Colts/Bucs Post Game Reaction (Merge)

[TimetobringDfence!]

16 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think we still finish 10-7 and make a WildCard. We have a good product and an entertaining team which we have had for the last 20 years. We play someone like the Chiefs or Pats in the Playoffs though we are probably in big trouble.

If the NFL wanted INDY in they would have rigged that whole 3rd QTR

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

 

[EastStreet]

8 minutes ago, Happy2BeHere said:

It does, but it’s not logical that some say we entirely lost this game because we didn’t run more. It’s not logical to say it’s 100% on the turnovers, coaching, play calling etc…

 

some people just have opinions that some of us find irrational. 

Not running is not the only reason. But it's a big part. 

And it's a pattern with Frank. It's not just a a one off. You just shouldn't expect for the same thing to happen over and over.

And... the offensive turnovers all happened in the passing game. Turnovers happen more often in pass happy situations. That's just fact.

And... your best offensive player is a RB.

And pass happy is exactly what TB wanted us to do. And we fell for it.

And pass happy is exactly the wrong thing to do against Brady 99% of the time.

 

So sure, turnovers and other things contributed. But one thing (not running) is something that is totally avoidable. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

12 minutes ago, Wentzszn said:

Everyone said this game didn’t hurt our chances much but it did. Raiders are now back ahead of us. Broncos are up 14-0 on the Chargers so they could be ahead of us again. Plus I think Chargers stay ahead still no matter if they win or lose.

I wanted this win bad today but it was more of beating Tommy and being respected as a good team by the media. The loss won't hurt us in the long run as far as making the playoffs as long as we beat the Raiders and Pats. We will beat the Texans and Jags they stink. 

[GoColts8818]

3 minutes ago, IrsaysArmy said:

You don’t think so? I agree Bucs dude made a great play but I thought the pass was pretty underthrown. 

If he doesn’t go over the top of Pittman that’s six.  That was just an amazing play by Winfield.  

[Fisticuffs111]

I’ve always thought Hines’ arms were too short/bulky to be a reliable returner. Kind of a silly thought, but still.

[ClaytonColt]

1 hour ago, Wentzszn said:

I am ok with this loss because we proved we are pretty damn good and can beat anyone.

Please not this again?

 

Just because we're close doesn't mean we can get over the hump.

 

We can play anybody close but that's very, very different. 

[Fisticuffs111]

2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I wanted this win bad today but it more of beating Tommy and being respected as a good team by the media. The loss won't hurt us in the long run as far as making the playoffs as long as we beat the Raiders and Pats. We will beat the the Texans and Jags they stink. 

At this point any loss hurts though, imo. We’re too inconsistent to have guaranteed wins the rest of the way. Well, besides the Texans.

[GoColts8818]

1 minute ago, ClaytonColt said:

Please not this again?

 

Just because we're close doesn't mean we can get over the hump.

 

We can play anybody close but that's very, very different. 

I agree sooner or later you have to win one of these close games vs a good team.  Moral victories don’t mean much in the NFL.  

[smittywerb]

28 minutes ago, Wentzszn said:

This is why we lost. Period. Not because we didn’t run enough.

 

 

 

Your reasons for losing are essentially if we did everything right, we wouldn't have lost.  Not what we could've done to prevent us from losing.

[Btown_Colt]

6 minutes ago, Blueblood23 said:

He did get a new contract though. He must have value for something.

I assure you it wasn’t for punt returns. I never said he should be cut or not used as a rb. You think he got a new contract because of special teams?

[smittywerb]

28 minutes ago, Les Poulains said:

 

 

The result works against Reich, but was the gameplan crazy? No, logically, it wasn't. The reason it didn't work, is like I said, Wentz will lose you these games more times than he'll win them for you.

 

 

 

 

You just said it yourself, why not adjust if you know Wentz will do that?  You can't say we lost because of turnovers and then say Wentz will lose us the game.  You're literally not even mentioning the run LOL

[Btown_Colt]

6 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Not running is not the only reason. But it's a big part. 

And it's a pattern with Frank. It's not just a a one off. You just shouldn't expect for the same thing to happen over and over.

And... the offensive turnovers all happened in the passing game. Turnovers happen more often in pass happy situations. That's just fact.

And... your best offensive player is a RB.

And pass happy is exactly what TB wanted us to do. And we fell for it.

