Caldwell Talks Late-Game Clock Management

[bayone]

Caldwell talks late-game clock management

LONG ARTICLE

By Paul Kuharsky

Caldwell takes a long time to answer a question regrading his 2 timeouts last year

Caldwell is a thoughtful man. So when I had a chance to sit with him recently, I asked him if a thorough lockout review had led him to any philosophical alteration.

His answer was pretty inconclusive. But also, for a guy who usually isn’t expansive, it was quite extensive. There were some questions in here, but he did most of the talking during this piece of our conversation, and I thought I’d share it in full.

My link

[chad72]

One user comment said it all. If he had so much confidence in the team's two minute drill, and the team had marched down the field for a TD in a 2 minute drill vs the Ravens in the 2009 divisional round (Wayne TD) and the Jets in the 2009 AFCCG before the half (Collie TD), why on earth did he order 3 straight runs with Peyton as QB before the half in the Saints SB? Terrible mojo killer there, IMO. No matter what explanation Caldwell and Polian come up with, that was not the right thing to do. It was playing not to lose, not playing to win at that point especially when they had executed it successfully the previous 2 games.

Ever since that, Caldwell's coaching perception has never been the same in my eyes. The SB magnified the conservative play calling ways to follow, the 2010 timeouts just amplified those perceptions, right or wrong.

[Superman]

He needs to have a "come to Jesus" talk about the Jets timeout. I didn't mind the Jags timeout that much. We had time to make plays, and didn't execute very well. Against the Jets, there's no reason to be worrying about getting the ball back. There was less than a minute left on the clock, and they were still on the outside fringes of field goal range. Both were overblown, I think, but in that situation I don't like the decision to call a timeout.

[Superman]

One user comment said it all. If he had so much confidence in the team's two minute drill, and the team had marched down the field for a TD in a 2 minute drill vs the Ravens in the 2009 divisional round (Wayne TD) and the Jets in the 2009 AFCCG before the half (Collie TD), why on earth did he order 3 straight runs with Peyton as QB before the half in the Saints SB? Terrible mojo killer there, IMO. No matter what explanation Caldwell and Polian come up with, that was not the right thing to do. It was playing not to lose, not playing to win at that point especially when they had executed it successfully the previous 2 games.

Ever since that, Caldwell's coaching perception has never been the same in my eyes. The SB magnified the conservative play calling, the 2010 timeouts just amplified those perceptions, right or wrong.

I didn't like the general conservatism in the Super Bowl, but the decision to run it there was defensible. We were on the 1 yard line, not the 20. A blown assignment results in a safety there (even a hold in the end zone is a safety, which we saw in the previous Super Bowl), plus they get the ball back with over a minute left and all three of their timeouts. Not to mention the fact that we gained 9 yards on the first two runs, and got their first two timeouts, then got stuffed on 3rd and 1. Had we converted the 3rd and 1, the playcalling may have changed there, because now they have fewer timeouts, and you're not running plays out of your own end zone.

Against the Jets, we got the ball at the 20 with more than two minutes left, and still had a timeout. Against the Ravens, we got the ball at the 36 with two timeouts left. Not comparable with starting at your own 1 yard line.

[Superman]

One user comment said it all. If he had so much confidence in the team's two minute drill, and the team had marched down the field for a TD in a 2 minute drill vs the Ravens in the 2009 divisional round (Wayne TD) and the Jets in the 2009 AFCCG before the half (Collie TD), why on earth did he order 3 straight runs with Peyton as QB before the half in the Saints SB? Terrible mojo killer there, IMO. No matter what explanation Caldwell and Polian come up with, that was not the right thing to do. It was playing not to lose, not playing to win at that point especially when they had executed it successfully the previous 2 games.

Ever since that, Caldwell's coaching perception has never been the same in my eyes. The SB magnified the conservative play calling, the 2010 timeouts just amplified those perceptions, right or wrong.

I didn't like the general conservatism in the Super Bowl, but the decision to run it there was defensible. We were on the 1 yard line, not the 20. A blown assignment results in a safety there (even a hold in the end zone is a safety, which we saw in the previous Super Bowl), plus they get the ball back with over a minute left and all three of their timeouts. Not to mention the fact that we gained 9 yards on the first two runs, and got their first two timeouts, then got stuffed on 3rd and 1. Had we converted the 3rd and 1, the playcalling may have changed there, because now they have fewer timeouts, and you're not running plays out of your own end zone.

