As I said on another thread, I think the significance and extraordinary nature of Super Bowl 49 has been mainly ignored or wildly underestimated by most people, including many Patriots fans and the entire mainstream media. I would like to see the Super Bowl game, and the playoffs, explored in much more depth than has been so far.
I am a verbose guy, and sometimes I get a fact, or a set of facts, clamped down into my brain and go searching for "hidden depths." So I appreciate your hunger for a certain type of analysis, which you can see in depth here often. In fact, you might post a question here about one or more plays and get some very informed opinions. But see below about the limits of the kind of knowledge you're looking for... (which you probably already knew...)
From what I know, the Super Bowl was one of the most surprising and brilliant episodes in the entire history of professional team sports. People want to say it's just another win, or a "great" win, but I think it's something beyond special. And by the way I'm sick of people comparing to other Boston comebacks in other sports too, it's not just a comeback, it's the way it was done, looking at the sport in a completely new way apparently.
How can I put it? It was super-special in a coming-through-to-beat-the-odds-after-the-odds-had-apparently-beat-you kind of way. There were 59 minutes of very good football then 1 minute of mind-boggling football. The Pats played all 60. That's your quantification. Not 59, not 59:30, 60.
But the level you're raising this win to... I don't know. I loved this win. I loved this SB - out of 4 that the Pats have won. I loved those few plays that ended up making the difference. I loved those choices the Pats made that put them in a position to win, even after a play that by sheer luck would have crushed most teams. Love love love. But the way you're phrasing it seems like you want to find a way to capture, quantify, and bottle it. (see more below). Quantifying "specialness" is just a fool's errand in some ways... especially when we, as fans, are anything but objective. Make sense? This is not a knock on you. PatsFandom is sort of like some hallucinogens: For those who've been there, no explanation is necessary; for those who have not, no explanation will suffice.
As one example of how more is to be said about the game, the first time I read about the fact that Lockette's poor footwork being the cause of the interception was on some Seattle blog a few days which analyzes. And just a day or so ago, someone here pointed out that Browner's pushing Kearse into Lockette's path might have impeded Lockette a bit. So that's out of the thousands or tens of thousands of previous articles/posts about that one play, and there are many plays, but even after those ten thousand, there was more to say.
Interesting takes and yes, there is always something else to see. And as you say, that's just "the" play. I am watching it now stopping it over and over using the space bar over on YouTube.
Indeed it's "just a jump to the left... and a step to the righhhhht" (if you're a Rocky Horror fan) for Lockette... not a slant. I mean I don't
think it looks like this \_ the way it's drawn up... you have to imagine it's Kearse's job to rub Browner, but Browner's not having it.
Go frame by frame - Browner's hands are coming out before Wilson has caught the snap (which is slightly low or mishandled for what it's worth). I
think Browner recognizes the play, takes the initiative, extends the arms, and forces a horizontal step by Lockette. I
think Lockette's supposed to have a slant available.
Then that puts Lockette still in a crazy open situation, but only apparently. Butler's immediately taking his first gazelle-like step to where the ball will be (at 00:2) when Lockette first moves left - Butler hooks around Browner to be "on" Lockette and he's there at 00:3. He
can hook around Browner because Browner went to the gym morethan Kearse, or was less sluggish, wanted it more, was more adrenaline-fueled... IDK. If Kearse wins that battle, Butler can't get there.
The Wilson throw is imperfect. Maybe if he's taller it's perfect. Blame Euclid. The ball's a tiny bit high and he's making Lockette extend - so it's not that classic pass where ONLY his guy can get it. If that ball is chest high, Lockette can at least shield it from Butler with his body, if not make the catch, but...
That's good enough 99% of the time but not when Butler is making a 100% perfect play. When Wilson gets the ball out Lockette has lots of space, and Butler is behind Browner. Now at this point if Browner is losing the battle to Kearse, Butler
can't take his angle to the ball. Because of where the pass is placed, Butler only has to move Lockette's arms, not a torso. Of course the Butler missile does end up moving Lockette entirely, but does he get that ball if it's at chest level and right in the numbers for Lockette instead of neck level and ahead of him? IDK.
In the third angle the YouTube shows, at about 0:43, you see the throwing lane as well as Wilson's tip-toe delivery. Again if he's throwing DOWN at that spot, say, if he's a Bradyesque 6'4" instead of 5'11, what happens? IDK. But Wilson is, in fact, a hobbit. Just saying factor it in.
How about Wilson's split-second look to his left at the start of the play? Is that the first receiver in the progression or a decoy? Quick recognition by Wilson or just a look-off while Lockette gets where he's going? Smarter guys than me can answer this. IDK.
Freeze it at 0:46. However we got there, Wilson has thrown up an "anybody's ball" pass. I don't think he can
put it where only his guy can get it, and I
think that's not the case with another 5 inches of height, but I'm obsessing on it because you brought up the "so many things to discover" point.
Butler did beautiful things necessary for that play to happen. Butler and Browner are playing with both superior
intent and superior
talent on this play, against jags (in terms of SEA receivers.) Wilson is playing at JAG level too (and the big package the Pats have put in have everything to do with that.)
Why mention all this stuff together, all of which has probably been mentioned before? See below...
Just to give some examples, nobody has yet quantified whether the Butler play was really unprecedented from an athleticism and anticipation standpoint.
Butler was ****-hot on that play. You want "unprecedented." High bar. To me it's enough that he played one perfect play when it mattered most. So did Browner. D-Line won its battle...what I'm getting at is the team level comes in too, and so does the situation/chance/etc.
But in support of "unprecedented," do the space-bar stop and go of the YouTube. He knows where Lockette's going the moment Lockette's leg goes left, maybe before (by way of play recognition.) INSTANT response. Lockett has to plant his right foot because Browner got his arms out before the rub, and it's all over - Butler knows by the left leg kick where he's going, and the race is on.
Nor whether the kind of long lateral to Edelman followed by a long pass in the antepenultimate game has happened, and thus whether the Solder cut block was a new wrinkle to an old play or had been done before (are we sure that cut block was part of the play design at all?).
Etc. Points for antepenultimate, by the way. But I've been obsessing on the SB interception for way too long already.
I'd also like more quantification and analysis of just how unique and unusual that 13/14 completions, or whatever the numbers were, at the end of the 4th quarter by TB was. I'm just saying there's more to analyze about the Super Bowl.
First, either unique or not. No degrees of unique. 2nd, what are you trying to compare? Do we want all SBs won in the 4th? QB performance in final drive of winning team's possession that were won in the 4th? Remember selecting the stat you want for purposes of proving specialness is an inherently biased exercise. My best scientific analysis of the performance is "Dayum!!! WOOO HOOOOO!!!!"
Not to mention, for those of us who don't really understand schemes and what not at the level of the coordinators, I'd like to see a detailed walk through of exactly what is going on in each play...
Huge group of people who can do smart football breakdowns. Your wish is their command - put it out there. People here are willing to do them and very good at them.
The whole postseason was so surreal and so, well, impossible, I (a) still don't really understand how it happened and (b) don't believe for a second that that a lot of other people really understand in depth what happened. Just like the Butler play had many hidden depths that everyone was missing, I think that many of the other plays have hidden depths that everyone is missing.
Yes. That is the somewhat painful understanding we always come to as fans. But again, we have Xs and Os guys here that will give you as much as you can handle... start a thread with the question.
And one other thing, one story line that is missing, is class...etc.
Have to disagree here. Class is the most subjective measure I can think of. Lady Tom of the Chargers/Jets broke me of the "class" claim.
So I'm all for digging out every nugget of every play leading to what the Pats achieved in '14-15. Don't get me wrong. I'm just saying, "can we quantify how special" something was can be extremely frustrating.
Shantih, shantih, shantih.
