Jim Harbaugh nails it regarding The Pick

SVN · Feb 14, 2015

If this play was made by revis, the commentary would be different - "Why throw at revis ?" . And listening to some of the nfl films after the play, wilson is talking to his OC saying "I dont know what happened, I thought I threw accurately," blah blah. I think wilson is getting away without a lot of criticism.

Deus Irae · Feb 14, 2015

Jackson 2 said:
My mistake.

You could have left it there, as I clearly wasn't attacking you. Instead you chose to be... well, you. Remember that when you attack others, because you're one of the most hypocritically antagonistic posters here.

Jackson 2 · Feb 14, 2015

Deus Irae said:
You could have left it there, as I clearly wasn't attacking you. Instead you chose to be... well, you. Remember that when you attack others, because you're one of the most hypocritically antagonistic posters here.

My God, you are a hoot!!

Danger Zone · Feb 14, 2015

Deus Irae said:
You could have left it there, as I clearly wasn't attacking you. Instead you chose to be... well, you. Remember that when you attack others, because you're one of the most hypocritically antagonistic posters here.

Oh.

My.

God.

robbomango · Feb 14, 2015

ewg_gestalt said:
I think a big part of it was that the particular play did absolutely nothing with Lynch whatsoever. If it had been a play-action or short pass to Lynch—or anything else that made Lynch an integral component of the play—I think everybody would have accepted it. But throwing a play into the middle of traffic while making Lynch a complete bystander was a headscratcher. In Irvin's WFAN interview, he even pointed this out: the Seahawks believed that Lynch, not Wilson, was their Brady: "so long as we have <X>, we'll be fine." The Seahawks went away from that, and probably lost the game because of it.

I disagree, people would complain no matter what play was called and failed there. If they stuffed Marshawn 3 times in a row down there, people would be saying Why not try one pass? or something else.

kudzif · Feb 14, 2015

ewg_gestalt said:
I think a big part of it was that the particular play did absolutely nothing with Lynch whatsoever. If it had been a play-action or short pass to Lynch—or anything else that made Lynch an integral component of the play—I think everybody would have accepted it. But throwing a play into the middle of traffic while making Lynch a complete bystander was a headscratcher. In Irvin's WFAN interview, he even pointed this out: the Seahawks believed that Lynch, not Wilson, was their Brady: "so long as we have <X>, we'll be fine." The Seahawks went away from that, and probably lost the game because of it.

The reason why Seattle called that play and New England recognized it is that Seattle ,and a lot of other Nfl teams(eg Denver) use that play on the goalline a lot.If it has always worked for you why would one suddenly think they would get intercepted because even an incompletion would have been good.

In the last 5 years in the NFL 1 yard passes from the goalline have been intercepted only 2% of the time.A fumble from the 1 was more likely than an interception.
People have to give Butler his props because that was an unbelievable play on his part.

ewg_gestalt · Feb 14, 2015

kudzif said:
In the last 5 years in the NFL 1 yard passes from the goalline have been intercepted only 2% of the time.A fumble from the 1 was more likely than an interception..

Just checked the numbers from 1998 on: there have been more fumbles than INT's, but an INT is more likely than a turnover due to a fumble.

BradyFTW! · Feb 14, 2015

Deus Irae said:
No, they lost because they failed to execute a basic pick play, while Butler and Browner executed their defense of it in textbook fashion. If the Seahawks had handed off to Lynch, and Lynch had been stopped and stripped (almost identical percentage of Lynch fumbles and Wilson INTs), people would be calling THAT the stupidest call ever:

"You had the perfect setup for a pick play! New England wasn't giving any help to the corners, and Wilson had just completed those huge passes to get you down there in the first place!"

Standard hindsight bias, really. If that play works, absolutely nobody is complaining about the playcall, let alone calling it the dumbest in NFL history. If they hand the ball off to Lynch and he gets stripped, just like you said, those very same people would never shut up about how bad the call was.

People tend to evaluate everything based purely on results, even when that's objectively the wrong approach.

RecoveringCowboy · Feb 14, 2015

Deep, deep, down in my computer, I found an emoticon from 2003 I'd like to share. My online friend that had this started my path that would eventually lead to here.

Feel free to claim it!

Uncle Rico · Feb 14, 2015

BradyFTW! said:
Standard hindsight bias, really. If that play works, absolutely nobody is complaining about the playcall, let alone calling it the dumbest in NFL history. If they hand the ball off to Lynch and he gets stripped, just like you said, those very same people would never shut up about how bad the call was.

People tend to evaluate everything based purely on results, even when that's objectively the wrong approach.

