Dumbest play in NFL history? (1 Viewer)

[ignatiusjreilly]

Years ago, I was at a flea market and saw an "Oreo Barbie" doll, and I remember thinking, how many seemingly smart people working at both Mattel and Nabisco involved themselves in the decision to release that product without at least one of them saying, "Hey, maybe this isn't such a great idea"?

That's exactly the kind of organizational incompetence I'm thinking of. How many people in that room either didn't think anything of it or were too scared to say anything to the contrary of the approval seekers? That mixture of stupidity, apathy, and/or fear leads to stuff like Oreo and Cracker Barbie and the Indy "punt." Funny thing is, it's relatable how those that know better stay quiet rather than risk seething rebuke from others who don't know or don't think it's that bad.

There are parallels here, but this is an apolitical board and so I will leave the point so that it remains that way.

I wonder how many people have intoned, "That would never happen to a Bill Belichick coached team!"

Maybe Belichick is entering the "Willie Mays on the Mets" phase of his career.

BB is the greatest coach in NFL history, and also a genius, but I think this mythos has developed around him where he's always playing 12-dimensional chess, and if you think he's made a bad decision then it must be you who fail to realize the long game he's playing.

But that's obviously BS. He's human, and he's made a number of mistakes over the years, particularly around drafting and player development. I'm sure he's made plenty of in-game mistakes, too, though none immediately come to mind (I don't count the 4th and 2 call among them; not only was that the right call analytically, it would have worked if Kevin Faulk hadn't bobbled the catch for half a second).

I've noticed a bunch of people immediately jumping to the conclusion that he had nothing to do with yesterday's play call, and maybe that was the case, but maybe it wasn't. The draw play in a vacuum wasn't the worst call ever, but it was completely unnecessary, and none of the other stuff would have happened without it

 

[-OZ-]

Years ago, I was at a flea market and saw an "Oreo Barbie" doll, and I remember thinking, how many seemingly smart people working at both Mattel and Nabisco involved themselves in the decision to release that product without at least one of them saying, "Hey, maybe this isn't such a great idea"?

That's exactly the kind of organizational incompetence I'm thinking of. How many people in that room either didn't think anything of it or were too scared to say anything to the contrary of the approval seekers? That mixture of stupidity, apathy, and/or fear leads to stuff like Oreo and Cracker Barbie and the Indy "punt." Funny thing is, it's relatable how those that know better stay quiet rather than risk seething rebuke from others who don't know or don't think it's that bad.

There are parallels here, but this is an apolitical board and so I will leave the point so that it remains that way.

I wonder how many people have intoned, "That would never happen to a Bill Belichick coached team!"

Maybe Belichick is entering the "Willie Mays on the Mets" phase of his career.

BB is the greatest coach in NFL history, and also a genius, but I think this mythos has developed around him where he's always playing 12-dimensional chess, and if you think he's made a bad decision then it must be you who fail to realize the long game he's playing.

But that's obviously BS. He's human, and he's made a number of mistakes over the years, particularly around drafting and player development. I'm sure he's made plenty of in-game mistakes, too, though none immediately come to mind (I don't count the 4th and 2 call among them; not only was that the right call analytically, it would have worked if Kevin Faulk hadn't bobbled the catch for half a second).

I've noticed a bunch of people immediately jumping to the conclusion that he had nothing to do with yesterday's play call, and maybe that was the case, but maybe it wasn't. The draw play in a vacuum wasn't the worst call ever, but it was completely unnecessary, and none of the other stuff would have happened without it

That’s the thing here. Clearly Meyers messed up. In the middle of a play with adrenaline kicking, mistakes are somewhat understandable. The coaches who put players in positions like that are often to blame. And we should always hold coaches to as higher standard regarding decisions than players (other than maybe the QB).

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Years ago, I was at a flea market and saw an "Oreo Barbie" doll, and I remember thinking, how many seemingly smart people working at both Mattel and Nabisco involved themselves in the decision to release that product without at least one of them saying, "Hey, maybe this isn't such a great idea"?

That's exactly the kind of organizational incompetence I'm thinking of. How many people in that room either didn't think anything of it or were too scared to say anything to the contrary of the approval seekers? That mixture of stupidity, apathy, and/or fear leads to stuff like Oreo and Cracker Barbie and the Indy "punt." Funny thing is, it's relatable how those that know better stay quiet rather than risk seething rebuke from others who don't know or don't think it's that bad.

There are parallels here, but this is an apolitical board and so I will leave the point so that it remains that way.

I wonder how many people have intoned, "That would never happen to a Bill Belichick coached team!"

Maybe Belichick is entering the "Willie Mays on the Mets" phase of his career.

