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

[Dibs]

.......The point is, the game is on the line and you do what you do best from less than a yard. What they do best is not gun a slant pass to an average WR.

Additionally, chosing a play that has a lower chance of a turnover in that position should be factored in as well.

[NoSaint]

That's not the point. The point is, again, you had the best toughest RB and the very best running QB, with three quarters of a yard. You look to run. Wilson is unbelievably great at making one guy miss. He also does a little fake run and then pop pass over the heads of the onrushing guys trying to stop him from running. If they would have called a fade it also would have been the worst call. The point is, the game is on the line and you do what you do best from less than a yard. What they do best is not gun a slant pass to an average WR.

My point being that many are being a bit dramatic calling it a tough pass or into the heart of the defense/crowds/congestion or that the wr is a track star rag doll despite being a STer that had 30 lbs on the db

 

If they can't execute a basic play like that without turnover I'm not sure what you can count on them executing. Your scenarios sound great until Wilson trips over his untied shoelace and has a jameis style fumble cause they suddenly can't execute the basics.

 

It wouldn't have been my play call either but boy did it ever put the players in a position to succeed (or not fail in epic fashion).

 

To put it in our terms-- Do I call the slant to hogan there? No way. Is that even a remotely expected outcome once they saw man on that side with no help? Absolutely not. A drop, maybe 1 in 10? Defender getting a clean break and standing him up at the goal line or breaking it up? Maybe 1 or 2 in 10? Interception? Especially a clean one like that? About 1 in 100. Not scientific numbers, but you get my point--- it wasn't some terribly forced play in the end.

Additionally, chosing a play that has a lower chance of a turnover in that position should be factored in as well.

The risk of turnover there wasn't particularly high though. That's my point. Against that coverage it's nearly automatic to pick up 1 yard and hard to throw a pick without a crazy tip. It's a bread and butter play for a lot of organizations (watch ne or denver convert multiple short yardage situations any given week with that- Id bet Seattle did quite a few too). Edited February 5, 2015 by NoSaint

[GG]

The risk of turnover there wasn't particularly high though. That's my point. Against that coverage it's nearly automatic to pick up 1 yard and hard to throw a pick without a crazy tip. It's a bread and butter play for a lot of organizations (watch ne or denver convert multiple short yardage situations any given week with that- Id bet Seattle did quite a few too).

 

That's a bread & butter play when the field is still wide open. Not in the compressed air space with only 11 linear yards to play with.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

That's great. Forgot about that one.

 

Watch the play. KC effectively blows coverage and leaves Stevie Johnson wide open in the middle, just a few yards in front of Tuel. No one covers Stevie. He is waving his arm the entire time.

 

Had Tuel simply looked straight in front of him and had the presence of mind to "see" what was happening RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM he would have tossed the ball to Stevie for an easy TD.

 

Instead, Tuel is obviously stuck in thought, and performing like a programmed robot with an intention only to do a single thing. Get ball from center, drop back, turn right to designated receiver, throw him the ball.

 

I ramble on like this only because this play is a great example why Jeff Tuel can't play QB in the NFL and why so many others can't either.

 

What is lacking with a lot of these guys is all mental; it's all what's going on in their head. Stay calm and composed; look; see; a lot of it is absolutely not physical.

 

They mostly all have prototypical bodies/athletic talents anyway.

 

Has anyone in the NFL developed a completely mental type of test for QBs? If not, why not? It should test ability to find an object in a cluttered field, doing simple things calmly in a controlled manner but with the pressure of a timer counting down against them, things like this.

 

I'm sure some psychologists could whip up some interesting tests.

 

This is what I'd be testing for a QB coming out of college, not measuring their 6'4" frame and asking them to throw 10 footballs through a bushel bucket from 8 yards away in 1 minute or that type of nonsense.

Come on, man. It was Tuel's first start. Gotta cut him some slack.

 

I saw Kurt Warner throw a pick at the 1 in the super bowl, returned 100 yards for a TD. No one is immune from a bad read.

[Chilly]

The Seahawks didn't send their unit out until after the Patriots had put their goal line personnel into the field.

 

I have no problem calling a pass on that situation. You have three downs, one timeout, and the Cheaters have committed to stop the run. Trying a pass then powering it in on the next two when you have a timeout left is fine.

