End of Half Clock Management

[herb]

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.

exactly.

 

[gt02]

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.

Seems to me like the best kind of screw up. I.e., you make a mistake, but like you said, inconsequential and you learn from it and move on. I am ok with that. Happens every day to the best players and best coaches. Isn't some kind of indictment on the coach or player.

Only thing that caught my interest is CGC saying it was the right call. Maybe better for him to say that than throw his player under the bus. If that is the case, I am ok with it.

 

[lv20gt]

But there was no reason to assume that they wouldn’t push to score. ....Had that play connected they would’ve been in/near field goal range with ~45 seconds left and 2 timeouts.

Except there was plenty of reason to assume they wouldn't. Up by 14 and getting the ball back you don't want to risk a turnover giving momentum completely away. The conventional wisdom is that they likely wouldn't push to score, and at most would do a safe probing play hoping to bust one, which was what their first play was. The idea that they were a big threat to go super up tempo to push to score in that situation is the thing against conventional wisdom. You point to a throw into double coverage that was popped into the air and ask what if they caught it? It was more likely that would be intercepted than caught.

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.

Except I'm not saying that. I don't think the call to spike the ball had anything to do with whether there was enough time for UCF to score or not. I think we chose to spike it so that the time wouldn't even begin to be a factor for a QB who already has enough problems in the redzone. I don't think leaving enough time or not for UCF had any part of the decision, because down by 21 in the first half that shouldn't be.

1:20 left on 1st and goal from the 6 yard line is plenty of time to get 4 quality plays.

1st and goal from the 9 by the way. And yes, it's plenty of time to get 4 quality plays normally. But we're also missing 3 pieces that would probably be in there normally in goal to go situations and have a true freshman QB. And one bad play can turn a 1st and goal from the 9 into a 2nd and goal from the 15. If the coaches and QB felt fine with it then fine. But if they didn't, then it's understandable as well.

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.

2 things. One, if this make believe situation comes to pass then it's obvious our staff knows what they are doing that it just lends itself more to the argument that they probably understood the situation better than random posters on a website do. Two, and more importantly, in the future will be a different situation. You don't make decisions in a vacuum outside of the circumstances. Next year we likely won't be playing with a true freshman in his second game ever. We, hopefully, won't be dealing with changes to normal routine due to a pandemic. We, hopefully, won't be missing 3 key pieces of our normal down to go set. You don't evaluate a contextual judgement on a universal principal.

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.

Maybe so. If true, then ironically it probably was the right decision to spike it and give him a moment to calm down.

 

[Milwaukee]

I’m gonna kick the hornets next because I find this thread amusing:

During the FSU game we had some sort of procedure called on us on a 3rd down on offense. The play was essentially blown dead after the ball was snapped. Collins is running around the sideline looking for an official and you could read his lips asking the official “So it is still 3rd down or is it 4th down now??”
I can only assume the official responded with something like “Umm...dude it’s still 3rd down.”
I thought it was funny actually.

 

[CuseJacket]

We have a true freshman QB who didn't have the benefit of spring practice and we've been practicing in a different situation than normal. We're also in year 2 of a drastic scheme change so the muscle memory isn't there for the experienced players like it would normally be. We were also missing our starting RB who would be our normal goal to go back as well as two tight ends who would probably be in the goal to go lineups we would normally want to go. So yeah, did you expect us to be fully prepared for every situation that could possible come up? That's why there is logic to spiking the ball. It makes it so there is one less factor to have to worry about, and lets us have a better shot at making the right call, reading the play right, and executing it better. With a QB who already has shown he has some issues with those things in the redzone it's not a benefit that should just be half heartedly dismissed.

There's no reason to be in a rush though. I don't follow the logic that our coaches believe our freshman QB would not be able to handle a situation where there is more clock than necessary to try and score. We are already a team that plays with tempo. Especially after wasting two timeouts prior and having the opportunity to explain the situation and settle him down (if there is even anything to that message board hypothesis).

