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.

Post here when coaches do something you disagree with (4 Viewers)

So give them the ball with a minute left needing a FG.

or

Give them the ball with about 1:20 left with two TOs needing a TD?

Option 2 is OBVIOUSLY stupid?? Not to mention the possibility Mcfadden just gets the first down rather than score.

Frankly I will take the option of up 7 EVERY time if deciding between those 2 options, let alone it being an obviously stupid decision. Weird.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123 said:
CalBear said:
ghostguy123 said:
I would rather be at the 2 minute warning, have them in 3rd down, and have TWO timeouts rather than be at the 2 minute warning, have them at 3rd down, and have ONE time out.

If the other team just ran a play and the clock is running, do NOT call a time out with 2:42 on the clock. It is a complete waste of a time out because the next play will take it to the 2 minute warning whether you called that time out or not
Click to expand...
Unless the play finishes out of bounds (as it did tonight). Or there's an incomplete pass. Or there's a penalty or injury. Or you call another timeout.
Click to expand...
So yeah, I guess you could try and count on the other team doing something really stupid......................

This doesnt so much apply if you have THREE time outs. If you have one, it is as dumb as it gets.
Click to expand...
If you're ahead, and it's third and 8, and the other team is out of timeouts with 2:42 to play, it's not "really stupid" to call a pass play, even though that pass play may result in an incompletion. A first down wins you the game, a three-yard run gets you nothing.

Penalties and injuries happen when they happen.

 
ghostguy123 said:
So give them the ball with a minute left needing a FG.

or

Give them the ball with about 1:20 left with two TOs needing a TD?

Option 2 is OBVIOUSLY stupid?? Not to mention the possibility Mcfadden just gets the first down rather than score.

Frankly I will take the option of up 7 EVERY time if deciding between those 2 options, let alone it being an obviously stupid decision. Weird
Click to expand...
Dallas got the ball with 1:26. If they would have kneeled three times, they would have gotten 40 seconds run off after third down. Washington would had less than 30 seconds with no timeouts after the kickoff. It was OBVIOUSLY stupid to score.

 
ghostguy123 said:
CalBear said:
ghostguy123 said:
I can't remember who specifically did this last, but it is always hilarious when a team is losing, the other team runs a play, and the coach calls a time out with like 2:42 left in the 4th quarter. Complete waste of a time out because it will only take one more play and then spot of the ball to hit the 2 minute warning.

I have seen this many times (many times just from my idiot Browns coaches in the past). All ya gotta do is make them snap it at like 2:06 and you get the same result on the clock with one extra time out. So silly how often clock management is messed up in this league.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with that? If you call the TO at 2:42, it might make them less likely to throw a pass. There might be a penalty. There's all kinds of reasons why you'd rather have zero timeouts with the clock stopped and 2:42 left than one timeout with the clock running and 2:06 left.
Click to expand...
I don't think you understood what I meant.

Say a team has the ball 1st and 10, up a score, with 2:50 left. If they run the ball, I see coaches call a time out with like 2:42 on the clock. This is TERRIBLE, because on the next play it takes more than 7 seconds to run a play and spot the ball.

The correct play is to NOT call a time out because then the other team will run a play with about 2:05 or so on the clock.

I would rather be at the 2 minute warning, have them in 3rd down, and have TWO timeouts rather than be at the 2 minute warning, have them at 3rd down, and have ONE time out.

If the other team just ran a play and the clock is running, do NOT call a time out with 2:42 on the clock. It is a complete waste of a time out because the next play will take it to the 2 minute warning whether you called that time out or not
Click to expand...
True or false. A team is far more likely to throw the ball when they are snapping the ball with 2:06 left in the game leading by 7 than if there is 2:42 left in the game and they are up by 7.

This is a pretty stupid example you bring up. You have to make all sorts of assumptions. They can only have exactly one timeout. You have to assume that there will be no penalty. You have to assume that it will take a certain amount of time to reset the clock. You have to assume it is 100% that they are rushing the ball and only rushing it in bounds.

 
Nero said:
ghostguy123 said:
So give them the ball with a minute left needing a FG.

or

Give them the ball with about 1:20 left with two TOs needing a TD?

Option 2 is OBVIOUSLY stupid?? Not to mention the possibility Mcfadden just gets the first down rather than score.

Frankly I will take the option of up 7 EVERY time if deciding between those 2 options, let alone it being an obviously stupid decision. Weird
Click to expand...
Dallas got the ball with 1:26. If they would have kneeled three times, they would have gotten 40 seconds run off after third down. Washington would had less than 30 seconds with no timeouts after the kickoff. It was OBVIOUSLY stupid to score.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Not only that, if McFadden goes down on the 1, clock is running and Wash burns a TO. Kneel it, they burn another TO, their last. Then two straight kneels and field goal is pretty much ballgame.

