Lets talk about anything EXCEPT Adrian Hubbard. (formerly Adrian Hubbard feels some MM love)

[TJV]

Seattle gambled that BB would use his timeouts for their benefit and he didn't ...

No they didn't. Seattle wanted to use "all the clock". If you disagree, (1) why would Bevell say that, and (2) why did they let the clock run down between first and second down?

 

[HardRightEdge]

Even with Belichick not calling a timeout the Seahawks would still have been able to get off three plays, most likely even three rushes if they hadn't decided to let the clock run down. While handing off to Lynch should be their preferred option Wilson is capable of throwing a TD pass in that situation as well.

The stats regarding a situation like that support the theory that Belichick got extremely lucky. During the 2014 season two of 318 plays (0.6%) from the 1-yard line resulted in a turnover, none of them an interception. The last time the Seahawks turned the ball over from the 1 before that play happened during the 2004 season.

I'm with TJV that it's ridiculous to call Belichick not taking a timeout the best call in Super Bowl history.

While it's hard to say if Belichick's call was the best in Super Bowl history, there was logic behind it.

On 2nd. down, Belichick had two choice:

(1) Call timeout as Seattle huddled up to run the clock down, as one would expect them to, or

(2) Let the clock run and play to stop them.

Had he opted for (1), he would be assuming Seattle is going to score. If that was the assumption, then the smart thing to do would be to let them score on 2nd. down, get the ball back with 1:00 left on the clock and 1 timeout in order to play for the FG and OT.

Instead, Belichick chose (2).

While the wisdom of choosing option (2) can always be debated, once the choice was made, not calling the timeout was the smart thing to do.

There's one "second guess" that has not been explored. What if Seattle had chosen to snap the ball on second down with 0:35 on the clock instead of running it down to 0:26? Had they scored on 2nd. down they'd be giving Brady the ball with something less than 0:25 assuming some sort of pooch kick.

Whether Seattle could have run the ball 3 times in 0:26 with one timeout is debatable, but the fact that Carrol evidently believed it to be a tight squeeze, or was not comfortable trying to pull it off with one no huddle snap, led him to the 2nd. down throw.

The parallels to the 1998 Super Bowl are interesting. In a tie game with 1:48 on the clock, Holmgren opted to let Davis run the ball in from the 1 yard line. He later admitted it was a mistake in that he thought it was first down, not second down, and that Denver could have run the clock down to 0:25 if Holmgren was to conserve his timeouts:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...stake-in-letting-Broncos-score-TD.html?pg=all

I think it's fair to say Belichick knew it was second down, chose option (2), and acted consistently with that choice.

 

[Mondio]

No they didn't. Seattle wanted to use "all the clock". If you disagree, (1) why would Bevell say that, and (2) why did they let the clock run down between first and second down?

OK maybe they didn't. I'm guessing nobody on the Seattle sideline would have complained one bit had NE called a timeout. I have no doubt they wanted to use as much clock as they could, just as I have no doubt they were hoping NE would use a TO so they could run Lynch into the line in more time. Wanting to use all the clock at the end if the game to limit a high powered offense is pretty normal in this league. And if you can make them burn a timeout on defense before you score even better. NE didn't and I think Seattle was hoping they would.

 

[TJV]

There's one "second guess" that has not been explored. What if Seattle had chosen to snap the ball on second down with 0:35 on the clock instead of running it down to 0:26?

I addressed that from Seattle's point of view regarding letting the clock run down from when Lynch got up after the first down play to 26 seconds. BTW, here's Bevell's quote:

But Carroll and offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell wanted to bleed the clock as much as possible, and either score a touchdown throwing on second down, or run on third down if the pass was incomplete. "We wanted to be really conscious about how much time was on the clock," Bevell said. "We wanted to be able to use it all."

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer...s-decision-astonishing-explanation-perplexing

 

[HardRightEdge]

I addressed that from Seattle's point of view regarding letting the clock run down from when Lynch got up after the first down play to 26 seconds. BTW, here's Bevell's quote: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer...s-decision-astonishing-explanation-perplexing

I know that. I knew exactly what they were doing at the time without having to be told.

