Why didn't BB call time out?

AzPatsFan said:

The entire ethos of Bill Belichick's coaching is to Not waste your time going against a planned Defense. It is why he gameplans and changes the Team's personality every week. BB's approach is anti-thetical to Lombardi, who said, "Here we come, you stop us, if you can. Lombardi wanted to out execute the opponent.

If he were Carrol, BB would not have run into a stacked goal line Defense either, especially as the Pats have some very big DTs and LBs.

BB tries to run when he has the advantage there; and pass when he has the advantage there.

I fully believe that Belichick would have done the same.

Click to expand...

I agree, however I think brady and McDaniels would have done a much better job executing/made it a low risk play, such as edelmans goal line route or a fade to gronk.. where it would take a miracle to pick us off.

This whole time issue and need to throw was self inflicted. They had the ball on our 1 line with a time out and minute to go..which is like an eternity from there. They were so concerned with not giving the greatest qb of all time another opportunity that they forgot they have to score first! Carrols only priority should have been getting in the end zone.

Lucky that I'm not coaching anything.
I would of
1 Called a time out
2 Let them score
3 Go all Nancy Kerrigan (Why me,Why me,Why me)

One can see what BB is thinking . He even conceded on WEEI that taking a timeout wouldnt have been bad too. He just went with in the moment. I can guarantee if we lost, we wont see any of the BB brilliance today and would be heaping questions about why they didn't call timeout. It was a decision which worked. Nothing amazing scheming or planning by BB in terms of 100 % being behind his call. Even he admitted it.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/boston/chat/_/id/51579

Dan (Sheffield, UK)


Mike, I'd really like to hear your thoughts on the Pats' clock management at the end of the game. In your view, was BB not calling a timeout in the final minute a brilliant strategy, a bad oversight, or a 50-50 call? And thank you so much for your contribution to what was possibly my favorite season EVER!

Mike
(12:16 PM)


It was an unbelievable season, Dan. What a journey, and a great reminder of the power of the process. I felt like there was more external "noise" around the team this year than any I can remember. Because of that, I really feel like this team sort of did it on its own -- didn't really have too many in their corner. On the clock management, my sense of it is that BB sort of acknowledged that maybe he dodged a little bit of a bullet there. To me, one could possibly read between the lines in his remarks; he said that a timeout might have been a good thing. In the end, there is always going to be some unknown there (e.g sort of like fourth-and-13 in Super Bowl XLII; I'm still curious about that call) and it obviously worked out. But if you're asking me my sense, I'm not 100 percent convinced that he didn't use the timeout by design. Again, just a matter of what one chooses to believe. Let's not get too caught up in splitting hairs here. The end result is what counts.

Click to expand...

SVN said:

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/boston/chat/_/id/51579

Click to expand...

I refuse to believe that. Every nfl fan and madden player understand the need for a TO to give Brady a chance there...no way belichick of all coaches didn't comprehend the situation.

That's like NOT handing the ball to lynch on your opponents 1/2 yd line, late in 4th quarter with the superbowl on the line.

The fascinating thing is that people will be debating what happened in those minute and six seconds for years to come.

Belichick has answered the question himself but was evasive. On the one hand, he said that he thought he had the right matchup with the Goal Line Defense and his coverage guys, but he added that "Yeah, maybe we could have called a time out there." Classic BB doublespeak, to be interpreted as "The hell if I'm going to tell you what I was really thinking." Remember this: Belichick has defended Carroll's decision as reasonable, but he's never said he thought it was the best solution for the Seahawks.

My own view (based on absolutely nothing but what I think and my observation of BB over the last 15 years) is that he had decided that he did not want to have to go down the field to tie the game, that his only (slim) hope of a win was either to stop them on two or three plays or force a turnover and that he decided to force Carroll's hand to improve his odds minutely.

He wanted Carroll to have to choose among these options:
1) Use his final timeout and call two plays with 1:06 on the clock. Two Plays. Sub-optimal, but reasonable.
2) Run the ball--Call the timeout if it didn't succeed--Run the ball again. Two Plays. In retrospect, what he probably should have done.
3) Throw a pass--Use the clock stoppage on the incompletion if unsuccessful--Run--Timeout--Run. Possibly Three Plays, but also brings the largest number of unknown and uncontrollable elements into play.

