The backup QB readiness should never be about the primary QB, it is all about the coaching

[Qwiz]

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

As it stands, it's irrelevant.

Your idea that the players didn't play hard is completely inaccurate. Your idea that they didn't play with heart is equally inaccurate, and offensive, precisely because it's inaccurate.

And the fact that more wins would have kept Caldwell his job is completely irrelevant, but probably the most accurate thing you've said. That's the way the NFL works: when you go 2-14, your job is in danger. Is there something wrong with holding a coach accountable for the kind of season Caldwell stewarded last year? Do you have an actual defense of his coaching abilities, aside from a hypothetical in which Manning is healthy?

It's laughable that you mention us losing to the Browns, when your team lost to us. Wait, you're going to point out how many players you were missing, aren't you? I see your hurt players, and raise you one Peyton Manning. I think the point should be clear.

As to Painter vs. Orlovsky, that's really not at issue here. Orlovsky was nothing special himself. As far as quarterbacks go, he would be bottom five in the league last year, just like Painter. That's based on his play. The adjustments the coaching staff should have made have very little to do with personnel changes, and very much to do with the gameplans and adjustments to those gameplans that should have been instituted throughout the season.

Going back to the Bucs game, there was a stretch in that game where, in 11 offensive plays, Painter threw 9 times, with 7 incompletions, and we generated zero first downs. Unacceptable, not only from a quarterbacking standpoint (we've established that Painter isn't very good), but mostly from a coaching standpoint. When your backup quarterback is struggling, on the road, you don't go pass-heavy. Not only was Painter not good, the poor coaching made him look even worse, and cost us games.

You aren't familiar with this, not like I am. That's no surprise; this isn't your team. But please don't come picking apart Colts fans and their dissatisfaction with the dumpster fire of a season we just experienced, both from a coaching and a quarterbacking standpoint, insulting the hard work of the players, second-guessing our allegiances, and calling us hypocrites. It's offensive, and it's inaccurate.

Please, please, please, show me where I called you hypocrites or second-guessed your allegiance. Is blaming a coach when everything goes wrong, yet praising him when the players decide to play ball, hypocrisy? Yes, it is. I am not calling you the hypocrite, my confused friend, I am saying that the prospect is hypocritical. The Rams, Bills, and Jaguars sucked for how many years, and two of those coaches only just recently got fired? Yes, the coach must be held accountable, but he can't be blamed for giving up 5 sacks in one game. That goes on the players, adjustments or not. Yes, we lost to you. No, I am not going to mention injuries. We lost a game. It's that simple. Our fans and the media didn't blow up our head coach about losing to an inferior team though. And what exactly was the score when Painter threw 9 straight times? How much time was left in the game? You have to take that into effect. If you needed first downs, you needed first downs. If you do not establish a passing game then there will be no fear of the run. Think about it. Painter was not good, but neither was the defense, nor the special teams. It was a team effort, or a lack thereof. I am not picking apart the fans, I am picking apart a team that lacked the fire to win more than 2 games. I'll guarantee you that if Luck goes 0-16, Chuck Pagano is not going to be fired. If Luck turns the team around and wins 14 games then Pagano will be hailed as an impressive head coach, just as Caldwell would have been if he was still with the team when something like that happened.

[Warhorse]

Peyton Manning would have taken last year's team to the playoffs.

Endo story.

Care to clarify? Would that be the 1998 Manning? The 2005 0r 2006 Manning? How about the 2011 Manning?

I love PM. I defended him to the very end of his tenure as a Colt. But last year, the injuries to the O-line, the bad coaching, the injuries to the WR corps, the horrible ST play, and the tough schedule? I don' think we would have made the playoffs. So it is not an end of the story in my books. Yes I defended Painter. I agree that he is not going to be an NFL QB. But I also think that Brady would have been slamming his water bottle on the ground during every freaking game with this team last season if he had been at the helm. With our personnel challenges and coaching inadequacies....he would have failed to make the PO as well.

[Qwiz]

Why would you take turnovers out of the game? You scored two touchdowns off of turnovers.

And the sacks are worthy of consideration because Collins clearly wasn't comfortable with his reads and progressions. Not only that, he holds the ball in one hand by his waist, which leads me to believe that a different quarterback wouldn't have fumbled on those plays (yes, even Painter).

Also, since we're talking about coaching, how about the decision to have Dallas Clark go heads up against Mario Williams? Did he get beat because he has no heart, or did he get beat because he had no business on an island with one of the best pass rushers in the league?

Without those two touchdowns we still score 20. I'm sure the players still had heart when the season record was only 0-0. No need to be facetious. Yes, Dallas Clark had no reason to be blocking Mario, but the way we were tearing up that offensive line that day, someone had to block, whether he failed at it or not.

[Gavin]

Well now we're getting into different territory, and I'm not quite sure what the arguement is about.

1. Our team has had pretty solid receivers since I can remember. The media always liked to talk them up when talking about all the weapons Peyton had. Reggie Wayne as you mentioned, is no slouch. But don't so calously disregard Austin Collie and Pierre Garcon. Garcon received a pretty hefty contract this offseason, and it wasn't because he sucked. In 2010, before all the concussions, Austin Collie was a numbers machine. I believe he led the league in yards and touchdowns for a while. Painter's receivers were not scrubs.

