Superbowl AdsFollow

Shocker that gbaji got tons of stuff wrong in his above football post, to go along with being wrong about everything else.

Modesty panel spoiler: SpoilerTimelord sucks.

Not much of a football fan, but I seem to recall from Varsity Blues that you had to hit a mascot with the ball to stop the clock.

That and a whipped cream bikini. For some reason I'm remembering that. And I'm not all that sure about the mascot thing.

What's so hard to understand about whipcream bikini?

Maybe I should throw an extra U in there somewhere?

As blessed as we've been w/championships over the last 14 years, no sports fan will ever be as disappointed as Pats fans were when we went 18-1. I know no other teams fans want to hear that, but its true.

Don't be a douchebag. Going 18-1 isn't worse than being a Cubs fan. It's not close.

I get that math is hard and all that, but you only actually need to run two plays in 30 seconds. The third play can take all the time to run it wants (just have to snap the ball prior to time ending). And you have one time out. For a short yardage run, 8-10 seconds is all it takes to get back to the line and hike the ball. What eats up clock is when you gain a lot of yards because it takes time to get the entire team to the line and you often need to stop and consider how the new position on the field affects your play calling (and whether to make substitutions). That's why you often see quarterbacks spike the ball right after a long gain, but can you recall the last time you saw this done right after a run play that gained little or no yards? No? That's because it takes about as much time to get to the line as it takes the refs to spot the ball. If all you're doing is three run plays up the gut (or maybe off tackle), you can easily do that in the time left.

Again, I'm not arguing that this is what they absolutely should have done, just saying that it was something they could have done instead and with a high probability of success. I personally would have gone with some kind of option play instead (like what I described), but that's just me. It's not about arguing what the best play was, but that the play they went with was a bad play to call in that situation.




Probability doesn't work like that. Dice have no memory.

If Carroll wanted to go with a pass play (and I've already agreed that there are good reasons for doing this), he should have gone with one with a lower probability of failure. Again, you've got three plays and one yard to gain. Odds are any play you run will have a better than one in three chance of gaining that one yard you need. So the issue really isn't about running the best play possible, but avoiding any risky play. You basically want to do anything other than turning the ball over. A quick pass into the middle of the field through traffic is about as high risk a pass as you can attempt in that situation (actually, I can't think of any type of pass you could chose in that situation that's more risky). How many times the team threw an interception at the goal line in the previous 18 games is utterly irrelevant to that decision.

That's why you don't do that. Roll out and look for an open receiver in the end zone with the option to run it in or toss it in the bleachers. That's safe. Hand it to your back. That's safe. Passing to an in route in the middle of the field? Not safe. I know people want to try to not criticize Carroll but that really was a dumb play that almost certainly cost his team the win. I don't think it's wrong to call it that.

Edited, Feb 5th 2015 2:23pm by gbaji

Sure, so long as the Patriot defensive lineman get off of your offensive lineman they piled on top off as expediently as they can. Which they would do in that situation, right?

We're not talking about the middle of the field where the defense is spread out. We're talking about the goal line, where almost everyone is crouched up within 10 feet of each other. It's a giant pile up.

Anyway, I'm repeating myself now and I don't feel like trying to find another way to explain it to you and will accept myself as correct being that the 2 highly paid head coaches in the Superbowl felt it was a good play call. Just executed better by one team over the other.

As a high school football coach for 30 years, I was absolutely shocked that they threw the ball. 1 yard, 26 seconds and a timeout. In talking with all the coaches I know ( high school and college ) none seem to think that was a smart call nor would they have called it that way.

If you were going to pass, you throw to the corner of the end zone. Wilson throws a high ball anyway, and you have the height match up, and the lone safety was in the middle of the field.

When Wilson motioned his slot and running back to opposite side of the formation, he actually closed the defense on the quick slant. The corner can now roll up, as the Seahawks "stacked' their wideouts, The corner is now looking 2 routes, and with the wideout stacked, he is given time to react to the slant.

Look, if Lynch picks up his feet on the play before, he scores on that play and its a mute point.

Hard to argue with Carroll's success, but I don't know many coaches who would have thrown in that situation ( actually, I don't know any )



Edited, Feb 6th 2015 12:10am by yenwangweh

The refs are pretty good at slapping a delay of game penalty in that situation. Which amounts to a free time out for the other team.

They aren't, actually. Running plays in 2 minute drills average 22 seconds of clock time from snap to snap. Data exists, we don't have to all just wildly guess and argue over the guesses. Is it *possible* to run two running plays in 30 seconds, sure. Is it likely? No.

The data in this case actually being the average time the Philadelphia Eagles take between snaps during all games they played last year. Which, while being the fastest average in the league because they heavily employ a hurry up offense, is not remotely the same as the average time between snaps in a 2 minute drill. Data isn't useful if it isn't the correct data.

For comparison (and from the same wiki you presumably misread):



That works out to an actual average across all plays of just over 10 and a half seconds per snap. Also, this includes traveling 83 yards. Not just one.

As I said earlier. It's a silly point to choose to argue, doubly so since I never said that they should have done this, only that they could have. Clearly, they could have.



/whatever

Edited, Feb 6th 2015 3:36pm by gbaji

You're comparing passing plays that mostly went out of bounds to running plays up the middle?

It's not worth arguing over. Gbaji clearly has a tenuous grasp on how football works at best. We'd assume from that brief period when Limbaugh was on ESPN before he got fired for calling Donovan McNabb a monkey. Or whatever it was, I don't remember exactly.

No. I'm saying that the average time per snap during a 2 minute drill is not 22 seconds.

For a running play, from snap to snap....it is! I didn't get my data from wiki, incidentally, but that is a weird coincidence.