Official Packers vs. Chargers Game Day Thread

[red]

I did.
oh shut up

[Rutnstrut]

Rutnstrut? Anyone? Rutnstrut? *crickets*

YES, I posted right after the game.

[red]

I've been listening to the Packer network stream. I swear to God, they play the ad for New Male boner restoration clinic every break. It is oppressive.

i'm convinced that sports talk radio is paid for by 50% bonner pills, 45% draft kings and fan duel, and 5% by that zyppah asshole jimmy

[Joemailman]

Now hopefully the offense gets its head out of it's ass over the bye week. I would say the defense as well but Capers means they will remain in assville.

Can't find too much fault with the offense considering how depleted they are.

[pbmax]

Somebody owes an apology to the University of Cal

No way. That was dumb.

[oldbutnotdeadyet]

Can't find too much fault with the offense considering how depleted they are.

I do, San Diego is 15th ranked defense going into game. Also, rogers has to find comfort with the remaining receivers, as we may find ourselves in the same predicament later in season. I wonder how many spots are 5th ranked defense will fall? Didn't rivers pass for over a mile?

[Joemailman]

I do, San Diego is 15th ranked defense going into game. Also, rogers has to find comfort with the remaining receivers, as we may find ourselves in the same predicament later in season. I wonder how many spots are 5th ranked defense will fall? Didn't rivers pass for over a mile?

#1 WR is out. #2 WR is playing hurt. #3 WR is out. #1 RB is all but out. They put up 27. Not sure what you expect.

[smuggler]

#4 WR also knocked out

[Guiness]

#1 WR is out. #2 WR is playing hurt. #3 WR is out. #1 RB is all but out. They put up 27. Not sure what you expect.

Jesus that's about as well put as it could be. As Smuggler pointed out, the up and coming rook, who was the #3 at the time, is now out.

[yetisnowman]

#1 WR is out. #2 WR is playing hurt. #3 WR is out. #1 RB is all but out. They put up 27. Not sure what you expect.

I think a little closer examination into to the game shows the offense certainly underachieved even with the injuries. Rivers also lost his starting tailback and #1 receiver in the game. Not to mention is playing behind a completely makeshift offensive line, yet he managed to execute. Aaron also threw high and late on two redzone plays the last drive which would have essentially won the game. The stretch between the 2nd and 3rd quarters with 3 straight possessions resulting in zero first downs and 2 yards really changed the momentum of the game and was just what SD needed to keep a reeling defense gassed and on their heels.

[Guiness]

I think a little closer examination into to the game shows the offense certainly underachieved even with the injuries. Rivers also lost his starting tailback and #1 receiver in the game. Not to mention is playing behind a completely makeshift offensive line, yet he managed to execute. Aaron also threw high and late on two redzone plays the last drive which would have essentially won the game. The stretch between the 2nd and 3rd quarters with 3 straight possessions resulting in zero first downs and 2 yards really changed the momentum of the game and was just what SD needed to keep a reeling defense gassed and on their heels.

SD's offensive line was not at all the crew that played last Monday. They couldn't keep the rush off of Rivers, and tonight they seemed to hold the Packer rush off him most of the time.

[pbmax]

Packers missed Perry and Raji. Glad they put Jones in for the second half rather than more Guion. Guion wasn't getting any push.

[Harlan Huckleby]

No way. That was dumb.

It's a well-known rule. If you just google it is explained many places. You're wrong and digging your heels in.

If a runner goes out of bounds, the clock is only stopped briefly for refs to reset ball. There is essentially no consequence to staying in bounds unless you are near the end of game or half.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_management

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/7_Rule4_Game_Timing.pdf


Whenever a runner goes out of bounds on a play from scrimmage, the game clock is started when
an official spots the ball at the inbounds spot, and the Referee gives the signal to start the game
clock, except that the clock will start on the snap:
(1) after a change of possession;
(2) after the two-minute warning of the first half; or
(3) inside the last five minutes of the second half.

[pbmax]

It's a well-known rule. If you just google it is explained many places. You're wrong and digging your heels in.

If a runner goes out of bounds, the clock is only stopped briefly for refs to reset ball. There is essentially no consequence to staying in bounds unless you are near the end of game or half.


(a) Whenever a runner goes out of bounds on a play from scrimmage, the game clock is started when an official spots the ball at the inbounds spot, and the Referee gives the signal to start the game clock, except... (exceptions don't apply to Rodgers situation)

Inbounds spot is between the hashes and the game clock starts at the head refs' signal after he places the ball down. Could easily work off 10-20 seconds that way with a continuously running clock.

[yetisnowman]

It's a well-known rule. If you just google it is explained many places. You're wrong and digging your heels in.

If a runner goes out of bounds, the clock is only stopped briefly for refs to reset ball. There is essentially no consequence to staying in bounds unless you are near the end of game or half.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_management

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/7_Rule4_Game_Timing.pdf


You still lose the time between the end of the play and when the refs set the ball and start the clock. Usually 10 -15 seconds. Especially on longer gains like that. Not meaningless. Seconds count late in games.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Inbounds spot is between the hashes and the clock starts at the head refs' signal after he places the ball down. Could easily work off 10-20 seconds that way with a continuously running clock.

You think the refs take 10 or 20 seconds to spot the ball? No. Watch the game, the play clock and game clock start-up very quickly on out-of-bounds plays (except near end of halves.)

