** UPDATE** Official 2014-15 NFL 'U LOST Bro'-owl Thread** Pats are SB Champs!!

[Ns1]

This is a discredited tactic used by fanbois everywhere . . . thinking you can arbitrarily excise some number of plays where the the other team BEAT YOUR TEAM ON THE DAMN FIELD and then somehow "fairly" evaluate the game.

You can't.

You never can.

Please stop.

Besides Brady and Gronk, Seattle TOTALLY outclassed the pats. Take those 2 clowns out of the equation and Seattle would have won easily.





(am I doing it right?)

 

[Perknose]

Besides Brady and Gronk, Seattle TOTALLY outclassed the pats. Take those 2 clowns out of the equation and Seattle would have won easily.





(am I doing it right?)

:biggrin:

 

[emperus]

This is a discredited tactic used by fanbois everywhere . . . thinking you can arbitrarily excise some number of plays where the the other team BEAT YOUR TEAM ON THE DAMN FIELD and then somehow "fairly" evaluate the game.

You can't.

You never can.

Please stop.

You can take into account certain plays in evaluating how a team plays a certain game. Btw, I'm not the only one making that analysis. Tony Dungy, who isn't a fanboi of the Patriots believed the same during his half time analysis.

Would you take account a completed Hail Mary when Evaluating a team?

 

[emperus]

Besides Brady and Gronk, Seattle TOTALLY outclassed the pats. Take those 2 clowns out of the equation and Seattle would have won easily.





(am I doing it right?)

Well, it'd be Brady, Gronk, Edelman, Amendola, Vereen and Lafell. Take those players out and your defense would have totally outclasses our offense.

 

[Ns1]

Well, it'd be Brady, Gronk, Edelman, Amendola, Vereen and Lafell. Take those players out and your defense would have totally outclasses our offense.

with a score of 28-24 and a game decided in the last 30 seconds, nobody outclassed anybody.

 

[dainthomas]

Huh? How is one incident a history? Taping from the sidelines wasn't illegal til 2007 and Jimmy Johnson, Mike Shanahan, Bill Cowher and others have admitted to doing it. And everything else are unproven accusations. But of course, being a hater, you'd ignore this - Who was spying on the Patriots?

Like how you skipped the history of cheating by Carroll.

And yes, you're a sore loser or you wouldn't be posting like a sore loser. Bandwagon? Like 90% of the Seahawk fans, many that couldn't point out Jim Zorn or Steve Largent.

NE has a lot of bandwagon fans b/c they've been so successful for the last 14 years. How many years do you need to be a fan to be not called a bandwagon fan?

Note, I go back to the Steve Grogan, 2-14, Kenneth Sims first pick in the draft days.

Now there's an interesting question. If Seattle hangs on to their bandwagon fans for ten more years are they still bandwagon? :hmm:

If I were on here like Packers fans a couple weeks ago crying about penalties and how the better team lost etc, that would be acting like a sore loser. I haven't complained about penalties or lack thereof. The Patriots played better for more of the game. Hence the win. The Patriots were still beatable though, and Seattle failed to capitalize on the chances they had.

I still have no respect for the Patriots as an organization, and I fail to see why the fact that they scored more points yesterday means I should.

 

[manly]

Not really. NE had their goal line D out and were prepared to stuff the run. Seattle knew they had to have at least one pass play in order to have all 4 downs. Going with it on the least likely passing down would be their best option.

Sure, they could "afford" for Lynch to get stuffed once and stop the clock, but a quick slant against a rookie DB who was just beaten 2 plays prior that is dropped isn't going to cost them more than a couple seconds AND then they get to smash Lynch. It was a phenomenal play that beat them, not particularly bad play calling (at least, in that situation). I do feel they underutilized Lynch the entire second half (again!), but that last series wasn't exactly bad.

I realize there's a certain amount of MMQB'ing and 20/20 hindsight going on here, but you ride your best player. If Lynch fumbles or somehow gets stuffed twice to lose the game, absolutely nobody should say they made the wrong offensive play calls.

