To the Chuck Haters: Here's Your Best Argument...

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

I thought about Mularkey too but the Titans showed marked improvement under him and may have made the playoffs if not for the Mariota injury. And the arrow is pointing up with another draft coming up. Plus Chuck's accomplishments are really overstated. His first season, Arians won most of those games so you can't really credit him there. But even after he went 11-5 in a weak division and then proved that he couldn't do it once the division got better. They went 8-8 with Luck for all but 1 game. The argument against Chuck is that he can't get to 11-5 again. The Colts can't CONSISTENTLY beat elite teams. With the division being better, the Colts under Chuck are a perennial 8-8 or 9-7 team at best. Sure Grigson hasn't helped matters but even if he nailed this offseason I still think Chuck would get outcoached and lose some winnable games.

Football is such a game of inches as the oldtimers love to say. The difference between being 5-11/8-8/or 11-5 is really minimal because normally teams have at least 5 or 6 games that can go either way in a season. We basically choked away close games vs the Texans twice, Jacks once, and the Lions once and it cost us. A lot of teams now are pretty even with the exception of the Elite teams like the Patriots, Chiefs, Steelers, Seahawks, Packers, Cowboys and Falcons. Even those teams are beatable though on the right day. I still don't really believe in the Cowboys and they went 13-3 nor do I the Falcons. Falcons go 11-5 some seasons, then they turn around and go 8-8 in others. Panthers went from 15-1 to 6-10, Broncos missed the Playoffs after winning the SB. Year to year, you just never know.

[Defjamz26]

2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Football is such a game of inches as the oldtimers love to say. The difference between being 5-11/8-8/or 11-5 is really minimal because normally teams have at least 5 or 6 games that can go either way in a season. We basically choked away close games vs the Texans twice, Jacks once, and the Lions once and it cost us. A lot of teams now are pretty even with the exception of the Elite teams like the Patriots, Chiefs, Steelers, Seahawks, Packers, Cowboys and Falcons. Even those teams are beatable though on the right day. I still don't really believe in the Cowboys and they went 13-3 nor do I the Falcons. Falcons go 11-5 some seasons, then they turn around and go 8-8 in others. Panthers went from 15-1 to 6-10, Broncos missed the Playoffs after winning the SB. Year to year, you just never know.

But teams with elite coaches find a way to win more of those swing games than lose them. Aaron Rodgers aside, theres a reason the Packers haven't missed the playoffs in forever. There's a reason that although they've slipped occasionally, the Steelers are always one of the top teams in the AFC. It comes down to coaching. After awhile teams pretty much have rosters that are the same caliber in terms of how they perform. It's coaching that makes the difference between an 8-8 team and a 10-6 team.

[Fisticuffs111]

5 hours ago, coltsfeva said:

What I find frustrating is the perception that Chuck and/or Grigson don't have the capacity to learn from their mistakes. That and the assumption that someone will come in here and never make a mistake, either in coaching or drafting. Look at Belicheck's tenure with the Browns or Pete Caroll's call to pass the ball in the SB. I'm not saying everything is great. Things need to change, that we all agree on. A good draft, getting guys like Langford, Mewhort and Geathers back and going into 2017 with improved depth (because some of the guys who started this year will be backups next year) should give us hope that this team can be much better than the team we agonized over this year. 

I think Grigson showed noticeable improvement this past offseason. He's still a generally young guy too, and he played in the NFL so we know he's competitive. I think he'll only get better.

It's Pagano who I think barely showed any improvement this season. He deserves credit for going up-tempo to start the game, even if people wanted to try it for years, but then he probably deserves some blame for us being spectacularly bad in those 2nd halves. So really, we just traded no showing the 1st half to collapsing in the 2nd.

That's where I'll be grading Chuck this coming season. I won't be looking at record as much as I'll be looking to see whether we're still only playing one good half of football.

[VocableLoki]

22 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

I thought about Mularkey too but the Titans showed marked improvement under him and may have made the playoffs if not for the Mariota injury. And the arrow is pointing up with another draft coming up. Plus Chuck's accomplishments are really overstated. His first season, Arians won most of those games so you can't really credit him there. But even after he went 11-5 in a weak division and then proved that he couldn't do it once the division got better. They went 8-8 with Luck for all but 1 game. The argument against Chuck is that he can't get to 11-5 again. The Colts can't CONSISTENTLY beat elite teams. With the division being better, the Colts under Chuck are a perennial 8-8 or 9-7 team at best. Sure Grigson hasn't helped matters but even if he nailed this offseason I still think Chuck would get outcoached and lose some winnable games.

