The worst play call in NFL history (2 Viewers)

[NE_REVIVAL]

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.

I respectfully disagree, its real easy to 2nd guess, but if they run it there and don't make it they have to use their last timeout and then things could have gotten pretty dicey. This Lynch would have made it in no problem is wishful thinking; yeah he may very well have made it, maybe not. I heard last night (nfl channel?) that sea has been the worst team in the league punching it in from the gl since 2012.

Kearse didn't do his job very well and Wilson could have made a better throw but more importantly Browner did a great job of stacking Kearse and Butler made and outstanding play by jumping the route AND most importantly holding on to the ball.

 

[espnespn]

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%.

Assuming his simulations are correct, calling a play with a 77% chance of winning cannot be deemed "the worst call in NFL history" (which is the title of this thread). That's just being silly.

Also, saying that the increased chance of losing by 50% is meaningless. If the simulation showed a 99% chance of winning by running and a 98% chance by passing, that means the increased chances of losing is 100% OMG.

Maybe Seattle made a sub-optimal play call, but Russell Wilson's INT rate for 2014 was 1.5%. So the chances of a INT are tiny. Butler just made an amazing defensive play.

 

[RUSF18]

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%.

Assuming his simulations are correct, calling a play with a 77% chance of winning cannot be deemed "the worst call in NFL history" (which is the title of this thread). That's just being silly.

Also, saying that the increased chance of losing by 50% is meaningless. If the simulation showed a 99% chance of winning by running and a 98% chance by passing, that means the increased chances of losing is 100% OMG.

Maybe Seattle made a sub-optimal play call, but Russell Wilson's INT rate for 2014 was 1.5%. So the chances of a INT are tiny. Butler just made an amazing defensive play.

That 77% win probability is based on the situation they're facing: down 4, ball on the 1, plenty of time on the clock, 3 downs to go.

 

[TobiasFunke]

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%.

Assuming his simulations are correct, calling a play with a 77% chance of winning cannot be deemed "the worst call in NFL history" (which is the title of this thread). That's just being silly.

Also, saying that the increased chance of losing by 50% is meaningless. If the simulation showed a 99% chance of winning by running and a 98% chance by passing, that means the increased chances of losing is 100% OMG.

Maybe Seattle made a sub-optimal play call, but Russell Wilson's INT rate for 2014 was 1.5%. So the chances of a INT are tiny. Butler just made an amazing defensive play.

Why not? "Worst call in history" takes into account both the stakes and the obviousness of correct decision. It's one thing to make a bad decision that requires a detailed understanding of all the possible consequences. But if your decision is second-guessed by both passionate fans and casual fans even before the results are known, as this one presumably was (my wife and I started talking about it as soon as they came out in shotgun formation, before the snap), that's a different story.

And it's not automatically disqualified because they still had a 77% chance to win. That's a function of the game situation, not the decision. There's a huge difference. Say for example I'm a coach and my team is leading the Super Bowl by 2 points, and then we score a TD with ten seconds left of the clock. An extra point makes it a 9 point game, giving me a 99.9%+ chance of winning. Instead I decide to go for two. I'd still likely have something close to a 99% chance of winning, since a loss would require the other team to score a TD in 10 seconds (let's be generous and call that 2%), convert the two point conversion (44%), and then win in OT (50%).

Does the fact that it's still almost impossible for me to lose make it a defensible decision? Or does obviousness of the decision + the stakes make it fair to call it the worst call in history? I think it's pretty clearly the latter.

 

[cstu]

Maybe Seattle made a sub-optimal play call, but Russell Wilson's INT rate for 2014 was 1.5%. So the chances of a INT are tiny. Butler just made an amazing defensive play.

His INT rate in the playoffs at the point was 5.6%.

 

[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.

I respectfully disagree, its real easy to 2nd guess, but if they run it there and don't make it they have to use their last timeout and then things could have gotten pretty dicey. This Lynch would have made it in no problem is wishful thinking; yeah he may very well have made it, maybe not. I heard last night (nfl channel?) that sea has been the worst team in the league punching it in from the gl since 2012.

Kearse didn't do his job very well and Wilson could have made a better throw but more importantly Browner did a great job of stacking Kearse and Butler made and outstanding play by jumping the route AND most importantly holding on to the ball.

Again, to me it's not about any of that. I agree that the Patriots played the situation perfectly and made the play - it wasn't handed to them.

But you can play the what if game all you want, and yes, maybe they could've scored with a pass play. The fact is that the Seahawks' strength is running the ball with Lynch and Wilson, not throwing passes to their #3 or #4 WR in a situation where everyone is within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. They lost by not going to their strength.... if they had been stuffed on 2 or 3 straight running plays, people would've been in awe of perhaps the best goal-line stand in history and no one would question anything about it.

Do I think the Patriots would've stopped Lynch if the Seahawks went to the line more quickly on 2nd down and had 2 or maybe 3 cracks from inside the 1 yard line? Of course not. And neither do most people, and even a realistic Pats fan would admit that the Seahawks would have more than likely scored. But they didn't, and that decision had an impact on the perception of a lot of people in that game.

 

[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.

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.

In my opinion, the final minute of the Super Bowl is the very definition of a 3-2 count.

You don't waste pitches. You score however you can and trust that vaunted defense to stop Brady from getting into field goal range... which even then would've only forced OT. (And that would've been awesome, too)

 

[TobiasFunke]

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.

I respectfully disagree, its real easy to 2nd guess, but if they run it there and don't make it they have to use their last timeout and then things could have gotten pretty dicey. This Lynch would have made it in no problem is wishful thinking; yeah he may very well have made it, maybe not. I heard last night (nfl channel?) that sea has been the worst team in the league punching it in from the gl since 2012.

Kearse didn't do his job very well and Wilson could have made a better throw but more importantly Browner did a great job of stacking Kearse and Butler made and outstanding play by jumping the route AND most importantly holding on to the ball.

1. They would not have been forced to use their last timeout, because you can run the ball three times with :26 seconds and one timeout available rather easily. Chase has explained this a couple times on his twitter feed. Also, Belichick has said he would have called TO there if they got a stop on second down.

2. If that data is correct about their goal line efficiency, part of the reason is because of stupid decisions to throw the ball like this one. The question isn't simply % chance of success in a single effort, but % chance in three efforts, and that number is exceptionally high unless you do something negative like get tackled several yards behind the line of scrimmage, take a penalty, or turn it over ... all of which are more likely when you call a pass play.

 

[12punch]

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.

I respectfully disagree, its real easy to 2nd guess, but if they run it there and don't make it they have to use their last timeout and then things could have gotten pretty dicey. This Lynch would have made it in no problem is wishful thinking; yeah he may very well have made it, maybe not. I heard last night (nfl channel?) that sea has been the worst team in the league punching it in from the gl since 2012.

Kearse didn't do his job very well and Wilson could have made a better throw but more importantly Browner did a great job of stacking Kearse and Butler made and outstanding play by jumping the route AND most importantly holding on to the ball.

Again, to me it's not about any of that. I agree that the Patriots played the situation perfectly and made the play - it wasn't handed to them.

But you can play the what if game all you want, and yes, maybe they could've scored with a pass play. The fact is that the Seahawks' strength is running the ball with Lynch and Wilson, not throwing passes to their #3 or #4 WR in a situation where everyone is within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. They lost by not going to their strength.... if they had been stuffed on 2 or 3 straight running plays, people would've been in awe of perhaps the best goal-line stand in history and no one would question anything about it.

Do I think the Patriots would've stopped Lynch if the Seahawks went to the line more quickly on 2nd down and had 2 or maybe 3 cracks from inside the 1 yard line? Of course not. And neither do most people, and even a realistic Pats fan would admit that the Seahawks would have more than likely scored. But they didn't, and that decision had an impact on the perception of a lot of people in that game.

I was pretty happy to see them throw instead of run, but if you think some dude can't be stuffed cuz he's got a nickname you're bs'ing yourself

he already got stoned twice in that game

 

[Bad_Mo]

I have to admit...scanning Youtube for videos of Seahawks fans watching the ill-fated final minutes of the SB, and their reaction, is pretty funny.

The Seahawks seem to have alot of Asian fans.

The funniest one I viewed was a group of people and one guy, in particular, with his head down/turned away in disbelief. All of a sudden, you hear the announcers mention that there's a flag on the play. Guy spins around quickly, points to tv and says..."flag!"...then immediately goes back to mourning when he realizes its not changing the outcome.

 

[humpback]

Again, to me it's not about any of that. I agree that the Patriots played the situation perfectly and made the play - it wasn't handed to them.


But you can play the what if game all you want, and yes, maybe they could've scored with a pass play. The fact is that the Seahawks' strength is running the ball with Lynch and Wilson, not throwing passes to their #3 or #4 WR in a situation where everyone is within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. They lost by not going to their strength.... if they had been stuffed on 2 or 3 straight running plays, people would've been in awe of perhaps the best goal-line stand in history and no one would question anything about it.

Do I think the Patriots would've stopped Lynch if the Seahawks went to the line more quickly on 2nd down and had 2 or maybe 3 cracks from inside the 1 yard line? Of course not. And neither do most people, and even a realistic Pats fan would admit that the Seahawks would have more than likely scored. But they didn't, and that decision had an impact on the perception of a lot of people in that game.

