The worst play call in NFL history (1 Viewer)

[Sabertooth]

Still not sure how there was no call on the helmet-to-helmet hit late in the game. It was blatant. I watched a guy get flagged this season for merely touching a helmet with an open hand.

 

[Todem]

Still not sure how there was no call on the helmet-to-helmet hit late in the game. It was blatant. I watched a guy get flagged this season for merely touching a helmet with an open hand.

One thing that was for certain was the ref's let them play. I loved that.

The game flew by. First time all year I felt like I watching football from 15 years ago. And not this touch football we are being subject to now.

 

[Sabertooth]

Still not sure how there was no call on the helmet-to-helmet hit late in the game. It was blatant. I watched a guy get flagged this season for merely touching a helmet with an open hand.

One thing that was for certain was the ref's let them play. I loved that.

The game flew by. First time all year I felt like I watching football from 15 years ago. And not this touch football we are being subject to now.

I agree. The officiating was pretty good thankfully.

 

[snogger]

I understand the tendency to worry about scoring with too much time left on the clock. That said, one thing at a time, worry about scoring. Managing the time carefully but not scoring accomplishes nothing.

.. when the Patriots were on their last drive my thought process was "NE should milk the clock".. But Al Michael said basically the same thing you said " Your first thought here is to score, clock is secondary".

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Still not sure how there was no call on the helmet-to-helmet hit late in the game. It was blatant. I watched a guy get flagged this season for merely touching a helmet with an open hand.

One thing that was for certain was the ref's let them play. I loved that.

The game flew by. First time all year I felt like I watching football from 15 years ago. And not this touch football we are being subject to now.

Agree, it was refreshing to watch old school football again.

 

[ghostguy123]

Wilson completes the pass and everyone talks about how smart it was because New England was expecting a run.

Moreso the general public and most media because they are stupid, but anyone who knows anything would have called it super lucky

 

[ghostguy123]

Anyone buy into the theory that Bevell thinks Wilson doesn't get enough credit so he wanted to run a play where he could get the game winning TD pass to help him get as much positive press as possible?

I definitely think that could have factored into his playcalling.

umm, no

 

[ghostguy123]

Still not sure how there was no call on the helmet-to-helmet hit late in the game. It was blatant. I watched a guy get flagged this season for merely touching a helmet with an open hand.

One thing that was for certain was the ref's let them play. I loved that.

The game flew by. First time all year I felt like I watching football from 15 years ago. And not this touch football we are being subject to now.

Agree, it was refreshing to watch old school football again.

Agree.

But it makes no sense. How do you officiate on way all year, then completely change it for the super bowl.

 

[Todem]

Still not sure how there was no call on the helmet-to-helmet hit late in the game. It was blatant. I watched a guy get flagged this season for merely touching a helmet with an open hand.

One thing that was for certain was the ref's let them play. I loved that.

The game flew by. First time all year I felt like I watching football from 15 years ago. And not this touch football we are being subject to now.

Agree, it was refreshing to watch old school football again.

Agree.

But it makes no sense. How do you officiate on way all year, then completely change it for the super bowl.

Generally I have resigned myself to the fact that post season football they actually let a lot more go.

I agree, it is crazy how they call everything and anything in the regular season which for me has become so uninteresting to letting them play the way I remember in the post season.

Thank god for small miracles. The last thing I want to see is officials deciding games like they seem to do more so than ever with all the replay and new pansy rules on hitting WR's and QB's.

Speaking of replay....thank god it did not come into play last night nor was needed for anything. Thank god. I don't think anything was even challenged last night. That's how clean of a game was played and called. It was superbly refreshing.

 

[Cjw_55106]

Sorry if this has been posted, but Bevell looks like a fool here:

OC, play caller Darrell Bevell: "We could have done a better job staying strong on the ball"

He blames Lockette for his terrible call.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

My guess is when someone runs a probability analysis they'll find that passing on that down increased the likelihood of scoring a TD on the series but also resulted in a small increase in the likelihood of a turnover.

If the Seahawks run on the next plays and get stopped there would be lots of questioning why they didn't try to pass on one of the downs when the Pats were expecting runs. It's probably easier criticism to deal with as a coach but the questions still would have been asked and the loss would hurt just as much.

 

[Sabertooth]

Wilson completes the pass and everyone talks about how smart it was because New England was expecting a run.

Moreso the general public and most media because they are stupid, but anyone who knows anything would have called it super lucky

Yeah, just like anyone who knows anything know that Seattle was lucky to even be playing in this game.

