That last time out (Pagano Clock Management)... {[Merge]}

[Camio]

1 minute ago, Restored said:

 

Um, of course there was urgency. If you don't score, you don't have a chance to win at all. Scoring is the first part of the equation and at that point, you have to do whatever it takes and not throw away chances which is essentially what you're saying they should've done.

 

How's forcing the Lions to waste a TO throwing the Colts chances away?

 

All this would've done for the Colts is save them a TO while forcing the Lions to burn one. Hardly throwing anything away eh? ;)

[our_dbs_rock]

5 minutes ago, Gavin said:

My DVR cut off the last couple minutes of the game so I cant speak on that. I will have a write up. Probably not lengthy but a summary of sorts. Right now however I am watching one of my favorite movies.....A classic the karate kid on Starz Classic. Great movie. Loved Elizabeth Shue however in Adventures in Babysitting. I feel that's really where she came into her own

 

If only one of the colts would have swept the leg of Riddick.

[Restored]

1 minute ago, Camio said:

 

How's forcing the Lions to waste a TO throwing the Colts chances away?

 

All this would've done for the Colts is save them a TO while forcing the Lions to burn one. Hardly throwing anything away eh? ;)

 

If you'd stay within our discussion and not dive into someone else's you'd see that Doug wanted the Colts to waste a play to burn more time and worry about trying to score on 3rd and possibly 4th down.

[Jason_]

8 minutes ago, Camio said:

 

Your argument makes no sense.

 

follow the conversation:

 

our_dbs_rock:

 

" The time out was just a bad call.  There was a higher chance that the Colts would run out of downs before they ran out of time unless offense has no urgency in getting back to the line. "

 

me:

 

"It wasn't a goal-to-go situation...they could have gotten a 1st down without scoring.  So no, there wasn't a higher chance of running out of downs. "

 

 

THAT was my argument.  One poster said that there was a higher chance of the Colts running out of downs than running out of time and that simply isn't true, because there was a possibility the colts, without intending to do so, could have gotten a first down without scoring.  Is that really so hard to understand?

[Camio]

Just now, Restored said:

 

It makes perfect sense considering if you don't score, the subsequent drive by Detroit doesn't matter. Pagano said they needed the timeout for personnel issues. If that's what they needed to do to score, then you deal with it and let your defense stop them with 37 seconds left.

 

Time was not an issue for the Colts. I'm not sure why you're trying to make time an issue, other than use that as an excuse for Pagano's gaffe. Personnel wasnt an issue either.

 

Had Pagano tried to milk the clock, the Lions would've called a TO to save time in case the Colts scored so they had time to get in FG range.

 

The Lions would've called TO with over 1:10 left, they would be down to 2 while the Colts still had 1 TO left and each team would also still substitute in whomever they wanted.

 

I'm not sure why its so hard to grasp. This happens literally every week in the NFL.

[Gavin]

1 minute ago, our_dbs_rock said:

 

If only one of the colts would have swept the leg of Riddick.

Not a bad idea if you are an interior linebacker. Particularly of the Colts

[DougDew]

Just now, Restored said:

 

Um, of course there was urgency. If you don't score, you don't have a chance to win at all. Scoring is the first part of the equation and at that point, you have to do whatever it takes and not throw away chances which is essentially what you're saying they should've done.

As another pointed out, there was urgency on DET's part to stop us, so them taking a TO to regroup was likely as well. 

 

It was second and 8 from the 12 with 1:15 left and a first down opportunity at the 4, and a QB who can scramble.  There was more pressure on Detroit to talk about what personnel package they wanted rather than us. 

 

Simply waiting a bit for the play clock to run down would have taken about 10 more seconds off the clock, making it 1:05 and second down from the 12 with a first down opportunity at the 4.  All of the options are there and there is still over a minute left.

 

But maybe Chuck knows that Caldwell never "blinks"

[RollerColt]

8 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

Um, of course there was urgency. If you don't score, you don't have a chance to win at all. Scoring is the first part of the equation and at that point, you have to do whatever it takes and not throw away chances which is essentially what you're saying they should've done.

You're correct of course in terms of scoring. Yes, we have to score a touchdown to win. What I saw, and what others witnessed as well, is a coach who failed to put trust in either side of the coin. 

 

At that point, Andrew was ballin'. He was locked into superhuman mode and was destroying the Lion's secondary. Chuck should have had the courage to say, "our defense cannot win this game for us. It's going to have to be Andrew per usual."

 

Sure, sometimes those gambles don't pay off: See Bill Belichick's infamous 4th and 2 call. But if they make it, it's genius. We could have placed the game in Andrew's hands and either lost it, or won it. 

