Super Bowl IL Postgame - Plays and Thoughts

[DarthMonk]

Yeah, they went with XXXXIX and next year they are using 50 not L.

Anyway ...

The Play:

It all comes down to that 1-yard line, and that one moment. Brady is standing on his own sideline, waiting to be guillotined, faintly shaking his head.

Wilson steps to the line, gives a telltale glance to his right at a little-used wide receiver named Ricardo Lockette. And that’s when Butler quits dying inside and starts thinking about redemption. He recognizes the play that’s about to happen. “I got beat on it in practice,” Butler said. Belichick had halted the workout and told him, “You’ve got to be on that.”

The ball snaps, and Lockette runs a slant route. Wilson reels a shoulder back and throws. And Butler is on it.

Watch the replay again. Critics of the call are undoubtedly correct: It was a fatally stupid decision. But Carroll is also right: It’s an incredible play. Lockette is not a small man. He’s 6 feet 2 of NFL muscle. Watch Butler as he never takes his eyes off Wilson and dead sprints on a straight line to the inside. He slams his shoulder into Lockette. The force of it sends Lockette fully airborne; he sails a yard in the air and lands flat on his stomach, and can only crawl to his knees, as Butler hugs the ball and surges forward and the exultant Patriots fall in a heap around him. Over on the sideline, Brady screams and begins pogo-sticking.

[Deadskins]

Yeah, they went with XXXXIX and next year they are using 50 not L.

Actually, they went with XLIX. I hadn't heard they were dropping the Roman numerals. Another stupid decision by Goodell?

[DarthMonk]

Yeah, they went with XXXXIX and next year they are using 50 not L.

Actually, they went with XLIX. I hadn't heard they were dropping the Roman numerals. Another stupid decision by Goodell?

No wonder I had trubble finding it.

The Roman Empire has fallen.

The NFL announced on Wednesday that Super Bowl 50 will be graphically represented using standard Arabic numerals instead of Roman numerals, which the league has been using since Super Bowl V in 1971.

It's a one-year break, said Jaime Weston, the league's vice president of brand and creative, because the "L" isn't as pleasing to the eye.

"When we developed the Super Bowl XL logo, that was the first time we looked at the letter L," Weston said. "Up until that point, we had only worked with X's, V's and I's. And, at that moment, that's when we started to wonder: What will happen when we get to 50?"

Weston said her team has been working on the Super Bowl 50 logo since April 2013, having gone through 73 versions. At some point along the way, it was concluded that having the "L" stand alone didn't work.

The league has made two logos for the game, which will take place Feb. 7, 2016, at Levi's Stadium, the new home of the San Francisco 49ers. Both the national and regional logo feature the "50" in gold, serving to call attention to the game's golden anniversary as well as the game's location in the "Golden State."

The logos also feature the Lombardi Trophy, which has been part of the Super Bowl logo since 2010, when the league went to a more generic, standardized look. The regional logo includes Levi's Stadium as well as notable San Francisco landmarks, including the Golden Gate Bridge, Coit Tower and the Transamerica Pyramid.

"We think what we have makes a very powerful statement for the NFL brand," Weston said.

As part of the final testing of the logos, including how the gold would play, the league looked at them on Wilson game footballs and even painted a logo on the playing surface at Candlestick Park last week.

Following the conclusion of Super Bowl XLIX, which will be played at the University of Phoenix Stadium in Arizona on Feb. 1, 2015, the league will embark on a campaign to play up the 50th anniversary. The NFL will go back to using Roman numerals for Super Bowl LI in Houston in 2017.

The league started using the term "Super Bowl" for the third game in 1969. The league filed to trademark the term two months later.