 

[Sabertooth]

My guess is when someone runs a probability analysis they'll find that passing on that down increased the likelihood of scoring a TD on the series but also resulted in a small increase in the likelihood of a turnover.

If the Seahawks run on the next plays and get stopped there would be lots of questioning why they didn't try to pass on one of the downs when the Pats were expecting runs. It's probably easier criticism to deal with as a coach but the questions still would have been asked and the loss would hurt just as much.

Especially when your QB suspects that he was "made for situations like this."

 

[shader]

Bails out Belichick from having to answer for not calling a timeout there.

Yes that was incredibly stupid.

Ironically, if Belichick had called a timeout, Seattle probably would have realized they needed to run it, and Lynch would have scored a TD.

 

[ghostguy123]

My guess is when someone runs a probability analysis they'll find that passing on that down increased the likelihood of scoring a TD on the series but also resulted in a small increase in the likelihood of a turnover.

If the Seahawks run on the next plays and get stopped there would be lots of questioning why they didn't try to pass on one of the downs when the Pats were expecting runs. It's probably easier criticism to deal with as a coach but the questions still would have been asked and the loss would hurt just as much.

No.

A pass play is fine. THAT high risk pass play was not

 

[zamboni]

We've beaten this to death, but I'm surprised Wilson isn't getting as much blame as the coaching staff.

For a guy that makes his living out of creativity/tucking the ball and running when the passing lane isn't there, he made a bad decision to force it - even if that was the play call.

 

[ghostguy123]

Well yeah. Wilson certainly has blame there also.

 

[Sabertooth]

Bails out Belichick from having to answer for not calling a timeout there.

Yes that was incredibly stupid.

Ironically, if Belichick had called a timeout, Seattle probably would have realized they needed to run it, and Lynch would have scored a TD.

Yeah makes you wonder if Hoodie decided against the timeout to ratchet up the pressure of the situation. Game within the game.

 

[Sabertooth]

Yeah that throw needs to be about knee height. Brady had one like that earlier for an incompletion. Not a pick, and incompletion.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

My guess is when someone runs a probability analysis they'll find that passing on that down increased the likelihood of scoring a TD on the series but also resulted in a small increase in the likelihood of a turnover.

If the Seahawks run on the next plays and get stopped there would be lots of questioning why they didn't try to pass on one of the downs when the Pats were expecting runs. It's probably easier criticism to deal with as a coach but the questions still would have been asked and the loss would hurt just as much.

No.

A pass play is fine. THAT high risk pass play was not

My guess is that the interception rate on that play in that situation is still really small. Almost certainly less than the probability of being stopped on a short yardage run.

I probably would have called something different as well, but I think the "worst call in history" stuff is mostly outcome bias. Objectively I think the Seahawks just got a bad beat caused by an insanely great individual play by Butler.

 

[fruity pebbles]

I do blame Wilson as well. You can't throw it in that part of the field. Hell, even if the receiver caught the ball he still wasn't going to be in the end zone.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Tom E. Curran ‏@tomecurran

Pats were letting clock run to conserve timeouts. Would have let them score if they ran. Worst play call in history of the sport.

I've seen this mentioned a few times, and IIRC the announcers even said it during the game. I think Collinsworth said something like, "You know Belichick's thinking about it..."

Uh, no he isn't, because he's not ######ed. Anyone who thinks the Patriots would let the Seahawks score in that situation doesn't seem to understnand how basic strategy... or arithmetic... or pretty much anything works. It's like they saw the Pats let someone score once, so now any time a team is close to the end zone near the end of a game, letting them score is an option? This is infuriatingly dumb.

 

[ghostguy123]

My guess is when someone runs a probability analysis they'll find that passing on that down increased the likelihood of scoring a TD on the series but also resulted in a small increase in the likelihood of a turnover.

If the Seahawks run on the next plays and get stopped there would be lots of questioning why they didn't try to pass on one of the downs when the Pats were expecting runs. It's probably easier criticism to deal with as a coach but the questions still would have been asked and the loss would hurt just as much.

No.A pass play is fine. THAT high risk pass play was not

My guess is that the interception rate on that play in that situation is still really small. Almost certainly less than the probability of being stopped on a short yardage run.

I probably would have called something different as well, but I think the "worst call in history" stuff is mostly outcome bias. Objectively I think the Seahawks just got a bad beat caused by an insanely great individual play by Butler.

Define "really small".

