New England not calling a Timeout (1 Viewer)

[Short Corner]

What percentage of the time? Just because you say it is the wrong call doesn't make it so.

And just because you say it is the right call doesn't make it so.

I don't know the percentage, you tell me. WHat percentage of the time in that situation with 2nd and goal at the half yard line, 50 seconds left, one time out, does NE hold Seattle out of the end zone. WHat do YOU think that percentage is?

What is the probability of NE scoring an equalizing FG under different time restraints?

I actually think a pretty high percentage. 45 seconds left and probably one time out, starting at the 20 most likely. Tom Brady. Excellent kicker. High enough to where I call a TO with a minute left with Seattle 2nd and goal at the 1 foot line.

So you are letting them score?

Umm, no. No idea where you got that from.

That the only probability you somewhat used is the one in which SEA scores with 45 seconds left.

 

[ghostguy123]

Umm, no. No idea where you got that from.

That the only probability you somewhat used is the one in which SEA scores with 45 seconds left.

And??

 

[ghostguy123]

Umm, no. No idea where you got that from.

That the only probability you somewhat used is the one in which SEA scores with 45 seconds left.

And??

Hell maybe they score on 2nd down with a minute left. Maybe they score on 4th down with 1 second left.

BUt nowhere did I say the Patriot should LET them score.

 

[Short Corner]

Umm, no. No idea where you got that from.

That the only probability you somewhat used is the one in which SEA scores with 45 seconds left.

And??

If that is the only scenario in which you are addressing then it is safe to assume that you give SEA a probability of 1 that they score on the first play (second down). Lynch is good but he isn't THAT good.

 

[Bossman]

IIRC Seattle only had one timeout left, which would be reserved for after 3rd down tp get a FG team onto the field...

wat

Yes, by kicking the field goal there SEA would have only lost by one. Much more respectable than the 4 point loss.

A better question would be "why did SEA not call a timeout after the 1st down run".

TV cameras showed BB staring across the field at Pete, waiting for the TO call to come from that sideline.

The look on BB's face ... he seemed a bit puzzled as how SEA would just let all that time run off and it was costing them a 4th down play (if needed).

Was SEA really that scared that their D couldn't prevent a tying FG with 30 seconds left? Score the dang TD and let the best D in football do their thing.

.... and as far as a 2nd down run play getting stuffed and having enough time to line up and run another run play ....no way they risk that.

If I'm NE, I pig pile on Lynch and let the seconds click off as they try to unburry him.

A quick pass on second down was the equivalent of spiking the ball to stop the clock ... with the exception of giving yourself the opportunity to score the TD.

An interception there was probably less likely than a Lynch fumble. But it happened.

 

[ghostguy123]

Umm, no. No idea where you got that from.

That the only probability you somewhat used is the one in which SEA scores with 45 seconds left.

And??

If that is the only scenario in which you are addressing then it is safe to assume that you give SEA a probability of 1 that they score on the first play (second down). Lynch is good but he isn't THAT good.

There are more scenarios. Shall I break down all 500 of them?

 

[Short Corner]

Umm, no. No idea where you got that from.

That the only probability you somewhat used is the one in which SEA scores with 45 seconds left.

And??

If that is the only scenario in which you are addressing then it is safe to assume that you give SEA a probability of 1 that they score on the first play (second down). Lynch is good but he isn't THAT good.

There are more scenarios. Shall I break down all 500 of them?

It's not that difficult.

 

[RUSF18]

The more realistic question is which would be better if SEA actually did score a TD:

~26 seconds and 2 timeouts OR ~55 seconds and 1 timeout - if SEA scored on 2nd down.

~20 seconds and 2 timeouts OR ~50 seconds and 1 timeout - if SEA scored on 3rd down.

Which would be better if SEA actually did score a TD? More time of course... The thought is that not calling the TO affects their probability or scoring. Running through the scenarios suggests the winding clock encouraged Seattle to throw on at least one down, where an incompletion would stop the clock and not force them to spend their final time-out.

I think if there is 60+ seconds, we see Lynch three times...

No doubt, if Seattle scores on 2nd down, not calling the TO blows up in your face. But there were only 20 seconds left after the pick. If 2nd down produces a failed rushing attempt (or sack, etc.) and the clock is running it gets really interesting... 3rd down with 20 seconds and dropping. Does Seattle burn their last time-out or rush to get a play off and make a mistake?

With all due respect to Brady, that team isn't built to get down the field in a hurry. Assuming Seattle scores and doesn't draw some type of bone-head flag and that NE starts at the 20. They need to pick up about 50 yards to get a shot at a ~50 yard FG. Consider too that the Seahawk's defense was banged up at that point... How much time has to be on the clock to have a realistic shot at tying the game? Is 30 seconds with no time-outs enough (doubt it), how about 45 or 60?

