Camio
-
Posts
137 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Camio
-
-
8 minutes ago, jimmy g said:
He didn't say Colts should try for a first down. He said a first down was a possibly. Not every play called for a TD works.
Scroll up, he did.
He said milking the clock by going for a first down was a good idea.
He brought this up as the reason why running the clock down on that TO call wasnt needed.
Btw, if you dont let the clock run before that TO, then playing for a 1st down is the correct strategy to milk the clock.
Problem is Pagano did neither.
And, why would you anwyay milk the clock by trying to get a 1st down and have more chances at a turnover when you can milk the clock before calling that TO then, you go for the TD.
Its simple. It really is.
Milking the clock by trying to get a 1st down was the more risky strategy. In fact, its a dumb one and I'm not sure why one would argue for that.
-
3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:
The fact that Caldwell was once bad at clock management doesn't mean he always will be. He was terrific today. And for now, today is all that matters. Not 6 years ago.
I do agree with you.
Today, unlike when he messed up repeatedly with the Colts, clock management wise, he didnt mess up today.
I recall Caldwell blunders vs the Titans and Jets (playoffs) off the top of my head. Reid is another notoriously bad clock manager.
Ask anyone following the Eagles closely. Heck, he hasnt really improved with the Chiefs.
-
2 minutes ago, Aces101 said:
Pagano - how would you have defended yourself if this scenario played out after the dumb timeout call:
What if the Colts would have only gotten a first down on the touchdown play and had no timeouts left with 40 sec left? Say they either run Gore up the middle and he does not get into the end zone or Luck gets sacked? Then it's scramble mode too with no timeouts. I guess they could spike the ball to kill the clock or go one dimensional following this timeout blunder, but then it's the same argument that you've made against us about wasting clock time (our method still would have had a timeout in hand to use if necessary though).
The only argument you have is that they scored....but it left way to much time on the clock and allowed the Lions to keep all of their timeouts. If they had burned more clock and scored, we'd all be happy tonight.
I think everyone kenw the Colts were gonna go for passing plays where the routes were going in the endzone.
Colts cant run the ball. Lions know it. Colts know it. You know it. I know it. We all know it.
It was either a TD at this point or nothing. With 35-40 secs left, it'd have been plenty of time to get one. Thats more than 4 plays anyway.
-
1 minute ago, BlueShoe said:
Actually it was a heck of a pass and an even better catch.
The ball went over one LB and under another. Had they been playing pass only then the MLB would have dropped more and it would have made the play even more difficult.
Luck and Doyle made that look easy, but it wasn't.
You are seriously trying to convince us the Lions were playing the run?
-
2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:
Caldwell doesn't understand clock management?
Did you watch what the Lions did the last 37 seconds? Because if you did, you'd realize how silly your comment is. The Lions and Caldwell handled the clock perfectly.
I assume you werent a Colts fan 6 years ago or so?
... and btw, since i assume you were, you should remember Caldwell blunders with managing the clock when he was in Indy.
The fact he didnt messed up today doesnt mean he's good at managing the clock.
-
4 minutes ago, our_dbs_rock said:
I think the part he is failing to get is, even if they got a first down, they still could have had plenty of time to attempt to get to the endzone.
I dont even get his argument about the Colts playing for a 1st down.
The Vikes right now, for example, would maybe play for a 1st down. That comes down to personnel. Thats even easier to understand than the fact Pagano messed up with the clock management.
-
3 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:
See the extremes you take? I never said that at all.
I never said the Lions were solely playing us to run the ball. I said they had to play both the run and the pass. If we had run down the clock (like you think we should have) then all they had to do is play the end zone and the sidelines.
You're the one trying to come up with bizarre stuff to explain Pagano's mistake.
No way in hell did the Lions played or would've played the run against the Colts with the way the Colts chewed them passing the ball in this game.
The Colts dont even have a running gmae to begin with so why would any team playing the Colts play the run anyway?
This just in: Glenn and Edge are no longer Colts.
-
4 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:
Yeah because first down are guaranteed in your world too.
You're the one who brought up playing to get a first down to milk the clock.
