That was then: Celebrating what was

[bakahump]

At this point we are playing with house money.

Not in the "plucky underdog out performing any reasonable season expectations" sense but in the we have been awesome and no one can take that away sense and now we are just creating more head shakes of disbelief. Sure if they lose sunday we as fans and they as a team will take our lumps. There will also be the inevitable "that may have been the last hurrah" stories (which may or may not turn out to be true). And yea it may take time for the venom and jelousy to subside, But 5 or 10 or even 50 years from now EVERY one (still watching football) will know what we know.....That this was THE team for the Ages and that 15 years of unequaled dominance in a parity environment has been and and never will be equaled. This is run we tell our grand kids about. Baltimore or Indy wont be sitting around a stove in 30 years taking about what a epic defense that 2000 team was or how epic the 2006 Superbowl was. This team is our Babe Ruth, Ted Williams (with the championships), Mickey Mantle and 59-69 Celts.

Just look at the obstacles that needed to be overcome to make this happen.
1. You need a Great Player at the most important position who is successful from his rookie season.
2. He needs to stay healthy for the vast majority of that time period
3. He needs to check his ego at the door (allowing cap room and providing invaluable leadership)
4. You need other great units on the team to step up at crucial times during the run (Def, STs, OL , RB)
5. You need a Great coach who checks HIS ego at the door and focuses the team on the single purpose of winning.
6. You need a Patient consistent owner
7. You need some luck from a "incompetent opponents" perspective.
8. You need multiple "diamond in the roughs" who augment your team throughout the run
9. You need that some "I just want to win" guys and be a place they WANT to go there because they believe it will be the place.
And thats just off the top of my head. I am sure we could add more.

 

[Stitch01]

Disclaimer or not, it's the height of hubris for people to complain two years about a coaching decision that worked fantastically and resulted in a super bowl victory. I don't understand.

Im not complaining about it. Im happy it worked. The prep work and execution were great. That said, I still think if they ran that scenario 100 times they do modestly better calling the timeout.

What it comes down to is whether one truly believes his conclusion that Seattle was rushing and in a bit of disarray and thus that this flipped the typical asessment of the situation. At the time, I wanted the TO and ultimately (with the benefit of seeing video of sideline, huddle, and hearing BB's explanation) still feel like it's a gutsy call, but one where we're betting on BB's experience and assessment. Which is typically a good bet.

That's all fair, although I believe BB's conclusion and assessment. Id still rather have the extra time. I think most of the time being correct results in an incompletion.

Maybe BB had information as the HC of the team on the sideline that we weren't privy to in our La-Z-Boys.

I had a pretty good view of the time left on the clock from my couch.

Im not going to die on a hill about being right here, but I do hate the flaming and "hey it worked, so it had to be right" line of thinking.

 

[Stitch01]

Agreed. Everything had to go perfectly for the Seahawks to score in :31, and everything did.

- Ghost booms kickoff though end zone. If he pops it up to the 5, it's riskier, but they lose 5+ seconds.

- with :11 left, Pats give up a catch plus Arrington penalty gives Seattle an extra 15 yards. Without that they're at the Pats 25 with :06 left and kick a FG.

- With :06 left and Seattle at the 10 yard line, as Ed Reed pointed out on Inside the NFL the next week, in this situation the Ravens were coached to intentionally foul. Grab your receiver and hug them until the play is over. Sure, Seattle will get a 1st and goal at the 1, but with :01 left will they really gamble everything or take the sure points on a FG?

They dont get it on the 1 if the Pats just tackle everyone, its going to be holding not pass interference. So they almost certainly kick the FG. Tackling everyone would have been better, although the uproar in the midst of Deflategate would have been out of control.

That was a gross drive though, remember just fuming for the entire halftime.

 

[joe dokes]

You are going to get flamed, but I'll stick up for you. Im glad it worked out as it did obviously, but I still think not calling TO was modestly -EV. BB's genius showed up the prep and personnel decisions, not in letting the clock run.

Standard disclaimer, BB is the GOAT, etc, etc.

