Colts can be 6th in the playoff race after this weekend (merge)

[braveheartcolt]

Frank had a better chance in OT earlier on to 'go for the win' on 4th down. And even in during the fated call, he should have went for it without taking the timeout. Everything about this debacle was not great. 

[John Waylon]

Too much “What if”. Just win. There’s still plenty of time to rise and fall accordingly. 

[Luck is Good]

1 hour ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Well, I felt they could unseat Jax for the division crown if Deshaun Watson returned to his form in 2017, where he was both an MVP and O-ROY candidate before getting injured. (taking over very early for Tom Savage)

 

 

I can appreciate that sentiment.  But since ties do happen in the NFL, there may be instances where settling for that might be prudent.

Yes the Texans would’ve won the AFC South last year had Watson stayed healthy. That’s not a debate. But after starting 0-3 this season, I definitely didn’t think they’d win seven straight games

[ColtsBlueFL]

3 hours ago, Luck is Good said:

Yes the Texans would’ve won the AFC South last year had Watson stayed healthy. That’s not a debate. But after starting 0-3 this season, I definitely didn’t think they’d win seven straight games

 

I felt both Luck and Watson would have rust and difficulty early, coming back from serious injuries. They did. Now both are healthy and rolling again. I expected that at some point. If they both win out, that would be a little unexpected IMHO.

[rockywoj]

11 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I wasn't worried about the standings in Week 4, and I wouldn't look back on that no matter how this season turns out. I think losing winnable games is the bigger issue, by far.

I think losing "give me" points in the standing is even a bigger issue than the bravado of "going for the win".   My philosophy on the matter is shining through on why, in that situation, you take the give me point, which could be such an important point down the road, as it currently appears to be.  At the end of the day, though, I guess this is just a philosophical matter and I guess we cannot reconcile our positions.  If I am owner, and you are coach, I would scold you for that poor decision and tell you don't make those sort of boneheaded decisions that potentially cost the team valuable points in the standing.  It's a two point swing against a division foe!   

 

I would say that my view is kind of like completely in line with Hall of Fame Coach Tony Dungy's view on things.  Another example, the Detroit / Carolina game.  I thought it asinine that Carolina went for two instead of taking the more likely to be successful single point for the tie, to then go into OT.  You subscribe to the more bravado approach undertaken by Carolina's coach in going for the (failed) attempt to just win it right then and there.  My thought, Dungy's thought, take the tie, put it on the defense to stop Detroit from a very short on time miracle, go to OT, take the 50/50 to get the ball to then "go for the win", and if you lose the toss, put it on the defense to give up nothing more than a FG, then get the ball back and again, "go for the win".  I just think you have more opportunity to "go for the win", by taking the give me point(s).

 

So back to Houston, I viewed it as there are 2 games against them and the goal is to win the H2H tie breaker on them.  In that first, take the almost guaranteed single point and "go for the win" in the next meeting, to gain the H2H advantage.  Plus, coming away with a point and not losing ground at the same time, is more important in the first meeting than taking a 50/50 shot in going for the win.  Now to be fair, if this was the second meeting and the Colts needed the win to gain an important tie break, then circumstances are different and I would say you HAVE to go for the win!  

 

Thus, I totally disagree with Frank Reich's initial take (which he has since back tracked on) that he'd go for it 10 out of 10 times there.  Short sighted bravado.

[rockywoj]

5 hours ago, braveheartcolt said:

Frank had a better chance in OT earlier on to 'go for the win' on 4th down. And even in during the fated call, he should have went for it without taking the timeout. Everything about this debacle was not great. 

I totally agree with the bolded, as I echoed the same sentiment at the time.  When the Colts initially lined up, I was like what on earth are you doing!?  Then they started the whole try to draw them offside thing, and I was like, oh yeah, okay, that makes sense.  In fact, I think this is what EVERYBODY thought was going on, there, from the players, the coaches, the announcers, and the fans.  Hence, it was the PERFECT time to actually GO FOR IT!  The element of surprise was TOTALLY  with the Colts when they first lined up.  After the time out, that element of surprise was essentially all gone.  (I mean, in theory, they could have again simply tried to draw Houston offside, that would have been funny ... buy lining up again, everybody was no like WHAT?  They're actually going for it. :O)

 

So yeah, I agree, if they wanted to go for it, then they should have done so when they lined up the first time, with the element of surprise on their side.

[DalTXColtsFan]

The Colts for all practical purposes control their playoff destiny.  It's true that the Colts, Bengals and Ravens could all end up at 11-5 in which case the Ravens would win the tiebreaker, but the Ravens still have to play the Chiefs and Chargers, and the Bengals have to play the Chargers and Steelers.  I know the Steelers game is the last game of the season, but they are in a dogfight with the Pats and Texans for the #2 seed - highly improbable they sit their starters.

 

Don't automatically pencil in the Chargers for the #5 seed either.  They still have games @KC, @Den, @Pit, Cincy and Balt.  A late-season slide is not out of the question for them by any means.

 

If the Colts end up at 10-6, though, they're going to need TONS of help, especially if the loss is @Ten.

