NFL

[ggw]

Why did Belichick not call a timeout prior to the interception?  It was as if they were giving up and conceding the game at that point.

They only had two left and he probably figured he needed both timeouts if they were to get a couple of long throws and a field goal after Seattle scored.  He wasn't conceding the game, just conceding a TD by Seattle.

[Nigel Tufnel]

If NE had called timout, then Seattle would have been able to run the ball three more times.  Without the TO, Seattle had to pass at least once, so it worked out pretty well for NE.

[shemptiness]

If NE had called timout, then Seattle would have been able to run the ball three more times.  Without the TO, Seattle had to pass at least once, so it worked out pretty well for NE.

Seattle didn't need to throw.  They still had a TO.

Interesting take:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2015/02/02/bill-belichick-made-a-sneaky-smart-decision-that-might-have-contributed-to-fateful-play-call-by-pete-carroll/

[hutch]

I just couldn't believe Kearse made that catch..when he did I thought it was game over... then Beastmode almost got in the end zone!  I would have told Russell Wilson...either you give it to Beastmode or you take it in...that would have been the call on 2nd, 3rd and 4th down......and if I had thrown a pass I disagree with the pass called even if experts say it was high percentage.. the only pass I would have tried would have been in a corner of the end zone.....


But you can't take anything away from Brady in the 4th Quarter.....

[hutch]

Thing is Pete Carroll has been and is a cocky playcaller....how many times did he call crazy cocky plays and it worked???

But this was not the time for that!

[Julian, Bespoke SEXPERT]

Carroll's two biggest "failures" in his career are both attached to odd "X & 1 yard to go" calls, if you think about it.

[Nigel Tufnel]

If NE had called timout, then Seattle would have been able to run the ball three more times.  Without the TO, Seattle had to pass at least once, so it worked out pretty well for NE.

Seattle didn't need to throw.  They still had a TO.

Interesting take:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2015/02/02/bill-belichick-made-a-sneaky-smart-decision-that-might-have-contributed-to-fateful-play-call-by-pete-carroll/

They had three downs to work with, with 26 seconds and one timeout.  That's not enough time for three running plays.  They didn't need to throw on second down, though.

Yeah, that Post article is saying what I was trying to say.

[Julian, Bespoke SEXPERT]

They had three downs to work with, with 26 seconds and one timeout.  That's not enough time for three running plays. 

To be fair, they had 26 seconds left because they let 30 seconds run off the clock. If they wanted to run on 2nd, 3rd, and 4th down with only one timeout, they could've done that by getting the play snapped 20 seconds earlier.

I think the smarter game-theory play for Belicheck is calling the timeout. The most likely outcome of Seattle's drive with 2nd down and goal at the one is a lead-taking touchdown. The Patriot's chance of winning is statistically more affected by having an additional 30 seconds, not the increased interception opportunity created by "forcing" Seattle to throw on one of the hypothetical 3 downs remaining.

EDIT: I do think if Belicheck calls a timeout and Carroll has 2 minutes to stand around and think about the call (and ~45 seconds on the clock at time of snap compared to ~28, he calls a run). Regardless of play call or time out strategy, Patriots obviously had a very small (football outsiders put it at 9% statistically) chance of winning going into that play and no run v pass or timeout strategy was going to significantly impact that.

[ggw]

They had three downs to work with, with 26 seconds and one timeout.  That's not enough time for three running plays. 

To be fair, they had 26 seconds left because they let 30 seconds run off the clock. If they wanted to run on 2nd, 3rd, and 4th down with only one timeout, they could've done that by getting the play snapped 20 seconds earlier.

I think the smarter game-theory play for Belicheck is calling the timeout. The most likely outcome of Seattle's drive with 2nd down and goal at the one is a lead-taking touchdown. The Patriot's chance of winning is statistically more affected by having an additional 30 seconds, not the increased interception opportunity created by "forcing" Seattle to throw on one of the hypothetical 3 downs remaining.

EDIT: I do think if Belicheck calls a timeout and Carroll has 2 minutes to stand around and think about the call (and ~45 seconds on the clock at time of snap compared to ~28, he calls a run). Regardless of play call or time out strategy, Patriots obviously had a very small (football outsiders put it at 9% statistically) chance of winning going into that play and no run v pass or timeout strategy was going to significantly impact that.

Belichick

[ggw]

"Johnny Football" now "Johnny Rehab"

[Nigel Tufnel]

They had three downs to work with, with 26 seconds and one timeout.  That's not enough time for three running plays. 

To be fair, they had 26 seconds left because they let 30 seconds run off the clock. If they wanted to run on 2nd, 3rd, and 4th down with only one timeout, they could've done that by getting the play snapped 20 seconds earlier.

Right, but if Seattle had snapped the ball earlier and then scored on that play, Brady would have had a lot of time left to get the tying FG.  But in the end, Carroll just outsmarted himself.

[ggw]

[Relaxer]

[ggw]

https://twitter.com/AnnaKendrick47/status/562056902675554305

[grateful]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/02/sports/football/wilson-saw-a-window-to-victory-but-butler-stole-the-show.html