[DEHog]

I coach (at the HS level) and one of the most mismanaged parts of the game is time management. I educated myself on it a few years ago. That said I’m curious what you thought about how Carrol and Belichick managed the last minutes of the SB. I thought the TO that the Hawks had to call after the Kearse catch was what really set the stage for the called pass play on second down. As for Belichick the numbers say he should have used his TO to save time for his offense. It was a gutsy move by him to not call a TO and in doing so he placed the time management decisions squarely on Carroll. I keep reading that Carrol wanted to waste a play and time so that they could come back and win it with running Lynch?? This makes no sense to me, TD’s are not guaranteed and if you score there you’re not wasting time which I didn’t think was a factor since there were on 26 sec left…you run your best play there. All indication were that the Hawks were great on short yardage situation, converting around 87 percent of the time, (although not as good on the GL) and the Pats only stops opponents 17 percent of the time. That being said I think you have to give Lynch at least one shot at the end zone, I’d have run on second down, called a time out ( if Lynch doesn’t score) to discuss third and fourth down. I ‘m sure Belichick would have use his TO as well on third or fourth down. It’s not that I had a problem with the pass call on second down it’s the play they ran…if the pass was incomplete then even body knew you were coming back with Lynch on third down…so second down was the best down you had to run a play action with Lynch. I would have loved to have seen the read option there, with a run, keep, or pass options all in play. I didn’t like the call because it wasn’t thrown into the end zone, many have said that Wilson should have put the ball “on him”. If he does I don’t think Lockett would have score and the Hawks would have still had to use their TO. Bottom line in that situation with one TO remaining I’m running my BEST play, hard to believe the “rub” play (against a big corner with a small WR ) was their best play???

[Deadskins]

Did two threads get merged here? If so, what happened to my response to DEHog's post, and his other post after that?

[SkinsJock]

I heard on the radio last night that the Seahawks OC called a run play on 2nd down and Carroll said he wanted to try a pass play first to give Wilson a chance to win the game and if it didn't work they would go with a run on the next play ...

has to be one of the worst play calling decisions ever ....

this idiot said on TV that the Pats made a big mistake when they fired him and brought in Belicheat ... right

[Deadskins]

Yeah, they went with XXXXIX and next year they are using 50 not L.

Actually, they went with XLIX. I hadn't heard they were dropping the Roman numerals. Another stupid decision by Goodell?

No wonder I had trubble finding it.

The Roman Empire has fallen.

The NFL announced on Wednesday that Super Bowl 50 will be graphically represented using standard Arabic numerals instead of Roman numerals, which the league has been using since Super Bowl V in 1971.

It's a one-year break, said Jaime Weston, the league's vice president of brand and creative, because the "L" isn't as pleasing to the eye.

"When we developed the Super Bowl XL logo, that was the first time we looked at the letter L," Weston said. "Up until that point, we had only worked with X's, V's and I's. And, at that moment, that's when we started to wonder: What will happen when we get to 50?"

Weston said her team has been working on the Super Bowl 50 logo since April 2013, having gone through 73 versions. At some point along the way, it was concluded that having the "L" stand alone didn't work.

The league has made two logos for the game, which will take place Feb. 7, 2016, at Levi's Stadium, the new home of the San Francisco 49ers. Both the national and regional logo feature the "50" in gold, serving to call attention to the game's golden anniversary as well as the game's location in the "Golden State."

The logos also feature the Lombardi Trophy, which has been part of the Super Bowl logo since 2010, when the league went to a more generic, standardized look. The regional logo includes Levi's Stadium as well as notable San Francisco landmarks, including the Golden Gate Bridge, Coit Tower and the Transamerica Pyramid.

"We think what we have makes a very powerful statement for the NFL brand," Weston said.

As part of the final testing of the logos, including how the gold would play, the league looked at them on Wilson game footballs and even painted a logo on the playing surface at Candlestick Park last week.

Following the conclusion of Super Bowl XLIX, which will be played at the University of Phoenix Stadium in Arizona on Feb. 1, 2015, the league will embark on a campaign to play up the 50th anniversary. The NFL will go back to using Roman numerals for Super Bowl LI in Houston in 2017.

The league started using the term "Super Bowl" for the third game in 1969. The league filed to trademark the term two months later.

They could have played up the L in Levi's. Anyway, I don't see how LI is much better. I think the 50 is OK, but they should have left the L for continuity's sake.

[DEHog]

Did two threads get merged here? If so, what happened to my response to DEHog's post, and his other post after that?