BB is the greatest coach in NFL history, and also a genius, but I think this mythos has developed around him where he's always playing 12-dimensional chess, and if you think he's made a bad decision then it must be you who fail to realize the long game he's playing.

But that's obviously BS. He's human, and he's made a number of mistakes over the years, particularly around drafting and player development. I'm sure he's made plenty of in-game mistakes, too, though none immediately come to mind (I don't count the 4th and 2 call among them; not only was that the right call analytically, it would have worked if Kevin Faulk hadn't bobbled the catch for half a second).

I've noticed a bunch of people immediately jumping to the conclusion that he had nothing to do with yesterday's play call, and maybe that was the case, but maybe it wasn't. The draw play in a vacuum wasn't the worst call ever, but it was completely unnecessary, and none of the other stuff would have happened without it

That’s the thing here. Clearly Meyers messed up. In the middle of a play with adrenaline kicking, mistakes are somewhat understandable. The coaches who put players in positions like that are often to blame. And we should always hold coaches to as higher standard regarding decisions than players (other than maybe the QB).

Smart teams take a knee & go to OT with 3 seconds left & no TO in a tie game.

It’s really that simple.

 

[rockaction]

(I don't count the 4th and 2 call among them; not only was that the right call analytically, it would have worked if Kevin Faulk hadn't bobbled the catch for half a second).

You're still in the tank for execution of an obviously stupid (even analytically) play call. Don't slip in obvious garbage into your arguments and you'll get people to take analytics seriously. Maybe.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

(I don't count the 4th and 2 call among them; not only was that the right call analytically, it would have worked if Kevin Faulk hadn't bobbled the catch for half a second).

You're still in the tank for execution of an obviously stupid (even analytically) play call. Don't slip in obvious garbage into your arguments and you'll get people to take analytics seriously. Maybe.

You think it was "even analytically" stupid? Not even close. In any event, here's the non-analytical argument for that call: Don't give the ball back to a HOF QB with a chance for him to win the game. Instead, rely on your own HOFer to get two yards. Peyton was eviscerating their defense, and would have scored on them as easily from his own 30 as from the NE 30. Smartest thing to do there was to try to keep the ball away from him.

Besides, it's not my job to sell people on analytics. If they want to reject math, or logic, because a decision feels intuitively wrong, that's their issue, not mine.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Years ago, I was at a flea market and saw an "Oreo Barbie" doll, and I remember thinking, how many seemingly smart people working at both Mattel and Nabisco involved themselves in the decision to release that product without at least one of them saying, "Hey, maybe this isn't such a great idea"?

That's exactly the kind of organizational incompetence I'm thinking of. How many people in that room either didn't think anything of it or were too scared to say anything to the contrary of the approval seekers? That mixture of stupidity, apathy, and/or fear leads to stuff like Oreo and Cracker Barbie and the Indy "punt." Funny thing is, it's relatable how those that know better stay quiet rather than risk seething rebuke from others who don't know or don't think it's that bad.

There are parallels here, but this is an apolitical board and so I will leave the point so that it remains that way.

I wonder how many people have intoned, "That would never happen to a Bill Belichick coached team!"

Maybe Belichick is entering the "Willie Mays on the Mets" phase of his career.

BB is the greatest coach in NFL history, and also a genius, but I think this mythos has developed around him where he's always playing 12-dimensional chess, and if you think he's made a bad decision then it must be you who fail to realize the long game he's playing.

But that's obviously BS. He's human, and he's made a number of mistakes over the years, particularly around drafting and player development. I'm sure he's made plenty of in-game mistakes, too, though none immediately come to mind (I don't count the 4th and 2 call among them; not only was that the right call analytically, it would have worked if Kevin Faulk hadn't bobbled the catch for half a second).

I've noticed a bunch of people immediately jumping to the conclusion that he had nothing to do with yesterday's play call, and maybe that was the case, but maybe it wasn't. The draw play in a vacuum wasn't the worst call ever, but it was completely unnecessary, and none of the other stuff would have happened without it

That’s the thing here. Clearly Meyers messed up. In the middle of a play with adrenaline kicking, mistakes are somewhat understandable. The coaches who put players in positions like that are often to blame. And we should always hold coaches to as higher standard regarding decisions than players (other than maybe the QB).

I'm not sure I view it as holding coaches to a higher standard than players so much as judging decisions made deliberately over ones made in the heat of a moment. Everyone, both coaches and players, who had a role in the Griff Whalen fake deserves criticism, because that wasn't just a brain fart.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

You think it was "even analytically" stupid?

HuffPost? Yes, it was analytically. Stupid. All the data about being up fourteen from your own thirty was pointed against it. If not, it's bad input probability.

