Camio
-
Posts
137 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Camio
-
-
33 minutes ago, Indy_Mike said:
First of all I'm am really surprised there are so many Pagano fanboys on here...I mean some people are coming up with some really wild scenarios to try to give him a pass on this obvious blunder. I was very disappointed to hear him refuse to admit he was wrong with Lamey tonight...Bob gave him a number of chances to at least admit he might have made a mistake but her refused. I always liked Pagano, but I was disappointed with this lack of humility and willingness to admit he "might" have been wrong.
I think he knew he messed up right after the game when he came up with the personnel thing.
There's no way he's gonna admit anything now.
-
Just now, bluebombers87 said:
Why would they? They were winning. Worst case scenario colts score and you have an extra timeout.
Why would they? Is this a serious question?
Check the NFL. Thats how good clock management works. Every teams do that. You see it almost weekly.
-
1 minute ago, threeflight said:
Apparently I have to keep repeating myself because some people are clearly not able to grasp this rather simple game strategy concept. In fact they keep repeating the same thing over and over and over. That being that getting the right players and packages on the field was so crucial that a TO needed to be called. They are having trouble understanding that doing that and also burning time off the clock are not mutually exclusive.
You can do both.
Regardless, clock wouldn't have been milked because the Lions would've called TO.
-
33 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:
It was brought up by Pagano because they asked him.
Also what all of these Madden experts are forgetting is that if you bleed the clock, burn the timeout you remove any possible run or throw over the middle short of the goal line. Edge passes and end zone tosses are your only real bet unless you wanna eat a down by clocking it. Take the timeout, you set up a list of plays to try and get everyone on the same page.
Really it's not the crucifixion worthy move you all want it to be.
Lions would've stopped the clock so no need to worry about the time there. It just means Colts would've had 1 more TO left while the Lions would've had 1 less.
Its called clock management.
Its funny to see the Madden references. It never gets old. Madden or not, you're wrong.
-
10 minutes ago, Restored said:
Again, if the Colts don't use the timeout and end up not scoring because they weren't able to get their personnel groups together, it doesn't matter. Again, if the defense does its job and holds up their end of the deal for 37 seconds, the timeout isn't even an issue.
Before posting any further, you should scroll back to page 1. Where did anyone argue for the Colts to not take a TO?
You're making stuff up.
Colts, if they wanted to take a TO, had to let the playclock run down to 1 second. However, the Lions would've prevented that from happening by calling a TO with 1:10+ left (so over 35 secs on the playclock).
Now, please go search the NFL rules and show me where it says that if the opposing team calls TO, that you cant sub.
You wont be able to find that because the rules dont say that.
You're wrong. Dead wrong. Making up stuff like "had the Colts not taken a TO there" is irrelevant. Nobody said taking the TO was the mistake.
The mistake was the timing of it. Its extremely simple to understand and its been stated previously in this thread. The fact you're avoiding that and trying to make stuff up for your flawed argument isnt the best way for you to make your point. You're better off admitting you're wrong instead of making stuff up.
Not gonna bother replying anymore unless you actually come up with something substantive.
And btw, to awnser the 2nd sentence of your post, as I stated before, the fact that the Lions kicker made the FG or not is irrelevant.
It doesnt undo Pagano's mistake.
Do you know how silly this is to even argue?
-
5 minutes ago, Restored said:
Last time I checked, timeouts don't make your defense magically learn how to tackle so it doesn't really matter how many the Lions had.
The fact the Lions scored (or not) has nothing to do with the gaffe by Pagano. Had the Lions not scored (say FG was missed), this doesnt change from the fact Pagano messed up.
Its not related unless what you're saying is this: that Pagano's gaffe gave the Lions more time to setup for that FG.
Is that what you're trying to say? No matter how you slice it, he messed up.
The fact the Lions kicker made or missed the FG doesnt change anything.
Its like saying, had the Jets kicker missed that FG vs the Colts in the playoffs 6 years ago or so after Caldwell's blunder that its not a mistake because the Jets kicker missed the attempt.
What kind of argument is that?
If anything, you're saying Pagano made a gaffe with calling that TO too quickly because he should've known, since he's the HC, that the Colts dont have a D. He therefore should've done whatever he can to either milk the clock or force the Lions to burn a TO or 2.
Your argument is actually working against you.
