Post Week 12 Reich Grievances Thread (MEGA MERGE)

[EastStreet]

42 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

 

Overall, i think we're lucky to have this coach. I think it could be plenty degrees worse, maybe that's more an indictment on the overall level of coaching in the league presently but given the circumstances he's faced, and what i see other coaches do around the league weekly, i think we're fortunate.

 

Now i do wish he'd learn from some of the mistakes he makes. Some of them seem to be repeated but shoot, that's a league wide issue. EDJ Sports have a coaches ranking they put out weekly and Reich is almost always hitting weekly top decisions. It's easy to say he needs to give up X or Y, but then what? What're the odds that a new play caller can sustain a top 8-10 offensive output with our personnel (which i think isnt as great as some think but that's another story for another time, i'll face one battle for today lol)

 

 

"EdjSports analyzes every coaching decision during the course of a season. The EdjFootball model enables an in-depth examination of all critical calls (4th downs, PATs, and kickoffs), in terms of the amount of GWC at stake. The coach’s play-calling choices (run, pass, field goal, punt) are assessed at the point of decision (pre-snap) and rated with respect to their impact on winning the game. As a result of this process all play calling decisions can be objectively classified as either optimal decisions (correct calls) or suboptimal decisions (errors).
The EdjSports Coach Rankings are based on this methodology and consist of two main components that result in the overall ranking."

I follow EdjSports a bit, but it is not every coaching decision. It's mostly card type stuff (if you're talking about top and worst 5s). 

And note, Reich also made the "worst" list lol.. But it's mostly simplified card stuff, so big grain of salt. If he does what the analytics say, he gets a star. If he doesn't, he gets a frownie lol... He got the #2 worst award for punting instead of going for it last week.

 

If you're talking about their coach ranks in general, another huge, mountain size grain of salt. Does anyone really believe Belichick is the 20th best coach? lol. Or Tomlin the 31st ranked coach? Either one of the guys would be in incredibly high demand if they were on the open market right now. And my favorite, Arians #13 overall and #29 CCI (play calling) while sitting with the #1 EPI and the #1 scoring offense in the league. That's just beyond dumb.

 

Sorry, Edj is interesting on some things, but the coach ranks is borderline trash is you don't understand what they're looking at vs reality. 

 

 

[Btown_Colt]

Boy, Hard Knocks sure was interesting tonight, I bet this thread loses 89% of the posters almost instantaneously. 

[ClaytonColt]

12 hours ago, hoosierhawk said:

Are you saying that anyone has suggested we abandon the pass entirely and go strictly to the run in the 2nd half. I have heard no one even remotely suggest that. Nice try but way off base. People are only suggesting we mix up the play calling to keep them guessing. One run out of 3 or 4 attempts would even have been more effective then 26 passes in a row especially when you have on off the best rushing OLs in the league and the league leading rusher.

No. I'm not saying that.

 

I'm saying that when we're successful with such a pass heavy strategy in the first half, but then go on to lose the game, there is always going to be a criticism of play calling. Either you're getting away from what was working or you're lacking balance.

 

For the record though I think we should have run more - I think we're basically a run first team. However if the opposition are absolutely committing to stopping the run we have to be able to take advantage of that through the passing game.

[DougDew]

7 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

- I think we're basically a run first team.

With Rivers and JB, yes we were.  With Luck and now Wentz, we were not so much and probably won't be.  JT is a big play runner, not a possession runner.  The pass will set up the run, not the other way around, IMO.

 

Not talking about the TB game, just saying that we are not going to be a run first team, in that the run sets up the pass. JMO.

[chad72]

25 minutes ago, DougDew said:

With Rivers and JB, yes we were.  With Luck and now Wentz, we were not so much and probably won't be.  JT is a big play runner, not a possession runner.  The pass will set up the run, not the other way around, IMO.

 

Not talking about the TB game, just saying that we are not going to be a run first team, in that the run sets up the pass. JMO.