Don't think ghost really explained both scenarios correctly.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear said:
ghostguy123 said:
CalBear said:
ghostguy123 said:
I would rather be at the 2 minute warning, have them in 3rd down, and have TWO timeouts rather than be at the 2 minute warning, have them at 3rd down, and have ONE time out.

If the other team just ran a play and the clock is running, do NOT call a time out with 2:42 on the clock. It is a complete waste of a time out because the next play will take it to the 2 minute warning whether you called that time out or not
Click to expand...
Unless the play finishes out of bounds (as it did tonight). Or there's an incomplete pass. Or there's a penalty or injury. Or you call another timeout.
Click to expand...
So yeah, I guess you could try and count on the other team doing something really stupid......................

This doesnt so much apply if you have THREE time outs. If you have one, it is as dumb as it gets.
Click to expand...
If you're ahead, and it's third and 8, and the other team is out of timeouts with 2:42 to play, it's not "really stupid" to call a pass play, even though that pass play may result in an incompletion. A first down wins you the game, a three-yard run gets you nothing.

Penalties and injuries happen when they happen.
Click to expand...
You are talking about a scenario I wasn't referring to.

I will try this again:

The other team has the ball up 7 with 2:50 to play, and you have ONE time out. They run the ball for 2 yards, the ball is spotted at 2:42...................................you telling me you should call a time out there?

No because calling a time out right there is OBVIOUSLY stupid. If you let the clock run, the other team has to run a play at 2:07 (say they run it again for 2 more yards), and you end up at the 2 minute warning with ONE time out left, and it is 3rd and 6.

If you call a timeout at 2:42 and they run the ball for 2 yards, it takes more than 7 seconds to run the play and spot the ball, you end up at the two minute warning with ZERO time outs, and it is 3rd and 6.

I hope that clears it up and shows a situation where it is OBVIOUSLY stupid to call a time out, something I have seen too many times.

 
Nero said:
ghostguy123 said:
So give them the ball with a minute left needing a FG.

or

Give them the ball with about 1:20 left with two TOs needing a TD?

Option 2 is OBVIOUSLY stupid?? Not to mention the possibility Mcfadden just gets the first down rather than score.

Frankly I will take the option of up 7 EVERY time if deciding between those 2 options, let alone it being an obviously stupid decision. Weird
Click to expand...
Dallas got the ball with 1:26. If they would have kneeled three times, they would have gotten 40 seconds run off after third down. Washington would had less than 30 seconds with no timeouts after the kickoff. It was OBVIOUSLY stupid to score.
Click to expand...
Assuming those numbers are 100% accurate that you just gave, then yeah I would certainly be on board with a few knees and kicking a FG. I thought the timeframe was different though.

 
parasaurolophus said:
ghostguy123 said:
CalBear said:
ghostguy123 said:
I can't remember who specifically did this last, but it is always hilarious when a team is losing, the other team runs a play, and the coach calls a time out with like 2:42 left in the 4th quarter. Complete waste of a time out because it will only take one more play and then spot of the ball to hit the 2 minute warning.

I have seen this many times (many times just from my idiot Browns coaches in the past). All ya gotta do is make them snap it at like 2:06 and you get the same result on the clock with one extra time out. So silly how often clock management is messed up in this league.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with that? If you call the TO at 2:42, it might make them less likely to throw a pass. There might be a penalty. There's all kinds of reasons why you'd rather have zero timeouts with the clock stopped and 2:42 left than one timeout with the clock running and 2:06 left.
Click to expand...
I don't think you understood what I meant.

Say a team has the ball 1st and 10, up a score, with 2:50 left. If they run the ball, I see coaches call a time out with like 2:42 on the clock. This is TERRIBLE, because on the next play it takes more than 7 seconds to run a play and spot the ball.

The correct play is to NOT call a time out because then the other team will run a play with about 2:05 or so on the clock.

I would rather be at the 2 minute warning, have them in 3rd down, and have TWO timeouts rather than be at the 2 minute warning, have them at 3rd down, and have ONE time out.

If the other team just ran a play and the clock is running, do NOT call a time out with 2:42 on the clock. It is a complete waste of a time out because the next play will take it to the 2 minute warning whether you called that time out or not
Click to expand...
True or false. A team is far more likely to throw the ball when they are snapping the ball with 2:06 left in the game leading by 7 than if there is 2:42 left in the game and they are up by 7.

This is a pretty stupid example you bring up. You have to make all sorts of assumptions. They can only have exactly one timeout. You have to assume that there will be no penalty. You have to assume that it will take a certain amount of time to reset the clock. You have to assume it is 100% that they are rushing the ball and only rushing it in bounds.
Click to expand...
Are you saying it would be a BAD thing for them to throw the ball and take the chance of an incomplete pass with 2:01 on the clock? Alrighty

 
TheBottomLine said:
Nero said:
ghostguy123 said:
So give them the ball with a minute left needing a FG.

or

Give them the ball with about 1:20 left with two TOs needing a TD?

