Taking foot off the pedal

[Lef]

Up 40-10, the colts clearly changed their style of play, still with plenty of time left in the game. Conservative offense, defense seemed to play softer and backups came in.

We have seen plenty of comebacks in unlikely circumstances. There are very few leads that are insurmountable in the NFL. In fact, last night the Giants got within 2 scores of tying with more than 3 minutes still left.

I completely disagreed with how the colts played out the game while watching last night, especially because I was at the game. Certain other top teams don't take the foot off the gas like that, I.e., Patriots.

Listening to Chuck talk after the game, he imparted an interesting perspective on letting the second stringers finish the game. He wanted to give them some "burn". Get them some reps and show his expectation that the backups are professional football players and should be able to "finish" the game for the team.

Although I like his reasoning and understand, I still disagree. Different philosophies on the topic. Maybe wanted to avoid injury to some players? Give certain players an eary start to the bye week? Did he think the game was out of reach?

Any thoughts on the topic?

[jvan1973]

Up 40-10, the colts clearly changed their style of play, still with plenty of time left in the game. Conservative offense, defense seemed to play softer and backups came in.

We have seen plenty of comebacks in unlikely circumstances. There are very few leads that are insurmountable in the NFL. In fact, last night the Giants got within 2 scores of tying with more than 3 minutes still left.

I completely disagreed with how the colts played out the game while watching last night, especially because I was at the game. Certain other top teams don't take the foot off the gas like that, I.e., Patriots.

Listening to Chuck talk after the game, he imparted an interesting perspective on letting the second stringers finish the game. He wanted to give them some "burn". Get them some reps and show his expectation that the backups are professional football players and should be able to "finish" the game for the team.

Although I like his reasoning and understand, I still disagree. Different philosophies on the topic. Maybe wanted to avoid injury to some players? Give certain players an eary start to the bye week? Did he think the game was out of reach?

Any thoughts on the topic?

Yes he thought the game was out of reach, because it was. The only thing i had a problem with was keeping Andrew in as long as he was

[Lef]

The game was out of reach?

[Jason_]

Yes he thought the game was out of reach, because it was. The only thing i had a problem with was keeping Andrew in as long as he was

 

pretty much this..though, while I didn't understand the thinking behind keeping Luck in the game, I had no problem with it since all he did was hand the ball off.

[Jason_]

The game was out of reach?

 

yes...and when it started getting even remotely close, Pagano sent the big boys back out to make sure the Giants didn't get any closer.  don't see what the problem is.

[jvan1973]

pretty much this..though, while I didn't understand the thinking behind keeping Luck in the game, I had no problem with it since all he did was hand the ball off.

Yeah, i wasnt really upset with it. But that kid took a pounding last night

[jvan1973]

The game was out of reach?

Uh yeah, did you not see the final score

[Valpo2004]

The objective is to win the game, not to do so in style. 

 

The defense we went into was designed to allow underneath throws that kill the clock but completely shut down any shots at taking it deep.  

 

Up 40 to 10 it's ok to give up a TD if it takes the Giants 4 minutes to do so because it's preferable to having one good ball sail over our heads and allowing them to score in 10 seconds.

 

They knew what they where doing.  The game was not in doubt, the only possibility they had of winning was recovering multiple onside kicks, getting turnovers or getting quick scores.  Since we where preventing the quick scores, where running the ball conservatively and where set up to recover onside kicks, the game was hardly in doubt.  

 

That is why you take the foot off the gas at that point because when you are up by that much your objective is to not screw up the win that you have already earned.  And the only way to screw up the win would be to turn the ball over, allow the recovery of multiple onside kicks, or to allow the giants to get quick scores that took less then a minute off the game clock.

[Lef]

2 scores up with 3 plus minutes left is not out of reach and if you think it is, you can't watch much football.

[Jason_]

2 scores up with 3 plus minutes left is not out of reach and if you think it is, you can't watch much football.

 

I'm confused.  Did the Giants come back and win the game on your TV?

[jvan1973]

2 scores up with 3 plus minutes left is not out of reach and if you think it is, you can't watch much football.

If you can't understand that he put the starters back in so that wouldn't happen then you must not have watched the game.

[Lef]

No they didn't.

[jskinnz]

2 scores up with 3 plus minutes left is not out of reach and if you think it is, you can't watch much football.

 

I am not sure who the one is that does not watch much football.