There were 60+ seconds left...it was Seattle's choice to take that down.

 

[Anarchy99]

Can't remember what was postedin all these threads and too hard to skim them all on a phone.

BB gave a great explanation the other day by saying that the personnel package SEA inserted was a passing group. He also said the last thing he wanted was the Seahawks to run the ball, so he decided he would rather not take timeout and have SEA pass. By the time the play was going to be run, they were pretty sure what they were running and had spent a lot of time defending that play in practice pretty much exactly as the formation was lined up.

All the calculations and permutations on whether they should have called time out cannot possibly account for getting the exact match up you want with essentially the only chance they had of getting the ball back.

BB even admitted to not a whole lot they could have done if SEA put in a power Running package. The inference being if the Hawks had sent in that sunset BB would have called timeout.

So all the analyses don't account for situational decisions.

 

[Steeler]

So all the analyses don't account for situational decisions.

Sure it does. I accept that Belichick thought he had an advantage on that one play, but again that doesn't mean he knew what play was coming or that they would get a turnover. Not calling a timeout means NE had to stop SEA from scoring, they had no other alternative because there wasn't enough time left on the clock.

And lets assume for a minute that everything played out exactly like it did except that Butler slipped as he made his break toward the ball and instead of an INT, SEA scored a TD on that play. And with ~26 seconds and 2 timeouts NE doesn't get into FG range and they lost. I'm sure the thoughts on Belichick would be quite different if he said they liked our matchup on that play and we didn't want to face SEA's running game.

 

[12punch]

So all the analyses don't account for situational decisions.

Sure it does. I accept that Belichick thought he had an advantage on that one play, but again that doesn't mean he knew what play was coming or that they would get a turnover. Not calling a timeout means NE had to stop SEA from scoring, they had no other alternative because there wasn't enough time left on the clock.

And lets assume for a minute that everything played out exactly like it did except that Butler slipped as he made his break toward the ball and instead of an INT, SEA scored a TD on that play. And with ~26 seconds and 2 timeouts NE doesn't get into FG range and they lost. I'm sure the thoughts on Belichick would be quite different if he said they liked our matchup on that play and we didn't want to face SEA's running game.

depends on who you talk to.

we already have the infamous 4th and 2 to see the flip side of things, so you don't even have to leave it to your imagination.

bb took some heat on that but I doubt many pats fans would trade that guy for anyone in the world.

sometimes stuff works out and sometimes it doesn't -- it is what it is

the fickle element of fanbases is really the worst element -- you win as a team and lose as a team.

 

[Anarchy99]

So all the analyses don't account for situational decisions.

Sure it does. I accept that Belichick thought he had an advantage on that one play, but again that doesn't mean he knew what play was coming or that they would get a turnover. Not calling a timeout means NE had to stop SEA from scoring, they had no other alternative because there wasn't enough time left on the clock.

And lets assume for a minute that everything played out exactly like it did except that Butler slipped as he made his break toward the ball and instead of an INT, SEA scored a TD on that play. And with ~26 seconds and 2 timeouts NE doesn't get into FG range and they lost. I'm sure the thoughts on Belichick would be quite different if he said they liked our matchup on that play and we didn't want to face SEA's running game.

Once BB saw the personnel package SEA inserted he knew they were going to pass. He wanted them to pass and not run. He knew based on scouting that they would not run from that set of players on the field. He figured (and mostly likely so) that by taking a timeout that the Seahawks would then change to a bulk package and run the ball. Stopping the clock would enable the Seahawks to run exclusively if they wanted to. As things stood, SEA did not wanted to save timeouts to have the benefit of taking their time, settling down, and could run each play. With NE not stopping the clock at any point, the Seahawks had to try to work in a pass for fear of not being able to stop the clock.

BB also was pretty sure what they were going to run with the guys SEA had on the field, as Butler broke on the ball immediately. He didn't even wait to see wait Wilson was going to do or what the WR was going to do They knew where the receivers were going from watching prior game tape, as they apparently use that formation quite a bit.

 

[Old Smiley]

Not calling a to won the pats the game. If they call a to they lose. Belichick was brilliant here which is why he's the best coach ever. Anyone who disagrees is just proof why you watch games from home while belichick wins super bowls from the sidelines.

And if he did call a TO, Seattle scored, then the Pats get the ball with a minute left and score, you would call BB a genius.

Sometimes the wrong play wins. Deal with it

Do you really think Belichek didn't have everything all thought out? That he hadn't prepared himself to make that decision? The guy that had prepared his 5th string cornerback for the most unexpected play possible at the end of the game?

Sometimes the not obvious decision wins. Deal with it.

