caldwell's decision

[ruksak]

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 way that works is the return is nulified and possesion is granted to the Colts because they took possesion before the whistle.

If they blew the play dead before, then I am wrong. However I'm sure that they didn't. Otherwise, how do you explain the Buccs scrambling to snap it? They knew.

[dn4192]

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)

Wow we just listed 5 HOF coaches...I would sure hope 5 HOF coaches might coach better then a Head coach in his 3rd season...

[Superman]

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.

I don't care to argue the non-challenge very aggressively. The fact is that that exact play can be upheld or overturned depending on the crew. It's a 50/50 proposition. I've seen that play happen where the refs let it go, then the catch gets challenged and ruled an incomplete pass. I've seen it where the incompletion gets overturned. I've seen it where the incompletion gets upheld. That play is as borderline as it gets. But we sit in front of our TV set and watch a couple slow motion replays and think the decision is as plain as day.

There's also the fact that the booth team has to give the coach something to go on there. They evidently didn't.

And lastly, this is all moot, because we scored the touchdown anyways.

I thought at the time that Caldwell should have challenged, but I understand why he did not. And I ceased caring when Garcon went 87 yards down the field.

[wercolts]

With Ron Winter on the field odds are against the Colts. Walt Coleman is the only ref that is worse for the Colts.

[indy_nick]

Poor decisions on Caldwell for this game IMO

1) not starting Lefeged at safety

2) The inability to adjust to consistent 5-10 yd passes over the middle (heck even a dog learns that when it runs into a wall it hurts and it tries not to do it again)

3) Not challenging the fumble recovery. You can argue he doesn't have the advantage of replay but the last time I checked Polian allowed Caldwell to pretty much pick his coaching staff. I will say he did not do his job putting the right person in the booth to tell him to throw the flag then if that is your argument. Either way it's his responsibility. He has the red flag and no one else

4) Not going for it on 4th and inches. C'mon grow a pair why don't ya? Especially with where we were on the field, there is no reason not to go for that.

5) Throwing Donald Brown in there on two 3rd downs knowing he is our worst blocking back, and letting him blow his assignment.

I am strongly opposed to Jim Caldwell because he lacks the ability of clock management. He also doesn't take any risks. He hardly ever goes for it on 4th and inches, no matter where our field position is. He has always shown these problems. Everybody talks about how our team needs to improve...the same goes for the coach.

[Toe Toed Sloth]

In a normal situation, you punt. In our situation, you go for it. We have an inexperienced, young line with 2(right?) guys coming off the bench mid game to replace starters as well as a QB in his first ever start. We are not going to be able to execute the no huddle and march down the field in under 2 minutes and score. Our defense is extremely fatigued and has had multiple starters also leave the game, and we have been unable to stop the run in the second half. I think that at 3 minutes to go, that IS the amount of time you need to march down the entire field to get the TD with this O - Line and this offense. You have to go for it given OUR situation. Any other team...they should punt 99.99% of the time.

[Jaric]

Fortune favors the bold.

It also favors the competent as well, but we're going to have to be satisfied with bold.

[CincyColtsFan]

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.

Because with 3 timeouts and the two minute warning, you can try to utilize screen passes or a running game that was being somewhat effective. You get the ball back with 2 minutes and no timeouts, you have to throw downfield, they know you're going to throw, and they're going to blitz like crazy which the Colts obviously were not handling well. The game is still going to hinge on one play if you punt, because if they convert a first down, it's over. In some cases, punting is clearly the way to go. But in this case, when you're 0-3, your defense is dismantled and exhausted, you have a better chance at gaining 5 yards than stopping their offense, getting the ball back and trying to drive 75 yards in 2 minutes.

[Superman]

Hindsight is 20-20 especially for arm chair coaches.

QFT.

BTW, can we please quit wasting money on a guy who's clutch days ended when he left the east coast.

I don't know what you mean here. Are you talking about Adam Vinatieri? He did nail the 51 yarder against the Jets. Hit another 50+ against the Browns. He's still one of the best kickers in the game. I don't know what we're paying him because his contract details were never released, but I'm pretty sure it's worth it.

