Yet Another Classic Colts Play Of The Week

[King Colt]

The long lateral pass on the kickoff that for some reason went all wrong was another shining example of a coach that does not get it. This time it was the special teams coach Tom McMahon. Nice job Tom yu iz schmard

[jvan1973]

25 minutes ago, King Colt said:

The long lateral pass on the kickoff that for some reason went all wrong was another shining example of a coach that does not get it. This time it was the special teams coach Tom McMahon. Nice job Tom yu iz schmard

It didn't work.    It wasn't a catastrophic play.   They saw something,   the players didn't execute.   It isn't always on the coaches.   

[GoDeep]

Bray should have just tucked it and took off, there was green in front of him.

[King Colt]

16 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

It didn't work.    It wasn't a catastrophic play.   They saw something,   the players didn't execute.   It isn't always on the coaches.   

That was a designed play and yes it was not catastrophic but it could have been and that alone qualifies it for a foolish play. The Colts are not in the position to experiment on the field. Put points on the board is all they need to work on because they are not doing it so far. That red zone snap to Gore was another example of not doing the basics to score. They beat a pathetic 0-5 team today by a field goal in OT and that tells their story for this season.

[jvan1973]

2 minutes ago, King Colt said:

That was a designed play and yes it was not catastrophic but it could have been and that alone qualifies it for a foolish play. The Colts are not in the position to experiment on the field. Put points on the board is all they need to work on because they are not doing it so far. That red zone snap to Gore was another example of not doing the basics to score. They beat a pathetic 0-5 team today by a field goal in OT and that tells their story for this season.

The players in both insurances were the problem.   The snap went right to gore,   he didn't catch it.   Same thing on the punt return.   Players have to execute

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, King Colt said:

The long lateral pass on the kickoff that for some reason went all wrong was another shining example of a coach that does not get it. This time it was the special teams coach Tom McMahon. Nice job Tom yu iz schmard

Do you ever post anything positive? I mean it must suck to be so negative all the time. I think we all get it, you hate the colts.

 

i want pagano and every current coach fired asap but at least I occasionally post something that isn't negative

[PuntersArePeopleToo]

50 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

The players in both insurances were the problem.   The snap went right to gore,   he didn't catch it.   Same thing on the punt return.   Players have to execute

Ya the Gore play. It is like we have done that multiple times with Jacoby and the announcers say how they find it dumb. We had run it earlier and gain some good yards. It hasn't been a bad play Gore just missed just like QBs do. I keep hoping they'll do a quick pass to Jacoby on one of those when we are that close to the endzone

[King Colt]

31 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Do you ever post anything positive? I mean it must suck to be so negative all the time. I think we all get it, you hate the colts.

 

i want pagano and every current coach fired asap but at least I occasionally post something that isn't negative

Positive? No, never. I ask you this, how do you find the time to read all of my posts? 

[csmopar]

Just now, King Colt said:

Positive? No, never. I ask you this, how do you find the time to read all of my posts? 

It's not hard when your negative posts are scattered all over the forum.....

[jvan1973]

38 minutes ago, King Colt said:

Positive? No, never. I ask you this, how do you find the time to read all of my posts? 

No one could follow all of your posts,   but I've yet to see a positive one about the colts.    

[rockywoj]

Another example ... the play before their 2nd TD, first and goal from the one, their bunched up scream to EVERYBODY that they are once again NOT going to execute a power run up the gut.  Result, minus two yards.

 

To their credit, the next play they finally lined up in a formation with options, causing the defence to have to account for both run and pass, with the alignment spread out. Result, TD!

 

Still way toooooo many times they try that USELESS telegraphed run play., over and over and over again.  I swear to god, if I were Irsay I would tell Chuck and Chud, if I see that telegraphed run play one more time, I’ll fire you both mid game!

[GhostofJohnnyU]

11 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

Another example ... the play before their 2nd TD, first and goal from the one, their bunched up scream to EVERYBODY that they are once again NOT going to execute a power run up the gut.  Result, minus two yards.

 

To their credit, the next play they finally lined up in a formation with options, causing the defence to have to account for both run and pass, with the alignment spread out. Result, TD!

