End of Half Clock Management

[Deleted member 2897]

There is no way to "know" about the future at all. That applies to the worry about leaving too much time as well. That is always a risk vs reward thing, and so you have to consider whether it would be good for them to try and push the issue. And there are reasons that team that was aggressive early, and continued to quick snap when they could be in victory formation chose not to push the issue and that is a factor in weighting how much of a threat "leaving them time" is. Also, you're ideally implied that a FG was an option. It wasn't. If we kick a FG there, regardless of making it, we might have well of punted it. But also what if we get to something like 3rd and 12 with 20 seconds left, run a play, they get called for a facemask and we get a fresh set of downs? Burning time could bite us in that situation, and it doesn't take far fetched events to make it so.

Then it would be 1st and goal from the 6 (your penalty illustration would be half the distance to the goal) with 20-30 seconds left. Plenty of time for running 3 plays, depending on the pass/run mix and their remaining timeout.

 

[smokey_wasp]

My immediate assumpton was Sims did it on his own? I dunno. Wasn't a good call IMO and CGC shouldn't have been surprised to be asked about it. Mountain and mole hill situation though.

 

[Jacketman]

The hoops that people are jumping through to justify this

Bottom line, it was a dumb decision. We wasted a down. If we really wanted to save time, just use a timeout of our own, but we were not in any rush to score there. So UCF would have called timeouts anyway? Let them! Why let them keep all 3 timeouts?

You can love CGC and the direction we're heading(I do), and disagree with some in game decisions he makes(I do). They are not mutually exclusive. A little criticism is okay, it's football, not everything is sunshine and rainbows.

 

[forensicbuzz]

The cancel culture’s goal is to eradicate all thoughts contrary to their own. Stare at a bad decision, then rationalize every way why it wasn’t or didn’t matter. Then convince everyone that type of judgment, decision making ability will never ever matter. We used to call it fascism and it was largely political. Now it has migrated to every corner of our lives including GT football.

C’mon folks, even armchair QBs know what the right move was. My wife knew it was dumb. It was a mistake. No, it wasn’t THE CALL that changed the outcome of the game. Does not matter, we’ve already had questionable moves cost us games. Admit it and move along. Learn from your mistakes. Anything short of that’s just makes you look foolish.

That is the definition of fascism!

 

[bos]

For a team that claims to put so much emphasis on the data analytics, it's concerning that Collins doesn't think it was a bad play.

 

[Ibeeballin]

Except for the many reasons discussed above.

This call was no doubt controversial but by definition that means it was not a clear cut choice (right or wrong). This coaching staff uses data to drive a lot of in game decisions. When to go for deep balls, where 4 down territory begins, blitz timing and other decisions. CGC and his coordinators reference that most of the interviews they give about game day choices.

I frankly did not like the spike, but if he is good with the decision than fine by me. We judge a coach on the body of their work. It’s fine to nitpick items and choices they’ve made, but it’s pretty short sighted and foolish to wax poetic about our “superior understanding of the team’s preparedness level, game day coaching ability or perspective on the needs of our players when it comes to what they’re comfortable doing” beyond the guys who get payed millions of dollars and focus their entire professional lives around knowing those specific things.

I get it, this is a message board and people like to discuss things. What I don’t get is people coming on and presenting themselves as rational while advancing completely irrational perspectives as unassailable fact.

The hoops that people are jumping through to justify this

Bottom line, it was a dumb decision. We wasted a down. If we really wanted to save time, just use a timeout of our own, but we were not in any rush to score there. So UCF would have called timeouts anyway? Let them! Why let them keep all 3 timeouts?

You can love CGC and the direction we're heading(I do), and disagree with some in game decisions he makes(I do). They are not mutually exclusive. A little criticism is okay, it's football, not everything is sunshine and rainbows.

This is the argument imo.

I believe the consensus of people didn’t like spiking it right there. I guess the argument is whether it was dumb decision is where we differ

 

[Ibeeballin]

For a team that claims to put so much emphasis on the data analytics, it's concerning that Collins doesn't think it was a bad play.

In the grand scheme, all the data shows we scored a TD on that drive.

 

[JacketOff]

I swear people just don't want to even try to consider that there was a reason to do so.

So lets look at the "too much time to give UCF" argument. For people who act like this was such an obvious bad call, why then did UCF, with 1:14 and two TOs did UCF not even try to go push it? They took one quick attempt to the sideline, then ran the ball, and let 20 seconds go off the clock. Because being a good up tempo team doesn't mean the two minute offense is that much easier. A two minute offense is much more than just tempo. It's limited playcalling to either get out of bounds or get a first down and if not then an incomplete pass to stop the clock. With the exception of a first down the other two don't lend themselves to the tempo game style, nor does calling a TO to stop the clock. Tempo teams still want to utilize the running game and the short over the middle game because the ball is quicker to spot and so quicker to snap. And with a 14 point lead, the reward for getting a TD likely isn't worth the risk of giving up a TO and giving momentum back, especially if you get the ball to start the second half. All of those are reasons why they made at best a half hearted attempt to score, and why it's not nearly the threat people think.



