We still need further clarification on the 5th Down

[Joe the Panther Fan]

No logical thinking coach is going, "Well, let's think about our situation if we turn it over in the next 30 seconds when we get the ball and use our TOs accordingly." Saving a TO for a change of possession contingency plan with less than 3 minutes left is bat shit crazy.

You want the extra TO so running the ball, either on a draw or later near the goal line is an option. 75 yds with a 1:50 left in a tempo offense - Time shouldn't be a factor. Burning a TO would have been dumb.

And yet how did it work out?

The problem with most coaches is that they exhibit the kind of thinking you are using here. "Well everything's going to work out just the way we want it too, so this is what we should do." The way they should be thinking is "if things DON'T go perfectly, what gives us the best chance to win?" Because things don't actually typically go perfectly.

When you are losing at the end of the game you need to do whatever you can to make the game last longer. Allowing 39 seconds to run off the clock is pretty much never the correct answer. There are ways to stop the clock on offense. There aren't on defense, except to call a time out.

 

[Gunga_Galunga]

And for the record, calling a timeout after Virginia's 3rd down play was so clearly and obviously the right thing to do that it's no wonder that the time management expert Narduzi failed to do it. Just look at the way the rest of the game played out, time-wise, and you can see why.

If they call the time out there, when Pitt threw the interception it still wouldn't have been the two minute warning. Virginia runs a play and you call your last timeout. They run another play and it gets to the two minute warning. So when you stop them on 3rd down (stop laughing, it's a hypothetical!), there's around 1:55 on the clock, meaning that Virginia is punting at around 1:15 and you are getting the ball back with another chance to win the game with around 1:05 left on the clock.

Not calling a timeout there was a huge clock management blunder.

I was thinking the same initially, as I prefer using TOs to save as much time as possible and lengthen the game. However, the way it played out with the INT, I don't think it mattered. I can't see how all of those plays are going to happen in 30-35 seconds before the two minute warning, especially with the Yarnell scramble for 2 yards with clock running. It was probably a wash.

Moot point because they couldn't stop them.

 

[TD_6082]

And yet how did it work out?

The problem with most coaches is that they exhibit the kind of thinking you are using here. "Well everything's going to work out just the way we want it too, so this is what we should do." The way they should be thinking is "if things DON'T go perfectly, what gives us the best chance to win?" Because things don't actually typically go perfectly.

When you are losing at the end of the game you need to do whatever you can to make the game last longer. Allowing 39 seconds to run off the clock is pretty much never the correct answer. There are ways to stop the clock on offense. There aren't on defense, except to call a time out.

No coach is going to think, "Okay, if we turn it over here in the next 30 seconds..."

Pitt was going to get the ball with 2 minutes to go and 2 TOs. They didn't really need the game to last longer.

Not getting out of bounds, Taking a sack... Those are things that don't go perfectly and valid reasons you want the extra TO. Totally shitting the bed and giving the ball back to your opponent in 30 seconds is not.

At least that's my point of view.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

No coach is going to think, "Okay, if we turn it over here in the next 30 seconds..."

Pitt was going to get the ball with 2 minutes to go and 2 TOs. They didn't really need the game to last longer.

Not getting out of bounds, Taking a sack... Those are things that don't go perfectly and valid reasons you want the extra TO. Totally shitting the bed and giving the ball back to your opponent in 30 seconds is not.

At least that's my point of view.

But not getting out of bounds or taking a sack costs you 20 seconds, not 39. If you are losing and you have a choice to save 20 seconds or save 39 seconds, well, that should be an easy choice.

But I guess not.

 

[TD_6082]

But not getting out of bounds or taking a sack costs you 20 seconds, not 39. If you are losing and you have a choice to save 20 seconds or save 39 seconds, well, that should be an easy choice.

But I guess not.

You're missing the point. You don't want those things to happen either. However, they do happen & you MIGHT need a TO if they do.

Ultimately, this is not about time as in conserving 30 seconds. It's about needing a Touchdown. If you get in the red zone, you don't want to be forced to only throw and take a QB scramble off the table. ...or a some type of draw play or run with the field spread near the goal line. The playbook shrinks dramatically in those situations without timeouts and you become much easier to defend. 1:50 was still plenty of time to win the game.

