- Joined
- Oct 16, 2013
- Messages
- 4,755
I wanted to make a thread to discuss this. I believe this was yet another game changing mistake made by the Rams, but this time by McVay.
Seattle had the ball after our 5th turnover with 2:46 on the clock. We had one timeout. Seattle ran the ball and McVay called timeout at 2:42.
Now, the play clock doesn't always start at this exact second, but there was one more second to play with..
McVay should NOT have used the timeout there. At least not yet. Here's why:
When the runningback was tackled at 2:42, there's a chance the playclock starts at 2:41 - whether it did or not, that's something McVay has to wait and see. If it did, Seattle would have had to run a play BEFORE the two minute warning. It's a subtle difference, but it all comes down to time to run a play. Because we used our timeout at 2:42, it allowed Seattle to run one play and get down to the two minute warning. But if the playclock would have started at 2:41, Seattle STILL would have had to run one play to get it down to the two minute warning. Here is a breakdown of what could have been the difference:
1st down - 2:46 down to 2:42 (timeout)
2nd down - 2:42 down to 2:00 (5 seconds for the play, then let the clock run down to two minutes)
3rd down - 2:00 down to 1:15 (then a FG)
Rams get the ball with 1:10 left in the game
If we had saved the timeout and the playclock didn't start until 2:40 or 2:39, McVay can just call it a few seconds later and the sequence is identical to the above
But if the playclock would have started at 2:41:
1st down - 2:46 down to 2:42
2nd down - would have had to snap the ball at 2:01 - 2:01 down to 1:56 (two minute warning
3rd down - 1:56 down to 1:51 (timeout Rams)
FG - 1:51 down to 1:46
Rams get the ball with 1:46 left in the game
Did anyone else notice this?
Of course, a few things probably change. If Seattle had to run a play before the two minute warning, they probably pass the ball because the clock would stop after the play no matter what. But still, McVay should have saved that timeout to see when the playclock was going to start
Seattle had the ball after our 5th turnover with 2:46 on the clock. We had one timeout. Seattle ran the ball and McVay called timeout at 2:42.
Now, the play clock doesn't always start at this exact second, but there was one more second to play with..
McVay should NOT have used the timeout there. At least not yet. Here's why:
When the runningback was tackled at 2:42, there's a chance the playclock starts at 2:41 - whether it did or not, that's something McVay has to wait and see. If it did, Seattle would have had to run a play BEFORE the two minute warning. It's a subtle difference, but it all comes down to time to run a play. Because we used our timeout at 2:42, it allowed Seattle to run one play and get down to the two minute warning. But if the playclock would have started at 2:41, Seattle STILL would have had to run one play to get it down to the two minute warning. Here is a breakdown of what could have been the difference:
1st down - 2:46 down to 2:42 (timeout)
2nd down - 2:42 down to 2:00 (5 seconds for the play, then let the clock run down to two minutes)
3rd down - 2:00 down to 1:15 (then a FG)
Rams get the ball with 1:10 left in the game
If we had saved the timeout and the playclock didn't start until 2:40 or 2:39, McVay can just call it a few seconds later and the sequence is identical to the above
But if the playclock would have started at 2:41:
1st down - 2:46 down to 2:42
2nd down - would have had to snap the ball at 2:01 - 2:01 down to 1:56 (two minute warning
3rd down - 1:56 down to 1:51 (timeout Rams)
FG - 1:51 down to 1:46
Rams get the ball with 1:46 left in the game
Did anyone else notice this?
Of course, a few things probably change. If Seattle had to run a play before the two minute warning, they probably pass the ball because the clock would stop after the play no matter what. But still, McVay should have saved that timeout to see when the playclock was going to start