It KILLS me what poor clock management the Giants and Eli display year after year at the end of games! Eli snapped the ball with about *17 seconds left* on the play clock before he tossed the TD pass to Saquon Barkley with more than a minute left in the game. The Panthers scored the game-winning FG with less than 6 seconds left.
Guys, it’s not just about scoring – it’s about scoring and not leaving time on the clock for the other team! This has happened at least 4-5 times at the end of games in the past 2-3 years. Is the problem with Eli or the coaching staff? Because nobody seems to get it.
I’m wondering how you guys approach real life scenarios. It makes me laugh a little to picture how upset you guys all if things go off script.
It makes me laugh to see you follow me around and complain about my posts.
I generally avoid you but every once in a while I’ll comment when I see something ludicrous. You are like Skip Bayless. Everyone knows what you are already going to say when it comes to the NFL. Contrarian on everything either no middle ground.
Just weird is all. I’ve said many times I value a lot of what you say but there’s certain topics that just aren’t worth breaching.
I just rewatched the play. Ball is snapped at 1:15, ball is out of his hands just before the clock hits 1:13.
Again, the issue is with the ball being snapped with 17 seconds left. That's a detail the head coach should be in control of. I'll call attention again to last year's Super Bowl. Before the Brady fumble Schwartz was picked up on a mike saying to Pederson the following: "I'm going after him. Either we're going to make a play or you're going to get the ball back with a chance to win." That was with 2:21 left and the Eagles up by 5 points. That's the kind of awareness of score, time, and field position that I expect to see from our coaches. Two weeks in a row we haven't seen it.
The play clock is a non-issue. Your whole argument is predicated on the assumption that we were guaranteed to score the TD in any case. That's nonsense.
If we had tried to get cute with it, there's any number of things that could go wrong. A turnover. A penalty. A penalty that shouldn't have been called (because we hadn't seen any of those during the game, amirite?).
- 1:15 on clock
- 1st and 10 at CAR 15
- Down by 6
- Giants w/ 0 timeouts, Panthers w/ 1
The Giants aren't getting two possessions. There is no scenario where they do something other than go for the TD on that possession. They either get in or they don't. There's no longer a need to rush at that point.
The coaches and offense caught a break with the instant replay stoppage on the Shepard catch. That was effectively a 4th timeout, and an opportunity to clearly communicate to the offense how they would approach the remainder of the drive.
It's not that complicated.
What if he runs the clock down, Panthers make an adjustment and stop Saquon?
What if he runs the clock down, and there's a false start penalty while he's doing it?
Last week, I agreed that Shurmur should have called timeout and given the offense the ball back before the half. This week, he played it right, and it just did not work out.
Given that Shurmur didn't know to use a timeout last week before halftime I'm not surprised they gave Carolina those extra 17 seconds. And really, it's been the culture of the team for a while to lose these kinds of games. Shit, I was in the stadium when Carolina did the same thing to us in 2015.
- 1:15 on clock
- 1st and 10 at CAR 15
- Down by 6
- Giants w/ 0 timeouts, Panthers w/ 1
The Giants aren't getting two possessions. There is no scenario where they do something other than go for the TD on that possession. They either get in or they don't. There's no longer a need to rush at that point.
The coaches and offense caught a break with the instant replay stoppage on the Shepard catch. That was effectively a 4th timeout, and an opportunity to clearly communicate to the offense how they would approach the remainder of the drive.
It's not that complicated.
Neither is thinking Eli had the exact matchup he wanted at the exact right time and snapped it accordingly. Why should he wait and give the D even a chance to make an adjustment when his goal is the TD and he had what he wanted?
The proof is in the result of the play and I'm not worried about the play clock running longer at the risk of the outcome changing. There's no way for anyone to say we get the exact same result 10-15 seconds later.
I think the D very well could've shifted even one step left if they had more time to see what the Giants had setup. At the worst that's a possibility and again, a risk I wasn't willing to take and am glad Eli wasn't either.
Given that Shurmur didn't know to use a timeout last week before halftime I'm not surprised they gave Carolina those extra 17 seconds. And really, it's been the culture of the team for a while to lose these kinds of games. Shit, I was in the stadium when Carolina did the same thing to us in 2015.
Why do you assume that, had they waited an extra 17 seconds to snap the ball, and run the exact same play, that they still would have scored?
Quote:
The play clock is not a non-issue, and no one is suggesting getting cute. I'm not saying Barkley should intentionally have run out of bounds or knelt. I'm saying the play clock (and game clock) should have been run down before the ball was snapped. Is it the reason they lost? I don't know...probably not. I expect the Panthers would have approached their last possession differently had they had 17 fewer seconds and still found a way to win. Losing teams find ways to lose and I expect the Giants would have regardless.
Given that Shurmur didn't know to use a timeout last week before halftime I'm not surprised they gave Carolina those extra 17 seconds. And really, it's been the culture of the team for a while to lose these kinds of games. Shit, I was in the stadium when Carolina did the same thing to us in 2015.
Why do you assume that, had they waited an extra 17 seconds to snap the ball, and run the exact same play, that they still would have scored?
Bingo
Because outside of an 11-game outlier in McAdoo's first season, this franchise has been finding every possible way to lose for the last six years.
It’s just as dumb as thinking Gary Sanchez should have hit a grand slam on Saturday, thinking that he’d see the exact same pitches and have the exact same swings if the bases were loaded.
Fucking hate this line of thinking, it’s bullshit.
Again, these are the little things that good teams do. They dont always make the difference between winning and losing, but they sometimes do. We don't do any of these little things well.
I really haven't heard one argument that makes me think otherwise either. There was no benefit to snapping the ball there, we needed to take the game clock down.
So, it's your contention that, giving Eli all the time he wants to snap the ball, be it 15 seconds or 15 minutes, that 100 times out of 100, the play results in a TD?
Just making absolutely sure that's what you're saying.
This particular instance that was brought up in the OP I think there is at least an argument on both sides but running the clock out is definitely the better move. It can't be lost in this though that we would have had better options and could have let the clock run more if we actually held onto the timeout we burned on the 4th and 1 play on the previous Panthers drive which was in it's own right a terrible decision but to boot we gave them extra time to think about the play and they completely out coached us by having not one but two players wide open.
Then there was before the half where on one meaningless drive we burned 2, then at the end of the half (no doubt in an over reaction to last week) we used our last before the two minute warning when we were definitely getting the ball back that again reflected a very poor understanding of game theory. The two minute warning was going to stop the clock anyway and you get to hold your timeout for when you want to use it. Besides, using it then actually greatly increases the chances you give the Panthers another possession when they have time outs left which is why it is so bad from a game theory perspective.
I have no idea how you can say in such an absolute way nothing will change. There is no friggin way for you to know that.
Aren't you even open to the idea a change is a possibility?
Again, these are the little things that good teams do. They dont always make the difference between winning and losing, but they sometimes do. We don't do any of these little things well.
I really haven't heard one argument that makes me think otherwise either. There was no benefit to snapping the ball there, we needed to take the game clock down.
I’m actually assuming nothing. To not even entertain the idea that anything else could have happened in those 17 seconds is ludicrous.
It’s as if you think all defensive players stand completely still and don’t adjust on every other snap.
+1000
Pete Carroll ran down the clock to avoid Brady. Dumbest move ever.
Pete Carroll ran down the clock to avoid Brady. Dumbest move ever.
Not running Lynch was the dumb move there. Belichick inexplicably didn't call timeout with the clock running down. Malcolm Butler saved his behind.
Quote:
No, they don't. I gave you examples.
Pete Carroll ran down the clock to avoid Brady. Dumbest move ever.
Not running Lynch was the dumb move there. Belichick inexplicably didn't call timeout with the clock running down. Malcolm Butler saved his behind.
Carroll thought Belichick would call timeout. He didn't. Carroll left himself no option to run on second and third, as a stop probably ends the game.
Line up at 40 seconds or so, plunge into the end zone, take your chances on Brady tying with a FG. The TD was the only thing that mattered.
And I could give two shits what the Patriots would've done.
You're very vocal about not wanting to discuss this. It isn't odd at all - it's an interesting conversation about a key strategical decision that decided the ballgame. I can see both sides of the argument although I can definitely say I wouldn't've been upset at all with a run, and would've definitely wanted to milk the clock/not give the ball back to Cam. He's too good an improviser who is very dangerous extending plays and pushing the ball downfield w/chunk plays. If I lost trying to milk the clock too, I could live with it.
Just personal strategy preference. Play to win, not to temporarily take the lead & then ask your D to do something extremely difficult.
I mean - let's put a percentage on it - how many times does Cam (and Gano) get into FG range 1st and 10 from the 25 with 1 minute and no timeouts? Given the rules of the game, I don't like the odds.
Quote:
In comment 14113937 schabadoo said:
Quote:
No, they don't. I gave you examples.
Pete Carroll ran down the clock to avoid Brady. Dumbest move ever.
Not running Lynch was the dumb move there. Belichick inexplicably didn't call timeout with the clock running down. Malcolm Butler saved his behind.
Carroll thought Belichick would call timeout. He didn't. Carroll left himself no option to run on second and third, as a stop probably ends the game.
Line up at 40 seconds or so, plunge into the end zone, take your chances on Brady tying with a FG. The TD was the only thing that mattered.
