New England not calling a Timeout (1 Viewer)

[fantasycurse42]

This won't be discussed much since NE won the game, but why wouldn't NE use a timeout to save clock with 1 minute to go? You want Brady to have at least 45 seconds or so to drive for a FG should Seattle score...

I can't figure that out, obviously in hindsight it was the right move.

 

[Pipes]

Incredibly stupid.

 

[jon_mx]

NE was listening in on Seattle's play calling. NE did not want to risk giving Seattle a chance to change that incredibly stupid call.

 

[Pipes]

NE was listening in on Seattle's play calling. NE did not want to risk giving Seattle a chance to change that incredibly stupid call.

That makes a lot of sense.

 

[jon_mx]

Word is that NE wanted to conserve time outs. They probably would have let them run it in.

 

[tjnc09]

I thought New England should have let Marshawn score when he ran from the 5 to the 1. I didn't think there was any way they could have stopped Lynch / Wilson with a run there. Seattle was letting the clock run down and NE would have little to no time left to try to tie.

 

[shadyridr]

You cant let him score. Pats were winning by 4 not 2

 

[moleculo]

Devils advocate: not calling a time out ratchets up pressure on opponent, and shows confidence in your defense.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

I thought it was incredibly stupid not calling a TO there. However, that decision likely won them the game.

Calling a time out gives Bevell more time to think, Carroll more time to overrule, and less of a feeling of a time crunch at the end of the game.

On the plus side, it spared us all from ever having to deal with ITS again!

 

[sporthenry]

You call a timeout Seattle definEly runs it. At least there the clock becomes a bit of an issue.

 

[Tool]

At that point Sea only had 1 TO, so could've run 3 running plays if NE had called a TO.

 

[Sinrman]

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. Why the hell weren't they calling a time out!? I mean it was a given they were going to hand it off to Beast Mode and let him punch it in....errr.... ewps!

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Devils advocate: not calling a time out ratchets up pressure on opponent, and shows confidence in your defense.

Still pretty terrible. They only had one TO so if you do stop them, you can kneel it out. If they score the TD, you need as much time as possible to get to FG range. The only thing that makes any sense at all, and it doesn't, is you think think stop them, have to take an intentional safety when kneeling, and want to give them less time when you free kick it back to them. Just a amazingly vexing non-call. Interested to hear Belichick's take.

 

[stbugs]

This won't be discussed much since NE won the game, but why wouldn't NE use a timeout to save clock with 1 minute to go? You want Brady to have at least 45 seconds or so to drive for a FG should Seattle score...

I can't figure that out, obviously in hindsight it was the right move.

Agreed. They had two timeouts left. I would have taken them on 1st and 2nd thinking that if you hold them, they likely are passing on 3rd down (and if they miss, passing again on 4th). At the 1, you have to assume they will score and if you have the ball, more time if more valuable than a timeout IMHO. With as much time as they let go off the clock, the only way they could have won was if Seattle effed up on offense. I think the Pats got lucky to get a turnover because they wouldn't have had enough time to tie the game if Seattle scored.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

At that point Sea only had 1 TO, so could've run 3 running plays if NE had called a TO.

I think they still had time to run twice, and 2nd and 3rd and then call a TO with a few seconds left on 4th for one last play in the game.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

This won't be discussed much since NE won the game, but why wouldn't NE use a timeout to save clock with 1 minute to go? You want Brady to have at least 45 seconds or so to drive for a FG should Seattle score...

I can't figure that out, obviously in hindsight it was the right move.

Agreed. They had two timeouts left. I would have taken them on 1st and 2nd thinking that if you hold them, they likely are passing on 3rd down (and if they miss, passing again on 4th). At the 1, you have to assume they will score and if you have the ball, more time if more valuable than a timeout IMHO. With as much time as they let go off the clock, the only way they could have won was if Seattle effed up on offense. I think the Pats got lucky to get a turnover because they wouldn't have had enough time to tie the game if Seattle scored.

SEA only had one time out left, right?