[ruksak]

I don't care to argue the non-challenge very aggressively. The fact is that that exact play can be upheld or overturned depending on the crew. It's a 50/50 proposition. I've seen that play happen where the refs let it go, then the catch gets challenged and ruled an incomplete pass. I've seen it where the incompletion gets overturned. I've seen it where the incompletion gets upheld. That play is as borderline as it gets. But we sit in front of our TV set and watch a couple slow motion replays and think the decision is as plain as day.

50/50 is a darn good bit of odds considering the gravity of it. That would have been our only turnover. Or rather, SHOULD have been.

This isn't armchair coaching. It's simple stuff. I see coaches every Sunday challenge the most ridiculous things that have no chance of being overturned.

There's also the fact that the booth team has to give the coach something to go on there. They evidently didn't.

No they (The Booth) don't have to do diddly poo. It was more cowardice from Caldwell. A HC doesn't need to have the eyes in the sky hold him wittle hand like a baby. He has every bit of the weight required to throw that flag upon instinct. Therein lies the problem, the evidence is mounting, Caldwell is not an instinctive coach.

And lastly, this is all moot, because we scored the touchdown anyways.

Wrong. Tampa scored a TD right after that, we scored later, after they put 7 on us.

[ruksak]

Poor decisions on Caldwell for this game IMO

1) not starting Lefeged at safety

2) The inability to adjust to consistent 5-10 yd passes over the middle (heck even a dog learns that when it runs into a wall it hurts and it tries not to do it again)

3) Not challenging the fumble recovery. You can argue he doesn't have the advantage of replay but the last time I checked Polian allowed Caldwell to pretty much pick his coaching staff. I will say he did not do his job putting the right person in the booth to tell him to throw the flag then if that is your argument. Either way it's his responsibility. He has the red flag and no one else

4) Not going for it on 4th and inches. C'mon grow a pair why don't ya? Especially with where we were on the field, there is no reason not to go for that.

5) Throwing Donald Brown in there on two 3rd downs knowing he is our worst blocking back, and letting him blow his assignment.

I am strongly opposed to Jim Caldwell because he lacks the ability of clock management. He also doesn't take any risks. He hardly ever goes for it on 4th and inches, no matter where our field position is. He has always shown these problems. Everybody talks about how our team needs to improve...the same goes for the coach.

+1

Nick ain't thick. You speak the truth.

[Superman]

In a normal situation, you punt. In our situation, you go for it. We have an inexperienced, young line with 2(right?) guys coming off the bench mid game to replace starters as well as a QB in his first ever start. We are not going to be able to execute the no huddle and march down the field in under 2 minutes and score. Our defense is extremely fatigued and has had multiple starters also leave the game, and we have been unable to stop the run in the second half. I think that at 3 minutes to go, that IS the amount of time you need to march down the entire field to get the TD with this O - Line and this offense. You have to go for it given OUR situation. Any other team...they should punt 99.99% of the time.

I don't get this logic. We have a young and banged up offensive line, a first time starter at quarterback, and you seriously doubt that we'll be able to get down the field in two minutes to score. So that's somehow an argument for going for it 4th and 5 from your own 25? You still have to go down the length of the field, which we were unable to do all game anyways, regardless of the situation. Our two touchdowns were long plays, and the field goal was on the first drive of the game. I don't understand saying "we couldn't have gone the entire field for a touchdown because of the offensive line and the quarterback, but we could have converted 4th and 5 with the same offensive line and quarterback." And that's before you mention that if we DON'T convert, the game is effectively over.

[Coffeedrinker]

The way that works is the return is nulified and possesion is granted to the Colts because they took possesion before the whistle.

If they blew the play dead before, then I am wrong. However I'm sure that they didn't. Otherwise, how do you explain the Buccs scrambling to snap it? They knew.

If we are talking about the same play, which I think we are, the ruling on the field was an incomplete pass. That means the whistle would have blown as soon as the ball hit the field.

I do agree that it was a fumble but that does not mean they could challenge the ruling.

