Wish to make a one time donation? Make it here.

Special dedication to O'Brien and his timeout infatuation

Seegara

Guitar Picker, Dog Lover, Woodworker
I wanted him to call a TO so they could review that catch that wasn't. You don't take a safety that puts you 7 points behind late. And you don't waste a TO to take it.
 

Mr teX

Hall of Fame
I wanted him to call a TO so they could review that catch that wasn't. You don't take a safety that puts you 7 points behind late. And you don't waste a TO to take it.
You do if it's your best opportunity.....which it was. If you punt it there out of the shadow of your own goal post, its in all liklihood a short field for Indy....a few aggressive plays & they're in FG range that could potentially put you down 8...& they could bleed the clock before they kicked it. which wouldn't be ideal for us from a time standpoint..........& that's if you hold them to a FG. If you don't stop them & they score a TD, then game is over b/c we would be down by 2 scores; wouldn't matter if we got the ball back & scored a TD.

On the other hand, doing what we did by taking the safety there to go down by 7..instead of the likely 8, by kicking it away, we also make them work with a longer field in which case, Indy's most likely going to be less aggressive b/c they don't want the clock to stop on any potential incomplete passes...which basically means no passing. All of this depended on whether we would stop them, but under this scenario, it was far more likely we would b/c they were playing clock & we still had 2 TO's left.

It was an outside shot & when you consider how fast we scored on our only 2 TD drives, we actually had the potential to tie that game on that last drive & actually win it if we go for a 2 pt conversion after the TD. So in actuality everything did work as it was supposed to except the drive itself. We got the ball back with plenty of time left to make something happen.

About the only thing you can quibble about is him burning a TO to relay that in to the punter after the fact...should've told him before he ran out there that that was the plan.
 

dream_team

All Pro
You do if it's your best opportunity.....which it was. If you punt it there out of the shadow of your own goal post, its in all liklihood a short field for Indy....a few aggressive plays & they're in FG range that could potentially put you down 8...& they could bleed the clock before they kicked it. which wouldn't be ideal for us from a time standpoint..........& that's if you hold them to a FG. If you don't stop them & they score a TD, then game is over b/c we would be down by 2 scores; wouldn't matter if we got the ball back & scored a TD.

On the other hand, doing what we did by taking the safety there to go down by 7..instead of the likely 8, by kicking it away, we also make them work with a longer field in which case, Indy's most likely going to be less aggressive b/c they don't want the clock to stop on any potential incomplete passes...which basically means no passing. All of this depended on whether we would stop them, but under this scenario, it was far more likely we would b/c they were playing clock & we still had 2 TO's left.

It was an outside shot & when you consider how fast we scored on our only 2 TD drives, we actually had the potential to tie that game on that last drive & actually win it if we go for a 2 pt conversion after the TD. So in actuality everything did work as it was supposed to except the drive itself. We got the ball back with plenty of time left to make something happen.

About the only thing you can quibble about is him burning a TO to relay that in to the punter after the fact...should've told him before he ran out there that that was the plan.
I don't mind the intentional safety part. I would have preferred to punt. Anger has a leg and can boot one out there. Also, regardless of what we did, we needed a 3 & out. As long as we did the 3 & out, worst case scenario is they get a field goal and would still be a one possession game. In either case, not losing any sleep on this call.

What I do have issues with are:
1. Needing the timeout to call the safety. This should have been relayed to the punter even before the 3rd down play. Someone should have told him, "If we don't get this, just take the safety." Or why even send the punter out? Tell Watson to stay in and take a safety. You don't even need Watson, tell Martin to hike the ball out of the end zone.
2. Why didn't Anger just. kneel immediately? Why did he waste a few seconds running around the end zone?
3. This one is a no-brainer to me. Maybe I'm missing something? Why didn't we take the timeouts before the 2min warning? We would have saved 11 seconds.

I know hindsight, you may say, "Watson threw a pick anyways, so didn't really matter." I disagree. If the three above doesn't happen, then we're looking more at 2:30 for that last drive instead of 1:49. There's less urgency and don't have to be super aggressive. There was 37 seconds left and we were still at the HOU 48. He had to try to make a play and probably forced it.

Please tell me where I'm wrong. Wasting precious seconds by mis-utilizing timeouts appears to be something were complaining about after close losses. Is this more difficult than I think?
 