 

Still way toooooo many times they try that USELESS telegraphed run play., over and over and over again.  I swear to god, if I were Irsay I would tell Chuck and Chud, if I see that telegraphed run play one more time, I’ll fire you both mid game!

 

LOL.  I agree with you.  It's as if we expect to overpower a defensive front.  Haven't seen that happen for a long time.

[WERC82]

13 hours ago, King Colt said:

The long lateral pass on the kickoff that for some reason went all wrong was another shining example of a coach that does not get it. This time it was the special teams coach Tom McMahon. Nice job Tom yu iz schmard

Followed shortly by a direct snap to Gore shows these coaches have very little understanding of high percentage plays. When you are not that good at executing normal plays why would you throw in trick plays in a 3 point ball game?

[Narcosys]

Did we keep the ball? Then it wasnt catastrophic. It was worth the risk. It could have been a great play and EVERYONE would be singing a different tune.

 

Remember all the onside kicks pat completed couple years ago? Everyone LOVED those risky plays. 

 

If you were one of those people, then just sit down already.

[pgt_rob]

But if it worked, everyone would be excited about it. It doesn't matter, they tried, it didn't work, we move on.

[coltsva]

The problem is the coaches don't seem to know which players they can trust to make  good decisions. 

1. Bray had 10-20 yards of open field in front of him, but chose to throw.

2. The lateral/pass was covered, but Bray threw it anyway. It was a stroke of good fortune it wasn't intercepted or knocked down for a fumble.

 

The play wasn't necessarily a poor call by the coaches, but like the infamous fake punt, the players involved weren't 100% prepared to execute it properly, or abort if the advantage wasn't there. 

[dgambill]

3 hours ago, pgt_rob said:

But if it worked, everyone would be excited about it. It doesn't matter, they tried, it didn't work, we move on.

EHH...I was at the game and actually right down the line from the play...it wasn't that it didn't work and move on...it was almost  almost 6 the other way...not to mention we had the opportunity to have EXCELLENT field position in a close game and we blew it by trying this. I just think the timing was not smart. It's nice to try things....but when you come out of a great defensive stand pinning a team deep then are expecting to get the ball back and flip the field yet you do this....ahhh not what I call a good call. If we are down like 17 and need a spark that's one thing...say its the first play of the game on a kick off and you see something in film all week and you want to run it..ok but timing is everything. Just like the Gore play....we've done it multiple times and at best its like a 4-5 yard play. But the second time in the game you run it after they've seen it once before in the same position on the field...and we are struggling to score tds....yuck. Again, I don't having the plays in our arsenal...just when we are using them.

[dgambill]

3 hours ago, coltsva said:

The problem is the coaches don't seem to know which players they can trust to make  good decisions. 

1. Bray had 10-20 yards of open field in front of him, but chose to throw.

2. The lateral/pass was covered, but Bray threw it anyway. It was a stroke of good fortune it wasn't intercepted or knocked down for a fumble.

 

The play wasn't necessarily a poor call by the coaches, but like the infamous fake punt, the players involved weren't 100% prepared to execute it properly, or abort if the advantage wasn't there. 

Perfectly said!! I think that is definitely the case.....just like I don't think Gore is a great back to run the wildcat...he has trouble catching screen passes much less direct snaps...and he is no threat to throw...and he is not dynamic in his speed to really do much special with the ball even when he gets the snap. But yeah...who is running the plays matter...and I don't trust many guys on this team to make the right decision outside of 12.

[dw49]

Kravitz called it " Son of fake punt."  Pretty funny .  As far as Pagano goes ... I think the D giving up 14 points to that offense in the last 8 minutes of the game tells at least "most" of the story. They hadn't scored a TD all year on the road. The "rest" of the story was the time management on that last SF TD. Chuck correctly refuses to take the 10 second runoff on the illegal motion, Then 2 plays later , he lets SF run 40 seconds off the clock before running their 4th and goal play from the 5. So instead of having around 58 seconds and 1 or 2 time outs (I forgot which it would have been) , he has like 20 seconds and takes a knee. 

