Yet Another Classic Colts Play Of The Week

[crazycolt1]

55 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

 

zzzz..... give us some more of that really intelligent fart and brushing teeth sarcasm. Really drove your point home.

Sorry you don't understand what sarcasm is and what is meant by it.

[dw49]

Just now, crazycolt1 said:

Sorry you don't understand what sarcasm is and what is meant by it.

 

Yeah you got it . Your fart post was just so far over my head. Your being *ic as I said "you were the one being sarcastic.. not me." I read your post to say that I was answering your post with sarcasm. Where in the world do you get that I didn't know your post was not sarcastic ? Go ahead and show me where I don't get the sarcasm .. as ridiculous as it was. Just put my words in quotes and explain how I don't know what sarcasm is. 

[crazycolt1]

36 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

Yeah you got it . Your fart post was just so far over my head. Your being *ic as I said "you were the one being sarcastic.. not me." I read your post to say that I was answering your post with sarcasm. Where in the world do you get that I didn't know your post was not sarcastic ? Go ahead and show me where I don't get the sarcasm .. as ridiculous as it was. Just put my words in quotes and explain how I don't know what sarcasm is. 

It would be a waist of time. So carry on about a 20 second issue.

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

Of coarse I understood his silly post was sarcasm. Or do you think I really believe  Pagano farting or brushing his teeth is an issue with fans. Really now...He made an "uneven" statement that "I was answering sarcasm" ... whatever the heck that is supposed to mean. I read it wrong and hence the post I wrote back saying I was not being sarcastic. Furthermore he states that I'm possessed with "making Pagano look bad."  I rarely post on Pagano as he's just a lame duck anyway.  

Ok my mistake, maybe I should flush my IQ down the toilet now

[dw49]

55 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

It would be a waist of time. So carry on about a 20 second issue.

 

"waist" of time.... hmmmm  As to taking a knee with 20 seconds , you are misquoting me on that also. Find where I said where I carried on about that one. Or is that a "waist of time also. LOL

[dw49]

18 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Ok my mistake, maybe I should flush my IQ down the toilet now

  

Nah .. probably would plug the toilet.

[2006Coltsbestever]

9 minutes ago, dw49 said:

  

Nah .. probably would plug the toilet.

Love your comeback, I spit my beer out on that one.

[dw49]

6 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Love your comeback, I spit my beer out on that one.

 

I was being vey complimentary ... no ?

[2006Coltsbestever]

14 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

I was being vey complimentary ... no ?

It's all good my friend. I meant that in a good way.

[Peterk2011]

11 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

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.....

 

Well, I did not say no team in the history of football, I said no team since 1997. Thats when pro-football-reference.com has searchable / queryable game logs from. And to be precise, I said 50 seconds, not 57. Not because I thought the clock starts when the ball is kicked, but because the situation we were talking about was a 3rd down not a 4th down. So there was a chance that there will be 2 plays before they get the ball back. And, there was also a chance, that the Niners will elect to kick it short, to the goal line, forcing the Colts to return it back. On the other side, I assumed, that Pagano will call his timeout(s) immediately, so we don't loose any time in that. All in all, for 1 play - which could be 2 -, plus one timeout - which could be two -, plus for a kickoff - which could be a short one - I took 15 seconds off the clock, as a fair optimum. Regarding timeouts, I did not add any criteria, because a) there was no filter for this on pro-football-reference,com , b) it didn't really matter, because, if Pagano would have chosen to go for it, he'd have to burn at least one - if the Niners fail on 3rd down, then both - to stop the clock. Finally, I added the criteria that the drive started between team's own 1 to 25 yards line.

 

I can't give you an exact link to the result, sorry. I used www.pro-football-reference.com. Go to their site and use their play index tool, enter above criterias, and retrieve the result for yourself please. 

 

(I need to add, that the query gave me cca. a half dozen games back. One of them was actually a Colts game from 2012, against the Vikings, which we won by 23-20, and we did win it by going for the FG at the end. But that drive started at the 40 yard line, I don't know why it wasn't filtered out. I checked the other games too, and all had something not fitting my criterias. So that site might not be 100% perfect, but it should be close. 

 

I should also add, that, if you widen your search criteria - e.g,, go over 1 minutes, or let the drive start close to midfield instead of 25 yards - the number of games you find, will start to grow exponentially. That's expected. If there was a chance that we can get the ball back with a good field position, I assume the staff would have chosen to go for winning the game. As they did when they refused the automatic 10 seconds.)

[crazycolt1]

Isn't almost 4 pages enough?  All over a 20 second timeout ? Childish horse dung has no end in this forum.

[dw49]

11 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

It's all good my friend. I meant that in a good way.

 

 

I knew that we were good.

 

 It was a pretty good line and can be taken 2 ways. One is your IQ is so big that  it would plug the toilet . The other would be that you have sh.. for brains. Just wanted to let you know I meant it in the first way ? 

[dw49]

4 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

Well, I did not say no team in the history of football, I said no team since 1997. Thats when pro-football-reference.com has searchable / queryable game logs from. And to be precise, I said 50 seconds, not 57. Not because I thought the clock starts when the ball is kicked, but because the situation we were talking about was a 3rd down not a 4th down. So there was a chance that there will be 2 plays before they get the ball back. And, there was also a chance, that the Niners will elect to kick it short, to the goal line, forcing the Colts to return it back. On the other side, I assumed, that Pagano will call his timeout(s) immediately, so we don't loose any time in that. All in all, for 1 play - which could be 2 -, plus one timeout - which could be two -, plus for a kickoff - which could be a short one - I took 15 seconds off the clock, as a fair optimum. Regarding timeouts, I did not add any criteria, because a) there was no filter for this on pro-football-reference,com , b) it didn't really matter, because, if Pagano would have chosen to go for it, he'd have to burn at least one - if the Niners fail on 3rd down, then both - to stop the clock. Finally, I added the criteria that the drive started between team's own 1 to 25 yards line.

 

I can't give you an exact link to the result, sorry. I used www.pro-football-reference.com. Go to their site and use their play index tool, enter above criterias, and retrieve the result for yourself please. 

 

(I need to add, that the query gave me cca. a half dozen games back. One of them was actually a Colts game from 2012, against the Vikings, which we won by 23-20, and we did win it by going for the FG at the end. But that drive started at the 40 yard line, I don't know why it wasn't filtered out. I checked the other games too, and all had something not fitting my criterias. So that site might not be 100% perfect, but it should be close. 

 

I should also add, that, if you widen your search criteria - e.g,, go over 1 minutes, or let the drive start close to midfield instead of 25 yards - the number of games you find, will start to grow exponentially. That's expected. If there was a chance that we can get the ball back with a good field position, I assume the staff would have chosen to go for winning the game. As they did when they refused the automatic 10 seconds.)

 

 

I think everyone has beat this to death by now and I've seen some decent arguments on both sides. I think since you can't filter in the time out you are probably missing something in your search. I also think that saying the clock would be at 50 seconds is a little "generous to your argument. Also there is no way the Colts would have had to use there last TO in that drive. Here's the game situation....

 

1:15 left on the clock ad 3rd and goal from IND 8 yard line. Clock is stopped following a 2nd down incompletion.

 

SF completes a 3 yard pass to Kittie to the IND 5 yard line. Say that took 6 seconds and another 2 for IND to call it's 2nd TO of the game. Thats very generous. That said , you have 1:07 left on the clock . Say 4th down takes 7 seconds. That too is generous. That leaves a minute. In my original post I said about 58 seconds and 1 TO figuring SF kicks the ball out of the end zone . 

 

That said ...to say that under the circumstances all NFL coaches would pass on trying to win the game regardless of the QB ( Favre , Brady , Manning ,Rodgers , Brees ... etc leads me to believe whatever you entered into that site is not producing the correct results. It could be that the yard line you used for the beginning of the drive as really made for a small sample size and also taking the TO out of it ... ? 

 

Anyway I still think you win more ball games the you lose if you try to score in that situation. But I do think some pretty good arguments were brought up by those who supported Pagano in that situation. 

