Two minute drill urgency

I’m not sure if this was covered in the game-day thread, but why aren’t we more aggressive in the two-minute drill? Both this game and last week, we got the ball back at the end of the first half and just wasted away a minute or more of time. This week, for example, we started the drive out well, but there was literally no hurry-up. We bled 30 seconds off between plays twice, and ended up w/ 24 seconds at the Packers 40 instead of a minute or more. Then it was a couple of shots at the end zone, and a field goal we would have missed if we didn’t get two chances.

So why do things this way? Are we worried that our offense is going to stall out, so we want to ensure that the other team doesn’t get the ball back? Is that a lack of faith in our offense to perform? A lack of faith in our D to get a stop if needed? (I know it’s not a lack of faith in our punter, blessed be the Fox.) Even the commentators mentioned that there was zero urgency. I don’t get it.


I just commented on this in another thread.
It was a big coaching blunder to not take a TO as the Mannings quinkly pointed out. They had already crossed mid field… so need to worry about Packers taking TOs to get ball back.

DC messed up.

Lynn was criticized as a HC with Chargers for clock management issues in the past 4 years.

Disappointed to see this happen in game #2.

They were playing scared. It goes to the discussion about margin of error. Better to drag the clock out, get 3 and keep Erin off the field. Now, what that does to the spirit of your team? Not anything good.

Yeah. I felt that this misstep and then the bad play call on 4th and 1 early in the 3rd combined to really turn the momentum of the game.

1 Like

When the Packers had the ball with a little over 2 minutes to go in 2nd quarter… I started to think the Lions needed Green Bay to score quick enough to give the Lions time before the half to score a TD.

At that moment… the Lions were up 14-7, but I thought the only chance they had to win was to end up 21-14 at the half.

I knew the Packers would be getting the ball 1st in the 3rd quarter, and expected them to come out and score a TD to gain momentum.

Coaches need to think about who gets the 1st possession after halftime.

1 Like

I was going crazy at that too… but I heard a Goff interview today, and he said that they were intentionally running the clock down. The game was still pretty close at that point and they knew they had a decent field goal attempt all but guaranteed. They wanted to kill the clock, take a shot or two at a TD and if it didn’t work take their shot at 3 points, but not leave any time left on the clock for GB, especially with GB getting ball to start 2nd half.

Guess that does make sense…


I actually was mostly ok with the clock management. Sure it was a little too slow, but the thought process would f bleeding the clock down to almost zero before you score makes sense. I know as fans it’s “hurry up we need a TD” but bleeding the clock dry was the right call. If you score 7 but leave 35 seconds and Rodgers scores 7 it’s a net break even. You score 3, go into halftime net plus 3.

They just pushed things a little too far. But I mostly understand that’s coming from simply not trusting your defense at all.


I think teams try to burn clock all the time but they do it at the tail end of the drive. What appears to have happened is they bled clock to begin/in the middle of the drive. That’s unusual and I’m interested in understanding the pros and cons of that.

I’m guessing the logic is that the other team isn’t likely to call their own timeouts when you bleed the clock earlier in the drive but if the drive actually stalls and you try to bleed it at the end of the drive…the other team will call timeout and stop you from bleeding the clock. Its the only logic I can come up with to change the timing of when to run time off the clock from the norm.

1 Like

Think about it like using the clock as your defense. By bleeding early you’re playing it hyper safe. You’re saying either we score or nobody scores.

They were confident they would score and didn’t want to turn the ball over to Erin with time for him to work his magic.

1 Like

Kind of. By bleeding the clock at the start of the drive you’re actually displaying a lack of confidence in your ability to score. You’re saying let’s prevent GB from scoring, run down the clock, while hopefully putting ourselves in position to score right before the half.

If you have full confidence you’re aggressive from the first snap. Then once you’re within striking distance you bleed the clock before punching it in.

I thought it was the right call overall. I just think they were TOO passive is all. Good strategy, a little too drastic tho

I think he thought that even with just 40 seconds Aaron would score a TD. And I think he was probably right. I think that was the right decision.


The strategy was sound, the execution/timing was bad ,just like dropping into 1 deep safety for the one play you don’t want to, picking a weak play on 4th and 1 then having the QB lock on the worst route in that play…not blitzing because your back 7 are the hot dog vendor and the group sales guy…

I mean this all standard SOL, right?

yawn…it’s like watching reruns…

1 Like

Exactly. They didn’t trust the defense. AT. ALL.

With good reason.

Is it playing scared or playing complimentary football? Leave Rogers more than 20 seconds and they probably score. Then we go into halftime up four, tied or down 4. Given all those scenario’s up 3 is a good outcome. I had no problem with how they managed the clock… because of our sucky defense.

1 Like

He addressed this today. In it’s simplest form he said that the two most important things in that situation are 1. points and 2. not giving the ball back to AR (who had three timeouts). Full quote:

On their strategy late in the second quarter to maximize the offense’s chances of scoring a touchdown and keep the ball from Packers QB Aaron Rodgers: “It was – first and foremost, they had three timeouts left. So we knew, A, we didn’t want to give the ball back to him, and B, we wanted to come away with points because we had one more possession than they did. We were on our fourth possession, they were on their third. So, to us, it was like, ‘How do we use all of this clock and come away with points?’ Certainly a touchdown would’ve been great, but we felt like we handled it pretty well. We got down there in position, we took a shot, we didn’t get a touchdown out of it, but we did get a field goal to go up three at halftime and not give the ball back to him.”

On if the game situation would be handled the same way if something similar occurred in a future game: “Yeah. Yeah, it would be. You don’t want to give that ball back to your opponent. You want to make sure you come away with points. That’s the most important thing.”


They obviously didn’t want to give the ball back to GB, and were satisfied with any points. They gave themselves a couple shots at the TD but they did successfully run out the clock perfectly.

1 Like

Exactly. It wasn’t Zach Wilson over there waiting to get back in (no offense to the rook, he’ll learn). It was AR at Lambeau. Two different worlds and mindsets.

1 Like

So what he is describing sounds like what I said would be the only reasonable explanation. Mentally we just have to adjust our thinking. Most teams try to save as much clock as possible and then once they are in position try to bleed clock. The flaw in that is that the second your drive stalls or you are basically ready to score…Green Bay is going to use their timeouts and get the ball back. So they shifted the clock bleeding part to earlier in the drive because that’s when GB is least likely to use timeouts. So if you think you need to burn 40 seconds (for instance), its easier to burn it where they did than somewhere else in the drive.

Its actually very logical but it runs counter to what we’ve gotten used to seeing. It also says they have confidence in their offense to execute with a limited time set instead of “we’ll give you whatever it takes.”

1 Like

If you want to play scared in the NFL then stop coaching. Goff was really good the 1st half, so you should take a chance.

1 Like