this is what we've been arguing in shiek's thread and some others.
here it is broken down in terms of numbers from people who are very good at this kind of thing.
however, i think they don't take into consideration the fact that the odds of something going bad on a pass are greater when you are playing belichik and his defense can figure out a slant is coming fromk the formation. for that reason, you try lynch first.
so, after thinking about it, i don't agree with seattle's call but i d agree it isn't nearly as bad as people are making it out to be.
this is what we've been arguing in shiek's thread and some others.
here it is broken down in terms of numbers from people who are very good at this kind of thing.
however, i think they don't take into consideration the fact that the odds of something going bad on a pass are greater when you are playing belichik and his defense can figure out a slant is coming fromk the formation. for that reason, you try lynch first.
so, after thinking about it, i don't agree with seattle's call but i d agree it isn't nearly as bad as people are making it out to be.
me too. but then again, it is belichick so maybe he had some master plan. in any case, i'd love to hear his explanation. i haven't herd a very good one yet.
me too. but then again, it is belichick so maybe he had some master plan. in any case, i'd love to hear his explanation. i haven't herd a very good one yet.
He didnt call timeout because he only had 2 left and was saving them for 3rd and 4th down.
Secondly i believe he didnt use it on second down, because he was basically gonna give seattle the td had they run the ball, thus giving brady the ball back with 2 timeouts and only needing a fg to tie the game.
He didnt call timeout because he only had 2 left and was saving them for 3rd and 4th down.
Secondly i believe he didnt use it on second down, because he was basically gonna give seattle the td had they run the ball, thus giving brady the ball back with 2 timeouts and only needing a fg to tie the game.
Secondly i believe he didnt use it on second down, because he was basically gonna give seattle the td had they run the ball, thus giving brady the ball back with 2 timeouts and only needing a fg to tie the game.
i've seen a couple of theories. i do think this one is possible.
Secondly i believe he didnt use it on second down, because he was basically gonna give seattle the td had they run the ball, thus giving brady the ball back with 2 timeouts and only needing a fg to tie the game.
i've seen a couple of theories. i do think this one is possible.
My opinion is that there is no way Belichik was going to let them score on 2nd down after not calling their second timeout at 1:02. Clearly it is better to let them score after calling a timeout at 1:02, than to let them score at 20 and have 2 timeouts. So to me - that is not the reason.
It can only be one of two things to me. First, is that it is just a colossal f uckup.
But the second possibility is that he didn't call a timeout because he wanted exactly what he got - a throw on 2nd down. If he calls a timeout at 1:02, then Seattle has a chance to run THREE times - even with only having one timeout left. So - if he wanted Seattle to have to throw at least one of those 3 plays left - he didn't call the timeout.
I don't know - but if that was his strategy I have to give him credit for it working out to plan. I don't agree with it - but since it worked everyone would think it was the right thing to do.
To me - the only right thing to do is to call a timeout at 1:02.
I never met a hater better than me. I am on twitter
My opinion is that there is no way Belichik was going to let them score on 2nd down after not calling their second timeout at 1:02. Clearly it is better to let them score after calling a timeout at 1:02, than to let them score at 20 and have 2 timeouts. So to me - that is not the reason.
It can only be one of two things to me. First, is that it is just a colossal f uckup.
But the second possibility is that he didn't call a timeout because he wanted exactly what he got - a throw on 2nd down. If he calls a timeout at 1:02, then Seattle has a chance to run THREE times - even with only having one timeout left. So - if he wanted Seattle to have to throw at least one of those 3 plays left - he didn't call the timeout.
I don't know - but if that was his strategy I have to give him credit for it working out to plan. I don't agree with it - but since it worked everyone would think it was the right thing to do.
To me - the only right thing to do is to call a timeout at 1:02.
My opinion is that there is no way Belichik was going to let them score on 2nd down after not calling their second timeout at 1:02. Clearly it is better to let them score after calling a timeout at 1:02, than to let them score at 20 and have 2 timeouts. So to me - that is not the reason.
It can only be one of two things to me. First, is that it is just a colossal f uckup.
But the second possibility is that he didn't call a timeout because he wanted exactly what he got - a throw on 2nd down. If he calls a timeout at 1:02, then Seattle has a chance to run THREE times - even with only having one timeout left. So - if he wanted Seattle to have to throw at least one of those 3 plays left - he didn't call the timeout.
I don't know - but if that was his strategy I have to give him credit for it working out to plan. I don't agree with it - but since it worked everyone would think it was the right thing to do.