Because a timeout has more use than just stopping the clock, which seems like many fans think is it's only purpose. For instance, if we call a play, recognize that the opposing team is in a formation that is good against it, and our TR freshman doesn't look like he's going to change it, it's nice to have a TO in that situation. There are a number of things that could pop up that you'd want a TO to deal with. That is especially true being without your power running RB and two TEs that would normally be a go to in goal to go situations.

In UCF’s point-of-view, they had a 14 point lead with 1 minute and change on the clock from their own 25. They made the decision to be content with that lead and not risk turning it over (they fumbled their previous drive, leading to the GT score) especially knowing they were getting the ball to start the second half. The risk/reward decision they made is irrelevant to the decision that Tech made. They very easily could’ve pushed the envelope and at least tried to get into field goal range, but they didn’t.

Having a timeout to spend is nice, but our red zone offense has been awful over 2 years. Why would you limit yourself to only 3 plays to score, when you could have 4? Under no circumstances is 3 shots to score, better than 4.

A hypothetical situation for you. If you take the situation from Saturday’s game and modify it. Say Tech was down by 7 in the 4th quarter, but leave everything else the same, would you agree that spiking the ball would be a bad call in that situation?

 

[lv20gt]

Then it would be 1st and goal from the 6 (your penalty illustration would be half the distance to the goal) with 20-30 seconds left. Plenty of time for running 3 plays, depending on the pass/run mix and their remaining timeout.

Plenty of time sure, but it's still potential time pressure that is unneeded. I'd rather have that situation with 50 seconds than 20.

The risk/reward decision they made is irrelevant to the decision that Tech made.

Except it isn't. If you don't think your opponent will push to score in that situation then the advantage of killing the clock is less advantageous. Arguing that they could have done it but chose not to being irrelevant is silly. Every down you call a play knowing they could play this but you don't think they will so you think the play call you called is good. That exact dynamic is intrinsic to the game.

Having a timeout to spend is nice, but our red zone offense has been awful over 2 years. Why would you limit yourself to only 3 plays to score, when you could have 4? Under no circumstances is 3 shots to score, better than 4.

3 quality shots is better than 4 rushed shots, especially if those 4 rushed shots become 2 because you have a bad snap on 2nd down because of rushing, leading to a turnover. Our redzone offense has been horrible.

A hypothetical situation for you. If you take the situation from Saturday’s game and modify it. Say Tech was down by 7 in the 4th quarter, but leave everything else the same, would you agree that spiking the ball would be a bad call in that situation?

A bad call? No. I'd disagree with it, and even in this exact situation I think calling a TO was the better play, but I'd understand the logic behind saving the TO in case you absolutely need it. My problem is you have people who act like there is absolutely no logic to spiking the ball, which there obviously is even if you don't think the benefits are worth it. They then use that to say absurd things like "our coaching staff can't understand simple concepts" while refusing to make the slightest attempt at critically thinking about why it might have been an okay play. I'm not exaggerating when I say someone called this the second worst decision for us since Ball throwing it away on 4th down. And this happened routinely last year especially.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Plenty of time sure, but it's still potential time pressure that is unneeded. I'd rather have that situation with 50 seconds than 20.

I wouldn’t. If I needed to plan for 6-7 plays inside the 10 yard line and 2 minutes on the clock, I’ve got bigger problems.

 

[jojatk]

For a team that claims to put so much emphasis on the data analytics, it's concerning that Collins doesn't think it was a bad play.

Or maybe the analytics tell him it wasn't.

 

[JacketOff]

Except it isn't. If you don't think your opponent will push to score in that situation then the advantage of killing the clock is less advantageous. Arguing that they could have done it but chose not to being irrelevant is silly. Every down you call a play knowing they could play this but you don't think they will so you think the play call you called is good. That exact dynamic is intrinsic to the game.

But there was no reason to assume that they wouldn’t push to score. Their 1st down play was drawn up to be a quick hitting pass play to the boundary, that would’ve set them up for a drive to score. The pass got batted down at the line, further decreasing their risk/reward assessment. In actuality, they probably had a drive scripted based on the success of that first play, when it failed, they were content on running down the clock and taking their lead to the break. Then we got called for offsides on 3rd and 8 when they were fine with their lead, so they took another free shot down the field. Had that play connected they would’ve been in/near field goal range with ~45 seconds left and 2 timeouts.
If you’re going to say that arguing that they could have pushed but chose not to being irrelevant is silly, then choosing to say that the call was based on an unknown fact if they were going to push or not is also silly. The fact remains that spiking the ball still had no impact on the outcome, or final score of the game. The fact also remains that it very much could have. I believe that’s what everyone who says spiking the ball was not advantageous is saying. If UCF has completed their first down play, or their offsides bomb, I believe this is a very story.

3 quality shots is better than 4 rushed shots, especially if those 4 rushed shots become 2 because you have a bad snap on 2nd down because of rushing, leading to a turnover. Our redzone offense has been horrible.

