Darrell Bevell Relives The "worst Call Ever"

[BloodyChamp]

Also, I've brought this up before but I haven't repeated it in all of these threads for obvious reasons...I know the then 3rd string quarterback and he said everybody was ticked at The Call including himself.

[amfootball]

Oh no...they would lose all credibility...they tell the team we put you in a bad position to succeed. When your a coach you admit your mistakes. You take ownership....if you expect your players to do that you have to set an example of no excuses too. I agree they have spoken on that in private with their team...and now have moved on and aren't talking about it. You address it once and move forward...just like Peyton and the Broncos did with the Ravens loss and Seahawk loss in the playoffs...you use it as motivation to move forward but you don't live in the past...besides you have a whole new team this year...it isn't fair to those guys. All teams do this...even NE has moved forward....they were the champions....now that the season has started again....they are just 1 of 32 teams (because this is a different new team) trying to obtain that ultimate goal.

So you think that despite both Bevell and Carroll saying publicly it was the right call and they would do it the same if they had a chance to do it over is not what they are saying to the team? You think privately they are telling the players it was a bad call?  If so, that seems very strange to me and also disingenuous.

[dgambill]

So you think that despite both Bevell and Carroll saying publicly it was the right call and they would do it the same if they had a chance to do it over is not what they are saying to the team? You think privately they are telling the players it was a bad call?  If so, that seems very strange to me and also disingenuous.

I think that happens a lot. You tell your players don't listen to what the media is saying outside etc. Just focus on what we do (say) here inside our locker room. I think it not uncommon to tell your players one thing and say something different in the media. You tell your players you screwed up and we wont put you in that position again....but they save face in the media. I think they have enough respect in the locker room to get that across. It's PR spin...players do it and coaches do it. Privately I think they would never run that sort of play again. Perhaps they run a fade to Graham or a roll out but not that play. It isn't their strength....it isn't their QBs strength. He is short....it is harder for him to get the ball over the lineman on a quick throw like that and get an angle so that it comes in low and only his receivers can shield it. You run the ball or you run your qb there (at least get him on the move)...perhaps this year you throw it up to your athletic TE...but no...they don't run that play again....it wasn't the right call and I'm sure they've conveyed that to their players. PR is totally different than honest locker room talk to your guys...everyone on the team knows that and accepts that.

[Yehoodi]

Why doesn't anyone mention that butler would have been called for PI in a regular season game? He made contact with the WR before the ball got there

 

That was not PI he had  position on the ball and as such had equal right to the ball.  When you see the play from behind Wilson it is clear.  A DB can not go through a WR (basically run up his back), but if the ball is outside the WR torso, which in this case it was, and a DB is coming straight for the ball with the ball heading into his chest, any contact with the arms or shoulder of the WR is not relevant.   In another words if the DB is in position such that the ball is heading towards his bread basket any arms or shoulders of the WR that get in the way is not his problem as the ball is in the path of the DB and not the WR.

 

If on the other hand the ball is heading for the numbers of the WR and the DB bolls him over knocking him down then grabs the ball, then it is PI as the WR would have position on the ball.   

[Yehoodi]

As for the particular play call I have no problem with the quick pass play.  Given the down and distance and clock you were only able to run two run plays, but with three downs to go there is no reason to leave a down on the board with the game over.  So you had to add a pass play in and the math dictated that is had to be on 2nd down. 

 

As for the quick slant pass play versus some roll out or fade, there is a concern with the latter.  Again, given the time on the clock that second down play had to be either a TD or an incomplete pass, a sack would not have helped as the clock would still be running.  So it is perfectly understandable to me to avoid a sack call a play that has basically zero chance for a sack which is basically throw the ball the moment the QB gets it, and as such, that was the play to call to create a basically zero chance for a sack.  A fade pass or roll out require some time to developed and an end DL or LB could peel off the blitz and get to the QB. 

 

So from a play call structure including the option to run three plays, one pass, one run then TO, then whatever on 4th down, that first pass play needed to kill the clock via a TD or incomplete pass.

