Dakich on Pagano.....

[bababooey]

5 minutes ago, Zalazar Elijahh said:

every time I see Collins make a really nice tackle or get a pick or just do anything good which is a lot.. its like a punch below the waist

He also dropped a would be game ending interception against the Patriots which led them to lose the game after Brady went down the field and kicked a FG to win two seasons ago. He'd fit right in here!

[Jackie Daytona]

Now Dakich is saying there is growing noise the Colts will trade for Osweiler...... Good lord he just spouts nonsense......

[RockThatBlue]

6 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Dakich is right if he is referring to the general age of the Colts. We got a lot younger over the last two seasons. I haven't looked at the average age of the team lately but take our field goal kicker out of the picture and I am pretty sure we have gotten quite younger. There will be growing pains and in reality is it is going to take time for this team to jel together. Odds are they will get better with time.

As far as the other things Dakich added in IMO is a lot of over blown nonsense from someone who thrives on over blowing.

I agree I don't like Dakich either, but judging by Paganos comments these last two weeks he does not sound very happy with what he is seeing. Maybe there are some locker room issues.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

On 8/22/2017 at 9:20 AM, Shafty138 said:

Don't really take Dakich's sentiments on NFL too seriously as he seems much less connected in Football circles than he is in Basketball..... but he is "claiming"  on 1070 right now, that he has sources that say the Colts locker room is in shambles......  saying that Pagano bucking the initial Ballard requirement of a more physical camp, then bowing to Ballard demand for it, lost the Locker room and now the players see Pagano as sucking up to Ballard.....  

 

There has long been a saying that you can come in hard as far as leadership positions go, and ease up over time, but you cannot come in easy, and get tough over time.......  Again, not sure how much I trust his "sources"  since he still today is kind of siding with Grigson, mentioning we'd all be "SHOCKED" if we knew how many of the crappy draft picks over the last few years were Chuck's picks.......  ( I wouldn't be, I can see Green, D'joun Smith, and Werner being Chuck guys easily )  

WHY would those be Chucks, guys?? really, I could make a case that none of them are, seeing Pagano is here and Grigson isn't. Irsays not stupid!!

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

On 8/22/2017 at 9:30 AM, bababooey said:

Could also see Dorsett as being Chuck's guy because of the U connection. Still kills me knowing Landon Collins could have been ours.

THERE IS NO WAY THAT DORREST IS CHUCKS GUY!!!!!!!!!!!!! REALLY???????????? WHEN  we had receivers, and needed defense, and Chucks a defensive coach!!!!!! Really, I am at a lose!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If the eclipise didn't happen, I would bet Pagano was behind it!!!!

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

On 8/22/2017 at 9:47 AM, OHColtfan said:

Chuck is not paid to draft players, that is Grigson/Ballard job to build the roster. Have never heard of a GM or owner blaming the coach for drafting players and have never heard of a coach getting fired because of poor drafting. That is a Grigson cop out. His job was be the guy to put the names on the cards for drafting the load of crap we got most years.

 

Pagano is responsible for getting those guys ready to play. Frankly this roster has been a shambles the last few years. We have a boatload of new players this year, lots of competition for spots and very few guys who are secure in their starting places. That makes for some tension in the locker room. But IMHO, that is the kind of tension you want- guys playing for their careers.

 

 

This is true, a lot of positions up for grabs, been in that position before, the guy you are competing against is usually not a friend, and sometime a lot of anks toward each other comes from it. Also I highly doubt ANYONE wants Gore cut, ANYONE!

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

On 8/22/2017 at 11:21 AM, DougDew said:

There is no way that Grigson would have drafted Werner, Djoun, and Green without Pagano saying they would be good players. They were all specifically suited to Pagano's 3-4 defense and he definitely had a lot to say about it.  Everybody can miss evaluates, but those guys flaming out has as much to do with Pagano as Grigson.

Werner was I think not!

[OffensivelyPC]

22 hours ago, Superman said:

 

That was the price we had to pay to get people to stop complaining about the Pat Angerer pick and Trent trade...

Fixed that for you.  lol

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

I like Chud, IMO much better than Pep. Glad Pep is gone. Is Chud perfect NO. I would like to see him be more creative, If the Ol can't protect, would like to see shorter routes, but all in all he is OK! If the OL didn't have at times 3 rookies playing maybe he would be better?

