I don't understand the calling timeouts with 4 minutes left and your down by 6. Can someone explain this to me?

My opinion was always that a timeout is more valuable than 30 seconds with 3-5 minutes left. If the Jets keep those timeouts, lets say the get the ball back with 2:30 instead of 3:45 or whatever. What is the difference. Your still down by 6.

But if you get the ball back 2:30, with 2 timeouts left, you can then punt if you fail and still get the ball back again. Why do you need the ball back with 3:45 with no timeouts as opposed to 2:30 with timeouts?

Wasn't there some book written on clock management or something and how coaches suck at it? I can't remember the title but I'd be interested about reading the stats in there about the whole calling timeouts too early.

By the way, no can hate on MM after that game, yes the O sucked but he went toe to toe in a chess match with one of the best coahces in the league. Good for him.

---

I didn't like the 3 shitty run strategy employed by Mike on that drive, but thanks to Rex, it ended up working out.

When the other team has the ball, a timeout is worth about 40 seconds because that's how long the play clock runs. That's two minutes for three timeouts, not 1:15 as you say.

I will have to watch the game again to see exactly how much time was left when the Jets started using their timeouts. If they hadn't, the Packers probably could've run the clock down at least to the two-minute warning. At that point, punting (if the Jets failed to move the ball on their subsequent possession) and using the timeouts probably would not have been an option, considering how badly the Jets offense was struggling.

So I think Rex Ryan decided that his team was only going to get one more possession, so he should use his timeouts while the Packers had the ball. That way he could save 40 seconds per timeout, as opposed to when your own team has the ball and you can run the ball out of bounds, use the hurry-up offense, spike the ball or whatever.

The strategy was debatable, but I don't think it was overtly bad.

---

I didn't like that strategy either (I hardly ever do), but the defense was playing so well that it was understandable.

---

And the special teams minus one return was giving us the field position advantage all day.

---

Green Bay Packers at 04:12
1-10-GB 35 (4:12) 30-J.Kuhn left guard to GB 37 for 2 yards (52-D.Harris, 91-S.Pouha).

Timeout #1 by NYJ at 04:08.
2-8-GB 37 (4:08) 32-B.Jackson right end to GB 35 for -2 yards (22-B.Pool, 57-B.Scott).

Timeout #2 by NYJ at 04:03.
3-10-GB 35 (4:03) 32-B.Jackson right end to GB 36 for 1 yard (97-C.Pace).

Timeout #3 by NYJ at 03:59.
4-9-GB 36 (3:57) 8-T.Masthay punts 41 yards to NYJ 23, Center-61-B.Goode, out of bounds.

New York Jets at 03:50

So lets say 4:12 - 3:32. 3:32 - 2:58. Then call a timeout. You'd have the ball back with lets say 2:50 with 2 timeouts. Then lets say you run 3 pass plays and miss (7 seconds each), you could punt it with 2:29 or whatever and have 2 timeouts and the 2 minute warning, still only being down by 6.

And that assumes that the Packers still run on 3rd down (as I would guess that the Packers may choose to just throw on 3rd down as the Jets were not burning timeouts).

I just don't see the upside between having the ball with 2:50 with 2 timeouts versus having the ball with 3:50 with no timeouts. By using all your timeouts at 4:00, you are conceding that this will be your last drive either way. So why not just save the timeouts and see what happens.

Also lets say its 3rd and 8 with 2:58 left and you then use your first timeout. Then lets say the Packers convert. Then you still have a chance to 2:58-2:54 (2nd timeout), 2:54-2:50 (3rd timeout), 2:50-2:10, then get the ball back. The saving timeout strategy also would have given your team leeway if the Packers convert (which didn't happen here but still).

Also I thought horrible 3rd down call on the 2nd last drive. Why go for hte endzone, why not run a screen or even a run to make a shorter 4th down situation as you are in 4th down territory. I was confused by Rex Ryan.

---

It's better to use timeouts when your on D so I can see why he wanted to use them when the Packers had the ball.

As for the 3 runs when we had the ball, I don't really see the problem. The tactic worked. Our D and punter were playing lights out and it forced them to burn all their TOs.

---

That. I guess I'm just accustomed to our Offense carrying the team and the defense making or breaking us that I have a hard time realizing when we SHOULD be placing the game in the defense's hands.

It actually worked because of our defense, not Rex.

I thought this was great strategy. The passing game was pretty ineffective and the D and special teams were playing great. Putting the ball in the air against those CBs risked more than stopping the clock, it risked having Revis or Cromartie take one back for the winning score.

As Tuesday Morning Quarterback on ESPN says, sometimes all you have to do to win is run up the middle for no gain.

---

TOPF - The incentive behind what the packers did was to either burn clock, or burn timeouts. Rex walked right into the latter of the 2 scenarios, so thanks to his trigger finger it ended up hurting him later on in the game.

Also, people keep crying out for screens, but is that really such a good option vs. a fast team playing a 3-4?