Final Play Call

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, braveheartcolt said:

Not inconsistent in the slightest. We had them on the ropes on that 1st OT drive, and let them escape. By the end, it never felt right. Gut feeling, no more, no less. And burning a time out was stupid. Bluff the hard count, but then snap the ball if  you are going for it........

 

I think he panicked a bit. 

Watt did look exhausted, I wouldve went for it on that 4th and 2 as well because a FG doesn't win it there anyway.

[braveheartcolt]

2 hours ago, Cynjin said:

 

Are you talking about when the Colts were in field goal range in OT?

 

Kicking the field goal and giving the defense a chance to stop the Texans is playing to win.  Punting on 4th and 4, with less than a minute to play is playing to tie.

Sorry fella, disagree. Kicking a FG there was playing to 'perhaps' win. Going for the TD was playing for a win. 

[Cynjin]

4 minutes ago, braveheartcolt said:

Not inconsistent in the slightest. We had them on the ropes on that 1st OT drive, and let them escape. By the end, it never felt right. Gut feeling, no more, no less. And burning a time out was stupid. Bluff the hard count, but then snap the ball if  you are going for it........

 

I think he panicked a bit. 

 

I can agree with the point about the timeout.  However, going for it at 4th and 2 could have lost the game if the Colts didn't make it.  Kicking the field goal puts the Colts in the lead, with a chance to win.  Going for it on 4th and 4 was the only way for the Colts to have a chance of winning.  

[Myles]

22 minutes ago, VaAllDay757 said:

How do you know the game is a loss???? They haven't even practiced yet that's the problem right there....some of ya'll don't understand every game is different

Just playing the odds.   I think the Pats are a little better than us.   The home teams are 25-14 in Thursday night games in the past couple seasons.   Maybe calling in a definite loss is wrong, but the Pats have the advantage. 

 

[Cynjin]

3 minutes ago, braveheartcolt said:

Sorry fella, disagree. Kicking a FG there was playing to 'perhaps' win. Going for the TD was playing for a win. 

 

Kicking the field goal put the Colts in the lead.  Going for it on 4th and 2, could get the win IF they score a touchdown.  They could also fail to get the first down and, now in hindsight, the Texans go down the field, kick a field goal and win.  The Colts would have had no second chance to win like they did.

[braveheartcolt]

1 minute ago, Cynjin said:

 

I can agree with the point about the timeout.  However, going for it at 4th and 2 could have lost the game if the Colts didn't make it.  Kicking the field goal puts the Colts in the lead, with a chance to win.  Going for it on 4th and 4 was the only way for the Colts to have a chance of winning.  

Fair point, but Reich is not saying we play to win, only when we have no other option. It's a good debate, but going for it on 4th and 4 did lose us the game, going for it on 4 and 2 couldn't have ended any worse, and 2 yards is generally easier to get than 4. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, braveheartcolt said:

Fair point, but Reich is not saying we play to win, only when we have no other option. It's a good debate, but going for it on 4th and 4 did lose us the game, going for it on 4 and 2 couldn't have ended any worse, and 2 yards is generally easier to get than 4. 

There really is no right answer IMO, at least for me there isn't. I see both sides of this on both 4th downs actually. 

[Cynjin]

Just now, braveheartcolt said:

 and 2 yards is generally easier to get than 4. 

 

Not when the Colts showed no run game.

[braveheartcolt]

1 minute ago, Cynjin said:

 

Kicking the field goal put the Colts in the lead.  Going for it on 4th and 2, could get the win IF they score a touchdown.  They could also fail to get the first down and, now in hindsight, the Texans go down the field, kick a field goal and win.  The Colts would have had no second chance to win like they did.

We see it differently. All 'ifs and buts' however, so all good.

[NewColtsFan]

 

I can live with Frank Reich's decision.

 

I'd like to apologize for stirring things up here yesterday.    As one poster correctly noted,  I was incredibly angry and posted like it.   Guilty as charged.

