Are you ready for some NFL Football? 2014 Edition.

[boogielicious]

Given the same circumstances, the Pats would have passed on that play.

[newtogolf]

Given the same circumstances, the Pats would have passed on that play.

The Pats have Brady and Gronk and don't have Lynch, it would have made more sense for the Pats to run that play.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Given the same circumstances, the Pats would have passed on that play.

The Pats have Brady and Gronk and don't have Lynch, it would have made more sense for the Pats to run that play.

They do, but I was also referring to the time and time out constraint.  I just see too much risk it trying three run plays with one timeout.  Seattle's run D would have forced the Pats into three pass play in that situation.  But that is the Pat's strength.

The pick route doesn't make as much sense as a roll out or corner fade for Wilson.  That is not his strength.  But I think Seattle saw it as a relatively safe play.

[Golfingdad]

But I think Seattle saw it as a relatively safe play.

I still do.  I watched it again last night and it's just unbelievable how he caught that ball.  He hit the guy a hair before the ball got there (and they hit HARD) and the ball hit him in the right shoulder pad.  How in God's name that ball didn't just ricochet to the ground, I have no idea.

Then again, the same is true about the great play he made 2 plays before that.  That ball should have fallen incomplete and he should have been one of the (lesser) game heroes for that play too.

It was fate!

[saevel25]

Just a little info on Lynch

His career 3rd/4th and Short (<4 yards), he averages 2.2 yards per attempt. That is 2.28 yards less per attempt than his career average.

He's also fumbled the ball 1.3% of the time. An Interception from where the Seahawks threw it happens about 1% of the time.

Lynch had nearly the same odds of turning the ball over is the same as that interception happening. That isn't including fumbles recovered by Seattle, so his actually dropping the ball is a higher percentage.

Just saying that Lynch isn't a sure bet as that pass that was thrown.

Basically that play was just as equal to or slightly better option than handing the ball off to Lynch.

[dsc123]

All the discussion about how the call made sense because they wanted to run three plays should be thrown out because the seahawks left themselves short on time by choice.   Kearse's catch was made with 1:14 left.  The seahawks burned 8 seconds before calling a timeout.  At 1:06 they ran the ball on first down.  That play was over at 1:02.  They ran 35 seconds off the clock before snapping the ball on second down.

Pete Carroll made 2 bone headed decisions.  The first was that he assumed he was going to score (he even said this after the game), so his main focus was on leaving Brady no time for a miracle.  He chose 1 throw and 2 runs over 3 runs and possibly Brady getting the ball with something like 30 seconds lefts.

Then he sends out trips, but not because he thought the pats wouldn't be ready for a pass.  I think he said he wanted to run the ball, but since they were in goal line (of course they're in goal line!  you're QB isn't a good passer, your wr's are not good, and you have the best RB in the game), they decided to burn a play with a pass.  he said he was just trying to throw the play away.

|               x                 |

|                         x       |

|      x  xxxxxxx   x       |

|      o   oooooo    o       |

|               o         o      |

|               o                 |

Things that can go wrong here if throwing an inside slant/pick play:

• Sack - Seriously, you'd have to burn your time out, you'd be 5 yards further back, and you'd have to then throw the ball twice.
• Offensive pass interference (think ND/FSU).  They very easily could have called it here. The other reciever was blocking.  This would be the same as the sack, but I don't think they'd lose a time out or a play.
• The safety jumps the route - interception!  Lukily his first step was to the other side of the field.
• Ninkovich recognizes the pass and drops right into the lane - interception!
• The pass gets broken up by the OLB, Safety, or Corner, and tipped into the crowded area -- interception!
• Some crazy play that you can't possibly predict-- interception!

I mean, look at that diagram.  Where's the riskiest place to throw it?  Hint: right in the middle of all the x's.  Right over the middle.  Sure the OLB is probably going hard at the run, but what if he doesn't?  And sure if you're quick you can beat the safety, but what if you're not?  Or what if the OLB does go hard for the run and the safety does bite  the other way, but one of the corners gets a hand on the ball and tips it into the air, right in the middle of the NE defenders.  Remember, they were trying to burn a play.  They didn't expect to score here.

I mean, if you're going to accept the clock management and the decision to throw the ball, that's the worst place to throw it.  Have the reciever break outside.  Throw a corner route that can't be intercepted.  Play action.  Read option.  Hit lynch in the flat.  Don't throw the ball over the middle.

