Eiknarflin
Well-Known Member
- 1,702
- 543
- 113
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2013
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 1,000.00
- Fav. Team #1
- Fav. Team #2
- Fav. Team #3
I said in another thread that I didn't recall what our time of possession was in the second half, but that I didn't believe it was in our favor. I am surprised that we used up 6:35 on that first possession in the second half, so I stand corrected when I said that one six to seven minute drive would have made the two int's irrelevant. However, the 23-7 pass to run ratio in the second half is what tells the story here and why the game turned out as it did.
That second drive is a case in point. Who cares if it was a safe pass that Murray dropped. Every pass has the potential for incompletion and to stop the clock which is why the ball should be ran more often, especially when the Packers showed no ability to stop the run. Second pass was another incomplete, stopping the clock. The sack, while it provided opportunity for more time to run off the clock, was intended to be a pass play, thus the sack and the need to give them the ball back with very little time run off the clock.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't have been any pass plays at all in the second half, just that there should have been greater balance. Eight passes to three runs on the third drive demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of clock management and game situations, which is why we lost the game.
I'm also not arguing that we shouldn't be trying to get the ball into the endzone. Obviously scoring points is a necessary part of winning the game. However, I think we would have scored even if we had run the ball, perhaps even more often What frustrates me, and many others, is JG's and TR's and BC's lack of understanding how to manipulate the flow of the game and to use the clock to their advantage. It's a recurring problem which hit epic proportions Sunday against the Packers. It didn't even appear that the clock was a part of the game to them until the last drive when they had to score.
