Why didn't BB call time out?

Welka_fan · Feb 3, 2015

Can anyone explain the rational behind Bill NOT calling a timeout on seattles final drive?

With 1:06 to go lynch runs to the 1 on first down. Pats have 2 time outs left. If we call one there, we can call one after second down, so as long as seattle scores by/on 3rd down..we leave brady with slightly under a minute to get in fg range to send it to OT. Rough but manageable.

As played, by letting clock tick..if seattle scores brady needs a freakin miracle on final score. So, I can only assume BB really didn't think they were going to score? Did he really like his chances of stopping seattle 3 times from inside the 1??

Big pats fan, obv not hating, trying to figure out because I highly doubt that was just a blunder on belichicks part..it has to have been a conscious decision. Thoughts?

Bobsyouruncle · Feb 3, 2015

Probably because it's 4 down time. So the Hawks get 3 shots to get it into the endzone.

But, if you let the clock run then they probably only get two (time likely runs out before they run on 4th down) shots unless they use one attempt to pass- which they did. Players know clock is critical. If Marshawn doesn't make it in the pats are going to pile on top of him while the clock ticks so they can't get back to run plays.

It's a calculated risk obviously, but I believe it was to make them either lose a down or pass.

JFK · Feb 3, 2015

Seattle needed more than a FG. A TD wasn't automatic so they were going to hurry up not waste time. BB assumed that a gambled. As we can see, the pick was made with 20 secs which isn't impossible time to score a FG with two time outs.

Kdo5 · Feb 3, 2015

It's been discussed many times before. Initially I worried that Bill was being almost too ballsy. But it was in a great way the more I think about it. IF he decided it was better to try and make a stand and surprise and confuse Carol, then great for Bill. It was fricking brilliant.

We'll never know the true rational for what was happening but if it was Belichick being smarter than everyone else...it was absolutely genius.

SammyBlueCat · Feb 3, 2015

If our coach would have called timeout, their coach would have A) called a better play & B) made the necessary substitutions to execute such a play.

BigEZPatsFan76 · Feb 3, 2015

We all know BB has a method for his madness. He must have known something we don't, or was very confident in what he called for his defense.

Fencer · Feb 3, 2015

It's been discussed in multiple threads and in multiple press articles, but the shortest answer is:

Because he was betting everything on stopping Seattle and ...
... not calling TOs made Seattle less likely to score.

PatsDeb · Feb 3, 2015

The theory is that BB decided the best way to win was to let the defense stop them and do the unexpected, which caused the Seahawks to be sort of in disarray, burn too much time, and have to call something quickly. The Pats did not stop the clock when Pete Carroll may have expected them to do so, so he wasted a lot of time himself, and then could not risk calling three running plays in a row with only one timeout himself. Hence, he had to call his pass play on 2nd down rather than risk a run stuff on 2nd down and either run out of time to call another play, or have to call a pass play quickly (or maybe even have to burn a down spiking the ball then rely on a 4th down play to win). Then, because the Seahawks just line up and play, rather than try something unexpected, they came out in a formation that the Pats recognized and ran the play the Pats expected (and which they had practiced defending all week) and got picked off for their troubles. A calculated risk, yes, but it seems that's what BB was doing.

Maybe he wanted to avoid a repeat of 2011 where we burned our time outs and couldn't get down the field anyway for the tying FG.

pheenix11 · Feb 3, 2015

I think he liked the chances of making a goal line stand more than he did trying to get in field goal range (only to tie) with 45 seconds.

By not calling a TO he forced the issue on Seattle who had to scramble a little and ultimately blew it.

Kjmass1 · Feb 3, 2015

Someone on Twitter mentioned they were having communication issues with the headsets because there were so many more wireless devices present on the field for the end of the game. That would limit offense effectiveness.

PatsDeb · Feb 3, 2015

Kjmass1 said:
Someone on Twitter mentioned they were having communication issues with the headsets because there were so many more wireless devices present on the field for the end of the game. That would limit offense effectiveness.

Jeez keep it under your hat. The Pats will be accused of flooding the super bowl venue with excessive wireless devices in order to interrupt their opponent's communications and gain an unfair advantage, thereby further destroying, "the integrity of the game."

