The worst play call in NFL history (1 Viewer)

[12punch]

what is that list supposed to be?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

In simpler terms, in baseball, any pitcher will tell you that in a big spot, they'll make a hitter hit their best pitch. Better to lose by having the hitter hit your best pitch than by giving them the chance to hit a lesser one.

The Seahawks were a fastball pitcher, perhaps the best fastball pitcher in the game. They'd likely have won the game if they had thrown the fastball.

Instead they went with an offspeed pitch, and it got hammered.

This had nothing to do with any circumstances from earlier in the year or how often they had done anything before. This was for the Super Bowl, and that situation called for a run because that's what they do. It was as simple and stupid of a decision as that.

I respectfully disagree, its real easy to 2nd guess, but if they run it there and don't make it they have to use their last timeout and then things could have gotten pretty dicey. This Lynch would have made it in no problem is wishful thinking; yeah he may very well have made it, maybe not. I heard last night (nfl channel?) that sea has been the worst team in the league punching it in from the gl since 2012.

Kearse didn't do his job very well and Wilson could have made a better throw but more importantly Browner did a great job of stacking Kearse and Butler made and outstanding play by jumping the route AND most importantly holding on to the ball.

And knocking the receiver down.

They had time to run the ball with a timeout and had they not let the playclock go down.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Maybe Seattle made a sub-optimal play call, but Russell Wilson's INT rate for 2014 was 1.5%. So the chances of a INT are tiny. Butler just made an amazing defensive play.

His INT rate in the playoffs at the point was 5.6%.

Small sample size proves nothing. His INT rate for the first 59 minutes of the SB was 0.0%. See how that works?

Unless you seriously think his career INT rate will be closer to 5.6% than his current career INT rate of 2.1%, then your 5.6% number is pointless.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WilsRu00.htm

How a player is performing in the playoffs against tough competition is very relevant. You are not realizing that Marshawn Lynch is as equally great a running back (if not better) as Russell Wilson is a qb. In all of 2014--Marshawn Lynch had the second best fumble rate for any running back with 200+ carries. The guy had two lost fumbles in the entire 2014 NFL season (including the playoffs) on 343 rushing attempts--- a turnover rate of less than .5%.

In all of 2014 (including the playoffs)---Russel wilson had 12 ints in 524 passing attempts--a turnover rate of 2.2%.

With a relevant sample size (turnover rate from both players from this seasons roster)--the odds of Marshawn turning the ball over on a run versus Wilson throwing an int from a pass attempt are 4+ times less likely. If you want to look at total fumbles (not just fumbles lost) by Marshawn--the odds of that are 2 times less likely than Wilson throwing an int.

This shows that the odds of a "catastrophic" turnover giving the ball to Marshawn are FAR less likely than having Wilson throwing the ball. If you are trying to say that Wilson's 0% int rate for the first 59 minutes of the SB are grounds for him to throw the rock--you are sadly mistaken. If I remember right--Wilson didn't complete a pass until the second quarter of the SB. If I remember right--the most important pass the Wilson completed that put them at a chance to win was nothing more than a miracle--it wasn't a product of a highly accurate throw. Wilson's quarterbacking in the SB showed nothing to prove that his likelihood of making a mistake would be less likely than his normal 2.2% on the season. In contrary--I would say that the quality of his quarterbacking in the entirety of the playoffs this season was glaringly trending downwards. 4 ints versus Green Bay--and not completing a pass until the second quarter of the SB? That's not the type of quarterback play that should sway any team from using their elite (virtually turnover free) power running back from the 0.5 yard line--while having a timeout in their pockets.

 

[ShamrockPride]

Pete Carroll:"We went to three receivers, they sent in their goal-line people. We had plenty of downs and timeouts. We really didn't want to run against their goal-line group right there."

I just don't see what's wrong with that thinking.

You have the best POWER RB to come along in maybe the last 20 years and you're scared of a goal line defense? Football is about imposing your will.

 

[davearm]

Maybe Seattle made a sub-optimal play call, but Russell Wilson's INT rate for 2014 was 1.5%. So the chances of a INT are tiny. Butler just made an amazing defensive play.

His INT rate in the playoffs at the point was 5.6%.

Small sample size proves nothing. His INT rate for the first 59 minutes of the SB was 0.0%. See how that works?

Unless you seriously think his career INT rate will be closer to 5.6% than his current career INT rate of 2.1%, then your 5.6% number is pointless.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WilsRu00.htm

All I'm saying is that Wilson's INT rate at the 1 is higher than Lynch's fumble rate at the 1.

This cannot possibly be true, since Wilson's INT rate at the 1 was zero going into the play.

 

[davearm]

Are you just pulling this "passing is more risky" stuff out of your butt?

Over the last 5 years, teams at the 1 YL have passed 534 times and rushed 1287 times. These plays have resulted in 267 passing TDs (50%), 696 rushing TDs (54%), 11 turnovers on passing plays (2.1%), and 30 fumbles on running plays (2.3%).

There's no substantial difference in the risk, or in the success rate.

It's been alluded to already in the thread and maybe already responded to, but I'll re-frame it one more way.

Those statistics take into account one play only. So if it's the last play of the game or 4th down, you're right on the money.

Since it wasn't the last play, you need to take into account the success rate of the subsequent plays. A turnover in this situation takes away any additional opportunity to score on the next play.

The strategic order of the play call should have been:

1) Don't turn the ball over; insuring at least one (maybe two) more attempts

2) Score

3) Manage the clock

Seattle got their priorities completely reversed.

