Coaching All-Time Stats -- Pagano isn't bad

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

IMO the Colts players were playing for Chuck, not Bruce. The whole season after Chuck got sick the team including Bruce were using Chucks sickness to bring everyone together as a team. Bruce is doing a great job at Arizona but look at the roster he has? He has a more balanced team that the Colts have had for years. Some point the finger at the Colts and their weak division. Well the only competition the Cardinals have is Seattle and they are not what they once were. The Rams and the 49ers are pretty weak this season. Don't get me wrong as I like me some Bruce but judging Bruce and Chuck against each other is childish and just grasping at air.

Wasn't judging them. I actually like Chuck. I just think Arians should get the credit for 9-3, he was the one on the sideline Coaching those wins. It only makes sense. Chuck is 30-20 so like I posted yesterday he isn't chopped liver, he is a Good Coach but a Coach IMO that isnt Great.

[BOTT]

7 minutes ago, krunk said:

I like Chuck and wouldn't be upset if they brought him back. However I don't get strong feelings Irsay is going to go that route.

 

It's very likely that at least head coach Chuck Pagano will be gone, with general manager Ryan Grigson possibly out as well.

One thing seems to be pretty clear: changes will be coming, and when they do, it will be owner Jim Irsay overseeing them.  That may not seem like any surprise at all (nor should it), but it does have implications.  The Indianapolis Star's Stephen Holder reported Sunday night that Irsay could hire the new head coach, while ESPN's Mike Wells also noted that Irsay will be very involved in the decision.

 

Obviously Pagano won't survive unless there's a miracle. Word on street is Irsay himself might hire the new coach even if Grigson stays.

— Stephen Holder (@HolderStephen)

December 21, 2015

 

Jim Irsay will be VERY involved in picking the next coach if/when that happens. https://t.co/qwY2kAo3db

— Mike Wells (@MikeWellsNFL)

December 22, 2015

 

 

http://www.stampedeblue.com/2015/12/22/10652708/report-jim-irsay-might-hire-next-head-coach-regardless-of-ryan-grigson-status-colts

 

Too much information like this keeps getting produced and I don't believe it's all false.  We'll see.

Owners are always involved in hiring the new coach.

[krunk]

1 minute ago, BOTT said:

Owners are always involved in hiring the new coach.

 

As the article states. No biggie

[ColtsFanMikeC]

3 hours ago, Narcosys said:

I'm not debating Coughlins' ability.  I'm talking about how you insinuated that a person's age determines their intellectual capability.  You stated he was too old (Bill Cowher, 58), to be able to coach, that he didn't have the capacity. I pointed to Belichick (63), who is older and still fully capable.  To be able to coach, you have to be able to think, plan, and find ways to best implement that plan according to your players. Age is not a deciding factor in that.  

 

Case in point, Bruce Arians, who is same age as Belicheck AND went into a new place, AND has proven to be successful since year one.  I am merely trying to have you acknowledge that age does not determine a person's ability to think. 

 

I never stated Cower was too old, only that he has been out of the league for quite some time now and that the league has changed drastically (rule changes, player attitudes, game philosophy, etc.) since he last coached.  I think it would be very hard for a coach who has been out of the league so long to come back and do well right off the bat given how many changes have occured in the league.

 

I also stated in another post in this thread that it is ridiculous to compare coaches to athletes because coaching doesn't require the physical skill set as playing does (essentially, saying exactly what you are trying to say).  I get what you're trying to say, but I don't think you are getting what I'm saying.  Age 63 and age 70 are VERY different ages, so I don't know why you are continuously pointing at Belichek to compare him to Coughlin.  

