idle thoughts - the "coaches defense league" edition

Gwedd said:

My personal take is that I believe the Football Gods were effing with the Seahawks for all their arrogance this past couple years. I don't mind the occasional trash-talking, and I'm more than happy to give props where do. But Seattle crossed a very bright line with their mouthiness and attitude that just doesn't sit well with a whole lotta folks.

So, to my mind, Kearce was allowed by the Football Gods to make that circus catch in order to mess a bit with the Patriots' fans, but more to raise the Seahawks' hopes up as high as possible before dashing them onto the rocks far, far, below.

Karma, she is a beyatch, and she winked at New England when she ripped Seattle's heart out.

Click to expand...

convertedpatsfan said:

While Barnwell hated the call, he did have some good info in his article:

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.

Stretch that out to five years and the numbers make runs slightly superior; they scored 54.1 percent of the time and resulted in turnovers 1.5 percent of the time, while passes got the ball into the end zone 50.1 percent of the time and resulted in turnovers 1.9 percent of the time. In a vacuum, the decision between running and passing on the 1-yard line is hardly indefensible, because both the risk and the reward are roughly similar.
​

The Globe put together some interesting stats. Not sure how accurate since it's the Globe, but the original source was Pro Football Reference which is better.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...d-you-think/9Tt9A9avhWuaZGXBlTdTDI/story.html

Though Lynch sometimes seems it, he’s not unstoppable. Of his 281 carries during the 2014 season, 20 resulted in lost yardage while two more yielded fumbles, meaning that something bad happened for the Seahawks 7.8 percent of the time when he was asked to carry the ball.

Over the three years when he’s lined up behind Wilson, he’s had 20 fumbles and 77 non-fumbling negative-yardage plays — a tough-to-stomach outcome on 10.7 percent of all of his runs. Of course, he’d netted at least a yard on 22 of his 24 runs (91.7 percent) in the game on Sunday, but there was at least some possibility that he could be stopped.

More to the point, Lynch doesn’t have the bulldozing track record that one might anticipate from the 1-yard line. He was handed the ball at the 1 five times in 2014, getting into the end zone just once — a 20 percent success rate well short of the league average of 57.5 percent.

Over his three-year partnership with Wilson, Lynch has more often failed to reach the end zone (7 times) than he has reached it (5) when given the opportunity from the 1. Perhaps that track record sat in the back of Seahawks coaches’ minds as they considered their call.​

Click to expand...

AzPatsFan said:

Spot On , Ken.

I felt I was alone in thinking exactly that it was the best option on the part of both Coaches. BB preferred to win or lose in a goalline stand, rather than try to move 50 yards, kick a successful Tying FG; and then play in Overtime.

He decided not to give the Seahawks a free timeout. So would I. Maybe it would have eliminated a complete play with the clock running down. It put pressure on them, no doubt.

I don't understand critics who think using only 2 plays attempting to score, is better then 3 full oppportunities, should you need them. But MEDIOTS are know-nothing stupid.

I'm firmly convinced BB would have adopted EXACTLY the same strategy.

Click to expand...