To me - the only right thing to do is to call a timeout at 1:02.
i agree, but i just have a hard time with the idea that belichik fucked it up like that. but, he's human.
it doesn't make sense that he lets them score on 2nd down after the clock ran down unless maybe he was hoping for a better result on first down. i don't know. it's also hard to believe belichick was expecting something that good to happen on 2nd and 1 when seattle has lynch in the backfield and a great rollout qb. but, maybe he did anticipate and out-think seattle.
hard to speculate about what he was thinking. would be nice if some media person asked him and got a legitimate answer.
My opinion is that there is no way Belichik was going to let them score on 2nd down after not calling their second timeout at 1:02. Clearly it is better to let them score after calling a timeout at 1:02, than to let them score at 20 and have 2 timeouts. So to me - that is not the reason.
It can only be one of two things to me. First, is that it is just a colossal f uckup.
But the second possibility is that he didn't call a timeout because he wanted exactly what he got - a throw on 2nd down. If he calls a timeout at 1:02, then Seattle has a chance to run THREE times - even with only having one timeout left. So - if he wanted Seattle to have to throw at least one of those 3 plays left - he didn't call the timeout.
I don't know - but if that was his strategy I have to give him credit for it working out to plan. I don't agree with it - but since it worked everyone would think it was the right thing to do.
To me - the only right thing to do is to call a timeout at 1:02.
i agree, but i just have a hard time with the idea that belichik fucked it up like that. but, he's human.
it doesn't make sense that he lets them score on 2nd down after the clock ran down unless maybe he was hoping for a better result on first down. i don't know. it's also hard to believe belichick was expecting something that good to happen on 2nd and 1 when seattle has lynch in the backfield and a great rollout qb. but, maybe he did anticipate and out-think seattle.
hard to speculate about what he was thinking. would be nice if some media person asked him and got a legitimate answer.
basically, if i'm belichik, i have to assume seattle is scoring and i have to make sure i give brady as much time as possible to get a field goal. i don't see where he was thinking along those lines at all.
basically, if i'm belichik, i have to assume seattle is scoring and i have to make sure i give brady as much time as possible to get a field goal. i don't see where he was thinking along those lines at all.
i agree, but i just have a hard time with the idea that belichik fucked it up like that. but, he's human.
it doesn't make sense that he lets them score on 2nd down after the clock ran down unless maybe he was hoping for a better result on first down. i don't know. it's also hard to believe belichick was expecting something that good to happen on 2nd and 1 when seattle has lynch in the backfield and a great rollout qb. but, maybe he did anticipate and out-think seattle.
hard to speculate about what he was thinking. would be nice if some media person asked him and got a legitimate answer.
Don't get me wrong... I still think the best thing for him to do was to call the timeout at 1:02, and then let them score. Or at the very least, call the timeout at 1:02 and play defense.
Not calling the timeout - although it worked out - was the only thing I wouldn't do.
I never met a hater better than me. I am on twitter
i agree, but i just have a hard time with the idea that belichik fucked it up like that. but, he's human.
it doesn't make sense that he lets them score on 2nd down after the clock ran down unless maybe he was hoping for a better result on first down. i don't know. it's also hard to believe belichick was expecting something that good to happen on 2nd and 1 when seattle has lynch in the backfield and a great rollout qb. but, maybe he did anticipate and out-think seattle.
hard to speculate about what he was thinking. would be nice if some media person asked him and got a legitimate answer.
Don't get me wrong... I still think the best thing for him to do was to call the timeout at 1:02, and then let them score. Or at the very least, call the timeout at 1:02 and play defense.
Not calling the timeout - although it worked out - was the only thing I wouldn't do.
Here's what you are missing.This is a contrast in Head coaching philosophies. On that play, the following took place.
Pete Carroll did not trust his rush offense vs the New England goal line defense.
Bill Belichick trusted his goal line defense vs the Seattle offense.
As a player, you want your Head Coach / Coord. to have confidence in your ability in crucial situations This is a lesson in Leadership for Pete Carroll. He will not make this mistake again.
Helping Kama'aina to beat their " Local " since 1994.
Here's what you are missing.This is a contrast in Head coaching philosophies. On that play, the following took place.
Pete Carroll did not trust his rush offense vs the New England goal line defense.
Bill Belichick trusted his goal line defense vs the Seattle offense.
As a player, you want your Head Coach / Coord. to have confidence in your ability in crucial situations This is a lesson in Leadership for Pete Carroll. He will not make this mistake again.