A rifle slant with all the defenders close is not what i would consider really small.

any other play call there would have been better. Any one

 

[Sabertooth]

I do blame Wilson as well. You can't throw it in that part of the field. Hell, even if the receiver caught the ball he still wasn't going to be in the end zone.

Plus being short, he was made for that situation. Literally. Throw it in there low and let him shield it with his body.

 

[espnespn]

I do blame Wilson as well. You can't throw it in that part of the field. Hell, even if the receiver caught the ball he still wasn't going to be in the end zone.

https://twitter.com/SheilKapadia/status/562101647963594753/photo/1

Take a look at this picture. Seahawks receiver was open. Butler just made a better play.

 

[ghostguy123]

Tom E. Curran ‏@tomecurran

Pats were letting clock run to conserve timeouts. Would have let them score if they ran. Worst play call in history of the sport.

I've seen this mentioned a few times, and IIRC the announcers even said it during the game. I think Collinsworth said something like, "You know Belichick's thinking about it..."Uh, no he isn't, because he's not ######ed. Anyone who thinks the Patriots would let the Seahawks score in that situation doesn't seem to understnand how basic strategy... or arithmetic... or pretty much anything works. It's like they saw the Pats let someone score once, so now any time a team is close to the end zone near the end of a game, letting them score is an option? This is infuriatingly dumb.

Letting the clock run AND letting them score. Sure sounds like something BB would do....lord

 

[ghostguy123]

I do blame Wilson as well. You can't throw it in that part of the field. Hell, even if the receiver caught the ball he still wasn't going to be in the end zone.

https://twitter.com/SheilKapadia/status/562101647963594753/photo/1

Take a look at this picture. Seahawks receiver was open. Butler just made a better play.

Looks like a bad read with the defender coming up.

To each his own on reading that

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I disagree with the way a lot of people are approaching their analysis.

To me, the question is not whether they should have run or pass on that play; it's what percentage of the time they should have run and what percentage of the time they should have passed on that play.

In nearly every game situation, the answer should not be 100-0, but rather a mixed strategy is appropriate. Early in the game with a tied score, first and ten on your own thirty, for example, maybe you should run about 50% of the time and pass about 50% of the time. With just seconds remaining, down by four, second and goal from the one, maybe you should run about 95% of the time and pass about 5% of the time. I don't think it's 100-0 even in that latter situation, and here's why.

In general, you want to pick a run-pass ratio in a given situation such that the expected outcome of running and the expected outcome of passing is the same. ("Expected outcome" has to include everything -- chance of scoring, chance of losing yards, chance of turning the ball over, etc.) Back to the first example, suppose you run 50% of the time and pass 50% of the time, and you're generally getting better results on your passes than on your runs. That means you can improve your overall results by passing a bit more and running a bit less. Only when the expected outcomes are equal is there no further room for improvement by adjusting the run-pass ratio.

With just seconds remaining, down by four, second and goal from the one ... suppose you run 100% of the time and pass 0% of the time, and suppose (for the sake of analyzing the problem using game theory) that your opponent knows this. Under those circumstances, your opponent will completely disregard the possibility of a pass and will focus 100% on stopping the run. In that situation, if you departed from your strategy and actually threw a pass, you'd probably score almost every time, since there'd probably be nobody in coverage. Therefore, 100-0 is probably not the optimal equilibrium solution. A team should pass in that situation at least some percentage of the time so that the defense will at least defend it (which makes running easier).

As long as the Seahawks should have run more than zero percent of the time in that situation, I think any criticism along the lines of "They definitely should have run it that time" is misplaced. Maybe they should have run it only one or two percent of the time -- and maybe they did. We don't know what percentage of the time they'd run in that situation because our sample size is one. All we know is that it was more than zero percent of the time; but I think, as far as it goes, that's the correct answer.

As for what type of pass play they should call there, when they call a pass play, that's a different story. If they are passing mainly to keep the defense from ignoring the pass, they should call a play that would work best when the defense is ignoring the pass. I don't think a cute pick play over the middle is the best choice there. I think a play-action pass where a blocker releases into the pattern would be the better choice. But the Seahawks didn't have the right personnel for that -- they went three-wide.

I can't really make sense of the decision to go three-wide in that situation unless they expected the Patriots to spread out their defense in response, in which case the Seahawks could have run it with the RB or QB. But the Patriots didn't do that; they stayed in their base goal-line defense. I think a time out by the Seahawks would have been in order, and a different personnel group and formation.