Against the Jets, we got the ball at the 20 with more than two minutes left, and still had a timeout. Against the Ravens, we got the ball at the 36 with two timeouts left. Not comparable with starting at your own 1 yard line.

[chad72]

I didn't like the general conservatism in the Super Bowl, but the decision to run it there was defensible. We were on the 1 yard line, not the 20. A blown assignment results in a safety there (even a hold in the end zone is a safety, which we saw in the previous Super Bowl), plus they get the ball back with over a minute left and all three of their timeouts. Not to mention the fact that we gained 9 yards on the first two runs, and got their first two timeouts, then got stuffed on 3rd and 1. Had we converted the 3rd and 1, the playcalling may have changed there, because now they have fewer timeouts, and you're not running plays out of your own end zone.

Against the Jets, we got the ball at the 20 with more than two minutes left, and still had a timeout. Against the Ravens, we got the ball at the 36 with two timeouts left. Not comparable with starting at your own 1 yard line.

That is still conservative to me, not throwing at least once during that sequence. It is not like we are going for a throw on 4th down or anything outlandish. I saw Sean Payton do the same to seal the Falcons game on MNF, mix in a throw or two and not worrying about the timeouts exclusively to determine the playcalling, that is what other teams count on you to do, play Marty ball. I saw Bill Parcells and Tony Romo make a throw on 3rd down to seal a 21-14 game versus the Colts in the 2006 regular season. One throw in 3 plays is by no means risky play calling, not with a QB like Peyton. I would feel better of our chances of getting a first down that way with the arm of Peyton at least once in 3 plays, no matter how backed up we are, 2nd down would have been a good time to try. It is just a personal preference.

Heck, just the previous year, they went empty back field on 3rd down and Peyton got sacked with a whiffed Gijon block in the 2008 Chargers playoff game loss, a conventional pass play would not have killed us, IMO. I bet that if they had Addai in the backfield and ran one of our conventional pass plays (should have done that in the Chargers game), we may have had better luck before the half in the Saints SB. Gambling like Sean Payton may not be in our coaches' genes or even necessary but some level of calculated risk is something our offense is capable of pulling off, IMO.

[Balzer40]

Im not even gonna waste my time reading a link about Caldwell talking about clock management. Caldwell-clock management = Oxymoron.

[bayone]

That is still conservative to me, not throwing at least once during that sequence. It is not like we are going for a throw on 4th down or anything outlandish. I saw Sean Payton do the same to seal the Falcons game on MNF, mix in a throw or two and not worrying about the timeouts exclusively to determine the playcalling, that is what other teams count on you to do, play Marty ball. I saw Bill Parcells and Tony Romo make a throw on 3rd down to seal a 21-14 game versus the Colts in the 2006 regular season. One throw in 3 plays is by no means risky play calling, not with a QB like Peyton. I would feel better of our chances of getting a first down that way with the arm of Peyton at least once in 3 plays, no matter how backed up we are, 2nd down would have been a good time to try. It is just a personal preference.

Heck, just the previous year, they went empty back field on 3rd down and Peyton got sacked with a whiffed Gijon block in the 2008 Chargers playoff game loss, a conventional pass play would not have killed us, IMO. I bet that if they had Addai in the backfield and ran one of our conventional pass plays (should have done that in the Chargers game), we may have had better luck before the half in the Saints SB. Gambling like Sean Payton may not be in our coaches' genes or even necessary but some level of calculated risk is something our offense is capable of pulling off, IMO.

TOTALLY AGREE, There is such a thing as game management and u must take the time involved and manage the game properly, this has not been a hallmark of those calls

[BlueRedZone]

I certainly don't agree with the timeouts, but we shouldn't let Cromartie get such a big return. Not defending Caldwell, but our special teams needs to be better than that. In regards to the Jags game, he should've learned in that game.

Overall Caldwell won't stop being criticized by fans until he wins a championship. Remember when Dungy got criticized on here? (well about 5 message boards ago = ))

Then he won a superbowl and he was a great coach.