So BB had how much hands on time with that 5th string CB exactly? I am sure he was talking to him right before that play telling him that the Seahawks would run the most idiotic play possible on 2nd down.

No, no I don't think BB had everything all thought out in those last seconds.

I already said that sometimes the wrong (or as you like to call non-obvious) decision wins. Sometimes the right one loses.

It worked out for ya. COngrats. BB somehow knew Seattle would call the worst possible high risk play. Not a run, not a fade, not a rollout.........the WORST high risk play right into the teeth of the D. Yep, he knew it. BB is jesus reincarnated.

Butler has said that he was ready for that play because they practiced it the week before.

Butler said Belichick gave him #### because he got beat on that play in practice. BB said something like, "You gotta get there."

 

[DropKick]

The more realistic question is which would be better if SEA actually did score a TD:

~26 seconds and 2 timeouts OR ~55 seconds and 1 timeout - if SEA scored on 2nd down.

~20 seconds and 2 timeouts OR ~50 seconds and 1 timeout - if SEA scored on 3rd down.

Which would be better if SEA actually did score a TD? More time of course... The thought is that not calling the TO affects their probability or scoring. Running through the scenarios suggests the winding clock encouraged Seattle to throw on at least one down, where an incompletion would stop the clock and not force them to spend their final time-out.

I think if there is 60+ seconds, we see Lynch three times...

No doubt, if Seattle scores on 2nd down, not calling the TO blows up in your face. But there were only 20 seconds left after the pick. If 2nd down produces a failed rushing attempt (or sack, etc.) and the clock is running it gets really interesting... 3rd down with 20 seconds and dropping. Does Seattle burn their last time-out or rush to get a play off and make a mistake?

With all due respect to Brady, that team isn't built to get down the field in a hurry. Assuming Seattle scores and doesn't draw some type of bone-head flag and that NE starts at the 20. They need to pick up about 50 yards to get a shot at a ~50 yard FG. Consider too that the Seahawk's defense was banged up at that point... How much time has to be on the clock to have a realistic shot at tying the game? Is 30 seconds with no time-outs enough (doubt it), how about 45 or 60?

There were 60+ seconds left...it was Seattle's choice to take that down.

Seattle ran it down to NOT leave time on the clock. If NE called the timeout, and there were still 60 seconds left prior to second down, I think we see Lynch 3 times as the Hawks have plenty of time and a time-out in their pocket.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I hated the decision in real time but Belichick's explanation makes some sense, especially when you watch the Inside The NFL/NFL Films footage that showed the Pats Dbacks coach rushing Butler onto the field once they got a look at the Seahawks personnel. The fact that they were comfortable going with the extra corner on that play says to me that the Patriots had a hell of a read on what Seattle was going to do.

Certainly not the choice I wanted at the time but I get what Belichick was thinking there: he had a good idea that the second down play wouldn't work and an early timeout gives the Hawks two, possibly three shots at running read option or play action at the one.

And anyone thinking that was just lucky really does not understand all the prep and thought that was involved. Or maybe they just tapped into Seattle's communication system.

I think he was lucky in that none of the options he had gave him a very high chance of winning the game. If he'd called a TO, SEA runs the ball and bleeds the clock down as much as possible. Best case scenario you're getting the ball back with like 20 seconds and no time outs. What are the odds of a FG there?

Stopping them from the 1 yard line on three plays, those odds are slim too, but I'm not sure they're worse. And they go up when you realize that SEA is giving a passing look. So he just thought about it, and took the less terribly-unlikely-to-win path. And from a great play by Butler, they won. End of story.

 

[PatsWillWin]

The more realistic question is which would be better if SEA actually did score a TD:

~26 seconds and 2 timeouts OR ~55 seconds and 1 timeout - if SEA scored on 2nd down.

~20 seconds and 2 timeouts OR ~50 seconds and 1 timeout - if SEA scored on 3rd down.

Which would be better if SEA actually did score a TD? More time of course... The thought is that not calling the TO affects their probability or scoring. Running through the scenarios suggests the winding clock encouraged Seattle to throw on at least one down, where an incompletion would stop the clock and not force them to spend their final time-out.

I think if there is 60+ seconds, we see Lynch three times...

No doubt, if Seattle scores on 2nd down, not calling the TO blows up in your face. But there were only 20 seconds left after the pick. If 2nd down produces a failed rushing attempt (or sack, etc.) and the clock is running it gets really interesting... 3rd down with 20 seconds and dropping. Does Seattle burn their last time-out or rush to get a play off and make a mistake?

With all due respect to Brady, that team isn't built to get down the field in a hurry. Assuming Seattle scores and doesn't draw some type of bone-head flag and that NE starts at the 20. They need to pick up about 50 yards to get a shot at a ~50 yard FG. Consider too that the Seahawk's defense was banged up at that point... How much time has to be on the clock to have a realistic shot at tying the game? Is 30 seconds with no time-outs enough (doubt it), how about 45 or 60?

