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

[Restored]

Look, I understand everyone's frustration with the clock management/time situation but in all honesty, if the Colts don't score down there, it's irrelevant anyway. Yes, Detroit had 37 seconds and 3 timeouts but the defense had ample opportunities to make tackles and simply didn't deliver. Luck and co. did their job and used enough clock IMO. If you want to get angry, get angry at the defense for letting Matthew Stafford turn into a HOF QB.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, Dustin said:

He punted in the 4th quarter of a playoff game in which we were down 21 points for starters.

Off topic. Must you whine in every thread?

[CoachLite]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

Off topic. Must you whine in every thread?

Yeah. Quit complaining and accept the mediocrity we deserve.

[Dustin]

33 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Off topic. Must you whine in every thread?

 

That's rich coming from you. I thought you blocked me? Just can't get enough of me eh?

[pgt_rob]

He assembled the play with Griff Whalen and Colt Anderson that was supposed to never happen. I don't think I would have put that out there if I were Chuck. But that's history now.

[tfunky14]

54 minutes ago, Restored said:

Look, I understand everyone's frustration with the clock management/time situation but in all honesty, if the Colts don't score down there, it's irrelevant anyway. Yes, Detroit had 37 seconds and 3 timeouts but the defense had ample opportunities to make tackles and simply didn't deliver. Luck and co. did their job and used enough clock IMO. If you want to get angry, get angry at the defense for letting Matthew Stafford turn into a HOF QB.

So freak in true...

[tfunky14]

1 hour ago, SilentHill said:

oh look, another thread....

I know but was trying to point out the no clue football fans on here.

 

Corrections: fans to mean football IQ

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Restored said:

Look, I understand everyone's frustration with the clock management/time situation but in all honesty, if the Colts don't score down there, it's irrelevant anyway. Yes, Detroit had 37 seconds and 3 timeouts but the defense had ample opportunities to make tackles and simply didn't deliver. Luck and co. did their job and used enough clock IMO. If you want to get angry, get angry at the defense for letting Matthew Stafford turn into a HOF QB.

But if I were a HC, I would not expect my defense with a banged up secondary (which also gets exposed if I blitz with no stud pass rusher) to be able to hold Detroit, who had three time outs, from gaining enough yards to make a FG attempt.  The smarter strategy was to make scoring a TD the winning play, or lose right there if unsuccessful, IMO.

[Restored]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

But if I were a HC, I would not expect my defense with a banged up secondary (which also gets exposed if I blitz with no stud pass rusher) to be able to hold Detroit, who had three time outs, from gaining enough yards to make a FG attempt.  The smarter strategy was to make scoring a TD the winning play, or lose right there if unsuccessful, IMO.

 

Disagree. You give your team the best chance to win which is by taking the lead at any opportunity you get when you are that close. There are no guarantees you score if you try to milk the clock. Yes, it was obvious how bad the defense was playing but if you watch that last drive, the defense could've easily have negated a number of those plays with sound tackling. If the Colts stop them and win, no one is questioning Pagano's timeout decision.

[Coffeedrinker]

I disagree with the premise completely.  If all you need is a FG to win, and you are within FG range, you don't call the time out.  But when you need a TD to win you most certainly call the time out, especially after a play that got no yards and did not stop the clock.  At that point, all decisions are based on how to get the TD... not how much time is on the clock after you score the TD.

 

The decision to kick it out of the back of the endzone was a poor one,  Allowing the detroit receivers to run free 20 yards down field was a poor one.  But calling a timeout at 1:15 when you are training by 6 points is a pretty smart decision.

 

[Coffeedrinker]

1 minute ago, Restored said:

 

Disagree. You give your team the best chance to win which is by taking the lead at any opportunity you get when you are that close. There are no guarantees you score if you try to milk the clock. Yes, it was obvious how bad the defense was playing but if you watch that last drive, the defense could've easily have negated a number of those plays with sound tackling. If the Colts stop them and win, no one is questioning Pagano's timeout decision.

Exactly, you can't win the game unless you score more points than the other team,  You don't waste time and clock and chance it on the last play of the game.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Restored said:

 

Disagree. You give your team the best chance to win which is by taking the lead at any opportunity you get when you are that close. There are no guarantees you score if you try to milk the clock. Yes, it was obvious how bad the defense was playing but if you watch that last drive, the defense could've easily have negated a number of those plays with sound tackling. If the Colts stop them and win, no one is questioning Pagano's timeout decision.

IMO, to put it simply, you call TOs when you are in danger of running out of clock, it doesn't really help to score a TD, which is about play call and execution.  1:15 left and you're at the opponents 12, there is little danger of running out of clock even if its running. 

 

I'm not saying that a TO at some point wouldn't have been in order, maybe even after the next play, but at that point you don't need to take one.

 

Besides, not taking one there and having the clock still run would have put the pressure on Caldwell to make the decision, and by all accounts he would have called the TO.  Pagano is a nice guy and conservative.  Show some guts and force the opposing coach to take his TOs.

[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.

 

The situation reminded me of the 2003 week 13 game against the patriots.  2nd and 1 from the NE 9 with less time to play and the Colts ran out of downs before they ran out of time.

[deedub75]

13 hours ago, Mr.Debonair said:

Was the timeout questionable sure but the defense still let them go from the 25 yard line, all the way down the field with ease. This is on them 

 

If the defense wasn't so decimated, I wouldn't have had a problem with the timeout.  The defense had not been able to stop Detroit pretty much the entire game.  Why on earth would Chuck think they'd be able to stop them with that much time on the clock with 3 timeouts and only needing a FG?  The offense had show they it could put up points.  I think in that situation you take your chances of running more time off the clock and then try to score.  You can't really put this loss on the defense because it was held together with bubble gum and duct tape.  

[Restored]

8 minutes ago, DougDew said:

IMO, to put it simply, you call TOs when you are in danger of running out of clock, it doesn't really help to score a TD, which is about play call and execution.  1:15 left and you're at the opponents 12, there is little danger of running out of clock even if its running. 

 

I'm not saying that a TO at some point wouldn't have been in order, maybe even after the next play, but at that point you don't need to take one.

 

Besides, not taking one there and having the clock still run would have put the pressure on Caldwell to make the decision, and by all accounts he would have called the TO.  Pagano is a nice guy and conservative.  Show some guts and force the opposing coach to take his TOs.

 

The timeout wasn't about running out of clock. According to Pagano it was about getting the personnel and play call right, which in that situation is justifiably IMO if you need it. It doesn't negate that it was a coaching gaff but it was because the team didn't have the right personnel and not because of the time situation.

 

If the Colts get down there and don't score and then Pagano says after it was because the offense was out of sorts, everyone would've have clamored for him to call a timeout to get it sorted out so they could've scored.

[deedub75]

6 minutes ago, our_dbs_rock said:

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.

 

The situation reminded me of the 2003 week 13 game against the patriots.  2nd and 1 from the NE 9 with less time to play and the Colts ran out of downs before they ran out of time.

 

I would have been OK with Chuck making the business decision to leave as little time as possible instead of relying on a defense that could not stop a cold.  

[Jason_]

9 minutes ago, our_dbs_rock said:

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.

 

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.

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

The timeout wasn't about running out of clock. According to Pagano it was about getting the personnel and play call right, which in that situation is justifiably IMO if you need it. It doesn't negate that it was a coaching gaff but it was because the team didn't have the right personnel and not because of the time situation.

 

If the Colts get down there and don't score and then Pagano says after it was because the offense was out of sorts, everyone would've have clamored for him to call a timeout to get it sorted out so they could've scored.

I understand that.  That makes sense.  But still, it was second down and we could get a first down at the 4.  There was no urgency to get different personnel on the field at that time. That's what you do on 3rd down.

 

 All things considered, I would have lined up and run a play for the first down, thinking that I could spike the ball and save a TO to either pass or run it in from the 3.

[Camio]

5 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

The timeout wasn't about running out of clock. According to Pagano it was about getting the personnel and play call right, which in that situation is justifiably IMO if you need it. It doesn't negate that it was a coaching gaff but it was because the team didn't have the right personnel and not because of the time situation.

 

If the Colts get down there and don't score and then Pagano says after it was because the offense was out of sorts, everyone would've have clamored for him to call a timeout to get it sorted out so they could've scored.

 

The mistake was not calling a TO, the mistake was calling it without letting the playclock run to 1 second first, instead of calling it with 35 seconds left on it or whatever was left (35+).

 

Lions would've called a TO before the playclock ran down to 1 second tho.

 

Why? Because the Lions wanted to converse time.

 

Hence, Pagano's mistake. He could've forced the Lions to burn a TO and didnt. Its that simple. It happens weekly.

[IndySouthsider]

I am sure coach was more worried about getting 6 there than the clock. 

 

Kept waiting for Caldwell to call one like he did against the Jets in Mannings last season.

 

Issue is trying to open up as a power run team at beginning. How many stupid ways are we going to try this dumb crap? Play to your strengths and right now that's #12.  

[Camio]

7 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

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.

 

Going for a 1st instead of the endzone would've been a mistake anyway. Are you implying the coaching staff would've been dumb enough to do that?

 

That would've been a worst mistake. Funny to see you using that as an argument.

[our_dbs_rock]

Just now, Jason_S said:

 

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.

 

Yes, they could have gotten a first down.  And what?  They still should have had plenty of time.  They could have still stopped the clock later using a TO or another method.  Do you think they are only allowed to run 1 play every 45 seconds of game clock?  Teams practice moving the ball with little time left and limited chances to stop the clock.  If this team cannot run a hurry up offense then there are ever more serious coaching issues.  TIME WAS NOT A FACTOR.  Check out the play by play from the 2003 game I mentioned.  They had less time, they choose to run the ball multiple times and they still ran out of downs before time.  I'm not saying Luck and this team is equal or better than Manning and that team, but there was plenty of time, even with getting the first down.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, pgt_rob said:

He assembled the play with Griff Whalen and Colt Anderson that was supposed to never happen. I don't think I would have put that out there if I were Chuck. But that's history now.

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

[DougDew]

And the other point is, a running clock would have forced DET to use a TO, so you get the clock stopped to regroup anyway, if that was your intent.

[Jason_]

1 minute ago, Camio said:

 

Going for a 1st instead of the endzone was a mistake anyway. Are you implying the coaching staff would've been dumb enough to do that?

 

That would've been a worst mistake. Funny to see you using that as an argument.

 

Um, I never said that's what they were trying to do, so no I'm not implying that at all.  The point is, it was possible that they could have gotten a 1st down without scoring if a guy got stopped short of the end zone.

[RollerColt]

1 minute ago, our_dbs_rock said:

 

Yes, they could have gotten a first down.  And what?  They still should have had plenty of time.  They could have still stopped the clock later using a TO or another method.  Do you think they are only allowed to run 1 play every 45 seconds of game clock?  Teams practice moving the ball with little time left and limited chances to stop the clock.  If this team cannot run a hurry up offense then there are ever more serious coaching issues.  TIME WAS NOT A FACTOR.  Check out the play by play from the 2003 game I mentioned.  They had less time, they choose to run the ball multiple times and they still ran out of downs before time.  I'm not saying Luck and this team is equal or better than Manning and that team, but there was plenty of time, even with getting the first down.

On a side note: love the profile pic. Hill-Rom, representing my home town hahaha.... 

[Camio]

What alot of people dont grasp is this: the playclock would've never got down to 1 second before Pagano could call his TO.

 

Why? Because Caldwell would've been forced to use one of his. Not sure why its still hard to understand this simple concept.

 

Its funny how some posters are trying to explain Pagano's gaffe with "but time was an issue for the Colts".

 

I'll agree with you on something: time was an issue. Unfortunately for you, it was an issue for the Lions.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, Dustin said:

 

That's rich coming from you. I thought you blocked me? Just can't get enough of me eh?

Not when you make it impossible to ignore your shining sparkling narrow minded comments.

[RollerColt]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

And the other point is, a running clock would have forced DET to use a TO, so you get the clock stopped to regroup anyway, if that was your intent.

And I think Detroit was seriously going to do it too. Their defense was back-peddling like mad. They needed regrouping just as much as we did, if not more so. Jim was thinking hard before Chuck made the call for TO...

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

Off topic. Must you whine in every thread?

Not only is it every thread, its whining about the same thing in every thread, either Pagano or Grigson.  I know this thread is about Pagano, but still.......

[our_dbs_rock]

1 minute ago, RollerColt said:

On a side note: love the profile pic. Hill-Rom, representing my home town hahaha.... 

 

LOL, it was just a quick google image search.  Superman felt that I need to change my name, so I settled for and appropriate avatar to fit our current situation.

[IndySouthsider]

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.

[Camio]

1 minute ago, Jason_S said:

 

Um, I never said that's what they were trying to do, so no I'm not implying that at all.  The point is, it was possible that they could have gotten a 1st down without scoring if a guy got stopped short of the end zone.

 

Your argument makes no sense.

 

There would've still been 1:15 or so left, Colts would still have a TO but the Lions would've had only 2 left. Even if we buy your argument, how does it makes sense in this scenario.

 

The playclock would've NEVER gotten down to 1 second because Caldwell would've been forced to burn a TO.

 

Not milking the playclock and calling a TO right away (Pagano) prevented the Lions from wasting a TO. That was the mistake.

[RollerColt]

Just now, our_dbs_rock said:

 

LOL, it was just a quick google image search.  Superman felt that I need to change my name, so I settled for and appropriate avatar to fit our current situation.

Oh it fits it to a tee, that's for sure! Bwahahaha...

[Gavin]

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

[Dustin]

 

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Not only is it every thread, its whining about the same thing in every thread, either Pagano or Grigson.  I know this thread is about Pagano, but still.......

 

How dare I talk about Pagano in a thread about Pagano. How dare I directly answer the question of the OP.

[Everyone]

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

[Restored]

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I understand that.  That makes sense.  But still, it was second down and we could get a first down at the 4.  There was no urgency to get different personnel on the field at that time. That's what you do on 3rd down.

 

 All things considered, I would have lined up and run a play for the first down, thinking that I could spike the ball and save a TO to either pass or run it in from the 3.

 

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.

[Jason_]

1 minute 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

 

 

**only inappropriate in that it's entirely off-topic lol

[Restored]

4 minutes ago, Camio said:

 

Your argument makes no sense.

 

There would've still been 1:15 or so left, Colts would still have a TO but the Lions would've had only 2 left. Even if we buy your argument, how does it makes sense in this scenario.

 

The playclock would've NEVER gotten down to 1 second because Caldwell would've been forced to burn a TO.

 

Not milking the playclock and calling a TO right away (Pagano) prevented the Lions from wasting a TO. That was the mistake.

 

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.