Although I think the onside kick of the superbowl really got to coach and I have seen a lost look in his eyes on the sideline since then (is it just me?)

Speaking of looks...

Remember in 09 when players were stretching Peyton looked ticked, like he was on a mission? (while cbs does there pregame chat, and shows the players stretching)

I want to see more of that, from more players

[Blue Horseshoe]

Im not even gonna waste my time reading a link about Caldwell talking about clock management. Caldwell-clock management = Oxymoron.

I think the 'Oxy' may be unnecessary in this case ;)

[LUVTHESHOE]

I certainly don't agree with the timeouts, but we shouldn't let Cromartie get such a big return. Not defending Caldwell, but our special teams needs to be better than that. In regards to the Jags game, he should've learned in that game.

Overall Caldwell won't stop being criticized by fans until he wins a championship. Remember when Dungy got criticized on here? (well about 5 message boards ago = ))

Then he won a superbowl and he was a great coach.

Although I think the onside kick of the superbowl really got to coach and I have seen a lost look in his eyes on the sideline since then (is it just me?)

Speaking of looks...

Remember in 09 when players were stretching Peyton looked ticked, like he was on a mission? (while cbs does there pregame chat, and shows the players stretching)

I want to see more of that, from more players

it is the same lost look he had while winning only half his games at wake forest. I am not a big fan of

his coaching. in my opinion he is an assistant at best. speaking of looks what colt fan will ever forget the look

peyton shot him after that errant TIMEOUT!

[Superman]

That is still conservative to me, not throwing at least once during that sequence. It is not like we are going for a throw on 4th down or anything outlandish. I saw Sean Payton do the same to seal the Falcons game on MNF, mix in a throw or two and not worrying about the timeouts exclusively to determine the playcalling, that is what other teams count on you to do, play Marty ball. I saw Bill Parcells and Tony Romo make a throw on 3rd down to seal a 21-14 game versus the Colts in the 2006 regular season. One throw in 3 plays is by no means risky play calling, not with a QB like Peyton. I would feel better of our chances of getting a first down that way with the arm of Peyton at least once in 3 plays, no matter how backed up we are, 2nd down would have been a good time to try. It is just a personal preference.

Heck, just the previous year, they went empty back field on 3rd down and Peyton got sacked with a whiffed Gijon block in the 2008 Chargers playoff game loss, a conventional pass play would not have killed us, IMO. I bet that if they had Addai in the backfield and ran one of our conventional pass plays (should have done that in the Chargers game), we may have had better luck before the half in the Saints SB. Gambling like Sean Payton may not be in our coaches' genes or even necessary but some level of calculated risk is something our offense is capable of pulling off, IMO.

I understand what you're saying, but that's not being overly conservative to me. That's just preference, like you said. Even if we had thrown on 2nd down, what's the difference? We gained five yards on 2nd down, I don't think that's the problem. We just should have done better on 3rd down, and then we probably would have opened the playbook a little. The goal was to get out from the shadow of our own goalpost. That's why it's really not comparable with other situations, like the Saints vs. Falcons, or the Cowboys vs. Colts. None of those were drives that started at the 1 yard line.

And if you think about the Chargers game, what messed us up was the empty backfield. I don't mind a throw or a pass; I'm not one to nitpick specific play calls after I've seen the results, because I don't think that's fair. I do think it's a mistake to go empty backfield on 3rd/4th and short, ever, because you tip your hand. No threat of a run, no threat of play action, everyone knows it's a pass. I said the same thing after the Pats failed against us in 2009. But against the Chargers, I firmly believed at the time that we should have run the ball on 3rd and 2.

Against the Saints, if we throw incomplete, if the pass is dropped, or the ball is tipped, or there's a holding penalty or a sack/fumble, any of those things is far worse than a stop on 3rd and 1 and a punt. I have a much bigger problem with the defensive game plan on the ensuing possession than the decision to run on 3rd and 1. We really should have been able to convert. We owned 3rd and 1 all season long in 2009. If you put this decision in perspective as part of an overall conservative gameplan, then I understand. But I don't think the decision to run three times there was a bad one. Had we simply converted 3rd and 1 like we were capable of, we'd have taken two of their timeouts, we'd have another set of downs, and we'd have some breathing room to operate.