 

 

[Luck is Good]

40 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

I felt both Luck and Watson would have rust and difficulty early, coming back from serious injuries. They did. Now both are healthy and rolling again. I expected that at some point. If they both win out, that would be a little unexpected IMHO.

Texans definitely won’t win out. That’d be thirteen straight games. That’s not going to happen. I wouldn’t bet money on the Colts winning out either. However, I think they have a better chance than the Texans

[Jdubu]

8 hours ago, Luck is Good said:

Who’d have known the Texans were going to win seven straight games too. Ties in a professional football game shouldn’t even exist. My team and I could play 70 minutes of football and a winner not be decided. Absolutely not. I’d rather lose than tie. If my team and I didn’t play well enough to win, then we deserve to lose

You bring up an excellent point in regards to Texans going on this run as well. At that time in both teams profile, who would have looked at the Texans and said they will no doubt turn it around and reel off 7+ and did anyone think this colts team had the ability to make a legitimate run towards a playoff berth this year before or during that game would be stretching their truth. The gamble to try and steal that game was, at the time, the only hope under the current level of play with both teams, add into that, they all thought they were going to be chasing the dominate Jags and Titans, not the Texans. Hindsight is always clear vision but with the info and data you had at that moment, it still feels like the decision to go for a win was the right choice. Seeing it now, wished we could have taken a tie but at that moment, I’d still support that decision to go for the win 100 times out of 100. Would I do that same decision this Sunday given the state of the standings and team play, no I would not. 

[Superman]

2 hours ago, rockywoj said:

I think losing "give me" points in the standing is even a bigger issue than the bravado of "going for the win".   My philosophy on the matter is shining through on why, in that situation, you take the give me point, which could be such an important point down the road, as it currently appears to be.  At the end of the day, though, I guess this is just a philosophical matter and I guess we cannot reconcile our positions.  If I am owner, and you are coach, I would scold you for that poor decision and tell you don't make those sort of boneheaded decisions that potentially cost the team valuable points in the standing.  It's a two point swing against a division foe!   

 

I would say that my view is kind of like completely in line with Hall of Fame Coach Tony Dungy's view on things.  Another example, the Detroit / Carolina game.  I thought it asinine that Carolina went for two instead of taking the more likely to be successful single point for the tie, to then go into OT.  You subscribe to the more bravado approach undertaken by Carolina's coach in going for the (failed) attempt to just win it right then and there.  My thought, Dungy's thought, take the tie, put it on the defense to stop Detroit from a very short on time miracle, go to OT, take the 50/50 to get the ball to then "go for the win", and if you lose the toss, put it on the defense to give up nothing more than a FG, then get the ball back and again, "go for the win".  I just think you have more opportunity to "go for the win", by taking the give me point(s).

 

So back to Houston, I viewed it as there are 2 games against them and the goal is to win the H2H tie breaker on them.  In that first, take the almost guaranteed single point and "go for the win" in the next meeting, to gain the H2H advantage.  Plus, coming away with a point and not losing ground at the same time, is more important in the first meeting than taking a 50/50 shot in going for the win.  Now to be fair, if this was the second meeting and the Colts needed the win to gain an important tie break, then circumstances are different and I would say you HAVE to go for the win!  

 

Thus, I totally disagree with Frank Reich's initial take (which he has since back tracked on) that he'd go for it 10 out of 10 times there.  Short sighted bravado.

 

I don't know why it's considered "bravado." It was essentially the only chance they had to win the game. A win is better than a tie. And in Week 4, I don't think any team should be obsessed with standings. 

 

I agree with Reich's adjusted stance; I wouldn't go for it 10/10 in that situation, and I'm not even sure I'd have gone for it when he did -- I probably wouldn't. But I understand it, and find it defensible. My issue was that he should have committed to that course of action prior to third down, and had the team ready for 4th down without taking a timeout. But he seemed to be unsure of how he wanted to handle it. I don't have a problem with him not being concerned with the standings.

 

If it's Week 15 and we're in a close race, yes, I have an eye on the standings. Priorities could be different in different situations.

 

Speaking of different situations, the Carolina game was entirely different. That wasn't the Panthers only chance to win the game. They could have gone to OT and had several more chances to win. Rivera's rationale was entirely different from Reich's. 

 

Dungy is also way more conservative than I'm comfortable with for a modern NFL head coach. I felt that way 15 years ago when he was Indy's coach, and I definitely feel that way now. I think Rivera's decision was defensible as well, given the high rate of teams converting two point conversions vs his team's rate of converting XPs, plus the uncertainty of the coin toss and his team's ability to get a stop in OT. The Lions are pretty good in late game situations, and he had a chance to get the win. Defensible. Probably more aggressive than necessary, but I get where he's coming from. At home, they probably kick it and play for OT. I think he should have done that on the road also.

[rockywoj]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I don't know why it's considered "bravado." It was essentially the only chance they had to win the game. A win is better than a tie. And in Week 4, I don't think any team should be obsessed with standings. 

 

I agree with Reich's adjusted stance; I wouldn't go for it 10/10 in that situation, and I'm not even sure I'd have gone for it when he did -- I probably wouldn't. But I understand it, and find it defensible. My issue was that he should have committed to that course of action prior to third down, and had the team ready for 4th down without taking a timeout. But he seemed to be unsure of how he wanted to handle it. I don't have a problem with him not being concerned with the standings.