Do you agree that using a timeout would have been wiser than spiking? I believe a timeout would have been a bad decision too, albeit better than wasting a down.

You were also calling for us to call a timeout when they had the ball so....

To your point previously, there was no way to know the future.

I wanted to burn clock when GT had the ball. UCF had scored 3 touchdowns on its prior 4 possessions, with our only stop being a 55 yard drive ending in a fumble. Consider me less than confident that we would stop them when they got the ball back after our possession was over.

Now, once we got their offense into 3rd and 9 on their end of the field, it was a down and distance where I'd expect a defensive coach to think he has the advantage. Or, in a game where you're down and UCF was getting the ball back after half, and maybe at a point where you think about calculated risks (similar to an onside kick that followed shortly after), that might have been an opportunity to reap a potential reward.

To be clear though, while I suggested using the last timeout to try and force a punt, I'm nowhere near as bothered by it in a relative sense. I'm also not up in arms over the timeout/spike thing because it didn't ultimately affect the outcome (retrospectively), but I do believe it was a bad decision or miscommunication.

 

[slugboy]

I’m gonna kick the hornets next because I find this thread amusing:

During the FSU game we had some sort of procedure called on us on a 3rd down on offense. The play was essentially blown dead after the ball was snapped. Collins is running around the sideline looking for an official and you could read his lips asking the official “So it is still 3rd down or is it 4th down now??”
I can only assume the official responded with something like “Umm...dude it’s still 3rd down.”
I thought it was funny actually.

I've seen officials screw that up. I've even seen that screwed up in the NFL. I don't fault a coach at any level buttonholing a ref to ask that question.
Colorado got 5 downs in 1990, and I'll never forget that.

 

[MidtownJacket]

Whew let me start with a mea culpa

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

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

I probably should have edited my post better when I quoted you. I was saying there were reasons why a couch might not have been completely against the spike. Then, more broadly responding to the thread to continue in my post (which was lazy of me to not break out into a more clear way) about some of the people here beating their chests about how Coach needs to "Show them he can coach", see below.

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.

(Tongue Partially in Cheek here boys and girls) Are you ADTS? Cause... if not.. well I have good news and bad news for you. Good news is you can continue waving your fingers over a keyboard without accountability, bad news is.. well Coach doesn't know you exist, nor feel the need to impress you with his skillzzz

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

It was discussed ad nauseum above, some highlights include:
1) Sims screwed up, but it didn't hurt us so Coach took one on the chin in the presser and now from the internet heroes
1A) Less likely buy CDP screwed up
2) Sims was seeing something he didn't understand from the way the teams lined up / sideline and spiked it
3) [Darkhorse Idea I haven't seen yet] We may have thought we might try an onside kick if we scored quickly, thus we would want to keep all the timeouts we had and burned a down since we were so close to goal and either were going to try to steal a possession or in 4 down territory anyway (we did try the unside kick to start Q3 which was more predictable than it would have been to end the half

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.

Yeah, you're probably right.

 

[lv20gt]

There's no reason to be in a rush though. I don't follow the logic that our coaches believe our freshman QB would not be able to handle a situation where there is more clock than necessary to try and score. We are already a team that plays with tempo. Especially after wasting two timeouts prior and having the opportunity to explain the situation and settle him down (if there is even anything to that message board hypothesis).

You have a true freshman QB down 21 and he has already shown a tendency to try and force the issue at time. Even if there is no reason you should rush, there is a reason to believe he might rush in that situation. You say there was more clock than necessary but there would likely be under a minute after one play. It's not a matter of whether the math works out. It's about whether the time would make Sims more likely to make a mistake, and I don't see why people are so shocked that a freshman might get rushed even if technically there is enough time to not have to rush. That is especially true since the likely goal to go package was missing several pieces and so being able to react to what the defense is showing is of more value than would normally be the case. At full strength I would imagine we'd hand the ball to Mason 3 times, call a TO if need be and then run a play on 4th depending on the situation. However, that wasn't an option, and since we already had 1 Redzone turnover on the day, I again, don't see how people can overlook the benefit of taking time to try and get the right play in that situation, even if you think it doesn't warrant losing the down.

