Poor clock management

Their only job was to get a TD. When your offense sucks, you get a td anyway you can. This isn't a FG wins. Mo time outs left on the 15 yard line.
He could not have known they would get a TD immediately. He has to conserve time in case it took them 5 or 6 plays to get in.

Poor clock management is an epidemic around the NFL, just another area where quality is crumbling.

It's not exactly the National Genius League.

Another great insight by a BBI poster. Like the Eli has the ability to score at any moment he chooses. Hey guys! Let’s not score a TD until there’s 5 seconds left. Ok? Let’s go do this! Sometimes you just shake your head at what people write.

when you need a TD to go ahead. We were at the 15 yard line, not the one. It isn't like you can just give plays away.

It is one thing if you just need a gimme FG to win and leave a lot of time, but to complain about leaving too much time when scoring a TD?? That's not on clock management.

We'd want Shurmur fired if we didn't score a TD there because he ran the ball a couple of times.

In comment 14113090 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

when you need a TD to go ahead. We were at the 15 yard line, not the one. It isn't like you can just give plays away. It is one thing if you just need a gimme FG to win and leave a lot of time, but to complain about leaving too much time when scoring a TD?? That's not on clock management. We'd want Shurmur fired if we didn't score a TD there because he ran the ball a couple of times.

The good news is that we don’t have to fucking hear that we haven’t scored 30 points since the birth of Namath

but even in a game we scored 30 and Eli had a late comeboack, posters were still saying he had a poor game.

the Giants had plenty of time to score a TD. Too much really. They needed 15 yards not 50. In that case, you need to look a step ahead. How many plays will it possibly take to score from here, if we are even going to score? How much time do we really need? A minute plus? No. Let's squeeze the clock some. On that play you definitely shouldn't snap the ball with another 15 seconds or so on the play clock. No reason too. You have plenty of time. It cost them.

In comment 14113090 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

when you need a TD to go ahead. We were at the 15 yard line, not the one. It isn't like you can just give plays away. It is one thing if you just need a gimme FG to win and leave a lot of time, but to complain about leaving too much time when scoring a TD?? That's not on clock management. We'd want Shurmur fired if we didn't score a TD there because he ran the ball a couple of times.

It's incredible to me we have actual fans who don't understand this.

I'm not sure what's worse, people not getting this or the fact we actually have two threads about it!

it early becauset he Panthers weren't making adjustments. They basically left the right side of the field open which gave Barkley the path to the end zone.

You take the points when you can get them.

In comment 14113103 LS said:

Quote:

the Giants had plenty of time to score a TD. Too much really. They needed 15 yards not 50. In that case, you need to look a step ahead. How many plays will it possibly take to score from here, if we are even going to score? How much time do we really need? A minute plus? No. Let's squeeze the clock some. On that play you definitely shouldn't snap the ball with another 15 seconds or so on the play clock. No reason too. You have plenty of time. It cost them.

Ya think maybe Eli snapped it when he did was because he had the matchup he wanted and maybe the D shifts to an unfavorable matchup if he waited any longer?

I mean come the hell on, the only objective there is to get the go ahead TD. There are plenty of things about yesterday's game to complain about but scoring the TD too soon is certainly not one of them.

this millenium) when Bradshaw didn’t fall down short of the goal line. Just a terribly run franchise with the worst clock management of any franchise ever.

complaint. You have to score a TD. You don't play the clock unless all you need is a fg and you are in range already.

....some of you fans want to control the game beyond was is possible on an NFL field.

Had the Giants waited - let's just play your scenario - don't you think Carolina would have approached their last drive differently???

Get a clue.

In comment 14113103 LS said:

Quote:

the Giants had plenty of time to score a TD. Too much really. They needed 15 yards not 50. In that case, you need to look a step ahead. How many plays will it possibly take to score from here, if we are even going to score? How much time do we really need? A minute plus? No. Let's squeeze the clock some. On that play you definitely shouldn't snap the ball with another 15 seconds or so on the play clock. No reason too. You have plenty of time. It cost them.

First down from the 15 with no timeouts. Could've taken eight plays to score.

and let the clock run when we have no timeouts. But I also thought they at least should have let the clock run a bit more after the restart following the Shepard catch

In comment 14113107 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

it early becauset he Panthers weren't making adjustments. They basically left the right side of the field open which gave Barkley the path to the end zone. You take the points when you can get them.

Exactly. But this nuance of the game is lost on some.

In comment 14113224 RinR said:

Quote:

In comment 14113107 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: it early becauset he Panthers weren't making adjustments. They basically left the right side of the field open which gave Barkley the path to the end zone. You take the points when you can get them. Exactly. But this nuance of the game is lost on some.

Not lost sir, just people wanting to see a win. There was no play, other than the victory formation, that could have predicted not scoring a touchdown and letting the clock run. . But this is a team, that no matter who is on defense, seems to not be able to stop anyone. so giving them the ball back with a minute or so could not have made you feel comfortable. If I were a Panther fan, and with the momentum the Giants had I would have been happy if the refs did not reverse the previous call. I would have hoped for a little better than a 63 yard field goal but I like having the ball with the chance to win. As a giant fan, I too was happy they reversed the call and would have liked a little time taken off the clock and I said that before the TD.

