The Offseason Reading Series #14: Is 2017 Pagano's last year in Indy?

[21isSuperman]

This is it.  This is the final installment of the ORS.  With training camp less than a week away, I hope these readings have kept you entertained over the offseason and given you something to talk about during a quiet time for football fans.

 

Previous ORS installments

ORS1: The best Indianapolis Colts team ever

ORS2: Which Indianapolis Colt are you?

ORS3: Dissecting the 15th overall pick

ORS4: Choose your contract

ORS5: Which Simpsons characters are the Indianapolis Colts?

ORS6: The best trash-talking moments of Peyton Manning's career

ORS7: My favourite Andrew Luck throws

ORS8: Changes the NFL needs right now

ORS9: Projecting Moncrief's contract

ORS10: The NFL's MVP award

ORS11: So you want to draft a running back

ORS12: My case for Peyton Manning as the GOAT

ORS13: Do playoff byes matter?

 

In this installment, we discuss the polarizing head coach of the Colts, Chuck Pagano.  Some people say he's great, pointing to 22 wins in his first two full seasons as a head coach.  Others say he's made too many bad decisions to forgive.  I'm in the latter group, and I think 2017 will be Chuck Pagano's final year as head coach of the Colts.  Let me explain why...

 

The defense

Chuck Pagano came from Baltimore in 2012 after spending one year as their defensive coordinator.  Upon his arrival, one of the first things he talked about was Building the Monster

 

 

  

 

Unfortunately, 5 years into his head coaching career, there isn’t anything monstrous to look forward to with Pagano.  Because of the unfortunate leukemia diagnosis in 2012, I will give Pagano that year off and I’ll give him 2013 off so he can have a full year to establish his defense.  But from 2014 to 2016, the Colts’ defense has been terrible by nearly every measure.  In the graph below, I used statistics from NFL.com to compile how the Colts’ defense has performed throughout those three years in a variety of categories.  The y-axis is NFL rank; 1st is best and 32nd is worst.

 

 

Some interesting things to note:

1) The defense ranked worse in every category in 2016 than they were in 2014

2) From one year to the next, the ranking for any category gets worse six times, it remains the same twice, and it improves twice.  Of the times it improves, the improvement is insignificant: 32nd to 31st in penalties per game from 2015 to 2016, and 25th to 22nd in points per game from 2015 to 2016.

3) The Colts never rank in the top 10 for any of these categories.

 

Let’s take a look at this past year.  The Colts had the privilege of facing Blake Bortles and Brock Osweiler for 4 (well, 3 + a meaningless week 17) games this year.  Brock Osweiler averaged an abysmal 5.80 yards per attempt (30th in the league) while Bortles was 28th with 6.25.  Andrew Luck ranked 5th with 7.78.  In terms of adjusted net yards per attempt, Osweiler was 30th with 4.34 and Bortles was 26th with 5.23; Luck was 10th with 6.84.  The Colts’ record in those 4 games?  1-3, with the one win coming in a meaningless week 17 victory against the 3-13 Jags, which Pagano thought meant the future was bright. 

 

 

 

Long story short: Pagano was given a top 10 QB and lost to bottom 6 QBs.  Not only did he lose to them, his defenses were downright embarrassed; the Colts allowed Brock Osweiler to score 14 points in 4 minutes.

 

The 2016 defense was downright pathetic.  They gave up the most yards out of any team in Indianapolis Colts history…that's 33 years!

 

 

 

You’ve certainly built a monster, Pagano, because that defense is terrifying Colts fans everywhere.

 

The lack of accountability

Chuck Pagano is a player’s coach.  He always has his guys’ backs.  You’ll never hear him criticize them in front of the cameras.  In fact, he’s more likely to overinflate the value of his players by calling them rolling balls of butcher knives, or comparing them with well-established and successful veterans.  While I appreciate this approach and I think it's best to keep all issues in-house, at some point, this becomes a fault…like when giving the people a feel-good story becomes a goal over performance and winning.

 

During the 2014 season, Reggie Wayne was slowing down near the end of the year.  His incredible streak of 81 consecutive games with 3+ catches looked like it could be coming to an end.  But Pagano, being a player’s coach, decides to put Wayne above the team.  Despite Wayne’s 1 reception on 7 targets for 8 yards in the week 12 matchup against Jacksonville, Pagano decided the Colts must force-feed Wayne the ball to keep his record alive, putting the individual ahead of the team.  In fact, he did this despite his knowledge that the players would never ask to have their accolades padded.  A couple of weeks later, his streak ended in Cleveland anyway.

 

Forcefeeding someone the ball isn’t something new to Pagano.  During the 2015 season, a clearly ineffective Andre Johnson returned to Houston in October.  The only professional team he had ever played for said he was no longer good enough to play for them.  Is this the recipe for a great story?  Then Pagano’s all over it.  In a very obvious display (obvious enough that I told everyone to pick up Andre Johnson in fantasy football that week), the Colts forced the ball to Andre Johnson near the goal line on two occasions, giving him 6 receptions for 77 yards and 2 TDs in his return back home.  That’ll show Houston what they let go!  That’ll show them a lesson!!  Take away that one game against Houston, and Andre Johnson averaged less than 3 receptions and 30 yards per game during the 2015 season.  But that one game was a great story, right?!

