Jim Irsay not anticipating any changes at HC or GM....

[aaron11]

19 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I find it hard to believe that he would say that on air.  I have never heard of a coach publicly trying to get a job or saying he would be interested in the job if it came open when a coach is still employed by that team.  I think that would be considered sacrilegious as far as the coaching ranks go.  I would hope he has a little more class than that.  Sounds like you had a case of selective hearing. Thinking you heard what you wanted to hear instead of what he really said.  

he did say it just recently on mnf.  it must have been the jets game now that i think about it

 

he was referring to last season if pagano was let go though, not this coming off season

 

the exact words were something like he would have taken the offer very seriously if the team had called him, which they didnt. 

 

he came off sounding like he wanted the job, but it was never offered

[JColts72]

Oh no. 3 more years of poor football all around.

[aaron11]

thats not just wishful thinking on my part, i wouldnt even want gruden

[Crunked]

The scary thing right now to me is Jeff Fisher is available......so I am almost trying to bite my tongue in a be careful what you wish for kinda way.

[richard pallo]

9 hours ago, aaron11 said:

thats not just wishful thinking on my part, i wouldnt even want gruden

If he said that like you described it I'm surprised other sports outlets did not jump all over it.  Gruden ,with his name and fame, openly saying he would be interested in the job would be very newsworthy IMO.  Theoretically opens the door for him with other jobs as well. 

[Restored]

17 hours ago, csmopar said:

and a couple bounces away from 10-3.....

 

Don't take this personally but this logic is flawed. Good teams are a few bounces away from being 13-3 instead of 11-5 or 10-6. It doesn't apply for when your team is 6-7 instead of 10-3. Simply put, if the Colts were good enough, a number of these games wouldn't of come down to one possession.

[buccolts]

37 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

Don't take this personally but this logic is flawed. Good teams are a few bounces away from being 13-3 instead of 11-5 or 10-6. It doesn't apply for when your team is 6-7 instead of 10-3. Simply put, if the Colts were good enough, a number of these games wouldn't of come down to one possession.

 

I think your logic is flawed, but it's likely just everyone's personal oppinion on what 'good', 'good enough', 'elite', 'not so good', etc, mean.

 

Additionally, it appears you're certain the Colts are too good to be 3-10, so it's no all bad.

 

I guess they're right. You are what your record says you are.

[theanarchist]

17 hours ago, Jdubu said:

Really only the Cherilous and Landry contracts were stupid as was giving that draft pick for a running back. 

The contracts were stupid and none of the players I mentioned worked out. I'm saying its time to let him go. He hasnt lived up to his part of the bargain. I'm ready for a coaching change as well.

[Restored]

1 hour ago, buccolts said:

 

I think your logic is flawed, but it's likely just everyone's personal oppinion on what 'good', 'good enough', 'elite', 'not so good', etc, mean.

 

Additionally, it appears you're certain the Colts are too good to be 3-10, so it's no all bad.

 

I guess they're right. You are what your record says you are.

 

There's a fine line that defines being good, mediocre and bad and its fairly easily to tell the difference without getting tripped up on semantics if your logic is correct.

[King Colt]

18 hours ago, VaAllDay757 said:

Gruden said he would take the job if it was open so obviously he would have a house in indy

Source on that statement?

[richard pallo]

2 hours ago, King Colt said:

Source on that statement?

Yes a source please.  If he said that it I would think that would be all over the media.  I have not seen or read any reports. 

[aaron11]

6 hours ago, King Colt said:

Source on that statement?

 

4 hours ago, richard pallo said:

Yes a source please.  If he said that it I would think that would be all over the media.  I have not seen or read any reports. 

he said it verbally on mnf.

 

in context, he was referring to how if the colts had fired pagano last season and made him an offer then he would have been seriously interested

 

 

[csmopar]

10 hours ago, Restored said:

 

Don't take this personally but this logic is flawed. Good teams are a few bounces away from being 13-3 instead of 11-5 or 10-6. It doesn't apply for when your team is 6-7 instead of 10-3. Simply put, if the Colts were good enough, a number of these games wouldn't of come down to one possession.

You obviously didn't read the interview or article..... I was quoting Jim Irsay

[richard pallo]

1 hour ago, aaron11 said:

 

he said it verbally on mnf.

 

in context, he was referring to how if the colts had fired pagano last season and made him an offer then he would have been seriously interested

 

 

If he said that on MNF I am still surprised no other outlet would have jumped on that as being news.  Especially the Indy news media.  You have to wonder if Jim Irsay knows of his interest?  Kind of looks like Jim did not put any feelers out with any of the so called Name Coaches who currently are not coaching before deciding to retain Pagano and Grigson. 

[TheRustonRifle#7]

Coaching- The team comes out flat very often and does not make proper adjustments.  The team seems "timid" sometimes? Only a handful of games, has this team played 4 quarters under the current leadership.  

 

GM-  Failure to provide the Coach with the players necessary to execute properly.  Regardless, this is part of the problem.

 

 

 

Time for a change.....

 

[aReggie7]

1 hour ago, richard pallo said:

If he said that on MNF I am still surprised no other outlet would have jumped on that as being news.  Especially the Indy news media.  You have to wonder if Jim Irsay knows of his interest?  Kind of looks like Jim did not put any feelers out with any of the so called Name Coaches who currently are not coaching before deciding to retain Pagano and Grigson. 

1

 

The names I have heard that Irsay made "back channel" inquiries to are Nick Saban, Jim Harbaugh, and Sean Payton. Sean Payton was one they had a chance to get but Irsay didn't want to pay him $9 million + per year and give up a 2nd Round Pick.

[richard pallo]

1 hour ago, ar7 said:

 

The names I have heard that Irsay made "back channel" inquiries to are Nick Saban, Jim Harbaugh, and Sean Payton. Sean Payton was one they had a chance to get but Irsay didn't want to pay him $9 million + per year and give up a 2nd Round Pick.

That's interesting because it's my understanding Harbaugh is currently making $9 million at Michigan.  Is Payton making $9 million now?  I didn't think any NFL coach was making that kind of money.  I was under the impression Harbaugh was making more than any current NFL coach. 

[VaAllDay757]

18 hours ago, King Colt said:

Source on that statement?

http://www.stampedeblue.com/2016/1/11/10749220/report-jon-gruden-would-have-listened-very-earnestly-if-colts-had-come-calling

It was posted up here too nobody seemed to remember it I guess

[VaAllDay757]

7 hours ago, richard pallo said:

That's interesting because it's my understanding Harbaugh is currently making $9 million at Michigan.  Is Payton making $9 million now?  I didn't think any NFL coach was making that kind of money.  I was under the impression Harbaugh was making more than any current NFL coach. 

Yeah payton is the highest paid coach of all time

[aReggie7]

14 hours ago, richard pallo said:

That's interesting because it's my understanding Harbaugh is currently making $9 million at Michigan.  Is Payton making $9 million now?  I didn't think any NFL coach was making that kind of money.  I was under the impression Harbaugh was making more than any current NFL coach. 

 

 

 

I'm not sure what Payton makes now. I think he signed an extension last January. I'm pretty sure he was making $7-8 million as of last year though.

 

$9 million may not be the exact number but it's what I remember from listening to Kravitz and other local media. Also, i'm pretty sure Jim said last year, when they announced Grigson/Pagano extensions, that he could have walked someone through the door and pay them 8 figures. The number was going to be high for Payton and in the $9 million + range from what I gather.

[stitches]

On 12/16/2016 at 0:16 AM, Superman said:

To me, 'we could be 10-3' is kind of a subliminal shot at coaching. Might just be my interpretation, but that's kind of how I read it.