This is very unlikely. They were losing badly to the Jaguars in a game that ultimately eliminated them from contention with Houston winning.

[Superman]

3 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

 Despite what you the fan or the media think, you are not entitled to any sort of information that doesn't have to be disclosed due to federal/state statutory mandate.  People can whine and cry about the "right" to know - there's no such right and the sooner people can figure this out, the better off we will all be when things come up like "When will Irsay tell us the second time he's not making any coaching changes because it's been 2 weeks since the last time...?"

 

Good point. You have the right to ask, you don't have the right to know.

[Creekside]

9 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

.......the two sides -- the Chuck Haters and the Chuck Defenders ---........ 

 

There is a third group which is probably the largest, but the least vocal of the three.

 

I belong to this group. I don't care if Pagano stays or goes. That does not mean I don't think coaching needs to improve, because I think it must improve, especially with the offense.

[Superman]

9 hours ago, zibby43 said:

Agreed.  

 

I mean, I get that this is a message board and everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.  That said, the constant droning of "Chuck sucks" or "Grigson is terrible" with no other semblance of substance gets awfully boring fast.  

 

For the record, I'm in the fire Pagano camp because I find him average (as OP pointed out).  And Luck does deserve better.  Pagano exhibits questionable judgment with respect to game management.  I also think he could run a tighter ship, accountability-wise.  

 

Grigson looks to be learning from his draft mistakes and FA disasters.

 

All good stuff in all these posts. To the bolded, here's the thing:

 

If Pagano is average -- meaning, you can do better, but you can also do worse -- then it's probably prudent to move on from him only when you're convinced that you can secure a better coach. In the meantime, he might get better, or he might fall off a cliff and force you to fire him. Being in that limbo area isn't fun, but at this point, you have just as much potential to downgrade at head coach as you do to upgrade.

 

So if -- IF -- Irsay is privately and quietly considering other options (and I'm not convinced either way), then I understand why. Pagano is a coach the players apparently respect and admire, and despite his flaws and shortcomings, he's not the worst thing in the world. Irsay has seen many teams either move on from a coach too soon, or make a switch and get worse. Despite this ill-earned reputation that he has of being mercurial or even impulsive, he actually has a track record of making well-thought out decisions and moving decisively when he sees what he wants/needs to see.

 

The only thing problematic with this approach, IMO, is it violates the spirit of the Rooney Rule and could cost the team a draft pick. 

[OffensivelyPC]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

The only thing problematic with this approach, IMO, is it violates the spirit of the Rooney Rule and could cost the team a draft pick. 

If I understand your point here correctly, it assumes he hasn't already interviewed minority candidates for the position.  Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, though.  I would think Irsay would satisfy the rule first and then proceed to other HC candidates - at least that's how I'd operate under the rule.  

 

I personally don't like how I would have to satisfy this rule first just in case I find a candidate I do like and can't hire because I need to interview someone else.  The rule's application has the same propensity for indirect racism as it does without it if you ask me, but I digress...

[AustexColt]

What does Irsay want? If he wants to win a SB he better get somebody who can spot talent within the trenches. Grigson and Jimmy Raye are not getting it done. The game is won in the trenches on both side of the ball. You give Pagano and his staff a solid HEALTHY trench than sky is the limit.

[WarGhost21]

We should stop grading the coaches and look at the talent they are given. Take for example Bill Belicheck. Great coach, but he has a fantastic team. That's not saying he's the best coach in the league though. Most any coach would be successful with the (Hate to say this) talent Tom Brady has. They've built a successful team, so if anyone's to blame for a team's success, it should be the GM's and all of their bad draft choices. I hope you can all see where I'm coming from with this, and I'm sure if Chuck was the Pat's coach he would be a "Top 5 Coach" too.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

If I understand your point here correctly, it assumes he hasn't already interviewed minority candidates for the position.  Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, though.  I would think Irsay would satisfy the rule first and then proceed to other HC candidates - at least that's how I'd operate under the rule.  