[Cynjin]

5 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

Well, I did not say no team in the history of football, I said no team since 1997. Thats when pro-football-reference.com has searchable / queryable game logs from. And to be precise, I said 50 seconds, not 57. Not because I thought the clock starts when the ball is kicked, but because the situation we were talking about was a 3rd down not a 4th down. So there was a chance that there will be 2 plays before they get the ball back. And, there was also a chance, that the Niners will elect to kick it short, to the goal line, forcing the Colts to return it back. On the other side, I assumed, that Pagano will call his timeout(s) immediately, so we don't loose any time in that. All in all, for 1 play - which could be 2 -, plus one timeout - which could be two -, plus for a kickoff - which could be a short one - I took 15 seconds off the clock, as a fair optimum. Regarding timeouts, I did not add any criteria, because a) there was no filter for this on pro-football-reference,com , b) it didn't really matter, because, if Pagano would have chosen to go for it, he'd have to burn at least one - if the Niners fail on 3rd down, then both - to stop the clock. Finally, I added the criteria that the drive started between team's own 1 to 25 yards line.

 

I can't give you an exact link to the result, sorry. I used www.pro-football-reference.com. Go to their site and use their play index tool, enter above criterias, and retrieve the result for yourself please. 

 

(I need to add, that the query gave me cca. a half dozen games back. One of them was actually a Colts game from 2012, against the Vikings, which we won by 23-20, and we did win it by going for the FG at the end. But that drive started at the 40 yard line, I don't know why it wasn't filtered out. I checked the other games too, and all had something not fitting my criterias. So that site might not be 100% perfect, but it should be close. 

 

I should also add, that, if you widen your search criteria - e.g,, go over 1 minutes, or let the drive start close to midfield instead of 25 yards - the number of games you find, will start to grow exponentially. That's expected. If there was a chance that we can get the ball back with a good field position, I assume the staff would have chosen to go for winning the game. As they did when they refused the automatic 10 seconds.)

 

You're first sentence is incorrect, the Colts did it with Manning during the 1999 season against Miami.  I believe the Colts had no time outs left and there was just over 30 seconds left in the game.

[dw49]

3 hours ago, Cynjin said:

 

You're first sentence is incorrect, the Colts did it with Manning during the 1999 season against Miami.  I believe the Colts had no time outs left and there was just over 30 seconds left in the game.

 

 

I already pointed that game out. Why he doesn't have that game included is because the Colts started on the 32 yard line. He said the team has to start from the 25 or inside it.  It shows that he has a flawed argument as it's only a 7 yard difference if you figure the Colts likely start from their own 25. 

 

 

[jvan1973]

3 hours ago, Cynjin said:

 

You're first sentence is incorrect, the Colts did it with Manning during the 1999 season against Miami.  I believe the Colts had no time outs left and there was just over 30 seconds left in the game.

And we had manning and Harrison

[dw49]

9 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

Well, I did not say no team in the history of football, I said no team since 1997. Thats when pro-football-reference.com has searchable / queryable game logs from. And to be precise, I said 50 seconds, not 57. Not because I thought the clock starts when the ball is kicked, but because the situation we were talking about was a 3rd down not a 4th down. So there was a chance that there will be 2 plays before they get the ball back. And, there was also a chance, that the Niners will elect to kick it short, to the goal line, forcing the Colts to return it back. On the other side, I assumed, that Pagano will call his timeout(s) immediately, so we don't loose any time in that. All in all, for 1 play - which could be 2 -, plus one timeout - which could be two -, plus for a kickoff - which could be a short one - I took 15 seconds off the clock, as a fair optimum. Regarding timeouts, I did not add any criteria, because a) there was no filter for this on pro-football-reference,com , b) it didn't really matter, because, if Pagano would have chosen to go for it, he'd have to burn at least one - if the Niners fail on 3rd down, then both - to stop the clock. Finally, I added the criteria that the drive started between team's own 1 to 25 yards line.

 

I can't give you an exact link to the result, sorry. I used www.pro-football-reference.com. Go to their site and use their play index tool, enter above criterias, and retrieve the result for yourself please. 

 

(I need to add, that the query gave me cca. a half dozen games back. One of them was actually a Colts game from 2012, against the Vikings, which we won by 23-20, and we did win it by going for the FG at the end. But that drive started at the 40 yard line, I don't know why it wasn't filtered out. I checked the other games too, and all had something not fitting my criterias. So that site might not be 100% perfect, but it should be close. 

 

I should also add, that, if you widen your search criteria - e.g,, go over 1 minutes, or let the drive start close to midfield instead of 25 yards - the number of games you find, will start to grow exponentially. That's expected. If there was a chance that we can get the ball back with a good field position, I assume the staff would have chosen to go for winning the game. As they did when they refused the automatic 10 seconds.)