Watching last night, I had forgotten Seattle burned 1 TO on their last drive after an incompletion, how long it took to set up before the circus catch AND that Seattle burned another TO not getting to the line after the catch even though the clock stopped. (2 clutch-time timeouts with the clock stopped. Would that ever happen with TB at QB?).

Since there aren't too many other explanations, BB had to be thinking, "those guys can't handle this; we can." And from that, it probably follows that the play there is more likely to be a pass.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Disclaimer or not, it's the height of hubris for people to complain two years about a coaching decision that worked fantastically and resulted in a super bowl victory. I don't understand.

Well, here's a way to look at it.

That Bill did not call a TO there remains amazing. I think most people thought he would. In similar circumstances in SB47, the Pats played for one more chance. So it was natural to think that the Pats would either let the Seahawks score or, to the contrary, call a TO to set the D. That Bill had the intuition and confidence to not call a TO is indicative of who he is.

I'm deferential enough to his greatness that I think he made the right call. The result is the result. And I have heard this explanation -- essentially that Carroll looked panicked and that calling TO would have helped him -- and it obviously resonates.

But remaining stunned, after two years, that Bill had the brains and balls to do that is pretty understandable. I still stand in awe and while I read Bowhemian's post and nodded my head, I was one of countless Pats fans who was screaming for him to call a TO at the time and despondent that he wasn't...until Malcom did what he did.

 

[BigSoxFan]

They dont get it on the 1 if the Pats just tackle everyone, its going to be holding not pass interference. So they almost certainly kick the FG. Tackling everyone would have been better, although the uproar in the midst of Deflategate would have been out of control.

That was a gross drive though, remember just fuming for the entire halftime.

I've never been so upset at lack of execution. Who was it that missed the tackle on Wilson that allowed that big gain on second down that basically set everything up? Was it Collins?

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

They dont get it on the 1 if the Pats just tackle everyone, its going to be holding not pass interference. So they almost certainly kick the FG. Tackling everyone would have been better, although the uproar in the midst of Deflategate would have been out of control.

That was a gross drive though, remember just fuming for the entire halftime.

Seattle had conceded. First play was a draw to the backup RB who coasted to an easy 20 yards. Truly the worst.

 

[Stitch01]

I've never been so upset at lack of execution. Who was it that missed the tackle on Wilson that allowed that big gain on second down that basically set everything up? Was it Collins?

Yup it was.

 

[Reverend]

Disclaimer or not, it's the height of hubris for people to complain two years about a coaching decision that worked fantastically and resulted in a super bowl victory. I don't understand.

Stop irritating the muggles.

 

[Bowhemian]

I've never been so upset at lack of execution. Who was it that missed the tackle on Wilson that allowed that big gain on second down that basically set everything up? Was it Collins?

Yes it was, and he was horribly out of position. He was the outside guy, and should have been responsible for outside contain. Once he dove inside to try to get to Wilson, that was all she wrote. Outside/contain guys are coached over and over and over at every level of football to never lose contain. Hold the edge, make the guy cut back inside where there are a bunch of other guys much closer who can make the tackle.
If by chance Collins was supposed to dive inside on that play, then there should have been another LB or even a safety coming up to cover the edge. But I don't recall seeing that.

 

[BigSoxFan]

Yes it was, and he was horribly out of position. He was the outside guy, and should have been responsible for outside contain. Once he dove inside to try to get to Wilson, that was all she wrote. Outside/contain guys are coached over and over and over at every level of football to never lose contain. Hold the edge, make the guy cut back inside where there are a bunch of other guys much closer who can make the tackle.
If by chance Collins was supposed to dive inside on that play, then there should have been another LB or even a safety coming up to cover the edge. But I don't recall seeing that.

Thanks - and he also got toasted by Lynch on a sluggo to start their last drive. They were at midfield before we could blink, which reminded me of the drive by Eli in SB46. And then the Kearse play was obviously reminiscent of SB42. Malcolm Butler will never fully appreciate how awesome he is.

 

[InstaFace]

That Bill had the intuition and confidence to not call a TO is indicative of who he is. ... And I have heard this explanation -- essentially that Carroll looked panicked and that calling TO would have helped him -- and it obviously resonates.

