5 Sacks and no answers from the "Coach"

[OLD FAN MAN]

3 hours ago, OHColtfan said:

That nails it right there....why after years of saying we are trying to keep 12 upright are we back to no experienced depth and playing with rookies who have to start because there is no one else?  Because Grigson stinks at drafting talent along the OL and couldn't pick up a decent FA OL. Ridiculous after years and years of talk and promises and supposed emphasis on a problem to still have a major problem. If we like having Luck around, it can't take two or three more years to put together a decent line. But yet here we are....

I concur

[OLD FAN MAN]

2 hours ago, MSColtsFan said:

 

There actually is a blueprint - the Titans, Lions, and Seahawks all have younger lines than the Colts.  This year.  What the Colts are doing isn't unique.  It's not common, but it isn't unique.  And the Colts compare favorably to those lines, and others around them in the 5-10 spots.  Except one category.  Sacks.  Detroit is close.  The point is, maybe the players taken don't fit the plan.  It's my complaint with many things Pags and Grigs - seemingly forcing round pegs into square holes, and an inability to adjust.  Or unwillingness. 

agreed

[Gavin]

3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Gore is on a rough touch count to make sure he plays all 16 game at a high level.

 

At his age,  they don't want Gore to have 20+ touches a game.    Sooner or later,  it would ware him out.

 

He was on this lower count last year as well.   

 

If you noticed,  Gore still plays in the 2nd half....   just not quite as much,  and not as many touches.

 

He really isn't on much of a pitch count. He averages 15.6 carries per game this year. He has averaged 16.4 carries a game for his career and never averaged more than 19.5 carries a game in a season and only did that one time in his career. Not much of a difference. We are throwing 41 times a game

 

We are running the bally 22.4 times a game with Luck averaging 3.0 a game with Turbin only getting 2.2 carries a game. When Turbins healthy we really need to start running him about 10 or so carries in the 2nd half in my opinion because the 2nd half is when we abandon the run even when we are run blocking well which we have been doing the last couple weeks

[coltsfanatic24]

The offensive line hasn't been good which is to be expected because of how young they are, but Luck is also holding on to the ball far too long. 

[MSColtsFan]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

If you're going to make a claim,  then you had better be able to back it up.

 

Mewhort -- 3rd year.

Kelly -- rookie

Good -- 2nd year

Haeg -- rookie

Blythe -- rookie

 

Go ahead.........  crunch the numbers....   give me names and the years on each and show me how they have a younger offensive line than the Colts.         I'll be here waiting....

 

Here you go. At he start of the year these were the average ages.  

http://www.phillyvoice.com/nfl-age-inventory-offensive-line/

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Gavin said:

He really isn't on much of a pitch count. He averages 15.6 carries per game this year. He has averaged 16.4 carries a game for his career and never averaged more than 19.5 carries a game in a season and only did that one time in his career. Not much of a difference. We are throwing 41 times a game

 

We are running the bally 22.4 times a game with Luck averaging 3.0 a game with Turbin only getting 2.2 carries a game. When Turbins healthy we really need to start running him about 10 or so carries in the 2nd half in my opinion because the 2nd half is when we abandon the run even when we are run blocking well which we have been doing the last couple weeks

 

The count is roughly 250-260 touches per season...

 

You noted 15.6 while in his career he's never been more than 19.5

 

OK...   that's a difference of 4 carries a game....   multiply that by 16 games and suddenly you have 64 more carries.    Now, suddenly that number looks a little bigger.

 

The touch count is very real.      At his age,  a back like Gore could suddenly look very ordinary very quickly if he was over-worked.       We're trying hard not to do that to him.      That's the thing about older players,  especially at skill positions.    They can go from good to not-so-good really, really fast.

 

We don't want him running out of gas after week 16, because we hope to be in the playoffs.   And we'll really need him there.        Don't fool yourself.      The touch count is real.      We just don't advertise it all that much.

 

 

 

 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

2 hours ago, dudeski said:

During the regular season.  With good results.

 

Ah, was it last year then, with Pep?

[NewColtsFan]

49 minutes ago, MSColtsFan said:

Here you go. At he start of the year these were the average ages.  

http://www.phillyvoice.com/nfl-age-inventory-offensive-line/

 

OK.....    two things....   one this age,  and not years of experience.

