While the clock slowly ticks....Bill's No Timeout Decision in SB 49

[TheoShmeo]

While we wait for Richard Berman...back to the Super Bowl for a minute, please.
 
I know this was covered in the game thread and perhaps in other threads in here, but I regard the decision not to call a time out after Lynch's first down carry (never mind the decision not to let Lynch score on the play before that) as one of the more fascinating decisions in recent sports history.
 
We know one thing.  Had Seattle scored, many folks, opportunists and more sincere people alike, would be debating and discussing this ad nauseum.  Felger and the CHB come to mind, and not in a good way.  Bill's call would have gotten much more play than the 4th and 13 call in SB 46 or the 4th and 2 against the Colts.  People would be saying that Bill froze, lost his mind or was just foolish.  People would be citing a pattern of odd calls in big moments.  Some would have invoked the series of decisions that resulted in the Ravens having a Hail Mary attempt at the end of the Divisional Playoff Game.
 
And in the backdrop of all the incredible insanity around DG, it would have been unbearable.  Of course, the loss itself would have been unbearable, but that an element of it would have been viewed as self-inflicted, a la Grady's Boner, would have made it even worse for many fans.  Imagine a Kearse/Tyree and Bad Decision combo special.  Yes, Bill's call has faded somewhat because Carroll's decision was even more curious and, of course, the Pats won and Bill's gambit played a meaningful part in that.  When counter-intuitive decisions work, they start to look like genius rather than foolish.  
 
In favor of Bill:
 
- not calling a time out gave Poodle Pete/Bevill less time to think and plan and arguably caused them to panic;
 
- not calling a time out made them aware that if they were to run three plays, one of them would have to be a pass in light of the TO situation;
 
- not calling a time out increased the odds that the pass might be the pick play/slant that they had worked on in practice and that Butler was prepared for, and that Seattle had executed three times during the season to perfection, according to Lockette;
 
- the Pats offense that game had been predicated on short passes and longish drives, and against that D, the prospect of getting down the field for a FG in 30-35 seconds was not great;
 
- Bill had seen the Pats fail to cash in at the end of the two Giants SBs (not that the situations were identical by any means); and
 
- Lynch had been only 1-5 from the 1 last season; maybe Bill thought the Pats could stuff the run.
 
Against Bill:
 
- they could have let Seattle score on first down, thereby giving Tom about 50 seconds or so to get into FG range;
 
- he went all in when a team with freaking Marshawn Lynch in the backfield would have had a few cracks at running the ball one yard;
 
- not leaving himself a safety net that might have been there, albeit a small one, is very unusual;
 
- that Seattle threw the ball at all was fortunate;
 
- that Seattle threw the ball to the middle of the field rather than to either corner or high at the end line was incredibly fortunate;
 
- Bill could not know that Butler would make such an otherworldly play; who can watch that replay and not be utterly awed by what Butler did, every single time?
 
In the end, it worked, and it does appear to be a combination of brilliant and lucky in retrospect.  At the time, I doubt that ANY of us were not screaming at the TV or from the stands to call a time out, and I doubt that ANY of us had the view that it was the right decision until we had some time to think it through after the fact.  So even if you view the call as the right one in retrospect, how often do you go from thinking something was nuts to embracing it later? I mean it happens, but rarely, no?
 
In any event, I view this conversation as somewhat of a luxury.  Discussing Grady for the year until the 2004 result was painful.  Now, it remains annoying to some, and part of the larger story of 2004, to many.  But it's still in the context of a terrible 2003 result.  Those of us who watched the Sox game on Monday night on ESPN still had to endure Aaron Boone re-living Grady's idiocy once again.  This decision, by contrast, has an incredibly happy ending, making it anything but painful.

