Had Johnson been coaching the Seahawks.....

[Whiskey_Clear]

What amazed me is that Belichick was able to resist using his timeouts. It would have been easy to use them there, so that maybe Brady could have 30-40 seconds to try to get in range for a possible tying FG, but he believed the TO would only give Carroll more time to re-think his decision. I really believe Belichick thought he knew what was coming.

Of course Belichik knew what was coming....they stole the Seahawks signals. Deflate gate was just a genius distraction all along to cover this.

 

[IEEEWreck]

Except it wasn't. This is kind of what I'm talking about. There's so much results based analysis going on here it's making my head spin. Everybody is looking at the play call in a vacuum and screaming about it while ignoring the game situation, giving no credit to the outstanding coaching job Belichick did in the last minute (straight up pure genius what he did with the no timeout and putting his goal line unit on the field essentially forcing Seattle to pass and drilled his defense on the exact play they would call, like I said genius), giving no credit to the unreal defensive plays made by Browner and Butler (like top 1% of defensive plays that could be made there they played it completely perfectly), nor giving blame to Russell Wilson for a bad throw at the worst possible time (threw it high and too close to the middle of the field). That's a standard goal line play! And right now what I think is happening is that a lot of you guys have a biased POV because of the heavily run focused offense that we run.

Bill Belichick did an interview today and here's a quote from it:


I bolded the last part for emphasis because that's what I think is happening right now. Everyone gnashing their teeth about how they should have run it has either done zero or very shallow analysis of the situation outside that one moment.

An interesting point you make. Seattle was strategically unprepared to exploit the last two plays' success. Belichick was playing the right game trying to egg seattle into that pass because hey, wrong player package for a goal line run.

CPJ is never found in that position. Structurally, the yellow jackets can't be run into a corner by their own gains, because we put a premium on strategic flexibility and tactical surprise.

This is neither here nor there, but I also think CPJ plays football somewhere between 8 plays and 3 quarters ahead, and so not even Belichick could trap him like that.

Thats why the nfl is so darn boring to me. Very little strategy, a whole lot of who runs faster and jumps higher. And if I wanted to see that, I'd watch track and field where they're actually good at it.

 

[MidtownJacket]

@Squints that was exceptionally well put - and good usage of quotes.. I agree completely

 

[TheGridironGeek]

Even though I am having fun with play, I agree with your post. It is like CPJ said after the Music City Bowl last year; "If that (reverse) play works, you call me a genius. When it doesn't work, you call me a dum$@#."

When the mutts were crucifying Bobo for the 1st & Goal play at USCe and The Pick, I was laughing at them: Making the obvious call (Gurley/Chubb rush) is not always the best call - defenses tend to play the odds. Those plays - like the Seahawks yesterday - were colossal failures because of the execution - not the call. Blaming Bobo for the failure of a 21 year old kid being screamed at by 90k fans is ridiculous. All Mason - and Wilson - had to do was not get rid of the ball in a fashion that hurts (fumble, sack, intentional grounding or INT). With Mason, you can give him a pass due to his experience level, with Wilson - not so much. In either situation if the play works its great, if the play simply fails you move on to the next down - when the play results in a turnover (or a big penalty) because of a poor decision by a player it is the player who is at fault, not the play-caller.

If the Seahawks score a TD on that play, Carroll is declared a gutsy-play-calling genius and Belichick is a idiot for not stopping the clock. And Jemaine Kearse cannot buy a drink in a bar for the rest of his life.

Except it wasn't. This is kind of what I'm talking about. There's so much results based analysis going on here it's making my head spin. Everybody is looking at the play call in a vacuum and screaming about it while ignoring the game situation, giving no credit to the outstanding coaching job Belichick did in the last minute (straight up pure genius what he did with the no timeout and putting his goal line unit on the field essentially forcing Seattle to pass and drilled his defense on the exact play they would call, like I said genius), giving no credit to the unreal defensive plays made by Browner and Butler (like top 1% of defensive plays that could be made there they played it completely perfectly), nor giving blame to Russell Wilson for a bad throw at the worst possible time (threw it high and too close to the middle of the field). That's a standard goal line play! And right now what I think is happening is that a lot of you guys have a biased POV because of the heavily run focused offense that we run.

Bill Belichick did an interview today and here's a quote from it:


I bolded the last part for emphasis because that's what I think is happening right now. Everyone gnashing their teeth about how they should have run it has either done zero or very shallow analysis of the situation outside that one moment.

Within the in-vogue NFL paradigm, you're completely right.

However a football based analysis is different, because you're not taking the HC's words as the final authority. NFL coaches have tremendous knowledge of the details and personalities of the game, but in philosophy they can as tied to illusions as anyone in that environment.

For instance the real question is, what on God's green Earth were the Seahawks doing in a finesse package at that point? They didn't have time to substitute a power package?

11 x 11 changes things. An option offense will get hot on the ground, and there was no way the Pats were going to deny 2 straight running plays. Lynch was getting 2 or 3 extra yards every time he was tackled. That means they only had to block well enough to get him to the LOS and the touchdown was assured. You say it's a result-based analysis -- I would have laughed and criticized Seattle if they scored on the pass play. If they ran 3 times for 0 yards, we could at least agree that they died with their best weapon.

Yes, in days of yore a Power-I NFL offense would hand off multiple times and not score on the goal-line, so in those Olde Tymes (1990's) a pass would be a "percentage" call there. But in Seattle's offense, Wilson can pull the ball if he sees a potential negative play, and run it in himself. So the notion "they can always bust up a running play, let's try an 'extended handoff' instead" was valid for everyone 20 years ago but should not factor into the thinking of a modern 11 x 11 rushing team. Not when you're winning the LOS the way the Seahawks were.

Pete Carroll lost his nerve. He was the first HC with the stones to coach a Super Bowl like it was college football. For the first 59 minutes and 30 seconds, he did.

 

[Squints]

For instance the real question is, what on God's green Earth were the Seahawks doing in a finesse package at that point? They didn't have time to substitute a power package?

I answered that question. The answer is that Carroll got out coached by the best coach in the game. The Seahawks called a run play to get the the 1 yard line with under a minute left. The Patriots have two time outs. Everyone in the world expected, Carroll included Belichick to call a time out there because that's typically what you do there. But he didn't. He let the clock run and put in his goal line defense. This was not expected. The Seahawks decide to decide their save their time out and call a play and formation that is a perfect counter for the personnel the Patriots had on the field. They did the same thing from the three yard line in the third quarter on the TD pass to Baldwin. No one was whining about passing so close to the goal line then.

11 x 11 changes things. An option offense will get hot on the ground, and there was no way the Pats were going to deny 2 straight running plays. Lynch was getting 2 or 3 extra yards every time he was tackled. That means they only had to block well enough to get him to the LOS and the touchdown was assured. You say it's a result-based analysis -- I would have laughed and criticized Seattle if they scored on the pass play. If they ran 3 times for 0 yards, we could at least agree that they died with their best weapon.

The Patriots were denying run plays the entire game. Marshawn was stopped on multiple short yardage opportunities throughout the game. And those weren't plays where the Patriots had extra guys in just to clog the running lanes. He was hardly being the dominant force everyone's jerking off to. And I'd call your last sentence being stubborn. Running three times into a stacked box against a run defense that is elite at clogging lanes with an offensive line which isn't good in short yardage, with a single time out is moronic. Stubbornness generally isn't a quality associated with being a good coach.

Yes, in days of yore a Power-I NFL offense would hand off multiple times and not score on the goal-line, so in those Olde Tymes (1990's) a pass would be a "percentage" call there. But in Seattle's offense, Wilson can pull the ball if he sees a potential negative play, and run it in himself. So the notion "they can always bust up a running play, let's try an 'extended handoff' instead" was valid for everyone 20 years ago but should not factor into the thinking of a modern 11 x 11 rushing team. Not when you're winning the LOS the way the Seahawks were.

He can only pull the ball if it's a designed option. Which would have been the from the shotgun because they don't have options from under center in their offense. If they called a zone read and got stuffed everyone would be decrying their decision to be in shotgun. And if you think the Seahaws offensive line was winning the LOS then you weren't watching the same game that I was.

Pete Carroll lost his nerve. He was the first HC with the stones to coach a Super Bowl like it was college football. For the first 59 minutes and 30 seconds, he did.

This is comical. He coached a football game. Nothing he did in the first 59:30 screamed college while the last 30 seconds screamed NFL. Stuff like this happens on both levels all the time. You're creating a narrative that's not there. You should try to look at this from a neutral POV not from your deification of how college football is played.

 

[TheGridironGeek]

I answered that question. The answer is that Carroll got out coached by the best coach in the game. The Seahawks called a run play to get the the 1 yard line with under a minute left. The Patriots have two time outs. Everyone in the world expected, Carroll included Belichick to call a time out there because that's typically what you do there. But he didn't. He let the clock run and put in his goal line defense. This was not expected. The Seahawks decide to decide their save their time out and call a play and formation that is a perfect counter for the personnel the Patriots had on the field. They did the same thing from the three yard line in the third quarter on the TD pass to Baldwin. No one was whining about passing so close to the goal line then.

Because it was 2nd and 3, not 2nd and 1. Why do teams run up the middle when they need 1 yard to convert, but throw a spread pass when they need 3? Because the %'s of making 1 yard and making 3 yards on a run play are drastically different in a goal-line or conversion scenario.

Also it doesn't mean people are "whining" because they criticized something, or because their view is different from yours. It's just a word you can use to try to make your debating opponent look childish and annoying, which in Flatland makes your opinion right.

The Patriots were denying run plays the entire game. Marshawn was stopped on multiple short yardage opportunities throughout the game. And those weren't plays where the Patriots had extra guys in just to clog the running lanes. He was hardly being the dominant force everyone's jerking off to. And I'd call your last sentence being stubborn. Running three times into a stacked box against a run defense that is elite at clogging lanes with an offensive line which isn't good in short yardage, with a single time out is moronic. Stubbornness generally isn't a quality associated with being a good coach.

I read back over the play-by-play and Lynch was stopped exactly once on short yardage in the 2nd half. For no gain, not a negative play. They then chose to kick on 4th and short so he didn't get another opportunity, wheras at the end he should have had 3 more chances.

Also it doesn't mean anyone is a pervert, or something, because they thought Lynch was having a good game. They were probably just watching.

He can only pull the ball if it's a designed option. Which would have been the from the shotgun because they don't have options from under center in their offense. If they called a zone read and got stuffed everyone would be decrying their decision to be in shotgun. And if you think the Seahaws offensive line was winning the LOS then you weren't watching the same game that I was.

Going in shotgun/power and running 11 x 11 would have absolutely won the game, short of a total fluke, so nobody would have bemoaned it. Once again, the "shotgun" no longer means what it used to mean (wide-open, vulnerable) to an NFL team. This is not 20 years ago. How many times has Cam Newton ran QB Power out of "shotgun" and been tackled in the backfield?

This is comical. He coached a football game. Nothing he did in the first 59:30 screamed college while the last 30 seconds screamed NFL. Stuff like this happens on both levels all the time. You're creating a narrative that's not there. You should try to look at this from a neutral POV not from your deification of how college football is played.

I got the phrase "losing your nerve" from Bill Walsh, who wrote about situations where coaches completely went against their strength and overall game plan due to the deceptive nature of the moment. He compared such breakdowns to the Japanese screwing themselves over at Midway, which is course is a completely "comical" comparison to coaching football, so I guess you should dig him up and laugh at him.

Also I forgot going 11 x 11 with a 4.4 option QB, playing an absurdly simple defense & running the ball at every opportunity screams 'Popular NFL Style,' because that's what the Seahawks did for most of 20 weeks and 119/120th of the Super Bowl.

Finally, nice Flame Warrior tactic, psychoanalyzing me and all. Maybe I think most of the NCAA is pretty generic too, but we rarely discuss that on a GT board, just like this thread has wandered too far OT...nobody asked my opinion of the MAC. Yet I do think the *best* high school & college coaches have made a few brutally obvious points in the last 5-10 years about plays, formations, and game management tactics in certain situations, and NFL coaches are way too entrenched in their 'religion' to accept them.

Be sure to reply that I'm crying, jerking off and so on, since it makes your argument stronger.