Using timeouts at end of first half

[AlabamaPackerCracker]

I admit this is pretty insignificant and ended up being inconsequential to the final score, but it irritated me in the moment. At the end of the first half we punted and pinned seattle deep in their own territory with under a minute left. After stops on first and second down, Mike McCarthy used both of his remaining timeouts, but why? Even had the Packers stopped the Seahawks on third down they had no timeouts left and likely would have had less than 40 seconds on the clock, they in all likelihood wouldn't have gotten the ball back, or at the very least the ensuing seattle punt would have been the last play of the half. Instead, seattle converted their third down and two big plays later they were in field goal range to take a 3-0 lead into halftime instead of us going to the break scoreless. Was this a just brain fart by McCarthy or am I missing something?

 

[azrsx05]

The way the Packers defense had been playing,the odds told you they would stop the Seahawks. Having the Seahawks pinned deep. If they punted,Packers would get the ball with Aaron Rodgers leading them and Could've easily been the Packers going 3-0 or 7-0 into the half.

There's no winning. MM always gets blamed for not being aggressive enough. This time he was aggressive and it didn't work out. But I hope if this happens again. He would call time outs again.

 

[AlabamaPackerCracker]

The way the Packers defense had been playing,the odds told you they would stop the Seahawks. Having the Seahawks pinned deep. If they punted,Packers would get the ball with Aaron Rodgers leading them and Could've easily been the Packers going 3-0 or 7-0 into the half.

There's no winning. MM always gets blamed for not being aggressive enough. This time he was aggressive and it didn't work out. But I hope if this happens again. He would call time outs again.

No but see this is where the problem is. After the final packers timeout was taken it was 3rd and 3 with 43 seconds remaining. Even if we held them the clock would have just run out after that play or after the ensuing punt (depending on how long the 3rd down play took). But either way there is no chance AR and the offense would have touched the ball again even with a 3 and out. There was just no reason to take the timeouts when Seattle was content to run the clock out and go into halftime with a tie game. Like I said, at this point it didn't effect the outcome of the game, but it was a bad decision and had the potential to be a blunder that could have cost them a win

 

[adambr2]

In this case it was pointless for Mike to use timeouts. As you pointed out, with 43 seconds left when running 3rd down, Seattle could have run out the half anyway with the Packers out of timeouts. The math was not going to get the Packers the ball back. Not a good move.

Had Mike not needlessly wasted a timeout in the opening minutes to argue a correct call then they would have had one more timeout and using them would have made sense.

 

[azrsx05]

No but see this is where the problem is. After the final packers timeout was taken it was 3rd and 3 with 43 seconds remaining. Even if we held them the clock would have just run out after that play or after the ensuing punt (depending on how long the 3rd down play took). But either way there is no chance AR and the offense would have touched the ball again even with a 3 and out. There was just no reason to take the timeouts when Seattle was content to run the clock out and go into halftime with a tie game. Like I said, at this point it didn't effect the outcome of the game, but it was a bad decision and had the potential to be a blunder that could have cost them a win

Ah. You're right. For some reason I thought they had another timeout if they were to stop them. Then yes. It's pointless at that point. But if they ever have another TO,I'm all for trying to get another possession

 

[Mondio]

I was thinking they would have had more time left too. If there's 20 seconds left and a chance you're getting the ball from your own 35 or better, I'm perfectly fine with MM using timeouts. That's 1 maybe 2 passes for this offense, and on a day when our defense was crushing them. Who knows the reasoning, but in typical Seattle fashion, they don't do jack all day then hit 2 plays and take the lead. With the way our defense was playing, maybe it was MM way of taunting gum chomping Petey into getting aggressive rather than run the clock out, and have our defense force them into a mistake?

With no time going to be left though, seems like a bad idea now. Maybe Mike was using it to send a message to his team that he believes in them and the job they're doing? I don't know, whatever it was, it doesn't matter anymore, because we won I think our team showed incredibly resiliency, something that has been being forged over the past couple seasons. It was great to see that so early in the season. The offense is going to come around, it's just going to take some time.

 

[PackAttack12]

If Seattle would have put the ball in the air on 3rd down and it falls incomplete, and Rodgers either throws another hail mary or the team at least gets into field goal range, McCarthy would have been a genius. He can't win sometimes.

I was actually one that was okay with it at the time. The defense was dominating the game. Gave the a vote of confidence.

Now I can understand the reverse argument, but something tells me some would have been fine with it had the result been different.

 

[bigbubbatd]

If Seattle would have put the ball in the air on 3rd down and it falls incomplete, and Rodgers either throws another hail mary or the team at least gets into field goal range, McCarthy would have been a genius. He can't win sometimes.