You pretty much cemented my point with your contrarian HuffPost posting. That's so stupid I can't describe it.

HuffPost? Yeah, that's your evidence.

You should really back up and not be so self assured about your "thinkpiece" posts. They're grating to those of us that take these ideas seriously. Just like in the politics thread when you'd post "thinkpiece" posts about stuff people had already thought of, like Soros being Jewish. That was a Democratic talking point back when you posted it. It happened for a reason. You didn't just "think" of it.

You know, you make lots of interesting arguments, and then every once in awhile, out of nowhere, you resort to personal attacks against me. I had assumed you would leave that behavior behind in the PSF, but apparently no dice.

I'm certainly not going to waste my own or anyone else's time responding to stuff like that, especially since I have no interest in getting suspended. If you find my arguments "grating", feel free to put me on ignore.

 

[rockaction]

You know, you make lots of interesting arguments, and then every once in awhile, out of nowhere, you resort to personal attacks against me.

They're not personal attacks.

It's because you insert certitude into doubt. I hate that. Especially when it backs your controversial position. That's probably why I get so hot. There's a lot of doubt in the world and not much certainty. It especially happens when there's a passionate or loaded debate like football and analytics. It muddies the waters. That HuffPo source is up for suspicion based on source alone. I wouldn't pass that off as definitive evidence if you put a gun to my head and said produce evidence.

It's rubbish. If I brought it up, it's so readers know it's rubbish instead of solid points in favor of your argument.

Bring a Football Outsiders argument if you want, but don't give me garbage.

Garbage In, Garbage Out, I guess is why I respond the way I do.

 

[rockaction]

And I suppose I do resent the tendentious nature of your subjects mixed with the haughty certainty you bring to very uncertain debates. That's why I act the way I do, which is probably wrong, but probably understandable, all things considered.

 

[rockaction]

And thank you for the compliment. I will try to do better, but the way you do it gets me for some reason.

Fourth and two from your own 38 up fourteen in the fourth quarter is hardly a recipe for success, and Belichick lost and has never done anything even remotely like it since. Look at go-for-it rates, probability, and coaches. He's finished near dead last in agressiveness since then. He realized what it meant and that it was wrong. I wonder why other people can't.

It's like the '90s all over again, but in football instead of baseball. It's like the three true outcomes or arguments against momentum as a concept. People still cling to those, and it's affecting the game negatively.

 

[Dickies]

I have to go with the Colts/Patriots play because it required a coaching staff drawing that up, presumably running it in practice, and coming to the conclusion that it was ready to be deployed in a game.

Leon Lett is 2nd (and maybe 3rd) for me because it was just a pure bonehead play where his teammates were standing between him and the ball waving everyone off and he just Leeroy Jenkinsed past them, ultimately costing them the game.

 

[menobrown]

FWIW, Michael Irvin was just on 95.7 the game, and he said he saw nothing wrong with Stevenson’s play - maybe he (Meyers) gets an opening, or maybe he steps out.

He put it 100% on Meyers, because “even if he got it to Mac Jones, he’s not Justin Fields”

I was unable to spot the lie.

 

[rockaction]

Submitted for consideration, thanks Michael Irvin for the reminder.

This was right in the OP. Leon Lett's Thanksgiving Blunder.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Submitted for consideration, thanks Michael Irvin for the reminder.

This was right in the OP. Leon Lett's Thanksgiving Blunder.

Ain’t nobody got time to read all that.

 

[rockaction]

Ain’t nobody got time to read all that.

LOL. Just wanted to make sure you knew we were aware.

I even mentioned Leon Lett in my answer, but I know you ain't got time to read that.

While I have you here:

D'Onta Foreman, Deon Jackson, Jeff Wilson, Cordarrelle Patterson, or DJ Chark next week?

My lineup is hurt going into the semis and I had thinned it out anyway in dynasty with some poor moves. Need to rectify that.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

D'Onta Foreman, Deon Jackson, Jeff Wilson, Cordarrelle Patterson, or DJ Chark next week?

Have you considered seppuku? It would be more honorable than some of those choices.


deon Jackson should get some play - 10-12 touches? Wilson should split time - he’d be my other pick.

Chark may be the ceiling play - but low floor as well.

 

[rockaction]

Have you considered seppuku? It would be more honorable than some of those choices.

It's only one starter out of nine on offense. Nine defensive starters. I think I might be able to get by with just one of those dudes.

Thank God for Josh Sweat's 23 points getting me through to the semis. This is where it gets hard, though. But we have 51-man rosters, so there's not much on the wire to add. Plus, I have no dollars for transactions anyway. We shall see.

 

[massraider]

No one ever held it against Leon Lett, anyone else remember that?