Totally unrelated to NFL but I remember one year the Braves lost to the Yankees because Mark Wohlers hung up a slider instead of throwing his fastball. It's like the old cliche, you dance with the one you brought. Reasonable people can disagree on whether the play call was actually strategically sound but I don't think many can say giving the ball to Lynch 2 or 3 times is a bad idea even against a GL defense.

 

[ControlD]

Still don't understand the call, it's not about it working or not.

It's all about the Risk vs Reward and opportunity cost.

1) pass play options, score td, get sacked, drop pass, deflected pass, deflected pass to int, or int

2) run options are score td, take a small loss of yds, fumble (half the time you recover your own I think)

Obviously the worst options are deflected into an INT, INT, fumble.

My opinion is deflected into an INT probability is 6%, INT probabilty is another 6%. Fumble is probably 3/100 times and of that 3% chance of fumble the hawks might recover it 50% of the time.

The % are pulled out of the thin air but you get the idea of worst case scenario of passes are far greater than the worst case scenario when running.

Speaking of numbers ...

So I was listening to ESPN radio on the way home from work today and they had some interesting stats concerning the now famous last play. I wish I had committed the numbers to memory better, but I believe this is how it went:

This year, Lynch had five carries from the one yard line or closer. He scored on one of those plays and was stopped on four, so you have a 20% success rate. This is the stat I can't quite remember, and he might have been two out of five. In any case, less than 50% success rate. Lynch at the goal line isn't automatic.

During the entire season, not one single pass play originating from the one yard line or closer resulted in an interception.

So, if you are a stat oriented person, you have a 40% play versus a play that during the regular season never resulted in an interception. You would be forgiven for thinking at the very least you will have another play to run.

Not trying to make a judgement one way or the other, but I found those statistics interesting.

 

[Childs]

The call was bad because Lynch is pretty much guaranteed to get a yard. They still had a timeout, so they could've punched it in at least twice. If by some miracle they lost 2 yards on the 2nd down play, they could've then gone to a pass play. I won't say it's the worst play call in NFL history but it was awful. If they actually didn't want to "score too quickly," they should've ran a QB sneak for half a yard (or TD if NE was conceding). Based on NE not even stopping the clock at 1 minute, I actually felt NE should've pulled a Holmgren and let Lynch score on the 1st down run. At least that way, they'd have a full minute for Brady to work some magic. So scoring too quickly wasn't even an issue because it looked like NE was betting the game on their ability to stop Beast Mode at least twice for just 1 yard.

If the Seahawks had an average RB, then I could at least understand the logic of the throw. But they had Marshawn Lynch, and he was basically a lock to score. This isn't about being "aggressive" like at the end of the first half. This was about being too cute and overthinking.

I never understood all the rage over Reggie Bush not being in on the 4th and 2 play. In short yardage, LenDale White is the power back you want. Like you said, it took a spectacular play by Michael Huff to stuff White. I'll put it this way, if Bush had been stuffed by White, I think prognosticators would ask why didn't they use the power back in short yardage to go?

Supposedly Lynch was 1 for 5 on rushes from the 1 this year. And he did kinda fumble at the end of that rush that got them to the one. In general I don't think they use him that much in goal line situations, even though you think of him as a power back. The coaches know their players and their capabilities, so I dunno...it was just a good defensive play. Maybe Wilson should have went lower with the ball, but if Butler hesitates for a fraction of a second more thats a TD.

And my thing about the USC 4th down play was that if Bush was on the field Texas would have had to respect that. He should have been on the field, then motion out wide to thin the defense a bit. And then that adds play action potential as well, and Huff couldn't cheat to the line. But its easy to say that in retrospect. Otherwise I think they did the right thing, as there was no stopping Vince Young that night, so the best bet was to keep him off the field.

 

[Ns1]

Speaking of numbers ...

So I was listening to ESPN radio on the way home from work today and they had some interesting stats concerning the now famous last play. I wish I had committed the numbers to memory better, but I believe this is how it went:

This year, Lynch had five carries from the one yard line or closer. He scored on one of those plays and was stopped on four, so you have a 20% success rate. This is the stat I can't quite remember, and he might have been two out of five. In any case, less than 50% success rate. Lynch at the goal line isn't automatic.