 

We are neither, IMO. We will do what gives us success. If passing 40 times is necessary, we will do it and if running 30 times is necessary, we will do it. That is what good teams do, have the flexibility on their OL and skill position guys to play both styles. However, with the shortage of skill position talent amongst our pass catchers, I feel passing 40 times with our current personnel comes with more risks than running 30 times, and the numbers have borne it out with Wentz at least. So, a team that forces us to play that style, passing more than 40 times, is more likely to give us fits than a team that forces us to run 30 times. 

[RollerColt]

Just now, chad72 said:

 

We are neither, IMO. We will do what gives us success. If passing 40 times is necessary, we will do it and if running 30 times is necessary, we will do it. That is what good teams do, have the flexibility on their OL and skill position guys to play both styles. However, with the shortage of skill position talent amongst our pass catchers, I feel passing 40 times with our current personnel comes with more risks than running 30 times, and the numbers have borne it out with Wentz at least. So, a team that forces us to play that style, passing more than 40 times, is more likely to give us fits than a team that forces us to run 30 times. 

Absolutely. You have to be flexible and take what the defense gives you. Throwing 20 some odd times is extreme, I get that. I think you perfectly summed up our issue. Lack of talented skill positions and therefore a lack of player execution. Besides TY and Jack Doyle, our other eligible receivers had a rough go.

 

I fully expect the Texans and every future team we face to stack the box with 5 man fronts that dare us to throw. 

[chad72]

33 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

Absolutely. You have to be flexible and take what the defense gives you. Throwing 20 some odd times is extreme, I get that. I think you perfectly summed up our issue. Lack of talented skill positions and therefore a lack of player execution. Besides TY and Jack Doyle, our other eligible receivers had a rough go.

 

I fully expect the Texans and every future team we face to stack the box with 5 man fronts that dare us to throw. 

 

Just that not every DL has a Vita Vea, Suh and Gholston manning the D-line together, which is why we have been able to run against stacked fronts of other teams.  

 

Teams like the Bills built their team to beat the kinds like the Chiefs, with lighter DL and good pass rushers, and need that base 25-30 points to force other teams to throw more to go against their strengths. So that is where turnovers and defensive support to overcome some turnovers for a margin of error comes into picture against the better teams. Since we limited the Bills offense, our offense was able to stay patient with the run playing to our strengths, I felt. Plus, we got 3 turnovers from the Bills, 2 INTs from Allen and 1 from their special teams. We got 1 INT from Brady and 1 from Godwin but then we gave 5 of our own, there was the true difference, 4 of those in the second half.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

56 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

Absolutely. You have to be flexible and take what the defense gives you. Throwing 20 some odd times is extreme, I get that. I think you perfectly summed up our issue. Lack of talented skill positions and therefore a lack of player execution. Besides TY and Jack Doyle, our other eligible receivers had a rough go.

 

I fully expect the Texans and every future team we face to stack the box with 5 man fronts that dare us to throw. 

It won’t work with every team because they don’t have the players.

[Thunderbolt]

Well, the old saying goes, "If at first or whether five times you don't succeed in runs in the middle, try, try again on the outside" I blame this on the play calling, Reich didn't mix it up.  I haven't seen pass attempts 26 consecutive times and not eventually pay for it in strip sacks, etc... "Run the D_mn Ball" 

[EastStreet]

Posted this in the HKs thread, but I'll leave it here too.. 

 

Dan Dakich is on fire torching Frank and trashing folks for defending Reich. Really bashing whoever it was in the media (from the Star I think) who gushed over Frank taking the time to explain things (26 straight passes) in the presser (like some did on here), as well as some of the Athletic guys lol... 

 

Full disclosure.. I think DD is a bag of ducks, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. 

 

DD also saying the Colts are even more pathetic for allowing the Q vid to stay in HK's show. 

