Unusual call by Zim? . . .

[dadevike]

After Hunter sacked Cousins late in the game to force a very long field goal attempt, the Vikings called a time out and stopped the clock. At the time, we were leading by 2 scores (38-27).  The game was not over yet, as a FG and a successful on-sides kick would give Cousins one last try at a TD.
Now I can see calling a time out in this situation to make sure you have the right personnel in place and to alert everyone to a fake FG.  But any T.O. should not be called early in the play clock unless the other team is lining up.  I believe the sack happened at about the 1:40 mark and the T.O. stopped the clock at 1:20. (I could be off by a few seconds.)  That's too soon.  The Redskins were not lined up yet. The T.O. did not prevent a quick snap to run a play or a fake FG. 
Is this poor clock management or is there some other explanation?  I have the game recorded so I will go back and watch this again to confirm. But I cannot see how this was not a boneheaded move.  Giving a team an extra 15 or 20 seconds can come back to bite us. Fortunately, the Washington kicker screwed the pooch on the on-sides attempt and this never became an issue. But it could have been.
There is a lot to like about Zimmer, but this is not the first time he has struggled with clock management.  He is not a rookie HC anymore.  And he is not only in charge of the defense. He needs to realize that end-of-half and end-of-game clock management is one of his responsibilities. 

[Guest]

Not to hijack the thread but along the same thought of "clock management" why was Case hurrying in the third quarter with a big lead?  I know they some times they want to either run a hurry up offense or keep a rhythm going but by the third quarter I could see the clock was against the Skins.
What also was the issue of not getting the ball in the end zone on kick-offs?  Was it my imagination or were we kicking a lot of them short.

[Guest]

@ThunderGod said:
Not to hijack the thread but along the same thought of "clock management" why was Case hurrying in the third quarter with a big lead?  I know they some times they want to either run a hurry up offense or keep a rhythm going but by the third quarter I could see the clock was against the Skins.
What also was the issue of not getting the ball in the end zone on kick-offs?  Was it my imagination or were we kicking a lot of them short.

I saw the same thing. At least the commentators mentioned the hurry-up late in the game when I thought we should be trying to take time off the clock.  I don't get it. 
Some of Forbath's kicks were deep and then some were short and you could see it as soon as he kicked it. Generally, I prefer not allowing the other team to return any kickoffs. You risk injury with every collision and you risk a long return, too.  With our defense, I'm ok giving the other team the ball at the 25.

[Guest]

i wasnt really paying that close of attention to the game clock and the play clock,  were they in no huddle and just killing the time at the line in a way to keep the redskins from being able to sub out players?

[Guest]

they may have been trying to get the offense back into rhythm, after those 2 terrible picks, not sure...

[Guest]

I think the announcers also said something about wanting to keep the offense in rhythm.  It is still unusual to see the team with the lead in the 4th quarter playing hurry-up.

[Guest]

I think it was before the picks.  I even wondered if Case was getting too amped up on adreline and excited to get another TD.  Zimmer pulled him aside this morning and discussed understanding the situation in the game, having a big league, and tha throwing the ball away is not always bad.

[Guest]

I re-watched the sequence. Zimmer let about 10-15 second run on the clock before calling a timeout. There was still 15-20 seconds on the play clock before he called it. This falls in the category of game v. time management in my opinion. They didn't maximize the amount of time they could have run off the clock, which is bad time management. But from a game management perspective its an alright timeout to take. At that point in the game 20 seconds is worthless since you're under 2:00 minutes and the Redskins are out of timeouts. So even before they attempt the field goal you know their chances of coming back hinge on recovering an onside kick.

The Redskins have to show their hand first on whether they were going to attempt a long FG or go for it on 4th and long. Once they ran the kicker on the field the Vikings call their TO to get their ST's players on the same page. The Vikings actually changed their formation a bit to leave Smith as a deep safety on the play. So I figure it was just to run through that scenario since it isn't typical and you can't afford an illegal formation. It also doesn't make a ton of sense to run your ST unit on the field and then call them back to the sideline.  

[Guest]

@dadevike said:
After Hunter sacked Cousins late in the game to force a very long field goal attempt, the Vikings called a time out and stopped the clock. At the time, we were leading by 2 scores (38-27).  The game was not over yet, as a FG and a successful on-sides kick would give Cousins one last try at a TD.
Now I can see calling a time out in this situation to make sure you have the right personnel in place and to alert everyone to a fake FG.  But any T.O. should not be called early in the play clock unless the other team is lining up.  I believe the sack happened at about the 1:40 mark and the T.O. stopped the clock at 1:20. (I could be off by a few seconds.)  That's too soon.  The Redskins were not lined up yet. The T.O. did not prevent a quick snap to run a play or a fake FG. 
Is this poor clock management or is there some other explanation?  I have the game recorded so I will go back and watch this again to confirm. But I cannot see how this was not a boneheaded move.  Giving a team an extra 15 or 20 seconds can come back to bite us. Fortunately, the Washington kicker screwed the pooch on the on-sides attempt and this never became an issue. But it could have been.
There is a lot to like about Zimmer, but this is not the first time he has struggled with clock management.  He is not a rookie HC anymore.  And he is not only in charge of the defense. He needs to realize that end-of-half and end-of-game clock management is one of his responsibilities. 

Two reason I can think of that might make sense:

One, ensuring the field goal team knows exactly what they are doing is good.

Two, saving time for you to try and respond upon a successful onside kick recovery and score since they will be recovering the ball on the 45ish.  IMO, Zim was betting on his defense to stop them, and if they didn't it would most likely be on a quick strike that scores quickly.  With the time out Zim might have some time to drive back and get a FG.  If the defense slows them, but they score anyways and drive the clock down, then nothing lost nothing gained (it's still a tie ball game - given they get the 2pt conversion).  Essentially he was betting on his defense to stop them from scoring a game tying TD+2pt conversion, and if worst case scenario happened he has some time to possibly come back and score game winning FG in regulation.

Just an opinion...