Jump to content

All time dumbest playcall in a Super Bowl with game on line


patfitz

Recommended Posts

Another interesting stat that makes you think:

 

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/super-bowl-new-england-patriots-seattle-seahawks/

 

"Before Sunday, NFL teams had thrown the ball 108 times on the opposing team’s 1-yard line this season. Those passes had produced 66 touchdowns (a success rate of 61.1 percent, down to 59.5 percent when you throw in three sacks) and zero interceptions. The 223 running plays had generated 129 touchdowns (a 57.8 percent success rate) and two turnovers on fumbles. Before Sunday, NFL teams had thrown the ball 108 times on the opposing team’s 1-yard line this season. Those passes had produced 66 touchdowns (a success rate of 61.1 percent, down to 59.5 percent when you throw in three sacks) and zero interceptions. The 223 running plays had generated 129 touchdowns (a 57.8 percent success rate) and two turnovers on fumbles."

Edited by dave mcbride
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 359
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I literally would have rather had them try 3 QB sneaks in a row than that play.

 

There's no point in arguing whether it was a bad call or not because it's going to go down as the worst play call in Superbowl history. It'll still probably be considered that 20 years from now.

Edited by TheBillsWillRiseAgain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't even bring myself to watch sports on tv until this whole thing is over, What a cluster of a way to loose. It was right there, they just had to take it. I wonder will it haunt Wilson and effect how he plays.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcBc-zJ3QxY

Im with ya, dude. I usually start everyday with Mike&Mike and then leave ESPN on in the background while I work. Not today, and not for the rest of the week. Cant take any of the coverage glorifying the Pats*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another interesting stat that makes you think:

 

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/super-bowl-new-england-patriots-seattle-seahawks/

 

"Before Sunday, NFL teams had thrown the ball 108 times on the opposing team’s 1-yard line this season. Those passes had produced 66 touchdowns (a success rate of 61.1 percent, down to 59.5 percent when you throw in three sacks) and zero interceptions. The 223 running plays had generated 129 touchdowns (a 57.8 percent success rate) and two turnovers on fumbles. Before Sunday, NFL teams had thrown the ball 108 times on the opposing team’s 1-yard line this season. Those passes had produced 66 touchdowns (a success rate of 61.1 percent, down to 59.5 percent when you throw in three sacks) and zero interceptions. The 223 running plays had generated 129 touchdowns (a 57.8 percent success rate) and two turnovers on fumbles."

You guys don't get it...with the way Lynch was running, on second down and with a timeout left at the half yard line there is no way you do anything other than hand the ball off to Lynch. If it doesn't work and this is your next call no one is complaining. But with the Pats still reeling after the freak catch and the momentum of the game and the dumb Pats not taking a timeout themselves I am 99% convinced Lynch would have scored. Just run it in!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they got 2 WRs and 2 DBs outside. man up, with a planned pick and the linebacker going towards the opposite hash- it was about as unchallenged as you ever see that play. both DBs played it perfect and the qb and wr each left the play on the table for the defender.

its not like its a weird or rare play call in short yardage. we probably saw some variation on it 10 times last night between the two teams. the little underneath pick route is really common in this league. it just didnt work this time. its not like he threw it at 4 defenders.

Good take, NS. That was very favorable coverage for Seattle to take advantage of. while I don't agree with his decision to point a finger at Lockett, Bevell had a reason to criticize Lockett as he ran a lazy route that tipped the play and made it easy to jump. Basically, he turned his chin inward inward too soon. He needed to open his outside shoulder first, but he was too impatent.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sure it was a horrendous play call. but it had to be combined with equally horrendous execution for the outcome that we saw.

wilson had tunnel vision, hurried the throw and took no time to contemplate other options, which is what he does well.

IMHO he deserves most of the fallout for that INT.

would brady have done the same thing? would rogers?

