...when the Titans were on their winning drive?  (Wasn't that drive just sickening)?  Shouldn't we have used them once they hit the 20? 

Or maybe first and goal?  Could have saved a bunch of time.

I apologize if this was discussed in the Game Day but I haven't read it.  If not, was anybody else thinking this?

The Titans were never gonna run out of time, so they were not racing the clock.  We should have been, though.  We just stood there and let it run.

Also, thanks Randy for the miss.  That didn't come back to bite us in the ass at all.

And how can it be grounding if a guy is hit as he throws?  How can it be determined where he was throwing it?

(11-13-2017, 08:30 PM)McC Wrote: ...when the Titans were on their winning drive?  (Wasn't that drive just sickening)?  Shouldn't we have used them once they hit the 20? 

Or maybe first and goal?  Could have saved a bunch of time.

I apologize if this was discussed in the Game Day but I haven't read it.  If not, was anybody else thinking this?

The Titans were never gonna run out of time, so they were not racing the clock.  We should have been, though.  We just stood there and let it run.

Also, thanks Randy for the miss.  That didn't come back to bite us in the ass at all.

And how can it be grounding if a guy is hit as he throws?  How can it be determined where he was throwing it?

No. You don't give the other team time. You save them for your offense. Now if we were trialing then absolutely. 

I think he used them as best he could.

Really, it was winnable up until the holding call. Hang onto the time outs, you might get to chip in a field goal and avoid OT.

(11-13-2017, 09:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No. You don't give the other team time. You save them for your offense. Now if we were trialing then absolutely. 

Just seems to me you have to proceed as if you were about to be trailing.  The Titans were never going to run out of time. 

And you can get more out of a timeout if you call them on defense, since you have no way to stop the clock, whereas on offense, you do have ways.  On defense, you can save 20 seconds or so with a timeout. 

We could have had forty, forty five  more seconds for the offense, which changes everything.

I was at the game and was literally yelling "call a time out! call a time out!" when the Titans were on the Bengals 10 yard line and the clock was ticking away.

Just so bad. Thats football 101. You fully expected the Titans to score that drive and could have had AT LEAST another minute on the clock for our final drive.

(11-13-2017, 09:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No. You don't give the other team time. You save them for your offense. Now if we were trialing then absolutely. 

False. The other team wasn't worried about time. They had a full minute to score when they were on our ten yard line and they had timeouts left. Time wasn't an issue for them. At that point, time was at a premium for us. Everyone knew they were going to at least tie the game if not take the lead there. 

(11-14-2017, 12:00 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: False. The other team wasn't worried about time. They had a full minute to score when they were on our ten yard line and they had timeouts left. Time wasn't an issue for them. At that point, time was at a premium for us. Everyone knew they were going to at least tie the game if not take the lead there. 

In this instance, I think bfine is right. When you have the lead, time is your ally. Now, if you have no faith in your defense and/or you're confident in your offense, you can try to let them score (a la Holmgreen in the Super Bowl) to make sure you have enough to time to score the go ahead points. However, since a FG from them would have only tied the game, I think Merv was right in conserving those timeouts and making the Titans have to worry about the clock.

If he knew they were going to score a TD, well, sure, call a timeout or two to give yourself more time, but I think he thought the defense would at least hold them to a FG and we'd go to overtime (remember Merv never goes for the win in regulation if OT is assured).

(11-14-2017, 12:00 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: False. The other team wasn't worried about time. They had a full minute to score when they were on our ten yard line and they had timeouts left. Time wasn't an issue for them. At that point, time was at a premium for us. Everyone knew they were going to at least tie the game if not take the lead there. 

You do not play assuming the other team will score. You play assuming your team will make a stop. Us using TOs gives them extra times/plays to punch it into the End Zone. 

If Marvin would have used his TOs he would have been playing "not to lose". Seems a lot of folks hate that approach. Marvin was playing to win and relying on his D to seal the deal. 

What could we possibly question next? We scored too soon on the AJ long pass. We should have drove it down the field using ball control and forcing Tenn to burn their timeouts. Stupid Marvin and his game management. 

(11-14-2017, 01:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You do not play assuming the other team will score. You play assuming your team will make a stop. Us using TOs gives them extra times/plays to punch it into the End Zone. 

If Marvin would have used his TOs he would have been playing "not to lose". Seems a lot of folks hate that approach. Marvin was playing to win and relying on his D to seal the deal. 

What could we possibly question next? We scored too soon on the AJ long pass. We should have drove it down the field using ball control and forcing Tenn to burn their timeouts. Stupid Marvin and his game management. 

It's called covering your ass.  I'd be willing to bet Belichick would have called timeouts.  It doesn't matter if you think you will hold them or not.  It's about taking everything into account.  If the do kick a FG, then you have time to go kick one of your own. 

On defense, all you can do is stand there and watch the clock tick away.  On offense, you have more than one way to stop the clock.  This seems really elementary to me.  I'd call it good management.  We would have had over a minute.