Mr teX

Hall of Fame
I don't mind the intentional safety part. I would have preferred to punt. Anger has a leg and can boot one out there. Also, regardless of what we did, we needed a 3 & out. As long as we did the 3 & out, worst case scenario is they get a field goal and would still be a one possession game. In either case, not losing any sleep on this call.

What I do have issues with are:
1. Needing the timeout to call the safety. This should have been relayed to the punter even before the 3rd down play. Someone should have told him, "If we don't get this, just take the safety." Or why even send the punter out? Tell Watson to stay in and take a safety. You don't even need Watson, tell Martin to hike the ball out of the end zone.
2. Why didn't Anger just. kneel immediately? Why did he waste a few seconds running around the end zone?
3. This one is a no-brainer to me. Maybe I'm missing something? Why didn't we take the timeouts before the 2min warning? We would have saved 11 seconds.

I know hindsight, you may say, "Watson threw a pick anyways, so didn't really matter." I disagree. If the three above doesn't happen, then we're looking more at 2:30 for that last drive instead of 1:49. There's less urgency and don't have to be super aggressive. There was 37 seconds left and we were still at the HOU 48. He had to try to make a play and probably forced it.

Please tell me where I'm wrong. Wasting precious seconds by mis-utilizing timeouts appears to be something were complaining about after close losses. Is this more difficult than I think?
Its very difficult. Its only keyboard warriors and armchair HC's like us who think its easy. You have to remember, we have a different viewpoint & get different info from play by play guys on TV. HC's on the sideline don't have that.

#1 i totally agree with you here, outlined it in my post.

#2 is just a matter of "how" to take the safety, didn't really affect anything whether it was DW4 who stayed on to take it or Anger immediately runs out of bounds or whatever.

#3 Fans always quibble with this & I don't get it. The 2 min warning is a sanctioned TO by game rules. You know you're getting that regardless...even if you actually go past the 2 min mark you know the clock is going to stop somewhere around there. What fans don't realize when they scream bloody murder to save a few secs before the 2 min warning is that you're more at the mercy of the clock/opposing offense on the other side of it. Being limited with TO's also affects playcalling for both sides & You can dictate to the opposing offense better how those last 2 min go when you have the ability to stop it when you need to. Nothing is rushed............ "theoretically" anyway. In addition to that, the way it usually goes is whatever you save on the front end, you'll usually lose that & then some on the back end. And in end of game scenarios you'd rather lose that time on the front end than on the back end.

In our situation we could've saved like 11 seconds on the front end of the 2 min warning if we took a TO before it, but we would've given up much more time than that on the back end with 1 less TO on our drive. Likely would'n't have been able to use the middle of the field either.
 

dream_team

All Pro
Its very difficult. Its only keyboard warriors and armchair HC's like us who think its easy. You have to remember, we have a different viewpoint & get different info from play by play guys on TV. HC's on the sideline don't have that.

#1 i totally agree with you here, outlined it in my post.

#2 is just a matter of "how" to take the safety, didn't really affect anything whether it was DW4 who stayed on to take it or Anger immediately runs out of bounds or whatever.

#3 Fans always quibble with this & I don't get it. The 2 min warning is a sanctioned TO by game rules. You know you're getting that regardless...even if you actually go past the 2 min mark you know the clock is going to stop somewhere around there. What fans don't realize when they scream bloody murder to save a few secs before the 2 min warning is that you're more at the mercy of the clock/opposing offense on the other side of it. Being limited with TO's also affects playcalling for both sides & You can dictate to the opposing offense better how those last 2 min go when you have the ability to stop it when you need to. Nothing is rushed............ "theoretically" anyway. In addition to that, the way it usually goes is whatever you save on the front end, you'll usually lose that & then some on the back end. And in end of game scenarios you'd rather lose that time on the front end than on the back end.

In our situation we could've saved like 11 seconds on the front end of the 2 min warning if we took a TO before it, but we would've given up much more time than that on the back end with 1 less TO on our drive. Likely would'n't have been able to use the middle of the field either.
I'm not quite following #3. Texans had two timeouts remaining.

