Late Game Time Management

This isn't about the end of the first half, although that was a bit of a mess.  

There is a point for the leader late in most games when running the clock is more important than scoring.  Mel tends to keep going tempo at times when Dantonio would be soaking the play clock.

Dantonio arguably started running the clock too early ("turtling").  Tucker arguably waits too long to start running the clock ("KEEPING HIS FOOT ON THEIR THROAT").  He also keeps starters in longer.  Fans generally like Tucker's strategy.  But I cringe a bit when we snap the ball with 15 seconds on the play clock and a two-score lead in the fourth quarter.  It reminds me of Baylor in the Cotton Bowl.

Neither is as weird as Iowa in victory formation for three straight plays against PSU, though.  They were about 50 seconds short of being able to run out the clock, up by just three.  PSU was shit on offense, but still that was crazy.

Tucker's late game strategy: do you approve or disapprove?

I approve until it costs us a game.

Cameron wrote:More approve than disapprove, but it's certainly not perfect. I'd like a mix of the two, where we keep calling aggressive plays, but snap it under 5 seconds every time.

you aren't wrong, but I like it when Spartans win

Pervis Muldoon wrote:This isn't about the end of the first half, although that was a bit of a mess.  

There is a point for the leader late in most games when running the clock is more important than scoring.  Mel tends to keep going tempo at times when Dantonio would be soaking the play clock.

Dantonio arguably started running the clock too early ("turtling").  Tucker arguably waits too long to start running the clock ("KEEPING HIS FOOT ON THEIR THROAT").  He also keeps starters in longer.  Fans generally like Tucker's strategy.  But I cringe a bit when we snap the ball with 15 seconds on the play clock and a two-score lead in the fourth quarter.  It reminds me of Baylor in the Cotton Bowl.

Neither is as weird as Iowa in victory formation for three straight plays against PSU, though.  They were about 50 seconds short of being able to run out the clock, up by just three.  PSU was shit on offense, but still that was crazy.

Tucker's late game strategy: do you approve or disapprove?

Caught the end of the Iowa game and was laughing watching them turtle up. I can’t stand that style of play and watching the Alabama Texas A&M game and the Georgia game was a good reality check of just how far ahead the SEC still is. My vote is for Mel Tucker to keep doing what he’s doing and keep loading up with talent.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:This isn't about the end of the first half, although that was a bit of a mess.  

There is a point for the leader late in most games when running the clock is more important than scoring.  Mel tends to keep going tempo at times when Dantonio would be soaking the play clock.

Dantonio arguably started running the clock too early ("turtling").  Tucker arguably waits too long to start running the clock ("KEEPING HIS FOOT ON THEIR THROAT").  He also keeps starters in longer.  Fans generally like Tucker's strategy.  But I cringe a bit when we snap the ball with 15 seconds on the play clock and a two-score lead in the fourth quarter.  It reminds me of Baylor in the Cotton Bowl.

Neither is as weird as Iowa in victory formation for three straight plays against PSU, though.  They were about 50 seconds short of being able to run out the clock, up by just three.  PSU was shit on offense, but still that was crazy.

Tucker's late game strategy: do you approve or disapprove?

Since the Miami game, I think I’m on record.

Keeping the offense in rhythm is the positive for not milking the game clock in the 4th quarter. Absolutely shouldn't be milking it before that, as taking points off the board, so to speak, is not a good idea. Play at the offensive tempo.

Absolutely should go into the victory formation at the end of the game if ahead by more than 8.

steveschneider wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:This isn't about the end of the first half, although that was a bit of a mess.  

There is a point for the leader late in most games when running the clock is more important than scoring.  Mel tends to keep going tempo at times when Dantonio would be soaking the play clock.

Dantonio arguably started running the clock too early ("turtling").  Tucker arguably waits too long to start running the clock ("KEEPING HIS FOOT ON THEIR THROAT").  He also keeps starters in longer.  Fans generally like Tucker's strategy.  But I cringe a bit when we snap the ball with 15 seconds on the play clock and a two-score lead in the fourth quarter.  It reminds me of Baylor in the Cotton Bowl.

Neither is as weird as Iowa in victory formation for three straight plays against PSU, though.  They were about 50 seconds short of being able to run out the clock, up by just three.  PSU was shit on offense, but still that was crazy.

Tucker's late game strategy: do you approve or disapprove?

Caught the end of the Iowa game and was laughing watching them turtle up. I can’t stand that style of play and watching the Alabama Texas A&M game and the Georgia game was a good reality check of just how far ahead the SEC still is. My vote is for Mel Tucker to keep doing what he’s doing and keep loading up with talent.