I would've felt much more comfortable giving Luck the chance to finish the game, personally...

[our_dbs_rock]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

But maybe Chuck knows that Caldwell never "blinks"

[Camio]

1 minute ago, Jason_S said:

THAT was my argument.  One poster said that there was a higher chance of the Colts running out of downs than running out of time and that simply isn't true, because there was a possibility the colts, without intending to do so, could have gotten a first down without scoring.  Is that really so hard to understand?

 

In fact, he's right. Is that really so hard to understand?

 

Situation should've been this: 1:10+ left, Colts with 1 TO, Lions with only 2.

 

In you get first down, Lions are forced to burn another TO. If you get a TD like the Colts did here, Lions are down to 2 TO.

 

Your argument is flawed because it'd have been easier to get a first down (like playing for it) to milk more time on the clock had they forced the Lions to burn a TO with 1:10+ left on the clock.

 

No matter how you try to slice it, it doesnt make sense.

[Restored]

2 minutes ago, Camio said:

 

Time was not an issue for the Colts. I'm not sure why you're trying to make time an issue, other than use that as an excuse for Pagano's gaffe. Personnel wasnt an issue either.

 

Had Pagano tried to milk the clock, the Lions would've called a TO to save time in case the Colts scored so they had time to get in FG range.

 

The Lions would've called TO with over 1:10 left, they would be down to 2 while the Colts still had 1 TO left and each team would also still substitute in whomever they wanted.

 

I'm not sure why its so hard to grasp. This happens literally every week in the NFL.

 

Personnel was the issue according to Pagano. You can claim its not but you have no support for your cause. Time wasn't the issue. You're missing the fact that Detroit moved the ball absurdly quick after the touchdown anyway. I highly doubt them having one less timeout would've changed all those missed tackles.

[NewColtsFan]

6 minutes ago, Camio said:

 

Time was not an issue for the Colts. I'm not sure why you're trying to make time an issue, other than use that as an excuse for Pagano's gaffe. Personnel wasnt an issue either.

 

Had Pagano tried to milk the clock, the Lions would've called a TO to save time in case the Colts scored so they had time to get in FG range.

 

The Lions would've called TO with over 1:10 left, they would be down to 2 while the Colts still had 1 TO left and each team would also still substitute in whomever they wanted.

 

I'm not sure why its so hard to grasp. This happens literally every week in the NFL.

 

For the record,  and not saying this is the real reason......

 

But Pagano has publicly said that personnel was the reason for the time out.      I don't know if he's covering for himself,   or Chudzinski or Luck?       But that was Pagano's answer when asked about it.

 

[Archangel]

I really think everyone has missed the point here if your a HC and you know you have a make shift and depleted DB that are tired and pulling up gassed and have no energy left you just  dont call the TO, you force the other team to call the TO, Would the colts of scored yes I think so they were doing pretty darn good that 4th quarter, The colts needed to force the lions to call all their TO before they took control of the ball with 34 seconds or however many seconds would of been left. This would of made the lions one dimensional this would of forced the lions to throw to the sideline to stop the clock this way all you had to do was defend the sideline not the entire field. instead the colts called a TO with 1.15 left then on the next play if correct the play was under review and when the play resumed instead of running the clock down luck snapped the ball right away and the colts scored nothing wrong with that but not enough time elapsed. On the kick off instead of a pooch kick they instead tried to kick it into the next county again no time off the clock. So instead the Colts coaching staff relied on a Tired defense and a makeshift DB corp to stop the lions who needed a FG and their start point was at their own 25 with 34 seconds and a whole field at their disposal and 3 TO.  So as I said not very good clock management the next three weeks they need to use the clock to their advantage until they are at full strength on defense. But the game is over and it is what it is. On to Denver 

[Camio]

Just now, Restored said:

 

Personnel was the issue according to Pagano. You can claim its not but you have no support for your cause. Time wasn't the issue. You're missing the fact that Detroit moved the ball absurdly quick after the touchdown anyway. I highly doubt them having one less timeout would've changed all those missed tackles.

 

Rewatch the last Lions drive and imagine them only having 2 TOs left instead of 3. Playcall is different, thats for sure.

 

Time wasnt really an issue for them because they still had 3 TOs. You know the playcall is different in that case, right?

 

Thats the whole point.

[pgt_rob]

27 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

So it was Chuck who snapped the ball when it wasn't suppose to be? Yeah, the sky if falling too.

 

No but he shouldn't have put his players in that situation to begin with. Especially since there was some sort of lack of communication between him and Colt Anderson. Bad on Pagano's fault for not being clear. He took the hit for it.

[DougDew]

15 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

If you'd stay within our discussion and not dive into someone else's you'd see that Doug wanted the Colts to waste a play to burn more time and worry about trying to score on 3rd and possibly 4th down.

I did not want the Colts to waste a play.  I wanted the Colts to run another play with the personnel they had since they were having success at it.  They had the option of going for the score, or checking down which could have gotten a first down, and achieving either by a pass to the end zone, a running play, or any kind of play in between, even a QB scramble. 

 

I don't know why Pagano thought it was important to get a different personnel package on the field when so many options were available on second down with 1:15 left.. 

[Camio]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

For the record,  and not saying this is the real reason......

 

But Pagano has publicly said that personnel was the reason for the time out.      I don't know if he's covering for himself,   or Chudzinski or Luck?       But that was Pagano's answer when asked about it.

 

 

The Lions would've still called a TO with over 1:10 left. This means the Colts would've still been able to subs.

 

How's personnel related? The fact Pagano said that just shows he missed something. I'm not saying btw that the personnel issue isnt true.

 

I'm just saying it really shows he didnt made that mistake because of time or because he was rushed.

 

It shows he has a weakness in clock management. Its not his first nor his last gaffe in that department. Its a huge weakness for him. He has no ability in that department.

 

Now, if Pagano had not called the TO himself and someone else would've called it instead and Pagano came up with that, then that would be a cover up for that person.

 

And you know what, it'd be perfectly normal because in pro sports, thats what you do: you dont throw your guy under the bus for something like this, you cover for him and take the heat.

 

Thats not what happened tho.

[crazycolt1]

2 minutes ago, pgt_rob said:

 

No but he shouldn't have put his players in that situation to begin with. Especially since there was some sort of lack of communication between him and Colt Anderson. Bad on Pagano's fault for not being clear. He took the hit for it.

Yes he did own it.

Even Belichick said it was a good play design had the ball not been snapped. He even understood it as a coach and had no problem with the design of the play. Had the ball not been snapped it worked in drawing the Patriots off sides so it was not near a bad of play as the finger pointers make it out to be.

[Camio]

36 minutes ago, IndySouthsider said:

So if he does not call TO and calm his team down and Luck throws 2 incompletions to end the game, does he get the blame for not calling TO?

 

I blame Pagano, but it's more for the dumb * defense that watched a game of pitch and catch. Seriously I would rather have got beaten over the top being aggressive like the Jags game in 2012.

 

No, he doesnt. You know why?

 

Lions would've called a TO. Thats the whole point.

[Restored]

12 minutes ago, Camio said:

 

Rewatch the last Lions drive and imagine them only having 2 TOs left instead of 3. Playcall is different, thats for sure.

 

Time wasnt really an issue for them because they still had 3 TOs. You know the playcall is different in that case, right?

 

Thats the whole point.

 

Again, that doesn't change all those missed tackles. You mean to tell me the Colts defenders would've magically learned how to tackle if Detroit had one less timeout?

[pgt_rob]

3 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Yes he did own it.

Even Belichick said it was a good play design had the ball not been snapped. He even understood it as a coach and had no problem with the design of the play. Had the ball not been snapped it worked in drawing the Patriots off sides so it was not near a bad of play as the finger pointers make it out to be.

 

But the part that is to blame for Chuck is that he ran that play with I believe Anderson and Geathers. Not with Griff Whalen. He failed by putting someone else out there that he didn't communicate with. That's putting yourself in a bad situation. I know what that particular play is supposed to do, it's not that. It's Chuck's lack of communication.

[Restored]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I did not want the Colts to waste a play.  I wanted the Colts to run another play with the personnel they had since they were having success at it.  They had the option of going for the score, or checking down which could have gotten a first down, and achieving either by a pass to the end zone, a running play, or any kind of play in between, even a QB scramble. 

 

I don't know why Pagano thought it was important to get a different personnel package on the field when so many options were available on second down with 1:15 left.. 

 

Cool. That's not what Doug said whom I was originally directed that post towards. You take the score anyway you can get it when you are that close.

[lollygagger8]

14 hours ago, Jules said:

Jim Caldwell outcoached Pagano.  

 

And we hated Caldwell back in the day.  

 

[IndySouthsider]

6 minutes ago, Camio said:

 

No, he doesnt. You know why?

 

Lions would've called a TO.

 

Doesn't flippn matter. If you cannot stop a team in 25 seconds. You deserve to lose. It wasn't the TO. It's ignorant to suggest it.