[chad72]

If we are talking about the same play, which I think we are, the ruling on the field was an incomplete pass. That means the whistle would have blown as soon as the ball hit the field.

I do agree that it was a fumble but that does not mean they could challenge the ruling.

We could have thrown the flag and had a conversation with the refs if it was challengeable or not, a lot of coaches do it. If it is challengeable, then it is worth the risk, IMO, and we take it from there.

[Superman]

50/50 is a darn good bit of odds considering the gravity of it. That would have been our only turnover. Or rather, SHOULD have been.

This isn't armchair coaching. It's simple stuff. I see coaches every Sunday challenge the most ridiculous things that have no chance of being overturned.

How is that an argument for challenging a 50/50 play?

Don't misunderstand: I'm not saying that you should only challenge plays that are certain to be overturned. I'm simply saying that armchair coaches are presenting this as if that play was certain to be overturned, when it was absolutely NOT certain to be overturned. We looked at a couple of slow motion replays that make us think that play would have gone our way with a challenge, but there's several mitigating circumstances to consider. Also, I believe Ron Winters overturns fewer calls than any other official in the league. He reversed the Benn touchdown earlier with clear evidence. I think this play was considerably less clear than the Benn play.

No they (The Booth) don't have to do diddly poo. It was more cowardice from Caldwell. A HC doesn't need to have the eyes in the sky hold him wittle hand like a baby. He has every bit of the weight required to throw that flag upon instinct. Therein lies the problem, the evidence is mounting, Caldwell is not an instinctive coach.

Make that argument all you want. I might agree with it. This non-challenge might be evidence to that effect. I still don't think that play is certain to be overturned.

I criticized Caldwell in the Browns game for challenging a one yard reception that had about a .0231% chance of affecting the outcome of the game, while later failing to challenge a first down reception that clearly hit the ground. And it's not just because he missed the one that he should have challenged, but primarily because you don't challenge such an inconsequential play, even if you're certain you're right.

The booth team still has a role. They have the replays we have, the ones that you saw that convinced you we should have challenged. Their job is to tell the head coach what they think about borderline plays. That's what they do all game. I have to believe that if they were as convinced as you are that the play would have been overturned, they would have expressed that emphatically to Caldwell, and he would have thrown the flag. He's not been hesitant to throw it so far in his career, even though I don't agree with every time he does challenge. And as you say, on a play that can determine possession, with a recommendation from the booth team, he would probably throw the flag. I just don't think that play was a clear-cut as it being made out to be.

Wrong. Tampa scored a TD right after that, we scored later, after they put 7 on us.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=311003027&period=0

That was a third down. Tampa punted right after that play, pinned us at the 2, and we scored a touchdown on that drive.

[18Manning]

I thought we should have gone for it with so little time left.

[ruksak]

If we are talking about the same play, which I think we are, the ruling on the field was an incomplete pass. That means the whistle would have blown as soon as the ball hit the field.

I do agree that it was a fumble but that does not mean they could challenge the ruling.

Respectfully, no sir. The ruling doesn't indicate the timing of the whistle any more than the ruling of a reception stipulates that said reception cannot be overturned, even if the result was a TD.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_4779509_nfl-instant-replay-rules.html

This is vague in relation to exactly what we're discussing, but it does touch on the pertinence of when the whistle blows in regard to challenges.

There are a number of circumstances when plays can be challenged: Fumbles can be challenged. Referees can look to see if a player was down or touched down before the ball came out. If the ref blows the whistle after the fumble is called, the play is done. After the whistle blows, no challenge can be issued for anything occurring after the whistle. That is why, even if referees know there weren't fumbles, they will not blow their whistles so they can get a better look at it if a coach challenges the play.

It would take some serious digging to get a Mike Perrera type answer on this. Point being, its all about the whistle.

[CR91]

people bring up the decision to accept the hold when we stop the bucs on 3rd down, but think about it if they went for it on 4th and 6 you think they wouldnt have went for it on 4th and 3

[ruksak]

How is that an argument for challenging a 50/50 play?

