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

Rob0729 said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's a function of coaching, not the play itself. If Browner was 190 lbs. there's no way Butler has any chance at that play.

Let's say Butler doesn't wait and bolts around to where the pass would be. there has to be an option where the receiver just walks into the half of the endzone left completely free.

Rob0729 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Why couldn't a 6'4" Browner catch any pass the receiver could?

pass was too high

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.

Click to expand...

It was a terrible call on second down with the #1 running back in the NFL standing in Seattle's backfield. Zo was right.

I watched the game again the other night. A member (forgot who) stated that Butler made 3 great plays in the second half (Sure enough). Then it occurred to me that Seattle was probably picking on him. Why not, Reavis and Browner or an undrafted rookie. So, does that play into the thinking when their on the goal line? One of the complaints was if your throwing, throw a fade.

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...

Logically, no play (except a kick off) can ever be called "necessary."

But this was a "practical" call. And it was more than "reasonable."

Lynch was one for five this season punching the ball into the End Zone from the one (link below).

The Seahawks still had a time out and plenty of time to attempt a pass and then go run/timeout/run with the Beast.

The play itself was a tried and true goal line play (please see my much longer post above...#24 in this thread).

Yes, it had a marginally higher element of risk than a run, as does every pass play as was famously pointed out by Bear Bryant decades ago. But, if you follow that logic to its conclusion, you'd never pass.

But this was a relatively safe play, if your QB doesn't tip it by looking in the direction of Kearse and Lockette a split second before the snap and then fails to recognize that Browner busted the play by wrecking Kearse's pick and realize that he has to throw the ball to Lockette's back shoulder or over his head and out of the end zone. A Brady or a Rodgers or a P. Manning would have taken all that in in a flash and thrown the ball where it couldn't be caught by anyone.

So, this was a reasonable, possibly, though by no means certainly, even a "good," call but the Patriots played it perfectly and Wilson failed to recognize what was happening.

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

goheels22002 said:

It was a terrible call on second down with the #1 running back in the NFL standing in Seattle's backfield. Zo was right.

Click to expand...

It was a poor call mostly because Browner was the CB. I didn't mean when it was called, but with a goal line defense, it's quite possible Lynch gets stoned [Wilfork, Branch, Siliga and our linebackers] and time runs out.

My contention is that executed correctly, it's a safe play. The worst part was realizing who he had at CB, his own beast of a former player, then still running a pick play.

Zo's a moron, he's a master of the obvious.

PatsFanSince74 said:

Logically, no play (except a kick off) can ever be called "necessary."

But this was a "practical" call. And it was more than "reasonable."

Lynch was one for five this season punching the ball into the End Zone from the one (link below).

The Seahawks still had a time out and plenty of time to attempt a pass and then go run/timeout/run with the Beast.

The play itself was a tried and true goal line play (please see my much longer post above...#24 in this thread).

Yes, it had a marginally higher element of risk than a run, as does every pass play as was famously pointed out by Bear Bryant decades ago. But, if you follow that logic to its conclusion, you'd never pass.

But this was a relatively safe play, if your QB doesn't tip it by looking in the direction of Kearse and Lockette a split second before the snap and then fails to recognize that Browner busted the play by wrecking Kearse's pick and realize that he has to throw the ball to Lockette's back shoulder or over his head and out of the end zone. A Brady or a Rodgers or a P. Manning would have taken all that in in a flash and thrown the ball where it couldn't be caught by anyone.

So, this was a reasonable, possibly, though by no means certainly, even a "good," call but the Patriots played it perfectly and Wilson failed to recognize what was happening.

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

Click to expand...

I'll even go back to Carroll on this one and wonder why he wouldn't expect Browner to blow up the play? It's a pick play and he runs it against the one guy who's not losing a fight to a pick.

As you say, a lot of poor execution otherwise. Executed well, and Butler couldn't have made a play if he was Superman.

RayClay said:

It was a poor call mostly because Browner was the CB. I didn't mean when it was called, but with a goal line defense, it's quite possible Lynch gets stoned [Wilfork, Branch, Siliga and our linebackers] and time runs out.

My contention is that executed correctly, it's a safe play. The worst part was realizing who he had at CB, his own beast of a former player, then still running a pick play.

Zo's a moron, he's a master of the obvious.

Click to expand...

Zo is a moron, but he's our moron. I can't tell you how much I miss Gil Santos and Gino Cappelletti. The best. I synched up the game and the radio all the time, except maybe Sunday night games.

On Lynch getting stoned, I bet that he found LeGarrette Blount and did after the game.

RayClay said:

I'll even go back to Carroll on this one and wonder why he wouldn't expect Browner to blow up the play? It's a pick play and he runs it against the one guy who's not losing a fight to a pick.

As you say, a lot of poor execution otherwise. Executed well, and Butler couldn't have made a play if he was Superman.

Click to expand...

Agreed 100%.
What does BB say all the time? Big games come down to "who can make a play." In this case it was Browner and Butler. In our painful past, it was Tyree and "not Welker."

sambam94 said:

pass was too high

Click to expand...

There's QB's POV clip out there... Wilson is throwing on his tip-toes. I think being a little person hurt him on that count, on that play.

- Point 1: pass-run-TO-run gives you the best clock management, after BB does not oblige and preserve the clock for you. Ha ha!

- Point 2: Marshawn, Marshawn, Marshawn (+Marshawn, Marshawn). Beast Mode = 1 for 5 when running to pick up 1 yard. Carroll's looking at a 20% chance per attempt, not 99% chance as every post-game analyst has assumed.

- Point 3: Yes the Pats were prepared for this play... among other Seattle plays at the goal line. Butler knew what to do, Browner won his battle and forced a kink in the slant, allowing Butler to get where he's going. Carroll dutifully played his part as the anti-Belichick: We do what we do. We don't change it up because we're playing you. It's up to you to out-execute us. Oh son of a *****!

That's all my points (I think) having re-hashed this one play to death on another thread. This play lives in all-time greatest Super Bowl game-winners forevah. Because it's the Pats, the haters out there will still think "they never should have even won that." Embrace the hate... they don't say that about the helmet catch, and had Seattle won this, they wouldn't say that about the Kearse catch.

Truth: WE WIN! Yay.

goheels22002 said:

Zo is a moron, but he's our moron. I can't tell you how much I miss Gil Santos and Gino Cappelletti. The best. I synched up the game and the radio all the time, except maybe Sunday night games.

On Lynch getting stoned, I bet that he found LeGarrette Blount and did after the game.

Click to expand...

Zo's ok in the coffee with the coach, but i just can't take the randy savage voice. there's only one macho man.

PatsFanSince74 said:

Agreed 100%.
What does BB say all the time? Big games come down to "who can make a play." In this case it was Browner and Butler. In our painful past, it was Tyree and "not Welker."

Click to expand...

in this case, they blew up a very safe and conservative play, is my only point.

Guys, great points on both sides here. One stat that has been repeated frequently is the fact that Lynch was only 1 for 5 running it in from the one. Thus, it wasn't to Seattle's benefit to only consider this option as they only succeeded 20% of the time in those situations. But I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the Patriots goal line defense on those types of situations was ranked something like 27th or 28th out of 32 teams. Is it possible the four times out of five that Lynch was stuffed was at the hands of teams with much better goal line defenses? Was Carroll even aware that the Patriots ranked pretty low in that category? I know that I was much more hopeful on the second down play seeing Wilson sitting back in the shotgun than I would have been otherwise.

Plunkett2Vataha said:

Guys, great points on both sides here. One stat that has been repeated frequently is the fact that Lynch was only 1 for 5 running it in from the one. Thus, it wasn't to Seattle's benefit to only consider this option as they only succeeded 20% of the time in those situations. But I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the Patriots goal line defense on those types of situations was ranked something like 27th or 28th out of 32 teams. Is it possible the four times out of five that Lynch was stuffed was at the hands of teams with much better goal line defenses? Was Carroll even aware that the Patriots ranked pretty low in that category? I know that I was much more hopeful on the second down play seeing Wilson sitting back in the shotgun than I would have been otherwise.

Click to expand...

First, props for reminding me of Randy Vataha. Second, on the bolded point: That plays right into "we do what we do, screw what you do."

It got them one ring. But the way they think in Foxborough, that's just saying "We play checkers, mofo. We can beat your butt in checkers. You go ahead and play chess."

Could they possibly be dumb enough to not even scout how the Pats perform in that situation? Erdunno. But they definitely chose the play sequence optimized for success in a vacuum of that information, and dared the Pats to blow up a foolproof play, if executed well. Unfortunately, that included Kearse winning the rub-fight with Browner. Browner has his hands out getting the first "punch" in that fight before the ball is out of Wilson's hands. If the Pats know this play in general, how many time has Browner seen it back on the practice field?

Oh the never-ending happiness this one play has brought me. Don't get me wrong - I still want another Pats SB next season of course. But if it never happens again for Brady - perish the thought - SB 49 was a fitting bookend.

Agreed, I thought it was an okay play call, probably a good one. It can be debated forever what to do in that situation, but IMO either way it is very unfair to criticize the call. The only reasons people have to blast the call and harp on it is either:

A) Because they are oversimplifiers. They hear people yelling BEASTMODE and assume it's the obvious right call, can't fail. All while ignoring the clock situation, timeout situation, and what defense was being run. Again, don't get me wrong they MAY be right and going to Lynch might have been the better option on 2nd down, but all things factored in it is not an awful call by any means to pass there.

B) Because it is ALOT easier for a majority of fans outside of New England to blast Pete Carroll and throw hissyfits over the playcall than to credit Malcolm Butler and/or anyone associated with the Patriots on what was truly a phenomenal play.

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.

Click to expand...

The play WAS run correctly, it is just that Butler was looking for it and he made an incredible move on the ball. All this blame on Carroll is aggravating; it was Butler who deserves the recognition.

FredFromDartmouth said:

The play WAS run correctly, it is just that Butler was looking for it and he made an incredible move on the ball. All this blame on Carroll is aggravating; it was Butler who deserves the recognition.

Click to expand...

Butler made a great play that he couldn't have possibly made if the play was executed as it was supposed to have been.

It is OK to Monday morning QB, but I think there is a huge danger here of overcomplicating. On the eye test, I was happy to see Wilson drop back to throw. Carroll would have been a 'genius' if it had worked, but Lynch should have been running that ball.

I also think Gore should have run against Baltimore. When you have an elite RB who is really hurting the opposition, run the damn ball.

Still, unless Browner and Butler play that play as well as they did, we aren't even talking about this; we are talking about 'juggle catch'.

Go on, boys!

RayClay said:

in this case, they blew up a very safe and conservative play, is my only point.

Click to expand...

Yes. They "made a play" to blow up what was a good call...my main point. I think we agree more than we disagree on this.