 

[lambeau]

BB talks about it in the trailer for Do Your Job (next Wed at 8): "Something just didn't look right..."

http://www.patriots.com/video/2015/08/14/do-your-job-trailer

 

[m0ckduck]

 
 
- not calling a time out made them aware that if they were to run three plays, one of them would have to be a pass in light of the TO situation;

 
This is usually cited as the most rational strategic explanation for BB's decision, but — it's not strictly true, is it? It became true the moment that SEA confusedly took 35 seconds to run a play— and it's fair to say that this confusion was part of the method to BB's madness. But if SEA could have run a play in, say, 26 seconds, then:
 
1:02: Lynch is tackled at the 1, setting up 2nd-and-1
00:36: SEA runs 2nd-and-1 play (let's say it's a failed run)
00:10: SEA runs 3rd-and-1- play (let's say it's a failed run)
- TIMEOUT-
 
This would give a few seconds for a 4th and 1 play. 
 
Maybe BB felt that SEA was unlikely to manage the clock well enough to run three times, but it's not strictly true that he'forced' SEA into a pass play, as far as I can see. 

 

[Eddie Jurak]

At the end of the day, Seattle expected and wanted that Patriots time out, and weren't ready to run a play with the clock running. I think Belichick saw this and decided to leave the game in the hands of his defense.

Had the Seahawks moved quickly to the line, I think BB may well have called a time out.

I'm not sure if the Pats were banking on a pass play - they had a short yardage defense with 3 CBs against 3 receivers, no safeties.

 

[crystalline]

At the end of the day, Seattle expected and wanted that Patriots time out, and weren't ready to run a play with the clock running. I think Belichick saw this and decided to leave the game in the hands of his defense.

Had the Seahawks moved quickly to the line, I think BB may well have called a time out.

Yes, exactly.

Bill was responding to Seattle's expectation he would call timeout. He understood the clock management issues and exploited Seattle's confusion. It was a brilliant move.

He confused me and the announcers too - in the moment no one knew what was going on. It's only become clear in hindsight.

Also lets give the Pats and Hightower credit for stopping Lynch at the 1. Without that stop we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[loshjott]

One team is losing the SB by 4 with the clock ticking down to 30 seconds and bedlam is all around. Why help them catch a breath and think things through? BB recognized this and most everyone else, including me, did not.

 

[Toe Nash]

 
Against Bill:
 
- they could have let Seattle score on first down, thereby giving Tom about 50 seconds or so to get into FG range;
 

I don't think this is ever a good idea when up by 4. I was screaming for it (earlier than they ended up doing) in SB 46 because they were only up by 2 and would have had over a minute to get a field goal, but I think it's nearly always the right play to NOT let the other team score if they need a TD to win. Enough can go wrong for the offense in goal line situations as we saw.
 
Timeout or not is a separate question, but I don't think letting them score was a good option.

 

[bernardsamuel]

Theo, as you pointed out, we all agonize over decisions gone bad - but we just tend to just celebrate when decisions go well, and so we often lose the benefit of learning from our successes as well as from our failures.  Thanks for starting this thread, and while it's true that any diversion is helpful while we await for His Honor to confirm that law will follow morality in the instant case, this thread is lots more than a mere diversion. 
 
The film-trailer from next week's program explains Coach's decision, but more than that it reaffirms that there is a whole continuum between going with a gut feeling at one extreme and paralysis by analysis at the other extreme.  The people who really know what they're doing, BB in this case, develop their guts, and what looks to the rest of us like winging it or going with a gut feeling is really a keen analysis, though so complex that it's really hard to enumerate all the history that went into that decision. 
 
The luck, fate, or deity factor - the reader will pick according to belief system - is what translates the sound decision into the desired result.  Don't tell anyone, but Wilson could have thrown the ball low or to the trailing shoulder of the receiver where our UDFA couldn't have made his play.  So good decisions only increase the likelihood of good outcomes, but don't guaranty them.
 
Thanks to SoSH for helping me count down with less loss of sanity than otherwise would obtain.  Even snark in SoSH is generally better than soothing language anywhere else.

 

[AB in DC]

I think it's simpler than that -- if the Seahakws score, the odds of winning are basically zero.  The entire Patriots game plan was to dink-and-dunk their way down the field, meaning that the Patriots didn't think long passes were going to work against this defense.  So it's just a matter of taking a 5% shot at victory (somehow stopping Seattle from scoring) vs. taking a 1% shot at victory (Hail Mary).

 

[AB in DC]

Or, to be more accurate mathematically: If the Seahawks score, then the timeout might raise the win probability from 0% to 1%.  So if not calling a timeout decreases the odds of a Seahawks TD by even one percentage point, it's a better move.