 

Unfortunately for the Seahawks what happened was a collection of events all went the pats way including 1) Wilson threw the ball a little too far inside, 2) Lockett ran a little slower than normal, perhaps to maintain focus and watch the ball into his hands, 3) Browner chucking Kearse, 4) Kearse not pushing Browner back into Butler's path, and finally 5) Bulter making a bline for the ball and did not worry about fade.  All those had to happen for Bulter to be able to make the pick, otherwise is a TD, incomplete pass or PI.

 

The pats had nothing to loose and gamble and it worked (and btw their gamble to blitz and leave Hobbs on Buress in SB42 did not), In the pats eyes the odds are low that they would win, so why not take a chance and jump the play and maybe you make a play, its happened in SB49 but not SB42.

 

The Seahawks understandably so wanted to use all three downs, wanted to kill the clock and did not want the clock running after the 2nd down pass play.

 

So sometimes all the stars align and it happens. 

 

What is funny is that some want to ignore the perfect storm of events on the play in question and then claim that any other play would not have the same set of events going in the pats favor. 

 

Had say Wilson rolled out, one could just as easily has the same series of events with pats gambling, 1) DL/LB peels off and blitzes, 2) OL misses that block, 3) Wilson makes a mistake and gets sacked or makes a similar back throw and its picked.  So the roll out, or fade, with a series of events going in the pats favor with them taking a chance could have the same result.   

 

Bottom line if all things go right for the pats they could just as easily gone right on any other play.  So it was an execution thing not a play calling thing.  

[amfootball]

As for the particular play call I have no problem with the quick pass play.  Given the down and distance and clock you were only able to run two run plays, but with three downs to go there is no reason to leave a down on the board with the game over.  So you had to add a pass play in and the math dictated that is had to be on 2nd down. 

 

As for the quick slant pass play versus some roll out or fade, there is a concern with the latter.  Again, given the time on the clock that second down play had to be either a TD or an incomplete pass, a sack would not have helped as the clock would still be running.  So it is perfectly understandable to me to avoid a sack call a play that has basically zero chance for a sack which is basically throw the ball the moment the QB gets it, and as such, that was the play to call to create a basically zero chance for a sack.  A fade pass or roll out require some time to developed and an end DL or LB could peel off the blitz and get to the QB. 

 

So from a play call structure including the option to run three plays, one pass, one run then TO, then whatever on 4th down, that first pass play needed to kill the clock via a TD or incomplete pass.

 

Unfortunately for the Seahawks what happened was a collection of events all went the pats way including 1) Wilson threw the ball a little too far inside, 2) Lockett ran a little slower than normal, perhaps to maintain focus and watch the ball into his hands, 3) Browner chucking Kearse, 4) Kearse not pushing Browner back into Butler's path, and finally 5) Bulter making a bline for the ball and did not worry about fade.  All those had to happen for Bulter to be able to make the pick, otherwise is a TD, incomplete pass or PI.

 

The pats had nothing to loose and gamble and it worked (and btw their gamble to blitz and leave Hobbs on Buress in SB42 did not), In the pats eyes the odds are low that they would win, so why not take a chance and jump the play and maybe you make a play, its happened in SB49 but not SB42.

 

The Seahawks understandably so wanted to use all three downs, wanted to kill the clock and did not want the clock running after the 2nd down pass play.

 

So sometimes all the stars align and it happens. 

 

What is funny is that some want to ignore the perfect storm of events on the play in question and then claim that any other play would not have the same set of events going in the pats favor. 

 

Had say Wilson rolled out, one could just as easily has the same series of events with pats gambling, 1) DL/LB peels off and blitzes, 2) OL misses that block, 3) Wilson makes a mistake and gets sacked or makes a similar back throw and its picked.  So the roll out, or fade, with a series of events going in the pats favor with them taking a chance could have the same result.   

 

Bottom line if all things go right for the pats they could just as easily gone right on any other play.  So it was an execution thing not a play calling thing.  

You make a compelling case Yehoodi but you still have to come back to the fact that if you just hand the ball to Lynch like they did on first down then the only way anything goes in the Pats favor is if Lynch fumbles or they something stop him short which was unlikely given he gashed them for 100 yards and a TD up to that point and almost scored on first down from the 5.