 

it's a timing play.. Lockette's widens/hitches/flattens out at the snap, to give Kearse time to drive up and inside where he and Browner will cutoff Lockette's defender, Butler.. ball was delivered right on time.

the only thing that Brady, Rogers, Brees, Rivers, etc. might have done differently was changing Lockette's route to a fake slant/corner when they realized the Browner could disrupt the timing - and that's only if such an audible was included in the base play, and the receivers were coached up to react. IMO, that option probably wasn't there, because it never had to be.. but i guarantee that Pat Ryan and his receivers will have it after yesterday.

 

give credit where credit's due - the D was prepared, and the atypical DB wrecked it

Edited by BackInDaDay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished the whole thing. What an awesome piece. I have a new appreciation for Hightower's tackle on Seattle's second to last play. What an amazing, game-saving tackle.

Yea it surprised me as a morning after article - wasn't expecting it to be as broad or deep as it was. normally see a bit more of a gap before THAT comes out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't understand how you choose to throw the ball in that scenario, when both the down/distance and clock point toward run being the best option.

 

I was absolutely flabbergasted that Belichick didn't call a timeout after the 1st-and-goal run, and when he didn't, I thought automatically that 2nd down needs to be a running play followed by a timeout. It leaves enough time for a pass play on 3rd down, followed by anything on 4th down, without giving Brady enough time to get into range for a tying FG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that game, at that point, the way Lynch can and was running, and the way Wilson can and was running, there was a 95+% chance IMO they gain the less than a yard needed to score on 2-3 running plays.

The only wrench in that scenario is that Lynch might get stuffed for like a two yard loss given the personnel the Pats had on the field. Then they probably have to throw it the next play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys don't get it...with the way Lynch was running, on second down and with a timeout left at the half yard line there is no way you do anything other than hand the ball off to Lynch. If it doesn't work and this is your next call no one is complaining. But with the Pats still reeling after the freak catch and the momentum of the game and the dumb Pats not taking a timeout themselves I am 99% convinced Lynch would have scored. Just run it in!

This is so true. In game situations! The Pats had just allowed a miraculous reception that was all but the final nail in the coffin. The Pats were reeling and ready to be put away. The Seahawks pound it for four yards and need 1/2 a yard to go to complete the TD. Get up right away and run it before the reeling Pats have a chance to set and it is an easy TD all the way 100 out of 100 times barring a fluke fumble. Wost play call in NFL history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't understand how you choose to throw the ball in that scenario, when both the down/distance and clock point toward run being the best option.

 

I was absolutely flabbergasted that Belichick didn't call a timeout after the 1st-and-goal run, and when he didn't, I thought automatically that 2nd down needs to be a running play followed by a timeout. It leaves enough time for a pass play on 3rd down, followed by anything on 4th down, without giving Brady enough time to get into range for a tying FG.

Absolutely spot on in every respect. Myself and everyone I watched the game with were absolutely speechless after that play.

 

People can bring all sorts of stats into the conversation. You can talk about the players doing this or that. But, in that situation, you run the ball. Period. It's just that simple. Seattle coaches out thought themselves and handed their season to the cheaters.

 

It was so dumbfounding of a call, it makes me wonder... Does the league actually dictate who wins and loses? Because surely no NFL coach is that dumb. Right? Apparently they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only wrench in that scenario is that Lynch might get stuffed for like a two yard loss given the personnel the Pats had on the field. Then they probably have to throw it the next play.

Thats why it is not 100%. In that case you roll Wilson out. He's incredible at making a lineman miss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats why it is not 100%. In that case you roll Wilson out. He's incredible at making a lineman miss.

Yeah, that's the right way to use your weapons.

 

A pass wasn't necessarily the wrong call (I'm sure that's what the Pats would have run if the roles had been reversed).

 

It was just THAT route and THAT targeted wideout that made no sense whatsoever. The congestion in that area was off the charts. The ball could have been batted, all kinds of bad things could--and did--happen.

 

A roll out by Wilson giving him the option to throw it out of the endzone if he didn't think he could make it would have been the best alternative to handing it to Lynch and using the timeout if he got stuffed (which, if he runs away from Wolfolk, I can't see happening)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't understand how you choose to throw the ball in that scenario, when both the down/distance and clock point toward run being the best option.

