Adam Schefter reporting that Pagano's job is safe

[Coltsman1788]

If true then the immediate future of this franchise is a bleak and mediocre one.  So long as Griggson and Pagano continue to be employed by Irsay I will not be looking forward to future seasons as I have very little confidence that things will improve enough for this team to ever win a Super  Bowl under this regime.  This so called Luck era is being squandered by Irsay.

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, ztboiler said:

Great summary of evidence that demands a verdict.  I'm not expecting regime change this year, that doesn't feel like the course that was charted regardless of the current disappointment.  We knew we had roster shortages when we went back to the drawing board this year.  

 

However, the coaching contributions to "What might have been" are really piling up and quite specific in nature....it's a pile that requires an itemized list of accounting and for someone to make a compelling case for what we've learned - specifically - and how it will be different in the future.  

 

It is an all new staff this year that showed us glimpses, and its an unforgiving game when the plan goes haywire, so we'll see what they can get done in year 2...but we saw nothing to indicate that this coaching staff might be able to grow into a group that could gameplan for the big show against matchup nightmare teams.

 

There is also the real elephant in the room...which is that the greatest QB talent to enter the league since, perhaps, John Elway, hasn't progressed since year 3 and you could argue that he has regressed.  Luck is accountable for that, to be sure, but it falls squarely on the recipe created around him as well - and he's not going anywhere.  It's fair to wonder if Luck will ever be any better than he is today unless fundamental change occurs.  There is plenty of talent on the offensive side of the ball.

 

What a disappointing snapshot of the situation...

 

To the bolded, what's Pagano going to do different from Year 5 to Year 6? Unless the offense changes in these next three games, there's no reason to think some of these changes are going to be made next year. And even then... the offense was different down the stretch last year, and then they went back to this inefficient mess of a passing game. I'm not sure why the coaches are so set on making Luck do it the hard way; yes he can, at times, but imagine how much better he and the offense would be if we made things easy on him. Pagano isn't going to wake up tomorrow morning and be a different coach. Neither will Chud.

 

I don't think Luck has regressed at all. He had these stretches in Year 1 with Arians, Years 2 and 3 with Pep, and the first part of last year. The problem is the development hasn't happened at a sufficient rate, and I blame the coaching, specifically the gameplans and play calling. That being the case, it is fair to ask whether he'll ever be better than he is now, and that's a crying shame. And it points right to the offensive coaching, and Pagano, since this appears to be his preferred offense.

 

People exaggerate how bad Pagano is. He's not bad, really. Good enough to get you 8+ wins with a mediocre roster, good enough to get you 10-11 wins with good QBing, and you'll probably beat mediocre teams consistently, maybe once in a while slay a giant. He's not good enough to optimize his talent, though. As a matter of fact, this staff is probably holding the team back this year. It's arguable that with a better OC, the Colts would be at 8+ wins with a division title in the bag right now, even with Pagano, but what happens when we have to go to Foxborough in January? How do you stop the Steelers? He is not the right guy for a team that wants to go from pretty good to top notch contender. After five years, I'm convinced of that.

 

I doubt anything changes this year, though.

[Jdubu]

9 hours ago, CanuckColtsFan said:

Colts will have some cap room. I think this year they wanted to reset, draft well, and see how the season plays out with a healthy Luck. There are some crazy deficiencies on this roster. 

 CB 2

OLB Rush

RT

WR (drops)

ILB

HB

 

Draft some and acquire others in FA. We're set to have some great cap room considering Lucks contract.

I am not a fan at all with Pagano but if we are able to get a #2 CB that's not hurt every 1-2 games and either a quality ILB or OLB in this offseason, we are going to be much improved with a second season of Monachino and then Haeg, Mewhort, Kelly and possibly Good to improve. 

 

Constanzo is solid enough, Mewhort is consistently above avg, Kelly is fantastic for a rookie center and Haeg has shown enough flashes of talent to make you believe with an offseason strength program and adjustments to the NFL, he has a place on the line (rg or rt). Good is the wildcard as is play calling. If he doesn't get canned this year and they miss the playoffs and/or play like half wits all season, at a minimum, Pags has to be fired. It's an all or nothing season. 

[1959Colts]

After reading all this, it seems like the consensus is...

We just have to settle for mediocrity, and be content.

 

[ztboiler]

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What a disappointing snapshot of the situation...

