Coaches blew it with situational football

DaBruinz said:

Sorry, but the article mentions nothing about the DEFENSE getting "excess" timeouts. It only mentions the offense getting them. I stand by my statement that the refs got it wrong. That it should have been a 5 yard penalty on the defense with the clock starting on the snap.

If you can show me when it says that the DEFENSE also gets "excess" timeout due to injury, great. But please use the rule book.

Click to expand...

The article to which I linked has many direct quotes from the rulebook that are relevant, so if you read that, you would find what you were looking for, and much additional useful information.

From the rulebook:

After the two-minute warning of a half, the following shall apply:
a) If a team has not used its three charged team timeouts, the team of the injured player will be charged a team timeout

Click to expand...

It applies to defense or offense (the team of the injured player applies to either).

Here is the rulebook relevant part:
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/7_2013_Game_Timing.pdf

The refs got it right. Read the article. Read the rulebook.

Complaining about the playcall is stupid. You have 3 minutes left, the two minute warning, a timeout and RBs averaging less than 3YPC. You need a first down to win.

The next drive Denver went 82 yards in 1:15. What in the world makes anyone think Denver wouldn't have done that if they ran 3 times.

TomPatriot said:

It's Harper's job to catch the ball. He took his eye off it.

Click to expand...

Yes, but in the snow with that kind of lead, he needed to be told to make a fair catch.

pencilneckgeek said:

Yes, but in the snow with that kind of lead, he needed to be told to make a fair catch.

Click to expand...

FYI in his illustrious career Troy Brown fumbled 11 punts, during his tenure her Welker fumbled 5 punts.. when you are forced to use a practice squad player this kind of thing can happen. Cold snowy night on the big stage in the bright lights.. stuff happens.

50-yard-line said:

Egregious mistakes at the end - when they got the first down with under 3 to go, it's Run, Run, Run.

Denver had 1 timeout - you get rid of that and the 2 minute warning. In that weather, with that receiving corps, really bad playcalling there.

Click to expand...

I understand the idea, I just don't think it had that much impact on the game.

1st and 10 at the 40 with 2:53 to go, they pass 3 times, complete 1 for 7 yards, get the Broncos to burn their timeout, and punt with 2:39 to go.

If they ran 3 times, they would probably snap for second down on the plus side of 2 minutes, and depending on the duration of the play and time to spot the ball, maybe they get a timeout in before the 2 minute, maybe not. If they do, 3rd down is before the 2-minute warning, with a punt right after. Or alternatively, 3rd down is after the 2-minute warning with the timeout after and a punt around 1:50. We're talking about 40 to 50 seconds. A first down gives us another 3 plays. Risk vs. reward, I don't mind the opportunity to run another 1:30 to 2 minutes off the clock if we pick up a first, but risking 40 to 50 seconds guaranteed.

Meanwhile the Broncos scored in 1:17 without their timeout, and in fact, with US calling a timeout. They moved the ball 75 yards in 30 seconds, with a chunk of that letting the clock go down to the 2-minute instead of wasting a down to spike the ball.

I think the bigger fault was at the end of the first half when we ran out the clock with 2+ minutes to go and 3 timeouts at the end of the first half. We would later be forced to try and kick a FG with only 1:09 and 1 timeout. Huge missed opportunity there.

Bobsyouruncle said:

Complaining about the playcall is stupid. You have 3 minutes left, the two minute warning, a timeout and RBs averaging less than 3YPC. You need a first down to win.

The next drive Denver went 82 yards in 1:15. What in the world makes anyone think Denver wouldn't have done that if they ran 3 times.

Click to expand...

It is not stupid to complain about playcalling at that point and I hope McD will learn from it. Clock is everything in this situation. Getting it past the two minute warning here was paramount, and I was shocked that they didn't do it. Especially because they could have still had a third down on the other side of the 2 minute warning. All in all, it was more or less the same as against Buffalo in Week 2 except that Taylor threw an interception at the end and yesterday Chung missed the interception via the drop of Demaryius Thomas.

In the end it was simply bad situational football on a night that was full of it. Not only does running it wind down the clock, there considerably is less risk of a turnover (balls can be tipped, fumbled after reception, the pass rush can get to the QB ect.) AND it is also definitely less risky in terms of player health than another TE seam route.

You gotta go with the high percentage shot in this situation.

Finally, while causally true I find it pointless to say that the call caused Gronk's injury because all in all it was another freak accident (he wasn't even planted).