 

There are plenty of more examples of Pagano playing favourites.  Even when a player isn’t playing well, it wasn’t uncommon for Pagano to give him more playing time and keeping a better guy on the bench (though some reports were that Grigson was meddling in Pagano’s business, so whatever you choose to believe).  Do the names Trent Richardson and AQ Shipley (before anyone jumps on me about this, I know Shipley isn’t Travis Frederick, but he was miles ahead of Jon Harrison) ring a bell?  Pagano plays favourites.  When you play favourites, you don’t have accountability.  Richardson knew, despite his abysmal performances, that he’d continue to get the ball.  Not only that, but recent reports are that even the Colts players themselves feel like Pagano doesn’t hold players accountable.

 

Quote

“The feeling in that locker room is that across the board on the coaching staff, they’re not coached hard enough, that there’s not enough of a level of discipline…when things go wrong, guys are not really being held their feet to the fire enough”. 

 

While Garofolo did state that Pagano is usually willing to come down hard on guys and criticize them, the previous evidence tells me he doesn’t.

 

The rest

There are a host of other issues with Pagano.  Slow starts, bad gameplans, players put in bad spots where they can’t be successful (see: Antonio Morrison or TJ Green in coverage), a team that doesn’t try to mask its weaknesses, undisciplined play (see penalties trend in above graph), celebrating ugly team performances, being exceptionally conservative, his choice of offensive coordinators/the type of offense he wants to run, and his belief that today’s NFL is that of the 1980s.  I think he was a great choice to lead the rebuild in 2012.  We were bringing in a lot of young players and they needed a leader to show them how to be a pro and how to go about their business.  Pagano fit that role perfectly.  However, that time has come and gone.  Pagano has stayed in Indy at least one season too long.  If the Colts want to become championship contenders, I don't think Pagano is the guy to get them there.

 

Lastly, there have been reports that Chris Ballard prefers Dave Toub to be his head coach.  While their relationship appears to be good, and it seems like Ballard is happy with Pagano, it's hard to know much of this is GM-speak and how much is legitimate.  Are these guys just being professionals, or is Ballard genuinely happy with sticking with Pagano?  If you ask me, I think Ballard really prefers Toub and it will take an exceptional season for Pagano to remain Indy's head coach.  When you combine this report that our GM prefers/preferred another coach, and the poor performances and decisions Pagano has displayed, I think Pagano's time is limited.

 

In Pagano's defense, he hasn't always had the greatest talent to work with.  It's no secret that Ryan Grigson made several mistakes with personnel.  Some of Pagano's fans will say this is the reason why his teams haven't done so well.  However, I'm of the opinion that at the end of the day, you're either getting the job done, or not getting it done.  Pagano simply isn't getting it done.

 

And with that, the ORS is complete!  Many thanks to everyone who participated in the discussions.  Hopefully they helped make the long offseason feel a bit shorter and give everyone a little dose of football when there are no games on.  Bring on the 2017 season!  Go Colts!!

[ColtsBlitz]

1 hour ago, 21isSuperman said:

 

Long story short: Pagano was given a top 10 QB and lost to bottom 6 QBs.  Not only did he lose to them, his defenses were downright embarrassed; the Colts allowed Brock Osweiler to score 14 points 

 

You’ve certainly built a monster, Pagano, because that defense is terrifying Colts fans everywhere.

This    

[ColtsBlitz]

When I played football in high school, my head coach was almost an opposite to Pagano, constantly demanding the best and not accepting anything less than perfection, these expectations normally followed by vulgar language and name calling. The following year of me playing he took a different approach to become more player-friendly, and it was one of the best seasons we had ever. I think Pagano needs more of a hard demanding approach to his players and should be straightforward to the media instead of sugar coating everything. I like the foundation of Pagano's coaching style, but it needs to change is some fashion in order for him to remain in Indianapolis. 

[Dark Superman]

I believe this his Pagano's last year in Indianapolis.

The Colts need a change and allow CB to bring in someone he believes can bring us a ring.

Next years off-season is going to be very interesting. Lots of cap room, possibly a new coach and a much clearer idea of how good our roster is.

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Whether or not this will be Chuck's last season is a mystery. It is because we have no idea what the Colts record will be. What if we go 10-6 or 11-5 (win the Division) and win a Playoff game? If we do that I doubt he gets fired. I think he gets fired if we miss the Playoffs but not sure we will if Luck is healthy. Our schedule on paper is even favorable. I am good either way, I have defended Chuck in the past but after we lost to Houston at home last season to basically lose the Division I can longer defend him. I wont bash him either though as to me he has been successful and he has this 1 last chance to prove his haters wrong.

