Is anyone else backtracking about the "worst call ever"?

[Krieg's list]

It was the worst call ever because of the result. If he gets a TD there nobody says anything, obviously. Its easy to call a call terrible when it doesn't workout. I will admit that I think running it was the best option however I don't think the play call was as terrible as people are making it seem. The execution is what was terrible.

Please stop accusing everyone (but yourself, apparently) of results-based decision making. It is patronizing and quite simply wrong, if you've ever read these boards before.

The point everyone is trying to make and you don't seem to get is that you have to take your driver out of the bag in that situation. He already hit his driver (unnecessarily) on the lucky Kearse reception 2 plays before (which easily could have been an INT in its own right) and got away with it. Then on 2nd down he foolishly chose a play in which poor execution could lead to disaster rather than selecting a safer play that would still almost certainly (eventually) get them home.

Even if the execution were better and Lockette made the catch, there would still have been a ton of WTFs and eyebrows raised, but who is going to bother to complain vociferously while they're celebrating a SB victory? This, in fact, is the reason Bevell is still defended by some-- although hopefully fewer now-- here at .NET. Because nobody wants to hear whining about playcalling after a win. There's plenty of whining here anyway, haha, but it's always shot down with flawed "he won us the SB" "we have the #1 rush offense" type of arguments. The problem is people only entertain the complaints after losses, of which there have not been many during Bevell's tenure.

Don't assume that people haven't been complaining about suboptimal playcalling all season and longer just because you weren't paying attention.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

It was the worst call ever because of the result. If he gets a TD there nobody says anything, obviously. Its easy to call a call terrible when it doesn't workout. I will admit that I think running it was the best option however I don't think the play call was as terrible as people are making it seem. The execution is what was terrible.

Sure we'd all be happy, but I GUARANTEE you plenty of people would still be questioning the risky call.

Happens all the time during the year and playoffs where the announcers or post game analysts question risky calls, even if they work. This wouldn't have been any different.

 

[netskier]

It was the worst call in the history of football because of its expected value, which is defined s the product of the probability of the event times the value of the event. The value of winning the Superbowl is the maximum possible within the sport. The probability of complying this slant was quite low govern the risk factors already listed by others.

I challenge anyone to nominate a play that would be imaginably worse than this slant, because this slant minimizes the expected value of winning the Superbowl. Wasted plays are stupid. Maximum stupidity means worst play in history.

 

[netskier]

Phone typo fix... The probability of completing this slant was quite low ...

 

[netskier]

given the risk factors...

 

[dumbrabbit]

It was the worst call ever because of the result. If he gets a TD there nobody says anything, obviously. Its easy to call a call terrible when it doesn't workout. I will admit that I think running it was the best option however I don't think the play call was as terrible as people are making it seem. The execution is what was terrible.

Sure we'd all be happy, but I GUARANTEE you plenty of people would still be questioning the risky call.

Happens all the time during the year and playoffs where the announcers or post game analysts question risky calls, even if they work. This wouldn't have been any different.

People would be questioning the game winning play? What? If the Hawks won, people would be calling it one of the best plays ever called.

 

[TorontoHawk]

And if he ran the ball three times and they got stuffed he would be the scapegoat as most would say why did he not have the balls to try to pass it and win the game. It was not a great call to pass but Carroll made the call as he said so should he be fired? Bevell has made bad calls but every coach does(look at GB in the championship game, if they made the correct calls and gone for the TD's and not FG's Seahawks most likely would have lost). We will be at it again next year and better seasoned and have even a bigger chip on the shoulder than the previous years.

Nope, and I've had this discussion with friends.

If we hand it to Lynch or let Russell try and run it in on a RO and it gets stuffed 2-3 times? Then I tip my hat to NE for successfully defending an amazing goal line stand.

But instead you throw a high risk slant to.............................. a part time WR that primarily plays special teams.........AND THE ENTIRE REASON HE DOESN'T PLAY MORE IS BECAUSE HE DOESN'T RUN GOOD ROUTES AND MAKES MISTAKES.........AND HE DIDN'T RUN HIS ROUTE QUICK ENOUGH IN THE BIGGEST MOMENT OF THE GAME WHICH RESULTED IN AN INTERCEPTION AND SB LOSS!!!!!!!!

IN-F'ING-EXCUSABLE.

RW Quote.

Wilson: "I had no doubt in the play call. Still don't. If we made the play you'd be here asking different questions."

 

[Krieg's list]

It was the worst call ever because of the result. If he gets a TD there nobody says anything, obviously. Its easy to call a call terrible when it doesn't workout. I will admit that I think running it was the best option however I don't think the play call was as terrible as people are making it seem. The execution is what was terrible.

Sure we'd all be happy, but I GUARANTEE you plenty of people would still be questioning the risky call.

Happens all the time during the year and playoffs where the announcers or post game analysts question risky calls, even if they work. This wouldn't have been any different.

People would be questioning the game winning play? What? If the Hawks won, people would be calling it one of the best plays ever called.

LOL, no. Just no. If you've read through this entire thread and are still convinced everyone makes their judgments based solely on outcomes, I can't help you.

 

[Krieg's list]

And if he ran the ball three times and they got stuffed he would be the scapegoat as most would say why did he not have the balls to try to pass it and win the game. It was not a great call to pass but Carroll made the call as he said so should he be fired? Bevell has made bad calls but every coach does(look at GB in the championship game, if they made the correct calls and gone for the TD's and not FG's Seahawks most likely would have lost). We will be at it again next year and better seasoned and have even a bigger chip on the shoulder than the previous years.