 

To the bolded, what's Pagano going to do different from Year 5 to Year 6? Unless the offense changes in these next three games, there's no reason to think some of these changes are going to be made next year. And even then... the offense was different down the stretch last year, and then they went back to this inefficient mess of a passing game. I'm not sure why the coaches are so set on making Luck do it the hard way; yes he can, at times, but imagine how much better he and the offense would be if we made things easy on him. Pagano isn't going to wake up tomorrow morning and be a different coach. Neither will Chud.

 

I don't think Luck has regressed at all. He had these stretches in Year 1 with Arians, Years 2 and 3 with Pep, and the first part of last year. The problem is the development hasn't happened at a sufficient rate, and I blame the coaching, specifically the gameplans and play calling. That being the case, it is fair to ask whether he'll ever be better than he is now, and that's a crying shame. And it points right to the offensive coaching, and Pagano, since this appears to be his preferred offense.

 

People exaggerate how bad Pagano is. He's not bad, really. Good enough to get you 8+ wins with a mediocre roster, good enough to get you 10-11 wins with good QBing, and you'll probably beat mediocre teams consistently, maybe once in a while slay a giant. He's not good enough to optimize his talent, though. As a matter of fact, this staff is probably holding the team back this year. It's arguable that with a better OC, the Colts would be at 8+ wins with a division title in the bag right now, even with Pagano, but what happens when we have to go to Foxborough in January? How do you stop the Steelers? He is not the right guy for a team that wants to go from pretty good to top notch contender. After five years, I'm convinced of that.

 

I doubt anything changes this year, though.

All the evidence does indeed point toward groundhog day...

 

To your points about the offense....I love the bolded above.  Easy offense is a cornerstone of every good offense, and it leads to chunk plays in a great offense.  Its not one or the other, its both, and we have all the pieces.....we could even do it with this playbook!....it's just too bad.

 

While I would agree that the stagnation we see in Luck's progress is scheme related....there is an argument for regression.  Luck shows hesitation that, IMO, he didn't show before.  He still cuts loose with the ball decisively if we are in crisis - no change there - but I think there is an observable hesitation to read and release now that he's been pounded with his mistakes.  Can't prove it, just feel it, and that's a coaching issue.

[AZColt11]

10 hours ago, ar7 said:

Well last year the media thought that Pagano would be fired and they turned out to be wrong. Hopefully Schefter is wrong here.

We can only hope that opposite logic is prevailing yet again.

[AZColt11]

BTW, anybody around here listen to 1070 The Fan?  JMV said he heard John Gruden make an off-hand comment about the only guy in the league he would even think about coming out of retirement to coach would be Andrew Luck.  I don't know whether to be happy that if Pags is gone we might actually have a shot at him as HC or mortified that we have a guy that is that highly thought of and he is simply being wasted by this regime. 

[IinD]

4 hours ago, Gramz said:

No, not really.     And I never said anything about anyone getting paid.  

 

I'm just curious what those that are always so critical on here (with good reason, I know)   would do and how they'd go about fixing it if they had the power to do so.

Apologies. Hard to sense tone when reading text sometimes. 

 

Call me spoiled, but watching this team since the 80's and where it's come..we don't want these type years to become the norm. 

 

Super Bowls aside, we have a winning culture around here, we shouldn't be getting worse as Luck matures.

 

 

[IinD]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

What a disappointing snapshot of the situation...

 

To the bolded, what's Pagano going to do different from Year 5 to Year 6? Unless the offense changes in these next three games, there's no reason to think some of these changes are going to be made next year. And even then... the offense was different down the stretch last year, and then they went back to this inefficient mess of a passing game. I'm not sure why the coaches are so set on making Luck do it the hard way; yes he can, at times, but imagine how much better he and the offense would be if we made things easy on him. Pagano isn't going to wake up tomorrow morning and be a different coach. Neither will Chud.

 

I don't think Luck has regressed at all. He had these stretches in Year 1 with Arians, Years 2 and 3 with Pep, and the first part of last year. The problem is the development hasn't happened at a sufficient rate, and I blame the coaching, specifically the gameplans and play calling. That being the case, it is fair to ask whether he'll ever be better than he is now, and that's a crying shame. And it points right to the offensive coaching, and Pagano, since this appears to be his preferred offense.

 

People exaggerate how bad Pagano is. He's not bad, really. Good enough to get you 8+ wins with a mediocre roster, good enough to get you 10-11 wins with good QBing, and you'll probably beat mediocre teams consistently, maybe once in a while slay a giant. He's not good enough to optimize his talent, though. As a matter of fact, this staff is probably holding the team back this year. It's arguable that with a better OC, the Colts would be at 8+ wins with a division title in the bag right now, even with Pagano, but what happens when we have to go to Foxborough in January? How do you stop the Steelers? He is not the right guy for a team that wants to go from pretty good to top notch contender. After five years, I'm convinced of that.