My point was really that it's not the same as the end of half situations against the Ravens or the Jets. We started at our own 1, and we had 3rd and 1. I don't have a problem with the decision to run it in that situation.

Edit: Had we run it twice and been in 3rd and 4, I'd agree with you. As it is, we ran it twice for 9 yards, which is acceptable given the starting field position. And I think our offense should be able to be counted on to convert 3rd and 1 on the ground.

[coltfaninnewyork]

Im not even gonna waste my time reading a link about Caldwell talking about clock management. Caldwell-clock management = Oxymoron.

lol,your right.When your star qb is bugging out on the sidelines,you know you screwed up.

[BOTT]

having "Radio" talk about clock management is like having chris johnson talk about string theory......

[jskinnz]

I didn't like the general conservatism in the Super Bowl, but the decision to run it there was defensible. We were on the 1 yard line, not the 20. A blown assignment results in a safety there (even a hold in the end zone is a safety, which we saw in the previous Super Bowl), plus they get the ball back with over a minute left and all three of their timeouts. Not to mention the fact that we gained 9 yards on the first two runs, and got their first two timeouts, then got stuffed on 3rd and 1. Had we converted the 3rd and 1, the playcalling may have changed there, because now they have fewer timeouts, and you're not running plays out of your own end zone.

Against the Jets, we got the ball at the 20 with more than two minutes left, and still had a timeout. Against the Ravens, we got the ball at the 36 with two timeouts left. Not comparable with starting at your own 1 yard line.

Absolutely correct. The overriding factor was field position. The failure to get the 1st down was player execution and not a terrible coaching decision.

[GoColts8818]

Did Caldwell mention letting Peyton Manning handle the timeouts late in games this year?

[FireJimCaldwell]

it is the same lost look he had while winning only half his games at wake forest. I am not a big fan of

his coaching. in my opinion he is an assistant at best. speaking of looks what colt fan will ever forget the look

peyton shot him after that errant TIMEOUT!

If he would have won half his games at wake forest, he wouldn't have been fired.

Off the top of my head I would say he won 30% of his games at Wake Forest and a 40% guess would be giving him far too much credit and there is way he was close to 50%.

He should have never been hired to start with, and it's quite clear he doesn't have a clue for clock management.

[Manning2Wayne]

was he not the same coach, who coached us to another division title, against all odds,

having what 17 players injured throughout the foot ball year

anyone remember?

[LUVTHESHOE]

If he would have won half his games at wake forest, he wouldn't have been fired.

Off the top of my head I would say he won 30% of his games at Wake Forest and a 40% guess would be giving him far too much credit and there is way he was close to 50%.

He should have never been hired to start with, and it's quite clear he doesn't have a clue for clock management.

my bad,i stand corrected it is a whopping 26 and 63, lol just a tick behind lee corso. has anyone heard of

a possible rift between caldwell and moore as the reason for moores departure? one of the guys on the nfl network implied

moore wanted to be in indy but was'nt retained. any truth to this or just speculation?

[coltsuser21]

THATS THE PAST TO ME IDC ANY MORE

[bluebombers87]

my bad,i stand corrected it is a whopping 26 and 63, lol just a tick behind lee corso. has anyone heard of

a possible rift between caldwell and moore as the reason for moores departure? one of the guys on the nfl network implied

moore wanted to be in indy but was'nt retained. any truth to this or just speculation?

Right because no coach who has ever had a losing record at any establishment has ever gone on to accomplish great things. Like Bill Belichick. Not like he had a losing record in the NFL no less. Geez. No team should ever give a coach who has a losing record a chance... oh wait.

I hope you realize the whole Wake Forest argument is as stupid and pointless as calling him Radio (and mentally challenged individual) while attempting to convey a meaningful post. I know not everyone has called him that, but to varying degrees people have mocked him for having a stoic expression. Those individuals must want a raving lunatic on the field. Throwing tantrums and beating his fists on the ground when a flag isn't thrown (I'm aware I'm going to the opposite extreme, but I am affording JC the same level of respect for his detractors as his have for him).

"Talk low, talk slow and don't talk too much".