 

I'm still not wild about the call,  but I really like Reich,  I'm happy he's our coach,  and if he wants to chnage the culture to something more aggressive, then as a fan,  I can support him.

 

And, I was pleased that I mostly liked what I heard from him in yesterdays' post-game.   (But not entirely).    Even yesterday while backing his decision to go,  he agreed that it might have been better to go for it when Luck and the team was out there trying to draw the Texans off-side.   It had worked all game long.   But he said Houston was looking to be drawn off-sides and didn't look ready if the Colts had actually run the play.   He thinks he should've anticipated that.    He also said that while the play he called had typically been successful,  it wasn't well executed.   And Andrew Luck agreed with that in his post-game interview.   

 

The one line I rolled my eyes at, Reich has since walked back.    Yesterday he said he'd do it 10 times out of 10.   Today he admitted he went a bridge too far with that.    That there would be circumstances where taking a tie would be better than gambling with a possible loss.    I was very pleased he realized that and corrected himself in today's media session.     I appreciate that Reich admits when he makes mistakes and is willing to own it.  

 

I really do like Reich and want to support him.   I've had my 24 hours to cool off and feel better about yesterdays events...

 

Sorry for posting while that angry.    I should know better by now....    will try to remember that in the future.

 

[NewColtsFan]

13 hours ago, braveheartcolt said:

First off, no need to be rude. Personal attacks are not necessary. Rip my opinions to shreads by all means. You obviously missed my sarcasm re Andrew being 'done'. Shame, as it may have removed the need for the petty insults.

 

Just to clarify the origins of my initial post, you said last week after a poor game by Andrew (in a hostile and wet environment), that his arm 'is dramtically and clearly weaker'. Therefore my comment re Andrew being 'done' was a tongue in cheek barb at your dramatic observation, which I found at the time to be a tad over the top.

 

I think the 'RIVER DENIAL' follow-up to the above observation was rather  amusing and did come across as ridiculously arrogant. 

 

No harm done though, and at least you stick to your guns. 

 

"No need to be rude....?      Personal attacks....?"

 

What do you think it was when you said to me that I "have to be right all the time."    I've got news for you....    that ISN'T a compliment.     Neither is "ridiculously arrogant."    Tell me,  is that a polite phrase where you live?    It's not here in America.

 

I figured out a long time ago you don't like criticism or disagreements of most any kind.   I practically tip-toe my disagreements with you so you won't be offended.     You rarely return the favor.    Notice in my previous post to you I stated that I thought you were a good poster.   That seemed to sail right past you....

 

You don't like my writing?    Too dramatic for you?    Too over the top for you?    Feel free to put me on ignore.    But if you continue to hurl insults my way,   don't be surprised when they get hurled back.    

 

[braveheartcolt]

18 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

"No need to be rude....?      Personal attacks....?"

 

What do you think it was when you said to me that I "have to be right all the time."    I've got news for you....    that ISN'T a compliment.     Neither is "ridiculously arrogant."    Tell me,  is that a polite phrase where you live?    It's not here in America.

 

I figured out a long time ago you don't like criticism or disagreements of most any kind.   I practically tip-toe my disagreements with you so you won't be offended.     You rarely return the favor.    Notice in my previous post to you I stated that I thought you were a good poster.   That seemed to sail right past you....

 

You don't like my writing?    Too dramatic for you?    Too over the top for you?    Feel free to put me on ignore.    But if you continue to hurl insults my way,   don't be surprised when they get hurled back.    

 

Ha ha. You are too funny to put on ignore. Sticks and stones my friend.

 

Anyway, back on topic, do you still stick by your absolute certain assessmemt that Andrew's arm is clearly and dramatically weaker, and that something is definitely not right? And to the majority of posters on here who did not share that same opinion as you, are they all still in denial? I think I'm wise enough to know that "one summer does not a summer make", but I think he is just fine and will emerge from his lay-off a better overall player.

 

By the way, you can be an excellent poster most of the time (does Chandler dance)....

[NewColtsFan]

15 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

That just isn't true . It isn't even close . You have a scenario that gives you about a 70% chance of winning the game and zero chance of losing it if you make the 4 yards. That is so far from going for it in the second quarter from your 25 yard line. It isn't like apples and oranges , it's like apples and prime rib. I'm not a genius but I spent a great deal of my life gambling and working with math. Do me a favor and find a sports fan that's good at math and ask for his opinion. There's is some variables here like , momentum , players being tired , etc that prevents just looking at the stats and saying something like the team has a 70% chance of making a first down. Other words I realize you can't say Luck was averaging 7 yards per pass attempt , so the odds were greatly in favor of picking up 4 yards. So when you do the math , you have to guess a bit. The smartest coach in the universe went for it once on a 4th and 2 from deep in his territory in a tie game right ? He did the math and figured his best chance of winning the game was not giving the ball back to Manning.That doesn't mean he will always go for a 4th and two from his 25 , which is what you answer suggests.

 

DW....

 

This is the only thing I could find....    from ESPN Analytics....    I'm cutting and pasting.

 

Brian Burke ESPN Analytics 

The Colts' 4th down attempt was not analytically sound. It was a net -5.1% Win Probability decision (counting a tie as half a win). They needed a 58% chance of conversion for it to be worth the risk, and league average conversion rate in that region of the field is 46%.

[Superman]

On 9/30/2018 at 10:57 PM, GoColts8818 said:

The deep pass in OT and the Hail Mary they tried at the end of the game.  Both of those were really ugly.

 

The deep pass in OT was a bad decision, I don't think there was a problem with the throw.

 

The Hail Mary was exactly how it's supposed to be. Up in the air, giving your receivers a chance to get under the ball. And the ball went 60 yards in the air.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

league average conversion rate in that region of the field is 46%.

 

I'm all about analytics, but when coaches say sometimes you have to go with your gut, this is the kind of scenario they have in mind. The Colts had scored on four of their last five possessions (except the Hail Mary), and Luck looked like he had cracked the code to the Texans defense. Their defensive front looked gassed, and their DBs were a step late on every pass. 

 

League average might be 46% there, but I bet it's higher in a home game in OT. I also bet if you filter out bad or inexperienced QBs, it's even higher. It's not hard to see why Reich felt the offense had a strong chance of converting.

 

I do think he messed up by calling the timeout. The Texans weren't lined up properly, they were giving the outside receiver a big cushion, and Luck probably could have completed a hot throw that way. Plus, calling the timeout allowed the defense to catch their breath. 

 

I'm not crazy about the play call, either. The Colts have been working on pick plays all season long, that would have been a good time for a combo route, or an iso to a bigger receiver where he could use his body to shield the defender on an in-breaking route. I also think a simple read option needs to be in the playbook for high leverage plays like that. The throw wound up being wobbly, and the receiver didn't break back for the ball.

 

Also, I didn't trust the defense to get a stop. It felt like a turnover on downs would result in a solid FG attempt for the Texans, and they got their longest play of the game on the next snap.

 

But I absolutely understand and agree with the decision to go for it. It was the only chance they had to win the game, and there was a reasonable chance of converting. In that situation, going for it is not only defensible, I think it's the best decision.

[strt182]

7 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Even yesterday while backing his decision to go,  he agreed that it might have been better to go for it when Luck and the team was out there trying to draw the Texans off-side.   It had worked all game long.   But he said Houston was looking to be drawn off-sides and didn't look ready if the Colts had actually run the play.   He thinks he should've anticipated that.

This is what I would have done. I would have went for it then before calling a time out because you know with having 2 timeouts left the Texans figured if the Colts lined up it would be to draw them offsides. 

I kinda look at calling the timeout as icing the kicker on a FG, but we iced ourself, and blew the surprise element. 

[NewColtsFan]

52 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm all about analytics, but when coaches say sometimes you have to go with your gut, this is the kind of scenario they have in mind. The Colts had scored on four of their last five possessions (except the Hail Mary), and Luck looked like he had cracked the code to the Texans defense. Their defensive front looked gassed, and their DBs were a step late on every pass. 