PatsDeb · Feb 3, 2015

PatsDeb said:
The theory is that BB decided the best way to win was to let the defense stop them and do the unexpected, which caused the Seahawks to be sort of in disarray, burn too much time, and have to call something quickly. The Pats did not stop the clock when Pete Carroll may have expected them to do so, so he wasted a lot of time himself, and then could not risk calling three running plays in a row with only one timeout himself. Hence, he had to call his pass play on 2nd down rather than risk a run stuff on 2nd down and either run out of time to call another play, or have to call a pass play quickly (or maybe even have to burn a down spiking the ball then rely on a 4th down play to win). Then, because the Seahawks just line up and play, rather than try something unexpected, they came out in a formation that the Pats recognized and ran the play the Pats expected (and which they had practiced defending all week) and got picked off for their troubles. A calculated risk, yes, but it seems that's what BB was doing.

Maybe he wanted to avoid a repeat of 2011 where we burned our time outs and couldn't get down the field anyway for the tying FG.

Correction - he would not have had to waste a down spiking the ball because they did have one time out left.

PP2 · Feb 3, 2015

SammyBlueCat said:
If our coach would have called timeout, their coach would have A) called a better play & B) made the necessary substitutions to execute such a play.

They had a 3 WR set on the field against goal line personnel.

BB calling timeout in this situation would have given Seattle time to think over the personnel they put on the field, and they would have most likely reconsidered.

By just letting the clock run, BB effectively baited them into a deer vs. headlight standoff.

Welka_fan · Feb 3, 2015

Insane. I see what you guys mean but it seems like a crazy gamble..I mean odds of stopping seattle after lynch runs to the 1 have to be under 5%, no? Odds of brady getting into fg range with 50sh seconds to go...gotta be at least 20%, no?

Can't argue with results though. I have to think bb was anticipating the confusion he could cause there too. I wonder if when they lined up, he thought hey we have an answer for this play, no way seattle calls TO there, let them run it

TeamFirst · Feb 3, 2015

BB said it at halftime that this game was going to be decided by the players on the field and who wanted it more. He put everything on the line for his defense to do just that and they did.

SVN · Feb 3, 2015

It was a gamble or an oversight. I think the critical play was the timeout take by seattle on the kearse catch which left them with 1.
Once lynch ran on 1st down for 4 yards, if BB did intentionally not take timeout rather than a brain fart in the moment of the game, I assume he was thinking that " caroll must be waiting for me call a time out and if I dont, I make them decide in 40 secs what to do . Run with lynch who already ran the previous down or throw because he has only 1 timeout "
If seattle had 2 timeouts BB wouldve taken a timeout after the lynch run no question - if this was done intentionally.

SVN · Feb 3, 2015

pheenix11 said:
I think he liked the chances of making a goal line stand more than he did trying to get in field goal range (only to tie) with 45 seconds.

By not calling a TO he forced the issue on Seattle who had to scramble a little and ultimately blew it.

Not sure I agree. brady with 1 min and 1 timeout to get to Fg range vs a gassed defense and 4 downs ? Easiest option. If BB did something intentionally , it was to put caroll on the spot to make a call DOWN 4 pts how wanted to play it.

SVN · Feb 3, 2015

TeamFirst said:
BB said it at halftime that this game was going to be decided by the players on the field and who wanted it more. He put everything on the line for his defense to do just that and they did.

Well, the same defense gave up a TD with 6 seconds left. Having faith is one thing , playing the odds is another. He took a chance.

PATSYLICIOUS · Feb 3, 2015

Definitely a ballsy move on his part, seemed like he was forcing the onus on Seattle to think on the fly and it ended up working. Honestly at the time I was hoping to use the TO's and give Brady the full minute to drive the field ( we would have only needed a FG to tie the game assuming a SEA TD) but I'm definitely not going to argue it now

pwes · Feb 3, 2015

Kjmass1 said:
Someone on Twitter mentioned they were having communication issues with the headsets because there were so many more wireless devices present on the field for the end of the game. That would limit offense effectiveness.

This is ******** made up by someone just trying to make excuses.

Why didn't BB call time out?

Rookie

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

On the Game Day Roster

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

On the Game Day Roster

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Hall of Fame Poster

Rookie

On the Game Day Roster

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Supporter

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Similar threads