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, RockThatBlue said:

I agree I don't like Dakich either, but judging by Paganos comments these last two weeks he does not sound very happy with what he is seeing. Maybe there are some locker room issues.

There should be some issues in the locker room. Chuck made it clear. Work hard and do the best you can or your gone.

[NewColtsFan]

17 hours ago, Superman said:

 

That's another thing. While I don't really agree with this post, it's evidence that the anti-Chud crowd pre-dates any of my Chud criticism.

 

 

I think we're quibbling over the wrong thing.      We're missing the bigger picture.

 

If you weren't the first to criticize Chud,   fine.      But you were AMONG the first.     I don't care if it was 5th or 10th, or 20th....

 

But the bigger picture is NONE of the others who criticized Chud before you move the needle.    Their opinions are their opinions and they don't shape an argument.

 

But YOURS does.      You're not just another poster.     You're the top poster.    Most posts,   most likes.    You have the most influence here.     You're a thought leader,  an opinion maker.     Everything else is unimportant.

 

If someone else started a camp fire about how much they don't like Chudzinksi,  then you're the guy who poured gasoline on it and made it blow up and spread.       This responsibility comes with the territory.     

 

As I stated,  arguing for firing Chudzinski because you didn't like his 2016 after you respected and appreciated his 2015 season is mind boggling to me.      We gave Pep a longer time frame and now you're ready to move on. I don't think you've made a compelling enough argument for a change.     And I don't think it's close.    I think your case falls dramatically short of the mark.

 

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

 

I think we're quibbling over the wrong thing.      We're missing the bigger picture.

 

If you weren't the first to criticize Chud,   fine.      But you were AMONG the first.     I don't care if it was 5th or 10th, or 20th....

 

But the bigger picture is NONE of the others who criticized Chud before you move the needle.    Their opinions are their opinions and they don't shape an argument.

 

But YOURS does.      You're not just another poster.     You're the top poster.    Most posts,   most likes.    You have the most influence here.     You're a thought leader,  an opinion maker.     Everything else is unimportant.

 

If someone else started a camp fire about how much they don't like Chudzinksi,  then you're the guy who poured gasoline on it and made it blow up and spread.       This responsibility comes with the territory.     

 

As I stated,  arguing for firing Chudzinski because you didn't like his 2016 after you respected and appreciated his 2015 season is mind boggling to me.      We gave Pep a longer time frame and now you're ready to move on. I don't think you've made a compelling enough argument for a change.     And I don't think it's close.    I think your case falls dramatically short of the mark.

 

With all due respect Superman is entitled to his opinion just like the rest of us. Just because you don't see eye to eye with his opinion there is no need for you to treat him any different than anyone else. So what if he has a problem with Chad? It's not worth writing a book over especially after he explained himself. He is the most respected poster in here and Even if I don't agree with him I am not going to call him out and chastise him because we don't share the same opinion. Chill out. 

[NewColtsFan]

31 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

With all due respect Superman is entitled to his opinion just like the rest of us. Just because you don't see eye to eye with his opinion there is no need for you to treat him any different than anyone else. So what if he has a problem with Chad? It's not worth writing a book over especially after he explained himself. He is the most respected poster in here and Even if I don't agree with him I am not going to call him out and chastise him because we don't share the same opinion. Chill out. 

 

Nice strawman.

 

Who said Superman is not entitled to his own opinion?      Not me.

 

I've told Superman I think his opinion is wrong,   and now I'm telling him that his defense of his opinion is weak.

 

It's not a book, it's a conversation.

 

And with all due respect,   you have no right to tell anyone who they can criticize and who they can't.

 

There is no one here who criticizes other posters more than you.     And you're in first place by miles.     So, you're way out of line.     It's the ultimate pot calling out the kettle for being black. 

 

 

[hoosierhawk]

On ‎8‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 2:21 PM, DougDew said:

There is no way that Grigson would have drafted Werner, Djoun, and Green without Pagano saying they would be good players. They were all specifically suited to Pagano's 3-4 defense and he definitely had a lot to say about it.  Everybody can miss evaluates, but those guys flaming out has as much to do with Pagano as Grigson.

Werner was anything but a 3-4 guy.

I don't believe anything Dakich has to say about football but he seems to repeat everything Ric Venturi says. Venturi seems to be somewhat tuned into what's happening with the Colts.

[crazycolt1]

3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Nice strawman.

 

Who said Superman is not entitled to his own opinion?      Not me.

 

I've told Superman I think his opinion is wrong,   and now I'm telling him that his defense of his opinion is weak.

 

It's not a book, it's a conversation.

 

And with all due respect,   you have no right to tell anyone who they can criticize and who they can't.

 

There is no one here who criticizes other posters more than you.     And you're in first place by miles.     So, you're way out of line.     It's the ultimate pot calling out the kettle for being black. 

 

 

I guess chill out means just continue to chastise me now? Ok. Carry on.

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I guess chill out means just continue to chastise me now? Ok. Carry on.

 

Well.....

 

I think you wrote a little bit more than just "chill out"....

 

But I''m sorry I bit your head off....     I over-reacted when I read your post.      I should've walked away and come back later before posting....

 

I think the board has collectively gone to Hell in the past few weeks and I find it hard to read all the negative threads.      This is my favorite website,  so not enjoying it is difficult for me.

 

That said,   I'll try to handle things better in the future.....

 

 

[crazycolt1]

6 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Well.....

 

I think you wrote a little bit more than just "chill out"....

 

But I''m sorry I bit your head off....     I over-reacted when I read your post.      I should've walked away and come back later before posting....

 

I think the board has collectively gone to Hell in the past few weeks and I find it hard to read all the negative threads.      This is my favorite website,  so not enjoying it is difficult for me.

 

That said,   I'll try to handle things better in the future.....

 

 

Me too. If I came off to brash it was not my intention. I totally agree with all the negativity. It does test us all and sometimes it's hard to contain things said. I apologize.

[OffensivelyPC]

15 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

There is no one here who criticizes other posters more than you.     And you're in first place by miles.     So, you're way out of line.     It's the ultimate pot calling out the kettle for being black. 

You forget that Modern was a poster here once...

[chad72]

This thread ended up as a Jerry Seinfeld show starting with Dakich on Pagano but not knowing which direction to take, in other words a whole lot of nothing starting with Dakich!!!  

[braveheartcolt]

On ‎23‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 4:18 AM, Superman said:

 

I also want to address this post, just to say that respect is definitely mutual. Even though I think you're way off on this one, you're still my guy.

Just like to point out that Superman's % of 'likes v 'posts' is 83%. Mine is 79%. So I'm almost as great a poster as Supes....

 

Note to myself...must try a wee bit harder.......   

[DougDew]

21 hours ago, Horse Shoe Heaven said:

Werner was I think not!

Not to rehash history, but before the draft, Werner was worked out by the Colts specifically to see if he would fit into the Baltimore 34.  If Chuck said that he couldn't, there would be no way Grigson would have drafted him.  People can think of Grigson in whatever way they want, but if his Baltimore defensive minded HC said that a player was not a good fit for a Baltimore style defense, no way would he have drafted him.

[DougDew]

17 hours ago, hoosierhawk said:

Werner was anything but a 3-4 guy.

I don't believe anything Dakich has to say about football but he seems to repeat everything Ric Venturi says. Venturi seems to be somewhat tuned into what's happening with the Colts.

But Chuck thought he was after he worked him out before the draft that year.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

21 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Not to rehash history, but before the draft, Werner was worked out by the Colts specifically to see if he would fit into the Baltimore 34.  If Chuck said that he couldn't, there would be no way Grigson would have drafted him.  People can think of Grigson in whatever way they want, but if his Baltimore defensive minded HC said that a player was not a good fit for a Baltimore style defense, no way would he have drafted him.

Maybe, a workout is in shorts, and what not. Werner reviled he had and still has bad knees in an interview, thats on grigson and the scouts. 

[DougDew]

9 minutes ago, Horse Shoe Heaven said:

Maybe, a workout is in shorts, and what not. Werner reviled he had and still has bad knees in an interview, thats on grigson and the scouts. 

I don't know the process in the NFL combine, but I assume xrays are part of it.  No GM or scout is going to know about a players bad knees he had in college unless their is a medical history to question.  Players just don't give that up.  If you told me that other NFL teams knew about bad knees, and that's why Werner dropped from a projected top 15 pick to 24, then maybe Grigson should have known too.  The more likely scenario is that Pagano thought he would be a good NFL EDGE/SAM with decent impactful ability.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

22 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I don't know the process in the NFL combine, but I assume xrays are part of it.  No GM or scout is going to know about a players bad knees he had in college unless their is a medical history to question.  Players just don't give that up.  If you told me that other NFL teams knew about bad knees, and that's why Werner dropped from a projected top 15 pick to 24, then maybe Grigson should have known too.  The more likely scenario is that Pagano thought he would be a good NFL EDGE/SAM with decent impactful ability.

