2nd and 40

[John Waylon]

20 hours ago, braveheartcolt said:

And the Bolts defense knew that as well.....

 

And they weren't expecting the draw play that is run almost every time that situation comes up?

 

They knew that Luck to Hilton was going to be a thing at the end, too. But it still worked. Why? Because it's our strength. No matter how much we want to be and how much we try, we aren't a running team. When was the last time we had a run go for 40 yards? 30 yards? When you look at our big chunk plays, they are passes. We have guys with wheels fast enough to get YAC, as we saw on the final TD Sunday. 

[shakedownstreet]

might wanna try getting a holding call to bring up 3rd & 50

[braveheartcolt]

Good point Shakie. People seem more upset that we played it safe, rather than the fact we got ourselves into that position in the first place. Why criticise the players when you can criticise the coaches for the conservative (yet winning) play calling?

 

[Dustin]

They threw the ball on the very next play. Trying not to cause a turnover is not an argument. 

[braveheartcolt]

1 minute ago, Dustin said:

They threw the ball on the very next play. Trying not to cause a turnover is not an argument. 

Short pass, with no real conviction in getting a first down. But a good point nonetheless.

[cdgacoltsfan]

23 hours ago, Mitch Connors said:

 

Try to come up with the first and here are the things that could go right:

  - completions and no 1st down (field position)

  - completions and a 1st down

  - completions and a TD

  - defensive holding/P.I.  1st down

 

dont forget...illegal contact-first down

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Dustin said:

They threw the ball on the very next play. Trying not to cause a turnover is not an argument. 

 

Of course it is.     Worse,  you know it is.

 

You've reduced to caveman thinking.       Throw or not throw.

 

You eliminate the types of throws....   3 steps, 5 steps,  7 steps,  roll out.   etc.

 

But you're smart enough to know this.       You're just not honest enough to argue the point.     You try to make it black or white,  when there are all sorts of shades of gray involved.      You just pretend they don't exist.

 

Nice try.

 

[NewColtsFan]

On 9/26/2016 at 2:34 PM, Mitch Connors said:

 

Try to come up with the first and here are the things that could go right:

  - completions and no 1st down (field position)

  - completions and a 1st down

  - completions and a TD

  - defensive holding/P.I.  1st down

 

 

There are 32 Head Coaches in the NFL.     

 

Why do basically all 32 go conservative on 2nd and 40?      What do these guys know that apparently you don't?

 

Trying to make this a Pagano-thing is weak.     It's not an issue for him,  it's an issue for all HC's.   They're reluctant to risk a turnover or another negative play in that circumstance. 

 

Punt and live to fight another day.....

 

[Dustin]

1 hour ago, braveheartcolt said:

Short pass, with no real conviction in getting a first down. But a good point nonetheless.

 

Getting a 1st down isn't even the first priority. Its getting an extra 6-7 yards on the previous play to flip the field on a punt.

[Dustin]

38 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Of course it is.     Worse,  you know it is.

 

You've reduced to caveman thinking.       Throw or not throw.

 

You eliminate the types of throws....   3 steps, 5 steps,  7 steps,  roll out.   etc.

 

But you're smart enough to know this.       You're just not honest enough to argue the point.     You try to make it black or white,  when there are all sorts of shades of gray involved.      You just pretend they don't exist.

 

Nice try.

 

 

Not an argument. 

 

If you want to have a discussion about this, please form an argument. 

[Mitch Connors]

4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

There are 32 Head Coaches in the NFL.     

 

Why do basically all 32 go conservative on 2nd and 40?      What do these guys know that apparently you don't?

 

Trying to make this a Pagano-thing is weak.     It's not an issue for him,  it's an issue for all HC's.   They're reluctant to risk a turnover or another negative play in that circumstance. 

 

Punt and live to fight another day.....

 

Trends are changing and the notion of giving up on any possession is too. 10 years ago it was a terrible idea to go for it on 4th and 1 on the 50. Today? 20+ teams do it no questions. Why? Because the odds are more likely you get a positive outcome when factoring the passing penalties than a turnover. 

