The Pep Hamilton thread [Mega-merge]

[OLD FAN MAN]

Another badly thought out paragraph is the one where the writer addresses the offensive troubles that Stanford had in 2012.    A season that end, by the way,  with a victory in the Rose Bowl.

 

The writer sites two Stanford losses and poor play calling in several games.    Those are on Shaw and every Stanford fan knows it.     The 4 runs into the teeth of the ND offense at the goal line at the end of the game -- that's classic Shaw,  not Pep.       The sluggish performance in the season opener vs. San Jose State?     That's also classic Shaw and not Pep.

 

Let's not forget, a fall-off in the offense was completely expected.    Stanford just lost Andrew Luck,  David DeCastro,  Jonathan Martin and Coby Fleener,  among many others.      The offense was always going to be a work in progress.        And while Stanford's struggled badly for roughly 2/3rds of the season,  what was happening behind the scenes was that Pep and Shaw were grooming a red-shirt freshman QB to take over.    They were force-feeding Kevin Hogan to take over, which he did in game 9.   And then Hogan went undefeated....   6-0.     4 regular season wins, plus the conference championship plus the Rose Bowl.      

 

Pep gets tremendous credit for achieving all that.     We kept winning with a below average QB that he inherited,  and at the same time,  he was grooming the replacement on the practice field.      All stanford did that year was finish 12-2 and I think we were ranked about 6th or 7th. 

 

Pep does not suck.     He's average and average isn't good enough.

he was a very good college coach, but is he an average nfl coach?

[NewColtsFan]

he was a very good college coach, but is he an average nfl coach?

 

His first two years here at Indy would say he's no worse than an average coach,  and perhaps even a little bit better than average.

 

But this year tells a completely different story....    so I think a fair perspective would say average.

 

I think this Colts team needs something better than average.     That's why I called for a change after the week 2 loss to the NY Jets.

[21isSuperman]

Speaking for myself, I was critical of plenty of Pep's gameplans last year. Not enough play action, not enough hot routes, poor screen game, etc. With the offense being productive, there's not a lot of discussion about that kind of stuff, but we were talking about the same things that are happening right now. 

 

And even if that wasn't the case, this season especially, Pep has shown an alarming disregard for common sense offensive philosophies (sticking with the run, quick passing) and concepts (play action, hot routes) that help take pressure off of a struggling OL and QB. Not only is that on Pep, it's also on Pagano. I don't expect Pagano to grab the play sheet and start making calls himself, nor do I want him to. But at some point during a 4 or 5 possession stretch with no run plays, I would think between the two of them, that would get fixed. Yet, that's happened twice this season, both in games that were manageable and well within reach, not blowouts. 

 

Regardless what he's done in the past, what he's done this year has me convinced that he's not a good play caller.

But he must have been doing something right last year.  I'm not saying those who are criticizing Pep are wrong.  I just find it hard to believe that a guy can call plays for an offense and make them the league's best one year, then have such terrible results the next year.  He can't just forget everything that made him successful last year.  I know there were some reports at the beginning of the year that Luck was changing the play, so perhaps Luck is being overzealous with that privilege?  I've also noticed that Luck is consistently looking deep down the field for the big play instead of taking the dink-and-dunk routes that are there. 

[DougDew]

But he must have been doing something right last year.  I'm not saying those who are criticizing Pep are wrong.  I just find it hard to believe that a guy can call plays for an offense and make them the league's best one year, then have such terrible results the next year.  He can't just forget everything that made him successful last year.  I know there were some reports at the beginning of the year that Luck was changing the play, so perhaps Luck is being overzealous with that privilege?  I've also noticed that Luck is consistently looking deep down the field for the big play instead of taking the dink-and-dunk routes that are there. 

The offenses struggled a lot during the past two years too, despite its gaudy full-season-based stats.

 

When Reggie Wayne was healthy, the offense worked.  When he hurt is elbow, the offense was much less efficient.  Last year, defenses didn't realize the impact and weren't as aggressive.  This year, they realize that Luck has no where to throw the ball (by poor play design and by his own failures), and stay aggressive.  We are seeing now what we saw in parts of the last two seasons before...when Reggie is out (first with the knee, then last year with the elbow) and defenses are aggressive, this is what happens.

 

The inability to adjust to that for the third season is TOTALLY the OC's fault.

