Greetings Colts fans, and welcome to my new weekly column, "The Monday Morning Moaner." Let's face it: there's a lot of positivity about the Colts these days. Ryan Grigson is great. Chuck Pagano is great. Andrew Luck is great. Everything's great. But what if it wasn't great? What if we just, for a brief moment, focused on the negative? That's where I come in. I know, I know, you're thinking to yourself: "Greg... negative? But how?" It'll be hard, but I'll find a way to make it happen. For you.
As most of you know (actually, it's probably all of you, but I didn't want to assume), the Colts won their regular season opener yesterday, with a 21-17 victory over the Oakland Raiders. So, the team is 1-0, not a lot to moan about, right?
I hate the Colts offense.
No, not the players. I love Luck and Reggie and Dwayne Allen and Coby Fleener and Anthony Castonzo and Donald Thomas and TY Hilton and even Darrius Heyward-Bey. When I say I hate the offense, I mean the scheme that horrible, inexplicably misuses those incredibly-talented players. So what do I hate about the Pep Hamilton offense? Let me count the ways...
1) Running the Ball. Look, there's a time and place to run the ball. I've complained all off-season that the team's "run the ball, stop the run" mantra is meaningless and outdated, but the reality is, being able to run the ball in certain situations is nice. The running game is great for picking up short yardage 1st downs and goal line scores. When the opposing pass rush is controlling the game, a nice screen or draw is a great way to stop it in its tracks. And my favorite aspect of the running game is that it allows the offense to utilize the play-action pass to create separation for the receivers.
Unfortunately, the Colts don't use their running game as this beautiful supplement for Andrew Luck and their passing game. Instead, the running game seems like... a separate entity? The Colts have two offenses: their passing offense and their running offense. When they want to pass the ball, they lineup with either 2 or 3 WRs, 1 or 2 TEs, and 1 RB. When they want to run the ball, they come out with at least 2 TEs (sometimes a 6th OL/3rd TE), 1 WR, and sometimes a FB. Their pass formations scream "pass" and their run formations scream "run." I'll let my esteemed colleague, Nate Dunlevy, sum this up:
Hated the fullback plays. If you have to run a special formation to run, it's not balance. Want to run back film of that and see its utility
The absolute best offenses in the NFL have a synergy: the pass feeds off of the run and the run feeds off of the pass. They do this, generally, by running a bunch of plays that "look the same." If the defense can't look at the pre-snap formation and tell if it's a run or a pass, it makes it harder for them to defend the play. By utilizing two unique sets of formations for both actions (running and passing) you're removing the best parts of being able to run and pass.
Quick aside: the Colts running game was NOT good yesterday. Sure, they ran for 4.45ypc (remove Luck's yardage), but a deeper look at the numbers shows the following: 13 of those yards came on a pointless 3rd-and-31 carry. Outside of that, the success rate for the Colts RBs was an abysmal 35% (46% for Ballard (not bad), 17% for Bradshaw (horrible), for reference: last year, the highest success rate was 58%, and Vick Ballard's 2012 success rate was 48%). The Colts rushing attack was very boom-bust (either a great run or a horrible run). Very little consistency. And never mind the irony of calling yourself a POWER RUNNING team and then not running the ball on a 4th-and-1.
More importantly, however, is WHY the Colts are doing this: the offensive line isn't very good, which means they don't have the personnel to be the kind of team Grigson, Pagano, and Hamilton want them to be. Instead of looking at Luck, Reggie Wayne, TY Hilton, Fleener and Allen and saying, "We have the tools to be one of the most dynamic, dominant offenses in the NFL, let's throw the heck out of the ball," they have decided what kind of team they want to be irrespective of their talent. It's simply not smart management, but it does lead us to #2:
2) Andrew Luck was 18/23 for 178 yards. You know what I see when I look at those numbers? Robert Griffin, III. I was hyper critical of the "love" surrounding RGIII last year, not because RGIII isn't great, but because he was being used in an offense that basically sheltered him. Sure, Luck completed 78% of his passes and threw 0 interceptions, but, outside of obsessive stat watchers, who cares? Andrew Luck is the best player on the team. He is going to be the best player on the team until he leaves the team. If you want to keep your job for a long time (or upgrade to a better job) your priority should be installing an offense that makes Andrew Luck, not the running game, your focal point.
