My take

[bigalbert]

Let’s put this in perspective a bit.
Sam fumbles in scoring territory
JT fumbles in scoring territory
Pittman drops a pass that could have led to a winning field goal
This game wasn’t on the coaches as much as you think


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Colts And Orioles]

Originally Posted by bigalbert

Let’s put this in perspective a bit.

Sam fumbles in scoring territory.

JT fumbles in scoring territory.

Pittman drops a pass that could have led to a winning field goal

This game wasn’t on the coaches as much as you think

o


Oh, I'm not making the claim that Reich's decision not to go for it on 4th down was the sole reason for the loss ....... there is no question that the Colts blew numerous chances to put the game away earlier than that.


1) The normally sure-handed Jonathan Taylor fumbled the ball away while the Colts were deep in Commanders territory.

2) The Colts had the ball on the 1-footline on 3rd down, and failed to punch the ball into the end zone. Instead, they had to settle for a field goal.


Rather, I'm critiquing the decision to punt the ball as one of numerous reasons why the Colts lost the game.


Also ...... if there were 7 or 8 minutes still left to play, I would have punted the ball. I only advocated going for it because of the time that was left on the clock (2:39), and the fact that punting in that situation would likely only give the Colts 1 chance to win the game.


o

[ChaosTheory]

Originally Posted by Colts And Orioles

o

Also ...... if there were 7 or 8 minutes still left to play, I would have punted the ball. I only advocated going for it because of the time that was left on the clock (2:39), and the fact that punting in that situation would likely only give the Colts 1 chance to win the game.


o

Frank said he debated the call. He went with the odds that the defense, who was stout most of the day, would keep them out of the endzone with a long field. I can't see criticizing that call.

I mean, look at what it came down to... Heinicke basically throws a hail-mary type pass from midfield. Gilmore, one the best CB's ever, still gets himself into great position. But then McLaurin makes a fucking unbelievable play going over the top just to get simultaneous possession, and then finishes the unbelievable play by tearing the ball away from Gilmore. What are the odds?

(by the way, none of that matters if we don't fumble twice in the RZ)

But imagine if we turn the ball over right there at our 34 and they still eat the clock and score. The man would be crucified.

[Colts And Orioles]

Originally Posted by ChaosTheory

Frank said he debated the call. He went with the odds that the defense, who was stout most of the day, would keep them out of the endzone with a long field. I can't see criticizing that call.

I mean, look at what it came down to... Heinicke basically throws a hail-mary type pass from midfield. Gilmore, one the best CB's ever, still gets himself into great position. But then McLaurin makes a fucking unbelievable play going over the top just to get simultaneous possession, and then finishes the unbelievable play by tearing the ball away from Gilmore. What are the odds?

(by the way, none of that matters if we don't fumble twice in the RZ)

But imagine if we turn the ball over right there at our 34 and they still eat the clock and score. The man would be crucified.

o


If we had turned the ball over on downs there with 2:35 left to play, we still would have had 2 additional chances to win the game.

Also, whether or not one will potentially get crucified for a call should not factor into a coach's tough decisions, such as that one. I was one of the few who agreed with Bill Belichick for going for it on 4th down and 2 against the Colts in their nationally-televised game in 2009. If he had punted the ball, he would have been giving the Colts the ball back with enough time to score the winning touchdown and drain the clock. As it turned out, he gave his team 2 chances to win (going for it and getting the first down, and keeping the Colts out of the end zone on a short field should they fail to get the first down.) And frankly, the Patriots got the first down, but the refs made a bad call on the spot of the ball.


https://www.jt-sw.com/football/boxes...2009-10-ne-ind


Finally, and perhaps most significantly, it was 4th and inches, not 4th and 2, or even 4th down and a full yard. If a team cannot get one foot on 4th down, regardless of where they are in the field, then they have no one to blame but themselves for losing the game. As I said, they would have had 3 chances to win the game had they gone for it ...... and frankly, there is no good reason why they shouldn't/couldn't have capitalized on their very first of those 3 chances by getting a first down on 4th and inches.

o

[ChaosTheory]

Originally Posted by Colts And Orioles

o


If we had turned the ball over on downs there with 2:35 left to play, we still would have had 2 additional chances to win the game.