Pro game, I think you probably should take a TO in that situation. Absolutely not in the situation Saturday night with a team accustomed to tempo. It's essentially just burning a TO.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

But not getting out of bounds or taking a sack costs you 20 seconds, not 39. If you are losing and you have a choice to save 20 seconds or save 39 seconds, well, that should be an easy choice.

But I guess not.

I was thinking about that TO decision in real time. Most of these decisions are cut and dry and most of the time, the coaches get them wrong and I post about it. However, getting the ball back with 2:40 left and 1 TO and getting the ball back with 2:04 and 2 TOs left is essentially the same thing. If you manage the clock and TO's effectively, both situations give you plenty of time to score. That said, coaches do NOT manage the clock and TO's effectively so I always lean towards calling timeouts as early as possible to extend the game. So, yea, probably should have called the TO. No, it wasnt the huge error that coaches usually make.

 

[PittPharm2002]

I think the extra TO there is much more important than 30 seconds. 1:50 is plenty of time to go 75 yds and get a TD. Especially with a backup QB in the game.

How important was it ?
Clock stops on first downs

 

[TD_6082]

How important was it ?
Clock stops on first downs

Read my response to Joe. #45 in this thread.

 

[PittPharm2002]

You're missing the point. You don't want those things to happen either. However, they do happen & you MIGHT need a TO if they do.

Ultimately, this is not about time as in conserving 30 seconds. It's about needing a Touchdown. If you get in the red zone, you don't want to be forced to only throw and take a QB scramble off the table. ...or a some type of draw play or run with the field spread near the goal line. The playbook shrinks dramatically in those situations without timeouts and you become much easier to defend. 1:50 was still plenty of time to win the game.

Pro game, I think you probably should take a TO in that situation. Absolutely not in the situation Saturday night with a team accustomed to tempo. It's essentially just burning a TO.

Buddy it’s you who’s missing the point .
Literally minutes of playing time were wasted when the clock was the biggest issue at that time .
Why do you think we are going on a touch down drive with Under 2 minutes when we clearly couldn’t do that all game .
You extend the game and give yourselves a chance or multiple chances .
It’s idiotic to put all eggs in one basket while trailing .

 

[PittPharm2002]

Read my response to Joe. #45 in this thread.

Your response is as idiotic as pat’s time management .
Write this in your notepad
“Learn ball”

 

[PittPharm2002]

I was thinking about that TO decision in real time. Most of these decisions are cut and dry and most of the time, the coaches get them wrong and I post about it. However, getting the ball back with 2:40 left and 1 TO and getting the ball back with 2:04 and 2 TOs left is essentially the same thing. If you manage the clock and TO's effectively, both situations give you plenty of time to score. That said, coaches do NOT manage the clock and TO's effectively so I always lean towards calling timeouts as early as possible to extend the game. So, yea, probably should have called the TO. No, it wasnt the huge error that coaches usually make.

Would you like multiple plays before the 2 min warning or 1?
This isn’t complicated .
Instead we went home with two unused timeouts and game over after the turnover

 

[TD_6082]

Buddy it’s you who’s missing the point .
Literally minutes of playing time were wasted when the clock was the biggest issue at that time .
Why do you think we are going on a touch down drive with Under 2 minutes when we clearly couldn’t do that all game .
You extend the game and give yourselves a chance or multiple chances .
It’s idiotic to put all eggs in one basket while trailing .

That's just dumb as hell.

By one basket, if you mean an entire freaking possession, then yes. If you turn the ball over in the last 2 minutes of a game, plan on losing.

You have a 1:50 & 2 TOs to score a TD. The clock really isn't much of an issue here. Every OC on the planet running an offense like Bell's would take that over 1 TO and 2:30. I assure you, if he wasn't more comfortable with it, Pitt would have taken a TO there.

