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

[Restored]

5 minutes ago, Camio said:

 

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?

 

I didn't say it wouldn't be better for them to have 2 timeouts instead of the 3. My point has been since the beginning was for the Colts to score and do whatever is necessary. Now, whether the Colts really did have personnel issues is up for debate but according to Pagano, that was the reasoning. And again, with how quickly the the Lions moved down and scored, I highly doubt having another time would've changed the outlook anymore than what it ended up being.

[jimmy g]

31 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.. 

There's the important phrase - you don't know.  Unless we're in the huddle, none of us know. For instance, we had two first time starting linemen plus two banged up linemen. Maybe one was needing it, we don't know. A blown assignment could've meant disaster.

 

 

My point is- I've watched or listened to most all Colts games since 1954. 62 years of entertainment . I've come to realize that's all it is. Those that stress out over a game that they aren't a player or coach or manager in are only killing themselves. Being angry about something you don't have control of is futile. Even tho it's fun to do!

[Camio]

5 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

I didn't say it wouldn't be better for them to have 2 timeouts instead of the 3. My point has been since the beginning was for the Colts to score and do whatever is necessary. Now, whether the Colts really did have personnel issues is up for debate but according to Pagano, that was the reasoning. And again, with how quickly the the Lions moved down and scored, I highly doubt having another time would've changed the outlook anymore than what it ended up being.

 

I never disputed that the Colts might have had personnel issue. I'm not ever sure why you bring this up or why Pagano brought this up last night.

 

It has nothing to do with this gaffe.

 

If he doesnt call a TO as quickly and tries to milk the clock down before calling a TO, the Lions are forced to call a TO.

 

The only logical explanation to your/Pagano's argument for it to make sense is that the Colts wouldn't have been allowed to sub in had the Lions called a TO.

 

The fact is, Colts would've been able to sub all they want. Therefore, this argument makes no sense.

 

I didn't say it wouldn't be better for them to have 2 timeouts instead of the 3.

 

Hence the point, Pagano's gaffe prevented the Lions from burning a TO. His haffe also prevent him from saving his last TO.

 

You cant say Pagano didnt made a gaffe and then agree that it'd have been better for the Colts to still have 1 TO left while the Lions would've been down to 2.

 

That is the definition of a gaffe.

[DougDew]

19 minutes ago, threeflight said:

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.

And all players try to score on every play.

 

A HC also has to consider what happens if the Colts actually scored on the play after the TO, leaving DET with 1:10 left and three TOs.   Your team has a depleated secondary and no pass rush.

 

If he is certain the team needs different personnel at that point on the field, then there is plenty of time to let the clock run down a bit before calling TO. 

[Restored]

Just now, Camio said:

 

I never disputed that the Colts might have had personnel issue. I'm not ever sure why you bring this up or why Pagano brought this up last night.

 

It has nothing to do with this gaffe.

 

If he doesnt call a TO as quickly and tries to milk the clock down before calling a TO, the Lions are forced to call a TO.

 

The only logical explanation to your/Pagano's argument for it to make sense is that the Colts wouldn't have been allowed to sub in had the Lions called a TO.

 

The fact is, Colts would've been able to sub all they want. Therefore, this argument makes no sense.

 

Again, I'm bringing this up because it was the reasoning Pagano used. If you want to believe that Detroit having one less timeout would've made the Colts defenders able to tackle on the last drive, by all means go ahead and fight that argument. 

[Camio]

1 minute ago, Restored said:

 

Again, I'm bringing this up because it was the reasoning Pagano used. If you want to believe that Detroit having one less timeout would've made the Colts defenders able to tackle on the last drive, by all means go ahead and fight that argument. 

 

Pagano's reasoning was wrong. The Lions were always gonna call a TO had the Colts tried to milk the clock. All this would've meant is the Colts would've saved their last TO and the Lions would have 2 left.

