A defense of why Seattle passed on 2nd and goal instead of running The Beast, Marshawn Lynch

runningart2004 wrote:

Beast Mode had not been stopped for a loss the entire game....statistically speaking he was due for a loss.

Alan

You know that's not how stats work, right?

If you flip a coin twice and get heads both times are you now more likely to get tails on the third try?

I'm sure your comment was tongue-in-cheek.

runningart2004 wrote:

Patriots NOT calling timeout after first down run was pure genius. 1st down run to the 1yd line had 1:06 left. Had they called TO then it was easily 3 more tries with Beast Mode.

When you consider everything going on in that stadium during the final minutes of the game, Belichick's calculated decision to not call time greatly influenced Carroll's second down call. Brilliant coaching by BB. This was one of the most entertaining SBs I have ever watched. And one of the most thrilling endings since the Titans fell a yard short in 2000.

runningart2004 wrote:

Statistics I read this morning....

Beast Mode heading into SB was 1-5 from the 1yd line this season. 1 for 5.

Teams passed from the 1yd line 62% of the time this season.

Beast Mode had not been stopped for a loss the entire game....statistically speaking he was due for a loss.

Patriots NOT calling timeout after first down run was pure genius. 1st down run to the 1yd line had 1:06 left. Had they called TO then it was easily 3 more tries with Beast Mode. Instead they let the clock run and Seahawks had to very likely change their initial plan. Now the 2nd down pass was executed poorly because they got backed into calling it.

When the heck is Brady going to retire anyway?

Alan

Really?

Statistically speaking there is no such thing as "due". See Gambler's Fallacy.

Nope. runningart is correct. Carroll knew there was no penalty in letting Lynch rest for another attempt on 3rd down if the pass didn't work. Hightower and Akeem Ayers had just stopped Lynch on 1st down so why not wait one play?

Carroll knows the stats and his players. Also, it took a huge play by Butler to save the game for the Pats- Carroll (and Wilson) very nearly pulled it off.

runningart2004 wrote:

statistically speaking he was due for a loss.

Alan

That just shows your knowledge of statistics.

You completely contradict yourself. First you make several points stating why not running Lynch was probably a decent idea, and passing was a better idea (poor success from 1 yd line this season for Lynch, high success rate for teams passing from 1 yd line, Lynch being "due for a loss")

runningart2004 wrote:

Beast Mode heading into SB was 1-5 from the 1yd line this season. 1 for 5.

Teams passed from the 1yd line 62% of the time this season.

Beast Mode had not been stopped for a loss the entire game....statistically speaking he was due for a loss.

But then you go on to say: BB was "genius" for not calling TO because it forced Seattle to pass, which (you seem to now imply) was a worse option than having 3 tries for Beast Mode -

runningart2004 wrote: Patriots NOT calling timeout after first down run was pure genius. 1st down run to the 1yd line had 1:06 left. Had they called TO then it was easily 3 more tries with Beast Mode. Instead they let the clock run and Seahawks had to very likely change their initial plan. Now the 2nd down pass was executed poorly because they got backed into calling it.

Which was it? If passing was the better choice for seattle because of the reasons you initially give, then it was "not pure genius" to for BB not to call TO and ....force them to pass.

Right?

Yes. Seattle wanted to counter by running 30+ seconds off the clock before second down so Brady would have no time left. But they over thought and left THEMSELVES no time. Basically, their fear of Brady lead them to paint themselves into a corner offensively and led to the bad play call that cost them the game. If they have a minute left, they can do whatever they want offensively. With 26 seconds left, they're limited. Still, the Patriots played terrible short yardage defense all year. I believe they gave up the yardage even with their short yardage package 80% of the time. Overcoaching by Seattle.

if you give 100 people a multiple choice test of the following:

1+1 = ?

a) 2

I guarantee you that 97 people will get this right. 1 person will not understand the question. 1 person will not answer the questions. 1 person will over think the question and write out an answer rather than just answer a)2.

