luv_pony_express
-
Posts
1,438 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by luv_pony_express
-
-
1 minute ago, Superman said:
I don't get it. The Colts from 2012-15 have accomplished more than the Colts from 1998-2001. It's not debatable.
The 2001 Colts lost Edgerrin James and then went 6-10. Irsay fired Mora and hired Dungy. He did NOT fire Polian, or even consider it.
The 2015 Colts lost Andrew Luck, and went 8-8. Irsay considered his staff, and decided to stay put. All things being equal -- and of course, they're not -- the accomplishments of the guys in place now justify his decision.
Irsay did NOT say Grigson is a better GM than Polian. To me, it's not even a controversial statement.
I agree with the decision to keep Pags. Grigson, not so much.
But, that said, let's not forget that Luck was under center for 5 of our 8 losses this year. I don't think he was our primary offensive problem. He was getting about a half a second to get a pass off. But, still, not a great comparison to losing Edge that one year.
-
5 hours ago, SilentHill said:
But, they were Chris's draft picks.... so.....
I know that Bill had turned over a lot of duties to Chris by that time. But the notion that Bill didn't retain final say over draft picks?
Yeah, I'm not buying that at all. If so, then why were the Colts still paying Bill?
-
17 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher said:
They have continuity, just 3 coaches in half a century, Because when they hire a coach he is a GOOD COACH. They don't hire pagano's.
FYI, Bill Cowher had two seasons at 6-10, another at 7-9, another at 8-8. Chuck Noll had a bunch of seasons at or below .500.
I agree that Cowher and Noll were good coaches. But the key point is that their team stuck with them through thin times.
Duke almost fired Coach K after his first few seasons. Bob Knight called former Duke AD Tom Butters to plead K's case. They stuck with him, and the rest is history.
Most of the Colts' chief woes this year weren't Pagano's fault. That he got them to 8-8 in the circumstances was remarkable.
-
19 minutes ago, hawkeyes said:
Agree really stupid comparison - Grigs is not BP and likely will never be. Further the drafts /moves his first four years IMO are much worse than BPs! I dont care about the team record - his draft picks/moves clearly werent the reason for those "team" records!
And there were way too many ummmmm uhhhhh ummmmmm uhhhhh ummmmms from Irsay last night - and Grigs used it way too often as well. Tells me there still exist a whole lot of uncertainty right now ...
Irsay always says "um" a lot.
But I suspect they were all trying to be careful in their choices of words.
-
I think Jim's point wasn't so much to compare Grigson to Polian, but to point out that Polian/Manning had problems in their early years, too. I've had the same thought -- and I think highly of Polian (not so much of Grigson).
I don't think the message was supposed to be Grigson > Polian. I think the message was supposed to be: Polian's a hall of fame GM, and he had rough spots too.
-
12 minutes ago, superrep1967 said:
Yeah waste your time while the Colts get there butt kicked over and over again by the good teams
Jim owned the team when the Colts were the best team in football, too. If he's such a problem, how do you explain that?
I'd like to have seen Grigson replaced. But what Irsay did today was gutsy, rare, and commendable. The Steelers are great because they have continuity (just 3 HCs in 45 years!).
It'll be interesting to see how the team reacts next season -- I'm willing to bet it gives them a whole new sense of purpose.
-
9 hours ago, A8bil said:
running behind a bad line and NO passing game creates a situation where virtually NO RB can succeed, outside of AP and Sanders. Gore no longer has the power or speed to make something out of nothing. He needs the line to give him creases and he will make the most of them, but confronting 8 man fronts with a weak line is too much for any RB (not wearing purple) to overcome.
Yes, the O-line has to be our top priority. If I'm Andrew Luck (or Frank Gore, for that matter), I'm demanding it.
We have problem spots on D too, of course. But, offensively, if we can't do a better job blocking and protecting, then the rest is academic.
