That Louisville Time Out...

18in32

18in32

Petard Hoister
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
27,979
Can anyone explain this to me? Down by 12 points Louisville gets the ball back at their own 25 with slightly under 3:00 minutes left in the game. First down is a sack for 9 yard loss; second down is an incomplete pass; third down is a 4 yd completion. At 4th and 15 from their own 20, with 1:30 on the clock, the go for it, and are sacked for a loss of 2.

So GT takes over at the Louisville 18, with 1:28 on the clock and a 12 point lead. As I would expect, CGC is content to run out the clock. 1st down is a rush for no gain. 2d down is a rush for 6 yds. By using the entire play clock, we've taken a minute off the clock, and there's now 33 seconds left at the end of the play. We won't have to snap the ball again, that's the end of the game, everyone go home.

Nope – instead Louisville calls a time out. We then score on the next play to go up by 19 points.

I could not see anything that would justify the decision to call a time out there. It was their first TO of the 2d half, I believe. They were obviously not trying to keep alive some impossible hopes of making a comeback, since they left the other 2 TO's in the bag. What were they doing? We ended up winning by 19 instead of 12 since they decided to make us snap the ball again. Very weird.
Screen Shot 2020-10-11 at 4.02.37 PM.png
 
Also, they accepted that penalty after 3rd down, so we replayed third down and scored.
 
I’m guessing they started the series conceding. First run. They could live with. When Dontae was filled with juice, competing with ridiculous energy when the game was “out of hand”, and he bounced his run outside, they got pissed and called the TO.

Karma.
 
I found it hard to believe they didn't use their timeouts as soon as we got the ball back to conserve time. Louisville looked like they were in a hurry to so nothing, even on offense. I was puzzled as to what they were doing. It was like they conceded pretty quickly
 
We had broken him. That's why the last 3 minutes went the way they did.

Mebbe he will go into hiding too, claiming the Rona as his excuse.
 
They were probably mad at our coaching staff for not trying To kneel it out.
 
It made sense. I was surprised they didn't take the TO immediately after that first play.

Sure they were down two scores, but with over a minute left they still should play until the end. Stop the run, make us kick or get the ball back. Sure the odds of anything good happening for them is less than 1%, but play until the whistle. Not taking the timeouts is accepting defeat which is weak.
 
05GTCorndog said:
It made sense. I was surprised they didn't take the TO immediately after that first play.

Sure they were down two scores, but with over a minute left they still should play until the end. Stop the run, make us kick or get the ball back. Sure the odds of anything good happening for them is less than 1%, but play until the whistle. Not taking the timeouts is accepting defeat which is weak.
Click to expand...
Yea. Taking the TO was the right call; if they can force a kick there there's is like a 50% chance they could block it with our FG unit (though not sure we even try at that point). He could take taken a TO before 1st down, but some coaches like to save one when possible. Didnt really matter either way
 
BigDanT said:
Also, they accepted that penalty after 3rd down, so we replayed third down and scored.
Click to expand...
Thought that was the right call to back us up 15 yards; we just executed perfectly (playcall + pass + finish at the goaline)
 
Only thing I could figure is Satterfield was indecisive about whether he wanted to extend the game or concede. So he ended up in the middle.
 
18in32 said:
They had three time outs when we got the ball with 1:30 left on the clock. No way we could take a knee in that situation. We ran the ball up the gut. No way we could've been better sports about it.
Click to expand...
Yeah good point. I guess attempting to force the kick seems to be the rationale. But we probably would’ve just gone for it.
 
Remember thinking Satterfield didn’t want to be outdone by CGC in bizarre TO usage.

For real tho, it didn’t end up mattering and I’m more than happy with a 3 score win performance. But CGCs TO strategy is gonna come back to bite us eventually. I get the first TO to get them to look at the possible fumble. That’s worth the risk for points there. But how many games are we gonna end up with 0/1 TOs down the stretch in games.
 
smokey_wasp said:
Only thing I could figure is Satterfield was indecisive about whether he wanted to extend the game or concede. So he ended up in the middle.
Click to expand...

I turned to my wife when they didn't take the TO after the first play and said something like "I can't believe they are conceding. That is gutless to not take the remaining timeouts."
 
gtrower said:
Remember thinking Satterfield didn’t want to be outdone by CGC in bizarre TO usage.

For real tho, it didn’t end up mattering and I’m more than happy with a 3 score win performance. But CGCs TO strategy is gonna come back to bite us eventually. I get the first TO to get them to look at the possible fumble. That’s worth the risk for points there. But how many games are we gonna end up with 0/1 TOs down the stretch in games.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it's best to get the best play and players on the field in that moment in the game.

As we get more experienced, we won't need to burn those.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top