Amazing how talent all of the sudden makes a good coach.

[NewColtsFan]

7 minutes ago, Coltfreak said:

Harbaugh OC at Stanford was David Shaw.   Shaw will probably never leave Stanford.  But he started as the Offensive pass game coordinator at San Diego for Harbaugh when he was there and when he went to Stanford he made him the OC.  I am sure if he had the choice he would have brought Shaw with him to the 9ers. But Shaw landed his dream job and promoted Pep to OC from WR coach.   Not guaranteeing that Harbaugh would bring back Pep but it wouldn't surprise me with the chemistry he already has with Luck....  

 

those who who want Harbaugh and hated Pep might want to think about this 

 

Background...   I didn't go to Stanford, but I'm a well connected admirer of the school.

 

At the end, Harbaugh and Shaw were not, and are not close.    Call it a polite falling out if you will.    Both would publicly deny it, but privately tell you it's true.

 

While Shaw had the title of OC, at the end he only had the title, but not the responsibility.     The acting OC was Greg Roman.    His title was running game coordinator, but he was the OC.

 

The offensive brain trust featured Harbaugh, Roman, Shaw, and Pep.  But the two primary guys were Harbaugh and Roman.

 

Roman went to the 49ers with the title of OC.   Word was he considered joining Harbaugh at Michigan but preferred the NFL world to college.

 

My guess is if Harbaugh came to Indy he'd want Roman with him as the OC.

 

Pep might be with him as an assistant, but I don't see him returning as the OC.   Too much politics around Pep and the Colts.

 

 

 

[Defjamz26]

14 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

The year Mathis sat out with his achilies injury,  Manusky schemed the Colts to 40 sacks.    

 

You can look it up.

 

Manusky had little talent to work with.      It's been proven here,  and it's being proved in Washington that if you give him a decent amount of talent,  he can do something with it.

 

It just doesn't fit your view of the world which has repeatedly been proven wrong.

 

You brought up one stat from one season and somehow thinks that dismisses my whole post. Cute.

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

You brought up one stat from one season and somehow thinks that dismisses my whole post. Cute.

 

Apparently you didn't think the fact that Manusky had very little real talent to coach was important.

 

That was the whole point of the thread.

 

We all know that Grigson's defensive draft picks and free agent signings didn't pan out.     A coach can only do so much without talent.

 

Thats why Manusky is doing a better job now.     He's got more talent to work with.

 

Coaches rarely get smarter or dumber.  They get better or worse because of the talent they have to work with.

 

If you want someone to blame...   it's Ryan Grigson.    I'm not saying Manusky is great, only that he's not as bad as you think he is.

 

 

[Defjamz26]

21 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Apparently you didn't think the fact that Manusky had very little real talent to coach was important.

 

That was the whole point of the thread.

 

We all know that Grigson's defensive draft picks and free agent signings didn't pan out.     A coach can only do so much without talent.

 

Thats why Manusky is doing a better job now.     He's got more talent to work with.

 

Coaches rarely get smarter or dumber.  They get better or worse because of the talent they have to work with.

 

If you want someone to blame...   it's Ryan Grigson.    I'm not saying Manusky is great, only that he's not as bad as you think he is.

 

 

Which is essentially what I said. Yes Grigson is to blame but Manusky isn't great, and he isn't terrible. That is literally exactly what I said in my OP. This is why I say your reading comprehension is poor. I specifically said "Manusky is terrible and Grigson gave him nothing to work with" in my first post. Let me bold it for you

 

On 9/26/2017 at 9:06 AM, Defjamz26 said:

Lot of revisionist history in here. I wouldn't say Manusky is great. He's not terrible either. Grigson gave him nothing to work with, but his schemes weren't that great. Didn't know when to and when not to dial up a blitz. Under him the Colts gave up a lot of big plays, which was the Achilles heel of our team, although we still have that problem today.

 

Look at your bolded statement and mine . Almost identical. The only argument is over the blitzes to which you provided one season where the Colts produced a bunch of sacks with inferior players. But the rest of my argument stands since it's exactly what you're saying. You tell me blame Grigson which is what I did. You can't be this bad at reading. This is like the 2nd time you've basically agreed with what I said but try and argue against me.