You said the player was dumb for going out of bounds because you didn't understand the rule, that was obvious because you disputed the 5-minute rule. I'll leave you to pretend otherwise.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You still lose the time between the end of the play and when the refs set the ball and start the clock. Usually 10 -15 seconds. Especially on longer gains like that. Not meaningless. Seconds count late in games.

It's not 10 or 15 seconds. It is only the period that "the ball is out of bounds."
pbmax did not berate the player for that reason - he did not understand the 5-minute rule.

If the player stays inbounds, how quickly does the play clock start up? - that is the time that matters. It is a very short period. You get the full play-clock in either case. (We're talking about perspective of team trying to eat up clock.)

[yetisnowman]

You think the refs take 10 or 20 seconds to spot the ball? No. Watch the game, the play clock and game clock start-up very quickly on out-of-bounds plays (except near end of halves.)

You said the player was dumb for going out of bounds because you didn't understand the rule, that was obvious because you disputed the 5-minute rule. I'll leave you to pretend otherwise.

While he may not have known the rule he's not wrong that it's dumb to go out of bounds. I think you would be hard pressed to see less than 10-15 seconds go off the clock between when a guy gets tackled and when the refs spot and wind the clock,especially on a 20 yd plus play.

[yetisnowman]

I am pretty sure the clock was stopped on that play until the ball was set. But could be wrong.

[Pugger]

Seahawks go down again.

:bump:

[Harlan Huckleby]

While he may not have known the rule he's not wrong that it's dumb to go out of bounds. I think you would be hard pressed to see less than 10-15 seconds go off the clock between when a guy gets tackled and when the refs spot and wind the clock,especially on a 20 yd plus play.

We are talking about a few seconds in a game that has more than five minutes of time left. They restart the play clock very quickly, not 10 or 15 seconds, even on a long play. Going out of bounds is not to be worried about.

It means everything inside 5 minutes.

[Pugger]

Now hopefully the offense gets its head out of it's ass over the bye week. I would say the defense as well but Capers means they will remain in assville.

Getting a healthy Lacy, Cobb and Adams back for the Denver game will do our offense wonders. Lord knows how long Monty will be laid up.

[Pugger]

I think a little closer examination into to the game shows the offense certainly underachieved even with the injuries. Rivers also lost his starting tailback and #1 receiver in the game. Not to mention is playing behind a completely makeshift offensive line, yet he managed to execute. Aaron also threw high and late on two redzone plays the last drive which would have essentially won the game. The stretch between the 2nd and 3rd quarters with 3 straight possessions resulting in zero first downs and 2 yards really changed the momentum of the game and was just what SD needed to keep a reeling defense gassed and on their heels.

SD will get no sympathy from any of us about injuries.

[ThunderDan]

Packers still 3rd in scoring D at 16.8 Ppg. Yardage drops to 16th at 355 ypg.

[yetisnowman]

We are talking about a few seconds in a game that has more than five minutes of time left. They restart the play clock very quickly, not 10 or 15 seconds, even on a long play. Going out of bounds is not to be worried about.

It means everything inside 5 minutes.

Just watching the colts-pats, and on 3rd and 3 Andre Johnson caught a 7yd pass and went out of bounds. More than 5 minutes left. 9-10 seconds before the clock started back up. And that's with a short gain and a team trying to hurry down two scores. Strategically after getting the first down rich should have stayed in bounds to milk as much clock as possible.

[pbmax]

You think the refs take 10 or 20 seconds to spot the ball? No. Watch the game, the play clock and game clock start-up very quickly on out-of-bounds plays (except near end of halves.)

You said the player was dumb for going out of bounds because you didn't understand the rule, that was obvious because you disputed the 5-minute rule. I'll leave you to pretend otherwise.

I did not know it was a 5 minute cut off for the clock to restart on the ref's signal. But you still get to bleed clock by staying in bounds, same as its been for years. If he stays in bounds, there is less time for Chargers and Rivers. No reason to go out of bounds, still a less than optimal play.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If the issue was only the clock, then you would stay inbounds when team is ahead, always. But with > 5 minutes left, field position still matters. The reason somebody goes out of bounds is because the sideline is the best opportunity to gain yards. You don't want to take away aggression until late. After the 5 minute mark, the rules change and it is reasonable to call somebody dumb for running out of bounds with team ahead. Seven minutes to go? Don't sweat it! You don't call a leading QB dumb for not milking every last second of playclock with 7 minutes to go. A few seconds aren't critical yet; there are other considerations.

[Harlan Huckleby]

a team trying to hurry

The team hurrying, or length of play are irrelevant. The refs have same task to deal with out-of-bounds. The refs aren't waiting on teams to start play clock.

[channtheman]

You think the refs take 10 or 20 seconds to spot the ball? No. Watch the game, the play clock and game clock start-up very quickly on out-of-bounds plays (except near end of halves.)

You said the player was dumb for going out of bounds because you didn't understand the rule, that was obvious because you disputed the 5-minute rule. I'll leave you to pretend otherwise.

I knew the clock would restart after the refs placed the ball, but I paid careful attention to see how much time would actually run off since Dick Rod went out of bounds. There was a huge delay in restarting the game clock (almost as if the clock operator didn't know to restart the clock). We only ran off about 15 seconds of clock from the end of that play to the start of the next one. We should have been able to burn 50 seconds easily if Dick Rod just falls down in bounds. I know the rule and knew the rule during the game, but you are actually wrong on this one HH. Dick Rod should have gone down in bounds.

