The worst play call in NFL history (1 Viewer)

[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.

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?

Is that the best you have?

You think you've scored a point in the debate by pointing out that they didn't cheat in precisely the way I stated they cheated? That's laughable. And then you double down by accusing someone else of being irrational after you make that brilliant point? And you compound your irrationality by trying to link debate about Seattle's last play call to hate of the Patriots/BB in the first place.

My my my, could you be any more irrationally defensive?

It's this simple: I believe the Patriots cheat because they've been caught doing it. But just like Lance Armstrong, that doesn't mean they aren't great at their craft outside of the cheating. I fully recognize how smart BB is. I respect his football mind. I think they had a great game plan for moving the ball on Seattle and I think that most of the credit for Butler's pick goes to BB and the staff for having their players coached up to recognize that play. If I am choosing between which team in that game had the more competent coaching staff, BEFORE the game I am giving the Patriots that vote. The game just confirmed it even further.

But being great at something should earn one thing: respect. It doesn't entitle you to affection or adoration. So the cheating is the reason I can't "like" them. It isn't hate. It's just that I can't really root for them when I believe that they've shown a disregard for the rules like they have. But I have a feeling that this distinction is going to be too nuanced for you to understand. That's perhaps a bit mean of me to say, but with the way you hurl insults and labels around, I figure you can take it, even if you can't understand it.

 

[General Tso]

I think Carroll is one of the better NFL coaches. But Belichick is head and shoulders above all others. It is not even close. Belichick won that game. He knew Seattle was backed into a corner with their effort to run out the clock and needed to do a pass play. He saw what Seattle players they had out there, put in the right personnel to counter (a player who worked against that exact same play during the week of preparations), and everything worked out. Great coaching, great preparations, great understanding of the situation. Belichick can think on the fly and has thought about numerous scenarios ahead of time. It is second nature to him, while other coaches need time to process and make mistakes under the pressure.

Belicheck was the winning coach but he had it gift wrapped to him. I actually liked the end result. The Seahawks blew it and the Patriots didn't deserve it. Seattle didn't win and New England knows they didn't deserve to win.

i think this is the definition of a loser post.

 

[parrot]

I think Carroll is one of the better NFL coaches. But Belichick is head and shoulders above all others. It is not even close. Belichick won that game. He knew Seattle was backed into a corner with their effort to run out the clock and needed to do a pass play. He saw what Seattle players they had out there, put in the right personnel to counter (a player who worked against that exact same play during the week of preparations), and everything worked out. Great coaching, great preparations, great understanding of the situation. Belichick can think on the fly and has thought about numerous scenarios ahead of time. It is second nature to him, while other coaches need time to process and make mistakes under the pressure.

Belicheck was the winning coach but he had it gift wrapped to him. I actually liked the end result. The Seahawks blew it and the Patriots didn't deserve it. Seattle didn't win and New England knows they didn't deserve to win.

i think this is the definition of a loser post.

Yep. If there was one "gift" in the game, it was the Kearse catch.

 

[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.

Your common sense is wrong.

Over his career, Lynch has had 36 carries from the opponent’s 1-yard line. More often than not, he didn’t reach the end zone. He scored on 15 of those carries, or 41.7 percent of the time. On 12 of those carries, he did not gain a yard. On nine of them, he lost yardage.

How do Lynch’s numbers from the 1 stack up against other running backs in the league? Not all that great. “Among 39 running backs with at least 10 carries from the 1-yard line in the past 5 seasons (incl. playoffs), Lynch’s touchdown percentage (45 percent) ranks 30th,” reports ESPN Stats and Info.

Common sense says he would have had more than 1 attempt (if necessary).

Now you're moving the goalposts.

The number Mike Francesa was looking for isn't 100%, and it isn't 90% either. It's 41.7%.

FWIW, prior to Sunday, in the same situation, Russell Wilson had converted 7 of 15 chances (4 rush TDs, 3 pass TDs) for a 46.7% success rate.

During his career before the SB when behind and throwing inside the 3, Wilson was 5 of 7 with 4 TD's - and one INT.

The INT brings light to one dynamic that seems to be getting overlooked by those of which who are defending the pass call there. Even if Wilson has a slightly better success rate at passing the ball in the end zone at goal line situations--it doesn't take high football IQ to understand that the possibility/probability of a catastrophic failure are also much higher. It is all about risk/reward here. The reward of getting the ball in the endzone whether it is by a Wilson pass or a Marshawn td are equal (a Super Bowl victory)--but the risk between those two play calls is vastly different. If Marshawn doesn't make it in--Seattle calls a timeout and still has opportunities to win the game. Wilson throwing one int in 7 goal line passing situations basically would indicate almost a 15% chance of epic failure. I don't have the numbers in front of me--but my best guess is that there is a far less than 15% probability that Marshawn fumbles in goal line situations. This play call was so horrid because it was unnecessarily high risk. This is part of the reason why I am a believer in the conspiracy theory that the Seahawks were hoping and trying to make Wilson their hero.

Bingo! 100% correct. This is what's being ignored by the "probability" crowd. And it's common sense.

 

[Warrior]

A lot of these numbers guys and professional analysts just revert to "drunk sports fan in a bar" mode.

Hindsight -- helluva drug.

I disagree with calling it hindsight

I know that everyone at the Super Bowl party I was watching the game were questioning the play call the moment they didn’t fake or give the ball to Lynch.

If you are going to go with a pass play there why not the play action fake to Lynch with the TE Willson sneaking out. I would imagine that every Patriot LB would bite on the fake

Same here. Our entire group was dumbfounded by the play call before Wilson even let the ball go. There were quite a few "holy sh@#" gasps as nobody could believe Seattle would be that stupid. Especially after Lynch just churned out 4.5 of the 5 yards needed on his first carry.

Those ignoring the risk-reward of the play call, and defending it as hindsight, are completely ignoring basic common sense. They would probably have thrown a pass there too, and lost the SB unnecessarily. It's the wrong call and it was made by getting cute and over-thinking things.

 

[RUSF18]

I think Carroll is one of the better NFL coaches. But Belichick is head and shoulders above all others. It is not even close. Belichick won that game. He knew Seattle was backed into a corner with their effort to run out the clock and needed to do a pass play. He saw what Seattle players they had out there, put in the right personnel to counter (a player who worked against that exact same play during the week of preparations), and everything worked out. Great coaching, great preparations, great understanding of the situation. Belichick can think on the fly and has thought about numerous scenarios ahead of time. It is second nature to him, while other coaches need time to process and make mistakes under the pressure.

2nd and goal from inside the 1 with over a minute left and a timeout, and a chance to take the lead in the Super Bowl.

You have an odd definition of "backed into a corner".

He was backed into a corner when he let the clock run down below 30 seconds. He limited his options to where he had to throw to stop the clock and he did not have his goal line offense on the field to pound it in. It wasn't that calling a timeout did not cross Belichick's mind, because it did, he almost signaled for a timeout. But then realized the clock was on his side and decided against it.

But you said he knew Carroll was backed into a corner, that's why he didn't take a timeout. The question is if he should have taken the timeout before the Seahawks ran the clock down. That was 1:02. No corner backed into. Of course Belichick shouldn't have taken the timeout after letting nearly 40 seconds roll off the clock.

 

[Warrior]

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.

High risk? Teams threw from the 1 119 times this season with zero turnovers. Statistically speaking it's less risky than a run there.#### happens.

Faulty logic.

Did "teams" have this opportunity on 2nd down, rather than 4th? Were "teams" run-heavy offenses? Did "teams" have Marshawn Lynch? Were "teams" throwing to Lockette, a pathetic excuse for a starting WR? Did "teams" have the entire season and SB riding on a potential turnover? Did "teams" throw the ball to the center of the field where most of the defense was crowded?

The answer to all of the above is "no". You're wrong if you think the stats seem to back up your faulty theory.

 

[humpback]

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.

Your common sense is wrong.

Over his career, Lynch has had 36 carries from the opponent’s 1-yard line. More often than not, he didn’t reach the end zone. He scored on 15 of those carries, or 41.7 percent of the time. On 12 of those carries, he did not gain a yard. On nine of them, he lost yardage.

