dbatesman Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Perhaps the rationale was really that Bowles knew Fitzpatrick couldn't get the offense down the field quickly without an arm transplant and was saving the TOs in anticipation of an 8+ play drive? Given his candidness about Fitzpatrick's inability to hit the Hail Mary, it seems like that was top of mind and certainly informed the decision in some way (along with the fact that the Pats passed 90+% of the time yesterday--i.e., he thought he could save a timeout by forcing a couple of incompletions, because they weren't going to run to bleed the clock). In that context it makes a little more sense, but I still don't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 I suppose that was the basis for it, along with the fact that the Pats passed 90+% of the time yesterday (meaning he thought he could save a timeout by forcing an incompletion, because they weren't going to run to bleed the clock). In that context it makes a little more sense, but I still don't like it. Brady did throw a couple of incompletions on that drive didnt he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbatesman Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Brady did throw a couple of incompletions on that drive didnt he? Yeah. Especially given the gameflow (aforementioned 90+% pass calls), I see what he means, but I think you leave yourself so little margin for error by playing it that way. I thought the time to start calling TOs was when they converted the 3rd down with 2:06 left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Yeah. Especially given the gameflow (aforementioned 90+% pass calls), I see what he means, but I think you leave yourself so little margin for error by playing it that way. I thought the time to start calling TOs was when they converted the 3rd down with 2:06 left. possible Bowles was attempting to bait the Pats into handing the ball off and they just didn't bite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbatesman Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 possible Bowles was attempting to bait the Pats into handing the ball off and they just didn't bite. Could be. Maybe I was too harsh on him, but the whole management of the last 10 minutes or so was pretty bad, as far as I'm concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
56mehl56 Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 actually, not calling the timeout was the wrong move. the jets are obviously playing for a field goal there. really their only chance to win the game. you either lose 40 seconds in the front by not calling the timeout or you lose 40 seconds in the back if you do call timeout and hold them to the field goal. but in between, anything can happen, including the pats scoring a td, in which they did. there was no advantage to not calling the timeout. and its only a push if you hold them to a field goal. Except that if we took the TO and then they converted the first down , the Pats would have had at least 1 down where they could milk the clock and we could not stop it. At first I thought is was a mistake but after thinking about it I believe Bowles made the correct call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Except that if we took the TO and then they converted the first down , the Pats would have had at least 1 down where they could milk the clock and we could not stop it. At first I thought is was a mistake but after thinking about it I believe Bowles made the correct call. this is true. the jets would lose 40 seconds on the back end. by not calling the time out, the jets lost the same 40 seconds on the front end. a push,no? and by not calling the time out, anything else that happens besides what you stated is a loss of time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashmouth Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Holding on to the timeouts let the Pats burn a minute-plus. I like most of what I've seen from Bowles so far, but his clock management at the end of that game was a massive cluster****. I think he mad the right calls not using the TO .Obviously it could go either way but if he wasted timeouts on second and short it would not have played out much different ..In that case I would rather have the time outs since they buy you 3 plays on offense and allow you to attack the entire field not just the sidelines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzogtheDefiler Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 I think he mad the right calls not using the TO .Obviously it could go either way but if he wasted timeouts on second and short it would not have played out much different ..In that case I would rather have the time outs since they buy you 3 plays on offense and allow you to attack the entire field not just the sidelines Well he probably thought he was all set as you said NE would only score 16 pts.