PDA

View Full Version : Questionable coaching calls?


gtexan02
09-24-2007, 10:29 AM
Im sure there are good explanations for all of these, but Im curious to see what others think of the following play calls:

1) Predictability of the defense - We rushed 4 down lineman every play. Ryans crept up to the lOS, then backed off. Every time. We didn't blitz, we didnt stack the box, etc.

2) Half time clock management - Before half time we had the ball on a 3rd and 2 from our own 40 or so. We let the clock run all the way down adn then called a time out. It was very reminiscent of taking a knee with 2 minutes left last year. Its like Kubiak didn't trust our offense to get the 1st, and wanted to keep the Colts from getting the ball back. And then we called a pass play. Why..?

3) Challenge the INT - Last weeks INT challenge was a huge turning point, but the INT this week was pretty obvious. That guy was holding the ball like he had stolen it. That cost us a timeout which would have given us the ball with over a minute left

4) Kicking off with 2 minutes to go - Why didn't we at least attempt an onside kick? When you have as few timeout left as we did, you know you only 1, maybe 2 series to stop them. You know they are going to run. If they get the ball at the 20, you get the ball back with :20 seconds. If we onside kick, we have the chance to get the ball back immediately. And even if they get it with good field position, the defense could still make a big play and not allow the FG.

5) Bringing only 2 active RBs into the game. Why not have another guy who can run the ball if you already known Green was limping last week? It seemed like a bad plan to only have Green and Gado on the active roster

6) Leaving Faggins on a 10 yard cushion island. When your run defense is as stifling as it was yesterday, why not allow one of the safeties to play over the top of Harrison and let Faggins bump him at the line and play aggressively? Faggins prevented any long balls by staying 10 yards back from Harrison, but if we had been able to double cover him with Faggins underneath and someone over the top, we may have limited his effectiveness even more

7) Not putting a CB on Clark in the red zone. Everyone knows Manning likes to pass in the red zone. So why was it that Clark was all alone in the back of the end zone on a play I have personally witnessed at least 3 or 4 times?


Obviously, hind site is 20/20, and I'll be the first to admit I have a mancrush on Kubiak. He is the best thing to happen to the Texans, so I dont want to doubt him. Im just curious what people think about some of these calls.

tulexan
09-24-2007, 10:34 AM
I think Kubiak answered a few of these questions yesterday after the game.

Lucky
09-24-2007, 10:56 AM
4) Kicking off with 2 minutes to go - Why didn't we at least attempt an onside kick?
This, I agree with. An onside kick there gives the team 2 chances to get the ball. Even if you don't recover the onside kick, the defense still has a chance at forcing a punt.

This was the ballgame, as far as I'm concerned:

2-9-IND 28 (2:41) P.Manning pass short right to M.Harrison to IND 40 for 12 yards (D.Faggins). P18
Timeout #3 by HST at 02:28.

The Colts had given the Texans an excellent opportunity with the false start on Ryan Diem. On 2nd down, Manning had to leave the pocket and move to his right. Harrison was wide open, underneath Faggins but past the 1st down marker. That should never happen in that situation. Faggins should have played underneath Harrison and forced Manning to make the tougher throw. It could have been a mistake by Faggins, but I noticed both safeties playing 15 yeards deep on the play, as well. The wrong coverage for that situation.

Htownsportsfan
09-24-2007, 05:03 PM
Im sure there are good explanations for all of these, but Im curious to see what others think of the following play calls:

1) Predictability of the defense - We rushed 4 down lineman every play. Ryans crept up to the lOS, then backed off. Every time. We didn't blitz, we didnt stack the box, etc.

2) Half time clock management - Before half time we had the ball on a 3rd and 2 from our own 40 or so. We let the clock run all the way down adn then called a time out. It was very reminiscent of taking a knee with 2 minutes left last year. Its like Kubiak didn't trust our offense to get the 1st, and wanted to keep the Colts from getting the ball back. And then we called a pass play. Why..?

3) Challenge the INT - Last weeks INT challenge was a huge turning point, but the INT this week was pretty obvious. That guy was holding the ball like he had stolen it. That cost us a timeout which would have given us the ball with over a minute left

4) Kicking off with 2 minutes to go - Why didn't we at least attempt an onside kick? When you have as few timeout left as we did, you know you only 1, maybe 2 series to stop them. You know they are going to run. If they get the ball at the 20, you get the ball back with :20 seconds. If we onside kick, we have the chance to get the ball back immediately. And even if they get it with good field position, the defense could still make a big play and not allow the FG.

5) Bringing only 2 active RBs into the game. Why not have another guy who can run the ball if you already known Green was limping last week? It seemed like a bad plan to only have Green and Gado on the active roster

6) Leaving Faggins on a 10 yard cushion island. When your run defense is as stifling as it was yesterday, why not allow one of the safeties to play over the top of Harrison and let Faggins bump him at the line and play aggressively? Faggins prevented any long balls by staying 10 yards back from Harrison, but if we had been able to double cover him with Faggins underneath and someone over the top, we may have limited his effectiveness even more

7) Not putting a CB on Clark in the red zone. Everyone knows Manning likes to pass in the red zone. So why was it that Clark was all alone in the back of the end zone on a play I have personally witnessed at least 3 or 4 times?

Obviously, hind site is 20/20, and I'll be the first to admit I have a mancrush on Kubiak. He is the best thing to happen to the Texans, so I dont want to doubt him. Im just curious what people think about some of these calls.

Actually we assigned a safety (Boulware) to Clark but he failed to get the bump of the line and was left in the dust by Clark. Boulward screwed the pooch! It was so poorly played even Peter King picked up on it and made him his Goat of the week.

hadaad
09-24-2007, 05:16 PM
Quote edited for brevity

1) Predictability of the defense

2) Half time clock management

3) Challenge the INT

4) Kicking off with 2 minutes to go

5) Bringing only 2 active RBs into the game

6) Leaving Faggins on a 10 yard cushion island

7) Not putting a CB on Clark in the red zone

1) I don't have a problem with the way Smith called the defense. I haven't seen a scheme or a change-it-up style to halt the Manning machine. If he's throwing darts out there, sending more people, in my opinion, is just leaving more people open.

2) This was a disgusting act of cowardice in my opinion. You don't leave any chances unexplored on the field. Points in the first half are just as important as points in the second half. This made me feel sick in my stomach.

3) I agree with you here. I didn't see the interception but from all accounts, it was pretty obviously a catch. I guess he challenged it because of what it meant in the game but it came back to bite them, one way and another.

4) I don't have a problem with kicking off regularly when there are three minutes to go in the game. Everyone did their part on that but Faggins. If the Texans had gotten a 3-and-out in that situation, they'd be in pretty good field position. If they fail the onside kick, the way Hunter Smith had played to that point, they'd probably be inside their own ten. If they drove the way they did play for play, they were probably in field goal range.

5) I don't know what they could have done about this. I don't know the rules for game day roster updates. Still, if they knew that Green had a knee thing, then they should have addressed it when Dayne was questionable, that's true.

6) It would have been nice to see some help for Faggins out there, that's for sure.

7) Agreed. Boulware was overmatched.

Good post.

thunderkyss
09-24-2007, 05:48 PM
Im sure there are good explanations for all of these, but Im curious to see what others think of the following play calls:

1) Predictability of the defense - We rushed 4 down lineman every play. Ryans crept up to the lOS, then backed off. Every time. We didn't blitz, we didnt stack the box, etc.

I wouldn't have a problem with rushing 4, if they would have minded their gaps on run downs. Instead, they parted the red sea.


5) Bringing only 2 active RBs into the game. Why not have another guy who can run the ball if you already known Green was limping last week? It seemed like a bad plan to only have Green and Gado on the active roster

The better question, is why did Vonta Leech leave the game once Green went out?? I know he still played, but less frequently than in previous weeks. Gado sure could have used the extra blocking.

6) Leaving Faggins on a 10 yard cushion island. When your run defense is as stifling as it was yesterday, why not allow one of the safeties to play over the top of Harrison and let Faggins bump him at the line and play aggressively? Faggins prevented any long balls by staying 10 yards back from Harrison, but if we had been able to double cover him with Faggins underneath and someone over the top, we may have limited his effectiveness even more

Where were the LBs?? If we have our Corners over the top, is there a reason our LBs aren't playing the under??

Maybe we still have the problem we've had for years, and Our LBs can't cover??

7) Not putting a CB on Clark in the red zone. Everyone knows Manning likes to pass in the red zone. So why was it that Clark was all alone in the back of the end zone on a play I have personally witnessed at least 3 or 4 times?

If Manning saw an Extra CB on Clark, he'd have checked to a run play, and Addai would have ran behind Clark. 6 in one hand, know what I mean??

Porky
09-24-2007, 05:59 PM
I disagree with you on the kick at the end of the game. First off, there was less than 3 minutes, and we didn't have all 3 TO's due to a very poor decision earlier. On top of that, you have to be aware of who you are playing. If you think that offense is more likely to go 3 and out then your chances at recovering an onside kick, then I have news for you.

Last rant about it is if they were going to kick away, then kick frickin away. They pooch kicked it into no mans land. The Colts don't have a great returner, and if you are looking for a potential turnover, you are better off kicking it deep then pooching it. If they didn't want to do a onside kick, then have a little more urgency in the previous series. Another minute could have made a world of difference. Just very poor game management yesterday by Kubes all day long. I think Capers invaded his body. :cool:

Scooter
09-24-2007, 06:03 PM
2) This was a disgusting act of cowardice in my opinion. You don't leave any chances unexplored on the field. Points in the first half are just as important as points in the second half. This made me feel sick in my stomach.

i disagree. i havent heard kubiak's comment on this, but your comment is exactly what everyone was thinking during the dallas game ... until we scored, then it was "oooh kubiak knows what he's doing!". this time we failed to convert on 3rd down and kubiak's a coward. kubiak was letting time run off the clock because we didnt need all of it. i disagree with the play call (i think they should've ran the ball on 3rd down), but i didnt see it as taking a knee or not trying for more, especially since they came out throwing.

ccdude730
09-24-2007, 07:13 PM
Im sure there are good explanations for all of these, but Im curious to see what others think of the following play calls:

1) Predictability of the defense

2) Half time clock management

3) Challenge the INT

4) Kicking off with 2 minutes to go

5) Bringing only 2 active RBs into the game.