Or he didn't think so who really knows, what I do know is Grigson's gone & Pagano is here so my guess is Grigson screwed it up like many of his picks and trades!

[NannyMcafee]

On 8/22/2017 at 11:18 PM, Superman said:

 

I also want to address this post, just to say that respect is definitely mutual. Even though I think you're way off on this one, you're still my guy.

 

You should be able to disagree and still get along. Something much of the forum lacks. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

10 hours ago, braveheartcolt said:

Just like to point out that Superman's % of 'likes v 'posts' is 83%. Mine is 79%. So I'm almost as great a poster as Supes....

 

Note to myself...must try a wee bit harder.......   

It's working...   ;)

[ColtsBlueFL]

8 hours ago, DougDew said:

I don't know the process in the NFL combine, but I assume xrays are part of it.  No GM or scout is going to know about a players bad knees he had in college unless their is a medical history to question.  Players just don't give that up.  If you told me that other NFL teams knew about bad knees, and that's why Werner dropped from a projected top 15 pick to 24, then maybe Grigson should have known too.  The more likely scenario is that Pagano thought he would be a good NFL EDGE/SAM with decent impactful ability.

 

The combine medical exam process is lengthy and comprehensive. So is this post, so if you are a tldr type, you can click on the next post header now...

 

Here's some info-

 

"We break down the medical evaluation into two distinct segments: internal medical examinations and orthopedic examinations," Matava explained. "During the internal medical exam, players are evaluated by team internists for cardiovascular, kidney, liver and pulmonary health. Part of this examination includes a battery of tests—such as blood work, EKGs and, for certain players, stress tests for their heart—in order to determine if there are any internal issues that might affect the player's ability to participate in the NFL."

"If a player has a history of problems, such as (high blood pressure), sickle cell anemia, diabetes or asthma, those conditions will be noted," Matava continued. "We also make note of their current condition and any treatments they are receiving. Then, we make recommendations to the team regarding that player's ability to play at the NFL level with these medical issues."

 

"If a player is healthy, the evaluating internist will compile a general health report which is shared with the other teams. Once the medical evaluations are complete, each player is given an internal medicine grade that can be somewhat unique for each team. This grade then gets factored into their overall medical grade. This is given to the team's general manager and head coach to be used when they make draft decisions."

 

"The orthopedic evaluations are performed in a similar fashion (as the internal medicine exams)," Matava noted. "There are six exam rooms, and each exam room has six teams represented within it. Players will go to each room and will undergo an orthopedic history and exam, have his X-rays and other imaging studies reviewed and have their information presented to the other doctors in the room."

 

"Additionally, linemen receive an X-ray of their lumbar spine—the only mandatory X-ray—to make sure they do not have a vertebral stress fracture. As the lumbar spine houses and protects the lowest part of the spinal cord, stress fractures in the lumbar vertebrae can threaten the integrity of the cord and its nerves as they exit and travel to the lower body."

 

"Some players will have a very healthy orthopedic grade, but their internal medicine grade might be low because of a medical condition. However, it is more common that a player's internal medicine grade is very high, but they've had significant orthopedic problems that affect their overall medical grade."

 

"For players with a known injury concern, their medical history is obtained and recorded," Matava explained. "Team doctors review the player's medical history all the way back to grade school. For instance, if a player has a knee injury as part of their medical history, the doctors will do an examination to look at any current problems and view all past X-rays and MRIs. If necessary, they will order new imaging studies to further evaluate the nature of the knee at the present time."

 

"A player might have an injury that is completely healed with no lingering issues, but usually, if he has had a previous injury, his score is still slightly reduced."

 

Unfortunately, the combine medical exam may uncover serious medical problems, the importance of which can extend far beyond football.

 

"There have been several malignancies (cancers) that have been found during combine medical exams," Matava recalled. "There have also been cases of sickle cell disease and undiagnosed heart problems, such as arrhythmias."

 

"All the X-rays and test results are shared with all of the medical teams, and NFLPS members will occasionally communicate other findings," Matava explained. "However, each team has their own grading scale for players, and each medical team shares their grades with their general managers and coaches."

Nevertheless, no medical decision is ever 100 percent certain, and the combine is no different.

