Why the timeout with 7 seconds left in first half?

[The Spin Meister]

That made no sense at all. Wisky got ball with something like 45-50 seconds left. They had a wide snap but ran up the middle for short gain. We had two timeouts but didn’t call one. Then with 20 seconds left they ran again and got to third and four. We waited a few seconds and the called a time out with only seven seconds left. Even if they fumbled the snap and we recovered we would have only one play and it was out of field goal range.

If we were hoping for a bad snap/turnover, why not call a timeout immediately after first down? Then used a second one after second down? If a turnover occurred we would have time for several plays.

Game management is not Franklin’s strong suit.......

 

[okinburg1]

NEVER, EVER, QUESTION A FOOTBALL COACH!!!!!
They think on a different level than the rest of society - please accept that and your life will be so much more enjoyable.


(sarcasm font)

 

[CVLion]

Well the color commentator thought it was “brilliant” (or whatever term he used) so there’s that lol

 

[Agoodnap]

To make sure we had the right defense in for the last play?

 

[The Spin Meister]

To make sure we had the right defense in for the last play?

Both teams were walking off the field and had to be called back. So Wisky lined up and looked for a deep throw but Mertz apparently didn’t like what he saw so he through it far out of bounds.

 

[bvillebaron]

That made no sense at all. Wisky got ball with something like 45-50 seconds left. They had a wide snap but ran up the middle for short gain. We had two timeouts but didn’t call one. Then with 20 seconds left they ran again and got to third and four. We waited a few seconds and the called a time out with only seven seconds left. Even if they fumbled the snap and we recovered we would have only one play and it was out of field goal range.

If we were hoping for a bad snap/turnover, why not call a timeout immediately after first down? Then used a second one after second down? If a turnover occurred we would have time for several plays.

Game management is not Franklin’s strong suit.......

Never miss an opportunity to nitpick I see. My god.

 

[Strick73]

If I remember it correctly, it was 4th down and maybe he thought they might punt.

 

[johnmpsu]

If I remember it correctly, it was 4th down and maybe he thought they might punt.

It was 3rd down and the timeout was incomprehensible, at least to me. My only thought was that somebody lost track of the downs and thought it was 4th down. Then a timeout would make some sense.

 

[The Spin Meister]

Never miss an opportunity to nitpick I see. My god.

Yeah, just nit pickin . It’s not like we haven’t seen any bad clock management in the past. No need to question anything.

 

[jimarnp]

That made no sense at all. Wisky got ball with something like 45-50 seconds left. They had a wide snap but ran up the middle for short gain. We had two timeouts but didn’t call one. Then with 20 seconds left they ran again and got to third and four. We waited a few seconds and the called a time out with only seven seconds left. Even if they fumbled the snap and we recovered we would have only one play and it was out of field goal range.

If we were hoping for a bad snap/turnover, why not call a timeout immediately after first down? Then used a second one after second down? If a turnover occurred we would have time for several plays.

Game management is not Franklin’s strong suit.......

As you say……Make them snap the ball again. They had several exchange problems throughout the game. —Unlikely to pan out, but zero % chance of losing the football if they don’t snap it. Obviously low likelihood, but I think that was the reason. No idea why they didn’t call time out after first down. —-Only thing that makes any kind of sense

 

[Media Fan]

Also questioned the time outs with 2 minutes plus left in the second half.
Too soon imo.
With the interception and us not moving the ball, Wisc. got a second chance to win at the end.

 

[AWS1022]

Also questioned the time outs with 2 minutes plus left in the second half.
Too soon imo.
With the interception and us not moving the ball, Wisc. got a second chance to win at the end.

And if he wouldn’t have called those and Wiscy scored, he would have been criticized for not calling time outs and giving us more time at the end. The beauty of coaching after the fact.

 

[AWS1022]

That made no sense at all. Wisky got ball with something like 45-50 seconds left. They had a wide snap but ran up the middle for short gain. We had two timeouts but didn’t call one. Then with 20 seconds left they ran again and got to third and four. We waited a few seconds and the called a time out with only seven seconds left. Even if they fumbled the snap and we recovered we would have only one play and it was out of field goal range.

If we were hoping for a bad snap/turnover, why not call a timeout immediately after first down? Then used a second one after second down? If a turnover occurred we would have time for several plays.

Game management is not Franklin’s strong suit.......

Bad snap possibility or if they decided to pass (like they did) potential pick six or scoop and score. When the defense is playing well, you can take some chances. I’ll bet if it was 28-28, he wouldn’t have called it.

 

[ram2020]

Bad snap possibility or if they decided to pass (like they did) potential pick six or scoop and score. When the defense is playing well, you can take some chances. I’ll bet if it was 28-28, he wouldn’t have called it.

Not everyone, you and I had a back and forth at the time and I maintain(ed) he had to leave time for our offense considering the overwhelming probability of Wisconsin scoring inside the 5 with first down. I thought it was smart and credited Franklin for it real time.

