This is what Bowles said according to ESPN.com:

"It's not a gentlemen's agreement," Bowles said Monday. "They were in field goal range. We'd have had 12 seconds, calculated, after using that timeout to come back from it. Then we'd have been down 11 points, so it's kind of pointless. You kind of know when the game is over. The game was over."

No idea how he comes up with the 12 seconds, I doubt the lines are able to take 25 seconds off the clock on a punt or field goal. Also the FG claim is dubios with a kicker who is below 40% in his career on kicks of 50+ yards. That kick would have been 49 yards. So I wouldn't even be sure the Lions would have attempted a kick. If they did and missed, Tampa actually would have had a chance from their own 39 because the spot is from where they kick not the LOS on 4th down.

That whole situation also makes you wonder what Detroit was doing? Campbell says they didn't bleed the clock because he could tell Tampa wouldn't take the timeout.

everyone is laughing at Bowles here but Campbell almost earned a permanent spot in the title of this thread. even if you are 99% sure tampa will not use a timeout there is nothing to gain by snapping the ball with 20 seconds on the clock

I'd also love to see some numbers regarding the decision to kneel down 3 times instead of gaining a couple yards to give your kicker an easier shot. 3 runs also take off a couple extra seconds, but there's the obvious risk of a fumble.

there was 1:30 left on the game clock and Tampa had one timeout, anything besides snapping the ball with one second on the playclock and taking 3 knees is terrible.

Sorry, I thought there was more time on the clock. Didn't realize it was only 1:35 and they also snapped it way early on 2nd down.

I really cannot think of any scenario where Lions kick FG there with 0:08 (which is what the clock would be if Campbell ran max time off + Bowles TO). I have to think its punt 100% of the time. With that in mind running handoffs is Joe Pisarcik all over again.

Punt is by far the safest play, and either gets the clock to zero or 0:01.

The most humorous part of all of this is Bowles assuming Lions will not only kick a FG, but make it as well. There had to be some kind of miscommunication while all this was happening on the TB sideline. No way Bowles would say any of that to his players. He's covering for somebody, maybe himself.

It would have been a great angle shoot, not taking TO on 2nd or 3rd downs, but taking TO on 4th down.

FWIW clock was 1:33 on 1st down.

What could go wrong with a Michigan team punting to try to run out the clock?

...or a team with an Alabama RB kicking a FG at the end of regulation?

Agreed. I was under the wrong impression there would have been more time left. As played, if Bowles takes the timeout with 0:37 things might look different though.

My best guess is they somehow agreed to not call timeout but then the lions ruined being able to make it look reasonable by being idiots.

Or Tampa just never looked back at the clock.

Or it was rigged.

Kyle Shanahan took black in a 1 game winner take all in chess

Meh. When you take the ball first and both teams trade FGs or TDs, you then have possession when it becomes sudden death, which is pretty big especially in cases where both defenses are totally gassed and it's gonna be easy to move the ball.

I'm not saying having perfect information for that 2nd drive isn't big too, but it's not like it's a total no-brainer.

Onlydo2days brought up a good point: if both teams trade TDs the team scoring last will go for 2 and end it there.

So I got chance of free roll possession as [no scoring]^2 + [both kick fg]^2. My WAG numbers .25^2 + .4^2 = 22%.

The OT stuff is gonna need a closer look, it was a novel concept as far as the NFL goes...Not even sure what the right answer is there, but keep in mind romo did say chiefs D was GASSED like 5x on 9ers first OT drive


the 3rd/4th down sequence before moody regulation FG and not calling timeouts for the potential to get the ball back for a FG at end of half were bad though, very bad


shame too, because shanny is 1 of the best coaches but he keeps turtling it up in these big games

Also given you know that both no score or both fg gives other team the ball back for sudden death, makes it more likely to go for it.

In playoffs/Super Bowl I lean towards a 10 or 15 minute overtime played all the way out like another quarter.

10 years ago this would have been par for the course. Now most coaches have figured out the value of 45-60 seconds before end of half. It effectively reduces the value of the opponent's score because your team has a non zero chance to score on the bounce.

It goes back to what the opposing coach wants you to do. At that point its obvious Reid wants Kyle to sit on his hands and not take TOs. Which means Kyle should take the TOs because it's a zero sum game.

I remember John Fox having Peyton Manning kneel out the first half with 2 minutes and 3 timeouts left in the playoffs against the Ravens. Was some of the most spineless idiotic stuff I've ever seen. Then they lost in double OT.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/playbyplay/_/gameId/330112007

are you thinking of a different game? dont think this happened

just see hester run to kill the half with 35 secs left


when NE lost the bye week 17 in brady's last year, belichick ended the half with 57 seconds left thus giving the chiefs the bye eventually setting up their first SB

https://www.espn.com/nfl/playbyplay/_/gameId/401127909

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to have Bork slinging it all over before halftime with a lead and a minute left. That's a recipe for a crushing INT.

lol they have 1 of the best offenses in the league, of course they should be trying to maximize possessions

if purdy sucks that bad you dont want him throwing it before half then get a new QB

edit: a lead? they were up 7pts! who cares

Feel pretty confident getting the ball second with these overtime rules is correct and a much bigger discrepancy than in any of the other nfl ot rules

If KC scores a FG and SF walks it off with another FG after that, everyone thinks exactly the opposite.

In a game where both teams score 4 TDs and 2 FG the math might look a little different than in a game where both teams score 2 TDs and 4 FG, assuming that trend continues to overtime. How much we should factor in that individual game over a team's overall performance and league averages I don't know.

I wouldn't think that

You get the ball at the 25 needing a td to not even win the game, have 3 bad plays and punt it away, and the other team gets the ball at the 40 needing a fg to win

Seems like a bad deal