GunnerBill Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 It wasn't a mistake just because you wouldn't have done the same thing. He decided the odds were poor even if they had 30 seconds left on offense and put it all on their defense. Which had been pretty good at stopping Seattle most of the day, and which was also a bit of a surprise and caused them to take a long time to call the play. By no means a mistake. A calculated risk that put all the pressure on the Seahawks. He had confidence in the defense, and there's nothing wrong with that. I 100% agree. I think Belichick knew their chances of going to down the field to respond were minimal however long was left. He put it on his defense. He also said himself yesterday exactly what I expected - he was holding the time outs incase he saw a personnel grouping he didn't like. He had goalline in and he saw them trot out the 3 WR set, he was able to make a late sub Butler in for Ayres and so was happy they were matched up. He tried the "as long as we have the ball last" in their latest Superbowl defeat against a team with a good defense and it didn't work for him. I think he knew that if Seattle scored it was game over regardless of whether there was 1:00, 30 seconds or 10 seconds left. They had to make a play on defense.
PromoTheRobot Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 (edited) I 100% agree. I think Belichick knew their chances of going to down the field to respond were minimal however long was left. He put it on his defense. He also said himself yesterday exactly what I expected - he was holding the time outs incase he saw a personnel grouping he didn't like. He had goalline in and he saw them trot out the 3 WR set, he was able to make a late sub Butler in for Ayres and so was happy they were matched up. He tried the "as long as we have the ball last" in their latest Superbowl defeat against a team with a good defense and it didn't work for him. I think he knew that if Seattle scored it was game over regardless of whether there was 1:00, 30 seconds or 10 seconds left. They had to make a play on defense. That's crazy talk. Game over with a minute to go and down just 3 and Brady's your QB? BS! Edited February 5, 2015 by PromoTheRobot
GunnerBill Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 (edited) I'm sorry I don't agree. Out of timeouts (if he'd used them on defense), against a great defense and one that they hadn't hit any big plays on.... there wasn't time to dink and dunk their way down there. Brady played a sensational game but it was death by a thousand cuts.... you can't do that inside a minute to go with no time outs... okay maybe "knew" it was over is a stretch.... but I figured watching they had to make a stop on defense and I suspect Belichick figured the same... that struck me as by far their best chance to win. So keeping their timeouts incase they saw an alignment where they really didn't like the matchups was not a crazy strategy. It was risky, but worth the risk in my opinion - and it played out for them. Edited February 5, 2015 by GunnerBill
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 20 seconds or 40 seconds... I don't care who the QB is, I'd rather 40 seconds and 2 TO's over 20 seconds and 3 TO's
QB Bills Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Imagine this was any of the previous Bills coaches that had done this. The board would have imploded. Truth is, if Belichick did it on purpose, he's an idiot. Odds are, he just got caught up in the moment, regardless of what he said in his presser afterwards.
Alphadawg7 Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 (edited) Watching the end of the game I am sitting there thinking why is BB not calling a timeout right here saving an extra 30 seconds for Brady? It seemed like an obvious blunder by one of the great head coaches of all time. Maybe BB didn't call a timeout so the Seahawks wouldn't have time to think the play over and would do something stupid, like they did. Just another way BB may be smarter than everyone else. Interesting question and this has been talked about on sports talk radio. BB is the kind of coach who is capable of this type of thinking. I have even heard lots of talk on sports talk radio about how Pete even hesitated during that drive waiting for the assumed timeout from the Pats. This creativity is definitely in the wheel house for BB. On the flip side, Pete is getting way too much haterade for that call. 1. As stated by many, Lynch was only 1 for 5 from the 1 yard line on the season. 2. They only had one timeout...running and not getting in on 2nd down means you have to pass on 3rd and 4th taking away any mystery about the play. 3. Because of the short yardage, its easy to assume you could have an opportunity to surprise with a quick pass. 4. If they don't get in, they may not get 4 downs. They would have to use the time out after the play and if they got sacked or tackled for a loss or short of the GL on third down then game is probably over. 5. I heard a stat on the radio that stated across the NFL in 101 pass attempts on the season from the 1 yard line, the first INT was the one in the SB. I don't think not running was the right or wrong call. I just don't think it was as bad as its made out to be. People forget that the other team is paid to make plays too and sometimes someone makes a great play, and thats what Butler did. I probably would have ran it with Lynch myself, but I can totally see a case to try a short pass there as well. Edited February 5, 2015 by Alphadawg7
buffaloboyinATL Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 This cracks me up. Belicheck makes a stupid decision and in hindsight, because it worked by a total fluke, people are calling him a genius for it.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 This cracks me up. Belicheck makes a stupid decision and in hindsight, because it worked by a total fluke, people are calling him a genius for it. exactly!!!!
