No offense, but didn't even read your post after "shouldn't Marvin" because that could just be a sticky that we add to over time.

Like "Shouldn't Marvin:"

-Play his young talent over veteran clods
-Know how to run a two minute drill after 15 *$&^#^ years
-Have won a playoff game by now
-Take an aggressive stance against horrible officiating
-Take a more aggressive stance to coaching schematics
-Be out of a job

The list is endless...

(11-15-2017, 09:02 AM)2MinutesHate Wrote: 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.

I can agree with this, but Merv would've been more than content to go into OT than try to win at the end of regulation.

(11-15-2017, 10:14 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: No offense, but didn't even read your post after "shouldn't Marvin" because that could just be a sticky that we add to over time.

Like "Shouldn't Marvin:"

-Play his young talent over veteran clods
-Know how to run a two minute drill after 15 *$&^#^ years
-Have won a playoff game by now
-Take an aggressive stance against horrible officiating
-Take a more aggressive stance to coaching schematics
-Be out of a job

The list is endless...

Hopefully it's too late since we'll have a new HC after this season.

(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. 

They would have tied the game with a field goal. That was all but guaranteed. Even if they missed, then its our ball and we just kneel it. 

If Marvin would have used his timeouts then he would have been playing to win. Conserving the clock in order for his offense to get back on the field after the Titans scored to give his team a chance to win. 

(11-14-2017, 09:30 PM)Thundercloud Wrote: 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.

Yeah, I really dont understand how this is debatable. 

Even if you do call your timeouts and the Titans somehow DONT score then all you have to do is kneel the ball or run a few plays and punt it away. Game over. 

(11-15-2017, 08:10 AM)Takedown Wrote: 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.

The Titans didnt need more time. We did. We knew they were going to at least score a field goal, why not plan ahead and give our offense more time on their next possession to try and win the game? 

(11-15-2017, 06:15 AM)McC Wrote: 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. 

Yes time was running out and Seattle had TOs. There is ignoring going on in this back and forth; however, I'm not sure that I am the one doing it and caps lock does not change that.

(11-15-2017, 09:02 AM)2MinutesHate Wrote: 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.

A- You don't know they're going to hit the field goal. Guys still miss the XP.
B- Say you've burned all your time outs as the other team's offense goes for the field goal. You get it back with less than half a minute to go. Your options are: throw it as far as you can and hope it doesn't result in a TO or throw it as far as you can and hope it doesn't result in a TO.


Most coaches would do what Marv did. Hang onto the lead and any advantages you've got (time outs) and let the other guy play catch up. Use the timeouts if you have to catch up, otherwise let the clock work against your opponent.

(11-15-2017, 01:35 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: They would have tied the game with a field goal. That was all but guaranteed. Even if they missed, then its our ball and we just kneel it. 

If Marvin would have used his timeouts then he would have been playing to win. Conserving the clock in order for his offense to get back on the field after the Titans scored to give his team a chance to win. 

One Marv to another.

(11-15-2017, 02:59 PM)Benton Wrote: A- You don't know they're going to hit the field goal. Guys still miss the XP.
B- Say you've burned all your time outs as the other team's offense goes for the field goal. You get it back with less than half a minute to go. Your options are: throw it as far as you can and hope it doesn't result in a TO or throw it as far as you can and hope it doesn't result in a TO.


Most coaches would do what Marv did. Hang onto the lead and any advantages you've got (time outs) and let the other guy play catch up. Use the timeouts if you have to catch up, otherwise let the clock work against your opponent.

It would have been more than a half of a minute. The game was tied. You go and try to win the game with the time you saved by using your timeouts... 

Are you seriously trying to justify not trying to win the game because you're afraid of a turnover? You and Marv would get along great. 

I think Marv is mostly right with how he managed it. Here's why:

I would only take timeouts if they were in the red zone.
I would only take a timeout if it was second and long or third down (any distance) within scoring position. Only time this would of fit was when they were second and long, but they were on or around midfield. By the time they got into scoring position after the Marioata run, Murray ran up the middle for quite a few yards. I would not call a timeout on a second and 2ish. You cannot put them in a for sure passing or rushing down, so there's no need to give them extra time to prepare for something you're not ready for.

If the titans go down for a td, you won't have any clock left to even use the timeouts on, which is exactly what happened. So what's the point of hanging onto them?

Their coach isn't like ours. They had full intention of going for the T'D, not the FG. Marv doesn't understand this philosophy.

(11-15-2017, 03:42 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: It would have been more than a half of a minute. The game was tied. You go and try to win the game with the time you saved by using your timeouts... 

Are you seriously trying to justify not trying to win the game because you're afraid of a turnover? You and Marv would get along great. 

No, I'm saying you never count on the other guy scoring. You plan for how you can turn your next possession into points.

(11-15-2017, 05:00 PM)Benton Wrote: No, I'm saying you never count on the other guy scoring. You plan for how you can turn your next possession into points.

Right.  And the way you do that is to preserve time.  You can't atop the clock on D without using timeouts.  But you can on offense.   If you assume a TD, or even a FG, now you have time for an answer.  Prepare for anything.  Look ahead.

(11-15-2017, 05:07 PM)McC Wrote: Right.  And the way you do that is to preserve time.  You can't atop the clock on D without using timeouts.  But you can on offense.   If you assume a TD, or even a FG, now you have time for an answer.  Prepare for anything.  Look ahead.

When would you called a timeout on that drive?

(11-15-2017, 05:35 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: When would you called a timeout on that drive?

When I was watching, I was thinking one here, then later the other one here.  But I can't recall exactly when.  Down in the red zone, maybe inside the ten.  Somewhere in there.  If I saw the last drive again, I think I could pin point it.  There were a couple times when they were milking the clock.

I look at it as, there was no way it would hurt you and might just save you.  They were never gonna run out of time.  Hell, they left thirty some seconds on the clock anyway.  Add forty some seconds to that, now you're over a minute and you have a legit chance to mount a drive and the defense probably can't just play twenty yards off the LOS.

(11-15-2017, 05:35 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: When would you called a timeout on that drive?

• 1st and 10 at CIN 20
  (1:48 - 4th) (Shotgun) M.Mariota pass short left to D.Walker to CIN 12 for 8 yards (C.Fejedelem; G.Iloka).  (I would've called it right here as now they were a 31 yd FG away.  Very high probability they at least tie the game, plus they still had 2 timeouts so no chance of not having enough time to do whatever they wanted)
• 2nd and 2 at CIN 12
  (1:11 - 4th) (Shotgun) M.Mariota scrambles left end to CIN 7 for 5 yards (C.Dunlap).  (Or even here at the very least but by then the damage was done)
• 
  (0:50 - 4th) Timeout #2 by TEN at 00:50.
• 1st and Goal at CIN 7
  (0:50 - 4th) (Shotgun) M.Mariota pass incomplete short middle to D.Walker (N.Vigil). TEN-D.Walker was injured during the play. His return is Questionable.
• 
  (0:46 - 4th) Timeout #3 by TEN at 00:46. TEN charged a TO because of the injury on the previous play.
• 2nd and Goal at CIN 7
  (0:46 - 4th) (Shotgun) M.Mariota pass incomplete short middle to E.Decker [C.Lawson].
• 3rd and Goal at CIN 7
  (0:36 - 4th) DeMarco Murray Pass From Marcus Mariota for 7 Yrds R.Succop extra point is GOOD, Center-B.Brinkley, Holder-B.Kern.
  

(11-15-2017, 05:45 PM)McC Wrote: When I was watching, I was thinking one here, then later the other one here.  But I can't recall exactly when.  Down in the red zone, maybe inside the ten.  Somewhere in there.  If I saw the last drive again, I think I could pin point it.  There were a couple times when they were milking the clock.

I look at it as, there was no way it would hurt you and might just save you.  They were never gonna run out of time.  Hell, they left thirty some seconds on the clock anyway.  Add forty some seconds to that, now you're over a minute and you have a legit chance to mount a drive and the defense probably can't just play twenty yards off the LOS.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=400951656

They call a TO with 1:55 remaining and at our 25. Next play they pass for 8 yards making it 2nd and 2 to go. They milk 21 seconds off the clock before taking another TO with 50 seconds left in the game. Best time to take a TO would of been after that 1st down pass, but they just got out of a TO and all the pressure was on them. Plus, I don’t like the idea of not having them locked into a pass or run situation with that down and distance, TO remaining and situation of the game

(11-15-2017, 09:02 AM)2MinutesHate Wrote: 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.

This. 

As for SB XLIX, Belichick had this to say about not using TO's on defense:

Quote:"We saw that matchup and we certainly gave some consideration to taking a timeout there and leaving some time on the clock. I don't know if that would have been a bad thing to do. It might have been a good thing to do," Belichick said. "But it just seemed like -- in the flow of the game- that we were OK with where we were."

https://www.si.com/nfl/2015/02/04/bill-belichick-super-bowl-timeout

There is no absolute set way of doing things. Belichick's quote implies that in other situations, he may have opted to use TO's to save time on defense.