So I'm on board with criticizing the Seahawks' play-calling here. I think what they did was a mistake. But I don't agree with the simplistic version of the criticism that says, simply, "beastmode," and ignores the appropriateness of a mixed strategy (sometimes run, sometimes pass) over a fixed strategy (always run) in that game situation. I think a pass would have been appropriate more than zero percent of the time -- just a different sort of pass with a different personnel group and formation.

 

[fruity pebbles]

I do blame Wilson as well. You can't throw it in that part of the field. Hell, even if the receiver caught the ball he still wasn't going to be in the end zone.

https://twitter.com/SheilKapadia/status/562101647963594753/photo/1Take a look at this picture. Seahawks receiver was open. Butler just made a better play.

Looks like a bad read with the defender coming up.

To each his own on reading that

Looks like he was late throwing the ball

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Tom E. Curran ‏@tomecurran

Pats were letting clock run to conserve timeouts. Would have let them score if they ran. Worst play call in history of the sport.

I've seen this mentioned a few times, and IIRC the announcers even said it during the game. I think Collinsworth said something like, "You know Belichick's thinking about it..."

Uh, no he isn't, because he's not ######ed. Anyone who thinks the Patriots would let the Seahawks score in that situation doesn't seem to understnand how basic strategy... or arithmetic... or pretty much anything works. It's like they saw the Pats let someone score once, so now any time a team is close to the end zone near the end of a game, letting them score is an option? This is infuriatingly dumb.

I totally agree with this. There's no way they would have let them score. And in fact, they didn't let them score.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Tom E. Curran ‏@tomecurran

Pats were letting clock run to conserve timeouts. Would have let them score if they ran. Worst play call in history of the sport.

I've seen this mentioned a few times, and IIRC the announcers even said it during the game. I think Collinsworth said something like, "You know Belichick's thinking about it..."

Uh, no he isn't, because he's not ######ed. Anyone who thinks the Patriots would let the Seahawks score in that situation doesn't seem to understnand how basic strategy... or arithmetic... or pretty much anything works. It's like they saw the Pats let someone score once, so now any time a team is close to the end zone near the end of a game, letting them score is an option? This is infuriatingly dumb.

I totally agree with this. There's no way they would have let them score. And in fact, they didn't let them score.

True. Otherwise instead of intercepting the defender would have handed the receiver the football.

 

[Old Smiley]

Dying to hear what Bill (Thank You For Not Coaching) Barnwell will have to say...

 

[menobrown]

This is not the worst call of all-time it's the worst overreaction to a call of a all time. Do I think I run would have been a better call? Sure, but does make this anything close to the horrible call it's being portrayed.

By my count Seattle ran 9 plays this season from the oppositions one yard line. One run by Wilson(not sure if it was a called run), 2 passes, and 6 runs to Lynch. So 3 times they put in Wilsons hands and he converted twice, once with a pass and once with a run. That's a 66% success ratio. Lynch got 6 carries at the one. Scored twice, twice he lost a yard. That's a 33% success ratio and no guarantee he was going to score even if he got at least two carries.

Again I don't think it was the best call to make but not seeing the outrage over it being the "worst call of all time".

 

[fred_1_15301]

I disagree with the way a lot of people are approaching their analysis.

To me, the question is not whether they should have run or pass on that play; it's what percentage of the time they should have run and what percentage of the time they should have passed on that play.

In nearly every game situation, the answer should not be 100-0, but rather a mixed strategy is appropriate. Early in the game with a tied score, first and ten on your own thirty, for example, maybe you should run about 50% of the time and pass about 50% of the time. With just seconds remaining, down by four, second and goal from the one, maybe you should run about 95% of the time and pass about 5% of the time. I don't think it's 100-0 even in that latter situation, and here's why.

In general, you want to pick a run-pass ratio in a given situation such that the expected outcome of running and the expected outcome of passing is the same. ("Expected outcome" has to include everything -- chance of scoring, chance of losing yards, chance of turning the ball over, etc.) Back to the first example, suppose you run 50% of the time and pass 50% of the time, and you're generally getting better results on your passes than on your runs. That means you can improve your overall results by passing a bit more and running a bit less. Only when the expected outcomes are equal is there no further room for improvement by adjusting the run-pass ratio.

With just seconds remaining, down by four, second and goal from the one ... suppose you run 100% of the time and pass 0% of the time, and suppose (for the sake of analyzing the problem using game theory) that your opponent knows this. Under those circumstances, your opponent will completely disregard the possibility of a pass and will focus 100% on stopping the run. In that situation, if you departed from your strategy and actually threw a pass, you'd probably score almost every time, since there'd probably be nobody in coverage. Therefore, 100-0 is probably not the optimal equilibrium solution. A team should pass in that situation at least some percentage of the time so that the defense will at least defend it (which makes running easier).