I just cannot fathom how a coach could think, on second down with 62 seconds left, "why don't I burn a play and just throw one over the middle here?"

[boogielicious]

All the discussion about how the call made sense because they wanted to run three plays should be thrown out because the seahawks left themselves short on time by choice.   Kearse's catch was made with 1:14 left.  The seahawks burned 8 seconds before calling a timeout.  At 1:06 they ran the ball on first down.  That play was over at 1:02.  They ran 35 seconds off the clock before snapping the ball on second down.

Pete Carroll made 2 bone headed decisions.  The first was that he assumed he was going to score (he even said this after the game), so his main focus was on leaving Brady no time for a miracle.  He chose 1 throw and 2 runs over 3 runs and possibly Brady getting the ball with something like 30 seconds lefts.

Then he sends out trips, but not because he thought the pats wouldn't be ready for a pass.  I think he said he wanted to run the ball, but since they were in goal line (of course they're in goal line!  you're QB isn't a good passer, your wr's are not good, and you have the best RB in the game), they decided to burn a play with a pass.  he said he was just trying to throw the play away.

|               x                 |

|                         x       |

|      x  xxxxxxx   x       |

|      o   oooooo    o       |

|               o         o      |

|               o                 |

Things that can go wrong here if throwing an inside slant/pick play:

Sack - Seriously, you'd have to burn your time out, you'd be 5 yards further back, and you'd have to then throw the ball twice.

Offensive pass interference (think ND/FSU).  They very easily could have called it here. The other reciever was blocking.  This would be the same as the sack, but I don't think they'd lose a time out or a play.

The safety jumps the route - interception!  Lukily his first step was to the other side of the field.

Ninkovich recognizes the pass and drops right into the lane - interception!

The pass gets broken up by the OLB, Safety, or Corner, and tipped into the crowded area -- interception!

Some crazy play that you can't possibly predict-- interception!

I mean, look at that diagram.  Where's the riskiest place to throw it?  Hint: right in the middle of all the x's.  Right over the middle.  Sure the OLB is probably going hard at the run, but what if he doesn't?  And sure if you're quick you can beat the safety, but what if you're not?  Or what if the OLB does go hard for the run and the safety does bite  the other way, but one of the corners gets a hand on the ball and tips it into the air, right in the middle of the NE defenders.  Remember, they were trying to burn a play.  They didn't expect to score here.

I mean, if you're going to accept the clock management and the decision to throw the ball, that's the worst place to throw it.  Have the reciever break outside.  Throw a corner route that can't be intercepted.  Play action.  Read option.  Hit lynch in the flat.  Don't throw the ball over the middle.

I just cannot fathom how a coach could think, on second down with 62 seconds left, "why don't I burn a play and just throw one over the middle here?"

Good analysis.  The pick route may have been the weakest part of the call because there were two CB in the area.  Pick plays work better when the corners have to worry about a deeper route.  This was at the 1 yard line, so space was limited.  A safer play would have been to motion one of the receivers and leave the other one-on-one with the CB like Edelman's TD.  Plus with tall receivers, the fade to the corner is harder to defend.

[saevel25]

Sack - Seriously, you'd have to burn your time out, you'd be 5 yards further back, and you'd have to then throw the ball twice.

Offensive pass interference (think ND/FSU).  They very easily could have called it here. The other reciever was blocking.  This would be the same as the sack, but I don't think they'd lose a time out or a play.

The safety jumps the route - interception!  Lukily his first step was to the other side of the field.

Ninkovich recognizes the pass and drops right into the lane - interception!

The pass gets broken up by the OLB, Safety, or Corner, and tipped into the crowded area -- interception!

Some crazy play that you can't possibly predict-- interception!

I mean, look at that diagram.  Where's the riskiest place to throw it?  Hint: right in the middle of all the x's.  Right over the middle.  Sure the OLB is probably going hard at the run, but what if he doesn't?  And sure if you're quick you can beat the safety, but what if you're not?  Or what if the OLB does go hard for the run and the safety does bite  the other way, but one of the corners gets a hand on the ball and tips it into the air, right in the middle of the NE defenders.  Remember, they were trying to burn a play.  They didn't expect to score here.