[Patler]

Now hopefully the offense gets its head out of it's ass over the bye week. I would say the defense as well but Capers means they will remain in assville.

The offense scored 27 points on 9 possessions. I'm not sure the problem is all that big.

[Fritz]

The offense scored 27 points on 9 possessions. I'm not sure the problem is all that big.

While the Packers are winning and showing grit in doing so, the injuries - especially to Nelson - are really thwarting this offense. Without Nelson, with his back-shoulder catches and his toe-tapping gymnastics on long passes, teams are creeping up on the los, and doubling Cobb. This is making things difficult for both the running and passing games.

In a way, it seemed almost strange that they won. The defense was getting burned, over and over and over again, by those damn crossing routes. The Chargers were having their way with the Packer defensive line and the pass rush in general.

I am very glad they won. But it felt like they struggled on both sides of the ball. Weird, I know.

By the way, Raji did not play at all, correct?

[Patler]

Also, rogers has to find comfort with the remaining receivers, as we may find ourselves in the same predicament later in season.

Yet, Rodgers completed passes to 9 different receivers. With Adams and Harris inactive, the only active skill-position players who did not have a reception were Ripkowski, Backman and Abrederis. One article said Backman didn't play on offense. I haven't yet watched the game, did Abrederis or Ripkowski play on offense? If they did, I'm sure it wasn't much. It looks like Rodgers used all of his receivers well enough. Each had two receptions, except Starks and Perrilo, who had one each.

[pbmax]

The team hurrying, or length of play are irrelevant. The refs have same task to deal with out-of-bounds. The refs aren't waiting on teams to start play clock.

They do during substitutions, but I'm not at all certain the Packers weren't in no huddle mode.

[pbmax]

By the way, Raji did not play at all, correct?

No Raji, Perry or Burnett.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Yet, Rodgers completed passes to 9 different receivers. With Adams and Harris inactive, the only active skill-position players who did not have a reception were Ripkowski, Backman and Abrederis. One article said Backman didn't play on offense. I haven't yet watched the game, did Abrederis or Ripkowski play on offense? If they did, I'm sure it wasn't much. It looks like Rodgers used all of his receivers well enough. Each had two receptions, except Starks and Perrilo, who had one each.

I did see Abby on the field in the 4th Q as a WR. I remember that CBS showed a list the skill personnel on the screen. That's a nice feature.

[Pugger]

While the Packers are winning and showing grit in doing so, the injuries - especially to Nelson - are really thwarting this offense. Without Nelson, with his back-shoulder catches and his toe-tapping gymnastics on long passes, teams are creeping up on the los, and doubling Cobb. This is making things difficult for both the running and passing games.

In a way, it seemed almost strange that they won. The defense was getting burned, over and over and over again, by those damn crossing routes. The Chargers were having their way with the Packer defensive line and the pass rush in general.

I am very glad they won. But it felt like they struggled on both sides of the ball. Weird, I know.

By the way, Raji did not play at all, correct?

Yes, Raji did not play along with Perry and that hampered our pass rush.

We are missing Nelson but if the only WRs you have that are healthy are Janis and Abby it can't be a mystery why our offense is sputtering at times. Having a gimpy Lacy isn't helping helping either. IMO one mistake Clements made yesterday was not running Starks more. A viable running game could have helped sustain more offensive drives against SD.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Dick Rod should have gone down in bounds.

Not with 7 minutes left in close game! There are going to be a couple more changes of possession, going for yardage and points is still paramount.

You can make argument (a weak one, I would say) that shutting-down is fine with 7 minutes to go in a close game. There is zero argument for calling a player "dumb" for playing aggressive in that situation rather than killing a few extra seconds.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Noticed on the replay of the incomplete pass in the end zone to Rodgers in the 4th Q where the Pack had to settle for the FG, Jones was open in the end zone. Could have sealed the game there, but Rodgers missed him.

[yetisnowman]

Not with 7 minutes left in close game! There are going to be a couple more changes of possession, going for yardage and points is still paramount.

You can make argument (a weak one, I would say) that shutting-down is fine with 7 minutes to go in a close game. There is zero argument for calling a player "dumb" for playing aggressive in that situation rather than killing a few extra seconds.


First of all you choose to say 7 minutes.....interesting, there was 6:05 when RR went out of bounds. Also he didn't gain any yards by jumping out of bounds, he could have lowered his head, stayed in bounds and gained as much if not maybe more, so aggression wasn't the issue. And you have repeatedly stated that the clock only stops for a few seconds, well I timed it and 25 seconds went by between him going out of bounds and the game clock starting again. on a play where you are nursing a lead and just got a first down I'd say that is significant. It's fundamental clock management, it's ok to be wrong about this one buddy. Maybe watch the play again?

[Harlan Huckleby]

First of all you choose to say 7 minutes.....interesting, there was 6:05 when RR went out of bounds. Also he didn't gain any yards by jumping out of bounds, he could have lowered his head, stayed in bounds and gained as much if not maybe more, so aggression wasn't the issue.

Aggression is the issue. You don't play differently - modify play to kill the clock - outside of 5 minutes.
You don't call a player "dumb" for not going down in such an ambiguous situation.



I timed it and 25 seconds went by between him going out of bounds and the game clock starting again

It doesn't matter if 25 years go by! That is not the relevant time period. Think it through.

[Freak Out]

The week off couldn't come at a better time. How bad is Monty hurt? If he is out for awhile they are screwed.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The week off couldn't come at a better time. How bad is Monty hurt? If he is out for awhile they are screwed.