Here's what you are missing.This is a contrast in Head coaching philosophies. On that play, the following took place.
Pete Carroll did not trust his rush offense vs the New England goal line defense.
Bill Belichick trusted his goal line defense vs the Seattle offense.
As a player, you want your Head Coach / Coord. to have confidence in your ability in crucial situations This is a lesson in Leadership for Pete Carroll. He will not make this mistake again.
That is way too simplistic. Kind of like saying "god said it and that settles it".
The interception didn't happen because of what you are describing. You are fitting a cute narrative to the story. The story didn't happen because of your narrative.
I never met a hater better than me. I am on twitter
Here's what you are missing.This is a contrast in Head coaching philosophies. On that play, the following took place.
Pete Carroll did not trust his rush offense vs the New England goal line defense.
Bill Belichick trusted his goal line defense vs the Seattle offense.
As a player, you want your Head Coach / Coord. to have confidence in your ability in crucial situations This is a lesson in Leadership for Pete Carroll. He will not make this mistake again.
That is way too simplistic. Kind of like saying "god said it and that settles it".
The interception didn't happen because of what you are describing. You are fitting a cute narrative to the story. The story didn't happen because of your narrative.
wiseguy, i think the prevailing factor was exactly what carroll said. he did it because a opass on 2nd down gave them the option to run on 3rd and 4th. a run on second down means a timeout and a pass on 3rd down which NE might be better prepared for. in theory, it makes some sense. but, in another sense, i think you're right. just go with what you do best, which is pounding lynch in the 4th quarter or using wilson's speed and evasiveness.
wiseguy, i think the prevailing factor was exactly what carroll said. he did it because a opass on 2nd down gave them the option to run on 3rd and 4th. a run on second down means a timeout and a pass on 3rd down which NE might be better prepared for. in theory, it makes some sense. but, in another sense, i think you're right. just go with what you do best, which is pounding lynch in the 4th quarter or using wilson's speed and evasiveness.
but i doubt belichik's prevailing thought was trusting his defense against seattle's offense. NE has a terrible short yardage defense. seattle has a great short yardage offense.
but i doubt belichik's prevailing thought was trusting his defense against seattle's offense. NE has a terrible short yardage defense. seattle has a great short yardage offense.
I think we're overthinking it like seattle did. Let the best (arguably) RB in the game, known for breaking tackles and going "beast mode" give you a shot a victory. If you felt ML couldn't do it, you trust your duel threat qb w/ playaction.
IF you had to pass you go with a screen pass.
I would have ran the ball until time ran out. Maybe if we were stopped 2x and if time remained I may have opted for a pass.
But not on 2 and 1, Brady was not throwing down the field he was dinking and dunking 5-10 yard gashes. Maybe he leads them down the field for a fg but with time on your side. You ram the ball down their throats with run plays. It's really simple. Play call was horrible. Seattle is not known for their passing or receivers...
I think we're overthinking it like seattle did. Let the best (arguably) RB in the game, known for breaking tackles and going "beast mode" give you a shot a victory. If you felt ML couldn't do it, you trust your duel threat qb w/ playaction.
IF you had to pass you go with a screen pass.
I would have ran the ball until time ran out. Maybe if we were stopped 2x and if time remained I may have opted for a pass.
But not on 2 and 1, Brady was not throwing down the field he was dinking and dunking 5-10 yard gashes. Maybe he leads them down the field for a fg but with time on your side. You ram the ball down their throats with run plays. It's really simple. Play call was horrible. Seattle is not known for their passing or receivers...
I think we're overthinking it like seattle did. Let the best (arguably) RB in the game, known for breaking tackles and going "beast mode" give you a shot a victory. If you felt ML couldn't do it, you trust your duel threat qb w/ playaction.
IF you had to pass you go with a screen pass.
I would have ran the ball until time ran out. Maybe if we were stopped 2x and if time remained I may have opted for a pass.
But not on 2 and 1, Brady was not throwing down the field he was dinking and dunking 5-10 yard gashes. Maybe he leads them down the field for a fg but with time on your side. You ram the ball down their throats with run plays. It's really simple. Play call was horrible. Seattle is not known for their passing or receivers...
Better luck next year
But Sea could not have run 2x. They had one timeout. They couldn't run on 2nd and 3rd like you suggest and still have a 4th.
If you are going to make an argument, you have to make sure what you say is possible.
