Ballard vs Grigson - Change of Culture

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by rcubed

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]

This is the part where Dam doubles down on bad arguments and ridiculous straw men and wears everyone out with his stubbornness.

[Maniac]

Pagano is a moron. The only ones can't see that are also morons.

[omahacolt]

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]

Originally Posted by FatDT

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]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

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]

This thread... smh. Training camp can't come soon enough.

[rcubed]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

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]

Originally Posted by rcubed

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]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

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?