Seattle Pass On 2nd Down Dictated By NE Defense

[b23hqb]

The more I think about the pass on 2nd down, it was not such a bad call, seeing that NE was set up against the run, only one time out left, a just learned factoid that Lynch has had six opportunities this year from the one yard line, and only got in once. If they failed on 2nd down, they would have had to burn that last TO, and have to pass anyway. The NE rookie DB made a great read on a pass that would have been caught for the probable winning score, very reminiscent of Ronde Barber's pick of McNabb at the three yard line for a 97 yard pick six that sent my Bucs on to their one and only SB victory.

So I would have to retract my previous stance that it was a bonehead call, but a calculated decision that backfired.

 

[Larry Gude]

That's all fair and it's good that everyone understand it as a deliberate, reasoned call.

However within all that reasoning we have exactly what Rodney Harrison said it was; the tendency of sometimes over thinking things when playing the pats.

 

[DoWhat]

The more I think about the pass on 2nd down, it was not such a bad call, seeing that NE was set up against the run, only one time out left, a just learned factoid that Lynch has had six opportunities this year from the one yard line, and only got in once. If they failed on 2nd down, they would have had to burn that last TO, and have to pass anyway. The NE rookie DB made a great read on a pass that would have been caught for the probable winning score, very reminiscent of Ronde Barber's pick of McNabb at the three yard line for a 97 yard pick six that sent my Bucs on to their one and only SB victory.

So I would have to retract my previous stance that it was a bonehead call, but a calculated decision that backfired.

Agree.

 

[itsbob]

Agree.

Better team won.. coach QB have more Superbowl rings than most NFL franchises..

 

[Tilted]

I don't think it was that bad a call. We tend to look at (and assess) things from an inappropriate chronological perspective. We know what happened, and we (unconsciously typically) consider some of the details as givens based on what ended up happening rather than based on what the possibilities and likelihoods were. That ended up being the last play for Seattle's offense, so we can't help (being, deep down, the determinists that we are) but consider the situation based on the sense that it was going to, or might be, the last play.

If Seattle had only one chance to get in the end zone, then yeah - it probably should have ran Marshawn Lynch. But that's not the situation they were looking at. They were gonna have 3 chances to get in, and no harm would be done if all 3 chances were needed. Given the time left, they may or may not have had time to run 3 times - it could have been close. So, to get access to all 3 chances, they may have needed one of the first 2 to be a pass attempt. And, anyway, given three chances - and the ability of NFL defenses (especially one coached by Bill Belichick) to sometimes stop even the most effective offensive options if those defenses know what is coming - it makes sense to use one of those chances to try to throw the ball in. You use the other 2 to try to power it in with Mr. Lynch. That's a pretty reasonable game plan. And if you're gonna try to throw it once anyway, why not do it when you already know you're facing a favorable defensive package (one that makes throwing it more likely to succeed).

That play, with that quarterback, isn't going to result in an interception very often. You have to trust the guy who's been your leader for 3 years, who has gotten it down in the clutch over and over again, to not get picked off there. Something unlikely ended up happening, that could have been the case no matter what they did. And it's only because he was picked off that all this criticism feels apt. If the play works, great call! Even if it doesn't work, so long as the ball isn't intercepted, no biggie - they've still got 2 chances to punch the ball in. If they don't get in at all, well, they ran it 3 out of 4 plays after having first and goal. That's pretty reasonable, they just weren't able to get it indeed - indeed, if they run 4 times and don't get in, a lot of people are complaining that they should have put the ball in their superstar quarterback's hands at least once.

In other words, all this criticism of the play call is so much hindsight being 20/20. Running in that situation wouldn't have been a bad call, but giving Russell Wilson a chance to make a play (on 2nd down) wasn't a terrible call either. It just didn't work, and something bad... happened to happen. That's how it goes sometimes.

 

[Tilted]

That's all fair and it's good that everyone understand it as a deliberate, reasoned call.

However within all that reasoning we have exactly what Rodney Harrison said it was; the tendency of sometimes over thinking things when playing the pats.

I don't see overthinking, I seem modis operandi. I see conventional NFL play calling. You have three chances to get in from about the one, you plan to run twice and throw once (adjusting perhaps based on what the defense shows you). That's not a particularly uncommon plan of attack - it's probably nearly as common as just running three times (or planning to run three times). What order you try those things in can vary considerably. But how often have we seen NFL teams - even those with powerful running games - try at least once to throw the ball in from the one yard line? It happens quite a bit. If it didn't, then running it in from there wouldn't be nearly as easy as we're pretending it is for purposes of criticizing the call. Mr. Lynch is a beast, yeah; but that Mr. Wilson guy is pretty damn good at making the plays his team needs in the clutch as well.