But this is all second guessing. So I presented an optional second guess. What if they had snapped the ball at 0:35 instead of 0:26? Then the obvious move of passing the ball on second down would not have been quite so obvious.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I addressed that from Seattle's point of view regarding letting the clock run down from when Lynch got up after the first down play to 26 seconds. BTW, here's Bevell's quote: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer...s-decision-astonishing-explanation-perplexing

There was cognitive dissonance in Seattle's thinking.

On the one hand, there's the quote you cited: "We wanted to be really conscious about how much time was on the clock," Bevell said. "We wanted to be able to use it all."

On the other hand, we have this from Carroll: "So on second down, we throw the ball really to kind of waste that play. If we score, we do. If we don't, then we'll run it in on third and fourth down, really, with no second thoughts or hesitation in that at all." What he did not say, at least in that piece, is that this approach would allow them to use all of their downs and huddle for each of them.

So, if they do score on the second down pass, it defeats the objective to use all of the clock...conflicted thinking.

Failing to have a single-minded objective to score on the play creates a vulnerability. And in exposing the strategy, which Carroll in essence admitted he did with his pass personnel ("We sent in our personnel, they sent in goal line; it's not the right matchup for us to run the football"), he created a second vulnerability. Carroll's decision to throw the ball was not a mistake in being "bizarre" as that writer put it; it was a mistake in being predictable and conflicted. Had they snapped at 0:35 instead of 0:26, at least the intent would not have been quite so obvious.

In the end, the guys who were two clever by half with conflicted and predictable thinking lost to the guy who had a single minded strategy..."stop them".

 

[TJV]

Failing to have a single-minded objective to score on the play creates a vulnerability. And in exposing the strategy, which Carroll in essence admitted he did with his pass personnel ("We sent in our personnel, they sent in goal line; it's not the right matchup for us to run the football"), he created a second vulnerability. Carroll's decision to throw the ball was not a mistake in being "bizarre" as that writer put it; it was a mistake in being predictable. Had they snapped at 0:35 instead of 0:26, at least the intent would not have been quite so obvious.

In the end, the guys who were two clever by half with conflicted thinking lost to the guy who had a single minded strategy..."stop them".

Exactly right. It was Carroll/Bevell’s lack of focus on the task at hand and their not even being focused on their confused strategy that doomed Seattle. Belichick did nothing to cause the twin vulnerabilities you describe, nothing to cause Carroll/Bevell to be too clever by half.

BTW, “thanks” for the Holmgren in Super Bowl XXXII reminder. Seldom has there been a better example of a HC having ‘one foot out the door’.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Exactly right. It was Carroll/Bevell’s lack of focus on the task at hand and their not even being focused on their confused strategy that doomed Seattle. Belichick did nothing to cause the twin vulnerabilities you describe, nothing to cause Carroll/Bevell to be too clever by half.

Right, but Belichick did what was consistent with his strategy while not playing into Seattle's strength.

Had he called timeout after 2nd. down with about 1:00 to play, while at the same time signalling that he'd use the second one in his pocket after 3rd. down, Seattle would not have been able to run out the clock. Thereby being relieved of their conflicted thinking, they could run the ball 3 times with the benefit of a huddle on each snap.

BTW, “thanks” for the Holmgren in Super Bowl XXXII reminder. Seldom has there been a better example of a HC having ‘one foot out the door’.

Holmgren did not depart until a year later.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I don't think so, I think it's more likely he'll leave Green Bay after being fired.

That assumes he's not in the last year of his contract and then somebody will hire him. Either way, it works for me.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think the Patriots Super Bowl record in the Brady era is instructive:

2001 season: Pats 20, Rams 17
2003 season: Pats 32, Panthers 29
2004 season: Pats 24, Eagles 21
2007 season: Giants 17, Pats 14
2011 season: Giants 21, Pats 17
2014 season: Pats 28, Hawks 24

So, the Pats scored 24 points or less in 4 of those games. They held the opponent to 24 points or less in 5 of those games.

Brady threw for 11 TDs in those 6 games. With 3 TD throws against the Panthers, Brady threw for 8 in the other 5 games going 3-2.

In other words, the only dynasty in the post-free agent era has been a QB-driven team, with perhaps the greatest QB to play the game, and they ended up relying on defense to keep the opponent in check with the offense rarely flying high in the big game.

