The Colts were 1-2 when they went into the bye week and Pagano was dignosed with Cancer.

Bruce Arians took over and led the team to a 9-3 record. They are now 10-5.

My question is "what happens now that Pagano takes over?"

They already have won a playoff spot (most likely 5th seed) but they face the Texans this week. Houston is coming off a couple of losses and are fighting for the #1 seed. If they lose they could drop to the #3 seed.

So in all likelihood the Colts lose the first game back under Pagano. Then they would have to play Baltimore in the WC game.

As amazing a season as everyone would have you believe, the Colts have only beaten ONE team this year that has a winning record.

In all probability they lose the Ravens game. They are now 1-4 under Chuck Pagano.

Next year Arians takes a head coaching position. Pagano takes over.

Let's take a look at each coaches history...

Bruce Arians: Offensive coach who happened to be the QB coach when Peyton Manning came to Indy.

He then took over as OC in Cleveland (2001-2003) and took a very bad team to the playoffs in 2002.

Next he went to Pittsburgh the year Roethlisberger was drafted as the WR coach for 3 years. He took over as OC in 2007 until 2011. He won two SB's. Ben made his first Pro Bowl in 2007 which was Arians first year as OC.

Chuck Pagano: Defensive coach who did great things as a secondary coach and then spent ONE year as DC for a talented Ravens team. Next stop...HC Indy.

So now what happens in Indy? Are they as successfull under Pagano? I have my doubts. Sure it would make a great Hollywood "feel good" story but....

.....................................................................................
“I'm here" You're welcome!" - Kenny Powers



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2012 04:41AM by eesti.

the colts are like the cheifs a few years back and the dolphins in 2008. A medicore at best team that takes advantage of a weak schedule and plays out of its head for a year too make and get blown out in the playoffs. Next year they will revert to their true selves regardless of who is coaching.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

They should thank God Houston is keeping them from playing a tougher shecdule next year. I think in 2008 we won the AFC east and had to play a 'first place' schedule in 2009. The Colts should drop w/ a tougher schedule and teams having a years worth of nfl film on Luck to study.

the whole "first place schedule" thing is over blown. I think there are only 2-4 opponents who can change based on where you finish, and from year to year there are always "suprising" good teams and bad.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the whole "first place schedule" thing is over
> blown. I think there are only 2-4 opponents who
> can change based on where you finish, and from
> year to year there are always "suprising" good
> teams and bad.


Its two opponents that differ based on where you finish.

Each team plays its own division 2x. That's 6 games

Each team plays an entire division from their conference (on a rotating basis) ...that's 4 games.

Each team plays an entire division from the other conference (also on a rotating basis)....that's another 4 games.

That totals 14 games.

The remaining two games are played against conference opponents who are in the two divisions you aren't playing (yours and the rotating Division) and finished in the same position 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th as you did the previous year.

If you don't get nixed by cancer chances are the dude doesn't give a shit about footie ball anymore so I say fire his ass immediately!

BNF. And angry!

BTW: why do we even care about Indy @thispoint?

They sucked for Luck and that's their future. Ours, albeit slightly less tenable, is with Thill. And personally, I'm not 100% sold on the "FACT" that Luck is a superior N F L coitusback (with certification & long-term AKC papers) than Thill (pronounced Tee-Hill).

So I say fock Indy and that stupid colt they rode in on. We're a superior franchise according to a number of unknown sources so why-why-why should we give a carp about an N F L team that's not even in our division (tho I will give the author duh merit points for yapping about a meaningless "AFC" team).

Happy Nude Year!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2012 12:51PM by BigNastyFish.

I don't think an AFC playoff team is meaningless to the Dolphins. The question was more about the success of the Colts next year. It will matter if they make another playoff appearance. It won't if they don't. (They kicked our ass once already.)

Like it or not, RT will be compared to every QB in the 2012 class.

.....................................................................................
“I'm here" You're welcome!" - Kenny Powers

Here we go again Chyren..........who orchestrated this "Suck for Luck" campaign? The Polians? Jim Caldwell? Matt Painter and the other blocks of cheese that played QB for the Colts last year? Not sure if you noticed but they're all gone, think Peyton did it......oh wait, he's gone also, maybe Jeff Saturday wanted a younger set of hands tickling his balls every Sunday......wait a minute, couldn't of been him.
When you wanna give me a plausible shred of evidence or even a believable explanation, then maybe i'll put it in my bng and smoke it.......but until then.................

Well, don't you have to provide an explanation of 10-6 to 2-14 to 10-5????

I don't know if any or ALL of those elements "phoned it in" but I pointed out "from 10-6 to 2-14, with the only difference being Peyton."

Now I'm able to say "from 10-6 to 2-14 to 10-5."

So when does it become YOUR SIDE'S DUTY to explain those figures?

You rattle off the Coach the owners, etc. and demand for me to explain the intricacies of the crime.

LOL. It's just like a high ranking mobster ends up floating in the river and when I say it's a "mob hit," you DEMAND to know FROM ME... WHO did, how he did it, what his interests is?

But isn't it your job TO GO FIRST????

Don't you first have to explain WHY IT'S NOT A MOB HIT?

All I have to do is to show that he ended up in the river with a bullet in the back of his head and his hands tied behind his back and he was a well known mobster. So I speculate, quite fairly, it was a mob hit.

Here, I have shown that in the year before, the Colts went 10-6 and during the year that Peyton was hurt and in the last year of his contract with Luck coming out of college, they went 2-14, and the next year they went back to 10-5.

Time for you to pony up and explain those differences in the records, Dolph.

One year they were good, the next year they sucked, then the next year after that they were good again.......pretty cool isn't it?

And BTW, that's CURTIS Painter (one should speak of Purdue Quarterbacks with reverence).