Also, whether or not one will potentially get crucified for a call should not factor into a coach's tough decisions, such as that one. I was one of the few who agreed with Bill Belichick for going for it on 4th down and 2 against the Colts in their nationally-televised game in 2009. If he had punted the ball, he would have been giving the Colts the ball back with enough time to score the winning touchdown and drain the clock. As it turned out, he gave his team 2 chances to win (going for it and getting the first down, and keeping the Colts out of the end zone on a short field should they fail to get the first down.) And frankly, the Patriots got the first down, but the refs made a bad call on the spot of the ball.


https://www.jt-sw.com/football/boxes...2009-10-ne-ind


Finally, and perhaps most significantly, it was 4th and inches, not 4th and 2, or even 4th down and a full yard. If a team cannot get one foot on 4th down, regardless of where they are in the field, then they have no one to blame but themselves for losing the game. As I said, they would have had 3 chances to win the game had they gone for it ...... and frankly, there is no good reason why they shouldn't/couldn't have capitalized on their very first of those 3 chances by getting a first down on 4th and inches.

o

I hear you. For the record, I wouldn't have complained if they went for it. I think it was a toss-up. But since it was a toss-up, I can't complain that they punted.

Of course, this brings to mind what the Eagles have been doing. Lining up in victory formation and pushing the QB.

[CletusPyle]

Originally Posted by ChaosTheory

Frank said he debated the call. He went with the odds that the defense, who was stout most of the day, would keep them out of the endzone with a long field. I can't see criticizing that call.

I mean, look at what it came down to... Heinicke basically throws a hail-mary type pass from midfield. Gilmore, one the best CB's ever, still gets himself into great position. But then McLaurin makes a fucking unbelievable play going over the top just to get simultaneous possession, and then finishes the unbelievable play by tearing the ball away from Gilmore. What are the odds?

(by the way, none of that matters if we don't fumble twice in the RZ)

But imagine if we turn the ball over right there at our 34 and they still eat the clock and score. The man would be crucified.

For all the times I have criticized Frank for taking reckless chances that have backfired, I do feel a little guilty criticizing him for not going for the sure win. But I agreed with C&O when he said it yesterday before the play and I still do, I would have gone for it! Would he have been second guessed and "crucified" had they failed and Washington scored....of course. But it wasn't like they only needed a FG to win, so even if you fail to make the first down, it's not unreasonable to expect your defense to hold them out of the endzone! I think it was worth the risk!

[rcubed]

Originally Posted by bigalbert

Let’s put this in perspective a bit.
Sam fumbles in scoring territory
JT fumbles in scoring territory
Pittman drops a pass that could have led to a winning field goal
This game wasn’t on the coaches as much as you think


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

add in gilmore's sure interception that the WR took from him.

Sam was basically what I expected. Did some good things, did some not great things.
I think he will go through some growing pains and will be interesting to see how he finishes the year.

[rcubed]

also, I never want to see hines running between the tackles again. they say they want to get him the ball more but dont seem to scheme to his talents. he needs to be out in space as evidenced by some of his receptions and his touchdown run to the outside.

[HoosierinFL]

Originally Posted by rcubed

also, I never want to see hines running between the tackles again. they say they want to get him the ball more but dont seem to scheme to his talents. he needs to be out in space as evidenced by some of his receptions and his touchdown run to the outside.

A weird thing I notice with this staff is that they don't use players situationally. They just plug and play. Guys get rotated in and out seemingly just to keep fresh legs, and the play calling style never changes based on who is in/out.

So if the situation dictates a run up the middle, they don't sub in JT (or even Jackson). If Hines is already in for this drive, then they'll call that play and leave him on the field.
Well this is true for the offense anyway, and I wonder if it is still a case of Reich should not be calling the plays - let the OC and his position coaches run the game with play calls and personnel groupings.

I notice the defense does a much better job of subbing in situational packages.

[YDFL Commish]

Originally Posted by HoosierinFL

A weird thing I notice with this staff is that they don't use players situationally. They just plug and play. Guys get rotated in and out seemingly just to keep fresh legs, and the play calling style never changes based on who is in/out.

So if the situation dictates a run up the middle, they don't sub in JT (or even Jackson). If Hines is already in for this drive, then they'll call that play and leave him on the field.
Well this is true for the offense anyway, and I wonder if it is still a case of Reich should not be calling the plays - let the OC and his position coaches run the game with play calls and personnel groupings.

I notice the defense does a much better job of subbing in situational packages.

I so much agree with this. Instead of Hynes being the de facto backup to JT, he should only play his role, which should be a Kevin Faulk type role.

Deon Jackson is the more logical backup to JT. Hynes can be a difference maker when used properly, but we only occasionally use him properly.

Also I can't stand Reich's reliance on so many personnel groupings. Just stick to 2 to 3 personnel groupings that are game plan specific.

But no, he's gotta use all the chess pieces, even if many are pawns.