I mean, if you're going to accept the clock management and the decision to throw the ball, that's the worst place to throw it.  Have the reciever break outside.  Throw a corner route that can't be intercepted.  Play action.  Read option.  Hit lynch in the flat.  Don't throw the ball over the middle.

I just cannot fathom how a coach could think, on second down with 62 seconds left, "why don't I burn a play and just throw one over the middle here?"

First your diagram is incorrect. The DB that made the pick was straight up with the WR who did the slant. So he should be more to the sideline and not directly behind the other DB.

Second, a sack is highly unlikely with a slant. First the slant like that, there is no read the QB is going to the WR. There was 1.5 to 2 seconds by the time the ball was snap till it left the QB's hands. No one jumped the snap count, so that leaves the D-line and Linebackers 1 to 1.5 seconds to get to Wilson. That is not enough time to cover the distance even if unblocked. The only way to cover that distance is to jump the snap count with a running start.

Third, there was no Safety near the play. They sold out to the run. Two DB's were the only ones in play. One was in press coverage (the rub route), the other jumped the route for an INT.

Ninkovich wasn't even near the slant play. He was in the middle of the field spying Wilson.

Again there was no Linebacker. It was ZERO coverage. All the gaps were taken up by lineman and linebackers on a blitz. I can see a good call might be a zone blitz if the Outside Linebacker drops back into the slant area. I think Russel would have read that more than a DB who snuck behind the rub route.

Any pass, except maybe the fade route can get tipped by lineman or linebackers. Still with only 1.5-2 seconds, there is very little time to gauge when the QB is going to throw. Usually lineman bring their hand up because they know they can't get to the QB on a sack. So I doubt this would be any big concern on this pass. Even then, on this player there is still not that many players around because they brought 7 guys after Wilson. So there was no one behind the play to even catch a tip.

It wasn't a crazy play. The crazy play was the completion before hand. It was a great play by a DB who read the play as a slant.

In hindsight, a slant was absolutely the right call versus that defense. One person made the play of the game. If a zone blitz or if the Patriots only brought 4 to pressure Wilson then you would have more people in the area of the ball. There is a reason why a slant route is a man beater WR route. It is meant to get leverage on the inside to win a one on one battle. You do not run slants versus zone because the linebackers or DB's can read the QB's eyes.

[dsc123]

Just a little info on Lynch

His career 3rd/4th and Short (<4 yards), he averages 2.2 yards per attempt. That is 2.28 yards less per attempt than his career average.

He's also fumbled the ball 1.3% of the time. An Interception from where the Seahawks threw it happens about 1% of the time.

Lynch had nearly the same odds of turning the ball over is the same as that interception happening. That isn't including fumbles recovered by Seattle, so his actually dropping the ball is a higher percentage.

Just saying that Lynch isn't a sure bet as that pass that was thrown.

Basically that play was just as equal to or slightly better option than handing the ball off to Lynch.

You can't just throw numbers out like that.  You're comparing lynch's yardage only on certain downs and distances but anywhere on the field to ALL NFL QBs on any down but from a particular yard line.   And the fumble rate is what, his whole career?  Not this year, or his time in seattle, or in situations where the most important thing is that he NOT fumble?

That play , was Russell Wilson throwing the ball over the middle against the Patriots defense from the 1 yard line.  Tom Brady or any other player's success rate is from the 1 yard line is meaningless.  What other players did against crappy defenses is meaningless.  The plays where QB tosses it in the corner where only his guy could get it are meaningless.  Plays that aren't in the last minute of the game are meaningless. That play had much more than 1% chance of resulting in an interception.

Even if you accepted all of your stats as meaningful, 2.2 yard average means what, 75% chance of getting 1 yard?  In other words, 75% chance of WINNING THE SUPER BOWL, 1.3% chance of losing the super bowl, and 24% chance of getting another crack at it?  Versus what?  You're probably dropping the chances of a TD by 20-30 percent to avoid the extra 0.03% chance of throwing a pick.  And the next two plays would have been runs either way.

[Golfingdad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

All the discussion about how the call made sense because they wanted to run three plays should be thrown out because the seahawks left themselves short on time by choice.   Kearse's catch was made with 1:14 left.  The seahawks burned 8 seconds before calling a timeout.  At 1:06 they ran the ball on first down.  That play was over at 1:02.  They ran 35 seconds off the clock before snapping the ball on second down.