[GhostofJohnnyU]

2 hours ago, dgambill said:

EHH...I was at the game and actually right down the line from the play...it wasn't that it didn't work and move on...it was almost  almost 6 the other way...not to mention we had the opportunity to have EXCELLENT field position in a close game and we blew it by trying this. I just think the timing was not smart. It's nice to try things....but when you come out of a great defensive stand pinning a team deep then are expecting to get the ball back and flip the field yet you do this....ahhh not what I call a good call. If we are down like 17 and need a spark that's one thing...say its the first play of the game on a kick off and you see something in film all week and you want to run it..ok but timing is everything. Just like the Gore play....we've done it multiple times and at best its like a 4-5 yard play. But the second time in the game you run it after they've seen it once before in the same position on the field...and we are struggling to score tds....yuck. Again, I don't having the plays in our arsenal...just when we are using them.

 

I was also at the game.  On the punt return, apparently somebody forgot to tell Brey to not throw the ball if there's a guy within 5 yards of Hogan.  

 

There was.  I thought the 49ers guy might actually catch the ball in the air.  The play was way more poorly executed than it was designed.

[dgambill]

30 minutes ago, GhostofJohnnyU said:

 

I was also at the game.  On the punt return, apparently somebody forgot to tell Brey to not throw the ball if there's a guy within 5 yards of Hogan.  

 

There was.  I thought the 49ers guy might actually catch the ball in the air.  The play was way more poorly executed than it was designed.

Indeed...my stomach did a flop when I saw him throw it....and it hung in the air forever...I'm not even sure the 49ers guy was watching the ball....but heck we could have even fumbled it or missed it...it just wasn't executed well....Bray was throwing it no matter what...and that can't be how its drawn up. He also had the most room for a return on that play as well...at least 15 yards before encountering anyone. We went from mid field likely position to like the 15.

[dgambill]

1 hour ago, dw49 said:

Kravitz called it " Son of fake punt."  Pretty funny .  As far as Pagano goes ... I think the D giving up 14 points to that offense in the last 8 minutes of the game tells at least "most" of the story. They hadn't scored a TD all year on the road. The "rest" of the story was the time management on that last SF TD. Chuck correctly refuses to take the 10 second runoff on the illegal motion, Then 2 plays later , he lets SF run 40 seconds off the clock before running their 4th and goal play from the 5. So instead of having around 58 seconds and 1 or 2 time outs (I forgot which it would have been) , he has like 20 seconds and takes a knee. 

Yeah...I think he was taking a knee regardless...I'm not sure he trusted Brissett with 1 minute or 20 seconds...either way. Chuck is not a big risk taker....except on these gadget plays at the worst times. It's like he does them just to prove someone wrong...like you don't think I take chances....well watch this! Honestly its fine...your conservative than just be conservative...but don't do stuff out of your element...I think it even affects the players...like omg...we are going to do something different...crazy...and they get all nervous and mess it up. You can tell from top to bottom this team and organization doesn't like to take chances or run fake plays etc...and the uneasiness of the coaches rubs off on the players.

[dw49]

14 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Yeah...I think he was taking a knee regardless...I'm not sure he trusted Brissett with 1 minute or 20 seconds...either way. Chuck is not a big risk taker....except on these gadget plays at the worst times. It's like he does them just to prove someone wrong...like you don't think I take chances....well watch this!

 

Evidently the case. But why would you decline the 10 second run off just before that if you don't trust Brissett ? Changed his mind ?

 

Also getting the ball at the 25 would mean you need around 38 years to give AV a shot from around 55 on the last play of the game. I guarantee you the "win rate" would far exceed the odds of a turnover in that situation.

 

It really amazes me that football owners have not evolved to hiring people that are football savvy with "statistical" mindsets to make these decisions for guys like Chuck Pagano. I guarantee you that Brissett would probably get you 40 yards with that minute and 1-2 timeouts than the Colts would turn the ball over. Just for kicks lets say the Colts turn the ball over 2 times in a game. Give them 70 snaps. So if Brissett can get you those 40 yards just 4 out of 70 times , your odds would be double AV would get a shot at winning the game than it would be of turning the ball over. God , It's not even close. You , IMO , win the game way more times than you lose it by giving your team time to get 40 yards. 

