Luck is Regressing Under this Regime

[Coffeedrinker]

I think a teams 3rd down conversion ratio is one of the most important stats on the team's performance, yes. It says a lot about a team. It says; 1) How often does your team get into 3rd down (conversion on 2nd down is critical ala Peyton's wisdom). 2) How often a team can sustain a drive.

 

....and Philly was in damn near exactly the same scenario once we went 3 and out, save for the time was down to about 2 minutes. What plays did they call and how did that turn out for them? Yeah.......

 

Anywho, you don't want to plan on a FG in that situation. You want to plan on scoring a TD after securing the FG position. Running time off the clock should not even have been a factor until we established the drive in earnest. Not until the FG range has been accomplished do we want to start making the clock our friend. Clock be damned until the drive takes foot. What we did was run off just enough time to screw ourselves. Hence why my brilliant football mind cannot wrap itself around the idea of milking a clock when you DON'T HAVE THE GOSH DARNED LEAD.

3rd down conversions are important, it's just the overall 3rd down conversion stat is meaningless when talking about a 3rd and 5.

 

And yes you do plan on a FG in that situation.  You have it completely backwards, you plan on the FG and go for the TD when you get into position.  It's not about milking the clock, it's about using the clock wisely. Lastly, you can't say the Philly situation was the same because it wasn't, it was inside the 2 minute warning and they had two TOs. and they had the ball at the 40 where it's less risky to take a sack.

 

I've seen some of the best coaches I have ever watched play that situation similarly.  There is absolutely no reason to start throwing the ball in that situation, especially when the passing game had not been that great during the game and the last pass thrown was INT.

[superrep1967]

Man, these overreaction threads just don't stop.

I agree look at Peyton's third year he threw like 6 int's against San Francisco and Mora had his famous PLAYOFFS press conference. So he still got some growing pains to go threw.  But he's going to be a Hall of Fame QB. 

[Nadine]

And there are plenty of ways to "protect" Luck..       more boots, waggles, get him MOVING...  it is his strength.

or a wearable airbag

 

[Jason_]

You. Do. Not. Run. The. Clock. Down. In. That. Situation.

 

You don't do it, ever. That's playing to the tie, playing for OT. You run the clock down once in range, not at the start of the drive. Pep is yet another in a long line of college to pro failures, I am no longer a supporter of his. He is out of his league and it was a huge mistake to bring him here. At this point, I'm surprised we haven't hired the Stanford landscaping crew as well. 

 

You remember that game in SD where Peyton threw like 247 interceptions and we STILL had a shot to win? Adam missed a sub-30 yarder to lose the game. 

 

How was that playing for a tie?  The score was already tied at that time unless I'm mistaken.  They got the ball in above average field position, they had close to 3 and a half minutes left on the clock as well as 2 timeouts.  All they had to do was get into field goal range and then a FG wins the game.  If they score too fast in that situation then Philly gets plenty of time left to go along with the 2 timeouts they still had.  I had no problems at all with the 2 runs to start out that drive.  It sucks the second one went for a -1 yard loss but that still left the colts with a 3rd and 5 and they still hadn't reached the 2 minute warning yet.  It was still just outside of the 2 minute warning when Luck threw the incompletion to Reggie.

[Jason_]

Come one Ruksak, do you really think their overall 3rd down conversions is relevant?  It's 3rd and 5 and yes I don't have a problem with the Colts running the ball twice to start the drive.  That's not playing for OT, that is sticking with what was working and putting the ball int he hot hands which was the running game, not Luck's throwing.

 

There was plenty of time on the clock (3:25) the Colts had two or three outs (I think two but I don't remember) and the 2 minute warning and all they need is a FG for the win, so they don't have to march 80 yards.  The absolute worst thing to do in that situation is go away from the game plan that got you there.

 

Yes it was 2 timeouts plus the 2 min warning.  I rewatched those last couple of drives yesterday when I got home from work and the first thing I looked at was the TO situation for both teams.  Philly also had 2 timeouts left at that point.  

[ColtsBlueFL]

The Colts last drive with 3:25 left and two or three times out left running the ball is just fine, there is no reason to start passing the ball all over the place, nor does the team want to score too quickly.  Those two runs got the Colts into 3rd and 5.  Most Qbs and coaches are happy with 3rd and 5 that should be a high percentage conversion.