We are saying playing for a first down to milk the clock (you're whole argument) was dumb because:
1) 1st down isnt guarranteed
2) its just more chances for a turnover
This is why Pagano messed up with the clock management on that timeout.
I'm not even sure why you're still trying to save the face at this point, sorry to say.
Saying not running the clock before calling that TO because the Colts couldve gotten a first down, hence milking the clock, is beyond dumb.
Sorry.
-
1 minute ago, BlueShoe said:
How many times did we score on our first three drives?
The fact that the Lions had to respect our option to run led to the go ahead touchdown pass.
HOW DO YOU NOT GET ANY OF THIS? You're thick.
Wait.
Are you implying that the Colts passing game success is due to the opposing teams playing the run vs the Colts?
This is bad, sorry.
For any team to play the run vs any team, it has to a treat. You play the run vs the Hawks (last few years with Lynch) or the Vikes.
You dont play the run vs the Colts. Why? Because you dont have to.
-
10 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:
You do realize that once we run the clock down then the defense only has to play us one-dimensional right?
The fact that they had to respect our choice to run the ball led to us getting the go-ahead score.
Unreal.
The fact the Lions couldnt do diddly-poo vs the passing game really makes you think they touhgt the Colts would run?
What kind of running game success did the Colts have had in the last 5 years to make you think the running game is a treat?
Colts arent the Vikings. Luck finished with 380 yards or whatever. Everyone knew they were passing. Everyone.
-
5 minutes ago, threeflight said:
Yep. This guy either has to be a troll or just a novice at football. Because anyone who follows football on a regular basis knows that you can literally run off 8 plays (or more) from the 12 yard line with 1:15 left.
We should do a poll! ;)
-
16 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:
Did we have the lead?
No we did not.
Was it goal to goal?
No it was not. We could have still got another first down.
Time and the amount of plays we could run were both an issue.
If we got a first down then that would have given us 4 more plays, and I am sure we would have liked to use at least one of them to run the ball up the middle.
This is what you dont understand about clock management.
The Colts went for the TD, not the first down. Everyone knew they were going for the TD. Being down by whatever doesnt matter as time wasnt an issue. Time was never gonig to be an issue.
Colts would either score a TD, turn it over on downs or cause a turnover.
Going for a first down would've been a mistake as it just meant more possibilities for a turnover.
Thats why Pagano had to let the playclock run out.
I'm not even sure why you bring up getting a first down scenario. No HC in their right mind would call plays to get a first only in that situation.
You're wrong on that too.
-
6 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:
If we do not get that touchdown then we are forced to try to get the first down.
That would have changed everything.
You guys think touchdowns just fall off trees. That the hilarious thing about this thread.
Thank God you all only exist on message boards. We would be in serious trouble if any of you ever had an opportunity to make a decision that mattered.
Honestly, you have no idea what clock management is about.
Cadlwell and Reid are notorious for being bad at it. Pagano is doing his team to join them. He'll get critized this week for that bad call. At that point, you'll likely think the ones critizing him (medias) dont have a clue too.
Pagano messed up, like it or not. That situation was extremely simple, the Colts were not rushed, there was ample time to make the correct decision.
There's no reason for him to mess up like this in that situation.
That was pretty much as bad as the Caldwell TO vs the Jets in the playoffs several years ago.
-
1 minute ago, BlueShoe said:
I am very thankful that you're not managing the Colts clock.
Lions sure are thankful he isnt.
-
1 minute ago, BlueShoe said:
How many of you would be crying if we ran the clock out and did not score?
You guys are freaking hilarious.
If you think time was an issue when the Colts had the ball late in the 4th, then we cant help you.
You're the hilarious one, sorry.
-
I'm not a fan of his QBs dropping back 7-10 yards.
Besides that, I dont mind him. I'd take him easily over Pagano. That doesnt mean I think Arians is a top HC. But, when you compare the 2, its not even close.
With 3rd string qbs and all the injuries, he got his team to the playoffs.
I'm not a huge fan of Arians but, if you compare the 2, its not even close. Whether is what they have done as HCs or as coordinators.