You know who rarely gives up on possessions? Belicheck. I would be shocked to see the Pats not call a slant or screen in that scenario on 2nd down. Belicheck should call You and ask what everyone else always does and he'd be a better coach.

 

[OffensivelyPC]

On ‎9‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 2:54 PM, NewColtsFan said:

 

There are zero plays for 2nd and 40,  no matter what our resident genius thinks....

 

But if you try to come up with the first,  here's a sample of what could go wrong....

 

-- Interception.

-- Catch and fumble and the D recovers.

-- Sack and a possible fumble....    

-- Or, just a sack and no fumble and worse field position.

 

There's lots that could go wrong,  and the odds are tiny of anything going right.     You're just trying to get back some of the yardage to help your punt team and the field position battle.

 

I don't agree with this.  You risk an interception, catch, fumble, sack, etc., on any passing play (or run play fumble or loss of yardage for that matter), whether it's 2nd and 3 on the 35 or 2nd and 40 on the 35.  You can accept the drive is dead and still cough the ball up no matter what play you're running.  They're going to be in prevent defense, and if there's one thing Colts fans know, it's how fast teams eat up yardage in 2 minute drill when we're in prevent.  The odds are small of having something go right, sure,  but it's about the same as the odds of really improving field position to a point that it makes a difference.  And even if your goal was to improve field position, that's still not a reason to exclude the passing game.  It's going to be, in all likelihood, your best chance of really actually getting your punter in range for downing the ball inside the 10 given your opponents coverage.

[gacoop1]

Could have used that 140 Million dollar arm. Skittish OC and HC...Need to man up and take some risk....

[crazycolt1]

5 minutes ago, gacoop1 said:

Could have used that 140 Million dollar arm. Skittish OC and HC...Need to man up and take some risk....

Being safe and smart is not being skittish. Luck used that 140 million arm when needed didn't he?

I am still waiting for you to accept the bet I proposed to you. What's the matter? You don't even believe in your own nonsense either?

[crazycolt1]

14 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

I don't agree with this.  You risk an interception, catch, fumble, sack, etc., on any passing play (or run play fumble or loss of yardage for that matter), whether it's 2nd and 3 on the 35 or 2nd and 40 on the 35.  You can accept the drive is dead and still cough the ball up no matter what play you're running.  They're going to be in prevent defense, and if there's one thing Colts fans know, it's how fast teams eat up yardage in 2 minute drill when we're in prevent.  The odds are small of having something go right, sure,  but it's about the same as the odds of really improving field position to a point that it makes a difference.  And even if your goal was to improve field position, that's still not a reason to exclude the passing game.  It's going to be, in all likelihood, your best chance of really actually getting your punter in range for downing the ball inside the 10 given your opponents coverage.

Sorry, I cant agree. We have maybe the best punter in the league so let him earn his money.

[crazycolt1]

There seems to be a few who are just arguing for arguments sake. It don't take a rocket scientist to know that field position is crucial.

Just because Pagano played it safe some want to make an issue over it. That is just looking for something to be negative even when there is nothing.

One poster even brought up Belichick and how he would have gone for it. Seems like I remember one time Belichick did go for it and it cost him a trip to the super bowl when it didn't work.

[NewColtsFan]

22 minutes ago, Mitch Connors said:

 

Trends are changing and the notion of giving up on any possession is too. 10 years ago it was a terrible idea to go for it on 4th and 1 on the 50. Today? 20+ teams do it no questions. Why? Because the odds are more likely you get a positive outcome when factoring the passing penalties than a turnover. 

You know who rarely gives up on possessions? Belicheck. I would be shocked to see the Pats not call a slant or screen in that scenario on 2nd down. Belicheck should call You and ask what everyone else always does and he'd be a better coach.

 

 

Yeah.....  Belichick also won with his 2nd string back-up who has almost no experience and he won with his 3rd string QB who was a rookie.

