Why on earth did pete not call time out?

[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.

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.

I'm quoting your post, but several people have said the same thing. I don't really understand why his level of faith matters. Your odds of winning the game after a Rams score are higher if you have 1:00 than if you have 0:00. Doesn't matter how good your offense is.

I get the penalty thing. The problem with the above poster who said he was 'forcing them to call it on the fly' is that the Rams had timeouts. So they just let the clock run down and then call a timeout anyways. We left them with total control of the clock and IMO didn't get the benefit of 'rushing' them to call the play. To me, it only makes sense to let the clock tick if that's your thinking if the Rams can't stop the clock on their own. Am I crazy?

 

[HawkAroundTheClock]

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

Yep. Balls of brass. Trust in the D. They did it. Celebrate.

 

[Hawken-Dazs]

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.

I see it as confidence in the defense to get the job done.

 

[AgentDib]

The problem with the above poster who said he was 'forcing them to call it on the fly' is that the Rams had timeouts. So they just let the clock run down and then call a timeout anyways.

Which seems obvious with the benefit of hindsight, but be honest. Did you know for sure that the Rams were going to call a timeout there?

 

[bigwrm]

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

Yes, but you need to be prepared in case they don't get it done, which they nearly didn't. If the Rams had gotten that extra yard would you still feel ok about letting the clock run down? Fischer was trying to use up the entire clock. We should have used our timeouts to prevent him from doing that.

 

[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.

I see it as confidence in the defense to get the job done.

Certainly that would be one way to look at it.

The reason why I stated it the way I did was based on the math alone your best bet is to try and save some time for your offense in case the rams score. In this case, pete was playing the situation and he determined that his best chance to win was to put the game in the hands of the defense. That's an unusual decision and speaks to the ineffectiveness of the offense. Ergo my statement.

 

[jkitsune]

The problem with the above poster who said he was 'forcing them to call it on the fly' is that the Rams had timeouts. So they just let the clock run down and then call a timeout anyways.

Which seems obvious with the benefit of hindsight, but be honest. Did you know for sure that the Rams were going to call a timeout there?

Yes, because of course they're not going to rush the last play of the game if they don't have to. They hadn't even lined up as if they were going to snap the ball. This is far from the most egregious problem with our play tonight, but as another poster pointed out, :30 was enough to drive and get a FG to beat us in Atlanta last year. Those seconds matter. I'm super proud of Browner (and the pass rush) for that 4th down stop, and I'm proud of a 4-1 road record and the ability to win ugly road games that we lost last year, but everyone could stand to clean up their performance a bit.

 

[BlueTalon]

How about this for a reason? Fisher let the clock wind down to 4 seconds before calling that time-out. If the Rams committed a procedural penalty, that would mean a 10 second run-off -- and if they don't have another time-out to use to save the run-off, the game ends right there.

OTOH, if we were to have called time-outs earlier in the drive, then we would have done the Rams a huge favor and allowed them to continue their drive.


I don't think that much thought went into it, but I do see that as a legitimate factor in their reasoning.

 

[pocketprotector]

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.

No it didn't. The Rams called timeouts after they let the clock run down. They had their time to draw up the plays. Unlike Pete, Fisher was smart enough to realize that leaving no time on the clock was bad thing for Seattle.

 

[Polaris]

I think it was Pete's vote of no confidence in Bevel at that point. Frankly that was my thought. I was GLAD to see the clock run down and have it in the hand of their offence vs our defense. In the Red Zone, the 'hawks had been winning that particular matchup all night long, and we won it again when it mattered.

Everywhere else, the Rams outplayed the 'hawks. Bottom line.

 

[jkitsune]

How about this for a reason? Fisher let the clock wind down to 4 seconds before calling that time-out. If the Rams committed a procedural penalty, that would mean a 10 second run-off -- and if they don't have another time-out to use to save the run-off, the game ends right there.

OTOH, if we were to have called time-outs earlier in the drive, then we would have done the Rams a huge favor and allowed them to continue their drive.


I don't think that much thought went into it, but I do see that as a legitimate factor in their reasoning.

Isn't there only a runoff if the clock is winding at the time of the penalty? That is, if the clock was stopped due to a timeout, then there was a procedural penalty, there would be no runoff?

 

[Polaris]

How about this for a reason? Fisher let the clock wind down to 4 seconds before calling that time-out. If the Rams committed a procedural penalty, that would mean a 10 second run-off -- and if they don't have another time-out to use to save the run-off, the game ends right there.

OTOH, if we were to have called time-outs earlier in the drive, then we would have done the Rams a huge favor and allowed them to continue their drive.


I don't think that much thought went into it, but I do see that as a legitimate factor in their reasoning.