3) Whither TY Hilton? Last year's breakout player was on the field for 25 of 57 snaps against the Raiders. That's less than 50% of the Colts offensive plays. Maybe Hilton shouldn't be on the field every play - he's a bit undersized and his route running still needs some work - but he needs to be on the field for more than 44% of the snaps in a close game. These numbers are especially revolting when you factor in Dwayne Allen's health. Allen, who suffered a hip injury during the game, missed all of the second half. It seems logical, then, that the Colts would go to a more 3WR-heavy scheme with their best TE out. But nope, Allen's absence simply lead to more appearances by the totally unnecessary fullback (no offense to any FB out there, get paid while you can, but your position should be more extinct than the velociraptor).
Hopefully Sunday was just the first step in a journey that leads Pep Hamilton to understand both what does and doesn't work in the NFL, and who his best players are, and how to get those players on the field as much as possible.
4) The 2012 Draft, Rounds 2 and 3. When the Colts went back-to-back TEs in the 2012 draft, selecting Stanford TE Coby Fleener and Clemson TE Dwayne Allen, I loved it. Visions of the Peyton Manning/Tom Moore offense, that used Dallas Clark as the fulcrum, danced in my head. Here's a brief explanation of THAT offense: The Colts would come out in their hurry-up, no-huddle offense. They would line up with either 2 WRs, 2 TEs, 1 RB (preferred) or 3 WRs, 1 TE, 1 RB.
They would then allow the defense to dictate what kind of offense they would become: if the defense came out in a more run-oriented scheme (base 3-4 or 4-3 package), Dallas Clark would become a wide receiver, punishing the safeties and linebackers down the seam. And the Colts would keep the defense in this package with the hurry-up. They would lean on them until they scored, the defense called a timeout, or someone faked an injury. If the defense came out in a more pass-oriented package (nickel, dime, etc...) Dallas Clark would transition to a more traditional TE role and the Colts would run the ball more. Those Colts didn't care how you wanted to play, because they had an answer for it.
These Colts actually have better answers than the Manning-led offenses: Coby Fleener and Dwayne Allen are far-and-away the best TE duo in Indianapolis Colts history. In this offense, Fleener, who I would describe as a rich man's Dallas Clark, would be the fulcrum. If defenses want to play the pass, then Fleener and Allen would allow the Colts to run the ball somewhat effectively (just run behind Allen, really). If teams want to stop the run, Fleener would become that X-factor, that wide receiver that no one on the defense can comfortably account for.
Instead, I'm not sure what the Colts' plans for their TEs are. Are they just glorified offensive linemen? They sure aren't featured in the passing game. Why did Grigson use two draft picks on two guys the team doesn't utilize? It's frustrating. Especially since many people consider Dwayne Allen the second-best pass catcher on the team.
5) Hurry-up! Speaking of those Manning-led attacks, and how I expected the Luck-led offense to look: where's the hurry-up? We've been told by both Bruce Arians last year and Pep Hamilton this year that the Colts want to use the hurry-up, no-huddle attack. We've yet to see it. We've yet to even see them consider it. Why do the Colts continue to refuse to put the game in the hands of their best player?
Look at yesterday's drives (of which, the Colts only got 7!!! (ridiculously low number)): Touchdown, Touchdown, Punt (3-and-out), Punt (3-and-out), Punt, Turnover on Downs, TD. In that 4-drive stretch where the Colts offense was struggling to move the ball and sustain drives, why not give Luck the ability to read and dissect the Raiders defense and react accordingly?
Too much of what I'm writing reminds me of things I wrote last year with regards to Bruce Arians. And, in far too many cases, I'm drawing the same conclusion: are the coach's egos getting in the way of this football team?
The Indianapolis Colts won their season opener against the Raiders 21-17. While the NFL is a results-oriented business, the Colts' coaching staff would be wise to view Sunday's game as a teaching point, a springboard to improving their team, rather than positive reinforcement. If they fail to recognize their mistakes, the Colts will find themselves in the same boat as last year: in far too many close games against bad opponents. They went 9-1 in such games in 2012. Chances are, they wouldn't fare quite as well in 2013.
Coaches are like people. They do what they know and are uncomfortable doing much else. same thing with Pep. he does what he knows and he does not know what he doesnt know :( to bad it almost made me cry watching the colts play on Sunday. I'm really sad. Did not want to read anything about football for a few days :(
I complimented you on your article. Now my email is filling up with your back and forth rants with your tormentor. Get over it and ignore it. Let her get the last word. You will be greater for it.