Again, both of Pitt's TD drives, when they got inside the 10 yard line, they ran the ball twice on each scoring drive. If you don't have any timeouts, those plays are off the table. Same for QB deciding to take off and run. This isn't hard. I guess if you liked what you saw on Pitt's 2 point conversion attempt after the penalty backed them up and everybody knew a pass was coming, sure... burn the timeouts to save 29 seconds that you shouldn't need.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Would you like multiple plays before the 2 min warning or 1?
This isn’t complicated .
Instead we went home with two unused timeouts and game over after the turnover

We didnt throw the INT due to our TO situation.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Would you like multiple plays before the 2 min warning or 1?
This isn’t complicated .
Instead we went home with two unused timeouts and game over after the turnover

Buddy, I said he probably should have called a TO there but also there is very little difference between 2:40 and 1 TO and 2:04 with 2. Both give you all the time you need and considering how bad coaches are with clock management, I wouldn't trust a coach with 2:40 and only 1 TO. I'd rather that they have 2:04 and 2.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

You're missing the point. You don't want those things to happen either. However, they do happen & you MIGHT need a TO if they do.

Ultimately, this is not about time as in conserving 30 seconds. It's about needing a Touchdown. If you get in the red zone, you don't want to be forced to only throw and take a QB scramble off the table. ...or a some type of draw play or run with the field spread near the goal line. The playbook shrinks dramatically in those situations without timeouts and you become much easier to defend. 1:50 was still plenty of time to win the game.

Pro game, I think you probably should take a TO in that situation. Absolutely not in the situation Saturday night with a team accustomed to tempo. It's essentially just burning a TO.

I'm not missing the point. You aren't making sense. If you call the timeout and save the 39 seconds, then later on when you get sacked or run the ball and get tackled in bounds short of a first down you lose something like 20 seconds. That's a net gain of somewhere in the neighborhood of a 19 second gain. If you let them run off the 39 seconds and then you run the ball or get sacked and call a timeout you lose the 19 seconds. And when you are losing you want there to be more time, not less.

Whether you are accustomed to tempo or not, you can affect the tempo of the game on offense. You can't on defense. On offense, if you need to speed up you can do that. If you need to slow down you can do that. On defense, you can't do either. You can only stand around and watch the offense run the clock down.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

You have a 1:50 & 2 TOs to score a TD. The clock really isn't much of an issue here. Every OC on the planet running an offense like Bell's would take that over 1 TO and 2:30.

That may be the case, but that would just be further evidence that your average football coach isn't all that smart and doesn't understand time management. Something that we see play out literally every weekend.

 

[TD_6082]

That may be the case, but that would just be further evidence that your average football coach isn't all that smart and doesn't understand time management. Something that we see play out literally every weekend.

You have 1:50 left. That's plenty of time. Way more than enough. Time isn't even an issue. At that point, their focus isn't so much to manage time as it is to manage the game. (i.e. don't limit the playbook in the red zone due to lack of timeouts)

Get Outta here taking about conserving :30 seconds with 2 to go.

 

[PittPharm2002]

We didnt throw the INT due to our TO situation.

Ya sure ?
We needed to move the ball quickly downfield .

 

[PittPharm2002]

You have 1:50 left. That's plenty of time. Way more than enough. Time isn't even an issue. At that point, their focus isn't so much to manage time as it is to manage the game. (i.e. don't limit the playbook in the red zone due to lack of timeouts)

Get Outta here taking about conserving :30 seconds with 2 to go.

How many 1:50 touchdown drives have we had recently ?
One TD drive took 4 min 41 seconds and the other took 4 min and 21 seconds
Against uva

It’s not conserving 30 seconds
It’s conserving minutes
UVA’s last drive started at 3:46 left on a run for no gain.
Call time out .
Instead UVA bled 1:40 of game clock while already in FG position
Their last drive took off 8 min and 46 seconds to force Pitt to need a TD to win .

It was a total failure of coaching

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

You have 1:50 left. That's plenty of time. Way more than enough. Time isn't even an issue. At that point, their focus isn't so much to manage time as it is to manage the game. (i.e. don't limit the playbook in the red zone due to lack of timeouts)

Get Outta here taking about conserving :30 seconds with 2 to go.

All you are showing is that you understand clock management about as well as your average football coach.

Which is to say, not at all.

 

[TD_6082]

All you are showing is that you understand clock management about as well as your average football coach.

Which is to say, not at all.

You are almost autistic when it comes to saving :30 seconds that doesn't need to be saved.