The statistics I provided show clearly that neither running nor passing carries with it a greater probability of a turnover. It's around 2% for either option.

 

[davearm]

They 100% had time to run 3 plays with the timeout they had. I don't get how or why people started claiming they had to throw one of those 3 plays.

The most amusing argument is people saying NE players would have just laid on Lynch and not let him get up to run out time. There is no way the refs would allow that on the last play of the SB.

You would think, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQmNYPOgx40

 

[Old Smiley]

You're so sure you want to run into this, when you've got three downs.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Are you just pulling this "passing is more risky" stuff out of your butt?

Over the last 5 years, teams at the 1 YL have passed 534 times and rushed 1287 times. These plays have resulted in 267 passing TDs (50%), 696 rushing TDs (54%), 11 turnovers on passing plays (2.1%), and 30 fumbles on running plays (2.3%).

There's no substantial difference in the risk, or in the success rate.

It's been alluded to already in the thread and maybe already responded to, but I'll re-frame it one more way.

Those statistics take into account one play only. So if it's the last play of the game or 4th down, you're right on the money.

Since it wasn't the last play, you need to take into account the success rate of the subsequent plays. A turnover in this situation takes away any additional opportunity to score on the next play.

The strategic order of the play call should have been:

1) Don't turn the ball over; insuring at least one (maybe two) more attempts

2) Score

3) Manage the clock

Seattle got their priorities completely reversed.

The statistics I provided show clearly that neither running nor passing carries with it a greater probability of a turnover. It's around 2% for either option.

Several problems with this line of reasoning:

1. It assumes all passing plays are the same. Many passing plays at the 1 are fades to the back corner which have virtually no chance of an interception. Same deal with a shovel pass, another short-yardage favorite. Also, in many cases when teams call a pass in short yardage situations it's a rollout or some gadget-y play and the QB is instructed to just throw it away if the intended target isn't wide open. The reason this play call was so horrible was not just that they called a pass, but that they called a slant pass where there were guaranteed to be multiple defenders in the area.

2. It ignores the role of the down, the situation and the player. My guess is that a decent number of the fumbles in that data came as the carrier was attempting to stretch the ball out towards the goal line on third or fourth down because they knew this was a last-ditch effort and their failure would result in 3 or zero points, which would not be the case on second down. I also suspect that many of these are QB fumbles, also not an issue if the ball is given to Lynch. I'm also guessing that fumbled snaps are all counted as runs regardless of the ultimate intent, which would skew the data.

3. A turnover is not the only possible negative result for the Seahawks. A significant loss of yardage (more than a yard or so) or a penalty would also be a negative result that would significantly impact the chance of conversion on 3rd or 4th down and thus should be considered. My guess is that both of those are also more likely if the play call is a pass. You also lose the benefit of one of the perks of a passing attempt- a pass interference or defensive holding penalty- because an automatic first down and half the distance was basically useless to the Seahawks in that particular situation. Even worse, that reduces the chances of a successful pass attempt, because defenders can be overly aggressive with limited downside.

Sorry for the many edits and additions, but the more I think about it the dumber the play call gets.

 

[Niles Standish]

Are you just pulling this "passing is more risky" stuff out of your butt?

Over the last 5 years, teams at the 1 YL have passed 534 times and rushed 1287 times. These plays have resulted in 267 passing TDs (50%), 696 rushing TDs (54%), 11 turnovers on passing plays (2.1%), and 30 fumbles on running plays (2.3%).

There's no substantial difference in the risk, or in the success rate.

It's been alluded to already in the thread and maybe already responded to, but I'll re-frame it one more way.

Those statistics take into account one play only. So if it's the last play of the game or 4th down, you're right on the money.

Since it wasn't the last play, you need to take into account the success rate of the subsequent plays. A turnover in this situation takes away any additional opportunity to score on the next play.

The strategic order of the play call should have been:

1) Don't turn the ball over; insuring at least one (maybe two) more attempts

2) Score

3) Manage the clock

Seattle got their priorities completely reversed.

The statistics I provided show clearly that neither running nor passing carries with it a greater probability of a turnover. It's around 2% for either option.

People can't get past what actually happened and get as far as the percentages.

In reality a run and throw were almost identical both in success rate and turnover rate. Wilson made a bad throw, Butler made a great defensive play. The call itself was not the failure.

 

[Niles Standish]

Are you just pulling this "passing is more risky" stuff out of your butt?

Over the last 5 years, teams at the 1 YL have passed 534 times and rushed 1287 times. These plays have resulted in 267 passing TDs (50%), 696 rushing TDs (54%), 11 turnovers on passing plays (2.1%), and 30 fumbles on running plays (2.3%).

There's no substantial difference in the risk, or in the success rate.

It's been alluded to already in the thread and maybe already responded to, but I'll re-frame it one more way.

Those statistics take into account one play only. So if it's the last play of the game or 4th down, you're right on the money.

Since it wasn't the last play, you need to take into account the success rate of the subsequent plays. A turnover in this situation takes away any additional opportunity to score on the next play.

The strategic order of the play call should have been:

1) Don't turn the ball over; insuring at least one (maybe two) more attempts

2) Score

3) Manage the clock

Seattle got their priorities completely reversed.

The statistics I provided show clearly that neither running nor passing carries with it a greater probability of a turnover. It's around 2% for either option.

