The real culprit in all this is the Owner (merge)

[indy1888]

1 hour ago, J@son said:

 

He paid $4 mil for kerry collins to play in 3 games. 

 

On a team that was a title contender with a healthy Manning. Manning never made it back but that was not unreasonable to do that in hopes they could stay afloat until Manning returned. Even with Luck this team isn't even a division winner. Big difference.

[DougDew]

17 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Without defending Tolzein one bit,   I will say to everyojne here, and not just to Superman because he's not making ths argument....

 

That just because Tolzein was terrible doesn't automatically mean Morris would've been better.      As hard as it might be to believe,   Morris could've been worse., or certaily just as bad.

 

Again,  this post is for everyone....

 

Don't inject actual reason into the forum.

 

Because people won't want to apply that same thinking to the switch in GMs.

 

Or to the future switch in HC.

 

So just let them say the same unreasonable thing for years.

[indy1888]

1 hour ago, J@son said:

 

When has irsay EVER been one to shy away from spending big money on his team? 

 

When was the last time the Colts needed a rebuild from top to bottom?  Irsay admitted they looked at other QB's and the price was too high.  I don't know how Jim can make it any more clear for you.

[Gramz]

[Superman]

43 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

No re-read the post again. I listed his highlights/notable moves as GM the last couple years. 

 

And yes we know no one perfects but when you throw that out here every time there's criticism it comes off as dismissive. And that's the theme here. People make assertions about the team and people can only defend it with statements that sound dismissive. Why does it need to be stated that other Owners make mistakes too when talking about Irsay? I don't think I've ever seen someone say "Irsay is a bad owner because he makes mistakes that no other GM in the league makes". It's as if every time our owner, GM, or coach does something wrong we have to be reminded that other people make mistakes too. What other people do doesn't matter. Grigson not being as bad a GM as let's say Matt Millen doesn't excuse being bad. And that's unfortunately how the conversations always go. 

 

-"Pagano has been bad in Indy"

-"Well Gus Bradley won less games in almost the same amount of time"

 

-"Grigson is bad"

-"Well look at the Browns GMs the last years"

 

Im fine with differing opinions, but the arguments are always redundant because you can't have a debate without hearing about other players who were exceptions to the rules, other coaches who were bad but got it turned around, other GMs who are worse, another team who has been way worse than the Colts, etc... The day someone makes a decent defense here without having to reference someone/thing from the past or another player/coach/GM is the day I'll be impressed.

 

If we're defending why a player/FO person isn't bad, it should be by only referencing that persons history. The minute you have to refer to someone outside of the team, the argument is invalid IMO. Any adult knows that each individual person takes ownership. You don't get passes because of what others do or didn't do. I can defend any of the points I make using that very rule.

 

Nah, you've decided to lump together anyone who disagrees with this idea, rather than actually paying any attention to what they're saying. 

 

In a post taking aim at Irsay, you mentioned that he cut the GOAT. It was clearly painted as a negative in your post. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but you presented it that way, lumped in with a bunch of other perceived negatives.

 

I didn't defend anyone by saying 'nobody's perfect.' I said that Irsay having what you believe are two bad hires doesn't make him a bad owner. Someone else mentioned Jerry Jones in this thread; he's a bona fide HOFer. How many bad hires does he have? How many bad decisions has he made? This is the helicopter owner who hired an offensive coordinator before he hired a head coach, and told the head coach not to touch him. You guys complain because Irsay let Pagano stay another year without Grigson. Again, the point is that no matter how you characterize the Grigson/Pagano hires and retentions, none of that makes Irsay a bad owner, or a problem. Irsay has done so many good things for the Colts, and continues to do so, that it's just a nonstarter conversation, especially when your strongest argument is 'he hired Ryan Grigson!' 

 

In reality, the way these conversations go is someone says something like 'Grigson is the worst GM ever, of all time, anywhere!' and someone responds with 'don't forget Matt Millen.' If saying someone isn't the worst is considered a defense of that person, then we should never push back against sensationalist nonsense. I disagree with all of that. When people say stuff like the Colts are the worst run organization in the NFL, it's obvious nonsense, and it's going to be called out using anyone/anything that debunks said nonsense. If you call Grigson the worst GM ever, Matt Millen will come up. If you call the Colts the worst run organization in the NFL, the Browns will come up. That's just logical. 

[SaturdayAllDay]

19 minutes ago, indy1888 said:

 

When was the last time the Colts needed a rebuild from top to bottom?  Irsay admitted they looked at other QB's and the price was too high.  I don't know how Jim can make it any more clear for you.

That raises the question though. Who thought it was too high? 

There are 2 possibilities: the owner who has a history of dishing out money without an issue, or the new GM that from day one said he wont overpay for talent. Seems to paint a pretty clear picture. Irsay probably signed off on it, but make no mistake, this was Ballards call. I know Ballard is seen as the saviour of the franchise right now and everyone wants to believe he can do no wrong, but hes a rookie GM, hes going to make mistakes. As long as he learns from them and makes the proper corrections, everything will be ok eventually. 

[NewColtsFan]

6 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

 

 

I won't say names but these are the people who when you talk about Pagano being a bad coach they reply fast enough with "Three 11-5 seasons ". They'll even talk about how he has no loosing seasons as if 8-8 is a proud achievement and it's so much better than 7-9. These are the people who are reading this post and already saying in their head that the Colts fan base is spoiled by so much winning in the 2,000's and we should be grateful to not be a team like the Browns. These are the people who can't wait to throw names of "worse" owners the moment you try and say anything about Irsay.

 

As I said before, I don't think Irsay is a bad  owner. But he's missed lately and his misses have really hurt the team recently. Again, it's fine if people think otherwise but I have to hear an argument that doesn't talk about the 2000s Colts or use another team that hasn't achieved as an example.

 

I may be wrong on this,  but I assume one of the names you're referring to is mine.    And I want to say this publicly right here,  right now.

 

You, and anyone else on this website are ALWAYS free to call me out.   To point out when I'm wrong, or when you disagree with me.    You can mention me directly by name.    You don't have to be diplomatic.     I am always wlling to discuss, or debate, or even argue my viewpoints,  even the unpopular ones.    I absolutely do NOT claim to always be right.    But I'm always willing to discuss my views.

 

And I'm especially willing to do so in instances like this,  where you're trying to mock and belittle stats in favor of opinions.     Who else but you mocks "three 11-5 seasons" as if it's nothing?       Who else but you mocks "as if 8-8 is that much better than 7-9"....    Guess what?    Is IS better because one of them is a losing season,  and the other is not.     And that's not a small insignificant matter,  especially to people who work in the NFL.     8-8 means it's NOT a losing season.    7-9 is a losing year,  no matter how you slice it.    So it IS a big deal.

 

So,  anytime you want to debate facts vs. opinions,  PLEASE,  be my guest.    But bring your A-game,  becasue facts tend to fall on people like a ton of bricks.   Opinions?   Ehhhh,   not so much.   They bend this way and that way and can be spun.

 

Chuck Pagano is an average coach in my opinion.    But 5 years into his HC career and he has not had one losing season which is a big stinking deal, even if people here don't want to acknowledge it.     He's not the worst coach in the NFL, as some have posted the past few days.     There are no facts to back that up.     And he's not in the bottom third of coaches.    He's somewhere in the middle third.    That's been my viewpoint for the last two years and this weekends spectacular dumpster fire of a loss doesn't change that.     One game does not a season make....

 

 

 

[chrisfarley]

5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Irsay has never shied away from spending money, and Ballard doesn't make roster decisions on the basis of contract status. 

 

It's very obvious that their evaluation of the QB position led them to believe Tolzien would be good enough to handle the job in the short term. That contributed to not signing another QB to a bigger contract. It's also very obvious that they were wrong about Tolzien.

 

You're twisting this into a tanking conspiracy, when the simple and easy to understand explanation is that they missed badly on Tolzien. 

the real question is, have they given up on him yet?  any insight or inside info?

[Jason_]

54 minutes ago, indy1888 said:

 

When was the last time the Colts needed a rebuild from top to bottom?  Irsay admitted they looked at other QB's and the price was too high.  I don't know how Jim can make it any more clear for you.

 

See superman's reply to my comment. He said it much better than I did. 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, chrisfarley said:

the real question is, have they given up on him yet?  any insight or inside info?

 

I obviously have no inside info. But I'd bet that Tolzien starts Sunday. 

[Jason_]

23 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Chuck Pagano is an average coach in my opinion.    But 5 years into his HC career and he has not had one losing season which is a big stinking deal, even if people here don't want to acknowledge it.     He's not the worst coach in the NFL, as some have posted the past few days.     There are no facts to back that up.     And he's not in the bottom third of coaches.    He's somewhere in the middle third.    That's been my viewpoint for the last two years and this weekends spectacular dumpster fire of a loss doesn't change that.     One game does not a season make....

 

 

 

 

For the most part I do agree...but that non challenge in and of itself was enough to make me drop him into that bottom third. Not AT the bottom...but like, the 20 to 24 range. 

[Jason_]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I obviously have no inside info. But I'd bet that Tolzien starts Sunday. 

 

I really don't think they can...I'd think they'd get bombarded with questions asking why they can get freeman and lindley ready in 5 days, and win, but they can't they get brissett ready in a little over 2 weeks.  

 

Or maybe I just want to believe that. 

[southwest1]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

This team doesn't have the worst head coach in the NFL. Even if it does, Ballard accepted the job with the directive to evaluate the coaching staff without the influence of Grigson. The staff appears to be headed for a series of pink slips in January, based on what's happened so far. 

 

If it were up to me, we'd have hired a new GM and head coach in 2016. I'll give you that Irsay has been more patient than I think he should have, but that doesn't mean he's in the way. He believes in continuity, but he's never been shy about making moves he thinks need to be made, spending money, or supporting the staff he hires.

 

By the way, the national perception of Jim Irsay is that he's impatient, impetuous, and unpredictable. You're arguing that he's waiting too long to get rid of Pagano. I'm arguing Irsay is letting things play out because he wants to do what's best for his team, and that's based on his 20+ years as primary owner of the team.

This is a really good post that probably encapsulated the reality of the situation better then anything I could have said. I've always liked Jimmy. Okay, once in awhile, I poke fun at his "and um's" but I do respect how open Irsay has been about his pain killer & alcohol addiction in the past. It makes him human with faults like me I & admire that. Also, like Supes said Jimmy isn't afraid to make changes on the sidelines if things aren't working out. If anything, Jim gives too much time to implement their football program blueprint. Part of me understands why he does that though. To give his coaching staff more then enough time to lay down their vision with no regrets. 

 

I don't like seeing sports pundits mock the Colts & by definition Jimmy simply because the Rams cleaned our clock on Sunday. We're not the only team that lost in week 1. I just like that Jimmy doesn't panic. He's not a chaotic owner like that late Al Davis used to be in his later yrs & Jimmy's been around long enough to know constant turnover is a disaster at the HC spot. 

 

We all know this will in all likelihood be Pagano's final yr in INDY. Jimmy will be very gracious about Chuck's contributions he left here & turn the page at season's end. 

 

I have been hard on Chuck this yr. I know that. But, I do like that he owned his mistake on not initially challenging Mack's touchdown leap into the end zone in the 1st half. 

 

I also like the fact that Jimmy embraces his rock n roll guitar collection persona & he doesn't care if people think he's a leftover hippie from yesteryear. Makes me defend him even more actually. 

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

For the most part I do agree...but that non challenge in and of itself was enough to make me drop him into that bottom third. Not AT the bottom...but like, the 20 to 24 range. 

 

The non challenge is just part of a pattern of questionable game management decisions. It doesn't exist in a vacuum, IMO.

 

In his presser yesterday, he said he might not have challenged it anyways. I'm not sure why, but that's after reviewing the tape with the staff. 

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

I really don't think they can...I'd think they'd get bombarded with questions asking why they can get freeman and lindley ready in 5 days, and win, but they can't they get brissett ready in a little over 2 weeks.  

 

Or maybe I just want to believe that. 

 

They had no choice with Freeman and Lindley. Hasselbeck was hurt, Luck was hurt, Whitehurst was on IR. They say necessity is the mother of invention, I think that's a prime example of the truth of that saying. But even then, they had one QB learning one pared down package, and another QB in a different room working on another pared down package. For one specific game, one gameplan. I don't know if that's something you want to try for one QB.

 

If they absolutely had to, they could put together a package for Brissett, rely on the run game, and still have a more productive offense than last week. It's hard to do worse than 0/10 on third down.

 

They've been bombarded with questions about the QB position all along. I'm sure Pagano is used to it.

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, J@son said:

 

For the most part I do agree...but that non challenge in and of itself was enough to make me drop him into that bottom third. Not AT the bottom...but like, the 20 to 24 range. 

 

I don't remember who it was,  but someone suggested this idea why there was no challenge......

 

It seemed strange to me at the time....

 

But the Colts were inside the one and it was first down.    It's not unreasonable to think we'd punch it in in three downs.

 

Why waste your challenge early in the first quarter.     If you're wrong,  then you've lost your challenge the rest of the half.     Save it for a more important time.        No reason to think you're not going to score from inside the one.

 

Doesn't strike me as unreasonable.      I'd love to know what was being said to him from the coaches box.?

 

p.s. -- Just looked at the Pagano media video from yesterday, Monday.....   he said he had the team rush to the line to try and catch the Rams off-guard and unprepared.     Said in hindsight, he made a mistake and it's on him.     Probably should've waited to see the review on the field.    He owns it.    Good.      He also added,   there was no excuse for not scoring a TD on that drive,  that they should've scored.