I was pretty happy to see them throw instead of run, but if you think some dude can't be stuffed cuz he's got a nickname you're bs'ing yourself

he already got stoned twice in that game

He didn't say that he couldn't have been stuffed, he specifically mentioned what he thought the reaction would be if they had been. He said that he doesn't think he would have been.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Again, to me it's not about any of that. I agree that the Patriots played the situation perfectly and made the play - it wasn't handed to them.


But you can play the what if game all you want, and yes, maybe they could've scored with a pass play. The fact is that the Seahawks' strength is running the ball with Lynch and Wilson, not throwing passes to their #3 or #4 WR in a situation where everyone is within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. They lost by not going to their strength.... if they had been stuffed on 2 or 3 straight running plays, people would've been in awe of perhaps the best goal-line stand in history and no one would question anything about it.

Do I think the Patriots would've stopped Lynch if the Seahawks went to the line more quickly on 2nd down and had 2 or maybe 3 cracks from inside the 1 yard line? Of course not. And neither do most people, and even a realistic Pats fan would admit that the Seahawks would have more than likely scored. But they didn't, and that decision had an impact on the perception of a lot of people in that game.

I was pretty happy to see them throw instead of run, but if you think some dude can't be stuffed cuz he's got a nickname you're bs'ing yourself

he already got stoned twice in that game

He didn't say that he couldn't have been stuffed, he specifically mentioned what he thought the reaction would be if they had been. He said that he doesn't think he would have been.

Thank you.

A goal-line stand there would've been possible, but certainly not probable. My God, can you imagine how awesome that would've been to see just as a football fan? Not taking anything away from how the Patriots played it, because both DB's involved played it perfectly. The Seahawks relied on Wilson's arm, Kearse's "blocking" ability, and Lockette's ability to make a catch on a tight pass. And Patriots fans should be very thankful that we won't ever know definitively that Lynch would've scored no matter how likely it would've been.

Was a great game and that play left me (and anyone not rooting for the Patriots) feeling cheated by the ending. Felt like the Seahawks gave it away just as much as the Patriots earned it.

You just don't take the chance of getting beat with your 3rd, 4th, or 5th option when your first two options don't get the chance first.

Edit to add that while Lynch may have gotten "stoned" earlier, he hadn't gotten taken down for a loss on any of his previous 24 carries. Goal line situations are always different, but it's not like the Patriots were filling gaps and getting into the backfield on running plays regularly or anything.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

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.

I respectfully disagree, its real easy to 2nd guess, but if they run it there and don't make it they have to use their last timeout and then things could have gotten pretty dicey. This Lynch would have made it in no problem is wishful thinking; yeah he may very well have made it, maybe not. I heard last night (nfl channel?) that sea has been the worst team in the league punching it in from the gl since 2012.

Kearse didn't do his job very well and Wilson could have made a better throw but more importantly Browner did a great job of stacking Kearse and Butler made and outstanding play by jumping the route AND most importantly holding on to the ball.

1. They would not have been forced to use their last timeout, because you can run the ball three times with :26 seconds and one timeout available rather easily. Chase has explained this a couple times on his twitter feed. Also, Belichick has said he would have called TO there if they got a stop on second down.

2. If that data is correct about their goal line efficiency, part of the reason is because of stupid decisions to throw the ball like this one. The question isn't simply % chance of success in a single effort, but % chance in three efforts, and that number is exceptionally high unless you do something negative like get tackled several yards behind the line of scrimmage, take a penalty, or turn it over ... all of which are more likely when you call a pass play.

If they run the ball there and don't make it there are less than 30 secs left and I am pretty sure they would have called a timeout and called 2 plays (thought Caroll said as much but not sure). Yes, BB did say something to that effect, but imo I am not so sure he would have at that point. Less than 30 secs clock running down if u call timeout you allow sea to run or pass on their final 2 plays, if u make them use their TO then I think sea is forced to pass on at least 1 of their remaining downs.

I can't argue and say that running the ball wasn't the best choice, but I don't think it wasn't a given that Lynch would score and if he didn't it couldn't have gotten pretty hairy. I freely admit that if I were a sea fan I would agree with the majority who feel they should have run it and are pissed they didn't.

 

[dhockster]

Again, to me it's not about any of that. I agree that the Patriots played the situation perfectly and made the play - it wasn't handed to them.


But you can play the what if game all you want, and yes, maybe they could've scored with a pass play. The fact is that the Seahawks' strength is running the ball with Lynch and Wilson, not throwing passes to their #3 or #4 WR in a situation where everyone is within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. They lost by not going to their strength.... if they had been stuffed on 2 or 3 straight running plays, people would've been in awe of perhaps the best goal-line stand in history and no one would question anything about it.

Do I think the Patriots would've stopped Lynch if the Seahawks went to the line more quickly on 2nd down and had 2 or maybe 3 cracks from inside the 1 yard line? Of course not. And neither do most people, and even a realistic Pats fan would admit that the Seahawks would have more than likely scored. But they didn't, and that decision had an impact on the perception of a lot of people in that game.

I was pretty happy to see them throw instead of run, but if you think some dude can't be stuffed cuz he's got a nickname you're bs'ing yourself

he already got stoned twice in that game

He didn't say that he couldn't have been stuffed, he specifically mentioned what he thought the reaction would be if they had been. He said that he doesn't think he would have been.

Thank you.

A goal-line stand there would've been possible, but certainly not probable. My God, can you imagine how awesome that would've been to see just as a football fan? Not taking anything away from how the Patriots played it, because both DB's involved played it perfectly. The Seahawks relied on Wilson's arm, Kearse's "blocking" ability, and Lockette's ability to make a catch on a tight pass. And Patriots fans should be very thankful that we won't ever know definitively that Lynch would've scored no matter how likely it would've been.

Was a great game and that play left me (and anyone not rooting for the Patriots) feeling cheated by the ending. Felt like the Seahawks gave it away just as much as the Patriots earned it.

You just don't take the chance of getting beat with your 3rd, 4th, or 5th option when your first two options don't get the chance first.

Edit to add that while Lynch may have gotten "stoned" earlier, he hadn't gotten taken down for a loss on any of his previous 24 carries. Goal line situations are always different, but it's not like the Patriots were filling gaps and getting into the backfield on running plays regularly or anything.

The guy with 25 career receptions in 4 years of regular season and playoffs. Yeah, that's my go-to guy!

 

[Old Smiley]

NE was ROBBED! ROBBED of the chance at making one of the great goal line stands in history!!!

(Kind of flipped things there, eh?)

 

[TobiasFunke]

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.

I respectfully disagree, its real easy to 2nd guess, but if they run it there and don't make it they have to use their last timeout and then things could have gotten pretty dicey. This Lynch would have made it in no problem is wishful thinking; yeah he may very well have made it, maybe not. I heard last night (nfl channel?) that sea has been the worst team in the league punching it in from the gl since 2012.

Kearse didn't do his job very well and Wilson could have made a better throw but more importantly Browner did a great job of stacking Kearse and Butler made and outstanding play by jumping the route AND most importantly holding on to the ball.

1. They would not have been forced to use their last timeout, because you can run the ball three times with :26 seconds and one timeout available rather easily. Chase has explained this a couple times on his twitter feed. Also, Belichick has said he would have called TO there if they got a stop on second down.

2. If that data is correct about their goal line efficiency, part of the reason is because of stupid decisions to throw the ball like this one. The question isn't simply % chance of success in a single effort, but % chance in three efforts, and that number is exceptionally high unless you do something negative like get tackled several yards behind the line of scrimmage, take a penalty, or turn it over ... all of which are more likely when you call a pass play.

If they run the ball there and don't make it there are less than 30 secs left and I am pretty sure they would have called a timeout and called 2 plays (thought Caroll said as much but not sure). Yes, BB did say something to that effect, but imo I am not so sure he would have at that point. Less than 30 secs clock running down if u call timeout you allow sea to run or pass on their final 2 plays, if u make them use their TO then I think sea is forced to pass on at least 1 of their remaining downs.

I can't argue and say that running the ball wasn't the best choice, but I don't think it wasn't a given that Lynch would score and if he didn't it couldn't have gotten pretty hairy. I freely admit that if I were a sea fan I would agree with the majority who feel they should have run it and are pissed they didn't.

Yeah, I assume they would have called timeout and called two plays on the sidelines during the pause if Belichick didn't use one. Either way, they had time to run the ball three times.

I don't think it's a given that Lynch would score either. But I think it's a given that the play they did call reduced their chances of scoring as compared to a running play, because (1) it's less likely to result in a score on that play, and (2) it increases the chance that you won't get two more chances from short yardage due to tackle for significant loss of yardage, penalty or turnover, all of which are more likely if you run a pass play. Add all that together and the result is a pretty sharp change in the odds. The 85% to 77% that someone came up with in that Deadspin article sounds about right. May not sound like much, but it is. And given the stakes and how obvious and simple the correct call was I think it qualifies as the worst play call ever.

 

[General Tso]

Seattle never should have even gotten to that situation were it not for the greatest stroke of luck in the history of the Superbowl (the Kearse 33 yard "catch"). That was the only lucky break on that drive.

Seattle had a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter and their vaunted defense couldn't contain Brady, who had a perfect quarterback rating in his last 2 drives during the most stressful environment imaginable. The Pats outplayed Seattle, were the better team, and deserved the win.

 

[ShamrockPride]

Seattle never should have even gotten to that situation were it not for the greatest stroke of luck in the history of the Superbowl (the Kearse 33 yard "catch"). That was the only lucky break on that drive.