 

I personally don't like how I would have to satisfy this rule first just in case I find a candidate I do like and can't hire because I need to interview someone else.  The rule's application has the same propensity for indirect racism as it does without it if you ask me, but I digress...

 

He can't just hire Nick Saban as head coach, even if that's 100% his intention. If he gets rid of his head coach and doesn't already have a succession plan in place for an internal replacement, he has to interview a minority candidate. I'm not sure how it works when you trade for a coach.

 

I don't really like the rule, but I get it. It's affirmative action, without the requirement to hire. I think there are plenty of hires that are telegraphed, and teams just satisfy the Rooney Rule because they have to. But there's a potential positive to that. First, the Steelers say that's how Mike Tomlin got the job. Second, it gets exposure for candidates who might not otherwise get the chance to interview, and now their name is out there and they've experienced the initial phases of the interview process. That's not a bad thing for them or for the league. I'd argue the good outweighs the bad, but there's lots of violations of the spirit of the rule, IMO.

 

I would just require teams to interview a minimum of five candidates for any head coach or GM opening, that way young candidates get more chances to be exposed to the process. Inevitably, some of them would be minority candidates, with all the coaching changes that happen every year. And you'd probably get rid of the 'obligatory Rooney Rule candidate' label that some coordinators get degraded with -- Ray Horton (cut those braids, man!), Todd Bowles, etc. 

 

Then at the same time, I think an owner should just be able to go get his guy when he knows who he wants. If Irsay really wanted Saban, for instance, he couldn't really go full court press for him without subjecting a faux candidate to a faux interview, which doesn't really help the perception of the Rooney Rule. 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, WarGhost21 said:

I'm sure if Chuck was the Pat's coach he would be a "Top 5 Coach" too.

 

I'm not sure of that at all. 

 

The Pats beat the Colts down because Pagano -- a defensive coach -- and his staff took two games to figure out their Double Strong rushing attack, not because Tom Brady took them apart. That's a good coach outcoaching an inferior coach, in multiple games.

[OffensivelyPC]

35 minutes ago, AustexColt said:

What does Irsay want? If he wants to win a SB he better get somebody who can spot talent within the trenches. Grigson and Jimmy Raye are not getting it done. The game is won in the trenches on both side of the ball. You give Pagano and his staff a solid HEALTHY trench than sky is the limit.

Some of the arguments being made around here would suggest that the OL issues were exasperated by our deep passing scheme.  I think that might be true, but it's also true that Grigson has, despite still operating under that scheme, has fortified the OL which has improved tremendously over the course of hte season.  

 

Grigson has been plugging in guys on the interior OL.  He missed on Bjoern, of course.  But he's drafted some decent guys to rotate in the interior, signed Walden, who has been a tremendous surprise over the past 4 years, so it's not like he's completely inadequate at identifying OL/DL talent.  

 

24 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

He can't just hire Nick Saban as head coach, even if that's 100% his intention. If he gets rid of his head coach and doesn't already have a succession plan in place for an internal replacement, he has to interview a minority candidate. I'm not sure how it works when you trade for a coach.

 

I don't really like the rule, but I get it. It's affirmative action, without the requirement to hire. I think there are plenty of hires that are telegraphed, and teams just satisfy the Rooney Rule because they have to. But there's a potential positive to that. First, the Steelers say that's how Mike Tomlin got the job. Second, it gets exposure for candidates who might not otherwise get the chance to interview, and now their name is out there and they've experienced the initial phases of the interview process. That's not a bad thing for them or for the league. I'd argue the good outweighs the bad, but there's lots of violations of the spirit of the rule, IMO.

 

I would just require teams to interview a minimum of five candidates for any head coach or GM opening, that way young candidates get more chances to be exposed to the process. Inevitably, some of them would be minority candidates, with all the coaching changes that happen every year. And you'd probably get rid of the 'obligatory Rooney Rule candidate' label that some coordinators get degraded with -- Ray Horton (cut those braids, man!), Todd Bowles, etc. 

 

Then at the same time, I think an owner should just be able to go get his guy when he knows who he wants. If Irsay really wanted Saban, for instance, he couldn't really go full court press for him without subjecting a faux candidate to a faux interview, which doesn't really help the perception of the Rooney Rule. 