Pete Carroll made 2 bone headed decisions.  The first was that he assumed he was going to score (he even said this after the game), so his main focus was on leaving Brady no time for a miracle.  He chose 1 throw and 2 runs over 3 runs and possibly Brady getting the ball with something like 30 seconds lefts.

Then he sends out trips, but not because he thought the pats wouldn't be ready for a pass.  I think he said he wanted to run the ball, but since they were in goal line (of course they're in goal line!  you're QB isn't a good passer, your wr's are not good, and you have the best RB in the game), they decided to burn a play with a pass.  he said he was just trying to throw the play away.

|               x                 |

|                         x       |

|      x  xxxxxxx   x       |

|      o   oooooo    o       |

|               o         o      |

|               o                 |

Things that can go wrong here if throwing an inside slant/pick play:

• Sack - Seriously, you'd have to burn your time out, you'd be 5 yards further back, and you'd have to then throw the ball twice.
• Offensive pass interference (think ND/FSU).  They very easily could have called it here. The other reciever was blocking.  This would be the same as the sack, but I don't think they'd lose a time out or a play.
• The safety jumps the route - interception!  Lukily his first step was to the other side of the field.
• Ninkovich recognizes the pass and drops right into the lane - interception!
• The pass gets broken up by the OLB, Safety, or Corner, and tipped into the crowded area -- interception!
• Some crazy play that you can't possibly predict-- interception!

I mean, look at that diagram.  Where's the riskiest place to throw it?  Hint: right in the middle of all the x's.  Right over the middle.  Sure the OLB is probably going hard at the run, but what if he doesn't?  And sure if you're quick you can beat the safety, but what if you're not?  Or what if the OLB does go hard for the run and the safety does bite  the other way, but one of the corners gets a hand on the ball and tips it into the air, right in the middle of the NE defenders.  Remember, they were trying to burn a play.  They didn't expect to score here.

I mean, if you're going to accept the clock management and the decision to throw the ball, that's the worst place to throw it.  Have the reciever break outside.  Throw a corner route that can't be intercepted.  Play action.  Read option.  Hit lynch in the flat.  Don't throw the ball over the middle.

I just cannot fathom how a coach could think, on second down with 62 seconds left, "why don't I burn a play and just throw one over the middle here?"

Meh, I think you're sensationalizing this to make your point.  None of those things even came close to happening except the unreal play made by the CB.  I could do the same for a run:

They could fumble the exchange.

Lynch could fumble.

Offensive holding or worse, a chop block.

It wasn't remotely crowded over the middle.  Here, look:

If you didn't already know the outcome of this play and just saw this photo and were asked, does this look like a good call against this defense?  And does it look like Russell Wilson is making the right decision here?  I think the answer to both of those questions would be yes.

I believe this is mostly a bunch of confirmation bias driven by Cris Collinsworth's over-the-top, and arguably partisan, critisism of the play.  Similar to the way Johnny Miller and Roger Maltbie got everybody to include the Tiger Woods "questionable drop" lumped into the group during his year of rules "issues."

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12277589/criticism-seattle-seahawks-play-call-line-bill-belichick-new-england-patriots-says

Quote:

"Malcolm and Brandon [Browner ], on that particular play, just made a great play. I think the criticism they've gotten for the game is totally out of line and by a lot of people who I don't think are anywhere near even qualified to be commenting on it."

[Golfingdad]

One person made the play of the game.

None of the rest matters.  This is a big giant QFT.

That play gets recreated 100 times and he doesn't hold on to that more than once or twice.

Just an amazing, amazing play.  Butler deserves 100% of the credit for the outcome of that play.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

All the discussion about how the call made sense because they wanted to run three plays should be thrown out because the seahawks left themselves short on time by choice.   Kearse's catch was made with 1:14 left.  The seahawks burned 8 seconds before calling a timeout.  At 1:06 they ran the ball on first down.  That play was over at 1:02.  They ran 35 seconds off the clock before snapping the ball on second down.

Pete Carroll made 2 bone headed decisions.  The first was that he assumed he was going to score (he even said this after the game), so his main focus was on leaving Brady no time for a miracle.  He chose 1 throw and 2 runs over 3 runs and possibly Brady getting the ball with something like 30 seconds lefts.