[21isSuperman]

The offenses struggled a lot during the past two years too, despite its gaudy full-season-based stats.

 

When Reggie Wayne was healthy, the offense worked.  When he hurt is elbow, the offense was much less efficient.  Last year, defenses didn't realize the impact and weren't as aggressive.  This year, they realize that Luck has no where to throw the ball (by poor play design and by his own failures), and stay aggressive.  We are seeing now what we saw in parts of the last two seasons before...when Reggie is out (first with the knee, then last year with the elbow) and defenses are aggressive, this is what happens.

 

The inability to adjust to that for the third season is TOTALLY the OC's fault.

Makes sense.  It must then also follow that Luck has regressed in his ability to read defenses.  Poor playcalling + an inability to adjust + not reading defenses quickly or properly (+ a whole host of other problems)

[Gavin]

Makes sense.  It must then also follow that Luck has regressed in his ability to read defenses.  Poor playcalling + an inability to adjust + not reading defenses quickly or properly (+ a whole host of other problems)

1.Poor play design (specifically route combinations and multiple blocking assignments)

2.Very little hot routes

3.Qutting on the run game when it is working

4.Inability to get Luck into a rhythm early with easier pass plays

5.Not reigning Luck in

 

Basically Luck is a very good QB who is capable of great stretches of play...His ability hasn't regressed to read defenses...It simply has not progressed...When it comes to that he is playing the same way in year 4 as he did in year 1...The truth is Luck is a very good QB who is capable of great play but Reggie made him look better then he was quite honestly...That's not to say he is struggling because of no Reggie of course...Not what Im saying....Having reliable reggie as I called him helped immensely though and we haven't really gotten that this year consistently in our other wr's though Luck still has played atrocious and Pep has to go...Its a mix of things

[Bubbz]

For those that dont know, Pep didnt even call the plays at Stanford, or called very few

 

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13618456/stanford-cardinal-david-shaw-florida-state-seminoles-jimbo-fisher-small-group-head-coaches-calling-their-own-plays

 

Some people want to deny this to the bitter end, but its been widely reported that David Shaw calls the offensive plays. 

 

Grigson hired a guy that wasnt even thought of as qualified enough to call plays on the college level.

 

Many posters here will deny the fact that Pep was not the primary play caller at Stanford, or even blame all the bad calls on Shaw and good ones on Pep. That is flat out wrong. Pep was not qualified enough to run our offense. He wasnt even qualified to run the Stanford offense. Also, posters will also try to lay part of the blame at Paganos feet for Pep's hire. That appears to be false as well. I think it is fairly obvious that if you follow the Colts that Pagano wanted his friend Chud running the offense and even went so far as to create a title to just have him as a part of the team.

 

Pep is on Grigson. I feel like Grigson has some sort of weird superiority complex where he makes unexpected unpopular decisions trying to appear as if he is some evil genius that can pull talent out of thin air like squeezing blood from a rock. He is a person like everyone else, and he has his flaws. 

 

I also dont understand why we were all too willing to pound the ball straight up the middle repeatedly for one yard gains with Trent, but now we refuse to run the ball with two good running backs who are averaging well over 4 ypc. That is truly baffling. 

 

I dont think Pagano is the answer, but I would like to reserve my judgement and see how well he could do with more control over the team and not having Grigsons hand in the lineups (probably more), control over his staff, and a GM willing to work better with him targeting players and positions we need that he feels will help us win. Pagano didnt seem all too thrilled over the Dorsett pick. I think Grigson has a cocky "* I'm the GM I'll do what I want attitude when it comes to working with the coach. I dont think many prospective head coaches would be all too thrilled working with him. I dont know why some people go to the lengths they go to to defend Grigson on this forum. The picking at minute details and splitting hairs when Grigson has been criticized is pointless, especially when you agree that overall he has not been satisfactory. We all know Grigson has not done a good job. If Dorsett turns out to be not that great, I think we can agree, Grigson has been downright horrible.

[NewColtsFan]

For those that dont know, Pep didnt even call the plays at Stanford, or called very few

 

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13618456/stanford-cardinal-david-shaw-florida-state-seminoles-jimbo-fisher-small-group-head-coaches-calling-their-own-plays

 

Some people want to deny this to the bitter end, but its been widely reported that David Shaw calls the offensive plays. 