[dgambill]

26 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

Evidently the case. But why would you decline the 10 second run off just before that if you don't trust Brissett ? Changed his mind ?

 

Also getting the ball at the 25 would mean you need around 38 years to give AV a shot from around 55 on the last play of the game. I guarantee you the "win rate" would far exceed the odds of a turnover in that situation.

 

It really amazes me that football owners have not evolved to hiring people that are football savvy with "statistical" mindsets to make these decisions for guys like Chuck Pagano. I guarantee you that Brissett would probably get you 40 yards with that minute and 1-2 timeouts than the Colts would turn the ball over. Just for kicks lets say the Colts turn the ball over 2 times in a game. Give them 70 snaps. So if Brissett can get you those 40 yards just 4 out of 70 times , your odds would be double AV would get a shot at winning the game than it would be of turning the ball over. God , It's not even close. You , IMO , win the game way more times than you lose it by giving your team time to get 40 yards. 

Sure...but the times you lose it will be far more remembered then any amount of times you win. Trust me...qb takes them down and wins it you brag about qb and kicker....qb turns it over you yell at the coach why did risk it! The risk reward of both outcomes aren't equal....the coach is going to try to save his bacon first...unless he has established himself as an elite coach that can weather the media storms like a Belichick or Harbaugh or Andy Reid etc....I agree the percentages say go for it...just like when teams punt instead of go for it on 4th down....I agree a coach shouldn't be more scared of saving his skin than winning a game....protectionist coaching is what gets you mediocre ball clubs but its just the way it is. I will say though the numbers can be deceiving sometimes too...just like we see how Bellichick will manipulate the numbers to throw off pass/run, zone/man coverages, redzone defenses it isn't just black and white...but I'm with you...like I said...he isn't comfortable making risky calls etc...and yes he probably talked himself out of it. There is a lot to question...and also like I said I'm fine with what you are...but own and live with it...I think even the players suffer when he does these things because it puts more pressure on them when they see how uneasy the coach is when making a decision to be spontaneous or go against his grain. We all hear a team takes on the persona of its captain...well Chucks uneasiness I think plays itself out on the field many times.

[IinD]

As the announcers also said 'Pagano tries to be too cute' with the trickery.

 

We're obviously not good at it so I'd probably scrap those type plays.

 

This one, the #1 all time terrible Pats one, McAfee against the Raiders...just 'ixnay' your creative stuff.

[colt18]

22 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

It didn't work.    It wasn't a catastrophic play.   They saw something,   the players didn't execute.   It isn't always on the coaches.   

It was a dumb play. 

 

It was almost as dumb as that failed trick play on 4th down Pags called against the Pats.

 

 

Just because "they saw something" doesn't mean it was a dumb, flawed play to begin with. 

[dw49]

20 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Sure...but the times you lose it will be far more remembered then any amount of times you win. Trust me...qb takes them down and wins it you brag about qb and kicker....qb turns it over you yell at the coach why did risk it! The risk reward of both outcomes aren't equal....the coach is going to try to save his bacon first...unless he has established himself as an elite coach that can weather the media storms like a Belichick or Harbaugh or Andy Reid etc....I agree the percentages say go for it...just like when teams punt instead of go for it on 4th down....I agree a coach shouldn't be more scared of saving his skin than winning a game....protectionist coaching is what gets you mediocre ball clubs but its just the way it is. I will say though the numbers can be deceiving sometimes too...just like we see how Bellichick will manipulate the numbers to throw off pass/run, zone/man coverages, redzone defenses it isn't just black and white...but I'm with you...like I said...he isn't comfortable making risky calls etc...and yes he probably talked himself out of it. There is a lot to question...and also like I said I'm fine with what you are...but own and live with it...I think even the players suffer when he does these things because it puts more pressure on them when they see how uneasy the coach is when making a decision to be spontaneous or go against his grain. We all hear a team takes on the persona of its captain...well Chucks uneasiness I think plays itself out on the field many times.