 

I actually think either some peon reviewed it, and didn't think to take it out, or they were afraid to cut it, because they'd look worse if it got out they cut it.

 

Keefer and Doyle are getting ripped by DD too lol. Ripping the Hines contract lol... Dude is on fire.. 

[Fluke_33]

The loss to me is solely on the turnovers.  Riech's plan would have won the game but for those fumbles, ints, etc.   From my armchair i would have liked more focus on the run but didn't manning consistently change the play at the los with what he thought the defense was giving him.  I would think he'd be calling pass plays just as much as reich/wentz did.  If Reich had called a run heavy game plan and they went 3 and out multiple times, everyone would be calling for his head for not passing in obvious situations.

 

That being said i did ask for a RTDB hat for xmas.  I also like the idea of our ol imposing their will on the opponent regardless of a stacked box or not but i'm no coach.

[Colt.45]

6 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

The loss to me is solely on the turnovers.  Riech's plan would have won the game but for those fumbles, ints, etc.   From my armchair i would have liked more focus on the run but didn't manning consistently change the play at the los with what he thought the defense was giving him.  I would think he'd be calling pass plays just as much as reich/wentz did.  If Reich had called a run heavy game plan and they went 3 and out multiple times, everyone would be calling for his head for not passing in obvious situations.

 

That being said i did ask for a RTDB hat for xmas.  I also like the idea of our ol imposing their will on the opponent regardless of a stacked box or not but i'm no coach.

In a small paragraph, you've encapsulated everything i spent 5000 words on yesterday. You're the MVP lol

[shasta519]

Last thing I will say about this because at this point, a good portion of fans aren't changing their minds...and that's fine.

 

BUT it was only two weeks ago that the Colts were beating JAC 20-9 at halftime. Similarly, a two-score lead to the one they had against TB...except it was against one of the worst teams in the NFL. 

 

Seems like a no-brainer to just keep using Taylor, run the ball and chew the clock and put it in the W column.  

 

And they tried to do that. Except Taylor only managed 7 carries for 9 yards. Including catches, he had 10 touches for 8 yards. They managed 3 points.

 

If JAC had TB's offense, they likely lose that game by a couple scores. And if not for a clutch FF on JAC's last drive, they probably lose that game anyways.

 

So...if JAC can adjust and figure out how to bottle up Jonathan Taylor and stagnate the Colts offense, would we expect it to be successful against TB's run defense?  And if it wasn't successful, can the Colts defense hold of the opposing offense (like they did against JAC)?

 

The answer should be NO and NO. And that JAC game was only two games ago...so while it might not be fresh in most people's minds...I am sure Reich remembers it. 

 

 

 

[Dr. T]

On 11/29/2021 at 4:43 PM, Btown_Colt said:

Did you happen to catch the Bucs VS WFT game. They ran against the Bucs & won…but I’ve heard that isn’t possible.

Was Vita Vea available for the WFT game?

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

10 minutes ago, Dr. T said:

Was Vita Vea available for the WFT game?

I don’t believe he played. Not sure. Edit he didn’t play.

 

WFT ran for about the same amount of yards the colts did.

[Jason_]

2 hours ago, Fluke_33 said:

If Reich had called a run heavy game plan and they went 3 and out multiple times, everyone would be calling for his head for not passing in obvious situations.

 

Not one person that i've seen has said they should have gone with a run heavy game plan

[Jason_]

2 hours ago, Fluke_33 said:

The loss to me is solely on the turnovers.  Riech's plan would have won the game but for those fumbles, ints, etc. 

 

one of the points that we've been making is that going one dimensional and not calling a run play for almost a quarter and a half made the team more susceptible to turnovers.  in a general sense, I don't have a problem with the pass heavy game plan.  my problem, and the same with most others who have been complaining, was the fact Taylor didn't get a single carry for 20 minutes of game time.  his first carry in the 2nd half came with about 9:30 min left in the 4th quarter.

