Clock Management

[clskinsfan]

You are not taking into to account the field position there though. I dont think you physically can fall forward four times in a row. If you try you are going to end up with a safety. I get your side as well though. 

 

And calling the timeout was needed. I could argue had they not taken the timeout they dont score?

 

 

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

9 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

2 timeouts are worthless there.

 

Say they fail on fourth down with 58 second left.

 

Let's say the Bear just fall into the line three times. And each attempt eats up 4 second.

1st and 10 plunge

TO at 54

2nd and 10 plunge

TO at 50

3rd and 10 plunge

TO at 46

The Bears then drain the clock and have to punt with 6 seconds left from their end zone to Tiny Darren Sproles.

 

With two Philly timeouts, the Bears run out the clock.

 

You are forbidden from talking clock management.

 

 

 

I agree...but the larger point is that their best chance to score was from the 2...not from wherever they'd have fielded a punt with 30 seconds and no timeouts. So, they used the timeout to maximize their best remaining opportunity to win the game. 

[skinfan2k]

none of them play Madden 

[hail2skins]

39 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I agree...but the larger point is that their best chance to score was from the 2...not from wherever they'd have fielded a punt with 30 seconds and no timeouts. So, they used the timeout to maximize their best remaining opportunity to win the game. 

I agree with this. At first, I was criticizing Doug P for taking the timeout, but then right after (and not after he scored LOL), realized that Doug probably figured this was the ballgame right here, and that even if he wound up getting the ball back with a little under 40 seconds left around midfield or even the Bears 40, the chances of winning were remote. I can't remember whether the Eagles lined up to see what the Bears formation was before calling timeout. But he wanted to make sure he absolutely got the right play in......I kind of compare it to the defense often calling time out before a Hail Mary situation. Of course, you probably could argue "why can't you get the right play in the 40 seconds you have after the last play"...…..I dunno.

 

LKB brings up Belichick but weren't people scratching their heads at the end of the Seahawks Super Bowl where he didn't call timeout after Seattle got inside the 5 and try to save time for a drive for a potential game-tying FG if Seattle did score a TD. But Carroll and Malcolm Butler bailed him out.

 

The clock management thing that drives me crazy is when a team is down by more than one possession with, say, 6 minutes left. The other team has the ball. At that point, I think you HAVE to start using timeouts.  Your objective is to get the ball back ASAP. The other team will likely be conservative, but they do have to run plays, and fumbles can happen. Instead, the team will run a play on first down, then......tick tick tick, then second down, and at the end of second down, it occurs to the team which is down that, hey maybe we should call timeout. But you just blew 40 valuable seconds in the process. 

[nonniey]

23 hours ago, KDawg said:

 

Because clock management is very situational, in the same TO/time situation against the same team it even varies. Refs, game plans, other team's execution, special teams play, O play, D play, etc... it all varies. 

 

It's easy for us to sit here and say these guys suck at clock management. But why do we think we're any better at it?

 

I thought Nagy worked the clock masterfully yesterday. I've seen tons of Bears fans say he didn't on the internet today. 

 

People complain about things for the sake of complaining about things. "Oh the clock management sucks" is akin, in my opinion, to saying, "Well, I'm not sure what else to complain about so I'm going to pick clock management because of that one time where he used a timeout and I thought he should have saved the timeout!"

 

There are definitely a few major clock blunders in game. But for the most part it's very situational... And guys get criticized if it doesn't work, but not a mention of it is made when it does. 

I think it would be beneficial to the team to field a small staff (2-3 members) to recommend actions on critical decisions to the coach.  They'd cover two minute time-outs, replays and when to go for 2pts.  (Gruden displayed on more than one occasion bad judgement on the extra point options this season). 

[KDawg]

19 minutes ago, nonniey said:

I think it would be beneficial to the team to field a small staff (2-3 members) to recommend actions on critical decisions to the coach.  They'd cover two minute time-outs, replays and when to go for 2pts.  (Gruden displayed on more than one occasion bad judgement on the extra point options this season). 

 

Do we know that they don't?

[nonniey]

7 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Do we know that they don't?

Doesn't seem like they do because as has been pointed out they are awful at in-game analysis/decisions (Some of the decisions so basic and easy that the average fan gets it right when the Redskins get it wrong).

