|
|
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.” |
Link - ( New Window )
Big question: How does that impact their play this year, if at all?
Had they won and he got it...It would have been a historic moment in that he would have been the 1st black QB to ever achieve it and Pete C. seems like a guy that is sensitive to stuff like that.
However as the QB and leader of the team calling an audible to a play with less risk and higher rate of success should have been what Wilson did. JMO
Easier said than done..Has anyone been that close to a World's championship, only to have it snatched away in an instant? Probably, but I can't think of anyone(s)
But - here's the thing. Wilson SHOULD NOT HAVE THROWN THE DAMN BALL. The DB saw it all the way. I am amazed how Wilson escapes all criticism for his bonehead throw. The play was not there and he is the QB.
Had they won and he got it...It would have been a historic moment in that he would have been the 1st black QB to ever achieve it and Pete C. seems like a guy that is sensitive to stuff like that.
However as the QB and leader of the team calling an audible to a play with less risk and higher rate of success should have been what Wilson did. JMO
Didn't Doug Williams win it for the Skins in '92 SB?
A locker room guy, no end of holdout in sight, we have need.
We dump JPP, convert $$ to KC.
If JPP is untagged and an FA, how much can he play in '15, anyway, so he may not get picked up by anyone else. If he is so be it.
If he wants to be a Giant, he can sign him in '16.
If they think they were so much better than how about not blowing a double digit lead?
Of course, sorry..Rypien was their QB in '92
Yes - he won it in 1988 in Super Bowl XXII.
If they think they were so much better than how about not blowing a double digit lead?
They could have gotten 3 plays off easily even with a run first. This has been proven time and time again.
But - here's the thing. Wilson SHOULD NOT HAVE THROWN THE DAMN BALL. The DB saw it all the way. I am amazed how Wilson escapes all criticism for his bonehead throw. The play was not there and he is the QB.
It may have been a GIFT, but what other SB was undeserving for the Pats?
Throwing the ball is okay on second down, throwing inside where this is traffic is plain stupid. There were just so many more options, including rolling Wilson out and having safer throws.
I can see Seattle players being upset, because winning another SB is going to be quite difficult, and they were just so close to sealing the deal.
Under no explanation, quantitative or qualitative, was passing the ball the right call.
Quote:
Another season coming up. Can't do anything about the Super Bowl now. To still be pissed off over one play call is crazy. Get over it.
Easier said than done..Has anyone been that close to a World's championship, only to have it snatched away in an instant? Probably, but I can't think of anyone(s)
Texas Rangers were 1 strike away from winning the world series in 2011 in 2 different innings in game 6 vs. the Cards. Albeit the Cards didn't win the world series as sudden and immediately as the Pats won the SB, but safe to say the Rangers were just as close to victory as the Seahawks were, even more so probably.
Thats why you ALWAYS worry about scoring first, stopping them later.
Quote:
In comment 12448611 Gman11 said:
Quote:
Another season coming up. Can't do anything about the Super Bowl now. To still be pissed off over one play call is crazy. Get over it.
Easier said than done..Has anyone been that close to a World's championship, only to have it snatched away in an instant? Probably, but I can't think of anyone(s)
Texas Rangers were 1 strike away from winning the world series in 2011 in 2 different innings in game 6 vs. the Cards. Albeit the Cards didn't win the world series as sudden and immediately as the Pats won the SB, but safe to say the Rangers were just as close to victory as the Seahawks were, even more so probably.
Another excellent example..
Quote:
Another season coming up. Can't do anything about the Super Bowl now. To still be pissed off over one play call is crazy. Get over it.
Easier said than done..Has anyone been that close to a World's championship, only to have it snatched away in an instant? Probably, but I can't think of anyone(s)
2013 NBA finals where two Spurs players fail to get a rebound, and Ray Allen hits a 3 to tie the game with less than 5 seconds left.
Thats why you ALWAYS worry about scoring first, stopping them later.