 

If we still had a lead at the time, I would agree.  the idea would be to get small chunks of yards, keep th e clock running, and get a 1st down with under 2 minutes remaining.  Then you can get in V formation and knell down until the game clock reads zero.  This is a classic 4 minute offense. 

 

The problem?  We did not have a lead.  And where we were we were losing the field position battle.The clock was not our friend. we needed to move the ball out toward midfield at least and into scoring range in a timely fashion as desired!  Luck was only 3 out of 9 passing on 3rd down throughout the game at that point.  The running game was working better.  The only time we ran on 3rd down it went for 29 yards.  Since we didn't throw on first down, I felt we had as good or actually better chance getting that third down by running it. Because of the poor 33% conversion rate by the pass leading up to that situation.  It was pretty much saying we had a 67% chance of that 3rd down pass failing; which of course, it did.

 

This was not a place for a classic 4 minute offense, it was a two minute drill with extra time because we were moving the ball in smaller chunks runnig it rather than ;arger passing gains.

And we needed every second of that time until we were in position to score.  We went 3 and out, thus gave them almost a full two minutes of that time for their two minute drill and good field position to go with it..  They went shotgun right away-

 

 

 

I am for scoring first, try to make them use their Time Outs if possible, Then pin them at their 20 with well less than 2 minutes and no T.O's  and tell the D to win it.  Not let them have it at their 40 with 2 minutes, 2 timeouts, and the score tied.  No way.

[ruksak]

How was that playing for a tie?  The score was already tied at that time unless I'm mistaken.  They got the ball in above average field position, they had close to 3 and a half minutes left on the clock as well as 2 timeouts.  All they had to do was get into field goal range and then a FG wins the game. 

1 decent completion, we're in range and can now run the clock. 

 

It takes 5 or 6 of our average runs to equal one moderate range pass. 

 

We lost using your approach. I have to point that out, regardless of "hindsight" accusations for saying such a thing. 

 

 

 

All they had to do was get into field goal range and then a FG wins the game.

IF.......if we convert. 

 

 

 

If they score too fast in that situation then Philly gets plenty of time left to go along with the 2 timeouts they still had.

Punting the ball gave us the same result. I'm not being cute with my responses, I'm trying to indicate what exactly people mean when they complain about the ironic dangers of playing it safe. 

 

 

 

 I had no problems at all with the 2 runs to start out that drive.  It sucks the second one went for a -1 yard loss but that still left the colts with a 3rd and 5 and they still hadn't reached the 2 minute warning yet.

There was literally NOTHING to gain from that second run but taking some time off the clock. If it went for 4 yards and we got a first down, guess what? We still have to start passing to get into FG range, as it would take many more successful runs to get into range. I would be more inclined to push it hard, move that damn ball fast and if we end up throwing 3 incompletions and punting.....guess what, Jason? 

 

Oh, you know. You're a smart dude. You know darn well why throwing the ball there was smart. Because the difference between failed runs and failed passes in that situation is that if we fail our passes and have to punt back to them, we give ourselves time to answer. The time we took off the clock with failed runs led to our destruction. If those were failed throws, we have about 1:00+ to answer.'

 

If those were successful runs, we barely move the ball, not enough. We still have to throw.

 

If those were successful throws, we sit on the damn ball and run once in FG range. 

 

Explain to me how running was smart there? I really want to see some mental gymnastics unfold. 

[1yrdandacloudofdust]

Luck needs coaches that will push and challenge him, he doesnt need inexperienced yes men. Luck doesn't have the temperament to stand up to anyone. He seems way to laid back. Like Eli Manning. Eli had a defense though, Luck does not. I can't imagine Manning, Brees, Brady, Rodgers or Rivers continuing to hand the ball to trent richardson. I can't imagine them sitting back and just accepting these lackluster gameplans. Luck is way too nice imo. I don't think he has a desire to be the best at his position. I think he's too selfless and needs to be more selfish. But nobody around here listens to me. A Holes get the job done. Nice guys finish last. There is a lot of truth in that imho.

[Jason_]

Luck needs coaches that will push and challenge him, he doesnt need inexperienced yes men. Luck doesn't have the temperament to stand up to anyone. He seems way to laid back. Like Eli Manning. Eli had a defense though, Luck does not. I can't imagine Manning, Brees, Brady, Rodgers or Rivers continuing to hand the ball to trent richardson. I can't imagine them sitting back and just accepting these lackluster gameplans. Luck is way too nice imo. I don't think he has a desire to be the best at his position. I think he's too selfless and needs to be more selfish. But nobody around here listens to me. A Holes get the job done. Nice guys finish last. There is a lot of truth in that imho.

