NFL 2014 Discussion Thread

[squidward]

Because of probabilities - thAts why.

Throwing is more risky than carrying
Gaining a half yard in three plays is incredibly high probability
The team involved includes the most dominating back in the game

Nothing is done until its history but people talk so confidently because the probabilities favor it so strongly

I don't think it's that simple. Lynch ran the ball from the 1 yard line 5 times this season. He made it into the end zone once. That's a 20% success rate.

As for the Pats not calling a timeout, it wasn't because they had accepted loss. It was because they would need the timeout IF Seattle scored, so Brady could get them in field goal position, THEN use the timeout to set up for a field goal.

Had Lockette made that catch, everyone would be calling Carroll a genius. I don't think throwing is a bad call in that scenario. I think calling a seam route is pretty stupid. Fake the hand off and throw it outside to an open tight end.

 

[Lucky]

With only one timeout, Carroll probably only had time for (a) two runs, or (b) a run and two passes. Most coaches would probably have gone with (b). Carroll chose to pass when passing was less predictable and when he thought the match ups were favorable. Nope, it didn't work out, but I don't think it was as dumb as most people are saying.

 

[John]

I don't think it's that simple. Lynch ran the ball from the 1 yard line 5 times this season. He made it into the end zone once. That's a 20% success rate.

As for the Pats not calling a timeout, it wasn't because they had accepted loss. It was because they would need the timeout IF Seattle scored, so Brady could get them in field goal position, THEN use the timeout to set up for a field goal.

Had Lockette made that catch, everyone would be calling Carroll a genius. I don't think throwing is a bad call in that scenario. I think calling a seam route is pretty stupid. Fake the hand off and throw it outside to an open tight end.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, I am going with what got me to the super bowl to begin with.....the most dominate back in the game. Whats the success rate on an onside kick? Pretty low I would think, yet the Seahawks went for it in the NFC championship. You see how that turned out. I think risk trumps percentages of possible success in this case. Even you said the play call was stupid.

Time outs have little use if there is no time left on the clock. But I will agree with you an the play selection. We can play the "IF" game if you want. Roll Wilson out and give him the choice to either throw it in the stands or run it in with his feet if he doesn't have an open receiver. The slant play was just stupid.

The Seahawks had clock advantage, they could use the clock as they wanted to. Even the announcers were commenting on weather the Patriots should let the Seahawks score to preserve the clock. One of the best Qb's in the game and time outs mean nothing if there isn't any time left on the clock. Again "IF" the Seahawks scored and on the kick off the Seahawks kick it away and the Patriots start on the 20 with oh lets say 15 seconds left. Whats the success rate winning in that scenario?

 

[flynnibus]

I don't think it's that simple. Lynch ran the ball from the 1 yard line 5 times this season. He made it into the end zone once. That's a 20% success rate.

But they should have had more than one attempt - that's the big issue with the play call.

Russell Wilson himself has ran it in 4 times (4 and out of 8 attempts) when in To Goal situations. http://pfref.com/tiny/7vWpE

Meanwhile.. when opponents rushed from inside the 5 yard line in 2014 prior to the SB... the Pats gave up touchdowns 60% of the time.. and only stopped people for no gain or a loss one time. http://pfref.com/tiny/1Owuk

This isn't some monster line no one can get past.

Stats like Lynch's one time success mean little here... they had at least 3 attempts to get a half yard. The boneheaded nature of the call is they called a RISKY plan when the game situation called for 'must have' success. Last play, sure, go for your risky call... but to put your whole season at RISK when you didn't need to, and had much more reliable plays that if they fail, wouldn't lose the game, is a coaching failure.

So if the Pats are in a stacked run formation you don't want to try to bull through... you have a QB that can run and does so very successfully.

As for the Pats not calling a timeout, it wasn't because they had accepted loss. It was because they would need the timeout IF Seattle scored, so Brady could get them in field goal position, THEN use the timeout to set up for a field goal.

