# The Super Bowl



## Rich

What do you think? Personally, I would never bet against Brady and the Patriots. I do like Pete Carroll and the Seahawks, but I don't think they can beat the Pats. 

Rich


----------



## djlong

The Seahawks scare me. To me, the difference will come down to the fact that the usual Patriots defensive scheme of "be paper maiche until the 20 yard line and force field goals while we score touchdowns" won't work. Seattle has too much ground power.

Unless Seattle comes out and screws up for 55 minutes like they did against Green Bay, I'm predicting an unhappy time for Monday morning.

In order to win, the Patriots have to come out fast and keep going. They have to force Seattle to pass the ball more than they want to because their running game is ferocious.


----------



## yosoyellobo

Who's playing. 
http://www.gocomics.com/the-born-loser/2015/01/27/


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

Hawks +1


----------



## MysteryMan

Rich said:


> What do you think? Personally, I would never bet against Brady and the Patriots. I do like Pete Carroll and the Seahawks, but I don't think they can beat the Pats.
> 
> Rich


People said the same thing about the Giants and they beat the Patriots in two Super Bowls. Don't underestimate the Seahawks.


----------



## Laxguy

*Go PATS! *

( I happen to despise the whiny little Pete Carroll)


----------



## chevyguy559

As a 49er fan, I hope the Pats put a hurting on the dirty birds


----------



## tonyd79

I'd bet on the Seahawks as the NFL does not want the Patriots to win during deflategate. Ask the Seahawks how a few calls can ruin your whole Super Bowl.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

The thing about the Patriots and the Super Bowl...

They won the first 3 with Brady & Belichick... they have lost the last 2. ALL the games have been close.

There's no reason to think this will not be another close game... but the trend has been down for the Patriots rather than up.

It's hard to repeat... but about 95% of that is getting back to the game for a second time. Most teams don't get there to even try to repeat. It's appropriate that Seattle will have to beat the last team that did repeat in order to repeat themselves.

To me this is a "pick 'em" game. Both teams are good and well-coached. I'm not a betting man, but if I were I would hold my money tight and not put any on this game.


----------



## sigma1914

I hate the Patriots - C'mon Seattle.


GO GIANTS!!!!!


----------



## randyk47

Guess my avatar says it all. GO HAWKS!!!!


----------



## acer505

The Pats will win by 14 points.

GO PATS....


----------



## Laxguy

I can see why Texans hate New England, but to side up with the Shehawks??


----------



## 4HiMarks

You'd have to go back to the Bills in the early 90's to find a team that went to at least 2 consecutive Super Bowls and lost the 2nd one. Only two teams ever won one and then lost the next - Washington (XVII and XVIII) and Dallas (XII and XIII).


----------



## Rich

MysteryMan said:


> People said the same thing about the Giants and they beat the Patriots in two Super Bowls. Don't underestimate the Seahawks.


I got a TV out of one of them. Bet big on the Giants. I'm not underestimating the Seahawks, but they did play a pretty bad game against the Packers. The Pack really deserved to win that one. I don't really care who wins, as long as it's a good game.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> *Go PATS! *
> 
> ( I happen to despise the whiny little Pete Carroll)


I've always liked Pete Carroll. Wish the Jets had kept him.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Stewart Vernon said:


> The thing about the Patriots and the Super Bowl...
> 
> They won the first 3 with Brady & Belichick... they have lost the last 2. ALL the games have been close.
> 
> There's no reason to think this will not be another close game... but the trend has been down for the Patriots rather than up.
> 
> It's hard to repeat... but about 95% of that is getting back to the game for a second time. Most teams don't get there to even try to repeat. It's appropriate that Seattle will have to beat the last team that did repeat in order to repeat themselves.
> 
> To me this is a "pick 'em" game. Both teams are good and well-coached. _*I'm not a betting man*_, but if I were I would hold my money tight and not put any on this game.


I was and I'd probably bet a bundle on the Pats.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> I can see why Texans hate New England, but to side up with the Shehawks??


