Clock management: Big issue

[Veilside]

Hard to fault him for letting the defense play. Though, Carroll does have a history of iffy clock management.

How is it hard to fault him for that decision? It's pretty damn easy. The chances of either A) forcing a fumble while SF is focused on protecting the ball, B) Hoping for a missed or blocked chip shot FG, and C) Completing a hail mary with 20 seconds left all added together are ASTRONOMICALLY lower than Russell Wilson leading a TD drive for the win down 6 with 2:30 left on the clock.

I agree with you 100% Well said.

I can also understand the other side and how it could effect the players negatively if he told them to give up a score to their hated rivals. Strategy says let them score, but the fallout could have had greater negative consequences in not only this game but in future games.

 

[dontbelikethat]

And what if he doesn't fall down? You really think the rest of the team is getting 65 yards down field, set and snapping the ball to clock it before the 9 seconds that were left on the clock are up?

Like I said, we had a shot, might not be a high percentage play, but a shot still. Did you wait the PIT-MIA game? The last play that PIT had? They were in a similar situation as us, but was few inches off from winning that game. Never know what could've happened.

 

[RiverDog]

The 3rd down from the 15 was the biggest play of the game. A touchdown there is worse than a first down, and I tweeted as much prior to the play (so this isn't hindsight 20/20). As soon as he converted for the first down, we should have let them waltz into the endzone if they wanted.

Which would you prefer: Down 2, 21 seconds, no timeouts, on own 20 OR down 6, 2:30 left, no timeouts?

This isn't a matter of trusting or not trusting the defense, unless you want to roll the dice on forcing a fumble or a blocked FG, both of which are incredibly low probability outcomes. It's a matter of giving your team the best chance at victory.

Also, as a related sidenote, if we ever burn a TO on 2nd and 25 to save 5 meaningless yards again I'll blow up. Especially when the playcalling following the TO suggested we weren't even trying to get a first down, instead just improving field position.

All around pathetic clock management. You should never have a lead with 6+ minutes remaining and not give your offense another (realistic) shot.

I don't agree with letting them score. We had the lead, and you never intentionally surrender a lead. Too many things can happen, as we saw a few years ago when Dallas was in a similar situation in the infamous Romooski playoff game. But I do agree with calling a timeout on 2nd and 25. That was a wasted timeout. You're right, avoiding a 5 yard penalty at that point was pretty meaningless.

I also wonder why we didn't start burning our timeouts in the first half and preserve some time on the clock after SF scored their only touchdown of the game. We could have had a good 3 or 4 plays left, and had we been in bad field position after the kickoff, we simply run out the clock.

That's one of Pete's weaknesses, game management. He made similar gaffs when he was at USC, but his teams were so dominant that it usually wasn't a factor.

 

[Hawks46]

Hard to fault him for letting the defense play. Though, Carroll does have a history of iffy clock management.

How is it hard to fault him for that decision? It's pretty damn easy. The chances of either A) forcing a fumble while SF is focused on protecting the ball, B) Hoping for a missed or blocked chip shot FG, and C) Completing a hail mary with 20 seconds left all added together are ASTRONOMICALLY lower than Russell Wilson leading a TD drive for the win down 6 with 2:30 left on the clock.

How about option D: stop them on 3rd down like you've done most of the game ?

Pete is calling timeouts as the Niners got into FG range at that point. Until then, it was realistic that we could've stopped them and won the game. When they got into FG range, he started calling timeouts thinking the defense could stop the Niners.

What people aren't seeing is that we didn't stop their offense. It doesn't matter when you call timeouts, they're still chewing up all tha clock either way. In other words, in hindsight, they are going to chew up the clock in front of your timeouts, or in back of them. Calling them early and getting a stop gives you a lot more time with no timeouts, or you're going to get maybe 1 minute, and 1 timeout.

Granted, that 1st timeout call was terrible. Was that Pete or Wilson though ?

 

[RiverDog]

Hard to fault him for letting the defense play. Though, Carroll does have a history of iffy clock management.

How is it hard to fault him for that decision? It's pretty damn easy. The chances of either A) forcing a fumble while SF is focused on protecting the ball, B) Hoping for a missed or blocked chip shot FG, and C) Completing a hail mary with 20 seconds left all added together are ASTRONOMICALLY lower than Russell Wilson leading a TD drive for the win down 6 with 2:30 left on the clock.

How about option D: stop them on 3rd down like you've done most of the game ?

Pete is calling timeouts as the Niners got into FG range at that point. Until then, it was realistic that we could've stopped them and won the game. When they got into FG range, he started calling timeouts thinking the defense could stop the Niners.
What people aren't seeing is that we didn't stop their offense. It doesn't matter when you call timeouts, they're still chewing up all tha clock either way. In other words, in hindsight, they are going to chew up the clock in front of your timeouts, or in back of them. Calling them early and getting a stop gives you a lot more time with no timeouts, or you're going to get maybe 1 minute, and 1 timeout.

Granted, that 1st timeout call was terrible. Was that Pete or Wilson though ?

Bad gamble. Pete makes too many game management decisions based on subjective, emotional criteria like believing he can stop them from gaining 9 yards on two plays rather than taking an objective look at the odds. The odds in that situation dictated waiting until just before the 2 minute warning to call your timeouts, which is why 90% of the coaches in a similar situation will wait until then to call them.

 

[Sarlacc83]

Hard to fault him for letting the defense play. Though, Carroll does have a history of iffy clock management.

How is it hard to fault him for that decision? It's pretty damn easy. The chances of either A) forcing a fumble while SF is focused on protecting the ball, B) Hoping for a missed or blocked chip shot FG, and C) Completing a hail mary with 20 seconds left all added together are ASTRONOMICALLY lower than Russell Wilson leading a TD drive for the win down 6 with 2:30 left on the clock.

How about option D: stop them on 3rd down like you've done most of the game ?

Pete is calling timeouts as the Niners got into FG range at that point. Until then, it was realistic that we could've stopped them and won the game. When they got into FG range, he started calling timeouts thinking the defense could stop the Niners.
What people aren't seeing is that we didn't stop their offense. It doesn't matter when you call timeouts, they're still chewing up all tha clock either way. In other words, in hindsight, they are going to chew up the clock in front of your timeouts, or in back of them. Calling them early and getting a stop gives you a lot more time with no timeouts, or you're going to get maybe 1 minute, and 1 timeout.

Granted, that 1st timeout call was terrible. Was that Pete or Wilson though ?

Bad gamble. Pete makes too many game management decisions based on subjective, emotional criteria like believing he can stop them from gaining 9 yards on two plays rather than taking an objective look at the odds. The odds in that situation dictated waiting until just before the 2 minute warning to call your timeouts, which is why 90% of the coaches in a similar situation will wait until then to call them.

People seem to be missing the point that 49ers are either going to burn 40 seconds when there's still 3:30 left or when there's 2 minutes left. Pete did the exact RIGHT thing by calling timeouts in order to give his team over 2:30 with a stop at the 2 minute warning. Seattle bungled the 3rd and 7 (sort of), and that was the end of it. People need to look at the process rather than the results. The defense blew chunks on that last stand. It happens.

 

[RiverDog]

It was 2nd and 9 with 3:30 left when Pete called TO #2. If he holds onto the timeouts, the Niners run two more plays, both ahead of the two minute warning, and the clock stops at 2 minutes if they don't make it. They kick the FG, we end up with two timeouts and around 1:50 left to play, or basically the same situation as not having the timeouts and 3 minutes or so to play on his chosen option.

The big difference comes if the Niners convert, which they did. If the Niners convert on 3rd down, we call TO #2 on first down ahead of the two minute warning, clock stops at 2 minutes on second down, we call our 3rd TO with just under 2 minutes on 3rd down. They run one more play, taking the clock down to around 1:00 on 4th down. We get the ball back with a minute back vs. 20 seconds, and save enough time for at least 3-4 extra plays than we had vs. the option Pete chose.

That's why coaches almost always wait until the 2 minute warning area before burning their TO's on defense.