Josh Allen's TO at beginning of second half

[WhoTom]

19 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

I think if you're the Rams or KC or NO, most of the time you won't need it. Teams like the Bills, though ...

 

... need all the points they can get. ?

 

 

[PittsforDave]

...was a very Billsy move.

 

Josh needs to change the culture here. Calling a TO then is just not smart. 

[NewEra]

40 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

I'm not angry. I'm wondering where people stand and why. 

I think if you're the Rams or KC or NO, most of the time you won't need it. Teams like the Bills, though ...

Non issue.  Not even worth discussing imo.  Just seems like something to complain abiut

[dave mcbride]

4 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Non issue.  Not even worth discussing imo.  Just seems like something to complain abiut

But I'm not really complaining -- I'm raising an issue for which the answer isn't all that apparent or simple. And if you don't think the issue is worth discussing, why participate (multiple times)? Some here seem to think it's at least a moderately interesting issue given that it has come up repeatedly for the Bills this season.  One thing I vow never to do is wade into a thread and declare it uninteresting and therefore unworthy of discussion. 

Edited December 10, 2018 by dave mcbride

[GottaRun]

Seemed like they were surprised by the turnover, weren't ready to go on offense.   Unfortunately after the time out they still weren't ready to be on offense.  Bills should have won by 2 or 3 touchdowns yesterday, very frustrating afternoon.

[dave mcbride]

Just now, driddles said:

Seemed like they were surprised by the turnover, weren't ready to go on offense.   Unfortunately after the time out they still weren't ready to be on offense.  Bills should have won by 2 or 3 touchdowns yesterday, very frustrating afternoon.

That could be the case. It was effectively the first play from scrimmage in the second half. Was there a TV timeout after the turnover? I can't recall. My guess is that there wasn't.

[Success]

It would be strange to take a penalty instead. I don’t think I ever see teams do that unless they’re at midfield and punting.

[Rochesterfan]

3 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

Where do folks stand on that? I'll go on record and say that the TO is pretty much always more important than the five yards in a close game (as this one was). That TO would have been extremely valuable on the Bills final possession, and it would have given the Bills more options and forced the Jets D to defend differently. I'm generally always opposed to burning TOs to save five yards in the second half unless it's something like 3rd and 1 at an important moment.

 

 

I stand where here you look at each situation uniquely.

 

In this case - it is in the red zone of a close game on 2nd down - I prefer to see them use the timeout and get the play correct and not have an additional 5 yards that has even more potential of our young QB making a mistake.  I have no issue with the timeout over the penalty, but hate that they needed it there.  As it turns out due to pressure on Allen - they had to kick a FG anyway, but I do not mind using it there.

 

The timeouts I hate are 3rd and between 6-11 yards near midfield that seem to crop up for every team.  In that case early in the 2nd half - take the penalty.  The five yards is worth less than the timeout, but the Red Zone and 2nd down is different.  

 

It also matters if you are in a short down and distance versus a longer down and distance.  3rd and 1 from midfield in a close game - the timeout might be critical for that drive because the chances of converting a 3rd and 1 is way better than a 3rd and 6 and you are getting close to a range to get points - that 1st down might directly lead to points - which are more important than timeouts.

 

Conversly if you are in the red zone and it is 3rd and 15 or 3rd and goal from the 15 let’s say - the extra 5 yards is not a big deal because your chance of conversion is low - save the timeout - take the penalty and move on.

 

I think the potential of a four point swing early in the 3rd quarter in this game is worth more than the timeout at the end of the game.  That 4 point swing could be the difference in a close game becoming a blowout by forcing the other team to open up and attack or make a mistake.

 

 

[dave mcbride]

8 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

I stand where here you look at each situation uniquely.

 

In this case - it is in the red zone of a close game on 2nd down - I prefer to see them use the timeout and get the play correct and not have an additional 5 yards that has even more potential of our young QB making a mistake.  I have no issue with the timeout over the penalty, but hate that they needed it there.  As it turns out due to pressure on Allen - they had to kick a FG anyway, but I do not mind using it there.

 

The timeouts I hate are 3rd and between 6-11 yards near midfield that seem to crop up for every team.  In that case early in the 2nd half - take the penalty.  The five yards is worth less than the timeout, but the Red Zone and 2nd down is different.  

 

It also matters if you are in a short down and distance versus a longer down and distance.  3rd and 1 from midfield in a close game - the timeout might be critical for that drive because the chances of converting a 3rd and 1 is way better than a 3rd and 6 and you are getting close to a range to get points - that 1st down might directly lead to points - which are more important than timeouts.

 

Conversly if you are in the red zone and it is 3rd and 15 or 3rd and goal from the 15 let’s say - the extra 5 yards is not a big deal because your chance of conversion is low - save the timeout - take the penalty and move on.

 

I think the potential of a four point swing early in the 3rd quarter in this game is worth more than the timeout at the end of the game.  That 4 point swing could be the difference in a close game becoming a blowout by forcing the other team to open up and attack or make a mistake.

 

 

Well-stated. I lean more toward hoarding timeouts given the huge number of close games in the NFL, but your position is certainly defensible.

Edited December 10, 2018 by dave mcbride

[fansince88]

Ohhhhh. Time Out...

