YOUR GM
-
Posts
1,983 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by YOUR GM
-
-
Exactly what aspect of this game gave him any indication that our line would be able to execute a sneak in a critical situation like that? Bone-headed calls like that are what drive me crazy
-
There was a two possession stretch where the play calling was terrible. Also the third and short on the first possession, which I hated. And while I think we should have gone for it on 4th down, it's the first 4th down of the season.
The play calling on the TD drive was much better. Let's see if it carries over.
Yeah, no doubt. Seen some good stuff already, to start the 2nd half. Have to score right here though
-
We knew Denver was more talented coming into this game. The thing I'm most frustrated with is the carry over of poor play calling/game management that we saw last season as well. Let's see if any adjustments are made in the 2nd half
-
Man, I'd rather watch the Falcons/Saints game. This game will be a snoozefest....I need to get Sunday Ticket
-
And nobody in their right mind is gonna give you Gio Bernard for Dwayne Bowe, no matter what defense you throw in the trade. If you were in my league, you would've promptly received a counter proposal consisting of my kicker for Peyton Manning, straight up
-
Hilarious:
He needs to buy one of the teams in our division, ASAP
-
grigs has drafted 5 olineman since hes been here and signed the best RT in the game. how is that neglecting the oline
I don't think he's ignored the O-line but he certainly hasn't addressed it (sufficiently, at least) My main issue is the backups he's put behind our young, inexperienced starters. Louis is exactly what i thought he'd be, a marginal player who was a year removed from playing because of a serious injury and wasn't challenging anyone for a starting spot, despite how much he was talked up by Grigson and this message board. Reitz, while i like him, is injury proned, Thomas shouldn't have been counted on to be there, coming off two serious injuries and he didn't even make it out of camp. Costa was a waste of time, and probably would have underwhelmed even if he didn't retire.
Mewhort doesn't appear to be ready yet and will have to go through growing pains this year, i imagine. I was saying these same things before the injuries even started mounting and people brushed them off as unwarranted criticism. Now here we stand with all the risks I mentioned from taking that approach causing early hurdles for us already. I'll still take the wait and see approach, as it's going to take time for the line to gel anyways, but the early returns on our backups are not good... and should we lose another starter to injury, I think this line is in for another long season. Given the injury history of players we were counting on to play key roles on the line this year, foresight should have kicked in at some point, to have our bases covered in case this happened. Having that extra proven and (keyword) TALENTED veteran linemen doesn't seem like all that bad of a proposition now, does it?
Also, saying Cherilus is the best RT in the game is a huge stretch. He wasn't a liability last year, which for our line, was major step forward
-
He didn't play well with Baltimore
He's not a good guard, which is what they tried to force him to play, much like we forced McGlynn at guard for two seasons. I think he'll be a solid backup center for us. Shouldn't even have been traded in the first place. Glad Grigson signed him back. Seemed like the most likely signing, being that he's already familiar with Pagano and many of the players on the roster
-
Superman, I don't really have much else to say. Some good points on your end. We just see things differently, but I think we can both agree that if the o-line struggles again this year, something needs to change. You won't see me calling for anyone's job, especially if we're still winning... but if the players we've drafted aren't fitting with the scheme, maybe we need to change the scheme and not the players. Let's just hope it doesn't come to that.
Good talking with you
-
Wanna hear another good one about Satele? He hasn't been that bad for the Dolphins so far. And that makes me hate him even more.
Being in the wrong scheme and playing next to arguably the worst guard in the league will make you look pretty bad.... Especially when you're not really that good to begin with. Lol I'm honestly not surprised. He wasn't a fit for a power scheme at all. Miami seems to be running more zone blocking, which can hide his physical limitations a little better
-
Several points of contention, but minor details that I don't think matter much.