Option 2 is OBVIOUSLY stupid?? Not to mention the possibility Mcfadden just gets the first down rather than score.

Frankly I will take the option of up 7 EVERY time if deciding between those 2 options, let alone it being an obviously stupid decision. Weird
Click to expand...
Dallas got the ball with 1:26. If they would have kneeled three times, they would have gotten 40 seconds run off after third down. Washington would had less than 30 seconds with no timeouts after the kickoff. It was OBVIOUSLY stupid to score.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Not only that, if McFadden goes down on the 1, clock is running and Wash burns a TO. Kneel it, they burn another TO, their last. Then two straight kneels and field goal is pretty much ballgame.

Don't think ghost really explained both scenarios correctly.
Click to expand...
Ok, what was the exact scenario when Dallas got the ball? What yard line, how much time left, and how many time outs did Washington have?

 
And as for the calling time out with 2:42 thing, it's 100x worse when teams are down 2 scores doing that. So awful.

 
ghostguy123 said:
TheBottomLine said:
Nero said:
ghostguy123 said:
So give them the ball with a minute left needing a FG.

or

Give them the ball with about 1:20 left with two TOs needing a TD?

Option 2 is OBVIOUSLY stupid?? Not to mention the possibility Mcfadden just gets the first down rather than score.

Frankly I will take the option of up 7 EVERY time if deciding between those 2 options, let alone it being an obviously stupid decision. Weird
Click to expand...
Dallas got the ball with 1:26. If they would have kneeled three times, they would have gotten 40 seconds run off after third down. Washington would had less than 30 seconds with no timeouts after the kickoff. It was OBVIOUSLY stupid to score.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Not only that, if McFadden goes down on the 1, clock is running and Wash burns a TO. Kneel it, they burn another TO, their last. Then two straight kneels and field goal is pretty much ballgame.

Don't think ghost really explained both scenarios correctly.
Click to expand...
Ok, what was the exact scenario when Dallas got the ball? What yard line, how much time left, and how many time outs did Washington have?
Click to expand...
1:26 left in the game. 1st and 10 at the 15 yard line. Washington had two timeouts.

 
ghostguy123 said:
TheBottomLine said:
Nero said:
ghostguy123 said:
So give them the ball with a minute left needing a FG.

or

Give them the ball with about 1:20 left with two TOs needing a TD?

Option 2 is OBVIOUSLY stupid?? Not to mention the possibility Mcfadden just gets the first down rather than score.

Frankly I will take the option of up 7 EVERY time if deciding between those 2 options, let alone it being an obviously stupid decision. Weird
Click to expand...
Dallas got the ball with 1:26. If they would have kneeled three times, they would have gotten 40 seconds run off after third down. Washington would had less than 30 seconds with no timeouts after the kickoff. It was OBVIOUSLY stupid to score.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Not only that, if McFadden goes down on the 1, clock is running and Wash burns a TO. Kneel it, they burn another TO, their last. Then two straight kneels and field goal is pretty much ballgame.

Don't think ghost really explained both scenarios correctly.
Click to expand...
Ok, what was the exact scenario when Dallas got the ball? What yard line, how much time left, and how many time outs did Washington have?
Click to expand...
Just off the top of my head, could be wrong about the specifics, but Dallas took over at about the 15, not sure of the exact yard line but the first down marker was somewhere around the 5. About 1:25 left, WASH with 2 timeouts. Ran 9 yards on first play but went out of bounds, saving a TO for WASH. Next play, 2nd and 1, McFadden scores from about the 6 or so. TD Dallas with 1:20 or so left. If DMC gets a 1st down, they can kneel it 3 straight times, milking the clock after two of the kneels and could have kicked a FG for the game winner.

 
So if you take three knees, and after being backed up a few yards you make the 35 yard FG, kick off, the Skins would have had what, about 35-40 seconds or so, probably at their 20.

So you can give them the ball down 3 with 35 seconds to go with no time outs at their 20.

or

Give them the ball down 7 with 1:15 left and two time outs (with also the possibility Mcfadden did not score and simply got the first down).

I will take the 2nd option.

I have seen teams go 40 yards in that amount of time for a realistic FG try. Heck Rodgers just won a game with a hail mary a few days ago.

Plus washington scored that TD so damn fast that Dallas had time for a game winning drive of their own starting at the 20 with about 40 seconds left (granted they did have that time out though).

Sorry, I just can't see the decision to NOT take three knees as being "obviously stupid".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The other thing that is mind-blowing is that McFadden willingly goes out of bounds, stopping the clock. If you are a coach, and you've called this play which might end up on the outside and could stop the clock (your biggest ally at that point), you might want to instruct your player to go down in-bounds, at all costs. It's really not that difficult.

You can blame the coach or the player. Up to you. But either way, stupid all around.

 
kOOk said:
The other thing that is mind-blowing is that McFadden willingly goes out of bounds, stopping the clock. If you are a coach, and you've called this play which might end up on the outside and could stop the clock (your biggest ally at that point), you might want to instruct your player to go down in-bounds, at all costs. It's really not that difficult.

