented any of it to me. 

 

But, you go ahead & say I'm full of 'total nonsense' if that makes you feel better CC1. 

 

"Sorry, I deal in black and white not imagination."

 

That remark is dripping with condescension CC1 & moral superiority on your part. 

Exactly my thoughts.

Either way, I feel like Pagano is 100% gone after this season. CB needs to bring in 'one of his guys' in order to coach this team. Chuck is a great guy and all, but he's not a good HC. I believe CB will bring in someone who will help bring this team back to the SB.

[Dark Superman]

Pagano can't blame Grigson this season.. it's all on him.

[crazycolt1]

32 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

Let's take a different stab at Pagano's credentials shall we. Has he revolutionized our secondary or drastically improved it since his arrival in 2012? Vontae Davis was a talented commodity prior to acquiring him from Miami. 

 

Has Pagano shown techniques that elevated our LBs to a new level of tenacity? Robert Mathis probably has, but Pagano not so much. 

 

If Pagano didn't have Luck as his QB, what did you think his win/loss record would be? 

 

You clearly don't see the condescending tone in your responses at all & this evidence you keep asserting as basis for your foundation for this difference of opinion...You have not presented any of it to me. 

 

But, you go ahead & say I'm full of 'total nonsense' if that makes you feel better CC1. 

 

"Sorry, I deal in black and white not imagination."

 

That remark is dripping with condescension CC1 & moral superiority on your part. 

Fact is Pagano went 8-8 without Luck after using 5 different QBs with one of them coming right off the street.

But it's things like this that gets overlooked by those who choose to.

Moral superiority?? You have to be joking. That's even taking it over the top and is getting to the point of pure unaltered childishness.

[Jules]

I think we will know for sure by the time this next season ends.......going to be a very revealing season. Buckle up!

 

[Peterk2011]

On 2017. 06. 23. at 0:53 AM, Luck is Good said:

I agree on Bill O'Brien at #1 in the AFC South. He's had Brian Hoyer and Brock Osweiler at QB for Christ's sake

 

Denver won a superbowl with Brock Osweiler (plus a living corpse Manning). Osweiler (and Siemian both) looked a lot better under Kubiak's hand than any QB under O'Brians hand since he left Boston. Not to mention, O'Brian replaced Fitzpatrick with Hoyer, who was worse than his predecessor, then replaced Hoyer with Osweiler who also was worse than his predecessor. Imo, O'Brian couldn't install a system for his lesser talented QB's, which would've helped them use their strengths.

 

On the other hand, Pagano is a secondary coach. Let's see what he has done there? The Colts (Grigson) didn't draft a single player in the secondary in the first 3 years. Of the free agent additions: Davis become a first team all pro. Mike Adams made the pro bowl multiple times and played his best football over age 30 in Indy. Dwight Lowery had a decent year here, one of his best. Greg Toler wasn't good, but he played his best football in Indy. The Laron Landry project failed, but it failed more due to not being able to stay healthy, than production. (I didn't particularly like him though, but I can't say he was terrible when healthy.) Darius Butler become a decent player, having his best years of his carreer in Indy. Then, when the Colts finally decided to draft in the secondary: D'Joun Smith turned out to be a bust. Health issues again. Geathers became a fine player - sadly, health issues there again.  For T.J. Green, Hooker and Wilson the jury is still out. And they found Rashan Melvin off the streets. This is not bad at all. Most players, who stayed healthy, played their best in Indy. Of course talent matters. You can't make pro-bowlers out of journeymen.

 

On 2017. 06. 22. at 9:07 PM, Lucky Colts Fan said:

This is a prove-it year for Pagano.  He is going up against the following top-10 coaches this year ......

He has to beat the big-dogs this year if he wants to be one next year.

 

Pagano's record is 15-7 at home and 13-14 on the road against coaches ahead of him. That's not a bad record considering that coaches ahead of him usually have better rosters under their control. (The numbers might be off by one or two here or there, due to coaching changes, etc. I might counted - or not counted - a game played against a previous coach. I also counted games against Harbaugh and Kubiak supposing they'd be in top10 being active. Anyway the true record must be close to the above.).

