Since the other threads are unreadable...Carroll and/or OC

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:13 am

12 hours later - I still don't get the call. Pretty sure I never will.

Probably the primest example we will ever get of a coach/team/qb whom-the-fuck-ever outsmarting themselves. That was stunning.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:14 am

I was listening in the car and had to call some people when that happened. They threw it??!!?!?!?

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:16 am

Gunpowder wrote:I was listening in the car and had to call some people when that happened. They threw it??!!?!?!?

Even people who never watch football were stunned. Just the weirdest thing I can fathom in terms of playcall.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:17 am

Not that I am asking DiS to describe his feelings - but I cannot imagine how I would have reacted had that been the Bengals. Either white hot rage or a swearing off football and fandom altogether would probably be at the top of the menu.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:24 am

And, if I heard the stat right, the Pats were among the worst teams in football over the last year at stopping teams on the ground in such situations.

I am befuddled.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:36 am

And IF you are going to throw a pass, that one was particularly ill-advised - since NE is playing run, the box is crowded, and that's where you design the throw to go?

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:37 am

Pete's explanation was that when they saw that N.E. was sending out their goal line package (a shocking strategic decision on the goal line), they didn't think that was the right match-up for them. So, they figured they'd throw the ball there to "waste a play," and then run it the next two downs.

I don't even know where to begin.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:38 am

Jerloma wrote:Pete's explanation was that when they saw that N.E. was sending out their goal line package (a shocking strategic decision on the goal line), they didn't think that was the right match-up for them. So, they figured they'd throw the ball there to "waste a play," and then run it the next two downs.

I don't even know where to begin.

Seriously, that might have been my death blow as a fan if that was my team. At least Seattle won one last year. If that was Cincy, I would probably be done.

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:50 am

If Mike Tomlin ever made that call with Le'veon Bell in the backfield, I'd probably have to go to therapy for it. Even if it worked.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:09 am

You guys read too much into media comments. You don't actually think Carroll believes that, do you? He sounds like the White House press secretary trying to defend a stupid decision.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:09 am

tennbengal wrote:And IF you are going to throw a pass, that one was particularly ill-advised - since NE is playing run, the box is crowded, and that's where you design the throw to go?

Blind slants that have killed SB teams:

Warner to James Harrison
Manning to Tracy Porter
Wilson to this random guy

Any others?

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:14 am

I'm a 49ers fan and it still kind of haunts me that they didn't have Gore or Kaepernick run the ball on 2nd-and-Goal from the 5 against the Ravens two years ago, since their offensive line had been wearing out God's LB and Co. for the entire 4th quarter. The play call by Seattle was about 10 times more inexcusable, though. It seems like Lynch almost never gets stopped for a loss, even in obvious short yardage scenarios.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:36 am

Lynch had five carries from the one this year. One TD. Teams threw 108 passes from the 1 before last night. None were intercepted.

Mind you, I don't think the latter stat played into their thinking (I'd imagine the former might have ever so slightly despite the limited sample size) and I'm not defending the decision. Just found those two things interesting.

Rex · Post by **Rex** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:49 am

I guess this offers some new perspective on why teams always throw that f*cking fade route.

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:34 am

tennbengal wrote:Not that I am asking DiS to describe his feelings - but I cannot imagine how I would have reacted had that been the Bengals. Either white hot rage or a swearing off football and fandom altogether would probably be at the top of the menu.

How am I feeling? Gutted...

That decision makes zero sense. The thing about the Hawks is they are always saying "this is what we do, try to stop us". That slant route there is not them, at all.

Just hand the ball to Marshawn 3 times, win the damn game, and send those obnoxious Pats fans home to jerk off to their Brady posters.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:02 am

DaveInSeattle wrote:
tennbengal wrote:Not that I am asking DiS to describe his feelings - but I cannot imagine how I would have reacted had that been the Bengals. Either white hot rage or a swearing off football and fandom altogether would probably be at the top of the menu.
How am I feeling? Gutted...

That decision makes zero sense. The thing about the Hawks is they are always saying "this is what we do, try to stop us". That slant route there is not them, at all.

