What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The worst play call in NFL history (1 Viewer)

gump said:
So Butler said the Pats practiced defending that exact play at the end of their last practice, and he recognized it immediately.

Seattle was severely out-coached there.
Why would we want to give the pats any credit for a good play on the ball. Clearly just horrible play calling.
Not only did they practice it, but Belichik apparently interceded after the play was run (with Garaffolo playing the role of Russell Wilson) and specifically coached Arrington and Butler on how to jump the route. This is why the Patriots are great. It has nothing to do with deflated footballs, Spygate, or any other BS. Belichik simply outworks everyone else and has an amazing attention to detail.
I notice you didnt mention Brady in there....thank god.This team is all Bill....pure genius. The difference in NFL players is so negligible (note guys off the street getting 100 yards in the Superbowl) the ultimate sustainable advantage is coaching.

Which makes me cry as a Bills fan....when Brady (average today) retires the run will not end :cry:
we didn't mention Brady because he wasn't on the field for the play. I do reject your theory that the difference between players, esp. Qbs, and that other average qbs could have had the same 4th quarter as Brady did against that D.

Your continued struggles as a Bills fan will have less to do with what Bill does and more to do with how the team is run.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
Raider Nation said:
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.
If there was more time, he would have let them score. You could see the wheels turning as Belicheck was watching the clock, thinking about a timeot, watching what Seattle was setting up. Once the clock got below 40 seconds you could see Belicheck kind of just fall into playing defense and hope for a mistake.
You really could see the wheels turning...I'd love to know what exactly was going through his mind as the seconds kept ticking and Patriot fans everywhere held their breath.
 
wdcrob said:
Get beat with your best pitch. Lynch is the Seahawks' best pitch.
This. You live and die with your best. Run Lynch OR Wilson 4 times. If Pats could stop that combo 4 times in a row, hats off to them and they deserve to win in one of the greatest goalline stands of all time.

Hell, if Carroll really wanted Russ to get that extra TD, and wanted to stick it to the Pats he should have called a sneak, one of Brady's signature plays. But if the defense wants the ball so bad at least make them pry it out of your arms.

 
He could have been stronger to the ball or at least tried to square up on the ball :shrug:
Maybe I'm not getting it, but I don't understand what that means. He was going for the ball. He got blind-sided by a DB jumping the route. There was a collision. Do we mean that he should've "won" the collision? He didn't know it was going to occur - Butler did.

 
He could have been stronger to the ball or at least tried to square up on the ball :shrug:
IMO it starts to show the cracks in their supposed "team" mentality. Bevell calls out the Wr, and i saw at least one of the guys on def. post- game call out the coaches for going with a pass play. Sure, what they are saying is correct, but that stuff is for the locker room, not for the press. I am curious to see if this loss hurts the team chemistry next year and beyond.

 
Was kinda funny listening to Bevell talk about how he prioritized running down the clock just as much as scoring.

I suppose that is how you run a slant with 3 WRs into a goaline D. A bit distracted.

 
He could have been stronger to the ball or at least tried to square up on the ball :shrug:
IMO it starts to show the cracks in their supposed "team" mentality. Bevell calls out the Wr, and i saw at least one of the guys on def. post- game call out the coaches for going with a pass play. Sure, what they are saying is correct, but that stuff is for the locker room, not for the press. I am curious to see if this loss hurts the team chemistry next year and beyond.
Yeah that was Bruce Irvin. And he was correct. Two guys owned it while one placed the blame on his player. There's no right and wrong right now if you're a seahawk. Nobody in that organization is thinking straight right now with something as absolutely unbelievable as what happened last night. I can understand where all the finger pointing is coming from.

 
He could have been stronger to the ball or at least tried to square up on the ball :shrug:
You're missing the point. The WR could have caused the interception by tripping over his own feet or tipping a perfectly thrown pass to a defensive back but the coach is never supposed to blame the player like that. You're supposed to have your teammates/players backs no matter what (I would argue especially when a player makes a massively important blunder)

 
He could have been stronger to the ball or at least tried to square up on the ball :shrug:
You're missing the point. The WR could have caused the interception by tripping over his own feet or tipping a perfectly thrown pass to a defensive back but the coach is never supposed to blame the player like that. You're supposed to have your teammates/players backs no matter what (I would argue especially when a player makes a massively important blunder)
I don't think we read it the same way. Everything he said was totally fine IMO. Some coaches take the approach you're saying and some don't. He wasn't harsh in his criticism at all.