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashmouth Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Well he probably thought he was all set as you said NE would only score 16 pts.... Oh you mean the 16 points you had no idea how I came up with ? if you remember at one point the Pats had 16 points.... amazing post something relevant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzogtheDefiler Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Oh you mean the 16 points you had no idea how I came up with ? if you remember at one point the Pats had 16 points.... amazing post something relevant I was kidding and the 16 I thought was interesting because it was so low. You are very defensive. Why is that? Please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 doesn't really matter if you can't get a stop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadetree Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Call TO or not call TO..I don't know what was better call but I do know this... they were decisive in making the call. There didn't appear to be any confusion on what to do, they knew what they wanted and did it. They weren't looking at each other like a bunch of keystone cops. I'm happy about that aspect of it. 24 hrs is up...time to move on to Oakland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Brown Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Except that if we took the TO and then they converted the first down , the Pats would have had at least 1 down where they could milk the clock and we could not stop it. At first I thought is was a mistake but after thinking about it I believe Bowles made the correct call. Why folks don't get this very simple point is amazing!! This isn't Madden Football, down, distance and the team you are playing, as well as their play selection all matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Why folks don't get this very simple point is amazing!! CHARLIE, whats even more amazing than that? instead of not being able to call a time out on at least 1 down, the jets chose to not call a time out, LOSING THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF TIME. sorry for the caps, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Brown Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 CHARLIE, whats even more amazing than that? instead of not being able to call a time out on at least 1 down, the jets chose to not call a time out, LOSING THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF TIME. sorry for the caps, I do like the point that you make in general. But what I think that you are not taking into full account is that Bowles was playing the percentages based on how the Pats were moving the ball and the down and distance the Jets faced. Bowles again today indicated that he had to play the game in front of him not the theoretical game that some of us play off of charts. I don't think we win yesterday, but if Nick doesn't get hurt we have a play to win the game and that is all you can ask in situations like that. I totally reject the idea that some are floating out here that Bowles by not calling TOs at that time of the game somehow was responsible for the Jets loss. And for some, not you, to compare this to Rex's reign of clock mismanagement is utter nonsense. Rex had games were his clock management was an abomination along with the Jets looking totally out of sorts and unprofessional. Indeed anyone can see the same ragged play being done at times by the Bills now and that is no coincidence. IMO it is fine to question Bowles decisions and why he did what he did; what is not acceptable is inferring somehow that Bowles had some sort of brain lock and didn't know what he was doing and was out of his depth. At the end of the day: Was it the wrong call? Possibly. Was it a well reasoned and well thought out decision? Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 I do like the point that you make in general. But what I think that you are not taking into full account is that Bowles was playing the percentages based on how the Pats were moving the ball and the down and distance the Jets faced. Bowles again today indicated that he had to play the game in front of him not the theoretical game that some of us play off of charts. I don't think we win yesterday, but if Nick doesn't get hurt we have a play to win the game and that is all you can ask in situations like that. I totally reject the idea that some are floating out here that Bowles by not calling TOs at that time of the game somehow was responsible for the Jets loss. And for some, not you, to compare this to Rex's reign of clock mismanagement is utter nonsense. Rex had games were his clock management was an abomination along with the Jets looking totally out of sorts and unprofessional. Indeed anyone can see the same ragged play being done at times by the Bills now and that is no coincidence. IMO it is fine to question Bowles decisions and why he did what he did; what is not acceptable is inferring somehow that Bowles had some sort of brain lock and didn't know what he was doing and was out of his depth. At the end of the day: Was it the wrong call? Possibly. Was it a well reasoned and well thought out decision? Absolutely. Charlie, I appreciate your response. I don't think bowles had a brain fart, but to not call a time out at 2:06 was a mistake that any head should know better. so maybe he did have a brain fart.there is only 1 scenario where not calling a time out helps the jets. it was 2nd and 2. the pats weren't running the ball, so that really wasn't an option. if new England threw a 1 yard pass on 2nd down and then converted on 3rd down, that would be the only scenario out of many,many scenarios that saving the 3 time outs would help the jets. every other scenario not spending the time out either is a push or hurts the jets. as it turns out, not calling the time out really hurt the jets. 40 more seconds is valuable time considering that you are down 2 scores. the game was full of ups and downs, great plays and mistakes. well, this was just another one of the mistakes. mistakes and lack of adjustments is what cost the jets the game. some posters called it "perfect time management" when it obviously wasnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashmouth Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Call TO or not call TO..I don't know what was better call but I do know this... they were decisive in making the call. There didn't appear to be any confusion on what to do, they knew what they wanted