I hadn't considered your positives in the 2nd paragraph - particularly the one about exposure for young candidates.  In a perfect world, we don't need a rulel ike this, but obviously, it's not a perfect world.  I'm with you, I'd rather an owner or GM be able to get the guy he knows he wants rather than interview someone just to satisfy the rule which, like you said, hurts the perception of the rule because the interview is just a formality at that point.  

 

I'm not decrying the rule so much as I know that me personally, I just care about the job you do and what you can offer to my organization/department.  So to me, personally, the rule is ceremonious and nothing more.  If the rule didn't act as a barrier (and that sounds harsh, I don't mean it as harsh as it sounded, perhaps a "threshold condition" is a better description), it would be different.  I like your idea of interviewing 5 coaches, or even keeping the rooney rule and instead, implementing some sort of deadline (say, same as the trade deadline) where you cannot hire coaches until 1 or 2 weeks after the super bowl.  It gives time for everyone to satisfy the 5 interview/Rooney rule and you don't miss out on a candidate who is interviewing with another organization while you're out satisfying the Rooney rule.  Barrier removed.  

 

You could of course have exceptions, and you'd have to figure out a way to keep teams from circumventing the deadline with in-season HC firings but still giving them the ability to find a HC for the rest of the season, but everyone would have an opportunity to hire their guy while preserving the intent of the Rooney rule.

[throwing BBZ]

2 hours ago, VocableLoki said:

Not sure what you mean. He does have three 11-5 seasons? 

 

In 2012 Arians was 9-3 and won AP Head Coach of the year, remember?
Chuck was 2-2 thanks to beating the quarterbackless Texans the last game.
 

 If we had a better D after 5 years it would prove something about our defensive minded coach. Or is he another Rex Ryan type, i know he coached under him.
  Rex looked good with his 4+ Great players!

 

[VocableLoki]

3 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

In 2012 Arians was 9-3 and won AP Head Coach of the year, remember?
Chuck was 2-2 thanks to beating the quarterbackless Texans the last game.

 

I explained my reasoning above.

 

EDIT: Glossed over the quarterback, Matt Schaub had a fine season that year, they weren't quarterbackless

Edited January 10, 2017 by VocableLoki

[deedub75]

He's definitely the top 10 in cliches. 

[Rally5]

11 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I'm offering up this post in the hope that it will bring more peace and harmony here to the website.     That it will move the two sides -- the Chuck Haters and the Chuck Defenders --- closer together and there will be less vitriol on the website.

 

I offered some of this in a post in another thread,  but I think it's worthy of it's own thread,  so please, bear with me.....

 

I often try and break things down in the 32 team NFL like this.....    Top-10,  Bottom-10,  and the Middle-12.      Makes things a little easier for me, perhaps it will for you.

 

So, it goes like this.....

 

I don't think anyone here thinks Pagano is a top-10 coach.     If there is such a poster,  I have not read their post.     But I think there's a large, or at least, a LOUD group who thinks Pagano belongs in the bottom-10,  some even have called him the worst.      I think there's another group who thinks of Chuck as somewhere in the middle.    On his best day,   maybe he's 11th,  and on his worst day, he's maybe 22nd.    More typically,  he's somewhere in the middle. 

 

Honestly,  I don't think there's an argument that Chuck Pagano belongs in the bottom-10.    He's never had a losing season and he's had three seasons where his team has won 11 games.   He's won 3 playoff games.   His worst seasons are 8-8.       And all this with a roster that's never been better than average, and more recently,  below average. 

 

If you want to make your STRONGEST ARGUMENT that Pagano should be fired,  it goes like this.....    Pagano is average and the Colts need a better than average HC to get the most out of the Andrew Luck years.      I used the exact same argument when I called for Pep Hamilton to be fired.      His numbers said he was average but that we needed better.

 

The numbers didn't say Pep was bad and they don't say that Chuck is bad.     Arguments that say he is are both silly and divisive.

 

But IF you claim he's average,  NOW you've got a more reasonable argument.     What's the pushback to that?     Who's going to claim he's a top-10 HC?      No one, as far as I can tell.    You've practically won the argument before it even starts!     Just screaming 'he sucks' gets you no where.     Making a reasonable argument makes progress.   Gets posters to agree with you.     Here's your chance to shape the argument.