 

 

[crazycolt1]

3 minutes ago, pgt_rob said:

 

But the part that is to blame for Chuck is that he ran that play with I believe Anderson and Geathers. Not with Griff Whalen. He failed by putting someone else out there that he didn't communicate with. That's putting yourself in a bad situation. I know what that particular play is supposed to do, it's not that. It's Chuck's lack of communication.

He took the blame, what more do you want? He was not going to lose his job over that but that's not good enough for you?

[chad72]

36 minutes ago, Everyone said:

I'm actually surprised he didn't try to ice Prater with the final TO.

 

That was what I was thinking as well.

 

Make Prater think more about his missed PAT and maybe he pulls a Vanderjagt or Mason Crosby for a game losing FG shank. (remember Crosby miss in that ChuckStrong game in 2012?)

 

Heck, plenty of kickers have missed here, including the Jags kicker last year. You give crowd noise to build up as well with a timeout, just my two cents.

[pgt_rob]

Just now, crazycolt1 said:

He took the blame, what more do you want? He was not going to lose his job over that but that's not good enough for you?

 

I never said he was going to lose his job over it. The OP wanted more examples of gaffes made by Pagano. I listed one and for some reason, you wanted to jump on it. 

[Camio]

3 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

Again, that doesn't change all those missed tackles. You mean to tell me the Colts defenders would've magically learned how to tackle if Detroit had one less timeout?

 

Its funny.

 

You're saying Pagano's gaffe didnt matter because the Colts D is bad. What kind of argument is that?

 

If anything, this means Pagano's gaffe is magnified because then, he REALLY should've done everything he could to milk the clock down.

 

You guys can try to come up with any kind of excuse for Pagano but they dont make any sense. If anything, you're actually arguing that he really messed up ;)

[crazycolt1]

2 minutes ago, pgt_rob said:

 

I never said he was going to lose his job over it. The OP wanted more examples of gaffes made by Pagano. I listed one and for some reason, you wanted to jump on it. 

I think the subject was about clock management but you decided to bring in something old to add some flavor.

[threeflight]

I am not getting the people who are defending Pagano's excuse of calling a TO to get better players and packages on the field.

 

Even if that is really what he wanted, he still could have waited until the play clock was down to 1 second, or waited for Caldwell to call a TO....thereby making the Lions burn a precious TO.  To call it one second after the play clock was reset was panic city pure and simple.

 

Not sure how some people can't see this.

[Camio]

3 minutes ago, IndySouthsider said:

 

Doesn't flippn matter. If you cannot stop a team in 25 seconds. You deserve to lose. It wasn't the TO. It's ignorant to suggest it.

 

 

 

Your last post was ignorant. Whether the Colts win or lose this game doesnt change the fact Pagano made a blunder. The result of the game is irrelevant.

 

If anything, you're saying Pagano should've tried to kill as much clock as he could (or force the Lions to burn their TO) because Pagano knew his defense is bad.

 

You're actually arguing that he messed up by trying to defend him.

[throwing BBZ]

Chuck was a solid DB coach and has shown good ra  ra skills as a head coach. The end!

[pgt_rob]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

I think the subject was about clock management but you decided to bring in something old to add some flavor.

 

The OP mentioned the punt formation play in his post. I didn't see it until just now, but either way it was a gaffe and it's worth mentioning. I don't think it was entirely only about clock management.

[Restored]

4 minutes ago, Camio said:

 

Its funny.

 

You're saying Pagano's gaffe didnt matter because the Colts D is bad. What kind of argument is that?

 

If anything, this means Pagano's gaffe is magnified because then, he REALLY should've done everything he could to milk the clock down.

 

You guys can try to come up with any kind of excuse for Pagano but they dont make any sense. If anything, you're actually arguing that he really messed up ;)

 

Again, it wasn't a gaffe. Pagano stated that the Colts had personnel issues so they had to use the timeout. In that situation, you do everything you possibly can do to score.

Tell me, if the Colts don't score on that drive and Pagano later says it was because they had personnel issues, what would be your reaction? I'm willing to bet you'd be roasting Pagano for not taking that timeout to get things in order.

[BullsColtsFan1]

I don't think it was all Pagano's fault but the late clock issue was all on him.  I was at the game and it was very frustrating at times.  I know you need to score in that situation but I was hoping for the first down on 3rd and 4 then the TD.  The timeout did not need to be called.  The defense was very frustrating.  Those two running backs did whatever they wanted.  I didn't think the corners did horrible considering the fact that we have so many hurt.  They obviously will be better with Robinson, Cromartie and Davis.  The D line struggled, hopefully they get better when Anderson and/or Jones comes back.  I am not holding my breathe though.  When your offense scores 35 points and Luck has 400 passing yards, 4 TD's and 0 Int's no way you should lose at home.  The offense did start slow but they scored enough to win.  Unfortunately, I think the Colts will be 0-2 for the third straight year unless the defense can force a few turnovers and stop C.J. Anderson.  I think the offense will hold their own.  I know it's week 1 and everyone overreacts with a loss but that defense is bad right now.  I did like what I saw from the offensive line.  