One of the main reasons I was totally fine with Bradshaw's fall down TD against the Pats..What if Tynes shanked the attempt(unlikely from that range) or it was blocked..You score and worry about(in this case) Brady late
anyone think of this?
Festivus - ( New Window )
Quote:
was assuming they could score to the end the game with little time and running theclock down.
Thats why you ALWAYS worry about scoring first, stopping them later.
One of the main reasons I was totally fine with Bradshaw's fall down TD against the Pats..What if Tynes shanked the attempt(unlikely from that range) or it was blocked..You score and worry about(in this case) Brady late
Agree on all
No smiley at the end of that post?
The play that should have been called was, pump to the inside and the receiver breaks to the outside on the pump....
The refs had to REVERSE the proper call made on the field and pull the tuck rule out of their ass. It was robbery.
That the Pats scoring 14 4th Q points against the best defense in the NFL might have had something to do with it too.
That's the type of thing that could haunt a professional for the entirety of their lives.
1st and goal at the 5 yard line, 1:06 on the clock, Seattle with one timeout
I don't know what was said on the Seattle sideline between Carroll, Wilson, and the OC, but as head coach what Carroll should have said...what he HAD to say...was "Lynch runs the ball four times here."
Every football fan in America would have bet their house on a Seattle victory if they knew Carroll had just said those words during that timeout.
Worst, most damaging call in the history of sports.
Not as insane as throwing the ball in that spot and not running it
Harbaugh made a similar set of bad play calls in the SB when he chose not to run to Gore but pass 3 x in a row.
I do believe there is some fairy tale ending coaches dream of that includes a fade pass or whatever, not a power run up the middle.
I think it will be hard for Seattle to recover as a team from that loss.
Link - ( New Window )
Yeah I've seen that article before, and I think it's flawed. Assigning a probability based solely on plays in other games in similar down and distance doesn't seem to me like a sound methodology.
But in that final scenario and clock, mathematically it is pretty clear.
Year after the Giants won in 1986/7. So it was the 1988 Super Bowl - 49-10 or something.
Harbaugh made a similar set of bad play calls in the SB when he chose not to run to Gore but pass 3 x in a row.
I do believe there is some fairy tale ending coaches dream of that includes a fade pass or whatever, not a power run up the middle.
I think it will be hard for Seattle to recover as a team from that loss.
That defense had a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter. They should look in the mirror.
But in that final scenario and clock, mathematically it is pretty clear.
Yeah the right choice was to run the ball, and run it with the strongest running back in the league.
But in that final scenario and clock, mathematically it is pretty clear.
The 3 v. 2 plays argument is a myth. 1:06 with 1 timeout is more than enough for 4 running plays.
And it was a thread PA Giant Fan was also on.
Perpetrating myths is just lazy posting.
Quote:
Another season coming up. Can't do anything about the Super Bowl now. To still be pissed off over one play call is crazy. Get over it.
Easier said than done..Has anyone been that close to a World's championship, only to have it snatched away in an instant? Probably, but I can't think of anyone(s)
Norwood's miss although it was the right call to kick it.
In other words, he had less than a 1 in 5 shot of converting based on his history.
No way.
PA Giants fan sounds like a PR guy hired by Carroll.
In other words, he had less than a 1 in 5 shot of converting based on his history.
Exactly. Matt Bahr even said that he wouldn't make it to Parcells before the kick.
It was 47 yards.
2 plays vs 3 plays
Defense prepared or not
Its math...simple
1st and goal at the 5 yard line, 1:06 on the clock, Seattle with one timeout
I don't know what was said on the Seattle sideline between Carroll, Wilson, and the OC, but as head coach what Carroll should have said...what he HAD to say...was "Lynch runs the ball four times here."
Every football fan in America would have bet their house on a Seattle victory if they knew Carroll had just said those words during that timeout.
Worst, most damaging call in the history of sports.
They went from 3 TOs to 1 in the span of that drive alone. I'll have to rewatch that drive to see why, but that wasn't ideal and cost them the SB assuming they get the ball to the 1 regardless.