 

Start making that argument and not only will you get more support from more posters,   but you'll get less push back, less disagreement from the Chuck-supporters.   And, hopefully a better website for all of us to enjoy!      Win-Win!!

 

I hope everyone will take this post to heart.     It's going to be an interesting off-season.    It might be more enjoyable for all of us if we can find more common ground.    

I hope this post will be viewed as a road map to more common ground.

 

 

Go Colts!                      

 

Great post man, good to see more quality opinions on the board.  I've had this very conversation, on the phone, with a couple other Colts fans and it comes down to this, can you replace him with somebody better?  That's not such an easy answer.  When we fired Mora, who by any measure was a pretty amazing coach, he turned around two of the NFL's worst franchises in the Colts (to some degree) and the Saints, yet as soon as Dungy became available it became an easy decision.

 

If I had to guess, I have a feeling that clear cut improvement option has not yet made itself available.  I can't tell you right now of people that are willing to Coach the team who is clearly an upgrade.  We can only pontificate on people we'd like to see but we don't know if they want the gig i.e. Gruden, Cower, Harbaugh.

 

I have two simple hopes as someone who isn't in the recruiting NFL HC business, one is Gruden,  I've made that case on here since last season, and second is for Harbaugh but the timing isn't right....yet.  I would be surprised if that conversation hasn't taken place but the timing doesn't work right now. Jim isn't leaving his Alma Mater after two seasons.  The guy is in our ring of honor, he'd come to Indy...in the right time and to me is a clear upgrade.

 

What I think I see from Irsay is a waiting game and while we wait for the right guy (whomever that may be) we hope that continuity leads to wins.  If you go half full on this deal, we would say, another year of Chud can only be a good thing, a second year for a rookie D coordinator can only be a good thing, pull in another good draft class (I like this year's class large in part / still angry about the Dorsett pick) and the team should only get better if for no other reason than by default.

 

Anyway, great post man...appreciate it!

[Superman]

58 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

I'm not decrying the rule so much as I know that me personally, I just care about the job you do and what you can offer to my organization/department.  So to me, personally, the rule is ceremonious and nothing more.

 

This is true. But the existence of the rule doesn't imply that anyone who hasn't/doesn't interview minority candidates is refusing to do so for any reason. It seems that way, but the reality is that some of these industries -- especially coaching -- is about who you know. It can become an Old Boys club, and eventually it can become exclusionist in practice. 

 

Quote

I like your idea of interviewing 5 coaches, or even keeping the rooney rule and instead, implementing some sort of deadline (say, same as the trade deadline) where you cannot hire coaches until 1 or 2 weeks after the super bowl.  It gives time for everyone to satisfy the 5 interview/Rooney rule and you don't miss out on a candidate who is interviewing with another organization while you're out satisfying the Rooney rule.  Barrier removed.  

 

I get it, the problem is there are real world considerations -- hiring staffs, moving families, etc. -- where time is of the essence, and it's probably best to act sooner than later. Otherwise, I do agree it would be best to wait a couple weeks on coaching hires. I wonder how many times good coordinators got passed up for jobs because their team was still in the playoffs or going to the SB. Mike Shula probably lost out last year.

[Rally5]

1 hour ago, WarGhost21 said:

We should stop grading the coaches and look at the talent they are given. Take for example Bill Belicheck. Great coach, but he has a fantastic team. That's not saying he's the best coach in the league though. Most any coach would be successful with the (Hate to say this) talent Tom Brady has. They've built a successful team, so if anyone's to blame for a team's success, it should be the GM's and all of their bad draft choices. I hope you can all see where I'm coming from with this, and I'm sure if Chuck was the Pat's coach he would be a "Top 5 Coach" too.

3

I'm not sure I agree.  I happen to believe, and you can argue, Brady is a product of Belichick.  They would have went 4-0 with a healthy Garrapolo to start the season and they won a game with a guy who was basically a high school talent.  When Brady went down in '09 Matt Cassel was 'All-World', he didn't even start in college, and then his career went promptly 'All-Over' when he went to the Chiefs.  I used to argue if Brady was drafted by say...the Raiders, we would have never heard of him, heck, he couldn't even definitively win the position at Michigan as QB.  That's just an argument....The Pat's aren't over-flowing with talented players, in fact, who are their superstars, they have a few to be sure but they're in no way the 90's Cowboys, 80's Niner's or 70's Steelers yet they out perform them all.  What would the Colts look like with Belicheck at the helm, 8-8?  I just don't think so.  This is a QB and HC driven league, I think it takes some effort to go 8-8 with a top 10 QB, Luck could even be top 5 depending on how you view the position (I like the guy).  Final point, Philip Rivers is a pretty darn good QB, with a pretty good career, who has had pretty decent talent around him most of his career but never a Coach.  His career will end, most likely, short of a championship.