 

***************************************************************************

 

"The medical re-visit is for the guys who are currently undergoing treatment, have a surgery scheduled for a condition or are not yet completely rehabilitated," Matava made clear. "For example, a player might have his ACL repaired a week before the combine, so he's going to be on crutches.

 

"At this stage in the recovery, we can't learn very much from an examination. We will order an X-ray to see how his graft was placed, but it's too soon to know much more than that about his recovery. These players will come back a month or two later–when they are off their crutches and are doing their rehabilitation—so we can have a better idea or how they are doing in their recuperation."

 

"I'm biased, but I think the medical side is the most important aspect of the combine because teams can't get this kind of information about a player at any other time in the pre-draft process," Matava offered.

"A team can always ask a guy to do extra bench presses, run the 40-yard dash or have more interviews with coaches, but you are never going to get all of these medical specialists in one room together with this type of comprehensive medical assessment again."

 

[Superman]

On 8/23/2017 at 1:58 PM, NewColtsFan said:

I think we're quibbling over the wrong thing.      We're missing the bigger picture.

 

If you weren't the first to criticize Chud,   fine.      But you were AMONG the first.     I don't care if it was 5th or 10th, or 20th....

 

But the bigger picture is NONE of the others who criticized Chud before you move the needle.    Their opinions are their opinions and they don't shape an argument.

 

But YOURS does.      You're not just another poster.     You're the top poster.    Most posts,   most likes.    You have the most influence here.     You're a thought leader,  an opinion maker.     Everything else is unimportant.

 

If someone else started a camp fire about how much they don't like Chudzinksi,  then you're the guy who poured gasoline on it and made it blow up and spread.       This responsibility comes with the territory.     

 

As I stated,  arguing for firing Chudzinski because you didn't like his 2016 after you respected and appreciated his 2015 season is mind boggling to me.      We gave Pep a longer time frame and now you're ready to move on. I don't think you've made a compelling enough argument for a change.     And I don't think it's close.    I think your case falls dramatically short of the mark.

 

 

Been a busy couple days, but I wanted to come back to this before the next game... 

 

You're saying I'm influential on this site. That's fine. You're also saying that I'm somewhat responsible for the tone of the site. Okay, I don't like that, but as a mod and a heavy poster, I temper some of what I post and the way I respond because I recognize that fact, even though I don't really like it. But fine. 

 

My problem with your response, though, exists on multiple levels: 

1) I said earlier that I think you're miscategorizing my stance on Chud. I don't think I've ever called for him to be fired. Me saying that I would make changes on the coaching staff if I was in charge is different from me saying 'we must fire Chud!' 

 

2) I did appreciate a lot of what he did in 2015. That made me hopeful for 2016. What I've been begging for is for since Arians is more emphasis on efficiency, mixing in play action, running effective short passes and screens, and taking pressure off of the OL. But he installed his offense, his playbook, his gameplans, his philosophy and his strategy in 2016, and while it definitely has some positives, it does not focus on efficiency and taking pressure off of the OL. He called 2016 differently from way he called 2015. Why am I not allowed to be critical of that? I've posted detailed critiques; why are they "nonsense"? 

 

3) You're essentially blaming me for people saying 'Chud is the reason we suck in the preseason,' and not only have I never said that, I don't even see a whole lot of people saying that. That is NOT the tone of this board this preseason. The tone is 'we're sloppy, the defense doesn't look good, and Tolzien sucks.' I'll take credit for the first two (although I don't think it takes me saying it for the fan base in general to know that it's true), but the only one of those three that involves the offense is Tolzien... and I've defended Tolzien since before preseason. 

 

4) Somewhat related, the negative tone of this board is something that's existed for years. I'm generally fighting against it, and yet it prevails (which raises questions about whether I am as influential as you say I am). A lot of the current negativity has to do with the staff not being forthcoming about Luck (something I defend), not having a better backup than Tolzien (something I'm fine with), and losing in the preseason (something I don't care about). I don't think I'm responsible for what other people post here, unless I'm trolling, baiting, or being rude (which is something I try not to do in general, but I'm sure I could do better). 

 

5) The only thing I've been negative about is the team looking sluggish and sloppy in preseason, not looking tough, not playing with physicality, etc. And that's because I bought into all the talk about how Pagano was going to have the best year of his career, how the team was going to be more physical, etc. That has not been reflected in the first two games. And it's even more important if Luck is going to miss time (which seems like a done deal at this point). So I think I'm justified there.