Well I didn't say they had accepted the loss - the timeout situation for coaching is a 'could go either way' choice for the coaching staff. The one argument for using the TO there the next possession is you can stop the clock with a kill play.. you can't put time back on the clock with a play. The pats could have done a lot of things... let them score, etc. What was surprising about the call is that Pats were going to defend.. not so much about the TO handling. Once the clock gets under 30 seconds... there is little reason to 'play for another possession' you've pretty much crossed the line into desperation at that point.

Had Lockette made that catch, everyone would be calling Carroll a genius

I don't think so..I think people would have said it was a 'gusty' call - because it was a high risk play. Big risk, big reward. But at that point they are EXPECTED to score. 1st and goal on the 5 with two amazing runners. You are expected to get in.

Sure things happen like botched snaps, handoffs, etc... but those are mistakes in execution. This was a mistake in planning... and the other team that planned better, studied film, AND executed won because of it.

 

[flynnibus]

ohhh boy

http://www.tmz.com/2015/02/02/warren-sapp-arrested-arizona-super-bowl-soliciting-a-prostitute/

Don't cross the hooker... she's got you by the balls.. sort of literally

 

[PUSH]

Just my take, but Caroll would have been called a genius for passing had they made it. Players, not plays.

 

[flynnibus]

Players, not plays.

I'd argue the inverse... and why teams like the Patriots have routinely made heros out of zeros... while many teams draft talent and still struggle.

The Patriots adapt to the game needed - and they prepare. The INT was all a byproduct of game PREP - not pure talent by a player. No superstar could make that catch if they hadn't identified the rub play to get in position and recognize to jump the route.

It's why year after year... super stars come out of college and disappear into the night when the complexity and speed of the NFL overcomes their ability to purely be a better athlete which got them so far before.

Players need plays and schemes to succeed in their execution. Sure there are plays that are pure athlete or pure adhoc - but a game is a sum of the 60 minutes. You can't live on that pure 'player' for a full game, nor against every team. The adaptation to the challenge in front of them is what makes teams successful in a league with such parity. Failing to adapt.. and you get the ball thrown on you successfully 37 times in a game.

The game was incredibly balanced out at the end... and while the pass before came down to just pure athletic move.. pure skill could not overcome being outcoached when the defense ID'd your play and busted it up.

 

[flynnibus]

I lol'd

 

[John]

ohhh boy

http://www.tmz.com/2015/02/02/warren-sapp-arrested-arizona-super-bowl-soliciting-a-prostitute/

Don't cross the hooker... she's got you by the balls.. sort of literally

What a way to kill a career.....seems there were two idiots in Arizona on Sunday.

 

[PUSH]

I'd argue the inverse... and why teams like the Patriots have routinely made heros out of zeros... while many teams draft talent and still struggle.

The Patriots adapt to the game needed - and they prepare. The INT was all a byproduct of game PREP - not pure talent by a player. No superstar could make that catch if they hadn't identified the rub play to get in position and recognize to jump the route.

It's why year after year... super stars come out of college and disappear into the night when the complexity and speed of the NFL overcomes their ability to purely be a better athlete which got them so far before.

Players need plays and schemes to succeed in their execution. Sure there are plays that are pure athlete or pure adhoc - but a game is a sum of the 60 minutes. You can't live on that pure 'player' for a full game, nor against every team. The adaptation to the challenge in front of them is what makes teams successful in a league with such parity. Failing to adapt.. and you get the ball thrown on you successfully 37 times in a game.

The game was incredibly balanced out at the end... and while the pass before came down to just pure athletic move.. pure skill could not overcome being outcoached when the defense ID'd your play and busted it up.

Game preparation and plays aren't the same thing. Studying the opponent is not the equivalent to the plays being called. You need the players to execute the plays. Had Wilson not have thrown the ball, it would be a totally different story. Malcolm Butler executed the play. The play did not execute Malcolm Butler. People are always looking for something to blame - they can't just let it be that one player outplayed another player. The Patriots defense outplayed the Seattle offense on that play. Yes, they could have called a different play, but it would still come down to the players executing the play. Therefore players, not plays. A team with little talent can't win on plays. Otherwise we would see teams like the Jaguars and Raiders be consistently competitive. But they don't have the players to execute the plays.