 

so now our coaches are yes men?  good god

[ruksak]

Luck needs coaches that will push and challenge he doesnt need inexperienced yes men. Luck doesn't have the temperament to stand up to anyone. He seems way to laid back. Like Eli Manning. Eli had a defense though, Luck does not. I can't imagine Manning, Brees, Brady, Rodgers or Rivers continuing to hand the ball to trent richardson. I can't imagine them sitting back and just accepting these lackluster gameplans. Luck is way too nice imo.

That's not what Luck's teammates say. Wasn't it Reggie that told ESPN before the game something to the effect of Luck routinely gets loud and cusses other players during practice? Luck has shown some bad tendencies, as all QB's will. But he is no chump push-over. Not even close.

[1yrdandacloudofdust]

so now our coaches are yes men? good god

Yep. Inexperienced yes men. Dont leave out the inexperienced part.

[Jason_]

1 decent completion, we're in range and can now run the clock. 

 

One decent completion after those 2 runs and the Colts have a first down.  They didn't because again Luck locked onto Reggie even though there were other receivers far more open than Reggie was plus a decent looking running lane that Luck probably could have run through for the first down.

 

 

It takes 5 or 6 of our average runs to equal one moderate range pass. 

 

That simply is not true.  For the entire game, the Colts averaged 4.4 yards per running play and 5.1 yards per passing play.  A very marginal difference.  Luck hadn't been able to hit hardly any intermediate or deep routes all game so I see no reason to fully expect he would have been able to at that point.  The bottom line is that, for the majority of the game, the Colts were running the ball better than they were passing. 

 

 

We lost using your approach. I have to point that out, regardless of "hindsight" accusations for saying such a thing. 

 

Ok and I have to point out that there's no way at all to know if we would have won using your approach.  However, the fact that Luck couldn't convert a 3rd and ~5 on 2 straight drives does not give me a great the greatest confidence that he would have all of a sudden been able to push the ball downfield on that final drive.

 

 

IF.......if we convert. 

 

True, but as I said above, there is absolutely no guarantee that the Colts convert if they throw the ball 3 times.  They could have easily had 3 straight incompletions, punted the ball back to Philly and then Philly could have moved down the field more methodically than they did and still kicked the field goal with no time left on the clock.

 

 

Punting the ball gave us the same result. I'm not being cute with my responses, I'm trying to indicate what exactly people mean when they complain about the ironic dangers of playing it safe. 

 

For the record, I've never complained about the ironic dangers of playing it safe.  I would have been fine with runs or passes on those first few plays on that final drive.  I don't think there is any reason at all to say they absolutely should have passed on those 3 plays or they should have run.  I was fine with the runs on the first 2 drives but if they'd passed the ball I would have been fine with that too.  They were not in a position at that time where they absolutely had to do one or the other.

 

 

There was literally NOTHING to gain from that second run but taking some time off the clock.

 

I thought it was pretty clear that moving the ball while taking time off the clock was exactly what they were trying to do at that moment.

 

 

If it went for 4 yards and we got a first down, guess what? We still have to start passing to get into FG range, as it would take many more successful runs to get into range.

 

If that play had gone for a first down then they could have continued the drive, still utilizing both running and passing plays.  There was plenty of time on the clock, plus their 2 timeouts, plus the 2 minute warning that there was no need to go into all out passing mode.

 

The rest of your post and questions should be well covered between this and my previous responses.  

[Jason_]

Yep. Inexperienced yes men. Dont leave out the inexperienced part.

 

Please explain how our coaches are nothing but yes men.  I thought the accusations that Caldwell was nothing more than a yes man were preposterous...your accusation goes far beyond that into absurdity's oblivion.

[1yrdandacloudofdust]

Please explain how our coaches are nothing but yes men. I thought the accusations that Caldwell was nothing more than a yes man were preposterous...your accusation goes far beyond that into absurdity's oblivion.

They do wahtever Grigson and Irsay want. Evidence is the Trent Richardson and Satele experiments. Luck throws a dumb int and I doubt anyone yells at him at all. I trusted BA to be a disciplinarian way more than Pagano.

[Jason_]

They do wahtever Grigson and Irsay want. Evidence is the Trent Richardson and Satele experiments. Luck throws a dumb int and I doubt anyone yells at him at all. I trusted BA to be a disciplinarian way more than Pagano.