There were 60+ seconds left...it was Seattle's choice to take that down.

Seattle ran it down to NOT leave time on the clock. If NE called the timeout, and there were still 60 seconds left prior to second down, I think we see Lynch 3 times as the Hawks have plenty of time and a time-out in their pocket.

I don't think you can bank on Lynch 3 times in any scenario. If, hypothetically, he got stopped on 2nd and 3rd down from the 1, I don't see them trying it again when time is no longer a factor.

 

[PatsWillWin]

This has probably mentioned, but SEA set themselves up by how they managed the entire drive. They ran down after the Kearse catch, wasting time, then wasting a time out. They just didn't handle that drive well, which helped create the situation where they made the call that they did.

 

[TDorBust]

This has probably mentioned, but SEA set themselves up by how they managed the entire drive. They ran down after the Kearse catch, wasting time, then wasting a time out. They just didn't handle that drive well, which helped create the situation where they made the call that they did.

Still don't exactly understand the comments about needing to throw either. Seattle was stupid to put them in a place being forced to throw. I would take Lynch over a pass from 1 to win the Super Bowl every time.

Still crazy that certain people defend Carrol saying they had to throw on one down. Last time I checked they could have hiked at any point on 2nd down with like 45 seconds left. Your telling me even without a timeout you couldn't run the ball straight up the middle 3 times in 45 seconds?

3 goal line formation runs from the 1 > 1 pass and 2 runs of any type

People can say that Lynch was getting stuffed all game but you can't convince me he gets stuffed 3 straight plays when crossing the goaline meant Winnin the SB.

 

[Short Corner]

This has probably mentioned, but SEA set themselves up by how they managed the entire drive. They ran down after the Kearse catch, wasting time, then wasting a time out. They just didn't handle that drive well, which helped create the situation where they made the call that they did.

Still don't exactly understand the comments about needing to throw either. Seattle was stupid to put them in a place being forced to throw. I would take Lynch over a pass from 1 to win the Super Bowl every time.

Still crazy that certain people defend Carrol saying they had to throw on one down. Last time I checked they could have hiked at any point on 2nd down with like 45 seconds left. Your telling me even without a timeout you couldn't run the ball straight up the middle 3 times in 45 seconds?

3 goal line formation runs from the 1 > 1 pass and 2 runs of any type

People can say that Lynch was getting stuffed all game but you can't convince me he gets stuffed 3 straight plays when crossing the goaline meant Winnin the SB.

45 seconds is pretty optimistic. You would have to be in hurry up mode and there is now way they rush into it with the championship on the line.

 

[RUSF18]

This has probably mentioned, but SEA set themselves up by how they managed the entire drive. They ran down after the Kearse catch, wasting time, then wasting a time out. They just didn't handle that drive well, which helped create the situation where they made the call that they did.

Still don't exactly understand the comments about needing to throw either. Seattle was stupid to put them in a place being forced to throw. I would take Lynch over a pass from 1 to win the Super Bowl every time.

Still crazy that certain people defend Carrol saying they had to throw on one down. Last time I checked they could have hiked at any point on 2nd down with like 45 seconds left. Your telling me even without a timeout you couldn't run the ball straight up the middle 3 times in 45 seconds?

3 goal line formation runs from the 1 > 1 pass and 2 runs of any type

People can say that Lynch was getting stuffed all game but you can't convince me he gets stuffed 3 straight plays when crossing the goaline meant Winnin the SB.

45 seconds is pretty optimistic. You would have to be in hurry up mode and there is now way they rush into it with the championship on the line.

The prior play ended with 1:02 on the clock. It didn't require linemen running downfield to get to the LOS. And they did have a TO.

 

[franchise punter]

There's sort of a parallel with the regards to the last SB the Pats were in. The Pats pretty much let the Giants score with ~ a minute left in the 2012 Super Bowl. I wondered if that entered Belichick's mind after Kearse's circus catch.

4 1:15 2 3 NWE 11 Eli Manning pass complete short left to Hakeem Nicks for 4 yards (tackle by Devin McCourty) 15 17 5.01 5.6 3.9 4 1:09 1 7 NWE 7 Ahmad Bradshaw up the middle for 1 yard (tackle by Jerod Mayo) 15 17 5.6 4.95 6.7 4 1:04 Timeout #2 by New England Patriots 15 17 0 0
4 1:04 2 6 NWE 6 Ahmad Bradshaw up the middle for 6 yards, touchdown The situation wasn't completely identical. The score was 17-15 at that point so a TD still kept it a win with one-score game. It was advantageous to let NY score with more time on the clock as opposed to trying to block a field goal or get a miracle turnover (or was it?).

