Case study: Situational timeouts - end of first half

Greetings, all. I've been a harsh critic in the past about clock management, and in recent games, I've seen things that give me hope that we're not making REALLY egregious mistakes anymore -- so kudos to the coaching staff on figuring at least part of that out (although when Ben took the timeout at 1:35 with the clock running when it was first and goal, I shook my head ever so briefly -- fortunately, Cleveland wasn't smart enough to take their timeouts after that, so.....whatever).

I've seen 2 situations this week - including the Steelers game where the defense is calling timeout after first down, I suppose to try and get the ball back, with under 50 seconds and only 2 timeouts. (The 3rd situation just occurred where the defense took timeout when it was only 3rd and 1 for their opponent who had all 3 of their timeouts, but there was over a minute left so it would have been POSSIBLE to get the ball back from a punt, but 3rd and 1 is more likely made than missed). In other words, the offense could STILL CHOOSE to take a knee 3 times (assuming each play takes a couple of seconds) and the timeouts wouldn't matter. Instead, what happened in each case was, the offense predictably ran the ball, but ended up getting a first down, then used their OWN timeouts and put a drive together. Seattle got a cheap late FG, Minnesota got a TD, and fortunately for us, Cleveland didn't score.

Even without the benefit of hindsight, I found this approach a bad strategy. You could argue, 'yes, but the team may fumble, etc.' but I think the stats would show the odds of the offense scoring in that situation (assuming they had timeouts) is higher than your getting a fumble (especially when the coach is saying, 'whatever you do, hold onto the ball'). I understand the 'aggressive approach,' but it ended up costing the defense 3 times in the same week (well, sort of for Pittsburgh). I say, if you don't have enough timeouts to get the ball back assuming 3 stops, don't stop the clock for your opponent who would be willing to take it in at halftime. All you're doing is giving them an extra opportunity. But even though this was a VERY specific situation, I'm interested if anybody else has an opinion.....

 

I like Herm Edwards' approach- play to win the game.

If they are near their end zone and you can force a punt, a timeout is worthwhile. You don't get to keep them.

If they are running plays instead of sitting next n the ball, perhaps timeouts force them to run instead of pass. Thus, they're less likely to advance the ball.

So if you can dictate their play that puts you in a better position, do it.