 

All in all, I think Pagano is right there where he belongs to after 3 winning plus 2 down seasons. Middle of the pack. But ..... I think, based on "potential", he is better than his current value. He is a top10 coach on my list.

 

I know many of you guys strongly disagree, but that's my honest opinion. There are better coaches in the NFL than him. But not many. So I really wish Pagano will prove himself in 2017. Aaand, if he fails and will be fired, then I cross my fingers that there will be at least one guy available of those "not many". (Yes, despite my belief that he is a fine coach, I agree that he has to go if he fails to prove himself. Because that's the right decision. But honestly, I'll be scared if that happens. It won't be easy to find a better guy. And there is always a chance to be ChipKelly-d....)

 

[funktacious2]

On 6/22/2017 at 3:07 PM, Lucky Colts Fan said:

This is a prove-it year for Pagano.  He is going up against the following top-10 coaches this year:

 

Seahawks - Carroll is #2

Steelers - Tomlin is #4

Ravens - Harbaugh is #6

Cardinals - Arians is #7

 

If you throw in coaches from the Pagano bracket (10-20), you add three more games:

 

Bengals - Lewis is #17

Texans - O'Brien is #18 - twice

 

He has to beat the big-dogs this year if he wants to be one next year.

I've been among some who has tried not to give Pagano such a hard time. There are some areas I won't make excuses for, but otherwise I've had a ton of sympathy for never getting the pieces he needs to play the football he preaches. He wants a good running game? We have a terrible O-line during tenure. We want to build a better defense? Our FA and draft picks on defense largely fall very flat. I know that the best coaches find ways to win games with what cards they were dealt so I can only make excuses so much. But the guy has not had a losing season yet. His game management though? Ugh.

[lollygagger8]

Yay for being the best of the worst ?

[Jason_]

On 6/23/2017 at 8:14 PM, Superman said:

 

No, I think it's inherently flawed.

 

just curious and wanted to clarify, you think the Air-Coryell offense in general is flawed...or the way that Chud/Arians choose to run it?  or both?

 

[Jason_]

On 6/24/2017 at 10:50 PM, southwest1 said:

 

 

Obviously, you & I will never see eye to eye on this & that's okay. But, when Chuck gets fired after this season & he will, what will you say then? 

 

well, since we're playing the hypothetical game...what will you say if Chuck gets extended this offseason?

[Mr. Irrelevant]

On 24/6/2017 at 2:14 AM, Superman said:

 

No, I think it's inherently flawed. Even if you have a great passer behind a great OL with great receivers, you're throwing a high rate of low percentage passes and ignoring high percentage opportunities. The degree of difficulty is just way greater than it needs to be, especially when you see the best and most efficient QBs in the league feasting on easy throws because defenses are still afraid of getting beat deep.

 

I've said since 2012, I don't need a WCO, but in this offense, your QB is always going to get pressured, hit and sacked more than necessary, and you're almost always going to top out in the low 60% range for completions. Yeah, you can make up for it with big plays, but coordinators who have perfected that balance between long developing plays and taking the easy stuff have ventured away from the aggressive Coryell concepts.

 

I do agree that Arians is a better play caller than Chud, so far, but I had the same complaints when Arians was here.

 

So well said! I would also like to add that I don't like the idea about being married to a certain scheme or concept. A good OC and DC should be able to mix and match the plays from any playbook that work, I don't see the need to constrain yourself. Be create, be adaptive, be innovative, be unpredictable, get the edge over your opponent.  

[aaron11]

lots of arguing over this ranking

 

jags and titans coaches have done nothing.  literally nothing, there is no way to rank them over chuck

 

you could make a case for obrien, i think its pretty close and both guys are mediocre overall 

[Jason_]

On 6/24/2017 at 6:29 AM, LuckyHooker24 said:

Pagano is one of the worst coaches in the league, period.

 

 

this is one of the dumbest comments on this site, period.

[Superman]

4 hours ago, J@son said:

 

just curious and wanted to clarify, you think the Air-Coryell offense in general is flawed...or the way that Chud/Arians choose to run it?  or both?

 

 

I think the philosophy behind Air Coryell is fine, but the way it's mostly run is rigid and over aggressive, and leads to inefficiencies in the passing game. Arians in particular has made comments like 'I want my RBs to run the ball and block for the QB, they don't need to be pass catchers.' To me, that's a reflection of a very aggressive Coryell approach. 

