Why do the eagles use their timouts with 4 minutes left? (1 Viewer)

[CaptainHook]

Here's where the eagles used their 3 timeouts today:

2nd-3, PHI46 4:25 A. Bradshaw rushed to the left for 2 yard gain

3rd-1, PHI44 4:15 A. Bradshaw rushed to the right for 2 yard gain

1st-10, PHI42 4:02 A. Bradshaw rushed to the left for 4 yard gain

2nd-6, PHI38 3:56 NY Giants committed 5 yard penalty

Why??????

I've seen them do this before and I don't understand it at all. They shouldn't know for sure that they WANT all that time on the clock. 2 minutes and 3 TO's is an eternity and lets you have much more control over how much time the other team gets. What exactly is their angle here?

I don't think any other teams do this and the Eagles never did it before this year.

It horribly backfired today as they tied it up with 1:16 left in the game.

then it rebackfired and they won but can someone explain what they are thinking ?

 

[CaptainHook]

oh good...im not the only one wondering this... http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index...19130422AALpsfM

 

[Please See Mine]

Here's where the eagles used their 3 timeouts today: 2nd-3, PHI46 4:25 A. Bradshaw rushed to the left for 2 yard gain 3rd-1, PHI44 4:15 A. Bradshaw rushed to the right for 2 yard gain 1st-10, PHI42 4:02 A. Bradshaw rushed to the left for 4 yard gain 2nd-6, PHI38 3:56 NY Giants committed 5 yard penalty Why??????I've seen them do this before and I don't understand it at all. They shouldn't know for sure that they WANT all that time on the clock. 2 minutes and 3 TO's is an eternity and lets you have much more control over how much time the other team gets. What exactly is their angle here? I don't think any other teams do this and the Eagles never did it before this year.It horribly backfired today as they tied it up with 1:16 left in the game. then it rebackfired and they won but can someone explain what they are thinking ?

i know! they almost didn't even win today!

 

[Mr. Retukes]

Andy Reid is notoriously bad at clock management.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Here's where the eagles used their 3 timeouts today: 2nd-3, PHI46 4:25 A. Bradshaw rushed to the left for 2 yard gain 3rd-1, PHI44 4:15 A. Bradshaw rushed to the right for 2 yard gain 1st-10, PHI42 4:02 A. Bradshaw rushed to the left for 4 yard gain 2nd-6, PHI38 3:56 NY Giants committed 5 yard penalty Why??????I've seen them do this before and I don't understand it at all. They shouldn't know for sure that they WANT all that time on the clock. 2 minutes and 3 TO's is an eternity and lets you have much more control over how much time the other team gets. What exactly is their angle here? I don't think any other teams do this and the Eagles never did it before this year.It horribly backfired today as they tied it up with 1:16 left in the game. then it rebackfired and they won but can someone explain what they are thinking ?

Normally I'm a huge critic of Andy Reid's clock management - but in this case they got it right.You are always - ALWAYS - better off taking timeouts on defense vs. offense. Simple clock management tells you that the offense can run 40+ seconds every play if they snap it with 1-2 seconds on the play clock.Calling time outs on defense served two purposes here:1. Maximize clock left to continue the comeback effort2. Maximize the time savings by using the TOs on defenseGetting the ball back with zero timeouts but with the most time available makes sense - regardless of when you call the timeouts.Think of the opposite plan - waiting to call timeouts until 2:00 and then use them. If you stop the offense in <3 plays and force a punt, you're at least 40 seconds worse off than you would have been if you had used them earlier. Trading a TO for 40 seconds makes perfect sense to me.

 

[CaptainHook]

But you're assuming that you definitely WANT the 40 seconds. As we saw today, they had to give the ball back to the Giants after tying the game with 1:16 left on the clock. I don't see how this could be anything but a mistake.

In my opinion you don't have a clear enough picture of how the rest of the game will play out when there are 4 minutes left.

Do you think their chances of scoring go up dramatically by having 3 to 3.5 minutes and no timeouts rather than 2 minutes and 3 timeouts? I don't, but I could be persuaded if there was some statistical info out there.

A decent explanation I can come up with is Andy just cutting his losses after realizing that he can't do lategame time management and choosing a non-cerebral solution that isn't terrible.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

But you're assuming that you definitely WANT the 40 seconds. As we saw today, they had to give the ball back to the Giants after tying the game with 1:16 left on the clock. I don't see how this could be anything but a mistake.In my opinion you don't have a clear enough picture of how the rest of the game will play out when there are 4 minutes left. Do you think their chances of scoring go up dramatically by having 3 to 3.5 minutes and no timeouts rather than 2 minutes and 3 timeouts? I don't, but I could be persuaded if there was some statistical info out there. A decent explanation I can come up with is Andy just cutting his losses after realizing that he can't do lategame time management and choosing a non-cerebral solution that isn't terrible.

