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

IMHO passing on that down was the right thing to do. If you run on 2nd you get too predictable on 3rd.

I do however question the play called in. I think they should have ran something else. A fade to the outside where it would be over thrown or caught not in the middle of the D where crazy things can happen.

I understand why they called that particular play though. When push comes to shove do you want to throw to Revis or Browner or Butler? Butler would seem to be the obvious choice and the Pats set it up that you would have to throw over the middle to do that.

That tall WR (forget his name) did nothing since Browner was put on him in the game so a jump ball might not have worked and Revis 1v1 was winning all day till a ref pick.

The trade off is this.

A) Pass to Butler and have a higher success rate likelihood but you greatly increase the risk of a game losing play.

or

B) Go after Browner/Revis on the outside and your pass is more likely to be incomplete but unless the pass is just a total miss or line tip (very unlikely) it becomes virtually impossible to lose the game on that play.

If I were to put it is math terms I'd guess that

A) pass completion chance 40-50% interception chance 5%
B) pass completion chance 10-20% interception chance >1%

After this play you would have 2 chances to run it in. How sure are you that you would make it? I would say they had a reason to be confident and could afford to be conservative there. But I think this is overblown as how bad the playcall was.

If they take a conservative tact the ball is probably incomplete on 2nd down and now you have 2 downs left. If the Pats go single coverage and sell out on the run they might have stopped them anyway. The Pats rarely sold out to stop the run most of the game.

PatsFanSince74 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Butler made an incredible play. All praise to Butler and Browner, but the decision to try to pick physical Browner and the lazy route made it possible.

BobDigital said:

IMHO passing on that down was the right thing to do. If you run on 2nd you get too predictable on 3rd.

I do however question the play called in. I think they should have ran something else. A fade to the outside where it would be over thrown or caught not in the middle of the D where crazy things can happen.

I understand why they called that particular play though. When push comes to shove do you want to throw to Revis or Browner or Butler? Butler would seem to be the obvious choice and the Pats set it up that you would have to throw over the middle to do that.

That tall WR (forget his name) did nothing since Browner was put on him in the game so a jump ball might not have worked and Revis 1v1 was winning all day till a ref pick.

The trade off is this.

A) Pass to Butler and have a higher success rate likelihood but you greatly increase the risk of a game losing play.

or

B) Go after Browner/Revis on the outside and your pass is more likely to be incomplete but unless the pass is just a total miss or line tip (very unlikely) it becomes virtually impossible to lose the game on that play.

If I were to put it is math terms I'd guess that

A) pass completion chance 40-50% interception chance 5%
B) pass completion chance 10-20% interception chance >1%

After this play you would have 2 chances to run it in. How sure are you that you would make it? I would say they had a reason to be confident and could afford to be conservative there. But I think this is overblown as how bad the playcall was.

If they take a conservative tact the ball is probably incomplete on 2nd down and now you have 2 downs left. If the Pats go single coverage and sell out on the run they might have stopped them anyway. The Pats rarely sold out to stop the run most of the game.

Click to expand...

The reason they called that play was, the pick was supposed to protect the receiver from the only other DB on that side of the field. Done right, you have a one yard pass to a physically walled off receiver. I would put that up with a fade pass for safety.

You throw a bad fade, or have 6'4" Browner competing and you might have a greater chance of interception. People keep saying that it's safe because you throw it where it's either caught or out of bounds. Well, he could just throw it out of bounds, then.

If he's trying to complete it, he's throwing a lollipop up there hoping that the CB isn't close and he can't win a jump ball, things that would favor Browner in the short area more than Butler, who had to gamble and go to the spot on the dead run hoping there was an inch of room on the other side of Browner and Kearse where he could compete for the ball.

RayClay said:

Butler made an incredible play. All praise to Butler and Browner, but the decision to try to pick physical Browner and the lazy route made it possible.

Click to expand...

Don't wanna put words in your mouth, but it sounds as though you are conceding that the play call was poorly conceived...are you not?

Chiuba E. Obele said:

Don't wanna put words in your mouth, but it sounds as though you are conceding that the play call was poorly conceived...are you not?

Click to expand...

Not conceding, that's my original point. It's impossible to put a complex argument in a thread title.

My point is, the play is a good and safe goal line play, if run correctly.

I do fault Carroll for using it only because he knows Browner is one of a handful of CBs in the whole league physical enough to blow it up.

However, even with the pick being fought off, it required a lazy route by Lockette and an incredible play by Butler to even have a chance.

So, my point is only, run correctly [it wasn't in two ways and the biggest reason is Browner is a beast] is a safe play where the receiver has a one yard pass and a wall behind him for protection.

By contrast, the play everyone is in love with, the fade, would also favor Browner in the short zone and if the receiver had a chance at it, the 6'4" Browner would too. that wouldn't make the fade a bad play.

If an OLineman blows his block in a goal line defense, causing the running back to get slammed and fumble, that doesn't make off tackle a bad goal line play either.

The day after the SB I was listening to Sirius radio the NFL station and I thought I hear that during the season Seattle had used Lynch on same type of yardage plays and Lynch failed every time. That was the reason Carroll called the play. Can anyone confirm this?

Brewskies said:

The day after the SB I was listening to Sirius radio the NFL station and I thought I hear that during the season Seattle had used Lynch on same type of yardage plays and Lynch failed every time. That was the reason Carroll called the play. Can anyone confirm this?

Click to expand...

There have been such stats pointed out here, but I haven't looked into them. It's possible he's better with a head of steam than a goal line burst. You only have to look at our own Blount to see an example of that.

True or not, If he's stuffed once or twice [don't know the clock situation exactly] it's game over. We didn't need a turnover. they needed a TD.

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.

...

Click to expand...

I thought about that at the time.

Problem is that the extra couple of seconds for that play to develop brings a sack into the picture and, given the fact that the snap didn't occur until the 26 second mark, the Seahawks would, under those circumstances, have had to use their one remaining time out, leaving them with one more run play or a riskier pass and a run...both now from the five or six instead of the one.

The play they ran was designed to have the ball out of Wilson's hand in two seconds (which it was when you watch the tape) and for the result to be a TD if the pick worked or an Incomplete Pass with Wilson either throwing the ball away or to Lockette's back shoulder, if the Corner busted the pick.

A "fade" to the back of the endzone would have taken even longer to develop, unless you're suggesting that he would throw the ball to the back of the end zone in the two seconds and "hope" that one of his guys got there first.

A fade pass to the outside would take a similar, longer amount of time to develop and also bring the risk of a sack or loss into play, along with a higher likelihood of an INT. Fade passes to the outside at the goalline are the kinds of plays that end up on highlight reels with a Defensive Back running 97 yards the other way. There is no way they would take that risk at that time.

Carroll had one of two choices when he realized that BB wasn't going to call a time out and that Wilson was going to snap the ball inside of 30 seconds.

1) Run/timeout/Run
2) Inside pass from a stacked formation for a TD or for an Incomplete Pass followed by Run/Timeout/Run.

As I said in my longer post above (#24), the two key things that happened in the last 90 seconds were the Seahawks' needing to call a timeout in the confusion after Kearse's catch and Carroll's surprise that BB didn't call a timeout after Lynch's run to the one.

Watch the replay and look at Pete's face on the sideline after the play and listen to the NFL films recording...Carroll says "they're going goalline." He's surprised. He didn't expect the Pats to go right back into that formation. He expected Belichick to call a timeout first and then do so.

Once he committed in that split second to option 2 and not Run/timeout/Run, this was the smartest call he could have made, especially since Lynch was one for five all season from the one yard line.

I love how there is still dscussion about a single play 2 months after it was over.

Only Pats fans, Jets fans are talking about signing Revis via Woody's tampering

Brewskies said:

The day after the SB I was listening to Sirius radio the NFL station and I thought I hear that during the season Seattle had used Lynch on same type of yardage plays and Lynch failed every time. That was the reason Carroll called the play. Can anyone confirm this?

Click to expand...

He failed four out of five times to punch it in from the one.
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/sto...lysis-context-pete-carroll-call-patriots-2014

RayClay said:

Not conceding, that's my original point. It's impossible to put a complex argument in a thread title.

My point is, the play is a good and safe goal line play, if run correctly.

I do fault Carroll for using it only because he knows Browner is one of a handful of CBs in the whole league physical enough to blow it up.

However, even with the pick being fought off, it required a lazy route by Lockette and an incredible play by Butler to even have a chance.

So, my point is only, run correctly [it wasn't in two ways and the biggest reason is Browner is a beast] is a safe play where the receiver has a one yard pass and a wall behind him for protection.

By contrast, the play everyone is in love with, the fade, would also favor Browner in the short zone and if the receiver had a chance at it, the 6'4" Browner would too. that wouldn't make the fade a bad play.

If an OLineman blows his block in a goal line defense, causing the running back to get slammed and fumble, that doesn't make off tackle a bad goal line play either.

Click to expand...

Interesting discussion.

So, if you and I agree, as we do, that, in theory, this was, generally, not a bad call, then how we view this particular call being made with these players on the field at this moment of this game comes down to how we weight the following:

A) Carroll, especially as his former HC, should have anticipated Browner's ability to bust the play and, under these circumstances, not called this play at all..

B) Butler made an extraordinary play by "running to where the ball would be" and making the pick after Browner did his thing.

C) Lockette ran a lazy route, as has been documented in several video analyses.

D) Wilson made a mistake in not throwing the ball to Lockette's back shoulder or in not throwing it at his feet or well over his head when he realized the play was broken. (He also tipped the play by looking at Kearse and Lockette just before the snap, but that's another subject.)

You acknowledge (and we agree on) B and C (and perhaps, though you have not so stated, D), but you give the greatest weight to A.

I'm inclined to disagree with you on that narrow point. I think Browner's busting the play required that he make a perfect play, which he did. And, therefore, once he decided to pass, it was worth it for Carroll to bet on Browner not making a perfect play and on running this particular play.

In addition, for it to become an INT and not just an Incomplete Pass, Lockette also had to run a poor route, Butler had to make the play of a career and Wilson had to misread the situation: in other words, four things "bad" for Seattle had to happen for disaster to ensue. I think that was a reasonable bet for Carroll to make.

If Browner had just busted the pick, a smarter Wilson would have thrown the ball away or to Lockette's back shoulder, which is what I think Brady or Rodgers would have done.

I doubt we're going to change each other's minds on that, but it has been a great discussion.

PatsFanSince74 said:

Interesting discussion.

So, if you and I agree, as we do, that, in theory, this was, generally, not a bad call, then how we view this particular call being made with these players on the field at this moment of this game comes down to how we weight the following:

A) Carroll, especially as his former HC, should have anticipated Browner's ability to bust the play and, under these circumstances, not called this play at all..

B) Butler made an extraordinary play by "running to where the ball would be" and making the pick after Browner did his thing.

C) Lockette ran a lazy route, as has been documented in several video analyses.

D) Wilson made a mistake in not throwing the ball to Lockette's back shoulder or in not throwing it at his feet or well over his head when he realized the play was broken. (He also tipped the play by looking at Kearse and Lockette just before the snap, but that's another subject.)

You acknowledge (and we agree on) B and C (and perhaps, though you have not so stated, D), but you give the greatest weight to A.

I'm inclined to disagree with you on that narrow point. I think Browner's busting the play required that he make a perfect play, which he did. And, therefore, once he decided to pass, it was worth it for Carroll to bet on Browner not making a perfect play and on running this particular play.

In addition, for it to become an INT and not just an Incomplete Pass, Lockette also had to run a poor route, Butler had to make the play of a career and Wilson had to misread the situation: in other words, four things "bad" for Seattle had to happen for disaster to ensue. I think that was a reasonable bet for Carroll to make.

If Browner had just busted the pick, a smarter Wilson would have thrown the ball away or to Lockette's back shoulder, which is what I think Brady or Rodgers would have done.

I doubt we're going to change each other's minds on that, but it has been a great discussion.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said except wilson throwing it to the back shoulder. it's supposed to be a quick throw and throwing behind him might make it more vulnerable to a int. I think wilson threw it where Lockette was supposed to be and that was on him.

I think A,B andC were necessary, which is why it was a great play. I think Browner's play and Butlers play were more important than Lockette, merely because, had the play been run correctly, without hindrance, Lockette could have caught it and eaten a sandwich, because that's how safe a play it should be.

RayClay said:

I agree with everything you said except wilson throwing it to the back shoulder. it's supposed to be a quick throw and throwing behind him might make it more vulnerable to a int. I think wilson threw it where Lockette was supposed to be and that was on him.

I think A,B andC were necessary, which is why it was a great play. I think Browner's play and Butlers play were more important than Lockette, merely because, had the play been run correctly, without hindrance, Lockette could have caught it and eaten a sandwich, because that's how safe a play it should be.

Click to expand...

I think we're in complete agreement. When I said "back shoulder," I meant "where no one, even Lockette, was going to catch it and it was going to fall incomplete." The safer option was to throw it directly over his head, but with enough force to take it out of the end zone.

I think all of the talk about if it was the right play or not takes away from what a truly spectacular play Butler made. It was a great play by a player on the Pats and not a dumb move by the HC of the other team. It was the greatest play in NFL history.

Each morning I wake up thankful that I don't have to be subjected to more trash talk from the Baldwin and Sherman types on the Seahawks and in the media, and I couldn't care less how it happened, just that it did.

PatsFanSince74 said:

Interesting discussion.


D) Wilson made a mistake in not throwing the ball to Lockette's back shoulder or in not throwing it at his feet or well over his head when he realized the play was broken. (He also tipped the play by looking at Kearse and Lockette just before the snap, but that's another subject.)

You acknowledge (and we agree on) B and C (and perhaps, though you have not so stated, D), but you give the greatest weight to A.

.

Click to expand...

I have re-watched this play many, many times. Often in slow motion and each time I come to the conclusion: Wilson screwed this play up. Butler caught the ball on his right shoulder. He used his left shoulder to block Lockette out of the play. A real sandlot football maneuver! If the ball is delivered any more to Butler's left, then he probably would not have been able to make the interception - just force an in-completion. So Wilson's mistake was putting a ball in the air where more than his intended receiver has a chance to make the catch. Something Brady very rarely does!

And then we get Wilson's response to Carroll's 'What happened?" They jumped the route. Absolutely no recognition that the play was screwed up by the Seahawks. There just may be an ego issue here as well.

willdeespats said:

I have re-watched this play many, many times. Often in slow motion and each time I come to the conclusion: Wilson screwed this play up. Butler caught the ball on his right shoulder. He used his left shoulder to block Lockette out of the play. A real sandlot football maneuver! If the ball is delivered any more to Butler's left, then he probably would not have been able to make the interception - just force an in-completion. So Wilson's mistake was putting a ball in the air where more than his intended receiver has a chance to make the catch. Something Brady very rarely does!

Click to expand...

Except he threw it where Kearse and Browner were supposed to be picking butler off. Let's say Kearse runs his pick route and takes Browner with him. If Wilson throws to his back shoulder, butler doesn't even need to cut around, he could undercut the route much quicker.

The quarter back isn't watching in slow motion for the play to develop, then everyone stands there and waits for him to throw.

I don't care what anyone says, I love that call.

RayClay said:

By contrast, the play everyone is in love with, the fade, would also favor Browner in the short zone and if the receiver had a chance at it, the 6'4" Browner would too. that wouldn't make the fade a bad play.

Click to expand...

I think a better play would have been a designed rollout off a play-action fake. With the LoS at the 1, Wilson could be as little as a yard away from the score before he had to irrevocably decide to run or throw -- so the defense would have to honor the pass for pretty much the entire play. Anyhow, have him be looking for someone on his side of the field to come open as he's rolling out. If no one comes open, head for the pylon. That'll either be a score or be knocked out of bounds at or inside the LoS. And of course if he sees the defense isn't fooled and someone's coming for him, throw the ball over a receiver's head in the back of the endzone.

RayClay said:

Butler made an incredible play. All praise to Butler and Browner, but the decision to try to pick physical Browner and the lazy route made it possible.

Click to expand...

Praise also needs to be given to the coaches that prepared their players with that exact play in practice and to the coach that came up to Butler afterwards and told him "Malcom, you gotta be on that".

rlcarr said:

I think a better play would have been a designed rollout off a play-action fake. With the LoS at the 1, Wilson could be as little as a yard away from the score before he had to irrevocably decide to run or throw -- so the defense would have to honor the pass for pretty much the entire play. Anyhow, have him be looking for someone on his side of the field to come open as he's rolling out. If no one comes open, head for the pylon. That'll either be a score or be knocked out of bounds at or inside the LoS. And of course if he sees the defense isn't fooled and someone's coming for him, throw the ball over a receiver's head in the back of the endzone.

Click to expand...

I can't argue with a roll out given Wilson's athleticism.