 

Last I checked the NFL rules, if 1 team calls a TO, both teams are allowed to sub. There's nothing in the rulebook that prevent 1 team from subbing.

 

Why is this even used as an argument?

[MR. Blueblood]

A Lions fan sitting behind me kept screaming over and over again for Caldwell to call time outs during our last drive to save them some time.  When the whistle blew he let out a loud "finally" in relief.  Then it was announced that the Colts used the TO and I let out a loud "wth are you doing?" in disbelief.

 

mind numbingly stupid.

[threeflight]

Just now, MR. Blueblood said:

A Lions fan sitting behind me kept screaming over and over again for Caldwell to call time outs during our last drive to save them some time.  When the whistle blew he let out a loud "finally" in relief.  Then it was announced that the Colts used the TO and I let out a loud "wth are you doing?" in disbelief.

 

mind numbingly stupid.

Yet somehow....someway, there are people on this forum defending it.  

 

 

Makes you wonder.....

[Archangel]

1 minute ago, Restored said:

 

Again, I'm bringing this up because it was the reasoning Pagano used. If you want to believe that Detroit having one less timeout would've made the Colts defenders able to tackle on the last drive, by all means go ahead and fight that argument. 

 

In reality in 1.10 no one knows how many TO the lions would of used, If chuck does not call his TO and forced the lions to call a TO or if luck used his time correctly and forced the lions into another TO who really knows the point is football is a game of chess and you force the opponent to make a mistake and the lions forced the  into a mistake and it cost the colts the game

[chad72]

Kubiak has iced Graham Cano before, he learnt it from Mike Shanahan. 

 

It is about reading the body language of the kicker, IMO.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/sports/football/21icing.html?_r=1

 

I remember Billy Cundiff trotting out with about 25 seconds remaining on the play clock in that 2011 AFCCG in Foxboro when Lee Evans failed to hang on to the TD pass from Flacco down 20-23. Belichick chose not to take the timeout since the Ravens did not have any timeouts and did not act with a sense of urgency. Cundiff misses. Yesterday, I don't think the Cardinals had any timeouts left, Belichick chooses not to take a timeout. 

 

Playoff game in 2005, Bill Cowher takes a timeout and Vanderjagt motions at him, and then comes back and shanks it.

 

It is a mixed bag but it has a lot to do with gut feeling. Dungy thought Jeff Fisher might be playing for OT in that Titans game and reacted. Jeff Fisher let things unfold. Sometimes, you let things unfold and whether it is right or not, right before the snap, you can call a timeout for the kicker  after everyone has lined up. Here is an icing the kicker special:

 

 

[Nadine]

some bickering was removed from this thread

word of advice everyone can state their opinion.  if you don't like it, ignore it

if somebody takes a shot at you either report it or ignore it.  No more personal back and forth please

[RollerColt]

13 minutes ago, Nadine said:

some bickering was removed from this thread

word of advice everyone can state their opinion.  if you don't like it, ignore it

if somebody takes a shot at you either report it or ignore it.  No more personal back and forth please

[superrep1967]

15 hours ago, threeflight said:

1:15 left.  You DO NOT NEED to call timeout there.  Why let a Lions offense that has been killing a hurt Colts Defense all day have another shot?  Either win it at the end or not  But do not leave them any time to drive down the field for a winning FG?

 

He is just not a smart coach.  Never has been.  A Harbaugh or a Bellichick is always thinking AHEAD.  Pagano panics and never thinks at all.

 

Serious.  People can poo poo this all they want, but that single time out saved the lions 35 seconds, and the game.

 

For that alone he needs to be fired. 

YES I agree. To be a head coach in the NFL you gotta be smarter than that and he is not. I was shocked when Irsay brought him back. I blame it on Irsay he is wasting Luck's career with this loser. 

[superrep1967]

15 hours ago, Dustin said:

That decision literally cost us the game. This man is completely in over his head. He shouldn't be in charge of clock management.

That is for sure. 

[superrep1967]

15 hours ago, ricker182 said:

Yet another fireable decision made by Pagano.   

How many is he allowed? 

Yeah and I still haven't got over that fake punt play against the Pats last season. If he didn't have the right guy  available for the play he never should have ran it. It all falls on the head coach. 

[superrep1967]

15 hours ago, ricker182 said:

Yet another fireable decision made by Pagano.   

How many is he allowed? 

No more

[superrep1967]

15 hours ago, threeflight said:

How does no one realize you could have called the timeout after running 30 seconds off the clock?  

 

Hello?  If you want the timeout to think of a play fine.  Just run 30 seconds off the clock first.

 

This isn't rocket surgery..

Exactly!!

[Restored]

1 hour ago, Camio said:

 

Pagano's reasoning was wrong. The Lions were always gonna call a TO had the Colts tried to milk the clock. All this would've meant is the Colts would've saved their last TO and the Lions would have 2 left.

 

Last I checked the NFL rules, if 1 team calls a TO, both teams are allowed to sub. There's nothing in the rulebook that prevent 1 team from subbing.

 

Why is this even used as an argument?

 

Last time I checked, timeouts don't make your defense magically learn how to tackle so it doesn't really matter how many the Lions had.

[Restored]

1 hour ago, Archangel said:

 

In reality in 1.10 no one knows how many TO the lions would of used, If chuck does not call his TO and forced the lions to call a TO or if luck used his time correctly and forced the lions into another TO who really knows the point is football is a game of chess and you force the opponent to make a mistake and the lions forced the  into a mistake and it cost the colts the game

 

The entire point of that drive way to score. If the Colts had an opportunity to score but passed on it to say maybe do a running play or a dump off pass to milk more clock, would it have really mattered?

[Camio]

5 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

Last time I checked, timeouts don't make your defense magically learn how to tackle so it doesn't really matter how many the Lions had.

 

The fact the Lions scored (or not) has nothing to do with the gaffe by Pagano. Had the Lions not scored (say FG was missed), this doesnt change from the fact Pagano messed up.

 

Its not related unless what you're saying is this: that Pagano's gaffe gave the Lions more time to setup for that FG.

 

Is that what you're trying to say? No matter how you slice it, he messed up.

 

The fact the Lions kicker made or missed the FG doesnt change anything.

 

Its like saying, had the Jets kicker missed that FG vs the Colts in the playoffs 6 years ago or so after Caldwell's blunder that its not a mistake because the Jets kicker missed the attempt.

 

What kind of argument is that?

 

If anything, you're saying Pagano made a gaffe with calling that TO too quickly because he should've known, since he's the HC, that the Colts dont have a D. He therefore should've done whatever he can to either milk the clock or force the Lions to burn a TO or 2.

 

Your argument is actually working against you.

[Restored]

1 minute ago, Camio said:

 

The fact the Lions scored (or not) has nothing to do with the gaffe by Pagano. Had the Lions not scored (say FG was missed), this doesnt change from the fact Pagano messed up.

 

Its not related unless what you're saying is this: that Pagano's gaffe gave the Lions more time to setup for that FG.

 

Is that what you're trying to say? No matter how you slice it, he messed up.

 

The fact the Lions kicker made or missed the FG doesnt change anything.

 

Its like saying, had the Jets kicker missed that FG vs the Colts in the playoffs 6 years ago or so after Caldwell's blunder that its not a mistake because the Jets kicker missed the attempt.

 

What kind of argument is that?

 

Again, if the Colts don't use the timeout and end up not scoring because they weren't able to get their personnel groups together, it doesn't matter. Again, if the defense does its job and holds up their end of the deal for 37 seconds, the timeout isn't even an issue.

[Camio]

10 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

Again, if the Colts don't use the timeout and end up not scoring because they weren't able to get their personnel groups together, it doesn't matter. Again, if the defense does its job and holds up their end of the deal for 37 seconds, the timeout isn't even an issue.

 

Before posting any further, you should scroll back to page 1. Where did anyone argue for the Colts to not take a TO?

 

You're making stuff up.

 

Colts, if they wanted to take a TO, had to let the playclock run down to 1 second. However, the Lions would've prevented that from happening by calling a TO with 1:10+ left (so over 35 secs on the playclock).

 

Now, please go search the NFL rules and show me where it says that if the opposing team calls TO, that you cant sub.

 

You wont be able to find that because the rules dont say that.

 

You're wrong. Dead wrong. Making up stuff like "had the Colts not taken a TO there" is irrelevant. Nobody said taking the TO was the mistake.

 

The mistake was the timing of it. Its extremely simple to understand and its been stated previously in this thread. The fact you're avoiding that and trying to make stuff up for your flawed argument isnt the best way for you to make your point. You're better off admitting you're wrong instead of making stuff up.

 

Not gonna bother replying anymore unless you actually come up with something substantive.

 

And btw, to awnser the 2nd sentence of your post, as I stated before, the fact that the Lions kicker made the FG or not is irrelevant.

 

It doesnt undo Pagano's mistake.

 

Do you know how silly this is to even argue?

[Archangel]

27 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

The entire point of that drive way to score. If the Colts had an opportunity to score but passed on it to say maybe do a running play or a dump off pass to milk more clock, would it have really mattered?

 

I do not think it was about scoring or not scoring it was about managing the clock, the colts had plenty of time to score. You me and everyone on this forum knew the colts defense was not going to stop the Detroit lions due to the nature of how the defense was playing at the time or even how they were playing all day.  It was up to colts coaches to minimize the chances of the lions to drive 40 yards and kick a FG,  To me the TO was not the problem it was allowing the lions to have 3 TO and 34 seconds left to do it in. The Colts was depending on the defense to make a stop, but did not allow ST to help by not trying to kick the ball into the next county on the kick off or by not calling its last TO to try and ice the kicker so that tells me you have no confidence in your ST to try and stop them at the 10 or the 15 but you are allowing the defense to try and stop them with 3 TO and a whole field to play with. Iam not on here to disagree with anyone but their is a time to use the TO and the time to let the clock run. No matter how you look at it this was 4 down territory for the colts the last 1.10 of the game. and I sure in heck did not want detroit to have the ball back. 

[Narcosys]

16 hours ago, Jules said:

Jim Caldwell outcoached Pagano.  

 

And we hated Caldwell back in the day.  

That's because we're never happy. 

[Restored]

2 minutes ago, Archangel said:

 

I do not think it was about scoring or not scoring it was about managing the clock, the colts had plenty of time to score. You me and everyone on this forum knew the colts defense was not going to stop the Detroit lions due to the nature of how the defense was playing at the time or even how they were playing all day.  It was up to colts coaches to minimize the chances of the lions to drive 40 yards and kick a FG,  To me the TO was not the problem it was allowing the lions to have 3 TO and 34 seconds left to do it in. The Colts was depending on the defense to make a stop, but did not allow ST to help by not trying to kick the ball into the next county on the kick off or by not calling its last TO to try and ice the kicker so that tells me you have no confidence in your ST to try and stop them at the 10 or the 15 but you are allowing the defense to try and stop them with 3 TO and a whole field to play with. Iam not on here to disagree with anyone but their is a time to use the TO and the time to let the clock run. No matter how you look at it this was 4 down territory for the colts the last 1.10 of the game. and I sure in heck did not want detroit to have the ball back. 

 

Why does the Colts scoring seem to be such a given? I realize Luck and co. were playing well but there is absolutely no guarantee that they score. If you have the chance to score and have a play that you feel will get it done for you, you call it and then rely on your defense if it works out. In a perfect world, the Colts score with little to no time for Detroit to do anything but that's not reality. The defense is the reason why the Colts lost, not Pagano's timeout.

[Archangel]

1 minute ago, Restored said:

 

Why does the Colts scoring seem to be such a given? I realize Luck and co. were playing well but there is absolutely no guarantee that they score. If you have the chance to score and have a play that you feel will get it done for you, you call it and then rely on your defense if it works out. In a perfect world, the Colts score with little to no time for Detroit to do anything but that's not reality. The defense is the reason why the Colts lost, not Pagano's timeout.

 

 

i am not saying scoring was a given if you read what i said this was  was 4 down territory anyway, I  was more concerned with putting a beat up defense back on the field who could not stop a runny nose with 34 seconds remaining and 3 TO. The Clock was the Colts best friend yesterday if they would of managed it right and forced detroit to use a couple of TO things of been different. Thats all iam saying 

[Superman]

4 hours 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.

 

 

Whoever called the timeout did so pretty quickly. It wasn't Luck, because the camera was on him and he didn't signal for it. It must have come from the sideline. The broadcast doesn't show who did, but it was probably Pagano.

 

That it came so quickly makes me think it was just Pagano wanting a timeout. If there were personnel issues or substitution issues, I think there was still plenty of time to get it all figured out. Someone else said Pagano panicked; I don't know if that's true or not, but I don't think the timeout was necessary, based on the limited information we have.

 

That Luck went so quickly two plays later shows that the Colts weren't thinking about using more clock, they were only worried about preserving time and downs to give the offense the best chance to score. 

[bluxco]

10 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

Exactly.  It's no guarantee when you score, if at all.  The important thing was to make sure we did score.  If we didn't score, the amount of time left on the clock wouldn't even be a point of discussion

Time management was poor after LIONS leaping penalty.Why kick it oput of endzone?No timeoff clock plus u give em ball at 25 against a rag-tag secondary.

[bluxco]

If you follow the NFL  closely,you would have sensed the COLTS were gonna lose as soon as DOYLE scored.The scenario was set up for PRATER to redeem himself.Happens all the time.

[bababooey]

http://player.radio.com/listen/station/wfan-sports-radio-66am-1019fm-ny

 

for anyone who wants to hear Francesa rip us

[Restored]

2 hours ago, Camio said:

 

Before posting any further, you should scroll back to page 1. Where did anyone argue for the Colts to not take a TO?

 

You're making stuff up.

 

Colts, if they wanted to take a TO, had to let the playclock run down to 1 second. However, the Lions would've prevented that from happening by calling a TO with 1:10+ left (so over 35 secs on the playclock).

 

Now, please go search the NFL rules and show me where it says that if the opposing team calls TO, that you cant sub.

 

You wont be able to find that because the rules dont say that.

 

You're wrong. Dead wrong. Making up stuff like "had the Colts not taken a TO there" is irrelevant. Nobody said taking the TO was the mistake.

 

The mistake was the timing of it. Its extremely simple to understand and its been stated previously in this thread. The fact you're avoiding that and trying to make stuff up for your flawed argument isnt the best way for you to make your point. You're better off admitting you're wrong instead of making stuff up.

 

Not gonna bother replying anymore unless you actually come up with something substantive.

 

And btw, to awnser the 2nd sentence of your post, as I stated before, the fact that the Lions kicker made the FG or not is irrelevant.

 

It doesnt undo Pagano's mistake.

 

Do you know how silly this is to even argue?

 

The "timing" of that timeout doesn't matter considering the Lions drove down the field so fast that that even ran one more play than they needed to once they were in makeable field goal range.

 

Again, the timeout or the "timing" of it doesn't change the fact that the defense let Stafford and co. roll down and get a game-winning FG. That's the fact. Everything else you're claiming is hypothetical and is not reality. Yet, you've ignored that fact to push your false premise of this timeout gaffe like it would've magically made the Colts able to tackle players.

[threeflight]

Couple quotes from articles today..........

 

"Time mismanagement, another familiar Lions bugaboo, reversed course. This time, it was the Colts who called the timeout they shouldn't have, and the Lions who didn't call the timeout they could have, which combined to give Detroit just enough clock advantage to set up Matt Prater's clinching field goal. The Colts, trailing 34-28, needed a touchdown on their final drive, so why Chuck Pagano wanted his offense organized was understandable. His calling timeout with 1:15 left wasn't.

It equated to aiding and abetting the enemy.

"We could look back and say it would have been nice to bleed more time off the clock," Pagano said.

To most everyone else, there was no need to look back. It was evident in real time."

 

"The Colts desperately need to change how they approach games. Every week, and every season, it has been the same pattern with this team and this is exactly why fans were confused with the moves to retain the coach and GM.

Here’s the fundamental problem with the Colts under Chuck Pagano:

They have a game plan that is generally run heavy and more concerned with ball control. Which A) isn’t how the NFL operates anymore and B) doesn’t play to the team’s strengths.
That leads to a slow start and requires a generally large comeback. That not only puts more pressure on the defense, but also on Andrew Luck who at times starts pressing with his passes. Other times it leads to him being brilliant (like against the Lions).
This inevitably means the Colts have to spread the field out on offense and pass the ball more, which is what this offense is built for: a vertical passing attack. Then the Colts rally and make the game interesting, when they should have been doing this from the start.
This is what is so frustrating about Pagano and his coaching staff: they watch the film, and never seem to learn from it. It feels like they don’t understand what makes for a good game plan and are more interested in “winning their way” as opposed to just winning.

If you are going to espouse the concepts of “running the ball and stopping the run” you should, you know, be good at one of those things. The Colts aren’t and need to change how they approach each game. Pagano has talked often about fixing the slow starts and seems confused as to what the core problem is. It shouldn’t be hard to watch film and see what the offense is and isn’t doing when they actually move the ball.

Adding to the list of things Pagano needs to improve is his clock management. This isn’t the only time it has been a problem, but it is the first that it indirectly cost the Colts a game. The Colts took a timeout with just over a minute to play in order to get their preferred package in, but could have taken an additional 20 seconds off the clock in the process. They didn’t and it gave the Lions 37 seconds (they only needed about 30) to get into field goal range.

That doesn’t excuse the defense being eviscerated, but it could have forced the Lions into a Hail Mary attempt instead of a series of big gainers."

 

 

"So it was odd, to say the least, that it was Colts coach Chuck Pagano, not Lions coach Jim Caldwell, who called a timeout with 1:15 remaining. Pagano said after the game that he called timeout to get the right personnel on the field.

“We wanted to get guys in the huddle. Get a play called,” Pagano said. “Yeah, we can look back and say, ‘you know what, it would have been nice to bleed a lot more time off the clock.’ So looking back on it, could we have burned more time off the clock? Yeah. But we had some personnel issues, we wanted to get a different personnel group in there, whatever it was, and I decided to call a timeout there. Regroup and get back to the line of scrimmage. We felt like it was more important at that time to get back, get gathered, get a call in, and get settled, because we still needed a touchdown. And [we] felt like, shoot, they’re going to have to go whatever they have to go to get in field goal range and we could close it out.”

The personnel explanation doesn’t explain, however, why Pagano didn’t wait until there was one second left on the play clock to call the timeout. Pagano still could have bled time off, but he didn’t."

[threeflight]

8 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

The "timing" of that timeout doesn't matter considering the Lions drove down the field so fast that that even ran one more play than they needed to once they were in makeable field goal range.

 

Again, the timeout or the "timing" of it doesn't change the fact that the defense let Stafford and co. roll down and get a game-winning FG. That's the fact. Everything else you're claiming is hypothetical and is not reality. Yet, you've ignored that fact to push your false premise of this timeout gaffe like it would've magically made the Colts able to tackle players.

This makes zero sense.  I mean, why you just let the Lions have 2 minutes or 5 minutes or all the time they want if time makes no difference?