2nd and goal with the clock running and only 1 TO left, you have to throw to preserve your TO and odds. You throw an end zone fade, it drops incomplete and you have 3rd and goal from the 1, and now you can run it in twice in a row if you wish.
If you choose to run the ball on 2nd and goal and FAIL (yes, you can fail, as Lynch was 1/5 all season from the 1), now what do you do:
a) kill your final time out. 3rd and goal with no timeouts....do you have any run/pass flexibility now?
b) spike it - now you immediately force it to 4th and goal
You don't have to do either of the above but you are rushing to line up and call a play in that moment. Not ideal, IMHO.
Anyways, pass was correct call IMO, but the slant was wrong. People absolving Wilson of the blame are also incorrect too. Change Wilson to Romo, Cutler, Kaepernick, Eli , etc. you get the drift......it would be all on the QB.
BTW, it's also a little annoying this "gift wrapped" SB crap. That Kearse catch might have been more insanely lucky than either of the two big Giants' catches the Patriots have had to endure in the SB.
If that Kearse catch doesn't happen, there's a good chance they don't get in position to score anyways.
2 plays vs 3 plays
Defense prepared or not
Its math...simple
It wasn't 2 plays vs. 3! Further, the methodology behind your math is flawed.
Quote:
After the Kearse juggling catch Seattle called timeout. It was during this timeout that they lost their chance at back to back titles. To reset the situation:
1st and goal at the 5 yard line, 1:06 on the clock, Seattle with one timeout
I don't know what was said on the Seattle sideline between Carroll, Wilson, and the OC, but as head coach what Carroll should have said...what he HAD to say...was "Lynch runs the ball four times here."
Every football fan in America would have bet their house on a Seattle victory if they knew Carroll had just said those words during that timeout.
Worst, most damaging call in the history of sports.
They went from 3 TOs to 1 in the span of that drive alone. I'll have to rewatch that drive to see why, but that wasn't ideal and cost them the SB assuming they get the ball to the 1 regardless.
2nd and goal with the clock running and only 1 TO left, you have to throw to preserve your TO and odds. You throw an end zone fade, it drops incomplete and you have 3rd and goal from the 1, and now you can run it in twice in a row if you wish.
If you choose to run the ball on 2nd and goal and FAIL (yes, you can fail, as Lynch was 1/5 all season from the 1), now what do you do:
a) kill your final time out. 3rd and goal with no timeouts....do you have any run/pass flexibility now?
b) spike it - now you immediately force it to 4th and goal
You don't have to do either of the above but you are rushing to line up and call a play in that moment. Not ideal, IMHO.
Anyways, pass was correct call IMO, but the slant was wrong. People absolving Wilson of the blame are also incorrect too. Change Wilson to Romo, Cutler, Kaepernick, Eli , etc. you get the drift......it would be all on the QB.
BTW, it's also a little annoying this "gift wrapped" SB crap. That Kearse catch might have been more insanely lucky than either of the two big Giants' catches the Patriots have had to endure in the SB.
If that Kearse catch doesn't happen, there's a good chance they don't get in position to score anyways.
The problem with your post was that Seattle had 2nd down with I believe 59 seconds left. You have 3 plays in a minute with 1 timeout.
1:06 1st down run
:46 2nd down run
:16 3rd down run
Timeout
4th down run
It's amazing that this is still a debate.
Bill Belichick could've used one of his two timeouts but didn't. Using one would have stopped the clock and given the Patriots about 50 seconds with the football if Seattle scored a touchdown.
Instead, he let the clock run. So did Carroll.The Seahawks snapped the ball with 26 seconds left. If they ran and failed on 2nd down, they could have called their last TO with 22 or 20 seconds left as the play wouldn't have taken long. OR, they could've went no huddle and tried to run with 12 to 10 seconds left and if it failed, call TO giving them 6 seconds on the clock for the 4th down play.