I will appreciate it!
I'm watching the Eagles game and Dang nabit, why can'e the Colts run the spread at breakneck speed? I can't imagine how many points Luck and the Colts receivers would put up.
I'm sure getting sick of the well written, reasonably verifiable/objective articles on this site. Where's the name calling and superlatives. Guh!
(tee hee! another great article, Mr. C).
There was only one good drive that whole game, and it was the first one. Sure we scored TDs on two other drives, but those drives were saved by Oakland penalties. Or by a Luck run, and if Luck is running it then that typically means the play fell apart. Bad play calling. I was worried about this offensive scheme before season, and that game didn't help me.
I enjoyed the read. Thanks for the article. I agree with nearly all of points 2-5. It's ridiculous not allowing Luck to have more leeway with the offense, especially the complete lack of a hurry-up. No idea why we aren't using more of our TEs and T.Y. given their enormous capabilities. I do however like the establishment of the run, but if you're going for a balanced attack, it's a bit ridiculous to tip your hand in regards to whether you're running or passing. With a receiving FB like Havili, we should be able to pass as well as run with a FB in. There's no need to run every time we have a heavy formation in, or to use a heavy formation that much. Also, VB was very effective at taking what was there and finishing runs, even if he doesn't have the ability to create runs. Once we have Thornton in the middle and Bradshaw back to full health, I feel the run game will be much more successful. All that said, I would also like to see Luck at the helm more.
Hi everyone! Thanks for the responses!
I want to respond to a handful of people who had the same general theme: I, too, am concerned about the defense. The difference is, however, I didn't have high expectations for this defense going into the season. I also think, with the return of Conner and Angerer, they will be better in future weeks.
But even when the defense is 100%, this team goes as far as the offense takes it.
Anyhow, I'm sure i'll be writing about the defense soon. Maybe next week. :)
I agree with you Greg. They are not utilizing their talent enough in the offense. Luck is a playmaker alone, let him open up the guns in a no huddle especially when you are up 14-0. However, Arians offense made Luck look down the field more for big plays. In today's game, you look to pass in order to set up the run, not the other way around. It will make the run game more effective, because teams won't know what to expect.
When we're tallying up the offensive balance, are we being sure to count sacks and scrambles as pass attempts? I count 20 called runs, out of 57 total snaps. That's a 65/35 run-pass split. Not exactly "taking the ball out of Luck's hands".
The problem with offensive production was pretty simple: too much pressure on luck from a bad offensive line that gave up four sacks, and the defense getting gashed by a running quarterback which chewed up clock. The Colts only got 7 possessions, but I don't think it was because THEY were taking too long on their drives.
I see problems here, but nothing that can't be vastly improved by getting Mike McGlynn and Kelvin Sheppard off the field as soon as humanly possible.
I'm more worried about the defense. This is what Irsay wanted and he got his beloved 3-4 defense full of slow, slow, slow players who got fooled inside and burned outside every time. Not once did I see them contain Pryor from going around the outside on an actual scramble or zone read. None of the lineman or linebackers could catch up to him and he tossed Landry around like a rag doll. I hate this defense. I always had my issues with Dungy's defense, but it had more to do with the all of the money being spent on the offense and him not having the personnel to run it to perfection (a price I was glad to pay for Peyton and co.), but at least they WERE fast. The entire front seven just looked sluggish (except for Mathis, but he was always chasing from the backside).
The entire O-line was awful. Luck sacked four times, forced to scramble and bail out the offense with his feet? Holy shit, guys!!! My time machine to 2012 worked!!!
Thanks for the article. I liked that you backed up your "Moan" with facts and stats from the game. Something though that bothers me about the criticism of the offense is it is overlooking the most basic analysis. It Worked. The Colts averaged an adjusted 3 points per possession yesterday. I believe that was second best for the week in the NFL, and to put it in perspective, New England was first last year with 2.82 points per drive (adjusted as per football outsiders). I agree with you on the formations. I really agree with you on the TE usage, and that fourth down and one call was so bad I think I turned red while screaming at the Colts not to get cute. There is room for improvement, but Sunday was one of the most efficient offensive outings you will see all year. It should also be noted that Oakland had three drives of 6 minutes and two of 5 minutes. Cause the defense stunk.