Here's the main issue, to me: You are intent on continuing to hold past mistakes against the staff, even though they've taken clear steps toward fixing those mistakes. When we talk about the guys that they waited too long on -- and I agree that they waited too long, as I've said -- they are all gone. I'm not signing praises for them making those changes, I'm saying the fact that they made those changes, even if late, is reason enough to stop bringing it up. I say "they got rid of Satele and McGlynn, so our line should be better," and you say "yeah, but they took too long to get rid of them in the first place, so how can we be confident in their present evaluations?" There's no winning in this case.
I'm not holding anything against anyone. I just feel it's completely within reason to be a little uneasy about trusting their management skills regarding the depth chart and personnel usage, based off what we've seen the past few seasons. You say you don't feel they're above reproach, yet jump at the first sight of anyone questioning any move or decision they've made in the past, citing "because we don't know what they know, we can't criticize them." Well, you might as well just say they're above reproach then, because no one here knows as much as any NFL coaching staff knows, and it's lazy to dismiss any criticism simply because of that fact. On that same token, what makes any of your opinions anymore valid the few times you've been critical of our coaching staff? You can't pick and choose when to defer to someone's expertise
The Ravens example is perfect. The difference between them and us is that they weren't winning games. And they STILL didn't make a change on their line until injuries forced them to. To their credit, they were unconventional with their adjustments, which leads me to believe that they were thinking about switching things up already, and it worked out. But they lost four of their last five games of the season and backed into the playoffs, then started a lineup that they hadn't used all season long, because they were forced to do so.
As I said, the Ravens rolled out a totally different lineup (yes, due to injury) but it was for the very first time. We, on the other hand, had seen more successful combinations of players yield better results and still went back to our worst possible lineup. It made no sense, and most coaches would've played their most productive combination of players until it didn't work anymore. Continuity means nothing when it's foundation is broken to begin with. Satele/McGlynn may have knowledge of assignments and line calls, but they couldn't block. The result is the same, regardless of it being because of a missed assignment or just flat out being in over your head and outmatched. It was a waste to keep playing them because they're both gone now and there were backups (still on the roster today) who were more capable and could have used the extra reps, as they were actually in our future plans.
And if ever there was a team who simultaneously won games, yet could be classified as a team backing into the playoffs, it would be last year's Colts. The fact that we win in spite of glaring weaknesses is by no means a pardon from addressing those weaknesses. Player management was a weakness for a good portion of the year. Yes, they eventually made adjustments but it's not out of line to still be a little reserved about how much I trust they'll make good decisions regarding who plays week-in and week-out
If we applied your criticism of the Colts staff to the Ravens in 2012, their fans would have been saying "Why are they making this drastic adjustment? Why should we trust their judgment when they've messed this up all season long?"
That's actually not the same thing at all. It was obvious why they made the drastic adjustment. The line was under performing and they were losing games. No one would question why a shift was made. I certainly wouldn't if I were a Ravens fan at the time. If anything, I'd say, "It's about time!"
In contrast, the Colts were WINNING games last season, even if some of them were ugly. They benched Richardson in Week 10, after only six starts (and only two games after Reggie went down and everything changed). It wasn't two thirds of the season. and the same issues he was having cropped up with Donald Brown as the starter. It was further adjustments to the line and the gameplanning that really helped the offense get out of its funk. And the team made those adjustments one at a time, rather than all at once, because that's the better way to do it. If it were me, the first change I would have made would have been gameplanning, but oh well. Still, when you're winning games, it's hard to make drastic changes, like shifting 40% of your starting offensive line.
As I said, it shouldn't be hard to make a change when your starting unit is performing so badly AND you've already seen a different combination of players perform significantly better. At that point, it's not a risk. You already have an idea of how which players work together because they were forced to do so due to injury (and did so better than the starters, albeit in a shorter stint)
I'd also like to point out a case where you were wrong. Not to be vindictive or petty, but to make my point about how perspectives can be different. You hated the Nicks signing and the Moncrief selection in the draft. 'Why do we need more receivers? What about developing Whalen, Brazill and Rogers??? And aren't we supposed to be a "power running team" anyways?' You said this so many times that I asked you why you hate receivers (mostly joking). Now, Nicks is looking like a great value, Brazill is suspended for the year (which many people, including myself, pointed out as a possibility), and the team looks to be moving away from the stubborn insistence on having a run-first approach. Those acquisitions look very positive for us at this point.