He was a sweet kid. The other Cowboys protected him. He always seemed like a confused bear on the field, accidentally knocking over RBs and such.

 

[DropKick]

Aside from the horrible decision to throw the lateral, wtf were the Patriots thinking running a running play there? The Raiders had 4 in the box and 7 defenders at the goal-line preventing a touchdown. The odds of the Patriots scoring on a run/lateral play were were so scant that it wasn’t worth the risk. I’d wager that the odds were better of the defense scoring there.

Seriously, with 7 defenders at the goal-line what were the odds of them scoring a TD? 100-1? 500-1? 1,000-1? I’ve watched thousands of football games and I can’t think of a team winning on the last play of the game with a 55+ yard touchdown run. I have to believe the odds of a defensive score there were as good if not better. So if you can’t win the game with a running play, why run it?

The Pats got the ball at their own 25 with 32 seconds remaining and zero timeouts. Mac Jones was horrific on the day - couldn’t hit the broadside of a barn. In the past Belichik has never hesitated to take a knee on these occasions and go into overtime - and that was with Tom Brady. Running a draw play there had 0% chance of success for a touchdown. The Raiders had 7 defensive backs guarding the goal-line. And on that last play, with no timeouts and 3 seconds left, a field goal wasn’t possible either. So why run the play and risk injury or a turnover? So surprising to see BB and staff make such a terrible decision. Just terrible coaching.

Agree that the chance of a TD were slight. Aaron Rodgers aside, a successful Hail Mary is rare. Plus they never throw flags on those plays and no one on the Pats jumps out (pun intended) as a great Hail Mary target. You could also kneel and play for OT. Given those extremes, I prefer the bomb but actually don't mind the draw play call. No, you don't expect to score but stranger things have happened. They did gain 25+ yards and could have picked up a face mask or other penalty that extended the game. I've seen similar calls plenty of times. I like trying more than kneeling and don't think the fear of a turnover/score was a reasonable concern.

Stevenson sent the play down hill. Maybe he should have just tried to beat the defender... he is a power back after all. As someone mentioned, the lateral to Myers was sloppy and then he panicked and the whole thing went off the rails. Bad play in a meaningful moment as the game had play-off implications.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I vividly remember the Leon Lett game. I was at my maternal grandparents' house for Thanksgiving, and I was gut-punched over this game because I feared it would cost the Bills the division and HFA, which I'm pretty sure it did. (Miami was the undeserving beneficiary of Lett's generosity). It was a dumb play, but in Lett's defense, the NFL has a lot of weird, semi-random rules. Lett is used to playing DL, not ST. In the heat of the moment, Lett did something that made perfect sense if you just lost track of what unit you were on. It was a dumb play, but it was dumb in a "brain fart" way, like how people sometimes forget how stoplights work when they start flashing.

By way of contrast, Stevenson and Meyers seemed to not understand that they could just go to OT. It's like it didn't occur to them that being tied in that situation is qualitatively different than being behind.

In other words, if you were watching these plays with someone who didn't know much about football, you would have to carefully explain why Lett's play was stupid, but it would be transparently obvious why the Patriots' play was stupid.

 

[Galileo]

I have to go with the Colts/Patriots play because it required a coaching staff drawing that up, presumably running it in practice, and coming to the conclusion that it was ready to be deployed in a game.

Leon Lett is 2nd (and maybe 3rd) for me because it was just a pure bonehead play where his teammates were standing between him and the ball waving everyone off and he just Leeroy Jenkinsed past them, ultimately costing them the game.

Same could be said for the Washington swinging gate fake FG. To make matters worse, they decided to run this after lining up in it...defense calls time out...then then came right back out and ran it still thinking it was a good idea. This play is flying below the radar here.

 

[rockaction]

This play is flying below the radar here

I know everybody can't read every post, but I'm arguing it was one of the two worst, the other being the Indy fake punt where they lined up with just the center and punter and New England left three guys on the line to absolutely maul the guy getting the hiked football.

Just breathtaking.

 

[Loipz]

This play is flying below the radar here

I know everybody can't read every post, but I'm arguing it was one of the two worst, the other being the Indy fake punt where they lined up with just the center and punter and New England left three guys on the line to absolutely maul the guy getting the hiked football.

Just breathtaking.

God that play was marvelous

 

[rockaction]

God that play was marvelous

Work. Of. Art. At MoMa, I hear it is these days.

 

[Doug B]

Same could be said for the Washington swinging gate fake FG.

How are those "the whole line shifts way over all at once" plays supposed to work, anyway? Am I misremembering that there are videos of those plays working in college games?

 

[Doug B]

I know everybody can't read every post, but I'm arguing it was one of the two worst, the other being the Indy fake punt where they lined up with just the center and punter and New England left three guys on the line to absolutely maul the guy getting the hiked football.