[chad72]

To me, it is more the coaches he surrounds himself with that make the difference. Chud and Monachino, those guys hold the key to Pagano's future and it is sink or swim with them for Pagano, IMO. He won't have the luxury of bringing a new OC or DC and keep his job with Chris Ballard, that is for sure.

 

Unless it is a division title and playoff win, I do not see how Pagano returns. Irsay should get a clearer idea of how Pagano does without Grigson as well this year. Plus, I am not so sure that the schedule that is easier on paper ends up being the soft schedule it is supposed to be. This cat sure has 9 lives.  

[Dingus McGirt]

9 hours ago, ColtsBlitz said:

When I played football in high school, my head coach was almost an opposite to Pagano, constantly demanding the best and not accepting anything less than perfection, these expectations normally followed by vulgar language and name calling. The following year of me playing he took a different approach to become more player-friendly, and it was one of the best seasons we had ever. I think Pagano needs more of a hard demanding approach to his players and should be straightforward to the media instead of sugar coating everything. I like the foundation of Pagano's coaching style, but it needs to change is some fashion in order for him to remain in Indianapolis. 

There's an old leadership axiom that says you can come in hard and ease up some over time, but, it's not wise to try and come in soft and toughen up.  Granted, it's an old saying.  Were Pagano to try and change his style, it wouldn't be genuine, and would fail the eyeball test.  I do understand that in today's PC culture "I'm ok, you're ok" is the way of the world.

 

 

[BR-549]

I am torn on Chuck Pagano.  As Andrew would say "he has made some real bonehead moves" and they can't be denied.  Bad play calling, poor clock management and the cheer leading approach to coaching are all hard to accept.  Not to mention his cliche's get pretty old when you are a .500 club with enough good personnel to be better than .500.

 

On the other hand we really have no idea what the extent of the dysfunction was between him and RG which undoubtedly was contagious within the organization.  Irsay had to hire a psychiatrist for crying out loud.

 

I think it is fair that he is getting a chance to prove himself now that RG cannot be a scapegoat plus the fact that on paper the roster has been significantly upgraded which, if true, will cover up or make up for some of the bad coaching. Neither will assure a winning season, nor Chuck's job, but it should give him at the very least better opportunity than he has had in the past.

 

I am cautiously optimistic about this season and Chuck Pagano.  I hope he does well which translates to us having a good season.  If not I am sure Chris Ballard and Jim Irsay will find a suitable replacement.

[crazycolt1]

All this long winded stuff could have been avoided had the thread just said lets rag on Chuck. Like we haven't been through all of this?

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

All this long winded stuff could have been avoided had the thread just said lets rag on Chuck. Like we haven't been through all of this?

 yeah it is open an invitation to "rag on Chuck". See my Post above, I am neutral as of now with Chuck. I want to see how he does with Grigson gone. Grigson was a poison to the team attitude wise IMO. Reggie Wayne and Pat both are on record saying Grigs attitude was awful.

[BR-549]

5 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

All this long winded stuff could have been avoided had the thread just said lets rag on Chuck. Like we haven't been through all of this?

Its just conversation CC1... no one is forcing you to read it or participate.  

 

You are right it is all pretty much well documented, and I get your point, but not everyone hates Chuck.  I didn't "rag on him".  I made a reasonable statement that included my hope that he does well.  I have seen you say before that this is an open forum and we discuss and debate topics, whether previously covered or not.  

 

It is just another discussion that one can participate in or pass if by if they choose.

 

Its okay my friend.  Chuck has a year to prove the haters wrong.

[21isSuperman]

12 hours ago, ColtsBlitz said:

When I played football in high school, my head coach was almost an opposite to Pagano, constantly demanding the best and not accepting anything less than perfection, these expectations normally followed by vulgar language and name calling. The following year of me playing he took a different approach to become more player-friendly, and it was one of the best seasons we had ever. I think Pagano needs more of a hard demanding approach to his players and should be straightforward to the media instead of sugar coating everything. I like the foundation of Pagano's coaching style, but it needs to change is some fashion in order for him to remain in Indianapolis. 

I don't mind his style as long as his on-field decisions would be better.  I actually prefer when a coach keeps things in-house and doesn't air stuff out to the media.  I'm from the Bill Belichick School of Media Relations; keep everything in-house and give the media as little as possible.

 

However, the bigger issue is the other stuff I listed.  The team being unprepared, taking lots of penalties, defense being full of holes, etc.

 

2 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

All this long winded stuff could have been avoided had the thread just said lets rag on Chuck. Like we haven't been through all of this?

This is meant to be a discussion about the positives and negatives, not to just rag on Chuck.  I provided my analysis using stats, facts, and media reports.  I'm trying to be as objective as possible, but I think the evidence overwhelmingly points to Pagano being on the hot seat.  This isn't ragging on Chuck for the sake of ragging on Chuck.  It's a discussion of whether what Pagano has shown us since 2012 is enough to win a Super Bowl.