And pass happy is exactly the wrong thing to do against Brady 99% of the time.

 

So sure, turnovers and other things contributed. But one thing (not running) is something that is totally avoidable. 

You wouldn’t think this would need to be explained over and over. Frank got out coached, again. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

5 minutes ago, TimetobringDfence! said:

If the NFL wanted INDY in they would have rigged that whole 3rd QTR

Good point, I actually don't think the league is rigged if I thought it was I wouldn't watch. Having said that I do think the REFS alter games/outcomes and we got no breaks in the 3rd Qtr from the ol' Zebras. It is a fine line, you see team A with a good QB in a small market like Wentz, you see Team B with a GOAT like Brady - which team gets the calls that are close? It is obvious to me but I sound like a cry baby to some but I am ok with it because it has been like that for 50 years  

[smittywerb]

28 minutes ago, John Hammonds said:

Everybody knew that the Bucs were gonna sell out to stop JT.  Everybody.  And sure enough, that's exactly how the game started out.  Run JT and run JT and run JT, and he gets stuffed.  Over and over and over.

 

 

If you call giving JT the ball 8 times in one half "over and over" then there's no debating with you.  By the end of the first quarter.  JT had about 4 carries and Wentz was approaching 20 throws.  Once again, not even giving the run game a chance. 

[EastStreet]

2 minutes ago, smittywerb said:

 

Your reasons for losing are essentially if we did everything right, we wouldn't have lost.  Not what we could've done to prevent us from losing.

[Happy2BeHere]

I’m my opinion the turnovers were the #1 reason we lost this game, followed closely by not mixing in a few more runs.

[EastStreet]

2 minutes ago, Btown_Colt said:

You wouldn’t think this would need to be explained over and over. Frank got out coached, again. 

[DougDew]

30 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Dude... Edge runs when they were double stuffing the A gaps constantly early. When a D rushes 5 like that and drops 5 DBs, you only have one LB to patrol. That's when the edge opens up. 

 

They were doing that in the 4th as well, but were in 3 man rushes too. JT had success against both looks in A, B, and C gaps.

 

That's fine, but I don't get why you think we needed to run edge runs more if there was success not doing it.  The issue is not that JT was getting stuffed up the middle and Frank failing to call other run plays.  Seems like weird beef to hang up on.

 

But if you want to take a breath for a moment.  Step back and look.  We scored 31 pts, 41 pts, and 31 pts against very good playoff teams from last year.  I'm not defending every play call...and the forum has gotten way too judgmental on every play....but the offense does not seem to be the unit that's keeping us from having a better record.

 

We all know about the secondary.  And I was never sold on the idea of situational rotations with one-talent D linemen.  When the pass rushers are in the game, a good O would run.  Defo, Paye, and Dayo are (will be) good players against the run and pass.  

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, Happy2BeHere said:

I’m my opinion the turnovers were the #1 reason we lost this game, followed closely by not mixing in a few more runs.

Yeah the INT Wentz threw when Pittman got PI'd on and was held that a blind man could see, pretty cool for the Bucs  

[John Waylon]

11 minutes ago, Happy2BeHere said:

It does, but it’s not logical that some say we entirely lost this game because we didn’t run more. It’s not logical to say it’s 100% on the turnovers, coaching, play calling etc…

 

some people just have opinions that some of us find irrational. 

No one has said turnovers weren’t a factor. Literally no one. But feel free to quote a post that said it. It’ll still be there where you last saw it, and you can dust it off with a simple click of the quote…

 

Why were there turnovers? Did Wentz look at the defense and say “hey, you guys want the ball? Oh, ok. Here you go”?

 

No. 

 

There were turnovers because the defense knew it was going to be a pass play. Because they knew they could line up and just focus on rushing the QB. 
 

How did they know these things?

 

It’s not because they’re psychic. 
 

When you don’t put any oil in your car and go 60,000 miles without changing the oil you do have do you blame the bald tires for the rod that shoots through the hood? No. 
 

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. When you let the defense go all in on pass defense of * course they’re eventually going to win and create turnovers.
 

We went out of our way to ensure that is exactly what would happen. 

[EastStreet]

Just now, DougDew said:

That's fine, but I don't get why you think we needed to run edge runs more if there was success not doing it.  The issue is not JT getting stuffed up the middle and failing to call other run plays.  Seems like weird beef to hang up on.

 

But if you want to take a breath for a moment.  Step back and look.  We scored 31 pts, 41 pts, and 31 pts against very good playoff teams from last year.  I'm not defending every play call...and the forum has gotten way too judgmental on every play....but the offense does not seem to be the unit that's keeping us from having a better record.

 

We all know about the secondary.  And I was never sold on the idea of situational rotations with one-talent D linemen.  When the pass rushers are in the game, a good O would run.  Defo, Pays, and Dayo are (will be) good players against the run and pass.  

 

 

I guess I shouldn't be surprised you don't understand basic football things like 

keeping a D honest

don't ice your best player. find a way to keep him involved

don't get into a shootout with the goat

run the clock when you're up

turnovers happen less when you run the damn ball

good teams win with balance (unless they have a goat)

[Happy2BeHere]

2 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

No one has said turnovers weren’t a factor. Literally no one. But feel free to quote a post that said it. It’ll still be there where you last saw it, and you can dust it off with a simple click of the quote…

 

Why were there turnovers? Did Wentz look at the defense and say “hey, you guys want the ball? Oh, ok. Here you go”?

 

No. 

 

There were turnovers because the defense knew it was going to be a pass play. Because they knew they could line up and just focus on rushing the QB. 
 

How did they know these things?

 

It’s not because they’re psychic. 
 

When you don’t put any oil in your car and go 60,000 miles without changing the oil you do have do you blame the bald tires for the rod that shoots through the hood? No. 
 

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. When you let the defense go all in on pass defense of * course they’re eventually going to win and create turnovers.
 

We went out of our way to ensure that is exactly what would happen. 

Agree to disagree.

 

our WR fumbled on a run after the completed catch, that’s not on the pass game. Hines muffed a punt that’s not on the pass game. Take either one of those two away and it’s probable we win the game. Take both of those away and it’s almost guaranteed we win the game.

 

neither had to do with the result of passing “too much”

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, Happy2BeHere said:

Agree to disagree.

 

our WR fumbled on a run after the completed catch, that’s not on the pass game. Hines muffed a punt that’s not on the pass game. Take either one of those two away and it’s probable we win the game. Take both of those away and it’s almost guaranteed we win the game.

 

neither had to do with the result of passing “too much”

We have had some incredibly bad luck which is comical. Hines just fumbles it away without getting touched, Pascals fumble was mind boggling, then we are about to go up 31-14 and Wentz fumbles because of a breakdown on the O.Line and the O.Line played well overall. We have just had the worst luck possible this season in crucial situations = see Ravens, Titans game. We are 6-6 and should be 9-3 and that is sad!

[GoColts8818]

24 minutes ago, Wentzszn said:

 

That can’t be right I was told he’s why the Colts lost…

[John Waylon]

6 minutes ago, Happy2BeHere said:

Agree to disagree.

 

our WR fumbled on a run after the completed catch, that’s not on the pass game. Hines muffed a punt that’s not on the pass game. Take either one of those two away and it’s probable we win the game. Take both of those away and it’s almost guaranteed we win the game.

 

neither had to do with the result of passing “too much”

So those turnovers where Wentz fumbled or Winfield knew to go deep with Pittman because we straight up * refused to run the ball and keep them honest somehow had no bearing?

 

You can’t harp turnovers and ignore the direct cause of those turnovers at the same time.
 

If you wanna cherry pick go out to the orchard. 

[Tsarquise]

1 hour ago, bsteves said:

This game is on Hines. Nobody else..

Not exclusively, but it's a big deal. 

[Happy2BeHere]

Just now, John Waylon said:

So those turnovers where Wentz fumbled or Winfield knew to go deep with Pittman because we straight up * refused to run the ball and keep them somehow had no bearing?

 

You can’t harp turnovers and ignore the direct cause of those turnovers at the same time.
 

If you wanna cherry pick go out to the orchard. 

It’s not cherry picking, it’s simple really. I’ve Very much said we should have sprinkled in a few more runs for sure, but neither of those two turnovers were because we passed it too much. Fact.

[wordofmouth]

You can't get on Riech, too much, for not running the ball when we were moving it and scoring.  Having said that, when you put pass that much you are taking a risk when it comes to turnovers. 

Really the turnovers and penalties ( not blaming the refs) were the story of the game. 

