2nd Half Play-Calling Explained

[ColtsBlueFL]

11 hours ago, rockywoj said:

For the record, it was just before that 1st down with 2:03 left that I was telling my co-watchers that there is ZERO value in doing the upcoming dive running play; that the clocks stops anyway; so run a play-action QB rollout option.  With Brissett’s athleticism, which he has shown several times in this and the previous game, if the short 6-7 yd. pass isn’t there, then takeoff with it running.  Worst case, just throw it away.  No hindsight used, just unrealistic hope that the team could understand the value of taking a more aggressive approach in that particular circumstance, in trying to get that first down to ice the game.   Nope, it’s Chud & Pagano calling the mis-shots.

 

40 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 

 Yip, the obvious, perfect play call used by all good coaches every time. go rock

 

Ok, answer this.  what is the 'goal' of throwing a pass in that situation?  Trying to bust one... run up the score?

 

I think I heard you say roll out (assuming to the right for RH QB) and do a short/safe dump off.  Since you are only using 1/2 the field, there will be many defenders in the small area.  Enough to stop the play well short of the 1st down marker.  Clock stops anyway. If it is longer, then a potential INT or punch it out fumble comes into play, and that is worst case... give opponent the ball with just under 2 minutes near their own 30-35 only needing a FG to tie!

 

Maybe, I would trust Luck to run that play,  but not JB... not yet.  We ran then clock stops, ran 2 more times, called a T.O. with 29 seconds left.  Punted to their 9 yard line with 23 seconds.  They have 45-50 yards to go for a long FG, and 91 yards for a game winning TD.  And no timeouts to work with.  They are desperate and their OC will call desperate stuff.  Any D that can't win from this position doesn't deserve the win. We did and it wasn't close to them winning.  Their last 3 plays were offensive P.I., incomplete pass, interception.  No scares there...

 

I just do not see how throwing a pass at 2:03 makes winning this game any easier than was already accomplished unless it went beyond 10 yards and got a first down at the 2 minute warning.  And that is a play I consider just plain  too risky with a (relatively) rookie QB with a limited playbook with to take right now. So we differ on this one play, this time, based upon situational and extenuating circumstances.

[Superman]

17 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

At times, I do as well.  Consistently, no. Would rather just have better players that can still make a play even when the opponent knows its coming. The Peyton era Colts did this often.  Tom Moore's O was often quite predictable, but the O executed it so well, it didn't matter often. And the other times Peyton changed it to a better play at the line.

 

The Peyton era Colts were a different story, and they usually did okay with situational running, but sometimes they struggled to convert on the ground. Either way, execution is a hallmark of an efficient, effective offense, and it's something we always struggle with, even with Luck. No surprise there are situational issues with a backup QB and two backup OL. 

 

Quote

We've got to get that under control, but there's  not time to develop O linemen.  Have to practice game plan install during the week (and with just one padded practice).  Kids can't develop O line technique and skills in shorts and a helmet.  College draftees can't learn they're preparing for the draft/combine.  Once drafted, they can't learn because the CBA keeps them away from the coaches and away from the facilities in the off season. O line issues are spreading, and will continue to do so, unfortunately.

 

Absolutely agree with all of this, but three of the four OL penalties were false starts, and that's just a matter of focus and concentration, not technique and skill. I know it's easier said than done, but it's still probably the easiest thing a lineman does. Having issues with a new QB and a new lineup, early in the season, again is not surprising, but it's also not acceptable. 

 

The hold was on Mewhort, 4th year vet. Sometimes holds happen, so I'm not killing him for it, but I don't think that comes down to development. His technique is lacking right now, though.

 

Quote

If it doesn't get some decent yards (really 8 to a-1st down), then you still have to run the ball twice coming out of the 2  minute warning.  An incompletion is giving the opponent a virtual timeout.  So they will stack for the run anyway.

 

If the worst happens, it was a bad idea... of course. But if you throw incomplete, it's the same basic result as a run for no gain, which is what we did. So why argue that you still have to run the ball twice? You're doing that anyway?

 

To the bolded, you're missing the fact that the two minute warning was stopping the clock, no matter the outcome of the play. An incompletion isn't giving the opponent a virtual timeout; they were already getting that timeout, run or pass.

 

And of course, the idea is that maybe you do gain some yardage on first down, and now it's 2nd and 3 and you have some options, and the defense is on their heels. Because the clock isn't a factor, that first down play gives you a chance to catch the defense off guard and make life easier on 2nd and 3rd down, without having to worry about the negative impact of an incompletion. 

 

A designed rollout with a half field read can mostly eliminate the risk of a sack, and give the QB room to either run or throw the ball away if no one comes open right away.

 

This is entirely a nitpick, but the point is that you could have gotten away with a calculated risk in that situation, and maybe you jumpstart your offense on a critical possession.

 

Quote

That is a problem.  Especially if your run game is getting shut down.  I don't even like Luck having to throw 45-50 times in a game... let alone Jacoby Brissett.  i'm just looking for the positives, and where we do show progress, and thus can opne things up more.  This is the NFL, and wins are hard to come by.  I'll take them all , pretty or ugly and hope for continual improvement along the way.

 

Absolutely. Never apologize for a win, even if it comes harder than it should. 

[Superman]

3 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

Ok, answer this.  what is the 'goal' of throwing a pass in that situation?  Trying to bust one... run up the score?

 

Simply to start the drive off successfully. To that point in the second half, the Colts had run the ball 15 times for 35 yards. Six first down carries had resulted in a total of -2 yards.

 

This could have been a game deciding drive. One first down and the game is basically over. We ran the ball for no gain. Second half, 7 first down carries, total of -2 yards.

 

It was an ultra conservative approach that didn't help the offense produce yardage, first downs, or points. (The only scoring drive in the second half started out with the pass, coincidentally.)

 

So no, the goal of throwing in that situation would not be to bust one and run up the score. You're not running up the score anyways; we were only up three at that point, so a score is just putting the game away. The goal is just to take advantage of a low risk situation to start your drive off successfully, rather than trying again what hadn't been working the entire second half.