 

 

No it's not "black and white " and that's why I mentioned you need a stat man that has football "savvy." There are issues like added pressure to Brissett and the fact that SF would just be playing pass. So .. yes the risk of a turnover would go up a bit in this situation. But I have no doubt you probably win the football game like 61 times out of a 100 going for it and maybe 53 times out of a 100 playing it like Chick did. 

 

That said , I agree with the possibility you put forth explaining why Chuck played it safe . Probably did factor into his decision. 

[Peterk2011]

3 hours ago, dw49 said:

The "rest" of the story was the time management on that last SF TD. Chuck correctly refuses to take the 10 second runoff on the illegal motion, Then 2 plays later , he lets SF run 40 seconds off the clock before running their 4th and goal play from the 5. So instead of having around 58 seconds and 1 or 2 time outs (I forgot which it would have been) , he has like 20 seconds and takes a knee. 

 

3 hours ago, dw49 said:

It really amazes me that football owners have not evolved to hiring people that are football savvy with "statistical" mindsets to make these decisions for guys like Chuck Pagano. I guarantee you that Brissett would probably get you 40 yards with that minute and 1-2 timeouts than the Colts would turn the ball over. Just for kicks lets say the Colts turn the ball over 2 times in a game. Give them 70 snaps. So if Brissett can get you those 40 yards just 4 out of 70 times , your odds would be double AV would get a shot at winning the game than it would be of turning the ball over. God , It's not even close. You , IMO , win the game way more times than you lose it by giving your team time to get 40 yards.

 

Nice theory But let's check facts here, ok? If Pagano DOES call a timeout when you wanted to (at cca. 1:05), then - considering the niners still has to score, then they have to kick the ball -, the MOST time the Colts could've kept on the clock were cca. 50 seconds. Do you know how many teams went on trying to win the game in the last 20 years in the NFL, when a) the game was tie (so they were not behind and were not forced to) b) there was 50 or less seconds on the clock? Let me tell you. Zero. None.  Nobody tried that. Not with Manning, not with Rodgers, not with Brady, not with Marino. So, what do you think. Is there a half decent coach out there - anywhere - who, at his right mind would try that with Jacoby Brissett?  I don't need the answer I guess...

 

That is what Pagano lost there by not calling the timeout at 1:00. Nothing. (When you are behind, that's a different story. Then, you have no choice, you have to go for it.)

 

Now, let's think a bit and try to understand what Pagano did, ok? He had 2 timeouts, the Niners had 2 timeouts as well. It was a near goal line situation (at 5 yards), and 3rd down. Right personnel is everything there, if you go out with wrong personnel, you screwed. How do you know you go out with the right personnel? If you don't have more timeouts, and the opponent HC has, and calls his, then you have to guess and pray. But if you have timeouts, you play the mindgame. Use those timeouts to force the opponent to tell about their plan. The previous 2 plays were successfully defended, so the Colts were OK going with the personnel they had on the field. It was Shanahan who had to call his timeout, to change the play, possibly personnel. Pagano kept his, to be able to respond if necessary. It was necessary, so he called his timeout as well and corrected what he needed to correct.

 

Long story short, what Pagano did, is the same what any half decent coach would have done there: he tried to win the game by stopping the Niners from scoring, instead of trying something that no team, no coach has ever tried to do in the last 2 decades. The Niners scrored there, but still, this was the only sane decision there.

 

[jvan1973]

28 minutes ago, colt18 said:

It was a dumb play. 

 

It was almost as dumb as that failed trick play on 4th down Pags called against the Pats.

 

 

Just because "they saw something" doesn't mean it was a dumb, flawed play to begin with. 

Was the music city miracle a dumb flawed play?

[rockywoj]

Another thing that drives me crazy?

 

20-something seconds left, tie game, ball in your hands, all you need is a FG ... and once again Pagano opps to give up possession by kneeling down and running out the clock.  

 

There was plenty of time time to run a couple of plays to try to get into FG range, use your TO, then kick the winning FG.  To just give it up, instead risking never seeing the ball again, I consider it purely asinine.   You win the toss, you are in the EXACT same boat, other than being short on time.

 

This is a repeated fail during the Pagano era.  Again, a total coaching strategy fail, in my book.

