Bevell

[The Q]

I'm done. You're making shit up now. They came out lined up to stop Lynch. There's plenty of stuff written about it. There's audio of the play from a bunch of the Pats players. 'Slow developing?' It was a fucking slant.

Unbelievable.

Anyway, I'm now out. There's no point. You'd argue 2 + 2 = 5 if it fit your argument.

Why are you talking about the defense?

I'm talking about the offensive formation. And what i said is EXACTLY how they were set up.

 

[chf]

Why are you talking about the defense?

I'm talking about the offensive formation. And what i said is EXACTLY how they were set up.

I keep saying I'm out, and you draw me back in. If that formation precluded running, wtf were the Pats doing in the defensive formation?

It's almost like the whole chess match nature of sports is beyond your ken.

 

[Anointed One]

He win you over last year? With both Lynch and Rawls out I think he did a great job.

I've always gone against the grain when it comes to Bevell... He didn't have to win me over with Lynch/Rawls out last year... I believe he's a reason for RW's success, growth, developement... RW has said as such as well (I know... Of course RW would say that... He's his OC)...

 

[The Q]

I keep saying I'm out, and you draw me back in. If that formation precluded running, wtf were the Pats doing in the defensive formation?

It's almost like the whole chess match nature of sports is beyond your ken.

You know I played college baseball. So you know that's false. There is no higher level of chess match.

But again, the shotgun formation with the RB next to the QB is not used in GL situations because the RB is getting the ball flat footed. making is slow developing. Making it not an ideal call against goal line situations.

But please tell me how that's touchy feely.

 

[chf]

You know I played college baseball. So you know that's false. There is no higher level of chess match.

But again, the shotgun formation with the RB next to the QB is not used in GL situations because the RB is getting the ball flat footed. making is slow developing. Making it not an ideal call against goal line situations.

But please tell me how that's touchy feely.

So then why were the Pats in their jumbo pkg on D?

Answer that question please.

Now, let's drill down a bit farther on the baseball/chess match aspect.

Each play the O and the D (or the pitcher and the batter) or _________ insert matchup here, the two sides match wits, each trying to fool the other, or to set up the other side for a play down the line. Thus they study tendencies etc.

Now MY point in all these discussions is that unless there is some error of thought process by one of the sides, most times plays are decided without there being an egregious screwup or mistake.

Sometimes you scheme a play to work, sometimes you scheme a defensive play to work. Sometimes an athlete just makes a great individual effort, and makes all the scheming for naught.

YOUR view would have us see each play as either a success or a failure for one side or other. Each play must logically have a winner and a loser. On EACH PLAY there must logically be a hero and a scapegoat.

Now that's simply a ridiculous way to look at it, and if you are truthful and played sports at a high level, you understand this. Sometimes you make a play, sometimes the other guy makes a play. Sometimes your thought process at to WHY you make a pitch is solid, but the athlete at the plate just goes down and golfs that fucker out of the park (ala Kirk Gibson vs Eckersley in the World Series).

It's only with the benefit of HINDSIGHT that you can say, 'holy fuck Dennis Eckersley, how could you have thrown that pitch, obviously you should have thrown the ball off the plate inside!'

Because Eckersley didn't make a BAD pitch in that situation. He made a pretty good pitch. BUT, Kirk Gibson just made a play for the ages, and went down and hit it. Ball game. World Series to the Dodgers.

Now what I've argued in way too many of these threads to count is that there was a REASON why Bevell called a pass in that down and distance, and given the personell Belichek had in the game, a pass there was a good call. 90 times out of 100, even if Butler breaks on the ball again, it's an incompletion, the clock stops, and you live for another down.

Now in my own brain, I'm running through scenarios, of what I think they'll call, and I too think they'll probably give it to Lynch, and as I've seen him get stuffed repeatedly for 1.5 seasons in those situations, that worries the shvt out of me. Since a stopped run will let the clock run, and we'll have to burn our last time out.

I think that they'll try to get Wilson to the edge, and like I said many times, that would have scored easily (assuming Butler and Browner still bite on the slant).

I also thought about some kind of pass to the TE or RB.

But anyone who says that Lynch would have scored from there hadn't been watching Seahawks ball for a season and a half.