2. The offensive line, believe it or not, was actually improved from the previous year. We had a significantly better running game, and that was without the threat of a legit QB to stretch the defense.

3. The coaching staff was inept in all facets of the game. Not sure what you're getting at with that one.

2.Last year the offensive line gave up 35 sacks, the year before that our O Line gave up 16 and both years the running game was non existant for most of the year, Donald brown had 4.8 yards per carry this year which is very good but that was because of a broken play 80 yard run, if you dont throw that 80 yard run in there then he would have a 4.2 average which believe it or not would not have been enough to crack the top 50, backups included of course

[Qwiz]

What he is saying is that some of those sacks wouldn't have occurred because Manning would have likely saw the 44 vs. 90 match up and checked to a run, or a different protection or got the ball out sooner.

You lose any credibility by saying the defense would play better vs. Manning as opposed to Collins. They might have tried harder because they would know they would need to be closer to perfect, but to say they would play better is absurd.

To automatically assume that Manning would have won that game is absurd as well.

[FireJimCaldwell]

Without those two touchdowns we still score 20. I'm sure the players still had heart when the season record was only 0-0. No need to be facetious. Yes, Dallas Clark had no reason to be blocking Mario, but the way we were tearing up that offensive line that day, someone had to block, whether he failed at it or not.

[Qwiz]

Again more speculation.

Houston drive 1. Schaub throws an INT.

Indy drive 1, who's to say Manning doesn't get points with a short 60 yard field?

There is no way to relate the way that game transpired to what it would have/could have been with 18 under center. If I were a betting man, and I am a betting man, I doubt he takes a sack, and then two additional fumbles that lead to 17 points in the span of time.

You might have needed those 20 points to try to get back into the game at that point. We will never know.

[FireJimCaldwell]

2.Last year the offensive line gave up 35 sacks, the year before that our O Line gave up 16 and both years the running game was non existant for most of the year, Donald brown had 4.8 yards per carry this year which is very good but that was because of a broken play 80 yard run, if you dont throw that 80 yard run in there then he would have a 4.2 average which believe it or not would not have been enough to crack the top 50, backups included of course

[FireJimCaldwell]

To automatically assume that Manning would have won that game is absurd as well.

[Qwiz]

Well, history says otherwise.

Not really. 34-24, Houston Texans at home, 2010 comes to mind.

[FireJimCaldwell]

Not really. 34-24, Houston Texans at home, 2010 comes to mind.

I call your 34-24, and raise you a 16-2. Good luck with that one.

[TKnight24]

Well, history says otherwise.

So judging by his Picture & Arguemnt, I take it QwizBoy is a Houston Texans Fan??

[Qwiz]

I call your 34-24, and raise you a 16-2. Good luck with that one.

To quote Bob Dylan, The Times, They Are, A-Changin'.

[Qwiz]

So judging by his Picture & Arguemnt, I take it QwizBoy is a Houston Texans Fan??

Peyton Manning is in my picture. If you judge it by my picture then I am a Broncos fan. Judge it by my argument I am a realist. Judge it by my signature, then yes, I am a Houston Texans fan.

[FireJimCaldwell]

To quote Bob Dylan, The Times, They Are, A-Changin'.

Like I said.

Good luck with that one.

[TKnight24]

Peyton Manning is in my picture. If you judge it by my picture then I am a Broncos fan. Judge it by my argument I am a realist. Judge it by my signature, then yes, I am a Houston Texans fan.

Picture could also be saying that you think Peyton's a Jack-You Know What. But ok then. Welcome to Colts Forum Texans Fan

[dgambill]

Are we having a fictitious arguement about who would have won last year if PM wouldn't have been injured and if the Texans would never had any injuries......wow..I love our Colts supporters but this should be a lesson in futility...there is no point.

I agree...Painter doesn't have "it"...yet I also believe he didn't do enough necessary to make himself into a good qb. "It" is very hard to find and replicate....being a professional and preparing oneself to make the most of the skill and ability one has is something totally different. If you believe Painter has maximized his potential than I will just simply disagree with you. I think he could do more to be a better polished back up. Now....again..the Colts organization FAILED immensely as well and for that they also paid a price. There was no reason we didn't do a better job bringing Painter along. Peyton didn't require that much attention that a qb coach or others couldn't help in mentoring Painter to make him successful. I fully believe our SUCCESS bred laziness in both Painter and the coaches. While most of the players worked very hard to become champions I very much think that the coaches and specifically Painter did not prepare themselves and the team in such a way that they had a contingency plan for Peyton and took for granted Peyton and what he brought them. I fully believe they could have done more to then play it safe. We all know Peyton will get you 10 wins and the playoffs. I just think those coaches could have done more to get more out of the rest of the team and themselves.

[Qwiz]

Like I said.

Good luck with that one.

To you as well. Good Luck with that offensive line. I look forward to our number one defense playing against the new kid the next 3-4 years.

[Qwiz]

Picture could also be saying that you think Peyton's a Jack-You Know What. But ok then. Welcome to Colts Forum Texans Fan

Thank you! The common misconception is that the creature is a donkey but it is not. If it was I would deserve all the criticism I get lol.