Of those three, #3 was what he wanted. He wanted Carroll, who is impetuous, to decide he wanted to run three plays and that in order to do so, he would have to risk a throw on second down.

This would bring a whole series of possible (if long shot) outcomes into play...but he was down to his final stack of chips and had the coverage he wanted. He figured more good things could happen on a pass (either an incompletion or a completion short of the goal line or the optimal outcome: an interception).

I guess what I'm saying is that, after the last two SB losses, Belichick decided that he did not want to have to try to engineer another last minute drive with time expiring to win a game that they thought they had won; it hadn't worked in 2008 or 2012 and he didn't want to relive it all again. 2002 and 2004 were a long time ago.

I fully acknowledge that I have no way of knowing this, but it's just my gut. You see, I actually think Carroll was expecting Belichick to call a timeout. I think he was surprised when he didn't. I think in the confusion, he made a reasonable but suboptimal decision that was the best possible outcome for the Patriots and I think Belichick played a role in making it happen.

this is similar to john harbaugh not calling time out right away against us

As it was happening I said to myself 'why isn't he calling a TO?!', then when I realized he wasn't going to call one, it dawned on me that he was playing chicken with Carroll. I'm sure they were expecting a Pats TO, but when it didn't come they had to force a play. Belichick pulled out the big balls with that move. Instead of playing it safe and keeping his options open, he said 'Beat me, Petey.'

I think that has to go down as one of the all-time great calls (or non-calls). Belichick forced Seattle's hand, limited their play call options and it, ultimately, led to a the game-winning play.

But I guess that's just what you do when you're the best coach of all time.

People forget but there was some confusion on the Seattle sideline whether to kick a FG or go for the TD with 6 seconds left in the first half.

I believe that Seattle expected BB to call a TO with the clock ticking down so they could save their last TO. When that didnt happen it put the onus on Seattle to call the right play in a split second decision or burn their only TO. Seattle seemed rushed and in a frenzy when they lined up on 2nd down.

If Seattle had scored on that play NE still would have 19 seconds and 2 TOs to get in FG range. The TOs are huge because that gives NE the middle of the field which is always open.

BB has brass balls. He said that I believe in my defenses and that they will stop you and he stood firm on that decision.

Welka_fan said:

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?

Click to expand...

If they'd called a timeout, Pats lose. I'm convinced of that. Not calling that was a combination of being comfortable with the defense they had on the field and trying to put pressure on the Seattle decision cycle.

pwes said:

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

Click to expand...

Bill said the Pats were having trouble.

PP2 said:

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.

Click to expand...

And it would have allowed three straight running plays, which wasn't possible otherwise.

When they didn't call the TO I thought they've already given up. Sick to my stomach to see the wonderful season ticks away. Glad it worked against Seattle.

Pats were up 4, the clock running favors the Patriots. Belichick was forcing the Seahawks to call a timeout, or flawlessly get off a play or two under extreme pressure. The Seahawks couldn't do that, and lost.

The more I think about this and the more I read other's responses the more I realize that Belichick made a king kong sized ballsy move and it paid off.

I'm no coach and my decision making is no where near their level but at that point in the game I didn't want him to call time out either. I wanted to go for the goal line stand. I figured we had a better chance of stopping them than getting down the field for s field goal. Plus the field goal would only tie it, then we have to deal with all the BS of overtime.

We have a good defense and I think we could have stopped Lynch, especially if we knew a run was coming.

Triumph said:

People forget but there was some confusion on the Seattle sideline whether to kick a FG or go for the TD with 6 seconds left in the first half.

I believe that Seattle expected BB to call a TO with the clock ticking down so they could save their last TO. When that didnt happen it put the onus on Seattle to call the right play in a split second decision or burn their only TO. Seattle seemed rushed and in a frenzy when they lined up on 2nd down.

