Why on earth did pete not call time out?

[loafoftatupu]

The defense hadn't allowed a TD all game. The Rams got down there and were stopped before too. The offense hadn't moved the ball. In Wilson's other comeback victories he had either had success on the previous drive or earlier in the game.
Putting it on the defense with tall corners on the short field was the right call. The Rams wanted no clock left and were left with a choice of their own. Backup QB? Run stuff the play before? Yeah, PC knows what he is doing.

 

[bigtrain21]

I have more faith in the defense closing it out and Clemens messing up than I do having our offense drive about 50-60 yards and be able to spike it for the FG team to come out with out any TO's and with only about probably 45 seconds on the clock, especially when considering how the offense played.

It wasn't an either/or proposition. Calling the timeouts does not take away any ability whatsoever, or show any lack of confidence, in the ability of the defense to stop the Rams from scoring a TD.

It could lead to extra chances for their offense though which would have an effect on the defense. Let's say he calls a timeout and there is an automatic first down penalty, with 4 seconds left when that 4th down play starts they get one more play (unless another automatic first down penalty). If he calls the timeout they could potentially get 4 more plays.

I just think given the odds of our offense mounting any sort of drive that you just let the clock run down and take your chances.

 

[RiverDog]

IMO Pete got caught up in the emotion of the game and simply lost track of his role as a game manager.

This is such a stretch. Even if he were "caught up in emotion," he has assistants who are specifically assigned to watch the clock and be in his ear about it. If St. Louis wanted to burn their TOs, let 'em. He wasn't going to do them any favors, because Clemens still had to make at least one play. No, this was a calculated move and it paid off with a W.

Perhaps. I'm not saying it's the God awful truth. I'm just suggesting it as a possibility.

I don't know if you noticed it or not, but Pete probably spends less time with the headphones on than other NFL head coaches. I don't think he does as much real time communicating with his coaching staff as other coaches do and I think it is very possible that they just plain screwed up and didn't think of calling the timeouts. We've seen other coaches get preoccupied and not manage the clock properly. Holmgren used to get preoccupied in his play calling and would let lots of time run off the game clock before deciding to call a timeout. I don't see why it's such a stretch to suggest that the same thing might have happened to Pete.

In any event, I'm not buying the "we wanted to put pressure on their QB" company line we're being fed.

 

[mrblitz]

--If it was a 41 to 36 game and the offense is moving the ball really well I think calling a timeout is a no brainer. That wasn't the case in this game at all.--

good point

 

[DavidSeven]

Perhaps. I'm not saying it's the God awful truth. I'm just suggesting it as a possibility.

I don't know if you noticed it or not, but Pete probably spends less time with the headphones on than other NFL head coaches.

This is totally baseless and probably wholly inaccurate. Google "pete carroll sideline" and tell me how many pictures come up without him with headphones on. You're letting your imagination run too wild.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

I thought it was genius. I even mentioned it to my wife just as the clock went under 2 minutes, that I would let the game unfold and dare St. Louis to try and win it. Our defense is accustomed to making plays in pressure situations. Not calling time outs would speed up the decision making on their part and result in more pressure/mistakes and limit their options.

I know the downside, but the game is played by people who are fallible and react differently to pressure. The Rams are still trying to learn how to win games. We aren't and in particular, we aren't as affected by pressure on the defensive side of the ball.

Pete knows and trusts his defense. I do too. They've come through so often. I like our ability to react faster than that offense.

 

[RiverDog]

Perhaps. I'm not saying it's the God awful truth. I'm just suggesting it as a possibility.

I don't know if you noticed it or not, but Pete probably spends less time with the headphones on than other NFL head coaches.

This is totally baseless and probably wholly inaccurate. Google "pete carroll sideline" and tell me how many pictures come up without him with headphones on. You're letting your imagination run too wild.

"Probably wholly" inaccurate? That's a bit of an oxymoron. If there's "probably" a chance that my impression is inaccurate, then it isn't "wholly" inaccurate. It's an impression, and not something that can be proven or disproven.

I'm not trying to convince you that I am right. I am simply stating what I think could have been an explanation for what I consider to be a gross oversight. I'm not buying the "we wanted to put pressure on Clemens" story.

 

[DavidSeven]

Perhaps. I'm not saying it's the God awful truth. I'm just suggesting it as a possibility.

I don't know if you noticed it or not, but Pete probably spends less time with the headphones on than other NFL head coaches.

This is totally baseless and probably wholly inaccurate. Google "pete carroll sideline" and tell me how many pictures come up without him with headphones on. You're letting your imagination run too wild.

"Probably wholly" inaccurate? That's a bit of an oxymoron. If there's "probably" a chance that my impression is inaccurate, then it isn't "wholly" inaccurate. It's an impression, and not something that can be proven or disproven.

"You're likely completely wrong" is another way to say it. There's nothing contradictory about that statement. Like you said, it can't be proven or dis-proven, unless someone wants to clock the time Pete has headphones on relative to other NFL HCs. But it's more likely that you're completely off-base. Thus, probably wholly inaccurate.