Just hand the ball to Marshawn 3 times, win the damn game, and send those obnoxious Pats fans home to jerk off to their Brady posters.

Having only one time out makes that unlikely, but the fade, play action or having Wilson roll out with a run/pass option are the only passing plays they should have considered. Any chance the play call was a run and Wilson audibled?

Post by **brian** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:11 am

On 2nd and goal from the 1 with one timeout and 25 seconds, you could probably absolutely run three times if you wanted to. The 4th down play would have been a hurry-up with about 5 seconds left but it would have been the most exciting play in Super Bowl history.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:15 am

brian wrote:On 2nd and goal from the 1 with one timeout and 25 seconds, you could probably absolutely run three times if you wanted to. The 4th down play would have been a hurry-up with about 5 seconds left but it would have been the most exciting play in Super Bowl history.

I don't think so. I think the patriots would have taken their sweet time on any piles in that situation.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:17 am

Belichick in classic trolling mode says NE would have spent a timeout if Seattle had run on 2nd down and not gotten in.

Post by **Shirley** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:18 am

In fairness, the play very nearly worked. The dude was open, but Wilson was a second late. And that was a hell of a break on the pass by the DB.

Still, a run by Lynch or a rollout by Wilson would have made more sense to me.

Post by **brian** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:18 am

AB_skin_test wrote:
brian wrote:On 2nd and goal from the 1 with one timeout and 25 seconds, you could probably absolutely run three times if you wanted to. The 4th down play would have been a hurry-up with about 5 seconds left but it would have been the most exciting play in Super Bowl history.
I don't think so. I think the patriots would have taken their sweet time on any piles in that situation.

There's no way they could kill 20 seconds doing that. The officials would stop the clock. Here's how it would have went.

Second down: Handoff to Lynch. Takes maybe three or four seconds. Timeout with 20/21 seconds left.

Third down: Handoff to Lynch. Play takes maybe four seconds. Down to 16/17 seconds. Seattle regathers at the line.

Fourth down: With no one to come from downfield, they could absolutely get a play off in 15 seconds.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:26 am

on 4th down they would not get a play off, not because it's not possible to do one but it's 4th down to determine the super bowl, they would freak out. So many times I've seen a trailing team on offense with 3 timeouts left have to call one on 4th down just because it's 4th down thus losing a timeout and 40 seconds on defense. The NFL is a totally overcoached sport.

Therefore if they ran on 2nd down and didn't get it, they would have to call TO and absolutely throw it on 3rd and 4th.

They wanted the best of both worlds, throw it away but maybe have the possibility of catching it. That's too great of a risk. If they didn't like the formation, they needed Wilson to roll out and throw it into Row Z.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:28 am

Teams see 30 seconds and panic even though 30 seconds is a world of time for what Seattle needed to accomplish. Carroll should have had that all laid out after the Kearse catch (and probably did).

I'm with Brian. The Steelers are one of the worst at calling timeouts with like 52 seconds left when they should run more clock.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:30 am

brian wrote:
AB_skin_test wrote:
brian wrote:On 2nd and goal from the 1 with one timeout and 25 seconds, you could probably absolutely run three times if you wanted to. The 4th down play would have been a hurry-up with about 5 seconds left but it would have been the most exciting play in Super Bowl history.
I don't think so. I think the patriots would have taken their sweet time on any piles in that situation.
There's no way they could kill 20 seconds doing that. The officials would stop the clock. Here's how it would have went.

Second down: Handoff to Lynch. Takes maybe three or four seconds. Timeout with 20/21 seconds left.

Third down: Handoff to Lynch. Play takes maybe four seconds. Down to 16/17 seconds. Seattle regathers at the line.

Fourth down: With no one to come from downfield, they could absolutely get a play off in 15 seconds.

You have more faith in the officials than I do. I think they would get a pile and milk 5-6 seconds before the officials called it so now you're down to ten seconds or so. Then you're in trouble if you get a false start or something, too. Too much risk involved to try to be that aggressive. I'd say they should have run on 2nd, then thrown on third if they didn't get in. But what do i know.