 

[dirtynine]

 
00:10: SEA runs 3rd-and-1- play (let's say it's a failed run)
- TIMEOUT-
 
This would give a few seconds for a 4th and 1 play

 
Just pondering a universe in which this happened. It would have been the biggest play in football history. Right up there with "game 7, bottom of the 9th, down by 3, bases loaded, 2 outs, 2 strikes" in the pantheon of backyard dream scenarios. 

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I think it's simpler than that -- if the Seahakws score, the odds of winning are basically zero.  The entire Patriots game plan was to dink-and-dunk their way down the field, meaning that the Patriots didn't think long passes were going to work against this defense.  So it's just a matter of taking a 5% shot at victory (somehow stopping Seattle from scoring) vs. taking a 1% shot at victory (Hail Mary).

If Lynch scores on first down Brady has enough time to get into FG range.

 

[Oil Can Dan]

It was utter chaos on the Seattle sideline at that point.  In real time I couldn't believe the non-TO call, but with more info now it's a thing of beauty.

 

[bakahump]

 
Just pondering a universe in which this happened. It would have been the biggest play in football history. Right up there with "game 7, bottom of the 9th, down by 3, bases loaded, 2 outs, 2 strikes" in the pantheon of backyard dream scenarios. 

Well the corresponding.
1st and 10 from the 1 with Brady in his own endzone and needing to get out.....would be (and was) a pretty big play.

 

[RG33]

I was at the game, and while initially confused like most, I got really excited when I realized he was purposely not calling a timeout. As BernardS says, it was a great balance between all of the analytics and just some old-school "feel" of a guy whose been in the league for 40 years. Even in retrospect, if they had scored, I think it would still have been brilliant (though certainly not perceived that way by most, much like 4th and 2) because the process that led to it and the decision itself was solid.

It was like watching a master poker player just take apart his competition when the stakes were raised. He bluffed the shit out of them.

I think one of the reasons players love playing for Bill, is that he knows and trusts his teams to execute. He believes in them. Right or wrong, he just diagnoses situations, plays percentages, and expects people to "Do Your Job".

Ultimately, he is a beautiful sonofabitch and I love him dearly.

 

[loshjott]

Well the corresponding.
1st and 10 from the 1 with Brady in his own endzone and needing to get out.....would be (and was) a pretty big play.

 
As long as we're playing hypotheticals, if Brady didn't force the off side, some people said the intentional safety was the smart play. I've thought about having Brady heave 1 or 2 long incompletions to kill most of the remaining 25 or so seconds. Line Vereen up wide right and sprint down the sideline. Brady takes direct snap, rolls right, and heaves the ball 20 yds over Vereen's head, angled out of bounds to kill the chance at INT. Do that twice and the Pats kill at least 15 seconds. With about 10 secs to go an intentional safety is much less risky.
 
OK, stupid scenario for many reasons, but fun to think about.

 

[Jimbodandy]

If you have watched enough basketball, you have seen the "don't call timeout in obvious timeout situation" play numerous times.  Sometimes it really catches the other team flat-footed.  Like RGREELEY33, I got a little aroused when I realized that he had decided to avoid the timeout.  I assumed that Carroll expected the timeout and that BRB expected NOT to call one, which gave him an edge in planning.

 

[Toe Nash]

Well the corresponding.
1st and 10 from the 1 with Brady in his own endzone and needing to get out.....would be (and was) a pretty big play.

Not really. If there's a safety, the Seahawks would still be down by two with little time left and a low chance of winning the game. On the hypothetical 4th and 1 play, it would basically be a coin flip for literally all the marbles.

 

[ilol@u]

^ The SF/BAL Super bowl basically come down to the same situation where they ran a fade to Crabtree on 4th down and the game on the line.

I thought not taking the time out was silly. Seattle is a professional team and I don't think they suddenly got knocked off their game because a TO wasn't called. I also wanted the Patriots to let Seattle score ASAP so Brady had 50+ seconds to get in FG range for the tie.

