The worst play call in NFL history (1 Viewer)

[Tool]

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.

I don't think a slant was any more risky than a fade or roll out. Either of those plays could have been intercepted too.

 

[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.

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.

NE had eight men in the box. Those eight words are central to what I'm arguing.

BTW: I have stayed totally away from numbers. I'm not a math guy. But, I will say that's the first pass intercepted at the one yard line all season. That number jumped out in terms of whether that was a super risky call.

All I've been doing is pretty much restating what the coaches of both teams have said. I don't find their statements unsatisfactory.

Look, no hard feelings. We disagree.

 

[espnespn]

A dropped pass is not a play call.

You seem to be confusing play calls with plays. Lots of blown plays or other negative play results in massive changes in the chances of winning. The results of this particular play probably dropped the Seahawks' chances of winning by about 80%, not 8%. And I'm sure if you looked long enough you could find one that resulted in close to a 100% drop in win probability.

That is not this. This is a simple decision to pass instead of run that dropped win percentage by 8%. That's a big difference before the ball is even snapped. I think you'd have a difficult time finding a pre-snap decision (run vs pass, FG/punt vs go for it, two point conversion vs extra point, etc.) that altered things more than that.

OK, since you seem to think 8% is huge, can you provide some winning probability comparisons to other SB pre-snap decisions that people generally view as mistakes? If we are having a logical discussion, shouldn't the burden of proof be on the person making the claim?

That's like me saying "XXX is the best QB ever. I'm not supplying any comparison data to other QBs. Go debunk my claim."

There's no burden of proof here. It's not a court of law, my position is as valid as yours.

It's possible that someone made a worse pre-snap call at a key point in the Super Bowl, although I definitely don't remember it. Plus the question is subjective by its nature, obviously many coaches have done many things that were far stupider in the entire history of professional football coaching decisions- I remember for example Joe Gibbs calling consecutive timeouts and incurring a 15 yard penalty as a result that turned a tough game-winning FG into a relatively easy one. So whether this is the "worst" depends how how heavily you weigh the fact that this came with 30 seconds left in a closely decided Super Bowl.

If you want to see what kinds of decisions make that kind of difference in win probability, here's a good one from this year's playoffs: Detroit's decision to punt to Dallas on 4th and 1 on the Dallas 46 after the controversial PI flag was picked up. The decision was panned almost universally. It only cost Detroit about 1.6% off their win probability. Note also that the pickup of the PI flag resulted in a 6% reduction in Detroit's win probability. In other words, Carroll's play call was a worse coaching decision as far as impact on the team's chance to win than if the PI had been called and the Lions had decided to decline it.

Those numbers only use league averages rather than accounting for personnel of course, but you get the general idea.

No one is saying this is a court of law. I am talking about the philosophical burden of proof, and all positions are not equally valid without any proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true."

The issue with this entire thread, is that most everyone claiming that this is the worst call ever, really has provided no empirical evidence that what they claim is true. Where are the stat comparisons to other bad calls in previous SBs?

One guy came up with a simulation that running vs. passing is a 85% vs. 77% advantage. Nowhere do we get any concrete evidence that 8% is a huge difference. This comparison is crucial for knowing how bad this call was. And the burden is on the people making the claim that this call is the worst ever, to provide some evidence. Otherwise, they have started with a baseless claim in the first place.

Btw, even the 8% advantage is dubious. Nate Silver's website (which to me is much more credible about statistical analysis) says this:

"Under the most pro-Beast set of assumptions, rushing may have been the better play but by the slimmest of margins (0.3 percentage points). Under a more pro-Gostkowski set of assumptions, passing may have been the best play by up to 3 percentage points.

But we’re still discussing marginal improvements in odds. Pick which assumptions you like; it doesn’t really matter. Carroll’s decision wasn’t the epically bad call many have made it out to be."

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-head-coach-botched-the-end-of-the-super-bowl-and-it-wasnt-pete-carroll/

 

[humpback]

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?

Serious answer- no. I also don't think as many people would be clamoring if the particular pass play they called was different, and/or if it came on 3rd or 4th down. It's the combination that makes it so bad.

 

[espnespn]

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.

Russell Wilson's INT percentage in the 2013 playoffs when they won the SB was 0.0%

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

Lynch had 19 fumbles in 2033 career carries, which is a .0093 fumble rate. Wilson's career INT rate is 2.1%. I agree that Wilson's chances of a turnover are higher than Lynch. But does that small difference prove that this is "the worst call ever"? No.

http://www.nfl.com/player/marshawnlynch/2495663/careerstats

 

[JIslander]

Face it Pats fans. That's how this game is going down in history. Yeah, you "won" but only because of the worst call ever in the Superbowl. I'm sure you never gave the Steelers grief in their win over Seahawks in XL.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Face it Pats fans. That's how this game is going down in history. Yeah, you "won" but only because of the worst call ever in the Superbowl. I'm sure you never gave the Steelers grief in their win over Seahawks in XL.

No, that's now how its "going down in history". That's only how you see it going down in your head, but the Pats won that game because they were the better team that day.

All the excuse making in the world doesn't change that fact. The NFL history book does not contain asteriks' because a bunch of fans from the opposing team got but-hurt.

 

[JIslander]

Face it Pats fans. That's how this game is going down in history. Yeah, you "won" but only because of the worst call ever in the Superbowl. I'm sure you never gave the Steelers grief in their win over Seahawks in XL.

No, that's now how its "going down in history". That's only how you see it going down in your head, but the Pats won that game because they were the better team that day.

All the excuse making in the world doesn't change that fact. The NFL history book does not contain asteriks' because a bunch of fans from the opposing team got but-hurt.

That's your opinion, as is mine. Funny how this thread is 80% Pats fans though.

 

[Niles Standish]

It's funny because the exact same people would be saying worst call ever if Seattle ran and fumbled it away.

 

[ShamrockPride]

It's funny because the exact same people would be saying worst call ever if Seattle ran and fumbled it away.

That's pretty inaccurate. That's not a bad play call, that's poor ball security in which case the scapegoat would (accurately) be 100% who the ball carrier was. A la Earnest Byner.

 

[JIslander]

It's funny because the exact same people would be saying worst call ever if Seattle ran and fumbled it away.

No. I think there we'd all be in agreement that would be one of the worst if not the worst fumble in Super Bowl history.

 

[Tool]

Face it Pats fans. That's how this game is going down in history. Yeah, you "won" but only because of the worst call ever in the Superbowl. I'm sure you never gave the Steelers grief in their win over Seahawks in XL.

Even though you're wrong, the best night of my life was when a woman made the worst decision of her life. Who cares.

 

[JIslander]

For what it's worth, I do believe the Pats were the better team, but you Pats fans are so insufferable I couldn't refrain. But still, me thinks that's how history will paint this one...

 

[DropKick]

For what it's worth, I do believe the Pats were the better team, but you Pats fans are so insufferable I couldn't refrain. But still, me thinks that's how history will paint this one...

I think history will remember this as an example of outstanding coaching and a rookie making a great play on the biggest possible stage.

 

[rockaction]

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. I think the reason they're getting so much criticism is because they left the best part of their offense (a guy who Barry Sanders calls the best back in the game, and whose numbers and grading bear it out) out of the equation during the most critical point of their season.

If they ran it three times, then yeah, one would wonder a bit about the play calling, but not nearly as much as people are wondering now. Here's an imperfect analogy, but I'll use it anyway: It's like a bunch of thieves had a battering ram at the door and spent fifteen minutes trying to pick the lock while the cops were coming.

 

[cowboyz1]

You all that are ok with the call can argue till the cows come home but the only call that makes any sense given the prowess of the Seattle running game and the magnitude of the situation, was to run the football up the gut and score. There is no other call to make there. Putting the ball in the air is asking for something crazy to happen. Especially after witnessing something crazy to get them down there in the first place. It's like running the ball when all need be done is a victory formation kneel down. The fact that he didn't just trust his O line that prides itself on power football and his Beast Mode running back to get 1/2 yard to win the SuperBowl is just plain crazy. There simply isn't any other call to make in that situation. I just can't imagine the Seattle Seahawks offense getting stuffed at the half yard line with the SuperBowl on the line. I just don't see it. Not in a million years.

It's just Seattle Stupid to have gifted the game away with the worst call in NFL history. No other way to see it really.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

It's funny because the exact same people would be saying worst call ever if Seattle ran and fumbled it away.

I'm the biggest anti-hindsight guy on this board but that is just patently false.

 

[Niles Standish]

It's funny because the exact same people would be saying worst call ever if Seattle ran and fumbled it away.

I'm the biggest anti-hindsight guy on this board but that is just patently false.

I am impressed with all the mental gymnastics going on. Wilson gets no blame whatsoever. Butler gets no credit for his play.Without an amazing play by Butler Seattle gets a TD. The run pass percentages are about the same over 5 years, but this is the worst call ever. Seattle doesn't play as vanilla as everyone here wants in hindsight. But no one was complaining about the fake FG against GB or the first half TD shot against NE.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It's funny because the exact same people would be saying worst call ever if Seattle ran and fumbled it away.

Oh come on.

