WHY no time-outs near the end ?

[SeattleCoug]

Pete came out and said today the main reasons behind not using timeouts is he thought it put more pressure on Clemens and that he wanted his defense to conserve energy by not running to the sidelines.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

Boogie, serious question here.... Did you honestly think that the Seahawks could have moved the ball roughly 50 yards with either one timeout or none in less than a minute the way they were playing last night? The offensive line had been practically inviting Rams defenders to sack Wilson all night and if they weren't sacking him, they at least weren't giving him time to throw anything down field on all but one pass. Getting the ball down the field with one timeout or no timeouts in less than a minute requires time for your QB to get the ball down the field. He hadn't been getting that time all night. Maybe the offensive line sacks up and gives him the time and the Seahawks pull out the win there anyway, but based on what we'd all seen leading up to that point, how likely was that scenario? Maybe the offense won't be as dysfunctional again and Carroll will decide to let them win it in a similar scenario in another game, but in this particular game, his best bet to win was letting the defense handle it.

That doesn't matter to me though… You can't say you can't in sports you say you can and you go for it… saving time there was a good strategic move that gave us a better chance of success while being a small percentage it's still there.. Again look at the Atlanta game last year and how they couldn't move the ball the entire second half and then with 25 ticks of the clock there in field goal range in 3 pass play's… YOU NEVER know in the NFL in those situations…

 

[dude82]

That doesn't matter to me though… You can't say you can't in sports you say you can and you go for it… saving time there was a good strategic move that gave us a better chance of success while being a small percentage it's still there.. Again look at the Atlanta game last year and how they couldn't move the ball the entire second half and then with 25 ticks of the clock there in field goal range in 3 pass play's… YOU NEVER know in the NFL in those situations…

We went into a prevent in the last drive of that Atlanta game and Atlanta had a much better passing game then than we do now. The two scenarios are not the same. Listen, I wish I had enough confidence in the offense in Monday's game to suggest that Pete should have taken the timeouts and given his offense time to work if necessary, but I didn't and it is apparent that Carroll didn't either. He can talk all he wants about putting pressure on Clemens in that situation and not wanting to tire out his defense by having them go to the sideline and back a couple times, but he's not the type of coach to just come out and say that he had no confidence that his offense could move the ball 50 yards with one or no timeouts and less than a minute left. Just look at the stats that blstoker put up... is that an offense that you'd be confident in sending out there in that situation? We had 13 total yards of offense in the entire 4th quarter and you think we could have gotten 4 times that in one drive? I'd like to say that I believe we could have, but I just don't.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this and be happy with the win the way we got it.

 

[WizardHawk]

I gotta disagree… You stop the clock there on a couple play's you could a had a minute left on the clock even if they scored .. ALL we needed was a field goal to tie the game… You can't just say OH we played like crap no way could we do it… man you play the strategy card and give yourself the best shot… THEY had to score regardless so they were going for it period… SAVE a little time if you can… YOU never know…

Calling timeouts would have allowed the Rams to run the ball more which would have likely ended up giving them a TD given we just had no answer to stop them. The clock worked against the Rams as much as it did against our chance to come back with a FG.

On a night when your offense couldn't get a first down over most of the entire game, leaving the game in the hands of the defense was probably the right call.

 

[SonnyCID]

Sometimes stopping the flow is good… Get's teams off there role …. They were rolling down the field..

They were running very well. And with them running down the clock, it forces them to throw on the goal line. That plays right in to the greatest strength of the Seahawks.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

We went into a prevent in the last drive of that Atlanta game and Atlanta had a much better passing game then than we do now. The two scenarios are not the same. Listen, I wish I had enough confidence in the offense in Monday's game to suggest that Pete should have taken the timeouts and given his offense time to work if necessary, but I didn't and it is apparent that Carroll didn't either. He can talk all he wants about putting pressure on Clemens in that situation and not wanting to tire out his defense by having them go to the sideline and back a couple times, but he's not the type of coach to just come out and say that he had no confidence that his offense could move the ball 50 yards with one or no timeouts and less than a minute left. Just look at the stats that blstoker put up... is that an offense that you'd be confident in sending out there in that situation? We had 13 total yards of offense in the entire 4th quarter and you think we could have gotten 4 times that in one drive? I'd like to say that I believe we could have, but I just don't.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this and be happy with the win the way we got it.

I look at it this way … NO I wasn't confident the way the game was going with our offense BUT I would rather have the shot at it than watch the Rams score and we have no time left.. That's all my point is.. Rams had to go for it regardless because they couldn't get a first down and they had to score… I"m with you on that though a win is a win even though it was ugly … We were fortunate to get the win

 

[dude82]

I look at it this way … NO I wasn't confident the way the game was going with our offense BUT I would rather have the shot at it than watch the Rams score and we have no time left.. That's all my point is.. Rams had to go for it regardless because they couldn't get a first down and they had to score… I"m with you on that though a win is a win even though it was ugly … We were fortunate to get the win

Our defense simply refused to let St. Louis into the endzone all night and whether it was with just under a minute left or with just under 5 seconds left, they knew they had to come up with one last stop and they did. Sometimes you just have to trust your defense to get the job done when your offense can't do much of anything.

 

[Money]

You stop the clock there and you give stl more time on the sideline to draw up plays and gather composure.

Fisher walked off the field with a timeout in his pocket. Pretty sure they didn't feel rushed.

It was a horrendous decision to not use them. Plain and simple.

 

[Mr. Tacoma]

Fisher walked off the field with a timeout in his pocket. Pretty sure they didn't feel rushed.

It was a horrendous decision to not use them. Plain and simple.

Horrendous! Yet it worked.

7-1

U mad bro?

 

[Money]

Horrendous! Yet it worked.

7-1

U mad bro?

WTF are you talking about? Seattle playing good defense had nothing to do with the horrible decision by Carroll. Tell me how his decision to not use the timeouts helped. Under this rationale, Tate's decision to taunt and draw a flag worked as well. What a heady play.

 

[Mr. Tacoma]

Questionable is a good description of that decision. Horrible or horrendous strikes me as a bit hyperbolic.

Now run along little boy, us grown folks are talking here.

 

[Money]

Questionable is a good description of that decision. Horrible or horrendous strikes me as a bit hyperbolic.

Now run along little boy, us grown folks are talking here.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

This was a hot topic today on sports radio and pretty much every guy on there thought Pete blew it not calling the time-outs… the reasons he gave didn't make any sense … We got the win but I think allot of people didn't like the strategy… We hit on 17 in blackjack and won but it wasn't the best strategic move.. Only thing I can see was Carroll showing confidence in his defense believing they can win the game from a mental standpoint.. Strategically though it was a gamble because if the Rams scored there were talking about it today not giving number 3 a chance to get us in field goal range …. As it turned out it didn't matter BUT it could have… Hind sight is 20/20 I know….

 

[Wazmankg]

… We hit on 17 in blackjack and won but it wasn't the best strategic move..

This is a good analogy. Not Hawks or Rams fan but it was an indefensible decision. Good game though ... didn't expect that. Made me miss the 9th inning of the WS game.

 

[GreenNickle]

I will tell you why no timeouts

Because the Dude I was playing against in fantasy football had Russel Wilson at QB and he only needed 5 more points to beat me.

Great drive by the Rams at the end of the game to eat up a ton of time and not scoring a touchdown to seal the deal for me.

 

[WizardHawk]

You know you are following a good team when the home town fans are bitching about decisions made during a win. Much prefer this to all the bitching about how bad our losses were in the past.