This is how it turned out:

2:35 Colts have the ball, 1st down
-- 2 Min Warning --
2:00 2nd & 12 - rush for 2 yards
-- TIMEOUT #2 --
1:54 Short Pass
-- TIMEOUT #3 --
1:49 Punt
1:41 Texans first play

If we used the timeouts before the 2 min warning (assuming same exact plays & outcome):

2:35 Colts have the ball, 1st down
-- TIMEOUT #2 --
2:29 2nd & 12 - rush for 2 yards
-- TIMEOUT #3 --
2:24 Short Pass
-- 2 Min Warning --
2:00 Punt
1:52 Texans first play

As you can see, if we used the timeouts before the 2min warning, we would have saved 11 seconds. What am I missing?
 

Mr teX

Hall of Fame
I'm not quite following #3. Texans had two timeouts remaining.

This is how it turned out:

2:35 Colts have the ball, 1st down
-- 2 Min Warning --
2:00 2nd & 12 - rush for 2 yards
-- TIMEOUT #2 --
1:54 Short Pass
-- TIMEOUT #3 --
1:49 Punt
1:41 Texans first play

If we used the timeouts before the 2 min warning (assuming same exact plays & outcome):

2:35 Colts have the ball, 1st down
-- TIMEOUT #2 --
2:29 2nd & 12 - rush for 2 yards
-- TIMEOUT #3 --
2:24 Short Pass
-- 2 Min Warning --
2:00 Punt
1:52 Texans first play

As you can see, if we used the timeouts before the 2min warning, we would have saved 11 seconds. What am I missing?

If it had been 2nd or 3rd down for Indy, yeah i can see what you're saying, but it was 1st down & in this instance, using your TO's is exactly what the opposing team want you to do...which is why you don't do it unless you absolutely, unequivocally have to. Your offense needs the TO's much more than the defense b/c not only can your defense stop them, they have the ability to score in a TO situation. Your offense can only score. You also keep them for as long as you can on the other side of the 2 min warning to ensure the opposing offense sticks with their conservative strategy of playing clock. As long as their doing that, they ain't trying to score.

& when i'm talking about saving time on the front end & losing more on the back end, i'm talking about the ability to stop the clock after the 2 min warning...B/c at some point no matter how much time you have, you as a coach are going to have to let that clock run in a 2 min drive situation & you will lose those precious seconds & then some anyway & it will be much more time when you're in a situation where you can't stop it vs. when you can. Those scramble drill situations to get everyone lined up so you can spike it waste a ton of time & you'd have to do it at least twice in a drive to score a TD. That type of situation is much more palatable in a game where all you need is to get in FG range......... not so much when you have to go the length of the field to score a TD.
 

dream_team

All Pro
If it had been 2nd or 3rd down for Indy, yeah i can see what you're saying, but it was 1st down & in this instance, using your TO's is exactly what the opposing team want you to do...which is why you don't do it unless you absolutely, unequivocally have to. Your offense needs the TO's much more than the defense b/c not only can your defense stop them, they have the ability to score in a TO situation. Your offense can only score. You also keep them for as long as you can on the other side of the 2 min warning to ensure the opposing offense sticks with their conservative strategy of playing clock. As long as their doing that, they ain't trying to score.

& when i'm talking about saving time on the front end & losing more on the back end, i'm talking about the ability to stop the clock after the 2 min warning...B/c at some point no matter how much time you have, you as a coach are going to have to let that clock run in a 2 min drive situation & you will lose those precious seconds & then some anyway & it will be much more time when you're in a situation where you can't stop it vs. when you can. Those scramble drill situations to get everyone lined up so you can spike it waste a ton of time & you'd have to do it at least twice in a drive to score a TD. That type of situation is much more palatable in a game where all you need is to get in FG range......... not so much when you have to go the length of the field to score a TD.
I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Personally, I'd WANT them to be aggressive and still try to score. Incomplete passes stops the clock, so that's much more valuable than using timeouts to stop the clock. Not to mention, the increased risk of a turnover. The Colts punted the previous three possessions, so it's not like the defense was struggling to stop them.

I think BOB made a mistake not using those timeouts before the 2min warning, so far I haven't heard a good reason for why he did.
 

thunderkyss

It's good to be me... again.
Staff member
Contributor's Club
BTW... Seth also made a good point on 610 this morning. Taking the intentional safety was ok. What's not ok is burning a timeout to call it. If had to burn a timeout to call it, then it would have been better to just punt the ball away. That timeout is more precious.
I don't see it. Colts would have picked up the yards to kick a field goal. They would have played it totally different & got the yards they needed.

