Carroll's Call

[Tony C]

No and No.

You CANNOT run the ball three times in 26 seconds with one timeout. The Pats are smart and would have ensured that it took at least ~15 seconds to unpile after an unsuccessful second down run, meaning they have to call their last timeout and thus have to pass on third down, then run on the last play of the game, 4th down. Planning for three shots at victory, Carroll had to pass once and chose to do it when it was most unpredictable.

Running the clock down makes a ton of sense when you consider the Hawks last playoff loss featured Matt Ryan beating them with :34 and two timeouts.

You seem to be advocating Carroll going all in with two Lynch runs vice two runs and one pass. Of course, the more I think about it, a rollout pass that puts Wilson's legs into the equation was probably a better individual play call than the slant.

 
To me this is the bottom line. The equation is 1 pass + 1 runs > than 2 runs. As simple as that.
 

Yeah, I've got a piece in the pipeline for FC arguing that once the ball is snapped, the decision rests on Wilson. If he is gonna make that throw, he needs to put it to his back shoulder/second number and use Lockette as a wall between Butler and the ball. Make Butler drive through the WR.

Or, he needed to put it in the third row.

 
That's been my take, as well, that Wilson (who I love, but still...weren't experts saying he's better than Brady) has to take the lion's share of the blame. Be certain or throw it away.
 
I think you can make 2 more cogent arguments putting blame on the Seahawks' coaches:
 
1: sensing disorder or just because they have a young QB who, as steady as he normally is, hadn't been that steady down the stretch, maybe they should have used that time-out after Lynch's run. Maybe bring Wilson to the sideline and walk him through exactly what the sequence would be and to throw it away if even a shot at an INT.
 
2: was a pass play into a tight window the right call? Maybe a rollout with some options or the easy throw away would have been better.

 

[Tony C]

Carroll's explanation puzzles me.  He claims they called the pass because NE came out in a goal line set. But with the ball on the one yard line and less than a minute to go that is the most likely formation, right? I mean, the Pats weren't going to come out in a dime.

 
His full quote, though, is that they didn't have their goal-line set on the field to match with the Pats. Which is fair enough, but begs the question of why? That speaks to some disorganization on their sideline, so perhaps adds to the "they should have used their TO earlier rather than later" option.

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

Carroll's explanation puzzles me.  He claims they called the pass because NE came out in a goal line set. But with the ball on the one yard line and less than a minute to go that is the most likely formation, right? I mean, the Pats weren't going to come out in a dime.

Remember that he had 3 WRs in the game.  If he thinks they're really in goal-line (3 DBs isn't really full-fledged goal-line, but put that aside) then he thinks he's at a size disadvantage on a rushing play.  They called the pass because they didn't have the right personnel for a goal-line run against what he thought the Pats had on the field.  And he didn't want to call the last timeout.  So pass was in his mind the only option.
 
Furthermore, an incomplete pass would have let him save the timeout for after 3rd down.  If he runs on 2d and does not get in, the Pats know he has to throw on 3rd or else there will be no way there is time for a 4th down play before the clock runs out.  He wasn't thinking about an interception.

 

[Bernie Carbohydrate]

Detailed analysis in the Seattle Times by old friend Hugh Millen.
 
Hugh Millen...man threw quite a few interceptions and helped kill poor ole Dick McPherson, but his analysis is interesting.

 

[mascho]

 
To me this is the bottom line. The equation is 1 pass + 1 runs > than 2 runs. As simple as that.
 
 
That's been my take, as well, that Wilson (who I love, but still...weren't experts saying he's better than Brady) has to take the lion's share of the blame. Be certain or throw it away.
 
I think you can make 2 more cogent arguments putting blame on the Seahawks' coaches:
 
1: sensing disorder or just because they have a young QB who, as steady as he normally is, hadn't been that steady down the stretch, maybe they should have used that time-out after Lynch's run. Maybe bring Wilson to the sideline and walk him through exactly what the sequence would be and to throw it away if even a shot at an INT.
 
2: was a pass play into a tight window the right call? Maybe a rollout with some options or the easy throw away would have been better.

Yeah. I was surprised that, having decided to throw, they didn't roll him out and give him the run-pass option. Get him in space on the edge where you can avoid grounding since he is outside the tackle, let him either make a throw, use his feet or throw it away if covered well.