How do Lynch’s numbers from the 1 stack up against other running backs in the league? Not all that great. “Among 39 running backs with at least 10 carries from the 1-yard line in the past 5 seasons (incl. playoffs), Lynch’s touchdown percentage (45 percent) ranks 30th,” reports ESPN Stats and Info.

Common sense says he would have had more than 1 attempt (if necessary).

Now you're moving the goalposts.

The number Mike Francesa was looking for isn't 100%, and it isn't 90% either. It's 41.7%.

FWIW, prior to Sunday, in the same situation, Russell Wilson had converted 7 of 15 chances (4 rush TDs, 3 pass TDs) for a 46.7% success rate.

I'm not moving anything. I didn't hear Francesa so I don't know what he was talking about specifically, but it's moot to talk about the odds of converting on only one chance when they would have had more.

LOL

"I don't know what you're talking about but I'm sure I'm not talking about something different."

Alrighty then.

Wat? Do you know for a fact that he was talking about the odds on the very next play, or for that series? If it was that play, it's a dumb discussion to begin with. I couldn't care less what that clown says or if you "proved" him wrong, and I didn't move any goalposts- the only odds that matter are of scoring on that drive, not on one play (ignoring the fact that we can't really calculate what the odds were for either to begin with).

You're wasting your time arguing about something that's irrelevant. Knock yourself out though.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

This scenario is the one where typically you see a "Jumbo" set by the offense with a tackle eligible and often a L.B. or a defensive tackle in the backfield for a lead blocker. On the first attempt teams usually hand the ball to the back and see if the jumbos can get him home. If that fails on the second attempt you usually see a fake handoff/play action with the Q.B. rolling out with a run/pass option to either the tackle eligible, or the fullback eligible. This is what makes stars out of those guys. Now doing this against the Patriots may have increased risk as they run this all of the time, but with Wilson's running ability and decision-making ability I like the odds. On third down, out of the same set, if a third attempt is necessary, you often see counter action to the back, or a read option.

To me this classic sequence offers a good chance of success, particularly with the weapons Seattle has.

 

[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?

Is that the best you have?

You think you've scored a point in the debate by pointing out that they didn't cheat in precisely the way I stated they cheated? That's laughable. And then you double down by accusing someone else of being irrational after you make that brilliant point? And you compound your irrationality by trying to link debate about Seattle's last play call to hate of the Patriots/BB in the first place.

My my my, could you be any more irrationally defensive?

It's this simple: I believe the Patriots cheat because they've been caught doing it. But just like Lance Armstrong, that doesn't mean they aren't great at their craft outside of the cheating. I fully recognize how smart BB is. I respect his football mind. I think they had a great game plan for moving the ball on Seattle and I think that most of the credit for Butler's pick goes to BB and the staff for having their players coached up to recognize that play. If I am choosing between which team in that game had the more competent coaching staff, BEFORE the game I am giving the Patriots that vote. The game just confirmed it even further.

But being great at something should earn one thing: respect. It doesn't entitle you to affection or adoration. So the cheating is the reason I can't "like" them. It isn't hate. It's just that I can't really root for them when I believe that they've shown a disregard for the rules like they have. But I have a feeling that this distinction is going to be too nuanced for you to understand. That's perhaps a bit mean of me to say, but with the way you hurl insults and labels around, I figure you can take it, even if you can't understand it.

Um, there's a huge difference between taping walkthoughs vs. taping on the sidelines during games. Trying to pretend the difference is minor is laughable.

Taping walkthroughs has been illegal for a long time, and clearly gives an advantage. Taping on the sidelines during games, was made expressly illegal in 2006 only. Why was it not made illegal sooner? Because any advantage is negligible: you can still tape during games from a room with a zoom lens, that captures the same video as from the sidelines. You conveniently forget that nuance when you call the Patriots cheaters.

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

I love how you talk about nuances, yet you fail to see your own blatant hypocrisy. Will you suddenly stop rooting for the Browns, if they get busted for Textgate? I suspect not.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/04/textgate-browns-may-lose-a-draft-pick-ray-farmer-may-be-suspended/

No one is asking for you to root for the Patriots, just that you not be a hypocritical Salty Hater. I hope this isn't too nuanced for you to understand.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

okay--throw the sample size away and look at things with a blank slate. Generally speaking-- what is a higher risk play: 1) a stud power running back trying to run the ball in from the 0.5 yard line 2) throwing a pass from the shotgun formation from the 0.5 yard line where the defensive players are tightly packed in a small area? The sample size here just validates common sense--it's not a necessary metric to back this risk/reward dynamic.

I don't disagree that the play that was called was dumb (and have posted that opinion like a half dozen times in this and other threads). Why risk throwing the ball into traffic and risk the interception? But there are other passing plays or run/option plays where the risk of a turnover is very minimal.

I certainly agree with you that there may have been "less risky" pass plays--but I would still very much contend that any passing play under that circumstance defies logic. A passing play by nature involves far more moving moving parts than a rushing play--a poor throw--pass getting tipped and popping up in the air in a congested area--hard pass bouncing off a wr's hands and popping up in the air, offensive pass interference call..etc. A rushing play accomplishes two things--you have more control of the ball/play as it is never up in the air for anybody to grab--and secondly--it helps to control the clock. Hypothetically--even if the pass play succeeded--it would have maximized the time that New England would have the ball in their possession to come back to either tie or win the game. If the pass would have fallen incomplete--it also stops the clock--doesn't put New England in a position to call a timeout--and once again plays more in New Englands hands. A rushing play is a safer play--and it plays the clock in Seattles favor as it forces New England to make a decision. Also--rushing the ball even opens up the possibility that New England allows Marshawn to score so they have the most time and timeouts to stage a comeback. Calling any pass was nothing short of moronic--as puts them at more risk for failure--and it plays into New Englands hands in regards to clock management. Let's not also for get that Wilson was not playing the greatest football the last 2 games. The game before--he had something like 3-4 interceptions and his team won because of series of failures by the Packers. In the SB game--I believe he didn't complete a pass until the 2nd quarter--and the play that even put them in a position to win was nothing short of a miracle. It's not like Wilson had been quarterbacking soo beautifully that it was worth taking the risk. Especially if you factor in the dynamic that their running back is most likely the strongest offensive player on the team--and is also the hungriest--as he's playing for a contract. He was also playing a far better game than Wilson was in the SB and the game versus the Packers. I think the only way you throw the ball there is if you feel like you have a horribly incapable running back (perhaps if Trent Richardson was your running back and your QB is Andrew Luck or better).

 

[12punch]

salty trolls campin' on this thread, too?

the quicker you guys move on to 5 the happier you'll be

 

[cstu]

During his career before the SB when behind and throwing inside the 3, Wilson was 5 of 7 with 4 TD's - and one INT.

The INT brings light to one dynamic that seems to be getting overlooked by those of which who are defending the pass call there. Even if Wilson has a slightly better success rate at passing the ball in the end zone at goal line situations--it doesn't take high football IQ to understand that the possibility/probability of a catastrophic failure are also much higher. It is all about risk/reward here. The reward of getting the ball in the endzone whether it is by a Wilson pass or a Marshawn td are equal (a Super Bowl victory)--but the risk between those two play calls is vastly different. If Marshawn doesn't make it in--Seattle calls a timeout and still has opportunities to win the game. Wilson throwing one int in 7 goal line passing situations basically would indicate almost a 15% chance of epic failure. I don't have the numbers in front of me--but my best guess is that there is a far less than 15% probability that Marshawn fumbles in goal line situations. This play call was so horrid because it was unnecessarily high risk. This is part of the reason why I am a believer in the conspiracy theory that the Seahawks were hoping and trying to make Wilson their hero.

Precisely my point.

 

[Yenrub]

A lot of these numbers guys and professional analysts just revert to "drunk sports fan in a bar" mode.

Hindsight -- helluva drug.

I disagree with calling it hindsight

I know that everyone at the Super Bowl party I was watching the game were questioning the play call the moment they didn’t fake or give the ball to Lynch.

