Super Bowl XLIX - Seahawks v. Patriots

[tifosi77]

The 538 article defending it gets the timing wrong. I really don't think they would have had to throw at all. They let quite a bit of time run off between first and second down that they didn't need to.

I have to agree with you here. I actually think Belicheck schooled Carrol by not calling time out . I think Carrol was expecting Belicheck to call time out after the first down run . Then when the clock started to run down Carrol panicked. Bellicheck had the proper run defense in and for Carrol to change , he would have had to use his last time out with 26 seconds left. Wilson screwed up too , because all he had to do was throw the ball through the uprights and he would still have had two plays left . In the end , the better coached team won .

I just spent three minutes banging out a post that essentially said this.

Belechick and the Pats had two timeouts of their own left in their pocket. Traditionally, you'd expect the defense to call a TO after the 1st down run, or to just stand aside and let SEA score asap. Preserves the most amount of clock, right? Well, the Pats did not call a timeout. And I think that forced SEA's hand and compromised their play calling ability. If the Pats call TO after the 1st down run, that leaves SEA the opportunity to run the ball three times with Beast. But by letting the clock continue to run, that pretty much forced the issue on SEA that at least one of their plays was going to be a pass. Wasn't necessarily going to be 2d down, but at least one of the three had to be a throw. And I think that put the advantage in the Pats' hands.

And the ball placement on Wilson's throw was monstrously terrible. He threw it to the one spot where a defender could make a play; that ball goes to the receiver's trail hip, or at his knees. Of course, in the latter case there's no possibility of a score, and it essentially becomes a wasted play that only take six seconds off the clock. But at least you don't throw a pick.

-the odds of an interception happening were probably comparable to the odds of lynch fumbling

I'd say the odds of a pick were far lower than the odds of a Lynch fumble. Across the NFL in 2014 there were 110 pass attempts from the 1 yd line, and that was the first and only interception thrown.

[skullman80]

You could probably count that number of INT on one hand/finger because no one is dumb enough to run that play at the 2 yard line or wherever it was. It was an atrocious call, and it deserves all the hate thrown its way. There is no reasonable explanation for it.

[shmenguin]

You could probably count that number of INT on one hand/finger because no one is dumb enough to run that play at the 2 yard line or wherever it was. It was an atrocious call, and it deserves all the hate thrown its way. There is no reasonable explanation for it.

there are plenty of passes thrown at the goal line. happens all the time. just because it's the superbowl doesn't mean you have to do the obvious thing. but in this specific case, they still should have.

[count2infinity]

As with most crucial play calls by a coach, if it works, he's a genius, if it doesn't he's an idiot. I get it, they should have handed it off, but hindsight is 20/20. If I'm in that situation, I hand it off as well, but it wasn't the worst call ever in the history of the superbowl (which I've seen as actual headlines for articles).

[dodint]

What is, then?

[skullman80]

As with most crucial play calls by a coach, if it works, he's a genius, if it doesn't he's an idiot. I get it, they should have handed it off, but hindsight is 20/20. If I'm in that situation, I hand it off as well, but it wasn't the worst call ever in the history of the superbowl (which I've seen as actual headlines for articles).

It's pretty high up the list, if not #1.

[count2infinity]

fine... obviously not going to convince anyone, but I still don't think it's nearly as bad as everyone is making it out to be.

[shmenguin]

Belechick and the Pats had two timeouts of their own left in their pocket. Traditionally, you'd expect the defense to call a TO after the 1st down run, or to just stand aside and let SEA score asap. Preserves the most amount of clock, right? Well, the Pats did not call a timeout. And I think that forced SEA's hand and compromised their play calling ability. If the Pats call TO after the 1st down run, that leaves SEA the opportunity to run the ball three times with Beast. But by letting the clock continue to run, that pretty much forced the issue on SEA that at least one of their plays was going to be a pass. Wasn't necessarily going to be 2d down, but at least one of the three had to be a throw. And I think that put the advantage in the Pats' hands.

this scenario relies on the premise that the most obvious outcome isn't going to happen. that's foolish. actually it relies on the LEAST likely outcome to happen - a turnover. if they don't score on that pass and it was just incomplete (like it would have been almost EVERY time), seattle runs the ball on 3rd and 1 with 20+ seconds left. if they score, the pats are almost screwed. if he doesn't score, seattle calls a timeout with 1 second left, or the pats call a timeout with 20+ seconds left. and the game comes down to a 4th and 1. either way, the pats would have benefited from that timeout being called. and no matter what, you're still giving lynch 2 chances to run from the one.

in short, the only way belichick's plan (assuming he had one, which i don't think he did) pays off is if new england intercepts that pass. which, again, was incredibly unlikely

[ulf]

since a bunch of yinz sports fans are in here, is the ESPN Insider package worth it?

I say yes- it doesn't cost a whole lot and there are some worthwhile articles.

I agree. You get the magazine with it too

[shmenguin]

a better way to put it...

-not calling a timeout *may* have forced seattle to run a pass play they weren't comfortable with
-not calling a timeout *definitely* caused them to not have enough time to reasonably come down and tie the game after a score

so take a look at those 2 things and let me know if the benefit from #1 even comes close to the downside of #2. spoiler alert - it doesnt...unless a totally unlikely event happens

[jf]

a better way to put it...

-not calling a timeout *may* have forced seattle to run a pass play they weren't comfortable with
-not calling a timeout *definitely* caused them to not have enough time to reasonably come down and tie the game after a score

so take a look at those 2 things and let me know if the benefit from #1 even comes close to the downside of #2. spoiler alert - it doesnt...unless a totally unlikely event happens

Even if the Patriots use both their time outs and Seattle scores on fourth down , the Patriots probably only have time to run a couple of plays . It is obvious that the Patriots thought their best chance to win was by stopping Seattle .

[dodint]

A couple of plays is enough when you only need a FG to force OT.

c2i, if you find yourself having to convince everyone of something, that might tell you how blindingly off your stance is.

[MWB]

If the Pats call TO after the 1st down run, that leaves SEA the opportunity to run the ball three times with Beast. But by letting the clock continue to run, that pretty much forced the issue on SEA that at least one of their plays was going to be a pass. Wasn't necessarily going to be 2d down, but at least one of the three had to be a throw. And I think that put the advantage in the Pats' hands.

I get what you're saying, but if they managed the clock properly after the completion to Kearse, they could have done whatever they wanted in terms of play calls. It was first down with 1:06 to go in the game. I guess you could say they had to throw if they wanted there to be less time on the clock if they assume they score. But that thinking by a team isn't that smart, IMO. Your first goal should be to get the lead in the way that is most likely to succeed, then worry about what could happen after.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

A couple of plays is enough when you only need a FG to force OT.

c2i, if you find yourself having to convince everyone of something, that might tell you how blindingly off your stance is.

considering you'd need to go at least 40 yards with no timeouts against a secondary that gave up maybe two or three + 15 yard plays all game I don't think it's as easy as you're making it.

[count2infinity]

c2i, if you find yourself having to convince everyone of something, that might tell you how blindingly off your stance is.

Like I said, it's easy to go back in hindsight and say "that was a terrible play call" which is what everyone is doing. There were only, what? 20 seconds left? and it was 2nd down and they had one timeout left. Either on 2nd down or 3rd down, they're going to have to throw it because of the clock. I'm pretty sure the thought process was "let's throw it on 2nd down. it'll either be a TD or incomplete, then we'll run it, td or call timeout and run it again." Butler then made a once in a lifetime play to make the call look absolutely terrible. It's fine to have differing opinions, but I'm not blind to the situation. I've already said that I would have handed the ball off to Lynch, but there are justifications for the call that was made.

[dodint]

It just seems contrarian given the whole world went "wtf?" the second the play was over. I'm not saying you're right or wrong as it's subjective at best. I personally wouldn't throw a ball when all 11 defenders are within 10 yards.

I stopped feeling bad for the Seahawks when they jumped offsides with Brady taking the snap from the end zone. Then acted like clowns by fighting about it.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

it won't get talked about much, but the offsides is really indicative of the Seahawks play the last two years. They have been the most penalized team by a significant margin and that reflects directly on Carroll.

It would've been interesting to see what was going to happen on that play from the 3 inch line by the Patriots but the Seahawks just couldn't control themselves.

[count2infinity]

My initial reaction was WTF, but the more I think about it, the more I don't think it's the worst call in the history of the sport. I can understand the logic behind the call, and if Butler doesn't make that play, it's likely not really talked about as they run the ball the next two downs, and if Butler doesn't jump the route and the Seahawks score a TD, the Carroll is a genius as it caught the Pats off guard.

