Official Studs n Duds Bears

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm not saying a dwindling time clock doesn't drive me nuts. It does. At this point I just trust Rodgers to do his thing and let them worry about the timeouts. It doesn't really seem to cost us games.

I will admit, his seemingly wasting timeouts due to running the play clock down to zero, use to bug the snot out of me. But your last statement finally seeped into my brain and the timeouts don't bother me (much).

Like you and others have pointed out, Rodgers is one of the best at clock management in the final few minutes of a game. He has proven time and again that he doesn't need a lot of time or timeouts, to score. I actually watched the 2009 NFC Wild Card Playoffs between the Packers & Cardinals the other night. Rodgers second season as a starter. He has really improved his clock management since then. The Packers were down 38-45 with 4:45 on the clock and at their own 30. Instead of milking all he could out of the clock and the Cardinal timeouts, the Packers scored a TD with 1:52 left on the clock and the Cardinals having all 3 timeouts. That gave the Cardinals way too much and they marched straight down the field and with 14 seconds on the clock, had just a 34 yarder to win it. Fortunately, Neil Rackers missed the chip shot, but the Packers ended up losing in OT when Rodgers fumble was returned for a TD.

I also think Rodgers and MLF are a much better combination for clock management than McCarthy and Rodgers were.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Heyjoe4]

I'm curious if anyone can name a game that the Packers lost due to not having timeouts from Rodgers burning them on an expiring play clock. I will give an example from just this season where the Packers had zero timeouts, were losing, had only 30 seconds let, and still won. That would be the game where the 49ers were the opponent. I'm not saying a dwindling time clock doesn't drive me nuts. It does. At this point I just trust Rodgers to do his thing and let them worry about the timeouts. It doesn't really seem to cost us games.

Ya know Krabs you're probably right. It's just irritating because it would/could make a last minute drive so much easier and keep the entire playbook available. And the down is important. If it's 3rd down and a 1st down is makeable, then a TO is called for if the defensive lines up ready for the main play. I don't have any stats on when what the down was when a TO is called.

But to your point, when did GB ever lose a game because they ran out of TOs? I have no idea. So this is probably much ado about nothing.

 

[gopkrs]

I'm curious if anyone can name a game that the Packers lost due to not having timeouts from Rodgers burning them on an expiring play clock. I will give an example from just this season where the Packers had zero timeouts, were losing, had only 30 seconds let, and still won. That would be the game where the 49ers were the opponent. I'm not saying a dwindling time clock doesn't drive me nuts. It does. At this point I just trust Rodgers to do his thing and let them worry about the timeouts. It doesn't really seem to cost us games.

Well, still better to have them and time outs are to take especially when the other team has the ball.

 

[Krabs]

Well, still better to have them and time outs are to take especially when the other team has the ball.

I don't disagree. Having timeouts would be optimal. I just don't think it has cost us games.

 

[gopkrs]

I don't disagree. Having timeouts would be optimal. I just don't think it has cost us games.

Just two examples. Have we lost a game from throwing the red flag stupidly? Have we lost a game because special teamers did not stay in their lanes? I just don't like those kind of mistakes. And no good reason to do them.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Just two examples. Have we lost a game from throwing the red flag stupidly? Have we lost a game because special teamers did not stay in their lanes? I just don't like those kind of mistakes. And no good reason to do them.

Well, that makes a lot of sense too. Sound football is preserving TOs, making damn sure you're right when throwing a red flag, staying in an assigned lane as a ST player, NOT putting a kickoff out of bounds, and on and on.

So while there may be no place to find games lost due to a breakdown in fundamentals, they add up, just like TOs.

Just two examples. Have we lost a game from throwing the red flag stupidly? Have we lost a game because special teamers did not stay in their lanes? I just don't like those kind of mistakes. And no good reason to do them.

 

[Krabs]

Just two examples. Have we lost a game from throwing the red flag stupidly? Have we lost a game because special teamers did not stay in their lanes? I just don't like those kind of mistakes. And no good reason to do them.

This seems like a whataboutism. Kind of out of scope of the timeout discussion. Clock management is much different than special teams play. While all aspects of the game are important, I will go back to the fact that I do not think Rodgers using timeouts to avoid a delay of game penalty has cost us a game. For sure special teams has. Missed FGs will cost you. Again, I used to get much more worked up and yelling "snap the ball" at Rodgers. I've grown used to it and have reflected more that the outcome of a game rarely is lost because of a misused timeout.

 

[Heyjoe4]

This seems like a whataboutism. Kind of out of scope of the timeout discussion. Clock management is much different than special teams play. While all aspects of the game are important, I will go back to the fact that I do not think Rodgers using timeouts to avoid a delay of game penalty has cost us a game. For sure special teams has. Missed FGs will cost you. Again, I used to get much more worked up and yelling "snap the ball" at Rodgers. I've grown used to it and have reflected more that the outcome of a game rarely is lost because of a misused timeout.