 

[Road Warriors]

There's sort of a parallel with the regards to the last SB the Pats were in. The Pats pretty much let the Giants score with ~ a minute left in the 2012 Super Bowl. I wondered if that entered Belichick's mind after Kearse's circus catch.

4 1:15 2 3 NWE 11 Eli Manning pass complete short left to Hakeem Nicks for 4 yards (tackle by Devin McCourty) 15 17 5.01 5.6 3.9 4 1:09 1 7 NWE 7 Ahmad Bradshaw up the middle for 1 yard (tackle by Jerod Mayo) 15 17 5.6 4.95 6.7 4 1:04 Timeout #2 by New England Patriots 15 17 0 04 1:04 2 6 NWE 6 Ahmad Bradshaw up the middle for 6 yards, touchdown

The situation wasn't completely identical. The score was 17-15 at that point so a TD still kept it a win with one-score game. It was advantageous to let NY score with more time on the clock as opposed to trying to block a field goal or get a miracle turnover (or was it?).

Of course it was. Situation when they scored was 2nd down, NE 1 TO. NYG could take a knee on 3rd ( virtually no risk of fumble ), run the clock to 20 seconds, kick a FG from about 25 yards ( about an XP, ~99% success rate? ) leaving NE with 15 or so seconds and 1 TO to get 50 or so yards for a FG try to win.

Neither situation was a good chance to come back, but I'd rather have the minute with a TO for a TD than 15 seconds for a FG. 15 seconds is 2, possibly 3 plays ( 3 plays are short, quick outs, probably not enough to get the yardage needed ).

 

[fantasycurse42]

The more realistic question is which would be better if SEA actually did score a TD:

~26 seconds and 2 timeouts OR ~55 seconds and 1 timeout - if SEA scored on 2nd down.

~20 seconds and 2 timeouts OR ~50 seconds and 1 timeout - if SEA scored on 3rd down.

Which would be better if SEA actually did score a TD? More time of course... The thought is that not calling the TO affects their probability or scoring. Running through the scenarios suggests the winding clock encouraged Seattle to throw on at least one down, where an incompletion would stop the clock and not force them to spend their final time-out.

I think if there is 60+ seconds, we see Lynch three times...

No doubt, if Seattle scores on 2nd down, not calling the TO blows up in your face. But there were only 20 seconds left after the pick. If 2nd down produces a failed rushing attempt (or sack, etc.) and the clock is running it gets really interesting... 3rd down with 20 seconds and dropping. Does Seattle burn their last time-out or rush to get a play off and make a mistake?

With all due respect to Brady, that team isn't built to get down the field in a hurry. Assuming Seattle scores and doesn't draw some type of bone-head flag and that NE starts at the 20. They need to pick up about 50 yards to get a shot at a ~50 yard FG. Consider too that the Seahawk's defense was banged up at that point... How much time has to be on the clock to have a realistic shot at tying the game? Is 30 seconds with no time-outs enough (doubt it), how about 45 or 60?

There were 60+ seconds left...it was Seattle's choice to take that down.

Seattle ran it down to NOT leave time on the clock. If NE called the timeout, and there were still 60 seconds left prior to second down, I think we see Lynch 3 times as the Hawks have plenty of time and a time-out in their pocket.

They should've handed it off on 2nd down with 50 seconds left, 3rd down with 25 seconds, and then taken a TO if they had gotten in on 4th down.

I don't understand how they call a run on 1st down (after a TO nonetheless) and were so unprepared afterwards. Mind boggling.

 

[Road Warriors]

The more realistic question is which would be better if SEA actually did score a TD:

~26 seconds and 2 timeouts OR ~55 seconds and 1 timeout - if SEA scored on 2nd down.

~20 seconds and 2 timeouts OR ~50 seconds and 1 timeout - if SEA scored on 3rd down.

Which would be better if SEA actually did score a TD? More time of course... The thought is that not calling the TO affects their probability or scoring. Running through the scenarios suggests the winding clock encouraged Seattle to throw on at least one down, where an incompletion would stop the clock and not force them to spend their final time-out.

I think if there is 60+ seconds, we see Lynch three times...

No doubt, if Seattle scores on 2nd down, not calling the TO blows up in your face. But there were only 20 seconds left after the pick. If 2nd down produces a failed rushing attempt (or sack, etc.) and the clock is running it gets really interesting... 3rd down with 20 seconds and dropping. Does Seattle burn their last time-out or rush to get a play off and make a mistake?

With all due respect to Brady, that team isn't built to get down the field in a hurry. Assuming Seattle scores and doesn't draw some type of bone-head flag and that NE starts at the 20. They need to pick up about 50 yards to get a shot at a ~50 yard FG. Consider too that the Seahawk's defense was banged up at that point... How much time has to be on the clock to have a realistic shot at tying the game? Is 30 seconds with no time-outs enough (doubt it), how about 45 or 60?