But remaining stunned, after two years, that Bill had the brains and balls to do that is pretty understandable. I still stand in awe and while I read Bowhemian's post and nodded my head, I was one of countless Pats fans who was screaming for him to call a TO at the time and despondent that he wasn't...until Malcom [sic] did what he did.

This is basically where I'm at too. I'm not going to flame anyone for saying they'd have called a timeout there. In the moment I remember screaming for it, given what had happened with the Kearse catch. It felt like our D was in disarray.

It just wasn't the case. There are certainly coaches who are so bad at time management that they would have forgotten to call a timeout there. Clearly not the case here: We heard on SoundFX that Bill's assistants (Josh?) were reminding him to call TO, and he said "yeah, yeah. I got it." He was consciously making a decision. And he gave the only explanation that made sense later: seeing the disarray on the other sideline, and his 40 years of coaching experience telling him that this was his one chance to catch his opponent surprised and unprepared.

It would be wrong to evaluate that decision based on the results, which were extraordinary. What made it a beautiful decision, though, was what Belichick knew at the time:
- He had assiduously prepared his team for just these situations, as we of course later saw
- He probably knew what plays, or types of plays, Seattle defaulted to when they were rushed or needed something reliable on the goal line. He figured that the odds were better that without a TO they'll go with something he had prepared for, but with a TO, they might try something he wasn't prepared for.
- It would take extraordinary guts to consciously not call TO there, and he had them

If he calls a TO there and Seattle scores, nobody criticizes Belichick. If he doesn't call one, and Seattle scores, people blame him. He thought no timeout was the +EV play and did that, despite the fact that it greatly upped the "expected criticism" he'd receive from the result. That's part of what's amazing about it too.

 

[Stitch01]

Yeah, if he doesn't call a TO and Seattle scores he gets roasted way more than warranted for sure.

 

[Al Zarilla]

Maybe mentioned above (this thread really got busy!) didn't Bill say at one point that Seattle looked confused so he wasn't going to help them by calling a time out? Also, give Seattle more time and they may have changed the play to handing the rock to Lynch. Of course, BB didn't know a pass play was called. Yes, XLIX made up at least in part for the Tyree and Manningham nonsense.

 

[djbayko]

Yeah, if he doesn't call a TO and Seattle scores he gets roasted way more than warranted for sure.

And part of what makes him great is that he doesn't let it affect his judgement. We all remember that other famous play where he made a similarly unconventional decision and ended up on the wrong side of the W/L column...and was thoroughly roasted for it.

 

[Stitch01]

Yes, and that was 100% the correct decision.

 

[JohnnyK]

Maybe mentioned above (this thread really got busy!) didn't Bill say at one point that Seattle looked confused so he wasn't going to help them by calling a time out? Also, give Seattle more time and they may have changed the play to handing the rock to Lynch. Of course, BB didn't know a pass play was called. Yes, XLIX made up at least in part for the Tyree and Manningham nonsense.

If Bill had stopped the clock Seattle would have had enough time to run on both second and third down if they wanted to, then call timeout and have the fourth down still available. Not calling the timeout made sure they had to throw on second or third down.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

In Do Your Job, Belichick also notes that if Seattle's disarray caused them to use their final time out he was ok with that. That surely would have reduced their options.

I think ITP did a nice job of analyzing the time out decision and part of their point is that Seattle likely had not seen the 8 bigs plus 3 corners defense. http://insidethepylon.com/film-study/film-study-nfl/defense-film-study-nfl/2015/09/10/do-your-job-the-goal-line/

From Soundfx, we know that Carroll saw they were in "goalline," and that fact probably contributed to the pass. Everyone assumes Lynch would have scored against goalline, but I can completely understand Carroll's thinking. It's hard to score against 8 in the box without getting to the edge. If they get stopped on a running play in that circumstance the odds do start to swing toward the Patriots if only incrementally.

Sometimes the job of a coach is to choose the least bad of a number of bad options, and that's what Belichick did. The benefit of having a coach that doesn't have to answer to anyone about the things he chooses to do is that he can take the 28 percent option over the 24 percent option without worrying about whether commentators would think the 24 percent option to be the safe one.

 

[Koufax]

If Bill had stopped the clock Seattle would have had enough time to run on both second and third down if they wanted to, then call timeout and have the fourth down still available. Not calling the timeout made sure they had to throw on second or third down.

Thanks for reminding us of that. It was a key aspect of the decision that I for one had forgotten.

 

[Super Nomario]

If Bill had stopped the clock Seattle would have had enough time to run on both second and third down if they wanted to, then call timeout and have the fourth down still available. Not calling the timeout made sure they had to throw on second or third down.

Yes. Calling timeout maximized the chance of putting together a response drive if Seattle scored, but not calling timeout was the best strategy for preventing them from scoring for the reason you state. I think it's probably defensible either way.

 

[dynomite]

They dont get it on the 1 if the Pats just tackle everyone, its going to be holding not pass interference. So they almost certainly kick the FG. Tackling everyone would have been better, although the uproar in the midst of Deflategate would have been out of control.

That was a gross drive though, remember just fuming for the entire halftime.

True on the penalty, depending when they engage. If I were coaching I would definitely have told them to come up to the line and wrap and hold at the snap.

Looking at the TD again though, Logan Ryan is playing about 8 yards off the line of scrimmage and basically has no shot on the perfect back shoulder throw.

 

[Dollar]

Yes. Calling timeout maximized the chance of putting together a response drive if Seattle scored, but not calling timeout was the best strategy for preventing them from scoring for the reason you state. I think it's probably defensible either way.

Exactly. It's a defensible call either way, but all it really does is shows how much more confidence Belichick had in his defense compared to 2006 (Addai walks in easily to take the lead), 2009 (4th and 2), and 2011 (Bradshaw falls into the end zone). And his confidence in his defense paid off.

 

[Euclis20]

If Bill had stopped the clock Seattle would have had enough time to run on both second and third down if they wanted to, then call timeout and have the fourth down still available. Not calling the timeout made sure they had to throw on second or third down.

This is the kind of thing that only appears to be true in hindsight. Yeah, Seattle probably would have run the ball if BB called timeout, but they should have been able to run the ball regardless. Lynch was tackled at the 1 with 1:01 left. If Seattle had moved quickly to the line they could have run the ball with 40-45 seconds, and if that failed, they could have hurried to the line again and ran the ball with about 15-20 seconds on the clock, and if THAT failed, they could have called timeout with at least 5 seconds left to choose their final play. Seattle wasted their TOs on the final drive, but if their first and only priority was getting into the endzone, they had the time to run straight ahead with Lynch 4 straight times. They just didn't do it.

I agree that not calling timeout ended up being the right play, because clearly Seattle was having issues with the clock. They prioritized running the clock down (they let the play clock run all the way down to 5 before snapping it on second down), and by doing that, they forced themselves to pass the ball on either 2nd or 3rd down. Seattle focused on running the clock down, NE focused on keeping Seattle out of the endzone. That's it.

 

[Super Nomario]

This is the kind of thing that only appears to be true in hindsight. Yeah, Seattle probably would have run the ball if BB called timeout, but they should have been able to run the ball regardless. Lynch was tackled at the 1 with 1:01 left. If Seattle had moved quickly to the line they could have run the ball with 40-45 seconds, and if that failed, they could have hurried to the line again and ran the ball with about 15-20 seconds on the clock, and if THAT failed, they could have called timeout with at least 5 seconds left to choose their final play. Seattle wasted their TOs on the final drive, but if their first and only priority was getting into the endzone, they had the time to run straight ahead with Lynch 4 straight times. They just didn't do it.

You give something up there trying to run plays that fast, though. You can't sub, you can't audible if you don't like the look, you have to get the playcall in and get everybody lined up quickly, etc. If Belichick calls timeout, they don't have to hurry like that.

 

[Stitch01]

Exactly. It's a defensible call either way, but all it really does is shows how much more confidence Belichick had in his defense compared to 2006 (Addai walks in easily to take the lead), 2009 (4th and 2), and 2011 (Bradshaw falls into the end zone). And his confidence in his defense paid off.

