Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

WHAT were they thinking, burning that last timeout?

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
I don't think PC was out-coached
Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:38 am
  • Almost everyone is acting like if the timeout had not have been called we would have won the game. Calling that timeout was not bad coaching. For all we know, McVay was simply switching from a high-risk fake punt to a lower risk QB sneak, and he was always going to go for it. Carroll might have seen the indications of the fake punt in their personnel as well, and called the time out for that reason, as well as to preserve the clock. If we had let the clock bleed out on that punt we would have had a much lower chance to win, especially with a good punt.

    There is just too much we don't know, and I don't know how PC can be shoved under the bus so hard for that one circumstantial play... Now, the unneeded timeouts because we forget how to call a play sometimes? Those need to be cleaned up.

    Also, we only lost by 2 points against a team that IMO has a much more talented roster. That to me does not scream out-coached.
    “How vain it is to sit down to write when you have not stood up to live.”

    - Henry David Thoreau
    User avatar
    bbsplitter
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 506
    Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:39 pm


Re: I don't think PC was out-coached
Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:40 am
  • Sometimes it's just the Occam's Razor principle:

    He called a time out simply to save time on the clock.

    Nothing more, nothing less.
    Image

    "Shaquem Griffin tells ESPN after he got drafted by Seattle; 'I can't breathe.' That's the only time you'll hear him say he can't do something." - Dan Wetzel via Twitter.
    User avatar
    Aros
    [[ .NET Godfather ]]
     
    Posts: 12936
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:58 am
    Location: Just 4 miles from Richard Sherman!


Re: I don't think PC was out-coached
Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:41 am
  • bbsplitter wrote:Almost everyone is acting like if the timeout had not have been called we would have won the game. Calling that timeout was not bad coaching. For all we know, McVay was simply switching from a high-risk fake punt to a lower risk QB sneak, and he was always going to go for it. Carroll might have seen the indications of the fake punt in their personnel as well, and called the time out for that reason, as well as to preserve the clock. If we had let the clock bleed out on that punt we would have had a much lower chance to win, especially with a good punt.

    There is just too much we don't know, and I don't know how PC can be shoved under the bus so hard for that one circumstantial play... Now, the unneeded timeouts because we forget how to call a play sometimes? Those need to be cleaned up.


    It could have gone either way, but saving the timeout was a better decision than wasting it right there. Even if it was a fake punt I'm hoping they would have factored that into their decision. If they didn't then Pete has no reason to keep coaching as the game has moved on without him.
    User avatar
    OkieHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6178
    Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:48 pm
    Location: Oklahoma City


Re: I don't think PC was out-coached
Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:44 am
  • OkieHawk wrote:
    bbsplitter wrote:Almost everyone is acting like if the timeout had not have been called we would have won the game. Calling that timeout was not bad coaching. For all we know, McVay was simply switching from a high-risk fake punt to a lower risk QB sneak, and he was always going to go for it. Carroll might have seen the indications of the fake punt in their personnel as well, and called the time out for that reason, as well as to preserve the clock. If we had let the clock bleed out on that punt we would have had a much lower chance to win, especially with a good punt.

    There is just too much we don't know, and I don't know how PC can be shoved under the bus so hard for that one circumstantial play... Now, the unneeded timeouts because we forget how to call a play sometimes? Those need to be cleaned up.


    It could have gone either way, but saving the timeout was a better decision than wasting it right there. Even if it was a fake punt I'm hoping they would have factored that into their decision. If they didn't then Pete has no reason to keep coaching as the game has moved on without him.


    I think we had a very good chance of stopping the fake punt, because they have a lot of grass between the punter and the line of scrimmage. The qb sneak was the only good option there for getting the first down. Either way, we'll never know what could have been. All I know is what I wanted to see in that moment and what I wanted and what Pete wanted were apparently 2 different things.
    Image

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 19614
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • kidhawk wrote:
    We can go back to the holding call that took us out of field goal range. We can talk about the bad punt by Dickson, and i'm sure there's a litany of other plays throughout the game that could have changed the outcome. I'm not saying that the timeout call was the sole reason for us losing, it was just the final nail in the coffin.


    Kinda what I'm getting at, no reason to hyper focus on the TO called or not.............it's a false pretense to think THAT'S why we lost, or even contributed to us losing. Too many other plays that ACTUALLY happened to talk about.

