The final play shows the genius of BB

Great analysis: http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/2/...2015-patriots-interception-seahawks-play-call

bresna said:

Great analysis: http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/2/...2015-patriots-interception-seahawks-play-call

Click to expand...

But it only worked because Seattle used football logic instead of common sense.

Click to expand...

That one sentence sums this brilliant sequence so perfectly.

I think hailing BB as a genius for the non-TO call is a bit hyperbolic. He faced a choice with trade-offs, and rather than giving his offense the tools they needed to succeed if the defense failed, he trusted his defense and gave them the slightest of advantages instead. It turns out that that was all they needed to make the game-winning play, but this wasn't chess where he could calculate the outcome. It was more akin to poker, if anything, where the odds were generally known, but when it came down to it, he sized-up his opponent and made a cold-hearted decision that won the game, but could just have easily lost it. With his calm under fire and ruthless trust in his defense, he's less Einstein and more William Prescott (Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes).

Matt Chatham ‏@chatham58 29s29 seconds ago
If Malcolm Butler doesn't make that INT, should've been a flag for an illegal pick. #15 is just trying to shield Browner, not running route.

pencilneckgeek said:

this wasn't chess where he could calculate the outcome.

Click to expand...

He has most likely entertained such a scenario in his mind, and had decided what to do if such a moment arose.

pencilneckgeek said:

I think hailing BB as a genius for the non-TO call is a bit hyperbolic. He faced a choice with trade-offs, and rather than giving his offense the tools they needed to succeed if the defense failed, he trusted his defense and gave them the slightest of advantages instead. It turns out that that was all they needed to make the game-winning play, but this wasn't chess where he could calculate the outcome. It was more akin to poker, if anything, where the odds were generally known, but when it came down to it, he sized-up his opponent and made a cold-hearted decision that won the game, but could just have easily lost it. With his calm under fire and ruthless trust in his defense, he's less Einstein and more William Prescott (Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes).

Click to expand...

Both coaches made unconventional/befuddling choices in the last minute of the game. Patriot Nation would have been crucifying BB as much as Seattle Nation is crucifying Carroll. We saw Wilson march down the field in thirty seconds to tie the game just before the half. Patriot Nation would have been livid had BB given Brady only 15 seconds and two time outs as opposed to 55 seconds and one timeout needing only a field goal for the tie.

TomPatriot said:

Because this play is a known part of Seattle's arsenal, they practiced it. Josh Boyer probably went over this thoroughly with all the corners. This is especially important because that's a timing play. So Butler was taught, prepared and so he was in a better position to execute. That's good teaching and that's good coaching.

Click to expand...

What I love is that they practiced it, he got beat on the play in practice, and said that Bill talked to him about it and what he should do next time, and then he FREAKING NAILS IT at the most important possible time. Patriots Way, baby! He may have a nice future with us...

You know even the pats have been guilty of this in the past- looking at matchups instead of going with a run which we fans keep screaming on the game thread. Seattle did the same, went purely on matchups instead of a gut feel.

neuronet said:

What I love is that they practiced it, he got beat on the play in practice, and said that Bill talked to him about it and what he should do next time, and then he FREAKING NAILS IT at the most important possible time. Patriots Way, baby! He may have a nice future with us...

Click to expand...

from the sbnation article above

The Patriots' secondary is taught to watch the eyes of the quarterback as he leaves the huddle. To see who he is talking to. To see who he is most animated about. To see where his last words are intended before his cadence begins.

Butler said he saw Wilson chirping with receiver Ricardo Lockette. Lockette was to make a one-step in-cut from a stacked formation and get the pass quick and in the end zone. Butler read it all and saw it all.

Then he instantly flashed.

Click to expand...

It's worth noting that Lynch wasn't very good from the one yard line, so Carroll with only 26 secs left did not have as easy a decision as some think.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ynch-isnt-exactly-money-from-the-1-yard-line/

Anyone remember in Superbowl 2012 when the Pats linebackers PUSHED Ahmed (SP) Bradshaw into the endzone so the Pats would have 50 seconds to win the game from behind instead of the Giants eating the clock and scoring with nothing left?

It didn't work out. I wonder if BB considered that. It was a very similar situation.

neuronet said:

What I love is that they practiced it, he got beat on the play in practice, and said that Bill talked to him about it and what he should do next time, and then he FREAKING NAILS IT at the most important possible time. Patriots Way, baby! He may have a nice future with us...

Click to expand...

I'm treating Butler like I did the Patriots after their 1st SB win: I don't care what you do here on out... Butler is now Patriots HISTORY. A pic of his play better go up on the wall....

Other folks prolly called this out already, but, others are saying Browner being physical at the point of attack prevented the rub...

BelichickFan said:

As I said on another thread it took me a while to figure it out. But, yeah, by running the clock (which I I HATED at the time) with Seattle only having one TO and putting the goalline defense in Seattle was faced with, if they didn't make it, almost having to throw against non goal line defense. Glad I'm not a HC having to make those decisions.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something but strategically speaking we're saying Carroll attempted a pass play to get the TD or stop the clock so that he has time for two more plays - for a total of 3 plays

But if Carroll runs the ball (which with a RB averaging nearly 6 yards and needing just one for the win might well have ended the game right there) then yes, he has to use his time out to have time for two more plays - for a total of 3 plays - the next one of which would need to be a pass to stop the clock after the time out

So by my math, either way, in that situation Carroll has time for 3 plays - one of which must be a pass

I guess we can second guess Carroll's strategy on when or whether he would telegraph a pass play to Belichick

I'd say that Belichick certainly deserves credit for letting Carroll be the one to either use or not use the time out rather than making a major mistake and stopping the clock himself (heck, the commentators were debating whether Belichick should just LET THEM SCORE to get the ball back with some time!!)

But either way it seems to me that in either worst case scenario the Seahawks have time for 3 plays - one of which must be a pass.

I guess it was just Carroll thinking maybe he'd catch the Patriots off guard by opting to do that on the first attempt? And Belichick saw through that strategic thinking and was ready? Is that it?

I still think if I'm Carroll, and I can put the game away without even throwing ONE pass by handing off to a monster RB averaging nearly 6 yards but needing one, that's what I do in that situation, rather than ever getting to the point of putting the ball in the air

tasmlab said:

Anyone remember in Superbowl 2012 when the Pats linebackers PUSHED Ahmed (SP) Bradshaw into the endzone so the Pats would have 50 seconds to win the game from behind instead of the Giants eating the clock and scoring with nothing left?

It didn't work out. I wonder if BB considered that. It was a very similar situation.

Click to expand...

This was a different situation however. The Giants needed only a field goal to win so they could have run the clock down and then kicked a chip shot as time expires. Basically no chance to stop that from happening as blocking a field goal is pretty low probability. So letting them score was the only option.

The Seahawks had to get in the end zone which means there's a chance you can stop them.

Even if they ran Lynch on 2nd down I still like our chances of a goal line stand. It was reminding me of that Colts game from years ago when we stopped them.

JoeSixPat said:

But either way it seems to me that in either worst case scenario the Seahawks have time for 3 plays - one of which must be a pass.

Click to expand...

#s have shown the chances of an interception at the 1 yard line is less than 1%; so the Patriots got both very lucky and/or very smart.

Here's how the plays could fold out (assuming no fumbles/interceptions). The pass on second was likely the 'right' call in my opinion

By passing on 2nd down -- Seattle had a personnel advantage -- 3 receivers vs a pats secondary that had no safeties. And Seattle would then have been able to make full use of the game clock to decide their 3rd/4th down plays.

If they run on 2nd down -- Seattle is at a personnel disadvantage -- and then seattle would have to quickly run a 3rd down play because they'd want to save the timeout for 4th down. Cause if they call a timeout after a 2nd down run, then they are at risk of a sack or being stopped short of goal on 3rd and clock expiring.

So Pete decided to pass because he wanted to ensure he could use downs 3 and 4 without being hurried and by selecting the personnel he wanted in those last 2 downs.

Pete / hawks probably messed up by not quickly subbing in for 2nd down into run heavy set and then running a play with 30+ seconds on the clock -- they may have assumed Pats were going to call a timeout and so didn't change their personnel.
Pete / hawks also screwed up by burning 2 timeouts earlier by not being prepared

neuronet said:

What I love is that they practiced it, he got beat on the play in practice

Click to expand...

Clearly Garoppolo is better than Wilson.

tasmlab said:

Anyone remember in Superbowl 2012 when the Pats linebackers PUSHED Ahmed (SP) Bradshaw into the endzone so the Pats would have 50 seconds to win the game from behind instead of the Giants eating the clock and scoring with nothing left?

It didn't work out. I wonder if BB considered that. It was a very similar situation.

Click to expand...

The commentators were making mention of that as well. I think if you have 1 minute to get in position for the tie, maybe you do it, given the fact you're going up against Lynch who you have to think would get the 1 yard.

But there was more like 30 seconds left on the clock I think - at that point I'd say you just have to try to let the D do their job and try to stop the score for the win.

I'll take Brady getting into FG range in 55 seconds. 30 seconds, I feel much less confident about

FWIW, apparently Matt Patricia told @stoolpresidente last night that this was exactly the thinking. They knew if they showed what looked like goal-line, SEA would almost certainly throw it and they liked their matchups. Considering Matty P's picture from him Saturday night, I guess they're tight.

There was a good reason to pass it.

They likely only have enough time for 2 runs. But they had 3 plays. Can't pass on 4th if run on 2nd and 3rd.

2 runs are less likely to succeed in score, than 2 runs and pass.

3 tries are better than 2.

BB's choice to skip TO essentially made them either pass, or lose a down.