 

6) I think I'm entitled to be critical, no matter what my standing is on this site. I'm not here to defend the staff no matter what. If there's something I don't like, I am going to voice my opinion on it, and I always have. I was critical of Polian and Caldwell for making Kerry Collins the starter; I was critical of Caldwell for not coaching well that entire season, and in fact DID call for him to be fired after the team got beat 62-7 on national TV. I was critical of Arians' offense in 2012 (for the same basic reasons I'm critical of Chud's offense now). Etc. 

 

7) I don't think it's my responsibility to hold back the masses from being critical of the staff. If I think someone isn't doing a good job, or I don't like something about the team, I reserve my right to state how I see it. I don't like the board having a negative tone, but it's a place to discuss the team, and if there are negatives, they are going to be discussed here. 

 

8) I think this whole issue stems from the fact that we disagree on Chud. I think you're making my criticisms of him more radical than they really are, but what I really have a problem with is the insinuation that I should choke back my criticisms because they're generating negativity here... or for any reason, really. I'm totally fine with you or anyone else arguing that I'm wrong about Chud, being unreasonable, or whatever. I do think it's a little outrageous that my opinion on Chud is being painted as somehow toxic. 

 

I've droned on long enough on this. Let me just say that I'm still hopeful for Chud, just like I'm hopeful for the rest of the staff. But that doesn't mean I won't be critical when I think it's warranted.

[buccolts]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Been a busy couple days, but I wanted to come back to this before the next game... 

 

You're saying I'm influential on this site. That's fine. You're also saying that I'm somewhat responsible for the tone of the site. Okay, I don't like that, but as a mod and a heavy poster, I temper some of what I post and the way I respond because I recognize that fact, even though I don't really like it. But fine. 

 

My problem with your response, though, exists on multiple levels: 

1) I said earlier that I think you're miscategorizing my stance on Chud. I don't think I've ever called for him to be fired. Me saying that I would make changes on the coaching staff if I was in charge is different from me saying 'we must fire Chud!' 

 

2) I did appreciate a lot of what he did in 2015. That made me hopeful for 2016. What I've been begging for is for since Arians is more emphasis on efficiency, mixing in play action, running effective short passes and screens, and taking pressure off of the OL. But he installed his offense, his playbook, his gameplans, his philosophy and his strategy in 2016, and while it definitely has some positives, it does not focus on efficiency and taking pressure off of the OL. He called 2016 differently from way he called 2015. Why am I not allowed to be critical of that? I've posted detailed critiques; why are they "nonsense"? 

 

3) You're essentially blaming me for people saying 'Chud is the reason we suck in the preseason,' and not only have I never said that, I don't even see a whole lot of people saying that. That is NOT the tone of this board this preseason. The tone is 'we're sloppy, the defense doesn't look good, and Tolzien sucks.' I'll take credit for the first two (although I don't think it takes me saying it for the fan base in general to know that it's true), but the only one of those three that involves the offense is Tolzien... and I've defended Tolzien since before preseason. 

 

4) Somewhat related, the negative tone of this board is something that's existed for years. I'm generally fighting against it, and yet it prevails (which raises questions about whether I am as influential as you say I am). A lot of the current negativity has to do with the staff not being forthcoming about Luck (something I defend), not having a better backup than Tolzien (something I'm fine with), and losing in the preseason (something I don't care about). I don't think I'm responsible for what other people post here, unless I'm trolling, baiting, or being rude (which is something I try not to do in general, but I'm sure I could do better). 

 

5) The only thing I've been negative about is the team looking sluggish and sloppy in preseason, not looking tough, not playing with physicality, etc. And that's because I bought into all the talk about how Pagano was going to have the best year of his career, how the team was going to be more physical, etc. That has not been reflected in the first two games. And it's even more important if Luck is going to miss time (which seems like a done deal at this point). So I think I'm justified there.

 

6) I think I'm entitled to be critical, no matter what my standing is on this site. I'm not here to defend the staff no matter what. If there's something I don't like, I am going to voice my opinion on it, and I always have. I was critical of Polian and Caldwell for making Kerry Collins the starter; I was critical of Caldwell for not coaching well that entire season, and in fact DID call for him to be fired after the team got beat 62-7 on national TV. I was critical of Arians' offense in 2012 (for the same basic reasons I'm critical of Chud's offense now). Etc. 

