F*cking Bevell

[CTM]

that was to the miracle Catch, not the INT

 

Really? Got it from Yahoo sports

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/the-gif-reactions-to-malcolm-butler-s-interception-are-awesome-045619063.html

[RutgersJetFan]

[SouthernJet]

Really? Got it from Yahoo sports

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/the-gif-reactions-to-malcolm-butler-s-interception-are-awesome-045619063.html

I coukld be wrong but it looks exaclty same as he reacted to Kearse catch

[CTM]

I coukld be wrong but it looks exaclty same as he reacted to Kearse catch

 

i have no clue and really wouldn't be surprised if Yahoo screwed up

[jgb]

Exactly...had somebody ask me why they did it and that was all I could come up with.  Bevell wanted to s how everyone that he was the smartest guy in the building.  Why use my battering ram to get one yard when I can call a throw to the middle of the field?

 

idiocy. if you insist on throwing, roll wilson out so he can run or throw away if it isn't there. throwing that ball from under center into traffic... not even play action... everything was wrong with that call. all that aside just give it to lynch three more times. if he gets stuffed three times, no one is second guessing you.

[CTM]

I honestly don't remember being this pissed off about a game that I didn't have money on in like 10 years.

 

Anyone who bet the Pats should send Bevell a gift

[DRJETS]

lol @ Paul Allen's reaction

 

 

 

 

The better reaction was the brunette on the left.  She had that evil smile on her face like sayng to him got you cheap mothof.. 

[Larz]

according to butler is was 1/3 the stacked WR's and 1/3 reading wilsons eyes and 1/3 credit to belicheat showing them that play in practice

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2014/story/_/id/12266535/super-bowl-xlix-darrell-bevell-seattle-seahawks-play-call-made-kill-clock

[T0mShane]

Don't agree, maybe on a normal sunday and not at end of the game, but not in that spot.

1) There's a 50/50 chance that Belichick just lets Lynch scores there like the Packers did

2) You don't make that call, in that spot to your 4th string WR on a weak unit to begin with

3) "Wasting a play" Is much better done by running it, so the clock runs down

4) Play action with a roll out and run pass option would be way more understandable. QB can see the field

You're not getting an easier pitch and catch than what Wilson had there, though. They just ****ed it up.

[T0mShane]

ya but it was only call that could give Pats ball back other than a fumble on the run. So many things can happen when u throw in middle as all Jets fan can witness to. u wanna throw, throw a fade thats a TD, PI or out of bounds

I suppose. Like I said, it's just not the most egregious thing ever.

[detectivekimble]

I don't want to give anyone short shrift here that doesn't live in Jacksonville, so let me just say here:

1. The play call itself resulted in this:

Open receiver, scrambling rookie corner, clear lane to throw in. At this point, it was on Lockette to get to the spot. If he does, it's a TD or it's PI.

2. Handing it off to Lych twice is not a sure thing. Yes, the sample size is small, but even if you extrapolate it out and overcorrect for some BeastMode Factor, you aren't even close to "guaranteed" to score there with Lynch. This is the same group of fans that murders Schottenheimer for being too conservative against the Steelers at the goal line. If Lynch is stuffed twice and Wilson's pass play on 4th down is picked or knocked down, everyone is killing them for being too conservative. You're reacting to the result of the play and not the philosophy behind calling it.

3. Passing from the 1, according to PFF, has resulted in 66 TDs this season and one INT. That INT was last night.

4. Finally, if you want to kill Bevell for trying to be too clever, that's fine. But it's not the OMG worst play call of all time. It was a relatively high-percentage pass play that was undone by a receiver failing to do his job and a corner that did his.

 

In the past five seasons, including the playoffs entering last night, teams on the opponent’s 1-yard line ran the ball on 71 percent of all plays. On those plays, teams scored a touchdown 54 percent of the time while turning the ball over 1.5 percent of the time. 

When passing from the 1, teams scored a touchdown just under 50 percent of the time while turning the ball over at a slightly higher rate. 

The Patriots allowed five touchdowns on six rushes from their 1-yard line this season, including the playoffs (83 percent). Only the Philadelphia Eagles and Washington Redskins (both 100 percent) allowed touchdowns on a higher percentage of rushing plays from the 1-yard line. 