Seattle had a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter and their vaunted defense couldn't contain Brady, who had a perfect quarterback rating in his last 2 drives during the most stressful environment imaginable. The Pats outplayed Seattle, were the better team, and deserved the win.

Were it not for Bevs throwing common sense out the window, like others have stated, Brady's 4th quarter would be lost in time. The fact is that Tom Brady wasn't on the field when the Pats won that game, as wasn't the Seahawks "vaunted" defense.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Seattle never should have even gotten to that situation were it not for the greatest stroke of luck in the history of the Superbowl (the Kearse 33 yard "catch"). That was the only lucky break on that drive.

Seattle had a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter and their vaunted defense couldn't contain Brady, who had a perfect quarterback rating in his last 2 drives during the most stressful environment imaginable. The Pats outplayed Seattle, were the better team, and deserved the win.

Outside of Patriot fans, I'd say most would agree that the Patriots got equally lucky that the Seahawks coaching staff had a play-calling brain fart at the worst possible time. But Kearse's catch was a lucky one, no doubt. It counted just the same.

And yep, the Patriots took the game from the Seahawks with an awesome 4th quarter. I kept waiting for the Seahawks to make a few first downs and kill the clock some, but it was 3 and out. Thomas, Chancellor, and Sherman were all banged up to start wtih, and the Patriots abused Lane's replacement once he went down. I don't think they were the better team (I think they were pretty evenly matched in a well played game), and they didn't "deserve" the win any more than the Seahawks did. They made the play at the end and the Seahawks did their part in making it possible.

With the game on the line, the Patriots put the ball in Brady's hands and said throw us back into it. With the game on the line, the Seahawks put it on Wilson's arm and in Lockette's hands instead of their bread and butter. And that was the difference in the game.

The funny part of all of it to me is that if the Seahawks did what most think they would've done and ran it in on 2nd or 3rd down, Brady and the Pats would be a .500 team in the big game and as close to 0-6 in the Super Bowls as 6-0. A LOT of things changed on that play that were tied to the result of the game.

 

[General Tso]

Seattle never should have even gotten to that situation were it not for the greatest stroke of luck in the history of the Superbowl (the Kearse 33 yard "catch"). That was the only lucky break on that drive.

Seattle had a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter and their vaunted defense couldn't contain Brady, who had a perfect quarterback rating in his last 2 drives during the most stressful environment imaginable. The Pats outplayed Seattle, were the better team, and deserved the win.

Were it not for Bevs throwing common sense out the window, like others have stated, Brady's 4th quarter would be lost in time. The fact is that Tom Brady wasn't on the field when the Pats won that game, as wasn't the Seahawks "vaunted" defense.

Gee, I always thought that a team wins a game when it outscores it's opponent.

 

[Old Smiley]

Seattle never should have even gotten to that situation were it not for the greatest stroke of luck in the history of the Superbowl (the Kearse 33 yard "catch"). That was the only lucky break on that drive.

Seattle had a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter and their vaunted defense couldn't contain Brady, who had a perfect quarterback rating in his last 2 drives during the most stressful environment imaginable. The Pats outplayed Seattle, were the better team, and deserved the win.

Outside of Patriot fans, I'd say most would agree that the Patriots got equally lucky that the Seahawks coaching staff had a play-calling brain fart at the worst possible time. But Kearse's catch was a lucky one, no doubt. It counted just the same.

And yep, the Patriots took the game from the Seahawks with an awesome 4th quarter. I kept waiting for the Seahawks to make a few first downs and kill the clock some, but it was 3 and out. Thomas, Chancellor, and Sherman were all banged up to start wtih, and the Patriots abused Lane's replacement once he went down. I don't think they were the better team (I think they were pretty evenly matched in a well played game), and they didn't "deserve" the win any more than the Seahawks did. They made the play at the end and the Seahawks did their part in making it possible.

With the game on the line, the Patriots put the ball in Brady's hands and said throw us back into it. With the game on the line, the Seahawks put it on Wilson's arm and in Lockette's hands instead of their bread and butter. And that was the difference in the game.

The funny part of all of it to me is that if the Seahawks did what most think they would've done and ran it in on 2nd or 3rd down, Brady and the Pats would be a .500 team in the big game and as close to 0-6 in the Super Bowls as 6-0. A LOT of things changed on that play that were tied to the result of the game.

Sports is pretty random. It's about putting yourself in the position. Then you just play. Like 21.

 

[12punch]

Seattle never should have even gotten to that situation were it not for the greatest stroke of luck in the history of the Superbowl (the Kearse 33 yard "catch"). That was the only lucky break on that drive.

Seattle had a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter and their vaunted defense couldn't contain Brady, who had a perfect quarterback rating in his last 2 drives during the most stressful environment imaginable. The Pats outplayed Seattle, were the better team, and deserved the win.

Outside of Patriot fans, I'd say most would agree that the Patriots got equally lucky that the Seahawks coaching staff had a play-calling brain fart at the worst possible time. But Kearse's catch was a lucky one, no doubt. It counted just the same.

And yep, the Patriots took the game from the Seahawks with an awesome 4th quarter. I kept waiting for the Seahawks to make a few first downs and kill the clock some, but it was 3 and out. Thomas, Chancellor, and Sherman were all banged up to start wtih, and the Patriots abused Lane's replacement once he went down. I don't think they were the better team (I think they were pretty evenly matched in a well played game), and they didn't "deserve" the win any more than the Seahawks did. They made the play at the end and the Seahawks did their part in making it possible.

With the game on the line, the Patriots put the ball in Brady's hands and said throw us back into it. With the game on the line, the Seahawks put it on Wilson's arm and in Lockette's hands instead of their bread and butter. And that was the difference in the game.

The funny part of all of it to me is that if the Seahawks did what most think they would've done and ran it in on 2nd or 3rd down, Brady and the Pats would be a .500 team in the big game and as close to 0-6 in the Super Bowls as 6-0. A LOT of things changed on that play that were tied to the result of the game.

you do realize there was still time on the clock, right?

I understand steelers fans are convinced there's some kind of bitter rivalry with the pats, or whatever, because we're stealing the spotlight from some team that's mostly in the grave, or whatever crazy reason you've concocted, but CHAAAAMMMPIONSHIIIIIIP!!!!!

greatest dynasty in football, son

 

[espnespn]

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%.

Assuming his simulations are correct, calling a play with a 77% chance of winning cannot be deemed "the worst call in NFL history" (which is the title of this thread). That's just being silly.

Also, saying that the increased chance of losing by 50% is meaningless. If the simulation showed a 99% chance of winning by running and a 98% chance by passing, that means the increased chances of losing is 100% OMG.

Maybe Seattle made a sub-optimal play call, but Russell Wilson's INT rate for 2014 was 1.5%. So the chances of a INT are tiny. Butler just made an amazing defensive play.

Why not? "Worst call in history" takes into account both the stakes and the obviousness of correct decision. It's one thing to make a bad decision that requires a detailed understanding of all the possible consequences. But if your decision is second-guessed by both passionate fans and casual fans even before the results are known, as this one presumably was (my wife and I started talking about it as soon as they came out in shotgun formation, before the snap), that's a different story.

And it's not automatically disqualified because they still had a 77% chance to win. That's a function of the game situation, not the decision. There's a huge difference. Say for example I'm a coach and my team is leading the Super Bowl by 2 points, and then we score a TD with ten seconds left of the clock. An extra point makes it a 9 point game, giving me a 99.9%+ chance of winning. Instead I decide to go for two. I'd still likely have something close to a 99% chance of winning, since a loss would require the other team to score a TD in 10 seconds (let's be generous and call that 2%), convert the two point conversion (44%), and then win in OT (50%).

Does the fact that it's still almost impossible for me to lose make it a defensible decision? Or does obviousness of the decision + the stakes make it fair to call it the worst call in history? I think it's pretty clearly the latter.

According to the simulation, the "obviously correct" decision is only an 8% increase in chance of winning. So it is not as obvious as you say. Also, plenty of "obviously correct" decisions are mathematically incorrect. Imagine a 4th and 3 on the 50 yard line. If you ask a reasonably informed football fan whether to punt or go for it, the vast majority (and the vast majority of coaches) would punt. But that appears to be the mathematically incorrect decision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upshot/4th-down-when-to-go-for-it-and-why.html?abt=0002&abg=0

In fact, plenty of "obvious" punting situations are incorrect. Deciding whether something is the "worst call ever" should be backed up by math, not something as fallible as obviousness. And I find it hard to call a 8% lower chance of winning as the "worst call", even if it happens in the SB.

I'd like this simulation guy to run his simulation on past SBs, and I'm sure you'll find bad calls that dropped chances of winning more than 8%. (Also, unless he makes simulation public, who knows how accurate it is, because we cannot test it.)

 

[espnespn]

Maybe Seattle made a sub-optimal play call, but Russell Wilson's INT rate for 2014 was 1.5%. So the chances of a INT are tiny. Butler just made an amazing defensive play.

His INT rate in the playoffs at the point was 5.6%.

Small sample size proves nothing. His INT rate for the first 59 minutes of the SB was 0.0%. See how that works?

Unless you seriously think his career INT rate will be closer to 5.6% than his current career INT rate of 2.1%, then your 5.6% number is pointless.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WilsRu00.htm

 

[General Tso]

Seattle never should have even gotten to that situation were it not for the greatest stroke of luck in the history of the Superbowl (the Kearse 33 yard "catch"). That was the only lucky break on that drive.