 

Also, throughout the game, out of 13 possessions, the Colts started with a run play 10 times. Perfect opportunity for a trend buster on that critical possession.

[MB-ColtsFan]

49 minutes ago, Superman said:

...

 

Also, throughout the game, out of 13 possessions, the Colts started with a run play 10 times. Perfect opportunity for a trend buster on that critical possession.

I have to admit, when looking at that stat it would have been a perfect opportunity to call a quick slant of some sort.  I guess the coaches just didn't have enough confidence in Brissett beyond wanting to be ultra conservative in play calling?

 

Maybe Chud is just setting up Seattle - thinking we'll always run on 1st down?  

[southwest1]

On September 25, 2017 at 9:47 AM, TKnight24 said:

Chud does, but every playcall comes through that HC headset. So it's also on Pagano. He has the authority to make changes if he wants. 

 

I'm not saying don't milk the clock, but you still have to move the ball and think touchdown. No lead is safe until the clock hits 0:00 

Yep, INDY almost lost this game & there's no way Pagano should have let Cleveland get back in this game. Right around 14:42 in the 4th Quarter, INDY kept letting Cleveland stay alive despite Melvin & Hooker picking the ball off. 

On September 25, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Superman said:

I don't mind going conservative to shorten the game, but the play calling was too conservative and vanilla for my tastes, they should have called some high percentage short passes (!) and tried to get to the edge in the running game more, rather than so many unsuccessful inside runs. By early in the 4th, the Browns defenders were teeing off on the run game, and they even left Hilton uncovered on a couple of plays because they knew a run was coming. The offense should have been more alert to catch them overcommitting and make them pay.

 

But the real issues were a) penalties, and b) lack of run blocking. 

Yes, I agree Superman. The vast majority of our problems in the 4th quarter were self inflicted. 

On September 26, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Smonroe said:

 

It was a decision to go conservative on both O and D, so that falls back to the HC.

 

@Superman said it was a combination of penalties and run blocking.  When the D is lining up with everyone in the box on first down and you continually try to pound it for no gain, it's like the definition of...well, we all know that one.

 

They went Prevent from the last couple minutes of the second half.  That backfired against Cincy and if the Browns weren't inept, it would have against us too. 

 

I was at the game and could only bear to re-watch to the point where we were up 28-7 last night.  I didn't want to get my blood pressure soaring.  I'll try to watch the rest tonight (maybe) but from what I saw while I was there, it was total coaching failure overcome by pure luck that we won.

Exactly right S-ROE. That's what kept bothering me too. We totally unraveled & cannot close out games in dominant fashion at all. 

[Fluke_33]

On 9/26/2017 at 4:08 PM, krunk said:

Strengths

Has absolutely freakish physical attributes. Arm length and hand size would be considered outstanding for an offensive tackle. Stretches high and outside his frame to make the catch. Hands are supple and strong and the ball tends to stick to them at impact. Plucks it away from his body and can secure through contact. Carded a verified sub 4.50 40-yard dash during spring. Short strider, but feet turn over rapidly to propel him down the field. Can work the third level. Adjusts his path to off-target deep throws. Team-first player and vocal leader. Has successful stint as a cover man on special teams in his background.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/darrell-daniels?id=2558253

And now I want him converted to left tackle.  Can he add 60 pounds?

[crazycolt1]

9 hours ago, rockywoj said:

Hey, I was just critiquing critical play calling missteps.   I don’t look for things to complain about, but when the playcalling offends all sensibilities of mine with regards to intro level coaching effectiveness, I cannot help but call out the poorly conceived offensive decisions.

 

I am very glad they won and I hope they now run the slate and win the Super Bowl.  I am truly concerned though, that in Pagano’s year 6 and Chud’s year 2.5, I keep seeing what I consider to be continued critical coaching errors.

We all know if you were a head coach you would be perfect. Maybe you should send your application to Irsay and we could all put this to bed?

[rockywoj]

3 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

We all know if you were a head coach you would be perfect. Maybe you should send your application to Irsay and we could all put this to bed?

And thus ends the discussion, being that you are more interested in personal insult than actual critiquing of plays.  

[crazycolt1]

Just now, rockywoj said:

And thus ends the discussion, being that you are more interested in personal insult than actual critiquing of plays.  

It was a sarcastic comment, not an insult.

[ColtsBlueFL]

10 hours ago, Superman said:

 

If the worst happens, it was a bad idea... of course. But if you throw incomplete, it's the same basic result as a run for no gain, which is what we did. So why argue that you still have to run the ball twice? You're doing that anyway?

 

Yes, if worst bad idea.  No matter what, the clock will stop, and the Colts will run (only) after that.

 

Quote

To the bolded, you're missing the fact that the two minute warning was stopping the clock, no matter the outcome of the play. An incompletion isn't giving the opponent a virtual timeout; they were already getting that timeout, run or pass.

 

I get that.  But  whether you do or do not get 10 yards and a first down, you are running the ball  from then on.  and the opponent knows this too.  If not, then that is unnecessary risk, and a potential virtual timeout I refer to.

 

Quote

And of course, the idea is that maybe you do gain some yardage on first down, and now it's 2nd and 3 and you have some options, and the defense is on their heels. Because the clock isn't a factor, that first down play gives you a chance to catch the defense off guard and make life easier on 2nd and 3rd down, without having to worry about the negative impact of an incompletion.

 

Not really. The defense will still  key on run.  yet they will man press cover any receiver one on one (mug him within the 5 yard LOS zone actually) and run blitz. Because a throw there that results in an incompletion is the virtual timeout I was referring to,  not the one on 1st down mentioned above. not keeping the clock running after the 2 minute warning has passed is a cardinal sin. Even taking a sack is better than than throwing it into the dirt or over everyones head out of bounds.

 

Quote

 

A designed rollout with a half field read can mostly eliminate the risk of a sack, and give the QB room to either run or throw the ball away if no one comes open right away.

 

This is entirely a nitpick, but the point is that you could have gotten away with a calculated risk in that situation, and maybe you jumpstart your offense on a critical possession.