 

Grigson hired a guy that wasnt even thought of as qualified enough to call plays on the college level.

 

Many posters here will deny the fact that Pep was not the primary play caller at Stanford, or even blame all the bad calls on Shaw and good ones on Pep. That is flat out wrong. Pep was not qualified enough to run our offense. He wasnt even qualified to run the Stanford offense. Also, posters will also try to lay part of the blame at Paganos feet for Pep's hire. That appears to be false as well. I think it is fairly obvious that if you follow the Colts that Pagano wanted his friend Chud running the offense and even went so far as to create a title to just have him as a part of the team.

 

Pep is on Grigson. I feel like Grigson has some sort of weird superiority complex where he makes unexpected unpopular decisions trying to appear as if he is some evil genius that can pull talent out of thin air like squeezing blood from a rock. He is a person like everyone else, and he has his flaws. 

 

I also dont understand why we were all too willing to pound the ball straight up the middle repeatedly for one yard gains with Trent, but now we refuse to run the ball with two good running backs who are averaging well over 4 ypc. That is truly baffling. 

 

I dont think Pagano is the answer, but I would like to reserve my judgement and see how well he could do with more control over the team and not having Grigsons hand in the lineups (probably more), control over his staff, and a GM willing to work better with him targeting players and positions we need that he feels will help us win. Pagano didnt seem all too thrilled over the Dorsett pick. I think Grigson has a cocky "* I'm the GM I'll do what I want attitude when it comes to working with the coach. I dont think many prospective head coaches would be all too thrilled working with him. I dont know why some people go to the lengths they go to to defend Grigson on this forum. The picking at minute details and splitting hairs when Grigson has been criticized is pointless, especially when you agree that overall he has not been satisfactory. We all know Grigson has not done a good job. If Dorsett turns out to be not that great, I think we can agree, Grigson has been downright horrible.

 

And its been just as "widely reported" that Pep DID call plays,  you just choose to ignore that.

 

And some people,  by coincidence,  are also long time fans of Stanford (in this case, 45 years)  and have been on that website since 1999,  and have connections and sources to the program.     But you just choose to ignore that too.

 

Again,   not a surprise.

[zibby43]

But he must have been doing something right last year.  I'm not saying those who are criticizing Pep are wrong.  I just find it hard to believe that a guy can call plays for an offense and make them the league's best one year, then have such terrible results the next year.  He can't just forget everything that made him successful last year.  I know there were some reports at the beginning of the year that Luck was changing the play, so perhaps Luck is being overzealous with that privilege?  I've also noticed that Luck is consistently looking deep down the field for the big play instead of taking the dink-and-dunk routes that are there. 

 

It's not that Pep has forgotten.

 

It's just that opposing coaches and defensive coordinators have looked at the film.  Opposing coaches/coordinators have recognized what Pep likes to do and they have adjusted.

 

Now, Pep is struggling to counter those adjustments. 

 

Re: Luck though, you're absolutely right.  He looks lost out there this year.  He's not going through his progressions.  He's indecisive.  He's "aiming" the football instead of letting it rip.

 

The thing that has me worried most is how bad Luck has looked this year.  Watching the tape, I just can't believe this is the same guy.  He has to be hurt.  He must be thinking about his shoulder/ribs every time he rears back/sees a defender barreling his way.

[Bubbz]

And its been just as "widely reported" that Pep DID call plays,  you just choose to ignore that.

 

And some people,  by coincidence,  are also long time fans of Stanford (in this case, 45 years)  and have been on that website since 1999,  and have connections and sources to the program.     But you just choose to ignore that too.

 

Again,   not a surprise.

I have connections to Stanford that say Pep didnt call plays. See how easy that is?

 

It appears that there are conflicting reports that both called plays. I interpret it as Pep didnt call many plays and was merely a puppet for Shaw's offense with Shaw calling the majority of the plays.  In either case, if Shaw was involved in any significant amount of offensive play calling (which you cant really deny that he had at the least a meaningful contribution to the direct play calling) then Pep was not qualified to run the offense by himself, and thus he was no where near qualified to run an NFL offense by himself. 