[skullman80]

Even if they would have scored on that play I would still have been that was a dumb play call that luckily somehow worked out. Even if it would have worked it still would have been looked as a WTF were they thinking moment.

[count2infinity]

Even if they would have scored on that play I would still have been that was a dumb play call that luckily somehow worked out. Even if it would have worked it still would have been looked as a WTF were they thinking moment.

I think you and I both know that's not how sports work.

[dodint]

I still can't think of a bigger dumb play. People keep saying "not the worst" but no other example is ever given. I asked earlier and I wasn't trolling, I just really can't think of one. Does Warner throwing the pick six to Harrison count? It's a very similar play that ultimately had the same impact on the outcome of the game, it just happened 30:00 early.

[Idoit40fans]

Even if they would have scored on that play I would still have been that was a dumb play call that luckily somehow worked out. Even if it would have worked it still would have been looked as a WTF were they thinking moment.

I think you and I both know that's not how sports work.

I am sure im not the only one that thoight they were morons as soon as wilson held the ball. That was the point that it was stupid.

[shmenguin]

a better way to put it...

-not calling a timeout *may* have forced seattle to run a pass play they weren't comfortable with
-not calling a timeout *definitely* caused them to not have enough time to reasonably come down and tie the game after a score

so take a look at those 2 things and let me know if the benefit from #1 even comes close to the downside of #2. spoiler alert - it doesnt...unless a totally unlikely event happens

Even if the Patriots use both their time outs and Seattle scores on fourth down , the Patriots probably only have time to run a couple of plays . It is obvious that the Patriots thought their best chance to win was by stopping Seattle .

this is what you're ultimately saying...belichick didn't use his TO because he didn't want this and ONLY this to happen...

1) Lynch stuffed on 2nd down
2) Lynch stuffed on 3rd down
3) The Seahawks now have the option to run him again on 4th down because they have one time out left

that's the ONLY thing belichick was trying to avoid. and in doing so, he ensured that in no way was his team going to have any reasonable time to tie the game up.

this is a stupid move by an otherwise smart coach. you're banking on too specific of a scenario to squander your chances of scoring again.

[tifosi77]

You could probably count that number of INT on one hand/finger because no one is dumb enough to run that play at the 2 yard line or wherever it was.

Over the past 10 seasons, including playoff games, NFL QBs have thrown 270 passes on 2 dn from their opponent’s 1. They combined for 129 touchdowns and just five interceptions (Wilson’s being #5). This year alone there were 110 total pass attempts from the opponent's 1 yd line, resulting in something like 66 TDs. Wilson's was the first pick.

Also, I saw that on the same number of carries from the 1 yd line, Lynch scored fewer TDs (1) than Joe Flacco (2) on the same number of attempts (5).

[tifosi77]

Belechick and the Pats had two timeouts of their own left in their pocket. Traditionally, you'd expect the defense to call a TO after the 1st down run, or to just stand aside and let SEA score asap. Preserves the most amount of clock, right? Well, the Pats did not call a timeout. And I think that forced SEA's hand and compromised their play calling ability. If the Pats call TO after the 1st down run, that leaves SEA the opportunity to run the ball three times with Beast. But by letting the clock continue to run, that pretty much forced the issue on SEA that at least one of their plays was going to be a pass. Wasn't necessarily going to be 2d down, but at least one of the three had to be a throw. And I think that put the advantage in the Pats' hands.

this scenario relies on the premise that the most obvious outcome isn't going to happen. that's foolish. actually it relies on the LEAST likely outcome to happen - a turnover. if they don't score on that pass and it was just incomplete (like it would have been almost EVERY time), seattle runs the ball on 3rd and 1 with 20+ seconds left. if they score, the pats are almost screwed. if he doesn't score, seattle calls a timeout with 1 second left, or the pats call a timeout with 20+ seconds left. and the game comes down to a 4th and 1. either way, the pats would have benefited from that timeout being called. and no matter what, you're still giving lynch 2 chances to run from the one.

in short, the only way belichick's plan (assuming he had one, which i don't think he did) pays off is if new england intercepts that pass. which, again, was incredibly unlikely

It does not rely on a turnover at all. It simply took some pressure off the defense by making the offensive playcalling a little more predictable. It's just basic game theory; make your opponent's reactions more predictable using the unpredictability of your own actions.

Ultimately, it's kind of a moot point. Neither the coaching nor the playcalling on either side could account for what was a stupendous defensive play by the Popeye's dude.