In comment 14113294 lecky said:

Quote:

In comment 14113224 RinR said: Quote: In comment 14113107 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: it early becauset he Panthers weren't making adjustments. They basically left the right side of the field open which gave Barkley the path to the end zone. You take the points when you can get them. Exactly. But this nuance of the game is lost on some. Not lost sir, just people wanting to see a win. There was no play, other than the victory formation, that could have predicted not scoring a touchdown and letting the clock run. . But this is a team, that no matter who is on defense, seems to not be able to stop anyone. so giving them the ball back with a minute or so could not have made you feel comfortable. If I were a Panther fan, and with the momentum the Giants had I would have been happy if the refs did not reverse the previous call. I would have hoped for a little better than a 63 yard field goal but I like having the ball with the chance to win. As a giant fan, I too was happy they reversed the call and would have liked a little time taken off the clock and I said that before the TD.

What you are missing is getting the TD is their first and only priority in that spot.

It's not can the D hold up after, it's not would us fans feel better if there was less time left, it's not anything else but get the damn TD first and foremost and then we go from there.

It's not rocket science we're talking about here, it's football 101 in that situation. Emotions and what if's don't factor in at all. It's get the damn lead.

There is another team out there too. They had to score a TD and they did. Hell, they drove all the way down the field and should have won. It was a great drive by the offense. IF the D can't hold the opponent for 1 lousy minute than thats on them.

he shouldn't have tried so hard jumping into the end zone.

Playing with heart is a fool's errand...

In comment 14113321 PatersonPlank said:

Quote:

There is another team out there too. They had to score a TD and they did. Hell, they drove all the way down the field and should have won. It was a great drive by the offense. IF the D can't hold the opponent for 1 lousy minute than thats on them.

Agreed but while I think the D certainly could've done better, no question about that, they did force a 63 yd FG attempt. It's not like they completely folded and Gano had a chip shot. The guy made a great kick, and we took another gut punch.

In comment 14113294 lecky said:

Quote:

In comment 14113224 RinR said: Quote: In comment 14113107 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: it early becauset he Panthers weren't making adjustments. They basically left the right side of the field open which gave Barkley the path to the end zone. You take the points when you can get them. Exactly. But this nuance of the game is lost on some. Not lost sir, just people wanting to see a win. There was no play, other than the victory formation, that could have predicted not scoring a touchdown and letting the clock run. . But this is a team, that no matter who is on defense, seems to not be able to stop anyone. so giving them the ball back with a minute or so could not have made you feel comfortable. If I were a Panther fan, and with the momentum the Giants had I would have been happy if the refs did not reverse the previous call. I would have hoped for a little better than a 63 yard field goal but I like having the ball with the chance to win. As a giant fan, I too was happy they reversed the call and would have liked a little time taken off the clock and I said that before the TD.

I felt pretty good that the Giants D was going to stop Panthers or at least keep them out of FG range. Maybe I'm in the minority. they were getting to Newton so yes, I really thought they were going to pull this out.

Sure it would have been nice if the Panthers had less time but they needed to a TD. We have no idea what wouldve happened on subsequent plays had the Giants ran more time off. different story if all they needed was a FG.

but the OP is def correct. We are and have been really bad with clock management over the past few years. It's on the HC's and the QB and yesterday was another example of it. Just watch how a team like the Pats handle that drive. There was no reason to snap the ball with that much time on the clock. We weren't going to run out of time. You'd hope this would be a learning experience, but I'm not sure our 37 year old QB is going to change at this point.

In comment 14113317 Eman11 said:

Quote:

In comment 14113294 lecky said: Quote: In comment 14113224 RinR said: Quote: In comment 14113107 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: it early becauset he Panthers weren't making adjustments. They basically left the right side of the field open which gave Barkley the path to the end zone. You take the points when you can get them. Exactly. But this nuance of the game is lost on some. Not lost sir, just people wanting to see a win. There was no play, other than the victory formation, that could have predicted not scoring a touchdown and letting the clock run. . But this is a team, that no matter who is on defense, seems to not be able to stop anyone. so giving them the ball back with a minute or so could not have made you feel comfortable. If I were a Panther fan, and with the momentum the Giants had I would have been happy if the refs did not reverse the previous call. I would have hoped for a little better than a 63 yard field goal but I like having the ball with the chance to win. As a giant fan, I too was happy they reversed the call and would have liked a little time taken off the clock and I said that before the TD. What you are missing is getting the TD is their first and only priority in that spot. It's not can the D hold up after, it's not would us fans feel better if there was less time left, it's not anything else but get the damn TD first and foremost and then we go from there. It's not rocket science we're talking about here, it's football 101 in that situation. Emotions and what if's don't factor in at all. It's get the damn lead.