I think you're going to be embarrassed by this column as the season progresses. The bad thing about that prediction is I'm not going to be in a position to know whether or not you're embarrassed. The good thing is that we'll actually see if the team succeeds with Pep's power run offense or not. He typically doesn't have two ways of lining up, one for the run, one for the pass ... especially since, at least at Stanford, Luck usually chose between run and pass at line of scrimmage ... So the notion of run vs pass formations doesn't make sense! I think you and other commenters who agree are jumping on an unsophisticated knee jerk prior opinion ... and not appreciating any subtleties of the situation (Like those who would jump on Luck for bad passes without realizing he has to let go of the ball before the receivers make their breaks, and sometimes they went e wrong way! That said, I agree the heap game was ugly, just not on why it was ugly. I'm going to try to find time to look at the all-22 tape and see what I think actually happened.
You've said everything I wanted to say. How the offense was run has me worried. The Colts are believing their own bullshit about the usefulness of the running game. It was very effective at taking the ball out of the best player's hands and letting the Raiders get back into the game. I don't want Andrew throwing 45-50 passes every game but 23 is ridiculous! Against the Raiders!?!?!?!
The defense was the real deal, though! Erik Walden was protecting the edge. Kelvin Sheppard was saving the day with his brilliant open field tackling. Bjoern Werner was a wrecking machine! The defensive line was getting all kinds of pressure and making it look easy. Oh Wait! Can I hit the snooze button and get back to that version of the game?
Ok, I'm done moaning.
The defense bother me more than anything. if we can't stop Pryor in the read option who can we stop. This is still a young team that was a 7 win team last year( I know they won 11). If Luck gets hurt, we are 4 win team instead of 2. I'm happy with the run game. patience is a virtue.
"They don't have the line to be a power running team." Exactly. Well said. Playing a scheme that doesn't fit the talent you have is the worst possible thing you can do as a coach.
To be honest I almost started hoping the Colts would lose to the Raider just to dissuade them from using such a useless offence. If they keep fielding that offence they will get blown out. Hopefully that happens early and they throw out half the playbook and focus on the passing game. I was quite excited for 12 sets too. Think how good they could be operating out that formation and shifting seamlessly from passing to running plays while never showing their hand. sighhhhhh.
At this point I just hope it was an overly conservative game plan against a team they underestimated.
I think having the separate run/pass formations and not using TY Hilton feed each other.
The 3 WR 1 TE 1 RB formation that Peyton's Colts used worked well for three reasons -
1. They could run or pass effectively out of that formation (as said in the article)
2. Not having to swap personnel enabled the hurry-up
3. It put the best personnel on the field. (Harrison, Wayne, Garcon/Stokely, Clark, Addai/Edge)
Nothing magic about 3/1/1 though... These Colts should be putting their best personnel on the field for every offensive snap in a 2/2/1.
Wayne, Hilton, Fleener, Allen, and ummmm... Ballard (Bradshaw's gonna have to show more to earn it).
@TrueBlue I did, a while ago :P
@hankster The worst part about this game is all of the analysts on twitter saying, "Wow, the Colts would be unstoppable if Andrew Luck ran this offense."
By the way, I think it's a great article because it's cohesively, attempts at some self-deprecating humor, and generally is entertaining to read. That's not to say I agree with 100%, but that's okay. The point is, the article makes me go "hmmm...", as Fresh Prince would say. And I appreciate some reasonable insight and commentary.
In general I think we'll know a lot more after the Dolphins game that a) will happen after some (hopefully) teeth gnashing after the team watches their tape and b) against a more traditional offense (though perhaps wild-cat-ish).
Word to your mother.
Dude...what are you talking about? The only penalty on the second drive was declined (Reggie 17 yard reception for a first on 3rd and 9) and Luck had one scramble for 3 yards on the first play of the drive. The result was a TD. I'm not really sure what else you'd want in a drive... Our other TD drive was helped by a personal foul and neutral zone infraction, but neither were necessary to convert for a first (DHB had the first down and it was second down when he caught it and the neutral zone on the hard count was also on a second down). The "scramble" for the TD was Luck seeing a wiiiiide open lane for the first down and with a couple of blocks, the end zone.
Yes, we took advantage of the mistakes, but that's part of a successful drive, nor were they errors outside of normal play. I'm not sure why you're trying to be more critical than is even reasonable as there are plenty of things to be critical of, like the patchwork protection, stalled drives, and sometimes stale and predictable play-calling. But when you start criticizing perfectly good TOUCHDOWN drives, you're more than likely a negative nancy.