[Btown_Colt]

1 hour ago, Dr. T said:

Was Vita Vea available for the WFT game?

Oh I like this game. I can do it too.

 

Does Washington have JT or this O line?

[EastStreet]

Having VV is very important when you're in base D. 

If you're run blitzing and stuffing the A and nonsense, VV is less of the equation. 

[Zoltan]

2 hours ago, Dr. T said:

Was Vita Vea available for the WFT game?

Yes Vita Vea was available and no they didn't run the ball well at all.

 

Gibson was 24 carries for 64 yards (2.6 yards per carry)

Mckissic 2 carries for 4 yards

Patterson 4 carries for 7 yards

 

Best runner was Heinicke with 3 scrambles for 15 yards

 

They did throw the ball all over the Bucs though

 

https://www.buccaneers.com/game-day/2021/reg-week10/buccaneers-at-washington-football/box-score

[Fluke_33]

2 hours ago, J@son said:

 

Not one person that i've seen has said they should have gone with a run heavy game plan

Ok  but even if we ran it more and went three and out my point is the same. 

2 hours ago, J@son said:

 

one of the points that we've been making is that going one dimensional and not calling a run play for almost a quarter and a half made the team more susceptible to turnovers. 

I don’t think that’s a valid argument but to each his own. 
 

I agree as I said that I would have liked more carries to Taylor.  My point was the game plan was fine.  Execution failed.   Heck.  I think we win if Hines doesn’t fumble but who knows.  

[Btown_Colt]

18 minutes ago, Zoltan said:

Yes Vita Vea was available and no they didn't run the ball well at all.

 

Gibson was 24 carries for 64 yards (2.6 yards per carry)

Mckissic 2 carries for 4 yards

Patterson 4 carries for 7 yards

 

Best runner was Heinicke with 3 scrambles for 15 yards

 

They did throw the ball all over the Bucs though

 

https://www.buccaneers.com/game-day/2021/reg-week10/buccaneers-at-washington-football/box-score

Threw it all over them for 250 yards and 1 TD.

 

Geez. Again, the point I was making, is that the # of runs and # of passes was balanced.

But then again, some people just like to be contrary, right?

[Zoltan]

17 minutes ago, Btown_Colt said:

Threw it all over them for 250 yards and 1 TD.

 

Geez. Again, the point I was making, is that the # of runs and # of passes was balanced.

But then again, some people just like to be contrary, right?

Sorry I didn't see the original post about the number of run and passes plays. Just wanted to put stats to the run numbers as I misinterpreted what you meant by they ran on the Bucs. I thought it was saying that they had alot of running yards against the Bucs or were effective running against the Bucs.

 

Since they had 81% completion, passing yards were 73% of the total yards, and they were averaging over 9 yards a completion (compared to 2.76 per carry) I would say that the pass is the reason they won.

 

[Btown_Colt]

1 minute ago, Zoltan said:

Sorry I didn't see the original post about the number of run and passes plays. Just wanted to put stats to the run numbers as I misinterpreted what you meant by they ran on the Bucs. I thought it was saying that they had alot of running yards against the Bucs or were effective running against the Bucs.

 

Since they had 81% completion, passing yards were 73% of the total yards, and they were averaging over 9 yards a completion (compared to 2.76 per carry) I would say that the pass is the reason they won.

 

That’s fine. Beat this horse enough, on to new things. 

[Jason_]

7 hours ago, Fluke_33 said:

Ok  but even if we ran it more and went three and out my point is the same. 

 

that's a really cherry picked, "but what if..." lol.  quite a reach to try to keep defending your position.

Quote

I don’t think that’s a valid argument but to each his own. 

 

 

I mean...agree to disgree I guess but anyone who's watched even a decent amount of football should know that going all out pass, no rushing at all, makes the team more susceptible to sacks and turnovers.  

