Shouldn't Marvin have used his timeouts... - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (https://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Cincinnati Bengals / NFL (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-3.html) +--- Forum: JUNGLE NOISE (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-2.html) +--- Thread: Shouldn't Marvin have used his timeouts... (/thread-13469.html) Pages:
1
2
|
RE: Shouldn't Marvin have used his timeouts... - SHRacerX - 11-15-2017 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... RE: Shouldn't Marvin have used his timeouts... - PhilHos - 11-15-2017 (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. RE: Shouldn't Marvin have used his timeouts... - PhilHos - 11-15-2017 (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. Hopefully it's too late since we'll have a new HC after this season. RE: Shouldn't Marvin have used his timeouts... - WeezyBengal - 11-15-2017 (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. 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. RE: Shouldn't Marvin have used his timeouts... - WeezyBengal - 11-15-2017 (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. RE: Shouldn't Marvin have used his timeouts... - WeezyBengal - 11-15-2017 (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? RE: Shouldn't Marvin have used his timeouts... - bfine32 - 11-15-2017 (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. RE: Shouldn't Marvin have used his timeouts... - Benton - 11-15-2017 (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. RE: Shouldn't Marvin have used his timeouts... - Benton - 11-15-2017 (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. One Marv to another. RE: Shouldn't Marvin have used his timeouts... - WeezyBengal - 11-15-2017 (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. 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. RE: Shouldn't Marvin have used his timeouts... - Hoofhearted - 11-15-2017 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. RE: Shouldn't Marvin have used his timeouts... - 2MinutesHate - 11-15-2017 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. RE: Shouldn't Marvin have used his timeouts... - Benton - 11-15-2017 (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... No, I'm saying you never count on the other guy scoring. You plan for how you can turn your next possession into points. RE: Shouldn't Marvin have used his timeouts... - McC - 11-15-2017 (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. RE: Shouldn't Marvin have used his timeouts... - Hoofhearted - 11-15-2017 (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? RE: Shouldn't Marvin have used his timeouts... - McC - 11-15-2017 (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. RE: Shouldn't Marvin have used his timeouts... - 2MinutesHate - 11-15-2017 (11-15-2017, 05:35 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: When would you called a timeout on that drive?
RE: Shouldn't Marvin have used his timeouts... - Hoofhearted - 11-15-2017 (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. 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 RE: Shouldn't Marvin have used his timeouts... - Shake n Blake - 11-15-2017 (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. |