The worst play call in NFL history (2 Viewers)

[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.

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.

Just meant what you were quoting. He wasn't saying anything about time. I agreed with you there is probably enough time. I'm not sure you can count on a run in 6 seconds with the Pats likely slow to get up. I also think you save the timeout for between 3rd and 4th (not that it matters time wise) in case something goes wrong.

 

[DropKick]

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.

Of course, its possible to get a play off but why would you want to? If 3rd down begins with 20 seconds and the runner does not score there are 14-15 seconds on the clock and its ticking... There is a pile of players and NE is doing its best to untangle slowly. Less than ideal.

They looked at this play as - worst case scenario - an incompletion. At least that would have stopped the clock and avoided a rushed play for the championship.

Personally, I don't think the flaw in their thinking was the actual call but the reluctance to give NE time to counter. That offense is not built to score fast.

 

[espnespn]

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.

Yes, Seattle could have easily run 3x if they didn't get cute with burning time off. Once they let the time tick off, they'd have to scramble to get 3 rushing plays off, and there's a risk of not getting the 4th down play in time (with the Patriots being slow to get up).

Can you imagine the Seattle fans jumping off bridges if the Seahawks couldn't get off the 4th down play in time?

 

[humpback]

Just meant what you were quoting. He wasn't saying anything about time. I agreed with you there is probably enough time. I'm not sure you can count on a run in 6 seconds with the Pats likely slow to get up. I also think you save the timeout for between 3rd and 4th (not that it matters time wise) in case something goes wrong.

IMO it's relevant because he was working off of the (false) premise that they had to throw the ball at least once there, and they simply chose to do so on 2nd down. Lynch's carry down to the 1 took 5 seconds, and that was a 4 yard run from a deep set. 6 seconds on a goal line carry is conservative IMO.

Of course, its possible to get a play off but why would you want to? If 3rd down begins with 20 seconds and the runner does not score there are 14-15 seconds on the clock and its ticking... There is a pile of players and NE is doing its best to untangle slowly. Less than ideal.
They looked at this play as - worst case scenario - an incompletion. At least that would have stopped the clock and avoided a rushed play for the championship.

Personally, I don't think the flaw in their thinking was the actual call but the reluctance to give NE time to counter. That offense is not built to score fast.

I've said this a bunch of times, but the entire sequence of events was what made it so bad. The worst case scenario there obviously wasn't an incompletion, but even if we dismiss an INT as a real long shot, very few people are talking about the fact that Lockette almost certainly wouldn't have scored even if he had caught the ball. They would have been "scrambling" anyway.

Yes, Seattle could have easily run 3x if they didn't get cute with burning time off. Once they let the time tick off, they'd have to scramble to get 3 rushing plays off, and there's a risk of not getting the 4th down play in time (with the Patriots being slow to get up).
Can you imagine the Seattle fans jumping off bridges if the Seahawks couldn't get off the 4th down play in time?

Well, that was the first of several mistakes they made in that sequence, but I still contend that they could have run 3 straight times fairly comfortably (if they wanted to). It certainly was far from impossible, which is what has been said a few times.

 

[Niles Standish]

Just meant what you were quoting. He wasn't saying anything about time. I agreed with you there is probably enough time. I'm not sure you can count on a run in 6 seconds with the Pats likely slow to get up. I also think you save the timeout for between 3rd and 4th (not that it matters time wise) in case something goes wrong.

IMO it's relevant because he was working off of the (false) premise that they had to throw the ball at least once there, and they simply chose to do so on 2nd down. Lynch's carry down to the 1 took 5 seconds, and that was a 4 yard run from a deep set. 6 seconds on a goal line carry is conservative IMO.

Of course, its possible to get a play off but why would you want to? If 3rd down begins with 20 seconds and the runner does not score there are 14-15 seconds on the clock and its ticking... There is a pile of players and NE is doing its best to untangle slowly. Less than ideal.

They looked at this play as - worst case scenario - an incompletion. At least that would have stopped the clock and avoided a rushed play for the championship.

Personally, I don't think the flaw in their thinking was the actual call but the reluctance to give NE time to counter. That offense is not built to score fast.

I've said this a bunch of times, but the entire sequence of events was what made it so bad. The worst case scenario there obviously wasn't an incompletion, but even if we dismiss an INT as a real long shot, very few people are talking about the fact that Lockette almost certainly wouldn't have scored even if he had caught the ball. They would have been "scrambling" anyway.

Yes, Seattle could have easily run 3x if they didn't get cute with burning time off. Once they let the time tick off, they'd have to scramble to get 3 rushing plays off, and there's a risk of not getting the 4th down play in time (with the Patriots being slow to get up).

Can you imagine the Seattle fans jumping off bridges if the Seahawks couldn't get off the 4th down play in time?

Well, that was the first of several mistakes they made in that sequence, but I still contend that they could have run 3 straight times fairly comfortably (if they wanted to). It certainly was far from impossible, which is what has been said a few times.

The only guy who could have stopped Lockette from scoring was Butler. I just rewatched the play and that's a certainty. No one else was close enough.

So if your imagining a completion it's hard to assume Butler is in the same spot. Where he would be in completion world who knows. But there are almost no places he could be to stop a TD other than where he was. But again I'm not sure anyone here is arguing about time available other than the article so it seems a waste to keep arguing about time.

 

[humpback]

The only guy who could have stopped Lockette from scoring was Butler. I just rewatched the play and that's a certainty. No one else was close enough.

So if your imagining a completion it's hard to assume Butler is in the same spot. Where he would be in completion world who knows. But there are almost no places he could be to stop a TD other than where he was. But again I'm not sure anyone here is arguing about time available other than the article so it seems a waste to keep arguing about time.

Wat? So if that ball had been thrown either a split second earlier and/or a few inches towards the right like many said it should have been, Butler would have been in a totally different position? He recognized the route and ran right to the point where the ball and the WR would have met. Yet another argument that makes zero sense.

