Phil Sheridan | Time management: Reid should rethink his strategy.
By Phil Sheridan - Inquirer Columnist
The good news for the Eagles is that this year's T.O. problem won't require special masters or hovering TV helicopters to resolve.
This year's problem - time-outs - is something Andy Reid can fix all by himself.
The first step is as simple as making that "T" with your hands: Drop the knee-jerk assumption that a time-out is a better option than a measly 5-yard penalty for delay of the game.
Reid and Donovan McNabb used two of their three second-half time-outs in New Orleans on Sunday to prevent the play clock from running down to zero. That left the Eagles with just one to stop the clock when the Saints marched downfield for the game-winning field goal.
John Reed, who wrote a book on football clock management, suggests a shift from traditional thinking when it comes to the time-out.
"Calling time-out because of some screw-up is a very bad habit because it wastes time-outs and will not work when you screw up and no longer have any time-outs left," Reed writes on his Web site, johntreed.com. "You need to practice not calling time-outs. Give your quarterback some other solution and practice it."
In fairness, the Eagles were dealing with several issues when they used those time-outs. It was incredibly loud in the Superdome, as the roar of a sellout crowd reverberated off the new roof. Plays are being called through helmet radios that don't always provide perfect clarity. On a crucial down, the opposition may be in the perfect defense to stop the play you've called.
But all of these things should be anticipated. You know it's going to be loud. You know there will be some communication issues. You know there are going to be unfavorable matchups at times.
Reid should heed Reed. Give McNabb, who is in his eighth season running Reid's offense, the freedom to call a play on his own. Set aside a handful of plays featuring a certain personnel grouping for situations where the game is on the line, especially on the road. Finally, accept the 5-yard penalty for delay sometimes.
The Eagles pride themselves on having a big-play offense and a Pro Bowl quarterback. Essentially, the Eagles gave up the chance to get the ball at the end of Sunday's game in exchange for 5 yards in one quarter and 5 yards in another.
Bill Rasker has a different take. He writes about football strategy and trends on his Web site, footballcommentary.com. Using data from hundreds of games, Rasker created a model that computes how different situations affect a team's probability of winning.
The Eagles used a time-out with 6 minutes, 11 seconds left in the third quarter while they were down by a touchdown.
"That affected their probability of winning the game by less than 1 percent," Rasker said.
As for the fourth-quarter time-out in a tie game? Same thing.
"You would like to run your offense so you don't have to use a time-out in that situation," Rasker said. "But it's surprising how little it happens that the time-outs at the end affect the outcome. When it does happen, though, you remember it."
So how do you reconcile these different views? One way to figure the value of the time-out is to analyze the results it produces. And when you look at it that way, it's hard to argue that the Eagles are better off burning them to save a 5-yard penalty.
Look at the two from the second half Sunday.
Third quarter, third and 11. After the time-out, McNabb threw deep for Reggie Brown, incomplete. The Eagles punted.
Fourth quarter, third and 11. After the time-out, McNabb was hit as he fired a short swing pass, incomplete, intended for a well-covered Brian Westbrook. The Eagles punted.
So far this season, the Eagles have used time-outs 15 times to stop the clock during offensive drives. Three of those were in the final minute of the second half in Houston, so those were really meant to stop the clock. Of the other 12 times, the play called during the time-out resulted in a first down just three times. Five times, McNabb threw an incomplete pass. Three times, he was sacked. One play picked up 6 yards when 10 were needed.
So the time-out is as likely to produce a sack as a first down, and three times as likely to force a punt as to extend a drive.
Could McNabb do worse if he improvised with a play call of his own? Would the results be much worse if the Eagles took the 5-yard penalty? Now does the time-out seem more valuable as a device to manage the clock than as a way to make an offensive play call?
It's something Reid and every coach should think about - before the play clock is down to :03, :02, :01.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a question or comment for Phil Sheridan at http://go.philly.com/asksheridan. Or by e-mail: [email protected].