Well, since we're bringing in irrelevant talking points now... How can you call out a poster in one thread for making a rash judgement about how the O-line will perform (based off a few preseason games), then come into this thread and proclaim the Nicks signing and the Moncrief draft pick "positive acquisitions?" We haven't seen them take a significant snap yet either.
Also, for someone who gets so annoyed by others misconstruing what you say, you sure have a knack for twisting my words. I didn't "hate" either acquisition, and I'm sure they'll figure to be a big part of our offense going forward. What I hated was, we spent free agency money and a draft pick on a position that wasn't our biggest glaring weakness at the time. And we'll never know what Da'Rick can do if he never gets on the field. From everything I've seen this preseason and last season, I would've had no problem going into this season with him as our 3rd or 4th receiver. He'll pretty much be wasted here now, with Nicks and Moncrief figuring to get work before him. Meanwhile, the O-line is still uncertain and we don't have a starting safety. Brazill wasn't a big deal, as I felt he and Whalen weren't that far apart in talent. TY, Reggie, Rogers, Whalen, with Allen and Fleener still looks like a solid receiving unit, to me. Doesn't really matter how many weapons you have to throw to when you have no time to throw it.
(I'll make sure I find you at the end of the season, if it turns out both units (DB's and O-line) are the main culprits behind another end to our season.... Not to be vindictive or petty, but to make my point ;) )
Sometimes, the people with the superior insight and expertise deserve the benefit of the doubt. I especially feel that way when they identify their sore spots and take steps to rectify them. If Satele and McGlynn were still on our roster, I'd be a lot more critical of the staff. For now, I'm content to see how things shake out, and if the team keeps making improvements and winning games, I'm probably going to continue giving them the benefit of the doubt, even when I don't agree with their decisions.
I haven't agreed with Grigson and Pagano's approach to fixing the line thus far, but I'm going to take a wait and see attitude about it. I don't think anyone can make a definitive judgement about the line until at least week 5 or 6. We should know more by then. I hope the players pan out. As a Colts fan, I'd be happy to be wrong in this instance
-
I hope you don't think I've suggested they're above reproach. I've said specifically that they are NOT above reproach.
My point is that your opinion/belief that a different player would have been better than the player they stuck with is based on very limited information and a lesser knowledge of the process, from evaluation to decision making. You call it a "broken process," but that's not definitive, and it can't be definitive, unless we see your preferred alternative yield better results. (And even then, there are questions of whether the alternative would have worked sooner, or if it needed time to become fully available, and again, we're not privy to enough information to determine that.)
I also take issue with the comment about their evaluations being incorrect because they were forced to deviate from them. First, it's to their credit that they eventually made a change, and it works against the entire premise here. Second, EVERY coaching staff and front office misses from time to time, and has to deviate from their initial evaluations. The Ravens switched up 60% of their starting offensive line late in 2012. Do they deserve criticism for not getting it right the first time, or credit for finally making the changes? The info they gained through their entire process, from OTAs to camp to practices to film review, is what eventually led to the adjustments. You would have us second guess their entire process, rather than acknowledging that their process finally led to a favorable outcome. They won some games in ugly fashion, and lost some winnable games, maybe due to having the wrong guys on the field. So that calls into question their entire process, because they didn't get it right from first application, right?
Every team has to re-evaluate and then adjust. Every team benches players, cuts players, changes roles, etc. I think our team could be better at this, as I mentioned, since I do believe that they took too long to make the adjustments necessary in terms of player roles and gameplanning last season. But if I had to split the blame and the credit on a pie chart, I'd favor the credit. Because, not only did they get it right eventually (benched Richardson, benched DHB, benched McGlynn, cut Satele, etc., etc.), they had some tough odds to deal with along the way with all the injuries. And in the face of all this, the team still won 11 games.
