I think Marvin's approach to timeouts is misunderstood by most

[treee]

I know I will get a lot of backlash for this, but Marvin's approach to timeouts, in my opinion, is totally valid. Using timeouts as a way to stretch the potential of a come back at the end of a half is conventional, but it can also be used to ensure cohesiveness at critical moments.

Though some argue that the moments Marvin chooses to call timeouts are not proper, I would argue that there is no way they can make that claim without specifically knowing the game plan, and the players' understanding of said game plan.

Feel free to use this thread as a discussion about Marvin's use of timeouts as well as your opinion on the various approaches in general to time out usage.

[Daddy-O]

Can of worms opened!

[treee]

(08-16-2016, 08:59 AM)Daddy-O Wrote: Can of worms opened!  

Precisely why I made the thread. I know there are a lot of opinions about this particular topic and I think there are compelling arguments for both sides. 

[Benton]

Quote:Lance McAlister asked the reasonable question, "Coach, is it reasonable then for fans to wonder how a quarterback in his eighth year who is the face of the franchise making $100 million, doesn't call timeouts?"

"Because he doesn't need to worry about that," replied Lewis. "He needs to go on to the next play because he's directing guys to get lined up. And for him to have to worry about 'do I need to call a timeout or not' he's not looking at the entire picture of that whole situation. There's a lot more into it than that and that's the way we've always practiced it and that's the way we go about it and frankly, that's the way every team in the NFL goes about it."

The question before, Lance asked if the coaches have always been the ones that called timeouts. "That's always been the case, yea," said Lewis. "Coaches can call timeouts, so it's much easier for him not to worry about that. We'll give him direction of, as we told him as we went in, anything in bounds we want to clock it so we can maintain the timeout and the opportunity to get the next play off."

Dave Lapham followed up the questions about timeouts about the fact that there was only one left. "When you talk about timeouts," Lapham said, "I know that you probably wish that there were others that you could of had at the end of the football game and for various reasons they weren't available to you. That had to be frustration."

"Well, they weren't available and that's part of it, Dave," said Lewis. "They were used at other points in the game to get other things done and straightened out. That's part of the game."

http://www.cincyjungle.com/2010/12/7/1861554/marvin-lewis-carson-palmer-doesnt-need-to-worry-about-calling-time

2010 article, but I think a lot of it stands true.

'I don't tell my QBs to call timeouts because they're busy telling everyone what to do, and I don't call the timeout because those all or nothing plays are INTENSE.' That's what I get out of the first bold. He didn't want his QB to worry about it because he's busy arranging guys... who should know where to stand when the play is called.

That's just not good prep. If your QB has to arrange his players because they're not prepared, then the coaches need to be calling the timeouts.

That's kind of emphasized again with the second bolded part. 'We burnt through our time outs because we didn't know what was going on.'

Through most of Marvin's years we don't adjust well on the field... we take a time out. We've also had a problem with subbing guys in and out or what appears to be miscommunication on the playcall. That's pretty basic stuff. I'd rather the team spent more time on that before the game and could stop the clock to stretch out 2 minute drives or to stall the other team, instead of trying to figure out if there's an extra guy on the field or because we lined up with the TE at FB and he was supposed to be set at receiver.

[*bfine32*]

I always get amused in the gameday thread when Marvin calls a T.O. with more than 2 minutes on the game clock. Suddenly there is about 30 posts screaming about "wasting" T.O's. IMO there is only 2 ways to waste a T.O:

Take them back ro back

Take them to the Locker Room with you

[jonesy84]

I get super frustrated when there is subbing issues and timeouts get used between plays just to get lined up properly.  to me, that speaks to bad preparation.  However, many times I can shrug it off because it is better to use a TO to get set properly than to risk a busted play or delay of game penalty.  So long as we don't have a need for an extra timeout at the end of a half or the end of a game, then no worries.  That frustration gets amplified A TON when we do get in a situation at the end of a half or the end of a game and we had to use a TO previously to just get lined up properly at that point.  That is when I get most frustrated by the TO usage.  But again, always better IMO to use them when you KNOW you need them, vs. 'saving' them for later when you MIGHT need them...  anyone else get what I'm sayin?

[Bilbo Saggins]

The strategy in and of itself makes a lot of sense.  Getting the play straight with everyone on the same page is a valuable use of a resource - probably more valuable than saving timeouts for a 2-minute drill that 9 times out of 10 either doesn't happen or isn't affected by timeouts at all.  I also like that they trust their QB to make that judgement call.  What rubs me the wrong way about it is just what everyone else was talking about.  Why aren't the players ready to run the play?  Why is there any confusion?  Why don't the Patriots or whoever have to burn timeouts in the red zone to get on the same page?  It looks bad.  It says that someone on the field is not ready to go.  It doesn't seem like a thing that an elite team should do because every once in a great while that extra time on the clock translates into points on the board.  It also gives the defense more time to rest or think about what they're doing - the exact opposite of what makes the no-huddle good.

