sksmith Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 I don't think pass was the bad part of the call, it was the kind of pass play...fade, option, screen, all good options with relatively low risk; slant from the 2yd line is pretty high risk: the 2 teams are crammed in to less space than normal, making separation harder and tipping of pass or jumping a route easier Element of surprise was probably the purpose, I just see the reward being vastly outweighed by the risk given that specific point in the game 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 The definition of getting cute IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sksmith Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 In the 2014 season, the were 61 touchdown passes from the 1 yard line and 0 interceptions. The risk of a fumble from running the ball is way higher than the chance of an interception on a slant pass. There just aren't many interceptions at the line of scrimmage. Most interceptions happen down field. Interesting numbers...I'd still opt for slant last over other pass plays available Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustOfBeenDrunk Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 In the 2014 season, the were 61 touchdown passes from the 1 yard line and 0 interceptions. The risk of a fumble from running the ball is way higher than the chance of an interception on a slant pass. There just aren't many interceptions at the line of scrimmage. Most interceptions happen down field. It only takes one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 (edited) HSAC @Harvard_Sports The Pats allowed opponents to score 81% of the time in power situations (runs on 3rd/4th & <2, or w/i 2 yds of goalline). Dead last in NFL. HSAC @Harvard_Sports SEA was second in the league in power situations, getting stuffed just 17% of the time. Lynch converted 17 of 20 3rd/4ths & short this year. These two stats say it all. Edited February 5, 2015 by CaptainHook 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 They had a time out. They could: run, TO, pass, pass run, TO, pass, run. pass, run, TO, pass. pass, run, TO, run pass, pass, pass I understand trying to conserve the TO by passing. But man, after seeing the two stats I quoted, I would have run the ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 They had a time out. They could: run, TO, pass, pass run, TO, pass, run. pass, run, TO, pass. pass, run, TO, run pass, pass, pass I understand trying to conserve the TO by passing. But man, after seeing the two stats I quoted, I would have run the ball. you have Lynch. You're at the 1. You run the ball, you don't need stats....they trucked up..its simple really Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) Because they'd just run the ball for four yards on the previous play? Hell I wouldn't have substituted which would have kept NE from changing to goal line personnel. Because NE had the worst short yardage D in NFL? Because SEA had second best short yardage O in the NFL? There's three reasons for ya. The goal is to score a trucking touchdown. Not outthink the room. I would have been worrying about which RUN gave me the best chance to score. I'd have worried about the damn clock and putting the ball in the air if we didn't get in on second down. And if you're so worried about maximizing the amount of plays you have left, don't spend 40 seconds between second and third down! Edited February 6, 2015 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Def. Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 I would have double bagged it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxBandit Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Clarification - there were 26 not 20 seconds left with that 2nd play occured. There were 20 seconds left after the play. So running 3 plays in 26 seconds may have been doable, but still with just 1 time out they probably had to pass once to be able to run 3 plays. I'm still a bit confused about why everyone says it was a bad call. The consensus pretty much everywhere is that they had to throw a pass on one of the three plays in order to get three plays off in 26 seconds with only one timeout. I get that part. And it is also assumed under any scenario that you aren't thinking about a turnover on any of the downs. You are thinking about the best way to run three plays. So if that is the case, and if the Patriots were playing a stacked defense to stop the run on 2nd down, then why not throw it then, when you have man-on-man coverage? You still then have the ability to run it on 3rd and 4th down, and perhaps the Patriots defense doesn't play 8-men-in-the-box on 3rd down, since you just threw it on 2nd down. Seems to me, from a coaching perspective, if you are going to pass (which almost everyone agrees would be the case on one of the three downs), then the best chance for a pass play to be successful would be when the defense is least expecting it Turns out Wilson and Kearse didn't execute anyway, but from a right-or-wrong-strategy perspective, seems throwing it on 2nd in man-coverage wasn't a bad idea. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 It wasn't necessarily a "bad" call to pass it. It certainly was the wrong call, but even worse than that it was the wrong call to throw a quick slant into the middle of the defense at the goal line. That was the down to be conservative. You've got two more & a TO to squander. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 I'm still a bit confused about why everyone says it was a bad call. The consensus pretty much everywhere is that they had to throw a pass on one of the three plays in order to get three plays off in 26 seconds with only one timeout. I get that part. And it is also assumed under any scenario that you aren't thinking about a turnover on any of the downs. You are thinking about the best way to run three plays. So if that is the case, and if the Patriots were playing a stacked defense to stop the run on 2nd down, then why not throw it then, when you have man-on-man coverage? You still then have the ability to run it on 3rd and 4th down, and perhaps the Patriots defense doesn't play 8-men-in-the-box on 3rd down, since you just threw it on 2nd down. Seems to me, from a coaching perspective, if you are going to pass (which almost everyone agrees would be the case on one of the three downs), then the best chance for a pass play to be successful would be when the defense is least expecting it Turns out Wilson and Kearse didn't execute anyway, but from a right-or-wrong-strategy perspective, seems throwing it on 2nd in man-coverage wasn't a bad idea. because you're the Seahawks. You do what you do best which is run the ball. Lynch was pounding the ball. I believe he got 5 on the previous play. I don't think the Pats would have stopped him from the 1 even if they had 13 guys in the field Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 It wasn't necessarily a "bad" call to pass it. It certainly was the wrong call, but even worse than that it was the wrong call to throw a quick slant into the middle of the defense at the goal line. That was the down to be conservative. You've got two more & a TO to squander. Wrong pass play called and poor execution. Lynch got 5 on first down, but was stuffed earlier that day on a short yardage play. And was 0-5 (or something like that posted the stat earlier) on goal to go from the 1 this year. I think there are 2 camps here one who say "no way you should pass there" others who can see it wasn't the call to pass on that down, but the play they ran and the execution that did them in. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) I'm still a bit confused about why everyone says it was a bad call. The consensus pretty much everywhere is that they had to throw a pass on one of the three plays in order to get three plays off in 26 seconds with only one timeout. The first down play occurred with 1:06 left. The second down play occurred with 26 seconds left. Seahawks mis-managed this if their goal was maximum flexibility in their play-calling. So if that is the case, and if the Patriots were playing a stacked defense to stop the run on 2nd down, then why not throw it then, when you have man-on-man coverage? You still then have the ability to run it on 3rd and 4th down, and perhaps the Patriots defense doesn't play 8-men-in-the-box on 3rd down, since you just threw it on 2nd down. Because the Seahawks had the second best short yardage offense in the NFL. Because the Patriots had the worst short yardage defense in the NFL. Everyone keeps saying the Patriots had their goal line package in, yet they subbed in an extra CB (Butler) before the play happened. Three CB's isn't a goal line defense. I'm sorry, but you run first, then call your timeout if you don't get in, leaving yourself two downs to throw it in. Edited February 6, 2015 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 It wasn't necessarily a "bad" call to pass it. you're right, it wasn't bad, it was horrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted February 7, 2015 Author Share Posted February 7, 2015 Out of curiosity, upon further reflection, do you stand by this quote? Absolutely. I have not changed my view. Lynch gained four or five yards on a run to reach the one-yard line. They had time, they had a time out and Lynch was in the exact spot you want to use him the most. I cannot understand why they would throw a pass into the middle of 22 players all bunched up. I might have been okay if they had Wilson run a fake to Lynch and then a sweep with the option to run or throw it. I think it was just a very bad call. It was the worst call you could have made in that situation IMO. No reason to throw the riskiest pass possible into the heart of the defense. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboyz1 Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) Absolutely. I have not changed my view. Lynch gained four or five yards on a run to reach the one-yard line. They had time, they had a time out and Lynch was in the exact spot you want to use him the most. I cannot understand why they would throw a pass into the middle of 22 players all bunched up. I might have been okay if they had Wilson run a fake to Lynch and then a sweep with the option to run or throw it. I think it was just a very bad call. It was the worst call you could have made in that situation IMO. No reason to throw the riskiest pass possible into the heart of the defense. Totally agree. Why throw a dart into bodies in the middle of the field. A glance off a pad, hand, all the congestion in the middle of the field just made no sense. To me you want to go with the least risky play on the card and that call for run or run option with Russell who can chose to throw away from the defense to an open guy or out of bounds or run it in. Safe and secure. You have Lynch in your backfield with less than a yard to go, to win the Super Bowl and don't give him the ball? Crazy. Instead throwing a pick, that becomes the worst call in history. After just seeing what a crazy bounce can do to get you down there, you have to say, hell no we are not putting this ball in the air! Still can't understand how that call got made and then got executed into a pick without someone saying NO, that's stupid! Edited February 8, 2015 by Cowboyz1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irish Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Absolutely. I