 

I am of the mindset just score there and make Brady have to get the FG to tie. They did the right thing by running down the clock to under 30 seconds before snapping so Brady would have had about 20 seconds to get in FG range and would have had to throw deep which is right in the LOB wheelhouse.

[Yehoodi]

You make a compelling case Yehoodi but you still have to come back to the fact that if you just hand the ball to Lynch like they did on first down then the only way anything goes in the Pats favor is if Lynch fumbles or they something stop him short which was unlikely given he gashed them for 100 yards and a TD up to that point and almost scored on first down from the 5.

 

I am of the mindset just score there and make Brady have to get the FG to tie. They did the right thing by running down the clock to under 30 seconds before snapping so Brady would have had about 20 seconds to get in FG range and would have had to throw deep which is right in the LOB wheelhouse.

 

A few things AM.  First, Lynch was 1 for 5 all season on go to go from the one yard line.  Second, on a key third down play earlier in the game Lynch could not even get a first down on short yardage and the Seahawks had to settle for a FG, if he could not get a short yardage first down in the third quarter who is to say he would get it on 2nd down here.  Third, just as the pick was unique late in the game, so can a fumble, see Bettis 2005 Divisional against the Colts.  And fourth, and perhaps most critically, you still had two running plays after the pass play.  Its not like the pass play took any plays away from Lynch, the Seahawks only had two run plays left based on the time, so just run those two run plays on 3rd and 4th down and you have an extra play on 2nd down, a pass play.

 

As Lynch could not get a first down on short yardage in the red zone earlier in the game, was not good all season on the play in question, and you had an extra down on the board, the pass play was the play for me on 2nd down.   If something is free, take it.

[aaron11]

my problem with the call is that a slant over the middle is a high risk, high reward play.  they did not have to take that risk.  that pass is much more likely to be intercepted than the running back is to fumble.

 

also with 25 seconds on the clock and a TO, they had time for 3 running plays if they hurried

 

furthermore the patriots had 3 cornerbacks in the game and they had given up a short yardage TD earlier in that game.

[ViriLudant]

my problem with the call is that a slant over the middle is a high risk, high reward play. they did not have to take that risk. that pass is much more likely to be intercepted than the running back is to fumble.

also with 25 seconds on the clock and a TO, they had time for 3 running plays if they hurried

furthermore the patriots had 3 cornerbacks in the game and they had given up a short yardage TD earlier in that game.

That slant play was not intercepted all season long in the NFL. Not once. Until Butler.

[aaron11]

That slant play was not intercepted all season long in the NFL. Not once. Until Butler.

slants over the middle were in fact intercepted. link- http://nflbreakdowns.com/rg3-6-interceptions-2014/

 

i never said it had to be that exact play, that is crazy they dont even run that particular play all that often

[Yehoodi]

slants over the middle were in fact intercepted. link- http://nflbreakdowns.com/rg3-6-interceptions-2014/

i never said it had to be that exact play, that is crazy they dont even run that particular play all that often

a slant play from the one yard line had not been picked all year, which was vl point

[aaron11]

a slant play from the one yard line had not been picked all year, which was vl point

i never said it had to be from the one.  slants in general get picked off all the time.  being at the one actually makes it easier since the entire back 7 is in the end zone.

 

how many slants were even attempted inside the one? id guess not all that many

[amfootball]

A few things AM.  First, Lynch was 1 for 5 all season on go to go from the one yard line.  Second, on a key third down play earlier in the game Lynch could not even get a first down on short yardage and the Seahawks had to settle for a FG, if he could not get a short yardage first down in the third quarter who is to say he would get it on 2nd down here.  Third, just as the pick was unique late in the game, so can a fumble, see Bettis 2005 Divisional against the Colts.  And fourth, and perhaps most critically, you still had two running plays after the pass play.  Its not like the pass play took any plays away from Lynch, the Seahawks only had two run plays left based on the time, so just run those two run plays on 3rd and 4th down and you have an extra play on 2nd down, a pass play.