 

The fact is, if the Colts had used more time and/or made the Lions use their timeouts, the entire series of plays after the kick off would have been different.  They would have had to throw longer balls, towards the sidelines, instead of the dumpoffs they did.  It would have created more stress and pressure on the offense and that leads to mistakes.

 

And you know why I know I am right?

 

Because the Colts lost using your analysis.

[Restored]

3 minutes ago, threeflight said:

This makes zero sense.  I mean, why you just let the Lions have 2 minutes or 5 minutes or all the time they want if time makes no difference?

 

The fact is, if the Colts had used more time and/or made the Lions use their timeouts, the entire series of plays after the kick off would have been different.  They would have had to throw longer balls, towards the sidelines, instead of the dumpoffs they did.  It would have created more stress and pressure on the offense and that leads to mistakes.

 

And you know why I know I am right?

 

Because the Colts lost using your analysis.

 

No one said time doesn't make a difference. Of course you want to take as much time as you can when you are down there but the MOST important thing is scoring. The Colts don't score and the Lions take over on downs and likely end the game that way.

 

The Colts lost because they let the Lions drive down the field with 37 seconds left. Not because of your hollow hypothetical.

[21isSuperman]

52 minutes ago, bluxco said:

Time management was poor after LIONS leaping penalty.Why kick it oput of endzone?No timeoff clock plus u give em ball at 25 against a rag-tag secondary.

A good return could give them the ball beyond the 25.  Let's say you kick it just in front of the endzone and the returner catches it at the 5 yard line.  He only needs to go 20 yards to get to the 25, which is very doable.  Not only that, but with the penalty and us kicking it off from even further, the returner could see that the coverage unit is already very close to him and he could just let the ball go out of bounds.  You never know how the ball will bounce.  Kicking the ball out of the endzone wasn't the mistake that cost us the game.

[IinD]

I have no desire to get into a huge debate because some will defend their stance on Pagano until he retires or gets fired, but he's simply nothing more than an average coach. 

 

A situational awareness or clock management situation with a game in the balance usually shows those are his weaknesses. He showed it again after almost being let go at seasons end last year.

 

For myself, I'd bet good money if I gambled, he'll never win a SB here regardless of his roster. I'll leave the Grigson talent acquisition part out of this argument. That's an entirely other issue.

 

Chuck is probably a great position coach, but he's out of his league as a HC. No shame in that, I can name a dozen coordinators who crashed and burneda s HC's. Our oline coach being perfect example of that.

 

We should have had that situation fully prepared in case it happened. We literally broke camp a couple weeks ago. 

 

I digress, I'm still hopeful, but Chuck isn't going to be the guy to get us a ring. He got lucky no one better was out there last year, I feel that helped save his job.

[threeflight]

4 minutes ago, IinD said:

I have no desire to get into a huge debate because some will defend their stance on Pagano until he retireso our gets fired, but he's simply nothing more than an average coach. 

 

A situational awareness or clock management situation with a game in the balance usually shows those are good weaknesses. He showed it again after almost being let go at seasons end last year.

 

For myself, I'd bet good money if I gambled, he'll never win a SB here regardless of his roster. I'll leave the Grigson talent acquisition part out of this argument. That's an entirely other issue.

 

Chuck is probably a great position coach, but he's out of his league as a HC. No shame in that, I can name a dozen coordinators who crashed and burneda s HC's. Our oline coach being perfect example of that.

 

We should have had that situation fully prepared in case it happened. We literally broke camp a couple weeks ago. 

 

I digress, I'm still hopeful, but Chuck isn't going to be the guy to get us a ring. He got lucky no one better was out there last year, I feel that helped save his job.

Agree.   I said the same thing in a different thread.  Does anyone here have confidence he can lead this team to a SB?  I sure don't.  He has shown me nothing to tell me he is capable of that.  

 

So if you just signed Luck to the highest contract in NFL history and he is in his prime.....why are we wasting time with Pagano?