Well Krabs I certainly agree that the chronic bad play out of STs is most frustrating. That seems to be the least complicated part of the game as well. There are no complex plays or moves to master. And in the case of Sunday's game against the Bears, those ST's gaffes would have added up to a loss against a moderately better team. That just can't happen. MLF is gonna have to step in to at least stop the bleeding. GB may not return any punts for TDs or big gains, but catching the ball cleanly would be a nice start.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

One might also ask the question "How many games has Rodgers prevented a turnover, interception, big loss, etc. and we eventually won the game because of it, by using one of those timeouts when he didn't like the play call VS the defense? In some situations I would rather see him just take the 5 yds for delay of game, but maybe that ends up costing up a first down? Lots of what ifs. Like Krabs pointed out, if the Packers were losing games due to a lack of timeouts, it could be said that burning them early is a problem.

 

[Poppa San]

One might also ask the question "How many games has Rodgers prevented a turnover, interception, big loss, etc. and we eventually won the game because of it, by using one of those timeouts when he didn't like the play call VS the defense? In some situations I would rather see him just take the 5 yds for delay of game, but maybe that ends up costing up a first down? Lots of what ifs. Like Krabs pointed out, if the Packers were losing games due to a lack of timeouts, it could be said that burning them early is a problem.

I'm not a fan of lining up to go for it on 4th down, then calling a TO only to punt the ball or miss a FG. Otherwise I defer the the expert on the field.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm not a fan of lining up to go for it on 4th down, then calling a TO only to punt the ball or miss a FG. Otherwise I defer the the expert on the field.

At first I did not like that as well, but I think what happened there was that Rodgers/MLF had a 4th down play in mind that might pick up the first down. When Rodgers looked over the defense, he may have decided that it would be best not to take the snap.

 

[Heyjoe4]

One might also ask the question "How many games has Rodgers prevented a turnover, interception, big loss, etc. and we eventually won the game because of it, by using one of those timeouts when he didn't like the play call VS the defense? In some situations I would rather see him just take the 5 yds for delay of game, but maybe that ends up costing up a first down? Lots of what ifs. Like Krabs pointed out, if the Packers were losing games due to a lack of timeouts, it could be said that burning them early is a problem.

Good point Poker. Gotta look at both sides of that. A TO is better than a pic or a fumble or a sack.

 

[sschind]

I'm curious if anyone can name a game that the Packers lost due to not having timeouts from Rodgers burning them on an expiring play clock. I will give an example from just this season where the Packers had zero timeouts, were losing, had only 30 seconds let, and still won. That would be the game where the 49ers were the opponent. I'm not saying a dwindling time clock doesn't drive me nuts. It does. At this point I just trust Rodgers to do his thing and let them worry about the timeouts. It doesn't really seem to cost us games.

Since its not a factor in games they won that only leaves 65 potential games where Rodgers "wasting" those TOs could have negatively affected the game. Some of those 65 games were blowouts so losing the TO's didn't matter. That leaves relatively few games where you could say Rodgers calling those TOs early could have cost them the game.

 

[PackAttack12]

I also think Rodgers and MLF are a much better combination for clock management than McCarthy and Rodgers were.

That might be because McCarthy is a complete dufus in that category.

His ineptitude with game management reared it's ugly head at times with the Packers, but my goodness he's had some awful blunders with the Cowboys. I'll take LaFleur every day of the week (especially on Sundays) over MM.

 

[PikeBadger]

Since its not a factor in games they won that only leaves 65 potential games where Rodgers "wasting" those TOs could have negatively affected the game. Some of those 65 games were blowouts so losing the TO's didn't matter. That leaves relatively few games where you could say Rodgers calling those TOs early could have cost them the game.

Kind of like Crosby, eh?

 

[Poppa San]

At first I did not like that as well, but I think what happened there was that Rodgers/MLF had a 4th down play in mind that might pick up the first down. When Rodgers looked over the defense, he may have decided that it would be best not to take the snap.

Then take the 5 yards. That was the point I was going for. 4th & goal at the four, mason better be able to hit from 5 yards deeper for instance.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

There should not be blanket statements about all the time outs. It depends on various factors.

Don't get me wrong, sometimes I get mad at Rodgers for taking a timeout because the play clock has run down as well. But overall I'm fine with him not snapping the ball if he doesn't like the call based on the defensive alignment.

Well, still better to have them and time outs are to take especially when the other team has the ball.

As Poker correctly pointed out that's not a sure thing either as Rodgers not taking the timeout on a play he doesn't like could result in a negative one possibly taking points off the board.

I'm too lazy to take a look at all plays after the offense took a timeout for the entire season but here's what happened on the four snaps they took immediately after calling one against the Bears:

11-yard run, 38-yard TD pass, 11-yard pass, 3-yd TD pass.

If any of those would have ended up in a negative play the game might have been way closer.

At first I did not like that as well, but I think what happened there was that Rodgers/MLF had a 4th down play in mind that might pick up the first down. When Rodgers looked over the defense, he may have decided that it would be best not to take the snap.

There have been a lot of snaps when the offense solely lined up to draw the defense offside just to call a timeout with Rodgers under center though.

