Colts at Texans post game

[Patrick Miller]

1 hour ago, KB said:

Does anyone really think Flacco would have won that for us? The Texans Dline was eating our Oline up. Putting Flacco in there for meaningful snaps would have been similar to Nick Foles vs the Giants.

Yes. Even with dunks and dunks. Flacco is legit.

[husker61]

1 minute ago, ADnum1 said:

Someone owes an apology to Shane

I don’t know. In his press conference he said they were trying to get a score. I don’t think that was smart with a very erratic qb! Run the ball and if Taylor breaks a big run or two, then go for a score.

[ProblChld32]

10 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

No. What I'm suggesting is if the play calls for the deep shot and you have one on one, why wouldn't you take a shot? I get what you mean by taking the checkdown and make things easier from a down and distance, but AR is following the play call and you're gonna take the shot deep if it's one on one

Ok I understand what you’re saying but as a QB decision making has to be one of the utmost important skills you have in order to succeed in the NFL. Egregiously throwing a 50/50 deep ball to a covered receiver is kind of poor decision making regardless of the “play call”. Especially when you have guys open for easier completions. I will chalk a lot of this up to AR just being really inexperienced. All in all I am hopeful and I believe that he has the necessary tools to be a good NFL QB but until he looks in the mirror and genuinely understands that he needs to make conscious efforts at improving his mental aspect of the game, his physical skillset will only get him so far. 

[ProblChld32]

1 hour ago, KB said:

Does anyone really think Flacco would have won that for us? The Texans Dline was eating our Oline up. Putting Flacco in there for meaningful snaps would have been similar to Nick Foles vs the Giants.

If I’m being honest I think Flacco would most certainly have given a better chance of winning that game. There were so many missed opportunities offensively that AR simply didn’t take that Flacco would have. Regardless of the pressure Flacco is really good at reading and diagnosing a defense pre snap and he’s going to get that ball out quick. There were alot of short underneath guys open that AR didn’t hit that could have resulted in a new set of downs or possibly bigger plays, you never know a 5 yard drag could turn into a 50+ scamper for a touchdown you just have to give your guys a chance in the open field. With how close that game was a veteran QB likely closes that out for us. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

I think if Flacco played, we would have won but AR went through a lot of learning experience yesterday, played badly, and we still only lost by 3. Had it not been for the INT before the half, we would have won with AR playing bad. 

[dw49]

13 hours ago, ProblChld32 said:

You do realized that after that run the Texans didn’t burn a timeout? Meaning they had zero intentions on trying to get the ball back, they were very content with taking it to the half. Knees could’ve gotten the same result.

 

That's because 2nd and 3 is a favorable down for the Colts . One the Colts started taking a knee , they would have done so. If the Colts were calling a TO at the Texan 45 , why wouldn't the Texans call a TO at the Colts 5 years line.

[TrueBlue4ever]

2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think if Flacco played, we would have won but AR went through a lot of learning experience yesterday, played badly, and we still only lost by 3. Had it not been for the INT before the half, we would have won with AR playing bad. 

I agree with this take. The Loss was a huge loss in the grand scheme of winning the division. If AR learned in this huge loss, maybe something positive will come from it. The loss has left a miserable taste in my mouth though and we did have a chance to win it. 

[ProblChld32]

15 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

That's because 2nd and 3 is a favorable down for the Colts . One the Colts started taking a knee , they would have done so. If the Colts were calling a TO at the Texan 45 , why wouldn't the Texans call a TO at the Colts 5 years line.

You’re assuming that they would have called their timeouts. The difference between Indy calling timeouts at the 45 versus Houston is the amount of time that was on the clock. 

[ProblChld32]

19 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think if Flacco played, we would have won but AR went through a lot of learning experience yesterday, played badly, and we still only lost by 3. Had it not been for the INT before the half, we would have won with AR playing bad. 

In the grand scheme of things yes he gained valuable game experience but we have to see if he takes that experience and learns from his mistakes. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, ProblChld32 said:

In the grand scheme of things yes he gained valuable game experience but we have to see if he takes that experience and learns from his mistakes. 

Other than the 2 nice TD throws and 2 nice runs he was awful yesterday, so I hope so.

[NFLfan]

21 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think if Flacco played, we would have won but AR went through a lot of learning experience yesterday, played badly, and we still only lost by 3. Had it not been for the INT before the half, we would have won with AR playing bad. 

 

I'm not sure that the fans will allow AR enough time to show that he has learned from this experience. Maybe you will draft a QB next year.

[NFLfan]

58 minutes ago, ADnum1 said:

Someone owes an apology to Shane

 

That was a terrible decision to pass. If they had 30 seconds or less left in the half, deep in Colts territory, they should have run the ball.

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

That was a terrible decision to pass. If they had 30 seconds or less left in the half, deep in Colts territory, they should have run the ball.

That is what lost us the game, that 1 play. 

[DougDew]

14 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

That is what lost us the game, that 1 play. 

AR checked into that play.  What did he check out of....do we know?

[LJpalmbeacher2]

12 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

That is what lost us the game, that 1 play. 

 

I don't know if that 1 play lost the game because there was still a lot of football played afterwards and game situations changed for both teams  BUT it sure did hurt.

 

[Solid84]

 

[CR91]

1 hour ago, ProblChld32 said:

Ok I understand what you’re saying but as a QB decision making has to be one of the utmost important skills you have in order to succeed in the NFL. Egregiously throwing a 50/50 deep ball to a covered receiver is kind of poor decision making regardless of the “play call”. Especially when you have guys open for easier completions. I will chalk a lot of this up to AR just being really inexperienced. All in all I am hopeful and I believe that he has the necessary tools to be a good NFL QB but until he looks in the mirror and genuinely understands that he needs to make conscious efforts at improving his mental aspect of the game, his physical skillset will only get him so far. 

 

I personally don't understand what we're doing from an offensive perspective. I've said it in another thread I don't understand why we're not using AR's best skillset to it's full advantage. Get him out of the pocket on roll outs or play action, but instead we're in shotgun all game and we're forcing him to make throws in the pocket. It just baffles me why we're not using his legs more not just for design runs. You can use his legs to get him out to the perimeter to stress defenses, but instead we leave him in the pocket to try to make throws he can't make.

[ColtAndOrioles]

5 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

 

Yeah accuracy wise, while it wasn't great, I have seen worse from him.  Most of his passes yesterday that were incomplete were pretty on target.   So progress there.  The difference was a lot of times he threw late or to a covered WR so it was a tough catch with a defender all over the WR.  But the overall ball placement was much better.

[GoColts8818]

16 minutes ago, DougDew said:

AR checked into that play.  What did he check out of....do we know?

No we don’t and without that information we can’t let Shane off the hook.  If it was another pass play (and good chance it was since the play before it was) that’s still a bad decision.  If it was a run play Shane and AR need to have a conversation this week.

[RollerColt]

10 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

I personally don't understand what we're doing from an offensive perspective. I've said it in another thread I don't understand why we're not using AR's best skillset to it's full advantage. Get him out of the pocket on roll outs or play action, but instead we're in shotgun all game and we're forcing him to make throws in the pocket. It just baffles me why we're not using his legs more not just for design runs. You can use his legs to get him out to the perimeter to stress defenses, but instead we leave him in the pocket to try to make throws he can't make.

Yeah, I mean from all of his college footage (not just highlights) he seemed fine throwing on the run. 

 

We're doing the square peg in a round hole thing just like we've been doing for like the last 12 years. 

 

And while we're at it, why isn't Shane giving JT more carries? The Texans had no answer for Taylor. 20 carries from our top offensive weapon isn't going to cut it. 

[ColtAndOrioles]

7 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

No we don’t and without that information we can’t let Shane off the hook.  If it was another pass play (and good chance it was since the play before it was) that’s still a bad decision.  If it was a run play Shane and AR need to have a conversation this week.

Pretty sure it was a pass play originally called.  On the Fan this morning they were playing some of Steichan's post game quotes and one of them was something to the effect of "it worked against Miami and we wanted to try to score there so that is why we called the pass play in that situation".  Kevin Bowen was astounded he could say such a thing. 

[ColtAndOrioles]

2 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

Yeah, I mean from all of his college footage (not just highlights) he seemed fine throwing on the run. 

 

We're doing the square peg in a round hole thing just like we've been doing for like the last 12 years. 

 

And while we're at it, why isn't Shane giving JT more carries? The Texans had no answer for Taylor. 20 carries from our top offensive weapon isn't going to cut it. 

It is pretty bizarre to me how SS is calling games with AR in there.   Every series should be a mix of lots of motion, options, roll outs, screens, and a hurry up offense.  Something that plays to AR's strengths.  Instead SS calls a game like he has Peyton Manning in there.

 

For being an Offensive 'guru'?   He doesn't seem very guru ish to me. 

[RollerColt]

1 minute ago, ColtAndOrioles said:

It is pretty bizarre to me how SS is calling games with AR in there.   Every series should be a mix of lots of motion, options, roll outs, screens, and a hurry up offense.  Something that plays to AR's strengths.  Instead SS calls a game like he has Peyton Manning in there.

 

For being an Offensive 'guru'?   He doesn't seem very guru ish to me. 

[King Colt]

Of all the descriptions I have heard of AR and his play the one word I have yet to hear is "smart".