Several problems with this line of reasoning:

1. It assumes all passing plays are the same. Many passing plays at the 1 are fades to the back corner which have virtually no chance of an interception. The reason this play call was so horrible was not just that they called a pass, but that they called a slant pass where there were guaranteed to be multiple defenders in the area.

2. It ignores the role of the down, the situation and the player. My guess is that a decent number of the fumbles in that data came as the carrier was attempting to stretch the ball out towards the goal line on third or fourth down, something less likely to occur on second down. I also suspect that many of these are QB fumbles, also not an issue if the ball is given to Lynch. I'm also guessing that fumbled snaps are all counted as runs regardless of the ultimate intent, which would skew the data.

3. A turnover is not the only possible negative result for the Seahawks. A significant loss of yardage (more than a yard or so) or a penalty would also be a negative result. My guess is that both of those are also more likely if the play call is a pass.

Probably not on a quick slant. Didn't Wilson have the ball less than 2 seconds? I'd guess getting stuffed on a run for a yard or two loss is a higher percentage than a sack would be on this play.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Are you just pulling this "passing is more risky" stuff out of your butt?

Over the last 5 years, teams at the 1 YL have passed 534 times and rushed 1287 times. These plays have resulted in 267 passing TDs (50%), 696 rushing TDs (54%), 11 turnovers on passing plays (2.1%), and 30 fumbles on running plays (2.3%).

There's no substantial difference in the risk, or in the success rate.

It's been alluded to already in the thread and maybe already responded to, but I'll re-frame it one more way.

Those statistics take into account one play only. So if it's the last play of the game or 4th down, you're right on the money.

Since it wasn't the last play, you need to take into account the success rate of the subsequent plays. A turnover in this situation takes away any additional opportunity to score on the next play.

The strategic order of the play call should have been:

1) Don't turn the ball over; insuring at least one (maybe two) more attempts

2) Score

3) Manage the clock

Seattle got their priorities completely reversed.

The statistics I provided show clearly that neither running nor passing carries with it a greater probability of a turnover. It's around 2% for either option.

Several problems with this line of reasoning:

1. It assumes all passing plays are the same. Many passing plays at the 1 are fades to the back corner which have virtually no chance of an interception. The reason this play call was so horrible was not just that they called a pass, but that they called a slant pass where there were guaranteed to be multiple defenders in the area.

2. It ignores the role of the down, the situation and the player. My guess is that a decent number of the fumbles in that data came as the carrier was attempting to stretch the ball out towards the goal line on third or fourth down, something less likely to occur on second down. I also suspect that many of these are QB fumbles, also not an issue if the ball is given to Lynch. I'm also guessing that fumbled snaps are all counted as runs regardless of the ultimate intent, which would skew the data.

3. A turnover is not the only possible negative result for the Seahawks. A significant loss of yardage (more than a yard or so) or a penalty would also be a negative result. My guess is that both of those are also more likely if the play call is a pass.

Probably not on a quick slant. Didn't Wilson have the ball less than 2 seconds? I'd guess getting stuffed on a run for a yard or two loss is a higher percentage than a sack would be on this play.

Yeah, that's a good point. You're probably not gonna get sacked on a slant call like this one. The rub play also risks an offensive PI though.

Lot of variables in play here that make it a lot more complicated than just run vs pass rates of success and rates of turnover. IMO almost all of them suggest that a run was the right call.

 

[davearm]

Are you just pulling this "passing is more risky" stuff out of your butt?

Over the last 5 years, teams at the 1 YL have passed 534 times and rushed 1287 times. These plays have resulted in 267 passing TDs (50%), 696 rushing TDs (54%), 11 turnovers on passing plays (2.1%), and 30 fumbles on running plays (2.3%).

There's no substantial difference in the risk, or in the success rate.

It's been alluded to already in the thread and maybe already responded to, but I'll re-frame it one more way.

Those statistics take into account one play only. So if it's the last play of the game or 4th down, you're right on the money.

Since it wasn't the last play, you need to take into account the success rate of the subsequent plays. A turnover in this situation takes away any additional opportunity to score on the next play.

The strategic order of the play call should have been:

1) Don't turn the ball over; insuring at least one (maybe two) more attempts

2) Score

3) Manage the clock

Seattle got their priorities completely reversed.

The statistics I provided show clearly that neither running nor passing carries with it a greater probability of a turnover. It's around 2% for either option.

Several problems with this line of reasoning:

1. It assumes all passing plays are the same. Many passing plays at the 1 are fades to the back corner which have virtually no chance of an interception. Same deal with a shovel pass, another short-yardage favorite. Also, in many cases when teams call a pass in short yardage situations it's a rollout or some gadget-y play and the QB is instructed to just throw it away if the intended target isn't wide open. The reason this play call was so horrible was not just that they called a pass, but that they called a slant pass where there were guaranteed to be multiple defenders in the area.

2. It ignores the role of the down, the situation and the player. My guess is that a decent number of the fumbles in that data came as the carrier was attempting to stretch the ball out towards the goal line on third or fourth down because they knew this was a last-ditch effort and their failure would result in 3 or zero points, which would not be the case on second down. I also suspect that many of these are QB fumbles, also not an issue if the ball is given to Lynch. I'm also guessing that fumbled snaps are all counted as runs regardless of the ultimate intent, which would skew the data.