I was actually one that was okay with it at the time. The defense was dominating the game. Gave the a vote of confidence.

Now I can understand the reverse argument, but something tells me some would have been fine with it had the result been different.

There is zero reason to believe Seattle was going to out the ball in the air. They had no reason to do that. They were playing conservative. McCarthy made a mistake. Everyone I was talking g with during the game thought the same thing. The risk vs reward simply wasn't there. Aggressive is fine. Foolish isn't. This was foolish.

 

[PackAttack12]

There is zero reason to believe Seattle was going to out the ball in the air. They had no reason to do that. They were playing conservative. McCarthy made a mistake. Everyone I was talking g with during the game thought the same thing. The risk vs reward simply wasn't there. Aggressive is fine. Foolish isn't. This was foolish.

The defense was dominating the game. He trusted his defense. That vote of confidence is going to be much bigger than a couple of timeouts as this season progresses.

 

[bigbubbatd]

The defense was dominating the game. He trusted his defense. That vote of confidence is going to be much bigger than a couple of timeouts as this season progresses.

A vote of confidence for what? They would have had a shutout in the first half and instead gave up 3 after the defense got burned for a couple long plays. How does that give them more confidence? The defense is filled with adults. They shouldn't need their coach calling timeouts - that aren't going to get the ball back - for confidence. I think a first half shutout would have done that

 

[PackAttack12]

A vote of confidence for what? They would have had a shutout in the first half and instead gave up 3 after the defense got burned for a couple long plays. How does that give them more confidence? The defense is filled with adults. They shouldn't need their coach calling timeouts - that aren't going to get the ball back - for confidence. I think a first half shutout would have done that

Trusting the defense to get a stop in that situation to me accomplishes what I'm alluding to. It also showed that after a couple of big plays, the defense settled in and didn't allow the touchdown. If the defense had allowed 14-21 points and MM made that call, I'd be on your side. Run the clock out, get the ball back 2nd half and go on about life.

Again, it's one of those things where anyone could criticize the result no matter what he decides to do.

But we'll agree to disagree. I'm just glad we won the game. And our defense looked great. That to me is bigger than McCarthy's decision.

 

[OldSchool101]

I know this has become a topic of concern as there have even been articles on this.
In a game where there is essentially a Defensive Stalemate the field position is a key component and even a FG is huge.
You gotta play probability too, but more importantly play to your strengths. The way our D was controlling the trenches and playing fast lowered the chances of a big play by Seattle. Seattles 3rd down % at that point was miserable and that factors in.
Had we forced a punt after that timeout we would've also had back to back possessions as we were due to receive the Kickoff after halftime.

 

[bigbubbatd]

I know this has become a topic of concern as there have even been articles on this.
In a game where there is essentially a Defensive Stalemate the field position is a key component and even a FG is huge.
You gotta play probability too, the way our D was controlling the trenches and playing fast lowered the chances of a big play by Seattle. Seattles 3rd down % at that point was miserable and that factors in.
Had we forced a punt after that timeout we would've also had back to back possessions as we were due to receive the Kickoff after halftime.

This has been repeated by numerous people but we at best would have had the ball with under 5 seconds (likely none) at the other side of midfield and with the way Ryan was punting closer to the 30. That really doesn't count as a possession

 

[bigbubbatd]

Trusting the defense to get a stop in that situation to me accomplishes what I'm alluding to. It also showed that after a couple of big plays, the defense settled in and didn't allow the touchdown. If the defense had allowed 14-21 points and MM made that call, I'd be on your side. Run the clock out, get the ball back 2nd half and go on about life.

Again, it's one of those things where anyone could criticize the result no matter what he decides to do.

But we'll agree to disagree. I'm just glad we won the game. And our defense looked great. That to me is bigger than McCarthy's decision.

I guess I don't see your point. The defense gave up 0 points before the timeout and 9 after. Not like the timeouts made them better. They were great before and after. I like aggressive play calling just not when there is no real win for the scoreboard

 

[AlabamaPackerCracker]

I know this has become a topic of concern as there have even been articles on this.
In a game where there is essentially a Defensive Stalemate the field position is a key component and even a FG is huge.
You gotta play probability too, but more importantly play to your strengths. The way our D was controlling the trenches and playing fast lowered the chances of a big play by Seattle. Seattles 3rd down % at that point was miserable and that factors in.
Had we forced a punt after that timeout we would've also had back to back possessions as we were due to receive the Kickoff after halftime.

After watching the replay there is no way we would have gotten the ball back because the 3rd down run, even if it was stopped at the line of scrimmage would have concluded inside of 40 seconds. There wouldn't have been another play after that. Basically the only way it would have paid off is the remote possibility that we somehow would have forced a turnover with seattle playing so conservatively to run out the clock.

I'm all for being aggressive, if there's either more time and/or another timeout I'm in full support. I've been a critic of MM for not being aggressive enough in the past so it would be hypocritical of me to criticize him for being aggressive and putting faith in his D that was playing well. This isn't about that. This was just a lack of awareness on his part. It didn't end up hurting us, but it very well could have

 

[PFanCan]

It was a foolish mistake by MM. He needs to do better with the math at this level.

 

[PackAttack12]

It was a foolish mistake by MM. He needs to do better with the math at this level.

He understood the math just fine, but he expected his defense to make the stop. If they put the ball in the air and it's incomplete, we get the ball with time. If the defense stops them behind the 1st down marker, the half is over. I think that's what's getting lost here. McCarthy trusted his defense, and those guys know it.

We can debate all day about the decision, but the confidence and trust he had in the defensive unit at the time is what I'm focusing the most on.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Wish I had a quick stat as to how many times this strategy has failed MM and the Packers like it did yesterday. Sure, it worked against the Giants last year, but I would be willing to bet the farm on that it has worked out far less than it has been successful.

The Packers in this situation were lucky to only give up a FG. Had fortune been reversed, the Packers would have been "lucky" to have had a shot at a punt return. Instead, they allowed a team with 2 timeouts, the opportunity to drive the field quickly.

Stop trying to look so smart MM.....let the half end and don't give your opponent a chance to make you look foolish, as well as your defense. I would wager to guess that the Seattle defense wasn't the only one "heading into the locker room" at that point of the game yesterday, I think our defense had the same thoughts.

 

[NJPackfan..]

I admit this is pretty insignificant and ended up being inconsequential to the final score, but it irritated me in the moment. At the end of the first half we punted and pinned seattle deep in their own territory with under a minute left. After stops on first and second down, Mike McCarthy used both of his remaining timeouts, but why? Even had the Packers stopped the Seahawks on third down they had no timeouts left and likely would have had less than 40 seconds on the clock, they in all likelihood wouldn't have gotten the ball back, or at the very least the ensuing seattle punt would have been the last play of the half. Instead, seattle converted their third down and two big plays later they were in field goal range to take a 3-0 lead into halftime instead of us going to the break scoreless. Was this a just brain fart by McCarthy or am I missing something?

My thoughts exactly. It helped Seattle go down the field and kick the FG !

 

[Poppa San]

IMO with the ball where it was. A stop and a punt to about the Packers 40 would have been fair caught. A fair catch on the last play of a half gives an untimed free kick. No matter if the clock had expired. That was MMs game plan in this situation. He was going for a 70 yard free kick.

 

[PFanCan]

He understood the math just fine, but he expected his defense to make the stop. If they put the ball in the air and it's incomplete, we get the ball with time. If the defense stops them behind the 1st down marker, the half is over. I think that's what's getting lost here. McCarthy trusted his defense, and those guys know it.

We can debate all day about the decision, but the confidence and trust he had in the defensive unit at the time is what I'm focusing the most on.

You are missing the point. Seattle, knowing the risk of throwing an incomplete pass and giving Rodgers a shot at a Hail Mary, would not have done so. They would have kept the ball on the ground and killed the clock.

So, calling those two timeouts had zero upside. Only downside. That's the math I am talking about.

 

[PackAttack12]

You are missing the point. Seattle, knowing the risk of throwing an incomplete pass and giving Rodgers a shot at a Hail Mary, would not have done so. They would have kept the ball on the ground and killed the clock.

So, calling those two timeouts had zero upside. Only downside. That's the math I am talking about.

That's fair. Like I said, I totally get the logic of your position. I just liked it in that particular instance, regardless of the logic and reasoning of what you are saying.

 

[gbgary]

i don't have a problem with the strategy but it sure hasn't worked out for him. lol

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

We ALL love the strategy when it works out and Rodgers puts up points as a result, but how often does that happen? However, when the strategy has no mathematical logic, like yesterday or backfires, as it has done more than once in the past......it has to take the air out of the defenses sails as well as frustrate the rest of the team, while pumping the other team up.

Do the math MM and ONLY do it when it actually makes sense.

 

[swhitset]

You are missing the point. Seattle, knowing the risk of throwing an incomplete pass and giving Rodgers a shot at a Hail Mary, would not have done so. They would have kept the ball on the ground and killed the clock.

So, calling those two timeouts had zero upside. Only downside. That's the math I am talking about.

Your post suggests a hypothetical situation when in fact .... that is exactly what happened.... except the run resulted in a first down.... I am in total agreement with you in case that isn't clear.