 

Belichek has been successful for multiple years in a row and obviously has his 4 SB rings -- Coughlin since his last superbowl has gone 9-7, 7-9, 6-10, and will not have a winning year this year -- it isn't like he is on the 'up and up'.  Also, at age 70, there is no way he has more than just a few years left in him -- so not only has Coughlin shown a lack of adaptability in this new league, he seems to have very little control over his younger players, and his 'old school' ways simply don't seem to get buy in anymore -- plus at age 70, he is not a long-term solution (Arians or Belichek at age 63 can probably coach until they're 70, maybe a bit beyond that making them potential long-term solutions at HC -- Coughlin, IMO, would have at the very maximum 5 years left in him, and I think that is a big stretch).

 

 If Luck is to be our franchise QB and we want to win with him -- I don't think it be wise to hire a coach that would come in for most likely no more than 5 years (I think Coughlin might have 1-3 years left in him max) and I also don't think it be wise to hire someone like Cower who hasn't coached in the NFL since 2006 (so next year will mark a full decade out of the league) to come in and expect him to adjust to the new NFL -- I just don't see it happening, and feel like the adjustment period will be just a waste of at least 1-2 years of Luck's time.

[Rally5]

7 hours ago, ColtsFanMikeC said:

 

Fact of the matter is, I don't think any coach in the NFL could succeed with what Pagano has been dealt (Belichek being the possible exception).

 

Our OL has been hurt and is atrocious.  We have played the majority of the season with a back-up or 3rd string QB.  We have no pass rush (lack of talent, no coach in the league would be able to coach what we have at LB and on DL to become a pass rushing force), and lack of skill in the secondary behind Vontae and Adams (Toler isn't terrible, but no matter who he plays for he isn't going to become all of the sudden become an all-star).  

 

They do, but even with the season with Arians, Pagano has a 61% winning percentage.

 

Also, note that Arians lost in the wild-card round, whereas Pagano took us a round further each of the following seasons.

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

The Ravens are having a worse season than us -- I don't see anyone calling for John Harbaugh's head.

The Steelers are a wildcard team at best, and with a loss can very well miss the playoffs -- if they do, I guarantee Tomlin won't be axed.

The Saints have underperformed the past couple of seasons and there is a good chance Sean Payton stays with them -- if he doesn't, many people on this board are singing his praises like he should be the next coach here.

 

I get that there is a good chance Pagano goes, all I'm saying is he has done a good job here -- he hasn't been put in a position to succeed -- he inherited the worst team in the NFL and for 3 years in a row won 11 games and made it to the playoffs.  In year 4, he has played most of the season with a back-up QB, a makeshift and very under-talented OL, and a defense that has gaping talent holes all over it.

 

It doesn't help with Irsay and the media stirring things up about Pagano's future and his relationship with Grigson.  I think there is absolutely some merit to the fact that Grigson tries/has tried to take on responsibilities which should be left up to the head coach (total control of draft selections, setting the lineup, etc.), and if any of that is true it also shouldn't be held against Pagano.  Fact  is, very few (if any) coaches in this league would be able to perform with the line-up Pagano has been dealing with this season.  Luck and Hasselbeck should be lucky they are alive and should be * off at Grigson for doing nothing to address our OL this offseason, something that we as Colts fans and NFL fans in general knew was a major area of concern (seriously, signing Herremans was going to be our saving grace?? and nothing was done to address tackle depth or starting talent after Cherilus was released other than drafting a 7th rounder from Mars Hill??).

 

I'm sure you realize what the three coaches you cited all have in common?  It's called earned time credit for a job exceptionally done.

 

You make a passionate case for Chuck and I actually agree with some of your points.  The issue is he and his staff specifically have demonstated a very clear inability to game plan, make line up decisions and scheme to the teams benefit.  If Chuck is going to be a figure head HC, he has to be tough on his coordinators and make sure they are very talented.   I'm with you that Grigs is arrogant in his approach and hasn't benefited Pagano, I think you'll find very little argument on this board in that regard.

[crazycolt1]

To call or make Pagano the root of all the problems the Colts have is being pretty narrow minded under the circumstances of what he has had to deal with. It's only opinions of who would be better. Most of the coaches that  are spoke of in this forum don't have a better track record than Pagano. Every coach that has been mentioned has had exactly a season or two that is no different than what Pagano is going through. I think way too many fans think by changing the head coach all will be fixed? Just remember it could go even farther south and IMO it is quite possible. That old saying be careful of what you wish for comes to mind.