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

Detailed analysis in the Seattle Times by old friend Hugh Millen.
 
Hugh Millen...man threw quite a few interceptions and helped kill poor ole Dick McPherson, but his analysis is interesting.

Millen assigns most of the blame to Russell for not recognizing Butler's sellout against the slant.  Certainly some blame is due.  I think the one missing piece of his analysis is that the Seahawks ran the pick/slant often enough to have Belichick specifically coach up defending the play--in other words, they went to the well too often.  That is on the coaching staff.  But certainly, it's not all on Carroll here.  And some of it should not even be blame - there was great coaching and execution by the other side.

 

[Tony C]

Millen assigns most of the blame to Russell for not recognizing Butler's sellout against the slant.  Certainly some blame is due.  I think the one missing piece of his analysis is that the Seahawks ran the pick/slant often enough to have Belichick specifically coach up defending the play--in other words, they went to the well too often.  That is on the coaching staff.  But certainly, it's not all on Carroll here.  And some of it should not even be blame - there was great coaching and execution by the other side.

 
I like Millen's take on it, but that aside I agree with your point that there was great coaching/execution on the other side.
 
The media has been a shit show this year on a range of issues, this is less important than them messing up the Ray Rice coverage, but still bothersome. They'd rather to pro/con debate on a play call rather than celebrate greatness. There's nothing to shout about if it's about greatness, no one to blame, no contrasting point/counterpoints. So therefore the story is more Hawks/Carroll/Wilson than where it should be: how fucking great Butler's play was, how fucking great he was coached by BB and MP, and how great Brady was in that 4th quarter.

 

[BoneForYourJar]

 

Maybe the only thing better than human intuition is the results of people who trust their intuition. 

Nicely put, and in this case it seems to me that intuition was complemented by canniness: everyone talks about how quickly Butler got to that ball ("out of nowhere"), but even more impressive than the speed was the patience required so as to avoid tipping off Wilson as to his intentions. If he jumps a fraction of a second sooner the opportunity vanishes.

Butler's timing had to be exquisitely precise if he was to cash in on his intuition. And it was.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Detailed analysis in the Seattle Times by old friend Hugh Millen.
 
Hugh Millen...man threw quite a few interceptions and helped kill poor ole Dick McPherson, but his analysis is interesting.

Hope you were being figurative and meant he got Macpherson fired, because old Dick is still kicking.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

[QUOTE="Hriniak]
Stories in the Seattle paper (and I'm on mobile, so sorry, no links) say the PC told his OC, "Throw the ball," and the OC chose the play and sent it in.
[/QUOTE]
That makes sense but it makes Bevell look worse IMO. The pass call is defensible but the slant seemed pretty risky, particularly if it was so familiar that the Pats practiced for it.

 

[luckiestman]

The analysis in this thread is great. Blame-gate is pretty exhausting. It was a great game with two great teams. Only one team could win. Seattle needed a miracle catch to even be down close to the end zone. Pats db made a monster play. Seattle maybe didn't execute great but if Butler did anything but play perfect Seattle gets a td right there and game over. No one second guesses the pass at all if Butler is not there. The god damned db said he needed a premonition to make the play. No one is to blame, there is no blame. Pats player made the play, pats win.

 

[Grunherz54]

Being a Redskins fan I didn't have a dog in this fight. I tend to view the Patriots like I do the St. Louis Cardinals in baseball - I respect the organization and their accomplishments. I only actively dislike/root against them when they are playing my team. As for the play call I could not imagine Joe Gibbs - with John Riggins in the backfield and three chances to punch it in from the one yard line - throwing a slant to a WR3 (Alvin Garrett for the 1982-1983 Super Bowl Redskins.)  I give the Patriots all the credit in the world - they didn't panic. Belichick coached up Butler and Butler made a tremendous play. New England deserved to win and congrats to all my fellow Red Sox fans who root for the Patriots!
 
As for other questionable calls by Seattle - why did they not throw to the tight ends, specifically Luke Willson? I kept looking for that the entire game.

 

[MainerInExile]

Striking from that Miller piece is him mentioning that Lockette is 6'2" 211-lbs.  Butler is 5'11" 190-lbs.  And yet Butler not only outfought him for the ball, but absolute blew Lockette up, sending him flying.  Amazing play.

