ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum (http://www.coltfreaks.com/forum/index.php)
-   Indianapolis Colts Discussion (http://www.coltfreaks.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Ballard vs Grigson - Change of Culture (http://www.coltfreaks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7050)

rcubed 05-09-2017 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatDT (Post 13029)
You have objectively demonstrated a measure of intelligence by your interest in stats, your ability to write clearly, some of your analysis. I don't believe you are actually a stupid person. But I do not understand why you choose to narrow the set of facts to only fit your chosen narrative and then pretend like you aren't doing it. Why be intentionally dense? You know just as well as everyone else that your winning percentage argument, and the implied conclusion that it justifies his coaching, is nonsense. Just stop it with this superior "I know better" shtick. The case against Pagano is well-established. Demanding that it be reproven to you is just a tactic meant to wear others down so you can appear right.

No one here hates Pagano. No one wants him to fail, that means the Colts fail and it's not logical to be a fan but want your team to fail. The fear you are mischaracterizing is that the increase in talent and competence in the front office will mask Pagano's incompetence and keep him in charge of the team despite his demonstrated lack of ability to handle it. You know this but you still set up straw men and then pretend you've won something by defeating them.

Sorry to write so much but I've had a few beers and am feeling verbose.
Then you should drink and post more often

Dam8610 05-09-2017 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatDT (Post 13029)
You have objectively demonstrated a measure of intelligence by your interest in stats, your ability to write clearly, some of your analysis. I don't believe you are actually a stupid person. But I do not understand why you choose to narrow the set of facts to only fit your chosen narrative and then pretend like you aren't doing it. Why be intentionally dense? You know just as well as everyone else that your winning percentage argument, and the implied conclusion that it justifies his coaching, is nonsense. Just stop it with this superior "I know better" shtick. The case against Pagano is well-established. Demanding that it be reproven to you is just a tactic meant to wear others down so you can appear right.

No one here hates Pagano. No one wants him to fail, that means the Colts fail and it's not logical to be a fan but want your team to fail. The fear you are mischaracterizing is that the increase in talent and competence in the front office will mask Pagano's incompetence and keep him in charge of the team despite his demonstrated lack of ability to handle it. You know this but you still set up straw men and then pretend you've won something by defeating them.

Sorry to write so much but I've had a few beers and am feeling verbose.
I'm not demanding any proof of anything. These are all opinions, but coaches with .600+ winning percentages don't grow on trees. There are 35 in NFL history, six of which are active. You claim incompetence, but to me, it requires a great deal of cognitive dissonance to make your argument work. You claim that an infusion of talent would "mask Pagano's incompetence", but Occam's Razor would suggest that if a talent deficiency caused poorer than expected results the last two seasons, and a talent infusion fixes the problem, then perhaps the talent deficiency was the problem all along.

Also, you may not be part of the group, but there is a large contingent here that seems to be hoping for a bad season to get rid of Pagano. Personally, I'd rather go back to the days where the playoffs were all that mattered, and making it there was a foregone conclusion and an expectation.

rcubed 05-09-2017 01:44 PM
^^^ to me its not about his record.
The team is extremely unprepared most of the time.
There doesnt seem to be a lot of adjustments.
He has an old-school mentality with little forward thinking.
In game decision making is not his strong suit.
Regularly gets out coached.

If you want to talk record:
His entire first year of "wins" should be attributed to arians.
His record outside the crappy AFC south stinks.
Playoff record stinks as do the outcomes of many of the games

Dam8610 05-09-2017 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcubed (Post 13075)
^^^ to me its not about his record.
The team is extremely unprepared most of the time.
There doesnt seem to be a lot of adjustments.
He has an old-school mentality with little forward thinking.
In game decision making is not his strong suit.
Regularly gets out coached.