And now, since most of the rough spots on our roster have been addressed, yes, I do trust their evaluations when it comes to the unknown spots like center and safety. If they're wrong, they're wrong. But I don't think it makes sense to go around questioning everything they do on the basis of "they got this wrong last time, and took too long to fix this, so now I don't think they know what they're doing."
See, this is where you lose me, Superman. We did see the alternative yield positive results, on numerous occasions, spanning as far back as the 2012 season. Pretty much any game Satele was inactive for a stretch, we saw noticeable improvement from the unit the past two seasons. We saw the chemistry Joe Reitz had with Castonzo in 12' prior to the injuries, yet in 13' he was an afterthought for either of the starting guard spots, even after Thomas went down with injury. We saw the rushing performances our line helped produce in 13' on consecutive weeks against the 49ers and the Jags, yet the staff continued to force Satele at center and McGlynn at guard. I firmly believe most any other quality coaching staff would have stuck with the lineup we had in the Niners game until it stopped producing consistently, and been done with it. That was an egregious display of stubbornness by our staff to switch back to Satele/McGlynn, in my opinion.
I'm also not willing to sing their praises for finally benching under performers, when it took 2/3rds of the season and a subtle smack of the hand to the staff (by the owner, via twitter) to finally get them to switch something up. Also, the Ravens example is not applicable, in my opinion, simply because they had never seen the alternative before they made the switch. We, on the other hand, had at least 2 games worth of positive production in 13' (Niners, Jags) that should have emboldened us to deviate much sooner, but we instead opted to keep banging our head into a wall with Satele/McGlynn/Richardson.
This staff's reluctance to change (regardless of how crappy the product was) was just as big a reason why we had offensive struggles last year as were injuries. I might even argue that the injuries could have even helped us. I don't know if we're running as effectively as we did against the Niners if Satele is in that game, just saying
So to clarify, the major sin was not in making poor evaluations of certain players, it was the reluctance in deviating after a sufficient sample size had proven their evaluations may be wrong -- Stubbornness
-
I acknowledged the potential for bias a long time ago.
However, I don't think that us fans are really in a position to ascertain whether or not the coaches are playing one guy over another because of bias. And for some people -- including the OP, based on the premise of the thread and his previous posts -- that's automatically where this goes. "Pagano is playing his guys instead of playing the best player." "The team doesn't believe in real competition; some guys just get handed their spot in the lineup, and they don't have to earn it."
That's why I brought up the fact that the coaches and front office staff are the ones who evaluate the players on a daily basis, watch game film, watch them in practice, watch practice film, interact with them in meeting rooms, etc. They don't have to rely on a handful of snaps that a guy got in spot duty early in the season. They have more insight than us fans do. That doesn't mean that they are never wrong, and I acknowledged that as well. But I firmly believe that good coaches and good front offices make determinations about who gets playing time and who earns starting spots on the basis of how well they play their position, and not favoritism, politics, contract status, etc.
It's also possible that the coaching staff is slow to move off of a previously established position. They may determine in September that Player A is the starting RG, and because they spent the entire offseason and preseason coming to that conclusion, they're hesitant to abandon that decision after a couple bad games. They may be hesitant to a fault at times; I believe they were last season. But I don't think they come by these decisions lightly, and I appreciate that, even if I disagree with the outcome sometimes.
As for whether I'm confident in their evaluations moving forward, in some cases yes, in other cases, not as much. But I do think they do their due diligence, I believe they have access to more and better information than I do, and I believe that they generally know football better than I do. So even in cases where I don't agree with them or am nervous about their course of action, I still find it proper to defer to their judgment. At least until it's proven, through results, that they are out of their depth. As a fan, I really have no choice in the matter.