 

If it's Week 15 and we're in a close race, yes, I have an eye on the standings. Priorities could be different in different situations.

 

Speaking of different situations, the Carolina game was entirely different. That wasn't the Panthers only chance to win the game. They could have gone to OT and had several more chances to win. Rivera's rationale was entirely different from Reich's. 

 

Dungy is also way more conservative than I'm comfortable with for a modern NFL head coach. I felt that way 15 years ago when he was Indy's coach, and I definitely feel that way now. I think Rivera's decision was defensible as well, given the high rate of teams converting two point conversions vs his team's rate of converting XPs, plus the uncertainty of the coin toss and his team's ability to get a stop in OT. The Lions are pretty good in late game situations, and he had a chance to get the win. Defensible. Probably more aggressive than necessary, but I get where he's coming from. At home, they probably kick it and play for OT. I think he should have done that on the road also.

 

All fair comments.

 

Interestingly, on Moving the Chains today on Sirius XM NFL Radio,  Pat Kirwin was making the point of where the Colts would currently be if they had instead settle for the tie and he basically echoed what I have been saying ... to loosely quote him, "... and I get the whole going for the win and all that nonsense, but since when is a tie half a loss?  It's half a win, not half a loss."  Basically he and his sidekick went on to echo what I have been saying.  In that circumstance the Colts were in, you go for the half win, to protect from the full loss.

 

Anyway, I guess dead horse.  Just too bad, as Colts would have it all under their control right now, whereas currently, they need help in having Houston lose a game, so the Colts can regain control.  Interesting that on both Moving the Chains and the earlier show, Just like we are doing here, both specifically were talking about the Colts and how they'd already be in the drivers seat, if not for that very questionable "go for the win" trendy thing. 

[basketballsteve]

On 11/20/2018 at 11:33 AM, CR91 said:

A few things would need to happen though

 

-Colts win vs the dolphins

 

-Ravens lose vs the raiders

 

-Bengals lose vs the browns

 

Not sure I see the raiders beating the ravens, but I can see the browns getting a win especially if green is out again. 

Usually I like to watch and root against the competition but this year it's all about the Colts running the table....that's what I want.

[Goatface Killah]

17 hours ago, braveheartcolt said:

So what is this tone exactly? By making this call, Leonard now makes these tackles he would have otherwised missed? When he sees a RB heading towards him, he thinks, 'Frank went for the win, I will make this tackle'? Adam thinks before he makes a game winning FG, 'I must make this, as Frank had the guts to go for the win'?

 

If a 'manager' has to make such decisions to set the tone for his team, it doesn't say much for his day to day leadership. This is all garbage. I don't mind him going for the win, what I do object to is this fake benefit we apparently got from it.

 

We see it differently, that is all. 

 

What is the part in bold based on? I think you're misunderstanding my point. Nobody has said Frank did it to send a message, just that it did send a message. I think he wanted to win the game, and that is all he was thinking about. 

 

His actions have impact because he is the head coach. Its not a tactic. 

 

 

[colt18]

On 11/20/2018 at 11:51 AM, Superman said:

I defended Reich's 4th down decision against the Texans, and still understand why he did what he did, but it's worth noting that with a tie, we'd be in 6th place right now at 5-4-1.

 

eh....I'm torn tbh.

 

 

I do like the long term effect of going for it. It's going to build this team. I don't think many, if any at all, expected this team to go to the playoffs. Fighting for every inch and having this team play like an annual contender is a damn good precedent, I must say.

 

I don't like the short term effect of going for it. We would've had entire control of the division if we beat them, but tying them wouldn't have hurt too much more. Since we've lost to them, they've been riding a hot streak. We need to win the rest of our divisional games, and they're all on the road. I think we can do it, but it'll be tough.

 

 

I will say that beating the Bengals, Jets and Eagles earlier would have also helped us a lot. The team wasn't 100%, so I can't be too mad at us for losing to bad teams. If we were healthy we very easily could've been 9-1, with our only likely loss against the Pats. I still think a healthy Colts team led by Reich could've beaten the Pats too.

[rockywoj]

I kind of view the go for the win decision kind of like being early in the game, 4th and goal from the 2 yard line.  To me, early in a game you take the 3 points!  Gotta start accumulating the points.  

 

I have seen countless times over the past few years this new en Vogue attitude of going for it, result being fail, then late in the game those 3 give me points would have made a world of difference.  

 

Early on, you take the points. Late, you know whether you have to go for it or not, if things aren’t going as well as you hoped. I think the same applies to taking a point in the standings early, ESPECIALLY if at the same time it means denying a division rival a point. (Houston would’ve been 0-3-1.)

 

Later in a the year, when your position is more crystalized, the decision to go for it or not is way easier to determine.  I hope Frank has learned a lesson about this kind of decision, early in a season, certainly NOT being a 10 out of 10 times.  

[Hoose]

I still like Frank’s call based upon the youth of the team, the odds,  and the need to win a game then and there. If it works he’s a hero and nobody is second guessing. It didn’t so we are still pissing and moaning about the call over a month later. I guess that’s the difference between caution and boldness. One man’s show of resolve and courage is another man’s example for pure recklessness. I like the former. 