 

However, what's not fine is running that slant. A pass to the end zone in that situation has to be touchdown or out of bounds.

 

This means you throw it high to a corner or high to the back middle. Put it in a spot where the receiver catches it or it's incomplete. This is pretty typical nfl strategy and the reason why there were zero interceptions from the one until the super bowl.

 

I think the play call sucked. Not because it was a pass, but because it was the wrong pass play in the wrong situation. Can't do that there.

Edited February 5, 2015 by BlueFire

[K-9]

 

That's a bread & butter play when the field is still wide open. Not in the compressed air space with only 11 linear yards to play with.

That's a bread and butter play, regardless. Every team in the league uses it in goal line situations vs. 7/8 man fronts. Wilson couldn't have asked for a better look from the defense to run that play. Lockette screwed the pooch seven ways to Sunday, though.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[bbb]

I don't think 80% of the people complaining it was the worst call ever would have been saying that if Wilson rolled out and was trying to run it in if he could or just throw a simple pass to someone who flared out. It was a combination of about 10 factors in one that made it "the worst call" and not just that they didn't hand it to Lynch the next play.

 

Bingo!

 

BTW, I don't think Collinsworth said anything for about 30 seconds to a minute. The playcall was made, and all the craziness. Then it settled down a little and there was silence, and then Al Michaels said "I don't know about that call" and then finally Colllinsworth went off.

 

I heard a call on GR that I think was Boomer Esiason on the radio call - now he was going off!! And, he didn't hear Collinsworth first.

 

It was stupid beyond belief

 

[Thurman#1]

Carroll totally befuddled trying to explain the play call. Saying they didn't want to run the ball against NE's goal line personnel. Wow.

 

 

 

People seem to feel that he was befuddled because he disagrees with their expert takes.

 

He wasn't befuddled. What he said was clear and logical. Disagree if you want, his take wasn't illogical.

 

It made total sense. Heck, it's what Roman just said to mad approval in his opening press conference, that they want to run but some days they won't. That if the other team drops everyone down into the box that they'll pass instead, that you don't play into the teeth of the defense.

[dave mcbride]

My point being that many are being a bit dramatic calling it a tough pass or into the heart of the defense/crowds/congestion or that the wr is a track star rag doll despite being a STer that had 30 lbs on the db

If they can't execute a basic play like that without turnover I'm not sure what you can count on them executing. Your scenarios sound great until Wilson trips over his untied shoelace and has a jameis style fumble cause they suddenly can't execute the basics.

It wouldn't have been my play call either but boy did it ever put the players in a position to succeed (or not fail in epic fashion).

To put it in our terms-- Do I call the slant to hogan there? No way. Is that even a remotely expected outcome once they saw man on that side with no help? Absolutely not. A drop, maybe 1 in 10? Defender getting a clean break and standing him up at the goal line or breaking it up? Maybe 1 or 2 in 10? Interception? Especially a clean one like that? About 1 in 100. Not scientific numbers, but you get my point--- it wasn't some terribly forced play in the end.

The risk of turnover there wasn't particularly high though. That's my point. Against that coverage it's nearly automatic to pick up 1 yard and hard to throw a pick without a crazy tip. It's a bread and butter play for a lot of organizations (watch ne or denver convert multiple short yardage situations any given week with that- Id bet Seattle did quite a few too).

I thought the pass was perfect -- upper-chest high (where it's easiest for your eyes to pick up and easiest to catch) and right in front so that you can reach out and snatch it with ease without breaking stride. It was not in on the body, which is a good thing. It looked more slightly ahead of Lockette than it was because Lockette was greatly slowed at the last moment by the oncoming Butler. Regardless, there was nothing wrong with that pass at all. I don't think everyone realizes that passes closer to one's eye level (in terms of height) are the easiest ones to catch.

Come on, man. It was Tuel's first start. Gotta cut him some slack.

I saw Kurt Warner throw a pick at the 1 in the super bowl, returned 100 yards for a TD. No one is immune from a bad read.

I'm glad you mentioned that warner play. If memory serves, it was a similar sort of pass -- more inside than outside.