-
On January 3, 2016 at 4:39 PM, 12isthenew18 said:
Don't blame them. They're right to be angry
But does he want to be here? If not, and he's only here next season because "he's under contract", then I'd just as soon we look elsewhere for a feature back.
I thought Frank had a decent season, all things considered. There's still some fuel in that tank. But players who are bitter and negative are cancers, even if they're good.
-
12 minutes ago, csmopar said:
Another poster kind of pointed it out and I hadnt thought much of it until he did.....but with talks going between Irsay and Pagano.....where is Grigson? Is Grigs there and it's just not being said or is Grigs on the outside and Irsay making the call.....and if so, what does that bold for Grigson.....
I began the day thinking the chances of Pagano staying were less than 10 percent, now I'm at 50/50.
I began the day at 70 percent Grigson staying, now that's dropped to 50/50...
Perplexed am I.
I would think the call on Pagano's status will be Irsay's to make, not Grigson's. It might not be that way at some organizations with hands-off owners. But Irsay isn't a hands-off owner.
-
12 minutes ago, DougDew said:
Why?
Simple: Grigson had a lot at stake in Richardson's performance. If he's benched, that means the trade -- Grigson's marquee move -- is formally deemed a bust. If he's still out on the field, even if he's putting up anemic numbers, it means the jury is still out.
Grigson's intervention, at least in that matter, had nothing to do with a lack of confidence in Chuck Pagano's coaching. It had to do with covering his own backside.
-
1 minute ago, chrisfarley said:
well, things have changed and now I'm pretty sure he'll be back (because they said there WAS a press conference and then they re-canted that they said that)..... so my stance has changed to that he (Coach Chuck Pagano) will be back next year (UGH!!!) and that Grigson will also be back (Double-UGH!!!).... so now we have to put up with all this drama for an entire off season and 16 season and barf.
Why are you pretty sure he'll be back? I'm not "pretty sure" of anything at this point. And I don't think anybody should be. Even Pat McAfee is admitting to refreshing Twitter -- which suggests that he's not sure of anything.
Yes, the delay is a positive sign for Pagano (if not Grigson). But that doesn't mean he won't ultimately be let go. It just means that no decision has been made yet.
It's amazing how impatient we've become as a society.
-
1 hour ago, RockThatBlue said:
Sometimes I feel like the only one on this forum that doesn't want Chuck back. I don't know why people can't accept that he's a mediocre, at best, coach. There's a reason why the colts have been blown out more than any other team since Chucks first year. Its coaching. And for anyone saying I must like Grigson you're wrong, I want him and Chuck gone. Its time for a change.
I'm ambivalent about Pagano. I'd like to see what he could do with a different GM, myself. Because I'm not as sure as you are that all of our losses in the past couple years can be chalked up to coaching.
Most of them seemed like we were inviting opposing defenses for cocktails in our backfield on just about every snap. That's a personnel thing more than a coaching thing. Missing a 1st round draft pick for a bust RB is a personnel thing, not a coaching thing. Using the following 1st round draft pick for a position we didn't need is a personnel thing, not a coaching thing.
This isn't a defense of Pagano so much as it is a condemnation of Grigson. He's had several successes, too (like Vontae Davis). But, mostly, he's just made a mess. And you can't blame a coach for a GM's failures.
-
6 minutes ago, adamr said:
In a way I am glad no decision has been made yet.
Before/During the season reports were the Chuck would be fired unless the Colts made a run to the Super Bowl. The fact that they are still meeting/no decision made yet says that Jim Irsay is carefully considering this.
It's a big decision. You can bring up reasons to get rid of him but the fact is he has won and won in the playoffs. If you decide to go in a different direction I think it has to be a big name (Saban, Payton, Gruden). It can get worse...just ask the 49ers how getting rid of Jim Harbaugh has worked out for them.
Well, if there's a front office executive in the league worse than Grigson, it's Jed York. Getting rid of Harbaugh was bone-headed enough. But replacing him with Jim Tomsula? Just mind-boggling.