 

I was absolutely flabbergasted that Belichick didn't call a timeout after the 1st-and-goal run, and when he didn't, I thought automatically that 2nd down needs to be a running play followed by a timeout. It leaves enough time for a pass play on 3rd down, followed by anything on 4th down, without giving Brady enough time to get into range for a tying FG.

 

i'd have to guess that's a play that worked every time Bevell got the same defensive look he got from the Pats..

for him, it was as sure a thing as Lynch dive play is to you guys.. and i'm also guessing that Bevell was prepared enough to know that the look he got there, might be his best chance to beat them.

none of us know what he saw studying the Pats goal line D, but he must of liked his chances.

 

i get the angst from his critics, but what folks should be criticizing is why he didn't anticipate the critical Kearse/Browner match-up.

he thought Kearse could win that, and staked the play on it.. and THAT was a gross oversight.. any other DB match-up, and the parade's in Seattle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A play action or roll out could be condoned but still a bad call. Go back and watch the tape. The Pats defense was reeling and confused after the first down run. Line up and run it right away and it is a guaranteed TD. Then you give the Pats the ball with about 35 seconds left and make them earn the right to get into field goal range with their short slant/screen passing game, good luck with that.

 

I think Carroll was expecting a T.O. by the Pats and when that didn't happen, he panicked and didn't stop Bevell from ruining his legacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys don't get it...with the way Lynch was running, on second down and with a timeout left at the half yard line there is no way you do anything other than hand the ball off to Lynch. If it doesn't work and this is your next call no one is complaining. But with the Pats still reeling after the freak catch and the momentum of the game and the dumb Pats not taking a timeout themselves I am 99% convinced Lynch would have scored. Just run it in!

the expression that seems to fit best here is "dance with who brung ya.". nothing is guaranteed, but if they stand you up at the goal line, you still have your timeout for a pass play. if they hold you out, it wasn't meant to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The congestion in that area was off the charts.

while i agree with the rest of your sentiment, i just dont here with regards to congestion. there was a throwing window in the line and the receivers were 1-1. it was text book what they were looking for on the defensive side schematically. and against a UDFA.

 

id put the run, and a play action roll out above it (and truly a packaged play where wilson can make some reads at the line between those options).... but if i told you that it would come down to a 2 v 2 matchup outside and the seahawks ran an slant with a pick over the top against a UDFA most would assume the hawks would be wearing the rings.

the expression that seems to fit best here is "dance with who brung ya.". nothing is guaranteed, but if they stand you up at the goal line, you still have your timeout for a pass play. if they hold you out, it wasn't meant to be.

someone i read quoted mike mccarthy with similar sentiment once upon a time as it being a situation where you have to "think of your players not your plays" Edited by NoSaint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

i'd have to guess that's a play that worked every time Bevell got the same defensive look he got from the Pats..

for him, it was as sure a thing as Lynch dive play is to you guys.. and i'm also guessing that Bevell was prepared enough to know that the look he got there, might be his best chance to beat them.

none of us know what he saw studying the Pats goal line D, but he must of liked his chances.

 

i get the angst from his critics, but what folks should be criticizing is why he didn't anticipate the critical Kearse/Browner match-up.

he thought Kearse could win that, and staked the play on it.. and THAT was a gross oversight.. any other DB match-up, and the parade's in Seattle.

I hear all of that...no doubt.

 

I just get hung up on the idea that running the ball virtually guarantees that you get the last shot at winning the game given that Belichick hadn't called a timeout.

 

I also think that your last point is one of the biggest flaws in the play call...Seattle's personnel at WR vs. NE*'s DBs is a losing proposition...Bevell should know that IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The QB sneak is the most successful short yardage play in football. If it works this well for Brady, it should work even better for Wilson, who is a better athlete: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/01/sports/football/a-tom-brady-sneak-is-the-patriots-unstoppable-play.html .

 

For the life of me, I don't know why teams don't do it more often. The Pats seem to be the only team that understands.

