***OFFICIAL AFC TITLE GAME pats @ COLTS ***

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
Toro when should they have called a timeout? On first and 10 from the 11?

I don't think so.

then it's 2nd and 5 or whatever - I think calling a TO here is very close, but far from a no-brainer. You have to see what happens on 2nd down.

then they did call a TO on 3rd.

so we get the ball back with 1min and 2 TO's. we are at the Colts 45 with :24 and 1 TO left, which we were clearly going to need if we made the 1 or 2 more completions we obviously needed to make.

I don't see the obvious clock mgmt mistake. You could probably argue that we could have used one after the first big gain we made, but again, I think it's close.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was screaming for the timeout right after the first down play. Sure they could make a first down by getting to the one yard line but that was really irrelevant because if they did that, the game would have been pretty much over anyway. So it boils down to, would you rather get the ball with 1 minute left and 2 timeouts or 1 minute and 45 seconds and 1 timeout? The latter and it's not close, imo.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

but you are being results oriented. what if they jam Addai on first down? or if Peyton gets tricky, and throws an incomplete play action pass? or any incomplete pass?

remember the Colts weren't just in time killing mode - they wanted a TD. they just happened to get the job done with 3 running plays, which worked out perfect for them and bad for the Pats. things go differently I think if 1st and 2nd downs turn out different

[CharlieDontSurf]

Wasn't the not using the TO because BB thought his defense could hold them to a FG and thus those TOs could be used to go down the field and possibly win the game w/ FG?

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
but you are being results oriented. what if they jam Addai on first down? or if Peyton gets tricky, and throws an incomplete play action pass? or any incomplete pass?

remember the Colts weren't just in time killing mode - they wanted a TD. they just happened to get the job done with 3 running plays, which worked out perfect for them and bad for the Pats. things go differently I think if 1st and 2nd downs turn out different

[/ QUOTE ]

All the better. If we call the timeout after the first down play and he throws an incompetion on 2nd down we don't need to burn a timeout there. Whatever precious seconds that you save with the timeout will still be there regardless of what the Colts do.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
Wasn't the not using the TO because BB thought his defense could hold them to a FG and thus those TOs could be used to go down the field and possibly win the game w/ FG?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah there are all kinds of things that COULD have happened, and they are all possible on 1st and 10. You just can't know that the actual outcome (2 running plays, 8 yards) is going to be the worst possible one for your team.

[prohornblower]

KBZ,
I think it's time for a new avatar and location. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but you are being results oriented. what if they jam Addai on first down? or if Peyton gets tricky, and throws an incomplete play action pass? or any incomplete pass?

remember the Colts weren't just in time killing mode - they wanted a TD. they just happened to get the job done with 3 running plays, which worked out perfect for them and bad for the Pats. things go differently I think if 1st and 2nd downs turn out different

[/ QUOTE ]

All the better. If we call the timeout after the first down play and he throws an incompetion on 2nd down we don't need to burn a timeout there. Whatever precious seconds that you save with the timeout will still be there regardless of what the Colts do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will say this:

In The Hidden Game of Football, they say that calling a TO on offense saves a team 12 seconds off the clock (b/c it takes about 12 seconds to run around, call the play, get set, etc), but a defensive time out saves 30 seconds against a team trying to run out the clock.

so mb you're right, but I think it's close, given that the Colts weren't nec. trying to run out the clock.

[kidcolin]

I think Toro is right. You have to assume you're giving up 3 points there, so you're going to get the ball back and you're going to try to score. Plus, you have to know the Colts are going to chew up some clock there, even if they get held to a FG. They don't want to give Brady the ball back with ample time under any circumstances. Given that the D is tired, and that a TO saves more time on defense than it does on offense, I think a TO is the right call there.

[SL__72]

Sorry to bump this one, but I don't remember this being discussed... and was unaware of this rule change:

"Face-guarding was discontinued several years ago and I completely missed it. I talked to Dean Blandino in the league office and he confirmed what you're saying. Blandino, by the way, was in the replay booth at the Patriots-Colts game. Ellis Hobbs should not have been flagged for pass-interference. He didn't make contact with the receiver and in no way did Hobbs impede Reggie Wayne's ability to catch the pass. Blandino confirmed that the incorrect call was made. It advanced the ball from the Patriots' 19-yard line to the one-yard line and was the big play in a touchdown drive that led to a two-point conversion and a tie game at 21-21. Referee Bill Carollo made no reference to face-guarding in his explanation, but CBS analyst Phil Simms did. Apparently, he, too, doesn't know the rule no longer exists. The next time you hear a TV analyst say, 'he wasn’t playing the ball,' think of the Hobbs play, then turn down the sound."

[TheNoodleMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to bump this one, but I don't remember this being discussed... and was unaware of this rule change:

"Face-guarding was discontinued several years ago and I completely missed it. I talked to Dean Blandino in the league office and he confirmed what you're saying. Blandino, by the way, was in the replay booth at the Patriots-Colts game. Ellis Hobbs should not have been flagged for pass-interference. He didn't make contact with the receiver and in no way did Hobbs impede Reggie Wayne's ability to catch the pass. Blandino confirmed that the incorrect call was made. It advanced the ball from the Patriots' 19-yard line to the one-yard line and was the big play in a touchdown drive that led to a two-point conversion and a tie game at 21-21. Referee Bill Carollo made no reference to face-guarding in his explanation, but CBS analyst Phil Simms did. Apparently, he, too, doesn't know the rule no longer exists. The next time you hear a TV analyst say, 'he wasn’t playing the ball,' think of the Hobbs play, then turn down the sound."

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you please give the link for this? I've been arguing the existence of a face guarding rule with my dad for quite a while and it is very difficult to find anything definitive from the NFL about it. I'd love to stick it to the old man.