Post by **brian** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:34 am

Well, we all agree they should have run on second down at least. I don't hate throwing on 3rd, but if the ball is still at the 1 I would have absolutely run it on 4th down at that point. Power against power and try to win with your best offensive player.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:58 am

brian wrote:Well, we all agree they should have run on second down at least. I don't hate throwing on 3rd, but if the ball is still at the 1 I would have absolutely run it on 4th down at that point. Power against power and try to win with your best offensive player.

After the Kearse catch, should they have just run up there and run a play? any play? Oregon style or even Lions style when Stafford reached over the goal line to beat Dallas last season. There is no reason to call a timeout with the clock already stopped.

Post by **brian** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:02 pm

The right move was absolutely to bleed the clock down to 20-25 seconds. The only issue I think anyone could have is with the playcall. Don't give NE the ball back with time to move down and kick a FG to tie.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:16 pm

Funny that Michaels and Collinsworth were discussing whether or not Belichek would simply let Lynch walk into the end zone untouched, so they could get the ball back with time on the clock, and then the point became moot.

Post by **brian** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:19 pm

sancarlos wrote:Funny that Michaels and Collinsworth were discussing whether or not Belichek would simply let Lynch walk into the end zone untouched, so they could get the ball back with time on the clock, and then the point became moot.

Yeah, that's idiotic strategy in that situation. If you can't trust your defense to stop them, then you probably shouldn't be playing in the Super Bowl.

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:42 pm

Gunpowder wrote: Blind slants that have killed SB teams:

Warner to James Harrison
Manning to Tracy Porter
Wilson to this random guy

Any others?

Lincoln to John Wilkes Booth comes to mind.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 1:09 pm

I probably would have let Seattle score.

Post by **brian** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 1:15 pm

Gunpowder wrote:I probably would have let Seattle score.

I dunno. There's actually stats/data on win percentage that you could use to compare but I don't feel like looking it up. Would be interesting to see though. I doubt the difference in win percentage for NE ahead 4 with Seattle at the 1 with 50 seconds left vs. behind 3 and the ball at the 20 with 50 seconds left is considerably different either way.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 1:17 pm

I think with the game tied or less than 3 point lead you let the offense walk in because they will just bleed the clock and kick a 19 yard FG.

But with a 4 point lead, you definitely have to try and stop them and win the game.

Post by **brian** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 1:18 pm

degenerasian wrote:I think with the game tied or less than 3 point lead you let the offense walk in because they will just bleed the clock and kick a 19 yard FG.

But with a 4 point lead, you definitely have to try and stop them and win the game.

Right. I'd bet the win percentage is higher if you try to stop them (if you're NE) in that situation. I'm getting killed at work today, but if I get a break later I might see if I can find a site that generates win percentage for specific situations.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 2:45 pm

I'll find one.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 2:47 pm

Seattle's win percentage is 69% on 1st down.

New England's is 10%, same settings but down 3 on their own 20.

Maybe yinz are right.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 4:32 pm

Gunpowder wrote:Seattle's win percentage is 69% on 1st down.

New England's is 10%, same settings but down 3 on their own 20.

Maybe yinz are right.

Does it account for percent chance of getting the 3 and heading to OT?

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 4:47 pm

Brontoburglar wrote:
Gunpowder wrote:Seattle's win percentage is 69% on 1st down.

New England's is 10%, same settings but down 3 on their own 20.

Maybe yinz are right.
Does it account for percent chance of getting the 3 and heading to OT?

I'm sure it does, and is considered 50/50 at that point.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 4:51 pm

Gunpowder wrote:
Brontoburglar wrote:
Gunpowder wrote:Seattle's win percentage is 69% on 1st down.

New England's is 10%, same settings but down 3 on their own 20.

Maybe yinz are right.
Does it account for percent chance of getting the 3 and heading to OT?
I'm sure it does, and is considered 50/50 at that point.

The reason I ask is because I was doing the math in my head and my first thought was that it didn't. It was New England winning the game outright with two timeouts and 40 seconds left. (Unless you had different settings)

Because I would have a hard time believing there's a sub 10% chance of them simply getting a field goal in that situation.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 5:00 pm

I do too, but I expected higher than 10. The data may also be from a less offensive era, which in the NFL is yesterday.