[OffensivelyPC]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This is true. But the existence of the rule doesn't imply that anyone who hasn't/doesn't interview minority candidates is refusing to do so for any reason. It seems that way, but the reality is that some of these industries -- especially coaching -- is about who you know. It can become an Old Boys club, and eventually it can become exclusionist in practice. 

 

And to be fair, I've never experienced it first hand, so I lack perspective - or at least first hand perspective.  It's always easier to criticize old boys' clubs when they become evident, but I probably wouldn't be able to identify one until exclusionary practices were exposed or at least evident and that's not helpful to anyone enduring the exclusion.  So I wouldn't ever waste any effort undoing a rule like this (though any rule needs tweaking over time as needs change).  

 

Quote

I get it, the problem is there are real world considerations -- hiring staffs, moving families, etc. -- where time is of the essence, and it's probably best to act sooner than later. Otherwise, I do agree it would be best to wait a couple weeks on coaching hires. I wonder how many times good coordinators got passed up for jobs because their team was still in the playoffs or going to the SB. Mike Shula probably lost out last year.

Yeah its hard to say.  But having that sort of restraint in place where there was a sort of front office free agency would make February a little more interesting.  

[BOTT]

I don't think bringing up won lost records is always indicative of coaching ability.   It wasn't long ago people where using the same argument to defend Grigson. Those voices have gotten much quieter.

[gspdx]

Mary Schottenheimer's record as an NFL coach is 9.78 wins per season.  Pagano's record as an NFL coach is 9.8 wins per season.

 

Marty was great at coaching up talent and building a team.  He wasn't near as good during the games.  Gave way too many games away by being out coached.  I lived near KC during those years and was so frustrated to watch a really good KC give away season after season. 

 

Pagano seems like a similar guy to me.   And I would rather take a chance on finding a winner then just continuing to be good (or average).  Keeping Pagano because it doesn't look like there are better coaches out there is the safe play, but ignores that fact that all great head coaches started as unknowns.

 

[Ehrman.Dutton.Cook.Barnes]

13 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I'm offering up this post in the hope that it will bring more peace and harmony here to the website.     That it will move the two sides -- the Chuck Haters and the Chuck Defenders --- closer together and there will be less vitriol on the website.

 

I offered some of this in a post in another thread,  but I think it's worthy of it's own thread,  so please, bear with me.....

 

I often try and break things down in the 32 team NFL like this.....    Top-10,  Bottom-10,  and the Middle-12.      Makes things a little easier for me, perhaps it will for you.

 

So, it goes like this.....

 

I don't think anyone here thinks Pagano is a top-10 coach.     If there is such a poster,  I have not read their post.     But I think there's a large, or at least, a LOUD group who thinks Pagano belongs in the bottom-10,  some even have called him the worst.      I think there's another group who thinks of Chuck as somewhere in the middle.    On his best day,   maybe he's 11th,  and on his worst day, he's maybe 22nd.    More typically,  he's somewhere in the middle. 

 

Honestly,  I don't think there's an argument that Chuck Pagano belongs in the bottom-10.    He's never had a losing season and he's had three seasons where his team has won 11 games.   He's won 3 playoff games.   His worst seasons are 8-8.       And all this with a roster that's never been better than average, and more recently,  below average. 

 

If you want to make your STRONGEST ARGUMENT that Pagano should be fired,  it goes like this.....    Pagano is average and the Colts need a better than average HC to get the most out of the Andrew Luck years.      I used the exact same argument when I called for Pep Hamilton to be fired.      His numbers said he was average but that we needed better.

 

The numbers didn't say Pep was bad and they don't say that Chuck is bad.     Arguments that say he is are both silly and divisive.