 

They were up 30 in the 4th quarter.  They put subs in on D at that point and the offense ran the ball to burn clock.  That is how NFL teams try to end the game.  When they got within those two scores, the # 1's went back in.  If you want to upset about something be mad at the play of those 2nd stringers.  But the coaching component was exactly what they should have done and what virtually every team would do in that situation.

[jvan1973]

No they didn't.

put the starters back in? Uh yeah they did

[Yoshinator]

The one thing that is underestimated here is the potent value of a recovered onside kick. While it's unlikely that they win down 16 with 3 minutes to go, a recovered onside kick puts them at midfield and with the way Odell Beckham JR was playing, 2 or 3 plays from a td. This isn't even mentioning they had 3 timeouts. So lets say they get it and score, they have 3 timeouts with two minutes left down one score. Then they get a 3 and out, it's very possible eli can muster a td drive in 2 minutes to bring the game into OT. The Colts got cocky, and even though they stopped the bleeding, it's something you can't do against a better team.

[BrentMc11]

yes...and when it started getting even remotely close, Pagano sent the big boys back out to make sure the Giants didn't get any closer.  don't see what the problem is.

I was uncomfortable when the "Big Boys" came back in.  I was worried about Davis's knee and some freak hamstring or groin injury since they thought they were done for the night.

 

Jvan said it best...luck was still out there.

[Lef]

That's exactly right. Bucs vs Colts Monday night years ago. We were down 21 with 4 minutes to go. Tied the game and won in ot. It happens in the nfl.

[Jason_]

That's exactly right. Bucs vs Colts Monday night years ago. We were down 21 with 4 minutes to go. Tied the game and won in ot. It happens in the nfl.

 

and again, Pagano put the 1's back in to make sure such a comeback didn't happen.  so again, I don't see the problem. 

[jvan1973]

That's exactly right. Bucs vs Colts Monday night years ago. We were down 21 with 4 minutes to go. Tied the game and won in ot. It happens in the nfl.

the bucs didn't pull their starters, and eli isn't peyton

[Valpo2004]

2 scores up with 3 plus minutes left is not out of reach and if you think it is, you can't watch much football.

 

Up by 16 (that's 2 TD's both with 2 pt conversions) with 3 min left in the game when you have the football IS pretty close to being out of reach.  

 

There is a reason the Giants only tried the onside kick after their first TD in the 4th quarter and did not try it after their 2nd TD.  

[Yoshinator]

and again, Pagano put the 1's back in to make sure such a comeback didn't happen.  so again, I don't see the problem. 

The problem with that argument is that even if you have the AFC or NFC pro bowl team in against the Giants, it doesn't guarantee that you'll stop them, just increases it a lot. The Giants were taking shots downfield in 4th down territory and it only takes broken coverage to happen one time for a long td. We gave them an unnecessary shot at winning or bringing the game to OT. What should of happened is we should of played the starters until 5 minutes were remaining, not 10. That was way to quick to pull the plug and go conservative.

[Jason_]

The one thing that is underestimated here is the potent value of a recovered onside kick. While it's unlikely that they win down 16 with 3 minutes to go, a recovered onside kick puts them at midfield and with the way Odell Beckham JR was playing, 2 or 3 plays from a td. This isn't even mentioning they had 3 timeouts. So lets say they get it and score, they have 3 timeouts with two minutes left down one score. Then they get a 3 and out, it's very possible eli can muster a td drive in 2 minutes to bring the game into OT. The Colts got cocky, and even though they stopped the bleeding, it's something you can't do against a better team.

 

the way the colts offense and defense had been playing for the majority of the game, the likelihood of all of that happening was next to 0.

[Dr. Guildo]

Yes he thought the game was out of reach, because it was. The only thing i had a problem with was keeping Andrew in as long as he was

I guess they figured nothing could go wrong handing the ball to Boom Herron. The defense just seemed gassed at the end because of the amount of time they were on the field, and that is when Eli padded his stats quite a bit.

[Yoshinator]

the way the colts offense and defense had been playing for the majority of the game, the likelihood of all of that happening was next to 0.

Don't disagree with you, but I leave the starters in until it's out of reach. Put the backups in at 5 minutes or less. Then there's no chance at a comeback. 

[ricker182]

I don't understand doing that and still leaving Andrew in. That didn't make sense.

[Jason_]

Don't disagree with you, but I leave the starters in until it's out of reach. Put the backups in at 5 minutes or less. Then there's no chance at a comeback. 