    I mean, in general Pete is a terrible in game decision maker. So if you think he shouldn't have called a TO, then just put it down on your massive list of terrible in game clock management/calls by Pete.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13829
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:
    We can go back to the holding call that took us out of field goal range. We can talk about the bad punt by Dickson, and i'm sure there's a litany of other plays throughout the game that could have changed the outcome. I'm not saying that the timeout call was the sole reason for us losing, it was just the final nail in the coffin.


    Kinda what I'm getting at, no reason to hyper focus on the TO called or not.............it's a false pretense to think THAT'S why we lost, or even contributed to us losing. Too many other plays that ACTUALLY happened to talk about.

    I mean, in general Pete is a terrible in game decision maker. So if you think he shouldn't have called a TO, then just put it down on your massive list of terrible in game clock management/calls by Pete.


    It was the final factor which took the game out of our hands. But that last 4 minutes of the game just had little things add up against us, mostly self inflicted.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3310
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    I mean, in general Pete is a terrible in game decision maker. So if you think he shouldn't have called a TO, then just put it down on your massive list of terrible in game clock management/calls by Pete.


    Oh, it is on said list. I agree that the TO didn't cost us the game though, it is another game of death by a thousand cuts.
    User avatar
    OkieHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6178
    Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:48 pm
    Location: Oklahoma City


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:
    We can go back to the holding call that took us out of field goal range. We can talk about the bad punt by Dickson, and i'm sure there's a litany of other plays throughout the game that could have changed the outcome. I'm not saying that the timeout call was the sole reason for us losing, it was just the final nail in the coffin.


    Kinda what I'm getting at, no reason to hyper focus on the TO called or not.............it's a false pretense to think THAT'S why we lost, or even contributed to us losing. Too many other plays that ACTUALLY happened to talk about.

    I mean, in general Pete is a terrible in game decision maker. So if you think he shouldn't have called a TO, then just put it down on your massive list of terrible in game clock management/calls by Pete.


    I agree that we don't need to focus on any one thing and "blame the loss" on it, but I think it's a worthy discussion topic as is our rookie punter making rookie mistakes and Fluker holding when we are barely in field goal range. These guys need to use their heads more, but we can have those discussions too, this just happens to be a thread regarding the TO call.
    Image

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 19614
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • We were only able to pass because of our running game. Almost every big pass play was due to running game

    Under the 2 minute drill scenario we would not have a threat of running because there wasn't enough time left on the clock

    The rams would be happy to punt if we had a minute left on the clock because we would not have enough time to move the ball

    They were happy to go for it when we took the timeout

    So we don't take a timeout everyone here is blasting Pete for letting 40 secs run off the clock

    We take the timeout everyone here is blasting Pete for not letting 40 secs run off the clock

    Look in the mirror and think about all the times you have complained that Pete didn't use a timeout and let clock run down

    I am fine with using it
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7433
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • mikeak wrote:
    So we don't take a timeout everyone here is blasting Pete for letting 40 secs run off the clock

    We take the timeout everyone here is blasting Pete for not letting 40 secs run off the clock

    Look in the mirror and think about all the times you have complained that Pete didn't use a timeout and let clock run down

    I am fine with using it


    It's fine that you are ok with the timeout, but to say that I'd be complaining had he not called the timeout and we didn't win is ludicrous. Sure some people would complain, but not necessarily the same people. I base my belief on how I felt in the moment. That would't have changed had Pete not made the timeout call.
    Image

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 19614
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • Some were ok with the timeout, some are not...Looks like a 50/50 in that situation. How you going to blame a coach for that. We stop them we have a good chance in winning. They punt we have a good chance of winning. Just happens they executed. Stop being Monday Morning QBs with that call.

    The fault was on the kicker & our poor tackling. Also those two costly penalties. It was a good game.
    User avatar
    rcaido
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 668
    Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:47 pm


  • ^ do you have any references to a game where a team with a timeout left didn’t call it on 4th and inches with under 2mins to go when the ball is on the opponents side of midfield

    I can honestly not say I have EVER seen it on any level
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7433
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • I can't believe it's the next day and people still are thinking Pete made a mistake there with the timeout. I thought surely a night of sleep would have cleared the mind....

    As the above poster mentioned, has any coach in the HISTORY of the NFL not called a timeout in that situation? Ever?