 

But two -- AND THIS ONE IS THE KEY -- the key words that you wrote are..... AT THE START OF THE YEAR.

 

Haeg wasn't starting at the start of the year.    Blythe wasn't starting at the start of the year.

 

Haeg, who is a rookie,  replaces Reitz,  who is our 2nd oldest lineman.     That chances the math. 

 

Numbers at the start of the year are nice,  but they quickly lose meaning once the season starts.    Because injuries and such change the equation.      We've got more young guys playing than we expected.

 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

52 minutes ago, MSColtsFan said:

Here you go. At he start of the year these were the average ages.  

http://www.phillyvoice.com/nfl-age-inventory-offensive-line/

 

Not the youngest, but stil they're very young, and I think it's a really, really good thing in the long term.

[MSColtsFan]

13 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

OK.....    two things....   one this age,  and not years of experience.

 

But two -- AND THIS ONE IS THE KEY -- the key words that you wrote are..... AT THE START OF THE YEAR.

 

Haeg wasn't starting at the start of the year.    Blythe wasn't starting at the start of the year.

 

Haeg, who is a rookie,  replaces Reitz,  who is our 2nd oldest lineman.     That chances the math. 

 

Numbers at the start of the year are nice,  but they quickly lose meaning once the season starts.    Because injuries and such change the equation.      We've got more young guys playing than we expected.

 

 

You asked for a reference to my statement, I supplied one.  The Colts don't have the youngest line in the NFL.  That's what I said.  You're welcome to disagree with that writer's math too.  Doesn't change the facts and makes no difference to me.  

 

Here's the point, because I think you've lost it while trying to win an argument only you're having,  The Colts are among several teams with very young offensive lines.  Other teams, like the Titans for example, with similarly young lines, are playing better and much more cohesively than the Colts so far.  Rushing yards.  Sacks allowed.  For example.  As a way to compare.  

 

 

[MSColtsFan]

30 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Not the youngest, but stil they're very young, and I think it's a really, really good thing in the long term.

 

I sure hope we're watching the start of a core at OL which will be around a long time!   I also wish it didn't ever get to this point - where the Colts had to start so many kids at the same time.  But this is an OL thread not a Grigson or Polian thread.  

[ColtsBlueFL]

9 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Notice the run blocking is the BEST we've had by far since Luck, Grigson and Pagano showed up.    That's already dramatically improved.        It's the pass blocking that remains (I'll be charitable)   A work in progress....

 

Interesting assessment, but what is really telling is that the Colts offensive balance is 65% passing and 35% rushing plays.  That's an unhealthy balance, but I believe our poor defense makes it a near term necessity.

[Jason_]

 

Double post

[Jason_]

24 minutes ago, MSColtsFan said:

 

You asked for a reference to my statement, I supplied one.  The Colts don't have the youngest line in the NFL.  That's what I said.  You're welcome to disagree with that writer's math too.  Doesn't change the facts and makes no difference to me.  

 

Here's the point, because I think you've lost it while trying to win an argument only you're having,  The Colts are among several teams with very young offensive lines.  Other teams, like the Titans for example, with similarly young lines, are playing better and much more cohesively than the Colts so far.  Rushing yards.  Sacks allowed.  For example.  As a way to compare.  

 

 

 

Wow, you just completely ignored his point about reitz being replaced with haeg, which definitely changes the math.

[NewColtsFan]

28 minutes ago, MSColtsFan said:

 

You asked for a reference to my statement, I supplied one.  The Colts don't have the youngest line in the NFL.  That's what I said.  You're welcome to disagree with that writer's math too.  Doesn't change the facts and makes no difference to me.  

 

Here's the point, because I think you've lost it while trying to win an argument only you're having,  The Colts are among several teams with very young offensive lines.  Other teams, like the Titans for example, with similarly young lines, are playing better and much more cohesively than the Colts so far.  Rushing yards.  Sacks allowed.  For example.  As a way to compare.  

 

 

 

 

Turns out the numbers are coming in my favor....

