Time Outs for Clock Management

[AubHawk71]

I know it goes against conventional wisdom, but between the Hawks game today, the Lion's loss earlier, and at least two college games yesterday...when you have in the area of 6 minutes left in the game, and you are down by two scores, why wouldn't you use your 3 timeouts try to keep time on the clock? The Hawks ran the clock down against...themselves.

I didn't have a stopwatch, but if I went back the Hawks probably would've had 3 plus minutes left when they tried the obvious onside kick when down by two scores.

Instead, you keep all of your timeouts until the last 40 seconds, hoping upon hope for a last-minute miracle.

Sure, momentum is part of his. Hustle and run and gun. But in all the games I mentioned, there wasn't even that.

Instead, you either use your three timeouts in the last 40 seconds of a game hoping for a miracle or take them into the locker room with you. Granted, player fatigue, an empty play book all factor into it.

I say, just give yourself a little breathing room instead hoping for a no-second OT opp like we saw today.

I welcome all discussion.

 

[getnasty]

Whatever the right answer is Pete and the Hawks always do the opposite. Somebody needs to be hired specifically for clock management and reviewing plays.

 

[rcaido]

Didnt matter we had the chance to score td at the end to try to tie the game. Refs were really bad, was hard to watch.

 

[justafan]

Either way they ended up at the goal line with a chance to tie it up.

 

[JGreen79]

Using the timeouts when they did was 100% correct. The lack of urgency on the drive before not so much.

 

[mikeak]

Because when you have the ball you take 10-39 secs to run the play

When the opponent has it at the end they take 40secs per play

Conventional wisdom is sometimes right

 

[NJlargent]

Using the timeouts when they did was 100% correct. The lack of urgency on the drive before not so much.

This is spot on.

 

[AubHawk71]

Maybe the answer is if you have no answer (players are GASSED or not a lot of plays left in the book) try to draw it out and dust off the old Jack Patera playbook. I know in the corporate NFL culture innovation is frowned upon...but just from recent analysis...holding onto timeouts ain't gettin it done.

 

[AubHawk71]

Using the timeouts when they did was 100% correct. The lack of urgency on the drive before not so much.

I will respectfully disagree with you. It's a fundamental approach to trying to get two scores in the last 6 mins of the game. You don't dink around and run the clock down beyond the two minute warning and hope for a miracle or two. Or maybe you do. At any rate, it hardly ever works. Just sayin'.

 

[mistaowen]

Using the timeouts when they did was 100% correct. The lack of urgency on the drive before not so much.

This is spot on.

Yeah, this along with inability to make 10+ yard plays against a soft zone is a problem. Everything was short and time wasting.

 

[AubHawk71]

I don't see how anything can be 100% correct when you lose the game, but then I was never good at math.

 

[oldhawkfan]

Using the timeouts when they did was 100% correct. The lack of urgency on the drive before not so much.

I will respectfully disagree with you. It's a fundamental approach to trying to get two scores in the last 6 mins of the game. You don't dink around and run the clock down beyond the two minute warning and hope for a miracle or two. Or maybe you do. At any rate, it hardly ever works. Just sayin'.

The ending of the game bore out the evidence that they did use the timeouts correctly. If either Lockett or Moore makes the catch then they have the opportunity to tie the game with a 2 point conversion. If they didn’t use them correctly then that last opportunity to tie the game never would have even been in play.

 

[West TX Hawk]

For once, I was pleased to see Pete keep all the TOs til the end. We could’ve gone quicker tempo much earlier in the 4th or even 3rd, but I had no problem with retaining our TOs under 2 min.

 

[olyfan63]

The 2nd half end of game timeouts were used 100% correctly and did exactly what the Hawks needed them to do.
I do think the team needed to hustle a bit more to get to the line and run plays quicker, save a few seconds here and there, but we had our chance at the end.


The end of 1st half timeouts along with play calls I though were atrocious, run for 3 yards and call a timeout... But, we did get the FG out of it in the end, so a minor factor.

 

[cheese22]

Time outs were used well.
The play calls and the time management was HORRIBLE on the TD drive. Snapping the ball at or below 5 seconds on the play clock, when there's 6 minutes left and you need 2 TD's, is ridiculous.
The fact that they only got one play from 1st and goal is on the coaches and their shitty time management. Not panicking is one thing, but having no urgency is stupid.

 

[olyfan63]

Well said.

 

[AubHawk71]

Seahawks got the ball at 6:38 in the 4th. That's almost half of a quarter! Down two scores. If they had anything going, then sure, run the clock down. Momentum? Nope. Plays? Nope. Clock management? Hellz nope. Instead: Wing and a prayer. Give yourselves a chance to take a breath and regroup.

If you're hoping to score 8 points with literally ZERO seconds on the clock to tie it up...

Clearly you don't want to give the ball back to a QB who has been torching you all day with 3 mins plus left. But, dang. It's better with 1:49 left?

Nah. Nah nah.

 

[AubHawk71]

Actually, upon further review, if you have enough time left on the clock, you don't put your hopes and prayers on an historically terrible onside kicker, but rather your super hot phenom punter to pin them WAY back and get way better field position. You'd think the kicking coach would know the stats, but then I guess Coach would have to listen to him.

 

[rcaido]

Give it up, nothing wrong with the timeouts...

If you want to complain about the play calling & lack of tempo sure but the timeouts were justified. The last play of the game gave them the potential to tie the game.

 

[mrt144]

Actually, upon further review, if you have enough time left on the clock, you don't put your hopes and prayers on an historically terrible onside kicker, but rather your super hot phenom punter to pin them WAY back and get way better field position. You'd think the kicking coach would know the stats, but then I guess Coach would have to listen to him.

One of the weird conundrums of sports is that for so many of the participants and coaches, the stats don't mean much of anything to them in aggregate. Some of that is some puff pastry machismo, some of that is elevating intangibles above all else to be the 'true essence' of the game, some of that is simply being among the trees on a day to day basis that you never get to float up and see the bird's eye view of the forest.

When you look at something like 1 yard QB sneaks and their success rates, you have to wonder why that isn't a defacto way of trying to eek out the 1 integral yard. And there are myriad reasons coaches turn away from it despite success rates. But I think two are primary here.

1. Seeking bigger returns on the play in question. Why go for that 1 yard gain when lining up in a spread no back formation could yield you much more than that? Or what if you go PA pass out of a stacked I formation giving you at least 4 targets? Or why not just pound it forward with a FB or RB? I'd venture a guess that for something like QB sneaks it feels like settling on a high leverage, integral and unimaginative playcall. I would also venture a guess that for a lot of 'football guys', coaching is an extension of ego masturbation and a lot of dudes with playcalling responsibilities want to look smart doing their thing over sense and reason. They don't just want to win, they want to win with their signature on it. Which is hella stupid for the purposes of winning a game.

2. Disbelief that a league wide average possibly covers their team's chances in that scenario. It's one thing to state "QB sneaks convert over 50% of the time" or even "Kickers hit over 75% of their FGs from 39 yards out" but if the HC or OC or DC doesn't think that applies to them individually, they might do something that flies in the face of playing averages. And you know, there might be some rationale to justify it based on the very specific circumstance conjured up in the coaches' minds. But...when you start thinking every possible inflection point is a discrete event with no tie to previous events, future events, what do you really have strategically speaking? When you can disqualify every aggregate stat by saying 'well we don't have THAT horse to do THAT thing in THIS situation' Just whipping your side into a great fervor over 'who wants it more'?

Also, most teams don't have 'kicking coaches' per se. They have a Special Teams Coordinator but most NFL teams egregiously don't have a kicking coach. And it shows.