 

[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.

Russell Wilson's INT percentage in the 2013 playoffs when they won the SB was 0.0%

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

Lynch had 19 fumbles in 2033 career carries, which is a .0093 fumble rate. Wilson's career INT rate is 2.1%. I agree that Wilson's chances of a turnover are higher than Lynch. But does that small difference prove that this is "the worst call ever"? No.

http://www.nfl.com/player/marshawnlynch/2495663/careerstats

Your stats are meaningless. What Wilson did in 2013 in the 2013 SB have zero bearing on what play call the called on that play. The way Wilson was quarterbacking in this SB was lack luster at best. The way Wilson was quarterbacking in this years playoffs was nothing short of pathetic. Seattle didn't make the Super Bowl because of Wilson--they made it there IN SPITE of Wilsons horrible quarterbacking against Green Bay. The dude basically tried to give the game away and his team got fortunate that Green Bay made a series of errors that gave him a chance to make a play to barely "redeem" himself". If you want to use semantics and try to use meaningless stats to say it wasn't the worst call ever--fine--maybe it was a top five or ten worst call ever---that still doesn't make it better. I have already given you stats that Lynch's rushing turnover rate for this season are 4 times less likely that Wilsons int rate on a pass. You keep bringing up Lynch's career rate--nobody cares what he did in Buffalo or on teams with different rosters and offensive lines--which is why you need to look at what he is doing this season, this playoffs--with this roster. I think that's a big and fair sample size.

Lastly--part of why it was a horrid play call--is simple clock management. Even if the play succeeded--it would have been a quick hitting play that would have maximized the time that New England would have had left with the ball. Secondly--if the play fails and ends up incomplete--it doesn't force New England to call a timeout--which again plays in their favor. Thirdly---it completely negates New England from even contemplating the possibility of letting Lynch score the TD so that they do get the ball back with some time left. The play was horrid because running the ball gave them an advantage in each and every one of the aspects I just mentioned. Your stats don't even look at the negative clock management issues with passing the ball.

 

[espnespn]

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.

Russell Wilson's INT percentage in the 2013 playoffs when they won the SB was 0.0%

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

Lynch had 19 fumbles in 2033 career carries, which is a .0093 fumble rate. Wilson's career INT rate is 2.1%. I agree that Wilson's chances of a turnover are higher than Lynch. But does that small difference prove that this is "the worst call ever"? No.

http://www.nfl.com/player/marshawnlynch/2495663/careerstats

Your stats are meaningless. What Wilson did in 2013 in the 2013 SB have zero bearing on what play call the called on that play. The way Wilson was quarterbacking in this SB was lack luster at best. The way Wilson was quarterbacking in this years playoffs was nothing short of pathetic. Seattle didn't make the Super Bowl because of Wilson--they made it there IN SPITE of Wilsons horrible quarterbacking against Green Bay. The dude basically tried to give the game away and his team got fortunate that Green Bay made a series of errors that gave him a chance to make a play to barely "redeem" himself". If you want to use semantics and try to use meaningless stats to say it wasn't the worst call ever--fine--maybe it was a top five or ten worst call ever---that still doesn't make it better. I have already given you stats that Lynch's rushing turnover rate for this season are 4 times less likely that Wilsons int rate on a pass. You keep bringing up Lynch's career rate--nobody cares what he did in Buffalo or on teams with different rosters and offensive lines--which is why you need to look at what he is doing this season, this playoffs--with this roster. I think that's a big and fair sample size.

Lastly--part of why it was a horrid play call--is simple clock management. Even if the play succeeded--it would have been a quick hitting play that would have maximized the time that New England would have had left with the ball. Secondly--if the play fails and ends up incomplete--it doesn't force New England to call a timeout--which again plays in their favor. Thirdly---it completely negates New England from even contemplating the possibility of letting Lynch score the TD so that they do get the ball back with some time left. The play was horrid because running the ball gave them an advantage in each and every one of the aspects I just mentioned. Your stats don't even look at the negative clock management issues with passing the ball.

Of course letting Wilson pass and risking a 2.2% INT rate is riskier than letting Lynch run and risking a 0.5% fumble. If those are the 2014 numbers, they are what they are.

However, there has been no proof presented whatsoever that this is a top-5 or top-10 worst call either. People who say it is, are pulling it out of thin air because they have provided no statistical comparisons to other bad plays. You keep saying it is bad, but have no comparison evidence. And without any comparison evidence, no one knows.

I'm saying that what may seem "obvious" to you (and the a lot of fans) may be the mathematically incorrect play. Let me give you an example: Seattle kicked a FG in the 3rd quarter, when it was 4th and 1 on the Pats 8-yard line. Seems obvious to kick a FG right? Guess what: kicking a FG was wrong. Going for it was the correct play.

http://nyt4thdownbot.com/play.html?gameid=02012015_NE@SEA&playid=201502010262341

 

[PatsWillWin]

For what it's worth, I do believe the Pats were the better team, but you Pats fans are so insufferable I couldn't refrain. But still, me thinks that's how history will paint this one...

Fine by me. I'm sure it's fine by the Steeler fans too. Personally I think the entire 4th quarter will be remembered - including Brady's two game clinching drives, the absurd Kearse catch, The Call, and The Interception. But even if you're right, fine by me. I enjoyed this SB the most out of the four the Patriots have won.

 

[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.

Russell Wilson's INT percentage in the 2013 playoffs when they won the SB was 0.0%

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

Lynch had 19 fumbles in 2033 career carries, which is a .0093 fumble rate. Wilson's career INT rate is 2.1%. I agree that Wilson's chances of a turnover are higher than Lynch. But does that small difference prove that this is "the worst call ever"? No.

http://www.nfl.com/player/marshawnlynch/2495663/careerstats

Your stats are meaningless. What Wilson did in 2013 in the 2013 SB have zero bearing on what play call the called on that play. The way Wilson was quarterbacking in this SB was lack luster at best. The way Wilson was quarterbacking in this years playoffs was nothing short of pathetic. Seattle didn't make the Super Bowl because of Wilson--they made it there IN SPITE of Wilsons horrible quarterbacking against Green Bay. The dude basically tried to give the game away and his team got fortunate that Green Bay made a series of errors that gave him a chance to make a play to barely "redeem" himself". If you want to use semantics and try to use meaningless stats to say it wasn't the worst call ever--fine--maybe it was a top five or ten worst call ever---that still doesn't make it better. I have already given you stats that Lynch's rushing turnover rate for this season are 4 times less likely that Wilsons int rate on a pass. You keep bringing up Lynch's career rate--nobody cares what he did in Buffalo or on teams with different rosters and offensive lines--which is why you need to look at what he is doing this season, this playoffs--with this roster. I think that's a big and fair sample size.

Lastly--part of why it was a horrid play call--is simple clock management. Even if the play succeeded--it would have been a quick hitting play that would have maximized the time that New England would have had left with the ball. Secondly--if the play fails and ends up incomplete--it doesn't force New England to call a timeout--which again plays in their favor. Thirdly---it completely negates New England from even contemplating the possibility of letting Lynch score the TD so that they do get the ball back with some time left. The play was horrid because running the ball gave them an advantage in each and every one of the aspects I just mentioned. Your stats don't even look at the negative clock management issues with passing the ball.

Of course letting Wilson pass and risking a 2.2% INT rate is riskier than letting Lynch run and risking a 0.05% fumble. If those are the 2014 numbers, they are what they are.

However, there has been no proof presented whatsoever that this is a top-5 or top-10 worst call either. People who say it is, are pulling it out of thin air because they have provided no statistical comparisons to other bad plays. You keep saying it is bad, but have no comparison evidence. And without any comparison evidence, no one knows.

I'm saying that what may seem "obvious" to you (and the a lot of fans) may be the mathematically incorrect play. Let me give you an example: Seattle kicked a FG in the 3rd quarter, when it was 4th and 1 on the Pats 8-yard line. Seems obvious to kick a FG right? Guess what: kicking a FG was wrong. Going for it was the correct play.

http://nyt4thdownbot.com/play.html?gameid=02012015_NE@SEA&playid=201502010262341

With all due respect--you are changing the grounds of your argument. You first tried to argue that it wasn't a horrid play call through cherry picked stats. When more applicable stats are brought to your attention that shows how bad the play call is (along with the negative clock implication attributes)--you now are arguing about what "rank" the play should be in how historically horrid it is. The actual historic ranking in regards to how bad the play call was--is subjective person by person. It's very difficult to argue over something that is so subjective. However, the fact that the primary conversation that we are having is "how does this play call rank in the history of bad calls in the NFL" basically cements the fact that it was a historically bad call. If you want to rank it 20 and me rank it 1-then so be it--you won't have an argument from me. However--if somebody wants to try to argue that it was "a good call" or "the right call"---I disagree there.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I've kinda come full circle on this. I don't think this can be considered the worst play call in history because the fact is, regardless of what play was called, the Seahawks were going to win the Super Bowl. Or at least, they win it 99 out of 100 times. If calling this play reduced that to 98 out of 100 times or whatever, okay, that's bad, but it still shouldn't have mattered.