You can blame the coach or the player. Up to you. But either way, stupid all around.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. That one was on the player though. Has to be. Yes it would help for the coach to say something, but he shouldn't have to. Obviously as soon as he knows he is heading near the sidelines he needs to pull a QB slide. So he might have gained 4 or 5 instead of 9. Not a good heads up play on Fadden at all.

He even topped off the idiocy by scoring on the next play. However, the score was FARRRRR less stupid than going out of bounds the previous play. I will cut him some slack on the score since it was from the 5 and it's gotta be hard to stop your momentum in that short of a distance when barreling up the gut.

 
ghostguy123 said:
CalBear said:
ghostguy123 said:
CalBear said:
ghostguy123 said:
I would rather be at the 2 minute warning, have them in 3rd down, and have TWO timeouts rather than be at the 2 minute warning, have them at 3rd down, and have ONE time out.

If the other team just ran a play and the clock is running, do NOT call a time out with 2:42 on the clock. It is a complete waste of a time out because the next play will take it to the 2 minute warning whether you called that time out or not
Click to expand...
Unless the play finishes out of bounds (as it did tonight). Or there's an incomplete pass. Or there's a penalty or injury. Or you call another timeout.
Click to expand...
So yeah, I guess you could try and count on the other team doing something really stupid......................

This doesnt so much apply if you have THREE time outs. If you have one, it is as dumb as it gets.
Click to expand...
If you're ahead, and it's third and 8, and the other team is out of timeouts with 2:42 to play, it's not "really stupid" to call a pass play, even though that pass play may result in an incompletion. A first down wins you the game, a three-yard run gets you nothing.

Penalties and injuries happen when they happen.
Click to expand...
You are talking about a scenario I wasn't referring to.

I will try this again:

The other team has the ball up 7 with 2:50 to play, and you have ONE time out. They run the ball for 2 yards, the ball is spotted at 2:42...................................you telling me you should call a time out there?

No because calling a time out right there is OBVIOUSLY stupid. If you let the clock run, the other team has to run a play at 2:07 (say they run it again for 2 more yards), and you end up at the 2 minute warning with ONE time out left, and it is 3rd and 6.
Click to expand...
Play clock is 40 seconds, not 35.

 
[scooter] said:
ghostguy123 said:
(say they run it again for 2 more yards), and you end up at the 2 minute warning with ONE time out left, and it is 3rd and 6.

Click to expand...
Play clock is 40 seconds, not 35.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Change the numbers a couple clicks and you get the idea.

Point is, it takes time to run a play and spot the ball. Don't be the stupid coach who calls a time out in the exact window where you end up wasting a time out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nero said:
1:26 left in the game. 1st and 10 at the 15 yard line. Washington had two timeouts.
Click to expand...
Play-by-play

2nd-and-1 with 1:19 on the clock.

Let's say McFadden downs the ball at the 1 with 1:16 on the clock and Washington calls its second timeout.

Dallas kneels on 1st-and-goal and Washington calls its final timeout with around 1:15 on the clock.

Dallas kneels on 2nd-and-goal and the clock runs to :36.

Dallas kneels on 3rd-and-goal and the clock runs to :01.

Dallas kicks a ~22-yard field goal on 4th down (success rate = 99%).

Yeah, I'll take that option every time.

 
[scooter] said:
Nero said:
1:26 left in the game. 1st and 10 at the 15 yard line. Washington had two timeouts.
Click to expand...
Play-by-play

2nd-and-1 with 1:19 on the clock.

Let's say McFadden downs the ball at the 1 with 1:16 on the clock and Washington calls its second timeout.

Dallas kneels on 1st-and-goal and Washington calls its final timeout with around 1:15 on the clock.

Dallas kneels on 2nd-and-goal and the clock runs to :36.

Dallas kneels on 3rd-and-goal and the clock runs to :01.

Dallas kicks a ~22-yard field goal on 4th down (success rate = 99%).

Yeah, I'll take that option every time.
Click to expand...
QB sneak was the shark move there

 
ghostguy123 said:
parasaurolophus said:
ghostguy123 said:
CalBear said:
ghostguy123 said:
I can't remember who specifically did this last, but it is always hilarious when a team is losing, the other team runs a play, and the coach calls a time out with like 2:42 left in the 4th quarter. Complete waste of a time out because it will only take one more play and then spot of the ball to hit the 2 minute warning.

I have seen this many times (many times just from my idiot Browns coaches in the past). All ya gotta do is make them snap it at like 2:06 and you get the same result on the clock with one extra time out. So silly how often clock management is messed up in this league.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with that? If you call the TO at 2:42, it might make them less likely to throw a pass. There might be a penalty. There's all kinds of reasons why you'd rather have zero timeouts with the clock stopped and 2:42 left than one timeout with the clock running and 2:06 left.
Click to expand...
I don't think you understood what I meant.

