Timeouts and icing.
According to one NFL kicker, when he gets "iced" with a timeout, it helps him focus. What a silly and desperate tactic icing the kicker is. The kicker waits on the sideline for about 59 minutes of the game, thinking about what he's going to do anyway. I can't imagine a 90-second timeout is going to break his stride.
Why does everybody think time outs are so damned valuable anyway? First of all, it's loser thinking to save them so you can catch up when you're behind at the end of a half. Good teams go to the locker room with all their timeouts because they're three scores ahead at halftime. This is like third-down conversion rates and fourth-quarter comebacks, these are all loser stats. Win the game in a rout and you'll never use a timeout, have a third down, or need a comeback.
Martz got criticized for using timeouts early. If a timeout helps your team get their shit together or avoid a bad play, why not use it when you need it? What's so special about another play in the two-minute warning when you fucked up in the first quarter and had to punt?
If these timeouts are so damned valuable, then why don't coaches use them all the time? If a timeout can get you another play to score when the game is close, why do you kneel at the end of a half when you can get a few more plays in? This is like the old question: If your hurry-up offense works so well in the two-minute warning, why don't you use it during the game? Some good offensive teams do that, but I still see coaches pissing away timeouts when they could be taking a chance and scoring some points.
Labels:
sports
4 comments:
I totally agree with everything you wrote there!
Except the thrid down conversion rate. It's a rate. If my team only converts 2 third downs all season, some might say that was bad but if that is still true and their thrird down conversion rate is 100% - well, they are doing pretty well.
Okay, I'll buy that. It's just a stat. How come nobody ever talks about first down conversion rate? Now THERE'S a stat I want to be #1 with.
How come I can't make a post without asking a question today? Why is that?
It's all about the sample size. Like kosmo said, if you only have two third downs, then your third-down percentage rate is meaningless. It's all about percentage, but you need a high-enough sample size.
For instance, you never hear them say, "Team X has converted 81 of 206 third downs this year" (the Rams' numbers in 2003. They instead would say that the Rams have converted 39.3% of their third downs.
Which is another reason to hate the "come-from-behind victory." Hey, it's nice that Brett Favre has led his team to 36 (or whatever) come-from-behind wins in the fourth quarter. But how many games has he lost? They never bring that up.
Some alternative thoughts regarding the value of timeouts...
- A coach always wants at least one timeout in his hip pocket so he can chuck that red flag on the field if the situation warrants it.
- About timeouts not being taken at the end of the first half: assume a team has the ball somewhere between their own 25-35 yard lines and is currently leading 17-14 with a timeout left. They've got enough time to get one or two plays off. Generally speaking, one of those plays is going to have to be a pass play down to approximately the opponent's 35-25 yard line to get within some type of scoring distance. That coach is going to be hesitant to take the shot down the field when doing so may very well turn into an interception return - a situation which a coach has even less control over than their own offensive play - and a lead change that puts them down by more than a field goal (assuming PAT). Sure, they're taking a chance at extending their lead if they burn a timeout, but they're also taking an arguably equal chance at hurting themselves just as quickly.
- Football is an emotionally-driven game. If players/coaches perceive those timeouts to be valuable and feel more comfortable having them vs. not, then so be it.
- Good teams SHOULD go into the locker room w/all their timeouts left and up by three scores. They also SHOULDN'T need to take timeouts because the quarterback isn't able to check off at the line of scrimmage or they can't get organized quickly enough.
I don't disagree that timeouts are probably over-valued by some pundits and coaches, and certainly some of my examples are rather specific. But I think there's more value to them than offered in the original post.
As for good teams, Indianapolis went into the locker room down by two scores this past weekend. They're a pretty good team. That to say, you never know what will happen in today's NFL so coaches save those timeouts in case the unexpected happens. In my opinion, the majority of teams in the NFL are good, if not better. They're the best groups of people at what they do in the world. When two good teams go at it, often times the contest is so close that it's decided in the final two minutes. I don't know if that means the timeouts are always valuable or if they're simply made valuable by the choices of the coaches and/or disciplined play (or lack thereof) of the team, but the value is there regardless.
Post a Comment