2011 didn't really have much to do with confidence in the defense, the Giants kick an 18 yard field goal to win regardless of defensive prowess.

The funny thing with the 2009 game is they might have been better off just letting the Colts score immediately and getting the ball back for the same reasons going for it on 4th and 2 was smart.

 

[BillMuellerFanClub]

not much to add that hasn't been discussed to the nth, but i too was and am conflicted with the no-time-out call. all the years of playing madden always have me itching to let them score and attempt to mount a game winning drive to seal the deal.

bill does a great job of keeping his team's focus on the play at hand, betting on his team to step up and come up with a big play. i don't know how many times he has to make that call and let the players succeed before i realize he knows what he's doing, but seemingly he comes out on the right side of the ledger with these situations when all is said and done.

it happened again, most recently against Pittsburgh where Harmon's help prevented a score at the 1" line. Half of me wanted to concede the touchdown and get back on offense, while the other half flashed back to the aforementioned butler INT.

celebrating what is, indeed.

 

[The Needler]

You give something up there trying to run plays that fast, though. You can't sub, you can't audible if you don't like the look, you have to get the playcall in and get everybody lined up quickly, etc. If Belichick calls timeout, they don't have to hurry like that.

Seattle had a timeout left.

 

[SumnerH]

Seattle had a timeout left.

Which they needed to keep for 4th down.

 

[The Needler]

Which they needed to keep for 4th down.

It was second down from the 1 with a minute left and a timeout. There was no need to rush. You could take 30+ seconds on a run play on second down, pass on third, and then if it's not incomplete or a TD, run or pass on fourth and still have your timeout to use on any of those plays. or use a reasonable amount of time on three runs using the TO.

 

[caesarbear]

Carroll - "we had plenty of time to win the game ... we were playing for third and fourth down, give them no time left ... but didn't work out that way."

 

[Euclis20]

You give something up there trying to run plays that fast, though. You can't sub, you can't audible if you don't like the look, you have to get the playcall in and get everybody lined up quickly, etc. If Belichick calls timeout, they don't have to hurry like that.

2nd and goal from the one, you've already got a lineup built to pack it in from the 1: 1 FB, 1 TE, and Lynch. Don't like the look? Run it anyways, maybe the guy who averaged 4.7 yards per carry, led the league in TDs and went over 100 yards on the previous play can find a way to get one yard anyway.

You're right that you have to give something up in that situation (their lousy TO usage guaranteed that), but I think that giving up the ability to effectively audible from the 1 yard line is less of a hindrance than giving up the ability to pound it in 4 straight times with the best RB in the league.

 

[Reverend]

And part of what makes him great is that he doesn't let it affect his judgement. We all remember that other famous play where he made a similarly unconventional decision and ended up on the wrong side of the W/L column...and was thoroughly roasted for it.

See, this is categorically not true:

The "people" of which you speak remember the time he made the unconventional decision and it came out wrong. But that discussion forgets the other times, including beforehand, where he made the unconventional decision and it worked out. For some time, that was the state of the discussion.

In articulating the issue as this one famous time he got it wrong, you are actually perpetuating a false myth and promoting a misunderstanding of the game, how it is played, how it has been played. and how it should be played.

Yes, he was roasted for that one incident. And Galileo was told to recant. What is your alleged point by bringing this up? If it's not that people can't do longitudinal/historical analysis effectively, then I'm missing it.

He doesn't let "it" affect his judgment because people don't keep track of this shit and, as such, as here, don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

I can't believe 4th and 2 still even comes up. It was Week 10 of the regular season 7 years ago and ultimately made little difference at the end of the season. It was unconventional but it's so overblown.

 

[Super Nomario]

It was second down from the 1 with a minute left and a timeout. There was no need to rush. You could take 30+ seconds on a run play on second down, pass on third, and then if it's not incomplete or a TD, run or pass on fourth and still have your timeout to use on any of those plays. or use a reasonable amount of time on three runs using the TO.