You can't judge Abby until he has been given some playing time. Adams will be back.

[yetisnowman]

Aggression is the issue. You don't play differently - modify play to kill the clock - outside of 5 minutes.
You don't call a player "dumb" for not going down in such an ambiguous situation.




It doesn't matter if 25 years go by! That is not the relevant time period. Think it through.

You keep changing the argument. First only a few seconds were wasted so it's not enough time to matter, now ok 25 seconds but it still doesn't matter. Of course it matters. I think you are being stubborn. He didn't gain any yards by going out of bounds and he stopped the clock. Maybe a stretch to call it dumb, but certainly the smarter play after getting the first down would be to keep the clock moving since stopping it gave you no more yardage than staying in bounds would have.

[Harlan Huckleby]

it gave you no more yardage than staying in bounds would have.

I don't know, don't have perfect memory of the play. I'm not going to second guess a split-second decision in those circumstances - being aggressive means following instincts. Inside five minutes, we are in brain-fart territory because implications are clear.

[yetisnowman]

I don't know, don't have perfect memory of the play. I'm not going to second guess a split-second decision in those circumstances - being aggressive means following instincts. Inside five minutes, we are in brain-fart territory because implications are clear.

I'm telling you that watching the play live, and on replay that is pretty clear. Check it out. It's a not a huge deal because we won the game and it's October. But little things like being savvy about the clock and making smart split-second decisions can be the difference in winning and losing. Hell SD's final play occurred with 20 seconds left with zero timeouts.

[Harlan Huckleby]

First only a few seconds were wasted so it's not enough time to matter, now ok 25 seconds but it still doesn't matter.

No, that was not the point. When the runner goes out of bounds, it doesn't matter whether it takes 25 seconds or 25 years to put ball in play because that is not relevant time window, the clock is stopped. What matters is time when they are inbounds. The refs are going to take their time when clock is not running.

[yetisnowman]

No, that was not the point. When the runner goes out of bounds, it doesn't matter whether it takes 25 seconds or 25 years to put ball in play because that is not relevant time window, the clock is stopped. What matters is time when they are inbounds. The refs are going to take their time when clock is not running.


There is no way they get the ball set in less than 10 seconds more like 15-20. U keep shifting the point of contention. He should have stayed in bounds. That was the smarter play.

[sharpe1027]

There is no way they get the ball set in less than 10 seconds more like 15-20. U keep shifting the point of contention. He should have stayed in bounds. That was the smarter play.

More time would have run off the clock, which probably would have helped. I have a few minor issues with making anything out of that though.

1) I think that he was trying to hurdle the tackler and keep going, he wasn't trying to run out of bounds.
2) With that much time left and the way they were moving the ball, it is hard to know whether running of the extra time would help or hurt. Sure, on average it would help, but the value of running clock was still relatively low.
3) Cutting back in to take on a tackler coming full blast from the side is a fumble waiting to happen. I think he actually fumbled it after the hit, so we are lucky he went out of bounds.

[pbmax]

First of all you choose to say 7 minutes.....interesting, there was 6:05 when RR went out of bounds. Also he didn't gain any yards by jumping out of bounds, he could have lowered his head, stayed in bounds and gained as much if not maybe more, so aggression wasn't the issue. And you have repeatedly stated that the clock only stops for a few seconds, well I timed it and 25 seconds went by between him going out of bounds and the game clock starting again. on a play where you are nursing a lead and just got a first down I'd say that is significant. It's fundamental clock management, it's ok to be wrong about this one buddy. Maybe watch the play again?

If you have the first down and the lead, you can also save yourself and just fall down or slide. Only time not to do that is near FG range.

[sharpe1027]

If you have the first down and the lead, you can also save yourself and just fall down or slide. Only time not to do that is near FG range.

In the open field with enough time, sure. Sprinting down the sidelines as a ~250 guy not known for his agility, not necessarily as simple as it sounds. I am not disagreeing that in theory it is the right thing to do. I just think it is a very picky point to be making.

[pbmax]

In the open field with enough time, sure. Sprinting down the sidelines as a ~250 guy not known for his agility, not necessarily as simple as it sounds. I am not disagreeing that in theory it is the right thing to do. I just think it is a very picky point to be making.

I am aware. I was just hoping during the play, since he has time to secure the first down and prepare to get swarmed by three guys, that he would choose to go down in bounds. Even if it only saves 10 seconds, you do that three times and suddenly SD is calling TOs outside the red zone.

[yetisnowman]

I am aware. I was just hoping during the play, since he has time to secure the first down and prepare to get swarmed by three guys, that he would choose to go down in bounds. Even if it only saves 10 seconds, you do that three times and suddenly SD is calling TOs outside the red zone.

Exactly. Like I said it was a stretch to say that was dumb, or even a blunder. But I think it's reasonable to expect a lot of guys to make the heady play there with the game winding down. Also RR's lack of agility seems to me to be a good reason to not try to hurdle 2 defenders when clearly he would land out of bounds and take the much more risky route, potentially as it relates to being injured.

[mraynrand]

honestly, someone is giving Rodgers a hard time for going out of bounds? If I recall, SD had plenty of time and three TOs. Given how poorly the O was playing, it's a miracle they moved the ball and scored points in the second half, let alone tried to dictate the clock late in the game.

