I find replying to these multi-part parsings of a general theme exhausting, but here goes:
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.
"In case they do" might as well be "assuming they will" in that divided thinking. Seattle, on the other hand was trying to do two things at once, at odds with each other, that contributed to their fatal error.
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.
I said "unlikely" to be kind in thinking you had earlier contended otherwise. I'm not going to go back and look, saving my interest for the rest of this post. I'll take you at your word that I misread that.
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.
There is a reason. Running on second followed by the timeout creates a vulnerability not present when throwing on 2nd. and running on 3rd. If the timeout is burned on 2nd., there's no protection against a mishap on 3rd...a fumbled snap or a receiver getting caught behind the line. This is hardly under the radar...teams consider this factor all the time in game-ending situations. That Belickick would have considered this factor is hardly a stretch.[/QUOTE]
It was Carroll´s and Bevell´s mistake though and had nothing to do with Belichick being a genius.
Where is it exactly that I said Belichick's move was "genius"? You won't find that. Whatever he might have tried had a low probability of success. It was really just a matter of sizing up the situation and choosing an option that had a couple of small advantages.
I do believe he saw Seattle's strategy when they huddled up to run down the clock on 2nd. down. If I saw it surely he saw it. And then he reckoned the odds. Even if he burned his 2 TOs and managed to stop Seattle on 2 downs, if they scored on 4th. down Brady would get the ball back with less than 15 seconds after the pooch kickoff and no timeouts. Playing full stop at preventing the TD had the benefits of being unconflicted, as previously noted, while forcing Seattle to attempt at least one throw, with second down being the obvious choice as noted.
The other plausible option was calling timeout after first down, letting them score on 2nd., and getting the ball back with a little under 1:00 minute and one timeout. For all you and I know, letting an opponent score would have been so viscerally repugnant to Belichick it was never contemplated, even if it was a plausible option, Holmgren's similar move notwithstanding. Personally, I'd rather lose trying than asking players to lay down.
So, Belichick puts his run defense out there on 2nd. down against Seattle's 3-wide pass set with Job #1 being a stop on Lynch. The whole thing is one down at a time, and the bet for that down was that the same Russell Wilson who threw 3 INTs in 7 passes against the Packers might have a brain fart if he chose to throw. He did. I can't help that the conflicted thinking...it's a waste play, but score if you can was a contributing factor in Wilson throwing into a crowded box.
Despite the fact Belichick got very lucky, playing a couple of small advantages in a long shot situation worked in his favor. That's not genius; it's just picking a marginally better strategy in a bad situation. I'd call it good coaching. The idea that Belichick was the one with the brain fart, losing track of or mismanaging the clock, as some have contended is not plausible.
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.
Are you quoting me back to myself? I guess you didn't see my "what if" regarding Seattle snapping the ball at 0:35 (or 0:40 or 0:45 if you prefer) instead of 0:26. That's what Seattle should have done in that situation, with a run blocking set. Even if they intended to pass, the intent on 2nd. down would have been less obvious.
