Players still PO'd over Carroll's SB call?

it's amazing that Wilson escaped criticism the way he did for the INT and the God-awful NFC title game performance. Just because the play-call was shitty doesn't mean the QB has to throw a pick. Imagine if that was Romo, Eli or a host of other QBs? They would've been crucified, with our without Marshawn Lynch.

In comment 12448619 Big Blue '56 said:

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)

Norwood's miss although it was the right call to kick it.

act as if Norwood's kick was a chip shot. For his career, Norwood was at a 15% success rate for kicks on grass over 40 yards, and I believe it was a 49-yarder he was attempting.

In other words, he had less than a 1 in 5 shot of converting based on his history.

I throw the ball there with Marshawn Lynch in my backfield and a Patriots team that has lost interest in tackling the beast.

No way.


PA Giants fan sounds like a PR guy hired by Carroll.

In comment 12448887 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

act as if Norwood's kick was a chip shot. For his career, Norwood was at a 15% success rate for kicks on grass over 40 yards, and I believe it was a 49-yarder he was attempting. 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.

about it being a chipshot but it was long enough. He makes it they are SB champions, he misses....well we know the rest.

Tell me what his success rate was in goal to goal situations. This whole thing is a math question once you get settled on the number of seconds left.

2 plays vs 3 plays
Defense prepared or not

Its math...simple

In comment 12448777 Go Terps said:

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.

In comment 12448901 PA Giant Fan said:

Quote:

Tell me what his success rate was in goal to goal situations. This whole thing is a math question once you get settled on the number of seconds left. 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.

In comment 12448903 NINEster said:

Quote:

In comment 12448777 Go Terps said: 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.

If you assume :20 from the start of each play to the start of the next:

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.

On 1st down, Lynch was tackled with 1:02 left on the clock at the 1 yard line, the Seahawks had one timeout left and the Patriots had two.

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.

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

Pass
Run
Run

Game theory and mathematics agrees

There was nothing wrong with the play call other than the fact that it was poorly executed, but it provides a perfect excuse for the Patriots haters to say they were "gifted" a Super Bowl. It was play calls like that that got Seattle a TD instead of a FG at the end of the half and play calls like that that got Seattle into the Super Bowl in the first place. That's who Pete Carrol is, he doesn't do what's conventional or expected. You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

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.

.

out a scenario above that shows that not only is it possible, but possible without much risk to run 3 times.

Quote:

No my methodology is 100% correct 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.

Yes you run three times...no one in the press agrees...This whole thing has been sort of an IQ test really. The worst call ever people are the below average people, the not horrible call people are average and those that get that it was even at best and likely a good call mathematically are the above average....

Its actually that simple...lolllzzzzz

In comment 12449062 PA Giant Fan said:

Quote:

Yes you run three times...no one in the press agrees...This whole thing has been sort of an IQ test really. The worst call ever people are the below average people, the not horrible call people are average and those that get that it was even at best and likely a good call mathematically are the above average.... 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.

NOONE in the press agrees and yet you talk about statistics and game theory?

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.

.

In comment 12449013 PA Giant Fan said:

Quote:

Just as it is in the article I posted.

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.

In comment 12449073 Go Terps said:

Quote:

.

As far as I'm concerned moving forward, your handle is now Pepe

In comment 12449081 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

In comment 12449073 Go Terps said: Quote: . As far as I'm concerned moving forward, your handle is now Pepe

No kidding.

I noted multiple times regarding the time left on the clock. Not my fault if you decided not to read the thread before commenting

LOL...yes you proved what no one else believes besides a few mouth breathers here. They should have run it three times with the amount of time that they left on the clock...

You all believe let...those commenting here? Help FMIC out

"In the NFL, with man-to-man coverage, the advantage goes to the offense. After burning two timeouts earlier in the drive, and with only 26 seconds remaining, it was not really feasible for the Seahawks to run the ball three straight plays. If they ran the ball on second down and failed, they would need to call their final timeout. Without a timeout, if they ran and were stopped on third down, it is unlikely they would have time to lineup for a fourth-down attempt. There are massive pileups at the goal line and it takes a while to get unpiled and set up. Obviously, three plays to score the go-ahead touchdown are better than two."
Link - ( New Window )

In comment 12449090 PA Giant Fan said:

Quote:

LOL...yes you proved what no one else believes besides a few mouth breathers here. They should have run it three times with the amount of time that they left on the clock... 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?

Why are you avoiding the fact they ran the clock down after first down?

Is 1:00 and 1 timeout enough for four runs or isn't it?

"Obviously, three plays to score the go-ahead touchdown are better than two."

Not when one of those plays throws away the Super Bowl.

Quote:

Obviously, three plays to score the go-ahead touchdown are better than two.

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.

bring him down, and many of them did not care to, made as many here say "business decisions". It was a dumb fucking call. The dumbest in the history of professional sports.

Using TO after 2nd down
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.

In comment 12449087 PA Giant Fan said:

Quote:

I noted multiple times regarding the time left on the clock. Not my fault if you decided not to read the thread before commenting

Your link starts the clock at 26 seconds. Maybe you should read it?

"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"
Link - ( New Window )

All the offensive players are within 10 yards of the LOS. This isn't a downfield reception play where the clock still only will elapse 15 seconds or so between snaps.

Where did I avoid it? This is what happens when you don't read. My comments have always been based on the time left. I probably would have left enough time to run it three times.

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 he thinks that makes it a new source.

In comment 12449117 PA Giant Fan said:

Quote:

"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" Link - ( New Window )

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.

No one except a few people here believe that. No coaches, analysts, writers...Pass was a free play...Just a matter of which down you chose. And if you didn't do it on 1st down, then the Pats knew you were going to do it on 2nd down...

Why? Because you cant plan to run it three times there....read the freaking articles man

In comment 12449122 PA Giant Fan said:

Quote:

Where did I avoid it? This is what happens when you don't read. My comments have always been based on the time left. I probably would have left enough time to run it three times. 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.

In comment 12449117 PA Giant Fan said:

Quote:

"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" Link - ( New Window )

Another article starting their analysis at 26 seconds.

this fucker ain't gonna relent and you ain't convincing him otherwise

game theory bitches

Quote:

good article here too - doubt people will read it though 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.

So many issues with what you just posted

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

Are you really this stupid?

"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."

and it's flawed 3% free play bullshit.

Ask Carroll now if that was a free play.

I have never heard a stupider argument on any topic.

It is fucking math and probability.

with the fucking hyperbole!

Quote:

No one except a few people here believe that. No coaches, analysts, writers

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.

26 seconds left

Pick one option

Run -
Pass -
Run

Pass
Run
Run

Run
Run

And you guys would argue it...lol