 

[PUSH]

Josh Gordon has been suspended for at least one year without pay for violating the NFL's substance abuse policy once again.

 

[OSUgirl77]

Josh Gordon has been suspended for at least one year without pay for violating the NFL's substance abuse policy once again.

And Johnny Football is in rehab. Go Browns...

 

[flynnibus]

Game preparation and plays aren't the same thing. Studying the opponent is not the equivalent to the plays being called

No, but they are inherently connected. The player is coached on how the team will respond to that play. What their responsibilities are, what their freedoms are. This isn't simply "I've seen this before, so now I have an edge" - the players still work within their scheme and design in how they will react to those things. That's why I say it's not just about athletic ability - the team works as a unit. It's why a certain LB knows to play contain, or if he is free to take that extra step towards trying to make the early tackle, etc. For DBs it can play out in how they know if they are free to jump a route or not (will there be coverage over the top, etc).

People are always looking for something to blame - they can't just let it be that one player outplayed another player

Kearske completing that catch was purely one player outplaying others. Butler's defense was even possible because of the scheme, his recognition, his pre-snap adjustment (which the scheme defines his latitudes), and the coaching/prep on where that ball will be and his responsibilities. It wasn't purely two guys fighting for the ball - the whole reason he was able to make the contest on the ball was because alignment to avoid the crossing rub and knew the route so he knew right where to fight for the ball.

Look at the play, he's not even looking at the WR - it's all play recognition, adjustment, and ultimately his bad- execution of it. It wouldn't have happened without the player execution -- but without the other elements, he wouldn't have even been there to contest the catch because he would have gotten tied up in the crossing rub. It's not just a player outplaying another... he was in the position to make the play through their work and coaching.

The Patriots defense outplayed the Seattle offense on that play. Yes, they could have called a different play, but it would still come down to the players executing the play. Therefore players, not plays. A team with little talent can't win on plays. Otherwise we would see teams like the Jaguars and Raiders be consistently competitive

It's not either or - it's you need BOTH. Your conclusion ignores why we see teams with talent fail. Or why players with talent can still vary so greatly in their output depending on where they are playing. It's not 22 guys competing individually... or even one guy trying to beat 2-3 guys. This is the NFL and the reason the same stuff doesn't work week to week against everyone is because teams scheme and work together.

No, you aren't going to get the great catch if the guy doesn't execute and actually COMPLETE the catch - but the reason the guy is able to get open in the first place is heavily dependent on the coaching and scheme... or the inverse, why all-world Megatron or similar can't get open against an inferior athlete.

Or why the Patriots who threw the ball over 50 times were still able to keep throwing the ball. It wasn't just because Brady is a greater athlete than the guy trying to defend the catch... or that Amendola is the best athlete on the field... it's scheming to create those opportunities which the players must execute within to capitalize on.

Butler is in the position to make that catch because of the work they put in the two weeks prior. If Butler was playing one on one sandlot football he wouldn't have even been in the neighborhood to make the catch as he would have been 3 steps behind due to the block intended to free up Lockette.

But Butler is playing 3 yards off the line of scrimmage. It's a two step drop throw... before Russell even throws the ball Butler is already B-lining to the point of the catch and gets there at the same time as Lockette. He recognizes the play as soon as Lockette turns parallel to the line of scrimmage and is hauling to get to the point to contest the catch.

