American Sports Thread

[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.

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."

Oh Pete. That doesn't make much sense. I think what he is may be trying to say in a garbled manner is that they were playing the long game (thinking about 3rd and 4th down) which in itself is no bad thing. But the slant to Rocette had every chance of scoring and it might be the play you go to on 4th down (i remember the niners beating detroit a few years ago on a 4th down slant in the final minute).  The problem with Pete's strategy of course is that they never got another chance, but you really can't start legislating for turnovers as they are so uncommon and as likely to occur on a run or a pass.

[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.

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.

I disagree with passing at all. I just think that if the were hell bent on passing, for the reasons you've (probably correctly) identified, then the rollout and throw it away was surely the play.

[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."

Oh Pete. That doesn't make much sense. I think what he is may be trying to say in a garbled manner is that they were playing the long game (thinking about 3rd and 4th down) which in itself is no bad thing. But the slant to Rocette had every chance of scoring and it might be the play you go to on 4th down (i remember the niners beating detroit a few years ago on a 4th down slant in the final minute).  The problem with Pete's strategy of course is that they never got another chance, but you really can't start legislating for turnovers as they are so uncommon and as likely to occur on a run or a pass.

I know what he meant, I was just being a smart arse because you used the exact same phrase

I do think you are over thinking this a bit Clov, and I think he did too. You have probably the best running back in the game at the moment, who is running well, and who has proven all night that the first Patriot tackler is finding it hard to bring him down. You have 3 downs and a time out. Run the damn ball, or at least call a run play, and if you don't like the look audible to a bootleg option.

I just can't bring myself to make it any more complex than that.

[deiseach]

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.

Shot to nothing. That's the term I was looking for, a regular feature in snooker. But you'd think several times about doing it at 17-17, 50-50 and only the colours remaining. Then again, you have the time to think about it in snooker.

[magpie seanie]

I think when you're down to less than 30 seconds and you have the best defense in the league, the best RB in the league in these situations (arguable but certainly one of the best), an extremely mobile QB, the last thing you do is throw the football. It was simply a crazy play call. You have to back your guys to beat the other guys, especially when they are getting the better of them anyway. Maybe they stop Lynch once but not twice. Actually the bootleg suggested by AZ and others was the call on 2nd down because Wilson could have thrown the ball away and saved the timeout if it didn't work.

[Clov]

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.

Shot to nothing. That's the term I was looking for, a regular feature in snooker. But you'd think several times about doing it at 17-17, 50-50 and only the colours remaining. Then again, you have the time to think about it in snooker.

But it is not really a shot to nothing in the snooker sense, or a hail mary. A shot to nothing implies low odds of success but low odds of catastrophe. Despite what Pete says the slant is a very high percentage play, it had every chance of success. The rollout 'throw it in to the stands if he is not wide open' option is the shot to nothing in this analogy. 

[AZOffaly]

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.

Shot to nothing. That's the term I was looking for, a regular feature in snooker. But you'd think several times about doing it at 17-17, 50-50 and only the colours remaining. Then again, you have the time to think about it in snooker.

But it is not really a shot to nothing in the snooker sense, or a hail mary. A shot to nothing implies low odds of success but low odds of catastrophe. Despite what Pete says the slant is a very high percentage play, it had every chance of success. The rollout 'throw it in to the stands if he is not wide open' option is the shot to nothing in this analogy.

The shot to nothing implies that there's no real consequences if it doesn't come off. It doesn't mean a low chance of success necessarily. You've said that the rationale behind the pass was to preserve time. I can accept that as a valid consideration. I don't agree with it, but I can accept it. But if that were the direction you went, then the only play is the Wilson roll out. It gives you the option of Wilson keeping the ball, which was successful whenever he did it, and it also give the option of hitting a wide open TE or receiver if you do it on the back of play action. Finally (the shot to nothing aspect) you can fire it into the stands and save your time.

That's why I think it was a poor call, even if the pass can be argued.

[deiseach]

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.