 

Reitz is older than I thought.....   he's 31.      Haeg is 23.      Subtract 8 years from that group and our line average drops from 24.6 to about 23.4.

 

That would put us 2nd.

 

If we're not connecting it's because we're not talking about the same thing.     You tossed in age,  I'm talking about experience.     My comment holds up just fine.

 

 

[MSColtsFan]

25 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

Wow, you just completely ignored his point about reitz being replaced with haeg, which definitely changes the math.

 

Of course I did because it's irrelevant to the point I made.  Reitz and Haeg were both on the roster at the start of the year, no?  The age of the Colts line. In total. Not on third and six in the second quarter of the Lions game or in the fourth quarter of the Bears game.  The line as a whole.  All of them.  Some act like the Colts are in some unique never before seen situation.  And it's simply not true. Not only in the history of the game, but in this year.  Other teams start very very young offensive lines.  Many have played very young kids together due to injuries.   The Colts give up too many sacks.  Young or not. 

[MSColtsFan]

46 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

 

Turns out the numbers are coming in my favor....

 

Reitz is older than I thought.....   he's 31.      Haeg is 23.      Subtract 8 years from that group and our line average drops from 24.6 to about 23.4.

 

That would put us 2nd.

 

If we're not connecting it's because we're not talking about the same thing.     You tossed in age,  I'm talking about experience.     My comment holds up just fine.

 

 

 

You're aware that you quoted a post of mine in which I said the age of the Colts OL was not the youngest in the NFL, and you demanded I back my claim up, correct?  And then I did.   And then when, after some voodoo and creating your own argument (at a given moment, last weeks game, whatever, as opposed to the entire group as a whole as I stated) you still ended up concluding the exact same thing I did - that the Colts don't, in fact, have the youngest offensive line.  Whether we're talking about last week or the roster as a whole.  Even after changing the parameters they don't.  So I'm not sure why this is still being discussed.  I'd say it's been established.  They don't have the youngest line.  Whew. Now we can move on to why they give up so many sacks.  

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, MSColtsFan said:

 

You're aware that you quoted a post of mine in which I said the age of the Colts OL was not the youngest in the NFL, and you demanded I back my claim up, correct?  And then I did.   And then when, after some voodoo and creating your own argument (at a given moment, last weeks game, whatever, as opposed to the entire group as a whole as I stated) you still ended up concluding the exact same thing I did - that the Colts don't, in fact, have the youngest offensive line.  Whether we're talking about last week or the roster as a whole.  Even after changing the parameters they don't.  So I'm not sure why this is still being discussed.  I'd say it's been established.  They don't have the youngest line.  Whew. Now we can move on to why they give up so many sacks.  

 

I'm simply pointing out that we're talking about two different things.

 

Yes,  you proved your point.    Age.

 

My point was more to experience.

 

And I wasn't aware that your point was based on something that was formulated at the beginning of the season.

 

That changes the conversation.

 

[southwest1]

11 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Pagano and Chudzinski

 

Belichick and McDaniels

 

The question I always have is this: When did the Patriots & Bill Belichick become the only benchmark for greatness across the NFL landscape? Yes, they are a successful dynasty but there are other dynasties: Bill Walsh & Joe Montana, Marv Levy & Jim Kelly [their consecutive SB appearances], Chuck Noll & Terry Bradshaw.

 

No disrespect to Boston, but the NFL started long before Bill was hired in 2000 by Robert Kraft. 

 

I get what you're saying: NE's offense is clicking on all cylinders while INDY is fine-tuning it's kinks, but every time people mention NE or their coaching staff & how great they are what the hades are the Colts supposed to do? Fold at the slightest fork in the road, pout, & give up? Screw that. 

 

It's easy to mock & destroy when things look bleak, but it takes more balls to ride out the grim times & flourish later down the long haul SS. 

[Kirie89]

7 hours ago, Jason_S said:

 

Wow, you just completely ignored his point about reitz being replaced with haeg, which definitely changes the math.

 

7 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

 

Turns out the numbers are coming in my favor....

 

Reitz is older than I thought.....   he's 31.      Haeg is 23.      Subtract 8 years from that group and our line average drops from 24.6 to about 23.4.

 

That would put us 2nd.

