Chuck Pagano adding to his Duties

[jskinnz]

anyone that disagrees with me is rational to you. you will never agree with anything I say

 

I believe someone else said it already but you are never right.  Next time, I mean the first time, you say something reasonable or accurate, I will be the first in line to say well done.  

[indyagent17]

One would think that with our defense being so poor against the run he would have taken over a lot quicker than this

[CR91]

I believe someone else said it already but you are never right.  Next time, I mean the first time, you say something reasonable or accurate, I will be the first in line to say well done.  

 

me being right on this forum? I get an argument if I said luck was 6 4. someone will insist hes 6 4 and a half

[Smonroe]

One would think that with our defense being so poor against the run he would have taken over a lot quicker than this

Not to pick on you, but I wish people would qualify these statements with "against the Patriots". Correct me if I'm wrong, but did our run defense cost us any other losses?

[theanarchist]

With Long Ball Bruce at the helm Luck would have gotten knocked out by now. Although it still seems the offense falls back on Bruce's philosophies in the passing game all to often.

With the offensive line that Grigson has put together to this point I'm sure that's a logical conclusion. Still, I like Arians. I liked him when he was Peyton's QB coach. I liked him when he was OC/HC. I just like how he operates. I'm being hard on Grigson for the offensive line issues. I know hes trying tho.

[Restored]

With the offensive line that Grigson has put together to this point I'm sure that's a logical conclusion. Still, I like Arians. I liked him when he was Peyton's QB coach. I liked him when he was OC/HC. I just like how he operates. I'm being hard on Grigson for the offensive line issues. I know hes trying tho.

 

Agreed. It isn't necessarily a scheme issue. Back in 13', the Colts made an attempt to implement heavier packages and quicker passes and Luck still took a massive amount of hits.

[indyagent17]

Not to pick on you, but I wish people would qualify these statements with "against the Patriots". Correct me if I'm wrong, but did our run defense cost us any other losses?

Sure, we were in the bottom half of the league on run defense (18th), we were gouged many times against the run.  I know it was the worst against NE but we let several teams pile on the rushing yards last year.  

 

We gave up 127 against the Eagles, 136 against Houston, 117 against Pittsburgh, 137 against Houston (Game 2), 127 against Dallas, 142 against Tennessee, 115 against Cleveland   

 

Not to pick on you but it was not very good last year against most of the teams we played, of the 16 games we played in 10 of them we allowed more than 100 yards. That is not good and I sure wouldn't say only NE ran over us

[Smonroe]

Sure, we were in the bottom half of the league on run defense (18th), we were gouged many times against the run.  I know it was the worst against NE but we let several teams pile on the rushing yards last year.  

 

We gave up 127 against the Eagles, 136 against Houston, 117 against Pittsburgh, 137 against Houston (Game 2), 127 against Dallas, 142 against Tennessee, 115 against Cleveland   

 

Not to pick on you but it was not very good last year against most of the teams we played, of the 16 games we played in 10 of them we allowed more than 100 yards. That is not good and I sure wouldn't say only NE ran over us

So, you're saying our run defense cost us the Philly, Pittsburgh and Dallas games? Not the way I remember it.

You realize that only 5 teams in the league gave up less than 100 yards per game? We averaged about 10 yards per game more than the SB champs.

Again, I'm not saying we were good against the run. I'm saying that EXCEPT for the Patriots we were good enough to win. Yes we need to improve, especially against the Pats but it's not like every team in the league ran all over us.

[indyagent17]

Look at my original post. 

 

One would think that with our defense being so poor against the run he would have taken over a lot quicker than this

 

Where did I say it costs us games????   

[BOTT]

With the offensive line that Grigson has put together to this point I'm sure that's a logical conclusion. Still, I like Arians. I liked him when he was Peyton's QB coach. I liked him when he was OC/HC. I just like how he operates. I'm being hard on Grigson for the offensive line issues. I know hes trying tho.

I love BA as a head coach....great personality for it....just don't like his play calling.

You should be hard on Grigson.

[theanarchist]

So, you're saying our run defense cost us the Philly, Pittsburgh and Dallas games? Not the way I remember it.

You realize that only 5 teams in the league gave up less than 100 yards per game? We averaged about 10 yards per game more than the SB champs.

Again, I'm not saying we were good against the run. I'm saying that EXCEPT for the Patriots we were good enough to win. Yes we need to improve, especially against the Pats but it's not like every team in the league ran all over us.

I felt same way you did about the run defense until I went back and looked at the game by game stats. What I found was that the run defense looked like it was either really good or really bad. However, a closer look at the scores vs run yards allowed probably indicates why our rush defense numbers were not worse than what they were: almost every game that we allowed less than 100 yards we won the game by 2 scores or more. Obviously the two worst games for our run defense was the 177 and 246 given up in the two New England games.

 

Maybe the better stat to look it is yards per rush. We ranked tied for 23 having given up 4.3 yards per rush. Again, I felt the same way that the run defense wasn't all that bad other than the New England games and maybe we can still come to that conclusion but in the least it was inconsistent. Oddly enough the areas that seem to be hurting this team are the same area's that seemed to hurt this team when Bill Polian was in charge and when Peyton Manning was the QB: Run defense and offensive line play.

[Smonroe]

I felt same way you did about the run defense until I went back and looked at the game by game stats. What I found was that the run defense looked like it was either really good or really bad. However, a closer look at the scores vs run yards allowed probably indicates why our rush defense numbers were not worse than what they were: almost every game that we allowed less than 100 yards we won the game by 2 scores or more. Obviously the two worst games for our run defense was the 177 and 246 given up in the two New England games.