I do agree that it could get worse, not better.
But I think that Payton and Gruden, for their parts, have already proven themselves as competent NFL coaches. Nick Saban, not so much (but he's not coming, anyway).
-
12 minutes ago, Jason_S said:
I agree the defense needs more talent, but the majority of blowouts have been more due to the offense than the defense...imo.
Particularly the offensive line. Watch one of those Steelers blowouts or one of the Patriot blowouts. We got throttled at the line of scrimmage in each. and. every. instance. It's the common thread.
Look, it doesn't matter who your quarterback is if he doesn't have time to deliver the ball. It doesn't matter who your running back is if he doesn't have holes opened for him. It doesn't matter who your receivers are if the quarterback is eating dirt before the route can be run.
There's no question that our defense of late has been middling, at best. But, offensively, I think virtually all of the problems we've had can be put on the offensive line.
Somebody should come up with a better way to quantify o-line play. It would be interesting to see those stats and how our lines have matched up in recent times.
-
22 minutes ago, cbear said:
Not really. Cleveland is a dysfunctional organization. The Colts have been a very well run stable organization IMO.
Or, at least, they were when Bill Polian was here.
Of course, guys like Polian (or Ted Thompson, or Kevin Colbert, or Theo Epstein) are rare. But I think they are great examples of how transformative a top-notch GM can be to a sports franchise. Yes, it helps to win the lottery with players like Manning, Jim Kelly, and Aaron Rodgers. But football is a team sport.
I don't know if retaining Pagano is the right decision or not. I tend to defend him -- and I think it's because I really like him. But what can't be denied is that we've had some serious roster issues. And that's on the GM, not the coach.
-
1 minute ago, cbear said:
I'm ambivalent about Grigs to be honest. I do think someone needs to the the goat and since everyone loves Chuck, Grigs is the obvious candidate. And the lazy media has piled on.
He didn't build the Oline this year and made that trade for TRich, but he also got Vontae in a steal, drafted Mewhort, TY, etc. I don't know what a good GMs batting average should be, but I don't think he's as bad as most are making him out to be (except for the meddling....if that is true).
Yeah, I'm certainly not saying that each and every thing Grigson's done have been whiffs. But I also don't think that all whiffs are created equal.
The two you mentioned -- having a suspect O-line and trading for Richardson -- seem like awfully big whiffs to me. I don't think it's beyond the pale to say that Ryan Grigson bears some responsibility for Luck's injuries. Why didn't we use the 1st round pick to beef up the line or fill critical holes on defense? Nothing against Dorsett. But it just wasn't our primary need -- and that seemed obvious at the time, and even moreso now.
Here's what I'd say about Grigson: if he's fired, I strongly doubt another team would pick him up as their GM. Shouldn't that say enough?
-
6 minutes ago, Susie Q said:
I would hope that Irsay would have learned his lesson on getting a GM that had no experience. Promoting from within wouldn't work unless he has someone on the payroll that has GM experience which I doubt or why would he have hired Grigson to begin with but what do I know.
I could be convinced the Colts have somebody already in the organization that would make for a good GM, but hadn't yet worked as a GM for any other team. You have to start somewhere, after all.
The problem with Grigson isn't that he didn't have prior experience at being a GM. The problem with Grigson is that he's not very good at being a GM.
Put it this way: Grigson now has 4 years experience as an NFL GM. If you owned a franchise, would you hire him as yours?
-
9 minutes ago, lennymoore24 said:
Not sure why this is a bad thing. Irsay has everything to gain by doing nothing right now. He has time to evaluate other GMS and coaches if he pleases. Not renewing Chuck at this moment gives him less options.
I agree. However, it does allow other teams time to make progress with people we might otherwise be interested in. I saw where Shanahan, for instance, is getting a second interview in Miami. I don't want Shanny myself -- but it illustrates the point.