 

[gopkrs]

Don't get me wrong, sometimes I get mad at Rodgers for taking a timeout because the play clock has run down as well. But overall I'm fine with him not snapping the ball if he doesn't like the call based on the defensive alignment.

I agree. It is just that sometimes it would be better just not to snap it and take the 5 yards. Depends on the situation of course.

 

[gopkrs]

There have been a lot of snaps when the offense solely lined up to draw the defense offside just to call a timeout with Rodgers under center though.

To my way of thinking. If they are actually going to do that; then do it when they can afford to take the 5 yards. Saving 5 yards on a punt or a short field goal is not a good use of your limited time outs.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

There have been a lot of snaps when the offense solely lined up to draw the defense offside just to call a timeout with Rodgers under center though.

The timeout I am thinking about was in the 3rd Q at the 2:55 mark. The Packers had the ball at the Bear 2 yard line, 4th and goal and up 35-27. So if he draws them offsides it doesn't get them a first down, just a potential free play or 1 yard closer. I also think with the Packers being up by 8 points, the goal was to go up by 11 there, which they did when Mason nailed the FG.

Let's just say that wasn't an ideal time or situation to burn a timeout, especially if the intended purpose was just to pick up 1 more yard. I have also noticed that the Refs have become a lot less generous at giving Rodgers "Free Plays" when the defense does jump offsides, seems like they blow the play dead almost immediately when it does happen.

Also, the smarter move in that scenario, would have been to have simply taken a delay of game and pushed the ball back to the 7 and not waste the timeout.

 

[sschind]

To my way of thinking. If they are actually going to do that; then do it when they can afford to take the 5 yards. Saving 5 yards on a punt or a short field goal is not a good use of your limited time outs.

I agree but I would change it just a bit. I wouldn't necessarily say only do it in those situations where you can take the yards but in those situations where you can afford to, take the penalty.

The timeout I am thinking about was in the 3rd Q at the 2:55 mark. The Packers had the ball at the Bear 2 yard line, 4th and goal and up 35-27. So if he draws them offsides it doesn't get them a first down, just a potential free play or 1 yard closer. I also think with the Packers being up by 8 points, the goal was to go up by 11 there, which they did when Mason nailed the FG.

Let's just say that wasn't an ideal time or situation to burn a timeout, especially if the intended purpose was just to pick up 1 more yard. I have also noticed that the Refs have become a lot less generous at giving Rodgers "Free Plays" when the defense does jump offsides, seems like they blow the play dead almost immediately when it does happen.

Also, the smarter move in that scenario, would have been to have simply taken a delay of game and pushed the ball back to the 7 and not waste the timeout.

With the way Crosby has been this year I'm not so sure You are right though, what was there to gain in that situation? A potential TD? Yeah if they had a free play and it worked. 1 yard? Maybe at 4th and goal from the 1 you run it with Dillon but I think going up by 2 scores at that point would have been the right call even at 4th and goal from the 1.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I agree but I would change it just a bit. I wouldn't necessarily say only do it in those situations where you can take the yards but in those situations where you can afford to, take the penalty.



With the way Crosby has been this year I'm not so sure You are right though, what was there to gain in that situation? A potential TD? Yeah if they had a free play and it worked. 1 yard? Maybe at 4th and goal from the 1 you run it with Dillon but I think going up by 2 scores at that point would have been the right call even at 4th and goal from the 1.

Yeah I think with the short amount of time left, going up by two scores was doable. Crosby had better be able to hit it from that point on the field, blindfolded.

 

[realitybytez]

I'm curious if anyone can name a game that the Packers lost due to not having timeouts from Rodgers burning them on an expiring play clock. I will give an example from just this season where the Packers had zero timeouts, were losing, had only 30 seconds let, and still won. That would be the game where the 49ers were the opponent. I'm not saying a dwindling time clock doesn't drive me nuts. It does. At this point I just trust Rodgers to do his thing and let them worry about the timeouts. It doesn't really seem to cost us games.

i think there have been a couple games that we lost and fans were wishing that we had all of our timeouts in thast few minutes of the game. but that doesn't mean the result would have been any different. but maybe it could have been.

i also think that - when you consider how few losses the packers have had when rodgers was the starting qb and played the entire game - it really isn't a factor that we should be concerned about. i trust that if rodgers calls a timeout, he almost always has a good reason.

 

[sschind]

Kind of like Crosby, eh?

Not sure what you mean but if you are saying how many games has a Crosby missed kick contributed to a loss I would say Yes, Like Crosby.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Not sure what you mean but if you are saying how many games has a Crosby missed kick contributed to a loss I would say Yes, Like Crosby.

I don't remember GB losing a game because Crosby missed a walk off kick. Not to say it hasn't happened, I just don't remember. I like Crosby and all he's done for GB. Maybe he's physically unable to do the job at the level we've seen. Keep him until a better prospect comes along. I'm just not fond of calling for his head because his skills have deteriorated a little. It is a matter that will likely be addressed in the off season.