If you are going to go with a pass play there why not the play action fake to Lynch with the TE Willson sneaking out. I would imagine that every Patriot LB would bite on the fake

Same here. Our entire group was dumbfounded by the play call before Wilson even let the ball go. There were quite a few "holy sh@#" gasps as nobody could believe Seattle would be that stupid. Especially after Lynch just churned out 4.5 of the 5 yards needed on his first carry.

Those ignoring the risk-reward of the play call, and defending it as hindsight, are completely ignoring basic common sense. They would probably have thrown a pass there too, and lost the SB unnecessarily. It's the wrong call and it was made by getting cute and over-thinking things.

This play reminded me of the Kurt Warner interception to James Harrison back when the Cardinals played the Steelers. Throw the fade to Fitzgerald against Ike Taylor (who can’t catch a cold) don’t get cute and run Fitzgerald into traffic where Taylor has help.

 

[Old Smiley]

They didn't have a run group in. Go against a goal line D with small personnel and not only do you risk not advancing you could easily lose three yards. 3rd and four looks kind of dicey to me (still pretty darned good, but less good). I just plain think it's more about a not-too-experienced QB not realizing what the real point of the play was (stop the clock and get your heavy package in there for two run plays) and forcing the ball, coupled with an absolutely wonderful play on the ball by an undrafted rookie.

What I don't like about your thinking is that in order for it to be true you have to turn a well respected coach with a pretty bloody good track record into an imbecile. I'm not buying.

Edit: And not to bag on Wilson too much either. The play looked like it was there.

 

[davearm]

okay--throw the sample size away and look at things with a blank slate. Generally speaking-- what is a higher risk play: 1) a stud power running back trying to run the ball in from the 0.5 yard line 2) throwing a pass from the shotgun formation from the 0.5 yard line where the defensive players are tightly packed in a small area? The sample size here just validates common sense--it's not a necessary metric to back this risk/reward dynamic.

I don't disagree that the play that was called was dumb (and have posted that opinion like a half dozen times in this and other threads). Why risk throwing the ball into traffic and risk the interception? But there are other passing plays or run/option plays where the risk of a turnover is very minimal.

I certainly agree with you that there may have been "less risky" pass plays--but I would still very much contend that any passing play under that circumstance defies logic. A passing play by nature involves far more moving moving parts than a rushing play--a poor throw--pass getting tipped and popping up in the air in a congested area--hard pass bouncing off a wr's hands and popping up in the air, offensive pass interference call..etc. A rushing play accomplishes two things--you have more control of the ball/play as it is never up in the air for anybody to grab--and secondly--it helps to control the clock. Hypothetically--even if the pass play succeeded--it would have maximized the time that New England would have the ball in their possession to come back to either tie or win the game. If the pass would have fallen incomplete--it also stops the clock--doesn't put New England in a position to call a timeout--and once again plays more in New Englands hands. A rushing play is a safer play--and it plays the clock in Seattles favor as it forces New England to make a decision. Also--rushing the ball even opens up the possibility that New England allows Marshawn to score so they have the most time and timeouts to stage a comeback. Calling any pass was nothing short of moronic--as puts them at more risk for failure--and it plays into New Englands hands in regards to clock management. Let's not also for get that Wilson was not playing the greatest football the last 2 games. The game before--he had something like 3-4 interceptions and his team won because of series of failures by the Packers. In the SB game--I believe he didn't complete a pass until the 2nd quarter--and the play that even put them in a position to win was nothing short of a miracle. It's not like Wilson had been quarterbacking soo beautifully that it was worth taking the risk. Especially if you factor in the dynamic that their running back is most likely the strongest offensive player on the team--and is also the hungriest--as he's playing for a contract. He was also playing a far better game than Wilson was in the SB and the game versus the Packers. I think the only way you throw the ball there is if you feel like you have a horribly incapable running back (perhaps if Trent Richardson was your running back and your QB is Andrew Luck or better).

Are you just pulling this "passing is more risky" stuff out of your butt?

Over the last 5 years, teams at the 1 YL have passed 534 times and rushed 1287 times. These plays have resulted in 267 passing TDs (50%), 696 rushing TDs (54%), 11 turnovers on passing plays (2.1%), and 30 fumbles on running plays (2.3%).

There's no substantial difference in the risk, or in the success rate.

 

[cowboyz1]

The way I see it, Seattle broke one of man's cardinal rules. Let me explain.

Your out with the fellas on a Saturday night and it's late. You're with a strong 6 who could probably be a 7 pushing 8 with makeup but is comfortable with herself so doesn't where much. So call it a Saturday Night 7 using the Saturday night shots and impaired judgment scale. Basically, it's a done deal. After working down 4 Maraschino cherries while staring at you and overhearing her tell her girlfriends that they can leave without her followed by the stare and giggle, the night is going to end well. Basically a bird in hand Scenario.

Then it happens. A 9 walks in with her slightly above average friend who hangs around for leftovers. You know the one. The same 9 that you could have closed last week if not for a drunken wingman. She walks by and with one glance says, hi, I remember you, you're going home with that, to bad, as she walks towards the restroom knowing you're staring at her ####. It's amazing how one inviting glance can contain so much information. In just seconds the game has changed. From "Bird in Hand" scenario to a "What if" scenario just that quickly.

Then on the way back she say's "Hi" to you only, as if there were no one else at the table.

At that moment you have two choices. You could play it safe by saying "she's hammered", hand off the tab to your wingman, wave off the fellas, take her by the hand and escort her out to a cab that has instructions to take you straight home where a celebration of mounting options await. A simple hand off and your home free.

Or

You could throw caution to the wind and go for the upgrade. The decision is made you decide to get cute. You head to the bar to get another round for the table. Now this choice is fraught with risk. You could get picked off by an unexpected guy meeting her that hasn't arrived yet. You could get stuffed by her wingwoman with a plea to rush home. The clock is ticking as last call is on the lips of the barkeep so you have to work fast. The decision is made.

You go for it all by saying "I remember you from last week, and you've been on my mind ever since".

Wait for it.............."Yeah", she replies. "I remember you too, Russell, right?"

"You remembered me?" you say surprised.

"Your not easy to forget either" is her response.

And there it is. You're stunned. Like a prayer of a pass caught in the SuperBowl and has you just outside the goal line. You can't believe that immaculate line was caught out of the air like Jackie Robinson's left field runner. You look back at the 6 who has succumbed to the inevitable by looking away as if she doesn't notice. The fellas are in awe of the feat and almost forget to cover you by detracting the 6 you left. You're on the precipice of making all Pro Puller in the eyes of all who witness this late in the game push for pulling immortality. The clock is ticking. She gazes into you eyes for the one thing that closes the deal and thrusts you into the end zone. The most simplest of calls to make. Like handing off to your unstoppable power back in the biggest game of the year which sends you to the promised land.

Her name...........Call her name and you win. If you could only remember her name.

Well we all know how that worked out................Bird in the hand folks. Bird in the hand.

 

[Deamon]

The way I see it, Seattle broke one of man's cardinal rules. Let me explain.

Your out with the fellas on a Saturday night and it's late. You're with a strong 6 who could probably be a 7 pushing 8 with makeup but is comfortable with herself so doesn't where much. So call it a Saturday Night 7 using the Saturday night shots and impaired judgment scale. Basically, it's a done deal. After working down 4 Maraschino cherries while staring at you and overhearing her tell her girlfriends that they can leave without her followed by the stare and giggle, the night is going to end well. Basically a bird in hand Scenario.

Then it happens. A 9 walks in with her slightly above average friend who hangs around for leftovers. You know the one. The same 9 that you could have closed last week if not for a drunken wingman. She walks by and with one glance says, hi, I remember you, you're going home with that, to bad, as she walks towards the restroom knowing you're staring at her ####. It's amazing how one inviting glance can contain so much information. In just seconds the game has changed. From "Bird in Hand" scenario to a "What if" scenario just that quickly.

Then on the way back she say's "Hi" to you only, as if there were no one else at the table.