 

[Tool]

At that point Sea only had 1 TO, so could've run 3 running plays if NE had called a TO.

I think they still had time to run twice, and 2nd and 3rd and then call a TO with a few seconds left on 4th for one last play in the game.

I guess that's true, but some of the plays would've been rushed.

 

[Todem]

I had no issue with no timeout called.

Pressure cooker. And Carroll caved with a lousy call. But also despite how bad of a call it was....the rookie made a sensational clutch play.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

At that point Sea only had 1 TO, so could've run 3 running plays if NE had called a TO.

I think they still had time to run twice, and 2nd and 3rd and then call a TO with a few seconds left on 4th for one last play in the game.

I guess that's true, but some of the plays would've been rushed.

Very true. Would have been tight. I just think it's odd to basically make it the last possession when the opponent is inside your 2 yard line with 30 seconds left. You want to extend the game at that point because they don't have enough TOs to get it back if you stop/pick/get a fumble recovery there. Just weird. I think most coaches would have been fried by the fans for doing that in other situations.

 

[stbugs]

This won't be discussed much since NE won the game, but why wouldn't NE use a timeout to save clock with 1 minute to go? You want Brady to have at least 45 seconds or so to drive for a FG should Seattle score...

I can't figure that out, obviously in hindsight it was the right move.

Agreed. They had two timeouts left. I would have taken them on 1st and 2nd thinking that if you hold them, they likely are passing on 3rd down (and if they miss, passing again on 4th). At the 1, you have to assume they will score and if you have the ball, more time if more valuable than a timeout IMHO. With as much time as they let go off the clock, the only way they could have won was if Seattle effed up on offense. I think the Pats got lucky to get a turnover because they wouldn't have had enough time to tie the game if Seattle scored.

SEA only had one time out left, right?

Yes, I forgot they called their 2nd with 1:06 left before Lynch's 1st run. Even with that, you figure Seattle runs on 2nd and they can call a TO with 20 seconds left and have plenty of time to pass on 3rd down and run or pass on 4th down. Once they got it down to under 30, the Pats were really making their chance to tie it at 31 really hard. Heck, even if they call a timeout at 50 something seconds and somehow stop Seatlle, no way does Seattle get the ball back with only 2 timeouts. On the 3rd down kneel down the clock expires.

Let's put it this way in terms of the most commons scenarios (no turnover):

1. It doesn't help Seattle get an extra play since they were already at the 5 yard line.

2. It doesn't help Seattle get the ball back if NE calls 2 timeouts and stops Seattle on 4th down.

3. It doesn't help NE to have 2 timeouts with 20 or less seconds (assuming Seattle runs 3 more plays and NE uses 2 timeouts/clock stops on loss of downs). They would be better off with 40-50 seconds and no timeouts considering they are going to be starting deep in their territory after a TD. The extra 20-30 seconds seems like more than enough to spike the ball if they have to spike it.

 

[fantasycurse42]

This won't be discussed much since NE won the game, but why wouldn't NE use a timeout to save clock with 1 minute to go? You want Brady to have at least 45 seconds or so to drive for a FG should Seattle score...

I can't figure that out, obviously in hindsight it was the right move.

Agreed. They had two timeouts left. I would have taken them on 1st and 2nd thinking that if you hold them, they likely are passing on 3rd down (and if they miss, passing again on 4th). At the 1, you have to assume they will score and if you have the ball, more time if more valuable than a timeout IMHO. With as much time as they let go off the clock, the only way they could have won was if Seattle effed up on offense. I think the Pats got lucky to get a turnover because they wouldn't have had enough time to tie the game if Seattle scored.

SEA only had one time out left, right?