[WoolMagnet]

If we beat Miami, we mainly only worry about Baltimore and Cinncinati for the wildcard.  Looking at their schedules, if we win 4 of 6 to get to 9-7, i think we have a good chance at that last wildcard.  If somehow Tenn beats Houston, then it could get interesting very fast.

  While i dont think we are ready for a SB run, but we can score points and this D is too young to know better.  It could be let ke a 1995 cinderella season. This could get very exciting with the AFC South games down the stretch.  I just wish they were home games. 

[braveheartcolt]

8 hours ago, GoatBeard said:

 

What is the part in bold based on? I think you're misunderstanding my point. Nobody has said Frank did it to send a message, just that it did send a message. I think he wanted to win the game, and that is all he was thinking about. 

 

His actions have impact because he is the head coach. Its not a tactic. 

 

 

Sorry, you did. Setting the tone and creating a culture. Something like that. Not losing is better than losing. Every time. Defend that. All this locker room mumbo jumbo stuff is quite frankly rather childish. I still very much like Frank. Wouldn't want to be inked as a Pagano type. Only 14 more games to beat Marino......

[Cynjin]

On 11/21/2018 at 9:06 AM, braveheartcolt said:

Frank had a better chance in OT earlier on to 'go for the win' on 4th down. And even in during the fated call, he should have went for it without taking the timeout. Everything about this debacle was not great. 

 

I agree with the timeout criticism, but I don't agree with calling it a debacle.  I was fine with his decision then and I am still fine with it.  Second guessing Frank's decision is an exercise in futility at this point in time. 

[Lawrence Owen]

12 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

I agree with the timeout criticism, but I don't agree with calling it a debacle.  I was fine with his decision then and I am still fine with it.  Second guessing Frank's decision is an exercise in futility at this point in time. 

I second this remark.

[ColtsBlueFL]

3 hours ago, Cynjin said:

 

I agree with the timeout criticism, but I don't agree with calling it a debacle.  I was fine with his decision then and I am still fine with it.  Second guessing Frank's decision is an exercise in futility at this point in time. 

 

Right.  If there was a 'debacle', it was the Offensive line imploding on that last drive. Luck moving them down the field, 2nd and 1 near midfield. next play, offensive holding, now 2nd and eleven.  Next play, the anti Nelson pancake-

 

 

-10 sack. Now from a 2nd and 1, it's 3rd and 21 !!    Luck completes a pass for 17 yards.  4th and 4. So we fans that  can say, thank you (very little) offensive line, you possibly cost us a win.  So we'll just go ahead and give up, and punt it away and slip on out of LOS with a tie and maybe, just maybe, we can beat them in their house later this year.

 

I was thinking just that, and was even OK with it.  Then Frank decides to win.  I then believed Luck would pull it off.  I'm ok with Frank giving an elite player the chance to win it at that part of the season.  I just am.

[Superman]

On 11/21/2018 at 5:44 PM, colt18 said:

 

eh....I'm torn tbh.

 

 

I do like the long term effect of going for it. It's going to build this team. I don't think many, if any at all, expected this team to go to the playoffs. Fighting for every inch and having this team play like an annual contender is a damn good precedent, I must say.

 

I don't like the short term effect of going for it. We would've had entire control of the division if we beat them, but tying them wouldn't have hurt too much more. Since we've lost to them, they've been riding a hot streak. We need to win the rest of our divisional games, and they're all on the road. I think we can do it, but it'll be tough.

 

 

I will say that beating the Bengals, Jets and Eagles earlier would have also helped us a lot. The team wasn't 100%, so I can't be too mad at us for losing to bad teams. If we were healthy we very easily could've been 9-1, with our only likely loss against the Pats. I still think a healthy Colts team led by Reich could've beaten the Pats too.

 

I get why the short term effect is off-putting. But being wrapped up in the result is kind of pointless, because the result very easily could have been different. It was a 50/50 situation, at worst. Hindsight judging is always focused on the result.

 

I find it more beneficial to focus on the process. If you have a sound process and the right people in place, more often than not, you'll get positive results.

 

It's impossible to say what might have happened if that game ends in a tie. We don't know that the Texans wouldn't have still gone on an extended win streak; they could still be 6-3-1 and we'd be 5-4-1. It's way more problematic that we lost to the Jets the following week, IMO.

[Superman]

On 11/21/2018 at 6:18 PM, rockywoj said:

I have seen countless times over the past few years this new en Vogue attitude of going for it, result being fail, then late in the game those 3 give me points would have made a world of difference.  

 

I feel like you're missing the point, and you're kind of lumping together any decision you think is too aggressive as being part of a new attitude that doesn't value grabbing points when they're available.

 

Baseball has embraced this move to analytics so aggressively because it's easier to sell. It's a one-on-one sport masquerading as a team sport (at best it's a one-on-nine sport), but because so much of it features batter vs pitcher, with clear counts and situations, it's easier to distill every situation into a statistic. And because the season is so long, and there are so many at bats, you get a much greater sample size. 

