Coaching Decisions That Were Not That Bad

[lancerman]

2 minutes ago, SkippyX said:

They had plenty of time to ram the ball in with a run... twice.

History has already ruled on this. Everyone hates the play call for obvious reasons except for a few who have to also pretend to be the smartest guy in the room.

Hot Take Rejected!

 

Yeah and if the pass was incomplete they.... still would have been able to run it... TWICE. Basic math. Pass once and you get an extra play. That dramatically increases your chances to score. A low percentage freak occurrence that hadn’t happened that entire season prevented that. 
 

Your second argument isn’t really compelling. The coaches on both sides that day (one being the greatest ever) all understood the rational. But I’m sure the ESPN hot take artists and twitter bot know far more. But I hope you feel solace that you couldn’t come up with a well reasoned argument besides genetic fan wank 

[Ryan_W]

I always thought it was a decent play. 

ball security on a run > on a pass

yes, but... it's not the best security if everyone on the other team is 99% certain who is going to get handed the ball

I was a little disappointed that RW didn't sneak it in, but a goalline defense has sooo many bodies around, a bang-bang play is probably better

fabulous game tho

[jrry32]

10 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

IMO, the only reason the play call in the Seattle/New England superbowl was bad, was that they had time and a timeout. It wasn't just a question of give it to Lynch or pass the ball, you could've done both, had you given it to Lynch first. Or done a WR screen, or a QB draw, or a FB dive, or a fade, or whatever play you want to run. Especially with what they called, with an  inbreaking route into all that traffic inside from a goal line defense. Like, if the logic is not to run straight into all those bodies, you just passed straight into them instead. Even if he doesn't jump the route, there's still the risk of a tip or something. If it was 4th down, I have no issue. If they think that was the best play they had, go nuts. On second, there's just no risk whatsoever to doing the safer play first, even if it's lower percentage of success. You could've done a dive to Lynch, then thrown a fade, and then if you throw a pick on a slant on 4th down I don't think anyone questions it.

Or you could have booted Wilson and given him the run/pass option.

[Awsi Dooger]

3 hours ago, jrry32 said:

Or you could have booted Wilson and given him the run/pass option.

I've always believed he should have pump faked...and then waltzed into the end zone at right

[DannyB]

14 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

I mostly agree, because a fade is a terribly low percentage of success kind of play. I do think it has it's spots though, as a play that, when thrown even kind of correctly, there's almost no possibility for an outcome worse than an incomplete pass. Like no real chance for a sack or an INT unless the QB has no idea what he's doing with it. Like, first and goal on the 1 or 2, I think a fade is fine because you have two more plays anyways, so running a low risk, but low success rate play, isn't really hurting you.

God I hate the fade. Unless you have like peak Calvin Johnson or something.

I agree with you that "never" is a little harsh, but I can't stand it when coaches call it as their final down. Like maybe if you just gashed the defense for a huge gain and you hustle the offense to the 2 yard line no huddle or something and are able to exploit a defense that's a bit out of sorts, then okay give it a quick shot. But if it's "gotta have it" time? Oof, brutal.

[evilpimp972]

That was a bad call:

1. You had timeouts

2. You had Lynch (and not only for running, but just being a threat)

3. It was not play action (even out of the shotgun)

4. You threw the ball to Lockette, the 4th wr 

Happy Bevell is gone tbh.

[Hunter2_1]

Something being lost in this is game context. I do agree a PA might have been a good option, but I don't think RPO or booting was. That's because we took that away all game.

"Seattle decides to do the same exact thing on the very next play, the first offensive 3rd down of the game. This time, however, New England is lined up how it wants to be with the defensive tackles in 3-techniques (maybe even a 4i) responsible for the B-Gaps and linebackers Dont’a Hightower and Jamie Collins responsible for the A-Gaps. Once again, Ninkovich plays the feather technique as the Read man/unblocked defender. New England also sends a double A-Gap Blitz here:"

 

This double 3/4i, double 9-technique look is how New England plays the Zone Read for most of the game. The scheme depends on a multitude of things: first and foremost, the ability to play Cover 1 at all times against any offensive formation, the intelligence of Hightower, and the versatility and athleticism of Wilfork (#75) and Collins (#91). Watch below, as Ninkovich feathers and forces a give from Wilson, only to have Wilfork blow back Seahawk Tackle Justin Britt to force Marshawn Lynch left enough for both blitzing linebackers to clean up the play for no gain:

 

http://www.syedschemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Zone-Read-2.m4v?_=2

 

Pretty much all game Ninkovic is lined up there, he is free and he forces the hand off to Lynch. Wilfork was blowing ish up in the middle too. We defended the zone read really well that day, so I can give Pete a pass for not calling that as a play.

[lancerman]

3 hours ago, evilpimp972 said:

That was a bad call:

1. You had timeouts

2. You had Lynch (and not only for running, but just being a threat)

3. It was not play action (even out of the shotgun)

4. You threw the ball to Lockette, the 4th wr 

Happy Bevell is gone tbh.

No they had one timeout. You could only stop the clock once. 2nd down started on a snap that occurred with 25 seconds in the game. When the interception occurred and play ended there were 20 seconds in a situation that automatically stops the clock.
 

Lets say they ran there and got stuffed. Realistically the minimum a run play takes is 5 seconds and you have to call the timeout after the whistle which typically takes a second or two. So after the timeout Seattle will have about 18 seconds. That’s the most realistic scenario 

2 weeks ago Hoyer took a third down sack when he snapped the ball with 10 seconds left without a timeout and the half was over before the player who tackled him was even off the ground. So you are basically betting that 8 extra seconds is enough for everyone to get up, the refs to get the ball, Seattle to call a play and get to the line, have the ball set and whistler ready for play, and then a snap. 

I watched several goal line stand videos before posting this just to be sure. It’s “possible” they get a third snap off it. It would be with like 1 second left and of every single part of that process went smooth and fast and everybody was instantly ready. If it even takes the refs an extra seconds to get the ball from Lynch, that play never happens. That’s also assuming Lynch goes right down on contact. If he even gets hung up for a couple seconds, it’s over. 
 

Point is, while it could happen, it’s not a guarantee and the odds are more in favor that the clock runs out at Russell is frantically trying to get everyone on the line.

The only way to 100% guarantee a third play without any questions, is to call a pass. You still get your two runs with Lynch if you need but you increase your chances to score by 50%. That’s way too valuable to pass up when you likely only will ever run Lynch twice anyways and it doesn’t stop you from doing it. 
 

To your second point, saying they had a Lynch doesn’t mean much. Lynch is better running in space and those short conversions were some of the weakest parts of his game. But it’s irrelevant anyways because assuming a freak occurrence doesn’t happen (which easily could just happen with Lynch fumbling because it’s so low percentage) you don’t even lose the ability to run Lynch. 
 

To your third point, a play action takes more time and that was a situation where you wanted to win or lose fast. You don’t want Russell to identify his first progression and put it somewhere that only that player can get it (he didn’t which was part of the problem) and he either gets it for a touchdown or drops it. Going play action just risks a sack or takes more time. 
 

To the last point, it doesn’t matter. The play was designed for Lockette. The truth is, the play actually should have worked. 3 players on your side had to have poor execution. The player who was tasked with making a pick play on Butler who got outmuscled and jammed up by Browner. Lockette for being soft and not holding positioning once the pick failed. Then Wilson for poor ball placement that allowed Butler to make the interception instead of an incompletion. In that situation an incompletion is a win for Seattle. It’s an extra timeout.

Sometimes **** just goes wrong. When you need three players to mess up and two players on the opposing side to make amazing plays to get the only outcome that hurts you and you can live with an incompletion or a touchdown which either has a plus 99% chance of happening..... you take the bet. Especially if just by doing that you increase your opportunities to win by 50%. It’s a no brainer. 
 

 

[ThatJerkDave]

On 10/16/2020 at 9:38 AM, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Rule #1, folks: DO NOT EVER CALL A FADE ROUTE NEAR THE GOAL LINE. Just don't do it. If you're ever thinking "Maybe a fade would work here?", just immediately punch yourself in the groin and call literally anything else, because unless you have Jimmy Graham lined up 1v1 against a 5'9 CB, throwing a fade to what is most likely your #2 or #3 WR who has the favorable matchup ain't gonna work.

Jimmy Graham would just drop the pass.  

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

Everyone here saying "they should've run it" when I'm still not even 100% sure that Russ didn't have a run and a pass option and, given the look the Patriots were given, took the pass option on that particular play knowing if it's an incomplete pass they can still run it twice with Lynch.

I mean for goodness sakes in order for that play to backfire and lose Seattle the game, the pick WR had to be blown up by Browner and the Patriots' #3 CB had to make the play of his life to jump the route and intercept the pass. I seriously wish people would just recognize a situation where a team simply makes a better play for what it is more often.

This is of course illustrated beautifully by the Patriots failing to convert on 4th and 1 against the Seahawks this season WITH their best player running the ball at the goal line and people saying the Patriots should've done something else. In the end, people always think they're smarter than the coaches (me included, obv).

Edited October 17, 2020 by AFlaccoSeagulls

[Calamity_Cometh]

I am so glad that I saw that play live. It is still being discussed and dissected to this day.

[DirtyDez]

They threw it because the clock was running but it was still the wrong move every time.  You can tell rewatching the sequence Pete keeps looking across the field expecting a timeout.  Still you’re getting at least two attempts with Marshawn at the 1YL and maybe three.  You don’t need analytics to tell you he’s scoring. 
 

[Pugger]

Almost all of the time when a play called blows up it is because of execution by the players.  I can't think of a coach who would call a play they believe won't work if they want to stay employed.

[Hunter2_1]

19 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Everyone here saying "they should've run it" when I'm still not even 100% sure that Russ didn't have a run and a pass option and, given the look the Patriots were given, took the pass option on that particular play knowing if it's an incomplete pass they can still run it twice with Lynch.

I mean for goodness sakes in order for that play to backfire and lose Seattle the game, the pick WR had to be blown up by Browner and the Patriots' #3 CB had to make the play of his life to jump the route and intercept the pass. I seriously wish people would just recognize a situation where a team simply makes a better play for what it is more often.

This is of course illustrated beautifully by the Patriots failing to convert on 4th and 1 against the Seahawks this season WITH their best player running the ball at the goal line and people saying the Patriots should've done something else. In the end, people always think they're smarter than the coaches (me included, obv).

Yeah can you imagine if we passed that and it was intercepted?

 

SHOULD HAVE RUN IT!

 

Well....it all comes down to execution

[Hunter2_1]

12 hours ago, DirtyDez said:

They threw it because the clock was running but it was still the wrong move every time.  You can tell rewatching the sequence Pete keeps looking across the field expecting a timeout.  Still you’re getting at least two attempts with Marshawn at the 1YL and maybe three.  You don’t need analytics to tell you he’s scoring. 
 

Why didn't HE call the TO?