So, in the end my heart got broken, and I was pissed, and shocked, but I could also see why they made that call. Butler, exactly like Kirk Gibson made a play for the ages. Guessed right AND backed it up physically.

And because on every play there DOESN'T have to be a hero and a villain, let's just admit that the other guys get paid too, and that on that one play, Browner and Butler were better than Wilson/Kearse/Lockett.

So it goes.

 

[chf]

.....

 

[Tech_God]

Cost us a Superbowl. Will always hate him.

Weren't you booted a while back?

 

[The Q]

So then why were the Pats in their jumbo pkg on D?

Answer that question please.

Now, let's drill down a bit farther on the baseball/chess match aspect.

Each play the O and the D (or the pitcher and the batter) or _________ insert matchup here, the two sides match wits, each trying to fool the other, or to set up the other side for a play down the line. Thus they study tendencies etc.

Now MY point in all these discussions is that unless there is some error of thought process by one of the sides, most times plays are decided without there being an egregious screwup or mistake.

Sometimes you scheme a play to work, sometimes you scheme a defensive play to work. Sometimes an athlete just makes a great individual effort, and makes all the scheming for naught.

YOUR view would have us see each play as either a success or a failure for one side or other. Each play must logically have a winner and a loser. On EACH PLAY there must logically be a hero and a scapegoat.

Now that's simply a ridiculous way to look at it, and if you are truthful and played sports at a high level, you understand this. Sometimes you make a play, sometimes the other guy makes a play. Sometimes your thought process at to WHY you make a pitch is solid, but the athlete at the plate just goes down and golfs that fucker out of the park (ala Kirk Gibson vs Eckersley in the World Series).

It's only with the benefit of HINDSIGHT that you can say, 'holy fuck Dennis Eckersley, how could you have thrown that pitch, obviously you should have thrown the ball off the plate inside!'

Because Eckersley didn't make a BAD pitch in that situation. He made a pretty good pitch. BUT, Kirk Gibson just made a play for the ages, and went down and hit it. Ball game. World Series to the Dodgers.

Now what I've argued in way too many of these threads to count is that there was a REASON why Bevell called a pass in that down and distance, and given the personell Belichek had in the game, a pass there was a good call. 90 times out of 100, even if Butler breaks on the ball again, it's an incompletion, the clock stops, and you live for another down.

Now in my own brain, I'm running through scenarios, of what I think they'll call, and I too think they'll probably give it to Lynch, and as I've seen him get stuffed repeatedly for 1.5 seasons in those situations, that worries the shvt out of me. Since a stopped run will let the clock run, and we'll have to burn our last time out.

I think that they'll try to get Wilson to the edge, and like I said many times, that would have scored easily (assuming Butler and Browner still bite on the slant).

I also thought about some kind of pass to the TE or RB.

But anyone who says that Lynch would have scored from there hadn't been watching Seahawks ball for a season and a half.

So, in the end my heart got broken, and I was pissed, and shocked, but I could also see why they made that call. Butler, exactly like Kirk Gibson made a play for the ages. Guessed right AND backed it up physically.

And because on every play there DOESN'T have to be a hero and a villain, let's just admit that the other guys get paid too, and that on that one play, Browner and Butler were better than Wilson/Kearse/Lockett.

So it goes.

I don't disagree with the top part. Never have.

But no one did anything right on that play. ON either side.

Bad pass by Wilson.

By call by the Hawks. (side note: was the play designed for Lockette to catch it short of the EZ? That's a whole separate issue)

Butler clearly committed DPI. (getting away with it doesn't make it good defense, it makes it good fortune)

The refs ignored it just like they did in the Balt/SF SB.

But you keep missing my point that the formation seattle used in this chess match took the thread of giving the ball to Lynch completely out of the equation. It's virtually impossible to hand the ball off to lynch against a GL set when he can't get his feet moving.

You run that play from the pistol with play action and it's almost a sure 6.

PS I've also said all along that if you were going to pass at some point, a PA rollout was my call as well. But that wasn't hindsight.

That's not evne considering that the play they ran to baldwin for the is the other type of play you run becuase there's zero risk of a pick.

 

[chf]

I don't disagree with the top part. Never have.

But no one did anything right on that play. ON either side.