As long as the Seahawks should have run more than zero percent of the time in that situation, I think any criticism along the lines of "They definitely should have run it that time" is misplaced. Maybe they should have run it only one or two percent of the time -- and maybe they did. We don't know what percentage of the time they'd run in that situation because our sample size is one. All we know is that it was more than zero percent of the time; but I think, as far as it goes, that's the correct answer.

As for what type of pass play they should call there, when they call a pass play, that's a different story. If they are passing mainly to keep the defense from ignoring the pass, they should call a play that would work best when the defense is ignoring the pass. I don't think a cute pick play over the middle is the best choice there. I think a play-action pass where a blocker releases into the pattern would be the better choice. But the Seahawks didn't have the right personnel for that -- they went three-wide.

I can't really make sense of the decision to go three-wide in that situation unless they expected the Patriots to spread out their defense in response, in which case the Seahawks could have run it with the RB or QB. But the Patriots didn't do that; they stayed in their base goal-line defense. I think a time out by the Seahawks would have been in order, and a different personnel group and formation.

So I'm on board with criticizing the Seahawks' play-calling here. I think what they did was a mistake. But I don't agree with the simplistic version of the criticism that says, simply, "beastmode," and ignores the appropriateness of a mixed strategy (sometimes run, sometimes pass) over a fixed strategy (always run) in that game situation. I think a pass would have been appropriate more than zero percent of the time -- just a different sort of pass with a different personnel group and formation.

Great post. Very analogous to the theory of poker.

 

[DropKick]

Worst call ever? Certainly in hindsight given the stakes.

If you take Carroll's explanation at face value and the fact it was only second down, I can understand the call to a degree... In today's NFL, passing from the one is far more prevalent than it was 20+ years ago. It happens a lot more than it should... I could definitely see the Patriots doing it if the roles were reversed.

That being said, with a back of Lynch's caliber in the backfield or even a QB as athletic as Wilson, it is hard to imagine putting the ball in the air.

Butler made a great play. Cool to see a kid shine on such a big stage. He seemed like he was close to tears; seems painfully shy. On the other side, the moment could have been Chris Matthews'. From obscurity to shining on the sport's biggest stage - great stories.

 

[GoFishTN]

This is not the worst call of all-time it's the worst overreaction to a call of a all time. Do I think I run would have been a better call? Sure, but does make this anything close to the horrible call it's being portrayed.

By my count Seattle ran 9 plays this season from the oppositions one yard line. One run by Wilson(not sure if it was a called run), 2 passes, and 6 runs to Lynch. So 3 times they put in Wilsons hands and he converted twice, once with a pass and once with a run. That's a 66% success ratio. Lynch got 6 carries at the one. Scored twice, twice he lost a yard. That's a 33% success ratio and no guarantee he was going to score even if he got at least two carries.

Again I don't think it was the best call to make but not seeing the outrage over it being the "worst call of all time".

It wasn't a week 6 game in Foxborough. It was to win the Super Bowl. In that context, it's one of the worst, if not the worst, call anyone has seen.

 

[menobrown]

This is not the worst call of all-time it's the worst overreaction to a call of a all time. Do I think I run would have been a better call? Sure, but does make this anything close to the horrible call it's being portrayed.

By my count Seattle ran 9 plays this season from the oppositions one yard line. One run by Wilson(not sure if it was a called run), 2 passes, and 6 runs to Lynch. So 3 times they put in Wilsons hands and he converted twice, once with a pass and once with a run. That's a 66% success ratio. Lynch got 6 carries at the one. Scored twice, twice he lost a yard. That's a 33% success ratio and no guarantee he was going to score even if he got at least two carries.

Again I don't think it was the best call to make but not seeing the outrage over it being the "worst call of all time".

It wasn't a week 6 game in Foxborough. It was to win the Super Bowl. In that context, it's one of the worst, if not the worst, call anyone has seen.

Makes zero difference.

 

[Warrior]

I disagree with the way a lot of people are approaching their analysis.

To me, the question is not whether they should have run or pass on that play; it's what percentage of the time they should have run and what percentage of the time they should have passed on that play.