 
He could have been stronger to the ball or at least tried to square up on the ball :shrug:
He never even saw Butler. Butler wasn't supposed to be there, Kearse was supposed to rub him out.
It's an NFL WR running a route into the middle of the field. He had to expect some contact. He got destroyed off of the ball. Even prior to that he wasn't in the best position to receive the ball.

 
He could have been stronger to the ball or at least tried to square up on the ball :shrug:
IMO it starts to show the cracks in their supposed "team" mentality. Bevell calls out the Wr, and i saw at least one of the guys on def. post- game call out the coaches for going with a pass play. Sure, what they are saying is correct, but that stuff is for the locker room, not for the press. I am curious to see if this loss hurts the team chemistry next year and beyond.
I guess. You here coaches say this type of thing hundreds of times during the season.

 
wdcrob said:
Get beat with your best pitch. Lynch is the Seahawks' best pitch.
This. You live and die with your best. Run Lynch OR Wilson 4 times. If Pats could stop that combo 4 times in a row, hats off to them and they deserve to win in one of the greatest goalline stands of all time.

Hell, if Carroll really wanted Russ to get that extra TD, and wanted to stick it to the Pats he should have called a sneak, one of Brady's signature plays. But if the defense wants the ball so bad at least make them pry it out of your arms.
First, horrible play call.

BUT, let's play Devil's Advocate for a second (and maybe somebody has--I didn't wade through all 8 pages): the Seahawks coaches are aggressive playcallers. You win some that way (fake field goal vs. Packers), you lose some that way. Take the Super Bowl itself for example--end of the first half. How many of us (I was) were thinking it was pretty dumb to go for the TD with only 6 seconds left on the clock? But the aggressive playcall paid off and was worth +4 points on the scoreboard. If they miss on that play and the clock runs out on the first half, we all chime in on how stupid Carroll/the coaching staff is. But it worked. So we call it "gutsy."

Again, you live by aggression, you die by aggression. But the "live or die with your best" applies to coaches, too--the Seahawks coaches seem to think they are at their best when they are aggressive playcallers and they stayed true to their form and went with "their best"... playcall-wise. And got burned (so now we all think they're stupid, because it didn't work).

 
BusterTBronco said:
Some are speculating that Seahawks management didn't want Lynch to get the game winning touchdown because that would have given him more leverage in contract negotiations. They wanted Wilson to get the glory.
I just can't see that being something that impacts the game. Those explanations are attractive because they make sense as a narrative, but by and large, on the field, football teams are managed by football people. I just can't think that a thought like that would make you call such a terrible play for a Super Bowl.

And, of course, even if we accept that as a reason, it does nothing to excuse the specifically (pass in the middle) or the whole thing about Wilson being perfectly capable of running the ball in himself.

 
BusterTBronco said:
Some are speculating that Seahawks management didn't want Lynch to get the game winning touchdown because that would have given him more leverage in contract negotiations. They wanted Wilson to get the glory.
I thought it was because the NFL didn't want Lynch to win the MVP award.

 
wdcrob said:
Get beat with your best pitch. Lynch is the Seahawks' best pitch.
This. You live and die with your best. Run Lynch OR Wilson 4 times. If Pats could stop that combo 4 times in a row, hats off to them and they deserve to win in one of the greatest goalline stands of all time.

Hell, if Carroll really wanted Russ to get that extra TD, and wanted to stick it to the Pats he should have called a sneak, one of Brady's signature plays. But if the defense wants the ball so bad at least make them pry it out of your arms.
First, horrible play call.

BUT, let's play Devil's Advocate for a second (and maybe somebody has--I didn't wade through all 8 pages): the Seahawks coaches are aggressive playcallers. You win some that way (fake field goal vs. Packers), you lose some that way. Take the Super Bowl itself for example--end of the first half. How many of us (I was) were thinking it was pretty dumb to go for the TD with only 6 seconds left on the clock? But the aggressive playcall paid off and was worth +4 points on the scoreboard. If they miss on that play and the clock runs out on the first half, we all chime in on how stupid Carroll/the coaching staff is. But it worked. So we call it "gutsy."

Again, you live by aggression, you die by aggression. But the "live or die with your best" applies to coaches, too--the Seahawks coaches seem to think they are at their best when they are aggressive playcallers and they stayed true to their form and went with "their best"... playcall-wise. And got burned (so now we all think they're stupid, because it didn't work).
I don't buy it. Sure, they're aggressive, but there's a reason to be aggressive. The reason they were aggressive at halftime was to get an additional four points that would be lost by not being aggressive. In this situation, 98% of the time, you're going to score a touchdown. A touchdown is worth seven points. When you score a touchdown aggressively, it's still worth 7 points.

 
wdcrob said:
Get beat with your best pitch. Lynch is the Seahawks' best pitch.
This. You live and die with your best. Run Lynch OR Wilson 4 times. If Pats could stop that combo 4 times in a row, hats off to them and they deserve to win in one of the greatest goalline stands of all time.