[crazycolt1]

6 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

I don't mind his style as long as his on-field decisions would be better.  I actually prefer when a coach keeps things in-house and doesn't air stuff out to the media.  I'm from the Bill Belichick School of Media Relations; keep everything in-house and give the media as little as possible.

 

However, the bigger issue is the other stuff I listed.  The team being unprepared, taking lots of penalties, defense being full of holes, etc.

 

This is meant to be a discussion about the positives and negatives, not to just rag on Chuck.  I provided my analysis using stats, facts, and media reports.  I'm trying to be as objective as possible, but I think the evidence overwhelmingly points to Pagano being on the hot seat.  This isn't ragging on Chuck for the sake of ragging on Chuck.  It's a discussion of whether what Pagano has shown us since 2012 is enough to win a Super Bowl.

With all due respect after reading it I find it hard to believe there was much objective used. I respect you for doing the work on this thread but 90% of what you did come up with was a rag on Chuck. That's fine, but every thing you have brought up has been hashed out so many times it reads like old news. No matter what your intent was it will ultimately end up another rag on Chuck thread.

[BR-549]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

With all due respect after reading it I find it hard to believe there was much objective used. I respect you for doing the work on this thread but 90% of what you did come up with was a rag on Chuck. That's fine, but every thing you have brought up has been hashed out so many times it reads like old news. No matter what your intent was it will ultimately end up another rag on Chuck thread.

 

I thought the same thing when I first read it too.  I am hoping that it does not turn out that way and that members can have a civil conversation about it.... or just leave it alone.

[lollygagger8]

4 hours ago, Dingus McGirt said:

There's an old leadership axiom that says you can come in hard and ease up some over time, but, it's not wise to try and come in soft and toughen up.  Granted, it's an old saying.  

 

So true!!! 

 

Just like a band can come onto the scene playing heavy music and eventually start playing softer music. But a band can't come in playing softer music and then go heavy. It never works out. 

[lollygagger8]

1 hour ago, 21isSuperman said:

I don't mind his style as long as his on-field decisions would be better.  I actually prefer when a coach keeps things in-house and doesn't air stuff out to the media.  I'm from the Bill Belichick School of Media Relations; keep everything in-house and give the media as little as possible.

 

However, the bigger issue is the other stuff I listed.  The team being unprepared, taking lots of penalties, defense being full of holes, etc.

 

This is meant to be a discussion about the positives and negatives, not to just rag on Chuck.  I provided my analysis using stats, facts, and media reports.  I'm trying to be as objective as possible, but I think the evidence overwhelmingly points to Pagano being on the hot seat.  This isn't ragging on Chuck for the sake of ragging on Chuck.  It's a discussion of whether what Pagano has shown us since 2012 is enough to win a Super Bowl.

 

I for one thought your post was objective. Everyone reads everything differently, I get it. I  didn't see it as a ragging on Pagano piece. 

 

Your posts lately have been very thorough and give plenty of examples on what the topic is. Keep up the good work! 

[21isSuperman]

2 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

With all due respect after reading it I find it hard to believe there was much objective used. I respect you for doing the work on this thread but 90% of what you did come up with was a rag on Chuck. That's fine, but every thing you have brought up has been hashed out so many times it reads like old news. No matter what your intent was it will ultimately end up another rag on Chuck thread.

I'm of the opinion that Chuck should be fired because of what he's shown over the last few years.  I look at the evidence, then make a judgement.  For example, I see that the defense has been ranked in the bottom half of the league in terms of points given up per game and rush yards given up per game.  I'm forming conclusions based on what the evidence says.  That's not subjective; it's an objective fact that the defense didn't rank in the top-16 for those stats in the years I listed. 

 

This is nothing personal against Chuck.  I actually really like Pagano the person.  I just don't think Pagano the coach is the one to lead the Colts to championships.  I'd like to see those who have different opinions comment too, so they can present the other side of the story.  For me, this is the conclusion the evidence shows.  If you disagree, I'd be very happy to hear your comments

 

1 hour ago, lollygagger8 said:

 

I for one thought your post was objective. Everyone reads everything differently, I get it. I  didn't see it as a ragging on Pagano piece. 

 

Your posts lately have been very thorough and give plenty of examples on what the topic is. Keep up the good work! 

Thanks, buddy.  Glad you liked it.

[crazycolt1]

15 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

I'm of the opinion that Chuck should be fired because of what he's shown over the last few years.  I look at the evidence, then make a judgement.  For example, I see that the defense has been ranked in the bottom half of the league in terms of points given up per game and rush yards given up per game.  I'm forming conclusions based on what the evidence says.  That's not subjective; it's an objective fact that the defense didn't rank in the top-16 for those stats in the years I listed. 

 

This is nothing personal against Chuck.  I actually really like Pagano the person.  I just don't think Pagano the coach is the one to lead the Colts to championships.  I'd like to see those who have different opinions comment too, so they can present the other side of the story.  For me, this is the conclusion the evidence shows.  If you disagree, I'd be very happy to hear your comments

 

Thanks, buddy.  Glad you liked it.