Seattle had a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter and their vaunted defense couldn't contain Brady, who had a perfect quarterback rating in his last 2 drives during the most stressful environment imaginable. The Pats outplayed Seattle, were the better team, and deserved the win.

Outside of Patriot fans, I'd say most would agree that the Patriots got equally lucky that the Seahawks coaching staff had a play-calling brain fart at the worst possible time. But Kearse's catch was a lucky one, no doubt. It counted just the same.And yep, the Patriots took the game from the Seahawks with an awesome 4th quarter. I kept waiting for the Seahawks to make a few first downs and kill the clock some, but it was 3 and out. Thomas, Chancellor, and Sherman were all banged up to start wtih, and the Patriots abused Lane's replacement once he went down. I don't think they were the better team (I think they were pretty evenly matched in a well played game), and they didn't "deserve" the win any more than the Seahawks did. They made the play at the end and the Seahawks did their part in making it possible.

With the game on the line, the Patriots put the ball in Brady's hands and said throw us back into it. With the game on the line, the Seahawks put it on Wilson's arm and in Lockette's hands instead of their bread and butter. And that was the difference in the game.

The funny part of all of it to me is that if the Seahawks did what most think they would've done and ran it in on 2nd or 3rd down, Brady and the Pats would be a .500 team in the big game and as close to 0-6 in the Super Bowls as 6-0. A LOT of things changed on that play that were tied to the result of the game.

Yeah, and if it weren't for several lucky twists of fate in the Giants superbowls (Tyree, dropped interception, Welker drop, Manningham) the Pats would be 6-0.Going into the Seattle game I thought the Pats were the better team and matched up very well with the Hawks. I handicapped the game at +6 for the Pats. I thought they would be able to run the ball effectively and dink and duo Seattle to death on offense. And they did just that - running almost 40% more plays than Seattle. I also thought the Pats had a heavy advantage on the other side of the ball. The Pats have a great defense - just a tick below Seattle's. They gave up something like 12 4th quarter points total in their last 12 games. Seattle's running game worried me a bit, but I had confidence that BB would be able to game plan and contain both Lynch and RW. Seattle has just about the worst wide receiving corp in football. They were very fortunate to do as well as they did, and most of their success was due to simply throwing it up and hoping the taller WR's come down with it.

I don't even think the game should have been that close. The Brady picks hurt, as did them falling asleep at the end of the first half and giving Seattle 7 points. I've watched the game 3 times now and the Pats were clearly the better team. Seattle was VERY fortunate to be in a position to even make it a close game, nevermind win it. If those two teams play 10 times I'm very confident the pats win at least 7, maybe 8 of those games.

But keep saying the Pats were lucky if it makes you feel better.

 

[12punch]

yeah, at least we didn't need the refs to steal the game for us

 

[TobiasFunke]

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%.

Assuming his simulations are correct, calling a play with a 77% chance of winning cannot be deemed "the worst call in NFL history" (which is the title of this thread). That's just being silly.

Also, saying that the increased chance of losing by 50% is meaningless. If the simulation showed a 99% chance of winning by running and a 98% chance by passing, that means the increased chances of losing is 100% OMG.

Maybe Seattle made a sub-optimal play call, but Russell Wilson's INT rate for 2014 was 1.5%. So the chances of a INT are tiny. Butler just made an amazing defensive play.

Why not? "Worst call in history" takes into account both the stakes and the obviousness of correct decision. It's one thing to make a bad decision that requires a detailed understanding of all the possible consequences. But if your decision is second-guessed by both passionate fans and casual fans even before the results are known, as this one presumably was (my wife and I started talking about it as soon as they came out in shotgun formation, before the snap), that's a different story.

And it's not automatically disqualified because they still had a 77% chance to win. That's a function of the game situation, not the decision. There's a huge difference. Say for example I'm a coach and my team is leading the Super Bowl by 2 points, and then we score a TD with ten seconds left of the clock. An extra point makes it a 9 point game, giving me a 99.9%+ chance of winning. Instead I decide to go for two. I'd still likely have something close to a 99% chance of winning, since a loss would require the other team to score a TD in 10 seconds (let's be generous and call that 2%), convert the two point conversion (44%), and then win in OT (50%).

Does the fact that it's still almost impossible for me to lose make it a defensible decision? Or does obviousness of the decision + the stakes make it fair to call it the worst call in history? I think it's pretty clearly the latter.

According to the simulation, the "obviously correct" decision is only an 8% increase in chance of winning. So it is not as obvious as you say. Also, plenty of "obviously correct" decisions are mathematically incorrect. Imagine a 4th and 3 on the 50 yard line. If you ask a reasonably informed football fan whether to punt or go for it, the vast majority (and the vast majority of coaches) would punt. But that appears to be the mathematically incorrect decision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upshot/4th-down-when-to-go-for-it-and-why.html?abt=0002&abg=0

In fact, plenty of "obvious" punting situations are incorrect. Deciding whether something is the "worst call ever" should be backed up by math, not something as fallible as obviousness. And I find it hard to call a 8% lower chance of winning as the "worst call", even if it happens in the SB.

I'd like this simulation guy to run his simulation on past SBs, and I'm sure you'll find bad calls that dropped chances of winning more than 8%. (Also, unless he makes simulation public, who knows how accurate it is, because we cannot test it.)

I addressed all of your points in the post to which you replied. 8% is a HUGE drop in win probability based on a single run/pass play call. The Deadspin column in the link gets into this a bit too. And by "obvious" I meant that almost everyone disagreed with it immediately- players, media, hard-core fans and casual fan.

I'm not sure why so many Patriots fans are here trying to defend the decision or play down its importance, as if the poor play call somehow lessens their team's achievement. It doesn't at all. Everything that Seattle did wrong in the final seconds- from the decisionmaking to the execution- is all part of the game. A win like the Pats enjoyed in the Super Bowl is just as valid as a 40 point blowout- both teams did good things and bad things through the course of the game, and the final result was that the Pats' effort was better than the Seahawks'.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Seattle never should have even gotten to that situation were it not for the greatest stroke of luck in the history of the Superbowl (the Kearse 33 yard "catch"). That was the only lucky break on that drive.

Seattle had a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter and their vaunted defense couldn't contain Brady, who had a perfect quarterback rating in his last 2 drives during the most stressful environment imaginable. The Pats outplayed Seattle, were the better team, and deserved the win.

Outside of Patriot fans, I'd say most would agree that the Patriots got equally lucky that the Seahawks coaching staff had a play-calling brain fart at the worst possible time. But Kearse's catch was a lucky one, no doubt. It counted just the same.

And yep, the Patriots took the game from the Seahawks with an awesome 4th quarter. I kept waiting for the Seahawks to make a few first downs and kill the clock some, but it was 3 and out. Thomas, Chancellor, and Sherman were all banged up to start wtih, and the Patriots abused Lane's replacement once he went down. I don't think they were the better team (I think they were pretty evenly matched in a well played game), and they didn't "deserve" the win any more than the Seahawks did. They made the play at the end and the Seahawks did their part in making it possible.

With the game on the line, the Patriots put the ball in Brady's hands and said throw us back into it. With the game on the line, the Seahawks put it on Wilson's arm and in Lockette's hands instead of their bread and butter. And that was the difference in the game.

The funny part of all of it to me is that if the Seahawks did what most think they would've done and ran it in on 2nd or 3rd down, Brady and the Pats would be a .500 team in the big game and as close to 0-6 in the Super Bowls as 6-0. A LOT of things changed on that play that were tied to the result of the game.

you do realize there was still time on the clock, right?

I understand steelers fans are convinced there's some kind of bitter rivalry with the pats, or whatever, because we're stealing the spotlight from some team that's mostly in the grave, or whatever crazy reason you've concocted, but CHAAAAMMMPIONSHIIIIIIP!!!!!

greatest dynasty in football, son

As I've said over and over again. The Seahawks should've paid no attention to the clock, scored the TD as quickly as possible, and trusted their defense to prevent Brady from getting into field goal range to force the first overtime Super Bowl. Of course there would've been a little time left, and if their defense could've have finished it off, so be it. But they tried to get too fancy instead of sticking with their best two weapons. That takes nothing away from what the Pats did in the 4th quarter or that they put themselves into a position where the Seahawks had to execute to win. The Seahawks failed, the Pats won, end of story.

Congrats on the championship. The Steelers won twice since your previous one, so we haven't exactly been struggling for good times, and the Steelers never had to pay a massive fine and penalty for cheating, either. So there's that.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Seattle never should have even gotten to that situation were it not for the greatest stroke of luck in the history of the Superbowl (the Kearse 33 yard "catch"). That was the only lucky break on that drive.

Seattle had a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter and their vaunted defense couldn't contain Brady, who had a perfect quarterback rating in his last 2 drives during the most stressful environment imaginable. The Pats outplayed Seattle, were the better team, and deserved the win.

Outside of Patriot fans, I'd say most would agree that the Patriots got equally lucky that the Seahawks coaching staff had a play-calling brain fart at the worst possible time. But Kearse's catch was a lucky one, no doubt. It counted just the same.And yep, the Patriots took the game from the Seahawks with an awesome 4th quarter. I kept waiting for the Seahawks to make a few first downs and kill the clock some, but it was 3 and out. Thomas, Chancellor, and Sherman were all banged up to start wtih, and the Patriots abused Lane's replacement once he went down. I don't think they were the better team (I think they were pretty evenly matched in a well played game), and they didn't "deserve" the win any more than the Seahawks did. They made the play at the end and the Seahawks did their part in making it possible.