    I'm as hard on Pete as the next guy, but he wasn't in the wrong here.
    Hawkpower
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2201
    Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:53 am
    Location: Phoenix az


  • A small chance is always better than NO chance.

    Even with some reasonable arguments, I still don’t like calling the TO.
    ITS A GREAT TIME TO BE A SEAHAWK FAN !
    User avatar
    pmedic920
    * .NET Official Stache *
     
    Posts: 17366
    Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 8:37 am
    Location: On the lake, Livingston Texas


  • pmedic920 wrote:A small chance is always better than NO chance.

    Even with some reasonable arguments, I still don’t like calling the TO.


    There was a small chance after calling the TO

    Just had to stop the QB sneak

    It isn't like we jumped offside, ran into the kicker, put 12 men on the field and gave them a first down

    Calling a timeout there is (apparently) a judgement call. There is no black and white answer to what is right / wrong, but either way there was one play by the Rams or many plays by Seahawks and they both gave us a chance.

    If the ball had clearly been short and no measuring would have happened the clock would have kept rolling. I really wonder if an immediate timeout in that case would have had this many people complaining.

    I truly believe the clock stopped and therefore a lot (not all) are pissed that we used a timeout. Then when informed about how it actually works these crazy thoughts on not using it are being utilized to justify the original thought instead of admitting we were wrong...……..

    or I am incorrect and you guys looked at all our 4th quarter game winning drives from earlier this season and those drives convinced you we didn't need the extra 40 secs...…...
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7433
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • I was livid when they did that. Calling the TO is dumb. Especially when the Rams were going to punt the ball. It gave them time to strategic their plan. At least when you're on offense, you can always run out of bounds or spike the ball to conserve the clock? A good offense team can easily drive for a field range in 45 secs or so. (Yes, that includes running out of bounds to preserve the clock). That's all it needs.
    L.O.B.
    Adopt a rookie: Tre Flowers
    Image
    User avatar
    raisethe3
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 630
    Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 5:15 pm


  • I can't find a reason to think they'd do a fake punt. If they were going to go for it, they would've just lined up and snuck it in the first place. McVay was going back and forth and the players convinced him to do it. He was going to punt.

    http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2492 ... -wanted-it
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3281
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


  • The Rams were going for it weather we call a timeout or not, there was a measurment and they had plenty of time to figure that out. I've never seen a NFL coach not stop the clock in a situation like that to save the time you know for a fact that is going to be run down. You have much more control of the clock when you have the ball. Maybe it was a overstatement to say 100 out of 100 coaches call a timeout there but I'm guessing 90 out of 100 do. It was a good call by Pete and it was a good call by Mcvey. Looking at the difference in talent level on the field I'm finding it hard to believe Pete got out coached in this one.
    getnasty
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2988
    Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:22 pm


  • The punt unit was out. 2 things were going to happen
    1-fake punt (not high success rate, get the ball there)
    2-punt (we get the ball with approx 1:06 but backed up.

    Either of these we still have a time out. Maybe have the ball,aybe we don't, 50/50.

    Option we took:
    1-take the time out(now zero left). Gives a super aggressive coach time to realize he is super aggressive. Now they make six inches, and we can do nothing. Their OL has a huge size advantage. We maybe have at best a 20% chance of stopping those Giants.

    These are the things they should know. Not playing armchair at all. As SOON as I saw Pete call a time out with the Rams punt team on the field, I lost my mind. You knew EXACTLY what mcvay would do, and he did it.

    Calling a timeout with 1:39 left in itself is absolutely the right call, but in that situation it absolutely was not. Them punting or even a fake punt has by far the highest probability of you getting the ball again. AND--AND-- you still have your time out.

    Pete calling that timeout was a lack of awareness of the actual situation and knowing your opponents tendencies, weaknesses and strengths.

    That is why it was the wrong call.
    User avatar
    johnnyfever
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1132
    Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 3:38 pm
    Location: Spokane


  • getnasty wrote:The Rams were going for it weather we call a timeout or not.


    No they werent. They were going to punt.
    User avatar
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1145
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 10:19 am


  • pittpnthrs wrote:
    getnasty wrote:The Rams were going for it weather we call a timeout or not.


    No they werent. They were going to punt.