IMO your comments failed at bring the positive things that Chuck has done. For one thing he has yet to have a losing season. That in itself is pretty impressive for a five year head coach.

There are very few head coaches in the history of the NFL that has started with the record that Chuck has.

Now you may hand pick the negatives and completely disregard the positive to make your judgment.

You want Chuck fired therefor you slant your research to the negative and give an incomplete report by omitting the things that show anything positive.

No where did you mention what his team did for his first three years.

No where did you mention Grigson's failing to bring top talent at key places in the defense.

No where did you mention the poor track record of Grigson's free agents.

Some say Chuck's record is because of Luck. Funny his record without Luck is real good.

I do agree that Chuck is on the hot seat. With that said we shall all see what Chuck can do with a different GM and what seems to be better talent brought to him.

To fire him without giving him the benefit of the doubt is too pre mature.

[RockThatBlue]

IMO hes gone if he doesn't make the playoffs this year. I think it would be hard to sell bringing back a coach who has missed the playoffs 3 straight years, especially with a healthy Luck.

[GoPats]

 

For some outside perspective...

 

It seems from afar that Pagano has one year to basically save his job. It's obviously playoffs or bust, but nationally I get the sense that Indy would have to go on a good run to save Chuck at this point. So a WC appearance or win probably won't cut it. 

 

[crazycolt1]

18 minutes ago, RockThatBlue said:

IMO hes gone if he doesn't make the playoffs this year. I think it would be hard to sell bringing back a coach who has missed the playoffs 3 straight years, especially with a healthy Luck.

 

11 minutes ago, GoPats said:

 

For some outside perspective...

 

It seems from afar that Pagano has one year to basically save his job. It's obviously playoffs or bust, but nationally I get the sense that Indy would have to go on a good run to save Chuck at this point. So a WC appearance or win probably won't cut it. 

 

You might be right but Irsay has already said that the teams record would not be the determining factor in Chucks job.

Could that change? Heck yes. But IMO I think Irsay will give Chuck some slack if he sees an improvement in the teams play. To take an 8-8 team deep into the playoffs the very next year without letting the new players learn to play together as a unit is pretty much an impossible task.

[21isSuperman]

2 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

IMO your comments failed at bring the positive things that Chuck has done. For one thing he has yet to have a losing season. That in itself is pretty impressive for a five year head coach.

There are very few head coaches in the history of the NFL that has started with the record that Chuck has.

I counter this by saying very few head coaches in NFL history have been gifted a quarterback like Luck.  It's easy to go 8+ wins every year when you have Andrew Luck on your roster and your division has guys like Blake Bortles, Brock Osweiler, and Case Keenum.

 

Quote

No where did you mention what his team did for his first three years.

My counter to this is that I gave Chuck 2012 off since he was away for his leukemia treatments, and I gave him 2013 off so he could have a full season to set up the defense as he wanted.  I evaluated the performance of his defenses in 2014-2016, which is what I displayed in the chart.

 

Quote

No where did you mention Grigson's failing to bring top talent at key places in the defense.

No where did you mention the poor track record of Grigson's free agents.

I did refer to this...

"In Pagano's defense, he hasn't always had the greatest talent to work with.  It's no secret that Ryan Grigson made several mistakes with personnel.  Some of Pagano's fans will say this is the reason why his teams haven't done so well.  However, I'm of the opinion that at the end of the day, you're either getting the job done, or not getting it done.  Pagano simply isn't getting it done. "

 

Quote

Some say Chuck's record is because of Luck. Funny his record without Luck is real good.

His record without Luck is 4-3 in 2015 and 0-1 in 2016, giving him an overall record of 4-4 without Luck.  I'd hardly call a .500 record "real good"

[Synthetic]

 

If they fail to make the playoffs this year, I can see it definitely being Pagano's final season. 

 

If they start out with a bad record like 1-5 or 2-7, he could be fired mid-season. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

10 minutes ago, Synthetic said:

 

If they fail to make the playoffs this year, I can see it definitely being Pagano's final season. 

 

If they start out with a bad record like 1-5 or 2-7, he could be fired mid-season. 

I agree. I think the Colts have to win the Division and a Playoff game for his job to be saved, JMO.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, 21isSuperman said:

I counter this by saying very few head coaches in NFL history have been gifted a quarterback like Luck.  It's easy to go 8+ wins every year when you have Andrew Luck on your roster and your division has guys like Blake Bortles, Brock Osweiler, and Case Keenum.

 

My counter to this is that I gave Chuck 2012 off since he was away for his leukemia treatments, and I gave him 2013 off so he could have a full season to set up the defense as he wanted.  I evaluated the performance of his defenses in 2014-2016, which is what I displayed in the chart.

 

I did refer to this...