If Seattle ran on second down, called a timeout and ran on third down, based on the league average touchdown percentage, two rushes would have resulted in a touchdown 79 percent of the time.

[T0mShane]

I see your wack sh*t and I raise you 538.com

Everyone knew it was coming. Second-and-1 on the 1-yard line. Marshawn Lynch was waiting in the backfield, poised to do what he was put on this Earth to do: Get a touchdown — this touchdown. The football gods had telegraphed how they wanted the game to end, directing a floating ball straight into Jermaine Kearse’s hands. Beast Mode was going to drag the New England team kicking and screaming into the end zone if he had to. But the play call came in, Russell Wilson attempted a doomed pass that Malcolm Butler intercepted, and it was Seattle that punched and screamed its way off the field.

The Web erupted in outrage that Beast Mode never got his moment. For Seahawks fans, calling a pass was essentially Pete Carroll denying his team’s fate. For many others, it seemed like an inexplicable miscue.

“Pete Carroll botches the Super Bowl,” wrote Ian O’Connor, simply stating what most people were thinking.

The first wave of stats to roll in wasn’t particularly favorable either: As noted by my colleague Neil Paine, the Harvard Sports Analysis Collective laid out the damning facts:

The Pats allowed opponents to score 81% of the time in power situations (runs on 3rd/4th & <2, or w/i 2 yds of goalline). Dead last in NFL.

— HSAC (@Harvard_Sports) February 2, 2015

SEA was second in the league in power situations, getting stuffed just 17% of the time. Lynch converted 17 of 20 3rd/4ths & short this year.

— HSAC (@Harvard_Sports) February 2, 2015

These are gaudy numbers. Lynch is clearly an unstoppable force going up against an extremely moveable object. Why wouldn’t Carroll give him the ball?

First, some amount of passing is, at least theoretically, probably necessary. It’s unlikely that the optimal strategy is to run 100 percent of the time because if a team did that, the opponent would adjust accordingly. But for the purposes of this analysis, I’m going to assume that, for any given play from the 1-yard line, running was Seattle’s best option.

An NFL head coach’s goal isn’t to maximize his team’s chances of scoring a touchdown on a given play; it’s to maximize its chances of winning the game. That distinction seems to have gotten lost in all the rancor and rush to condemn Carroll.

Second, the fateful play didn’t take place as time expired. There were 26 seconds left. Let’s see what Seahawks offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell had to say:

“We were conscious of how much time was on the clock, and we wanted to use it all.”

But why would that lead to a pass? That takes less time off the clock than rushing. Let’s see what Carroll had to say:

“We were going to run the ball in to win the game, but not on that play,” he said. “I didn’t want to waste a run play on their goal-line guys. It was a clear thought, but it didn’t work out right.”

Defiant! Basically, he thought the Seahawks were going to score regardless, so he was willing to waste a play on a pass. If they scored, fine. But if they didn’t, at least they would’ve run a few seconds off the clock.

Sounds crazy, but he’s right: With 26 seconds left and only one timeout, the Seahawks couldn’t run Lynch three times in a row. If they rushed on second down, didn’t make it in, called timeout, rushed again, and still didn’t make it in, they’d probably be out of time before they could get off another play. So, the Seahawks had three downs to work with, but they could only run Lynch twice at most.

Thus the question isn’t whether the Seahawks should’ve called a run — we’ve already stipulated that. The question is when they should’ve called a run.

And this is where the logic of those Harvard tweets undoes itself. If Lynch were a sure thing, the Seahawks definitely wouldn’t run on second down. They’d want to run time off the clock. The scenario would be the same as when a team can win with a short field goal. Because the field goal is a sure thing, the team is willing to wait.

But as great as Lynch is, he isn’t the same a kicker attempting a 20-yard field goal. For this analysis, I’m going to assume he’s about 80 percent. If that sounds high or low, it doesn’t really matter: It’s not the most important factor in the calculation. The most important thing is the odds of the Patriots coming back to win if the Seahawks score too quickly.

