No, dipshit, that time is usually spent reflecting on the previous play/previous plays, watching a replay of it/them and/or thinking about the next play or just hoping the next play is successful. Pretty much every sport has lulls in action where nothing is really happening and you have time to do whatever...
They need to speed the game up. I say 20-30 seconds between snaps rather than 40. An actual average NFL game has 11 minutes of actual play time and 49 minutes of "dead" time. That's horrendous. Less dead time would equal more action, more posessions, and probably more excitement as teams would be playing with greater urgency.
And no need for commercials after kickoffs. As it is, team scores - commercials, then kickoff - more commercials. All about making $$$, screw 'em, I hope there's a lockout. The guys running this league are worse than David Stern, and I hate Stern. Just play the game.
You run the risk of rushing the game too much. Coaches have to come up with plays taking time to think of what what they want to try, then communicate it to the QB, who then has to communicate it to the rest of the players, then they all have to line up and get in position, and the QB needs time to read the defense, audible, settle himself down, etc... You can't run the entire game like you might run a 2 minute drill. Players would get winded, plays would get rushed, and then you'd have more mistakes, more fumbles, more injuries, more chaos, and some sloppy football. It gives teams the option of what kind of pace they want to play with. If you speed it up too much, then teams wouldn't have any option as to what pace to play. To me, the game of football isn't just about the action that occurs during a single play, it's all the other nuances that go along with it. Some would also argue that it builds up anticipation for each play.