 

"Counting the postseason, Brady has run in those situations 115 times, according to play-by-play data from Pro Football Reference. He has gotten a first down or scored a touchdown on 105 of them, a success rate of 91.3 percent. Over one stretch, spanning more than seven years, he converted 60 of 61, including 37 straight."

Edited by dave mcbride
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The QB sneak is the most successful short yardage play in football. If it works this well for Brady, it should work even better for Wilson, who is a better athlete: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/01/sports/football/a-tom-brady-sneak-is-the-patriots-unstoppable-play.html .

 

For the life of me, I don't know why teams don't do it more often. The Pats seem to be the only team that understands.

 

"Counting the postseason, Brady has run in those situations 115 times, according to play-by-play data from Pro Football Reference. He has gotten a first down or scored a touchdown on 105 of them, a success rate of 91.3 percent. Over one stretch, spanning more than seven years, he converted 60 of 61, including 37 straight."

 

I can hear my father the whole time I was growing up - "Quarterback sneak! Quarterback sneak!"...............When the Bills listened to him, it worked!

 

It seemed like it was used a lot during the 70s, etc.............I have no idea why it's not anymore, except by the Patriots!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I can hear my father the whole time I was growing up - "Quarterback sneak! Quarterback sneak!"...............When the Bills listened to him, it worked!

 

It seemed like it was used a lot during the 70s, etc.............I have no idea why it's not anymore, except by the Patriots!

The Pats' organization is just smarter, although you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that the play is historically very successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Pats' organization is just smarter, although you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that the play is historically very successful.

its one of those little things that goes a LONG way. Converting "and short" situations is HUGE for keeping the chains moving and scoring. in a game of inches, its amazing how many coaches ignore the easiest way to get those inches. if you want to see why the pats win so often, its decisions like this. it isnt some sexy play or big secret. its simply doing the right thing at big moments.

Edited by NoSaint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

its one of those little things that goes a LONG way. Converting "and short" situations is HUGE for keeping the chains moving and scoring. in a game of inches, its amazing how many coaches ignore the easiest way to get those inches. if you want to see why the pats win so often, its decisions like this. it isnt some sexy play or big secret. its simply doing the right thing at big moments.

Right? The Pats' success rate on those plays is off the freaking chart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think that your last point is one of the biggest flaws in the play call...Seattle's personnel at WR vs. NE*'s DBs is a losing proposition...Bevell should know that IMO.

 

i agree.. Browner's ability to bang heads got lost in the giddiness of being schematically correct..

actually, Bevell probably should have anticipated that the Pats would play Browner as the press man in that D - given his physical ability - and replaced Lockette with Matthews. this would have forced Browner - who spent the 2nd half shadowing Matthews - to swap out his press man duties with Butler, in order to defend a possible fade to the 6-5 Matthews. Kearse would have gotten off the line, putting himself and Butler between Matthews and Browner with no one to defend the slant.. boy.. football's pretty simple the day after :D

Edited by BackInDaDay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a good call. It was just poor execution.

 

At least that's what the jackwagons here tell me when I criticized Hackett's playcalling.

 

I said this as a joke last night, and yet I see some people here are actually talking about the execution.

 

The only thing that might be stupider than the call are Bevill and Caroll's explanations for it. They don't even make sense.

its one of those little things that goes a LONG way. Converting "and short" situations is HUGE for keeping the chains moving and scoring. in a game of inches, its amazing how many coaches ignore the easiest way to get those inches. if you want to see why the pats win so often, its decisions like this. it isnt some sexy play or big secret. its simply doing the right thing at big moments.

 

Agreed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Injury concerns for the QB they say...idiot coaches in reality

i mean, really, who was the last qb hurt on a "fall forward" type of play?

 

occasionally a young one will be dumb and reach the ball out unprotected.... but man, youd think thatd be easy to coach out of them if you know you want to use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i mean, really, who was the last qb hurt on a "fall forward" type of play?

 

occasionally a young one will be dumb and reach the ball out unprotected.... but man, youd think thatd be easy to coach out of them if you know you want to use it.

 

It was the first sign that maybe Trent Edwards wasn't as good as we were thinking he was

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...