3. A turnover is not the only possible negative result for the Seahawks. A significant loss of yardage (more than a yard or so) or a penalty would also be a negative result that would significantly impact the chance of conversion on 3rd or 4th down and thus should be considered. My guess is that both of those are also more likely if the play call is a pass. You also lose the benefit of one of the perks of a passing attempt- a pass interference or defensive holding penalty- because an automatic first down and half the distance was basically useless to the Seahawks in that particular situation. Even worse, that reduces the chances of a successful pass attempt, because defenders can be overly aggressive with limited downside.

Sorry for the many edits and additions, but the more I think about it the dumber the play call gets.

That's a lot of guessing.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Are you just pulling this "passing is more risky" stuff out of your butt?

Over the last 5 years, teams at the 1 YL have passed 534 times and rushed 1287 times. These plays have resulted in 267 passing TDs (50%), 696 rushing TDs (54%), 11 turnovers on passing plays (2.1%), and 30 fumbles on running plays (2.3%).

There's no substantial difference in the risk, or in the success rate.

It's been alluded to already in the thread and maybe already responded to, but I'll re-frame it one more way.

Those statistics take into account one play only. So if it's the last play of the game or 4th down, you're right on the money.

Since it wasn't the last play, you need to take into account the success rate of the subsequent plays. A turnover in this situation takes away any additional opportunity to score on the next play.

The strategic order of the play call should have been:

1) Don't turn the ball over; insuring at least one (maybe two) more attempts

2) Score

3) Manage the clock

Seattle got their priorities completely reversed.

The statistics I provided show clearly that neither running nor passing carries with it a greater probability of a turnover. It's around 2% for either option.

Several problems with this line of reasoning:

1. It assumes all passing plays are the same. Many passing plays at the 1 are fades to the back corner which have virtually no chance of an interception. Same deal with a shovel pass, another short-yardage favorite. Also, in many cases when teams call a pass in short yardage situations it's a rollout or some gadget-y play and the QB is instructed to just throw it away if the intended target isn't wide open. The reason this play call was so horrible was not just that they called a pass, but that they called a slant pass where there were guaranteed to be multiple defenders in the area.

2. It ignores the role of the down, the situation and the player. My guess is that a decent number of the fumbles in that data came as the carrier was attempting to stretch the ball out towards the goal line on third or fourth down because they knew this was a last-ditch effort and their failure would result in 3 or zero points, which would not be the case on second down. I also suspect that many of these are QB fumbles, also not an issue if the ball is given to Lynch. I'm also guessing that fumbled snaps are all counted as runs regardless of the ultimate intent, which would skew the data.

3. A turnover is not the only possible negative result for the Seahawks. A significant loss of yardage (more than a yard or so) or a penalty would also be a negative result that would significantly impact the chance of conversion on 3rd or 4th down and thus should be considered. My guess is that both of those are also more likely if the play call is a pass. You also lose the benefit of one of the perks of a passing attempt- a pass interference or defensive holding penalty- because an automatic first down and half the distance was basically useless to the Seahawks in that particular situation. Even worse, that reduces the chances of a successful pass attempt, because defenders can be overly aggressive with limited downside.

Sorry for the many edits and additions, but the more I think about it the dumber the play call gets.

That's a lot of guessing.

I didn't really have a choice, there's no hard data on those points, or at least none that I know how to find (for example you didn't bother to share a link to the data or to tell us whether/how it accounts for fumbled snaps). And educated guesses are better than simply suggesting that universal run vs pass data is applicable to a specific play call on a specific down and distance with specific personnel. That's just plain wrong.

 

[Niles Standish]

Are you just pulling this "passing is more risky" stuff out of your butt?

Over the last 5 years, teams at the 1 YL have passed 534 times and rushed 1287 times. These plays have resulted in 267 passing TDs (50%), 696 rushing TDs (54%), 11 turnovers on passing plays (2.1%), and 30 fumbles on running plays (2.3%).

There's no substantial difference in the risk, or in the success rate.

It's been alluded to already in the thread and maybe already responded to, but I'll re-frame it one more way.

Those statistics take into account one play only. So if it's the last play of the game or 4th down, you're right on the money.

Since it wasn't the last play, you need to take into account the success rate of the subsequent plays. A turnover in this situation takes away any additional opportunity to score on the next play.

The strategic order of the play call should have been:

1) Don't turn the ball over; insuring at least one (maybe two) more attempts

2) Score

3) Manage the clock

Seattle got their priorities completely reversed.

The statistics I provided show clearly that neither running nor passing carries with it a greater probability of a turnover. It's around 2% for either option.

Several problems with this line of reasoning:

1. It assumes all passing plays are the same. Many passing plays at the 1 are fades to the back corner which have virtually no chance of an interception. The reason this play call was so horrible was not just that they called a pass, but that they called a slant pass where there were guaranteed to be multiple defenders in the area.

2. It ignores the role of the down, the situation and the player. My guess is that a decent number of the fumbles in that data came as the carrier was attempting to stretch the ball out towards the goal line on third or fourth down, something less likely to occur on second down. I also suspect that many of these are QB fumbles, also not an issue if the ball is given to Lynch. I'm also guessing that fumbled snaps are all counted as runs regardless of the ultimate intent, which would skew the data.

3. A turnover is not the only possible negative result for the Seahawks. A significant loss of yardage (more than a yard or so) or a penalty would also be a negative result. My guess is that both of those are also more likely if the play call is a pass.

Probably not on a quick slant. Didn't Wilson have the ball less than 2 seconds? I'd guess getting stuffed on a run for a yard or two loss is a higher percentage than a sack would be on this play.

Yeah, that's a good point. You're probably not gonna get sacked on a slant call like this one. The rub play also risks an offensive PI though.