Don't misunderstand: I'm not saying that you should only challenge plays that are certain to be overturned. I'm simply saying that armchair coaches are presenting this as if that play was certain to be overturned, when it was absolutely NOT certain to be overturned. We looked at a couple of slow motion replays that make us think that play would have gone our way with a challenge, but there's several mitigating circumstances to consider. Also, I believe Ron Winters overturns fewer calls than any other official in the league. He reversed the Benn touchdown earlier with clear evidence. I think this play was considerably less clear than the Benn play.

Make that argument all you want. I might agree with it. This non-challenge might be evidence to that effect. I still don't think that play is certain to be overturned.

I criticized Caldwell in the Browns game for challenging a one yard reception that had about a .0231% chance of affecting the outcome of the game, while later failing to challenge a first down reception that clearly hit the ground. And it's not just because he missed the one that he should have challenged, but primarily because you don't challenge such an inconsequential play, even if you're certain you're right.

The booth team still has a role. They have the replays we have, the ones that you saw that convinced you we should have challenged. Their job is to tell the head coach what they think about borderline plays. That's what they do all game. I have to believe that if they were as convinced as you are that the play would have been overturned, they would have expressed that emphatically to Caldwell, and he would have thrown the flag. He's not been hesitant to throw it so far in his career, even though I don't agree with every time he does challenge. And as you say, on a play that can determine possession, with a recommendation from the booth team, he would probably throw the flag. I just don't think that play was a clear-cut as it being made out to be.

http://scores.espn.g...003027&period=0

That was a third down. Tampa punted right after that play, pinned us at the 2, and we scored a touchdown on that drive.

I think you're wrong about where and when that occurred. If I am wrong then I apologize.

Maybe someone else remembers? Either way, thats a turnover and those come at an extreme premium. 1 turnover is often the difference between a victory and a loss.

Also, in regard to the odds of an overturn. That was a classic 50/50 scenario. Considering the impact of a drive stopping turnover, again, how can you say its not worth the risk of a stinking timeout? I mean ....really?

[Superman]

people bring up the decision to accept the hold when we stop the bucs on 3rd down, but think about it if they went for it on 4th and 6 you think they wouldnt have went for it on 4th and 3

4th and 3 is an acceptable risk.

[Smitto]

people bring up the decision to accept the hold when we stop the bucs on 3rd down, but think about it if they went for it on 4th and 6 you think they wouldnt have went for it on 4th and 3

No because they were in field goal range and the score was 10-7 at that time

[Superman]

I think you're wrong about where and when that occurred. If I am wrong then I apologize.

I'm 100% certain. I just rewatched it.

Maybe someone else remembers? Either way, thats a turnover and those come at an extreme premium. 1 turnover is often the difference between a victory and a loss.

Not in this case. They punted, we scored. It can't work out any better than that, even with the potential turnover.

Also, in regard to the odds of an overturn. That was a classic 50/50 scenario. Considering the impact of a drive stopping turnover, again, how can you say its not worth the risk of a stinking timeout? I mean ....really?

I'm not saying it's not worth the risk. I'm not saying he shouldn't have challenged it. All I'm saying about the play is that it was not certain to have been overturned. And I'm only saying that because it's being presented here as if it was a no-brainer. It wasn't. It was very much a borderline play that could have gone one way or the other. Given the eventual outcome of that stretch of plays, with us scoring the touchdown, I would think people would get over this.

But of course not, because this is another reason to criticize Jim Caldwell. Criticize the 4th and inches in the first half. Criticize the accepted penalty on third down that led to the Bucs scoring a field goal. Criticize the ridiculous defensive scheme that was exploited for the entire second half. Criticize the offensive play calling that saw Curtis Painter go 0-7 at one point in this game, and then 3-10 with three sacks at another point. There's plenty of coaching to criticize here. I think we're going overboard with regard to the non-challenge.

[Superman]

No because they were in field goal range and the score was 10-7 at that time

They were on the fringes of field goal range. They very well could have gone for the conversion. I still don't see any way to defend accepting that penalty.

