Sean Peyton calls the Dumbest play of the year

[thenepatsrule]

NO was facing 4th and inches and this is the play he calls ?

I dont think the media will crucify him like they did BB a few years back on the now infamous 4th and 1 against the Colts

 

[manxman2601]

All plays are dumb when they don't work, as are all gambles. Which is why I find the criticism of Josh McDaniels so laughable. After we just put up the highest score of the season and a record beat down of the Steelers, the "jMac is a bad OC" crew have been silent.

 

[supafly]

All plays are dumb when they don't work, as are all gambles.

True, but when you are in "no man's land" and down 9 in the last 7 minutes of the game and desperately need at least a FG, calling a play that takes you backwards 6 or 7 yds to pick up inches is a bit strange to say the least.

Even if the defender didn't tackle him in the backfield, he'd have had to run a good 6-7+ yds to pick up what started as 4th and inches. Even a QB sneak would have been much more appropriate if they didn't want to try a normal RB play.

N.Orleans can be very tough, especially at home; but they are a bit of a different animal on the road for sure. I think the same would go with most teams, but some of those teams like NO and SEA are night and day different sometimes, particularly against tougher competition who actually poses a real threat.

If I'm in the NFC, I'm hoping like hell that SEA loses a couple of more games and would be pissed as hell that Tampa Bay blew a 21-0 lead today. 2 home games for Seattle and it may all be over before it even starts.

 

[manxman2601]

True, but when you are in "no man's land" and down 9 in the last 7 minutes of the game and desperately need at least a FG, calling a play that takes you backwards 6 or 7 yds to pick up inches is a bit strange to say the least.

Even if the defender didn't tackle him in the backfield, he'd have had to run a good 6-7+ yds to pick up what started as 4th and inches. Even a QB sneak would have been much more appropriate if they didn't want to try a normal RB play.

N.Orleans can be very tough, especially at home; but they are a bit of a different animal on the road for sure. I think the same would go with most teams, but some of those teams like NO and SEA are night and day different sometimes, particularly against tougher competition who actually poses a real threat.

If I'm in the NFC, I'm hoping like hell that SEA loses a couple of more games and would be pissed as hell that Tampa Bay blew a 21-0 lead today. 2 home games for Seattle and it may all be over before it even starts.

And if the play had gone for a TD, then he'd be called a genius. it's the way of things. and looking at the blocking on that gif, if the receiver had avoided the defender (Coples?), there was a nice wall set up and there could well have been big yardage available.

 

[MrNathanDrake]

That play works in Madden.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

All plays are dumb when they don't work, as are all gambles. Which is why I find the criticism of Josh McDaniels so laughable. After we just put up the highest score of the season and a record beat down of the Steelers, the "jMac is a bad OC" crew have been silent.

I agree with the general notion that the competence of playcalling appears to fall on a single qualification: if it works it was competent and if it fails the SOB Coach doesn't know what he is doing. However, a call like Peyton made is usually made because their exists a chance it will gain a nice chunk of yardage though it also comes with a greater risk of a negative play. Nothing wrong with calling that play per se, especially if the D is playing a certain way, but not on 4th and inches. As Supa points out, putting the ball in the runner's hands so far from the LOS and with a delay that gives defenders extra time to blowup the LOS/reach into the backfield? The logic of it is a bit dumfounding. From a percentages perspective it is probably equivalent to, on 4th and inches, calling for play action and throwing a 20 yard downfield pass. It's just not a call that is most likely to gain a few inches.

Given NO's passing potency, if they weren't going with a quick handoff up the middle or a QB sneak, one would think a quick 2 yard pattern with Graham or someone else probably has a markedly better than 50/50 chance to succeed. But a trick run play that far off the LOS? I wonder if Peyton lost track of the down/distance.

 

[marian]

All plays are dumb when they don't work, as are all gambles. Which is why I find the criticism of Josh McDaniels so laughable. After we just put up the highest score of the season and a record beat down of the Steelers, the "jMac is a bad OC" crew have been silent.

Josh definitely called better game, surprised me with a run 1 time, but it's still hard for him to call a run occasionally on 3 & 4 situations. On 3 & 6 it's never going to happen. LeBau knew that and benefited once or twice yesterday (sack play)

 

[Gumby]

And if the play had gone for a TD, then he'd be called a genius. it's the way of things. and looking at the blocking on that gif, if the receiver had avoided the defender (Coples?), there was a nice wall set up and there could well have been big yardage available.

Some "wall". # 96 is ALSO RUNNING FREE right at the ball-carrier.

play was DOOMED.

 

[manxman2601]

Some "wall". # 96 is ALSO RUNNING FREE right at the ball-carrier.

play was DOOMED.