Lot of variables in play here that make it a lot more complicated than just run vs pass rates of success and rates of turnover. IMO almost all of them suggest that a run was the right call.

I agree with you on the offensive PI in a normal game.

But I just can't imagine in the last 20 seconds of the Superbowl the refs calling an offensive PI. Especially against the team that 44 states wanted to win and probably 75-80% of the fans at the game were cheering for.

 

[cstu]

You're so sure you want to run into this, when you've got three downs.

I sure as #### don't want to throw into it.

 

[humpback]

They 100% had time to run 3 plays with the timeout they had. I don't get how or why people started claiming they had to throw one of those 3 plays.

The most amusing argument is people saying NE players would have just laid on Lynch and not let him get up to run out time. There is no way the refs would allow that on the last play of the SB.

You would think, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQmNYPOgx40

 

[humpback]

You're so sure you want to run into this, when you've got three downs.

What kind of formation do you think they would have faced on 3rd and 4th down?

 

[Old Smiley]

You're so sure you want to run into this, when you've got three downs.

I sure as #### don't want to throw into it.

You're so sure you want to run into this, when you've got three downs.

What kind of formation do you think they would have faced on 3rd and 4th down?

They would have had their own heavy package in. They were stuck in 11 personnel because BB gets the last sub.

 

[humpback]

You're so sure you want to run into this, when you've got three downs.

What kind of formation do you think they would have faced on 3rd and 4th down?

They would have had their own heavy package in. They were stuck in 11 personnel because BB gets the last sub.

You keep saying this. They weren't "stuck" in anything, they could have put in any package that they wanted. They chose to get cute with it and got burned.

 

[Old Smiley]

You're so sure you want to run into this, when you've got three downs.

What kind of formation do you think they would have faced on 3rd and 4th down?

They would have had their own heavy package in. They were stuck in 11 personnel because BB gets the last sub.

You keep saying this. They weren't "stuck" in anything, they could have put in any package that they wanted. They chose to get cute with it and got burned.

They put out the light set. They thought NE would go light, too. The goal line package surprised them. On the mic'd up video Carroll says, "They're going goal line. They're going goal line," in alarm. After the game Carroll said he didn't like the look they got.

I'm essentially telling you exactly what BOTH coaches have said.

 

[rockaction]

You're so sure you want to run into this, when you've got three downs.

What kind of formation do you think they would have faced on 3rd and 4th down?

They would have had their own heavy package in. They were stuck in 11 personnel because BB gets the last sub.

You keep saying this. They weren't "stuck" in anything, they could have put in any package that they wanted. They chose to get cute with it and got burned.

They (Seattle) put out the light set. They thought NE would go light, too. The goal line package surprised them. On the mic'd up video Carroll says, "They're going goal line. They're going goal line," in alarm. After the game Carroll said he didn't like the look they got.

I'm essentially telling you exactly what BOTH coaches have said.

Uh huh. That would seem to be the problem, eh?

 

[rockaction]

I don't understand why NE fans are all wrapped up in this. You won.

What does it matter that the other team committed a colossal failure? The ring is there.

If it's that big of a pride thing, you'll have a good chance to see it next year. I think, cap permitting, both teams are back.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This could just go on forever. Amazing how the Hawks have gone from darlings to dolts in one fell swoop though, I think they were feeding off some kind of self-concept and I wonder if that's all in pieces now.

 

[Old Smiley]

I don't understand why NE fans are all wrapped up in this. You won.

What does it matter that the other team committed a colossal failure? The ring is there.

If it's that big of a pride thing, you'll have a good chance to see it next year. I think, cap permitting, both teams are back.

The whole "worst playcall in history" just seems like hyperbolic after the fact second guessing to me. I don't even like Carroll. He rubs me the wrong way. But I still don't think it's right that he should go down in history as a screw-up because Collinsworth's tampon fell out.

For me at least, it's separate from the outcome of the game. Which was glorious.

 

[cstu]

You're so sure you want to run into this, when you've got three downs.

What kind of formation do you think they would have faced on 3rd and 4th down?

They would have had their own heavy package in. They were stuck in 11 personnel because BB gets the last sub.

You keep saying this. They weren't "stuck" in anything, they could have put in any package that they wanted. They chose to get cute with it and got burned.

They put out the light set. They thought NE would go light, too. The goal line package surprised them. On the mic'd up video Carroll says, "They're going goal line. They're going goal line," in alarm. After the game Carroll said he didn't like the look they got.

I'm essentially telling you exactly what BOTH coaches have said.

at Carroll being shocked Belichick put out his goal line package.

 

[ILUVBEER99]

I don't understand why NE fans are all wrapped up in this. You won.

What does it matter that the other team committed a colossal failure? The ring is there.

If it's that big of a pride thing, you'll have a good chance to see it next year. I think, cap permitting, both teams are back.

The whole "worst playcall in history" just seems like hyperbolic after the fact second guessing to me. I don't even like Carroll. He rubs me the wrong way. But I still don't think it's right that he should go down in history as a screw-up because Collinsworth's tampon fell out.For me at least, it's separate from the outcome of the game. Which was glorious.

It wasn't after the fact second guessing. When they lined up in shotgun everyone I was watching with was screaming WTF. Even if the play would have worked I would have thought it was a moronic call.

What's happening after the fact is people trying to justify a horrendous decision by SEA coaches throwing out game theory justifications by cherry picking numbers that fit their "theory".