 

the game WAS out of reach, as evidenced by the final score.

[ProblChld32]

Well i dont mind it, We were up alot so why not give the second string guys a chance to go at it, I would rather pull starters due to risk of injury. I even wanted them to pull Luck and put Matt in.

[Lef]

The game is not out of reach at a 2 score differential with 3 plus minutes to go.

I think the fact that pagano put the starters back in is an indication that he may have pulled them too early.

[Yoshinator]

the game WAS out of reach, as evidenced by the final score.

It wasn't even close to out of reach, 16 points is a 2 score game and the Giants had 3 1/2 minutes left with 3 timeouts. Even the Jags would have a chance to comeback there. Not sure what game you watched. Pagano got complacent and tried to get cute putting the backups in with 10 minutes left. If the Giants made it a one score game, then an onside kick and a Giants recovery with a minute left makes overtime easily possible (are you still with me here)? These things happen more than you think, you should know that by now, especially if you saw the game Vs the Chiefs last year in the playoffs.

[SilentHill]

The game was out of reach, and I completely agree with what happened.

 

Valuable playing time for the 2nd stringers.

[SteelCityColt]

That's exactly right. Bucs vs Colts Monday night years ago. We were down 21 with 4 minutes to go. Tied the game and won in ot. It happens in the nfl.

This was an outlier and you know it.

[jskinnz]

The game is not out of reach at a 2 score differential with 3 plus minutes to go.

I think the fact that pagano put the starters back in is an indication that he may have pulled them too early.

For the love of all that is holy...

This is not a difficult concept to grasp. If the 2nd teamers play better it is a non issue. The decision was fine the execution was not. Pagano putting them back in was not a reflection a bad decision but that Gordy and company weren't worth a damn.

[Jason_]

It wasn't even close to out of reach,

 

really?  did the Giants win the game?

 

 

 16 points is a 2 score game and the Giants had 3 1/2 minutes left with 3 timeouts. Even the Jags would have a chance to comeback there.

 

If the Jags had played the same way the Giants had been playing through 3 quarters with the colt starting defense playing the way it had been playing...no, the jags would not have had any realistic chance to come back, just like the Giants didn't.  

 

 

 Not sure what game you watched.

 

I watched the one that the colts won.

 

 

 Pagano got complacent and tried to get cute putting the backups in with 10 minutes left.

 

how was that being complacent?  Pagano heading back into the lockerroom with 10 minutes left and handing the rest of the game over to one of the coordinators would have been complacent.  continuing to manage the game and manipulating the playing time of various players is kind of the opposite of being complacent.

 

 

 If the Giants made it a one score game, then an onside kick and a Giants recovery with a minute left makes overtime easily possible (are you still with me here)?

 

The giants didn't make it a one score game.  they barely made it a 2 point game.  Once the starters on defense came back in, the Giants were able to gain a whopping 9 yards in 4 plays.    oh by the way, they tried and failed an onside kick.  are YOU still with ME?

 

 

 These things happen more than you think. , you should know that by now, especially if you saw the game Vs the Chiefs last year in the playoffs

 

really?  I've seen 2 examples given....the colt/bucs MNF game from years ago and last year's colt/chief playoff game.  how many other times?  how many times has it happened to the colts under Pagano's watch?

[Jason_]

For the love of all that is holy...

This is not a difficult concept to grasp. If the 2nd teamers play better it is a non issue. The decision was fine the execution was not. Pagano putting them back in was not a reflection a bad decision but that Gordy and company weren't worth a damn.

 

that might be a little harsh.  there aren't many teams that have a #4 and #5 CB tandem that can come in and play at the same level as the #1 and #2 against the other team's first string offense. ;) 

 

other than that I completely agree.  Pagano wanted to get Gordy and Purifoy some playing time, and he did.  got them some reps and a little bit of experience, but when it looked like there was even a remote possibility that the Giants might come back, he put the kibosh on it by putting Davis and Toler back in...which led to a 4 play, 9 yard drive and a turnover on downs.

[Dustin]

I agree. Pagano should have just stepped on their throats.

If there was actually NO chance of a comeback like you guys say, Pagano wouldn't have put the starters back into the game at all.

[HungarianColtsFan]

Pagano is saving the team for later purposes, that's clear. We've completely controlled the game and Pagano wanted to give some playing time for rookies like Purifoy.