 

your evidence is...I'll just be nice and say severely lacking

[Superman]

No, it did not. 

 

Any way I can get you to venture a guess at what Luck's production was at 20-6? It....wasn't good, save for a few TD's that were just dump-offs to Ahmad. Aside from that, his stats through the first 3 QTRS were abysmal, as in, absolutely in the basement. 

 

Luck has not played well this year, despite what some ignorant fantasy owners may think. 

 

Luck's production was fine at 20-6, because the score said it was. Who cares how much yardage he has when we're up by two TDs at home? Who cares about the QB's stats when the run is effective, we have the lead, and we haven't even really tapped into the strength of the offense yet?

[Superman]

The Colts are 8 of 25 on 3rd down in 2014. 

 

Still sound like a good idea? 

 

By that logic, we should just punt on third down.

 

Ironically, the main reason we're not performing well on third down is because Luck isn't sharp right now. Yet, you think we should be putting the ball in his hands more, in order to avoid putting the ball in his hands on third down. If he's going to carry this team -- and to an extent, he will have to -- we can't be afraid of third and 5. Good offenses eat on third and 5. Good QBs are absolutely destructive on third and 5. Regardless of how you got there, if you look up and it's third and 5, and you're not backed into your own end zone, and Andrew Luck is your QB, you ought to be okay. 

[Mathis_Fan98]

Maybe we should trade him to a better team so his career can take off and he can win SBs. We could get a second rate QB so we will not expect so much from him.

Silly rabbit!!!!!!

[southwest1]

All QB's, no matter how "great", have something bad going against them. A habit, a lacking, something missing from their skillset. To point these things out is OK and shouldn't cause fans to jump to the players defense without thought. 

 

Is it possible that we're beginning to key in on what will someday be seen as Luck's "bad tendency"? Most of us in Indy seem to be keen on his penchant for overthrowing receivers, even though nationally I've heard very little reference to this. But more crucial would be this tendency to lock-in on a primary and not let it go soon enough. 

 

I'll remind everyone right now of a part of this tendency that has shown itself two weeks in a row now, in two losing efforts, in regard to what happened with our last gasp play of the game.

 

Both in Denver and last Sunday at Indy, the game funneled it's way down to one make-or-break play. 4th down passes to Reggie Wayne. He didn't even look anywhere else, it was Reggie or nothing. Now.....I love me some Reggie, but you just can't do that. A QB can't decide he's throwing to a given receiver before the snap. You just can't, and that's 2 weeks in a row where I've witnessed this happening at the most crucial moment. 

 

 

It did look good at 20-6.  It also looked good at 27-20.  We win if we get a field goal there simple as that.  Instead, a hold not called and a pick.

 

I never said Luck was good in this game or the last one either..  I said it was not all on Luck, Pep, etc.  Quote the whole post if you want to make a snide comment to me.

 

BTW...I do not play fantasy football....never will and I never have played Madden.  I analyze football.  Picking on the wrong person here as you already 'should know.'

I will admit that Ruksak has a valid point. It does feel like in crucial situations that Reggie is his fail safe, bail me out WR & it does make me wonder if Luck trust our other weapons in crunch time drives. I can't lie about that, but Brent is also correct, at 20-6 I was feeling good about getting a W in the victory column right then & there. 1 holding call enforced on MNF & no person is starting a Luck regression thread. 

 

Gavin said it best: People are just bummed that Andrew's development is occurring as fast as they would like it to be. I also like what VL said our o-line is vastly improved from Luck's rookie year. 

[Coffeedrinker]

If we still had a lead at the time, I would agree.  the idea would be to get small chunks of yards, keep th e clock running, and get a 1st down with under 2 minutes remaining.  Then you can get in V formation and knell down until the game clock reads zero.  This is a classic 4 minute offense. 

 

The problem?  We did not have a lead.  And where we were we were losing the field position battle.The clock was not our friend. we needed to move the ball out toward midfield at least and into scoring range in a timely fashion as desired!  Luck was only 3 out of 9 passing on 3rd down throughout the game at that point.  The running game was working better.  The only time we ran on 3rd down it went for 29 yards.  Since we didn't throw on first down, I felt we had as good or actually better chance getting that third down by running it. Because of the poor 33% conversion rate by the pass leading up to that situation.  It was pretty much saying we had a 67% chance of that 3rd down pass failing; which of course, it did.