 

That leads to a slight but obvious advantage to a certain course of action in a certain situation being very advantageous over the course of  a season, whereas it might not yield as great an advantage over a shorter period of time. 

 

In football, a slight but obvious advantage doesn't distinguish itself as dramatically as it would in baseball, but that doesn't mean the advantage doesn't exist. Offenses convert on 4th and 2 at about the same percentage that kickers make 40+ yarders. "Taking the points" isn't as automatic as that phrase makes it seem, and going for it isn't as risky, either. And it's to be assumed that if you have an above average offense, you're more likely to convert on 4th and 2 than a team with a struggling QB or bad OL (or both). 

 

Going for it on 4th and short between the 50 and the 30 yard line is statistically likely to yield more points than kicking the FG, even if most drives on which you go for it simply end with a closer FGA. The problem is your offense only gets about 10 possessions per game, so the statistical advantage may not work in your favor over such a small sample size, and the majority of 4th quarter game management decisions are largely based on the score, so there will be competing priorities, and the advantage isn't as obvious. And there are several other variables to consider.

 

It's the same with going for two, or run vs pass in short yardage, etc. There are obvious statistical advantages in those cases, but other variables will be considered. What's problematic is how often these decisions are judged based on the result only -- if the Panthers convert last week, the criticism is washed away and Riverboat Ron is vindicated. 

 

I don't think calling it "bravado" or an "en vogue attitude" is taking into consideration the actual reasons coaches are bucking the traditional "take the points" approach. It's not just a gut feeling, it's not just a bold and reckless call; these decisions are mostly based on statistical analysis, and usually defensible from that standpoint. How one person weighs and prioritizes the variables at play will differ from the next person, but that doesn't mean the more aggressive decision maker didn't make a well-reasoned decision. That's true even if the decision in question doesn't work out.

[Creekside]

Whenever this call is discussed, always left out is the reason why the play failed.

 

Andrew Luck admitted after the game that he made a poor throw and that he did not give Rogers a chance to catch the ball.

 

If Luck doesn't throw the ball too low, Rodgers probably catches it easily, and has the first down.

 

Frank Reich made a good play call, but Luck did not execute.

 

Did Frank Reich make a poor coaching decision by asking Andrew Luck to throw an easy pass that he makes 19 out of 20 times?

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, egg said:

Whenever this call is discussed, always left out is the reason why the play failed.

 

Andrew Luck admitted after the game that he made a poor throw and that he did not give Rogers a chance to catch the ball.

 

If Luck doesn't throw the ball too low, Rodgers probably catches it easily, and has the first down.

 

Frank Reich made a good play call, but Luck did not execute.

 

Did Frank Reich make a poor coaching decision by asking Andrew Luck to throw an easy pass that he makes 19 out of 20 times?

 

It was a bad throw, but that's part of the calculus. Players aren't perfect, so you know you're asking the guys on the field to execute in a high leverage situation, and it's possible for something to go wrong. If Cam makes a better throw on Sunday, the Panthers win that game in regulation. It doesn't always work exactly as it's drawn up.

 

But that's also why you can't be blinded by the result. The decision making process might still be sound.

 

In the Colts case, Reich wasn't fully committed to going for it, at least it didn't seem like it. He should have had the offense ready for 4th down while they were lining up for 3rd down. The play call should have been determined, they shouldn't have had to call timeout or even huddle, and you probably have a better shot at converting. 

 

They should have had two plays queued up: A) Fourth and < 5, line up with a primary play ready, if Luck likes the look go for it, if not, * call and try to get Houston to jump offsides. B) Fourth and > 5, line up with a primary play ready, if Luck likes it go for it, if not, run the clock and call a timeout, then punt and secure the tie. 

 

They didn't seem fully prepared for the situation. 

[Btown_Colt]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

It's a one-on-one sport masquerading as a team sport (at best it's a one-on-nine sport)

Not a big baseball fan I take it? I agree with you on why analytics are easier for baseball, but not a team sport....c’mon.

 

Take the best QB to ever play the game and put him on the Browns then take whoever you consider to be the best baseball player of all time, regardless of position, and put him on the Reds or Orioles...who makes the bigger impact?

 

Both are team sports but let’s not pretend that football isn’t more individual specific than baseball. Let’s not pretend that excellent QB play can’t take teams with horrible offensive lines and sub par defenses to the AFCCG in 2014.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, Btown_Colt said:

Not a big baseball fan I take it? I agree with you on why analytics are easier for baseball, but not a team sport....c’mon.

 

Take the best QB to ever play the game and put him on the Browns then take whoever you consider to be the best baseball player of all time, regardless of position, and put him on the Reds or Orioles...who makes the bigger impact?

 

Both are team sports but let’s not pretend that football isn’t more individual specific than baseball. Let’s not pretend that excellent QB play can’t take teams with horrible offensive lines and sub par defenses to the AFCCG in 2014.

 

There's nothing inherently better or worse about a team sport vs an individual sport. That wasn't meant as a shot against baseball. I can see why it came across that way, but it's not.