Tunescribe said:

Harper should not be returning punts, period. NEVER a job for a rookie. NEVER. I don't care if it's a defensive lineman down there catching the ball. Once your aces are out (Edelman, Amendola), you put in whoever has the surest hands to field punts and cut your losses.

Click to expand...

Wasn't Martin known for that role in HOU?

DarrylS said:

FYI in his illustrious career Troy Brown fumbled 11 punts, during his tenure her Welker fumbled 5 punts.. when you are forced to use a practice squad player this kind of thing can happen. Cold snowy night on the big stage in the bright lights.. stuff happens.

Click to expand...

True, but what your are saying are just more reasons to be more clever in those situations and not risk the ball for 5-8 yards more. If he calls the fair catch then he won't drop the ball. It was the immediate contact that caused Harper to lose it.

convertedpatsfan said:

I understand the idea, I just don't think it had that much impact on the game.

1st and 10 at the 40 with 2:53 to go, they pass 3 times, complete 1 for 7 yards, get the Broncos to burn their timeout, and punt with 2:39 to go.

If they ran 3 times, they would probably snap for second down on the plus side of 2 minutes, and depending on the duration of the play and time to spot the ball, maybe they get a timeout in before the 2 minute, maybe not. If they do, 3rd down is before the 2-minute warning, with a punt right after. Or alternatively, 3rd down is after the 2-minute warning with the timeout after and a punt around 1:50. We're talking about 40 to 50 seconds. A first down gives us another 3 plays. Risk vs. reward, I don't mind the opportunity to run another 1:30 to 2 minutes off the clock if we pick up a first, but risking 40 to 50 seconds guaranteed.

Meanwhile the Broncos scored in 1:17 without their timeout, and in fact, with US calling a timeout. They moved the ball 75 yards in 30 seconds, with a chunk of that letting the clock go down to the 2-minute instead of wasting a down to spike the ball.

I think the bigger fault was at the end of the first half when we ran out the clock with 2+ minutes to go and 3 timeouts at the end of the first half. We would later be forced to try and kick a FG with only 1:09 and 1 timeout. Huge missed opportunity there.

Click to expand...

Those 40 seconds are 25% of the remaining game time. It might not sound like much, but it limits their playbook considerably and changes our defense. You can't just assume that they would drive down with exactly the same sequence if there is 25% less time on the clock including probably completely different field position.

The first two plays needed to be runs to wind the clock. On third down you can try to see if you get a look to attempt a killshot, but keep a high percentage dump off option (e.g. checkdown) somewhere. Again it is not only about time management but also risk management (turnovers, injuries).

convertedpatsfan said:

I understand the idea, I just don't think it had that much impact on the game.

1st and 10 at the 40 with 2:53 to go, they pass 3 times, complete 1 for 7 yards, get the Broncos to burn their timeout, and punt with 2:39 to go.

If they ran 3 times, they would probably snap for second down on the plus side of 2 minutes, and depending on the duration of the play and time to spot the ball, maybe they get a timeout in before the 2 minute, maybe not. If they do, 3rd down is before the 2-minute warning, with a punt right after. Or alternatively, 3rd down is after the 2-minute warning with the timeout after and a punt around 1:50. We're talking about 40 to 50 seconds. A first down gives us another 3 plays. Risk vs. reward, I don't mind the opportunity to run another 1:30 to 2 minutes off the clock if we pick up a first, but risking 40 to 50 seconds guaranteed.

Meanwhile the Broncos scored in 1:17 without their timeout, and in fact, with US calling a timeout. They moved the ball 75 yards in 30 seconds, with a chunk of that letting the clock go down to the 2-minute instead of wasting a down to spike the ball.

I think the bigger fault was at the end of the first half when we ran out the clock with 2+ minutes to go and 3 timeouts at the end of the first half. We would later be forced to try and kick a FG with only 1:09 and 1 timeout. Huge missed opportunity there.

Click to expand...

Yes, this.

I was yelling at my TV at the end of the first half. They seemed content to march into the locker room with a two touchdown lead. Which, obviously, wasn't enough.

luuked said:

Those 40 seconds are 25% of the remaining game time. It might not sound like much, but it limits their playbook considerably and changes our defense. You can't just assume that they would drive down with exactly the same sequence if there is 25% less time on the clock including probably completely different field position.

The first two plays needed to be runs to wind the clock. On third down you can try to see if you get a look to attempt a killshot, but keep a high percentage dump off option (e.g. checkdown) somewhere. Again it is not only about time management but also risk management (turnovers, injuries).

Click to expand...