 

Lots of people believed Pep was not a qualified hire. This isnt anything new. If you disagree thats fine, but I think you are taking it too far by acting like Pep ran that offense. He was nowhere close to doing that. The reports state otherwise. A few article referring to Pep as the playcaller dont change that. Playcaller can be used as a synonym for offensive coordinator, and a journalist could easily use the term without realizing that its inaccurate due to Shaw calling the plays, or they just werent aware that Shaw called the plays when they wrote the article and its just misinformed journalism.

 

Again

 

 

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13618456/stanford-cardinal-david-shaw-florida-state-seminoles-jimbo-fisher-small-group-head-coaches-calling-their-own-plays

 

"The wisdom of a head coach calling his own plays has long been debated, and not just by media and fans. It's often an issue for the coach himself when he takes his first head job and labors with the myriad demands outside of X's and O's."

 

It states it pretty clearly, while your articles are up for interpretation. They dont state anything nearly as concrete as that such as "Pep Hamilton called the plays, the coach did not." Or anything close.

[NewColtsFan]

I have connections to Stanford that say Pep didnt call plays. See how easy that is?

 

It appears that there are conflicting reports that both called plays. I interpret it as Pep didnt call many plays and was merely a puppet for Shaw's offense with Shaw calling the majority of the plays.  In either case, if Shaw was involved in any significant amount of offensive play calling (which you cant really deny that he had at the least a meaningful contribution to the direct play calling) then Pep was not qualified to run the offense by himself, and thus he was no where near qualified to run an NFL offense by himself. 

 

Lots of people believed Pep was not a qualified hire. This isnt anything new. If you disagree thats fine, but I think you are taking it too far by acting like Pep ran that offense. He was nowhere close to doing that. The reports state otherwise. A few article referring to Pep as the playcaller dont change that. Playcaller can be used as a synonym for offensive coordinator, and a journalist could easily use the term without realizing that its inaccurate due to Shaw calling the plays, or they just werent aware that Shaw called the plays when they wrote the article and its just misinformed journalism.

 

Again

 

 

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13618456/stanford-cardinal-david-shaw-florida-state-seminoles-jimbo-fisher-small-group-head-coaches-calling-their-own-plays

 

"The wisdom of a head coach calling his own plays has long been debated, and not just by media and fans. It's often an issue for the coach himself when he takes his first head job and labors with the myriad demands outside of X's and O's."

 

It states it pretty clearly, while your articles are up for interpretation. They dont state anything nearly as concrete as that such as "Pep Hamilton called the plays, the coach did not." Or anything close.

 

 

I never, EVER said that Pep ran the offense.   Didn't say it, or suggest it, or even hint at it.    But since you disagree with my position,  this becomes personal for you and so you twist words.    Standard procedure for you.  

 

By the way,  you don't know anyone at Stanford who knows squat.    You're just tired of me saying things like so you fire off childish comments to mock me.

 

It's been your staple since you arrived here.

[Bubbz]

I never, EVER said that Pep ran the offense.   Didn't say it, or suggest it, or even hint at it.    But since you disagree with my position,  this becomes personal for you and so you twist words.    Standard procedure for you.  

 

By the way,  you don't know anyone at Stanford who knows squat.    You're just tired of me saying things like so you fire off childish comments to mock me.

 

It's been your staple since you arrived here.

Okay, so now you're back pedaling. If Pep couldn't even run the Stanford offense, how could we expect him to run ours?

 

The point I am making is it seems rather silly to say something to the effect of "I know people so my point is valid" over the internet. Thats kind of meaningless. That seems like a childish comment, and that was the point I was making. You dont know who I know at Stanford, just like I dont know who you know at Stanford. If we are going to have meaningful debates online where you get to the point of asking me for a source, its rather childish to retort to a source that goes completey against what you have been claming the whole time with "I know people at Stanford so my point is still valid." You wouldve thought you would have said that from the jump if that was true... But in either case, it still is kind of a meaningless gesture. This is the internet.

 

Again, Pep didnt run the offense, and he also was barely involved in the play calling, if at all.

[SteelCityColt]

I have connections to Stanford that say Pep didnt call plays. See how easy that is?

 

 

 

Oh it's plenty easy to say it.

 

The difference is the credibility of the person saying it and that's something that gets earned. So when NCF talks about all things Stanford I'm more inclined to lend credence to what he says knowing his background and knowing he's not been one to make things up.

[NagelHausForge]

Merged your threads

 

NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!  WHY GOD?  WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY???!!!!?!?!?