 

I doubt anything changes this year, though.

Just to comment on a part of this...

 

I also don't get how some players will come in and flash for a year or long stretch and then they suddenly stop developing or simply get worse. Guys don't ascend towards getting better, they're more boom then bust.

 

And totally agree with that paragraph that mentions NE and Pitt.

 

He just isn't that guy who will out-scheme an opponent or even have them (Colts obviously)prepared most times.

 

He feels like that person you knew you went out with for to long at some point in your life. There's no future here with Pagano, so why prolong the inevitable breakup.

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 hours ago, Coltfreak said:

More or less defensive talent now?   More or less offensive talent now?

Less on Defense. We had Mathis in 2013 who lead the league in Sacks and was the best Pass Rusher in the league which we lack now, in 2014 Vontae Davis played like a shut down Corner and he no longer does. We need 1 dominant Pass Rusher or/and a shut down Corner, that alone is huge. Had Mathis been healthy in 2014 I highly doubt the Patriots beat us 45-7, it would've been much closer had he played.

[gacoop1]

You'll have the same HC, the same GM so what's gonna change?  Nothing!!! Prediction for 2017, another 7-9 or 6-10. Consolation price, another high draft picks, may this time those two Bozos will be gone and will have some fresh blood running the team for a change...

[Fisticuffs111]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

People exaggerate how bad Pagano is. He's not bad, really. Good enough to get you 8+ wins with a mediocre roster, good enough to get you 10-11 wins with good QBing, and you'll probably beat mediocre teams consistently, maybe once in a while slay a giant. He's not good enough to optimize his talent, though. As a matter of fact, this staff is probably holding the team back this year. It's arguable that with a better OC, the Colts would be at 8+ wins with a division title in the bag right now, even with Pagano, but what happens when we have to go to Foxborough in January? How do you stop the Steelers? He is not the right guy for a team that wants to go from pretty good to top notch contender. After five years, I'm convinced of that.

Yeah, this sums up my overall thoughts on Pagano too.

We'll never be a bottom dweller with him but I'm just not really comfortable with him going up against top teams come playoff time.

[stitches]

With all the fluff aside, to me it all boils down to two questions - Do you think Pagano is the right coach to lead this team to a SB? and Do you trust Grigson to build him a team to contend for a SB? It's really not any more complicated than this - ego, contracts, saving face, whether FORCED change of direction should allow them more time... it's all irrelevant really in the grand scheme of things. If you cannot definitively answer those two questions in the positive, you need to be searching replacements for one or both of Pagano and Grigson.

 

I keep posing those questions to fans in those threads discussing Pags and Grigs:

 

1. Do you think Pagano is the right coach to lead this team to contention?

2. Do you trust Grigson to build up the team to a level where they can compete for SB?

 

Just answer them! Don't go about finding non-football/non-team building excuses and reasons why they will be kept(like contracts or how much players love the coach). It really shouldn't be any more complicated than answering those two questions in either affirmative or negative. I don't give middle ground here because 5 years of Grigson and Pagano should be plenty enough to make your mind about their performance and if it is conducive to winning championships,

 

For me the answer to both is a resounding NO.

[John Waylon]

I'd like to say I'm disappointed but that would mean I had a hope it was going to happen at some point in the past, and since I didn't......

*

[stitches]

6 hours ago, Superman said:

 

What a disappointing snapshot of the situation...

 

To the bolded, what's Pagano going to do different from Year 5 to Year 6?

Yes, this has been my point for a while now. He hasn't shown an ability to gameplan for difficult opponents. Even in the 11 wins seasons we were feasting on horrible competition and we were getting spanked any time we faced competent opposing coach and roster. This is the reason I've been saying that even if we somehow manage to win a playoff berth this year, this should not blind people to the coaching problems and give people any major hopes - we will get to the playoffs and we would get annihilated by the first serious opponent. And this will keep happening under the current coaching staff.

 

Now my next question would be - what has Grigson shown in his 5 years to you that makes you think he will be able to build up the roster from year 6 on? He is practically the GM version of Pagano - some good and some bad, some hits and some horrible misses, but overall his roster has been getting worse not better last 3-4 years. If you think the new plan forced by Irsay is to build around the draft(seems like it), what gives you confidence that he will be able to build a championship roster? He hasn't drafted a single playmaker on the defensive side in his tenure. NOT ONE! And you can argue the only two offensive playmakers he's gotten are Luck(who about 99% of the football world would have gotten right) and TY Hilton. That's it. 2 legit playmakers on the whole roster for 5 years and one of them is the biggest no-brainer in the last 10 years in the league. What makes people think his talent evaluation , talent acquisition and roster building will be any better in years 6-10 than it was in years 1-5? I really don't get it.

 

This roster has so many holes that drafting just OK won't do it. We need homerunS(MULTIPLE) if we want to get the roster to a point where a good coach(probably not Pagano) can spread his wings and truly push this team to a level where even if we don't win it all, we will be competitive with the best teams in the league. I don't trust Grigson to hit those homeruns. He hasn't shown any ability to do it in his first 5 years and I don't see why anybody would believe he can do it in the next 5 years.

[superrep1967]

9 hours ago, Coltsman1788 said:

If true then the immediate future of this franchise is a bleak and mediocre one.  So long as Griggson and Pagano continue to be employed by Irsay I will not be looking forward to future seasons as I have very little confidence that things will improve enough for this team to ever win a Super  Bowl under this regime.  This so called Luck era is being squandered by Irsay.

 

 

 

 The stadium is going to lose attendance.Which will mean we will have to watch red zone to see any Colts action at home. Then maybe Irsay will wake up from his two-year high. 

[Gramz]

Lots of good discussion going on here.    I've fought it for awhile, and tried to not say too much about our HC and GM,  but I am now part of the group  "It's time to move on from them"   

 

 

 

 

 

[RollerColt]

10 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

You don't watch the games do you

On the contrary my friend. 

 

I just feel that a large portion of our team is expendable and not playing to their potential (we're definitely not the only team with this problem.) I agree with Superman, in regards to coaching I think the players rally around them and truly like Pagano and company. Perhaps it is scheming. 

 

And yes, there are more pieces to our puzzle that work, and work well when not injured. They could be cut tomorrow and then look decent on another team. See: Sio Moore.

 

But in defense of my earlier statement, it's the NFL. Someone is always going to be better than you, younger than you, and hungrier than you. That means these players can be replaced at any time. I don't want our core group to be cut, but I do want them put on notice to start performing better or else.  

[tfunky14]

21 hours ago, CanuckColtsFan said:

Pagano doesn't catch the balls. We win the Houston game if Dorset catches a few balls and draws any coverage. On the final drive Luck wasn't going to pass to him. This season is full of game killing drops. It's become obvious we need a few more reliable receivers. Too bad Moncreif has been injured so much. The O line has been crazy injured the D line has always been missing pieces. The secondary at the beginning of the season was destroyed. Sure Pags could have overcome all this, but this season has just come together just short. 

 

The roster needs upgrades and healthy bodies. 

 

Blowing through coaches will will turn us into the Jags or Cleveland. 

 

 

That's a great point. I don't know why so many on here want a person fired because the players played poorly.

 

[tfunky14]

6 hours ago, stitches said:

With all the fluff aside, to me it all boils down to two questions - Do you think Pagano is the right coach to lead this team to a SB? and Do you trust Grigson to build him a team to contend for a SB? It's really not any more complicated than this - ego, contracts, saving face, whether FORCED change of direction should allow them more time... it's all irrelevant really in the grand scheme of things. If you cannot definitively answer those two questions in the positive, you need to be searching replacements for one or both of Pagano and Grigson.

 

I keep posing those questions to fans in those threads discussing Pags and Grigs:

 

1. Do you think Pagano is the right coach to lead this team to contention?

2. Do you trust Grigson to build up the team to a level where they can compete for SB?

 

Just answer them! Don't go about finding non-football/non-team building excuses and reasons why they will be kept(like contracts or how much players love the coach). It really shouldn't be any more complicated than answering those two questions in either affirmative or negative. I don't give middle ground here because 5 years of Grigson and Pagano should be plenty enough to make your mind about their performance and if it is conducive to winning championships,

 

For me the answer to both is a resounding NO.

1. Do you think Pagano is the right coach to lead this team to contention?

Why not, 3 plus years of 10 wins and AFC championship game.....hello

 

2. Do you trust Grigson to build up the team to a level where they can compete for SB?

this question does raise some concern but I thought last year's draft was good, I just hope 2017 draft is just as good but I can see an argument here with this question

[aaron11]

12 hours ago, Coltfreak said:

More or less defensive talent now?   More or less offensive talent now?

defense was better then.  we had mathis playing like a pro bowler.  nothing we have now offsets that

 

offense is arguable either way.  we had still had reggie playing at a high level.  dwayne allen didnt suck then. 