Sir, football 101 was not an option at my college. If it were I would have failed it because I sucked at school. But after watching football for over 60 years and never missing a Giant game I have learned from the school of hard knocks. And not for one second did I feel good we were giving them the ball back with a minute to go. If you asked me if I would have given them a 63 yard field goal to try and win I would have said sure. And was I happy the Giants scored a touchdown, of course I was. It is just my opinion, and Bill Belicheks, that I want to be the last person to touch the ball in that situation.

In comment 14113351 Keith said:

Quote:

but the OP is def correct. We are and have been really bad with clock management over the past few years. It's on the HC's and the QB and yesterday was another example of it. Just watch how a team like the Pats handle that drive. There was no reason to snap the ball with that much time on the clock. We weren't going to run out of time. You'd hope this would be a learning experience, but I'm not sure our 37 year old QB is going to change at this point.

Oh for crying out loud. It wasn't about running out of time and snapping it too soon. It was snapped when it was because he had a favorable matchup at that time. Which getting the TD clearly showed.

Ya think maybe if Eli let's the play clock run the Panthers see they were in a tough spot and make an adjustment? Ever consider that? What about if they do make an adjustment and Eli is forced to call a TO there? He's getting killed for not taking the shot when he had it.

The game isn't played in a vacuum. The play was there at that time and they made it.

Yes, it is just about scoring points! I hope the stupid motherfucking sportswriter who invented this clock management bullshit is consigned to a special ring of hell.

This clock management baloney is workable if the players are blessed with the gift of foresight and know ahead of time when and how they will score. I can imagine the meltdown here if they ran the clock down every play, something untoward happened and there was no time left. Clock management is just another reason for armchair qb's to sit back and critique. I guess Barkley should have fallen down at the one-poor clock management.

The team is down a td. The offense's one responsibility is to score a td. Period. They then turn it over to the defense whose job it is to stop the other team. They did. They forced Carolina to hope for an act of God- a 63 yard FG- 7 yards beyond Gano's longest ever, a yard shorter than the NFL record, and tied with Tom Dempsey's kick which was the record for 43 years. The guy kicked it. You tip your hat to him as he gets paid too and move on.

but despite your strong language, I still disagree. Did we quick snap it as Carolina was making changes and confused defensively? No. If you think this was really him trying to lock in on a bad matchup, I have a bridge to sell ya. This was nothign more than poor clock management. That matchup wasn't changing 15 seconds later. It was bad clock management, sorry to upset you.

are people really dumb enough to think we are going to run out of time? Homer, you are clueless.

In comment 14113397 Keith said:

Quote:

but despite your strong language, I still disagree. Did we quick snap it as Carolina was making changes and confused defensively? No. If you think this was really him trying to lock in on a bad matchup, I have a bridge to sell ya. This was nothign more than poor clock management. That matchup wasn't changing 15 seconds later. It was bad clock management, sorry to upset you.

I don't understand how you know this. Seems to me you are taking a stab in the wind while the notion that the qb snapped the ball because he had what he wanted and didn't want the defense to adjust before the snap is foolish?

watch the replay.

This place is unbelievable. The Giants are being criticized for scoring a TD which they needed to take the lead. This nonsense about poor clock management would have been legitimate had they only needed a FG.

but caved. What a fun read that OP was...

To later on.

Nobody is moving around, its not like Eli spotted something and wanted a quick snap. Its the little things that make a difference. A team like the Pats, that doesn't happen.

In comment 14113404 crick n NC said:

Quote:

In comment 14113397 Keith said: Quote: but despite your strong language, I still disagree. Did we quick snap it as Carolina was making changes and confused defensively? No. If you think this was really him trying to lock in on a bad matchup, I have a bridge to sell ya. This was nothign more than poor clock management. That matchup wasn't changing 15 seconds later. It was bad clock management, sorry to upset you. I don't understand how you know this. Seems to me you are taking a stab in the wind while the notion that the qb snapped the ball because he had what he wanted and didn't want the defense to adjust before the snap is foolish?

Totally agree crick. It wouldn't have even had to be a big adjustment by Carolina. Even if one of the LBs shifted a step to their left it could've been enough to get to Saquon a second earlier and knock him out before he got the ball across the line.

It's not like we're talking about a major adjustment here. A small simple one could've been the difference. Eli saw he had an advantage in that instant and had the ball snapped exactly when he needed it to be in order to get the TD.

In comment 14113415 Keith said:

Quote:

Nobody is moving around, its not like Eli spotted something and wanted a quick snap. Its the little things that make a difference. A team like the Pats, that doesn't happen.

How do you know in the next few seconds one of the Panthers Lbs doesn't see something and slide to his left even a step? If you can see into the future and see they definitely would not have made any adjustment there, please tell me what numbers to play in tomorrow nights MegMillions drawing.

is exactly right. The Giants did everything they needed to do. The Panthers hit a desperation FG. You tip your you're cap and say helluva kick. This whole clock management thing is just the pure definition of Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

In comment 14113430 Eman11 said:

Quote:

In comment 14113415 Keith said: Quote: Nobody is moving around, its not like Eli spotted something and wanted a quick snap. Its the little things that make a difference. A team like the Pats, that doesn't happen. How do you know in the next few seconds one of the Panthers Lbs doesn't see something and slide to his left even a step? If you can see into the future and see they definitely would not have made any adjustment there, please tell me what numbers to play in tomorrow nights MegMillions drawing.

