Chris R. from Sydney, Australia
First off, love the mailbox segment and the honest/straight answers you give the fans.
Secondly, and to my question, it’s about a coach knowing when to use timeouts in a game. We were arguably playing a playoff-esque game against Washington, knowing that anything but a win likely has us sitting at home during the playoffs. In that situation, with a rookie QB (who is playing great mind you), and with a plethora of timeouts at the end of each half, why are we not using them? What benefit was there to not taking them? Why would the coach believe it best to allow Penix to have to rush to the line and snap it (heightening the risk of a bad play) when the alternative was to keep more time on the clock and not rush?
Tori: Hello Chris from Australia! Nice to know there is an Aussie contingency of Falcons fans out in the world. Hoping to one day get to your hemisphere! I appreciate you writing in, because your questions are not only good questions but they are valid.
I know I wrote about the decision by the Falcons to not use their timeouts at the end of the first half Sunday night and also after the Darnell Mooney catch in the fourth quarter. However, I thought Raheem Morris’ answers to those same questions 24 hours later were more insightful. Here. Let me break it down.
Let’s start with the first half, when the Falcons took all three timeouts into the locker room at halftime. Morris said the goal was to end the half with the ball, which makes sense. With the Commanders getting the ball first coming out of halftime, the Falcons didn’t want to give them a chance to score in consecutive possessions. So, they were happy to let the clock run down.
“You always want to end the half with the ball. And, you know, we could have burned that one timeout. We had that one on the sideline (to Darnell Mooney), would have saved us about six seconds and potentially gave us two shots as opposed to one to Drake (London) at the end of the half,” Morris said. “Because you’re going to kick it on fourth down anyway to take the points, to ensure the points. But we could have probably saved about six seconds at the end of the half, but wanted to end the half with the ball, and we were able to do that.”
So, there’s the reasoning behind that decision. The decision not to use a timeout at the end of the game, however, is a bit more nuanced.
In essence, the Falcons did not want to give the Commanders’ defense time to set up an elaborate defensive look following the stoppage of time. The Atlanta staff wanted to give Michael Penix Jr. a more manageable four-man rush. Morris said he believes that if the Falcons called a timeout at the 33 second mark when Mooney was ruled down, it would have allowed the Commanders to cook something up that would have taxed Penix in that situation.
“With my study, knowing the people, knowing the personnel, (Commanders defensive coordinator) Joe Whitt and (head coach) Dan Quinn, on what’s going to happen if that clock gets stopped and how it’s going to go down for my young quarterback when it comes to protection purposes,” Morris explained, “I wanted to get him a regulated four-man rush with my guy standing in the pocket, being able to deliver a throw, and being able to get it done.”
The problem — as we all know — was that too much time ran off the clock and the Falcons didn’t have time to gain better field position before sending out Riley Patterson for a long kick.
So, there’s the reasoning Morris gave for this decision.
Now, I will leave you with this: You do not have to agree with the Falcons’ decisions to not use their timeouts. I am just passing along the thought process that Morris laid out when breaking it all down Monday afternoon. If you want to read more from his answer instead of what I have paraphrased here, Terrin Waack posted the entire response on X/Twitter. I have attached it for you below.