 

As Lynch could not get a first down on short yardage in the red zone earlier in the game, was not good all season on the play in question, and you had an extra down on the board, the pass play was the play for me on 2nd down.   If something is free, take it.

Again good points Yehoodi but your scenario makes it seem as though they had to pass on second so Lynch could then run on third and fourth. They had a time out and a minute to go when Lynch ran the ball on first down. They then chose to let the clock tick down all the way to 25 seconds before running the second down play. Had they simply handed the ball to Lynch and he got stuffed then you call your timeout and pass on third and run or pass on fourth. They had so MANY options with that play because of the time left, their position on the field and the fact that they had a time out but if you listen to Carroll he makes it seem as though they has to pass on second so they could get to third and fourth. That is the part I don't get. The object there is to score. I believe the fact that Brady had ripped the Seattle defense to shreds the two previous drives had Carroll thinking that they needed to leave as little as time possible left which I get on the one hand but it also caused him to not want to score on second down as he said he was throwing the down away so he could score on either third or fourth.

 

Also, if you do a pass on that down, why on earth you go into a spread formation and throw over the middle to your third best receiver makes no sense. None. And really no explanation can suffice which is why Carroll's have been laughable on that call.

[Yehoodi]

i never said it had to be from the one.  slants in general get picked off all the time.  being at the one actually makes it easier since the entire back 7 is in the end zone.

 

how many slants were even attempted inside the one? id guess not all that many

 

I believe the figure was 198 attempts all year.  But the key is NO interceptions, emphasis on the word NO.

 

That does not mean its a perfect no fault pass, but it is miles away from a dumb pass.  Again, one must remember that play needed to be placed in context of the entire situation which includes time on the clock, down and distance, and downs remaining, and as I indicated in prior posts, in order to get that third extra play it needed to be a quick pass play.  The last thing you want to do is to set up a normal pass play that could result in a sack, then where are you?  3 and goal at the 6 yard line with the clock running and 20 seconds on the clock with only one timeout.  

[aaron11]

I believe the figure was 198 attempts all year.  But the key is NO interceptions, emphasis on the word NO.

 

That does not mean its a perfect no fault pass, but it is miles away from a dumb pass.  Again, one must remember that play needed to be placed in context of the entire situation which includes time on the clock, down and distance, and downs remaining, and as I indicated in prior posts, in order to get that third extra play it needed to be a quick pass play.  The last thing you want to do is to set up a normal pass play that could result in a sack, then where are you?  3 and goal at the 6 yard line with the clock running and 20 seconds on the clock with only one timeout.  

they had time for three running plays with 25 seconds and a TO.  also the patriots had the nickel back in the game on the goal line, why would you not run it?

 

i still think it was a high risk play too.  we all saw what happened when that risk manifested

[Yehoodi]

Again good points Yehoodi but your scenario makes it seem as though they had to pass on second so Lynch could then run on third and fourth. They had a time out and a minute to go when Lynch ran the ball on first down. They then chose to let the clock tick down all the way to 25 seconds before running the second down play. Had they simply handed the ball to Lynch and he got stuffed then you call your timeout and pass on third and run or pass on fourth. They had so MANY options with that play because of the time left, their position on the field and the fact that they had a time out but if you listen to Carroll he makes it seem as though they has to pass on second so they could get to third and fourth. That is the part I don't get. The object there is to score. I believe the fact that Brady had ripped the Seattle defense to shreds the two previous drives had Carroll thinking that they needed to leave as little as time possible left which I get on the one hand but it also caused him to not want to score on second down as he said he was throwing the down away so he could score on either third or fourth.

 

Also, if you do a pass on that down, why on earth you go into a spread formation and throw over the middle to your third best receiver makes no sense. None. And really no explanation can suffice which is why Carroll's have been laughable on that call.

