![]() |
Press Conference Today 4:15
|
Go rogue, Ballard. Fire Pagano and ask Irsay's forgiveness later.
|
ballard: pagano is coach. he's a good coach that's won a lot of games.
that's not what I wanted to hear ballard. |
This is some bull shit.
|
Good grief.
Fire Ballard!!! |
It will be okay. Ballard will improve the talent and Pagano will have enough rope to hang himself with. The lack of talent excuse will be no more.
|
His ideas sounded similar to the last guy's.
|
Quote:
Even if the colts improve, which they should, I believe a better coach could be had. |
Quote:
|
[QUOTE=rcubed;721]ballard: pagano is coach. he's a good coach that's won a lot of games.
Ballard must not have watched any Pagano coached games. |
Well this sucks balls
|
Well, we have to hope Pags learns quickly about how to be a good coach.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Regardless of the clapper sticking around, I'm still very happy with this hire, gives me some hope moving forward.
|
Quote:
|
Don't like the hiring already, if he truly thinks Chuck Pagano is a good coach we're screwed for another 5 years. Sorry, Luck.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
All I can say is 🤢...
Edgeman, we need a puking emoji!! |
Here's my little glimmer of optimism. I vaguely recall, from the 2015 season when there was all this talk of Grigson interfering too much with Pagano's job, that one of the ways he was doing this was by not letting Pagano discipline guys - in other words, Pagano wanted to be harder on guys than he was, but Grigson wouldn't let him.
Now this year, there was talking again from some players that "they wanted to be coached harder". So once again, is this something where Pagano was being held back? This clearly doesn't excuse his terrible in-game decisions, apparent lack of preparation for an opponent, and horrible offensive scheme, but hey like I said, it's a little glimmer of optimism. |
Just a random bump of a random thread to see how it feels to be Colts and Oreos.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Unlike your antagonistic bump of this thread, my bumps (and/or new threads started of historical comparisons) always have some type of significant relevance........such as this one that you thanked, in spite of your belittling of the practice. http://coltfreaks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=65422 More importantly, I didn't ask for the "Historian" title to be placed below my screen name ........ It was Smitty's idea, and I had no problem with him doing so when he private messaged me in regard to it. And considering that Smitty is much less pompous and rambunctious than are you, his feelings and sentiments on the subject go much longer with me than do yours........in other words, if I'm doing something that Smitty appreciates but Racehorse doesn't like, then I must be doing something right. o |
Quote:
Triggered! |
By the way, I like many of your posts. You are an asset to this board. I also like giving you a hard time, like I do many others on here. That is how brothers do it in my family.
|
Quote:
Thanks the explanation, much appreciated. Actually, I DID let it go when you made the first post on the previous page. I thought that I should just leave it be as occasional teasing/taunting that every regular poster on Colt Freaks gets. Several other posters chimed in, and I let that go, as well ....... it was after you made another post that with an additional dig that I felt that you were essentially pleading for a response, for which I gave you one. o |
Quote:
|
Im over 50 so I actually enjoy discussing those old memories. A sticky thread would work.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:09 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
ColtFreaks.com is in no way affiliated with the Indianapolis Colts, the NFL, or any of their subsidiaries.