I can't really pretend to offer a great opinion on it because I'm not on the field, but I personally think that they ought to take a hard look at why they have called all of the early timeouts in the past and figure out a proactive solution so that they don't have to do it any more.  If it's an emergency and someone is lost, then a burned timeout is better than a wasted play.   The ideal situation would be to save the TO's for as long as possible every game for those few games that actually are decided by having that little bit of clock left or running out of time.  To sum up, they should use them in the same way as needed, but should realize that if they keep doing it they will probably lose a tight game due to not having enough time where a TO might have saved it.

[Derrick]

(08-16-2016, 11:20 PM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: The strategy in and of itself makes a lot of sense.  Getting the play straight with everyone on the same page is a valuable use of a resource - probably more valuable than saving timeouts for a 2-minute drill that 9 times out of 10 either doesn't happen or isn't affected by timeouts at all.  I also like that they trust their QB to make that judgement call.  What rubs me the wrong way about it is just what everyone else was talking about.  Why aren't the players ready to run the play?  Why is there any confusion?  Why don't the Patriots or whoever have to burn timeouts in the red zone to get on the same page?  It looks bad.  It says that someone on the field is not ready to go.  It doesn't seem like a thing that an elite team should do because every once in a great while that extra time on the clock translates into points on the board.  It also gives the defense more time to rest or think about what they're doing - the exact opposite of what makes the no-huddle good.

I can't really pretend to offer a great opinion on it because I'm not on the field, but I personally think that they ought to take a hard look at why they have called all of the early timeouts in the past and figure out a proactive solution so that they don't have to do it any more.  If it's an emergency and someone is lost, then a burned timeout is better than a wasted play.   The ideal situation would be to save the TO's for as long as possible every game for those few games that actually are decided by having that little bit of clock left or running out of time.  To sum up, they should use them in the same way as needed, but should realize that if they keep doing it they will probably lose a tight game due to not having enough time where a TO might have saved it.

This falls on the asst./position coaches IMO. They need to have their players be alert and ready to go.

[treee]

Some good discussion so far. I have to agree with the sentiment of some posters that using TOs when there is personnel or alignment issues is not preferable, but better than a bad play. That said I get the impression that sometimes a timeout is called when we're expecting a certain look from the opposing defense and we don't get it. Sort of like a premonition of a coming bad play and not having enough time on the game clock for Andy to audible.

[jj22]

I wouldn't mind the "strategy" if 9 times out of 10 when we come out of the time out the play works. Too many times in the first half we'll call a time out on 3rd down, and then the play will fail. That to me is wasteful. The only strategy he shows is he's liberal with timeouts the first half.

[phil413]

(08-16-2016, 03:33 AM)treee Wrote: I know I will get a lot of backlash for this, but Marvin's approach to timeouts, in my opinion, is totally valid. Using timeouts as a way to stretch the potential of a come back at the end of a half is conventional, but it can also be used to ensure cohesiveness at critical moments.

Though some argue that the moments Marvin chooses to call timeouts are not proper, I would argue that there is no way they can make that claim without specifically knowing the game plan, and the players' understanding of said game plan.

Feel free to use this thread as a discussion about Marvin's use of timeouts as well as your opinion on the various approaches in general to time out usage.

Here's the issue.  It screams a lack of game preparation when players line up late or wrong all together, forcing the team to call a TO.  We may not know who's "fault" it is, but most teams don't have these issues.  It's not that he actually chooses to waste them, it just feels like that scenario happens to the Bengals more than with other teams. Maybe most of us watch Cincy more than other teams, but it does stick out.  Funnny enough, I was forgiving of the occasional illegal formation last year as Hue had them moving everywhere.  Otherwise, I'm fine with a TO to fix a problem but why do we seem like we have way more problems that lead to TO's?

[Shake n Blake]

He shouldn't need timeouts to "maintain cohesiveness", at least not with that much frequency. You rarely see the Patriots or Steelers (for examples) burn timeouts because things are unraveling. Just paying attention to the teams we play, it seems Marv is more willing (or more required) to burn those TO's than most other teams/coaches. It'd be nice if there were some statistical data to look at.