Similarly ... how was THAT supposed to work?

The only thing I can think of quickly is that the "QB" on that play is actually supposed to be at punter-depth -- then he could receive the hike and probably have time to lateral the ball somewhere. Otherwise, no se.

 

[ChiefD]

Not to sidetrack the thread, but IIRC we litigated this at the time and the timeout absolutely did not cost them the game. Rather, it was their inability to tackle Jacobs on 3rd down

I just wanted to quote this and give you credit for the bolded as it actually made me laugh out loud.

 

[Runkle]

I know everybody can't read every post, but I'm arguing it was one of the two worst, the other being the Indy fake punt where they lined up with just the center and punter and New England left three guys on the line to absolutely maul the guy getting the hiked football.

Similarly ... how was THAT supposed to work?

The only thing I can think of quickly is that the "QB" on that play is actually supposed to be at punter-depth -- then he could receive the hike and probably have time to lateral the ball somewhere. Otherwise, no se.

It was supposed to be a fake. The punt team runs on the field for 4th and 1 while the QB gestures frantically at the coach they should try for the first down. Then the QB and coach were supposed to fake agree to go for it and wildly wave their arms for the punt team to get off the field so they could bring the offense back out.


As the punt team runs to the sideline, two guys stop at the ball.


The idea was... They would confuse someone on the defense and get them substituting. The two guys at the ball would see this, snap it, and get them a 12 men on the field penalty and first down. The signal was the gunner would move under center, and the center was supposed to immediately hike the ball to him. The gunner was supposed to stand somewhere in the back, in the area of a shotgun snap, and look confused, only running under center when 12 men were on the field.


However... Two things went wrong. First, the guy moving into the center position was an injury/illness substitute who'd never practiced the play. Still, he knew the idea and the signal. But the second thing that went wrong was the killer... Right before the play, the coach told the gunner, and only the gunner, that if the Patriots didn't bite on the fake and didn't bring 12 men on the field, he should try to hard count them into jumping offsides, and just take the delay of game. They were not supposed to snap the ball in the fake hard count scenario.

But since they didn't tell this to the center, he wasn't expecting the hard count fake out attempt. He thought that the gunner moving under center meant 12 men were on the field and he should snap it. He was the only one fooled by the hard count, because he wasn't told it was the new wrinkle in the play.

In hindsight, using the same signal to mean "snap it right now" and "fake the hard count but don't snap it" was a bad idea.

 

[Doug B]

OK, this video answered my question about how swinging gate plays are supposed to work. It shows swinging-gate plays at several different levels of football, from PeeWees to the NFL. The Colts-Pats and Washington-Giants plays from the OP are shown. There's also a successful swinging gate play that the Dolphins executed against the Eagles a few years ago -- if I'm looking at it right, Dolphins' kicker Jason Sanders (?) ends up throwing a shovel-pass TD.

Anyway, one of the fundamental things about the swinging gate plays -- and it's something the PeeWee players get right in the video -- is that you DON'T take the snap directly under center. Sometimes you take the snap at shotgun depth or deeper. Other times, the ball is snapped lateral-style way off to the left or right (unsure if that's legal in the NCAA or NFL -- sometimes the center is close to standing straight up at the snap).

 

[rockaction]

I know everybody can't read every post, but I'm arguing it was one of the two worst, the other being the Indy fake punt where they lined up with just the center and punter and New England left three guys on the line to absolutely maul the guy getting the hiked football.

Similarly ... how was THAT supposed to work?

The only thing I can think of quickly is that the "QB" on that play is actually supposed to be at punter-depth -- then he could receive the hike and probably have time to lateral the ball somewhere. Otherwise, no se.

It was supposed to be a fake. The punt team runs on the field for 4th and 1 while the QB gestures frantically at the coach they should try for the first down. Then the QB and coach were supposed to fake agree to go for it and wildly wave their arms for the punt team to get off the field so they could bring the offense back out.


As the punt team runs to the sideline, two guys stop at the ball.


The idea was... They would confuse someone on the defense and get them substituting. The two guys at the ball would see this, snap it, and get them a 12 men on the field penalty and first down. The signal was the gunner would move under center, and the center was supposed to immediately hike the ball to him. The gunner was supposed to stand somewhere in the back, in the area of a shotgun snap, and look confused, only running under center when 12 men were on the field.


However... Two things went wrong. First, the guy moving into the center position was an injury/illness substitute who'd never practiced the play. Still, he knew the idea and the signal. But the second thing that went wrong was the killer... Right before the play, the coach told the gunner, and only the gunner, that if the Patriots didn't bite on the fake and didn't bring 12 men on the field, he should try to hard count them into jumping offsides, and just take the delay of game. They were not supposed to snap the ball in the fake hard count scenario.

