The worst play call in NFL history (1 Viewer)

[JamesTheScot]

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.

A slant should naturally put the DB in a position where he has to come through the WR to get to the ball which would limit the risk of an interception...unless the DB runs the route better than the WR...which is what I believe Bevell was implying.

 

[JamesTheScot]

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?

I think it more likely that he didn't like the match-up but didn't want to burn a TO to change his personnel. I think at the end of the day, when forced to choose, BB will gamble on Brady over his defense. Particularly since Seattle can change their personnel during the TO which would put him right back to square one. How's that going to feel? To burn a TO and still end up with an unfavorable match-up.

He probably decided to give his D a chance to make a stop knowing that IF they didn't Brady would get the ball back with that extra precious TO still in their pocket. If Seattle scores, they just need a FG to tie it and they almost certainly need to hold a TO in reserve in case they need to set up a kick. So that TO they were thinking about burning when they see Seattle in 3-wide was the one Brady might need after a completed pass. Remember, the Pats had success in the short passing game, not the long game. And Seattle would give them the short middle to keep the clock running. So the odds that Brady might need 2 timeouts for their next possession where pretty high.

I wonder if the clock running down was both guys hoping the other guy would burn one of his. Would love to have been reading both their minds at the same time as that clock is ticking down.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Mike Francesa is absolutely crucifying Carroll for that call. Says it's the "worst play all in the history of sports". At one point Mike asked, "What are the odds of Lynch running it in there from 1 yard out? 100%? 90%?"

No Mike, we actually have those odds based on facts. It was 20% this year. Lazy reporting yet again.

Lazy would be taking a sample size of five and using that as a probability.

He had just taken the ball from the 5 to inside the 1. Give me a break.

So you are advocating a sample size of 1, from a less analogous scenario, as your proof?

 

[JamesTheScot]

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.

You make a good point about how good the Pats are at coaching.

Just keep in mind that those same brilliant guys try to cheat. Since they deem cheating beneficial enough to attempt despite the negative consequences when caught, and they are as smart as we both agree they are, how could we then assume that their cheating hasn't made a difference? After all, they didn't tape walk-through's and deflate balls for ####s and giggles just to see if they can get away with it. If you're going to give them credit, give them all to which they are entitled. If they are so smart, and they think cheating helps them, maybe we should give the idea the benefit of the doubt.

It doesn't matter to me that the Pats would have thumped the Colts even with properly inflated balls. It matters to me that they thought it could give them an edge and therefore was OK to do. Am I any less disgusted with a guy that steals my wallet when it's empty compared to the guy that stole it when it was full?

 

[JamesTheScot]

Get beat with your best pitch. Lynch is the Seahawks' best pitch.

This is why I said I think running twice (or maybe three times) in that situation was an easier position for a coach to defend, although it would still be questioned if went that way and failed.

I hate Pete Carroll more than any other coach in the league, so it doesn't bother me in the least that people are tearing him apart. I just think the "worst call in history" stuff is way off and a classic example of outcome bias.

Not recency bias - they were on the 1 yard line with a line that was dominating the LOS and a RB who refuses to go down.

There might have been worse in less important games but never at the end of a Super Bowl like that.

Worst call in history.

Perhaps that RB should have refused to go down on his first carry.

You, sir, have a rapier like wit. Where may I sign up for your newsletter?

 

[JamesTheScot]

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.

It was a quick slant that has to be thrown almost right away. In that situation Butler is probably playing the WR up until that point no matter what the QB's eyes are doing. I'm guessing Wilson has to watch the release because it's his first read and the pattern has a narrow window so he has to decide right away. He can't do that trying to look off the single high safety who probably can't close that window anyway. If anything the single high safety dropping down to try and cut off the slant probably helps open up the back of the endzone if the WR on the left side needs to work that way, which in turn isolates Lynch with his man out in the flat.

The rub is what is supposed to spring Lockette for a 1 yard gain.

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.

The thing about a roll out or bootleg is that they absolutely can end up in a loss of significant yardage. And at that point in the game, in that part of the field, a sack would be very bad as well. And Wilson had been sacked.

I get the feeling that people think a Lynch run had a 90% success opportunity and this pass had a 10% chance of success. The game just isn't that cut and dried.

 

[JamesTheScot]

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.

I don't think Lockette was in the end-zone. But he might have supposed to have been. I thought he was still shy of it.

Also, with the DE/LB in the vicinity, I don't know how feasible it was to try to put the ball in low. That just seems to beg for a batted ball. I think he expected Lockette to play body position with Butler.

Whether Wilson missed a bit or Lockette didn't get to the spot, it's hard to say. Could be a bit of both.

 

[ghostguy123]

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.

The thing about a roll out or bootleg is that they absolutely can end up in a loss of significant yardage. And at that point in the game, in that part of the field, a sack would be very bad as well. And Wilson had been sacked.

I get the feeling that people think a Lynch run had a 90% success opportunity and this pass had a 10% chance of success. The game just isn't that cut and dried.

So I guess what you are saying is, passing in general was probably NOT the way to go there. Too much can go wrong, and it was only 2nd down with a TO left.....at the 1.

On a side note, I see maybe a 1/1000 chance Wilson takes a sack on a roll out/bootleg in that situation.

On 2nd down it's better to run a play with a 10% chance for success and a 0.1% chance of failure than a play with a 90% chance of success and a 10% chance of failure.

Save those riskier stuff for 3rd or 4th down if you so choose, not 2nd down, with 25 seconds left, with a time out.

 

[Tool]

Found this interesting...

By Adam Kilgore February 2 at 12:19 PM

Pete Carroll’s confounding last-minute play call Sunday night will be dissected, debated and mocked for as long they play Super Bowls. It might have been prodded by a sneaky-brilliant decision by Bill Belichick.

With 1 minute, 6 seconds seconds left and the Seahawks down by four points, Marshawn Lynch rumbled to the 1-yard line on first down. The Patriots possessed two timeouts, and the Seahawks had one left. The clock ticked down, and at first it appeared odd for Belichick not to exhaust one of his timeouts. With the Seahawks on the doorstep, New England needed to conserve seconds for a desperation drive in response.

[More on the call: Carroll takes the blame | One play changes NFL history]

Belichick’s choice to not use a timeout, though, made life more difficult for the Seahawks by complicating their play-calling options. It may have even convinced them to throw their ill-fated pass on second down.