It's not overthinking, it just didn't work this time.

 

[Grumpy]

With the amount of time left on the clock, I wonder if the Pats were gonna let Lynch walk into the endzone so they could, at least, get an opportunity to possibly tie the score with a field goal. But, the Seahawks got cute, and paid for it. I fully expected Lynch to get the ball and walk into the endzone.

 

[b23hqb]

I don't see overthinking, I seem modis operandi. I see conventional NFL play calling. You have three chances to get in from about the one, you plan to run twice and throw once (adjusting perhaps based on what the defense shows you). That's not a particularly uncommon plan of attack - it's probably nearly as common as just running three times (or planning to run three times). What order you try those things in can vary considerably. But how often have we seen NFL teams - even those with powerful running games - try at least once to throw the ball in from the one yard line? It happens quite a bit. If it didn't, then running it in from there wouldn't be nearly as easy as we're pretending it is for purposes of criticizing the call. Mr. Lynch is a beast, yeah; but that Mr. Wilson guy is pretty damn good at making the plays his team needs in the clutch as well.

It's not overthinking, it just didn't work this time.

Good thoughts. Lynch is called the Beast, but he needs a few yards to really get going. He does not seem to be a very good one yard guy against very good defenses. A better pass call, IMHO, would have been to scoot Wilson one way or the other. and maybe opening up other options for the play.

However, as a Pats fan on the AFC side of the table, I am happy the result was as it is. It was sickening for me to watch that absurd catch on the back by Kearse, in the closing seconds, on a go ahead score. To see the Pats lose three consecutive SB's on one of those once in a lifetime gifts would have been just unbearable. The NY football Giants did it to them twice (Tyree and the back of helmet grab with one hand, Manningham on the sideline), so justice was served for NE.

 

[Larry Gude]

That play, with that quarterback, isn't going to result in an interception very often.

...If the play works, great call! Even if it doesn't work, .

They'd intercepted Brady, goal line, already, by having schemed for goal line pass plays so, it only stands to reason they're gonna be facing the same. It is the SB and you do get two weeks to work this stuff out.

I watched in horror as Wilson took the snap and stepped back. Down, distance, time, time out left, nothing, other than their own predictability, which a rookie CB in a HUGE moment picked up on and made a great play on but, one he was ready for. I thought at first it had been knocked down and felt relief for them having gotten away with such a high risk play.

Quick goal slants in traffic get batted all the time. From there, if you're lucky, they fall to the ground. They work, too, but that's not the strength of Seattle. Not even close. Even if it had worked, I'd have been thinking 'who in the hell would take that sort of chance then and there with the game on the line, time to work with and a time out???"

Rodney Harrison, having been with that team so long and so successfully, called it; The Pats can get you to over think it sometimes. Who else would have a rookie QB, who'd be of NO use anyway on a run, EXPLODE on the ball the instant he saw his man slant? The Pats. That's the little things they do. if you can't cut, hold a leg. If you can't hold a leg, break, hard, on a slant. :shrug:

 

[Larry Gude]

With the amount of time left on the clock, I wonder if the Pats were gonna let Lynch walk into the endzone so they could, at least, get an opportunity to possibly tie the score with a field goal. But, the Seahawks got cute, and paid for it. I fully expected Lynch to get the ball and walk into the endzone.

Yup.

Like someone else said, if you run it two, maybe three times and they stop you, at least you played to your own strength. There is NOTHING to be said if they stop your best player on your best play. Best team wins. You try and be cute, a hard goal line slant, traffic and hands everywhere, you play away from what got you there.

First thing I thought after being stunned they'd make such a crazy call, 'Somewhere, Joe Jackson Gibbs is smiling." Dance with what brung you.

 

[Larry Gude]

I don't see overthinking, I seem modis operandi. I see conventional NFL play calling. You have three chances to get in from about the one, you plan to run twice and throw once (adjusting perhaps based on what the defense shows you). That's not a particularly uncommon plan of attack - it's probably nearly as common as just running three times (or planning to run three times). What order you try those things in can vary considerably. But how often have we seen NFL teams - even those with powerful running games - try at least once to throw the ball in from the one yard line? It happens quite a bit. If it didn't, then running it in from there wouldn't be nearly as easy as we're pretending it is for purposes of criticizing the call. Mr. Lynch is a beast, yeah; but that Mr. Wilson guy is pretty damn good at making the plays his team needs in the clutch as well.