Similarly, Belichick not calling a TO, lots of people are calling that a stupid call. I call it making a decision between two choices both of which are extremely unlikely to lead to a Patriot victory. Call a TO, SEA bleeds the clock, and Brady has like 20-30 seconds with no time outs. Don't call a TO, maybe Caroll makes an unusual call which leads to a historical play. Either way, the Patriots were ####ed, the Seahawks were going to win.

Chance, mistakes, and skill created an extremely unlikely outcome.

 

[Sabertooth]

Any time you fail like this. It's the worst. I think picking Kevin Dyson over Randy Moss was a worse call though. It failed for years and years.

 

[Sabertooth]

also picking Tony Mandarich over Barry sanders, Deion Sanders and Derrick Thomas was a way worse call.

 

[espnespn]

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.

Russell Wilson's INT percentage in the 2013 playoffs when they won the SB was 0.0%

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

Lynch had 19 fumbles in 2033 career carries, which is a .0093 fumble rate. Wilson's career INT rate is 2.1%. I agree that Wilson's chances of a turnover are higher than Lynch. But does that small difference prove that this is "the worst call ever"? No.

http://www.nfl.com/player/marshawnlynch/2495663/careerstats

Your stats are meaningless. What Wilson did in 2013 in the 2013 SB have zero bearing on what play call the called on that play. The way Wilson was quarterbacking in this SB was lack luster at best. The way Wilson was quarterbacking in this years playoffs was nothing short of pathetic. Seattle didn't make the Super Bowl because of Wilson--they made it there IN SPITE of Wilsons horrible quarterbacking against Green Bay. The dude basically tried to give the game away and his team got fortunate that Green Bay made a series of errors that gave him a chance to make a play to barely "redeem" himself". If you want to use semantics and try to use meaningless stats to say it wasn't the worst call ever--fine--maybe it was a top five or ten worst call ever---that still doesn't make it better. I have already given you stats that Lynch's rushing turnover rate for this season are 4 times less likely that Wilsons int rate on a pass. You keep bringing up Lynch's career rate--nobody cares what he did in Buffalo or on teams with different rosters and offensive lines--which is why you need to look at what he is doing this season, this playoffs--with this roster. I think that's a big and fair sample size.

Lastly--part of why it was a horrid play call--is simple clock management. Even if the play succeeded--it would have been a quick hitting play that would have maximized the time that New England would have had left with the ball. Secondly--if the play fails and ends up incomplete--it doesn't force New England to call a timeout--which again plays in their favor. Thirdly---it completely negates New England from even contemplating the possibility of letting Lynch score the TD so that they do get the ball back with some time left. The play was horrid because running the ball gave them an advantage in each and every one of the aspects I just mentioned. Your stats don't even look at the negative clock management issues with passing the ball.

Of course letting Wilson pass and risking a 2.2% INT rate is riskier than letting Lynch run and risking a 0.05% fumble. If those are the 2014 numbers, they are what they are.

However, there has been no proof presented whatsoever that this is a top-5 or top-10 worst call either. People who say it is, are pulling it out of thin air because they have provided no statistical comparisons to other bad plays. You keep saying it is bad, but have no comparison evidence. And without any comparison evidence, no one knows.

I'm saying that what may seem "obvious" to you (and the a lot of fans) may be the mathematically incorrect play. Let me give you an example: Seattle kicked a FG in the 3rd quarter, when it was 4th and 1 on the Pats 8-yard line. Seems obvious to kick a FG right? Guess what: kicking a FG was wrong. Going for it was the correct play.

http://nyt4thdownbot.com/play.html?gameid=02012015_NE@SEA&playid=201502010262341

With all due respect--you are changing the grounds of your argument. You first tried to argue that it wasn't a horrid play call through cherry picked stats. When more applicable stats are brought to your attention that shows how bad the play call is (along with the negative clock implication attributes)--you now are arguing about what "rank" the play should be in how historically horrid it is. The actual historic ranking in regards to how bad the play call was--is subjective person by person. It's very difficult to argue over something that is so subjective. However, the fact that the primary conversation that we are having is "how does this play call rank in the history of bad calls in the NFL" basically cements the fact that it was a historically bad call. If you want to rank it 20 and me rank it 1-then so be it--you won't have an argument from me. However--if somebody wants to try to argue that it was "a good call" or "the right call"---I disagree there.

Well, the title of this thread is: "the worst play call in NFL history".

As for stats, there is no consensus that this is a horrible play. The stats that say this is a "horrible play" are also cherry-picked.

I've always agreed that Wilson passing was sub-optimal. But the win probability difference between running and passing seems small. One stat guy said running increases win probability by under 1%. Another stat guy said running vs. passing increased winning chances from 77% vs. 85%.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-head-coach-botched-the-end-of-the-super-bowl-and-it-wasnt-pete-carroll/

http://regressing.deadspin.com/stop-trying-to-convince-yourselves-seattles-pass-call-w-1683463031/+marchman

At least a few people have said that it was obvious this was a horrible play. I don't think saying something is obvious proves anything, because obvious plays in football can often be mathematically incorrect, like the NYT 4th down bot shows.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upshot/4th-down-when-to-go-for-it-and-why.html

 

[espnespn]

I've kinda come full circle on this. I don't think this can be considered the worst play call in history because the fact is, regardless of what play was called, the Seahawks were going to win the Super Bowl. Or at least, they win it 99 out of 100 times. If calling this play reduced that to 98 out of 100 times or whatever, okay, that's bad, but it still shouldn't have mattered.

Similarly, Belichick not calling a TO, lots of people are calling that a stupid call. I call it making a decision between two choices both of which are extremely unlikely to lead to a Patriot victory. Call a TO, SEA bleeds the clock, and Brady has like 20-30 seconds with no time outs. Don't call a TO, maybe Caroll makes an unusual call which leads to a historical play. Either way, the Patriots were ####ed, the Seahawks were going to win.

Chance, mistakes, and skill created an extremely unlikely outcome.

Right, Seattle didn't call the best play but that had a small effect, compared to the huge defensive play made by Butler.

https://www.numberfire.com/nfl/news/4323/how-big-was-malcolm-butler-s-interception-in-super-bowl-xlix#

https://www.numberfire.com/nfl/news/4320/the-seattle-seahawks-passing-decision-not-the-worst-call-in-history

 

[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.

Russell Wilson's INT percentage in the 2013 playoffs when they won the SB was 0.0%

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

Lynch had 19 fumbles in 2033 career carries, which is a .0093 fumble rate. Wilson's career INT rate is 2.1%. I agree that Wilson's chances of a turnover are higher than Lynch. But does that small difference prove that this is "the worst call ever"? No.

http://www.nfl.com/player/marshawnlynch/2495663/careerstats

Your stats are meaningless. What Wilson did in 2013 in the 2013 SB have zero bearing on what play call the called on that play. The way Wilson was quarterbacking in this SB was lack luster at best. The way Wilson was quarterbacking in this years playoffs was nothing short of pathetic. Seattle didn't make the Super Bowl because of Wilson--they made it there IN SPITE of Wilsons horrible quarterbacking against Green Bay. The dude basically tried to give the game away and his team got fortunate that Green Bay made a series of errors that gave him a chance to make a play to barely "redeem" himself". If you want to use semantics and try to use meaningless stats to say it wasn't the worst call ever--fine--maybe it was a top five or ten worst call ever---that still doesn't make it better. I have already given you stats that Lynch's rushing turnover rate for this season are 4 times less likely that Wilsons int rate on a pass. You keep bringing up Lynch's career rate--nobody cares what he did in Buffalo or on teams with different rosters and offensive lines--which is why you need to look at what he is doing this season, this playoffs--with this roster. I think that's a big and fair sample size.

Lastly--part of why it was a horrid play call--is simple clock management. Even if the play succeeded--it would have been a quick hitting play that would have maximized the time that New England would have had left with the ball. Secondly--if the play fails and ends up incomplete--it doesn't force New England to call a timeout--which again plays in their favor. Thirdly---it completely negates New England from even contemplating the possibility of letting Lynch score the TD so that they do get the ball back with some time left. The play was horrid because running the ball gave them an advantage in each and every one of the aspects I just mentioned. Your stats don't even look at the negative clock management issues with passing the ball.

Of course letting Wilson pass and risking a 2.2% INT rate is riskier than letting Lynch run and risking a 0.05% fumble. If those are the 2014 numbers, they are what they are.

However, there has been no proof presented whatsoever that this is a top-5 or top-10 worst call either. People who say it is, are pulling it out of thin air because they have provided no statistical comparisons to other bad plays. You keep saying it is bad, but have no comparison evidence. And without any comparison evidence, no one knows.