 

Maybe the better stat to look it is yards per rush. We ranked tied for 23 having given up 4.3 yards per rush. Again, I felt the same way that the run defense wasn't all that bad other than the New England games and maybe we can still come to that conclusion but in the least it was inconsistent. Oddly enough the areas that seem to be hurting this team are the same area's that seemed to hurt this team when Bill Polian was in charge and when Peyton Manning was the QB: Run defense and offensive line play.

Yeah, the NE game skews the stats a bit, and even without it we were average at best against the run.

My point was that it wasn't so bad that it was costing us wins. In the playoffs our run D was adequate ... except for.... But stats make it look like they had better games if you look at rush average.

So when people talk about how bad the run D was, I always want to qualify it with "against the Pats".

[Gavin]

Yeah, the NE game skews the stats a bit, and even without it we were average at best against the run.

My point was that it wasn't so bad that it was costing us wins. In the playoffs our run D was adequate ... except for.... But stats make it look like they had better games if you look at rush average.

So when people talk about how bad the run D was, I always want to qualify it with "against the Pats".

Take away NE 246 yards rushing that game and we end up with 1568 total yards rushing(which would have been good for 6th best)......4.1 ypc  after you take away the 44 carries they had...which would have been tied for 12th.....We were overall better then the Patriots game would show

[Smonroe]

Look at my original post. 

 

One would think that with our defense being so poor against the run he would have taken over a lot quicker than this

 

Where did I say it costs us games????

No, you didn't say it cost us games, but you listed the games it was poor. My point was that it didnt cost us a win in those other games.

In other words, except for when we play the Pats, our D was good enough. Average or better. Definitely room for improvement.

[Buck Showalter]

One would think that with our defense being so poor against the run he would have taken over a lot quicker than this

Not to pick on you, but I wish people would qualify these statements with "against the Patriots". Correct me if I'm wrong, but did our run defense cost us any other losses?

Ha, I see what both of you are saying, Colts D seems to always be somewhat porous, especially when it matters most, but I also remember being most embarrassed getting absolutely TORCHED giving Ben & Tony career days running up ridiculous scores...

Bottom line the ENTIRE Defense could stand to improve moving forward...

[NewColtsFan]

Sure, we were in the bottom half of the league on run defense (18th), we were gouged many times against the run.  I know it was the worst against NE but we let several teams pile on the rushing yards last year.  

 

We gave up 127 against the Eagles, 136 against Houston, 117 against Pittsburgh, 137 against Houston (Game 2), 127 against Dallas, 142 against Tennessee, 115 against Cleveland   

 

Not to pick on you but it was not very good last year against most of the teams we played, of the 16 games we played in 10 of them we allowed more than 100 yards. That is not good and I sure wouldn't say only NE ran over us

 

I'll be happy to go game by game with you down our 16 game regular season where our stats come from.

 

The only bad game the Colts had was against New England.    And that game was a disaster,  250 yards.

 

That game was so bad that it badly influenced our season long stats.    Meaning,  the Colts allowed 113.4 yards rushing per game, which was 18th overall.    But, If you turn out 250 game vs. New England into something poor, but reasonable,  like 125 yards,  the Colts' yards allowed number drops  nearly 8 yards per game.    So, instead of 113.4 the Colts would've given up about 106 yards per game which would've been 11th overall.     Nothing wrong with 11th. 

 

That one game completely distorted the teams rushing stat for the year.

 

Less than 100 is great.   But just over 100 isn't bad at all.    Over 110 per game starts getting average.   Over 119 is below average and over 125 is poor....    and so on....     I'm just going by team stats the last two years.    These are rough breakdowns.

 

The Colts rush defense last year was solid average or better all season long with the exception of one game.   And that one game changed everything.

[NewColtsFan]

more can mean anything. for all we know pagano had 5% influence on the defense

 

If you go to yesterday's daily media briefing,  at the 1:15 mark, Pagano is asked about being more involved.   His answer runs about 40 seconds.     I don't think you believe Pags has had only 5% influence on the defense.    I don't know why you or anyone would think that.     The reason the defense isn't better is that we have devoted enough resources to that side of the ball.

 

All things considered,  our defense isn't half bad.    Manusky has done a nice job.   And Pags is his boss.

[ColtRider]

I do not think wanting our defense to become as lethal as our offense is fantasy. The great Super Bowl teams usually have enjoyed both. So, if Pagano thinks he can contribute on that front by inserting himself a little more to achieve that goal ... So be it! ... I'll take all the help we can get by any means possible.

[Superman]

If you go to yesterday's daily media briefing,  at the 1:15 mark, Pagano is asked about being more involved.   His answer runs about 40 seconds.     I don't think you believe Pags has had only 5% influence on the defense.    I don't know why you or anyone would think that.     The reason the defense isn't better is that we have devoted enough resources to that side of the ball.

 

All things considered,  our defense isn't half bad.    Manusky has done a nice job.   And Pags is his boss.

 

Yup, long and short his answer was that he has fewer fires to put out now than over the first three years, and that has freed up some time for him, which he's spending with the defense. He also said he's always been involved, which no one has ever had any reason to question.

[Gavin]

Yup, long and short his answer was that he has fewer fires to put out now than over the first three years, and that has freed up some time for him, which he's spending with the defense. He also said he's always been involved, which no one has ever had any reason to question.

I don't know for a fact of course but I tend to think the hiring of Chud helped Pagano somewhat to be able to focus a bit more on what he does best and that's defense

[OLD FAN MAN]

are you just argumentative? seriously if I said luck was 6 4 youd argue no hes 6 4 and a half like let it go

to  enjoy this forum some people just have to be on your ignore list, believe me it is good when you don't have to see the know it more than anyone else posts