Using timeouts at end of first half

[Poppa San]

So why did the defense then give up two long quick plays?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So why did the defense then give up two long quick plays?

McCarthy told them to give up a quick FG, so we could get the ball back and score a quick TD?

 

[OldSchool101]

This has been repeated by numerous people but we at best would have had the ball with under 5 seconds (likely none) at the other side of midfield and with the way Ryan was punting closer to the 30. That really doesn't count as a possession

We can debate all day but facts are facts at any given time to make a decision and regardless if we think it was a bad decision or a good one we don't have the ability to change facts or use the future result to support our arguments. These are the facts:

The ball was at the Seattle 18 yard line with :43 sec on the clock. Seattle had just gone -1 and +8 yards the 2 consecutive plays leading up to this. WE had zero idea if the next play is a run or a pass, so we don't have the luxury of using the "end result".
What we do know as fact is that Seattle had limited time and more than 50 yards just to get into FG range at minimum. We also know that they intended on scoring or they would kneel on the ball, they did not do this.
Common sense would say they want to save at least one of their remaining 2 timeouts to line up at minimum for a FG if needed and in order to get their ST unit on the field. With the average play taking roughly 7 seconds (assuming you don't get caught in bounds..which is obviously the name of the game here) that is roughly 6-7 plays because the last play only needs to be snapped before time runs out (you can literally run a final play starting with 1 sec. I'm leaning towards 7 plays that can be run (I'll give you 6 if one of those is a Seattle punt).
IF Seattle runs the ball and picks up a 1st down in bounds? They are forced to take another T.O.
IF Seattle runs the ball and misses the 1st down marker? then the clock runs out. No harm no foul.
IF Seattle throws the ball it stops the clock incomplete or falls it's 4th down with :38 seconds on the clock.
Scenario 3 has Seattle punting from possibly inside their own 20 and (based on their punting average of 45 yards) puts GB somewhere near their own 40 yard line with around :30 seconds on the clock
I'm being conservative here and saying it could be a fair catch (statistically the punt returner may have picked up a few yards, reasonably into the 40-45 yard-line range)
Crosby has a legit shot up from anywhere inside the Seattle 40 yard line. That means you need 15-20 in 3-4 plays which is very feasible at taken into consideration current field position.
Second conclusion is we come up short.. between their 45 and our 45? Aaron Rodgers has the arm to get this into the Enzone.
3rd conclusion is that we go backwards or for zero yards. No harm no foul.

We take risks playing football, we could fumble, we could throw another INT, we could get players hurt.. but most importantly we could NOT TRY to win.

We obviously differ in Opinion and that's fine, I can live with mine just fine. IF I'm the coach I'm NOT happy with ZERO on my scoreboard at home at halftime! IDC what score the other team has. ZERO will never win game.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

We can debate all day but facts are facts at any given time to make a decision and regardless if we think it was a bad decision or a good one we don't have the ability to change facts or use the future result to support our arguments. These are the facts:

The ball was at the Seattle 18 yard line with :43 sec on the clock. Seattle had just gone -1 and +8 yards the 2 consecutive plays leading up to this. WE had zero idea if the next play is a run or a pass, so we don't have the luxury of using the "end result".
What we do know as fact is that Seattle had limited time and more than 50 yards just to get into FG range at minimum. We also know that they intended on scoring or they would kneel on the ball, they did not do this.
Common sense would say they want to save at least one of their remaining 2 timeouts to line up at minimum for a FG if needed and in order to get their ST unit on the field. With the average play taking roughly 7 seconds (assuming you don't get caught in bounds..which is obviously the name of the game here) that is roughly 6-7 plays because the last play only needs to be snapped before time runs out (you can literally run a final play starting with 1 sec. I'm leaning towards 7 plays that can be run (I'll give you 6 if one of those is a Seattle punt).
IF Seattle runs the ball and picks up a 1st down in bounds? They are forced to take another T.O.
IF Seattle runs the ball and misses the 1st down marker? then the clock runs out. No harm no foul.
IF Seattle throws the ball it stops the clock incomplete or falls it's 4th down with :38 seconds on the clock.
Scenario 3 has Seattle punting from possibly inside their own 20 and (based on their punting average of 45 yards) puts GB somewhere near their own 40 yard line with around :30 seconds on the clock
I'm being conservative here and saying it could be a fair catch (statistically the punt returner may have picked up a few yards, reasonably into the 40-45 yard-line range)
Crosby has a legit shot up from anywhere inside the Seattle 40 yard line. That means you need 15-20 in 3-4 plays which is very feasible at taken into consideration current field position.
Second conclusion is we come up short.. between their 45 and our 45? Aaron Rodgers has the arm to get this into the Enzone.
3rd conclusion is that we go backwards or for zero yards. No harm no foul.

We take risks playing football, we could fumble, we could throw another INT, we could get players hurt.. but most importantly we could NOT TRY to win.

We obviously differ in Opinion and that's fine, I can live with mine just fine. IF I'm the coach I'm NOT happy with ZERO on my scoreboard at home at halftime! IDC what score the other team has. ZERO will never win game.

First, I do not think Seattle had scoring on their minds when that series started and especially after the first play. Had they, they would have thrown the ball. They wanted to run clock and make the Packers burn timeouts. The defense was even leaving the field, that isn't a sign of a team wanting to extend the first half.

I appreciate all the scenarios, but you stated at the beginning, debating doesn't change what happened and I agree. However, discussion and learning from it, which I hope MM does, is what you want MM to take from it.