[ColtAndOrioles]

1 minute ago, King Colt said:

Of all the descriptions I have heard of AR and his play the one word I have yet to hear is "smart".

You can.  Just ask AR. He will probably tell you not only is he "one of one", but a great passer, an even better runner, and a Rhodes Scholar. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

36 minutes ago, DougDew said:

AR checked into that play.  What did he check out of....do we know?

I don't know, we should of just ran the clock out though.

[KB]

I really don't think we would of won with Flacco. I really think that's just delusional to think so. The oline played bad, the recievers played bad, and the TEs are non existent. To boot, their defense played a good game. Flacco coming in dosnt fix any of that. It more than likely exasperates the o line issue. A few dink and dunk passes dosnt change the outcome.

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, KB said:

I really don't think we would of won with Flacco. I really think that's just delusional to think so. The oline played bad, the recievers played bad, and the TEs are non existent. To boot, their defense played a good game. Flacco coming in dosnt fix any of that. It more than likely exasperates the o line issue. A few dink and dunk passes dosnt change the outcome.

I disagree, we a lot of 3 and outs which killed us and Flacco doesn't throw that INT at the end of the half either. Our D played really well. I think had Flacco played we win by 7 actually. Taylor had over 100 yards too. Houston showed me yesterday that they are not on KC's or Baltimore's level, I know Baltimore lost to the Browns but flukes happen to every team once a year.

[DougDew]

30 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I don't know, we should of just ran the clock out though.

I could see taking a shot with a long pass to try to change the field, then work into FG position from there.  A pick around the 50 yard line wouldn't be horrible.  AR should be able to escape and throw OB if he had to.  IIRC, the checked pass was a slant to the inside, not even to where the WR would go OB.

[King Colt]

15 minutes ago, KB said:

I really don't think we would of won with Flacco. I really think that's just delusional to think so. The oline played bad, the recievers played bad, and the TEs are non existent. To boot, their defense played a good game. Flacco coming in dosnt fix any of that. It more than likely exasperates the o line issue. A few dink and dunk passes dosnt change the outcome.

You may be right but given the number of dropped passes in a three point game Flacco may have won it.

[CR91]

41 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

Yeah, I mean from all of his college footage (not just highlights) he seemed fine throwing on the run. 

 

We're doing the square peg in a round hole thing just like we've been doing for like the last 12 years. 

 

And while we're at it, why isn't Shane giving JT more carries? The Texans had no answer for Taylor. 20 carries from our top offensive weapon isn't going to cut it. 

 

I'm assuming they didn't want to overwork Taylor as he just came back after three games 

[RollerColt]

Just now, CR91 said:

 

I'm assuming they didn't want to overwork Taylor as he just came back after three games 

Probably. 

 

Plus we have the best running quarterback in the NFL besides Lamar so... 

[DougDew]

49 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

No we don’t and without that information we can’t let Shane off the hook.  If it was another pass play (and good chance it was since the play before it was) that’s still a bad decision.  If it was a run play Shane and AR need to have a conversation this week.

Not if we we're going to take shots down field to get into FG position.  Trying to matriculate the ball down the field would be risky, but we don't know what the intent was.

 

I think you have to criticized the QB that checked into the play that got picked before we blame the coach for having a strategy that may have been pretty low risk with 38 seconds left.

[KB]

8 minutes ago, King Colt said:

You may be right but given the number of dropped passes in a three point game Flacco may have won it.

Is Flacco catching the ball too? The passes from Richardson wernt the big issue outside of a few (I agree with another poster that Flacco probably dosnt make the INT)(there was a throw to Pierce after the Downs TD that he threw to him instead of in front of him). Putting Flacco in dosnt change the drops or the good coverage. Another thing that dosnt happen is Flacco getting away from the pressure or throwing a Dlineman off his back and running for a gain. 

 

Flacco isn't the cure all people make out to be. He might get us a few more wins than Richardson, but by no means does that actually help us. He won't get us playoff wins, we would get a worse draft pick (middle of the pack), and lose all possible development for Richardson. The point that they start Flacco over a healthy AR is the point that they are throwing the towel in on AR. Which is about the point you start a rebuild.

[ColtAndOrioles]

18 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Not if we we're going to take shots down field to get into FG position.  Trying to matriculate the ball down the field would be risky, but we don't know what the intent was.

 

I think you have to criticized the QB that checked into the play that got picked before we blame the coach for having a strategy that may have been pretty low risk with 38 seconds left.

SS said after the game that it was a planned pass play and they were trying to score points there and not just run out the clock.   So imo it is inexcusable.  Kevin Bowen said the same.

[Moosejawcolt]

16 hours ago, TheBlueAndWhite said:

Inconsistency and an apparent lack of heart and accountability is what is wrong with this team. 