Look at the freeze frame

#83 has just turned on his slant and Butler is already taking off for the point of the catch. Russell hasn't even begun to throw, he's just taken his two steps and turns towards his receiver. At this point everything is already pre-determined except for who will make the catch. Russell knows exactly where he is going to throw it, and so does Butler. Butler is committed to trying to make the INT and never defends the WR at all. He's playing ball all the way because he knows the throw and where it's going. Butler makes an impressive closure on the ball and makes the great play to make the catch and hold on through the contact. But the whole reason he's there in the first place is... he had to know the play. And that comes from their prep and coaching. It's not because Butler is some diamond in the rough DB the world just didn't know about made some superhero move. He's the nickle/dime DB who through coaching had an edge and performed to brilliance in those two seconds.

 

[PUSH]

No, but they are inherently connected. The player is coached on how the team will respond to that play. What their responsibilities are, what their freedoms are. This isn't simply "I've seen this before, so now I have an edge" - the players still work within their scheme and design in how they will react to those things. That's why I say it's not just about athletic ability - the team works as a unit. It's why a certain LB knows to play contain, or if he is free to take that extra step towards trying to make the early tackle, etc. For DBs it can play out in how they know if they are free to jump a route or not (will there be coverage over the top, etc).



Kearske completing that catch was purely one player outplaying others. Butler's defense was even possible because of the scheme, his recognition, his pre-snap adjustment (which the scheme defines his latitudes), and the coaching/prep on where that ball will be and his responsibilities. It wasn't purely two guys fighting for the ball - the whole reason he was able to make the contest on the ball was because alignment to avoid the crossing rub and knew the route so he knew right where to fight for the ball.

Look at the play, he's not even looking at the WR - it's all play recognition, adjustment, and ultimately his bad-*** execution of it. It wouldn't have happened without the player execution -- but without the other elements, he wouldn't have even been there to contest the catch because he would have gotten tied up in the crossing rub. It's not just a player outplaying another... he was in the position to make the play through their work and coaching.



It's not either or - it's you need BOTH. Your conclusion ignores why we see teams with talent fail. Or why players with talent can still vary so greatly in their output depending on where they are playing. It's not 22 guys competing individually... or even one guy trying to beat 2-3 guys. This is the NFL and the reason the same stuff doesn't work week to week against everyone is because teams scheme and work together.

No, you aren't going to get the great catch if the guy doesn't execute and actually COMPLETE the catch - but the reason the guy is able to get open in the first place is heavily dependent on the coaching and scheme... or the inverse, why all-world Megatron or similar can't get open against an inferior athlete.

Or why the Patriots who threw the ball over 50 times were still able to keep throwing the ball. It wasn't just because Brady is a greater athlete than the guy trying to defend the catch... or that Amendola is the best athlete on the field... it's scheming to create those opportunities which the players must execute within to capitalize on.

Butler is in the position to make that catch because of the work they put in the two weeks prior. If Butler was playing one on one sandlot football he wouldn't have even been in the neighborhood to make the catch as he would have been 3 steps behind due to the block intended to free up Lockette.

But Butler is playing 3 yards off the line of scrimmage. It's a two step drop throw... before Russell even throws the ball Butler is already B-lining to the point of the catch and gets there at the same time as Lockette. He recognizes the play as soon as Lockette turns parallel to the line of scrimmage and is hauling to get to the point to contest the catch.

Look at the freeze frame
View attachment 81393

#83 has just turned on his slant and Butler is already taking off for the point of the catch. Russell hasn't even begun to throw, he's just taken his two steps and turns towards his receiver. At this point everything is already pre-determined except for who will make the catch. Russell knows exactly where he is going to throw it, and so does Butler. Butler is committed to trying to make the INT and never defends the WR at all. He's playing ball all the way because he knows the throw and where it's going. Butler makes an impressive closure on the ball and makes the great play to make the catch and hold on through the contact. But the whole reason he's there in the first place is... he had to know the play. And that comes from their prep and coaching. It's not because Butler is some diamond in the rough DB the world just didn't know about made some superhero move. He's the nickle/dime DB who through coaching had an edge and performed to brilliance in those two seconds.