Sure, all those scenarios you listed are possibilities, but in the end, Seattle scored 3 points and IMO, made MM look a bit foolish for calling timeouts and allowing Seattle to score when they were satisfied just to run the clock out. I kind of get the first time out, after negative yardage, but not the second after a +8 run. That is where if you are MM, you throw your hands up and say "Uncle"......you want to try and score on us now, use your own timeouts on 3rd and 3, the odds just got stacked against me.

 

[OldSchool101]

First, I do not think Seattle had scoring on their minds when that series started and especially after the first play. Had they, they would have thrown the ball. They wanted to run clock and make the Packers burn timeouts. The defense was even leaving the field, that isn't a sign of a team wanting to extend the first half.

I appreciate all the scenarios, but you stated at the beginning, debating doesn't change what happened and I agree. However, discussion and learning from it, which I hope MM does, is what you want MM to take from it.

Sure, all those scenarios you listed are possibilities, but in the end, Seattle scored 3 points and IMO, made MM look a bit foolish for calling timeouts and allowing Seattle to score when they were satisfied just to run the clock out. I kind of get the first time out, after negative yardage, but not the second after a +8 run. That is where if you are MM, you throw your hands up and say "Uncle"......you want to try and score on us now, use your own timeouts on 3rd and 3, the odds just got stacked against me.

I can see both sides and both have some validity. The essential point I'm trying to make is that we are all splitting hairs here and putting our coach in the cross hairs for trying to win. He's a coach and he's human and he has to make split second decisions and it's in his DNA not to just sit around idle waiting to see what Seattle can do. These calls are easy to make after-the-fact. You could play this scenario out another 10 times and I don't think more than 1 or 2 would result in a score by Seattle and and 1 or 2 by GB. Let's give the opposing team some credit in that they executed their strategy properly. Maybe we just got beat on that series because they executed better. Who's to say they would not have scored if we didn't call a time out?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I can see both sides and both have some validity. The essential point I'm trying to make is that we are all splitting hairs here. He's a coach and he's human and he has to make split second decisions. These calls are easy to make after-the-fact. You could play this scenario out another 10 times and I don't think more than 1 or 2 would result in a score. Let's give the opposing team some credit in that they executed their strategy properly. Maybe we just got beat on that series because they executed better.

I wouldn't have given it a second thought, but it has failed often enough in the past, that I started screaming at the TV instantly after that 2nd timeout.

Again, I don't have Stats on how often it backfires, but I haven't missed a Packer game in 30+ years and I remember it happening enough to be on my radar as a "here we go again" moment.

Maybe next time it happens....the Packers will turn it into a pick 6. I just would prefer to see the half end.

 

[OldSchool101]

I wouldn't have given it a second thought, but it has failed often enough in the past, that I started screaming at the TV instantly after that 2nd timeout.

Again, I don't have Stats on how often it backfires, but I haven't missed a Packer game in 30+ years and I remember it happening enough to be on my radar as a "here we go again" moment.

Maybe next time it happens....the Packers will turn it into a pick 6. I just would prefer to see the half end.

In a zero to zero game? That's being mighty cautious!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

In a zero to zero game? That's being mighty cautious!

Actually, in a 0-0 defensive battle....3 points can decide a game. So being cautious in that situation isn't a bad thing IMO. Imagine had that been the end of the game? I think this conversation might be different today.

Bottom line to me, MM was not in control, Seattle was with 2 timeouts and the ball. Had Seattle decided they didn't want to give AR the ball back, they could have just run out the clock, but they took advantage of an opportunity that MM presented them. Smart football on Pete Carroll's part, as much as that pains me to say.

 

[AlabamaPackerCracker]

I guess for me there's a difference between strategic aggression and reckless aggression. Again, if there's more time left or another timeout as his disposal I'm all for him betting on his defense to get the ball back to the offense. There just mathematically was no time for that to happen in this case barring a fluke turnover or something. There was next to no upside and plenty of downside (which ended up coming to fruition). It would be like at the end of the game instead of having AR kneel down 3 times to end the game MM continued to call pass plays. Sure it's aggressive, wouldn't really have any upside or make any sense though

 

[Dblbogey]

The defense was dominating the game. He trusted his defense. That vote of confidence is going to be much bigger than a couple of timeouts as this season progresses.

McCarthy has done this several times over the years. I have seen it backfire several times but can't recall it ever actually working. It's good that this is one of the few things we can complain about right now , though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

McCarthy has done this several times over the years. I have seen it backfire several times but can't recall it ever actually working. It's good that this is one of the few things we can complain about right now , though.

I stated it before, I think it actually worked last year in the playoffs against the Giants before the Hail Mary to Cobb for the TD to end of the first half, but beyond that, my memory remembers it failing too many times.

Sean Payton and the Saints obviously weren't watching MM and the Packers yesterday, they tried the same thing against the Vikings tonight and instead of costing the Saints 3 points when it backfired, it cost them a TD. Have to laugh because Chuckie (Jon Gruden) was praising Peyton for having confidence in his defense and his aggressive coaching by using 2 timeouts. When it backfired, one of the announcers pointed out that maybe it wasn't such a good idea to have used those timeouts, since the Vikings probably wouldn't have scored.

 

[gopkrs]

For me it was just stupid. There would not have been enough time for us minus a fumble or blocked punt. But there was enough time for them. Why McCarthy has problems with timeouts is beyond me. Yes, the 1st one I could possibly see. But Seattle was not going to pass and stop the clock. So after the 1st one...it was stupid to call the 2nd one.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

There's absolutely no doubt that it was a stupid mistake by McCarthy to call those timeouts as the clock would have run out even if the Packers had stopped the Seahawks on third down.