[SteelCityColt]

NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!  WHY GOD?  WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY???!!!!?!?!?

 

I know it hurts, but we're doing this because we care about you

[DougDew]

Makes sense.  It must then also follow that Luck has regressed in his ability to read defenses.  Poor playcalling + an inability to adjust + not reading defenses quickly or properly (+ a whole host of other problems)

I don't believe that Luck is incapable of reading defenses but I'm sure he gets fooled and a 4th year QB won't be an expert at it.   I think the bigger problem is that the WRs don't get open.  That was the problem last year.  Drafting Dorsett should have been a solution for that beginning mid season, when a low first round pick would have some impact, but AJ has taken up his learning time. 

 

Outside of a healthy Reggie, I think the WRs have failed to get open ever since Arians left.  I don't think its lack of talent.  I suspect that it has something to do with play design and offensive coordination.

[will426]

I'm sure pagano never said lets throw it the rest of the game, he just said to up the tempo. That could mean to just go no huddle

lol which they didn't even do till end of the game

[krunk]

Asked about the long down-and-distance situations that result from penalties, Hamilton said his game plans do account for the possibility and provides options for situations like first-and-20. But he added, half grinning, "We've used up a lot of the plays that we've had as part of that long-yardage (menu) and hope that that does not continue. It's been extreme."

Hamilton was asked about tactics that might get the offense going, such as greater use of the no-huddle offense or more dependency on quicker throws (to account for shaky pass protection), but he insisted both of those things have been a part of his game plans this season.

As the Colts continue to underwhelm, now sitting at 3-4, coach Chuck Pagano's seat is getting hotter. But Hamilton is coming under greater scrutiny, too, since he pushes the buttons on offense. Asked about that reality on Thursday, Hamilton appeared unfazed. He did get a vote of confidence from Pagano this week, for whatever it's worth.

"I think he's outstanding," Pagano said on a teleconference with reporters in Charlotte, N.C., Hamilton's hometown. "I think, like anything else, it'd be real easy to sit back and, hindsight is always 20-20, and say well, 'Why didn't you do this or that?' … But when you fall behind it becomes difficult."

 

http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2015/10/29/indianapolis-colts-offensive-coordinator-pep-hamilton/74822270/

[Jason_]

The point I am making is it seems rather silly to say something to the effect of "I know people so my point is valid" over the internet. Thats kind of meaningless. 

 

But you'll quote a BleacherReport article that was written by a guest columnist as if it were cold hard fact.  Makes perfect sense.

[Bubbz]

Oh it's plenty easy to say it.

 

The difference is the credibility of the person saying it and that's something that gets earned. So when NCF talks about all things Stanford I'm more inclined to lend credence to what he says knowing his background and knowing he's not been one to make things up.

Well multiple pieces of national journalism are countering what hes saying. Sorry if I dont take him seriously. 

[Bubbz]

But you'll quote a BleacherReport article that was written by a guest columnist as if it were cold hard fact.  Makes perfect sense.

whatever, i found multiple articles. take your pick. you havent contributed anything to the conversation besides the fact you didnt like that source. I posted others. Time to move on.

[NewColtsFan]

I don't believe that Luck is incapable of reading defenses but I'm sure he gets fooled and a 4th year QB won't be an expert at it.   I think the bigger problem is that the WRs don't get open.  That was the problem last year.  Drafting Dorsett should have been a solution for that beginning mid season, when a low first round pick would have some impact, but AJ has taken up his learning time. 

 

Outside of a healthy Reggie, I think the WRs have failed to get open ever since Arians left.  I don't think its lack of talent.  I suspect that it has something to do with play design and offensive coordination.

 

Really?

 

Not TY Hilton?

 

Really?

[NewColtsFan]

Okay, so now you're back pedaling. If Pep couldn't even run the Stanford offense, how could we expect him to run ours?

 

The point I am making is it seems rather silly to say something to the effect of "I know people so my point is valid" over the internet. Thats kind of meaningless. That seems like a childish comment, and that was the point I was making. You dont know who I know at Stanford, just like I dont know who you know at Stanford. If we are going to have meaningful debates online where you get to the point of asking me for a source, its rather childish to retort to a source that goes completey against what you have been claming the whole time with "I know people at Stanford so my point is still valid." You wouldve thought you would have said that from the jump if that was true... But in either case, it still is kind of a meaningless gesture. This is the internet.

