Explained it very well and really from a perspective on things I didn't or wouldn't think about.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...0,7332934.story

I definitely don't agree with his reasoning, but at least he has some reasoning behind it. I felt he should have started calling time outs when they were near field goal range. When they were in the 5, that was just a crazy gamble, this is just not a defense that makes that stand 8 times out of 10.

May not agree with it but after he explains it I can at least understand his thought process. Say what you will about him but dude is detailed as hell

May not agree with it but after he explains it I can at least understand his thought process. Say what you will about him but dude is detailed as hell

Agreed.

 

Peace

Pretty good reasoning and playing the percentages. I dont think I do that though. But thats why he has huge Tresticles.

I pretty much assumed at the time that he wasn't calling the timeouts because he wanted the Ravens to be rushed...for at least one play.

 

To suggest there'd only be 19s left, though, is to assume the Ravens wouldn't have scored a TD and done it on 3rd down or sooner. In that case, they don't have time to run the clock down to 19s if Trestman is calling timouts. There was 1:21 on the clock when Ray Rice did that 11 yard gain to the 5.

 

Of course, that would mean we'd have maybe 60 seconds on the clock at most, a whole field to drive, and only a TD can win it...with no timeouts.

I wasn't a fan of not calling TO's there but the idea that maybe it rushed the Ravens a bit, them assuming the TO's would be called as they typically are, is an interesting one. And it worked out so who am I to judge?

 

Next year, hopefully, this isn't an issue. We have a healthier D, more tools via free agency and the draft, etc. We stop them well before they get close to scoring.