If you want to talk record:
His entire first year of "wins" should be attributed to arians.
His record outside the crappy AFC south stinks.
Playoff record stinks as do the outcomes of many of the games
Over the last two years, the team's performance has essentially been dependent on the offense. If Luck came out hot, the team won most of the time, sometimes in convincing fashion. If the offense struggled, the team lost. To me, that suggests a one dimensional team that lacked talent on the other side of the ball, which doesn't fall on the coaching staff. The times the team "looked unprepared" or "came out flat" were the times the offense struggled. Having a one dimensional team reflects poorly on talent evaluation, not coaching.

rcubed 05-09-2017 04:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 13086)
Over the last two years, the team's performance has essentially been dependent on the offense. If Luck came out hot, the team won most of the time, sometimes in convincing fashion. If the offense struggled, the team lost. To me, that suggests a one dimensional team that lacked talent on the other side of the ball, which doesn't fall on the coaching staff. The times the team "looked unprepared" or "came out flat" were the times the offense struggled. Having a one dimensional team reflects poorly on talent evaluation, not coaching.
He is the head coach. He is responsible for the whole team. That's what he signed up for. If the O is flat, he needs to get on his coordinators and players to fix that shit. Not clap and pat them on the ass.

Pags is supposed to be a defensive wiz. Even with lesser talent than the top teams, I would still expect some growth. Really the only growth that comes to mind is the maturation of davis after being traded here, and who knows if pags had anything to do with that. Maybe davis just realized he needed to get his shit together.

You conveniently didnt mention any of the other points listed above. You just always fall back on lack of defense players given to him by grigs and that pags had no input into those players.

Dam8610 05-09-2017 05:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcubed (Post 13095)
He is the head coach. He is responsible for the whole team. That's what he signed up for. If the O is flat, he needs to get on his coordinators and players to fix that shit. Not clap and pat them on the ass.

Pags is supposed to be a defensive wiz. Even with lesser talent than the top teams, I would still expect some growth. Really the only growth that comes to mind is the maturation of davis after being traded here, and who knows if pags had anything to do with that. Maybe davis just realized he needed to get his shit together.

You conveniently didnt mention any of the other points listed above. You just always fall back on lack of defense players given to him by grigs and that pags had no input into those players.
The expectation on this board that a team and its players play their sharpest and best football at all times is unreasonable and unrealistic. Players are not always going to be at their best. To blame that on coaching is lazy, short-sighted thinking.

rcubed 05-09-2017 06:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 13098)
The expectation on this board that a team and its players play their sharpest and best football at all times is unreasonable and unrealistic. Players are not always going to be at their best. To blame that on coaching is lazy, short-sighted thinking.
http://i.imgur.com/4G1R5dD.jpg

rcubed 05-09-2017 06:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 13098)
The expectation on this board that a team and its players play their sharpest and best football at all times is unreasonable and unrealistic. Players are not always going to be at their best. To blame that on coaching is lazy, short-sighted thinking.
No one here has that expectation. You are projecting that to fit your narrative.

I DO blame the coaches for consistently not having players prepared, not having an intelligent game plan, or making adjustments. To not hold the coaches accountable for such consistent failure is stupid, short-sighted thinking.

Dam8610 05-09-2017 06:42 PM
I don't understand how you find that to be such a difficult concept. The mark of a great team is not an ability to consistently play well, it's being able to respond to and overcome adversity. Being able to win games when they don't perform their best, or "have no business winning". That's a trait the team has shown under Pagano. Maybe not all the time, but more often than not, and more often than most teams. The 2006-2009 Colts tended to fall behind early and have these dreaded "slow starts", but no one cared because they came back from it and won typically. I'd rather have a team that can overcome adversity than a team that doesn't have to deal with it, because the 2005 Colts folded when faced with their first dose of adversity.

rcubed 05-09-2017 06:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 13107)
I don't understand how you find that to be such a difficult concept. The mark of a great team is not an ability to consistently play well, it's being able to respond to and overcome adversity. Being able to win games when they don't perform their best, or "have no business winning". That's a trait the team has shown under Pagano. Maybe not all the time, but more often than not, and more often than most teams. The 2006-2009 Colts tended to fall behind early and have these dreaded "slow starts", but no one cared because they came back from it and won typically. I'd rather have a team that can overcome adversity than a team that doesn't have to deal with it, because the 2005 Colts folded when faced with their first dose of adversity.
That's completely backwards.

"The mark of a great team is not an ability to consistently play well..." Seriously? WTF man!?

Great teams win consistently without having to regularly overcome huge deficits. Being able to sometimes dig down and come from behind is a great trait to have, but that cant be how you regularly operate. The 2006 colts had a big come from behind win against the pats to go to the SB. The pats had a huge come from behind win in the last SB. But in general, great teams go out there and handle their business. Thats how dynasties happen, they win consistently by playing consistently well.