 

7) I don't think it's my responsibility to hold back the masses from being critical of the staff. If I think someone isn't doing a good job, or I don't like something about the team, I reserve my right to state how I see it. I don't like the board having a negative tone, but it's a place to discuss the team, and if there are negatives, they are going to be discussed here. 

 

8) I think this whole issue stems from the fact that we disagree on Chud. I think you're making my criticisms of him more radical than they really are, but what I really have a problem with is the insinuation that I should choke back my criticisms because they're generating negativity here... or for any reason, really. I'm totally fine with you or anyone else arguing that I'm wrong about Chud, being unreasonable, or whatever. I do think it's a little outrageous that my opinion on Chud is being painted as somehow toxic. 

 

I've droned on long enough on this. Let me just say that I'm still hopeful for Chud, just like I'm hopeful for the rest of the staff. But that doesn't mean I won't be critical when I think it's warranted.

 

Hey, if it makes you feel any better, I do appreciate your tone on this site. I appreciate the manner in which you express your thoughts, and I generally agree with your assessments.

 

More importantly, you don't hold any control over my mind. So, don't let that burden be on your shoulders.

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

17 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Been a busy couple days, but I wanted to come back to this before the next game... 

 

You're saying I'm influential on this site. That's fine. You're also saying that I'm somewhat responsible for the tone of the site. Okay, I don't like that, but as a mod and a heavy poster, I temper some of what I post and the way I respond because I recognize that fact, even though I don't really like it. But fine. 

 

My problem with your response, though, exists on multiple levels: 

1) I said earlier that I think you're miscategorizing my stance on Chud. I don't think I've ever called for him to be fired. Me saying that I would make changes on the coaching staff if I was in charge is different from me saying 'we must fire Chud!' 

 

2) I did appreciate a lot of what he did in 2015. That made me hopeful for 2016. What I've been begging for is for since Arians is more emphasis on efficiency, mixing in play action, running effective short passes and screens, and taking pressure off of the OL. But he installed his offense, his playbook, his gameplans, his philosophy and his strategy in 2016, and while it definitely has some positives, it does not focus on efficiency and taking pressure off of the OL. He called 2016 differently from way he called 2015. Why am I not allowed to be critical of that? I've posted detailed critiques; why are they "nonsense"? 

 

3) You're essentially blaming me for people saying 'Chud is the reason we suck in the preseason,' and not only have I never said that, I don't even see a whole lot of people saying that. That is NOT the tone of this board this preseason. The tone is 'we're sloppy, the defense doesn't look good, and Tolzien sucks.' I'll take credit for the first two (although I don't think it takes me saying it for the fan base in general to know that it's true), but the only one of those three that involves the offense is Tolzien... and I've defended Tolzien since before preseason. 

 

4) Somewhat related, the negative tone of this board is something that's existed for years. I'm generally fighting against it, and yet it prevails (which raises questions about whether I am as influential as you say I am). A lot of the current negativity has to do with the staff not being forthcoming about Luck (something I defend), not having a better backup than Tolzien (something I'm fine with), and losing in the preseason (something I don't care about). I don't think I'm responsible for what other people post here, unless I'm trolling, baiting, or being rude (which is something I try not to do in general, but I'm sure I could do better). 

 

5) The only thing I've been negative about is the team looking sluggish and sloppy in preseason, not looking tough, not playing with physicality, etc. And that's because I bought into all the talk about how Pagano was going to have the best year of his career, how the team was going to be more physical, etc. That has not been reflected in the first two games. And it's even more important if Luck is going to miss time (which seems like a done deal at this point). So I think I'm justified there.

 

6) I think I'm entitled to be critical, no matter what my standing is on this site. I'm not here to defend the staff no matter what. If there's something I don't like, I am going to voice my opinion on it, and I always have. I was critical of Polian and Caldwell for making Kerry Collins the starter; I was critical of Caldwell for not coaching well that entire season, and in fact DID call for him to be fired after the team got beat 62-7 on national TV. I was critical of Arians' offense in 2012 (for the same basic reasons I'm critical of Chud's offense now). Etc. 

 

7) I don't think it's my responsibility to hold back the masses from being critical of the staff. If I think someone isn't doing a good job, or I don't like something about the team, I reserve my right to state how I see it. I don't like the board having a negative tone, but it's a place to discuss the team, and if there are negatives, they are going to be discussed here. 