    Or at least fake punt, but either way we have a MUCH higher probability of stopping it.
    User avatar
    johnnyfever
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1132
    Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 3:38 pm
    Location: Spokane


  • johnnyfever wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:
    getnasty wrote:The Rams were going for it weather we call a timeout or not.


    No they werent. They were going to punt.

    Or at least fake punt, but either way we have a MUCH higher probability of stopping it.


    It's roughly a 1/3rd chance to stop them in that situation with a called 4th and 1 play against the offense - which may or may not be better than getting a FG after a punt. But in the moment it felt like the Hawks gave them an out and come to their senses on what was the best thing to do in that situation given the possibility to stop and the outcomes from that.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3310
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • pittpnthrs wrote:
    getnasty wrote:The Rams were going for it weather we call a timeout or not.


    No they werent. They were going to punt.


    Once they stopped to measure they had the time to change there mind and they did.
    getnasty
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2988
    Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:22 pm


  • HommyHawk wrote:Last play rams ran was a run...once they reset ball clock was gonna run...if we dont call it there we get the ball with 30 something seconds and one time out. Was the right call rams coach just let his testes hang on that one.


    Correct.

    The mistake Pete made was taking the time outs on the wrong side of the 2 minute warning. Always take them in front, then get the free one at 2 minutes. You preserve more time that way.

    It amazes me how so many head coaches cannot properly execute basic game management strategy.
    ben@thetabs
    User avatar
    THE TABS
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 264
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:26 am
    Location: Ephrata, WA


  • getnasty wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:
    getnasty wrote:The Rams were going for it weather we call a timeout or not.


    No they werent. They were going to punt.


    Once they stopped to measure they had the time to change there mind and they did.


    Wrong, after the second measurement, they sent out the punt squad. Then the officials gave Pete the option to still take the timeout he called before the measurement, or keep it as the measurement stopped the clock. Only AFTER Pete called the timeout did the punt team leave the field and the offense come back out.

    Fact is, punt team would have made whatever play they called, but by Pete calling the timeout it gave mcvay time to change his playcall
    User avatar
    johnnyfever
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1132
    Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 3:38 pm
    Location: Spokane


  • THE TABS wrote:
    HommyHawk wrote:Last play rams ran was a run...once they reset ball clock was gonna run...if we dont call it there we get the ball with 30 something seconds and one time out. Was the right call rams coach just let his testes hang on that one.


    Correct.

    The mistake Pete made was taking the time outs on the wrong side of the 2 minute warning. Always take them in front, then get the free one at 2 minutes. You preserve more time that way.

    It amazes me how so many head coaches cannot properly execute basic game management strategy.
    again, wrong. Would have had 1:06 left, not .30. this is directly from Pete on Brock and salk, as well as brock.
    User avatar
    johnnyfever
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1132
    Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 3:38 pm
    Location: Spokane


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:This take and anger makes ZERO sense to me.


    Did you miss the fact that they took their offense off the field, we then called the timeout, and they put their offense back on the field? Think it through......
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    * Spelling High Lord *
     
    Posts: 30060
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Phoenix, AZ


  • All I know is that the entire Seahawks radio crew—many of whom are former players and/or coaches—agreed with taking the time out. I’m going to trust their and Pete’s judgement on this one.
    Help bring peace to the South LA / Puget Sound communities. Are you in?
    http://www.abetterla.org | http://www.abetterseattle.com
    User avatar
    sc85sis
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6865
    Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:40 am
    Location: Southern CA


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:This take and anger makes ZERO sense to me.


    Did you miss the fact that they took their offense off the field, we then called the timeout, and they put their offense back on the field? Think it through......


    Clayton and Brock said they actually had most of their offense still on the field during the measurement even after they sent out the punting unit and could easily have switched them out... I'm not sure how realistic that is, but if true they could've gone for it regardless of the TO.

    I just don't think that's the decision that sunk us, it was just a tough one at the end of the game, which is why many of us are so hung up on it. The penalties and wasted TO earlier in the 4th were much worse IMO.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3281
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:This take and anger makes ZERO sense to me.


    Did you miss the fact that they took their offense off the field, we then called the timeout, and they put their offense back on the field? Think it through......



    And if Seattle stops them there, they win, and Pete is a hero for goading them into making a stupid decision. How was he supposed to know McVey was going to be an absolute idiot and send the offense back out there?