I completely disagree with this one. To me it sounds like plain excuse and screams more "we were just unlucky" than "we should have had better coaching". In the very next sentence he says as much(“That could be us if the ball bounces a little bit differently. It’s been that type of year — hasn’t gone our way. ")

[csmopar]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000758221/article/jim-irsay-colts-not-planning-to-make-wholesale-changes

"

"If you think you can improve your football team, if you think you can do better, if you have a vision as an owner even when you're having some success, then you think you can make a move that benefits you, you do it," Irsay said. "But I also believe if you look at what happened in our market for in the five years in the Andrew Luck era, then you say let's go back to Peyton Manning's first five years, you have two losing seasons and no playoff wins."

He's right.

Comparing Luck's teams to Manning's (with coach Tony Dungy and Bill Polian) has Luck (and the Grigson/Pagano regime) coming out on the positive end.

From 1998 to 2002 with Manning, the Colts were 42-38 (.525) with 24.1 points per game, one division title and no playoff wins. From 2012 to 2016 with Luck, the Colts were 47-30 (.610) with 24.2 points per game, two division titles (so far) and three playoff wins. In his first 67 starts, Luck has more wins, threw for more yards, had more touchdowns against fewer interceptions, and had a higher passer rating than Manning.

"We compete against ourselves and it's tough," Irsay said. "But our administration ... is obviously a Hall of Fame administration. I could pull out the articles and let you see them, what they (were) writing in '02 and early '03 in the spring. Peyton went through the same thing that we did ... as soon as you have success, you're competing against yourself. This was an extremely disappointing loss, but right now, there's not focus on change or anything like that. There's focus on getting better."

"

[Hi-Tek]

Well...beating the hell out of Minn. @ Minn is a good start

[John Waylon]

Today is exactly the kind of thing pagano is going to point to in 14 days and say "that's why I'm the man for the job."

I just don't see Irsay pulling the plug.

*

[grmasterb]

13 hours ago, csmopar said:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000758221/article/jim-irsay-colts-not-planning-to-make-wholesale-changes

"

"If you think you can improve your football team, if you think you can do better, if you have a vision as an owner even when you're having some success, then you think you can make a move that benefits you, you do it," Irsay said. "But I also believe if you look at what happened in our market for in the five years in the Andrew Luck era, then you say let's go back to Peyton Manning's first five years, you have two losing seasons and no playoff wins."

He's right.

Comparing Luck's teams to Manning's (with coach Tony Dungy and Bill Polian) has Luck (and the Grigson/Pagano regime) coming out on the positive end.

From 1998 to 2002 with Manning, the Colts were 42-38 (.525) with 24.1 points per game, one division title and no playoff wins. From 2012 to 2016 with Luck, the Colts were 47-30 (.610) with 24.2 points per game, two division titles (so far) and three playoff wins. In his first 67 starts, Luck has more wins, threw for more yards, had more touchdowns against fewer interceptions, and had a higher passer rating than Manning.

"We compete against ourselves and it's tough," Irsay said. "But our administration ... is obviously a Hall of Fame administration. I could pull out the articles and let you see them, what they (were) writing in '02 and early '03 in the spring. Peyton went through the same thing that we did ... as soon as you have success, you're competing against yourself. This was an extremely disappointing loss, but right now, there's not focus on change or anything like that. There's focus on getting better."

"

People keep mistakenly referring to it as the Polian/Dungy era.  Mora was HC for the first four seasons.  Dungy was an upgrade.  If Irsay can find an upgrade over Pagano, he should pull the trigger.

[YourTearinApartLisa!]

3 hours ago, John Waylon said:

Today is exactly the kind of thing pagano is going to point to in 14 days and say "that's why I'm the man for the job."

I just don't see Irsay pulling the plug.

*

Yeah, that what I thought as well. I remember thinking that this would be one of those moments when Irsay would say something like "This is a step in the right direction or a win that this team can build on going forward" type of games. Or insert any other assinine line you want. Anytime your talking about a coaching and GM change two straight years in a row with as much time as they have had, something is wrong period.

[Dark Superman]

Pagano is as good as gone.

Praying for Harbaugh!