 

 

I not sure of the exact criteria you entered but I searched a few QB's game winning 4th quarter drives. I find this game...

 

Nov. 22nd 2015 (my 66th birthday)

Arizona at Cinn.

 

Score 31-31 This would be almost identical situation , only the Colts likely to have better FP by 9 yards. 

 

AZ has just kicked off and Cinn returned to their 16 yard line. They have 58 seconds and 1 time out. They drove to the 14 and kick 35 yard game winner with 6 seconds left on clock .

[Cynjin]

1 hour ago, jvan1973 said:

And we had manning and Harrison

 

Completely agree, also a better line imo, I was only pointing out that what the poster wrote was incorrect.

[Peterk2011]

20 hours ago, dw49 said:

I not sure of the exact criteria you entered but I searched a few QB's game winning 4th quarter drives. I find this game...

 

Nov. 22nd 2015 (my 66th birthday)

Arizona at Cinn.

 

Score 31-31 This would be almost identical situation , only the Colts likely to have better FP by 9 yards. 

 

AZ has just kicked off and Cinn returned to their 16 yard line. They have 58 seconds and 1 time out. They drove to the 14 and kick 35 yard game winner with 6 seconds left on clock .

 

Probably that's why you found this game. I searched with 50 seconds, as I wrote it before.

 

21 hours ago, dw49 said:

I already pointed that game out. Why he doesn't have that game included is because the Colts started on the 32 yard line. He said the team has to start from the 25 or inside it.  It shows that he has a flawed argument as it's only a 7 yard difference if you figure the Colts likely start from their own 25. 

 

My point wasn't to prove that such game never happened, my point was, that i'ts very rarely, if ever happens. Does it make any difference, that there were 2, maybe 3 or even 5 games in the last decade if we widen our criteria out a bit? I don't think so. It's still very rare, almost never happens. And if we take into account that the Colts played with a backup QB, who's been here for 4-5 weeks and still learning the system, I don't think my argument was flawed.

[dw49]

2 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

Probably that's why you found this game. I searched with 50 seconds, as I wrote it before.

 

 

My point wasn't to prove that such game never happened, my point was, that i'ts very rarely, if ever happens. Does it make any difference, that there were 2, maybe 3 or even 5 games in the last decade if we widen our criteria out a bit? I don't think so. It's still very rare, almost never happens. And if we take into account that the Colts played with a backup QB, who's been here for 4-5 weeks and still learning the system, I don't think my argument was flawed.

 

I don't for a minute think you proved that when a team has a chance to get the ball with around 58 seconds and 1 TO left in a tie game ... they will take a knee rather than try to move 40 yards. I found games that proved this not to be true. In no way is your argument backed up by your search. You would need to provide just how many times this situation occurred and how many times NFL teams DECLINED to take advantage of the opportunity. When I searched to find exceptions , I can only really search the times they scored . There are plenty I'm sure that didn't result in a game winning FG ? 

 

That said I can appreciate your feelings that Pagano played it correctly . Brissett occasionally makes a really bad throw. So you have to weigh that against the odds of him going 40 yards . I say you win more times than you lose letting him give it a shot. You think differently and that's cool and I don't think your being stupid feeling that way. I however do think you statement that teams very seldom have tried to score under similar circumstances is false . Bottom line is I don't think your search proved anything you say it did.

[tommatte]

I was at the game and the bray play was  a total coach fail. I saw great plays  by the D sometimes... they are young and will learn . JB is young and will make mistakes but when he has time to get the ball away long  it mostly works . 13 drop 2 times good pass in 1st half . Chuck is a lame duck coach and will not do well this year as he sees the door closing . Good for the win with HOF 4  .Don't expect too much hope for football Luck and lets build a TEAM.. Go COLTS

[jvan1973]

It's amazing how many people use the term "lame duck coach" but have no idea what it means.   Pagano may be fired,   but he isn't a lame duck coach

[NewColtsFan]

On 10/9/2017 at 7:28 PM, jameszeigler834 said:

Well you will stand alone defending that bum.

 

He's not alone.

 

I, and many others have defended Pagano over the years.

 

He's not a bum,  he's not a terrible coach,   and he's easy to defend.     

