Lack of depth: It might take Ballard several years to right the ship

[NannyMcafee]

18 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I too am excited about the new coaching staff and am looking forward to seeing how it turns out.

With that said there is not a thread about the new staff where Pagano is not brought up and is bashed in one way or another.

Pagano was the perfect scapegoat but not too many seem to realize that.

I read where the new staff needs a couple of years for anyone to expect a winning team. Don't you find it ironic that most feel that way but Pagano was expected to win with a roster that wasn't even as good as it is now?

 

 

I don’t really find it ironic at all. Almost everyone agreed this roster was majorly lacking. It wasn’t the players that made people not want Pagano. And it honestly wasn’t the win/loss record either. It was the incompetence. To keep doing the same thing over again regardless of its lack of success.

pagano wasn’t expected to win every game, he was expected to be competitive and he simply wasn’t. Against some of the worst teams. 

 

 

Its not ironic to me at all that people wanted pags gone after he continued that thought process. No one expects first year coaching staffs to win like that. But it absolutely falls on pagano after 6 years when you can’t even field a competitive team. 6 years man. 

 

I dont understand where you’re coming from. To me it’s arguing for arguings sake considering the entire front office we are talking about is now gone... 

[crazycolt1]

6 minutes ago, NannyMcafee said:

 

I don’t really find it ironic at all. Almost everyone agreed this roster was majorly lacking. It wasn’t the players that made people not want Pagano. And it honestly wasn’t the win/loss record either. It was the incompetence. To keep doing the same thing over again regardless of its lack of success.

pagano wasn’t expected to win every game, he was expected to be competitive and he simply wasn’t. Against some of the worst teams. 

 

 

Its not ironic to me at all that people wanted pags gone after he continued that thought process. No one expects first year coaching staffs to win like that. But it absolutely falls on pagano after 6 years when you can’t even field a competitive team. 6 years man. 

 

I dont understand where you’re coming from. To me it’s arguing for arguings sake considering the entire front office we are talking about is now gone... 

But yet Pagano didn't have a losing record in his time here.

I said I agreed it was time for a new coaching staff and had no problem with the changes that were made. I even jumped for joy when McDaniels backed out and Frank was hired.

I am not arguing for the sake because IMO Pagano was set up to be the fall guy the minute last season started. If he was going to fired it should have been the season before right along with Grigson. There is where I had a problem.

It was an impossible job to field a winning team last season but yet it was Pagano who took the blunt for Grigson's mistakes. Most overlook that he didn't have the players to make adjustments and the talent level of this team was void as a competitive team.

Pagano may have done his best coaching job when he went 8-8 with 5 different QBs. Through it all he never lost his locker room. 

 

[ColtStrong2013]

2 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

But yet Pagano didn't have a losing record in his time here.

I said I agreed it was time for a new coaching staff and had no problem with the changes that were made. I even jumped for joy when McDaniels backed out and Frank was hired.

I am not arguing for the sake because IMO Pagano was set up to be the fall guy the minute last season started. If he was going to fired it should have been the season before right along with Grigson. There is where I had a problem.

It was an impossible job to field a winning team last season but yet it was Pagano who took the blunt for Grigson's mistakes. Most overlook that he didn't have the players to make adjustments and the talent level of this team was void as a competitive team.

Pagano may have done his best coaching job when he went 8-8 with 5 different QBs. Through it all he never lost his locker room. 

 

We always revert back to this discussion, but it wasn't Ballard's decision to keep Pagano and make him the fall guy. It was Irsay's ignorance and possibly his compassion for Chuck, against Ballard's competency and his need for autonomy in running this organization. It was a bad decision and possibly one that set this franchise a year back in Ballard's rebuild efforts. I am thankful it worked out the way it did, because quite frankly, I think Frank Reich has the potential of being a grand slam that fell into our lap... but Pagano was not set up to be a fall guy. He was given one year in which they all hoped Andrew would be back and he could work with a real GM for once... 

[shasta519]

18 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

We always revert back to this discussion, but it wasn't Ballard's decision to keep Pagano and make him the fall guy. It was Irsay's ignorance and possibly his compassion for Chuck, against Ballard's competency and his need for autonomy in running this organization. It was a bad decision and possibly one that set this franchise a year back in Ballard's rebuild efforts. I am thankful it worked out the way it did, because quite frankly, I think Frank Reich has the potential of being a grand slam that fell into our lap... but Pagano was not set up to be a fall guy. He was given one year in which they all hoped Andrew would be back and he could work with a real GM for once... 