[LUVTHESHOE]

Right because no coach who has ever had a losing record at any establishment has ever gone on to accomplish great things. Like Bill Belichick. Not like he had a losing record in the NFL no less. Geez. No team should ever give a coach who has a losing record a chance... oh wait.

I hope you realize the whole Wake Forest argument is as stupid and pointless as calling him Radio (and mentally challenged individual) while attempting to convey a meaningful post. I know not everyone has called him that, but to varying degrees people have mocked him for having a stoic expression. Those individuals must want a raving lunatic on the field. Throwing tantrums and beating his fists on the ground when a flag isn't thrown (I'm aware I'm going to the opposite extreme, but I am affording JC the same level of respect for his detractors as his have for him).

"Talk low, talk slow and don't talk too much".

one great stoic coach has won the super bowl since tom landry. tony dungy, in my opinion the colts just need an agressive coach to change this

national preception of being a soft team that has under achieved in the playoffs. i hope he proves allot of us wrong. time will tell. go colts!

[Coltssouth]

"Talk low, talk slow and don't talk too much".

I love this! I'm putting it in my memory book of wise sayings.

[FireJimCaldwell]

Right because no coach who has ever had a losing record at any establishment has ever gone on to accomplish great things. Like Bill Belichick. Not like he had a losing record in the NFL no less. Geez. No team should ever give a coach who has a losing record a chance... oh wait.

I hope you realize the whole Wake Forest argument is as stupid and pointless as calling him Radio (and mentally challenged individual) while attempting to convey a meaningful post. I know not everyone has called him that, but to varying degrees people have mocked him for having a stoic expression. Those individuals must want a raving lunatic on the field. Throwing tantrums and beating his fists on the ground when a flag isn't thrown (I'm aware I'm going to the opposite extreme, but I am affording JC the same level of respect for his detractors as his have for him).

"Talk low, talk slow and don't talk too much".

Peyton Manning went to Tennessee.. If Manning had gone to Wake Forest they would have had a winning record even with Caldwell as the head coach.

He's along for the ride, he isn't driving the team. So toot his horn if you wish but there are plenty of NFL coaches that could take a Manning team to the playoffs. Calling him Radio is pointless, but acting like he is the reason we have won anything is also pointless. His timeouts were mind-numbing. This isn't a team that needs an On-the-job-training type of coach. This team needs a coach that can actually add to what has been built, not hold it back.

[FireJimCaldwell]

Right because no coach who has ever had a losing record at any establishment has ever gone on to accomplish great things. Like Bill Belichick. Not like he had a losing record in the NFL no less. Geez. No team should ever give a coach who has a losing record a chance... oh wait.

I hope you realize the whole Wake Forest argument is as stupid and pointless as calling him Radio (and mentally challenged individual) while attempting to convey a meaningful post. I know not everyone has called him that, but to varying degrees people have mocked him for having a stoic expression. Those individuals must want a raving lunatic on the field. Throwing tantrums and beating his fists on the ground when a flag isn't thrown (I'm aware I'm going to the opposite extreme, but I am affording JC the same level of respect for his detractors as his have for him).

"Talk low, talk slow and don't talk too much".

Peyton Manning went to Tennessee.. If Manning had gone to Wake Forest they would have had a winning record even with Caldwell as the head coach.

He's along for the ride, he isn't driving the team. So toot his horn if you wish but there are plenty of NFL coaches that could take a Manning team to the playoffs. Calling him Radio is pointless, but acting like he is the reason we have won anything is also pointless. His timeouts were mind-numbing. This isn't a team that needs an On-the-job-training type of coach. This team needs a coach that can actually add to what has been built, not hold it back.

[bluebombers87]

one great stoic coach has won the super bowl since tom landry. tony dungy, in my opinion the colts just need an agressive coach to change this

national preception of being a soft team that has under achieved in the playoffs. i hope he proves allot of us wrong. time will tell. go colts!

Glad you're offering this as your opinion, I'd hate to take what you said as having some sort of logical basis.

[bluebombers87]

Peyton Manning went to Tennessee.. If Manning had gone to Wake Forest they would have had a winning record even with Caldwell as the head coach.

He's along for the ride, he isn't driving the team. So toot his horn if you wish but there are plenty of NFL coaches that could take a Manning team to the playoffs. Calling him Radio is pointless, but acting like he is the reason we have won anything is also pointless. His timeouts were mind-numbing. This isn't a team that needs an On-the-job-training type of coach. This team needs a coach that can actually add to what has been built, not hold it back.