The run-pass ratio got better when the raiders came back/took the lead. At one point in the 2nd half, the colts had more runs than pass attempts. Obviously, when you factored in sacks and qb runs, it was closer to 50-50, but the point is: it was way too run-heavy through the meat of the game (IMO)
@ColtsHead_Ben I think you are correct. Going back and looking, the no gain / short gain runs are definitely there and they hurt. But when luck was sacked, the drive was pretty much killed (along with Castonzo's face mask penalty early in the third quarter). The pass/run rate was 25/20. Luck also scrambled four times and was sacked four times. Leaving off the kneel downs and counting those results in the passing category makes it 33/20 pass/run.
So, the Colts are still not protecting Luck well enough.
And yes, McGlynn and Sheppard need to go.
I certainly hope that Thornton is healthy and earning his way toward replacing McGlynn!
Angerer and Conner are both ahead of Sheppard when they are healthy.
@rogcohen I agree with you on the efficiency thing. I was saying the exact thing on Twitter yesterday. On the other hand, the Colts need to be aggressive and score b/c their defense is bad. Yesterday, their lack of aggressiveness cost them points against a BAD Oakland defense.
@rogcohen Herein lies the problem: efficient does not equal successful. When you look at New England's 2.82 points per drive is that they averaged 34 points per game. That means that not only were they efficient, but they also moved quick enough to have 11+ possessions per game. We not only need to know how efficient, but also whether we gave ourselves enough possessions. The answer is no, we did not.
@andreaallennyc I didn't go to Stanford, so I'm not biased enough to have this discussion.
@andreaallennyc There are formations that are more run-oriented and have higher tendencies of run than others. No team ONLY runs out of certain formations or ONLY passes out of others, but there are tendencies.
2-TE sets tend to run more than 3-WR sets. Sets w/ FB are more run oriented. If you have a 2-TE, FB set, your QB is going to choose run more often (if he has that power) b/c you have more blockers.
Oh yeah... and running the 3/1/1 all the time means they got really good at it. There's more than one reason Peyton did really well on play action.
@buymymonkey I agree, the dolphins game will be very telling.
There have been a few people who have told me that I'm jumping to conclusions, overreacting, etc... My response has been pretty consistent: it's possible, but I'm not judging Pep and the Colts offense solely on one game. Sunday's effort was consistent with what the Colts were saying all off-season. It was consistent with their mantra during training camp and the preseason.
Throughout the Summer I kept hoping this was another case of "say one thing, do another." But then they go out on Sunday and run a fullback for 50% of their plays. Andrew Luck doesn't throw a deep ball until they are trailing in the 4th quarter. TY Hilton gets in on less than 50% of the snaps. Fleener and Allen get one target each.
And then they effusively praise a running game that really didn't perform that well.
Jim Irsay wanted to distance himself from the previous era as much as possible. This is the result.
@GregC My bigger concern, now, is similar to many of the other concerns you and others have addressed: the formations and personnel on the field. Counting up the pass/run snaps tells me that the offense was passing more than running. However, the formations and personnel groupings favored running the ball. That makes no sense.
Like you and others, I would have liked to see more of T.Y. Hilton and the TEs involved in the passing game. I'm sure Stanley Havili is decent in the passing game but he is no T.Y. Hilton. Fleener is only useful in passing situations and Allen, a good blocker, is even better in the passing game. The best personnel are skilled in the passing game. Get them on the field and use them in that capacity, coach!
@Kyle Rodriguez @rogcohen Oh man you hit on something that has been a sore point for me as a Colts fan for years. We've had one of the most efficient offenses since 2000, yet one of the lowest possessions per a game. In large part its cause the defense has been awful and didn't take risk. I'd love to combine a high efficiency offense with an aggressive defense.
End of the day though, I'm feeling better about this win now than yesterday. It still counts as a win, and looking over the first day scores, a lot of "good" teams struggled. Pitt go completely shut out, and Seattle only scored 12 points on 9 possession. Also, there were a lot of boneheaded plays that costs teams the game (see Cincinnati and Tampa), and the Colts played a clean game.
@mattshedd @rogcohen Well said. Efficiency is very important, but will they be able to move faster and still score points? I don't know about you, but from the look of the defense, I think the offense will have to produce much more than 21 points if they are going to win against teams other than Oakland.