 

- Shane Steichan happens to currently be who I am mostly upset with and who I believe earns most of the blame, the last couple of offensive performances have been extremely underwhelming to say the least, very, very poor situational awareness. He is obviously trying to make Anthony play a brand of football that he simply cannot play currently, If he ever will be able too, and I believe the reason for this is he has lost faith in Anthony whether that be him, being able to stay healthy and or make the correct decisions. He has to call the plays that win us the game, not the plays that keep Anthony healthy, that is not why he was drafted 4th overall.

 

Our defense played lights out today, so I feel bad for nit picking them, but one good performance does not erase several years of horrible defensive play, our defense is just as bad as our offense when it comes to situational play calling by Gis Bradley, he always preaches fundamentals, but we continue to watch our fundamentals fail us, both on defense as well as on offense, we are just a bad football team currently, I don't know how to fix these issues, but they need fixing, or else, we will never be anything more than a Sunday punching bag for great football teams.

 

For me it starts with heart, and a willingness to work on / excel in the little things, technique, details that make great teams great. We look like we would rather be watching the game from the comfort from our own homes than be dualing it out on the football field. 

 

Part of me believes this is the type of team you get when you draft athletic freaks instead of football players, football players have grit, football players refuse to give up, football players play good football and obsess over minor details. Athletes just run around, and at the end of the day, we are a roster full of Athletes... 

 

I want, Football players, not just fast Athletes that can jump high, because at the end of the day, that just doesn't win in this league, and for that I ultimately blame Ballard.

Amen.

[Moosejawcolt]

Ballard has always been high on character and athletism. However what is not discussed around here is how this team is unable to win games that they must win. This goes all the way back to that famous implosion against the Raiders under Wentz. We can talk about the Jags, last years Houston game and this game and there are  probably more.This team seems soft and I think that comes with drafting players with high RAS and not actual players with great tape.

[dw49]

1 hour ago, ProblChld32 said:

You’re assuming that they would have called their timeouts. The difference between Indy calling timeouts at the 45 versus Houston is the amount of time that was on the clock. 

There was exactly a minute to go when Indy took over at their own 5 . Houston had all 3 time outs left . To say they wouldn't use those timeouts if Indy took 3 knees is ...  They would have the ball most likely inside our 50 with about 40 seconds left . 

Would someone please take over for me on this ? I'm tired of explaining the obvious .

[DougDew]

21 minutes ago, ColtAndOrioles said:

SS said after the game that it was a planned pass play and they were trying to score points there and not just run out the clock.   So imo it is inexcusable.  Kevin Bowen said the same.

You're assuming the pass play SS had in mind was no different than the one AR checked into.  A planned pass play that travels in the air a long ways is not the same level of risk as the play AR checked into.  Trying to get the ball up to mid field with 38 seconds left is a decision most NFL and College coaches would make....and they would not choose to run out the clock with 38 seconds left, but would be cautious about what they ran.

 

Another note.  I read here all the time about giving AR easy throws.  Scheming receivers open.  Of course, I say that if the coach could scheme a play where the receivers were always open I say run that play 50 ties a game. 

 

This would seem to be the best place to call "an easy, low risk, throw" kind of play.

 

SS could have also called one of those "wide open WR plays" that everybody thinks exists in the play book,  Who knows, maybe Shane did in fact call one of those before AR checked out of it,......... LOL.  

[GoColts8818]

25 minutes ago, KB said:

Is Flacco catching the ball too? The passes from Richardson wernt the big issue outside of a few (I agree with another poster that Flacco probably dosnt make the INT)(there was a throw to Pierce after the Downs TD that he threw to him instead of in front of him). Putting Flacco in dosnt change the drops or the good coverage. Another thing that dosnt happen is Flacco getting away from the pressure or throwing a Dlineman off his back and running for a gain. 

 

Flacco isn't the cure all people make out to be. He might get us a few more wins than Richardson, but by no means does that actually help us. He won't get us playoff wins, we would get a worse draft pick (middle of the pack), and lose all possible development for Richardson. The point that they start Flacco over a healthy AR is the point that they are throwing the towel in on AR. Which is about the point you start a rebuild.

He’s a better version of Minshew.  I watched that last year and it’s not the answer to the QB problem either.  Like Minshew he looked really good when he first came in but as we saw in the Titans game teams were starting to figure out how to attack a Flacco lead offense and expose Flacco’s short comings.  I think if he had been left to play you would have seen the offense struggle like it did at times with Minshew last year.  This offense has problems beyond the QB spot but the problem is I don’t think they have a franchise QB who cover up some of those problems.  That’s why those guys get paid so much money and why teams hold on to them for life once they find one.