People said the same thing about Dungy. People can say the same thing for a lot of great coaches that have had great players play for them. Fact is you're not there in the locker room. The only thing we can go on is that he serves in a role that every head coach in the NFL serves in, for better or for worse.

You're not there during all of the practices, which means that you have no insight to prove that he's just some body filling a vacant role while Manning orchestrates the entire team. He's made bad choices but every single coach in the history of the NFL has made bad choices.

Never once did I say he's the reason we won anything but hey keep on putting words in my mouth.

I'm not a Caldwell cheerleader but I'm not going to blindly bash the guy when he's delivered (especially last year when we had the amount of injuries to our team).

[bluebombers87]

I love this! I'm putting it in my memory book of wise sayings.

+10 Super Cool Bonus points if you can tell me who this was (can easily google it but I think you'll find it supports my idea of what a great leader should be).

[Coltssouth]

+10 Super Cool Bonus points if you can tell me who this was (can easily google it but I think you'll find it supports my idea of what a great leader should be).

Ok. I cheated and googled it so no bonus points for me.

My first guess would have been Dungy. Seems to me like something he would have said.

Words to live by.

[bluebombers87]

Ok. I cheated and googled it so no bonus points for me.

My first guess would have been Dungy. Seems to me like something he would have said.

Words to live by.

Does kind of fit the Dungy mentality.

Will give +5 bonus points (seeing as I'm the arbitor of bonus points).

[FireJimCaldwell]

was he not the same coach, who coached us to another division title, against all odds,

having what 17 players injured throughout the foot ball year

anyone remember?

Funny I wasn't putting words in your mouth...

Respect is earned. He hasn't earned my respect. Nice man? Sure. Great guy? Yeah I'll give him that too. Doing the best he can? Likely. Good enough? No.

Blindly bashing him? Nope. My eyes are wide open and he's earned ever criticism. I've ever thrown his way.

[Yehoodi]

One user comment said it all. If he had so much confidence in the team's two minute drill, and the team had marched down the field for a TD in a 2 minute drill vs the Ravens in the 2009 divisional round (Wayne TD) and the Jets in the 2009 AFCCG before the half (Collie TD), why on earth did he order 3 straight runs with Peyton as QB before the half in the Saints SB? Terrible mojo killer there, IMO. No matter what explanation Caldwell and Polian come up with, that was not the right thing to do. It was playing not to lose, not playing to win at that point especially when they had executed it successfully the previous 2 games.

Ever since that, Caldwell's coaching perception has never been the same in my eyes. The SB magnified the conservative play calling ways to follow, the 2010 timeouts just amplified those perceptions, right or wrong.

I understand your point about the SB, but we must remember that the colts were backup on their own 1 yard line, with only 11 yards of field behind them . . . if you try a pass play in that situation, a fumble snap, a hold in the endzone or a sack could result in a safety, with the hold being a safety regardless. . . the problem with "trying" to win is two fold, the safety which gives points plus the ball back to the saints near midfieldish after the punt, and if you try 3 pass plays which fail you stop the clock and again give the ball back to Saints near the middle of the field with a full minute plus and all three TOs, colts got the ball aroud the two minute mark . . .

in the other games you had better field position which was helpful in a few ways: first, gave you some breathing room to operate and no risk of a safety; second, the more room opened up your entire playbook; and third, if you did go three and out you kick the ball to the opponent 20-30 yards farher down field making any potential score by the opponent before half that much more difficult then if you punted from the back of your own endzone . . .

surely in looking back at it, it looks like you should of gone for it, but there where too many risk, sometimes discretion is the better part of valor . . . afterall the saints did score 3 points and perhaps maybe 7 if they had more time saved from your incomplete passes . . .

furthermore you were trailing in the jets game and had to get back in it, but you were in a tight SB leading the saints and don't want to let them get 7 points before halftime . . .

