Exactly. Cause that's what he would have done. Just be safe and settle for 3.
WHY use up our timeouts???
- Thread starter Roman529
- Start date
Exactly. Cause that's what he would have done. Just be safe and settle for 3.
JTC111
Viva la resistance!!!
My mistake, we were about to be either tied or behind, no difference. That's time management 101. Carolina wasn't going to run out of time. We were going to get the ball back either tied, behind, or if they didn't score, ahead. For two of those three outcomes, we wanted as much time on the clock as possible. For the third outcome, the time was irrelevant since we could just kneel down for a few plays and game over. That some people here don't understand this amazes me.
Using the timeouts was the right thing to do, however, on the 2nd and 3rd timeouts, we allowed 8 seconds to roll off the clock on each of them before we made the decision to call timeout. It appeared we wasted 6 seconds on our first timeout but the refs put it back on the clock, not sure what happened there. But losing 16 crucial seconds at the end of the game is ridiculous. I don't know if that makes the difference in the outcome, but it certainly made the outcome a bit more certain.
Although you're 100% correct, still just a bad deer in headlights decision to use the time outs and give me to carolina
Because if Miami doesn't use them, Miami never sees the ball again. Philbin was hoping to force them to kick a FG, then allow Tannehill to have enough time to try and get them within FG range.
Panthers were inside the 35 yard line, from there on, making a FG is very doable, and they were going to get closer, because they were just running the ball.
Joeb9
☠️ Banned ☠️
um they would of threw the ball had we not used the timeouts. given us a chance for an interception. they wouldnt have time to run the ball and by them throwing would of gave us time. they would have kicked a field goal instead but our coaches helped them run the ball. imo
I put this loss on the Offense when they had a chance to move the ball and put the nail...they didn't, and the Defense....when they had them 4th & 10, a good defense shuts the door on the opponent, and goes home with the win.
JTC111
Viva la resistance!!!
So you want to let Carolina tie the game and not have enough time on the clock for us to get in FG position for a win? You'd rather gamble on a coin flip?
They would have run the ball to get closer and better position for that FG, maybe a pass, but they were running it (The clock was only a little less then 2 min left, so the clock was no longer the issue), they were in range to tie the game, all they needed to do is get the clock down to the point Miami could not drive for the win.
JTC111
Viva la resistance!!!
Yep, they would have run it just to deny us time. That's a no-brainer.
Mabdul Doobakus
Active Roster
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2004
- Messages
- 388
- Reaction score
- 88
You're not "gambling on a coin flip" with the new OT rules. Calling those timeouts made it easier for Carolina to score a TD. I don't think there's any question about that.
You can argue the other side...maybe we hold them to a FG and then have a minute plus to get a FG the other way.
I just think we called them too early. You want to call one after 2nd down? Fine. But we were pulling those out on early downs and I think that hurt us.
Carolina was going all or nothing on that drive. They would have burned up all of the time. You see that the Dolphins got the ball back with 40 something seconds left. They would not have had that much time if they would not have burned their timeouts.