 

[bernardsamuel]

My "quote" function isn't behaving, so I'll mention outright that I'm responding to Loshjott's #16 post where he's advocating Brady to roll right and throw a "very incomplete" pass out of bounds.  There are two risks here, I believe:
1. The pass protection breaks down so fast that Brady ends up with same offensive play that was his first play of Super Bowl 46, i.e., from within the tackle box he throws such a long incompletion down the middle of the field that it's ruled a safety.
2. Again, the pass protection breaks down, but this time there's an offensive holding call as Brady is running around in the end zone.  Again, there's a safety and maybe enough time for the free kick to be run back and a field goal to ensue.
 
The key play after the key play this past February was - whether it was Bill, Josh, or Tom calling it - the call for a hard count on the first post-Butler snap, and I am still in awe of  (1) Josh figuring out what happens next for the Patriots' offense while Seattle is still trying to drive for a touchdown, and (2) Bill not acting like the game has already been won at the moment of the interception. In fact, I thoroughly expect that in BB's scenario-drills, there has been or will be a point of emphasis of not incurring an excessive celebration penalty ever.

 

[m0ckduck]

My "quote" function isn't behaving, so I'll mention outright that I'm responding to Loshjott's #16 post where he's advocating Brady to roll right and throw a "very incomplete" pass out of bounds.  There are two risks here, I believe:
 

 
They ran exactly this play to run out the clock in the freezing-cold Titans playoff game in '03. 4th and long, tight formation with one wideout (Givens?), Brady heaves it downfield and the Pats 'turn it over on downs' while time expires. It worked, but there were only :03 seconds to be whittled off the clock. 

 

[Pxer]

It's also a beautiful thing that none of the defensive players called a timeout from the field.

 

[AB in DC]

I thought not taking the time out was silly. Seattle is a professional team and I don't think they suddenly got knocked off their game because a TO wasn't called. I also wanted the Patriots to let Seattle score ASAP so Brady had 50+ seconds to get in FG range for the tie.

 
But really, what were the odds of doing this?  Against this defense?  Unlike SB42, they didn't have a Randy Moss out there who could conceivably outjump the DBs on a long pass.

 

[Tony C]

^ The SF/BAL Super bowl basically come down to the same situation where they ran a fade to Crabtree on 4th down and the game on the line.

I thought not taking the time out was silly. Seattle is a professional team and I don't think they suddenly got knocked off their game because a TO wasn't called. I also wanted the Patriots to let Seattle score ASAP so Brady had 50+ seconds to get in FG range for the tie.

 
I'm kind of here. I'm as a big a BB ballwasher as there is, but I think a lot of this is just post facto justification. Who know, maybe not.. if it works it's a good call, in any case.

 

[twothousandone]

I think the "something didn't look right" comment is partly self-serving, partly not showing his cards after the hand is over, and partly truth. It's reasonable to think that Seattle expected a time-out, and perhaps, therefore, they weren't hustling to run another play. If, in Belichick's mind, what "looks right" is a team racing to run a play, and Seattle does that, he probably calls the time-out.

In this case, I wouldn't be surprised if what didn't look right was Seattle acting as though they expected a time-out, and Belichick figured he could eliminate one play (at least) by keeping the clock going.

From that same clip -- "just play goal line." That doesn't complete the story, for me. I'd love to know if Belichick already saw the receivers coming on, or if he was delegating the personnel (as he always does?) choice. Butler is, of course, the last one sent out -- if Seattle doesn't go with three receivers, who is in instead of Butler?

I'd love to know the timing between "Yeah, I got it," "Just play goal line" "Three, three" and "Malcolm, go!"

 

[snowmanny]

Theo, as you pointed out, we all agonize over decisions gone bad - but we just tend to just celebrate when decisions go well, and so we often lose the benefit of learning from our successes as well as from our failures.  Thanks for starting this thread, and while it's true that any diversion is helpful while we await for His Honor to confirm that law will follow morality in the instant case, this thread is lots more than a mere diversion. 
 
The film-trailer from next week's program explains Coach's decision, but more than that it reaffirms that there is a whole continuum between going with a gut feeling at one extreme and paralysis by analysis at the other extreme.  The people who really know what they're doing, BB in this case, develop their guts, and what looks to the rest of us like winging it or going with a gut feeling is really a keen analysis, though so complex that it's really hard to enumerate all the history that went into that decision. 
 
