why didn't Wisconsin call a timeout sooner on our last drive - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: why didn't Wisconsin call a timeout sooner on our last drive (/thread-4635.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: why didn't Wisconsin call a timeout sooner on our last drive (/thread-4635.html)
why didn't Wisconsin call a timeout sooner on our last drive - GoodGrief - 01-02-2013
awesome game, awesome seeing some of you folks, awesome experience, and while it wasn't a beat-down, I will take being Rose Bowl Champion any day of the week over the alternative.
for those of you who know more about football than me, can you explain to me: after we intercepted the ball with 2 minutes left on the final drive, why didn't Wisconsin call a time-out immediately after our first run? Alvarez had two timeouts at the time and waited until after our 2nd down to call a timeout. that allowed us to run a bunch of time off the clock. Wisconsin ended the game with an unused timeout.
is there any reason for this?
Re: why didn't Wisconsin call a timeout sooner on our last drive - Go Trees - 01-02-2013
Regardless of whether he called his two timeouts after 1st and 2nd down or 2nd and 3rd down the clock would run out if Stanford got the first down.
There is an argument that Stanford would be less likely to run play action on 2nd and 3rd down if Barry sat on the first timeout because Stanford would be more likely to run to force him to use a timeout rather than lucking into a clock stoppage due to an incompletion.
Re: why didn't Wisconsin call a timeout sooner on our last drive - fullmetal - 01-02-2013
Huh, I wondered about that. I wonder if either the defense or the offense would have a relative advantage in that situation with more time to set up a play or a defensive scheme.
Re: why didn't Wisconsin call a timeout sooner on our last drive - estephan500 - 01-02-2013
(01-02-2013, 03:28 AM)Go Trees link Wrote:Regardless of whether he called his two timeouts after 1st and 2nd down or 2nd and 3rd down the clock would run out if Stanford got the first down.
There is an argument that Stanford would be less likely to run play action on 2nd and 3rd down if Barry sat on the first timeout because Stanford would be more likely to run to force him to use a timeout rather than lucking into a clock stoppage due to an incompletion.
This wins the "didn't understand it the first two times I read it, not going for a third try" award for the year.
Re: why didn't Wisconsin call a timeout sooner on our last drive - Kathy - 01-02-2013
Maybe Alvarez thought Taylor had a first down on that first run after the interception. That would have stopped the clock, allowing him to save his timeouts. But Stepfan only got nine on the first try, right?
Re: why didn't Wisconsin call a timeout sooner on our last drive - doug - 01-02-2013
I was at the game and initially wondered the same thing. Then I remembered that Wiscy "wasted" a TO early in the 3rd quarter. I don't know why they called it. It wasn't an important play, play clock wasn't running down -- a head scratcher to me. But that left them with only 2 TOs late in the 4th quarter, which meant they had to let the clock run on one of our plays. When we got our last 1st down, there was no point in using the remaining TO.
I am curious if anyone knows why they called the early 3rd qtr TO.
Re: why didn't Wisconsin call a timeout sooner on our last drive - Hank 91 - 01-02-2013
The conventional wisdom in these situations -- admittedly, conventional wisdom is not always best -- is to schedule your timeouts backwards. If you've got only one, use it after third down. Two? After second and third. The idea is that if you give up a first down, it doesn't matter. And if you can force a team into third and long and they're foolish enough to pass and risk a clock-stopping incompletion, all the better. You've got a timeout left for your offense.
Re: why didn't Wisconsin call a timeout sooner on our last drive - Spiny_Norman - 01-02-2013
Here is another head scratcher, at least to those of us in section 9. Wisconsin has the ball 4th and goal on the 1. They have the NCAA career TD leader. However he is on the sideline. You give the ball to a guy who is 5-10, 197. According to Montee Ball in the postgame presser, "That play has been working leading up to this game, and we were very confident that it was going to work. But the Dâline did a great job clogging the holes, submarining our linemen, and not leaving any gaps for James {White} to find."
Imagine if Stanford had a similar big play and Stepfan Taylor was not on the field in favor of Remound Wright or Ricky Seale. We would be screaming for Pep Hamilton's head on a platter.
Re: why didn't Wisconsin call a timeout sooner on our last drive - fullmetal - 01-02-2013
Reminds me of another Rose Bowl fourth down stop, although the one I'm thinking of was a fourth quarter, do-or-die situation...(a Voldemort Trophy winner was relegated to the sidelines for that play).
Re: why didn't Wisconsin call a timeout sooner on our last drive - jayasena - 01-02-2013
(01-02-2013, 02:03 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Reminds me of another Rose Bowl fourth down stop, although the one I'm thinking of was a fourth quarter, do-or-die situation...(a Voldemort Trophy winner was relegated to the sidelines for that play).
Reggie Bush against Texas in the NCG (where another White -- LenDale --Â failed to convert)?
Re: why didn't Wisconsin call a timeout sooner on our last drive - fullmetal - 01-02-2013
Yep. 4:50 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rEHzYS6xJc
In one case, the playcall favored a perceived schematic advantage--in another case, the playcall favored a proven offensive strength. Nothing works all the time.
Re: why didn't Wisconsin call a timeout sooner on our last drive - doublespiral - 01-02-2013
(01-02-2013, 01:57 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:Here is another head scratcher, at least to those of us in section 9. Wisconsin has the ball 4th and goal on the 1. They have the NCAA career TD leader. However he is on the sideline. You give the ball to a guy who is 5-10, 197.
I think the rationale may have been that with White they could run the Wildcat. With the direct snap, that puts one more blocker on the line to help open a hole. Maybe Ball isn't as comfortable receiving the direct snap?
Still, I agree. You have to put the ball in the hands of your star. You know, the one with more rushing touchdowns that anyone in college football history.
Either that or go wild and run a naked bootleg (though maybe not on a thrice-reconstructed knee). ;)
P.S. Ben Gardner: hero.