 

If we're not connecting it's because we're not talking about the same thing.     You tossed in age,  I'm talking about experience.     My comment holds up just fine.

 

 

 

I don’t take any side in this discussion, but you at least should read and understand the information before you incorrectly comment on it. There are no way a Colts line with Reitz can be that young.

 

Castonzo (28), Mewhort (25) and Kelly (23) were obvious starters. On the right side they must have used some combination of Good (25), Haeg (23), Reitz (31), Harrison (25), Clark (23) and Thornton (25).

 

With a line of Castonzo, Mewhort, Kelly, Haeg and Reitz you get an average age of 26.

 

So clearly they did not have Reitz in the projected starting lineup they used to get an average age of 24.6.

 

The starting lineup against the bears had an average age of 24.8.

 

[lollygagger8]

15 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Yeah I got censored. I didn't realize that word was considered profanity, so apparently I'll have to get more creative in the future.

 

All good. I figured that.

[Jason_]

3 hours ago, Kirie89 said:

 

 

I don’t take any side in this discussion, but you at least should read and understand the information before you incorrectly comment on it.

 

 

lol..  where we were wrong is that the link provided took into account ALL offensive linemen on the team, not just the starters.  So what was that about reading and understanding before commenting?

[BCoop]

10 hours ago, MSColtsFan said:

 

Of course I did because it's irrelevant to the point I made.  Reitz and Haeg were both on the roster at the start of the year, no?  The age of the Colts line. In total. Not on third and six in the second quarter of the Lions game or in the fourth quarter of the Bears game.  The line as a whole.  All of them.  Some act like the Colts are in some unique never before seen situation.  And it's simply not true. Not only in the history of the game, but in this year.  Other teams start very very young offensive lines.  Many have played very young kids together due to injuries.   The Colts give up too many sacks.  Young or not. 

 

I'm assuming you're referring to my previous post about there not being a blueprint, because no one else has made a statement even remotely close to the bold section above.

 

I'm not going through every team's draft from last year, but replacing 60% of your starting line with rookies and second year players qualifies as a relatively unique situation to me. You can reference the Titans and Lions all day long, but those aren't playoff teams and that kind of proves my point. Seattle was already an NFC favorite so they would have been there regardless.  I don't really care what the average age of the line is either. That's irrelevant when you're relying on so many guys that have virtually no experience to rebuild a line in one offseason and also win their division. 

 

[Kirie89]

32 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

lol..  where we were wrong is that the link provided took into account ALL offensive linemen on the team, not just the starters.  So what was that about reading and understanding before commenting?

 

I not sure if I misunderstand you or not, but the link provided took into account a projected starting lineup.  And Reitz can’t have been part of their projected starting lineup for the Colts.

 

«For the second consecutive year, the Philadelphia Eagles have the oldest projected starting offensive line in the NFL. Last year they had an average age of 29.6. This year, they're slightly younger, at an average age of 29.2. Here is where they rank compared with the rest of the NFL»

 

Anyway I am not interested in starting a discussion and I agree that an offensive line needs time. The Colts have both several inexperienced linemen and have had several changes on the offensive line. So it will take time before they reach their potential, both as individuals and as a unit.

[Jason_]

1 minute ago, Kirie89 said:

 

 

 

Anyway I am not interested in starting a discussion and I agree that an offensive line needs time. The Colts have both several inexperienced linemen and have had several changes on the offensive line. So it will take time before they reach their potential, both as individuals and as a unit.

 

at this point I'm not sure anymore either.  I agree with the above though.

[OLD FAN MAN]

11 hours ago, MSColtsFan said:

 

Of course I did because it's irrelevant to the point I made.  Reitz and Haeg were both on the roster at the start of the year, no?  The age of the Colts line. In total. Not on third and six in the second quarter of the Lions game or in the fourth quarter of the Bears game.  The line as a whole.  All of them.  Some act like the Colts are in some unique never before seen situation.  And it's simply not true. Not only in the history of the game, but in this year.  Other teams start very very young offensive lines.  Many have played very young kids together due to injuries.   The Colts give up too many sacks.  Young or not. 

