Jerry Kill and Game Clock Management

Donate To GopherHole
W

wait!what?

Active member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
3,179
Reaction score
0
Points
36
After 1.5 seasons I can say that Jerry Kill's clock management is the best I have ever seen at the college level. None better in the Big Ten.
 

I'm not sure about that.. but certainly better than the team to the East's clock management.. =D
 

Now if only we could figure out the source of the persistent illegal formation penalties.
 

I disagree. I thought Kill managed the clock fairly poorly at the end of the half against NW.
 

The term "clock management" reminds me of this...

If there are two things that people who have never played football are experts at: it is clock management and the skill level of the backup QB's. A full season of watching NFL football on a 27" TV also results in a degree in Offensive Coordinator Play Selection.
 


Schnauzer said:
The term "clock management" reminds me of this...

If there are two things that people who have never played football are experts at: it is clock management and the skill level of the backup QB's. A full season of watching NFL football on a 27" TV also results in a degree in Offensive Coordinator Play Selection.
Click to expand...

I agree! I'd also like to add that the casual fan really seems to know when to employ certain blitzes (and never likes the prevent).

As to the original point, I think they do a nice job. There are always issues. I probably would have liked them to push a little more at the end of the half against Purdue. I think that was more of a difference in opinion than poor clock management.
 

DarrenTheGreek said:
I disagree. I thought Kill managed the clock fairly poorly at the end of the half against NW.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I don't know. I think that was more just poor play to close out the half than poor clock management. They got stuck in that awkward stage of being aggresive and letting the half run out. The drive ended with a botched snap (like the 3454th of that game), so that was ugly. However, I don't the playcalling.....if memory serves me correct. With about 1:30 left, we had the ball at the 50 yard line. We dropped back to pass, Gray didn't see anything and either got sacked or got a 1 yard gain. We ran the ball (didn't get anything). We had a penalty. We had a bad snap. Half was over.

I guess for me, I am fine with the 1 run attempt on 2nd down. That's about the only thing that anyone could have had a gripe. Q was in at QB, the conditions were tough to pass (for everyone), I just think a QB run on 2nd and 9 from midfield with minute left (and timeouts) is fine.
 

Schnauzer said:
The term "clock management" reminds me of this...

If there are two things that people who have never played football are experts at: it is clock management and the skill level of the backup QB's. A full season of watching NFL football on a 27" TV also results in a degree in Offensive Coordinator Play Selection.
Click to expand...

Bob_Loblaw said:
I agree! I'd also like to add that the casual fan really seems to know when to employ certain blitzes (and never likes the prevent).

As to the original point, I think they do a nice job. There are always issues. I probably would have liked them to push a little more at the end of the half against Purdue. I think that was more of a difference in opinion than poor clock management.
Click to expand...


+1,000,000 to these two comments!! Spot on guys! :clap: :clap: :clap:
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I agree! I'd also like to add that the casual fan really seems to know when to employ certain blitzes (and never likes the prevent).

As to the original point, I think they do a nice job. There are always issues. I probably would have liked them to push a little more at the end of the half against Purdue. I think that was more of a difference in opinion than poor clock management.
Click to expand...

Even when we were up 34-7? If Nelson throws a pick and Purdue ends up with points and some momentum, everyone would say it was a terrible decision.
 



wait!what? said:
After 1.5 seasons I can say that Jerry Kill's clock management is the best I have ever seen at the college level. None better in the Big Ten.
Click to expand...

Huh? There is at least a dozen people here who I am sure have disagreed with Kill's clock management. If you don't believe me, just wait until the next time there is a clock management decision that doesn't work out and see how many experts come forward. :rolleyes:
 

John Galt said:
Even when we were up 34-7? If Nelson throws a pick and Purdue ends up with points and some momentum, everyone would say it was a terrible decision.
Click to expand...

I can see the desicion before the half against Purdue both ways. I can totally understand playing it safe with the lead we had and as you said not running the risk of something bad happening right before halftime. At the same time we had Purdue's defense reeling and the offense was locked in so there is a part of me that would love to see the coach go for the throat and keep the pressure on. When we go to the 20 with two timeouts I would have liked to have seen us take at least one shot into the EZ.