 

[Gunfighter 09]

Being a Redskins fan I didn't have a dog in this fight. I tend to view the Patriots like I do the St. Louis Cardinals in baseball - I respect the organization and their accomplishments. I only actively dislike/root against them when they are playing my team. As for the play call I could not imagine Joe Gibbs - with John Riggins in the backfield and three chances to punch it in from the one yard line - throwing a slant to a WR3 (Alvin Garrett for the 1982-1983 Super Bowl Redskins.)  I give the Patriots all the credit in the world - they didn't panic. Belichick coached up Butler and Butler made a tremendous play. New England deserved to win and congrats to all my fellow Red Sox fans who root for the Patriots!
 
As for other questionable calls by Seattle - why did they not throw to the tight ends, specifically Luke Willson? I kept looking for that the entire game.

 
 
Mentioning Joe Gibbs reminds me of the other famous Super Bowl play that is so similar to this one, but obviously at a much lower leverage point in the game. I am thinking of Joe Theisman throwing a swing pass to Joe Washington from his own 12 yard line at the of the first half of Super Bowl 18. That play turned a 14-3 game into a blowout. Just like this play, Jack Squireck (a no name defender) was properly coached up, recognized the formation (Joe Washington and trips) and completely sold out on attacking the play he diagnosed and, as a result, made an awesome, game defining play. It is more about the defensive coaching and defensive player execution, but the playcall became the story, just like in this case.
 

CHARLIE SUMNER had a hunch. In the moments before Jack Squirek intercepted Joe Theismann's pass for a 5-yard touchdown that detonated the Los Angeles Raiders' 38-9 rout of the Washington Redskins in Super Bowl XVIII yesterday, the Raider linebacker coach remembered a similar situation in a 37-35 loss at Washington in the regular season.
''When they were backed up in that game, they threw a screen pass to Joe Washington for 67 yards,'' Charlie Sumner was saying now. ''I just knew it was coming again, that's why I wanted Squirek in there. It was just an adjustment.''
Jack Squirek, a 24-year-old linebacker from the University of Illinois who was the Raiders' second-round draft choice in 1982, hurried onto the field as an inside linebacker in the prevent defense Charlie Sumner had ordered. But back at the sideline, Matt Millen, the starting inside linebacker, was confronting the linebacker coach.
''Don't take me out, Charlie, don't take me out,'' he said. ''They can't handle me.''
''No, Matt,'' Charlie Sumner said, ''I want Jack in there in this prevent defense.''
At the time almost any defense appeared academic. After a Raider punt, the Washington Redskins were at their 12-yard line with only 12 seconds remaining in the first half and Los Angeles ahead, 14-3. Surely they would run out the clock, then run into the locker room and regroup for the second half. But their coach, Joe Gibbs, was still hoping to score before halftime.
''We had two choices there,'' Joe Gibbs explained later. ''Fall on the ball or use a play that was safe.''
Just as Charlie Sumner on the Raider sideline had remembered that screen pass to Joe Washington in their game on the season's fifth weekend, Joe Gibbs not only remembered it too, but he also considered it a ''safe'' play. In other games, it almost always had produced good yardage.
''Let's try to get upfield,'' Joe Gibbs told Joe Theismann, his quarterback. ''Use the Rocket Right, Screen Left.''
That's the Redskin play Charlie Sumner had remembered - the rocket formation with three wide receivers (Charlie Brown, Art Monk and Clint Didier) lined up to the right as if they were in the starting blocks for a 100- meter dash, with the halfback Joe Washington lined up behind Joe Theismann and then moving to his left for a short pass.
At the snap, Joe Theismann drifted back, looked to his right toward the three wide receivers, then pivoted and lofted a short pass to his left toward Joe Washington.
''The defensive end had grabbed Joe by the shirt,'' Joe Theismann said later, referring to Lyle Alzado, ''and the linebacker had him man to man. I anticipated he would be open more.''
Jack Squirek was open instead. After having been alerted by Charlie Sumner to the possibility that Joe Theismann would throw to Joe Washington, he moved in front of the Redskin halfback, snatched the ball and dashed untouched into the end zone for the touchdown that suddenly opened a 21-3 lead.
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/23/sports/raiders-turn-super-match-into-a-mismatch.html
 

 

[Eddie Jurak]

A couple of things:
 
1. Butler was obviously prepared for this play, which helped a lot, but it was still a tremendous play.  If we could rerun that play 50 times, how often does he come up with that interception?  I think that would have to be on the short list for greatest defensve plays I've ever seen in real time.  If he plays that any less then perfectly, its not an interception and it could be PI or a touchdown.  Maybe Wilson screwed up, but sometimes that type of mistake is called "a touchdown pass".
 