 

AM, you really need to go back and read my points and do the math.  It looks like you are talking about two different game plans, one to just run four plays from out of the 2nd timeout with about a minute to go, and the second, the one Seattle choose, is to let the clock run after the first down play.  Lets look again at both

 

Game plan #1, just run 4 quick run/pass plays out of the second timeout, leaving the 3rd time so you can stop the clock once.  There is nothing wrong with this approach but it is not necessarily better than what the Seahawks choose.  The pluses are that you can run 4 plays either passes or runs, the down side is if you run a quick play on second down and score you leave the pats with say 30-40 seconds on the clock to come back, not a lot of time, but we must remember AM, that Seattle in the very game in question at the end of the first half actually scored a TD with less time on the clock.  Perhaps the pats could not do what Seattle did, but it DID happen, and is likely fresh in Pete's mind.  "Oh gees we scored 7 points with less than 30 seconds to go in the first half, do we want to give the pats the ball down by 3 with 30 seconds to go in the second half?".  just saying.   Its so easy to look at things on Monday morning.

 

Game plan #2, run 4 plays but let the clock run down after the first down play if you do not score.  Here you effectively eliminate the pats ability to come back and score, whereas option one leaves the door open if you score with 45 seconds to go on second down.  So the pluses are you are the last team to effectively possess the ball and the game will basically end with your possession.  Your play book does not really change other than the need to run a quick pass on 2nd down, and the play they choose never failed all year.   For me I fully understand  option #2, just like the last two losses for the pats, the game will end on the opponent's last possession, and we will have less time on the clock than what we had in SBs 42 and 46, if Seattle were to score on 2nd down with this option. 

 

Not sure how option #1 is any better.  Both options afford you 4 downs and 4 plays.  But option #2 does not leave enough time on the clock for the pats to comeback, thereby effectively ending the game one way or the other on Seattle's possession.  Why give the pats a second chance at a win (first chance to stop you and (if you score) a second chance if you leave time on the clock), it does not make too much sense to me.

 

True on one level one needs to run a quick pass play on 2nd down so it limits your playbook a tad on this play, but the play came down to execution.  I think the pats sniffed out what the Seahawks were going to do and doubled down and gambled.  Had Seattle sensed what the pats were doing, kind of like the perhaps the Giants in SB42, Locket could of leaned in for the slant then cut it outside for a fade and Butler like Hobbs would of been out of position, and Locket, like Burress, would of been wide open for a easy catch.  So it happens. What if this happened and Bulter waited and went for the fade and Wilson choked up on the pass under threw it a bit and Butler gone underneath the pass and picked it, then where are you.  We can go around the merry go around 100 times with  "what if he knew what he was going to do" or "what if he knew what he knew that he knew what he was going to do" and on and on .   

 

The pats gambled on a particular slant and it came up with three 7s, Seattle could of ran a fake slant to a fade and the pats could of guess that too and came up with three 7s again.  The reverse could of happened and Seattle could of score a TD on either play.

 

Bottom line, Seattle choose a play and the pats just guess correctly and executed correctly, that is all, plain and simple.   There was nothing inherently dangerous with a game plan that made sure you were the last team to possessed the ball and choose a play that was not picked all season.    

[Yehoodi]

they had time for three running plays with 25 seconds and a TO.  also the patriots had the nickel back in the game on the goal line, why would you not run it?

 

i still think it was a high risk play too.  we all saw what happened when that risk manifested

 

How do you run three run plays in 25 seconds?  At a minimum the 2nd down play will be over with about 18 seconds or less to go.   What if Lynch gets stood up and the 2nd down play takes more time.

 

Sorry I got no problem running a pass play leaving plenty of time on the clock to run two more plays with a TO.

 

Hey sometime turnovers happen, like Bettis's fumble in the 2005 divisional game, or Brady throwing a inexcusable pick in SB 38 up by 5 points in the red zone.  All Brady had to do was throw the ball out of the back of the end zone and we kick a FG and go up by 8 with a few minutes to go, but no Brady under throws the ball it gets picked and Carolina 3 plays later is in the end zone leading by 4.  Heck Brady threw a pick six earlier in a game against Denver, the Champ Bailey pick six.  So mistakes can happen in go to go situations, and buy good players and at the end of games.   It just happens.

 

Oh and btw, the last time in that game Lynch tried to get a first down on 3rd and short he got stuffed.  He is one and five all season on 1 and goal, so given his history no reason to think the run play is a sure thing.