Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Conversations are moderated for civility. We ask that you please stay on topic. For more info, see our Community Guidelines ×
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Earn The Position

John Hammonds

By John Hammonds
in Colts Football

Recommended Posts

John Hammonds Ring of Honor

John Hammonds

Posted
Posted

Was thinking about how poorly Danny Pinter is playing, and why on earth is he starting.  And suddenly came upon something that I hadn't fully considered:  Ballard and Reich aren't following one of the cardinal rules of football -- Never just give a starting job to a player.  Every player must earn it.

 

Ok, maybe it's not a cardinal rule all around.  But it's something that I think should be a coaching rule.  If you want the starting job, you have to beat the guy ahead of you to earn it.  Otherwise, the player doesn't fully respect or understand the amount of hard work or level of play required to enjoy the fruits of being in the starting lineup.  If you just give it to them, they don't get it.

 

And we haven't been doing it.

 

Examples:

  • Moe Allie-Cox was a great find.  A basketball player learning to play football.  And we had Jack Doyle.  A good starter, and somebody to learn behind.  But Jack's play was slipping.  He was getting hurt more often.  It was time for him to retire.  Did MAC ever, during the course of a season, challenge Doyle for the starting job?  No.  He never did.  He never could.  Even in Doyle's final year with depleted playing abilities.  Doyle retired.  And we gave the starting job to MAC.  He never earned it.
  • Kwity Paye is a talented young player from Michigan with an incredible story.  He started as a rookie.  From the very beginning.  Who was the guy in front of him that he was supposed to beat?  Justin Houston.  Whose salary requirements were no longer commensurate with his declining skill set.  We chose not to re-sign him.  And Paye wound up without the appreciation that comes from earning a starting job.
  • Alec Pierce is a rookie receiver out of Cincinnati.  He's got talent.  Definitely more talent than most of the other receivers on our team.  Not the experience, though.  And he was named the starter, first game.  Who was the guy ahead of him?  TY Hilton, of course.  Who, just like Houston, had skills that had deteriorated so far that it no longer made sense to pay him accordingly.  We never re-signed Hilton.  And Pierce never earned the starting job.  He was given it.
  • Danny Pinter.  A 2020 5th round pick local boy from nearby Ball State.  A project with potential.  Two years later, we decide that Mark Glowinski is no longer worth the money we would have to give him in order to re-sign him.  Quick discussion around the table.  And we somehow decide that Pinter "is ready" to start.  Did he earn the starting job from Glow?  No.  And he plays like it.

 

More and more, our starting lineup is getting populated by players who never had to earn their position by taking from the guy in front of them.

And I think it shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LiveAndLetAddai Walk On

LiveAndLetAddai

Posted
Posted

  I agree with the premise and that was why I had hope that during the pre-season, when the Colts had Pinter and Kelly switching positions, that it would stick.  I stated it in a post, as my thinking back then was that Pinter wasn't strong enough to play Right Guard, but more than quick and athletic enough to stick at Center.  Conversely, I felt Kelly was more than strong enough to play Right Guard, and slipping a bit in quickness, most likey due to age and injuries.  It was looking like I was correct in my assessment of Pinter, at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
richard pallo Ring of Honor

richard pallo

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, John Hammonds said:

Was thinking about how poorly Danny Pinter is playing, and why on earth is he starting.  And suddenly came upon something that I hadn't fully considered:  Ballard and Reich aren't following one of the cardinal rules of football -- Never just give a starting job to a player.  Every player must earn it.

 

Ok, maybe it's not a cardinal rule all around.  But it's something that I think should be a coaching rule.  If you want the starting job, you have to beat the guy ahead of you to earn it.  Otherwise, the player doesn't fully respect or understand the amount of hard work or level of play required to enjoy the fruits of being in the starting lineup.  If you just give it to them, they don't get it.

 

And we haven't been doing it.

 

Examples:

  • Moe Allie-Cox was a great find.  A basketball player learning to play football.  And we had Jack Doyle.  A good starter, and somebody to learn behind.  But Jack's play was slipping.  He was getting hurt more often.  It was time for him to retire.  Did MAC ever, during the course of a season, challenge Doyle for the starting job?  No.  He never did.  He never could.  Even in Doyle's final year with depleted playing abilities.  Doyle retired.  And we gave the starting job to MAC.  He never earned it.
  • Kwity Paye is a talented young player from Michigan with an incredible story.  He started as a rookie.  From the very beginning.  Who was the guy in front of him that he was supposed to beat?  Justin Houston.  Whose salary requirements were no longer commensurate with his declining skill set.  We chose not to re-sign him.  And Paye wound up without the appreciation that comes from earning a starting job.
  • Alec Pierce is a rookie receiver out of Cincinnati.  He's got talent.  Definitely more talent than most of the other receivers on our team.  Not the experience, though.  And he was named the starter, first game.  Who was the guy ahead of him?  TY Hilton, of course.  Who, just like Houston, had skills that had deteriorated so far that it no longer made sense to pay him accordingly.  We never re-signed Hilton.  And Pierce never earned the starting job.  He was given it.
  • Danny Pinter.  A 2020 5th round pick local boy from nearby Ball State.  A project with potential.  Two years later, we decide that Mark Glowinski is no longer worth the money we would have to give him in order to re-sign him.  Quick discussion around the table.  And we somehow decide that Pinter "is ready" to start.  Did he earn the starting job from Glow?  No.  And he plays like it.