Not sure what thread you are reading, but plenty of people are talking about time- it's the crux of the argument that they had to call a pass play at some point, so it wasn't a big deal that they did so on 2nd down.

 

[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.

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.

Since you've clearly lost track, I'm simply refuting the misconception that you and others are propagating regarding turnover probabilities. The relevant statistics tell us that passing and running had about the same likelihood of turning the ball over (each in the neighborhood of 2%)

FWIW,. the relevant statistics also tell us that passing and running had about the same likelihood of producing a TD (each in the neighborhood of 50-55%).

 

[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.

Since you've clearly lost track, I'm simply refuting the misconception that you and others are propagating regarding turnover probabilities. The relevant statistics tell us that passing and running had about the same likelihood of turning the ball over (each in the neighborhood of 2%)

FWIW,. the relevant statistics also tell us that passing and running had about the same likelihood of producing a TD (each in the neighborhood of 50-55%).[/quote

Instead of throwing insults---explain how I have lost track. Wilson has thrown the ball in his career 7 times at the goal line and while he has 5 tds--he also has 1 int--a turnover rate of almost 15%. If that is too small a sample size--the next best thing to look at is--how has wilson qb'd in regards to his turnover rate passing the ball versus marshawns turnover rate from fumbling the ball while rushing this season. Throughout this season (including the playoffs) wilson was 4x more likely to throw an int passing versus Marshawn losing a fumble. If you want to analyze just how Wilson looked in the playoffs--it's even worse. League wide statistics don't mean a thing here. There are 30 teams in the friggin NFL--why on god's earth should I use the data from other teams in the league when I have enough data for the Seahawks available to me. Not only that--you think Carroll was analyzing league wide or career data when he made the call? Did you watch the playoffs. The "eye test" alone made it glaringly clear and obvious that Marshawn was performing better than Wilson. You can try to generate numbers stating otherwise--but sometimes you don't need rocket science to tell you that the sky is blue. Everybody that is defending the call using "league wide" numbers is trying to justify a ridiculous call through irrelevant statistics. When the broadcaster of the game--who has far more NFL experience than anybody in this forum instantly questions and calls out how stupid the play was--maybe you should at least allow the possibility of it being the truth. Seattle had the ball on the goal line with multiple downs to go--with a timeout--and one of the best and error free running backs in the game--while the qb just came off of a game throwing 4 ints--and didn't complete a pass until the 2nd quarter of this game--and you want me to make my decisions based on league wide stats? They were favorites to win as long as they didn't turn the ball over--and the "relevant" stats show that Carroll went for a play so far this season was 4 times more likely to result in a catastrophic failure. Not only that--the results themselves show it was a horrible call. Anyhow---why don't we just stop this discussion here and agree to disagree. You can believe in your stats and I can believe in my stats and eyes. Good discussion and I appreciate your point of view.

 

[Tanner9919]

if Wilson ,instead of throwing into coverage in the middle of the pack of NE defenders, decides to throw a lolipop pass out to the left side of the endzone,mr Lynch was waiting there, all alone..the LB covering him gave up shortly after the snap of the ball - Lynch was WIDE OPEN - no one withing 5 yards of him ..

if you're going to pass, bring in 5 WR's, spread out the defense. call time out after Lynch's run to the 1.bring in 5 WR's , have Wilson under center, and then either run Lynch or have Wilson qb-sneak it up the middle.hurry to the line,do the same thing again. and again.. you couldn't do 3 consecutive Qb-sneak plays ? you needed what, 3 inches? change the cadence, maybe you get an offsides penalty on the defense..

jeez..with 26 seconds and 1 timeout,you don't HAVE to throw at all..

oh well.I wonder how much this game cost Wilson's bank account?

 

[RUSF18]

oh well.I wonder how much this game cost Wilson's bank account?

I'd say about $48K, pre-tax.

 

[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.

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.

Since you've clearly lost track, I'm simply refuting the misconception that you and others are propagating regarding turnover probabilities. The relevant statistics tell us that passing and running had about the same likelihood of turning the ball over (each in the neighborhood of 2%)

FWIW,. the relevant statistics also tell us that passing and running had about the same likelihood of producing a TD (each in the neighborhood of 50-55%).

Instead of throwing insults---explain how I have lost track. Wilson has thrown the ball in his career 7 times at the goal line and while he has 5 tds--he also has 1 int--a turnover rate of almost 15%. If that is too small a sample size--the next best thing to look at is--how has wilson qb'd in regards to his turnover rate passing the ball versus marshawns turnover rate from fumbling the ball while rushing this season. Throughout this season (including the playoffs) wilson was 4x more likely to throw an int passing versus Marshawn losing a fumble. If you want to analyze just how Wilson looked in the playoffs--it's even worse. League wide statistics don't mean a thing here. There are 30 teams in the friggin NFL--why on god's earth should I use the data from other teams in the league when I have enough data for the Seahawks available to me. Not only that--you think Carroll was analyzing league wide or career data when he made the call? Did you watch the playoffs. The "eye test" alone made it glaringly clear and obvious that Marshawn was performing better than Wilson. You can try to generate numbers stating otherwise--but sometimes you don't need rocket science to tell you that the sky is blue. Everybody that is defending the call using "league wide" numbers is trying to justify a ridiculous call through irrelevant statistics. When the broadcaster of the game--who has far more NFL experience than anybody in this forum instantly questions and calls out how stupid the play was--maybe you should at least allow the possibility of it being the truth. Seattle had the ball on the goal line with multiple downs to go--with a timeout--and one of the best and error free running backs in the game--while the qb just came off of a game throwing 4 ints--and didn't complete a pass until the 2nd quarter of this game--and you want me to make my decisions based on league wide stats? They were favorites to win as long as they didn't turn the ball over--and the "relevant" stats show that Carroll went for a play so far this season was 4 times more likely to result in a catastrophic failure. Not only that--the results themselves show it was a horrible call. Anyhow---why don't we just stop this discussion here and agree to disagree. You can believe in your stats and I can believe in my stats and eyes. Good discussion and I appreciate your point of view.