[Jason_]

6 hours ago, Zoltan said:

Since they had 81% completion, passing yards were 73% of the total yards, and they were averaging over 9 yards a completion (compared to 2.76 per carry) I would say that the pass is the reason they won.

 

but the fact they still ran it 30 times shows they maintained balance throughout the game, which is all we've been asking frank to do.  they didn't go almost a quarter and a half without a rushing attempt.  they kept the bucs defense honest and prevented their pass rush from just pinning their ears back and going after the QB.

 

and the 30 rushing attempts did more to wear down the Bucs Defense than if they'd gone all out pass

[Fluke_33]

7 hours ago, J@son said:

 

that's a really cherry picked, "but what if..." lol.  quite a reach to try to keep defending your position.

 

I mean...agree to disgree I guess but anyone who's watched even a decent amount of football should know that going all out pass, no rushing at all, makes the team more susceptible to sacks and turnovers.  

Now whose reaching?  Lol.   I think you’re just arguing to argue.   
 

again.  Manning would have checked out if run plays to a pass play if there were 8 in the box but maybe he hasn’t watched as much football as you.  

[Fluke_33]

@J@son

 

I want to make sure we can agree on what is being argued.

1.       We both agree that we would have liked to see more run plays.

2.       I stated that the game plan was fine and we would have won if there weren’t as many turnovers

3.       You stated that the game plan caused the turnovers (or was part of the reason because of susceptibility) and was therefore the reason for the loss

Let me ask you this, how many of the turnovers were a direct result of the bucs knowing we would pass.  I assume you wouldn’t count the hail mary as that didn’t matter at that time, the hines fumble as it had nothing to do with offense or defense, and the pascal fumble because it was a successful pass completion.  I don’t remember the down and distance on the sack fumble but I suspect a run didn’t make sense there and I don’t remember the last turnover.  I’m not going to review the game to see but would be interested if you or someone else did.

However,  if your point is that the turnovers were caused because they knew we would pass.  How many of those were when they stacked the box anyway, meaning they were playing the run?  If that is true, and I’m not sure it is – I am open to being wrong here -, then they were not playing the pass and their focus on pass plays didn’t happen then they had no affect on turnovers.   – If I’m not clear here I can restate.  I know what I’m trying to say.  Lol.

[shasta519]

2 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

@J@son

 

I want to make sure we can agree on what is being argued.

1.       We both agree that we would have liked to see more run plays.

2.       I stated that the game plan was fine and we would have won if there weren’t as many turnovers

3.       You stated that the game plan caused the turnovers (or was part of the reason because of susceptibility) and was therefore the reason for the loss

Let me ask you this, how many of the turnovers were a direct result of the bucs knowing we would pass.  I assume you wouldn’t count the hail mary as that didn’t matter at that time, the hines fumble as it had nothing to do with offense or defense, and the pascal fumble because it was a successful pass completion.  I don’t remember the down and distance on the sack fumble but I suspect a run didn’t make sense there and I don’t remember the last turnover.  I’m not going to review the game to see but would be interested if you or someone else did.

However,  if your point is that the turnovers were caused because they knew we would pass.  How many of those were when they stacked the box anyway, meaning they were playing the run?  If that is true, and I’m not sure it is – I am open to being wrong here -, then they were not playing the pass and their focus on pass plays didn’t happen then they had no affect on turnovers.   – If I’m not clear here I can restate.  I know what I’m trying to say.  Lol.

 

I was done talking about this, but I will add.

 

Even Barrett said he didn't expect them to come out passing in the 2nd half. 

 

The TO probability, that's a fair point, but TOs have always been the risk with passing the ball. The payoff (especially on early downs) is a much higher Expected Points Added and Success Rate. And they absolutely needed to keep scoring adding points. The success rate was already there.

 

The sack fumble occurred at TB's 20-yard line on 1st and 10. The EPA on passing there is .13 vs. -.07 for running. 