 

now we have more talent on the line, and moncrief i guess.  we are still like 31st in sacks allowed

[krunk]

I don't think anyone who truly knows Irsay thought they would be fired this year.   If we stand at this point next year then I say clean house, but I know it won't be this year.   Next year is a better indicator to me anyway as we'll be able to add some key talent to the unit via the draft and a pick up here or there in free agency.   We'll be in the 2nd year of our scheme and we've got pieces like Ridgeway, Henry Anderson should be healed, TJ Green should know what he's doing by that point.  We get a 3rd year Clayton Geathers back and we should be adding at least 2 young pass rushers into the mix with Ayers and probably Walden.  Edwin Jackson is another piece on the inside.

 

Of course Vontae and Melvin should be coming back, and Butler is another option at the safety position and nickel.  I would most definitely address the Cornerback position in the draft though.  Personally I think we may need to add another top talent on the DL.  That could be through the draft, or FA when you look at guys like Muhammad Wilkerson, Sheldon Richardson and some others who may be headed out the door.  Add a guy like Richardson in tandem with Ridgeway and that should get you some push up the middle.  I'm not sure if we would add Richardson or not with some of the past off the field stuff but who knows.   Should be getting a healthy Kendall Langford back.  I'd get rid of Zach Kerr and I'm not sure of what decision they'll make on Art Jones.  If you don't get anything else done this offseason I'd make sure to really beef up the front 7 if I were Pagano and staff.   We should have at least 7 to 8 picks in this draft and possibly more on a trade down if it's warranted.

 

Draft and FA combined

DL

OL No more than one I think, but maybe 2

CB

LB  This spot may need at least 3 new guys between ILB and OLB

       Edwin Jackson and Morrison will most certainly play into whatever  decisions we decide to make at the ILB position.

RB

 

We've got some resources available to improve the talent level of the team as a whole and specifically the defense to be a better overall team than in 2016. We will also be in the second year of our schemes on both sides of the football so that will help quite a bit execution wise.    I think we should be better.

 

 

 

 

[Gramz]

1 hour ago, tfunky14 said:

That's a great point. I don't know why so many on here want a person fired because the players played poorly.

 

Just gonna take a stab at this....   There have been several  SEVERAL  bad play calls and decisions  that could have made,  but broke,  chances for winning a game.   

 

The playcalling comes back on the coaching staff.     Rignt ~ Wrong?    

[tfunky14]

1 hour ago, Gramz said:

Just gonna take a stab at this....   There have been several  SEVERAL  bad play calls and decisions  that could have made,  but broke,  chances for winning a game.   

 

The playcalling comes back on the coaching staff.     Rignt ~ Wrong?    

I could say how about the players execute the play properly.

Who said it was a bad call?

What would have been the correct call?

[Gramz]

8 minutes ago, tfunky14 said:

I could say how about the players execute the play properly.

Who said it was a bad call?

What would have been the correct call?

Sure.....except when they're completely bone headed calls, or wasted timeouts.  Those are clearly on the coaching staff.

 

You and I obviously differ, and that's fine.

[Superman]

9 hours ago, stitches said:

Now my next question would be - what has Grigson shown in his 5 years to you that makes you think he will be able to build up the roster from year 6 on? He is practically the GM version of Pagano - some good and some bad, some hits and some horrible misses, but overall his roster has been getting worse not better last 3-4 years. If you think the new plan forced by Irsay is to build around the draft(seems like it), what gives you confidence that he will be able to build a championship roster? He hasn't drafted a single playmaker on the defensive side in his tenure. NOT ONE! And you can argue the only two offensive playmakers he's gotten are Luck(who about 99% of the football world would have gotten right) and TY Hilton. That's it. 2 legit playmakers on the whole roster for 5 years and one of them is the biggest no-brainer in the last 10 years in the league. What makes people think his talent evaluation , talent acquisition and roster building will be any better in years 6-10 than it was in years 1-5? I really don't get it.

 

This roster has so many holes that drafting just OK won't do it. We need homerunS(MULTIPLE) if we want to get the roster to a point where a good coach(probably not Pagano) can spread his wings and truly push this team to a level where even if we don't win it all, we will be competitive with the best teams in the league. I don't trust Grigson to hit those homeruns. He hasn't shown any ability to do it in his first 5 years and I don't see why anybody would believe he can do it in the next 5 years.

 

Disclaimer: I'm fine with moving on from Grigson, but I don't evaluate the GM the same way I do the coach.