 

More and more, our starting lineup is getting populated by players who never had to earn their position by taking from the guy in front of them.

And I think it shows.

They probably decided Pinter earned the starting position based on how he played last year though admittedly not at RG.  The same reasoning could be said for Pryor moving to LT.  They both worked hard showed well when they played so they were comfortable going that route.  Better for cap purposes as well.  No one really complained about the Pinter move until they started playing games.  Now it’s concerning.  So far they are showing patience.  We will find out soon enough how long it lasts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CanuckColt Practice Squad

CanuckColt

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, LiveAndLetAddai said:

  I agree with the premise and that was why I had hope that during the pre-season, when the Colts had Pinter and Kelly switching positions, that it would stick.  I stated it in a post, as my thinking back then was that Pinter wasn't strong enough to play Right Guard, but more than quick and athletic enough to stick at Center.  Conversely, I felt Kelly was more than strong enough to play Right Guard, and slipping a bit in quickness, most likey due to age and injuries.  It was looking like I was correct in my assessment of Pinter, at least.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AKB Ring of Honor

AKB

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, CanuckColt said:

Yep...Kelly is going downhill fast and Pinter is just not strong enough or talented enough.

Braden Smith seems to have gone downhill a lot since he got paid as well.

We are going to have to bite the bullet and draft o-line early next year.

 

ill bet you my left nut that doesnt happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • richard pallo
      Moore and Paye ruled out against Steelers

      By richard pallo · Posted

      I predict all of the players listed as questionable will play.  The Steelers offense is meh.
    • John Waylon
      If Eberflus was fired by Chicago would you want him back

      By John Waylon · Posted

      The problem with hiring a defensive guy and tasking him with building that offensive support system is that most of them just don’t have it, and they’re not really capable of building it. There aren’t enough Tom Moore types out there to help institute that long-term knowledgeable stability.    We got lucky with Pagano and Luck having Arians in the building, and largely being the head coach for the majority of Luck’s rookie season. But watching Pagano flail to fill an offensive staff post-Arians was painful, and most of the defensive head coaches struggle in the exact same way. It’s out of their specialty and out of their comfort zone and it just makes it harder than it needs to be on everyone involved.    The most advantageous way to hire a defensive HC is with an already established QB and system that he can just come in and not have to build from the ground up. 
    • Superman
      Samuel Womack getting the start in week 4?

      By Superman · Posted

      You should double check. I just did. Womack started both games, with Jaylon Johnson on the other side, and Kenny Moore at nickel.    Against the Packers, Womack got 20 snaps, Flowers got 19. Against the Bears, Womack got 28 snaps, Flowers got 41 (and he left before the game ended, so maybe he would have gotten more). Maybe Flowers was on his way to taking Womack's spot in the lineup, but Womack was on the field as a starter in both games.
    • Superman
      Is Shane Calling Plays to Win Games or to Groom AR?

      By Superman · Posted

      Game on the line, inconsistent passer at QB, and the OL is the strength of the team. Everyone in the world knew that the first priority was to stop JT. And they couldn't.    I don't know what's with this myth that there's something deficient about JT as a RB. It's nonsense.
    • Superman
      Is Shane Calling Plays to Win Games or to Groom AR?

      By Superman · Posted

      I think he's probably only using 25% of his playbook so far, for various reasons. Some of that is intentional, as they work in some concepts with a young QB and a young-ish supporting cast.   Another part of it is that the Colts game script has been heavily skewed, especially in the first two games, so the gameplan had to be reduced as the game went along. The offense couldn't stay on the field, and the defense couldn't get off of it. It was better against the Bears, but their offense still ran 30 more plays than ours. Total, our offense has run 87 fewer plays than our opponents. Teams usually script their first 15 offensive plays, and I wonder if the Colts have gotten through that opening script in any of the first three games. So I think there are some things that they'd like to have run, but so far they have not been able to get to them.   I don't think it's a binary 'do we call winning plays, or do we call plays to develop the QB' consideration. I don't necessarily agree that those priorities have to compete with one another, but it does require a balance to do them both justice. I don't think it does this team any good, short term or long term, to restrict Richardson to 15 passing attempts/game, or to use him as an option QB like this is the Navy team, even if they felt like that could be a way to win some games. I also don't think they should coach him as if every game is "winner take all," and have him lay his body on the line or try to drop back 50 times a game.    And we have to blame Richardson and the WRs to a certain extent. There have been a lot of missed throws, drops, and turnovers. Those plays have stalled or ended several possessions, and that's not on the play calling.

  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...