Scott Dolan

Who ever said it was a great call? Like Billick and Sharpe said in the video I posted, they could find nothing wrong with the call. But, the whole thing is predicated on the result. I guarantee many of those players, had the play succeeded, would have been talking about the amazing pass play Carroll called catching the defense, selling out against the run, completely off guard! Once more, it was a fine play considering the packages on the field. The Patriots simply executed better. What a great indictment of our petulant society. One of the best Superbowls of all time, and instead of enjoying that fact, they have to get angry and look for someone to condemn so that they can feel a sense of superiority. Though, I do get the sense that had it been any other team besides the Patriots, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The bad guys won, now someone must pay!

Holy shit; I almost fell out of my chair. As will I when the first "expert" here steps and and admits "ok, it didn't work, but it was a reasonable play to call".

What it shows is that the play called was anything but idiotic, as the "experts" here are claiming. I would have brought in the heavy package and run it, but that doesn't the play he called stupid. I personally don't believe in passing from the one, but every coach since Bill Walsh has seen the wisdom in it. And since passing from the one has been shown as at least as viable as running, it makes the opinions expressed here seem quite silly. Once again, if the play had resulted in a touchdown, no one would have even brought it up after the game as TD passes on second and goal from inside the five aren't exactly revolutionary. They're fairly commonplace. But, because New England defended it perfectly, everyone and their grandmother think they had the secret formula for Seattle to win the game. Yes, silly indeed.

As though it matters. You want indoor/outdoor, turf/grass, sunny/cloudy/windy/rainy/snow, right-handed/left-handed, 1pm/4pm, Monday/Thursday/Saturday/Sunday and elevation splits as well? As long as the strength of your argument rest solely on "Jim thought they should have run the ball", there's really nothing left of the conversation. They called a play, it was a fine play package for package, they didn't execute it as well as New England defended it. The End All the teeth gnashing is due strictly to the result. If it had been completed for a touchdown, the play call itself wouldn't even be a topic of conversation.

And can we stop this whole "Lynch was money in the bank from the one yard line" bullshit? Lynch carried the ball five times this past season from the one yard line. He scored once. Once. Yet, passes from the one resulted in TDs 60% of the time across the NFL. I take it percentages weren't a strong point for many of you.

I just hate people who know little about the nuts and bolts of the game claiming they are some sort of play-calling guru. And criticizing someone who has decades of experience, and championship titles at two different levels, because they don't "get" what happened. Oddly enough, you, less than anyone else who's chimed in has explained your position intelligently. You just keep going with short, dopey comments. I have gone out of my way and explained my take from several angles, all of which you simply dismiss without clarification other than you "thought" it was a bad call.

All offensive plays should just work, is that what you're saying, Larry? You can learn to defend any play, but you still have to out execute your opponent. Coaches learn plays and recognize patterns for every opponent they play. That has been true longer than I've been alive. Why do you think they study game film for hours on end every week? They didn't get "out thunk", they simply got outplayed.

And BTW, just to address this nonsense: "We have standard passes to throw against a goalline defense. Too often people try to go in there and butt heads with good linebackers on the goal line. Too often they don't make it. If we get inside that 5-yard line, half the time we are going to throw the ball. Now, if you're marching through somebody, you can just close your eyes and hand the ball off But when it's very competitive, that goal-line pass is vital. So we have a series of those. We never call them anywhere else on the field." - Bill Walsh http://www.westcoastoffense.com/bill%20walsh%20article%201.htm

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-playbook/0ap3000000467856/Playbook-Why-did-Carroll-choose-to-pass

Just went back to look at the replay, I was incorrect about the zone. It was man coverage across the board. And this, from Grantland: "Before Sunday, NFL teams had thrown the ball 108 times on the opposing team’s 1-yard line this season. Those passes had produced 66 touchdowns (a success rate of 61.1 percent, down to 59.5 percent when you throw in three sacks) and zero interceptions. The 223 running plays had generated 129 touchdowns (a 57.8 percent success rate) and two turnovers on fumbles." Which clearly backs up those who say you NEVER throw the ball from there! Oh no, never ever ever! Too dangerous! It's suicide!!!

So YOU are saying it's NOT common sense to defend against the most likely play the Seahawks would and should call?? That's exactly what the Patriots did. There's nothing "common" or "sensible" about putting a goal line package out against a three WR set, no. In 36 years of watching the game I'm not sure I've ever seen that before. But in that article do you see some disconnect between these two passages? 1) The first and most obvious thing to note is that you can see exactly why Seattle wanted to pass the ball. Even though they had three wide receivers on the field, the Patriots were almost completely selling out to stop the run. [Notice that "almost."] 2) [The Patriots] ran this play in practice specifically to prepare their defensive backs for it. Nothing in football gives you an edge like knowing exactly what is coming. People have called this play a great read by Butler, but if you take a look at his reactions, he is playing nothing else. He knew this play was coming and that’s all he was planning to defend. [Notice the phrase " knowing exactly what is coming,"] So the two Patriots who are not selling out to stop the run [browner and Butler] just happen to be the two guys who are defending against the play the Seahawks actually ran. The Seahawks got out thunk, I think. No, there is no disconnect between the two passages you highlighted. The Seahawks ran that play three times during the regular season. Belichick and his staff took note of it and learned specifically how to defend it. That what great coaches do. And the "almost" means that you had seven up the middle (six down linemen and a linebacker) selling out to stop the run, and four defensive backs in zone coverage behind them. Not just Browner and Butler as you incorrectly assume.

A quick slant on a designed clear out play is suicidal?! Um...ok Thank goodness nobody told Bill Walsh!

I love that in the Information Age people are still confusingly using the term "common sense" in place of "my opinion".

Do you even know anything about Pro Football Focus? They analyze every player and every play from every game. Even the "experts" from companies like ESPN and Sports Illustrated use their analysis. They're not click bait material.

Finally! Sanity in a sea of madness. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/02/02/analysis-notebook-super-bowl-xlix-that-play/

Yes, Jim. You take advantage of every mismatch you get. Think about the ineligible receiver split out to the slot, which Belichick pulled in the Colts game. That actually put his team at a serious disadvantage had there been a better coach across the field from him. But, Pagano didn't take advantage of the fact that he could have had a free runner at Brady with only four linemen blocking for him. There's no way in hell the ineligible in the slot would have factored into the blitz pickup. Wild Billy loves to roll the dice, and comes out of it unscathed more often than not. That doesn't mean he's not putting his team in a potentially perilous position.

Find me a head coach, from PeeWee on up that wouldn't take advantage of such a mismatch. If you want to let the click chasing imbeciles in the media, who barely even understand the game, to inform your opinion, fine with me. But, coaches live for that kind of mismatch. Actively try to create it every single play.

Yep. It was a dream mismatch that anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of football would have been licking their chops over. Three WR set against six blitzing down linemen with a short zone behind them designed to take away the fades on both sides of the endzone. Throw a quick slant over an open middle of the field. Yes, what lunacy. But, I guess my fellow message boarders are far smarter than anyone who actually coaches professional football. Until last night, I swore there couldn't be a dumber narrative than Ballghazi. I was disastrously wrong.

Many comedians consider that to be the "Bible" of comedy. Very funny performance. It was a classic in my household as well.

Ah, Monday morning quarterbacks. It just doesn't get any better. Well, while the rest of you are clutching your pearls and fanning yourselves, I'll go ahead and inform you that throwing on first and goal has been accepted practice in the NFL ever since I started watching it back in the 70's. Zig when they're expecting you to zag, that kind of thing. Now, Wilson definitely should not have tried to force it into such tight traffic, but the called play was anything but idiotic. It just ended poorly. It happens. It was an excellent game between the two best teams from each conference. It's not often we get to say that.

Yeah, he was on one hell of a win streak back in the 80's and early 90's. I remember a buddy of mine took his wife to a comedy club to see Carlin in the late 90's. When he told me about it I said that I was jealous because Carlin was my favorite comedian and I'd have loved seeing him. My buddy quickly said, "you didn't miss anything, he was awful. Just really angry and bitter, I didn't laugh once the entire time." I told him I wasn't buying it for one second. Then I saw his HBO special from that particular tour. Yikes. To call it awful would be incredibly diplomatic. And the last two or three specials he did before his death were even worse. The opening bit from one of those, where he was riffing on being a modern man, was pretty entertaining. Aside from that he said nothing else even mildly entertaining. A very sad downfall, IMO.

Old, angry George. Can't stomach it. Carlin was a genius, but he should be in the Guiness Book Of World Records as the man who went from the funniest cat on the planet, to the least funniest cat on the planet...

This x 1,000. Moral stances and whatnot, blah, blah, blah... Laughing at a funny line is in absolutely no way an endorsement of the person who recites it. Miles hit women. Strangest thing being that when I found that out, I immediately went back and listened to Kind Of Blue. It still sounded just as good as I remember.

Yeah, but it's still just shy of completely broken.

This. Easier said than done, I suppose. But this, nonetheless.