NFL thread 2014 v. Frankford Yellow Jackets Lay the Pipe on the Dayton Triangles

[hefdaddy42]

I don't buy it at all.

What don't you buy, my version??? Carroll said several times after the game they were going to use all four downs. When Belichick let the clock bleed out 40 seconds Carroll now longer had time to run the ball 3 more times. He could either run three plays with one of them being a pass, or two plays both runs. Odds favor 3 attempts more than 2.

There was no need to use 3 downs.  Especially a team like Seattle.  20 secs.  2nd and goal.  Beast mode.  Touchdown.  Game over.  Even if they didn't score on 2nd down, still plenty of time to get another snap or use the timeout to strategize the next play.  It really should've only taken a max of 2 downs to get that score and they never gave themselves a chance.

Perhaps, perhaps not, but that doesn't mean you waste one of those downs. Like I said, three chances are always better than two.

Also, lets keep in mind the pressure both coaches were under when making these decisions. Carroll was in a freaking pressure cooker at that point with a clock ticking down in his face. While we can say now in hindsight that it was the bad call, it was at the time very understandable decision and reasonable under the circumstances.

Lastly, it's interesting that we still maintain the attitude that we need somebody to burn. Carroll and his OC are the goats here. If they'd run the ball and scored everybody would be blasting Belichick for not calling that timeout. Seems like finding somebody to bag on is what the game has come down to nowadays.

I agree.  He's the guy that gets paid millions of dollars to make those decisions, not me or anyone else.  He made a decision, based on a good analysis of his options.  It didn't work, because a defender made a hell of a play.  That's life.  That's it, no one has to be on the hook for anything.

[bosk1]

Yeah, that seemed like the most likely reason.  BB knows what he is doing, and I think he made good decisions, whether it be not calling the timeout or the strange "hybrid" defense that was a goal-line D, but with 3 corners.  He was trying to create confusion on the other side, and it worked.

[El Barto]

Yeah, that seemed like the most likely reason.  BB knows what he is doing, and I think he made good decisions, whether it be not calling the timeout or the strange "hybrid" defense that was a goal-line D, but with 3 corners.  He was trying to create confusion on the other side, and it worked.

Yeah, Belichick said this morning that he just liked the matchups they had, so he didn't want to call timeout and give Carroll time to reconsider. It was then that he subbed in Butler for Ayers. To Butler's credit, he said he just recognized the play from film, and everybody on the Patriots have confirmed that he's exactly the sort of guy who would remember and act on it. What it comes down to is a couple of coaches under unbelievable amounts of pressure just winging it as best they could. One did better than the other. 

[bosk1]

To Butler's credit, he said he just recognized the play from film, and everybody on the Patriots have confirmed that he's exactly the sort of guy who would remember and act on it.   

That AND he said he had blown that exact play in practice, and the coaches jumped on him and showed him how to defend it, so he had it burned into his mind.

[Dr. DTVT]

[dparrott]

When Kearse bobbled that catch, I covered my eyes in frustration for a couple of seconds.  I opened them and the ref was standing on the sideline with the ball.  I was like "he caught that???"   

[Dark Castle]

When Kearse bobbled that catch, I covered my eyes in frustration for a couple of seconds.  I opened them and the ref was standing on the sideline with the ball.  I was like "he caught that???"   

Same, the party I went to was all Seahawk fans save for the host and his wife, and even all of us rooting for the Seahawks were like "WHAT!? HOW WAS THAT A CATCH, THEY'VE GOT TO BE WRONG!!!" 

[King Postwhore]

So Kam Chancellor played with a torn MCL.  On the report it was a knee injury. So you can be vague?  So isn't this lying.  Isn't it cheating?


Where's the outrage.  Where is it?  I know the answer.

[Dark Castle]

Was Manning's injury ever specifically noted? I only knew about his injury after the Colts vs Broncos game.

[hefdaddy42]

So Kam Chancellor played with a torn MCL.  On the report it was a knee injury. So you can be vague?  So isn't this lying.  Isn't it cheating?


Where's the outrage.  Where is it?  I know the answer.

I don't think that's cheating.

[Dark Castle]

Agreed, teams in the NHL get as vague as they can possibly get when reporting player's injuries 

[hefdaddy42]

Also, I don't see how it affects the competitive balance.

[King Postwhore]

I know. I'm kidding.  They do it because players would go after the specific spots.  Just like Browner said in an interview before the SB.  Hell, Brady's shoulder been on the report longer than some players have been in the league.

[Tom Bombadil]

I think he was referring to how all the people were saying "Edelman might've had a concussion they shouldn't have let him play. Another example of Patriots cheating".

People are annoying.

[King Postwhore]

Sure is.  But Bill put the magnifying glass on the team in 2007. 


Now, what the hell is Pete Carroll doing with all these interviews.  He should have said after the game, of course we will second guess ourselves and then hide in the bunker for a few weeks.  Instead he's on a whirlwind tour proclaiming things will be glorious after what happened.

[KevShmev]

Carroll can defend the indefensible till the cows come home, but that call will still stand as one of the worst ever seen in sports.

[bosk1]

U mad, bro?

[Dublagent66]

Carroll can defend the indefensible till the cows come home, but that call will still stand as one of the worst ever seen in sports.

True.  I also find it interesting how others are defending the indefensible just for the sake of argument.  Carroll should've just admitted the bad call without giving a reason why he made it because there is no sound reason.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

[bosk1]

I like how calling a good play under the circumstances is somehow "indefensible." 

[Dark Castle]

It wasn't a good play though.
Not taking away props from the Butler kid, did a heck of job with that interception, but that play call was horrid.

[bosk1]

It wasn't a good play though.
Not taking away props from the Butler kid, did a heck of job with that interception, but that play call was horrid.

Again, except for the fact that it was a great play call.  I guess I have to beat a dead horse here, but anyone saying it was a horrid call is ignoring some objective facts.  To name a few:
-Lynch was 1 for 5 on goal line run plays.
-NE had a goal-line package in the game to stuff the run.
-When the Patriots went to goal line personnel earlier in the game the Seahawks countered by throwing the touchdown to Doug Baldwin off play action.
-The slant play from the goal line is a high-probability play for teams that run it well--which Seattle does.  (i.e. a much higher probability than Lynch's 1-for-5)
-A pass play saves 2 downs for Seattle to try something else if it fails, which is key when there is so little time on the clock and only 1 timeout.

The only arguments for it being a "bad" call are:  (1) plain hindsight, and (2) "but Marshawn Lynch!"  I don't think I even need to point out why the hindsight argument is faulty.  And as for running it in on that down, see bullet points 1, 2, and 4 above.  The odds say that the play that was called should have been more likely to succeed in that situation.  That's just fact.

[hefdaddy42]

Come on.  The only reason people are saying "It was an awful play" is that the defender made the interception.  If they had scored, no one would be saying, "Gosh, that was an AWFUL play call, they got lucky on that one!"

[bosk1]

^That too.  By that logic, the TD pass to Baldwin earlier was also an awful play.

[Cool Chris]

^That too.  By that logic, the TD pass to Baldwin earlier was also an awful play.

Baldwin was open by about 10 yards because Revis got picked by the Zebra. He almost tripped over his own feet and still caught the ball.

The decision to call the pass play on the goal line was bad if only because they ran it enough so that the Pats knew it was in their playbook, the defense recognized it, and was able to act accordingly.

[bosk1]

^That too.  By that logic, the TD pass to Baldwin earlier was also an awful play.

Baldwin was open by about 10 yards because Revis got picked by the Zebra. He almost tripped over his own feet and still caught the ball.

We're talking about the play call, not the play execution.

The decision to call the pass play on the goal line was bad if only because they ran it enough so that the Pats knew it was in their playbook, the defense recognized it, and was able to act accordingly.

I am guessing that they recognized it because it is in the Pats' (and lots of other teams as well) playbook.  ...which is why the Pats had practiced it earlier in the season, which is the specific reason Butler said he recognized it.

But despite that it is a play that a lot of teams around the league use (and it is, therefore, a recognizable play), it is still an effective, high percentage play as-is.  Not to mention the fact that that formation can be used for other plays as well.  If Butler is convinced that it is a quick slant and decides to jump the route, there is no time to change your mind once you commit.  If he guesses wrong and the play instead calls for Lockette to fake the inside move and run a fade, it is a touchdown.  Or if Butler commits to it being a fade route, and it is an inside quick slant, he has no chance to jump the route.  Neither one is a bad play call in that situation, despite that it is easy to call it a bad play in hindsight if the defense happens to guess correctly and execute perfectly.

[King Postwhore]

If anything, maybe the pass call could have been thrown to the corners of the endzone and not in the middle where the congestion was.

[bosk1]

True, but the congestion is precisely what makes the play so successful most of the time.  The congestion is what normally keeps the defender from being able to jump the route in the first place if Browner doesn't also do such an amazing job of jamming Kearse at the line.

[Podaar]

But despite that it is a play that a lot of teams around the league use (and it is, therefore, a recognizable play), it is still an effective, high percentage play as-is.  Not to mention the fact that that formation can be used for other plays as well.  If Butler is convinced that it is a quick slant and decides to jump the route, there is no time to change your mind once you commit.  If he guesses wrong and the play instead calls for Lockette to fake the inside move and run a fade, it is a touchdown.  Or if Butler commits to it being a fade route, and it is an inside quick slant, he has no chance to jump the route.  Neither one is a bad play call in that situation, despite that it is easy to call it a bad play in hindsight if the defense happens to guess correctly and execute perfectly.

This.

If Butler hesitates to jump the route, at all, it's TD for the Seahawks. There is only one way to defend that play and you need to see it coming.

[King Postwhore]

Amen on Browner.  They were coached up so well that Browner and Butler executed it to perfection.

BTW, there are shirts out now that say, "It was the Bulter, with a Pick, in the End Zone."

[King Postwhore]

Also, next Wednesday, Bellichick is on Letterman.  Oh boy.

[bosk1]

BTW, there are shirts out now that say, "It was the Bulter, with a Pick, in the End Zone."

If I were a Pats fan, that would be a must-have. 

...But I'm not.  I still don't like them.  So more for you. 

[King Postwhore]

 

If they make it in big boy sizes, you know I'll get it.

[Dimitrius]

[King Postwhore]

That makes my heart warm.