It's not overthinking, it just didn't work this time.

Disagree. A hard slant into traffic at the goal line as NOT an easy play. And, just like the Seahawks spent the last two weeks working every detail of goal line, what they could do, including the pick they got earlier, the Pats aren't new at this either. I mean, they could not have been any more ready. A rookie, no guess work, sees his mans first step, BANG, RIGHT NOW, to the spot. We're gonna be hearing in the coming days how the Pats worked that play plenty of times the last two weeks. :shrug:

There is NOTHING worse, in my view, than risking everything at THE moment and NO go to your strength; Lynch's legs or Wilson's legs. A naked boot of a fake dive would have been perfect because he could throw it away if it ain't there. Or, with that much time and a TO, just give it to Lynch 2-3 times and live or die with your best play, best player. Not a play that is NOT in your wheel house. :shrug:

 

[Larry Gude]

It's not overthinking, it just didn't work this time.

Would anyone say they 'over-thought it' if they gave it to Lynch? Or if Wilson sprinted out? Nope.

Again, we disagree on how tough a play a hard slant is on the goal line. it is TIGHT down there and all it takes is one hand or one slight mis-step with that sort of BANG BANG timing.

 

[Larry Gude]

Better team won.. coach QB have more Superbowl rings than most NFL franchises..

Yup. The better team always makes ONE more play. And they did. Because they got the Seahawks to over think the obvious. That's based on reputation earned over all those years and all those wins.

 

[Tilted]

With the amount of time left on the clock, I wonder if the Pats were gonna let Lynch walk into the endzone so they could, at least, get an opportunity to possibly tie the score with a field goal. But, the Seahawks got cute, and paid for it. I fully expected Lynch to get the ball and walk into the endzone.

If the Patriots were gonna do that, they would have called a timeout after the first down run instead of watching 30 seconds (or something like that) run off the clock. I had the same thought at the time, that they might let him score. But by letting the clock run they would have left themselves with only about 20 seconds, best case. Coach Belichick made the decision that they were gonna make their stand on defense - that they'd win or lose based on whether they could keep Seattle out of the end zone. In real time, I didn't agree with that decision - but not calling a timeout there means that's the choice he made.

 

[Tilted]

Disagree. A hard slant into traffic at the goal line as NOT an easy play. And, just like the Seahawks spent the last two weeks working every detail of goal line, what they could do, including the pick they got earlier, the Pats aren't new at this either. I mean, they could not have been any more ready. A rookie, no guess work, sees his mans first step, BANG, RIGHT NOW, to the spot. We're gonna be hearing in the coming days how the Pats worked that play plenty of times the last two weeks. :shrug:

There is NOTHING worse, in my view, than risking everything at THE moment and NO go to your strength; Lynch's legs or Wilson's legs. A naked boot of a fake dive would have been perfect because he could throw it away if it ain't there. Or, with that much time and a TO, just give it to Lynch 2-3 times and live or die with your best play, best player. Not a play that is NOT in your wheel house. :shrug:

Okay, so you think that play has a fairly good chance of resulting in a pick? I would disagree, but if that's the case then the call is a bad one. That's the only reason the call would be a bad one though. It took a less than good throw by Russell Wilson and a great play by the Malcom Butler for that play to go that wrong. A good throw by Mr. Wilson (i.e. where it's supposed to be, in the receiver's gut) and there's no chance for a pick - it's either caught by the receiver or it's incomplete. But if we disagree on that, then we just disagree.

But I think of it like this. If you don't think the passing play you'd call has a significant chance of resulting in a pick, then it's almost a no-brainer that you throw the ball on either second or third down. It's basically a free extra chance to get in. If you run on second and third down, with only one timeout and snapping the ball with 26 seconds left, there's a decent chance you won't get a third crack at it. So, you get two tries rushing the ball to get in. Or... if you throw on second or third down you get those two tries rushing the ball plus an extra try throwing the ball. You have to give yourself that extra chance, you have to plan it that way, unless you think by throwing the ball you significantly increase the chance of a turnover and thus only get one shot at it. Plus, going with that passing play first you aren't going to lose yardage and make subsequent attempts to get in more difficult; running the ball first rather than last you create that risk - it often happens that closr to the goal line that you lose yardage running the ball. At any rate, three chances to get in is better than two - especially if it's the same two kinds of attempts plus an extra one.