Yes, I forgot they called their 2nd with 1:06 left before Lynch's 1st run. Even with that, you figure Seattle runs on 2nd and they can call a TO with 20 seconds left and have plenty of time to pass on 3rd down and run or pass on 4th down. Once they got it down to under 30, the Pats were really making their chance to tie it at 31 really hard. Heck, even if they call a timeout at 50 something seconds and somehow stop Seatlle, no way does Seattle get the ball back with only 2 timeouts. On the 3rd down kneel down the clock expires.Let's put it this way in terms of the most commons scenarios (no turnover):

1. It doesn't help Seattle get an extra play since they were already at the 5 yard line.

2. It doesn't help Seattle get the ball back if NE calls 2 timeouts and stops Seattle on 4th down.

3. It doesn't help NE to have 2 timeouts with 20 or less seconds (assuming Seattle runs 3 more plays and NE uses 2 timeouts/clock stops on loss of downs). They would be better off with 40-50 seconds and no timeouts considering they are going to be starting deep in their territory after a TD. The extra 20-30 seconds seems like more than enough to spike the ball if they have to spike it.

They called a TO before 1st down, they still had one left... An OC is supposed to have different scenarios drawn up depending on the result of the first play. You figure when it's 2nd and goal from the 1-2 yd line, you get your team back up to the line and snap the ball with 35-40 seconds left. You can still hurry back if you don't get it and snap again with 20-25 seconds left. You still have a timeout should you need be able to pound it in there with Lynch on 2nd and 3rd, which they absolutely would've been able to.

I guess they were putting the pressure on Seattle by not taking the TO and the playcaller folded under the pressure.

 

[DropKick]

Incredibly stupid.

Really? Lots of things can happen; offensive holding, a fumble, an interception... there isn't an absolute answer and with the clock pushing 20 seconds I'd rather play "stop" than give it away...

 

[fantasycurse42]

Incredibly stupid.

Really? Lots of things can happen; offensive holding, a fumble, an interception... there isn't an absolute answer and with the clock pushing 20 seconds I'd rather play "stop" than give it away...

Clock was at a minute, they were on 2nd down and inside the two with a TO remaining. This was absolutely the wrong play call.

 

[DropKick]

Incredibly stupid.

Really? Lots of things can happen; offensive holding, a fumble, an interception... there isn't an absolute answer and with the clock pushing 20 seconds I'd rather play "stop" than give it away...

Clock was at a minute, they were on 2nd down and inside the two with a TO remaining. This was absolutely the wrong play call.

Clock was at a minute... but with the Hawks letting it run down it was 20... things can happen and they did...so "absolute" is probably the wrong word right?

 

[fantasycurse42]

Incredibly stupid.

Really? Lots of things can happen; offensive holding, a fumble, an interception... there isn't an absolute answer and with the clock pushing 20 seconds I'd rather play "stop" than give it away...

Clock was at a minute, they were on 2nd down and inside the two with a TO remaining. This was absolutely the wrong play call.

Clock was at a minute... but with the Hawks letting it run down it was 20... things can happen and they did...so "absolute" is probably the wrong word right?

I'll agree absolute is the wrong word, but they mismanaged everything. Clock, call, and execution.

 

[FUBAR]

I took it as BB was relying on his defense to win it. Basically daring Carroll to beat him by scoring.

Calling a TO signals that you don't think your defense is good enough to stop Wilson/Lynch. Maybe it's the smarter move, but it seemed BB was taking a stand.

 

[Short Corner]

Incredibly stupid.

Really? Lots of things can happen; offensive holding, a fumble, an interception... there isn't an absolute answer and with the clock pushing 20 seconds I'd rather play "stop" than give it away...

Clock was at a minute, they were on 2nd down and inside the two with a TO remaining. This was absolutely the wrong play call.

Clock was at a minute... but with the Hawks letting it run down it was 20... things can happen and they did...so "absolute" is probably the wrong word right?

I'll agree absolute is the wrong word, but they mismanaged everything. Clock, call, and execution.

Well they obviously didn't mismanage the execution. As to whether the TO is the right call there, you have to quantify the likelihood of different outcomes. What do you think the likelihood is that they get a stop with 22 seconds left vs get a stop/come back and get a FG after a score with 50 seconds?

 

[fantasycurse42]

Incredibly stupid.