Again, I understand the point of it. But it's not like they were doing it to pad Brady's stats or keep Antonio Brown's "streak" alive. There was a purpose to it, and the opportunity to keep the ball the rest of the game or at least grind more clock. Assume we do pick up the 1st. Then we can really run things down sub-1 minute. You play to win the game. I got no problem with that.

And obviously you can't assume the drive would work out the same way with 40 seconds less, but considering they got 75 yards in two deep passes along the sidelines, it's not like the playbook changed that much either.

Mr. Plow said:

Yes, this.

I was yelling at my TV at the end of the first half. They seemed content to march into the locker room with a two touchdown lead. Which, obviously, wasn't enough.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying but quite honestly I prefer going into the locker room with a lead to throwing that ill advised pass that gets intercepted right before halftime (see e.g. Indy games the last two years). It didn't look like we were able to produce anything in the intermediate or running game.

So why risk it in less than ideal conditions on the road while being ahead and getting the ball after halftime ?

Throwing deep bombs to Moss is ok. Throwing deep bombs over and over again to Chandler is not. We didn't have that threat in Denver on a wet field.

luuked said:

True, but what your are saying are just more reasons to be more clever in those situations and not risk the ball for 5-8 yards more. If he calls the fair catch then he won't drop the ball. It was the immediate contact that caused Harper to lose it.

Click to expand...

He was a rookie from the practice squad, "clever football" might not be part of his vernacular..

convertedpatsfan said:

And obviously you can't assume the drive would work out the same way with 40 seconds less, but considering they got 75 yards in two deep passes along the sidelines, it's not like the playbook changed that much either.

Click to expand...

But our coverage most probably would have been different with less time for Denver to work the inside of the field. But, whatever, it doesn't matter now anyway who knows what might have happened.

DarrylS said:

He was a rookie from the practice squad, "clever football" might not be part of his vernacular..

Click to expand...

I agree, that's why I also put blame on ST coaching/general coaching in this situation. We pride ourselves to be good at situational football and put our players into positions to succeed but yesterday we fell short of that a few times. Lets hope the damage it caused is not too catastrophic.

Now the 4th and 2 may rest in peace, because the muffed point takes the lead in the worst decision ever made by BB. I don't care if it was the special teams coach decision or not, a wise man like BB should have known better, he is the BOSS. He is known for giving extreme attention to ST and situational football. Delegating that decision to the ST coach in a game like that is what Rex Ryan and Chuck Pagan does, not BB.

convertedpatsfan said:

I understand the idea, I just don't think it had that much impact on the game.

1st and 10 at the 40 with 2:53 to go, they pass 3 times, complete 1 for 7 yards, get the Broncos to burn their timeout, and punt with 2:39 to go.

If they ran 3 times, they would probably snap for second down on the plus side of 2 minutes, and depending on the duration of the play and time to spot the ball, maybe they get a timeout in before the 2 minute, maybe not. If they do, 3rd down is before the 2-minute warning, with a punt right after. Or alternatively, 3rd down is after the 2-minute warning with the timeout after and a punt around 1:50. We're talking about 40 to 50 seconds. A first down gives us another 3 plays. Risk vs. reward, I don't mind the opportunity to run another 1:30 to 2 minutes off the clock if we pick up a first, but risking 40 to 50 seconds guaranteed.

Meanwhile the Broncos scored in 1:17 without their timeout, and in fact, with US calling a timeout. They moved the ball 75 yards in 30 seconds, with a chunk of that letting the clock go down to the 2-minute instead of wasting a down to spike the ball.

I think the bigger fault was at the end of the first half when we ran out the clock with 2+ minutes to go and 3 timeouts at the end of the first half. We would later be forced to try and kick a FG with only 1:09 and 1 timeout. Huge missed opportunity there.

Click to expand...

We'll agree to disagree. Giving the ball back to Denver on the wrong side of two minutes gave the Broncos time to keep their playbook intact, without having a second-game-starting QB trying to manage it all. If you were playing against 2013 Peyton, I get it.

Not so much here. Kill that damned clock!

1st down snap 2:53
TO
2nd down snap 2:48
3rd down snap 2:03
Punt 2:00

Bobsyouruncle said:

Complaining about the playcall is stupid. You have 3 minutes left, the two minute warning, a timeout and RBs averaging less than 3YPC. You need a first down to win.

The next drive Denver went 82 yards in 1:15. What in the world makes anyone think Denver wouldn't have done that if they ran 3 times.

Click to expand...

I guarantee you had they ran it 3 times and lost the game people would be *****ing they didn't pass it.