/semantics

 

[RiverDog]

Perhaps. I'm not saying it's the God awful truth. I'm just suggesting it as a possibility.

I don't know if you noticed it or not, but Pete probably spends less time with the headphones on than other NFL head coaches.

This is totally baseless and probably wholly inaccurate. Google "pete carroll sideline" and tell me how many pictures come up without him with headphones on. You're letting your imagination run too wild.

"Probably wholly" inaccurate? That's a bit of an oxymoron. If there's "probably" a chance that my impression is inaccurate, then it isn't "wholly" inaccurate. It's an impression, and not something that can be proven or disproven.

"You're likely completely wrong" is another way to say it. There's nothing contradictory about that statement. Like you said, it can't be proven or dis-proven, unless someone wants to clock the time Pete has headphones on relative to other NFL HCs. But it's more likely that you're completely off-base. Thus, probably wholly inaccurate.

/semantics

LOL! Probably wholly inaccurate? Is that like a definite maybe?

Just giving you some chit....

 

[rideaducati]

I liken it to what Phil Jackson used to do. He rarely called a time out and let his teams play through adverse situations. Pete did the same thing and just like Phil's teams, his team pulled through.

 

[RiverDog]

It happened again this last Sunday. I can't remember if it was at the end of the half or the end of regulation, but we had a situation where Tampa Bay was short of a first down with 32 seconds left yet Pete let the clock run down to 20 seconds (5 seconds were subsequently put back on the clock) before we got the timeout called. Word should have gone out to the ref before the play that if we tackled them inbounds and short of the first down that we wanted to burn a timeout.

I'm not buying the rationalizations. I still say that there are times that for one reason or another, Pete gets distracted and allows these brain farts to happen. 7 seconds might not sound like a lot, but it's an extra play that could make a difference.

 

[AbsolutNET]

I figured he was waiting for them to commit to punting before he called it. No reason to call TO for them if they're going for it. If he calls it and they get the first, we just gave them a couple more shots to win it. At that point in the game, we're playing for OT anyway.

 

[-The Glove-]

I figured he was waiting for them to commit to punting before he called it. No reason to call TO for them if they're going for it. If he calls it and they get the first, we just gave them a couple more shots to win it. At that point in the game, we're playing for OT anyway.

This...you don't ever want to give the other team extra plays.

 

[RiverDog]

I figured he was waiting for them to commit to punting before he called it. No reason to call TO for them if they're going for it. If he calls it and they get the first, we just gave them a couple more shots to win it. At that point in the game, we're playing for OT anyway.

Perhaps. But consider that it was 4th and 3 at the 50 with 32 seconds left in a tie game. Do you honestly think that Tampa Bay was going to run a play under those circumstances? Not converting and giving your opponent just 15 yards to gain for a decent shot at a FG in the last minute of a tie game would have been pure lunacy. Besides, if that was their intent, would not they have called a timeout?

 

[Scottemojo]

Another case of fans parroting announcers, Pete didn't call timeout because Schaino had his offense on the field. If the punt team is on, Pete calls it sooner. As it turns out, Schiano was never going to go for it, and our offense lost a couple of plays, but those couple of plays could have been for the Bucs too. If I was Pete, I would expect an 0-7 team to go for it too. Why give them too much extra time?

With the offensive momentum the Hawks had going, and the fact that they had stopped the Bucs on several drives in a row, playing for overtime was smart. What's the old axiom, play for overtime at home, play for the win on the road? Schiano was the one that flinched by not going for it on 4th down.

 

[AbsolutNET]

I figured he was waiting for them to commit to punting before he called it. No reason to call TO for them if they're going for it. If he calls it and they get the first, we just gave them a couple more shots to win it. At that point in the game, we're playing for OT anyway.

Perhaps. But consider that it was 4th and 3 at the 50 with 32 seconds left in a tie game. Do you honestly think that Tampa Bay was going to run a play under those circumstances? Not converting and giving your opponent just 15 yards to gain for a decent shot at a FG in the last minute of a tie game would have been pure lunacy.

Judging by how OT went, they should have tried to convert the play. I expected Schiano to go for it considering you're an 0-7 team on the road, and "just 15 yards" yourself from winning the game. I would have taken advantage of the type of defense we were playing at that point. Looking back I still think he should have gone for it.

 

[Sarlacc83]

I figured he was waiting for them to commit to punting before he called it. No reason to call TO for them if they're going for it. If he calls it and they get the first, we just gave them a couple more shots to win it. At that point in the game, we're playing for OT anyway.

Perhaps. But consider that it was 4th and 3 at the 50 with 32 seconds left in a tie game. Do you honestly think that Tampa Bay was going to run a play under those circumstances? Not converting and giving your opponent just 15 yards to gain for a decent shot at a FG in the last minute of a tie game would have been pure lunacy. Besides, if that was their intent, would not they have called a timeout?