 

[Niles Standish]

I don't understand why NE fans are all wrapped up in this. You won.

What does it matter that the other team committed a colossal failure? The ring is there.

If it's that big of a pride thing, you'll have a good chance to see it next year. I think, cap permitting, both teams are back.

I think it's partly the Seattle fans who can't admit they got beat. Instead saying we beat ourselves. Butler made a great play, live with it. Honest question do you think Seattle played a better game than New England?

 

[rockaction]

I don't understand why NE fans are all wrapped up in this. You won.

What does it matter that the other team committed a colossal failure? The ring is there.

If it's that big of a pride thing, you'll have a good chance to see it next year. I think, cap permitting, both teams are back.

I think it's partly the Seattle fans who can't admit they got beat. Instead saying we beat ourselves. Butler made a great play, live with it. Honest question do you think Seattle played a better game than New England?

First bolded: I'm not seeing a lot of that. But I'm not in other threads. It seems like you'd have to admit you got beat. There's interceptions, fights, confetti, etc.

Second bolded: I think it was as close as the score indicated. I don't mean that tersely. I think New England won and deserved to win. I think Seattle got a wild break with the Kearse catch and followed it up with a wild malfunction.

I think if the teams play each other ten times, it's a split. Doesn't matter, though. NE are champs. It hurts to type it out.

Just not understanding why NE fans are defending the play call. It was terrible.

 

[Tool]

I don't understand why NE fans are all wrapped up in this. You won.

What does it matter that the other team committed a colossal failure? The ring is there.

If it's that big of a pride thing, you'll have a good chance to see it next year. I think, cap permitting, both teams are back.

I think it's partly the Seattle fans who can't admit they got beat. Instead saying we beat ourselves. Butler made a great play, live with it. Honest question do you think Seattle played a better game than New England?

First bolded: I'm not seeing a lot of that. But I'm not in other threads. It seems like you'd have to admit you got beat. There's interceptions, fights, confetti, etc.

Second bolded: I think it was as close as the score indicated. I don't mean that tersely. I think New England won and deserved to win. I think Seattle got a wild break with the Kearse catch and followed it up with a wild malfunction.

I think if the teams play each other ten times, it's a split. Doesn't matter, though. NE are champs. It hurts to type it out.

Just not understanding why NE fans are defending the play call. It was terrible.

I agree with most of this. I think the play call was surprising and maybe the wrong call, but it's being portrayed as the worst call in history only because it didn't work. If Wilson had thrown it differently, if Lockette hadn't alligator armed it, or if Butler didn't make the play of his life it would have been a TD or an incompletion.

 

[humpback]

You're so sure you want to run into this, when you've got three downs.

What kind of formation do you think they would have faced on 3rd and 4th down?

They would have had their own heavy package in. They were stuck in 11 personnel because BB gets the last sub.

You keep saying this. They weren't "stuck" in anything, they could have put in any package that they wanted. They chose to get cute with it and got burned.

They put out the light set. They thought NE would go light, too. The goal line package surprised them. On the mic'd up video Carroll says, "They're going goal line. They're going goal line," in alarm. After the game Carroll said he didn't like the look they got.

I'm essentially telling you exactly what BOTH coaches have said.

Does it sound as ridiculous to you as it does to everyone else?

Like I said, they could have put in any package that they wanted. They chose to get cute with it and it blew up in their faces.

He's on record saying that they didn't originally call for a run and switch to a pass, so saying "They're going goal line. They're going goal line" was most likely him being optimistic that his dumb play call had a better chance at working. Anyone who is shocked that the defense would go with a goal line package at the goal line deserves to be fired. It isn't as if Seattle went 5 wide and NE left them uncovered.

 

[Anarchy99]

In any after the fact analysis, whatever play was called will be considered wrong because it didn't work. And any other play will automatically be considered a better option because there would be no record of failure. Since the other proposed play never happened, there is no possible way of knowing what the result would have been.

Sure, running Lynch three more times could have yielded a touchdown. But there was a non-100% chance it would have worked out. The line could have moved for an illegal procedure penalty. A lineman could have been called for holding. They could have botched the snap or fumbled. Wilson could have turned the wrong way and been nailed in the backfield. Lynch could have been stuffed. They could have run out of time and not gotten a final play off. Lynch could have torn his ACL. All of those would have been unlikely or had a slim chance of happening . . . but that doesn't mean they couldn't have happened.

If Butler only knocked the ball down instead of picking it off, we would not still be discussing it. If the ball is caught for a TD and NE ends up needing to go 50+ yards for a game tying FG with 15 seconds left and SEA wins, people would say Carroll did a masterful job of burning clock and still scoring. But that's not what happened, so what he chose to do has to be considered a bad call.

 

[Niles Standish]

I don't understand why NE fans are all wrapped up in this. You won.

What does it matter that the other team committed a colossal failure? The ring is there.

If it's that big of a pride thing, you'll have a good chance to see it next year. I think, cap permitting, both teams are back.

I think it's partly the Seattle fans who can't admit they got beat. Instead saying we beat ourselves. Butler made a great play, live with it. Honest question do you think Seattle played a better game than New England?

First bolded: I'm not seeing a lot of that. But I'm not in other threads. It seems like you'd have to admit you got beat. There's interceptions, fights, confetti, etc.

Second bolded: I think it was as close as the score indicated. I don't mean that tersely. I think New England won and deserved to win. I think Seattle got a wild break with the Kearse catch and followed it up with a wild malfunction.