 

 

[southwest1]

7 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

If he wanted to be Jerry Jones he could be Jerry Jones all he has to do is appoint himself the General Manager.  

 

He has not done that, he has consistently for years hired someone else to be the GM.  

 

He's made some mistakes, but lets not overstate things here.  He's not trying to be Jerry Jones.  

Very well said V-2000. Jimmy is indeed the polar opposite of Jerry. Well, until Jones turned over more front office control to his son Stephen in recent years anyway. Jimmy doesn't hover over his coach & coordinators like Jerry did for a long time. Irsay trusts the personnel he hires to do their job & he doesn't have this compulsion to be the center of attention. Thank God. 

 

Jimmy checks in every so often on his investments/hires yes, but he doesn't smother them & players know unlike Dallas that they can't bypass the HC & go to the owner to undermine a coach's authority a la Jason Garrett. Amen to that. 

[Jason_]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

They had no choice with Freeman and Lindley. Hasselbeck was hurt, Luck was hurt, Whitehurst was on IR. They say necessity is the mother of invention, I think that's a prime example of the truth of that saying.

 

No I definitely get all that. They have Tolzien so they have another option. The point that will be driven home though, imo, is that they won that game. So why can't they get this guy ready to at least be on the field?

 

And believe me, I know its not as black and white as that...its not a direct comparison. I'm just looking at how the talking heads will present it

 

And you're right, they should be used to it. It comes with the territory. I'm just not looking forward to how bad its gonna get lol

[Jason_]

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I don't remember who it was,  but someone suggested this idea why there was no challenge......

 

It seemed strange to me at the time....

 

But the Colts were inside the one and it was first down.    It's not unreasonable to think we'd punch it in in three downs.

 

Why waste your challenge early in the first quarter.     If you're wrong,  then you've lost your challenge the rest of the half.     Save it for a more important time.        No reason to think you're not going to score from inside the one.

 

Doesn't strike me as unreasonable.      I'd love to know what was being said to him from the coaches box.?

 

p.s. -- Just looked at the Pagano media video from yesterday, Monday.....   he said he had the team rush to the line to try and catch the Rams off-guard and unprepared.     Said in hindsight, he made a mistake and it's on him.     Probably should've waited to see the review on the field.    He owns it.    Good.      He also added,   there was no excuse for not scoring a TD on that drive,  that they should've scored.

 

 

 

But at least look at the damn replay for crying out loud. Lol. I'm frustrated.

 

If luck was in the game.... Maybe a different story. If the OL hadnt regressed...maybe a different story. If we had any history of having any kind of success in that type of catch them off guard situation...different sto....no...you still at least take a look at it!

 

If it was just a missed opportunity to challenge, or if it was just a botched attempt to hurry up, if it was just losing the goal line stand with mack on the field instead of turbin or gore...but it was a combination of all of that. So thats why it was such an egregious mistake, imo.

[Jason_]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

The non challenge is just part of a pattern of questionable game management decisions. It doesn't exist in a vacuum, IMO.

 

In his presser yesterday, he said he might not have challenged it anyways. I'm not sure why, but that's after reviewing the tape with the staff. 

 

I'll explain...we all know what the stakes were coming into this season. How will he do now that hes finally free from grigson?  This is finally his chance...and its his final chance. There weren't many of us still defending him. Like you, I dont think hes been nearly as bad as hes been made out to be. But this is his make or break.  He was on thin ice coming in.

 

So based on that, I'd planned to scrutinize him as much as anyone to finally make the decision as to whether I want him to come back or not. In that sense, the non challenge exists in a vacuum as in ive made that decision. I do not want him back. That was all it took. He has 6 years under his belt now. Its time to be a big boy. Instead he crapped the bed the very first time he was given an opportunity to make a significant game management decision. 

 

Now if that were the first type of blunder on his part then no, I wouldnt say it was a fireable offense....but it was the straw that broke the camels back. 

[Hoose]

5 hours ago, J@son said:

 

Problem is people like bayless that are intentionally sensationalist, outrageous and hyperbolic (and I realize that's pretty redundant, but...emphasis) and then the folks at home take them literally and repeat the same stuff because, hey if the guy on TV said so then it must be true especially since it validates my feelings...though I doubt they actually know that's why they do it. 

Really? You bring up a clown like Skip Bayless to explain why one of us who disagrees with you has that opinion? 

I started this thread because I hoped it would generate some discussion about ownership's decision making the past few years. I think that has happened. As I said previously, the hiring of Ballard is a good sign. IF he's allowed to do his job. Irsay's decision making has been very shaky in recent years. Sorry but it's true. Let's hope, as Colts fans, that he gets the hell out of the way and gives the reins to Ballard. Whose job it will be to rebuild a once great franchise back up from the bottom. A bottom that was found because of terrible ownership decisions. 