But since they didn't tell this to the center, he wasn't expecting the hard count fake out attempt. He thought that the gunner moving under center meant 12 men were on the field and he should snap it. He was the only one fooled by the hard count, because he wasn't told it was the new wrinkle in the play.

In hindsight, using the same signal to mean "snap it right now" and "fake the hard count but don't snap it" was a bad idea.

Thank you for that. Now I'm just shaking my head.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

A few others to consider...
Mike Gillislee let's kickoff go
Kirk Cousins takes a knee instead of spiking to kill clock

Holy cow how had I never seen these before? Gillislee screwed up twice on that play. First coming up thinking someone else was going to get it when he was the return man, and then when he got back not picking it up because he thought it was like a punt where it would be a touchback if it went into the endzone.

And Cousins,

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

No one ever held it against Leon Lett, anyone else remember that?

He was a sweet kid. The other Cowboys protected him. He always seemed like a confused bear on the field, accidentally knocking over RBs and such.

Irvin said he told him, “we love you, but know that they’re going to talk about this every thanksgiving until the end of time.”

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

In other words, if you were watching these plays with someone who didn't know much about football, you would have to carefully explain why Lett's play was stupid, but it would be transparently obvious why the Patriots' play was stupid.

No, I instantly knew that Lett’s play was stupid, and so did literally everyone I was watching with.

 

[Galileo]

And Cousins,

He had the clock operator convinced.

 

[Runkle]

I know everybody can't read every post, but I'm arguing it was one of the two worst, the other being the Indy fake punt where they lined up with just the center and punter and New England left three guys on the line to absolutely maul the guy getting the hiked football.

Similarly ... how was THAT supposed to work?

The only thing I can think of quickly is that the "QB" on that play is actually supposed to be at punter-depth -- then he could receive the hike and probably have time to lateral the ball somewhere. Otherwise, no se.

It was supposed to be a fake. The punt team runs on the field for 4th and 1 while the QB gestures frantically at the coach they should try for the first down. Then the QB and coach were supposed to fake agree to go for it and wildly wave their arms for the punt team to get off the field so they could bring the offense back out.


As the punt team runs to the sideline, two guys stop at the ball.


The idea was... They would confuse someone on the defense and get them substituting. The two guys at the ball would see this, snap it, and get them a 12 men on the field penalty and first down. The signal was the gunner would move under center, and the center was supposed to immediately hike the ball to him. The gunner was supposed to stand somewhere in the back, in the area of a shotgun snap, and look confused, only running under center when 12 men were on the field.


However... Two things went wrong. First, the guy moving into the center position was an injury/illness substitute who'd never practiced the play. Still, he knew the idea and the signal. But the second thing that went wrong was the killer... Right before the play, the coach told the gunner, and only the gunner, that if the Patriots didn't bite on the fake and didn't bring 12 men on the field, he should try to hard count them into jumping offsides, and just take the delay of game. They were not supposed to snap the ball in the fake hard count scenario.

But since they didn't tell this to the center, he wasn't expecting the hard count fake out attempt. He thought that the gunner moving under center meant 12 men were on the field and he should snap it. He was the only one fooled by the hard count, because he wasn't told it was the new wrinkle in the play.

In hindsight, using the same signal to mean "snap it right now" and "fake the hard count but don't snap it" was a bad idea.

Thank you for that. Now I'm just shaking my head.

The further issue/stupidity is that despite practicing this constantly, for some reason, the Colts lined up in an illegal formation with the 9 guys milling around near the sideline. They didn't have the right setup for number of guys on the line, uncovering the tackle, etc. So even if they'd got someone on the Patriots fooled into running on the field as the 12th man, it wouldn't have gotten them the free first down. I don't know why the right line formation wasn't coached into the play.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I know everybody can't read every post, but I'm arguing it was one of the two worst, the other being the Indy fake punt where they lined up with just the center and punter and New England left three guys on the line to absolutely maul the guy getting the hiked football.

Similarly ... how was THAT supposed to work?

The only thing I can think of quickly is that the "QB" on that play is actually supposed to be at punter-depth -- then he could receive the hike and probably have time to lateral the ball somewhere. Otherwise, no se.

It was supposed to be a fake. The punt team runs on the field for 4th and 1 while the QB gestures frantically at the coach they should try for the first down. Then the QB and coach were supposed to fake agree to go for it and wildly wave their arms for the punt team to get off the field so they could bring the offense back out.


As the punt team runs to the sideline, two guys stop at the ball.