 

I'm not as done with him as you and others are because his strategy from 2013 to 2015 was different than it should have been, and different than what it is now. They fooled themselves into thinking they could patch together a SB team, and misappropriated resources with that goal in mind. Blame him for that, and in doing so, he still left a lot of meat on the bone; could have made better short term decisions than Cherilus, Toler, RJF, etc. He also missed some fundamental draft picks, particularly in 2013. So it's absolutely right and fair to be critical of his ability to identify and acquire talent, and if that leads you to believe that he's not a good GM, that's fine.

 

His drafting hasn't been good, but I think you're selling short some of his good picks. Allen isn't playing well and has had injuries, but he was a good draft pick. Mewhort is a good pick, Geathers and Anderson are good picks, (I think Thornton was a good pick, but between injuries and bad coaching he never developed), etc. Even Fleener was a good pick, although Cordy Glenn or Derek Wolfe would have been the best picks, IMO. 

 

As of right now, I believe that Grigson has a directive to be far more disciplined and patient with their roster building, starting with this past offseason. I think Grigson had a good draft (still early, but promising returns, especially at OL), and his reserved FA approach was dictated by Luck's unresolved contract. I think the 2017 offseason will be busy because the team has some obvious subtractions to make (IMO) and will have a good amount of cap space. In general, though, they'll be all about good drafting.

 

It's unclear whether Grigson is the right guy to build through the draft. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that he's not. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I'm saying I think he lacked discipline and focus previously, and if he's refocused on scouting and the draft, then he can be better. I also think evaluating a GM is much different and requires more time than evaluating a coach. Pagano has coached 71 games for the Colts, including the playoffs; that's a lot to evaluate. Grigson has five offseasons, and the team's needs and goals change from year to year. Not excusing Grigson's mistakes, just saying that a couple poor offseasons is less evidence than 25 poorly coached games.

 

With the new directive in 2016, I think Grigson has a good offseason. I'm fine with giving him more time; doesn't mean I'm incredibly confident that he'll do a great job, but it's conceivable that his best is yet to come. With Pagano, I'm pretty confident that we've seen his best, and it's not good enough.

[PeterBowman]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Disclaimer: I'm fine with moving on from Grigson, but I don't evaluate the GM the same way I do the coach.

 

I'm not as done with him as you and others are because his strategy from 2013 to 2015 was different than it should have been, and different than what it is now. They fooled themselves into thinking they could patch together a SB team, and misappropriated resources with that goal in mind. Blame him for that, and in doing so, he still left a lot of meat on the bone; could have made better short term decisions than Cherilus, Toler, RJF, etc. He also missed some fundamental draft picks, particularly in 2013. So it's absolutely right and fair to be critical of his ability to identify and acquire talent, and if that leads you to believe that he's not a good GM, that's fine.

 

His drafting hasn't been good, but I think you're selling short some of his good picks. Allen isn't playing well and has had injuries, but he was a good draft pick. Mewhort is a good pick, Geathers and Anderson are good picks, (I think Thornton was a good pick, but between injuries and bad coaching he never developed), etc. Even Fleener was a good pick, although Cordy Glenn or Derek Wolfe would have been the best picks, IMO. 

 

As of right now, I believe that Grigson has a directive to be far more disciplined and patient with their roster building, starting with this past offseason. I think Grigson had a good draft (still early, but promising returns, especially at OL), and his reserved FA approach was dictated by Luck's unresolved contract. I think the 2017 offseason will be busy because the team has some obvious subtractions to make (IMO) and will have a good amount of cap space. In general, though, they'll be all about good drafting.

 

It's unclear whether Grigson is the right guy to build through the draft. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that he's not. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I'm saying I think he lacked discipline and focus previously, and if he's refocused on scouting and the draft, then he can be better. I also think evaluating a GM is much different and requires more time than evaluating a coach. Pagano has coached 71 games for the Colts, including the playoffs; that's a lot to evaluate. Grigson has five offseasons, and the team's needs and goals change from year to year. Not excusing Grigson's mistakes, just saying that a couple poor offseasons is less evidence than 25 poorly coached games.

 

With the new directive in 2016, I think Grigson has a good offseason. I'm fine with giving him more time; doesn't mean I'm incredibly confident that he'll do a great job, but it's conceivable that his best is yet to come. With Pagano, I'm pretty confident that we've seen his best, and it's not good enough.

yep, they were so much better than they originally thought they went from rebuild mode to immediate win now mode. Unfortunately that backfired on them and set them back a couple years. So now they're slowing down the process and doing what they probably should have done in the first place. Maybe Irsay saw a potential quick Super Bowl and made Grigson be more aggressive than he normally would have been....I'm not there so who knows how that went down, but it's food for thought.