When you play the Super Bowl champs, you can't afford to make all of those mistakes. 

[John Waylon]

Just now, Happy2BeHere said:

It’s not cherry picking, it’s simple really. I’ve Very much said we should have sprinkled in a few more runs for sure, but neither of those two turnovers were because we passed it too much. Fact.

Yeah. The defense being able to put 110% effort into pass defense had nothing at all to do with them creating turnovers on pass plays. 
 

I see the error of my ways. Thank you for the wisdom. 
 

[SurfinKal]

5 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

That can’t be right I was told he’s why the Colts lost…

6-6

[Tsarquise]

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

 

What is obvious is you don't get in a shootout with Brady. What is obvious our offensive turnovers happened in the passing game. What is obvious is that once we ran JT, we didn't turn the ball over, he killed stacked boxes, took time off the clock, and scored.

 

But go ahead and spin lol... 

It wasn't even Brady doing all the damage, it was their run game (Fournette). And it was looking like a potential blowout — in favor of the Colts — before the strip sack..Turnovers caused the Colts to lose the game.  They passed successfully and ran successfully. No turnovers means the Colts likely win the game. Frank did well, imo. 

[coming on strong]

28 minutes ago, Wentzszn said:

 

I am sick of moral victories at this point in the season .  we are a 500 team its doesnt matter how tough you play good teams if you are 1-5 against them .  every year bad teams play good teams well and still finish in the bottom ten .  football is a game of inches if you cannot finish games it does not matter how tough you played .    i am not happy being the vikings that is what they have been with kirk cousins they play every team tough and still go below .500 .

[AKB]

Worst game i've seen from pittman. Looked like a rookie tonight. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

31 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

Please not this again?

 

Just because we're close doesn't mean we can get over the hump.

 

We can play anybody close but that's very, very different. 

Guess what. That means it’s easy to add some difference makers in the off season. Sometimes when your this close your just shorty a player or two.

[Les Poulains]

28 minutes ago, smittywerb said:

 

 

You just said it yourself, why not adjust if you know Wentz will do that?  You can't say we lost because of turnovers and then say Wentz will lose us the game.  You're literally not even mentioning the run LOL

Of course I can, it's called having nuance. I don't think it's ridiculous to want to exploit a bad secondary. The problem is that ultimately, the quarterback isn't really good enough and at some point, Reich's expectations and handling of Wentz may have to change. My opinion of Wentz is not the same as Reich's, clearly. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

2 minutes ago, coming on strong said:

I am sick of moral victories at this point in the season .  we are a 500 team its doesnt matter how tough you play good teams if you are 1-5 against them .  every year bad teams play good teams well and still finish in the bottom ten .  football is a game of inches if you cannot finish games it does not matter how tough you played .    i am not happy being the vikings that is what they have been with kirk cousins they play every team tough and still go below .500 .

Fans are going to have to realize the stuff that happened in camp lead to the first four weeks of us being bad and not ready for the season. We are not playing bad right now. Players made too many mistakes today.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 minute ago, Les Poulains said:

Of course I can, it's called having nuance. I don't think it's ridiculous to want to exploit a bad secondary. The problem is that ultimately, the quarter back isn't really good enough and at some point, Reich's expectations and handling of Wentz may have to change. My opinion of Wentz is not the same of as Reich's, clearly. 

This wasn’t because Wentz isn’t good  enough. There is a argument to be made we don’t have enough receiving weapons. Go get a couple more playmakers at WR and that changes a team being able to shut down the run game. We shut doen Tampa WR but because they are so good it opened up the run game for them.

[SurfinKal]

3 minutes ago, Wentzszn said:

Fans are going to have to realize the stuff that happened in camp lead to the first four weeks of us being bad and not ready for the season. We are not playing bad right now. Players made too many mistakes today.

We are not playing bad for the whole game(s), but we are playing bad enough to lose games. And IMO that is what matters. 

[AKB]

2 minutes ago, Wentzszn said:

This wasn’t because Wentz isn’t good  enough. There is a argument to be made we don’t have enough receiving weapons. Go get a couple more playmakers at WR and that changes a team being able to shut down the run game. We shut doen Tampa WR but because they are so good it opened up the run game for them.

opened up the run game? the only thing that opened up anything for TB outside of Gronk was Frank Reich calling bad plays and us gifting the ball like its xmas already