[pbmax]

honestly, someone is giving Rodgers a hard time for going out of bounds? If I recall, SD had plenty of time and three TOs. Given how poorly the O was playing, it's a miracle they moved the ball and scored points in the second half, let alone tried to dictate the clock late in the game.

Someone needed to make a play. And that play was to fall down. :lol:

We're not killing him for it. Just wishing it had happened.

Mainly Harlan is killing me for not knowing that they restart the game clock on OOB plays after the ref sets the ball on the hash before 5 minutes left in game.

[mraynrand]

Someone needed to make a play. And that play was to fall down. :lol:

but given the circumstances, it probably doesn't help you all that much. When your offense can barely make any plays at all, you're not sitting there thinking about milking the clock, you're just hoping to God you can actually get a first down and maybe get in scoring range.

[sharpe1027]

I am aware. I was just hoping during the play, since he has time to secure the first down and prepare to get swarmed by three guys, that he would choose to go down in bounds. Even if it only saves 10 seconds, you do that three times and suddenly SD is calling TOs outside the red zone.

I guess, but it is really splitting hairs to complain about it here. As hard as he was running, it would have been difficult to avoid a big collision. He probably does not have the QB slide in his repertoire. In this case it was probably a good thing he went out since he ended up fumbling the ball.

[yetisnowman]

honestly, someone is giving Rodgers a hard time for going out of bounds? If I recall, SD had plenty of time and three TOs. Given how poorly the O was playing, it's a miracle they moved the ball and scored points in the second half, let alone tried to dictate the clock late in the game.

And as I said SD ended the game with 0 timeouts and 15 seconds left. And yes the O was playing poor, that's why burning as much clock near midfield on first down, up four pts, with 6 minutes left was a smart move minimizing the amount of time we leave Rivers with if/when he got the ball back. First down was in the bag, he gained no yards getting out of bounds and had he stayed in we could have snapped the ball around 5:30 instead of 5:50.

[yetisnowman]

The offense scored 27 points on 9 possessions. I'm not sure the problem is all that big.


What concerns me is the feast or famine thing. 4 out of 9 possessions were 3 and outs, and 4 out of the last 6. Also in the redzone at the end of the game we needed a TD to secure the victory, and couldn't make the plays. The pattern of this team getting fgs instead of tds in big spots gets tiresome. It all worked out. I just hope we get healthy real soon, our offense is completely out of wack .

[mraynrand]

And as I said SD ended the game with 0 timeouts and 15 seconds left. And yes the O was playing poor, that's why burning as much clock near midfield on first down, up four pts, with 6 minutes left was a smart move minimizing the amount of time we leave Rivers with if/when he got the ball back. First down was in the bag, he gained no yards getting out of bounds and had he stayed in we could have snapped the ball around 5:30 instead of 5:50.

So what? If, if if. If Rodgers runs some clock, then SD just adjust later. They had four plays from inside the 5. They had tons of time, and they would have had plenty of time had Rodgers slid or whatever. SD had totally control of their offense. They lose a few seconds here, they make it up elsewhere. Tons of time and TOs left when they got the ball again. So what if they lose a TO? Then Rivers just spikes the ball. Up until the last stand, they were moving at will. If you noticed, on the last drive, before the final stand, they only had two second downs as opposed to 7 first downs.



GB's offense was so anemic, it's a miracle they scored as much as they did in the second half. Packers had just about zero ability to affect the game by running the clock on offense. They could hardly get a first down to save their lives.

[yetisnowman]

So what? If, if if. If Rodgers runs some clock, then SD just adjust later. They had four plays from inside the 5. They had tons of time, and they would have had plenty of time had Rodgers slid or whatever. SD had totally control of their offense. They lose a few seconds here, they make it up elsewhere. Tons of time and TOs left when they got the ball again. So what if they lose a TO? Then Rivers just spikes the ball. Up until the last stand, they were moving at will. If you noticed, on the last drive, before the final stand, they only had two second downs as opposed to 7 first downs.



GB's offense was so anemic, it's a miracle they scored as much as they did in the second half. Packers had just about zero ability to affect the game by running the clock on offense. They could hardly get a first down to save their lives.

Agree to disagree I guess. I could come up with scenarios where it makes sense to burn clock on that possession. I have yet to hear why it makes sense to hurdle out of bounds gaining no yardage. You can't just throw game/clock management out the window and say "Well we suck on offense and defense so these 20 seconds aren't going to matter" We should have a td on the last drive, then SD is down two scores and clock plus timeouts could certainly be a factor. I mean you have to play and coach with the mentality that the details do matter otherwise why suit up?

[sharpe1027]

Yes, there was no time on the clock because SD purposely ran the clock down so that the Packers would not have time to score. 10 seconds did not make any difference in this game. Might it have in another situation? Yes. Would it have benefited or hurt the Packers? It depends.

[sharpe1027]

Agree to disagree I guess. I could come up with scenarios where it makes sense to burn clock on that possession. I have yet to hear why it makes sense to hurdle out of bounds gaining no yardage. You can't just throw game/clock management out the window and say "Well we suck on offense and defense so these 20 seconds aren't going to matter" We should have a td on the last drive, then SD is down two scores and clock plus timeouts could certainly be a factor. I mean you have to play and coach with the mentality that the details do matter otherwise why suit up?

Hold on! I gave you at least three reasons. There were even nicely numbered for future reference! :twisted:

[mraynrand]

Agree to disagree I guess. I could come up with scenarios where it makes sense to burn clock on that possession.

