so we went from a coach that tried to use the time outs like someone might take them away from him to a coach who wants to take the timeouts home with him?
The point of using timeouts in that situation is to extend the game, not save time. On 2nd and 2, if you use your timeout there and they get a first down the game is over since you can only stop the clock on 1st and 2nd down. He was obviously hoping for 3rd down not a TD but if they got a first down then you call the timeout and can stop the clock 3 times. He showed me he gets it because most fans and all the media are idiots and don't get it.
Todd Bowles is growing as a coach. He'll be fine. Don't forget he's a rook folks. Still doing a damn good job and should be a coach of the year candidate without a doubt.
Agreed. that was just playing scared. 1:54 and 3 timeouts and you kill clock instead of try and score when you have alreayd had some decent success moving the ball. that really annoyed me. you arent going to beat the pats playing scared. im with you on the 4th, id have used the timeouts but i can see trying to perserve them. but that 10 yard pass over the middle is just a terrible call. i understand the logic if it works, but you are relying on everything being flawless with like 1 second margin of error if that.
Mangold's injury kind of screwed us over, although they let almost a minute pour off the clock after the 2 minute warning, when most teams use their time out there. I just didn't get all the dink and dunk in the middle of the field with no time outs. That made no sense. Throw it to the sidelines or throw it away and stop the clock. What's so hard to understand about that? Fitz and Bowls both need to be more aware of that. If you don't see a quick play, get out of the pocket and throw it away. You have 60+ yards to go in 20 seconds, you don't just hit your check down man like it's the 1st quarter.
In regards to the end of the half, the Pats had all 3 timeouts and we were at the 20 yard line with no punter. I think the Pats blew it by not using there timeouts but I would have done the same thing as Bowles. There is smart and playing not to lose, this was smart based on the punting situation. Again, if I was the Pats I would have used my timeouts.
Bowles' explanation for not using the timeouts near the end of the game is that they had ran the ball 5 times all day and we're obviously going to pass the ball. They kept getting first downs and the Jets would've essentially pissed away the timeouts taking them on first down. Something along those lines. I sort of see what he's saying but still, we had to call one first play after the 2 min warning so they wouldn't shave off 40 right away. Anyways Im sure he'll revise this scenario with others and figure out what is the correct decision, this guy is pretty sharp.
It makes sense. I don't think Bowles could have anticipated that big of a pass/run disparity for the Pats that game.
I get his thinking with the timeouts......If we stopped them for a 5 yard gain or less I'm sure he would have called it but no point in doing it on 2nd and 3 My main issue is throwing the incomplete long pass to Devin Smith on 3rd and 6 with no intentions on going for it on 4th down on our possession before Why are we punting there either way? Our defense wasn't playing well at all after Pryor went out and I'll take my chance on 4th and 6 over giving the ball back to Brady where they control everything.....It's not even close Even if we don't convert, we still have to play defense and make a stop so it's not a huge deal. I think it was a net gain of like 20 yards......Not worth it at all to not attempt 4th down in that spot Really a terrible sequence all around that probably cost us the game
Sorry, these explanations (whether it comes from Bowles or other posters) about not calling a timeout after the first down play just don't wash. I know that there were a lot of other issues with the Jets and many people may think this is a small issue. However, the fact that the Jets decided not to call a timeout when the Patriots had the ball did cause them to lose :40 seconds and they obviously turned out to be critical. I didn't want to go through a long-winded explanation (and the length of this post will probably deter some), but since others seem to go along with Bowles I will try to explain why his reasoning doesn't hold water. The fear of the Jets giving up the first down (after giving up 7 yards on the first play) should have had no bearing on whether you should call a timeout after that first down play. Simply put, if the Jets give up a first down on the second play after the 2:00 minute warning then the Jets are screwed in either scenario. This is true because the Pats would be able to run two more plays (five, not including a fourth down play) than the Jets have timeouts for. See the two scenarios below: Wait to call a timeout 2:00 First down: Gain of 7 -8 yards, stay in-bounds - No timeout by Jets, Clock runs :45 for play and play clock) ~1:15 Second down: Patriots get a first down, stay in-bound - Timeout Jets (2 remaining) ~1:10 First down: Patriots run a play, stay in-bounds – Timeout Jets (1 remaining) ~1:05 Second down: Patriots run a play, stay in bounds – Timeout Jets (0 remaining) ~1:00 Third down: Patriot run a play, stay in bounds – Clock runs :45 for play and play clock) ~:15 seconds left: Patriots choose a fourth down play. Call a timeout immediately after the first down play 2:00 First down: Gain of 7 -8 yards, stay in-bounds – Jets timeout (2 remaining) ~1:55 Second down: Patriots get a first down, stay in-bound - Timeout Jets (1 remaining) ~1:50 First down: Patriots run a play, stay in-bounds – Timeout Jets (0 remaining) ~1:45 Second down: Patriots run a play, stay in bounds - Clock runs :45 for play and play clock) ~1:00 Third down: Patriot run a play, stay in bounds – Clock runs :45 for play and play clock) ~:15 seconds left: Patriots choose a fourth down play. So this proves that if the Pats get a first down (on their second down play after the 2:00 minute warning) then it doesn’t matter what the Jets do. There is still the same amount of time left on the clock and the game is basically out of reach. It doesn't matter in what order the timeouts are called. Therefore, the only way that the Jets can possibly come out on top is for them to stop the Pats from getting the first down, for the Pats to score a TD (and the Jets score 10 points afterwards), or for the Pats to go out of bounds or have an incomplete pass (stopping the clock). If the Jets do stop the Pats on their first set of downs after the 2:00 minute warning then obviously the best case scenario is to call timeouts after the first three downs. Then the Jets would get the ball back (still down) but with ~1:40 left (with no timeouts). In the second possible scenario (which is what happened) the Pats score a TD. In this case, calling the timeout earlier (after the first down) would have saved :40 seconds - at the expense of a timeout. There is no other way around the fact that “saving the timeout” cost the Jets ~:40 in this case. This is what actually happened and for anyone to deny that fact is simply wrong. If the Pats were to end up not scoring, but stopping the clock (via incomplete pass or out-of-bounds) then it comes back to how many times that stoppage of clock happens. If it happens once, then there would be no difference in the two scenarios with respect to time left before the Pats run their fourth down play (~:55 seconds). If it were to happen twice, then you would end up with one timeout left in the first scenario (wait to call the timeout) .vs :40 seconds more of game time in the second scenario (early timeout). In any possible scenario it comes down to that single fact. It's an extra timeout vs. :40 seconds on the clock. Try as you might, (assuming you are saving the full :40 seconds) you cannot come up with a situation where waiting to call the timeout leaves you with more time on clock - no matter what the sequence of plays that may occur in the future. At the worst case (five straight non-fourth down plays) calling a timeout early will leave you with the same amount of time as waiting to call the timeout. In other play scenarios calling the timeout immediately will leave you with more time on the clock. If someone can refute this, I am all ears. This miscue by Bowles might seem like a small point, but clock management is still extremely important. If you don't do it right it is bound to bite you in the ass eventually - which is what happened on Sunday. Would the Jets have been able to score again with :40 more seconds on the clock? Unfortunately, we'll never know. Hopefully, Bowles learns (his comments not withstanding) or the Jets will not have the best chance to succeed in tight games.
Just ask Rex and Herm about CM and how long it took them to grasp the concept. I'm sure after their first 6 games they were both masters at it.
