It's more complicated than I thought

[dolphins4life]

This is phase two of Spider's chart on my thread in which I declared I am smarter than Bill Belichick.

I have watched several coaches badly mismanage the clock over the years, which makes me wonder if it's harder to manage the clock on the sidelines in the heat of the moment than from the couch.

Exhibit A: Super Bowl 55. The Bucs have the ball up 14-6 at their own 29. 55 Seconds are left.  The Chiefs have three timeouts left, the Bucs have two. 

The Bucs make an odd decision and run the ball.  I was watching the game thinking.  This is good for KC.  They can get the ball back down one score to start the second half.  Then, Andy Reid inexplicably calls timeout.  He calls another one after an 8 yard pass to set up third and 2.

The best case scenario for the chiefs even if they get the stop, would have been getting the ball back deep in their own territory with no timeouts and 30 seconds left, and that's being generous.  Not much of a chance of doing anything with the ball.

Instead, the Bucs take advantage and drive down the field and score a touchdown that effectively ended the game.

Exhibits B, C, and D

Todd Bowles against the Browns this year not calling timeout in the fourth quarter, stopping TB from getting into field goal range at the end of the game

The Saints not calling timeouts not leaving themselves any time to respond after the Bucs winning touchdown.

Robert Saleh not calling timeouts on his last drive against the Lions, which resulted in them forced into a desperate situation

[Pappy13]

Actually, I think the answer is something that you haven't even considered I don't believe and that's you are effectively deciding after the fact on clock mismanagement. Sure, in hindsight sometimes decisions look really bad but it's harder to "see" that when the outcome hasn't yet been decided. Coaches don't get to look at the outcome of the game and make a decision based on the outcome, they make a decision at the time without knowing what the outcome will be. It's not necessarily that it's harder on the sidelines it's that they are making the decision with a lot less information then after the game looking back on it. At that point they don't know the outcome of the game, so yeah after you see the outcome it's easy to say "Well they mismanaged the time", but that's only because they lost. If they win the game, then everyone just forgets about it. Did they still mismanage the time? I'm sure you will say yes to that question, but have you ever wondered about a decision during the game and then the team won the game and thought "Well I was wrong in that situation". That's never happened or you just tend to ignore all those times when you would have done something different, but the team ended up winning? Did that prove you wrong and the coach right?

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[dolphins4life]

No, I’ve made these observations while watching the game.  I remember when Andy Reid called those timeouts, my stomach sank.

These seem to be common sense decisions, too. I mean, in the Super Bowl, if Tampa was backed up or there was more time left, it would understandable to try to get the ball back.  However, when the best case scenario is getting the ball back deep in your own territory with thirty seconds left and no timeouts, you shouldn’t give the other team a chance to score

There really was no chance for KC after that score.

[Spider-Dan]

The best case scenario for the chiefs even if they get the stop, would have been getting the ball back deep in their own territory with no timeouts and 30 seconds left, and that's being generous.  Not much of a chance of doing anything with the ball.

If I understand this correctly, you're saying that you can't figure out why the Kansas City Chiefs would think 30 seconds with no timeouts is enough time to score.  Is that what you actually believe?

Instead, the Bucs take advantage and drive down the field and score a touchdown that effectively ended the game.

To be clear: you are saying that you believe a 15-point halftime deficit is more than the Kansas City Chiefs are capable of overcoming.  This is the same team that has previously erased a 24-point playoff deficit in one quarter.

This is why no one appreciates your advanced intellect.

[dolphins4life]

If I understand this correctly, you're saying that you can't figure out why the Kansas City Chiefs would think 30 seconds with no timeouts is enough time to score.  Is that what you actually believe?
To be clear: you are saying that you believe a 15-point halftime deficit is more than the Kansas City Chiefs are capable of overcoming.  This is the same team that has previously erased a 24-point playoff deficit in one quarter.

This is why no one appreciates your advanced intellect.

That was against the BILLS defense, which had allowed over 30 points at the time, compared the BUCS defense which had allowed 6 points for the entire half.

Mahomes had timeouts left on that drive.  He wouldn't have had ANY in the Super Bowl scenario. 

Again, it's not IMPOSSIBLE that the Chiefs could hold and get a field goal, I am saying it is highly unlikey.  It was more likely that calling those timeouts would lead to the BUCS scoring.

Again, you are talking about the Texans game.  Different team, different year, different defense.

In the Super Bowl, it was clear that the best option for the Chiefs was to allow the Bucs to run the clock out and go into halftime down 8 and getting the ball to start the second half. 

[Pappy13]

No, I’ve made these observations while watching the game.  I remember when Andy Reid called those timeouts, my stomach sank.

And you've never been wrong? I mean where you thought the wrong decision was made but the team making the wrong decision ended up winning anyway. By your standards that means you made the wrong decision in that game and the coaches got it right. You get that right?

[Spider-Dan]

That was against the BILLS defense, which had allowed over 30 points at the time, compared the BUCS defense which had allowed 6 points for the entire half.

KC had already played TB earlier that season and put up 17 points in a single quarter.

