Atlanta studs and duds

[RepStar15]

While I would say the offense was on par in the first half with how they looked in the first half of the Lions game this year, they sputtered a bit too much in the second half of this game too. I wasn't happy with the way our defense played yesterday, even taking into account the injuries.

But yes, our offense seemed to be clicking more then they have in awhile, despite injuries.

We were in no position to call time outs on defense given how many pentalites and first downs we were allowing. I just wish we were down 4 points, so we would not have been going for the field goal. I think we would have had a better chance with the Rodgers hail mary.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Can someone explain: Did the referee charge a timeout against the Packers when Jordy got dinged on that last drive incompletion?

If so, why? The clock was stopped due to the incompletion, so a "fake" injury doesn't apply...

If not, then why was a timeout called on a stopped clock?

Yes, we were charged a timeout after Jordy's injury. In the last 2 minutes of play, I don't think it matters if the injury occurs while the clock is running or not running.....a stoppage in play for an injury is a charged time out or a runoff of the clock of 10 seconds (if you have no timeouts).

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

We were in no position to call time outs on defense given how many pentalites and first downs we were allowing. I just wish we were down 4 points, so we would not have been going for the field goal. I think we would have had a better chance with the Rodgers hail mary.

We had a few opportunities on defense to stop the clock, so I am not sure what you mean. The Falcons had at least 2 timeouts, they weren't going to run out of time.

As fun as hail marys are and have been, I liked our chances much better to just get the ball down around the Falcons 30-35 yard line to let Crosby win the game.

 

[PikeBadger]

Packers are at -2 (tied for 19th in NFL) in turnover differential. That is definitely going to have to improve during the second half of the season if we want to win the close games and beat the better teams. Guessing the Vikings league leading +11 has had some impact on their record. While interceptions are nice, the Packers 6 lost fumbles (4th in NFL) isn't a good thing either.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/givetake/sort/difference

That's the story of this season. Even with all the injuries and offensive struggles, we'd probably be 6-1 if our guys would catch the dang ball.

 

[RepStar15]

We had a few opportunities on defense to stop the clock, so I am not sure what you mean. The Falcons had at least 2 timeouts, they weren't going to run out of time.

As fun as hail marys are and have been, I liked our chances much better to just get the ball down around the Falcons 30-35 yard line to let Crosby win the game.

I meant that if we stopped the clock when our defense was on the field it would be a wasted time out, because the Falcons would get a first down reguardless and the clock would tick down. Our defense could not make a stop if their life depended on it yesterday. Makes more sense to keep control of the clock on offense if we could not get out of bounds.
I thought we played too conservatively with a minute left on the clock offensively.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I meant that if we stopped the clock when our defense was on the field it would be a wasted time out, because the Falcons would get a first down reguardless and the clock would tick down. Our defense could not make a stop if their life depended on it yesterday. Makes more sense to keep control of the clock on offense if we could not get out of bounds.
I thought we played too conservatively with a minute left on the clock offensively.

Watch the final few minutes of the game. Had GB used a timeout on defense, instead of letting the clock run and the game played out the same, the Packer offense would have come out onto the field with more time to work. Although, as Captain pointed out, the Packers ran out of downs, not time, but I think if they had more time, the last series plays out differently. They only needed 40 yards to get Mason in position to win.

 

[Mondio]

I'm glad we didn't use timeouts on defense. With the rate they were moving the sticks, we use a timeout and they get a first down on the next play anyway. wasted. They were wise to save them for the offense. If they don't, then they have little options on offense. It would have been a 10 second run off after the Jordy play with no TO's left. Not having that one hurt too because it took away the middle of the field too.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Am I the only person that walked away from that game thinking the Packers looked better than they have in the past 1.5 seasons?

I agree the offense looked a lot better than early this season.

the Falcons were in full control of the clock and really weren't in any danger of running out of time on their last possession. In that situation, I prefer using timeouts on Defense to maximize the amount of clock saved. For whatever reason yesterday, MM didn't see it that way.

I agree with McCarthy's decision to not call timeouts on defense while leading.

I thought we played too conservatively with a minute left on the clock offensively.

Rodgers threw the ball four times, nothing conservative about it.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It would have been a 10 second run off after the Jordy play with no TO's left.

The Packers not having a timeout at that point wouldn't have resulted in a 10 second run off because the clock had stopped after Rodgers incompletion.

 

[swhitset]

The Packers not having a timeout at that point wouldn't have resulted in a 10 second run off because the clock had stopped after Rodgers incompletion.