[stitches]

@Superman About Grigson and his drafting - I guess my main point is - that he is now expected to build around the draft, and even though he misappropriated resources in the past in an attempt to speed up building the team, nobody was stopping him from drafting well at the time he was signing vet FAs and trading for Trent Richardson. He could have made the strategic mistake of rushing the rebuild and still could have drafted well. He didn't do that.(at least in my assessment) This is my main objection to keeping him - he is not a good drafter and from what seems to be the new strategy/direction, we need him to be a great drafter if we would have a snowball's chance in hell to contend any time soon.

[tfunky14]

3 hours ago, Gramz said:

Sure.....except when they're completely bone headed calls, or wasted timeouts.  Those are clearly on the coaching staff.

 

You and I obviously differ, and that's fine.

I'm not saying I wouldn't question any play calls   BUT  if you do your job the play should work

[Gramz]

15 minutes ago, tfunky14 said:

I'm not saying I wouldn't question any play calls   BUT  if you do your job the play should work

Okay, I'll bite  who do you think is not doing their job?  Coaching staff by not calling the correct plays, or players, for not executing?..   If we're being fair, it's a combination.  Correct?

[Superman]

1 hour ago, PeterBowman said:

yep, they were so much better than they originally thought they went from rebuild mode to immediate win now mode. Unfortunately that backfired on them and set them back a couple years. So now they're slowing down the process and doing what they probably should have done in the first place. Maybe Irsay saw a potential quick Super Bowl and made Grigson be more aggressive than he normally would have been....I'm not there so who knows how that went down, but it's food for thought.

 

Irsay was definitely on board with the win now decisions, but I think it was Grigson's strategy.

 

In theory, that shouldn't have affected the drafting, aside from giving up a pick for Richardson. But I feel like Grigson targeted upside players in 2013, even if they weren't ready to contribute/start right away. Holmes was a future pick, Werner needed to convert to OLB (not a big deal, but obviously would take a little time), Thornton wasn't expected to start, etc. Those developmental players didn't develop, not sufficiently.

 

Either way, it was a poor strategy that -- to make matters worse -- was poorly executed.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

@Superman About Grigson and his drafting - I guess my main point is - that he is now expected to build around the draft, and even though he misappropriated resources in the past in an attempt to speed up building the team, nobody was stopping him from drafting well at the time he was signing vet FAs and trading for Trent Richardson. He could have made the strategic mistake of rushing the rebuild and still could have drafted well. He didn't do that.(at least in my assessment) This is my main objection to keeping him - he is not a good drafter and from what seems to be the new strategy/direction, we need him to be a great drafter if we would have a snowball's chance in hell to contend any time soon.

 

That's all fair, I basically just said the same thing in my previous post. The 2013 draft wasn't good at all. I think the player selections since then have been better, but still, he's left some meat on the bone. I certainly can't say he's a good drafter... 

[MTC]

Schefter said he "thinks" Pagano will be safe. 

 

Take it with a grain of salt.

[Reboot]

18 hours ago, Superman said:

 

What a disappointing snapshot of the situation...

 

To the bolded, what's Pagano going to do different from Year 5 to Year 6? Unless the offense changes in these next three games, there's no reason to think some of these changes are going to be made next year. And even then... the offense was different down the stretch last year, and then they went back to this inefficient mess of a passing game. I'm not sure why the coaches are so set on making Luck do it the hard way; yes he can, at times, but imagine how much better he and the offense would be if we made things easy on him. Pagano isn't going to wake up tomorrow morning and be a different coach. Neither will Chud.

 

I don't think Luck has regressed at all. He had these stretches in Year 1 with Arians, Years 2 and 3 with Pep, and the first part of last year. The problem is the development hasn't happened at a sufficient rate, and I blame the coaching, specifically the gameplans and play calling. That being the case, it is fair to ask whether he'll ever be better than he is now, and that's a crying shame. And it points right to the offensive coaching, and Pagano, since this appears to be his preferred offense.

 

People exaggerate how bad Pagano is. He's not bad, really. Good enough to get you 8+ wins with a mediocre roster, good enough to get you 10-11 wins with good QBing, and you'll probably beat mediocre teams consistently, maybe once in a while slay a giant. He's not good enough to optimize his talent, though. As a matter of fact, this staff is probably holding the team back this year. It's arguable that with a better OC, the Colts would be at 8+ wins with a division title in the bag right now, even with Pagano, but what happens when we have to go to Foxborough in January? How do you stop the Steelers? He is not the right guy for a team that wants to go from pretty good to top notch contender. After five years, I'm convinced of that.