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, J@son said:

 

I'll explain...we all know what the stakes were coming into this season. How will he do now that hes finally free from grigson?  This is finally his chance...and its his final chance. There weren't many of us still defending him. Like you, I dont think hes been nearly as bad as hes been made out to be. But this is his make or break.  He was on thin ice coming in.

 

So based on that, I'd planned to scrutinize him as much as anyone to finally make the decision as to whether I want him to come back or not. In that sense, the non challenge exists in a vacuum as in ive made that decision. I do not want him back. That was all it took. He has 6 years under his belt now. Its time to be a big boy. Instead he crapped the bed the very first time he was given an opportunity to make a significant game management decision. 

 

Now if that were the first type of blunder on his part then no, I wouldnt say it was a fireable offense. 

 

Not speaking of you directly....

 

BUT....

 

Sometimes people here act as if Chuck Pagano practically invented poor coaching decisions.

 

People barely notice Pete Carrol's legendary Super Bowl brain cramp a few years ago, as well as the one by the Falcons coach just a few months ago.  Two massive poop the bed moments that dwarf anything Pagano has done including the mixed up punt.

 

My point is that poor in-game decisions are far more common than many here want to believe.

 

 

[Jason_]

3 minutes ago, Hoose said:

Really? You bring up a clown like Skip Bayless to explain why one of us who disagrees with you has that opinion? 

 

 

No. Not someone who disagrees with me. Someone who not only disagrees, but goes maliciously out of their way to distort facts and refuse to acknowledge that chuck actually has done some good things....not just bad.

[Jason_]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Not speaking of you directly....

 

BUT....

 

Sometimes people here as if Chuck Pagano practically invented poor coaching decisions.

 

People barely notice Pete Carrol's legendary Super Bowl brain cramp a few years ago, as well as the one by the Falcons coach just a few months ago.  Two massive poop the bed moments that dwarf anything Pagano has done including the mixed up punt.

 

My point is that poor in-game decisions are far more common than many here want to believe.

 

 

 

 

No disagreement from me on any of that.

 

 

[braveheartcolt]

I blame the NFL for all this. How dare they try and bring parity to the league. How dare they not allow the Indianapolis Colts win every game. Goodell. It's all his fault. Poor wee Jim, getting all this flak.

[Jason_]

5 minutes ago, braveheartcolt said:

I blame the NFL for all this. How dare they try and bring parity to the league. How dare they not allow the Indianapolis Colts win every game. Goodell. It's all his fault. Poor wee Jim, getting all this flak.

 

Come on now. This doesnt have anyyhing to do with league parity. This is about a coaching staff that put their faith in the wrong QB. The same thing got polian and ultimately Caldwell and his staff fired. 

[Superman]

49 minutes ago, J@son said:

In that sense, the non challenge exists in a vacuum as in ive made that decision. I do not want him back. That was all it took. He has 6 years under his belt now. Its time to be a big boy. Instead he crapped the bed the very first time he was given an opportunity to make a significant game management decision. 

 

Now if that were the first type of blunder on his part then no, I wouldnt say it was a fireable offense....but it was the straw that broke the camels back. 

 

I think we agree. We know Pagano has a lot to prove, and game management was one of the areas we'd all be scrutinizing. That's mostly because, as you say, he's in Year 6 and has made these questionable (or outright bad) decisions in the past. This is not a new problem for him. By itself, this is one mistake, but it's evidence that he still doesn't make good game management decisions, so it's bigger than just one mistake. 

[Hoose]

1 hour ago, J@son said:

 

No. Not someone who disagrees with me. Someone who not only disagrees, but goes maliciously out of their way to distort facts and refuse to acknowledge that chuck actually has done some good things....not just bad.

Well, your idea of malicious and mine are on two different planets then. I can't buy into Pagano being a good or even mediocre HC. This team never seems to be ready with an effective game plan, and consistently plays from behind.The bad judgment on the sidelines. The questionable personnel decisions. The awful asst. coaches. Nope, Pagano is a lousy HC. Andrew Luck can disguise a lot of issues with his greatness. Without him, the emperor has no clothes. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, Hoose said:

Well, your idea of malicious and mine are on two different planets then. I can't buy into Pagano being a good or even mediocre HC. This team never seems to be ready with an effective game plan, and consistently plays from behind.The bad judgment on the sidelines. The questionable personnel decisions. The awful asst. coaches. Nope, Pagano is a lousy HC. Andrew Luck can disguise a lot of issues with his greatness. Without him, the emperor has no clothes. 