and did it. They weren't looking at each other like a bunch of keystone cops. I'm happy about that aspect of it. 24 hrs is up...time to move on to Oakland Very good point and when idiot Fouts was crying about the TO and they kept panning the camera to Bowles he looked just as cool as could be. Maybe next time we execute as a team making his job easier. The 3rd and 17 was a joke if we make the play there we probably win the game. If we catch the (Marshall) Touchdown we probably win the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hael Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 If Bowles calls the timeout, Gronk would possibly have been instructed NOT to score (by say downing it on the 1/2 yard line). You then possibly prevent a td, but you still lose 40 seconds at the tail end of your 3 timeouts and you are still down 2 scores if you can somehow manage to hold NE to a field goal. You would then have to march down the entire field to score a td with no timeouts with NE up by 6. Possible, but statistically unlikely. These sorts of scenarios actually are well known to coaching staffs beforehand, and there is a great deal of analytics and statistics behind some of this. What may seem obvious to fans, might be quite incorrect when analyzed in detail. I believe that having Gronk score was actually one of the least bad things that could have happened to the Jets in that scenario (the worst would have been another first down followed by a td, as that would have eaten up more clock) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyjets782 Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 If I ever see Dan Fouts in person, I am going to punch him in the balls. I would pay to see that... I have always been sort of "meh" about him as a commentator, but he was on a Suzyn Waldman level on Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rexorcism Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 It was perfect clock management. It was the play calling and/or execution that was terrible. And not for nothing, but if Mangold doesn't get injured on the last FG drive, we would have called timeout and had one last crack at the endzone. agreed, Mangold's injury ruined the plan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 If Bowles calls the timeout, Gronk would possibly have been instructed NOT to score (by say downing it on the 1/2 yard line). You then possibly prevent a td, but you still lose 40 seconds at the tail end of your 3 timeouts and you are still down 2 scores if you can somehow manage to hold NE to a field goal. You would then have to march down the entire field to score a td with no timeouts with NE up by 6. Possible, but statistically unlikely. These sorts of scenarios actually are well known to coaching staffs beforehand, and there is a great deal of analytics and statistics behind some of this. What may seem obvious to fans, might be quite incorrect when analyzed in detail. I believe that having Gronk score was actually one of the least bad things that could have happened to the Jets in that scenario (the worst would have been another first down followed by a td, as that would have eaten up more clock) in the scenario you just pointed out(gronk falling at the 1 yard line) by calling the time out or not calling the timeout, its still a push. there is only 1 scenario where not calling a time out helps the jets and I pointed it out in my above post. and that scenario was the least likely to happen, imo. the time out should have been called. period Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peekskill68 Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 I was pissed about the clock management watching the game but I understand it after the explanations. The defense couldn't make a stop when it needed to for most of the 4th qtr and the Mangold injury unexpectedly burned a time out. I know this sounds kind of dumb but what irritates me more about the end of the game was leaving Fitz in there if he can't reach the endzone from mid-field. If you know you need an onside kick recovery and a Hail Mary why aren't you warming up Geno to go in at the end of the game to chuck it? You know if you recover you've got 50 yds to go in 20 secs and your starting QB can't reach the endzone. Geno maybe can't read defenses or run the offense as good as Fitz but he can sure lob a long pass 50 yards to your 6'3" and 6'4" receivers to make a play or draw a penalty. That short pass to Marshall needed to get Fitz close enough to throw the Hail Mary was poor planning IMO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 I was pissed about the clock management watching the game but I understand it after the explanations. The defense couldn't make a stop when it needed to for most of the 4th qtr and the Mangold injury unexpectedly burned a time out. I know this sounds kind of dumb but what irritates me more about the end of the game was leaving Fitz in there if he can't reach the endzone from mid-field. If you know you need an onside kick recovery and a Hail Mary why aren't you warming up Geno to go in at the end of the game to chuck it? You know if you recover you've got 50 yds to go in 20 secs and your starting QB can't reach the endzone. Geno maybe can't read defenses or run the offense as good as Fitz but he can sure lob a long pass 50 yards to your 6'3" and 6'4" receivers to make a play or draw a penalty. That short pass to Marshall needed to get Fitz close enough to throw the Hail Mary was poor planning IMO... fitz can throw the ball 50 yards. I am no nfl qb, and I can throw the ball 50 yards. my 15 yo kid can throw the ball 50 yards.it was just the game plan to get it closer,imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.