Published September 21, 2011 at CSNBayArea.com

After the 49ers collapse against the Dallas Cowboys, the focus of the talk shows was not the failure of the offense, the defense, or even the special teams. It was Jim Harbaugh’s non-declination of a penalty that has the 49er Faithful’s golden knickers in a knot.

This having happened several days ago, I’m going to assume you know what I’m talking about, and get right to my point. It seems that there’s a clear line separating the people who think Harbaugh did exactly the right thing, and the people who think he’s a pantywaist softy who was playing not to lose.

The difference? The people who have played the game are with Harbaugh on this, and the ones who have watched it all their lives are against him.

At this point, we need some disclaimers. I’m a line-crosser on this, in that I am a non-player, but I’m in Harbaugh’s camp on this decision.  I don’t always defer to the guys inside the lines on these matters (see my column last week on wasted timeouts), but I usually do, and in this case, I don’t think there’s even a question.

I understand the impulse. We’re pretty used to second-guessing the 49ers’ head coaches around here, because it’s been a really, really long time since we’ve had one that knew more than we do. We were all raised on Bill Walsh and the West Coast Offense, so the Mike Nolan/Mike Singletary years were pretty tough to stomach.  But folks, it’s time to back off.

Jim Harbaugh grew up in the game. Everybody knows by now; his father’s a coach, his brothers are coaches, he played for years in the NFL and has now paid his dues coaching at two levels in college. He completely transformed Stanford in four years. It’s going to take him some time to get the players he wants around him, and get rid of the ones he doesn’t, but he’s going to do it, and in the meantime he’s going to try to win every game he can.

So the notion that he was “playing not to lose,” which is what I heard a lot of on the radio the last two days, is ridiculous!

Harbaugh’s detractors seem to zero in on two specific reasons that they think the coach made the wrong move: 1) declining the penalty would have allowed the 49ers to kill some clock and 2) the three points he was taking off the board would have been readily available should he have needed them later.

Here’s why they’re wrong on both counts: 1) the Cowboys owned the line of scrimmage at that point, and even handoffs to Frank Gore were getting dangerous. Taking a knee isn’t a great strategy with 11:16 left in the game, so the 49ers were going to have to run some plays. Assuming they gained nothing, which seems to be okay with most of these people, they then line up for a 40-yard field goal, which, according to them, is automatic. 2) No 40-yard field goal, especially at Candlestick on a late afternoon, is automatic. Take that FG off the board, and the TD the Cowboys got could have been the tying score, and the FG that sent the game to OT could have won it.

People who have spent their lives inside the lines on the field know that nothing is automatic. Ask Roger Craig if “running some clock” is automatic. His fumble against the Giants in the 1990 NFC Championship game kept the 49ers out of their third straight Super Bowl. While you’re at it, ask any placekicker in the history of the game how “automatic” a 40-yarder at Candlestick is, and be prepared for some derisive laughter.

I’m not saying that Jim Harbaugh is perfect. He did let his quarterback burn the final timeout of the first half on a 3rd-and-19, thereby removing any chance of challenging a referee’s call, but the declined penalty? It’s time to let that one go, folks.

Published September 15th, 2011 at CSNBayArea.com

I’ve been watching sports pretty carefully for quite a few years, and while I would never claim to know everything about every sport, I have a pretty good understanding of the basics. Football teams throughout professional and college football have been making the same mistake over and over again, and I’ve decided it’s time that I help them out a little bit.

My mission here is to reduce the number of timeouts that are wasted by quarterbacks as the play clock runs down. On the surface, it seems like a good decision. I mean, nobody likes penalties, and if you can avoid them, why not do it?

Well, here’s why not. Let’s start with some math:

Average number of yards per team, per game, in the NFL last year: 336. Number of timeouts per team, per game, in any NFL game: 6

Okay, now to make the math a little easier, let’s say you’re not an average NFL team, let’s say you’re below average, and you gain 300 yards per game. A five-yard penalty represents 1/60th of your total yardage. Any one of your timeouts represents 1/6th of your allotment, unless it’s the second half, in which case it’s 1/3rd, unless you only have two or one, in which case it’s even more.