If they called TO after the 2nd down play, they could have run on 3rd with 20 seconds left and easily been able to get off a final snap before the clock expired.
I'm not sure where people think there wasn't time to run 3 times with a TO and being so close to the Goal line. Players are all within 10 yards of the ball so resetting isn't an issue like it is on downfield passes.
But based on the time on the clock, the best mathematical chance to score and win there was exactly as I note
Pass
Run
Run
Game theory and mathematics agrees
It was a game of back and forth that could've gone either way. Personally, I thought the Patriots out-played them, but that could just be because I'm a Belichick and Brady fan.
PA Giant Fan : 1:48 pm : link : reply
Just as it is in the article I posted. I am not arguing whether they should have stopped the clock earlier.
But based on the time on the clock, the best mathematical chance to score and win there was exactly as I note
This 100% correct shit is just that - shit.
Its actually that simple...lolllzzzzz
Its actually that simple...lolllzzzzz
You haven't made a single argument here. You've only parroted the one laid forth in a shitty article. You may be right about my low IQ... Walking morons through a concept isn't something smart Pepe spend a lot of time doing. That's something I have to work on.
How about hyperbole?
you have several people on this board who have shown you that it not only is possible, but done with minimal risk to run the final three plays. I've seen breakdowns on ESPN and the NFL Network that also claim it is possible. Sort of refutes you on both points. You keep using "no one in the press agrees" as a way to bolster your argument, but it isn't even true.
If you choose to ignore letting 40 seconds run off the clock on purpose.
They had over a minute. The idiot was so worried about what--getting tied?--that he gave away the option of four runs.
Genius stuff.
As far as I'm concerned moving forward, your handle is now Pepe
Quote:
.
As far as I'm concerned moving forward, your handle is now Pepe
No kidding.
You all believe let...those commenting here? Help FMIC out
Link - ( New Window )
You all believe let...those commenting here? Help FMIC out
No, they should have run it four times after the Kearse catch. What about that isn't clear to you?
Is 1:00 and 1 timeout enough for four runs or isn't it?
Not when one of those plays throws away the Super Bowl.
When you take the ball out of the hands of the better player, the success rate goes down. You are assuming that every thing stays status quo, but it does not transpire that way when Lynch DOESNT get the ball.
If the statement read, three plays of handing the ball off to Lynch is better than two times - then yes, it will make sense. But thats not the situation here.
2nd down - 26 seconds left. Run.
- Play takes max 4 seconds from snap to whistle.
- Call TO
- 3rd down run with 22 seconds left
- Run no huddle and snap with minimum 6 seconds left for 4th down
- 4th down run.
Using TO after 3rd down
2nd down - 26 seconds left. Run.
- Clock runs to 12 seconds or so before 3rd down snap
- 3rd down run.
- Clock stops with at least 6 seconds left after TO is called
- 4th down run.
please - enlighten us where that is incorrect.
Your link starts the clock at 26 seconds. Maybe you should read it?
Link - ( New Window )
However a few fallacies/assumptions here over and over
Lynch was a shoo in to run it in
Lynch would never fumble
Lynch would never get stopped further back
3% chance of interception...It was a free play essentially
I just read the article before you posted it, and again it doesnt mention that your taking the ball out of your best players hand.
Its like saying this. You need a basket to win the NBA championship game. Would you prefer Jordan take a 15 footer or Shaq taking three of them.
Why? Because you cant plan to run it three times there....read the freaking articles man
However a few fallacies/assumptions here over and over
Lynch was a shoo in to run it in
Lynch would never fumble
Lynch would never get stopped further back
3% chance of interception...It was a free play essentially
And with a pass play, you didnt include a sack or a Wilson fumble either.
