caldwell's decision

[CR91]

what do you guys think of caldwell's decision to punt on 4th and 5 with 3 mins left. good call or bad

[GoDeep]

Bad, I said, "oh no, we are punting the game away right here!"

You go for it in that situation.

[Malakai432]

Not a shocker.

[Smitto]

That was a GOOD call, the colts were inside their own 50 in a really tight game... they didnt make a 3rd and inches earlier on it was a smart decision to not take the chance cause the odds of them making it was very slim especially with the line they currently had.

The play that i would question is the play where the colts chose to replay the 3rd down when it was gonna be a 4th down, but instead the bucs got a 1st down... i cant remember if they scored on that drive or not though.

[GoDeep]

Yes, I believe they did score that drive.

[ruksak]

It was the right call. It was incumbent upon our defense to stop TB at that point. To have gone for it would've been suicide. If you doubt me, check our 3rd down stats. 4th down would likely have been no better.

The questionable indecision was the failure to challenge the fumble we recovered.

[Thewholefnshow28]

It was the safe call, but I completely disagree with it.

We are 0-3, banged up, and the defense was struggling in the second half. Might as well just take some chances. Who cares if we are 0-4 because we got stopped on 4th down and they drove down and scored or because we punted it to play it safe and they drove down and scored.

I know people are holding out hope that we will go on some magical run that will be on the 40for40 series 10 years from now, but this season was lost the moment Manning was going to miss 2-3 months. We might as well just takes some chances out there. Try some reverses, flea flickers, fake punts, or even go for it on 4th down.

[Smitto]

Yes, I believe they did score that drive.

Well that indeed was the bad call, idk why they did that.

[Smitto]

It was the right call. It was incumbent upon our defense to stop TB at that point. To have gone for it would've been suicide. If you doubt me, check our 3rd down stats. 4th down would likely have been no better.

The questionable indecision was the failure to challenge the fumble we recovered.

Man, the coaches really laid an egg in this one.

[ruksak]

It was the safe call, but I completely disagree with it.

We are 0-3, banged up, and the defense was struggling in the second half. Might as well just take some chances. Who cares if we are 0-4 because we got stopped on 4th down and they drove down and scored or because we punted it to play it safe and they drove down and scored.

I know people are holding out hope that we will go on some magical run that will be on the 40for40 series 10 years from now, but this season was lost the moment Manning was going to miss 2-3 months. We might as well just takes some chances out there. Try some reverses, flea flickers, fake punts, or even go for it on 4th down.

If we were behind by 2 scores, than yes, I agree. They way our defense has been creating turnover opportunities, it was the better bet.

I thought it took more guts to punt than to try a 4th down conversion at that spot on the field, considering our O-line issues, it would've been suicidal.

[bigunjohn]

It was the SAFE call. 0-3...on the road...wore down beat up defense....what the heck ....go for it!We hadn't been too good at stopping the pounding running back and REGARDLESS of what happened we wouldn't be getting the ball back with more than a minute and a half or so!!! BAD...bad safe call

[indy_nick]

At this point, the only Caldwell decision I would be happy with is his decision to step back down to QB coach.

[Superman]

At this point, the only Caldwell decision I would be happy with is his decision to step back down to QB coach.

And that's part of the problem. I disagreed with several decisions and some of the patterns of playcalling last night, on both sides of the ball. But I do think the last punt was the right decision. You have a quarterback who is 13/30 passing, an offensive line that's been struggling to protect him, and you're deep inside your own territory. You can hang the entire game on one 4th down, or you can punt, with three timeouts and the two minute warning, and give your defense a chance to get the ball back. It's absolutely true that the defense was worn down, banged up, and provided no reasonable degree of certainty that we'd be able to get the Bucs off the field. But you have a much more favorable situation in letting your defense try to get a stop. Not only had we stopped them decisively on several possessions to that point, there was also time enough to make a mistake and allow an early first down, and still get the ball back.

On the other hand, the punt was symptomatic of Caldwell's overly conservative decision making that pops up from time to time. There was the fumble that many think should have been challenged, but I don't put that on Caldwell, I put that on our booth team. Caldwell can't see the replays, he can't watch the slow-mo in high def, and someone has to be able to look at that play and say with a reasonable degree of certainty that it was not only a catch and a fumble, but that there was enough evidence to overturn the call on the field. I do believe the play should have been challenged, but I'm not sure it would have been reversed. And that might be what the booth team said to Caldwell after the play. It sucks that we got pinned at the 2 yard line, but if I'm not mistaken, we scored a touchdown on that possession, so it's kind of a moot point.

The real problem was the 4th and short from the Tampa 43 yard line at the end of the first quarter. That's the situation that you go for it on 4th down, and I think you go for it practically every time. Unless you're protecting a lead late in the game, that's a prime 4th down conversion candidate.

Anyways, I think some people will second guess Caldwell's decisions no matter what, just because they think he's a bad coach. I'm not saying I think he's a good coach, I just think the quoted comment shows that it doesn't matter. In general, he's disliked, so that means his decisions can never be right. Even when they're right.

[ALuck12]

It was the safe call, but I completely disagree with it.

We are 0-3, banged up, and the defense was struggling in the second half. Might as well just take some chances. Who cares if we are 0-4 because we got stopped on 4th down and they drove down and scored or because we punted it to play it safe and they drove down and scored.

I know people are holding out hope that we will go on some magical run that will be on the 40for40 series 10 years from now, but this season was lost the moment Manning was going to miss 2-3 months. We might as well just takes some chances out there. Try some reverses, flea flickers, fake punts, or even go for it on 4th down.

I like your thinking. We don't have Manning out there, so why are we still trying to do the things that he could do on the field. Painter isn't going to make the plays that Peyton could, so maybe we should stop acting like it and try something different.

[Superman]

It was the SAFE call. 0-3...on the road...wore down beat up defense....what the heck ....go for it!We hadn't been too good at stopping the pounding running back and REGARDLESS of what happened we wouldn't be getting the ball back with more than a minute and a half or so!!! BAD...bad safe call

That's not true. Had we gotten a 3 and out, we would have had the ball back on the plus side of the two minute warning. You save all your timeouts in the second half for that situation in particular, so you can stop the clock and get the ball back for your offense. I just don't see how going for it on 4th and 5 from your own 25 yard line is considered a good decision, not when you have three timeouts and the two minute warning left. You fail, and the game is over. One play, one mistake, and the game is over. If you punt, you have a chance to earn the ball back, maybe with better field position, and you still have more than two minutes left.

[Superman]

It was the safe call, but I completely disagree with it.

We are 0-3, banged up, and the defense was struggling in the second half. Might as well just take some chances. Who cares if we are 0-4 because we got stopped on 4th down and they drove down and scored or because we punted it to play it safe and they drove down and scored.

I know people are holding out hope that we will go on some magical run that will be on the 40for40 series 10 years from now, but this season was lost the moment Manning was going to miss 2-3 months. We might as well just takes some chances out there. Try some reverses, flea flickers, fake punts, or even go for it on 4th down.

The game was in reach. Everything that you say is true: the season was lost when Manning was lost; the defense was banged up, especially in the second half; we should be taking more chances and playing a little more aggressively when the opportunity presents itself. I agree with all that. BUT, the game was in reach. We're down a touchdown, with over two minutes left, and we still have all three of our timeouts. You can say that we're not going to win very many games with Manning, and you'd obviously be right, but this game was not over yet.

I think your point applies to the punt in the first quarter on 4th and short. I think it applies to the decision not to challenge the incomplete pass/fumble, though there are mitigating circumstances there and it wound up being irrelevant. But I don't think your point applies to the punt at the end of the game. At that point, you've played 57 minutes, shorthanded, on the road, without Manning, and you're down one score. Try to win the game. Don't take risks just because you're already playing with house money. I think the punt was the right call, given the game situation. It would have been "gutsy" to go for it, and we very well may have converted, but with the line being banged up and Painter being inconsistent on his throws, I think the odds were against us on a 4th and 5. The smart call was the punt, given your timeouts, the clock, and your field position. It worked out that we couldn't get the stop on defense. But I don't think that invalidates the decision to punt from deep inside your own territory.

[deedub75]

We were doomed either way. We go for it on 4th down and don't convert or we kick it and can't stop Tampa Bay. I still would have rather taken the chance and gone for it. We may have gotten lucky and converted. Kicking it when we know our depleted and tired defense cant stop them doesn't really make sense. We haven't won a game so why not take the chance?