Then he sends out trips, but not because he thought the pats wouldn't be ready for a pass.  I think he said he wanted to run the ball, but since they were in goal line (of course they're in goal line!  you're QB isn't a good passer, your wr's are not good, and you have the best RB in the game), they decided to burn a play with a pass.  he said he was just trying to throw the play away.

|               x                 |

|                         x       |

|      x  xxxxxxx   x       |

|      o   oooooo    o       |

|               o         o      |

|               o                 |

Things that can go wrong here if throwing an inside slant/pick play:

• Sack - Seriously, you'd have to burn your time out, you'd be 5 yards further back, and you'd have to then throw the ball twice.
• Offensive pass interference (think ND/FSU).  They very easily could have called it here. The other reciever was blocking.  This would be the same as the sack, but I don't think they'd lose a time out or a play.
• The safety jumps the route - interception!  Lukily his first step was to the other side of the field.
• Ninkovich recognizes the pass and drops right into the lane - interception!
• The pass gets broken up by the OLB, Safety, or Corner, and tipped into the crowded area -- interception!
• Some crazy play that you can't possibly predict-- interception!

I mean, look at that diagram.  Where's the riskiest place to throw it?  Hint: right in the middle of all the x's.  Right over the middle.  Sure the OLB is probably going hard at the run, but what if he doesn't?  And sure if you're quick you can beat the safety, but what if you're not?  Or what if the OLB does go hard for the run and the safety does bite  the other way, but one of the corners gets a hand on the ball and tips it into the air, right in the middle of the NE defenders.  Remember, they were trying to burn a play.  They didn't expect to score here.

I mean, if you're going to accept the clock management and the decision to throw the ball, that's the worst place to throw it.  Have the reciever break outside.  Throw a corner route that can't be intercepted.  Play action.  Read option.  Hit lynch in the flat.  Don't throw the ball over the middle.

I just cannot fathom how a coach could think, on second down with 62 seconds left, "why don't I burn a play and just throw one over the middle here?"

Meh, I think you're sensationalizing this to make your point.  None of those things even came close to happening except the unreal play made by the CB.  I could do the same for a run:

They could fumble the exchange.

Lynch could fumble.

Offensive holding or worse, a chop block.

It wasn't remotely crowded over the middle.  Here, look:

If you didn't already know the outcome of this play and just saw this photo and were asked, does this look like a good call against this defense?  And does it look like Russell Wilson is making the right decision here?  I think the answer to both of those questions would be yes.

I believe this is mostly a bunch of confirmation bias driven by Cris Collinsworth's over-the-top, and arguably partisan, critisism of the play.  Similar to the way Johnny Miller and Roger Maltbie got everybody to include the Tiger Woods "questionable drop" lumped into the group during his year of rules "issues."

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12277589/criticism-seattle-seahawks-play-call-line-bill-belichick-new-england-patriots-says

Quote:

"Malcolm and Brandon [Browner ], on that particular play, just made a great play. I think the criticism they've gotten for the game is totally out of line and by a lot of people who I don't think are anywhere near even qualified to be commenting on it."

Nice work Drew.  Russell had two options up top, Lynch being covered by Jones and the TE being covered by Collins.  They may have been better options but were just decoys.  the safety had to stay put covering the other WR crossing inside. It also looks like Kearse is blocking before the catch.  OPI.

[dsc123]

First your diagram is incorrect. The DB that made the pick was straight up with the WR who did the slant. So he should be more to the sideline and not directly behind the other DB.

Yeah, its hard using the space bar to get it all to line up right.  I'm not sure what your point is, though?

Second, a sack is highly unlikely with a slant. First the slant like that, there is no read the QB is going to the WR. There was 1.5 to 2 seconds by the time the ball was snap till it left the QB's hands. No one jumped the snap count, so that leaves the D-line and Linebackers 1 to 1.5 seconds to get to Wilson. That is not enough time to cover the distance even if unblocked. The only way to cover that distance is to jump the snap count with a running start.

You don't know that when you call the play.  And i'm not saying that any one of this these are probable, just that they're possible.

Third, there was no Safety near the play. They sold out to the run. Two DB's were the only ones in play. One was in press coverage (the rub route), the other jumped the route for an INT.

The safety bit to the other side of the field, then came back.  Had his first step gone the other way, he could have been there.