Dam8610 05-09-2017 07:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcubed (Post 13109)
That's completely backwards.

"The mark of a great team is not an ability to consistently play well..." Seriously? WTF man!?

Great teams win consistently without having to regularly overcome huge deficits. Being able to sometimes dig down and come from behind is a great trait to have, but that cant be how you regularly operate. The 2006 colts had a big come from behind win against the pats to go to the SB. The pats had a huge come from behind win in the last SB. But in general, great teams go out there and handle their business. Thats how dynasties happen, they win consistently by playing consistently well.
No team ever just comes out and dominates every game start to finish. No team. The team that came closest to that was the 2005 Colts, being the first and only team in NFL history to win their first 13 games by 7 or more points. Never happened before then, hasn't happened since. What that says is that a championship team will at some point face adversity, and will need to be able to overcome it. Every player and every team is going to have situations where they come out flat, get punched in the mouth, and get down by 2 scores quickly. It's not avoiding that that makes a great team (because avoiding it has never happened), it's overcoming it. The Colts under Pagano have shown that ability on many occasions. And since no team ever has met your standard, I'd say it's pretty reasonable to call it unrealistic and unreasonable.

FatDT 05-09-2017 08:00 PM
This is the part where Dam doubles down on bad arguments and ridiculous straw men and wears everyone out with his stubbornness.

Maniac 05-09-2017 08:07 PM
Pagano is a moron. The only ones can't see that are also morons.

omahacolt 05-09-2017 08:32 PM
How nice would it be to work for dam? You don't have to do fuck all. Nothing is ever your fault

Dam being a shift manager at Burger King has never been so obvious. Blaming the people above him and below him but never middle management

Dam8610 05-09-2017 08:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatDT (Post 13112)
This is the part where Dam doubles down on bad arguments and ridiculous straw men and wears everyone out with his stubbornness.
If what I said is a strawman argument, then please explain what is meant when people say that the team "isn't prepared" or "starts slow". Those are the two biggest complaints around here about the team under Pagano (which, if you think about it for any time at all, essentially boil down to the same complaint), and if I didn't encapsulate the concept of "slow start" with "come out flat, get punched in the mouth, and get down 2 scores early" then I really would like to know what does.

Spike 05-09-2017 08:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 13062)
I'm not demanding any proof of anything. These are all opinions, but coaches with .600+ winning percentages don't grow on trees. There are 35 in NFL history, six of which are active. You claim incompetence, but to me, it requires a great deal of cognitive dissonance to make your argument work. You claim that an infusion of talent would "mask Pagano's incompetence", but Occam's Razor would suggest that if a talent deficiency caused poorer than expected results the last two seasons, and a talent infusion fixes the problem, then perhaps the talent deficiency was the problem all along.

Also, you may not be part of the group, but there is a large contingent here that seems to be hoping for a bad season to get rid of Pagano. Personally, I'd rather go back to the days where the playoffs were all that mattered, and making it there was a foregone conclusion and an expectation.
No there's not, if there is, what posters have stated that? In spite of me not liking Pagano as the Colts coach, I want them to win every damn game this year. Pointing out his obvious flaws is not the same as hoping he fails and the Colts suck just to get rid of him.

Brylok 05-09-2017 10:22 PM
This thread... smh. Training camp can't come soon enough.

rcubed 05-09-2017 10:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 13111)
No team ever just comes out and dominates every game start to finish. No team. The team that came closest to that was the 2005 Colts, being the first and only team in NFL history to win their first 13 games by 7 or more points. Never happened before then, hasn't happened since. What that says is that a championship team will at some point face adversity, and will need to be able to overcome it. Every player and every team is going to have situations where they come out flat, get punched in the mouth, and get down by 2 scores quickly. It's not avoiding that that makes a great team (because avoiding it has never happened), it's overcoming it. The Colts under Pagano have shown that ability on many occasions. And since no team ever has met your standard, I'd say it's pretty reasonable to call it unrealistic and unreasonable.
Man you are stubborn and dense.

No one ever said dominate start to finish.
Consistently play well does not mean every play is perfect or every drive scores. It sure doesnt mean REGULARLY starting slow and being down by multiple scores.

Dam8610 05-10-2017 12:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcubed (Post 13124)
Man you are stubborn and dense.