Another article starting their analysis at 26 seconds.
game theory bitches
PA Giant Fan : 2:31 pm : link : reply
"Bringing statistical analysis to the decision, FiveThirtyEight.com impeccably calculated that Carroll had indeed made a smart one – that he had slightly increased his team’s chance of a win. What’s more, the evidence-based bad coaching decision was made by New England coach Bill Belichick, who, instead of calling a timeout, opted to let the clock run down (which would have deprived quarterback Tom Brady of another scoring opportunity in the likely event of a Seattle touchdown).The Conversation"
You suck at comprehension! That article says Carroll gave his team a beter chance to win by letting the clock run down - it isn't reflective of the following play calls.
That is correct. Because now the probability that NE could answer a score was very small. But Carroll took that advantage and threw it out the window by passing the ball.
I know you won't get this, but that article only discusses what happened BEFORE the INT, not what happened due to the poor playcall.
Lynch is their best player...not wilson?
It was a free play really..
You ignore the chance for a third extra play...you lose nothing.
Jordan passed to an open three pointer in a championship game too remember....lol
"But like all the football fans who made Coach Carroll an object of national ridicule, I was judging the call after knowing the outcome. The next morning I reassessed the situation. With one timeout, I now realized, Seattle could venture, at most, two running plays. The attempted pass was a free third play – which, if incomplete, would still leave them with the same two possible running plays. Moreover, the odds of an interception at the one-yard line are, I later learned, even less than the odds of a fumble. And had a touchdown pass arrived in the receiver’s hands a half-second sooner, we could use game theory to explain how the wily Seahawks won by doing what their opponent least expected."
Ask Carroll now if that was a free play.
I have never heard a stupider argument on any topic.
Stop saying no one when both ESPN and NFL Network have shown scenarios where running the ball was possible. There are people outside of here that believe it, even if you keep saying they don't.
Hell, half the articles you reference don't even talk about not being able to run the ball - they talk about how shortening the game BY LETTING THE CLOCK RUN is what gave the statistical advantage.
You aren't even reading the shit you're linking and then have the gall to say we won't read it.
this is getting to be an exercise in arguing with a fucking imbecile.
Pick one option
Run -
Pass -
Run
Pass
Run
Run
Run
Run
I did it above and asked you to refute it and you haven't.
I agree about not running so much time on the clock. But that is not the argument. False logic or willful ignorance on your part
26 seconds - everyone generally agrees, you can only run it twice there...
Lynch is their best player...not wilson?
It was a free play really..
Jordan passed to an open three pointer in a championship game too remember....lol
1. If you think Wilson is a better football player than Lynch, any credibility you have in this argument is gone. Yes, Lynch is better than Wilson.
2. If it was a free play, why didnt they get another play afterwards? You know why? Because it wasnt free.
3. And in your example, the ball was still in the hands of the best player. In Seattle, the best player did not touch the ball.
Pick one option
Run -
Pass -
Run
Pass
Run
Run
Run
Run
There was a minute left.
Pick one option
Run -
Pass -
Run
Pass
Run
Run
Run
Run
You have it wrong. It's more like this:
1:00 left
Run
Run
Run
Run
Win Super Bowl.
You think if Carroll thought he could run it 3x there, he wouldn't have? Think about it..
Quote:
26 seconds left
Pick one option
Run -
Pass -
Run
Pass
Run
Run
Run
Run
You have it wrong. It's more like this:
1:00 left
Run
Run
Run
Run
Win Super Bowl.
Your wrong here Terps. You would have only needed 2 runs, not 4.
There's that absolute again. Everyone. No one.
Everyone doesn't agree. it is not only possible, it can be done with time left to run the ball three times with a time out left. There is one time out left!
Again - I put the scenario above. Refute it or stop bullshitting with this everybody/no one absolute nonsensical shit.
First you are assuming Lynch gets in...what was his % of success in these situations before...
Second you are assuming Brady wont come back down and score
This should not factor one iota into the discussion.
Quote:
26 seconds left
Pick one option
Run -
Pass -
Run
Pass
Run
Run
Run
Run
You have it wrong. It's more like this:
1:00 left
Run
Run
Run
Run
Win Super Bowl.
It was second down, you had a minute and a timeout to get off three plays. Or 26 seconds, if you want to have your own facts.