By Phil Sheridan - Inquirer Columnist
The good news for the Eagles is that this year's T.O. problem won't require special masters or hovering TV helicopters to resolve.
This year's problem - time-outs - is something Andy Reid can fix all by himself.
The first step is as simple as making that "T" with your hands: Drop the knee-jerk assumption that a time-out is a better option than a measly 5-yard penalty for delay of the game.
Reid and Donovan McNabb used two of their three second-half time-outs in New Orleans on Sunday to prevent the play clock from running down to zero. That left the Eagles with just one to stop the clock when the Saints marched downfield for the game-winning field goal.
John Reed, who wrote a book on football clock management, suggests a shift from traditional thinking when it comes to the time-out.
"Calling time-out because of some screw-up is a very bad habit because it wastes time-outs and will not work when you screw up and no longer have any time-outs left," Reed writes on his Web site, johntreed.com. "You need to practice not calling time-outs. Give your quarterback some other solution and practice it."
In fairness, the Eagles were dealing with several issues when they used those time-outs. It was incredibly loud in the Superdome, as the roar of a sellout crowd reverberated off the new roof. Plays are being called through helmet radios that don't always provide perfect clarity. On a crucial down, the opposition may be in the perfect defense to stop the play you've called.
But all of these things should be anticipated. You know it's going to be loud. You know there will be some communication issues. You know there are going to be unfavorable matchups at times.
Reid should heed Reed. Give McNabb, who is in his eighth season running Reid's offense, the freedom to call a play on his own. Set aside a handful of plays featuring a certain personnel grouping for situations where the game is on the line, especially on the road. Finally, accept the 5-yard penalty for delay sometimes.
The Eagles pride themselves on having a big-play offense and a Pro Bowl quarterback. Essentially, the Eagles gave up the chance to get the ball at the end of Sunday's game in exchange for 5 yards in one quarter and 5 yards in another.
Bill Rasker has a different take. He writes about football strategy and trends on his Web site, footballcommentary.com. Using data from hundreds of games, Rasker created a model that computes how different situations affect a team's probability of winning.
The Eagles used a time-out with 6 minutes, 11 seconds left in the third quarter while they were down by a touchdown.
"That affected their probability of winning the game by less than 1 percent," Rasker said.
As for the fourth-quarter time-out in a tie game? Same thing.
"You would like to run your offense so you don't have to use a time-out in that situation," Rasker said. "But it's surprising how little it happens that the time-outs at the end affect the outcome. When it does happen, though, you remember it."
So how do you reconcile these different views? One way to figure the value of the time-out is to analyze the results it produces. And when you look at it that way, it's hard to argue that the Eagles are better off burning them to save a 5-yard penalty.
Look at the two from the second half Sunday.
Third quarter, third and 11. After the time-out, McNabb threw deep for Reggie Brown, incomplete. The Eagles punted.
Fourth quarter, third and 11. After the time-out, McNabb was hit as he fired a short swing pass, incomplete, intended for a well-covered Brian Westbrook. The Eagles punted.
So far this season, the Eagles have used time-outs 15 times to stop the clock during offensive drives. Three of those were in the final minute of the second half in Houston, so those were really meant to stop the clock. Of the other 12 times, the play called during the time-out resulted in a first down just three times. Five times, McNabb threw an incomplete pass. Three times, he was sacked. One play picked up 6 yards when 10 were needed.
So the time-out is as likely to produce a sack as a first down, and three times as likely to force a punt as to extend a drive.
Could McNabb do worse if he improvised with a play call of his own? Would the results be much worse if the Eagles took the 5-yard penalty? Now does the time-out seem more valuable as a device to manage the clock than as a way to make an offensive play call?
It's something Reid and every coach should think about - before the play clock is down to :03, :02, :01.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a question or comment for Phil Sheridan at http://go.philly.com/asksheridan. Or by e-mail: [email protected].
Comment