Do you agree that using a timeout would have been wiser than spiking? I believe a timeout would have been a bad decision too, albeit better than wasting a down.

I think using a time out would have been better yes, because of the saving the down, but I also see the logic in saving the TO in case something happens and you need time to evaluate. For instance, lets say we get it to 3rd and 4 but take a sack and it's 4th and 9. We may very well want to use the TO in that case. Or if we call a play but recognize they are in a defense that is good against it but we aren't making the adjustments. Personally, I think saving the down is more valuable, but I see the other side as well.

I wanted to burn clock when GT had the ball. UCF had scored 3 touchdowns on its prior 4 possessions, with our only stop being a 55 yard drive ending in a fumble. Consider me less than confident that we would stop them when they got the ball back after our possession was over.

Even with going up tempo already their drives were 2:07, 2:59, 2:55. People act like going down the field in a minute would have just been SOP. It wouldn't. A two minute drill is more than just about tempo, and I'd argue that it primarily is about limited plays available vs tempo. They weren't going to save much time going up tempo because they already were. They would have to either use their TOs, which would break the tempo they were using to beat our defense, or would have to change the play calling to make sure they get either an incomplete/out of bounds/first down every play.

Now, once we got their offense into 3rd and 9 on their end of the field, it was a down and distance where I'd expect a defensive coach to think he has the advantage

So why wouldn't a defensive coach think he has an advantage with a minute to play on the opposing 25 though then? Somehow UCF was too dangerous to give them any time to go the full length of the field when we had the ball, but subsequently not dangerous enough to worry about them converting a 3rd and 8 and scoring after with little time having run off the clock? That makes no sense to me. Especially since, they could run it on 3rd, chew up 40 seconds with us having no way to stop, and we'd have no time to score after the punt anyways. The only chance would be a punt block, but it doesn't make sense to be so afraid of their offense to worry about 20 seconds or so when we have the ball and then turn around and save them 30 ish seconds to gamble for a punt block. That logic seems incongruous to me.

 

[CuseJacket]

You have a true freshman QB down 21 and he has already shown a tendency to try and force the issue at time. Even if there is no reason you should rush, there is a reason to believe he might rush in that situation. You say there was more clock than necessary but there would likely be under a minute after one play. It's not a matter of whether the math works out. It's about whether the time would make Sims more likely to make a mistake, and I don't see why people are so shocked that a freshman might get rushed even if technically there is enough time to not have to rush. That is especially true since the likely goal to go package was missing several pieces and so being able to react to what the defense is showing is of more value than would normally be the case. At full strength I would imagine we'd hand the ball to Mason 3 times, call a TO if need be and then run a play on 4th depending on the situation. However, that wasn't an option, and since we already had 1 Redzone turnover on the day, I again, don't see how people can overlook the benefit of taking time to try and get the right play in that situation, even if you think it doesn't warrant losing the down.

I think using a time out would have been better yes, because of the saving the down, but I also see the logic in saving the TO in case something happens and you need time to evaluate. For instance, lets say we get it to 3rd and 4 but take a sack and it's 4th and 9. We may very well want to use the TO in that case. Or if we call a play but recognize they are in a defense that is good against it but we aren't making the adjustments. Personally, I think saving the down is more valuable, but I see the other side as well.

Even with going up tempo already their drives were 2:07, 2:59, 2:55. People act like going down the field in a minute would have just been SOP. It wouldn't. A two minute drill is more than just about tempo, and I'd argue that it primarily is about limited plays available vs tempo. They weren't going to save much time going up tempo because they already were. They would have to either use their TOs, which would break the tempo they were using to beat our defense, or would have to change the play calling to make sure they get either an incomplete/out of bounds/first down every play.