Hell, if Carroll really wanted Russ to get that extra TD, and wanted to stick it to the Pats he should have called a sneak, one of Brady's signature plays. But if the defense wants the ball so bad at least make them pry it out of your arms.
First, horrible play call.

BUT, let's play Devil's Advocate for a second (and maybe somebody has--I didn't wade through all 8 pages): the Seahawks coaches are aggressive playcallers. You win some that way (fake field goal vs. Packers), you lose some that way. Take the Super Bowl itself for example--end of the first half. How many of us (I was) were thinking it was pretty dumb to go for the TD with only 6 seconds left on the clock? But the aggressive playcall paid off and was worth +4 points on the scoreboard. If they miss on that play and the clock runs out on the first half, we all chime in on how stupid Carroll/the coaching staff is. But it worked. So we call it "gutsy."

Again, you live by aggression, you die by aggression. But the "live or die with your best" applies to coaches, too--the Seahawks coaches seem to think they are at their best when they are aggressive playcallers and they stayed true to their form and went with "their best"... playcall-wise. And got burned (so now we all think they're stupid, because it didn't work).
I don't buy it. Sure, they're aggressive, but there's a reason to be aggressive. The reason they were aggressive at halftime was to get an additional four points that would be lost by not being aggressive. In this situation, 98% of the time, you're going to score a touchdown. A touchdown is worth seven points. When you score a touchdown aggressively, it's still worth 7 points.
In the world of "what ifs"... If the clock runs out at the end of the first half on a goofed-up play (time runs out), they squander a sure 3 points. That would make the last drive of the game academic--they would be down 11 (again, hypothetical, I know--but go with it).

You can't ask a coaching staff to change their spots on the last play of a 19-game season. They're aggressive, period. And they got burned. It happens.

 
wdcrob said:
Get beat with your best pitch. Lynch is the Seahawks' best pitch.
This. You live and die with your best. Run Lynch OR Wilson 4 times. If Pats could stop that combo 4 times in a row, hats off to them and they deserve to win in one of the greatest goalline stands of all time.

Hell, if Carroll really wanted Russ to get that extra TD, and wanted to stick it to the Pats he should have called a sneak, one of Brady's signature plays. But if the defense wants the ball so bad at least make them pry it out of your arms.
First, horrible play call.

BUT, let's play Devil's Advocate for a second (and maybe somebody has--I didn't wade through all 8 pages): the Seahawks coaches are aggressive playcallers. You win some that way (fake field goal vs. Packers), you lose some that way. Take the Super Bowl itself for example--end of the first half. How many of us (I was) were thinking it was pretty dumb to go for the TD with only 6 seconds left on the clock? But the aggressive playcall paid off and was worth +4 points on the scoreboard. If they miss on that play and the clock runs out on the first half, we all chime in on how stupid Carroll/the coaching staff is. But it worked. So we call it "gutsy."

Again, you live by aggression, you die by aggression. But the "live or die with your best" applies to coaches, too--the Seahawks coaches seem to think they are at their best when they are aggressive playcallers and they stayed true to their form and went with "their best"... playcall-wise. And got burned (so now we all think they're stupid, because it didn't work).
I don't buy it. Sure, they're aggressive, but there's a reason to be aggressive. The reason they were aggressive at halftime was to get an additional four points that would be lost by not being aggressive. In this situation, 98% of the time, you're going to score a touchdown. A touchdown is worth seven points. When you score a touchdown aggressively, it's still worth 7 points.
In the world of "what ifs"... If the clock runs out at the end of the first half on a goofed-up play (time runs out), they squander a sure 3 points. That would make the last drive of the game academic--they would be down 11 (again, hypothetical, I know--but go with it).

You can't ask a coaching staff to change their spots on the last play of a 19-game season. They're aggressive, period. And they got burned. It happens.
They're a power-running team with a power-running runner. Calling his number from the 1 yard line to win the Super Bowl is not asking anyone to change any spots. I honestly do not get your devil's argument at all. Did they "change their spots" on 1st & Goal from the 5 when they gave it to Lynch, who came a shoelace away from scoring the TD then?

 
wdcrob said:
Get beat with your best pitch. Lynch is the Seahawks' best pitch.
This. You live and die with your best. Run Lynch OR Wilson 4 times. If Pats could stop that combo 4 times in a row, hats off to them and they deserve to win in one of the greatest goalline stands of all time.

Hell, if Carroll really wanted Russ to get that extra TD, and wanted to stick it to the Pats he should have called a sneak, one of Brady's signature plays. But if the defense wants the ball so bad at least make them pry it out of your arms.
First, horrible play call.

BUT, let's play Devil's Advocate for a second (and maybe somebody has--I didn't wade through all 8 pages): the Seahawks coaches are aggressive playcallers. You win some that way (fake field goal vs. Packers), you lose some that way. Take the Super Bowl itself for example--end of the first half. How many of us (I was) were thinking it was pretty dumb to go for the TD with only 6 seconds left on the clock? But the aggressive playcall paid off and was worth +4 points on the scoreboard. If they miss on that play and the clock runs out on the first half, we all chime in on how stupid Carroll/the coaching staff is. But it worked. So we call it "gutsy."

Again, you live by aggression, you die by aggression. But the "live or die with your best" applies to coaches, too--the Seahawks coaches seem to think they are at their best when they are aggressive playcallers and they stayed true to their form and went with "their best"... playcall-wise. And got burned (so now we all think they're stupid, because it didn't work).
I don't buy it. Sure, they're aggressive, but there's a reason to be aggressive. The reason they were aggressive at halftime was to get an additional four points that would be lost by not being aggressive. In this situation, 98% of the time, you're going to score a touchdown. A touchdown is worth seven points. When you score a touchdown aggressively, it's still worth 7 points.
In the world of "what ifs"... If the clock runs out at the end of the first half on a goofed-up play (time runs out), they squander a sure 3 points. That would make the last drive of the game academic--they would be down 11 (again, hypothetical, I know--but go with it).

You can't ask a coaching staff to change their spots on the last play of a 19-game season. They're aggressive, period. And they got burned. It happens.
They're a power-running team with a power-running runner. Calling his number from the 1 yard line to win the Super Bowl is not asking anyone to change any spots. I honestly do not get your devil's argument at all. Did they "change their spots" on 1st & Goal from the 5 when they gave it to Lynch, who came a shoelace away from scoring the TD then?
Lynch had been stuffed on 4 of 5 attempts on goal-to-go attempts from the 1 yard-line this season. Maybe that had something to do with the call?

 
BusterTBronco said:
Some are speculating that Seahawks management didn't want Lynch to get the game winning touchdown because that would have given him more leverage in contract negotiations. They wanted Wilson to get the glory.
Any links? This sounds made up.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
Raider Nation said:
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.
If there was more time, he would have let them score. You could see the wheels turning as Belicheck was watching the clock, thinking about a timeot, watching what Seattle was setting up. Once the clock got below 40 seconds you could see Belicheck kind of just fall into playing defense and hope for a mistake.
You don't let your opponent score a TD when you have a four point lead. Belichick was never considering that because it would make no sense whatsoever to do so.

 
wdcrob said:
Get beat with your best pitch. Lynch is the Seahawks' best pitch.
This. You live and die with your best. Run Lynch OR Wilson 4 times. If Pats could stop that combo 4 times in a row, hats off to them and they deserve to win in one of the greatest goalline stands of all time.Hell, if Carroll really wanted Russ to get that extra TD, and wanted to stick it to the Pats he should have called a sneak, one of Brady's signature plays. But if the defense wants the ball so bad at least make them pry it out of your arms.
First, horrible play call. BUT, let's play Devil's Advocate for a second (and maybe somebody has--I didn't wade through all 8 pages): the Seahawks coaches are aggressive playcallers. You win some that way (fake field goal vs. Packers), you lose some that way. Take the Super Bowl itself for example--end of the first half. How many of us (I was) were thinking it was pretty dumb to go for the TD with only 6 seconds left on the clock? But the aggressive playcall paid off and was worth +4 points on the scoreboard. If they miss on that play and the clock runs out on the first half, we all chime in on how stupid Carroll/the coaching staff is. But it worked. So we call it "gutsy."

Again, you live by aggression, you die by aggression. But the "live or die with your best" applies to coaches, too--the Seahawks coaches seem to think they are at their best when they are aggressive playcallers and they stayed true to their form and went with "their best"... playcall-wise. And got burned (so now we all think they're stupid, because it didn't work).
I don't buy it. Sure, they're aggressive, but there's a reason to be aggressive. The reason they were aggressive at halftime was to get an additional four points that would be lost by not being aggressive. In this situation, 98% of the time, you're going to score a touchdown. A touchdown is worth seven points. When you score a touchdown aggressively, it's still worth 7 points.
In the world of "what ifs"... If the clock runs out at the end of the first half on a goofed-up play (time runs out), they squander a sure 3 points. That would make the last drive of the game academic--they would be down 11 (again, hypothetical, I know--but go with it).You can't ask a coaching staff to change their spots on the last play of a 19-game season. They're aggressive, period. And they got burned. It happens.
I disagree that Seattle was being aggressive with their play call. Carroll admitted that the pass play was meant to control the clock so the Patriots wouldn't get the ball back. That's a conservative way of thinking. The aggressive play there is scoring and putting the pressure on the Patriots to win the game.

 
wdcrob said:
Get beat with your best pitch. Lynch is the Seahawks' best pitch.
This. You live and die with your best. Run Lynch OR Wilson 4 times. If Pats could stop that combo 4 times in a row, hats off to them and they deserve to win in one of the greatest goalline stands of all time.Hell, if Carroll really wanted Russ to get that extra TD, and wanted to stick it to the Pats he should have called a sneak, one of Brady's signature plays. But if the defense wants the ball so bad at least make them pry it out of your arms.
First, horrible play call. BUT, let's play Devil's Advocate for a second (and maybe somebody has--I didn't wade through all 8 pages): the Seahawks coaches are aggressive playcallers. You win some that way (fake field goal vs. Packers), you lose some that way. Take the Super Bowl itself for example--end of the first half. How many of us (I was) were thinking it was pretty dumb to go for the TD with only 6 seconds left on the clock? But the aggressive playcall paid off and was worth +4 points on the scoreboard. If they miss on that play and the clock runs out on the first half, we all chime in on how stupid Carroll/the coaching staff is. But it worked. So we call it "gutsy."

Again, you live by aggression, you die by aggression. But the "live or die with your best" applies to coaches, too--the Seahawks coaches seem to think they are at their best when they are aggressive playcallers and they stayed true to their form and went with "their best"... playcall-wise. And got burned (so now we all think they're stupid, because it didn't work).
I don't buy it. Sure, they're aggressive, but there's a reason to be aggressive. The reason they were aggressive at halftime was to get an additional four points that would be lost by not being aggressive. In this situation, 98% of the time, you're going to score a touchdown. A touchdown is worth seven points. When you score a touchdown aggressively, it's still worth 7 points.
In the world of "what ifs"... If the clock runs out at the end of the first half on a goofed-up play (time runs out), they squander a sure 3 points. That would make the last drive of the game academic--they would be down 11 (again, hypothetical, I know--but go with it).You can't ask a coaching staff to change their spots on the last play of a 19-game season. They're aggressive, period. And they got burned. It happens.
I disagree that Seattle was being aggressive with their play call. Carroll admitted that the pass play was meant to control the clock so the Patriots wouldn't get the ball back. That's a conservative way of thinking. The aggressive play there is scoring and putting the pressure on the Patriots to win the game.
Yeah, I don't understand his explanations at all. They were trying to score a TD on THAT PLAY by passing it, so I don't understand how that was going to "take more time" from the Pats. Running it would have had the capacity to bleed more time... ??? Dunno.

 
wdcrob said:
Get beat with your best pitch. Lynch is the Seahawks' best pitch.
This. You live and die with your best. Run Lynch OR Wilson 4 times. If Pats could stop that combo 4 times in a row, hats off to them and they deserve to win in one of the greatest goalline stands of all time.Hell, if Carroll really wanted Russ to get that extra TD, and wanted to stick it to the Pats he should have called a sneak, one of Brady's signature plays. But if the defense wants the ball so bad at least make them pry it out of your arms.
First, horrible play call. BUT, let's play Devil's Advocate for a second (and maybe somebody has--I didn't wade through all 8 pages): the Seahawks coaches are aggressive playcallers. You win some that way (fake field goal vs. Packers), you lose some that way. Take the Super Bowl itself for example--end of the first half. How many of us (I was) were thinking it was pretty dumb to go for the TD with only 6 seconds left on the clock? But the aggressive playcall paid off and was worth +4 points on the scoreboard. If they miss on that play and the clock runs out on the first half, we all chime in on how stupid Carroll/the coaching staff is. But it worked. So we call it "gutsy."