Isn't there only a runoff if the clock is winding at the time of the penalty? That is, if the clock was stopped due to a timeout, then there was a procedural penalty, there would be no runoff?

I believe that's right. However I think Fischer was foolish to run it down to four seconds. Four seconds is one play. If you commit a penalty that isn't procedural, it's game over. You don't have any time left. I would have let it run down to apprx 11 seconds just in case of such a penalty.

 

[bigwrm]

How about this for a reason? Fisher let the clock wind down to 4 seconds before calling that time-out. If the Rams committed a procedural penalty, that would mean a 10 second run-off -- and if they don't have another time-out to use to save the run-off, the game ends right there.

OTOH, if we were to have called time-outs earlier in the drive, then we would have done the Rams a huge favor and allowed them to continue their drive.


I don't think that much thought went into it, but I do see that as a legitimate factor in their reasoning.

Isn't there only a runoff if the clock is winding at the time of the penalty? That is, if the clock was stopped due to a timeout, then there was a procedural penalty, there would be no runoff?

They still had a timeout left so it wouldn't have mattered. Anyway, if Pete is trying to run down the clock in case the Ram's commit a penalty instead of giving the offense a chance to get the ball back if there's a score, then he's really overthinking things. In this case I think he was just focused on stopping them and not really thinking ahead.

 

[Zebulon Dak]

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

Yes, but you need to be prepared in case they don't get it done, which they nearly didn't. If the Rams had gotten that extra yard would you still feel ok about letting the clock run down? Fischer was trying to use up the entire clock. We should have used our timeouts to prevent him from doing that.

Our offense wasn't going anywhere. The D was gonna win or lose this game at that point. I'm 100% ok with how that was handled.

 

[AgentDib]

This topic is also comparable to Pete's penchant for playing out the last possession of the first half safely rather than taking a risk, even to the point of kneeling it out. Statistically the wrong call, but a sign of how much faith he puts on the defense and a fundamental mistrust of the offense not to screw things up. He worries about things that are hard to quantify, like taking momentum into half time, and while I often disagree it would be foolish to overlook the intangibles completely.

The intangible here would be letting the defense know that Pete was trusting them to make the stop. It's hard to put a value on that, but I can see how Pete would rate it higher than the (seemingly low) chance our offense would come through.

 

[Dietrich]

I get the penalty thing. The problem with the above poster who said he was 'forcing them to call it on the fly' is that the Rams had timeouts. So they just let the clock run down and then call a timeout anyways. We left them with total control of the clock and IMO didn't get the benefit of 'rushing' them to call the play. To me, it only makes sense to let the clock tick if that's your thinking if the Rams can't stop the clock on their own. Am I crazy?

You're not crazy at all. Yes, your odds of winning the game are higher having 1 minute on the clock opposed to 0:00 but that's not what's in question here. I think the odds you have to compare are the odds of the SEA getting a goal-line stop AGAINST the odds of SEA making a game-winning drive with a minute (or possibly less) left.

Here's where the level of faith in the offense comes into play. If Pete thought the offense was more capable today, perhaps he would have called timeouts as opposed to letting the defense ride it out. Using the timeouts would have left potential time on the clock if a personal foul call had been made against SEA (i.e. hypothetically, PI called on that last 4th down pass). I think Pete knew how tired the defense was (STL's TOP was +16min and ran 31 more plays), he didn't want to have to rely on the defense making a few more goal-line stops if a personal foul was called.

 

[mikeak]

Proper timeouts start before the last set if down. Rams need a touchdown so you "know" they will pass in some plays. Proper called timeouts would have given us the ball back with at least one timeout left.

All we would have needed was a FG. That happens all the time with a minute left (ask Detroit)

The ONLY reason not to call is being scared of flags as pointed out.

So if flags were considered fine there is a reason (I may not like it but I am not the HC). If that wasn't the reason then major mental mistakes on several downs.

 

[bestfightstory]

Everybody at the bar with me was saying the same thing.

I calmly told them Carroll was correct.

 

[DanBug22]

1st and goal with 50 something seconds left...

That's the situation the Rams were in on that last drive. My issue!?!? We have three timeouts left and don't use ONE!!! If Rams somehow get past our D and we use a timeout on each play we would have at least 30 seconds left to get down the field for a tying/winning FG.

Not going to lie, anyone who plays Madden knows this and was probably screaming at their TVs like I was.

I'm no NFL caliber coach but I do know that a chance to win is better than letting all the time go off the clock with three timeouts in their back pocket. It's near impossible but the Lions drove the ball on Sunday and score a TD with about 40 seconds and no timeouts.

Glad it didn't come to this but Pete needs to be prepared and not get caught up in the moment

 

[Zebulon Dak]

LOL at the idea that Coach was "caught up in the moment".