The Patriots survived a last-ditch drive by the Seahawks. Rookie Malcolm Butler stepped in front of Ricardo Lockette and picked off Russell Wilson’s off-target pass to complete one of the wildest Super Bowl finishes. (AP)
Imagine Belichick had called a timeout in hopes of saving seconds for Tom Brady. The Seahawks would have had enough time to hand off the ball three times without fear of the clock running out, particularly because they had a timeout of their own.

​

But with Belichick allowing the clock to tick, Seattle’s calculus became more complex, especially as they used almost the entire play clock. They did not snap the ball until there were 26 seconds left in the game. If Seattle ran on second down and the Patriots stuffed them, the Seahawks would have needed to use their final timeout immediately, with about 20 seconds remaining.

The situation would have dictated their ensuing third down. The Seahawks would have no choice but to pass, or else they would have risked the clock running out on their season. The Patriots would have known this, too, which would have made the play far easier to defend. On a potential fourth down, the Seahawks would have had their entire playbook at their disposal.

After a stunning end to Super Bowl XLIX, Tom Brady and the New England Patriots beat the Seattle Seahawks to win their fourth NFL championship.

It’s possible, if not likely, that Carroll passed on second down because he didn’t want to be in a position where the Patriots knew they would pass on third down. And that reality arose because Belichick kept his timeouts holstered.

Belichick would have known that Carroll didn’t want to box himself in on a possible third down, which is how the Patriots could have anticipated that second-down pass that Malcolm Butler intercepted to ice the game. Even with the ball on the goal line, the Patriots used three cornerbacks on the field. The third? Butler.

It should be noted that the Seahawks’ suboptimal clock management contributed to their downfall. After Jermaine Kearse’s circus catch set up Seattle with a first-and-goal at the 5, the Seahawks burned their second timeout because they didn’t get a play to Wilson quickly enough. That timeout could have made Belichick not calling one moot. And as noted above, the Seahawks took too long after Lynch’s first-down run.

Anyone could still argue the Seahawks should have relied on their strength and given the ball to Lynch or let Russell Wilson run a zone-read play at the 1. Studying all of the permutations of the clock could be overthinking it. But as you rip Carroll for not running the ball at the goal line, credit Belichick for making him have to consider it, for making a tiny decision that had an enormous impact.

 

[The General]

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.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/196697/conspiracy-theory-surrounding-seahawks-last-play#

Thanks. I think the writer is crazy and is just being controversial, but that was a decent read. Seattle had been reported that they were working on Lynch's extension before the game. When everything calms down think that's what will ultimately happen. Lynch does his own thing though with him more so than probably any other star player you have no idea what will happen.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Funny it was a run package by the Pats according to Carroll and yet BB had a 3rd CB in there. BB was totally ready for this.

And we haven't seen much (any?) video or gifs of the play in this thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qcFhT7i1tU

Butler starts out lined up on the outside and does a fantastic job - look how quickly he closes on the ball. When Wilson cocks his arm (0:08) Lockette has a 6 yard buffer. The screen didn't work because Butler was never outside the screen, he totally shadowed Lockette. Wilson makes his read in the middle of the field (the MLB) and turns to Lockette and Lockette cuts and Butler moves with him all within that single second (0:08). By the time the ball arrives 1 second later (0:09) Butler is there. Awesome play by Butler.

It also appears to me this was actually a primary read (as opposed to the only read) because Wilson does check the MLB and that appears to be his only look. If the MLB had closed then Wilson likely looks off the pass and he has options at that point.

I'd also be really curious to know exactly where that ball is supposed to be thrown.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

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?

No. It puts him one step closer to the intended spot for the reception, and one step further away from the spot of intended congestion, presuming the other receiver can drive Browner back a half step or more.

 

[RUSF18]

Mike Francesa is absolutely crucifying Carroll for that call. Says it's the "worst play all in the history of sports". At one point Mike asked, "What are the odds of Lynch running it in there from 1 yard out? 100%? 90%?"

No Mike, we actually have those odds based on facts. It was 20% this year. Lazy reporting yet again.

Lazy would be taking a sample size of five and using that as a probability.

He had just taken the ball from the 5 to inside the 1. Give me a break.

So you are advocating a sample size of 1, from a less analogous scenario, as your proof?

Actually I'm using Marshawn Lynch's entire career as a sample size, because you'd have to be a moron to think that the same attributes that make a guy one of the best power RBs of his generation would make him unable to gain a single yard because of how he fared in five situations over the past 4 months.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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?

No. It puts him one step closer to the intended spot for the reception, and one step further away from the spot of intended congestion, presuming the other receiver can drive Browner back a half step or more.

Wilson actually sends Baldwin to the other side of the field, I think that was Wilson's solution to get the area cleared out. When the play starts Butler is on other side of Kearse. The play apparently only called for one read after that, looking towards the MLB, that was the congestion they were trying to avoid.

 

[Road Warriors]

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.

You make a good point about how good the Pats are at coaching.

Just keep in mind that those same brilliant guys try to cheat. Since they deem cheating beneficial enough to attempt despite the negative consequences when caught, and they are as smart as we both agree they are, how could we then assume that their cheating hasn't made a difference? After all, they didn't tape walk-through's and deflate balls for ####s and giggles just to see if they can get away with it. If you're going to give them credit, give them all to which they are entitled. If they are so smart, and they think cheating helps them, maybe we should give the idea the benefit of the doubt.

It doesn't matter to me that the Pats would have thumped the Colts even with properly inflated balls. It matters to me that they thought it could give them an edge and therefore was OK to do. Am I any less disgusted with a guy that steals my wallet when it's empty compared to the guy that stole it when it was full?

Just let it go, man.

Taping the walkthrough never happened. Looking more and more like the deflated balls never happened ( via recent Rappaport report )

Maybe its time to just sit back and enjoy watching a couple of all time greats play.

 

[dhockster]

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.

I think Bevell got too cute, worrying too much about the clock and not enough about scoring.

He ended up going to a pass play that he was obviously comfortable with. However, he was comfortable with it because they had run it before. Butler says that they had worked on defending this play in their last practice because they knew what Seattle liked to do. That is why he got such a good jump on the ball, because he knew where the ball was going. Fail by Bevell to call a pass, but major fail by Bevell to call a pass play that the Patriots were ready for.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

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.

I think Bevell got too cute, worrying too much about the clock and not enough about scoring.

He ended up going to a pass play that he was obviously comfortable with. However, he was comfortable with it because they had run it before. Butler says that they had worked on defending this play in their last practice because they knew what Seattle liked to do. That is why he got such a good jump on the ball, because he knew where the ball was going. Fail by Bevell to call a pass, but major fail by Bevell to call a pass play that the Patriots were ready for.

Yeah, I'm not so sure about that. Teams don't turn over their whole playbook every game, obviously. Be ell can't possibly know which plays NE chooses to plan for. Well, unless he videotapes their practices.....

 

[dhockster]

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.

I think Bevell got too cute, worrying too much about the clock and not enough about scoring.

He ended up going to a pass play that he was obviously comfortable with. However, he was comfortable with it because they had run it before. Butler says that they had worked on defending this play in their last practice because they knew what Seattle liked to do. That is why he got such a good jump on the ball, because he knew where the ball was going. Fail by Bevell to call a pass, but major fail by Bevell to call a pass play that the Patriots were ready for.

Yeah, I'm not so sure about that. Teams don't turn over their whole playbook every game, obviously. Be ell can't possibly know which plays NE chooses to plan for. Well, unless he videotapes their practices.....

I'm just going by what Butler said. They had practiced for that very play. Which means Seattle had run it enough for it to be predictable. Bevell should know what Bevell's tendencies are because he should know that Belichek is going to know what Bevell's tendencies are. He should then adjust his playcalling accordingly.

With the game on the line, he relied on his 3rd (4th?) receiver instead of his all pro RB. That was his main problem.

 

[Manster]

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.

You make a good point about how good the Pats are at coaching.

Just keep in mind that those same brilliant guys try to cheat. Since they deem cheating beneficial enough to attempt despite the negative consequences when caught, and they are as smart as we both agree they are, how could we then assume that their cheating hasn't made a difference? After all, they didn't tape walk-through's and deflate balls for ####s and giggles just to see if they can get away with it. If you're going to give them credit, give them all to which they are entitled. If they are so smart, and they think cheating helps them, maybe we should give the idea the benefit of the doubt.

It doesn't matter to me that the Pats would have thumped the Colts even with properly inflated balls. It matters to me that they thought it could give them an edge and therefore was OK to do. Am I any less disgusted with a guy that steals my wallet when it's empty compared to the guy that stole it when it was full?

Yea, because rah rah pete is so squeaky clean.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Got a question, sorry if this has been covered before but I didn't see it:

All the inevitable contrarian pieces trying to defend the play call claim that the Seahawks wouldn't have had time to run the ball three straight times given the clock situation. Why is that? Obviously they could have snapped the ball sooner on the second down play, but even if you assume the second down play begins at :26 there's still time for two more plays. Assuming it ends around :22, you can either (1) hurry to the line for a quick no-huddle third down run (possibly a QB sneak) that only needs to by snapped by around :06 (plenty of time) and end by :01 to ensure a fourth down play, or (2) take your time out at :22 and set up two running plays during the TO, including the no-huddle fourth down play if you don't convert on the 3rd down run that likely ends around :18 that only needs to be snapped by :01 (again, plenty of time). Either way, plenty of time for three runs.

Am I missing something? Why are people trying to defend the play call claiming that they didn't have time for three runs?

 

[humpback]

Got a question, sorry if this has been covered before but I didn't see it:

All the inevitable contrarian pieces trying to defend the play call claim that the Seahawks wouldn't have had time to run the ball three straight times given the clock situation. Why is that? Obviously they could have snapped the ball sooner on the second down play, but even if you assume the second down play begins at :26 there's still time for two more plays. Assuming it ends around :22, you can either (1) hurry to the line for a quick no-huddle third down run (possibly a QB sneak) that only needs to by snapped by around :06 (plenty of time) and end by :01 to ensure a fourth down play, or (2) take your time out at :22 and set up two running plays during the TO, including the no-huddle fourth down play if you don't convert on the 3rd down run that likely ends around :18 that only needs to be snapped by :01 (again, plenty of time). Either way, plenty of time for three runs.

Am I missing something? Why are people trying to defend the play call claiming that they didn't have time for three runs?

Completely agree. They obviously couldn't have huddled up after each play, but they absolutely could have run 3 running plays with 26 seconds left and 1 TO.

 

[ShamrockPride]

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.

You make a good point about how good the Pats are at coaching.

Just keep in mind that those same brilliant guys try to cheat. Since they deem cheating beneficial enough to attempt despite the negative consequences when caught, and they are as smart as we both agree they are, how could we then assume that their cheating hasn't made a difference? After all, they didn't tape walk-through's and deflate balls for ####s and giggles just to see if they can get away with it. If you're going to give them credit, give them all to which they are entitled. If they are so smart, and they think cheating helps them, maybe we should give the idea the benefit of the doubt.

It doesn't matter to me that the Pats would have thumped the Colts even with properly inflated balls. It matters to me that they thought it could give them an edge and therefore was OK to do. Am I any less disgusted with a guy that steals my wallet when it's empty compared to the guy that stole it when it was full?

Just let it go, man.

Taping the walkthrough never happened. Looking more and more like the deflated balls never happened ( via recent Rappaport report )

Maybe its time to just sit back and enjoy watching a couple of all time greats play.

You know, I think most people would be completely happy and fine with this. However, the NE schmucks on this board need to promote their "Brady is undeniably the greatest agree with me or die" agendas. Like I said before, some people can't just let great be great and leave it at that.

 

[RUSF18]

Got a question, sorry if this has been covered before but I didn't see it:

All the inevitable contrarian pieces trying to defend the play call claim that the Seahawks wouldn't have had time to run the ball three straight times given the clock situation. Why is that? Obviously they could have snapped the ball sooner on the second down play, but even if you assume the second down play begins at :26 there's still time for two more plays. Assuming it ends around :22, you can either (1) hurry to the line for a quick no-huddle third down run (possibly a QB sneak) that only needs to by snapped by around :06 (plenty of time) and end by :01 to ensure a fourth down play, or (2) take your time out at :22 and set up two running plays during the TO, including the no-huddle fourth down play if you don't convert on the 3rd down run that likely ends around :18 that only needs to be snapped by :01 (again, plenty of time). Either way, plenty of time for three runs.

Am I missing something? Why are people trying to defend the play call claiming that they didn't have time for three runs?

Because people are incorporating potential holding penalties or false starts followed by 10 second runoffs for some reason.