 

The outrage over Pagano here is often silly and ridiculous.  

 

That said,   as an organization,   I think it's time to move on from Pagano.     I think the 6 years are enough.    I think a new, fresh voice is needed.     New blood.     New engery.     A mostly new staff (with some holdovers.)     I think the franchise needs a new leader.       I think Pagano is average and Luck and the team needs more than average.

 

There.     I just called for a new coach without having to trash the old one.     It's not hard.

 

[NewColtsFan]

 

Late to the discussion....

 

I hated the fake punt return.     Hated it.     From the moment that Bray caught the ball and didn't run,  to the moment he turned to throw,   to his off target throw that cost us roughly 10 yards.     I was screaming "No!"  over and over and over.

 

I'm a fan of our ST coach.     Tom MacMahon is one of the better ST coaches in football.    The Colts have had very good ST under his guidance.     I'm sure he saw something on tape that told him the play would work.     I give credit to Pagano for listening to his good assistants.     That takes some political courage knowing our recent history of poor decisions on punt plays.    If Pagano gets fired,  I hope we keep MacMahon.     He's good at his job.

 

But I wish we hadn't done this one.     I'd put it down as a brain cramp.     Trying too hard to make something happen.

 

In games like this I think you're trying to minimize mistakes and not do anything (like the fake return)  which might lead to a disaster.      And we were close to a disaster.       I think it was inadvisable.      A cooler, clearer head would've turned down the idea.

 

I think this is what happens when a HC and a staff are fighting for their jobs.    Glad it didn't cost us the game.

 

[dw49]

6 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

It's amazing how many people use the term "lame duck coach" but have no idea what it means.   Pagano may be fired,   but he isn't a lame duck coach

 

Doesn't have to be an elected official whose term is over but not removed from office yet. When I used that term , I was expressing the fact that he's really coaching right now because Irsay couldn't find someone he wanted , so he stayed with Pagano for another year. IMO , there is no way that Pagano is coaching next year unless he does something like reach the finals of the AFC. He's a bad football coach that is 100% gone next year. Below is one of the definitions found in the dictionary. So take your "Amazement " to webster , stop being so condescending and read my friend . 

lame duck in American

 

1. 

a disabled, ineffectual, or helpless person or thing

 

[Peterk2011]

14 hours ago, dw49 said:

I don't for a minute think you proved that when a team has a chance to get the ball with around 58 seconds and 1 TO left in a tie game ... they will take a knee rather than try to move 40 yards. I found games that proved this not to be true. In no way is your argument backed up by your search. You would need to provide just how many times this situation occurred and how many times NFL teams DECLINED to take advantage of the opportunity. When I searched to find exceptions , I can only really search the times they scored . There are plenty I'm sure that didn't result in a game winning FG ? 

 

I won't search for that now, but you can quite easily get a good guess on the number of games by a) counting all games which went into overtime (e.g. the game tied in regulation), then b) search for game winning drives in the last 1 minute (or 50 secs in my case) when the score was a tie and deduct the latter from the former (e.g. deduct the successfull attempts from all cases).

 

But forget the statistics, let me approach this from a different perspective: Three weeks ago the Colts vs Cards game went into overtime. The Colst had the ball in the 4th quarter at 1 min 17 secs on the clock. They opted to try to win the game there. On 2nd down Brissett was sacked, he fumbled the ball, but the Colts managed to get it back. The play pushed the Colts way back to their 13 yards line. The Colts had to punt the ball, the Cards got it back near midfield, INSIDE Colts territory. It took Palmer one 15-ish yard pass to get into field goal range. They missed the FG there.

 

So, three weeks ago, there were at least 20 (in my assumption nearly 30) seconds more on the clock, the Colts had all of their 3 timeouts left, they tried it and it was a disaster, almost lost the game in regulation. Knowing that, would you still elect to go for it? Having only 1 timeouts, and only 50ish is seconds this time? (So your narrowed playbook is even more narrowed)?

 

From the armchair, most fans certainly say yes. Even I might have said yes. But if that's my job / responsibility to make the (right) decision? Hmmm.... no way...

 

All in all, we might never agree on this, but we might agree on that either way, this situation/decision wasn't that kind of a head scratcher, that the OP and subject indicated.