 

Again, Pep didnt run the offense, and he also was barely involved in the play calling, if at all.

 

Here's something that might surprise you,  on a certain level,  I agree with you.

 

But here's the deal......    the world didn't start the day you arrived.     I had more than 3 years of credibility built up with people here before you arrived.

 

And with my background as a long-time Stanford fan,   people here know that I've given them as much truth as I can.

 

About Harbaugh.     About Shaw.     About Pep.    About players.      And while I may be a fan of both Stanford and the Colts,   I have consistently steered Colts fans here away from Stanford players who,  in my opinion,  can not help the Colts.       So, I've gone on the record telling fans here that the Colts should not go after players like Stephan Taylor,  or Chase Thomas,  or several others.     And those guys have not done much, or even anything on the NFL level.

 

But I said more talent was in the Stanford pipeline,  and I told people here about a DL that I thought was perfect for this system.    His name is Henry Anderson.     

 

I said David Parry was good,  but I didn't think he was a good fit with the Colts.     Under Grigson/Pagano,  the Colts had shown zero interest in small, under-sized DL.   And that's what Parry is.     But, I was pleased we drafted him because the kid can play.       But with both, I've cautioned fans here to remember that an NFL season is nearly twice as long as a college season,   so these kids could still hit the rookie wall.

 

When I'm a Colt fan here,  I'm a Colt fan.    I won't say "draft a kid, because he's from Stanford." 

 

Heck, when the Pagano and Pep haters started up,   fans here started asking about David Shaw to replace either Pep or Pagano.    I said "no."    Shaw is so conservative it would make the heads of most here explode.     He's a great college coach,  but I seriously doubt he'd be a great NFL coach.

 

I have credibility with people here on the issue of Stanford.      People here know that.      Well..................    except one.

[NewColtsFan]

Okay, so now you're back pedaling. If Pep couldn't even run the Stanford offense, how could we expect him to run ours?

 

The point I am making is it seems rather silly to say something to the effect of "I know people so my point is valid" over the internet. Thats kind of meaningless. That seems like a childish comment, and that was the point I was making. You dont know who I know at Stanford, just like I dont know who you know at Stanford. If we are going to have meaningful debates online where you get to the point of asking me for a source, its rather childish to retort to a source that goes completey against what you have been claming the whole time with "I know people at Stanford so my point is still valid." You wouldve thought you would have said that from the jump if that was true... But in either case, it still is kind of a meaningless gesture. This is the internet.

 

Again, Pep didnt run the offense, and he also was barely involved in the play calling, if at all.

 

I'm sorry....    I had to cut that post a little short.     So, I'm continuing here.

 

I get that me saying "I know people, so trust me" doesn't ring true on an internet fan board.    I completely get that.

 

But, here's the deal.    The Stanford community is tiny.     The school has only 6500 undergrads.     The 6500 graduate students don't much care about football.

 

On the Stanford internet fan message boards,  that community is even smaller.    Roughly 1000 people.     Not a typo,  1,000.     By comparison,  this website says it has 20,000 fans.

 

So it's a small world.    I was among the first fans to find the website (called The Bootleg)  back in 1999.     I post there like I post here.    And in a small world, people exchange information.      There are very powerful, very connected people there who are very influential in the Stanford community.    This is not a bigger community like Ohio State, or Notre Dame.     This is a tiny community.     Can fit in a closet,  or a phone booth.   

 

In a world like that information is exchanged.    And over the years, I've made friends.     I've got stories that I haven't been able to share, including one about Pep if and when he ever leaves. 

 

You can choose to believe me or not.     But my batting average on Stanford information is pretty damn high.     Ask yourself this,   why are you pretty much the only one here questioning me about Stanford?     Did you notice for the most part,  no one else is?     At least, no one who has been here for a few years and has seen my comments  about the school.       No one bats 1,000.     But when it comes to things like Stanford and the media,   I do pretty well.    Better than most here.

 

I'm not always right.    Over time I've been wrong plenty,  and I'll be wrong plenty more.    

 

In another post,  I'll try to explain the "Play calling by committee that Stanford has employed."

[rockywoj]

 He did get a vote of confidence from Pagano this week, for whatever it's worth.