No one ever said dominate start to finish.
Consistently play well does not mean every play is perfect or every drive scores. It sure doesnt mean REGULARLY starting slow and being down by multiple scores.
2006-2009 Colts "slow starts": 14
2013-2016 Colts "slow starts": 16

Not sure there's a statistically relevant difference here.

rcubed 05-10-2017 01:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 13126)
2006-2009 Colts "slow starts": 14
2013-2016 Colts "slow starts": 16

Not sure there's a statistically relevant difference here.
Where did you get those numbers? What criteria was used?

Luck4Reich 05-10-2017 05:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcubed (Post 13127)
Where did you get those numbers? What criteria was used?
The criteria he used was pulling it out of his ass.

Racehorse 05-10-2017 07:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 13118)
If what I said is a strawman argument, then please explain what is meant when people say that the team "isn't prepared" or "starts slow". Those are the two biggest complaints around here about the team under Pagano (which, if you think about it for any time at all, essentially boil down to the same complaint), and if I didn't encapsulate the concept of "slow start" with "come out flat, get punched in the mouth, and get down 2 scores early" then I really would like to know what does.
Look at the freaking play calling. It is so dreadful at the start of the game and that falls on Pagano.

Wyatt 05-10-2017 07:25 AM
as Brylok stated, can't wait for training camp to be here....this back and forth reminds me of my ex wife and I

But anyway, just saw this blurb come across my twitter feed

@JuMosq
Indianapolis Colts since 2006
Big Wins (8+): 48
Close Games: 92
Big Losses (8+): 36
Adjusted win percentage: 53.41%

Maniac 05-10-2017 07:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 13126)
2006-2009 Colts "slow starts": 14
2013-2016 Colts "slow starts": 16

Not sure there's a statistically relevant difference here.
2006-2009 Colts slow starts : 5
2013-2016 Colts slow starts : 800.623

apballin 05-10-2017 10:24 PM
Pagano can still lead this team to a championship, a healthy Luck and Grigson gone we'll see what happens. He's made some dumb calls but what coach hasn't? Tomlin got embarrassed by the Pats last year

Racehorse 05-11-2017 07:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by apballin (Post 13218)
Pagano can still lead this team to a championship, a healthy Luck and Grigson gone we'll see what happens. He's made some dumb calls but what coach hasn't? Tomlin got embarrassed by the Pats last year
Pagano can't lead us there; Luck can and Pagano will be along for the ride.

Wyatt 05-11-2017 01:53 PM
Sports Illustrated - MMQB Ballard Interview
 
I've listed a few of my favorite Ballard Quotes from this interview one of the best articles yet that I've found on Ballard's change of culture.


Referring to Luck's presser after the Chiefs put an ass whooping on us

Quote:
“And so I watched the press conference with Andrew, and he owned it all,” Ballard said from his new office on Tuesday. “Didn’t throw anyone under the bus. He owned everything. His mistake or not, he owned everything. And I’ll never forget going down, and I told [Chiefs GM John] Dorsey, ‘Boy, I just watched one of the best press conferences I’ve ever seen.’ A kid who owned it all. And that’s what the great leaders do—they don’t point fingers and they don’t blame.
Quote:
The defense stands to have five new starters in the front seven and, if rookies win jobs in the secondary, seven new starters overall. And yet, the offensive lineup may well not undergo a single change.
Regarding Jack Doyle

Quote:
“We liked him in Kansas City,” Ballard said. “And finding out what he stood for—he was an undrafted kid who was cut, claimed by Indy, who had to earn his way and earn everyone’s respect, and earn his playtime. And then he produced. And he’s great in the locker room, he’s great in the community. He’s everything we want a Colt to be. That was priority No. 1, to make sure that we got Jack Doyle done.”
Quote:
“When you pay a player who has not earned it, who is not a great worker, who doesn’t make an impact in the locker room, [players] know it,” Ballard said. “They know who’s earned it. … I’ve never been around a good team in this league where the locker room didn’t hold each other accountable, didn’t put pressure on each other to win. That’s what you have to have. They know. They know.”
Regarding the FA Signings

Quote:
“We wanted to do shorter-term deals, that way all of them have a chance to hit free agency again,” said Ballard. “The flip side, for us, we know we’re gonna get the best out of them, because they know there’s another contract on the back side of this.”
After saying that, and going back to “the locker room knows” theme, the Colts GM was quick to reinforce that “every guy we’ve signed, from John Simon to Hankins to Sheard, have all earned it. All of them have earned it.” This just gives them a shot to earn even more.
Talking about the O-line