Bad pass by Wilson.

By call by the Hawks. (side note: was the play designed for Lockette to catch it short of the EZ? That's a whole separate issue)

Butler clearly committed DPI. (getting away with it doesn't make it good defense, it makes it good fortune)

The refs ignored it just like they did in the Balt/SF SB.

But you keep missing my point that the formation seattle used in this chess match took the thread of giving the ball to Lynch completely out of the equation. It's virtually impossible to hand the ball off to lynch against a GL set when he can't get his feet moving.

You run that play from the pistol with play action and it's almost a sure 6.

PS I've also said all along that if you were going to pass at some point, a PA rollout was my call as well. But that wasn't hindsight.

That's not evne considering that the play they ran to baldwin for the is the other type of play you run becuase there's zero risk of a pick.

If Lynch getting the ball IN THAT FORMATION was 'completely out of the equation,' then why did NE stay in that formation?

That's what you won't answer directly, because you know the answer. Because Seattle runs out of that formation all the damn time.

I don't think you understand the concept of 'hindsight.' Hindsight is wanting Eckersley to pitch inside instead of off the plate low outside. There are all kinds of scenarios that can run through your mind as a fan watching Eck prepare to deliver that pitch, but you don't know till afterwards which were right or wrong. And absolutely luck and all kinds of other factors play into it. AGAIN, you can run that slant a hundred times, and 90 of them the ball is either caught by Lockett or it's incomplete, live to run another play, as the clock stops, timeout preserved for 4th down if necessary.

THAT'S why it wasn't a bad call, because the %'s were in its favor. Only in hindsight is it a terrible call.

The pick % was low, and for crissakes, Wilson is your guy. He's your budding perennial allstar QB. If you can't trust him to throw a slant, might as well take him out and put Tavaris Jackson in the game. I don't know how many hindsight Hawks fans I've argued about this as well, who SHOULD know better. Wilson is a player only 2 or 3 teams wouldn't swap QB's for. Making play calls based on him making a mistake? Meh. He's either your guy, or put T-Jack in there. It's ridiculous. It's hindsight.

And c'mon dude. Butler's only play there was the ball. Lockette is a physical beast. 6'2" 210. Bulter 5'11" 190. If he catches that ball, he's in the endzone. Butler isn't the second coming of Ken Easley or Ronnie Lott. He had to have the ball. And he got the ball.

So bullshit on 'it was a bad call because it wasn't in the endzone." Quit dredging up your Rams Titans past dude.

And neither team did anything right? FFS, you don't get to make up your own reality. Belichek got another ring, and Brady got to cement his legacy because Butler did something right. Bad call or not, if Butler doesn't do that, then Seattle is being mentioned as one of the great teams ever.

 

[The Q]

How often are they running out of that formation in short yardage and goal line?

I doubt very often. Again, it's slow developing and hard for the RB because they're getting the ball basically flat footed.

Butler only got the ball by blinding siding lockette and knocking him out of the way first.

 

[SonnyCID]

How often are they running out of that formation in short yardage and goal line?

I doubt very often. Again, it's slow developing and hard for the RB because they're getting the ball basically flat footed.

Butler only got the ball by blinding siding lockette and knocking him out of the way first.

The zone read from the pistol is a big part of the Hawks goal line offense. Slow developing? A little. But still confusing as hell for a defense. You pin your ears back and attack, then Wilson gets to the edge. You play it heads up and Lynch powers in. It's a staple of the Hawks offense, especially on a short field.

 

[MKHawk]

Q, your wrong about the formation taking the threat of Lynch running out of the play. Seattle runs out of that formation often (including on the goalline), because it gives them the read option option.

CHF, Russ isn't particularly good at slants. He's just not. He's not particularly good at screens either. It's not that he can't throw them, but his accuracy is not great. He's much better throwing downfield or on rollouts. Obviously throwing downfield was out of the question there, but (as you have said), they should have rolled him out. It plays to his strengths, and there's no reason not to do that in that situaiton.

 

[The Q]

Q, your wrong about the formation taking the threat of Lynch running out of the play. Seattle runs out of that formation often (including on the goalline), because it gives them the read option option.