But as I have said many times, You "Quarterback is the only player on the team" people kill me.

You really think that the QB alone was OR EVEN COULD HAVE BEEN the difference between a 2-14 performance and a 10-5 performance?

These "quarterback is the only player on the team" people are the ones who are ready to run RT out of town on a rail just because we are not going to the SuperBowl this year after INSISTING last April that we draft a QB at no.8. I think it turned out great but some of the same people who insisted we take the risk with Tannehill (a risk I didn't want to take) are now dissatisfied because he hasn't taken us to the Super Bowl in his first year.

You put too much on the quarterback and too little on the rest of a football team.

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One year they were good, the next year they
> sucked, then the next year after that they were
> good again.......pretty cool isn't it?


If they had gone from 9-7 one year, then 7-9 the next year, and after that 9-7, the next year, I would say "pretty cool isn't it?"

But from 10-6 to 2-14 to 10-5, I say, "Heyyyyyyyy, what's going on here?"

They might of played better with Matt Painter at QB

Too much emphasis on the QB, again.

eesti Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, don't you have to provide an explanation of
> 10-6 to 2-14 to 10-5????
>
> With Peyton, Without Peyton, with the next
> Peyton...or....


So I guess we all have to agree with DolfanKing that the reason we are 7-8 and will be 7-9 is that Tannehill is just not a good quarterback.

Right?

I mean let's follow the logic.

The difference in Last year's Colts 2-14 is because they were playing without either Peyton or Andrew Luck.

So, if a quarterback means that much to a team, how do you argue against DolfanKing who says that Tannehill is no better than Henne and, in fact, worse than Matt Moore.

Matt Moore had a 6-3 record with us last year.

Project that same percentage to include the first seven games and then we go 4-3 over the last seven games and that means had Matt Moore started, then we would have been 10-6.

So if a Quarterback dictates the won-lost record by himself, then Matt Moore is a Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck at 10-6 and Ryan Tannhill is a 7-8 quarterback.

THUS like DolfanKing says, "Ryan Tannehill is no better than Chad Henne and WORSE than Matt Moore."

I don't believe that! Do you dolphaholic?

If not then "what gives" (as we used to say in the 50's) with this quarterback "thing"?

Chyren, you act like these wild shifts in records never happen, short term memory loss old timer, it just happened to our very own team, except in our case we took a lineman (at the time a very good one I might add, but in hindsight......) and sunk into mediocrity. I didn't hear you you complaining when we were in the midst of the "LOSE FOR LONG" campaign.

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chyren, you act like these wild shifts in records
> never happen, short term memory loss old timer, it
> just happened to our very own team, except in our
> case we took a lineman (at the time a very good
> one I might add, but in hindsight......) and sunk
> into mediocrity. I didn't hear you you complaining
> when we were in the midst of the "LOSE FOR LONG"
> campaign.

"Lose for Long?????" Surely this is one of your jokes. The NFL was waiting with baited breath to see who would draft Jake???????

Yes its a feeble attempt at humor.......duh

Well I knew you had made up THE SAYING Lose for Long to fit the Suck for Luck and that was the joke but you seemed serious about us trying to play our poorest to draft Long or some other top player.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Too much emphasis on the QB, again.


QB is now everything in this league, its a pass happy league because they want ticket sales. The on the ground run game is to conservative, people want to see the bombs flying. Football has become girls touch football ever since brady rule that you cant touch mr model, just saying

The AFC is shaping up to be the "battle of the vaginas" starring the Lady and Manning. Those two prima donna coitusback divas are what the N F L is all about.

I think the league sucks. And the games are "fixed" within parameters that heavily favor the divas and vaginal footie ball in general.

I didn't watch one game all the way through this season. And I'll probably watch even less next season.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> So I guess we all have to agree with DolfanKing
> that the reason we are 7-8 and will be 7-9 is that
> Tannehill is just not a good quarterback.
>
> Right?
>
> I mean let's follow the logic.
>
> The difference in Last year's Colts 2-14 is
> because they were playing without either Peyton or
> Andrew Luck.
>
> So, if a quarterback means that much to a team,
> how do you argue against DolfanKing who says that
> Tannehill is no better than Henne and, in fact,
> worse than Matt Moore.
>
> Matt Moore had a 6-3 record with us last year.
>
> Project that same percentage to include the first
> seven games and then we go 4-3 over the last seven
> games and that means had Matt Moore started, then
> we would have been 10-6.
>
> So if a Quarterback dictates the won-lost record
> by himself, then Matt Moore is a Peyton Manning
> and Andrew Luck at 10-6 and Ryan Tannhill is a 7-8
> quarterback.
>
> THUS like DolfanKing says, "Ryan Tannehill is no
> better than Chad Henne and WORSE than Matt
> Moore."
>
> I don't believe that! Do you dolphaholic?
>
> If not then "what gives" (as we used to say in the
> 50's) with this quarterback "thing"?

There still seems to be a huge misunderstanding of what I'm saying here....

I think we would have won two to three more games with Moore than Tannehill. That is, we had a rookie QB that didn't come through at some key times in a few games this year.

But, looking at how this team played against NE, I've got to say playing Tannehill was the right move. This team has some serious problems... No bonafide everydown RB, poor pass protection, not enough depth to run a legit 3 receiver set. Even if the defense and Reggie Bush had played well enough to make the playoffs, this team would have backed in and gotten crushed in the wildcard weekend.

I though the team was a little better, but it wasn't. And so, Tannehill was the right move. Because, in hindsight, the best that could happen for the kid is that he gets some reps. To his credit Tannehill didn't implode. Hopefully he has enough experience now to make his sophomore year a good one. If not, we have to think about a new QB. And I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't pick one up this year....

------------------------------------------------------------

Miami Dolphins. Always Perfect.