 

Belichick is in a league of his own.     So, comparing anyone to BB and saying he's not as good is just stating the incredibly obvious.      No one is as good as BB.

 

Oh,  and since I'm 59 and have followed the NFL for 50 years I can share with you that your comment that 10 years ago it was a terrible idea to go for it on 4th and 1 from the 50 is not only false,  it's not even a little bit true.

 

There are a large number of factors that go into making that decision,  but, in general that was true back in the 70's --- maybe.     I'm not sure where you got that idea,  but I'd seriously question it.....

 

[RockThatBlue]

On 9/26/2016 at 10:00 PM, NorthernBlue said:

Man people are really searching hard to say something negative about the coaching staff right now

Yup. I can't believe theres an argument about a 2nd and 40. 

 

Whats funny is if they called 2 pass plays and Luck gets picked, these same people would be whining that the Colts should have played it conservative and ran the ball. A lot of stupid posts in this thread quite frankly. And the Colts won the game the last I checked, the 2nd and 40 is meaningless. I guess people have to find something to cry about since we won.

[RockThatBlue]

40 minutes ago, gacoop1 said:

Could have used that 140 Million dollar arm. Skittish OC and HC...Need to man up and take some risk....

You do realize pretty much every NFL coach would have done the same thing right?

[crazycolt1]

3 minutes ago, RockThatBlue said:

You do realize pretty much every NFL coach would have done the same thing right?

He knows. He just want's to throw every negative thing out there even when there is nothing.

I think he really don't believe anything he says. He is just letting his inner Skip Bayless come out.

[Superman]

On 9/26/2016 at 11:59 AM, lollygagger8 said:

I don't like how we just gave up. I realize it was a long yardage to achieve, but not even trying to advance the ball with throws was lame. 

 

If you are just going to give up like that, just punt it on 2nd down. 

 

???

 

You could punt on 2nd and 40 from your own 21 yard line, or you could punt on 4th and 24 from your own 37 yard line. How is one not better than the other?

[Superman]

On 9/26/2016 at 2:27 PM, MR. Blueblood said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't all those things happen every time you decide to throw the ball?  Regardless if it's first and 10, third and 3, or second and 40.

 

I get the point you're making, just the bullet points you are trying to use can happen on ANY GIVEN PLAY in a game.

 

The post was in response to the OP, who basically asked 'what's the worst that could happen?' Yeah, there's lots that can happen, which is the answer whenever someone questions a conservative decision. 

 

The real question is about risk/reward, which is how basically any binary decision should be graded. The risk is something catastrophic happening, and the chances of that were considerable, given the fact that the protection was leaky all day, Luck had given up a sack/fumble/TD at the end of the first half, and he'd thrown a pick earlier in the second quarter. Lots could go wrong.

 

The reward would be a first down, or even a TD. But on that drive, the offense was a mess, the calls were going against the Colts, and you could assume that any well coached team would be very passive in coverage to avoid a cheap defensive holding penalty for a five yard automatic first down. You never know, but you're playing the odds, and the odds weren't in the Colts favor on that drive.

 

Besides all that, it's early in the 4th quarter, you have a tight game, you're at home, the defense is actually playing pretty well, especially in the red zone, and your offense has been moving the ball effectively when they avoid big mistakes. The smart play is to flip the field, rely on your defense, and let the offense get the ball back with a chance to deliver the lead. And that was the eventual outcome.

 

The sequence almost worked out for the Colts, by the way. The Chargers muffed the punt and the Colts almost recovered. 

 

I know fans always want to see the team go 'pedal to the metal,' but the Colts did the smart thing there. (Fans in LOS were even booing when the Colts kneeled it out at the end of the first half, which is a ridiculous response, IMO.) 

[lollygagger8]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

???

 

You could punt on 2nd and 40 from your own 21 yard line, or you could punt on 4th and 24 from your own 37 yard line. How is one not better than the other?

 

I'm saying we didn't even try to get a first down. We conceded defeat. If you continue to play like that, you aren't going to win many games. 