CHF, Russ isn't particularly good at slants. He's just not. He's not particularly good at screens either. It's not that he can't throw them, but his accuracy is not great. He's much better throwing downfield or on rollouts. Obviously throwing downfield was out of the question there, but (as you have said), they should have rolled him out. It plays to his strengths, and there's no reason not to do that in that situaiton.

Thanks on the first part.

And I agree on the second part. But man that's a tough spot to run that in.

 

[The Q]

So then why were the Pats in their jumbo pkg on D?

Answer that question please.

Now, let's drill down a bit farther on the baseball/chess match aspect.

Each play the O and the D (or the pitcher and the batter) or _________ insert matchup here, the two sides match wits, each trying to fool the other, or to set up the other side for a play down the line. Thus they study tendencies etc.

Now MY point in all these discussions is that unless there is some error of thought process by one of the sides, most times plays are decided without there being an egregious screwup or mistake.

Sometimes you scheme a play to work, sometimes you scheme a defensive play to work. Sometimes an athlete just makes a great individual effort, and makes all the scheming for naught.

YOUR view would have us see each play as either a success or a failure for one side or other. Each play must logically have a winner and a loser. On EACH PLAY there must logically be a hero and a scapegoat.

Now that's simply a ridiculous way to look at it, and if you are truthful and played sports at a high level, you understand this. Sometimes you make a play, sometimes the other guy makes a play. Sometimes your thought process at to WHY you make a pitch is solid, but the athlete at the plate just goes down and golfs that fucker out of the park (ala Kirk Gibson vs Eckersley in the World Series).

It's only with the benefit of HINDSIGHT that you can say, 'holy fuck Dennis Eckersley, how could you have thrown that pitch, obviously you should have thrown the ball off the plate inside!'

Because Eckersley didn't make a BAD pitch in that situation. He made a pretty good pitch. BUT, Kirk Gibson just made a play for the ages, and went down and hit it. Ball game. World Series to the Dodgers.

Now what I've argued in way too many of these threads to count is that there was a REASON why Bevell called a pass in that down and distance, and given the personell Belichek had in the game, a pass there was a good call. 90 times out of 100, even if Butler breaks on the ball again, it's an incompletion, the clock stops, and you live for another down.

Now in my own brain, I'm running through scenarios, of what I think they'll call, and I too think they'll probably give it to Lynch, and as I've seen him get stuffed repeatedly for 1.5 seasons in those situations, that worries the shvt out of me. Since a stopped run will let the clock run, and we'll have to burn our last time out.

I think that they'll try to get Wilson to the edge, and like I said many times, that would have scored easily (assuming Butler and Browner still bite on the slant).

I also thought about some kind of pass to the TE or RB.

But anyone who says that Lynch would have scored from there hadn't been watching Seahawks ball for a season and a half.

So, in the end my heart got broken, and I was pissed, and shocked, but I could also see why they made that call. Butler, exactly like Kirk Gibson made a play for the ages. Guessed right AND backed it up physically.

And because on every play there DOESN'T have to be a hero and a villain, let's just admit that the other guys get paid too, and that on that one play, Browner and Butler were better than Wilson/Kearse/Lockett.

So it goes.

BTW, just a fun example of a play where EVERYONE f*cked up. Just happened in the NBA playoffs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/04/sports/oklahoma-city-thunder-san-antonio-spurs-ginobili.html?_r=0

This entire last 13.5 seconds was a complete trainwreck where both teams made major mistakes the officials made bafflingly bad decisions.

 

[chf]

CHF, Russ isn't particularly good at slants. He's just not. He's not particularly good at screens either. It's not that he can't throw them, but his accuracy is not great. He's much better throwing downfield or on rollouts. Obviously throwing downfield was out of the question there, but (as you have said), they should have rolled him out. It plays to his strengths, and there's no reason not to do that in that situaiton.

We've been over this before. He's arguably the best player on the team. It's a slant.

Was the ball 6" to 8" too high? Yes. AGAIN the %'s say that pass is either complete or incomplete. That's why it wasn't a bad call.

In hindsight, it was a bad call. AGAIN, down and distance. There's all kinds of passes (deep) that Russ IS good at throwing that simply don't apply there.