-
1 minute ago, Restored said:
Again, I'm bringing this up because it was the reasoning Pagano used. If you want to believe that Detroit having one less timeout would've made the Colts defenders able to tackle on the last drive, by all means go ahead and fight that argument.
Pagano's reasoning was wrong. The Lions were always gonna call a TO had the Colts tried to milk the clock. All this would've meant is the Colts would've saved their last TO and the Lions would have 2 left.
Last I checked the NFL rules, if 1 team calls a TO, both teams are allowed to sub. There's nothing in the rulebook that prevent 1 team from subbing.
Why is this even used as an argument?
-
5 minutes ago, Restored said:
I didn't say it wouldn't be better for them to have 2 timeouts instead of the 3. My point has been since the beginning was for the Colts to score and do whatever is necessary. Now, whether the Colts really did have personnel issues is up for debate but according to Pagano, that was the reasoning. And again, with how quickly the the Lions moved down and scored, I highly doubt having another time would've changed the outlook anymore than what it ended up being.
I never disputed that the Colts might have had personnel issue. I'm not ever sure why you bring this up or why Pagano brought this up last night.
It has nothing to do with this gaffe.
If he doesnt call a TO as quickly and tries to milk the clock down before calling a TO, the Lions are forced to call a TO.
The only logical explanation to your/Pagano's argument for it to make sense is that the Colts wouldn't have been allowed to sub in had the Lions called a TO.
The fact is, Colts would've been able to sub all they want. Therefore, this argument makes no sense.
I didn't say it wouldn't be better for them to have 2 timeouts instead of the 3.
Hence the point, Pagano's gaffe prevented the Lions from burning a TO. His haffe also prevent him from saving his last TO.
You cant say Pagano didnt made a gaffe and then agree that it'd have been better for the Colts to still have 1 TO left while the Lions would've been down to 2.
That is the definition of a gaffe.
-
4 minutes ago, Restored said:
Again, it wasn't a gaffe. Pagano stated that the Colts had personnel issues so they had to use the timeout. In that situation, you do everything you possibly can do to score.
Tell me, if the Colts don't score on that drive and Pagano later says it was because they had personnel issues, what would be your reaction? I'm willing to bet you'd be roasting Pagano for not taking that timeout to get things in order.I'm not sure what concept of this you do not understand.
If Pagano dont call a TO with 1:15 left on the clock, its because his intentions are:
-he's hoping to milk the clock before calling that TO
-the Lions would've been forced to call a TO to prevent the clock from being milked
In both scenarios, the Colts get to change personnel to whatever they want. Why are you even bringing up that as an argument? It doesnt even matter since either team would've still called a TO. Your argument assume that no TO would've been called. You're making up something that wouldnt have happened to explain why Pagano didnt mess up. Makes no sense.
Now, to awnser your last question: Had Pagano tried to milk that clock before calling his TO, the Lions would've been forced to call a TO.
This would've only meant the Colts would still have 1 TO, the Lions would've been down to 2, there would still be 1:10+ left on the clock.
Tell me how's that not better than the Colts having no TO left and the Lions having 3 TO left?
Why is this so hard to grasp?
-
3 minutes ago, IndySouthsider said:
Doesn't flippn matter. If you cannot stop a team in 25 seconds. You deserve to lose. It wasn't the TO. It's ignorant to suggest it.
Your last post was ignorant. Whether the Colts win or lose this game doesnt change the fact Pagano made a blunder. The result of the game is irrelevant.
If anything, you're saying Pagano should've tried to kill as much clock as he could (or force the Lions to burn their TO) because Pagano knew his defense is bad.
You're actually arguing that he messed up by trying to defend him.
-
3 minutes ago, Restored said:
Again, that doesn't change all those missed tackles. You mean to tell me the Colts defenders would've magically learned how to tackle if Detroit had one less timeout?
Its funny.
You're saying Pagano's gaffe didnt matter because the Colts D is bad. What kind of argument is that?
If anything, this means Pagano's gaffe is magnified because then, he REALLY should've done everything he could to milk the clock down.
You guys can try to come up with any kind of excuse for Pagano but they dont make any sense. If anything, you're actually arguing that he really messed up ;)
-
36 minutes ago, IndySouthsider said:
So if he does not call TO and calm his team down and Luck throws 2 incompletions to end the game, does he get the blame for not calling TO?
