Why no timeouts at the end???

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from capecodwilly. Show capecodwilly's posts

    Why no timeouts at the end???

    When the Redskins had 2nd and goal from the 5 yd line there was 1:50 left on the clock and we had 3 timeouts left. Why didn't BB use them? It couldn't help them and even if they had scored and converted for 2 pts, we'd have had enough time to go down for a fieldgoal. Otherwise, when they scored we were screwed. I don't get it!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Why no timeouts at the end???

    Brain f*art?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from jam757. Show jam757's posts

    Re: Why no timeouts at the end???

    I never get this and it always pisses me off! I've seen it many times before and it never makes any sense. It should also be done in the first half of games!!!!
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from capecodwilly. Show capecodwilly's posts

    Re: Why no timeouts at the end???

    In Response to Re: Why no timeouts at the end???:
    Brain f*art?
    Posted by agcsbill


    Are you sure? I didn't think Bill ever farted!
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from FrnkBnhm. Show FrnkBnhm's posts

    Re: Why no timeouts at the end???

    I was yelling the same thing at my TV. If Moss held onto that ball and they score on 4th down, the game is coming down to the OT coin flip.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davedsone. Show Davedsone's posts

    Re: Why no timeouts at the end???

    Yeah, I was wondering... seemed like letting the clock run down was the WORST possible outcome.  I didn't want to go into OT with a hot team that can go 60 yards on you.  It would be a loss on the coin toss.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jam757. Show jam757's posts

    Re: Why no timeouts at the end???

    I think there was a chance they may have gone for two which would have been a nightmare scenario!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from capecodwilly. Show capecodwilly's posts

    Re: Why no timeouts at the end???

    In Response to Re: Why no timeouts at the end???:
    I think there was a chance they may have gone for two which would have been a nightmare scenario!
    Posted by jam757


    This is what the announcers were guesing would happen and I agree with them. When you've only got 4 wins on the season, why not go for it. The way their offense was going I think they had a good chance of converting. I wished I could ask BB this question.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Why no timeouts at the end???

    I usually don't mind taking the role of BB apologist.  He's a smart coach.

    Timeouts are good for offenses, especially offenses currently on a 1-8 losing streak.  Rex Grossman was a horrid field general last week, personally calling two timeouts on the same play and so personally costing his team 5 yards without even snapping the ball, among other dumb crimes.  Not calling a timeout put the pressure on Grossman. 

    If Brady gets the ball back with 30 seconds left and with 3 timeouts, he still has a reasonable chance to get into field goal position with 3 good 15 yard throws up the middle (and maybe throwing the ball away a couple of times).  1:50 is plenty of time to work with, almost too much. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Why no timeouts at the end???

    In Response to Re: Why no timeouts at the end???:
    I usually don't mind taking the role of BB apologist.  He's a smart coach. Timeouts are good for offenses, especially offenses currently on a 1-8 losing streak.  Rex Grossman was a horrid field general last week, personally calling two timeouts on the same play and so personally costing his team 5 yards without even snapping the ball, among other dumb crimes.  Not calling a timeout put the pressure on Grossman.  If Brady gets the ball back with 30 seconds left and with 3 timeouts, he still has a reasonable chance to get into field goal position with 3 good 15 yard throws up the middle (and maybe throwing the ball away a couple of times).  1:50 is plenty of time to work with, almost too much. 
    Posted by Paul_K


    But on the same note what does BB always stress on his players? Situational football. With 1:30 on the clock that's a lifetime with this O. You can run a lot more plays in 1:30 with no timeouts then you can with 30s and 3 timeouts. Don't forget the Pats are the masters of the 2 min warning and hurry up O. I would say with 1:30 they can pull of at least 10 plays which is far more then they could with :30 and 3 timeouts, so you have a better shot moving down field then trying to chuck it 15 yrds 3 times into a D that will be setup to prevent 15+yrd passes
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: Why no timeouts at the end???

    Hey folks do you think he had the idea that he trusted his defense to come through.Also giving Wash. time outs only helped them. Believing Grossman would crumple under pressure.

    Just saying ????????????
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Why no timeouts at the end???

    That strategy seems what just about everybody does, for whatever reason. I don't get it, but it's like icing the kicker, they all just do it that way.

    I want to know why no timeout at the end of the FIRST half. They had about 20 seconds left, clock running, third and goal.  Instead of calling time they rushed a play which ended up being incomplete with just 1 second left, then kicked a FG. Seemed very similar to Jason Garrett at the end of the AZ game, although not as catastrophic obviously. 

    There just didn't seem to be any good reason why they wouldn't take a time out and not rush (and very nearly run out of time).

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimmytantric. Show jimmytantric's posts

    Re: Why no timeouts at the end???

    Was ranting about this at the end of the game to the point where my wife said shut up already. I completely do not get why the genius did not take any time outs. If the Skins had scored it was going to end up being a coin toss, and most likely the winner of coin toss scoring a field goal. Why wouldn't BB give the Pats a chance to win it in regulation? Baffled by this completely!!!!In Response to Why no timeouts at the end???:
    When the Redskins had 2nd and goal from the 5 yd line there was 1:50 left on the clock and we had 3 timeouts left. Why didn't BB use them? It couldn't help them and even if they had scored and converted for 2 pts, we'd have had enough time to go down for a fieldgoal. Otherwise, when they scored we were screwed. I don't get it!
    Posted by capecodwilly

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimmytantric. Show jimmytantric's posts

    Re: Why no timeouts at the end???