I think if the teams play each other ten times, it's a split. Doesn't matter, though. NE are champs. It hurts to type it out.

Just not understanding why NE fans are defending the play call. It was terrible.

Just the whole narrative of the worst play call ever. It's like saying the Seahawks beat themselves. New England didn't earn the win they were bailed out by a bad play call.

Like it or not, admit it or not. The Pats made a great play to end.

 

[davearm]

I don't understand why NE fans are all wrapped up in this. You won.

What does it matter that the other team committed a colossal failure? The ring is there.

If it's that big of a pride thing, you'll have a good chance to see it next year. I think, cap permitting, both teams are back.

I think it's partly the Seattle fans who can't admit they got beat. Instead saying we beat ourselves. Butler made a great play, live with it. Honest question do you think Seattle played a better game than New England?

First bolded: I'm not seeing a lot of that. But I'm not in other threads. It seems like you'd have to admit you got beat. There's interceptions, fights, confetti, etc.

Second bolded: I think it was as close as the score indicated. I don't mean that tersely. I think New England won and deserved to win. I think Seattle got a wild break with the Kearse catch and followed it up with a wild malfunction.

I think if the teams play each other ten times, it's a split. Doesn't matter, though. NE are champs. It hurts to type it out.

Just not understanding why NE fans are defending the play call. It was terrible.

Just the whole narrative of the worst play call ever. It's like saying the Seahawks beat themselves. New England didn't earn the win they were bailed out by a bad play call.

Like it or not, admit it or not. The Pats made a great play to end.

It doesn't have to be one or the other.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Like it or not, admit it or not. The Pats made a great play to end.

Has anybody denied that? That would be pretty silly. The interception was obviously a great, season-defining play. But that play would never have occurred if the Seahawks hadn't first chosen to do something monumentally stupid.

I've been out of this thread for a while, but this is looking like the Rams-Patriots super bowl all over again. NE won a championship in large part due to gross incompetence by the other team. No shame in that -- it's outside their control, and they worked hard to make it to that game. That wouldn't bother me in the slightest if my team had been the one on the receiving end of good fortune, but for some reason Patriot fans get snippy about it. That's how the whole "whiny tools" thing started around here in the first place.

 

[Niles Standish]

Like it or not, admit it or not. The Pats made a great play to end.

Has anybody denied that? That would be pretty silly. The interception was obviously a great, season-defining play. But that play would never have occurred if the Seahawks hadn't first chosen to do something monumentally stupid.

I've been out of this thread for a while, but this is looking like the Rams-Patriots super bowl all over again. NE won a championship in large part due to gross incompetence by the other team. No shame in that -- it's outside their control, and they worked hard to make it to that game. That wouldn't bother me in the slightest if my team had been the one on the receiving end of good fortune, but for some reason Patriot fans get snippy about it. That's how the whole "whiny tools" thing started around here in the first place.

So would the Seahawks have won if they didn't make a dumb call?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Like it or not, admit it or not. The Pats made a great play to end.

Has anybody denied that? That would be pretty silly. The interception was obviously a great, season-defining play. But that play would never have occurred if the Seahawks hadn't first chosen to do something monumentally stupid.

I've been out of this thread for a while, but this is looking like the Rams-Patriots super bowl all over again. NE won a championship in large part due to gross incompetence by the other team. No shame in that -- it's outside their control, and they worked hard to make it to that game. That wouldn't bother me in the slightest if my team had been the one on the receiving end of good fortune, but for some reason Patriot fans get snippy about it. That's how the whole "whiny tools" thing started around here in the first place.

So would the Seahawks have won if they didn't make a dumb call?

Very likely, yes.

Edit: I haven't read the whole thread. Nobody's disputing that, right?

 

[Old Smiley]

It would have taken a goal line stand for the ages.

edit: But, two stops from the one IS doable...

And if you want to talk about whining, I freely admit that if we'd lost I would have been whining about the Kearse catch. Whining, kvetching, rending my garments, the whole deal.

 

[Tool]

Not sure if this has already been posted

If you're one of the people who thought the Seahawks made the wrong call on their final offensive play of Super Bowl XLIX, Mark Cuban has something he wants to tell you: You're an idiot.

The Dallas Mavericks owner was asked this week about the Seahawks decision to throw a pass from the 1-yard line on their final offensive play of the game. Russell Wilson's pass ended up being picked off by New England's Malcolm Butler.

"Those people that said, 'Oh, it's the worst call ever,' they're idiots," Cuban said, via ESPN.com. "Never take advice from someone who doesn't have to live with the consequences. So what I say is worth what it's worth, but they've never been in a situation where you've got to make a call where everything, literally everything, is on the line. If you're afraid to go with what's gotten you there, you're not long for this league."

Cuban also said that if he owned the team, he would be mad about the loss, but not because of the call.

"If it was me and that happened, I'd be pissed, but I wouldn't be mad at the coach and I wouldn't be mad at the call," Cuban said. "If they ran it and got stopped, I would be mad. Because then that means you p------ out.

Cuban clearly paid attention to the Super Bowl because he pointed out the fact that Chris Matthews, who didn't catch a pass during the regular season, ended up starring for the Seahawks.

"You got to go with what got you there. The randomness of plays, that's what got them there," Cuban said. "The dude that was the impact receiver [in the game] didn't catch a pass all season. So by definition they're not a team that plays to the odds. If you play to the odds, you're going to lose."

Coaches that play to the odds are the ones who don't have jobs for very long, according to Cuban.