There were 60+ seconds left...it was Seattle's choice to take that down.

Seattle ran it down to NOT leave time on the clock. If NE called the timeout, and there were still 60 seconds left prior to second down, I think we see Lynch 3 times as the Hawks have plenty of time and a time-out in their pocket.

They should've handed it off on 2nd down with 50 seconds left, 3rd down with 25 seconds, and then taken a TO if they had gotten in on 4th down.

I don't understand how they call a run on 1st down (after a TO nonetheless) and were so unprepared afterwards. Mind boggling.

This is what they should have done, no doubt. Carroll over-thought this, figuring he could not only score the game winning TD, but leave NE little to no time to do anything about it. I think he had concerns about giving Brady & Co. near a minute with only a FG needed to get to OT.

He over-prioritized the clock management aspect, which led to the decision he made. He should have trusted his defense enough to push hard for the score without regard for the clock. 1 minute, 1 TO is absolutely enough time to get 3 running plays executed, even with a huddle in between.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

The more realistic question is which would be better if SEA actually did score a TD:

~26 seconds and 2 timeouts OR ~55 seconds and 1 timeout - if SEA scored on 2nd down.

~20 seconds and 2 timeouts OR ~50 seconds and 1 timeout - if SEA scored on 3rd down.

Which would be better if SEA actually did score a TD? More time of course... The thought is that not calling the TO affects their probability or scoring. Running through the scenarios suggests the winding clock encouraged Seattle to throw on at least one down, where an incompletion would stop the clock and not force them to spend their final time-out.

I think if there is 60+ seconds, we see Lynch three times...

No doubt, if Seattle scores on 2nd down, not calling the TO blows up in your face. But there were only 20 seconds left after the pick. If 2nd down produces a failed rushing attempt (or sack, etc.) and the clock is running it gets really interesting... 3rd down with 20 seconds and dropping. Does Seattle burn their last time-out or rush to get a play off and make a mistake?

With all due respect to Brady, that team isn't built to get down the field in a hurry. Assuming Seattle scores and doesn't draw some type of bone-head flag and that NE starts at the 20. They need to pick up about 50 yards to get a shot at a ~50 yard FG. Consider too that the Seahawk's defense was banged up at that point... How much time has to be on the clock to have a realistic shot at tying the game? Is 30 seconds with no time-outs enough (doubt it), how about 45 or 60?

There were 60+ seconds left...it was Seattle's choice to take that down.

Seattle ran it down to NOT leave time on the clock. If NE called the timeout, and there were still 60 seconds left prior to second down, I think we see Lynch 3 times as the Hawks have plenty of time and a time-out in their pocket.

They should've handed it off on 2nd down with 50 seconds left, 3rd down with 25 seconds, and then taken a TO if they had gotten in on 4th down.

I don't understand how they call a run on 1st down (after a TO nonetheless) and were so unprepared afterwards. Mind boggling.

This is what they should have done, no doubt. Carroll over-thought this, figuring he could not only score the game winning TD, but leave NE little to no time to do anything about it. I think he had concerns about giving Brady & Co. near a minute with only a FG needed to get to OT.

He over-prioritized the clock management aspect, which led to the decision he made. He should have trusted his defense enough to push hard for the score without regard for the clock. 1 minute, 1 TO is absolutely enough time to get 3 running plays executed, even with a huddle in between.

But a quick slant is not really the call if you're over-prioritizing the clock management. You run there and use time and make NE burn their TOs. If you have to pass, throw a fade to the back corner of the end zone to Mathews. At least an incompletion takes 4-5 more seconds off the clock that a quick slant to the middle of the field. Really just terrible decision making by SEA.

 

[Run It Up]

In 30 years we'll be talking about how BB was the first of a breed of hyper-functioning autists. Able to see outside of time and space but only about football games.

 

[Hu-Tang Clan]

What Seattle should've done is play action to Lynch and roll Wilson out on a bootleg and if he doesn't see anything right away he just throws it through the back of the endzone into the 20th row.

 

[jon_mx]

In 30 years we'll be talking about how BB was the first of a breed of hyper-functioning autists. Able to see outside of time and space but only about football games.

Or perhaps he just had video cameras spying on everyone.

 

[Road Warriors]

The more realistic question is which would be better if SEA actually did score a TD:

~26 seconds and 2 timeouts OR ~55 seconds and 1 timeout - if SEA scored on 2nd down.

~20 seconds and 2 timeouts OR ~50 seconds and 1 timeout - if SEA scored on 3rd down.

