Devizier said:Down:
Bradley Fletcher
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:Hard to overcome a pick 6 against a good team in their own building. The defensive effort in the second half was outstanding. Tough to pick one guy but I say Jones.
The end of game management has been kind of shaky this year -- this game and the Buffalo game stand out. Usually a strength so it's weird. Have to tighten that up before it costs them.
I think he means more stuff like not running the clock down on both punts. They could have run 30 seconds. Playcalling seemed fine execution was dogshit on offense.Devizier said:
-- I've mentioned this before, but the Patriots (under Belichick) have pretty much played that way with a two-score lead since forever. It's not too fun to watch, but war of attrition is probably the soundest strategy. At the very least, it forces the underdog to make exceedingly improbable plays to win.
Stitch01 said:I think he means more stuff like not running the clock down on both punts. They could have run 30 seconds. Playcalling seemed fine execution was dogshit on offense.
Yeah, and as mentioned, the delay of game. Play calling was ok, though on the drive with 7 or 8 minutes left, I thought play action would have worked. The busted sneak was tough, but it usually works so hard to grumble about it.Stitch01 said:I think he means more stuff like not running the clock down on both punts. They could have run 30 seconds. Playcalling seemed fine execution was dogshit on offense.
About the only thing I can think of is that Indy wanted a formation so unusual that the Pats would call timeout, and never meant to snap the ball.GeorgeCostanza said:Can't wait to hear an explanation for whatever the hell that play was supposed to be from Indy. I'm still absolutely gobsmacked.
His actual explanation was almost as bizarre as the at itself. Was trying to catch the pats with too many men on the field??singaporesoxfan said:About the only thing I can think of is that Indy wanted a formation so unusual that the Pats would call timeout, and never meant to snap the ball.
The Colts though had one person besides the "center" on the line of scrimmage. I'm guessing a lot of NFL coaches would have seen that.riboflav said:How many NFL coaches call a timeout when the Colts shifted into that crazy punt formation? So, game ball to BB.
MarcSullivaFan said:Colts players are saying that the point was to catch the Pats with 12 on the field or force them to call a timeout. The fact that BB left the pressure on them to figure out wtf to do was just brilliant. Every other coach in the NFL calls a timeout there.
McAfee said (and I'm paraphrasing) that it was the biggest fuck up in the history of fake punts.
How would they know that? Spies!!!SeoulSoxFan said:BB says Indy ran a fake punt vs. Titans and were aware that they may run another one.
Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt said:This is what happens when other teams try to get "deceptive" like BB does. The thing is, Belichick practices everything, all this talk of situational football we are constantly hearing about - that's why the punt team didn't panic. They reacted, communicated and got it done. Meanwhile,the other teams attempting this junk "trick" stuff...I mean, god...there are no words.
Except maybe these: In. Their. Heads.
Game Balls: TB12, Googe, Jamie Collins for the block. If not for Defakegate, his special teams play would be a bigger talking point.
Yeah, I mean BB has a history of panicking and calling time outs in big spots. I love how our players reacted in that spot too, looked to each other and figured out to crowd the center to prevent the sneak.MarcSullivaFan said:Colts players are saying that the point was to catch the Pats with 12 on the field or force them to call a timeout. The fact that BB left the pressure on them to figure out wtf to do was just brilliant. Every other coach in the NFL calls a timeout there.
McAfee said (and I'm paraphrasing) that it was the biggest fuck up in the history of fake punts.
I think they Percy laying in the end zone is pretty amazing.Rasputin said:
I'm pretty sure it was the worst trick play in the history of sport.
They scored 34 points on the road with zero turnovers forced by the D and only one time with great field position. Man, how our perspective of what constitutes a great offensive performance has been warped.Bergs said:That was a really disappointing effort from the O and the coaching staff. BB is gonna have a field day this week. Also, injuries suck.
Jake McQuaide, the Rams' long snapper, tweeted out an explanation:GeorgeCostanza said:Can't wait to hear an explanation for whatever the hell that play was supposed to be from Indy. I'm still absolutely gobsmacked.
I agree with this. Especially given the injuries, to score 34 on the road in this game was incredibly impressive.Ralphwiggum said:They scored 34 points on the road with zero turnovers forced by the D and only one time with great field position. Man, how our perspective of what constitutes a great offensive performance has been warped.
But that doesn't make a ton of sense because if the offensive team makes a substitution (offense comes on for punt team) the refs won't let the center snap the ball until the defense is allowed to substitute. Sure, you still might catch someone slow to substitute but you can't just hurry out and snap without giving the other side an opportunity to sub. And I know I've seen the Pats try this but it never seems to work since the ref just stands over the ball.Eddie Jurak said:
So the idea is to snap the ball with >11 defensive players on the field, in which case, first down for the Colts. If the defense doesn't subsitute, the ball should never be snapped - its either a timeout or a delay of game.
Either the Colts "QB" and "center" on that play never got the memo or, they mistook the Pats' defensive shifting for actual substitutions.
That sort of makes some sense but to think that a BB coached team would fall for something like that means you haven't been paying attention. I mean the Pats use that type of substitution more than anyone, to think they wouldn't know what to do and how to act is dumb.Eddie Jurak said:Jake McQuaide, the Rams' long snapper, tweeted out an explanation:
https://twitter.com/JakeMcQuaide/status/655943577059643392
https://twitter.com/JakeMcQuaide/status/655944108494692352
https://twitter.com/JakeMcQuaide/status/655944108494692352
https://twitter.com/JakeMcQuaide/status/655944707978174464
So the idea is to snap the ball with >11 defensive players on the field, in which case, first down for the Colts. If the defense doesn't subsitute, the ball should never be snapped - its either a timeout or a delay of game.
Either the Colts "QB" and "center" on that play never got the memo or, they mistook the Pats' defensive shifting for actual substitutions.
The "offense" made no substitution. The punt team stayed on the field the whole time. The idea behind the play is that BB was supposed to see the Dolts punt team running for the sideline and yell "Defense, go!" In which case the Colts, who have made no substitution, can snap the ball for a free first down.Preacher said:But that doesn't make a ton of sense because if the offensive team makes a substitution (offense comes on for punt team) the refs won't let the center snap the ball until the defense is allowed to substitute. Sure, you still might catch someone slow to substitute but you can't just hurry out and snap without giving the other side an opportunity to sub. And I know I've seen the Pats try this but it never seems to work since the ref just stands over the ball.
Edit: I guess what I was trying to say was what the Colts did made no sense even with that explanation.
SeoulSoxFan said:BB says Indy ran a fake punt vs. Titans and were aware that they may run another one.