[Narcosys]

8 hours ago, ColtsFanMikeC said:

He is also old

 

This is what I was interpreting as you saying someone being old is unable to coach.  Contextually I see that you are meaning his health then, if not his mental stability?  I was using Bill Cowher as an example of someone who is of a similar age and coming into a new system.  Misunderstanding I believe. 

[ColtsFanMikeC]

4 hours ago, Narcosys said:

 

This is what I was interpreting as you saying someone being old is unable to coach.  Contextually I see that you are meaning his health then, if not his mental stability?  I was using Bill Cowher as an example of someone who is of a similar age and coming into a new system.  Misunderstanding I believe. 

 

Bill Cower is 58, Tom Coughlin will be 70 by the start of next season -- I have no idea where you are coming from with this -- 58 and 70 are huge age gaps.  Coughlin, at age 70, is obviously not a long-term solution for this fix, if a fix is needed {it is not fair to Luck to have a 70 year old coach come in to implement a new system (Luck has had more offensive systems/coordinators/coaching changes to deal with than he has years in the league) to have it only last for 1-2 years}.

 

Cower, at age 58, should have much more time left in him to coach than Coughlin.  Cower has also been out of the league for 9 years now -- I firmly believe it will be a mistake to hire someone that far removed from this game -- between the changes in player attitudes, rule changes, replay implementation (yea, the Colts could have potentially beaten the Steelers in 1995 if replay was involved and a Kordell Stewart TD was overturned back in the Cower days), scheme changes, philosophy changes, etc. etc.....

 

Please, if you ever use a part of one sentence out of a multi-sentence paragraph, do not leave it like that -- this is why the media has such a distrust associated with them and leaves me (who you are quoting, completely in wrong terms) confused.  "He is old" (what the hell did I say before or after that, I can't remember because it took me about 5 replies to your out-of-context responses to figure out what you are talking about).

[jaybird95]

23 hours ago, ColtsFanMikeC said:

Of all coaches who have coached more than 50 games in their career as a head coach -- Chuck Pagano ranks 22nd all time in winning percentage (62.9%), the only active coaches in the NFL who beat him are Mike Tomlin, Mike McCarthy, and Bill Bellichek (Jim Harbaugh would count if you just mentioned 'active coaches').

 

So yea, Pagano has a better winning percentage than John Harbaugh, Pete Carrol, Ron Rivera, Andy Reid, etc.... who are still active -- (plus any of the 'inactive' coaches people talk about bringing in -- with Cowher being the only one over 60%).

 

People can say we play in the AFC South, but let's not forget that Pagano has beaten a lot of very good teams (undefeated Broncos in 2015 being most recent example).  Also keep in mind that Pagano has coached a roster which is less than ideal for his entire career and the only season which he is in jeopardy of not finishing at .500 or greater has been played mostly with a back-up QB, a terrible OL, and a defense with very little talent/play-makers.

 

 

 

 

 

Hahahaha. I heard Caldwell has a pretty good record too.

[Myles]

5 hours ago, jaybird95 said:

 

Hahahaha. I heard Caldwell has a pretty good record too.

Great observation.   Anyone here think Caldwell is a good coach.   We could tell he was nothing north of a coordinator when he was here.  

[Myles]

14 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

IMO the Colts players were playing for Chuck, not Bruce. The whole season after Chuck got sick the team including Bruce were using Chucks sickness to bring everyone together as a team. Bruce is doing a great job at Arizona but look at the roster he has? He has a more balanced team that the Colts have had for years. Some point the finger at the Colts and their weak division. Well the only competition the Cardinals have is Seattle and they are not what they once were. The Rams and the 49ers are pretty weak this season. Don't get me wrong as I like me some Bruce but judging Bruce and Chuck against each other is childish and just grasping at air.