Football fans are an odd lot. Who in their right mind would remain a Jets' fan for as long as I have?

Rich


----------



## Steve

Rich said:


> The Pack really deserved to win that one.


I have to disagree, Rich. I'm a Giants fan, but was rooting for Rodgers and I don't think they deserved to win that one. I do think they _should _have won. There were a couple of opportunities for them to put the game out of reach, and they failed to take advantage of them.

I think Seattle, while less talented, _deserved _the win for not giving up and playing hard for a full 60+ minutes.


----------



## Laxguy

Rich said:


> I've always liked Pete Carroll. Wish the Jets had kept him.


He pretty well f****** up USC, and left just when it was hitting the fan.


----------



## Laxguy

Steve said:


> I have to disagree, Rich. I'm a Giants fan, but was rooting for Rodgers and I don't think they deserved to win that one. I do think they _should _have won. There were a couple of opportunities for them to put the game out of reach, and they failed to take advantage of them.
> 
> I think Seattle, while less talented, _deserved _the win for not giving up and playing hard for a full 60+ minutes.


Nice points, and I agree. A couple of real ham handed defensive plays, a muffed onsides and that was all that was needed to open the door a crack for the Seahawks to make an incredible comeback. Credit to them.

And, yeah, if The Pack had made one TD instead of the FGs in the first quarter, results likely different. But the calls were right to get the sure threes at the time.


----------



## Steve

acer505 said:


> The Pats will win by 14 points.


I'm rooting for the NFC, but if you put a gun to my head, I'd have to agree with you.


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> I have to disagree, Rich. I'm a Giants fan, but was rooting for Rodgers and I don't think they deserved to win that one. I do think they _should _have won. There were a couple of opportunities for them to put the game out of reach, and they failed to take advantage of them.
> 
> I think Seattle, while less talented, _deserved _the win for not giving up and playing hard for a full 60+ minutes.


Good points. I still have a hard time believing what I saw in the last couple minutes of that game.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> Nice points, and I agree. A couple of real ham handed defensive plays, a muffed onsides and that was all that was needed to open the door a crack for the Seahawks to make an incredible comeback. Credit to them.
> 
> And, yeah, if The Pack had made one TD instead of the FGs in the first quarter, results likely different. But the calls were right to get the sure threes at the time.


I think those two field goals were a conservative move because of Rodger's leg. I don't think the Packers coaching staff thought he'd play as well as he did. I heard something that bothered me before the game when one of the Packers coaches was talking to the press. He said something like (I'm paraphrasing here) you don't throw with your legs, you throw with your arm. You don't throw with your legs? Yeah, you can sit in a chair and throw a football or a baseball, but it's not gonna go where you want it to most of the time. I think the Packers coaches had little faith in Rodger's leg holding out and I don't know what Plan B was if he went down.

That poor guy that tried to catch the short kick with his helmet...I really feel sorry for him. He's got to live with that for a long time.

And then there's destiny. Sometimes teams seem to be just destined to win.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> I'm rooting for the NFC, but if you put a gun to my head, I'd have to agree with you.


When I was betting, Brady was one of the QBs I never bet against. And, let's face it, Bill Belichick, no matter how miserable a person he seems to be, is a genius on the field. I hope it's not a blowout.

Rich


----------



## Athlon646464

After the Pats win in the AFC Championship game here is what I said to my wife:

One of these five things will happen in the Superbowl, and the likelihood of each are ranked as follows....

1) Patriots win in a nailbiter
2) Seahawks win in a nailbiter
3) Patriots win in a blowout
4) Seahawks win in a blowout
5) Patriots are disqualified

We can cross #5 off now...... :grin:


----------



## Laxguy

For the bazillion dollars to the NFL on Sunday, there's no way in hell the Pats would be disqualified. Well, maybe, and bring in the Colts?? We know now that's not on, but I suppose could have been considered by the NF brass at the time of the balltroversy.