With 3 or 4 playoff wins needed for a Championship, the odds are that no matter how good the offense might be there will be a game where it stalls. Playing against Seattle would qualify as a candidate game. So, the odds are the defense will be called upon to keep the opponent in check at one point or another. A late offensive failure in a late 3-and-out simply pales in comparison to the defense surrendering 3 drives for 206 yds, 3 TDs, in a scant 17 plays and 5:46 elapsed time. And that defensive collapse did not hinge in one player or another, one play or another...it was a collective failure.

So, the next time Green Bay surrenders 28 points to Seattle, whether they wake up on the wrong side of the bed instead of Wilson doing so, or collapse late as in this most recent game, as with Brady's Super Bowl performances figure there's about a 1 in 6 chance the Packers will come away with the win. Maybe less...while Carolina had a pretty fair defense in that 2003 season, it was not up to the 2014 Seattle standards.

Otherwise, as with the Cowboys, Giants and 49er's before them, just wait for Seattle to get old and/or injured.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

whatever your name is

I don`t think he was being argumentative TJV, you had crossed out Jack.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think it was brilliant in that fact that BB didn't try and outcoach his own team. He saw that Seattle was trying to score with no time left, he used that to his advantage. Torture the stats all you want to paint a picture, while you're at it, mash them around enough and tell me what the stats say about calling the time out to save 10 seconds and then have enough time to drive down and score enough to win the game with that time?? I'm guessing they're pretty low too. Running Lynch from the 1 was less than a 50/50 proposition as well. Pretty good chance they run it twice and don't make it on either, with time running down, it greatly increased the odds that 1 play would be a pass, and it would be early.

Calling a timeout insures the Seahawks have all the time to think and do what they want as it would open up their entire playbook. Anyway, to me it boiled down to nothing more than BB trusting his players when he saw what Seattle was trying to do. Seattle gambled that BB would use his timeouts for their benefit and he didn't, he basically told his defense that this was it, and they did it.

Over the last 10 season six teams out of 95 (6.3%) won a game getting the ball with less than a minute trailing by three. OTOH the probablity stopping an opponent three times from the 1-yard line has been close to 10% since the start of the 2005 season.

The Seahawks would have for sure been able to get off three plays in that situation and with a 90% chance of them scoring a TD saving as much time as possible to drive into FG range would have been the best move by Belichick. He simply got lucky the defense got a turnover.

On 2nd. down, Belichick had two choice:

(1) Call timeout as Seattle huddled up to run the clock down, as one would expect them to, or

Had he opted for (1), he would be assuming Seattle is going to score. If that was the assumption, then the smart thing to do would be to let them score on 2nd. down, get the ball back with 1:00 left on the clock and 1 timeout in order to play for the FG and OT.

No, by calling a timeout Belichick doesn´t assume the Seahawks are going to score. But in case they do (which is highly probable in a situation like that) he saves some time for Brady to drive them into FG range.

Whether Seattle could have run the ball 3 times in 0:26 with one timeout is debatable, but the fact that Carrol evidently believed it to be a tight squeeze, or was not comfortable trying to pull it off with one no huddle snap, led him to the 2nd. down throw.

The Seahawks wouldn´t have been able to run the ball three times with snapping it with 26 seconds left. But they would have been able to get off three plays (two runs) for sure.

Then the obvious move of passing the ball on second down would not have been quite so obvious.

I really have no idea why it was the obvious move for the Seahawks to throw the ball on second down. If they get stopped running the ball on second down they would have had to take a timeout and most likely throw it on third down but there was absolutely no reason to call a pass play there.

Carroll's decision to throw the ball was not a mistake in being "bizarre" as that writer put it; it was a mistake in being predictable and conflicted.

It was Carroll´s and Bevell´s mistake though and had nothing to do with Belichick being a genius.

Had he called timeout after 2nd. down with about 1:00 to play, while at the same time signalling that he'd use the second one in his pocket after 3rd. down, Seattle would not have been able to run out the clock. Thereby being relieved of their conflicted thinking, they could run the ball 3 times with the benefit of a huddle on each snap.

Lynch was stopped on first down with more than a minute left on the clock. The Seahawks would have been able to run the ball three times with the benefit of a huddle if they had decided to snap the ball early on second down.

I think the Patriots Super Bowl record in the Brady era is instructive:

2001 season: Pats 20, Rams 17
2003 season: Pats 32, Panthers 29
2004 season: Pats 24, Eagles 21
2007 season: Giants 17, Pats 14
2011 season: Giants 21, Pats 17
2014 season: Pats 28, Hawks 24

So, the Pats scored 24 points or less in 4 of those games. They held the opponent to 24 points or less in 5 of those games.

Brady threw for 11 TDs in those 6 games. With 3 TD throws against the Panthers, Brady threw for 8 in the other 5 games going 3-2.

In other words, the only dynasty in the post-free agent era has been a QB-driven team, with perhaps the greatest QB to play the game, and they ended up relying on defense to keep the opponent in check with the offense rarely flying high in the big game.

First of all Brady has thrown for 13 TDs in his six Super Bowl appearances, 10 of them during the Patriots four wins. Another thing you have to be aware of is the fact that the first four Patriots teams with Belichick and Brady making it to the Super Bowl all featured elite defenses, ranking 6th (2001), 1st (2003), 2nd (2004) and 4th (2007) in points allowed.

 

[HardRightEdge]

First of all Brady has thrown for 13 TDs in his six Super Bowl appearances, 10 of them during the Patriots four wins. Another thing you have to be aware of is the fact that the first four Patriots teams with Belichick and Brady making it to the Super Bowl all featured elite defenses, ranking 6th (2001), 1st (2003), 2nd (2004) and 4th (2007) in points allowed.[/QUOTE]
13 or 11, the point stands. As for the quality of those defenses, that goes to my point.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

13 or 11, the point stands. As for the quality of those defenses, that goes to my point.

Well, Brady has thrown an average of 2.17 TD passes during his six Super Bowl appearances. That is significantly higher than his average of 1.88 during the regular season over his career. The only QBs in NFL history to have averaged more than two TDs per regular season game (minimum 200 TDs) are Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers.

So, I really don´t know how that proves that defenses are more important during the Super Bowl.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Where does Adrian Hubbard fit in to all this ??? You know, the guy the thread is about ?

 

[Half Empty]

Hey, this is a lot more fun to watch. We can find out for sure about Hubbard in a month or two.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Hey, this is a lot more fun to watch. We can find out for sure about Hubbard in a month or two.

Assuming you survive the cull.....lol

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Where does Adrian Hubbard fit in to all this ??? You know, the guy the thread is about ?

Well, there´s only that much to say about an undrafted free agent who wasn´t able to get off the practice squad during his rookie season. As some other posters have already pointed out sometimes a thread takes on another direction and I think as long as there is educated football discussion going on all of us should be fine with it, especially at this time of the year when there´s nothing happening around the NFL.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Well, there´s only that much to say about an undrafted free agent who wasn´t able to get off the practice squad during his rookie season. As some other posters have already pointed out sometimes a thread takes on another direction and I think as long as there is educated football discussion going on all of us should be fine with it, especially at this time of the year when there´s nothing happening around the NFL.

As long as everybody plays nice . I just felt it needed pointing out.

 

[Half Empty]

Oh, good, now we can continue discussing what 'playing nice' means. The NFL is just going to HAVE to come up with something to fill in these horrible six weeks.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Oh, good, now we can continue discussing what 'playing nice' means. The NFL is just going to HAVE to come up with something to fill in these horrible six weeks.

Have you always been argumentative, or is it something you`ve worked on ???

 

[Half Empty]

With my screen name, what do you think? Although, seriously, I've quit posting to two other big Packer forums. One just won't accept Packer criticism, so it's the first post on a subject followed by lots of 'good post', '+1' sort of replies. The other one is so far afield that it'd actually be a good example of when the mods OUGHT to step in, but don't. I think the way things have been handled here is fine.

 

[HardRightEdge]

So, I really don´t know how that proves that defenses are more important during the Super Bowl.

It's not intended to be proof, rather an illustration. Don't expect to get through 3 or 4 playoff games by scoring 30+ each time. Don't count on Rodgers throwing 4 TDs to overcome the defense sh*tting the bed.

And while I did not say defense is more important in the Superbowl, it certainly is, just as everything is more important with each step through the playoffs.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Where does Adrian Hubbard fit in to all this ??? You know, the guy the thread is about ?

He's tall, fast, on the stiff side and his only pass rush move is the bull rush. If he can work in a swim move and improve his hand work he might be an OK player. How's that?

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

He's tall, fast, on the stiff side and his only pass rush move is the bull rush. If he can work in a swim move and improve his hand work he might be an OK player. How's that?

I only asked