An Actual Complaint Against The Coaching Staff

[mammo]

is Thomas lining up at the line of scrimmage, then running back 10 yards just before the snap a coaching deal or what? i would of thought he would have been better staying up there, not like he did many times in the game.

would be good to know who makes mistakes on the field, in terms of coverage, and doing the wrong things

At least we looked better on D than the cowboys this week...

[jskinnz]

That's the reason: it was 3-0 at the time. Not because "you don't take a safety, ever," as some are saying. If it's later in the game and you're ahead by two scores, and your defense is playing well (or their offense is playing bad), maybe you take that safety. Maybe.

We're losing sight of two things that happened before the blocked punt: 1) Three penalties in a row, putting us into our own endzone; and 2) weird playcalling from that point of the field, resulting in us gaining no yardage after the penalties. The blocked punt was a self-imposed setback.

I am not losing sight of the penalties at all and I don't care about the playcalling as it relates to this particular discussion. The freaking Colts played poorly all the way around. But there is no getting around the fact that suggesting the Colts intentionally take a safety in the 2nd quarter of a 3-0 game is mindlessly dumb - would you agree?

[jskinnz]

I actually agree with you on the first one. When buried in your zone, you risk getting blocked and even if you get the ball out clean, odds are they get the ball in your zone. I think they should have token the knee and then punt them the ball and let them start on their thirty. At that point, their O was playing badly, so the Colts could have stopped them.

The second one is because the Colts were playing behind for most of the game. They had a 20 point deficit and running the ball couldn't get us out of it. Although I think 49 times is too much, running the ball more couldn't have helped that much. The running game was not flourishing, well not enough to single handedly get us down the field and score.

You know last week when you proclaimed yourself to be a Colts expert? If challenged on that claim again, I would not offer this post as evidence of your expertise.

[sfergson727]

So, I'm trying to put a finger on this...It's okay to take an intentional safety, but a horrible decision to try to go for the touchdown on a fourth and goal when you are down 20-0? Just checking.

Edited November 1, 2011 by sfergson727

[FireJimCaldwell]

So, I'm trying to put a finger on this...It's okay to take an intentional safety, but a horrible decision to try to go for the touchdown on a fourth and goal when you are down 20-0? Just checking.

Seems like the opposite of commonsense to me.

[sfergson727]

me too.....

[dn4192]

I am not losing sight of the penalties at all and I don't care about the playcalling as it relates to this particular discussion. The freaking Colts played poorly all the way around. But there is no getting around the fact that suggesting the Colts intentionally take a safety in the 2nd quarter of a 3-0 game is mindlessly dumb - would you agree?

Not at all. The score at that point is only 3-0, a safety makes it 5-0 a one score game, the blocked punt makes it 10-0 a two score game. Even if they get the punt off it puts the defense in a bad position. Give up the 2, be down just five and put the defense in a better position.

[jskinnz]

Not at all. The score at that point is only 3-0, a safety makes it 5-0 a one score game, the blocked punt makes it 10-0 a two score game. Even if they get the punt off it puts the defense in a bad position. Give up the 2, be down just five and put the defense in a better position.

I got in trouble for a response in this thread that the mods felt was too personal so with my retort here I say this with all due respect - there are a wealth of holes in your argument.

1) Have you ever seen a coach voluntarily give points to the other team that did not involve some late game situation?

2) Teams punt from their own end zone all the time. The block is a rare thing

3) You keep making a big deal out the score going from 3 to 5 points. Why make your job tougher by needing a TD instead of only needing a field goal to tie, even if still only in the 2nd quarter?

4) The goal is to prevent other teams from scoring so how it can make sense to give up 2 points at that time of the game is hard to fathom.

5) The Colts defense is bad - why is it a good idea to give up 2 points and then go play defense where the odds of Tennessee scoring again from decent field position is pretty good.

I know you like to be the contrarian on all things but this is not a reasonable argument to make. No one would take a safety there. No college coach. No NFL coach. When I say no one would do that, it is not an exaggeration. It is the truth. No one would make that decision.

Respectfully...

[dn4192]

I got in trouble for a response in this thread that the mods felt was too personal so with my retort here I say this with all due respect - there are a wealth of holes in your argument.

1) Have you ever seen a coach voluntarily give points to the other team that did not involve some late game situation?

2) Teams punt from their own end zone all the time. The block is a rare thing

3) You keep making a big deal out the score going from 3 to 5 points. Why make your job tougher by needing a TD instead of only needing a field goal to tie, even if still only in the 2nd quarter?

4) The goal is to prevent other teams from scoring so how it can make sense to give up 2 points at that time of the game is hard to fathom.

5) The Colts defense is bad - why is it a good idea to give up 2 points and then go play defense where the odds of Tennessee scoring again from decent field position is pretty good.