The idea was... They would confuse someone on the defense and get them substituting. The two guys at the ball would see this, snap it, and get them a 12 men on the field penalty and first down. The signal was the gunner would move under center, and the center was supposed to immediately hike the ball to him. The gunner was supposed to stand somewhere in the back, in the area of a shotgun snap, and look confused, only running under center when 12 men were on the field.


However... Two things went wrong. First, the guy moving into the center position was an injury/illness substitute who'd never practiced the play. Still, he knew the idea and the signal. But the second thing that went wrong was the killer... Right before the play, the coach told the gunner, and only the gunner, that if the Patriots didn't bite on the fake and didn't bring 12 men on the field, he should try to hard count them into jumping offsides, and just take the delay of game. They were not supposed to snap the ball in the fake hard count scenario.

But since they didn't tell this to the center, he wasn't expecting the hard count fake out attempt. He thought that the gunner moving under center meant 12 men were on the field and he should snap it. He was the only one fooled by the hard count, because he wasn't told it was the new wrinkle in the play.

In hindsight, using the same signal to mean "snap it right now" and "fake the hard count but don't snap it" was a bad idea.

Thanks for that explanation. Confirms what I've said earlier, which is that the ways the play got screwed up indicated a larger theme of dysfunction on the team

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

OK, this video answered my question about how swinging gate plays are supposed to work. It shows swinging-gate plays at several different levels of football, from PeeWees to the NFL. The Colts-Pats and Washington-Giants plays from the OP are shown. There's also a successful swinging gate play that the Dolphins executed against the Eagles a few years ago -- if I'm looking at it right, Dolphins' kicker Jason Sanders (?) ends up throwing a shovel-pass TD.

Anyway, one of the fundamental things about the swinging gate plays -- and it's something the PeeWee players get right in the video -- is that you DON'T take the snap directly under center. Sometimes you take the snap at shotgun depth or deeper. Other times, the ball is snapped lateral-style way off to the left or right (unsure if that's legal in the NCAA or NFL -- sometimes the center is close to standing straight up at the snap).

Yes, I remember the Dolphins play. Sanders caught the pass from the punter.

What's interesting watching that in relation to the failed SG plays is that it seems like the Eagles defense should have just lined up a bunch of guys over the center instead of matching them out wide with the Dolphins players. So at the snap there were two people on the center. As the punter took the snap and started running to the left. some of the guys who were out wide left started running toward him. Unfortunately for them, they were too far away to get to him quickly, and even more importantly, one of the guys who was running at him was supposed to be covering Sanders, who was open in the end zone.

ETA: That video you posted was cool. I liked the plays where the center turned and tossed the snap to the guy off to the side, who was behind a bunch of blockers. Really good misdirection. Would that be legal in the NFL?

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Not saying it belongs on the all-time list or anything, but in his first start this past Sunday, Desmond Ritter ran out of bounds at midfield on the final play of the game with the Falcons losing by 3. He was like the anti-Meyers

 

[Doug B]

ETA: That video you posted was cool. I liked the plays where the center turned and tossed the snap to the guy off to the side, who was behind a bunch of blockers. Really good misdirection. Would that be legal in the NFL?

I know that once set, a NCAA/NFL center cannot raise back up -- that's an illegal motion penalty. What I don't know is if a college or pro center can just set in a semi-standing or half-crouched position -- the ball has to be on the ground at the snap.

On this play, the center has the ball on the ground and is set properly -- this is legal in college and the NFL.

This is the type of center set I wasn't sure would be legal in college/pros, but it is a three-point stance with the ball on the ground at the snap. I guess it would be legal.

 

[Galileo]

ETA: That video you posted was cool. I liked the plays where the center turned and tossed the snap to the guy off to the side, who was behind a bunch of blockers. Really good misdirection. Would that be legal in the NFL?

I know that once set, a NCAA/NFL center cannot raise back up -- that's an illegal motion penalty. What I don't know is if a college or pro center can just set in a semi-standing or half-crouched position -- the ball has to be on the ground at the snap.

On this play, the center has the ball on the ground and is set properly -- this is legal in college and the NFL.

This is the type of center set I wasn't sure would be legal in college/pros, but it is a three-point stance with the ball on the ground at the snap. I guess it would be legal.

Should be legal in NFL based on wording of rule 7 article 3/4...