Say a team has the ball 1st and 10, up a score, with 2:50 left. If they run the ball, I see coaches call a time out with like 2:42 on the clock. This is TERRIBLE, because on the next play it takes more than 7 seconds to run a play and spot the ball.

The correct play is to NOT call a time out because then the other team will run a play with about 2:05 or so on the clock.

I would rather be at the 2 minute warning, have them in 3rd down, and have TWO timeouts rather than be at the 2 minute warning, have them at 3rd down, and have ONE time out.

If the other team just ran a play and the clock is running, do NOT call a time out with 2:42 on the clock. It is a complete waste of a time out because the next play will take it to the 2 minute warning whether you called that time out or not
Click to expand...
True or false. A team is far more likely to throw the ball when they are snapping the ball with 2:06 left in the game leading by 7 than if there is 2:42 left in the game and they are up by 7.

This is a pretty stupid example you bring up. You have to make all sorts of assumptions. They can only have exactly one timeout. You have to assume that there will be no penalty. You have to assume that it will take a certain amount of time to reset the clock. You have to assume it is 100% that they are rushing the ball and only rushing it in bounds.
Click to expand...
Are you saying it would be a BAD thing for them to throw the ball and take the chance of an incomplete pass with 2:01 on the clock? Alrighty
Click to expand...
#1 it wouldnt be 2:01. The ball wouldn't be snapped until 2:03-4 which means it is basically guaranteed to make the 2min warning. #2 you assume plays always only take 5 seconds.

There is literally only a few second window that your scenario even becomes a topic of partial debate. And teams have to have exactly one timeout left. And you can't name a time this has happened.

 
Was watching a college game the other day and their kneel down play was a shotgun snap then kneel. I think it was texas tech. This seems really dumb to me, but I am guessing there must be something to this. Any fans here that can shed some light?

 
ghostguy123 said:
That is a different scenario for me. No matter the time on the clock, if I am up 10 with 4th and goal on the 1 foot line, I am going for the TD.
Click to expand...
Exactly. But WHY are you going in that scenario? Because the expected points are so much higher.

And of course, there are times you wouldn't go for it, like in a tie game with 5 seconds left. Because in that case, the extra points are irrelevant, and you're more focused on win probability.

I guess what I don't get (either quantitatively or logically) is why 9 or 5 minutes makes such a big difference.

 
It has to be demoralizing to not only a player but a good part of the team when a leader and reliable rock toter like Alfred Morris gets benched, doesn't even see the field, for a rookie, after just 10 or so offensive plays, after carrying the team on his back for 20+ carries in a win just the week before, only to lose. Why?

 
Faust said:
Monday Musings: What's with the dumb calls from smart coaches?
Click to expand...
Sigh.The Hot Takery is strong in this one (referring to Pete Prisco, not Faust)

Looking back on it, the Giants needed the field goal they passed on earlier in the fourth quarter. Some will say a touchdown there ends the game, but even a first down would have meant work to get in anyway. Take the no-risk three points and don't give momentum to the Jets.
Click to expand...
Let's see: We have results-driven (rather than process-driven) analysis, plus an invocation of momentum, which is a myth.

I remember back in the day I used to argue game management and decision-making with Coughlin when I covered him on a daily basis. One such instance came in a game in Tampa Bay in 1995 when he went for two after scoring a late touchdown on the road that would have let his Jacksonville Jaguars tie the Bucs with a kick.

They didn't make it, and lost. I argued he shouldn't have put it on one play.
Click to expand...
Ah, the old "It's more important to extend the game than to maximize your win probability" fallacy. I have no idea what the situation was in that game, so I don't know if Coughlin should have gone for two. But I do know that "Don't put it on one play" is a terrible argument.

 
ghostguy123 said:
[scooter] said:
Nero said:
1:26 left in the game. 1st and 10 at the 15 yard line. Washington had two timeouts.
Click to expand...
Play-by-play

2nd-and-1 with 1:19 on the clock.

Let's say McFadden downs the ball at the 1 with 1:16 on the clock and Washington calls its second timeout.

Dallas kneels on 1st-and-goal and Washington calls its final timeout with around 1:15 on the clock.

Dallas kneels on 2nd-and-goal and the clock runs to :36.

Dallas kneels on 3rd-and-goal and the clock runs to :01.

Dallas kicks a ~22-yard field goal on 4th down (success rate = 99%).

Yeah, I'll take that option every time.
Click to expand...
QB sneak was the shark move there
Click to expand...
I remember in a 2013 game vs. Dallas, Denver was driving late in a tie game. They had like 3rd and 2 from the 3. Knowshon Moreno ran it enough to get the first, but not to score. Denver then ran the clock down and kicked a game winning FG. I assumed at the time it was dumb luck that he hit that sweet spot, but I later read something about how Moreno and Manning specifically discussed before the play what they needed to do.