1, 17, F-OFF, 26

was funny...

In comment 14113415 Keith said:

Quote:

Nobody is moving around, its not like Eli spotted something and wanted a quick snap.

That is exactly why he wanted a quick snap.

You can argue all you want - the Giants were at the 15 yard line and wouldn't need a full minute to score from there.

You HAVE TO run the clock down at that point and the Giants failed, and lost because of it.

The idea isn't to score a TD there - it's to win the game. It is very difficult to keep a team out of FG range when in desperation mode with 1 minute left. Too much time.

In comment 14113440 Keith said:

Quote:

In comment 14113430 Eman11 said: Quote: In comment 14113415 Keith said: Quote: Nobody is moving around, its not like Eli spotted something and wanted a quick snap. Its the little things that make a difference. A team like the Pats, that doesn't happen. How do you know in the next few seconds one of the Panthers Lbs doesn't see something and slide to his left even a step? If you can see into the future and see they definitely would not have made any adjustment there, please tell me what numbers to play in tomorrow nights MegMillions drawing. 1, 17, F-OFF, 26

You're one short but somehow I'm not surprised.

Look, maybe you're right and they don't make an adjustment, even a small one but there's no way you can definitively say they wouldn't have.

I'm not saying they would've either, only that they could've and that's the point. No need to chance anything when the right play and matchup were there at that exact moment.

Quote:

1:30 left with the ball on the 15, Keith : 10:45 am : link : reply are people really dumb enough to think we are going to run out of time? Homer, you are clueless.

It isn't about running out of time, it is getting a score.

Seriously - if the Giants ran the ball on first down to take the clock down and then failed to score, are we congratulating them for time management? When you are losing and need a TD - you get the TD when you can. How many times have we seen a team get to the 10 late in the game and can't score?

Heck, a sack, a penalty, a pick. All things can happen there other than a score. I can't believe we're acting as if this is mismanagement, because if we don't score, it would 100% be classified as mismanagement.

Can't win with a lot of you guys.

In comment 14113451 mittenedman said:

Quote:

You HAVE TO run the clock down at that point and the Giants failed, and lost because of it.

LMAO. Right, the Giants lost because they scored a TD to take the lead.

I get it, everyone is so defensive of Eli. He gets criticized for anything and everything so some, like yourself, feel the need to defend everything. I like to think that I'm fair. I only criticize when I feel like it's justified. This is one of those times. Obviously the goal is to score a TD, but again, its the little things that make a difference in the NFL.

I'll ask you this...put the pats in that situation, what do they do?

coming off as defending Eli??

We are talking about a team that has had trouble scoring all year and we are acting like taking the foot off the gas there and milking clock would've been fine if we didn't score. That's far more pertinent than what the Pats would've done.

Hell, in the SB vs. the Seahawks, BB left the hopes of winning on his defense stopping the Seahawks from scoring, because if they get the TD there, the Pats have no shot to have a drive.

It's madness that we're dissecting whether or not a team that hasn't scored 30 points in over two seasons scored points in a situation when they needed to. And then to bizarrely flip that as a defense of Eli?? WTF?

Listen dude, its what you do. Any criticism and theres FMIC with his cape on. Stop pretending.

The goal isn't to score 30 pts. The goal is the win the game. We could have done both, scored and miled the clock a bit. That's what winning teams do.

In comment 14113490 Keith said:

Quote:

I get it, everyone is so defensive of Eli. He gets criticized for anything and everything so some, like yourself, feel the need to defend everything. I like to think that I'm fair. I only criticize when I feel like it's justified. This is one of those times. Obviously the goal is to score a TD, but again, its the little things that make a difference in the NFL. I'll ask you this...put the pats in that situation, what do they do?

They win the game. Of course you are talking Belichik and Brady vs. Eli and Shurmur but it has always been their thought to want to be the last team to touch the ball. Even if you run a play up the middle does not mean you wont score .

In comment 14113403 Keith said:

Quote:

are people really dumb enough to think we are going to run out of time? Homer, you are clueless.

1:08. No timeouts. Could still get a first down.

You wind the clock down and you can't run.

I understand that and its a fair point, however the giants control the play calling. For example, lets say we snap the ball at 1:00 and we gain 10 yards and now have 1st and goal from the 5 with a running clock. We can just pass the ball 4 times int the endzone. There isn't a rule where we have to pass short or run the ball.

look at it this way:

Quote:

Exactly. Keith : 11:25 am : link : reply Listen dude, its what you do. Any criticism and theres FMIC with his cape on. Stop pretending. The goal isn't to score 30 pts. The goal is the win the game. We could have done both, scored and miled the clock a bit. That's what winning teams do.