 

Baseball primarily features a pitcher vs a hitter. The pitcher and hitter are both free from any physical influence from any other player in the game; the pitcher has to make a pitch based on his own ability, and the hitter has to get a hit based on his own ability. The pitcher doesn't rely on an offensive line; the hitter doesn't rely on a teammate to throw him the ball; neither player can be touched by the opposition.

 

Obviously the catcher's role, defensive shifts, men on base, the man on deck, environmental variables, etc., all play a role. And the performance of the other 8 guys on the field with the pitcher impact how effective he is -- the range of the middle infielders or the outfielders can keep batters from reaching base, etc. But the game is primarily about the pitcher vs the hitter, free from any interference.

 

I can revise: Baseball relies more on individual performance than on team-based performance, even though the entire team needs to perform well to have success.

 

Also, while Luck was obviously the main catalyst to the success of the 2014 Colts, it's inaccurate to say that he did it on his own, especially in the playoffs. The defense was excellent against the Bengals and the Broncos, and Luck was only sacked once in those two games; John Fox's defensive game plan was incredibly conservative. And of course, the complete failure of anyone on offense being able to make a play highlights dramatically just how much a QB needs a decent team around him to win big games. The QB isn't even on the field for 45-50% of the game. We've seen tons of games, especially in the playoffs, where QBs stand idly by and watch the defense give up the lead the offense just secured. The 2016 opener against the Lions is a perfect example.

 

So let's not pretend that just because QB is the most important position in team sports that it makes football any less of a team sport.

[Four2itus]

I find revisionist views to be funny. Tell me folks.....

 

If we had ended in a tie, and we were 1/2 game behind the Texans at the end of season, eliminated from the playoffs, would not the argument of "But if we would have went for it and scored, then we would be in the playoffs", be just as legitimate?

[Btown_Colt]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

There's nothing inherently better or worse about a team sport vs an individual sport. That wasn't meant as a shot against baseball. I can see why it came across that way, but it's not.

I agree and I didn't really take it as a shot, although it could come across that way, but it wasn't the point I was trying to make. It doesn't matter if you like the sport or not, I just think your being overly simplistic. 

 

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I can revise: Baseball relies more on individual performance than on team-based performance, even though the entire team needs to perform well to have success.

Nope, still not true. 1st batter hits a double. Next three strike out. That double does 0 for the team unless his team mates get hits, or at least move him around the bases. The pitcher throws the ball, the hitter hits the ball, if the fielder doesn't field the ball, it doesn't matter how good the pitcher is. Your acting like it is one hitter vs one pitcher, which is just not correct. Yes it's one hitter at a time, one pitch at a time. The goal of the pitcher is to get the batter to hit a ground ball or pop fly, that can be played by the defense, to get the batter out. The best pitcher in the world can not get every single batter out by himself. The best batter in the world can not get on base  even 50% of the time. 

 

1 hour ago, Superman said:

Also, while Luck was obviously the main catalyst to the success of the 2014 Colts, it's inaccurate to say that he did it on his own, especially in the playoffs. The defense was excellent against the Bengals and the Broncos, and Luck was only sacked once in those two games; John Fox's defensive game plan was incredibly conservative. And of course, the complete failure of anyone on offense being able to make a play highlights dramatically just how much a QB needs a decent team around him to win big games. The QB isn't even on the field for 45-50% of the game. We've seen tons of games, especially in the playoffs, where QBs stand idly by and watch the defense give up the lead the offense just secured. The 2016 opener against the Lions is a perfect example

 

OK, but I never said football wasn't a team sport. I said it is driven more by individual performance than baseball. Take Luck off the Colts, are they 11-5 Luck's first 3 years? Put Luck on the Browns, are they now better than the Colts? 

 

The best pitcher in the game helps for what? 5 or 6 innings every 3 or 4 days? The best hitter in the game helps every 1 out of 9 at bats? And lets not forget that the players have to play both offense and defense. 

 

And there is no taking a knee and running out the clock. You have to throw the batters until you get 3 outs. 

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

So let's not pretend that just because QB is the most important position in team sports that it makes football any less of a team sport.

I sure didn't mean to make it sound that way. I never once said it wasn't a team sport. I just believe that having an elite player at that position contributes more to a teams success more so than having an elite pitcher or an elite hitter. 

 

All team sports are going to have a position that is consider more important to the team than other position. All I am saying is over the course of a season, having an elite QB effects team success more than having an elite pitcher/hitter. 

 

In the end this discussion doesn't matter. They are both team sports, which is the only point I was truly trying to make, and the debate on which is the ultimate team sport is an opinion that we will probably never agree on. 

 

 

[Superman]

33 minutes ago, Btown_Colt said:

I just think your being overly simplistic. 

 

It's an in-depth topic, my opinion on which was boiled down to a sentence. There are a ton of angles from which it can be analyzed, my comment was simplistic because it was off topic, not because I haven't actually thought it out.

 

Quote

Nope, still not true. 1st batter hits a double. Next three strike out. That double does 0 for the team unless his team mates get hits, or at least move him around the bases. The pitcher throws the ball, the hitter hits the ball, if the fielder doesn't field the ball, it doesn't matter how good the pitcher is. Your acting like it is one hitter vs one pitcher, which is just not correct. Yes it's one hitter at a time, one pitch at a time. The goal of the pitcher is to get the batter to hit a ground ball or pop fly, that can be played by the defense, to get the batter out. The best pitcher in the world can not get every single batter out by himself. The best batter in the world can not get on base  even 50% of the time. 