That's one where you have to give Knowshon props for both his smarts and his execution. I can't imagine it's easy to get yourself tackled in a two-foot window, especially when you might not know exactly where the first-down marker is.

 
ghostguy123 said:
CalBear said:
ghostguy123 said:
CalBear said:
ghostguy123 said:
I would rather be at the 2 minute warning, have them in 3rd down, and have TWO timeouts rather than be at the 2 minute warning, have them at 3rd down, and have ONE time out.

If the other team just ran a play and the clock is running, do NOT call a time out with 2:42 on the clock. It is a complete waste of a time out because the next play will take it to the 2 minute warning whether you called that time out or not
Click to expand...
Unless the play finishes out of bounds (as it did tonight). Or there's an incomplete pass. Or there's a penalty or injury. Or you call another timeout.
Click to expand...
So yeah, I guess you could try and count on the other team doing something really stupid......................

This doesnt so much apply if you have THREE time outs. If you have one, it is as dumb as it gets.
Click to expand...
If you're ahead, and it's third and 8, and the other team is out of timeouts with 2:42 to play, it's not "really stupid" to call a pass play, even though that pass play may result in an incompletion. A first down wins you the game, a three-yard run gets you nothing.

Penalties and injuries happen when they happen.
Click to expand...
You are talking about a scenario I wasn't referring to.

I will try this again:

The other team has the ball up 7 with 2:50 to play, and you have ONE time out. They run the ball for 2 yards, the ball is spotted at 2:42...................................you telling me you should call a time out there?

No because calling a time out right there is OBVIOUSLY stupid. If you let the clock run, the other team has to run a play at 2:07 (say they run it again for 2 more yards), and you end up at the 2 minute warning with ONE time out left, and it is 3rd and 6.

If you call a timeout at 2:42 and they run the ball for 2 yards, it takes more than 7 seconds to run the play and spot the ball, you end up at the two minute warning with ZERO time outs, and it is 3rd and 6.

I hope that clears it up and shows a situation where it is OBVIOUSLY stupid to call a time out, something I have seen too many times.
Click to expand...
You appear to be struggling with this term, "OBVIOUSLY stupid".

If you call a timeout at 2:42, the other team has to decide what to do. You are probably correct that if it's not third down, and if you don't have another timeout, and if the other team doesn't have to score, calling a timeout is probably not the right move. But I would question your assertion that you've seen that exact situation "too many times." Can you think of two examples?

If you have more than one time out, or it's third down, or the game is tied, it's not "OBVIOUSLY" stupid to call a timeout.

 
parasaurolophus said:
Was watching a college game the other day and their kneel down play was a shotgun snap then kneel. I think it was texas tech. This seems really dumb to me, but I am guessing there must be something to this. Any fans here that can shed some light?
Click to expand...
Cal does that. I think for teams that run the spread and never take snaps from under center, they worry that they don't practice the center snap enough.

But I worry about it, too.

 
ghostguy123 said:
So if you take three knees, and after being backed up a few yards you make the 35 yard FG, kick off, the Skins would have had what, about 35-40 seconds or so, probably at their 20.

So you can give them the ball down 3 with 35 seconds to go with no time outs at their 20.

or

Give them the ball down 7 with 1:15 left and two time outs (with also the possibility Mcfadden did not score and simply got the first down).

I will take the 2nd option.

I have seen teams go 40 yards in that amount of time for a realistic FG try. Heck Rodgers just won a game with a hail mary a few days ago.

Plus washington scored that TD so damn fast that Dallas had time for a game winning drive of their own starting at the 20 with about 40 seconds left (granted they did have that time out though).

Sorry, I just can't see the decision to NOT take three knees as being "obviously stupid".
Click to expand...
NO. They'd have had to call a TO after the first down, then call their last one after the first kneel on first down. Then, after two kneels with no timeouts on 2nd and 3rd, the clock milks to about 3 or 4 seconds and DAL calls TO. FG to win as time expires.

 
TheBottomLine said:
ghostguy123 said:
So if you take three knees, and after being backed up a few yards you make the 35 yard FG, kick off, the Skins would have had what, about 35-40 seconds or so, probably at their 20.

So you can give them the ball down 3 with 35 seconds to go with no time outs at their 20.

or

Give them the ball down 7 with 1:15 left and two time outs (with also the possibility Mcfadden did not score and simply got the first down).

I will take the 2nd option.

I have seen teams go 40 yards in that amount of time for a realistic FG try. Heck Rodgers just won a game with a hail mary a few days ago.

Plus washington scored that TD so damn fast that Dallas had time for a game winning drive of their own starting at the 20 with about 40 seconds left (granted they did have that time out though).