"I don't know if they gave the reason why they called that particular play, but there's a reason," Cuban said. "I'll go with the logic of that reason versus conventional wisdom every day, because the guys who follow conventional wisdom are the ones looking for jobs right now."

Cuban sees eye-to-eye with Billl Belichick, who said earlier this week that the Seahawks coaching staff shouldn't be criticized for the play call.

"Malcolm and Brandon [browner], on that particular play, just made a great play," Belichick said. "I think the criticism they've gotten for the game is totally out of line and by a lot of people who I don't think are anywhere near even qualified to be commenting on it."

 

[humpback]

I'm really trying to find some kind of explanation that makes sense, but none of them do. Go with what got them there? Yeah, Mark, that would be the running game.

 

[cstu]

I'm really trying to find some kind of explanation that makes sense, but none of them do. Go with what got them there? Yeah, Mark, that would be the running game.

He's saying it's the 'randomness of plays'.

 

[cstu]

It would have taken a goal line stand for the ages.

edit: But, two stops from the one IS doable...

And if you want to talk about whining, I freely admit that if we'd lost I would have been whining about the Kearse catch. Whining, kvetching, rending my garments, the whole deal.

If you're going to lose, lose by trusting your OL and best player (or QB sneak) to get you 1 yard on three tries.

 

[cstu]

Was Bevell influenced by what Brady did in the 4th quarter?

2-4-SEA 4 (8:00) (Shotgun) 12-T.Brady pass short middle to 80-D.Amendola for 4 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

2-3-SEA 3 (2:06) 12-T.Brady pass short left to 11-J.Edelman for 3 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

 

[ShamrockPride]

I think it starts and ends with this: In that situation, regardless of whatever D NE put out there before the Hawks came out of the huddle, what do you think the Hawks were going to do? Anybody who knows jack s### about football and the teams playing would have definitively said "of course they're going to run it". It's what their offense is built around.

And that's it. That's all that needs to be said. The call went against all common sense and conventional wisdom. Running is what they do and they didn't run. You can pull out all the stats you want. Make it simpler than stat digging. Running is what Seattle does best and they chose not to run. That's why everyone is dumbfounded and calling it an awful call. Because they didn't go with the undisputed strength of their offense.

 

[Anarchy99]

Serious question. If the Seahawks ran Lynch on 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th down and he got stuffed and didn't score, wouldn't there be as equally much clamoring that they were too conservative, the play calling was terrible, and they should have passed at least once?

 

[ShamrockPride]

Serious question. If the Seahawks ran Lynch on 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th down and he got stuffed and didn't score, wouldn't there be as equally much clamoring that they were too conservative, the play calling was terrible, and they should have passed at least once?

I don't think so simply due to the question that would inevitably arise "Well WHO are you gonna try to throw it to?" With that said, Seattle can get creative while running it. Wouldn't just be straight handoffs. They'd throw a draw or some read options in the mix.

 

[Old Smiley]

I think it starts and ends with this: In that situation, regardless of whatever D NE put out there before the Hawks came out of the huddle, what do you think the Hawks were going to do? Anybody who knows jack s### about football and the teams playing would have definitively said "of course they're going to run it". It's what their offense is built around.

And that's it. That's all that needs to be said. The call went against all common sense and conventional wisdom. Running is what they do and they didn't run. You can pull out all the stats you want. Make it simpler than stat digging. Running is what Seattle does best and they chose not to run. That's why everyone is dumbfounded and calling it an awful call. Because they didn't go with the undisputed strength of their offense.

That is bad football. I bet you know better than that.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Serious question. If the Seahawks ran Lynch on 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th down and he got stuffed and didn't score, wouldn't there be as equally much clamoring that they were too conservative, the play calling was terrible, and they should have passed at least once?

Probably. Although in that case the main topic of conversation would probably have been centered around NE putting up the most memorable goal line stand of all time.

The criticism of Seattle isn't just that they called a passing play -- it's also that they called an incredibly risky passing play. I think a lot of people who are blasting that call would have been more or less fine with a fade or roll-out or something like that. At least that kind of pass would have more supporters.

 

[ShamrockPride]

I think it starts and ends with this: In that situation, regardless of whatever D NE put out there before the Hawks came out of the huddle, what do you think the Hawks were going to do? Anybody who knows jack s### about football and the teams playing would have definitively said "of course they're going to run it". It's what their offense is built around.

And that's it. That's all that needs to be said. The call went against all common sense and conventional wisdom. Running is what they do and they didn't run. You can pull out all the stats you want. Make it simpler than stat digging. Running is what Seattle does best and they chose not to run. That's why everyone is dumbfounded and calling it an awful call. Because they didn't go with the undisputed strength of their offense.

That is bad football. I bet you know better than that.

Not really. You have the best power running back to come along in the past 20 years at least. Running is what you do. You have done it at an unparalleled success for the past two years, so naturally your o-line is extremely capable against anybody. You can match up against absolutely anybody. What are you scared of running it for?

Edit: Also, nice attempt at dodging the overall point of the post by nitpicking 8 words of a few paragraphs. I stand by what I said.

 

[davearm]

The criticism of Seattle isn't just that they called a passing play -- it's also that they called an incredibly risky passing play. I think a lot of people who are blasting that call would have been more or less fine with a fade or roll-out or something like that. At least that kind of pass would have more supporters.

It would have been pretty sweet if the Seahawks had won the game on the same in-out route that Edelman burned them on.