That Iowa game was weird. I've rarely seen a team taking the knee when up by only 3, in order to punt with 50 seconds left. At least run it to give the chance that you may pick up a 1st down.

If we do hurry up for rhythm to prevent defensive subs, etc., fine. But when you make subs, the D makes subs, you huddle up, and still snap with 15 seconds left late in a close game, I don't get what the benefit is. It hasn't bitten us yet, but we have given teams a better chance to score before halftime and late in games a few times. This isn't a complaint, but rather an observation. The coaches should do what makes them comfortable, and then they can get the praise or blame, depending on the outcome. So far it's all praise, so more power to them!

Pervis Muldoon wrote:This isn't about the end of the first half, although that was a bit of a mess.  

There is a point for the leader late in most games when running the clock is more important than scoring.  Mel tends to keep going tempo at times when Dantonio would be soaking the play clock.

Dantonio arguably started running the clock too early ("turtling").  Tucker arguably waits too long to start running the clock ("KEEPING HIS FOOT ON THEIR THROAT").  He also keeps starters in longer.  Fans generally like Tucker's strategy.  But I cringe a bit when we snap the ball with 15 seconds on the play clock and a two-score lead in the fourth quarter.  It reminds me of Baylor in the Cotton Bowl.

Neither is as weird as Iowa in victory formation for three straight plays against PSU, though.  They were about 50 seconds short of being able to run out the clock, up by just three.  PSU was shit on offense, but still that was crazy.

Tucker's late game strategy: do you approve or disapprove?

Just watched BTN in 60 replay. This obv a trick by Pervis to see if we are all keeping up on our film study after class.The last drive of the 2nd half was 14 plays. All but two were snapped under 10 secs (with a running clock). In last two drives of the 4th all but one was, and that one was snapped right at 10 secs. They did throw more though than usual though.

Nordic wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:This isn't about the end of the first half, although that was a bit of a mess.  

There is a point for the leader late in most games when running the clock is more important than scoring.  Mel tends to keep going tempo at times when Dantonio would be soaking the play clock.

Dantonio arguably started running the clock too early ("turtling").  Tucker arguably waits too long to start running the clock ("KEEPING HIS FOOT ON THEIR THROAT").  He also keeps starters in longer.  Fans generally like Tucker's strategy.  But I cringe a bit when we snap the ball with 15 seconds on the play clock and a two-score lead in the fourth quarter.  It reminds me of Baylor in the Cotton Bowl.

Neither is as weird as Iowa in victory formation for three straight plays against PSU, though.  They were about 50 seconds short of being able to run out the clock, up by just three.  PSU was shit on offense, but still that was crazy.

Tucker's late game strategy: do you approve or disapprove?

Just watched BTN in 60 replay. This obv a trick by Pervis to see if we are all keeping up on our film study after class.The last drive of the 2nd half was 14 plays. All but two were snapped under 10 secs (with a running clock). In last two drives of the 4th all but one was, and that one was snapped right at 10 secs. They did throw more though than usual though.

Good stuff. I didnt really pay attention to that during the game, but have noticed earlier snaps late in either half of some other games. That also could have been something that they did earlier in the season to get a split second edge, thinking that teams would be expecting us to snap it late in the clock. And then the Rutgers game was changed to break the tendancy. Of course, it may be that if we look back at other games they mixed it up in order to avoid a tendancy, but the snaps with more time on the game clock stuck out more.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Nordic wrote:

Just watched BTN in 60 replay. This obv a trick by Pervis to see if we are all keeping up on our film study after class.The last drive of the 2nd half was 14 plays. All but two were snapped under 10 secs (with a running clock). In last two drives of the 4th all but one was, and that one was snapped right at 10 secs. They did throw more though than usual though.

Good stuff. I didnt really pay attention to that during the game, but have noticed earlier snaps late in either half of some other games. That also could have been something that they did earlier in the season to get a split second edge, thinking that teams would be expecting us to snap it late in the clock. And then the Rutgers game was changed to break the tendancy. Of course, it may be that if we look back at other games they mixed it up in order to avoid a tendancy, but the snaps with more time on the game clock stuck out more.

So MSU is snapping with less than 10 seconds on the clock instead of at 2 seconds on the clock and we all have our panties in a bunch about clock management?

Sounds like Coach D has himself in our heads.

