1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Should have called timeout?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by gopkrs, Feb 2, 2015.

  1. gopkrs

    gopkrs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 12, 2014
    Messages:
    329
    Ratings:
    +98
    Wondering what you all think about NE not calling a t/o on the last goal line stand. While I was watching; I thought they should have called one. Of course now it looks like maybe not calling one allowed for the seahawks to make a stupid call. They might have had some time though...if they had needed it. Hindsight is 20-20 but should they have called a time out?
    I have to admit; I love that those idiots got beat the way they did.
     
  2. Brandon

    Brandon Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    236
    Ratings:
    +119
    They certainly should have called one. I don't care what the outcome was, 90% of the time you're going to get scored on in that situation. You need to take a time out there to give Brady a chance to at least try and get a field goal for his team. Bill didn't know Seattle was going to make a dumb play on the half yard line, his coaching credibility simply lucked out.
     
  3. Carl

    Carl Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2013
    Messages:
    2,766
    Ratings:
    +1,909
    Not calling a timeout worked and they won the Super Bowl.

    No, they should not have called one.
     
  4. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,518
    Ratings:
    +1,990
    ....or Collinsworth was saying that the Patriots should have let the Seahawks score.

    I remember this exact same situation five or six seasons ago. McCarthy made a goal-line stand and we lost the game because there was no time left to go down and score. The media and fans were relentless in how he should have let the other team score.

    I'm a believer in placing faith in your team when they deserve it. The Patriots defense helped get them to the Super Bowl, let them win it. I think it sends a terrible message to the team that the HC doesn't trust you to get the job done.

    Regarding the specific play, I have no problem with the pass. Had it worked he would have been lauded as a genius for doing the opposite of what everybody (including the Patriots) thought they would do which is run Lynch into the line. There are way too many armchair QBs in the media.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Pokerbrat2000

    Pokerbrat2000 Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,670
    Ratings:
    +2,895
    Basic clock management....Seattle had plenty of time and timeouts to run whatever plays they wanted......New England on the other hand, needed clock had Seattle scored. You call a timeout and give Brady as much time as you can, had the Sea Schmucks scored. I don't think this is telling your defense you don't have faith in them, its basic clock management.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Carl

    Carl Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2013
    Messages:
    2,766
    Ratings:
    +1,909
    Maybe if NE called a timeout, Seattle would have come to their senses during it and decided to hand it to Lynch and won the game.
     
  7. Pokerbrat2000

    Pokerbrat2000 Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,670
    Ratings:
    +2,895
    we will never know what would have happened if NE called a TO or if the Sea Schmucks had run the ball....but IMO....its about clock management, something as fans we see the clock managed poorly from time to time and not from a rear view mirror (after the fact) standpoint either. I mean how long did it take coaches to realize that if you need time on the clock at the end of the half or game you call TO at 2:08....not letting the clock run down to the two minute warning and then using the same timeout at 1:52.

    As we all know from watching Rodgers, the offense doesn't need a lot of time to score and timeouts are more valuable when you are defense and can't control the clock. But as the case was in the game yesterday, if you don't give your offense any time on the clock to potentially pull the game out....and you have timeouts unused at the end of the game.....poor clock management.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2015
  8. sschind

    sschind Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    997
    Ratings:
    +498
    I've never been a fan of letting the other team score but not calling the time out was suspect at the very least. Its not like time was against the Seahawks and the TO would have really helped them. Like pokerbrat said they seemed to have time to do pretty much whatever they wanted . That said time was a factor in Pete Carroll's mind and perhaps that is what Bellichick saw as well.

    I saw one article that explained Carroll's thought process this way. If we run on second down (against a stacked front) and get stuffed we have to burn our last TO. Then we probably have to pass on 3rd down (getting stuffed again on a 3rd down run might not leave enough time to get a 4th down play off) and if its incomplete we have to make the choice of run or throw on 4th down.

    When explained that way it kind of makes sense. He was trying to make sure they would have 3 downs to get the TD after the first down run was stopped at the 1. Personally I think Lynch would have scored if given 2 attempts from the 1 and if they would have needed it and been able to get the 4th down play off I think they would have scored on that one. Of course there is the IF involved. It wasn't a bad play call and even though Bevel looks like a jerk for throwing Lockett under the bus he is probably right. Lockett will forever be wondering if he did enough on that play.

    Given that explanation it seems Carroll probably would not have called that pass play had NE taken a timeout after the 1st down play. He probably would have run the ball up the gut with Lynch again.

    Who said this was easy.
     
  9. adambr2

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    2,792
    Ratings:
    +2,175
    IMO the score dictates whether or not you let them score.

    With a 4 point lead, you do not let them score. You can still win the game with a goalline stand. You give your defense the opportunity to do that because they still have the ability to win the game.

    In a 0-2 point game, I would let them score and preserve the clock. Otherwise, they'll simply milk the clock and kick an extra point length FG to win. Nothing is 100% certain in the NFL, but an extra point is about as close as it gets. It does you no good to trust your defense if they can just trot the FG kicker out there with 0:02 anyway and win it.

    A 3 point lead is probably the toughest call, but I'd still probably try to come up with the stand and force overtime.
     
  10. NelsonsLongCatch

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,686
    Ratings:
    +845
    It all worked out for the best.... since Seattle lost.
     
  11. Powarun

    Powarun Big Bay Blues fan

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,048
    Ratings:
    +420
    At first I was wondering why they didn't, then thought, wow, Belinchek was playing with fire. I bet he was thinking that the Seahawks wanted him to do a timeout so they could benefit, and it would throw them off guard, instead it didn't. Really the ending of that game makes a lot of sense, and it was improbable that the Patriots won. I was wondering if the Seahawks would of had a safety on Brady.
     
  12. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,754
    Ratings:
    +3,695
    There is some method to Belichic's madness.

    Not calling the timeout before 2nd. down left 0:26 on the clock at the snap with Seattle having one timeout left.

    Belichick's argument might be he was limiting Seattle's options on their 3 remaining snaps by letting the clock run down.

    Seattle could have gone:

    (1) incomplete/huddle/run or pass/timeout if necessary/run or pass, or

    (2) run/timeout/incomplete/run or pass

    In the postgame interview, Carroll stated that his strategy was (1) in order to get all 3 plays in, while having run/pass option on 3rd. and 4th. down. Note that approach (2) provided the run/pass option only on 4th. down.

    It would appear Belichick was willing to risk that he'd correctly anticipated Carroll's thinking and the likely play calls, thereby trading a last possession (with limited time on the clock and perhaps no timeouts) for better odds at making a stop.

    There are reasons this guy has won 4 Superbowls that have little or nothing to do with cheating.
     
  13. adambr2

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    2,792
    Ratings:
    +2,175
    I'm almost inclined to believe Bellichick just got lost in the moment. It seems implausible to me that Bellichick somehow anticipated not burning the timeout leading directly to a questionable 2nd down pass play by Seattle which somehow led to the goalline INT. If he anticipated that entire series of events, he's far more football genius than I've given him credit for.

    In any event, Carroll still had the run/run/run option all along. The 2nd down snap occurred with 26 seconds left (also, they could have hiked it with more time left if they had desired). Had it been a straight running play, even if Lynch is tackled in the field of play it's likely this would have happened for 22-23 seconds left, which would have left plenty of time to get back up to the line, run it again, and still call timeout with time left on the clock if it came down to 4th down.

    Of course there is always the chance for some goalline chaos. Lynch goes down right at the goalline, no signal yet as time ticks off, and finally they are forced to burn the last timeout on 3rd down rather than risk any more time coming off the clock. Could have happened that way if they had run on 2nd down.

    Hard for me to believe though that they wouldn't have been safe to run it 3 times if they snapped 2nd down with 30-35 seconds left.
     
  14. Twiddlemylobes

    Twiddlemylobes Fat Tuesday Orleans

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    1,092
    Ratings:
    +511
    They're a couple of field Generals. I thought the same thing about stopping the clock, then I remembered seeing Belichick all calm and thought?... He know's something I don't
     
  15. red4tribe

    red4tribe Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    943
    Ratings:
    +435
    Saw somewhere than Belichick didn't call a timeout because he saw the Seahawks were going to throw. True or not, we will never know if he lucked out or if it was a genius decision.
     
  16. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,754
    Ratings:
    +3,695
    As I stated, it was Carroll who laid out the strategy as I described it:

    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...oll-explains-illfated-call-in-super-bowl-xlix

    So, while you may think he could get off 3 running plays in 26 seconds with one timeout, he stated he did not want to take that risk.

    1st. down was over at about the 0:56 mark. Seattle could have lined up right away with enough time for 3 more run plays, as you suggest. Carroll said he would have taken the risk with a run on 2nd. down if NE did not have their goal line personnel on the field. But of course they did, and how could it have been otherwise? The fact they let the clock run down before 2nd. down was obviously to keep Brady from getting the ball back with time on the clock.

