ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum (http://www.coltfreaks.com/forum/index.php)
-   Indianapolis Colts Discussion (http://www.coltfreaks.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   JMV reporting update on Luck (http://www.coltfreaks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14227)

Racehorse 08-28-2017 08:06 AM

Are we really going to do this again all year this year? Really???

omahacolt 08-28-2017 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racehorse (Post 22713)
Are we really going to do this again all year this year? Really???

Probably.


Dam will continue to excuse pagano all year and people will continue to call him an idiot

Maniac 08-28-2017 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 22682)
Talent development has not been the problem, it's been talent acquisition.

Clearly a talent acquisition problem:

http://img.bleacherreport.net/img/im...00&h=1200&q=75

Another talent acquisition problem:

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2016/9/...ave-cost-colts

apballin 08-28-2017 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JesusChrist (Post 22719)
Clearly a talent acquisition problem:

http://img.bleacherreport.net/img/im...00&h=1200&q=75

Another talent acquisition problem:

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2016/9/...ave-cost-colts

Exactly FUCK the pats, beat those motherfuckers at all costs

just leave Luck in and go for it next time Chuck

Indiana V2 08-28-2017 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apballin (Post 22853)
Exactly FUCK the pats, beat those motherfuckers at all costs

just leave Luck in and go for it next time Chuck

Wow for once I agree with apballin.

Dam8610 08-29-2017 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JesusChrist (Post 22719)
Clearly a talent acquisition problem:

http://img.bleacherreport.net/img/im...00&h=1200&q=75

If there is literally one thing you can point to in 5 years, you don't have an argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JesusChrist (Post 22719)
Another talent acquisition problem:

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2016/9/...ave-cost-colts

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201609...yze=playbyplay

Quote:

1-10-DET 12
(1:23) (Shotgun) 12-A.Luck pass short left to 13-T.Hilton to DET 12 for no gain (23-D.Slay).
Timeout #2 by IND at 01:15.
2-10-DET 12
(1:14) (Shotgun) 12-A.Luck pass short right to 10-D.Moncrief to DET 6 for 6 yards (24-N.Lawson). The Replay Official reviewed the runner was in bounds ruling, and the play was Upheld. The ruling on the field stands.
3-4-DET 6
(:43) (Shotgun) 12-A.Luck pass short middle to 84-J.Doyle for 6 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
The ball was snapped at 1:14 prior to the Moncrief play. Assuming an averageplay length of 5 seconds, the play ended at 1:09. A full 40 second runoff would've seen a snap at :29 remaining, and because the play took 6 seconds, a TD with :23 remaining. The Lions got an extra 14 seconds on that play. Did it make a difference?


Quote:

1-10-DET 25
(:37) (Shotgun) 9-M.Stafford pass short middle to 25-T.Riddick to DET 44 for 19 yards (55-Si.Moore).
Timeout #1 by DET at 00:28.
1-10-DET 44
(:28) (Shotgun) 9-M.Stafford pass short left to 85-E.Ebron to IND 47 for 9 yards (55-Si.Moore).
Timeout #2 by DET at 00:21.
2-1-IND 47
(:21) (Shotgun) 9-M.Stafford pass short left to 11-M.Jones to IND 25 for 22 yards (31-A.Cromartie).
Timeout #3 by DET at 00:12.
1-10-IND 25
(:12) (Shotgun) 9-M.Stafford pass incomplete short left.
2-10-IND 25
(:08) 5-M.Prater 43 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-48-D.Muhlbach, Holder-6-S.Martin.

The bolded portion is the portion that doesn't happen with the additional 14 second runoff. So, it turns out that the referenced timeout actually had zero bearing on the outcome of the game.

DrSpaceman 08-29-2017 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 22874)
If there is literally one thing you can point to in 5 years, you don't have an argument.



http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201609...yze=playbyplay



The ball was snapped at 1:14 prior to the Moncrief play. Assuming an averageplay length of 5 seconds, the play ended at 1:09. A full 40 second runoff would've seen a snap at :29 remaining, and because the play took 6 seconds, a TD with :23 remaining. The Lions got an extra 14 seconds on that play. Did it make a difference?




The bolded portion is the portion that doesn't happen with the additional 14 second runoff. So, it turns out that the referenced timeout actually had zero bearing on the outcome of the game.

Are you being sarcastic?

They called a time out with 12 seconds. take off 14 seconds, game is over, no FG. Colts win.

AM I missing something here? It seems you just proved it lost the game for the Colts.

Racehorse 08-29-2017 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrSpaceman (Post 22893)
Are you being sarcastic?

They called a time out with 12 seconds. take off 14 seconds, game is over, no FG. Colts win.

AM I missing something here? It seems you just proved it lost the game for the Colts.

The guy is clearly out of his mind. If you are not sure if I am referring to dam or Pagano, the answer is YES!

Dam8610 08-29-2017 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrSpaceman (Post 22893)
Are you being sarcastic?

They called a time out with 12 seconds. take off 14 seconds, game is over, no FG. Colts win.

AM I missing something here? It seems you just proved it lost the game for the Colts.

Yes, you're clearly missing something. There wouldn't have been 12 seconds to call a timeout if there was an additional 14 second runoff on the Luck TD. His (incorrect) argument was that the Pagano timeout at 1:15 cost the Colts the game. Clearly, empirically, not running down the clock on the Luck to Doyle TD cost the Colts the game, not the timeout. Thanks for agreeing with me, albeit in a bizarre manner.

DrSpaceman 08-29-2017 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 22935)
Yes, you're clearly missing something. There wouldn't have been 12 seconds to call a timeout if there was an additional 14 second runoff on the Luck TD. His (incorrect) argument was that the Pagano timeout at 1:15 cost the Colts the game. Clearly, empirically, not running down the clock on the Luck to Doyle TD cost the Colts the game, not the timeout. Thanks for agreeing with me, albeit in a bizarre manner.

Well now that you explain what you mean, that is even more convoluted and wrong.

So a timeout called by Pagano that would have run off an extra THIRTY SECOND OR MORE DOES NOT MATTER, but an extra 14 seconds that was not run off by Luck DOES MATTER?

No, you are still wrong.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
ColtFreaks.com is in no way affiliated with the Indianapolis Colts, the NFL, or any of their subsidiaries.