Of course they have more information than all of us do. Every coach in the league does -- good and bad. That's why I asked, "Are you confident in their evaluations?", not in comparison to our own, but to that of their contemporaries. Meaning, compared to other quality NFL staffs around the league.
The only way you can answer that question is to look at results. If you simply want to limit results to the win loss column, that's fine, but I think if we're being honest, we all know that we've been winning a larger percentage of our games than normal in quite ugly fashion. Some of it is due to poor play calling early, some of it is due to injury, and I believe some of it is due to poor evaluation of players prior to the games.
Richardson's leash was way too long, as was DHB, McGlynn, Satele, etc. All are contributing factors, in my opinion. I do give credit to Pagano for his leadership ability, as I don't feel we would've won as many of those comeback games the past two seasons were he not our coach. He has an intangible that is very effective as a head coach, I just don't necessarily agree with his technical application (X's and O's) to the game, in some instances. I differ to his and Grigson's knowledge, but I'm also observant enough to see a potential flaw in a process, regardless of the field. When it takes you 2/3rds of the season to finally pull the trigger on underwhelming players, that's a broken process, in my opinion... At least in comparison to how other successful organizations handle similar situations.
I don't think they're above reproach simply because they have access to more info than we do. That info wasn't very helpful in their decision making last year, and ultimately, they were proven to be incorrect in their evaluations by virtue of the fact that they were forced to deviate from them, and cut/bench players that they put faith in.
I don't want them to keep making the same mistakes, and the only way to avoid doing so is to re-evaluate the process
-
Are you considering this?
Also, as mentioned earlier, sometimes coaches make mistakes. They aren't completely above reproach. I just think there are multiple factors involved that fans don't take into consideration when they suggest that the coaches and GM would rather "play their guys" than play the best players. (And by the way, all the players on the rosters are "their guys." They survived final cuts. If the coaches or the GM had an issue with any of them, they wouldn't be on the team.)
It's like you refuse to even acknowledge the idea of a coach/gm potentially having bias. These guys are human as well, it happens. Logically, everything you say is correct, but since when has mankind acted on anything solely based off logic and rationalization? People are stupid, make mistakes, act on emotion, act on pride -- yes, even in professional sports
And even if bias played absolutely no role in the poor decisions of last year, that only raises the question, "If they missed that badly on their evaluation of several players, does that leave you confident in this staff and their level of competence in there particular field (strictly in comparison to their contemporaries) ?.....
-
We need to run more pick/rub routes like we did when Peyton was here. Stacking our receivers, roll outs, etc. Luck still needs to work more on his chemistry with the receivers and fade routes. He's not accurate with that throw yet and the timing always seems off. Until he develops that, he needs to use pick plays and a timely bubble screen whenever it looks like they're biting on the run
-
"More talented" doesn't equal "best option," though.
Now that I know you're not arguing that the staff is purposely sabotaging the team, I can move on. I don't necessarily agree with you, but I understand your angle a little better.
Hence, the "arguing semantics" comment. In every other case I would agree that "most talented" doesn't always mean "best option" .... but in the case of our offensive line and how bad it was last season (because of two obvious weaknesses) it was silly not to try and mix it up at some point. They only attempted to do so as injuries occurred but it should've happened much sooner than that
-
Why wouldn't the coaches and GM want the best players on the field? Why wouldn't they put the guys out there that they think have the best chance to win?
The question posed by the OP, that you are doubling down on, suggests that someone determined that Satele and McGlynn would play, whether they were the best option or not.
That's because I am of the same opinion. I realize this could turn into arguing semantics, but I think that Satele and McGlynn were pushed to play, when the staff knew full well that there were more talented players on the roster. Do i think they were doing it to sabotage the team? No. I do think that it mainly stemmed from them overvaluing experience, however...which is strange because this year they seem to be all in on youth, regarding the offensive line. Maybe they've realized the error of their sins, per se?
