walzav29 Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 I would rather see Palmer have zero time-outs and a 1:32 left on the clock than 3 time-outs and 30 seconds. Either you stop them or not. Time was in their favor. That was stupid, stupid, stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greames Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 That would have been better yes,but you shoudn't use your timeouts when your in the lead late in the game.They stopped the Bucs from scoring most of the day,so they thought they could keep them out of the endzone on their last series.If we were losing by 3 I could see them using their timeouts before the 2 minutewarning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walzav29 Posted October 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 Why risk it? No matter what they had 20 yards to go. The clock was noth going to stop. Either they get the 1st down or touchdown or you stop them and they have no timeouts. I'm gonna puke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjakq27 Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 Why risk it? No matter what they had 20 yards to go. The clock was not going to stop. Either they get the 1st down or touchdown or you stop them and they have no timeouts. I'm gonna puke. No, don't puke.......awwwwww noooo.....clean up on aisle 5.....Seriously, I think the clock management was very poor also. What happened on the play with TJ, was he even close to getting out of bounds? We wasted a TO there and Palmer needed one after the sack.1-10-CIN 28(:30) (Shotgun) 9-C.Palmer pass deep left to 84-T.Houshmandzadeh to CIN 47 for 19 yards (23-J.Phillips). Timeout #1 by CIN at 00:22. 1-10-CIN 47(:22) (Shotgun) 9-C.Palmer pass incomplete to 85-C.Johnson. pressure by Rice 2-10-CIN 47(:18) 9-C.Palmer sacked at CIN 39 for -8 yards (96-E.Wyms). Timeout #2 by CIN at 00:13. 3-18-CIN 39(:13) (Shotgun) 9-C.Palmer pass deep middle to 84-T.Houshmandzadeh to TB 44 for 17 yards (20-R.Barber). Timeout #3 by CIN at 00:06. 4-1-TB 44(:06) 17-S.Graham 62 yard field goal is No Good, Short, Center-48-B.St. Louis, Holder-19-K.Larson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShulaSteakhouse Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 Not only did I highly question the need to kick a 62 yd FG with 6 seconds left, that you could've at least tried to get 10-15 yards in an out pattern situation, out of bounds, with a couple ticks left...but the Enquirer and Lance McAlister's blog also points out this confusing part of things:EnquirerLewis' game management down the stretch also came into question in the postgame news conference. He had three timeouts remaining but didn't use any of them on defense. He said he didn't want to give Gradkowski time in a huddle."Plus," Lewis said, "I believe at the time we're going to stop them, frankly, as well."******************************I don't get it.....Marvin didn't want Gradkowski to huddle....yet Marvin allowed Tampa Bay to take their time and let Gradkowski think about things anyway?1st and 10 at Bengals 25, after the TB completion, 39-seconds ran off the clock.....from 2:39 to the 2:00 warning.2nd and 10 at Bengals 15, after the TB completion, 36-seconds ran off the clock...from 1:46 to 1:10.So Marvin was worried about TB huddling, but he let them think about things and run off 1:15?????????????????How would that extra 1:15 look in Carson's hands at the end?????????Instead, they had 3 timeouts and :30posted by lance1530homer at 12:34 PMJust another case of questionable coaching by the Bengals' staff yesterday. I'm glad he has so much confidence in this defense as well - yesterday he had WAY too much - I sure don't have that much in a 2 minute drill.The last offensive series was the most pathetic set of called plays and execution I've seen since he's been here as well. Just gut wrenchingly annoying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agreen_112 Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 Marvin's been pissing me off a little bit lately, I've got to be honest... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazkal Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 Team held em to 4th down? mybe he thought they had 1 more play in them...people h8ing on marvin are idiots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasher Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 With the Tampa 2, and in case noone noticed, they were not letting anyone catch the ball on the sideline to get out of bounds. Timeouts were critical to get into field position that we did. The sack killed us more than the clock.I agree with Marvin on not calling a TO to give Grad and Grude a chance to huddle, settle down a rook and organize the offense.Problem was not the D on 4th and 3 or the clock management, it was throughout the game and systemic.We NEVER should have even been in that situation to BEGIN WITH! So what happened, happened. They won, we lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalByTheBay Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 