have not changed my view. Lynch gained four or five yards on a run to reach the one-yard line. They had time, they had a time out and Lynch was in the exact spot you want to use him the most. I cannot understand why they would throw a pass into the middle of 22 players all bunched up. I might have been okay if they had Wilson run a fake to Lynch and then a sweep with the option to run or throw it. I think it was just a very bad call. It was the worst call you could have made in that situation IMO. No reason to throw the riskiest pass possible into the heart of the defense. No question. Lots of things they could've run there based off the run or even a run. However, the unfortunate part is 9 times out of 10, the play they ran is a very safe pass play and has minimal chance at being picked and they hadn't had a TO all game. The defender just made a great read and better play on the ball, finishing with a sweet pick. With that said, on 2nd and goal from the half yard line, with 26 seconds left and a TO, I'm absolutely shoving, one of the best short yardage backs in the game today and ever in the history of football, down the Patriots throat. If it doesn't work, I take the TO, and lineup for a pass on 3rd. Even with the defense the pats had in, passing there is more risky. Seattle runs lynch and they win back to back Super Bowls, it's just that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 A slant pass is probably the most conservative pass play that exists. Wilson rolling out would have had more chance for a touchdown, but could have risked a sack or interception. A quick slant pass has zero chance for a sack and an infinitesimally small chance for an interception when it's done at the goal line. Even if the ball ricochets off the receiver, there is no 2nd line of defense to catch it. It was a fluke play and possibly the greatest interception I've ever seen. A slant designed to connect at the goal line is fought with peril. There are defenders within 3 steps of the catch point in every direction. If you have a big receiver with good hands who can dominate at the catch point, then that is a decent play call. When you have a gaggle of dudes who are basically replacement level receiving talent that is a terrible call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stethant Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 “Fifteen years after being fired from Robert Kraft, Pete Carroll finally delivered a championship to Foxboro” -Dan Shaugnessy, Boston Globe The gift indeed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) The perplexing part, besides not running the gosh darn ball with a guy nickamed the beast, with a great short yardage offense against a terrible short yardage defense, is that Ricardo Lockette literally has not caught a slant in his entire NFL career. I would bet big money that the Seahawks run less slants than any team in the NFL, and also less pick plays than any team in the NFL. Why you run that particular play, to one of your worst receivers on the roster, and expect them to execute it smoothly is absolutely absurd. I can see if the call if you don't have Marshawn Lynch, have receivers that make strong moves to the ball, and have completed this very play a bunch of times while running your offense throughout the season. You have to pass one of the downs. But you don't do it on 2nd. You see if Marshawn can get you in the easy way before taking the risk of throwing. It seems like we're planning on bringing back the OC (Bevell). I can't believe he wasn't already fired. It is like offering Bartman a free season ticket next to the foul pole. Edited February 8, 2015 by Seahawks21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboyz1 Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 The perplexing part, besides not running the gosh darn ball with a guy nickamed the beast, with a great short yardage offense against a terrible short yardage defense, is that Ricardo Lockette literally has not caught a slant in his entire NFL career. I would bet big money that the Seahawks run less slants than any team in the NFL, and also less pick plays than any team in the NFL. Why you run that particular play, to one of your worst receivers on the roster, and expect them to execute it smoothly is absolutely absurd. I can see if the call if you don't have Marshawn Lynch, have receivers that make strong moves to the ball, and have completed this very play a bunch of times while running your offense throughout the season. You have to pass one of the downs. But you don't do it on 2nd. You see if Marshawn can get you in the easy way before taking the risk of throwing. It seems like we're planning on bringing back the OC (Bevell). I can't believe he wasn't already fired. It is like offering Bartman a free season ticket next to the foul pole. Yeah running the ball in for a touchdown should have only been a formality! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wpob Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I am guessing Seattle is going to try to find themselves a true #1 WR in free agency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irish Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I am guessing Seattle is going to try to find themselves a true #1 WR in free agency. Or a better short yardage RB. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin_Akie Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I am guessing Seattle is going to try to find themselves a true #1 WR in free agency. Presuming the likes of Maclin, D.Thomas and Dez are re-signed that leaves them with someone like Cobb, Crabtree or Torrey Smith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.