1:20 left on 1st and goal from the 6 yard line is plenty of time to get 4 quality plays. That’s 20 seconds per play if you keep the clock running the entire time. 20 seconds per play is basically running a standard offense with a little bit of tempo. A normal offense could line up and run the ball 4 times with that much time, comfortably. These types of situations are things that Tech has to clean up and get better at if we’re going to be a legitimate contender anytime soon. I understand the team is young, and we want them to be composed. But what happens if we’re playing Clemson in Charlotte with a trip to the CFP on the line next year? Will the coaches trust that the team is mature enough to stay composed? Will we have to burn our timeout to set up a 4 play scenario? Would spike the ball and save the timeout at the expense of a shot to score. Those are the questions that will need to be asked in the future.

Once again, this decision didn’t impact the game. But in a game in the very near future, a decision like this will impact a game, and very well a season. I, personally, think it was a bad decision, regardless of any underlying circumstances that the team may have been experiencing at the time.

 

[jojatk]

The hoops that people are jumping through to justify this

Bottom line, it was a dumb decision. We wasted a down. If we really wanted to save time, just use a timeout of our own, but we were not in any rush to score there. So UCF would have called timeouts anyway? Let them! Why let them keep all 3 timeouts?

You can love CGC and the direction we're heading(I do), and disagree with some in game decisions he makes(I do). They are not mutually exclusive. A little criticism is okay, it's football, not everything is sunshine and rainbows.

The hoops that people are jumping through to crucify our coach (totally messing with you here, not being serious)

I do love CGC and the direction we're moving. I don't like all of his game decisions and, in fact, I personally disagreed with the spike. But I think the folks that can't see other factors that went into the decision as legitimate factors is what rankles me. You can disagree with that rationale but there's rarely anything CGC does without some rationale, whether I agree with it or not.

 

[Silk3]

Except for the many reasons discussed above.

This call was no doubt controversial but by definition that means it was not a clear cut choice (right or wrong). This coaching staff uses data to drive a lot of in game decisions. When to go for deep balls, where 4 down territory begins, blitz timing and other decisions. CGC and his coordinators reference that most of the interviews they give about game day choices.

I frankly did not like the spike, but if he is good with the decision than fine by me. We judge a coach on the body of their work. It’s fine to nitpick items and choices they’ve made, but it’s pretty short sighted and foolish to wax poetic about our “superior understanding of the team’s preparedness level, game day coaching ability or perspective on the needs of our players when it comes to what they’re comfortable doing” beyond the guys who get payed millions of dollars and focus their entire professional lives around knowing those specific things.

I get it, this is a message board and people like to discuss things. What I don’t get is people coming on and presenting themselves as rational while advancing completely irrational perspectives as unassailable fact.

Ive never said 1 thing bad about CGC but that was a bad decision. I know he talks about the data and analytics and has a guy in charge to make sure which honestly makes it worse or we need a new analytic guy. It didnt cost us, but I guarantee we never do that again bc Collins isnt stupid and he knows he didnt play that one right. Live and learn

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

I have a rule on this kind of stuff when it comes to coaches - if they make the error and admit it to some degree, then I never see it again, I don't rag the coaches. If it happens a 2nd time, that is when I believe a problem exists. In this case, I still wonder if Sims did it somewhat on his own, and the coach is "covering" for him with his "it was the right decision" statement. It was not the right decision, but as many have stated, it did not cost us. Hopefully, we won't see that mistake again.

 

[lv20gt]

I wouldn’t. If I needed to plan for 6-7 plays inside the 10 yard line and 2 minutes on the clock, I’ve got bigger problems.

Wouldn't you say the same about having to plan to prevent a team in scoring under a minute?

 

[Silk3]

Except for the many reasons discussed above.

This call was no doubt controversial but by definition that means it was not a clear cut choice (right or wrong). This coaching staff uses data to drive a lot of in game decisions. When to go for deep balls, where 4 down territory begins, blitz timing and other decisions. CGC and his coordinators reference that most of the interviews they give about game day choices.

I frankly did not like the spike, but if he is good with the decision than fine by me. We judge a coach on the body of their work. It’s fine to nitpick items and choices they’ve made, but it’s pretty short sighted and foolish to wax poetic about our “superior understanding of the team’s preparedness level, game day coaching ability or perspective on the needs of our players when it comes to what they’re comfortable doing” beyond the guys who get payed millions of dollars and focus their entire professional lives around knowing those specific things.

I get it, this is a message board and people like to discuss things. What I don’t get is people coming on and presenting themselves as rational while advancing completely irrational perspectives as unassailable fact.

How is the perspective that spiking the ball was a bad decision a completely irrational perspective??

 

[Jmonty71]

I have questioned Collins' ability with coaching, during the game. I don't think he has the best clock management. Nor do I think he has the best adaption to what the other team is doing. He has to learn this, on the fly. While he is a awesome recruiter, he still has to show me that he can coach, in-game.

 

[GTZachary]

I don’t know how anyone could argue this was the right play. It’s literally indefensible.

 

[bikeseat]

This is so dumb. It's clear Simms made a freshman mistake and panicked a bit or misread a sign from the sideline to spike it.

we know CGC well enough that he won't throw his brand new freshman QB under the bus for a dumb and now inconsequential play. That's literally all there is to it. It was a little screw up that ended up okay.