Take the safety, put them on the other side of the field, maybe they try one big play, then they try to get the first down & kill the clock.

If we just punted they'd have taken three shots to get in range & probably get a PI call go their way.

Go for it on 4th & 9 makes more sense than punting.
 

powda

You forgot the briefcase!
I'm not quite following #3. Texans had two timeouts remaining.

This is how it turned out:

2:35 Colts have the ball, 1st down
-- 2 Min Warning --
2:00 2nd & 12 - rush for 2 yards
-- TIMEOUT #2 --
1:54 Short Pass
-- TIMEOUT #3 --
1:49 Punt
1:41 Texans first play

If we used the timeouts before the 2 min warning (assuming same exact plays & outcome):

2:35 Colts have the ball, 1st down
-- TIMEOUT #2 --
2:29 2nd & 12 - rush for 2 yards
-- TIMEOUT #3 --
2:24 Short Pass
-- 2 Min Warning --
2:00 Punt
1:52 Texans first play

As you can see, if we used the timeouts before the 2min warning, we would have saved 11 seconds. What am I missing?
The difference is trusting his team to get the stop after first down or 2nd.

The 2 minute warning was only an outside factor in the decision.

If they get a first down completion after our timeout (on their 2nd down) it's a waste. Ob was playing the odds on this and despite my bitching about time management I agree with him here.

The absolutely atrocious inexcusable call is the timeout before the deliberate safety. Take the delay of game. Who the f cares? 3 yards.

And as mentioned elsewhere why let the punter take it and run for 3 seconds? Can we just snap it out of bounds for the safety?
 

Seegara

Guitar Picker, Dog Lover, Woodworker
I don't see it. Colts would have picked up the yards to kick a field goal. They would have played it totally different & got the yards they needed.

Take the safety, put them on the other side of the field, maybe they try one big play, then they try to get the first down & kill the clock.

If we just punted they'd have taken three shots to get in range & probably get a PI call go their way.

Go for it on 4th & 9 makes more sense than punting.
I thought we had to go for it on 4th and 9.
 

mussop

Hall of Fame
I don't see it. Colts would have picked up the yards to kick a field goal. They would have played it totally different & got the yards they needed.

Take the safety, put them on the other side of the field, maybe they try one big play, then they try to get the first down & kill the clock.

If we just punted they'd have taken three shots to get in range & probably get a PI call go their way.

Go for it on 4th & 9 makes more sense than punting.
That’s not what he was saying. He’s saying it wasn’t bad to take the safety. It was bad to have to use a timeout to get that play called.
 

thunderkyss

It's good to be me... again.
Staff member
Contributor's Club
That’s not what he was saying. He’s saying it wasn’t bad to take the safety. It was bad to have to use a timeout to get that play called.
He said if he had to take the timeout then he'd just as soon punted. So I'm saying if we didn't take the timeout the Colts are in field goal range with a couple of plays, if they don't get a good return on the punt.

& you didn't mention it, but it keeps coming up. There was no "delay of game penalty. BO'b called time out with six seconds left on the play clock. If BO'b doesn't call the TO, they're snapping the ball & we're punting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ROO

mussop

Hall of Fame
He said if he had to take the timeout then he'd just as soon punted. So I'm saying if we didn't take the timeout the Colts are in field goal range with a couple of plays, if they don't get a good return on the punt.

& you didn't mention it, but it keeps coming up. There was no "delay of game penalty. BO'b called time out with six seconds left on the play clock. If BO'b doesn't call the TO, they're snapping the ball & we're punting.
A delay of game penalty would of been better than calling a time out there. And he should of called a timeout after Indy was stuffed on first down as well. His piss poor game management skills are going to cost us dearly at some point.
 

thunderkyss

It's good to be me... again.
Staff member
Contributor's Club
A delay of game penalty would of been better than calling a time out there.
Yep. Sure would have been.

But Angerer didn't know he wasn't supposed to punt, so we wouldn't have taken a delay of game.

Bill O'Brien called the TO with 6 seconds on the play clock. He wasn't trying to avoid a delay of game penalty. He was changing the play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ROO


Top