Last night the Seahawks over thought the question. As simple as that.

Anyone can come up with all kinds of stat and rationale, but the reality is the Seahawks made the wrong call in that situation based on the result.

Game over in all respects.

Some of Rojo's previous NFL analysis.

I'm super happy Seattle lost. Superbowl happy. 6x superbowl happy.

I love that Marshan Lynch can now not worry about interviews, since no-one cares about a losing team.

And, I'm really happy that in this free agent era, that several Seattle players are scheduled to jump ship for more money, which then = a mediocre team.

Which means....flash in the pan. That's all they are.

Steelerfan wrote:

I'm super happy Seattle lost. Superbowl happy. 6x superbowl happy.

I love that Marshan Lynch can now not worry about interviews, since no-one cares about a losing team.

And, I'm really happy that in this free agent era, that several Seattle players are scheduled to jump ship for more money, which then = a mediocre team.

Which means....flash in the pan. That's all they are.

Plus, head coach Pete Carroll is on suicide watch. Could go either way.

In the aggregate, the Seahawks came within inches of beating one of, if not THE best coach-QB combos in NFL history. No shame in that. Huge props to NE for two TDs in the fourth. No other team could do that against us.

Hopefully they can regroup and maintain the fire they displayed so well the past two seasons.

12th Man wrote:

In the aggregate, the Seahawks came within inches of beating one of, if not THE best coach-QB combos in NFL history. No shame in that. Huge props to NE for two TDs in the fourth. No other team could do that against us.

Hopefully they can regroup and maintain the fire they displayed so well the past two seasons.

Brady/Belichick

- 0-2 vs NY Giants in the Super Bowl

- 4-0 vs rest of NFC in the Super Bowl

nescac alum wrote:

rojo wrote:

I watch a lot of football and giving my poker playing background consider myself an EXPERT on clock management.

Can someone explain to me how having a poker playing background makes someone an expert at clock management?

Gotta know when to get home to the wife when out playing poker with the boys.

Seattle does run from this formation some times,the Pistol.

Typical runner or sockpuppet wrote:

Let me try and do a better job explaining.

* It's 2nd down. There are 26 seconds left in the game and 1 timeout remaining.

* If you run and get stopped then you have to burn your last timeout, leaving perhaps 20 seconds left.

* At that point you have to pass on third down. That way you can stop the clock and leave enough time for a play on fourth down.

* No matter how you slice it, you have to pass on either 2nd or 3rd down.

* But if you run on 2nd and pass on 3rd, then you're going against the prepared defense. The Pats had man coverage on 2nd down and they'd know the Seahawks are passing on 3rd.

* So you're best bet is to pass when you've got the man coverage on 2nd down.

* Carroll was right

Exactly this with one addition, play action instead of slant. NE biggest fear right there is not what to do if it's a run or a pass, but what to do if Wilson simply rolls out. BB not calling time out was pure genius and not one of those expert commentators mentioned that either. For them to call it a bonehead play is them just using hindsight and making themselves look like they could have done it better.

QB sneak would also have worked. Take Lynch out of the backfield so maybe NE thinks pass and throw Wilson's butt over the middle.

Hindsight is 20/20. Had the WR been two inches faster he would have caught the ball and the pass would have been a genius move for SEA.

Play execution is up to the players. Butler had the play of his life.

With Matthews playing like he was all night a high pass to the end of the end zone would have been safe...too high to get int, let Matthews go get it like he did all night.

Alan

It wasn't all about the play call, it was about execution along with few other things.

It was a pick and slant play, so the execution of the WR not catching the pass is most important.

1) Kearse was supposed to push Browner off the line into Malcom Butler, and then Lockett would come behind and Butler wouldn't be able to get there.