[dw49]

5 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

I won't search for that now, but you can quite easily get a good guess on the number of games by a) counting all games which went into overtime (e.g. the game tied in regulation), then b) search for game winning drives in the last 1 minute (or 50 secs in my case) when the score was a tie and deduct the latter from the former (e.g. deduct the successfull attempts from all cases).

 

But forget the statistics, let me approach this from a different perspective: Three weeks ago the Colts vs Cards game went into overtime. The Colst had the ball in the 4th quarter at 1 min 17 secs on the clock. They opted to try to win the game there. On 2nd down Brissett was sacked, he fumbled the ball, but the Colts managed to get it back. The play pushed the Colts way back to their 13 yards line. The Colts had to punt the ball, the Cards got it back near midfield, INSIDE Colts territory. It took Palmer one 15-ish yard pass to get into field goal range. They missed the FG there.

 

So, three weeks ago, there were at least 20 (in my assumption nearly 30) seconds more on the clock, the Colts had all of their 3 timeouts left, they tried it and it was a disaster, almost lost the game in regulation. Knowing that, would you still elect to go for it? Having only 1 timeouts, and only 50ish is seconds this time? (So your narrowed playbook is even more narrowed)?

 

From the armchair, most fans certainly say yes. Even I might have said yes. But if that's my job / responsibility to make the (right) decision? Hmmm.... no way...

 

All in all, we might never agree on this, but we might agree on that either way, this situation/decision wasn't that kind of a head scratcher, that the OP and subject indicated.

 

The Colts are a low talent , poorly coached football team with an inexperienced QB to boot. That's reason not to go for it but IMO if you played the scenario out 100 times factoring in the statistics of how often they turn the ball over with enough time for SF to score and run that against how many times the Colts get the 40 yards , you will come up with more wins than losses. Unfortunately you really can't run the numbers because the turnover "rate" is not a "given." You have to factor in the fact that SF knows we will be passing and also factor in Brissett might choke. So I really can't say the Colts only turn the ball over say twice in 70 snaps and then run that against Brissetts QB rating . So as I said before , it's not cut and dry and I did say I respect everybody's opinion. Not like somebody in this thread that throws stones at everyone that doesn't agree with him .. and not talking about you. I just feel everything considered it was a bit of a head scratcher that Pagano refused the 10 second runoff and then let the clock run out . IMO its heavily tilted to calling the TO and taking a shot. But like I say ... just my opinion.

[jameszeigler834]

12 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

He's not alone.

 

I, and many others have defended Pagano over the years.

 

He's not a bum,  he's not a terrible coach,   and he's easy to defend.     

 

The outrage over Pagano here is often silly and ridiculous.  

 

That said,   as an organization,   I think it's time to move on from Pagano.     I think the 6 years are enough.    I think a new, fresh voice is needed.     New blood.     New engery.     A mostly new staff (with some holdovers.)     I think the franchise needs a new leader.       I think Pagano is average and Luck and the team needs more than average.

 

There.     I just called for a new coach without having to trash the old one.     It's not hard.

 

No disrespect intended here but I don't know what coach you have been watching but it wasn't Pagano he is awful.

[NewColtsFan]

On 10/12/2017 at 9:33 AM, jameszeigler834 said:

No disrespect intended here but I don't know what coach you have been watching but it wasn't Pagano he is awful.

 

The coach I've watched won 11 games a season his first three years.     He won 3 playoff games his first 3 years.

 

He won 8 games in 2015 without Andrew Luck for more than half of the schedule and using 5 QB's in all.

 

He won 8 games in 2016 with one of the worst defenses in the entire NFL.

 

When your track record covers 5 years and it looks like what I've just written,   then there's no reason for anyone to think Pagano is terrible.      He's just average. 

 

Not sure why that's so hard for so many here to grasp?     Hey,  you're not alone.    I think the majority agree with you.   My view is the minority. 

 

But in the NFL,  where your record is the bottom line,   then there's no way Pagano is a below average coach.

 

[A8bil]

On 10/8/2017 at 2:50 PM, 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.

I'm sure that felt good to write, but .... the 49ers have lost their last 4 games by a combined total of 11 points.  They are not "pathetic."  A win against them, is not a win against the Chiefs, but you are far underplaying the strength of the competition.  I didn't like the punt return play, but the direct snap wildcat play was not poorly conceived, it was just poorly executed.