 

But IF you claim he's average,  NOW you've got a more reasonable argument.     What's the pushback to that?     Who's going to claim he's a top-10 HC?      No one, as far as I can tell.    You've practically won the argument before it even starts!     Just screaming 'he sucks' gets you no where.     Making a reasonable argument makes progress.   Gets posters to agree with you.     Here's your chance to shape the argument.

 

Start making that argument and not only will you get more support from more posters,   but you'll get less push back, less disagreement from the Chuck-supporters.   And, hopefully a better website for all of us to enjoy!      Win-Win!!

 

I hope everyone will take this post to heart.     It's going to be an interesting off-season.    It might be more enjoyable for all of us if we can find more common ground.    

I hope this post will be viewed as a road map to more common ground.

 

 

Go Colts!                      

 

[VocableLoki]

3 hours ago, WarGhost21 said:

We should stop grading the coaches and look at the talent they are given. Take for example Bill Belicheck. Great coach, but he has a fantastic team. That's not saying he's the best coach in the league though. Most any coach would be successful with the (Hate to say this) talent Tom Brady has. They've built a successful team, so if anyone's to blame for a team's success, it should be the GM's and all of their bad draft choices. I hope you can all see where I'm coming from with this, and I'm sure if Chuck was the Pat's coach he would be a "Top 5 Coach" too.

BB is also the GM for the pats as well. So he is the one building the talent.

[Ehrman.Dutton.Cook.Barnes]

Well said and thorough.  Here is the defining criteria.  Are we getting better or worse as team?  Is the trajectory positive or not?  Throw out last year without Luck and assess the progress of player development and coaching competency.

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I'm not sure of that at all. 

 

The Pats beat the Colts down because Pagano -- a defensive coach -- and his staff took two games to figure out their Double Strong rushing attack, not because Tom Brady took them apart. That's a good coach outcoaching an inferior coach, in multiple games.

Are you a coach?  What exactly is this "Double Strong" rushing attack and why are you capitalizing it as if it's some established term?  I've never heard of this before and my old friend Google doesn't bring anything up.  I'm very curious 

[jvan1973]

14 minutes ago, Gabriel Alexander Morillo said:

Are you a coach?  What exactly is this "Double Strong" rushing attack and why are you capitalizing it as if it's some established term?  I've never heard of this before and my old friend Google doesn't bring anything up.  I'm very curious 

6 olineman

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, Gabriel Alexander Morillo said:

Are you a coach?  What exactly is this "Double Strong" rushing attack and why are you capitalizing it as if it's some established term?  I've never heard of this before and my old friend Google doesn't bring anything up.  I'm very curious 

 

Not a coach at all.

 

I call it Double Strong because I like that phrase, which I made up (I think). At its basic, it was a 6OL formation, but they used Gronk -- one of the best blocking TEs in the league, almost as good as any sixth OL -- at inline on the other side. So both sides of the formation were strong -- hence, Double Strong. Our defense didn't know how to line up, which side to favor, etc. And whichever way we aligned strong, they ran the other way. We were also somewhat bracketing Gronk, which opened up the outside for the Pats favored quick hitting pass plays.

 

Also of note was the fact that we were typically 2-gapping the middle and trying to contain on the strong side, while 1-gapping on the weak side, which led to some leakiness up front because we didn't have good 2-gap linemen. The poor block shedding and poor tackling at the second level is why 2 yard gains were turning into 10 yard gains, and then the poor edge play and poor angles are what turned a 7 yard gain into a 73 yard TD in the 2013 playoff game (Thanks, LaRon!) 

 

What the Colts did going into 2015 is start 1-gapping more often, across the formation, which allowed them to be more disruptive. It especially helped against their slower developing wham block scheme, which is where the Colts gap play was a big problem. The change from Chapman, RJF and Hughes to Parry, Anderson and Langford, I think, made the run defense better right away; they just had to stay disciplined and not overpursue, especially on the backside. Once Anderson started penetrating and disrupting run plays, you could really see the new vision for the defensive front. When you play that style, you don't necessarily need a big, safe-like NT in the middle; you actually want a guy who can play both sides of the center and penetrate when needed.

 

Long story short, mostly my own lingo to describe a typical formation that was made even more effective by the Pats great dual purpose TE. 