You lost track when you started veering off into building basketball teams and clock management. And now, by accusing me of throwing insults. The closest I've come to that is to point out that you're cherry-picking stats. Which you are.

Look in analyzing trends like this, more data is always better than less data. You're throwing away perfectly good data needlessly. Russell Wilson and Marshawn Lynch have played more than one season of NFL football. There's no justification for ignoring those other seasons. And despite your protestations, how other QBs and RBs have fared in the same situation is indeed relevant and insightful.

 

[Short Corner]

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.

Yes, Seattle could have easily run 3x if they didn't get cute with burning time off. Once they let the time tick off, they'd have to scramble to get 3 rushing plays off, and there's a risk of not getting the 4th down play in time (with the Patriots being slow to get up).

Can you imagine the Seattle fans jumping off bridges if the Seahawks couldn't get off the 4th down play in time?

Ending on a 10 second run off would have been even better.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

You lost track when you started veering off into building basketball teams and clock management. And now, by accusing me of throwing insults. The closest I've come to that is to point out that you're cherry-picking stats. Which you are.

Look in analyzing trends like this, more data is always better than less data. You're throwing away perfectly good data needlessly. Russell Wilson and Marshawn Lynch have played more than one season of NFL football. There's no justification for ignoring those other seasons. And despite your protestations, how other QBs and RBs have fared in the same situation is indeed relevant and insightful.

________________________________________________________________________

Please tell me how my clock management assessment is wrong. Was it not a quick hitting play that would maximize the amount of time NE had the ball left for comeback? Is it not true that should the pass had fallen incomplete that NE would not have to call a timeout? Please tell me how I'm off track. Assessing a situation using data is a sound policy as long as the data used in the analysis is relevant to what is being assessed. What Marshawn did 5 years ago on a different team, different competition, different o-line, different strength and maturity level and a different experience level is not relevant data to a play run two weeks ago. If you don't like my basketball analogy--here is a football analogy. If you were starting a football team and were looking at a running back--lets say steven jackson--do you look at his career stats--or do you look at what he's done more recently? His career averages would tell you that he's a guy that averages 4.2 yards per carry and can handle approximately 25 carries per game. Well last year he could only handle approximately 14 carries per game with a 3.7 yards per carry average. If you signed Steven Jackson tomorrow--please tell me which stats are a more accurate assessment of what to expect. If you tell me his career averages are more likely--then we have to agree to disagree. If you tell me that more recent stats are more applicable--then you have no reason to say I'm "off track". All of the people that are trying to use watered down, irrelevant stats to try to justify a horrid play call are just reaching for the lowest hanging fruit that is available to them to try to make "stupid look smart". Seattle is a running team. Run the ball. It's what you do best. It's not that hard. I'm not even a Seattle fan so I could care less about the outcome--but as a football fan-- it doesn't take rocket science to know it was moronic. Not only that--apparently the pass play that was called was a play that Carroll had called in the past--and Bellichik knew this--and bill's player got to the target zone before Carrolls did--so yet another reason why it was a stupid play call. Please explain to me how if you are going to run a pass play there (which is stupid enough in itself)--how a guy like Carroll would think that it would be safe to run a play that New England would obviously be aware of. If a defense is aware of where a pass is going--you know what is more likely to happen? A turnover. Do you know what is more likely to happen when a defense plays against a run and sniffs it out--most likely a stuff at the goal line--where either NE or SEA call a timeout and you have 1-2 more tries to get it in.

 

[Short Corner]

Please tell me how my clock management assessment is wrong. Was it not a quick hitting play that would maximize the amount of time NE had the ball left for comeback? Is it not true that should the pass had fallen incomplete that NE would not have to call a timeout?

NE wasn't calling TO. They were playing for the stop. Had they wanted toconserve time they would have burned one after first down.

 

[davearm]

You lost track when you started veering off into building basketball teams and clock management. And now, by accusing me of throwing insults. The closest I've come to that is to point out that you're cherry-picking stats. Which you are.

Look in analyzing trends like this, more data is always better than less data. You're throwing away perfectly good data needlessly. Russell Wilson and Marshawn Lynch have played more than one season of NFL football. There's no justification for ignoring those other seasons. And despite your protestations, how other QBs and RBs have fared in the same situation is indeed relevant and insightful.

________________________________________________________________________

Please tell me how my clock management assessment is wrong. Was it not a quick hitting play that would maximize the amount of time NE had the ball left for comeback? Is it not true that should the pass had fallen incomplete that NE would not have to call a timeout? Please tell me how I'm off track. Assessing a situation using data is a sound policy as long as the data used in the analysis is relevant to what is being assessed. What Marshawn did 5 years ago on a different team, different competition, different o-line, different strength and maturity level and a different experience level is not relevant data to a play run two weeks ago. If you don't like my basketball analogy--here is a football analogy. If you were starting a football team and were looking at a running back--lets say steven jackson--do you look at his career stats--or do you look at what he's done more recently? His career averages would tell you that he's a guy that averages 4.2 yards per carry and can handle approximately 25 carries per game. Well last year he could only handle approximately 14 carries per game with a 3.7 yards per carry average. If you signed Steven Jackson tomorrow--please tell me which stats are a more accurate assessment of what to expect. If you tell me his career averages are more likely--then we have to agree to disagree. If you tell me that more recent stats are more applicable--then you have no reason to say I'm "off track". All of the people that are trying to use watered down, irrelevant stats to try to justify a horrid play call are just reaching for the lowest hanging fruit that is available to them to try to make "stupid look smart". Seattle is a running team. Run the ball. It's what you do best. It's not that hard. I'm not even a Seattle fan so I could care less about the outcome--but as a football fan-- it doesn't take rocket science to know it was moronic. Not only that--apparently the pass play that was called was a play that Carroll had called in the past--and Bellichik knew this--and bill's player got to the target zone before Carrolls did--so yet another reason why it was a stupid play call. Please explain to me how if you are going to run a pass play there (which is stupid enough in itself)--how a guy like Carroll would think that it would be safe to run a play that New England would obviously be aware of. If a defense is aware of where a pass is going--you know what is more likely to happen? A turnover. Do you know what is more likely to happen when a defense plays against a run and sniffs it out--most likely a stuff at the goal line--where either NE or SEA call a timeout and you have 1-2 more tries to get it in.