At that moment you have two choices. You could play it safe by saying "she's hammered", hand off the tab to your wingman, wave off the fellas, take her by the hand and escort her out to a cab that has instructions to take you straight home where a celebration of mounting options await. A simple hand off and your home free.

Or

You could throw caution to the wind and go for the upgrade. The decision is made you decide to get cute. You head to the bar to get another round for the table. Now this choice is fraught with risk. You could get picked off by an unexpected guy meeting her that hasn't arrived yet. You could get stuffed by her wingwoman with a plea to rush home. The clock is ticking as last call is on the lips of the barkeep so you have to work fast. The decision is made.

You go for it all by saying "I remember you from last week, and you've been on my mind ever since".

Wait for it.............."Yeah", she replies. "I remember you too, Russell, right?"

"You remembered me?" you say surprised.

"Your not easy to forget either" is her response.

And there it is. You're stunned. Like a prayer of a pass caught in the SuperBowl and has you just outside the goal line. You can't believe that immaculate line was caught out of the air like Jackie Robinson's left field runner. You look back at the 6 who has succumbed to the inevitable by looking away as if she doesn't notice. The fellas are in awe of the feat and almost forget to cover you by detracting the 6 you left. You're on the precipice of making all Pro Puller in the eyes of all who witness this late in the game push for pulling immortality. The clock is ticking. She gazes into you eyes for the one thing that closes the deal and thrusts you into the end zone. The most simplest of calls to make. Like handing off to your unstoppable power back in the biggest game of the year which sends you to the promised land.

Her name...........Call her name and you win. If you could only remember her name.

Well we all know how that worked out................Bird in the hand folks. Bird in the hand.

Wow that was simply awful.

 

[humpback]

They didn't have a run group in. Go against a goal line D with small personnel and not only do you risk not advancing you could easily lose three yards. 3rd and four looks kind of dicey to me (still pretty darned good, but less good). I just plain think it's more about a not-too-experienced QB not realizing what the real point of the play was (stop the clock and get your heavy package in there for two run plays) and forcing the ball, coupled with an absolutely wonderful play on the ball by an undrafted rookie.

What I don't like about your thinking is that in order for it to be true you have to turn a well respected coach with a pretty bloody good track record into an imbecile. I'm not buying.

Edit: And not to bag on Wilson too much either. The play looked like it was there.

I don't buy that the point of the play was to stop the clock and get your heavy package in there for two run plays, it just doesn't make any sense. They didn't have a run group in because they chose not to put a run group in. Heck, they subbed in another WR after Lynch got down to the 1, so they certainly could have put a run package in if they wanted to.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

okay--throw the sample size away and look at things with a blank slate. Generally speaking-- what is a higher risk play: 1) a stud power running back trying to run the ball in from the 0.5 yard line 2) throwing a pass from the shotgun formation from the 0.5 yard line where the defensive players are tightly packed in a small area? The sample size here just validates common sense--it's not a necessary metric to back this risk/reward dynamic.

I don't disagree that the play that was called was dumb (and have posted that opinion like a half dozen times in this and other threads). Why risk throwing the ball into traffic and risk the interception? But there are other passing plays or run/option plays where the risk of a turnover is very minimal.

I certainly agree with you that there may have been "less risky" pass plays--but I would still very much contend that any passing play under that circumstance defies logic. A passing play by nature involves far more moving moving parts than a rushing play--a poor throw--pass getting tipped and popping up in the air in a congested area--hard pass bouncing off a wr's hands and popping up in the air, offensive pass interference call..etc. A rushing play accomplishes two things--you have more control of the ball/play as it is never up in the air for anybody to grab--and secondly--it helps to control the clock. Hypothetically--even if the pass play succeeded--it would have maximized the time that New England would have the ball in their possession to come back to either tie or win the game. If the pass would have fallen incomplete--it also stops the clock--doesn't put New England in a position to call a timeout--and once again plays more in New Englands hands. A rushing play is a safer play--and it plays the clock in Seattles favor as it forces New England to make a decision. Also--rushing the ball even opens up the possibility that New England allows Marshawn to score so they have the most time and timeouts to stage a comeback. Calling any pass was nothing short of moronic--as puts them at more risk for failure--and it plays into New Englands hands in regards to clock management. Let's not also for get that Wilson was not playing the greatest football the last 2 games. The game before--he had something like 3-4 interceptions and his team won because of series of failures by the Packers. In the SB game--I believe he didn't complete a pass until the 2nd quarter--and the play that even put them in a position to win was nothing short of a miracle. It's not like Wilson had been quarterbacking soo beautifully that it was worth taking the risk. Especially if you factor in the dynamic that their running back is most likely the strongest offensive player on the team--and is also the hungriest--as he's playing for a contract. He was also playing a far better game than Wilson was in the SB and the game versus the Packers. I think the only way you throw the ball there is if you feel like you have a horribly incapable running back (perhaps if Trent Richardson was your running back and your QB is Andrew Luck or better).

Are you just pulling this "passing is more risky" stuff out of your butt?

Over the last 5 years, teams at the 1 YL have passed 534 times and rushed 1287 times. These plays have resulted in 267 passing TDs (50%), 696 rushing TDs (54%), 11 turnovers on passing plays (2.1%), and 30 fumbles on running plays (2.3%).

There's no substantial difference in the risk, or in the success rate.

The stats that you just used look at the entire NFL in regards to regular season--and factors in teams that don't have amazing running backs like Lynch. The stats you used also don't take into account the qb play going into the particular play. The sample size of just the Seahawks is that Wilson has thrown the ball 7 times in goal line situations where it had been intercepted 1 time--which is almost 15% of the time. I guarantee you that Lynch does not fumble at the goal line 15% of the time. If you are looking at a difference of .2% in difference league wide over 5 seasons factoring in all running backs in the league at the goal line--I guarantee you--that if you only factored in elite power running backs that are not fumble prone--that the "turnover risk" percentages would hugely favor running the ball. If you also take into account the benefits of clock management when it comes to running the ball--the benefit in clock management would more than make up a 0.2% alleged difference in risk. If you factor in the chances that New England might actually let Lynch score--I guarantee you that there is far greater than 0.2% chance of that thought running into Bellichiks head. Like I said--if my running back was Richardson (who is terrible) or Ridley (who had fumbling issues)--I could see why throwing the ball might make more sense--but in this case--I just don't see it.

 

[Old Smiley]

They didn't have a run group in. Go against a goal line D with small personnel and not only do you risk not advancing you could easily lose three yards. 3rd and four looks kind of dicey to me (still pretty darned good, but less good). I just plain think it's more about a not-too-experienced QB not realizing what the real point of the play was (stop the clock and get your heavy package in there for two run plays) and forcing the ball, coupled with an absolutely wonderful play on the ball by an undrafted rookie.

What I don't like about your thinking is that in order for it to be true you have to turn a well respected coach with a pretty bloody good track record into an imbecile. I'm not buying.

Edit: And not to bag on Wilson too much either. The play looked like it was there.

I don't buy that the point of the play was to stop the clock (1)and get your heavy package in there for two run plays, it just doesn't make any sense. They didn't have a run group in because they chose not to put a run group in. Heck, they subbed in another WR after Lynch got down to the 1, so they certainly could have put a run package in if they wanted to.(2)

Well, I can't find a quote but Carroll said exactly that after the game.

Not after Bill had made the last sub. (Or rather, not made it other than putting in the kid who made the play)

edit: Still can't find the exact quote, but here's one -- "In our mind, we thought we’d have done it on third and fourth down. In our mind, we were playing for third and fourth down. … It didn’t work out that way.”

 

[dhockster]

I keep coming back to the fact that Butler said they had practiced against that exact play in their walk through. That means it had to have been a play that Seattle had run at least a few times if NE was game planning for that play.

As a coach you have to go against your tendencies in big spots. Otherwise, well coached teams are going to be ready for what you throw at them, which was obviously the case here. I think it becomes even more important to go against tendencies when one of the defenders played for you the prior year (Browner). Remember, it was not just Butler who made a great play, but Browner who allowed him to do that by jamming the heck out of Kearse at the line of scrimmage.