[rabidfan77]

A thousand props Chad.

I've been saying it all along, any good QB should take all the reps with the 1's. Peyton was not some rep Nazi like some people would have us believe. To be honest though, I have a hard time blaming Christenson for the fact that Curtis sucked the big one. I think he sucked because he's just not an NFL level QB.

Painter was a low round draft pick who played exactly how people who are picked that low play, and yes I know a lot of players are picked that low or undrafted and play "above expectations" but that's the key phrase. Those are the exceptions not the rule, guys drafted that low are typically "camp bodies" who have to fight hardest to make the roster. Painters play wasn't a surprise to anyone we all knew from previous pre-season games how bad Painter sucked, the surprise came from how the "team" collapsed when Peyton was out

[Gavin]

It was clear the 2011 OL was far better than 2010.

Manning being replaced by the lackluster trio is the main explanation of the increased sacks.

If you take Brown's best 2010 run of 49 yards out of the equation the 2010 team ypc drops to 3.6. So cherry picking a play here and there doesn't really work.

The sad fact is that the 2010 team had 11 more attempts than the 2011 team.

even with the running game being better, Im not sure even Mannings quick release would have made up the difference of 19 sacks, Linkenbach was awful in pass protection...much better in run blocking though, Castonzo struggled with both...probably do to the injury, I forget what it was. also Reitz wasn't that good in run blocking that I remember. I believe the injury was I forget, might have been ACL last year (Castonzos injury I mean), I think given Mannings quick release the sacks would have went down but not by alot. I still think we give up somewhere in the mid to late 20's in sacks

[FireJimCaldwell]

even with the running game being better, Im not sure even Mannings quick release would have made up the difference of 19 sacks, Linkenbach was awful in pass protection...much better in run blocking though, Castonzo struggled with both...probably do to the injury, I forget what it was. also Reitz wasn't that good in run blocking that I remember. I believe the injury was I forget, might have been ACL last year (Castonzos injury I mean), I think given Mannings quick release the sacks would have went down but not by alot. I still think we give up somewhere in the mid to late 20's in sacks

Comparing 97 to 98 no real major changes to the OL.

97 62 sacks

98 22 sacks

99 14 sacks

00 20 sacks

01 30 sacks

02 23 sacks

03 19 sacks

04 14 sacks

05 20 sacks

06 15 sacks

07 23 sacks

08 14 sacks

09 13 sacks

10 16 sacks

12 35 sacks

I would say the #'s will go back to the 20's this year with a QB that should be better than last year's trio.

I would say Denver's sack #'s will drop from 42 into the teens to low 20's this year as well and they have't made any major changes to their OL.

QB's can make an OL look far better than it is.

[rabidfan77]

I was just watching the NFL Top 100 players and at No.4 was Tom Brady. In one of the player testimonies on there, Matt Cassel was talking and these were his words:

"I remember being a backup to Tom and I would always be asking coach, can I get a rep here and there. Tom would never let me have it." The context was w.r.t how much a perfectionist Tom wanted to be.

There you go. That is just how the top tier QBs are wired. It was never up to the No.1 QB to make sure his backup had reps. As much a hold as Belichick had over the team, for Matt Cassel to say that on camera, this puts to rest the theory "Peyton should have taken care of the fact that Painter should have gotten reps."

It flat out does not work that way, folks. It was all up to the coaches to enforce something different, or come up with something different once they had to resort to plan B. Matt Cassel had no greater preparation in terms of reps when compared to Painter but what made them win many more games was they had a TEAM and they had GREAT COACHING.

It might be dusting up old opinions but I have always believed it is up to the coaches entirely to make sure their backup is prepared, the onus should never fall on the primary QB. The same applies for Drew Stanton now as well, IMO. Along the same lines, I wouldnt dog on Favre for not taking Rodgers under his wing either. Rodgers showed what he could do with time, and Matt Flynn showed what he could do with good coaching as well.

Great post but yea nothing new. If the starting qb isn't a "reps nazi" he probably doesn't have the drive or passion to truly excell at the NFL level. If you go back to Peyton's Top 100 intro from 2010 Ray Lewis said it best... " He didn't just wake up one day and he was the best it takes time...hours and hours of extra reps with his receivers." It was never Peyton's job to share his reps with anyone nor would he ever just ask Brock how many reps his getting with Denver's 1st team. It's exactly how Peyton is wired because when the game is on the line and Peyton needs a completion it won't matter how many reps the back-up got that week. The issue with the back up situation last year was how unprepared the coaching staff and FO was for a possible injury keeping Manning out. The Polian's were held responsible for the lack of depth at qb and the structure of the "team" not because Painter never got enough reps. And a member of the CS came out and said that they didn't change the system when Manning went down because they hoped he would walk on that field and save their jobs at some point last year. The lack of common sense having Painter run Manning's complex offense instead of changing it to fit his strengths and even when they saw Painter couldn't run the offense the refusal to make adjustments is why only Cylde managed to stay after the "house cleaning". IMO Cylde was the last guy I wanted to survive I was looking forwarded to him leaving hopefully Pags unloads that sorry excuse for a coach next year.

[Gavin]

1997 O Line

Left Tackle-Adam Meadows

Left Guard-Doug Widell

Center-Jay Leeuwenburg

Right Guard-Tarik Glenn

Right Tackle-Tony Madarich

1998 O Line

Left Tackle-Tarik Glenn

Left Guard-Steve Mckinney

Center-Jay Leeuwenburg

Right Guard-Tony Mandarich

Right Tackle-Adam Meadows

Certainly not a huge difference in personel but where they played is certainly different

According to Pro Football reference, I dont remember that far back when it comes to the O Line

[Superman]

Please, please, please, show me where I called you hypocrites or second-guessed your allegiance.

You alluded to it. You continue to do so.

Is blaming a coach when everything goes wrong, yet praising him when the players decide to play ball, hypocrisy? Yes, it is. I am not calling you the hypocrite, my confused friend, I am saying that the prospect is hypocritical.

What is this "when the players decide to play ball" nonsense about? The players took the field every week, played hard, and got beat. Why you continue to malign the players who played their butts off in a futile season for four months is beyond me.

It is most certainly NOT hypocritical to suggest that the coach can impact whether things go right or wrong. Things went wrong last season, and now the coach is under fire. That's the way it goes.

I'll also note that there was a sizable contingent of fans who disliked Caldwell from the very beginning, and actively during the 2010 season.

The Rams, Bills, and Jaguars sucked for how many years, and two of those coaches only just recently got fired?

How many coaches have the Bills been through recently? How about the Rams? They gave Spagnuolo three years. You act like teams give coaches endless rope. Kubiak was on the hot seat for three years because the Texans couldn't get over the hump. And his decision to hire Wade Phillips literally saved his job.

Yes, the coach must be held accountable, but he can't be blamed for giving up 5 sacks in one game. That goes on the players, adjustments or not.

When the scheme pits a receiving tight end against one of the best pass rushers in the NFL, you in fact DO blame the coaches. It's absolutely unreasonable for you to suggest that this type of ineptitude can't be held against the coaching staff.

And this type of ineptitude was on display all season long.

Yes, we lost to you. No, I am not going to mention injuries. We lost a game. It's that simple. Our fans and the media didn't blow up our head coach about losing to an inferior team though.

Do you think they would have if you had lost your first 13 games of the season? Or how about if you lost 62-7?

My point in bringing up that you lost to us is that the fact that we lost to the lowly Browns isn't an indication that our team wasn't playing hard. It's an indication that our team wasn't playing well, just like the Texans weren't playing well in Week 16 when they lost to the 1-win Colts.

And what exactly was the score when Painter threw 9 straight times? How much time was left in the game? You have to take that into effect. If you needed first downs, you needed first downs.

The score was tied at 17. And there was another stretch earlier in the game where we were up 10-0, but the playcalling suddenly went run-heavy and we couldn't move the chains.

Also, the fact that we came out and took a ten point lead, isn't that further evidence that your idea that the players weren't playing hard is baloney?

If you do not establish a passing game then there will be no fear of the run. Think about it. Painter was not good, but neither was the defense, nor the special teams. It was a team effort, or a lack thereof.

This is why I say you don't know what you're talking about. What we did schematically on the final two defensive possessions of the game is the reason why the defense wasn't good. And that falls entirely on the shoulders of the coaching staff.

I am not picking apart the fans, I am picking apart a team that lacked the fire to win more than 2 games.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about, and this is offensive to the players who played their butts off in a futile season. How do you explain a team lacking fire for 13 weeks, but then winning two completely meaningless games in December? The results of last season have nothing to do with the fire of the players. Say the roster wasn't good, say players made mistakes, say they didn't have good chemistry. But they played hard every single week. If not, no way do we win in Weeks 15 and 16. They would have checked out by then.

I'll guarantee you that if Luck goes 0-16, Chuck Pagano is not going to be fired.

Maybe you should rethink that. Cam Cameron got fired after one season in 2007, after going 1-15. And he took over a bad team. If we go 0-16, no one's job is safe. I don't think anyone should be fired simply because of the schedule, but when you watch the actual games, you can see whether coaching is an issue or not. It clearly was with the Colts last season.

If Luck turns the team around and wins 14 games then Pagano will be hailed as an impressive head coach, just as Caldwell would have been if he was still with the team when something like that happened.

Pagano doesn't have a complete dumpster fire of a season on his record at this point. He doesn't need a 14 win season for his job to be vindicated. But if we don't see some improvement in the coaching, both with schemes and game-day decision making, he'll lose fans as well.

[Qwiz]

You alluded to it. You continue to do so.

What is this "when the players decide to play ball" nonsense about? The players took the field every week, played hard, and got beat. Why you continue to malign the players who played their butts off in a futile season for four months is beyond me.

It is most certainly NOT hypocritical to suggest that the coach can impact whether things go right or wrong. Things went wrong last season, and now the coach is under fire. That's the way it goes.

I'll also note that there was a sizable contingent of fans who disliked Caldwell from the very beginning, and actively during the 2010 season.

How many coaches have the Bills been through recently? How about the Rams? They gave Spagnuolo three years. You act like teams give coaches endless rope. Kubiak was on the hot seat for three years because the Texans couldn't get over the hump. And his decision to hire Wade Phillips literally saved his job.

