Shouldn't Marvin have used his timeouts...

[*bfine32*]

(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.