Shot to nothing. That's the term I was looking for, a regular feature in snooker. But you'd think several times about doing it at 17-17, 50-50 and only the colours remaining. Then again, you have the time to think about it in snooker.

But it is not really a shot to nothing in the snooker sense, or a hail mary. A shot to nothing implies low odds of success but low odds of catastrophe. Despite what Pete says the slant is a very high percentage play, it had every chance of success. The rollout 'throw it in to the stands if he is not wide open' option is the shot to nothing in this analogy.

In the context Pete Carroll put it, he absolutely meant a shot to nothing. You say it had every chance of success, and it did. But the assessment of what counts as 'success' in a shot to nothing in snooker includes the high probability of the white ball going safe or for a snooker. You have practically no chance of giving the ball away, i.e. your opponent won't be able to score when they get back to the table. Pete Carroll's didn't factor in a rookie deciding that he wasn't going to go for the football with the intention of preventing completion or keeping the Seattle player catching it out of the endzone - he was going to intercept it or lose the game in the attempt. As gallsman hinted at, the talk of the blown play has concealed the brilliance of Malcolm Butler's play. Something we could all agree on, perhaps?

[Clov]

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.

Shot to nothing. That's the term I was looking for, a regular feature in snooker. But you'd think several times about doing it at 17-17, 50-50 and only the colours remaining. Then again, you have the time to think about it in snooker.

But it is not really a shot to nothing in the snooker sense, or a hail mary. A shot to nothing implies low odds of success but low odds of catastrophe. Despite what Pete says the slant is a very high percentage play, it had every chance of success. The rollout 'throw it in to the stands if he is not wide open' option is the shot to nothing in this analogy.

In the context Pete Carroll put it, he absolutely meant a shot to nothing. You say it had every chance of success, and it did. But the assessment of what counts as 'success' in a shot to nothing in snooker includes the high probability of the white ball going safe or for a snooker. You have practically no chance of giving the ball away, i.e. your opponent won't be able to score when they get back to the table. Pete Carroll's didn't factor in a rookie deciding that he wasn't going to go for the football with the intention of preventing completion or keeping the Seattle player catching it out of the endzone - he was going to intercept it or lose the game in the attempt. As gallsman hinted at, the talk of the blown play has concealed the brilliance of Malcolm Butler's play. Something we could all agree on, perhaps?

Absolutely. That was part of my original point. In my opinion Seattle didn't so much lose this as that one guy made a fantastic play to win it. I think with time the Butler interception is the one thing that people will remember about this game and not the Seattle play calling at the death. I'm sure no one in Boston is talking about the final play call in any case. 

[deiseach]

Absolutely. That was part of my original point. In my opinion Seattle didn't so much lose this as that one guy made a fantastic play to win it. I think with time the Butler interception is the one thing that people will remember about this game and not the Seattle play calling at the death. I'm sure no one in Boston is talking about the final play call in any case. 

The new Dave Roberts

[cadhlancian]

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.

thats exactly why he didn't call a timeout, he saw their formation, knew a pass was coming, and had all his guys jumps there routes. That's what separates him , and makes him the best coach the NFL has ever seen .

[AZOffaly]

Could be, but at least 10 secs went by before he saw their formation. That said I am willing to admit that he is a better coach than I  😃

[stringbean]

Real good debate on here but ultimately it comes down to Carroll over thinking the situation and worrying about the ifs and buts of leaving too much, if he didn't get in etc etc. He had arguably the best rusher in the game - give it to him, take the lead and then worry about the clock!

Also the argument about not being able to get a 4th down off without the pass is flawed - Carroll can also ship blame for allowing too much time run off the clock between downs

[Minder]

Read an interview with Butler and he said he had been beaten on that exact play during the week, against the scout team so he recognised the formation straight away.

He also said Wilson gave it away slightly when waiting for the snap, his head didn't move but his eyes kept looking at Lockette so even though that still shot posted above Lockette looks to be wide open Butler has already diagnosed the play and is breaking on the ball.

Long off season 

[Wildweasel74]

f**k it, over the whole of the game the best team won, Seattle only got over Green Bay cause they messed up