The worst clock management ever!
-
I was a Romeo supporter until I saw how he managed the clock on Monday night at the end of the game. Now I think he needs to go. I actually felt like we lost the game. OK so we got lucky. Here we are on the Bills 39 yard line with a first down, with all three time outs, less than 2 minutes to go in the game, BARELY close enough for a winning field goal and what do we do... put Quinn into a shotgun THREE TIMES! Three incompletes... one a near pick and hardly use any time at all on the clock. Sure hind site is 20/20 and had Quinn made one of those passes or if Edwards held on to the ball then we would have thought it was a good call. But I didn't. I was screaming at the very moment I saw Quinn in the shotgun on first down. WHY AREN'T THEY RUNNING? A high school coach could have managed that better. We should have made them use their final time out and used ours ONLY if we needed them by running down the clock to as low as possible and THEN kick. In the end, our defense came through (thank goodness) when they needed to in stopping THEIR running game and pushing them into a 47 yard attempt which they missed. I don't feel good about this win. THE WORST CLOCK MANAGEMENT I'VE EVER SEEN!!
-
Worst clock mgmt you've ever seen? Is this the first Browns game you've watched in the past three years?
Anyways, as I said in another thread - I am not a huge fan of Romeo's decision-making however I can't really blame him for not running the ball in that particular situation. Since we were at the edge of Dawson's range, he was trying to get us closer instead of just running down the clock. It was nice to see him show some confidence in our offense and be aggressive for a change. If we had either been closer or if Jamal was having more success running it then I could understand that reasoning.
-
I loved it. He has been too conservative at the ends of games the last two weeks, thats how teams have come back.
-
I loved it. He has been too conservative at the ends of games the last two weeks, thats how teams have come back.
I loved it. He has been too conservative at the ends of games the last two weeks, thats how teams have come back.
Me too. We were on the finge of Phil's range. Instead of running Jamal (he averaged just 3 yards per carry) and grunting the ball down to the 50-yard FG range, we tried to get another 20-25 yards to make it more of a chip shot. Complete one of those passes, THEN you're close enough to run the ball 3 times, pick up a little, and kick it with no time left on the clock.
It didn't quite work out that way, but I can see the plan. So, not worst ever, IMHO.
-
I loved it. He has been too conservative at the ends of games the last two weeks, thats how teams have come back.
Me too. We were on the finge of Phil's range. Instead of running Jamal (he averaged just 3 yards per carry) and grunting the ball down to the 50-yard FG range, we tried to get another 20-25 yards to make it more of a chip shot. Complete one of those passes, THEN you're close enough to run the ball 3 times, pick up a little, and kick it with no time left on the clock.
It didn't quite work out that way, but I can see the plan. So, not worst ever, IMHO.
Me too. We were on the finge of Phil's range. Instead of running Jamal (he averaged just 3 yards per carry) and grunting the ball down to the 50-yard FG range, we tried to get another 20-25 yards to make it more of a chip shot. Complete one of those passes, THEN you're close enough to run the ball 3 times, pick up a little, and kick it with no time left on the clock.
It didn't quite work out that way, but I can see the plan. So, not worst ever, IMHO.
Because he made it....and Buffalo suffered wide right again.
Had Dawson's kick come up a couple yards short you might have a different take.
Had the Bills been able to get their FG you might have a different take (because we left too much time on the clock.)
It wasn't a great strategy. It wasn't a horrible strategy. It was, however, a risky strategy. Crennelephant's lucky that the Dunkin Donuts gods were smiling down on him. Had they not been, I have this strange feeling that so many on here would be calling for his head over it.
The outcome worked out for us.....but it was still a very questionable strategy.
Either way.....one thing we can all (except DA Nation) agree on is that we'll happily take the win.
-
Me too. We were on the finge of Phil's range. Instead of running Jamal (he averaged just 3 yards per carry) and grunting the ball down to the 50-yard FG range, we tried to get another 20-25 yards to make it more of a chip shot. Complete one of those passes, THEN you're close enough to run the ball 3 times, pick up a little, and kick it with no time left on the clock.
It didn't quite work out that way, but I can see the plan. So, not worst ever, IMHO.
