Numark3

Yea the TO before the 2 min is excusable because it wasn't to conserve time We had 2 timeouts at the time. It obviously changes how the next timeout would have been used.

Good contribution

Here is the first play of each drive. We passed 60% of the time on first down (even including the run as the last play of the half). I think you are seeing what you want to see friend. I love the bill complaints of we always run on first down, or we always do run pass run, or we dont do screens or playactions. These complaints, are almost always wrong. You might as well be a broken record in a vacuum ignoring what actually happened Drive 1 - Run Drive 2 - Run Drive 3 - Pass Drive 4 - Pass Drive 5 - Run (this was the last play of the half) Drive 6 - Pass (Tyrod scrambled, but it was a called pass) Drive 7 - Pass Drive 8 - Pass Drive 9 - Run Drive 10 - Pass

I still don't get why teams don't invest on delegating the TO control to save time at the end of a game to someone other than the HC (who has enough to worry about than figuring out the best time to call one)

#1 - Just because it didnt play a role, doesnt mean we cant discuss it. So I don't get your point. #2 - Gahhhh my head is going to explode. No it wasn't. #3 - Agreed, I think he has done a great job, but it doesn't change the clock management issue today for me.

Lots of good veteran coaches (Reid) can't manage the clock, but I hope he learns. There were some issues today with it.

It is also clear that the defense is changing gameplans depending on the offense they play (novel concept, i know)

They had a timeout (assuming our coach would have used it haha)

Yea it could be a top 5 defense by the end of this year. They need to keep adding talent to it, but its a great foundation

Dude stop making so many new threads with zero substance

13 seconds in the last 40 seconds is a ton! You want to use your timeouts to save as many seconds as possible. Saving a TO and hoping to save more than 13 seconds is insane. You call the TO there and save 13 seconds. Essentially anytime the clock stops inbounds in that position of the field you need to use your TO (not your last one). It isn't a crazy concept and thinking a different situation would have unfolded that would save more time than that is unlikely

What is going on there? A surprising amount of NFL coaches cannot manage the clock. Yet a college student can make a hierarchy of when to call a timeout at exact moments of a game to save the most clock. Him failing to call a TO with less than 40 seconds to go after a run was crazy. Bills need to hire a time management guy to call timeouts at the end of a game

dgsiaflhnq42895vy4895vy42nv 7r 34 TYROD SUCKS *O7w4589n v4t ^^^^This thread will be made 10 times in the next 5 minutes

haha well we know our coach can't manage the clock

6 -3 panthers

Can the panthers keep giving the ball to him? Their offense stalls everytime lol

Haha ok. I use it and so do others in my professsion...a lot. Go back to a Simpson's joke. lol you were just joking right!? Like I said, I'm right, you are wrong, it's no big deal. It's a word

I honestly dont care about google (which agrees with me). In my job we use it, there are plenty of judicial opinions that use it. Do i need to cite to one to shut you up? That would be easy... Honestly, I wouldn't get in an argument about whether or not it is a word with me, words and semantics are something I argue about for a living , so I am better than you at it, no offense. Agreeance is a word, and when I am so sober, tomorrow, I'll prove it Taro, DC tom, peace till then lol Just for a preview, a recent 11th circuit opinion in the past year uses it from a 5 second google search. Cite is U.S. v. Thomas, 656 Fed.Appx 951 ( you can find it here, http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/files/201512101.pdf ) It took 5 seconds, maybe we jsut use it in the legal profession, idk. But we do. And I think we might be right over some goofy TBD forum posters. But please keep telling me its not a word lol ( sorry for being an ass, but you both are ignorantly and incorrectly telling me something isn't a word that is, and it's hitting a nerve. I have no idea how this argument began from a joke, other than someone saying it's not a word and 10 people falsely believing it, including you two goofs. Again, I use the word plenty as do others, evidence is in judges and courts using it too. Enough said)

Google says it's a word, Supreme Court, court of appeals, what's your point? I thought you were a better poster than jumping into a topic and saying something dumb, but I guess I was wrong. I'll wait Taro.

Haha probably, it wouldn't surprise me. But I wouldn't call any of you a moron based on a page of forum posts lol. Especially based on an autocorrect, but it's an argument y'all want to have. Agreeance is a word - deal with it. I'll keep my liberal nice job though, someone spell checks for me to be honest! I truly can't spell! Absolutely...when it matters, not on forum posts lol.

I can show you 500 judicial opinions with "agreeance" so gtfo . So please don't tell me it's not a word. Supreme Court justices use it, federal court of apppeals, and so forth... it's not an argument you want to have, so don't call me a moron unless you want to have it. Judicial opionions, not urban dictionary child

Teehee you are a smarty pants

You have me wallowing within myself right now.

Oh my

Haha I'm having slow Friday afternoon at work so I can do this debate!!! Woohoo agreeance is what I attempted to spell! Which is a word and I'll fight anyone on that. Maybe it's just used more commonly in my profession, but I see it plenty! And google agrees WITH ME!!!! And no, it autocorrected my misspelled agreeance (I had two Gs I think) into something crazy! And I don't think I was being clever, but uh pointing out I can't spell (which I can't). I haven't disowned anything, you made some silly jumps to lazy and something else I can't remeber. Who have I blamed? And where! autocorrect does do that (though not in this situation, but don't let that fact get in the way) The lamestream libtards would make nothing into something! Man both sides have a lot in common, see e.g. this thread Some of you need to work on not reading stuff into things that aren't there and work on logical reason, or else you may be called ignorant or something worse