[ruksak]

I'm 100% certain. I just rewatched it.

Not in this case. They punted, we scored. It can't work out any better than that, even with the potential turnover.

At the time, it would have been the right thing to do to challenge it. Leaving it on the table was foolish.

However, it sounds like you have the evidence right in front of you, so I concede that this may have changed the game. I am not stupid, so I know when I'm wrong and I admit that given the circumstance, everything evened out.

I apologize and your memory is far better than mine. I had it all different in my head. Last night was frustrating. So I give you that.

Still though, Caldwell needs to let 'em hang. He is too conservative for my taste.

I'd like to add that I am usually the last guy that speaks up about "fire this coach, fire that coach......cut so and so". I rarely do so. Caldwell is an exception I'm learning to make. I don't like him, I think he's incompetent.

[Coffeedrinker]

Respectfully, no sir. The ruling doesn't indicate the timing of the whistle any more than the ruling of a reception stipulates that said reception cannot be overturned, even if the result was a TD.

Yes it does. It was ruled an incomplete pass, so the whistle is blown. Look at what you quoted below. It wasn't ruled a fumble (thus delaying the whistle being blown) it was ruled an incomplete pass. The refs don't wait after an incomplete pass to see what happens, they blow the whistle, thus making it a play that cannot be challenged.

It would take some serious digging to get a Mike Perrera type answer on this. Point being, its all about the whistle.

Exactly, and you can hear the whistle as soon as the ball hits the ground.

[ruksak]

Yes it does. It was ruled an incomplete pass, so the whistle is blown. Look at what you quoted below. It wasn't ruled a fumble (thus delaying the whistle being blown) it was ruled an incomplete pass. The refs don't wait after an incomplete pass to see what happens, they blow the whistle, thus making it a play that cannot be challenged.

Exactly, and you can hear the whistle as soon as the ball hits the ground.

It's all about the whistle. Obviously I don't remember the sequence clearly, as evidenced in my conversation above. So I would implore Superman to determine whether a whistle was audible before we took possession. He apparently DVR'd it, I did not.

But I do know I have seen many times where there is a delay between the dropping of a pass, picked up as if it were a fumble, then the whistle blows and a determination is made it was an incomplete pass. Upon review, they determine the the pass was completed, the ball was fumbled and recovered by the defense and any subsequent return is nullified and the ball is spotted where the defense took possession. Seen it many times, as I'm sure you have being a long time fan.

[Fx Stryker]

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.

That was when Bethea stripped the guy and they called it incomplete?

[Coffeedrinker]

To Ruksak. I have never seen that on a play that was ruled an incomplete pass. I have seen on a play where the player fumbled but was ruled down by contact and then reviewed and possession given to the team that recovered the fumble. But never on a play that was ruled an incomplete pass. In that situation I've only heard that the play is not reviewable because the whistle blew.

[Smitto]

They were on the fringes of field goal range. They very well could have gone for the conversion. I still don't see any way to defend accepting that penalty.

The fringes? lol the colts wanted them out of field goal range.. it was still early in the game so it made no sense for them to go for it... and it didnt look like they were either.

[FanFromtheWasteland]

I am strongly opposed to Jim Caldwell because he lacks the ability of clock management. He also doesn't take any risks. He hardly ever goes for it on 4th and inches, no matter where our field position is. He has always shown these problems. Everybody talks about how our team needs to improve...the same goes for the coach.

Unfortunately, he will most likely get yet another pass this year because of the same tired excuses that a lot of people had for him last year. ‘HE took this team to the Super Bowl’ and ‘Look at all the injuries we had and still had a winning record.’ Well guess what people, we are not going to have a winning record this year and if we don’t win next week, I doubt that we win any. He does not have the team ready to play, he makes bone head decisions, and has the same look on his face that Ted Marchibroda and Jim Mora used to have when we were getting spanked during the bad years. The look that they don’t have a clue what is happening and have no idea what to do about it. Absolutely pathetic.