[Yoshinator]

21 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Apparently you didn't think the fact that Manusky had very little real talent to coach was important.

 

That was the whole point of the thread.

 

We all know that Grigson's defensive draft picks and free agent signings didn't pan out.     A coach can only do so much without talent.

 

Thats why Manusky is doing a better job now.     He's got more talent to work with.

 

Coaches rarely get smarter or dumber.  They get better or worse because of the talent they have to work with.

 

If you want someone to blame...   it's Ryan Grigson.    I'm not saying Manusky is great, only that he's not as bad as you think he is.

 

 

Bingo. Most people don't realize this and they are still arguing that Chuck could turn it around. He's an 11-5 coach with Luck and talent, and an 8-8 coach with Luck and nothing else. The fact also remains that he can't compete with the Pats, Steelers, or Raiders with Carr. So the million dollar questions are, what makes people think Pagano can magically turn it around now, and even if Ballard builds a great team around Luck, is that good enough for Pagano to coach us past the Pats and Steelers? I think there's only one scenario we get to the SB with Pagano, and that's if we get a great team around Luck, avoid the Pats or Brady retires, and we avoid the Steelers as well. Pagano has shown no capability to outcoach Belichick and Tomlin, and I'm sorry, but Chud doesn't help either.

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

Which is essentially what I said. Yes Grigson is to blame but Manusky isn't great, and he isn't terrible. That is literally exactly what I said in my OP. This is why I say your reading comprehension is poor. I specifically said "Manusky is terrible and Grigson gave him nothing to work with" in my first post. Let me bold it for you

 

 

Look at your bolded statement and mine . Almost identical. The only argument is over the blitzes to which you provided one season where the Colts produced a bunch of sacks with inferior players. But the rest of my argument stands since it's exactly what you're saying. You tell me blame Grigson which is what I did. You can't be this bad at reading. This is like the 2nd time you've basically agreed with what I said but try and argue against me.

 

It's not the second time I've agreed with you only to dump on you.   There's the matter of the rest of the post.   If you want to cherry-pick a few sentences out of an entire post, go ahead.    But the rest of your post got too specific for your own good.    The part where I noted where Manusky created pass rush with nothing.

 

To that your response was "one season".   That brings us full circle.   Do you think coaches get smart or stupid from season to season.    If Manusky didn't dial up enough pressure for the Colts, it's not because he didn't know how or didn't realize it was important.    It was because he didn't have the horses to make it happen.

 

You're defending your position because it doesn't look good now that Manusky is doing a better job in DC.     

 

Thats why you went too far with the line about what Manusky didn't do in Indy.

 

It's over-analysis and it's wrong.    You went too far trying to make a point.   And this is what happened in the previous post.    Just because we agree on some of a post doesn't mean we agree on ALL the post.    My reading comprehension is better than you think.

 

 

 

[Blackclouds]

On 9/25/2017 at 1:09 PM, TKnight24 said:

 

 

Manusky was never the issue, it was always Grigson. I don't think Pep was that bad either, all got fired to save face for the 2 people who actually were the REAL problem. Grigson & Pagano 

 

And you can add Jim Irsay to the problem list too, he's just as guilty 

 

 

Some of us have been saying this since Irsay started making decisions again. I wish I could find my posts about Grigson being a good ole boy hire, when the stakes are this high we shouldn't letting folks learn on the job with no prior experience. Pagano should've been sacked years ago though I wasn't as against him being here as I was Grigson. Grigson moved to the Browns front office, so he got a resume, we got nothing. Browns also looks like a bottom 5 team in the NFL right now.

[NewColtsFan]

13 minutes ago, Blackclouds said:

 

Some of us have been saying this since Irsay started making decisions again. I wish I could find my posts about Grigson being a good ole boy hire, when the stakes are this high we shouldn't letting folks learn on the job with no prior experience. Pagano should've been sacked years ago though I wasn't as against him being here as I was Grigson. Grigson moved to the Browns front office, so he got a resume, we got nothing. Browns also looks like a bottom 5 team in the NFL right now.

 

I've only been a Colts fan since May of 2012.

 

But when has Jim Irsay ever stopped making decisions?        When was this?       What made him stop? 

 

Did this happen before 2012?

 

Just asking......