I'm saying that what may seem "obvious" to you (and the a lot of fans) may be the mathematically incorrect play. Let me give you an example: Seattle kicked a FG in the 3rd quarter, when it was 4th and 1 on the Pats 8-yard line. Seems obvious to kick a FG right? Guess what: kicking a FG was wrong. Going for it was the correct play.

http://nyt4thdownbot.com/play.html?gameid=02012015_NE@SEA&playid=201502010262341

With all due respect--you are changing the grounds of your argument. You first tried to argue that it wasn't a horrid play call through cherry picked stats. When more applicable stats are brought to your attention that shows how bad the play call is (along with the negative clock implication attributes)--you now are arguing about what "rank" the play should be in how historically horrid it is. The actual historic ranking in regards to how bad the play call was--is subjective person by person. It's very difficult to argue over something that is so subjective. However, the fact that the primary conversation that we are having is "how does this play call rank in the history of bad calls in the NFL" basically cements the fact that it was a historically bad call. If you want to rank it 20 and me rank it 1-then so be it--you won't have an argument from me. However--if somebody wants to try to argue that it was "a good call" or "the right call"---I disagree there.

Well, the title of this thread is: "the worst play call in NFL history".

As for stats, there is no consensus that this is a horrible play. The stats that say this is a "horrible play" are also cherry-picked.

I've always agreed that Wilson passing was sub-optimal. But the win probability difference between running and passing seems small. One stat guy said running increases win probability by under 1%. Another stat guy said running vs. passing increased winning chances from 77% vs. 85%.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-head-coach-botched-the-end-of-the-super-bowl-and-it-wasnt-pete-carroll/

http://regressing.deadspin.com/stop-trying-to-convince-yourselves-seattles-pass-call-w-1683463031/+marchman

At least a few people have said that it was obvious this was a horrible play. I don't think saying something is obvious proves anything, because obvious plays in football can often be mathematically incorrect, like the NYT 4th down bot shows.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upshot/4th-down-when-to-go-for-it-and-why.html

It was a horrible play. The stats show that the play was more turnover prone. The clock management issues show that it was the wrong play call. Even if the play succeeded--it would be give New England more time to stage a come back---even if the play succeeded--it would have been a bad play call that ended up working. Seatlle is a running team with arguably the best power rb in the game---their qb was struggling--run the ball. It's not that hard. If you feel like it was a good play call--that's fine--but it defies common sense. If mathematics state that I can get away with shoplifting 99% of the time--that still doesn't mean it is a good idea to do so. The other 1% of the time, I could get caught, arrested, and my future success (in terms of employment) could be compromised. The point is that you have to look at things in real time (bad qb play, really solid rb play), you have to factor in common sense (clock management issues), and you also have to factor in the result of failure (much lower turnover rate with Lynch over Wilson, a run that doesn't make it in forces a NE timeout, a pass that doesn't make it either is incomplete--no NE timeout required, or a pass that is int'd--game over). Anyhow, I respect and appreciate your opinion--but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Niles Standish]

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.

Russell Wilson's INT percentage in the 2013 playoffs when they won the SB was 0.0%

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

Lynch had 19 fumbles in 2033 career carries, which is a .0093 fumble rate. Wilson's career INT rate is 2.1%. I agree that Wilson's chances of a turnover are higher than Lynch. But does that small difference prove that this is "the worst call ever"? No.

http://www.nfl.com/player/marshawnlynch/2495663/careerstats

Your stats are meaningless. What Wilson did in 2013 in the 2013 SB have zero bearing on what play call the called on that play. The way Wilson was quarterbacking in this SB was lack luster at best. The way Wilson was quarterbacking in this years playoffs was nothing short of pathetic. Seattle didn't make the Super Bowl because of Wilson--they made it there IN SPITE of Wilsons horrible quarterbacking against Green Bay. The dude basically tried to give the game away and his team got fortunate that Green Bay made a series of errors that gave him a chance to make a play to barely "redeem" himself". If you want to use semantics and try to use meaningless stats to say it wasn't the worst call ever--fine--maybe it was a top five or ten worst call ever---that still doesn't make it better. I have already given you stats that Lynch's rushing turnover rate for this season are 4 times less likely that Wilsons int rate on a pass. You keep bringing up Lynch's career rate--nobody cares what he did in Buffalo or on teams with different rosters and offensive lines--which is why you need to look at what he is doing this season, this playoffs--with this roster. I think that's a big and fair sample size.

Lastly--part of why it was a horrid play call--is simple clock management. Even if the play succeeded--it would have been a quick hitting play that would have maximized the time that New England would have had left with the ball. Secondly--if the play fails and ends up incomplete--it doesn't force New England to call a timeout--which again plays in their favor. Thirdly---it completely negates New England from even contemplating the possibility of letting Lynch score the TD so that they do get the ball back with some time left. The play was horrid because running the ball gave them an advantage in each and every one of the aspects I just mentioned. Your stats don't even look at the negative clock management issues with passing the ball.

Of course letting Wilson pass and risking a 2.2% INT rate is riskier than letting Lynch run and risking a 0.05% fumble. If those are the 2014 numbers, they are what they are.

However, there has been no proof presented whatsoever that this is a top-5 or top-10 worst call either. People who say it is, are pulling it out of thin air because they have provided no statistical comparisons to other bad plays. You keep saying it is bad, but have no comparison evidence. And without any comparison evidence, no one knows.

I'm saying that what may seem "obvious" to you (and the a lot of fans) may be the mathematically incorrect play. Let me give you an example: Seattle kicked a FG in the 3rd quarter, when it was 4th and 1 on the Pats 8-yard line. Seems obvious to kick a FG right? Guess what: kicking a FG was wrong. Going for it was the correct play.

http://nyt4thdownbot.com/play.html?gameid=02012015_NE@SEA&playid=201502010262341

With all due respect--you are changing the grounds of your argument. You first tried to argue that it wasn't a horrid play call through cherry picked stats. When more applicable stats are brought to your attention that shows how bad the play call is (along with the negative clock implication attributes)--you now are arguing about what "rank" the play should be in how historically horrid it is. The actual historic ranking in regards to how bad the play call was--is subjective person by person. It's very difficult to argue over something that is so subjective. However, the fact that the primary conversation that we are having is "how does this play call rank in the history of bad calls in the NFL" basically cements the fact that it was a historically bad call. If you want to rank it 20 and me rank it 1-then so be it--you won't have an argument from me. However--if somebody wants to try to argue that it was "a good call" or "the right call"---I disagree there.

Well, the title of this thread is: "the worst play call in NFL history".

As for stats, there is no consensus that this is a horrible play. The stats that say this is a "horrible play" are also cherry-picked.

I've always agreed that Wilson passing was sub-optimal. But the win probability difference between running and passing seems small. One stat guy said running increases win probability by under 1%. Another stat guy said running vs. passing increased winning chances from 77% vs. 85%.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-head-coach-botched-the-end-of-the-super-bowl-and-it-wasnt-pete-carroll/http://regressing.deadspin.com/stop-trying-to-convince-yourselves-seattles-pass-call-w-1683463031/+marchman

At least a few people have said that it was obvious this was a horrible play. I don't think saying something is obvious proves anything, because obvious plays in football can often be mathematically incorrect, like the NYT 4th down bot shows.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upshot/4th-down-when-to-go-for-it-and-why.html

It was a horrible play. The stats show that the play was more turnover prone. The clock management issues show that it was the wrong play call. Even if the play succeeded--it would be give New England more time to stage a come back---even if the play succeeded--it would have been a bad play call that ended up working. Seatlle is a running team with arguably the best power rb in the game---their qb was struggling--run the ball. It's not that hard. If you feel like it was a good play call--that's fine--but it defies common sense. If mathematics state that I can get away with shoplifting 99% of the time--that still doesn't mean it is a good idea to do so. The other 1% of the time, I could get caught, arrested, and my future success (in terms of employment) could be compromised. The point is that you have to look at things in real time (bad qb play, really solid rb play), you have to factor in common sense (clock management issues), and you also have to factor in the result of failure (much lower turnover rate with Lynch over Wilson, a run that doesn't make it in forces a NE timeout, a pass that doesn't make it either is incomplete--no NE timeout required, or a pass that is int'd--game over). Anyhow, I respect and appreciate your opinion--but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Should teams never pass? That's what your shoplifting analogy tells me.

All the 2nd guessing over a guy not taking the safe route is why coaches in precarious situations always take the safe route. You can lose your job. Carroll won't Belichick wouldn't. But a new coach will run for sure because he doesn't have the choice. It's funny because McCarthy on 4th is the opposite but the same people are arguing against that call.

Carroll was in this game because he defies convention. And Seattle fans are lucky they have a coach with that power. Because if he hadn't won it all last year you'd probably be forcing him out of town right now. And that would be monumentally stupid.

 

[espnespn]

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.

Russell Wilson's INT percentage in the 2013 playoffs when they won the SB was 0.0%

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

Lynch had 19 fumbles in 2033 career carries, which is a .0093 fumble rate. Wilson's career INT rate is 2.1%. I agree that Wilson's chances of a turnover are higher than Lynch. But does that small difference prove that this is "the worst call ever"? No.

http://www.nfl.com/player/marshawnlynch/2495663/careerstats

Your stats are meaningless. What Wilson did in 2013 in the 2013 SB have zero bearing on what play call the called on that play. The way Wilson was quarterbacking in this SB was lack luster at best. The way Wilson was quarterbacking in this years playoffs was nothing short of pathetic. Seattle didn't make the Super Bowl because of Wilson--they made it there IN SPITE of Wilsons horrible quarterbacking against Green Bay. The dude basically tried to give the game away and his team got fortunate that Green Bay made a series of errors that gave him a chance to make a play to barely "redeem" himself". If you want to use semantics and try to use meaningless stats to say it wasn't the worst call ever--fine--maybe it was a top five or ten worst call ever---that still doesn't make it better. I have already given you stats that Lynch's rushing turnover rate for this season are 4 times less likely that Wilsons int rate on a pass. You keep bringing up Lynch's career rate--nobody cares what he did in Buffalo or on teams with different rosters and offensive lines--which is why you need to look at what he is doing this season, this playoffs--with this roster. I think that's a big and fair sample size.

Lastly--part of why it was a horrid play call--is simple clock management. Even if the play succeeded--it would have been a quick hitting play that would have maximized the time that New England would have had left with the ball. Secondly--if the play fails and ends up incomplete--it doesn't force New England to call a timeout--which again plays in their favor. Thirdly---it completely negates New England from even contemplating the possibility of letting Lynch score the TD so that they do get the ball back with some time left. The play was horrid because running the ball gave them an advantage in each and every one of the aspects I just mentioned. Your stats don't even look at the negative clock management issues with passing the ball.

Of course letting Wilson pass and risking a 2.2% INT rate is riskier than letting Lynch run and risking a 0.05% fumble. If those are the 2014 numbers, they are what they are.

However, there has been no proof presented whatsoever that this is a top-5 or top-10 worst call either. People who say it is, are pulling it out of thin air because they have provided no statistical comparisons to other bad plays. You keep saying it is bad, but have no comparison evidence. And without any comparison evidence, no one knows.

I'm saying that what may seem "obvious" to you (and the a lot of fans) may be the mathematically incorrect play. Let me give you an example: Seattle kicked a FG in the 3rd quarter, when it was 4th and 1 on the Pats 8-yard line. Seems obvious to kick a FG right? Guess what: kicking a FG was wrong. Going for it was the correct play.

http://nyt4thdownbot.com/play.html?gameid=02012015_NE@SEA&playid=201502010262341

With all due respect--you are changing the grounds of your argument. You first tried to argue that it wasn't a horrid play call through cherry picked stats. When more applicable stats are brought to your attention that shows how bad the play call is (along with the negative clock implication attributes)--you now are arguing about what "rank" the play should be in how historically horrid it is. The actual historic ranking in regards to how bad the play call was--is subjective person by person. It's very difficult to argue over something that is so subjective. However, the fact that the primary conversation that we are having is "how does this play call rank in the history of bad calls in the NFL" basically cements the fact that it was a historically bad call. If you want to rank it 20 and me rank it 1-then so be it--you won't have an argument from me. However--if somebody wants to try to argue that it was "a good call" or "the right call"---I disagree there.

Well, the title of this thread is: "the worst play call in NFL history".

As for stats, there is no consensus that this is a horrible play. The stats that say this is a "horrible play" are also cherry-picked.

I've always agreed that Wilson passing was sub-optimal. But the win probability difference between running and passing seems small. One stat guy said running increases win probability by under 1%. Another stat guy said running vs. passing increased winning chances from 77% vs. 85%.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-head-coach-botched-the-end-of-the-super-bowl-and-it-wasnt-pete-carroll/

http://regressing.deadspin.com/stop-trying-to-convince-yourselves-seattles-pass-call-w-1683463031/+marchman

At least a few people have said that it was obvious this was a horrible play. I don't think saying something is obvious proves anything, because obvious plays in football can often be mathematically incorrect, like the NYT 4th down bot shows.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upshot/4th-down-when-to-go-for-it-and-why.html

It was a horrible play. The stats show that the play was more turnover prone. The clock management issues show that it was the wrong play call. Even if the play succeeded--it would be give New England more time to stage a come back---even if the play succeeded--it would have been a bad play call that ended up working. Seatlle is a running team with arguably the best power rb in the game---their qb was struggling--run the ball. It's not that hard. If you feel like it was a good play call--that's fine--but it defies common sense. If mathematics state that I can get away with shoplifting 99% of the time--that still doesn't mean it is a good idea to do so. The other 1% of the time, I could get caught, arrested, and my future success (in terms of employment) could be compromised. The point is that you have to look at things in real time (bad qb play, really solid rb play), you have to factor in common sense (clock management issues), and you also have to factor in the result of failure (much lower turnover rate with Lynch over Wilson, a run that doesn't make it in forces a NE timeout, a pass that doesn't make it either is incomplete--no NE timeout required, or a pass that is int'd--game over). Anyhow, I respect and appreciate your opinion--but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I agree that passing was worse than running here. It's just that I found a ton of analysis from respectable websites that broke down the play, and they conclude that passing vs. rushing only made a small difference.

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/02/04/russell-wilson-super-bowl-49-interception-statistical-analysis/

If most stat guys have solid proof that passing vs. rushing made a huge difference, then I'd believe that. But there doesn't seem to be a consensus that it was horrible play stat-wise.

I agree with you that we'll have have to agree to disagree.

 

[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.

Russell Wilson's INT percentage in the 2013 playoffs when they won the SB was 0.0%

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

Lynch had 19 fumbles in 2033 career carries, which is a .0093 fumble rate. Wilson's career INT rate is 2.1%. I agree that Wilson's chances of a turnover are higher than Lynch. But does that small difference prove that this is "the worst call ever"? No.

http://www.nfl.com/player/marshawnlynch/2495663/careerstats

Your stats are meaningless. What Wilson did in 2013 in the 2013 SB have zero bearing on what play call the called on that play. The way Wilson was quarterbacking in this SB was lack luster at best. The way Wilson was quarterbacking in this years playoffs was nothing short of pathetic. Seattle didn't make the Super Bowl because of Wilson--they made it there IN SPITE of Wilsons horrible quarterbacking against Green Bay. The dude basically tried to give the game away and his team got fortunate that Green Bay made a series of errors that gave him a chance to make a play to barely "redeem" himself". If you want to use semantics and try to use meaningless stats to say it wasn't the worst call ever--fine--maybe it was a top five or ten worst call ever---that still doesn't make it better. I have already given you stats that Lynch's rushing turnover rate for this season are 4 times less likely that Wilsons int rate on a pass. You keep bringing up Lynch's career rate--nobody cares what he did in Buffalo or on teams with different rosters and offensive lines--which is why you need to look at what he is doing this season, this playoffs--with this roster. I think that's a big and fair sample size.

Lastly--part of why it was a horrid play call--is simple clock management. Even if the play succeeded--it would have been a quick hitting play that would have maximized the time that New England would have had left with the ball. Secondly--if the play fails and ends up incomplete--it doesn't force New England to call a timeout--which again plays in their favor. Thirdly---it completely negates New England from even contemplating the possibility of letting Lynch score the TD so that they do get the ball back with some time left. The play was horrid because running the ball gave them an advantage in each and every one of the aspects I just mentioned. Your stats don't even look at the negative clock management issues with passing the ball.

Of course letting Wilson pass and risking a 2.2% INT rate is riskier than letting Lynch run and risking a 0.05% fumble. If those are the 2014 numbers, they are what they are.

However, there has been no proof presented whatsoever that this is a top-5 or top-10 worst call either. People who say it is, are pulling it out of thin air because they have provided no statistical comparisons to other bad plays. You keep saying it is bad, but have no comparison evidence. And without any comparison evidence, no one knows.

I'm saying that what may seem "obvious" to you (and the a lot of fans) may be the mathematically incorrect play. Let me give you an example: Seattle kicked a FG in the 3rd quarter, when it was 4th and 1 on the Pats 8-yard line. Seems obvious to kick a FG right? Guess what: kicking a FG was wrong. Going for it was the correct play.

http://nyt4thdownbot.com/play.html?gameid=02012015_NE@SEA&playid=201502010262341

With all due respect--you are changing the grounds of your argument. You first tried to argue that it wasn't a horrid play call through cherry picked stats. When more applicable stats are brought to your attention that shows how bad the play call is (along with the negative clock implication attributes)--you now are arguing about what "rank" the play should be in how historically horrid it is. The actual historic ranking in regards to how bad the play call was--is subjective person by person. It's very difficult to argue over something that is so subjective. However, the fact that the primary conversation that we are having is "how does this play call rank in the history of bad calls in the NFL" basically cements the fact that it was a historically bad call. If you want to rank it 20 and me rank it 1-then so be it--you won't have an argument from me. However--if somebody wants to try to argue that it was "a good call" or "the right call"---I disagree there.

Well, the title of this thread is: "the worst play call in NFL history".

As for stats, there is no consensus that this is a horrible play. The stats that say this is a "horrible play" are also cherry-picked.

I've always agreed that Wilson passing was sub-optimal. But the win probability difference between running and passing seems small. One stat guy said running increases win probability by under 1%. Another stat guy said running vs. passing increased winning chances from 77% vs. 85%.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-head-coach-botched-the-end-of-the-super-bowl-and-it-wasnt-pete-carroll/http://regressing.deadspin.com/stop-trying-to-convince-yourselves-seattles-pass-call-w-1683463031/+marchman

At least a few people have said that it was obvious this was a horrible play. I don't think saying something is obvious proves anything, because obvious plays in football can often be mathematically incorrect, like the NYT 4th down bot shows.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upshot/4th-down-when-to-go-for-it-and-why.html

It was a horrible play. The stats show that the play was more turnover prone. The clock management issues show that it was the wrong play call. Even if the play succeeded--it would be give New England more time to stage a come back---even if the play succeeded--it would have been a bad play call that ended up working. Seatlle is a running team with arguably the best power rb in the game---their qb was struggling--run the ball. It's not that hard. If you feel like it was a good play call--that's fine--but it defies common sense. If mathematics state that I can get away with shoplifting 99% of the time--that still doesn't mean it is a good idea to do so. The other 1% of the time, I could get caught, arrested, and my future success (in terms of employment) could be compromised. The point is that you have to look at things in real time (bad qb play, really solid rb play), you have to factor in common sense (clock management issues), and you also have to factor in the result of failure (much lower turnover rate with Lynch over Wilson, a run that doesn't make it in forces a NE timeout, a pass that doesn't make it either is incomplete--no NE timeout required, or a pass that is int'd--game over). Anyhow, I respect and appreciate your opinion--but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Should teams never pass? That's what your shoplifting analogy tells me.

All the 2nd guessing over a guy not taking the safe route is why coaches in precarious situations always take the safe route. You can lose your job. Carroll won't Belichick wouldn't. But a new coach will run for sure because he doesn't have the choice. It's funny because McCarthy on 4th is the opposite but the same people are arguing against that call.

Carroll was in this game because he defies convention. And Seattle fans are lucky they have a coach with that power. Because if he hadn't won it all last year you'd probably be forcing him out of town right now. And that would be monumentally stupid.

No--I never said to never pass the ball. Please tell me where in my explanation I said that. I said that when your qb is playing poorly--you have arguably the best power rb in the game (who happens to be almost completely turnover free for the season), when you have multiple downs to where even if he gets stuffed--the opportunity to run or pass again are there, where running the ball is better for clcok management, and playing against a coach who has allowed teams in the past to score on a run in order to get the ball back-- its probably a good idea to actually run the ball. Coach Carroll is a good coach who does have a history of defying convention. In this case--his desire to defy convention drove him to defy intelligence and common sense. If the call was soo amazing--why didn't it work? Not only did it not succeed--it was sooo risky that it failed so bad that it didn't even give his team a second chance to succeed. I have laid out why it was a terrible play call even in real time terms--and the eventual outcome supports that it was a stupid call. The point is that there are times to take risks and there are times to take the safe route. His team had a miracle play to where his team had a chance to win the game. NE was so shell shocked that their head coach either forgets to call a timeout or was planning on letting Sea rush the ball in to win the game in order to preserve clock---and Carroll chooses this the time to run some "renegade" out of convention play? Some people will call this ballsy--I prefer to call it stupid. However, everybody is entitled to their opinion--and I respect but disagree with yours.

 

[humpback]

It's funny because the exact same people would be saying worst call ever if Seattle ran and fumbled it away.

I'm the biggest anti-hindsight guy on this board but that is just patently false.

I am impressed with all the mental gymnastics going on. Wilson gets no blame whatsoever. Butler gets no credit for his play.Without an amazing play by Butler Seattle gets a TD. The run pass percentages are about the same over 5 years, but this is the worst call ever. Seattle doesn't play as vanilla as everyone here wants in hindsight. But no one was complaining about the fake FG against GB or the first half TD shot against NE.

You appear to be the captain of the mental gymnastics team since Wilson has received some blame, Butler has received quite a bit of credit, etc.

 

[davearm]

It was a horrible play. The stats show that the play was more turnover prone.

"The stats" don't say any such thing. The stats you've cherry-picked say that.

Career stats for these two players say differently. Leaguewide stats also say differently.

It's amazing that you're the one throwing out the "cherry picking" accusations. You're more guilty of it than anyone.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

It was a horrible play. The stats show that the play was more turnover prone.

"The stats" don't say any such thing. The stats you've cherry-picked say that.

Career stats for these two players say differently. Leaguewide stats also say differently.

It's amazing that you're the one throwing out the "cherry picking" accusations. You're more guilty of it than anyone.

why would I analyze carreer stats when I have stats from this season--from this roster--from this playoff run? How does Marshawns stats from Buffalo apply here? How do leaguewide stats trump the stats that I used from this team, this roster, in this game and in this situation? You think it's relevant for this play that Trent Richardson fails from the goal line while Peyton Manning throws td passes in from the goal line--because that is what league wide stats take into account. If I evaluate a player now--should I look at their career stats--or see how they are playing now? If you want to start a basketball team--would you evaluate Kobe Bryant based on his career stats--or based on how he looks as of late? Carroll wasn't looking at Lynches career stats when he made that stupid call. He was looking at what his team was doing and what was working in that game. In this game--Wilson didn't COMPLETE a pass until the 2nd quarter. His best completion was the result of a miracle. In the game just before--he was doing even worse. What you guys are doing--is disregarding what was going on in the game--and after the play failed catastrophifcally --looking for non relevant statistical data to help justify a knucklehead play. Please justify the clock management decision alone in the play. Please justify the fact that even if the play was successful--it would have resulted in one of the quickest ways that Seattle could have scored--which would have maximized the time New England had to comeback. Please justify the decision that if the pass fell incomplete-it would have allowed New England to have saved a timeout---how does that benefit Seattle please. I have clearly backed up every reason why I feel it is a bad call. Please show me that on this team--this season--this playoff run--this game--that passing the ball was clearly the right play call. In any case--you are entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.

 

[JIslander]

It's funny because the exact same people would be saying worst call ever if Seattle ran and fumbled it away.

I'm the biggest anti-hindsight guy on this board but that is just patently false.

I am impressed with all the mental gymnastics going on. Wilson gets no blame whatsoever. Butler gets no credit for his play.Without an amazing play by Butler Seattle gets a TD. The run pass percentages are about the same over 5 years, but this is the worst call ever. Seattle doesn't play as vanilla as everyone here wants in hindsight. But no one was complaining about the fake FG against GB or the first half TD shot against NE.

You appear to be the captain of the mental gymnastics team since Wilson has received some blame, Butler has received quite a bit of credit, etc.

Yeah, I think its awesome a kid like that made the play of the game. Big kudos for him recognizing AND making the play. I wonder if he'll put a Brady bobble head in his truck? BUT, that doesn't negate that "its the worst play call ...blah bah"

 

[DropKick]

Should teams never pass? That's what your shoplifting analogy tells me.

All the 2nd guessing over a guy not taking the safe route is why coaches in precarious situations always take the safe route. You can lose your job. Carroll won't Belichick wouldn't. But a new coach will run for sure because he doesn't have the choice. It's funny because McCarthy on 4th is the opposite but the same people are arguing against that call.

Carroll was in this game because he defies convention. And Seattle fans are lucky they have a coach with that power. Because if he hadn't won it all last year you'd probably be forcing him out of town right now. And that would be monumentally stupid.

This is a fair assessment.

I'm of the opinion that this wasn't a horrible call even though it had a horrible outcome. Teams do pass the ball from the one... almost 30% of the time from stats cited in this thread. If that were the Patriots offense, no one would blink at a pass. Same is probably true for Manning and Rodgers.

There really was a series of mistakes here; squandered time-outs and probably far too much concern over leaving Brady time... However, this was a second down play. But, barring a turn-over, Lynch was going to get his shot. And, although an interception is always a possibility, I don't think coaches who have trust in the their players are thinking that way (conservatively).

Someone made the great point that Carroll gambled at the end of the half and with the fake FG against GB. He was considered a genius when the plays worked. Didn't the Saints pull off an on-sides kick against the Colts to start the 2nd half? Again, genius on success; idiot on failure. Opinions are fickle that way; if Lockette scores this discussion is about Belichick NOT calling a time-out. It is always easy to play Monday morning QB.

I can understand the frustration. If I were a Seahawk's fan, I'd be devastated. But, Carroll has done a great job of building a powerhouse team. I don't think he deserves to get dumped on to this level.

 

[Niles Standish]

Should teams never pass? That's what your shoplifting analogy tells me.

All the 2nd guessing over a guy not taking the safe route is why coaches in precarious situations always take the safe route. You can lose your job. Carroll won't Belichick wouldn't. But a new coach will run for sure because he doesn't have the choice. It's funny because McCarthy on 4th is the opposite but the same people are arguing against that call.

Carroll was in this game because he defies convention. And Seattle fans are lucky they have a coach with that power. Because if he hadn't won it all last year you'd probably be forcing him out of town right now. And that would be monumentally stupid.

This is a fair assessment.

I'm of the opinion that this wasn't a horrible call even though it had a horrible outcome. Teams do pass the ball from the one... almost 30% of the time from stats cited in this thread. If that were the Patriots offense, no one would blink at a pass. Same is probably true for Manning and Rodgers.

