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

[BlueShoe]

6 minutes ago, our_dbs_rock said:

 

I'll go with poor coverage.  Just like the previous 2 times the colts scored by throwing to a tightend.  Buy hey, I'm no expert, I just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

 

Actually it was a heck of a pass and an even better catch. 

 

The ball went over one LB and under another. Had they been playing pass only then the MLB would have dropped more and it would have made the play even more difficult. 

 

Luck and Doyle made that look easy, but it wasn't.

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

Oh yeah Grigson really has done his part

[Aces101]

Pagano - how would you have defended yourself if this scenario played out after the dumb timeout call:

 

What if the Colts would have only gotten a first down on the touchdown play and had no timeouts left with 40 sec left?  Say they either run Gore up the middle and he does not get into the end zone or Luck gets sacked?  Then it's scramble mode too with no timeouts.  I guess they could spike the ball to kill the clock or go one dimensional following this timeout blunder, but then it's the same argument that you've made against us about wasting clock time (our method still would have had a timeout in hand to use if necessary though).  

 

The only argument you have is that they scored....but it left way to much time on the clock and allowed the Lions to keep all of their timeouts.  If they had burned more clock and scored, we'd all be happy tonight.

[Camio]

1 minute ago, BlueShoe said:

 

Actually it was a heck of a pass and an even better catch. 

 

The ball went over one LB and under another. Had they been playing pass only then the MLB would have dropped more and it would have made the play even more difficult. 

 

Luck and Doyle made that look easy, but it wasn't.

 

You are seriously trying to convince us the Lions were playing the run?

[Colts_Fan12]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Only took him 5 years to finally draft someone to really help the o line 

 

I wish I had the luxury of taking my sweet * time doing things at my job

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

Only took him 5 years to finally draft someone to really help the o line 

[BlueShoe]

Just now, Camio said:

 

You are seriously trying to convince us the Lions were playing the run?

 

They had to respect the option for us to run the ball.

[NewColtsFan]

5 minutes ago, Camio said:

 

I assume you werent a Colts fan 6 years ago or so?

 

... and btw, since i assume you were, you should remember Caldwell blunders with managing the clock when he was in Indy.

 

The fact he didnt messed up today doesnt mean he's good at managing the clock.

 

Several points......    one,  I wasn't a Colts fan back then.    I joined up in 2012 when Luck arrived.

 

2nd,  Caldwell is the guy who took the Colts to a Super Bowl,  who became the OC for Baltimore in week 14 of the 2013 season and took them to a Super Bowl Victory,  and who led the Lions to a 6-2 record in their last 8 games last year.

 

The fact that a person was once bad at something doesn't mean he always will be.    People do get better.

 

The fact that Caldwell was once bad at clock management doesn't mean he always will be.     He was terrific today.       And for now,  today is all that matters.     Not 6 years ago.

 

[jimmy g]

13 minutes ago, Camio said:

 

You're the one who brought up playing to get a first down to milk the clock.

 

We are saying playing for a first down to milk the clock (you're whole argument) was dumb because:

1) 1st down isnt guarranteed

2) its just more chances for a turnover

 

This is why Pagano messed up with the clock management on that timeout.

 

I'm not even sure why you're still trying to save the face at this point, sorry to say.

 

Saying not running the clock before calling that TO because the Colts couldve gotten a first down, hence milking the clock, is beyond dumb.

 

Sorry.

He didn't say Colts should try for a first down. He said a first down was a possibly. Not every play called for a TD works.

[Colts_Fan12]

Just now, DougDew said:

Nice response glad to know you know our GM blows but you can't just come out and say it 

[Camio]

2 minutes ago, Aces101 said:

Pagano - how would you have defended yourself if this scenario played out after the dumb timeout call:

 

What if the Colts would have only gotten a first down on the touchdown play and had no timeouts left with 40 sec left?  Say they either run Gore up the middle and he does not get into the end zone or Luck gets sacked?  Then it's scramble mode too with no timeouts.  I guess they could spike the ball to kill the clock or go one dimensional following this timeout blunder, but then it's the same argument that you've made against us about wasting clock time (our method still would have had a timeout in hand to use if necessary though).  