I blame Pagano, but it's more for the dumb * defense that watched a game of pitch and catch. Seriously I would rather have got beaten over the top being aggressive like the Jags game in 2012.
No, he doesnt. You know why?
Lions would've called a TO. Thats the whole point.
-
1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:
For the record, and not saying this is the real reason......
But Pagano has publicly said that personnel was the reason for the time out. I don't know if he's covering for himself, or Chudzinski or Luck? But that was Pagano's answer when asked about it.
The Lions would've still called a TO with over 1:10 left. This means the Colts would've still been able to subs.
How's personnel related? The fact Pagano said that just shows he missed something. I'm not saying btw that the personnel issue isnt true.
I'm just saying it really shows he didnt made that mistake because of time or because he was rushed.
It shows he has a weakness in clock management. Its not his first nor his last gaffe in that department. Its a huge weakness for him. He has no ability in that department.
Now, if Pagano had not called the TO himself and someone else would've called it instead and Pagano came up with that, then that would be a cover up for that person.
And you know what, it'd be perfectly normal because in pro sports, thats what you do: you dont throw your guy under the bus for something like this, you cover for him and take the heat.
Thats not what happened tho.
-
Just now, Restored said:
Personnel was the issue according to Pagano. You can claim its not but you have no support for your cause. Time wasn't the issue. You're missing the fact that Detroit moved the ball absurdly quick after the touchdown anyway. I highly doubt them having one less timeout would've changed all those missed tackles.
Rewatch the last Lions drive and imagine them only having 2 TOs left instead of 3. Playcall is different, thats for sure.
Time wasnt really an issue for them because they still had 3 TOs. You know the playcall is different in that case, right?
Thats the whole point.
-
1 minute ago, Jason_S said:
THAT was my argument. One poster said that there was a higher chance of the Colts running out of downs than running out of time and that simply isn't true, because there was a possibility the colts, without intending to do so, could have gotten a first down without scoring. Is that really so hard to understand?
In fact, he's right. Is that really so hard to understand?
Situation should've been this: 1:10+ left, Colts with 1 TO, Lions with only 2.
In you get first down, Lions are forced to burn another TO. If you get a TD like the Colts did here, Lions are down to 2 TO.
Your argument is flawed because it'd have been easier to get a first down (like playing for it) to milk more time on the clock had they forced the Lions to burn a TO with 1:10+ left on the clock.
No matter how you try to slice it, it doesnt make sense.
-
Just now, Restored said:
It makes perfect sense considering if you don't score, the subsequent drive by Detroit doesn't matter. Pagano said they needed the timeout for personnel issues. If that's what they needed to do to score, then you deal with it and let your defense stop them with 37 seconds left.
Time was not an issue for the Colts. I'm not sure why you're trying to make time an issue, other than use that as an excuse for Pagano's gaffe. Personnel wasnt an issue either.
Had Pagano tried to milk the clock, the Lions would've called a TO to save time in case the Colts scored so they had time to get in FG range.
The Lions would've called TO with over 1:10 left, they would be down to 2 while the Colts still had 1 TO left and each team would also still substitute in whomever they wanted.
I'm not sure why its so hard to grasp. This happens literally every week in the NFL.
-
1 minute ago, Restored said:
Um, of course there was urgency. If you don't score, you don't have a chance to win at all. Scoring is the first part of the equation and at that point, you have to do whatever it takes and not throw away chances which is essentially what you're saying they should've done.
How's forcing the Lions to waste a TO throwing the Colts chances away?
All this would've done for the Colts is save them a TO while forcing the Lions to burn one. Hardly throwing anything away eh? ;)
-
1 minute ago, Jason_S said:
Um, I never said that's what they were trying to do, so no I'm not implying that at all. The point is, it was possible that they could have gotten a 1st down without scoring if a guy got stopped short of the end zone.
Your argument makes no sense.
There would've still been 1:15 or so left, Colts would still have a TO but the Lions would've had only 2 left. Even if we buy your argument, how does it makes sense in this scenario.
The playclock would've NEVER gotten down to 1 second because Caldwell would've been forced to burn a TO.
Not milking the playclock and calling a TO right away (Pagano) prevented the Lions from wasting a TO. That was the mistake.
-
What alot of people dont grasp is this: the playclock would've never got down to 1 second before Pagano could call his TO.