I wasn't debating this as a knock vs. Eli. It was a terrible hot take that we are chastising a team that has had trouble scoring for, wait for it:



SCORING?

Again I'll ask - if we run the clock down and never get the TD, there wouldn't be criticism?? We'd be saying Shurmur went for the win?

What if Eli is sacked or Solder is called for a hold? Are we saying that Shurmur gambled or is the board littered with "GO FOR THE THROAT" posts?

C'mon now

If we run the clock down and dont score, the criticism would be on not scoring, not running the clock down. There was no chance we were running out of time. Any smart team uses all of the play clock there. Little things like that decide games.

I'm not suggesting running the ball to run the clock out, you still go for the TD, but you use all the game clock. Its that simple.

In comment 14113518 Keith said:

Quote:

I understand that and its a fair point, however the giants control the play calling. For example, lets say we snap the ball at 1:00 and we gain 10 yards and now have 1st and goal from the 5 with a running clock. We can just pass the ball 4 times int the endzone. There isn't a rule where we have to pass short or run the ball.

Let's say we snap the ball at 50 seconds and lose three yards. It's now 2nd and 13 from the 18 needing a TD and the clock's running towards 30 seconds before the next play.

Let's say we snap the ball at 50 seconds and have a false start penalty. 10 seconds are run off and we're looking at 1 and 15 from the 20 with 40 seconds to go.

Now we're floating balls into the end zone hoping the protection holds.

to pick on this play (which gave them the LEAD) given so many others to be critical of.

And I could give two shits what the Patriots would've done.

you are trailing in the game. You need a TD, not a FG. You get that TD when you can, if you can.

Would you like to run the clock down and get a TD, sure.

But the TD is more important than anything at that time, including the clock.

This really has to be explained?

We should look at scoring from the 15 yard line as mismanagement? Fuck.

In comment 14113557 RinR said:

Quote:

to pick on this play (which gave them the LEAD) given so many others to be critical of. And I could give two shits what the Patriots would've done.

LOL, yeah, why would we try to mimic what a winning organization does. Lets just do our thing!

because the Giants and Pats have the same personnel, coaching, FO, etc. Makes alot of sense.

As putrid as the offense has been and the way they were calling penalties yesterday, you really think they should have burned clock down 6 with 1:08 to go, no timeouts from the 15?

Holy shit, you score on whatever play you can, damn the clock. Too many other factors can come in to play in that situation.

That's how Seattle lost the Super Bowl. They ran the clock down too far, realized they could run out of time, and decided to pass.

They would've been better off scoring with a minute left and taking their chances.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm indebted to you for your knowledge of....everything.

That being said, you are still wrong. You are allowed to have multiple goals.

1. Score a TD
2. Use up as much of the clock as possible.

If I suggested running the ball to run the clock, you would have a fair point. I'm not. All I'm saying is that he should have ran the game clock down in that situation. It's pretty simple and its what any elite QB does in that situation. It's not like he caught the defense flustered and needed to snap the ball real quick until they figured it out.

In comment 14113567 RinR said:

Quote:

because the Giants and Pats have the same personnel, coaching, FO, etc. Makes alot of sense.

Exactly. We don't have their QB and HC who amke smart decisions with the clock.

Not sure how anyone can argue with that - it's pretty well established in thread after thread.

In comment 14113579 schabadoo said:

Quote:

That's how Seattle lost the Super Bowl. They ran the clock down too far, realized they could run out of time, and decided to pass. They would've been better off scoring with a minute left and taking their chances.

Really?? Is that what you want to go with?

In comment 14113560 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

you are trailing in the game. You need a TD, not a FG. You get that TD when you can, if you can. Would you like to run the clock down and get a TD, sure. But the TD is more important than anything at that time, including the clock. This really has to be explained? We should look at scoring from the 15 yard line as mismanagement? Fuck.

It's mind boggling to me how anyone can not understand this and have it explained over and over again. Scoring the TD and getting the lead is the most important thing in that situation, and nothing else should even factor in.

If my coach is even thinking about anything else, I want another coach because he's not focused on his priority. Same goes for the QB

...and then ran out of time before they could get in the end zone?

Again, you are assuming that the TD is a given. What have you seen in our offense this year that would guarantee that?

I'm not following your logic though. Why would it be any different if he snapped the ball with 1 second vs 17 seconds? Of course a TD is not a given, but we would have had the same amount of plays. You aren't running out of time in that scenario with 1:00 left on the 15 yard line.

In comment 14113590 Keith said:

Quote:

In comment 14113579 schabadoo said: Quote: That's how Seattle lost the Super Bowl. They ran the clock down too far, realized they could run out of time, and decided to pass. They would've been better off scoring with a minute left and taking their chances. Really?? Is that what you want to go with?

Having the lead vs losing? Yes.

In comment 14113601 Keith said:

Quote:

I'm not following your logic though. Why would it be any different if he snapped the ball with 1 second vs 17 seconds? Of course a TD is not a given, but we would have had the same amount of plays. You aren't running out of time in that scenario with 1:00 left on the 15 yard line.

But what if there is a sack? That could easily kill another 20+ seconds, get everyone back to the line, now you are at the 20 yard line...40 seconds left and clock still running.

Unsure if there is a right or wrong answer, but when you are down 6 with no timeouts, you score when you can.

How do you know? What if you run four plays and get the first down? What if there's a penalty and a time runoff? What if you get tackled inbounds twice?

I guess you think Barkley should have purposely went out of bounds at the one yard line instead of trying to score?

In comment 14113601 Keith said:

Quote:

I'm not following your logic though. Why would it be any different if he snapped the ball with 1 second vs 17 seconds? Of course a TD is not a given, but we would have had the same amount of plays. You aren't running out of time in that scenario with 1:00 left on the 15 yard line.

Again, it could be different because the Panthers could very well have made a defensive shift in those 15 or so seconds. Even a very small one, like a LB moving a step to his left. That could've been the difference in Saquon getting in or not.

I'm not sure why you refuse to acknowledge this as being possible?

In comment 14113610 schabadoo said:

Quote:

How do you know? What if you run four plays and get the first down? What if there's a penalty and a time runoff? What if you get tackled inbounds twice?

schabadoo, because we control the playcalling. If we run 4 plays and get a first down, that means we ran the ball which nobody is suggesting. Can we trust our vet QB to throw the ball away if hes gonna get sacked? Again, nobody is suggesting that we should run the ball or that SB should ahve gone down(suggesting going out of bounds is as stupid as it gets because the clock stops). All some are saying is that we should have used up the 15 second on the running game clock.

No, it's means they gained ten yards while taking four downs.

In comment 14113625 schabadoo said:

Quote:

No, it's means they gained ten yards while taking four downs.

You do realize that we control the ball, so if we took 4 plays to get a 1st down and the clock was running than we made terrible decisions. You guys are making it seem like a WR split out was wide open and the defense forgot to cover him. Eli didn't know this would be an easy TD.

In comment 14113637 Keith said:

Quote:

In comment 14113625 schabadoo said: Quote: No, it's means they gained ten yards while taking four downs. You do realize that we control the ball, so if we took 4 plays to get a 1st down and the clock was running than we made terrible decisions. You guys are making it seem like a WR split out was wide open and the defense forgot to cover him. Eli didn't know this would be an easy TD.

Bullshit. How do you know he didn't see he had exactly what he wanted at that very moment and had the ball snapped?

Based on the results of the play, he clearly knew he had the perfect play setup and went with it.

I guess by your logic in SB42 he didn't know he had Plax 1-1 for the winning TD either.

In comment 14113637 Keith said:

Quote:

In comment 14113625 schabadoo said: Quote: No, it's means they gained ten yards while taking four downs. You do realize that we control the ball, so if we took 4 plays to get a 1st down and the clock was running than we made terrible decisions. You guys are making it seem like a WR split out was wide open and the defense forgot to cover him. Eli didn't know this would be an easy TD.

Managing a football game should be as easy as this. No sacks, no fumbles, no penalties, everyone gets out of bounds. I'm shocked a team ever gets to fourth down.

I understand where you are coming from, but this is what the good teams do. If you watch football around the league, the quality teams(mostly the upper echelon QB's) are careful with the clock. I guess they are better at multi tasking?

Maybe it's nitpicking, but attention to detail is one of the many things that are lacking with this team.

In comment 14113658 Keith said:

Quote:

I understand where you are coming from, but this is what the good teams do. If you watch football around the league, the quality teams(mostly the upper echelon QB's) are careful with the clock. I guess they are better at multi tasking?

No, good teams would not have run down the clock while needing a TD from the 15 with no timeouts. The Eagles continually threw the ball to get a TD with over two minutes left and gave the ball back to Brady for his eventual game-winning drive. The Seahawks of course ran the clock down to ensure that wouldn't happen to them.

In comment 14113661 Go Terps said:

Quote:

Maybe it's nitpicking, but attention to detail is one of the many things that are lacking with this team.

So then answer my earlier question. Do you believe Barkley should have purposely run out of bounds at the one yard line?

In comment 14113699 steve in ky said:

Quote:

In comment 14113661 Go Terps said: Quote: Maybe it's nitpicking, but attention to detail is one of the many things that are lacking with this team. So then answer my earlier question. Do you believe Barkley should have purposely run out of bounds at the one yard line?

No. I don't think it's reasonable to ask or expect that of a guy operating on instinct and physical ability.

The error is in snapping the ball with time left on the play clock. That's where awareness of time, score, time outs, and field position is needed. That's two weeks in a row that the team mismanaged this key aspect of the game.

You run the clock down to the last couple of seconds in that moment and you help the guys pass rushing get a quicker jump.

Tough to imagine a scenario where the rush would get to Eli, even with our line. And I would hope that the team has practiced that type of situation, or at minimum Shurmur was prepared for it. I suspect not, though.

And the fact is, but for a 63-yard FG at the gun, nobody else would've had a problem with it either.