I don't fault Kill for playing it safe like he did, I just personally would have liked to seen them take at least one shot. Back to the original topic, as a staff they seem pretty good at clock management. Have not noticed a lot of glaring errors or problems to this point. Not sure I am willing to go as far the op in calling him the best in college football or Big Ten...
 

after that purdue game several years back, clock management in college football is beyond my comprehension

need to blitz more ;)
 

Wouldn't say his is the best I've seen, but I think I can say that I don't think it's an issue of his. There are things about this coaching staff to complain about in general, but I don't think clock management is really one of them.

You're always gonna second guess them if something epically fails, like if Nelson did throw a pick six to close the half last week or something like that. There's a fine line between trusting your players to make the right decisions, and giving them too much freedom that causes them to make a critical error. Hopefully the majority of the time, Kill and crew finds that line.
 



I recall worse clock management from Mason, Wacker and others. Overall, it seems pretty good, though occasionally I wonder why they let the clock run out instead of going for a field goal or other points. I hate sitting on a lead.
 

I had issues in that we were snapping the ball with anywhere from 5-15 seconds left on the play clock with a 17-3 lead in the 4th quarter vs. Syracuse.

Overall, I've had nothing that I could really spaz about, though.....I thought the end of the 1st half against Purdue was pretty well done. Up 34-7, a TD would be nice, but the we're at least getting a good FG attempt as the last play of the half.
 

Watch the next game and keep this topic in mind and you'll notice that JK works the clock like a magician. For any MN football fan this is a skill that hasn't been in these parts for a quite awhile. A friend laughed at this comment before the Purdue game and then watched the half ending field goal with 00:00 on the clock. he nodded in my direction.
 


wait!what? said:
Watch the next game and keep this topic in mind and you'll notice that JK works the clock like a magician. For any MN football fan this is a skill that hasn't been in these parts for a quite awhile. A friend laughed at this comment before the Purdue game and then watched the half ending field goal with 00:00 on the clock. he nodded in my direction.
Click to expand...

First off I do think Kill does ok with clock management so don't take this the wrong way.

Any coach with half a brain in his head who had decided that no matter what they were going to kill the clock on that drive could have done what he did. They made no effort to get into the endzone, in fact I don't even think they were playing to get into field goal range it just worked out that way. Great clock management would have been using the last 20 seconds to take a few shots at the endzone and still get the field goal.

Again I don't disagree with what Kill chose to do in that situation but I would not call it masterful clock management, what it was, was passive coaching sitting on a big lead.
 

I think coaches are generally too conservative when they play with a lead. That pick six we got was huge, but the general plan when a team goes into the half with a big lead seems to hang back, prevent the big play, and set up a situation where it is likely for the other team to score but they have to take a long time to do it. I think there are a series of problems with this kind of plan:

1) when you have been doing something that has shut the other team down for half the game, you should keep playing the same way until they show you they can beat it

2) when you let a team score a couple touchdowns, they can build some momentum and confidence, even if they burned a lot of their clock to get those scores

3) when the other team is putting together long drives, your defense is getting worn down and more prone to giving up big plays later in the game, and this problem is compounded by the other defense continuously hitting the field rested and your offense loses momentum and flow, resulting in shorter rests for your defense

4) letting them score slowly puts the other team in a position where they still need a bit of a miracle at the end, but they are closer than they should be
 

John Galt said:
Even when we were up 34-7? If Nelson throws a pick and Purdue ends up with points and some momentum, everyone would say it was a terrible decision.
Click to expand...

I understand why he didn't push it for the reasons you've mentioned. However, I think I would have pushed it more. Like I said, I think it's just a matter of opinion and I don't think it was poor clock management. I agree that some people would have been upset with INT in that situation.

I agree, it was a no brainer for us to play relatively conservative when we first got the ball on that drive. However, after Nelson's run we were at about the Purdue 30. The clock was stopped and we still had a minute to work. At that point, I wish we would have pushed more for a TD. Instead, we ran the ball up the middle twice in a row and then passed on 3rd down. That was a bit more conservative then I would have been with our offense clicking and having the ball at the Purdue 30.

