Mac Can't Manage the Game

[RiverDog]

Here's the game situation: First half, Pittsburgh has the ball inside the Hawk's 10, 1st and goal, clock running with just over 3 minutes left in the half. Hawks have all their timeouts. Steelers call a running play, Seahawks tackle the runner at the 3-yard line at 2:15 left in the half, so it's 2nd and goal from the 3, two-minute warning. Steelers run another running play, Hawks stuff it at the 3, 3rd and goal, clock continues to run. Steelers score on 3rd down with 1:09 left in the half.

If the Seahawks start using their timeouts when the Steelers had the ball 1st and goal at just over 3 minutes, even if Pittsburgh runs 3 straight running plays, we get the ball back ahead of the two-minute warning, unless the Steelers run some sort of play that eats up 15-20 seconds, pretty unlikely inside the 10.

As it turned out, we got the ball back with just 1:09 left in the half. It didn't make a huge difference in this game as we ended up punting anyway. But my point is that you have a lot better chance of scoring when you have the ball with 2-2:45 or so left in the half vs. 1:09. You can't do anything with those excess timeouts that we didn't call.

This is what I was talking about last week when we opted to kick the FG with the ball on the SF 19 without even trying to line up and pull the defense offside. Our HC doesn't have his head in the game.

 

[Maulbert]

WTF

 

[Gametime]

Didn’t even read the post. Still know that if you’re whining about this win you need a hug.

 

[RiverDog]

Yeah, not many people are going to notice things like what I posted when we win, much less care about it. Winning cures a lot of evils.

 

[Loganpatch]

 

[JPatera76]

This didn’t age well whatsoever

 

[sutz]

So, you're using hypotheticals to prove how bad we suck? OK...

 

[oldhawkfan]

He did manage a win today so there is that

 

[oldhawkfan]

Here's the game situation: First half, Pittsburgh has the ball inside the Hawk's 10, 1st and goal, clock running with just over 3 minutes left in the half. Hawks have all their timeouts. Steelers call a running play, Seahawks tackle the runner at the 3-yard line at 2:15 left in the half, so it's 2nd and goal from the 3, two-minute warning. Steelers run another running play, Hawks stuff it at the 3, 3rd and goal, clock continues to run. Steelers score on 3rd down with 1:09 left in the half.

If the Seahawks start using their timeouts when the Steelers had the ball 1st and goal at just over 3 minutes, even if Pittsburgh runs 3 straight running plays, we get the ball back ahead of the two-minute warning, unless the Steelers run some sort of play that eats up 15-20 seconds, pretty unlikely inside the 10.

As it turned out, we got the ball back with just 1:09 left in the half. It didn't make a huge difference in this game as we ended up punting anyway. But my point is that you have a lot better chance of scoring when you have the ball with 2-2:45 or so left in the half vs. 1:09. You can't do anything with those excess timeouts that we didn't call.

This is what I was talking about last week when we opted to kick the FG with the ball on the SF 19 without even trying to line up and pull the defense offside. Our HC doesn't have his head in the game.

You do know that no football team ever, anywhere has executed every single play on offense, defense and special teams to perfection in a game? If that’s your standard you might need a different pastime.

 

[Jerhawk]

You’ll get flamed River, but you’re spot on.

Questionable in game decisions hurt the team when it matters most.

 

[CPHawk]

Maybe he wanted to get to the locker room, to calm Darnold down. Why give him another possession before half, to throw another bad INT?

 

[Mad Dog]

Here's the game situation: First half, Pittsburgh has the ball inside the Hawk's 10, 1st and goal, clock running with just over 3 minutes left in the half. Hawks have all their timeouts. Steelers call a running play, Seahawks tackle the runner at the 3-yard line at 2:15 left in the half, so it's 2nd and goal from the 3, two-minute warning. Steelers run another running play, Hawks stuff it at the 3, 3rd and goal, clock continues to run. Steelers score on 3rd down with 1:09 left in the half.