Chase Stuart covered this pretty well on Twitter yesterday. It was definitely doable, as it's been done before. One example I saw him note was when Miami was able to run a completed pass play and get off another snap all in 9 seconds.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Got a question, sorry if this has been covered before but I didn't see it:

All the inevitable contrarian pieces trying to defend the play call claim that the Seahawks wouldn't have had time to run the ball three straight times given the clock situation. Why is that? Obviously they could have snapped the ball sooner on the second down play, but even if you assume the second down play begins at :26 there's still time for two more plays. Assuming it ends around :22, you can either (1) hurry to the line for a quick no-huddle third down run (possibly a QB sneak) that only needs to by snapped by around :06 (plenty of time) and end by :01 to ensure a fourth down play, or (2) take your time out at :22 and set up two running plays during the TO, including the no-huddle fourth down play if you don't convert on the 3rd down run that likely ends around :18 that only needs to be snapped by :01 (again, plenty of time). Either way, plenty of time for three runs.

Am I missing something? Why are people trying to defend the play call claiming that they didn't have time for three runs?

Because people are incorporating potential holding penalties or false starts followed by 10 second runoffs for some reason.

Chase Stuart covered this pretty well on Twitter yesterday. It was definitely doable, as it's been done before. One example I saw him note was when Miami was able to run a completed pass play and get off another snap all in 9 seconds.

I'll check out Chase's twitter feed, thanks

 

[pizzatyme]

The worst play called in Playoff history was John Fox havingManning take a knee against the Ravens 3 years ago because it had zero chance of success.

At least play could have worked however bad the call was.

 

[Faust]

Did Pete Carroll want Russell Wilson to win MVP over Marshawn Lynch?

 

[espnespn]

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.

You make a good point about how good the Pats are at coaching.

Just keep in mind that those same brilliant guys try to cheat. Since they deem cheating beneficial enough to attempt despite the negative consequences when caught, and they are as smart as we both agree they are, how could we then assume that their cheating hasn't made a difference? After all, they didn't tape walk-through's and deflate balls for ####s and giggles just to see if they can get away with it. If you're going to give them credit, give them all to which they are entitled. If they are so smart, and they think cheating helps them, maybe we should give the idea the benefit of the doubt.

It doesn't matter to me that the Pats would have thumped the Colts even with properly inflated balls. It matters to me that they thought it could give them an edge and therefore was OK to do. Am I any less disgusted with a guy that steals my wallet when it's empty compared to the guy that stole it when it was full?

It was only a matter of time before the ignorant salty haters resurfaced with cheating allegations.

There was no proof that the Patriots ever taped any walk-throughs. It was investigated by the NFL and debunked. In Spygate, the Patriots were punished for illegally taping teams from the sidelines during actual games. (Btw, taping from the sidelines was made illegal in 2006, after the Patriots already won 3 SBs. So any sideline game taping was perfectly legal when the Patriots won those SBs.)

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-patriots-opponents-wont-let-spygate-die-but-did-it-really-matter/

Also, the NFL has not decided yet whether Patriots deflated any balls. Maybe the NFL will find them guilty, but there is plenty of basic scientific evidence showing that cold weather lowers PSI. So until there is a decision by the NFL, you are assuming guilt.

Keep crying those salty hater tears. They are so delicious!

 

[Short Corner]

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.

It's All About Range is a better analogy and a much better book.

 

[GoFishTN]

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.

You make a good point about how good the Pats are at coaching.

Just keep in mind that those same brilliant guys try to cheat. Since they deem cheating beneficial enough to attempt despite the negative consequences when caught, and they are as smart as we both agree they are, how could we then assume that their cheating hasn't made a difference? After all, they didn't tape walk-through's and deflate balls for ####s and giggles just to see if they can get away with it. If you're going to give them credit, give them all to which they are entitled. If they are so smart, and they think cheating helps them, maybe we should give the idea the benefit of the doubt.

It doesn't matter to me that the Pats would have thumped the Colts even with properly inflated balls. It matters to me that they thought it could give them an edge and therefore was OK to do. Am I any less disgusted with a guy that steals my wallet when it's empty compared to the guy that stole it when it was full?

It was only a matter of time before the ignorant salty haters resurfaced with cheating allegations.

There was no proof that the Patriots ever taped any walk-throughs. It was investigated by the NFL and debunked destroyed. In Spygate, the Patriots were punished for illegally taping teams from the sidelines during actual games. (Btw, taping from the sidelines was made illegal in 2006, after the Patriots already won 3 SBs. So any sideline game taping was perfectly legal when the Patriots won those SBs.)

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-patriots-opponents-wont-let-spygate-die-but-did-it-really-matter/

Also, the NFL has not decided yet whether Patriots deflated any balls. Maybe the NFL will find them guilty, but there is plenty of basic scientific evidence showing that cold weather lowers PSI. So until there is a decision by the NFL, you are assuming guilt.

Keep crying those salty hater tears. They are so delicious!

FYP

 

[espnespn]

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.

You make a good point about how good the Pats are at coaching.

Just keep in mind that those same brilliant guys try to cheat. Since they deem cheating beneficial enough to attempt despite the negative consequences when caught, and they are as smart as we both agree they are, how could we then assume that their cheating hasn't made a difference? After all, they didn't tape walk-through's and deflate balls for ####s and giggles just to see if they can get away with it. If you're going to give them credit, give them all to which they are entitled. If they are so smart, and they think cheating helps them, maybe we should give the idea the benefit of the doubt.

It doesn't matter to me that the Pats would have thumped the Colts even with properly inflated balls. It matters to me that they thought it could give them an edge and therefore was OK to do. Am I any less disgusted with a guy that steals my wallet when it's empty compared to the guy that stole it when it was full?

It was only a matter of time before the ignorant salty haters resurfaced with cheating allegations.

There was no proof that the Patriots ever taped any walk-throughs. It was investigated by the NFL and debunked destroyed. In Spygate, the Patriots were punished for illegally taping teams from the sidelines during actual games. (Btw, taping from the sidelines was made illegal in 2006, after the Patriots already won 3 SBs. So any sideline game taping was perfectly legal when the Patriots won those SBs.)

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-patriots-opponents-wont-let-spygate-die-but-did-it-really-matter/

Also, the NFL has not decided yet whether Patriots deflated any balls. Maybe the NFL will find them guilty, but there is plenty of basic scientific evidence showing that cold weather lowers PSI. So until there is a decision by the NFL, you are assuming guilt.

