Lombardi on SB 51 comeback

[Absurdly Metro]

Says the second two point conversion was a play they had run earlier that had been blown up for a three yard loss. Took some guts to call it again!

Also some very interesting insight (beginning at the 1:57mark) into the Malcomb Butler int in SB 49 and how it may not have been such a good idea for Seattle to run the ball on that play after all.

 

[Tony2046]

Fascinating stuff about the goal line D in 49. It kind of vindicates Pete's decision a bit.

 

[Deus Irae]

Nice find

 

[jah]

Can't watch videos right now, anyone mind giving a small recap of the goal line D thing?

 

[patfanken]

Says the second two point conversion was a play they had run earlier that had been blown up for a three yard loss. Took some guts to call it again!

Also some very interesting insight (beginning at the 1:57mark) into the Malcomb Butler int in SB 49 and how it may not have been such a good idea for Seattle to run the ball on that play after all.

This was great stuff. There has got to be more than the 2:55 on that clip. Go find the rest. Not seriously - go find the rest of that interview.

 

[shmessy]

I had also read somewhere that Lynch had been only 1 for 5 that season at converting 1 yard line TDs.

Add onto that the mic'd up for that play showed Carroll clearly excited when he looked onto the field and he yells "They're in goal line, they're in goal line!!" yes, new england had not lined up in goal line with 3 dbs all season long - - who WOULDN'T have fallen for that?

For those reasons, I think it is an unfairly maligned playcall.

 

[patfanken]

Can't watch videos right now, anyone mind giving a small recap of the goal line D thing?

He basically gave an explanation on why BB didn't call TO. He justifies Pete's call of a pass on that play since he saw our run stop GL D. What Pete didn't see was we had 3 CB's in the game to match their receivers. And Pete couldn't have seen it since we hadn't run that defensive combination before, but we'd worked on it all spring and summer, and of course, that week in practice. Lombardi claims that if they HAD given the ball to Lynch, he'd have been stuffed.

What he also could have said to further justify Pete's call was that in 6 attempts of Lynch to score from the one that season, he'd only been successful once. I always wondered why that stat never gets any play.

BTW- the BEST part of this clip is that he says he's writing a BOOK.

 

[mrscruff]

Love Lombardi's takes on the Patriots and BB.

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

Really liked how he spoke of coach's calmness under fire

 

[Bill Lee]

This was great stuff. There has got to be more than the 2:55 on that clip. Go find the rest. Not seriously - go find the rest of that interview.

The rest:



As you see, there's 26 minutes in the segment, all interesting stuff.

Those of you thinking a Jimmy G trade is a no brainer might not like all of what they hear.

 

[Kargetina]

I had also read somewhere that Lynch had been only 1 for 5 that season at converting 1 yard line TDs.

Add onto that the mic'd up for that play showed Carroll clearly excited when he looked onto the field and he yells "They're in goal line, they're in goal line!!" yes, new england had not lined up in goal line with 3 dbs all season long - - who WOULDN'T have fallen for that?

For those reasons, I think it is an unfairly maligned playcall.

Plus out of 101 passes thrown at the goal line that year, none got intercepted.

Like Pete said, it was the worst outcome to a call ever, but the call itself was not that bad.

Was throwing it to Bennett on first and goal the worst call ever? It's probably even more risky than Wilson's pass. Butler's fantastic read and reaction combined with Browner's jamming of Kearse made that call/pass look bad.

We tried a pass, didn't work, then we ran it and that was that. Seattle would have most likely done the same thing.

Either way, the only thing matters, we won the tactical battle both times.

 

[Bill Lee]

He basically gave an explanation on why BB didn't call TO. He justifies Pete's call of a pass on that play since he saw our run stop GL D. What Pete didn't see was we had 3 CB's in the game to match their receivers. And Pete couldn't have seen it since we hadn't run that defensive combination before, but we'd worked on it all spring and summer, and of course, that week in practice. Lombardi claims that if they HAD given the ball to Lynch, he'd have been stuffed.

And to be clear, the reason BB didn't call TO is he didn't want Pete to be able to react to the 3 CB defense by changing personnel or the play. Lombardi said Bill got obsessed with coming up with an unstoppable goal line defense after the loss to Denver in the 2013 AFCCG, and as you said, came up with the 3 CB defense and practiced it all summer and fall but never called it till that critical play, so Carroll would never have seen it before.

BTW- the BEST part of this clip is that he says he's writing a BOOK.

Yep, covering his time with Bill Walsh, Al Davis, the Browns, and BB. Should be a real page turner! He was riffing on Al Davis during the segment above. Can't wait to get the book!

 

[NashuaPats]

It's interesting hearing Lombardi's take on the Pats considering he has inside knowledge, but I wonder what Belichick thinks of him giving out so much information and writing a book. I'm guessing he's not too pleased.

 

[RayClay]

I had also read somewhere that Lynch had been only 1 for 5 that season at converting 1 yard line TDs.

Add onto that the mic'd up for that play showed Carroll clearly excited when he looked onto the field and he yells "They're in goal line, they're in goal line!!" yes, new england had not lined up in goal line with 3 dbs all season long - - who WOULDN'T have fallen for that?

For those reasons, I think it is an unfairly maligned playcall.

Always said that. It's a very safe pass play if run correctly. Receiver ran it lazily and Brandon Browner blew up the receiver who should have picked Butler. Two major failures on Seattle necessary. Should have been a very short in front of a screen.

 

[resdubwhite]

full interview. He's glowing about Jimmy G. reckons that Jimmy would turn SF around immediately

 

[RobertWeathers]

Always said that. It's a very safe pass play if run correctly. Receiver ran it lazily and Brandon Browner blew up the receiver who should have picked Butler. Two major failures on Seattle necessary. Should have been a very short in front of a screen.

I get the 1-5 on goal line but to run a pass play that they hadn't run all season? Dumb.

I've tried very hard to give Pom-Pom the benefit of the doubt but the play call was stupid.

 

[RobertWeathers]

It's interesting hearing Lombardi's take on the Pats considering he has inside knowledge, but I wonder what Belichick thinks of him giving out so much information and writing a book. I'm guessing he's not too pleased.

Im sure BB has a sensitivity to some topics but overall I bet he doesnt pay no mind to it if it helps Lombardi.

 

[NashuaPats]

Im sure BB has a sensitivity to some topics but overall I bet he doesnt pay no mind to it if it helps Lombardi.

It's hard to say, he's a tough guy to understand. I don't want him to retire anytime soon, but in a way I'm looking forward to his retirement assuming he'll open up or write a book giving us a look behind the curtain.

 

[NormZauchin]

He basically gave an explanation on why BB didn't call TO. He justifies Pete's call of a pass on that play since he saw our run stop GL D. What Pete didn't see was we had 3 CB's in the game to match their receivers. And Pete couldn't have seen it since we hadn't run that defensive combination before, but we'd worked on it all spring and summer, and of course, that week in practice. Lombardi claims that if they HAD given the ball to Lynch, he'd have been stuffed.

What he also could have said to further justify Pete's call was that in 6 attempts of Lynch to score from the one that season, he'd only been successful once. I always wondered why that stat never gets any play.

BTW- the BEST part of this clip is that he says he's writing a BOOK.

The stat doesn't get any play because in this society, opinion matters more than fact.

 

[patfanken]

Always said that. It's a very safe pass play if run correctly. Receiver ran it lazily and Brandon Browner blew up the receiver who should have picked Butler. Two major failures on Seattle necessary. Should have been a very short in front of a screen.

Just to be more specific. Another reason why it was the right call to try a pass at that point was Lombardi was right. That play probably would have gone nowhere, simply because of the numbers.

In that GL formation with 3 wide outs, the Pats had 8 defenders on the LOS against 7 for the Seahawks (8-1 for the QB). Take that and the fact of Lynch's previous failures in that situation, PLUS it was the best down to pass, since everyone was thinking it was going to be a run.