 

[Anarchy99]

It's pretty evident that the Pats knew what play was coming, given that they clearly videotaped the Seahawks walk through the day before.

 

[ShamrockPride]

It's pretty evident that the Pats knew what play was coming, given that they clearly videotaped the Seahawks walk through the day before.

You guys are still SOOO salty about this. It's been a decade, let it go. It happened, you dealt with the penalty. Let it die. Nobody has brought this up in this thread except for Pats fans themselves. You guys just won your 4th title and you're still talking about your first. Must suck to live life trapped in the past.

 

[espnespn]

It's pretty evident that the Pats knew what play was coming, given that they clearly videotaped the Seahawks walk through the day before.

You guys are still SOOO salty about this. It's been a decade, let it go. It happened, you dealt with the penalty. Let it die. Nobody has brought this up in this thread except for Pats fans themselves. You guys just won your 4th title and you're still talking about your first. Must suck to live life trapped in the past.

I think this thread was cruising along on-topic until a Salty Hater first mentioned the Pats cheating. If the Salty Haters stop bringing it up, then why would I bring it up?

 

[ShamrockPride]

It's pretty evident that the Pats knew what play was coming, given that they clearly videotaped the Seahawks walk through the day before.

You guys are still SOOO salty about this. It's been a decade, let it go. It happened, you dealt with the penalty. Let it die. Nobody has brought this up in this thread except for Pats fans themselves. You guys just won your 4th title and you're still talking about your first. Must suck to live life trapped in the past.

I think this thread was cruising along on-topic until a Salty Hater first mentioned the Pats cheating. If the Salty Haters stop bringing it up, then why would I bring it up?

To use it just as Anarchy did. As a punchline to a decade old joke.

 

[davearm]

okay--throw the sample size away and look at things with a blank slate. Generally speaking-- what is a higher risk play: 1) a stud power running back trying to run the ball in from the 0.5 yard line 2) throwing a pass from the shotgun formation from the 0.5 yard line where the defensive players are tightly packed in a small area? The sample size here just validates common sense--it's not a necessary metric to back this risk/reward dynamic.

I don't disagree that the play that was called was dumb (and have posted that opinion like a half dozen times in this and other threads). Why risk throwing the ball into traffic and risk the interception? But there are other passing plays or run/option plays where the risk of a turnover is very minimal.

I certainly agree with you that there may have been "less risky" pass plays--but I would still very much contend that any passing play under that circumstance defies logic. A passing play by nature involves far more moving moving parts than a rushing play--a poor throw--pass getting tipped and popping up in the air in a congested area--hard pass bouncing off a wr's hands and popping up in the air, offensive pass interference call..etc. A rushing play accomplishes two things--you have more control of the ball/play as it is never up in the air for anybody to grab--and secondly--it helps to control the clock. Hypothetically--even if the pass play succeeded--it would have maximized the time that New England would have the ball in their possession to come back to either tie or win the game. If the pass would have fallen incomplete--it also stops the clock--doesn't put New England in a position to call a timeout--and once again plays more in New Englands hands. A rushing play is a safer play--and it plays the clock in Seattles favor as it forces New England to make a decision. Also--rushing the ball even opens up the possibility that New England allows Marshawn to score so they have the most time and timeouts to stage a comeback. Calling any pass was nothing short of moronic--as puts them at more risk for failure--and it plays into New Englands hands in regards to clock management. Let's not also for get that Wilson was not playing the greatest football the last 2 games. The game before--he had something like 3-4 interceptions and his team won because of series of failures by the Packers. In the SB game--I believe he didn't complete a pass until the 2nd quarter--and the play that even put them in a position to win was nothing short of a miracle. It's not like Wilson had been quarterbacking soo beautifully that it was worth taking the risk. Especially if you factor in the dynamic that their running back is most likely the strongest offensive player on the team--and is also the hungriest--as he's playing for a contract. He was also playing a far better game than Wilson was in the SB and the game versus the Packers. I think the only way you throw the ball there is if you feel like you have a horribly incapable running back (perhaps if Trent Richardson was your running back and your QB is Andrew Luck or better).

Are you just pulling this "passing is more risky" stuff out of your butt?

Over the last 5 years, teams at the 1 YL have passed 534 times and rushed 1287 times. These plays have resulted in 267 passing TDs (50%), 696 rushing TDs (54%), 11 turnovers on passing plays (2.1%), and 30 fumbles on running plays (2.3%).

There's no substantial difference in the risk, or in the success rate.

The stats that you just used look at the entire NFL in regards to regular season--and factors in teams that don't have amazing running backs like Lynch. The stats you used also don't take into account the qb play going into the particular play. The sample size of just the Seahawks is that Wilson has thrown the ball 7 times in goal line situations where it had been intercepted 1 time--which is almost 15% of the time. I guarantee you that Lynch does not fumble at the goal line 15% of the time. If you are looking at a difference of .2% in difference league wide over 5 seasons factoring in all running backs in the league at the goal line--I guarantee you--that if you only factored in elite power running backs that are not fumble prone--that the "turnover risk" percentages would hugely favor running the ball. If you also take into account the benefits of clock management when it comes to running the ball--the benefit in clock management would more than make up a 0.2% alleged difference in risk. If you factor in the chances that New England might actually let Lynch score--I guarantee you that there is far greater than 0.2% chance of that thought running into Bellichiks head. Like I said--if my running back was Richardson (who is terrible) or Ridley (who had fumbling issues)--I could see why throwing the ball might make more sense--but in this case--I just don't see it.

Lynch's conversion rate from the 1 YL is below the league average. The stats were cited earlier, from ESPN. He is like 30th out of 39 RBs IIRC.

Lynch's fumble rate is also worse than the league average. He's fumbled on 2.5% of his career carries (56/2254). In 2014 the league average was 1.7% (248/14258).

The Wilson 1-in-7 stat is bogus because a) sample size, and b) before that play was run, he had 0 turnovers in 15 plays (pass + run). His turnover rate was 0% going into the play.

 

[cstu]

Are you just pulling this "passing is more risky" stuff out of your butt?

Over the last 5 years, teams at the 1 YL have passed 534 times and rushed 1287 times. These plays have resulted in 267 passing TDs (50%), 696 rushing TDs (54%), 11 turnovers on passing plays (2.1%), and 30 fumbles on running plays (2.3%).

There's no substantial difference in the risk, or in the success rate.

Lynch fumbled 4 times on 343 carries (1.2%) this year including the playoffs.

 

[ShamrockPride]

Are you just pulling this "passing is more risky" stuff out of your butt?

Over the last 5 years, teams at the 1 YL have passed 534 times and rushed 1287 times. These plays have resulted in 267 passing TDs (50%), 696 rushing TDs (54%), 11 turnovers on passing plays (2.1%), and 30 fumbles on running plays (2.3%).

There's no substantial difference in the risk, or in the success rate.

Lynch fumbled 4 times on 343 carries (1.2%) this year including the playoffs.

To add on: just the basic logic of passing itself is more risky. When you pass, you essentially voluntarily give up possession of the football when it leaves the thrower's hand. Anybody can catch it (unless you ran out of bounds) and there are twice as many guys who can catch the ball on defense as can on offense.

 

[davearm]

Are you just pulling this "passing is more risky" stuff out of your butt?

Over the last 5 years, teams at the 1 YL have passed 534 times and rushed 1287 times. These plays have resulted in 267 passing TDs (50%), 696 rushing TDs (54%), 11 turnovers on passing plays (2.1%), and 30 fumbles on running plays (2.3%).

There's no substantial difference in the risk, or in the success rate.

Lynch fumbled 4 times on 343 carries (1.2%) this year including the playoffs.

To add on: just the basic logic of passing itself is more risky. When you pass, you essentially voluntarily give up possession of the football when it leaves the thrower's hand. Anybody can catch it (unless you ran out of bounds) and there are twice as many guys who can catch the ball on defense as can on offense.

I get the "basic logic" just fine.

If passing is inherently more risky, then why isn't that revealed in the data?

 

[humpback]

They didn't have a run group in. Go against a goal line D with small personnel and not only do you risk not advancing you could easily lose three yards. 3rd and four looks kind of dicey to me (still pretty darned good, but less good). I just plain think it's more about a not-too-experienced QB not realizing what the real point of the play was (stop the clock and get your heavy package in there for two run plays) and forcing the ball, coupled with an absolutely wonderful play on the ball by an undrafted rookie.

What I don't like about your thinking is that in order for it to be true you have to turn a well respected coach with a pretty bloody good track record into an imbecile. I'm not buying.

Edit: And not to bag on Wilson too much either. The play looked like it was there.

I don't buy that the point of the play was to stop the clock (1)and get your heavy package in there for two run plays, it just doesn't make any sense. They didn't have a run group in because they chose not to put a run group in. Heck, they subbed in another WR after Lynch got down to the 1, so they certainly could have put a run package in if they wanted to.(2)

Well, I can't find a quote but Carroll said exactly that after the game.

Not after Bill had made the last sub. (Or rather, not made it other than putting in the kid who made the play)

edit: Still can't find the exact quote, but here's one -- "In our mind, we thought we’d have done it on third and fourth down. In our mind, we were playing for third and fourth down. … It didn’t work out that way.”

I read where he said something to that effect, but what I mean is I think he was just scrambling to try and justify the whole sequence of events.

Everyone knows that the defense is going to be in a goal line package when you're at the goal line, so that excuse is ridiculous. They would have been in a goal line package on 3rd and 4th down as well. Why would you "give up" a down to stop the clock and get your own goal line package in when you could have just done that from the beginning and saved the down? If in some bizarro universe that was the goal of the play, then throw the ball into the stands instead of into the middle of the field. None of it makes any sense.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

That I can agree with to a point, but a lot of people are incredulous that they would pass at all there. It's like they haven't been watching football for the last 10 years. And one retort I would give is that the pass that was intercepted was a very hard pass to intercept as well. How often do you see a 1 yard slant with a pick intercepted? I would say almost never. It was a GREAT play by Butler, partly due to having been coached up on that play.

That was a very risky play. Aside from what actually happened if ball were been tipped at the line or bounced off the WR's hands there were about 9 Patriots in the area to corral it. A LB could have snuck underneath or a DE dropped into coverage that Wilson didn't see. Wilson could have taken a sack if the play were covered (he wasn't out of the pocket) or they could have been called for OPI for the pick, which happens fairly often and had actually happened earlier in the game.

There were a half dozen reasonable ways that play could have ended up in total disaster. And it did.

 

[Old Smiley]

I will say this: I just listened to the Behind the Bets podcast and Bob Scucci said that as soon as the players saw Seattle in shotgun there was a rumble in the room.

 

[General Tso]

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.

High risk? Teams threw from the 1 119 times this season with zero turnovers. Statistically speaking it's less risky than a run there.#### happens.

Faulty logic.

Did "teams" have this opportunity on 2nd down, rather than 4th? Were "teams" run-heavy offenses? Did "teams" have Marshawn Lynch? Were "teams" throwing to Lockette, a pathetic excuse for a starting WR? Did "teams" have the entire season and SB riding on a potential turnover? Did "teams" throw the ball to the center of the field where most of the defense was crowded?

The answer to all of the above is "no". You're wrong if you think the stats seem to back up your faulty theory.

I'm not proposing any theory at all. I'm just stating facts. And the fact is - running the ball from the 1 this year was more risky than passing it. 119 passes - no turnovers. 223 rushes - two turnovers. And on top of that, passes were more successful this year - 61.1% of the time resulting in a TD, as opposed to 57.8% for rushes.Over a 5 year period the gap narrows a bit. Rushes score 54.1% of the time and result in turnovers 1.5% of the time. Passes score 50.1% of the time and result in turnovers 1.9% of the time.

I agree that Lynch is above average and the Seattle WR's are probably average at best, so this would skew the numbers more favorably to the run. But keep in mind that Lynch did have 5 rushes from the 1 this year, and scored only 20% of the time.

I would have ran it on 2nd down, but to say a passing play there is "high risk" is just not true, and not at all supported by the numbers. It's not the worst call in history. Wilson threw a bad ball and Butler made an incredible play - a play that Belichik specifically focused on during practice that week. It wasn't luck, and it certainly wasn't a gift. The better team won the play, and the better team won the game.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This call hasn't gotten better upon further analysis, it's gotten worse.

 

[ILUVBEER99]

They didn't have a run group in. Go against a goal line D with small personnel and not only do you risk not advancing you could easily lose three yards. 3rd and four looks kind of dicey to me (still pretty darned good, but less good). I just plain think it's more about a not-too-experienced QB not realizing what the real point of the play was (stop the clock and get your heavy package in there for two run plays) and forcing the ball, coupled with an absolutely wonderful play on the ball by an undrafted rookie.

What I don't like about your thinking is that in order for it to be true you have to turn a well respected coach with a pretty bloody good track record into an imbecile. I'm not buying.

Edit: And not to bag on Wilson too much either. The play looked like it was there.

I don't buy that the point of the play was to stop the clock (1)and get your heavy package in there for two run plays, it just doesn't make any sense. They didn't have a run group in because they chose not to put a run group in. Heck, they subbed in another WR after Lynch got down to the 1, so they certainly could have put a run package in if they wanted to.(2)

Well, I can't find a quote but Carroll said exactly that after the game.

Not after Bill had made the last sub. (Or rather, not made it other than putting in the kid who made the play)

edit: Still can't find the exact quote, but here's one -- "In our mind, we thought we’d have done it on third and fourth down. In our mind, we were playing for third and fourth down. … It didn’t work out that way.”

I read where he said something to that effect, but what I mean is I think he was just scrambling to try and justify the whole sequence of events.

Everyone knows that the defense is going to be in a goal line package when you're at the goal line, so that excuse is ridiculous. They would have been in a goal line package on 3rd and 4th down as well. Why would you "give up" a down to stop the clock and get your own goal line package in when you could have just done that from the beginning and saved the down? If in some bizarro universe that was the goal of the play, then throw the ball into the stands instead of into the middle of the field. None of it makes any sense.

Yup, Carroll has basically been trying to find a way to justify the call after the fact changing/adding to his story.

He's trying to cover for Bevell which i respect, but there is no way Carroll believes the garbage he's spewing.

 

[ShamrockPride]

I'm okay with a pass play (though it still doesn't make much sense with the best RB in the league in your backfield), but a pick play to a cramped field between the hashes is just plain reckless. Bevs was playing with fire with that call.

It's just a timing play. If that timing isn't perfect then what happened happens. At least let Wilson drop back and read the defense. Let him scramble if coverage is tight, let him throw it away, let him roll down and take a sack. None of that is even possible with that kind of play. You can't risk that with a super bowl on the line.

Like I said, reckless is the only thing you can call it.

 

[zftcg]

The way I see it, Seattle broke one of man's cardinal rules. Let me explain.

Your out with the fellas on a Saturday night and it's late. You're with a strong 6 who could probably be a 7 pushing 8 with makeup but is comfortable with herself so doesn't where much. So call it a Saturday Night 7 using the Saturday night shots and impaired judgment scale. Basically, it's a done deal. After working down 4 Maraschino cherries while staring at you and overhearing her tell her girlfriends that they can leave without her followed by the stare and giggle, the night is going to end well. Basically a bird in hand Scenario.

Then it happens. A 9 walks in with her slightly above average friend who hangs around for leftovers. You know the one. The same 9 that you could have closed last week if not for a drunken wingman. She walks by and with one glance says, hi, I remember you, you're going home with that, to bad, as she walks towards the restroom knowing you're staring at her ####. It's amazing how one inviting glance can contain so much information. In just seconds the game has changed. From "Bird in Hand" scenario to a "What if" scenario just that quickly.

Then on the way back she say's "Hi" to you only, as if there were no one else at the table.

At that moment you have two choices. You could play it safe by saying "she's hammered", hand off the tab to your wingman, wave off the fellas, take her by the hand and escort her out to a cab that has instructions to take you straight home where a celebration of mounting options await. A simple hand off and your home free.

Or

You could throw caution to the wind and go for the upgrade. The decision is made you decide to get cute. You head to the bar to get another round for the table. Now this choice is fraught with risk. You could get picked off by an unexpected guy meeting her that hasn't arrived yet. You could get stuffed by her wingwoman with a plea to rush home. The clock is ticking as last call is on the lips of the barkeep so you have to work fast. The decision is made.

You go for it all by saying "I remember you from last week, and you've been on my mind ever since".

Wait for it.............."Yeah", she replies. "I remember you too, Russell, right?"

"You remembered me?" you say surprised.

"Your not easy to forget either" is her response.

And there it is. You're stunned. Like a prayer of a pass caught in the SuperBowl and has you just outside the goal line. You can't believe that immaculate line was caught out of the air like Jackie Robinson's left field runner. You look back at the 6 who has succumbed to the inevitable by looking away as if she doesn't notice. The fellas are in awe of the feat and almost forget to cover you by detracting the 6 you left. You're on the precipice of making all Pro Puller in the eyes of all who witness this late in the game push for pulling immortality. The clock is ticking. She gazes into you eyes for the one thing that closes the deal and thrusts you into the end zone. The most simplest of calls to make. Like handing off to your unstoppable power back in the biggest game of the year which sends you to the promised land.

Her name...........Call her name and you win. If you could only remember her name.

Well we all know how that worked out................Bird in the hand folks. Bird in the hand.

Yep, these are my readers.

 

[AngryPatriot]

It's a football play, you play the full 60 minutes. It's wrong and dumb to focus on just this play in a great game, Pats played the play and made a great one at that. Best win ever! rookies and haters that don't know football (or talking head media idiots) can't even get past one call in the game, LOL. Dumb. Lockette makes the catch and Carroll is a master, Kearse drops the ball... Lynch fumbles, the clock runs out, Brady throws 4 picks instead of 2.............. yadda yadda yadda.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

okay--throw the sample size away and look at things with a blank slate. Generally speaking-- what is a higher risk play: 1) a stud power running back trying to run the ball in from the 0.5 yard line 2) throwing a pass from the shotgun formation from the 0.5 yard line where the defensive players are tightly packed in a small area? The sample size here just validates common sense--it's not a necessary metric to back this risk/reward dynamic.

I don't disagree that the play that was called was dumb (and have posted that opinion like a half dozen times in this and other threads). Why risk throwing the ball into traffic and risk the interception? But there are other passing plays or run/option plays where the risk of a turnover is very minimal.

I certainly agree with you that there may have been "less risky" pass plays--but I would still very much contend that any passing play under that circumstance defies logic. A passing play by nature involves far more moving moving parts than a rushing play--a poor throw--pass getting tipped and popping up in the air in a congested area--hard pass bouncing off a wr's hands and popping up in the air, offensive pass interference call..etc. A rushing play accomplishes two things--you have more control of the ball/play as it is never up in the air for anybody to grab--and secondly--it helps to control the clock. Hypothetically--even if the pass play succeeded--it would have maximized the time that New England would have the ball in their possession to come back to either tie or win the game. If the pass would have fallen incomplete--it also stops the clock--doesn't put New England in a position to call a timeout--and once again plays more in New Englands hands. A rushing play is a safer play--and it plays the clock in Seattles favor as it forces New England to make a decision. Also--rushing the ball even opens up the possibility that New England allows Marshawn to score so they have the most time and timeouts to stage a comeback. Calling any pass was nothing short of moronic--as puts them at more risk for failure--and it plays into New Englands hands in regards to clock management. Let's not also for get that Wilson was not playing the greatest football the last 2 games. The game before--he had something like 3-4 interceptions and his team won because of series of failures by the Packers. In the SB game--I believe he didn't complete a pass until the 2nd quarter--and the play that even put them in a position to win was nothing short of a miracle. It's not like Wilson had been quarterbacking soo beautifully that it was worth taking the risk. Especially if you factor in the dynamic that their running back is most likely the strongest offensive player on the team--and is also the hungriest--as he's playing for a contract. He was also playing a far better game than Wilson was in the SB and the game versus the Packers. I think the only way you throw the ball there is if you feel like you have a horribly incapable running back (perhaps if Trent Richardson was your running back and your QB is Andrew Luck or better).

Are you just pulling this "passing is more risky" stuff out of your butt?

Over the last 5 years, teams at the 1 YL have passed 534 times and rushed 1287 times. These plays have resulted in 267 passing TDs (50%), 696 rushing TDs (54%), 11 turnovers on passing plays (2.1%), and 30 fumbles on running plays (2.3%).

There's no substantial difference in the risk, or in the success rate.

The stats that you just used look at the entire NFL in regards to regular season--and factors in teams that don't have amazing running backs like Lynch. The stats you used also don't take into account the qb play going into the particular play. The sample size of just the Seahawks is that Wilson has thrown the ball 7 times in goal line situations where it had been intercepted 1 time--which is almost 15% of the time. I guarantee you that Lynch does not fumble at the goal line 15% of the time. If you are looking at a difference of .2% in difference league wide over 5 seasons factoring in all running backs in the league at the goal line--I guarantee you--that if you only factored in elite power running backs that are not fumble prone--that the "turnover risk" percentages would hugely favor running the ball. If you also take into account the benefits of clock management when it comes to running the ball--the benefit in clock management would more than make up a 0.2% alleged difference in risk. If you factor in the chances that New England might actually let Lynch score--I guarantee you that there is far greater than 0.2% chance of that thought running into Bellichiks head. Like I said--if my running back was Richardson (who is terrible) or Ridley (who had fumbling issues)--I could see why throwing the ball might make more sense--but in this case--I just don't see it.

Lynch's conversion rate from the 1 YL is below the league average. The stats were cited earlier, from ESPN. He is like 30th out of 39 RBs IIRC.

Lynch's fumble rate is also worse than the league average. He's fumbled on 2.5% of his career carries (56/2254). In 2014 the league average was 1.7% (248/14258).

The Wilson 1-in-7 stat is bogus because a) sample size, and b) before that play was run, he had 0 turnovers in 15 plays (pass + run). His turnover rate was 0% going into the play.

Before that play--on the season including the playoffs--Wilson threw the ball 523 times with 11 ints--a rate of 2.1% ints. In the playoffs coming up to that play Russell threw the ball 71 times with 4 ints--an interception rate of almost 5.6% per pass attempt in this seasons playoffs (as he's going up against better competition).

This season--including the playoffs Marshawn lynch has rushed the ball 343 times--with a total of 4 fumbles--and only 2 of those fumbles were lost to the other team. His fumble rate for the season is 1.1%--and his fumbles loss rate for the season is 0.5% on the season. In the playoffs alone Marshawn rushed the ball 63 times with 1 fumble---and 0 fumbles lost--a fumble rate of 1.5% in the playoffs--with a 0% fumble lost rate.

Through this entire season---and especially so in the playoffs--Marshawn rushing the ball has been a safer option than Russell throwing the ball. Also--with a fumble--many fumbles don't result in a turnover as many are recovered by the team that fumbles the ball--while with an int---the turnover is all but guaranteed.

You can pick whatever sample size you want---Marshawns entire career--taking into account seasons before he became elite--and only looking at Russells last 15 throws--but the reality is that--this season--and this playoffs--the numbers are not that close.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's a football play, you play the full 60 minutes. It's wrong and dumb to focus on just this play in a great game, Pats played the play and made a great one at that. Best win ever! rookies and haters that don't know football (or talking head media idiots) can't even get past one call in the game, LOL. Dumb. Lockette makes the catch and Carroll is a master, Kearse drops the ball... Lynch fumbles, the clock runs out, Brady throws 4 picks instead of 2.............. yadda yadda yadda.

It did kind of even out.

Brady had his pick on the goal line too. Give him 7 and the Hawks 7 and it's the same result.

The Hawks also kind of stole 4 at the end of the 1st half, they had a nice little coaching gimmick by getting Matthews in there for that half but that was over once BB made adjustments.