The clock management stuff is a tangent. So is this team-building nonsense.

You (and others) have made the case that running is safer (i.e., less turnover prone) than passing in the GL situation Seattle faced. The most relevant data doesn't support this premise. Both options came with about a 2% probability of turning the ball over.

 

[davearm]

Please tell me how my clock management assessment is wrong. Was it not a quick hitting play that would maximize the amount of time NE had the ball left for comeback? Is it not true that should the pass had fallen incomplete that NE would not have to call a timeout?

NE wasn't calling TO. They were playing for the stop. Had they wanted toconserve time they would have burned one after first down.

Exactly. Once NE let the clock run after first down, they became all-in for a stop. It wouldn't have mattered if SEA scored on 2nd, 3rd, or 4th down. NE would have been dead in any of those cases. Running the ball to force NE to call a timeout is a non-factor if you're Seattle.

 

[Road Warriors]

You lost track when you started veering off into building basketball teams and clock management. And now, by accusing me of throwing insults. The closest I've come to that is to point out that you're cherry-picking stats. Which you are.

Look in analyzing trends like this, more data is always better than less data. You're throwing away perfectly good data needlessly. Russell Wilson and Marshawn Lynch have played more than one season of NFL football. There's no justification for ignoring those other seasons. And despite your protestations, how other QBs and RBs have fared in the same situation is indeed relevant and insightful.

________________________________________________________________________

Please tell me how my clock management assessment is wrong. Was it not a quick hitting play that would maximize the amount of time NE had the ball left for comeback? Is it not true that should the pass had fallen incomplete that NE would not have to call a timeout? Please tell me how I'm off track. Assessing a situation using data is a sound policy as long as the data used in the analysis is relevant to what is being assessed. What Marshawn did 5 years ago on a different team, different competition, different o-line, different strength and maturity level and a different experience level is not relevant data to a play run two weeks ago. If you don't like my basketball analogy--here is a football analogy. If you were starting a football team and were looking at a running back--lets say steven jackson--do you look at his career stats--or do you look at what he's done more recently? His career averages would tell you that he's a guy that averages 4.2 yards per carry and can handle approximately 25 carries per game. Well last year he could only handle approximately 14 carries per game with a 3.7 yards per carry average. If you signed Steven Jackson tomorrow--please tell me which stats are a more accurate assessment of what to expect. If you tell me his career averages are more likely--then we have to agree to disagree. If you tell me that more recent stats are more applicable--then you have no reason to say I'm "off track". All of the people that are trying to use watered down, irrelevant stats to try to justify a horrid play call are just reaching for the lowest hanging fruit that is available to them to try to make "stupid look smart". Seattle is a running team. Run the ball. It's what you do best. It's not that hard. I'm not even a Seattle fan so I could care less about the outcome--but as a football fan-- it doesn't take rocket science to know it was moronic. Not only that--apparently the pass play that was called was a play that Carroll had called in the past--and Bellichik knew this--and bill's player got to the target zone before Carrolls did--so yet another reason why it was a stupid play call. Please explain to me how if you are going to run a pass play there (which is stupid enough in itself)--how a guy like Carroll would think that it would be safe to run a play that New England would obviously be aware of. If a defense is aware of where a pass is going--you know what is more likely to happen? A turnover. Do you know what is more likely to happen when a defense plays against a run and sniffs it out--most likely a stuff at the goal line--where either NE or SEA call a timeout and you have 1-2 more tries to get it in.

Your clock management assessment is dead wrong, for the following reason.

1st down ends with 1:06 on the clock ( IIRC ). The Seahawks were working the clock down to give NE under 30 seconds to work with when the scored the go ahead TD. They accomplished that.

The time difference between a quick slant and a fade route or roll out is effectively 2-3 seconds. Given the time on the clock at the snap ( :26 ), those seconds matter very little if SEA scores on that play. If the clock stops on an incompletion, that works in SEA favor, as well. Now they have 2 plays and 1 TO, so they can run the 3rd down play let the clock run to :05 or whatever, call the TO and setup for a 4th down play.

The clock management aspect had already been done. The time run off the clock from 1st to 2nd down ( about 40 seconds ), regardless of when SEA scores, regardless of how many TO NE has, limits NE to no more than 3 plays to move the ball 50 yards and set up for a FG try to tie. SEA had accomplished their clock management goal prior to snapping the 2nd down play. Any addtional time run off the clock prior to scoring was gravy.

 

[humpback]

Please tell me how my clock management assessment is wrong. Was it not a quick hitting play that would maximize the amount of time NE had the ball left for comeback? Is it not true that should the pass had fallen incomplete that NE would not have to call a timeout?

NE wasn't calling TO. They were playing for the stop. Had they wanted toconserve time they would have burned one after first down.

Exactly. Once NE let the clock run after first down, they became all-in for a stop. It wouldn't have mattered if SEA scored on 2nd, 3rd, or 4th down. NE would have been dead in any of those cases. Running the ball to force NE to call a timeout is a non-factor if you're Seattle.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-gameday/0ap3000000467649/Belichick-We-ve-prepared-for-that-situation

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Please tell me how my clock management assessment is wrong. Was it not a quick hitting play that would maximize the amount of time NE had the ball left for comeback? Is it not true that should the pass had fallen incomplete that NE would not have to call a timeout?