 

But then you see David Johnson catch 80 passes, so something's missing. And I think Norv Turner runs the Coryell in a balanced way. So it's not necessarily the philosophy of the offense, it's the way I mostly see it being run. 

[Jason_]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think the philosophy behind Air Coryell is fine, but the way it's mostly run is rigid and over aggressive, and leads to inefficiencies in the passing game. Arians in particular has made comments like 'I want my RBs to run the ball and block for the QB, they don't need to be pass catchers.' To me, that's a reflection of a very aggressive Coryell approach. 

 

But then you see David Johnson catch 80 passes, so something's missing. And I think Norv Turner runs the Coryell in a balanced way. So it's not necessarily the philosophy of the offense, it's the way I mostly see it being run. 

 

gotcha...and that was what I originally meant when I said that I didn't think you had anything against the philosophy...I was referring more to the Air coryell offense in general...and I definitely agree that I don't care for the way Arians and Chud (so far) have run the offense.l

[Superman]

28 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

gotcha...and that was what I originally meant when I said that I didn't think you had anything against the philosophy...I was referring more to the Air coryell offense in general...and I definitely agree that I don't care for the way Arians and Chud (so far) have run the offense.l

 

Just to take it a step further, I would prefer an offense that stressed efficiency rather than trying to attack downfield first. Coryell typically looks to push the defense back and then, if necessary take a short completion under the coverage. That means your short passes are more late progression dumpoffs, not hot routes. 

 

With more and more teams struggling to pass protect, and especially because of the varied pressure schemes that have become more prominent, this offense is more susceptible to pressure. Defenses will play off since you're not going to throw a high percentage of screens and other quick hitters, and that makes it even harder to hurt them deep. They'll also play single high and bring an extra rusher, which you have to counter with a 6th blocker, meaning they're taking one of your receivers out of play. 

 

Would we call that a flaw? I think it's an inherent weakness in Coryell, and the only way to really shore it up is to install quick hitters that punish the defense when they play off or send extra rushers. The only Coryell coordinator that I know has done a good job of that is Turner, and the concepts that he installs make his offense more of a hybrid than anything else. If we ran his offense, I probably wouldn't have any complaints.

[colt18]

On 6/24/2017 at 11:50 PM, crazycolt1 said:

Fact is Pagano went 8-8 without Luck after using 5 different QBs with one of them coming right off the street.

But it's things like this that gets overlooked by those who choose to.

Moral superiority?? You have to be joking. That's even taking it over the top and is getting to the point of pure unaltered childishness.

Pagano went 5-3 without Luck, not 8-8.

[crazycolt1]

49 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Just to take it a step further, I would prefer an offense that stressed efficiency rather than trying to attack downfield first. Coryell typically looks to push the defense back and then, if necessary take a short completion under the coverage. That means your short passes are more late progression dumpoffs, not hot routes. 

 

With more and more teams struggling to pass protect, and especially because of the varied pressure schemes that have become more prominent, this offense is more susceptible to pressure. Defenses will play off since you're not going to throw a high percentage of screens and other quick hitters, and that makes it even harder to hurt them deep. They'll also play single high and bring an extra rusher, which you have to counter with a 6th blocker, meaning they're taking one of your receivers out of play. 

 

Would we call that a flaw? I think it's an inherent weakness in Coryell, and the only way to really shore it up is to install quick hitters that punish the defense when they play off or send extra rushers. The only Coryell coordinator that I know has done a good job of that is Turner, and the concepts that he installs make his offense more of a hybrid than anything else. If we ran his offense, I probably wouldn't have any complaints.

Getting a running game that needed attention from the defenses we face would also help IMO. Hopefully the combination of Gore and Mack with an improved O-line can at least get us to the middle of the league.

[crazycolt1]

57 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Just to take it a step further, I would prefer an offense that stressed efficiency rather than trying to attack downfield first. Coryell typically looks to push the defense back and then, if necessary take a short completion under the coverage. That means your short passes are more late progression dumpoffs, not hot routes. 