    You CAN NOT criticize a coach for doing what every coach does in that situation.....save time for your offense. Pete gets absolutely roasted in here (and deservedly so) when he lets precious time fall off the clock, and now some of you want to bash him when he follows protocol? :roll:

    This is seriously complete hindsight 20/20 vision. I understand being upset in the moment, but 24 hours later rational thoughts should be back in our brains and this inane argument should be finally put away. Pete was right, and if faced with a similar situation in the future, I expect him to play it exactly the same.
    Hawkpower
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2201
    Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:53 am
    Location: Phoenix az


  • Hawkpower wrote:This is seriously complete hindsight 20/20 vision. I understand being upset in the moment, but 24 hours later rational thoughts should be back in our brains and this inane argument should be finally put away. Pete was right, and if faced with a similar situation in the future, I expect him to play it exactly the same.

    Well, if you want to consider it 20/20 hindsight on my part, you go right ahead. Since I didn't have a webcam recording me watching the game in order to prove that I actually shouted the instant we used that timeout because it was idiocy in that situation...Be my guest.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    * Spelling High Lord *
     
    Posts: 30060
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Phoenix, AZ


  • Roland - honest question - did you actually realize that 40 secs would come off the clock?

    I only say that because I was PISSED. I Got on twitter and wrote all Seahawks journalists. I texted a buddy and I complained loudly about the idiot Pete Carroll. Why would you use the timeout. What an awful call.

    Then I ran it back and I realized I made a mistake. I was thinking clock was stopped. Knowing 40 secs would have come off makes it a possibility to not call the timeout but as stated before I can’t ever recall seeing it by any coach EVER (in a similar situation).

    So I got back on Twitter and deleted all the stupid stuff I said

    So honest question - I believe you when you said you were pissed at the time, but did you truly and fully realize 40 secs was coming off? If you did - good for you. You would have been correct. Regardless I don’t see faulting Pete
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7433
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK




  • Image
    In 180 games, Walter Jones was called for 9 holding penalties in the course of 5,703 pass plays.
    First Round Inductee To Hall Of Fame 2014
    ESPN #1 Rated Seahawks Player of All Time
    User avatar
    KitsapGuy
    * NET Staff *
     
    Posts: 5173
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:09 pm
    Location: Kitsap County


  • Again, that is a 100% timeout by every coach, at every level.
    Pete couldn't possibly have even thought possible that McVay would go for it there, as in the NFL, I doubt any coach ever has, at least in decades. What McVay did was beyond reckless. You want him to be foolish enough to go for it there. Pete just happened to be going against a young, cocky coach who hasn't had something like this blow up on him yet. McVay will keep doing stuff like this until the first time that it doesn't work, then he'll never, ever do it again.
    I'm fly
    I should be in the sky with birds
    User avatar
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3807
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:37 pm


  • Tical21 wrote:Again, that is a 100% timeout by every coach, at every level.
    Pete couldn't possibly have even thought possible that McVay would go for it there, as in the NFL, I doubt any coach ever has, at least in decades. What McVay did was beyond reckless. You want him to be foolish enough to go for it there. Pete just happened to be going against a young, cocky coach who hasn't had something like this blow up on him yet. McVay will keep doing stuff like this until the first time that it doesn't work, then he'll never, ever do it again.



    I recall Belicheck doing it against Indianapolis. Didn’t want Manning to get the ball again. As I recall they failed to convert and NE lost the game on a FG / TD. SNF / MNf game but I might remember incorrectly getting old these days :)

    For a QB sneak though a lot of coaches goes for it, but I believe everyone of them still takes that timeout
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7433
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • Goff just said they were going to punt at first on Primetime so we can put the whole Rams were going to go for it no matter what idea to rest.
    User avatar
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1145
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 10:19 am


  • Tical21 wrote:Again, that is a 100% timeout by every coach, at every level.
    Pete couldn't possibly have even thought possible that McVay would go for it there, as in the NFL, I doubt any coach ever has, at least in decades. What McVay did was beyond reckless. You want him to be foolish enough to go for it there. Pete just happened to be going against a young, cocky coach who hasn't had something like this blow up on him yet. McVay will keep doing stuff like this until the first time that it doesn't work, then he'll never, ever do it again.


    This is correct
    getnasty
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2988
    Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:22 pm


  • getnasty wrote:
    Tical21 wrote:Again, that is a 100% timeout by every coach, at every level.
    Pete couldn't possibly have even thought possible that McVay would go for it there, as in the NFL, I doubt any coach ever has, at least in decades. What McVay did was beyond reckless. You want him to be foolish enough to go for it there. Pete just happened to be going against a young, cocky coach who hasn't had something like this blow up on him yet. McVay will keep doing stuff like this until the first time that it doesn't work, then he'll never, ever do it again.


    This is correct


    You guys are assuming a lot, if I am an away coach and am rushed I may punt because it is safe and I want them to go as far as possible, but if I see a measurement of about a foot with my line and the other coach hands me a time out to call a rush in a hostile stadium and I go with a QB sneak because all I need is a go count I do it.

    I get the win most times. If I had Seattle's line from the last two years I punt no question.

    Thanks Pete, was able to set up a play see the distance and take your fans and your QB who has a knack for moving the ball in the two minute drill as well as what could be one of the best long FG kickers in the game out of the equation.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 25429
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:This take and anger makes ZERO sense to me.


    Did you miss the fact that they took their offense off the field, we then called the timeout, and they put their offense back on the field? Think it through......


    I did.

    The Rams still had most of their offense on the field at the time they ran out their punt unit, because that's what good coaches do, they have all their units available to make the split second decision after the call, or in this case the measurement was made.

    You're falsely assuming that the TO was the reason the Rams ran their offense back onto the field, and that's just not true.

    Bottom line, time is FAR more valuable than playing some TO game of chicken with the other head coach that may or may not impact his decision.

    Was that enough thinkin' for you?
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13829
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • You call the timeout there regardless of if the Rams are punting or not.

    Once you get down to those final minutes and you're down you want to call your timeouts for an obvious reason: whoever has the ball controls the pace of play.

    If they're punting you use your timeout because you can get tAT MINIMUM two plays in the same amount of time that they'll bleed off on their one play (or more, factoring in incompletions and getting out of bounds).

    If they're not punting it's the exact same equation, and if they get the first down it doesn't matter either way because they still have three downs to bleed the clock to zero.

    Also, that play call by McVay was the correct call. It just feels reckless because NFL coaches treat 4th down through the lens of tradition rather than probability.

    Long story short, Carroll calling a TO there increased the Seahawks' probability of winning, just as McVay going for it on 4th increased the Rams' probability of winning.
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4944
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


  • KitsapGuy wrote:


    This tells me it was a procedural "mistake" by the officials and it pisses me off.
    Last edited by kidhawk on Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
    Reason: Language
    purpleneer
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 323
    Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:19 pm
    Location: The Green Lantern (almost)


  • johnnyfever wrote:The punt unit was out. 2 things were going to happen
    1-fake punt (not high success rate, get the ball there)
    2-punt (we get the ball with approx 1:06 but backed up.

    Either of these we still have a time out. Maybe have the ball,aybe we don't, 50/50.

    Option we took:
    1-take the time out(now zero left). Gives a super aggressive coach time to realize he is super aggressive. Now they make six inches, and we can do nothing. Their OL has a huge size advantage. We maybe have at best a 20% chance of stopping those Giants.

    These are the things they should know. Not playing armchair at all. As SOON as I saw Pete call a time out with the Rams punt team on the field, I lost my mind. You knew EXACTLY what mcvay would do, and he did it.

    Calling a timeout with 1:39 left in itself is absolutely the right call, but in that situation it absolutely was not. Them punting or even a fake punt has by far the highest probability of you getting the ball again. AND--AND-- you still have your time out.

    Pete calling that timeout was a lack of awareness of the actual situation and knowing your opponents tendencies, weaknesses and strengths.

    That is why it was the wrong call.


    Exactly, it was the wrong call. As soon as the punt team was on the field you let it happen. Save the Time out for after you get the ball. 1:10 on the clock and 1 timeout, with RW you want that.
    jeremiah
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 107
    Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 6:10 pm


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:You're falsely assuming that the TO was the reason the Rams ran their offense back onto the field, and that's just not true.


    It is true though. Goff openly admitted as much. He said the offense marched on the field after the TO and he was as surprised as anybody else. They were going to punt initially.
    User avatar
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1145
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 10:19 am


a
Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:47 am
  • pittpnthrs wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:You're falsely assuming that the TO was the reason the Rams ran their offense back onto the field, and that's just not true.