There are costs and benefits to waiting. Ultimately, I agree with you that the benefits outweigh the costs.
I don't think there's any compelling reason to act in haste.
-
1 minute ago, cbear said:
Hopefully Irsay says both are staying but their roles have changed (or been clarified). Chuck makes all the on field decisions. Grigs gets the players Chuck wants.....and that's it!
You hope Grigson stays despite all the awful personnel moves he's made? Hmm. I realize Colts fans are split about Pagano. But I haven't run into too many people who defend Ryan Grigson, even if he wasn't micromanaging.
The guy is a former offensive lineman who apparently either doesn't realize how important an offensive line is to a football team or is inept at evaluating O linemen.
Grigson has to be among the candidates for worst GM in the league.
-
Well, I think this is a good thing -- whether Pagano is ultimately retained or not. I have no idea where this will go. But it does clearly suggest that Irsay isn't just bringing Pags in, feeding him a line of scripted bull, and showing him the door.
All in all, I thought Pagano did a pretty good job getting to 8-8 with a team that had a lousy O-line, an injured star QB, an injured backup QB, and a defense with a number of key holes.
We need a different GM, not necessarily a different coach.
-
2 minutes ago, TD said:
Silly question at this late date but the Colts were nearly beaten by a QB they cut from the practice squad that outplayed every QB in the division yesterday. Who cut him? Was it Grigson?
I don't think Tanney was ever "cut from the practice squad." He was signed by the Titans off of the Colts' practice squad.
-
Just now, Blindside said:
I believe most on here attribute Tampa Bay's down fall to poor management and what draft picks
they nailed where far and few between.
Ill take a super bowl next year if that's Gruden's past success rate.
See, I think a lot of the credit/blame that coaches get for successes/failures really belongs with the GMs.
I'd say that Bill Polian proved pretty convincingly that a great GM is at least as critical to a team's success than a great coach. Polian ran three franchises -- and all of them made it to Super Bowls, despite having previously been either non-existent (Panthers) or often mediocre (Bills and Colts).
Just as I think most of the blame for the Colts' current woes belongs with Grigson, I'd say a lot of the success that's been had by the Packers belongs to Thompson, by the Steelers belongs to Colbert, by the Cubs belongs to Epstein, etc.
-
Just now, gspdx said:
Gruden won one SB with someone else's team. Then began the ugly decline. I don't know why people are so excited about Gruden.
Well, for starters, I don't put much stock into the "someone else's team" theory of coaching evaluation. Most coaches aren't GMs -- so virtually all of them are dealing with "someone else's team". Second, the team Gruden played in the Super Bowl that year was the team he had just left. So, if you're going to take credit away from him for the Bucs success, don't you owe it back to him for the success the Raiders had?
That said, Gruden wouldn't be my first choice. I'd much rather see Jim Harbaugh back in Colts blue. But I don't think that's likely to happen at this time.
-
1 minute ago, DougDew said:
Its doubtful that Grigson would micromanage a competent HC, so the point is moot.
Heh. Well, one of the big bones of contention between Pagano and Grigson was whether or not to start Trent Richardson last season. Pagano thought he should be benched, Grigson thought he should start. Grigson won.
Pagano may or may not be a competent head coach. But, in that particular instance, he was clearly right. Grigson, on the other hand, had a dog in that hunt: he's the one who traded the 1st round draft pick for TR, and it stands to reason that he'd want such a player on the field regardless what the HC said.
I suspect Grigson would've intervened against any head coach in that situation, whether he thought them competent or not.
Will Peyton Retire As A Colt or a Bronco?
in Colts Football
Posted
Looks like it. Oh well, I guess it's really not that big of a deal, either way. From his perspective, it was the Colts' decision to let him go, not his. So I can see why he'd retire as a Bronco. He's a loyal guy.
That certainly doesn't diminish what he meant to Indianapolis and the Colts franchise, though.