Any pass, except maybe the fade route can get tipped by lineman or linebackers. Still with only 1.5-2 seconds, there is very little time to gauge when the QB is going to throw. Usually lineman bring their hand up because they know they can't get to the QB on a sack. So I doubt this would be any big concern on this pass. Even then, on this player there is still not that many players around because they brought 7 guys after Wilson. So there was no one behind the play to even catch a tip.

Yeah, that's why you don't throw a pass there, or if you do, the fade or something outside.  If the ball was tipped you had the safety, the 2 dbs, and any lineman who turned around (tipped ball could have gone in their direction).  We're talking about a play they wanted to burn.  Goal #1 should be avoid an interception.

Ninkovich wasn't even near the slant play. He was in the middle of the field spying Wilson.

50 was lined up on the end of the D line, by the hash mark.  Right where the ball was thrown.  He rushed, so it didn't matter.  But if he recognized the pass, and his assignment permitted, he could have taken a step or two forward, stopped when he recognized the pass, and sat in that lane.  he didn't even fire hard off the ball, he hesitated a bit to read the play, then rushed the qb.

Again there was no Linebacker. It was ZERO coverage. All the gaps were taken up by lineman and linebackers on a blitz. I can see a good call might be a zone blitz if the Outside Linebacker drops back into the slant area. I think Russel would have read that more than a DB who snuck behind the rub route.

How would this have made the play successful?

It wasn't a crazy play. The crazy play was the completion before hand. It was a great play by a DB who read the play as a slant.

Again, this doesn't make it a better play call.

[saevel25]

You can't just throw numbers out like that.  You're comparing lynch's yardage only on certain downs and distances but anywhere on the field to ALL NFL QBs on any down but from a particular yard line.   And the fumble rate is what, his whole career?  Not this year, or his time in seattle, or in situations where the most important thing is that he NOT fumble?

Sure I can. The most likely situation on a 2nd and 1 in the redzone is a 3rd/4th down going for a first down. Heck it is even harder because you don't have nearly as much room to work. So there is more people near the line of scrimmage. Also this situation is more important to stop than a typical first down. So people would key on Lynch even more. So I could probably assume the Yards per attempt would be even less.

The fact is that Lynch isn't nearly as good in short yardage situations as he is in other times he runs. This was the ultimate short yardage situation.

Oh wait, Lynch's fumble rate this year is 1.4%. He's worse off then I thought.

That play had much more than 1% chance of resulting in an interception.

The odds are the odds. Heck check out the image by @Golfingdad , there was no one but two DB's near the play. That play was a great call for that defense. One player made the play of the game. It wasn't a horrible call as you think it is.

Heck with that coverage I could say the chances of an INT are even less because that route is meant to beat that coverage. The advantage is clearly with the offense in that situation.

Even if you accepted all of your stats as meaningful, 2.2 yard average means what, 75% chance of getting 1 yard?  In other words, 75% chance of WINNING THE SUPER BOWL, 1.3% chance of losing the super bowl, and 24% chance of getting another crack at it?  Versus what?  You're probably dropping the chances of a TD by 20-30 percent to avoid the extra 0.03% chance of throwing a pick.  And the next two plays would have been runs either way.

I would put it closer to 60% chance, 1.4% fumble, 38.6% chance of stopped short. Heck 1 yard is only 55% the distance of his average of 2.2 yards.

Russel's comp % is 63%, throwing a high completion percentage pass versus a coverage it was meant to beat. I would say that that pass is caught 70% of the time, intercepted less than 1% of the time and dropped 29% of the time.

Yea, I think that call was not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.  We are judging it because an amazing play by a rookie caused the INT.

I think the time management by the Seahawks is something that needs to be ripped more than that call.

The safety bit to the other side of the field, then came back.  Had his first step gone the other way, he could have been there.

Yeah, that's why you don't throw a pass there, or if you do, the fade or something outside.  If the ball was tipped you had the safety, the 2 dbs, and any lineman who turned around (tipped ball could have gone in their direction).  We're talking about a play they wanted to burn.  Goal #1 should be avoid an interception.

50 was lined up on the end of the D line, by the hash mark.  Right where the ball was thrown.  He rushed, so it didn't matter.  But if he recognized the pass, and his assignment permitted, he could have taken a step or two forward, stopped when he recognized the pass, and sat in that lane.  he didn't even fire hard off the ball, he hesitated a bit to read the play, then rushed the qb.