Sorry, I just can't see the decision to NOT take three knees as being "obviously stupid".
Click to expand...
NO. They'd have had to call a TO after the first down, then call their last one after the first kneel on first down. Then, after two kneels with no timeouts on 2nd and 3rd, the clock milks to about 3 or 4 seconds and DAL calls TO. FG to win as time expires.
Click to expand...
Yep. It was obviously stupid to score. Extra point distance. Redskins wouldn't even have had a chance at a lateral play.

40 yd FG sure I still go for TD. Extra point? No way.

 
Walking Boot said:
BobbyLayne said:
Walking Boot said:
Oakland takes a 3 point lead and goes for 2 to make it 5 instead of 4.

Inexplicable. TD still beats you. Now the FG can send it to overtime.
Click to expand...
Long snapper is hurt.
Click to expand...
Worth the gamble to have another snapper try. Gotta figure the holder could fall on it if it's a bad snap. We're talking moving from FG-to-tie to TD-to-win, that's a big step up and worth the risk on an XP.
Click to expand...
I expect this logic has shifted somewhat because of the longer XP distance.

 
Walking Boot said:
Arodin said:
Walking Boot said:
BobbyLayne said:
Walking Boot said:
Oakland takes a 3 point lead and goes for 2 to make it 5 instead of 4.

Inexplicable. TD still beats you. Now the FG can send it to overtime.
Click to expand...
Long snapper is hurt.
Click to expand...
Worth the gamble to have another snapper try. Gotta figure the holder could fall on it if it's a bad snap. We're talking moving from FG-to-tie to TD-to-win, that's a big step up and worth the risk on an XP.
Click to expand...
I expect this logic has shifted somewhat because of the longer XP distance.
Click to expand...
The only gamble is the snap. Distance doesn't really matter. A bad snap could only be returned for 2, and a lot has to go wrong for that to happen. It's not like a miss means giving up field position or risks a td. Snap it, and if it's bad, fall on the ball. Even if you have to chase it a little a return all the way for 2 is unlikely.

Gotta figure the other center being able to step in and be acceptable and taking a 4 point lead is worth the ever so slightly chance you're only up by one. Being up by 5 is meaningless.
Click to expand...
This is simply NOT true. Everyone except the holder and the kicker have their back to the ball, trying to block. Meanwhile the defense is sending quick guys around the edge.

A really bad snap is just as likely to be returned for 2 as it is to be "fallen on" by the kicker or holder.

 
Wonder how many match ups will be swung by Denver only giving up 13 points (assuming your league doesn't ding them for the safety).

 
4th & 1, early, FG range and the 49ers go for it by having Gabbert drop back to pass. Sack. Tomsula on the sidelines: :jawdrop: Yes, that was the look he had.

 
ghostguy123 said:
CalBear said:
ghostguy123 said:
CalBear said:
ghostguy123 said:
I would rather be at the 2 minute warning, have them in 3rd down, and have TWO timeouts rather than be at the 2 minute warning, have them at 3rd down, and have ONE time out.

If the other team just ran a play and the clock is running, do NOT call a time out with 2:42 on the clock. It is a complete waste of a time out because the next play will take it to the 2 minute warning whether you called that time out or not
Click to expand...
Unless the play finishes out of bounds (as it did tonight). Or there's an incomplete pass. Or there's a penalty or injury. Or you call another timeout.
Click to expand...
So yeah, I guess you could try and count on the other team doing something really stupid......................

This doesnt so much apply if you have THREE time outs. If you have one, it is as dumb as it gets.
Click to expand...
If you're ahead, and it's third and 8, and the other team is out of timeouts with 2:42 to play, it's not "really stupid" to call a pass play, even though that pass play may result in an incompletion. A first down wins you the game, a three-yard run gets you nothing.

Penalties and injuries happen when they happen.
Click to expand...
You are talking about a scenario I wasn't referring to.

I will try this again:

The other team has the ball up 7 with 2:50 to play, and you have ONE time out. They run the ball for 2 yards, the ball is spotted at 2:42...................................you telling me you should call a time out there?

No because calling a time out right there is OBVIOUSLY stupid. If you let the clock run, the other team has to run a play at 2:07 (say they run it again for 2 more yards), and you end up at the 2 minute warning with ONE time out left, and it is 3rd and 6.

If you call a timeout at 2:42 and they run the ball for 2 yards, it takes more than 7 seconds to run the play and spot the ball, you end up at the two minute warning with ZERO time outs, and it is 3rd and 6.

I hope that clears it up and shows a situation where it is OBVIOUSLY stupid to call a time out, something I have seen too many times.
Click to expand...
You don't have to try explaining it any more times. Folks simply disagree.

Basically what it comes down to is, by spending the TO with 2:42, you force the other team to run the ball (and not commit a penalty, and not go OB) if they want to get to the 2:00 warning before the next snap.

If you don't call the TO, then they can run the clock down to 2:05ish and at that point they're free to either run or pass -- in either case the clock will hit 2:00 by the conclusion of the play.

Is it worth the TO to force the other team to run the ball (presumably allowing you to stack the line and stuff the play)? Not sure. It surely isn't in the OBVIOUSLY stupid category though.