 

The deep INT occurred on 2nd and 3 from the 46 and Winfield was able to return it to TB's 35. Yet another situation where it is more beneficial to pass the ball.

 

So those play calls were fine regardless. And they could have easily occurred regardless of whether they gave Taylor a few carries proceeding them. 

 

Also, some people are painting this as Taylor was on the bench this whole time. He as on the field for both TOs...and even had 3 targets in the passing game (for a combined 2 yards). 

 

[Jason_]

5 hours ago, Fluke_33 said:

Now whose reaching?  Lol.   I think you’re just arguing to argue.   
 

again.  Manning would have checked out if run plays to a pass play if there were 8 in the box but maybe he hasn’t watched as much football as you.  

 

How am I reaching? And what Peyton Manning would do has nothing to do with the current discussion. Besides, the bucs did not have 8 in the box on every play in the 3rd quarter so your point is moot 

[Fluke_33]

1 hour ago, J@son said:

 

How am I reaching? And what Peyton Manning would do has nothing to do with the current discussion. Besides, the bucs did not have 8 in the box on every play in the 3rd quarter so your point is moot 

That response was more knee jerk.  My more thought out one was the one that followed where I named you.  
 

but to the above.  You said no rushing at all.  That’s more of a stretch than my some rushing and three and out.  I’m sure you agree.  
I brought up manning in my original post that you responded to.   
 

what about my follow up.  Do you agree there?  I assume you did because you didn’t respond.  I take it this is settled now.  

[DougDew]

4 hours ago, shasta519 said:

The sack fumble occurred at TB's 20-yard line on 1st and 10. The EPA on passing there is .13 vs. -.07 for running. 

 

The deep INT occurred on 2nd and 3 from the 46 and Winfield was able to return it to TB's 35. Yet another situation where it is more beneficial to pass the ball.

 

So those play calls were fine regardless. And they could have easily occurred regardless of whether they gave Taylor a few carries proceeding them. 

 

Also, some people are painting this as Taylor was on the bench this whole time. He as on the field for both TOs...and even had 3 targets in the passing game (for a combined 2 yards). 

 

Yes.  Very good information to know. 

[Jason_]

7 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

That response was more knee jerk.  My more thought out one was the one that followed where I named you.  

but to the above.  You said no rushing at all.  That’s more of a stretch than my some rushing and three and out.  I’m sure you agree.  

 

I said no rushing at all because Frank went all of the 3rd quarter and almost half of the 4th quarter without a single rushing attempt.

 

Quote

what about my follow up.  Do you agree there?  I assume you did because you didn’t respond.  I take it this is settled now.  

 

 

assumption is the mother of all screwups.  

Quote

 

I want to make sure we can agree on what is being argued.

1.       We both agree that we would have liked to see more run plays.

2.       I stated that the game plan was fine and we would have won if there weren’t as many turnovers

3.       You stated that the game plan caused the turnovers (or was part of the reason because of susceptibility) and was therefore the reason for the loss

 

 

1.  yes

2. yes you did state that

3. no I didn't state that the game plan caused the turnovers.  I said the playcalling in the 3rd quarter made the colts more susceptible to sacks and turnovers.  the gameplan was to go pass heavy.  i have no issue with that.  my issue was with not calling a single run play for 20 minutes of game time.  

 

Quote

  I don’t remember the down and distance on the sack fumble but I suspect a run didn’t make sense there and I don’t remember the last turnover.

 

I believe it was a first and 10, but it definitely wasn't a 2nd or 3rd and long.  I distinctly remember thinking it was a perfect time for a run to be called.

[Fluke_33]

2 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

I said no rushing at all because Frank went all of the 3rd quarter and almost half of the 4th quarter without a single rushing attempt.

 

 

assumption is the mother of all screwups.  

 

1.  yes

2. yes you did state that

3. no I didn't state that the game plan caused the turnovers.  I said the playcalling in the 3rd quarter made the colts more susceptible to sacks and turnovers.  the gameplan was to go pass heavy.  i have no issue with that.  my issue was with not calling a single run play for 20 minutes of game time.  