Which would be better if SEA actually did score a TD? More time of course... The thought is that not calling the TO affects their probability or scoring. Running through the scenarios suggests the winding clock encouraged Seattle to throw on at least one down, where an incompletion would stop the clock and not force them to spend their final time-out.

I think if there is 60+ seconds, we see Lynch three times...

No doubt, if Seattle scores on 2nd down, not calling the TO blows up in your face. But there were only 20 seconds left after the pick. If 2nd down produces a failed rushing attempt (or sack, etc.) and the clock is running it gets really interesting... 3rd down with 20 seconds and dropping. Does Seattle burn their last time-out or rush to get a play off and make a mistake?

With all due respect to Brady, that team isn't built to get down the field in a hurry. Assuming Seattle scores and doesn't draw some type of bone-head flag and that NE starts at the 20. They need to pick up about 50 yards to get a shot at a ~50 yard FG. Consider too that the Seahawk's defense was banged up at that point... How much time has to be on the clock to have a realistic shot at tying the game? Is 30 seconds with no time-outs enough (doubt it), how about 45 or 60?

There were 60+ seconds left...it was Seattle's choice to take that down.

Seattle ran it down to NOT leave time on the clock. If NE called the timeout, and there were still 60 seconds left prior to second down, I think we see Lynch 3 times as the Hawks have plenty of time and a time-out in their pocket.

They should've handed it off on 2nd down with 50 seconds left, 3rd down with 25 seconds, and then taken a TO if they had gotten in on 4th down.

I don't understand how they call a run on 1st down (after a TO nonetheless) and were so unprepared afterwards. Mind boggling.

This is what they should have done, no doubt. Carroll over-thought this, figuring he could not only score the game winning TD, but leave NE little to no time to do anything about it. I think he had concerns about giving Brady & Co. near a minute with only a FG needed to get to OT.

He over-prioritized the clock management aspect, which led to the decision he made. He should have trusted his defense enough to push hard for the score without regard for the clock. 1 minute, 1 TO is absolutely enough time to get 3 running plays executed, even with a huddle in between.

But a quick slant is not really the call if you're over-prioritizing the clock management. You run there and use time and make NE burn their TOs. If you have to pass, throw a fade to the back corner of the end zone to Mathews. At least an incompletion takes 4-5 more seconds off the clock that a quick slant to the middle of the field. Really just terrible decision making by SEA.

You're missing the point. The clock ran for 40 seconds before they threw that slant. Whatever play they ran there ( fade, read-option, rollout or the fateful slant), they had already prioritized clock over scoring. By burning that 40 seconds, they put a time constraint on what 3 plays they can run with only 1 TO and 26 seconds. You can probably run 3 running plays, but they'd be rushed.

 

[AB in DC]

There's sort of a parallel with the regards to the last SB the Pats were in. The Pats pretty much let the Giants score with ~ a minute left in the 2012 Super Bowl. I wondered if that entered Belichick's mind after Kearse's circus catch.

I think you're right, in a sense.

Remember, Belichick's last two SBs both involved a last-ditch effort to score with under a minute left.

- In 2011-2, he had 57 seconds.

- In 2007-8 he had 35 seconds, but only needed a FG to tie.

I think it's reasonable to believe that BB simply decided that there was no way they were going to score again, regardless of what happened. Once you're at that point, calling a timeout was futile.

 

[Tool]

There's sort of a parallel with the regards to the last SB the Pats were in. The Pats pretty much let the Giants score with ~ a minute left in the 2012 Super Bowl. I wondered if that entered Belichick's mind after Kearse's circus catch.

I think you're right, in a sense.

Remember, Belichick's last two SBs both involved a last-ditch effort to score with under a minute left.

- In 2011-2, he had 57 seconds.

- In 2007-8 he had 35 seconds, but only needed a FG to tie.

I think it's reasonable to believe that BB simply decided that there was no way they were going to score again, regardless of what happened. Once you're at that point, calling a timeout was futile.

I doubt he thought there was no way they would score based on the last two super bowls. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. He was just playing the percentages.

 

[DropKick]

The more realistic question is which would be better if SEA actually did score a TD:

~26 seconds and 2 timeouts OR ~55 seconds and 1 timeout - if SEA scored on 2nd down.

~20 seconds and 2 timeouts OR ~50 seconds and 1 timeout - if SEA scored on 3rd down.

Which would be better if SEA actually did score a TD? More time of course... The thought is that not calling the TO affects their probability or scoring. Running through the scenarios suggests the winding clock encouraged Seattle to throw on at least one down, where an incompletion would stop the clock and not force them to spend their final time-out.

I think if there is 60+ seconds, we see Lynch three times...