That's just the reality of playing from more than 3 points behind.

and with Eli slightly roiling out. You can't tell me Eli hasn't been sacked within that time allowed this season.

In comment 14113739 BlackLight said:

Quote:

And the fact is, but for a 63-yard FG at the gun, nobody else would've had a problem with it either. That's just the reality of playing from more than 3 points behind.

This!! The Giants did their job. What are the chances that a 63 yarder is made. I don't know the statistics on that but my guess is it is slim. If he misses that FG we're talking about how clutch Eli was and what a good job the D did to keep them out of realistic field goal range.

In comment 14113740 steve in ky said:

Quote:

and with Eli slightly roiling out. You can't tell me Eli hasn't been sacked within that time allowed this season.

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.

why wouldnt it be?

with reality where there’s, once again, many variables at play here. Nothing more awesome than reading comments about just letting the clock run out because the TD was easy in retrospect.

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.

In comment 14113783 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

with reality where there’s, once again, many variables at play here. Nothing more awesome than reading comments about just letting the clock run out because the TD was easy in retrospect. 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 definitely search your name and comment on everything you say.

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.

In comment 14113758 Go Terps said:

Quote:

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?).

It's not as though some advanced algorithm was needed to decipher how to manage the clock (though who wants to listen to a nerd at a keyboard anyway, right?):

- 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.

Being that we're down by 6, and we have no ability to block for a running game, you have to score and get the lead and hope your defense can stop them from scoring the winning field goal.

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.

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.

In comment 14113820 Go Terps said:

Quote:

It's not as though some advanced algorithm was needed to decipher how to manage the clock (though who wants to listen to a nerd at a keyboard anyway, right?): - 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.

In comment 14113843 Go Terps said:

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?

In comment 14113857 BlackLight said:

Quote:

In comment 14113843 Go Terps said: 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

and then still scored the TD, they would have lost anyway somehow.

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.

what is is thinking that X is a constant and happens no matter what. Who knows what defensive adjustments are made in those 17 seconds but let’s just go right ahead and ignore that.

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.

you are assuming that Eli knew it would be a TD. Eli had no idea that it would be a TD when they snapped the ball.

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.

your analogy really doesn't make sense. The offensive call was made. The defensive call was made. Nothing about the players assignments was going to change in the last 15 seconds.

In comment 14113892 Keith said:

Quote:

your analogy really doesn't make sense. The offensive call was made. The defensive call was made. Nothing about the players assignments was going to change in the last 15 seconds.

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.

management again.

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'm not assuming that. But none of us knew they'd score at the time.

In comment 14113892 Keith said:

Quote:

your analogy really doesn't make sense. The offensive call was made. The defensive call was made. Nothing about the players assignments was going to change in the last 15 seconds.

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?

In comment 14113890 Keith said:

Quote:

you are assuming that Eli knew it would be a TD. Eli had no idea that it would be a TD when they snapped the ball. 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.

In comment 14113595 figgy2989 said:

Quote:

Again, you are assuming that the TD is a given. What have you seen in our offense this year that would guarantee that?

+1000

No, they don't. I gave you examples.

Pete Carroll ran down the clock to avoid Brady. Dumbest move ever.

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.

In comment 14113943 BlackLight said:

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.

In comment 14113557 RinR said:

Quote:

to pick on this play (which gave them the LEAD) given so many others to be critical of. 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.

In comment 14113954 schabadoo said:

Quote:

In comment 14113943 BlackLight said: 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.

In comment 14113892 Keith said:

Quote:

your analogy really doesn't make sense. The offensive call was made. The defensive call was made. Nothing about the players assignments was going to change in the last 15 seconds.

Is this a serious post? Defenses make pre-snap adjustments all the time let alone having 15 seconds to do so.

No, because they ran down the time, giving away play calling options.

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.

First off, the INT happened with 25 second left on 2nd down and a TO in their pocket. MOre than enough time to run the ball twice if they wanted to. They threw the ball to catch NE by surprise, not because of the time. They did everything right except score. If they score with 1:30 left, the pats march down the field and win.

In comment 14113988 Keith said:

Quote:

First off, the INT happened with 25 second left on 2nd down and a TO in their pocket. MOre than enough time to run the ball twice if they wanted to. They threw the ball to catch NE by surprise, not because of the time. They did everything right except score. If they score with 1:30 left, the pats march down the field and win.

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.

they don't have to wait for WR's to come back to the LOS. Snap the ball, tackled, back on the line with 15 second left. Snap the ball, tackle, call TO with 8 seconds left. Plenty of time to run the ball twice if they wanted to, especially with a TO.

when you factor in the TO. They threw the ball because of time, yet they had a TO in their pocket?? How does that make any sense. Maybe you just don't know how long plays take. Yeah, that's probably it.

you are arguing one play that was 3 years ago. But there are more important points:

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)

did everything right except the playcall, IMO. If Seattle scored, Brady would have had minimal time to get down the field. If they just scored with 1:30 left because that's their only goal(with no care of the clock or opponent), brady probably would have marched down the field and won the game, if not kicked a FG to put it into OT.