Keep crying those salty hater tears. They are so delicious!

FYP

Feel free to point to any evidence that Patriots taped any walk-throughs. Or did the NFL also conveniently kill all the witnesses?

 

[GoFishTN]

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.

You make a good point about how good the Pats are at coaching.

Just keep in mind that those same brilliant guys try to cheat. Since they deem cheating beneficial enough to attempt despite the negative consequences when caught, and they are as smart as we both agree they are, how could we then assume that their cheating hasn't made a difference? After all, they didn't tape walk-through's and deflate balls for ####s and giggles just to see if they can get away with it. If you're going to give them credit, give them all to which they are entitled. If they are so smart, and they think cheating helps them, maybe we should give the idea the benefit of the doubt.

It doesn't matter to me that the Pats would have thumped the Colts even with properly inflated balls. It matters to me that they thought it could give them an edge and therefore was OK to do. Am I any less disgusted with a guy that steals my wallet when it's empty compared to the guy that stole it when it was full?

It was only a matter of time before the ignorant salty haters resurfaced with cheating allegations.

There was no proof that the Patriots ever taped any walk-throughs. It was investigated by the NFL and debunked destroyed. In Spygate, the Patriots were punished for illegally taping teams from the sidelines during actual games. (Btw, taping from the sidelines was made illegal in 2006, after the Patriots already won 3 SBs. So any sideline game taping was perfectly legal when the Patriots won those SBs.)

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-patriots-opponents-wont-let-spygate-die-but-did-it-really-matter/

Also, the NFL has not decided yet whether Patriots deflated any balls. Maybe the NFL will find them guilty, but there is plenty of basic scientific evidence showing that cold weather lowers PSI. So until there is a decision by the NFL, you are assuming guilt.

Keep crying those salty hater tears. They are so delicious!

FYP

Feel free to point to any evidence that Patriots taped any walk-throughs. Or did the NFL also conveniently kill all the witnesses?

 

[espnespn]

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.

You make a good point about how good the Pats are at coaching.

Just keep in mind that those same brilliant guys try to cheat. Since they deem cheating beneficial enough to attempt despite the negative consequences when caught, and they are as smart as we both agree they are, how could we then assume that their cheating hasn't made a difference? After all, they didn't tape walk-through's and deflate balls for ####s and giggles just to see if they can get away with it. If you're going to give them credit, give them all to which they are entitled. If they are so smart, and they think cheating helps them, maybe we should give the idea the benefit of the doubt.

It doesn't matter to me that the Pats would have thumped the Colts even with properly inflated balls. It matters to me that they thought it could give them an edge and therefore was OK to do. Am I any less disgusted with a guy that steals my wallet when it's empty compared to the guy that stole it when it was full?

It was only a matter of time before the ignorant salty haters resurfaced with cheating allegations.

There was no proof that the Patriots ever taped any walk-throughs. It was investigated by the NFL and debunked destroyed. In Spygate, the Patriots were punished for illegally taping teams from the sidelines during actual games. (Btw, taping from the sidelines was made illegal in 2006, after the Patriots already won 3 SBs. So any sideline game taping was perfectly legal when the Patriots won those SBs.)

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-patriots-opponents-wont-let-spygate-die-but-did-it-really-matter/

Also, the NFL has not decided yet whether Patriots deflated any balls. Maybe the NFL will find them guilty, but there is plenty of basic scientific evidence showing that cold weather lowers PSI. So until there is a decision by the NFL, you are assuming guilt.

Keep crying those salty hater tears. They are so delicious!

FYP

Feel free to point to any evidence that Patriots taped any walk-throughs. Or did the NFL also conveniently kill all the witnesses?

Matt Walsh was the Patriots employee in the stadium during the Rams walkthrough. The NFL indemnified him (giving him financial immunity) before he spoke to them, so he had no reason to lie. And he said the Patriots never taped the walkthrough. But I guess actual witnesses disputing the cheating accusations don't mean anything to salty haters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/sports/football/08nfl.html?_r=0

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3394017

Keep bringing up those unproven conspiracy theories, while the Patriots keep winning SBs. I'm sure you also believe that the Patriots "cheated" by making the Steelers cut Blount, getting every other team not to claim him off waivers, and then signing him as a free agent. That seems to be the latest cheating accusation against the Patriots.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/29/questions-raised-about-blount-orchestrating-his-return-to-patriots/

 

[zftcg]

Haven't heard anyone else make this point (apologies if it was already covered in one of the previous nine pages): I don't think passing there was automatically a dumb play call, but I think the slant was particularly dumb. I would much rather have seen a play-action to Lynch (which the Pats would have had to respect), a Wilson rollout, and then he can either find someone open, run it in, or toss it into the stands. Pretty much zero risk, with all of the attendant benefits Carroll mentioned when he was justifying the call.

And on top of all that, it raises the possibility of some no-name backup TE scoring the SB-winning TD.

ETA: Reminds me a little of Carroll's other bone-headed coaching move, when he took Reggie Bush out of the game on 4th and 2 in the Rose Bowl. At least force the defense to account for your best weapon.

 

[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.

It's All About Range is a better analogy and a much better book.

I wasn't actually referring to the book titled "theory of poker". I was more referring to just general poker theory and how mixing up your play in similar situations is profitable in the long run.

 

[GoFishTN]

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.

You make a good point about how good the Pats are at coaching.

Just keep in mind that those same brilliant guys try to cheat. Since they deem cheating beneficial enough to attempt despite the negative consequences when caught, and they are as smart as we both agree they are, how could we then assume that their cheating hasn't made a difference? After all, they didn't tape walk-through's and deflate balls for ####s and giggles just to see if they can get away with it. If you're going to give them credit, give them all to which they are entitled. If they are so smart, and they think cheating helps them, maybe we should give the idea the benefit of the doubt.

It doesn't matter to me that the Pats would have thumped the Colts even with properly inflated balls. It matters to me that they thought it could give them an edge and therefore was OK to do. Am I any less disgusted with a guy that steals my wallet when it's empty compared to the guy that stole it when it was full?

It was only a matter of time before the ignorant salty haters resurfaced with cheating allegations.

There was no proof that the Patriots ever taped any walk-throughs. It was investigated by the NFL and debunked destroyed. In Spygate, the Patriots were punished for illegally taping teams from the sidelines during actual games. (Btw, taping from the sidelines was made illegal in 2006, after the Patriots already won 3 SBs. So any sideline game taping was perfectly legal when the Patriots won those SBs.)

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-patriots-opponents-wont-let-spygate-die-but-did-it-really-matter/

Also, the NFL has not decided yet whether Patriots deflated any balls. Maybe the NFL will find them guilty, but there is plenty of basic scientific evidence showing that cold weather lowers PSI. So until there is a decision by the NFL, you are assuming guilt.

Keep crying those salty hater tears. They are so delicious!

FYP

Feel free to point to any evidence that Patriots taped any walk-throughs. Or did the NFL also conveniently kill all the witnesses?

Matt Walsh was the Patriots employee in the stadium during the Rams walkthrough. The NFL indemnified him (giving him financial immunity) before he spoke to them, so he had no reason to lie. And he said the Patriots never taped the walkthrough. But I guess actual witnesses disputing the cheating accusations don't mean anything to salty haters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/sports/football/08nfl.html?_r=0

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3394017

Keep bringing up those unproven conspiracy theories, while the Patriots keep winning SBs. I'm sure you also believe that the Patriots "cheated" by making the Steelers cut Blount, getting every other team not to claim him off waivers, and then signing him as a free agent. That seems to be the latest cheating accusation against the Patriots.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/29/questions-raised-about-blount-orchestrating-his-return-to-patriots/

Calm down. No one is going to take away their titles.

 

[espnespn]

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.

You make a good point about how good the Pats are at coaching.

Just keep in mind that those same brilliant guys try to cheat. Since they deem cheating beneficial enough to attempt despite the negative consequences when caught, and they are as smart as we both agree they are, how could we then assume that their cheating hasn't made a difference? After all, they didn't tape walk-through's and deflate balls for ####s and giggles just to see if they can get away with it. If you're going to give them credit, give them all to which they are entitled. If they are so smart, and they think cheating helps them, maybe we should give the idea the benefit of the doubt.

It doesn't matter to me that the Pats would have thumped the Colts even with properly inflated balls. It matters to me that they thought it could give them an edge and therefore was OK to do. Am I any less disgusted with a guy that steals my wallet when it's empty compared to the guy that stole it when it was full?

It was only a matter of time before the ignorant salty haters resurfaced with cheating allegations.

There was no proof that the Patriots ever taped any walk-throughs. It was investigated by the NFL and debunked destroyed. In Spygate, the Patriots were punished for illegally taping teams from the sidelines during actual games. (Btw, taping from the sidelines was made illegal in 2006, after the Patriots already won 3 SBs. So any sideline game taping was perfectly legal when the Patriots won those SBs.)

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-patriots-opponents-wont-let-spygate-die-but-did-it-really-matter/

Also, the NFL has not decided yet whether Patriots deflated any balls. Maybe the NFL will find them guilty, but there is plenty of basic scientific evidence showing that cold weather lowers PSI. So until there is a decision by the NFL, you are assuming guilt.

Keep crying those salty hater tears. They are so delicious!

FYP

Feel free to point to any evidence that Patriots taped any walk-throughs. Or did the NFL also conveniently kill all the witnesses?

Matt Walsh was the Patriots employee in the stadium during the Rams walkthrough. The NFL indemnified him (giving him financial immunity) before he spoke to them, so he had no reason to lie. And he said the Patriots never taped the walkthrough. But I guess actual witnesses disputing the cheating accusations don't mean anything to salty haters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/sports/football/08nfl.html?_r=0

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3394017

Keep bringing up those unproven conspiracy theories, while the Patriots keep winning SBs. I'm sure you also believe that the Patriots "cheated" by making the Steelers cut Blount, getting every other team not to claim him off waivers, and then signing him as a free agent. That seems to be the latest cheating accusation against the Patriots.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/29/questions-raised-about-blount-orchestrating-his-return-to-patriots/

Calm down. No one is going to take away their titles.

I'm better than calm: I'm thrilled to be watching the Patriots victory parade tomorrow.

The only people who need to calm down before they have a stroke are the Salty Haters like you.

 

[JamesTheScot]

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.

You make a good point about how good the Pats are at coaching.

Just keep in mind that those same brilliant guys try to cheat. Since they deem cheating beneficial enough to attempt despite the negative consequences when caught, and they are as smart as we both agree they are, how could we then assume that their cheating hasn't made a difference? After all, they didn't tape walk-through's and deflate balls for ####s and giggles just to see if they can get away with it. If you're going to give them credit, give them all to which they are entitled. If they are so smart, and they think cheating helps them, maybe we should give the idea the benefit of the doubt.

It doesn't matter to me that the Pats would have thumped the Colts even with properly inflated balls. It matters to me that they thought it could give them an edge and therefore was OK to do. Am I any less disgusted with a guy that steals my wallet when it's empty compared to the guy that stole it when it was full?

Yea, because rah rah pete is so squeaky clean.

Pete may be dirtier for all I know. But I'm kinda funny like that. I don't just assume everyone else is guilty because the guy that got caught, or his apologists, claim that everyone else is doing it too. But I'm sure Lance Armstrong and numerous other cheaters appreciate your moral relativism.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Got a question, sorry if this has been covered before but I didn't see it:

All the inevitable contrarian pieces trying to defend the play call claim that the Seahawks wouldn't have had time to run the ball three straight times given the clock situation. Why is that? Obviously they could have snapped the ball sooner on the second down play, but even if you assume the second down play begins at :26 there's still time for two more plays. Assuming it ends around :22, you can either (1) hurry to the line for a quick no-huddle third down run (possibly a QB sneak) that only needs to by snapped by around :06 (plenty of time) and end by :01 to ensure a fourth down play, or (2) take your time out at :22 and set up two running plays during the TO, including the no-huddle fourth down play if you don't convert on the 3rd down run that likely ends around :18 that only needs to be snapped by :01 (again, plenty of time). Either way, plenty of time for three runs.

Am I missing something? Why are people trying to defend the play call claiming that they didn't have time for three runs?

Because people are incorporating potential holding penalties or false starts followed by 10 second runoffs for some reason.

Chase Stuart covered this pretty well on Twitter yesterday. It was definitely doable, as it's been done before. One example I saw him note was when Miami was able to run a completed pass play and get off another snap all in 9 seconds.