    Belichick was not as loquacious as Carroll (no surprise there) in talking about the 2nd. down play. He said they put in goal line personnel, which they run with 1 or 2 or 3 CBs. What he did not highlight was that NE had 3 CBs on the field in this instance. And if you look at the replay, the ILB was well off the line in pass coverage position; there were no run blitzing backers in place. It seems to me he did in fact anticipate pass.

    I find it far more plausible Belichick assessed the situation and calculated the likelihood of pass on 2nd. down rather than simply getting lost in the moment.
     
  17. adambr2

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    2,792
    Ratings:
    +2,175
    I'm not saying you're wrong, as we just don't know for sure what the thought process was there, and you do make a good point in regard to the strategy of the backers. To me your odds if you're New England of being able to drive back down and at least get a FG to tie with 50-55 seconds left, are far greater than somehow anticipating an unlikely playcall within a span of 20-30 seconds and counting on the 1-2% chance that he throws an INT on it.

    It seems crazy to me if Bellichick was not only counting on that sequence of events but banking his strategy on it rather than rolling the dice with Brady being able to drive back down for a tying or winning drive with a little less than a minute left.

    He's the best chess player ever if he somehow had :56 - :20 all playing out in his head as the clock was ticking.
     
  18. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,754
    Ratings:
    +3,695
    I doubt Belichick was counting on an INT. He was looking to better his chances of stopping Seattle by forcing them to play away from their strength or forfeiting a down.

    I wouldn't doubt that Belichick is the only coach in the league who would have played it this way. He's known for unconventionality.

    I recall the game against Indy where he went for it on 4th. and 2 in his own territory with a 6 point lead with 2 minutes to play. He might have been the only coach in the league who would make that call.

    http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/defending-belichicks-fourth-down-decision/?_r=0

    However you want to characterize it, you can be fairly certain he did not lose track of the clock.
     
  19. Mondio

    Mondio Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2014
    Messages:
    2,812
    Ratings:
    +1,779
    He was confident in his team and his players. I think taking a timeout would have given more advantage to Seattle, giving them 3 times to try and run it in. Not taking a timeout put the pressure back on them.

    I guess it just goes to show, you run, you should pass, you pass, you should have ran, you don't call a time out, you should have called a time out. But we won the Super Bowl, doesn't matter :)
     
  20. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,518
    Ratings:
    +1,990
    Belichik had his goal-line run stopping defense in there on second down. I doubt he'd do that if he was expecting pass.

    As noted by others above, both of these coaches employ unconventional approaches to play calling. That's why both of their teams were in the big game, but you live and die by that sword.
     
  21. Mondio

    Mondio Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2014
    Messages:
    2,812
    Ratings:
    +1,779
    I don't think he could have played it down there with anything other than his goal line run stopping defense. If they lighten it up, up front, Seattle walks in.
     
  22. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,754
    Ratings:
    +3,695
    As goal line defenses go, he had a pass defense package in as noted in post #16.
     
  23. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,518
    Ratings:
    +1,990
    That's not an accurate representation of their defense. Read Belichick's response (below). They had three CBs in there because the offense lined up three WRs. They were just matching the offense, not anticipating a play.

    It all came down to a rookie CB having great anticipation and making a great play. That was the most important factor than anything else.

    http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/...ichick_discusses_goal_line_defensive_strategy
     
  24. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,754
    Ratings:
    +3,695
    Right..."three corners, two corners, one corner, no corners". They had 3 on the field. I cited that quote already.

    4 down linemen...9 strung out across the line...1 LB five yds off the line. As goal line defenses go, this is about as pass- oriented as you can get, as I repeat myself yet again. Check the video, where it will be helpful to hit pause before the snap:

    http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2015020100/2014/POST22/patriots@seahawks?icampaign=GC_schedule_rr#menu=gameinfo|contentId:0ap3000000467461&tab=videos

    "We were prepared for this situation", Belichick said. That all you're going to get from him. The rest you need to figure out for yourself.

    If you prefer to think Belichick lost track of the clock and could not have anticipated Carroll's plan for the last 3 plays as Carroll outlined it after the game, then go right ahead.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2015
  25. pacmaniac

    pacmaniac Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    250
    Ratings:
    +118
    I've read some articles calling Belichick a genius for not calling a timeout. Seattle only had 1 timeout left, so they could only run 2 times at most. If Belichick called timeout, then Seattle could run 3 times. So by not calling timeout, they forced Seattle to pass.
     

Share This Page