[deedub75]

If we were behind by 2 scores, than yes, I agree. They way our defense has been creating turnover opportunities, it was the better bet.

I thought it took more guts to punt than to try a 4th down conversion at that spot on the field, considering our O-line issues, it would've been suicidal.

How many turnovers did we cause in this game?

[dn4192]

You are going to go for it with Painter at QB and it's a road game and your QB is not playing very well in his first start. I really believe some people just look for things to rip Caldwell on.

[Superman]

We were doomed either way. We go for it on 4th down and don't convert or we kick it and can't stop Tampa Bay. I still would have rather taken the chance and gone for it. We may have gotten lucky and converted. Kicking it when we know our depleted and tired defense cant stop them doesn't really make sense. We haven't won a game so why not take the chance?

If you believe we were doomed either way, then why not punt the ball out of scoring range and give your defense a chance to get a stop. They had gotten several stops throughout the course of the game, and they almost stopped the Bucs as it is.

Truth is, I believe this was a 51/49 decision, either way. There's obviously an argument to be made for either choice. And that's why it irritates me that people are acting like this was a no-brainer. You have a quarterback who is 44% for the game, and he's playing behind an offensive line that has been getting progressively worse as the game goes on. You're on the road, at your own 25 yard line. One mistake, one missed block, one errant throw, one penalty, one dropped pass, and the game is definitely over. But if you punt, you actually room for a little error, because they have to get two first downs to beat you. You have three timeouts, with which you can provide a little bit of a buffer for your defense to catch their breath after each down. You still have the two minute warning. I think punting is the right call.

[ruksak]

How many turnovers did we cause in this game?

One. We recovered a fumble on our side of the field as TB was driving.

And Caldwell was too busy trying not to blink to PULL OUT THAT RED FLAG AND DO HIS JOB!!!

Lets not forget the turnovers last week and the "shoulda woulda coulda" INT that Caldwell had in the endzone.

Point being, this D has proven they're adept at creating turnover.

[Superman]

And Caldwell was too busy trying not to blink to PULL OUT THAT RED FLAG AND DO HIS JOB!!!

Caldwell didn't have the benefit of replay, nor was that play certain to be overturned. I think we should have challenged, but he needs help from his booth team on replays. They obviously didn't give him enough to go on there. And besides, we scored the long touchdown on the next drive, so it wound up not mattering.

[CincyColtsFan]

Horrible call because it doesn't get you anywhere. Best case scenario is that you make them go 3 and out, they punt. At that point, you get the ball at the same spot you had it only with one less minute on the clock and no timeouts. Horrible, but not surprising.

[Superman]

Horrible call because it doesn't get you anywhere. Best case scenario is that you make them go 3 and out, they punt. At that point, you get the ball at the same spot you had it only with one less minute on the clock and no timeouts. Horrible, but not surprising.

Worst case scenario if you go for it is that you fail and the game is over. That's why you punt.

[NYColt]

You know what Caldwell decision I didn't like? Accepting the penalty on the 3rd down play that would've otherwise made it 4th and 3 and resulted in a punt and instead accepting it then allowing a 3rd and 9 conversion that kept the Colts on the field

What was the logic behind that anyway?

[LUVTHESHOE]

Worst case scenario if you go for it is that you fail and the game is over. That's why you punt.

or you don't go for it and never see the ball again, either way 0-4 and getting worse.

[chad72]

Can't play chicken all the time. Raheem Morris took a timeout to take a closer look at the Wayne catch to see if he can challenge it or not, didn't he? How many times have we seen Norv Turner expend his timeouts on challenges on plays that could swing momentum one way or the other? He did it on that Gonzo TD in the playoff game in 2007 we lost at home hoping Gonzo's knee hit the ground, it was in the 3rd quarter, a score that put us up 24-21 before Billy Volek instrumented the Chargers come back . He also did it on the Kelvin Hayden INT of Rivers in the 1st quarter hoping Hayden stepped out of bounds. The upside was worth it to him.

The risk is worth the reward. That fumble should have been challenged, even if we would have lost a timeout and could not get confirmation from upstairs quickly, that is what a head coach is for, sometimes to make gut feeling calls because you don't have the time to get all the info every single time. Sometimes, I'd rather take the risk and lose a timeout in a situation where I feel I could have helped my team swing momentum rather than play conservative all the time.