In comment 14114001 Keith said:

Quote:

they don't have to wait for WR's to come back to the LOS. Snap the ball, tackled, back on the line with 15 second left. Snap the ball, tackle, call TO with 8 seconds left. Plenty of time to run the ball twice if they wanted to, especially with a TO.

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 )

for them to run a play and get back to the LOS on the goalline??? Lets agree to disagree on that one bud.

They got to the one with a minute left, so 1:30 isn't in the discussion, seems disingenuous. You run with 40 seconds left, leave all options open.

In comment 14114056 Keith said:

Quote:

for them to run a play and get back to the LOS on the goalline??? Lets agree to disagree on that one bud.

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.

This went into a direction I didn’t think was possible.

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.

Barkley shouldn't have run out at the 1. Eli should have called a run and let the clock spin down from 1:20 remaining to 40 seconds or so and THEN thrown the pass to Barkley.



>So then answer my earlier question. Do you believe Barkley should have purposely run out of bounds at the one yard line? [/quote]

they couldn't run the ball 3 straight times. To get off 3 plays, one would have to be a pass. It could have been the 4th down play. THey had plenty of time to run the ball. Try again?

In comment 14114112 Keith said:

Quote:

they couldn't run the ball 3 straight times. To get off 3 plays, one would have to be a pass. It could have been the 4th down play. THey had plenty of time to run the ball. Try again?

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."

With 26 seconds, they didn't have to call a TO after the first play. It's really not all that complicated. They would have had to call 2 plays though in the huddle on 2nd down.

you aren't following. If they run on 2nd down and get stopped and then decide to call the TO. They could throw on 3rd down and then run again on 4th. The overall pt though is that you are wrong, they could have run on 2nd down. What they couldn't have done is run the ball 3 straight times.

In comment 14114175 Keith said:

Quote:

With 26 seconds, they didn't have to call a TO after the first play. It's really not all that complicated. They would have had to call 2 plays though in the huddle on 2nd down.

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.

you are misinterpreting what the guy is saying. He said...you can't run the ball 3 times. Agreed. He's also saying that you would have to call a TO after running the ball on 2nd down, that's incorrect. Are you suggesting that it would take 25 seconds to get lineup up and run the 3rd down play? Just casue you think you read it?

there is no data to suggest they couldn't run the ball on 2nd down and not call a TO. The whole pt of you rbinging up this play was to try and prove that running down the clock doesn't work. This article is proving you wrong. They very well could have run 3 plays from the goalline. I happen to think they could have saved their TO for after 3rd down, btu even if they ran the ball on 2nd down and then used the TO, they could have passed on 3rd down. Plenty of time to get into the endzone and prevent brady from marching down the field.

In comment 14114258 Keith said:

Quote:

there is no data to suggest they couldn't run the ball on 2nd down and not call a TO. The whole pt of you rbinging up this play was to try and prove that running down the clock doesn't work. This article is proving you wrong. They very well could have run 3 plays from the goalline. I happen to think they could have saved their TO for after 3rd down, btu even if they ran the ball on 2nd down and then used the TO, they could have passed on 3rd down. Plenty of time to get into the endzone and prevent brady from marching down the field.

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.

Did people not see how hard it was for the Texans to score from inside the redzone multiple times last night? Have people not been watching the NEW YORK GIANTS play offense inside the red zone this year (and the last few years)? What makes you think we were anywhere close to being guaranteed to score there? I was almost certain we were going to get down there that far and then fail to score the TD. When we scored the TD I was just effing grateful we'd finally managed to put 30 points on the damn board! People talking about how we should have run the clock down and waited know ZERO things about football. In the NFL it's tough to get the matchups you want at the times you need it, it's rare actually, and Eli saw it and took advantage of it and we're fortunate the executed it beautifully. We were not guaranteed to get that chance again if didn't take the chance there.

Eli wasn't necessarily TRYING to score a TD on that play. It's not like he threw a fade into the endzone. He didn't have to because he knew they still had time to run the offense as they normally would, so he took what the defense gave him to get more yards. Saquon made a spectacular play, used his instincts and amazing athletic ability to get into the endzone. I'm just trying to imagine either of them doing anything differently.

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.

But wrong with that play call. It should have been bunch formation, play action, boot leg Wilson out, so he has time and a clear view to see if the TE comes open, and if it's there throw it, otherwise throw it out of the back of the endzone. The play they called was so bang-bang it was high risk because all Wilson was thinking about was getting the ball and hitting the slant as quickly as he could. It was 100% a timing play and Wilson had no time read the DB. It gave the NE DB the chance to read the play and jump the route without Wilson having time to read that. If they ran something more like the play I just described it would have taken more time off the clock and given Wilson the chance to not make a split second bad decision.

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.

But I got a kick out of his stance about this on his show today. He put the early kabosh on anyone even thinking about questioning the Giants leaving too much time on the clock when they scored.

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.