What do you mean? There was plenty of time on the clock for them to run if they wanted. This was a case of them trying to outsmart the Pats. They got cute. This was not clock related.
Is this a serious post? Defenses make pre-snap adjustments all the time let alone having 15 seconds to do so.
Lynch gets to the 1 at 1:06. They don't run another play until 26 seconds left. If they ran and didn't make it, they call their last timeout with 18-20 or so seconds left. They then are forced to pass on 3rd. If they ran on third and got stopped, or passed and got sacked, the clock could run out.
Just score the TD.
You don't seem to know how long plays take, maybe that's the issue. They only threw it due to time. At 26 seconds they could run twice if one of them was 4th. You run on third and you could easily not get off another play. What a terrible situation to needlessly put yourself in, and give away the SB.
1) Just because you can point to one play where a great coach made an error doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to point out potential errors from our coach
2) Technology has really advanced in the last 3 years to a point where expected win probabilities are much more prevalent so you aren't even talking about the same tools being available
3) Because of #2 your example actually isn't very good. It is possible if Carroll has the tools of today he makes a different call or he makes the same call and it is actually backed by a strong win probability calculation (which to the best of anyone's knowledge it might have actually been)
Again, you don't seem to understand how long plays take. Here:
"After burning two timeouts earlier in the drive, and with only 26 seconds remaining, it was not really feasible for the Seahawks to run the ball three straight plays. If they ran the ball on second down and failed, they would need to call their final timeout. Without a timeout, if they ran and were stopped on third down, it is unlikely they would have time to lineup for a fourth-down attempt. There are massive pileups at the goal line and it takes a while to get unpiled and set up. Obviously, three plays to score the go-ahead touchdown are better than two.
So, it appears the Seahawks would need to throw the ball on either second or third down to ensure three attempts. By throwing on second down and conserving their timeout, the Patriots would still have to play for either the pass or the run on third down. If they ran on second down, the Seahawks would almost surely pass on third down—which simplifies things for Bill Belichick’s defense."
Why they had to pass after stupidly running the time down - ( New Window )
I didn't write that. That's Keith Goldner, the Director of Data Science at FanDuel and Chief Analyst at numberFire.
But please, keep going.
Everyone needs to stop MMQB and looking what happened after the play. Eli had a matchup that needed to be exploited. If he waited 15 more seconds to snap the ball... who’s to say Carolina doesn’t adjust? Who says like kuechely notices no one has barkley and he doesn’t call timeout? And we aren’t even talking about the adjustments Carolina makes on offense with less time. Maybe they don’t run the ball on 3rd and 1 then run another play and just kick the FG after 2nd down.
Who the hell cares. We are a bad team and needed a atD and ran a perfect play to score. We asked our defense to make ONE stop in the 4 for the win and they failed.
This is ludicrous.
>So then answer my earlier question. Do you believe Barkley should have purposely run out of bounds at the one yard line? [/quote]
No, no it doesn't. It says they can't run on 2nd and 3rd down. I even quoted it for you:
"If they ran the ball on second down and failed, they would need to call their final timeout. Without a timeout, if they ran and were stopped on third down, it is unlikely they would have time to lineup for a fourth-down attempt."
There's the chief data analyst from FanDuel and numberFire saying it, and there's you, who's repeatedly misstated basic facts in this one thread. Ok.
Right, you can skip calling a timeout after second and be forced to throw on third, which the Pats would know. What a terrible idea.
The article shows that running down the clock dictated passing on either second or third down. Again, terrible idea. Amazing to see someone defend it.
Eli: "Oh no I'm not going to dump it off to Saquon at the line of scrimmage, he has a good matchup and that's what the D is giving me but that's TOO good of a matchup and he's probably going to score (the loser), I'll instead take a sack so we can run time off the clock.
OR
Saquon: OK I caught the ball, I can make this move to the endzone and score the go-ahead TD... NO! Wait. Too much time on the clock, I'll purposely go down so we can NOT score a TD and then hopefully score on a different play in the redzone (which we haven't been able to do all year).
Imagine if either of these things happened and they then failed to score the TD. BBI would absolutely EXPLODE. People would be fired.
Then, they could have run the ball on 3rd down, and if they didn't make it they could have used their final time out.
Then 4th down would have been the wild card, could have been run or pass doesn't matter. But I think they would have scored on 3rd down in the situation I just described. NE was not stopping Lynch and the run is even more effective after you just ran play action.
He wouldn't even take calls on it saying don't waste your breath or my time even bringing up such a dumb idea. It's not even worth discussing as there was no other way to go except score the TD whenever or however they could.
I'm not saying he's an expert but he has been around the game and been around coaches a lot in his life.