During the entire season, not one single pass play originating from the one yard line or closer resulted in an interception.

So, if you are a stat oriented person, you have a 40% play versus a play that during the regular season never resulted in an interception. You would be forgiven for thinking at the very least you will have another play to run.

Not trying to make a judgement one way or the other, but I found those statistics interesting.

need hard numbers cuz that would be a good argument.

 

[SSSnail]

You guys forgot that Lockette got lit the fark up, he straight up got smoked.

Oh, and Lynch got stuffed by the Chiefs a few times trying to gain 1yard.

 

[manly]

need hard numbers cuz that would be a good argument.

Bill Barnwell talks about how the numbers suggest it's a coin toss between run/pass but that the actual game situation leads him to believe handing it off to Beast Mode is a no brainer:
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/super-bowl-new-england-patriots-seattle-seahawks/

I can agree with everyone who says Butler made a phenomenal play to rewrite history.

 

[Perknose]

Would you take account a completed Hail Mary when Evaluating a team?

See, that's the fundamental flaw with selective "pick and chose" evaluation.

Everything that happened in a game up to that point provided the Hail Mary team that chance to win. It's willful blindness to say the Hail Mary team shouldn't have won just because they completed that pass.

When evaluating a team, or a game, you take EVERYTHING into account, discounting nothing. There is no other honest way to do it.

Doing otherwise is sore loser, or worse, sore winner philosophy.

Just as you are the team your record says you are, you are the winner or loser of a game the score says you are.

Btw, so you know, I have nothing but admiration for what the sustained success of Belichick and the Patriots. Years ago, when spygate first broke out, I initially thought they were cheaters, until I was made aware that many more teams had been doing the same damn thing, and that nowhere in the rules was what they did specifically prohibited.

Otoh, I also have zero problem with Pete Carroll's past misdeeds, nor do I have a problem with how Seahawks players conduct themselves.

Now, overzealous fans of either team? Pfffftttt. Them I can do without.

 

[KeithTalent]

Gotta love all of the new people coming to the thread and voting for the Pats now. It's almost tied and it was definitely favouring the Seahawks yesterday during the game.

KT

 

[dainthomas]

Speaking of numbers ...

So I was listening to ESPN radio on the way home from work today and they had some interesting stats concerning the now famous last play. I wish I had committed the numbers to memory better, but I believe this is how it went:

This year, Lynch had five carries from the one yard line or closer. He scored on one of those plays and was stopped on four, so you have a 20% success rate. This is the stat I can't quite remember, and he might have been two out of five. In any case, less than 50% success rate. Lynch at the goal line isn't automatic.

During the entire season, not one single pass play originating from the one yard line or closer resulted in an interception.

So, if you are a stat oriented person, you have a 40% play versus a play that during the regular season never resulted in an interception. You would be forgiven for thinking at the very least you will have another play to run.

Not trying to make a judgement one way or the other, but I found those statistics interesting.

That is interesting. Still though, you look at what got them to where they were. The run. Lynch, Wilson, Turbin. When you get to the point where you have to execute with no mistakes, then you stick with what you've been doing well all year. A good fake to Lynch up the middle to draw defenders in, then Wilson scrambling to the outside. If it looks like he'll be stopped, throw it into the endzone or out of bounds if no one is open. Throwing to the middle just seems like the most dangerous type of play to run in that situation.

 

[Ban Bot]

The mislabeling of a deep pass attempts as hail marys tells you enough about the pejorative nature of his comments. Matthews is 6'5" with good leaping ability and has solid ball skills (CFL rookie of the year 2 years ago) matched up against smaller, 3rd/4th string guys--you attack that. Wilson is a good deep ball throw, gets good air under them, and typically can hit his spots (usually back shoulder outside and slightly short to allow a high point attempt). Wilson is selective who he targets with such--he was found of Rice and Tate in that situation and avoided/s Harvin and Baldwin.