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> For the bazillion dollars to the NFL on Sunday, there's no way in hell the Pats would be disqualified. Well, maybe, and bring in the Colts?? We know now that's not on, but I suppose could have been considered by the NF brass at the time of the balltroversy.


I can't imagine the uproar that would ensue if the SB was cancelled.

Rich


----------



## tonyd79

Wait until the uproar if they win and the NFL says they cheated their way to get there.

I'm telling you, the fix is in. Bet on the Hawks.


----------



## yosoyellobo

tonyd79 said:


> Wait until the uproar if they win and the NFL says they cheated their way to get there.
> 
> I'm telling you, the fix is in. Bet on the Hawks.


Give me my banana so I can call Juanito.


----------



## James Long

Laxguy said:


> For the bazillion dollars to the NFL on Sunday, there's no way in hell the Pats would be disqualified. Well, maybe, and bring in the Colts?? We know now that's not on, but I suppose could have been considered by the NF brass at the time of the balltroversy.


The cheating did not change the outcome of the game against the Colts. There were no problems with the balls in the second half of the Colts loss.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

The only real problem I have is the weird and inconsistent way in which the NFL handles things.

The Pats may or may not have violated a rule by tampering with the balls... but they must do a thorough investigation and can't be quick to punish or judge or anything until after the Super Bowl... meanwhile, if a certain player had worn the wrong color shoes last weekend he was told he would be fined and not eligible to play in the Superbowl.

So... some violate some rules that don't affect the outcome of the game and nothing happens... but some violate rules that also don't affect the outcome of games and they would be immediately banned from the game and would have to go through an appeals process.

Maybe the Pats was a rogue ball-boy... but it's weird that this particular rule isn't getting the "letter of the law" enforcement that other rules would get. Players have been fined and appealed and got their money back but not retroactively able to play in games they were banned from... but the NFL doesn't want to enforce this particular rule "too quickly"...

That's the thing that bugs me. The Colts weren't ripped off, even if the Pats knowingly cheated in this particular way... so no harm done to the Colts really to rectify... which is good... but man the NFL needs to get a grip on how they handle rules and investigations and stuff. They keep doing the keystone cops routine and enforcing silly stuff and missing the bigger picture.


----------



## Laxguy

It's all about the money. Overly privileged players who want to showoff by wearing show boat shoes or not speaking at press conferences cost the NFL money by abrogating contracts they have with shoe companies and networks. Bending the rules, or cheating in these instances doesn't cost the league. At least not immediately, but over the long term, integrity has been lessened, so we're back to being mostly in agreement: There will be some fans who blow off pro FB due to that.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Yeah... and that's the problem the NFL finds itself in at the moment... trying to say "it isn't all about the money" while clearly operating as if it is only about the money. I could actually have more respect for them if they just were honest about that, in say the same way they expect their players to show up and talk at media day... the NFL could show up and say "it's about the money" 

I don't even have a problem with the Patriots... and in this case IF someone tried to get away with something and didn't get caught, it would be hard to blame them when you know other stuff like drug use is going on and not always being caught either... It's kind of like the NFL is just doing the low-hanging fruit thing... punishing people it is easy to catch, and the trickier stuff they try to drag out and hope people forget.

It's hard to believe it is really taking them this long to figure out what happened with those footballs. It's such a minor thing, and seems like it ought to be relatively easy to track down since surely a limited number of people had access to those footballs. It gives the appearance that they really already have an answer and are trying to wait until after the season to hand out punishment... whereas other rule violations that a player might commit (rather than a team, coach, or owner) get a quicker smackdown.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Rich said:


> What do you think?


They need to stop unsing roman numerals and start the game earlier.


----------



## yosoyellobo

TheRatPatrol said:


> They need to stop unsing roman numerals and start the game earlier.


Fifteen minutes half time.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Since division 1 college football now has the "college playoff"... does the NFL need to change the name from "Super Bowl" to "Super Championship"?