 

League average might be 46% there, but I bet it's higher in a home game in OT. I also bet if you filter out bad or inexperienced QBs, it's even higher. It's not hard to see why Reich felt the offense had a strong chance of converting.

 

I do think he messed up by calling the timeout. The Texans weren't lined up properly, they were giving the outside receiver a big cushion, and Luck probably could have completed a hot throw that way. Plus, calling the timeout allowed the defense to catch their breath. 

 

I'm not crazy about the play call, either. The Colts have been working on pick plays all season long, that would have been a good time for a combo route, or an iso to a bigger receiver where he could use his body to shield the defender on an in-breaking route. I also think a simple read option needs to be in the playbook for high leverage plays like that. The throw wound up being wobbly, and the receiver didn't break back for the ball.

 

Also, I didn't trust the defense to get a stop. It felt like a turnover on downs would result in a solid FG attempt for the Texans, and they got their longest play of the game on the next snap.

 

But I absolutely understand and agree with the decision to go for it. It was the only chance they had to win the game, and there was a reasonable chance of converting. In that situation, going for it is not only defensible, I think it's the best decision.

 

Good thoughtful post, as always...

 

Not sure if you saw it,  but I walked back my anger and outrage in another thread today.

 

I re-evaluated what I had written all day yesterday and started a new thread with an apology today....   liked what Reich said and his explanation Sunday.    Liked even more what he said a day later on Monday.     Just wanted to make sure you had seen that....

 

[superrep1967]

On 9/30/2018 at 8:21 PM, NewColtsFan said:

 

The odds of converting were small.   And once he failed to convert, the odds if stopping the Texans were even smaller.

 

What happened was easy to predict.   I said to people in real time all around me that I hated the call even if it worked.   Way too big a gamble.   I’d always rather have a tie than a loss.  

 

Today was avoidable and regrettable.

 

So far I've seen no argument to make me want re-think my view of Reich’s decision.

 

I liked the decision I would never play for a tie go for the win. 

[braveheartcolt]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I'm all about analytics, but when coaches say sometimes you have to go with your gut, this is the kind of scenario they have in mind. The Colts had scored on four of their last five possessions (except the Hail Mary), and Luck looked like he had cracked the code to the Texans defense. Their defensive front looked gassed, and their DBs were a step late on every pass. 

 

League average might be 46% there, but I bet it's higher in a home game in OT. I also bet if you filter out bad or inexperienced QBs, it's even higher. It's not hard to see why Reich felt the offense had a strong chance of converting.

 

I do think he messed up by calling the timeout. The Texans weren't lined up properly, they were giving the outside receiver a big cushion, and Luck probably could have completed a hot throw that way. Plus, calling the timeout allowed the defense to catch their breath. 

 

I'm not crazy about the play call, either. The Colts have been working on pick plays all season long, that would have been a good time for a combo route, or an iso to a bigger receiver where he could use his body to shield the defender on an in-breaking route. I also think a simple read option needs to be in the playbook for high leverage plays like that. The throw wound up being wobbly, and the receiver didn't break back for the ball.

 

Also, I didn't trust the defense to get a stop. It felt like a turnover on downs would result in a solid FG attempt for the Texans, and they got their longest play of the game on the next snap.

 

But I absolutely understand and agree with the decision to go for it. It was the only chance they had to win the game, and there was a reasonable chance of converting. In that situation, going for it is not only defensible, I think it's the best decision.

Disagree Supes. On the first drive in OT we could have won the game on the 4th and 2 when their D was truly gassed. And if we failed to convert, the D still had a chance to stop them.

 

All this 'not playing for a tie' rhetoric from the GM, HC, Luck and most of the fans is just empty chest thumping to cover up for a poor decision.

 

I know I'm in the minority on this. A tie is so much better than a loss, particularly against an arch rival.

[Cynjin]

3 minutes ago, braveheartcolt said:

Disagree Supes. On the first drive in OT we could have won the game on the 4th and 2 when their D was truly gassed. And if we failed to convert, the D still had a chance to stop them.