NE wasn't calling TO. They were playing for the stop. Had they wanted toconserve time they would have burned one after first down.

Exactly. Once NE let the clock run after first down, they became all-in for a stop. It wouldn't have mattered if SEA scored on 2nd, 3rd, or 4th down. NE would have been dead in any of those cases. Running the ball to force NE to call a timeout is a non-factor if you're Seattle.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-gameday/0ap3000000467649/Belichick-We-ve-prepared-for-that-situation

Thank you. Bellichik states that he would have probably called a timeout on a running play. I wonder if the stat hounds will analyze the exact words he said now.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

You lost track when you started veering off into building basketball teams and clock management. And now, by accusing me of throwing insults. The closest I've come to that is to point out that you're cherry-picking stats. Which you are.

Look in analyzing trends like this, more data is always better than less data. You're throwing away perfectly good data needlessly. Russell Wilson and Marshawn Lynch have played more than one season of NFL football. There's no justification for ignoring those other seasons. And despite your protestations, how other QBs and RBs have fared in the same situation is indeed relevant and insightful.

________________________________________________________________________

Please tell me how my clock management assessment is wrong. Was it not a quick hitting play that would maximize the amount of time NE had the ball left for comeback? Is it not true that should the pass had fallen incomplete that NE would not have to call a timeout? Please tell me how I'm off track. Assessing a situation using data is a sound policy as long as the data used in the analysis is relevant to what is being assessed. What Marshawn did 5 years ago on a different team, different competition, different o-line, different strength and maturity level and a different experience level is not relevant data to a play run two weeks ago. If you don't like my basketball analogy--here is a football analogy. If you were starting a football team and were looking at a running back--lets say steven jackson--do you look at his career stats--or do you look at what he's done more recently? His career averages would tell you that he's a guy that averages 4.2 yards per carry and can handle approximately 25 carries per game. Well last year he could only handle approximately 14 carries per game with a 3.7 yards per carry average. If you signed Steven Jackson tomorrow--please tell me which stats are a more accurate assessment of what to expect. If you tell me his career averages are more likely--then we have to agree to disagree. If you tell me that more recent stats are more applicable--then you have no reason to say I'm "off track". All of the people that are trying to use watered down, irrelevant stats to try to justify a horrid play call are just reaching for the lowest hanging fruit that is available to them to try to make "stupid look smart". Seattle is a running team. Run the ball. It's what you do best. It's not that hard. I'm not even a Seattle fan so I could care less about the outcome--but as a football fan-- it doesn't take rocket science to know it was moronic. Not only that--apparently the pass play that was called was a play that Carroll had called in the past--and Bellichik knew this--and bill's player got to the target zone before Carrolls did--so yet another reason why it was a stupid play call. Please explain to me how if you are going to run a pass play there (which is stupid enough in itself)--how a guy like Carroll would think that it would be safe to run a play that New England would obviously be aware of. If a defense is aware of where a pass is going--you know what is more likely to happen? A turnover. Do you know what is more likely to happen when a defense plays against a run and sniffs it out--most likely a stuff at the goal line--where either NE or SEA call a timeout and you have 1-2 more tries to get it in.

Your clock management assessment is dead wrong, for the following reason.

1st down ends with 1:06 on the clock ( IIRC ). The Seahawks were working the clock down to give NE under 30 seconds to work with when the scored the go ahead TD. They accomplished that.

The time difference between a quick slant and a fade route or roll out is effectively 2-3 seconds. Given the time on the clock at the snap ( :26 ), those seconds matter very little if SEA scores on that play. If the clock stops on an incompletion, that works in SEA favor, as well. Now they have 2 plays and 1 TO, so they can run the 3rd down play let the clock run to :05 or whatever, call the TO and setup for a 4th down play.

The clock management aspect had already been done. The time run off the clock from 1st to 2nd down ( about 40 seconds ), regardless of when SEA scores, regardless of how many TO NE has, limits NE to no more than 3 plays to move the ball 50 yards and set up for a FG try to tie. SEA had accomplished their clock management goal prior to snapping the 2nd down play. Any addtional time run off the clock prior to scoring was gravy.

Where in your clock management assessment is the possibility that NE calls a timeout if a running play may have been stuffed. There is video on one of the links below where Belichik says he probably would have called a timeout on the run. Would that not be in Seattles best interest? Bellichik also has a history of letting teams run the ball in to maximize the time his team has the ball back--how does that factor in your assessment. Do you not think there was even a remote chance that thought ran through Belichiks mind and perhaps thats why he chose to not call a timeout? With all due respect--your assessment is leaving out a world of moving parts.

 

[davearm]

You lost track when you started veering off into building basketball teams and clock management. And now, by accusing me of throwing insults. The closest I've come to that is to point out that you're cherry-picking stats. Which you are.

Look in analyzing trends like this, more data is always better than less data. You're throwing away perfectly good data needlessly. Russell Wilson and Marshawn Lynch have played more than one season of NFL football. There's no justification for ignoring those other seasons. And despite your protestations, how other QBs and RBs have fared in the same situation is indeed relevant and insightful.