I don't know the circumstances of Stuart's example but there is a tipping point when Seattle not scoring but running time off the clock would shift the Pats from trying to preserve time for a Brady drive to trying to get time run out on Seattle before they can score.

If what people are envisioning is a Lynch crash into the middle of the line, he could very easily end up on the bottom in a pile of players. How quickly are the New England defenders going to get up from a pileup?

When someone gets tackled in clear sight and it's just a defender or two in on the tackle, it's an easy call for the refs to make if the defenders are trying to delay. But you get 15 guys in a scrum in the middle of the line, it isn't so easy for the refs to make that call.

It's that kind of uncertainty which you want to avoid if possible, but it's in play just like the risks of calling a slant which runs your WR into the crowded middle.

It just highlights the fact that none of these calls are as automatic as we think they are. There is a tremendous amount of nuance and minute details that need to go a certain way for things to pan out.

My first gut reaction was "WTF!" when I saw the play. But as I've thought about it, I can see why they did what they did. And I hadn't spent two weeks breaking down tape and trying to gameplan for goal line and dwindling clock scenarios. So I don't know why I should trust my gut over their preparation.

 

[JamesTheScot]

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.

You make a good point about how good the Pats are at coaching.

Just keep in mind that those same brilliant guys try to cheat. Since they deem cheating beneficial enough to attempt despite the negative consequences when caught, and they are as smart as we both agree they are, how could we then assume that their cheating hasn't made a difference? After all, they didn't tape walk-through's and deflate balls for ####s and giggles just to see if they can get away with it. If you're going to give them credit, give them all to which they are entitled. If they are so smart, and they think cheating helps them, maybe we should give the idea the benefit of the doubt.

It doesn't matter to me that the Pats would have thumped the Colts even with properly inflated balls. It matters to me that they thought it could give them an edge and therefore was OK to do. Am I any less disgusted with a guy that steals my wallet when it's empty compared to the guy that stole it when it was full?

It was only a matter of time before the ignorant salty haters resurfaced with cheating allegations.

There was no proof that the Patriots ever taped any walk-throughs. It was investigated by the NFL and debunked destroyed. In Spygate, the Patriots were punished for illegally taping teams from the sidelines during actual games. (Btw, taping from the sidelines was made illegal in 2006, after the Patriots already won 3 SBs. So any sideline game taping was perfectly legal when the Patriots won those SBs.)

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-patriots-opponents-wont-let-spygate-die-but-did-it-really-matter/

Also, the NFL has not decided yet whether Patriots deflated any balls. Maybe the NFL will find them guilty, but there is plenty of basic scientific evidence showing that cold weather lowers PSI. So until there is a decision by the NFL, you are assuming guilt.

Keep crying those salty hater tears. They are so delicious!

FYP

Feel free to point to any evidence that Patriots taped any walk-throughs. Or did the NFL also conveniently kill all the witnesses?

Oh, sorry. It wasn't a walk through they taped contrary to the rules.

BTW, officer, that's not beer on my breath, it's tequila.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Mike Francesa is absolutely crucifying Carroll for that call. Says it's the "worst play all in the history of sports". At one point Mike asked, "What are the odds of Lynch running it in there from 1 yard out? 100%? 90%?"

No Mike, we actually have those odds based on facts. It was 20% this year. Lazy reporting yet again.

Lazy would be taking a sample size of five and using that as a probability.

He had just taken the ball from the 5 to inside the 1. Give me a break.

So you are advocating a sample size of 1, from a less analogous scenario, as your proof?

Actually I'm using Marshawn Lynch's entire career as a sample size, because you'd have to be a moron to think that the same attributes that make a guy one of the best power RBs of his generation would make him unable to gain a single yard because of how he fared in five situations over the past 4 months.

Because if you used his whole career as an example, you would have been guaranteed that he would have been able to convert each of those previous one yard scenarios, right?

Oh, wait. They didn't quite work out like his career as a whole indicated, did they?

There are NO sure things on the football field. You'd have to be a moron to think there are.

 

[espnespn]

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.

You make a good point about how good the Pats are at coaching.

Just keep in mind that those same brilliant guys try to cheat. Since they deem cheating beneficial enough to attempt despite the negative consequences when caught, and they are as smart as we both agree they are, how could we then assume that their cheating hasn't made a difference? After all, they didn't tape walk-through's and deflate balls for ####s and giggles just to see if they can get away with it. If you're going to give them credit, give them all to which they are entitled. If they are so smart, and they think cheating helps them, maybe we should give the idea the benefit of the doubt.

It doesn't matter to me that the Pats would have thumped the Colts even with properly inflated balls. It matters to me that they thought it could give them an edge and therefore was OK to do. Am I any less disgusted with a guy that steals my wallet when it's empty compared to the guy that stole it when it was full?

It was only a matter of time before the ignorant salty haters resurfaced with cheating allegations.

There was no proof that the Patriots ever taped any walk-throughs. It was investigated by the NFL and debunked destroyed. In Spygate, the Patriots were punished for illegally taping teams from the sidelines during actual games. (Btw, taping from the sidelines was made illegal in 2006, after the Patriots already won 3 SBs. So any sideline game taping was perfectly legal when the Patriots won those SBs.)

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-patriots-opponents-wont-let-spygate-die-but-did-it-really-matter/

Also, the NFL has not decided yet whether Patriots deflated any balls. Maybe the NFL will find them guilty, but there is plenty of basic scientific evidence showing that cold weather lowers PSI. So until there is a decision by the NFL, you are assuming guilt.

Keep crying those salty hater tears. They are so delicious!

FYP

Feel free to point to any evidence that Patriots taped any walk-throughs. Or did the NFL also conveniently kill all the witnesses?

Oh, sorry. It wasn't a walk through they taped contrary to the rules.

BTW, officer, that's not beer on my breath, it's tequila.

More irrational arguments from a Salty Hater. Please stop while you are behind.

Maybe you should blackout your TV tomorrow, so the Patriots victory parade doesn't give you a stroke?

 

[The General]

After Lynch gets down to the one Seahawks win that game probably 90% of the time.

Bill not calling a time out probably raised it maybe 5% in my mind. All this stuff about making Carroll do this or that is moot if they just ran the ball. Bill would be taking all kinds of heat if not for the Hawks crapping the bed with that call. Sucks to say as a Seattle fan but that's what they did.