If the Seahawks start using their timeouts when the Steelers had the ball 1st and goal at just over 3 minutes, even if Pittsburgh runs 3 straight running plays, we get the ball back ahead of the two-minute warning, unless the Steelers run some sort of play that eats up 15-20 seconds, pretty unlikely inside the 10.

As it turned out, we got the ball back with just 1:09 left in the half. It didn't make a huge difference in this game as we ended up punting anyway. But my point is that you have a lot better chance of scoring when you have the ball with 2-2:45 or so left in the half vs. 1:09. You can't do anything with those excess timeouts that we didn't call.

This is what I was talking about last week when we opted to kick the FG with the ball on the SF 19 without even trying to line up and pull the defense offside. Our HC doesn't have his head in the game.

1:09 with 3 timeouts is oodles of time to score. 3 minutes with 0 timeouts allows the opposing team to get the ball back with lots of time to extend the lead. MM played it right.

 

[samwize77]

with less time on the clock...but with 3 time outs, it keeps the playbook open for whatever is needed in whatever situation.

 

[KevinGates323]

Posts like these are why 49ers think Seahawks fans are morons

 

[RiverDog]

1:09 with 3 timeouts is oodles of time to score. 3 minutes with 0 timeouts allows the opposing team to get the ball back with lots of time to extend the lead. MM played it right.

Well, at it's an opinion instead of a flame. I think most coaches would rather have had the time vs. the timeouts. You can manage the clock to where you leave the opponent with little time left or w/o their timeouts.

 

[DYLcurry59]

Here's the game situation: First half, Pittsburgh has the ball inside the Hawk's 10, 1st and goal, clock running with just over 3 minutes left in the half. Hawks have all their timeouts. Steelers call a running play, Seahawks tackle the runner at the 3-yard line at 2:15 left in the half, so it's 2nd and goal from the 3, two-minute warning. Steelers run another running play, Hawks stuff it at the 3, 3rd and goal, clock continues to run. Steelers score on 3rd down with 1:09 left in the half.

If the Seahawks start using their timeouts when the Steelers had the ball 1st and goal at just over 3 minutes, even if Pittsburgh runs 3 straight running plays, we get the ball back ahead of the two-minute warning, unless the Steelers run some sort of play that eats up 15-20 seconds, pretty unlikely inside the 10.

As it turned out, we got the ball back with just 1:09 left in the half. It didn't make a huge difference in this game as we ended up punting anyway. But my point is that you have a lot better chance of scoring when you have the ball with 2-2:45 or so left in the half vs. 1:09. You can't do anything with those excess timeouts that we didn't call.

This is what I was talking about last week when we opted to kick the FG with the ball on the SF 19 without even trying to line up and pull the defense offside. Our HC doesn't have his head in the game.

This is like when I would criticize Pete for stupid things he did in games that we would win and I felt like it was time for him to go, I would get blasted…when the same things came back to bite us in the ass during losses, people finally came around.

 

[RiverDog]

This is like when I would criticize Pete for stupid things he did in games that we would win and I would get blasted…when the same things came back to bite us in the ass during losses, people finally came around.

Yeah, I composed the post at halftime when we were behind 14-7. We were tied going into the 4th quarter when I copied, pasted, and posted it, and I thought to myself that if we won, I was going to get blasted. And sure enough....

Winning cures everything....except for amnesia.

 

[kidhawk]

I said it at the time but it bares repeating… if we’d used timeouts then we risked giving them the ball back with time to score whether we score or not. We had timeouts and plenty of time to get down the field. There was nothing wrong with the timeout calls in that situation.

 

[Gametime]

I guess I’m just having trouble wrapping my head around a thread of criticism for a 2 TD win on the road without a few pieces on defense. We won right? Is every decision and game perfect. Hell no. But man. If you weren’t excited about the turnaround from last week then why even watch?

 

[getnasty]

1:09 with 3 timeouts is oodles of time to score. 3 minutes with 0 timeouts allows the opposing team to get the ball back with lots of time to extend the lead. MM played it right.

This is the exact reason he didn't call it after first down. The last thing you want is to give up a score then go 3 and out and risk giving up another. I think it was played right.