In nearly every game situation, the answer should not be 100-0, but rather a mixed strategy is appropriate. Early in the game with a tied score, first and ten on your own thirty, for example, maybe you should run about 50% of the time and pass about 50% of the time. With just seconds remaining, down by four, second and goal from the one, maybe you should run about 95% of the time and pass about 5% of the time. I don't think it's 100-0 even in that latter situation, and here's why.

In general, you want to pick a run-pass ratio in a given situation such that the expected outcome of running and the expected outcome of passing is the same. ("Expected outcome" has to include everything -- chance of scoring, chance of losing yards, chance of turning the ball over, etc.) Back to the first example, suppose you run 50% of the time and pass 50% of the time, and you're generally getting better results on your passes than on your runs. That means you can improve your overall results by passing a bit more and running a bit less. Only when the expected outcomes are equal is there no further room for improvement by adjusting the run-pass ratio.

With just seconds remaining, down by four, second and goal from the one ... suppose you run 100% of the time and pass 0% of the time, and suppose (for the sake of analyzing the problem using game theory) that your opponent knows this. Under those circumstances, your opponent will completely disregard the possibility of a pass and will focus 100% on stopping the run. In that situation, if you departed from your strategy and actually threw a pass, you'd probably score almost every time, since there'd probably be nobody in coverage. Therefore, 100-0 is probably not the optimal equilibrium solution. A team should pass in that situation at least some percentage of the time so that the defense will at least defend it (which makes running easier).

As long as the Seahawks should have run more than zero percent of the time in that situation, I think any criticism along the lines of "They definitely should have run it that time" is misplaced. Maybe they should have run it only one or two percent of the time -- and maybe they did. We don't know what percentage of the time they'd run in that situation because our sample size is one. All we know is that it was more than zero percent of the time; but I think, as far as it goes, that's the correct answer.

As for what type of pass play they should call there, when they call a pass play, that's a different story. If they are passing mainly to keep the defense from ignoring the pass, they should call a play that would work best when the defense is ignoring the pass. I don't think a cute pick play over the middle is the best choice there. I think a play-action pass where a blocker releases into the pattern would be the better choice. But the Seahawks didn't have the right personnel for that -- they went three-wide.

I can't really make sense of the decision to go three-wide in that situation unless they expected the Patriots to spread out their defense in response, in which case the Seahawks could have run it with the RB or QB. But the Patriots didn't do that; they stayed in their base goal-line defense. I think a time out by the Seahawks would have been in order, and a different personnel group and formation.

So I'm on board with criticizing the Seahawks' play-calling here. I think what they did was a mistake. But I don't agree with the simplistic version of the criticism that says, simply, "beastmode," and ignores the appropriateness of a mixed strategy (sometimes run, sometimes pass) over a fixed strategy (always run) in that game situation. I think a pass would have been appropriate more than zero percent of the time -- just a different sort of pass with a different personnel group and formation.

I think you're way off here. Your theory works fine during a normal, run of the mill regular season game.

When the SB and your entire season comes down to one potential turnover that would ruin it all, from the 1 yard line, you don't play the "we pass 1 out of 20 times, and this happens to be one of the 5%" card.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

My guess is when someone runs a probability analysis they'll find that passing on that down increased the likelihood of scoring a TD on the series but also resulted in a small increase in the likelihood of a turnover.

If the Seahawks run on the next plays and get stopped there would be lots of questioning why they didn't try to pass on one of the downs when the Pats were expecting runs. It's probably easier criticism to deal with as a coach but the questions still would have been asked and the loss would hurt just as much.

No.A pass play is fine. THAT high risk pass play was not

My guess is that the interception rate on that play in that situation is still really small. Almost certainly less than the probability of being stopped on a short yardage run.

I probably would have called something different as well, but I think the "worst call in history" stuff is mostly outcome bias. Objectively I think the Seahawks just got a bad beat caused by an insanely great individual play by Butler.

Define "really small".

A rifle slant with all the defenders close is not what i would consider really small.

any other play call there would have been better. Any one

I'd be surprised if it's much higher than 5%. Certainly less than the likelihood of a completion/TD or a failed running play.

 

[Warrior]

My guess is when someone runs a probability analysis they'll find that passing on that down increased the likelihood of scoring a TD on the series but also resulted in a small increase in the likelihood of a turnover.

If the Seahawks run on the next plays and get stopped there would be lots of questioning why they didn't try to pass on one of the downs when the Pats were expecting runs. It's probably easier criticism to deal with as a coach but the questions still would have been asked and the loss would hurt just as much.

No.

