Poor clock management

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