The officials took away a timeout... if we had not had it... I believe they would have run off the 10 seconds

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Looks like I am in the minority on using timeouts in this situation My feeling has always been, when using timeouts strictly to conserve time, you save more clock time using them on defense then you do on offense, where you control how quickly the plays are run. Had the Falcons scored on the last play of the game and the Packers were still in possession of 2 timeouts, I think there would have been some second guessing on clock management from more people then just me.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Packers not having a timeout at that point wouldn't have resulted in a 10 second run off because the clock had stopped after Rodgers incompletion.

I thought I read that in the final two minutes of a half, it doesn't matter if the clock was previously stopped or not, an injury that requires play to be halted is a charged time out or if no timeouts are held, a 10 second run off. I may have misread it.

Which makes sense to me. If you are out of timeouts and your team really needs a moment to regroup, just have someone drop to the ground if the clock is stopped.

 

[Robert Mason]

Am I the only person that walked away from that game thinking the Packers looked better than they have in the past 1.5 seasons?

I wish that they would not have been playing for the field goal and took a rodgers hail mary shot down field, but for the first game in a while I thought the offense looked real good. Defense was playing a man down the whole game though, right?

Studs: Aaron Rodgers, Oline, Young Receivers, Rip, Gunter
Duds: Defense minus Gunter

I had the same thought that the offense looked the best in the past 1.5 seasons. Can't judge or condemn the defense with all the injuries. Having Matthews might have made the difference.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The officials took away a timeout... if we had not had it... I believe they would have run off the 10 seconds

I thought I read that in the final two minutes of a half, it doesn't matter if the clock was previously stopped or not, an injury that requires play to be halted is a charged time out or if no timeouts are held, a 10 second run off. I may have misread it.

Which makes sense to me. If you are out of timeouts and your team really needs a moment to regroup, just have someone drop to the ground if the clock is stopped.

After the two-minute warning of a half, the following shall apply:

1. If a team has not used its three charged team timeouts, the team of the injured player will be charged a team timeout, unless:
   1. the injury is the result of a foul by an opponent
   2. the injury occurs during a down in which there is a change of possession, a touchdown, a safety, a successful field goal, or an attempted Try
2. If a team has used its three charged team timeouts, an excess team timeout shall be called by the Referee, unless:
   1. the injury is the result of a foul by an opponent
   2. the injury occurs during a down in which there is a change of possession, a touchdown, a safety, a successful field goal, or an attempted Try
3. The player must leave the game for the completion of one down, unless:
   1. the injury is the result of a foul by an opponent
   2. either team calls a charged team timeout.

Penalty: For the second and each subsequent excess team timeout after the two-minute warning: Loss of five yards from the succeeding spot for delay of the game.

Note 1: No yardage penalty will be assessed for the first excess team timeout, but a 10-second runoff of the game clock may be applicable pursuant to Note 3 below. At the conclusion of an excess timeout taken while time is in, the game clock shall start with the ready-for-play signal. For any excess timeout charged to the defense, the play clock is reset to 40 seconds.

Note 2: If the Referee has already called an excess team timeout in that half for a team, any subsequent excess timeout for that team will result in a five-yard penalty. (Such penalty shall be considered a foul between downs and will not offset a foul or be part of a multiple foul.)

Note 3: If an excess team timeout is charged against a team in possession of the ball, and time is in when the excess timeout is called, the ball shall not be put in play until the time on the game clock has been reduced by 10 seconds, if the defense so chooses.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

After the two-minute warning of a half, the following shall apply:

1. If a team has not used its three charged team timeouts, the team of the injured player will be charged a team timeout, unless:
   1. the injury is the result of a foul by an opponent
   2. the injury occurs during a down in which there is a change of possession, a touchdown, a safety, a successful field goal, or an attempted Try
2. If a team has used its three charged team timeouts, an excess team timeout shall be called by the Referee, unless:
   1. the injury is the result of a foul by an opponent
   2. the injury occurs during a down in which there is a change of possession, a touchdown, a safety, a successful field goal, or an attempted Try
3. The player must leave the game for the completion of one down, unless:
   1. the injury is the result of a foul by an opponent
   2. either team calls a charged team timeout.

Penalty: For the second and each subsequent excess team timeout after the two-minute warning: Loss of five yards from the succeeding spot for delay of the game.

Note 1: No yardage penalty will be assessed for the first excess team timeout, but a 10-second runoff of the game clock may be applicable pursuant to Note 3 below. At the conclusion of an excess timeout taken while time is in, the game clock shall start with the ready-for-play signal. For any excess timeout charged to the defense, the play clock is reset to 40 seconds.