[KDawg]

8 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Doesn't seem like they do because as has been pointed out they are awful at in-game analysis/decisions (Some of the decisions so basic and easy that the average fan gets it right when the Redskins get it wrong).

 

What specific occurrences does the average fan get correct more often than the Redskins?And how do we know the fans' response is actually better than the choice that is made? (Keep in mind, I'm not saying it isn't).  And perhaps they get it wrong because they have someone responsible for it? 

 

I realize its easy to attack Gruden for our mishaps. And ultimately, all decisions fall at his feet. So he can and should be criticized for any poor decisions that are made. However, this is the point I've been trying to make in regards to our culture. While decisions fall at Gruden's feet, we don't know the level of Allen's involvement. It's been posted here that Bruce Allen himself monitors the replay at times to decide if we should challenge. It's a major cultural issue that really doesn't just stop at Gruden. It's not that simple.

[purbeast]

19 hours ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

2 timeouts are worthless there.

 

Say they fail on fourth down with 58 second left.

 

Let's say the Bear just fall into the line three times. And each attempt eats up 4 second.

1st and 10 plunge

TO at 54

2nd and 10 plunge

TO at 50

3rd and 10 plunge

TO at 46

The Bears then drain the clock and have to punt with 6 seconds left from their end zone to Tiny Darren Sproles.

 

With two Philly timeouts, the Bears run out the clock.

 

You are forbidden from talking clock management.

 

 

They don't even have to punt.  They can do what the Ravens did years ago and just hold onto the entire team and just eat the penalty because the game will end after the play.

[nonniey]

7 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

What specific occurrences does the average fan get correct more often than the Redskins?And how do we know the fans' response is actually better than the choice that is made? (Keep in mind, I'm not saying it isn't).  And perhaps they get it wrong because they have someone responsible for it? 

 

I realize its easy to attack Gruden for our mishaps. And ultimately, all decisions fall at his feet. So he can and should be criticized for any poor decisions that are made. However, this is the point I've been trying to make in regards to our culture. While decisions fall at Gruden's feet, we don't know the level of Allen's involvement. It's been posted here that Bruce Allen himself monitors the replay at times to decide if we should challenge. It's a major cultural issue that really doesn't just stop at Gruden. It's not that simple.

When to go for 2pts in the Cowboy game showed poor analysis by the Redskins.  And that was an easy one as the team had time to come to the correct analytical decision and yet they got it wrong.  

[purbeast]

sorry, double post.

[Jericho]

On 1/7/2019 at 11:13 AM, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

For years, I've said that only two people in the NFL are good at clock management. Those people are Bellichick and Al Michaels.

 

 

Belichick is good at a lot of things, but we're talking about the same guy who sat on multiple timeouts inside the last two minutes of Super Bowl XLIX? You know, the one where the Seahawks marched down the field and got inside the 5 yard line needing a TD to take the lead. Belichick let the clock bleed for reasons I can't figure out. Of course, it all worked out when the Seahawks foolishly threw a pass on second down (which was intercepted by Butler) rather than power run with Marshawn Lynch from the one yard line. So I guess it was all moot. But are rewarding Belichick for lucking out on a bad decision or are we crediting him with some evil genius by acting so stupidly, it caused the Seahawks to act even dumber? Point being, you can criticize virtually anyone's clock management. Had the Pats called timeouts then, they'd have roughly a minute left to time the game even if Seattle scored.

[Wildbunny]

Word was Bellichick didn't use TO to force the Seahawks to throw on short. Had he called TOs he was sure to get 3 beastmode runs. Which he didn't want.

 

Now he looks like a genius. And Caroll is the donkey here. Had it been the opposite Bellichick would be the donkey.

[Jericho]

6 hours ago, Wildbunny said:

Word was Bellichick didn't use TO to force the Seahawks to throw on short. Had he called TOs he was sure to get 3 beastmode runs. Which he didn't want.

 

Now he looks like a genius. And Caroll is the donkey here. Had it been the opposite Bellichick would be the donkey.

 

Right, so are rewarding bad clock management due to someone else's screw ups? You can say Belichick "won" the match-up, but he still managed the clock poorly. It's not like Seattle didn't have time. It had 66 seconds and one timeout to run up to 4 plays from the 5 yard line. Easily enough time for three Lynch runs without evening having to use a timeout necessarily.