Aren't the bolded parts accounted for when I said "the entire team needs to perform well to have success"?

 

But, the pitcher doesn't rely on his teammates when he's delivering the ball; the QB can't deliver the ball unless the OL blocks. The batter doesn't rely on his teammates when he's at the plate; the receiver can't catch the ball unless the QB throws it. Sure, a pitcher relies on his teammates to field the ball and get outs, and a batter relies on his teammates to bring him home, but I'm talking about the individual player's ability to execute when he's on the field. 

 

And I'd argue that the increased use of shifts and the bullpen has diminished the value of great fielders. It's important to field the ball and get outs, but it's not necessarily difficult to do so when the pitcher is executing well and the gameplan is sound. When a pitcher gets a hitter to ground into the shift, replacement level fielders are just as good as Gold Glovers. If the pitcher isn't executing, it doesn't matter who the fielders are.

 

And there's nothing inherently wrong with any of that, but it's different from football. 

 

Quote

 

OK, but I never said football wasn't a team sport. I said it is driven more by individual performance than baseball. Take Luck off the Colts, are they 11-5 Luck's first 3 years? Put Luck on the Browns, are they now better than the Colts? 

 

The best pitcher in the game helps for what? 5 or 6 innings every 3 or 4 days? The best hitter in the game helps every 1 out of 9 at bats?

 

 

The QB plays every game, every down. The pitcher doesn't. 

 

Again, my point isn't that baseball players don't need teammates, it's that what the players do on the field is less reliant on their teammates than in football. The quality of the team from top to bottom is still important if the team wants to have success, but a pitcher can have a great game and even a great season without having good teammates around him. A QB can't really have a great game or a great season without help from his teammates.

 

Quote

And lets not forget that the players have to play both offense and defense. 

 

Off topic, but this is kind of a broad generalization that loses meaning once you dig into it. There's a lot of standing around in the outfield, pitchers and catchers aren't relied on for offensive production, and "offense" consists of 4-5 at bats per game. Not exactly a grueling demand, for the most part.

 

And that fact that football players rely on an entirely different unit to produce on the opposite side of the ball kind of speaks to its team-based nature, doesn't it?

 

Quote

And there is no taking a knee and running out the clock. You have to throw the batters until you get 3 outs. 

 

I'm not sure how that's relevant.

 

Quote

 

I sure didn't mean to make it sound that way. I never once said it wasn't a team sport. I just believe that having an elite player at that position contributes more to a teams success more so than having an elite pitcher or an elite hitter. 

 

All team sports are going to have a position that is consider more important to the team than other position. All I am saying is over the course of a season, having an elite QB effects team success more than having an elite pitcher/hitter. 

 

In the end this discussion doesn't matter. They are both team sports, which is the only point I was truly trying to make, and the debate on which is the ultimate team sport is an opinion that we will probably never agree on. 

 

 

I agree with the bolded, and have said so many times. QB is the single most important position in team sports, IMO. And yet, without an offensive line and other offensive playmakers, a QB can't execute effectively.

 

Good talk, you're right we're probably not going to agree on this, but I would just like to reiterate that point wasn't meant to suggest that either is better or worse than the other, just that they are different with respect to how the players rely on their teammates for production.

[ColtsBlueFL]

5 hours ago, egg said:

Whenever this call is discussed, always left out is the reason why the play failed.

 

Andrew Luck admitted after the game that he made a poor throw and that he did not give Rogers a chance to catch the ball.

 

If Luck doesn't throw the ball too low, Rodgers probably catches it easily, and has the first down.

 

Frank Reich made a good play call, but Luck did not execute.

 

Did Frank Reich make a poor coaching decision by asking Andrew Luck to throw an easy pass that he makes 19 out of 20 times?

 

When a coach looks up his game plan play calls on his laminated play call sheet for that down and distance (yes, they are that detailed, even Red Zone, 2 point plays, and 4th and (x) distance plays)... They expect a good outcome from what was drawn up, practiced, and called.   They had already 'planned ' for it. However.. both sides are coached and paid.  A failed play boils down to...

 

" We {our guy(s)} screwed it up.."

"They blew that play up"

 

I like a coach  that can say  he believes in their game plan/play calls and furthermore believes the players ability to carry out that plan.  I respect that.  But I was fine with a tie... back then, until, Frank told his elite QB and the team to go get it.

 

I can accept that.  Give your Elite guy a chance to make a play.  He'll do it more often than not.

 

It was not that particular time.

 

 

[ColtsBlueFL]

6 hours ago, Superman said:

 

It was a bad throw, but that's part of the calculus. Players aren't perfect, so you know you're asking the guys on the field to execute in a high leverage situation, and it's possible for something to go wrong. If Cam makes a better throw on Sunday, the Panthers win that game in regulation. It doesn't always work exactly as it's drawn up.

 

 

Exactly.

 

they execute it     or...

they mess it up   or...

the other team blows it up.

 

It's NFL football.