Note 2: If the Referee has already called an excess team timeout in that half for a team, any subsequent excess timeout for that team will result in a five-yard penalty. (Such penalty shall be considered a foul between downs and will not offset a foul or be part of a multiple foul.)

Note 3: If an excess team timeout is charged against a team in possession of the ball, and time is in when the excess timeout is called, the ball shall not be put in play until the time on the game clock has been reduced by 10 seconds, if the defense so chooses.

Yeah, that is about as clear as mud to me LOL I admit, I can't follow "NFLese" I still read that as a 10 second run off if no timeouts available?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yeah, that is about as clear as mud to me LOL I admit, I can't follow "NFLese" I still read that as a 10 second run off if no timeouts available?

I have a hard time understanding that language as well but I read it that there's only a run off if the clock hasn't stopped.

 

[El Guapo]

Looks like I am in the minority on using timeouts in this situation My feeling has always been, when using timeouts strictly to conserve time, you save more clock time using them on defense then you do on offense, where you control how quickly the plays are run. Had the Falcons scored on the last play of the game and the Packers were still in possession of 2 timeouts, I think there would have been some second guessing on clock management from more people then just me.

I mostly agree with the saving-more-time-on-defense strategy, but always feel that you need to save one timeout for the final drive if possible. Your playbook expands exponentially when you can use the middle of the field without fear of the clock running out.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I mostly agree with the saving-more-time-on-defense strategy, but always feel that you need to save one timeout for the final drive if possible. Your playbook expands exponentially when you can use the middle of the field without fear of the clock running out.

Agree with that, it is nice to have that one timeout, so you can stop the clock to bring in the field goal unit or as in your example, a middle of the field pass. I guess there is always a trade-off and a timeout is definitely a nice luxury for the offense to have in that situation, but so is a full 39-40 extra seconds. I just always revert back to who controls how much time clicks off the clock between snaps and that would be the offense, unless the defense uses a timeout. When you have a QB like AR, IMO, time is more valuable then timeouts, in most cases.

 

[PFanCan]

Regarding the excess time out rules:

I understand that the league is trying to ensure that teams are not motivated to fake an injury in order to stop the clock. But, I would think that the league would give the head referee some latitude in this.

For example, normally it is the team that is losing that *might* fake an injury (I can dream up some cases where it could be advantageous for the winning team to fake an injury, though).

Also, normally the faked injury would occur while the clock is running. Not stopped. Again, I can think of cases when a fake injury might occur during clock stoppage as well.

But, bottom line, perhaps the league should give the head referee the freedom to decide when to punish and when to not.

I dislike that players are motivated to stand up and get off the field if they are truly hurt, else they may hurt their team. e.g. Imagine a player taking a blow to the neck and is in a lot of pain, but decides to run off the field in order to save his team a valuable time out. Not a good decision if his vertebrae are damaged...

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Agree with that, it is nice to have that one timeout, so you can stop the clock to bring in the field goal unit or as in your example, a middle of the field pass. I guess there is always a trade-off and a timeout is definitely a nice luxury for the offense to have in that situation, but so is a full 39-40 extra seconds. I just always revert back to who controls how much time clicks off the clock between snaps and that would be the offense, unless the defense uses a timeout. When you have a QB like AR, IMO, time is more valuable then timeouts, in most cases.

I'm a firm believer that teams shouldn't help opponents save time as long as holding on to a lead.

 

[JK64]

Stud = Rodgers.

DUD the defense. What a lame weak defense we have. I really hate our defense and Capers needs to go.

 

[JK64]

I agree. This was one of those "last team to have the ball" games and the Pack just ran out of time. Good to see some of the young players make some plays and back to back solid games for Adams. Losing a lead with 30 seconds to play stings, but I came away encouraged by the way we battled.

I am not sure but couldn't MM have managed the clock better, not to mention the timeout in the second half by Rodgers.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I am not sure but couldn't MM have managed the clock better, not to mention the timeout in the second half by Rodgers.

Once again, the Packers didn't run out of time.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm a firm believer that teams shouldn't help opponents save time as long as holding on to a lead.

I get that philosophy had there been less time on the clock and Atlanta was going to be rushed to complete a drive. But given Atlanta had two timeouts and plenty of clock, they were under very little time constraint and wanted to burn as much clock as they could. I would start thinking long range and say "what if they score, do we want time to be able to set up a FG?"

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Once again, the Packers didn't run out of time.

No they didn't, but....they very well could have not to mention having 40 more seconds on the clock changes some of the plays you can run. Anyway, they lost.