[chrisfarley]

5 hours ago, deedub75 said:

He's definitely the top 10 in cliches. 

top 10 in bad cliches

top 5 in retreaded cliches

[NewColtsFan]

8 hours ago, Fisticuffs111 said:

But really, I've seen way too many people saying "Chuck has three 11-5 seasons" lately. I wouldn't ever say anything about riding anybody's coattails, but it's just a fact that Bruce coached 12 games that year.

 

Makes no difference, and here's why......

 

Because Pagano led the Colts to 11-5 records the next two seasons.    And he did that without Arians.    So, that should convince you and everyone here that had Pagano been healthy his whole first year,  nothing would've changed.      We still would've gone 11-5.     

 

Nagano proved his ability in years 2 and 3.     He would've done the same in year 1 if he had the chance.

 

[tfunky14]

17 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

But teams with elite coaches find a way to win more of those swing games than lose them. Aaron Rodgers aside, theres a reason the Packers haven't missed the playoffs in forever. There's a reason that although they've slipped occasionally, the Steelers are always one of the top teams in the AFC. It comes down to coaching. After awhile teams pretty much have rosters that are the same caliber in terms of how they perform. It's coaching that makes the difference between an 8-8 team and a 10-6 team.

Yea but earlier this year Steelers fans were calling for Tomlin to be fired and Packers fans wanted McCarthy gone too.

[VocableLoki]

57 minutes ago, tfunky14 said:

Yea but earlier this year Steelers fans were calling for Tomlin to be fired and Packers fans wanted McCarthy gone too.

 

And has happened consistently before 

[tfunky14]

26 minutes ago, VocableLoki said:

And has happened consistently before 

If you live near the Pittsburgh area you would know.

[Defjamz26]

1 hour ago, tfunky14 said:

Yea but earlier this year Steelers fans were calling for Tomlin to be fired and Packers fans wanted McCarthy gone too.

But that's more because both teams have an elite QB and the coach has won 2 SB with them and people want them to win more. It's not because they have a coach like the Colts who has an elite QB but can't hang with the big dogs.

[VocableLoki]

40 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

But that's more because both teams have an elite QB and the coach has won 2 SB with them and people want them to win more. It's not because they have a coach like the Colts who has an elite QB but can't hang with the big dogs.

In other words: fans can be kind of unreasonable in their criticisms. 

[Defjamz26]

Just now, VocableLoki said:

In other words: fans can be kind of unreasonable in their criticisms. 

Fans tend to overreact early on the season. But yeah Tomlin and McCarthy are 2 of the top coaches in the league. Idk who you replace them with.

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

Fans tend to overreact early on the season. But yeah Tomlin and McCarthy are 2 of the top coaches in the league. Idk who you replace them with.

 

Over on the NFL page on this site,  there was a discussion around the time that the Colts beat the Packers that fans wanted both McCarthy and the GM, Thompson, fired after this season.

 

How does that look now?

 

And, of course,  famously,   Hall of Fame QB,  Terry Bradshaw, the former Steeler called Mike Tomlin "a very good cheerleader, but not much of a coach."       All Tomlin has done is become the FASTEST COACH IN NFL HISTORY TO WIN 100 GAMES.     

 

How does that look now?

 

These are two perfect examples of why owners should not pay attention to fans.....

 

[NewColtsFan]

4 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

But that's more because both teams have an elite QB and the coach has won 2 SB with them and people want them to win more. It's not because they have a coach like the Colts who has an elite QB but can't hang with the big dogs.

 

The coach with the elite QB doesn't have a talented team around him.     There's a good reason why we don't beat elite teams.        

 

See Grigson,  Ryan.

 

[GoBlue12]

I believe one factor that has fans bringing pitchforks after Pagano is that his public statements, full of cliches, don't give the outward impression of a coach who understands the nuts and bolts of football. (No Spider Y Banana) Perception is reality in fans' minds perhaps. Not the most important factor by far, but it's part of his image.

 

I'm with a lot of folks in that I see ample evidence of poor game planning.

 

I'm also concerned that every season we seem to start 0-2. It makes me wonder about Pagano''s preseason prep program/strategy.

[RockThatBlue]

On 1/10/2017 at 3:38 AM, NewColtsFan said:

Pagano is average and the Colts need a better than average HC to get the most out of the Andrew Luck years.

That sums up how I feel. Hes not terrible, there are absolutely worse coaches than him, but can he win a Super Bowl with Andrew Luck? I don't think so, and thats the problem.