What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Explain to me why Jaruan called a timeout at 2:35 (1 Viewer)

biggamer3

Footballguy
Makes ZERO sense to me, if you dont make a play you run the clock down to two minutes or u force Cleveland to call a timeout there.

And just because Romeo started calling Timeouts at 45 seconds you dont HAVE to run the ball 3 straight times

 
haha...it's funny to watch the progression on jauron.

he starts out at genius level and gradually degenerates 'til everyone's screaming about what an idiot he is as he's run out of town.

I've seen it all firsthand in chicago.

 
That call is the LEAST of Jauron's problems. He may actually be worse than Romeo...
But that timeout made no sense, i was with a few buddies and we all said, "what the hell is the point of that"Like someone said at least challenge even though it was clearly down at 1.The timeouts and the runs were all Jaurons fault
 
To answer the OP... it was to avoid a delay of game penalty. The play prior to the timeout was a run down to the 1-yard line by Lynch. That play started at 3:23 (according to nfl.com) and probably took close to ten seconds, thereby starting the 40-second clock at around 3:13.

Either because it was a longer play or because the Bills wanted to see if a challenge was warranted to see if Lynch reached the goalline, the Bills were late getting a play in which led to the timeout.

Running the clock down to 2:00 was not an option. Really, if they had saved the timeout it doesn't make much difference as they still had one in their pocket when they attempted the FG with 0:49 left.

If I was a Bills fan, I'd be more annoyed by the lack of anything more aggressive then three straight runs to get a 47-yard FG attempt into the wind.

 
You're right that the Bills could have used the challenge and it would have been equivalent, but really there's no strategic difference here. Frankly, time management was not the issue tonight. Settling for a long field goal on a fairly cold and somewhat windy mid-November night in Buffalo appeared to be the far greater lapse in judgment to me.

What's really puzzling is ONE PLAY got the Bills down to the Cleveland 34. ONE PLAY. Just think if they could run one more pass play out of their three opportunities. Granted, a sack or interception probably gets the blame game going a different direction, but with the conditions as such, it was more like Buffalo was at the 40 than at the 34...

 
To answer the OP... it was to avoid a delay of game penalty. The play prior to the timeout was a run down to the 1-yard line by Lynch. That play started at 3:23 (according to nfl.com) and probably took close to ten seconds, thereby starting the 40-second clock at around 3:13.

Either because it was a longer play or because the Bills wanted to see if a challenge was warranted to see if Lynch reached the goalline, the Bills were late getting a play in which led to the timeout.

Running the clock down to 2:00 was not an option. Really, if they had saved the timeout it doesn't make much difference as they still had one in their pocket when they attempted the FG with 0:49 left.

If I was a Bills fan, I'd be more annoyed by the lack of anything more aggressive then three straight runs to get a 47-yard FG attempt into the wind.
:confused: This is what killed them. Browns defense was sucking wind and getting beat all 2nd half, and Jauron must have thought "Well, if they can kick a 56 yarder then 47 should be good." Foolish.

 
yeah, I thought that was pretty funny --- they were playing that like they were on the 10 yard line.

 
To answer the OP... it was to avoid a delay of game penalty. The play prior to the timeout was a run down to the 1-yard line by Lynch. That play started at 3:23 (according to nfl.com) and probably took close to ten seconds, thereby starting the 40-second clock at around 3:13.Either because it was a longer play or because the Bills wanted to see if a challenge was warranted to see if Lynch reached the goalline, the Bills were late getting a play in which led to the timeout.Running the clock down to 2:00 was not an option. Really, if they had saved the timeout it doesn't make much difference as they still had one in their pocket when they attempted the FG with 0:49 left.If I was a Bills fan, I'd be more annoyed by the lack of anything more aggressive then three straight runs to get a 47-yard FG attempt into the wind.
If thats the case then you answered my question about the TO, but the 3 straight runs were beyond bad playcalling.Can someone confirm if the Lynch run started at 3:23
 
To answer the OP... it was to avoid a delay of game penalty. The play prior to the timeout was a run down to the 1-yard line by Lynch. That play started at 3:23 (according to nfl.com) and probably took close to ten seconds, thereby starting the 40-second clock at around 3:13.Either because it was a longer play or because the Bills wanted to see if a challenge was warranted to see if Lynch reached the goalline, the Bills were late getting a play in which led to the timeout.Running the clock down to 2:00 was not an option. Really, if they had saved the timeout it doesn't make much difference as they still had one in their pocket when they attempted the FG with 0:49 left.If I was a Bills fan, I'd be more annoyed by the lack of anything more aggressive then three straight runs to get a 47-yard FG attempt into the wind.
If thats the case then you answered my question about the TO, but the 3 straight runs were beyond bad playcalling.Can someone confirm if the Lynch run started at 3:23
:confused:
 
You're right that the Bills could have used the challenge and it would have been equivalent, but really there's no strategic difference here. Frankly, time management was not the issue tonight. Settling for a long field goal on a fairly cold and somewhat windy mid-November night in Buffalo appeared to be the far greater lapse in judgment to me.What's really puzzling is ONE PLAY got the Bills down to the Cleveland 34. ONE PLAY. Just think if they could run one more pass play out of their three opportunities. Granted, a sack or interception probably gets the blame game going a different direction, but with the conditions as such, it was more like Buffalo was at the 40 than at the 34...
wouldnt have been equivalent....could have been called a td and saved them a TO. dont understand how nobody else has figured this out. the challenge goes out the window once the 2 minute mark hits and it goes to booth review. is it possible that i'm that much smarter than jauron?
 
Whats pretty bizarre about the whole situation is that the commentators were ripping Romeo for throwing on second and third down, than now Jauron is getting ripped (rightfully so) for doing the exact opposite.

Just comes to show you, people second guess ANY which way.

For the record i felt running on first is the play and than safe HB passes are the way to go in that situation

 
You're right that the Bills could have used the challenge and it would have been equivalent, but really there's no strategic difference here. Frankly, time management was not the issue tonight. Settling for a long field goal on a fairly cold and somewhat windy mid-November night in Buffalo appeared to be the far greater lapse in judgment to me.What's really puzzling is ONE PLAY got the Bills down to the Cleveland 34. ONE PLAY. Just think if they could run one more pass play out of their three opportunities. Granted, a sack or interception probably gets the blame game going a different direction, but with the conditions as such, it was more like Buffalo was at the 40 than at the 34...
wouldnt have been equivalent....could have been called a td and saved them a TO. dont understand how nobody else has figured this out. the challenge goes out the window once the 2 minute mark hits and it goes to booth review. is it possible that i'm that much smarter than jauron?
I will certainly not rule out the possibility that you are smarter than Jauron.However, it was clear to virtually anyone watching the game that the correct spot was given to Lynch. His knee hit, then his upper body turned, then his arm uncoiled, and even then the ball barely broke the plane...I'm pretty sure people would be quite justified in being upset if Jauron had wasted a timeout there in appearance of a challenge even if the real reason was a play wasn't ready. On the other hand, I have seen strange replay decisions...The reason you "don't understand why everyone else hasn't figured this out" is that everyone else accepted that the Lynch run was short of the goal line and that a challenge would have been unsuccessful. In all seriousness, the bizarre replay rulings I have seen typically involve catch/no catch (or int/no int) and now of course this week forward/backward laterals.In a deeper sense, what I guess I'm not sure about is why with such a wide array of options for which fans can be critical of Jauron, why criticize his time management decisions on a night in which the Bills ended up with one timeout that they didn't even use while the contest was still in doubt? At least tonight, timeouts/clock management was way down the list of potential criticisms.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top