I am not defending Chuck but you can say that about 90% of the coaches in the league. Take their starting QB away and they wont be any good. Jim Caldwell 14-2 with Manning, 2-14 without Manning. Take Rodgers off GB and plug in their backup and lets see how the Pack do? When Andrew Luck was completely healthy we went 11-5 3 seasons in a row and went to an AFC Title Game, when he hasn't been healthy you have seen the last 2 years the result.

[tikyle]

Everything that happens in an organization is established by the tone the person at the top sets.  If the person at the top is a creative type then that's how the organization is run, how the culture is built and that organization usually yields creative products.  If the top person is a hard liner all about the bottom line then the company will yield a good bottom line no matter what lengths it has to take or who it has to dispose of to get there.

 

And if we are all honest with ourselves ever since 2011-2012 when Irsay let go of Polian the organization has been dysfunctional.  The blame has to be laid squarely at the feet of Irsay.  I don't care who he hired as GM or HC.  He allowed a culture of dysfunction to permeate and it wasn't just GM vs HC.  It bled to the coordinators and the personnel.  Before we go around just hammering Grigson or firing Pagano or complaining about schemes and coordinators we need to take a look at the top.  And if we are honest with ourselves that has been the single most reason this team is where it is at this current moment.

 

Truthfully speaking, just hiring Ballard will not fix our problems.

[BlueShoe]

Polian was let go because he did not have an answer at backup quarterback. Had we not lost 14 games then he would have likely been retained. 

 

No one on this planet loves the Colts more than Jim Irsay. Overall, Jim has hired the right people, and we have enjoyed a lot of success. He is not batting 1000, but neither are any other owners. 

 

Jim Irsay is not the problem.

 

That said, I believe Jim Irsay absolutely loves Chuck Pagano, and he wanted to give him all the opportunities to succeed as our head coach. 

 

I am starting to believe that Chris Ballard was Jim's way of bringing in the Bob's. 

 

[ColtsArmy84]

Someone please close this thread. Nonsense!

[1959Colts]

 

[superrep1967]

On 9/12/2017 at 12:08 PM, Hoose said:

The criticism of Pagano and his lousy staff is totally justified. But who is the guy who not only signed him up in the first place, but then gave him a 4 year extension when it was clear that Pagano had serious issues as a head coach? And then gave another 4 years to Grigson when it was clear Grigson stunk in the job! Then fired Grigson one year after that!

The fact is, Jim Irsay has been at the helm of this fast sinking ship, and it has been his awful decision making as the owner that has caused the team to flounder. He is the cause of this current mess, and  so long as he has the reins, it gives me pause to wonder if the team will ever be able to improve enough to become a winner again. I love the Colts, but their owner is destroying this team. 

I TOTALLY agree!! I couldn't have said it better myself!!!!!!!!!!

[Defjamz26]

16 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I may be wrong on this,  but I assume one of the names you're referring to is mine.    And I want to say this publicly right here,  right now.

 

You, and anyone else on this website are ALWAYS free to call me out.   To point out when I'm wrong, or when you disagree with me.    You can mention me directly by name.    You don't have to be diplomatic.     I am always wlling to discuss, or debate, or even argue my viewpoints,  even the unpopular ones.    I absolutely do NOT claim to always be right.    But I'm always willing to discuss my views.

 

And I'm especially willing to do so in instances like this,  where you're trying to mock and belittle stats in favor of opinions.     Who else but you mocks "three 11-5 seasons" as if it's nothing?       Who else but you mocks "as if 8-8 is that much better than 7-9"....    Guess what?    Is IS better because one of them is a losing season,  and the other is not.     And that's not a small insignificant matter,  especially to people who work in the NFL.     8-8 means it's NOT a losing season.    7-9 is a losing year,  no matter how you slice it.    So it IS a big deal.

 

So,  anytime you want to debate facts vs. opinions,  PLEASE,  be my guest.    But bring your A-game,  becasue facts tend to fall on people like a ton of bricks.   Opinions?   Ehhhh,   not so much.   They bend this way and that way and can be spun.

 

Chuck Pagano is an average coach in my opinion.    But 5 years into his HC career and he has not had one losing season which is a big stinking deal, even if people here don't want to acknowledge it.     He's not the worst coach in the NFL, as some have posted the past few days.     There are no facts to back that up.     And he's not in the bottom third of coaches.    He's somewhere in the middle third.    That's been my viewpoint for the last two years and this weekends spectacular dumpster fire of a loss doesn't change that.     One game does not a season make....