It is no different than using Randy Moss's height.

 

[emperus]

with a score of 28-24 and a game decided in the last 30 seconds, nobody outclassed anybody.

You have to stop looking at the score and how the score came to be.

 

[Ns1]

You have to stop looking at the score and how the score came to be.

Sorry, 28-24 = 404 outclassed not found. You see Colts/Pats? That was being outclassed.

 

[Attic]

Yeah, it makes no sense. I think they had 26 seconds, 1 timeout and 3 possible plays left. How would calling a pass there be advantageous especially with one of the goals to run the clock out. Makes no sense unless there is another motivation.

The thinking is the pass gives them a total of three possible plays instead of 2, it's a stupid proxy type of thinking and it's over thinking something very simple and straightforward.

You don't run this pass play here period. Because you trade a highly possible touchdown with Lynch on at least two run plays (from 1/2 yard line Lynch is very likely to get TD), in order to get a pass and two more plays. Why get this cute, why trade in risk of interception or tip/bobble and interception, in order to have 3 plays instead of 2? Take the two standard run plays and get the highly probable touchdown while avoiding adding in additional turnover chance by going pass. So simple a caveman can do it. Carroll owned it, he gave his reasons (poor ones) and admitted it was a mistake.

Folks defending the call are using a proxy of the unknown future downs to somehow inexplicably not run the ball in on 2nd and 1/2 yard when you are down by 4 with 26 seconds left. Overthingking it, just like Carroll did with the 3rd and 4th down. Who cares about third and fourth down if it means taking on pass play to get there, how about considerations for third and fourth down if you run on second. The whole constraint is not passing into congestion (interception/tip/bobble), not taking on a pass play to get a guaranteed fourth down. It's not like the Seahawks were on the 20, or the 10 yard line. You are on the 1/2 yard line down by 4, you run. You don't get cute with a pass.

This is trivial.

It would have been a bad call if it worked as well. Another stupid thing defenders are clingy onto that the merit of the call somehow rides on the outcome. You don't pass down by 4 on the half yard line with 26seconds left. That you have Lynch makes it all the more a seriously stupid call. Trading getting the near certain touchdown by going with beast mode on two runs in order to front that outcome with a passplay?


What hasn't been touched on much is that part of what led to this fiasco and worst call in SuperBowl history is the Seahawks not getting a play off after 1st and goal without having to call a timeout. That was a mistake that led to the overthinking that led to worst play call in superbowl history. Instead of running a second down with two timeouts and they had to run a 2nd down with 1 timeout remaining.


Cliffs: If the call ends in a touchdown then the Seahawks win. It's still a bad call. Outcome doesn't determine the merit of that call, given the tone, structure, options, and risk vs reward at that point in time with where the game was at, it was simply an obviously poor play call. It was fueled slightly by a leading mistake of not getting a play off after amazing catch at the 5 and having to call a timeout.

 

[MongGrel]

Can't wait for you to go to China and annoy them instead of us.

+1

 

[waggy]

Sorry, 28-24 = 404 outclassed not found. You see Colts/Pats? That was being outclassed.

agreed. no outclassing found.

It was a great game that came down to the last few plays.

 

[Ns1]

agreed. no outclassing found.

It was a great game that came down to the last few plays.

hell, the game was even CLOSER than the score implied because it was down to the final 30 seconds and seahawks SHOULD HAVE won.

 

[emperus]

See, that's the fundamental flaw with selective "pick and chose" evaluation.

Everything that happened in a game up to that point provided the Hail Mary team that chance to win. It's willful blindness to say the Hail Mary team shouldn't have won just because they completed that pass.

When evaluating a team, or a game, you take EVERYTHING into account, discounting nothing. There is no other honest way to do it.

Doing otherwise is sore loser, or worse, sore winner philosophy.

Just as you are the team your record says you are, you are the winner or loser of a game the score says you are.

Btw, so you know, I have nothing but admiration for what the sustained success of Belichick and the Patriots. Years ago, when spygate first broke out, I initially thought they were cheaters, until I was made aware that many more teams had been doing the same damn thing, and that nowhere in the rules was what they did specifically prohibited.