I know you like to be the contrarian on all things but this is not a reasonable argument to make. No one would take a safety there. No college coach. No NFL coach. When I say no one would do that, it is not an exaggeration. It is the truth. No one would make that decision.

Respectfully...

I am looking at it just from teh Colts perspective. We know we have special team issues. Yet on this day our defense had been doing and overall didn't do a bad job. The normal distance from punter to line was shorter in this case due to the LOS being like the 2 or 3 yard line, which thus increases the odds of the punt being blocked. Even if the punt gets off the Titans have great field position anyway and may get at least a FG which makes the score 6-0. So coming out down only 5 and giving your defense better positioning seems to me to be the best plan.

[jskinnz]

I am looking at it just from teh Colts perspective. We know we have special team issues. Yet on this day our defense had been doing and overall didn't do a bad job. The normal distance from punter to line was shorter in this case due to the LOS being like the 2 or 3 yard line, which thus increases the odds of the punt being blocked. Even if the punt gets off the Titans have great field position anyway and may get at least a FG which makes the score 6-0. So coming out down only 5 and giving your defense better positioning seems to me to be the best plan.

No need for further discussion because you are simply wrong.

[dn4192]

No need for further discussion because you are simply wrong.

Okay if you think so, that is fine, I still think the coaching staff blew this call and could have put the team in a better position.

[John Waylon]

jskinnz is winning another thread, but sadly common sense still isn't taking hold...

When you give up a safety the ensuing kick to the other team is a free punt. That significantly alters how hard a punter is able to punt the ball. A free punt usually puts a team within 10 or so yards of FG rage, so when you give up a safety, it usually translates to a FG at the very least. So giving up a safety is as good as 5 points.

Blocked punts are an extreme rarity, even when punting out of the end zone. You're arguing that it's better to willingly give up 5 points on the extremely rare chance the punt gets blocked? To prove my point about the rarity of blocks let me ask you, when was the last time the Colts had a punt blocked? It's never happened to Pat, and I don't ever recall it happening to Hunter Smith, so you're most likely going to have to go back to the Clinton Administration to find it. In case you're too young to remember that, that was over a decade ago.

A blocked punt is such a rarity you always play the numbers on it as opposed to anything, especially giving up an unnecessary score.

[FireJimCaldwell]

3-0

Safety 5-0

Touchdown 12-0

3-0

Blocked punt for TD 10-0

There is a difference.

[dn4192]

jskinnz is winning another thread, but sadly common sense still isn't taking hold...

When you give up a safety the ensuing kick to the other team is a free punt. That significantly alters how hard a punter is able to punt the ball. A free punt usually puts a team within 10 or so yards of FG rage, so when you give up a safety, it usually translates to a FG at the very least. So giving up a safety is as good as 5 points.

Blocked punts are an extreme rarity, even when punting out of the end zone. You're arguing that it's better to willingly give up 5 points on the extremely rare chance the punt gets blocked? To prove my point about the rarity of blocks let me ask you, when was the last time the Colts had a punt blocked? It's never happened to Pat, and I don't ever recall it happening to Hunter Smith, so you're most likely going to have to go back to the Clinton Administration to find it. In case you're too young to remember that, that was over a decade ago.

A blocked punt is such a rarity you always play the numbers on it as opposed to anything, especially giving up an unnecessary score.

I guess I have more faith in our Punter putting them farther back getting a free punt then over a rushed shortened field punt from my endzone.

[dn4192]

3-0

Safety 5-0

Touchdown 12-0

3-0

Blocked punt for TD 10-0

There is a difference.

I don't believe they would have marched down and gotten a TD.

[FireJimCaldwell]

I don't believe they would have marched down and gotten a TD.

Of course you don't. Since we only allowed 10 more points in the first half, we most certainly wouldn't have allowed them to score... end/ sarcasm

[Superman]

A blocked punt is such a rarity you always play the numbers on it as opposed to anything, especially giving up an unnecessary score.

I really don't agree with that. If you're up 11 points halfway through the 4th quarter, and you're pinned on the one yard line, it can be argued that it would be smart to take the safety, make it a 9 point game (still two scores), and go play defense from a respectable position on the field. Reason being that, even if you get the punt off, you're still putting their offense on the field somewhere near or inside of midfield, and with one first down, it can be a one score game anyways. I wouldn't do this given the current make-up of our team, because there's no reason to believe that we can cover a safety kickoff to any reasonable degree of success. But if we had a solid coverage unit, and our defense was playing well, I could understand taking the safety, and might even defend that decision.

But not in the first half, down 3, on the road, and your coverage unit sucks, and your defense is bad (I'm being nice), and you haven't had a punt blocked in several seasons. Nope. I don't say being absolute, like you are. But certainly not in the situation we're talking about.

[fthoodcoltsfan]

I just have to know, why are your complaints "Actual" complaints, while all of ours are somehow not valid?

