Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Coaching in Bears game was as bad as it gets
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="adambr2" data-source="post: 522689" data-attributes="member: 7277"><p>I agree it was poor clock management. I never have, and never will understand when coaches wait until AFTER the 2 minute warning to use their timeouts. It always, always results in less time on the clock. </p><p></p><p>Example (not a real one from the game). Bears have the ball 2nd and 10 from the Packers 20, snap occurs with 2:30 left, a run for a game of 3. Coach A calls timeout immediately. Next play is also a run and clock stops at 2:00. Coach B waits til the 2 minutes warning and then calls the timeout after the next play. Bears have it 3rd and 7 regardless, but coach A has 7 more seconds with the same amount of timeouts as coach B. It's just seconds, but why?? Why burn the extra time by waiting until after the 2 minute warning?</p><p></p><p>As someone pointed out, timeouts are far more valuable on defense. When time is your enemy and you're on defense, the other team is going to burn off 40+ seconds every play. When time is your enemy and you have the ball, at least you control the clock. You don't have to watch helplessly as seconds tick like when you're on defense, you can rush up and spike it, play for the sidelines, throw, etc. When there's 4-5 minutes left and you have the luxury of saving them while still being able to run your offense, go ahead. But when you're under 2 minutes and you need to score, you better be trying to preserve every last precious second. </p><p></p><p>I have yet to hear an explanation for the non-challenge at the end of the first half. It looked to be a catch, but instead of trying a challenge MM simply immediately sent out the punt team. I do like MM as a head coach, but to me this was an atrocious decision. Your potential risk is simply losing 1 of 2 challenges which you are unlikely to need both anyway -- they didn't even use any timeouts that half. Your potential reward is 3-7 points as the play would immediately put you in FG range. </p><p></p><p>Even if you think it's an iffy challenge, which I don't think it was, the risk/reward makes it well worthwhile. There seemed to be a failure on MM's part of both logic and math, and I'm disappointed that he never offered an explanation for his line of thinking or an appropriate admission of his mistake.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="adambr2, post: 522689, member: 7277"] I agree it was poor clock management. I never have, and never will understand when coaches wait until AFTER the 2 minute warning to use their timeouts. It always, always results in less time on the clock. Example (not a real one from the game). Bears have the ball 2nd and 10 from the Packers 20, snap occurs with 2:30 left, a run for a game of 3. Coach A calls timeout immediately. Next play is also a run and clock stops at 2:00. Coach B waits til the 2 minutes warning and then calls the timeout after the next play. Bears have it 3rd and 7 regardless, but coach A has 7 more seconds with the same amount of timeouts as coach B. It's just seconds, but why?? Why burn the extra time by waiting until after the 2 minute warning? As someone pointed out, timeouts are far more valuable on defense. When time is your enemy and you're on defense, the other team is going to burn off 40+ seconds every play. When time is your enemy and you have the ball, at least you control the clock. You don't have to watch helplessly as seconds tick like when you're on defense, you can rush up and spike it, play for the sidelines, throw, etc. When there's 4-5 minutes left and you have the luxury of saving them while still being able to run your offense, go ahead. But when you're under 2 minutes and you need to score, you better be trying to preserve every last precious second. I have yet to hear an explanation for the non-challenge at the end of the first half. It looked to be a catch, but instead of trying a challenge MM simply immediately sent out the punt team. I do like MM as a head coach, but to me this was an atrocious decision. Your potential risk is simply losing 1 of 2 challenges which you are unlikely to need both anyway -- they didn't even use any timeouts that half. Your potential reward is 3-7 points as the play would immediately put you in FG range. Even if you think it's an iffy challenge, which I don't think it was, the risk/reward makes it well worthwhile. There seemed to be a failure on MM's part of both logic and math, and I'm disappointed that he never offered an explanation for his line of thinking or an appropriate admission of his mistake. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
DoURant
Emur
PackerDNA
Latest posts
The 11th Annual Amish Draft Contest 2024
Latest: Voyageur
7 minutes ago
Draft Talk
R
2024 2nd Rd pick #58 Javon Bullard S
Latest: RicFlairoftheNFL
21 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 3rd Rd #91 Ty’Ron Hopper LB
Latest: PikeBadger
50 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Most hated teams outside of the division
Latest: Guacamole
52 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Assessing the Draft Class (2024)
Latest: Krabs
Today at 9:37 AM
Draft Talk
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Coaching in Bears game was as bad as it gets
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top