(11-14-2017, 07:09 PM)McC Wrote: It's called covering your ass.  I'd be willing to bet Belichick would have called timeouts.  

I'll take that bet. Do you want to tell me what happened at the end of SB XLIX? 

I agree with bfine a lot, but not this time. Once they can tie you with a routine field goal, you preserve time so that you could win with a field goal or breaking a long run or whatever. That's playing to win in my book.

(11-14-2017, 08:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll take that bet. Do you want to tell me what happened at the end of SB XLIX? 

Was he sitting on two timeouts when Seattle ended that drive?  And was there a minute and a half left?

Alright, even if the situation was the same, which I don't think it was, even if I'm wrong about Bill, Sunday, the Titans were never going to run out of time.  They had timeouts of their own.  And they were first and goal.  They were gonna score, be it three or seven.  That much was a virtual guarantee.  

When you do get the ball back, what you need most is time, whether you need a FG to tie or a TD to win.  You can get around not having timeouts when you have the ball.  They could have had at least another forty seconds and that is an eternity.

It's not playing not to win or playing to lose or whatever you want to call it.  It's using your head, planning ahead, which is what good management does.  Personally, I don't believe in the oh, damn, wish I'd thought of that method.  I prefer the got that covered method, which is what I'm talking about. 

Maybe it's been so long since we had an aggressive coach, people have forgotten what one looks like.

(11-14-2017, 10:07 PM)McC Wrote: Was he sitting on two timeouts when Seattle ended that drive?  And was there a minute and a half left?

Alright, even if the situation was the same, which I don't think it was, even if I'm wrong about Bill, Sunday, the Titans were never going to run out of time.  They had timeouts of their own.  And they were first and goal.  They were gonna score, be it three or seven.  That much was a virtual guarantee.  

When you do get the ball back, what you need most is time, whether you need a FG to tie or a TD to win.  You can get around not having timeouts when you have the ball.  They could have had at least another forty seconds and that is an eternity.

It's not playing not to win or playing to lose or whatever you want to call it.  It's using your head, planning ahead, which is what good management does.  Personally, I don't believe in the oh, damn, wish I'd thought of that method.  I prefer the got that covered method, which is what I'm talking about. 

Maybe it's been so long since we had an aggressive coach, people have forgotten what one looks like.

You're kinda just making stuff up now. You brought up Bill and I provided you with a prime example where he did the exact thing. A number of things that Marvin does can be questioned; however, not giving an opponent's offense extra timeouts is not one of them. Can we look back and say he should have? Of course we can because we lost, but he did the right thing as far as game management.

Me thinks you didn't pose the question in the OP looking for a legitimate answer.  I think you posed it as another attempt to slight our HC; unfortunately, this is not a situation where we should. WTS, I'm done with this; it has been explained and shown that the best HC of our era did the exact same thing on the biggest stage of NFL football.  

I think he did the right thing. He does that...3/10 times.

(11-14-2017, 10:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You're kinda just making stuff up now. You brought up Bill and I provided you with a prime example where he did the exact thing. A number of things that Marvin does can be questioned; however, not giving an opponent's offense extra timeouts is not one of them. Can we look back and say he should have? Of course we can because we lost, but he did the right thing as far as game management.

Me thinks you didn't pose the question in the OP looking for a legitimate answer.  I think you posed it as another attempt to slight our HC; unfortunately, this is not a situation where we should. WTS, I'm done with this; it has been explained and shown that the best HC of our era did the exact same thing on the biggest stage of NFL football.  

Did you answer my question?  Was the situation and the time left and the number of timeouts the same?  And I said whether I was right or wrong about Bill doesn't change what happened Sunday. 

THE TITANS DID NOT NEED ANY MORE TIMEOUTS.  THEY HAD THEIR OWN.  THEY WERE NEVER IN DANGER OF RUNNING OUT OF TIME.  Stop ignoring this.

Maybe you need to look back and say what should have been done.   I was saying it at the time and I was right.  Nothing more than analyzing the situation and planning ahead, something you evidently don't believe in doing.  Tell me forty more seconds would not have been huge.

I think there's times when it has to come from gut feeling, not just playing the odds or what the book says. I know I had the feeling they were gonna score a TD.

(11-15-2017, 07:08 AM)bengalfan74 Wrote: I think there's times when it has to come from gut feeling, not just playing the odds or what the book says. I know I had the feeling they were gonna score a TD.

The feeling of inevitability.

Not going to say that it didn't cross my mind, but I have to unfortunately defend Giggles here; I wouldn't have given the Titans more time, wouldn't have helped us out at all.

I don't know what the right/wrong answer is here but taking timeouts might have been a positive thing had he used them. I know you expect your D to stop them, but an important factor was time of possession. Your D has already been on the field close to 40 minutes. You've got to know they are tired and more vulnerable to be scored upon. This is another poison from our offense because they can't keep the D off the field long enough to get a breather.

Once they were in easy fg range, I don't know why you wouldn't call a timeout to save some clock for your team to get the win if the defense holds them to a fg. They were tying the game no matter what at that point.