 

 

 

Saying 8-8 isn't a losing season is really about semantics. By basic math it's a 50% win percentage, meaning they broke even. So it's not a losing season, and it's also not a winning season. In the grand scheme of things, it's as good as a losing season though. Coaches and GMs get fired over 8-8 seasons and very rarely do 8-8 or worse teams make the playoffs. Actually the last time a losing team made the playoffs it was the 7-8-1 Panthers a few years ago. Before that I believe it was the 7 win Rams in 2010.

 

My point is that going 8-8 isn't something to wear like a badge of honor. The difference between 7-9 and 8-8 is 1 game. Are you going to tell me that the Colts couldnt have just as easily been 9-7, with how many close games they had? Especially when those 8 wins probably feature a at least 2 blowout  losses. I get it, no losing seasons, but why applaud it? You're essentially celebrating two years where they won just enough games to break even. Maybe they should hang that banner up too. 

 

And Im not dismissive of 11-5. I'm dismissive of how much credit Pagano (and technically Grigson but we're talking about Pagano right now) should get for those wins. That's based on a multitude of factors. Winning records only make a coach infallible when those records lead to Lombardis, or when the winning last for an extended amount of time. In Pagano's case it should also be noted that including the playoffs, there have also been 13 games where the Colts have allowed the opposing team to drop 40 or more points on them since 2012, which is worst In the NFL in that time frame. So that now 49-32 regular season record includes no Lombardis and a handful of blowout losses. You can see why people aren't so quick to applaud those 11-5 seasons. Winning masks a lot of flaws for certain team.

[Roger]

On 9/12/2017 at 3:16 PM, azcolt said:

For those of you old enough to remember, just be glad the owner is no longer Robert Irsay, although the team is on a par with some of Bob's worst. And that's not good.

Is that because Jim Irsay is wiser, or is it because the Colts were Lucky?

[NewColtsFan]

7 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

Saying 8-8 isn't a losing season is really about semantics. By basic math it's a 50% win percentage, meaning they broke even. So it's not a losing season, and it's also not a winning season. In the grand scheme of things, it's as good as a losing season though. Coaches and GMs get fired over 8-8 seasons and very rarely do 8-8 or worse teams make the playoffs. Actually the last time a losing team made the playoffs it was the 7-8-1 Panthers a few years ago. Before that I believe it was the 7 win Rams in 2010.

 

My point is that going 8-8 isn't something to wear like a badge of honor. The difference between 7-9 and 8-8 is 1 game. Are you going to tell me that the Colts couldnt have just as easily been 9-7, with how many close games they had? Especially when those 8 wins probably feature a at least 2 blowout  losses. I get it, no losing seasons, but why applaud it? You're essentially celebrating two years where they won just enough games to break even. Maybe they should hang that banner up too. 

 

And Im not dismissive of 11-5. I'm dismissive of how much credit Pagano (and technically Grigson but we're talking about Pagano right now) should get for those wins. That's based on a multitude of factors. Winning records only make a coach infallible when those records lead to Lombardis, or when the winning last for an extended amount of time. In Pagano's case it should also be noted that including the playoffs, there have also been 13 games where the Colts have allowed the opposing team to drop 40 or more points on them since 2012, which is worst In the NFL in that time frame. So that now 49-32 regular season record includes no Lombardis and a handful of blowout losses. You can see why people aren't so quick to applaud those 11-5 seasons. Winning masks a lot of flaws for certain team.

 

It's a good thing you only have two sides out of your mouth to talk out of.....   if you had 10,  yuo'd still talk out of all of them.

 

The difference between 8-8 and 7-9 is most definitely NOT semantics.     They are not equal.

 

And while plenty of coaches get fired over 8-8 records,  for some of them, it's because´8-8 was their best mark,  not their worst.     Ot they had an owner who likes changing coaches too frequently.       In another post I mentioned 8 high profile coaches who haven't won as much as the fans would like and some fan bases wouldn't mind if they were fired,  but the franchises stick with them because they know they're good coaches,  and given talent,  they will win again.     Guys like Harbaugh and McCarthy and Payton, and Reid, and Rivera and Tomlin,  just to name some of them.     So, who fires a coach after three 11-5 seasons and more success in the playoffs each year and then goes 8-8 with Luck out for 9 games.      There were tons of loud calls right here for Pagano's head.

 

Pagano's 15 and 16 coaching jobs were pretty darn good under pretty bad circumstances.    But fans here think a change of the HC and --- POOF!!  --- we're right back to being relevant like magic.      That's fan-boy wishful thinking.

 

I've written repeatedly the last rew days that I'm aware that Pagano will be fired after this season barring an unexpected miracle turnaround.     He might not last the full season.     I'm fine with it.    I think the team needs new leadership and a new voice.     I'm good with that.