 

[NDcolt]

On 11/21/2018 at 2:14 PM, rockywoj said:

I think losing "give me" points in the standing is even a bigger issue than the bravado of "going for the win".   My philosophy on the matter is shining through on why, in that situation, you take the give me point, which could be such an important point down the road, as it currently appears to be.  At the end of the day, though, I guess this is just a philosophical matter and I guess we cannot reconcile our positions.  If I am owner, and you are coach, I would scold you for that poor decision and tell you don't make those sort of boneheaded decisions that potentially cost the team valuable points in the standing.  It's a two point swing against a division foe!   

 

I would say that my view is kind of like completely in line with Hall of Fame Coach Tony Dungy's view on things.  Another example, the Detroit / Carolina game.  I thought it asinine that Carolina went for two instead of taking the more likely to be successful single point for the tie, to then go into OT.  You subscribe to the more bravado approach undertaken by Carolina's coach in going for the (failed) attempt to just win it right then and there.  My thought, Dungy's thought, take the tie, put it on the defense to stop Detroit from a very short on time miracle, go to OT, take the 50/50 to get the ball to then "go for the win", and if you lose the toss, put it on the defense to give up nothing more than a FG, then get the ball back and again, "go for the win".  I just think you have more opportunity to "go for the win", by taking the give me point(s).

 

So back to Houston, I viewed it as there are 2 games against them and the goal is to win the H2H tie breaker on them.  In that first, take the almost guaranteed single point and "go for the win" in the next meeting, to gain the H2H advantage.  Plus, coming away with a point and not losing ground at the same time, is more important in the first meeting than taking a 50/50 shot in going for the win.  Now to be fair, if this was the second meeting and the Colts needed the win to gain an important tie break, then circumstances are different and I would say you HAVE to go for the win!  

 

Thus, I totally disagree with Frank Reich's initial take (which he has since back tracked on) that he'd go for it 10 out of 10 times there.  Short sighted bravado.

Colts at time had no Playoff indication with all the injuries to AC, MM, TY, JD, MS, DG, MH &  anyone else with significance so can’t fault for that decision?  Did you think we were playoff bound?  So why not go for it a home with your best asset in Luck.  Didn’t like the play call but hind sight is 20/20, move on.  Let me remind you AC & JD was still out which makes all the difference as we all seen.  Can’t change the past but that aggressive call by Reich just maybe got this team to believe in themselves even know they failed at that time.  Remember, this team was predicted to finish dead last or close to it by many & don’t think players watch or hear the whispers.  With the recent success, Coach Frank Reich now has this team believing which couldn’t be said against the Texans.

[Btown_Colt]

53 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It's an in-depth topic, my opinion on which was boiled down to a sentence. There are a ton of angles from which it can be analyzed, my comment was simplistic because it was off topic, not because I haven't actually thought it out

Fair enough. I didn't mean to derail the thread.

 

55 minutes ago, Superman said:

Aren't the bolded parts accounted for when I said "the entire team needs to perform well to have success"?

Sure. But you also said baseball is a "one-on-one sport masquerading as a team sport..." which contradicts the need for the team to perform well in order to have success comment, no?

 

1 hour ago, Superman said:

But, the pitcher doesn't rely on his teammates when he's delivering the ball; the QB can't deliver the ball unless the OL blocks. The batter doesn't rely on his teammates when he's at the plate; the receiver can't catch the ball unless the QB throws it. Sure, a pitcher relies on his teammates to field the ball and get outs, and a batter relies on his teammates to bring him home, but I'm talking about the individual player's ability to execute when he's on the field. 

I am not sure why it matters when a person has to rely on their teammate. It is the fact that they do indeed rely on their teammates that makes both sports a team sport.

 

You're good. I had long responses to each of your points, but it was getting redundant and you have me second guessing myself for the moment. I am considering this topic in ways I haven't before. I like both sports, but baseball was always my best sport, so I may be a little biased.

 

Last thing, just so I am sure, is your stance that it's easier to achieve better individual stats in baseball than it is football, therefore football is more of a team sport?

 

 

[Myles]

The Browns are doing their part.  

It'd be nice if the Raiders could do their part too.  

[Gramz]

4 minutes ago, Myles said:

The Browns are doing their part.  

It'd be nice if the Raiders could do their part too.  

WE gotta do our part.   One Game at a time.

[MTC]

It’ll come down to the Ravens and Colts. 

[Myles]

11 minutes ago, Gramz said:

WE gotta do our part.   One Game at a time.

Agree, but we don't control our destiny.  We need other teams to lose.

[2006Coltsbestever]

27 minutes ago, MTC said:

It’ll come down to the Ravens and Colts. 

How these people on ESPN say the Ravens have an easy schedule is funny. They still play at KC and at LA. They will lose both those. 

[WoolMagnet]

On 11/21/2018 at 9:06 AM, braveheartcolt said:

Frank had a better chance in OT earlier on to 'go for the win' on 4th down. And even in during the fated call, he should have went for it without taking the timeout. Everything about this debacle was not great. 

Yea but that kind of stuff was 3 times a game and every game with the previous regime.

Frank is still figuring out this head coach thing.

I'd say, overall, he's on the right track.