When the scheme pits a receiving tight end against one of the best pass rushers in the NFL, you in fact DO blame the coaches. It's absolutely unreasonable for you to suggest that this type of ineptitude can't be held against the coaching staff.

And this type of ineptitude was on display all season long.

Do you think they would have if you had lost your first 13 games of the season? Or how about if you lost 62-7?

My point in bringing up that you lost to us is that the fact that we lost to the lowly Browns isn't an indication that our team wasn't playing hard. It's an indication that our team wasn't playing well, just like the Texans weren't playing well in Week 16 when they lost to the 1-win Colts.

The score was tied at 17. And there was another stretch earlier in the game where we were up 10-0, but the playcalling suddenly went run-heavy and we couldn't move the chains.

Also, the fact that we came out and took a ten point lead, isn't that further evidence that your idea that the players weren't playing hard is baloney?

This is why I say you don't know what you're talking about. What we did schematically on the final two defensive possessions of the game is the reason why the defense wasn't good. And that falls entirely on the shoulders of the coaching staff.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about, and this is offensive to the players who played their butts off in a futile season. How do you explain a team lacking fire for 13 weeks, but then winning two completely meaningless games in December? The results of last season have nothing to do with the fire of the players. Say the roster wasn't good, say players made mistakes, say they didn't have good chemistry. But they played hard every single week. If not, no way do we win in Weeks 15 and 16. They would have checked out by then.

Maybe you should rethink that. Cam Cameron got fired after one season in 2007, after going 1-15. And he took over a bad team. If we go 0-16, no one's job is safe. I don't think anyone should be fired simply because of the schedule, but when you watch the actual games, you can see whether coaching is an issue or not. It clearly was with the Colts last season.

Pagano doesn't have a complete dumpster fire of a season on his record at this point. He doesn't need a 14 win season for his job to be vindicated. But if we don't see some improvement in the coaching, both with schemes and game-day decision making, he'll lose fans as well.

So the fans wanted the head coach's head after 14-2, 10-6, and 2-14 seasons respectively. I don't think 26-22 is a record that should warrant someone getting fired. Kubiak, meanwhile, went 6-10, 8-8, 8-8, 9-7, 6-10, and 10-6. Of his six seasons, he's only had two winning ones. Chan Gailey has gone 4-12 and 6-10, the latter after a big start to the season. Strangely enough, these two coaches still have their jobs, though it is mainly because they improved this season. Caldwell couldn't have just a single bad year? Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but if you have a ten point lead in an NFL game, isn't it very common to run the ball? Passing only results in incompletions, as many are quick to point out, and the changing of possessions. Call me crazy, but I think running the ball is the right thing to do when you have a lead. As far as maintaining the lead, that falls directly on the defense. Especially when you are facing interception-prone Josh Freeman and the Buccaneers. A lead means nothing if you cannot keep it. Pagano will not be fired because of two things: Promise and Future. He is known for what he did in Baltimore, and I don't think Irsay would want to change one of the three-headed new starts in Indianapolis: Quarterback, Coach, and GM. Pagano has the promise of a bright future on his side, which, strangely enough, Caldwell would have had as well when Luck was inevitably drafted. And for some reason, I think a lot of Pagano doubters will sprout up if the Colts don't win at least four this year. And that is sad. The thing is that so many of the fans are so used to winning that they demand it, and, as Caldwell learned the hard way, losing games means that heads will roll. Pagano's going to have to keep his eyes open.

[Superman]

So the fans wanted the head coach's head after 14-2, 10-6, and 2-14 seasons respectively. I don't think 26-22 is a record that should warrant someone getting fired.

Some of them did. Still others never wanted him in the first place.

I defended Caldwell, reserving criticism for times that I thought he deserved it (Super Bowl, several times throughout 2010, most of 2011). But it became clear last season that he wasn't a good head coach. Very nice man, and the players respected him plenty, and I wish him the best, but he's not a good head coach.

Conversely, I've been critical of Norv Turner since Day One in San Diego, and despite his decent record as coach there, he isn't a good head coach. On the other hand, I think that Ron Rivera is doing good work in Carolina, despite a poor record so far. It's still early. But the point is that I don't think win-loss records tell a complete story.

Kubiak, meanwhile, went 6-10, 8-8, 8-8, 9-7, 6-10, and 10-6. Of his six seasons, he's only had two winning ones. Chan Gailey has gone 4-12 and 6-10, the latter after a big start to the season. Strangely enough, these two coaches still have their jobs, though it is mainly because they improved this season.

Kubiak almost lost his job. If not for Wade Phillips being available, I believe he would have. I think his contract extension was a mistake, despite the fact that his team is playing better the past couple of years. I'd have let him go one more year before committing to him. Or at least let the season get underway and see how things go. Chan Gailey is two years in, and the Bills have shown improvement in those two years, even if the record isn't that great. He's on the hot seat now.

Caldwell couldn't have just a single bad year?

I'm not judging Caldwell strictly on the basis of 2011, although I think that's plenty. A pattern arose, and his mistakes played a big role in how bad 2011 was. The front office strongly considered keeping him, and I understand why. What you're saying about his overall tenure here is correct, but the lack of sensible gameplanning and adjustments in 2011 were too much to overcome, in my opinion.

It's easier to have a good record when Peyton Manning is the quarterback. When you lose him, now you're in the spotlight as a coach. And we could have seen Caldwell's strengths in that situation, even with a bad year. No one expected us to have a winning record without Manning, and it's long been said that we wouldn't. But Caldwell's deficiencies were highlighted more than his strengths, and to those familiar with the situation, it was obvious that he had A LOT to do with the problems of last season.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but if you have a ten point lead in an NFL game, isn't it very common to run the ball? Passing only results in incompletions, as many are quick to point out, and the changing of possessions. Call me crazy, but I think running the ball is the right thing to do when you have a lead.

???

This is exactly what I'm saying. Instead, we continued to throw the ball, with subpar quarterback. And maybe that makes sense if the quarterback is completing passes, but he wasn't. Look at the box score. With a ten point lead, we went pass-heavy. And it didn't work.

As far as maintaining the lead, that falls directly on the defense. Especially when you are facing interception-prone Josh Freeman and the Buccaneers. A lead means nothing if you cannot keep it.

The defense continued to play a soft zone shell defense, and the interception-prone Josh Freeman completed pass after pass against it, specifically on the tying drive. Nothing to do with coaching?

After that drive, we came out and had a 13 play drive. Good, right? Except Painter went 2-9 with 2 sacks on that drive. With a backup quarterback who was struggling at the time, on the road, in a tie game, we called 11 pass plays out of 13 plays, only completed two passes, gave up two sacks, and got zero points. Nothing to do with coaching, right?

Pagano will not be fired because of two things: Promise and Future. He is known for what he did in Baltimore, and I don't think Irsay would want to change one of the three-headed new starts in Indianapolis: Quarterback, Coach, and GM. Pagano has the promise of a bright future on his side, which, strangely enough, Caldwell would have had as well when Luck was inevitably drafted. And for some reason, I think a lot of Pagano doubters will sprout up if the Colts don't win at least four this year.

I doubt Pagano will be fired after this season, but I strongly doubt we'll be anywhere near the 2 win season we just had. If we go 0-16 as you mentioned before, no one's job is safe, and I would hope Irsay and Grigson would think very seriously about whether we have the right guy at coach.

As for the Pagano doubters, they are already out there. They're here on this board. You don't notice them as much because of Promise and Future, but if Pagano starts compromising our Promise and Future with poor decisions and lack of adjustments, they'll become much more vocal in their dissent. And they should. Coaches should be graded based on the decisions they make and how well they adjust to their circumstances. Not on what they've done in the past. And that's why Caldwell is gone.

And that is sad. The thing is that so many of the fans are so used to winning that they demand it, and, as Caldwell learned the hard way, losing games means that heads will roll. Pagano's going to have to keep his eyes open.

The fans aren't the reason Caldwell is gone. As I mentioned, Irsay and Grigson thought very seriously about keeping him, and I can guarantee you that the words "promise" and "future" wouldn't be as prominently featured around here if we had. He didn't deserve to keep his job after the way he coached last season. It's as simple as that. That you're trying to credit this situation to a spoiled, fickle fanbase, or to a lackadaisical roster, is stunningly devoid of perspective.

Gary Kubiak deserved to be on the hotseat last year, and he deserves his job this year. Time will tell whether he deserves his new contract, but I'm glad that the Texans were able to play so well last season. I don't dislike them or begrudge them their success. However, Kubiak will be judged on how well his team plays, and on how he and his staff adjust to the circumstances. Because they did such a good job at this last season, he may have built up some goodwill. But if you go 2-14, regardless of the way it plays out, his job will be in danger. That's the way it should be.

[Qwiz]

Some of them did. Still others never wanted him in the first place.

I defended Caldwell, reserving criticism for times that I thought he deserved it (Super Bowl, several times throughout 2010, most of 2011). But it became clear last season that he wasn't a good head coach. Very nice man, and the players respected him plenty, and I wish him the best, but he's not a good head coach.

Conversely, I've been critical of Norv Turner since Day One in San Diego, and despite his decent record as coach there, he isn't a good head coach. On the other hand, I think that Ron Rivera is doing good work in Carolina, despite a poor record so far. It's still early. But the point is that I don't think win-loss records tell a complete story.

Kubiak almost lost his job. If not for Wade Phillips being available, I believe he would have. I think his contract extension was a mistake, despite the fact that his team is playing better the past couple of years. I'd have let him go one more year before committing to him. Or at least let the season get underway and see how things go. Chan Gailey is two years in, and the Bills have shown improvement in those two years, even if the record isn't that great. He's on the hot seat now.

I'm not judging Caldwell strictly on the basis of 2011, although I think that's plenty. A pattern arose, and his mistakes played a big role in how bad 2011 was. The front office strongly considered keeping him, and I understand why. What you're saying about his overall tenure here is correct, but the lack of sensible gameplanning and adjustments in 2011 were too much to overcome, in my opinion.

It's easier to have a good record when Peyton Manning is the quarterback. When you lose him, now you're in the spotlight as a coach. And we could have seen Caldwell's strengths in that situation, even with a bad year. No one expected us to have a winning record without Manning, and it's long been said that we wouldn't. But Caldwell's deficiencies were highlighted more than his strengths, and to those familiar with the situation, it was obvious that he had A LOT to do with the problems of last season.

???

This is exactly what I'm saying. Instead, we continued to throw the ball, with subpar quarterback. And maybe that makes sense if the quarterback is completing passes, but he wasn't. Look at the box score. With a ten point lead, we went pass-heavy. And it didn't work.

The defense continued to play a soft zone shell defense, and the interception-prone Josh Freeman completed pass after pass against it, specifically on the tying drive. Nothing to do with coaching?

After that drive, we came out and had a 13 play drive. Good, right? Except Painter went 2-9 with 2 sacks on that drive. With a backup quarterback who was struggling at the time, on the road, in a tie game, we called 11 pass plays out of 13 plays, only completed two passes, gave up two sacks, and got zero points. Nothing to do with coaching, right?

I doubt Pagano will be fired after this season, but I strongly doubt we'll be anywhere near the 2 win season we just had. If we go 0-16 as you mentioned before, no one's job is safe, and I would hope Irsay and Grigson would think very seriously about whether we have the right guy at coach.

As for the Pagano doubters, they are already out there. They're here on this board. You don't notice them as much because of Promise and Future, but if Pagano starts compromising our Promise and Future with poor decisions and lack of adjustments, they'll become much more vocal in their dissent. And they should. Coaches should be graded based on the decisions they make and how well they adjust to their circumstances. Not on what they've done in the past. And that's why Caldwell is gone.

The fans aren't the reason Caldwell is gone. As I mentioned, Irsay and Grigson thought very seriously about keeping him, and I can guarantee you that the words "promise" and "future" wouldn't be as prominently featured around here if we had. He didn't deserve to keep his job after the way he coached last season. It's as simple as that. That you're trying to credit this situation to a spoiled, fickle fanbase, or to a lackadaisical roster, is stunningly devoid of perspective.

Gary Kubiak deserved to be on the hotseat last year, and he deserves his job this year. Time will tell whether he deserves his new contract, but I'm glad that the Texans were able to play so well last season. I don't dislike them or begrudge them their success. However, Kubiak will be judged on how well his team plays, and on how he and his staff adjust to the circumstances. Because they did such a good job at this last season, he may have built up some goodwill. But if you go 2-14, regardless of the way it plays out, his job will be in danger. That's the way it should be.

Very well-put argument. I think we had a slight misunderstanding with the running/passing aspect of the Tampa Bay game, but it turns out we were talking about the same thing. Caldwell or no Caldwell, all we can do now is look forward to the new season. Hopefully, for the sake of both of our coaches, it goes well. I don't think either of them will necessarily have to worry too much if one or both of them don't make the playoffs. If it happens again in 2013, though, well that's a different story hahaha.

[Superman]

Very well-put argument. I think we had a slight misunderstanding with the running/passing aspect of the Tampa Bay game, but it turns out we were talking about the same thing. Caldwell or no Caldwell, all we can do now is look forward to the new season. Hopefully, for the sake of both of our coaches, it goes well. I don't think either of them will necessarily have to worry too much if one or both of them don't make the playoffs. If it happens again in 2013, though, well that's a different story hahaha.

The Tampa game is just one specific example. I could list more like it that highlight situations where the coaching staff didn't make good decisions. And this isn't just with the benefit of hindsight. These are scenarios that many fans were vocal about to begin with, and during, and after. I don't really want to relive 2011, because it was baaaad, but we did a lot of silly things schematically that cost us wins. So much so that some media members were convinced that we were purposely losing to get the first pick in the draft.

I'm not too worried about our coaching in 2012. I'm looking for specific improvements that will hopefully translate to more wins and give us a base to build on, but I don't expect a great record. And with a rookie quarterback and head coach, and an unsettled roster, that's okay. But if we again have one of the worst records in the league, Pagano and the rest of the staff have some explaining to do. Doesn't mean they should be fired, but our roster is better now than it was last season, so our record should be better as well.

[Qwiz]

The Tampa game is just one specific example. I could list more like it that highlight situations where the coaching staff didn't make good decisions. And this isn't just with the benefit of hindsight. These are scenarios that many fans were vocal about to begin with, and during, and after. I don't really want to relive 2011, because it was baaaad, but we did a lot of silly things schematically that cost us wins. So much so that some media members were convinced that we were purposely losing to get the first pick in the draft.

I'm not too worried about our coaching in 2012. I'm looking for specific improvements that will hopefully translate to more wins and give us a base to build on, but I don't expect a great record. And with a rookie quarterback and head coach, and an unsettled roster, that's okay. But if we again have one of the worst records in the league, Pagano and the rest of the staff have some explaining to do. Doesn't mean they should be fired, but our roster is better now than it was last season, so our record should be better as well.

Oh that media. Lol there were signs all over the place about Suck for Luck and all sorts of other things, I wonder if the players found those amusing or disrespectful hahaha. I know it was all tongue-in-cheek, and I'm sure the players preferred that to the old New Orleans Saints approach. Pagano should help turn that defense around with the new 3-4. I wonder how Freeney will look playing OLB, it should be very interesting...except when he is playing Foster or Tate hahaha. That two TE set on offense should work wonders as well. If Donald Brown can perform consistently throughout the season I think things will be much easier for the aforementioned rookie QB. Honestly, I find it hard to believe that the Colts will do 2-14 or worse again. I think Pagano and staff should be fine as far as scheming and the wins and losses colum goes.

[chad72]

Chad, I hope your post wasn't in response to that inane, poorly written piece of dung that Wells put out on StampedeBlue. He obviously has no interest in writing informative articles, he just tries to stir up controversy to get page hits.

Your post was 100% spot on.

[Gavin]

Thank you! The common misconception is that the creature is a donkey but it is not. If it was I would deserve all the criticism I get lol.

The picture clearly isnt a donkey

[Qwiz]

The picture clearly isnt a donkey

Thank you. I guess sometimes people just see what they want. Maybe if it was a dragon I would get some awesome points. Or a griffin hahaha.

[Gavin]

What it comes down to is really simple in my opinion, Peyton went down thats pretty much all it took. There was no way we were going to be a winning team last year. Also I dont get why so many blame Caldwell and let Polian seemingly go unscathed. Polian brought in Collins in a desperate attempt to be competitive. I think Caldwells main faults where he was just overwhelmed and was along for the ride in the sense that he wasnt willing to speak up and put his foot down at least that I know of. I just about bet Caldwell had other ideas and they were overridden. Also the play calling on offense was horrible and to me thats on Clyde Christiansen, I think Jim should have fired him when he fired Caldwell. Im glad we got Arians but, I kinda liked the idea of Jeremy Bates instead of Christianson still on the staff as our new Quarterbacks coach before he reunited with Cutler with the Bears

[southwest1]

I call your 34-24, and raise you a 16-2. Good luck with that one.

To quote Bob Dylan, The Times, They Are, A-Changin'.

Peyton Manning is in my picture. If you judge it by my picture then I am a Broncos fan. Judge it by my argument I am a realist. Judge it by my signature, then yes, I am a Houston Texans fan.

Like I said.

Good luck with that one.

Thank you! The common misconception is that the creature is a donkey but it is not. If it was I would deserve all the criticism I get lol.

Just a friendly reminder that Quizboy, FJC, Peytonator, & Gavin are all well respected friends of mine here. No need for unnecessary, heated rhetoric here fellas. You have all made relevant points. In a nutshell, I agree 100% with the asessment that Curtis Painter didn't possess the mental capacity to make the right reads, he locked into Garcon as his favorite WR too much, & even if o-line protection had been nearly perfect, Painter would have thrown multiple picks.

QuizBoy, your contributions here are always valuable to me on this site & your Houston Texans are a force to be reckoned with no doubt. I will always welcome your insights.

[Gavin]

Thank you. I guess sometimes people just see what they want. Maybe if it was a dragon I would get some awesome points. Or a griffin hahaha.

I see why it would rub other Colts fans the wrong way, its Peyton freakin Mannings head on a horse but its not something that bothers me

[Qwiz]

I see why it would rub other Colts fans the wrong way, its Peyton freakin Mannings head on a horse but its not something that bothers me

I think a red and blue bull would make me an outcast. Lol.

[Qwiz]

Just a friendly reminder that Quizboy, FJC, Peytonator, & Gavin are all well respected friends of mine here. No need for unnecessary, heated rhetoric here fellas. You have all made relevant points. In a nutshell, I agree 100% with the asessment that Curtis Painter didn't possess the mental capacity to make the right reads, he locked into Garcon as his favorite WR too much, & even if o-line protection had been nearly perfect, Painter would have thrown multiple picks.

QuizBoy, your contributions here are always valuable to me on this site & your Houston Texans are a force to be reckoned with no doubt. I will always welcome your insights.

I'm glad to be a change of voice. I can see what's going on with you guys' team while at the same time I can offer what's going on with mine. Pretty good topics to discuss, the tricky part is doing it within the forum's rules hahaha. I'm surprised that Painter locked onto Garcon rather than Wayne or the big TE up the middle.

[southwest1]

I must give each of you all credit. Each of you in your own unique way, highlighted the same thesis: Excellent teachers=Fundamentally sound coaching. Whereas poor or inept coaching=devastating loses & a horrible season record. Bravo Gentlemen!!!

[southwest1]

I'm glad to be a change of voice. I can see what's going on with you guys' team while at the same time I can offer what's going on with mine. Pretty good topics to discuss, the tricky part is doing it within the forum's rules hahaha. I'm surprised that Painter locked onto Garcon rather than Wayne or the big TE up the middle.

QuizBoy,

I will tell you the same thought I said to Vance87. My #1 allegiance is to the Colts, but I know a talented team when I see it. The Houston Texans are overflowing with roster superstars. They will win the AFC South for the next 2 seasons. By year 3, the Colts will be back in Playoff contention, which means your Texans have a 2 year window to make their SB run IMO. I wish we had Wade Phillips as our DC. As a head coach, Wade sucks, but as a DC, he is brilliant!!!