 

This was not a place for a classic 4 minute offense, it was a two minute drill with extra time because we were moving the ball in smaller chunks runnig it rather than ;arger passing gains.

And we needed every second of that time until we were in position to score.  We went 3 and out, thus gave them almost a full two minutes of that time for their two minute drill and good field position to go with it..  They went shotgun right away-

 

 

 

I am for scoring first, try to make them use their Time Outs if possible, Then pin them at their 20 with well less than 2 minutes and no T.O's  and tell the D to win it.  Not let them have it at their 40 with 2 minutes, 2 timeouts, and the score tied.  No way.

Let me get this straight, you say the passing game was not working of which I agree, the running game was working of which I agree, the time when the Colts ran it on 3rd down they gained 29 yards (can't argue with that one).  And your solution is to throw the football three times?  Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

 

You guys act like the Colts were planning on going 3 and out.  That was not the plan, but running the ball on 1st down was a good call.  Running the ball on 2nd was a good call.  Throwing the ball on a makeable 3rd down was a good call.  And I don't mean to sound insulting but those that think the Colts should have come out in a hurry up, pass first offense in that situation does not understand real football, that is something you do when playing Madden.  If the Colts would have ran on 3rd and 5 (a running down but not in that situation) I would agree that the Colts were playing for OT.  But just the fact that they ran in that situation shows good solid coaching and not getting all caught up in the moment.

[Coffeedrinker]

Yep. Inexperienced yes men. Dont leave out the inexperienced part.

Just when I think your nonsense has reached it's apex you post something like this.  Please tell us again how you have proven to be a better GM than Grigson.

[sfergson727]

Let me get this straight, you say the passing game was not working of which I agree, the running game was working of which I agree, the time when the Colts ran it on 3rd down they gained 29 yards (can't argue with that one).  And your solution is to throw the football three times?  Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

 

You guys act like the Colts were planning on going 3 and out.  That was not the plan, but running the ball on 1st down was a good call.  Running the ball on 2nd was a good call.  Throwing the ball on a makeable 3rd down was a good call.  And I don't mean to sound insulting but those that think the Colts should have come out in a hurry up, pass first offense in that situation does not understand real football, that is something you do when playing Madden.  If the Colts would have ran on 3rd and 5 (a running down but not in that situation) I would agree that the Colts were playing for OT.  But just the fact that they ran in that situation shows good solid coaching and not getting all caught up in the moment.

Even Pagano disagrees with you though, in the post game, he stated they probably should have thrown the ball on second down....so now where does that leave us?

 

I agree with Pags evaluation of the post game conference, run on first down, Pass on second, get a first down, repeat process until you are in field goal range, kill the clock and score.

[Superman]

Let me get this straight, you say the passing game was not working of which I agree, the running game was working of which I agree, the time when the Colts ran it on 3rd down they gained 29 yards (can't argue with that one).  And your solution is to throw the football three times?  Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

 

You guys act like the Colts were planning on going 3 and out.  That was not the plan, but running the ball on 1st down was a good call.  Running the ball on 2nd was a good call.  Throwing the ball on a makeable 3rd down was a good call.  And I don't mean to sound insulting but those that think the Colts should have come out in a hurry up, pass first offense in that situation does not understand real football, that is something you do when playing Madden.  If the Colts would have ran on 3rd and 5 (a running down but not in that situation) I would agree that the Colts were playing for OT.  But just the fact that they ran in that situation shows good solid coaching and not getting all caught up in the moment.

 

Even Pagano disagrees with you though, in the post game, he stated they probably should have thrown the ball on second down....so now where does that leave us?

 

I agree with Pags evaluation of the post game conference, run on first down, Pass on second, get a first down, repeat process until you are in field goal range, kill the clock and score.

 

The successful first down run definitely contributed to the second down call.

[southwest1]

or a wearable airbag

 

But, here's my question Nadine: If Luck is wearing the airbag to protect his body from continued punishment, does he have to pull a rip cord or hit a button on his backside to deflate it when he scrambles & is forced to slide? Just messing around. Sorry. My bad. 

 

And if a LB got hurt by Luck's airbag that failed to deflate properly while tackling Luck, does that mean Andrew could get a flag for unnecessary roughness on the offense? I could so see NFL zebras making that stupid hypothetical call. LOL! 