 

My only hope is Irsay is biding his time to go and get Harbaugh.  

[bluebombers87]

17 hours ago, GhostofJohnnyU said:

But you let the play clock run down first.

 

If Detroit calls the time out, so be it.  They have one less to use when they get the ball back.

 

Colts clearly left too much time and/or too many time outs on the board.

Here's what I'll say to that. Colts have had a makeshift line that rarely all played together all preseason. They needed to score. Time left on the board means nothing if you don't. Everyone's assuming Luck was going to march right into the end zone. They're assuming it but what would've happened if Luck throws 3 incomplete passes and we turn it over on downs? Time on the board still means nothing.

 

You do what you can to score and if that means calling a timeout to get everyone on the board you do it. You cannot assume your offense is going to score. Ever. You can only hope your defense can do what is needed to stop them.

 

Was this the right call? Personally I think if we had bled the clock and failed to score fans still would've blamed Pags because they don't know any better and it's the cool thing to do apparently. Pagano can't win with some of you people.

[threeflight]

6 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

Here's what I'll say to that. Colts have had a makeshift line that rarely all played together all preseason. They needed to score. Time left on the board means nothing if you don't. Everyone's assuming Luck was going to march right into the end zone. They're assuming it but what would've happened if Luck throws 3 incomplete passes and we turn it over on downs? Time on the board still means nothing.

 

You do what you can to score and if that means calling a timeout to get everyone on the board you do it. You cannot assume your offense is going to score. Ever. You can only hope your defense can do what is needed to stop them.

 

Was this the right call? Personally I think if we had bled the clock and failed to score fans still would've blamed Pags because they don't know any better and it's the cool thing to do apparently. Pagano can't win with some of you people.

Again, at the 12 yard line with 2 timeouts left, TIME IS NOT AN ISSUE in regards to scoring a TD.

 

At most, with it being second down, a team will run 7 plays from the 12 without scoring.  At 10 seconds a play, that is 70 seconds.  There were 75 on the clock.  And that is at 10 seconds  a play and running all 7 plays.  Odds of that happening?  10,000 to 1.  

 

I just for the life of me cannot understand how anyone who knows football cannot grasp this simple concept.  Have you seen teams run plays inside the 20 at the end of games?  They can run 5-6 plays in 30 seconds.  The Colts had 75 seconds.   And two timeouts.

 

To call a timeout without first running down the play clock was a HUGE error.  An error a NFL (or any coach) should never make.  And then Luck compounded it by snapping the ball after the review when he too could have run the clock down.  Surprising he didn't know better. And surprising that he wasn't told to do that.  

 

I know Manning would have.

[bluebombers87]

5 hours ago, Camio said:

 

I never disputed that the Colts might have had personnel issue. I'm not ever sure why you bring this up or why Pagano brought this up last night.

 

It has nothing to do with this gaffe.

 

If he doesnt call a TO as quickly and tries to milk the clock down before calling a TO, the Lions are forced to call a TO.

 

The only logical explanation to your/Pagano's argument for it to make sense is that the Colts wouldn't have been allowed to sub in had the Lions called a TO.

 

The fact is, Colts would've been able to sub all they want. Therefore, this argument makes no sense.

 

 

Hence the point, Pagano's gaffe prevented the Lions from burning a TO. His haffe also prevent him from saving his last TO.

 

You cant say Pagano didnt made a gaffe and then agree that it'd have been better for the Colts to still have 1 TO left while the Lions would've been down to 2.

 

That is the definition of a gaffe.

It was brought up by Pagano because they asked him.

 

Also what all of these Madden experts are forgetting is that if you bleed the clock, burn the timeout you remove any possible run or throw over the middle short of the goal line. Edge passes and end zone tosses are your only real bet unless you wanna eat a down by clocking it. Take the timeout, you set up a list of plays to try and get everyone on the same page.  

 

Really it's not the crucifixion worthy move you all want it to be.