Those were two obvious options to get four cracks at the TD. You can run on 2nd down, call TO and pass on 3rd down, or you can pass on 2nd down, run on 3rd down and call TO. The disadvantage of running first is that the D can be pretty sure the 3rd down call will be pass if they can stop the 2nd-down run. So the pass on 2nd gives you the most flexibility with your later playcalling.

There are also two questions that are getting a little muddled together here: 1) what should Carroll have done? 2) what should Belichick have expected Carroll to do? #2 really drives the timeout decision, not #1. For all the criticism he took, I think Carroll played it pretty conventionally in terms of clock.

 

[Import78]

Carroll - "we had plenty of time to win the game ... we were playing for third and fourth down, give them no time left ... but didn't work out that way."

I've heard this from him before somewhere, but it doesn't really make sense to me. If you're playing for third and fourth down to kill clock why would you throw on second down? You either score and leave as much time as possible on the clock or its incomplete and the clock stops.

 

[Leather]

I've heard this from him before somewhere, but it doesn't really make sense to me. If you're playing for third and fourth down to kill clock why would you throw on second down? You either score and leave as much time as possible on the clock or its incomplete and the clock stops.

Because throwing was the unexpected move, and so (in theory) the most likely to succeed. Obviously the first priority is to score, so if there's a better chance of scoring (or, failing that, stopping the clock to set up the best running play) by throwing, then you go for it.

The clock was at 00:26 when they ran the Butler pick play. They didn't have time to run it 3 times, anyway, so to allow themselves a chance to use all three remaining downs, they pretty much had to do one pass at some point.

 

[The Needler]

The clock was at 00:26 when they ran the Butler pick play. They didn't have time to run it 3 times, anyway, so to allow themselves a chance to use all three remaining downs, they pretty much had to do one pass at some point.

The play clock was at :26 because they deliberately allowed time to run off and snapped with under five seconds on the play clock. They did have time to run it three times had they chosen to.

 

[Import78]

Because throwing was the unexpected move, and so (in theory) the most likely to succeed. Obviously the first priority is to score, so if there's a better chance of scoring (or, failing that, stopping the clock to set up the best running play) by throwing, then you go for it.

The clock was at 00:26 when they ran the Butler pick play. They didn't have time to run it 3 times, anyway, so to allow themselves a chance to use all three remaining downs, they pretty much had to do one pass at some point.

Right, but they threw on second down, if they were playing for third/fourth down as Carroll says in the quote it seems like he made a poor choice. As you say it was probably more likely to succeed (thanks, Malcom) but if your goal is to kill time and then score on third/fourth down then throwing on second down doesn't make sense to me.

 

[tims4wins]

If your goal is to kill time then it didn't matter what they did on 2nd down because they had already bled the clock to 30 seconds and the Pats only had 1 timeout left anyway IIRC. Even if they scored on the play it would have taken a miracle for the Pats to get into field goal range, in all likelihood.

 

[Leather]

Right, but they threw on second down, if they were playing for third/fourth down as Carroll says in the quote it seems like he made a poor choice. As you say it was probably more likely to succeed (thanks, Malcom) but if your goal is to kill time and then score on third/fourth down then throwing on second down doesn't make sense to me.

They aren't trying to "kill time and then score on third/fourth down". They are TRYING TO SCORE and, maybe, kill some time, too. Killing time is, by an infinite margin, the secondary concern. If they kill some time and fail to score, they lose.

If passing on 2nd down improves their chance of scoring by even 0.5%, they take that chance every time. And if the pass falls incomplete, they take stock of the situation and game out the next 2 downs, but at that moment they thought they could catch the Pats D unawares and run a play that they were familiar and comfortable with (ironic choice, given that the very same comfort level is how the Pats D guessed it) and, probably, score. The alternative of "Hey, I think this play gives us the best chance to win the Super Bowl, but lets run a less-likely-to-succeed running play instead because we need to leave the Pats with 12 seconds instead of 20 if the play works and we take the lead..." would be the worst coaching logic ever.

