Carolinas Identity*
I'm a bad troll...
how many of them had Liam Neeson eating a scone at a coffee shop while plotting the demise of poor bigbuffetboy85?
GDT: Super Bowl 49
- Thread starter HisIceness
- Start date
how many of them had Liam Neeson eating a scone at a coffee shop while plotting the demise of poor bigbuffetboy85?
- Oct 31, 2007
- 40,643
- 47,247
Forget all the fancy stats. It comes down to one obvious choice: Play for 3 downs and risk losing the ball to a turnover on those 3 downs, or put your team ahead in the dying seconds of the Superbowl and bet on your defense getting the job done.
While 26 is a deceivingly high amount of time, I'd still rather play with the lead and attempt to defend it than plan out 3 plays down the line and hope one works
While 26 is a deceivingly high amount of time, I'd still rather play with the lead and attempt to defend it than plan out 3 plays down the line and hope one works
Oogie Boogie
Registered User
- Apr 9, 2011
- 24,175
- 3,210
This. All day.
Don't let time wind down to the very last second in an attempt to try and win the game when you possibly won't be able to. Score as quick as you can and defend the lead.
the halleJOKEL
strong as brickwall
one of the other ones had a celebrity too but i forget which game and which celebrity
Ole Gil
Registered User
- May 9, 2009
- 5,764
- 9,204
http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/102175/inside-seattles-decision-to-pass-from-the-1
This season, of the 109 passes from the 1, this was the only interception.
On 2nd and 1 from the GL over past 10 seasons, this was 5th int in 270 attempts.
Turnover rate running the ball from 1 is 1.5% over 5 seasons.
---
Other things I read that hadn't thought of: Passing on 2nd down means you can run or pass on 3rd down. Running on 2nd down means you can only pass on 3rd down.
This season, of the 109 passes from the 1, this was the only interception.
On 2nd and 1 from the GL over past 10 seasons, this was 5th int in 270 attempts.
Turnover rate running the ball from 1 is 1.5% over 5 seasons.
---
Other things I read that hadn't thought of: Passing on 2nd down means you can run or pass on 3rd down. Running on 2nd down means you can only pass on 3rd down.
raynman
Registered User
- Jan 20, 2013
- 5,058
- 11,173
- Oct 31, 2007
- 40,643
- 47,247
And yet, all it took was one turnover to cause them to lose the Superbowl. The coach was guilty of overthinking the situation. While there are times to plan out your next couple of plays, that was a no-brainer situation. Get the points, put your team ahead and put the pressure on the Patriots to win the game.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Ole Gil
Registered User
- May 9, 2009
- 5,764
- 9,204
You only get two plays if you run twice. Getting 3 plays off is a big deal odds wise.
Didn't see this. That sums it up. A shame the Burke guys website is down.
Didn't see this. That sums it up. A shame the Burke guys website is down.
- Oct 31, 2007
- 40,643
- 47,247
Or you could run 1 play, get the touchdown and not worry about what you might have to do on 3rd and 4th down.
Ole Gil
Registered User
- May 9, 2009
- 5,764
- 9,204
Lynch got 5 carries from the 1 this year, and scored on 1 of them.
5/1 = 500%! That's an average of 30 points a run, unless my math is wrong.
What the Faulk
You'll know when you go
That 538 article is fascinating. I didn't realize the percentages were so close. This is going to provide an interesting topic of conversation, if everyone can shut the **** up about Brady's legacy for a second.
- Oct 31, 2007
- 40,643
- 47,247
And as already stated, he's 45% in his career, and had a great game up to that point (apparently. Again, didn't watch it). If you can't trust your team enough to give the ball to your running back in that situation, what the hell kind of coach are you?
Ole Gil
Registered User
- May 9, 2009
- 5,764
- 9,204
Are you saying a good head coach would pretend that his RB is going to score 100% of the time?
- Oct 31, 2007
- 40,643
- 47,247
A good head coach is going to give his star RB, an RB considered one of the best in the league, a chance to gain 1 yard to take the lead in the final seconds of the Superbowl. Yes, that's what I'm saying.
Now, the same could be said of his QB, but the risk that a ball is intercepted is higher than the risk that the ball is fumbled.
I get that he was trying to run the clock out, but why even take it to that point? Get the points. Play with the lead, then worry about how you're going to prevent NE from scoring.