    It is true though. Goff openly admitted as much. He said the offense marched on the field after the TO and he was as surprised as anybody else. They were going to punt initially.


    Goff said he was surprised with the call after the TO, he didn't say the reason he was marched back out was BECAUSE of the TO.

    Big difference.

    This is a dumb argument anyway.

    - why didn't we stop the Rams from getting a 1st down with three straight Gurley runs when we knew they had to run the ball?
    - why couldn't Dickson kick the ball inside the 10 like he should have, which would have guaranteed McVay not going for it from his own 25 or 31, instead of his 41.
    - why couldn't we get just one more first down once we passed the 50 with 4 minutes left, instead going backwards forcing a punt.

    THIS is the call you think cost us the game, Pete doing something literally every other coach in the league does in that situation, save precious seconds for a final drive?

    Damn man, we got some of the best hindsight armchair QB's in the league. We lost? Let's nitpick the TO!!
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13829
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • All valid points sgt.

    But what we all do know is if the time out was not called the Seahawks wouldve got the ball back.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13918
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: a
Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:57 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:You're falsely assuming that the TO was the reason the Rams ran their offense back onto the field, and that's just not true.


    It is true though. Goff openly admitted as much. He said the offense marched on the field after the TO and he was as surprised as anybody else. They were going to punt initially.


    Goff said he was surprised with the call after the TO, he didn't say the reason he was marched back out was BECAUSE of the TO.

    Big difference.


    What does that even mean? He was surprised because they had made the decision to punt, in which they would have if they didnt have time to change their minds, and MCVay sent the offense back out after having time to reconsider. Without the TO called by Pete, they punt the ball, simple as that.
    User avatar
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1145
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 10:19 am


Re: a
Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:09 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Damn man, we got some of the best hindsight armchair QB's in the league. We lost? Let's nitpick the TO!!


    It's only hindsight if the thought occurs after the fact. I can't speak for everyone here, but I can speak for myself, and this was no afterthought. I was upset when Pete called the timeout, but then became livid when the Rams decided to trot their offense out on the field after the timeout. I knew in that instance that the most likely outcome was a first down and the end of the game.

    I'm no NFL head coach and will cede the fact that I am no expert, but in the moment I knew what I felt gave us the best chance to win and with their punt team on the field and no timeouts for the Rams, it was (and still is) my opinion that we shouldn't call the timeout there.

    Who knows what would have happened. I mean if Pete doesn't call the timeout, maybe they punt it and we fumble and they recover or Wilson throws an INT or can't get us into field goal range, or maybe he does get us there and Janikowski misses. There is no guarantee that not calling the timeout changes the outcome, it's just one of many things that altered the course of the game.
    Image

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 19614
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • Uncle Si wrote:All valid points sgt.

    But what we all do know is if the time out was not called the Seahawks wouldve got the ball back.


    Both of the Rams units were standing halfway onto the field while the measurements were being done. Therefore we don't know what McVay would have done if Pete let the ref start the clock as opposed to taking the TO.

    That's standard procedure for any team, have all units close to the coach ready to go at a split second notice.

    Only McVay knows. Not you, not me, not anyone else.

    The point I and other are making is what Pete did is literally what EVERY other coach would do, conserve time not try to guess what the other coach is going to do. You and others seem to think it was a fact. Thus false pretense argument.

    McVay knows, that's it.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13829
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:All valid points sgt.

    But what we all do know is if the time out was not called the Seahawks wouldve got the ball back.


    Both of the Rams units were standing halfway onto the field while the measurements were being done. Therefore we don't know what McVay would have done if Pete let the ref start the clock as opposed to taking the TO.

    That's standard procedure for any team, have all units close to the coach ready to go at a split second notice.

    Only McVay knows. Not you, not me, not anyone else.

    The point I and other are making is what Pete did is literally what EVERY other coach would do, conserve time not try to guess what the other coach is going to do. You and others seem to think it was a fact. Thus false pretense argument.

    McVay knows, that's it.


    Disagree.
    Uncle Si knows, and so do I. :snack:
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5848
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • You contradict yourself a bit sgt. First assuming what PC did is what all coaches would do is also a false pretense argument.

    And while the offense was lingering once the measurement was made the punt team was lining up. Thats what i saw.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13918
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


PreviousNext


It is currently Thu Dec 13, 2018 2:45 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online