A pass play is fine. THAT high risk pass play was not

My guess is that the interception rate on that play in that situation is still really small. Almost certainly less than the probability of being stopped on a short yardage run.

I probably would have called something different as well, but I think the "worst call in history" stuff is mostly outcome bias. Objectively I think the Seahawks just got a bad beat caused by an insanely great individual play by Butler.

Faulty logic. You don't compare the probability of getting incercepted to the probability of being stopped on a run. Because if you throw a pick, it's all over. If you get stopped, you have 2 more shots.

So you compare the % probability of getting incercepted to the % probability that NE stops Marshawn Lynch THREE times from the 1 yard line.

 

[Warrior]

If the Seahawks run on the next plays and get stopped there would be lots of questioning why they didn't try to pass on one of the downs when the Pats were expecting runs. It's probably easier criticism to deal with as a coach but the questions still would have been asked and the loss would hurt just as much.

I disagree here. Nobody would fault them for going Beast Most 3 straight times from the 1 to win the game.

And your hypothetical "loss would hurt just as much" is also faulty logic, because Marshawn Lynch getting stopped 3 straight times without a single yard gain is laughable.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

My guess is when someone runs a probability analysis they'll find that passing on that down increased the likelihood of scoring a TD on the series but also resulted in a small increase in the likelihood of a turnover.

If the Seahawks run on the next plays and get stopped there would be lots of questioning why they didn't try to pass on one of the downs when the Pats were expecting runs. It's probably easier criticism to deal with as a coach but the questions still would have been asked and the loss would hurt just as much.

No.

A pass play is fine. THAT high risk pass play was not

My guess is that the interception rate on that play in that situation is still really small. Almost certainly less than the probability of being stopped on a short yardage run.

I probably would have called something different as well, but I think the "worst call in history" stuff is mostly outcome bias. Objectively I think the Seahawks just got a bad beat caused by an insanely great individual play by Butler.

Faulty logic. You don't compare the probability of getting incercepted to the probability of being stopped on a run. Because if you throw a pick, it's all over. If you get stopped, you have 2 more shots.

So you compare the % probability of getting incercepted to the % probability that NE stops Marshawn Lynch THREE times from the 1 yard line.

They probably only get off two running plays with one timeout and under 30 seconds. Certainly only 2 organized running plays. To use all 4 downs, which maximizes the probability of a TD, there needs to be a pass in there somewhere.

 

[ghostguy123]

My guess is when someone runs a probability analysis they'll find that passing on that down increased the likelihood of scoring a TD on the series but also resulted in a small increase in the likelihood of a turnover.

If the Seahawks run on the next plays and get stopped there would be lots of questioning why they didn't try to pass on one of the downs when the Pats were expecting runs. It's probably easier criticism to deal with as a coach but the questions still would have been asked and the loss would hurt just as much.

No.A pass play is fine. THAT high risk pass play was not

My guess is that the interception rate on that play in that situation is still really small. Almost certainly less than the probability of being stopped on a short yardage run.

I probably would have called something different as well, but I think the "worst call in history" stuff is mostly outcome bias. Objectively I think the Seahawks just got a bad beat caused by an insanely great individual play by Butler.

Define "really small".A rifle slant with all the defenders close is not what i would consider really small.

any other play call there would have been better. Any one

I'd be surprised if it's much higher than 5%. Certainly less than the likelihood of a completion/TD or a failed running play.

5% is far too high.

many other better choices for a pass play with equal success rates and basically zero risk of a turnover.

If it was fourth down it would have made much more sense since a turnover is no different than an incomplete pass.

Second down=dumb

 

[ghostguy123]

My guess is when someone runs a probability analysis they'll find that passing on that down increased the likelihood of scoring a TD on the series but also resulted in a small increase in the likelihood of a turnover.

If the Seahawks run on the next plays and get stopped there would be lots of questioning why they didn't try to pass on one of the downs when the Pats were expecting runs. It's probably easier criticism to deal with as a coach but the questions still would have been asked and the loss would hurt just as much.

No.A pass play is fine. THAT high risk pass play was not

My guess is that the interception rate on that play in that situation is still really small. Almost certainly less than the probability of being stopped on a short yardage run.

I probably would have called something different as well, but I think the "worst call in history" stuff is mostly outcome bias. Objectively I think the Seahawks just got a bad beat caused by an insanely great individual play by Butler.

Faulty logic. You don't compare the probability of getting incercepted to the probability of being stopped on a run. Because if you throw a pick, it's all over. If you get stopped, you have 2 more shots.