As I've said to you repeatedly, and to Q in this thread, I wanted him to rollout. But we don't know what would have happened there either. Something catastrophic COULD have happened on that call too. Browner not seeing Lockett lean, doesn't bite on the slant, sheds Kearse, and nails Wilson causing a fumble, game over.

In which case, there's a significant % of fans who are still calling Bevell an idiot, and that the worst play in Superbowl history.

The % chance is that Mr. Wizard gets into the endzone (or tosses to Kearse) and we win the game. OR that at worst, He gets out of bounds or is tackled in bounds and we have to burn that effing timeout.

But we live to play another down.

But the % chance of the play failing is still less than the % chance of Lynch getting stuffed in short yardage, which he did all year, and half the year before.

Thus a good call.

Sometimes Kirk Gibson just makes a goddamn play.

 

[The Q]

Sometimes Kirk Gibson just makes a goddamn play.

Yes. That wasn't this play.

Butler was the Dion Waiters of the play I just linked to above.

 

[chf]

Yes. That wasn't this play.

Butler was the Dion Waiters of the play I just linked to above.

Not going to even watch the play you linked Q. There's no point. There's no firm logical ground beneath your feet. You blow from 'ILLEGAL' to 'BAD CALL!' and back, depending on the argument you're in. You have to pick one, but of course you'll never do that.

So, nope, not going to waste the time.

Butler made a play that significantly altered the fortunes of two football teams. In the end, in the end result, that's what happened. All the hand-wringing and omfg'ing doesn't matter. Just like my talk about *'s after the '05 Superbowl didn't matter. Steelers won, we lost. They made more PLAYS than we did.

The margin two years ago was razor thin. We made enough plays to win. So did they. The last play they made was the kill-shot, and it was Butler who made it. Just like it was Kirk Gibson who walk-offed the A's.

The results are in the books.

 

[chf]

Thanks on the first part.

Also, why when he says it, is it 'Thanks?' But when I say it, it's argue some more about the point? Heh.

 

[JMR]

If Lynch getting the ball IN THAT FORMATION was 'completely out of the equation,' then why did NE stay in that formation?

That's what you won't answer directly, because you know the answer. Because Seattle runs out of that formation all the damn time.

I don't think you understand the concept of 'hindsight.' Hindsight is wanting Eckersley to pitch inside instead of off the plate low outside. There are all kinds of scenarios that can run through your mind as a fan watching Eck prepare to deliver that pitch, but you don't know till afterwards which were right or wrong. And absolutely luck and all kinds of other factors play into it. AGAIN, you can run that slant a hundred times, and 90 of them the ball is either caught by Lockett or it's incomplete, live to run another play, as the clock stops, timeout preserved for 4th down if necessary.

THAT'S why it wasn't a bad call, because the %'s were in its favor. Only in hindsight is it a terrible call.

The pick % was low, and for crissakes, Wilson is your guy. He's your budding perennial allstar QB. If you can't trust him to throw a slant, might as well take him out and put Tavaris Jackson in the game. I don't know how many hindsight Hawks fans I've argued about this as well, who SHOULD know better. Wilson is a player only 2 or 3 teams wouldn't swap QB's for. Making play calls based on him making a mistake? Meh. He's either your guy, or put T-Jack in there. It's ridiculous. It's hindsight.

And c'mon dude. Butler's only play there was the ball. Lockette is a physical beast. 6'2" 210. Bulter 5'11" 190. If he catches that ball, he's in the endzone. Butler isn't the second coming of Ken Easley or Ronnie Lott. He had to have the ball. And he got the ball.

So bullshit on 'it was a bad call because it wasn't in the endzone." Quit dredging up your Rams Titans past dude.

And neither team did anything right? FFS, you don't get to make up your own reality. Belichek got another ring, and Brady got to cement his legacy because Butler did something right. Bad call or not, if Butler doesn't do that, then Seattle is being mentioned as one of the great teams ever.

I just don't have the gusto to argue this play anymore, but that year there were like 108 passes thrown from the 1 yard line and the only one intercepted was ours in the SB.

 

[chf]

I just don't have the gusto to argue this play anymore, but that year there were like 108 passes thrown from the 1 yard line and the only one intercepted was ours in the SB.

Heh. Figures, I'm being wayyyyy too generous giving it a 10% chance to fail.