________________________________________________________________________

Please tell me how my clock management assessment is wrong. Was it not a quick hitting play that would maximize the amount of time NE had the ball left for comeback? Is it not true that should the pass had fallen incomplete that NE would not have to call a timeout? Please tell me how I'm off track. Assessing a situation using data is a sound policy as long as the data used in the analysis is relevant to what is being assessed. What Marshawn did 5 years ago on a different team, different competition, different o-line, different strength and maturity level and a different experience level is not relevant data to a play run two weeks ago. If you don't like my basketball analogy--here is a football analogy. If you were starting a football team and were looking at a running back--lets say steven jackson--do you look at his career stats--or do you look at what he's done more recently? His career averages would tell you that he's a guy that averages 4.2 yards per carry and can handle approximately 25 carries per game. Well last year he could only handle approximately 14 carries per game with a 3.7 yards per carry average. If you signed Steven Jackson tomorrow--please tell me which stats are a more accurate assessment of what to expect. If you tell me his career averages are more likely--then we have to agree to disagree. If you tell me that more recent stats are more applicable--then you have no reason to say I'm "off track". All of the people that are trying to use watered down, irrelevant stats to try to justify a horrid play call are just reaching for the lowest hanging fruit that is available to them to try to make "stupid look smart". Seattle is a running team. Run the ball. It's what you do best. It's not that hard. I'm not even a Seattle fan so I could care less about the outcome--but as a football fan-- it doesn't take rocket science to know it was moronic. Not only that--apparently the pass play that was called was a play that Carroll had called in the past--and Bellichik knew this--and bill's player got to the target zone before Carrolls did--so yet another reason why it was a stupid play call. Please explain to me how if you are going to run a pass play there (which is stupid enough in itself)--how a guy like Carroll would think that it would be safe to run a play that New England would obviously be aware of. If a defense is aware of where a pass is going--you know what is more likely to happen? A turnover. Do you know what is more likely to happen when a defense plays against a run and sniffs it out--most likely a stuff at the goal line--where either NE or SEA call a timeout and you have 1-2 more tries to get it in.

Your clock management assessment is dead wrong, for the following reason.

1st down ends with 1:06 on the clock ( IIRC ). The Seahawks were working the clock down to give NE under 30 seconds to work with when the scored the go ahead TD. They accomplished that.

The time difference between a quick slant and a fade route or roll out is effectively 2-3 seconds. Given the time on the clock at the snap ( :26 ), those seconds matter very little if SEA scores on that play. If the clock stops on an incompletion, that works in SEA favor, as well. Now they have 2 plays and 1 TO, so they can run the 3rd down play let the clock run to :05 or whatever, call the TO and setup for a 4th down play.

The clock management aspect had already been done. The time run off the clock from 1st to 2nd down ( about 40 seconds ), regardless of when SEA scores, regardless of how many TO NE has, limits NE to no more than 3 plays to move the ball 50 yards and set up for a FG try to tie. SEA had accomplished their clock management goal prior to snapping the 2nd down play. Any addtional time run off the clock prior to scoring was gravy.

Where in your clock management assessment is the possibility that NE calls a timeout if a running play may have been stuffed. There is video on one of the links below where Belichik says he probably would have called a timeout on the run. Would that not be in Seattles best interest? Bellichik also has a history of letting teams run the ball in to maximize the time his team has the ball back--how does that factor in your assessment. Do you not think there was even a remote chance that thought ran through Belichiks mind and perhaps thats why he chose to not call a timeout? With all due respect--your assessment is leaving out a world of moving parts.

The bolded answers your question. On that drive, Seattle's priorities were:

1) Score a TD

2) Score a TD

3) Score a TD

.

.

.

99) Score a TD

100) Don't leave Brady a lot of time

Once New England allowed the clock to run down under :30, priority #100 became satisfied. Thus it went from barely in their (Seattle's) thought process, to not at all in their thought process.

 

[davearm]

The notion that Belichick was going to let Seattle score began as very farfetched. Once he let the clock run after first down, it became insane. What on earth would have told him to let the clock run, THEN just let them score? Asinine.

 

[Old Smiley]

Yeah, that timeout Bill was talking about was probably more about juggling guys. Just to me, you could argue Pats might be better off keeping SEA scrambling around, but he's Bill and I'm me.

 

[Road Warriors]

You lost track when you started veering off into building basketball teams and clock management. And now, by accusing me of throwing insults. The closest I've come to that is to point out that you're cherry-picking stats. Which you are.

Look in analyzing trends like this, more data is always better than less data. You're throwing away perfectly good data needlessly. Russell Wilson and Marshawn Lynch have played more than one season of NFL football. There's no justification for ignoring those other seasons. And despite your protestations, how other QBs and RBs have fared in the same situation is indeed relevant and insightful.

________________________________________________________________________

Please tell me how my clock management assessment is wrong. Was it not a quick hitting play that would maximize the amount of time NE had the ball left for comeback? Is it not true that should the pass had fallen incomplete that NE would not have to call a timeout? Please tell me how I'm off track. Assessing a situation using data is a sound policy as long as the data used in the analysis is relevant to what is being assessed. What Marshawn did 5 years ago on a different team, different competition, different o-line, different strength and maturity level and a different experience level is not relevant data to a play run two weeks ago. If you don't like my basketball analogy--here is a football analogy. If you were starting a football team and were looking at a running back--lets say steven jackson--do you look at his career stats--or do you look at what he's done more recently? His career averages would tell you that he's a guy that averages 4.2 yards per carry and can handle approximately 25 carries per game. Well last year he could only handle approximately 14 carries per game with a 3.7 yards per carry average. If you signed Steven Jackson tomorrow--please tell me which stats are a more accurate assessment of what to expect. If you tell me his career averages are more likely--then we have to agree to disagree. If you tell me that more recent stats are more applicable--then you have no reason to say I'm "off track". All of the people that are trying to use watered down, irrelevant stats to try to justify a horrid play call are just reaching for the lowest hanging fruit that is available to them to try to make "stupid look smart". Seattle is a running team. Run the ball. It's what you do best. It's not that hard. I'm not even a Seattle fan so I could care less about the outcome--but as a football fan-- it doesn't take rocket science to know it was moronic. Not only that--apparently the pass play that was called was a play that Carroll had called in the past--and Bellichik knew this--and bill's player got to the target zone before Carrolls did--so yet another reason why it was a stupid play call. Please explain to me how if you are going to run a pass play there (which is stupid enough in itself)--how a guy like Carroll would think that it would be safe to run a play that New England would obviously be aware of. If a defense is aware of where a pass is going--you know what is more likely to happen? A turnover. Do you know what is more likely to happen when a defense plays against a run and sniffs it out--most likely a stuff at the goal line--where either NE or SEA call a timeout and you have 1-2 more tries to get it in.