 

With more and more teams struggling to pass protect, and especially because of the varied pressure schemes that have become more prominent, this offense is more susceptible to pressure. Defenses will play off since you're not going to throw a high percentage of screens and other quick hitters, and that makes it even harder to hurt them deep. They'll also play single high and bring an extra rusher, which you have to counter with a 6th blocker, meaning they're taking one of your receivers out of play. 

 

Would we call that a flaw? I think it's an inherent weakness in Coryell, and the only way to really shore it up is to install quick hitters that punish the defense when they play off or send extra rushers. The only Coryell coordinator that I know has done a good job of that is Turner, and the concepts that he installs make his offense more of a hybrid than anything else. If we ran his offense, I probably wouldn't have any complaints.

Your explanation reminds me of Dan Fouts and how he worked that offense. The sad part of the Chargers back then was similar to the Colts in the lack of defense just put more pressure on the offense to score more. There were times when Dan Fouts looked like a surgeon.  

[Steamboat_Shaun]

7 hours ago, J@son said:

 

well, since we're playing the hypothetical game...what will you say if Chuck gets extended this offseason?

 

Interesting tidbit of info that I just noticed: after this season, Pagano will have been the Colts head coach for the same amount of time that Tony Dungy was. So if he gets extended, he'll pass up Dungy for seasons with the Colts. For that to happen, I think Irsay would have to be out of his mind, because we all know Pagano isn't half the coach that Dungy was. Dungy's teams were always prepared, well disciplined, and usually one of the least penalized teams in the league. We get none of that with Pagano.

 

Now, I don't loathe or hate Pagano as much as a lot of people do, but the guy is not an elite football coach by any stretch, and barring some type of miraculous deep playoff run, I have a really hard time seeing him getting extended beyond this year.

[Jason_]

2 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Interesting tidbit of info that I just noticed: after this season, Pagano will have been the Colts head coach for the same amount of time that Tony Dungy was. So if he gets extended, he'll pass up Dungy for seasons with the Colts. For that to happen, I think Irsay would have to be out of his mind, because we all know Pagano isn't half the coach that Dungy was. Dungy's teams were always prepared, well disciplined, and usually one of the least penalized teams in the league. We get none of that with Pagano.

 

Now, I don't loathe or hate Pagano as much as a lot of people do, but the guy is not an elite football coach by any stretch, and barring some type of miraculous deep playoff run, I have a really hard time seeing him getting extended beyond this year.

 

we did Pagano's first couple of years here.  If I remember correctly the colts were top 5 in terms of least penalized his first year, or his first 2 years.  Since then he's been having to use a lot of rookies and FAs signed off the street.  

 

I disagree with anyone who thinks that it's a foregone conclusion that pagano gets fired at the end of the season.  I honestly think he has a better chance of getting extended than he does getting fired.  

[Steamboat_Shaun]

23 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

we did Pagano's first couple of years here.  If I remember correctly the colts were top 5 in terms of least penalized his first year, or his first 2 years.  Since then he's been having to use a lot of rookies and FAs signed off the street.  

 

I disagree with anyone who thinks that it's a foregone conclusion that pagano gets fired at the end of the season.  I honestly think he has a better chance of getting extended than he does getting fired.  

 

Make no mistake, I'm not rooting for Pagano to fail. I'd love nothing more than to see him coach the team all the way to the Super Bowl, and get carried off the field on the player's shoulders after they win. But I haven't seen anything in the last 5 years that make me think he's going to all the sudden turn into mid-80s Bill Parcells.

 

The best odds that I would give him to get extended are 50/50. From a personnel standpoint, Chris Ballard invested a lot of resources into the defensive side of the ball, so Pagano (the defensive guru) better turn that unit into something respectable, or else he's going to get his walking papers and Ballard's going to bring in his guy.

[Peterk2011]

17 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Make no mistake, I'm not rooting for Pagano to fail. I'd love nothing more than to see him coach the team all the way to the Super Bowl, and get carried off the field on the player's shoulders after they win. But I haven't seen anything in the last 5 years that make me think he's going to all the sudden turn into mid-80s Bill Parcells.