Really? Lots of things can happen; offensive holding, a fumble, an interception... there isn't an absolute answer and with the clock pushing 20 seconds I'd rather play "stop" than give it away...

Clock was at a minute, they were on 2nd down and inside the two with a TO remaining. This was absolutely the wrong play call.

Clock was at a minute... but with the Hawks letting it run down it was 20... things can happen and they did...so "absolute" is probably the wrong word right?

I'll agree absolute is the wrong word, but they mismanaged everything. Clock, call, and execution.

Well they obviously didn't mismanage the execution. As to whether the TO is the right call there, you have to quantify the likelihood of different outcomes. What do you think the likelihood is that they get a stop with 22 seconds left vs get a stop/come back and get a FG after a score with 50 seconds?

Talking about Seattle for the execution.

 

[the moops]

Still don't know why the Patriots didn't intentionally hold/tackle/facemask every eligible receiver on the play with 6 seconds to go in the half. Make Seattle decide whether they want to take one shot from 5 yard line.

 

[Ignoramus]

Incredibly stupid.

Probably the second worst call in Super Bowl history. You absolutely have to either call the time out or let them score there.

 

[Mr.Pack]

I had no issue with no timeout called.

Pressure cooker. And Carroll caved with a lousy call. But also despite how bad of a call it was....the rookie made a sensational clutch play.

This makes no sense.

You have to assume they are going to score so you want Brady to have as much time as possible to go down and get you in FG range. Playing the way Belichick did, was a huge gamble. They should have scored, and that would have left you with <20 sec to go down for the FG.

A huge gamble and terrible clock management, He got damn lucky.

 

[Short Corner]

I had no issue with no timeout called.

Pressure cooker. And Carroll caved with a lousy call. But also despite how bad of a call it was....the rookie made a sensational clutch play.

This makes no sense.

You have to assume they are going to score so you want Brady to have as much time as possible to go down and get you in FG range. Playing the way Belichick did, was a huge gamble. They should have scored, and that would have left you with <20 sec to go down for the FG.

A huge gamble and terrible clock management, He got damn lucky.

WUT?

 

[The General]

Worked out for Pats but 9 times out of 10 it wouldn't. I was happy at the time he wasn't calling them. If Lynch runs it in Bill is taking a bit of heat for not. Nothing like Seattle is for their dumbness but the talking head screamers would be talking.

 

[Willy]

It was one of 4 events to end that game that left me utterly stunned. That incredible catch, the lack of time out, the interception, then the offsides & personal foul/fighting when the Seahawks had a real chance to force a safety.

At the time I figured maybe they were going to let Marshawn walk in for the TD so they'd have nearly a minute left and 3 time outs, which I didn't think was a good idea, I just couldn't think of any other reason they let the clock run. In the end, reality was stranger than whatever I was dreaming up.

 

[AB in DC]

I was surprised too, but it turned out to be the right call. Carroll and Bevell were both quoted as worrying they'd run out of time for the score,

 

[DropKick]

I had no issue with no timeout called.

Pressure cooker. And Carroll caved with a lousy call. But also despite how bad of a call it was....the rookie made a sensational clutch play.

This makes no sense.

You have to assume they are going to score so you want Brady to have as much time as possible to go down and get you in FG range. Playing the way Belichick did, was a huge gamble. They should have scored, and that would have left you with <20 sec to go down for the FG.

A huge gamble and terrible clock management, He got damn lucky.

It does make sense, the clock running down puts more pressure on Seattle and they may not have the luxury of three unhurried downs from the one.

I don't think you assume they will score either... They need a TD. A penalty, a sack, a turn-over... I like the chances of getting a stop better than the chance of scoring again. A 3rd score against that "D"? They weren't getting chunks of yardage - it was taking them time to move down the field.

 

[DropKick]

Worked out for Pats but 9 times out of 10 it wouldn't. I was happy at the time he wasn't calling them. If Lynch runs it in Bill is taking a bit of heat for not. Nothing like Seattle is for their dumbness but the talking head screamers would be talking.