So why wouldn't a defensive coach think he has an advantage with a minute to play on the opposing 25 though then? Somehow UCF was too dangerous to give them any time to go the full length of the field when we had the ball, but subsequently not dangerous enough to worry about them converting a 3rd and 8 and scoring after with little time having run off the clock? That makes no sense to me. Especially since, they could run it on 3rd, chew up 40 seconds with us having no way to stop, and we'd have no time to score after the punt anyways. The only chance would be a punt block, but it doesn't make sense to be so afraid of their offense to worry about 20 seconds or so when we have the ball and then turn around and save them 30 ish seconds to gamble for a punt block. That logic seems incongruous to me.

I understand your position re: spiking the ball. I disagree. Doesn't make me right. I just don't have anything new to offer to that part of the discussion.

Re: your question re: the opportunity to use a timeout during 3rd down on defense, at the risk of oversimplifying my answer, the odds of getting a stop when the opponent is 3rd and 9 is a lot different than 1st and 10. And yes, I recognize the situation would likely have left us with punt block, muffed snap, or punt return to score. But again, this isn't something I would have brought up independent of a discussion around clock management. The decision to not use a timeout there is not necessarily a bad call imo, just a difference of opinion/curiosity at most.

 

[katlong]

I think the only thing that drves me crazier than poor clock management is poor discipline. For me, there is so much depth to football versus other sports and clock managment and discipline are gimme strategies that can turn the tide one way or the other. CPJ had these in spades. I guess some coaches either don't see them as important or don't bother to learn the skill. I, too, would like to see better overall clock management than we've seen in the past year. I know there were some unusual circumstances, but I haven't seen anything that indicates that coaches know how to effectively manage the clock to their advantage yet.

Lack of discipline (personal or otherwise) takes a great team and makes them unpredictable and vunerable. D never got set before snaps on Sat. I can understand that UCF was going super fast, but by 3rd quarter not being set in a stance when the ball is snapped is lack of discipline. You have a good play, great, line up and do it again. Stop celebrating and looking to the sidelines when UCF is ready to go. #22 KO almost starting a fight after a play this week (after last year's Citadel debacle) is lack of discipline. I think it's great that Collins is trying to be the cool coach by catering to the kids' dreams and wants and so forth with music and backdrops, etc. - I get that he's a great recruiter because of this, but at some point, you have to be their coach, not just their friend. At least that is what makes good players become great in my opinion.

 

[gtfan021]

Jesus Christ... are you guys really butthurt over a spiked ball on a possession we scored a touchdown? We didn’t give up a score on the following UCF drive neither. This is what you fools are upset about when that play had nothing to do with the 49-21 outcome of the game? The game is over, it’s a new week, new team. Get over it and move on....

 

[bikeseat]

This is so dull, why is this being dissected like crazy? It was a misread sign to spike. That's all there is to it.

Just like in that other vapid thread discussing how Jeff Simms actually sucks (because he can't throw a deep ball like a guy who completed under 45% of passes last year....?). People want a way to feel superior to the coaches because it fits their personal bias that CGC/CDP are in over their head because they don't fit the crusty mold of what a "real college head coach" is like.

Case closed. Can we kill this thread?

 

[potatohead]

This is so dull, why is this being dissected like crazy? It was a misread sign to spike. That's all there is to it.

Just like in that other vapid thread discussing how Jeff Simms actually sucks (because he can't throw a deep ball like a guy who completed under 45% of passes last year....?). People want a way to feel superior to the coaches because it fits their personal bias that CGC/CDP are in over their head because they don't fit the crusty mold of what a "real college head coach" is like.

Case closed. Can we kill this thread?