ARTICLE 3. RESTRICTIONS FOR SNAPPER. The snap (3-32) may be made by any offensive player who is on the line of scrimmage but must conform to the following provisions: (a) The snap must start with the ball on the ground, with its long axis at right angles to the line. (b) It is not necessary that the snap be between the snapper’s legs, but it must be one quick and continuous motion of the hand or hands of the snapper. The ball must leave or be taken from his hands during this motion. (c) The snapper may not snap the ball after it is ready for play until all of the officials have had a reasonable time to assume their normal positions. If this occurs, the ball remains dead, and no penalty is assessed unless it is a repeated act after a warning (delay of game). Penalty: For illegally snapping the ball: Loss of five yards from the line of scrimmage. ARTICLE 4. LEGAL SNAP. A snap is a backward pass. The snap must be received by a player who is not on the line at the snap, unless the ball first strikes the ground. If the ball first strikes the ground, or is muffed by an eligible backfield receiver, or quarterback under center, it can be recovered and advanced by any player. Penalty: For snapping the ball to an ineligible snap receiver: Loss of five yards from the line of scrimmage. The whistle shall be blown immediately.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

ETA: That video you posted was cool. I liked the plays where the center turned and tossed the snap to the guy off to the side, who was behind a bunch of blockers. Really good misdirection. Would that be legal in the NFL?

I know that once set, a NCAA/NFL center cannot raise back up -- that's an illegal motion penalty. What I don't know is if a college or pro center can just set in a semi-standing or half-crouched position -- the ball has to be on the ground at the snap.

On this play, the center has the ball on the ground and is set properly -- this is legal in college and the NFL.

This is the type of center set I wasn't sure would be legal in college/pros, but it is a three-point stance with the ball on the ground at the snap. I guess it would be legal.

Interesting. I think the center altering his stance would mitigate some of the impact of the misdirection. The reason it's so effective is that we are hard-wired to assume the ball will be snapped to the guy behind center (same reason the Philly Special worked). If the center changes his stance, it tips the defense off that something unusual is about to happen. Then again, in the second clip they snapped it to a guy coming across in motion, which seemed to be an effective misdirection.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

ARTICLE 3. RESTRICTIONS FOR SNAPPER. The snap (3-32) may be made by any offensive player who is on the line of scrimmage but must conform to the following provisions: (a) The snap must start with the ball on the ground, with its long axis at right angles to the line. (b) It is not necessary that the snap be between the snapper’s legs, but it must be one quick and continuous motion of the hand or hands of the snapper. The ball must leave or be taken from his hands during this motion. (c) The snapper may not snap the ball after it is ready for play until all of the officials have had a reasonable time to assume their normal positions. If this occurs, the ball remains dead, and no penalty is assessed unless it is a repeated act after a warning (delay of game). Penalty: For illegally snapping the ball: Loss of five yards from the line of scrimmage. ARTICLE 4. LEGAL SNAP. A snap is a backward pass. The snap must be received by a player who is not on the line at the snap, unless the ball first strikes the ground. If the ball first strikes the ground, or is muffed by an eligible backfield receiver, or quarterback under center, it can be recovered and advanced by any player. Penalty: For snapping the ball to an ineligible snap receiver: Loss of five yards from the line of scrimmage. The whistle shall be blown immediately.

That answers another question I had about the first play Doug linked to above. So you can't pick it up, turn, wait a beat and pitch it, but you can do the kind of "swinging snap" movement the center does in that clip where, in one motion, he lifts the ball off the ground and shovels it to the guy split out to the right.

That seems like a sneakily effective move that I'm surprised more NFL teams haven't tried. I suspect that's because it's harder to pull it off when you have a super-athletic 350 lb. NT standing over the center.

 

[Doug B]

Interesting. I think the center altering his stance would mitigate some of the impact of the misdirection. The reason it's so effective is that we are hard-wired to assume the ball will be snapped to the guy behind center (same reason the Philly Special worked). If the center changes his stance, it tips the defense off that something unusual is about to happen. Then again, in the second clip they snapped it to a guy coming across in motion, which seemed to be an effective misdirection.

Yeah, the QB fakes receiving a shotgun snap and also fakes a handoff to the back in motion at the snap. The player who receives the snap was not supposed to be in motion ... so I wonder if technically he committed an illegal motion penalty (I'll assume that's not a clip of Canadian HS football)?

In any case, on that play, there were three players who could've credibly received the snap -- the one that did actually get it, and also the QB in shotgun, and ALSO another back on the left side of the formation behind the blocking wall. Now, of course, a play like that works way better when you have the only D-1 recruit on the field and that guy just outraces everyone to the edge.

 

[wlwiles]

A lot of these are truly boneheaded plays but they're the result of one guy having a brainfart. The swinging gate FG play was organizationally dumb, but you can kind of see what they were going for, it was just executed horribly.

The Colts/Griff Whalen play to me is the pinnacle of all-time stupid NFL plays. I remember watching that play in real-time just completely dumbfounded, and Collinsworth/Michaels had no explanation. After the game nobody could explain it. It took Pat McAfee years later to try and explain it before anyone had even a fuzzy clue of what the Colts were trying to do.