TrapperGus wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Good stuff.  I didnt really pay attention to that during the game, but have noticed earlier snaps late in either half of some other games.  That also could have been something that they did earlier in the season to get a split second edge, thinking that teams would be expecting us to snap it late in the clock.  And then the Rutgers game was changed to break the tendancy.  Of course, it may be that if we look back at other games they mixed it up in order to avoid a tendancy, but the snaps with more time on the game clock stuck out more.

So MSU is snapping with less than 10 seconds on the clock instead of at 2 seconds on the clock and we all have our panties in a bunch about clock management?

Sounds like Coach D has himself in our heads.

Coached D could milk a clock like nobodies business.  Those are some big shoes to fill. I guess if we are clock management fans then we have to give coach credit for how he left no time for Rutgers after our FG attempt to end the half. That was about as good as it gets in terms of clock management.

steveschneider wrote:

TrapperGus wrote:

So MSU is snapping with less than 10 seconds on the clock instead of at 2 seconds on the clock and we all have our panties in a bunch about clock management?

Sounds like Coach D has himself in our heads.

Coached D could milk a clock like nobodies business.  Those are some big shoes to fill. I guess if we are clock management fans then we have to give coach credit for how he left no time for Rutgers after our FG attempt to end the half. That was about as good as it gets in terms of clock management.

Not too worried about clock management. I think our FG kicker needs a haircut though.

When you're up by more than a score, and there is less than 7 minutes left, why not snap the ball with less time on the play clock? Nobody wants you to run the ball into the line of scrimmage. Keep the playbook wide open. But Just take the clock down. Meh. I'm sure there is some game someone can point out that by doing it, it screwed the team doing it.

Tuck is undefeated. Whatever the hell he's doing, keep doing it.

TrapperGus wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Good stuff.  I didnt really pay attention to that during the game, but have noticed earlier snaps late in either half of some other games.  That also could have been something that they did earlier in the season to get a split second edge, thinking that teams would be expecting us to snap it late in the clock.  And then the Rutgers game was changed to break the tendancy.  Of course, it may be that if we look back at other games they mixed it up in order to avoid a tendancy, but the snaps with more time on the game clock stuck out more.

So MSU is snapping with less than 10 seconds on the clock instead of at 2 seconds on the clock and we all have our panties in a bunch about clock management?

Sounds like Coach D has himself in our heads.

Are you just making up things in order to argue something?  I don't think anyone's panties are in a bunch and most were talking about with 15+ seconds on the clock...and even then it seems like everyone either likes it, or is fine with it as long as it doesnt cost a game.

But if you're talking about snapping with 10 seconds instead of 2 seconds, then each time you do that, it is potentially an additional 1-2 plays that the opposition will have.  So it CAN matter, but still, I'm not seeing anyone complaining about it.

DWags wrote:When you're up by more than a score, and there is less than 7 minutes left, why not snap the ball with less time on the play clock?   Nobody wants you to run the ball into the line of scrimmage.  Keep the playbook wide open.  But Just take the clock down.  Meh.  I'm sure there is some game someone can point out that by doing it, it screwed the team doing it.  

Tuck is undefeated. Whatever the hell he's doing, keep doing it.  

which is what they basically did

I'll throw in there that there a few times they snapped it with 9 seconds, but without re-watching these plays and drilling down, I would bet that has more to do with timing of the motion, etc. We run a lot of shifts and keeping proper tempo is more important than ticking off a few more seconds.

They also had a couple of delay of game penalties and at least two others where they could of been called where Thorne clapped for the snap with 1 sec on the clock and the ball was snapped right at 0.

Non-issue IMO. My guess is it is more of a perception thing. They move with pace and purpose to the line, get their reads, run motion and snap it. It looks fast, because we aren't breaking a huddle, walking up under center, waiting and snapping the ball. Or in Iowa's case kneeling on it with 2 minutes to go...

I was rooting like hell for PSU to get a score after Iowa kneeled on it with 2 minutes to go. I get it, backup QB, they haven't moved the ball, your D is great, but damn that could of cost them. At least double clutch the ball and run it a few times. Odd thing is, PSU sideline looked like they were just accepting their fate. WTF. I would of been ecstatic if they were punting with almost a minute left on the clock. Weirdest kneel down ending I think I've seen.

Nordic wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:This isn't about the end of the first half, although that was a bit of a mess.  

There is a point for the leader late in most games when running the clock is more important than scoring.  Mel tends to keep going tempo at times when Dantonio would be soaking the play clock.

