Clock management decisions from Bucs-Packers

[PP2]

Maybe analytics told Packers and Bills to kick field goals. Who they were facing should've told them something else

This weekend's conference championship game losers need to recalculate whatever algorithm they're using, because playing scared has no place in the NFL anymore.

sports.yahoo.com

 

[ScottishPatriots]

If i was a Packers fan i would of wanted to blow my brains out not only with the brutal coaching decisions and brain dead defensive scheme before the half but also with Rodgers use of the play clock, do you have to snap the ball with 1 second left on the play clock EVERY SINGLE time??

The pass rush was getting such a great jump because of Rodgers snapping the ball with 1 second left every damn snap, they were wasting their own time the whole 2nd half.

 

[Elijah]

First scenario:
1. If I were LaFleur, I would have gone for the onside. Kicking it deep and hoping for a fumble seems like a half-assed version of the onside kick with the same intentions and the same risks (since there was no functional difference between the Bucs scoring and the Bucs just getting a couple of first downs). I'd rather call the play designed for getting possession back rather than asking for a perfect individual strip and recovery.

2. I remember my dad brought this idea (Mickens should have ran for 2 more seconds) up when the play had just happened. My response was that maybe he should have, but it probably would have taken him running significantly backwards to do so, which would have really backfired had the Bucs needed to punt after. There were not even close to 2 seconds of running either forward or laterally.

Second scenario:
1. Yes, the offsides was 100% intentional. We saw this in another game this season (or maybe last), someone with a better memory can say who the teams were and when it happened. My gut says it was someone from the BB coaching tree, maybe Vrabel. I thought it was stupid then and I think it's stupid now. The premise behind the decision is "2nd and short? No way we stop em there", which to me is absurd. You're trading the down for an extra timeout, but I think the down is still more valuable. The defense is up against the wall in this situation no matter whether it's 1 or 10 yards.

2. Arians was right to accept the penalty. The reason he accepted it is the same reason LaFleur was dumb to order the intentional penalty: the 5 yards ultimately helped the Bucs.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Packers' intentional penalty could have triggered an unusual rule - ProFootballTalk

At the two-minute warning of Sunday’s NFC Championship Game, the Buccaneers had the lead and the ball, with second-and-1. The Packers made a smart decision: They intentionally jumped offside, figuring it’s easier to stop a team from picking up a first down and running the clock on first-and-10...

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com

 

[mgteich]

Not going for it on 4th and short (where if you don't get it you at least pin the Bucs deep and remain 8 pts. back) and instead kicking a FG, but therein guaranteeing that you never get the ball back) - curious tactics my dear Watson.

Yes, we all questioned that decision, well almost. Rodgers pointed out that GB would have the ball with 1:39 left if the refs didn't call the penalty (one they weren't calling all day). So, the questionable call should have worked out.

Rodgers didn't second guess the coach. He had failed to get yards on three plays in a row.

For me, I look at all four play calls. If GB views this a 4 down situation, a run/option or two would have been indicated.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Yes, we all questioned that decision, well almost. Rodgers pointed out that GB would have the ball with 1:39 left if the refs didn't call the penalty (one they weren't calling all day).

Were there other similar non-calls to this? It would have been criminal not throw a flag. The refs were letting them play physical...this isn’t an example of playing physical. This is 100% textbook, impossible to miss pass interference.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Yes, we all questioned that decision, well almost. Rodgers pointed out that GB would have the ball with 1:39 left if the refs didn't call the penalty (one they weren't calling all day). So, the questionable call should have worked out.

Rodgers didn't second guess the coach. He had failed to get yards on three plays in a row.

For me, I look at all four play calls. If GB views this a 4 down situation, a run/option or two would have been indicated

TB would have punted, so they would have gotten the ball back with maybe a little less than that and the ball likely around their 20 with no timeouts.

 

[Lagaffe_07]

The play calling by Arians in the second half was stupid but at least it was consistent with what he has called all year.

I kind of understand it though. 28-10 you go for the kill. And the risk is not that high on a pass 40 yards down the field. The probability if it is picked is that the opponent will get the ball deep in their territory. On the 3rd one, I also understand the tough process, that doesn’t mean I agree with it but you throw a desperation deep pass on the blitz and you give a shot to your best jump ball receiver to make a play. At worst it gets picked, deep in GB territory and at best you we make the play and you are at the GB 20 line. Typical risk it no biscuit.

The 2nd pick was the worst and it was not a problem of play calling. Brady just missed Evans plain and simple.

As for GB, Matt LaFleur was stupid at the end, you put the ball in the hand of your best player. But that’s not the reason they lost. The reason was Rodgers. You can’t go 3-0 twice down 5 after two INTs. Could you imagine Brady not score twice in the same situation?

 

[amfootball]

So many failed possessions by GB to win that game. That is the biggest take away. They were the better team playing at home with Tampa missing both of their starting safeties and AB. That TD to Miller before half will be playing in their heads all off-season. It is also the type of loss that can break an organization as evidenced by Rodgers presser after when he talked about his future potentially not being in GB next season.

 

[PP2]

Packers' intentional penalty could have triggered an unusual rule - ProFootballTalk

At the two-minute warning of Sunday’s NFC Championship Game, the Buccaneers had the lead and the ball, with second-and-1. The Packers made a smart decision: They intentionally jumped offside, figuring it’s easier to stop a team from picking up a first down and running the clock on first-and-10...

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com

That was a good read. I had no idea the palpably unfair act foul existed.