 

Colts won and that’s great, but the coaching is making it way harder than it needs to be ... and yet another game goes by with a plethora of bad coaching decisions.  In my 50 years of watching the Colts, I cannot recall such a level of coaching ineptitude.  Sickens me.

[krunk]

Man stop nit picking over 20 Seconds

[dw49]

1 hour ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

 

Nice theory But let's check facts here, ok? If Pagano DOES call a timeout when you wanted to (at cca. 1:05), then - considering the niners still has to score, then they have to kick the ball -, the MOST time the Colts could've kept on the clock were cca. 50 seconds. Do you know how many teams went on trying to win the game in the last 20 years in the NFL, when a) the game was tie (so they were not behind and were not forced to) b) there was 50 or less seconds on the clock? Let me tell you. Zero. None.  Nobody tried that. Not with Manning, not with Rodgers, not with Brady, not with Marino. So, what do you think. Is there a half decent coach out there - anywhere - who, at his right mind would try that with Jacoby Brissett?  I don't need the answer I guess...

 

That is what Pagano lost there by not calling the timeout at 1:00. Nothing. (When you are behind, that's a different story. Then, you have no choice, you have to go for it.)

 

Now, let's think a bit and try to understand what Pagano did, ok? He had 2 timeouts, the Niners had 2 timeouts as well. It was a near goal line situation (at 5 yards), and 3rd down. Right personnel is everything there, if you go out with wrong personnel, you screwed. How do you know you go out with the right personnel? If you don't have more timeouts, and the opponent HC has, and calls his, then you have to guess and pray. But if you have timeouts, you play the mindgame. Use those timeouts to force the opponent to tell about their plan. The previous 2 plays were successfully defended, so the Colts were OK going with the personnel they had on the field. It was Shanahan who had to call his timeout, to change the play, possibly personnel. Pagano kept his, to be able to respond if necessary. It was necessary, so he called his timeout as well and corrected what he needed to correct.

 

Long story short, what Pagano did, is the same what any half decent coach would have done there: he tried to win the game by stopping the Niners from scoring, instead of trying something that no team, no coach has ever tried to do in the last 2 decades. The Niners scrored there, but still, this was the only sane decision there.

 

 

Please give me a link that backs up your statement that no team in the history of football has ever tried to advance into FG position with around 57 seconds left   and 2 time outs in a tie game. That is such an absurd statement. Furthermore if a TO is called on 4th down with 1:05 left on the clock , you say the MOST that could be left is 50 seconds and go on to say SF has to kick the ball off. Well most of the time in that situation they just kick deep. Considering SF could score in like 4 seconds and the clock doesn't start again until the OFFENSE touches the ball on the KO , how in the world can you say the other 10 seconds are for sure gone ? Or maybe you think the clock starts when the ball is kicked ? Probably.....

[Cynjin]

1 hour ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

 

Nice theory But let's check facts here, ok? If Pagano DOES call a timeout when you wanted to (at cca. 1:05), then - considering the niners still has to score, then they have to kick the ball -, the MOST time the Colts could've kept on the clock were cca. 50 seconds. Do you know how many teams went on trying to win the game in the last 20 years in the NFL, when a) the game was tie (so they were not behind and were not forced to) b) there was 50 or less seconds on the clock? Let me tell you. Zero. None.  Nobody tried that. Not with Manning, not with Rodgers, not with Brady, not with Marino. So, what do you think. Is there a half decent coach out there - anywhere - who, at his right mind would try that with Jacoby Brissett?  I don't need the answer I guess...

 

That is what Pagano lost there by not calling the timeout at 1:00. Nothing. (When you are behind, that's a different story. Then, you have no choice, you have to go for it.)

 

Now, let's think a bit and try to understand what Pagano did, ok? He had 2 timeouts, the Niners had 2 timeouts as well. It was a near goal line situation (at 5 yards), and 3rd down. Right personnel is everything there, if you go out with wrong personnel, you screwed. How do you know you go out with the right personnel? If you don't have more timeouts, and the opponent HC has, and calls his, then you have to guess and pray. But if you have timeouts, you play the mindgame. Use those timeouts to force the opponent to tell about their plan. The previous 2 plays were successfully defended, so the Colts were OK going with the personnel they had on the field. It was Shanahan who had to call his timeout, to change the play, possibly personnel. Pagano kept his, to be able to respond if necessary. It was necessary, so he called his timeout as well and corrected what he needed to correct.