To tell you the truth, I don't really know what their strategy is regarding the offensive line (or if they even have one), they're all over the place, but I do know that last season, better players were left on the bench for a good portion of the year. The OP's question isn't unreasonable, to me
-
Maybe I drink too much koolaid but I believe that paganos goal is to always win. He'll put the best team out there at his disposal. And he knows much more about the ins and outs of this team than I do.
Satele and McGlynn were continually forced into the starting lineup by someone. Who exactly that was, I don't know, but that person was not making decisions from the standpoint of having the best team out there -- obviously
-
Mike Wells just wrote a little piece on this topic today. Here's the link:
http://espn.go.com/blog/indianapolis-colts/post/_/id/7161/should-the-colts-pursue-alex-boone
-
Just a small observation from someone who was at the game last night (and I am in no way implying it had any bearing on the outcome of last night's game) but watching the warmups before the game, the Saints seemed MUCH more organized than the Colts did with the amount of drills and reps they were getting in. Every unit got work in that 20 min window. Seemed like the Colts players were just out there tossing the pigskin around while the Saints looked like the were about to play a game. I don't know... every team has a different approach but I was much more impressed with what I saw from the Saints, by far
-
He definitely hasn't reached his crest. Ugh.
Obviously, no game planning yesterday. Sometimes I wonder about his assignments. Overall, I think he does pretty well with what he has to work with.
You're right, and I don't think there's any doubt, the jury is still out on him.
What we saw yesterday is not unlike what we saw all of the past two seasons. Not many mixed coverages. Mostly man, allowing obvious running lanes for the QB over-and-over because no one has their eyes on him. It's old, it's broken, but he won't change.I feel like his relationship with Pagano, and the fact we keep winning in spite of his inability to get consistent play out of his defensive units is the primary reason he's still here.
Also, Pagano may be a master motivator, but I'm starting to think he may not be the X's O's defensive guru that he was advertised to be when he was hired. It's mind-boggling to me that he's content to sit and watch Manusky underwhelm at his position (particularly in the playoffs) and refuse to step in and call for some adjustments. Middle linebackers covering the other team's #1 shouldn't happen too frequently, but we saw it rear it's ugly head again last night. It was a preseason game, but I'm starting to think "What you see is what you get" with this defense
-
Yeah. Grigson liked him, which automatically raises red flags for meI didn't think Louis was good in Chicago, and surprise!! He's not good here.
Idk why everyone was so hyped for this guy.
I kid, I kid
-
yea but you wonder if it is all bad mental preparation. because it doesnt explain how Eli went 2 whole playoff runs without being inconsistent. And then you wonder when the game is on the line to make the playoffs, he doesnt make it.
Getting ready for the Super Bowl is alot of pressure. How did he manage that especially going against an undefeated team, but notbe able to manage a regular season game. lol...
Eli didn't dominate either Super Bowl. He had a hand in the 2 biggest plays in them, but I wouldn't say he won them because of his "elite" preparation. If we're being honest, he was actually just really lucky. The guy has had 1 stellar regular season in his career, surrounded by a bunch of years of pedestrian numbers with plenty of inconsistency thrown in. My opinion of him is, he's a quarterback you can win it all with, but not elite by a long shot
-
Havili isn't even a true fullback, so I don't much see the point in having him unless you just want him for special teams. Allen does everything Havili is capable of doing, except much better. At least Harvey can actually block. I'd say keep him if we absolutely have to have a fullback on the roster. Havili is just a tweener who really doesn't excel at any one aspect of what he's asked to do. A semi-decent receiving fullback who can't block pretty much negates the point of even having him on the field. That's like having a center in basketball that can pass really well but can't rebound, block or score in the post
Indianapolis @ Denver (9-6-14)
in Colts Football
Posted
That's kinda my point though. The obvious play isn't gonna work unless you can physically impose your will, regardless of the fact they know it's coming. Nothing prior to that point should've gave him any confidence in us being able to run that play in that situation. I would've liked a fake to the FB and toss better than a sneak. But that's speaking in hindsight