And, again and almost beside the point: with 26 seconds left, to preserve their entire playbook, they almost have to run one passing play. Using it on 2nd down when the Pats were (in their estimation) on their heels and vulnerable to a passing play made the most sense.

 

[djbayko]

See, this is categorically not true:

The "people" of which you speak remember the time he made the unconventional decision and it came out wrong. But that discussion forgets the other times, including beforehand, where he made the unconventional decision and it worked out. For some time, that was the state of the discussion.

In articulating the issue as this one famous time he got it wrong, you are actually perpetuating a false myth and promoting a misunderstanding of the game, how it is played, how it has been played. and how it should be played.

Yes, he was roasted for that one incident. And Galileo was told to recant. What is your alleged point by bringing this up? If it's not that people can't do longitudinal/historical analysis effectively, then I'm missing it.

He doesn't let "it" affect his judgment because people don't keep track of this shit and, as such, as here, don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

I purposely never said anything about Bill's other decisions and I'm not desecrating the game or how it's played.

He made an unpopular decision. He lost. He got roasted for it. He doesn't let that fact affect how he makes other difficult decisions (that's my point BTW, since you missed it).

Is any of that untrue?

Yes, it's human nature for people to remember the decisions that don't work out and, he's made many difficult decisions before and since that worked wonderfully. We all know that. In fact, it's an underlying key to my thesis.

 

[Reverend]

I purposely never said anything about Bill's other decisions and I'm not desecrating the game or how it's played.

He made an unpopular decision. He lost. He got roasted for it. He doesn't let that fact affect how he makes other difficult decisions (that's my point BTW, since you missed it).

Is any of that untrue?

Yes, it's human nature for people to remember the decisions that don't work out and, he's made many difficult decisions before and since that worked wonderfully. We all know that. In fact, it's an underlying key to my thesis.

No, it's not untrue.

But it's an utterly insipid and misleading way of looking at a decision making process and you are propagating it.

Is any of that untrue?

 

[djbayko]

No, it's not untrue.

But it's an utterly insipid and misleading way of looking at a decision making process and you are propagating it.

Is any of that untrue?

If you're saying it is uncommon for people to let negative PR from past decisions affect their future ones, then yes, I believe you're wrong.

 

[Import78]

They aren't trying to "kill time and then score on third/fourth down". They are TRYING TO SCORE and, maybe, kill some time, too. Killing time is, by an infinite margin, the secondary concern. If they kill some time and fail to score, they lose.

If you go back and read the quote I am discussing (posted by Ceaserbear), and quoted in my original post you will see that Pete Carroll specifically said that they were planning to try and score on third or fourth down to leave as little time as possible for the Patriots.

It is not the way I would play it, and it seems we are in agreement there. It is pretty clearly what Pete Carroll was trying to do and it has never made sense to me.

 

[ifmanis5]

 

[pappymojo]

Getting back on topic, when Belichick left New England he told Kraft to sign Troy Brown and this conversation was one of the reasons why Kraft felt confident to trade for and sign Belichick to be his head coach a couple of years later.

Kraft told King. “When Parcells left after the Super Bowl, we decided to clean house, and I met with Bill. Now, we had just started this era of the salary cap a couple years earlier, and to understand the salary cap was to understand value. The one thing he said to me when he left was, ‘You should sign Troy Brown. Great value there.’ I remembered that. Here was a guy on the other side of the ball, and Bill knew how important he was. And he turned out to be right.”

http://www.patspulpit.com/2017/1/30/14439356/mmqb-troy-brown-was-a-reason-why-robert-kraft-hired-bill-belichick-in-2000

 

[SidelineCameras]

Getting back on topic, when Belichick left New England he told Kraft to sign Troy Brown and this conversation was one of the reasons why Kraft felt confident to trade for and sign Belichick to be his head coach a couple of years later.



http://www.patspulpit.com/2017/1/30/14439356/mmqb-troy-brown-was-a-reason-why-robert-kraft-hired-bill-belichick-in-2000

Thanks so much for this link. Troy Brown was already my favorite Patriot of all time, this only cements that for me.