Dantonio arguably started running the clock too early ("turtling").  Tucker arguably waits too long to start running the clock ("KEEPING HIS FOOT ON THEIR THROAT").  He also keeps starters in longer.  Fans generally like Tucker's strategy.  But I cringe a bit when we snap the ball with 15 seconds on the play clock and a two-score lead in the fourth quarter.  It reminds me of Baylor in the Cotton Bowl.

Neither is as weird as Iowa in victory formation for three straight plays against PSU, though.  They were about 50 seconds short of being able to run out the clock, up by just three.  PSU was shit on offense, but still that was crazy.

Tucker's late game strategy: do you approve or disapprove?

Just watched BTN in 60 replay. This obv a trick by Pervis to see if we are all keeping up on our film study after class.The last drive of the 2nd half was 14 plays. All but two were snapped under 10 secs (with a running clock). In last two drives of the 4th all but one was, and that one was snapped right at 10 secs. They did throw more though than usual though.

Thanks for bringing some facts. Passing while protecting a late lead is another interesting coaching decision.

Nordic wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:This isn't about the end of the first half, although that was a bit of a mess.  

There is a point for the leader late in most games when running the clock is more important than scoring.  Mel tends to keep going tempo at times when Dantonio would be soaking the play clock.

Dantonio arguably started running the clock too early ("turtling").  Tucker arguably waits too long to start running the clock ("KEEPING HIS FOOT ON THEIR THROAT").  He also keeps starters in longer.  Fans generally like Tucker's strategy.  But I cringe a bit when we snap the ball with 15 seconds on the play clock and a two-score lead in the fourth quarter.  It reminds me of Baylor in the Cotton Bowl.

Neither is as weird as Iowa in victory formation for three straight plays against PSU, though.  They were about 50 seconds short of being able to run out the clock, up by just three.  PSU was shit on offense, but still that was crazy.

Tucker's late game strategy: do you approve or disapprove?

Just watched BTN in 60 replay. This obv a trick by Pervis to see if we are all keeping up on our film study after class.The last drive of the 2nd half was 14 plays. All but two were snapped under 10 secs (with a running clock). In last two drives of the 4th all but one was, and that one was snapped right at 10 secs. They did throw more though than usual though.

That wasn’t happening in Miami.

Fuck that. It’s not safe if you’re not up 4 TDs in the 4th, 3 with 10 on the clock, or 17 with 5.

That said, you should keep grinding until under a minute. You don’t ask a thoroughbred to pull a plow.

Rocinante wrote:Fuck that. It’s not safe if you’re not up 4 TDs in the 4th, 3 with 10 on the clock, or 17 with 5.

That said, you should keep grinding until under a minute. You don’t ask a thoroughbred to pull a plow.

Best post on the topic. I think running down the clock is for losers. No more turtling up.

I think until the defense gets better, we need to let our offense put up as many points as we can.

steveschneider wrote:

Rocinante wrote:Fuck that. It’s not safe if you’re not up 4 TDs in the 4th, 3 with 10 on the clock, or 17 with 5.

That said, you should keep grinding until under a minute. You don’t ask a thoroughbred to pull a plow.

Best post on the topic. I think running down the clock is for losers. No more turtling up.

Running down the clock to 00:00 when you're in the lead is for winners, by definition.

NigelUno wrote:I think until the defense gets better, we need to let our offense put up as many points as we can.

The secondary could use some work.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

TrapperGus wrote:

So MSU is snapping with less than 10 seconds on the clock instead of at 2 seconds on the clock and we all have our panties in a bunch about clock management?

Sounds like Coach D has himself in our heads.

Are you just making up things in order to argue something?  I don't think anyone's panties are in a bunch and most were talking about with 15+ seconds on the clock...and even then it seems like everyone either likes it, or is fine with it as long as it doesnt cost a game.

But if you're talking about snapping with 10 seconds instead of 2 seconds, then each time you do that, it is potentially an additional 1-2 plays that the opposition will have.  So it CAN matter, but still, I'm not seeing anyone complaining about it.

From what I am reading here the ball was being snapped at under 10 seconds.  That was said in this thread up above.

So when should running the full play clock start? On the first play of the game so there are fewer plays for the other team?

TrapperGus wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Are you just making up things in order to argue something?  I don't think anyone's panties are in a bunch and most were talking about with 15+ seconds on the clock...and even then it seems like everyone either likes it, or is fine with it as long as it doesnt cost a game.

But if you're talking about snapping with 10 seconds instead of 2 seconds, then each time you do that, it is potentially an additional 1-2 plays that the opposition will have.  So it CAN matter, but still, I'm not seeing anyone complaining about it.

