SB 49 Belichick non timeout call -- different perspective

[fightingirish595]

Josh called the fade to Marty. That shows Bill has no problem throwing at the goal line.

Anytime Tom throws at the goal line its out in the flat, fade or a quick hitch. Never a slant up the middle...jesus

I feel like Ive seen plenty of slants to Gronk at the goal line

Eh from my research I have not seen any TD catches on them yet

 

[RobertWeathers]

I feel like Ive seen plenty of slants to Gronk at the goal line

Eh from my research I have not seen any TD catches on them yet

You are right. Theyve thrown 'em to White, DA, Gronk, Jules and I think Josh once.

I think what I meant was a slant on the right tight to the line as opposed to the ones the NEP run which are away from the line.

 

[fightingirish595]

You are right. Theyve thrown 'em to White, DA, Gronk, Jules and I think Josh once.

I think what I meant was a slant on the right tight to the line as opposed to the ones the NEP run which are away from the line.

I still think it was an awful playcall by Seattle. I generally do not like fades, they are low percentage, but it probably has less of a chance than being intercepted. And you can not throw an INT there

If they just hand it off they probably win, But it pisses me off when people assume they would have won.

 

[robbomango]

In the end Pete got greedy and cared more about not giving Tom the ball, so he bled the clock as much as he could forcing him into a position of having to throw at least once.
Otherwise there's a risk of running it into the EZ for a TD and leaving 40-45secs left on the clock with Pats having 2 TO's.

I always here people say X team "scored to early" well it's very had to control those circumstances when you need a TD, as Pete found out.

 

[bormio]

I think the fact that Lynch had been stuffed on 2 3rd and shorts earlier in the game had a big impact on their thinking.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I still think it was an awful playcall by Seattle. I generally do not like fades, they are low percentage, but it probably has less of a chance than being intercepted. And you can not throw an INT there

If they just hand it off they probably win, But it pisses me off when people assume they would have won.

I can't find the stat but it was something like in 2014 Skittles was 1-10 on TD attempts from the 1 yard line.

 

[fightingirish595]

I can't find the stat but it was something like in 2014 Skittles was 1-10 on TD attempts from the 1 yard line.

It was 1 for 5 that season

 

[RobertWeathers]

It was 1 for 5 that season

Thank you. I knew it was a number that was unbecoming of Lynch. Was just weird.

 

[rochrist]

I still think it was an awful playcall by Seattle. I generally do not like fades, they are low percentage, but it probably has less of a chance than being intercepted. And you can not throw an INT there

If they just hand it off they probably win, But it pisses me off when people assume they would have won.

It's a play they'd been running all year.

 

[The Brandon Five]

I feel like Ive seen plenty of slants to Gronk at the goal line

Eh from my research I have not seen any TD catches on them yet

Lafell scored on one in the same game.

 

[The Brandon Five]

fair enough, but the point of my OP is that he actually specifically was expecting a run and wanted the run. He was NOT trying to get Pete to pass, because of the HUGE irony, that a PASS was the RIGHT move at that moment, as long as Belichick did not call the time out.

If he had called the time out at 1:00 to save Brady time on the clock, the Hawks would have been able to do anything they wanted for two downs. So Belichick did make the call and it was gutsy as hell, the only difference I am saying is he WANTED them to run the ball and he wanted us to stop it obviously.

That flies in the face of all the "Belichick was daring him to pass". Belichick wanted a stop on a run play, so Seattle called the time out.

So if they got a stop on 2nd down, Seattle would have to burn their last timeout and then likely pass on 3rd down.

 

[Coolade2]

It was brilliant in game strategy because it increased the pressure on opposite side line. Patriots were leading the game. Time was running out. The Seahawks flinched . Butler made the play. Best super bowl of all time..

 

[QuantumMechanic]

BB made the right choice not to call the timeout. Why? Because NE’s offense was not going to get in position for a FG or better in the time they would have had left after a Seattle TD even with a timeout call.

NE was moving the ball on Seattle, sure. But with a death by paper cuts approach that takes time, which they wouldn’t have had.

BB saw the discombobulation on the Seattle sideline and decided to bet on his D and so let the clock roll.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Why is it so hard to believe with all BBs experience and knowledge that he was going with his gut? I would trust his experience and guy over any ststistic.

 

[BTTA]

In the end Pete got greedy and cared more about not giving Tom the ball, so he bled the clock as much as he could forcing him into a position of having to throw at least once.
Otherwise there's a risk of running it into the EZ for a TD and leaving 40-45secs left on the clock with Pats having 2 TO's.

I always here people say X team "scored to early" well it's very had to control those circumstances when you need a TD, as Pete found out.

Why is it "greedy" (or any other negative motivation) rather than just a calculation that for the last drive of the game, he didn't want to put the ball back in Brady's hands to win a SB, vs. have the ball in the hands of his own QB?

 

[Doctor DDS]

Many analytical people like to think that football is blackjack and that there is necessarily a "right decision" to make in every situation based off of historical statistics. Just does not work that way in real life. Different teams, different circumstances, different pressures all play into it. No question that BB made a conscious decision to do what he did and obviously it worked out. Just like the 4th and 2 decision against Indy. BB felt that in both situations that the higher likelihood to win was to do what he did. Without knowing the multitude of variables the he is considering at the time I would not want anyone else making those decisions.

 

[bormio]

BB made the right choice not to call the timeout. Why? Because NE’s offense was not going to get in position for a FG or better in the time they would have had left after a Seattle TD even with a timeout call.

NE was moving the ball on Seattle, sure. But with a death by paper cuts approach that takes time, which they wouldn’t have had.

BB saw the discombobulation on the Seattle sideline and decided to bet on his D and so let the clock roll.

He had been down this road in SB42 and SB46. This time, with Seattle needing a TD, it was defense or bust. And he decided to not help Seattle out by calling time.

 

[mosslost]

But they didn't, did they? So, he's right, and you're still an idiot.

@rochrist F$CK HEAD

 

[Sicilian]

Here's how I see it. Based on the anecdotes from both BB and his assistants during the Do Your Job documentary, people were asking Bill if he wanted a timeout, and he said no. His explanation, is that he saw some chaos on the Seahawks sideline and didn't want to bail them out of it by calling a timeout. If you choose to believe that is revisionist history, that is you right, but consider this: That means Belichick essentially froze up in a critical moment during a Super Bowl. While I'm not going to say that's impossible, what do you think is more likely given his history and personality? That he wanted to and SHOULD have called a timeout, but just DIDN'T because of some brainlock? Or that he went with his gut (which is fed by 40+ years of experience) and ended up being correct?

 

[Gumby]

Many analytical people like to think that football is blackjack and that there is necessarily a "right decision" to make in every situation based off of historical statistics. Just does not work that way in real life. Different teams, different circumstances, different pressures all play into it. No question that BB made a conscious decision to do what he did and obviously it worked out. Just like the 4th and 2 decision against Indy. BB felt that in both situations that the higher likelihood to win was to do what he did. Without knowing the multitude of variables the he is considering at the time I would not want anyone else making those decisions.

Exactly right. The 4th and 2 was indisputably the right choice to go for it. Sadly it failed. You can still debate the play call (pass vs run etc), the ref spotting, but not the choice..