Why? Because Caldwell would've been forced to use one of his. Not sure why its still hard to understand this simple concept.
Its funny how some posters are trying to explain Pagano's gaffe with "but time was an issue for the Colts".
I'll agree with you on something: time was an issue. Unfortunately for you, it was an issue for the Lions.
-
7 minutes ago, Jason_S said:
It wasn't a goal-to-go situation...they could have gotten a 1st down without scoring. So no, there wasn't a higher chance of running out of downs.
Going for a 1st instead of the endzone would've been a mistake anyway. Are you implying the coaching staff would've been dumb enough to do that?
That would've been a worst mistake. Funny to see you using that as an argument.
-
5 minutes ago, Restored said:
The timeout wasn't about running out of clock. According to Pagano it was about getting the personnel and play call right, which in that situation is justifiably IMO if you need it. It doesn't negate that it was a coaching gaff but it was because the team didn't have the right personnel and not because of the time situation.
If the Colts get down there and don't score and then Pagano says after it was because the offense was out of sorts, everyone would've have clamored for him to call a timeout to get it sorted out so they could've scored.
The mistake was not calling a TO, the mistake was calling it without letting the playclock run to 1 second first, instead of calling it with 35 seconds left on it or whatever was left (35+).
Lions would've called a TO before the playclock ran down to 1 second tho.
Why? Because the Lions wanted to converse time.
Hence, Pagano's mistake. He could've forced the Lions to burn a TO and didnt. Its that simple. It happens weekly.
-
40 minutes ago, chrisfarley said:
Luck and Pagano need to be laser focused on the clock management at that moment in time. It is paramount to know the drill. I hate to bring up manning but this would have not happened. Manning was a perfectionist when it came to clock management and taking the complete and total wind out of the sails of the opponent. Giving them 37 seconds or whatever they had left would not have happened. Yea they would have had some time , but not much at all. Pagano was very disappointing in his CM today. This one is a hard to get over. Will take some time....sun will rise in the east tomorrow....let's not panic... But again,,,,it's like here we go again, ...I figured he'd learn lessons from the past. He has to...someday...but he has been given a HUGE sandbox to play in here in Indy and at our Colts' expense... troubling but he's our coach for the indefinite future and I hope something changes with his deer in headlights look at the end of games and his scrambling around.
It happened with Manning on the sidelines and Caldwell gifting the Jets a TO in the playoffs 6 years ago or so. It happened other times too.
Its not the qb's fault if the HC messed up. Also, bad coaching can lead to bad qb decision making.
I'm just saying that before some think about blaming Luck.
-
20 minutes ago, threeflight said:
This is especially for you my friend........
Bob Kravitz @bkravitz 1m1 minute ago
Just read where Caldwell said he was ready to call a timeout with 115 left but Pagano did it for him.
So, yeah. He out-foolish Jim Caldwell.Don't you think if the the opposing coach is ready to call a TO....we should be doing the opposite????
Of course, Caldwell was about to call a TO there. He had no idea that Pagano would be dumb enough to gift him one.
BB did a similar, altought less (much less) costly mistake, but a mistake still regarding clock management in the Pats/Cards game.
4th qtr, Cards down by 2, 3rd and 20+, less than a minute with Cards not having a TO and Pats with a TO left, pass completed but short of a 1st so Cards rush for an attempt.
Instead of calling TO right away, BB wasted about 15 seconds (easily) and finally called a TO.
Had the Cards made that FG at the end, thats 15 less secs the Pats would've had to get in FG range on the next possession.
Its called clock management. And yes, Pagano messed up tonight.
That doesnt mean people saying he messed up are in panic mode or want him fired or any of that non sense. Colts arent a contender so a loss today doesnt bother me one bit. I dont get why Pagano is still the HC but today has nothing to do with that.
I think Pagano is more competent as a HC than Grigson is as a GM.
Regardless, Pagano messed up today no matter how you slice it.
-
Just now, threeflight said:
Again, you are acting as if there was only 20 seconds on the clock when the TO was called, There was over a minute.
From the 12 yard line.
Your thinking is not logical.
I'm amazed he's still trying to argue this. All his arguments were bad to begin with, then he moved on to other stuff.
Its like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
That last time out (Pagano Clock Management)... {[Merge]}
in Colts Football
Posted
Lions would've called a TO, thus the clock wouldnt have ran out.