[rockywoj]

Given the circumstances (field position, time left, 3 time outs left), clearly the right call was to punt and put it on the defense to force a three and out. It would have been a poor coaching decision to do otherwise. Hindsight might make it look like they should have just gone for it, but to do so would have been a really bad coaching decision.

[bayone]

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

he needs some other coaches he hired to step down too, or down & out

[Coltsman1788]

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

When it happened I looked at my best friend who is also a Colts fan and told him that we would not see the ball again. Unfortunately, I was right.

[Coffeedrinker]

Why are people hard on Caldwell. After the last two weeks he has shown that he develops a good game plan against the teams, he has the guys ready to play and they play their guts out for him and themselves.

I mentioned the call I disagree with but man the job Caldwell did and the job CC did was excellent. If people want to start a fire Coyer thread then I'm all for that. That last drive before the half was about the dumbest set of defensive play calling I have seen at any level of football. Of course I remember when Caldwell hired Coyer, nearly everyone on the forum (and yes I do mean nearly everyone) was making comments about how Coyer was a good hire and he can't be any worse than Meeks. And I kept saying that yes it can get a lot worse than Meeks. Now people are seeing what I was talking about.

[GoColts8818]

I was less upset with that call than I was not to go for it on 4th and an inch after they threw for it on third down earlier in the game. That was too conservative. You can be conservative when you have Peyton Manning and then it's smart because more times than not it's going to work out for you in the long run so you don't have to take as many chances. Without him you have to take a few more chances or well take a chance at all.

[GoColts8818]

Why are people hard on Caldwell. After the last two weeks he has shown that he develops a good game plan against the teams, he has the guys ready to play and they play their guts out for him and themselves.

I mentioned the call I disagree with but man the job Caldwell did and the job CC did was excellent. If people want to start a fire Coyer thread then I'm all for that. That last drive before the half was about the dumbest set of defensive play calling I have seen at any level of football. Of course I remember when Caldwell hired Coyer, nearly everyone on the forum (and yes I do mean nearly everyone) was making comments about how Coyer was a good hire and he can't be any worse than Meeks. And I kept saying that yes it can get a lot worse than Meeks. Now people are seeing what I was talking about.

They don't like him plan and simple. Some people have been looking for Caldwell to fail since the day he got here because some people didn't think he was qaulified to be our next head coach. More jumped on that bandwagon after the Jets game in his first season. At that point anything short of perfection wasn't going to be good enough.

Also for the people who feel that way I am not saying you can't feel that way or that you are even wrong for feeling that way. That's up to you but I think that is a large part of the reason why people are so hard on him.

I don't think he's perfect as can be seen in my previous post but I don't think he's the world's worst coach like some make him out to be either. There is an inbetween hall of famer and awful and I think he's there.

[skadura]

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.

i hope you're not talking about vinatieri???? lol hes clutch , when it matters. playoffs, and thats all that matters. ...........

i think it was a bad decision. this team is built to play behind the offense. you can't expect a bend but dont break defense to go out there and stop a team from getting first downs. you have to go for it in that situation. hence everytime we r up by three or less and the other team has the ball late....its guaranteed a fg or they are scring.

[bayone]

Why are people hard on Caldwell. After the last two weeks he has shown that he develops a good game plan against the teams, he has the guys ready to play and they play their guts out for him and themselves.

I mentioned the call I disagree with but man the job Caldwell did and the job CC did was excellent. If people want to start a fire Coyer thread then I'm all for that. That last drive before the half was about the dumbest set of defensive play calling I have seen at any level of football. Of course I remember when Caldwell hired Coyer, nearly everyone on the forum (and yes I do mean nearly everyone) was making comments about how Coyer was a good hire and he can't be any worse than Meeks. And I kept saying that yes it can get a lot worse than Meeks. Now people are seeing what I was talking about.

He may develop a game plan but dont feel he has in game situational awareness to know what to f do under a variety of circumstances he may face, Its like he has 1 set of rules no matter the score or time left etc

[Steagles]

Bad call. Unless we went for it and didn't get it.

[Superman]

Bad call. Unless we went for it and didn't get it.

Hilarious.