Did you watch the games?    The Colts looked much better under Ariens.  Not just the players, but the play calls, the schemes and attitude.  Arizona seen that.    They hired him and went from 5-11 to 10-6 the next season.   If Arizona would not have hired him, another team would have.   He was sought after.  

Most fans knew Bruce was the better coach.   We also knew the Colts couldn't do anything because Chuck was just returning from his illness.  It is what it is.  

On the NFC West, the 49rs are like the Titans.   The Rams are better than the Jags and Seattle is head and shoulders over the SeaHawks. The Cardinals also beat the Vikings and the Bengals. 

[theanarchist]

20 hours ago, ColtsFanMikeC said:

 

Fact of the matter is, I don't think any coach in the NFL could succeed with what Pagano has been dealt (Belichek being the possible exception).

 

Our OL has been hurt and is atrocious.  We have played the majority of the season with a back-up or 3rd string QB.  We have no pass rush (lack of talent, no coach in the league would be able to coach what we have at LB and on DL to become a pass rushing force), and lack of skill in the secondary behind Vontae and Adams (Toler isn't terrible, but no matter who he plays for he isn't going to become all of the sudden become an all-star).  

 

They do, but even with the season with Arians, Pagano has a 61% winning percentage.

 

Also, note that Arians lost in the wild-card round, whereas Pagano took us a round further each of the following seasons.

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

The Ravens are having a worse season than us -- I don't see anyone calling for John Harbaugh's head.

The Steelers are a wildcard team at best, and with a loss can very well miss the playoffs -- if they do, I guarantee Tomlin won't be axed.

The Saints have underperformed the past couple of seasons and there is a good chance Sean Payton stays with them -- if he doesn't, many people on this board are singing his praises like he should be the next coach here.

 

I get that there is a good chance Pagano goes, all I'm saying is he has done a good job here -- he hasn't been put in a position to succeed -- he inherited the worst team in the NFL and for 3 years in a row won 11 games and made it to the playoffs.  In year 4, he has played most of the season with a back-up QB, a makeshift and very under-talented OL, and a defense that has gaping talent holes all over it.

 

It doesn't help with Irsay and the media stirring things up about Pagano's future and his relationship with Grigson.  I think there is absolutely some merit to the fact that Grigson tries/has tried to take on responsibilities which should be left up to the head coach (total control of draft selections, setting the lineup, etc.), and if any of that is true it also shouldn't be held against Pagano.  Fact  is, very few (if any) coaches in this league would be able to perform with the line-up Pagano has been dealing with this season.  Luck and Hasselbeck should be lucky they are alive and should be * off at Grigson for doing nothing to address our OL this offseason, something that we as Colts fans and NFL fans in general knew was a major area of concern (seriously, signing Herremans was going to be our saving grace?? and nothing was done to address tackle depth or starting talent after Cherilus was released other than drafting a 7th rounder from Mars Hill??).

 

I get it. My issue with Pagano are with the terribly slow starts and the lack of adjustments made in game. The injuries have really made this an impossible season for Chuck. If Luck stays on the field, healthy, we still win the division even with a sub par O-line.

 

Grigson's mistakes are starting to catch up with him. Lack of pass rush has killed this team all year. Whiffing on Werner hurt. The Trent Richardson trade was another Whiff and when you blow two first round selections it always comes back to haunt you.

[Narcosys]

9 hours ago, ColtsFanMikeC said:

 

Bill Cower is 58, Tom Coughlin will be 70 by the start of next season -- I have no idea where you are coming from with this -- 58 and 70 are huge age gaps.  Coughlin, at age 70, is obviously not a long-term solution for this fix, if a fix is needed {it is not fair to Luck to have a 70 year old coach come in to implement a new system (Luck has had more offensive systems/coordinators/coaching changes to deal with than he has years in the league) to have it only last for 1-2 years}.