Hindsight is 20-20.There's 3 possible outcomes here. The Giants have the ball and 4:25 to play. Forget that - let's just go with a team trailing by 7 with 4-5 minutes to go.The 3 scenarios assuming that the defense eventually stops them and gets the offense a final possession:1. Call all 3 timeouts on defense (assuming the clock runs after each play) - and get a 3-and-out. Offense gets the ball back with no timeouts but over 3 minutes to play to go get 7 points.2. Call all 3 timeouts on defense but offense picks up a first down. Defense eventually gets the ball back with maybe 1-2 minutes to play and zero timeouts remain.3. Wait to call the timeouts until 2:00 to go. Defense makes the stop and starts calling time outs. Under 2 minutes remain and team has 0-2 timeouts to tie the contest.Since you cannot predict which of the three are the eventual outcome, #1 gives you the most time to get a tying score - which is the goal knowing that the offense must score to hopefully get the game into overtime.As to how much time you leave the leading team after you tie the game, that's secondary to getting the tying score by a big margin. Scoring is far more important, because otherwise you have no chance to win.

 

[CaptainHook]

2nd-3, PHI46 4:25 A. Bradshaw rushed to the left for 2 yard gain

I'm completely convinced the timeout after this play is awful.

scenario one: eagles stop them on 3rd-1 and get the ball back with ~2:45 and 3 timeouts. I don't see how it would be better to have 4:05 and 1 timeout.

scenario two: eagles let up a first down on the next play and can now start saving 40 seconds per play.

 

[delusional]

Cause Reid has the worse time management skills in the league.

 

[njherdfan]

But you're assuming that you definitely WANT the 40 seconds. As we saw today, they had to give the ball back to the Giants after tying the game with 1:16 left on the clock. I don't see how this could be anything but a mistake.In my opinion you don't have a clear enough picture of how the rest of the game will play out when there are 4 minutes left. Do you think their chances of scoring go up dramatically by having 3 to 3.5 minutes and no timeouts rather than 2 minutes and 3 timeouts? I don't, but I could be persuaded if there was some statistical info out there. A decent explanation I can come up with is Andy just cutting his losses after realizing that he can't do lategame time management and choosing a non-cerebral solution that isn't terrible.

I'm not sure if I understand the first sentence of your statement. You're saying that it was bad clock management because the Eagles ended up having to give the ball back after tying the game? If that's the case, I disagree because you can't plan around the assumption that your team is going to score in a certain amount of time. You always want to get the ball back amount with the most amount of time to give you the best chance to tie the score, and then take whatever happens afterwards as it happens.I think when you're trailing, you always want to conserve as many seconds as possible.

 

[phillyphan07]

2nd-3, PHI46 4:25 A. Bradshaw rushed to the left for 2 yard gain I'm completely convinced the timeout after this play is awful.scenario one: eagles stop them on 3rd-1 and get the ball back with ~2:45 and 3 timeouts. I don't see how it would be better to have 4:05 and 1 timeout.scenario two: eagles let up a first down on the next play and can now start saving 40 seconds per play.

40 seconds is 40 seconds... it doesn't matter if you take the timeout on 2 and 3 or 1st and 10...

 

[Saint]

Jeff --

I agree with your points on using them on defense.. HOWEVER, even if you have to admit that Reid is absolutely HORRIBLE on his clock management. That has been his wrap for the last decade. My guess is he didn't want to be back against the wall with less than 2 minutes left.

Frankly, I was just happy they didn't take a timeout when it was 3rd and long this week.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Here's where the eagles used their 3 timeouts today: 2nd-3, PHI46 4:25 A. Bradshaw rushed to the left for 2 yard gain 3rd-1, PHI44 4:15 A. Bradshaw rushed to the right for 2 yard gain 1st-10, PHI42 4:02 A. Bradshaw rushed to the left for 4 yard gain 2nd-6, PHI38 3:56 NY Giants committed 5 yard penalty Why??????I've seen them do this before and I don't understand it at all. They shouldn't know for sure that they WANT all that time on the clock. 2 minutes and 3 TO's is an eternity and lets you have much more control over how much time the other team gets. What exactly is their angle here? I don't think any other teams do this and the Eagles never did it before this year.It horribly backfired today as they tied it up with 1:16 left in the game. then it rebackfired and they won but can someone explain what they are thinking ?

To quote Andy Reid: "Just enjoy the win man."

 

[Insein]

But you're assuming that you definitely WANT the 40 seconds. As we saw today, they had to give the ball back to the Giants after tying the game with 1:16 left on the clock. I don't see how this could be anything but a mistake.In my opinion you don't have a clear enough picture of how the rest of the game will play out when there are 4 minutes left. Do you think their chances of scoring go up dramatically by having 3 to 3.5 minutes and no timeouts rather than 2 minutes and 3 timeouts? I don't, but I could be persuaded if there was some statistical info out there. A decent explanation I can come up with is Andy just cutting his losses after realizing that he can't do lategame time management and choosing a non-cerebral solution that isn't terrible.

When you're down in the game, there's no guarantee you'll score at all let alone score quickly. So conserving as much time as possible gives you more to work with. You can always design plays to go out of bounds. IF you have the problem of tieing the game too fast well then you better hope your defense can stop them. Which ours did yesterday.

 

[renesauz]

Not sure what the complaint is here. I've long been convinced that it's best to take your timeouts on the front side of the warning, on defense....although I think it's a good idea to save ONE of them until at least closer to the warning in case there's an easy challenge to make.