[Coffeedrinker]

Even Pagano disagrees with you though, in the post game, he stated they probably should have thrown the ball on second down....so now where does that leave us?

 

I agree with Pags evaluation of the post game conference, run on first down, Pass on second, get a first down, repeat process until you are in field goal range, kill the clock and score.

Pagano is following the old Marv Levy axiom... if you try something and it fails... you should have done the other thing.

 

I do find it humorous that you act like if they had passed on 2nd down it would have been completed and the game would have been won.  

[sfergson727]

Pagano is following the old Marv Levy axiom... if you try something and it fails... you should have done the other thing.

 

I do find it humorous that you act like if they had passed on 2nd down it would have been completed and the game would have been won.  

Who is to say they wouldn't have?  I predicted with extreme accuracy just how the game would play out in the mid fourth quarter while watching it, and participating in the online chat session.  If I could do that, the Eagles coaching staff easily could have too.

 

I find it humorous that you can't admit when you are wrong even when the evidence overwhelming shows that you are.  But hey, this is America, you have the right to be wrong.  The coaching staff on the other hand, is paid to make the right decisions.

 

http://www.stampedeblue.com/2014/9/16/6275749/chuck-pagano-admits-coaching-mistake-on-final-offensive-drive

[Nadine]

But, here's my question Nadine: If Luck is wearing the airbag to protect his body from continued punishment, does he have to pull a rip cord or hit a button on his backside to deflate it when he scrambles & is forced to slide? Just messing around. Sorry. My bad. 

 

And if a LB got hurt by Luck's airbag that failed to deflate properly while tackling Luck, does that mean Andrew could get a flag for unnecessary roughness on the offense? I could so see NFL zebras making that stupid hypothetical call. LOL! 

Lets put them all in wearable airbags!  Every play everyone would explode

[Coffeedrinker]

Who is to say they wouldn't have?  I predicted with extreme accuracy just how the game would play out in the mid fourth quarter while watching it, and participating in the online chat session.  If I could do that, the Eagles coaching staff easily could have too.

 

I find it humorous that you can't admit when you are wrong even when the evidence overwhelming shows that you are.  But hey, this is America, you have the right to be wrong.  The coaching staff on the other hand, is paid to make the right decisions.

 

http://www.stampedeblue.com/2014/9/16/6275749/chuck-pagano-admits-coaching-mistake-on-final-offensive-drive

What is this overwhelming evidence that shows I was wrong?  Oh, Pagano saying, "Really what I should have done was probably, the first down was good, I think we got six yards on first down," Pagano said Tuesday.  "Then probably should have just had [Luck] throw it, but that's on me. I've got to do a better job with that."

 

Is that your overwhelming evidence?  Ha.  And if they had thrown and it was incomplete then on Tuesday he would have said, "Really what I should have done was probably, the first down was good, I think we got six yards on first down, then probably we should have run it again, but that's on me.  I've got to do a better job with that.".

 

I will read any responses but I'm done posting in this thread.  If someone cannot see running the ball with 3:25 in the game, 2 TOs, 2 minute warning, on the 20, tired D (both opponent and yours) the opposing D starting to get consistent pressure on the last few pass attempts, then there is really no point discussing it further.

[throwing BBZ]

I don't think the play calling has been bad this year for the most part.  I think Luck just hasn't played well. He seemed oblivious to the blitz, even though the eagles kept doing the same exact one over and over.  He also missed quite a lot of easy-medium difficulty throws.  I think everyone wanted to anoint Luck as the 5th best qb in the league, but it's going to take some time for him to get there, which is okay.  Personally, I think we should have ran the ball even more last night.  It was working, the eagles had no answer for it, and Luck clearly was off.

 

One slightly disturbing stat about Luck I heard on SVP on Espn today was that going back to last year, out of 34 qualified quarterbacks, Luck is the ranked 30th in pass completion percentage on throws 10+ yards beyond the line of scrimmage.

 

 Yawn! Gee, ya don`t need stats to KNOW the guy is slow to get the ball out of his hands and time and again throws to the wrong shoulder. He is GREAT at That!

[ColtsBlueFL]

Let me get this straight, you say the passing game was not working of which I agree, the running game was working of which I agree, the time when the Colts ran it on 3rd down they gained 29 yards (can't argue with that one).  And your solution is to throw the football three times?  Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

 

You guys act like the Colts were planning on going 3 and out.  That was not the plan, but running the ball on 1st down was a good call.  Running the ball on 2nd was a good call.  Throwing the ball on a makeable 3rd down was a good call.  And I don't mean to sound insulting but those that think the Colts should have come out in a hurry up, pass first offense in that situation does not understand real football, that is something you do when playing Madden.  If the Colts would have ran on 3rd and 5 (a running down but not in that situation) I would agree that the Colts were playing for OT.  But just the fact that they ran in that situation shows good solid coaching and not getting all caught up in the moment.

 

Did you just read what you felt and make up the rest?  Seems you overlooked this-

 

"I felt we had as good or actually better chance getting that third down by running it. Because of the poor 33% conversion rate by the pass leading up to that situation.  It was pretty much saying we had a 67% chance of that 3rd down pass failing; which of course, it did."

 

That was a good straw man, but I've seen better.

 

And yes, Luck had a much better completion % on first or second down.  So he might have been able to move chains, especially if disguised as a run.  You don't know.  My point is since we didn't try that when his chances were better, we should not have tried it when they were statistically much poorer. Should have showed pass, and ran it again and take our result.  Then If he got a first, he could go no huddle hurry up and get them on their heels in prevent with the clock winding down and we have a new set of downs. then Andrew maybe does a Luck like carving them up drive.  You just  don't know.

 

What I do know is your 'good call' pass on 3rd and 5 (where most defenses expect to see pass) had an almost 70% chance to fail based upon real time events all game.  And indeed that is what exactly happened.

[throwing BBZ]

Luck's production was fine at 20-6, because the score said it was. Who cares how much yardage he has when we're up by two TDs at home? Who cares about the QB's stats when the run is effective, we have the lead, and we haven't even really tapped into the strength of the offense yet?

 

 Andrew Stank the first half. If you didn`t see that ....

[colts8718]

Andrew Luck is a guy that has always reminded me of a faster, more talented Ben Roethlisberger. Big, mobile, hard to tackle, and makes good throws/runs on the fly. Creative, ballsy, moves the chains. Exciting to watch. Innovative. He even makes tackles when needed. Moves fast. Elusive.

 

This regime has turned our franchise player into a bland, "game manager" type of QB. He's pretty boring to watch now. These geniuses are banging a round peg into a square hole and that's why Luck looks bad this year as compared to last year and even his rookie year. These bozos in charge are wasting his young NFL years.

 

/His hard-count is better...but overall play has regressed big time. That is NOT acceptable.

I have said it over and over where never going to get to the SB with Pagano and Grigson this is one of Irsay's biggest mistakes 

[ColtsBlueFL]

By that logic, we should just punt on third down.

 

Ironically, the main reason we're not performing well on third down is because Luck isn't sharp right now. Yet, you think we should be putting the ball in his hands more, in order to avoid putting the ball in his hands on third down. If he's going to carry this team -- and to an extent, he will have to -- we can't be afraid of third and 5. Good offenses eat on third and 5. Good QBs are absolutely destructive on third and 5. Regardless of how you got there, if you look up and it's third and 5, and you're not backed into your own end zone, and Andrew Luck is your QB, you ought to be okay. 

 

typically, that is what I'm on board with.  But Luck was never in Rhythm  I wish we would have shown pass , then run it on 3rd and 5.  Why?  Luck was terrible at it.  3 out of nine.  Also, the run game was working,  And if Luck shows pass, we might get an an even better result running it.  If we do, everybody is pumped, and Luck might run up with clock bleeding and a new set of downs find their D in a prevent, and then he can go to work carving it up.  He was much better throwing on 1st and second down, and he can have even a better shot at making his signature throws.  If they blitz, 1 busted coverage in man and we get a long gaining play.  But getting that first down at our 25 was key.  And I felt we should have ran the ball, then go from there.

[coltsfanatic24]

 Luck needs to go into every game with the mindset of getting the open man the ball, not his favorite two WR's. If Allen is open 7x, then he should get the ball 7x. There we're times vs the Eagles that Nicks and Allen was open and should have had 150 yards combined, but Luck didn't see it because he was so focused on getting T.Y and Wayne the ball.

 

Yes, Hilton and Wayne are the best WR's on the roster but when the Broncos and Eagles game plan was to elimante the deep ball he has to go to his 2nd and 3rd reads. If Luck can get the ball to Allen and Nicks early, it'll open things up for Wayne underneath and Hilton deep.

[Superman]

typically, that is what I'm on board with.  But Luck was never in Rhythm  I wish we would have shown pass , then run it on 3rd and 5.  Why?  Luck was terrible at it.  3 out of nine.  Also, the run game was working,  And if Luck shows pass, we might get an an even better result running it.  If we do, everybody is pumped, and Luck might run up with clock bleeding and a new set of downs find their D in a prevent, and then he can go to work carving it up.  He was much better throwing on 1st and second down, and he can have even a better shot at making his signature throws.  If they blitz, 1 busted coverage in man and we get a long gaining play.  But getting that first down at our 25 was key.  And I felt we should have ran the ball, then go from there.

 

I think we're in "If what you did didn't work, you should have done the other thing" territory now. I get what you're saying, but we don't complain about 3rd down conversions, whether they are runs, passes, penalties, whatever. If Luck had made a better decision, if the penalty was called, whatever, we're not talking about that down. I don't have a problem with asking our franchise QB to throw on 3rd and 5, no matter how he's done on 3rd down overall in that game. JMO

[Superman]

 Andrew Stank the first half. If you didn`t see that ....

 

I don't care. We were up 20-6. I'm not about to complain about my QB when we have a strong lead, and our best players haven't even gotten going yet.

[1yrdandacloudofdust]

NFL net is about to replay the gm after total access

[ruksak]

By that logic, we should just punt on third down.

 

Ironically, the main reason we're not performing well on third down is because Luck isn't sharp right now. Yet, you think we should be putting the ball in his hands more, in order to avoid putting the ball in his hands on third down. If he's going to carry this team -- and to an extent, he will have to -- we can't be afraid of third and 5. Good offenses eat on third and 5. Good QBs are absolutely destructive on third and 5. Regardless of how you got there, if you look up and it's third and 5, and you're not backed into your own end zone, and Andrew Luck is your QB, you ought to be okay. 

You do what Peyton and other great offensive minds do, you try your hardest to gain a 1st down on 2nd down. 

 

Who on this board follows the next sentence as something they'd like to hear "OK Colts, let's run the ball down their throat, control the clock and win this thing". 

 

I mean, yeah, for the first time in a long time, our run game was poppin'. But do we really want to put the entire game on what has been historically the Colts single worst offensive attack? When we have Luck and his weapons? 

 

Anywho, I'm in agreeance that this Colts team *should be OK. I also don't mean to hurl spittle at the Colts for their effort Mon night. I made the comment in the gameday thread just before things went awry in the 4th, that this was the one of the most complete games I've seen this Luck era Colts team play. We got 3 1/2 QTRS out of them, and it was nice.

[ruksak]

NFL net is about to replay the gm after total access

Thanks for the heads-up. Watching now. 

[Superman]

You do what Peyton and other great offensive minds do, you try your hardest to gain a 1st down on 2nd down. 

 

Who on this board follows the next sentence as something they'd like to hear "OK Colts, let's run the ball down their throat, control the clock and win this thing". 

 

I mean, yeah, for the first time in a long time, our run game was poppin'. But do we really want to put the entire game on what has been historically the Colts single worst offensive attack? When we have Luck and his weapons? 

 

Anywho, I'm in agreeance that this Colts team *should be OK. I also don't mean to hurl spittle at the Colts for their effort Mon night. I made the comment in the gameday thread just before things went awry in the 4th, that this was the one of the most complete games I've seen this Luck era Colts team play. We got 3 1/2 QTRS out of them, and it was nice.

 

It's 2nd and 4, on the back of your rushing attack. The best attack all game long has been the run. I don't understand this staunch opposition to running again. (I agree, and have said a lot myself, that play action or even read option would be a great call there.)

 

And yeah, if we're running the ball well, I don't care if we run it all night long. Just move the ball, score TDs, and at the end of the game, get first downs.

 

Also, we didn't put the entire game on the rushing attack. We asked Luck to pick up a very achievable 3rd and 5. He's our best player; he's the future of the franchise. Third and 5 ought to be a favorable situation for him. (Ironically, another poster is arguing that we should have been taking the ball OUT of Luck's hands in that situation, because he hadn't been playing well.)

 

I'd like to see us convert there, period. I don't care if it's three runs, three passes, three penalties, whatever. Like I said earlier, it's "you should have done something else" time because we lost. Meanwhile, I, like you, think we did some good things against the Eagles, things we can build on. I'm looking forward to Jacksonville. Might get some sacks.