The luck, fate, or deity factor - the reader will pick according to belief system - is what translates the sound decision into the desired result.  Don't tell anyone, but Wilson could have thrown the ball low or to the trailing shoulder of the receiver where our UDFA couldn't have made his play.  So good decisions only increase the likelihood of good outcomes, but don't guaranty them.
 
Thanks to SoSH for helping me count down with less loss of sanity than otherwise would obtain.  Even snark in SoSH is generally better than soothing language anywhere else.

I think this is spot on.  And I'll add something else: I think that if Seattle runs BMode on that play the most likely outcome is a 1-2 yard loss and total panic on Seattle's sideline.  This is based on the defense on the field and Seattle's goal line history.  And they instead passed, and the Patriots had an educated guess as to what the pass play might be if they did pass and knew how to defend it.  In short, he's pretty smart,looked at the personell and reformulated the odds on the fly, and this time it all worked out.

 

[SamK]

Yes. THIS is the topic for a thread I wish I had spent several hundred hours of my life over the last six months on. And it will be the way this Super Bowl victory is studied and remembered for decades.
 
Lineman practice technique.
Quarterbacks practice checking down.
Head coaches practice clock/game management. That few minutes was a coach at the top of his craft.
 
Watch BB's emotional release, not when Malcolm wins all of our hearts forever, but when Brady draws the offside.
Thing a' beauty.

 

[Shelterdog]

Another thing BB has mentioned is that the "communications" break down at the end of the game with all the media and what not getting ready to flood the field. He said on Dale & Holley:
 
"I think it’s similar to the end of the game in Arizona six years ago when all the TVs and everything get on the field and at the end of the game and then your communication systems that were working OK during the game then breakdown at the end — that was the same thing that happened in [2007]."
 
Essentially he knows how fucking hard it is for even the best coach and QB to play well in the hectic minutes of the last second of the superbowl.
 
And he looked across the field and saw Pete Carroll

 

[lexrageorge]

There is absolutely no justification for letting Seattle score at that point.  The Pats were up by 4, not 2, so Seattle has to get in the end zone to take the lead.  
 
Letting Seattle score means that the Pats would have to dink/dunk their way into FG range from the 20.  I'm guessing that's about a 10%  chance.  Per profootball reference, the expected points of 1st-and-10 at the 20 is about 0.28, and that metric makes no assumption about time and timeouts remaining.  The FG results in OT, which is a 50/50 proposition.  So there would be about a 5% chance of NE winning if Seattle was allowed to score.  Probably less given that the Pats would have had less than a minute s assuming they had let Lynch score on his run, even with the 2 timeouts that the Pats would have had at the time. 
 
From the same website, Seattle had roughly 85% of winning after Lynch's 4 yard run.  So NE's chances benefited from putting everything in the hands of the defense at that point.  
 
As for not calling the timeout, the decision follows once you decide that you are going to stop Seattle from scoring.  

 

[PayrodsFirstClutchHit]

I was much more upset with the decision to have Brady take 3 quick knees at the end of the Baltimore playoff game giving Flacco 4 seconds for a Hail Mary play.  I am not sure they did the math correctly on that one.  
 
I am sure the Pats have charts on how much time they can run off based on how many timeouts the opponent has left. They need to update what can occur with 01:39 left and one timeout for the opponent.
 
Running a few plays where a RB trots towards the sidelines a few steps and then takes a knee before contact could have exhausted enough clock so Baltimore would basically have to  block the punt or return it for a TD. 
 
Pats had another questionable clock management situation at the half against Miami late last season where they ran Vereen 3 times into the line and punted and Tannehill had enough time to score on a Hail Mary before the half.  I am sure Bill and the brain trust have made the appropriate adjustments going forward.

 

[Stitch01]

I still think not calling a timeout was still likely a small mistake (letting them score would have been worse). The preparation, playcall, and execution was a thing of beauty.

 

[lexrageorge]

I was much more upset with the decision to have Brady take 3 quick knees at the end of the Baltimore playoff game giving Flacco 4 seconds for a Hail Mary play.  I am not sure they did the math correctly on that one.  
 
