Timeout Use

[Idgit]

No. I was relieved to see them use them. It's a pet peeve of mine when teams save timeouts in those situations to use on offense and let the other team bleed them dry while they're playing defense. You can always control the clock better with the ball in your hands than you can when you're playing defense. Use the precious TOs defensively whenever you can. And, as has been mentioned above, it would have worked had the questionable DPI penalty not been called.

 

[Direwolf63]

I had no problems with how the timeouts were called. That was the way to go to leave the most time possible for the offense. But the defense didn't get it done. Again.

 

[LOBO7]

Idgits right,use them on defense.The O has ways to stop the clock.
The PI hurt mostly because he didnt have the 1st down even if he caught it.

 

[WV Cowboy]

I didn't mind calling them that early, .. but needing a FG I would have tried to save one TO, .. but that's just me.

We would have used two TO's and the two minute warning.

If I would have gotten down to no other choice I would have used it, but I would have kept the one as long as I could have, just in case.

 

[Jake0]

Because when you need the ball back in order to score, you don't want to let any time run off the clock. The ONLY reason not to use it then is if you think your offense would score too quickly, and the chances of that were remote.

If it were 2nd and inches would you still have that same philosophy?

BTW I am not saying to not use them at all on defense. You have 4 minutes left, that gives you the option to wait and see how 2nd down plays out. If they don't get anything and it becomes 3rd and 5ish, use it then. They might pass on 3rd and 5ish and you have 2 time outs plus the 2 minute warning for the O. If they get the first down, then you basically reset the situation and hope for a better 1st down run defense before you start using your time outs. With 3 time outs, they aren't gonna barely take anything off the clock period if the defense holds up.

IMO, the WORST thing that can happen (which is what happened yesterday) is you burn your time out on first down when they got a chunk and they just end up running for the first down anyways. Getting 5 yards in 2 downs is much easier than getting 8-10. You are short on time outs and they get the guaranteed 40 seconds once or twice during the next set of downs.

The PI sucked, but they had already drained a ton of clock anyways because of the panic first timeout that they ended up converting to a new set of downs beforehand.

 

[AbeBeta]

If it were 2nd and inches would you still have that same philosophy?

BTW I am not saying to not use them at all on defense. You have 4 minutes left, that gives you the option to wait and see how 2nd down plays out. If they don't get anything and it becomes 3rd and 5ish, use it then. They might pass on 3rd and 5ish and you have 2 time outs plus the 2 minute warning for the O. If they get the first down, then you basically reset the situation and hope for a better 1st down run defense before you start using your time outs. With 3 time outs, they aren't gonna barely take anything off the clock period if the defense holds up.

IMO, the WORST thing that can happen (which is what happened yesterday) is you burn your time out on first down when they got a chunk and they just end up running for the first down anyways. Getting 5 yards in 2 downs is much easier than getting 8-10. You are short on time outs and they get the guaranteed 40 seconds once or twice during the next set of downs.

The PI sucked, but they had already drained a ton of clock anyways because of the panic first timeout that they ended up converting to a new set of downs beforehand.

Garrett called the first time out when Charles had gained three yards. How on earth can you even dispute the call there? Wait and see how it goes on 2nd and 7? They didn't just get a chunk. They had a short run.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

If it were 2nd and inches would you still have that same philosophy?

BTW I am not saying to not use them at all on defense. You have 4 minutes left, that gives you the option to wait and see how 2nd down plays out. If they don't get anything and it becomes 3rd and 5ish, use it then. They might pass on 3rd and 5ish and you have 2 time outs plus the 2 minute warning for the O. If they get the first down, then you basically reset the situation and hope for a better 1st down run defense before you start using your time outs. With 3 time outs, they aren't gonna barely take anything off the clock period if the defense holds up.

IMO, the WORST thing that can happen (which is what happened yesterday) is you burn your time out on first down when they got a chunk and they just end up running for the first down anyways. Getting 5 yards in 2 downs is much easier than getting 8-10. You are short on time outs and they get the guaranteed 40 seconds once or twice during the next set of downs.

The PI sucked, but they had already drained a ton of clock anyways because of the panic first timeout that they ended up converting to a new set of downs beforehand.

I think you are missing the point and not taking into account the complete game to that point. Yes, they go 5 yards or whatever it was on First down, however, for the rest of the game they managed 1 ypc from the running back. The 5 yard carry was the outlier in this situation. If you are Coach, you have to trust your D to do exactly what it has done all game to that point and that is stuff the run. That didn't happen. And even then, if the PI wasn't called, we would have gotten the ball back with over 2 minutes on the clock. It was the best use of time outs in that situation.

 

[Jake0]

Turns out he did only get 3 yards. Well, that's a bit more of a grey area. Still, yes I would have rather seen how 2nd and 7 played out before beginning to use time outs. Plenty of time left along with the 2 minute warning.

 

[Verdict]

If not for the PI call on Claiborne, it would have worked very well. We would have gotten the ball back with more than 2 minutes left.

I agree with this premise. We got hosed on the offensive pass interference call on Dez AND the phantom PI call on Mo. If we get a no call on either one of those situations (which should have been the case) then we probably win this game.

 

[ejthedj]

On 1st down when they get a 5 yard chunk with 4 minutes left, why use it there? The probability of holding them to a 3 and out is not that great. If it was 2nd and 8 or worse then sure, use it. 2nd and 5 with 4 minutes left? Absolutely unnecessary time out, WAY too risky.

What's the risk? We only have so many timeouts. Each one can only save you about 40 seconds of game time (the length of the play clock). If he calls a timeout and saves 40 seconds, it is successful. There's no risk.

 

[ejthedj]

If it were 2nd and inches would you still have that same philosophy?

BTW I am not saying to not use them at all on defense. You have 4 minutes left, that gives you the option to wait and see how 2nd down plays out. If they don't get anything and it becomes 3rd and 5ish, use it then. They might pass on 3rd and 5ish and you have 2 time outs plus the 2 minute warning for the O. If they get the first down, then you basically reset the situation and hope for a better 1st down run defense before you start using your time outs. With 3 time outs, they aren't gonna barely take anything off the clock period if the defense holds up.

IMO, the WORST thing that can happen (which is what happened yesterday) is you burn your time out on first down when they got a chunk and they just end up running for the first down anyways. Getting 5 yards in 2 downs is much easier than getting 8-10. You are short on time outs and they get the guaranteed 40 seconds once or twice during the next set of downs.

The PI sucked, but they had already drained a ton of clock anyways because of the panic first timeout that they ended up converting to a new set of downs beforehand.

No, forty seconds is forty seconds. Those time outs did not cause MORE time to go off the clock. You're reasoning is just wrong. They stopped forty seconds from going off around 4 min. Why does it matter if 40 seconds go off at around two minutes instead? The only way it matters is if it's the two minute warning, and anytime you get closer to the two minute warning, the risk is greater that you give them time because you have to wait until it counts down. In other words, if its 2.40 and you call timeout, you save 40 seconds. Run a play, call timeout at 2.30, save 40 seconds. Run a play, have it go down to two minute warning. Save only 20 seconds because from 2.20 to 2.00 ran down instead of calling a time out immediately. The way Garrett did it, we were going to get the two minute warning on offense (which allows us to not burn as much time bc we can control it, hike the ball at 2.01 and sneak in another play, etc). Each timeout he called saved the maximum amount of time it could save.

 

[Sarge]

Because when you need the ball back in order to score, you don't want to let any time run off the clock. The ONLY reason not to use it then is if you think your offense would score too quickly, and the chances of that were remote.

I for one, was not too concerned our offense would score too quickly.

 

[Bcrav4]

What was more frustrating is the apparent lack of substitutions during the timeouts. I mean, we didn't have any run defenders that we could have subbed in while we were getting gashed??

 

[Venger]

You use the time outs - to do what? To preserve TIME. Calling them as we did saved the MOST time, it was the right call and frankly I wonder why it is not done properly like this more often. You call them there because you know Kansas City will let the entire 40 seconds lapse, and using all 3 timenouts preserves 2 minutes of game time for your offense. On offense, 40 seconds of game clock is MUCH more valuable than a timeout. An offense can control the clock by going out of bounds or spiking the ball to stop the clock.

Where we were on the game clock, it was, by far and inarguably so, the right call.