Pagano has to go?

[aaron11]

3 hours ago, rockywoj said:

Hooker was such a player, until he got injured. 

hooker has plenty to work on, he doesn't tackle like a safety we have rookie corners that are better at it than him 

[crazycolt1]

Hooker will get better with more play.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

Hooker is going to be fine he was playing well before he got injured, there lies the problem he was injured when the Colts drafted him. He needs reps, and now has a knee to rehab! Hooker is the least of the Colts problems. People need to understand, it is ridiculously RARE when a drafted player comes in and DOMINATES right away. 

[Colts_Fan12]

6 hours ago, ND Irish said:

They may get a high draft pick but they always seem to get someone who needs time develope or project player. We need immediate impact guys.

Well that's what stupid grigson did Ballard's first first round pick was a stud in Hooker 

[Colts_Fan12]

3 hours ago, aaron11 said:

hooker has plenty to work on, he doesn't tackle like a safety we have rookie corners that are better at it than him 

Hooker is also a rookie your point?

[Superman]

17 hours ago, richard pallo said:

It's fine for us to disagree, but understand that my issue with Pagano is that I simply think he's good enough. 

 

That's an interesting stance.

[Superman]

15 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

So let me get this correct. Teams who get beat by the Pats in the playoffs suffer from bad coaching? You need a list?

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

 

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

 

"and then getting stomped by a team with better coaching"  - Your words.  Would you like a list of the coaches the Pats have stomped or beat in the playoffs?

Look Sup, we can go back and forth on this and neither one of us are going to change our minds. Besides, all of this has been talked about in detail so let's just let time gives us the answers. Fair enough?

[Superman]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

"and then getting stomped by a team with better coaching"  - Your words.  Would you like a list of the coaches the Pats have stomped or beat in the playoffs?

Look Sup, we can go back and forth on this and neither one of us are going to change our minds. Besides, all of this has been talked about in detail so let's just let time gives us the answers. Fair enough?

 

I don't mind any of the bolded. I do mind the 'black or white,' strawman, moving the goal posts responses that you always -- ALWAYS -- resort to.

[Coffeedrinker]

On 11/26/2017 at 4:32 PM, Boomstick1 said:

Can we stop making these after every game now?

What do you mean?  I've never read anything like this before on this forum.  People don't like Pagano, really?

[BR-549]

On 11/26/2017 at 10:16 PM, Superman said:

 

I felt like the tide was turning already, with the Colts offense failing on third down the previous two possessions. The game started to have that same feeling that's been all too familiar this season.

 

The fumble was a huge play, obviously. 

The tide was turning because the "Nor' easter" was gaining headway

[BR-549]

On 11/26/2017 at 10:51 PM, John Waylon said:

I don't even know anymore. I can't sit here and say that this team wouldn't be 8-3 with Luck playing. Other than the Rams and Jags game they've all come down to a short momentum swing. 

 

Look, I like Brisett, but the guy has 0 clutch. He's easily rattled, and easily confused. When the game gets critical he %s the bed and doesn't step up and make plays. 

 

Is the play calling bad?

 

Yes. Absolutely. 

 

Is the gameplanning bad?

 

A lot of the times, yes. 

 

Are the in-game adjustments bad?

 

What in-game adjustments?

 

But we've still been close to winning a lot of these games, and it stands to reason that missing Luck is the main reason for that. 

 

These late game meltdowns are as much the offense just shutting down as they are defensive failures. 

 

Luck is the counterweight to that. 

 

I don't want to sit here and defend Pagano in any way, but it's certainly worth bearing in mind that this team is just a #12 away from likely being 8-3 or 7-4. 

I agree with what yo are saying, but that is just how the NFL is and the good (better) teams usually win even when challenged by a team like the Colts.  It gives us hope, but really if you look at the whole NFL most games are reasonably close like most of ours have been this year.  We have the disadvantage of an anemic roster.

 

They give us just enough hope to make us feel like they are not that far away, but at some point the lack of talent and discipline shine through the cloud and the other team is able to take advantage of our flawed - undisciplined - inexperienced roster.

 

Who knows how much Luck would have changed things.  I am sure we would have a better record, but then it would also SLOW the process of rebuilding.... all-in-all I am somewhat happy with the way things have turned out.

 

We finally get to draft in the range we should have been drafting for the past several years because AL didn't cover up our dismal roster and coaching mistakes, and a lot of young guys got the opportunity to play a higher percentage of snaps due to other injuries and you would think that might positively contribute to our depth once our "playmakers" are healthy...

 

Sounds good anyway, not sure if it is realistic or not.    

[crazycolt1]

37 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't mind any of the bolded. I do mind the 'black or white,' strawman, moving the goal posts responses that you always -- ALWAYS -- resort to.

Stating my opinion and then listing the reasons I have that opinion is not moving the goal post. I have been consistent with my opinion for two years.

[RockThatBlue]

8 hours ago, aaron11 said:

hooker has plenty to work on, he doesn't tackle like a safety we have rookie corners that are better at it than him 

Yup he definitely needs to improve the tackling, but he looks like he will be a ball hog, or the closest thing to a ball hog that the Colts have had in a long time. The Colts have been a train wreck at generating turnovers for several years it seems like, and Hooker should help in that area. 

[aaron11]

4 hours ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

Hooker is also a rookie your point?

that was in response to someone saying we have been taking too many guys that need time to develop before ballard got here

 

hooker has a lot to work on himself, the only thing he has been good at is playing the ball in the air.  he hasnt been good at playing the run, or coming up to tackle guys that caught a short completion

 

 

[Colts_Fan12]

2 hours ago, aaron11 said:

that was in response to someone saying we have been taking too many guys that need time to develop before ballard got here

 

hooker has a lot to work on himself, the only thing he has been good at is playing the ball in the air.  he hasnt been good at playing the run, or coming up to tackle guys that caught a short completion

 

 

Hooker was playing like a rookie FS with not much of a training camp 

[Peterk2011]

On 2017. 11. 28. at 8:12 PM, Superman said:

 

He also lost to the Ravens in 2012. And then there are all these mediocre coaches that he's lost to in the regular season, where the Colts have more blowout losses (20+ points) in the last five plus seasons than any other team in the league.  

 

That 2012 team was Arian's team. He coached them, he prepared them.

 

Regarding blowout losses, I don't care. A loss is a loss, doesn't matter if its by one point or twenty. If the Colts finish 11:5 and loose all five games by 30 points, I take that over finishing 10:6 and be in every game.

 

On 2017. 11. 28. at 8:12 PM, Superman said:

Every team expects any coach they hire to be good. No team can foretell the future. To me, there are two separate, distinct evaluations that need to be done, and you're conflating them. First, the question is whether Chuck Pagano is a good enough coach for the Colts to be a title contender. I'm convinced that he's not. Only after you reach that conclusion do you move on the second evaluation, which is regarding who the best available candidate is for the Colts moving forward. 

 

It would be a mistake to hold on to a coach you don't believe in just because you're afraid the next coach you hire might not be good enough. 

 

It goes both ways. It would also be a mistake to hire a new coach if you don't strongly believe that he will be better than your current coach. Make sure you have a better alternative, and THEN make the change.

[Peterk2011]

double post

[Peterk2011]

double post