Yup. See:
- 4th and 2 in Indy
- Taking the wind instead of the ball in OT vs Denver

kudzif · Feb 14, 2015

ewg_gestalt said:
Just checked the numbers from 1998 on: there have been more fumbles than INT's, but an INT is more likely than a turnover due to a fumble.

Regardless, the odds of an int were so low that criticizing the call to the point that people are going on about it is ridiculous.If teams had a play that had a 90% + chance of positive result every team in the NFL would take it. That play on the goal line is run by a bunch of teams .

UK_Pat37 · Feb 15, 2015

Wheelman said:
Are you sure about this? I've seen Pete Carroll down in the redzone on the sideline in a previous game. If it is a rule it's very loosely enforced. Or perhaps head coaches are exempt from this rule?

Someone else brought this up. Generally referees give you leniency. Referees are more concerned with whether or not you are impeding their ability to referee. If you're in a position where he has to run around you, you're getting flagged. If you're venturing out of the 'coaches box', providing you aren't in the way, they tend to enforce it very loosely.

When I was at a high school in Cali this year I was on the sidelines the referee would allow one coach (two if the HC and play caller were different) to come up to the side line and just on the pitch. Once the offence started lining up they had to retreat.

Numerous times they ventured further than the 25 yard line too but, as previously mentioned, providing too many guy aren't doing it and you aren't in the referee's way he will be lenient.

neuronet · Feb 15, 2015

RecoveringCowboy said:
Deep, deep, down in my computer, I found an emoticon from 2003 I'd like to share. My online friend that had this started my path that would eventually lead to here.

View attachment 8729

Feel free to claim it!

I wonder how many cool little things like that are hidden on old hard drives...

PatsFanSince74 · Feb 15, 2015

shmessy said:
What Butler did was incredible - - as was what Browner did. As what the coaching staff did.

...THIS is why he shockingly called no timeout - - he saw that he was holding a Royal Flush.........and the rest of the world didn't know it.

....
Hopefully, with people like Jim Harbaugh and others recognizing it, it will someday be accepted more widely.

Agree with 99% of what you wrote, but I would put it that he wasn't holding a Royal Flush but had a suited 10, J, K and A and needed the River Card to be the right Q once the ball was snapped. He got it in part when Carroll called the exact play he thought he was going to call but only really got it when Browner and Butler made the play of their lives. Actually, the odds of that happening were probably a lot longer than drawing to an inside, straight flush.

Also, we'll never know why BB didn't call the TO. All he's said is that he "thought about" it and that he "could have" called it. Since we can't "know," my guess is that he was "all in" on his D and was betting on Carroll's impulsive, aggressive nature and knew that Pete would not be able to settle for the "Run--Timeout--Run" option which would have put the game in the Beast's hands twice from the one, but instead would go with a "safe" pass play that had the lowest chance of a sack or a pick. Oops. The odds of stopping Lynch x2 from the One were pretty long, but the odds of "something happening" on a pass were a lot better, slim as they might have been. His stack was all in, he was down to his final card. He won.

Water Boy · Feb 15, 2015

I'm frustrated over the meme that Carrol choked and a simple hand off to Lynch would have been game over. The Pats stoned Lynch multiple times throughout the game and were obviously keying on him at the goal line. At best I think it would be a 50/50 proposition he scores if he gets the hand off. Its highly offensive to me that the Butler play is considered the inevitable outcome of passing in that situation. How many times in recent memory have you seen a short inside slant picked off. I can't think of any.

billikens · Feb 15, 2015

I don't think that Wilson or Lockett were somehow off. Lockett was exactly where he was supposed to be - Butler had to physically knock him away to grab the ball. The problem was neither Wilson nor Lockett had any reason to believe Butler would be there. I don't care how well you execute an offensive play - if the defense knows what you are running beforehand, you're screwed. And, in fact, the more precision you are running, all the better, because if this had somehow turned into a broken play (like Wilson seeing Butler break for the ball and doesn't throw to Lockett but keeps it) Seattle likely wins.

What made this play was the defensive play call. Sideline video shows the assistant coaches sending Butler in when the Seahawks sent in their three receivers, and you can see Butler say something to Browner then step back into position right before the ball is snapped. Then there's the execution with Browner perfectly just stopping Kearse and Butler pouncing immediately for the ball where if he's too early Wilson sees him and if he's too late Lockett catches and scores. Seattle was just going through the motions and got caught by a head's up defense that was on its game,

Fencer · Feb 15, 2015

billikens said:
I don't think that Wilson or Lockett were somehow off. Lockett was exactly where he was supposed to be - Butler had to physically knock him away to grab the ball. The problem was neither Wilson nor Lockett had any reason to believe Butler would be there. I don't care how well you execute an offensive play - if the defense knows what you are running beforehand, you're screwed. And, in fact, the more precision you are running, all the better, because if this had somehow turned into a broken play (like Wilson seeing Butler break for the ball and doesn't throw to Lockett but keeps it) Seattle likely wins.