 

8) I think this whole issue stems from the fact that we disagree on Chud. I think you're making my criticisms of him more radical than they really are, but what I really have a problem with is the insinuation that I should choke back my criticisms because they're generating negativity here... or for any reason, really. I'm totally fine with you or anyone else arguing that I'm wrong about Chud, being unreasonable, or whatever. I do think it's a little outrageous that my opinion on Chud is being painted as somehow toxic. 

 

I've droned on long enough on this. Let me just say that I'm still hopeful for Chud, just like I'm hopeful for the rest of the staff. But that doesn't mean I won't be critical when I think it's warranted.

I think you both are exceptional Posters and I agree about 90% of the time with what both of you guys Post. Not sure what you guys are debating here? I know Chud is the topic but a lot of people in here have differing opinions on Chud.

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

On 8/22/2017 at 8:36 PM, NewColtsFan said:

 

This fan forum has......    independent thinking?!?        Really?       When did that happen?

 

I must've been asleep for the 5 years.

 

Look, Chad,  I'm being a bit facetious....     you're clearly one of the top posters here and know your football and how to make a fair argument.     But there are only a few dozen of guys like you.     Many here are not capable of clear thinking and it's displayed here daily.

 

But @Superman is THE top poster here.    Both n total posts and total "likes".   More importantly,  he is a thought leader here.    His opinion is prized and valued and with damn good reason.     He's as smart as they come.

 

I'll share something publicly for the purposes of making a point.

 

As you know,  I live in Southern Calfiornia.     Turns out,  Superman does too.     Only about 35-40 miles away. We've met a number of times.      We typically take in one Colts game a season and watch it at a sports bar.

 

That day is my favorite day of the season.    Any day with Superman in it is a great day.     I consider him a really good friend.

 

My point?    It gives me no pleasure  --- absolutely none --- to hammer Superman publicly here.     But I don't feel I have much choice.    We see the same thing differently.     I think the anti-Chud fever here was started by Superman and has now reached a fever pitch because of him.      I think it's a terrible,  terrible mistake.

 

Chud is not above criticism.    I have posted them for the last year and a half.    But, on balance,  I think he's a solid OC and I'd like to see what he can do in Season 2.     I've been looking forward to seeing what he can do.     But this constant rants have made reading this website so difficult....    it's taken the wind out of my sails.

 

Chud has become the new rented mule to be beaten here.     I wish it wasn't so.

 

 

 

I don't think it's cool to spout some of the stuff you do about Superman. Yeah the guy is the most liked poster on the site (I think) but you're coming across as invalidating everyone else's opinions...

 

His breakdowns on Chud's ineffective gameplans/route concepts are godly but that doesn't mean he started or is responsible for posters wanting to get rid of the guy. I know I can just watch the game and think to myself that we should be doing better with a guy like Luck as our QB. Imagine if we gave him better plays instead of relying on scrambling miracles to save games for us? 

 

Relax dude

On 8/23/2017 at 0:24 AM, crazycolt1 said:

I know this is off subject but what I notice is a kinda split in opinions from the newer fans and the older fans of the Colts. The newer fans expect perfection and results right away or they are ready to make changes at the drop of a hat. The older ones are seasoned veterans who know how things work by years of ups and downs.

Newer fans don't have the patience and cant endure the reality of the NFL. Instant gratification does not work in the NFL. Us older fans have been around long enough to know how to be patient from being around the NFL long enough to see how unstable teams can be at times.

Right now New England is the top team but I remember when they were considered a bottom feeder team.

Being a long time Colts fan I have lived through everything from the bottom to the top. From a bad owner and then seeing his son turn the page for the Colts.

It seems the newer fans know just the top side of the Colts from Peyton Manning till now and it blows their mind when those days are gone.

Well I am hear to tell you I have been here since Bert Jones was the QB and I know the highs and the heart break. But I have also learned the patience I speak of because this is the way of the NFL.

The Colts have a long history and the Hall Of Fame is full of those Colts players to prove it. We are still adding players to the Hall Of Fame so things hasn't been all that bad.

Just because you are a fan there is no need to let it become so fanatical it becomes so negative it effects remembering that the NFL is a game. There are winners and there are losers. Always has been and it's not going to change.

 

 

 

 Those damn millennials 

[ColtsBlueFL]

3 minutes ago, Gabriel Alexander Morillo said:

{snip - stuff relevant to other posts}

 

Relax dude

 Those damn millennials 

 

;-)