With the game on the line, the Patriots put the ball in Brady's hands and said throw us back into it. With the game on the line, the Seahawks put it on Wilson's arm and in Lockette's hands instead of their bread and butter. And that was the difference in the game.

The funny part of all of it to me is that if the Seahawks did what most think they would've done and ran it in on 2nd or 3rd down, Brady and the Pats would be a .500 team in the big game and as close to 0-6 in the Super Bowls as 6-0. A LOT of things changed on that play that were tied to the result of the game.

Yeah, and if it weren't for several lucky twists of fate in the Giants superbowls (Tyree, dropped interception, Welker drop, Manningham) the Pats would be 6-0.Going into the Seattle game I thought the Pats were the better team and matched up very well with the Hawks. I handicapped the game at +6 for the Pats. I thought they would be able to run the ball effectively and dink and duo Seattle to death on offense. And they did just that - running almost 40% more plays than Seattle. I also thought the Pats had a heavy advantage on the other side of the ball. The Pats have a great defense - just a tick below Seattle's. They gave up something like 12 4th quarter points total in their last 12 games. Seattle's running game worried me a bit, but I had confidence that BB would be able to game plan and contain both Lynch and RW. Seattle has just about the worst wide receiving corp in football. They were very fortunate to do as well as they did, and most of their success was due to simply throwing it up and hoping the taller WR's come down with it.

I don't even think the game should have been that close. The Brady picks hurt, as did them falling asleep at the end of the first half and giving Seattle 7 points. I've watched the game 3 times now and the Pats were clearly the better team. Seattle was VERY fortunate to be in a position to even make it a close game, nevermind win it. If those two teams play 10 times I'm very confident the pats win at least 7, maybe 8 of those games.

But keep saying the Pats were lucky if it makes you feel better.

Agreed. I said they'd be just as close to 6-0 as 0-6. All of the games were close and could've gone either way. Notice I included the 6-0 thing, too. I'm not taking anything away from what the Patriots DID. I'm pointing out what the Seahawks DIDN'T do. And that's try to win the game with what had proven to be their best options.

I expect that most in New England would feel they'd win 70% or 80% of the time, and that's fine. Don't think most objective fans would feel that way, and I think they'd split 50/50. Will the Seahawks' secondary be healthy in the other games, and will their #3 corner break his arm in those games too? Anyone can play the what if game - all that matters is that the Patriots won the only game that counts.

But anyone, no matter WHO they're a fan of, who doesn't consider the Patriots fortunate that the Seahawks passed the ball is fooling themselves. I've got really good friends who are huge Pats fans, and they've all admitted as much to me. Doesn't make it any less awesome for them, though.

 

[espnespn]

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%.

Assuming his simulations are correct, calling a play with a 77% chance of winning cannot be deemed "the worst call in NFL history" (which is the title of this thread). That's just being silly.

Also, saying that the increased chance of losing by 50% is meaningless. If the simulation showed a 99% chance of winning by running and a 98% chance by passing, that means the increased chances of losing is 100% OMG.

Maybe Seattle made a sub-optimal play call, but Russell Wilson's INT rate for 2014 was 1.5%. So the chances of a INT are tiny. Butler just made an amazing defensive play.

Why not? "Worst call in history" takes into account both the stakes and the obviousness of correct decision. It's one thing to make a bad decision that requires a detailed understanding of all the possible consequences. But if your decision is second-guessed by both passionate fans and casual fans even before the results are known, as this one presumably was (my wife and I started talking about it as soon as they came out in shotgun formation, before the snap), that's a different story.

And it's not automatically disqualified because they still had a 77% chance to win. That's a function of the game situation, not the decision. There's a huge difference. Say for example I'm a coach and my team is leading the Super Bowl by 2 points, and then we score a TD with ten seconds left of the clock. An extra point makes it a 9 point game, giving me a 99.9%+ chance of winning. Instead I decide to go for two. I'd still likely have something close to a 99% chance of winning, since a loss would require the other team to score a TD in 10 seconds (let's be generous and call that 2%), convert the two point conversion (44%), and then win in OT (50%).

Does the fact that it's still almost impossible for me to lose make it a defensible decision? Or does obviousness of the decision + the stakes make it fair to call it the worst call in history? I think it's pretty clearly the latter.

According to the simulation, the "obviously correct" decision is only an 8% increase in chance of winning. So it is not as obvious as you say. Also, plenty of "obviously correct" decisions are mathematically incorrect. Imagine a 4th and 3 on the 50 yard line. If you ask a reasonably informed football fan whether to punt or go for it, the vast majority (and the vast majority of coaches) would punt. But that appears to be the mathematically incorrect decision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upshot/4th-down-when-to-go-for-it-and-why.html?abt=0002&abg=0

In fact, plenty of "obvious" punting situations are incorrect. Deciding whether something is the "worst call ever" should be backed up by math, not something as fallible as obviousness. And I find it hard to call a 8% lower chance of winning as the "worst call", even if it happens in the SB.

I'd like this simulation guy to run his simulation on past SBs, and I'm sure you'll find bad calls that dropped chances of winning more than 8%. (Also, unless he makes simulation public, who knows how accurate it is, because we cannot test it.)

I addressed all of your points in the post to which you replied. 8% is a HUGE drop in win probability based on a single run/pass play call. The Deadspin column in the link gets into this a bit too. And by "obvious" I meant that almost everyone disagreed with it immediately- players, media, hard-core fans and casual fan.

I'm not sure why so many Patriots fans are here trying to defend the decision or play down its importance, as if the poor play call somehow lessens their team's achievement. It doesn't at all. Everything that Seattle did wrong in the final seconds- from the decisionmaking to the execution- is all part of the game. A win like the Pats enjoyed in the Super Bowl is just as valid as a 40 point blowout- both teams did good things and bad things through the course of the game, and the final result was that the Pats' effort was better than the Seahawks'.

Just as reference, Welker's dropped pass in the 2nd Patriots-Giants SB (which was not a guaranteed TD, just a guaranteed 1st down) was a 30% drop in win probability. If you think 8% is huge, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/features/2011/nfl_2011/super_bowl/giants_patriots_super_bowl_math_says_if_wes_welker_catches_that_ball_the_patriots_win_.html

Seattle definitely had sub-optimal play calling in the last minute. I just don't think the people who say it was "worst call ever" (or even one of the worst calls ever) have put forth enough math/stat comparisons to other SB blown calls to prove their point.

 

[humpback]

1. They would not have been forced to use their last timeout, because you can run the ball three times with :26 seconds and one timeout available rather easily. Chase has explained this a couple times on his twitter feed. Also, Belichick has said he would have called TO there if they got a stop on second down.
2. If that data is correct about their goal line efficiency, part of the reason is because of stupid decisions to throw the ball like this one. The question isn't simply % chance of success in a single effort, but % chance in three efforts, and that number is exceptionally high unless you do something negative like get tackled several yards behind the line of scrimmage, take a penalty, or turn it over ... all of which are more likely when you call a pass play.

If they run the ball there and don't make it there are less than 30 secs left and I am pretty sure they would have called a timeout and called 2 plays (thought Caroll said as much but not sure). Yes, BB did say something to that effect, but imo I am not so sure he would have at that point. Less than 30 secs clock running down if u call timeout you allow sea to run or pass on their final 2 plays, if u make them use their TO then I think sea is forced to pass on at least 1 of their remaining downs.

I can't argue and say that running the ball wasn't the best choice, but I don't think it wasn't a given that Lynch would score and if he didn't it couldn't have gotten pretty hairy. I freely admit that if I were a sea fan I would agree with the majority who feel they should have run it and are pissed they didn't.

We discussed this a bit earlier, but they snapped the 2nd down play with ~26 seconds left. If that had been a running play, Seattle would have called a TO with ~20 seconds left. Say the 3rd down rushing attempt used another 6 seconds- that would've given them ~13 seconds to get off a 4th running play.

I think people arguing that they had to pass on one of the downs are wrong. Not only was it possible to run 3 more times, but extremely likely that they could have IMO (and this was using conservative estimates for play times, ignoring that Seattle let the play clock run almost all the way down on 2nd down, and assuming NE doesn't use a TO at all).

 

[TobiasFunke]

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%.

Assuming his simulations are correct, calling a play with a 77% chance of winning cannot be deemed "the worst call in NFL history" (which is the title of this thread). That's just being silly.

Also, saying that the increased chance of losing by 50% is meaningless. If the simulation showed a 99% chance of winning by running and a 98% chance by passing, that means the increased chances of losing is 100% OMG.

Maybe Seattle made a sub-optimal play call, but Russell Wilson's INT rate for 2014 was 1.5%. So the chances of a INT are tiny. Butler just made an amazing defensive play.

Why not? "Worst call in history" takes into account both the stakes and the obviousness of correct decision. It's one thing to make a bad decision that requires a detailed understanding of all the possible consequences. But if your decision is second-guessed by both passionate fans and casual fans even before the results are known, as this one presumably was (my wife and I started talking about it as soon as they came out in shotgun formation, before the snap), that's a different story.

And it's not automatically disqualified because they still had a 77% chance to win. That's a function of the game situation, not the decision. There's a huge difference. Say for example I'm a coach and my team is leading the Super Bowl by 2 points, and then we score a TD with ten seconds left of the clock. An extra point makes it a 9 point game, giving me a 99.9%+ chance of winning. Instead I decide to go for two. I'd still likely have something close to a 99% chance of winning, since a loss would require the other team to score a TD in 10 seconds (let's be generous and call that 2%), convert the two point conversion (44%), and then win in OT (50%).

Does the fact that it's still almost impossible for me to lose make it a defensible decision? Or does obviousness of the decision + the stakes make it fair to call it the worst call in history? I think it's pretty clearly the latter.

According to the simulation, the "obviously correct" decision is only an 8% increase in chance of winning. So it is not as obvious as you say. Also, plenty of "obviously correct" decisions are mathematically incorrect. Imagine a 4th and 3 on the 50 yard line. If you ask a reasonably informed football fan whether to punt or go for it, the vast majority (and the vast majority of coaches) would punt. But that appears to be the mathematically incorrect decision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upshot/4th-down-when-to-go-for-it-and-why.html?abt=0002&abg=0

In fact, plenty of "obvious" punting situations are incorrect. Deciding whether something is the "worst call ever" should be backed up by math, not something as fallible as obviousness. And I find it hard to call a 8% lower chance of winning as the "worst call", even if it happens in the SB.

I'd like this simulation guy to run his simulation on past SBs, and I'm sure you'll find bad calls that dropped chances of winning more than 8%. (Also, unless he makes simulation public, who knows how accurate it is, because we cannot test it.)

I addressed all of your points in the post to which you replied. 8% is a HUGE drop in win probability based on a single run/pass play call. The Deadspin column in the link gets into this a bit too. And by "obvious" I meant that almost everyone disagreed with it immediately- players, media, hard-core fans and casual fan.

I'm not sure why so many Patriots fans are here trying to defend the decision or play down its importance, as if the poor play call somehow lessens their team's achievement. It doesn't at all. Everything that Seattle did wrong in the final seconds- from the decisionmaking to the execution- is all part of the game. A win like the Pats enjoyed in the Super Bowl is just as valid as a 40 point blowout- both teams did good things and bad things through the course of the game, and the final result was that the Pats' effort was better than the Seahawks'.

Just as reference, Welker's dropped pass in the 2nd Patriots-Giants SB (which was not a guaranteed TD, just a guaranteed 1st down) was a 30% drop in win probability. If you think 8% is huge, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/features/2011/nfl_2011/super_bowl/giants_patriots_super_bowl_math_says_if_wes_welker_catches_that_ball_the_patriots_win_.html

Seattle definitely had sub-optimal play calling in the last minute. I just don't think the people who say it was "worst call ever" (or even one of the worst calls ever) have put forth enough math/stat comparisons to other SB blown calls to prove their point.

A dropped pass is not a play call.

You seem to be confusing play calls with plays. Lots of blown plays or other negative play results in massive changes in the chances of winning. The results of this particular play probably dropped the Seahawks' chances of winning by about 80%, not 8%. And I'm sure if you looked long enough you could find one that resulted in close to a 100% drop in win probability.

That is not this. This is a simple decision to pass instead of run that dropped win percentage by 8%. That's a big difference before the ball is even snapped. I think you'd have a difficult time finding a pre-snap decision (run vs pass, FG/punt vs go for it, two point conversion vs extra point, etc.) that altered things more than that.

 

[parrot]

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%.

Assuming his simulations are correct, calling a play with a 77% chance of winning cannot be deemed "the worst call in NFL history" (which is the title of this thread). That's just being silly.

Also, saying that the increased chance of losing by 50% is meaningless. If the simulation showed a 99% chance of winning by running and a 98% chance by passing, that means the increased chances of losing is 100% OMG.

Maybe Seattle made a sub-optimal play call, but Russell Wilson's INT rate for 2014 was 1.5%. So the chances of a INT are tiny. Butler just made an amazing defensive play.

Why not? "Worst call in history" takes into account both the stakes and the obviousness of correct decision. It's one thing to make a bad decision that requires a detailed understanding of all the possible consequences. But if your decision is second-guessed by both passionate fans and casual fans even before the results are known, as this one presumably was (my wife and I started talking about it as soon as they came out in shotgun formation, before the snap), that's a different story.

And it's not automatically disqualified because they still had a 77% chance to win. That's a function of the game situation, not the decision. There's a huge difference. Say for example I'm a coach and my team is leading the Super Bowl by 2 points, and then we score a TD with ten seconds left of the clock. An extra point makes it a 9 point game, giving me a 99.9%+ chance of winning. Instead I decide to go for two. I'd still likely have something close to a 99% chance of winning, since a loss would require the other team to score a TD in 10 seconds (let's be generous and call that 2%), convert the two point conversion (44%), and then win in OT (50%).

Does the fact that it's still almost impossible for me to lose make it a defensible decision? Or does obviousness of the decision + the stakes make it fair to call it the worst call in history? I think it's pretty clearly the latter.

According to the simulation, the "obviously correct" decision is only an 8% increase in chance of winning. So it is not as obvious as you say. Also, plenty of "obviously correct" decisions are mathematically incorrect. Imagine a 4th and 3 on the 50 yard line. If you ask a reasonably informed football fan whether to punt or go for it, the vast majority (and the vast majority of coaches) would punt. But that appears to be the mathematically incorrect decision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upshot/4th-down-when-to-go-for-it-and-why.html?abt=0002&abg=0

In fact, plenty of "obvious" punting situations are incorrect. Deciding whether something is the "worst call ever" should be backed up by math, not something as fallible as obviousness. And I find it hard to call a 8% lower chance of winning as the "worst call", even if it happens in the SB.

I'd like this simulation guy to run his simulation on past SBs, and I'm sure you'll find bad calls that dropped chances of winning more than 8%. (Also, unless he makes simulation public, who knows how accurate it is, because we cannot test it.)

I addressed all of your points in the post to which you replied. 8% is a HUGE drop in win probability based on a single run/pass play call. The Deadspin column in the link gets into this a bit too. And by "obvious" I meant that almost everyone disagreed with it immediately- players, media, hard-core fans and casual fan.

I'm not sure why so many Patriots fans are here trying to defend the decision or play down its importance, as if the poor play call somehow lessens their team's achievement. It doesn't at all. Everything that Seattle did wrong in the final seconds- from the decisionmaking to the execution- is all part of the game. A win like the Pats enjoyed in the Super Bowl is just as valid as a 40 point blowout- both teams did good things and bad things through the course of the game, and the final result was that the Pats' effort was better than the Seahawks'.

Just as reference, Welker's dropped pass in the 2nd Patriots-Giants SB (which was not a guaranteed TD, just a guaranteed 1st down) was a 30% drop in win probability. If you think 8% is huge, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/features/2011/nfl_2011/super_bowl/giants_patriots_super_bowl_math_says_if_wes_welker_catches_that_ball_the_patriots_win_.html

Seattle definitely had sub-optimal play calling in the last minute. I just don't think the people who say it was "worst call ever" (or even one of the worst calls ever) have put forth enough math/stat comparisons to other SB blown calls to prove their point.

A dropped pass is not a play call.

You seem to be confusing play calls with plays. Lots of blown plays or other negative play results in massive changes in the chances of winning. The results of this particular play probably dropped the Seahawks' chances of winning by about 80%, not 8%. And I'm sure if you looked long enough you could find one that resulted in close to a 100% drop in win probability.

That is not this. This is a simple decision to pass instead of run that dropped win percentage by 8%. That's a big difference before the ball is even snapped. I think you'd have a difficult time finding a pre-snap decision (run vs pass, FG/punt vs go for it, two point conversion vs extra point, etc.) that altered things more than that.

I would be curious to see the numbers on Dallas' decision to throw deep on 4th and 2 late in the GB game.

 

[TobiasFunke]

A dropped pass is not a play call.

You seem to be confusing play calls with plays. Lots of blown plays or other negative play results in massive changes in the chances of winning. The results of this particular play probably dropped the Seahawks' chances of winning by about 80%, not 8%. And I'm sure if you looked long enough you could find one that resulted in close to a 100% drop in win probability.

That is not this. This is a simple decision to pass instead of run that dropped win percentage by 8%. That's a big difference before the ball is even snapped. I think you'd have a difficult time finding a pre-snap decision (run vs pass, FG/punt vs go for it, two point conversion vs extra point, etc.) that altered things more than that.

I would be curious to see the numbers on Dallas' decision to throw deep on 4th and 2 late in the GB game.

Yeah, that'd be interesting. Hard to really calculate b/c there's different degrees of "throwing deep" ... although of course there's different variations on "passing" in the Seahawks situation too, this guy just simplified it for his calculations.

The other thing is that if Dallas plays it conservative and runs a normal 2 yard gain play they only have about 44% chance of converting (based on 2 point conversion rates) and much less chance of winning (they would subsequently have to continue the drive, score a TD, and then stop the Packers if there's any time left). So the starting point would give Dallas a pretty small chance of winning regardless. My wild guess is the decision to try a deep ball reduced it a little bit, but not much.

 

[espnespn]

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%.

Assuming his simulations are correct, calling a play with a 77% chance of winning cannot be deemed "the worst call in NFL history" (which is the title of this thread). That's just being silly.

Also, saying that the increased chance of losing by 50% is meaningless. If the simulation showed a 99% chance of winning by running and a 98% chance by passing, that means the increased chances of losing is 100% OMG.

Maybe Seattle made a sub-optimal play call, but Russell Wilson's INT rate for 2014 was 1.5%. So the chances of a INT are tiny. Butler just made an amazing defensive play.

Why not? "Worst call in history" takes into account both the stakes and the obviousness of correct decision. It's one thing to make a bad decision that requires a detailed understanding of all the possible consequences. But if your decision is second-guessed by both passionate fans and casual fans even before the results are known, as this one presumably was (my wife and I started talking about it as soon as they came out in shotgun formation, before the snap), that's a different story.

And it's not automatically disqualified because they still had a 77% chance to win. That's a function of the game situation, not the decision. There's a huge difference. Say for example I'm a coach and my team is leading the Super Bowl by 2 points, and then we score a TD with ten seconds left of the clock. An extra point makes it a 9 point game, giving me a 99.9%+ chance of winning. Instead I decide to go for two. I'd still likely have something close to a 99% chance of winning, since a loss would require the other team to score a TD in 10 seconds (let's be generous and call that 2%), convert the two point conversion (44%), and then win in OT (50%).

Does the fact that it's still almost impossible for me to lose make it a defensible decision? Or does obviousness of the decision + the stakes make it fair to call it the worst call in history? I think it's pretty clearly the latter.

According to the simulation, the "obviously correct" decision is only an 8% increase in chance of winning. So it is not as obvious as you say. Also, plenty of "obviously correct" decisions are mathematically incorrect. Imagine a 4th and 3 on the 50 yard line. If you ask a reasonably informed football fan whether to punt or go for it, the vast majority (and the vast majority of coaches) would punt. But that appears to be the mathematically incorrect decision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upshot/4th-down-when-to-go-for-it-and-why.html?abt=0002&abg=0

In fact, plenty of "obvious" punting situations are incorrect. Deciding whether something is the "worst call ever" should be backed up by math, not something as fallible as obviousness. And I find it hard to call a 8% lower chance of winning as the "worst call", even if it happens in the SB.

I'd like this simulation guy to run his simulation on past SBs, and I'm sure you'll find bad calls that dropped chances of winning more than 8%. (Also, unless he makes simulation public, who knows how accurate it is, because we cannot test it.)

I addressed all of your points in the post to which you replied. 8% is a HUGE drop in win probability based on a single run/pass play call. The Deadspin column in the link gets into this a bit too. And by "obvious" I meant that almost everyone disagreed with it immediately- players, media, hard-core fans and casual fan.

I'm not sure why so many Patriots fans are here trying to defend the decision or play down its importance, as if the poor play call somehow lessens their team's achievement. It doesn't at all. Everything that Seattle did wrong in the final seconds- from the decisionmaking to the execution- is all part of the game. A win like the Pats enjoyed in the Super Bowl is just as valid as a 40 point blowout- both teams did good things and bad things through the course of the game, and the final result was that the Pats' effort was better than the Seahawks'.

Just as reference, Welker's dropped pass in the 2nd Patriots-Giants SB (which was not a guaranteed TD, just a guaranteed 1st down) was a 30% drop in win probability. If you think 8% is huge, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/features/2011/nfl_2011/super_bowl/giants_patriots_super_bowl_math_says_if_wes_welker_catches_that_ball_the_patriots_win_.html

Seattle definitely had sub-optimal play calling in the last minute. I just don't think the people who say it was "worst call ever" (or even one of the worst calls ever) have put forth enough math/stat comparisons to other SB blown calls to prove their point.

A dropped pass is not a play call.

You seem to be confusing play calls with plays. Lots of blown plays or other negative play results in massive changes in the chances of winning. The results of this particular play probably dropped the Seahawks' chances of winning by about 80%, not 8%. And I'm sure if you looked long enough you could find one that resulted in close to a 100% drop in win probability.

That is not this. This is a simple decision to pass instead of run that dropped win percentage by 8%. That's a big difference before the ball is even snapped. I think you'd have a difficult time finding a pre-snap decision (run vs pass, FG/punt vs go for it, two point conversion vs extra point, etc.) that altered things more than that.

OK, since you seem to think 8% is huge, can you provide some winning probability comparisons to other SB pre-snap decisions that people generally view as mistakes? If we are having a logical discussion, shouldn't the burden of proof be on the person making the claim?

That's like me saying "XXX is the best QB ever. I'm not supplying any comparison data to other QBs. Go debunk my claim."

 

[BaBastage]

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.

It's been alluded to already in the thread and maybe already responded to, but I'll re-frame it one more way.

Those statistics take into account one play only. So if it's the last play of the game or 4th down, you're right on the money.

Since it wasn't the last play, you need to take into account the success rate of the subsequent plays. A turnover in this situation takes away any additional opportunity to score on the next play.

The strategic order of the play call should have been:

1) Don't turn the ball over; insuring at least one (maybe two) more attempts

2) Score

3) Manage the clock

Seattle got their priorities completely reversed.

 

[espnespn]

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%.

Assuming his simulations are correct, calling a play with a 77% chance of winning cannot be deemed "the worst call in NFL history" (which is the title of this thread). That's just being silly.

Also, saying that the increased chance of losing by 50% is meaningless. If the simulation showed a 99% chance of winning by running and a 98% chance by passing, that means the increased chances of losing is 100% OMG.

Maybe Seattle made a sub-optimal play call, but Russell Wilson's INT rate for 2014 was 1.5%. So the chances of a INT are tiny. Butler just made an amazing defensive play.

Why not? "Worst call in history" takes into account both the stakes and the obviousness of correct decision. It's one thing to make a bad decision that requires a detailed understanding of all the possible consequences. But if your decision is second-guessed by both passionate fans and casual fans even before the results are known, as this one presumably was (my wife and I started talking about it as soon as they came out in shotgun formation, before the snap), that's a different story.

And it's not automatically disqualified because they still had a 77% chance to win. That's a function of the game situation, not the decision. There's a huge difference. Say for example I'm a coach and my team is leading the Super Bowl by 2 points, and then we score a TD with ten seconds left of the clock. An extra point makes it a 9 point game, giving me a 99.9%+ chance of winning. Instead I decide to go for two. I'd still likely have something close to a 99% chance of winning, since a loss would require the other team to score a TD in 10 seconds (let's be generous and call that 2%), convert the two point conversion (44%), and then win in OT (50%).

Does the fact that it's still almost impossible for me to lose make it a defensible decision? Or does obviousness of the decision + the stakes make it fair to call it the worst call in history? I think it's pretty clearly the latter.

According to the simulation, the "obviously correct" decision is only an 8% increase in chance of winning. So it is not as obvious as you say. Also, plenty of "obviously correct" decisions are mathematically incorrect. Imagine a 4th and 3 on the 50 yard line. If you ask a reasonably informed football fan whether to punt or go for it, the vast majority (and the vast majority of coaches) would punt. But that appears to be the mathematically incorrect decision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upshot/4th-down-when-to-go-for-it-and-why.html?abt=0002&abg=0

In fact, plenty of "obvious" punting situations are incorrect. Deciding whether something is the "worst call ever" should be backed up by math, not something as fallible as obviousness. And I find it hard to call a 8% lower chance of winning as the "worst call", even if it happens in the SB.

I'd like this simulation guy to run his simulation on past SBs, and I'm sure you'll find bad calls that dropped chances of winning more than 8%. (Also, unless he makes simulation public, who knows how accurate it is, because we cannot test it.)

I addressed all of your points in the post to which you replied. 8% is a HUGE drop in win probability based on a single run/pass play call. The Deadspin column in the link gets into this a bit too. And by "obvious" I meant that almost everyone disagreed with it immediately- players, media, hard-core fans and casual fan.

I'm not sure why so many Patriots fans are here trying to defend the decision or play down its importance, as if the poor play call somehow lessens their team's achievement. It doesn't at all. Everything that Seattle did wrong in the final seconds- from the decisionmaking to the execution- is all part of the game. A win like the Pats enjoyed in the Super Bowl is just as valid as a 40 point blowout- both teams did good things and bad things through the course of the game, and the final result was that the Pats' effort was better than the Seahawks'.

Just as reference, Welker's dropped pass in the 2nd Patriots-Giants SB (which was not a guaranteed TD, just a guaranteed 1st down) was a 30% drop in win probability. If you think 8% is huge, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/features/2011/nfl_2011/super_bowl/giants_patriots_super_bowl_math_says_if_wes_welker_catches_that_ball_the_patriots_win_.html

Seattle definitely had sub-optimal play calling in the last minute. I just don't think the people who say it was "worst call ever" (or even one of the worst calls ever) have put forth enough math/stat comparisons to other SB blown calls to prove their point.

A dropped pass is not a play call.

You seem to be confusing play calls with plays. Lots of blown plays or other negative play results in massive changes in the chances of winning. The results of this particular play probably dropped the Seahawks' chances of winning by about 80%, not 8%. And I'm sure if you looked long enough you could find one that resulted in close to a 100% drop in win probability.

That is not this. This is a simple decision to pass instead of run that dropped win percentage by 8%. That's a big difference before the ball is even snapped. I think you'd have a difficult time finding a pre-snap decision (run vs pass, FG/punt vs go for it, two point conversion vs extra point, etc.) that altered things more than that.

OK, since you seem to think 8% is huge, can you provide some winning probability comparisons to other SB pre-snap decisions that people generally view as mistakes? If we are having a logical discussion, shouldn't the burden of proof be on the person making the claim?

That's like me saying "XXX is the best QB ever. I'm not supplying any comparison data to other QBs. Go debunk my claim."