 

[PSULionsDub]

The timeout at the end of the 1st half was not a good decision. The defense was gassed and had been on the field for 2/3 of the first half. Just get to half time with a scoreless draw rather than taking a risk that could have allowed Wisconsin to score. The probability of Wisconsin scoring was a lot higher than Penn State scoring at the end of the first half. Both teams wanted to go to the locker room so why give Wisconsin another chance to score?

 

[MontereyLion]

Bad snap possibility or if they decided to pass (like they did) potential pick six or scoop and score. When the defense is playing well, you can take some chances. I’ll bet if it was 28-28, he wouldn’t have called it.

I think you are giving coach too much credit for strategic thinking.

 

[AWS1022]

I think you are giving coach too much credit for strategic thinking.

I don’t, I think he’s a very strategic thinker.

 

[Pocono Lion]

As you say……Make them snap the ball again. They had several exchange problems throughout the game. —Unlikely to pan out, but zero % chance of losing the football if they don’t snap it. Obviously low likelihood, but I think that was the reason. No idea why they didn’t call time out after first down. —-Only thing that makes any kind of sense

Yep, the play before Mertz had to catch the snap with one hand, so make them do it again. You never know what might happen.

 

[marshall23]

I have a problem with the seating arrangements on the team plane and buses.

 

[The Spin Meister]

Yep, the play before Mertz had to catch the snap with one hand, so make them do it again. You never know what might happen.

So call a time out immediately at the end of that play. Forty seconds left. We didn’t call anything, they ran another play, and then we called a timeout. If he had called it with forty seconds left I would say it was a wise move. But not with seven left.

 

[AWS1022]

So call a time out immediately at the end of that play. Forty seconds left. We didn’t call anything, they ran another play, and then we called a timeout. If he had called it with forty seconds left I would say it was a wise move. But not with seven left.

Wiscy making a big chunk play with 40 seconds left could hurt you….making one with 7 seconds isn’t going to hurt you.

 

[N&B4PSU]

At first I thought it was about buying more free rest for the D (CJF expected wisky to come out under center, snap, take knee. If they do run play, it's likely hail mary and maybe we get fumble recovery or int to the house. Mertz had shown (imo) no indication he could throw downfield to the EZ. If we could buy 3 free minutes of rest, hey, we needed it. But it was only a 30 second timeout and only bought us about another minute before the snap, so it looks like he was just hoping to catch lightning in a bottle. [One thing I picked up out of it was that Mertz doesn't exactly have a cannon arm.]

As to the earlier decision to not call timeouts, I completely agreed. They had decent field position (31) and there was no need (imo) to give wisky a chance to score (if we had them backed up inside the 15 i would have thought differently and gone for the timeouts).

 

[Obliviax]

That made no sense at all. Wisky got ball with something like 45-50 seconds left. They had a wide snap but ran up the middle for short gain. We had two timeouts but didn’t call one. Then with 20 seconds left they ran again and got to third and four. We waited a few seconds and the called a time out with only seven seconds left. Even if they fumbled the snap and we recovered we would have only one play and it was out of field goal range.

If we were hoping for a bad snap/turnover, why not call a timeout immediately after first down? Then used a second one after second down? If a turnover occurred we would have time for several plays.

Game management is not Franklin’s strong suit.......

I think he wanted to make them punt, a higher risk play. They, smartly, threw a long ball out of bounds to run out the clock

 

[wbcincy]

And if he wouldn’t have called those and Wiscy scored, he would have been criticized for not calling time outs and giving us more time at the end. The beauty of coaching after the fact.

I liked the time out there. Better to use your TOs when the other team has the ball than when you do. And the odds were that we were going to need time to go score.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

CJF called the timeout after Wisconsin started vacating the field before the half was over. Smart call imho as Wisconsin was disorganized and not expecting it (they had mentally checked-out and were heading to locker room). You never know which of the starters had potentially not understood what was going on and potentially left field. Even if they were able to gather them up in time, there's a good chance they aren't perfectly ready/prepared to run another play and they make a mistake.

 

[step.eng69]

I don’t, I think he’s a very strategic thinker.

The Thinker
Le Penseur in the Musée Rodin in Paris

.

 

[JTLion]

That made no sense at all. Wisky got ball with something like 45-50 seconds left. They had a wide snap but ran up the middle for short gain. We had two timeouts but didn’t call one. Then with 20 seconds left they ran again and got to third and four. We waited a few seconds and the called a time out with only seven seconds left. Even if they fumbled the snap and we recovered we would have only one play and it was out of field goal range.

If we were hoping for a bad snap/turnover, why not call a timeout immediately after first down? Then used a second one after second down? If a turnover occurred we would have time for several plays.

Game management is not Franklin’s strong suit.......

Wisconsin was having issues snapping the ball, if you have timeouts use them and make them snap it again, you never know what can happen. Same the botch the snap and PSU doesn't recover, you call your last timeout and make them punt the ball, it is a very use of the timeout, especially since you lose them at the half.

 

[slykens]

Also questioned the time outs with 2 minutes plus left in the second half.
Too soon imo.
With the interception and us not moving the ball, Wisc. got a second chance to win at the end.

I’ve had plenty of criticism for CJF in regards to game management over the years but I thought those TOs were absolutely the right thing to do.

If you don’t call them, Wisconsin controls the clock completely. With what would have been about 1:40 left and down one, I felt pretty good about our guys getting a FG to win with how Dotson had been getting free in the second half.

Seeing now how the sequence played out, my bitch is why can’t the offense get a first down in game ending scenarios. It’s a damn good thing the defense is as well conditioned and played as well as it did. Hopefully the offense can let the D take a day off later this year.

 

[YorkCoLion]

I think he wanted to make them punt, a higher risk play. They, smartly, threw a long ball out of bounds to run out the clock

I believe you are right. Giving Dotson any chance to touch the ball, whether on a punt return or swing pass, is a good idea.

Everything is dumb when in doesn't work. And there is always some one there to say "Told ya so!"

 

[MacNit07]

Yeah, just nit pickin . It’s not like we haven’t seen any bad clock management in the past. No need to question anything.

In a close game, one play can make tbe difference (Exhibit A: Indiana 2020). I also did not like the roll out and throw to Cain on 2nd down of last offensive series…tough pass to complete and it was doomed to a 2-3 yard gain…if it misfires, clock stops and Wisconsin timeout is preserved…multiple risks and no reward..

That said, I thought the overall coaching/decision-making was solid under very difficult circumstances. Great job and terrific win - perhaps the 2nd or 3rd most important of Franklin era!

 

[The Spin Meister]

I think he wanted to make them punt, a higher risk play. They, smartly, threw a long ball out of bounds to run out the clock

It was third down. No need to punt. Even if fourth down, they could run around and throw a bomb out of bounds and kill the clock. Which they did.

 

[Obliviax]

It was third down. No need to punt. Even if fourth down, they could run around and throw a bomb out of bounds and kill the clock. Which they did.

I think the pass was third down. If w ran a quick running play, we’d call timeout again. Can’t anticipate the other teams stupidity. There were those that thought we should let them score with a first down at the two with 3:00 left in the game

 

[marshall23]

And if he wouldn’t have called those and Wiscy scored, he would have been criticized for not calling time outs and giving us more time at the end. The beauty of coaching after the fact.

You can't outcoach the BWI Coaching Advisory Council. Even when you beat a ranked, favored opponent on the road...."We deserve better!"

 

[Jerry]

Also questioned the time outs with 2 minutes plus left in the second half.
Too soon imo.
With the interception and us not moving the ball, Wisc. got a second chance to win at the end.

I think you have to call timeouts in that situation. A Wisconsin score looked almost certain so you want to give your offense a fighting chance. Sometimes you see coaches hesitate to call the timeouts on D on the theory that it's better to save them for the offense. Except they won't do much good if there's only 30 seconds left in the game when the O gets the ball back. Much better to give the offense the ball with 2:00 to go and zero timeouts than with 30 seconds on the clock and 3 timeouts.

Now the timeout at the end of the first half did seem odd. But with only a few seconds left on the clock and Wisconsin in its own territory, at least it was not gonna do harm.

 

[The Spin Meister]

I think the pass was third down. If w ran a quick running play, we’d call timeout again. Can’t anticipate the other teams stupidity. There were those that thought we should let them score with a first down at the two with 3:00 left in the game

You are talking second half. I am talking first half.

 

[Chickenman Testa]

You can't outcoach the BWI Coaching Advisory Council. Even when you beat a ranked, favored opponent on the road...."We deserve better!"

The BWI Coaching Advisory Council is almost as powerful as the Buckeye Rapid Reaction Email Force

 

[YYZ86]

Wiscy making a big chunk play with 40 seconds left could hurt you….making one with 7 seconds isn’t going to hurt you.

Unless it was Indiana last year with 7 seconds left at the end of the game. Then that could kill you. Sorry but I couldn’t resist.

 

[The Spin Meister]

At first I thought it was about buying more free rest for the D (CJF expected wisky to come out under center, snap, take knee. If they do run play, it's likely hail mary and maybe we get fumble recovery or int to the house. Mertz had shown (imo) no indication he could throw downfield to the EZ. If we could buy 3 free minutes of rest, hey, we needed it. But it was only a 30 second timeout and only bought us about another minute before the snap, so it looks like he was just hoping to catch lightning in a bottle. [One thing I picked up out of it was that Mertz doesn't exactly have a cannon arm.]

As to the earlier decision to not call timeouts, I completely agreed. They had decent field position (31) and there was no need (imo) to give wisky a chance to score (if we had them backed up inside the 15 i would have thought differently and gone for the timeouts).

Lightening is unpredictable as to to when or where it will strike. Wisky could have thrown a 30 ya pass and gotten a pass interference call then kicked a field goal on an untimed penalty play.

 

[marshall23]

Lightening is unpredictable as to to when or where it will strike. Wisky could have thrown a 30 ya pass and gotten a pass interference call then kicked a field goal on an untimed penalty play.

Or players wearing metal cleats could be in trouble.

 

[Nitt1300]

whining about literally everything is ingrained in our fan base, it seems