if you want to see the flipside of the argument and your "play to win" and see how it can go bad, just look at last years divisional game between the jets/pats late in the first half, with about a minute to go trailing 7-3 in a tight game, we were ready to punt from about our 40 yard line, if we punt, no real way the jets will score, so just punt and go into halftime down 7-3 and we'll get the ball back at the start of the 2nd half and we can score then . . . but no Chung calls for a fake punt, we don't convert the jets get the ball around our 40 with a minute to go, so plenty of time to score, basically 10 yards from FG range, so they get a scoring opportunity when they never really would of had one but for our "trying to win" the game attitude . . . well boop and moments later they score and are now UP 14-3 going into halftime . . . gee great theory there boys with the "gotta win attitude", sure we might of converted, but with a minute to go on or own 40 what would we have gotten a FG attempt at best?, so it was no likely that we could score if we converted, but the cost of not converting changed the jets field position from their own end to FG range . . . so its a cost benefit analysis and some prefer to punt in the jets/pats game and some prefer to run the clock out in the NO/indy game . . . and remember what are your chances of scoring backed on your 1 yard line with under 2 mins?

everything has two sides, i personnally agree with what the colts did and would of like for us to have punted . . . i for one have no problem swallowing my pride if it means a higher percentage [imo] of points going up on my side and less on their side . . . in both case the actions of the punt and 3 run plays reducing the likelihood of points going up on their side in exchnage of giving back a very low percentage of chance to get point on our side . . .

[John Waylon]

lol,your right.When your star qb is bugging out on the sidelines,you know you screwed up.

Pretty much. Don't sit here and tell me caldwell knows more about how to play this game than Peyton. There are very few who do, and caldwell certainly isn't one of them.

[bluebombers87]

Funny I wasn't putting words in your mouth...

Respect is earned. He hasn't earned my respect. Nice man? Sure. Great guy? Yeah I'll give him that too. Doing the best he can? Likely. Good enough? No.

Blindly bashing him? Nope. My eyes are wide open and he's earned ever criticism. I've ever thrown his way.

Well I'll just assume you were meaning to quote me when you said you weren't putting words in my mouth. You stated yourself that "but acting like he is the reason we have won anything is also pointless". I don't think it's wild to assume you're implying I stated that Caldwell was the reason I won. I never stated anything like that. I stated that the flak he's catching is unnecessary.

Respect is earned? Gee I'd hate to be your kid. Taking a team to the SB and to the playoffs in two years (the second being a year when an incredibly amount of players were out for injuries and were constatnly shuffling people in). Think you have your standards a bit high.

[BOTT]

Well I'll just assume you were meaning to quote me when you said you weren't putting words in my mouth. You stated yourself that "but acting like he is the reason we have won anything is also pointless". I don't think it's wild to assume you're implying I stated that Caldwell was the reason I won. I never stated anything like that. I stated that the flak he's catching is unnecessary.

Respect is earned? Gee I'd hate to be your kid. Taking a team to the SB and to the playoffs in two years (the second being a year when an incredibly amount of players were out for injuries and were constatnly shuffling people in). Think you have your standards a bit high.

is that you barry switzer? i guess you defending "Radio" makes sense..

and yes, respect is earned. it's not something to be doled out to children to make them feel all warm and fuzzy about themselves...imo

[bluebombers87]

is that you barry switzer? i guess you defending "Radio" makes sense..

and yes, respect is earned. it's not something to be doled out to children to make them feel all warm and fuzzy about themselves...imo

I'm not Barry Switzer and don't have the faintest idea who that is.

I never said respect should be given for nothing. I guess just glancing over my entire comment about what Caldwell has done went over your head.

[WisconsinColts]

He needs to have a "come to Jesus" talk about the Jets timeout. I didn't mind the Jags timeout that much. We had time to make plays, and didn't execute very well. Against the Jets, there's no reason to be worrying about getting the ball back. There was less than a minute left on the clock, and they were still on the outside fringes of field goal range. Both were overblown, I think, but in that situation I don't like the decision to call a timeout.

I'll agree about the Jags timeout. He called it just before 3rd down too correct? One stop and the Colts would have had the ball back. Let's not forget Hayden dropping a sure pick six later on that Jaguars drive. I will disagree about the Jets timeout, though. I don't want to get into all that, though. I feel that was a horrible decision, you are right about the Jags one though.

[Superman]

He should have never been hired to start with, and it's quite clear he doesn't have a clue for clock management.

