The 2:02 Timeout - Why it was so incredibly STUPID...

by Bye, Dawk :( on Oct 19, 2009 1:20 PM EDT Comment 50 comments

A little Football Strategy 101 for Andy and Co...

With the Raiders trying to ice the game with 2:14 left in the game at their own 44 and the Eagles having only 2 timeouts, here's the play by play.

1st and 10 - Justin Fargas, 2 yard gain to the Raiders 46. Timeout #2 Eagles at 2:10. Fine. So far, so good.

2nd and 8 - Justin Fargas, -2 yard loss to the Raiders 44. Here's the dumbest coaching move of the week in the NFL. Timeout at 2:02. WHY ANDY?!?!? Why?

It's now 3rd and 10. Here's the scenario if they hadn't called timeout...

- The clock is stopped 2 seconds later at the 2 minute warning.

- Philly still has 1 timeout.

- Oakland now has the choice to run the ball, knowing that the Eagles will be loading up to stop the run, but you burn the Eagles' last timeout. Or... they can take a HUGE gamble and pass, risking an incompletion, stopping the clock and leaving the Eagles with their final timeout. But at least you force them into that decision.

- What would have happened? Who knows, but my best guess is they run the ball for a couple yards, Philly calls timeout, Oakland punts. Oh and by the way, we happen to have a returner by the name of DeSean Jackson, and if he can't pop one, the offense gets the ball back with about 1:45 left on the clock.

So what DID happen? Well, the Eagles called a timeout, and left the Raiders with this scenario...

- Eagles have no timeouts left.

- With 2:02 left, no matter what happens on the next play (run, incomplete pass, triple reverse, Statue of Liberty, fumbleroosky, whatever...) NO MATTER WHAT... The clock still ticks down to the 2 minute warning. So what does that mean? It means the Raiders are now going to be aggressive and go for the first down to end the game, and they have their entire playbook at their disposal.

- They call a pass play, they find a mismatch with Jeremiah Trotter on a RB (which on a totally unrelated gripe, why is Trotter on the field on 3rd and 10?), throw an easy pass and Gary Russell basically walks for a first down.

2 seconds. Andy Reid put his defense at a major strategical disadvantage to save 2 freaking seconds. That's absolutely disgraceful coaching.

2 recs | Comment 50 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

which on a totally unrelated gripe, why is Trotter on the field on 3rd and 10?

Gaither was hurt

But i totally agree with what you are saying. Stupid move… not quite as stupid as the timeout called in Cinci-pittsburgh game a few weeks ago, but stupid nonetheless

Brent Celek is the man

by 700 Level on Oct 19, 2009 1:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

When I saw McDermott wave Trotter back onto the field during that 2:02 timeout on 3rd and 10, I immediately started screaming at the TV hoping that McDermott would hear me in Oakland.

After the fact, I guess Trotter was his only option with Gaither injured, but I just saw it coming. Why have Trotter on the field in a critical 3rd and long passing situation?

A move at LB is obviously needed with Gaither hurt. We can’t go into Washington with Trotter and Mays as our MIKE’s. I don’t care how bad their O-line is… there’s no way those two can defend Chris Cooley.

by Smitty2K3 on Oct 19, 2009 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

On a side note...

For all of those fantasy fans… start any TE against the Eagle’s defense from here on out. I didn’t think it could happen, but I think we’re worse at defending TE’s this year than last.

Embarrassing…

by Smitty2K3 on Oct 19, 2009 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think the time out was a big issue.

We are talking about waiting to the 2 minute warning, only to call time out after the raiders run another play. That is an additional 7-10 seconds ran off the clock. We still would have used that time out anyway. Only to get the ball back with 1:52 or less.

Calling that final time out with 2 seconds, guaranteed that final play would allow his team at least 2 minutes to play with the ball. Its really tick for tack, not much of a difference. Definately not a stupid move or the reason why we loss.

Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!

by yophillybro on Oct 19, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again, not sure where you’re getting 10 seconds from. It’s a difference of 2 seconds.

And you’re putting the Raiders in a situation where they can aggressively go after the first down as opposing to just running the ball and burning the timeout.

And did you see the game and what happened? They got the first down, and it was ballgame. This is pretty much open and shut.

by Bye, Dawk :( on Oct 19, 2009 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I only said about 10 seconds, because it would take that long to run the play and then call Time out. I just look at it as a sequense of 2 timeouts, withy what ever syntax you put those timeouts in, it didn’t matter to me. Unles you plan on letting them run the clock and saving that timeout once you got the ball back.

Overall, the entire game just made me sick. It totally threw off my evening last night. But there is a silver lining in my opinion. I think this was a game you could afford to lose, and I prefer Andy rallies the troops to go into Washington, rather than bring a cocky squad into Washington only to have a let down.

We got that let down out of our system, now its time to regroup. And focus on the Redskins.

Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!

by yophillybro on Oct 19, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And focus on the Redskins.

…or the Phillies.

by Bye, Dawk :( on Oct 19, 2009 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was there and I was EMBARRASSED!!!

I went and saw, for my first time EVER, to see my beloved Eagles . . . and they lost in the ugliest way to the worst team. I sat there, flabbergasted with nothing to say. Raider fans all around me cheering with glee and reminding me that sooner or later the Eagles will start to destroy them . . . .but it never happened. I waited and waited but nothing.

What was even worse was that PETERS went down with (what coulda been a serious) injury, Gaither went down hard and so did Amibiri.

It broke my heart to see our team with such promise do SO bad against. . . .the f***ing Raiders!?!?!

I will always have love for the Eagles but we can not let this type off shit carry on. Especially games that we NEED to win to hold up with the competition in the NFL.

Dr_Mayo

by EagleFan_FromCalifornia on Oct 19, 2009 1:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Damn

When will AR learn to prepare for these trap games. The Bengals and Skins last year. And now this game. It’s pathetic. Can’t we ever just win the games we’re supposed to win.

EFFC… your solution has to be to never go see the Eagles in person again. It’s all your fault!!! haha.

by Smitty2K3 on Oct 19, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

When will AR learn to prepare for these trap games.

Yep. The loss to an inferior AFC team on the road is almost as predictable as them winning the first game after the bye.

Still waiting for the Eagles to Bring It Home For Jerome

by D3Keith on Oct 20, 2009 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That is fuckin’ Andy Reid for you.

Andy Reid needs to go. 36-32-1 (2005-present) Oakland game is unacceptable.

by Route36 on Oct 19, 2009 1:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't agree.

If Andy doesn’t call that time out. We go to the 2 minute warning, and then the Raider still run a 3rd down play. Only to force us to use our final time out anyway.

So we are looking at getting the ball back @1:50, or 2:00. Yeah, its only 10 seconds more, but 10 seconds is 10 seconds.

We could have opted to not use that final time out and allow the saints to run down an additional 35 – 40 seconds. But we would get the ball back with 1:10 and a time out. With an offense that cant get a first down. Andy obviously felt those 10 seconds made a difference to him.

I had no problem with the time out. Its wasn’t what cost us yesterdays game. And wasn’t a bad usage of timeouts. Only a different way of using time outs. I actually thought that it was a well thought out (obviously preplaned) usage of time outs.

Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!

by yophillybro on Oct 19, 2009 2:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Where are you getting 10 seconds from? It’s 2. Two.

by Bye, Dawk :( on Oct 19, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

so what your saying is that

oakland would assume that we wouldn’t call a time out any way. They obviously knew what play they wanted to go to they could hae done that every play f they wanted.

Let's get it.

by homestar2281 on Oct 19, 2009 2:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, sorry, I don’t see the big deal. Raiders run the same play with a called time out or with the two minute warning. He was just saving “two freaking seconds”.

I am the people's troll :3™

by yomjoseki on Oct 19, 2009 2:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Wrong...

They most likely DON’T run that pass play, because if they throw an incomplete pass, the clock stops, the Eagles save their last timeout, and they’re going to get the ball back with about 1:45 left and a timeout.

Had the Eagles let it wind down to the 2-minute warning, the Raiders almost certainly run the ball and force the Eagles to burn their last timeout.

by Bye, Dawk :( on Oct 19, 2009 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

there are good points on this thread to debunk your opinion

but i still agree with it. Make the raiders make a decision there

Brent Celek is the man

by 700 Level on Oct 19, 2009 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

didn't think of that. I guess I agree with that dynamic.

Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!

by yophillybro on Oct 19, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They still run the same play, because they’re going for the first down. You run a high percentage (safe) pass play, and hope you get 10 yards. All signs pointed to a TE pass.

I am the people's troll :3™

by yomjoseki on Oct 19, 2009 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And don’t say they “play it safe” and run it and hope the Eagles don’t score.

They’re a 1-4 team trying to pull an upset. You go for the win, because if you’re Tom Cable and you don’t go for that first down, and the Eagles score, you’re the goat, and your best excuse is “we didn’t want to risk them having an extra time out”

I am the people's troll :3™

by yomjoseki on Oct 19, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK fine...

So what if they run the same play? Great! They run the risk of an incomplete pass, which would leave us with about 1:45-1:50 after they punt and we still have a timeout. And if they get the first down, it’s game over anyway.

It’s indefensible.

by Bye, Dawk :( on Oct 19, 2009 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But with that said...

I still say it’s highly likely (and the correct play) for the Raiders to run the ball, have the Eagles burn their last timeout, and put the game in the hands of their defense, who had shut down the Eagles offense all day.

by Bye, Dawk :( on Oct 19, 2009 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Even after they converted that 3rd and 10. It would have been like 1:50 remaining. Reid should have called the timeout then. Raiders burn 1:20 seconds. Eagles still would have 30 seconds to have a chance of coming back. Half a minute or not, you put your team in the best positions and it is so ridiculous that bloggers like us can figure that out and Reid couldn’t.

Andy Reid needs to go. 36-32-1 (2005-present) Oakland game is unacceptable.

by Route36 on Oct 19, 2009 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you...

Why are people arguing with this? This isn’t really even an opinion – It’s just what you do in that situation.

by Bye, Dawk :( on Oct 19, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bye, Dawk

you and I had this discussion yesterday.

At game speed, I thought it was clever of the Birds to try to sneak the last timeout in before the 2-minute warning. In hindsight, of course, I agree that you force the Raiders to run the ball there.

The only explanation I can think of is that at game speed, the Birds coaches also thought they were being clever.

I wonder who the first time to employ a full-time clock management coach on game day will be. Bye, Dawk, call the Birds and offer your services for the price of game day travel and a per diem.

Still waiting for the Eagles to Bring It Home For Jerome

by D3Keith on Oct 20, 2009 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

First team

not time.

And yesterday meaning Sunday, even though it’ll be Tuesday as you read this

Still waiting for the Eagles to Bring It Home For Jerome

by D3Keith on Oct 20, 2009 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

my bad, just realized the Raiders would actually burn 2 minutes not 1:20. Forgot about 4th down. Still, that timeout could have done wonders and Reid just blew it like its nothing. It is so typical Reid. Bad challenges, bad timeouts, not running the ball, and bad play calling even when passing. Who the hell would biteon the play action pass when you ran the ball 9 times(Mcnabb and Vick rushes don’t count)? Westbrook had 6 attempts for 50 yards!!

Andy Reid needs to go. 36-32-1 (2005-present) Oakland game is unacceptable.

by Route36 on Oct 19, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who the hell would biteon the play action pass when you ran the ball 9 times(Mcnabb and Vick rushes don’t count)?

Haha, that’s another good point. It’s true… When the defense knows you’re not running, all play action does is give your QB 1 less second to look downfield and see the play develop.

by Bye, Dawk :( on Oct 19, 2009 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That I agree with

off top. Play action is useless if there’s no reason any defender would bite on the fake.

Like Trotter did. (just sayin)

Still waiting for the Eagles to Bring It Home For Jerome

by D3Keith on Oct 20, 2009 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Like Trotter did. (just sayin)

Raiders rushed 29 times.

Andy Reid needs to go. 36-32-1 (2005-present) Oakland game is unacceptable.

by Route36 on Oct 20, 2009 1:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i agree dumb move BUT

with the way we were playin it wouldnt have mattered when the timeouts were called. had we gotten the ball back mcnabb would have been on his back and the ball in the dirt. such a nauseating performance by the entire offense. plus trotter.

by Q27 on Oct 19, 2009 2:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It does matter...

As the head coach, you always put your team in the best position to win that you possibly can, and Reid didn’t do that. The mindset of “Our O wouldn’t have scored anyway” is a loser mentality.

by Bye, Dawk :( on Oct 19, 2009 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i wasn't vailidating the decision.

i was turning attention toward the dismal offense and away from one call in the game.

by Q27 on Oct 19, 2009 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t get what you guys are thinking. Timeouts are a huge deal. Bye Dawk said it perfectly in his post.. Calling a timeout with 2 seconds to go to the 2 minute warning?? Just looking at that line seems like a horrible idea! That last timeout could have altered the Raider’s play calling and saved the Eagles an extra 40 seconds.

Andy Reid needs to go. 36-32-1 (2005-present) Oakland game is unacceptable.

by Route36 on Oct 19, 2009 2:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Meh

They ran the play four other times and had good success with it. I figure that would call it again even if Andy decided to not call a timeout.

RIP Jim Johnson, best ever.

by Imp on Oct 19, 2009 3:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I miss JJ :(

Andy Reid needs to go. 36-32-1 (2005-present) Oakland game is unacceptable.

by Route36 on Oct 19, 2009 4:08 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

Guys, this one is pretty clear cut...

not even sure why we are arguing this. Its clearly one of the most stupid, if not the most stupid decision of the game to burn that timeout at 2.02.

Simple. If we hadn’t burned the time out, raiders would be on third down at 2:00, and would have been much more inclined to run to make us burn our last timeout. Granted, they could still have passed.

However burning the timeout then means raiders have to pass! What we now have is raiders with the ball on third down, 2:02 left, Eagles have no timeouts. Therefore from the raiders standpoint, absolutely no benefit of a run because the clock would have stopped at the two minute warning regardless of run or pass, but a pass play would give them greater probability of picking up the first down. First down = game over.

What’s maybe even more shocking that just occured to me, is how we didn’t realize after we burned the timeout that the only type of play that would be sensible for the raiders to call would be a pass play.

For those that didn’t already know, now you do. Andy Reid = Ineptitude regarding in-game situations. What a dumbass!

by Eagles need to run on Oct 19, 2009 4:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

raiders would be on third down at 2:00

Would they? They been aggressive all game, especially with the play action. Remember, early on in the 3rd they called a playaction play on fourth down? (You know, one where anyone but Russel was the QB it would’ve went for a TD?)

To no mention, what did they have to lose? The game? They were already 1-4 heading into the game. Playoffs hopes were basically dead already.

RIP Jim Johnson, best ever.

by Imp on Oct 19, 2009 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here's the thing...

Even if they still do run the same play, the correct call by the Eagles is to wait to call the timeout… and they didn’t. I’m totally uninterested in where the Raiders are with their season… whether they’re 5-0 or 0-5, and what they would have called on 3rd down if the Eagles let it go to the 2 minute warning… it doesn’t matter. In any scenario whatsoever, waiting for the 2 minute warning is absolutely, positively the right call, and they didn’t make it. Maybe the Raiders still get the first down, maybe they don’t – But strategically, it’s a flat-out no-brainer, and Reid missed it.

by Bye, Dawk :( on Oct 19, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A 2:02 timeout and waiting for 2:00 warning doesn’t make a difference, though. The 2:00 warning acts like a timeout anyway…

Your idea:
-Wait for 2:00 warning
-Raiders runs a play that doesn’t pick up a first
-Call timeout.
-Clock at 1:58-ish; give or take a second.

Andy’s idea:
-Call a timeout at 2:02
-Raiders runs a play that doesn’t pick up a first
-2:00 warning stop clock
-Clock at 1:59-ish; give-or-take a second.

What’s the big deal?

RIP Jim Johnson, best ever.

by Imp on Oct 19, 2009 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The difference is that at 2:02, no matter what the Raiders call… a pass, a run, whatever… The clock ticks down to the 2 minute warning regardless and the clock stops. There’s no risk whatsoever if the Raiders want to run a pass play and they throw an incomplete pass.

At 2:00, a pass play now has much more risk, because if they throw an incomplete pass, that stops the clock, the Eagles get to save their timeout, and now the Raiders are punting. A run becomes a much more obvious playcall, and a run play has a way lower percentage of making a first down on 3rd and 10. If they run, the Eagles are much more likely to stop them, call timeout, and force the punt. If Oakland chooses to pass in that scenario, then hey, great… as a defense, I’m happy that they take the risk of leaving us with an extra timeout.

Do we probably lose anyway? Sure. But I expect our coach to still put us in the best situation to win.

by Bye, Dawk :( on Oct 19, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

bi dawk

use smaller words and they’ll get it

Ich bin ein Berliner--JFK

by HudBaby on Oct 25, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bye Dawk is clearly right.

Time out at 2:02 isn’t good time management.

He has done this a bunch of times, he never learns from his mistakes!!!

This is soo frustrating!!

by topcat6 on Oct 19, 2009 4:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I can't believe you people are arguing about this

Bye Dawk is right.

It doesn’t matter what would have happened if we got the ball back, or if they still would have gotten the first down…you are supposed to put your team in the best position to win as a coach, and Reid did not do that by calling the time out.

by hratner on Oct 19, 2009 4:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

agreed

the team looked like shit who gives a fuck about when they called the time out oakland is miserable and eagles gave the game to them better time out management why? so we could get the ball back and recievers could drop clutch passes, oline not block for mcnabb cuz they all suck cock besides peters. yesterday was such jokes the eagles crack me the fuck up so hard i guarentee we sweep washington go 1-1 giants and sweep dallas but still have in the back of our head that the eagles couldnt even beat oakland

by thegreatginzo on Oct 19, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

always struggle in the begnining of the season then make it so much harder for theirselves in the end i dono why they always fucking do that but it always seems to work out

by thegreatginzo on Oct 19, 2009 5:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I can’t believe everyone is dangling from Bye Dawk’s nuts on this one. Yes, I recognize the fact that we lost. Yes, I recognize the fact that we lost to the RAIDERS.

This doesn’t change the fact that a pass to a TE is a SAFE PLAY that even the JaMarcus Russells of the world can be trusted with. The biggest risk they run with the pass is the risk of a fumble on a sack returned for a TD. During the time out, I guarantee you all Tom Cable said is “If he’s not open, hold onto the ball and take a sack.”

Cable made the correct play call, and I guarantee you he would’ve made the same call given the chance 9 times out of 10, regardless of the Eagles time out situation. This was a one win team. They had nothing to lose, so this crap about “risk” is meaningless. They were going for it on fourth down, no matter what.

I am the people's troll :3™

by yomjoseki on Oct 19, 2009 6:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs