Super Bowl XLIX (including 2014-15 playoffs)

[SoCalPat]

Playing to be a genius turns out to not be as good as playing to win. Hand it off to Lynch a few times. That's as close to 100% certainty as can be achieved in sports. I think everyone knows that was a truly horrible call.

But beyond the bad call, Seattle had a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter. They didn't choke as badly as Green Bay did two weeks ago, but there is at least some level of choke here.

This year, Seattle was 1 for 5 in goal-to-go from the 1 and giving Lynch the ball.

This is classic results-based thinking, which of course, I don't subscribe to. You're Seattle, you have 2nd and goal from the 1, 19 seconds left and 1 timeout. You're absolutely going to throw at least one time here, because your chances of scoring increase significantly if you get to run three plays from the 1 instead of two. And Lynch getting stuffed for a 3-yard loss will happen far more often than the INT. People blasting this call just aren't that smart -- Lynch scoring is nowhere guaranteed, history says it's nowhere close to a guarantee, and it's nowhere close to being as unforgivable as Belichik's decision to drain the clock instead of playing out the worst-case scenario of leaving yourself time in case Seattle scored.

[concerned]

This year, Seattle was 1 for 5 in goal-to-go from the 1 and giving Lynch the ball.

This is classic results-based thinking, which of course, I don't subscribe to. You're Seattle, you have 2nd and goal from the 1, 19 seconds left and 1 timeout. You're absolutely going to throw at least one time here, because your chances of scoring increase significantly if you get to run three plays from the 1 instead of two. And Lynch getting stuffed for a 3-yard loss will happen far more often than the INT. People blasting this call just aren't that smart -- Lynch scoring is nowhere guaranteed, history says it's nowhere close to a guarantee, and it's nowhere close to being as unforgivable as Belichik's decision to drain the clock instead of playing out the worst-case scenario of leaving yourself time in case Seattle scored.

i read a couple of comments that Belechick did not call the time out because he did not want to give Seattle the opportunity to regroup and change its personnel. I guess he thought draining the clock presented a better chance of success than getting the ball back with about 40 seconds and one time out. Turns out he made the right call; it certainly wasn't unforgivable.

[justaute]

Here is an interesting, data-drive analysis of that last play-call.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...-pete-carroll/

[mUUser]

This year, Seattle was 1 for 5 in goal-to-go from the 1 and giving Lynch the ball.

This is classic results-based thinking, which of course, I don't subscribe to. You're Seattle, you have 2nd and goal from the 1, 19 seconds left and 1 timeout. You're absolutely going to throw at least one time here, because your chances of scoring increase significantly if you get to run three plays from the 1 instead of two. And Lynch getting stuffed for a 3-yard loss will happen far more often than the INT. People blasting this call just aren't that smart -- Lynch scoring is nowhere guaranteed, history says it's nowhere close to a guarantee, and it's nowhere close to being as unforgivable as Belichik's decision to drain the clock instead of playing out the worst-case scenario of leaving yourself time in case Seattle scored.

24 carries. 22 of those carries wins the game. The other 2 for no gain. Lynch didn't have a negative play all day. This was a no brainer, particularly with a timeout remaining -- put the ball in Lynch's hands.

[LA Ute]

24 carries. 22 of those carries wins the game. The other 2 for no gain. Lynch didn't have a negative play all day. This was a no brainer, particularly with a timeout remaining -- put the ball in Lynch's hands.

I'll just play devil's advocate. Those other running plays were not on the 1-yard line. In that situation Seattle made the TD only 1 out of 5 times during the entire season.

[SoCalPat]

24 carries. 22 of those carries wins the game. The other 2 for no gain. Lynch didn't have a negative play all day. This was a no brainer, particularly with a timeout remaining -- put the ball in Lynch's hands.

Against NE, 5 times Seattle ran Lynch on short yardage (2 yards or fewer). One TD, one first down, three carries went for no gain. Anyone saying absolutely that you run Lynch, it's a no-brainer, etc. in that situation isn't very smart or has a bad memory.

2nd and goal, 1 timeout and 19 seconds left, you've got the whole playbook open there. Also, per the 538 link above, that was the first INT thrown from the 1 this year, vs. 66 TDs.

[NorthwestUteFan]

The Patriots had 8 men in the box. They would have stuffed Lynch.

In college, 7 times out of 10 that quick slant is a TD with 2 drops and one INT. In the NFL that number shifts, but it is still more likely that a rookie who has played ~140 snaps in the NFL will get caught following his receiver on that play and Seattle wins the game. The numbers were on Pete Carroll's side, and he was smart to give his team 3 chances to win instead of 2-ish.

But the truth is Butler made a perfect play. And he completely redeemed himself after Kearse made the spectacular juggling catch after he tipped it. Butler was an undrafted rookie out of a D-2 school. That he was the hero of the Super Bowl has the makings of a Hallmark After School Special.

[LA Ute]

The Patriots had 8 men in the box. They would have stuffed Lynch.

In college, 7 times out of 10 that quick slant is a TD with 2 drops and one INT. In the NFL that number shifts, but it is still more likely that a rookie who has played ~140 snaps in the NFL will get caught following his receiver on that play and Seattle wins the game. The numbers were on Pete Carroll's side, and he was smart to give his team 3 chances to win instead of 2-ish.

But the truth is Butler made a perfect play. And he completely redeemed himself after Kearse made the spectacular juggling catch after he tipped it. Butler was an undrafted rookie out of a D-2 school. That he was the hero of the Super Bowl has the makings of a Hallmark After School Special.

If you watch the replay a few times you can see that Butler read the pick play perfectly and was right where he needed to be (even knocking the Seahawk receiver off the ball) to make that interception. Pete Carroll's not my favorite guy at all but I don't blame him or Revell for making that call.

[concerned]

I thought the Seahawks might run the read option form the 1, with Lynch diving into the line. That play where Wilson kept it was deadly against the Packers near the goal line. But I think the pats were specifically watching for it, because they kept a player spying on the outside on the pass play.

[concerned]

If you wath the replay a few times you can see that Butlet read the pick play perfectly and was right where he needed to be (even knocking the Seahawk receiver off the ball) to make that interception. Pete Carroll's not my favorite guy at all but I don't blame him or Revell for making that call.

This graphic emphasizes your very point--that it looked clear to Wilson. He just should have thrown it lower and led the receiver more.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ef=sports&_r=0

[LA Ute]

I really don't understand this "that call wasn't so bad" movement. What is driving it? Who did not watch that and immediately know it was a bad call? It was an absolute gift to people like me who were pulling for the Pats.

Look at the graphic concerned linked to.

BTW, have you checked your PMs yet?

[mUUser]

If you watch the replay a few times you can see that Butler read the pick play perfectly and was right where he needed to be (even knocking the Seahawk receiver off the ball) to make that interception. Pete Carroll's not my favorite guy at all but I don't blame him or Revell for making that call.

Both Butler and Browner have said that they knew that play was coming based on the 3 receiver inside stack. The Seahawks had run the play before, and the Pats had practiced defending the play many times prior to the game.

When the game's on the line, you put the ball in your playmakers hands.

[LA Ute]

Sancho and muuser, will you at least concede that Butler made a great play?

[mUUser]

Sancho and muuser, will you at least concede that Butler made a great play?

Indeed.

And how about Matthews? Prior to this game he had more tackles than receptions in his NFL career!!

[NorthwestUteFan]

Indeed.

And how about Matthews? Prior to this game he had more tackles than receptions in his NFL career!!

That is a great story too. He was stocking shelves at a grocery store at one point (or equally low-skilled, low-paying, but honest, job).

One thing I love about both of the teams is the distinct lack of 'blue chippers' in their starting lineups. Neither team's starting lineup had a 5 Star HS athlete, and there were very few First Round draft picks.

[Diehard Ute]

Indeed.