So you compare the % probability of getting incercepted to the % probability that NE stops Marshawn Lynch THREE times from the 1 yard line.

They probably only get off two running plays with one timeout and under 30 seconds. Certainly only 2 organized running plays. To use all 4 downs, which maximizes the probability of a TD, there needs to be a pass in there somewhere.

of course. A pass is fine. That pass play was terrible. Far too much risk for a second down play at the 1

 

[Old Smiley]

Barnwell at Grantland on "The Decision"

You can understand why Carroll might be afraid of getting burned in what seemed like a hopeless situation for the opposition, because you only have to go back to Seattle’s last playoff loss to remember how quickly things can swing. That was during the 2012 playoffs, when the Seahawks came back from a 27-7 deficit in the fourth quarter to take a 28-27 lead with 34 seconds to go. In that game, the Seahawks handed the ball to Lynch on first-and-goal from the 2-yard line, and he immediately scored.

Despite the stunning comeback, Atlanta got the ball back with two timeouts, completed a pair of passes, and got a 49-yard field goal from Matt Bryant to win the game.

 

[lod01]

We've beaten this to death, but I'm surprised Wilson isn't getting as much blame as the coaching staff.

For a guy that makes his living out of creativity/tucking the ball and running when the passing lane isn't there, he made a bad decision to force it - even if that was the play call.

Maybe Seattle can use that in contract negotiations. 'Ya know, I tested you with that play call and you failed miserably. How can mgmt trust you with $20 mil per season of their $? You were supposed to opt out and either hand off or run it yourself. It's your fault we lost...you and Lockette. I did my job.' - Bevell

 

[RUSF18]

Barnwell at Grantland on "The Decision"

You can understand why Carroll might be afraid of getting burned in what seemed like a hopeless situation for the opposition, because you only have to go back to Seattle’s last playoff loss to remember how quickly things can swing. That was during the 2012 playoffs, when the Seahawks came back from a 27-7 deficit in the fourth quarter to take a 28-27 lead with 34 seconds to go. In that game, the Seahawks handed the ball to Lynch on first-and-goal from the 2-yard line, and he immediately scored.

Despite the stunning comeback, Atlanta got the ball back with two timeouts, completed a pair of passes, and got a 49-yard field goal from Matt Bryant to win the game.

A FG beating you and a FG tying you makes the situations very different.

 

[Jayrok]

Does Wilson take any resonsibility here? If he didn't like the defensive formation at the line why didn't he audible to a hand off to Lynch or run the read option? Maybe he also liked the play as called and the defender just guessed right and jumped the route.

 

[fruity pebbles]

My guess is when someone runs a probability analysis they'll find that passing on that down increased the likelihood of scoring a TD on the series but also resulted in a small increase in the likelihood of a turnover.

If the Seahawks run on the next plays and get stopped there would be lots of questioning why they didn't try to pass on one of the downs when the Pats were expecting runs. It's probably easier criticism to deal with as a coach but the questions still would have been asked and the loss would hurt just as much.

No.

A pass play is fine. THAT high risk pass play was not

My guess is that the interception rate on that play in that situation is still really small. Almost certainly less than the probability of being stopped on a short yardage run.

I probably would have called something different as well, but I think the "worst call in history" stuff is mostly outcome bias. Objectively I think the Seahawks just got a bad beat caused by an insanely great individual play by Butler.

Faulty logic. You don't compare the probability of getting incercepted to the probability of being stopped on a run. Because if you throw a pick, it's all over. If you get stopped, you have 2 more shots.

So you compare the % probability of getting incercepted to the % probability that NE stops Marshawn Lynch THREE times from the 1 yard line.

They probably only get off two running plays with one timeout and under 30 seconds. Certainly only 2 organized running plays. To use all 4 downs, which maximizes the probability of a TD, there needs to be a pass in there somewhere.

Prolly so but the reason they had under 30 seconds left was their own doing. They let 40 seconds run off the clock after Lynchs 4 yard run.

 

[Pipes]

Bails out Belichick from having to answer for not calling a timeout there.

Yes that was incredibly stupid.

Ironically, if Belichick had called a timeout, Seattle probably would have realized they needed to run it, and Lynch would have scored a TD.

Yeah makes you wonder if Hoodie decided against the timeout to ratchet up the pressure of the situation. Game within the game.

Yeah looking back I think that's likely what happened. Belichick likely saw the 3 wide personnel and liked that match up so he didn't take the TO. Did anyone ask him about this after the game?