I started a simiular thread in Football 101

[DEHog]

I heard on the radio last night that the Seahawks OC called a run play on 2nd down and Carroll said he wanted to try a pass play first to give Wilson a chance to win the game and if it didn't work they would go with a run on the next play ...

has to be one of the worst play calling decisions ever ....

this idiot said on TV that the Pats made a big mistake when they fired him and brought in Belicheat ... right

Yea that story is going around the internet...i'm not buying it! As a coach in that moment you're not thinking about that...you're thinking about winning the game.

[DarthMonk]

I heard on the radio last night that the Seahawks OC called a run play on 2nd down and Carroll said he wanted to try a pass play first to give Wilson a chance to win the game and if it didn't work they would go with a run on the next play ...

has to be one of the worst play calling decisions ever ....

this idiot said on TV that the Pats made a big mistake when they fired him and brought in Belicheat ... right

Yea that story is going around the internet...i'm not buying it! As a coach in that moment you're not thinking about that...you're thinking about winning the game.

What I heard is they sent in a 3 wide grouping with the intent of spreading them out and running but when they saw that NE responded with goal line personnel, they checked to this pass play.

Sometimes calling TO gives the opponent a chance to regroup. I think Belichik was very confident in his group and didn't want to "help" Seattle think clearly by calling TOs for them.

Ballsy - fully inflated - about to burst.

I'm glad we don't have to suffer through Seattle braggadocio for the next several weeks.

[SkinsJock]

fwiw ...

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foo ... hawn-lynch

no matter really - it will always be remembered as the worst play call by Carroll forever ...

stupid idiot - big time

[DEHog]

I heard on the radio last night that the Seahawks OC called a run play on 2nd down and Carroll said he wanted to try a pass play first to give Wilson a chance to win the game and if it didn't work they would go with a run on the next play ...

has to be one of the worst play calling decisions ever ....

this idiot said on TV that the Pats made a big mistake when they fired him and brought in Belicheat ... right

Yea that story is going around the internet...i'm not buying it! As a coach in that moment you're not thinking about that...you're thinking about winning the game.

What I heard is they sent in a 3 wide grouping with the intent of spreading them out and running but when they saw that NE responded with goal line personnel, they checked to this pass play.

Sometimes calling TO gives the opponent a chance to regroup. I think Belichik was very confident in his group and didn't want to "help" Seattle think clearly by calling TOs for them.

Ballsy - fully inflated - about to burst.

I'm glad we don't have to suffer through Seattle braggadocio for the next several weeks.

No doubt...He may be the only coach with the stones to do that!! Of course if the Hawks had scored he would have gotten crushed by the media. Hopefully
coaches in the future will take more chances and can point to this game as a example of what and why they were thinking before making the call!!

[DEHog]

Been racking my coach's brain...here's another option that I haven't heard anybody discuss...

I just continue to struggle with what Carroll said…”we had a plan to win it on 3rd or 4th down, we wanted to waste a play and run the clock down”?? Here’s how it went down and how it could have played out if what he said was true.

1st and goal from the 5….Hawks snap the ball with 1:05 on the clock and 17 seconds on the play clock
If you’re trying to run down the clock why not take the play clock inside of 5?? (Play results in Lynch 4 yard run to the 1) Neither team calls a timeout.

2nd and goal from the 1 ball is snapped with 26 seconds left and 5 on the play clock (Play results in an INT)

Why not allow the play clock to run down to under five on first down so the ball would be snapped with about 53 seconds so your now facing 2nd and goal with about 50 seconds on the clock.

Carroll stated that their thinking was to waste a play and run the clock down…you wanted to save your last timeout to get proper personnel on the field.
If this is true there’s a very simple solution that no one is talking about…why not let the clock run down to around 15 seconds and spike the ball?? This gives you 35 seconds to think about your third down call and a full 40 seconds to get the proper personnel on the field for third down and a time out left to call if you don’t score on 3rd down.
Think about the tradeoff…you’re giving up a play for 75 seconds of time (maybe you get Belichick to burn his timeout). Think about a third down with a timeout in your pocket… you now have a true run/pass option. I’ve argued that the Pats knew the Hawks were going to throw because they only had 1 timeout and wanted to save it for after third down, after they ran Lynch.

15 seconds leaves you enough time to run a play and call timeout if you don’t score on 3rd down. If you do score you’re only leaving the Pats 8-12 seconds to try and get a FG!!

[Irn-Bru]

I believe the story DM shared: that Belichick looked at the personnel on the field, liked what he saw, and decided to stick with it and not call a TO to help Seattle decide what to do. That seems to fit the facts of the story the best.

And yes, it was an incredibly gutsy call.

[DEHog]

I believe the story DM shared: that Belichick looked at the personnel on the field, liked what he saw, and decided to stick with it and not call a TO to help Seattle decide what to do. That seems to fit the facts of the story the best.

And yes, it was an incredibly gutsy call.

I agree...so what does Belichick do if Wilson comes to the line on second down and just stands there and lets the clock run down to 15 seconds??

[DarthMonk]

I believe the story DM shared: that Belichick looked at the personnel on the field, liked what he saw, and decided to stick with it and not call a TO to help Seattle decide what to do. That seems to fit the facts of the story the best.

And yes, it was an incredibly gutsy call.

I agree...so what does Belichick do if Wilson comes to the line on second down and just stands there and lets the clock run down to 15 seconds??

He continues normal respiration and heart rates.

[DEHog]

I believe the story DM shared: that Belichick looked at the personnel on the field, liked what he saw, and decided to stick with it and not call a TO to help Seattle decide what to do. That seems to fit the facts of the story the best.

And yes, it was an incredibly gutsy call.

I agree...so what does Belichick do if Wilson comes to the line on second down and just stands there and lets the clock run down to 15 seconds??

He continues normal respiration and heart rates.

That's probally right....But it would have been interesting to watch Carroll call his bluff....I just think the ace that Carrol had in the hole was to give up second down while allowing the clock to tick....he and his staff could have had about 75 seconds to call a third down play with a timeout in thier pocket.

[fabe]

The media is absolutely fuming about the play call on the Hawks' last offensive play. They even asked Robert Kraft, owner of the Patriots, to give his opinion on the call. Then you have Deion Sanders, the master of hyperbole, calling it "the worst playcall in Super Bowl history."

Am I the only person who picked up on why they made the call immediately after it was ran? Look, you have 2nd & Goal at the 1 yard line, with 26 seconds to go and 1 timeout. If you run the ball, and the Patriots stop Lynch, then you have to use your last timeout. Now you're looking at 3rd & Goal with umpteen seconds left and no timeouts, which would be an obvious passing situation. I bet the thought process was "Let's call a quick slant, and see if we can catch them off-guard." They even targeted the rookie who just gave up a huge catch two plays earlier, so the matchup was there.

Now, did the Seahawks overthink the situation? Yes.
Should Russell Wilson have thrown the ball away? Hindsight says yes.
Would Lynch have scored if he got the ball? Probably.
Would the slant have worked better if they targeted Chris Matthews? Probably.
But was it "the worst playcall in Super Bowl history?" No.

Now, this is all just speculation, which doesn't mean jack now. If the play would've worked, and the Hawks won the SB, then we would be adorning Pete Carroll as a playcalling genius. Also, if they ran the ball and failed, until either a 4th down stop or until time expired, then everyone would be up their ass asking "Why didn't you just pass the ball? You've got Russell Wilson, one of the most dynamic quarterbacks in the league, etc." You get the point. Everybody wants to get on Twitter and pretend that they're a coach. Well, when you get to the Super Bowl, you can call a run play at the goal line.

This also wasn't just the one play. Seattle had a 10 point lead at one point. It was more than just the last play that lost the game.

I feel kind of bad for Seattle, only because the media is going to keep the fire burning so hot, that it'll tear apart the locker room. Right now, Seattle is like a Jenga tower. As the offseason progresses, people will get fired, and pieces of the tower will be taken away. Eventually, the whole tower is going to collapse, and in my prediction, probably about half-way through the next season. When I hear "The Seattle Seahawks have officially been eliminated from playoff contention," I will simply shout "Jenga!"

[DarthMonk]

This past year, league-wide TD% from the 1 yard line on running plays was 57.5%. For Marshawn Lynch it was 20%.