People blow stuff out of proportion. Judging from your screen name, it's obvious how you feel, but come on. He's coached 36 games for us (excluding preseason, including four playoff games), and has made two poor timeout calls. Just two. And that means he doesn't have a clue about clock management? What about the times he's made good timeout calls? Has that never happened?

I don't like either timeout call, to be honest. I don't really like the way he was hired, either. And he's certainly not my favorite coach of all time. But the hyperbole is just too much.

[jskinnz]

I understand your point about the SB, but we must remember that the colts were backup on their own 1 yard line, with only 11 yards of field behind them . . . if you try a pass play in that situation, a fumble snap, a hold in the endzone or a sack could result in a safety, with the hold being a safety regardless. . . the problem with "trying" to win is two fold, the safety which gives points plus the ball back to the saints near midfieldish after the punt, and if you try 3 pass plays which fail you stop the clock and again give the ball back to Saints near the middle of the field with a full minute plus and all three TOs, colts got the ball aroud the two minute mark . . .

in the other games you had better field position which was helpful in a few ways: first, gave you some breathing room to operate and no risk of a safety; second, the more room opened up your entire playbook; and third, if you did go three and out you kick the ball to the opponent 20-30 yards farher down field making any potential score by the opponent before half that much more difficult then if you punted from the back of your own endzone . . .

surely in looking back at it, it looks like you should of gone for it, but there where too many risk, sometimes discretion is the better part of valor . . . afterall the saints did score 3 points and perhaps maybe 7 if they had more time saved from your incomplete passes . . .

furthermore you were trailing in the jets game and had to get back in it, but you were in a tight SB leading the saints and don't want to let them get 7 points before halftime . . .

if you want to see the flipside of the argument and your "play to win" and see how it can go bad, just look at last years divisional game between the jets/pats late in the first half, with about a minute to go trailing 7-3 in a tight game, we were ready to punt from about our 40 yard line, if we punt, no real way the jets will score, so just punt and go into halftime down 7-3 and we'll get the ball back at the start of the 2nd half and we can score then . . . but no Chung calls for a fake punt, we don't convert the jets get the ball around our 40 with a minute to go, so plenty of time to score, basically 10 yards from FG range, so they get a scoring opportunity when they never really would of had one but for our "trying to win" the game attitude . . . well boop and moments later they score and are now UP 14-3 going into halftime . . . gee great theory there boys with the "gotta win attitude", sure we might of converted, but with a minute to go on or own 40 what would we have gotten a FG attempt at best?, so it was no likely that we could score if we converted, but the cost of not converting changed the jets field position from their own end to FG range . . . so its a cost benefit analysis and some prefer to punt in the jets/pats game and some prefer to run the clock out in the NO/indy game . . . and remember what are your chances of scoring backed on your 1 yard line with under 2 mins?

everything has two sides, i personnally agree with what the colts did and would of like for us to have punted . . . i for one have no problem swallowing my pride if it means a higher percentage [imo] of points going up on my side and less on their side . . . in both case the actions of the punt and 3 run plays reducing the likelihood of points going up on their side in exchnage of giving back a very low percentage of chance to get point on our side . . .

Very well said.

I kind of look at things the way Caldwell may have been thinking at the time. They just stone the Saints at the goal line. They have a TD lead and they get the ball to start the 2nd half. Get a 1st down and get to halftime and get your offense, who the Saints up until that time had yet to stop, and really put some pressure on them. That is pretty sound football thinking.

Now we know that the 3rd & 1 failed. And the on-side kick went to NOLA. It is a 20/20 situation that causes us Indy fans to be anti-Caldwell from this game - well this didn't work so you should have done the other thing. But in my mind, he really did nothing wrong. There is absolute logic to his thinking.

[Superman]

I'll agree about the Jags timeout. He called it just before 3rd down too correct? One stop and the Colts would have had the ball back. Let's not forget Hayden dropping a sure pick six later on that Jaguars drive. I will disagree about the Jets timeout, though. I don't want to get into all that, though. I feel that was a horrible decision, you are right about the Jags one though.

Don't misunderstand. I didn't like the Jets timeout. It was clearly a mistake, and I think everyone knows that. I still think we're blowing it out of proportion.