Why on earth did pete not call time out?

Swedishhawkfan

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
1,427
Reaction score
0
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

New member
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
2,110
Reaction score
0
whatever, i just want to forget everything i saw. just happy for the W
 

seabowl

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
5,388
Reaction score
2,614
Coaches get caught up in the moment but they need someone to handle this in these kind of situations
 

nategreat

Well-known member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
1,749
Reaction score
42
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

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
911
Reaction score
22
Location
Denver, Colorado
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

New member
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
221
Reaction score
0
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

Well-known member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
1,749
Reaction score
42
largenutz":2fglyvvo said:
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

New member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
419
Reaction score
0
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

New member
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Messages
180
Reaction score
0
Location
Vancouver, BC
Dietrich":miy1fumd said:
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

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
6,429
Reaction score
820
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

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
3,339
Reaction score
0
CortezKennedyfan":1j1f9ayo said:
Dietrich":1j1f9ayo said:
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.
 

Happy

New member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
8,656
Reaction score
0
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

New member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
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

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
3,339
Reaction score
0
sadhappy":20u5u8m0 said:
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

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
5,557
Reaction score
1,352
Location
Bothell
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

Active member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
17,109
Reaction score
1
Location
Portland, OR
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

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2013
Messages
3,798
Reaction score
1,265
Location
Phoenix az
jkitsune":29d5vthx said:
sadhappy":29d5vthx said:
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

New member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
419
Reaction score
0
jkitsune":2fqanr7r said:
CortezKennedyfan":2fqanr7r said:
Dietrich":2fqanr7r said:
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

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2013
Messages
2,559
Reaction score
47
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.
 
Top