Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Colts Vs. Texans Game Day Thread


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Aluckiswolverine said:

A tie against a division opponent is better than a loss. How do you not see that. 

In the long run this may galvanize the team and inspire them more...this is one of those times a loss can be a good thing...especially since we couldn’t win by punting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hi, Colts fans!    Our 1-2 Colts are back in  Downtown Indianapolis after playing their two road games at the Redskins and Eagles, as they host the winless and 0-3 Houston Texans in the Colts first AF

It was the right decision. This is the NFL. A team doesn’t play for ties

Bye.

Posted Images

Just now, Coltsman1788 said:

It took guts to try that.  I like the mentality. Just didn’t work out.  Had it worked and the Colts pulled out a win those complaining now would be singing an entirely different tune.  

I understand the thought...and it did take nerve..he has to answer for it...

If we get that first down...we just have to get to the Houston 40..and let Adam try from 57....

Indoors, he probably makes it

..what a moment that would have been with him already breaking the FG record..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

Very much so..

..but we've always given the effort in recent years..

  We didnt have lot of options...too far to run..TY and Doyle were out..I believe Ebron was too.

 

In a way Im glad we tried to win..but the smart thing in a division game would have been to take the tie.

 

Of course..a punt doenst necessarily guarantee a tie

Agree.  Either way Reich played it...acceptable.  Turns out going for two earlier in the game was the dagger.  LOL

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, csmopar said:

But you're also assuming that Hopkins doesn't break one all the way back. He dang near did. I really think it'd been the same result. 

That's a good point.

Our defense was totally baked..we were worn out..

If we punt them to their 20....do we stop them from gaining 40-45 yards?

 

Who's our best player? We put it in his hands.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aluckiswolverine said:

A tie against a division opponent is better than a loss. How do you not see that. 

If we would have won the game, we would still have chance of making to the playoffs, with a tie or a loss, our chance declined by a huge %, but making into the playoffs a tie or a loss don't have much difference so I stand for the choice of having one more chance of winning than coinciding a tie, unfortunately the play was poorly executed and the worst-case scenario happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved the team going for it on fourth-and-four. I do it again in a heartbeat in the same situation.

 

If you punt, you're settling for best-case scenario of a tie and a 1-2-1 record. Is anyone happy with a coach who's content with that? I'm not.

 

Give me the coach who goes for it on fourth-and-four with the greatest kickers in NFL history, and fights to get back to .500 any day of the week.

 

Sure, it didn't end up as we hoped for, but that's hindsight judgement.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Trueman said:

not only did we give the win to Houston , but we gave them the tie breaker. 

1-3 each , and Houston is on top. 

......well , at least Luck looked good. If Johnson catches the ball , on the 1st possession of OT , we win this game. 

 

 

  Actually, we won the tie braker. Maybe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Aluckiswolverine said:

A tie against a division opponent is better than a loss. How do you not see that. 

 

A win against a division opponent is better than a tie.

 

Convert a basic fourth-and-four, and you most likely win the game.

 

Punt the ball, and you're looking at a best-case scenario of 1-2-1, with the possibility of losing still on the table.

 

You're telling me you'd prefer a cowardly coach who's content with 1-2-1 over a coach who's a fourth-and-four conversion away from 2-2?

 

The real irony is, for years we've had coaches whose conservative play calling we've hated. We finally have one making a completely reasonable aggressive call, and we hate him for it.

 

Craziness.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

Of course..a punt doenst necessarily guarantee a tie

 

Guarantee, no, but barring something crazy a punt is very likely to result in a tie in that situation.  (There are no guarantees in the NFL.)  On the flip side, there is no guarantee that the Colts win if they convert and pick up the 1st down.  They still wouldn't have been in FG range, so they could have still tied even if they had converted the play.  So if you're weighing risk vs. reward, the reward if you convert is that you have a chance to win but it's reasonably likely that you still end up with a tie.  The risk if you don't convert is that you very likely lose.  Given that risk/reward breakdown, I would have punted if I was only thinking about this game in isolation.  If you look at the bigger picture and consider the standings, though, the situation changes.  1-2-1 isn't much better than 1-3.  You're ahead of the 1-3 teams but still behind the 2-2 teams.  Looking forward toward the playoffs, being ahead of the 1-3 teams probably doesn't help you much but being tied with the 2-2 teams could prove valuable.  Given that we probably have a loss coming up next week against NE, then being 2-3 is MUCH better than being 1-3-1 but being 1-3-1 isn't much better than being 1-4.  Basically, this team is at a point where you need to take some calculated risks if you are going to have a chance at making the playoffs.  They took one of those risks today, and it didn't pan out.  If this team was 3-0 and they did the same thing that they did today, I would be upset because they cost themselves half a game in the standings.  I would take 3-0-1 over 3-1 because it puts you ahead of all the 3-1 teams......which are teams that you may need to be ahead of at the end of the season.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jared Jammer said:

.....over a coach who's a fourth-and-four conversion away from 2-2?

 

They weren't a 4th and 4 conversion away from going 2-2.  They were a 4th and 4 conversion away from having a chance to go 2-2.  Picking up the conversion would not have put them in FG range.  They still would have needed to get into position for a game-winning FG even if they picked up the 4th and 4, so it is reasonably likely that the game would have ended in a tie even if they had converted the 4th and 4.

 

16 minutes ago, Jared Jammer said:

The real irony is, for years we've had coaches whose conservative play calling we've hated. We finally have one making a completely reasonable aggressive call, and we hate him for it.

 

Craziness.