To be honest, I didn't finish reading this post because you are bringing up things that I never even mentioned in my past couple posts. And I never said talent equals athletic ability. Tom Brady is not as athletic as most people on the field, yet he's a better athlete because he has more talent. But going back to the main point I was making and not going off the other points that have arisen, plays are no good if you can't execute. Yes, they are important because you can't just have a bunch of players running around, but you can't just have a play without any players. Overall talent trumps scheme. Seattle plays a pretty basic defense, but yet they have held the best defense in the league over the past two seasons. In the play that everyone is talking about, the entire discussion would be changed if Russell Wilson would have executed properly. But since he didn't execute properly, he lost the Seahawks the game. That's why I say players, not plays. I don't really see how there's even a debate going on here.

 

[flynnibus]

Here's the TLR version for you then...
Don't put the cart before the horse

Talent means nothing in the NFL without coaching. Put Tom Brady on a poorly coached team and he will lose. Talent alone can not carry a team in the NFL. You said 'players over play' - it wasn't the player's ability that make that interception. That interception WAS EVEN POSSIBLE because of how the kid was coached and prep'd for the game. He could have been Reevisx10 - but without reading the play NO ONE makes that INT. The guy is 5 yards off in a slant play thrown in under 2 seconds. NO ONE makes that INT unless you read the play before it's thrown. That's what he did because of his prep work. So yes, without talent, the play doesn't get made... but talent alone doesn't make the play happen. And its why a UNDRAFTED ROOKIE who barely played all season can stop a game winning drive.

Russell executed the play fine. The play is entirely fixed. Snap, two step, hit the mark. There is no 'find the open receiver' in this play.. or read the field. It is 100% a set timing play. The only chance for any variation is pre-snap. The throw is about 6" off perfect but the ball location isn't what caused the INT.

Russell hit the mark - the problem is Butler raced to it and beat out the WR.. and why the WR looked like this in the catch. The WR is all eyes on Russell and Butler literally just beats him to the spot and blows him over in doing so.

It's not raw talent that got Butler to know to start running to that spot before Russell even squares up.

 

[PUSH]

Here's the TLR version for you then...
Don't put the cart before the horse

Talent means nothing in the NFL without coaching. Put Tom Brady on a poorly coached team and he will lose. Talent alone can not carry a team in the NFL. You said 'players over play' - it wasn't the player's ability that make that interception. That interception WAS EVEN POSSIBLE because of how the kid was coached and prep'd for the game. He could have been Reevisx10 - but without reading the play NO ONE makes that INT. The guy is 5 yards off in a slant play thrown in under 2 seconds. NO ONE makes that INT unless you read the play before it's thrown. That's what he did because of his prep work. So yes, without talent, the play doesn't get made... but talent alone doesn't make the play happen. And its why a UNDRAFTED ROOKIE who barely played all season can stop a game winning drive.

Russell executed the play fine. The play is entirely fixed. Snap, two step, hit the mark. There is no 'find the open receiver' in this play.. or read the field. It is 100% a set timing play. The only chance for any variation is pre-snap. The throw is about 6" off perfect but the ball location isn't what caused the INT.

Russell hit the mark - the problem is Butler raced to it and beat out the WR.. and why the WR looked like this in the catch. The WR is all eyes on Russell and Butler literally just beats him to the spot and blows him over in doing so.
View attachment 81409

It's not raw talent that got Butler to know to start running to that spot before Russell even squares up.

So I'm guessing if the coach makes the team, that explains all the success Pete Carroll had in the NFL before the Seahawks? Or how successful Belichick was before Brady? Or how much Mike Shanahan succeeded with the Redskins?

And I would argue against Wilson executing the play fine. He did throw an INT if you recall. I wouldn't necessarily call that fine. If he was to properly execute that play, he either would have called an audible or thrown the pass away. But once he didn't execute the play properly, Malcolm Butler did. Plus, you proved my point when you said, "the problem is Butler raced to it and beat out the WR.." You just said that Butler outplayed the WR.

Again, I don't see how this is a debate, other than Lynch might have gotten it in. If it works, it works. But the Patriots could have executed better than the Seahawks on a run play, too. Just win, baby.

