Why on earth did pete not call time out?

[Swedishhawkfan]

it would be 4th down anyways. They have one shot to score. Only way time is a factor is if they score and we need to get a field goal, so conserving time is the only reasonable option. I guess there might be certain situations with penalties and such where it would be good for us to have little time on the clock, but you gotta go with the odds

 

[Lithium]

whatever, i just want to forget everything i saw. just happy for the W

 

[seabowl]

Coaches get caught up in the moment but they need someone to handle this in these kind of situations

 

[nategreat]

Exactly. As soon as it was first and goal, I thought we we should have started using our time outs. Luckily, St. Louis used a couple. But why we didn't call one on 4th down, and stop the clock is beyond me. If they score, I would rather have a shot to run down the field and kick a game winning field goal. But maybe that's just me.... (haha)

 

[largenutz]

I couldnt understand that either, the whole time im watching clock go down, and panicing. Maybe one of the other greater football minds on here can explain.

 

[bigwrm]

Terrible clock management. They should used them even earlier when it was clear the Rams were just winding the clock down. Didn't end up making a difference today but it could cost us a game later when it really matters.

 

[nategreat]

I couldnt understand that either, the whole time im watching clock go down, and panicing. Maybe one of the other greater football minds on here can explain.

I honestly don't think there is a good explanation. There is absolutely NO reason not to in this situation.

 

[Dietrich]

The only reason I can come up with is running down the clock gives the Rams less time on the clock if they were to receive a fresh set of downs due to a seahawk's personal foul. Considering the amount of penalties called in this game, I can't blame him for worrying about that.

 

[CortezKennedyfan]

The only reason I can come up with is running down the clock gives the Rams less time on the clock if they were to receive a fresh set of downs due to a seahawk's personal foul. Considering the amount of penalties called in this game, I can't blame him for worrying about that.

Exactly.

A PI call gives them 4 more chances from in close.

 

[mistaowen]

There is no reason for him not to call a timeout. We had 3 still and we stopped him with about 20 seconds left. They either score or turn the ball over with around 17 seconds left.

 

[jkitsune]

The only reason I can come up with is running down the clock gives the Rams less time on the clock if they were to receive a fresh set of downs due to a seahawk's personal foul. Considering the amount of penalties called in this game, I can't blame him for worrying about that.

Exactly.

A PI call gives them 4 more chances from in close.

I doubt that was the thought process. In that scenario, you want to preserve as much time on the clock as possible so that you can have time to come back and kick a FG. If he had used his three TOs instead of sitting on them, the Rams could've only run the clock down to about 1:00 left, which is plenty of time.

It's a mistake that a ton of coaches in this league make, same as not calling TOs before the 2-minute warning.

 

[Zebulon Dak]

He trusted his D to get the job done. I like it.

 

[Happy]

I think it was a vote of no confidence in the offense on Pete's part.

Some coaches are going to get their asses chewed over this.

 

[47degreesn]

I could see Pete not calling a timeout in case of a penalty for a fresh new set of downs. Say for example, pass interference at the goalline or Roughing the Passer resulting in an automatic first down. If that were the case, you had time working against the Rams vs just downs.

 

[jkitsune]

I think it was a vote of no confidence in the offense on Pete's part.

Some coaches are going to get their asses chewed over this.

That doesn't really make sense though. No matter how bad your offense is, you have a greater chance of coming back for a game-winning FG if it's on the field with the ball than if it isn't.

I'd be really interested to see if some stathead has crunched some numbers on what the risk/reward is for not calling TOs in this situation. Seems to me like a penalty for a first down is fluky enough that you'd want to take the extra time.

 

[AgentDib]

Pete should have called a timeout, but I agree with sadhappy that he had a rationale for not calling it. Fischer let the clock run down on their drive rather than punching it down quickly for a chance at multiple field goals, and Pete took him up on his challenge of one possession to win or lose the game. Let's not forget that a timeout also gives their offense more time to draw stuff up and I am not surprised in the least that we went all in with our defense at the end there.

 

[Sarlacc83]

Because he trusted the defense, and he was telling them to win it. Even if he calls the timeouts and there's 20 seconds on the clock, do you really think the offense is driving the length of the field?

Even more importantly, calling timeouts would have given the Rams more time to come up with something tricky. They forced Schottenheimer to call it on the fly, and he messed it up damn good. It was a ballsy call, and in my opinion, the absolute right one.

 

[Hawkpower]

I think it was a vote of no confidence in the offense on Pete's part.

Some coaches are going to get their asses chewed over this.

That doesn't really make sense though. No matter how bad your offense is, you have a greater chance of coming back for a game-winning FG if it's on the field with the ball than if it isn't.

I'd be really interested to see if some stathead has crunched some numbers on what the risk/reward is for not calling TOs in this situation. Seems to me like a penalty for a first down is fluky enough that you'd want to take the extra time.

Do you really think our offense was going to orchestrate a two minute drill with the Rams pinning their ears back?

Pete wanted the game to end exactly as it did. Defense wins it or loses it.

 

[Dietrich]

The only reason I can come up with is running down the clock gives the Rams less time on the clock if they were to receive a fresh set of downs due to a seahawk's personal foul. Considering the amount of penalties called in this game, I can't blame him for worrying about that.

Exactly.

A PI call gives them 4 more chances from in close.

I doubt that was the thought process. In that scenario, you want to preserve as much time on the clock as possible so that you can have time to come back and kick a FG. If he had used his three TOs instead of sitting on them, the Rams could've only run the clock down to about 1:00 left, which is plenty of time.

It's a mistake that a ton of coaches in this league make, same as not calling TOs before the 2-minute warning.

You're probably right, and I agree that the usual logic would suggest preserving as much time as possible. This game wasn't typical though, I think letting the clock run was their best bet for the following reasons:
1. Officials were pretty flag happy tonight, a personal foul call wouldn't have been surprising at all.
2. Pete trusted the defense to make the stop. Remember it's Clemens in at QB too.
3. The offense had zero ability to get anything done tonight, don't think Pete had faith they could score with a minute or so left.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

I had no problem with that.

It was coming down to our defense versus their offense. Giving them fewer chances favors us. Not only that, but the pressure is heightened on both sides. Our defense has handled pressure superbly all season. Coaches understand it's a game played by people. And he trusted we'd handle the pressure of a winner take all situation rather than the Rams.