From what I am reading here the ball was being snapped at under 10 seconds.  That was said in this thread up above.

So when should running the full play clock start? On the first play of the game so there are fewer plays for the other team?

But nobody was getting their panties in a bunch. You just created a strawman for no reason. You're still doing it, seeing a disagreement that isn't there.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

TrapperGus wrote:

From what I am reading here the ball was being snapped at under 10 seconds.  That was said in this thread up above.

So when should running the full play clock start?  On the first play of the game so there are fewer plays for the other team?

But nobody was getting their panties in a bunch.  You just created a strawman for no reason.  You're still doing it, seeing a disagreement that isn't there.

Okay, people are bitching about the clock management, which I call getting their panties in a bunch.  Since the plays are being run when the clock is below 15 seconds and many times below 10 seconds, according to posts in this thread, that seems like reasonable timing, unless you are conditioned to Coach D's snap at under 3 seconds on the clock.

You can call it what you will of course.

TrapperGus wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:

But nobody was getting their panties in a bunch.  You just created a strawman for no reason.  You're still doing it, seeing a disagreement that isn't there.

Okay, people are bitching about the clock management, which I call getting their panties in a bunch.  Since the plays are being run when the clock is below 15 seconds and many times below 10 seconds, according to posts in this thread, that seems like reasonable timing, unless you are conditioned to Coach D's snap at under 3 seconds on the clock.

You can call it what you will of course.

Who is bitching about it?

MiamiSpartan wrote:

TrapperGus wrote:

Okay, people are bitching about the clock management, which I call getting their panties in a bunch.  Since the plays are being run when the clock is below 15 seconds and many times below 10 seconds, according to posts in this thread, that seems like reasonable timing, unless you are conditioned to Coach D's snap at under 3 seconds on the clock.

You can call it what you will of course.

Who is bitching about it?

Read the OP & others...

TrapperGus wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Who is bitching about it?

Read the OP & others...

I have. You're really stretching to find anything approaching bitching or even complaining.

TrapperGus wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Who is bitching about it?

Read the OP & others...

Trapper, it appears that you've brought your love of trolling to this board. Please discontinue it, or make it more entertaining.

Preface this with Mel Tucker is 7-0 and I love the foot on the pedal fuck you take no prisoners attitude. We have always needed that.

However, 20-15 3 minutes and in field goal range. Make IU use time outs run it. Milk clock kick it to go up 8.

DWags wrote:Preface this with Mel Tucker is 7-0 and I love the foot on the pedal fuck you take no prisoners attitude. We have always needed that.

However, 20-15 3 minutes and in field goal range. Make IU use time outs run it. Milk clock kick it to go up 8.

I would have preferred running the ball there.

DWags wrote:Preface this with Mel Tucker is 7-0 and I love the foot on the pedal fuck you take no prisoners attitude. We have always needed that.

However, 20-15 3 minutes and in field goal range. Make IU use time outs run it. Milk clock kick it to go up 8.

I'd like to criticize that call since it didn't work, but I was hoping we'd take a shot there. We were facing a defense that we'd already had trouble running against in a situation where they'd be even more focused on stopping a run.

DWags wrote:Preface this with Mel Tucker is 7-0 and I love the foot on the pedal fuck you take no prisoners attitude.  We have always needed that.

However, 20-15 3 minutes and in field goal range. Make IU use time outs run it. Milk clock kick it to go up 8.  

I will side with Pervis Muldoon - I liked the play call.  It was man coverage and defensively they were selling out on the run.  You have to trust Nailor, Reed and Thorne in that situation.  

A field goal helps but it is still a one score game.  Coghlin was awesome on his two long field goals, but is 61.5% on the year (54.5% coming into the game).

The execution sucked, but the IMO the call was solid.

Edit:  I will add that Tucker preaches "relentless."  You have to walk the walk in play calling.

I guess my only problem with that play is that Thorne should throw it deeper or more outside where it can only be caught by our receiver or no one. It was good coverage all the way, so he could have read that. Maybe he tried and just under threw it, or maybe the play called for a short throw, expecting the DB to be playing the WR and not have his eye on the ball, giving the WR the advantage to come back for it.

I did like the idea, though. A FG still makes it a 1 TD (plus 2 pt), so I wouldn't have felt overly comfortable with that, and it would have felt like we missed an opportunity to out the game out if reach.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:The play was fine. The read was horrible. Thorne should have thrown it away if he had to force it. That simple.

Good throw to the corner or back of the endzone and it's an easy TD. Horribly under thrown