I agree

[PeterBowman]

yes there's been too many sacks so far this year, but there's things to be encouraged about too. I think we could be seeing Haeg at RT going forward. He's making rookie mistakes and so is Good(yes he's a 2nd year player) but he's a rookie at guard. This just needs time going forward and I feel if Haeg and Good can stay healthy they could anchor that right side. There will be and has been growing pains with them. And also forgetting that Kelly is a rookie at center too.

 

There have been times that Luck has had Brady time back there, and it seems that as the year has gone on, that has been increasing each game(save for Jax for some reason). Plus the running game as been the most efficient it's been in a while (just few attempts). Remember the last few years where it was comical when the Colts tried to run it on 3rd and very short. Now they seem to convert it on a regular basis(not every time, but most of the time).

 

Are there issues? Absolutely, but I think there just needs to be patience on this. '

 

Now if the same things are happening by the end of the season, then I'll change my tune some on this. Until then, I'm going to preach patience.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

 

9 hours ago, southwest1 said:

The question I always have is this: When did the Patriots & Bill Belichick become the only benchmark for greatness across the NFL landscape? Yes, they are a successful dynasty but there are other dynasties: Bill Walsh & Joe Montana, Marv Levy & Jim Kelly [their consecutive SB appearances], Chuck Noll & Terry Bradshaw.

 

No disrespect to Boston, but the NFL started long before Bill was hired in 2000 by Robert Kraft. 

 

I get what you're saying: NE's offense is clicking on all cylinders while INDY is fine-tuning it's kinks, but every time people mention NE or their coaching staff & how great they are what the hades are the Colts supposed to do? Fold at the slightest fork in the road, pout, & give up? Screw that. 

 

It's easy to mock & destroy when things look bleak, but it takes more balls to ride out the grim times & flourish later down the long haul SS. 

 

Pagano doesn't compare any more favorably to 80s & 90s dynasties than he does Belichick & Co. The reason people use Belichick for comparisons now is because he's an active coach, and he's become what a lot of people consider the best NFL coach of all time, at the very minimum, hands down the best in the salary cap era.

 

Gotta remember, some people in this forum weren't even alive for Bradshaw & Noll, or even Walsh & Montana for that matter. And the only real NFL dynasty that's been around in the meantime is New England, & I guess the Cowboys from the 90s as well.

 

And I don't even think things look that bleak, as we have a chance to take the lead in the division on Sunday night. But at the same time, I've been a Pagano apologist for long enough, the guy just isn't the right head coach for this team. I'd love nothing more than for him to turn things around and prove me wrong, but I just don't see it happening. If he were the coach of a team like the Cowboys, it'd be a great fit. That power blocking o-line, and an elite talent at RB, Pagano would be in hog heaven with that unit. But what we have in place from a personnel standpoint is a group that's built to be a modern NFL passing offense, and he just will not surrender to that, and it drives me insane. Watching him and his staff try to fit a square peg into a round hole every single Sunday is enough to do that to a fan.

[indyagent17]

23 hours ago, Ehrman.Dutton.Cook.Barnes said:

The pat response is always we've got "to work on fixing things". Would it be too much to ask what exactly it is going to take to keep Luck upright?  Is it talent, coaching or formation adjustments? If Philbin was doing such a great job in Miami, why is he not still there?

Talent and Nastiness is why he did better in Miami. We do not have that here. This is why our defense has been called SOFT for years

[Jason_]

13 hours ago, MSColtsFan said:

 

Of course I did because it's irrelevant to the point I made.  Reitz and Haeg were both on the roster at the start of the year, no?  The age of the Colts line. In total. Not on third and six in the second quarter of the Lions game or in the fourth quarter of the Bears game.  The line as a whole.  All of them.  Some act like the Colts are in some unique never before seen situation.  And it's simply not true. Not only in the history of the game, but in this year.  Other teams start very very young offensive lines.  Many have played very young kids together due to injuries.   The Colts give up too many sacks.  Young or not. 

