Larry Kart Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Further thoughts, info, obfuscation: http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2014/story/_/id/12266535/super-bowl-xlix-darrell-bevell-seattle-seahawks-play-call-made-kill-clock I've also heard that Seattle OC Bevell said that Lockette didn't "contest" that ball aggressively enough. If your choice, Mr. Bevell, let the whole game come down to a jump-ball contest, then you f----d up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 From what I've read, everything seems to point to the Patriots baiting the Seahawks into that throw. They left their jumbo package in after the Seahawks subbed an extra eligible receiver. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Oh, you get tempted by Bill Belichek with the game on the line and as close to guaranteed to you as it's gonna be. Sorry, you got suckered. You went for the pussy and got the blackjack upside your head. Oh, who could blame me, that pussy was right there looking SO good, Well, yeah, but it's Bill Belichek waving that pussy in your face. Sorry, the only legit excuse you got is that you were thinking with your dick, and that's no excuse at all for any grownass man, not really. Grownass man supposed to know better than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) 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. Edited February 2, 2015 by Scott Dolan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Bresnahan Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Best explanation I could find: http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/2/2/7962403/super-bowl-2015-patriots-interception-seahawks-play-call Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Best explanation I could find: http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/2/2/7962403/super-bowl-2015-patriots-interception-seahawks-play-call Perfectly stated. Belichek pulls this shit because people fall for it. Like every sucker ever suckered, it works because people forget who they're dealing with and go for the okie-doke. Sometimes that's cool, but jeez, you're one block away from the bank and all of a sudden you see some leg and smell some tail, if you don't reflexively think hmmm....maybe not what appears to be, need to get that money in the bank, check it out on the way back, then bbfffffttttt player done got played. Simple as that. Grownass man on the way to the bank needs to not so easily be fooled, ESPECIALLY by a known trickster standing in the alley right next to the door. 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. So are you saying that if you were a coach, you would fall for everything that was presented to you, no matter the situation, no matter your opponent's known wiliness, no matter where in the game it was and what impact on the outcome you were looking at it your gambit failed? How many reaming gotchas would it take for you to stop doing that? For Pete Carroll, the answer is obviously this - one more that it would have yesterday at this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homefromtheforest Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Thanks Kevin for sharing that link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Finally! Sanity in a sea of madness. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/02/02/analysis-notebook-super-bowl-xlix-that-play/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Well, that' how suckered get suckered, that's all I can say, look at the seemingly immediate opportunity and not consider the overall situation(s), somebody picks yur pocket, oops, too bad, then. I'm licking my chops a lot less if that look i shown to me by a known trickster trying to snatch the Super Bowl out of my hands than I am its shown to me by some known Sloppy Guy. With Sloppy Guy, yeah, I get a little licky. With Known Trickster, I keep my eyes on the prce, and safe the licks for after the gun goes off. You gotta know your opponent. One Size Fits All strategies only work except for when they don't. 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. Finally! Sanity in a sea of madness.https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/02/02/analysis-notebook-super-bowl-xlix-that-play/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Well, too late for that now! FWIW, all the coaches I saw last night and this morning were some form of WTF, NO!!! about that call, although some were more discreet about it than others. Bottom line - Seahawks got suckered, and they wouldn't have if they had not have tried to sneak a piece of tail instead of just going for the bank. COMMON SENSE! There's a time to be coach-y and shit, and then there a time to just move some motherfucking bodies, getter done, and put the money in the bank. COMMON SENSE! It's moments like these that reveal a person's truest instincts, and how well they have learned to understand and control them. Carrol, still capable of thinking with dick at wrong time. EX-posed! Belichek FTW Better luck text time for Pete Carroll. Life's for the learning, right? Either way, no matter now, game over, Pats win, Hawks got powned, hahaha. I was pulling for Seattle too, but dammit, I know a street hustle when I see one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie87 Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) If I'm Pete Carroll and the Pats come in with that defensive package, I either run Marshawn Lynch up the middle anyway (since there's a 50/50 chance he gains a yard or two anyway, since he'd been averaging 4+ yards per carry the entire game), or run a QB option around the end with Lynch trailing, giving Wilson the option to keep it or pitch it. Never a pass. That wasn't a tricky or clever defensive call by the Patriots, it was common sense to try to defend against what the Seahawks likely call in that situation on the 1 or 2 yard line - i.e. Lynch up the middle. Carroll tried to be clever instead and it cost them the game. Edited February 2, 2015 by Aggie87 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 I love that in the Information Age people are still confusingly using the term "common sense" in place of "my opinion". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 But dudes are still thinking with their dick, so take heart, all is not lost! I'm outta here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim R Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 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. I guess I'll go ahead and inform you that it wasn't first and goal. I've been watching since 1967, by the way. Carroll has handled it all very well, but the truth is- regardless of formations and x's and o's and previous experiences, they simply over-thought it. Throwing the ball would have been foolish even if they'd chosen a safer place to throw the ball. Throwing the ball where they threw it was suicidal. Carroll's logic wasn't completely insane, but throwing the ball there was just way too risky (for a pre-season game!). The fact that you've got an unstoppable runner waiting to give you a world championship, AND a quarterback who is virtually unstoppable in the open field on a roll-out... well... they found out how dumb they were, and it's going to sting for a long time (forever). You sad, bro? (God, I love this photo) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 A quick slant on a designed clear out play is suicidal?! Um...ok Thank goodness nobody told Bill Walsh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie87 Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 I love that in the Information Age people are still confusingly using the term "common sense" in place of "my opinion". 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim R Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Well, they died a quick death. And I don't see Bill Walsh calling that play on the goal line, or under those circumstances. Carroll's logic re the formations and time-out circumstances was not entirely crazy. I get that, and I know second-guessing is easy, but throwing the ball into the middle, where a DL or a DB could have deflected it- even if it hadn't been picked cleanly... just way too risky in such an enormous situation, one yard from victory, with Marshawn Lynch at your disposal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Finally! Sanity in a sea of madness.https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/02/02/analysis-notebook-super-bowl-xlix-that-play/ 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homefromtheforest Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Well, they died a quick death. And I don't see Bill Walsh calling that play on the goal line, or under those circumstances. Carroll's logic re the formations and time-out circumstances was not entirely crazy. I get that, and I know second-guessing is easy, but throwing the ball into the middle, where a DL or a DB could have deflected it- even if it hadn't been picked cleanly... just way too risky in such an enormous situation, one yard from victory, with Marshawn Lynch at your disposal. Amen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 Johnny Football, having a hard time with the whole life thing: http://www.lonestarball.com/2015/2/2/7963163/johnny-manziel-has-gone-to-rehab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlhoots Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 FWIW, I wanted Green Bay. Oh, well - maybe next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Garrett Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 What the game-clinching INT looked like from multiple POVs: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/02/sports/football/wilson-saw-a-window-to-victory-but-butler-stole-the-show.html?smid=tw-nytimes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 I love that in the Information Age people are still confusingly using the term "common sense" in place of "my opinion". 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. Finally! Sanity in a sea of madness.https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/02/02/analysis-notebook-super-bowl-xlix-that-play/ 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.