No doubt.

 

[voiceofunreason]

Incredibly stupid.

Probably the second worst call in Super Bowl history. You absolutely have to either call the time out or let them score there.

You say incredibly stupid, yet post this. Okay, let me explain this to you, if you are going to let them score you have to call a timeout. I mean, think for 2 seconds, why would you let them run down the clock from 1 minute to 20 seconds and then let them score? A timeout isn't worth 40 seconds when you have the ball and are in hurry up mode.

They didn't play it like I would have but it worked. What you suggest is beyond stupid.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I had no issue with no timeout called.

Pressure cooker. And Carroll caved with a lousy call. But also despite how bad of a call it was....the rookie made a sensational clutch play.

This makes no sense.

You have to assume they are going to score so you want Brady to have as much time as possible to go down and get you in FG range. Playing the way Belichick did, was a huge gamble. They should have scored, and that would have left you with <20 sec to go down for the FG.

A huge gamble and terrible clock management, He got damn lucky.

Finally a good post. No idea how everyone is missing that. Brian Burke even said something about not calling the TO being a good call. What?!? Once you're past the mathematical point of no return (time left factoring in opponents Timeouts and 3 kneel downs), which they were, you want the most time possible for your team to answer. He basically wasted 20 seconds or so. If SEA scores, you desperately need that time. And you still have a TO left since you have 2. Best case you stop them and have to keel three times instead of 2 times. Maybe he was doing it to "show his Defense that he trusted them" or to fluster the other OC, but it was a bad, negative EV decision.

The only way it makes sense at all is if he assumes a turnover and then having to take a safety and punt it back to SEA only up 2 points. And there is no way he would assume such a far fetched scenario.

He's certainly a great coach and it worked out but if SEA scores, he is one of the goats for not saving Brady more time.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I had no issue with no timeout called.

Pressure cooker. And Carroll caved with a lousy call. But also despite how bad of a call it was....the rookie made a sensational clutch play.

This makes no sense.

You have to assume they are going to score so you want Brady to have as much time as possible to go down and get you in FG range. Playing the way Belichick did, was a huge gamble. They should have scored, and that would have left you with <20 sec to go down for the FG.

A huge gamble and terrible clock management, He got damn lucky.

It does make sense, the clock running down puts more pressure on Seattle and they may not have the luxury of three unhurried downs from the one.

I don't think you assume they will score either... They need a TD. A penalty, a sack, a turn-over... I like the chances of getting a stop better than the chance of scoring again. A 3rd score against that "D"? They weren't getting chunks of yardage - it was taking them time to move down the field.

This is the other thing I don't get. They were at the 1 yard line. A running play doesn't take that long from that distance. So there were 26 seconds at the 2nd down snap. A run from there would take 4-6 seconds. So let's say we're at 20 seconds. How long to get everyone lined back up from the one yard line? 10 seconds maybe? So now you can run again on 3rd down, taking 4-6 seconds, and then call a TO if stopped with a few seconds left.

I just don't see how with 26 seconds on the clock at the snap of 2nd down from the 1 yard line, with a TO left, you couldn't have run the ball 3 times.

 

[johnnycakes]

This from today's Washington Post

Bill Belichick made a sneaky-smart decision that might have contributed to fateful play call by the gum-chewing Pete Carroll

Pete Carroll’s confounding last-minute play call Sunday night will be dissected, debated and mocked for as long they play Super Bowls. It might have been prodded by a sneaky-brilliant decision by Bill Belichick.

With 1 minute, 6 seconds seconds left and the Seahawks down by four points, Marshawn Lynch rumbled to the 1-yard line on first down. The Patriots possessed two timeouts, and the Seahawks had one left. The clock ticked down, and at first it appeared odd for Belichick not to exhaust one of his timeouts. With the Seahawks on the doorstep, New England needed to conserve seconds for a desperation drive in response.



