Are you ready for some NFL Football? 2014 Edition.

[boogielicious]

Nice article by someone who knows a bit more about football than we do.

http://www.footballbyfootball.com/column/inside-look-at-butlers-super-bowl-sealing-int

[saevel25]

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.

He took two steps because he was reading his keys. That means his keys was not to read that WR who ran the slant, even if one was thrown.

If he shaded to the left, I still don't think he would have made the interception. The primary reason being he was reading Wilson, not the WR. His job was to spy Wilson if he breaks contain, or cover a WR who comes in his area. Meaning he would have to see the Wilson throw the ball then turn to locate the WR and make his move.

The DB was playing the WR because he was in man coverage. You can see it in the video of the play. The DB makes a break on the slant when the WR turns his hips for the slant route. That is how he got there so fast. He was playing man coverage. The Safety was playing spy, basically a zone coverage. The DB had a few steps on the safety even before Wilson threw the ball.

Yes I already said it was a very LOW risk play. That is a high comp % route. That ended up against the defense it was meant to beat. Just because a DB made one hell of a play doesn't mean it was the wrong call. Those plays are meant to give your player the best shot in a one on one situation. The Patriots DB made the play of the game. Heck if the WR was a step faster then it was probably going to be Pass Interference.

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.

Why should we care what other RB do. This isn't him versus the other RB on who is the best at short yardage situation. My argument is that people are saying, "Well he gets 4.4 yards per carry, give him the ball." Well no, in a similar situation he's actually must worse than his average. That might just be the nature of the game in those situations. I don't care if every RB is 50% their yards per attempt in short yardage. You are making a play call based on the situation at hand and based on the stats you have, versus the defense you see that gives you the highest chance you think of getting a TD. The facts are the Lynch does not run well in short yardage situations.

Why would I care what other RB do, they were not in the game?

[dsc123]

Nice article by someone who knows a bit more about football than we do.

http://www.footballbyfootball.com/column/inside-look-at-butlers-super-bowl-sealing-int

Good read and yet another reason why it was a bad call--the shotgun.

He took two steps because he was reading his keys. That means his keys was not to read that WR who ran the slant, even if one was thrown.

Sure.  But this was not a certainty when the play was called, right?  You have to agree with that right?  It was possible, when the play was called, that he could have gone the other way.

The DB was playing the WR because he was in man coverage. You can see it in the video of the play. The DB makes a break on the slant when the WR turns his hips for the slant route. That is how he got there so fast. He was playing man coverage. The Safety was playing spy, basically a zone coverage. The DB had a few steps on the safety even before Wilson threw the ball.

I know they were in man coverage--you saw revis follow whoever went in motion.  But the safety wasn't in man coverage, or if he was, his man stayed in leaving him to help out.  He wasn't spying Wilson--shadowing him in case of a run--from 7 yards into the endzone.

Yes I already said it was a very LOW risk play. That is a high comp % route. That ended up against the defense it was meant to beat. Just because a DB made one hell of a play doesn't mean it was the wrong call. Those plays are meant to give your player the best shot in a one on one situation. The Patriots DB made the play of the game. Heck if the WR was a step faster then it was probably going to be Pass Interference.

asdfadsf

Low risk compared to what?  Definitely not compared to running the football (despite those meaningless stats), definitely not less risk than a fade, not less risk than something outside.  If Pete Carroll's stated goal is to burn a play, then only the least risky play that stops the clock is the right call.

Why should we care what other RB do. This isn't him versus the other RB on who is the best at short yardage situation. My argument is that people are saying, "Well he gets 4.4 yards per carry, give him the ball." Well no, in a similar situation he's actually must worse than his average. That might just be the nature of the game in those situations. I don't care if every RB is 50% their yards per attempt in short yardage. You are making a play call based on the situation at hand and based on the stats you have, versus the defense you see that gives you the highest chance you think of getting a TD. The facts are the Lynch does not run well in short yardage situations.

Why would I care what other RB do, they were not in the game?

!!!!!

Lol, so we agree that your numbers are meaningless, then, right?  Where did you get that 1% interception rate from?  Wasn't it what everybody else in the NFL did from the 1 yard line?

And where do you get him not running well in short yardage?  Because he gets 2.2 yds per carry in short yardage situations?  How many of those were 2 yards or less from the end zone?  How many of those were situations were he needed two yards or less and got it?  You're not a bad short yardage guy if you get 2 yards on a 4th and 1.

Can you answer this:  If the pass was incomplete instead of intercepted, would you have thrown two more passes?

[Abu3baid]

He took two steps because he was reading his keys. That means his keys was not to read that WR who ran the slant, even if one was thrown. If he shaded to the left, I still don't think he would have made the interception. The primary reason being he was reading Wilson, not the WR. His job was to spy Wilson if he breaks contain, or cover a WR who comes in his area. Meaning he would have to see the Wilson throw the ball then turn to locate the WR and make his move. The DB was playing the WR because he was in man coverage. You can see it in the video of the play. The DB makes a break on the slant when the WR turns his hips for the slant route. That is how he got there so fast. He was playing man coverage. The Safety was playing spy, basically a zone coverage. The DB had a few steps on the safety even before Wilson threw the ball.  Yes I already said it was a very LOW risk play. That is a high comp % route. That ended up against the defense it was meant to beat. Just because a DB made one hell of a play doesn't mean it was the wrong call. Those plays are meant to give your player the best shot in a one on one situation. The Patriots DB made the play of the game. Heck if the WR was a step faster then it was probably going to be Pass Interference.  Why should we care what other RB do. This isn't him versus the other RB on who is the best at short yardage situation. My argument is that people are saying, "Well he gets 4.4 yards per carry, give him the ball." Well no, in a similar situation he's actually must worse than his average. That might just be the nature of the game in those situations. I don't care if every RB is 50% their yards per attempt in short yardage. You are making a play call based on the situation at hand and based on the stats you have, versus the defense you see that gives you the highest chance you think of getting a TD. The facts are the Lynch does not run well in short yardage situations.  Why would I care what other RB do, they were not in the game?

The simple reason is that if this is the average of the top 10 RB in the league for example then this means that this would not be a reason to disqualify the decision of handing off the ball. There is no context to the stat you gave. For example, if I hypothetically said that on third down and 10 Brady completed a first down pass 30% of the time opposed to completing a first down 60% of the time on 1st and 10 would that really make you say to your self ok on 3rd and 10 im not going to pass because Brady is completing less than 50% of the time compared to first down and 10? No, that would be dumb.. I would say ok how does Brady stack up against all the other QBs on 3rd and 10 and if he was the best with the others completing 25% and less I would be inclined to let him pass as I know he is the best at it out of everyone else.. Same exact thing with lynch.. If you mentioned that his yardage in that situation is the best in the league I would say they are stupid not to let him run it, as opposed to if he was the worst in the league I would agree with you. (I don't know if it is one way or the other as I don't know where you got your stat from) if you don't understand why it matters to put the stats within context of how he stacks up against others in the league then I guess we just don't see eye to eye on this that's all.

[saevel25]

Sure.  But this was not a certainty when the play was called, right?  You have to agree with that right?  It was possible, when the play was called, that he could have gone the other way.

I know they were in man coverage--you saw revis follow whoever went in motion.  But the safety wasn't in man coverage, or if he was, his man stayed in leaving him to help out.  He wasn't spying Wilson--shadowing him in case of a run--from 7 yards into the endzone.

Low risk compared to what?  Definitely not compared to running the football (despite those meaningless stats), definitely not less risk than a fade, not less risk than something outside.  If Pete Carroll's stated goal is to burn a play, then only the least risky play that stops the clock is the right call.

Lol, so we agree that your numbers are meaningless, then, right?  Where did you get that 1% interception rate from?  Wasn't it what everybody else in the NFL did from the 1 yard line?

And where do you get him not running well in short yardage?  Because he gets 2.2 yds per carry in short yardage situations?  How many of those were 2 yards or less from the end zone?  How many of those were situations were he needed two yards or less and got it?  You're not a bad short yardage guy if you get 2 yards on a 4th and 1.

Can you answer this:  If the pass was incomplete instead of intercepted, would you have thrown two more passes?

He could have shaded towards the other side, but that still doesn't mean he was key'd in on that WR on the slant. It doesn't mean he would make an INT on it. At best I would say he would have made the tackle short of the endzone.

Sure it low risk compared to the run. Russell is a 63 comp % QB, throwing a high percentage comp % pass, on a route that is safe compared to some other routes. He wasn't throwing  a jump ball or into double coverage. Slant routes are one of the safest passing plays in the NFL.

I think the turnover is pretty much a wash. I think the INT on that play is pretty much equal to either Wilson or Lynch. The only thing that is arguing is if Lynch would have gotten into the end zone more often than that pass being complete. I got that 1% from the fact that 106 pass plays were run from inside the 5 yard line. Only once was their an INT, in the Superbowl. So, yea 1 divide by 106 is just shy of 1%.

I got that from his situational stats. On 3rd or 4th and short (3 yards and less) he averages 2.2 yards per carry. I am not talking about 3 and less at the redzone. I am just saying in situations were the goal is for the RB to pick up a first down he averages 2.2 yards. This situation is nearly identical except that the end result is for a TD.

Tough to say. I can see the advantage of play action fake on 3rd down after a failed pass on 2nd down.  I would run it on 3rd down. Since Lynch is a beast to take down one on one, I would try something to the edge rather than up the middle. Try to get him one on one with a DB or Outside Linebacker versus a Defensive Tackle and Inside Linebacker. Though going read option isn't a bad call either.

The simple reason is that if this is the average of the top 10 RB in the league for example then this means that this would not be a reason to disqualify the decision of handing off the ball. There is no context to the stat you gave. For example, if I hypothetically said that on third down and 10 Brady completed a first down pass 30% of the time opposed to completing a first down 60% of the time on 1st and 10 would that really make you say to your self ok on 3rd and 10 im not going to pass because Brady is completing less than 50% of the time compared to first down and 10? No, that would be dumb.. I would say ok how does Brady stack up against all the other QBs on 3rd and 10 and if he was the best with the others completing 25% and less I would be inclined to let him pass as I know he is the best at it out of everyone else..

Why would you even care how he stacks up against other QB's. Aaron Rodgers isn't playing for the Patriots. All that matters is what Tom can do in that situation with the information at hand.

Lets say you have these stats on 3rd and short (less than 4 yards)

a) Passing Play complete 55% of the time

b) Rushing play works 50% of the time

These are your team's success rates. I think over the sort of the season you'd probably pass the ball slightly more on 3rd and short than run it.

Yes, why does it matter what the other QB can do? Seriously, it doesn't matter.

Given in the overall game plan when looking at advantages you have over an opponent, yea that is something to look at. In situations in a game, it doesn't matter.

[Golfingdad]

Nice article by someone who knows a bit more about football than we do.

http://www.footballbyfootball.com/column/inside-look-at-butlers-super-bowl-sealing-int

Nice read!  Thanks!

[Abu3baid]

He could have shaded towards the other side, but that still doesn't mean he was key'd in on that WR on the slant. It doesn't mean he would make an INT on it. At best I would say he would have made the tackle short of the endzone.  Sure it low risk compared to the run. Russell is a 63 comp % QB, throwing a high percentage comp % pass, on a route that is safe compared to some other routes. He wasn't throwing  a jump ball or into double coverage. Slant routes are one of the safest passing plays in the NFL.  I think the turnover is pretty much a wash. I think the INT on that play is pretty much equal to either Wilson or Lynch. The only thing that is arguing is if Lynch would have gotten into the end zone more often than that pass being complete. I got that 1% from the fact that 106 pass plays were run from inside the 5 yard line. Only once was their an INT, in the Superbowl. So, yea 1 divide by 106 is just shy of 1%.  I got that from his situational stats. On 3rd or 4th and short (3 yards and less) he averages 2.2 yards per carry. I am not talking about 3 and less at the redzone. I am just saying in situations were the goal is for the RB to pick up a first down he averages 2.2 yards. This situation is nearly identical except that the end result is for a TD.  Tough to say. I can see the advantage of play action fake on 3rd down after a failed pass on 2nd down.  I would run it on 3rd down. Since Lynch is a beast to take down one on one, I would try something to the edge rather than up the middle. Try to get him one on one with a DB or Outside Linebacker versus a Defensive Tackle and Inside Linebacker. Though going read option isn't a bad call either.  Why would you even care how he stacks up against other QB's. Aaron Rodgers isn't playing for the Patriots. All that matters is what Tom can do in that situation with the information at hand. Lets say you have these stats on 3rd and short (less than 4 yards) a) Passing Play complete 55% of the time b) Rushing play works 50% of the time These are your team's success rates. I think over the sort of the season you'd probably pass the ball slightly more on 3rd and short than run it.  Yes, why does it matter what the other QB can do? Seriously, it doesn't matter.  Given in the overall game plan when looking at advantages you have over an opponent, yea that is something to look at. In situations in a game, it doesn't matter.

You kind of left the original point and went after the example.. Basically you said since his stat is 50% of his average yards per carry then he is not good in short yardage situations right? I am saying is that you can't say if he is good or not in short yardage situation by that stat.. We need to know what is the average of the NFL running backs in short yardage situations? I'm saying if he is the best out of the whole league then I don't care what yardage he gets because he is the best in the league.. Thus, this isn't the stat I would use to determine if I give to him or not. In pretty sure that my original post was pretty clear, you put out a stat and I'm saying it is a meaningless one in terms of making a decision without putting that stat in context.

[Golfingdad]

You kind of left the original point and went after the example.. Basically you said since his stat is 50% of his average yards per carry then he is not good in short yardage situations right?

I am saying is that you can't say if he is good or not in short yardage situation by that stat.. We need to know what is the average of the NFL running backs in short yardage situations? I'm saying if he is the best out of the whole league then I don't care what yardage he gets because he is the best in the league.. Thus, this isn't the stat I would use to determine if I give to him or not. In pretty sure that my original post was pretty clear, you put out a stat and I'm saying it is a meaningless one in terms of making a decision without putting that stat in context.

I don't follow this logic.  (Not arguing the numbers between you and Matt, just the logic you are using here.)

Why would Lynch's numbers compared to other running backs play into this at all.? Unless you are talking about another running back on the Seahawks, they don't.

What if I said that Lynch's likelihood to score from 1 yard out is 80%, however, that is 11th in the league.  But on the flip side, Lockette is #1 in the league at receiving slant passes for touchdowns from the 1 yard line, at a 5% rate.

By your argument, Lockette is the better choice based on the stats given.  That makes no sense.

[dsc123]

I think the turnover is pretty much a wash. I think the INT on that play is pretty much equal to either Wilson or Lynch. The only thing that is arguing is if Lynch would have gotten into the end zone more often than that pass being complete. I got that 1% from the fact that 106 pass plays were run from inside the 5 yard line. Only once was their an INT, in the Superbowl. So, yea 1 divide by 106 is just shy of 1%.

I really don't get how you can think that a fumble is equally as likely as a int on that play call.  You're the only person I've ever heard of who thinks throwing the ball is safer than running.

Russell Wilson's career int rate is 2%.  In the playoffs this year its 3%.  Were those 106 plays all his or are you doing exactly what your complaining Abu is doing?  And Lynch would have been very much aware of the need for ball security, likely lowering his fumble odds.

Sure it low risk compared to the run. Russell is a 63 comp % QB, throwing a high percentage comp % pass, on a route that is safe compared to some other routes. He wasn't throwing  a jump ball or into double coverage. Slant routes are one of the safest passing plays in the NFL.

But not all other routes.  There are safer routes. And if you're just trying to burn a play because you don't like the matchup, you call the safer route.

And 63% is all situations, right?  Its harder to complete a pass from the 1 yard line because there's less room to work with.

And your fumble rate is all situations, right?  Even though here Lynch would have been extra cautious?

You're just not comparing apples to apples.  In once sentence you stress the importance of context and in the next you ignore it.

I got that from his situational stats. On 3rd or 4th and short (3 yards and less) he averages 2.2 yards per carry. I am not talking about 3 and less at the redzone. I am just saying in situations were the goal is for the RB to pick up a first down he averages 2.2 yards. This situation is nearly identical except that the end result is for a TD.

Its the conclusion, not the stat, that doesn't make sense.  If you're only talking about 4 yards or less, on 3rd or 4th down, that's lots of plays where 1 or 2 yards = success.  So showing that he averages 2.2 yards does not mean that he is not good in those situations.  If he got exactly one yard every time he faced a 3rd and 1, he'd be the best back in the league at 3rd and 1 even though he only averaged 1 yard in those situations.

That's like saying Tom Brady is better at throwing hail marys than screens because his yards per completion are higher on deep balls.

[dsc123]

I don't follow this logic.  (Not arguing the numbers between you and Matt, just the logic you are using here.)

Why would Lynch's numbers compared to other running backs play into this at all.? Unless you are talking about another running back on the Seahawks, they don't.

What if I said that Lynch's likelihood to score from 1 yard out is 80%, however, that is 11th in the league.  But on the flip side, Lockette is #1 in the league at receiving slant passes for touchdowns from the 1 yard line, at a 5% rate.

By your argument, Lockette is the better choice based on the stats given.  That makes no sense.

I think Abu is latching onto Matt's claim that Lynch isn't good in short yardage because he averages 2.2 yards instead of 4.5 or whatever in other situations.  Whether he's good or not needs other players for context.  But yeah, that doesn't really answer whether a run was better than a pass here.

[Abu3baid]

I don't follow this logic.  (Not arguing the numbers between you and Matt, just the logic you are using here.) Why would Lynch's numbers compared to other running backs play into this at all.? Unless you are talking about another running back on the Seahawks, they don't. What if I said that Lynch's likelihood to score from 1 yard out is 80%, however, that is 11th in the league.  But on the flip side, Lockette is #1 in the league at receiving slant passes for touchdowns from the 1 yard line, at a 5% rate. By your argument, Lockette is the better choice based on the stats given.  That makes no sense.

That's the thing.. What I'm saying is that he is not telling me anything by saying that lynch only gets 50% of his average yards per carry when it is 3rd/4th down and less than 4 yards.. I'm saying that tells me nothing and no one can make a case that it was a bad call on that stat that's all. So, if he said he gets 1st down or TD from that distance on 3rd and 4th 35% of the time and the success rate of the pass is 65% then that makes sense. That's not what he said though.. and as far as your example of course that is not why I meant.. In the end what I'm tying to say is tell me how good he is from that distance (ie by giving percent of success) or tell me he is the worst in the league at it and that is why it was better to go with a pass. Does that make sense?

[Abu3baid]

I think Abu is latching onto Matt's claim that Lynch isn't good in short yardage because he averages 2.2 yards instead of 4.5 or whatever in other situations.  Whether he's good or not needs other players for context.  But yeah, that doesn't really answer whether a run was better than a pass here.

Bingo.. Not latching on though just wanting to make sure I'm understood ;)

[Golfingdad]

That's the thing.. What I'm saying is that he is not telling me anything by saying that lynch only gets 50% of his average yards per carry when it is 3rd/4th down and less than 4 yards.. I'm saying that tells me nothing and no one can make a case that it was a bad call on that stat that's all.

So, if he said he gets 1st down or TD from that distance on 3rd and 4th 35% of the time and the success rate of the pass is 65% then that makes sense.

That's not what he said though.. and as far as your example of course that is not why I meant.. In the end what I'm tying to say is tell me how good he is from that distance (ie by giving percent of success) or tell me he is the worst in the league at it and that is why it was better to go with a pass.

Does that make sense?

Yes, I get it.  Basically, you guys went a little too far down an unrelated rabbit hole .  (Something I've been guilty of many times. )

[phan52]

I think Abu is latching onto Matt's claim that Lynch isn't good in short yardage because he averages 2.2 yards instead of 4.5 or whatever in other situations.  Whether he's good or not needs other players for context.  But yeah, that doesn't really answer whether a run was better than a pass here.

I would think that 2.2 yards is a pretty good average in "short yardage" situations. And besides, in this case, he needed less than a yard.

[dsc123]

Bingo.. Not latching on though just wanting to make sure I'm understood ;)

didn't mean "latching on" in a bad way, just that you were focusing on that part of what matt said.

I would think that 2.2 yards is a pretty good average in "short yardage" situations. And besides, in this case, he needed less than a yard.

Absolutely.

This is the closest thing I can find that gives a better look at what is "good" when it comes to success running the ball in situations like the Seahawks faced.  In 2012, from the 1 yard line, runs were successful between 51-57% of the time, depending on the down.  That's all of football.  Breaking out the likelihood of an average back scoring from 1 yard, 2, 3, 4, and 5, in 2012 Lynch scored 1.7 times more than an average back, on 12 attempts.  That was the 8th most number of attempts in those situations, and 6th best performance (the chart only lists 5, but #5 is 1.8).

One year.  Small data sample.  All that jazz. But it indicates that Lynch is better than most in those situations.

---

And how about that  non-PI call?  I don't remember who or exactly when, but after the Patriots scored to make it close the seahawks went 3 and out.  That third down play.  A reciever beat his man cutting from the left side to cross the field to the right, the defender fell down and reached out and tripped him.  Easy 20 yards and a first down.  Seahawks really needed to stop the pats momentum there and put together a drive.  I'm not saying the refs gave the Pats the game or anything like that--Pete Carroll had a chance to win it and totally blew it--but man, that was an important play.

[Golfingdad]

And how about that  non-PI call?  I don't remember who or exactly when, but after the Patriots scored to make it close the seahawks went 3 and out.  That third down play.  A reciever beat his man cutting from the left side to cross the field to the right, the defender fell down and reached out and tripped him.  Easy 20 yards and a first down.  Seahawks really needed to stop the pats momentum there and put together a drive.  I'm not saying the refs gave the Pats the game or anything like that--Pete Carroll had a chance to win it and totally blew it--but man, that was an important play.

Make up call for the blatant PI that wasn't called on the umpire on Baldwins touchdown.

BTW, who thinks that pretending to poop on the ball is a good Super Bowl touchdown celebration?  What a dummy.

[Golfingdad]

Belicheck's explanation for not calling timeout: http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4777871/bill-belichick-explains-decision-not-to-take-timeout-at-end-of-super-bowl

And one more pretty good analysis of the last play by the "top commenter" to that article:

Quote:

The Seahawks had only one time out left. They did not want to call it there, and they expected -- just as Michaels, Collinsworth, and 99% of fans did -- that the Patriots would. By not calling the time out, Belichick put unexpected pressure on the Seahawks coaches.

The Seahawks, we were told all week, are not a team that changes what they do. They do what they do, and dare you to stop them because their athleticism and execution are top-notch.

Lynch was far from automatic from the 1, having been stopped 7 of the last 12 times over the past two seasons.

The conventional down to attempt a pass in that situation is 2nd down. They complete it, they win. An incompletion stops the clock, and they can run in whatever package and play they want for 3rd down. If they fail again, they can use their last time out and figure out what the y want to do for 4th down.

Teams passed 108 times this season from the 1 prior to this game, with 66 TDs and no picks. In contrast, some rushes from the 1 did result in fumbles. Over the last five years, the chances of a turnover from the 1 are roughly equal whether rushing or passing.

Recent studies show a fade at the goal-line is a low percentage play, and the Patriots have Browner (too big to run a fade on) and Revis. A quick slant off a pick or rub is not a high-risk play.

The Seahawks ran that slant at the goal-line so often this year that the Patriots specifically practiced against it.

All of these factors together made the Seahawks' call a surprisingly conventional one. And it played directly into the Patriots' hands because Belichick is smarter than everyone else.

Edit: One other point. The idea that the Patriots needed to save time for a final Brady drive makes no sense. The entire Patriot offense that game depended on short passes and long drives. The Seattle secondary is exceptional at defending the long pass, and the Patriots are not a good vertical passing team. The odds that they will be able to move the ball from their own 20 to the Seattle 35 or so in the last minute (with at most one time out left) are tiny -- and then even if they succeed and Gostkowski ties the game, all they've done is turn the game into a coin-flip, both literally and metaphorically.

The Patriots couldn't do it in the last minute of the first Giants Super Bowl with Randy Moss on the team. They couldn't do it in the last minute of the second Giants Super Bowl, even though Brady put multiple passes directly on receivers' hands. I think Belichick was not remotely tempted to try that again.

[saevel25]

Belicheck's explanation for not calling timeout: http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4777871/bill-belichick-explains-decision-not-to-take-timeout-at-end-of-super-bowl

And one more pretty good analysis of the last play by the "top commenter" to that article:

I could see Belicheck not calling a time out to throw Seattle off a bit there.

As for the other stuff