Rethinking clock mang. at end when down by more than a FG

I believe they were at the 15 and Barkley made one of his wow plays

In comment 14117321 eli4life said:

Quote:

I believe they were at the 15 and Barkley made one of his wow plays

I am not really talking about Sunday, just using Sunday as a impetus to think about it. And, if you want to use Sunday, what if Barkley instead of jumping just kneeled down at the 1? THen we have four downs with a minute to go.

so I would not have suggested that we should kneel at the one. If we did have a timeout and can protect against being tackled in bounds or if we need time to set up, then I think it is a much more difficult question.

However, you could have taken the clock down and maybe run one play up the middle. And even though no play guarantees you wont score a touchdown, I do believe that many teams want to be the last team to touch the ball. At that moment if I am Carolina, and with the momentum the Giants offense had, and Cam Newtown on my side, I want the ball back with over a minute to go and only needing a field goal.

we have trouble scoring so you get the points when you can get them.

Our defense should have been able to hold them. Fail...

In comment 14117339 EricJ said:

Quote:

we have trouble scoring so you get the points when you can get them. Our defense should have been able to hold them. Fail...

Given we just did that and lost, it's sort of like booking a trip on the Challenger knowing it will explode.

can't screw around with time. The other thing is this, what would of happened if he falls down at the 1 and then the next play fumbles it or Eli throws a pick? Can't screw around when you need a TD. It was up to the Defense at that point to stop them and if not for a 20 yard reception, probably would have. It w3as brought up many times as well. This Defense is severely lacking a pass rush and that would have been extremely instrumental on the Panthers final drive.

In comment 14117345 Simms11 said:

Quote:

can't screw around with time. The other thing is this, what would of happened if he falls down at the 1 and then the next play fumbles it or Eli throws a pick? Can't screw around when you need a TD. It was up to the Defense at that point to stop them and if not for a 20 yard reception, probably would have. It w3as brought up many times as well. This Defense is severely lacking a pass rush and that would have been extremely instrumental on the Panthers final drive.

I get that, but nobody would not kick the fg because it could get blocked, a bad snap, etc. There is risk involved with everything, the question is what risk is acceptable and what puts your team in the best position to win. I always have been in the score now category, but this whole kickers kicking 60+ yard fgs and touchbacks to the 25 have really gotten me rethinking that. Moreover, if you do kickoff you have to play real defense and not give up yards. If they break one, they break one, but just letting them eat you up yards is a recipe for disaster.

In comment 14117339 EricJ said:

Quote:

we have trouble scoring so you get the points when you can get them. Our defense should have been able to hold them. Fail...

Actually, the defense did hold them. Stopping a team at the 45 works for me every time. A 63 yarder was absurd. He’ll never do that again

a few wannabes are second guessing Shurmur now? If he had milked the clock and not scored because he wasted a down he'd have been tarred, feathered and gang raped by sundown on Sunday.

I can only imagine what might have happened if Barkley had purposely run out of bounds (what is he DOING??!!!) or had slid at the 6 (you've got to SCORE THERRE!!!!) and then the Giants DON'T score?

Oh my.

Ohhhh dear.

lol

In comment 14117369 Beezer said:

Quote:

I can only imagine what might have happened if Barkley had purposely run out of bounds (what is he DOING??!!!) or had slid at the 6 (you've got to SCORE THERRE!!!!) and then the Giants DON'T score? Oh my. Ohhhh dear. lol

It would almost be worth it for that to happen later this season to see the ensuing hysteria here.

has our offense been scoring? End of discussion.

Scoring from inside the 10 is not as easy as it seems. The field gets shorter for the defense. There is less room for the offense to operate. And most importantly, especially with today's NFL refs, you are one offensive penalty away from a major disaster. Offensive PI, a hold or any other infraction puts you in big trouble.

People saying....just score the points, we haven't been able to do that...are justified in that opinion. We have been terrible, we have had a problem scoring. However, the goal is to win the game and because we have been so bad and becasue our offense has been so embarrassing, we put ourselves in that situation. A good team takes the clock down as much as possible without effecting the playcalls. There is no reason we shouldn't have at least taken the playclock down to atleast a few seconds. NObody is suggesting that the running should have gone down or we should kneel on the ball. Just use all of the playclock at a minimum.

If going down at the 1 would have killed say 20 seconds more and the probability of Carolina getting that kick would go down by say 25% if we scored. The question is do we have >=25% chance to score from the 1. Not having a timeout complicated things. Also, Barkley took for from before the 1 IIRC, so I'm not sure if he gave himself up if it would have been at the 1 anyway.

but IMO we are seeing a lot more games where scoring dominates the last 5 minutes of games.

I was NOT a fan of Barkley going for the TD on that run. I'd rather he fall short of the goal-line and give the offense 4 chances to get into the endzone.

The Giants have absolutely no pass rush. I had little faith the D would get the stop needed.

you don't go down at the 1. The only time you ever instruct your team to go down is when you are winning and you can sit on the ball to run the clock out. Under no circumstances would you ever tell your guys to go down or out of bounds when you are losing.

The argument is strictly to use all the playclock. There was 17 second on the playclock when the ball was snapped. That's another 15 seconds that could have come off the clock without effecting the playcalls.

Problem here is fans seem to have forgotten how unlikely a 63 yard kick to win the game is to happen.

.

In comment 14117438 Keith said:

Quote:

That's another 15 seconds that could have come off the clock without effecting the playcalls.

I watched that play again (actually the whole game), and I still strongly disagree with this take. Manning in my opinion knew exactly where he wanted to go with the ball before and after the snap. The Panthers had a down lineman assigned to Barkley. In fact the Panthers showed A gap pressure which brought two linebackers up and away from Barkley.

who -- given OUR TEAM, THE SCORE and the TIMEOUT SITUATION for both teams -- would choose to milk the clock.

You can't assume you'll dictate when you can get the TD, especially for an offense that has been struggling to score.

In comment 14117553 JonC said:

Quote:

You can't assume you'll dictate when you can get the TD, especially for an offense that has been struggling to score.

Except it doesn't make sense. Again, the argument shouldn't be to kneel down or for SB to run out of bounds. As a QB, you need to play the clock as well. The issue was Eli snapping the ball with 17 seconds left. That's the issue.

You get the td when you can especially with no timeouts. A holding call is a 10 second run off and with no timeouts you can’t stop the clock. Things can happen and you don’t take that chance. 63 yard field goals aren’t the norm.

and #31 was just waiting for it, instead of breaking for it, it gave the receiver a chance at it.....a good DB intercepts that....Cam gave us a shot at that game....we should have won.....

That you can't milk the clock in that situation, but I'd love to see the numbers on a couple of scenarios.

What is the likely-hood of a team scoring a late-game TD from the 15 in 3 downs versus 4? (If the Giants had run the ball the first time to take time off the clock they'd still have 3 downs to get the 1st down or TD.)

What is the likely-hood of a team getting a FG with 68 seconds and one timeout versus, say 65 seconds left and no timeouts or 40 seconds left and 1 TO.

If there is a high probability (more than 60%) that most teams would be able to get a FG with 68 seconds and one timeout, and the Giants' chances of getting a TD in 3 downs versus 4 would not have decreased substantially, then the Giants should have milked the clock.

And for those saying that since it took a 63 yd. FG to beat them it proves the Giants made the right move... who's to say beforehand that Carolina would have only been able to move the ball 30 yards when they had 68 seconds and one timeout? With that kind of time they could potentially have gotten 10-15 more yards making the FG more manageable.

which I said I thought at the time and still think was the right call. What I am saying is that when you were down more than a FG it was the blackletter law rule that you go for the TD, has that changed? And, if so, under what scenario has it? That is my question. We should have scored on Sunday, it just got me to think more about the more global concept of it.

In comment 14117339 EricJ said:

Quote:

we have trouble scoring so you get the points when you can get them. Our defense should have been able to hold them. Fail...

Totally agree. Brings back memories of SB46 and Bradshaw.

In comment 14117366 dorgan said:

Quote:

a few wannabes are second guessing Shurmur now? If he had milked the clock and not scored because he wasted a down he'd have been tarred, feathered and gang raped by sundown on Sunday.

100% correct.

If there's a high-probability that given 68 seconds and one timeout a team would get a FG, then the Giants (or any team in a similar situation) should have tried to milk the clock when they had the ball. (Remember, they still would have had 3 downs to score the TD and they likely would have picked up at least a few yards by running it on 1st down.)

Of course the safe decision by a HC is to do exactly what Shurmur did, because no one would fault him even if he lost. But was it the right move?

Again, I'd love to see what the numbers say regarding probability of success in those scenarios.

during his final season.

6th in the NFL in points scored
30th in points given up.

People crushed him for his management decisions weekly, but the reality was, he was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. 6 games where we tied or took the lead with under 2 minutes, only to lose.

was not running the play clock down to 1 before the snap on the play that resulted in the Barkley TD. Beyond that, get in the end zone when you can.

In comment 14117609 Jim in Tampa said:

Quote:

If there's a high-probability that given 68 seconds and one timeout a team would get a FG, then the Giants (or any team in a similar situation) should have tried to milk the clock when they had the ball. (Remember, they still would have had 3 downs to score the TD and they likely would have picked up at least a few yards by running it on 1st down.) Of course the safe decision by a HC is to do exactly what Shurmur did, because no one would fault him even if he lost. But was it the right move? Again, I'd love to see what the numbers say regarding probability of success in those scenarios.

The Giants are at like 50% for getting a TD in the RZ. Start with that. Add in no timeouts, the possibility of being tackled inbound, penalties and ensuing runoffs, getting a first down and needing to run more plays. Those factors probably put a TD there at less than 50%.

I'd be curious to see the stats of TDs occurring from 1 and 10 from the 15 at 60 seconds vs 2 and 7 from the 12 at 40 seconds.

ASAP in that situation. However, and I told my wife at the time, I would have run on first down and taken the clock under 50 seconds, then go all out to score. Reason being Carolina had a time out, would get the ball at the 25, and these guys can kick them from 60. Yes, there is some risk in that, but leaving over a minute to go with a TO left, IMO, was the bigger risk.

Again, they went ahead and tried to score ASAP - did - and they lost the game.

Every game is different - if they defense had been playing well, and we were getting pressure on the QB, time isn't as much as a concern. Doesn't mean they will hold, but it changes the thought process on how best to WIN THE GAME.

or whatever the site was called used to do great breakdowns of these types of decisions. FootballOutsiders as well.

It would be interesting to see them tackle this issue.

But with the Giants, I imagine the data would show that they should take a TD any time they can get it.

In comment 14117366 dorgan said:

Quote:

a few wannabes are second guessing Shurmur now? If he had milked the clock and not scored because he wasted a down he'd have been tarred, feathered and gang raped by sundown on Sunday.

And let's not forget that this year's Giants team has been at best mediocre at scoring touchdowns from the red zone.

that he liked and got the snap before Carolina could make an adjustment. He did not know the play would result in a TD so saying he should've ran the play clock down to 1 second is flawed thinking.

Plus Carolina is not some juggernaut offense that we all knew would march down the field and win it. The guy made the 2nd longest FG in NFL history and 7 yards longer than his career long.

Tough way to lose but I cannot fault the Giants on how they managed that last drive.

In comment 14117867 RinR said:

Quote:

that he liked and got the snap before Carolina could make an adjustment. He did not know the play would result in a TD so saying he should've ran the play clock down to 1 second is flawed thinking. Plus Carolina is not some juggernaut offense that we all knew would march down the field and win it. The guy made the 2nd longest FG in NFL history and 7 yards longer than his career long. Tough way to lose but I cannot fault the Giants on how they managed that last drive.

1. No one suggested the Giants needed to run the clock down to 1 second...just that maybe they should have run the ball once to take SOME time off the clock.

2. Posters keep acting like 30 yards is the most a team can possibly gain with 1:08 with one timeout. Many teams could have gained 10-15 yards more making for a much more manageable FG.

3. What is the Giants' success rate in stopping a team at the end of a game when all the other team needs is a FG? My memory suggests that their probability of success is not very good.

All things considered, I would have liked to have seen the Giants run the ball on 1st down to take some time off the clock (or have Carolina burn their last TO) and then try to score a TD on their remaining 3 downs...so that Carolina didn't have enough time to come back.

Posters can disagree with that, but who reading this thread didn't look up at the clock after the Giants scored and think to themselves... 1:08 and one TO left... we're f**ked!

decisions, theres only one thing that matters - having more points than the other team at the end of the game. Things like taking the lead or staying in the game are complete red herrings. All decisions must be based on giving yourself the highest probability of having the most points at the end of the game.

I dont know the answer to this particular scenario but it is worth considering. It's been coming for a long time - it's easy to move the ball at the end of games and kickers are good. Circumstances have changed and strategies must adapt.

In basketball people are very comfortable with the idea of holding for the last shot, even when the team is losing. Holding for the last shot hurts your chances of scoring, but probably helps your chances of winning. People are comfortable with it because that's how its always been done.

Football is different but the same principles apply. You just have to assess the probability that your offense will score under different time-usage scenarios. And you have to assess the probability your opponent will score, given a certain amount of time remaining on the clock.

This is a trivial probability exercise that a smart 12 year old could do. A smart organization would have the data gathered and the scenarios mapped out well ahead of time. Unfortunately, the giants are not a smart organization and have likely not even considered issues like this, let alone done the work to prepare.

In comment 14118364 Jim in Tampa said:

Quote:

Posters can disagree with that, but who reading this thread didn't look up at the clock after the Giants scored and think to themselves... 1:08 and one TO left... we're f**ked!

I didn't

of not breaking that 30 points mark, they had to take the TD when they could. Otherwise, I would decide based on the Panthers red zone defense (which I think is low this year but not sure off hand) and their ability to move the ball quickly in the no huddle. Also their kicker's range.

In today's game that favors the offense (because the NFL thinks it's more exciting that way), I think you do have to consider taking time off before scoring. You can't simply just take the points anymore. We've seen Belichick decide to let a team score so the offense had a chance to win it (even though it didn't work out for them). Again, today's rules and the officiating of those rules, favors the offense.

In this case, the Giants had to get that 30 point monkey off of their back and not waste their chance.

Nothing to do with this. In that situation they already lost the game, as they would lose on the game-ending FG. Compare the odds of making a 20-yard FG vs scoring a TD from the 15 with no timeouts.