There really was a series of mistakes here; squandered time-outs and probably far too much concern over leaving Brady time... However, this was a second down play. But, barring a turn-over, Lynch was going to get his shot. And, although an interception is always a possibility, I don't think coaches who have trust in the their players are thinking that way (conservatively).

Someone made the great point that Carroll gambled at the end of the half and with the fake FG against GB. He was considered a genius when the plays worked. Didn't the Saints pull off an on-sides kick against the Colts to start the 2nd half? Again, genius on success; idiot on failure. Opinions are fickle that way; if Lockette scores this discussion is about Belichick NOT calling a time-out. It is always easy to play Monday morning QB.

I can understand the frustration. If I were a Seahawk's fan, I'd be devastated. But, Carroll has done a great job of building a powerhouse team. I don't think he deserves to get dumped on to this level.

Exactly, that's kind of my point. If something is called about 1/3 of the time it's pretty conventional. People might think it was a bad call, but worst call ever is silly and lazy. This kind of outcry is why most NFL coaches have to go with the vanilla call that pisses the fans off. I guarantee if Pete Carroll made this call in 2010 or 2011 people would be calling for his job. And then they would be complaining 3 or 4 years from now when their coach punts on 4th and 1 from the 50 down in the 4th.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Amazing how much some of you are getting into this.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Should teams never pass? That's what your shoplifting analogy tells me.

All the 2nd guessing over a guy not taking the safe route is why coaches in precarious situations always take the safe route. You can lose your job. Carroll won't Belichick wouldn't. But a new coach will run for sure because he doesn't have the choice. It's funny because McCarthy on 4th is the opposite but the same people are arguing against that call.

Carroll was in this game because he defies convention. And Seattle fans are lucky they have a coach with that power. Because if he hadn't won it all last year you'd probably be forcing him out of town right now. And that would be monumentally stupid.

This is a fair assessment.

I'm of the opinion that this wasn't a horrible call even though it had a horrible outcome. Teams do pass the ball from the one... almost 30% of the time from stats cited in this thread. If that were the Patriots offense, no one would blink at a pass. Same is probably true for Manning and Rodgers.

There really was a series of mistakes here; squandered time-outs and probably far too much concern over leaving Brady time... However, this was a second down play. But, barring a turn-over, Lynch was going to get his shot. And, although an interception is always a possibility, I don't think coaches who have trust in the their players are thinking that way (conservatively).

Someone made the great point that Carroll gambled at the end of the half and with the fake FG against GB. He was considered a genius when the plays worked. Didn't the Saints pull off an on-sides kick against the Colts to start the 2nd half? Again, genius on success; idiot on failure. Opinions are fickle that way; if Lockette scores this discussion is about Belichick NOT calling a time-out. It is always easy to play Monday morning QB.

I can understand the frustration. If I were a Seahawk's fan, I'd be devastated. But, Carroll has done a great job of building a powerhouse team. I don't think he deserves to get dumped on to this level.

A pass is one thing, but the type of pass just makes it even worse. You cited that teams throw it 30% of the time from the 1, but the vast majority of those are bootlegs out to the TE where it's easy to throw the ball away (or run it in) if it's not open.

How often do teams throw a slant from the 1? And we're not even talking about a TE or big bodied WR isolated way outside of the play here. I can't recall very many, if any slants into heavy traffic being run from the 1 yard line, especially on 2nd down.

 

[PatsWillWin]

People are talking a lot about running vs. passing and percentages and match-ups, etc....I haven't seen enough made about the fact that you put your Super Bowl in the hands of the immortal Ricardo Lockette. RICARDO LOCKETTE. That's another factor.

Dez Bryant? Not so terrible a call. Freddie Mitchell? Terrible call. Ricardo Lockette? Somewhere in between those two.

 

[espnespn]

Should teams never pass? That's what your shoplifting analogy tells me.

All the 2nd guessing over a guy not taking the safe route is why coaches in precarious situations always take the safe route. You can lose your job. Carroll won't Belichick wouldn't. But a new coach will run for sure because he doesn't have the choice. It's funny because McCarthy on 4th is the opposite but the same people are arguing against that call.

Carroll was in this game because he defies convention. And Seattle fans are lucky they have a coach with that power. Because if he hadn't won it all last year you'd probably be forcing him out of town right now. And that would be monumentally stupid.

This is a fair assessment.

I'm of the opinion that this wasn't a horrible call even though it had a horrible outcome. Teams do pass the ball from the one... almost 30% of the time from stats cited in this thread. If that were the Patriots offense, no one would blink at a pass. Same is probably true for Manning and Rodgers.

There really was a series of mistakes here; squandered time-outs and probably far too much concern over leaving Brady time... However, this was a second down play. But, barring a turn-over, Lynch was going to get his shot. And, although an interception is always a possibility, I don't think coaches who have trust in the their players are thinking that way (conservatively).

Someone made the great point that Carroll gambled at the end of the half and with the fake FG against GB. He was considered a genius when the plays worked. Didn't the Saints pull off an on-sides kick against the Colts to start the 2nd half? Again, genius on success; idiot on failure. Opinions are fickle that way; if Lockette scores this discussion is about Belichick NOT calling a time-out. It is always easy to play Monday morning QB.

I can understand the frustration. If I were a Seahawk's fan, I'd be devastated. But, Carroll has done a great job of building a powerhouse team. I don't think he deserves to get dumped on to this level.

A pass is one thing, but the type of pass just makes it even worse. You cited that teams throw it 30% of the time from the 1, but the vast majority of those are bootlegs out to the TE where it's easy to throw the ball away (or run it in) if it's not open.

How often do teams throw a slant from the 1? And we're not even talking about a TE or big bodied WR isolated way outside of the play here. I can't recall very many, if any slants into heavy traffic being run from the 1 yard line, especially on 2nd down.

The Seahawks had a history of using that same pass play on the goal-line. I bet you when they ran it in the past, no one complained it was "the worst call play call ever".

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/02/05/nfl-super-bowl-xlix-final-film-study-notes/

"Bevell chose to pass on the first of his remaining three downs, knowing that an incompletion would stop the clock. And Bevell didn’t just flip to a random page in his playbook. The Seahawks had a very specific pass design in place for a goal-line situation. Unfortunately—and this is what should be remembered—the Patriots were ready for it."

 

[Niles Standish]

Should teams never pass? That's what your shoplifting analogy tells me.

All the 2nd guessing over a guy not taking the safe route is why coaches in precarious situations always take the safe route. You can lose your job. Carroll won't Belichick wouldn't. But a new coach will run for sure because he doesn't have the choice. It's funny because McCarthy on 4th is the opposite but the same people are arguing against that call.

Carroll was in this game because he defies convention. And Seattle fans are lucky they have a coach with that power. Because if he hadn't won it all last year you'd probably be forcing him out of town right now. And that would be monumentally stupid.

This is a fair assessment.

I'm of the opinion that this wasn't a horrible call even though it had a horrible outcome. Teams do pass the ball from the one... almost 30% of the time from stats cited in this thread. If that were the Patriots offense, no one would blink at a pass. Same is probably true for Manning and Rodgers.

There really was a series of mistakes here; squandered time-outs and probably far too much concern over leaving Brady time... However, this was a second down play. But, barring a turn-over, Lynch was going to get his shot. And, although an interception is always a possibility, I don't think coaches who have trust in the their players are thinking that way (conservatively).

Someone made the great point that Carroll gambled at the end of the half and with the fake FG against GB. He was considered a genius when the plays worked. Didn't the Saints pull off an on-sides kick against the Colts to start the 2nd half? Again, genius on success; idiot on failure. Opinions are fickle that way; if Lockette scores this discussion is about Belichick NOT calling a time-out. It is always easy to play Monday morning QB.

I can understand the frustration. If I were a Seahawk's fan, I'd be devastated. But, Carroll has done a great job of building a powerhouse team. I don't think he deserves to get dumped on to this level.

A pass is one thing, but the type of pass just makes it even worse. You cited that teams throw it 30% of the time from the 1, but the vast majority of those are bootlegs out to the TE where it's easy to throw the ball away (or run it in) if it's not open.

How often do teams throw a slant from the 1? And we're not even talking about a TE or big bodied WR isolated way outside of the play here. I can't recall very many, if any slants into heavy traffic being run from the 1 yard line, especially on 2nd down.

The Seahawks had a history of using that same pass play on the goal-line. I bet you when they ran it in the past, no one complained it was "the worst call play call ever".

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/02/05/nfl-super-bowl-xlix-final-film-study-notes/

"Bevell chose to pass on the first of his remaining three downs, knowing that an incompletion would stop the clock. And Bevell didn’t just flip to a random page in his playbook. The Seahawks had a very specific pass design in place for a goal-line situation. Unfortunately—and this is what should be remembered—the Patriots were ready for it."

Well yeah the fact that they'd done it before is the only reason Butler was ready for it. That play had beat him in practice.

 

[espnespn]

Should teams never pass? That's what your shoplifting analogy tells me.

All the 2nd guessing over a guy not taking the safe route is why coaches in precarious situations always take the safe route. You can lose your job. Carroll won't Belichick wouldn't. But a new coach will run for sure because he doesn't have the choice. It's funny because McCarthy on 4th is the opposite but the same people are arguing against that call.