[jameszeigler834]

49 minutes ago, A8bil said:

I'm sure that felt good to write, but .... the 49ers have lost their last 4 games by a combined total of 11 points.  They are not "pathetic."  A win against them, is not a win against the Chiefs, but you are far underplaying the strength of the competition.  I didn't like the punt return play, but the direct snap wildcat play was not poorly conceived, it was just poorly executed.

We still should have beat them by more than 3.

[A8bil]

Perhaps....but my sense of Pagano--like most coaches--is that he plays the odds that the defense, and the other team's offensive ineptitude, require a conservative game plan in the second half.  Few coaches have the mentality of "put the pedal to the metal" once they have gained a lead.  Continuing to press threatens turnovers and mistakes that can get another team back into the game very quickly.  I tend to think that playing conservatively has its own vices, including wearing out the defense so that it is not playing at its peak in the 4th Q when the opponent opens their offense to try to catch up.  I'll say I haven't done the research to say which approach is better, but since so many NFL coaches follow the same game plan, I imagine they have studied it and determined the conservative approach is better.  That's probably moreso true with such a new QB at the helm.

[Peterk2011]

On 2017. 10. 12. at 5:38 AM, NewColtsFan said:

That said,   as an organization,   I think it's time to move on from Pagano.     I think the 6 years are enough.    I think a new, fresh voice is needed.     New blood.     New engery.     A mostly new staff (with some holdovers.)     I think the franchise needs a new leader.       I think Pagano is average and Luck and the team needs more than average.

 

The thing is, it's only Pagano who's been here for 6 years. Everyone else in the FO and also in the coaching staff has been replaced at least once. Luck has already had 3 offensive coordinators to work with. In 5 years. That's already too many. We had multiple DC-s and god knows how many changes at lower positional coaches level either. One man removed, this is a short reigning regime.

 

So I don't think "fresh voice, new blood, new energy" is what needed here. Actually, just the opposite. What I want to see finally is some continuity. There were enough controversies, craziness, changes already, which forced this team to build up everything from ground zero nearly each year.  Whatever will happen next january/february, I want to see some continuity from there. If with Pagano, then with Pagano, if with a new HC, then with a new HC.

[jvan1973]

This thread is still a thing? We won the game.   

[jvan1973]

On 10/12/2017 at 2:18 PM, jameszeigler834 said:

We still should have beat them by more than 3.

Do you get something extra for winning by more than 3?  

 

You realize the qb is basically a rookie in a new offense without a training camp.   

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

The thing is, it's only Pagano who's been here for 6 years. Everyone else in the FO and also in the coaching staff has been replaced at least once. Luck has already had 3 offensive coordinators to work with. In 5 years. That's already too many. We had multiple DC-s and god knows how many changes at lower positional coaches level either. One man removed, this is a short reigning regime.

 

So I don't think "fresh voice, new blood, new energy" is what needed here. Actually, just the opposite. What I want to see finally is some continuity. There were enough controversies, craziness, changes already, which forced this team to build up everything from ground zero nearly each year.  Whatever will happen next january/february, I want to see some continuity from there. If with Pagano, then with Pagano, if with a new HC, then with a new HC.

 

First off....     I don't beliee there has been a complete turnover of the coaching staff.      The front office, mostly yes,  because Ballard was brought in.     

 

The coordinator situation is a bit misleading....

 

3 OC's....  yes....   Arians wasn't fired.     He got hired for a promotion.     Pep got 2.5 years to show what he could do.   And we've had Chud since then.     That's hardly an indictment on Pagano or anyone else.    

 

Same with the 2 DC's.    We had Manusky for 4 years.    No Monachino for his 2nd year.

 

You make it seem like there's been a revolving door.

 

If/when we hired a new HC,  I hope we're going to keep some of the assistants.    But typically a new HC gets to pick his own staff.     We're not going to deny a new HC that right.     Not if we want a good HC.    The only way we'd get heavy handed with a new HC over his staff is if we hire another perosn like Pagano, a newcomer and an unexpected hire and then dictate terms.     But I don't think that's likely at all.

 

Ballard is going to hire the guy he wants that Irsay signs off with.    And the new HC is going to get to pick his own staff.      It's the way of the NFL world.     I like continuity as much as the next person, and again,  I hope the new HC will keep some of the assistants on this staff.     But if we hire someone like Gruden,  or another big name,  he's going to get to name his own staff.     I don't see anyway around that.....