Alphadawg7 Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 This cracks me up. Belicheck makes a stupid decision and in hindsight, because it worked by a total fluke, people are calling him a genius for it. Just like how Brady would not be considered greatest ever right now if Seattle scores. Results create perception. Facts: BB is by far the best HC of his generation and has a strong case as best ever. He has a proven track record of deceptive genius on defense to stop even the best offenses in the league as both a HC and DC, so when something seems like it may have through the other HC off, he is going to get some speculation that it may have been a tactic. Doesn't mean it was, but its definitely in the realm of possibility of his kind of thinking. I think thats all anyone is speculating.
Marv's Neighbor Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 I think you're giving Belicheck Wayyyyy too much credit.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Brady* has gotten a LOT of help from the Ref's since 9-11. TUCK rule propelled them into their fame. Since then the Patriots* have gotten the most favorable calls in the NFL year after year after year. In the SB, Brady* got away with TWO intentional grounding calls. It's not like they threw a flag and picked it up, there were NO FLAGS at all!!! The year of the Scab Refs. Weeks 1-3 (IIRC) the Putrids had 8 penalties per game average. When the "regular" refs came back the Putrids miraculously had ONLY 2 penalties per game average. That happened to be the week they played the Bills! w/o all the favoritism Brady* would be no more than Dan Marino
Alphadawg7 Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Brady* has gotten a LOT of help from the Ref's since 9-11. TUCK rule propelled them into their fame. Since then the Patriots* have gotten the most favorable calls in the NFL year after year after year. In the SB, Brady* got away with TWO intentional grounding calls. It's not like they threw a flag and picked it up, there were NO FLAGS at all!!! The year of the Scab Refs. Weeks 1-3 (IIRC) the Putrids had 8 penalties per game average. When the "regular" refs came back the Putrids miraculously had ONLY 2 penalties per game average. That happened to be the week they played the Bills! w/o all the favoritism Brady* would be no more than Dan Marino Weird how Brady got a safety on an intentional grounding to start his last SB though, which he lost. Guess the refs that day weren't Pats fans.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Weird how Brady got a safety on an intentional grounding to start his last SB though, which he lost. Guess the refs that day weren't Pats fans. Did I say they got away with everything? No, I said they got away with a lot of things. You get freebies often enough sooner or later you hit the jackpot. Why Brady* didn't get a flag on those two occasions this past Sunday. I'll not hold my breath for a rational answer
rumblefish Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 if the end of the super bowl 49 was a poker game, the hoodie played the last hand to perfection, showdown, and Carol blinked, hoodie didn't, game/set/ match-Hoodie
Ozymandius Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 This has been laughable excuse-making for Belichick's blunder by the Boston media and fans. The Grantland article by (I lap up Belichick's) Spurts Guy Simmons was ludicrous. It's okay, you chowdaheads. You can be a great coach AND a cheater AND a guy who makes a stupid mistake every now and then. It's okay.
Georgia Bill Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 I would have let em score on the first play with a minute to go and then go down and score the winning TD. I was thinking the same thing. Course if you make that decision and lose you'd never hear the end of it.
Recommended Posts