That said, I do think some make this into a bigger deal than it really is. First half TO's really don't matter much, IMO. The second half TO's are pretty valuable though. They can give you an extra possession in a close game. As long as we keep 2 TO's through the 2nd half of close games, I'm usually good with that. It at least gives us a shot to get a stop and get the ball back.

[treee]

(08-17-2016, 01:12 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: He shouldn't need timeouts to "maintain cohesiveness", at least not with that much frequency. You rarely see the Patriots or Steelers (for examples) burn timeouts because things are unraveling. Just paying attention to the teams we play, it seems Marv is more willing (or more required) to burn those TO's than most other teams/coaches. It'd be nice if there were some statistical data to look at.

That said, I do think some make this into a bigger deal than it really is. First half TO's really don't matter much, IMO. The second half TO's are pretty valuable though. They can give you an extra possession in a close game. As long as we keep 2 TO's through the 2nd half of close games, I'm usually good with that. It at least gives us a shot to get a stop and get the ball back.

Perhaps I didn't articulate my main point well enough because people are really latching on to the "unreadiness" aspect. I think most of the time Marvin uses the seemingly random timeouts strategicly, probably because someone up in the booth notices something.

[Shake n Blake]

(08-17-2016, 08:52 PM)treee Wrote: Perhaps I didn't articulate my main point well enough because people are really latching on to the "unreadiness" aspect. I think most of the time Marvin uses the seemingly random timeouts strategicly, probably because someone up in the booth notices something.

Idk. If that's the way you want to explain the TO's then I'd have a couple questions.

1. What are these people in the booth noticing that would force a TO?
2. If they don't like the play call for the defensive alignment, why not audible instead?

Either way, it really does seem like we're more prone to burn TO's. So are we just seeing things we don't like more often than other teams? Seems like something could be done to preserve those 2nd half TO's. They can be pretty important in close games.

[treee]

(08-17-2016, 09:11 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Idk. If that's the way you want to explain the TO's then I'd have a couple questions.

1. What are these people in the booth noticing that would force a TO?
2. If they don't like the play call for the defensive alignment, why not audible instead?

Either way, it really does seem like we're more prone to burn TO's. So are we just seeing things we don't like more often than other teams? Seems like something could be done to preserve those 2nd half TO's. They can be pretty important in close games.

Well the booth has the best view of the D (as I'm sure you know most of the TOs called are on offense). Like I said, probably when there's not enough time for an audible. Also, a lot of the timeouts seem to come on 3rd down, so Marvin is probably also placing a very high priority on winning field position early in the game using TOs to call a "new" (as in not in the gameplan) or adjusted play. 

[WeezyBengal]

(08-16-2016, 10:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I always get amused in the gameday thread when Marvin calls a T.O. with more than 2 minutes on the game clock. Suddenly there is about 30 posts screaming about "wasting" T.O's. IMO there is only 2 ways to waste a T.O:

Take them back ro back

Take them to the Locker Room with you

Another way to waste a time out is to use it when your team should have been prepared yet you have to burn a timeout to get them into the correct formation. 

[WeezyBengal]

(08-17-2016, 06:30 AM)treee Wrote: Some good discussion so far. I have to agree with the sentiment of some posters that using TOs when there is personnel or alignment issues is not preferable, but better than a bad play. That said I get the impression that sometimes a timeout is called when we're expecting a certain look from the opposing defense and we don't get it.  Sort of like a premonition of a coming bad play and not having enough time on the game clock for Andy to audible.

What is more valuable... 

A bad play, or not having a time out during a final minute drive when you are trying to win the game? 

Im not sure I know the answer to that question, just something to think about. 

[fredtoast]

I don't see what the big deal is. I see lots of other team use timeouts throughout the game instead of just the final 2 minutes. Does Marvin really do it more than other coaches or is it just one of those things that fans don't care about when the opposing team does it?

[jonesy84]

(08-18-2016, 09:25 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: What is more valuable... 

A bad play, or not having a time out during a final minute drive when you are trying to win the game? 

Im not sure I know the answer to that question, just something to think about. 

But what if the bad play puts us in a position where we're far enough behind because of it (like a pass play into a defense designed to stop those routes and results in a pick 6) that we don't even get back to a position to possibly win a game?  Then the TO earlier in the half would be more valuable than saving it for the end of the half or game when it would be a moot point   

but of course all of this conjecture is just that, conjecture   being as none of us really know what the reasoning is for a lot of these TO's that seem stupid on a surface level

does make for fun dialogue, though! 

[*bfine32*]

(08-18-2016, 09:24 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Another way to waste a time out is to use it when your team should have been prepared yet you have to burn a timeout to get them into the correct formation. 

That is not a wasted T.O. You are using it to give your team the best possible chance of winning.