P.S. Quick googling shows win percentage increase 8% for a simple go-for-it vs. punt decision. I'm sure there are many others out there that exceed 8%.

http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/11/28/fourth-downs/post.html

 

[TobiasFunke]

A dropped pass is not a play call.

You seem to be confusing play calls with plays. Lots of blown plays or other negative play results in massive changes in the chances of winning. The results of this particular play probably dropped the Seahawks' chances of winning by about 80%, not 8%. And I'm sure if you looked long enough you could find one that resulted in close to a 100% drop in win probability.

That is not this. This is a simple decision to pass instead of run that dropped win percentage by 8%. That's a big difference before the ball is even snapped. I think you'd have a difficult time finding a pre-snap decision (run vs pass, FG/punt vs go for it, two point conversion vs extra point, etc.) that altered things more than that.

OK, since you seem to think 8% is huge, can you provide some winning probability comparisons to other SB pre-snap decisions that people generally view as mistakes? If we are having a logical discussion, shouldn't the burden of proof be on the person making the claim?

That's like me saying "XXX is the best QB ever. I'm not supplying any comparison data to other QBs. Go debunk my claim."

There's no burden of proof here. It's not a court of law, my position is as valid as yours.

It's possible that someone made a worse pre-snap call at a key point in the Super Bowl, although I definitely don't remember it. Plus the question is subjective by its nature, obviously many coaches have done many things that were far stupider in the entire history of professional football coaching decisions- I remember for example Joe Gibbs calling consecutive timeouts and incurring a 15 yard penalty as a result that turned a tough game-winning FG into a relatively easy one. So whether this is the "worst" depends how how heavily you weigh the fact that this came with 30 seconds left in a closely decided Super Bowl.

If you want to see what kinds of decisions make that kind of difference in win probability, here's a good one from this year's playoffs: Detroit's decision to punt to Dallas on 4th and 1 on the Dallas 46 after the controversial PI flag was picked up. The decision was panned almost universally. It only cost Detroit about 1.6% off their win probability. Note also that the pickup of the PI flag resulted in a 6% reduction in Detroit's win probability. In other words, Carroll's play call was a worse coaching decision as far as impact on the team's chance to win than if the PI had been called and the Lions had decided to decline it.

Those numbers only use league averages rather than accounting for personnel of course, but you get the general idea.

 

[cstu]

I was pretty happy to see them throw instead of run, but if you think some dude can't be stuffed cuz he's got a nickname you're bs'ing yourself

he already got stoned twice in that game

He gained yardage on 22 of 24 carries in the game.

 

[cstu]

Maybe Seattle made a sub-optimal play call, but Russell Wilson's INT rate for 2014 was 1.5%. So the chances of a INT are tiny. Butler just made an amazing defensive play.

His INT rate in the playoffs at the point was 5.6%.

Small sample size proves nothing. His INT rate for the first 59 minutes of the SB was 0.0%. See how that works?

Unless you seriously think his career INT rate will be closer to 5.6% than his current career INT rate of 2.1%, then your 5.6% number is pointless.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WilsRu00.htm

All I'm saying is that Wilson's INT rate at the 1 is higher than Lynch's fumble rate at the 1.

 

[12punch]

I was pretty happy to see them throw instead of run, but if you think some dude can't be stuffed cuz he's got a nickname you're bs'ing yourself

he already got stoned twice in that game

He gained yardage on 22 of 24 carries in the game.

and how many of those carries came in similar situations with similar personnel?

so, I guess if he gets 3 yds on a 3rd and 15 that would've been a td from goal to go one the 1.

ok

shark pool be sharkin'

 

[TobiasFunke]

OK, now it's definitely the worst play call in NFL history- because it killed a guy.

 

[ILUVBEER99]

1. They would not have been forced to use their last timeout, because you can run the ball three times with :26 seconds and one timeout available rather easily. Chase has explained this a couple times on his twitter feed. Also, Belichick has said he would have called TO there if they got a stop on second down.
2. If that data is correct about their goal line efficiency, part of the reason is because of stupid decisions to throw the ball like this one. The question isn't simply % chance of success in a single effort, but % chance in three efforts, and that number is exceptionally high unless you do something negative like get tackled several yards behind the line of scrimmage, take a penalty, or turn it over ... all of which are more likely when you call a pass play.

If they run the ball there and don't make it there are less than 30 secs left and I am pretty sure they would have called a timeout and called 2 plays (thought Caroll said as much but not sure). Yes, BB did say something to that effect, but imo I am not so sure he would have at that point. Less than 30 secs clock running down if u call timeout you allow sea to run or pass on their final 2 plays, if u make them use their TO then I think sea is forced to pass on at least 1 of their remaining downs.

I can't argue and say that running the ball wasn't the best choice, but I don't think it wasn't a given that Lynch would score and if he didn't it couldn't have gotten pretty hairy. I freely admit that if I were a sea fan I would agree with the majority who feel they should have run it and are pissed they didn't.

We discussed this a bit earlier, but they snapped the 2nd down play with ~26 seconds left. If that had been a running play, Seattle would have called a TO with ~20 seconds left. Say the 3rd down rushing attempt used another 6 seconds- that would've given them ~13 seconds to get off a 4th running play.

I think people arguing that they had to pass on one of the downs are wrong. Not only was it possible to run 3 more times, but extremely likely that they could have IMO (and this was using conservative estimates for play times, ignoring that Seattle let the play clock run almost all the way down on 2nd down, and assuming NE doesn't use a TO at all).

They 100% had time to run 3 plays with the timeout they had. I don't get how or why people started claiming they had to throw one of those 3 plays.

The most amusing argument is people saying NE players would have just laid on Lynch and not let him get up to run out time. There is no way the refs would allow that on the last play of the SB.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Interesting.

This thread has gone over in painstaking detail the call that everyone is complaining about from the SB.

Marshawn has been diplomatic about the call but he wasn't in the past.

Last year when Marshawn Lynch didn't like one of Bevel's calls on the one yard line against Arizona he turned to the bench and flipped him off.

(photographic evidence of this at the link).

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B83NhgjCYAAzQBc.jpg:large

-----

Mike Jurecki @mikejurecki · Feb 2

Last year Cards vs. Seahawks 3 & goal from the half yard line. Lynch didn't like the call, gave the finger to Bevell.
-----

What do you think the story would have been if Marshawn did the same thing in the Super Bowl?

 

[PatsWillWin]

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.

 

[rockaction]

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%.

I thought the most important part of that article was the writer's observations about the problems with counter-narrative reflexivity, complexity for its own sake, and the potential problem with applying statistics and game theory to the otherwise obvious and human.

 

[General Tso]

Interesting.

This thread has gone over in painstaking detail the call that everyone is complaining about from the SB.

Marshawn has been diplomatic about the call but he wasn't in the past.

Last year when Marshawn Lynch didn't like one of Bevel's calls on the one yard line against Arizona he turned to the bench and flipped him off.

(photographic evidence of this at the link).

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B83NhgjCYAAzQBc.jpg:large

-----

Mike Jurecki @mikejurecki · Feb 2

Last year Cards vs. Seahawks 3 & goal from the half yard line. Lynch didn't like the call, gave the finger to Bevell.

-----

What do you think the story would have been if Marshawn did the same thing in the Super Bowl?

The media would have figured out a way to blame the Patriots.

 

[Old Smiley]

Pete Carroll:"We went to three receivers, they sent in their goal-line people. We had plenty of downs and timeouts. We really didn't want to run against their goal-line group right there."

I just don't see what's wrong with that thinking.

 

[humpback]

Pete Carroll:"We went to three receivers, they sent in their goal-line people. We had plenty of downs and timeouts. We really didn't want to run against their goal-line group right there."

I just don't see what's wrong with that thinking.

Seriously?

 

[cstu]

I was pretty happy to see them throw instead of run, but if you think some dude can't be stuffed cuz he's got a nickname you're bs'ing yourself

he already got stoned twice in that game

He gained yardage on 22 of 24 carries in the game.

and how many of those carries came in similar situations with similar personnel?

so, I guess if he gets 3 yds on a 3rd and 15 that would've been a td from goal to go one the 1.

ok

shark pool be sharkin'

1. 1-10-NE 11 (3:39) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 24-M.Lynch up the middle to NE 6 for 5 yards (91-J.Collins; 50-R.Ninkovich).
2. 2-5-NE 6 (3:02) 24-M.Lynch left tackle to NE 3 for 3 yards (95-Cha.Jones).
3. 3-2-NE 3 (2:22) (Shotgun) 24-M.Lynch right tackle for 3 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

1. 1-10-NE 17 (13:17) 24-M.Lynch left tackle to NE 10 for 7 yards (54-D.Hightower).
2. 3-1-NE 8 (11:51) (Shotgun) 24-M.Lynch left tackle to NE 8 for no gain (50-R.Ninkovich).

1. 2-1-NE 41 (7:26) 24-M.Lynch right end to NE 38 for 3 yards (91-J.Collins).
2. 1-10-NE 18 (6:23) 24-M.Lynch up the middle to NE 4 for 14 yards (50-R.Ninkovich).
3. 1-4-NE 4 (5:39) 24-M.Lynch left tackle to NE 3 for 1 yard (91-J.Collins; 96-S.Siliga).

1-5-NE 5 (1:06) 24-M.Lynch left tackle to NE 1 for 4 yards (54-D.Hightower).