----------



## camo

I think this could end up being a very entertaining game. I wouldn't count Seattle out for sure, remember last year going against the seemly at the time invincible Broncos, Seattle was a big underdog, Same could happen this year but doubt it, could be a dog fight and buzzer beater in the end. 

As far as who did it (deflategate) of course the ball boy did it whether instructed or on his own, he knows Brady likes soft balls !rolling and by sticking his wet needle in 11 of 12 balls (missed one) for a few seconds a pound or so of air drops. Remember there is not much volume of air in a football so just 5 seconds per ball will drop the air pressure. However we all know this didn't change the outcome of the game against the Colts.


----------



## Steve

Interesting read, IMO, courtesy of today's NYTimes.com.



> *The Worst 4th-Down Decisions in Super Bowl History*
> 
> [...] We have analyzed every fourth-down decision in the Super Bowl since 2000 - to rank the most damaging ones. We have also looked back at the decades before 2000 (when the game was somewhat different, with less offense) for other mistakes.
> 
> The analysis suggests that about 30 percent of all fourth-down decisions in the last 15 Super Bowls have been problematic. Despite Belichick's reputation for being aggressive on fourth down, his error rate is nearly identical to the average. On five occasions in the Patriots' last five Super Bowls, he has ordered a dubious punt on fourth-and-3 or shorter.
> 
> [_*more*_]


----------



## Rich

TheRatPatrol said:


> They need to stop unsing roman numerals and start the game earlier.


Agree with that, I do.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> Interesting read, IMO, courtesy of today's NYTimes.com.


Great link, thanx. I particularly liked this line: But history and statistics both suggest that caution is often the worse move. 

If General Patton could have coached in the NFL he would have attacked, attacked, attacked. Works for an army, would have worked for the Packers. I can understand why he had those two early field goals kicked, tho. Even in baseball, the more aggressive teams seem to do better.

Rich


----------



## Athlon646464

TheRatPatrol said:


> They need to stop unsing roman numerals and start the game earlier.


That's the IXth time I've heard that today....


----------



## Steve

Rich said:


> Works for an army, would have worked for the Packers. I can understand why he had those two early field goals kicked, tho.


Ya. if he went one for two on those fourth downs, that extra 1 point net might have made the difference in regulation. And even if he went 0-2, the crappy field position for Seattle might have provided other opportunities. Easy for us to say, tho.


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> Ya. if he went one for two on those fourth downs, that extra 1 point net might have made the difference in regulation. And even if he went 0-2, the crappy field position for Seattle might have provided other opportunities. Easy for us to say, tho.


In retrospect, yes. At the time I was hoping they'd go for the touchdowns and those field goals probably cost them the game. But, who knows, the lucky teams seem to do some things that always work.

Rich


----------



## Stewart Vernon

The roman numerals are what make for cool graphics and logos.

Super Bowl 49

vs

Super Bowl XLIX


You can make a much cooler logo out of the one using the roman numerals.


----------



## MysteryMan

Stewart Vernon said:


> The roman numerals are what make for cool graphics and logos.
> 
> Super Bowl 49
> 
> vs
> 
> Super Bowl XLIX
> 
> You can make a much cooler logo out of the one using the roman numerals.


I agree. A lot more flare using Roman numerals.


----------



## James Long

TheRatPatrol said:


> They need to stop unsing roman numerals and start the game earlier.


Next year would be Super Bowl L. It would be as good as time as any to stop. L does not look like a numeral. But here is a story from last June ...

NFL to ditch Roman numerals for Super Bowl 50

Due to concerns over using a sole "L" for the 50th Super Bowl logo, the 2016 NFL championship will be known as Super Bowl 50. The league has used a Roman numeral to denote every title game since Super Bowl V.
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/06/nfl-super-bowl-50-roman-numerals-l

Next year's cool logo:


----------



## Athlon646464




----------



## Laxguy

I don't really pay attention, though I've read about it LVIII times. 