[Restored]

On 12/16/2016 at 6:02 PM, csmopar said:

You obviously didn't read the interview or article..... I was quoting Jim Irsay

 

I did. Just thought you were reflecting the same sentiment as Irsay.

[PeterBowman]

Unless there's an obvious big upgrade over Pagano available then I see no reason to just fire him for the sake of firing him. 

[CoachLite]

10 minutes ago, PeterBowman said:

Unless there's an obvious big upgrade over Pagano available then I see no reason to just fire him for the sake of firing him. 

I think the problem is that the Colts do not seem able to adequately evaluate what an "upgrade" would look like.

[thunderkyss]

[Superman]

On 12/18/2016 at 3:42 AM, stitches said:

I completely disagree with this one. To me it sounds like plain excuse and screams more "we were just unlucky" than "we should have had better coaching". In the very next sentence he says as much(“That could be us if the ball bounces a little bit differently. It’s been that type of year — hasn’t gone our way. ")

 

Maybe it's just because, in my mind, coaching has contributed directly to at least 4 losses this season. So whenever anyone says that the Colts could have a better record, it calls out the coaching.

 

Yesterday's game was well coached and well executed, and I find that infuriating. Not because I'm rooting against the staff, but because I don't understand why this team plays one way this week, then goes with a completely different gameplan the next week. They're suffering from a crippling identity crisis. 

[pgt_rob]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

Yesterday's game was well coached and well executed, and I find that infuriating. Not because I'm rooting against the staff, but because I don't understand why this team plays one way this week, then goes with a completely different gameplan the next week. They're suffering from a crippling identity crisis. 

 

This. Been that way for almost the whole time Luck has been here. Have an amazing game plan with short quick passes. Then the next couple games the team looks like a completely different team using a different game plan. I understand different teams calls for different game plans but not this far out.

[jskinnz]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Maybe it's just because, in my mind, coaching has contributed directly to at least 4 losses this season. So whenever anyone says that the Colts could have a better record, it calls out the coaching.

 

Yesterday's game was well coached and well executed, and I find that infuriating. Not because I'm rooting against the staff, but because I don't understand why this team plays one way this week, then goes with a completely different gameplan the next week. They're suffering from a crippling identity crisis. 

 

This x 1000.

 

Detroit, both Houston games, and the Jacksonville game were all winnable and ones that I think you can point to preparation or in-game management issues as the reason they lost.  Plus I still hate all the play calls at the goal-line in the Pittsburgh game.  

 

If only half of those games go another direction, this season is completely different.  They would be division winners with a chance at a first round bye vs. where they are now.  Even with a roster that has some clear holes, a coaching decision here or there would have made a huge difference.

 

I am torn.  I would not be surprised or bothered by any decision Irsay makes.  There is enough evidence that suggests a coaching / administration change is in order.  But having said that, I also really like the stable franchises that are comfortable & confident enough to stay the course when things don't go exactly as planned in a given season.  Big picture viewing here - 3 years of 11 wins plus some playoff success followed by two years of approx .500 does not sound like a resume that gets you canned.  

[ztboiler]

On 12/18/2016 at 10:08 AM, csmopar said:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000758221/article/jim-irsay-colts-not-planning-to-make-wholesale-changes

"

"If you think you can improve your football team, if you think you can do better, if you have a vision as an owner even when you're having some success, then you think you can make a move that benefits you, you do it," Irsay said. "But I also believe if you look at what happened in our market for in the five years in the Andrew Luck era, then you say let's go back to Peyton Manning's first five years, you have two losing seasons and no playoff wins."

He's right.

Comparing Luck's teams to Manning's (with coach Tony Dungy and Bill Polian) has Luck (and the Grigson/Pagano regime) coming out on the positive end.

From 1998 to 2002 with Manning, the Colts were 42-38 (.525) with 24.1 points per game, one division title and no playoff wins. From 2012 to 2016 with Luck, the Colts were 47-30 (.610) with 24.2 points per game, two division titles (so far) and three playoff wins. In his first 67 starts, Luck has more wins, threw for more yards, had more touchdowns against fewer interceptions, and had a higher passer rating than Manning.