Because he made it....and Buffalo suffered wide right again.
Had Dawson's kick come up a couple yards short you might have a different take.
Had the Bills been able to get their FG you might have a different take (because we left too much time on the clock.)
It wasn't a great strategy. It wasn't a horrible strategy. It was, however, a risky strategy. Crennelephant's lucky that the Dunkin Donuts gods were smiling down on him. Had they not been, I have this strange feeling that so many on here would be calling for his head over it.
The outcome worked out for us.....but it was still a very questionable strategy.
Either way.....one thing we can all (except DA Nation) agree on is that we'll happily take the win.
Because he made it....and Buffalo suffered wide right again.
Had Dawson's kick come up a couple yards short you might have a different take.
Agree.
But, if we had run Jamal for not much gain and gave Phil a 50+ attempt, we could then say "why didn't we pass to get closer as Jamal wasn't having a good day".
Like you said, not the best or worst. I guess I can see both ways on this one.
All good.
-
Not the worst ever. Does anybody remember the Steelers game?
There you had the poorest clock management I can recall in decades.
I would have kicked out the entire coaching staff after that game!
-
It was terrible. You have all day to run your offense with a two point lead if you do make a FG, so go about it the normal way. If anything, you can keep it spread out but run out of the formation or throw a screen pass to keep the clock rolling and gain some needed yards.
It's not a rocket science. They didn't have to run on every down, just get at least 3 or four more yards though and burn a little more time. Going three and out there on three incompletes is Retarded.
Quinn should not have went downfield on the last one to Edwards either, that was very DAesque of him. Get a completion on one of the passes, period and run the ball at least once without broadcasting it. Buffalo is playing close to a prevent, so it's not you can't get those much needed shorter gains.
Otherwise, RAC 'n ROLLS' time management was damn good the rest of the game and overall one of his better coaching efforts. he even won a challenge.
-
Actually it was the right stretegy for the situation. What if the Buff's FG was good? The Browns would have had a minute left to drive down the field. Without the timeouts Buffalo would have ran the time off and there would have been no chance to drive down the field had the FG been good.
But before that? The Browns should have tried passing over the middle for some short gains or ran Harrison. That would have picked up at least 5 yards to make the FG attempt easier.
-
Actually it was the right stretegy for the situation. What if the Buff's FG was good? The Browns would have had a minute left to drive down the field. Without the timeouts Buffalo would have ran the time off and there would have been no chance to drive down the field had the FG been good.
But before that? The Browns should have tried passing over the middle for some short gains or ran Harrison. That would have picked up at least 5 yards to make the FG attempt easier.
Actually it was the right stretegy for the situation. What if the Buff's FG was good? The Browns would have had a minute left to drive down the field. Without the timeouts Buffalo would have ran the time off and there would have been no chance to drive down the field had the FG been good.
But before that? The Browns should have tried passing over the middle for some short gains or ran Harrison. That would have picked up at least 5 yards to make the FG attempt easier.
Yeah, but that's only because Buffalo coached worse than RAC.
-
It was poor clock management followed by decent clock management.
-
To me, this debate shows there wasn't an obvious management scheme. I agree RAC isn't in the upper echelon of coaches, but I think I've seen worse than last Monday.
If Quinn completes a pass, then we run out the clock and Phil kicks a makable FG and RAC looks good.
If we would have run out the clock then and there giving Phil the long FG, and he missed, we all would have said "we had 3 TO's and plenty of time, why didn't RAC do something more creative than 3 yards and a ball of dust leaving Phil with such a long FG?".
You can go either way.
-
Funny how we all forget that Harrison was already hurt by then....and that JL hadn't gotten more than 2 yards on a run in forever...and we were sitting on a 56 yard FB (best case with JL x3 was 50) in cold weather.
The last few weeks we left points on the table only to watch teams march right down the field and put us away. This time...RAC decided to be agressive and get the TD if possible...and not 'settle' for a long FG.
I LOVED this approach. It was a departure from the conservative 'play not to lose' crap we are used to.
Plain and simple....had any one of those passes gone for a completion...this would not be a discussion...and we would all be applauding the aggressive approach. Besides...the worst case scenario came about and we still won.