Kinda lame after reading the other posts. But we're on the same page. SB 50 definitely looks better than SB L.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

50 is probably the exception that proves the rule 

Although... there is a finger/thumb "L" over the Super Bowl trophy logo idea in my head that would work well for a blowout game if that turned out to be the case next year


----------



## Steve

I've seen a couple of Brady sneaks over the years, but had no idea he was so good at it. From The New York Times:



> *A Tom Brady Sneak Is the Patriots' Unstoppable Play*
> CHANDLER, Ariz. - The most automatic play in the Patriots' offensive playbook over the last 14 seasons involves Tom Brady, but it is not a pass. It is having Brady tuck the ball and lower his shoulder and shimmy into a narrow gap, gaining inch after bruising inch, the quarterback with a fullback's mentality.
> 
> Brady is as unstoppable as a crash of rhinos on third or fourth down and 2 yards or less to go, the rushing equivalent of a back-shoulder throw from Aaron Rodgers. Counting the postseason, Brady has run in those situations 115 times, according to play-by-play data from Pro Football Reference. He has gotten a first down or scored a touchdown on 105 of them, a success rate of 91.3 percent. Over one stretch, spanning more than seven years, he converted 60 of 61, including 37 straight.
> 
> [_*more*_]


----------



## satexplorer

October 2012 Patriots led Seahawks in the third quarter. The game was played in Seattle. Seahawks won 24-23.

The same two teams play on neutral venue for this game. As of now, it's still a pick 'em game. Keep watching that line during halftime.


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> I've seen a couple of Brady sneaks over the years, but had no idea he was so good at it. From The New York Times:


I had noticed that over the years. I didn't realize he was that effective.

Rich


----------



## Laxguy

I've asked this in another thread, but this has wider distribution, and is simply: Why isn't the SB broadcast in 1080p?


----------



## Laxguy

Laxguy said:


> I've asked this in another thread, but this has wider distribution, and is simply: Why isn't the SB broadcast in 1080p?


Answered in other thread by slice:



> The problem is that Directv receivers can only output 1080p at 24 fps. Much better for sports to have 720p at 60 fps than 1080p at 24 fps.


 And I believe 1080i @ 60 fps is better still....but we get what we'll get.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

1080i 60fps is the equivalent of 1080p 30fps the way it all shakes out... which is still better than the typically delivered 1080p 24fps on most providers for VOD and the like. I don't know that there is a broadcast standard that even includes 1080p at 60fps... and there would be a LOT of displays out there that cannot handle it so I'm not sure it should be expected any time soon.

1080p 60fps looks like it might be leapfrogged by 4K since it would require revisiting standards anyway, so why not go up to 4K? Not that we will get that in high-quality "soon" but I expect to see low-end 4K broadcast and never see 1080p 60fps now.


----------



## Laxguy

Stewart Vernon said:


> 1080i 60fps is the equivalent of 1080p 30fps the way it all shakes out... which is still better than the typically delivered 1080p 24fps on most providers for VOD and the like.


I thought the 24 fps was a long time film (read: movie) standard and that 30 fps didn't look quite right. I am sure someone can explain more fully- or refute.


----------



## James Long

Laxguy said:


> I thought the 24 fps was a long time film (read: movie) standard and that 30 fps didn't look quite right. I am sure someone can explain more fully- or refute.


When converting 24 fps film to p/30 or i/60 video the additional frames are created, usually through a pulldown process.

I'm not sure why p/24 did not catch on for movie channels ... perhaps it is because early HD sets did not do 1080p/24 and programmers wanted their programming to be seen without the TV doing the conversion. 1080p/24 is a valid standard that is required to be able to be tuned by every ATSC tuner - but I do not believe anyone is using it OTA.


----------



## trh

James Long said:


> The cheating did not change the outcome of the game against the Colts. There were no problems with the balls in the second half of the Colts loss.


