- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 26,101
- Reaction score
- 52,115
So yesterday's game feaured some pretty interesting clock management decisions. I won't get too far into the decision by LaFleur to kick a field goal with 2:06 remaining because that will undoubtedly hijack the thread, there are already lots of people talking about it, etc. For the record, I think it was the wrong call, but I also don't believe he would have done it if it were a 7-point game. An 8-point game, and the need for an additional 2-point conversion, changes the percentages a lot because it makes that field goal a lot more valuable and the overall reward of a touchdown potentially less valuable.
First Time Management Scenario
The scenario begins with 2:05 remaining in the game and the Packers have three timeouts and are kicking off. The Packers surprised me by kicking short of the endzone for several reasons. First, it risks a return taking the clock down to the 2-minute warning, which is equivalent to an extra timeout. Second, Mickens had completely gashed the kickoff coverage throughout the game.
I suspect that the kick was done that way either (a) unintentionally or (b) in hopes of forcing a fumble. I would argue that a squib kick might have been a better call if kicking off (without hindsight of what Mickens did) or even an onside kick isn't the worst idea because the game is about possession and not field position at that point.
Regardless, Mickens fielded the kickoff at the 8-yard line, got to the 17, and fell down intentionally, to not risk a fumble. Had he been able to extend the clock for two more seconds, perhaps by running to the outside, it would have gotten the clock to the 2 minute warning, voiding an additional advantage for the Packers.
1. What was the right call for LaFleur? Kickoff for a touchback? Squib? Onside? Or was this right call, kicking to try to entice Mickens into returning it and possibly fumbling?
2. Should Mickens have attempted to run the clock down by running a wider return and then falling down? Or was this the right play, with almost zero turnover risk?
Second Time Management Scenario
Another very interesting scenario came into play just one play later. Tampa Bay completed perhaps the best possible scenario, gaining 9 yards on first down. That set up a 2nd and 1 at the two minute warning (1:56).
Green Bay still had three timeouts remaining. However, a highly likely first down would mean that Green Bay would be forced to used all three timeouts, and in a best case scenario, likely get the ball back with about 45 seconds, no timeouts, needing to go 60-70 yards. Or if the Bucs had been stuffed on second down, then picked it up on third down, the Packers would likely not get the ball back at all.
With this in mind, Damon Harrison jumped offsides/encroachment (and I believe another Packers player did as well.) The penalty was a five yarder, resulting in an automatic first down.
But this gave the Packers a much better scenario, as it was now 1st and 10 again, and they had all three timeouts. Stopping Tampa three times would lead to them getting the ball back with about 1:40 remaining. In essence, the penalty wiped out the 9-yard gain by the Bucs and reset the clock battle.
1. Did LaFleur have them intentionally jump offsides?
2. Should Arians have declined the penalty? Are teams even allowed to decline that type of dead ball penalty?
First Time Management Scenario
The scenario begins with 2:05 remaining in the game and the Packers have three timeouts and are kicking off. The Packers surprised me by kicking short of the endzone for several reasons. First, it risks a return taking the clock down to the 2-minute warning, which is equivalent to an extra timeout. Second, Mickens had completely gashed the kickoff coverage throughout the game.
I suspect that the kick was done that way either (a) unintentionally or (b) in hopes of forcing a fumble. I would argue that a squib kick might have been a better call if kicking off (without hindsight of what Mickens did) or even an onside kick isn't the worst idea because the game is about possession and not field position at that point.
Regardless, Mickens fielded the kickoff at the 8-yard line, got to the 17, and fell down intentionally, to not risk a fumble. Had he been able to extend the clock for two more seconds, perhaps by running to the outside, it would have gotten the clock to the 2 minute warning, voiding an additional advantage for the Packers.
1. What was the right call for LaFleur? Kickoff for a touchback? Squib? Onside? Or was this right call, kicking to try to entice Mickens into returning it and possibly fumbling?
2. Should Mickens have attempted to run the clock down by running a wider return and then falling down? Or was this the right play, with almost zero turnover risk?
Second Time Management Scenario
Another very interesting scenario came into play just one play later. Tampa Bay completed perhaps the best possible scenario, gaining 9 yards on first down. That set up a 2nd and 1 at the two minute warning (1:56).
Green Bay still had three timeouts remaining. However, a highly likely first down would mean that Green Bay would be forced to used all three timeouts, and in a best case scenario, likely get the ball back with about 45 seconds, no timeouts, needing to go 60-70 yards. Or if the Bucs had been stuffed on second down, then picked it up on third down, the Packers would likely not get the ball back at all.
With this in mind, Damon Harrison jumped offsides/encroachment (and I believe another Packers player did as well.) The penalty was a five yarder, resulting in an automatic first down.
But this gave the Packers a much better scenario, as it was now 1st and 10 again, and they had all three timeouts. Stopping Tampa three times would lead to them getting the ball back with about 1:40 remaining. In essence, the penalty wiped out the 9-yard gain by the Bucs and reset the clock battle.
1. Did LaFleur have them intentionally jump offsides?
2. Should Arians have declined the penalty? Are teams even allowed to decline that type of dead ball penalty?