    Stupid argument-why not give your team 2 chances to win--defense stopping them and if not, Brady marching down the field for a field goal.In Response to Re: Why no timeouts at the end???:
    Hey folks do you think he had the idea that he trusted his defense to come through.Also giving Wash. time outs only helped them. Believing Grossman would crumple under pressure. Just saying ????????????
    Posted by JimfromFlorida

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimmytantric. Show jimmytantric's posts

    Re: Why no timeouts at the end???

    Agree-- very bad coaching IMHO!!!!!!In Response to Re: Why no timeouts at the end???:
    I was yelling the same thing at my TV. If Moss held onto that ball and they score on 4th down, the game is coming down to the OT coin flip.
    Posted by FrnkBnhm

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Why no timeouts at the end???

    Head coach Bill Belichick on decision not to call timeout in final minutes: "We were trying to stop them and if I would have thought it would have been a bad call, or it looked like we thought we had a bad matchup with what they were going to try to do, then sure we could've used it there. It was second and 15 and we felt like the same works in reverse. If you take a timeout they see what you're in and they change what they do and all that. If you don't feel good about what your matchup is or if you're on offense and you don't feel good about what your matchup is based on the way the defense is deployed, that's a situation where you could use a timeout at the end of the game if you have extra ones, but if you don't you're probably better letting the play play out rather than blowing it and then the next play they come out and you might be in an even worse matchup."
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: Why no timeouts at the end???

     a lot of strange tactical decisiones in this game by the Pats. This was another one.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmmyslinski. Show jmmyslinski's posts

    Re: Why no timeouts at the end???

    Lots of penalties called in this game.  If there was an interference call on 3rd or 4th and the timeouts had been used to put time on, then you shot your foot.  Also, if they score, go for 2, and miss... then an onside kick could give them 1 1/2 minutes to recover the onside, drive and kick the FG.  You want to question BB, but this guy is hard to accuse of mismanaging the clock.  he likely would have called the TO, if there hadn't been the interference penalty.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from kjfiton. Show kjfiton's posts

    Re: Why no timeouts at the end???

    bad decision, even though the defense stopped them they hadn't given any reason all day to think that they were going to..  they wouldn't want it to come to a coin flip in overtime because if the skins won that they score.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from JayShizzle45. Show JayShizzle45's posts

    Re: Why no timeouts at the end???

    they asked Bill about it and he answered it wrong. I dont know if ut was purposely or he just didnt want to answer it, but we went on and on about calling timeout to change the defense. It seems he still didnt get the question of calling timeouts to get the ball back. He was ovblisous, or he was just being an a ss. 


    I dont know what to think anymore. This coaching staff frustrates me with all the du mb things they do.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from sml1210. Show sml1210's posts

    Re: Why no timeouts at the end???

    In Response to Re: Why no timeouts at the end???:
    Hey folks do you think he had the idea that he trusted his defense to come through.Also giving Wash. time outs only helped them. Believing Grossman would crumple under pressure. Just saying ????????????
    Posted by JimfromFlorida


    No. But I think you may be the only person in the world that thought that.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from sml1210. Show sml1210's posts

    Re: Why no timeouts at the end???

    In Response to Re: Why no timeouts at the end???:
    Head coach Bill Belichick on decision not to call timeout in final minutes: "We were trying to stop them and if I would have thought it would have been a bad call, or it looked like we thought we had a bad matchup with what they were going to try to do, then sure we could've used it there. It was second and 15 and we felt like the same works in reverse. If you take a timeout they see what you're in and they change what they do and all that. If you don't feel good about what your matchup is or if you're on offense and you don't feel good about what your matchup is based on the way the defense is deployed, that's a situation where you could use a timeout at the end of the game if you have extra ones, but if you don't you're probably better letting the play play out rather than blowing it and then the next play they come out and you might be in an even worse matchup."
    Posted by pezz4pats


    Precisely what matchups exactly did BB feel comfortable with at any time during  this game with that defense?
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from MuellerTime19. Show MuellerTime19's posts

    Re: Why no timeouts at the end???

    I was at the game yesterday SCREAMING call a timeout. I wasn't too far away from the Pats bench either :). I guess he did not hear me. I can hardly talk today I was screaming so much. 

    So don't blame me guys , I tried to get thru to Belichick yesterday......Thank goodness for that INT. I would have never lived down a loss yesterday.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from gandalf433. Show gandalf433's posts

    Re: Why no timeouts at the end???

    In Response to Re: Why no timeouts at the end???:
     a lot of strange tactical decisiones in this game by the Pats. This was another one.
    Posted by ccnsd


    Agreed. There was poor time management at the end of the first half as well. It might have cost us a TD as opposed to a FG.  
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Quagmire3. Show Quagmire3's posts

    Re: Why no timeouts at the end???

    I understand your question, but the answe is this; why call a TO and give a mediocre QB like Grossman the opportunity to go to the sideline, regroup, and get the play and extra guidance from the coaches? It sounds bizarre saying this, but BB was trusting his D to make a red zone stop! Wow cant believe I even typed that.....
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share