I still don't think its overthinking as it's not an unusual way of going about it, that's how goal line situations get played quite often. And as much as you don't think they went with their strength, I think that's very much what they did - they put the ball in the hands of their best player (on offense), the guy who's proven time and again that, when it's most needed, he will get the job done. He didn't this time, but if you're his coach you can't have expected that before hand. And, again, so long as he isn't picked, you still get two chances to go with your other strength. But he was picked, so that was it. I don't think he was picked because they called a bad play though, I think he was picked because he didn't execute and the Patriots did.

 

[NextJen]

Why did he pass it?

 

[SoMD_Fun_Guy]

Disagree. A hard slant into traffic at the goal line as NOT an easy play. And, just like the Seahawks spent the last two weeks working every detail of goal line, what they could do, including the pick they got earlier, the Pats aren't new at this either. I mean, they could not have been any more ready. A rookie, no guess work, sees his mans first step, BANG, RIGHT NOW, to the spot. We're gonna be hearing in the coming days how the Pats worked that play plenty of times the last two weeks. :shrug:

There is NOTHING worse, in my view, than risking everything at THE moment and NO go to your strength; Lynch's legs or Wilson's legs. A naked boot of a fake dive would have been perfect because he could throw it away if it ain't there. Or, with that much time and a TO, just give it to Lynch 2-3 times and live or die with your best play, best player. Not a play that is NOT in your wheel house. :shrug:

Larry I agree with you completely.

A hard slant works great when the field is spread open, not at the goal line with all that traffic. Too many bodies and hands in the middle. Too much on the line on the biggest stage with no chance to recover if something isn't perfect.

Actually, on 2nd down I thought a pass play was a good idea but IMO the Seahawks should have gone play action.
Lynch just had a great run on the left side, so a fake to Lynch going left and have Wilson roll to his right with a TE or WR slipping out to the corner. If open then throw it to the back pylon where only the receiver can get it, if not Wilson gets to decide to either throw it away or see if he can run to the front pylon. Higher % of success with a player like Wilson. He is the perfect QB to execute this - he's done it before. It would also give him time to decide what to do unlike the slant where he had to throw it immediately.

 

[Larry Gude]

Larry I agree with you completely.

A hard slant works great when the field is spread open, not at the goal line with all that traffic. Too many bodies and hands in the middle. Too much on the line on the biggest stage with no chance to recover if something isn't perfect. .

And it works, mostly, on the goal line if you're Tom or Peyton or Aaron. That is a HUGE moment and even the great ones miss it. Anyone remember Cards/Steelers, end of first half? James Harrison was sitting on Warners quick slant at the goal line and rumbled and bumbled and stumbled for six the other way.

I get WHY they called it and, if it worked, GREAT call BUT, still a high risk maneuver and NOT their strength. They'd stuck to the run all game, slowly beating down and wearing down the Pats, all game. You do that so something they stop in the first 3 quarters they maybe don't stop at the end.

bad call, bad call, bad call.

 

[Larry Gude]

Okay, so you think that play has a fairly good chance of resulting in a pick? I would disagree, :

Sonny says every pass has three possible outcomes; a completion, a pick, an incomplete. 2 out of 3 are bad. In that spot, with Wilson as QB, against that team, I'd call it a fairly good chance of not being completed. Again, it works, gutsy call. I was just in shock when Wilson stepped back and, again, I though they were lucky to only have it batted down...until it struck me it was picked.

 

[Larry Gude]

It took a less than good throw by Russell Wilson and a great play by the Malcom Butler for that play to go that wrong. A good throw by Mr. Wilson (i.e. where it's supposed to be, in the receiver's gut) and there's no chance for a pick - it's either caught by the receiver or it's incomplete. But if we disagree on that, then we just disagree. :

I think Wilson's throw was perfect and the receivers route was perfect. What I saw was a DB he recognized it RIGHT AWAY and exploded, just like he'd been coached, to get to the spot first, and he did. Absolutely perfectly defensed. It was a HELL of a collision knocking them both for a loop. The WR was supposed to be RIGHT there and would have been but, the DB got there first.