"I think he's outstanding," Pagano said on a teleconference with reporters in Charlotte, N.C., Hamilton's hometown. "I think, like anything else, it'd be real easy to sit back and, hindsight is always 20-20, and say well, 'Why didn't you do this or that?' … But when you fall behind it becomes difficult."

 

http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2015/10/29/indianapolis-colts-offensive-coordinator-pep-hamilton/74822270/

But it's not just looking at it in hindsight.  I see the issues as they are happening and I am yelling at the television before the play even comes off, but the alignment is set.  How the heck is it possible for a semi-casual fan can see the issue(s) as a play is going down, but the paid coaches responsible for such things cannot?  Obviously the defenses facing the Colts are seeing things as they are.

 

I think the bottom line is, if afterward everybody, including the coaches, are saying why didn't  you do this or that, then for goodness sakes, obviously there's a coaching / play calling issue!

[Gavin]

Really?

 

Not TY Hilton?

 

Really?

Its no secret he struggles to get separation against physical coverage often, Take for example last weeks game vs the Saints 133 of his 150 yards came because Breaux fell down twice(87 and 46 yarder), He has other games like that to, But get physical with him and stay on your feet and least be a serviceable cover and the damage he does can drastically be minimized, He is one of those wr's best utilized moving around

[Zoltan]

Its no secret he struggles to get separation against physical coverage often, Take for example last weeks game vs the Saints 133 of his 150 yards came because Breaux fell down twice, He has other games like that to, But get physical with him and stay on your feet and least be a serviceable cover and the damage he does can drastically be minimized, He is one of those wr's best utilized moving around

I agree with Phillip Dorsett and TY Hilton there both shorter WR so they struggle against physical corners we need a more physical receiver that can physically push around a corner

 

[Gavin]

I agree with Phillip Dorsett and TY Hilton there both shorter WR so they struggle against physical corners we need a more physical receiver that can physically push around a corner

I'd personally like to see Hilton in the slot more or targeted more often when in the slot(I don't have the percentage of snaps he has played in the slot) and until Dorsett gets back Whalen in the #2 slot with Coby lined out at Z or X receiver and Moncrief at the opposite of what Fleener line up at (12 personnel) and use that for crossing routes and Levels

[Superman]

But he must have been doing something right last year.  I'm not saying those who are criticizing Pep are wrong.  I just find it hard to believe that a guy can call plays for an offense and make them the league's best one year, then have such terrible results the next year.  He can't just forget everything that made him successful last year.  I know there were some reports at the beginning of the year that Luck was changing the play, so perhaps Luck is being overzealous with that privilege?  I've also noticed that Luck is consistently looking deep down the field for the big play instead of taking the dink-and-dunk routes that are there. 

 

To the bolded, last year is over. He's not doing those things this year, for the most part.

 

And I'm kind of saying that some of the success from last season was in spite of Pep. Because again, some of the same complaints from this season were there last season. Just because the offense had good overall numbers doesn't mean that the offense performed at optimal levels. I feel like we left a lot on the table, to be honest.

 

And again, it's not all on Pep. There are a lot of things that aren't controlled by the OC, particularly when you want to give some freedom to the QB. But we can see pretty clearly that some of the things that are in his control aren't being handled properly. No matter what, abandoning the run is a coaching issue, because even if you've given the QB the freedom to check out of plays, you should still be able to reign him in. Luck isn't an anarchist who shirks coaching.

[DougDew]

 

And I'm kind of saying that some of the success from last season was in spite of Pep. Because again, some of the same complaints from this season were there last season. Just because the offense had good overall numbers doesn't mean that the offense performed at optimal levels. I feel like we left a lot on the table, to be honest.

 

Agreed.  A lot of folks are thinking that the offense was not without its struggles last year, and the year before.  The overall numbers were good because those deep drop backs and deepish routes were completed more often.  Defenses are playing us the same way now as they did in previous seasons when they had success, IMO

 

About every defense has figured out the best way to defend the Pep/Luck offense is to be aggressive against our WRs and Olineman.  I don't think defenses did that quite as often in past seasons, or if they did, Reggie was able to get open quickly and negate some of the aggression.

[CanuckColt]

Pep?  Just get rid of the loser, completely.