How would this have made the play successful?

Again, this doesn't make it a better play call.

The safety had no shot at making an INT. He might have a shot to stop the guy short. The DB was much faster than that Safety and was closer and got there in perfect time.

Yea and they threw a high comp% pass against that happened to be run against the defense it was meant to beat.

If he did stop, then I think Wilson would have not thrown that pass. He saw a passing lane, if a guy stat in the passing lane I think he tucks it and tries to buy time. Its a bit different when he doesn't see a DB sneak behind the rub route.

[phan52]

Sorry, people can make excuses all day but the only options in that circumstance were to give it to Lynch, or  run play action and have Russell go to the edge with an option to run or throw. Throwing a bullet into the middle of the field there is dumb. Even if Butler doesn't jump the route, the ball can bounce off the receiver and be picked. Just a very poor choice under the circumstances.

[dsc123]

Meh, I think you're sensationalizing this to make your point.  None of those things even came close to happening except the unreal play made by the CB.  I could do the same for a run:

They could fumble the exchange.

Lynch could fumble.

Offensive holding or worse, a chop block.

It wasn't remotely crowded over the middle.  Here, look:

If you didn't already know the outcome of this play and just saw this photo and were asked, does this look like a good call against this defense?  And does it look like Russell Wilson is making the right decision here?  I think the answer to both of those questions would be yes.

I believe this is mostly a bunch of confirmation bias driven by Cris Collinsworth's over-the-top, and arguably partisan, critisism of the play.  Similar to the way Johnny Miller and Roger Maltbie got everybody to include the Tiger Woods "questionable drop" lumped into the group during his year of rules "issues."

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12277589/criticism-seattle-seahawks-play-call-line-bill-belichick-new-england-patriots-says

You can't take a snap shot 2 seconds into the play and judge a play call based on that.  That's the same thing as saying it was a bad call because it was intercepted.

In your photo, that spot has been vacated by #50 and the safety has taken two steps to his right.

So if you look at it before the play, and say here are 10 things that could have gone wrong, but didnt'--50 came in, the safety went the other way, the one DB got blocked, there was no flag on the block, this is pretty much the best thing that could have happened after the snap.  And it still didn't work.

You can't say it was a good call because 10 of the NE players did what you wanted and at the same time say its not fair to say its a bad call just because the DB made a great play.  Its about managing risk.  Only one of the 10 things has to occur for you to lose.

[dsc123]

Sure I can. The most likely situation on a 2nd and 1 in the redzone is a 3rd/4th down going for a first down. Heck it is even harder because you don't have nearly as much room to work. So there is more people near the line of scrimmage. Also this situation is more important to stop than a typical first down. So people would key on Lynch even more. So I could probably assume the Yards per attempt would be even less.

I find it very hard to believe that you honestly think those stat comparisons are meaningful.   Especially after you explain exactly why they're not.

And the safety in GD's photo had taken two steps to his right.  If he had taken two steps to his left--four steps left of where he is in that photo, tell me that play is going to succeed?

The justification for the call was to burn a play.  That means you have to eliminate as much risk as possible.  I'm not saying its a play that could never work.  Hell, I'd say its a good play if you have to throw the ball, have a good QB, and want to roll the dice.  But if you've got Lynch and you have 3 tries to win the super bowl, and an int would end the game, that's not the play you call.  It almost worked anyway.  But it didn't.

[Abu3baid]

Just a little info on Lynch His career 3rd/4th and Short (<4 yards), he averages 2.2 yards per attempt. That is 2.28 yards less per attempt than his career average. He's also fumbled the ball 1.3% of the time. An Interception from where the Seahawks threw it happens about 1% of the time.  Lynch had nearly the same odds of turning the ball over is the same as that interception happening. That isn't including fumbles recovered by Seattle, so his actually dropping the ball is a higher percentage.  Just saying that Lynch isn't a sure bet as that pass that was thrown. Basically that play was just as equal to or slightly better option than handing the ball off to Lynch.

I love stats as much as the next guy, but unless you give where he stands in comparison to all the other running backs that had carries on 3rd/4th with less than 4 yards then his stay can never be used as an argument as to why it made more sense to pass. What if his average is the best in the league? What if it falls in the upper 3rd? Basically unless his average in that situation is in the bottom third of the starting running backs you can't use this stat for your argument. Sorry.