ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum
Page 4 of 4 « First 23 4
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

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.

Dam8610 08-29-2017 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrSpaceman (Post 22937)
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.
12 seconds was all that was needed. It doesn't matter when it occurred. You just stated that 14 seconds would've been enough, but now that you see it goes against the argument that fits your narrative, you change your tune. The timeout no more cost the team the game than the failure to completely run off the play clock on the TD play, by your own admission.

DrSpaceman 08-29-2017 02:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 22952)
12 seconds was all that was needed. It doesn't matter when it occurred. You just stated that 14 seconds would've been enough, but now that you see it goes against the argument that fits your narrative, you change your tune. The timeout no more cost the team the game than the failure to completely run off the play clock on the TD play, by your own admission.
Actually it cost them at least 16-26 seconds more than the play you mentioned. Lucks play it would have been tight at the end, in a different situation they could have shaved off the two or three extra seconds needed. If Pagano doesn't call the time out, its not even close to them having enough time. Game is over once they score no matter what Luck does.

And the head coach is the primary person in charge of clock management at the end of the game.

smitty46953 08-29-2017 02:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 22952)
12 seconds was all that was needed. It doesn't matter when it occurred. You just stated that 14 seconds would've been enough, but now that you see it goes against the argument that fits your narrative, you change your tune. The timeout no more cost the team the game than the failure to completely run off the play clock on the TD play, by your own admission.
Dam, dam you just keep getting worse. Once upon a time you offered some interesting content. Now you just look for arguments with every post. Life that bad ? :cool:

Dam8610 08-29-2017 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty46953 (Post 22974)
Dam, dam you just keep getting worse. Once upon a time you offered some interesting content. Now you just look for arguments with every post. Life that bad ? :cool:
Life is pretty good, actually. I'm not looking for arguments, but I'm stubborn and no one here seems to believe in agree to disagree, so it happens. We'll see what happens this season. I'm hopeful for the best, but things don't look too great right now with two of the team's best players recovering from injuries. If the "fire Pagano" crowd gets their way, I doubt it will take long for them to turn on the next guy.

omahacolt 08-29-2017 06:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 23023)
Life is pretty good, actually. I'm not looking for arguments, but I'm stubborn and no one here seems to believe in agree to disagree, so it happens. We'll see what happens this season. I'm hopeful for the best, but things don't look too great right now with two of the team's best players recovering from injuries. If the "fire Pagano" crowd gets their way, I doubt it will take long for them to turn on the next guy.
There is no reason to be pro pagano. Unless you are a fucking moron that can't admit he is wrong

apballin 08-29-2017 07:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by omahacolt (Post 23033)
There is no reason to be pro pagano. Unless you are a fucking moron that can't admit he is wrong
other than the fact he doesn't have a losing record and I for one am not sold on a big name guy like Gruden or whatever other college coach or current NFL analyst he would call up

omahacolt 08-29-2017 08:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by apballin (Post 23039)
other than the fact he doesn't have a losing record and I for one am not sold on a big name guy like Gruden or whatever other college coach or current NFL analyst he would call up
You are clearly a moron. We have read your posts the last couple years

nate505 08-29-2017 11:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by apballin (Post 23039)
other than the fact he doesn't have a losing record and I for one am not sold on a big name guy like Gruden or whatever other college coach or current NFL analyst he would call up
His winning record is 100% dependent on the fact the Colts played in such a dog crap division for the majority of his career.

Pags is 19-6 against the AFC South. His total coaching record in the regular season is 39-28. Take out the crappy AFC South and his record is 20-22. Oh, and the South is getting better and surprise surprise, his record over the last 2 years against them has been 7-5, which is still winning but a lot closer to reality.

apballin 08-30-2017 10:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate505 (Post 23062)
His winning record is 100% dependent on the fact the Colts played in such a dog crap division for the majority of his career.

Pags is 19-6 against the AFC South. His total coaching record in the regular season is 39-28. Take out the crappy AFC South and his record is 20-22. Oh, and the South is getting better and surprise surprise, his record over the last 2 years against them has been 7-5, which is still winning but a lot closer to reality.
And how many games has Luck missed the last 2 years?

I'd factor that in myself

IndyNorm 09-03-2017 10:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 22569)
Holy shit! Someone admitted it! We're making progress!
First off I've never said that Grigs didn't suck; I've just always said Clappy is just as bad or worse due to everything I outlined in my post which you've completely blocked out. Must hurt to get some realism on your hero.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:35 AM.
Page 4 of 4 « First 23 4
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
ColtFreaks.com is in no way affiliated with the Indianapolis Colts, the NFL, or any of their subsidiaries.