 

EDIT NOTE:   A belated welcome to you, Peter.    You've quickly become one of my favorite posters.     A much needed voice of reason.    We need more like you.    Hope you enjoy the site and stay a long time....

 

[coltsva]

In this era of the NFL, 5 years is continuity and your chance to get it done:

 

Jeff Fisher - 16 years, no Super Bowl

Marvin Lewis - 15 years, no Super Bowl

Tony Dungy - (Bucs) 6 years, no Super Bowl

Tom Coughlin - (Jacksonville), 8 years no Super Bowl

Gary Kubiak - 8 years, no Super Bowl

                                                                                               Teams prior season record

Mike Tomlin - 11 years, won Super Bowl in 2nd year                         8-8

Pete Carroll - 8 years, won Super Bowl in 4th year                           5-11

Bill Belichick - 18 years, won Super Bowl 2nd year                           8-8

Tony Dungy - (Colts) 7 years, won Super Bowl 5th year                   6-10

Sean Payton - 11 years, won Super Bowl 4th year                           3-13

Tom Coughlin - (Giants), 12 years, won Super Bowl 4th year           4-12

John Harbaugh - 10 years, won Super Bowl in 5th year                    5-11

 

Chuck Pagano - 6th year, no Super Bowl. Maybe he'll do it with another team like Dungy and Coughlin, but recent history says if it doesn't happen in the first 5 years with a team, it's not going to happen.

 

"Teams prior season record" is the year before the new coach took over.

[Peterk2011]

13 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

3 OC's....  yes....   Arians wasn't fired.     He got hired for a promotion.     Pep got 2.5 years to show what he could do.   And we've had Chud since then.     That's hardly an indictment on Pagano or anyone else.    

Same with the 2 DC's.    We had Manusky for 4 years.    No Monachino for his 2nd year.

 

You make it seem like there's been a revolving door.

 

If it sounded like that, that wasn't my intention. I tried to merely point out, that for example for Luck, 3 changes in 5 (6) years are actually more than optimal. He needs continuity, he needs a system installed for long enough that he can't just learn it but grasp the last bit of it, have it flow in his blood. That's what makes a very good, talented quarterback like Luck is, truly elite. (Luck is not Manning. 18 was one of a kind, he was his own offensive coordinator, his OC's were more partners in research than his bosses. Luck can do everything, but he needs a good OC, who designs the system, and implements it for him. This takes time, and needs continutity. A change in every 2-3 years is always a bit of a setback.)

 

Other that that, Pagano's 6 years tenure is indeed long enough to call for a change. I do not WANT a change like the majority of people here do, but I am OK with it. My approach is: I leave this to Ballard/Irsay. They will know what to do. I just wish that the new guy be indeed superior to Pagano. Which will not be not easy, because - I know I am in the minority with this opinion too, but - Pagano is not bad. He might not good enough to win a superbowl, but he is a good coach, I believe, better than average. If there will be a change, I want better than that.

 

13 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

EDIT NOTE:   A belated welcome to you, Peter.    You've quickly become one of my favorite posters.     A much needed voice of reason.    We need more like you.    Hope you enjoy the site and stay a long time....

 

Thanks, it's very kind of you. I wont go anywhere. ;) Actually I've been here since 2011, sometimes more as a reader, sometimes a bit more active as a poster. As my personal life allows me to. Regarding my way of thinking, I guess i'm just "old" enough to learn my lessons. I run my own business, learned things the hard way. Made my own bad decisions rushing them without thinking them over properly and then suffering the consequences.

[colt18]

On 10/9/2017 at 4:17 PM, jvan1973 said:

Was the music city miracle a dumb flawed play?

flawed play, yes.

 

 

dumb, no, not according the game situation it was used in.

[dw49]

2 hours ago, colt18 said:

flawed play, yes.

 

 

dumb, no, not according the game situation it was used in.

 

 

Score was 16-15 with 16 seconds left in the game. Figure the kick off play would take 6 seconds , so if they just run a normal kick return , they would have the ball with 10 seconds to get into FG range and to kick it. 

 

That said , why in the world should we consider this a "flawed play."  The Colt play was not really an "apples to apples situation."