6) Leaving Faggins on a 10 yard cushion island.

7) Not putting a CB on Clark in the red zone.


Obviously, hind site is 20/20, and I'll be the first to admit I have a mancrush on Kubiak. He is the best thing to happen to the Texans, so I dont want to doubt him. Im just curious what people think about some of these calls.

1) i think the defense so far this season has been pretty predictable. but what if we were to blitz 6? manning would......still pick us apart. we have been getting decent pressure so far with just our Dline but im torn as to whether or not the blitzes would have payed off any

2) this isnt the first time this has happened. i defended it before and i still stand by it. the first down play will determine how aggressive your playcalling becomes. kubiak discussed this today and mentioned how if it were 2nd and < 3, we would have been aggressive. also, coming in to the game the coaching staffs goals were to limit the colts offense to 3 or 4 possessions in the first half which we did. if we go out throwing deep patterns that arent successful, you just gave the colts something to work with...

3) agreed. the ball DID hit the ground, but he had enough of a handle to where he maintained possession.

4) the whole idea here is to stop them on their side of the field so we get the final possession and decent position. opting for the kickoff did not bother me at all. as lucky pointed out, the conversion of the 2nd down that faggins allowed was the killer.

5) its almost like taking 2 active QBs into the game........ oh wait - nevermind. granted the passer USUALLY doesnt take the beating a back does, there are still capable guys to carry the rock. ahman unexpectedly goes down so gado gets called up. and he splits carries with a FB/HB who in fact got some work at tailback earlier this week.

6) this was just nutty. in previous seasons faggins has done well against harrison, but more could have been done to avoid situations that petey was put in.

7) this has already been talked about

hadaad
09-24-2007, 09:50 PM
2) this isnt the first time this has happened. i defended it before and i still stand by it. the first down play will determine how aggressive your playcalling becomes. kubiak discussed this today and mentioned how if it were 2nd and < 3, we would have been aggressive. also, coming in to the game the coaching staffs goals were to limit the colts offense to 3 or 4 possessions in the first half which we did. if we go out throwing deep patterns that arent successful, you just gave the colts something to work with...


1-10-HOU 38 (1:56) 8-M.Schaub pass short middle to 81-O.Daniels to HOU 46 for 8 yards (28-M.Jackson; 58-G.Brackett).
2-2-HOU 46 (1:27) 43-J.Cook left guard to HOU 46 for no gain (41-A.Bethea).
Timeout #2 by HOU at 00:46.
3-2-HOU 46 (:46) 8-M.Schaub pass incomplete short middle to 11-A.Davis (26-K.Hayden).
4-2-HOU 46 (:39) 1-M.Turk punts 39 yards to IND 15, Center-48-B.Pittman, downed by HOU-48-B.Pittman. (Punt hang time 4.3 seconds.)

It was 2nd and <3.

hadaad
09-24-2007, 09:52 PM
i disagree. i havent heard kubiak's comment on this, but your comment is exactly what everyone was thinking during the dallas game ... until we scored, then it was "oooh kubiak knows what he's doing!". this time we failed to convert on 3rd down and kubiak's a coward. kubiak was letting time run off the clock because we didnt need all of it. i disagree with the play call (i think they should've ran the ball on 3rd down), but i didnt see it as taking a knee or not trying for more, especially since they came out throwing.

We didn't need all the time? I disagree. We needed seven and a half minutes to score in the fourth. If they'd been going for points, they would have kept time on the clock. They were worried they wouldn't convert so they ran the clock down and then fulfilled prophecy on third down. They came out throwing, but is that the throw you make with less than a minute to go until half-time? I don't think so.

Pantherstang84
09-24-2007, 10:21 PM
I disagree with you on the kick at the end of the game. First off, there was less than 3 minutes, and we didn't have all 3 TO's due to a very poor decision earlier. On top of that, you have to be aware of who you are playing. If you think that offense is more likely to go 3 and out then your chances at recovering an onside kick, then I have news for you.

Last rant about it is if they were going to kick away, then kick frickin away. They pooch kicked it into no mans land. The Colts don't have a great returner, and if you are looking for a potential turnover, you are better off kicking it deep then pooching it. If they didn't want to do a onside kick, then have a little more urgency in the previous series. Another minute could have made a world of difference. Just very poor game management yesterday by Kubes all day long. I think Capers invaded his body. :cool:

Kubes talked about that today as a matter of fact. He said the intention was not to onside kick and wondered why Brown didn't take a full approach on the ball?

Miscommunication?

He said he was going with the flow of the game. Mainly, we had the momentum, if we could get them to go 3 and out we could get the ball back with plenty of time. He sincerely thought the defense would do just that. (I think it's called trusting the players.)

He said it was a gutsy call for Indy to throw it on 2nd and 9 but the defense still should have made a play on it.