 

 

There was no need to jump start the offense, or run up the score. The need was to protect the ball, get the 2 minute warning T.O. over with... then run as much clock as possible.  Then punt it deep into their end of the field with little time and no way to stop the clock except incompletions or getting out of bounds.  Rollout pass plays with a desperate defense that will pin ears back and going all out to strip, rip, punch the ball out at any cost is more dangerous than handing it off to a seasoned vet on a dive up the middle.

 

Quote

 

 

Absolutely. Never apologize for a win, even if it comes harder than it should. 

 

Once we recovered the last onside kick, I was not worried we would lose.  I figured Gore wouldn't put it on the ground. If our D cannot hold a team with no timeouts and on their own 10, with 23 seconds left in the game, then we don't deserve a W.  But we held, and it wasn't scary.  But our D letting them get big plays to score 2 TD's with less than 9  minutes in the game was disconcerting.

[ColtsBlueFL]

10 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Simply to start the drive off successfully. To that point in the second half, the Colts had run the ball 15 times for 35 yards. Six first down carries had resulted in a total of -2 yards.

 

This could have been a game deciding drive. One first down and the game is basically over. We ran the ball for no gain. Second half, 7 first down carries, total of -2 yards.

 

It was an ultra conservative approach that didn't help the offense produce yardage, first downs, or points. (The only scoring drive in the second half started out with the pass, coincidentally.)

 

So no, the goal of throwing in that situation would not be to bust one and run up the score. You're not running up the score anyways; we were only up three at that point, so a score is just putting the game away. The goal is just to take advantage of a low risk situation to start your drive off successfully, rather than trying again what hadn't been working the entire second half.

 

Also, throughout the game, out of 13 possessions, the Colts started with a run play 10 times. Perfect opportunity for a trend buster on that critical possession.

 

Offense in the second half wasnt working.  Passing wasn't good either-

 

*(Shotgun) PENALTY on IND-74-A.Castonzo, False Start, 5 yards, enforced at IND 25 - No Play.
(Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett pass short right to 23-F.Gore to IND 20 for no gain (53-J.Schobert).

(Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett pass short left to 33-R.Turbin to IND 12 for 2 yards (30-J.McCourty).
(Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett pass short right to 10-D.Moncrief to IND 22 for 10 yards (21-J.Taylor).
(Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett pass incomplete short left to 84-J.Doyle (58-C.Kirksey) [94-C.Nassib].
(Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett pass incomplete short middle to 33-R.Turbin [52-J.Burgess].

 

(3:26) (Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett pass incomplete deep right to 10-D.Moncrief.
(2:40) (Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett pass deep right to 11-Q.Bray to IND 41 for 22 yards (24-I.Campbell).

(1:13) (Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett pass short left to 84-J.Doyle to IND 41 for 5 yards (52-J.Burgess). FUMBLES **

4th Q

(14:18) (Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett pass incomplete short left to 13-T.Hilton (30-J.McCourty).
10:54) (Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett pass short left to 13-T.Hilton pushed ob at CLE 14 for 4 yards (30-J.McCourty).

(9:06) (Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett sacked at IND 16 for -7 yards (44-N.Orchard).

(6:11) (Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett pass short left to 13-T.Hilton to CLE 43 for 4 yards (94-C.Nassib).
*(5:29) (Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett scrambles up the middle to CLE 26 for 17 yards (21-J.Taylor). PENALTY on IND-75-J.Mewhort, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at CLE 43 - No Play.

 

Best play by far was the third quarter  22 yard pass to Bray.  Then a 10 yarder to Moncrief. All others were incomplete, for 5 or less yards, or a sack (or nullified by penalty) JB was not a passing juggernaut in the second half either. 

 

[rockywoj]

8 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

...

 

There was no need to jump start the offense, or run up the score. The need was to protect the ball, get the 2 minute warning T.O. over with... then run as much clock as possible.  Then punt it deep into their end of the field with little time and no way to stop the clock except incompletions or getting out of bounds.  Rollout pass plays with a desperate defense that will pin ears back and going all out to strip, rip, punch the ball out at any cost is more dangerous than handing it off to a seasoned vet on a dive up the middle.

 

...

I disagree with the notion that the goal is to run out as much time, THEN punt.

 

The goal is to run out the clock, so that the Browns are not even given the opportunity to have the ball in their hands, going for the tying or winning score.

 

That is why on FIRST down with 2:03 left, you can and should mix things up on THAT down, for there was NOTHING to lose, clock-wise.  After that first down, though, like you say, you absolutely have to run it to run the clock down as much as possible (though I argue the dive running play the Colts primarily use is not the way to go), regardless if that first down shot worked or not.  

 

If the first down mixing it up didn’t work, then the team is simply in the exact same boat as they were in.  The point is, though, mixing it up on that first down would have given the team a BETTER shot at the primary goal of holding the ball to completely run out the clock, which means to get a first down so the clock can be run to zero.

[rockywoj]

18 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Simply to start the drive off successfully. To that point in the second half, the Colts had run the ball 15 times for 35 yards. Six first down carries had resulted in a total of -2 yards.

 

This could have been a game deciding drive. One first down and the game is basically over. We ran the ball for no gain. Second half, 7 first down carries, total of -2 yards.

 

It was an ultra conservative approach that didn't help the offense produce yardage, first downs, or points. (The only scoring drive in the second half started out with the pass, coincidentally.)

 

So no, the goal of throwing in that situation would not be to bust one and run up the score. You're not running up the score anyways; we were only up three at that point, so a score is just putting the game away. The goal is just to take advantage of a low risk situation to start your drive off successfully, rather than trying again what hadn't been working the entire second half.

 

Also, throughout the game, out of 13 possessions, the Colts started with a run play 10 times. Perfect opportunity for a trend buster on that critical possession.

I just want to say thank you for being another forum member that “gets it” regarding that first down play.  For too long it seemed like I was banging my head against the wall amongst a sea no comprende.  lol

 

Anyway, I appreciate your jumping in to add another voice of reason on the issue of that atrocious 2:03 first down play call.

