NFL Playoffs

[Fear The Chorizo]

Sure, there's tons going on during a game for a head coach to be aware of - but clock and timeout management seems like a constant disaster that ends up costing teams games or at least makes things more difficult than necessary. I can't stand MM's constant use of timeouts near the end of the 1st half when on defense to try and get the ball back - particularly when their defense is far from a dominant unit. Seems like assuming they can get off the field on a 3rd down to give their offense an extra minute to score again before halftime backfires on them far too often.

 

With all the position coaches and quality control jobs for teams on the sideline and booth, why don't teams put someone solely in charge of clock management that can communicate through the HC's headset as to when a timeout should be called? Even someone that could get in McCarthy's ear before a series to remind him that, for example, "your defense hasn't stopped them all half, don't call timeout to stop the clock if they don't get a 1st down after their 1st play and let's just go to half with the score as-is."

[PeaveyFury]

I'm a little too young to know but were head coaches as bad at clock management 20 years ago?

 

It just seems to me that there should be rules you follow to make it easy on yourself. Kinda like going for two - if you're down five you go for two, if you're down six you kick the extra point, etc.

 

Having some sort of 'cheat sheet' like they do for 2 pointers would require the coaches to acknowledge that this is a problem, though. It's not nearly to the level of the old boys' club in baseball, but so many of these guys seem to prefer managing the clock based off of gut and instinct rather than actual logic.

 

Call it ego or whatever, I just don't know how many of those guys would even admit that they made mistakes yesterday. Not sure if Tomlin got asked about it after the game in his situation, but if he did, I'd imagine he defended his actions pretty fiercely. So many of these guys don't actually think they've done it wrong.

[brewcrewdue80]

Wow, on the Minnesota play. How does that possibly happen? May be the single worst effort I've seen from a defensive player who's one job is safety, ie don't let an offensive player by you for a TD. On top of it, he took out the CB.

 

Please Jacksonville have a great defense against Brady and those Blessed with forever luck Patriots, because the QB opponents he has to potentially play through for another SB is just sad. The coaching miss calls and officiating luck and now it's simply 3rd tier rate QBs to face.

[PeaveyFury]

On top of it, he took out the CB.

 

This is a great point that got lost a bit in all of the discussion about the play yesterday. Not only was it a poor, unwise, and simply puzzling play on an individual level, he compounded it by taking out the only other player on defense that might have had even a slim chance to take down the receiver at the same time.

[KeithStone53151]

The other one that literally every single coach gets wrong, is when they score a touchdown when down 18. You always go for 2. If you get it, great you're down 10. If not, you are down 12 and you KNOW you need 2 touchdowns. It avoids being down 11 and then missing the 2 pointer later on...thus needing 4 scores.

 

I don't agree with that at all. You kick the extra point so you're down 11, needing TD/2pt and a FG rather than needing two TDs. That seems like a no-brainer actually. You always want to avoid dong "more than necessary" until you have to. Otherwise you're always making up for what you failed to do earlier. It's really the same thing as college coaches who start chasing the 2 point conversions way too early in games.

 

The situation is different if it were midway through the second quarter...at that point I would agree to take the PAT, but usually this is a 3rd or early 4th quarter situation. Your odds already aren't good and your scoring opportunities will be very limited. The situation you avoid by going for 2 early is making the wrong decision later on in the game. Let's say you take the extra point...down 11...and on your next possession have 4th and 2 at the 30 early in the 4th quarter. What do you do? If it's 12 you obviously go for it. If it's 10 you probably kick the field goal, which you probably should do down 11 as well. But then let's say you score a touchdown in the final 2 minutes but miss the 2 point conversion. You can't go back in time and decide to go for it on that 4th and 2. And as I noted above, at that point in the game you pretty much have to shut down the other offense to have a chance. The other team kicking a field goal after your first touchdown, regardless of the decision, doesn't have an overly negative impact as it remains a 2 score game. A touchdown probably is a dagger.

[TURBO]

I have a friend who claims all NFL games, especially playoffs are rigged. He says it is obvious that the Saints DB wiffed that play on purpose, to rig a Vikings win. It was bad enough, that I can understand where he is coming from, however, to rig an NFL game would have so many moving parts, I just can't imagine it to be possible and to have it kept a secret for so long.

[FVBrewerFan]

The other one that literally every single coach gets wrong, is when they score a touchdown when down 18. You always go for 2. If you get it, great you're down 10. If not, you are down 12 and you KNOW you need 2 touchdowns. It avoids being down 11 and then missing the 2 pointer later on...thus needing 4 scores.

