I didn't like the packers series we are discussing either, but hey, what can I say, it worked out.

I guess my thinking is, go for a couple first downs. Throw a playaction on third after two runs. If you have faith in your defense with 2:45 left, no timeouts, and one last gasp for the Jets, why wouldn't you have faith in your defense with 2:45 left and 1 timeout? The game would have basically been over had they strung together 2 first downs.

As it turned out, it worked, but had it not worked, I'm pretty sure the majority would be question that series.

They never should have used 3. The norm is waiting to see where they are after 2nd down.

---

I think once you realize the Jets are going to burn their timeouts, you MAKE SURE, they have to use them all. You want to get something out of plain/jane conservative calls.

I do agree, however, that had the packers lost, this would have been a major point of contention on these boards.

Oh, here's something I forgot: After using all three timeouts and getting the ball back with 3:50 to play, the Jets still could've survived a quick three-and-out followed by a punt, with a chance to get the ball back with about a minute to play. So my argument is stronger than I realized.

The bottom line is that when the other team has the ball, timeouts are worth 39 seconds apiece, which is the maximum amount of time that a timeout can be worth. There's no way around that fact.

The only real downside is if you score too quickly and leave more time for the other team to come back. But scoring too quickly was not something the Jets had to worry too much about on Sunday.

---

It doesn't matter when he used them, as long as he used them when the Packers had the ball and the clock was running. No matter what scenario you concoct, you wouldn't have gotten there with more time on the clock than the one Rex used.

You'd have to violate the laws of physics. Bottomline: Rex maximized the amount of time saved per timeout.

There still should be consideration for time left and the situation. Under your theory, why not just use them at 6 minutes, etc. Just because you get the most time doesn't mean its the best stratey, I would venture to guess most people would rather have the ball back, for example, with 3 minutes and 3 timeouts than 4:30 minutes and no timeouts.

The first timeout just doesn't make any sense. If its 4:08 and you call a timeout, what's hte point? What if they convert on the next play for the first down? I think it'd be leaps and bounds better to let it get to 3:28 and see what happens on the next play. That timeout at 4:08 puts so much pressure on you to 1) stop the Packers the next play and 2) for your offense to have one shot when you get it back.

---

Whether or not you call the timeout, if the other team converts for the first down on the next play, it means that they can run an extra 39 seconds off the clock, plus the length of an extra play, for a total of about 43 seconds or a little more. Whether you use the timeout then or later, that fact remains.

Nobody would start using timeouts at the six minute mark because you just don't need to, and if you score you are likely to leave substantial time on the clock for the other team to come back. Four minutes is right at the outer margin for beginning to use timeouts. That's why I think Rex Ryan's strategy was debatable but not overtly bad.

In general, I think people tend to put too much emphasis on these strategic decisions that could go either way, when most of the time games are won or lost according to which players won their matchups. Sometimes coaches screw up when the pressure is on. I just don't think that is the case with Rex Ryan's timeouts.

---

Agreed Greg C, good point.

---