Mahomes had timeouts left on that drive.  He wouldn't have had ANY in the Super Bowl scenario.

He also would have had over twice as much time on the clock.

In the Super Bowl, it was clear that the best option for the Chiefs was to allow the Bucs to run the clock out and go into halftime down 8 and getting the ball to start the second half.

Using your purely hindsight analysis, TB had already scored enough points to win the game; KC only ended up scoring another field goal in the second half.  So obviously, KC needed to pull out every offensive stop to try to get points on the board, right?  Or should they have played conservatively and lost 14-9 instead?

edit: It is rather hilarious to think of a person coaching Patrick Mahomes who believes that HE should be scared of his opponent's offense, and not that every opponent should be terrified of Patrick Mahomes getting the ball with time left.  Your innovative, cutting-edge football philosophy is... to let the clock run out so your own QB (who is, again, Patrick Mahomes) does not touch the ball.

[masterfins]

And you've never been wrong?

Correct, according to D4L he has never been wrong.

[masterfins]

D4L is the only guy I know who can definitively link a Super Bowl win/loss to a pass interference call that was made in week #8.

[dolphins4life]

And you've never been wrong? I mean where you thought the wrong decision was made but the team making the wrong decision ended up winning anyway. By your standards that means you made the wrong decision in that game and the coaches got it right. You get that right?

I'm talking about decisions that are fairly obvious.  Yes, every decision can work out one way or another, but you still can analyze them.

If the Seahawks had scored a touchdown on that pass, would it still be hailed as a bad decision?

[dolphins4life]

KC had already played TB earlier that season and put up 17 points in a single quarter.

He also would have had over twice as much time on the clock.
Using your purely hindsight analysis, TB had already scored enough points to win the game; KC only ended up scoring another field goal in the second half.  So obviously, KC needed to pull out every offensive stop to try to get points on the board, right?  Or should they have played conservatively and lost 14-9 instead?


edit: It is rather hilarious to think of a person coaching Patrick Mahomes who believes that HE should be scared of his opponent's offense, and not that every opponent should be terrified of Patrick Mahomes getting the ball with time left.  Your innovative, cutting-edge football philosophy is... to let the clock run out so your own QB (who is, again, Patrick Mahomes) does not touch the ball.

Edit, the Bucs had 1 TO, not two.  The Chiefs had 3

The Bucs ran the ball on first down.  KC called their first timeout with forty-nine seconds left.  The Bucs then went to the air.  After an 8 yard completion, KC called another timeout with 44 seconds left.  The Bucs then got the first down, and the rest is history.  

Point 1: So everything is the same in every game?  Circumstances never change?

Point 2: It's much easier to get into field goal range with 13 seconds and two timeouts than 30 seconds and no timeouts from the same distance.  The Chiefs ran two plays and called timeouts after each of them.  How much time do you think a timeout is worth?  Ten Seconds?  Fifteen seconds?

The Bucs were pretty stupid in trying to run out the clock at first, but the Chiefs decided to interrupt them and force them to drive down the field.

Point 3:  You are aware that each team in football has an offense and a defense?  If my opponent's quarterback is Tom Brady, and he has one timeout and 50 seconds left, and his coach is trying to run out the clock, you don't stop them.  You don't give Brady a chance to drive down the field and score if his coach is telling him to run out the clock.  My cutting edge philosophy is, don't give Tom Brady a chance to score if you don't have to.  The small chance of KC scoring before the half wasn't worth the risk of the much larger chance of Brady scoring before the half.

How does who I have as my quarterback influence ANYTHING on how I feel about my opponent's offense?  Quarterbacks do not play defense.  (Edit, Tom Brady does.  He is the best at forcing turnovers)

In summary, you have to consider all aspects of the game and your team and your opponent's team.  

By calling those timeouts, Andy Reid gave:

1) His own team a very small chance of scoring before the half, because 1) They would have had to stop the Bucs, which they hadn't done consistently all half 2) They would have had to score with little time left

2) His opponents team a much better chance of scoring before the half.

That's why it was stupid.

I saw this during the game.  I thought to myself, "Here we go again, people doing stupid things against Brady"

Edit, the other thing to consider is the score.  It was 14-6.  Any Bucs score makes it a two score game.  Maybe if it was 5 points or less deficit, it WOULD be worth taking the risk, because you have the chance of holding them to a field goal and keeping it a one score game.  OR maybe if you weren't getting the ball to start the second half, it would be worth the risk, but in that situation, down 8, and getting the ball to start the second half, if Tom Brady's coach is running out the first half clock, I'm not stopping him. I'm not taking the risk of going to the half down more than one score for a very small chance of getting points before the half.

Another edit:  If you seriously think my saying that they should have allowed the clock to run out in the scenario means I think they should have played conservatively the rest of the game, that's absurd. 

[dolphins4life]

D4L is the only guy I know who can definitively link a Super Bowl win/loss to a pass interference call that was made in week #8.

That's possible, you know

Bad call costs a team a game, gives another team a bye, they win the Super Bowl.