Your clock management assessment is dead wrong, for the following reason.

1st down ends with 1:06 on the clock ( IIRC ). The Seahawks were working the clock down to give NE under 30 seconds to work with when the scored the go ahead TD. They accomplished that.

The time difference between a quick slant and a fade route or roll out is effectively 2-3 seconds. Given the time on the clock at the snap ( :26 ), those seconds matter very little if SEA scores on that play. If the clock stops on an incompletion, that works in SEA favor, as well. Now they have 2 plays and 1 TO, so they can run the 3rd down play let the clock run to :05 or whatever, call the TO and setup for a 4th down play.

The clock management aspect had already been done. The time run off the clock from 1st to 2nd down ( about 40 seconds ), regardless of when SEA scores, regardless of how many TO NE has, limits NE to no more than 3 plays to move the ball 50 yards and set up for a FG try to tie. SEA had accomplished their clock management goal prior to snapping the 2nd down play. Any addtional time run off the clock prior to scoring was gravy.

Where in your clock management assessment is the possibility that NE calls a timeout if a running play may have been stuffed. There is video on one of the links below where Belichik says he probably would have called a timeout on the run. Would that not be in Seattles best interest? Bellichik also has a history of letting teams run the ball in to maximize the time his team has the ball back--how does that factor in your assessment. Do you not think there was even a remote chance that thought ran through Belichiks mind and perhaps thats why he chose to not call a timeout? With all due respect--your assessment is leaving out a world of moving parts.

I've seen the video, and it doesn't change my assessment at all. SEA runs the ball and is stopped, NE calls a TO with :20 on the clock. SEA either scores or doesn't on the next play. Assuming they don't score on 3rd, NE can call another TO, or SEA can call a TO, but now we're at :15 and NE with 1 or 0 TO. SEA runs a 4th down play and scores, leaving ~ :10 on the clock. To be honest, I thought BB should have called the TO after 1st. Once we're down in the :20 second range, nothing short of a miracle allows NE enough time to move the ball for a tying FG.

No chance BB allows a score to maximize time. The only time he did that, the game situation was they lose to a FG, so allowing the TD was a good call given the likelihood that NYG can bleed the clock and kick a XP length FG for the lead.

I think there were mistakes made in this call. I think that Seattle running the 40s off the clock from after 1st down was a mistake ( prioritized clock over scoring ). I also think Carroll bet that BB would call that TO after 1st. Then I think Carroll tried to get a more favorable defensive matchup by going 3 wide ( betting on NE changing out of their GL package ). Belichick stays in GL expecting run, leaving single coverage on all WR. That's a matchup advantage to the offense. Running the rub/slant in that coverage is typically not a risky play.

I get the argument that read-option or just straight up power football with Lynch is the smart play. What I find interesting is that Carroll tends to play defense straight up, doesn't adjust much and says my guys can beat your guys. In this case, he tried to create a matchup advantage rather than just going jumbo and saying you can't stop this yard. I don't see much SEA football, but this seems to go against the tendencies I see on defense, and I don't know if that's typical of how he's run his offense, or if it was "over coaching" under pressure.

 

[espnespn]

As far as I can tell, there are no stats at all that say passing was a horrible play call. Even the most pro-rushing stat comparisons say there is a marginal improvement (few percentage point increase) by rushing vs. passing.

 

[humpback]

The bolded answers your question. On that drive, Seattle's priorities were:
1) Score a TD

2) Score a TD

3) Score a TD

.

.

.

99) Score a TD

100) Don't leave Brady a lot of time

Once New England allowed the clock to run down under :30, priority #100 became satisfied. Thus it went from barely in their (Seattle's) thought process, to not at all in their thought process.

Your priority #100 is more like their priority #2. If it wasn't, they certainly wouldn't have let the clock run down as far as it did.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

The notion that Belichick was going to let Seattle score began as very farfetched. Once he let the clock run after first down, it became insane. What on earth would have told him to let the clock run, THEN just let them score? Asinine.

you never ever LET them score, the other team can always make a collosal mistake

 

[Anarchy99]

The notion that Belichick was going to let Seattle score began as very farfetched. Once he let the clock run after first down, it became insane. What on earth would have told him to let the clock run, THEN just let them score? Asinine.

you never ever LET them score, the other team can always make a collosal mistake

I don't agree with this. It depends on the score, the team, how much time is left, the opposition, etc.

If it came down to letting a team runout the clock and getting the ball with a full 2 minutes left with no timeouts left and needing a FG to tie, I would let the team score and hope to get a FG and go to OT.

Once there is very little time left, letting a team score makes very little sense. In the most recent game, if NE could have used their remaining two timeouts in the hopes of leaving any reasonable amount of time to get a game tying FG. BB felt better with the match up he had for the second down play that he passed on the timeout to go with the match up and the play call (which paid out big time). Had the pass fallen incomplete, NE most likely would have been in trouble if SEA scored.

 

[IHEARTFF]

That is not the scenario to let them score. However, there are situations where letting them score is absolutely the correct play.

 

[cstu]

The notion that Belichick was going to let Seattle score began as very farfetched. Once he let the clock run after first down, it became insane. What on earth would have told him to let the clock run, THEN just let them score? Asinine.

you never ever LET them score, the other team can always make a collosal mistake

You have a lousy defense and the best offense in the league. You have no timeouts with less than 2:00 left and are up by 2.

The other team make completes a pass and you have a chance to tackle a player at the 1, resulting in a first down, or score a TD.

Tackle him or let him score?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

The notion that Belichick was going to let Seattle score began as very farfetched. Once he let the clock run after first down, it became insane. What on earth would have told him to let the clock run, THEN just let them score? Asinine.

you never ever LET them score, the other team can always make a collosal mistake

You have a lousy defense and the best offense in the league. You have no timeouts with less than 2:00 left and are up by 2.