2. I don't usually listen to Barnwell and Mays, but I did today and they made a great point - Hightower made an absolutely incredible tackle to stop Lynch from scoring on the previous play. While still engaged with his blocker, he took a one-handed swipe at Lynch and knocked him off balance. Without that play he scores.
 
3. As others have pointed out, the sequence at the end, on both sides, was all about clock management.  BB let the clock run because he wanted Seattle to throw it at least once.  If he calls time out, they can run it 3 times.  Not only that, but they can run slower developing running plays.  Maybe if BB stopped the clock with 50 seconds left Seattle would have run an option play and Wilson might have kept it.  I'm not sure what was best, but I think there's at least an argument that if you don't want to just let them score, you let the clock run.  
 
4. With running clock, is there some risk on Seattle's part that Wilson scrambles around, kills some time, and then throws incomplete? I assume Pats weren't going to sack him.  Maybe they called a quick developing play in part because they did not want to risk running out of time, getting only 2 plays off instead of three. Seems like with running clock, time is a concern for them and their alternative to doing what they did was run Wilson, TO, pass everyone knows is coming, run or pass.  If BB stops the clock then time is a non-issue for them (they have 50-some seconds to run three plays).  
 
5. For all the "Seahawks made a bad call" here, it did nearly work.  The best argument for why they should have run it is that the Pats were reeling, Lynch scores easily.  But even though they ran something the Pats were very ready for, it still took one of the great plays in Superbowl history to make it look like a bad call.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Nicely put, and in this case it seems to me that intuition was complemented by canniness: everyone talks about how quickly Butler got to that ball ("out of nowhere"), but even more impressive than the speed was the patience required so as to avoid tipping off Wilson as to his intentions. If he jumps a fraction of a second sooner the opportunity vanishes.

Butler's timing had to be exquisitely precise if he was to cash in on his intuition. And it was.

 
Interesting point... but what were Wilson's alternatives?  Was anyone else in a pattern?  Wilson would have had to pull it down and run or fire it out the back of the end zone.

 

[DukeSox]

Striking from that Miller piece is him mentioning that Lockette is 6'2" 211-lbs.  Butler is 5'11" 190-lbs.  And yet Butler not only outfought him for the ball, but absolute blew Lockette up, sending him flying.  Amazing play.

and held on to it!  

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

 
Interesting point... but what were Wilson's alternatives?  Was anyone else in a pattern?  Wilson would have had to pull it down and run or fire it out the back of the end zone.

Early in the thread there's a screen cap at about the moment of the throw.  Lynch could have been targeted rolling out to the left flat except that his back was turned.  Two players on the left (WR and TE I think) were covered in the endzone.  So scrambling or throwing it away was about it.  Scrambling would have cost the timeout if he were tackled in bounds. 

 

[CSteinhardt]

To me, this was set up by Carroll taking so much time off the clock on first down.  He could have run three more times if the first run happened with 40 seconds on the clock instead of letting the play clock run all the way down, right?  

 

[lexrageorge]

A couple of things:
 
1. Butler was obviously prepared for this play, which helped a lot, but it was still a tremendous play.  If we could rerun that play 50 times, how often does he come up with that interception?  I think that would have to be on the short list for greatest defensve plays I've ever seen in real time.  If he plays that any less then perfectly, its not an interception and it could be PI or a touchdown.  Maybe Wilson screwed up, but sometimes that type of mistake is called "a touchdown pass".
 
 

This, +1000.
 
Seriously, Butler executed that play to perfection.  Say what you want about the play call, the throw, or Lockette's position (each of which had their flaws), but the play was still a high percentage play that at worst results in an incompletion or the receiver being stopped at the 1 foot line, both of which still result in a Seattle win 95 times out of 100.  
 