So can I. But for an offense that can barely move the ball, running the clock is a lower priority.



I have yet to hear why it makes sense to hurdle out of bounds gaining no yardage.

I didn't make this argument. Perhaps others did. Does it have to make sense? It sounds like a straw man argument, as though you're arguing that Rodgers deliberately hurdled out of bounds to gain no yardage. Perhaps he just tried to gain more yardage and failed. Also, it's very likely that he isn't thinking at all about clock management, given that the offense can barely move the ball.


You can't just throw game/clock management out the window and say "Well we suck on offense and defense so these 20 seconds aren't going to matter" We should have a td on the last drive, then SD is down two scores and clock plus timeouts could certainly be a factor. I mean you have to play and coach with the mentality that the details do matter otherwise why suit up?

Strawman again. Who is 'throwing clock management out the window?' what if it's just a secondary or tertiary concern to getting very tough to get first downs and getting in scoring range? Do you know what the thinking was on the sidelines or what was being relayed to the players?

[yetisnowman]

More time would have run off the clock, which probably would have helped. I have a few minor issues with making anything out of that though.

1) I think that he was trying to hurdle the tackler and keep going, he wasn't trying to run out of bounds.
2) With that much time left and the way they were moving the ball, it is hard to know whether running of the extra time would help or hurt. Sure, on average it would help, but the value of running clock was still relatively low.
3) Cutting back in to take on a tackler coming full blast from the side is a fumble waiting to happen. I think he actually fumbled it after the hit, so we are lucky he went out of bounds.


1) In my opinion he was not seriously trying to hurdle the defenders and stay in bounds this isn't carl lewis here, he knew he would end up out of bounds and made a choice at the end of the play to not stay in bounds. Now maybe that was just instinct and no thought was given.
2)I think that around midfield, with the ball, and a fresh set of downs up 4 pts and between 5-6 minutes left is a time you basically always want the clock to be running.
3)I don't think he really had to cut back in towards the defenders, as opposed to just not angling himself out of bounds. He is supposed to be able to take some contact without fumbling. I think he let the ball loose basically because he flipped upside down and knew he was out of bounds.

[yetisnowman]

So can I. But for an offense that can barely move the ball, running the clock is a lower priority.




I didn't make this argument. Perhaps others did. Does it have to make sense? It sounds like a straw man argument, as though you're arguing that Rodgers deliberately hurdled out of bounds to gain no yardage. Perhaps he just tried to gain more yardage and failed. Also, it's very likely that he isn't thinking at all about clock management, given that the offense can barely move the ball.



Strawman again. Who is 'throwing clock management out the window?' what if it's just a secondary or tertiary concern to getting very tough to get first downs and getting in scoring range? Do you know what the thinking was on the sidelines or what was being relayed to the players?

Again up 4, Midfield, fresh set of downs, 5-6 minutes to go I'm quite sure the book says you want the clock running. Whether you anticipate the drive ending in a punt, TD, or a FG. Yes it should be secondary to getting first downs, which is why I'm saying the savvy play would have been to stay in bounds AFTER he knew he had the first and there were clearly no more yards up the sideline.

[pbmax]

If he was hustling to get a first down, I understand. He has the first by a comfortable margin.

[sharpe1027]

1) In my opinion he was not seriously trying to hurdle the defenders and stay in bounds this isn't carl lewis here, he knew he would end up out of bounds and made a choice at the end of the play to not stay in bounds. Now maybe that was just instinct and no thought was given.
2)I think that around midfield, with the ball, and a fresh set of downs up 4 pts and between 5-6 minutes left is a time you basically always want the clock to be running.
3)I don't think he really had to cut back in towards the defenders, as opposed to just not angling himself out of bounds. He is supposed to be able to take some contact without fumbling. I think he let the ball loose basically because he flipped upside down and knew he was out of bounds.

1 - He was angling toward the sidelines because that got him the most yards. Could he have stopped his momentum and turned back in? Probably, but he's not one to turn on a dime so he probably would have given up a fair amount of yardage.
2) Yes, but the advantage at this point of the game is so slight. I think that it was nearly as likely that they would need a drive of their own as not.
3) The risk of fumbling is still there, and it is highlighted by the speed and number of defenders closing in.

In short, you are correct that it is probably statistically a slightly better option if he had cut back inside, but the difference is so slight that who really cares?

[Cheesehead Craig]

The play started at 6:14
The next play started at 5:51

So if the play clock and game clock don't start until the ball is spotted by the official on the sidelines (given it was not 5 min left), how is it DickRod's fault? Both clocks should have started at the same time. Unless the play clock started when the ref had the spot on the sidelines and the game clock didn't start until the ball was set on the hashmark on the field and the official signaled a start to the game clock.

How long would it have taken for the pass play in total? Like 7 seconds before he goes out of bounds? If that's the case, he didn't go out until the 6:07 mark. Why did the Pack run another play only 16 seconds later?

If the play clock was at 1 or 2 seconds (which would be common for a team milking the clock) when the next play started, that would mean that the refs took 23 seconds to set the ball at the hashmarks and start the game clock from when DickRod ran out of bounds and the sideline official set the ball on the sidelines from where he ran out of bounds. That doesn't seem plausible to me.

Unless we can see the play clock from the play, to me it seems like the Pack snapped the ball too soon on the following play.