You're not saying it's OK to cheat, are you?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Laxguy said:


> I thought the 24 fps was a long time film (read: movie) standard and that 30 fps didn't look quite right. I am sure someone can explain more fully- or refute.


Conversion is a horse of another color. I think a lot of people hear bad things about one format or another that is really the result of a conversion factor that is imprecise. I think if something was shot natively at 30fps it would be fine... but something shot at 24fps and then transmitted at 30fps can sometimes be awkward.



James Long said:


> When converting 24 fps film to p/30 or i/60 video the additional frames are created, usually through a pulldown process.
> 
> I'm not sure why p/24 did not catch on for movie channels ... perhaps it is because early HD sets did not do 1080p/24 and programmers wanted their programming to be seen without the TV doing the conversion. 1080p/24 is a valid standard that is required to be able to be tuned by every ATSC tuner - but I do not believe anyone is using it OTA.


Yeah... that's what kind of surprises me... when you figure movies are filmed that way... it seems like a natural fit for the mostly movie channel to transmit in 1080p 24fps. It would actually save some bandwidth over 1080i 60fps too. You may be right, though, about all the early HDTVs that didn't support that mode. My first HDTV did not... the one I have now does... no telling how many HDTVs still in service that don't support 1080p 24fps as a valid mode.


----------



## HDJulie

4HiMarks said:


> You'd have to go back to the Bills in the early 90's to find a team that went to at least 2 consecutive Super Bowls and lost the 2nd one. Only two teams ever won one and then lost the next - Washington (XVII and XVIII) and Dallas (XII and XIII).


Wouldn't that include the Packers - XXXI & XXXII


----------



## James Long

trh said:


> You're not saying it's OK to cheat, are you?


No ... but the penalty should match the crime.
The didn't win the game because of the crime - the penalty should not be the winning of the game.

The Superbowl Champions will receive a penalty (assuming they are found guilty).
A penalty appropriate to the crime.


----------



## Rich

Never bet against Brady. :rolling: 

Rich


----------



## Sixto

While all will talk about the play call, Brady is tough.


----------



## Athlon646464

Arguably the best of all time!!!!!! (Brady)


----------



## MysteryMan

Rich said:


> Never bet against Brady. :rolling:
> 
> Rich


I did in 2008 and 2012. :righton:


----------



## Laxguy

Here's a different take: if the pass had been merely incomplete, no one would be talking about the play call. Had it been a TD, people might be saying how brilliant Carroll is.


----------



## Rich

MysteryMan said:


> I did in 2008 and 2012. :righton:


Yeah, I did too. Won big one of those years. I meant it as a generalization. When I was betting, I rarely bet against him, Manning or Rodgers. Or Big Ben. The year that Burress made that great catch for the Giants got me a new 1080p TV.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> Here's a different take: if the pass had been merely incomplete, no one would be talking about the play call. Had it been a TD, people might be saying how brilliant Carroll is.


I understood why he did it, I don't disagree with his logic. I do think I would have used Lynch, tho. I was so surprised by it and by my wife's reaction to it that I had to watch it again right away.

But I got the game I wanted. I enjoyed it. Didn't much care who won, just wanted to see a nice clean game.

Rich


----------



## Laxguy

Indeed, one of the more exciting games in the SB. 

I can understand the thought behind throwing the pass when the D is setup entirely for a run defense. But Carroll is sometimes too smart by half. And I was also thinking they might get cute by wasting a run on down 2, to wind the clock way down and then letting the beast blast it in. Then the Pats would have time only for the runback on ensuing kickoff, or maybe no time at all.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

It's hard to fault a play call in situations like this. It's easy to say "why did he do that" when it doesn't work.

It's a little easier to say the ball could have been thrown better... or the receiver could have tried harder to prevent the interception. I can actually put more blame on the execution than the call itself.

I would have probably ran the ball in that scenario... but if they do, and were stopped for a loss... people would be questioning that too.

