I think he was right not to use the timeout after 2 min warning. If he uses that 1st timeout right away, and they get a first down game is over. They needed to stop them from a getting a TD obviously, but I think he did the right thing with timeouts, and I think he was well aware of what he was doing. Unlike Rex, who would have had no plan at all, not to mention theres no way we would have had 3 T.O. at the end of the game to begin with.
If we had Rodgers was the Jets' starting QB, I'd be more inclined to relax . The first half non-use of time outs didn't bother me as much as the conservative playcalling (run, run, sack), and I'd be more upset if this was a seasoned coach. But this was Bowles first time coaching this team against Belichicken in NE. I'm neither happy nor satisfied with the loss, but I'm not enraged over the clock and playcalling issues. I am confident that Bowles' clock management and playcalling be better next time, and that the Jets will beat the Pats @ home.
No offense, but I will never understand this sentiment. The purpose of the timeout is to save as most time as possible when you are down to extend the game. It's as simple as that. There is no other reason for the timeout. The maximum amount of time you can save is :40 seconds. Since you can only control the pace of the game (ie. speed up the play) is when you are offense, it's always best to take timeouts on defense. There is no possible way to get around that fact. If you take the timeout right after the 2:00 minute warning you save :40 and there is nothing better that you could have done from a clock management standpoint. If you are already down and the other team has the ball it doesn't matter if you save that :40 seconds at the 3:30 minute mark, 2:45 minute mark, 2:00 minute mark, or whenever. If you base the timeout on weather you think the other team is going to get another first down then you are loosing the battle. If you look at every mathematical formula that you want, you will always end up with more time on offense when you take the timeout as soon as feasible. Giving up the first down or not doesn't play into whether you have gotten the maximum efficiency of the timeout. If it were 3rd and 1 and you had one timeout left with 1:00 minute left to go - would you save the timeout because you were affraid that you were going to give up the first down? Of course not. If you extrapolate it out and it's second down, and you have at least two timeouts, and there are less than 2:00 minutes left you take the timeout after first down. If you give up the first down your chances of winning has gone down anyway. In that scenario it doesn't matter if you saved that :40 prior to the first down or after the first down. The best case scenario in accessing the use of timeouts is "did you save that :40?". In our case the Jets didn't and it contributed to the loss. From a mathematical standpoint there is no way around that fact.
I feel like people have been just frothing at the mouths and chomping at the bit for something, anything to go after the new HC for. I understand the questions about the clock management but I think there are reasonable arguments (as much as some disagree) for taking the approach we did. If we repeatedly see questionable clock management happening then maybe we have a problem but this is one game with a reasonable explanation. Take a deep breath.
The reason (at least for me) why clock management gaffes are such a sore point is because it's the easiest thing to fix and it's the only thing that in the HC's control 100%. He can't control injuries, ref calls, player execution, opponents great plays, etc. However, he can control the timeouts and in some cases it's one of the differences between winning and losing. If someone can come up with a scenario when you actually end up with more time on the clock by not taking a timeout after first down in that case then I would gladly relent. However, you simply can't. The "best case" (in the sense that saving the timeout was smart) would be that you subsequently give up the first down and then you are in no worse of a shape from a clock perspective saving the timeout. However, you will never be in a better shape by saving the timeout. Simply put: 1) Clock management is the easiest thing for a head coach to control. 2) It comes down to math that you can't disprove its validity. Try as you might, you will never come up with a sequence of events where the Jets end up with more time on the clock having waited to take the timeout. 3) Clock management a deciding factor in a fair amount of games. 4) IMHO if you know the rules I don't care if you're a first year head coach, you have to give your team the best chance to win. When there is such a thin line between winning or losing you never now when those extra second are needed.
I know for myself I will never really second guess or question a coach for being aggressive and getting burned....I'd rather leave it all on the line and lose then wonder "what if"? If we went for that last 4th&6 instead of punting and didn't convert, so be it, and we still need to stop Brady either way....A few other decisions throughout the game where we played it conservatively to say the least leave many of us with a bitter taste Maybe we lose by 20 if we went balls to the wall in all decisions but a loss is a loss and you're not beating the Pats at home by playing it safe....Close games late in the 4th play right into their strengths
Why do we get charged a timeout for an injury inside of 2 minutes if the clock is fucking stopped already? Stupid rule. Cost us the Hail Mary.
Most of those folks are Ryan Loyalists that just can't accept that their guy got fired. They will never move on.
Not in my case. Bad clock management is bad clock management whoever the coach is and it's rampant throughout the league - unbelievably so. Even Bellichik has made errors. Rembember the Super Bowl where he inexplicably didn't call a timeout to save some time at the end of the game for Brady and ended up being bailed out by the interception?
So offensive players can't fake injuries to get some extra plays off on their final drive. Sucks that the rule bit us in the ass on Sunday but I can understand why the NFL added it.
But it doesn't matter if the clock is already stopped. There's no reason to fake an injury. Marshall ran out of bounds and the clock stopped, so charging us a timeout for an injury is pointless.
Knowing the NFL, they probably think it's better to make it apply penalty every time. So the referees don't have to use judgement.
I like Bowles overall and I would guess 99% of Jet fans do so far.....Doesn't mean we can't complain about certain decisions during games I don't consider it nitpicking
I agree. Nobody (in this thread at least) is going off the deep end and saying Bowles should be fired. It's just that the misuse of the timeout was so obvious that even a first year HC should get it right. The fact that many HC's still get timeouts wrong doesn't really help matters much. We want Bowles to be better in that situation - that's all. Hopefully he learns. CMan, you're an excellent poster and do a great job as moderator. We just disagree and think that it's not nitpicking to bring this point about the misuse of the timeouts up.
Bowles will put it all together. I don't have any problem with folks taking a different view from mine so its all good.
I kind of cringe at the sentiment of "he's learning." So am I. I'm not in charge of a pro football team on Sunday. Why doesn't a pro football lifer know when to call timeout?
Cause he's never had to do it before? Never his responsibility before Sunday. This is what you get with a rookie HC. Everybody has to start and learn from a beginning point. I agree that there are some HC's that never get the hang of it. Herm actually hired a guy to handle CM. Rex never got it down pat either. Bowles will figure it out. At least I hope so. On a sidebar, Gailey could have called down from the booth and ADVISED Bowles to call a TO.