I was in about 10 Miller lites at that point, and said to myself “Myself, what is this guy thinkin’?” So, anyway, when will my P5 head coach check clear? Please make it out to Mr. Potato Head. It’s Dutch, the “ato” is silent

 

[LibertyTurns]

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

We have a secret sign for spiking the ball? Who are we trying to fake out, the team that doesn’t have a defend a play or the guys not having to run a play?

I think you’re right though, Sims probably screwed the pooch. A simple we F’d up would have sufficed. Claiming it was a good call, well that’s just farcical. I’m more concerned about not being ready in the Gold Zone on EVERY play. We need to fix that. A play call may or may not work, one play may be better than another, etc but being not ready is a major issue.

 

[bke1984]

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.

If that’s the case then fine, I agree with the coach. But I’m just not sure that’s right...

 

[DaDodd]

First, I love CGC and what he has done with the program. I thinks he's the perfect fit and he is going to lead us in a great direction. But I am concerned on his ability as an in game coach. Not his ability to coach up players, but his ability to manage and coach a game. I honestly hate to say this but I feel like can be a lot like Dan Quinn at times and we all know Quinn's track record of poor game management and in game coaching. They both can seem to be too much like cheerleaders when sometimes you've got to be a little tough. I'm all for loving you players and not throwing them under the bus and I'm glad our coach admits his mistakes but its ok discipline a player in a loving way. Sometimes the best way to learn from mistakes is discipline. It reinforces you to not make those mistakes again because some mistakes can have costly consequences. Dan Quinn has no excuse because he's working with high paid professional athletes. I think CGC is a great players coach and uses every opportunity to help players but he needs to be coached himself on how to be a game managing head coach. I wish he had a little more of O'Leary's or even CPJ's game management mind.

So to just forget about this mistake is wrong in my opinion. We've seen many great talented teams lose due to poor game management and coaching. If this is not fixed it will come back to hurt us. And the loses loss due to poor game management and poor in-game coaching are the one's that hurt the worst. (Hints last Sunday and Super Bowl LI) Heck uga would have gone to a national championship in 2012 and probably won if it wasn't for poor clock management. I'm very glad they didn't win but I could see the pain that it caused the fans.

I wouldn't be typing all of this if he didn't say it was a good decision. It was clearly a bad decision an possibly just a freshman mistake. I'm less critical of college players because they are technically armatures but high paid coaches I am critical of because that's their job.

 

[4shotB]

First, I love CGC and what he has done with the program. I thinks he's the perfect fit and he is going to lead us in a great direction. But I am concerned on his ability as an in game coach. Not his ability to coach up players, but his ability to manage and coach a game.

I haven't participated in this thread but I didn't like the play when it happened. But I think, if the accusations of being a poor game manager are indeed true, I think that is a very specific skill that can either be acquired or delegated. A HC doesn't have to be good at everything, but he should be aware of his weaknesses and manage around them. In other words, he needs to be a good manager as well as leader. Coach's leadership skills appear to be there. It's hard to work around that if you are lacking in that area.

 

[RonJohn]

I’m gonna kick the hornets next because I find this thread amusing:

During the FSU game we had some sort of procedure called on us on a 3rd down on offense. The play was essentially blown dead after the ball was snapped. Collins is running around the sideline looking for an official and you could read his lips asking the official “So it is still 3rd down or is it 4th down now??”
I can only assume the official responded with something like “Umm...dude it’s still 3rd down.”
I thought it was funny actually.

I have a big issue with false start officiating this year. I guess the electronic whistles they are using are not loud enough. There have been several times that plays have run their full course(snap, pass/run, tackle) before the official announces there was a false start pre-snap. I don't remember ever seeing a false start penalty not stopping the play before completion until this year. If this was one of those cases, I would not blame any coach for wanting to get a full explanation as to the situation.

 

[tomknight]

There is a big difference between "lots of time" on the clock with 3 TOs and "lots of time" after been forced to use up the TOs.

how do you know they would've used them? maybe they were waiting to see if our young team would gag down there.