I do believe he was trying to make Tampa Bay at least consider the clock and retain his timeouts. At the time, I think it's hard to say that the need for more time AFTER a touchdown would be scored would be a concern. It's certainly possible that TB may have run another play or so and then, they themselves may have been squeezed for time and had to hurry the play or two that ended-up losing the game for them. Out of all of the issues arising from this game (offensive play calling, individual performances, refs), I have to admit that I think that picking-up on the fact that there were only 35 seconds left after the TB touchdown is pretty far down on the list. That and to think you can always run a 10-15 yard out successfully in 6 seconds seems absurd. Such a play could've easily run the clock out on its own and then he would be an idiot for even stupider clock management. Let's face it -- with 6 seconds the only other real alternative was the "hail mary." I don't agree with your arguments here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBin2k7 Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 Marvin's reasoning for not calling the timeout was stupid, but his logic is there. Why do you call a timeout for them? Why do you assume your defense is just going to give up a touchdown? All of this is a moot point if the defense just stops them. It's as simple as that, the defense should have sacked up and stopped them on that from getting that score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 Marvin's reasoning for not calling the timeout was stupid, but his logic is there. Why do you call a timeout for them? Why do you assume your defense is just going to give up a touchdown? All of this is a moot point if the defense just stops them. It's as simple as that, the defense should have sacked up and stopped them on that from getting that score.If you want to be logical you have to save the time as insurance in case TB scores a TDthats logicalHeres how you think of it4 ways things can come outCall timeouts and TB doesn't score, your offense now runs the clock off and you winCall timeouts and TB Scores, you now have 1:00+ to try to get a FG to tie and eventually winDon't call timeouts and you stop them and winDon't call timouts and they score and you lose because you now have no time leftMarvin choked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazkal Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 If we used our timeouts and still loss..people would still be bitching because he dident save them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 I agree, Walzav. After the penalty on Justin, the defense was completely deflated, and there wasn't much hope they'd stop the Bucs from scoring. I was surprised they didn't use the timeouts on defense to leave more Carson more time to get into field goal range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBin2k7 Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 Marvin's reasoning for not calling the timeout was stupid, but his logic is there. Why do you call a timeout for them? Why do you assume your defense is just going to give up a touchdown? All of this is a moot point if the defense just stops them. It's as simple as that, the defense should have sacked up and stopped them on that from getting that score.If you want to be logical you have to save the time as insurance in case TB scores a TDthats logicalHeres how you think of it4 ways things can come outCall timeouts and TB doesn't score, your offense now runs the clock off and you winCall timeouts and TB Scores, you now have 1:00+ to try to get a FG to tie and eventually winDon't call timeouts and you stop them and winDon't call timouts and they score and you lose because you now have no time leftMarvin chokedThis assumes you know exactly when the Bucs are going to score. Who's to say how much time would be left when they scored, and how many time outs do you use, 1, 2, or 3. I am sure the Bucs were going to try and score and leave the Bengals with virtually no time. If the Bucs score a TD with 1 minute left and the Bengals had used all of their timeouts. Then today we are complaining because time runs out and the Bengals had no time outs to get into scoring position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 This assumes you know exactly when the Bucs are going to score. Who's to say how much time would be left when they scored, and how many time outs do you use, 1, 2, or 3. I am sure the Bucs were going to try and score and leave the Bengals with virtually no time. If the Bucs score a TD with 1 minute left and the Bengals had used all of their timeouts. Then today we are complaining because time runs out and the Bengals had no time outs to get into scoring position.Its easier to move the ball downfield with a minute and no timeouts than 35 seconds and 3 time outsyou can stop the clock without timeouts but you can't add time to the clock with timeouts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.