This is something that comes up when I'm watching games quite often and I always notice it. Note in this instance it didn't end up really affecting the game much, but I just think it's funny that I always notice it right away and somehow these professional coaches and players don't notice it.
The Falcons pick up a 1st down with 3:30 left in the game. The Giants had 2 timeouts left. After this play, they ran 3 plays that all stayed in bounds and kept the clock running, but ultimately resulted in a 4th & 5 with 2:00 left and the Giants had ZERO timeouts (there were a couple false starts in between there but that doesn't really matter for explaining this).
The Giants could have saved a timeout. Let's rewind back to 3:30 when the Falcons picked up a 1st down. The play clock started running with 3:29 left and the Falcons would have had to run their 1st down play with about 2:50 left, which would have meant they'd likely have to run their 2nd down play before the 2 min warning. Then, if the Giants stopped them on 3rd down, they then could have used a timeout, and there would be ~1:55 remaining and the Giants would still have a timeout left. That's better than 2 min remaining and no timeouts.
My point is: just a few seconds makes a huge difference between a team having to run a play before the 2 min warning and not having to run a play, and I'm always baffled that teams aren't more "forward-thinking" about that, or there aren't more hard and fast "rules" that teams abide by. Like: if there's more than 3:30 left, don't use a timeout, see what happens, if there's less than 3:20, might as well use a timeout. Or something like that. My profession is entirely math-based so maybe that's why I think of minor things like this, but at the end of a football game every second and every timeout matters so ultimately it isn't minor.
It's nice that Shurmur seemed to "know" he had a "50% higher chance of winning the game" by "going for 2 and making it" but still can't get easy math like this right.
He even mentioned it in his press conference that after the Saints game he wouldn't be caught "not being aggressive" it's nice to know that he has taken it to heart and now has an itchy trigger finger with timeouts. (We also saw this before the half in the Carolina game)
Math is not the strong suit of our leadership. But then again should we really be surprised when our new GM was mocking it in the off-season.
People can downplay it but i'm sharing the link again. Can't be stressed enough that this is the wrong attitude to be a leader in a business that generates the amount of data that football does now.
Gettleman mocks analytics - ( New Window )
It's something that has always bothered me and honestly that kind of thing has happened over and over again going all the way back as far as I can remember (regardless of coaching staff).
I was under the impression that he was the right man for this job. Still am. Calm demeanor, strength working with the offense and with QBs. Those strengths might also lead one to believe that game management is another strong part of his repertoire.
Yet over a few games this season, time management and offensive synchronization seem to be some of the greatest weaknesses for this team. Why is that? It’s just weird and confusing. A team w a veteran HC and QB should have stuff like this licked. Obviously not.
I really think that a team that’s been losing as consistently as they’ve been doing tends to “throw out” much if not all of the vital planning they do all week for the sake of trying to win out of desperation, or even a little panic. And that acts counter to their best chances of winning.