 

Cower, at age 58, should have much more time left in him to coach than Coughlin.  Cower has also been out of the league for 9 years now -- I firmly believe it will be a mistake to hire someone that far removed from this game -- between the changes in player attitudes, rule changes, replay implementation (yea, the Colts could have potentially beaten the Steelers in 1995 if replay was involved and a Kordell Stewart TD was overturned back in the Cower days), scheme changes, philosophy changes, etc. etc.....

 

Please, if you ever use a part of one sentence out of a multi-sentence paragraph, do not leave it like that -- this is why the media has such a distrust associated with them and leaves me (who you are quoting, completely in wrong terms) confused.  "He is old" (what the hell did I say before or after that, I can't remember because it took me about 5 replies to your out-of-context responses to figure out what you are talking about).

Holy crap man, you take one sentence and make a story book out of it. 

I was using Bill Cowher as an example (because his name was suggested for us) as someone who is of similar age to Arians and Belichick.  Arians being the biggest point that disproves your theory of old people coming into new systems.  You were saying that Coughlin was old and unable to coach anymore because of his age.  It seemed to me you insinuated that he couldn't intellectually do it solely based on his age and mental capacity.  I drew the conclusion that you think that age has a direct reflection on ones mental ability.   I gives a hoot about Cowher coaching for us and how long he has been away from the game.  My point has always been that I disagree with the idea that you can't mentally do something solely based on age.

[Nesjan3]

In Paganos defense he is not a bad coach, he has just come to the end of the line in Indy, he will no doubt get another head coaching job in the NFL, but lets not give him too much credit, he did inheret AL who undoubtedly took the team on his shoulders and won a lot of those games himself..nothing to do with Pagano....and as much as people hate to hear it and act like its not a thing, the fact that we play in the AFC south is a thing and a huge contributor to Chucks winning record

[throwing BBZ]

On 12/22/2015 at 1:49 PM, Myles said:

Those of us who have watched the Colts games know that they looked much better under Arians control.   Paganos illness saved his job in Indy.   Nearly everyone knew Arians was the better coach.

 

Do you have a source for Pagano being 22nd?    I couldn't locate a site that claimed that.   But I didn't look for very long either.

 

 Folks here hated Arians Offense for most of the season.
 We were behind a bunch of really bad teams going into the 4th quarter.
 Andrew had like 9 come from behind wins that year and we could just as easily had a losing record.
 All in all we played a lot more bad football than good Andrews Rookie year.
  And a lot of bad football since.

[crazycolt1]

7 hours ago, Myles said:

Did you watch the games?    The Colts looked much better under Ariens.  Not just the players, but the play calls, the schemes and attitude.  Arizona seen that.    They hired him and went from 5-11 to 10-6 the next season.   If Arizona would not have hired him, another team would have.   He was sought after.  

Most fans knew Bruce was the better coach.   We also knew the Colts couldn't do anything because Chuck was just returning from his illness.  It is what it is.  

On the NFC West, the 49rs are like the Titans.   The Rams are better than the Jags and Seattle is head and shoulders over the SeaHawks. The Cardinals also beat the Vikings and the Bengals. 

How did they look better under Arians? The next two seasons they went 11-5 just the same. Just because you have a dislike for Pagano does not change the facts.

[jet1968]

Sometimes you never know what you will get with a new coach, kind of like a box of candy. I'm sure Chuck will not have a problem finding someplace to chop some wood

[BOTT]

15 minutes ago, jet1968 said:

Sometimes you never know what you will get with a new coach, kind of like a box of candy. I'm sure Chuck will not have a problem finding someplace to chop some wood

Hopefully it's in the afc south

[aaron11]

If we traded schedules with the ravens, our record would be as bad as their's

[VaAllDay757]

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Jcolt72 said:

His team usually comes out very flat to start games, and does not make any adjustments on the fly.

Ding ding ding if this was a stat he would probably be in the top 5

[indyagent17]

Pagano is all but gone and will be out of a contract soon. 

