Week 11 - Bears (5-4) vs Baltimore (4-5) - 12:00 PM, CBS

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Why Trestman didn't call a timeout - http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-78236559/

 

It's above my paygrade to decide whether that is god-like or stupid, but I'm leaning toward the former.

[UMFan83]

Why Trestman didn't call a timeout - http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-78236559/

 

To save a click because I was about to post it:

 

"When you call timeouts at the end of halves, you want to call them in succession if you can. If you’re calling them just hit or miss, there’s really no value in them. So just a little bit of history: When you start a drive from the 16-yard line, you have a 13 percent chance, probably, over the last five years to score a touchdown. And you have to take that into consideration when you go into the game. And then when a team’s driving, you’ve got to know what they have, and you’ve got to know what you have. They had two timeouts at the time, and we have three timeouts.

 

Well, the normal thinking is you never want to leave the game with your three timeouts. You want to get them back, especially in those situations. But the fact of the matter is there was really no time to use the timeouts. And when you’re in a two-minute situation, if you use your timeouts, and there’s no way you can call them in succession, you give them more time on each and every play to get the people out there they want to get that play done. So you have to consider that.

 

So really only the first time where I considered really calling a timeout was after Ray Rice had the 11-yard run to the 5-yard line. And he took that ball, probably, I think it was about at 1:16 when he had that ball. That was the first time. I was down there with the official. That was the first time. But when you put ... the numbers all together, if you call three timeouts right there in succession, you’re still only getting the ball back at 18 seconds, OK? If you let it run, they’re in a two-minute mode, OK? And now they’ve got to call two timeouts, so a couple things come into the play with their using their two timeouts.

 

No. 1, they didn’t call a timeout on the first one, which means they had to call a play out of their two-minute package instead of using their red-zone package. So that’s No. 1. They didn’t call a timeout and get into different personnel groupings to call the play. And then by using their two timeouts, we knew what they had to do on third down. They had to throw it because there wasn’t enough time left to do anything else. So we cut the percentages in half from run to pass. And then there was just one big leap of faith. But if we call three timeouts in a row, we’ve got 19, 18 seconds left at the max. So the percentage of them scoring — it’s a leap of faith. I mean, they went all the way down the field. Three points, yes. Tie the game. Seven points, we’re talking 13 percent.

 

"And then from an offensive standpoint, as a play-caller, I know if you call timeout, you can get what you want out there. If not, you’ve got a limited bag of plays you can use. So that’s the reasoning behind it. I would have loved to have been able to have a situation when they were running the ball and they started to get in that field goal area where we could have plugged the timeouts each one on top of each other, but it wasn’t the case."

[rawaction]

Showed a lot of faith in the defense by not calling the timeout. Basically put it in their hands and forced them to keep Baltimore out of the endzone or lose. I didn't hate the lack of timeouts used. I think that's almost like giving up when u have the lead.

[Splendid Splinter]

Every time I read something like that about Trestman and him explaining each situation, I sit here thinking, "What the [expletive] would Lovie say?" Then again... he probably wouldn't have any timeouts left at that point.

[WrigleyField 22]

As mad as I was last night, I feel quite a bit better after the explanation.

[Guest]

I don't. You have to play with the assumption that the other team is going to score, and you need to preserve as much time as necessary in the event that happens. They aren't going to just run it up the gut 3 plays in a row simply because you are using your time outs. Chances are good they end up trying to pass twice, and each incompletion is a stopped clock. Why do they try to pass twice? Because everyone knows the Bears can't stop the run, but you know they also know that and will be trying to stop it, thus someone should be open in the endzone.

 

You end up with a lot of egg on your face if you could have had over a minute left in the game and they score a touchdown there, and instead you have enough time to run back a kick.

 

Also, how does this team not at least try to return the kick? the lateral back to Hester immediately gave him a blocker in front of him and all it would take is a couple of jukes in that mud to make some tacklers miss.

 

I'll take the win though.

[Sammy Sofa]

Hester is a guy who is nearly as notorious for screwing up a return as he is doing amazing things with them, so I really don't have a problem not doing something that risky when it's tied. The guy has way too much of a history of moving backwards.

[UMFan83]

Hester is a guy who is nearly as notorious for screwing up a return as he is doing amazing things with them, so I really don't have a problem not doing something that risky when it's tied. The guy has way too much of a history of moving backwards.

 

So? He's just as likely to take one back as he is to run backwards and get stopped at the 5 yard line. Either way there's 0 time on the clock left after the play. Perhaps your concern is that Hester fumbles and the Ravens return it for a score but it's such an unlikely occurance it shouldn't factor into the decision to give it to Hester.

[Sammy Sofa]

Hester is a guy who is nearly as notorious for screwing up a return as he is doing amazing things with them, so I really don't have a problem not doing something that risky when it's tied. The guy has way too much of a history of moving backwards.

 

So? He's just as likely to take one back as he is to run backwards and get stopped at the 5 yard line. Either way there's 0 time on the clock left after the play. Perhaps your concern is that Hester fumbles and the Ravens return it for a score but it's such an unlikely occurance it shouldn't factor into the decision to give it to Hester.

 

No, my concern is he actually screws up and they end up with a safety as opposed to fumbling. It should be painfully obvious he's much more likely to run backwards or try something stupidly cute than to actually "take one back." Couple that with the slop and I have no problem to just wait for OT. He's not the elite player he was, plus he's an idiot.

[WrigleyField 22]

Yea, I have no problem with taking the knee on the return. The field conditions sucked and the minimal chance is not worth the huge risk.

 

Just rewatched the 2 minute drill. I can understand the perspective from not calling the TO from the 5 with 1:15. The explanation makes sense.

 

But right out of the two minute drill, they got a first to the 16, and 1:55 was on the clock. Not sure why you don't call the TO there. If you stop them 3 times and use all your timeouts, you're still looking at about 50-55 seconds. The thing is, they're still in a possible passing situation there, so if you make a stop on a pass, you may get a free stoppage and get the clock with well over a minute left, albeit with no timeouts.

 

The only other thing that crosses my mind though is that if you make a stop there, it was a run play, and now Baltimore is in the position of maybe burning timeouts, or you can still stop the clock just as you would if you had called it prior to that play- still gets the same end result, 3 stops and one full play clock, but Trestman took the running clock for first down when the defense was reeling rather than stop downs 1-3. From a time perspective timeouts on 1-3 are no different than timeouts 2-4. Is either better? You could probably go really deep trying to break down the offenses possible responses, but if you let up a first down its all moot. It was a really bad performance from the D to give up a first like than in a short play. If your D makes a better play there, the timeout situation looks better. Timeout or not, there were two back breaking first downs in a row there though. If you make stops, Baltimore is the one stopping the clock.

 

Mostly I'm just glad there seems to have been a very conscious and deliberate strategy that wasn't meat-bally, even if it was ultimately questionable and risky. I also disagree with your assumption about the other team scoring.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I like that Trestman references the fact that while so much of football strategy seems to revolve around "giving yourself a chance," most of the team that chance is really slim.

[RynoRules]

I like that Trestman references the fact that while so much of football strategy seems to revolve around "giving yourself a chance," most of the team that chance is really slim.

 

I feel the same. It shows that he bases his decision on objectively derived stats rather than conventional wisdom.

[Sammy Sofa]

I like that Trestman references the fact that while so much of football strategy seems to revolve around "giving yourself a chance," most of the team that chance is really slim.

 

I feel the same. It shows that he bases his decision on objectively derived stats rather than conventional wisdom.

 

Yeah; while I don't necessarily agree with his decision, it's refreshing to see him spell out those kinds of reasons as to why he made his decision.