 

Long story short, what Pagano did, is the same what any half decent coach would have done there: he tried to win the game by stopping the Niners from scoring, instead of trying something that no team, no coach has ever tried to do in the last 2 decades. The Niners scrored there, but still, this was the only sane decision there.

 

 

Actually, the Colts did it with Manning.  IIRC, the Colts had no time outs left and there was about 30 secs left.

[2006Coltsbestever]

We win a must win game and some people still aren't happy  figures. We won so who cares.

[rockywoj]

19 minutes ago, krunk said:

Man stop nit picking over 20 Seconds

As I recall, Colts have pretty much lost games in that amount of time.  You have possession of the ball, you go for the win.  It is CRAZY not to.  You lose the toss, you may not see the ball again.  

 

Have you not watched Aaron Rodgers over the last couple of years?

 

No, I will not stop “nit picking” horrifically bad coaching strategy.  6 years in, I am calling out these repeated coaching fails.

[krunk]

Just now, rockywoj said:

As I recall, Colts have pretty much lost games in that amount of time.  You have possession of the ball, you go for the win.  It is CRAZY not to.  You lose the toss, you may not see the ball again.  

 

Have you not watched Aaron Rodgers over the last couple of years?

 

No, I will not stop “nit picking” horrifically bad coaching strategy.  6 years in, I am calling out these repeated fails.

Yeah Jacoby Brissett is Aaron Rogers.  You are just finding every little piece of lint and trying to make us think it's full carpet.

[rockywoj]

2 minutes ago, krunk said:

Yeah Jacoby Brissett is Aaron Rogers.  You are just finding every little piece of lint and trying to make us think it's full carpet.

He’s your QB.   You have him try to win you the game, just like you do if you win the toss in OT.  This, oh it,s only Brissett is a total cop it.  I dn’t Care who your QB is. You run the plays you need to run and your QB is either going to execute it or not.  I see no reason to not have faith in Brissett.   You gotta TRY.  

 

I say, bah!   I totally disagree with you.  There is good coaching and bad.  We are seeing bad.  It is cut and dry.

[jvan1973]

28 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

Another thing that drives me crazy?

 

20-something seconds left, tie game, ball in your hands, all you need is a FG ... and once again Pagano opps to give up possession by kneeling down and running out the clock.  

 

There was plenty of time time to run a couple of plays to try to get into FG range, use your TO, then kick the winning FG.  To just give it up, instead risking never seeing the ball again, I consider it purely asinine.   You win the toss, you are in the EXACT same boat, other than being short on time.

 

This is a repeated fail during the Pagano era.  Again, a total coaching strategy fail, in my book.

 

Colts won and that’s great, but the coaching is making it way harder than it needs to be ... and yet another game goes by with a plethora of bad coaching decisions.  In my 50 years of watching the Colts, I cannot recall such a level of coaching ineptitude.  Sickens me.

If JB throws a pick,  then you would be here bashing pagano for it.

 

JB isn't Peyton.   He has 6 career starts.   He isn't even able to call audibles yet, but you want him to go 40 yards in 20 seconds 

[jvan1973]

3 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

He’s your QB.   You have him try to win you the game, just like you do if you win the toss in OT.  This, oh it,s only Brissett is a total cop it.  I dn’t Care who your QB is. You run the plays you need to run and your QB is either going to execute it or not.  I see no reason to not have faith in Brissett.   You gotta TRY.  

If you have a minute or so I would agree,   not 20 seconds. 

[dw49]

1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:

If JB throws a pick,  then you would be here bashing pagano for it.

 

JB isn't Peyton.   He has 6 career starts.   He isn't even able to call audibles yet, but you want him to go 40 yards in 20 seconds 

 

 

No but 40 yards in around 57 seconds with 2 time outs is not unreasonable. That's what he could have had. I don't blame him for the kneel down with 20 seconds. Letting the clock run down 40 seconds n the 4th down play is the questionable one.