Troy Brown anecdote in spoilers because some people hate off-topic anecdotes:

Spoiler

I lived in Seattle in 2001 and they had a weekend sports call-in show hosted by local hero (and former Patriot) Hugh Millen. The Saturday evening before the AFC Championship game, Millen was saying that the Patriots didn't have a prayer. They took a call from a Boston fan with a thick accent (which I was surprised to hear in Seattle) who said, "I have three reasons they're going to crush the Steel-ahs. And those reasons are Troy Brown, Troy Brown, and Troy Brown!" Millen teased the caller for being drunk, told him that he liked Brown well enough but the Patriots were done for and went on to talk about the upcoming Steelers/Rams Superbowl.

The following Saturday, Millen's show was pre-empted for a Superbowl special, and I never got to call in Millen and call him out, but I think of that show and caller whenever I think of Brown's glorious special teams effort in the 2001 AFC Championship or the crazy catch on the final drive of SB 36.

 

[mwonow]

Thanks for this. This is the "Celebrating what is" thread. Anyone who wants to start up a parallel "Bitching about what might have been" thread is welcome do to so now...or wait until BB and TB12 have been gone for a few years...

 

[pappymojo]

Thanks so much for this link. Troy Brown was already my favorite Patriot of all time, this only cements that for me.

Troy Brown anecdote in spoilers because some people hate off-topic anecdotes:

Spoiler

I lived in Seattle in 2001 and they had a weekend sports call-in show hosted by local hero (and former Patriot) Hugh Millen. The Saturday evening before the AFC Championship game, Millen was saying that the Patriots didn't have a prayer. They took a call from a Boston fan with a thick accent (which I was surprised to hear in Seattle) who said, "I have three reasons they're going to crush the Steel-ahs. And those reasons are Troy Brown, Troy Brown, and Troy Brown!" Millen teased the caller for being drunk, told him that he liked Brown well enough but the Patriots were done for and went on to talk about the upcoming Steelers/Rams Superbowl.

The following Saturday, Millen's show was pre-empted for a Superbowl special, and I never got to call in Millen and call him out, but I think of that show and caller whenever I think of Brown's glorious special teams effort in the 2001 AFC Championship or the crazy catch on the final drive of SB 36.

What was so special about Troy Brown (and Teddy Bruschi) was that they were members of the Patriots from before the organization conversion took place (or part of the conversion process under Parcells). During the dark days, they were both fan favorites mostly for their special teams play and work effort. It's really a testament to Belichick that when he became the head coach Brown and Bruschi both really came into their own and sort of justified their 'binky' status.

Or at least that is how I like to remember their careers.

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

Thanks so much for this link. Troy Brown was already my favorite Patriot of all time, this only cements that for me.

Troy Brown anecdote in spoilers because some people hate off-topic anecdotes:

Spoiler

I lived in Seattle in 2001 and they had a weekend sports call-in show hosted by local hero (and former Patriot) Hugh Millen. The Saturday evening before the AFC Championship game, Millen was saying that the Patriots didn't have a prayer. They took a call from a Boston fan with a thick accent (which I was surprised to hear in Seattle) who said, "I have three reasons they're going to crush the Steel-ahs. And those reasons are Troy Brown, Troy Brown, and Troy Brown!" Millen teased the caller for being drunk, told him that he liked Brown well enough but the Patriots were done for and went on to talk about the upcoming Steelers/Rams Superbowl.

The following Saturday, Millen's show was pre-empted for a Superbowl special, and I never got to call in Millen and call him out, but I think of that show and caller whenever I think of Brown's glorious special teams effort in the 2001 AFC Championship or the crazy catch on the final drive of SB 36.

That season...damn. It's amazing to look back at that team and realize that all of the big plays made in that playoff run ended up being, at the time, the most important play in the history of the franchise. Wiggins in the snow. Bledsoe to Patten. Pittsburgh forced to re-kick. Ty Law. So many SB appearances later, we'll never get that again. The Brady-Brown connection is forever burned into my memory as a highlight of all those moments. However irrational this may be, it sometimes feels like that play (and drive, really) has allowed everything that followed to come true, including Brady becoming the GOAT.