-
5 minutes ago, JaseAiden23 said:
You people claiming it was the defense and not clock management that lost the game obviously hadn't watched our D play. Which my makes my point about clock management that much more valid!! Our defense had been playing poorly, so leave the least amount of time on the clock as you can. Luck should have known that too when he hiked the ball with 38 seconds but calling a timeout with a 1:15 to go and not letting the clock run any is beside me. Ohh and the kickoff is another story within itself!! I've never seen a guy who is so bad about managing the clock!!
Caldwell and Reid say hi ;)
-
Just now, our_dbs_rock said:
If Arians was the coach, then I would guess Luck would be in a full body cast. With Grigson's offensive line and Arians offense style, Luck would be in traction.
Like last year? ;)
Are you seriously comparing Arians and Pagano?
-
2 minutes ago, aaron11 said:
and then you run out of time on offense
the lions were not going to call TO. they were playing to win the game on defense.
Why would the Colts run out of time on offense? They scored with ton of time left.
Btw, most NFL HCs in place of Caldwell would've called a TO in that circumstance had the Colts ran the clock to hope that if the opposing team score, you have more time left on the clock.
Time wasnt an issue for the Colts. Time was an issue for the Lions. Pagano's mistake helped them.
Dont believe me? Watch NFL weekly and you'll see these types of situations arise all the time. There's a reason some HCs have a reputation as bad clock management HCs. Caldwell and Reid are 2 notorious ones.
I wont even bother with Pagano. I'm not even mad about the loss btw. Colts had troubles vs the Lions, so imagine the rest of the season ;)
I dont think the Colts would still have all these flaws with say, Arians as HC.
-
1 minute ago, aaron11 said:
- it was a little early, but the lions only needed like 10 seconds to get in range anyway
we risk running out of time on offense if we do what you said
maybe i feel like you're brain dead
I hope you dont feel like he's brain dead because what is being said in this thread is clock management 101. If anything, by letting the clock run before taking the TO, 2 things happen:
-clock runs down by 35 secs or so, so you have a good chance to score with under 15 seconds left
-you force the Lions to waste a TO to keep time on the clock
-
1 minute ago, ColtsLegacy said:
The TO was not made in a vacuum. It's the coaches job to take into account other factors. In a perfect world where your defense is respectable, that TO is not much of an issue, but in a world where your defense couldn't stop a girls peewee squad, you have to run the clock down as much as possible in that situation. It was a horrible TO and horrible clock management,
Even if you got a good D, why would you not run the clock out before taking a TO in the situation?
Giving the ball back to the opposing team with more time on the clock than needed is bad coaching.
-
2 minutes ago, colts8718 said:
Must be something in the water
Bring back Dungy, meh.
Or, Mora! At least it was good post-game ;)
-
3 minutes ago, Malakai432 said:
Well, he sure got out coached by Jim Caldwell if that tells you anything, lol................
Honestly, he wasnt. Lions are in trouble regardless because they are a bad team.
Today, Pagano only has himself to blame. The other HC was just watching. Caldwell, considering his history for bad clock management, probably still has no idea of what happened ;)
-
1 minute ago, rockywoj said:
The timeout was very questionable, but the bigger gaffe was kicking through the end zone on the kickoff. You HAVE to short kick it there! Your cover team is on a short field for quick coverage and it takes precious seconds off the clock. THAT was the bigger gaffe. :-(
Not running the playclock out before calling that TO cost about 35 secs on the clock. The kickoff in the endzone, while it was indeed a mistake, especially considering you have 1 of the best in the league in McAfee, cost less time on the clock.
That last time out (Pagano Clock Management)... {[Merge]}
in Colts Football
Posted
If Pagano's plan was stopping the clock to then run to get a 1st down and milk the clock, thats 1 strategy. The thing is, the Colts didnt ran. They were not anwyay. We all knew it was gonna be a passing TD from Luck because that was the best shot for the Colts.
The fact they didnt even try to milk the clock with the run after the TO shows how shortsighted Pagano's TO call was.