Carroll was in this game because he defies convention. And Seattle fans are lucky they have a coach with that power. Because if he hadn't won it all last year you'd probably be forcing him out of town right now. And that would be monumentally stupid.

This is a fair assessment.

I'm of the opinion that this wasn't a horrible call even though it had a horrible outcome. Teams do pass the ball from the one... almost 30% of the time from stats cited in this thread. If that were the Patriots offense, no one would blink at a pass. Same is probably true for Manning and Rodgers.

There really was a series of mistakes here; squandered time-outs and probably far too much concern over leaving Brady time... However, this was a second down play. But, barring a turn-over, Lynch was going to get his shot. And, although an interception is always a possibility, I don't think coaches who have trust in the their players are thinking that way (conservatively).

Someone made the great point that Carroll gambled at the end of the half and with the fake FG against GB. He was considered a genius when the plays worked. Didn't the Saints pull off an on-sides kick against the Colts to start the 2nd half? Again, genius on success; idiot on failure. Opinions are fickle that way; if Lockette scores this discussion is about Belichick NOT calling a time-out. It is always easy to play Monday morning QB.

I can understand the frustration. If I were a Seahawk's fan, I'd be devastated. But, Carroll has done a great job of building a powerhouse team. I don't think he deserves to get dumped on to this level.

A pass is one thing, but the type of pass just makes it even worse. You cited that teams throw it 30% of the time from the 1, but the vast majority of those are bootlegs out to the TE where it's easy to throw the ball away (or run it in) if it's not open.

How often do teams throw a slant from the 1? And we're not even talking about a TE or big bodied WR isolated way outside of the play here. I can't recall very many, if any slants into heavy traffic being run from the 1 yard line, especially on 2nd down.

The Seahawks had a history of using that same pass play on the goal-line. I bet you when they ran it in the past, no one complained it was "the worst call play call ever".

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/02/05/nfl-super-bowl-xlix-final-film-study-notes/

"Bevell chose to pass on the first of his remaining three downs, knowing that an incompletion would stop the clock. And Bevell didn’t just flip to a random page in his playbook. The Seahawks had a very specific pass design in place for a goal-line situation. Unfortunately—and this is what should be remembered—the Patriots were ready for it."

Well yeah the fact that they'd done it before is the only reason Butler was ready for it. That play had beat him in practice.

Yup, Butler was the 5th CB on the depth chart, and Belichick coached him up on that play in practice.

More proof that Belichick is one of the best prepared coaches.

 

[DropKick]

People are talking a lot about running vs. passing and percentages and match-ups, etc....I haven't seen enough made about the fact that you put your Super Bowl in the hands of the immortal Ricardo Lockette. RICARDO LOCKETTE. That's another factor.

Dez Bryant? Not so terrible a call. Freddie Mitchell? Terrible call. Ricardo Lockette? Somewhere in between those two.

Lockette caught balls earlier in the game - as did an very unheralded Matthews.

Odd for a Patriot fan to be concerned with the pedigree of a receiver.

 

[PatsWillWin]

People are talking a lot about running vs. passing and percentages and match-ups, etc....I haven't seen enough made about the fact that you put your Super Bowl in the hands of the immortal Ricardo Lockette. RICARDO LOCKETTE. That's another factor.

Dez Bryant? Not so terrible a call. Freddie Mitchell? Terrible call. Ricardo Lockette? Somewhere in between those two.

Lockette caught balls earlier in the game - as did an very unheralded Matthews.

Odd for a Patriot fan to be concerned with the pedigree of a receiver.

I see your post quoting mine, but I'm not sure why. It sounds like you're responding to a post that talks about pedigree or says that Lockette had never caught a ball before.

 

[cstu]

People are talking a lot about running vs. passing and percentages and match-ups, etc....I haven't seen enough made about the fact that you put your Super Bowl in the hands of the immortal Ricardo Lockette. RICARDO LOCKETTE. That's another factor.

Dez Bryant? Not so terrible a call. Freddie Mitchell? Terrible call. Ricardo Lockette? Somewhere in between those two.

Lockette caught balls earlier in the game - as did an very unheralded Matthews.

Odd for a Patriot fan to be concerned with the pedigree of a receiver.

The guys who caught 4th quarter TD's for the Patriots:

Amendola - caught 85 in 2010 and caught 65% of his targets the past two years when healthy.

Edelman - caught 105 and 92 the past two years.

Lockette - caught 11 during the regular season and 18 in his 4 year career.

 

[humpback]

The Seahawks had a history of using that same pass play on the goal-line. I bet you when they ran it in the past, no one complained it was "the worst call play call ever".

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/02/05/nfl-super-bowl-xlix-final-film-study-notes/

"Bevell chose to pass on the first of his remaining three downs, knowing that an incompletion would stop the clock. And Bevell didn’t just flip to a random page in his playbook. The Seahawks had a very specific pass design in place for a goal-line situation. Unfortunately—and this is what should be remembered—the Patriots were ready for it."

Here is that entire paragraph:

Something else to consider about Darrell Bevell’s play-call from the 1-yard-line: Seattle had only one timeout and 26 seconds left, so they had to throw on one of their remaining three downs. It’s impossible to run three times in that situation. Bevell chose to pass on the first of his remaining three downs, knowing that an incompletion would stop the clock. And Bevell didn’t just flip to a random page in his playbook. The Seahawks had a very specific pass design in place for a goal-line situation. Unfortunately—and this is what should be remembered—the Patriots were ready for it.

The bolded is completely incorrect, even though the "defenders" keep saying it.

 

[Niles Standish]

The Seahawks had a history of using that same pass play on the goal-line. I bet you when they ran it in the past, no one complained it was "the worst call play call ever".

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/02/05/nfl-super-bowl-xlix-final-film-study-notes/

"Bevell chose to pass on the first of his remaining three downs, knowing that an incompletion would stop the clock. And Bevell didn’t just flip to a random page in his playbook. The Seahawks had a very specific pass design in place for a goal-line situation. Unfortunately—and this is what should be remembered—the Patriots were ready for it."

Here is that entire paragraph:

Something else to consider about Darrell Bevell’s play-call from the 1-yard-line: Seattle had only one timeout and 26 seconds left, so they had to throw on one of their remaining three downs. It’s impossible to run three times in that situation. Bevell chose to pass on the first of his remaining three downs, knowing that an incompletion would stop the clock. And Bevell didn’t just flip to a random page in his playbook. The Seahawks had a very specific pass design in place for a goal-line situation. Unfortunately—and this is what should be remembered—the Patriots were ready for it.

The bolded is completely incorrect, even though the "defenders" keep saying it.

Completely off point with what you're quoting. But to be safe you don't use the remaining timeout (assuming 3 runs) until after the penultimate play. So how long does it take to run get stopped and get set up for another play? (Again we're assuming 3 runs). You probably need to save about 8-10 seconds for the final 2 plays even with the timeout. So can you get a run, get stuffed and set up and run a new play in 16-18 seconds? Probably, but you are having to rush.

 

[humpback]

The Seahawks had a history of using that same pass play on the goal-line. I bet you when they ran it in the past, no one complained it was "the worst call play call ever".

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/02/05/nfl-super-bowl-xlix-final-film-study-notes/

"Bevell chose to pass on the first of his remaining three downs, knowing that an incompletion would stop the clock. And Bevell didn’t just flip to a random page in his playbook. The Seahawks had a very specific pass design in place for a goal-line situation. Unfortunately—and this is what should be remembered—the Patriots were ready for it."

Here is that entire paragraph:

Something else to consider about Darrell Bevell’s play-call from the 1-yard-line: Seattle had only one timeout and 26 seconds left, so they had to throw on one of their remaining three downs. It’s impossible to run three times in that situation. Bevell chose to pass on the first of his remaining three downs, knowing that an incompletion would stop the clock. And Bevell didn’t just flip to a random page in his playbook. The Seahawks had a very specific pass design in place for a goal-line situation. Unfortunately—and this is what should be remembered—the Patriots were ready for it.

The bolded is completely incorrect, even though the "defenders" keep saying it.

Completely off point with what you're quoting. But to be safe you don't use the remaining timeout (assuming 3 runs) until after the penultimate play. So how long does it take to run get stopped and get set up for another play? (Again we're assuming 3 runs). You probably need to save about 8-10 seconds for the final 2 plays even with the timeout. So can you get a run, get stuffed and set up and run a new play in 16-18 seconds? Probably, but you are having to rush.

How is it off point? I've seen it said over and over in here that they "had" to throw once during that series. No, they absolutely did not have to. Seattle chose to allow the play clock to run almost all the way down before snapping the 2nd down play with ~26 seconds left. Say that play took 6 seconds to run and call a TO, that would leave them with 20 seconds for the final 2 plays. If the 3rd down run took another 6 seconds, that would give them 13 seconds to get off the 4th down snap. Not only not impossible as he says in the article, but extremely likely. This is ignoring that they could have easily snapped 2nd down with 30-35 seconds left, being generous on how long a running play takes there, and assuming NE doesn't call a TO at all during the series.