"In Pagano's defense, he hasn't always had the greatest talent to work with.  It's no secret that Ryan Grigson made several mistakes with personnel.  Some of Pagano's fans will say this is the reason why his teams haven't done so well.  However, I'm of the opinion that at the end of the day, you're either getting the job done, or not getting it done.  Pagano simply isn't getting it done. "

 

His record without Luck is 4-3 in 2015 and 0-1 in 2016, giving him an overall record of 4-4 without Luck.  I'd hardly call a .500 record "real good"

Once again you failed to mention that Pagano got a 8-8 record with 5 different QBs in a season. Two of them were not even in the NFL when signed. But what the heck, it don't fit your point of view so just omit it.

[21isSuperman]

32 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Once again you failed to mention that Pagano got a 8-8 record with 5 different QBs in a season. Two of them were not even in the NFL when signed. But what the heck, it don't fit your point of view so just omit it.

That wasn't the point you brought up.  You said he has a real good record without Luck and I provided facts that suggest otherwise.

 

Also, if you want to give credit to Pagano for going 4-3 with several different QBs in 2015, what about going 8-7 with Luck in 2016?

[chad72]

49 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

That wasn't the point you brought up.  You said he has a real good record without Luck and I provided facts that suggest otherwise.

 

Also, if you want to give credit to Pagano for going 4-3 with several different QBs in 2015, what about going 8-7 with Luck in 2016?

 

That is indeed the problem, with Indy .500, glass half full or glass half empty for 2 years in a row.  

[crazycolt1]

3 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

That wasn't the point you brought up.  You said he has a real good record without Luck and I provided facts that suggest otherwise.

 

Also, if you want to give credit to Pagano for going 4-3 with several different QBs in 2015, what about going 8-7 with Luck in 2016?

Like it or not Chuck is the head coach for the Colts this season. Irsay decided it was not all Chuck's fault and IMO deservedly so.

We can talk and debate this till cows start to fly but it still remains the same. 

Chuck deserves the chance to coach under a GM who seems to know what he is doing.

Really the only thing left is to wait and see. This never ending argumentative debate serves no real purpose at this point in the season.

[bleevit]

Chuck Pagano has gone 18 games above .500 with arguably a poor GM.  That said, barring a great head coach being available (Jim Harbaugh?) I think Chuck deserves a reasonable period of time with Chris Ballard. Knee jerk reactions are never good in the NFL as evidenced by the Browns. If the D shows improvement this year, my opinion will be to allow Chuck at least 2 years with Ballard. When the Colts ruin the Patriots undefeated season in the playoffs, the question will be moot. Go Colts!

[BR-549]

Something interesting in CB's press conference was about coaching.  

 

He didn't specifically bring up Pagano, but he was implying IMO.  He said something to the effect that once the pads go on we can see at that point what players really are and how the coaches are doing.... I don't remember the exact words but I took it as he will be evaluating the coaches along with the players.

[Blueblood23]

12 hours ago, Synthetic said:

 

If they fail to make the playoffs this year, I can see it definitely being Pagano's final season. 

 

If they start out with a bad record like 1-5 or 2-7, he could be fired mid-season. 

If they start the season like that with this easy schedule, he should be fired mid season.

[21isSuperman]

12 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Like it or not Chuck is the head coach for the Colts this season. Irsay decided it was not all Chuck's fault and IMO deservedly so.

We can talk and debate this till cows start to fly but it still remains the same. 

Chuck deserves the chance to coach under a GM who seems to know what he is doing.

Really the only thing left is to wait and see. This never ending argumentative debate serves no real purpose at this point in the season.

I agree that Chuck deserves the chance.  I think I may have presented my ideas incorrectly.  I'm not saying Chuck doesn't deserve a chance and Chuck has done nothing for Indy.  Pagano was the perfect candidate for the Colts rebuilding efforts in 2012.  I think he's done a great job of mentoring guys and being a leader that the players want to play for.  I also think Chuck absolutely deserves a chance this year to show what he can do with Ballard instead of Grigson.

 

However, the past evidence suggests to me that Pagano simply isn't a good enough coach to get us to Super Bowls.  I'd love nothing more than for Pagano to lead the Colts to winning the next 5 championships.  But I don't see the Colts even getting to the Super Bowl with Pagano, let along winning it.  I don't see our team as one that can beat the Steelers, Pats, or Raiders.

 

Lastly, while none of the discussions on the forums bear any weight in the real world, the point is just to give us something to debate and discuss until training camp starts and we have more to talk about.

[crazycolt1]

3 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

I agree that Chuck deserves the chance.  I think I may have presented my ideas incorrectly.  I'm not saying Chuck doesn't deserve a chance and Chuck has done nothing for Indy.  Pagano was the perfect candidate for the Colts rebuilding efforts in 2012.  I think he's done a great job of mentoring guys and being a leader that the players want to play for.  I also think Chuck absolutely deserves a chance this year to show what he can do with Ballard instead of Grigson.

 

However, the past evidence suggests to me that Pagano simply isn't a good enough coach to get us to Super Bowls.  I'd love nothing more than for Pagano to lead the Colts to winning the next 5 championships.  But I don't see the Colts even getting to the Super Bowl with Pagano, let along winning it.  I don't see our team as one that can beat the Steelers, Pats, or Raiders.