 

To the part I bolded..you are wrong.  You didn't even read the link YOU provided as proof of your point. lol 

 

Quote

For the second consecutive year, the Philadelphia Eagles have the oldest projected starting offensive line in the NFL. Last year they had an average age of 29.6. This year, they're slightly younger, at an average age of 29.2. (29.2 is what the table lists as Philly's average age.  So they're only counting projected starters, NOT the entire OL personnel) Here is where they rank compared with the rest of the NFL:

 

 

2 hours ago, Kirie89 said:

 

I not sure if I misunderstand you or not, but the link provided took into account a projected starting lineup.  And Reitz can’t have been part of their projected starting lineup for the Colts.

 

 

 

You are correct and thank you for pointing this out.  NCF and I made the mistake of assuming that MSColtsFan actually read the link he provided as proof of his point, but clearly he didn't.  I am curious as to who they projected to be the Colts starting OL though because I don't think anyone even remotely familiar with the team didn't expect Reitz to be a starter to open the season.  Replacing Reitz with Haeg makes the average age 24.8 which is close to their 24.6 projection. 

 

Anyway, long-story-short it doesn't really matter.  Not many teams are able to insert MULTIPLE rookie linemen into their starting lineup and have immediate success. 

[Mameluc]

Im just tired of the OL always getting beat with stunts...like wth man, pass the dude to your fellow OL. 

[MSColtsFan]

16 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

To the part I bolded..you are wrong.  You didn't even read the link YOU provided as proof of your point. lol 

 

 

 

 

You are correct and thank you for pointing this out.  NCF and I made the mistake of assuming that MSColtsFan actually read the link he provided as proof of his point, but clearly he didn't.  I am curious as to who they projected to be the Colts starting OL though because I don't think anyone even remotely familiar with the team didn't expect Reitz to be a starter to open the season.  Replacing Reitz with Haeg makes the average age 24.8 which is close to their 24.6 projection. 

 

Anyway, long-story-short it doesn't really matter.  Not many teams are able to insert MULTIPLE rookie linemen into their starting lineup and have immediate success. 

 

Self aggrandizing when still not understanding is cute.  You just can't let it go.  My statement was still accurate.  I read the article.  I didn't write the article, have not a clue what the author did to gather his numbers.  It makes ZERO difference.  4th.  2nd. 31st. 

 

It's cute how you're consumed with attacking me and coming to the aid of New Colt Dude.  This is as dead a horse as it gets.  You two can continue to attack me, for reasons which escape me, but this will be my last post on the subject.  Your enraged blindness to disprove a post from someone you don't know regarding a subject which means so little speaks volumes about who you are.  As senior members, I don't know why I expected more, but the condescension, the self-righteousness, the holy-than-thou, it's crazy.    Same reason I left the board for a long time.  And the reason it's crazy is because you can get lost in the weeds, make up whatever conspiracy theory you'd like, but my very simple, non-offensive, hardly argument worthy comment that the Colts line is not the youngest in the NFL is still true.  Why that upsets you so is beyond me.  Why New Colts Dude felt compelled to lose his S over it and try to call me out as someone just making stuff up is beyond me.  But that's that you guys do.  Senior members really representing the board well.  Congrats.  You two keep thinking you're the smartest guys in the room.  I'm out.

 

 

 

 

[Jason_]

1 hour ago, MSColtsFan said:

 

Self aggrandizing when still not understanding is cute. 

 

I understand completely.  You think that the Colts OL should be performing better because it doesn't take time

for them to gel like most people are saying.  That was the very first post you made in this thread. 
 

Quote

I strongly disagree with the notion that rookies should be allowed to take time to gel, or learn, or produce, or whatever.

 

 

You said that other teams have an OL that's younger than the Colts and they are doing fine so the Colts OL should as well.  When asked about this, you provided the link you did to prove your point.  You were questioned when NCF pointed out that the article didn't take into account that injuries have forced other young players into the starting lineup that were not accounted for at the beginning of the season, and you countered that the article was taking all offensive linemen on the team into account so the injuries didn't change anything.  That point was incorrect.

 

Quote

You just can't let it go.  My statement was still accurate.

 

The statement about the colts having a young OL was accurate, yes, but your original point was not. 
 

Quote

  I read the article. I didn't write the article, have not a clue what the author did to gather his numbers.  It makes ZERO difference.  4th.  2nd. 31st.

 

 

If you read the article then you would have a clue as to what the author did to gather his numbers.

 

Quote

It's cute how you're consumed with attacking me and coming to the aid of New Colt Dude.

 

I'm not consumed with attacking you.  Don't flatter yourself.  New information was pointed out that contradicted what you said earlier in the thread.  You were called out on it.  That's it.

 

Quote

 Your enraged blindness to disprove a post from someone you don't know regarding a subject which means so little speaks volumes about who you are.

 

My enraged blindness?? lol  How cute.  Again, don't flatter yourself. 

 

Quote

   Same reason I left the board for a long time.  And the reason it's crazy is because you can get lost in the weeds, make up whatever conspiracy theory you'd like, but my very simple, non-offensive, hardly argument worthy comment that the Colts line is not the youngest in the NFL is still true.  Why that upsets you so is beyond me.

 

It is true and it doesn't upset me at all.  What I find distasteful are all of the made up, nonsense "facts" that people are trying to peddle against both Pagano and Grigson.  They're far from perfect and there's more than plenty for them to improve on, but some of the claims being made around here about them are so far off base that it's ridiculous.  One such example is that our OL right now is bad because the coaching sucks and NOT because we've had to shuffle 3 rookies in and out of the lineup to account for injuries (not to mention the fact that a new offense and blocking scheme was installed in the offseason).

 

 

 

 

[southwest1]

9 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

 

Pagano doesn't compare any more favorably to 80s & 90s dynasties than he does Belichick & Co. The reason people use Belichick for comparisons now is because he's an active coach, and he's become what a lot of people consider the best NFL coach of all time, at the very minimum, hands down the best in the salary cap era.

 

Gotta remember, some people in this forum weren't even alive for Bradshaw & Noll, or even Walsh & Montana for that matter. And the only real NFL dynasty that's been around in the meantime is New England, & I guess the Cowboys from the 90s as well.

 

And I don't even think things look that bleak, as we have a chance to take the lead in the division on Sunday night. But at the same time, I've been a Pagano apologist for long enough, the guy just isn't the right head coach for this team. I'd love nothing more than for him to turn things around and prove me wrong, but I just don't see it happening. If he were the coach of a team like the Cowboys, it'd be a great fit. That power blocking o-line, and an elite talent at RB, Pagano would be in hog heaven with that unit. But what we have in place from a personnel standpoint is a group that's built to be a modern NFL passing offense, and he just will not surrender to that, and it drives me insane. Watching him and his staff try to fit a square peg into a round hole every single Sunday is enough to do that to a fan.

You make a number of good points SS. Namely, that BB does do an excellent job revamping the Patriots roster every yr, INDY does have a decent shot at leading the AFC South if we take care of business vs the Texans, & I do concur with you that sometimes Pagano's staff appears to be too rigid & inflexible when it comes to modifying their run 1st; run often game plan with few bubble screens being deployed overall. 

 

I did like that Pags came out with throwing the ball vs Chicago since our WRs & TEs are our strength as an offense. Will that philosophy continue? Who knows? Look, I wasn't upset at you or anything SS. You know your football & I have no qualms with you at all. Here's how I look at it: Is the locker room listening to Pags or tuning him out? And given his new contract extension is it worth cutting Chuck right now? No, on both counts just see where we are at season's end. 

 

While I agree that a number of young forum members may not be well versed in earlier NFL dynasties, I am aware of all this QB/HC duos that I mentioned as are you & just because some fans born well after those eras might not have them in their mental rolodex, it doesn't mean that they didn't transpire or become less significant in 2016.  

 

I will openly acknowledge to you SS that false start penalties & delay of game penalties in our own stadium always irritates the hades out of me & they are a poor reflection on Pagano who is allowing or tolerating bad behavior or a lack of concentration to continue among players who should know better at this point. I feel your frustration at times. I truly do. 

 

I will evaluate Chuck at seasons end & go from there. To me, it's a money vs production issue courtesy of our owner. How much time will Jimmy give Pags to get some semblance of a defense going while spreading the ball around since our running game usually seems hit or miss? Mostly miss before he eats that new contract he offered Chuck...Also, Jimmy can't be pleased that our GM blamed Luck's new deal on why our defense is nothing to throw a parade over at the moment. Nice chatting with you SS. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

We have had 3 offensive coordinators, with 3 different schemes.  Yet the QB knockdowns and sacks on Luck have been consistent and the highest in the league, under all 3 of them.

 

QB        Hits     Sacks   A. Luck

2012      116        41
2013      109        32
2014      107        29
2015       43        15
2016       40        20
________________________
Total     415        137

Top 4 in knockdowns- since 2012 at end of 2015
    
Luck:                  375  **
Tannehill:           364
Matt Ryan:         354
Russell Wilson:  349

 

**  Luck missed 9 games in 2015

 

[Jason_]

2 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

We have had 3 offensive coordinators, with 3 different schemes.  Yet the QB knockdowns and sacks on Luck have been consistent and the highest in the league, under all 3 of theml

 

 

Well, I'd say the fact that there have been 3 different schemes is at least in part why the protection issues have been so bad. Once the OL starts getting comfortable and somewhat confident in a scheme (I do use those terms loosely lol), it all gets blown up and they have to start all over.  

[will426]

On October 10, 2016 at 1:03 PM, NewColtsFan said:

 

We've switched to a zone scheme.     That is why we hired Philbin.    One of the best zone blocking coaches in the NFL.

 

From time to time, we may run a man blocking play,  but on balance,  we're running zone blocking.    

 

I'm late to respond but  are you sure I swear 90% of the time were running plays in a man scheme? At least it looks that way I think compare how our running plays look to how the Seahawks or Cowboys play..with them you have a choice to run up the middle or use the cutback lane but if you look at us it's simply run it up the middle no cutback lanes at all

[OLD FAN MAN]

On ‎10‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 1:27 PM, MSColtsFan said:

 

Self aggrandizing when still not understanding is cute.  You just can't let it go.  My statement was still accurate.  I read the article.  I didn't write the article, have not a clue what the author did to gather his numbers.  It makes ZERO difference.  4th.  2nd. 31st. 

 

It's cute how you're consumed with attacking me and coming to the aid of New Colt Dude.  This is as dead a horse as it gets.  You two can continue to attack me, for reasons which escape me, but this will be my last post on the subject.  Your enraged blindness to disprove a post from someone you don't know regarding a subject which means so little speaks volumes about who you are.  As senior members, I don't know why I expected more, but the condescension, the self-righteousness, the holy-than-thou, it's crazy.    Same reason I left the board for a long time.  And the reason it's crazy is because you can get lost in the weeds, make up whatever conspiracy theory you'd like, but my very simple, non-offensive, hardly argument worthy comment that the Colts line is not the youngest in the NFL is still true.  Why that upsets you so is beyond me.  Why New Colts Dude felt compelled to lose his S over it and try to call me out as someone just making stuff up is beyond me.  But that's that you guys do.  Senior members really representing the board well.  Congrats.  You two keep thinking you're the smartest guys in the room.  I'm out.

 

 

 

 

good post, I agree, I use the ignore button to ward off trolls and know it alls, it makes for a lot better forum experience. but there are a lot of posters on here who have a lot of football knowledge and are not know it alls

[NewColtsFan]

32 minutes ago, will426 said:

I'm late to respond but  are you sure I swear 90% of the time were running plays in a man scheme? At least it looks that way I think compare how our running plays look to how the Seahawks or Cowboys play..with them you have a choice to run up the middle or use the cutback lane but if you look at us it's simply run it up the middle no cutback lanes at all

 

Well....    that's what we said when we hired him.....

 

Perhaps we're running more man run blocking than I'm aware of....    that's possible....   but I know Philbin's background and I remember reading the Colts would become a more zone blocking concept team.....

 

Perhaps others, including @Coffeedrinker or @Superman can chime in?

 

[will426]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Well....    that's what we said when we hired him.....

 

Perhaps we're running more man run blocking than I'm aware of....    that's possible....   but I know Philbin's background and I remember reading the Colts would become a more zone blocking concept team.....

 

Perhaps others, including @Coffeedrinker or @Superman can chime in?

 

Yeah I remember him saying that too but I haven't seen it much or if any at all lol Im just basing it off what I've seen and if we are running zone it's a horrible version