 

These comparisons don't make sense. Name one head coach in the salary cap era, who was successfull working with mediocre rosters. You can't name one. Because there is none. There is no coach who can coach up a lesser talented team and bring them to success. Grigson was soooo bad at bulding a good roster, that Pagano has never had a chance yet to work with a roster wich can compete with the Patriot's or Steelers roster regarding talent level. So I just can't blame him not being successfull against them on the field.

 

What i've seen so far? I've seen that, when he's been given something to work with, then he wen't one round further each year in the playoffs to be 1 game away from the superbowl in 2014. He's got blown out there by the Patriots, but who wasn't, without having a hell of a roster? Andy Reid was blown out, Mike Tomlin was also blown out and both had better rosters to work with. Oh, and O'Brian was also blown out. Btw, he was blown out the year before at home too.

 

And when Pagano lost his franchise QB, or when his team was hospitalized, he did better than Ron Rivera did in Carolina, Sean Payton did in New Orleans, Harbaugh did in Baltimore or Marvin Lewis did in Cincinnatti. Despite some of these had better rosters to work with, or didn't even loose their franchise QB.

 

So, in my eyes, Pagano did enough to earn the benefit of the doubt. He earned the chance to prove himself with having a GM who is actually helping him, not pulling him back. And - as far as I'm concerned - he also earned some time, so he won't be judged too early, and strictly by his record.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

29 minutes ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

These comparisons don't make sense. Name one head coach in the salary cap era, who was successfull working with mediocre rosters. You can't name one. Because there is none. There is no coach who can coach up a lesser talented team and bring them to success.

 

You sure Belichick didn't do exactly that in 2011? Sure, their offense was good, but their defense ranked 31st overall, yet they still managed 13-3 record, and a Super Bowl berth.

 

Do you honestly think that happens if Pagano is coaching that team?

[Peterk2011]

3 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

You sure Belichick didn't do exactly that in 2011? Sure, their offense was good, but their defense ranked 31st overall, yet they still managed 13-3 record, and a Super Bowl berth.

 

Do you honestly think that happens if Pagano is coaching that team?

 

Yes, I am sure Belichick didn't do that. That yards per game stat - being used as a single measure - is as useless as a statistical category can be. It means nothing.

 

That 2011 Patriots defense was in the top5 in a number of important categories (interceptions, fumbles, fumbles recovered, turnover ratio) and was in the top10 or top15 in numerous other important categories (sacks, total pressures, red zone, 3rd down efficiency, points allowed, etc.) In short, that defense was the classic example of a blend but don't break type of defenses. Allowing a lots of yards on the gound or in the air (or both), but limiting/stopping opponents when it mattered (by taking the ball over or forcing kicks instead of TDs, etc.). Another fine example of this type of defense was the 2009 Saints defense. You can win championships with these kind of defenses.

 

If the 2017 Colts defense happen to be a similar bend but don't break type defense, producing one of the best turnover ratios and allowing top15-ish points per game, then all Colts fans will be very happy, because the Colts will win the AFC South. Easy. By a margin. And that's just the floor, they will have their chances for a deep playoff run as well.

 

The bad news is they probably won't have such a defense.  It's way too early with these many rookies and new faces to happen. But maybe in 2018, if everything goes right.

 

(Btw, I was talking about roster quality overall. Not just defense. That 2011 Patriots offense was a historycally good offense. Was it nfl.com or profootballfocus - can't recall - who did a top20 all time list recently, putting that 2011 Pats offense around the top5?)

 

[Jason_]

3 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

You sure Belichick didn't do exactly that in 2011? Sure, their offense was good, but their defense ranked 31st overall, yet they still managed 13-3 record, and a Super Bowl berth.

 

Do you honestly think that happens if Pagano is coaching that team?

 

Do you honestly expect that happens if it were anyone BUT belichick?

 

Do you really think its fair to compare pagano in his year 5 to belichick in his year 200?

 

If your argument is that chuck isn't as good a coach as bill well, no duh. No one is going to willingly argue to the contrary. However if a coach of Bill's caliber is your measuring stick then you're forever going to be disappointed

[Peterk2011]

Just now, J@son said:

Do you honestly expect that happens if it were anyone BUT belichick?