Based on Advanced Football Analytics’ Win Probability Calculator, a team starting at the 25-yard line and down three points with 20 seconds left in the game will win about 5 percent of the time. However, there are a few problems with this:

AFA’s model may broadly underestimate the ability of modern kickers.

Even if it is generally right relative to the league today, it is still calibrated to the average NFL kicker, whereas Patriots kicker Stephen Gostkowski is one of the best long-range kickers in the league. Over his career, he has made 14 of 18 kicks from over 50 yards (78 percent), including eight of nine in the past three years.

The Patriots’ offense is not typical. It’s Tom Brady’s. Brady eats pieces of game-winning drives for breakfast.

Let’s spot the Pats some yards, then, and assume the Patriots win1 about as often as a typical team in the AFA model would2 if they started on the 40-yard line. That would give them a 14 percent chance. Maybe that’s generous, but we’re looking for an upper bound.

A secondary factor, noted by Brian Burke of AFA, is that stopping the clock by passing on second down also forces the defense to defend both the pass and run on third down (because the Seahawks still had a timeout). That would make Carroll’s decision better, so I’ll give him a 5 percent bonus in the “pro-passing” scenario and none in the pro-run scenario.

The main objection to this thinking seems to be: “But the risk of throwing an interception was too great.” As evidenced by, you know, the fact that Wilson threw an interception.

For this, I’ll turn first to Mike Sando, who had this to tweet:

#NFL teams this season threw 66 TD passes with 1 INT on passes from the 1-yard line. That 1 INT was … well … tonight.

— Mike Sando, ESPN.com (@SandoESPN) February 2, 2015

That’s right. On the 1-yard line, QBs threw 66 touchdowns with no interceptions prior to Wilson’s errant toss.3 Not mentioned: They also scored four touchdowns on scrambles (which Wilson is pretty good at last I checked). That’s a 60.9 percent success rate.

Just for comparison’s sake, here’s how more than 200 runs fared this year in the same situation:

125 led to touchdowns.

94 failed to score.

Of those, 23 were for loss of yardage.

Two resulted in lost fumbles.

So overall, runs do a bit worse than passes (57.1 percent vs. 60.9 percent).

But the Seahawks don’t have an average rusher; they have Beast Mode. As I said, we’re stipulating that he’s way more likely to score than a pass is, so his exact number doesn’t matter very much for our calculations. It does matter that he isn’t particularly fumble-prone — but he has still fumbled about 1 percent of the time in his career, which means passing carries an extra 1 percentage point of risk.

On the other hand, due to the peculiar scenario, it behooves a QB to play extremely carefully. Throwing an incomplete pass only moves the needle a tiny bit, whereas throwing an interception is devastating. Thus a coach might believe that his QB will throw a pick even less often than normal. So, we’ll try favorable and unfavorable assumptions about that as well.

Putting these various factors together, we can assign probabilities to various outcomes like so:

This isn’t about passions, and it isn’t about statistical mumbo-jumbo. It’s about arithmetic.

Under the most pro-Beast set of assumptions, rushing may have been the better play but by the slimmest of margins (0.3 percentage points). Under a more pro-Gostkowski set of assumptions, passing may have been the best play by up to 3 percentage points.

But we’re still discussing marginal improvements in odds. Pick which assumptions you like; it doesn’t really matter. Carroll’s decision wasn’t the epically bad call many have made it out to be.

On the other hand

Meanwhile, the coach on the other sideline had a mildly controversial call that history will forget because A) it was more than one play before the decisive play (people tend to have a short memory for these things), and the Patriots won, so who cares.

After Lynch ran 4 yards to set up second-and-goal at the 1, most people expected the Patriots to call a timeout. After all, there was a million percent chance that Beast Mode was going to score, so why not save as much time on the clock as possible?

Yet the Pats let the clock run, as if head coach Bill Belichick psychically knew the Seahawks would muck it up.

Of course, normally, the leading team wants to shorten the game to give its opponent the fewest number of opportunities to catch up as possible.

In this case, however, the Seahawks were going to get three shots at the end zone regardless.

That isn’t to say there is no benefit to letting the clock wind down. As already discussed, leaving only 26 seconds doesn’t leave Seattle enough time to attempt three rushes (which we’re stipulating are better plays for them).

So, when the Patriots had to decide whether to call a timeout, there were essentially three paths to victory for them:

Seattle turns the ball over on either second or third down. Letting the clock run slightly increases the chances of this, assuming the odds of a turnover are higher on a pass than a run (we’ll take it as about 2.5 percent combined instead of 2 percent).

Seattle fails to score on all three plays. Again, leaving the Seahawks a little less time probably increases the chances of this happening because it forces them to pass at least once. And we’ve seen how that worked out.

Seattle scores. New England gets the ball back and then goes on to win the game (most likely by kicking a field goal and then winning in overtime).

But the smaller amount of time the Patriots would have under scenario No. 3 easily dwarfs the other considerations. Belichick should have called a timeout. Here’s how the math looks under some assumptions that are fairly charitable to Belichick:

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

Don't agree, maybe on a normal sunday and not at end of the game, but not in that spot.

1) There's a 50/50 chance that Belichick just lets Lynch scores there like the Packers did

2) You don't make that call, in that spot to your 4th string WR on a weak unit to begin with

3) "Wasting a play" Is much better done by running it, so the clock runs down

4) Play action with a roll out and run pass option would be way more understandable. QB can see the field

1) There's a zero percent chance they let them score there. That decision was probably made before first down, but certainly once they don't call timeout immediately afterward they're not going red sea.

2) A guy with no catches ever saved their season in the first half. Then he caught a touchdown and another big one and nobody's calling Wilson an idiot for throwing it to him in the first place. Nobody's asking Lockette to perform open heart surgery here. Every receiver in the NFL is presumed competent to ******* run a slant hard.

3) I certainly thought they should have run the ball. I was jumping up and down when Lynch couldn't get lined up before the play because that is 100% never read-option. He's got nothing else to think about there besides getting on the right side of Wilson. I understand the idea behind throwing on second down, but I can't get behind it here either.

4) Play action seems terrible on the goal line. It's quick game only if you're going to throw it. Those receivers were having far too difficult a time getting open. No reason to risk a negative play there just for the pure hell of throwing the ball.

[Klecko73isGod]

You're not getting an easier pitch and catch than what Wilson had there, though. They just ****ed it up.

 

Just stop. 

 

He's never gonna be the Jets head coach. You can bury him. 

 

None of us can possibly think any less of you. 

[DaBallhawk]

The call itself was fine IMO but why take the risk? That's the only problem I have with the call. Why take the risk. With a run up the middle you'd eliminate the risk of turning the ball over or even getting sacked. I understand that the Pats were playing the run and that a run up the middle likely would not have ended in a TD but you still have 2 more shots after that. If take that much risk and you have a QB like Russell Wilson choking in that situation you don't deserve to win.

[CTM]

[HessStation]

Just stop. 

 

He's never gonna be the Jets head coach. You can bury him. 

 

None of us can possibly think any less of you. 

 

Holy crap lol. 

 

 

4) Play action seems terrible on the goal line. It's quick game only if you're going to throw it. Those receivers were having far too difficult a time getting open. No reason to risk a negative play there just for the pure hell of throwing the ball.

 

I agree run first, but hard to knock PA there when it worked in the 3rd quarter. The beauty of PA is you're not really asking anyone to get open on their own, per se. The play tends to work itself out or not. But even then you throw it in the back of the end zone and live another down.

[CTM]

4) Play action seems terrible on the goal line. It's quick game only if you're going to throw it. Those receivers were having far too difficult a time getting open. No reason to risk a negative play there just for the pure hell of throwing the ball.

 

I'm saying if you were intent on throwing, don't make that throw to this receiver. Play action or roll out run/pass option and toss it away if not there.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

I'm saying if you were intent on throwing, don't make that throw to this receiver. Play action or roll out run/pass option and toss it away if not there.

I don't see why this is better.

[AFJF]

The call itself was fine IMO but why take the risk? That's the only problem I have with the call. Why take the risk. With a run up the middle you'd eliminate the risk of turning the ball over or even getting sacked. I understand that the Pats were playing the run and that a run up the middle likely would not have ended in a TD but you still have 2 more shots after that. If take that much risk and you have a QB like Russell Wilson choking in that situation you don't deserve to win.