 

I doubt anything changes this year, though.

Long time listener, first time caller, so, I need to get that out of the way.  You guys are like neighbors I never met, so thanks for all the great info and thoughts expressed here.

 

One thing I've thought a lot about during the Luck years is how Irsay had a winning formula he followed not that long ago when Peyton was drafted which he's abandoned.  It sure seems to me that he's made the exact opposite kinds of choices and hires this time around in coaching and front office staff.  Not a lot of high end, senior level experience throughout the coaching and front office choices with Luck.  Mora and Dungy had lots of experience being head coaches, at championship levels.  Pagano really is a position coach, with debatable results in those jobs.  Moore stood by Peyton's side for the first 12 seasons?  Luck is on number four in five years?  And I'm not sure you could get further apart than Polian and Grigson.  I understand there was no Dungy or Polian waiting by a phone this time around.  But to go in the complete opposite direction just 15 years later is baffling to me. 

 

How much of all this falls at the feet of Irsay?  I agree with you, Pagano is doing about as well as he can do, or will ever do.  He is what he is. 

[Nadine]

I have a question that one of you gurus should be able to answer easily.  To what extent do new coaching and new GM's have a few unproductive years before they start rocking and rolling.  You know, like rookie players? I'm just wondering if we cut ties now if they both go on to be awesome elsewhere.

[Restored]

1 minute ago, Nadine said:

I have a question that one of you gurus should be able to answer easily.  To what extent do new coaching and new GM's have a few unproductive years before they start rocking and rolling.  You know, like rookie players? I'm just wondering if we cut ties now if they both go on to be awesome elsewhere.

 

It honestly depends. Even Jimmy Johnson endured a few bad seasons before the Cowboys became the dynasty they were in the 1990's. I think the big issue people are having is that there hasn't be a chronological progression with this team because many of the flaws since both Pagano/Grigson took over are still apparent.

[Nadine]

1 minute ago, Restored said:

 

It honestly depends. Even Jimmy Johnson endured a few bad seasons before the Cowboys became the dynasty they were in the 1990's. I think the big issue people are having is that there hasn't be a chronological progression with this team because many of the flaws since both Pagano/Grigson took over are still apparent.

 

I just can see that if we've got all these years getting them better at their jobs that maybe we have too much invested to start over.  

 

Then again, there's Robert Mathis saying that everything is fine and the team is just not 'mentally strong' and I have no idea what he means by that. They are not giving to the extent of their abilities? They are slackers?

[PeterBowman]

5 minutes ago, Nadine said:

I have a question that one of you gurus should be able to answer easily.  To what extent do new coaching and new GM's have a few unproductive years before they start rocking and rolling.  You know, like rookie players? I'm just wondering if we cut ties now if they both go on to be awesome elsewhere.

and this is the catch 22.....just like players, Pags and Grigson were brand new to their positions and needed time to grow with the position same as rookies to theirs. And to be honest, yes they're struggling this season, but there's a lot of youth and they've been in every game save for 2 that went to down to the last couple minutes. Also the worst record they've had is 8-8 (depending on how this year turns out). We'll just have to see how the rest of this year plays out. I think they'll be given next year as the do or die year to get back to where they were the first couple years of the new regime.

[Dudley Smith]

37 minutes ago, tfunky14 said:

I'm not saying I wouldn't question any play calls   BUT  if you do your job the play should work

 

Except the other team is allowed to try to stop the play. Certain plays in certain situations are not as appropriate as others because they are less likely to succeed based on what the defense is going to do. Such as a screen pass on 4th and 1 against man coverage. The coaches need to call a play that is more likely than not to work. How about giving the ball to Gore or Turbin to simply run for a yard after spreading the defense out with a 3-4 receiver set? That would have put the players in a better position to convert the 1st down. That had little to do with effort or execution on the player's part and everything to do with what the call was. Just one example of many.

 

[PeterBowman]

2 minutes ago, Nadine said:

 

I just can see that if we've got all these years getting them better at their jobs that maybe we have too much invested to start over.  

 

Then again, there's Robert Mathis saying that everything is fine and the team is just not 'mentally strong' and I have no idea what he means by that. They are not giving to the extent of their abilities? They are slackers?

to the bolded, I don't think they're slacking, they're just making too many mental mistakes in pressure situations....that could also go back to the youth of the team.