Lots of legit complaints about Andy....this isn't one of them.

 

[CaptainHook]

Basically his timeout usage after the 2nd-3 is effectively the difference between getting the ball back with 2:45 and 3 timeouts vs 4:05 and 1 timeout.

Can anyone convince me that 4:05 and 1TO gives you a significantly better chance of scoring than 2:45 and 3TO?

I'd imagine the likelihood of scoring is identical, but I'd love to be convinced otherwise.

It DEFINITELY means you'll give the ball back with more time.

I've been enjoying the win, and I think the Eagles have an incredibly smart organization. I've been an Eagles fan forever so I'm obviously OK with poor game clock management. I'm just curious to find out what they are thinking rather than writing them off as idiots.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Jeff -- I agree with your points on using them on defense.. HOWEVER, even if you have to admit that Reid is absolutely HORRIBLE on his clock management. That has been his wrap for the last decade. My guess is he didn't want to be back against the wall with less than 2 minutes left.Frankly, I was just happy they didn't take a timeout when it was 3rd and long this week.

I think you missed this:

...Normally I'm a huge critic of Andy Reid's clock management ....

 

[Mr. Mojo]

I thought his last play call in the first half was textbook moron.

They're inside their own 30, less than 20 seconds, it's 2nd and 9.

Run out the clock!

No they pass and the giants get the fumble and score a quick TD.

Didn't they hear about the Wash/Dallas opening week game???

 

[JAA]

Here's where the eagles used their 3 timeouts today: 2nd-3, PHI46 4:25 A. Bradshaw rushed to the left for 2 yard gain 3rd-1, PHI44 4:15 A. Bradshaw rushed to the right for 2 yard gain 1st-10, PHI42 4:02 A. Bradshaw rushed to the left for 4 yard gain 2nd-6, PHI38 3:56 NY Giants committed 5 yard penalty Why??????I've seen them do this before and I don't understand it at all. They shouldn't know for sure that they WANT all that time on the clock. 2 minutes and 3 TO's is an eternity and lets you have much more control over how much time the other team gets. What exactly is their angle here? I don't think any other teams do this and the Eagles never did it before this year.It horribly backfired today as they tied it up with 1:16 left in the game. then it rebackfired and they won but can someone explain what they are thinking ?

Normally I'm a huge critic of Andy Reid's clock management - but in this case they got it right.You are always - ALWAYS - better off taking timeouts on defense vs. offense. Simple clock management tells you that the offense can run 40+ seconds every play if they snap it with 1-2 seconds on the play clock.Calling time outs on defense served two purposes here:1. Maximize clock left to continue the comeback effort2. Maximize the time savings by using the TOs on defenseGetting the ball back with zero timeouts but with the most time available makes sense - regardless of when you call the timeouts.Think of the opposite plan - waiting to call timeouts until 2:00 and then use them. If you stop the offense in <3 plays and force a punt, you're at least 40 seconds worse off than you would have been if you had used them earlier. Trading a TO for 40 seconds makes perfect sense to me.

this

 

[sartre]

By calling the timeouts early, he also forfeited his option to challenge for those couple of minutes before the 2-minute warning. I thought it was a little early to call them, but it worked out well in the end.

 

[renesauz]

Basically his timeout usage after the 2nd-3 is effectively the difference between getting the ball back with 2:45 and 3 timeouts vs 4:05 and 1 timeout.

Can anyone convince me that 4:05 and 1TO gives you a significantly better chance of scoring than 2:45 and 3TO? I'd imagine the likelihood of scoring is identical, but I'd love to be convinced otherwise.

It DEFINITELY means you'll give the ball back with more time.

I've been enjoying the win, and I think the Eagles have an incredibly smart organization. I've been an Eagles fan forever so I'm obviously OK with poor game clock management. I'm just curious to find out what they are thinking rather than writing them off as idiots.

You need someone to convince you of this incontrovertable fact? NFL teams can run a LOT MORE THAN 2 PLAYS in that 1:20. Timeouts are infinitely more valuable used on defense.

 

[CaptainHook]

Yes I need to be convinced of that because I'm of the belief that both are well above the threshold of time being an issue

 

[Saint]

I think you missed this:

...Normally I'm a huge critic of Andy Reid's clock management ....

I did! Thanks!As I mentioned earlier, I do believe taking the TO on defense is much better as it controls the pace of the opposing defense. My only guess on why they took them at 4:05 is that they saw the Eagles had momentum, and by using the TOs early, the Eagles controlled the pace through TO rather than allowing the NYG offense to set a rhythm. In addition, by getting the ball back with more time remaining, another quick score by the Eagles could continue to rattle the NYG thereby increasing the chances of a muffed kick or potential fumble/interception if the NYG are unsettled. Where, with enough time on the clock, they could potentially put up more points again.To me, it was a mind game call. If the Eagles didn't use the TOs, the Giants would have run apprx 135 seconds off the clock and in their minds, they would have significantly reduced the Eagle chances. By calling the TOs the Eagles took that victory away from the Giants.