It was a weird way to end a game, though... with a crazy as heck catch near the goal followed by a rare interception... and then a couple of penalties that took the Patriots out of the danger zone. I REALLY wanted to see what was going to happen with a snap at the half-yard line that they had to get out of the end zone. The way the game was going, I was expecting a safety to happen and then Seattle have to try a 60 yard field goal for a win after receiving the free kick. But alas, the penalties by the Seahawks eliminated that possibility.


----------



## James Long

Often the game is lost and not won.


----------



## Laxguy

You can ask our Wisconsin members about that. And a certain Atlanta fan or two.


----------



## Beerstalker

It's second down and you have a time out and plenty of time left. You have Lynch in the backfield averaging 4.3 yards a carry thru the game. You run the play clock down to 1, hand Lynch the ball and take a time out if you don't make it, that is not a difficult decision.

If you do insist on throwing the ball you run playaction and pass to the outside. You sure as heck don't pass short to the middle where most of the defense is piling in trying to stop the run.


----------



## Laxguy

Amen, brother stalker. 

Heck they could have given the ball to Lynch, had him run around in the back field for 20 seconds, making sure came close to but not in the end zone, then timed his entry therein insuring no time left to respond. Probably not even Carroll would have played it that way, and I am not really recommending that, but it's amusing to contemplate.


----------



## camo

What's ironic Pete Carrol said it was a hard lesson to learn not giving it to Beast Mode the most unstoppable RB at the goal line in the NFL. Yet Carrol did the exact same thing in the National Championship game USC against Texas down at the goal line while the most prolific college running back and Heisman winner was sitting on the bench in Reggie Bush. 

Bone head decision with a time out still left, you run 1 play (Lynch) if it fails call timeout. Pass next down if incomplete kills clock and on 4th down run or pass it doesn't matter game is over.
Yet he tried to get cute with the play calling and now he has to live with it.


----------



## sigma1914

camo said:


> What's ironic Pete Carrol said it was a hard lesson to learn not giving it to Beast Mode the most unstoppable RB at the goal line in the NFL. Yet Carrol did the exact same thing in the National Championship game USC against Texas down at the goal line while the most prolific college running back and Heisman winner was sitting on the bench in Reggie Bush.
> 
> Bone head decision with a time out still left, you run 1 play (Lynch) if it fails call timeout. Pass next down if incomplete kills clock and on 4th down run or pass it doesn't matter game is over.
> Yet he tried to get cute with the play calling and now he has to live with it.


Couple things...

Lynch was not the most unstoppable back at the goal line. In fact, he was 1 for 5 from the 1 this year.... that's only 20% success. Statistically, it wasn't a bad choice - 66 times in the NFL this season teams threw passes from the 1 yard line. 0 of them resulted in interceptions. 4 out of 66 times the QB scramble and scored. 221 one times teams ran from the one. 125 resulted in TDs, 94 failed to score, 23 lost yards and fumbles occurred 2 times.

The Texas vs USC play wasn't the exact same thing, nor was it the goal line. It was 4th and 1 around midfield and would've put Texas away. Lindale White got the ball, because he was their successful short down RB.


----------



## kikkenit2

Instead of throwing it to a second string wide receiver with 1 yard do or die,
get your 2 best runners involved. Line up like beast mode is going up the
middle. Wilson fakes it and sweeps around the end. The defense would have
sold out on an all pro running back and Wilson is a fast, strong, elusive runner.

The other play that has been working well everywhere is qb rolls out like a run
and passes to outside when defense moves up. If they don't react just run it in.


----------



## camo

sigma1914 said:


> Couple things...
> 
> Lynch was not the most unstoppable back at the goal line. In fact, he was 1 for 5 from the 1 this year.... that's only 20% success. Statistically, it wasn't a bad choice - 66 times in the NFL this season teams threw passes from the 1 yard line. 0 of them resulted in interceptions. 4 out of 66 times the QB scramble and scored. 221 one times teams ran from the one. 125 resulted in TDs, 94 failed to score, 23 lost yards and fumbles occurred 2 times.
> 
> The Texas vs USC play wasn't the exact same thing, nor was it the goal line. It was 4th and 1 around midfield and would've put Texas away. Lindale White got the ball, because he was their successful short down RB.