That's a bread and butter play, regardless. Every team in the league uses it in goal line situations vs. 7/8 man fronts. Wilson couldn't have asked for a better look from the defense to run that play. Lockette screwed the pooch seven ways to Sunday, though.

 

GO BILLS!!!

It is by definition a high risk play because I'd say that there's about a 1 in 3 chance that a db anticipates correctly and breaks on the ball. Edited February 5, 2015 by dave mcbride

[dave mcbride]

Some (modest) fuel for No Saint: http://mmqb.si.com/2015/02/04/russell-wilson-super-bowl-49-interception-statistical-analysis/

[Kelly the Dog]

My point being that many are being a bit dramatic calling it a tough pass or into the heart of the defense/crowds/congestion or that the wr is a track star rag doll despite being a STer that had 30 lbs on the db

 

If they can't execute a basic play like that without turnover I'm not sure what you can count on them executing. Your scenarios sound great until Wilson trips over his untied shoelace and has a jameis style fumble cause they suddenly can't execute the basics.

 

It wouldn't have been my play call either but boy did it ever put the players in a position to succeed (or not fail in epic fashion).

 

To put it in our terms-- Do I call the slant to hogan there? No way. Is that even a remotely expected outcome once they saw man on that side with no help? Absolutely not. A drop, maybe 1 in 10? Defender getting a clean break and standing him up at the goal line or breaking it up? Maybe 1 or 2 in 10? Interception? Especially a clean one like that? About 1 in 100. Not scientific numbers, but you get my point--- it wasn't some terribly forced play in the end.

The risk of turnover there wasn't particularly high though. That's my point. Against that coverage it's nearly automatic to pick up 1 yard and hard to throw a pick without a crazy tip. It's a bread and butter play for a lot of organizations (watch ne or denver convert multiple short yardage situations any given week with that- Id bet Seattle did quite a few too).

A one yard slant pass from the 2 ft line is a completely different animal than a normal one yard slant pass from any place else on the field, and multiplied by 10 in that scenario. You should expect the DB to jump the route, it's the only way to defend it. And a crazy bounce/tip is not at all a 1-100 shot IMO.

[NoSaint]

I thought the pass was perfect -- upper-chest high (where it's easiest for your eyes to pick up and easiest to catch) and right in front so that you can reach out and snatch it with ease without breaking stride. It was not in on the body, which is a good thing. It looked more slightly ahead of Lockette than it was because Lockette was greatly slowed at the last moment by the oncoming Butler. Regardless, there was nothing wrong with that pass at all. I don't think everyone realizes that passes closer to one's eye level (in terms of height) are the easiest ones to catch.

I'm glad you mentioned that warner play. If memory serves, it was a similar sort of pass -- more inside than outside.

It is by definition a high risk play because I'd say that there's about a 1 in 3 chance that a db anticipates correctly and breaks on the ball.

my point was if wilson read it as the pick failing, or the db getting any jump -- in on the body is much safer. if the pick holds up, or the db doesnt get there the guy is walking in anyway.

 

while it was text book leading the receiver, there was no need to really lead like that.

A one yard slant pass from the 2 ft line is a completely different animal than a normal one yard slant pass from any place else on the field, and multiplied by 10 in that scenario. You should expect the DB to jump the route, it's the only way to defend it. And a crazy bounce/tip is not at all a 1-100 shot IMO.

given that the hole on the line was wide open, the bounce/tip wouldve had to have been off the receivers facemask at that point. if wilson puts the ball on lockettes body, he either walks in with the rub working out or he gets stood up at the goal line (run has the same risk), or the ball falls harmlessly.

[Kelly the Dog]

my point was if wilson read it as the pick failing, or the db getting any jump -- in on the body is much safer. if the pick holds up, or the db doesnt get there the guy is walking in anyway.

 

while it was text book leading the receiver, there was no need to really lead like that.

 

given that the hole on the line was wide open, the bounce/tip wouldve had to have been off the receivers facemask at that point. if wilson puts the ball on lockettes body, he either walks in with the rub working out or he gets stood up at the goal line (run has the same risk), or the ball falls harmlessly.