 
CalBear said:
If you have more than one time out, or it's third down, or the game is tied, it's not "OBVIOUSLY" stupid to call a timeout.
Click to expand...
Not referring to those situations as obviously stupid.

I can't recall an exact time I saw this because I haven't seen it since last year or even before, and for the love of Christ I am not going to go replay every past game until I see it.

Maybe this clears it up (maybe). You are down 7 with ONE time out, the other team just ran the ball for a 1st down, and there is now 2:44 on the clock. Calling a time out RIGHT THEN is OBVIOUSLY stupid because if you just let the clock run they will HAVE to run a play before the two minute warning, and you will have a time out left.

If you call a time out, they will run exactly one play before the 2 minute warning, and you will no longer have that time out, then they run two more times and there would be like 30 seconds left.

Hope that helps and yes this has happened plenty of times. I will let ya know the next time I see it specifically. It's inevitable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pittsburgh with with 2nd down just before the 2 minute warning. Denver decides to call time out.

Sure enough, the Steelers come out of the timeout and THROW the ball. Picked off by Denver, giving them life with 2:01 on the clock.

 
[scooter] said:
Pittsburgh with with 2nd down just before the 2 minute warning. Denver decides to call time out.

Sure enough, the Steelers come out of the timeout and THROW the ball. Picked off by Denver, giving them life with 2:01 on the clock.
Click to expand...
I dont understand the problem. Even when pitt got the ball back after the above scenario they STILL had to get a first down to ice the game.

Nothing wrong with throwing it. Forcing the ball into a bad situation was the bad decision. Big Ben did the same exact thing against Cincy earlier this year. Almost a carbon copy of how it went down.

 
Giants kicking the extra point after scoring to make it 35-27. It's not "obvious" in the sense that no one seems to understand this strategy, but in terms of the numbers, going for two there is clearly the right move.

This Slate article explains it in more detail, but what it boils down to is this: Attempting two two-point conversions yields roughly the same number of expected points as kicking two XPs. So there's effectively no downside. Meanwhile, the upside is that if you make the first two-pointer, you can kick after the second TD and avoid the 50/50 proposition that is overtime. Levin calculates that it adds 10 points to your win probability (and he was writing before this year's XP change, so it's probably even higher now).

In the Giants' case, it was ultimately irrelevant, since Carolina's final FG drive would have won the game even if the Giants had been winning by a point. But kicking was still the wrong move.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zftcg said:
Giants kicking the extra point after scoring to make it 35-27. It's not "obvious" in the sense that no one seems to understand this strategy, but in terms of the numbers, going for two there is clearly the right move.

This Slate article explains it in more detail, but what it boils down to is this: Attempting two two-point conversions yields roughly the same number of expected points as kicking two XPs. So there's effectively no downside. Meanwhile, the upside is that if you make the first two-pointer, you can kick after the second TD and avoid the 50/50 proposition that is overtime. Levin calculates that it adds 10 points to your win probability (and he was writing before this year's XP change, so it's probably even higher now).

In the Giants' case, it was ultimately irrelevant, since Carolina's final FG drive would have won the game even if the Giants had been winning by a point. But kicking was still the wrong move.
Click to expand...
Something being the wrong move based on overall averages does not make it wrong in every particular case. In this case, the Giants faced a wel above average opposing defense, had not had good success in short yardage, had a below average rushing attack to keep defenses honest, and was most adept at scoring from range. I don't think they clearly had an expectation of converting one of two conversion plays, whereas the expctation of kicking two and potentially scoring on a long play in OT looked as good or better.Not disputing the stats in general, but they need to be applied selectively.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Walking Boot said:
parasaurolophus said:
[scooter] said:
Pittsburgh with with 2nd down just before the 2 minute warning. Denver decides to call time out.

Sure enough, the Steelers come out of the timeout and THROW the ball. Picked off by Denver, giving them life with 2:01 on the clock.
Click to expand...
I dont understand the problem. Even when pitt got the ball back after the above scenario they STILL had to get a first down to ice the game. Nothing wrong with throwing it. Forcing the ball into a bad situation was the bad decision. Big Ben did the same exact thing against Cincy earlier this year. Almost a carbon copy of how it went down.
Click to expand...
Would you make this argument if Denver scored and got the 2 point conversion with 8 seconds left in the game?
Click to expand...
Calling a throwing play was not the bad move but once Williams was double covered Ben should've just ran for a few yards and went down instead.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Spin
Down 14 with under 5 minutes and you score, do you go for 2?
2
Replies
73
Views
2K
Brunell4MVP
B
Hot Sauce Guy
Post Here When FF Coaches (AKA, You) Do Something You Disagree with
Replies
15
Views
596
Chaka
Chaka
P
Fantasy football owners: When do you stop blaming the coaching staff and start blaming the player?
Replies
21
Views
656
Instinctive
Instinctive

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Top