I actually know that!! And that the QBs choice is also influenced by the defense ... taking what they offer, rather than just being stubborn about what your plan/philosophy might be.
To me, the article seemed to be making a more stark, more stupid accusation. Pep may have a philosophy that is unpopular with Colts fans and media, but he is not an idiot. If I misunderstood, sorry, but I am likely not the only one ...
@Sandals Passing-wise, 3-wr sets are generally better. And for the Colts, DHB is currently a better playmaker than Fleener.
@GregC Interesting take ... I'd make a list of all the insults/ad hominum attacks on me that I perceived, but I'm not that obsessive and don't have the time. I think it's ALWAYS valuable to hear how I am perceived by others ... so it's a good thing for me to hear what others have written about me here ... whether I agree or not, that is certainly what others are seeing. However, the notion that you and others weren't writing insults seems a bit indefensible, in my opinion. But, like I said, we're not going to agree with each others comments ... so that's that ...
@andreaallennyc There has only been one person insulting others here: you.
The rest of us are attempting to have a conversation about the Colts. You don't like that conversation, so you lash out and attack us.
You disagree with the article. That's OK! But your inability to do it intelligently and respectfully is not OK. If you want to discuss the article, without resorting to insults and name calling, please, do.
Otherwise, have a nice day.
Umm ... Absolutely did say embarrassed, unsophisticated ... and 'fessed up to some of that right off ... And absolutely am a Stanford fan. But really didn't call anyone stupid and didn't defend Arians for 100% telegraphing plays because it protects Luck. Sorry if I've tried to correct misunderstandings ... I prefer being criticized for things I actually did ... And there are plenty of opportunities for that. I certainly will stop trying to set the record straight after this last attempt.
Amazing how bent out of shape some of you get ... amazing how insulting people here can be while criticizing someone, a bit but not entirely in/correctly, for being insulting. If it makes you feel better, go for it ...
I would certainly like to say I am not going to give up on Hamilton after one game. (As I don't think any Colts fan will.)
My concern is that after two perfect drives to start the season, the Raiders made adjustments and completely stymied the Colts until the last drive that was saved by Luck's brilliance at improvising.
Sure it was Hamilton's first NFL game at calling plays and I expect him to learn and get better. But to me, for this one game, he stayed way too long with things that were not working or really have any chance of working. He made no adjustments that I could see to the adjustments the Raiders made, and turned what should have been an easy Colts win into a nail biter.
@TribStarTJames Yup. I actually love Pep but don't want Colts to hire him as OC at this point in his career with a defensive HC. Just my POV
@DavidMLombardi Thanks. I'm happy 4 Andrew.Think he'll live longer w/Pep! Luv Arians & thrilled 4 him to have opportunity.But happy w/change
@cbainter12 Except if you can't run at all, it hurts the passing game.It's not like teams do well passing 75%.It's about balance.Trust Pep!
@T_Brookey Yes! I'm reading all your & others stuff & am really excited for this season. People shldn't worry about Pep's interest in run.
@ColtsAuth_Kyle Except comment abt rushing for 2 yards.Fascinates me how people misread Pep.Guess they really don't watch Stanford football!
@NateDunlevy Obviously not, but you're taking a very contentious approach 2 Pep's comments & I don't think it serves anyone well, espec you
@NateDunlevy Just don't assume that Pep is as 1sided as Arians. There is nothing in what he is saying or his history that indicates he's...
@NateDunlevy going to call 70% running plays or not respond 2 talent he has. I know we've been thru this before, but I think the analyses...
@NateDunlevy you rely on are flawed. Stats themselves are fine, but the assumptions, data used etc aren't solid enough 4 confidence you have
@NateDunlevy I've discussed specific problems w/analyses w/u before & u just get hostile & don't discuss. So why should I bother...
@NateDunlevy it's my opinion, just reminding you Be as dismissive as you want. Since you'll do it with or without evidence. Just go for it.
Sorry, not sure where I got the fact that you were a Pep Hamilton fan who vehemently defended him against the most minor perceived slight.
@andreaallennyc Oh, now you're trying to say that everyone is misunderstanding you. No. You do this every time you comment here. You DID use the words "embarrassed," "unsophisticated," and "stupid" in order to run-down and discredit Greg's and others' opinions. Using such language betrays your underlying attitude and you do it here constantly. It doesn't matter if you are right. Who cares about being right or wrong on one opinion regarding football? I have been wrong more than once and yet no one is standing by ready to call me stupid or tell me that my opinions are stupid because I was wrong. A dose of genuine respect and humility would go a long way towards others respecting your opinion.