Belichick’s choice to not use a timeout, though, made life more difficult for the Seahawks by complicating their play-calling options. It may have even convinced them to throw their ill-fated pass on second down.



Imagine Belichick had called a timeout in hopes of saving seconds for Tom Brady. The Seahawks would have had enough time to hand off the ball three times without fear of the clock running out, particularly because they had a timeout of their own.



But with Belichick allowing the clock to tick, Seattle’s calculus became more complex, especially as they used almost the entire play clock. They did not snap the ball until there were 26 seconds left in the game. If Seattle ran on second down and the Patriots stuffed them, the Seahawks would have needed to use their final timeout immediately, with about 20 seconds remaining.



The situation would have dictated their ensuing third down. The Seahawks would have no choice but to pass, or else they would have risked the clock running out on their season. The Patriots would have known this, too, which would have made the play far easier to defend. On a potential fourth down, the Seahawks would have had their entire playbook at their disposal.



It’s possible, if not likely, that Carroll passed on second down because he didn’t want to be in a position where the Patriots knew they would pass on third down. And that reality arose because Belichick kept his timeouts holstered.



Belichick would have known that Carroll didn’t want to box himself in on a possible third down, which is how the Patriots could have anticipated that second-down pass that Malcolm Butler intercepted to ice the game. Even with the ball on the goal line, the Patriots used three cornerbacks on the field. The third? Butler.



It should be noted that the Seahawks’ suboptimal clock management contributed to their downfall. After Jermaine Kearse’s circus catch set up Seattle with a first-and-goal at the 5, the Seahawks burned their second timeout because they didn’t get a play to Wilson quickly enough. That timeout could have made Belichick not calling one moot. And as noted above, the Seahawks took too long after Lynch’s first-down run.



Anyone could still argue the Seahawks should have relied on their strength and given the ball to Lynch or let Russell Wilson run a zone-read play at the 1. Studying all of the permutations of the clock could be overthinking it. But as you rip Carroll for not running the ball at the goal line, credit Belichick for making him have to consider it, for making a tiny decision that had an enormous impact.

 

[Futeki]

This from today's Washington Post

That was exactly what I was thinking as it all unfolded. Finally glad to see I am not the only one who thought it was a good decision at the time...and for those precise reasons.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I just don't agree with this part:

But with Belichick allowing the clock to tick, Seattle’s calculus became more complex, especially as they used almost the entire play clock. They did not snap the ball until there were 26 seconds left in the game. If Seattle ran on second down and the Patriots stuffed them, the Seahawks would have needed to use their final timeout immediately, with about 20 seconds remaining.

20 seconds should be enough time to hurry to the line and run a play with time left for 4th down. Might have been close and to be safe you probably wanted a quick pass on third down, but it's certainly doable. Again, there aren't WRs needing to run back 30-40 yards to get lined up. They're all right there at the goal line. I just think people are overestimating how much time it takes to get lined up in a hurry from that position on the field.

 

[moleculo]

This from today's Washington Post

That was exactly what I was thinking as it all unfolded. Finally glad to see I am not the only one who thought it was a good decision at the time...and for those precise reasons.

yeah. I didn't really catch on at the time, but it makes sense in hindsight.

 

[IHEARTFF]

Just further proof that Bill is operating on a different level than anyone when it comes this stuff. Of course, if Lynch runs it in on 3rd down, Bill gets roasted for not giving his team enough time to answer. But altering Seattle's playcalling and ability to plan was more important than trying to save a few seconds after they score.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I'm not going to keep arguing this, but it wasn't a few seconds. It was 20 plus seconds. That's a probably three pass plays, maybe 4 if they were lucky. I just don't think that hoping you would confuse the other coach, which apparently happened, is the better call then saving your HOF QB 20 plus seconds for a comeback.

But it is what it is.

 

[johnnycakes]

There is an element of luck involved in the game, and every play called on each side of the ball is a bet of sorts.

When does one get lucky?? When preparation meets opportunity, IIRC. Patriots were prepared, and they got their opportunity. Thus, they got lucky. As did Kearse not long before.