If Seattle had scored on that play NE still would have 19 seconds and 2 TOs to get in FG range. The TOs are huge because that gives NE the middle of the field which is always open.

BB has brass balls. He said that I believe in my defenses and that they will stop you and he stood firm on that decision.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything except your optimism about the "19 seconds" scenario.

I'm not suggesting at all that BB would have given up if left with the "19 seconds" scenario, but, after the experiences of 2008 and 2012, I really do think he wanted no part of another last minute drive and decided to put all his (few) remaining chips on stopping the Seahawks at the Goal Line.

He gambled that Carroll's natural aggressiveness would get the best of him and that, as a result, he would call a pass play that would in reality be a high percentage play but that was still a lot riskier than two runs by the Beast. This gave him a chance to draw to an Inside Straight Flush, which is basically what the fair comparison would be and is what happened.

Game Theorists would have a field day analyzing these scenarios.

PatsFanSince74 said:

I agree with everything except your optimism about the "19 seconds" scenario.

I'm not suggesting at all that BB would have given up if left with the "19 seconds" scenario, but, after the experiences of 2008 and 2012, I really do think he wanted no part of another last minute drive and decided to put all his (few) remaining chips on stopping the Seahawks at the Goal Line.

He gambled that Carroll's natural aggressiveness would get the best of him and that, as a result, he would call a pass play that would in reality be a high percentage play but that was still a lot riskier than two runs by the Beast. This gave him a chance to draw to an Inside Straight Flush, which is basically what the fair comparison would be and is what happened.

Game Theorists would have a field day analyzing these scenarios.

Click to expand...

Disagree

If the Seahawks had scored on the pic play, BB would not surrender with time left and 2 TOs.

The pic play was a good call by Seattle, but Wilson threw the ball too high and too late.

Triumph said:

Disagree

If the Seahawks had scored on the pic play, BB would not surrender with time left and 2 TOs.

The pic play was a good call by Seattle, but Wilson threw the ball too high and too late.

Click to expand...

First of all, how are we in disagreement when I said in my post "I'm not suggesting at all that BB would have given up if left with the "19 seconds" scenario...."? My point was that he decided his best chance of a favorable outcome was to stop the Seahawks without using a Time Out.

As for the call itself, I wouldn't call it a "good" call, but I would agree that it was a "reasonable" call in the situation (and from a game theory perspective), i.e., that it wasn't a bad call (Belichick was very careful in how he described his opinion of Carroll's decision. He doesn't pile on and attack it, but he doesn't say he thinks it was a great call).

But, from a practical perspective, the scenario of Run-Timeout-Run was probably the wiser way for Carroll to have proceeded with the Beast in the backfield.

BB wanted to try to force a passing play. If BB had called a timeout Carroll almost certainly would have opted for 3 running plays. Given Seattle's ability to defend the long ball, BB obviously felt the Pats had a better chance by not calling a timeout. He was right.

PatsFanSince74 said:

First of all, how are we in disagreement when I said in my post "I'm not suggesting at all that BB would have given up if left with the "19 seconds" scenario...."? My point was that he decided his best chance of a favorable outcome was to stop the Seahawks without using a Time Out..

Click to expand...

Yes, BB was banking on a mistake and that's what happened. The pass call was a good one but poorly executed. Wilson threw late and too high. The ball should have been down around the waist. An incompletion there stops the clock.

PatsFanSince74 said:

As for the call itself, I wouldn't call it a "good" call, but I would agree that it was a "reasonable" call in the situation (and from a game theory perspective), i.e., that it wasn't a bad call (Belichick was very careful in how he described his opinion of Carroll's decision. He doesn't pile on and attack it, but he doesn't say he thinks it was a great call).

Click to expand...

The Seahawks used that play with success before. I have no problem with the pic play.

If Wilson throws the ball a second earlier Butler cant get his hands on the ball.

PatsFanSince74 said:

But, from a practical perspective, the scenario of Run-Timeout-Run was probably the wiser way for Carroll to have proceeded with the Beast in the backfield.

Click to expand...

Seattle had 3 downs.