You would rather conserve time ehen it's not even an issue rather than play to win.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Are we not going to get some clarification on that rule? Again, I'm not asking the ACC to provide one. I'd like to hear what even a WPIAL ref or D3 local college ref thinks.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

You are almost autistic when it comes to saving :30 seconds that doesn't need to be saved.

You would rather conserve time ehen it's not even an issue rather than play to win.

I'd rather do both, because that obviously makes the most sense and obviously gives you the best chance to win. You'd rather be sitting there at the end thinking damn, there's only a few seconds left to go in the game, but hey, at least we still have those two timeouts left.

It's got to just boggle your mind when you watch games every week and see teams in both college and the NFL using their timeouts on defense before the two minute warning.

 

[TD_6082]

I'd rather do both, because that obviously makes the most sense and obviously gives you the best chance to win. You'd rather be sitting there at the end thinking damn, there's only a few seconds left to go in the game, but hey, at least we still have those two timeouts left.

It's got to just boggle your mind when you watch games every week and see teams in both college and the NFL using their timeouts on defense before the two minute warning.

Using the TO there would have absolutely been a no-brainer in an NFL game. It would be dumb as hell not to.

However, has Pitt have moved the ball inside the 10 yd line in their last possession, having as many timeouts as possible give you the best chance to score a TD. You're basically limiting coaching and heavily relying on your backup QB there to win the game when the defense knows you aren't going to run the ball.

 

[PittPharm2002]

Using the TO there would have absolutely been a no-brainer in an NFL game. It would be dumb as hell not to.

However, has Pitt have moved the ball inside the 10 yd line in their last possession, having as many timeouts as possible give you the best chance to score a TD. You're basically limiting coaching and heavily relying on your backup QB there to win the game when the defense knows you aren't going to run the ball.

You’re defeating your own point
If it makes sense in the NFL , it also makes sense in college football-
Because in college the clock stops for first downs so timeouts are even less valuable in end of game situations .

 

[pittdan77]

Maybe Pitt fans should be mad because they didn't score a couple more times and keep a bad team from getting close enough that you need a big stop.

 

[PittPharm2002]

Maybe Pitt fans should be mad because they didn't score a couple more times and keep a bad team from getting close enough that you need a big stop.

Correct take

 

[Slick Manager of Champs]

Maybe Pitt fans should be mad because they didn't score a couple more times and keep a bad team from getting close enough that you need a big stop.

True, but sometimes teams struggle against inferior opponents and you need all the breaks you can get. Look at PSU versus USC. So to dismiss the bad call by saying you shouldn't have been in that position is also a bad take.

But the game was lost earlier in that drive when it was 2nd and 25, then 3rd and 15 and VA converted.

 

[TD_6082]

You’re defeating your own point
If it makes sense in the NFL , it also makes sense in college football-
Because in college the clock stops for first downs so timeouts are even less valuable in end of game situations .

Wrong. Again, Pitt's situation Saturday night was not about conserving a few seconds. It was doing what they felt was the best chance to score inside the red zone. It's a different approach from a play calling & coaching perspective with a NFL QB than it is with a guy like Nate Yarnell.

Pitt did not want to find themselves in the red zone under :30 seconds and be limited to Nate throwing to the end zone. That's low percentage football. Not true for the most part in the NFL where you have a QB that has complete command of the offense, and is comfortable navigating more situational football. Coaches will preserve the :30 seconds and trust their QB.

I promise, there's 100% chance that Pitt's staff communicated on the time there and Kade Bell felt better about his chances of scoring a TD with 1:50 and 2 TOs as opposed to 2:30 and 1 TO.

 

[PittPharm2002]

3rd and 15 at the UVA 20 with 8:41 is the real issue .
Give up a 25 yard pass
Then they got consecutive first downs in 2 plays to move into pitt territory at the 45.
Fails 2 and 3.
They end up at the 21 during the replay on 4th down with 6:06 left .
They concert another first down and bleed the clock down to 2:03.
Fail 4 and clock mismanagement for 2-3 min when uva is well within FG range .

This isn’t on a bad call with 6:06 left where we need a TD to win regardless .

 

[PittPharm2002]

Wrong. Again, Pitt's situation Saturday night was not about conserving a few seconds. It was doing what they felt was the best chance to score inside the red zone. It's a different approach from a play calling & coaching perspective with a NFL QB than it is with a guy like Nate Yarnell.