Ole Gil
Registered User
- May 9, 2009
- 5,764
- 9,204
- Oct 31, 2007
- 40,643
- 47,247
It's not nearly as cut and dry as the screaming idiots are making it out to be. Everyone on Twitter got some sleep, some perspective, and realized that *passing* was not the ridiculous play that everyone had made it out to be.
You can question the pass play...someone mentioned a bubble screen earlier, no way. Gets tackled in bounds and you have to take your final timeout. Which makes the last play a pass as well. Lots of variables to it.
You can question the pass play...someone mentioned a bubble screen earlier, no way. Gets tackled in bounds and you have to take your final timeout. Which makes the last play a pass as well. Lots of variables to it.
Finlandia WOAT
No blocks, No slappers
- May 23, 2010
- 24,415
- 24,690
They were trying to get points though. It wasn't a throwaway play.
The difference is that if a pass fails the clock stops. If a run fails the hawks are forced to take their final timeout. Wilson is considered one of the most accurate passers in the game, and a short slant is one of the safests throws you can do.
And ironically, Wilson trying to lead his reciever is what led to the pass being picked off.
Ole Gil
Registered User
- May 9, 2009
- 5,764
- 9,204
You're quite confident in your opinion. What would you say is the source of that confidence? Why are you so sure your 'gut' feeling based on a couple almost stats and nothing else is right, and the other argument you don't really understand is wrong?
How is it not shaken by the massive amount of information that you not only don't have but aren't particularly interested in? This is one of those things I've always been curious about (not you, just in general).
Anton Babchuk
Registered User
the freakout is more results-based nonsense.
if the play had worked it would be the best and most clutchiest call ever.
similar to how the catch by whatever his name (i don't watch football sry) will now be mostly forgotten because they didn't win.
basically what often happens in sports is one team wins and people spend a bunch of time trying to explain why they won/why the other team didn't win instead of just accepting that a lot of it just comes down to random chance. i mean, if you repeat that play 100 times how many times does it get intercepted?
similarly, if whats-his-face who people wanted to run the ball had been stopped, it would have been THE BEST DEFENSIVE PLAY EVER BY THE CLUTCH PATRIOTS.
i don't even watch football and i am more knowledgeable than almost 100% of football fans.
if the play had worked it would be the best and most clutchiest call ever.
similar to how the catch by whatever his name (i don't watch football sry) will now be mostly forgotten because they didn't win.
basically what often happens in sports is one team wins and people spend a bunch of time trying to explain why they won/why the other team didn't win instead of just accepting that a lot of it just comes down to random chance. i mean, if you repeat that play 100 times how many times does it get intercepted?
similarly, if whats-his-face who people wanted to run the ball had been stopped, it would have been THE BEST DEFENSIVE PLAY EVER BY THE CLUTCH PATRIOTS.
i don't even watch football and i am more knowledgeable than almost 100% of football fans.
Carolinas Identity*
I'm a bad troll...
What the Faulk
You'll know when you go
Well, chances are if they run that same pass 100 times it'd fail a large percentage of the time because Butler recognized the play immediately. There are some stills showing he broke on the ball before Wilson even set up to throw. Sometimes the defense just plays it perfectly.
- Oct 31, 2007
- 40,643
- 47,247
I understand the opposing argument. I simply think it was the wrong decision. The coach played that 2nd down under the assumption that he would have two more plays to run after it. That's a foolish assumption, especially with the title on the line.
How is this short-yard situation different than the thousands of other 1-2 yard decisions that have happened throughout the NFL season (whether it's for a first down or a touchdown)? You know, where teams will generally run the ball? If anything, because it's in the red zone, teams are generally more wary about passing, because there's more opposing players packed in a tighter space, making the likelihood that the ball is tipped, intercepted, whathaveyou if you pass it much higher.
Again, that's under the assumption they would have two more plays to run after the pass failed. Which, it turns out, they didn't.
Anton Dubinchuk
aho
i feel like this just isnt true. i dont have any new stats to back it up, but like someone above said, there were 109 passes on the 1 yard line this year. thats a lot of passes. there were zero interceptions. thats not a lot of interceptions.
meanwhile, its completely reasonable (perhaps more reasonable) to think that a running back could fumble on the goal line than a qb throw a pick on the 1. enter the whole time management thing and i dont think a pass was the wrong call. that being said, i wouldve done a fade back corner on whoever wasnt revis/browner, but thats just me. then run it twice.
clearly this is going to end in agree to disagree, so i will stop now.