EDIT:  I have to believe that Wilson's only other option was to throw the ball out of the back of the endzone.  If you think about it, that's still a very good outcome for Seattle.  Clock is stopped, and with one timeout remaining they would have 2 shots of running it in.  

 

[Myt1]

No and No.

You CANNOT run the ball three times in 26 seconds with one timeout. The Pats are smart and would have ensured that it took at least ~15 seconds to unpile after an unsuccessful second down run, meaning they have to call their last timeout and thus have to pass on third down, then run on the last play of the game, 4th down. Planning for three shots at victory, Carroll had to pass once and chose to do it when it was most unpredictable.

Running the clock down makes a ton of sense when you consider the Hawks last playoff loss featured Matt Ryan beating them with :34 and two timeouts.

You seem to be advocating Carroll going all in with two Lynch runs vice two runs and one pass. Of course, the more I think about it, a rollout pass that puts Wilson's legs into the equation was probably a better individual play call than the slant.

An incomplete pass doesn't allow them to run the clock down, though.  Incomplete on second down, either team can use the TO after third down, and then you have fourth down.  Pretty much no time would have run off the clock, even if they had called three plays they wanted to and the first pass hadn't been intercepted, but merely knocked down.
 
When your goal is to run down the clock, calling a play which, if unsuccessful, would have resulted in the clock stopping, makes no sense.  Which makes me think that the explanation is bullshit.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

More generally, I am very impressed by Butler.  Besides the game saving interception, he had 2 other passes defensed (and I imigne lost one on the crazy completion), the non-called trip was a brilliant play (no way ref sees exactly what happened there), and he was focused enough not let they guy get up and walk right in after the catch. 
 
The work he did after stepping in for the dumpster fire that was Kyle Arrington's Superbowl was a key part of the defense's turnaround.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I found this (from Reiss) curious:
 

With two timeouts left prior to the second-and-goal play from the 1 that Butler intercepted, Belichick said he was holding them for if the Seahawks ran the ball on the play and the Patriots stopped them.

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

That makes sense but it makes Bevell look worse IMO. The pass call is defensible but the slant seemed pretty risky, particularly if it was so familiar that the Pats practiced for it.

IMO, too, and I don't know Thing#1 about football.

Now that I'm off mobile, here's the quote and the link.

To his credit, Carroll took full ownership of the defeat, and of the decision to bypass Lynch. Though offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell called the particular play, a slant to Ricardo Lockette, and Wilson threw it into the hands of New England cornerback Malcolm Butler, who jumped the route, Carroll said over and over the buck stopped with him.

“I made it. I made the decision,’’ he said. “I said, ‘Throw the ball.’ ”

Wilson says the right thing, too.

Offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell said the pass call fell on his shoulders, because he’s the play-caller. And Wilson said, “I put the blame on me. I’m the one who threw it.”

 

[Bellhorn]

Not sure this is the right thread for this, but on Belichick's decision to not let Lynch score:
 
The Pats could only move the ball via the dink-and-dunk passing game (which they executed to perfection in the 4th quarter).  The chances of gaining the necessary 50 yards against one of the league's top secondaries would not be high.  And Belichick obviously felt better that his defense had a better chance of stopping Lynch in those goal line plays than they did against the Giants.  

 
The key difference is that the Giants only needed a FG for the win.  As long as you can win the game by keeping the other team out of the end zone, it's rarely (if ever) correct to let the other team score.  I'm pretty sure Brian Burke has done some more detailed research in support of that conclusion.
 
While I agree with Myt1 that Carroll's explanation made no sense, all of the fuss over the playcall is just 20/20 hindsight nonsense.  Even if you make an adjustment to account for the particular strengths/weaknesses of these particular teams, the overall probabilistic outcome distributions for run vs. pass are so similar that the decision ends up having a trivial effect, at best, on Seattle's win probability.  
 
I pretty much agree with the take of this 538 piece, with the caveat that some of the reasoning offered in this thread leaves me willing to concede that Belichick's decision not to call a TO may not have been as unequivocally wrong as it seemed.

 

[lambeau]

A couple of fine points:  1) In addition to formation recognition, Butler said he watched Wilson, and although his head didn't move, he saw his eyes looking at Lockette; Lockette's head was looking inside--both tells
                                       2) Browner, of course, knew exactly what was coming, from his life as a Seahawk; he said he didn't watch Kearse but stared at the ball, determined to jam Kearse at the snap before he could be blocked into Butler
And,of course, BB ran it in practice with Boyce playing Lockette. Great physical execution, but so much thought behind it.

