Lions-Bucs: Colossal Time Mismanagement Missed?

[Refugee]

30 minutes ago, nagahide13 said:

Seemed like handshake type stuff. I assume Goff would have used the time if there wasn't.

What about the all’s fair in love and war “SIKE!” handshake where you take the TO and go for the killshot?

[Superduperman]

I predict this is going to blow up on espn over the next few days and threaten Bowles' job, if only in rhetoric 

[RuskieTitan]

You play to win the game. Fire Bowles, that was pathetic rolling over at the end. "Prolonging it"? Guess Mahomes and the Chiefs should have done the same instead of come back against the Bills.

I'd be furious as a Bucs fan.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

57 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said:

You play to win the game. Fire Bowles, that was pathetic rolling over at the end. "Prolonging it"? Guess Mahomes and the Chiefs should have done the same instead of come back against the Bills.

I'd be furious as a Bucs fan.

Right?! How many incredible comebacks in history wouldn't have happened if teams just "acted like gentlemen" and gave up?

To those defending this: I'm guessing you're opposed to late game onside kicks and hail mary attempts, right?

Unreal.

(I could understand it more if Bowles says he made a mistake. I refuse to accept any of this "gentleman" nonsense.)

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

8 hours ago, Louis Friend said:

Detroit was up 8 in FG range. Even if TB took the TO, Detroit kicks a FG and goes up 11. TB was never getting back in it. The game was over. 

A 47-yard FG isn't automatic. Hell, McLaughlin missed one from nearly that same position in this very game. In his career, Badgely is only 37 of 48 on kicks from 41-49.

And, if he misses the kick, the Bucs are sitting near midfield, down by 8 with 30 seconds left, against a vulnerable Lions' secondary with Mike Evans on the roster.

It's a shocking decision that leads to only one conclusion: Bowles and his entire staff need to find different work, or Bowles was willing to just end the game. I can understand the first, but I don't understand the second.

[Jameson_Neat]

2 hours ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

A 47-yard FG isn't automatic. Hell, McLaughlin missed one from nearly that same position in this very game. In his career, Badgely is only 37 of 48 on kicks from 41-49.

And, if he misses the kick, the Bucs are sitting near midfield, down by 8 with 30 seconds left, against a vulnerable Lions' secondary with Mike Evans on the roster.

It's a shocking decision that leads to only one conclusion: Bowles and his entire staff need to find different work, or Bowles was willing to just end the game. I can understand the first, but I don't understand the second.

You're taking pieces from different scenarios and piecing them together. The concession had already taken place or else the Lions wouldn't have left so much time on the clock between plays. 

If Bowles calls TO after 1st D, the Lions would have had three plays to burn 10-11 seconds in actual play time to kill the clock. 

There's no need for a FG attempt in that scenario. 

Much ado about nothing. 

 

[NYRaider]

Going for 2 was also an interesting decision to blow the cover

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 hour ago, Jameson_Neat said:

You're taking pieces from different scenarios and piecing them together. The concession had already taken place or else the Lions wouldn't have left so much time on the clock between plays. 

If Bowles calls TO after 1st D, the Lions would have had three plays to burn 10-11 seconds in actual play time to kill the clock. 

There's no need for a FG attempt in that scenario. 

Much ado about nothing. 

 

... but the Lions did leave that much time on the clock.

None of this changes the fact that the Bucs could have called a timeout on 4th down and kept 30ish seconds on the clock.

After recent rule changes, there's a 5.6% chance that teams recover an onside kick. Badgley has only converted kicks from that approximate distance 77% of the time throughout his career. The Bucs had a significantly better chance of getting the ball, down by only 8 with just less than 30 seconds left, than if they were in position to onside kick.

You're getting me that a "gentleman's agreement" stood in the way of them trying to win a playoff game?

Fire them all. None of them should coach again. That's an embarrassment.

[SalvadorsDeli]

I don't think Bowles can come out and say it because it's even worse than this "we just conceded the game because it was basically over) but my theory is that NEITHER team knew the Bucs had a timeout left because the Bucs tried to use one at around the 3 minute mark when they sacked Goff but they got it back because there was a penalty on that play - the call came somewhat late after the Bucs had already called a timeout and I don't think either team realized that the penalty meant TB didn't use one. 

That would have been their 2nd timeout, and the Bucs then used a timeout on the next play (a 1st down), which I think they thought was their final one, because on 2nd and 7 from the TB 41, they tackled Montgomery in bounds but allowed 40 seconds to run off the clock rather than taking their timeout -- I'm not sure why they do that unless they thought they were already out. 

The main reason I think this could be plausible is that otherwise, it also doesn't make sense why the Lions went into victory formation after the interception rather than running the ball where they still needed a 1st down to definitively put the game away -- that could have been as big a mistake on Campbell's part if the Bowles was alert to it and forced a FG miss/gave the Bucs one more chance. 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

2 minutes ago, SalvadorsDeli said:

I don't think Bowles can come out and say it because it's even worse than this "we just conceded the game because it was basically over) but my theory is that NEITHER team knew the Bucs had a timeout left because the Bucs tried to use one at around the 3 minute mark when they sacked Goff but they got it back because there was a penalty on that play - the call came somewhat late after the Bucs had already called a timeout and I don't think either team realized that the penalty meant TB didn't use one. 

That would have been their 2nd timeout, and the Bucs then used a timeout on the next play (a 1st down), which I think they thought was their final one, because on 2nd and 7 from the TB 41, they tackled Montgomery in bounds but allowed 40 seconds to run off the clock rather than taking their timeout -- I'm not sure why they do that unless they thought they were already out. 

The main reason I think this could be plausible is that otherwise, it also doesn't make sense why the Lions went into victory formation after the interception rather than running the ball where they still needed a 1st down to definitively put the game away -- that could have been as big a mistake on Campbell's part if the Bowles was alert to it and forced a FG miss/gave the Bucs one more chance. 

This is fantastic reasoning. It makes perfect sense. Well done, and well explained. (Still a coaching blunder on both sides, but at least one with justification.)

Edited January 22 by TL-TwoWinsAway

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

52 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

Going for 2 was also an interesting decision to blow the cover

Yeah I didn't understand the rationale there, either. They were saying it's only a 95% chance to make both kicks but each 2-pt conversion change is 55% so take the difference or something like that but wtf man just kick the XP twice or go for 2 the 2nd time, idk.

[Jameson_Neat]

10 minutes ago, SalvadorsDeli said:

I don't think Bowles can come out and say it because it's even worse than this "we just conceded the game because it was basically over) but my theory is that NEITHER team knew the Bucs had a timeout left because the Bucs tried to use one at around the 3 minute mark when they sacked Goff but they got it back because there was a penalty on that play - the call came somewhat late after the Bucs had already called a timeout and I don't think either team realized that the penalty meant TB didn't use one. 

That would have been their 2nd timeout, and the Bucs then used a timeout on the next play (a 1st down), which I think they thought was their final one, because on 2nd and 7 from the TB 41, they tackled Montgomery in bounds but allowed 40 seconds to run off the clock rather than taking their timeout -- I'm not sure why they do that unless they thought they were already out. 

The main reason I think this could be plausible is that otherwise, it also doesn't make sense why the Lions went into victory formation after the interception rather than running the ball where they still needed a 1st down to definitively put the game away -- that could have been as big a mistake on Campbell's part if the Bowles was alert to it and forced a FG miss/gave the Bucs one more chance. 

I don't know how they'd miss it as the referee announced the TO given back to the crowd and it'd be listed on the stadium scoreboard.

 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

3 minutes ago, Jameson_Neat said:

I don't know how they'd miss it as the referee announced the TO given back to the crowd and it'd be listed on the stadium scoreboard.

 

Possibly, but "I used three timeouts and, in the heat of the moment, forgot that one was given back" is far more plausible than "I made a gentleman's agreement to try and not win this playoff game".

[Jameson_Neat]

12 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

Possibly, but "I used three timeouts and, in the heat of the moment, forgot that one was given back" is far more plausible than "I made a gentleman's agreement to try and not win this playoff game".

It wouldn't be just one person forgetting and you'd also have to believe no one was able to give him the correct information over the course of three plays.

 

 

 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

30 minutes ago, Jameson_Neat said:

It wouldn't be just one person forgetting and you'd also have to believe no one was able to give him the correct information over the course of three plays.

Is that not more plausible than a team just willingly giving up with time on the clock?