ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum   ColtFreaks.com Home Page

Go Back   ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum > Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum > Indianapolis Colts Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 08-28-2017, 08:06 AM
Racehorse's Avatar
Racehorse Racehorse is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: God's green Earth
Posts: 12,878
Thanks: 16,945
Thanked 4,361 Times in 2,508 Posts
Default

Are we really going to do this again all year this year? Really???
__________________
Keep your political crap out of a football forum! Nobody here gives a rat's a**
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 08-28-2017, 08:20 AM
omahacolt's Avatar
omahacolt omahacolt is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,219
Thanks: 1,441
Thanked 4,275 Times in 1,745 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racehorse View Post
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
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to omahacolt For This Useful Post:
Hoopsdoc (08-29-2017)
  #123  
Old 08-28-2017, 08:38 AM
Maniac's Avatar
Maniac Maniac is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Home
Posts: 1,772
Thanks: 782
Thanked 1,304 Times in 712 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 View Post
Talent development has not been the problem, it's been talent acquisition.
Clearly a talent acquisition problem:



Another talent acquisition problem:

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2016/9/...ave-cost-colts
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Maniac For This Useful Post:
Indiana V2 (08-28-2017), omahacolt (08-28-2017), Racehorse (08-29-2017), smitty46953 (08-28-2017)
  #124  
Old 08-28-2017, 09:21 PM
apballin apballin is offline
Doom -N- Gloom
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,852
Thanks: 1,805
Thanked 1,124 Times in 638 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JesusChrist View Post
Clearly a talent acquisition problem:



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
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 08-28-2017, 10:20 PM
Indiana V2's Avatar
Indiana V2 Indiana V2 is offline
Post whore
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Goshen, IN
Posts: 5,630
Thanks: 858
Thanked 414 Times in 270 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by apballin View Post
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.
__________________
Irsay and Ballard got the Reich guy!
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 08-29-2017, 01:17 AM
Dam8610 Dam8610 is online now
Post whore
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 5,995
Thanks: 102
Thanked 1,595 Times in 925 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JesusChrist View Post
Clearly a talent acquisition problem:

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by JesusChrist View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by omahacolt View Post
i was wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 08-29-2017, 07:51 AM
DrSpaceman DrSpaceman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 3,349
Thanks: 212
Thanked 674 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DrSpaceman For This Useful Post:
omahacolt (08-29-2017), Racehorse (08-29-2017)
  #128  
Old 08-29-2017, 08:35 AM
Racehorse's Avatar
Racehorse Racehorse is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: God's green Earth
Posts: 12,878
Thanks: 16,945
Thanked 4,361 Times in 2,508 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrSpaceman View Post
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!
__________________
Keep your political crap out of a football forum! Nobody here gives a rat's a**
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Racehorse For This Useful Post:
omahacolt (08-29-2017), smitty46953 (08-29-2017)
  #129  
Old 08-29-2017, 11:51 AM
Dam8610 Dam8610 is online now
Post whore
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 5,995
Thanks: 102
Thanked 1,595 Times in 925 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrSpaceman View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by omahacolt View Post
i was wrong.

Last edited by Dam8610; 08-29-2017 at 11:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 08-29-2017, 12:15 PM
DrSpaceman DrSpaceman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 3,349
Thanks: 212
Thanked 674 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:37 AM.


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.