I saw Carroll give that explanation after the game. It makes sense to me.
This article Pete Carroll explains why the Seahawks ran what is being called the worst play call in Super Bowl history
has a good photograph of the Patriots stop-the-run 9 men on the line lineup for that play that made it a reasonable choice to try the throw then.
Yea, I didn't see this article or Carroll's press conference, but I agree and understand Carroll's reasoning. The media and most casual fans are amateur thinkers. NM Dan Heisman calls this "Hope Chess": Let's hope it works out.
I like your analyses and agree that passing was a reasonable decision. However, I also think that there was enough time for two running plays and considering Lynch's talent he would have been about a 3-1 favorite to score in two plays. But not clear at all if those odds beat the pass (plus inherent risk) and run plan.
By the time the aforementioned play was happening, the game was already in a highly constrained situation. There was a play by the Seahawks, right before the Pats turnaround where the Seahawks kicked off to the Pats, giving them possesion. Right after that, drive-drive-drive-boom touchdown, then we get into the amazing late in the game plays (many of them).
Question. Was kicking to the Pat's the right choice? Did the Seahawks just assume they were ahead by 7 and history says no one ever recovers (Pats being down 10 I think)? Was that complacent? And then as soon as they kicked off, it was over , and the energy turnaround wa amazing.
To me, that was the most amazing play. I was kind of half watching the game (assuming like everyone else that Pats are toast). But then when I saw them kickback to the Pats I stood up and couldn't believe my eyes. Why were they doing that?
NOTE: I know close to zero about football, so feel free to remind me of that :-) Also, I am not sure if Seahawks were already on their 4th down or not when they kicked, but to me, somewhere in that Seahawk drive was the "tactical seeds of destruction" as Dan Heisman (yes cousin to the football Heisman) likes to say...
Beast Mode has had positive yardage on all his plays in this game. There is no reason to doubt he would not get 1 yard on all three tries. And before anybody brings up "oh but he was stuffed earlier with three runs in a row and Seahawks ended up with a field goal". It was more than 8 yards to the goal on that series and Beast Mode gained more than one yard on every carry in that series.
They could have run a play action pass with a rollout (option for RW to run it in) and the Pats defense would have been spread thin. The Seahawks needed to score and that would have put the pressure on Brady to march down the field to at least get to FG range in less than 27 seconds.
The look on Brady's face in the last minute of the game says "loss". Until the boneheaded call of passing where it's crowded.
I dont understand the premise of the OP. They could have run 2 more plays. They should have run on 2nd down. Call time out. One more play. What is the logic that they must passs on their last play? Just run again on 3rd down. They had 2 chances to run 1 yard. RUN AND RUN. Worst call ever. Boneheaded early 90s Jets legacy lives on.
I have been comparing Super Bowl 49 to a Chess game all weekend as opposing fans try to take credit from my Patriots and give it as discredit to the Seahawks. I don't remember exactly which Chess mind gave this quote but I remember it well and it goes along the lines of how Chess is a game of who makes the last mistake. Carlsen=Carroll and Fischer=Belichick. Carrol hung his queen and Belichick attacked. Does that mean that Belichick didn't win but Carroll lost? No! Just Carroll really messed up.
pete carroll is an IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oddly enough Pete Carroll did make a logical decision. The whole world figured they would run the ball with Lynch, and more so the Pats were in a massive run stopping defensive setup. The play call is actually a dream matchup against that type of defense.
However, we have to ask why they let the clock run so far down before that play? I think it was 40 seconds. To have everything fit in with the logic of doing the pass play, Pete made a concsious decsion to run down the clock with the idea that IF they score a TD then the Pats have no time. Now, the flip side is Bill Belichicks' logic. He chose to let the clock run down and challenge Seattle in scoring the TD.
Pete inadvertantly put undo pressure on his offense. They are behind, and need a TD or the game is essentially over. Scoring first is paramount, and using a great RB like Lynch is clearly called for here. You need to force the Pats to prove they can stop him, and do so with at least two of your plays. Why risk a throw?
Yes, using your scientific method approach the call is correct, but this is actually a classic case of out thinking your self, or over thinking the situation. By throwing the ball you risk an interception...we all know that is exactly what happened, and we all know that they instantly lost at that moment.
From another scientific method you could say: Run the ball with more time on the clock, i.e. don't take so long to get the play off, and now you have lots of options if you don't run it in (assuming no fumble which is highly unlikely with Lynch). You can run again, then use your timeout if needed, then pass. You put less pressure on your offense, and if you score you take the lead and your #1 rated defense goes on the field. Not a bad situation for a team like Seattle.
Pete Carroll assumed he would score and let the clock run down. Bill let it run down and challenged Pete to score that TD, and put all the pressure on Seattle. Simply put; Pete made the worst call in SB history, and Bill won the chess match in the end.
creg is an even bigger idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
tom brady is an meanbig time
Before Super Bowl 49, the commentators made their obligatory "this is going to be a chess game" metaphor. The halftime show lit up Katie Perry's stage into black and white squares. The media uses "football is chess" like a cliche, but these coaches actually think -- they must think -- like chess players.
The world keeps deriding Pete Carroll for calling a pass play at the 1-yard line, in the last meaningful play of Super Bowl 49. But this was the correct strategic decision. Carroll was thinking like a chess player.
The thought process that NFL coaches and chess players have in common is the scientific method. We, as chess players, must attempt to falsify every single one of our plans. We must constantly ask ourselves, What's the worst case scenario, and can I be successful in that case? We chess players come up with a plan, generate candidate moves based on that plan, and then actively anticipate what can go wrong (for example, we must anticipate the opponent's move that best thwarts our plan, we must factor in the time remaining, etc.).
In Pete Carroll's 2nd-down decision, he had one timeout remaining, 20 seconds left on the clock, and three downs to go one yard to win the Super Bowl. If the Seahawks ran on 2nd-down, the worst case would be they don't make it. The clock would continue to run. The Seahawks would need to burn their remaining timeout. On 3rd down there would be approximately 15 seconds remaining, not enough time to try another run, and they would be forced to pass anyway, because they would have zero timeouts left. Thus, in a worst-case scenario, given the clock situation, the Seahawks would need to pass AT LEAST once during a three-down set. Why not pass on 2nd-down? Were not millions of people expecting Lynch to run the ball in that situation?
My point is that Pete Carroll made an excellent strategic decision based on the scientific method; he made a decision worthy of any good chess player. What happened was poor execution. Russell Wilson screwed up the throw and lost the game. The same applies to chess. A great strategic plan will go awry via poor execution: a missed tactic, a poor calculation. Both chess and football require strong execution. Bill Belichick will tell you that any day.