 

It did happen Jason. The Saints did it. The 2013 Broncos did it too.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

30 minutes ago, Peterk2011 said:

That 2011 Patriots defense was in the top5 in a number of important categories (interceptions, fumbles, fumbles recovered, turnover ratio) and was in the top10 or top15 in numerous other important categories (sacks, total pressures, red zone, 3rd down efficiency, points allowed, etc.) In short, that defense was the classic example of a blend but don't break type of defenses. Allowing a lots of yards on the gound or in the air (or both), but limiting/stopping opponents when it mattered (by taking the ball over or forcing kicks instead of TDs, etc.). Another fine example of this type of defense was the 2009 Saints defense. You can win championships with these kind of defenses.

 

Total D: 31st

Pass YPG: 31st

Rush YPG: 17th

3rd Down Conversion: 28th

Opp. Comp %: 23rd

Opp. Passer Rating: 20th

 

You can win championships with these kind of defenses, sure, as long as you don't have to worry about your coach inexplicably using a TO, losing a challenge, or any other number of bad moves a coach can make in that scenario.

 

They were tied for 2nd in INTs, and tied for 7th for fumble recoveries, which put them at 3rd for creating turnovers. So yes, they were very opportunistic, that was their 1 redeeming quality, certainly good coaching has something to do with that. But in just about every other stat, they were mediocre to bad, and if not for having an offense that can simply outscore other teams at will, a defense like that would normally cost a team wins. Most New England fans I know still think to this day that that unit was the worst defense in the Belichick/Brady era.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

38 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

Do you honestly expect that happens if it were anyone BUT belichick?

 

Do you really think its fair to compare pagano in his year 5 to belichick in his year 200?

 

If your argument is that chuck isn't as good a coach as bill well, no duh. No one is going to willingly argue to the contrary. However if a coach of Bill's caliber is your measuring stick then you're forever going to be disappointed

 

Well, unfortunately, we kind of have to. Pagano is, after all, the 2nd most tenured coach in Indianapolis Colts history. And the biggest complaint amongst Colts fans the past few years, unanimously, has been that even with a great franchise QB in place, we're still not able to get over the hump and beat the Patriots. So as long as Belichick's the coach in New England, he IS the measuring stick.

[Peterk2011]

1 hour ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

They were tied for 2nd in INTs, and tied for 7th for fumble recoveries, which put them at 3rd for creating turnovers. So yes, they were very opportunistic, that was their 1 redeeming quality, certainly good coaching has something to do with that. But in just about every other stat, they were mediocre to bad, and if not for having an offense that can simply outscore other teams at will, a defense like that would normally cost a team wins. Most New England fans I know still think to this day that that unit was the worst defense in the Belichick/Brady era.

 

That wasnt just 1 redeeming quality. Any stats other than turnovers and ppg allowed are for going into detail. to help evaluate/understand the weaknesses and strengths of the defense. Where to fix, and what to fix. But ultimately, all these add up in 2 stats, points allowed and turnovers  How many points your defense allows and how many times your defense turns the ball over and gives your offense extra opportunities to score. 

 

So, being 3rd in turnovers, and top15 (top10? cant recall, but in top half for sure) in points allowed are not just 2 stats of the many, but the definiton of a quality opportunistic defense. 

 

Anyway, imo we are going nowhere here. As I said, I didn't mean offense or defense, I was talking about overall roster quality. It doesn't matter if it's a "just good in everything" roster with top offense and defense or a historically good defense with a mediocre offense (or vice versa), the point was: you need a quality roster to be successfull. In the above cases - whichever case it is - you have such a roster. Belichick had such a roster in 2011. Kubiak had such a roster in 2015 despite his offense was worse than a meh... Pagano never had such a roster yet. Not only he never had it, but in 3 years out of the 5, his roster was lightyears from being even just decent. So it's not fair to expect him to be up there with those guys who have such rosters to work with.

 

As I said, I don't think Pagano is the next Parcels in the making. He may or may not be, I don't know. I just think that by counting all the pros and cons, he did show enough to earn the benefit of doubt. A chance - and some time - to prove himself with a GM who is helping him instead of pulling him back. Don't get me wrong, if I was sure that we'll find a better guy for his job, I'd say let him go. Right now. But sadly, good NFL coaches don't grow on trees. They are hard to find. I think its harder than finding a decent GM. So, let's make sure that the guy is incapable before showing him the door.