 

[ghostguy123]

At the time I was definitely yelling at the TV wondering why NE didn't call a timeout.

No rooting interest at all, just figured with like a minute left and two timeouts it was the right move in case Seattle scored.

 

[jon_mx]

This from today's Washington Post

Bill Belichick made a sneaky-smart decision that might have contributed to fateful play call by the gum-chewing Pete Carroll

Pete Carroll’s confounding last-minute play call Sunday night will be dissected, debated and mocked for as long they play Super Bowls. It might have been prodded by a sneaky-brilliant decision by Bill Belichick.

With 1 minute, 6 seconds seconds left and the Seahawks down by four points, Marshawn Lynch rumbled to the 1-yard line on first down. The Patriots possessed two timeouts, and the Seahawks had one left. The clock ticked down, and at first it appeared odd for Belichick not to exhaust one of his timeouts. With the Seahawks on the doorstep, New England needed to conserve seconds for a desperation drive in response.



Belichick’s choice to not use a timeout, though, made life more difficult for the Seahawks by complicating their play-calling options. It may have even convinced them to throw their ill-fated pass on second down.



Imagine Belichick had called a timeout in hopes of saving seconds for Tom Brady. The Seahawks would have had enough time to hand off the ball three times without fear of the clock running out, particularly because they had a timeout of their own.



But with Belichick allowing the clock to tick, Seattle’s calculus became more complex, especially as they used almost the entire play clock. They did not snap the ball until there were 26 seconds left in the game. If Seattle ran on second down and the Patriots stuffed them, the Seahawks would have needed to use their final timeout immediately, with about 20 seconds remaining.



The situation would have dictated their ensuing third down. The Seahawks would have no choice but to pass, or else they would have risked the clock running out on their season. The Patriots would have known this, too, which would have made the play far easier to defend. On a potential fourth down, the Seahawks would have had their entire playbook at their disposal.



It’s possible, if not likely, that Carroll passed on second down because he didn’t want to be in a position where the Patriots knew they would pass on third down. And that reality arose because Belichick kept his timeouts holstered.



Belichick would have known that Carroll didn’t want to box himself in on a possible third down, which is how the Patriots could have anticipated that second-down pass that Malcolm Butler intercepted to ice the game. Even with the ball on the goal line, the Patriots used three cornerbacks on the field. The third? Butler.



It should be noted that the Seahawks’ suboptimal clock management contributed to their downfall. After Jermaine Kearse’s circus catch set up Seattle with a first-and-goal at the 5, the Seahawks burned their second timeout because they didn’t get a play to Wilson quickly enough. That timeout could have made Belichick not calling one moot. And as noted above, the Seahawks took too long after Lynch’s first-down run.



Anyone could still argue the Seahawks should have relied on their strength and given the ball to Lynch or let Russell Wilson run a zone-read play at the 1. Studying all of the permutations of the clock could be overthinking it. But as you rip Carroll for not running the ball at the goal line, credit Belichick for making him have to consider it, for making a tiny decision that had an enormous impact.

Good article. Would be interesting to hear how close that is to reality. Watching Belichick, he made a very conscious decision not to call a time out. He thought about it then decided against it. Would like to know exactly his thought process.

 

[DropKick]

I'm not going to keep arguing this, but it wasn't a few seconds. It was 20 plus seconds. That's a probably three pass plays, maybe 4 if they were lucky. I just don't think that hoping you would confuse the other coach, which apparently happened, is the better call then saving your HOF QB 20 plus seconds for a comeback.

But it is what it is.

You're missing the impact of pressure as the clock ticks down or the numerous things that could happen; offensive holding backs them up 10 yards, etc. Do you remember McNabb's reaction to SB pressure? And Seattle had already made a couple clock management mistakes...

Conventional wisdom says take the time-out. At that point, any clock concerns disappear for Seattle and they have more time to assess the situation. My point was in-line with the Post article. Those were dire circumstances. And one hell of a gambit. Desperate times, desperate measures?