 

 

I believe it was a first and 10, but it definitely wasn't a 2nd or 3rd and long.  I distinctly remember thinking it was a perfect time for a run to be called.

I think shasta covered the situations for the turnovers but thanks for responding.  

[Jason_]

5 hours ago, shasta519 said:

The sack fumble occurred at TB's 20-yard line on 1st and 10. The EPA on passing there is .13 vs. -.07 for running. 

 

The deep INT occurred on 2nd and 3 from the 46 and Winfield was able to return it to TB's 35. Yet another situation where it is more beneficial to pass the ball.

 

So those play calls were fine regardless

 

I disagree with the notion that the play calls were "fine regardless".  each of those is looking at the individual play in a vacuum, not taking into account plays that came before it or the drives as a whole in which they occurred.  

[Moosejawcolt]

On 11/28/2021 at 5:13 PM, cdgacoltsfan said:

When going against the top offense in the league,you have to play clock management and keep them off the field....you can't throw the ball 50 times and not have your best player touch the ball for 3qtrs.

U say clock management but u wanted them to run more against a 6 man front?  Wouldn't that have lead to more 3 and outs and more opportunities for the Bucs O? Sorry I am confused. 

[cdgacoltsfan]

1 minute ago, Moosejawcolt said:

U say clock management but u wanted them to run more against a 6 man front?  Wouldn't that have lead to more 3 and outs and more opportunities for the Bucs O? Sorry I am confused. 

Clock management is not run only. At least have JT on the field ...throw a long pass to stretch the d then hit hit short pass or stretch run.  Mix it up a bit.

[Moosejawcolt]

On 11/28/2021 at 5:09 PM, Rally5 said:

The play calling did not cost us this game, we scored 31.  You have to understand this is the top or one of the top run stopping D's in the NFL.  They game planned a fifth a fifth guy on the line loading the box to stop the run.  That's a pass call or check to pass every time with our team.  Our line may be able to overcome that against poor NFL talent but not the Bucs line, just look at the running game in the first quarter.  This game was lost in a handful of plays as they almost always are:

 

1. Fischer's sack fumble in scoring position, that was a huge point swing as not only did we not score but the converted the TO to a TD.

2. The massive PI on Ya-Sin, that moved them all the way down inside the red zone or at least close.

3. Third down PI in the end zone on Carrie which instead of a FG they go to first and goal and score.

4. Punt muff turnover, lost possession and score.

 

Do the math on those four plays, the NFL is always about a handful of game changing plays each game large in part.  

 

The D got some good stops and a few turnovers so that worked for the most part, I'll take it v Brady.  Hats off to Frank for the fourth down calls that converted, should be noted those converted to first downs and touchdowns, very strong.  I normally advocate for taking the points but not against Brady.  Overall I thought we called a smart game.  Easy win if you eliminate four blown assignments.  Fischer, Ya-Sin, Carrie, and Hines with an honorable mention to Pittman who can't lose a jump ball to a 5'9" Antoine Winfield.  Pittman had a terrible game by his standards.  

 

So ya, it was the play calling for sure...

It's not play calling. It's every time the Bucs got a turnover, they marched straight down the field and got points. 24 points off turnovers. It's not being able to cover a tight end and/or a receiver even though everyone, including my wife who knows nothing about football, knows it's going to Broen , Andrew's or Gronk. I can go on if u wish. In today's football, I think all u can ask is your defense to hold the other teams to 25 points. They scored 38 and not all those turnovers were on a short field. 

[Moosejawcolt]

2 minutes ago, cdgacoltsfan said:

Clock management is not run only. At least have JT on the field ...throw a long pass to stretch the d then hit hit short pass or stretch run.  Mix it up a bit.

Dulin 65 yard  td. I don't understand what u r saying