[WERC82]

On running up the score, it should always be done. Points scored and points given up is one of the tie breakers when it comes to getting in the playoffs and seeding. This isn't peewee football where you don't want to hurt somebodies feelings. 

[krunk]

The amount of blitzing the Browns were doing may have played into it as well.   They blitzed Brisett on 70 Percent of his snaps.

[crazycolt1]

3 minutes ago, WERC82 said:

On running up the score, it should always be done. Points scored and points given up is one of the tie breakers when it comes to getting in the playoffs and seeding. This isn't peewee football where you don't want to hurt somebodies feelings. 

Tie breakers and playoffs?  Your kidding? Right?

[WERC82]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

Tie breakers and playoffs?  Your kidding? Right?

We are 1 game out of 1st place in the division and not at all unreasonable to think that may be the case in week 14/15. Even if that is not the case, playing for every possible point and advantage is something a professional team should always do so they can do it well when they need to.

[ColtsBlueFL]

4 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

I disagree with the notion that the goal is to run out as much time, THEN punt.

 

The goal is to run out the clock, so that the Browns are not even given the opportunity to have the ball in their hands, going for the tying or winning score.

 

That is why on FIRST down with 2:03 left, you can and should mix things up on THAT down, for there was NOTHING to lose, clock-wise.  After that first down, though, like you say, you absolutely have to run it to run the clock down as much as possible (though I argue the dive running play the Colts primarily use is not the way to go), regardless if that first down shot worked or not.  

 

If the first down mixing it up didn’t work, then the team is simply in the exact same boat as they were in.  The point is, though, mixing it up on that first down would have given the team a BETTER shot at the primary goal of holding the ball to completely run out the clock, which means to get a first down so the clock can be run to zero.

 

Nothing to lose clock wise, plenty to lose game wise if things go awry.

 

I would have instructed my defense to setup in something like cover 0 man under and (run) blitz /stunt (like they did often, I believe) and immediately try pressure the QB. As stated, I would man press every receiver and block/hold them within the 5 yard cushion at the LOS (legal), no free releases of any receiver. If a short pass was successfully dumped off, I'd instruct them to not so much tackle the receiver, but grab him and hold him up and push him towards out of bounds (if close enough) where possible. Meanwhile everyone else swarm to him and strip/punch at the ball.  Try to create a turnover while making the Refs whistle the play dead for stopped forward progress, not by ground contact.

 

The defense isn't just going to let you complete a play like that as they do mid game.  They know they have no time outs, and need to -

a. stop the clock somehow (but not via penalty the gives up a first down!)

b. create a turnover

 

They have no other choice.  That is the only thing they can do and have to play excessively reckless and aggressive. GW's style, too. I feel you do not give them a chance to 'cause' an unexpected turnover with a below average O line, and a rookie (in games started and playbook knowledge) QB.

 

We  had the ball on their side of the field. There was no issue about  having to kick out of our end zone, etc...  and a pooch punt high and deep toward their goal line was an easy (and accomplished) feat. 

 

OK, you showed your hand as Colts OC, (and I showed my call as DC for that), now your the Browns OC.  1st and 10 at your own 9 yard line and 23 seconds on the clock.  You have no timeouts.  You realistically have to get 50-55 yards for a tying FG, and 91 for a game winning TD. Since the Colts ran the ball on first down and had to give it back, you got  it.  What do you do with it  now? I set up in a 3-4,  Cover 4 (quarters) zone D.

 

Chud's strategy was safe and won the game.  To me, any pass play where the D is teeing off with nothing to lose is risky. Even though we had to call our timeout with 29 seconds to go, then punt, there was not any fear in my heart Kizer was going to move them 55 yards in 20 seconds and get the clock stopped for a really long game tying FG attempt.  There wasn't.  Even though or D gives up more chunk plays ( >20 yards) than any other team in the NFL (we need to work on that). 

 

Now if Luck was in there, and he had ample time to develop timing with the receivers again, I might have tried to do something.  If I was pressed to do something other than a dive with Gore, I'd naked boot leg JB to left after run blocking and the RB get a fake handoff to the right.  Like they even had Peyton do once and he was laughing as he (not so hurriedly) ran left while both teams went right. 

 

I know this, we won.  I do not know what a pass play would have done there; good, bad, or ugly.  Neither do you.

[ColtsBlueFL]

34 minutes ago, krunk said:

The amount of blitzing the Browns were doing may have played into it as well.   They blitzed Brisett on 70 Percent of his snaps.

 

And in that situation, even more desperate.  They have to create a turnover, anyway they can.  and would try.  It's not like running that play at the end of the second quarter.

 

I wonder what would have happened if there would have been a fumble, or strip sack, or pick there stopping the clock and giving Kizer the ball not far from midfield and nearly two minutes?  Why risk it?

[rockywoj]

The thing is, I would have aligned virtually the same as the Colts did, and the Browns aligned to stuff the run, as they did.  What I would have done differently is have Brissett fake that telegraphed run then circle around on a bootleg option right.   At the same time, the TE on the right side of the line would have initially blocked to the inside, then released to run a route toward the sideline, maybe five yards down field.  If there was a WR aligned on the outside right side (I haven’t rewatched to see the exact Colts alignment), I would have that WR run a three step in, then deep out route, to clear the DB, bringing him along for the ride.

 

Brisett then either runs it himself, or if the TE is clearly open running parallel, then dink it off for the easy five or six yards.  This is not some sort of high risk disaster waiting to happen play.  This is also not some complicated play that Brissett is not capable of running.  What it is, though, is a play that would have more likely gained 5 or 6 yards on first down, than the zero to minus two yards the up the gut into a run stacked defence managed to garner, while at the same time not unnecessarily stopping the clock in the event of an incompletion or run out of bounds, due to the impending two minute warning.

 

It’s not complicated, it’s not risky.

 

Anyway, it’s now Thursday and this is a dead horse.  If you don’t see the value by now, then you’re likely not ever going to.  

 

On to Seattle.

[rockywoj]

18 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

And in that situation, even more desperate.  They have to create a turnover, anyway they can.  and would try.  It's not like running that play at the end of the second quarter.

