J@son

and why is that?

hmm... ok so agree to disagree it is

Well, no it's not, but we may have to just agree to disagree. So, if the Colts team will be happier (more happy) with colder/windier/snowier weather, that means that they'll be less happy with clear weather. He's making a comparison of what the Colts attitude will be with poor weather vs. with good weather, not that they'll be prepared no matter what the weather is like. So then you have to ask yourself, why would the team be happier with poorer weather conditions? Because it's well known that poorer weather favors the defense and running game and hinders the passing game. Irsay (and most experts and non-KC fans) believe that Indy has the advantage in rushing offense and defense but KC has the advantage in the passing game. If you mean the Colts don't want snow then I'd say you're wrong. See my post above.

I disagree. He specifically says the team will be "happier" with poorer conditions. Why would the team actually be "happier" about poor conditions unless they feel that poor weather conditions give them an edge in the game? And when you compare the Chiefs offense vs the Colts it's very clear that poor weather conditions favor the Colts. The Chiefs are a pass-happy offense driven on big plays in the passing game. The Colts are one of the most balanced teams in the playfoffs and they've shown a far superior ability to run the ball compared to KC. That means that poor weather conditions favors the Colts.

Well..not really. He's saying that they feel poor weather is better for the Colts than it is for the Chiefs.

I mean...all he's saying is that, the worse the weather conditions are the better it is for the Colts. Which is true.

Well, first, JDR has coached in more places than just Denver. As for his time in Denver, frankly I thought his scheme was wrong for the personnel they had. I thought a 1-gap 34 suited their personnel much better, and apparently they figured that out which is why they hired Phillips. Not saying JDR is even my favorite at this point, but I'd at least do due diligence and interview him. Someone from the Cowboys or Seahawks would be preferable.

If Eberflus does get a HC job, I'd consider at least bringing in Jack Del Rio for an interview. He played in the same defense under Dungy in Minnesota.

The same thing they did when they switched to Painter. Run the ball more. Use less shotgun. Not try to force Painter to make the same presnap reads that Manning would. Every team that has their starting QB go down for a long stretch makes adjustments to the scheme and playcalling to try to make things easier for the backup. To your first point, I don't think that seeing what they had in Painter was ever a real consideration. They knew very well what they had in him...a poor backup that was never going to be a starting caliber QB.

You mean like trotting Curtis Painter onto the field and asking him to run the Colt offense the same way Manning did? The coaching staff didn't make any apparent changes to the offensive scheme and playcalling until they made the switch to Orlovsky. Not really. You only need 2 people at most....the Head Coach and Offensive coordinator. Interestingly, both of those guys (Caldwell and Christiansen) were supposed to survive the house cleaning. Christiansen DID survive and stayed with the Colts and their new regime, and Caldwell was going to be kept but was fired shortly after Spagnuolo turned down the opportunity to be the Colts DC. I'm not saying they did tank, but I can't say with 100% confidence that they didn't.

A running theme with that one, unfortunatley

Again, that wasn't the point. But it is entertaining watching you constantly change your argument so that you never, ever have to admit to being wrong.

I'm not sure you know what a back-handed compliment is.

In our zone scheme, that would depend on where, on the field, the TE is running his route.

^ this is only a slightly more adult version of: