|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
In March, quarterback Russell Wilson did what Carroll couldn’t do. Wilson organized a large group of veteran players and took them to Hawaii for informal workouts. Everyone knew about the Hawaii trip when it happened, thanks to the social media accounts of some of the players who went. Greg Bishop of SI.com has provided more details that reveal how bad it had gotten. “[T]here was tension,” receiver Doug Baldwin told Bishop. “People thinking we should have done this, we should have done that [in the Super Bowl]. There were a lot of questions that needed to be answered. And a lot that needed to be asked.” First, Wilson had to convince players to go on the trip. He persuaded Baldwin to help, and they then recruited safety Kam Chancellor. “Kam was pivotal,” Baldwin said. “He’s like the godfather of the locker room. Any problems, any issues, you go to him.” (By the way, Chancellor is currently holding out, with no end in sight.) Chancellor helped persuade more defensive players to attend the carefully-planned retreat that included daily workouts, outings, and dinners. As Bishop explains it, however, “the tension endured” throughout the trip, with some of the players skipping “a handful” of workouts. On the sixth day of the trip, a bus took the players to the edge of a cliff for what the Seahawks now call a “come to Jesus” meeting. The 45-minute session included comments from all players in attendance, with “harsh words” uttered and “all grievances” being aired. Players who thought that the decision to pass the ball was aimed at delivering the Super Bowl MVP trophy to Wilson said so, per Bishop. Players who thought teammates had not taken responsibility for their role in the outcome said so, too. Wilson said the meeting gave him “chills,” but that doesn’t mean all is well. “We didn’t know if the trip was going to work,” Baldwin said. “We still don’t.” |
I guess you never saw that terrific show, "Numbers."
I give up
nope not at all. if the game was tied, then yes you run the time down.
you need to score. score first, worry later. because if you don't dcore... well we know what happened.
My point is that with 26 seconds left, passing on 2nd down is the right call. That is my though. I did not argue the play call itself, nor am I arguing they left the right amount of time on the clock. None of you seem to be able to grasp these simple concepts.
A couple of you or one really believes you should have run it 3x with 26 seconds which most of you don't believe but wont argue with him.
Some of you are saying you should not let the clock run at all and run and if you score the TD from the 1 yard line right there with 1 minute left, so be it since NE didn't do anything all game ignoring there comeback to take the lead erasing a 10 pt deficit....an most of you don't believe that but won't argue with them.
Funny stuff
Link - ( New Window )
That is what we call circular reporting in the intelligence world. It's done by mistake or done by someone, who is lazy and wants to bolster their case by providing false sense of higher probability.
What are the odds of winning in that scenario? Or 538 didn't work that one out for you?
That is probably the funniest part of all of this.
Quote:
hope that if I ever return to coaching that the guy on the other sideline is carrying a slide rule, abacus, calculator or a laptop so he can work the odds.
I guess you never saw that terrific show, "Numbers."
Indeed, I have.
Good show. Didn't convince me, though not to give the ball to my best back behind my best two linemen or against their worst two.
Those are the only two things I consider. Which one provides the better chance to score.
Who agree's with Schabadoo that you should call timeout with 1 minute left, run the ball in from the 1 yard line and give NE a minute to possible be able kick a FG to tie the game?
Lets have a vote for him
Who agrees...?
Would you rather
Pass once
run it twice
or just run it twice?
Or do we need Stephen Hawking to do a paper on it?
Who agree's with Schabadoo that you should call timeout with 1 minute left, run the ball in from the 1 yard line and give NE a minute to possible be able kick a FG to tie the game?
Lets have a vote for him
Who agrees...?
I do. Unless you can score the game-winning points without scoring a touchdown, the only thing that matters is scoring that touchdown. Until you have the lead or are in position to win the game with a simply executed chip-shot FG, your only focus should be scoring the points necessary to put you ahead.
Who agree's with Schabadoo that you should call timeout with 1 minute left, run the ball in from the 1 yard line and give NE a minute to possible be able kick a FG to tie the game?
Lets have a vote for him
Who agrees...?
Call timeout? Why in the world?
Why?
The handful of you can get past
Pass
Run
Run
Run
Pass
Run
Run
Run
Gotta go but you guys can play in your world of nonsense for now..be back later
PA Giant Fan : 3:30 pm : link : reply
No one sees it as a reasonable option so it is not even discussed. Every article basically just notes that it is not reasonable. In other words it is so far from accepted that it is not even debated anywhere.
You either can't refute it or haven't been given the info in an article to refute it.
I've asked before, but why the fuck do you keep using terms like "every" "everyone" "no one" when this isn't the case. It isn't just people on BBI. Again - the NFL Network and ESPN have both given scenarios where running the ball 3 times was possible. you cling to a few articles and keep using absolutes.
I'm serious when I ask this - are you that much of a fucking moron that you don't understand what absolutes are, or are you intentionally being obtuse?
I've shown you twice above how it is possible. BB'56 also showed a way it is possible.
We've yet to see you refute that with the same math you seem to be so in touch with.
Scratch the question from my previous post - it is confirmed that you are a fucking moron.
The Hawks put their season in the hands of Lockette who was targeted only 15 times all season. That was Burress or Dez Bryant, etc. It was a little known receiver who was beaten to the football and who knows if he even makes the catch (or the ball glances off his hands, etc.
Season on the line, let's call on Lockette?
Why?
Given the choice between draining the clock down to :26 and stopping the clock with 1 minute, I definitely stop the clock.
The reason, again, is that you are not in a win or tie situation without scoring a TD. You do not have the luxury to bleed the clock. Priority #1 should be to score the points that put you in position to win the game.
In the simplest possible terms, with :55 on the clock, I'd rather be ahead by 3 points than down by 4. Period.
In the simplest possible terms, with :55 on the clock, I'd rather be ahead by 3 points than down by 4. Period.
Yes.
And it'd be closer to 40 seconds, as first down ended at 1:02. Line up as you normally would and run it in.
If only we wrote an article about it - that might finally do the trick.
If only we wrote an article about it - that might finally do the trick.
You do have the FMT at your disposal..
Would you rather
Pass once
run it twice
or just run it twice?
Why does passing first allow an extra play vs a run? If you passed incomplete you have that timeout. If you ran you use it there. Now it's 3rd & Goal with ~22s left. You can pass here just the same. What's so different? 3v2 attempts is better but not relevant here, both scenarios allow 3
The only math to consider is the pass carries the highest risk of a TO. PC & DB cite the success of that play in 2014 across the NFL and that it never resulted in a TO, but it inherently includes the highest chance of success for their opponent. Esp since a TO there means a loss, SEA gave NE their best chance to win on that play. No matter how small the probability of a TO it's clearly much higher than a run. On the biggest play of the biggest game, the one thing you can't do as a coach. All the other stuff - Lynch, the run dominance, risk of throwing over the middle, the fact there were safer passes to attempt - just made it that much more obvious
I'm with you on that to a degree. But the one thing for me is that is how the play is run, QB almost forces it in there in spite of tight coverage. So the decision to throw might have been suspect, but ideally the issue was nipped in the bud from the start and you don't put your player in that position (tho you still hope he executes). I'd be more on him about not changing the call or just running it in after the snap
Wilson either has the option of running it in, or passing; if no one is open, then throw the ball away. Even if everything is covered, you can still run the ball twice (using the timeout).
The play call made no sense at all, as the Defense is looking to jam up the middle, so there's all sorts of interference there. The Pats were tired, at that point...Wilson's outside speed would have been deadly.
Sounds like you're working backwards to craft a criteria for intelligence that benefits you. Man, I hate that shit.
"I think people that believe A instead of B are more intelligent than average. And hey! It just so happens that I believe A! What a coincidence!"
What. The. Fuck.
The one play you don't call there is a slant. One play there is absolutely awful and just a non starter-- the slant.
If that was week 3 and the Giants called that play with 8 min left in the first I'd be mad at the play call. The slant pass is closer to a desperate play than not.
There are probably 10 (general) offensive plays you could run there and only one is completely awful and Carroll called it. He got burnt. Wilson didn't help matters but Carroll called it.
He should have either run it or called some kind of rollout where Wilson could heave the ball 10 rows deep into the stands if the WR is covered.
The funny part to this is FMIC and the few here will say, see it was a G2G, all they had to do was get reset...completely ignoring that in a G2G formation like that, NE would be in the best possible situtation to stop the run. And Lynch is not that great in those situations either. He is not a miracle worker. But no one is willing to give me those stats and I am too bored with this by now to go look them up.
Secondly, it is a pileup so people have to be uncovered, pulled off...
Way too risky.
In reality, he should have left about 35 seconds on the clock but he was trying to have his cake and eat it too which again was probably correct mathematically
Just wrong.
Option A: Let's establish something simple. How much time would you need to run on two plays if you had 1 timeout? I think the answer is probably 6 seconds (i.e. you tell marshawn to dive at the goal line, so he doesn't get stood up and waste time that way, and the first run up the gut is over in less than 4 seconds and you call timeout).
Option B: How much time would you need if you had ZERO timeouts, and wanted to take a pass and a run to get two chances if the pass is incomplete? Maybe 8 seconds, to account for the chance the pass play takes slightly longer to develop?
Okay, so now we are back at 26 seconds with three timeouts. We go in the huddle and say "Two plays in a row, its BeastMode up the gut" and set off to snap the ball at 26 seconds. As stipulated, the play takes 5 seconds. So the play is over at 21 seconds. You now have 13 seconds to get lined up in the same position for the same play. If somehow the Pats managed to sit on the ball long enough that by about the 8-10 second mark it is obvious you won't get this third down HB Dive play off in the next few seconds (i.e. follow Option A), you can call timeout and you are fine according to Option B - pass on third down, and do whatever on fourth.
Getting in three plays was not in question here. I am a stat-head myself, I am perfectly content to believe the numbers are right in the long term, but anyone watching that game knew the Pats were just not stopping the run there.
The Seahawks got too cute and it cost them.
I was utterly shocked when I saw it was a pass. I couldn't believe it. Even before he released the ball, I said to my wife, "WTF are they doing?"
Not sure how you can say when the thing that's wrong with it - risking a TO - is exactly what happened. There's inherent risk in passing, it's why teams typically don't do it while ahead late. No reason to risk a TO when that's basically the only way you can lose. No reason to give the opponent even 1% chance when you can make it 0. That's the failure in the decision making even b4 we saw the final result
There's two ways NE wins the game on 2nd & goal from the 1:
1. the D holds for 3 plays
2. they force a TO
Calling a pass greatly increases the chance of #2. Running pretty much prevents it, had been highly successful for you all game / that drive, and even IF you get pushed back we're at 3rd down
The Seahawks got too cute and it cost them.
I was utterly shocked when I saw it was a pass. I couldn't believe it. Even before he released the ball, I said to my wife, "WTF are they doing?"
Yeah I remember my line of thinking all in a split second..."Not a run, WTF!?!? oh a QB keeper...No WTF!?!? tossing the fade...no wait WTF just happened!?"
I didn't have a problem with throwing it there, just not like that. I would have done a rollout & if no one was open, toss it out of bounds & live to fight another down.
& of course players are still pissed about it. They'll be pissed about it until the day they die. To be so close to repeating & lose it...hell, if that happened to the Giants, 1/2 of BBI would be in padded cells right now, myself included.
Link - ( New Window )
Brett, I agee! For someone like Wilson, it's amazing how the media didn't rip him a lot more for that. It's basically done and over, on the next season type attitude. Makes me appreciate what Eli did even more. I can't imagine if that ever happened to him. Can you imagine if that happened to us after Eli said he was elite before the season started? lol God, that would have been brutal.
Carroll expected the Patriots to sell out against the run and so he called a pass play. You can say he got "cute" but defying conventional wisdom is what got him to the Super Bowl in the first place. He chose a quick slant because it's the fastest developing play, with no chance of a sack, which is what he was more concerned about than a turnover. The play resulted in an INT only because it was poorly executed, not because of the call itself. Wilson needed to either get rid of the ball sooner or just throw it away and the WR needed to attack the ball instead of wait for it.
And it's not like running plays never result in turnovers. The Giants went to the 1990 Super Bowl because Erik Howard forced a fumble out of Roger Craig in a situation where another yard or so would've sealed the game for the Niners....
“What I remember most of all is that feeling of desperation, that it was slipping through our grasp,” recalled Howard, now a 47-year old land developer in Texas specializing in the new construction of vintage-style homes.
“I remember having a conversation in my head, with myself, that somebody has to make a play.”
Howard was a five-year veteran at that point, savvy enough to ascertain which play was coming “around 85, 90 percent of the time,” he estimated. From his position head-to-head with the other team’s center, he would consider the game situation, the offensive formation, the “splits” of the offensive linemen, and the subtle ways in which the linemen were distributing their weight.
The situation here was obvious: The 49ers were in clock-killing mode, which meant another run was more likely than a pass. Howard next took stock of where the 49ers’ offensive linemen were. He noticed that left guard Guy McInture was just a foot and a half away from center Jesse Sapolu, a foot or two less than normal.
“So I knew the double-team was coming from that side,” he said. “And they were real heavy on their hands, so I knew a run was coming.”
At the snap of the ball, Howard fired his hands directly into Sapolu to prevent Sapolu from getting his own body into his. In practically the same motion, he turned his shoulders from right to left while lowering his right knee to the ground, in order to give McIntyre, who was coming from Howard’s right, less of a surface to hit, and to give himself a chance of knifing through the two blockers.
“You sort of make yourself small,” Howard explained.
Both men hit him, but Howard squeezed between them.
“You’re being pushed from two different directions, so it kinda pushes you out,” he said.
He was losing his balance as Sapolu drove him to the ground, but he had successfully positioned himself directly in the hole in which the 49ers had designed the play. Before he knew it, Roger Craig, San Francisco’s running back, was upon him. With as much force as he could muster, Howard put his helmet “in the bread basket. And the ball just happened to be there.”
The ball popped out directly behind Craig, and into the arms of Lawrence Taylor, who was crashing down from the outside on the play. The Giants had gained possession of the ball and an improbable new lease on life.
“Everyone in that stadium was convinced that it was over, and the 49ers were heading for that ‘Three-Peat,’” said Howard, evoking the newly coined term of that era. “And man, I’m telling you, when we got that fumble, you could have heard a pin drop.”
Quote:
Wilson has largely escaped some well-deserved criticism.
Brett, I agee! For someone like Wilson, it's amazing how the media didn't rip him a lot more for that. It's basically done and over, on the next season type attitude. Makes me appreciate what Eli did even more. I can't imagine if that ever happened to him. Can you imagine if that happened to us after Eli said he was elite before the season started? lol God, that would have been brutal.
Nooooo doubt. Look at all the bellyaching from a preseason wk 3 pick 6
A TO loses you the game, a sack still gives you the next play. If a coach is more worried about a sack than TO that's a huge mistake esp here since you immediately lose. And while poor playcall can succeed it's about min risk / max reward. So why choose a max risk play as your first (pass over the middle) with the same reward as a min risk play (a run)? Even if it worked, it wasn't a great decision particularly since its a must win, where in the 2nd qtr of wk 7 its a much more acceptable decision regardless
Sure you can fumble on a run but it's irrelevant since its the least likely to end in a TO. You can't refuse to call the safe play because at some point in history it's failed, then pick a play with higher if not the highest risk, a pass over the middle
I just think he felt that Belichick was going to have them sell out vs. the run and that a quick slant would catch them off guard for an easy score.
But even if not ideal play call, any 'properly executed play' can work. That doesn't support any choice. You always hope it's executed 100%, even a run on the goaline. So if PC thought "the probability of a TO on a slant were near zero" that's ignoring an outcome and therefore poor decision making - even if it had worked
Assessing risk IS based on consequences. Saying "the consequences of a TO were greater than that of a sack, but..." is acknowledging then immediately dismissing the worst outcome. It's a huge hole in the decision making process at that moment if true. That for 1 yd on play 1 of 3, so the last thing you want is a TO. You can still run the same slant if you want on 3rd or 4th down, it's a much more acceptable call there assuming you don't get in running on 2nd
Meantime, I think they must have seen something that made them think the play would be wide open and an easy score...Again, the point is, if it's not your QB throws it away and there's virtually no harm.
Wilson is grossly over paid I don't think he's a top QB and I'd like to see this Seattle team have a minor collapse this year as his cap causes the quality player around him to be lessened.
Christ, they could have run the same shotgun read-option play that got them their 2nd TD in the NFC Championship game. The entire defense crashed down on Lynch, and Wilson strolled into the endzone like he was out for a walk in the park.
Basically anything except a slant into the middle of the field that brings a turnover into the mix, either through a tipped pass or what ended up happening.