 

I wonder what would have happened if there would have been a fumble, or strip sack, or pick there stopping the clock and giving Kizer the ball not far from midfield and nearly two minutes?  Why risk it?

All which could have happened on the run play the Colts actually ran.  If you are crippled by the fear of that, then just have the QB kneel down.  Way less risk of a turnover then, and you’re not really giving up much yardage as compared to the zero gained anyway.

[ColtsBlueFL]

11 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

All which could have happened on the run play the Colts actually ran.  If you are crippled by the fear of that, then just have the QB kneel down.  Way less risk of a turnover then, and you’re not really giving up much yardage as compared to the zero gained anyway.

 

Not crippled by fear.  Risk / Reward assessment.  JB threw 4 times in the 4th quarter.  One incompletion, two times for 4 yards each to TY. and took a 7 yard sack.  It's not like he had the defense confused and on its heels.  Yet another 4 - 5 yard gain does nothing additional that a no gain run up the gut there accomplished.  You can't throw from 2nd and six.  You have to run it twice again as well.  There's no difference. You have to get more than 10 yards on that 1st down play for it to matter, and that is just too risky there in that situation.  We will agree to disagree. And I know the Colts strategy worked, they got the W, and it wasn't in peril there at the end.

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, WERC82 said:

We are 1 game out of 1st place in the division and not at all unreasonable to think that may be the case in week 14/15. Even if that is not the case, playing for every possible point and advantage is something a professional team should always do so they can do it well when they need to.

Trying to score every point you can leads to turnovers. Turnovers lose games. Simple math.

[crazycolt1]

10 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Yes, if worst bad idea.  No matter what, the clock will stop, and the Colts will run (only) after that.

 

 

I get that.  But  whether you do or do not get 10 yards and a first down, you are running the ball  from then on.  and the opponent knows this too.  If not, then that is unnecessary risk, and a potential virtual timeout I refer to.

 

 

Not really. The defense will still  key on run.  yet they will man press cover any receiver one on one (mug him within the 5 yard LOS zone actually) and run blitz. Because a throw there that results in an incompletion is the virtual timeout I was referring to,  not the one on 1st down mentioned above. not keeping the clock running after the 2 minute warning has passed is a cardinal sin. Even taking a sack is better than than throwing it into the dirt or over everyones head out of bounds.

 

 

There was no need to jump start the offense, or run up the score. The need was to protect the ball, get the 2 minute warning T.O. over with... then run as much clock as possible.  Then punt it deep into their end of the field with little time and no way to stop the clock except incompletions or getting out of bounds.  Rollout pass plays with a desperate defense that will pin ears back and going all out to strip, rip, punch the ball out at any cost is more dangerous than handing it off to a seasoned vet on a dive up the middle.

 

 

Once we recovered the last onside kick, I was not worried we would lose.  I figured Gore wouldn't put it on the ground. If our D cannot hold a team with no timeouts and on their own 10, with 23 seconds left in the game, then we don't deserve a W.  But we held, and it wasn't scary.  But our D letting them get big plays to score 2 TD's with less than 9  minutes in the game was disconcerting.

The thing is had Pagano and or Chud went for a play that resulted in a turnover a lot of forum members would have been all over that in a negative way. They played it as safe as they knew how by giving the ball to Gore. Part of the problem is there are  those who just lay in waiting watching Pagano under a microscope and make an issue out of every opportunity they can. Not every call any head coach or OC calls is a good call. If that was the case there would be undefeated teams every season.

[WERC82]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

Trying to score every point you can leads to turnovers. Turnovers lose games. Simple math.

Presumptive math.

[rockywoj]

3 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Not crippled by fear.  Risk / Reward assessment.  JB threw 4 times in the 4th quarter.  One incompletion, two times for 4 yards each to TY. and took a 7 yard sack.  It's not like he had the defense confused and on its heels.  Yet another 4 - 5 yard gain does nothing additional that a no gain run up the gut there accomplished.  You can't throw from 2nd and six.  You have to run it twice again as well.  There's no difference. You have to get more than 10 yards on that 1st down play for it to matter, and that is just too risky there in that situation.  We will agree to disagree. And I know the Colts strategy worked, they got the W, and it wasn't in peril there at the end.

Whaa, whaa,, whaaaaat?!  No difference?!  

 

There is a HUGE difference between second down and 4 or 5 yards to go, as compared to second down and 10 or 12 yards to go.  The huge difference is a couple of runs (on 2nd & 3rd downs) of only 2 yards each gets you that all important first down!  Yes, you indeed have to run on second and third down, but at least the first down is reasonably doable. <shake head><face palm>

 

Btw, I say the offensive strategy didn't really work, for the Brown got the ball back into their hands, giving them the opportunity to go for the tie or go ahead score.  As luck would have it, though, the defense, for a change, managed to not give up that tying or go ahead score.  The offensive strategy failed, the defense bailed them out.  The offensive strategy needed to be focused on not giving them that opportunity.

 

Regardless, move on to Seattle, for you are simply not getting it or are of just the polar opposite in offensive play calling philosophy. 

[rockywoj]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

The thing is had Pagano and or Chud went for a play that resulted in a turnover a lot of forum members would have been all over that in a negative way. They played it as safe as they knew how by giving the ball to Gore. Part of the problem is there are  those who just lay in waiting watching Pagano under a microscope and make an issue out of every opportunity they can. Not every call any head coach or OC calls is a good call. If that was the case there would be undefeated teams every season.

It was NOT as safe as it could of been.  If they concluded that they simply didn't want a turnover, then they should have simply had the QB down the ball.  So your argument of running those plays to avoid a turnover is simply flawed, for there was a safer way to accomplish that goal.  Hence, if you are saying the primary concern is not to turn the ball over on 1st to 3rd downs, there, then Chud & Chuck failed at even that, for they were running running plays that involved handing the ball off and giving the Browns the opportunity to strip the ball.

 

And your last statement is also false.  You can make the correct and perfect call, but it simply doesn't work out.  The goal, though, must be to always make the correct call, nonetheless.  The football gods will determine whether it works out.  If I am an owner or GM, my expectation is that the coaching staff will always strive to make the correct perfect calls.  If they do not, then they are leaving room for improvement and I am taking them to task for making bad decisions, whether they win or not.

 

The applicable analogy here, is compare it to poker.  If I make the correct"play", but still lose the hand, then there really is no way I can improve as a poker player, for I played as perfectly as possible.  It's just that the poker gods intervened to undermine my success.  Same with coaching and play calling in football.  If you make the perfect call, there is simply nothing more as a coach that you can do, whether or not the play works.

[Superman]

12 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

There was no need to jump start the offense, or run up the score. The need was to protect the ball, get the 2 minute warning T.O. over with... then run as much clock as possible.  Then punt it deep into their end of the field with little time and no way to stop the clock except incompletions or getting out of bounds.  Rollout pass plays with a desperate defense that will pin ears back and going all out to strip, rip, punch the ball out at any cost is more dangerous than handing it off to a seasoned vet on a dive up the middle.

 

This is the crux of the disagreement. We both understand the situation and the game theory, the difference is in how conservative we should be in that situation.

 

Let me ask you this: What happens to the Colts' win probability if they throw incomplete on 1st and 10, up against the two minute warning? The same thing that happens if you run for zero yards (which is basically what happened on the previous six first down carries in the second half), because the clock is stopping either way. Assume either an incomplete pass or a no gain carry, you're going to run on second and third down no matter what, so the remaining clock and timeout situation isn't dependent on the outcome of the first down play.

 

Conversely, what happens to the win probability if you throw for a first down on 1st and 10? It basically puts the game away. Even if you throw for four yards, now you have 2nd and 6 at the two minute warning, and the offense is in better shape than it had been on 2nd down for the entire second half. The likelihood of you getting a first down and then kneeling the game out goes way up, and you don't have to punt (rookie punter), nor do you have to play defense (leaky pass defense all game long).

 

Putting the game away with a first down on offense is much more preferable, top to bottom. How many games did the defense fail to put away last season? How long did it take the Lions to get in field goal range? Granted, Kizer is not Stafford, but still, relying on this unproven defense is not a fail proof approach. Get the first down, and the game is over.

 

The risk of a rollout pass is little to none, if you trust your QB. I think Brissett had earned some trust over the course of the game; he was almost flawless throughout. You tell him 'don't throw into coverage, don't take a hit,' and give him a half field read. If no one is open, throw it away or run out of bounds. It's a super conservative play call that any competent QB should be able to manage in that situation. The upside is you increase your probability of winning; the downside is little to none, especially compared to a run for zero yards.

 

The only concern is that the linemen kept stepping on the QB as he came out from under center; that could have been in Chud's mind. But that could have happened on a hand off just like a rollout. 

 

So, IMO, the difference is you're okay with a more conservative approach, and punting and playing defense is fine with you. I get it, but again, a controlled opportunity presented itself that would have made the game more winnable, and we either weren't alert to it, or we shied away from it in the name of playing it safe. And in reality, our safe play on that down didn't make the game more winnable.

[Superman]

12 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Offense in the second half wasnt working.  Passing wasn't good either-

 

*(Shotgun) PENALTY on IND-74-A.Castonzo, False Start, 5 yards, enforced at IND 25 - No Play.
(Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett pass short right to 23-F.Gore to IND 20 for no gain (53-J.Schobert).

(Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett pass short left to 33-R.Turbin to IND 12 for 2 yards (30-J.McCourty).
(Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett pass short right to 10-D.Moncrief to IND 22 for 10 yards (21-J.Taylor).
(Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett pass incomplete short left to 84-J.Doyle (58-C.Kirksey) [94-C.Nassib].
(Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett pass incomplete short middle to 33-R.Turbin [52-J.Burgess].

 

(3:26) (Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett pass incomplete deep right to 10-D.Moncrief.
(2:40) (Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett pass deep right to 11-Q.Bray to IND 41 for 22 yards (24-I.Campbell).

(1:13) (Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett pass short left to 84-J.Doyle to IND 41 for 5 yards (52-J.Burgess). FUMBLES **

4th Q

(14:18) (Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett pass incomplete short left to 13-T.Hilton (30-J.McCourty).
10:54) (Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett pass short left to 13-T.Hilton pushed ob at CLE 14 for 4 yards (30-J.McCourty).

(9:06) (Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett sacked at IND 16 for -7 yards (44-N.Orchard).

(6:11) (Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett pass short left to 13-T.Hilton to CLE 43 for 4 yards (94-C.Nassib).
*(5:29) (Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett scrambles up the middle to CLE 26 for 17 yards (21-J.Taylor). PENALTY on IND-75-J.Mewhort, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at CLE 43 - No Play.

 

Best play by far was the third quarter  22 yard pass to Bray.  Then a 10 yarder to Moncrief. All others were incomplete, for 5 or less yards, or a sack (or nullified by penalty) JB was not a passing juggernaut in the second half either. 

 

 

JB had the ball taken away from him in the second half. Most of his passing attempts came on second and long, due to ineffective first down runs, and they went super conservative even with the passing game. They've even admitted they reined it in in the second half.

 

2nd and 15

2nd and 10

2nd and 13

2nd and 15

2nd and 10

 

Those all came after first down run plays.

 

I'm not suggesting that Brissett would not have made any mistakes if he had more leeway late in the game, but I definitely think the conservative play calling hindered his ability to make any plays. Vary it up a little bit in specific situations -- like a crucial first and ten -- and maybe you put yourself in second and short for a change, instead of your 7th second and long of the half.

[rockywoj]

15 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

JB had the ball taken away from him in the second half. Most of his passing attempts came on second and long, due to ineffective first down runs, and they went super conservative even with the passing game. They've even admitted they reined it in in the second half.

 

2nd and 15

2nd and 10

2nd and 13

2nd and 15

2nd and 10

 

Those all came after first down run plays.

 

I'm not suggesting that Brissett would not have made any mistakes if he had more leeway late in the game, but I definitely think the conservative play calling hindered his ability to make any plays. Vary it up a little bit in specific situations -- like a crucial first and ten -- and maybe you put yourself in second and short for a change, instead of your 7th second and long of the half.

I agree ... and I don't understand why the Colts' offensive playbook doesn't include more play-action plays.  They seem way too telegraphed, either obvious runs or obvious empty backfield passes.  Drives me crazy, dating back and including when Pep was in control.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Pass play results-

 

Completion

Incompletion

Sack

Strip sack/fumble

Completion fumble/strip

Interception

 

Run play results-

 

Bust through to second level

Stuffed

Fumble

 

This is how I see it.  Pass, you you 6 things that may happen, one good, one a wash, 1 not good, 3 quite bad.  Run, you have one good, one what happened, and one bad.  You never know when any of them will happen. Until it does.  I'm fine with our conservative approach to conserve the win.  With more experience of JB and the O together, I endorse opening it up more.  We disagree in the theory of this situational football.  And I have to ability to point at the scoreboard, though. It worked.

 

I know they tried to shorten the game, especially the 4th quarter.  It's painful to watch (I agree) and your defense has to perform.  The D had lapses which exacerbates the conservative approach (allow 14 points in 7 of the last 9 minutes of the game?).  But I don't feel the coaches are ready to put the playbook in JB's hands, or demand he make a play in crunch time with a minimal lead. Yet.  And with a healthy and in time Luck, plays would have been different, and the fans screaming about the 7 step drops would be out in full force, I'd imagine.

[throwing BBZ]

40 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

Whaa, whaa,, whaaaaat?!  No difference?!  

 

There is a HUGE difference between second down and 4 or 5 yards to go, as compared to second down and 10 or 12 yards to go.  The huge difference is a couple of runs (on 2nd & 3rd downs) of only 2 yards each gets you that all important first down!  Yes, you indeed have to run on second and third down, but at least the first down is reasonably doable. <shake head><face palm>

 

Btw, I say the offensive strategy didn't really work, for the Brown got the ball back into their hands, giving them the opportunity to go for the tie or go ahead score.  As luck would have it, though, the defense, for a change, managed to not give up that tying or go ahead score.  The offensive strategy failed, the defense bailed them out.  The offensive strategy needed to be focused on not giving them that opportunity.

 

Regardless, move on to Seattle, for you are simply not getting it or are of just the polar opposite in offensive play calling philosophy. 

 

 Not getting it?  Stop it, you are killing me. 

 Your points are Elementary, easily digested. Neither wrong nor right.

  I'm pretty sure there are Many Hall of Fame Coaches that have chosen this conservative path MANY TIMES.
  And if that was their choice, where does that leave.... cough cough um well you know,   _____? 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

Pass play results-

 

Completion

Incompletion

Sack

Strip sack/fumble

Completion fumble/strip

Interception

 

Run play results-

 

Bust through to second level

Stuffed

Fumble

 

Based on that thinking, you should never throw with a lead late in the game. I know you don't believe that. This is unnecessarily rigid and completely disregards common sense playcalling that can all but erase three of those scenarios from the board. And an incompletion is no worse than a run for no gain, so it's a wash.

 

And this is where calculated risk comes into play. If you've been running unsuccessfully on first down all half, and you know the defense is selling out to stop the run, you have an opportunity to run a low risk, high efficiency play. If you convert, you essentially end the game.

 

Quote

We disagree in the theory of this situational football.  And I have to ability to point at the scoreboard, though. It worked.

 

By that logic, every decision they made throughout the course of the game was correct, because they won. And conversely, every decision they made throughout the course of the previous game was incorrect, because they lost. We know that's not how it works.

[crazycolt1]

23 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

I agree ... and I don't understand why the Colts' offensive playbook doesn't include more play-action plays.  They seem way too telegraphed, either obvious runs or obvious empty backfield passes.  Drives me crazy, dating back and including when Pep was in control.

You seem to think the Colts offence can make plays like they are a seasoned team. This was only the second game our QB has even played for us. More than likely the OC was protecting him from making the mistake he made last week in OT. Had that happened you would have been all over Pagano and Chugs for making a stupid call. No matter what happens throughout the game there will be good and bad calls. That's what happens in the NFL.

 It's easy to sit on your couch and complain and whine about something using hindsight because in your mind you could have done a better job.

Jesus, we won the game but you act like we got blown out or something.

[ColtsBlueFL]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Based on that thinking, you should never throw with a lead late in the game. I know you don't believe that. This is unnecessarily rigid and completely disregards common sense playcalling that can all but erase three of those scenarios from the board. And an incompletion is no worse than a run for no gain, so it's a wash.

 

And this is where calculated risk comes into play. If you've been running unsuccessfully on first down all half, and you know the defense is selling out to stop the run, you have an opportunity to run a low risk, high efficiency play. If you convert, you essentially end the game.

 

 

By that logic, every decision they made throughout the course of the game was correct, because they won. And conversely, every decision they made throughout the course of the previous game was incorrect, because they lost. We know that's not how it works.

 

We have not shown an ability to run quick slants, or float a pass to the flat.  Yes, we need to improve on this.  I feel like Bill Polian... we just don't need to do there what we're not good at.  But we aren't good with the run either.  So this team is hamstrung.  We need to do this in crunch time-

 

 

But don't.  We tried to run a classic 4 minute offense.  This is an opportunity for our offense to take control of the line of scrimmage and physically whip the opposition up front while the seconds methodically tick off of the clock.  We aren't good enough to do this.  We presently do not have a 4 minute offense that can milk the clock out...  or we would have done it. We also don't want our quarterback throwing the deep out or a comeback, or trying to force the ball into any tight windows here.  How does JB look on inside cuts/slants, and quick outs to the flat?   Anything else in that situation is an invitation to disaster, IMO. 

 

By the same token JB wasn't all that great passing on first downs either, as I remember charting it and posting elsewhere. We will have to learn to play with a lead, and finish games.  In what ever way gets the W.

 

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, rockywoj said:

It was NOT as safe as it could of been.  If they concluded that they simply didn't want a turnover, then they should have simply had the QB down the ball.  So your argument of running those plays to avoid a turnover is simply flawed, for there was a safer way to accomplish that goal.  Hence, if you are saying the primary concern is not to turn the ball over on 1st to 3rd downs, there, then Chud & Chuck failed at even that, for they were running running plays that involved handing the ball off and giving the Browns the opportunity to strip the ball.