I give up
1-run the ball. Let's say clock runs down to 10 or below
2-run the ball again, even if it runs down to 1 second left on clock
3-call TO with 1 second on clock and run it again
for the 20th time on these threads. My argument is that pass was correct with only 26 seconds left on the clock and one timeout. Statistically, it would also be correct.
He won't refute it - because he's a dumbass. A dumbass calling others mouthbreathers.
Welcome to the mouthbreathing club, old man.
No. You never, ever, ever approach the situation like that when you are trailing. Ever.
Carroll had the title and he gave it up. There is no rationalization for that. Using a % sign doesn't make you a statistician, nor does it mean you are conducting any form of valid quantitative analysis.
I give up
NO IT SHOULDN'T. JFC YOU ARE FUCKING DENSE!
You have the best defense in the league, Brady didn't do shit all day. Score the fucking touchdown with your best weapon whom the other team is afraid to even tackle on a low risk play and stop the other guys.
What a stupid fuck you are.
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
for the 20th time on these threads. My argument is that pass was correct with only 26 seconds left on the clock and one timeout. Statistically, it would also be correct.
You keep saying there was 26 seconds left, and sharing analysis starting there. As this wasn't remotely true, I don't see why you keep doing it.
If you had considerations other than scoring, then go ahead, pass all three times even. It's batshiat, but whatever.
You're about to take a three point lead with less than a minute to go. You have a good defense. Score the points. Worrying about the clock is idiocy.
You guys are awesome today...new levels of stupid are coming out.
And NE didn't do anything all day? They just erased a 10 pt deficit to take the lead...Holy shit..
You guys are awesome today...new levels of stupid are coming out.
And NE didn't do anything all day? They just erased a 10 pt deficit to take the lead...Holy shit..
Yes asshole. RUN THE FUCKING BALL AND SCORE. MAKE THE OTHER TEAM BEAT YOU. What a fucking moron.
Down to the dumbest comments like Jordan always took the shot and Lynch is their best player....
Now you say you score immediately leaving a full minute on the clock when you could easily run some time off it by calling the time out later or running the play later in the clock.
Funny stuff
Down to the dumbest comments like Jordan always took the shot and Lynch is their best player....
You have proven nothing. You have linked to articles based on the same flawed premise.
Further, if you are worried about New England getting the ball back with too much time, why throw it at all? Nearly every scenario stops the clock. It's flawed thinking within the already flawed premise that you should first aim to control how much time New England had to come back.
Regardless, you have given no arguments. You've only copied someone else's, and their argument is flawed.
I give up
That's not playing to win as much as it's playing not to lose. The Hawks brad and butter is Lynch and their defense. IMO, Lynch gets the ball and you win or go down with your best. If the defense blows it, shame on them.
Yes, reminds me of a Japanese portfolio manager I worked with about 20 years ago. Kept shorting 2 yr Treasuries while the Fed was easing. Lost his ass, our jobs.
Quote:
LOl. So how much time you leave your opponent to go down and kick a FG shouldn't factor into the discussion now?
I give up
That's not playing to win as much as it's playing not to lose. The Hawks brad and butter is Lynch and their defense. IMO, Lynch gets the ball and you win or go down with your best. If the defense blows it, shame on them.
exactly
I keep waiting.
funny thing is, you've pretty mcuh conceded taht in a goal to goal situation the players are all right around the ball - which makes running plays 10-12 seconds apart not only possible - but probable.
And - there is still a time out left. That is huge in allowing 3 runs to take place.
Now you say you score immediately leaving a full minute on the clock when you could easily run some time off it by calling the time out later or running the play later in the clock.
Funny stuff
Further more asshole, passing takes no time off the clock. And incomplete pass stops the clock. A slant route through the line in compressed space is suicidal. The Giants tried it once to Nicks against Dallas in the reg season and Eli threw a pick 6.
You're undoubtedly the single biggest asshole ever to stain this site.
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.