Now again, I'm not ripping Kill's decision to be more conservative in that instance, it worked out and the FG was important. I just don't think it's absurd at all to think they would have pushed for a TD in that situation.
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
I think coaches are generally too conservative when they play with a lead. That pick six we got was huge, but the general plan when a team goes into the half with a big lead seems to hang back, prevent the big play, and set up a situation where it is likely for the other team to score but they have to take a long time to do it. I think there are a series of problems with this kind of plan:

1) when you have been doing something that has shut the other team down for half the game, you should keep playing the same way until they show you they can beat it

2) when you let a team score a couple touchdowns, they can build some momentum and confidence, even if they burned a lot of their clock to get those scores

3) when the other team is putting together long drives, your defense is getting worn down and more prone to giving up big plays later in the game, and this problem is compounded by the other defense continuously hitting the field rested and your offense loses momentum and flow, resulting in shorter rests for your defense

4) letting them score slowly puts the other team in a position where they still need a bit of a miracle at the end, but they are closer than they should be
Click to expand...


Why do you care about how close "it should be" if the time it took for them to score TDs made it almost impossible for Purdue to win the game.

I'd take a guaranteed 1 point win over a 50/50 chance at winning by 60 every single time.
 

Now that I have shared my personal armchair quarterback thoughts on clock management with a lead, I think this is a great situation to analyze things based on results. When you have a big half-time lead, you should absolutely be able to finish with a win. Therefore, if the coach finds a way to blow the big lead, they have done something the wrong way, when there should be a lot of different ways to hang on to that lead.
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
Now that I have shared my personal armchair quarterback thoughts on clock management with a lead, I think this is a great situation to analyze things based on results. When you have a big half-time lead, you should absolutely be able to finish with a win. Therefore, if the coach finds a way to blow the big lead, they have done something the wrong way, when there should be a lot of different ways to hang on to that lead.
Click to expand...

See: Mason, Glen
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
I think coaches are generally too conservative when they play with a lead. That pick six we got was huge, but the general plan when a team goes into the half with a big lead seems to hang back, prevent the big play, and set up a situation where it is likely for the other team to score but they have to take a long time to do it. I think there are a series of problems with this kind of plan:

1) when you have been doing something that has shut the other team down for half the game, you should keep playing the same way until they show you they can beat it

2) when you let a team score a couple touchdowns, they can build some momentum and confidence, even if they burned a lot of their clock to get those scores

3) when the other team is putting together long drives, your defense is getting worn down and more prone to giving up big plays later in the game, and this problem is compounded by the other defense continuously hitting the field rested and your offense loses momentum and flow, resulting in shorter rests for your defense

4) letting them score slowly puts the other team in a position where they still need a bit of a miracle at the end, but they are closer than they should be
Click to expand...

Bravo this! Agree completely - remember Texas Tech, Michigan, etc. Keep scoring...
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Why do you care about how close "it should be" if the time it took for them to score TDs made it almost impossible for Purdue to win the game.

I'd take a guaranteed 1 point win over a 50/50 chance at winning by 60 every single time.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about Purdue specifically. But I did phrase my post poorly. I meant that it leaves them in a position where they have a prayer. I would rather us keep the peddle down and leave them with no hope at the end than allow them to slowly get close to set themselves up for a shot at the miracle quick score, onside kick, another quick score sequence.
 

Not sure you'd consider this time-management exactly, but I consider it a satisfying win when my team has the lead and the ball at the end.
 


Killjoy said:
Halloween is over Dr.Don. Quit scaring us!
Click to expand...


We get more points at the end of the half to go ahead a few more, and the experts wanted to go for even more, give a damn the bad things that can happen. God are some people stupid.
 

I manage a great clock. Every morning the alarm goes off and I hit the snooze "just one more time".
 

Dr.Don said:
We get more points at the end of the half to go ahead a few more, and the experts wanted to go for even more, give a damn the bad things that can happen. God are some people stupid.
Click to expand...

No one is bashing kill for the decision to sit on the ball before the half against Purdue. There are just a bunch of us that agree we could have taken a shot at the endzone given the time on the clock, field position, and the way our offense was playing against their defense.

Kill elected to play it safe, nothing wrong with that decision and clearly it didn't hurt us in the grand scheme of things. I am sure he took the big lead, freshman QB, and not wanting to screw anything up into account. I don't hear peole calling it a bad decision so no need to call people stupid for expressing an opinion that they would have liked to seen us be a little more aggressive there while still respecting the decision to play it safe.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom