Belichick did not outsmart Carroll, New England had a 12% win expectancy with second and goal from the 1 yard line and 55 or so seconds left. Had Seattle been smart and handed it to Lynch and he scores without timeouts, New England's win expectancy is 5% at 29 seconds. So by not calling timeouts Belichick literally decreased his teams chances of winning by more than half. He made a poor decision not calling the timeouts; thankfully for him Pete Carroll made an even poorer decision not running it and it bailed him out. These stats bear out what an awful decision it was to not run it
Quote:
HSAC @Harvard_Sports · 17 hrs 17 hours ago
The Pats allowed opponents to score 81% of the time in power situations (runs on 3rd/4th & <2, or w/i 2 yds of goalline). Dead last in NFL.
HSAC @Harvard_Sports · 17 hrs 17 hours ago
SEA was second in the league in power situations, getting stuffed just 17% of the time. Lynch converted 17 of 20 3rd/4ths & short this year.
Pete Carroll simply overthought the situation. The good news for him is they won the Super Bowl last year or else he (and Wilson) would be getting roasted even more than they are.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Last edited by Senator Clay Davis; 02-02-2015 at 01:27 PM.
There would have been no way NE did anything but a quarterback sneak in that situation and with Brady's prowess at that play (and only needing to get back to the line of scrimmage) it would have been highly unlikely for Seattle to get it back...but not impossible.
QB sneak has the risk of lossing yardage. I would think Brady spiking the ball 3 times has the least chance of a Seattle Safety. But neither options were straigth forward at the 1/2 yard line.
Belichick did not outsmart Carroll, New England had a 12% win expectancy with second and goal from the 1 yard line and 55 or so seconds left. Had Seattle been smart and handed it to Lynch and he scores without timeouts, New England's win expectancy is 5% at 29 seconds. So by not calling timeouts Belichick literally decreased his teams chances of winning by more than half. He made a poor decision not calling the timeouts; thankfully for him Pete Carroll made an even poorer decision not running it and it bailed him out. These stats bear out what an awful decision it was to not run it
Pete Carroll simply overthought the situation. The good news for him is they won the Super Bowl last year or else he (and Wilson) would be getting roasted even more than they are.
You statements contradict each other though. If you and me and everyone else is expecting Seattle to attempt to jam it in then not using a timeout by new england is absolutely the best idea. with less then 30 seconds and only 1 timeout you're not going to reliably have enough time to get 3 running plays off so New England forced Seattle into throwing either one 2nd or 3rd down if they wanted to guarantee 3 shots at the end zone.
Furthermore, your 12%, 5% argument also lends support to the no timeout was the right call. The majority of the 12% chance new england had to win didn't rest in getting the ball back to Brady with one timeout and less then a minute left, but from keeping Seattle from scoring at all.
Let's be honest here, there wasn't anything wrong with the call, it was the execution that lacked, how many times this year has that play been run vs how many times it's been picked off.
As soon as I saw Lynch peeling off to the one side of the field on that play, I knew that they were going inside opposite field, but they didn't fool anyone, it also helps that there was a incredibly lazy pick on that side of the field that allowed for the pick.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Butler had a great 4th quarter. His great interception will deservedly get all the attention but Ibalso thinknhe deserves credit for playing that insane Kearse catch out as I thought JK could have very easily jumped up and ran it untouched as you see happen all the time these days. Happy for him and thought it was cool that was his first NFL pick
You statements contradict each other though. If you and me and everyone else is expecting Seattle to attempt to jam it in then not using a timeout by new england is absolutely the best idea. with less then 30 seconds and only 1 timeout you're not going to reliably have enough time to get 3 running plays off so New England forced Seattle into throwing either one 2nd or 3rd down if they wanted to guarantee 3 shots at the end zone.
Furthermore, your 12%, 5% argument also lends support to the no timeout was the right call. The majority of the 12% chance new england had to win didn't rest in getting the ball back to Brady with one timeout and less then a minute left, but from keeping Seattle from scoring at all.
Let's be honest here, there wasn't anything wrong with the call, it was the execution that lacked, how many times this year has that play been run vs how many times it's been picked off.
You absolute can reliably run 3 running plays. A running play takes no more than 4 seconds to run. So Snap at 29, timeout at 25 means 3rd down, lets say 5 seconds then, and you have 20 seconds to get a snap off. Any team can get on off in 7 or less and that's with generally 5 or 10 yards to run. This would be simply getting up and getting set. The clock was mismanaged by Seattle, yet they still had time to run 3 plays if they wanted to. This also assumes they stop them every time and from the percentages presented, it's virtually assured Seattle scores in 2 attempts or less. Belichick bungled the clock here. If Lynch ran it in the first time, Belichick's coaching genius takes a hit this morning, but they didn't and here we are. But there was no genius to what Belichick did, he got bailed out by luck.
The 12%/5% argument shows Belichick clearly was wrong. If Seattle plays it correctly (i.e. running the ball), Belichick cost them half their chance to win (down 31-28 either way, but 50 seconds remaining versus 25 seconds). This is how advanced stats work, of course it looks genius when the play worked out (for NE), but that's because Seattle bungled the call. It should never have been anything but 3 straight Lynch runs from the 1, or some read option to get Wilson to the edge maybe.
And yeah, that was 100% wrong with the call. 2nd best short yardage running team against the worst short yardage stoppage team....the matchup can literally only be worse for New England by one other team. Seattle had a gigantic mismatch and chose to throw to a guy with 18 career catches and against one of the best secondary's in football. Seattle got cute, and they got the deserved fate for doing so. It will always be an unforgivably bad call, and a textbook example of outsmarting yourself. To put the obvious reverse spin, if the Pats got inside the 10 and Brady didn't throw a single pass but 4 straight runs instead and failute, the Pats would be considered idiots for not letting their best player decide the game. Seattle decided to not let their best player decide the game. That's what makes it a terrible call, amongst other reasons.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Last edited by Senator Clay Davis; 02-02-2015 at 04:02 PM.
The more I think about the call, the more I don't hate it. I get Pete's explanation, I get why they did it, Kearse missed the block (on a great play from Browner) and Butler made an amazing play to not only break up the pass but hold on for the pick.
Seahawks play with balls and sometimes it bites you, the Pats came up huge on that play and they deserved the win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by corporatejay
Look how open the middle of the field is. Man on Man coverage with a rookie corner, no safety help. This article by Barnwell is fantastic.
24h later, I'm not coming down from the ledge. Bevell (not Carroll) made the wrong, SB losing call. Full stop.
Firstly, the timeout wasted, (that caused all of this back and forth decision making to not waste time by running on that play in the first place), that was the disaster, as I said in an earlier post, was the one not after the Kearse circus catch, it was a few plays earlier, on the play right after the two minute warning, after a first down incomplete pass. Inexplicably, they didn't get the next snap off and had to waste one. I was fuming.
Then, once you get a half yard from the goal line, all rules change.
Even if you want to make the pass (I don't think Seattle ever threw the ball when on the goal line the last couple years at very least.), it shouldn't be into the high traffic area, where all sorts of things can happen with 4+ guys around the ball and you're throwing to an area like Wilson did.
If they stack the receivers (like they did last night often, including the late 2Q TD; not often they showed that look all season), with that coverage that far off (almost 10 yards at the snap between Lockette and his guy), the call should've been Lockette to take two steps back and and turn to Wilson who fires an almost lateral. Then its a 4-5 yard sprint for Lockette to beat his man to the goal line/ or wider to the pylon, one on one, with Kearse locked up with his man squarely providing blocking.
It's that, or throw a back corner route and throw it high; if the receiver can't get it, ball is out of bounds.
As it was, Wilson's throw was off by a yard or so to the middle of the field, and Kearse missed the rub because of the angle Lockette had to come in at...Wilson could've put it on Lockette earlier...but again, things are so tight, in that area and everything needing to be so precise, that there shouldn't have been that risk taken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darklord700
The other point that no one has mentioned was the crucial Seattle offside call when NE got the ball back. NE at their half yard line pretty much can only throw it 4 times because they can't risk Seattle scoring a safety.
It was very probable that Seattle will get the ball back with precious seconds left.
Yeah, though I was still enraged, and was barely coherent still, that would've been interesting. Brady would've had to push forward, and all it would've done is wasted the time out, and would've had to try it again. If Seattle had two or three timeouts as they should've, would've been very interesting.