I am sure the Pats have charts on how much time they can run off based on how many timeouts the opponent has left. They need to update what can occur with 01:39 left and one timeout for the opponent.
 
Running a few plays where a RB trots towards the sidelines a few steps and then takes a knee before contact could have exhausted enough clock so Baltimore would basically have to  block the punt or return it for a TD. 
 
Pats had another questionable clock management situation at the half against Miami late last season where they ran Vereen 3 times into the line and punted and Tannehill had enough time to score on a Hail Mary before the half.  I am sure Bill and the brain trust have made the appropriate adjustments going forward.

The Hail Mary is a very low percentage play.  PFR gives the Ravens 2.5% chance of making that pass.  I would prefer that they would have run the ball on 1st or 2nd down there, but the chances of a fumble are not zero either.  
 
I don't blame the coaches for the Miami game. First, it's the end of the half.  Second, Miami had all 3 of its timeouts, and it's better for force the Dolphins to use them than to stop the clock for them by throwing incomplete.  The real problem was the 32 yard punt return by Miami, but that's on the punt coverage team.  Had the coverage team kept the ball in Miami territory, which they should have, Tannehill takes the knee at his 35 or 40 yard line with 20 seconds left and no timeouts.  

 

[NortheasternPJ]

I was much more upset with the decision to have Brady take 3 quick knees at the end of the Baltimore playoff game giving Flacco 4 seconds for a Hail Mary play.  I am not sure they did the math correctly on that one.  
 
I am sure the Pats have charts on how much time they can run off based on how many timeouts the opponent has left. They need to update what can occur with 01:39 left and one timeout for the opponent.
 
Running a few plays where a RB trots towards the sidelines a few steps and then takes a knee before contact could have exhausted enough clock so Baltimore would basically have to  block the punt or return it for a TD. 
 
Pats had another questionable clock management situation at the half against Miami late last season where they ran Vereen 3 times into the line and punted and Tannehill had enough time to score on a Hail Mary before the half.  I am sure Bill and the brain trust have made the appropriate adjustments going forward.

Watch Three Games to Glory for the Baltimore game. They 100% knew what the math was. I forget who, I haven't seen it in a bit, but one of the coaches goes over to the D immediately and says they're going to need to go back out.

 

[JerBear]

Well the corresponding.
1st and 10 from the 1 with Brady in his own endzone and needing to get out.....would be (and was) a pretty big play.

There was a <0% chance Stork snaps that ball.  A delay of game does nothing and the direction to the center there is "don't move and sit on the ball unless you get the super secret signal that means I know I can push forward 1 yard on a sneak." They can just continue to not snap the ball until Brady sees the crease he needs.

 

[ernieshore]

I was in the stadium for the Super Bowl too - and I remember that the guy next to me, who was a neutral, kept asking "should they call a timeout?" I was still in shock/breakdown from the catch, but I just replied "I don't know...I don't know. Maybe not?" I couldn't see much from the other end zone and was just blabbing. Everything happened so fast that, now, you could see how BB, with all his experience, could sense the chaos. The TO is the obvious call, so maybe it made sense to go the other way.

But yes - it's a lot easier in hindsight and my memory could be clouded by the outcome.

 

[Saints Rest]

I think the "something didn't look right" comment is partly self-serving, partly not showing his cards after the hand is over, and partly truth. It's reasonable to think that Seattle expected a time-out, and perhaps, therefore, they weren't hustling to run another play. If, in Belichick's mind, what "looks right" is a team racing to run a play, and Seattle does that, he probably calls the time-out.

In this case, I wouldn't be surprised if what didn't look right was Seattle acting as though they expected a time-out, and Belichick figured he could eliminate one play (at least) by keeping the clock going.

From that same clip -- "just play goal line." That doesn't complete the story, for me. I'd love to know if Belichick already saw the receivers coming on, or if he was delegating the personnel (as he always does?) choice. Butler is, of course, the last one sent out -- if Seattle doesn't go with three receivers, who is in instead of Butler?

I'd love to know the timing between "Yeah, I got it," "Just play goal line" "Three, three" and "Malcolm, go!"