 

[lambeau]

538 comes out for Carroll:  http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-head-coach-botched-the-end-of-the-super-bowl-and-it-wasnt-pete-carroll/

 

[Bernie Carbohydrate]

Hope you were being figurative and meant he got Macpherson fired, because old Dick is still kicking.

 

 
I dunno...that '92 team sure played like the coach was deceased.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Horizontal stripes are never a good look

 

[singaporesoxfan]

And,of course, BB ran it in practice with Boyce playing Lockette. Great physical execution, but so much thought behind it.

The fact that Belichick had the Patriots practice that specific Seahawks play call shows why he could give team Saturday off. All stones turned by that point.

 

[DJnVa]

I found this (from Reiss) curious:
 

 
So, game this out...Seattle runs on 2nd and gets stopped at 1 or 2, I think at that point, with clock around 20 seconds (which is where it was after INT), Seattle calls TO first, because if not, they're not going to be able to get 2 plays off, at least not without rushing them. BB would then have a TO to call if Seattle come out in an unexpected alignment on 3rd down, and then would still have the final TO if they stopped them on 3rd down to set his 4th down defense.
 
BB had clearly decided to ride with his defense. He wasn't planning on saving his TOs for offense. It was do or die.

 

[BoneForYourJar]

The fact that we can ruminate on this 2nd and goal play without angst, at our ease, luxuriating in the fractal complexity of situational algorithms for as long as we care to, is just a testament to how very very fortunate we are right now..

Soak up the moment, my friends. This one's for the ages.

 

[BornToRun]

 
So, game this out...Seattle runs on 2nd and gets stopped at 1 or 2, I think at that point, with clock around 20 seconds (which is where it was after INT), Seattle calls TO first, because if not, they're not going to be able to get 2 plays off, at least not without rushing them. BB would then have a TO to call if Seattle come out in an unexpected alignment on 3rd down, and then would still have the final TO if they stopped them on 3rd down to set his 4th down defense.
 
BB had clearly decided to ride with his defense. He wasn't planning on saving his TOs for offense. It was do or die.

So, in other words, BB's gigantic brass balls were at maximum inflation. Who else has the stones to lay it all on the line and put complete faith in his D at the goal line like that?

 

[singaporesoxfan]

I found this (from Reiss) curious:
 

You know, that's how Reiss interpreted Belichick's explanation, but what BB actually said was "We would have used our timeouts if that had been a running play on the interception. We might have done that. We put in our goal line defense with just corners. It wasnt true goal line because they had three receivers in the game." http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2015/02/02/bill-belichick-gets-emotional-after-win-remembers-late-father/

That sounds to me like BB could have meant something more like "we would have called a time out if we saw the Seahawks were going to run a running play, but then we saw they had three receivers" so there was no need to call a TO. We know BB already recognized the Seattle formation as the pass play that they practised against. Maybe BB meant he would have called TO before, not after, the play was run.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

Striking from that Miller piece is him mentioning that Lockette is 6'2" 211-lbs.  Butler is 5'11" 190-lbs.  And yet Butler not only outfought him for the ball, but absolute blew Lockette up, sending him flying.  Amazing play.

and held on to it!  

 
So first off, a big part of it was that Lockette was leaning forward to catch a ball in front of him, so his balance was off - he wasn't rooted.  Whereas Butler was charging forward to a ball that was essentially coming directly at him; his feet were under him at the moment of impact.  Big difference.
 
But if you want to revel in the mechanics of that moment, take a look at ESPN's Sport Science breaking down the physics of it.

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

You know, that's how Reiss interpreted Belichick's explanation, but what BB actually said was "We would have used our timeouts if that had been a running play on the interception. We might have done that. We put in our goal line defense with just corners. It wasnt true goal line because they had three receivers in the game." http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2015/02/02/bill-belichick-gets-emotional-after-win-remembers-late-father/
That sounds to me like BB could have meant something more like "we would have called a time out if we saw the Seahawks were going to run a running play, but then we saw they had three receivers" so there was no need to call a TO. We know BB already recognized the Seattle formation as the pass play that they practised against. Maybe BB meant he would have called TO before, not after, the play was run.