Yep...Irsay was somewhat responsible for last season. I find it hard to believe that Ballard would willingly choose to keep Pagano for another season as part of his plan.

 

For some reason (possibly out of compassion like you said), Irsay decided to delay everything by one season by keeping Pagano....even though that contradicted his mantra of patience, reshaping the roster and getting younger from the moment he hired Ballard.

 

I think the play was to clean the slate, sign Shanahan and start the rebuild...but obviously that didn't happen (and I am excited to see what Reich can do).

 

 

[ztboiler]

12 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

We always revert back to this discussion, but it wasn't Ballard's decision to keep Pagano and make him the fall guy. It was Irsay's ignorance and possibly his compassion for Chuck, against Ballard's competency and his need for autonomy in running this organization. It was a bad decision and possibly one that set this franchise a year back in Ballard's rebuild efforts. I am thankful it worked out the way it did, because quite frankly, I think Frank Reich has the potential of being a grand slam that fell into our lap... but Pagano was not set up to be a fall guy. He was given one year in which they all hoped Andrew would be back and he could work with a real GM for once... 

 

3 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

But yet Pagano didn't have a losing record in his time here.

I said I agreed it was time for a new coaching staff and had no problem with the changes that were made. I even jumped for joy when McDaniels backed out and Frank was hired.

I am not arguing for the sake because IMO Pagano was set up to be the fall guy the minute last season started. If he was going to fired it should have been the season before right along with Grigson. There is where I had a problem.

It was an impossible job to field a winning team last season but yet it was Pagano who took the blunt for Grigson's mistakes. Most overlook that he didn't have the players to make adjustments and the talent level of this team was void as a competitive team.

Pagano may have done his best coaching job when he went 8-8 with 5 different QBs. Through it all he never lost his locker room. 

 

I’ll quote you both because there is too much revisionist history here.

 

Pagano was neither scapegoat nor detrimental to rebuilding.  He was the only option at the time.  Grigson was let go a few weeks into the offseason.  By the time Ballard got here there was no realistic way to evaluate the state of the union, Fire Pagano, and then go find your coach of the future.  

 

Furthermore, Luck was expected back healthy and there was no reason to think we would be the team we turned out to be, particularly when Pagano had never had a losing season.

 

Pagano was retained purely because it represented the best path forward regardless of the expectation for retaining him the year after.

[crazycolt1]

37 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

We always revert back to this discussion, but it wasn't Ballard's decision to keep Pagano and make him the fall guy. It was Irsay's ignorance and possibly his compassion for Chuck, against Ballard's competency and his need for autonomy in running this organization. It was a bad decision and possibly one that set this franchise a year back in Ballard's rebuild efforts. I am thankful it worked out the way it did, because quite frankly, I think Frank Reich has the potential of being a grand slam that fell into our lap... but Pagano was not set up to be a fall guy. He was given one year in which they all hoped Andrew would be back and he could work with a real GM for once... 

There is only one problem with that scenario. If Irsay was going to give Pagano one more year to have a healthy Luck and a new GM it didn't work that way. IMO if that is what Irsay had on his mind he would have waited till Pagano had a healthy Luck and a new GM.  I have said that the firing of Grigson should have included Pagano.  We only have rumors of Irsay keeping Pagano and it was out of Ballard's hands. Ballard was on record he was looking forward to working with Pagano. Was it him being just speaking GM talk or was it really true?  As far as I can remember that has never been talked about by Irsay or Ballard.

I know this is not a subject that too many want to look at but I have said all along that Pagano was set up to be the fall guy by Irsay.  There was no way he as an owner and as an ex GM he had to think this roster could win games.  I also know he is the teams greatest fan and has an alarming way of  being too positive in believing the wins will come when it is obvious to most of us it ain't happening.

[NewColtsFan]

Here's what we don't know about Ballrad's 3-year plan.....

 

Does it end after the Free Agency period and draft of 2019 and so we should start seeing good results for the 2019 season?

 

Or......

 

Does it end after the actual 2019 season,  and we won't start seeing results until the 2020 season.

 

I hope some member of the media asks Ballard that very question.     When does the 3-year plan ende and when should the fan base reasonably expect to see the results Ballard wants on the field?

 

[ColtStrong2013]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

There is only one problem with that scenario. If Irsay was going to give Pagano one more year to have a healthy Luck and a new GM it didn't work that way. IMO if that is what Irsay had on his mind he would have waited till Pagano had a healthy Luck and a new GM.  I have said that the firing of Grigson should have included Pagano.  We only have rumors of Irsay keeping Pagano and it was out of Ballard's hands. Ballard was on record he was looking forward to working with Pagano. Was it him being just speaking GM talk or was it really true?  As far as I can remember that has never been talked about by Irsay or Ballard.