I'm thinking more of the DB gets there at the same time, or the ball goes off his hands and pops up into the air in the middle or back of the endzone for an easy pick. You have to gun the ball from 5 yards away.

[NoSaint]

Some (modest) fuel for No Saint: http://mmqb.si.com/2015/02/04/russell-wilson-super-bowl-49-interception-statistical-analysis/

essentially, my argument with more numbers. agreeing that it wasnt optimum, but that a relatively small dip off optimum is hardly "worst in the history of all things ever"

 

The Seahawks probably should have run the ballalthough thats much easier to say with hindsight on our side. Conversion rates are higher and thus, the Seahawks chances of winning would be higher, we estimate by about 5.6%. But, was the decision to throw the ball the worst play call in history? Not even close.

They referenced over a 5 play span the expected outcome of 5 runs would be 1 point higher. So about .2 points per attempt gap between the two options there.... or across 35 plays, 1 extra touchdown.

 

The turnover rate on passes fell at about 3.5% vs on runs at a little over 1.5%

 

so in 50 plays youd see 1 more turnover passing and 1 fewer TD and 1 fewer FG, to put the increased risk and decreased scoring in perspective.

 

 

 

 

I'm thinking more of the DB gets there at the same time, or the ball goes off his hands and pops up into the air in the middle or back of the endzone for an easy pick. You have to gun the ball from 5 yards away.

with no linebacker or safety inside to cut in clean, you could underhand slow pitch softball throw the ball to him and as long as its in his body, and on the lower side instead of high and leading and none of that happens. against a different defense, sure your concerns are on point but on that play.... Edited February 5, 2015 by NoSaint

[Kelly the Dog]

essentially, my argument with more numbers. agreeing that it wasnt optimum, but that a relatively small dip off optimum is hardly "worst in the history of all things ever"

 

 

They referenced over a 5 play span the expected outcome of 5 runs would be 1 point higher. So about .2 points per attempt gap between the two options there....

 

with no linebacker or safety inside to cut in clean, you could underhand slow pitch softball throw the ball to him and as long as its in his body, and on the lower side instead of high and leading and none of that happens.

I think people are discounting the enormous difference that 3/4 of a yard versus 1 yard or 1.25 or 1.5 makes. A good portion of the time when a 1 yard run is stopped it is stopped less than a foot from the 1 yard line, or 1 yard gain. That's a TD here. And if it is stopped a few inches short, the next play on a sneak is a 90% rate.

[NoSaint]

I think people are discounting the enormous difference that 3/4 of a yard versus 1 yard or 1.25 or 1.5 makes. A good portion of the time when a 1 yard run is stopped it is stopped less than a foot from the 1 yard line, or 1 yard gain. That's a TD here. And if it is stopped a few inches short, the next play on a sneak is a 90% rate.

well, i assume that data includes everything from "and 1.3 yards" down to "and half an inch" so id be surprised if its WILDLY off. a little, maybe.

 

the effects of the little less and little more than 1 situations should in theory average to a bit less than a full yard since "and 1" can range from .0000001 to 1.5ish here and i dont think theres a reason to believe you see a ton more 1.25 than .5 factored in. could be, but.... if anything you would think itd skew the run results higher than expected here, as the runs are probably more likely EXTREMELY CLOSE while the long yards might open up the playbook a little more.

Edited February 5, 2015 by NoSaint

[YoloinOhio]

@StepnerWKBW: I asked #Bills HC Rex Ryan about final play call in Super Bowl XLIX: "I'm not gonna get into that... (pause)... we would've run it".

[G-Daddy]

@StepnerWKBW: I asked #Bills HC Rex Ryan about final play call in Super Bowl XLIX: "I'm not gonna get into that... (pause)... we would've run it".

We're keeping Tuel!

[papazoid]

angry seahawk fan throws something at his TV.........himself:

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2352148-seahawks-fan-tackles-giant-tv-after-seattle-loses-super-bowl-xlix

Edited February 6, 2015 by papazoid

[papazoid]

Obit Jokingly Blames Washington Man's Death on Seattle Seahawks' 'Lousy Play Call' in Super Bowl

 

 

https://gma.yahoo.com/obit-jokingly-blames-washington-mans-death-seattle-seahawks-200152522--abc-news-topstories.html