Excellent explanation. Thank you.

 

[PedraMartina]

To me, this was set up by Carroll taking so much time off the clock on first down.  He could have run three more times if the first run happened with 40 seconds on the clock instead of letting the play clock run all the way down, right?  

This is what I can't figure out either (after realizing that my feverish view last night was based on several misunderstandings abt what had happened). We are all talking about "26 seconds" on the clock but it was 1:02 until Carroll, no doubt shocked that BB was letting the clock run, chose to let it run himself (and thus played "for the next series" while BB was going all in on THIS series). But it does seem like everything Carroll said about "not liking the matchup" was BS, and that they deliberately sent in the 3-receiver set for the purpose of running a pass play, when they absolutely had time to run it three times if they wanted.

 

[TheoShmeo]

For me, the fact that Carroll made a moronic decision has three distinct elements.
 
One, thank you!  It was key to the Pats winning the SB, of course.
 
Two, it's a little irritating because like Janet Jackson's right breast in SB 38, it has become THE story and has overshadowed in the minds of many the Patriots' accomplishments.  Even non-douche bag friends are saying "congratulations but man the Pats got lucky there."  And true, they did, but we all know how well Brady played and that they played a whale of a game all around.  There is much more to this story than luck.  Hell, if not for Horse Shoe Catch 2, that play never happens.
 
Three, it's kind of a relief regarding Carroll.  My impression of the Patriots version of Carroll was that he often made no sense.  I remember hearing him at his early press conferences and being alarmed.  THEN he goes on to USC and Seattle and appears to be this coaching genius, bonding with his players, and doing nothing but winning.  WTF?!  Flash forward to the SB...he's wasting time outs, making the worst call perhaps ever and then explaining it in somewhat odd and defensive terms.  Thanks, Pete, and as Michael Holley said on the Comcast show, I remember you!

 

[Super Nomario]

This is what I can't figure out either (after realizing that my feverish view last night was based on several misunderstandings abt what had happened). We are all talking about "26 seconds" on the clock but it was 1:02 until Carroll, no doubt shocked that BB was letting the clock run, chose to let it run himself (and thus played "for the next series" while BB was going all in on THIS series). But it does seem like everything Carroll said about "not liking the matchup" was BS, and that they deliberately sent in the 3-receiver set for the purpose of running a pass play, when they absolutely had time to run it three times if they wanted.

Seattle had also had success running out of a 3 WR package, since the Patriots usually swap out a big DT for a CB in the nickel. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that they pass out of that look. I do think you're right and they really didn't want to leave time for Brady after they scored.
 
I get into some of the logic here: http://soshcentral.com/nfl/film-study-nfl/defense-film-study-nfl/2015/02/03/super-bowl-xlix-malcolm-butler-middle/

 

[soxfan121]

Mark Schofield looks at Russell Wilson's decision making on The Throw. 
 

The thing about playing quarterback is that once the ball is snapped, all of the decisions rest in your hands. We can debate the wisdom of Seattle’s play call: throwing the football in a 2nd-and-1 situation instead of handing the ball to arguably the best running back in football. We can critique scripting a shield-and-slant route in that situation, rather than a play-action play similar to the one that worked earlier in the game for a touchdown. But it doesn’t matter, because once the play is called and the center delivers the football into your hands, you are the final decision maker.
 

 

[Devizier]

Three, it's kind of a relief regarding Carroll.  My impression of the Patriots version of Carroll was that he often made no sense.  I remember hearing him at his early press conferences and being alarmed.  THEN he goes on to USC and Seattle and appears to be this coaching genius, bonding with his players, and doing nothing but winning.  WTF?!  Flash forward to the SB...he's wasting time outs, making the worst call perhaps ever and then explaining it in somewhat odd and defensive terms.  Thanks, Pete, and as Michael Holley said on the Comcast show, I remember you!

 
The burned timeouts were really the fuckup here. Forced the Seahawks into a corner. I don't mind the playcall (obviously) but the execution was bad. Probably didn't hurt that the Hawks were hurried/rattled and couldn't use any timeouts to recoup.

 

[Don Buddin's GS]

Striking from that Miller piece is him mentioning that Lockette is 6'2" 211-lbs.  Butler is 5'11" 190-lbs.  And yet Butler not only outfought him for the ball, but absolute blew Lockette up, sending him flying.  Amazing play.