The other team make completes a pass and you have a chance to tackle a player at the 1, resulting in a first down, or score a TD.

Tackle him or let him score?

tackle him, force a fumble and recover?

 

[cstu]

Lynch's reaction to the worst call in NFL history.

 

[dhockster]

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."

If the bolded is true, then that is why it is a bad call. Carroll was playing against a great coach who had two weeks to prepare for the game. Belichek was going to be prepared for whatever the Seahawks tendencies were, run or pass. Lining up in the shotgun tipped the defense that a pass was probable. NE had prepared for this play and Browner and Butler executed perfectly.

Just like in poker, when playing the best, you have to go to next level thinking and do something your opponent does not expect. Carroll may have thought he was doing this by going pass instead of run, but he went to a pass that they liked to use. This made it somewhat predictable.

I don't think it was the worst play call in history. I think it was the worst play call in the History of the Super Bowl in the last minute with the game on the line.

 

[cstu]

Golden Tate "They know they should have given the ball to Marshawn." (1:10)

 

[Andrew74]

Golden Tate "They know they should have given the ball to Marshawn." (1:10)

That brunett is stacked.

 

[Tool]

Golden Tate "They know they should have given the ball to Marshawn." (1:10)

That brunett is stacked.

Truth.

 

[Ed Wood]

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."

If the bolded is true, then that is why it is a bad call. Carroll was playing against a great coach who had two weeks to prepare for the game. Belichek was going to be prepared for whatever the Seahawks tendencies were, run or pass. Lining up in the shotgun tipped the defense that a pass was probable. NE had prepared for this play and Browner and Butler executed perfectly.

Just like in poker, when playing the best, you have to go to next level thinking and do something your opponent does not expect. Carroll may have thought he was doing this by going pass instead of run, but he went to a pass that they liked to use. This made it somewhat predictable.

I don't think it was the worst play call in history. I think it was the worst play call in the History of the Super Bowl in the last minute with the game on the line.

The shotgun and THEN Lynch going in motion...how much more obvious can you get that you're throwing? At least give the D the remote possibility a run is feasible. They could have run the same play with Lynch staying in the backfield. I think the same result occurs, but just sayin'...

Woody Hayes used to say there are three things that can happen when you throw the ball and two of them are bad. In this case, there were three bad things that could happen and two of them happened to the Hawks--an incompletion, an interception and an interception that ends your season.

It might not have been the worst play call in history. But I think it was the worst play call in the history of the Super Bowl (maybe all of postseason history) no matter what the clock read.

 

[Road Warriors]

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."

If the bolded is true, then that is why it is a bad call. Carroll was playing against a great coach who had two weeks to prepare for the game. Belichek was going to be prepared for whatever the Seahawks tendencies were, run or pass. Lining up in the shotgun tipped the defense that a pass was probable. NE had prepared for this play and Browner and Butler executed perfectly.

Just like in poker, when playing the best, you have to go to next level thinking and do something your opponent does not expect. Carroll may have thought he was doing this by going pass instead of run, but he went to a pass that they liked to use. This made it somewhat predictable.

I don't think it was the worst play call in history. I think it was the worst play call in the History of the Super Bowl in the last minute with the game on the line.

The shotgun and THEN Lynch going in motion...how much more obvious can you get that you're throwing? At least give the D the remote possibility a run is feasible. They could have run the same play with Lynch staying in the backfield. I think the same result occurs, but just sayin'...

Woody Hayes used to say there are three things that can happen when you throw the ball and two of them are bad. In this case, there were three bad things that could happen and two of them happened to the Hawks--an incompletion, an interception and an interception that ends your season.

It might not have been the worst play call in history. But I think it was the worst play call in the history of the Super Bowl (maybe all of postseason history) no matter what the clock read.

Lynch didn't go in motion, he was stationary at the snap. There was no play-action ( which is what I think you're really saying ), Lynch goes straight out to the left flat from the snap.

Play action or not, based on the formation and defense called, is playing slant all the way. Play action wouldn't have changed the DB's reaction at all, IMO.

 

[Old Smiley]

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."

If the bolded is true, then that is why it is a bad call. Carroll was playing against a great coach who had two weeks to prepare for the game. Belichek was going to be prepared for whatever the Seahawks tendencies were, run or pass. Lining up in the shotgun tipped the defense that a pass was probable. NE had prepared for this play and Browner and Butler executed perfectly.

Just like in poker, when playing the best, you have to go to next level thinking and do something your opponent does not expect. Carroll may have thought he was doing this by going pass instead of run, but he went to a pass that they liked to use. This made it somewhat predictable.

I don't think it was the worst play call in history. I think it was the worst play call in the History of the Super Bowl in the last minute with the game on the line.

The shotgun and THEN Lynch going in motion...how much more obvious can you get that you're throwing? At least give the D the remote possibility a run is feasible. They could have run the same play with Lynch staying in the backfield. I think the same result occurs, but just sayin'...

Woody Hayes used to say there are three things that can happen when you throw the ball and two of them are bad. In this case, there were three bad things that could happen and two of them happened to the Hawks--an incompletion, an interception and an interception that ends your season.

It might not have been the worst play call in history. But I think it was the worst play call in the history of the Super Bowl (maybe all of postseason history) no matter what the clock read.

Lynch didn't go in motion, he was stationary at the snap. There was no play-action ( which is what I think you're really saying ), Lynch goes straight out to the left flat from the snap.

Play action or not, based on the formation and defense called, is playing slant all the way. Play action wouldn't have changed the DB's reaction at all, IMO.

yup. Just watched it again. Only motion was Lynch (and TE) were misaligned. Interesting, too: on the play previous, Butler and Browner were playing the exact same thing. Browner stiffs his guy and Butler plays the slant. (which were the routes on that side)

 

[12punch]

think this pretty much sums it up

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

think this pretty much sums it up

Good summary.

 

[cstu]

think this pretty much sums it up

Now they have so many leftover Skittles.