Furthermore, we can all see that you are a Stanford fan. Everyone is welcome to comment here. But it would be nice to not have to worry about a cheerleader for the Stanford offense and former Stanford players and coaches distracting us from having discussions on issues pertaining to the Colts offense. On top of your lack of respect for others here, you have proven yourself incapable of objectivity.
You can claim that everyone is twisting your words or that you meant something to be funny. But we can all see what you are doing. I know I would appreciate it if you could refrain from such strong and derisive language in the future. We are all people here. Not screen names. You are speaking to real people. I think we would all appreciate genuine comments of disagreement if they are expressed with thoughtfulness and respect.
Again, I didn 't call YOU stupid and, similarly but more egregiously, you are misquoting or misunderstanding what I wrote last year. How would 100% telegraphing plays protect Luck? If a sportswriter says something like that, I will think it's not accurate and he or she missed something. I would be much less likely to comment on if it's about a coach I'm not interested in, so there you are correct. If you are following my comments, which I'm sure you aren't (I'm just not that important), you'd also know that I openly opposed the hiring of Pep when his name came up because he didn't call the plays at Stanford so I didn't think he was ready. There is certainly no way we are going to agree on your comments or mine ...
Let's just skip to agreement on mutual disrespect.
@andreaallennyc Last year, when I wrote almost the exact same thing about Bruce Arians, you applauded, because Luck was amazing and needed to be protected.
You know who has decades more NFL experience than Pep Hamilton?
You took offense to this article, yes, but it had nothing to do with my opinion. It was 100% because Pep Hamilton is from Stanford and you, a Stanford fan, not a Colts fan, can't stand to see anyone criticize anyone from Stanford.
This worked last year, when pretty much everyone Stanford-related on the Colts roster was universally praised. Now that Pep Hamilton comes in and talks about running the ball and power running game and then goes out and wastes a few drives DOING IT, you want to call people names in an effort to protect him.
Nothing you said in response to this article yesterday was funny. And shame on you for now trying to backtrack and say it was.
I'm more than willing to have a reasoned, rational discussion about the offense. Heck, @Kyle Rodriguez and I have had a few of those since Sunday (he doesn't agree with my take 100%).
But I'm not going to have someone come in and tell me I can't judge a guy based on 1 game, how I'm stupid and should feel embarrassed, when that same person was applauded criticism of a much-more experienced, seasoned Offensive Coordinator just 1 year ago.
Well, I seem to be totally unclear today. I didn't call anyone stupid. I accused the author of basically calling Pep Hamilton stupid. Yes, I think he was ridiculing him ... So if that passes for the intelligent discussions on this site that you refer to ... I am not impressed. But you can continue to be if you like.
@andreaallennyc While certainly we're all adults here and can take some heated exchanges or strong words, I like this site because the discussions are kept a bit more intelligent than other sites where posters repeatedly call each other stupid, and question each others' lineage. Would prefer it not go that way, please, kind sir.
Oops too continue, I have been following Stanford football since Jim Plunkett which mean: I'm old, have seen a few great QBs and a lot of really bad football. And am not loathe to criticize coaches, including Stanford coaches for various things (I do think Shaw lost the Fiesta bowl). Anyway, yes, I do have pretty thick skin ... And you threw a lot more insults than I did ... And I thought there was some substance to my comments ... OK if you didn't ...
Sorry you were so offended. The embarrassed comment was meant to be funny, so I obviously missed on tht. The stupid comment was not aimed at you, I was characterizing the opinion you seemed to be expressing ... So I missed on that too. But I do stand by my comments. If I read a sportswriter who is characterizing a coach as doing something as stupid as totally 100% telegraphing the plays, I'm not too likely to believe it. I suspect that coaches in general, and Pep in particular, are not that stupid and that there is more going on than the sportswriter realizes. If you were using hyperbole, sorry, but I don't think riling up fans against a coach that way is very useful. Yes, I've
@andreaallennyc You know, you want to throw around phrases like "be embarrassed" and "stupid", I sure hope you have a thick enough skin for when people put stuff back on you./
You might consider using that higher education to have a reasoned, unemotional discussion. It will probably save YOU from some embarrassment.