 

I would've rather seen them actually try to get a first down instead of just running into a stacked box with a right side O-line that is playing out of position. TY was eating them up all game, at least run a 20 yard route and TRY. 

 

 

[Coffeedrinker]

So the Colts completed a pass for a first down and there was a holding call on Doyle

 

2nd and 20

 

Then they go deep and complete a 53 yard pass to Rogers - Offensive Pass Interference

 

2nd and 30

 

Then they complete another pass for 12 yards + or - another holding call

 

2nd and 40.

 

The D is dropping back into a prevent D, running the ball in that situation is not bad.  One it's clear the refs are not going to let you have anything big, two the O is facing a loose front 7, so there is a chance the RB can get to the 2nd level and make a move or break a tackle and get a big gain, three you start playing for field position.

 

What I don't get is going empty backfield on 3rd and 5 to 3rd and 3.  Not just the Colts but a lot of teams do this... I would keep a running back in so you have the threat of a run.  Help freeze those LBers for a fraction of a second.

[Superman]

48 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

So the Colts completed a pass for a first down and there was a holding call on Doyle

 

2nd and 20

 

Then they go deep and complete a 53 yard pass to Rogers - Offensive Pass Interference

 

2nd and 30

 

Then they complete another pass for 12 yards + or - another holding call

 

2nd and 40.

 

The D is dropping back into a prevent D, running the ball in that situation is not bad.  One it's clear the refs are not going to let you have anything big, two the O is facing a loose front 7, so there is a chance the RB can get to the 2nd level and make a move or break a tackle and get a big gain, three you start playing for field position.

 

What I don't get is going empty backfield on 3rd and 5 to 3rd and 3.  Not just the Colts but a lot of teams do this... I would keep a running back in so you have the threat of a run.  Help freeze those LBers for a fraction of a second.

 

 I hate empty backfield, especially on third down. 

[Superman]

2 hours ago, lollygagger8 said:

 

I'm saying we didn't even try to get a first down. We conceded defeat. If you continue to play like that, you aren't going to win many games. 

 

I would've rather seen them actually try to get a first down instead of just running into a stacked box with a right side O-line that is playing out of position. TY was eating them up all game, at least run a 20 yard route and TRY. 

 

 

 

 It wasn't a stacked box. They were basically in prevent. 

 

I don't know why you are acting like they gave up on the game. It was a bad situation. They decided to live to fight another day. Similar to being backed up against your own end zone. 

[Dustin]

2 hours ago, lollygagger8 said:

 

I'm saying we didn't even try to get a first down. We conceded defeat. If you continue to play like that, you aren't going to win many games. 

 

I would've rather seen them actually try to get a first down instead of just running into a stacked box with a right side O-line that is playing out of position. TY was eating them up all game, at least run a 20 yard route and TRY. 

 

 

 

Don't forget that Pagano also gave up when we had the ball with a minute left and 2 timeouts at the end of the half. 

[braveheartcolt]

5 minutes ago, Dustin said:

 

Don't forget that Pagano also gave up when we had the ball with a minute left and 2 timeouts at the end of the half. 

Don't forget that despite being ultra conservative on these two drives, Pagano gave up on losing the game. 

[lollygagger8]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 It wasn't a stacked box. They were basically in prevent. 

 

I don't know why you are acting like they gave up on the game. It was a bad situation. They decided to live to fight another day. Similar to being backed up against your own end zone. 

 

You're probably right about the stacked box.... I was going off memory.

 

Lol, I'm not acting like they gave up the game, just that series. I'm simply not a fan of giving up as much as you seem to be. With TY in beast mode, why not go for some sideline throws only he can get? He was beating his man all day. If they are incomplete, big deal. You lost what.....10 or so yards? Boomstick would've done his thing either way. 

[lollygagger8]

6 minutes ago, Dustin said:

 

Don't forget that Pagano also gave up when we had the ball with a minute left and 2 timeouts at the end of the half. 

 

Ya, that one was another yelling at the TV moment for me.

 

[Jay Kirk]

1 minute ago, lollygagger8 said:

 

Ya, that one was another yelling at the TV moment for me.

 

Lolly lol can see you having a few of those during most of our games.

[Dustin]

2 minutes ago, braveheartcolt said:

Don't forget that despite being ultra conservative on these two drives, Pagano gave up on losing the game. 

 

Yeah thankfully TY and Luck are good enough to overcome an incompetent coaching staff.

[jskinnz]

11 hours ago, gacoop1 said:

Could have used that 140 Million dollar arm. Skittish OC and HC...Need to man up and take some risk....

 

Complete nonsense.  

[indyagent17]

I prefer screens in situations like that, the linebackers usually back of and allow under routes. There is like a 3% chance of getting a first down but you are more likely to get a defensive holding call on a screen when receivers are in the pattern. Just my opinion

[Superman]

37 minutes ago, lollygagger8 said:

I'm simply not a fan of giving up as much as you seem to be.

 

Yeah, no one is a fan of giving up. They weighed the risk/reward and made a rational decision, one that they believed gave them a better chance of winning the game. 

 

Quote

If they are incomplete, big deal. You lost what.....10 or so yards? Boomstick would've done his thing either way. 

 

This is also strange to me. McAfee doesn't have an unlimited leg, and punt coverage is dependent on hang time, not just distance. 

[OffensivelyPC]

8 hours ago, Superman said:

I know fans always want to see the team go 'pedal to the metal,' but the Colts did the smart thing there. (Fans in LOS were even booing when the Colts kneeled it out at the end of the first half, which is a ridiculous response, IMO.) 

Especially after the previous drive ended in a fumble recovery for a touchdown and then we put the ball on the turf the first play of that last drive in the first half.

[Flash]

10 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

Especially after the previous drive ended in a fumble recovery for a touchdown and then we put the ball on the turf the first play of that last drive in the first half.

Using the fumble recovery to justify not trying to advance the ball for a shot at a field goal before the half is justified, however, using the fumble by Gore in your argument is not justified.

 

The run by Gore is part of the 'playing it safe' mentality. Most fans would want to see Luck throw the ball, save the clock, and move the ball forward for a shot at a field goal. Instead, Pagano played it safe, and it nearly resulted in a turnover.

[lollygagger8]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah, no one is a fan of giving up. They weighed the risk/reward and made a rational decision, one that they believed gave them a better chance of winning the game. 

 

 

This is also strange to me. McAfee doesn't have an unlimited leg, and punt coverage is dependent on hang time, not just distance. 

 

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Just like going for 2 last week, some people thought it was a good idea, some didn't. If we would've lost this game, more people would be questioning this. 

 

 

 

Oh, and McAfee has unlimited everything. Lol 

[lollygagger8]

20 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

Especially after the previous drive ended in a fumble recovery for a touchdown and then we put the ball on the turf the first play of that last drive in the first half.

 

When the refs should've blown that play dead long before that happened. 

[OffensivelyPC]

3 minutes ago, Flash said:

Using the fumble recovery to justify not trying to advance the ball for a shot at a field goal before the half is justified, however, using the fumble by Gore in your argument is not justified.

 

The run by Gore is part of the 'playing it safe' mentality. Most fans would want to see Luck throw the ball, save the clock, and move the ball forward for a shot at a field goal. Instead, Pagano played it safe, and it nearly resulted in a turnover.

I'm saying using the fumble TD justified the call to run the ball on 1st and 10 with 55 seconds.  The fumble by Gore was even more justification to just take it in before the half with a tie score.  Hence why I agree with Superman that the boos were unwarranted.  I get what the fans wanted to see, but given the previous two fumbles on 2 plays, there wasn't much reason to throw the ball down field.  Especially when each incomplete stops the clock and should we give the ball back to SD, they have 2 timeouts (at least 1 if we decide to run on 3rd and 10 after an incomplete pass).