Again, you live by aggression, you die by aggression. But the "live or die with your best" applies to coaches, too--the Seahawks coaches seem to think they are at their best when they are aggressive playcallers and they stayed true to their form and went with "their best"... playcall-wise. And got burned (so now we all think they're stupid, because it didn't work).
I don't buy it. Sure, they're aggressive, but there's a reason to be aggressive. The reason they were aggressive at halftime was to get an additional four points that would be lost by not being aggressive. In this situation, 98% of the time, you're going to score a touchdown. A touchdown is worth seven points. When you score a touchdown aggressively, it's still worth 7 points.
In the world of "what ifs"... If the clock runs out at the end of the first half on a goofed-up play (time runs out), they squander a sure 3 points. That would make the last drive of the game academic--they would be down 11 (again, hypothetical, I know--but go with it).You can't ask a coaching staff to change their spots on the last play of a 19-game season. They're aggressive, period. And they got burned. It happens.
I disagree that Seattle was being aggressive with their play call. Carroll admitted that the pass play was meant to control the clock so the Patriots wouldn't get the ball back. That's a conservative way of thinking. The aggressive play there is scoring and putting the pressure on the Patriots to win the game.
Yeah, I don't understand his explanations at all. They were trying to score a TD on THAT PLAY by passing it, so I don't understand how that was going to "take more time" from the Pats. Running it would have had the capacity to bleed more time... ??? Dunno.
Yeah, not too many ways to bleed clock on that play unless it was a completeion for 1-2 feet, or basically what a non-scoring rush might yield with 1000th of the risk. Non of his explanations made much sense. So they had their goal line defense in.....well duh, what would you expect. No matter how confident you felt about the play there are just so many quirky things that can happen even if the pass is perfect.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BusterTBronco said:
Some are speculating that Seahawks management didn't want Lynch to get the game winning touchdown because that would have given him more leverage in contract negotiations. They wanted Wilson to get the glory.
I call that delusional.

If not delusional that horribly stupid to not run what you think will work best for some idiotic reasoning like that.

So, one of the two is true. Stupid, or insane

PLus they gave Lynch the ball at the 5 on the play right before that

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BusterTBronco said:
Some are speculating that Seahawks management didn't want Lynch to get the game winning touchdown because that would have given him more leverage in contract negotiations. They wanted Wilson to get the glory.
I call that delusional.

If not delusional that horribly stupid to not run what you think will work best for some idiotic reasoning like that.

So, one of the two is true. Stupid, or insane

PLus they gave Lynch the ball at the 5 on the play right before that
Yeah, I just don't buy that storyline. There is no way in hell THAT is somehow what is running through your mind when you have one minute to score for the win in the Super Bowl. NO WAY.

 
Even the pass play was stupid. You've got the Pats crowding the middle of the field thinking run and you call a shallow pass to the middle of the field where everyone's bunched.
I agree. Given that it was 2nd down, I didn't think a pass play was out of the question given the clock situation. I thought play action would have been a good choice then. But running that shallow slant into the teeth of the defense had me scratching my head. I understand how a rub is supposed to work. But it just brings too much risk.

I can't fault Wilson for the throw too much. They aren't calling that play without expecting him to try and score. His WR's had been winning the physical battle and his WR got the release you want. Butler just did a great job running to the spot faster than the WR did. Good preparation on the part of the Pats.

 
You are at the one. The ONE.

You run a really risk/high reward type of play on 2nd down. Run, rollout, fade.............if the roll out isn't there right away or the fade doesnt look great, throw it away.

This isn't hindsight, this is common sense at the time, and the same for ANY game with 30 seconds left with 2nd and goal at the 1.

 
You are at the one. The ONE.

You run a really risk/high reward type of play on 2nd down. Run, rollout, fade.............if the roll out isn't there right away or the fade doesnt look great, throw it away.

This isn't hindsight, this is common sense at the time, and the same for ANY game with 30 seconds left with 2nd and goal at the 1.
I'm assuming that every football fan on the planet had a simultaneous "WTF?" reaction as soon as Wilson cocked his arm to throw.

 
I'm assuming that every football fan on the planet had a simultaneous "WTF?" reaction as soon as Wilson cocked his arm to throw.
Before that. The camera was behind Wilson and as soon as the ball was snapped Lynch broke left -- clearly away from Wilson. My WTF?! was immediate.

 
I think they were playing the clock there. They snapped it with 26 seconds left, so if they ran it & got stuffed then they probably would've had to use their last timeout and then throw on 3rd down (if they wanted to have time left to run a 4th down play as well). If the 2nd down pass drops incomplete, then the whole playbook is still available to them on 3rd & 4th because they still have 20 seconds and a timeout.

They could have snapped it sooner for the 2nd down play, but that would've meant giving it back to NE with more time on the clock if they scored on 2nd down. So they chose to let the play clock run down and then throw it.
I thought that was the really bad call. In that situation I think you score when you can and trust the defense to hold till time runs out. The Pats were working the short stuff. They were not having success throwing deep. Driving the field with less than 30 seconds left using short routes forced inside was still going to be a tall order for the Pats. Any completion was going to force a use of a TO or a loss of down by spiking.

I thought Seattle should have called a time out as soon as Lynch was down on the first down run. That let's them call a play or three, try a run on 2nd, and then still get a throw off on 3rd that either scores or stops the clock for the 4th down. Contrary to what some were saying, they were not going to get off three run plays after letting the clock run down that far before second down. You'd lose precious seconds just because of the scrum at the LOS and trying to get the pile untangled. Not to mention if people are waiting for the refs to make a call whether Seattle got into the endzone or not.

 
Seattle played a dangerous game and lost. They wanted to score but on their terms. They wanted the perfect scenario, score with less than 20 seconds left on the clock.

 
Ricardo Lockette is the perfect scapegoat if someone has to go. Kippy and Bevill are safe, as is Carroll. Wilson fixated on throwing Lockette's way from the snap with no pretense, but he's totally secure.

 
I'm assuming that every football fan on the planet had a simultaneous "WTF?" reaction as soon as Wilson cocked his arm to throw.
Before that. The camera was behind Wilson and as soon as the ball was snapped Lynch broke left -- clearly away from Wilson. My WTF?! was immediate.
Mine was when they showed the main camera, saw Lynch lined up way outside to Wilson's left in the shotgun. I asked myself out loud right before the snap "Why wouldn't you run it?"

 
When Belichick saw the Seahawks come out in that formation he probably was trying to bait them into passing, That is an excellent point espnespn. IF the Seahawks had come out in a GL formation I wonder if the Pats would have used a timeout.

Throwing that ball in the middle is always a risky play on the GL.

Out of that formation against a GL defense a run might not have worked. The question is why did they come out in that formation in the first place. That is inexcusable.

I think the Seahawks expected the Pats to use a TO and then didn't know what to do and were almost just trying to waste that play after the pats remained in their GL defense and didn't call a TO.
What I meant was that Carroll already decided on a passing play for 2nd down because time was ticking down (about 20 secs left) and the best way to guarantee that he'd have 2nd, 3rd, and 4th down to score (if needed), and flexibility to either run/pass on 3rd down, was to pass on 2nd down.

Look at it this way. Assuming that each play is unsuccessful until 4th down attempt:

Option 1:

a) Pass play on 2nd down. Clock stops with incompletion.

b) You can run either a pass play or run play on 3rd down. Defense has to guess. You can stop clock after a run play with last TO, and have plenty of time to set up 4th down play

c) 4th down can be either pass play or run play

Option 2:

a) Run play on 2nd down. Must burn last TO to stop clock.

b) Forced into pass play on 3rd down. Defense knows that you probably won't run because you are out of TOs, because you will have to scramble to get off 4th down play.

c) 4th down can be either pass play or run play, but might not have enough time to run 4th down play

For Carroll to have flexibility on 3rd down and keep the defense guessing on 3rd down, he has to pass on 2nd down. Otherwise, it would be a disaster if the Seahawks run out of time before they can run a 4th down play.
Yeah. But they were trying to get too cute with the clock. They didn't need to let the clock run all the way down and limit their options. They could have run the play with 40 seconds left and still keep all their options open for the next two downs. The bottom line is you have a good defense and even if you do give Brady the ball back with 30 seconds left and 2 TO's is still really likely you are going to win. In all likelihood the worst you are going to do is go to overtime.

When you are down 4 points you have to go ahead first and worry about the clock afterwards.

You can tell by Carroll's comments he wasn't too confident in the 2nd down call once the Pats stayed in GL defense.

I think the Seahawks expected the Pats to:

a) use a timeout

b) get out of their GL defense.
Yup, the Seahawks got cute with the clock, and tried to burn all the time off. But that limited their options, which made their play-calling predictable.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2014/story/_/id/12266535/super-bowl-xlix-darrell-bevell-seattle-seahawks-play-call-made-kill-clock

Of course, Belichick cooperated by not calling a TO, and he knew once they were down to about 20 seconds, they would likely pass on 2nd down. :cool:
Aren't the helmet mic's turned off by that point? BB knowing doesn't matter. The DB knowing is what mattered. I think it was just a great read and play by the DB. The DB gets to the WR a hair early and it's possible pass interference or Wilson throws it away. He gets there a hair later and it's a TD.

As for predictable play calling...that's why Seattle had trouble moving the ball at times. Anyone notice how many of Brady's completions were to open WR's and how many of Wilson's completions were to guys who were covered? Collinsworth commented on it a couple of times. For as good as Lynch is, Seattle is still predictable and it still puts them in obvious passing situations. And when you have WR's that aren't getting separation, whether because of talent or predictability, that's makes sustaining drives difficult. It looked to me like New England was better prepared last night.