 

The only argument you have is that they scored....but it left way to much time on the clock and allowed the Lions to keep all of their timeouts.  If they had burned more clock and scored, we'd all be happy tonight.

 

I think everyone kenw the Colts were gonna go for passing plays where the routes were going in the endzone.

 

Colts cant run the ball. Lions know it. Colts know it. You know it. I know it. We all know it.

 

It was either a TD at this point or nothing. With 35-40 secs left, it'd have been plenty of time to get one. Thats more than 4 plays anyway.

[threeflight]

3 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:

 

They had to respect the option for us to run the ball.

OMG

[BlueShoe]

5 minutes ago, Aces101 said:

Pagano - how would you have defended yourself if this scenario played out after the dumb timeout call:

 

What if the Colts would have only gotten a first down on the touchdown play and had no timeouts left with 40 sec left?  Say they either run Gore up the middle and he does not get into the end zone or Luck gets sacked?  Then it's scramble mode too with no timeouts.  I guess they could spike the ball to kill the clock or go one dimensional following this timeout blunder, but then it's the same argument that you've made against us about wasting clock time (our method still would have had a timeout in hand to use if necessary though).  

 

The only argument you have is that they scored....but it left way to much time on the clock and allowed the Lions to keep all of their timeouts.  If they had burned more clock and scored, we'd all be happy tonight.

 

That's how crazy the argument is to begin with.

 

It's unbelievable.

[BlueShoe]

2 minutes ago, Camio said:

 

I think everyone kenw the Colts were gonna go for passing plays where the routes were going in the endzone.

 

Colts cant run the ball. Lions know it. Colts know it. You know it. I know it. We all know it.

 

It was either a TD at this point or nothing. With 35-40 secs left, it'd have been plenty of time to get one. Thats more than 4 plays anyway.

 

I didn't see the Lions dropping everyone into coverage and daring us to run the ball.

 

If they had then we would have.

[Camio]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

The fact that Caldwell was once bad at clock management doesn't mean he always will be.     He was terrific today.       And for now,  today is all that matters.     Not 6 years ago.

 

 

I do agree with you.

 

Today, unlike when he messed up repeatedly with the Colts, clock management wise, he didnt mess up today.

 

I recall Caldwell blunders vs the Titans and Jets (playoffs) off the top of my head. Reid is another notoriously bad clock manager.

 

Ask anyone following the Eagles closely. Heck, he hasnt really improved with the Chiefs.

[RollerColt]

I'm wondering if we will ever win a super bowl in Luck's era. Seriously. It's hard folks, a lot of good things have to align and happen. 

 

All things considered, this reminds me of Marino's Dolphins... Great offenses, with lots of bad luck and terrible defensive effort. Every single player has to give their heart and blood to the field to win. 

[jimmy g]

17 minutes ago, Camio said:

 

You're the one trying to come up with bizarre stuff to explain Pagano's mistake.

 

No way in hell did the Lions played or would've played the run against the Colts with the way the Colts chewed them passing the ball in this game.

 

The Colts dont even have a running gmae to begin with so why would any team playing the Colts play the run anyway?

 

This just in: Glenn and Edge are no longer Colts.

I only heard it on radio, but I seem to recall Gore getting good gains on that drive, since Lions expected passes.

[Camio]

8 minutes ago, jimmy g said:

He didn't say Colts should try for a first down. He said a first down was a possibly. Not every play called for a TD works.

 

Scroll up, he did.

 

He said milking the clock by going for a first down was a good idea.

 

He brought this up as the reason why running the clock down on that TO call wasnt needed.

 

Btw, if you dont let the clock run before that TO, then playing for a 1st down is the correct strategy to milk the clock.

 

Problem is Pagano did neither.

 

And, why would you anwyay milk the clock by trying to get a 1st down and have more chances at a turnover when you can milk the clock before calling that TO then, you go for the TD.

 

Its simple. It really is.

 

Milking the clock by trying to get a 1st down was the more risky strategy. In fact, its a dumb one and I'm not sure why one would argue for that.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, 21isSuperman said:

Even with that, I don't hate the call.  Get everyone on the same page because you're near the goal line and you don't have much to work with.  Reiterate to the receivers to get out of bounds if they catch it, emphasize to Luck to either make a safe throw or throw it out of bounds and not risk it.  I don't hate the decision to take a  time out in that situation

You do that after you get the first down.  There was still 75 seconds.  There was plenty of time.

[BlueShoe]

5 minutes ago, threeflight said:

OMG

 

Nice response.

 

Respecting the option for a team to both run and pass is a real thing.

 

You might want to start watching more football so you can figure that part out.

[our_dbs_rock]

9 minutes ago, Aces101 said:

Pagano - how would you have defended yourself if this scenario played out after the dumb timeout call:

 

What if the Colts would have only gotten a first down on the touchdown play and had no timeouts left with 40 sec left?  Say they either run Gore up the middle and he does not get into the end zone or Luck gets sacked?  Then it's scramble mode too with no timeouts.  I guess they could spike the ball to kill the clock or go one dimensional following this timeout blunder, but then it's the same argument that you've made against us about wasting clock time (our method still would have had a timeout in hand to use if necessary though).  

 

The only argument you have is that they scored....but it left way to much time on the clock and allowed the Lions to keep all of their timeouts.  If they had burned more clock and scored, we'd all be happy tonight.

 

I don't think anyone would have been happy.  Happier than they are now, yes.  Happy, no.  The offense continued it's trend of starting slow.  Still no real running game.  They defense gave up tons of big play.  No one was able to tackle.  More injuries to the DBs.  Even if they would have won, I don't think it would have really been the time to celebrate.

[Gavin]

I actually fell asleep midway through the 3rd quarter so cant really give any opinions past that point till I go back and watch the game after Sunday night football. Bad Gavin bad!!

[BlueShoe]

9 hours ago, our_dbs_rock said:

 

I don't think anyone would have been happy.  Happier than they are now, yes.  Happy, no.  The offense continued it's trend of starting slow.  Still no real running game.  They defense gave up tons of big play.  No one was able to tackle.  More injuries to the DBs.  Even if they would have won, I don't think it would have really been the time to celebrate.

 

Which leads us to the real problem, which is the fact that we lost.

 

There are some people who believe that when we lose; someone must be blamed, and that some one must be fired. 

Edited September 12, 2016 by Nadine
Baiting

[chad72]

2 hours ago, Jules said:

Jim Caldwell outcoached Pagano.  

 

And we hated Caldwell back in the day.  

 

Both cases were coaches out coaching themselves, Caldwell in that playoff game, and Pagano here.

 

At least ice the kicker and use the last timeout. Not sure if it would've mattered but hey, you did have one left

 

Need some desperation mode in Denver.

[JPFolks]

1 hour 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. 

I agree with all but the end.  The fact we were even in the game was significant.  Were were beyond scraping the bottom of the barrel on defense most of the game.  The line played mostly well.  The timeout which did lose us the game simply erased any positive credit he deserved and it's a wash.  Time management has always been a weakness and Pagano's boss is ultimately responsible for his continued poor performance in that area.  He has a boss.. his boss is at fault for not fixing him or if he's tried to fix him and it didn't work, then he shouldn't have kept him around.  What could have been Pagano's best coaching job of his career was just tossed away.  

 

The play calling by Chud was horrendous for most of the first half,  Predictable runs and 3 and outs,  The defense couldn't tackle in the second half, but they were exhausted, so I'll cut them some slack.  So we should be 1-0. but at 0-1 in one of our most winnable non divisional games, it is not something we can afford.  Our second half schedule is brutal and our division is going to be the hardest since Luck arrived.   

 

The good news is our strength is clear and obvious.  Luck was a stud, so were our TE's and WR's and I have been screaming for more vigorous use of the TE's all year last year and all offseason.  Our line was improved over last year, but they have the toughest game of the season next week for them.  I just hope Luck and our pass catchers escape Denver with their health.  A win seems unlikely with our decimated defense.  

 

I was screaming "run the clock, keep the clock running, if there's any time left, Stafford will get them in field goal range" through the entirety of the final drive just as I am sure many of you were.  If we all knew it. why didn't anyone in power with the Colts know it?  Everybody was celebrating after we scored and I just thought, "wow, we just lost the game...."  Just sad.  

[Camio]

6 minutes ago, jimmy g said:

I only heard it on radio, but I seem to recall Gore getting good gains on that drive, since Lions expected passes.

 

If Pagano's plan was stopping the clock to then run to get a 1st down and milk the clock, thats 1 strategy. The thing is, the Colts didnt ran. They were not anwyay. We all knew it was gonna be a passing TD from Luck because that was the best shot for the Colts.

 

The fact they didnt even try to milk the clock with the run after the TO shows how shortsighted Pagano's TO call was.

[jimmy g]

17 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:

 

Actually it was a heck of a pass and an even better catch. 

 

The ball went over one LB and under another. Had they been playing pass only then the MLB would have dropped more and it would have made the play even more difficult. 

 

Luck and Doyle made that look easy, but it wasn't.

According to Sogi (on radio), it was probably meant for Moncrief. Doyle just went up and got it.

[DougDew]

Yes the slow start cost us points.  We dinked and dunked it until the O line showed it could block, then we went down field more.

 

We don't have a dink and dunk offense yet because our RBs and TEs are slow.  And, except for Doyle, no RB or TE gets much separation.  Contrast that with Detroit who has two RBs that can do something with the ball in space and a starting TE that can get separation.

 

We started slow, in part, because of the play calling.  Not bad, it just doesn't suit are talent yet.

 

Obviously the D hurt us, but I thought Robinson and Cromartie covered well.  Vontae tackles well in the running game and he was missed.

 

But, with the game near the end, we still could have won if the HC had a feel for what was happening on the field.  The offenses were starting to take over the game and at that point you don't stop the clock from winding down when you are inside the opponents 10 behind by 4.  You take the timeout when you think you are going to run out of time, not with 75 seconds left and you're moving the ball.

[BlueShoe]

1 minute ago, jimmy g said:

According to Sogi (on radio), it was probably meant for Moncrief. Doyle just went up and got it.

 

Possible, but it didn't look that way to me. Sure Mocrief was crossing in the back of the end zone, but it looks like Luck was locked in on Mocrief with his first read, and then his second read was Doyle. You can see his head turn toward Doyle just before he throws the ball. 

 

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2016091111/2016/REG1/lions@colts#contentId=0ap3000000700531&menu=gameinfo|contentId%3A0ap3000000700710&tab=recap

[jimmy g]

11 minutes ago, Camio said:

 

Scroll up, he did.

 

He said milking the clock by going for a first down was a good idea.

 

He brought this up as the reason why running the clock down on that TO call wasnt needed.

 

Btw, if you dont let the clock run before that TO, then playing for a 1st down is the correct strategy to milk the clock.

 

Problem is Pagano did neither.

 

And, why would you anwyay milk the clock by trying to get a 1st down and have more chances at a turnover when you can milk the clock before calling that TO then, you go for the TD.

 

Its simple. It really is.

 

Milking the clock by trying to get a 1st down was the more risky strategy. In fact, its a dumb one and I'm not sure why one would argue for that.

When we had Peyton, I'd agree 100%. We don't.  We have rookies and first time starters on the Line, and extraordinary 3rd down plays to be in the game. Colts aren't Super Bowl Contenders. I take what I can get from this bunch.

[DougDew]

11 minutes ago, our_dbs_rock said:

 

I'm not saying the TO cost them the game and I'm pretty sure most of the others here are not either.  But it could have won them the game by not calling it and doing better to manage the clock at the end.

 

I think the biggest concern to come from this game is the poor tackling.  I would hate to see what the numbers are for yards after contact.  There were so many 1st down the defense gave up just because they couldn't wrap them up or they took poor angles and get off the field on 3rd down.  I would have expected more issues with blown coverage or just the WR's out performing the 6th string DB, but that wasn't really the issues.  Also, the lack of pass rush is still there.  That has to be the number one priority at this point via trade, free agency, or the next draft.

Abdullah and Riddick are hard to tackle.  With their size, that's why they make the roster and play a lot.

[NewColtsFan]

22 minutes ago, Camio said:

 

I do agree with you.

 

Today, unlike when he messed up repeatedly with the Colts, clock management wise, he didnt mess up today.

 

I recall Caldwell blunders vs the Titans and Jets (playoffs) off the top of my head. Reid is another notoriously bad clock manager.

 

Ask anyone following the Eagles closely. Heck, he hasnt really improved with the Chiefs.

 

I learned this view the hard way......      the first two years Harbaugh was at Stanford he was dreadful with clock management.

 

His 3rd year,  only slightly better,   but not much.

 

But in his 4th year,  things slowed way down for him,  things made sense,  and he got much, much better at clock management.      So, he learned.      Slowly.

 

I recognize that not everyone does.     Some never get it.

 

I'm trying to give Caldwell some credit.     I appreciate that many here have nightmares from his years here.

 

I'd love to know the story of why we called time out when we did?     Was that Luck?    Pagano?    Chud?    And why?       I'd love to know.....

 

[Iancolts]

We are in serious trouble because of Grigson and Pagano.  How in the world does NE without Gronk and Brady hang with AZ at there house!  How does a Minnesota Team full of rookies with a backup QB that isn't even close to being a good fit for a back QB win the game against Tennesee.  We have a healthy Luck yet we come out sluggish like every other year.  I'm tired of Grigson drafting projects and signing old FA or average players.  I don't care if he signs them to friendly contracts it doesn't mater he still used up all cap space.  I'm tired of Pagano hybrid D it doesn't work here we don't have the personnel.  Grigson made sure of that with all his stupid FA and drafts. 

[threeflight]

I am going to quote this from another thread and forum because it is exactly how I feel.

 

GBB88....

 

It's a problem. It's not the problem. A big problem -- for instance -- is having real talent on the roster in Luck, Hilton, Moncrief and Dorsett, but opting to run some **** Matt Hasselbeck offense for the first 1.5 quarters of play, often leaving Dorsett off the field entirely. To force a run game. That isn't there. Because it's what the HC thinks should be a team identity. That is a problem. And it has nothing to do with the GM. It has to do with the HC minimizing available talent because he has archaic beliefs and an inability to see the roster for what it really is. Similarly, calling TOs at the end of a game instead of chewing clock, because you coach based on having faith in your defense, is also foolish.

[our_dbs_rock]

Just now, BlueShoe said:

 

You're complaining because we scored. 

 

How about putting that into perspective?

 

Please showed me where I complained about the Colts scoring?  In fact, I was thrilled when they scored considering I'm probably the only person who has a Doyle jersey outside of the Doyle family.  This whole discussion is about time management via timeouts not about the colts scoring too fast.

[GhostofJohnnyU]

2 hours ago, bluebombers87 said:

Not in the minority. You take the timeout, lay out the strategy for when you get the first down in case you are in bounds. Clearly a lot of armchair coaches with very little football experience.

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.

[JPFolks]

25 minutes ago, our_dbs_rock said:

 

I don't think anyone would have been happy.  Happier than they are now, yes.  Happy, no.  The offense continued it's trend of starting slow.  Still no real running game.  They defense gave up tons of big play.  No one was able to tackle.  More injuries to the DBs.  Even if they would have won, I don't think it would have really been the time to celebrate.