 

Lastly, while none of the discussions on the forums bear any weight in the real world, the point is just to give us something to debate and discuss until training camp starts and we have more to talk about.

The past evidence?  Please give me the list of present head coaches who have had at least an even record that Pagano does with five years experience.

I would settle for any past head coaches who have equaled Pagano's record.

Pagano has beaten some pretty good teams in the past including an undefeated Broncos. To say the Colts will not be able to beat the Steelers, Pats or the Raiders with Pagano as head coach is way too pre mature to call. That is your personal opinion so in reality it means just as much as mine and that is a respective zero.

[21isSuperman]

4 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

The past evidence?  Please give me the list of present head coaches who have had at least an even record that Pagano does with five years experience.

I would settle for any past head coaches who have equaled Pagano's record.

Pagano has beaten some pretty good teams in the past including an undefeated Broncos. To say the Colts will not be able to beat the Steelers, Pats or the Raiders with Pagano as head coach is way too pre mature to call. That is your personal opinion so in reality it means just as much as mine and that is a respective zero.

If you'd settle for a guy who refuses to run a more efficient offense, if you'd settle for a former defensive coordinator whose defenses are among the bottom half of the league, all I can say is that you and I have very different expectations.

 

Let's ignore the Raiders since they're just now becoming good and we only have 2 games against them, with the win coming when we barely beat the Raiders QB'ed by Terrelle Pryor.

Colts' record against the Steelers during Pagano's time as HC: 0-3, average score 41-17

Colts' record against the Pats during Pagano's time as HC: 0-5, average score 45-20

How is that premature?  History has shown we can't beat those teams.

 

Again, I don't know who you keep saying our opinions mean 0.  I know that.  That's not the point of this.  The point is to have a discussion.  If your go-to claim is that our opinions mean 0, then the entire forums are useless because it's mostly the opinions and perspectives of fans.

[BR-549]

6 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

If you'd settle for a guy who refuses to run a more efficient offense, if you'd settle for a former defensive coordinator whose defenses are among the bottom half of the league, all I can say is that you and I have very different expectations.

 

Let's ignore the Raiders since they're just now becoming good and we only have 2 games against them, with the win coming when we barely beat the Raiders QB'ed by Terrelle Pryor.

Colts' record against the Steelers during Pagano's time as HC: 0-3, average score 41-17

Colts' record against the Pats during Pagano's time as HC: 0-5, average score 45-20

How is that premature?  History has shown we can't beat those teams.

 

Again, I don't know who you keep saying our opinions mean 0.  I know that.  That's not the point of this.  The point is to have a discussion.  If your go-to claim is that our opinions mean 0, then the entire forums are useless because it's mostly the opinions and perspectives of fans.

I think he is just tired of this argument against Chuck.  I can see why but to contribute to the discussion...

 

I believe we are closer now to competing with the steelers than we have been since Chuck came to Indy.  Tomlin is not that good of a coach.  So I think we can out coach him once we have our pieces in place.  I wholeheartedly agree with you that settling for a bottom feeder defense is going to send us to nowhere.  Is that Chuck's fault?  I seriously doubt it.  

 

One reason I will give you is.... who is the best defender that Grigson drafted in his tenure and where is he now?  And who was it that couldn't find enough money to keep Jerrell Freeman? (Hint Ryan Grigson)  By the way he ended up being the number one rated ILB in the league last year, did we not need that sort of player?  I don't know the whole reasoning behind him leaving, but I think his heart was in Indy.

 

I am a Purdue guy and I really really tried to like Ryan Grigson, but I gotta say he was way more the problem than Chuck.  I am not a statistician and I hated statistics in college and I don't have any "proof" to back my words up, but it really isn't that hard to tell that I am at least half right.  What did Chris Ballard do when he came?  The very first thing I saw was that he stripped our defense down and pretty much kept the very best people we had and got rid of everyone else.  I would bet that other than Anderson come next year we have zero Ryan Grigson defenders (at least I can't think of any we would keep, maybe Vonte?).  That is a pretty glaring clue of just how poor our defensive roster has been and Chuck was not responsible for those picks, at least not solely .... no way.

 

Lastly, I definitely can't say that I agree with a lot of things that Chuck has done.  And like I said earlier in this thread he has made some real head scratcher calls.  I just think it is fair that he gets an opportunity to coach his team without the fear of Ryan Grigson's intimidating posture and poor roster building.  I am pretty sure that Ballard was saying in his press conference that once the pads come on he will be able to better evaluate players and coaches alike.

 

That is how I feel about it.  I am not a hater and really not an advocate.  I want everyone to be healthy and for Chuck to get a fair shake to do what he said he can do.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

This could go either way because there are so many variables that will affect next offseason.  But Paganos' job is definitely on the line this season.  There are a few games this year (in addition to the division games) that will really be the measuring stick for Chuck: @Seattle, Pittsburgh, and an assumed playoff game against an elite team like the Pats or Steelers.  