I'll try to look back at this tonight (I have it still on DVR) but once the Seahawks made a substitution, -- and they did, didn't they? -- the Pats had to be allowed to make their own defensive substitution, right/  All of this while the clock is ticking.  So maybe "something didn't look right" was more about sub personnel coming from Seattle.

 

[Myt1]

I still think not calling a timeout was still likely a small mistake (letting them score would have been worse). The preparation, playcall, and execution was a thing of beauty.

I'm with you.

 

[kenneycb]

Not really. If there's a safety, the Seahawks would still be down by two with little time left and a low chance of winning the game. On the hypothetical 4th and 1 play, it would basically be a coin flip for literally all the marbles.

If there was the safety Seattle could have fair caught the ensuing punt and had a free kick to win the Super Bowl. So the pressure would've been on Allen to deliver a long enough kick.

 

[mwonow]

If there was the safety Seattle could have fair caught the ensuing punt and had a free kick to win the Super Bowl. So the pressure would've been on Allen to deliver a long enough kick.

 
I know this question is entirely irrelevant, but - if Allen punts it out of bounds, do the Seahawks get the ball on their own 40? That's be about a 78 yarder, now?

 

[ipol]

Pretty sure an NFL punter can get the ball back to the opposing 40. That would equate to a 25 yard punt during typical circumstances.

 

[lexrageorge]

 
I know this question is entirely irrelevant, but - if Allen punts it out of bounds, do the Seahawks get the ball on their own 40? That's be about a 78 yarder, now?

For a safety kick, the receiving team would have the option of receiving the ball either where it went out of bounds, or 30 yards from the spot of the kick, which would be midfield.  That's a 68 60 yarder, and the Pats would need to line up 10 yards from the spot of the kick.  Easy?  No, but doable given the lack of an opposing rush.  Likely better odds than a Hail Mary from the same spot.  
 
EDIT:  On the free kick, there's no need for the kicking team to snap the ball back 8 yards, as there's no opposing rush.  So it becomes a 60 yard attempt with no rush.  I'm glad that didn't happen. 

 

[PC Drunken Friar]

For a safety kick, the receiving team would have the option of receiving the ball either where it went out of bounds, or 30 yards from the spot of the kick, which would be midfield.  That's a 68 yarder, and the Pats would need to line up 10 yards from the spot of the kick.  Easy?  No, but doable given the lack of an opposing rush.  Likely better odds than a Hail Mary from the same spot.  

This is why I love SoSH...learn something new every day.

But would Pete Carroll now that?

 

[TheoShmeo]

I'm learning something new here, too.
 
After the Butler pick and before Tom drew the Seahawks offside, I thought the Pats might even TAKE a safety rather than risk a fumbled exchange on the 1.  The safety they took against Denver years ago planted that thought in my head. 
 
It seemed unlikely at the time.  Now it seems even more unlikely.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Yes, exactly.

Bill was responding to Seattle's expectation he would call timeout. He understood the clock management issues and exploited Seattle's confusion. It was a brilliant move.

He confused me and the announcers too - in the moment no one knew what was going on. It's only become clear in hindsight.

Also lets give the Pats and Hightower credit for stopping Lynch at the 1. Without that stop we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 
I think BB was essentially betting on Seattle not executing against time pressure instead of betting on the Pats being able to go 50ish yards in a few plays against that defense.  And it may well be that the apparent confusion/'something' on the Seattle sideline is what pushed him over the edge on betting that way.
 
The numbers are available on, say, scoring from your own 20 with the time/TO situation Pats would have had in a 'take a timeout, Seattle still scores' scenario and a team scoring a TD from the 1.  I just don't have them!  I bet Ernie Adams had them at the ready, though

 

[lexrageorge]

I'm learning something new here, too.
 
After the Butler pick and before Tom drew the Seahawks offside, I thought the Pats might even TAKE a safety rather than risk a fumbled exchange on the 1.  The safety they took against Denver years ago planted that thought in my head. 
 
It seemed unlikely at the time.  Now it seems even more unlikely.