 

All this 'not playing for a tie' rhetoric from the GM, HC, Luck and most of the fans is just empty chest thumping to cover up for a poor decision.

 

I know I'm in the minority on this. A tie is so much better than a loss, particularly against an arch rival.

 

Or maybe they actually feel this way.

 

I know as a former competitor I loved it when the coaches were aggressive in situations similar to what the Colts faced.

[braveheartcolt]

3 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

Or maybe they actually feel this way.

 

I know as a former competitor I loved it when the coaches were aggressive in situations similar to what the Colts faced.

True. I'm not saying it was the case, it's just my alternative slant on it. Being from a soccer continent, draws (ties) are very much the norm, and when your team comes from a long way behind, a draw is mostly welcomed.

[Cynjin]

2 minutes ago, braveheartcolt said:

True. I'm not saying it was the case, it's just my alternative slant on it. Being from a soccer continent, draws (ties) are very much the norm, and when your team comes from a long way behind, a draw is mostly welcomed.

 

Maybe that is the difference here, you are used to ties and see them as a better alternative to a loss, mathematically it is.  Here there is an old phrase, "a tie is like kissing your sister", meaning a tie is just not exciting.  There is also the belief that Herman Edwards made famous, that you play to win the game.

[Cynjin]

2 hours ago, strt182 said:

This is what I would have done. I would have went for it then before calling a time out because you know with having 2 timeouts left the Texans figured if the Colts lined up it would be to draw them offsides. 

I kinda look at calling the timeout as icing the kicker on a FG, but we iced ourself, and blew the surprise element. 

 

That was the only issue I had with the situation, have the play called, try to draw them off, if that doesn't work then run the play.  If they were successful, it would have been nice to have two TOs with less than 30 secs. to play.

[TKnight24]

 

[Chrisaaron1023]

Alot of people actually agree. I don't care really. I didn't want to tie either. It was just strange that we tried to draw them off-sides first. If anything, no Texans was going to move after Andrew tried the hard count a few times. He should've just snapped it with one sec left on the play clock.

 

But oh well. I respect the guts and the play-call

[MikeCurtis]

With the time on the clock, the BEST you could hope for was a tie

 

I wonder if they would have gone for it with a playoff spot on the line

(Where a tie would keep them in)

 

I will say again...... This team is getting better

 

Today, for now, forget the score of the games..... watch this team get better

 

The WINS will come

[Myles]

1 hour ago, braveheartcolt said:

True. I'm not saying it was the case, it's just my alternative slant on it. Being from a soccer continent, draws (ties) are very much the norm, and when your team comes from a long way behind, a draw is mostly welcomed.

Ties are a poor ending.   Go for the win.  

[IinD]

I don't think there's a chance he would have gone for it if it was a playoff game so that's why Im ok with with it.

[RollerColt]

No need to apologize NCF. I'm still a little angry about how the game turned out... No so much going for it on 4th, but... Just in general. 

 

The team is young, exciting, frustrating, agonizing, fun, and powerful to watch. The mistakes that cost games eats me up, but then again this is bound to happen with a young team. 

 

I just hope this season truly develops our core so that next year we are better as a whole. I already have to use the "well there's always next year to make the postseason" mantra with the Cincinnati Reds every year, I definitely don't want to make it a trend with the Colts... 

[lollygagger8]

Ties are for soccer 

 

 

 

 

 

[shasta519]

Of course there are scenarios where you take the tie...and Reich would have. But he (correctly) realized this wasn’t one of them. 

[NorthernBlue]

Agreed. I was ticked too and thought that call was stupid, but thinking back, isn’t this exactly what we wanted from our head coach? If you got an aggressive, lay it all on the line typ mindset, you can’t just abandon it when it doesn’t work. And there will be times when it doesn’t work. 

 

Mike Vrabel looks like a genius. Frank Reich looks like a fool. But they both did the exact same thing. That’s the risk you have to be willing to play with when making these types of decisions.

[aaron11]

i dont like ties, but despite that i didnt think they were going to convert there.  risk vs reward wasnt right imo, and i heard the computer model gave it a 10% chance of working out.  even if he caught that we are still 20 yards out of field goal range.

 

not a big deal in the long run i guess, on to new england 

[braveheartcolt]

1 hour ago, Myles said:

Ties are a poor ending.   Go for the win.  

Forget the positive intent. Would you prefer a loss to a tie?

[Myles]

45 minutes ago, braveheartcolt said:

Forget the positive intent. Would you prefer a loss to a tie?

If the loss was had while trying to win, yes.

The Colts need every win they can get if they are going to contend for a playoff spot.   That made this risk OK for me. 

1 hour ago, IinD said:

I don't think there's a chance he would have gone for it if it was a playoff game so that's why Im ok with with it.

You are correct.   There are no ties in the playoffs, so it would have been silly to go for it.   

[IinD]

23 minutes ago, Myles said:

If the loss was had while trying to win, yes.

The Colts need every win they can get if they are going to contend for a playoff spot.   That made this risk OK for me. 

You are correct.   There are no ties in the playoffs, so it would have been silly to go for it.   

I probably should have expanded it by saying also..I think if it was a SUPER important game like for the division lead in December or home field, I doubt he would have gone for it.

 

A rebuilding team, we're at home, losing record, early in the season...ehhh, let's go for it. Maybe it'll help our 'swag' so to speak if we're ever in a do or die situation with the season on the line.

 

This was nothing like the 4th down against NE with Pagano. 

[GoColts8818]

6 hours ago, Superman said:

 

The deep pass in OT was a bad decision, I don't think there was a problem with the throw.

 

The Hail Mary was exactly how it's supposed to be. Up in the air, giving your receivers a chance to get under the ball. And the ball went 60 yards in the air.

They were ugly looking wobbly passes.  They didn’t look right, especially if you compare it to Jacoby’s hail mary the week before.  I am not going to get too concerned about it because like I said I take it more or sign that he’s still getting his shoulder back.  I am just saying what they were wobbly ugly looking throws.

[dw49]

8 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

DW....

 

This is the only thing I could find....    from ESPN Analytics....    I'm cutting and pasting.

 

Brian Burke ESPN Analytics 

The Colts' 4th down attempt was not analytically sound. It was a net -5.1% Win Probability decision (counting a tie as half a win). They needed a 58% chance of conversion for it to be worth the risk, and league average conversion rate in that region of the field is 46%.

 

Could be true and if so , it would be a bad decision. I would like too see how they came up with that "league average stat." Also did they take the clock into account , with the Colts having 2 TO and Texan's none ?

[braveheartcolt]

1 hour ago, Myles said:

If the loss was had while trying to win, yes.

The Colts need every win they can get if they are going to contend for a playoff spot.   That made this risk OK for me. 

You are correct.   There are no ties in the playoffs, so it would have been silly to go for it.   

Interesting viewpoint Myles. When it comes to sport standings, the end justifies the means. Never in the annuls of the NFL has a team been promoted into the playoffs above a higher ranked team, "because at least they had the guts to go for it aggressively on several 4th down situations".

 

The hype surrounding the 'bravery' of the decision is missplaced. Coaching decisions are generally regarded as good if they attain the desired outcome, and poor if they don't. Probably unfairly, but that's life.

 

If our kick returner decides to run it out of the end zone to try and get a home run, but gets downed at our 10 yard line, do we all applaud his aggressive intention? Do we heck.

 

I'm not ragging on Reich by the way, I just didn't like his call.

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, dw49 said:

 

Could be true and if so , it would be a bad decision. I would like too see how they came up with that "league average stat." Also did they take the clock into account , with the Colts having 2 TO and Texan's none ?

 

Not only that...does it take into account HOU's chances of still winning the game? It's not like it was convert or automatically lose. HOU still had to pick up yardage AND hit a FG...or it ends in a tie.

 

Besides, I don't think it was ever about the analytics. Reich made a gut call...and I am glad he did. There is very little sound about a 1-2 rebuilding team settling for a tie at home.