Brady may not have gotten out, and had to kick the ball back to Seattle. Even if Brady would've gotten barely out, SEA calls the last timeout, then maybe the next snap run around the endzone and then given up the safety, there'd be about 12-14 seconds left. A free kick, and assuming it was decent, would've given Seattle the ball about midfield, and about one play, maybe, to setup a long FG to win. Or, if a poor kick, call a fair catch on the free kick and try an extra long Hauschka FG to win by 1. No time would come off the clock in that case
Anyways, there were all sorts of turning points, as there are in games that swing in the score like that...but again, when you're half a yard from a win, with a timeout, all that is out the window.
Throw all the stats out you want about probabilities too, the key one is that Lynch didn't get less than 2 yards on any carry all game, maybe two games, and he needed 1/4 of that to win the SB.
You absolute can reliably run 3 running plays. A running play takes no more than 4 seconds to run. So Snap at 29, timeout at 25 means 3rd down, lets say 5 seconds then, and you have 20 seconds to get a snap off. Any team can get on off in 7 or less and that's with generally 5 or 10 yards to run. This would be simply getting up and getting set. The clock was mismanaged by Seattle, yet they still had time to run 3 plays if they wanted to. This also assumes they stop them every time and from the percentages presented, it's virtually assured Seattle scores in 2 attempts or less. Belichick bungled the clock here. If Lynch ran it in the first time, Belichick's coaching genius takes a hit this morning, but they didn't and here we are. But there was no genius to what Belichick did, he got bailed out by luck.
The 12%/5% argument shows Belichick clearly was wrong. If Seattle plays it correctly (i.e. running the ball), Belichick cost them half their chance to win (down 31-28 either way, but 50 seconds remaining versus 25 seconds). This is how advanced stats work, of course it looks genius when the play worked out (for NE), but that's because Seattle bungled the call. It should never have been anything but 3 straight Lynch runs from the 1, or some read option to get Wilson to the edge maybe.
And yeah, that was 100% wrong with the call. 2nd best short yardage running team against the worst short yardage stoppage team....the matchup can literally only be worse for New England by one other team. Seattle had a gigantic mismatch and chose to throw to a guy with 18 career catches and against one of the best secondary's in football. Seattle got cute, and they got the deserved fate for doing so. It will always be an unforgivably bad call, and a textbook example of outsmarting yourself. To put the obvious reverse spin, if the Pats got inside the 10 and Brady didn't throw a single pass but 4 straight runs instead and failute, the Pats would be considered idiots for not letting their best player decide the game. Seattle decided to not let their best player decide the game. That's what makes it a terrible call, amongst other reasons.
You are forgetting one thing. The Patriots would cheat. No way you could run 3 running plays.
I think Patriots defense would not unpile and milk 5-6 seconds after 3rd down before the officials called it so now you're down to ten seconds or so for 4th down. Then you're in trouble if you get a false start or something, too. Minus 10 seconds game over. Too much risk involved to try to be that aggressive.
NFL teams cannot call plays on their own and will panic especially on 4th down
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
The Following User Says Thank You to GirlySports For This Useful Post:
After watching the entire thing over again, its amazing how many things contributed to the Patriots win after the catch by Kearse- the tap on Kearse to put him down by contact, the inability of the Seahawks to get to the line and having to take a timeout, Dont'a Hightower stopping Lynch on the 1/2 yd line, the interception, and finally the encroachment call on Bennett to give the Pats room for a victory formation. Wow.
After watching the entire thing over again, its amazing how many things contributed to the Patriots win after the catch by Kearse- the tap on Kearse to put him down by contact, the inability of the Seahawks to get to the line and having to take a timeout, Dont'a Hightower stopping Lynch on the 1/2 yd line, the interception, and finally the encroachment call on Bennett to give the Pats room for a victory formation. Wow.
Too many things went right for the Patriots. 24 hours later I still can't believe we won.
Went through the play by play text on the NFL Game tracker site last night, and saw nothing less than 2 yards. Maybe I missed one last night.
Looked at it again just now, and there is one run where he got no gain, and then another where he got one yard. His other 22 carries were 2 yards or more. That said, they also downgraded his yardage from 105 as it was last night after the game, to 102, so, who knows which run where those 3 yards got moved from...carry on.
The Following User Says Thank You to browna For This Useful Post:
