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

[Counselor of Prog]

Quoted for truth.

[jammindude]

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.

As a Seahawk fan...I'm 100% with Bosk on this one. 

After I got over the emotions of the whole thing, and put on my pure "Monday Morning QB" cap...the problem was NOT the play call.   It was actually a very good and sound playcall.   They saw a bad matchup, and they tried to exploit it with a high percentage pass against a sub-par defender.    The defender simply made a very fluky uncharacteristic play on the ball.   It was play he was not going to make 99 times out of a 100.    All the fluke, weird plays that had gone Seattle's way for the last two years finally went the opposite direction on the last play of the season. 

To me, the more WTF moment was why on earth they didn't at least take a time out to just talk it over for a sec.   I mean, you've just had a circus catch go your way and give you 1st and goal on the 1yd line with a minute left to play.   You've got a time out...why let the clock run?   Why rush?    The game is literally in your hands.  I mean, at worst, even if you don't want to waste the time out, you could just spike the ball.   Take a moment to talk about this. 

Still, I do think the play call itself was a good one....albeit a bit rushed.   

[King Postwhore]

Yeah, I felt that they had a little over a minute when they made that crazy catch and it took so long to get the play together for the 4 yard run that it put them in the rushing around position.  It seemed that the Pats coaching staff was prepared and Seattle's staff was not.

[KevShmev]

To clarify, I didn't have a problem with them throwing the ball there.  It's the pass play they called is why it was such a horrific play call.  It was a "catch the snap and throw it right away into a mess of players" play call.  At least call a play that lets Wilson hold the ball for a few seconds and then throw it away if no one is open right away. 

[Dark Castle]

To clarify, I didn't have a problem with them throwing the ball there.  It's the pass play they called is why it was such a horrific play call.  It was a "catch the snap and throw it right away into a mess of players" play call.  At least call a play that lets Wilson hold the ball for a few seconds and then throw it away if no one is open right away.

This this this this this.

[jammindude]

To clarify, I didn't have a problem with them throwing the ball there.  It's the pass play they called is why it was such a horrific play call.  It was a "catch the snap and throw it right away into a mess of players" play call.  At least call a play that lets Wilson hold the ball for a few seconds and then throw it away if no one is open right away.

Well, like I said.  It was the matchup on that receiver.   He had a bad matchup and he tried to exploit it.   Wilson actually made a pretty smart pick.   Most QB's see that matchup and try to strike before someone can come in and help.   The defender just made a very uncharacteristically amazing play, and I applaud him for doing so.   He was the hero of the hour.

[KevShmev]

[jammindude]

Has anyone noticed that I am, in fact, being a good sport about all of this? 

 

 

[Dark Castle]

Has anyone noticed that I am, in fact, being a good sport about all of this? 

 

 

You're just being the worst man

[KevShmev]

Has anyone noticed that I am, in fact, being a good sport about all of this? 

 

Yep.  Props to that.  As much as we love our teams, it's important to remember that it's just a game. 

Having said that, we've all experienced soul-crushing defeats as fans...

Oddly, even though the Broncos have lost four Super Bowls since I became a fan, the top two or three soul-crushing defeats for me weren't any of those.  The loss to Jacksonville in the divisional round in 1996 still sits at the top (which made the Super Bowl run the following year that much more sweet), mostly because no Broncos fan saw that one coming, and that team was great enough to win it all.  I was bummed for days after that one (most losses I am over pretty quickly).

[King Postwhore]

Yeah. I almost had my soul crushed by an incredible catch in the 4th quarter for the 3rd SB in a row.

[KevShmev]

Haha, I can imagine.  The Kearse catch was more Tyree than Manningham: just very flukey.  The Manningham play was just a fantastic throw and catch.

[KevShmev]

Going back to the soul-crushing defeats, to me, they are always worse when you expect a win.  For example, the Super Bowl loss to Seattle last year and the AFCCG loss to Pittsburgh in 2005 both sucked, but deep down I kind of knew the Broncos were not going to win those games.  The loss to the Ravens two years ago was more iffy, as I thought the Broncos would win, but I was still nervous about it.  The Jacksonville loss was a game I wasn't the least bit worried about, even though the Broncos had gone into neutral late in the season (they had the 1 seed clinched at 12-1 and took their foot off the gas for the last three games).  Plus, after that loss, we wondered if that really was Elway's last real chance to win a Super Bowl.  The following two seasons more than made up for it, but at the time, there was that demoralizing "Elway might have just seen his last great shot go down the toilet" feeling.

For Seahawks fans, as crushing as last week had to be, the fact that they are a year removed from a Super Bowl victory has to take some of the sting away from it.  Plus, after that miracle comeback against GB, last week was like playing with house money anyway.

[dparrott]

It sucks that the Hawks were a catch away from winning it.  But the Hawks were a catch away from winning back to back SB's!!!  That has to count for something.

[King Postwhore]

Haha, I can imagine.  The Kearse catch was more Tyree than Manningham: just very flukey.  The Manningham play was just a fantastic throw and catch.

That throw and catch were athletes at their best under pressure.  Though the 2007 loss was devastating for the obvious reason. 

[jammindude]

The mood in Seattle lately is actually *very* positive.   Most people are settling into the "a fluke didn't go our way"...  It was a fantastic and exciting season, and almost everyone is thoroughly convinced that we will be making a our 3rd SB appearance next year.

[bosk1]

Great read from Brady and McDaniels about the last two NE drives and their game plan in general:  https://mmqb.si.com/2015/02/09/tom-brady-super-bowl-49-nfl/6/

[Dream Team]

Brady set a SB record for shortest average pass. Some of us on this board could have completed those 3-yd dinks to Edelman. As far as THE play call, it was WHO the intended receiver was that was one of the biggest blunders, as well as Kearse's terrible attempt of a pick.

Also this:

https://grantland.com/the-triangle/lucky-and-good-how-tom-brady-became-the-greatest/

Ray Lewis got a lot of flack for the remark he made about Brady's career being owed to the Tuck Rule, but look at the possible scenarios - without the Tuck Rule, there is no Super Bowl victory and Bledsoe is likely the starter again. Brady could have ended up languishing on the bench; being traded to an inferior team, etc. So the Tuck Rule is a big factor.

[King Postwhore]

You have no sense of reality do you Dream Team.  Why don't the Pats play right into Seattle's hands by throwing long.  If you didn't notice, the big defensive backs of Seattle had a hard time covering the short, fast routes.  That was N.E's game plan.

Also, that link is waaaaay off.  There was rumblings that Bledsoe was about to be benched. His play dropped significantly that They were already thinking of playing Brady.  The injury during the Jets game escalated the change. 

As for the tuck rule, it was a bad rule for sure and it did help the Pats win the first SB, but "thems are the breaks". If you think the other 2 SB's the team was average you are way off.  Those 2003 & 2004 teams were the best in the league by far.

[dparrott]

  tuck rule.  As a Raiders fan, just hearing that mentioned makes me want to break something.

[TAC]

You have no sense of reality do you Dream Team. 

"thems are the breaks".

Both quoted for truth.

[bosk1]

To clarify, I didn't have a problem with them throwing the ball there.  It's the pass play they called is why it was such a horrific play call.  It was a "catch the snap and throw it right away into a mess of players" play call.  At least call a play that lets Wilson hold the ball for a few seconds and then throw it away if no one is open right away.

This this this this this.

Okay.  But again, that play--that SPECIFIC play--is a high-probability play for teams that run it well--which Seattle does.  And it isn't throwing the ball "into a mess of players."  It is throwing the ball to an area where there are a total of TWO defensive players, matched up on TWO offensive players, and the number of players is the specific reason why that play works.  So...still not seeing your argument.

[Dream Team]

Saying Lynch was 1-for-5 in those situations is a RIDICULOUSLY small sample size. It's like flipping a coin 5 times, getting heads once, and saying "the coin is rigged!". You could very well get heads the next 5 times in a row and Lynch could easily score 5 times in a row. If Brady starts a game completing 1 of his first 5 passes, do you suddenly no longer trust him to throw a pass? He might complete his next ten. What if Miguel Cabrera goes 1 for 5? Is he now a .200 hitter? You CAN"T make predictions based on a sample size that small. The call should have been 4 Lynch runs out of the no-huddle, there was plenty of time for that. Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid.

Now one other point is how Butler for some odd reason significantly impacts the Brady narrative. If he doesn't make that play, we wouldn't have been seeing all these articles about how Brady is now definitively the Greatest Evah. Well, Brady was on the sideline when it happened. Hadn't he just completed two 4th-quarter TD drives to take the lead? Is 4-2 in Super Bowls really THAT much different than 3-3? Yet the Butler play completely changed the narrative. It's a fascinating commentary on how people think.

But please guys, learn something about statistics, sample size, randomness, etc. You'll be better for it; and I apologize for sounding condescending there. It's interesting that modern analysis in baseball has finally become mainstream and overturned the old myths, but in football there is still a huge pushback against modern analysis and a bewildering clinging to old notions like "you have to run to win!" 'defense wins championships!" "you have to play conservative and always punt on 4th down or kick a field goal even if you're at the opponent's 1 yard line!" (< a Mike McCarthy axiom if there ever was one)

[King Postwhore]

Well that narrative in NE is just that.  This kid did help with Brady's legacy.  It's been talked about on both sports radio stations.

[hefdaddy42]

The call should have been 4 Lynch runs out of the no-huddle, there was plenty of time for that.

Maybe in the universe YOU live in, but not in the Universe where the game was played.

[bosk1]

The call should have been 4 Lynch runs out of the no-huddle, there was plenty of time for that.

Maybe in the universe YOU live in, but not in the Universe where the game was played.

  Exactly.

And, yeah, I get statistics.  But your analogy sucks.  The sample size is what it is.  It is a sample size in a very specific situation.  And it is one that suggests that, in that situation (i.e., goal line), when teams are prepared, they have a tough time running it in.  Add to that scenario the fact that the Pats have a good goal line D, AND they had their goal line prevent D in the game.  And, for what it's worth, add the play clock into the equation as well.  The smart call is to go with a high percentage pass play, which they did.  It didn't pan out.  Get over it.

[TAC]

What was exciting going into this game was that EVERY play mattered. EVERY play was critical to the outcome of the game.

All of the Pats' SBs have been that way. I get that Seattle Fans are frustrated. hell, the two SBs against the Giants still have me talking to myself, and I'm not even a football guy! ONE play, either way would've changed both of those SB outcomes.

The ball was basically in Lockett's hand but Butler made an outstanding read and play on the ball. Coached up for the exact situation. The call was a split second away from being a touchdown. And the fact that Butler caught it instead of breaking it up is huge.

Now one other point is how Butler for some odd reason significantly impacts the Brady narrative. If he doesn't make that play, we wouldn't have been seeing all these articles about how Brady is now definitively the Greatest Evah. Well, Brady was on the sideline when it happened. Hadn't he just completed two 4th-quarter TD drives to take the lead? Is 4-2 in Super Bowls really THAT much different than 3-3? Yet the Butler play completely changed the narrative. It's a fascinating commentary on how people think.

As Joe said, this has been discussed in these parts. That's why Brady gave the MVP truck to Butler. Cool gesture.
Funny. If Asante Samuel holds on to an uncontested interception on the Giants final drive in the first Pats/Giants SB, Brady would have 5!!

[TAC]

Has anyone noticed that I am, in fact, being a good sport about all of this? 

 

 

Just saw this post. Yes, duly noted.
Your posts in this thread are painful to read. Not having to read you continue to gloat was reason enough to root for the Pats!

[jammindude]

The one that hurt me was the undefeated season (was that the first or second?  I can't remember now.)  But I was honestly rooting for the Pats BIG TIME that year.   I'm usually all about the underdog, but I really wanted to see the first undefeated season in the history of the 16 game schedule.    I was bummed that a wild card team took the trophy.   It's a good "David and Goliath" story I suppose...but I'm sick of hearing about the '74 Dolphins.