O/T: Pete Carroll talks about SB XLIX Butler interception with Richard Sherman

[1960Pats]

It's in Do You Job. It's a look behind the curtain at the Pats brilliance.

Yup, that's it. There's a lot to be said for being cool under fire in any job.

 

[SammyBlueCat]

In the previous SuperBowl, Seattle gashed Denver with slants on short yardage downs

 

[1960Pats]

In the previous SuperBowl, Seattle gashed Denver with slants on short yardage downs

Could be why the Pats were ready for it. It was an amazing play that started an amazing run for the Pats.
Some might say that they ended up being a whisker away from 4 out of 5 titles and that they're the cat's meow of teams.

 

[amfootball]

All of that is conjecture. They were all ready moving the third receiver onto the field. Pete points out we were in goal line, which is what they wanted when putting the third wr on the field. You literally see Wilson telling a player he's out because of the sub.

It's not conjecture. When you watch the game in real time you see the confusion on the Seattle sideline when Bill did not use the timeout. They then rushed out their receivers and we had Malcolm go out. Pete in his interview with Sherman says that we already had our 11 personnel out there and that is a flat our lie. We had our goal line package to stop Lynch. I mean they were at the 1, there is no way Bill has 3 CBs out there to start that down. That is the part that irks me with Pete's explanation. He makes it sound like as if he was reacting to Bill's personnel and the exact opposite is true. Bill waited and reacted to Pete.

We did not know what they were doing until Boyer saw the third wr - which is the point of the do your job segment and why Malcolm got the late call to sub in. That's when they lost their mismatch.

Exactly. And that is when either Pete or Wilson should have burned a time out. I mean you see Browner go right over to Malcolm to tell him where to stand prior to the snap.

They did not know we had the 3cb version of that defense - how could they? We had never used it in a game.

That is a terrible excuse. Do you know how thick an NFL play book is? Brady used to talk about how they would use maybe one quarter of the play book in the game. It doesn't mean they are not practicing the plays. That is the whole point of play calling - knowing WHEN to call a certain play against a certain look from the defense. We had the 3 CBs out there. Browner knew the play and made it obvious he knew when he spoke to Butler and yet Pete STILL ran the play.

They planned the pass because it made better use of the clock and the remaining time. The pass at the goal line is something that they ran - they ran it successfully , so it was something Ernie picked up on and diagramed so we could practice defending it.

Hogwash. If they had hurried up to the line after first down which was blown dead with 1:00 left then they could have ran on second, used their timeout and then throw on third and either run or throw on fourth. This notion that they HAD to pass on second is another lie by Pete. He mismanaged the clock letting it run down and Bill clown faced him by not using his timeout.

With the defense set it still took Brandon Browner to recognize the play call. He recognized the play because he was part of Seattles famed secondary for years. If he wasn't there, chances are that play scores. It was a solid play call that got beat be superior defensive play, from the coaches up top to the players on the field.

That's the whole point. Pete knows Browner is on the other side and yet runs a play that Browner is able to diagnose as soon as they line up.

People don't seem to understand this, and quite frankly I am amazed at how willing people are to go along with the notion that it was just a bad play call. It was an amazing defensive effort that won that game.

As I have said before, both can be true and both are true IMO. Terrible play call/great defensive play.

And it was Pete's thought to score and leave no time on the clock... He didn't want to leave Brady with 30 or 40 seconds to move the ball into fg range considering how beat up his secondary was that night.

If you watch the second half, after Brady threw his second pick in the third quarter, the offense went conservative with a ton of short passes to Gronk, Edelman and Danny. We were not beating that secondary deep and certainly not with only 30 seconds left play. The whole point of being on the 5 yard line is to score to put Brady in that position. If they were so concerned about clock management, why give the ball to Lynch on first down? He almost scored if not for one of the best tackles of Hightower's career. Had that happened, Brady would have had 1:00 left to tie it. Again, this is hogwash by Pete saying he wanted to ensure they had all 4 downs. There was 1:06 left after Kearse's catch and he had a timeout. They only you don't get a chance to run 4 plays is if you mismanage the clock which he did when he played cat and mouse with Bill and lost.

Edit - I just want to add 2 out of 3 of the Seattle tds that game were from passing plays. Their red zone offense was prone to passing in the shadow of the end zone. It's how they ran their offense. So it shouldn't be a surprise that they'd be passing the ball in that spot because that's what they did.

You keep saying this. I don't have issue with passing on second down. The issue was the play called. It was a slant over the middle instead of a fade in a game in which Seattle's tall receivers were schooling our shorter DBs.

 

[TheRainMaker]

The call by Bill was the balliest call of his career. He put all faith in his players to execute as a Seahawks TD wouldn’t have left much time on the clock from him allowing to drain it. In fact, he would’ve taken an insane amount of heat from the media and fans for a 3rd straight Super Bowl collapse.

Had Seattle won that game, that may have been the end of the Tom Brady era in NE. I’ve never seen Tom look so defeated on the sidelines after the Kearse catch and telling a coach or a player that he couldn’t believe this was happening again. I’m sure there’d be some finger pointing and Gisele would say in her thick accent “my husband can’t throw, catch tackle and intercept the pass at the same time!”

 

[amfootball]

The call by Bill was the balliest call of his career. He put all faith in his players to execute as a Seahawks TD wouldn’t have left much time on the clock from him allowing to drain it. In fact, he would’ve taken an insane amount of heat from the media and fans for a 3rd straight Super Bowl collapse.

Had Seattle won that game, that may have been the end of the Tom Brady era in NE. I’ve never seen Tom look so defeated on the sidelines after the Kearse catch and telling a coach or a player that he couldn’t believe this was happening again. I’m sure there’d be some finger pointing and Gisele would say in her thick accent “my husband can’t throw, catch tackle and intercept the pass at the same time!”

The balliest was starting Brady over Bledsoe when Bledsoe became healthy in 2001 and then going with Brady in 2002 and trading Bledsoe to the Bills. But the Seattle goal line where he didn't call the time out is definitely second. He trusted his guys and he got rewarded for it.

 

[TheRainMaker]

The balliest was starting Brady over Bledsoe when Bledsoe became healthy in 2001 and then going with Brady in 2002 and trading Bledsoe to the Bills. But the Seattle goal line where he didn't call the time out is definitely second. He trusted his guys and he got rewarded for it.

I should’ve clarified, I was referring to in game coaching moves and not personnel. But overall, that was the balliest as the jury was still out on Tom and a controversial move. Had it not worked out, Bill would’ve been out of a job soon.

But after they won the Super Bowl, it was a no brainer trading Bledsoe who clearly didn’t fit the Pats offense. However, I wasn’t a fan of trading him to division rival and got a little worried after week 1 of 2003.

 

[Pape]

It's not conjecture.

Lockette was open. What didnt happen was the pick, so whatever separation he had was shut down quickly by a converging Butler. Browner stuffed Kearse, and shut that down. what the difference would it make if they ran a fade to the corner of the end zone? That would have been a garbage call because the receivers stopped gaining separation after arrington was benched. every catch was contested. they needed to do something to gain separation. thats why the pick play was called by bevel

 

[slam]

It’s results based analysis. If Seattle had run the Philly Special and scored Pete would have been hailed as a supermegagenius even though that was also a pass and even riskier than the GL slant. I’m sure they wished that they had prepared a better play for the situation but you can only do so much.

It’s amusing that the two greatest interceptions in Super Bowl history were interceptions of slants from the 1 yard line. Jerod Mayo could have made it three vs the Giants in 2011 but the ball went through his armpit somehow.

 

[amfootball]

Lockette was open. What didnt happen was the pick, so whatever separation he had was shut down quickly by a converging Butler. Browner stuffed Kearse, and shut that down. what the difference would it make if they ran a fade to the corner of the end zone? That would have been a garbage call because the receivers stopped gaining separation after arrington was benched. every catch was contested. they needed to do something to gain separation. thats why the pick play was called by bevel

Lockette was never open. That's the point. Browner recognized the play and jammed Kearse. Butler ran to the point where the ball would be thrown and made a heck of a play to actually intercept it. A fade is a lot safer play in terms of the ball being picked vs a slant over the middle where it is literally anyone's ball if it gets tipped or broken up.

I agree about the receivers getting separation. That is why I think passing down there at the1 yard line was a horrific call all around if the point is to actually score. Just hand it to Lynch on second and then burn your last time out if he doesn't score and then figure out third and fourth down.

 

[sambam94]

throw was too high. Lower throw where the WR slides to catch it and most likely a TD, 0% chance of int.

 

[Pape]

Lockette was never open.

disagree. 1000%. When that ball was thrown, Lockett was wide open. Only Browner stopping the pick saved that play from being a touchdown. Its a beautifully scripted play, if executed correctly.

 

[FCB02062]

In the same interview, Carroll explains how Bob Kraft is so cheap he only gave the players baloney sandwiches and potato chips for lunch at training camp...

Pete Carroll Shares Story About Robert Kraft, Bologna Sandwiches

 

[amfootball]

disagree. 1000%. When that ball was thrown, Lockett was wide open. Only Browner stopping the pick saved that play from being a touchdown. Its a beautifully scripted play, if executed correctly.

Wilson is throwing the ball to where Lockette is going to end up which is where Butler will be standing - on the goal line. You can see in your still shots that Butler is actually closer to the spot where the pass will end up then Lockette. That is why he was able to intercept it. He beat Lockette to the spot because he knew the play/route.

Also, Browner grabbing Kearse is the whole point of the play call being horrific. Browner read the pick. He told Malcolm. Browner used to play for Seattle. Pete knew this and STILL called that play.

 

[Steve102]

disagree. 1000%. When that ball was thrown, Lockett was wide open. Only Browner stopping the pick saved that play from being a touchdown. Its a beautifully scripted play, if executed correctly.

Sure, Lockette is open in the first three frames, but that's not where the route is going or where the ball is delivered. If Lockette ran a zero he would have been open and then he forces Butler to make a play in space. Instead, Browner recognizes the play, tells Butler, jams the receiver and we know the rest.

 

[Pape]

Sure, Lockette is open in the first three frames, but that's not where the route is going or where the ball is delivered. If Lockette ran a zero he would have been open and then he forces Butler to make a play in space. Instead, Browner recognizes the play, tells Butler, jams the receiver and we know the rest.

Steve, thats exactly where the ball is going. The ball was already in the air when Lockett turned to face Wilson. Browners contribution to the play was so significant because if Kearse were to get past Browner, then he would have stepped right thru Bulters path of travel, aka setting the pick, freeing up the receiver. That did not happen because he couldn't release from Browner. Malcolm was able to close the 3-4 yard gap (he started two +/- yards deep in the end zone) and make a play on the ball.

If that pick worked, easy TD. It didn't, and game over.

 

[Steve102]

Steve, thats exactly where the ball is going. The ball was already in the air when Lockett turned to face Wilson. Browners contribution to the play was so significant because if Kearse were to get past Browner, then he would have stepped right thru Bulters path of travel, aka setting the pick, freeing up the receiver. That did not happen because he couldn't release from Browner. Malcolm was able to close the 3-4 yard gap (he started two +/- yards deep in the end zone) and make a play on the ball.

If that pick worked, easy TD. It didn't, and game over.

Browner is the key to the play, 100% correct.

 

[Pape]

Wilson is throwing the ball to where Lockette is going to end up which is where Butler will be standing - on the goal line. You can see in your still shots that Butler is actually closer to the spot where the pass will end up then Lockette. That is why he was able to intercept it. He beat Lockette to the spot because he knew the play/route.

Also, Browner grabbing Kearse is the whole point of the play call being horrific. Browner read the pick. He told Malcolm. Browner used to play for Seattle. Pete knew this and STILL called that play.

I point out the path of the ball for a reason. You know where the ball is headed, so you need to look at the point of contact of browner & kearse. Kearse is supposed to step thru browner and "pick" or interfere with Malcolms path to the ball / Lockett... its much clearer in the actual video than on those stills... it was a bang bang play... WIlson playing deep to avoid the traditional 3 step drop/pass... he gets the ball, sets, throws... no reads, no second guessing, just pure split second timing...

Its a beautifully conceived play. So much so, in the Patriots practice video from yesterday posted on this site, you can see them running this exact play. The routes were slightly different after contact, but the concept of the play is there... Go watch it, watch it develop... and see what happens when the nickle is negated...

You could call any conceivable route you want... a shallow out to the sideline/goal line, a 3 step pivot, a fade to the corner, whatever... that makes it absolutely necessary for the receiver beat the man coverage... and the seahawks were no longer enjoying free reign in the defensive backfield... the pick play is designed to create a mismatch... thats why the play was called...

 

[amfootball]

I point out the path of the ball for a reason. You know where the ball is headed, so you need to look at the point of contact of browner & kearse. Kearse is supposed to step thru browner and "pick" or interfere with Malcolms path to the ball / Lockett... its much clearer in the actual video than on those stills... it was a bang bang play... WIlson playing deep to avoid the traditional 3 step drop/pass... he gets the ball, sets, throws... no reads, no second guessing, just pure split second timing...

Its a beautifully conceived play. So much so, in the Patriots practice video from yesterday posted on this site, you can see them running this exact play. The routes were slightly different after contact, but the concept of the play is there... Go watch it, watch it develop... and see what happens when the nickle is negated...

You could call any conceivable route you want... a shallow out to the sideline/goal line, a 3 step pivot, a fade to the corner, whatever... that makes it absolutely necessary for the receiver beat the man coverage... and the seahawks were no longer enjoying free reign in the defensive backfield... the pick play is designed to create a mismatch... thats why the play was called...

I don't disagree with any of this. The issue is the Pats knew the play was coming precisely because they had practiced it, they had the right personnel on the field to defend it AND Browner recognized it and tipped off Butler. That is WHY is it such a horrific call. It was a bang/bang play which didn't allow for Wilson to read the defense at all. The ball is snapped and he is throwing to a spot where Lockette is supposed to be and yet Butler is standing right there. Why on earth throw such a risky slant at that spot in the game when Lynch just pounded the ball from the 5 to the 1 and would have scored it not for Hightower's ridiculous tackle? Why not throw the fade where there is a huge mismatch between Seattle's tall receivers and our short DBs? Why not do a rollout to Lynch or a TE to the goal post which has nearly a zero percent chance of getting picked or tipped?

 

[TheRainMaker]

First of all, with the game on the line, why the fuk would you target Lockette? Lockette was open, but he did a poor job boxing out Butler and the throw was not out in front of the WR. That’s the margin of error you get when you throw to a below average WR.

Wilson reminds me of Brett Favre in the sense where you thought a play like the one in the Super Bowl was a fluke, but more playoff collapses where in their futures.