 

And your last statement is also false.  You can make the correct and perfect call, but it simply doesn't work out.  The goal, though, must be to always make the correct call, nonetheless.  The football gods will determine whether it works out.  If I am an owner or GM, my expectation is that the coaching staff will always strive to make the correct perfect calls.  If they do not, then they are leaving room for improvement and I am taking them to task for making bad decisions, whether they win or not.

 

The applicable analogy here, is compare it to poker.  If I make the correct"play", but still lose the hand, then there really is no way I can improve as a poker player, for I played as perfectly as possible.  It's just that the poker gods intervened to undermine my success.  Same with coaching and play calling in football.  If you make the perfect call, there is simply nothing more as a coach that you can do, whether or not the play works.

You can argue all you care to but it changes nothing. We just disagree on what we think was going on. You are so possessed with making Pagano and Chud seem so bad you fail to even consider the rest of the game. Both did what they thought was needed to win the game and it worked.

[rockywoj]

30 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

You seem to think the Colts offence can make plays like they are a seasoned team. This was only the second game our QB has even played for us. More than likely the OC was protecting him from making the mistake he made last week in OT. Had that happened you would have been all over Pagano and Chugs for making a stupid call. No matter what happens throughout the game there will be good and bad calls. That's what happens in the NFL.

 It's easy to sit on your couch and complain and whine about something using hindsight because in your mind you could have done a better job.

Jesus, we won the game but you act like we got blown out or something.

My comment about lack of play action in the playbook is a generality, based not only on what I have seen this season, but also over the previous five years!

 

It was a general observation having nothing to do with the last game result.

[rockywoj]

33 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

You can argue all you care to but it changes nothing. We just disagree on what we think was going on. You are so possessed with making Pagano and Chud seem so bad you fail to even consider the rest of the game. Both did what they thought was needed to win the game and it worked.

Colts dive running plays straight into the line rarely work for anything more than one, maybe two yards.  This has been the experience for the last five plus years.  I have no interest in trying to make Chcuk & Chud look bad.  I don't care who is the coach and who is the OC.  I will critique a play failure to my sensibilities, regardless of who it is.  Back in the Manning era, post James, heck, even post Addai, I lamented their ineffective dive running plays ... in the same needing to run out the clock situations.

 

The first half, aside from a mostly ineffective running game (a few exceptions early), I thought the offense did a really good job and the offensive game plan was really good.  (I was not blind to the fact, though, that much of the success was on the legs of Brissett, scrambling out of a collapsing offensive line and making plays happen on his own talent.)

 

Second half, though, things turned too vanilla and I continue to dislike the lack of play action, the lack of quick passes instead of 5 or more step drops (because of an ineffective offensive line), and the lack of well designed running plays, instead of the telegraphed dive plays straight into the line.

 

I gave the O a B+ in the first half (a pretty darn good grade) and a D in the second half.  On that first down with 2:03 I give them and F for that play.

 

Obviously our disagreement is philisophical.  If I am owner and you are OC, I fire you at the end of the year because I simply disagree with your offensive philosophy and mentality on certain key plays. <shrugs>  And the argument about fear of turnover is your concern, them I am upset with you for running plays instead of just downing it to run the clock, before giving the ball back to the Browns offense. 

 

(As for the bolded part, in poker that is called "being wrongly results oriented".  What that means is, you make the wrong or bad decision, but you win the hand, so you think you did the right play.  It's amateurish.  Your saying the result justifies the play is saying they won, so the amateurish play call is okay.  I disagree, wholeheartedly.)

 

Not more to say back and forth anymore, as things are now simply circular in argument.

[rockywoj]

42 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

We have not shown an ability to run quick slants, or float a pass to the flat.  Yes, we need to improve on this.  I feel like Bill Polian... we just don't need to do there what we're not good at.  But we aren't good with the run either.  So this team is hamstrung.  We need to do this in crunch time-

 

 

But don't.  We tried to run a classic 4 minute offense.  This is an opportunity for our offense to take control of the line of scrimmage and physically whip the opposition up front while the seconds methodically tick off of the clock.  We aren't good enough to do this.  We presently do not have a 4 minute offense that can milk the clock out...  or we would have done it. We also don't want our quarterback throwing the deep out or a comeback, or trying to force the ball into any tight windows here.  How does JB look on inside cuts/slants, and quick outs to the flat?   Anything else in that situation is an invitation to disaster, IMO. 

 

By the same token JB wasn't all that great passing on first downs either, as I remember charting it and posting elsewhere. We will have to learn to play with a lead, and finish games.  In what ever way gets the W.

 

The running play you show is not a dreadful dive into the line.  It's a well executed running play that spreads things out and give the RB options to choose from.  Comparatively, the Colts dives into the line are just horribly conceived.

[ColtsBlueFL]

5 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

The running play you show is not a dreadful dive into the line.  It's a well executed running play that spreads things out and give the RB options to choose from.  Comparatively, the Colts dives into the line are just horribly conceived.

 

That play was also likely to go up the gut, but is was bunched up in the middle.  Because they put a hat on a hat, the RB could see a lane open up and bounced it out into a skinny hole.  Gets 9 yards too.  We can't create lanes anywhere it seems, and often double team a guy while another is free.    Classic 4 minute offenses are based upon certain type runs as well as certain ''safe' pass plays.  Some of the tough guy 4 minute offense core run plays for either Power and Zone systems are the Power O, Counter OF, Wham, Iso, Stretch and Inside Zone, often run from 22 or 13 personnel. No fancy off the charts plays, either. I wish I had purchased game pass again this year. I am sure the All 22 must be out by now, or soon will be.

 

That brings up another question... just what is our O line run blocking identity?  Are we power?  Are we ZBS?  Hybrid?  What?  I never see any report, from either media or forum member(s) otherwise, on what we run.

 

Pass to score... run to win.

 

We need to get players and scheme working together, and improve.