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.
The Seahawks were a phenomenally successful power-running team this season. According to Football Outsiders, in fact, they were the second-best power team in the league, converting 81 percent of power runs (described as third or fourth down and/or any goal-to-go situation with 2 yards or less to go) into first downs or touchdowns.
In the regular season and playoffs combined, Seattle had run 89 plays with 2 yards or less to go (in games separated by two touchdowns or less) before that fateful pass. They had called for a run on 66 of those plays (74.2 percent), compared to only 23 pass attempts. If we widen the sample to the three years that Russell Wilson has been in the league, they had called 181 runs to 75 passes in similar situations, a run rate of 70.7 percent.
They had faced five similar situations earlier in the Super Bowl alone and had given the ball to Lynch four of those times, with him converting once for a touchdown and once for a first down (Note: The only throw was an incomplete pass to Jermaine Kearse, who was being covered by ... Malcolm Butler). This is all by way of saying that this specific Seahawks team even calling a pass play in this situation was an extremely rare occurrence.
Since 1998, teams had been faced with second-and-goal from inside the 2-yard line, with less than five minutes left in a game where they were down between four and eight points (so it is still a one-possession game but they are in need of a touchown) 81 times. Of those 81 plays, 47 were runs and 34 were passes. That's a pass play rate of 42 percent, which is not all that low, but it's significantly higher than the rate at which Seattle called passes in 2-yards-to-go situations this season and over the past three.
On those 47 running plays, teams had scored 25 touchdowns and fumbled twice. That's a touchdown rate of 53.2 percent. Pretty good stuff. Considering it was Marshawn Lynch in the backfield, I think it's fairly safe to say Seattle's odds of scoring if they had run the ball might have been even higher than that.
Meanwhile, on those 34 pass plays, teams had gone 14 of 33 for 14 touchdowns and one sack. That's a touchdown rate of 41.2 percent, significantly lower when compared to the rate of teams that ran the ball in similar situations.
Since there's fancy stats for the "Pass was correct" side...
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25017292/super-bowl-49-how-unlikely-was-russell-wilsons-interception
In other words, even statistically speaking, he would have been better off running the ball.
either you dont know what those statistics mean or youre missing the point. no one said they were more likely to score on that play by passing. all were saying is that its better to go pass run run than run run.Since there's fancy stats for the "Pass was correct" side...
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25017292/super-bowl-49-how-unlikely-was-russell-wilsons-interception
In other words, even statistically speaking, he would have been better off running the ball.
But it wasn't running 3 plays or 2. Because, again, that assumes you get 3 plays or 2. All that matters is what you should do on THAT play, because THAT play was the only guaranteed one you have.
Yes, if he was guaranteed 3 plays, pass/run/run was correct. But since that was impossible to guarantee, you run the play that is most likely to get you in the endzone and put your team ahead in the final seconds of the Super Bowl. Which was a run.
using your stats, its actually probably a fairly easy probalistic model (granted, an incomplete one) that says you're wrong.
Man, I'm FAR from a fancy-stats h8r type of fan.
But when it gets to the point that you're justifying a slant pass on the 1 to win the Super Bowl, you're doing it wrong.
I don't give a **** if the pass gives them 2 more plays. That has zero relevance because they have Lynch and a timeout on the 1 in the ****ing Super Bowl. Throwing in that situation is supposed to be a "safe" play, are you kidding me?
It's not a safe play because you are laying the ball out there for the defense to intercept and steal a championship right from out of your grasp... which is exactly what happened. The coach tried to be a smart guy and play ridiculous percentages three plays ahead so he could kill 10 meaningless seconds, and he lost the ****ing Super Bowl.
Seriously, this "results-based thinking" stuff has its place but it becomes ridiculous after a point. This was a glaringly horrible call that shocked every football fan, player and coach in the world. Bending backwards to prove that it was the "right" call because some obscure stat says so... come on, man. Sometimes sports really is as simple as, "here's the ball, there's the goal line, man up and win the game."
All of which serve as evidence as to why the run would have been a better play there. Yes, the coach's reasoning was solid if you work under the assumption that he had 3 plays to work with. Since he didn't, it falls apart.
I wonder how many times a team has taken the lead in the final minute of a game and held onto it to win the game? Since the reasoning he gave for wanting to run the 3 plays is to run the clock to 0.1. Again, the reasoning is solid, since you don't want to give the other team the ball back, but given Seattle's defense, getting the points and defending the lead seems like a more solid plan.
my math was done assuming that a turnover ends the drive. percentages still end up higher.
^ Yes
All your math shows is that having an additional play gives a better odd of scoring a touchdown. That having 3 shots at the end zone has a better chance of scoring a touchdown than 2. Nothing ground-breaking there.
Your math showed that in the first play of the drive, there was a 65% chance of the run scoring. That, combined with Seattle's 81% conversation rate of short-down power running, is all I needed to see. If that scores, the odds of scoring on the next two plays don't matter.
If you have a 65% chance of scoring on a run, or a 40% chance of scoring on a pass (and a lower turnover rate on the run play as well), why in the world would you attempt to justify the pass as the correct decision?
because you get three of them. if you dont pass, you get two.
accepting of my math or not, you are revealing to me here that your ability to interpret statistics leaves much to be desired. the last paragraph of your post is not making your case very well here.
All it tells me is that you're treating it as a purely statistical standpoint and not taking into account that we're talking about an actual game here. If you told any coach that he could win the Superbowl with a touchdown and offered him the choice between two plays, one with a 65% chance of success and one with a 40% chance, what play do you think will be picked?
Getting 3 or 2 plays doesn't matter if you score. The point, ultimately, was to score the game-winning touchdown. Your own statistics showed that they had a significantly better chance of scoring if they ran the ball initially. There's not much to interpret there.
if i asked any coach if he had two attempts at 65% or an attempt at 40% and THEN two at 65% he would take the latter every time because he probably studied statistics at above an 8th grade level. my own statistics did NOT show that, again, you are showing me that you dont remotely know how to interpret statistics.
Well, like you said earlier, we'll agree to disagree. Planning on running 3 plays to earn a 1.2% better chance of scoring than running 2 doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense. Especially when you consider mitigating factors that won't show up on statistics, like the possibility of a penalty and the subsequent pressure/confidence of Seattle/New England players.
Like I said earlier, if 81% of the time, Seattle had converted on 2 or less yards by running the ball, that's all I would need to hear. Don't worry about the clock, run the ball, get the score, and let your defense win you the game.
I'd think the coaches would want to leave less to chance (hence why he wanted to run the clock down to .1 in the first place). Is 1% really worth running an additional play and risk having something go wrong?