American Sports Thread

[gallsman]

I feel a bit sorry for Butler - with all the debate over the play call, the fact he made an unbelievable play to win the Super Bowl has been somewhat overshadowed.

[RealSpiritof98]

Anyone see the story about the two Irish lads walking into the game for free?!

Any links?

[deiseach]

Anyone see the story about the two Irish lads walking into the game for free?!

Any links?

'Our game-plan was to be super confident' - Irish pair blag their way into Super Bowl and sit in $50k seats

[AZOffaly]

In a vacuum it is arguably the right thing to do. The chances of a fumble are as high an interception (both very unlikely). The chances of scoring are equally good with both run and pass (both quite high). The issue is whether it is the right thing to do with the personnel Seattle have (the league's best back) and the success they were having up to that point running the ball. On the 'it is not so crazy to throw the ball there' side of the ledger, Seattle did seem to get a very favourable look from the NE defense for throwing the ball. I believe NE would have sold out against the run had the lined up in a run formation. Should Seattle have run the ball anyway? Probably, but is it the worst play call ever? Not even close.

For my money AZ is right in that what Belichek did in letting the time run off the clock from 1:05 was stupid. But he got away with it because they won. Had Lockette caught the slant, we'd all be talking about Belichek's clock management instead.

edit: the one other factor i would add is that goal line running is as much or more about the two lines and "who wins the battle in the trenches" as it is about the running back. Tom Brady has a remarkable record from the 1yd line but noone would consider him all-time great running threat! When you look at the match up of Seattle offensive line vs Pats defensive line I don't think you can really say that it really favours Seattle in this situation. There line doesn't blast people off the ball like a great power O-line would.

A few good points there. (this thread is one of the best on the board for opinions without WUMs. Maybe it's because we're not as emotionally invested in the outcome, although I do get prickly at criticism of the Cards ).  Just to respond though...

I agree the chances of a fumble and interception are both unlikely, but I'd imagine an interception is slightly more likely given the condensed nature of a goalline situation. I do also agree that the chances of scoring are quite high from 1 yard out , but the question to me boils down to what was the safest, high percentage play AT THAT MOMENT for the Seahawks in this particular game. The Seahawks hadn't had a negative rush all day from Lynch, so the line may not be a dominant run blocking unit, but Lynch himself takes that away because he is so powerful. The Patriots were on the back foot against him all day, and I think option 1 was Lynch to bang it in. (With a second play called to get set immediately if he was stopped).   I also believe NE would have sold out against the run if the Seahawks had lined up in a run formation. But that doesn't mean they would have stopped him for less than one yard. But if they did. If they lined up with 11 men in the box, you know what that begs for? Play action bootleg from Wilson. Cheery cheery bye bye. Tight End slips out to the side, Wilson rolls that way and either a pitch and catch, or Wilson strolls it in.

As soon as the Hawks lined up in that formation, the Patriots eyes must have widened, and that could well be why Belichick didn't call the time out. I still think he was mad not calling it immediately after the first run play when there was over a minute left.

[deiseach]

I suppose the question regarding Carroll's decision is this: had he chosen to give the ball to Lynch, and in two plays Lynch failed to get the ball into the endzone, would people have being saying that Seattle should have thrown the ball on the first of those plays? I find that hard to believe.

[AZOffaly]

I suppose the question regarding Carroll's decision is this: had he chosen to give the ball to Lynch, and in two plays Lynch failed to get the ball into the endzone, would people have being saying that Seattle should have thrown the ball on the first of those plays? I find that hard to believe.

Not at all. But the thing to me is a quick slant is one of those plays that just happens bang bang, there's no real alternative. Wilson is at his best when he is making plays happen, so if they wanted to take advantage of the PAtriots expecting a run, then a play where Wilson could choose what he wanted to do as the play unfolded was the thing to go for. Line up like a run, Wilson rolls out and decides on a TE pass, or keep it himself. There isn't an OC in the league that couldn't draw up a scoring play from there that wasn't a slant.

Now, having said all that, and absolutely convinced that the play call was wrong, you have to say it was wide open, the Patriot's guy just made a great play to close on the ball so quick. I think the receiver probably didn't go for the ball with the same intensity and the man who wanted it more won. The screenshot I took (below) looks like it's wide, wide, open and you'd answer 'TD' on a 'what happens next' question. The OC probably thought it was celebration time when he saw the formation.

[gallsman]

I suppose the question regarding Carroll's decision is this: had he chosen to give the ball to Lynch, and in two plays Lynch failed to get the ball into the endzone, would people have being saying that Seattle should have thrown the ball on the first of those plays? I find that hard to believe.

Agreed. Cris Collinsworth said as much live - if you got three goes to bang it in from a yard with Lynch and Wilson, you simply hold your hands up and say great job by the Patriots defence.

[deiseach]

I suppose the question regarding Carroll's decision is this: had he chosen to give the ball to Lynch, and in two plays Lynch failed to get the ball into the endzone, would people have being saying that Seattle should have thrown the ball on the first of those plays? I find that hard to believe.

Agreed. Cris Collinsworth said as much live - if you got three goes to bang it in from a yard with Lynch and Wilson, you simply hold your hands up and say great job by the Patriots defence.

Thanks for exposing my lack of original thought

[Clov]

I suppose the question regarding Carroll's decision is this: had he chosen to give the ball to Lynch, and in two plays Lynch failed to get the ball into the endzone, would people have being saying that Seattle should have thrown the ball on the first of those plays? I find that hard to believe.