On the final drive, I think it was 4th & 12 or 15 or something like that, not 4th & 5, wasn't it? So that final punt was justified if it was more than 10 yards to go.

[CincyColtsFan]

Worst case scenario if you go for it is that you fail and the game is over. That's why you punt.

Well, they punted and still lost. No way was that patchwork of a D-line going to stop Blount at that point in the game, and no way was that O-line going to allow Painter to run a successful 2 minute drill. At that point, I'll take my chances on 4th and 5 with 3 minutes left and 3 timeouts rather than first down 2 minutes and no timeouts.

[chad72]

You know what Caldwell decision I didn't like? Accepting the penalty on the 3rd down play that would've otherwise made it 4th and 3 and resulted in a punt and instead accepting it then allowing a 3rd and 9 conversion that kept the Colts on the field

What was the logic behind that anyway?

The logic was that they will go for it on 4th down since Connor Barth missed from close to that range earlier and give our D, a chance to get them out of FG range completely.

[hawkeyes]

Could have swore I posted in this thread earlier ... maybe not.... The decision was wrong IMO!!! Even if it wouldnt have been over turned it was the right time to gamble if you will .... He had not delay in challenging last week for a whole 1 yard of field position - why not take a chance on this when the reward would have been so much more?

[CincyColtsFan]

You know what Caldwell decision I didn't like? Accepting the penalty on the 3rd down play that would've otherwise made it 4th and 3 and resulted in a punt and instead accepting it then allowing a 3rd and 9 conversion that kept the Colts on the field

What was the logic behind that anyway?

I don't think you'll find logic anywhere in that scenario. I know, since we have the worst 3rd down defense in the league, let's give the other team another shot at third down. Great idea!

[chad72]

I don't think you'll find logic anywhere in that scenario. I know, since we have the worst 3rd down defense in the league, let's give the other team another shot at third down. Great idea!

Like I said, 4th & 3 is something they would have gone for since Connor Barth missed from that range earlier. They converted twice on 4th down yesterday to make it 9 out of 17 for the game on 3rd & 4th downs.

[Corndog]

That was a GOOD call, the colts were inside their own 50 in a really tight game... they didnt make a 3rd and inches earlier on it was a smart decision to not take the chance cause the odds of them making it was very slim especially with the line they currently had.

The play that i would question is the play where the colts chose to replay the 3rd down when it was gonna be a 4th down, but instead the bucs got a 1st down... i cant remember if they scored on that drive or not though.

I think the call was the smarter and safer. But I think alot of people here did not want to put the defense back on the field so quickly after the last drive. I completely agree with you about replaying 3rd down, seriously why?

[Superman]

or you don't go for it and never see the ball again, either way 0-4 and getting worse.

So then what are we talking about?

[Superman]

Can't play chicken all the time. Raheem Morris took a timeout to take a closer look at the Wayne catch to see if he can challenge it or not, didn't he? How many times have we seen Norv Turner expend his timeouts on challenges on plays that could swing momentum one way or the other? He did it on that Gonzo TD in the playoff game in 2007 we lost at home hoping Gonzo's knee hit the ground, it was in the 3rd quarter, a score that put us up 24-21 before Billy Volek instrumented the Chargers come back . He also did it on the Kelvin Hayden INT of Rivers in the 1st quarter hoping Hayden stepped out of bounds. The upside was worth it to him.

The risk is worth the reward. That fumble should have been challenged, even if we would have lost a timeout and could not get confirmation from upstairs quickly, that is what a head coach is for, sometimes to make gut feeling calls because you don't have the time to get all the info every single time. Sometimes, I'd rather take the risk and lose a timeout in a situation where I feel I could have helped my team swing momentum rather than play conservative all the time.

On the final drive, I think it was 4th & 12 or 15 or something like that, not 4th & 5, wasn't it? So that final punt was justified if it was more than 10 yards to go.

Final punt was 4th and 5.

There's a lot to be said about the non-challenge. There's the issue of the how the booth team felt about it, there's the issue of not wanting to use a timeout, and so on. But it all comes down to the fact that that was a very borderline play. People are presenting it as if it's a sure-fire reversal, and it was no such thing. After watching it several times, I'm not 100% sure the receiver actually controlled the ball long enough for that to be called a catch. You watch it in slow motion, and you get a completely different impression of the actual play, but I've seen that call upheld more times than not.

[chrisfarley]

You are going to go for it with Painter at QB and it's a road game and your QB is not playing very well in his first start. I really believe some people just look for things to rip Caldwell on.

Caldwell deserves to get ripped when using very questionable judgment. I just think other coaches out there would blow him away head-to-head as far as decisions and judgment (bill cowher, chuckie, bill parcels, bill belichick, tony dungy)

[Superman]

Well, they punted and still lost. No way was that patchwork of a D-line going to stop Blount at that point in the game, and no way was that O-line going to allow Painter to run a successful 2 minute drill. At that point, I'll take my chances on 4th and 5 with 3 minutes left and 3 timeouts rather than first down 2 minutes and no timeouts.

And that's absolute nonsense. You feel the offensive line wasn't going to give Painter what he needed in a two minute drill, but somehow think 4th and 5 from your own 25 is a good gamble? What's the difference, besides the fact that the game isn't hinging on one play if you get the ball back in a two minute drill? And you still have the two minute warning to stop the clock again.

[Coffeedrinker]

It was the right call. It was incumbent upon our defense to stop TB at that point. To have gone for it would've been suicide. If you doubt me, check our 3rd down stats. 4th down would likely have been no better.

The questionable indecision was the failure to challenge the fumble we recovered.

I don't think that it was call they could challenge because the whistle blew the play dead and anything that happens after that cannot be challenged.

The punt, that tough because I agree with either call. I don't like giving the ball up, but the Colts were on their side of the field and they had all three timeouts.

The call I don't agree with earlier in the game, the Colts had the ball around midfield, 3rd and short they run a play action pass to Wayne who was covered very well. IMO, you only do that type of play on third and short if and only if you are planning on going for it on 4th down. But they punted and Tampa got the ball at the 21 or 22, so a 30 yard net gain in field position.

[ruksak]

Final punt was 4th and 5.

There's a lot to be said about the non-challenge. There's the issue of the how the booth team felt about it, there's the issue of not wanting to use a timeout, and so on. But it all comes down to the fact that that was a very borderline play. People are presenting it as if it's a sure-fire reversal, and it was no such thing. After watching it several times, I'm not 100% sure the receiver actually controlled the ball long enough for that to be called a catch. You watch it in slow motion, and you get a completely different impression of the actual play, but I've seen that call upheld more times than not.

In our desperate position, how can justify not gambling a timeout in the face of such great reward? All it costs is a timeout for a shot at a game changing turnover. One that may have likely led to our victory.

As for the call, it looked solid. Catch, turn, one step, two....balls out. The ball wasn't wiggling around, he had control. That had a high likelihood of being confirmed as a turnover.

And all it would cost is a timeout.

I know what happened. Caldwell waited for the home team to show the replay, which they did not. Anytime you see the opposition scramble to snap it after a suspect play, throw the flag. This is simple stuff.

[wercolts]

Hindsight is 20-20 especially for arm chair coaches. Believing in your defense is a good thing but I don't think they gauged how how tired they were very well. That being said, when it's replacement players and worn out defenders vs starters coaching has very little to do with the outcome. Accepting the penalty and giving the Bucs another down was a bad decision, and yes the Colts play cover 2 a lot in the wrong situations. It's been that way since Dungy but I heard far fewer cries to fire him. What bother me is 3rd and 8 and nobody between the QB and the 1st down marker except for the linemen. I counted at least 3 plays where Wheeler turned tail and ran at the snap and that guy can't even cover. Now the Colts have less talent on the field defensively than they did under Dungy so expect back-pedaling LB's and corners playing 15 yards off. This team needs to consider time of possession as one of the most important stats because small D linemen get worn out fast against good veteran lines like the Bucs. Run the ball, run the ball and run it some more. Offensive linemen get fired up doing that and D linemen get rested while time for the opponent to score expires. The other thing I would expect from an 0-4 team going forward is taking more chances. Long balls and blitzes, what have you got to lose? BTW, can we please quit wasting money on a guy who's clutch days ended when he left the east coast.