 

Exactly...the design or concept of the play was fine, but why put the ball in the air near the middle of the field? All this "but they had their goal line defense out there"...No kidding, that's because you should have had your goal line offense.  Jumbo + fatigued Pats + Marshawn = right call.

 

I've seriously  not seen or heard a single person agree with this decision outside of this board.

 

Every analyst, player, radio show host, fan...everyone.  Can't find a single person who says it was the right move, but countless "worst decision in history" comments.

[AFJF]

I don't see why this is better.

 

Defense is gonna' bite on PA to Lynch IMO.  Last thing in the world I'd do there is throw, but if I do I'm gonna' fake it to Lynch and let Wilson roll out.  Doesn't matter though...shouldn't even be a conversation about passing it.

[RSJ]

Bad playcall aside. At full speed I thought the Pats DB was there early. Then on replay I realized it was such a bad Pass the DB had full position to make the play. Terrible playcall - but terrible pass too.....

[CTM]

I don't see why this is better.

 

won't be passing into bodies with a short qb..

 

run pass option

 

easier to throw away on a rollout if not there

 

playing to your QB's strength

 

just safer

[SMC]

I see your wack sh*t and I raise you 538.com

 

The problem with the article is an improper assumption.  The Seahawks didn't have :26 seconds to run multiple plays and, thus, couldn't run Lynch 3 times.  They had :54 but wasted time coming up with the idiotic pass play which they needed to move players around the formation before the snap.

 

With :54 seconds they had more than enough time to run 3 plays with 1 TO in hand.

[CTM]

The problem with the article is an improper assumption.  The Seahawks didn't have :26 seconds to run multiple plays and, thus, couldn't run Lynch 3 times.  They had :54 but wasted time coming up with the idiotic pass play which they needed to move players around the formation before the snap.

 

With :54 seconds they had more than enough time to run 3 plays with 1 TO in hand.

 

 

I still don't understand why .26 seconds isn't enough time to run two dive plays and then call a timeout?

[jetsrebirth]

lol @ Paul Allen's reaction

 

 

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that particular shot was after the fluke catch, not the interception.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

won't be passing into bodies with a short qb..

run pass option

easier to throw away on a rollout if not there

playing to your QB's strength

just safer

I still don't know what you're talking about. Having the option to throw the ball away doesn't make dropback passes safer than quick passes. You don't have the option to throw the ball out of bounds on an inside handoff. Yes, you avoid the specific bad outcome that actually happened (not necessarily, but let's just say) but you're just ignoring the risks inherent in the road no taken because that one didn't get the chance to go wrong. Again, the routes don't develop and Wilson just gets creamed there. It's not the same as the play where Baldwin ran a drive and picked Revis off the ref. There's no vertical depth to use. The end zone is just trash, and it is at best a 50% chance you're rolling the quarterback right into a free runner. Play action is dumb there. It is. I get it, it seems like if you put a more slowly-developing play in there's more of an opportunity to avert the disaster that happened to unfold. End of the day, Lockette busts it, Wilson makes a little better throw, things are different. Butler doesn't make a great break on the ball, things are different. The blame the coordinator stuff is annoying because I already have to listen to all manner of retarded sh*t because these people hero-worship Jets players and refuse to ever blame them for anything, we don't need to insulate Russell Wilson the same way just because he happened to play the Patriots once.

[RutgersJetFan]

 The blame the coordinator stuff is annoying

 

If he calls a run there, are we even having this discussion?

[CTM]

I still don't know what you're talking about. Having the option to throw the ball away doesn't make dropback passes safer than quick passes. You don't have the option to throw the ball out of bounds on an inside handoff. Yes, you avoid the specific bad outcome that actually happened (not necessarily, but let's just say) but you're just ignoring the risks inherent in the road no taken because that one didn't get the chance to go wrong. Again, the routes don't develop and Wilson just gets creamed there. It's not the same as the play where Baldwin ran a drive and picked Revis off the ref. There's no vertical depth to use. The end zone is just trash, and it is at best a 50% chance you're rolling the quarterback right into a free runner. Play action is dumb there. It is. I get it, it seems like if you put a more slowly-developing play in there's more of an opportunity to avert the disaster that happened to unfold. End of the day, Lockette busts it, Wilson makes a little better throw, things are different. Butler doesn't make a great break on the ball, things are different. The blame the coordinator stuff is annoying because I already have to listen to all manner of retarded sh*t because these people hero-worship Jets players and refuse to ever blame them for anything, we don't need to insulate Russell Wilson the same way just because he happened to play the Patriots once.

 

I am not sure what you even arguing about, a hand off should've been the call. I am  saying that coming out in a passing formation and throwing to a guy with 11 catches all year as first read was stupid in that spot. NE defense was reeling after the fluke catch and lynch would've gotten in. The only reason I am even talking about pass is just to say that If you had a hard on to pass, there were better options then the one they picked

[Larz]

If he calls a run there, are we even having this discussion?

 

maybe lynch is getting roasted for pulling a byner today.  maybe they fumble the exchange on a read option.  maybe wilfat blows it up and stuffs it

 

in my view, the mistake was getting over concerned with the clock.  they went deep with 1:40 to go, then call plays to bleed it down as much as possible while belicheat has 3 timeouts with :24 to go

 

as they say the players play

[RutgersJetFan]

maybe lynch is getting roasted for pulling a byner today.  maybe they fumble the exchange on a read option.  maybe wilfat blows it up and stuffs it

 

Sure, nothing is 100%, but football is a game of percentages. Point being, Lynch probably gets in. Calling a much lower percentage play right there was beyond stupid. Russell wasn't some lone gunman. That play didn't just fall out of the sky. A decision was made to put him in that position.

[afosomf]

I still don't understand why .26 seconds isn't enough time to run two dive plays and then call a timeout?

bingo

 

also I would not have been adverse to a rollout or read option type play

[GimmeShelter]

I don't want to give anyone short shrift here that doesn't live in Jacksonville, so let me just say here:

1. The play call itself resulted in this:

Open receiver, scrambling rookie corner, clear lane to throw in. At this point, it was on Lockette to get to the spot. If he does, it's a TD or it's PI.

2. Handing it off to Lych twice is not a sure thing. Yes, the sample size is small, but even if you extrapolate it out and overcorrect for some BeastMode Factor, you aren't even close to "guaranteed" to score there with Lynch. This is the same group of fans that murders Schottenheimer for being too conservative against the Steelers at the goal line. If Lynch is stuffed twice and Wilson's pass play on 4th down is picked or knocked down, everyone is killing them for being too conservative. You're reacting to the result of the play and not the philosophy behind calling it.

3. Passing from the 1, according to PFF, has resulted in 66 TDs this season and one INT. That INT was last night.

4. Finally, if you want to kill Bevell for trying to be too clever, that's fine. But it's not the OMG worst play call of all time. It was a relatively high-percentage pass play that was undone by a receiver failing to do his job and a corner that did his.

 

No reason to put the ball in the air. None.

 

Sure it "should " have been an easy pitch and catch but it wasn't and there was no reason to call that play. There are too many things that could have and did go wrong when you measure them against the alternative of handing off to Lynch.

 

Is there anyone on the planet who thinks he would not have scored? Carroll could barely speak in trying to explain away the foolishness of that call.

 

* No one would have cried conservative if Lynch gets stopped three straight times. You tip your hat.  

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

If he calls a run there, are we even having this discussion?

Be kinda strange if we were. I don't see why it absolutely has to be left out that the execution was a disaster. I don't care about the weird emotional attachments of the people who spent the last two weeks talking ludicrous sh*t about the Patriots while I was busy getting my money in good. It's not optimal but it was there. Lockette ran a lazy route and Wilson placed a bad ball.

[CTM]

Be kinda strange if we were. I don't see why it absolutely has to be left out that the execution was a disaster. I don't care about the weird emotional attachments of the people who spent the last two weeks talking ludicrous sh*t about the Patriots while I was busy getting my money in good. It's not optimal but it was there. Lockette ran a lazy route and Wilson placed a bad ball.

 

imo, cause lockette should've never had the opportunity to run a lazy route and lose the SB