Siouxhawk
New member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2015
- Messages
- 3,776
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi all,
If I missed this in all of the rehashing from Sunday's game, I'm sorry, but don't you agree that it was odd and harmful that the Hawks twice had to burn a timeout in the final 2 minutes because the play clock was running down? What was going on there? And how crucial would it have been to be sitting on 3 timeouts and the ball at the 1 -- perhaps then it is a no-brainer to just keep feeding the Beast.
The only explanation I heard from Pete was following the Kearse juggling catch when he said time was burnt as they were watching the replays to make sure Jermaine caught the ball. But I find that a very non-assertive approach. Why take a wait-and-see attitude when the ruling on the field was that it was a catch. Heck, Kearse even got out of bounds to stop the clock. The offense should have hustled up to the 5 to run the eventual play where Marshawn got down to the 1.
Then they'd be sitting pretty with all 3 of their timeouts left. Just my take.
If I missed this in all of the rehashing from Sunday's game, I'm sorry, but don't you agree that it was odd and harmful that the Hawks twice had to burn a timeout in the final 2 minutes because the play clock was running down? What was going on there? And how crucial would it have been to be sitting on 3 timeouts and the ball at the 1 -- perhaps then it is a no-brainer to just keep feeding the Beast.
The only explanation I heard from Pete was following the Kearse juggling catch when he said time was burnt as they were watching the replays to make sure Jermaine caught the ball. But I find that a very non-assertive approach. Why take a wait-and-see attitude when the ruling on the field was that it was a catch. Heck, Kearse even got out of bounds to stop the clock. The offense should have hustled up to the 5 to run the eventual play where Marshawn got down to the 1.
Then they'd be sitting pretty with all 3 of their timeouts left. Just my take.