If he'd properly run the clock and we simply failed to score, I would have felt much better than blundering their way to an unnecessary loss like they did.  :Luck and the offense were clutch... whoever called the TO (which as far as I am aware was Pagano) lost the game for us. We essentially had NO DEFENSIVE BACKFIELD left with any gas in the tank because the same guys had to play every play and some barely knew the names of the guys they were playing next to.  Had we lost being smart trying to win, there would have been less anxiety.  It was an all world effort by Luck and the offense to get us back in the game and to score so late to take the lead.  The caretaker of the big picture, Pagano, let everyone down.  If we'd won, I had a lot of positives to talk about, but throwing it away erases it all and makes it pointless.  Losing like that always feels worse than simply getting beat.  We had control, we gave it away.  Going forward they need to just unleash the offense from the start.. if we can't run it, so be it.  Pass pass and pass.  Our WR's and TE's can collectively beat anyone's defense IF Luck has time and health. Let's win now and worry about the run game when we show we can actually do it consistently, not after wasting 3 straight drives getting 35 yards to put us in a 14 point hole we were chasing the rest of the game.  

[threeflight]

8 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:

 

I have seen every Indianapolis Colts game, and played football too. #18 was Mike Pagel when I started watching the Colts. 

 

Should we start measuring now?

I just cannot for the life of me understand why YOU THINK it is not important that there is a minute left on the clock and the Colts on the 10 yard line instead of there being under 35 or so....especially with the way the Colts D played all game.  If they had played stellar?  Then fine.....was still a wrong move to call a TO with that much time left but at least you have some hope.

 

Tell me....with 45 seconds left, 3 TOs, and the ball on the 25....did you really think the Colts D would hold the Lions?  I didn't.

[BlueShoe]

3 minutes ago, threeflight said:

I just cannot for the life of me understand why YOU THINK it is not important that there is a minute left on the clock and the Colts on the 10 yard line instead of there being under 35 or so....especially with the way the Colts D played all game.  If they had played stellar?  Then fine.....was still a wrong move to call a TO with that much time left but at least you have some hope.

 

Tell me....with 45 seconds left, 3 TOs, and the ball on the 25....do you really think the Colts D would hold the Lions?  I didn't.

 

It's not just my thinking. It's anyone who is SANE!

 

Because touchdowns are not guaranteed. And first downs are not guaranteed either. 

 

If we only needed a field goal then your strategy would be correct. You have the wrong situation though, because we needed a touchdown. If we could have scored with 1:15 then we would have, and it would be the right thing to do. 

 

A lead gives us a chance.

[our_dbs_rock]

1 minute ago, JPFolks said:

If he'd properly run the clock and we simply failed to score, I would have felt much better than blundering their way to an unnecessary loss like they did.  :Luck and the offense were clutch... whoever called the TO (which as far as I am aware was Pagano) lost the game for us. We essentially had NO DEFENSIVE BACKFIELD left with any gas in the tank because the same guys had to play every play and some barely knew the names of the guys they were playing next to.  Had we lost being smart trying to win, there would have been less anxiety.  It was an all world effort by Luck and the offense to get us back in the game and to score so late to take the lead.  The caretaker of the big picture, Pagano, let everyone down.  If we'd won, I had a lot of positives to talk about, but throwing it away erases it all and makes it pointless.  Losing like that always feels worse than simply getting beat.  We had control, we gave it away.  Going forward they need to just unleash the offense from the start.. if we can't run it, so be it.  Pass pass and pass.  Our WR's and TE's can collectively beat anyone's defense IF Luck has time and health. Let's win now and worry about the run game when we show we can actually do it consistently, not after wasting 3 straight drives getting 35 yards to put us in a 14 point hole we were chasing the rest of the game.  

 

What tore the defense up at the end was not really the DBs fault.  They were not responsible for covering the RBs.

 

Maybe they will take a page out of the Manning Colt days and use the pass to open up the run game, rather than just try to start every game off by running between the tackles.