I know this is not a subject that too many want to look at but I have said all along that Pagano was set up to be the fall guy by Irsay.  There was no way he as an owner and as an ex GM he had to think this roster could win games.  I also know he is the teams greatest fan and has an alarming way of  being too positive in believing the wins will come when it is obvious to most of us it ain't happening.

Just because it didn't work out that way, doesn't mean he didn't intend for it to. If anything, Ballard kept Pagano out of respect to his accomplishments and to truly "evaluate" him as a coach and their working relationship to see if it would work, like he told all of us and the media, when he was hired. I just don't buy it. No GM wants to be stuck with a coach. They want to hire their own, and it was never going to be Pagano that he picked. 

[MacDee1975]

Ballard didn't exactly knock it out of the park with his first draft, so that is definitely contributing to the depth issues:

 

1)  Hooker - Cannot stay healthy.  Better hope he pans out or this first draft is a bust.

2) Wilson - Apparently cannot even earn a starting position on one of the worst cb units in the NFL

3) Basham - Very raw and one dimensional

4) Banner - Cut before training camp even ended

 

I would think Ryan Grigson was responsible for these picks if I didn't know any better.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Just because it didn't work out that way, doesn't mean he didn't intend for it to. If anything, Ballard kept Pagano out of respect to his accomplishments and to truly "evaluate" him as a coach and their working relationship to see if it would work, like he told all of us and the media, when he was hired. I just don't buy it. No GM wants to be stuck with a coach. They want to hire their own, and it was never going to be Pagano that he picked. 

I can believe that scenario and it does fit my scenario in thinking Pagano didn't have a chance one way or another.  Fall guy or lame duck pretty much means the same thing.

It would be impossible to "evaluate" any head coach when they are coaching a team that was in the shape this team was in last season. 

Oh well, thanks for having a debate with me without throwing out the insults that I have been used to getting by even bringing Chuck's name up.

[SteelCityColt]

1 hour ago, MacDee1975 said:

Ballard didn't exactly knock it out of the park with his first draft, so that is definitely contributing to the depth issues:

 

1)  Hooker - Cannot stay healthy.  Better hope he pans out or this first draft is a bust.

2) Wilson - Apparently cannot even earn a starting position on one of the worst cb units in the NFL

3) Basham - Very raw and one dimensional

4) Banner - Cut before training camp even ended

 

I would think Ryan Grigson was responsible for these picks if I didn't know any better.

 

I think it’s unfair to say Hooker can’t stay healthy when it’s been the one injury. You shouldn’t class a career ending injury as a bust either, it’s an unfair reflection on the scouting and player. 

 

It was hard not to justify taking Hooker when he fell that far given the pre-draft analysis and the limited sample of play we’ve seen.

[ColtStrong2013]

41 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

I can believe that scenario and it does fit my scenario in thinking Pagano didn't have a chance one way or another.  Fall guy or lame duck pretty much means the same thing.

It would be impossible to "evaluate" any head coach when they are coaching a team that was in the shape this team was in last season. 

Oh well, thanks for having a debate with me without throwing out the insults that I have been used to getting by even bringing Chuck's name up.

With Ballard, he didnt have a chance. I agree on that. That was Ballard's professional and respectful way of saying he was giving him a chance... but I don't buy it that Ballard chose to keep him. He would have moved on in a heart beat if his hands weren't tied. And the minute his hands were freed, he moved on. 

 

I just don't think Irsay saw it that way. Or he did, and he just wanted Pagano to have one year without Grigson on his hip so he could justify the move more to the fanbase...although we didn't need it. 

[crazycolt1]

36 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

With Ballard, he didnt have a chance. I agree on that. That was Ballard's professional and respectful way of saying he was giving him a chance... but I don't buy it that Ballard chose to keep him. He would have moved on in a heart beat if his hands weren't tied. And the minute his hands were freed, he moved on. 

 

I just don't think Irsay saw it that way. Or he did, and he just wanted Pagano to have one year without Grigson on his hip so he could justify the move more to the fanbase...although we didn't need it. 

I m not too sure about Irsay trying to justify anything to the fanbase. The larger part of the fanbase wanted Pagano fired at the same time Grigson was fired.  What Irsay did say he just didn't wan't to fire a head coach who had the record Pagano had at that time.  There will be some time down the road that Irsay will say something about it.