 

[PUSH]

Duck LeBeau will join the Titans as an assistant coach. Guess he got tired after all those years in Pittsburgh.

PS- Yes, I intentionally wrote Duck.

 

[flynnibus]

So I'm guessing if the coach makes the team, that explains all the success Pete Carroll had in the NFL before the Seahawks? Or how successful Belichick was before Brady? Or how much Mike Shanahan succeeded with the Redskins?

Uhhmm... where did I say the coach alone makes the team? You know that post you didn't read.. here's a snip for you

It's not either or - it's you need BOTH

And I would argue against Wilson executing the play fine. He did throw an INT if you recall. I wouldn't necessarily call that fine. If he was to properly execute that play, he either would have called an audible or thrown the pass away. But once he didn't execute the play properly, Malcolm Butler did

Proper execution does not guarantee success - you can still get beat.. and that's exactly what happened here. They got out coached and outplayed on the play. This play was a timing play - there is no post-snap read. Russell executed the play almost to perfection - the problem is, the play was a bad call. They play was decoded by the defense and it was ill timed for the game situation. Russell played exactly as the plan dictated for that play. At the moment of the throw, its still a viable pass. But the speed and headstart Butler had was the difference.

Plus, you proved my point when you said, "the problem is Butler raced to it and beat out the WR.." You just said that Butler outplayed the WR.

You know that post you didn't read.. here's a snip for you

Butler's defense was even possible because of the scheme, his recognition, his pre-snap adjustment (which the scheme defines his latitudes), and the coaching/prep on where that ball will be and his responsibilities. It wasn't purely two guys fighting for the ball - the whole reason he was able to make the contest on the ball was because alignment to avoid the crossing rub and knew the route so he knew right where to fight for the ball.

To even have a shot at making that play... Butler needed the game prep and scheme to know where the ball will be and what his teammates are doing so his movement doesn't open a new problem.. then he excels and delivers. He's not in the position to make the play without the pre-snap read (or his pre-snap adjustment to move backwards two steps) and he doesn't make the play without the talent to close the gap and make the catch.

Russell did exactly what he was supposed to do - the failure is that his action was PREDICTED by the defense and the player steps up and makes the play of his life.

Talent alone doesn't give you telepathy or the ability to operate as a unit - that's why there are coaches on the staff and not just to build skills.

 

[PUSH]

Uhhmm... where did I say the coach alone makes the team? You know that post you didn't read.. here's a snip for you




Proper execution does not guarantee success - you can still get beat.. and that's exactly what happened here. They got out coached and outplayed on the play. This play was a timing play - there is no post-snap read. Russell executed the play almost to perfection - the problem is, the play was a bad call. They play was decoded by the defense and it was ill timed for the game situation. Russell played exactly as the plan dictated for that play. At the moment of the throw, its still a viable pass. But the speed and headstart Butler had was the difference.



You know that post you didn't read.. here's a snip for you


To even have a shot at making that play... Butler needed the game prep and scheme to know where the ball will be and what his teammates are doing so his movement doesn't open a new problem.. then he excels and delivers. He's not in the position to make the play without the pre-snap read (or his pre-snap adjustment to move backwards two steps) and he doesn't make the play without the talent to close the gap and make the catch.

Russell did exactly what he was supposed to do - the failure is that his action was PREDICTED by the defense and the player steps up and makes the play of his life.

Talent alone doesn't give you telepathy or the ability to operate as a unit - that's why there are coaches on the staff and not just to build skills.

I'm well aware of the snips you quoted. I read those parts. But I obviously can't sway your opinion, so I'll just stop putting forth the effort. Agree to disagree.

 

[PUSH]

Because 2014 is in the record books, I created a new thread for the offseason. Thanks everyone for making this thread another success this season! I look forward to all of you participating in the new thread, as well as future threads!

http://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/nfl-2015-offseason-discussion-thread.895658/