On the long count, I'm quite sure I heard that the Pats never intended to snap the ball on that down.  IIRC, Brady was told to take the delay of game penalty.  I think the intentional safety was probably a backup plan for the next play if the Seahawks did not go offsides on the long count.  
 
Otherwise, I could forsee a real Mexican standoff in that situation.  The Pats keep taking delay of game penalties while the clock doesn't move.  I'm guessing the officials would eventually intervene to prevent that from continuing. 

 

[edmunddantes]

On the long count, I'm quite sure I heard that the Pats never intended to snap the ball on that down.  IIRC, Brady was told to take the delay of game penalty.  I think the intentional safety was probably a backup plan for the next play if the Seahawks did not go offsides on the long count.  
 
Otherwise, I could forsee a real Mexican standoff in that situation.  The Pats keep taking delay of game penalties while the clock doesn't move.  I'm guessing the officials would eventually intervene to prevent that from continuing. 

That's an interesting question. 
 
Is there an actual mechanism for them to intervene though?
 
I believe a Delay of Game is a procedural penalty, and thus can't be declined. 
 
Unsportsmanlike penalty wouldn't harm them.
 
I can't think of any penalty that exists that results in a loss of down that could be applied to this situation. 
 
There is some wrinkle I think for taking a penalty intentionally to stop the clock w/out a timeout I thought, but thought that was more injury related (however I'm pretty sure that's just me combining parts of penalties in  my mind)

 

[singaporesoxfan]

That's an interesting question. 
 
Is there an actual mechanism for them to intervene though?
 
I believe a Delay of Game is a procedural penalty, and thus can't be declined. 
 
Unsportsmanlike penalty wouldn't harm them.
 
I can't think of any penalty that exists that results in a loss of down that could be applied to this situation. 
 
There is some wrinkle I think for taking a penalty intentionally to stop the clock w/out a timeout I thought, but thought that was more injury related (however I'm pretty sure that's just me combining parts of penalties in  my mind)

Repeated delay of game penalties is unsportsmanlike conduct with disqualification of the player if flagrant. So the refs could start ejecting players.

 

[pappymojo]

I was at the game, and while initially confused like most, I got really excited when I realized he was purposely not calling a timeout. As BernardS says, it was a great balance between all of the analytics and just some old-school "feel" of a guy whose been in the league for 40 years. Even in retrospect, if they had scored, I think it would still have been brilliant (though certainly not perceived that way by most, much like 4th and 2) because the process that led to it and the decision itself was solid.

It was like watching a master poker player just take apart his competition when the stakes were raised. He bluffed the shit out of them.

I think one of the reasons players love playing for Bill, is that he knows and trusts his teams to execute. He believes in them. Right or wrong, he just diagnoses situations, plays percentages, and expects people to "Do Your Job".

Ultimately, he is a beautiful sonofabitch and I love him dearly.

I think the poker analogy is a good one. Zig (play loose) when they expect you to zag (play tight), and the masters do this without conscious thought.

 

[GlucoDoc]

I think this whole discussion underscores the absolute brilliance of BB.  And how he calls upon his years of experience - his "gut" - to guide him with split second decisions.  All the while, as the opponents are getting up in a lather about spying cameras, ball inflation, or even phantom microphones in meeting rooms, it is this brilliant approach to the strategy and legitimate gamesmanship that has really been the secret that has made him and his teams winners.  Go ahead, other teams, keep distracting yourselves with trivial accusations and peripheral issues coming from owners and coaches who are loud-mouthed buffoons.  Keep ignoring BB's genius that's most likely the major reason they have been winning so many games!! 

 

[kenneycb]

For a safety kick, the receiving team would have the option of receiving the ball either where it went out of bounds, or 30 yards from the spot of the kick, which would be midfield.  That's a 68 60 yarder, and the Pats would need to line up 10 yards from the spot of the kick.  Easy?  No, but doable given the lack of an opposing rush.  Likely better odds than a Hail Mary from the same spot.  
 
EDIT:  On the free kick, there's no need for the kicking team to snap the ball back 8 yards, as there's no opposing rush.  So it becomes a 60 yard attempt with no rush.  I'm glad that didn't happen. 

Does anyone remember the game where something along those lines happened? Because I got it from that game but my Google fu skills fail me.