So you’re taking a precious commodity, something you have 6 or less of, and spending it to save yourself 1/60th of the yardage you can expect to gain in the game. Does that make any sense at all? If you’re an average team, or a good one, 5 yards represents even a smaller percentage of your average output.

Now, before you all lose your mind; please understand that I know there are times when it makes sense to do this. 3rd-and-1 in the fourth quarter, for instance. Sometimes your field position might dictate that you really couldn’t stand to lose the five yards, perhaps because it would move you out of field goal range. I can think of several more instances where it would pay to spend that timeout, and I’ll list a few later in the column.

My point, however, is that no QB seems to give it that much thought. Can you remember a time in the past few years when you saw a QB look up at the play clock, see it running down and just take the five-yard hit? I sure can’t! It’s reflexive now, and not just in the pros. The colleges have caught the bug, too, and now their stadiums have the play clock on display so they can waste perfectly good timeouts to save five yards.

Here’s a real-life example of what I’m talking about. Monday night, in the 3rd quarter, the Raiders burned a timeout facing 3rd-and-8. What are the percentages of making a 3rd-and-8?  About 35%. They actually did convert that play for a first down, and later in the same drive they burned their second timeout on 3rd-and-16! What’s the percentage of making 3rd-and-16? Are you kidding me?

So it’s like the Raiders made a bad bet, got lucky, and then they made one that was ten times worse. They threw incomplete on the 3rd-and 16, and wound up having to punt after burning two timeouts on the “drive.” It didn’t cost them the game, but it sure could have!

So did ESPN’s analysts say this when they were calling those timeouts? Nope. Did the Raiders’ announcers talk about it? Nope. Oh, you may hear a broadcaster lament the “clock management.” The 49ers have been raked over the coals over the past couple of years for not getting their plays in on time, but the issue is always with the sideline getting the play to the QB. The lost timeout is just considered the cost of mismanaging the clock, as if the option of taking the penalty doesn’t exist.

How important are timeouts? I guess I need to point this out, because people seem to have forgotten. You can survive on offense without timeouts in a catch-up situation, because there are several ways to stop the clock. On defense, however, you’re dead in the water without timeouts. If you’re down by two scores late in the game, and you get one back, you need your timeouts to have any chance to get the ball back. If you don’t have three timeouts, or at least two and the 2:00 warning, you pretty much need to recover an onside kick to win that game, and once again we’re talking about a very low percentage play.

Even in the first half, timeouts are important. They can be the difference between getting a field goal team on the field at the end of the half and not being able to do so. Let’s not forget that if you don’t have any timeouts, you can’t challenge a referee’s call, even if it’s obvious to everyone in the stadium that it would be overturned.

So I thought, in order to help out, I would lay out a few tips on when to take the timeout and when not to:

Don’t take the timeout if:

It’s first down; It’s second down and more than two; It’s third down and more than five; It’s the first quarter, or the first drive of the third quarter; You’re inside your own 40; It’s your last one of the half or game.

Always take the timeout if:

It’s third or fourth down and the five yards would move you out of field goal range; It’s third and less than five; It’s second and one or two; You’re behind by more than three TD’s anytime in the game, or two TD’s in the second half.

The bottom line here is that at any particular point in the game, the timeout may be more valuable, or the yardage could be more valuable. Many factor too into that, and I think coaches have just bailed out on the whole question by telling their QB’s to just call the timeout every time. I also think there’s an opportunity for teams with the patience to teach the QB just a few guidelines to go by (perhaps mine would be a good start), and let them make that decision when the time comes. I think they’ll be grateful to have those timeouts in their pockets when the game is on the line.

Agree, disagree? I’d love to hear what you think on this topic.