Then, when the Bills had the ball...the use of the time-outs was perfect. He left us enough time on the clock to respond (over 40 seconds) if the FG had been good.
This was probably the BEST time management I have seen from RAC (by the way, the announcers were commenting how good it was as well!)
-
Why can't you run a normal offense then? Even if you do throw every down, why not act like it's a normal offense and not a chinese fire drill?
We lost the Washington game under the exact same scenario, which was getting barely within range and not getting another yard in 3 downs.
I don't see how anybody can justify not getting at least 5 more yards, and I'm not talking about playing to run the ball and clock out, I'm talking about good, safe throws. I mean come on, what were the chances of completing the pass to Edwards on third down? If you're looking at a 48 yarder then you go for the jugular, but we're talking a 57 freaking yarder and they got nothing in three plays. Woulda shoulda coulda doesn't get it, you gotta get yards.
-
What it showed was a lack of confidence in the kicker and defence.
guns don't kill kids-pitt bulls do. -
What it showed was a lack of confidence in the kicker and defence.
What it showed was a lack of confidence in the kicker and defence.
I don't get you guys. If we had run and then the 50 yarder and made it you would all be bitching that he wasn't aggressive enough and we let them have a chance to win with a FG instead of going for the jugular!!! ....but he did what he did, we HIT the FB and WON...and you still bitch.
He showed aggressive play calling. He showed a departure from the "play not to lose" mentality we all hate...and yet you keep on bitching.
Get over it.
-
What we DID do was:
1st down: short swing pass to Stallworth (basically a straight OUT pattern...very safe and move the chain type play)
2nd down: short swing pass to Winslow (again, an OUT pattern...very safe and move the chain type play)
3rd down: deep to BE....figuring the D would be looking for something short after the first two plays...makes sense, kind of what you were implying we should do.
The only difference in the play calling is the SHORT plays were both wide swing passes instead of a JL run...and the order in which they were done.
This was not 3 straight long passes downfield. It was 2 short, possession plays and a deep shot...just like you wanted.
-
What it showed was a lack of confidence in the kicker and defence.
I don't get you guys. If we had run and then the 50 yarder and made it you would all be bitching that he wasn't aggressive enough and we let them have a chance to win with a FG instead of going for the jugular!!! ....but he did what he did, we HIT the FB and WON...and you still bitch.
He showed aggressive play calling. He showed a departure from the "play not to lose" mentality we all hate...and yet you keep on bitching.
Get over it.
I don't get you guys. If we had run and then the 50 yarder and made it you would all be bitching that he wasn't aggressive enough and we let them have a chance to win with a FG instead of going for the jugular!!! ....but he did what he did, we HIT the FB and WON...and you still bitch.
He showed aggressive play calling. He showed a departure from the "play not to lose" mentality we all hate...and yet you keep on bitching.
Get over it.
Settle down dude, I don't appreciate your tone. I don't need to be told to get over shit because I disagree how the offense was ran. You act like we're talking about running the clock out and we're not. You're also acting like Lewis was guaranteed to only get two yards if they ran one running play.
Do not get you being all worked up on this and you happen to be the one who needs to get over it. It's a difference of opinion, and that doesn't make you right.
-
What it showed was a lack of confidence in the kicker and defence.
What it showed was a lack of confidence in the kicker and defence.
Lack of confidence in kicker at that distance and by the use of time outs at the end a complete lack of confidence that the defence could stop anything,
clock management was dictated by that- no opinion on whether it was good or bad. We did win and thats what counts.
-
I have to agree with WPB here, it was great to see the aggresive play calling. It also shows the confidence he has in BQ. You dont win in this league if your passive and I hope that RAC has finally learned that lesson. But all this talk about him not losing his job at seasons end is crazy. This guy has been a horrible coach that with the exception of last game has shown horrible game managment skills and in my opionion has cost us games this season. A coach should never cost a team a win, RAC has done it more then once. Our players not giving it there all on every down reflects on the coach. Our defense not knowing how to tackle reflects on the coach. This guy has got to go and if he doesnt it will be complete BS.
.jpg.a1a2b9a0c33008fdaf4097d8fe2cfd64.jpg "Riffer X"){kind=avatar}
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login