His negative play percentage on runs from the 1 yard line was 40% against a league average of 10.4%.

He's actually not a great short yardage back against goal line personnel.

[fabe]

NFL Media's Aditi Kinkhabwala asked Lynch after the loss if the running back was surprised he didn't get the ball. "No," he replied.

When pressed further why he wasn't surprised, the running back known as "Beast Mode" said, "because football is a team sport."

He's a man of few words, but when he speaks, he keeps it short and to the point.

[Deadskins]

Am I the only person who picked up on why they made the call immediately after it was ran? Look, you have 2nd & Goal at the 1 yard line, with 26 seconds to go and 1 timeout. If you run the ball, and the Patriots stop Lynch, then you have to use your last timeout. Now you're looking at 3rd & Goal with umpteen seconds left and no timeouts, which would be an obvious passing situation.

Not at all. Say they did run it and Lynch got stopped. Seattle calls a TO with at least 20 seconds on the clock. Are you saying you can't run two plays in 20 seconds? You call both plays during the timeout. There was no real reason to save the TO until after 3rd down. I didn't think the call was all that stupid; the Patriots defender just made an excellent play. Stuff happens. They probably should have gone play-action if they wanted to pass. A bootleg pass/run option would have been the best call in that situation, IMHO.

[DEHog]

The media is absolutely fuming about the play call on the Hawks' last offensive play. They even asked Robert Kraft, owner of the Patriots, to give his opinion on the call. Then you have Deion Sanders, the master of hyperbole, calling it "the worst playcall in Super Bowl history."

Am I the only person who picked up on why they made the call immediately after it was ran? Look, you have 2nd & Goal at the 1 yard line, with 26 seconds to go and 1 timeout. If you run the ball, and the Patriots stop Lynch, then you have to use your last timeout. Now you're looking at 3rd & Goal with umpteen seconds left and no timeouts, which would be an obvious passing situation. I bet the thought process was "Let's call a quick slant, and see if we can catch them off-guard." They even targeted the rookie who just gave up a huge catch two plays earlier, so the matchup was there.

Now, did the Seahawks overthink the situation? Yes.
Should Russell Wilson have thrown the ball away? Hindsight says yes.
Would Lynch have scored if he got the ball? Probably.
Would the slant have worked better if they targeted Chris Matthews? Probably.
But was it "the worst playcall in Super Bowl history?" No.

Now, this is all just speculation, which doesn't mean jack now. If the play would've worked, and the Hawks won the SB, then we would be adorning Pete Carroll as a playcalling genius. Also, if they ran the ball and failed, until either a 4th down stop or until time expired, then everyone would be up their ass asking "Why didn't you just pass the ball? You've got Russell Wilson, one of the most dynamic quarterbacks in the league, etc." You get the point. Everybody wants to get on Twitter and pretend that they're a coach. Well, when you get to the Super Bowl, you can call a run play at the goal line.

This also wasn't just the one play. Seattle had a 10 point lead at one point. It was more than just the last play that lost the game.

I feel kind of bad for Seattle, only because the media is going to keep the fire burning so hot, that it'll tear apart the locker room. Right now, Seattle is like a Jenga tower. As the offseason progresses, people will get fired, and pieces of the tower will be taken away. Eventually, the whole tower is going to collapse, and in my prediction, probably about half-way through the next season. When I hear "The Seattle Seahawks have officially been eliminated from playoff contention," I will simply shout "Jenga!"

That’s exactly the reason I thought it was a bad call… because Belichick knew they would pass on second down and played it as such, there was no element of surprise on the play. The thing I suggested is if the Hawks truly wanted to burn a play and run the clock down (as Carroll said) why not tell Wilson to just get in formation (on second down)and watch the play clock run down…this gives you 35 seconds and takes the play clock to 20-25 seconds….Maybe Belichick blinks and calls a time out (I doubted) but maybe… Then have Wilson spike the ball. This gives you a fresh 40 second play clock with a time out in your pocket. So by giving up a play you get 75 seconds to think about a play and get the right personnel on the field and you now have a true run/pass option because you still have your time out. It also takes all but about 5-10 seconds off the clock not allowing the Pats any time for a game tying FG depending on what down the Hawks scored on. The reason I suggest this is because I think by Belichick not calling a time out put the Hawks in a panic mode and hence the play call, by giving up second down the Hawks could have had 75 seconds with a time out to think about what they wanted to do.

[DarthMonk]

The media is absolutely fuming about the play call on the Hawks' last offensive play. They even asked Robert Kraft, owner of the Patriots, to give his opinion on the call. Then you have Deion Sanders, the master of hyperbole, calling it "the worst playcall in Super Bowl history."

Am I the only person who picked up on why they made the call immediately after it was ran? Look, you have 2nd & Goal at the 1 yard line, with 26 seconds to go and 1 timeout. If you run the ball, and the Patriots stop Lynch, then you have to use your last timeout. Now you're looking at 3rd & Goal with umpteen seconds left and no timeouts, which would be an obvious passing situation. I bet the thought process was "Let's call a quick slant, and see if we can catch them off-guard." They even targeted the rookie who just gave up a huge catch two plays earlier, so the matchup was there.

Now, did the Seahawks overthink the situation? Yes.
Should Russell Wilson have thrown the ball away? Hindsight says yes.
Would Lynch have scored if he got the ball? Probably.
Would the slant have worked better if they targeted Chris Matthews? Probably.
But was it "the worst playcall in Super Bowl history?" No.

Now, this is all just speculation, which doesn't mean jack now. If the play would've worked, and the Hawks won the SB, then we would be adorning Pete Carroll as a playcalling genius. Also, if they ran the ball and failed, until either a 4th down stop or until time expired, then everyone would be up their ass asking "Why didn't you just pass the ball? You've got Russell Wilson, one of the most dynamic quarterbacks in the league, etc." You get the point. Everybody wants to get on Twitter and pretend that they're a coach. Well, when you get to the Super Bowl, you can call a run play at the goal line.

This also wasn't just the one play. Seattle had a 10 point lead at one point. It was more than just the last play that lost the game.

I feel kind of bad for Seattle, only because the media is going to keep the fire burning so hot, that it'll tear apart the locker room. Right now, Seattle is like a Jenga tower. As the offseason progresses, people will get fired, and pieces of the tower will be taken away. Eventually, the whole tower is going to collapse, and in my prediction, probably about half-way through the next season. When I hear "The Seattle Seahawks have officially been eliminated from playoff contention," I will simply shout "Jenga!"

Pretty much share all these thoughts except feeling kind of bad for Seattle.

[DarthMonk]

Am I the only person who picked up on why they made the call immediately after it was ran? Look, you have 2nd & Goal at the 1 yard line, with 26 seconds to go and 1 timeout. If you run the ball, and the Patriots stop Lynch, then you have to use your last timeout. Now you're looking at 3rd & Goal with umpteen seconds left and no timeouts, which would be an obvious passing situation.

Not at all. Say they did run it and Lynch got stopped. Seattle calls a TO with at least 20 seconds on the clock. Are you saying you can't run two plays in 20 seconds? You call both plays during the timeout. There was no real reason to save the TO until after 3rd down. I didn't think the call was all that stupid; the Patriots defender just made an excellent play. Stuff happens. They probably should have gone play-action if they wanted to pass. A bootleg pass/run option would have been the best call in that situation, IMHO.

Getting the time out with at least 20 seconds left and then being able to run twice with none left is optimistic. Not saying it couldn't happen but it's optimistic.

The first run stop could easily burn more time as a guy tries to bounce it out and/or fight for the yard. Then there is the pile. We could get down to 15 seconds pretty easily before a TO is granted. Then it gets dicey. Especially if the next run plays out similarly. The fastest teams in the league line up in 10 seconds after a tackle is made and that's without a pile.

[tribeofjudah]

Hey, can one of you tech savvy guys put up the vid of the INT? It was a STRONG play by Butler.....no doubt.

As I watched the game, it looked like Seattle dominated.....but I've heard radio guys say that NE had more time of possession, etc.
Look, the game was fun to watch and it was tight to the end. How in the hell did Seattle let a 10 point lead vanish...?

So much for the Legion of Boom Defense (ok, they had some injuries) no excuses.