Timeout

[rockywoj]

8 hours ago, Superman said:

 

The Cardinals were going to let the clock run, then use their last timeout to stop the clock and try the FG. Not calling a timeout wouldn't have forced the Cardinals to do anything. 

Apparently we're talking about two different things.  I am talking about the Colt's last possession third down call.  They needed to run a play that keeps the clock running.  Get the first down and the Colts can call a time out.  Don't get a first down and it then forces the Cardinals to burn their last time out.  In other words, the Cards would not have had time to drive the field for a potential game winning field goal.

[rockywoj]

8 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I don't think it was clear, and I think the original spot was off and they should have respotted and measured. Hilton still was probably short, but I don't mind the challenge given the situation.

Well I beg to disagree.  I wanted to see if TY was touched down before that second lunge of his gave him first down yardage.   The first replay CLEARLY showed that TY lunged down of his own volition untouched.  But then it CLEARLY showed TY getting touched by the Card player while he was on the ground BEFORE he then lu ged forward again for the first down yardage.  It was clear as day.  You are hard pressed to get a clearer replay than that.

 

people say it was inconsequential, well, at the end of the first half, up by only one score, if the Colts had gone for the 1st down to set up a half ending FG instead of just running out the clock, that lost timeout because of the bad challenge would have loomed large, for if they had gotten the first down and used a TO to stop the clock, they'd have had no time outs left to easily stop the clock thereafter for a FG attempt, had they succeeded in gaining more yardage to get themselves into FG position.

 

So as things played out, because of the dumb decision to not try to go up by a 2nd score, the lost timeout was inconsequential.  BUT it was yet another dumb coaching decision that potentially puts the Colts in a tough spot, short a crucial timeout.

[John Waylon]

Not sure what the outrage is over here. 

 

Not because it didn't actually matter in the end, but because it's not the first (or second. Or third. Or...) time it's happened under Pagano. He's defended these choices in the past, so yesterday was just another example to throw on the pile with the rest of them. Pagano gonna Pagano. 

 

The worst part of all is that he's never learned his lesson about this (it's always worked against us) and no one ever tells him about it. He thinks it's the right thing to do, and apparently everyone around and above him does as well. 

 

He's outcoaching himself before the game has started. If I am coaching against us, during the week in practice I am going to make damn sure my team knows that "hey, if we're driving late and need a FG hurry back to the line every single play with less than 30 seconds to go. Run back to line up like your butt is on fire. Pagano will take timeouts and give us some free plays."

 

Pagano gonna Pagano. 

[chad72]

If I were a coach and I had a timeout like the Cardinals had, and Pagano gifted me the time out, I'd try a throw and get closer because the middle of the field is open and I don't have to hug the sidelines thanks to the timeout in the pocket. I'd tell my QB to not take sacks and the OL to be aware for holding.

 

I was surprised Arians did not try to do that because Palmer was hitting a small rhythm albeit not a terrific one (maybe he was being kind to his friend Chuck or was in disbelief j/k  ). That is basically what Rex Ryan did with Mark Sanchez when Caldwell gifted him a time out, he ran an extra play and got a quick completion and got Nick Folk a closer FG in the 2010 playoff game. This forum would have flipped out even more if Arians called a pass and got a completion for a closer FG after that. 

 

Those time outs at the end of games can provoke reactionary responses. Tony Dungy once took a bad time out and once Jeff Fisher realized Dungy did not have any time outs, he went ahead and asked his kicker to go for a 59 yard FG, remember that?

 

We played an AVERAGE Cardinals team, guys, and should have come out with a win, especially with the way our D played. It was disappointing we couldn't. 

[Freenyfan102]

[Freenyfan102]

 

 

He does't know it like he waiting on a treat

[Coffeedrinker]

On 9/18/2017 at 7:07 AM, rockywoj said:

Apparently we're talking about two different things.  I am talking about the Colt's last possession third down call.  They needed to run a play that keeps the clock running.  Get the first down and the Colts can call a time out.  Don't get a first down and it then forces the Cardinals to burn their last time out.  In other words, the Cards would not have had time to drive the field for a potential game winning field goal.

Arizona had just called a timeout, so the clock was not running.  After AZ called a timeout then the Colts did for some more time to talk over the play.

 

1st down the Doyle catches a pass

2nd down sack

AZ calls a timeout

Ind calls a timeout

3rd down incomplete pass.

 

I'm not sure what the big deal about that TO is.

[rockywoj]

19 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Arizona had just called a timeout, so the clock was not running.  After AZ called a timeout then the Colts did for some more time to talk over the play.

 

1st down the Doyle catches a pass

2nd down sack

AZ calls a timeout

Ind calls a timeout

3rd down incomplete pass.

 

I'm not sure what the big deal about that TO is.

Again you seem to be missing the point.   What I and the guy I quoted are talking about is the 3rd down play, the incomplete pass.  We are saying that was a horrible play call because the incomplete 3rd down pass stops the clock.  If they had run a delay draw or high percentage dump off pass, the Colts player is tackled in bounds, meaning the clock will keep running.  This would force AZ to use their final time out to stop the clock, leaving them with no timeouts after the upcoming punt.  Ergo, if the Colts coaching staff had a clue, they would have run a play that runs the clock, forcing AZ to use their final timeout, thus not allowing AZ time to drive down for what should have been the game winning FG.

[Coffeedrinker]

4 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

Again you seem to be missing the point.   What I and the guy we quoted are talking about is the 3rd down play, the incomplete pass.  We are saying that was a horrible play call because the incomplete 3rd down pass stops the clock.  If they had run a delay draw or high percentage dump off pass, the Colts player is tackled in bounds, meaning the clock will keep running.  This would force AZ to use their final time out to stop the clock, leaving them with no timeouts after the upcoming punt.  Ergo, if the Colts coaching staff had a clue, they would have run a play that runs the clock, forcing AZ to use their final timeout, thus not allowing AZ time to drive down for what should have been the game winning FG.

You're right partly, I missed your point I was going by the title of the thread is Timeout.  And asking is someone can explain the timeout.

 

And I see your point, somewhat.  An argument can be made either way but it's not like the Colts had the lead, the game was tied,. I you run in that situation that is pretty much giving up regulation play and playing for OT.(and then there would be fans on this forum crying about how Pagano didn't try to win).

 

I have no problem doing a fairly safe, high percentage pass in that situation.  A run just moves the game into OT a bit quicker.  If the Colts were winning, then absolutely, you run the ball for AZ to use their last time out.

[rockywoj]

1 hour ago, Coffeedrinker said:

You're right partly, I missed your point I was going by the title of the thread is Timeout.  And asking is someone can explain the timeout.

 

And I see your point, somewhat.  An argument can be made either way but it's not like the Colts had the lead, the game was tied,. I you run in that situation that is pretty much giving up regulation play and playing for OT.(and then there would be fans on this forum crying about how Pagano didn't try to win).

 

I have no problem doing a fairly safe, high percentage pass in that situation.  A run just moves the game into OT a bit quicker.  If the Colts were winning, then absolutely, you run the ball for AZ to use their last time out.

Third and long, deep in your own end, and given the abysmal percentage of third down conversions that the Colts have been operating on this preseason and season so far, odds are 3rd down conversion will fail.  

 

I would still want and hope to convert ... and in so trying, calling a tricky delayed draw running play or a pass sending a bunch of receivers on deep "clear-out" routes with a swing-out pass or pass underneath to Marlin Mack,either of which still might just succeed in getting that 3rd down conversion.  If either of those two possible play calls fail, though, the clock runs, thereby forcing AZ to use their last timeout.  Then post punt, AZ has virtually no time to get into FG range for a game winning FG.

 

To me (and others, evidently), such in-game awareness is a coaching no brainer.  An effective coach has to balance aggressiveness with defensive strategizing.  Instead, NO awareness was exercized resulting in a bad 3rd down play call, leaving time and a timeout left for AZ to, sure enough, drive down for a last second game winning FG attempt.  Inexcusable, is say!

 

I also believe Bruce Arians was boneheaded dumb in not taking the FGs early, instead going for it (and failing) on 4th down.  That early, against an inept Colts offense, you simply take the points.  Way too often sacrificed FG points in the name of (failed) aggressiveness end up being the points difference.  Early, take the easy points!

[Coffeedrinker]

30 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

Third and long, deep in your own end, and given the abysmal percentage of third down conversions that the Colts have been operating on this preseason and season so far, odds are 3rd down conversion will fail.  

 

I would still want and hope to convert ... and in so trying, calling a tricky delayed draw running play or a pass sending a bunch of receivers on deep "clear-out" routes with a swing-out pass or pass underneath to Marlin Mack,either of which still might just succeed in getting that 3rd down conversion.  If either of those two possible play calls fail, though, the clock runs, thereby forcing AZ to use their last timeout.  Then post punt, AZ has virtually no time to get into FG range for a game winning FG.

 

To me (and others, evidently), such in-game awareness is a coaching no brainer.  An effective coach has to balance aggressiveness with defensive strategizing.  Instead, NO awareness was exercized resulting in a bad 3rd down play call, leaving time and a timeout left for AZ to, sure enough, drive down for a last second game winning FG attempt.  Inexcusable, is say!

 

I also believe Bruce Arians was boneheaded dumb in not taking the FGs early, instead going for it (and failing) on 4th down.  That early, against an inept Colts offense, you simply take the points.  Way too often sacrificed FG points in the name of (failed) aggressiveness end up being the points difference.  Early, take the easy points!

Like I said, a case can be made either way.  A short, quick pass over the middle is not a high risk play and a high percentage throw.  People whining about that just what something to whine about.  

 

There were some bad coaching decisions.  Throwing a pass on 3rd down in a tie game is not one of them.

 

[Superman]

On 9/18/2017 at 5:07 AM, rockywoj said:

Apparently we're talking about two different things.  I am talking about the Colt's last possession third down call.  They needed to run a play that keeps the clock running.  Get the first down and the Colts can call a time out.  Don't get a first down and it then forces the Cardinals to burn their last time out.  In other words, the Cards would not have had time to drive the field for a potential game winning field goal.

 

I finally figured out what you were talking about. I thought we were talking about timeouts, but you're talking about the 3rd and 8 call after the timeout. A run or a quick completion keeps the clock running and probably forces the Cardinals to use their final timeout. We called a pass play meant to get a first down, and threw incomplete. I get it, but they got into field goal range without using a timeout, due to the short field, a completely blown coverage by Kenny Moore, and a 12 man penalty (after a timeout...)

 

If you're planning to play the conservative, shorten the game kind of approach, then a run or quick hitter was the right call on 3rd and 8 from deep in your own territory. 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

On 9/17/2017 at 5:51 PM, Boomstick1 said:

Why are you worrying about a timeout? Literally the least of our problems.

It seems like most people on here just need to make a weekly thread on Pagano.

Chuck has been talked about hundreds of times

 

We talk about it every week because he does something that’s insanely gullible every week. The game was winnable, & that timeout was a crucial error at the absolute worst time, and on top of all that, there were 12 men on the field immediately after the timeout. It’s at a point where it’s just comical.

[ColtsBlueFL]

On 9/17/2017 at 5:00 PM, RockThatBlue said:

It was reminiscent of that timeout against the Lions last year. It gave them extra time for another play.

 

On 9/17/2017 at 4:48 PM, ColtsLegacy said:

Anyone want to try to explain the timeout with 11 seconds left in the 4th quarter.

 

What the hell was that about? 

 

Yet another example of horrible timeout management. It's as if Pagano saw we still had all of our timeouts and panicked. Absolutely no excuse or explanation for the use of a timeout there and then we immediately follow it with 12 men on defense afterwards.

 

On 9/17/2017 at 5:10 PM, MackAttack said:

And after that timeout we have 12 men on the field!!! That was pretty funny 

 

On 9/17/2017 at 5:18 PM, Roger said:

12 men on the field is a coaching error.  Colts had too many big penalties today.

 

I could not watch.  so there was 11 seconds left (according to a poster.) I have some questions-

 

What down was it?  What yard line? Was the clock running or stopped?  Was the Cardinals in a position to throw to the end zone to win?  Or would they still have time with a stopped clock on an incompletion?  Did we have the right personnel to run a scheme/formation to cover all receivers on a long TD pass attempt? What personnel did the Cards/Arians have on the field? I'd like to know these things before passing judgement.

 

BTW... who is defensive captain? Shouldn't that guy also make sure there are exactly 11 out there and get them in the right spots if they aren't?

[coltsfeva]

On 9/17/2017 at 4:57 PM, a06cc said:

Chuck for years has been known to misuse his timeouts and challenges. Nothing new too me. 

They say the same thing about Andy Reid. I'd be interested to hear his explanation. 

[coltsfeva]

On 9/17/2017 at 6:22 PM, gacoop1 said:

The following needs to be fired:

Chuck 

Ted

Chuck

Schott

and may be Joe:

Others that needs to be waived, cut:

Castonzo

Moncrief

for now.

Well now, THAT would certainly fix things 

[dgambill]

On ‎9‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 7:03 PM, jvan1973 said:

How many teams have their backup qb playing and have a better record? The defense  looked good except for one drive,   the starting qb looked ok considering he has been here 2 weeks.   If we have a healthy Andrew,   we win today.   

I agree we played better today...the effort was definitely there but off the top of my head Miami is not playing with their starting qb as is Houston....granted both have better supporting casts but just so we know they both have better records with backups. I'm not a huge Chuck supporter...but I'm realistic...I know we are a different team with Luck and without...and I support Chuck because he is our coach and I want us to win... but if we can't beat Cleveland at home this week...well....Chuck is going to get thrown to the wolves and I don't think I'll have the compassion left to do anything about it anymore. I know it isn't one game that will change who he is as a coach anymore so than if he wins but I don't know how to keep defending him if we continue to lose even with a back up at qb.

[dgambill]

On ‎9‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 11:31 AM, Coffeedrinker said:

Like I said, a case can be made either way.  A short, quick pass over the middle is not a high risk play and a high percentage throw.  People whining about that just what something to whine about.  

 

There were some bad coaching decisions.  Throwing a pass on 3rd down in a tie game is not one of them.

 

Yep...we were going to find a way to lose that game regardless lol. Run some more time off or not they only needed a fg to win and we only went to OT because they missed a chippie. I'm aggressive and with the game in the balance I want to go for the win...control my destiny with the offense...it didn't happen. We just don't have continuity on offense to really accomplish much unfortunately. Jacoby played well imo up until that final pass. He was let down by his receivers a lot I thought. You just don't want to be in 3rd and long...the only positive is that him and Jack seem to be on the same page and that is probably who I would have tried to target somehow.....we still don't run a screen so I don't know what to else to say. I honestly think if we ran even a half way successful executed screen pass the defense would be so caught off guard it might go to the house lol.....so maybe we are saving it. Chuck does make some head scratching decisions...but we played hard...and if Jacoby gets more comfortable hopefully the offense can score 20 this week and I think we can win. We got a rookie qb going up against us...there is no excuse not to win this game.

[Coffeedrinker]

2 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Yep...we were going to find a way to lose that game regardless lol. Run some more time off or not they only needed a fg to win and we only went to OT because they missed a chippie. I'm aggressive and with the game in the balance I want to go for the win...control my destiny with the offense...it didn't happen. We just don't have continuity on offense to really accomplish much unfortunately. Jacoby played well imo up until that final pass. He was let down by his receivers a lot I thought. You just don't want to be in 3rd and long...the only positive is that him and Jack seem to be on the same page and that is probably who I would have tried to target somehow.....we still don't run a screen so I don't know what to else to say. I honestly think if we ran even a half way successful executed screen pass the defense would be so caught off guard it might go to the house lol.....so maybe we are saving it. Chuck does make some head scratching decisions...but we played hard...and if Jacoby gets more comfortable hopefully the offense can score 20 this week and I think we can win. We got a rookie qb going up against us...there is no excuse not to win this game.

A bad rookie QB at that.

[Yoshinator]

14 minutes ago, dgambill said:

I agree we played better today...the effort was definitely there but off the top of my head Miami is not playing with their starting qb as is Houston....granted both have better supporting casts but just so we know they both have better records with backups. I'm not a huge Chuck supporter...but I'm realistic...I know we are a different team with Luck and without...and I support Chuck because he is our coach and I want us to win... but if we can't beat Cleveland at home this week...well....Chuck is going to get thrown to the wolves and I don't think I'll have the compassion left to do anything about it anymore. I know it isn't one game that will change who he is as a coach anymore so than if he wins but I don't know how to keep defending him if we continue to lose even with a back up at qb.

Chuck being our coach should have no bearing on whether you defend him, it should be if he is good at his job. At best, he is average, at worst, he is incompetent and regressing very fast. I defend the people on this team who deserve to be defended based on job performance, and I wish the feeling was mutual on this forum.

[dgambill]

24 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Chuck being our coach should have no bearing on whether you defend him, it should be if he is good at his job. At best, he is average, at worst, he is incompetent and regressing very fast. I defend the people on this team who deserve to be defended based on job performance, and I wish the feeling was mutual on this forum.

Defend and support are two different things. I don't defend the indefensible...many of his decisions and actions I can't...and yet what I see of his coaching is like an iceberg....only about 10% above the water....what happens in the locker room and day in and day out I don't have the privilege to know. I will say that I support him....I'm pulling for him and the team...he is a very likable guy and an inspiring guy...he also is a very knowledgable coach...I just hope that somehow starts to translate to the field. I'm not saying I wouldn't be supportive if we went a different direction but I don't see how bashing someone or some player over and over on a forum is productive. I'm just as disappointed as the next guy and I recognize when we fail...but I'm going to pull for Chuck to find the right buttons to push and the team to adjust and turn things around.