"We compete against ourselves and it's tough," Irsay said. "But our administration ... is obviously a Hall of Fame administration. I could pull out the articles and let you see them, what they (were) writing in '02 and early '03 in the spring. Peyton went through the same thing that we did ... as soon as you have success, you're competing against yourself. This was an extremely disappointing loss, but right now, there's not focus on change or anything like that. There's focus on getting better."

"

Irsay makes a very strong case here for continuity...but his own context makes as strong or stronger argument for changing coaches.....if you think about the steps taken to get over the hump he describes.  

 

Looks like he'll give it one more year before he decides...

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, pgt_rob said:

 

This. Been that way for almost the whole time Luck has been here. Have an amazing game plan with short quick passes. Then the next couple games the team looks like a completely different team using a different game plan. I understand different teams calls for different game plans but not this far out.

 

Teams that can execute different gameplans use different gameplans. The Colts are not that team right now, mostly because of the OL.

 

So this creates an avalanche of problems: 1) You don't get into an offensive rhythm when your gameplan isn't working out; 2) Your QB gets battered; and 3) This team needs the offense to play well to protect the average at best defense (been below average a lot this year), so poor offense throws off the whole team. 

[Superman]

35 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

Big picture viewing here - 3 years of 11 wins plus some playoff success followed by two years of approx .500 does not sound like a resume that gets you canned.  

 

No it doesn't. The problem isn't the big picture, specifically with Pagano's resume. It's the minutiae -- the little stuff that gets magnified on a case by case basis, because it feels like opportunities aren't maximized due to coaching.

 

The offensive gameplans are a perfect example. The offense has put up good numbers, but if the coaching staff can't consistently put together good gameplans, then they're holding this team back, and that's a problem. Not only does it mean that this team should probably be better than it is right now -- we all agree that 3-4 wins have slipped by -- it also calls into question this staff's ability moving forward. 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Teams that can execute different gameplans use different gameplans. The Colts are not that team right now, mostly because of the OL.

 

 

I don't have any understanding of this beyond the most superficial, but many feels that the offense game plan yesterday was one of the best in a long time from Chud with the most inexperienced OL yet. Much better with a nice mix of short passes and a decent run game. 

 

Why can't it be like this every time when the OL should in theory be in a better shape than yesterday?

 

It seems like when Chud is really hard pressed to come up with a great mixed game plan, he can deliver. Other times it is just vanilla. I don't get it. 

[IinD]

If you simply look at it like him (Pags) having 4 or 5 terribly coached games a year which end in losses then it's basically him being bad at his job 25-35% of the time based on 16 games.

 

You (everyone reading) and I would flat out be fired in a hot minute.

[richard pallo]

1 hour ago, jskinnz said:

 

This x 1000.

 

Detroit, both Houston games, and the Jacksonville game were all winnable and ones that I think you can point to preparation or in-game management issues as the reason they lost.  Plus I still hate all the play calls at the goal-line in the Pittsburgh game.  

 

If only half of those games go another direction, this season is completely different.  They would be division winners with a chance at a first round bye vs. where they are now.  Even with a roster that has some clear holes, a coaching decision here or there would have made a huge difference.

 

I am torn.  I would not be surprised or bothered by any decision Irsay makes.  There is enough evidence that suggests a coaching / administration change is in order.  But having said that, I also really like the stable franchises that are comfortable & confident enough to stay the course when things don't go exactly as planned in a given season.  Big picture viewing here - 3 years of 11 wins plus some playoff success followed by two years of approx .500 does not sound like a resume that gets you canned.  

When you realize that two years ago we added Gore and Johnson because we thought we could win a SB but when it fell apart we entered the rebuild mode.  Last year at 500 and probably this year too is pretty good considering all of the young players we added. Most teams have horrible records when they start rebuilding.  Doesn't look like a regime change is needed at this time.