4th and 8 was my 62-7 moment for the Ballard/Steichen regime.

[Dam8610]

Generally, I am much slower than most of this fanbase to the "Fire (insert coach or GM here)!" sentiment if I think said coach or GM is good at their job, and I think replacing them carries substantial risk of downgrading. The only coach or GM I can ever remember being quicker than most to the fire them bandwagon is Ryan Grigson, and that is because I think most of the members of this message board could've done better as a GM than he did in his tenure. Back in 2011, sentiment quickly built to fire Jim Caldwell and Bill Polian. I was not on board with that, because I thought that losing the best QB to ever play the game had a lot more to do with the 2011 results than an inability to evaluate or improve talent.

Then 62-7 happened.

That game made it clear that the team quit on Caldwell. Yes, the Saints were good, but even an outmanned team that was trying or cared wouldn't have allowed that result. The fact that they did made me realize that Caldwell had lost the locker room, and even if he was a good coach (which I believe he went on to prove he was for the Lions), he wasn't the right coach for this team moving forward. I still didn't like the idea of firing Polian, but clean front office breaks are easier to make, especially after a 2 win season.

That brings me to today. I've generally thought that Chris Ballard is a good talent evaluator, and Shane Steichen has shown the ability to get more out of an offense than any coach should be able to get. I still believe those things.

But this? This is unacceptable. You are on the road, facing what will likely be one of the best teams in the league, with one of the best QBs of all-time, AND you just got bailed out of a horrible turnover in the redzone. It's 4th and 8 on the 18 yard line, and you're down by 3. You have 2 options; either kick the field goal and pray that one of the best QBs to ever do it won't lead a field goal drive in over 3 minutes when he's done that in 13 seconds in much higher pressure situations, or rely on the strength of your team, your offense, to convert a difficult down and distance on a short field and get you the game winning score, never allowing that QB to get another opportunity to beat you. The first option is cowardly and foolhardy, because the best result you get in most cases is a tie, but very likely since Mahones is on the other team, you lose. The second option is not a great option, but it gives you the best chance to win the game, and it is much more palatable to go down swinging than to kick a field goal and pray you won't die the inevitable death of a thousand cuts that follows.

Steichen chose the first option. The cowardly, foolhardy option is the one he chose. The result was more predictable than fireworks on the Fourth of July in America. Mahomes gets the ball back, promptly marches down the field, and the Chiefs kick a game winning field goal. That decision showed me that Shane is not ready to make the tough but right call in a pressure situation. So even though there is likely a substantial risk of downgrade in replacing him, I believe that if the Colts don't go deep into the playoffs this year, the regime should change, because while they might be good, they're not what the team needs right now. And I don't think this team is capable of that with a head coach who looks at that 4th and 8 from the opponent's 18 yard line in overtime and decides, "Let's let one of the 5 best QBs in NFL history on the opposing sideline determine the outcome of this game," instead of taking the outcome out of his hands entirely.

[albany ed]

I kinda disagree. If he went for it on 4th and 8 and came up short, game over and the criticism would have been louder than the fans at Arrowhead were all night. To me, the mistake happened earlier just after NYC gave the Colts life after the long completion and near fumble. With the Chiefs selling out to stop the run, the Colts ran twice bringing up 3rd and 13. At 3rd and 13, the Chiefs were all about stopping the pass. 3 plays and the Colts ran the play the Chiefs were defending on each and every one. The Colts are not a juggernaut on offense that can ignore what the defense is doing and still dominate. Either first or second down should have been play action. That's where the defense was weakest at that time.

I feel bad for the players, they played well enough to win this game

[CletusPyle]

The three plays before the 4 and 8 were more egregious to me than going for the FG....my only concern with replacing Steichen with a better coach are the people choosing his replacement.

[Hoopsdoc]

Yeah, I disagree with that, especially since it was 4th and 8. If it’s 4th and 5 or less, that’s a different story.

At 4th and 8 while down 3, they had to kick the field goal.

[Oldcolt]

I have to go with Dam on this, but i agree with others that the first two down calls sucked big time. I was on the fence about Stiechen, never liked that he appears to give control of the defense to another dude, but this convinced me he must go. Nobody is happy with this sequence except the Chiefs

[apballin]

It wasn’t 62-7 bad for me but I would’ve absolutely went for it there

Throw it up to Warren

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by albany ed

I kinda disagree. If he went for it on 4th and 8 and came up short, game over and the criticism would have been louder than the fans at Arrowhead were all night. To me, the mistake happened earlier just after NYC gave the Colts life after the long completion and near fumble. With the Chiefs selling out to stop the run, the Colts ran twice bringing up 3rd and 13. At 3rd and 13, the Chiefs were all about stopping the pass. 3 plays and the Colts ran the play the Chiefs were defending on each and every one. The Colts are not a juggernaut on offense that can ignore what the defense is doing and still dominate. Either first or second down should have been play action. That's where the defense was weakest at that time.

I feel bad for the players, they played well enough to win this game

If the Colts had gone for it and not converted on 4th and 8, that's a decision worth defending. You're taking a chance to win the game, and taking control of the outcome of the game completely away from the other team's best player. Whether you convert or fail on 4th and 8, Patrick Mahomes has zero influence on the game's outcome in that situation. How many teams would've killed for a situation like that against the Peyton Manning led Colts?

[Colts And Orioles]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

After studying all the finger pointing this morning, I am nearing the conclusion that neither Steichen or Jones are cerebral enough to sustain success in their respective roles.

o


That may be true for Steichen ...... but I suspect that it may not be true for Jones.

I think Jones' problem is not so much a lack of brains, but rather a lack of courage to defy his head coach when said head coach orders a play-call that is highly flawed.

When Bill Walton was a senior at UCLA and his team had their 88-game win-streak snapped by a monumental and historic comeback by Notre Dame, he said that he thought that calling a timeout in the middle of Notre Dame's 10-0 run was needed ...... but he didn't do it, because John Wooden did not believe in calling time-outs when under duress ...... Wooden asserted that they were UCLA, and UCLA was the team that forced other teams to call time-outs under duress, not the other way around. Wooden felt that calling time out under duress was an admission of defeat.

When talking about that game many years later, Walton said that at that time he had not yet learned that it is better to be chastised for doing the right thing on the spot than to avoid criticism after the fact by obeying orders ...... Walton was plenty smart enough to know what to do, but the 21 year-old college senior was not experienced in life enough yet to summon up the courage to buck his head coach's orders.

The difference with Daniel Jones is that he is not a 21 year-old college senior like Bill Walton was back then, he is a 29 year-old veteran pro quarterback who needs to stop acting as though he is the former in certain crucial situations.

o