 Lynch led the NFL with rushing touchdowns while playing against the very tough NFC west run defenses and when he gets into Beast Mode which he was is virtually unstoppable. You can sugar coat it anyway you want, IMO and many agree it was a colossal mistake, even the pass route was a poor choice bringing the throw back into the meat of the goal line defense. 
I'm glad they lost the way they did, it really serves Carrol right for continuing his I'm so hip and cool persona.


----------



## sigma1914

camo said:


> Lynch led the NFL with rushing touchdowns while playing against the very tough NFC west run defenses and when he gets into Beast Mode which he was is virtually unstoppable. You can sugar coat it anyway you want, IMO and many agree it was a colossal mistake, even the pass route was a poor choice bringing the throw back into the meat of the goal line defense.
> I'm glad they lost the way they did, it really serves Carrol right for continuing his I'm so hip and cool persona.


The pass route wasn't the problem, the DB just anticipated it and went around the block/pick. The WR was open at the release....










See how the Corner is giving ground, rather than letting the WR block him down inside? The WR's job is to hook him and turn his shoulders, thus cutting off the other DBs route to the ball. The corner back peddles, creating a lane to the ball. I think the Patriots practiced this play in preparation.


----------



## camo

sigma1914 said:


> The pass route wasn't the problem, the DB just anticipated it and went around the block/pick. The WR was open at the release....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See how the Corner is giving ground, rather than letting the WR block him down inside? The WR's job is to hook him and turn his shoulders, thus cutting off the other DBs route to the ball. The corner back peddles, creating a lane to the ball. I think the Patriots practiced this play in preparation.


 Lets see throwing back into the goal-line defense where everyone is stacked anticipating a run and barely needs to move thus jumping the throw isn't a problem. Ok I'm done on this topic...


----------



## sigma1914

camo said:


> Lets see throwing back into the goal-line defense where everyone is stacked anticipating a run and barely needs to move thus jumping the throw isn't a problem. Ok I'm done on this topic...


It's ok to admit that you're wrong about it. They weren't throwing back into any defenders as the picture clearly shows the lane was there. The DB did hto move; he had to get around the WR blocking the other DB. This play works far more than Lynch's 20% success rate.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Yeah... there's a lot of 20/20 hindsight in play here. A lot of the same folk chastising the call by Carroll were the same people who wanted him to kick a field goal in the first half instead of going for that pass play that tied the game with a TD!

Also... prior to this interception, the big gripe was why Belichick wasn't using timeouts to preserve time for Brady to go down the field after Seattle scored... IF the interception hadn't happened, and the Seahawks had scored a TD... then it would be Belichick getting carved up for not using timeouts on that last drive! But since the Patriots won, nobody is talking about those decisions.

The thing that really happened here... is that a couple of Patriot defenders did an exceptional job of covering a play that was designed to fool/pick them off each other. I think this is really a game where you have to credit the defense, and Butler in particular, rather than blame the offense.


----------



## djlong

Butler goes from almost-hero to legend in a blink of an eye. He breaks up the pass that somehow ended up being a miracle catch for Seattle. Then makes the Super Bowl Saving Interception. 

Nobody could fault Butler on that circus play but you could see on the sidelines he was upset about it. Then he went back after Lynch's run and Did His Job.


----------



## chevyguy559

djlong said:


> Butler goes from almost-hero to legend in a blink of an eye. He breaks up the pass that somehow ended up being a miracle catch for Seattle. Then makes the Super Bowl Saving Interception.
> 
> Nobody could fault Butler on that circus play but you could see on the sidelines he was upset about it. *Then he went back after Lynch's run and Did His Job.*


Perfect example of keeping his head in the game and not letting the prior play get to him.


----------