[sharpe1027]

Cheesehead, I am pretty sure that the Packers were not running the clock down all the way on each play that drive. A few seconds are not that big of a deal in that situation.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Cheesehead, I am pretty sure that the Packers were not running the clock down all the way on each play that drive. A few seconds are not that big of a deal in that situation.

I'm with you on this. Just trying to look at this from the numbers standpoint. I don't think the Packers lost 15-20 seconds of the clock running down on the play with him going out of bounds. The numbers don't match the theory, IMO.

[Harlan Huckleby]

There is no way they get the ball set in less than 10 seconds more like 15-20.

It may take 30 seconds when the ball is out of bounds, the refs are in no hurry. Watch an inbounds play - the refs place the ball very quickly because it matters, the clock is running.

As Sharpie points out, DRod was heading to sidelines because that angle gave him the greatest yardage opportunity. If you want to say he could get more yardage by cutting inside, fine, that is fair criticism if it is true. But the clock is not an important part of the play at that point in the game. Yardage and points still matter with more possessions almost certain to come. It's a 100% sure that calling Rodgers dumb there is dumb.

Play the "dumb" card inside 5 minutes when out-of-bounds actually completely stops the clock.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Again up 4, Midfield, fresh set of downs, 5-6 minutes to go I'm quite sure the book says you want the clock running.

Yes, you don't want to stop the clock. But there were 6 minutes left, so going out of bounds doesn't really stop the clock, the ball gets reset and the offense gets to burn a full play clock.

You are splitting hairs in the heat of an athletic competition where the players are trying to get yardage and score more points. Inside of 5 minutes, different story.

[yetisnowman]

Yes, you don't want to stop the clock. But there were 6 minutes left, so going out of bounds doesn't really stop the clock, the ball gets reset and the offense gets to burn a full play clock.

You are splitting hairs in the heat of an athletic competition where the players are trying to get yardage and score more points. Inside of 5 minutes, different story.

Fair enough. My understanding is a longer play away from the center of the field with a pile of big bodies takes significantly longer than say a two yard run up the middle, in terms of the refs getting and setting the ball and starting the clock.

[yetisnowman]

The play started at 6:14
The next play started at 5:51

So if the play clock and game clock don't start until the ball is spotted by the official on the sidelines (given it was not 5 min left), how is it DickRod's fault? Both clocks should have started at the same time. Unless the play clock started when the ref had the spot on the sidelines and the game clock didn't start until the ball was set on the hashmark on the field and the official signaled a start to the game clock.

How long would it have taken for the pass play in total? Like 7 seconds before he goes out of bounds? If that's the case, he didn't go out until the 6:07 mark. Why did the Pack run another play only 16 seconds later?

If the play clock was at 1 or 2 seconds (which would be common for a team milking the clock) when the next play started, that would mean that the refs took 23 seconds to set the ball at the hashmarks and start the game clock from when DickRod ran out of bounds and the sideline official set the ball on the sidelines from where he ran out of bounds. That doesn't seem plausible to me.

Unless we can see the play clock from the play, to me it seems like the Pack snapped the ball too soon on the following play.

They did. They snapped the ball with 15 seconds left on the play clock. I used a stop watch most basic cell phones have one. It was 25 seconds between the time the game clock stopped and then started again. Now what time was truly lost by going out of bounds you never really know, my educated guess would be between 10-15 seconds. But I guess them not milking the playclock further establishes what their approach was. I'm ok with it.

[channtheman]

Not with 7 minutes left in close game! There are going to be a couple more changes of possession, going for yardage and points is still paramount.

You can make argument (a weak one, I would say) that shutting-down is fine with 7 minutes to go in a close game. There is zero argument for calling a player "dumb" for playing aggressive in that situation rather than killing a few extra seconds.

It's not about shutting down. I'm a firm believer in sticking with your offense and hate the run run pass punt combo. However, up 4 against an offense that is moving the ball at will against your defense, and only 6:30 left in the game, you should be working that clock to end this game. You don't have to change your offense, you simply play to run as much clock as possible, and if that means going down on your own one yard short of what you would get going out of bounds, I'm all for it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

However, up 4 against an offense that is moving the ball at will against your defense, and only 6:30 left in the game, you should be working that clock to end this game.

They were. The ball gets spotted very quickly on an in-bounds play, less than 5 seconds. Staying inbounds is not a big deal with > 5 minutes to play.
There is still a lot of time left, the other team is going to get a possession. Field position and scoring is top priority.

[channtheman]

They were. The ball gets spotted very quickly on an in-bounds play, less than 5 seconds. Staying inbounds is not a big deal with > 5 minutes to play.
There is still a lot of time left, the other team is going to get a possession. Field position and scoring is top priority.

I agree. I just wish we could have burned even more time just so SD can't sit back and have plenty of time with all their timeouts on their possession. Our defense was struggling to stop them in part because the offense couldn't stay on the field. How much does it matter? Obviously we won and we're all happy so it didn't matter this game. Dick Rod probably would get hurt or fumble if he tried to make an unnatural move as well.

I suppose my main argument is, keep your normal offense and move the ball. Just milk that clock even more than you might usually. Oddly enough, Rodgers was actually snapping before 1 second on the play clock, as he often does during the normal course of the game.

[pbmax]

They were. The ball gets spotted very quickly on an in-bounds play, less than 5 seconds. Staying inbounds is not a big deal with > 5 minutes to play.
There is still a lot of time left, the other team is going to get a possession. Field position and scoring is top priority.

We need the tape. yeti is claiming there was a 25 second game clock stoppage.

[Harlan Huckleby]

We need the tape. yeti is claiming there was a 25 second game clock stoppage.

Right, but he has come to his senses: the time stoppage on an out-of-bounds play is irrelevant, the clock is stopped. The refs hurry on inbounds plays only 'cause it matters. The play clock starts very quickly, typically 5 secs or even less.

[3irty1]

I have just a couple of thoughts after this game.

This must have been how it felt to play us in 2011. Ignore the run and make it rain anyways. Credit to Rivers and his weapons where credit is due; some stuff just can't be defended.

However unlike us in 2011, they started the game like cornered animals and never really lost that gamblers desperation whether it meant forgoing the fieldgoal on 4th down, forcing the ball to anything deemed a mismatch, and swinging for the fences with their fits on defense. Rivers tested his luck and his luck was pretty good more often than not.

Three man rush is a dirty word around here but when it proved effective in 2010, it was precisely in situations like those in this game. When Rivers is unloading the ball in three tenths of a second there it is no use bringing six. Instead why not do the football equivalent of a change up? Drop the house and clog some passing lanes just to make sure Phil isn't deciding where to go with the ball before the snap. At least make him question his internal clock.

I think we are going to look back fondly for years at the Randall and Montgomery picks.

[pbmax]

Right, but he has come to his senses: the time stoppage on an out-of-bounds play is irrelevant, the clock is stopped. The refs hurry on inbounds plays only 'cause it matters. The play clock starts very quickly, typically 5 secs or even less.

Let's time some after the bye. I might as well ride this out.

[pbmax]

I have just a couple of thoughts after this game.

...

Three man rush is a dirty word around here but when it proved effective in 2010, it was precisely in situations like those in this game. When Rivers is unloading the ball in three tenths of a second there it is no use bringing six. Instead why not do the football equivalent of a change up? Drop the house and clog some passing lanes just to make sure Phil isn't deciding where to go with the ball before the snap. At least make him question his internal clock.

I think we are going to look back fondly for years at the Randall and Montgomery picks.

I agree on the 3 man rush.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Regarding play clock: on inbounds play, the play clock actually starts instantaneously with the end of the previous play, runs for 40 seconds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play_clock

So there is not even a slight benefit to staying in bounds outside of 5 minutes.

Edit: But is the play clock only 25 seconds after an out-of-bounds play? Hmmm, that would change things, just don't know.

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/7_Rule4_Game_Timing.pdf

Section 6, article 2 (Christ, am I really doing this?) the play clock is only 25 seconds for
(a) a change of possession;
(b) a charged team timeout;
(c) the two-minute warning;
(d) the expiration of a period;
(e) a penalty enforcement;
(f) a Try; or
(g) a Free Kick.

(What the hell is a "Try"?)

So I guess the play clock is 40 seconds for generic out-of-bounds play.

[hoosier]

Agree to disagree I guess. I could come up with scenarios where it makes sense to burn clock on that possession. I have yet to hear why it makes sense to hurdle out of bounds gaining no yardage. You can't just throw game/clock management out the window and say "Well we suck on offense and defense so these 20 seconds aren't going to matter" We should have a td on the last drive, then SD is down two scores and clock plus timeouts could certainly be a factor. I mean you have to play and coach with the mentality that the details do matter otherwise why suit up?

It makes sense to hurdle instead of going down because you stand to pick up a few extra yards that way. There, now you've heard it.

[hoosier]

We need the tape. yeti is claiming there was a 25 second game clock stoppage.

I just timed it. 25 seconds in real time between when DickRod goes OOB and when the game clock starts up again. The playclock at that point was down to 16, meaning that it was restarted just a second after he went OOB.

The other thing is, DickRod is running full speed down the sideline trying to pick up as many yards as he could, and he was angling toward the boundary line in order to maximize the gain. He might have been able to slide in-bounds instead of going out, but he would have had to reposition himself and slow down or else get blown up by one or more defenders on the way down. He probably got an extra five yards doing what he did.

[hoosier]

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/7_Rule4_Game_Timing.pdf

Section 6, article 2 (Christ, am I really doing this?) the play clock is only 25 seconds for
(a) a change of possession;
(b) a charged team timeout;
(c) the two-minute warning;
(d) the expiration of a period;
(e) a penalty enforcement;
(f) a Try; or
(g) a Free Kick.

(What the hell is a "Try"?)

So I guess the play clock is 40 seconds for generic out-of-bounds play.

A try is an extra point. 40 second play clock for out of bounds but the play clock, unlike the game clock, starts more or less immediately.

[pbmax]

I just timed it. 25 seconds in real time between when DickRod goes OOB and when the game clock starts up again. The playclock at that point was down to 16, meaning that it was restarted just a second after he went OOB.

The other thing is, DickRod is running full speed down the sideline trying to pick up as many yards as he could, and he was angling toward the boundary line in order to maximize the gain. He might have been able to slide in-bounds instead of going out, but he would have had to reposition himself and slow down or else get blown up by one or more defenders on the way down. He probably got an extra five yards doing what he did.

I grant that it would, certainly on average, cost you yards. But at that point in the game, essentially two possessions (with a lead), only a first down or score (FG) is worth going OOB if you have a lead. You don't want a Burnett, but if you are going down anyway, stay inbounds.

So, if I were coach, you would call that situation NOOB and the rule would be stay inbounds unless we get a first down. Don't worry about a score until after midfield.