idle thoughts - the "coaches defense league" edition

[hyperpat]

On Seattle's final possession, think they erred in being too careful. On first down at the five they hand off to Lynch and he gets four yards. The Pats are on their heels. One yard to go. Why not be ready to get right to line again, quick snap it, hand off to Lynch and the O line scrum push him into the end zone? If they had gone quickly like that, yes, they would only have two tries left if they failed, but they had the time out. If the Pats are in that situation Brady quick snaps it and sneaks it in without letting the Hawks get set.

 

[patfanken]

My personal take is that I believe the Football Gods were effing with the Seahawks for all their arrogance this past couple years. I don't mind the occasional trash-talking, and I'm more than happy to give props where do. But Seattle crossed a very bright line with their mouthiness and attitude that just doesn't sit well with a whole lotta folks.

So, to my mind, Kearce was allowed by the Football Gods to make that circus catch in order to mess a bit with the Patriots' fans, but more to raise the Seahawks' hopes up as high as possible before dashing them onto the rocks far, far, below.

Karma, she is a beyatch, and she winked at New England when she ripped Seattle's heart out.

.....and thus the reason for the title of this thread. God couldn't just let us win this game with 4 simple plays on defense. He had to totally mess with our heads in the worst possible way......before giving us what we so vastly deserved for so many years.

It should be a lesson in humility for all of us. Runs like this are supposed to be brief and ephemeral, not long and consistent. Just here a few years then gone. As fans who have come to expect double digit wins and deep playoff runs, we have become to behave as entitled as a Beverly Hills teenager. I hope this lesson in how fragile it all is gets some traction, or we all will be praying to Ganesha next year.

 

[patfanken]

While Barnwell hated the call, he did have some good info in his article:

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/super-bowl-new-england-patriots-seattle-seahawks/

Before Sunday, NFL teams had thrown the ball 108 times on the opposing team’s 1-yard line this season. Those passes had produced 66 touchdowns (a success rate of 61.1 percent, down to 59.5 percent when you throw in three sacks) and zero interceptions. The 223 running plays had generated 129 touchdowns (a 57.8 percent success rate) and two turnovers on fumbles.

Stretch that out to five years and the numbers make runs slightly superior; they scored 54.1 percent of the time and resulted in turnovers 1.5 percent of the time, while passes got the ball into the end zone 50.1 percent of the time and resulted in turnovers 1.9 percent of the time. In a vacuum, the decision between running and passing on the 1-yard line is hardly indefensible, because both the risk and the reward are roughly similar.
​

The Globe put together some interesting stats. Not sure how accurate since it's the Globe, but the original source was Pro Football Reference which is better.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...d-you-think/9Tt9A9avhWuaZGXBlTdTDI/story.html

Though Lynch sometimes seems it, he’s not unstoppable. Of his 281 carries during the 2014 season, 20 resulted in lost yardage while two more yielded fumbles, meaning that something bad happened for the Seahawks 7.8 percent of the time when he was asked to carry the ball.

Over the three years when he’s lined up behind Wilson, he’s had 20 fumbles and 77 non-fumbling negative-yardage plays — a tough-to-stomach outcome on 10.7 percent of all of his runs. Of course, he’d netted at least a yard on 22 of his 24 runs (91.7 percent) in the game on Sunday, but there was at least some possibility that he could be stopped.

More to the point, Lynch doesn’t have the bulldozing track record that one might anticipate from the 1-yard line. He was handed the ball at the 1 five times in 2014, getting into the end zone just once — a 20 percent success rate well short of the league average of 57.5 percent.

Over his three-year partnership with Wilson, Lynch has more often failed to reach the end zone (7 times) than he has reached it (5) when given the opportunity from the 1. Perhaps that track record sat in the back of Seahawks coaches’ minds as they considered their call.​

This is a nice find, coverted Lots more reasons for that NOT to be the "worst call", etc. What happened was exceptional and should be celebrated as such. The whole point of this thread was the end of the game was about what was done RIGHT, not what was done wrong.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Truth be told,, any game that id basically decided in the final minutes will always have second guessing.

the SB just magnifies it and it is further amplified by the fact that there are no more games to tune into.

I have to admit, I like the way Carroll dealt with the press when he explained his rationale.

 

[Nunchucks]

I think that people are being a bit ignorant in assuming that the Seahawks score if they hand off to Lynch. There is no guarantee that he scores, and I might even venture to guess that it may be likely he doesn't score.

 

[ivanvamp]

Spot On , Ken.

I felt I was alone in thinking exactly that it was the best option on the part of both Coaches. BB preferred to win or lose in a goalline stand, rather than try to move 50 yards, kick a successful Tying FG; and then play in Overtime.

He decided not to give the Seahawks a free timeout. So would I. Maybe it would have eliminated a complete play with the clock running down. It put pressure on them, no doubt.

I don't understand critics who think using only 2 plays attempting to score, is better then 3 full oppportunities, should you need them. But MEDIOTS are know-nothing stupid.

I'm firmly convinced BB would have adopted EXACTLY the same strategy.

Rewatching the ending for like the 20th time, it's very interesting. After Kearse makes his circus catch, Collinsworth is just beside himself with how crazy it was. He and Michaels are wondering how often this could happen to the Patriots.

But then Collinsworth says something interesting. He slowly says,

"But they're not in yet."

How prescient.