I never met a hater better than me. I am on twitter
I think we're overthinking it like seattle did. Let the best (arguably) RB in the game, known for breaking tackles and going "beast mode" give you a shot a victory. If you felt ML couldn't do it, you trust your duel threat qb w/ playaction.
IF you had to pass you go with a screen pass.
I would have ran the ball until time ran out. Maybe if we were stopped 2x and if time remained I may have opted for a pass.
But not on 2 and 1, Brady was not throwing down the field he was dinking and dunking 5-10 yard gashes. Maybe he leads them down the field for a fg but with time on your side. You ram the ball down their throats with run plays. It's really simple. Play call was horrible. Seattle is not known for their passing or receivers...
Better luck next year
But Sea could not have run 2x. They had one timeout. They couldn't run on 2nd and 3rd like you suggest and still have a 4th.
If you are going to make an argument, you have to make sure what you say is possible.
That is way too simplistic. Kind of like saying "god said it and that settles it".
The interception didn't happen because of what you are describing. You are fitting a cute narrative to the story. The story didn't happen because of your narrative.
I don't know how I can make it simple enough for you to understand ...... But It is that simple. Belichick trusted his players to make a play Win or Lose in a critical situation and they did. Carroll did not trust his players to make a play, if fact he called it a "waste down" and the WR got knocked off the ball. Wilson rushing would have been a safer play for a " waste down"if that was his plan. New England made a play when it counted. Seattle did not.
Hope that explains it for you.
Helping Kama'aina to beat their " Local " since 1994.
That is way too simplistic. Kind of like saying "god said it and that settles it".
The interception didn't happen because of what you are describing. You are fitting a cute narrative to the story. The story didn't happen because of your narrative.
I don't know how I can make it simple enough for you to understand ...... But It is that simple. Belichick trusted his players to make a play Win or Lose in a critical situation and they did. Carroll did not trust his players to make a play, if fact he called it a "waste down" and the WR got knocked off the ball. Wilson rushing would have been a safer play for a " waste down"if that was his plan. New England made a play when it counted. Seattle did not.
There was just about everything in play. Timeouts, run / pass, let them score.... All happening at once in the biggest game of the year.
I also think they strategically took advantage of Seattle's desperation after the interception by getting them to jump off sides when Brady was lined up in the end zone. Not a huge deal, but lining up from the six yard line instead of the one yard line gave them a lot more comfort in the victory formation.
There was just about everything in play. Timeouts, run / pass, let them score.... All happening at once in the biggest game of the year.
I also think they strategically took advantage of Seattle's desperation after the interception by getting them to jump off sides when Brady was lined up in the end zone. Not a huge deal, but lining up from the six yard line instead of the one yard line gave them a lot more comfort in the victory formation.
Carroll did not trust his players to make a play, if fact he called it a "waste down" and the WR got knocked off the ball. Wilson rushing would have been a safer play for a " waste down"if that was his plan.
And I thought that was bs, no coach wastes a play, let alone one on the Super Bowl
He's better off admitting it was a mistake, apologizing to the team and moving on. He's looking foolish with the circular reasoning, trying to shield everyone from criticism and explaining himself
Carroll did not trust his players to make a play, if fact he called it a "waste down" and the WR got knocked off the ball. Wilson rushing would have been a safer play for a " waste down"if that was his plan.
And I thought that was bs, no coach wastes a play, let alone one on the Super Bowl
He's better off admitting it was a mistake, apologizing to the team and moving on. He's looking foolish with the circular reasoning, trying to shield everyone from criticism and explaining himself
me too. but then again, it is belichick so maybe he had some master plan. in any case, i'd love to hear his explanation. i haven't herd a very good one yet.
I would have called a timeout. But his not calling worked out absolutely brilliantly, Seattle had to rush to get a call in, they flubbed the call and the game
I though it was foolish but it turned out pure genius, if those were his thoughts
me too. but then again, it is belichick so maybe he had some master plan. in any case, i'd love to hear his explanation. i haven't herd a very good one yet.
I would have called a timeout. But his not calling worked out absolutely brilliantly, Seattle had to rush to get a call in, they flubbed the call and the game
I though it was foolish but it turned out pure genius, if those were his thoughts
I think if NE calls a timeout, and Seattle has time to think of the call, they don't run a slant. Calling it a "wasted play" means they were just trying to get a play in in time and it cost them everything
I think if NE calls a timeout, and Seattle has time to think of the call, they don't run a slant. Calling it a "wasted play" means they were just trying to get a play in in time and it cost them everything
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.