 
Anyone notice how many of Brady's completions were to open WR's and how many of Wilson's completions were to guys who were covered? Collinsworth commented on it a couple of times. For as good as Lynch is, Seattle is still predictable and it still puts them in obvious passing situations. And when you have WR's that aren't getting separation, whether because of talent or predictability, that's makes sustaining drives difficult. It looked to me like New England was better prepared last night.
Sea was outcoached the entire 4th quarter.Guess how many passes Brady had to throw on those two drives that were over 10 yards to put up 14 points on the "lock down" Sea D.

Two. One of which was incomplete.

Sea played not to lose. Dink dunk...dink dunk...ballgame. Pete was owned.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone notice how many of Brady's completions were to open WR's and how many of Wilson's completions were to guys who were covered? Collinsworth commented on it a couple of times. For as good as Lynch is, Seattle is still predictable and it still puts them in obvious passing situations. And when you have WR's that aren't getting separation, whether because of talent or predictability, that's makes sustaining drives difficult. It looked to me like New England was better prepared last night.
Sea was outcoached the entire 4th quarter.Guess how many passes Brady had to throw on those two drives that were over 10 yards to put up 14 points on the "lock down" Sea D.

Two. One of which was incomplete.

Sea played not to lose. Dink dunk...dink dunk...ballgame. Pete was owned.
Nice troll attempt. You sound unintelligent with that last sentence however. 0/10 poor effort.

 
Cris Carter had a good point that the play was blown up because Browner wouldn’t let Kearse off the line to set the pick. So in a way, Seattle got out-Seahawked.
Also true. But the QB can't assume the pick works.
The DB still had to loop over top of the other DB and WR and close even if the pick itself isn't perfect. Lockette looked open on the release. The DB ABSOLUTELY was more aggressive to the spot than Lockette was. That's why Lockette was on his ###. The DB knocked him on his can. I get the feeling watching it that Lockette was not charging to the spot or thinking about a contested catch. I suspect it wasn't out of cowardice, but more out of thinking the pick had worked and possibly some concern about running into all the clutter in the middle. I get the feeling that he was thinking more about settling into that gap and catching the pass there in the clear and turning upfield. But if he's a step faster the ball is right in his numbers with his body shielding the ball from the DB. If you look at it, Butler was still behind him when Butler made the catch. But the ball was just a tad bit out in front where Butler could reach for it too.

The OC had no business calling Lockette out in the presser. But I think that's what Bevell was talking about. Remember, the Seattle WR's had been doing a pretty good job winning contested ball.

 
Cris Carter had a good point that the play was blown up because Browner wouldn’t let Kearse off the line to set the pick. So in a way, Seattle got out-Seahawked.
Also true. But the QB can't assume the pick works.
The DB still had to loop over top of the other DB and WR and close even if the pick itself isn't perfect. Lockette looked open on the release. The DB ABSOLUTELY was more aggressive to the spot than Lockette was. That's why Lockette was on his ###. The DB knocked him on his can. I get the feeling watching it that Lockette was not charging to the spot or thinking about a contested catch. I suspect it wasn't out of cowardice, but more out of thinking the pick had worked and possibly some concern about running into all the clutter in the middle. I get the feeling that he was thinking more about settling into that gap and catching the pass there in the clear and turning upfield. But if he's a step faster the ball is right in his numbers with his body shielding the ball from the DB. If you look at it, Butler was still behind him when Butler made the catch. But the ball was just a tad bit out in front where Butler could reach for it too.

The OC had no business calling Lockette out in the presser. But I think that's what Bevell was talking about. Remember, the Seattle WR's had been doing a pretty good job winning contested ball.
It was a bad throw too. It should have been low and into the body of Lockette where the DB would have to run through him to get to the ball. Instead it was out in front and high where the DB could make a play on it. It would have been a good throw if you're playing 1st and 10 from your own 20 yard line and want to give the WR a chance to run with the ball, but it was a very poor throw to a WR that is already in the end zone and in a situation where an interception ends your season.

 
When Butler lined up with inside leverage there should have been a read for both Wilson and the W.R. to break the play to a fade in th e right corner, or a dart to the front pylon. I prefer the fade there because Wilson could roll right putting pressure on the D.b. and the pylon throw is one that is occasionally picked for a T.D. the other way.

As cool a head as Wilson exhibits I was surprised he did not audible upon seeing the defensive alignment.

Nice aggressive play by Butler. Also, butler seems like a humble kid. I'm happy for him.
The call was a rub. Wouldn't inside pressure just put Butler closer to the interference they wanted to run him into?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top