That's not quite the right question in my mind as what people say you should do and what is the right thing to do are often not quite the same. The issue is about maximising your chance of scoring and wasting a down when the game is on the line is never a smart thing to do.

[deiseach]

I feel a bit sorry for Butler - with all the debate over the play call, the fact he made an unbelievable play to win the Super Bowl has been somewhat overshadowed.

Look, if you had one shot, one opportunity
To seize everything you ever wanted, one moment
Would you capture it, or just let it slip? Yo

[AZOffaly]

I suppose the question regarding Carroll's decision is this: had he chosen to give the ball to Lynch, and in two plays Lynch failed to get the ball into the endzone, would people have being saying that Seattle should have thrown the ball on the first of those plays? I find that hard to believe.

That's not quite the right question in my mind as what people say you should do and what is the right thing to do are often not quite the same. The issue is about maximising your chance of scoring and wasting a down when the game is on the line is never a smart thing to do.

Pete Carroll :
"We sent in our personnel, they sent in their goal-line [unit]. It was not the right matchup for us to run the football, so on second down we throw the ball to really kind of waste that play. If we score, we do, if we don't, then we run it on third and fourth down."

[deiseach]

I suppose the question regarding Carroll's decision is this: had he chosen to give the ball to Lynch, and in two plays Lynch failed to get the ball into the endzone, would people have being saying that Seattle should have thrown the ball on the first of those plays? I find that hard to believe.

That's not quite the right question in my mind as what people say you should do and what is the right thing to do are often not quite the same. The issue is about maximising your chance of scoring and wasting a down when the game is on the line is never a smart thing to do.

It's fair to say that if Butler had not performed the interception, which was a Hail Mary play if ever there was one, we wouldn't be asking the question I asked. But it's also fair to say that if Seattle had run the ball and literally come up short, no one would be asking the question I asked either. Having decided to throw the ball and been literally caught out, the questions are inevitable.

[deiseach]

I suppose the question regarding Carroll's decision is this: had he chosen to give the ball to Lynch, and in two plays Lynch failed to get the ball into the endzone, would people have being saying that Seattle should have thrown the ball on the first of those plays? I find that hard to believe.

That's not quite the right question in my mind as what people say you should do and what is the right thing to do are often not quite the same. The issue is about maximising your chance of scoring and wasting a down when the game is on the line is never a smart thing to do.

Pete Carroll :
"We sent in our personnel, they sent in their goal-line [unit]. It was not the right matchup for us to run the football, so on second down we throw the ball to really kind of waste that play. If we score, we do, if we don't, then we run it on third and fourth down."

I'm guessing he meant that he saw it as a free shot, like a cricket player having a proper thrash at a wide ball knowing that he can't be caught out. He seems to have forgotten that he could be stumped...

[Clov]

I suppose the question regarding Carroll's decision is this: had he chosen to give the ball to Lynch, and in two plays Lynch failed to get the ball into the endzone, would people have being saying that Seattle should have thrown the ball on the first of those plays? I find that hard to believe.

Not at all. But the thing to me is a quick slant is one of those plays that just happens bang bang, there's no real alternative. Wilson is at his best when he is making plays happen, so if they wanted to take advantage of the PAtriots expecting a run, then a play where Wilson could choose what he wanted to do as the play unfolded was the thing to go for. Line up like a run, Wilson rolls out and decides on a TE pass, or keep it himself. There isn't an OC in the league that couldn't draw up a scoring play from there that wasn't a slant.

Now, having said all that, and absolutely convinced that the play call was wrong, you have to say it was wide open, the Patriot's guy just made a great play to close on the ball so quick. I think the receiver probably didn't go for the ball with the same intensity and the man who wanted it more won. The screenshot I took (below) looks like it's wide, wide, open and you'd answer 'TD' on a 'what happens next' question. The OC probably thought it was celebration time when he saw the formation.

I agree with you about the playcall of a slant and looking back at it in retrospect you can ask why they didn't try Wilson on a rollout with a pass/run option. After all that is their bread and butter and when they really needed to move the ball against the Packers in the championship game it was that game plan they went to. But I also think that when you look back retrospectively there is so much room for second guessing and third guessing these play calls. Would the Pats have been waiting/expecting the rollout? Who knows. The outcomes make these things look like fait accompli.

[AZOffaly]

I suppose the question regarding Carroll's decision is this: had he chosen to give the ball to Lynch, and in two plays Lynch failed to get the ball into the endzone, would people have being saying that Seattle should have thrown the ball on the first of those plays? I find that hard to believe.

That's not quite the right question in my mind as what people say you should do and what is the right thing to do are often not quite the same. The issue is about maximising your chance of scoring and wasting a down when the game is on the line is never a smart thing to do.

Pete Carroll :
"We sent in our personnel, they sent in their goal-line [unit]. It was not the right matchup for us to run the football, so on second down we throw the ball to really kind of waste that play. If we score, we do, if we don't, then we run it on third and fourth down."

I'm guessing he meant that he saw it as a free shot, like a cricket player having a proper thrash at a wide ball knowing that he can't be caught out. He seems to have forgotten that he could be stumped...

Bingo. The 'waste a play' or shot to nothing would have been Wilson roll out and fire it into the stands if he didn't like what he saw. Throwing a ball into a populated area, in a compressed space, is not quite a shot to nothing.