 

I don't agree with that at all. You kick the extra point so you're down 11, needing TD/2pt and a FG rather than needing two TDs. That seems like a no-brainer actually. You always want to avoid dong "more than necessary" until you have to. Otherwise you're always making up for what you failed to do earlier. It's really the same thing as college coaches who start chasing the 2 point conversions way too early in games.

 

The situation is different if it were midway through the second quarter...at that point I would agree to take the PAT, but usually this is a 3rd or early 4th quarter situation. Your odds already aren't good and your scoring opportunities will be very limited. The situation you avoid by going for 2 early is making the wrong decision later on in the game. Let's say you take the extra point...down 11...and on your next possession have 4th and 2 at the 30 early in the 4th quarter. What do you do? If it's 12 you obviously go for it. If it's 10 you probably kick the field goal, which you probably should do down 11 as well. But then let's say you score a touchdown in the final 2 minutes but miss the 2 point conversion. You can't go back in time and decide to go for it on that 4th and 2. And as I noted above, at that point in the game you pretty much have to shut down the other offense to have a chance. The other team kicking a field goal after your first touchdown, regardless of the decision, doesn't have an overly negative impact as it remains a 2 score game. A touchdown probably is a dagger.

 

I'm not going to change your mind, but there is NO scenario where you wouldn't want to set yourself up for a TD/FG rather that two TDs. You may be over-thinking a bit with all the scenarios that COULD happen later. None of that matters. You go with the right decision at that time, and all kinds of things could develop after that can't be anticipated. There's just no way you would ever turn down the chance to be down 11 rather than 12 late in a game. Ever.

[adambr2]

I'm not going to change your mind, but there is NO scenario where you wouldn't want to set yourself up for a TD/FG rather that two TDs. You may be over-thinking a bit with all the scenarios that COULD happen later. None of that matters. You go with the right decision at that time, and all kinds of things could develop after that can't be anticipated. There's just no way you would ever turn down the chance to be down 11 rather than 12 late in a game. Ever.

 

I don't get the logic or reason in this at all. He's not overthinking -- your strategy, IMO, just isn't mathematically logical.

 

If you're down 18 midway through the 4th, and you score a TD, to make it 12, you need to attempt a 2 at some point.

 

If you wait til later, and you get a FG later, and then score the potential tying drive at the last minute, now if you don't get the 2, you lose. You have no opportunity to make up for missing it.

 

If you try it right away and miss, yes you're down 12 which is obviously worse than 11, but you needed to try one at some point. At least you have the information ahead of time that you need TDs and can strategize accordingly, instead of even attempting a FG, which under your scenario ends up being a totally useless kick and had you known that on that drive you would have gone for a TD instead.

 

What you potentially need under either strategy is the same. There is absolutely no disadvantage to giving yourself all the information you need sooner rather than later.

[FVBrewerFan]

You are over-thinking it as well. Mathematically, it is easier to score a TD and a FG than two TDs. Why would you not (almost) automatically position yourself for a TD/FG by just kicking the extra point and making it an 11 point game? I really don't think it's even a close call.

 

I've avoided this as part of my reasoning, because making it 11 point game should be reason enough. But a secondary reason is it gives you the option of kicking the FG first. If offense hits 4th down, you're not forced to go for it, yet another all-in move that could fail. Instead, kick the FG early, now all you need is that TD/2 pt. AND you've saved a ton of time on the clock.

[adambr2]

I'm a little too young to know but were head coaches as bad at clock management 20 years ago?

 

Yes.

 

It just seems to me that there should be rules you follow to make it easy on yourself. Kinda like going for two - if you're down five you go for two, if you're down six you kick the extra point, etc.

 

The Eagles had two timeouts and the ball with :46 left in the half the other day. They threw a short pass, the dude didn't get out of bounds so clock is running. They decide to have everyone line up so they can run another play. 23 seconds runs off the clock and one of their guys jumps offsides probably because they were rushing to get back to the line. THEN they call a timeout. So dumb...

 

The other thing that I just can't fathom is wasting timeouts mid way through a half because you can't get the play in fast enough. The packers literally do this once a game without fail. I'd be curious if the patriots ever do this. Seems like they always have all three timeouts under two minutes left.

 

The one that absolutely blows my mind is the coaches that need to use their timeouts on defense with 2-3 minutes left to get the ball back and they wait until AFTER the 2 minute warning to use them. I'm absolutely stunned that this is here in 2018 and these coaches who work 80 hours a week on nothing but football still haven't figured out that this accomplishes nothing but pissing away precious seconds.

 

Case in point yesterday:

 

Jaguars get the ball after the failed onside kick up 7 with 2:18 and the Steelers have 2 timeouts. So inexplicably, Tomlin lets the clock go down to 2:00 after 1st down and uses them after 2nd and 3rd, after which the clock reads 1:50. Had he called them immediately after 1st and 2nd, 2:00 would have come after 3rd down, and 1:55 after the FG instead of 1:45.

 

And lo and behold, the Steelers score to make it 45-42 with 1 second left, at which point the game is over anyway. Sure, if they had scored with 11 seconds instead of 1, the odds of them recovering an onside and then either getting a hail Mary or pass play out of bounds in FG range were still remote, but at least there would have been a chance.

 

I am absolutely flabbergasted that the best minds in the football world cannot wrap their respective heads around this simple logic.

[FVBrewerFan]

I'm a little too young to know but were head coaches as bad at clock management 20 years ago?

 

Yes.

 

It just seems to me that there should be rules you follow to make it easy on yourself. Kinda like going for two - if you're down five you go for two, if you're down six you kick the extra point, etc.

 

The Eagles had two timeouts and the ball with :46 left in the half the other day. They threw a short pass, the dude didn't get out of bounds so clock is running. They decide to have everyone line up so they can run another play. 23 seconds runs off the clock and one of their guys jumps offsides probably because they were rushing to get back to the line. THEN they call a timeout. So dumb...

 

The other thing that I just can't fathom is wasting timeouts mid way through a half because you can't get the play in fast enough. The packers literally do this once a game without fail. I'd be curious if the patriots ever do this. Seems like they always have all three timeouts under two minutes left.

 

The one that absolutely blows my mind is the coaches that need to use their timeouts on defense with 2-3 minutes left to get the ball back and they wait until AFTER the 2 minute warning to use them. I'm absolutely stunned that this is here in 2018 and these coaches who work 80 hours a week on nothing but football still haven't figured out that this accomplishes nothing but pissing away precious seconds.

 

Case in point yesterday:

 

Jaguars get the ball after the failed onside kick up 7 with 2:18 and the Steelers have 2 timeouts. So inexplicably, Tomlin lets the clock go down to 2:00 after 1st down and uses them after 2nd and 3rd, after which the clock reads 1:50. Had he called them immediately after 1st and 2nd, 2:00 would have come after 3rd down, and 1:55 after the FG instead of 1:45.

 

And lo and behold, the Steelers score to make it 45-42 with 1 second left, at which point the game is over anyway. Sure, if they had scored with 11 seconds instead of 1, the odds of them recovering an onside and then either getting a hail Mary or pass play out of bounds in FG range were still remote, but at least there would have been a chance.

 

I am absolutely flabbergasted that the best minds in the football world cannot wrap their respective heads around this simple logic.

 

Yea, that was bad. To be fair, 90% of the time coaches understand this and will use the TOs before the 2 minute warning. No clue what Tomlin was thinking in that case.

 

I've also always believed you take the delay of game penalty in the 3rd quarter, even into the 4th depending on how the game is going. Save those 3 TOs for the end of the game at almost all cost.

[adambr2]

You are over-thinking it as well. Mathematically, it is easier to score a TD and a FG than two TDs. Why would you not (almost) automatically position yourself for a TD/FG by just kicking the extra point and making it an 11 point game? I really don't think it's even a close call.

 

I've avoided this as part of my reasoning, because making it 11 point game should be reason enough. But a secondary reason is it gives you the option of kicking the FG first. If offense hits 4th down, you're not forced to go for it, yet another all-in move that could fail. Instead, kick the FG early, now all you need is that TD/2 pt. AND you've saved a ton of time on the clock.

 

I still disagree. You state that it gives you the option to kick the FG early, but so does doing the 2 first and being down 10. In either case, you still need a 2 at some point to tie. The only difference is under my strategy you know from the get go that you didn't make the 2 and thus need 2 TDs because a FG won't help. In your strategy you don't find it out until it's too late and can't do anything about it.

 

Here's some analytics on this that would seem to agree with me. These guys have crunched the numbers on this much more than we have.

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/

 

Going for 2 down 12 shows a small, but clear advantage.

[jerichoholicninja]

I'm a little too young to know but were head coaches as bad at clock management 20 years ago?

 

Yes.

 

It just seems to me that there should be rules you follow to make it easy on yourself. Kinda like going for two - if you're down five you go for two, if you're down six you kick the extra point, etc.

 

The Eagles had two timeouts and the ball with :46 left in the half the other day. They threw a short pass, the dude didn't get out of bounds so clock is running. They decide to have everyone line up so they can run another play. 23 seconds runs off the clock and one of their guys jumps offsides probably because they were rushing to get back to the line. THEN they call a timeout. So dumb...

 

The other thing that I just can't fathom is wasting timeouts mid way through a half because you can't get the play in fast enough. The packers literally do this once a game without fail. I'd be curious if the patriots ever do this. Seems like they always have all three timeouts under two minutes left.

 

That whole situation was a cluster, but they had to take the timeout to avoid a 10 second runoff. Should have taken it right away though.

[homer]

Some guy did write a book on clock management:

 

https://johntreed.com/collections/football-coaching-books/products/football-clock-management-5th-edition-book-by-john-t-reed

[adambr2]

Some guy did write a book on clock management:

 

https://johntreed.com/collections/football-coaching-books/products/football-clock-management-5th-edition-book-by-john-t-reed

 

Good off-season gift for Coach Mac. 40 guys on here to chip in a buck each?

[CheezWizHed]

It's not so bad after you live over here for awhile. Most of them realize that they will just choke in the big game every single time and alot even get a laugh out of it. I've learned to be more neutral on Minnesota as the years go by for that very reason, the Bears on the other hand...NEVER.

 

If you're moving over here the Common man on KFAN will be your best friend since we rarely get Packer games...he's an equal opportunity offender.

 

I beg to differ. I've lived 18 years up by the northern MN/WI border (Duluth/Superior), 12 years near the southern MN/WI border (Winona) and now 1 year in the Twin Cities. Also 8 years on the IL/WI border.

 

I'll take the Bears fans over Viking fans any day. Most Bears fans I know say the same about Packer fans over Viking fans.

[trwi7]

Skol and ripping off Iceland's clapping is more than enough to hate Vikings fans.

[FVBrewerFan]

Skol and ripping off Iceland's clapping is more than enough to hate Vikings fans.

 

And the horn. Don't forget the horn.

[kestrel79]

Has that Skol thing been a tradition for a long time or no? Not that familiar with the Viks. The horn on the other hand...

 

Or is it their version of Beast Mode...(still makes me cringe) Remember the Brewers had a Beast Mode mascot? Oh boy.

[Baldkin]

Or is it their version of Beast Mode...(still makes me cringe) Remember the Brewers had a Beast Mode mascot? Oh boy.

 

Yeah, Sully from Monsters, Inc, because the Kids in the clubhouse ran around imitating that movie and the players loved it. So awful. Almost as horrible as untucking their jerseys.

[MrTPlush]

Or is it their version of Beast Mode...(still makes me cringe) Remember the Brewers had a Beast Mode mascot? Oh boy.

 

Yeah, Sully from Monsters, Inc, because the Kids in the clubhouse ran around imitating that movie and the players loved it. So awful. Almost as horrible as untucking their jerseys.

 

Jesh, alright Mr.Grinch.

[homer]

Or is it their version of Beast Mode...(still makes me cringe) Remember the Brewers had a Beast Mode mascot? Oh boy.

 

Yeah, Sully from Monsters, Inc, because the Kids in the clubhouse ran around imitating that movie and the players loved it. So awful. Almost as horrible as untucking their jerseys.

 

Jesh, alright Mr.Grinch.

 

Guessing he was kidding.

[pacopete4]

Not to get on another ESPN rant but all I've heard over the media waves from them is how they don't want to see a Bortles vs. Foles/Keenum Super Bowl. Honestly, wouldn't it be refreshing to see other quarterbacks possibly make a name for themselves? I mean, the NFL is lacking storylines every year and they finally get some new ones but they still want the same old names heading the show. Doesn't make sense to me.

[KeithStone53151]

Not to get on another ESPN rant but all I've heard over the media waves from them is how they don't want to see a Bortles vs. Foles/Keenum Super Bowl. Honestly, wouldn't it be refreshing to see other quarterbacks possibly make a name for themselves? I mean, the NFL is lacking storylines every year and they finally get some new ones but they still want the same old names heading the show. Doesn't make sense to me.

 

I agree with this. The big name QB that we know well are all getting old and on the verge of retirement. Some younger QB are going to have to step up and make a name for themselves. And aside from that, who in their right mind outside of Boston wants to see Brady and Belicheat in the Superbowl again?

[brwrsfan]

What's worse...is that if it's the Pats vs the Vikings, I'd actually have to cheer for the Patriots for the first time in...well, almost forever.

 

Jags/Eagles would be awesome.

 

I wish the games were reversed, I want the Jags to win this weekend, but I think the Pats have a much better chance against Minnesota than Jax does.