And how about Matthews? Prior to this game he had more tackles than receptions in his NFL career!!

And his sister is a Ute

[LA Ute]

That is a great story too. He was stocking shelves at a grocery store at one point (or equally low-skilled, low-paying, but honest, job).

One thing I love about both of the teams is the distinct lack of 'blue chippers' in their starting lineups. Neither team's starting lineup had a 5 Star HS athlete, and there were very few First Round draft picks.

Someone said a day or two ago that Belicheck (so?) may end up being the Hall of Fame coach with the most success with the fewest Hall of Fame players ever. I'm not a fan, but that's impressive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

Cranky Bill is making a solid case for greatest football coach of all time.

And for the record, and despite your hatred for him, I am extremely impressed with Pete Carroll. He is always Mr Positive
He also has a knack for getting the very most he possibly can out of his players.

[LA Ute]

Cranky Bill is making a solid case for greatest football coach of all time.

And for the record, and despite your hatred for him, I am extremely impressed with Pete Carroll. He is always Mr Positive
He also has a knack for getting the very most he possibly can out of his players.

I think it was Seattle Ute who started this idea that I hate Carroll. I don't hate anyone, to begin with, and I don't hate Carroll; I just dislike the way he coaches.

[jrj84105]

Awesome play. How cool for a rookie from nowhere st. to make that play! His emotion on the sideline was really great to watch too. Living a dream!

I thought he was going to pass out on the sideline. He definitely had the look of fading out for a moment.

[SoCalPat]

If you are dead set on running 3 plays, the order has to be run-TO-pass-run. That might increase your odds over run-TO-run (maybe not though, interceptions occur on 2-3% of pass attempts in the NFL).

Nope. The entire playbook is open on second down because the result of an unsuccessful pass play is going to be a clock-stopping incompletion over 95 percent of the time. And there's no "might" about it -- your odds to score are better running three plays than they are two.

[NorthwestUteFan]

You are still missing some info. Per Pete Carroll, the Pats had 8 big guys in the box with three corners. He recognized that Marshawn Lynch is not going to find positive yardage attempting to carry upward of 3000# of angry athletes, so he wanted to try a quick pass away from the teeth of the defense.

Marshawn's positive gains in the game did not come from situations where he was facing a goal line defense, so there was a very good chance that the play would have lost yardage.

If the pass was a few inches to the right (to the receiver's back shoulder), the Seahawks win the game. And if Brady takes a sack in the first quarter rather than throwing a pick in the end zone, then we aren't even having the conversation because the Pats are up by at least 7 or even 10 points when the Seahawks got the ball back with 2 min left in the game.

[NorthwestUteFan]

It is a numbers game. Typically in a game situation you can use your 5 O linemen plus the TE to apply pressure and blow a hole through the 4 D linemen, and seal an LB. This works because the Defense is required to cover more than just the first yard or two from the LOS. If you are 1st and 10 from your own 20 and the D lines up in Goal Line defense, you simply toss the ball over the D for a huge gain and likely a TD. If you attempt to run up the middle or off tackle against a Goal Line D (where _every gap_ is covered, 8 men on the line) you wont have a lot of success.

The Patriots goal line defense gave them a numbers advantage in the tackle box as they had every man covered and every gap filled. The numbers say you will lose that battle on that play, and will burn a lot of clock and one timeout. That is why Carroll wanted a pass play right there.

Also the Pats were in a position where they could gamble a bit and an Offsides penalty wouldn't necessarily cost them the game. They were going to have several players in the backfield at the point of contact.

You run a play based on the defense you face for that sitiation, and not for whatever worked on a running play from the 2nd quarter with a different down and distance (and thus a completely different defensive scheme).

[NorthwestUteFan]

That said, Russell Wilson should have thrown the ball out of the end zone rather than force it into traffic...

[NorthwestUteFan]

Here is Russell Wilson today doing what he does every Tuesday, visiting sick children at Seattle Children's Hospital. He is a great example.