Play Calling?

[indy1888]

Actually a Tipped pass caught in the end zone let them back in the game. JMO

Those things are going to happen every now and then. Should have never been in the situation to begin with in my opinion. I don't mind running the football with the lead in the 4th qtr as long as you are effective every now and then when doing it. But the Colts were not. They may as well just lined up and punted the ball every time. Sure, the defense has blame in this too, but lets keep in mind they were solid for most of the game and the offense was doing them no favors there in the 2nd half.

[#12]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was our rookie QB who led us to have a 2-TD lead, was it not?

It's not as though they played in the manner they did against the Bears, opened up the passing game in the first half, and that's what built the lead. It was extremely safe, conservative play calling while taking an occasional shot... coupled with the Vikings being held to 6 points. That's what built the lead. Playing in the manner they did vs. the Bears led to four turnovers and a 20 point loss.

[chad72]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was our rookie QB who led us to have a 2-TD lead, was it not? We took our best player out of the game by asking him to continually hand off so that we could ask our runningbacks to run the same dive up the middle over and over again, all producing the same result.

I agree that a GOOD run game is a rookie QBs best friend, not a run game that puts a rookie QB in third an long-- must pass situations. This is actually worse for a rookie QB.

Also, other teams would not try to run out the clock with 2 quarters left, a whole half of a game. Maybe with 8 minutes left in the 4th quarter. We tried to run out the clock for two quarters!!!

When we needed Luck to produce, he did. All through the first half, and in a clutch game winning drive. Let's go with what works--give Luck the ball because we will live and die with how well he plays.

Yep. This is still a QB driven league where you help out your QB by doing things that work that put your QB in better situations.

If it is just bad execution, a coach who sees bad execution either runs different kind of running plays or mixes in a safe throw here or there, and adjusts the playcalling accordingly. The cliche goes "definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results".

Yes, we were not playing Brady and the Cardinals tried to run out the clock and still fumbled the ball, so running is no cinch. Having an attitude and the mindset is one thing but having the players to execute it is another. If plan A does not work, adapt and have tweaks to plan A or a plan B and that is what a lot of Colts fans want happening with the playcalling.

Again, like FJC said, running the ball was the right thing to do, just not doing the same kind of runs without variations or tweaks or mixing it up with a pass for every 2 runs.

I also detested the Manusky soft coverage with a 2 TD lead. Where is the heat we saw in pre-season and at the beginning of the Bears game?

[Balzer40]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was our rookie QB who led us to have a 2-TD lead, was it not? We took our best player out of the game by asking him to continually hand off so that we could ask our runningbacks to run the same dive up the middle over and over again, all producing the same result.

I agree that a GOOD run game is a rookie QBs best friend, not a run game that puts a rookie QB in third an long-- must pass situations. This is actually worse for a rookie QB.

Also, other teams would not try to run out the clock with 2 quarters left, a whole half of a game. Maybe with 8 minutes left in the 4th quarter. We tried to run out the clock for two quarters!!!

When we needed Luck to produce, he did. All through the first half, and in a clutch game winning drive. Let's go with what works--give Luck the ball because we will live and die with how well he plays.

I think whats being missed here is that the Colts weren't just trying to run the ball, they were also just trying to keep the ball away from the Vikings. I know, without a shadow of doubt in my mind, that if the calls were being made for passing plays and Luck had a tipped ball and an interception in Colts territory, people would be screaming their heads off about how we should have been running the ball in that situation and just running the clock out. Like I said, if there had been an interception because Luck was throwing instead of running people would be throwing fits.

The playcalling was the right decision and if not for a fluky TD the Vikings got, we wouldn't have even been in the position they were in late in the game. when you have a rookie QB and a 2 TD lead in the 4th qtr., you simply do not keep slinging the ball with the passing game.