Pitt did not want to find themselves in the red zone under :30 seconds and be limited to Nate throwing to the end zone. That's low percentage football. Not true for the most part in the NFL where you have a QB that has complete command of the offense, and is comfortable navigating more situational football. Coaches will preserve the :30 seconds and trust their QB.

I promise, there's 100% that Pitt's staff communicated on the time there and Kade Bell felt better about his chances of scoring a TD with 1:50 and 2 TOs as opposed to 2:30 and 1 TO.

We wasted 3 minutes not 30 seconds

It was terrible time management .
If you think because Pat didn’t make the smart call it makes it the right decision.

Bell’s offense has sucked for 4 games . Pat is the HC .

Is it better to have more than 1 play before the 2 min warning ? Yes or no?

 

[TD_6082]

3rd and 15 at the UVA 20 with 8:41 is the real issue .
Give up a 25 yard pass
Then they got consecutive first downs in 2 plays to move into pitt territory at the 45.
Fails 2 and 3.
They end up at the 21 during the replay on 4th down with 6:06 left .
They concert another first down and bleed the clock down to 2:03.
Fail 4 and clock mismanagement for 2-3 min when uva is well within FG range .

This isn’t on a bad call with 6:06 left where we need a TD to win regardless .

Give Colandrea his due. He never completes that pass. If the hit came just a fraction of a second sooner, it would have been uncatchable.

There were a number of plays Pitt left out there Saturday night. It happens. That's just part of the sport and competition.

 

[PittPharm2002]

Give Colandrea his due. He never completes that pass. If the hit came just a fraction of a second sooner, it would have been uncatchable.

There were a number of plays Pitt left out there Saturday night. It happens. That's just part of the sport and competition.

And the chances were limited due to a short play clock .
You’re almost getting it .

If you are the better team - do you want more or less possessions?
The UVA coach understood the answer by grinding nearly 3 minutes out to go up 6 .

 

[TD_6082]

And the chances were limited due to a short play clock .
You’re almost getting it .

If you are the better team - do you want more or less possessions?
The UVA coach understood the answer by grinding nearly 3 minutes out to go up 6 .

You don't get & you probably never will

 

[PittPharm2002]

You don't get & you probably never will

One of us is certainty not getting it
As noted -each of our td drives took over 4 minutes .
Is there more of a run - pass option with multiple plays before the 2 min stoppage or after ?
When we are pure pass after - with Nate at qb - which is more likely to succeed ? Short to medium passes to get the clock stopped , or needing big chunk plays with limited clock ?
Buddy - you flat out wrong about

 

[TD_6082]

One of us is certainty not getting it
As noted -each of our td drives took over 4 minutes .
Is there more of a run - pass option with multiple plays before the 2 min stoppage or after ?
When we are pure pass after - with Nate at qb - which is more likely to succeed ? Short to medium passes to get the clock stopped , or needing big chunk plays with limited clock ?
Buddy - you flat out wrong about

Previous drives have nothing to do with anything.

1:50 was plenty of time. If they thought otherwise, they would have taken the TO.

 

[PittPharm2002]

Previous drives have nothing to do with anything.

1:50 was plenty of time. If they thought otherwise, they would have taken the TO.

Good point
I mean - why would you look at how efficient your offense has been as a guide to make a game time decision!
Because conventional wisdom is never wrong !

Listen - if we are down 3, I agree with you .
Down 6- it’s a recipe to lose a game.

 

[Upg bobcat]

I was watching Rutgers-Maryland (I know nobody else was) but Rutgers ran a 4th down play -- refs weren't in position so the play didn't count, and no penalty was assessed. They gave Rutgers a do-over (although I think they got it both times).

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I was watching Rutgers-Maryland (I know nobody else was) but Rutgers ran a 4th down play -- refs weren't in position so the play didn't count, and no penalty was assessed. They gave Rutgers a do-over (although I think they got it both times).

A question I'd really like to see answered is if there's 1:30 left lets say, and you sub, so the defense subs VERY slowly, bleeding the clock, can the O just snap it to get the do-over so the clock can stop?

I dont understand how the result of any play in organized football can be a do-over. That sounds like playground pickup football at recess.