Saw a scientific analysis of the play and they said that Butler hit Lockette with something like 500 pounds of force, so despite the size difference he knocked the receiver on his keister.

 

[mascho]

Crap. Peter King and I are on the same page.
 

Now Wilson. His confidence and guts might have gotten the best of him here. That’s how it looked to me. As a quarterback in this situation, you have to know the most important thing by far here is zero risk. Wilson took a risk. It happened so fast, but I believe Wilson should have seen the hard-charging Butler—although still maybe three or four yards away from Lockette when the pass was released—coming clean without getting knocked off his route by Kearse. As Millen said, “As a quarterback in this case, if you’re not sure, absolutely sure, that you’ve got a completion, you throw it to the photographers.” That’s a fail by Wilson.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

If ESPN's "Sports Science" is considered to be science, they said 800 pounds

 

[loshjott]

In retrospective, my failure to hit record after the game so I could rewatch the game was a major error

 
You clearly didn't practice that play enough in training camp.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Alex Speier turns in a solid defense of the decision.
 
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/02/02/statistically-seahawks-play-call-not-bad-you-think/9Tt9A9avhWuaZGXBlTdTDI/story.html
 
PS:
 
I should say it's a good defense of the decision to pass.
 
That particular play call is another matter.
 
Another aspect of that play that is being somewhat overlooked (and I'm sure it's been mentioned and discussed elsewhere on SoSH) is Browner not allowing the Cursed Kearse to push him into Butler.  That Browner stood his ground enabled Butler to get a clean route to the ball.  Huge.
 
Just saw that Volin talks about Browner in his column this morning.  I guess it's not being overlooked after all.
 
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/02/03/decisive-super-bowl-sequence-was-roller-coaster-ride/RDAXRTxWTZtNvp2sCgNQUL/story.html
 

 
But credit Butler for doing his homework, and Browner with a big assist. Browner, playing tight man coverage, used his 6-foot-4-inch length to jam Kearse at the line of scrimmage, preventing him from setting his pick on Butler.
 

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

They weren't losing by three. I don't agree this is a zero risk tolerance situation. You have to score. Treating a Lynch TD as a given is not fair to Wilson. if he throws it out of the end zone and then on third down Lynch loses yards or they false start or hold or fumble on third down it was a missed opportunity. Maybe the risk reward balance was skewed too high on that particular play there, but if Wilson saw a chance to win the game the fact that he took it seems like what he's trained to do. Butler made a once in a lifetime play. How many quick slants have you seen in the nfl this year? Hundreds? I can't remember a play like that one. I'm sure the SOSH Central guys can dig one up here or there, but short of the ball popping off a shoulder pad and flipping up into the air, I haven't seen a pick that good on that play ever. Butler knew the play. He intuitively understood the situation was such that he had to risk getting beat in ten different ways to play his hunch, and he made the play of the year.

 

[H78]

As some have said here, the only narrative about this that annoys me is the assumption by the media that Lynch 100% would have scored.

Maybe he would have. Maybe it was even very likely that he would have. But defensive stands happen. Vince Wilfork is an all-time player, we have other massive guys on our interior DL, and our linebackers are quick and athletic. There was absolutely no guarantee that he scores.

Maybe he gets stuffed for a loss on 2nd down, and then on 3rd and 4th down he's trying to get 3 yards instead of half of a yard?

Don't just assume he would have scored. Our defense is pretty good, too, and in that moment they were also playing for a championship.

 

[mt8thsw9th]

 

[DJnVa]

 
Two, it's a little irritating because like Janet Jackson's right breast in SB 38, it has become THE story and has overshadowed in the minds of many the Patriots' accomplishments.  Even non-douche bag friends are saying "congratulations but man the Pats got lucky there." 

 
So, the Pats got lucky by making an interception, yet Seattle was not lucky at all with the Kearse catch? Okay.
 
And that's to say nothing of Tyree's catch. Luck fucking matters, but your DB sniffing out the play and making the pick isn't luck, it just isn't. It's preparation. If Butler is a step slow the national media is calling Carroll a genius and Wilson is everyone's new favorite QB.
 
The luck was 2 plays earlier, not on that play.