[threeflight]

1 minute ago, Restored said:

 

Again, it wasn't a gaffe. Pagano stated that the Colts had personnel issues so they had to use the timeout. In that situation, you do everything you possibly can do to score.

Tell me, if the Colts don't score on that drive and Pagano later says it was because they had personnel issues, what would be your reaction? I'm willing to bet you'd be roasting Pagano for not taking that timeout to get things in order.

IF you want to try and defend the TO go ahead.  But you are still not defending the fact that he called the timeout with 1 second off the play clock instead of the 30 that could have ran off instead.  Though it probably never would have gotten to that point because the Lions would have called a TO, which would have also been good for the Colts.

[Camio]

4 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

Again, it wasn't a gaffe. Pagano stated that the Colts had personnel issues so they had to use the timeout. In that situation, you do everything you possibly can do to score.

Tell me, if the Colts don't score on that drive and Pagano later says it was because they had personnel issues, what would be your reaction? I'm willing to bet you'd be roasting Pagano for not taking that timeout to get things in order.

 

I'm not sure what concept of this you do not understand.

 

If Pagano dont call a TO with 1:15 left on the clock, its because his intentions are:

-he's hoping to milk the clock before calling that TO

-the Lions would've been forced to call a TO to prevent the clock from being milked

 

In both scenarios, the Colts get to change personnel to whatever they want. Why are you even bringing up that as an argument? It doesnt even matter since either team would've still called a TO. Your argument assume that no TO would've been called. You're making up something that wouldnt have happened to explain why Pagano didnt mess up. Makes no sense.

 

Now, to awnser your last question: Had Pagano tried to milk that clock before calling his TO, the Lions would've been forced to call a TO.

 

This would've only meant the Colts would still have 1 TO, the Lions would've been down to 2, there would still be 1:10+ left on the clock.

 

Tell me how's that not better than the Colts having no TO left and the Lions having 3 TO left?

 

Why is this so hard to grasp?

[Archangel]

3 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

Again, it wasn't a gaffe. Pagano stated that the Colts had personnel issues so they had to use the timeout. In that situation, you do everything you possibly can do to score.

Tell me, if the Colts don't score on that drive and Pagano later says it was because they had personnel issues, what would be your reaction? I'm willing to bet you'd be roasting Pagano for not taking that timeout to get things in order.

 

 

Okay he is not saying not take the TO if correct he is saying let the clock run down then take the TO or force the lions to take a TO

[John Waylon]

46 minutes ago, IndySouthsider said:

So if he does not call TO and calm his team down and Luck throws 2 incompletions to end the game, does he get the blame for not calling TO?

 

What blame? You don't need a timeout to figure out how to gain 4 yards. That was our last possession win or lose. There was no need to save time. If he just had to take that timeout why not wait until deep in the play clock? Would have left us what? 40 seconds? It would have also given him even more time to do whatever it was he needed that time to do. 

 

It was as if Pagano and caldwell both got together before the game and bragged about who was gonna botch the clock late in the game better. The only thing missing was a couple of beanies with propellers and the Benny Hill theme playing in the background. 

[Archangel]

7 minutes ago, BullsColtsFan1 said:

I don't think it was all Pagano's fault but the late clock issue was all on him.  I was at the game and it was very frustrating at times.  I know you need to score in that situation but I was hoping for the first down on 3rd and 4 then the TD.  The timeout did not need to be called.  The defense was very frustrating.  Those two running backs did whatever they wanted.  I didn't think the corners did horrible considering the fact that we have so many hurt.  They obviously will be better with Robinson, Cromartie and Davis.  The D line struggled, hopefully they get better when Anderson and/or Jones comes back.  I am not holding my breathe though.  When your offense scores 35 points and Luck has 400 passing yards, 4 TD's and 0 Int's no way you should lose at home.  The offense did start slow but they scored enough to win.  Unfortunately, I think the Colts will be 0-2 for the third straight year unless the defense can force a few turnovers and stop C.J. Anderson.  I think the offense will hold their own.  I know it's week 1 and everyone overreacts with a loss but that defense is bad right now.  I did like what I saw from the offensive line.  

 

 

  The LB corp is undisciplined cannot hold any spot and you are right they allowed the lions RB to go anywhere they wanted on the field