Kyle Shanahan details play-calling regret in Falcons’ Super Bowl LI loss to Patriots

[p8ryts]

if execution is perfect, it shouldn't matter what plays you call............since execution is rarely perfect, you have to consider other things......there's a bunch of coaches on the sideline......it must be that none of them realized that even in the first half, their defense was on the field for 43 plays....their offense was on the field for 19.....they were prime to get steamrolled......they should have seen it and with a 25 point lead, they should have done everything possible to just make the clock keep moving.......they didn't

Stamina was always a Patriot strongpoint, especially in Super Bowl's because teams expend more energy early.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Shanahan and the 9ers will implode this year.

Refuse to address their major weakness in the secondary.

Signed the wrong guy in Armstead who got exposed when he was the main guy. He had an awful season. Buckner makes the All Pro team. Lol.

Drafted a dud so far with the Buckner pick.

Historically bad training staffs.

Jimmy G.

Boom bust pick at QB.

Kinlaw was a a bit of a project/lot of projection pick. He was pretty good considering where he was starting from. Far from a "dud" last year. I thought both him and Brown played up to their pre-draft status.

Buckner is a great player but SF wanted Kinlaw + AA. Who wasn't exposed last year. He was the same guy he's been 90% of the time in the league. Just not the career year from a few seasons ago.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

4th and 2 will always be a "suspect call", and it's not because they failed to convert. It will be a "suspect" call because it was the wrong decision.

ahhh the benefit of hindsight


The Colts offense was lighting up the Pats defense... Belichick's thought process was sound, it just didn't work out.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

Yes in both. Sorry to have to tell you that.

If Faulk doesn't bobble that 4th & 2 pass, that goes on the long list of Belichick's Genius decisions.


Manning was having a field day with our defense at the end of that game... Spotting them 30 yards is meaningless in a 4+ pt game, they knew they needed a defensive stop to win and so they took a chance to end it with a 4 & 2 conversion... and nearly made it

Defense still could have prevented a TD, its not like they were on the goal line.... Not sure how you could point fingers and question anything about that game as if it were tom foolery, all of the decisions at the end of the game were sound in nature and supported by logic, as well as statistics... sometimes you you win, sometimes you lose.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

Logically you are correct but here we are 12 years later still bringing up 4th and 2. Would we still be doing it if it worked? Highly doubt it. It's significant because it was a bad call and bad result. If it was a bad call with a good result it wouldn't have been scrutinized this much

disagree only because by your logic, it was a good call if it worked and a bad call if it didn't..

Coaches don't get the benefit of hindsight in the moment, with 80,000 fans and millions of people watching on TV... with only 40 seconds to make a decision.

 

[TheRainMaker]

He was the same guy he's been 90% of the time in the league. Just not the career year from a few seasons ago.

You’re right, he was a bust before he had a career year in a contract year with Bosa, Buckner and Ford commanding all the attention. They all weren’t around in 2020 and we got the bust version of AA again. That’s what my original comment meant.

From where Kinlaw was picked and who he replaced is why I called him a dud. He had mixed reviews in 2020 and there wasn’t much impressive about him. I’m not a fan of trading a star player and arrogantly think you can draft his replacement with that pick as you will probably not get equal value.

9ers also have bad habit of hoarding D-lineman while ignoring other pressing needs like CB, which you can argue lost them that Super Bowl. You’re not improving your team overall when you keep addressing the same position with high picks over and over again.

See the Jets and Jaguars.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

You just showed the case for execution. Sacked...holding call, -1 yards on the run. I mean why do we assume that a run play would not draw a holding call? I have seen too many times teams go into a shell and get very conservative. I promise you, if they had sat on the ball and kicked a fg, and the pats still win, the media uproar would have been "You have the MVP QB and the best receiver in football and you go conservative???" If you do not execute, or the other team executes better, it does not matter the playcall. I mean I saw a lot of bad play calls for the pats in that game. A TE screen? Remember that play? Again, you are assuming a lot of things happen that might not have happened and the reality is, it doesnt matter, because if the outcome is the same, then they get slammed for whatever they did no matter what it is. If They execute and make a td on that drive, they are praised for being agressive, if they are conservative and it doesnt work, they are slammed for being conservative. Fact of the matter is, coaches have to go by the flow of the game, the only reason they were even down there in fg range was the pass. It was still working. By that point, they probably thought Brady made a deal with the devil and they felt they had to put the game away or they were going to lose. Pats made great plays, atlanta didnt in that drive toward the end. I credit the pats for doing that, I am not going to disregard credit to the players based on what you think should have happened 2 years later that may or may not have worked.

You get to the superbowl doing what you do best, you win games by doing that too. You are assuming after the fact because it didnt work. Had it worked, nobody questions it. You go froma genius call to a idiot call based on the execution of the players. Whats the difference is assuming everything would have worked or assuming the atlanta gets a holding call on a run, then fumbles the next play? Because thats what happened when they tried to pass (what they do best)

People seem to forget the 4th & 1 call Seattle made in the middle of the game.... They needed 1 yard, so obviously the GUARANTEED answer to that problem was running MARSHAWN ****ING LYNCH AMIRITE!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Oops.... Patriots stuffed him at midfield and caused a turnover of downs. That was at MIDFIELD, not the goal line.... but delusional, borderline re*arded people seem to think that if Seattle had just run the ball against the Patriots GOAL LINE DEFENSE that it would be a guaranteed victory

Excuses are sad and pathetic... there's a winner and a loser... and the Pats WON that Superbowl



Oh wait... this is where people say, "but wait!!!!!!!! it was 4th down for the SUPER BOWWWWLLLL!!!!! obviously Lynch would have made that play to win the SUPER BOWL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AMIRITE!!??!!?!??!?!?!?!

I guess the motivation by these world class athletes is questionable when playing for a Super Bowl in the middle of a game... but is an AUTOMATIC GUARANTEE with a few seconds left!


/puke

 

[Deus Irae]

ahhh the benefit of hindsight


The Colts offense was lighting up the Pats defense... Belichick's thought process was sound, it just didn't work out.

You're wrong on both counts.

And "hindsight"? Really?

 

[JarOfMayo51]

You just showed the case for execution. Sacked...holding call, -1 yards on the run. I mean why do we assume that a run play would not draw a holding call? I have seen too many times teams go into a shell and get very conservative. I promise you, if they had sat on the ball and kicked a fg, and the pats still win, the media uproar would have been "You have the MVP QB and the best receiver in football and you go conservative???" If you do not execute, or the other team executes better, it does not matter the playcall. I mean I saw a lot of bad play calls for the pats in that game. A TE screen? Remember that play? Again, you are assuming a lot of things happen that might not have happened and the reality is, it doesnt matter, because if the outcome is the same, then they get slammed for whatever they did no matter what it is. If They execute and make a td on that drive, they are praised for being agressive, if they are conservative and it doesnt work, they are slammed for being conservative. Fact of the matter is, coaches have to go by the flow of the game, the only reason they were even down there in fg range was the pass. It was still working. By that point, they probably thought Brady made a deal with the devil and they felt they had to put the game away or they were going to lose. Pats made great plays, atlanta didnt in that drive toward the end. I credit the pats for doing that, I am not going to disregard credit to the players based on what you think should have happened 2 years later that may or may not have worked.

You get to the superbowl doing what you do best, you win games by doing that too. You are assuming after the fact because it didnt work. Had it worked, nobody questions it. You go froma genius call to a idiot call based on the execution of the players. Whats the difference is assuming everything would have worked or assuming the atlanta gets a holding call on a run, then fumbles the next play? Because thats what happened when they tried to pass (what they do best)

People seem to forget the 4th & 1 call Seattle made in the middle of the game.... They needed 1 yard, so obviously the GUARANTEED answer to that problem was running MARSHAWN ****ING LYNCH AMIRITE!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Oops.... Patriots stuffed him at midfield and caused a turnover of downs. That was at MIDFIELD, not the goal line.... but delusional, borderline re*arded people seem to think that if Seattle had just run the ball against the Patriots GOAL LINE DEFENSE that it would be a guaranteed victory

Excuses are sad and pathetic... there's a winner and a loser... and the Pats WON that Superbowl

 

[JarOfMayo51]

You're wrong on both counts.

And "hindsight"? Really?

I'm wrong because you say so lol

So sorry.... i'll remember my place and ask for permission to have an opinion next time.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm wrong because you say so lol

So sorry.... i'll remember my place and ask for permission to have an opinion next time.

No, you're wrong because you're wrong.

First, people here were discussing the play at the time. I've always been in the "Bad call, but he made it" column. And using the "Hindsight" argument about a play call is ludicrous. You cannot reasonably expect everyone to be anticipating every play call, deciding their take on it, and putting it in writing, in the game day thread before the play is run, in order to avoid the "hindsight!" claim. That's just absurd.

Second, the Colts had scored TDs on just 2 of their last 7 drives, and they needed a TD to win, not a FG.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

No, you're wrong because you're wrong.

First, people here were discussing the play at the time. I've always been in the "Bad call, but he made it" column. And using the "Hindsight" argument about a play call is ludicrous. You cannot reasonably expect everyone to be anticipating every play call, deciding their take on it, and putting it in writing, in the game day thread before the play is run, in order to avoid the "hindsight!" claim. That's just absurd.

Second, the Colts had scored TDs on just 2 of their last 7 drives, and they needed a TD to win, not a FG.

I'm of the opinion that the Colts were having their way with our defense between the 20's, and it was all about the redzone defense to win the game... So Belichick put it in the hands of the GOAT and his offense to close out the game, knowing if they didn't make it, he still had a shot to defend against a TD... because ultimately, everyone knew it was going to come down to redzone defense

 

[TheRainMaker]

The dreaded 4th and 2 call was one of those calls you liked had they converted. Although I understood that defense couldn’t be trusted, I didn’t feel good about the call at all. Also, Faulk ran too shallow of a route which they probably would’ve converted had he executed it better.

In the end, that call was a moot point as they were a dysfunctional team in 2009 and proved they weren’t good in the Wild Card massacre.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm of the opinion that the Colts were having their way with our defense between the 20's, and it was all about the redzone defense to win the game... So Belichick put it in the hands of the GOAT and his offense to close out the game, knowing if they didn't make it, he still had a shot to defend against a TD... because ultimately, everyone knew it was going to come down to redzone defense

2nd half Colts possessions prior to that final drive:

The 2 Tds, a 1 play INT at the Colts 4, a punt from the Colts 36, an interception at the Colts 36. There was no Colts having their way with the Patriots defense between the 20s.


New England Patriots at Indianapolis Colts - November 15th, 2009 | Pro-Football-Reference.com

 

[pazrul72]

No, you're wrong because you're wrong.

First, people here were discussing the play at the time. I've always been in the "Bad call, but he made it" column. And using the "Hindsight" argument about a play call is ludicrous. You cannot reasonably expect everyone to be anticipating every play call, deciding their take on it, and putting it in writing, in the game day thread before the play is run, in order to avoid the "hindsight!" claim. That's just absurd.

Second, the Colts had scored TDs on just 2 of their last 7 drives, and they needed a TD to win, not a FG.

How about giving some reasons for your opinion on why it was wrong instead of just saying you are wrong because you are wrong? Personally I agreed with the 4th and 2 call and would have made the exact same one. End the game with your best unit against their weakest unit. Make a safe pass to one of your best pass catchers. Do not let one of the best QBs of all time a man who gives you heart burn every time he touches the ball another opportunity. Faulk got open, had his hands on the ball, with first down yardage. The call was fine unless you think they called for a bobble? That spot still makes me angry I have watched it at least 50 times and it feels like they marked it a yard after his final bobble.

My issue isn't with 4th and 2, its with 3rd and 2. If you know you are going to go for it if you dont get it why did you not run the down before? Sneak Brady if its there worst case scenario its 4th and 1.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

disagree only because by your logic, it was a good call if it worked and a bad call if it didn't..

Coaches don't get the benefit of hindsight in the moment, with 80,000 fans and millions of people watching on TV... with only 40 seconds to make a decision.

No on the contrary I agree that the outcome doesn't change it being a good or bad call, it's just that I don't think the majority of people in the sports world (fans, media, players) follow that thinking.

 

[Captain Cliche]

Spot Belichick a 25 point lead in the Super Bowl with 8:31 left in the 3rd quarter and see how it ends.

 

[Tony2046]

Agree. I mean the thought process is, you run a rub play there, and all year that play had worked, to the point the pats actually practiced against it. It was a go to play, worst case, its incomplete, and the clock stops then they can run and still have a timeout. People way overreacted to it all being on the playcall and forgot what an amazing play had to be made for that to be intercepted. I think media likes to damping execution a lot and just go after a decision because it makes for more talking points than, oh the player played good or played bad. As I said if its a td there, Carroll is a genius, why didnt Bill call a timeout, etc etc. But since it was a pick, Carroll is an idiot, Bill is a genius for not calling timeout. Seattle lost becuase of carroll, hell with everything else that went on in the game.

It wasn't a "go to play". They hadn't run that play all season.

The "genius" of the play is that the Pats may have been when they sent out specific goal line personnel hoping to force Seattle into their "go to play". They did and the rest is history.

 

[IllegalContact]

People seem to forget the 4th & 1 call Seattle made in the middle of the game.... They needed 1 yard, so obviously the GUARANTEED answer to that problem was running MARSHAWN ****ING LYNCH AMIRITE!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Oops.... Patriots stuffed him at midfield and caused a turnover of downs. That was at MIDFIELD, not the goal line.... but delusional, borderline re*arded people seem to think that if Seattle had just run the ball against the Patriots GOAL LINE DEFENSE that it would be a guaranteed victory

Excuses are sad and pathetic... there's a winner and a loser... and the Pats WON that Superbowl



Oh wait... this is where people say, "but wait!!!!!!!! it was 4th down for the SUPER BOWWWWLLLL!!!!! obviously Lynch would have made that play to win the SUPER BOWL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AMIRITE!!??!!?!??!?!?!?!

I guess the motivation by these world class athletes is questionable when playing for a Super Bowl in the middle of a game... but is an AUTOMATIC GUARANTEE with a few seconds left!


/puke

law of averages says the next time they run that okay they gain a yard

not sure how we got from the falcons to the Seahawks, but the circumstances were quite different

all that said, you have playcalling and you have execution…..and the job of the coaches to determine the probability for the degree of success in the execution of any play they call.

In both instances, I think the opponent overthought the situation while BB guessed right.

in my opinion, the play calls left the execution out to dry

 

[aluminum seats]

I remember being an insane favorite in a major poker tournament I attended

Wait, back up here, who the hell are you man? Insane favorite at a major tournament? Feel like you should start a poker thread here