If you're Schiano, you have to go for it there. It's not even a question. You've been getting your butt handed to you for the past quarter and a half, and you've got zero momentum. It's do or die time, and Schiano reverted to crappy coach.

 

[RiverDog]

Another case of fans parroting announcers, Pete didn't call timeout because Schaino had his offense on the field. If the punt team is on, Pete calls it sooner. As it turns out, Schiano was never going to go for it, and our offense lost a couple of plays, but those couple of plays could have been for the Bucs too. If I was Pete, I would expect an 0-7 team to go for it too. Why give them too much extra time?

With the offensive momentum the Hawks had going, and the fact that they had stopped the Bucs on several drives in a row, playing for overtime was smart. What's the old axiom, play for overtime at home, play for the win on the road? Schiano was the one that flinched by not going for it on 4th down.

On 4th and 3 at midfield in a tie game? No way! You'd have to be a real riverboat gambler to go for it under those circumstances.

Besides, like I said, if it was their intent to go for it, don't you think they would have used one of their own timeouts? They had all 3. The clock was going to stop, it was just a question of who was going to burn the timeout, and each team had 3. Neither of them had a motivation to conserve them.

I'm sorry, but Pete's just not on top of stuff when it comes to game management. It's a weakness of his.

 

[Scottemojo]

Another case of fans parroting announcers, Pete didn't call timeout because Schaino had his offense on the field. If the punt team is on, Pete calls it sooner. As it turns out, Schiano was never going to go for it, and our offense lost a couple of plays, but those couple of plays could have been for the Bucs too. If I was Pete, I would expect an 0-7 team to go for it too. Why give them too much extra time?

With the offensive momentum the Hawks had going, and the fact that they had stopped the Bucs on several drives in a row, playing for overtime was smart. What's the old axiom, play for overtime at home, play for the win on the road? Schiano was the one that flinched by not going for it on 4th down.

On 4th and 3 at midfield in a tie game? No way! You'd have to be a real riverboat gambler to go for it under those circumstances.

Besides, like I said, if it was their intent to go for it, don't you think they would have used one of their own timeouts? They had all 3. I'm sorry, but Pete's just not on top of stuff when it comes to game management. It's a weakness of his.

0-7. Already ran 3 trick plays. A desperate team. It took a few seconds to figure out what they were going to do.
Oh, and did you miss the part where they kept their offense on the field, kinda like a team that might go for it? In your zeal to criticize Pete for not guessing correctly, you are missing that he waited so he didn't have to guess. After a few ticks go by while the TB offense stands on the field doing nothing, it becomes clear TB has no intention of going for it. Then he calls timeout.

Pete is far from perfect near the end of games and halves. However, not every mistake you perceive is tied to some weakness on his part. It is more likely tied to your need to see mistakes by Pete.

 

[RiverDog]

Another case of fans parroting announcers, Pete didn't call timeout because Schaino had his offense on the field. If the punt team is on, Pete calls it sooner. As it turns out, Schiano was never going to go for it, and our offense lost a couple of plays, but those couple of plays could have been for the Bucs too. If I was Pete, I would expect an 0-7 team to go for it too. Why give them too much extra time?

With the offensive momentum the Hawks had going, and the fact that they had stopped the Bucs on several drives in a row, playing for overtime was smart. What's the old axiom, play for overtime at home, play for the win on the road? Schiano was the one that flinched by not going for it on 4th down.

On 4th and 3 at midfield in a tie game? No way! You'd have to be a real riverboat gambler to go for it under those circumstances.

Besides, like I said, if it was their intent to go for it, don't you think they would have used one of their own timeouts? They had all 3. I'm sorry, but Pete's just not on top of stuff when it comes to game management. It's a weakness of his.

0-7. Already ran 3 trick plays. A desperate team. It took a few seconds to figure out what they were going to do.
Oh, and did you miss the part where they kept their offense on the field, kinda like a team that might go for it? In your zeal to criticize Pete for not guessing correctly, you are missing that he waited so he didn't have to guess. After a few ticks go by while the TB offense stands on the field doing nothing, it becomes clear TB has no intention of going for it. Then he calls timeout.

Pete is far from perfect near the end of games and halves. However, not every mistake you perceive is tied to some weakness on his part. It is more likely tied to your need to see mistakes by Pete.

No, I didn't miss that part. Did you miss the part where they had all 3 timeouts with 32 seconds to go? If they intended to go for it, wouldn't they have called a timeout?

Half the stadium, including my two buddies that were with me in attendance, were screaming for Pete to call a timeout. Either he or someone he's assigned to monitor situations like this should have sent the message to all to call a timeout the instant their player hit the ground in bounds and short of the first down. It was a clear oversight, and discussing it doesn't imply non support of Pete or what he's trying to accomplish.

Attack the post, not the poster. My "zeal" to talk about mistakes shouldn't be the issue.