[Rochesterfan]

45 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Well-stated. I lean more toward hoarding timeouts given the huge number of close games in the NFL, but your position is certainly defensible.

 

I apprecite that - I agree that many times teams (most teams including teams considered well coached like NE) waste timeouts inappropriately in the second half rather than take the penalty and move on.

 

I think avoiding the penalty has been an NFL mantra for years, but as games are so close - that thinking needs to be re-evaluated, but in the end for me - I look at it as points must be your first priority everything else falls below points and if that timeout can lead you to points or increase your chances of a TD over a FG - use it.  

 

The worst thing is how after the Timeout- the Bills still only got the FG - in that case it ends up more of a waste, but it is impossible in the moment to know the outcome 2 plays later.  You could have the exact same situation- take the penalty instead and image the anger if you end up on the next 2 plays picking up 12 yards and did not get the first down because you needed 15 and cost yourself a first and goal from the 2 instead.

 

 

Edited December 10, 2018 by Rochesterfan

[freddyjj]

1 hour ago, driddles said:

Seemed like they were surprised by the turnover, weren't ready to go on offense.   Unfortunately after the time out they still weren't ready to be on offense.  Bills should have won by 2 or 3 touchdowns yesterday, very frustrating afternoon.

Josh was not on the field with team at start of 2nd half and was late coming out of tunnel as was being medically evaluated/treated at half time.  May have caused the confusion after turnover

[Rochesterfan]

35 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

I apprecite that - I agree that many times teams (most teams including teams considered well coached like NE) waste timeouts inappropriately in the second half rather than take the penalty and move on.

 

I think avoiding the penalty has been an NFL mantra for years, but as games are so close - that thinking needs to be re-evaluated, but in the end for me - I look at it as points must be your first priority everything else falls below points and if that timeout can lead you to points or increase your chances of a TD over a FG - use it.  

 

The worst thing is how after the Timeout- the Bills still only got the FG - in that case it ends up more of a waste, but it is impossible in the moment to know the outcome 2 plays later.  You could have the exact same situation- take the penalty instead and image the anger if you end up on the next 2 plays picking up 12 yards and did not get the first down because you needed 15 and cost yourself a first and goal from the 2 instead.

 

 

 

Just quickly looking at some NE games for example - NE used a time out after getting a first down at the Lions 12 yard line on the second drive of the 3rd quarter with about 10 minutes left - very similar situation.  I think this is a common situation.

 

[Alphadawg7]

4 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

I respectfully disagree. I just think a TO is worth more than 5 yards in most situations (again, if it's 3rd and 1 on, say, the opponent's 30 yard line, you take the TO). And for a team that commits pre-snap penalties like there's no tomorrow, what's another five yards? Timeouts, however, are genuinely precious, and a team like the Bills should never assume they're going to win walking away. They should assume that any victory scenario will probably be in a close game, and that timeouts will be absolutely crucial. 

 

I don't disagree with your emphasis on the value of a timeout.  However, you can only score when you have the ball, and nothing is more important than keeping the ball.  I would 100% take the timeout and try and keep the scoring drive alive rather than set it back again.  Even more so given the the circumstances of this particular play where we are in striking distance of a TD and its only second down.

 

Especially on a team that keeps struggling with a bad OL and bad penalties already, you need to sustain drives.  So I respectfully disagree that he should take the loss there to preserve a timeout.  IMHO thats playing to try and not lose instead of trying to win.  To chance killing a potential touchdown drive because you may need a Timeout later shows a lack of confidence in your team to win a game.  You don't win games playing this way IMO.  

 

I do see why you feel this way, its just not how I would prioritize the situation.  I also don't think any coach would ever take the penalty there instead of using the timeout.  The only exception would be if its was already a 3rd and very long where its already an unlikely conversion.  For instance, if they got a 10 yard penalty making it 3rd and 20, then I would save the timeout and picking up a 3rd and 20 is already a very low percentage play, so going to 3rd and 25 really wouldn't matter as much.  But anything manageable, even a 3rd and long such as 3rd and 10, I use the timeout and try and convert.  I suspect all coaches would do the same too.   

Edited December 10, 2018 by Alphadawg7

[Mike in Horseheads]

As always, shoulda coulda woulda second guessing is easy. Unless anybody was on the field who knows what happened,

[GunnerBill]

I am not a big fan of taking TOs over delay of game penalties. However, I understand why the Bills did it yesterday and I think I would have done it there too. 

[frostbitmic]

7 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

Where do folks stand on that? I'll go on record and say that the TO is pretty much always more important than the five yards in a close game (as this one was). That TO would have been extremely valuable on the Bills final possession, and it would have given the Bills more options and forced the Jets D to defend differently. I'm generally always opposed to burning TOs to save five yards in the second half unless it's something like 3rd and 1 at an important moment.

If you score a TD, it's a great use for a TO ... If you don't score a TD, it's a wasted TO.

 

Do you have absolute faith that McDermott wouldn't have used that TO more frivolously ? .... I'm not sure I do.

[LSHMEAB]

Quite frankly, I was pleasantly surprised that McDermott used his TO's when the Jets were inside the 10 with less than 2 minutes.

 

He is sooooo freaking old school. Andy Reid is still not the greatest clock manager and has had a solid career, but sheesh.