 

Barring a SB run like 2006, if our record is 8-8 or worse, I see Chuck being fired, even if 8-8 wins the division and we make the playoffs.  If the Colts go 10-6 and barely win the division, then win a boring Wild Card game against a team like Houston, Baltimore or Denver, but then lose badly to Pittsburgh or New England in the Divisional game, I could see Chuck being fired.  If the Colts go 14-2, get a 1st round bye, but are "one-and-done" by losing in the Divisional game, at home...  I could see Chuck being fired.  This is his "hump year", if he can't get over the hump and beat the Pats or Steelers (or both) in the playoffs, nobody would blame Ballard for trying to find someone who can get the team over that "hump".

 

It's not so much wins vs. losses as it is IMPRESSIVE wins vs. UGLY losses.  Any bad coaching mistakes by Pagano, or any ugly losses that lead to a losing record will probably cost him his job.  If he stacks up a few impressive wins, like against the Seahawks and Steelers in the regular season, storms into the playoffs and adds an impressive playoff win against the Pats, Steelers or even Raiders, he will probably keep his job.  It's not necessarily SB or bust for Pagano this year, but I think everyone would be fine with Pagano winning a SB and keeping his job.   

 

Personally, I am rooting for Chuck, but if things go south, and Ballard brings in Toub and that works out, then so be it.

 

[21isSuperman]

59 minutes ago, BR-549 said:

I think he is just tired of this argument against Chuck.  I can see why but to contribute to the discussion...

 

I believe we are closer now to competing with the steelers than we have been since Chuck came to Indy.  Tomlin is not that good of a coach.  So I think we can out coach him once we have our pieces in place.  I wholeheartedly agree with you that settling for a bottom feeder defense is going to send us to nowhere.  Is that Chuck's fault?  I seriously doubt it.  

 

One reason I will give you is.... who is the best defender that Grigson drafted in his tenure and where is he now?  And who was it that couldn't find enough money to keep Jerrell Freeman? (Hint Ryan Grigson)  By the way he ended up being the number one rated ILB in the league last year, did we not need that sort of player?  I don't know the whole reasoning behind him leaving, but I think his heart was in Indy.

 

I am a Purdue guy and I really really tried to like Ryan Grigson, but I gotta say he was way more the problem than Chuck.  I am not a statistician and I hated statistics in college and I don't have any "proof" to back my words up, but it really isn't that hard to tell that I am at least half right.  What did Chris Ballard do when he came?  The very first thing I saw was that he stripped our defense down and pretty much kept the very best people we had and got rid of everyone else.  I would bet that other than Anderson come next year we have zero Ryan Grigson defenders (at least I can't think of any we would keep, maybe Vonte?).  That is a pretty glaring clue of just how poor our defensive roster has been and Chuck was not responsible for those picks, at least not solely .... no way.

 

Lastly, I definitely can't say that I agree with a lot of things that Chuck has done.  And like I said earlier in this thread he has made some real head scratcher calls.  I just think it is fair that he gets an opportunity to coach his team without the fear of Ryan Grigson's intimidating posture and poor roster building.  I am pretty sure that Ballard was saying in his press conference that once the pads come on he will be able to better evaluate players and coaches alike.

 

That is how I feel about it.  I am not a hater and really not an advocate.  I want everyone to be healthy and for Chuck to get a fair shake to do what he said he can do.

Fair points.  I agree that Chuck hasn't necessarily been helped out by Grigson's talent acquisitions.  But a lot of what I stated is due to factors other than talent.  His choice of offense/offensive coordinator, playing favourites/a lack of accountability, slow starts, etc.

[BR-549]

1 minute ago, 21isSuperman said:

Fair points.  I agree that Chuck hasn't necessarily been helped out by Grigson's talent acquisitions.  But a lot of what I stated is due to factors other than talent.  His choice of offense/offensive coordinator, playing favourites/a lack of accountability, slow starts, etc.

I know, and those are all valid points you have made.  

 

Trust me I have my doubts and I fully understand your argument ... It would not surprise me to see him fired mid-season this year.  I think Chris has the eagle eye on him to be honest.... and why wouldn't he?  He has a job to protect too and he isn't going to let CP decide his fate.

[WoolMagnet]

This year might tell us much more about Pags.  Not only should he have a better team, especially defense, but now he wont be "handed"  5 or 6 wins a year from the division.  Half of Those 22 wins in the 1st couple years are skewed because of the weak division.  THAT has changed.

[WoolMagnet]

10 hours ago, BR-549 said:

Something interesting in CB's press conference was about coaching.  

 

He didn't specifically bring up Pagano, but he was implying IMO.  He said something to the effect that once the pads go on we can see at that point what players really are and how the coaches are doing.... I don't remember the exact words but I took it as he will be evaluating the coaches along with the players.

I would hope that EVERYONE is being evaluated.  Players, coaches, and even the hotdog vendors.  If not, Ballard isnt doing his job, imo.