[Gavin]

what cost us was dropping back in Zone giving up easy completions

[indy1888]

I think whats being missed here is that the Colts weren't just trying to run the ball, they were also just trying to keep the ball away from the Vikings. I know, without a shadow of doubt in my mind, that if the calls were being made for passing plays and Luck had a tipped ball and an interception in Colts territory, people would be screaming their heads off about how we should have been running the ball in that situation and just running the clock out. Like I said, if there had been an interception because Luck was throwing instead of running people would be throwing fits.

The playcalling was the right decision and if not for a fluky TD the Vikings got, we wouldn't have even been in the position they were in late in the game. when you have a rookie QB and a 2 TD lead in the 4th qtr., you simply do not keep slinging the ball with the passing game.

I don't buy this. If you don't trust your rookie QB with a 2 TD lead, then what the heck are you doing trusting him in a tied game with 30 seconds left and the ball at your own 20?

[chad72]

what cost us was dropping back in Zone giving up easy completions

I was screaming "bring the heat, bring the heat". It was all cool out there, no heat!!!

[FireJimCaldwell]

I think whats being missed here is that the Colts weren't just trying to run the ball, they were also just trying to keep the ball away from the Vikings. I know, without a shadow of doubt in my mind, that if the calls were being made for passing plays and Luck had a tipped ball and an interception in Colts territory, people would be screaming their heads off about how we should have been running the ball in that situation and just running the clock out. Like I said, if there had been an interception because Luck was throwing instead of running people would be throwing fits.

The playcalling was the right decision and if not for a fluky TD the Vikings got, we wouldn't have even been in the position they were in late in the game. when you have a rookie QB and a 2 TD lead in the 4th qtr., you simply do not keep slinging the ball with the passing game.

That's the beauty of being a fan. We get to critique the decisions with hindsight.

With that said there are ways to move the ball with a short passing game while keeping the clocking moving.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that they should be throwing the ball down the field 20-30 yards with a 14 point lead, but throwing short/quick/safe passes is an to running for little to no gain...

[Flash7]

This is a great debate because I can see both sides of the arguement. This is what I see. We had a 17-6 lead going into the half. When we came out for the second half, we played not to lose, rahter than playing to win. I hate that kind of attitude.

You play to win in the third quarter, and part of the fourth quarter, and then run out the clock with 8 minutes left to play. We just stopped trying to win and did our best to hold onto a lead. Obviously, it didn't work because the Vikings tied up the game.

What did work was asking Luck to drive us for a win, which is what I feel is our strength. We went away from it and it drove me crazy because I know WE CAN'T RUN and so does the entire league.

[Balzer40]

I don't buy this. If you don't trust your rookie QB with a 2 TD lead, then what the heck are you doing trusting him in a tied game with 30 seconds left and the ball at your own 20?

At that point, what other choice do they have? You either go for the win or play for OT. It had nothing to do with trust. It was all about being smart. somebody else said it, almost every other team in the league would have played it the same way and I completely agree.

That's the beauty of being a fan. We get to critique the decisions with hindsight.

With that said there are ways to move the ball with a short passing game while keeping the clocking moving.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that they should be throwing the ball down the field 20-30 yards with a 14 point lead, but throwing short/quick/safe passes is an to running for little to no gain...

I can agree with this much, they could have thrown a screen pass or 2 instead of running right up the gut everytime, but the point is IMO and like I have stated a half dozen times already, if not for the lucky twice tipped TD, none of this would even be a conversation. That is how quickly a game can turn on you.

[chad72]

At that point, what other choice do they have?

They could have called 3 runs in a row to protect their rookie QB.

Just kidding.

[Flash7]

somebody else said it, almost every other team in the league would have played it the same way and I completely agree.

I don't necessarily agree with this. There are numerous teams that would have taken a lead and built on it. The Saints, Patriots, Ravens, Broncos, Jets, Steelers, Giants would have played to win, not played to hold onto a dismal lead. They especially would not have tried to run out the clock for two quarters. Maybe most of the fourth, but they would have played all out in the third.

[indy1888]

At that point, what other choice do they have? You either go for the win or play for OT. It had nothing to do with trust. It was all about being smart. somebody else said it, almost every other team in the league would have played it the same way and I completely agree.

I can agree with this much, they could have thrown a screen pass or 2 instead of running right up the gut everytime, but the point is IMO and like I have stated a half dozen time already, if not for the lucky twice tipped TD, none of this would even be a conversation. That is how quickly a game can turn on you.

But, many people would argue that being smart would have been playing for overtime. On your own 20, a rookie QB, a shaky O line and 30 seconds left. You can't argue that it was smart to not let Luck do his thing while were up 2 scores, then turn around and say it was the right thing to do to let Luck gun it in a far more riskier situation at the end of the game. You keep asking what would people be saying had Luck thrown a pick up 14, let me ask you, what would you think had Luck thrown a pick on the last drive and the Vikes win on a FG? Especially after being "smart" all 2nd half and running into a brick wall drive after drive?

[FireJimCaldwell]

I can agree with this much, they could have thrown a screen pass or 2 instead of running right up the gut everytime, but the point is IMO and like I have stated a half dozen times already, if not for the lucky twice tipped TD, none of this would even be a conversation. That is how quickly a game can turn on you.

Yes it can turn quickly.. That fluke TD is a good point and it would turn into a great point if it had been 4th & 6 as opposed to 2nd & 6, so even if it lands incomplete, they still had 2 more chances... So who knows...

[Balzer40]

But, many people would argue that being smart would have been playing for overtime. On your own 20, a rookie QB, a shaky O line and 30 seconds left. You can't argue that it was smart to not let Luck do his thing while were up 2 scores, then turn around and say it was the right thing to do to let Luck gun it in a far more riskier situation at the end of the game. You keep asking what would people be saying had Luck thrown a pick up 14, let me ask you, what would you think had Luck thrown a pick on the last drive and the Vikes win on a FG? Especially after being "smart" all 2nd half and running into a brick wall drive after drive?

We could go back and forth on this all day and night, but I don't want too. I see what you and others are saying and I can see that side of it, but IMO I think playing conservative in the situation our team is in was the right thing to do.

Also, when I said people would be throwing a fit if Luck had thrown an interception, well Im just going off my observations from the board the last few weeks with some of the posters here that have been ridiculously critical of everything the team and players have done so far.

I guess in some people's eye's there is just no positive's for them. No matter what this team does there are going to be those who find something to whine about(not saying you specifically) but look back thru the threads and posts and look at all the over critical and negative posts. I came into this season with the mindset of it being a rebuilding and growth yr., with a lot of growing pains. I guess there are many others expecting greatness already. I seen great improvement from last week to this week and others just look at the negative's.

[#12]

But, many people would argue that being smart would have been playing for overtime.

Not when, one, they can win the toss, drive for a TD and win the game, and two, you only need a FG to win. If you wait until OT, you need a TD to win, right? You basically had an extra sudden death possession, only needing a FG for the win. Obviously, the situation had changed. You're no longer protecting a lead, you're trying to win the game.

[funktacious2]

What I don't understand is why we didn't try to run to the outside more. From what it looked like to me, some of our best runs were from the outside.

[indy1888]

Not when, one, they can win the toss, drive for a TD and win the game, and two, you only need a FG to win. If you wait until OT, you need a TD to win, right? You basically had an extra sudden death possession, only needing a FG for the win. Obviously, the situation had changed. You're no longer protecting a lead, you're trying to win the game.

You don't need a TD to win in overtime. You can win with a field goal. The Vikes just did it last week.

Not really the point anyway. The point is, if the coaching staff was worried about Luck making mistakes up 2 scores, then the smart thing to do would have been to play for OT. Since any mistake at that point in the game probably gets you beat. You are correct, the situation had changed. Instead of playing "not to lose" as many here have said they did, they played to win the game as you said. Thats exactly the point. Maybe they should have went for the win a little earlier and not had to worry about it. You either trust Luck to make smart plays or you don't. If you trust him to lead your team down the field with 30 seconds left and a shaky O line from your own 20, then i would hope he would be trusted to not make mistakes in a much less pressure filled situation as being up 14 points.