Boiling game down to the last few seconds Bill deserves all the credit in the world for having coached Butler up to know what to do and that kid made a truly amazing play. Not calling the TO though was a mistake. My 2 cents.

Still can't believe Seattle lost that game.

 

[thatguy]

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.

Yup.

 

[ShamrockPride]

After Lynch gets down to the one Seahawks win that game probably 90% of the time.

Bill not calling a time out probably raised it maybe 5% in my mind. All this stuff about making Carroll do this or that is moot if they just ran the ball. Bill would be taking all kinds of heat if not for the Hawks crapping the bed with that call. Sucks to say as a Seattle fan but that's what they did.

Boiling game down to the last few seconds Bill deserves all the credit in the world for having coached Butler up to know what to do and that kid made a truly amazing play. Not calling the TO though was a mistake. My 2 cents.

Still can't believe Seattle lost that game.

Not only this, everyone would be calling Russ an elite quarterback instead of being again somehow reduced to just a game manager. Think about it. Minus the worst call in NFL history, he conducted not one, but two perfect 80 yard two minute drills against Bill Belichicks defense.

 

[Warrior]

Mike Francesa is absolutely crucifying Carroll for that call. Says it's the "worst play all in the history of sports". At one point Mike asked, "What are the odds of Lynch running it in there from 1 yard out? 100%? 90%?"

No Mike, we actually have those odds based on facts. It was 20% this year. Lazy reporting yet again.

Lazy would be taking a sample size of five and using that as a probability.

He had just taken the ball from the 5 to inside the 1. Give me a break.

So you are advocating a sample size of 1, from a less analogous scenario, as your proof?

Common sense says it's closer to 90% than 20%. That's all I need.

 

[Warrior]

After Lynch gets down to the one Seahawks win that game probably 90% of the time.

Bill not calling a time out probably raised it maybe 5% in my mind. All this stuff about making Carroll do this or that is moot if they just ran the ball. Bill would be taking all kinds of heat if not for the Hawks crapping the bed with that call. Sucks to say as a Seattle fan but that's what they did.

Boiling game down to the last few seconds Bill deserves all the credit in the world for having coached Butler up to know what to do and that kid made a truly amazing play. Not calling the TO though was a mistake. My 2 cents.

Still can't believe Seattle lost that game.

Not only this, everyone would be calling Russ an elite quarterback instead of being again somehow reduced to just a game manager. Think about it. Minus the worst call in NFL history, he conducted not one, but two perfect 80 yard two minute drills against Bill Belichicks defense.

And instead, he threw the entire season away by tossing the ball into the most crowded area of the field to a horrible WR. I'd say Russ got what he deserved.

 

[The Westin]

After Lynch gets down to the one Seahawks win that game probably 90% of the time.

Bill not calling a time out probably raised it maybe 5% in my mind. All this stuff about making Carroll do this or that is moot if they just ran the ball. Bill would be taking all kinds of heat if not for the Hawks crapping the bed with that call. Sucks to say as a Seattle fan but that's what they did.

Boiling game down to the last few seconds Bill deserves all the credit in the world for having coached Butler up to know what to do and that kid made a truly amazing play. Not calling the TO though was a mistake. My 2 cents.

Still can't believe Seattle lost that game.

Not only this, everyone would be calling Russ an elite quarterback instead of being again somehow reduced to just a game manager. Think about it. Minus the worst call in NFL history, he conducted not one, but two perfect 80 yard two minute drills against Bill Belichicks defense.

To be fair, both of those drives were anchored by him basically throwing the ball deep & up for grabs.

 

[jon_mx]

After Lynch gets down to the one Seahawks win that game probably 90% of the time.

Bill not calling a time out probably raised it maybe 5% in my mind. All this stuff about making Carroll do this or that is moot if they just ran the ball. Bill would be taking all kinds of heat if not for the Hawks crapping the bed with that call. Sucks to say as a Seattle fan but that's what they did.

Boiling game down to the last few seconds Bill deserves all the credit in the world for having coached Butler up to know what to do and that kid made a truly amazing play. Not calling the TO though was a mistake. My 2 cents.

Still can't believe Seattle lost that game.

I think Belichick saw Seattle did not have the goal line offense in the game and did not call the TO because he did not want to give them a chance to change. Bill almost called the timeout, but saw something and stopped.

Carroll has admitted he thought Belichick was going to call a timeout. Belichick through a wrench into things by not doing it and Carroll got stuck with the wrong offense on the field.

 

[Reegus]

After Lynch gets down to the one Seahawks win that game probably 90% of the time.

Bill not calling a time out probably raised it maybe 5% in my mind. All this stuff about making Carroll do this or that is moot if they just ran the ball. Bill would be taking all kinds of heat if not for the Hawks crapping the bed with that call. Sucks to say as a Seattle fan but that's what they did.

Boiling game down to the last few seconds Bill deserves all the credit in the world for having coached Butler up to know what to do and that kid made a truly amazing play. Not calling the TO though was a mistake. My 2 cents.

Still can't believe Seattle lost that game.

Not only this, everyone would be calling Russ an elite quarterback instead of being again somehow reduced to just a game manager. Think about it. Minus the worst call in NFL history, he conducted not one, but two perfect 80 yard two minute drills against Bill Belichicks defense.

On the first one the patriots never put a safety over the top of Matthews when he out sized the corner back by a lot. The second drive was a lucky hail mary to kearse. Wilson is a more athletic Trent Dilfer.

 

[Old Smiley]

After Lynch gets down to the one Seahawks win that game probably 90% of the time.

Bill not calling a time out probably raised it maybe 5% in my mind. All this stuff about making Carroll do this or that is moot if they just ran the ball. Bill would be taking all kinds of heat if not for the Hawks crapping the bed with that call. Sucks to say as a Seattle fan but that's what they did.

Boiling game down to the last few seconds Bill deserves all the credit in the world for having coached Butler up to know what to do and that kid made a truly amazing play. Not calling the TO though was a mistake. My 2 cents.

Still can't believe Seattle lost that game.

Not only this, everyone would be calling Russ an elite quarterback instead of being again somehow reduced to just a game manager. Think about it. Minus the worst call in NFL history, he conducted not one, but two perfect 80 yard two minute drills against Bill Belichicks defense.

To be fair, both of those drives were anchored by him basically throwing the ball deep & up for grabs.

To be fair, too, that long ball Russell throws is a true beauty. Yes, it's still a low percentage play, but jeez he throws them nice.