2) Seattle used this play to beat New England 24-23 last time they played so Belichik new it and forced Butler and Browner to practice it this week(as told by Butler)

3) They read it, Browner moved up the line of scrimmage once they saw the formation and knew this play was coming and jammed Kearse so he couldn't get the pick on Butler.

4) Butler knew the play from practice and knew he had to beat the WR to the spot. He did, Wilson threw it out front despite the lack of a pick by Kearse, and Lockett made a weak play for the ball. Game over.

It can be argued that they should have run the ball. However, there had been 109 passes from the 1 yard line so far in the season, and not one single interception. Seattle just executed poorly because they have sub par receivers and a QB who isn't great in the pocket yet. Not to mention Belichick had his defense ready for this exact play.

You can't argue for a fade. Mathews is the only big guy they have, and he didn't even have a catch all year before this game. It would have been him lined up against Revis or Browner. Not good for seattle.

Dial it up wrote:

It can be argued that they should have run the ball. However, there had been 109 passes from the 1 yard line so far in the season, and not one single interception. Seattle just executed poorly because they have sub par receivers and a QB who isn't great in the pocket yet. Not to mention Belichick had his defense ready for this exact play.

You can't argue for a fade. Mathews is the only big guy they have, and he didn't even have a catch all year before this game. It would have been him lined up against Revis or Browner. Not good for seattle.

First point - how many of those 109 passes were slants over the middle with no play action? I heard this being tossed around and it is just irresponsible. I have ZERO problem with them calling for a pass play, in fact the Pete Carroll time management explanation is quality. My problem is the play call - there is a reason you don't see many over the middle slant routes while in Jumbo formation - you have 21 guys in the middle of the field, with only ~12 yards of depth to cover. With a "shorter" QB in Wilson, this is recipe for tip drill all day long.

The proper pass play to call would be some form of a boot leg, with Wilson given the option to race to the pylon, pass to a dragging TE or RB/FB, or throw it away - most importantly giving him more time to process the situation. This has been their passing game strength all season long, so why go to the slant?

As for point 2, I can argue for a fade - as Carroll himself has acknowledged, the pass play was more of a "waste" play. Therefore you need to have your lowest likely intercepted pass play, regardless of whether the likelihood of completion is relatively low vs. incomplete. There is just too much that can happen during that slant play, even if you get the look you want, that makes it too high risk for a waste play. There is a reason teams throw it up for a fade a ton (assuming your QB can throw it) - it is thrown for your WR and only your WR. Also, I don't care that Matthews never caught a ball in an NFL game prior - I care that during this game the guy has shown multiple times that he can go up and high point an acrobatic catch and come down with it. I have 100% confidence throwing a fade route to him - again, if he comes down with it great, but the likelihood of the other team coming down with it is very low too.

But as I mentioned above, and with points throughout, play to the strengths of your QB if calling for a pass play in that situation, especially a "wasted" one. The Seahawks offense is questionable in a traditional passing sense, but when it comes to running the ball, QB scrambling and TE play, they are pretty good. A bootleg with play action going the other way and a dragging TE or FB along with the QB is a perfect call there because it gives your scrambling QB Wilson a chance to throw, win a race, or throw it away. His football IQ is one of the many things that makes him as good a QB as he is, so he will know best when to throw it away.

I don't think the argument should hinge on whether or not there should have been a pass play there (I believe they had enough time for three run plays if out of the time out after failing on 2nd down they had 3rd down and play 1/2/3/4 for certain scenarios for 4th down to run up to the line. Not ideal, which is why the argument for calling a pass play is pointless. The "worst play call" is in reference to the actual call itself. Take the hindsight stuff out of it, I don't care that it was intercepted. I care that they had a 5'11 QB throwing a quick slant at the half yard line, into 21 football guys almost all bigger than him. In a scenario that, as others have pointed out, if the guy doesn't sell the fade route the CB defending him is crashing inside for the slant or the run defense anyway. That is the terrible call, not just the call to pass.