 

All I've argued is that Pagano is not the worst coach in the NFL, which some have said,   not one of the worst,   or even in the bottom third.     He's somewhere in the middle.     And that's not good enough.     The Colts deserve a top coach and Pagano is not it.     He's in his 6th season as HC.     He's not likely to get better.     I'm curious who Ballard will hire.     And in all likelyhood,  I'll be fine with the pick.

 

[jskinnz]

20 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Not speaking of you directly....

 

BUT....

 

Sometimes people here act as if Chuck Pagano practically invented poor coaching decisions.

 

People barely notice Pete Carrol's legendary Super Bowl brain cramp a few years ago, as well as the one by the Falcons coach just a few months ago.  Two massive poop the bed moments that dwarf anything Pagano has done including the mixed up punt.

 

My point is that poor in-game decisions are far more common than many here want to believe.

 

 

 

19 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I think we agree. We know Pagano has a lot to prove, and game management was one of the areas we'd all be scrutinizing. That's mostly because, as you say, he's in Year 6 and has made these questionable (or outright bad) decisions in the past. This is not a new problem for him. By itself, this is one mistake, but it's evidence that he still doesn't make good game management decisions, so it's bigger than just one mistake. 

 

Here is what I see with Pagano and these in-game management decisions - he looks frantic all the time and rushes to make a decision.  He does not present a calm image on the sideline and these questionable decisions to me show that.    There are too many of them over the years that suggest he has not gotten better at it either.

[Defjamz26]

36 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

It's a good thing you only have two sides out of your mouth to talk out of.....   if you had 10,  yuo'd still talk out of all of them.

 

The difference between 8-8 and 7-9 is most definitely NOT semantics.     They are not equal.

 

And while plenty of coaches get fired over 8-8 records,  for some of them, it's because´8-8 was their best mark,  not their worst.     Ot they had an owner who likes changing coaches too frequently.       In another post I mentioned 8 high profile coaches who haven't won as much as the fans would like and some fan bases wouldn't mind if they were fired,  but the franchises stick with them because they know they're good coaches,  and given talent,  they will win again.     Guys like Harbaugh and McCarthy and Payton, and Reid, and Rivera and Tomlin,  just to name some of them.     So, who fires a coach after three 11-5 seasons and more success in the playoffs each year and then goes 8-8 with Luck out for 9 games.      There were tons of loud calls right here for Pagano's head.

 

Pagano's 15 and 16 coaching jobs were pretty darn good under pretty bad circumstances.    But fans here think a change of the HC and --- POOF!!  --- we're right back to being relevant like magic.      That's fan-boy wishful thinking.

 

I've written repeatedly the last rew days that I'm aware that Pagano will be fired after this season barring an unexpected miracle turnaround.     He might not last the full season.     I'm fine with it.    I think the team needs new leadership and a new voice.     I'm good with that.

 

All I've argued is that Pagano is not the worst coach in the NFL, which some have said,   not one of the worst,   or even in the bottom third.     He's somewhere in the middle.     And that's not good enough.     The Colts deserve a top coach and Pagano is not it.     He's in his 6th season as HC.     He's not likely to get better.     I'm curious who Ballard will hire.     And in all likelyhood,  I'll be fine with the pick.

 

I think some of you older guys have issues with semantics. It's like if we don't explicitly say X=X you guys are incapable of reading between the lines. You guys take everything black and white and don't use common sense to see that someone isn't talking from a factual standpoint. That's not just with me, but a few people on this board. Like if you don't put "in my opinion " before what is clearly just an opinion you get accused of stating things as if they're fact.

 

Yes 8-8 and 7-9 are not equal. However in football terms, there's not much difference. It's 1 game. There's a big difference between a 4-12 team and and 8-8 team though. That why using 8-8 as a defense of Pagano is pointless. He was 1 game away from having a losing season. It's not like he won a whole bunch of games that ensured we wouldn't be close to a losing season. We were right on that edge. 

 

I hear your point about people complaining but again, you're taking these far too literal. Saying Pagano is the worst coach in the NFL probably isn't people actually believing that, but expressing frustration. Do you expect a frustrated fan to say "OMG Fire Pagano!!!Hes a somewhere in the middle coach"? I think what it boils down to is that you have unrealistic expectations of how fans should talk about the team. I don't read nearly as much into stuff as you do. I know it's just words and hyperbole. 

[chrisfarley]

On 9/12/2017 at 9:15 PM, Superman said:

 

I obviously have no inside info. But I'd bet that Tolzien starts Sunday. 

in the locker room interview on the news today, it didn't look like he was in any big hurry to lose his starting job.  you might be right, pagano could listen to what he has to say, but like you would expect, he said the it's in his coaches hands.