Having watched, I don't see him getting there. But even if he had, there was a blocker there to block #96 but who turned upfield prematurely. So even if the play was "doomed", it wasn't necessarily doomed because of the play call but because of the onfield performance of the players.

I'm fine with an argument that a reverse on 4th and inches is a questionable play call. My issue is more with the more general point that play callers tend to receive criticism when plays turn out badly but rarely receive credit when things turn out right. If one is going to argue that this was a dumb call within the context of the game, then that's fine but would they say the same if a TD had been scored off that play? If they're consistent, then they should do because nothing has changed save the outcome, and the success or failure of a play is so much more than just the original play call.

 

[Gumby]

Having watched, I don't see him getting there. But even if he had, there was a blocker there to block #96 but who turned upfield prematurely. So even if the play was "doomed", it wasn't necessarily doomed because of the play call but because of the onfield performance of the players..

if you were sayng they 'set up a nice wall'; you were talking about the onfield execution. I agree - the execution wasnt all that.

I'm fine with an argument that a reverse on 4th and inches is a questionable play call. My issue is more with the more general point that play callers tend to receive criticism when plays turn out badly but rarely receive credit when things turn out right. If one is going to argue that this was a dumb call within the context of the game, then that's fine but would they say the same if a TD had been scored off that play? If they're consistent, then they should do because nothing has changed save the outcome, and the success or failure of a play is so much more than just the original play call.

Agree w/ you on the overarching point (critiquing OCs); but you have to say that if you are going up against the #4 Rush D /#28 Pass D [#18 overall] in the league and you are too scared to try and get 6" w/ your QB and OL; then why aren't you passing instead of putting yourself 6 yds in hole to start the play. A #4 run D is not going to lose contain easily on AN OBVIOUS RUN PLAY SITUATION; even if you show pass; and especially if you only put 2 GUYS DOWNFIELD TO SHOW PASS - the TEs were all blocking leaving the LBs free to hang near the LoS.

You are using the absolute wrong example to justify your point.

If they had scored a TD, everyone would say they got away with one.

 

[strngplyr]

Some "wall". # 96 is ALSO RUNNING FREE right at the ball-carrier.

play was DOOMED.

Bad play call and bad execution are very different.

The defense executed better and blew it up, had the offense executed like the Saints usually execute it was probably a touchdown. Things happen.

Look at our game today, we had half a dozen or more plays work today that haven't worked in previous weeks, were we stupid for trying because we failed to execute them to this point? I understand the situation is different but a lot of times those unique plays coming at a time when everyone expects the ordinary (some kind of power run or QB sneak) end up really paying off.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Some "wall". # 96 is ALSO RUNNING FREE right at the ball-carrier.

play was DOOMED.

96 engaged with a blocker, and there was another free blocker next to help. They didn't run right at the ball carrier until after the play was made. Coples made a heck of a play there.

Sure, the play call was a bit crazy. And why have a tight end with the ball on an end-around? But if it worked, we'd be talking about how there's no way the defense would have predicted the tight end carrying the ball there.

I think you have to look at what the purpose was too. If Payton is trying to convert 4th down, sure, he runs the ball or sneaks it or tries a slant off play action or something similar. But it seems to be that wasn't about converting so much as scoring. It was an ultra aggressive play call intended to score, much like going deep on 4th and inches because the defense isn't ready for it.

So there's conservative (punt), the in-between (go for the short conversion), or the ultra-aggressive (try to bust a big play). He chose the ultra aggressive route, probably believing the team wouldn't be able to convert against the tough Jets D-line. And I don't necessarily disagree with that. It just didn't work, but that doesn't mean it was a bad idea.

Fans always rush to judgments based on results but decision-making processes are important as well. Nobody converts a play 100% of the time and even the smartest plays can look dumb, and even the dumbest plays can look smart.

On the flipside, in yesterday's Bills/Chiefs game, Sean Smith lost his guy in the end zone but Jeff Tuel didn't see that and threw to his second read, where Smith happened to be sitting only because he ****ed up. But because he ****ed up, he ended up in the right spot to intercept the ball and return it for a huge touchdown. Tuel didn't expect him to be there, and quite frankly, Smith shouldn't have expected to be there either. But instead of the Bills going up 17-3, it was 10-10.

While all the KC fans are praising Smith, I'm sure his coaches will be saying WTF WERE YOU EVEN DOING THERE? in the film review tomorrow and tearing him a new one because of the wide open guy in the back of the end zone. I could have hit him with a pass, he was that wide open. Does that make Smith's play good or bad? To fans, I'm sure it was great because of the result.

 

[RayClay]

I agree with dumb. Way too much risk, what reward?

 

[manxman2601]

96 engaged with a blocker, and there was another free blocker next to help. They didn't run right at the ball carrier until after the play was made. Coples made a heck of a play there.

Sure, the play call was a bit crazy. And why have a tight end with the ball on an end-around? But if it worked, we'd be talking about how there's no way the defense would have predicted the tight end carrying the ball there.

I think you have to look at what the purpose was too. If Payton is trying to convert 4th down, sure, he runs the ball or sneaks it or tries a slant off play action or something similar. But it seems to be that wasn't about converting so much as scoring. It was an ultra aggressive play call intended to score, much like going deep on 4th and inches because the defense isn't ready for it.

So there's conservative (punt), the in-between (go for the short conversion), or the ultra-aggressive (try to bust a big play). He chose the ultra aggressive route, probably believing the team wouldn't be able to convert against the tough Jets D-line. And I don't necessarily disagree with that. It just didn't work, but that doesn't mean it was a bad idea.

Fans always rush to judgments based on results but decision-making processes are important as well. Nobody converts a play 100% of the time and even the smartest plays can look dumb, and even the dumbest plays can look smart.

On the flipside, in yesterday's Bills/Chiefs game, Sean Smith lost his guy in the end zone but Jeff Tuel didn't see that and threw to his second read, where Smith happened to be sitting only because he ****ed up. But because he ****ed up, he ended up in the right spot to intercept the ball and return it for a huge touchdown. Tuel didn't expect him to be there, and quite frankly, Smith shouldn't have expected to be there either. But instead of the Bills going up 17-3, it was 10-10.

While all the KC fans are praising Smith, I'm sure his coaches will be saying WTF WERE YOU EVEN DOING THERE? in the film review tomorrow and tearing him a new one because of the wide open guy in the back of the end zone. I could have hit him with a pass, he was that wide open. Does that make Smith's play good or bad? To fans, I'm sure it was great because of the result.

Great post.

 

[RayClay]

To those defending it because it "might" have been a big play..it's fourth and inches. You have to make the first down if you elect to go for it.

Sure, if you invest your life savings in lottery tickets you might end up rich, but that doesn't mean you should ever do that when you can invest reasonably.

 

[nabwong]

To those defending it because it "might" have been a big play..it's fourth and inches. You have to make the first down if you elect to go for it.

Sure, if you invest your life savings in lottery tickets you might end up rich, but that doesn't mean you should ever do that when you can invest reasonably.

Sean Payton caught lightning in a bottle during the Super Bowl 2nd half onside kick. No one can tell him that yesterday's play was not gonna work.

 

[RayClay]

Sean Payton caught lightning in a bottle during the Super Bowl 2nd half onside kick. No one can tell him that yesterday's play was not gonna work.

I actually like surprise plays in the context of a long game. Fourth and inches, however, is about having plays that give you the highest percentage of success. Snap counts, sneaks, quick openers. It's like risking your paycheck in a bar bet. Those plays are to be picked up every time. You have the ball and the decision to when to snap. Every time.

 

[Rob0729]

The strength of the Jets' defense is the d-line especially against the run. It is stupid on a 4th and inches to run a play that took so long to develop. The Jets were stacking the line and were going to penetrate the Saints mediocre o-line.

 

[UK_Pat37]

NO was facing 4th and inches and this is the play he calls ?

I dont think the media will crucify him like they did BB a few years back on the now infamous 4th and 1 against the Colts

Fourth and inches, where a NYJ defence...or any defence for that matter...would be cheating to the middle to prevent a QB sneak or a dive play through the A/B gaps?

It's actually not a bad shout. Just like a stretch play off tackle isn't a bad shout. Sometimes you should trust your O Line to win the battle but if there plugging the A & B gaps, the logical thing to do is run something different. Misdirections, sweep plays and off tackle runs are perfect.

When the players execute that is....

On the 4th & 1 shout...it worked bar the fact Faulk didn't hold on to it. The execution was off. The gamble didn't pay off but the play call itself was perfectly logical...

 

[1960Pats]

NO was facing 4th and inches and this is the play he calls ?

I dont think the media will crucify him like they did BB a few years back on the now infamous 4th and 1 against the Colts

Both calls were bad, but the one by Belichick was worse, if only because of the location on the field and the fact that we were up by 6 at the time, not down by 9. In the Indy game Belichick had the ball 3rd and inches before the 4th down play, and could have run it twice and sealed the game or punted and made them work for the winning TD. Instead he passed it twice, took the last timeout in between and left more than 2:00 on the clock so we got no chance at a replay. I call that move a multi-dumbentional one.