[chad72]

You're no longer protecting a lead, you're trying to win the game.

Are you trying to tell me they are mutually exclusive? Does that mean the protecting the lead was not trying to win the game? Or is it admission of a faux pas that we played "not to lose"? I thought it was to try to win the game, but it could not give us the win, could it? Going for the winning throws actually won us the game.

By now, I know where everyone stands. Like Balzer said, there can be tons of back and forth on this if we wish to. It is not going to change the minds of parties, I am not going to try changing anyone either. I have spoken my piece.

I am glad we have the win and that is all that matters now. Maybe I should quote Mr. Bill Polian now and walk away, "past is prologue".

[FireJimCaldwell]

This might have deserved it's own fresh thread, but I'll just add it here since this topic is about play calling.

Review of Personnel Groupings through 2 weeks.

Pass to Run ratio through weeks.

[GoColts8818]

You don't need a TD to win in overtime. You can win with a field goal. The Vikes just did it last week.

Not really the point anyway. The point is, if the coaching staff was worried about Luck making mistakes up 2 scores, then the smart thing to do would have been to play for OT. Since any mistake at that point in the game probably gets you beat. You are correct, the situation had changed. Instead of playing "not to lose" as many here have said they did, they played to win the game as you said. Thats exactly the point. Maybe they should have went for the win a little earlier and not had to worry about it. You either trust Luck to make smart plays or you don't. If you trust him to lead your team down the field with 30 seconds left and a shaky O line from your own 20, then i would hope he would be trusted to not make mistakes in a much less pressure filled situation as being up 14 points.

I think what he is getting at is the new OT rules that if you kick a field goal on the first poistion of OT the other team gets a chance now. They added it first for the playoffs but it's now the rule.

With that said I also agree with you. If you trust Luck to go win the game at the end you should trust him earlier in the game and should not be playing not to lose like they were.

[braveheartcolt]

I think whats being missed here is that the Colts weren't just trying to run the ball, they were also just trying to keep the ball away from the Vikings. I know, without a shadow of doubt in my mind, that if the calls were being made for passing plays and Luck had a tipped ball and an interception in Colts territory, people would be screaming their heads off about how we should have been running the ball in that situation and just running the clock out. Like I said, if there had been an interception because Luck was throwing instead of running people would be throwing fits.

The playcalling was the right decision and if not for a fluky TD the Vikings got, we wouldn't have even been in the position they were in late in the game. when you have a rookie QB and a 2 TD lead in the 4th qtr., you simply do not keep slinging the ball with the passing game.

100% agre. If not for that flukey TD, our play calling would have been signatured as genius.......

[Warhorse]

We could go back and forth on this all day and night, but I don't want too. I see what you and others are saying and I can see that side of it, but IMO I think playing conservative in the situation our team is in was the right thing to do.

Also, when I said people would be throwing a fit if Luck had thrown an interception, well Im just going off my observations from the board the last few weeks with some of the posters here that have been ridiculously critical of everything the team and players have done so far.

I guess in some people's eye's there is just no positive's for them. No matter what this team does there are going to be those who find something to whine about(not saying you specifically) but look back thru the threads and posts and look at all the over critical and negative posts. I came into this season with the mindset of it being a rebuilding and growth yr., with a lot of growing pains. I guess there are many others expecting greatness already. I seen great improvement from last week to this week and others just look at the negative's.

I once had you on ignore. I now appreciate your posts.

[FireJimCaldwell]

Through week 3

Still extremely predictable based on Personnel Groupings.

2te2wr is the only grouping that is close to being acceptable.

Pass to run

Targets

[PrincetonTiger]

I think too many ppl are paying attention to brad wells from stampede blue... colts had a good play calling... this is the new colts football try to establish the run... unlike the last regime

nicely put.