Otoh, I also have zero problem with Pete Carroll's past misdeeds, nor do I have a problem with how Seahawks players conduct themselves.

Now, overzealous fans of either team? Pfffftttt. Them I can do without.

We are going to disagree as I fundamentally don't think a teams record is always an indication of who they are as a team. Take the Giants of 07. They made the playoffs as a wild card team and beat the 16-0 Patriots.

I think keeping in perspective how a team wins and loses games gives you a better understanding of how they are as a team.

That's why I feel comfortable discounting certain plays like a Hail Mary in certain situations, because I don't believe they are always able to replicated. Now, I say certain situations, because I think some teams that are mentally tough and very prepared have the ability to pull them off more so than not.

 

[emperus]

The mislabeling of a deep pass attempts as hail marys tells you enough about the pejorative nature of his comments. Matthews is 6'5" with good leaping ability and has solid ball skills (CFL rookie of the year 2 years ago) matched up against smaller, 3rd/4th string guys--you attack that. Wilson is a good deep ball throw, gets good air under them, and typically can hit his spots (usually back shoulder outside and slightly short to allow a high point attempt). Wilson is selective who he targets with such--he was found of Rice and Tate in that situation and avoided/s Harvin and Baldwin.

It is no different than using Randy Moss's height.

They were Lobs and Mathews pushed off on most of them. Fortunately for Mathews, the refs ate their whistle.

 

[emperus]

The thinking is the pass gives them a total of three possible plays instead of 2, it's a stupid proxy type of thinking and it's over thinking something very simple and straightforward.

You don't run this pass play here period. Because you trade a highly possible touchdown with Lynch on at least two run plays (from 1/2 yard line Lynch is very likely to get TD), in order to get a pass and two more plays. Why get this cute, why trade in risk of interception or tip/bobble and interception, in order to have 3 plays instead of 2? Take the two standard run plays and get the highly probable touchdown while avoiding adding in additional turnover chance by going pass. So simple a caveman can do it. Carroll owned it, he gave his reasons (poor ones) and admitted it was a mistake.

Folks defending the call are using a proxy of the unknown future downs to somehow inexplicably not run the ball in on 2nd and 1/2 yard when you are down by 4 with 26 seconds left. Overthingking it, just like Carroll did with the 3rd and 4th down. Who cares about third and fourth down if it means taking on pass play to get there, how about considerations for third and fourth down if you run on second. The whole constraint is not passing into congestion (interception/tip/bobble), not taking on a pass play to get a guaranteed fourth down. It's not like the Seahawks were on the 20, or the 10 yard line. You are on the 1/2 yard line down by 4, you run. You don't get cute with a pass.

This is trivial.

It would have been a bad call if it worked as well. Another stupid thing defenders are clingy onto that the merit of the call somehow rides on the outcome. You don't pass down by 4 on the half yard line with 26seconds left. That you have Lynch makes it all the more a seriously stupid call. Trading getting the near certain touchdown by going with beast mode on two runs in order to front that outcome with a passplay?


What hasn't been touched on much is that part of what led to this fiasco and worst call in SuperBowl history is the Seahawks not getting a play off after 1st and goal without having to call a timeout. That was a mistake that led to the overthinking that led to worst play call in superbowl history. Instead of running a second down with two timeouts and they had to run a 2nd down with 1 timeout remaining.


Cliffs: If the call ends in a touchdown then the Seahawks win. It's still a bad call. Outcome doesn't determine the merit of that call, given the tone, structure, options, and risk vs reward at that point in time with where the game was at, it was simply an obviously poor play call. It was fueled slightly by a leading mistake of not getting a play off after first down without having to call a timeout.

I don't understand how a pass gives them 3 possible plays and running only gives them 2. Also they took the time out after the miraculous catch.

The got the ball at the 5 with 1:06 and 1 timeout remaining. That is more than enough time to run 4 plays. Not having enough time should have never been a consideration.