[Goose]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17616.msg205333#msg205333 date=1507564893]Of course you expect him to catch the ball, but the point of running is that you are hedging against mistakes; on a run play there is no chance the clock doesn't keep running after the play ends.

Well, barring a turnover or a penalty. But yes, the odds of a run resulting in 40 seconds off the clock are higher than a pass.
[/quote]
Any run vs any pass, I agree. The pass on that play however was effectively a slightly forward pitch. I would expect it to take the same or more time than a run if it is complete. When trying to burn clock, it is often argued that one should run wide, as the plays take longer even if they gain/lose the same as an inside run. The trick there is that the back can't go out of bounds. The short pas was a bit like a sweep, with the added benefit that pass action was unexpected. Good call, sub-optimal outcome.

[Goose]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17616.msg205333#msg205333 date=1507564893]Of course you expect him to catch the ball, but the point of running is that you are hedging against mistakes; on a run play there is no chance the clock doesn't keep running after the play ends.

Well, barring a turnover or a penalty. But yes, the odds of a run resulting in 40 seconds off the clock are higher than a pass.
[/quote]
Any run vs any pass, I agree. The pass on that play however was effectively a slightly forward pitch. I would expect it to take the same or more time than a run if it is complete. When trying to burn clock, it is often argued that one should run wide, as the plays take longer even if they gain/lose the same as an inside run. The trick there is that the back can't go out of bounds. The short pas was a bit like a sweep, with the added benefit that pass action was unexpected. Good call, sub-optimal outcome.