 

What bogs my mind is why was Luck such long on the turf? I thought we will build up a few long pass-plays to allow Luck score his 5th TD today (sorry the game was today for me), but it wasn't the idea. 

 

Practically we allowed them some garbage-time yards and scores, but the win wasn't in jeopardy.

 

That's an other question if we should go Belichki's way in such situations and finish our opponents when there's the chance, but I'm not unhappy with not humiliating/embarrassing/torching/roasting Giants completely. 

[Yoshinator]

really?  did the Giants win the game?

 

 

If the Jags had played the same way the Giants had been playing through 3 quarters with the colt starting defense playing the way it had been playing...no, the jags would not have had any realistic chance to come back, just like the Giants didn't.  

 

 

I watched the one that the colts won.

 

 

how was that being complacent?  Pagano heading back into the lockerroom with 10 minutes left and handing the rest of the game over to one of the coordinators would have been complacent.  continuing to manage the game and manipulating the playing time of various players is kind of the opposite of being complacent.

 

 

The giants didn't make it a one score game.  they barely made it a 2 point game.  Once the starters on defense came back in, the Giants were able to gain a whopping 9 yards in 4 plays.    oh by the way, they tried and failed an onside kick.  are YOU still with ME?

 

 

really?  I've seen 2 examples given....the colt/bucs MNF game from years ago and last year's colt/chief playoff game.  how many other times?  how many times has it happened to the colts under Pagano's watch?

so you're ok with Pagano allowing the game to get out of hand and us possibly losing? That's all I needed to know. You act like because the Giants didn't comeback and win this game that there was no way it could happen. You probably turned off the tv or started cursing when the Colts where down to the Chiefs. Then you turn on the TV and can't believe what happened. You acknowledge that it can happen with the two examples that were given of comeback wins, yet this one was somehow "out of reach". Quit contradicting yourself and think about things before you discuss them and maybe people will take you seriously. I'm done with this subject, I'm sure when we actually blow a lead, you'll be the first one making excuses for Pagano.

[wesd2890]

This is a god awful topic.. if coach left the starters in and t.y or vontae got hurt.. you would be complaining that the coach didnt take him out.. one thing is for sure.. giantss aren't built to overcome that kinda deficit.. im mean come on down 31 points and you really think they have a chance?

[Jason_]

so you're ok with Pagano allowing the game to get out of hand and us possibly losing?

 

um, the game never got out of hand.  the closest the giants got was within 16 points and that was in garbage time.

 

 

 That's all I needed to know.

 

sure, if your purpose is to make a very uninformed decision

 

 

 You act like because the Giants didn't comeback and win this game that there was no way it could happen.

 

 

and you're acting like, because it was actually possible that the giants could have come back, it is likely that they would have.  there's a huge difference between possible and probable.  It's possible that I could become president of the United States because I'm over 35, am a natural born citizen of the US and have lived here for 14 years.  However, it's highly improbable that would ever happen.  similarly, just because Manning and Luck led the Colts to 2 highly improbable late game comebacks doesn't mean it's probable that the giants would have given the way they were playing offensively and the way the colts starting defense was playing.

 

 

 You probably turned off the tv or started cursing when the Colts where down to the Chiefs. Then you turn on the TV and can't believe what happened.

 

LOL...you know absolutely nothing about me and couldn't be further from the truth.  I was the one that prevented my best friend from changing the channel during that MNF game between the bucs and colts.  I've never turned off a colts game early, even during the 2011 season.

 

 

 You acknowledge that it can happen with the two examples that were given of comeback wins, yet this one was somehow "out of reach".

 

basically yes.  by the way, you said it "happens more than you think"....again, only 2 examples have been given.  it does not happen more than I think.  I think it happens very rarely and in fact it does happen very rarely.  otherwise you'd be able to knock out 5-10 examples off the top of your head.

 

 

 Quit contradicting yourself and think about things before you discuss them and maybe people will take you seriously.

 

I'm not contradicting myself.  I simply understand the difference between possibility and probability.  Oh, and plenty of people (the important ones as far as I'm concerned) take me seriously. ;)

 

 

 I'm done with this subject

 

you should have never started with it

 

 

, I'm sure when we actually blow a lead, you'll be the first one making excuses for Pagano.

 

this must be an example of the expert knowledge you have of me now after you determined that I was OK with Pagano "allowing the game get out of hand" <<-- (your words, certainly not mine).  well done 

[SteelCityColt]

It never ceases to amaze me how something can so easily be made of nothing.