 

[AngryPatriot]

It's a football play, you play the full 60 minutes. It's wrong and dumb to focus on just this play in a great game, Pats played the play and made a great one at that. Best win ever! rookies and haters that don't know football (or talking head media idiots) can't even get past one call in the game, LOL. Dumb. Lockette makes the catch and Carroll is a master, Kearse drops the ball... Lynch fumbles, the clock runs out, Brady throws 4 picks instead of 2.............. yadda yadda yadda.

It did kind of even out.

Brady had his pick on the goal line too. Give him 7 and the Hawks 7 and it's the same result.

The Hawks also kind of stole 4 at the end of the 1st half, they had a nice little coaching gimmick by getting Matthews in there for that half but that was over once BB made adjustments.

Good points

 

[espnespn]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2015/02/game-theory-american-football

Here's a game theory analysis of the play call by the Economist, which defends the call.

Also, Seattle obviously ran this exact play many times before in earlier games. It was not a brand new play for the SB. Anyone know Seattle's success rate for this play in the past?

 

[cowboyz1]

The way I see it, Seattle broke one of man's cardinal rules. Let me explain.

Your out with the fellas on a Saturday night and it's late. You're with a strong 6 who could probably be a 7 pushing 8 with makeup but is comfortable with herself so doesn't where much. So call it a Saturday Night 7 using the Saturday night shots and impaired judgment scale. Basically, it's a done deal. After working down 4 Maraschino cherries while staring at you and overhearing her tell her girlfriends that they can leave without her followed by the stare and giggle, the night is going to end well. Basically a bird in hand Scenario.

Then it happens. A 9 walks in with her slightly above average friend who hangs around for leftovers. You know the one. The same 9 that you could have closed last week if not for a drunken wingman. She walks by and with one glance says, hi, I remember you, you're going home with that, to bad, as she walks towards the restroom knowing you're staring at her ####. It's amazing how one inviting glance can contain so much information. In just seconds the game has changed. From "Bird in Hand" scenario to a "What if" scenario just that quickly.

Then on the way back she say's "Hi" to you only, as if there were no one else at the table.

At that moment you have two choices. You could play it safe by saying "she's hammered", hand off the tab to your wingman, wave off the fellas, take her by the hand and escort her out to a cab that has instructions to take you straight home where a celebration of mounting options await. A simple hand off and your home free.

Or

You could throw caution to the wind and go for the upgrade. The decision is made you decide to get cute. You head to the bar to get another round for the table. Now this choice is fraught with risk. You could get picked off by an unexpected guy meeting her that hasn't arrived yet. You could get stuffed by her wingwoman with a plea to rush home. The clock is ticking as last call is on the lips of the barkeep so you have to work fast. The decision is made.

You go for it all by saying "I remember you from last week, and you've been on my mind ever since".

Wait for it.............."Yeah", she replies. "I remember you too, Russell, right?"

"You remembered me?" you say surprised.

"Your not easy to forget either" is her response.

And there it is. You're stunned. Like a prayer of a pass caught in the SuperBowl and has you just outside the goal line. You can't believe that immaculate line was caught out of the air like Jackie Robinson's left field runner. You look back at the 6 who has succumbed to the inevitable by looking away as if she doesn't notice. The fellas are in awe of the feat and almost forget to cover you by detracting the 6 you left. You're on the precipice of making all Pro Puller in the eyes of all who witness this late in the game push for pulling immortality. The clock is ticking. She gazes into you eyes for the one thing that closes the deal and thrusts you into the end zone. The most simplest of calls to make. Like handing off to your unstoppable power back in the biggest game of the year which sends you to the promised land.

Her name...........Call her name and you win. If you could only remember her name.

Well we all know how that worked out................Bird in the hand folks. Bird in the hand.

Wow that was simply awful.

You are absolutely right! Dreadfully awful...........

 

[Dragon1952]

It's a football play, you play the full 60 minutes. It's wrong and dumb to focus on just this play in a great game, Pats played the play and made a great one at that. Best win ever! rookies and haters that don't know football (or talking head media idiots) can't even get past one call in the game, LOL. Dumb. Lockette makes the catch and Carroll is a master, Kearse drops the ball... Lynch fumbles, the clock runs out, Brady throws 4 picks instead of 2.............. yadda yadda yadda.

Yeah....LOL....pretty dumb to focus on the one play call that, not only might go down as the most controversial call in NFL history, but ultimately was the deciding factor in the SB.

 

[TobiasFunke]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2015/02/game-theory-american-football

Here's a game theory analysis of the play call by the Economist, which defends the call.

Also, Seattle obviously ran this exact play many times before in earlier games. It was not a brand new play for the SB. Anyone know Seattle's success rate for this play in the past?

I liked this response to this "game theory" perspective and the other inevitable contrarian pieces arguing that the call wasn't that bad.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Why is this still a debate? It was poor coaching all around by the Seahawks at the end of the game, a lucky break for the Pats, and a great play by the Patriots DB.

If you're the Seahawks and you're at the goal-line with a chance to win the Super Bowl, you go with the strength of your team. It doesn't matter what's been successful what percentage of the time all year blah, blah, blah. It's 2 plays for the entire season, and you go with the strength of your team - heck, one of the biggest strengths of ANY team in the league. The Super Bowl is riding on Lynch and Russell running the ball. You don't get beat by trying to be tricky, and you don't run in a 3WR package from the 1 yard line when your team is a power running team that led the NFL in rushing this year, and you CERTAINLY don't run a pattern over the middle to perhaps the weakest member of a weak WR squad.

After Lynch's run to the 1, they had enough time to line up THREE times and pound it in. The only reason it was rushed was because they tried to stall. Get the damn score and play defense, stop trying to be cute with it.

It was a smart move by Bellicheck to stay with his GL package, but the Seahawks problems started because of the personnel they sent on.

The Seahawks had time for at least 2 more running plays from inside the 1 yard line, and if they had done that behind their goal-line package, they'd almost surely be back-to-back champions and the legacies of both Brady and Bellicheck would be completely different today. They tried to get fancy and paid the price. It's possible for the Seahawks to have been stupid, and the Patriots to have made a great play AND been really, really lucky all at the same time.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Man did Deadspin nail it.

Stop Trying To Convince Yourselves Seattle's Pass Call Wasn't Stupid

I [brian Burke] ran the simulation twice, once forcing the Seahawks to run on second down and once forcing them to pass. I anticipated that the results would support my logic (and Carroll's explanation) that running would be a bad idea. It turns out I was wrong.

The simulation—which is different than Win Probability—gave Seattle an 85 percent chance of winning by running and a 77 percent chance by passing. It turns out the added risk of a sack, penalty, or turnover was not worth the other considerations of time and down.

IOW, passing increased your chances of losing by 50%. From 15% to 23%.

 

[Steelers4Life]

In simpler terms, in baseball, any pitcher will tell you that in a big spot, they'll make a hitter hit their best pitch. Better to lose by having the hitter hit your best pitch than by giving them the chance to hit a lesser one.

The Seahawks were a fastball pitcher, perhaps the best fastball pitcher in the game. They'd likely have won the game if they had thrown the fastball.

Instead they went with an offspeed pitch, and it got hammered.

This had nothing to do with any circumstances from earlier in the year or how often they had done anything before. This was for the Super Bowl, and that situation called for a run because that's what they do. It was as simple and stupid of a decision as that.

 

[Short Corner]

In simpler terms, in baseball, any pitcher will tell you that in a big spot, they'll make a hitter hit their best pitch. Better to lose by having the hitter hit your best pitch than by giving them the chance to hit a lesser one.

The Seahawks were a fastball pitcher, perhaps the best fastball pitcher in the game. They'd likely have won the game if they had thrown the fastball.

Instead they went with an offspeed pitch, and it got hammered.

This had nothing to do with any circumstances from earlier in the year or how often they had done anything before. This was for the Super Bowl, and that situation called for a run because that's what they do. It was as simple and stupid of a decision as that.

Except for your analogy to work, you have to have a 1-2 count. The pitcher doesn't have to make a pitch, he can hope to catch the batter off guard with a breaking ball in the dirt. If the batter hits it our of the park, the call for the breaking pitch isn't the mistake, it is the execution of leaving it in a spot where it could get hammered.