 

Yes the team under Pagano has beat some great trams but none from Pittsburgh or Foxborough and that needs to change before this team can turn the corner.

 

Regular season wins are meaningless without a title. 

[Valpo2004]

On 12/22/2015 at 1:43 PM, ColtsFanMikeC said:

 

How is DVOA (defense adjusted value over average) being used here?  I was just talking winning percent, am I missing something?

 

You obviously have to give credit to Tom Coughlin for winning 2 SBs.  However, in order to win a SB, you have to make the playoffs.  He has made the playoffs 5 times (won 2 SBs) with the Giants and is about to miss the playoffs for his 7th time with the Giants (he makes the playoffs 42% of the time) -- Pagano is either 75% or 66% at making it to the playoffs (depending on if you count the Arians year), assuming we don't make it this year.  Personally, I'd rather a coach that will consistently bring us to the playoffs than one who will have us playing pretty sporadic football and take us there less than 50% of the time.  Once you're in the dance, anything can happen.

 

 

I don't think the best way to measure our roster talent this year (Pagano's only losing season) based on how players who are not on it (i.e., those who we've let go and are in the league elsewhere) are playing.  And as far as guys we've let go that have found roles on other teams, I can't think of any except maybe Sergio Brown who are starting and playing significant roles on other teams (I guess DHB is having a pretty good year this year and Jerry Hughes has done all right with Buffalo -- who else though? RJF and Montori are in the league but I don't think they are anything more than rotational lineman).

 

Our roster this year is not good, especially when we are relying on our depth players to be starters.  It isn't terrible, but as many other posts and posters have pointed out we have been playing with either an injured starting QB or a back-up (often playing through injuries) QB almost all season.  Our OL is pretty horrendous, we have very little skill in the pass rush department, we've suffered multiple injuries to our DL (including our 2 best DL, Art Jones and Anderson) and we lack playmakers in the secondary.  

 

Excluding 2012 (Arians year), Pagano was 4-2 vs. 10+ win teams in 2013 (beat SF, SEA, KC, DEN and lost to ARZ and CIN) and was 2-5 in 2014 (beat CIN, BAL and all 5 losses were to 10+ win teams).  Pagano is also 3-2 in the post-season, making his overall record against 10+ win teams prior to this season 9-9 (.500).  If you add in this season (a very compromised season) he is 10-11 overall against teams with 10 or more wins (and may drop to 10-12 or 10-13 depending what NYJ and Pitt do, which will leave him somewhere between 43-48% against 10 win teams -- there are plenty of head coaches currently in the NFL with overall win records in that bracket).  

 

 

 

Cory Redding, Jerrad Powers, Freeney isn't a starter but a pass rushing specialist, AQ Shipley is starting due to injury, Antoine Bethea at least he was for 2 years after he left the Colts, I don't know what he's doing now.  

[krunk]

I'm looking at this thing and thinking about some of the comments people have made about Pagano.  Do you guys realize our starting quarterback has only won 2 of our games this year and the rest have been won by backups and yet we are still about talking about potential playoffs.  Not likely that we will make the playoffs of course. Worse we will end up is 8-8.  Even with all this turmoil Pagano was able to keep the team together with nothing but back up quarterbacks.  I've seen plenty of teams with accomplished head coaches who have done much worse with what we have at our disposal this year.  The guy is better than what people give him credit for.

[BOTT]

2 minutes ago, krunk said:

I'm looking at this thing and thinking about some of the comments people have made about Pagano.  Do you guys realize our starting quarterback has only won 2 of our games this year and the rest have been won by backups and yet we are still about talking about potential playoffs.  Not likely that we will make the playoffs of course. Worse we will end up is 8-8.  Even with all this turmoil Pagano was able to keep the team together with nothing but back up quarterbacks.  I've seen plenty of teams with accomplished head coaches who have done much worse with what we have at our disposal this year.  The guy is better than what people give him credit for.

