NFL thread.

[kansaskyle]

I had no strong feelings about either team. If I were leaning toward anyone, it probably was the Seahawks, but I was just hoping to enjoy the game. Boy, howdy, did I! Once the Seahawks' offense finally got warmed up, that was quite a match!

The ending, though. My goodness. Talk about outsmarting yourself. I've never seen a worse case.

I felt the same way about the game, and especially the ending. I would have been fine with either team winning.

It was so 'deflating' to see the Seahawks lose on a higher-risk play they didn't need to call. If Seattle was that worried about leaving time on the clock, run a read option, and just throw it away after burning some time off the clock and/or run the ball.

 

[oc_in_fw]

I can't believe we won! That Kearse catch was going to go down with Tyree and Manningham but we pulled it out.

I definitely think Seattle over-thought the play call but also it was a hell of a read and reaction by Butler.

Going into the game, the difference between Brady being 5-0 instead of 3-2 in Super Bowls was two great catches. I thought for sure this one would bite him, too.

 

[jpakstis]

I politely have to disagree. You always (bolded, underlined & italics) run the ball in this situation. You learn this in Pee-Wee. If they pulled it off, it wouldn't have been genius, it would have been the most successful reckless play in NFL history. They (quite) literally handed it over by a very very bad play. I have no bias for either team, but I feel bad for 12th Man today... What a way to let down your fans.

But if the conventional wisdom is that you always go for it, wouldn't it be perfect to try and throw it? The Patriots had heavy goal-line personnel on the field, ingeniously using three CBs (Revis, Browner, and Butler) instead of 2 CBs and a safety. I think that goes unnoticed in all the analysis. Carroll said that he saw the goal-line personnel and thought passing it was the best option. I can't seem to find it now, but there were 0 interceptions thrown in this exact situation throughout all of 2014.

Plus when they snapped the ball, there was 26 seconds left. They didn't have enough time to run it 3 straight times even with the timeout. Besides, the play is actually pretty good:

Lockette is wide open and in perfect position to catch the ball. It takes an incredible play by Butler to intercept it. I guess Kearse should have pushed Browner more into Butler, but still, Butler sells all-out against the play. If he hesitates for an extra beat, Lockette has it and is in. Either Butler or Garapolo talked about how Butler got beat on this exact play in practice so he was prepared for it. Personally I think that's great coaching.

 

[jpakstis]

Going into the game, the difference between Brady being 5-0 instead of 3-2 in Super Bowls was two great catches. I thought for sure this one would bite him, too.

Oh, believe me. I went dead inside when Kearse came up with that catch.

 

[Seraphim]

Not only did Butler make the INT, but he laid that receiver out pretty nicely as a bonus.

 

[dws]

Run it/call a time out/run it again... It's the Super Bowl. You don't "go for it" when you don't need to. It wasn't a miracle that Butler caught it... He seemed to be all over it, without correction and displayed the definition of his job title. Don't get me wrong, it was an awesome snag! Lynch had time for at least two tries to display his, is all. If that's good coaching, we will have to agree to disagree.

This reminds me of the baby bull & papa bull, standing on a hill, looking down on a herd of cows joke. The Papa bull corrects the baby bull and says "Why run down and get one, when you can walk down and get them all?" The way I saw it, Carroll was the baby bull on Sunday.

Either way, it is one for the books. Both teams were really fun to watch all night.

 

[jpakstis]

For the record (and I'm sure there are minutes of these conversations being taken!), I think Seattle should have run it. The Patriots' defense were the last-place team in short-yardage situations all year long and Belichick's defense has long been a two-gap defense. I'm just trying to show how the decision to pass it wasn't really all that catastrophic. They liked the play, it looked like it should have worked, and Wilson had a good look. Remember they ran that touchdown play with 6 seconds left to go in the first-half (if it gets deflected, the first half probably ends) so they are definitely in favor of "gutsy" calls.

The reason why I'll say it is good coaching is because Butler instantly diagnosed the play and reacted full-steam because he was coached to do so during practices. The coaches identified what play Seattle would run out of that formation and situation, told Butler to look for it, and taught him how to react. This isn't Revis; this is UDFA rookie out of West Alabama. If that's not good coaching, then I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

The Seahawks were plenty patient; after all they took close to 40 seconds between the Lynch run and their 2nd down snap. If anything, they probably should have hurried up more. I think their "fatal flaw" was not hurrying up more after Lynch's run. If they kept that power running unit on the field, they probably would not have felt it was a mismatch between their 3 WR grouping and NE's goal-line D.

 

[dws]

I thought you were advocating the play as it being the right and the only choice. When you referred to good coaching, for some reason, I automatically assumed you were speaking of Carroll, as that is who I initially called out for bad coaching. Seriously... There's a reason this might be confusing. I'm posting confused. My apologies.

 

[jpakstis]

I thought you were advocating the play as it being the right and the only choice. When you referred to good coaching, for some reason, I automatically assumed you were speaking of Carroll, as that is who I initially called out for bad coaching. Seriously... There's a reason this might be confusing. I'm posting confused. My apologies.

No problem. I looked back at my post and I can see why it'd be confusing. I should have been more clear, especially with regard to the "coaching" element, so my apologies as well. Carroll, Bevell, et al. should have called a running play and I'm sure if they had that play over they probably would have, but also Butler made a great play and was well-coached.

Belichick will probably never really address it (I haven't seen anything yet) but I think by not calling a timeout to preserve time for the offense, he was showing a lot of faith in his defense. He said if Seattle had run it on 2nd down, he would have called timeout, but he let Seattle take 40 seconds off the clock between 1st and 2nd. Belichick's trust in the defense has been a big change between the last few years' Patriots teams and this year's. I remember reading about how the defense was really bringing it in the first practices and how they had been relentless in practice all year long and it was great (as a Patriots fan) to see such dedication pay off.

 

[oc_in_fw]

Dick Lebeau is no longer a Steeler- this makes me sad.

 

[dws]

^As a Steelers fan, I concur. Sad, but true.

 

[Seraphim]

But if the conventional wisdom is that you always go for it, wouldn't it be perfect to try and throw it? The Patriots had heavy goal-line personnel on the field, ingeniously using three CBs (Revis, Browner, and Butler) instead of 2 CBs and a safety. I think that goes unnoticed in all the analysis. Carroll said that he saw the goal-line personnel and thought passing it was the best option. I can't seem to find it now, but there were 0 interceptions thrown in this exact situation throughout all of 2014.

Plus when they snapped the ball, there was 26 seconds left. They didn't have enough time to run it 3 straight times even with the timeout. Besides, the play is actually pretty good:

Lockette is wide open and in perfect position to catch the ball. It takes an incredible play by Butler to intercept it. I guess Kearse should have pushed Browner more into Butler, but still, Butler sells all-out against the play. If he hesitates for an extra beat, Lockette has it and is in. Either Butler or Garapolo talked about how Butler got beat on this exact play in practice so he was prepared for it. Personally I think that's great coaching.

I just noticed: Kearse is committing offensive pass interference--check out how he reaches out and grabs Butler as he goes by to snag the INT!


EDIT:

I looked up another angle on the play---no foul. Kearse's arm is jut out there dangling around as he is getting manhandled by Browner. No grab.

 

[kansaskyle]

Has your opinion of the final play changed any over the week? It seems like many sports commentators are now saying it was a good call for the defense, and that Butler just made a great play.

I still view it as Seattle lost the game versus New England won it.

 

[Seraphim]

Has your opinion of the final play changed any over the week? It seems like many sports commentators are now saying it was a good call for the defense, and that Butler just made a great play.

I still view it as Seattle lost the game versus New England won it.

99 times out of 100 the worst that would happen on a 1yd slant pattern is a incompletion. In which case it would have been a fine call--either it would have been a touchdown, or an incompletion and clock stoppage.

The hindsight of it actually having been intercepted makes it seem like The Worst Call of All Time. But if Butler bobbled and dropped it, it would not have raised any eyebrows.