Rehash...Butler interception was not a bad play call

It was a bad play call because it was predictable. The Seahawks had such a tendency to call this play in the red zone that the Patriots practiced to defend this very play. The second the Pats saw the personnel Carroll sent on the field, the Pats knew it was likely this was the play they were going to run. In a critical situation like this, calling a passing play that the other team was ready because you always run it is a bad play.

Calling a passing play was not a bad idea. Calling this passing play was.

it was not a bad play call......

the outcome was what sucked for the seahawks

they went at what they perceived was the weak link in the passing defense......but that link stepped up in a big way and it had just worked out that the 'weak link' was waiting on that exact play

What is better, 3 chances to win the SB or 2 chances? That's the question we should ask to any moron that has an agenda to minimize the Patriots merits on that play saying we are lucky and Carroll screw up. Lucky my ass. The math is pretty basic, you either have 3 plays being one a pass or 2 running plays.

Carrol went all in and that's what I'd do too, he didn't want to leave any second left on the clock so they were playing for the 3rd and 4th down. He said that for the press in the locker room after the game and there is no mistery. There is no sabotage to Lynch not getting the glories, there is no making Wilson a hero thing, it's was a strategy that failed because they have been outplayed on that play. BB had the match up he wanted and forced his hand. We can question why Carrol didn't called a timeout, why he didn't send his goal line formation to the field and other questions but that don't make the play invalid or stupid.

First of all, I agree that it was not a bad play call.

The most important things that happened in that final sequence were the Time Out that the Seahawks called because it took so long to get in position after the Kearse catch and the Time Out that Belichick did not call after the Lynch run inside the five.

If they are going to run four plays in the remaining 1:06 and Belichick does not call a TO, one of them has to be a pass.

Lynch takes it to the one.

Clock is running; you look at Carroll on the sideline and it seems like he's waiting for something: "isn't Bill going to call a Time Out?" Precious seconds tick off the clock so Carroll either has to go run-timeout-run or pass-(incompletion/TD)-run-timeout-run. The next snap comes with 26 seconds left and the rest is history.

We'll never know what was going on in BB's mind at the 1:06 point. Whatever it was, he decided to take a stand, bet the farm on his D and not rely on a miracle finish by the Offense.

Had someone reminded him from the booth (or, more likely, did he remember on his own) that Lynch was just 1 for 5 from the one yard line this season (link below)?

Or, did he think Carroll would throw a pass because he wanted to show he was the smartest guy on either sideline by winning the game by doing the unexpected?

Or, did he just assume that Carroll would play the odds that three attempts were better than two and throw what should have been a high percentage pass (incomplete or TD) for that reason? Assume that a safe pass play properly executed in this situation was a good call and rely on his guys to out-execute the Seahawks?

For whichever reason, BB knew the obvious: a pass from the one was still riskier than a run because of the human element. If Wilson passes, more bad things can happen than good: muffed snap, sack, INT, incompletion vs. TD. It worked out that way.

Wilson looks at Kearse and Lockette for a split second, tipping the play (if the formation itself wasn't obvious enough).

Browner busts Kearse's pick.

Butler sees Wilson's eyes before the snap and runs like a madman to the place where the ball will be in two seconds.

Wilson fails to recognize the broken play and instead of throwing the ball to Lockette's back shoulder or into the third row of the stadium, he puts it out in front, where Lockette's hands are supposed to be if Browner hadn't broken the pick and Butler wasn't waiting for it. (Wilson has gotten off with too little of the blame for this, IMO.)

Surreal.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/sto...lysis-context-pete-carroll-call-patriots-2014

Look guys, some things are just patently wrong - the logic behind the call might be reasonable, but it simply wasn't practical, nor was it even necessary. It was the most risky and unnecessary play any coach could've made, given the circumstances. There was simply too much on the line, and running the ball would've been the most favorable play to make, even if it the Pats would have anticipated it. The chances of it succeeding (or fewer things going wrong) make it a much more sensible option.

RayClay said:

I can't help watching that Super Bowl over and over and the big play, especially. Carroll's getting a lot of crap, but i don't think it's justified based on the call.

If run correctly, that was probably as safe as a running play. If the lineman blows his block and the RB gets ambushed and fumbles, same result.

What was bad, was the execution, including the decision based on our personnel. That's on Carroll.

Run correctly, the receiver making the pick has to be covered, or it's an easy TD. He just needs to forcefully run his route and he creates a pocket for receiver two, easy TD.

Butler has to cover the outside, or the receiver can waltz in. He makes a great forceful decision, but, if the play is run correctly, he has no chance, none. Two players between him and the receiver, in the "pocket."

First mistake by Carroll. He should damn well know Browners strength. Sure, the pick receiver didn't force the defender to create the "pocket" for receiver 2, but he was against the one CB on our team who can't be brute forced. Carroll should know that.

Lazy route. It's the Super Bowl. Lockette snaps that off and there's still no interception IMO. I don't think Wilson led him too much, there simply was no barrier created, because of Browner, and Lockette didn't attack the play, he nonchalanted.

Remember, pick, or no pick, Butler has to come all the way from protecting the end zone to the sideline, and go on the dead run,as soon as the receivers moved away. Browner totally blew it up, but a crisp attack by Lockette still defeated him.

I'm saying, with an average 190 lb CB, a crisp, physical attack on the route by the 2nd receiver [Lockette's role] and just an average pick against thast normal sized cb and that play is money in the bank 99 out of 100 times for a yard.

Call was fine, not knowing your own former huge cb needed to be picked and was the worst matchup, is on Pete, though.

Click to expand...

Ive always thought that it was a good call by carrol. Everyone in the building was thinking Seattle was going to RUN it with Beast mode, so carroll throwing the ball was a good call. Revis and Butler smelling the play out and Butler making the INT was a Great play.

Chiuba E. Obele said:

Look guys, some things are just patently wrong - the logic behind the call might be reasonable, but it simply wasn't practical, nor was it even necessary. It was the most risky and unnecessary play any coach could've made, given the circumstances. There was simply too much on the line, and running the ball would've been the most favorable play to make, even if it the Pats would have anticipated it. The chances of it succeeding (or fewer things going wrong) make it a much more sensible option.

Click to expand...

You are wrong. In 2015, teams turned the ball over a higher percentage of the time on runs from inside the 1 than they did on passes. They also scored on a higher percentage of pass plays. There are links with the numbers in one of the previous threads on the subject. It wasn't a bad play call.

pheenix11 said:

I don't think it mattered what Carroll did, they weren't scoring there. I am positive we would have stopped Lynch. Belichick not calling a timeout had Carroll in Chinese fire drill mode.

Click to expand...

AGREE 100X'S with this post. I said it after the Superbowl as well. I thought the play call was fine, clock-management was sketchy. The Pats were winning that Superbowl no matter what. The big "what if" is if Seattle did score then the argument would be over who the better coach is and people questioning BB's clock-management and not calling a time-out.

Carroll got greedy trying to not only score, but ensure there was very little time on the clock for the Patriots to respond. They should've hustled up to the line (not frantically, just with more purpose) and run the ball on 2nd down. That was their main point of failure. Score first, worry about your 3-point lead and Tom Brady later.

Tunescribe said:

I've always thought Lockette was a big culprit in that play's failure. He was looking the ball into his breadbasket vs. aggressively going after it and screening off his blindside in the process.

Click to expand...

Bingo.

Just the simple fact that Lockette was making a body catch (palms up, elbows in) instead of a hands catch (arms extended) gave Butler the 12 inches of space that changed (at worst) an incomplete pass into a interception.

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:

Bingo.

Just the simple fact that Lockette was making a body catch (palms up, elbows in) instead of a hands catch (arms extended) gave Butler the 12 inches of space that changed (at worst) an incomplete pass into a interception.

Click to expand...

This. I hate when receivers wait for the ball to reach them instead of attacking it aggressively. Good think we had the king of attacking the ball at one point.

glm said:

This. I hate when receivers wait for the ball to reach them instead of attacking it aggressively. Good think we had the king of attacking the ball at one point.

Click to expand...

One of the greatest NFL athletes of all time!

PatsFanSince74 said:

Wilson fails to recognize the broken play and instead of throwing the ball to Lockette's back shoulder or into the third row of the stadium, he puts it out in front, where Lockette's hands are supposed to be if Browner hadn't broken the pick and Butler wasn't waiting for it. (Wilson has gotten off with too little of the blame for this, IMO.)

Click to expand...

He would have had to leave the pocket first, or it would have been intentional grounding.

It was just a wonderful play, I can't wait for the Espn 30 for 30 documentary on this game to see the last 3 plays and it's details broken into pieces.

ctpatsfan77 said:

He would have had to leave the pocket first, or it would have been intentional grounding.

Click to expand...

Actually, the QB needs to be under pressure for grounding to apply. He could've chucked that thing into the stands and not gotten penalized. That said, the play design on a quick slant doesn't allow for much adjustment time by a QB.

ctpatsfan77 said:

He would have had to leave the pocket first, or it would have been intentional grounding.

Click to expand...

Lockette would have been in the vicinity if he threw it over his head.

Concussion Protocol said:

Carroll got greedy trying to not only score, but ensure there was very little time on the clock for the Patriots to respond. They should've hustled up to the line (not frantically, just with more purpose) and run the ball on 2nd down. That was their main point of failure. Score first, worry about your 3-point lead and Tom Brady later.

Click to expand...

I agree, Carroll was trying to score in the final seconds of the game leaving us nothing to work with. Pass, run, run, was the best way to run the clock down and preserve all 3 scoring opportunities. Greed but also Brady was in his head...

Brewskies said:

What was great about this call was BB knew it was coming, worked on it with Butler in practice, then didn't call a time out. Just awesome.

Click to expand...

Right on the money. As far as the proper execution I think the truth is that Belichick had the Patriots prepared for it and they out executed the Seahawks on the play. Browner locked out Kearse from the pick play and Butler beat Lockette to the spot. Belichick preaches knowing what to do in any situation and realized he could force Caroll into throwing the ball by letting the clock run and going big with three corners. He knew from the tape that the Seahawks only have a few plays they run in those situations and he had them ready for those they would most likely run. Browner and Butler recognized the play before the snap and both executed their jobs to perfection. As coaching goes it simply does not get better than that.

Rob0729 said:

It was a bad play call because it was predictable.

Click to expand...

That's kinda Seattle's whole MO. We're going to do what we want you try to stop us.

I'll agree that the specific call itself might have been questionable but most people aren't skewering Carroll over the specific play they're pissed over the choice to throw, period. Which, given the time situation, was absolutely the right call.

fnordcircle said:

That's kinda Seattle's whole MO. We're going to do what we want you try to stop us.

I'll agree that the specific call itself might have been questionable but most people aren't skewering Carroll over the specific play they're pissed over the choice to throw, period. Which, given the time situation, was absolutely the right call.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't have had a problem with a fade pass to the outside or to the back of the end zone where the most likely outcomes would be a TD or an incomplete pass out of bounds. Either your guy is open and you throw it to a place where only he can catch it or it will go out of bounds or you just get rid of the ball.

Also, I think that is the philosophy of the Seahawks of them doing what they want and you try to stop us is on defense. They do not have the offense to have that philosophy except when they go into Beast Mode. They can't do that passing.