What made this play was the defensive play call. Sideline video shows the assistant coaches sending Butler in when the Seahawks sent in their three receivers, and you can see Butler say something to Browner then step back into position right before the ball is snapped. Then there's the execution with Browner perfectly just stopping Kearse and Butler pouncing immediately for the ball where if he's too early Wilson sees him and if he's too late Lockett catches and scores. Seattle was just going through the motions and got caught by a head's up defense that was on its game,

Agree. It's a gamble that BB makes every time, but it's still a huge gamble to sell out to the expectation they'll run the play as they've run it before. And yeah -- in goal-line situations it could make a lot of sense for Wilson to call his own number. It even makes sense for slower QBs.

Deus Irae · Feb 15, 2015

billikens said:
I don't think that Wilson or Lockett were somehow off. Lockett was exactly where he was supposed to be - Butler had to physically knock him away to grab the ball. The problem was neither Wilson nor Lockett had any reason to believe Butler would be there. I don't care how well you execute an offensive play - if the defense knows what you are running beforehand, you're screwed. And, in fact, the more precision you are running, all the better, because if this had somehow turned into a broken play (like Wilson seeing Butler break for the ball and doesn't throw to Lockett but keeps it) Seattle likely wins.

What made this play was the defensive play call. Sideline video shows the assistant coaches sending Butler in when the Seahawks sent in their three receivers, and you can see Butler say something to Browner then step back into position right before the ball is snapped. Then there's the execution with Browner perfectly just stopping Kearse and Butler pouncing immediately for the ball where if he's too early Wilson sees him and if he's too late Lockett catches and scores. Seattle was just going through the motions and got caught by a head's up defense that was on its game,

Both Wilson and Lockett were "off".

TheBostonStraggler · Feb 16, 2015

Beast Mode during the SB on plays the Patriots were certain to be in some sort of goal line/major run stop package: 3rd and 1 -- gained 0 yards. 3rd and 2 -- gained 0 yards, 3rd and 2 -- gained a TD (looked like he would have gained 3 or so yards).

It's fair to conclude Beast mode does not equal a 'likely' TD on 'the play' (let's say it is 50/50). Consider that the is also half a chance that they must use their timeout and have lesser play call options to try to win the SB (a wrong play call on third down and they could end up in a major major rush to run their last, do or die, play of the SB).

Bottom line it was not an unreasonable play call by PC. Expecting Wilson to make sure it is a TD or incomplete is not outlandish at all. PC then has 3rd and 4th down to put in well thought out, unrushed calls with all options available.

Now does that mean it is the right or best call????

Demosthenes · Feb 16, 2015

billikens said:
I don't think that Wilson or Lockett were somehow off. Lockett was exactly where he was supposed to be - Butler had to physically knock him away to grab the ball. The problem was neither Wilson nor Lockett had any reason to believe Butler would be there. I don't care how well you execute an offensive play - if the defense knows what you are running beforehand, you're screwed. And, in fact, the more precision you are running, all the better, because if this had somehow turned into a broken play (like Wilson seeing Butler break for the ball and doesn't throw to Lockett but keeps it) Seattle likely wins.

What made this play was the defensive play call. Sideline video shows the assistant coaches sending Butler in when the Seahawks sent in their three receivers, and you can see Butler say something to Browner then step back into position right before the ball is snapped. Then there's the execution with Browner perfectly just stopping Kearse and Butler pouncing immediately for the ball where if he's too early Wilson sees him and if he's too late Lockett catches and scores. Seattle was just going through the motions and got caught by a head's up defense that was on its game,

I disagree to some extent. On a quick inside slant, if the ball is placed properly, the defender has absolutely no chance to intercept the ball. If you look at a GIF of the play, you'll see that Lockette was facing back towards Wilson, the ball was up around his shoulder pads and was about 1 foot too far inside. If the ball had been placed center mass, the best Butler could have done was broken up the play.

Here's how an inside slant pass should be done.

Center mass, where only the WR can catch it.

Jim Harbaugh nails it regarding The Pick

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

Goodell sucks

In the Starting Line-Up

Pro Bowl Player

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Homer Little

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

Practice Squad Player

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Similar threads