[krunk]

But it's not just looking at it in hindsight.  I see the issues as they are happening and I am yelling at the television before the play even comes off, but the alignment is set.  How the heck is it possible for a semi-casual fan can see the issue(s) as a play is going down, but the paid coaches responsible for such things cannot?  Obviously the defenses facing the Colts are seeing things as they are.

 

I think the bottom line is, if afterward everybody, including the coaches, are saying why didn't  you do this or that, then for goodness sakes, obviously there's a coaching / play calling issue!

 

 

Hey I'm just passing along the Pep/Pagano message.  Don't take it as me being in full agreement with it because I know they can do better and should do better.

[rockywoj]

Hey I'm just passing along the Pep/Pagano message.  Don't take it as me being in full agreement with it because I know they can do better and should do better.

 

I wasn't taking it as you.  I was merely responding to Pagano's comments and basically ranting against them.  You're all good!  

[NewColtsFan]

Its no secret he struggles to get separation against physical coverage often, Take for example last weeks game vs the Saints 133 of his 150 yards came because Breaux fell down twice(87 and 46 yarder), He has other games like that to, But get physical with him and stay on your feet and least be a serviceable cover and the damage he does can drastically be minimized, He is one of those wr's best utilized moving around

 

That doesn't explain ALL of TY's success.....   it only explains SOME of TY's success.

[CanuckColt]

Dump Poop Hamilton now...it is unfathomable why this incompetent is still on the Colts payroll.

As soon as he is gone the Offense will start playing better.....but maybe that's the point, Irsay is sandbagging the season for a higher draft position.

[Bubbz]

I'm sorry.... I had to cut that post a little short. So, I'm continuing here.

I get that me saying "I know people, so trust me" doesn't ring true on an internet fan board. I completely get that.

But, here's the deal. The Stanford community is tiny. The school has only 6500 undergrads. The 6500 graduate students don't much care about football.

On the Stanford internet fan message boards, that community is even smaller. Roughly 1000 people. Not a typo, 1,000. By comparison, this website says it has 20,000 fans.

So it's a small world. I was among the first fans to find the website (called The Bootleg) back in 1999. I post there like I post here. And in a small world, people exchange information. There are very powerful, very connected people there who are very influential in the Stanford community. This is not a bigger community like Ohio State, or Notre Dame. This is a tiny community. Can fit in a closet, or a phone booth.

In a world like that information is exchanged. And over the years, I've made friends. I've got stories that I haven't been able to share, including one about Pep if and when he ever leaves.

You can choose to believe me or not. But my batting average on Stanford information is pretty damn high. Ask yourself this, why are you pretty much the only one here questioning me about Stanford? Did you notice for the most part, no one else is? At least, no one who has been here for a few years and has seen my comments about the school. No one bats 1,000. But when it comes to things like Stanford and the media, I do pretty well. Better than most here.

I'm not always right. Over time I've been wrong plenty, and I'll be wrong plenty more.

In another post, I'll try to explain the "Play calling by committee that Stanford has employed."

Yeah, I'll take espn and other media sources over some guy who thinks he knows better due to his ammount of time on certain message boards

[Gavin]

That doesn't explain ALL of TY's success.....   it only explains SOME of TY's success.

Not all of course, He is a very good player obviously but it explains ALOT of his success, Though he has improved ten fold from his rookie year

[SteelCityColt]

Yeah, I'll take espn and other media sources over some guy who thinks he knows better due to his ammount of time on certain message boards

ESPN's not really riding high in the quality of journalism stakes right now.

Are you purposefully trying to be rude or is it just your natural way of interacting with people?

[NewColtsFan]

Yeah, I'll take espn and other media sources over some guy who thinks he knows better due to his ammount of time on certain message boards

 

Seriously?      

 

The links I provided were ESPN links.       I might be the biggest proponent of ESPN and NFL.com on this website.

 

Could you possibly be more argumentative?      Wait,  let me answer that.        No.

 

[Bubbz]

Seriously?

The links I provided were ESPN links. I might be the biggest proponent of ESPN and NFL.com on this website.

Could you possibly be more argumentative? Wait, let me answer that. No.

I understand, I guess I have been kind of argumentative, but I think we are both a little at fault of that. I apologize if my tone was kind of rude.

Again, with all due respect, I did read you links but they don't seem to substantiate your claim nearly as well as mine, and I think it's silly that I should believe you based on your time on another board.