No doubt, if Seattle scores on 2nd down, not calling the TO blows up in your face. But there were only 20 seconds left after the pick. If 2nd down produces a failed rushing attempt (or sack, etc.) and the clock is running it gets really interesting... 3rd down with 20 seconds and dropping. Does Seattle burn their last time-out or rush to get a play off and make a mistake?

With all due respect to Brady, that team isn't built to get down the field in a hurry. Assuming Seattle scores and doesn't draw some type of bone-head flag and that NE starts at the 20. They need to pick up about 50 yards to get a shot at a ~50 yard FG. Consider too that the Seahawk's defense was banged up at that point... How much time has to be on the clock to have a realistic shot at tying the game? Is 30 seconds with no time-outs enough (doubt it), how about 45 or 60?

There were 60+ seconds left...it was Seattle's choice to take that down.

Seattle ran it down to NOT leave time on the clock. If NE called the timeout, and there were still 60 seconds left prior to second down, I think we see Lynch 3 times as the Hawks have plenty of time and a time-out in their pocket.

They should've handed it off on 2nd down with 50 seconds left, 3rd down with 25 seconds, and then taken a TO if they had gotten in on 4th down.

I don't understand how they call a run on 1st down (after a TO nonetheless) and were so unprepared afterwards. Mind boggling.

This is what they should have done, no doubt. Carroll over-thought this, figuring he could not only score the game winning TD, but leave NE little to no time to do anything about it. I think he had concerns about giving Brady & Co. near a minute with only a FG needed to get to OT.

He over-prioritized the clock management aspect, which led to the decision he made. He should have trusted his defense enough to push hard for the score without regard for the clock. 1 minute, 1 TO is absolutely enough time to get 3 running plays executed, even with a huddle in between.

But a quick slant is not really the call if you're over-prioritizing the clock management. You run there and use time and make NE burn their TOs. If you have to pass, throw a fade to the back corner of the end zone to Mathews. At least an incompletion takes 4-5 more seconds off the clock that a quick slant to the middle of the field. Really just terrible decision making by SEA.

Yes, agree with the over emphasis on clock management. That was evident in letting the clock wind from 1:06 to 26 seconds. But once you're at 26 seconds there should be minimal (zero?) concern with leaving NE too much time. If they did run on second, there is no way NE was spending a timeout.

 

[Run It Up]

In 30 years we'll be talking about how BB was the first of a breed of hyper-functioning autists. Able to see outside of time and space but only about football games.

Or perhaps he just had video cameras spying on everyone.

Cameras that see outside time and space?

 

[Short Corner]

In 30 years we'll be talking about how BB was the first of a breed of hyper-functioning autists. Able to see outside of time and space but only about football games.

Or perhaps he just had video cameras spying on everyone.

Cameras that see outside time and space?

Don't feed the monkey

 

[Bossman]

I'm sure Coach "Situational Football" has gone over that scenario in his mind about a bazillion times before that game.

The test is easy when you already know all of the answers.

Yet fans and media still question the decision not to use a timeout there.

Pretty low percentage that NE could move the ball into FG range with 30 seconds and no timeouts .... which is about what they would have had if SEA took a couple tries to get into the end zone.

This was about what they had vs. the Giants ... and they failed miserably.

I'd guess, even with Brady & Co, 10% chance?

Even if they could pull it off ... it would still be a tie game. Odds of driving for the tying FG and then winning in OT? Maybe 7 or 8%?

Best odds there TO WIN was to make a goal line stand. Maybe a 25% chance.

Luckily Coach Pom-Poms apparently never went over that scenario in his head. He seemed to be just making it up as they went along.

And they managed the clock and timeouts like crap on that drive. That's what really cost them the game.

Had they had 2 time outs left, there would be no need to throw the ball at the goal line to make sure the clock stopped.

.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I'm sure Coach "Situational Football" has gone over that scenario in his mind about a bazillion times before that game.

The test is easy when you already know all of the answers.

Yet fans and media still question the decision not to use a timeout there.

Pretty low percentage that NE could move the ball into FG range with 30 seconds and no timeouts .... which is about what they would have had if SEA took a couple tries to get into the end zone.

This was about what they had vs. the Giants ... and they failed miserably.

I'd guess, even with Brady & Co, 10% chance?

Even if they could pull it off ... it would still be a tie game. Odds of driving for the tying FG and then winning in OT? Maybe 7 or 8%?

Best odds there TO WIN was to make a goal line stand. Maybe a 25% chance.

Luckily Coach Pom-Poms apparently never went over that scenario in his head. He seemed to be just making it up as they went along.

And they managed the clock and timeouts like crap on that drive. That's what really cost them the game.

Had they had 2 time outs left, there would be no need to throw the ball at the goal line to make sure the clock stopped.

.

I think this is probably the correct calculus, but in no way were the Seahawks odds of winning only 75% at that point. Just don't buy it.