Till you look at the teams they actually beat.  The Bucs were are probably the best of the bunch and they aren't anything but mediocre. And getting hammered by the steelers and jags doesn't help his cause. I'm not trying to be Debbie downer, but you have to look at things like that.

[ThaCaliColt]

50 games is not all that large of a sample size. Couple that with the fact that Arians had a significant impact on the success in 2012. This team has also suffered more blowout lossess during the Pagano tenure than any other team in the league.

[krunk]

1 hour ago, BOTT said:

Till you look at the teams they actually beat.  The Bucs were are probably the best of the bunch and they aren't anything but mediocre. And getting hammered by the steelers and jags doesn't help his cause. I'm not trying to be Debbie downer, but you have to look at things like that.

 

You plan on beating many quality teams with the 2nd and 3rd string quarterbacks?  You speak like we had Luck in those games.  Hasslebeck shouldn't really even be playing, the guy can't barely even finish 2 quarters without getting knocked out the game.

[Myles]

19 minutes ago, krunk said:

 

You plan on beating many quality teams with the 2nd and 3rd string quarterbacks?  You speak like we had Luck in those games.  Hasslebeck shouldn't really even be playing, the guy can't barely even finish 2 quarters without getting knocked out the game.

We were only 2-5 with Luck in the games.

 

[bap1331]

On December 22, 2015 at 0:05 AM, ReMeDy said:

Curious though, do those games with Bruce Arians as our interim HC count toward's Pagano's HC'ing stats?

 

Yes! Don't you remember that Pagano would still do his best to coach during his chemotherapy? 

[Myles]

2 minutes ago, bap1331 said:

 

Yes! Don't you remember that Pagano would still do his best to coach during his chemotherapy? 

Arians had control of the team at that point.   Chuck had some input, but it was mostly for show and out of respect for him.   Arians was a heck of a coach that year and is just as good in Arizona the past couple years.  

He has that Arizona team looking great.  He brought in Tom Moore, Larry Foote, Tom Pratt and others to groom the team.   It worked. 

 

Arizona before Bruce.   5-11

With Bruce:

10-6

11-5

13-2 so far this season.     

[BOTT]

1 hour ago, krunk said:

 

You plan on beating many quality teams with the 2nd and 3rd string quarterbacks?  You speak like we had Luck in those games.  Hasslebeck shouldn't really even be playing, the guy can't barely even finish 2 quarters without getting knocked out the game.

No, I'm just saying those teams kinda stink so I wouldn't be bragging about the 8-8 record.  The colts only looked good against the Bucs and Texans...2 mediocre teams.

[OHColtfan]

I'm not really sure if he is as good as his best days or as bad as his worst days, but I don't think we will ever really know. 

 

I believe it was a mistake from the beginning, putting a first time GM with a first time Head Coach. Just too much newness all around- people trying to find the limits of where they fit in, their vision of what their position includes. Irsay made a blunder by hiring them at the same time, but a mistake he can correct.

 

Maybe if one or the other goes and we either get an experienced HC to reign in Grigson & keep his hands off the depth chart or an experienced GM to actually work with Pagano and fill the roster with his kind of talent. I know that if he meant to give this team the kind of identity he has talked about (building the monster) then he has failed- no one has feared us and worried about Pagano's game plan or strategy.

[ColtsFanMikeC]

On 12/25/2015 at 10:43 AM, indyagent17 said:

Pagano is all but gone and will be out of a contract soon. 

 

Yes the team under Pagano has beat some great trams but none from Pittsburgh or Foxborough and that needs to change before this team can turn the corner.

 

Regular season wins are meaningless without a title. 

 

There have only been 3 coaches in the NFL to win a title since Pagano has been a head coach.  John Harbaugh, Pete Carroll, Bill Belichek.  Very few coaches have been able to consistently beat Belichek in the NFL. 

 

Pagano inherited THE WORST team in the league just about 4 years ago -- if we win this weekend, Pagano will not have had a losing season in 4 years as a head coach on a team that still has glaring holes (presumably due to the GM) at multiple positions.

 

Regular season wins without a title are meaningful.  Sure, a title helps, but I don't think there is even a remotely close argument that the players on our team were overall more talented than any superbowl champion team since Pagano has taken over.

 

On 12/28/2015 at 2:01 PM, ThaCaliColt said:

50 games is not all that large of a sample size. Couple that with the fact that Arians had a significant impact on the success in 2012. This team has also suffered more blowout losses during the Pagano tenure than any other team in the league.

 

You are wrong.  Please, if you are going to state something like it is a fact, check your facts before doing so.

 

Since 2012 we have been blown out arguably between 7 and 12 times (3 of which are in the playoffs).  The Browns were blown out 5-6 times this year alone, going back to 2012 they have been blown at a minimum of at least 14 times (with several games on top of that which are borderline).  Going back to 2012, the Jets have been blown out at least 13 times (please keep in mind, the Jets and Browns haven't made the playoffs, so they are dealing with 6 less games played and have been blown out more times).

 

I don't feel like going through every team, but the first two teams that came to my head disprove you.  I am sure if I looked through every game of every team in the league, there would be plenty of more teams that are right there with us or worse in terms of how many times they have been 'blown out'. 

[Carlos Danger]

These stats would be more compelling of they were more substantial..

 

If they don't already, they should keep coaching stats that measure things like halftime adjustments, flat 1st quarters, wasted time outs, 4th down conversions, ect. 

[ThaCaliColt]

3 hours ago, ColtsFanMikeC said:

 

There have only been 3 coaches in the NFL to win a title since Pagano has been a head coach.  John Harbaugh, Pete Carroll, Bill Belichek.  Very few coaches have been able to consistently beat Belichek in the NFL.

 

Pagano inherited THE WORST team in the league just about 4 years ago -- if we win this weekend, Pagano will not have had a losing season in 4 years as a head coach on a team that still has glaring holes (presumably due to the GM) at multiple positions.

 

Regular season wins without a title are meaningful.  Sure, a title helps, but I don't think there is even a remotely close argument that the players on our team were overall more talented than any superbowl champion team since Pagano has taken over.

 

 

You are wrong.  Please, if you are going to state something like it is a fact, check your facts before doing so.

 

Since 2012 we have been blown out arguably between 7 and 12 times (3 of which are in the playoffs).  The Browns were blown out 5-6 times this year alone, going back to 2012 they have been blown at a minimum of at least 14 times (with several games on top of that which are borderline).  Going back to 2012, the Jets have been blown out at least 13 times (please keep in mind, the Jets and Browns haven't made the playoffs, so they are dealing with 6 less games played and have been blown out more times).

 

Let me clarify something with respect to my original statement. I was referencing an Indystar article dated December 11th documenting Pagano's statistics in blowout lossess (22 points or more). Keefer stated that the Colts had "Been blown out as a higher percentage of their losses than any other team since Pagano was hired in 2012". Again, this was defined by a loss of 22 points or more. Other teams which fell in this category were Tennessee, San Francisco, St. Louis and Oakland.

 

 

 

 

 

[jszfunk]

The only reason the Colts had the record they did the first three years of this regime is Andrew Luck, period.

The WHOLE entire franchise should be indebted to him and Grigson should hand over his paycheck to AL also, and RG should stand in the backfield and get hammered by some PO'd defensive lineman and line backers every Sunday for 16 weeks.

[Gavin]

16 minutes ago, jszfunk said:

The only reason the Colts had the record they did the first three years of this regime is Andrew Luck, period.

The WHOLE entire franchise should be indebted to him and Grigson should hand over his paycheck to AL also, and RG should stand in the backfield and get hammered by some PO'd defensive lineman and line backers every Sunday for 16 weeks.

you must be forgetting the 5 games the Colts won this year with Luck on the sidelines...ya know...the ones where we had better QB play prior to Hasselbeck getting injured