[John Waylon]

I just have to know, why are your complaints "Actual" complaints, while all of ours are somehow not valid?

Read the rest of his posts and you'll figure out why.

[fthoodcoltsfan]

Read the rest of his posts and you'll figure out why.

Oh, I have, I just want to know why his complains are somehow valid while all of ours are not. It just seems a bit presumptuous to title this the way he did while calling us all less of fans for all of our complaints...

[dn4192]

Oh, I have, I just want to know why his complains are somehow valid while all of ours are not. It just seems a bit presumptuous to title this the way he did while calling us all less of fans for all of our complaints...

I don't think I have ever said anyone here is a less of a fan. the title was in refereance to me actually finally having a complaint against the team, as I have for the most part been willing to accept the decisions and processes of the franchise up to this point, not that others complaints are not valid. Fans have a right to complain and be upset when their team isn't playing well. But some here have gone overboard given the incredible success this franchise has had. The track record of those running the show has been nothing but success far more then failure and thus when personal decisions are made, I am more willing at this point to accept what they chose over the voices of the fans who don't have full access.

[luvdacolts67]

I have never said I didn't have issues with how the team is coached, just that I don't think we as fans have any clue how good or bad they are since we are not privy to all the information. I think we can question decisions, but some want to question heart, drive and other things. But I am wondering why not take the safety and why not do what Jville did against the Ravens and just run, run , run...

You mean, whaching them dosnt count?

[dn4192]

You mean, whaching them dosnt count?

I don't believe that there is anyway to have a full grasp of what is going on inside a pro sports team by just being a fan and watching games. To think you do to me is foolish.

[FireJimCaldwell]

You mean, whaching them dosnt count?

Of course not, it takes a job title of HC, or GM, or Vice Chairman to formulate a valid opinion on the fact that Curtis Painter has thrown the ball at a higher ratio than a) Peyton Manning in 2004, B) Tom Brady in 2007, and c) Dan Marino in 1984.

[dn4192]

Of course not, it takes a job title of HC, or GM, or Vice Chairman to formulate a valid opinion on the fact that Curtis Painter has thrown the ball at a higher ratio than a) Peyton Manning in 2004, B) Tom Brady in 2007, and c) Dan Marino in 1984.

But do you know why they are doing that?

[FireJimCaldwell]

But do you know why they are doing that?

No and the reason for that is there is no logical reason for Curtis Painter to be throwing at a higher ratio than 3 of the best quarterbacks of all time.

[OJl]

Fire Caldwell at the end of this season. Hire Josh McDaniels......... That is all.

If this post is serious this is officially the stoopidest person on this forum!

[dn4192]

No and the reason for that is there is no logical reason for Curtis Painter to be throwing at a higher ratio than 3 of the best quarterbacks of all time.

Without all the facts/information we can't make any kind of call on it and to do so is just making assumptions and well we know about those.

[FireJimCaldwell]

Without all the facts/information we can't make any kind of call on it and to do so is just making assumptions and well we know about those.

Saying Curtis Painter shouldn't be throwing the ball at a higher rate than Brady, Manning & Marino isn't an assumption at all.

[dn4192]

Saying Curtis Painter shouldn't be throwing the ball at a higher rate than Brady, Manning & Marino isn't an assumption at all.

You have no idea what the game plan or thought is behind it. YOU and I both may not think it's smart, but neither of us have an understanding of what the franchise is trying to do. It would be interesting to ask either JC or BP as to "why" the Colts are passing at the high number they are, but without more data, it is tough to make a true opinion.

[FireJimCaldwell]

You have no idea what the game plan or thought is behind it. YOU and I both may not think it's smart, but neither of us have an understanding of what the franchise is trying to do. It would be interesting to ask either JC or BP as to "why" the Colts are passing at the high number they are, but without more data, it is tough to make a true opinion.

What part of they have Curtis Painter passing at a higher ratio, (which means % of total offensive plays that are passing plays) than Tom Brady has for his career except for this year, Manning for every year but the last 3, Favre every year in Green Bay, Aaaron Rodgers for his whole career or Dan Marino in 1984, do you fail to comprehend.

I don't need more information to call it moronic. There is not a valid reason to do something of this nature. It would be equally absurd to have Manning return and have Caldwell install The Wishbone or I-option package, or running the inside or outside veer with him. That is how stupid it is and that isn't much an exaggeration with the option analogy.

There is no reason to ask JC or BP anything about it, because they are just going to look down at their list of talking points and churn out some list of failed cliche's that take up time and not answer a thing.

The only, and it's not a valid reason in my opinion, but the only reason they could even begin to have Painter throw as much as he is, is to make it even more apparent on how much this team, the HC, the GM, the vice-chairman miss #18 under center. Does that mean they will make Painter the scapegoat and say well we were missing our starting QB and the backup just couldn't run the offense in the same manner. Again that's not a valid reason because that is a given, which could the help substantiate Caldwell retaining his job.

A good coach would alter the game plan to the strengths of his current depth chart. But it is clear we do not have a good coach.

[BIGugly]

Without all the facts/information we can't make any kind of call on it and to do so is just making assumptions and well we know about those.

Now 'at rat thar. 'at's funny, 'at rat thar is.

Sure we can, go run hide and watch and see if we can't

[MAC]

I just have to know, why are your complaints "Actual" complaints, while all of ours are somehow not valid?

How about addressing the "actual" issue instead of parsing his words, taking offense at absolutely nothing, and trying to start a fight. I have absolutely no idea how you came to your conclusion about his intent. There is enough genuine animosity exchanged on this forum without someone inventing more out of thin air.

[ponys]

I don't want to miss Caldwell, someone else please?

I say we hire Rob Ryan

Did anyone notice that Howard Mudd is at Philadelphia?

Edited November 2, 2011 by ponys

[fthoodcoltsfan]

How about addressing the "actual" issue instead of parsing his words, taking offense at absolutely nothing, and trying to start a fight. I have absolutely no idea how you came to your conclusion about his intent. There is enough genuine animosity exchanged on this forum without someone inventing more out of thin air.

Wow, my bad, I must have worded that badly. I just found it a bit strange that someone who finds issue with most people's critiques of the coaches would word it that way.

As for the "actual" issue, I agree with what most people say on here. While I really don't agree with a lot of what the coaches have done this season, that punt was not something that I had a problem with. Now, how the special teams have been performing (besides Pat that is) is an issue, like the terrible blocking on that play. I think there have been a lot of much worse problems with the coaching this season than the decision not to take a safety while down 3-0 still early in the game.

And I've felt that we've needed to run the ball more all season, but I'm pretty sure that's been brought up before this thread as well

[MAC]

Wow, my bad, I must have worded that badly. I just found it a bit strange that someone who finds issue with most people's critiques of the coaches would word it that way.

As for the "actual" issue, I agree with what most people say on here. While I really don't agree with a lot of what the coaches have done this season, that punt was not something that I had a problem with. Now, how the special teams have been performing (besides Pat that is) is an issue, like the terrible blocking on that play. I think there have been a lot of much worse problems with the coaching this season than the decision not to take a safety while down 3-0 still early in the game.

And I've felt that we've needed to run the ball more all season, but I'm pretty sure that's been brought up before this thread as well

Thanks. Things have been a little ugly around here with all the losing, and threads get derailed to the point of being unreadable. I agree with your comments. McAfee is a standout player that we are kind of taking for granted at this point. I can't imagine where things would be if his performance was erratic as well. The guy has many and varied talents. Considering that he is the third string QB, and how difficult it is for this team to find a way to win, I'm surprised that we haven't seen any fake punts (not that I'd have wanted to do it from that position on the field).

[BIGugly]

Thanks. Things have been a little ugly around here with all the losing,

Actually, things have been BIGugly around here.

Ahahahahaha

[NM_Colts]

Blocked punts are an extreme rarity, even when punting out of the end zone. You're arguing that it's better to willingly give up 5 points on the extremely rare chance the punt gets blocked? To prove my point about the rarity of blocks let me ask you, when was the last time the Colts had a punt blocked? It's never happened to Pat, and I don't ever recall it happening to Hunter Smith, so you're most likely going to have to go back to the Clinton Administration to find it. In case you're too young to remember that, that was over a decade ago.

A blocked punt is such a rarity you always play the numbers on it as opposed to anything, especially giving up an unnecessary score.

Actually Hunter Smith had 5 blocked punts according to NFLdotCom

[fthoodcoltsfan]

Thanks. Things have been a little ugly around here with all the losing, and threads get derailed to the point of being unreadable. I agree with your comments. McAfee is a standout player that we are kind of taking for granted at this point. I can't imagine where things would be if his performance was erratic as well. The guy has many and varied talents. Considering that he is the third string QB, and how difficult it is for this team to find a way to win, I'm surprised that we haven't seen any fake punts (not that I'd have wanted to do it from that position on the field).

That's the kind of decision I, and I think a lot of other posters, would like to see from the coaches. Obviously not from that kind of field position, but in some of the other positions we've been this year, why have we just been punting it away when we still have a chance, however slight? The D has been gassed in the second half of a lot of our games, and some of the punts toward the end of the games have just made no sense to me. I think there have been times for some more risky plays that we just haven't attempted.

[Zebra3]

No coach would ever take a safety there in that situation. None whatsoever. The score was 3-0 at the time - why would you volutarily give the Titans free points?

LOL! Sounds like a coaching move that I might call while playing Madden....just for the sheer heck of it.