 

What you need to realize is that the fan base is not a hive mind.  Have there been people that have criticized conservative play calling in the past?  Yes, absolutely, but there have also been people that have defended it.  After any loss, you are going to get commentary from the people that support the philosophy that was not utilized.  If you're aggressive and you lose, you are going to get criticism from the people that prefer a more conservative approach.  If you're conservative and you lose, you're going to get criticism from the people that prefer a more aggressive approach.  That's just the way it goes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of the wonderful comeback, to me the tie would have BEEN a win, whereas the loss just feels so negative.  I disagree hugely with the decision, though I concede I understand the logic.  I still think if the thought WAS to go for it, then they should have done so the first time up when everybody just thought they were trying to draw them offside. 

 

Over it now, though, on to Foxboro. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

Because of the wonderful comeback, to me the tie would have BEEN a win, whereas the loss just feels so negative.  I disagree hugely with the decision, though I concede I understand the logic.  I still think if the thought WAS to go for it, then they should have done so the first time up when everybody just thought they were trying to draw them offside. 

 

Over it now, though, on to Foxboro. 

I concur. If it was on the other 45 it looks much better.  Plus you handed Houston a cheap win early in the year.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JCPatriot said:

 

Guarantee, no, but barring something crazy a punt is very likely to result in a tie in that situation.  (There are no guarantees in the NFL.)  On the flip side, there is no guarantee that the Colts win if they convert and pick up the 1st down.  They still wouldn't have been in FG range, so they could have still tied even if they had converted the play.  So if you're weighing risk vs. reward, the reward if you convert is that you have a chance to win but it's reasonably likely that you still end up with a tie.  The risk if you don't convert is that you very likely lose.  Given that risk/reward breakdown, I would have punted if I was only thinking about this game in isolation.  If you look at the bigger picture and consider the standings, though, the situation changes.  1-2-1 isn't much better than 1-3.  You're ahead of the 1-3 teams but still behind the 2-2 teams.  Looking forward toward the playoffs, being ahead of the 1-3 teams probably doesn't help you much but being tied with the 2-2 teams could prove valuable.  Given that we probably have a loss coming up next week against NE, then being 2-3 is MUCH better than being 1-3-1 but being 1-3-1 isn't much better than being 1-4.  Basically, this team is at a point where you need to take some calculated risks if you are going to have a chance at making the playoffs.  They took one of those risks today, and it didn't pan out.  If this team was 3-0 and they did the same thing that they did today, I would be upset because they cost themselves half a game in the standings.  I would take 3-0-1 over 3-1 because it puts you ahead of all the 3-1 teams......which are teams that you may need to be ahead of at the end of the season.

This is exactly right. Given the percentages of making the playoffs...a tie would have been almost as bad as the loss....either way without the win we would have been a long shot to make the playoffs at the quarter post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is since the OT period has now been REDUCED to 10 minutes from 15 minutes, ties will now happen more often imo. They won't be as bad or rare as they used to be.

 

Of course you want to win at all cost. A win is much better than a loss or tie.

A tie is better than a lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ColtsSouljah said:

I love Reich, but he has A LOT of explaining to do.

Also, memo to all coaches: STOP GIVING KICKERS A SECOND CHANCE.

 

 If you want to ice him call it sooner. Don't give him a practice kick to get rid of his nerves. Dumb.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Yeah... the newer analytics, if you trust them, by companies like PFF suggest the most valuable positions are the ones most tightly linked to the passing game are the ones that are most valuable ones - meaning, on offense - QB, WR... OT(because they are the hardest OL positions, a lot of one on one pass-protection work) and on defense - CB, EDGE pass-rushers, S... DTs can be valuable too, but they need to have considerable pass-rush production and most of them don't - because the inside is clogged and players get double teamed more easily, etc. The Aaron Donalds of the world are very very rare. I wonder how Buckner grades in their WAR system. He's one of the best interior rushers in the league, but still probably doesn't rank very high when you include all the other positions on the field. I know Aaron Donald' value in their system was about the same as that of an average QB. Just an illustration of how important the QB position is - an average to below average QB gives you the same value as the best interior rusher of this generation. 
    • I would just go with some under the radar guy on a bargain contract... those seem to be the types Ballard goes for. Or someone who was released before FA starts(so it wouldn't count towards compensatory picks formula).   So... I will wait for the cuts to start and pick one of those then... 
    • If the OT class sucked i would be ok with this but it doesn't    Hope we get LT in draft
    • I'm not gonna make excuses for Wentz, but everyone leads in different ways. Peyton was demanding, while Andrew was more nonchalant and dad like. 
    • About 1 hour 21 min into this 2 former teammates of Carson talk about him (FYI, there are a few curse words throughout the podcast):  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/malcolm-jenkins-on-activism-saints-eagles-trash-talking/id1485277290?i=1000510312176   They say he's not a locker room cancer.  He's a nice guy.  He didn't have to be a leader early in Philly - Jenkins says "his rookie year, we just asked him to be a rookie QB rather than be a leader..." essentially they had enough vet leaders.  Chris Long says he never  thought of Wentz as a jerk, but his rookie year and his MVP level year, he never thought about Carson being a leader, just thought "this QB is very good" and essentially that the team of veteran guys and looking back the only thing he could think is Wentz could reach out to guys across the whole team, rather than just producing well on field... says Nick Foles not a great QB, but Foles had a magnetism about him that made him appear like the leader of that SB team when Carson went down.  
  • Members

    • zibby43

      zibby43 1,256

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • BluesGirl

      BluesGirl 157

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • craigerb

      craigerb 27

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nancy

      Nancy 121

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • WoolMagnet

      WoolMagnet 3,111

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • stitches

      stitches 8,009

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • crazycolt1

      crazycolt1 7,365

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NDSU_Guy

      NDSU_Guy 19

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ColtsGermany

      ColtsGermany 306

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...