Quote:
“I’ll give [previous GM[ Ryan Grigson a lot of credit for this—he drafted [center Ryan] Kelly, [tackle Joe] Haeg and [tackle] Le’Raven Clark all in one year,” Ballard said. “Thank god he did, because [the 2017 draft] was a down year for offensive line. We gotta let those guys develop. So it’s the combination of [left tackle] Anthony Castonzo, [guard] Jack] Mewhort, Kelly, Haeg, L’Raven Clark, Denzelle Good, we signed Brian Schwenke from Tennesse, we drafted [Zach] Banner. ...
“Are we perfect yet? No. But do we have a good group to work with? I do believe that. There’s definitely hope there. Now we gotta let those guys develop.”
More than just Luck

Quote:
“Everybody knows how hard that position is to find,” Ballard said. “When you have a guy with special talent at the position and he’s got special character on top of it, that’s a pretty good thing. But the one big thing I’ve made a point of here, it’s not just Andrew. We’ve got to have the best 53-man roster, and that includes Andrew.
“That’s how we’ll help him, by making the roster around him better both offensively and defensively. That’s what we’re gonna do. It can’t be just about Andrew.”
http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/05/11/i...d-nfl-notebook

Puck 05-11-2017 09:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racehorse (Post 13134)
Look at the freaking play calling. It is so dreadful at the start of the game and that falls on Pagano.

It falls on Chud. But I am convinced it is driven by The Clapper.... 2nd coordinator with completely different styles but the same issues to start the games.

Racehorse 05-12-2017 08:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck (Post 13305)
It falls on Chud. But I am convinced it is driven by The Clapper.... 2nd coordinator with completely different styles but the same issues to start the games.
It is easy to point to Chud, but he is doing as he is told to do. Pags is the real culprit when it comes to slow starts.

IndyNorm 05-12-2017 07:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 13111)
No team ever just comes out and dominates every game start to finish. No team. The team that came closest to that was the 2005 Colts, being the first and only team in NFL history to win their first 13 games by 7 or more points. Never happened before then, hasn't happened since. What that says is that a championship team will at some point face adversity, and will need to be able to overcome it. Every player and every team is going to have situations where they come out flat, get punched in the mouth, and get down by 2 scores quickly. It's not avoiding that that makes a great team (because avoiding it has never happened), it's overcoming it. The Colts under Pagano have shown that ability on many occasions. And since no team ever has met your standard, I'd say it's pretty reasonable to call it unrealistic and unreasonable.
The difference that you fail to grasp is that under Clappy it doesn't occasionally happen, it consistently happens. This clearly shows a lack of ability from him and his staff to get the team properly prepared. Yes, we do come back quite often when we're playing bad teams like the Jagoffs, but when we play any good they just continue to kick the crap out of us.

IndyNorm 05-12-2017 07:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by omahacolt (Post 13117)
How nice would it be to work for dam? You don't have to do fuck all. Nothing is ever your fault

Dam being a shift manager at Burger King has never been so obvious. Blaming the people above him and below him but never middle management
Haha, hell yes it would. "Sorry I didn't show up until noon again boss, but I promise as long as I don't have anything challenging I'll make a come back and have a good day". :D

Chromeburn 05-13-2017 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brylok (Post 12842)
"We’ve revamped the outside linebacker position. And I’ve made this clear — we will always look for rushers in the draft. You can never have enough."
Amen to that!
After watching Atlanta run out of steam at the end of the game, I couldn't agree more. Although their offense could have had some longer running possessions to help them out.

sherck 05-16-2017 08:54 AM
MMQB article on Ballard.
Another good article on Ballard and his season strategy.

I think this guy is going to take the team places. Man, I have got a good feeling about him.

Cheers,

omahacolt 05-16-2017 06:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sherck (Post 13592)
MMQB article on Ballard.
Another good article on Ballard and his season strategy.

I think this guy is going to take the team places. Man, I have got a good feeling about him.

Cheers,
it is all talk at this point.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:30 PM.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
ColtFreaks.com is in no way affiliated with the Indianapolis Colts, the NFL, or any of their subsidiaries.