Nope, and I've had this discussion with friends.

If we hand it to Lynch or let Russell try and run it in on a RO and it gets stuffed 2-3 times? Then I tip my hat to NE for successfully defending an amazing goal line stand.

But instead you throw a high risk slant to.............................. a part time WR that primarily plays special teams.........AND THE ENTIRE REASON HE DOESN'T PLAY MORE IS BECAUSE HE DOESN'T RUN GOOD ROUTES AND MAKES MISTAKES.........AND HE DIDN'T RUN HIS ROUTE QUICK ENOUGH IN THE BIGGEST MOMENT OF THE GAME WHICH RESULTED IN AN INTERCEPTION AND SB LOSS!!!!!!!!

IN-F'ING-EXCUSABLE.

RW Quote.

Wilson: "I had no doubt in the play call. Still don't. If we made the play you'd be here asking different questions."

So this is proof of what? That Russ refuses to throw his OC under the bus and is overconfident in his own ability to make plays regardless of the call?

 

[dumbrabbit]

It was the worst call ever because of the result. If he gets a TD there nobody says anything, obviously. Its easy to call a call terrible when it doesn't workout. I will admit that I think running it was the best option however I don't think the play call was as terrible as people are making it seem. The execution is what was terrible.

Sure we'd all be happy, but I GUARANTEE you plenty of people would still be questioning the risky call.

Happens all the time during the year and playoffs where the announcers or post game analysts question risky calls, even if they work. This wouldn't have been any different.

People would be questioning the game winning play? What? If the Hawks won, people would be calling it one of the best plays ever called.

LOL, no. Just no. If you've read through this entire thread and are still convinced everyone makes their judgments based solely on outcomes, I can't help you.

Excuse me, why would anyone be PISSED at the playcall if it won the Super Bowl? Sure you can discuss the call, but it would have won the SB. The goal is to win it, right? Doesn't matter how.

 

[Krieg's list]

Sure we'd all be happy, but I GUARANTEE you plenty of people would still be questioning the risky call.

Happens all the time during the year and playoffs where the announcers or post game analysts question risky calls, even if they work. This wouldn't have been any different.

People would be questioning the game winning play? What? If the Hawks won, people would be calling it one of the best plays ever called.

LOL, no. Just no. If you've read through this entire thread and are still convinced everyone makes their judgments based solely on outcomes, I can't help you.

Excuse me, why would anyone be PISSED at the playcall if it won the Super Bowl? Sure you can discuss the call, but it would have won the SB. The goal is to win it, right? Doesn't matter how.

Doesn't matter how????? I think we've found the crux of the problem...

If I go all-in with a seven-deuce vs a pair of aces and end up winning anyway, does that make me a good poker player? According to your results-based judgment, yes.

 

[TorontoHawk]

And if he ran the ball three times and they got stuffed he would be the scapegoat as most would say why did he not have the balls to try to pass it and win the game. It was not a great call to pass but Carroll made the call as he said so should he be fired? Bevell has made bad calls but every coach does(look at GB in the championship game, if they made the correct calls and gone for the TD's and not FG's Seahawks most likely would have lost). We will be at it again next year and better seasoned and have even a bigger chip on the shoulder than the previous years.

Nope, and I've had this discussion with friends.

If we hand it to Lynch or let Russell try and run it in on a RO and it gets stuffed 2-3 times? Then I tip my hat to NE for successfully defending an amazing goal line stand.

But instead you throw a high risk slant to.............................. a part time WR that primarily plays special teams.........AND THE ENTIRE REASON HE DOESN'T PLAY MORE IS BECAUSE HE DOESN'T RUN GOOD ROUTES AND MAKES MISTAKES.........AND HE DIDN'T RUN HIS ROUTE QUICK ENOUGH IN THE BIGGEST MOMENT OF THE GAME WHICH RESULTED IN AN INTERCEPTION AND SB LOSS!!!!!!!!

IN-F'ING-EXCUSABLE.

RW Quote.

Wilson: "I had no doubt in the play call. Still don't. If we made the play you'd be here asking different questions."

So this is proof of what? That Russ refuses to throw his OC under the bus and is overconfident in his own ability to make plays regardless of the call?

Proof it is a team game and if it was called a TD no one would be saying shit. Good play by Butler. If it was Simon who intercepted Brady you would say it was the player that made the play and not the bad call by the OC of the Pats.

 

[Ranker777]

It was the worst call ever because of the result. If he gets a TD there nobody says anything, obviously. Its easy to call a call terrible when it doesn't workout. I will admit that I think running it was the best option however I don't think the play call was as terrible as people are making it seem. The execution is what was terrible.

Sure we'd all be happy, but I GUARANTEE you plenty of people would still be questioning the risky call.

Happens all the time during the year and playoffs where the announcers or post game analysts question risky calls, even if they work. This wouldn't have been any different.

People would be questioning the game winning play? What? If the Hawks won, people would be calling it one of the best plays ever called.

No. It would of been questioned. The only difference is the reason it was called. RW for MVP instead of Lynch. I'm not saying that was the reason the play was called, but you can be damn sure that would have been the discussion. YOU GIVE THE BALL TO LYNCH. The OC got cute (no surprise) and it cost the Hawks back2back SB's.

 

[Kamcussionator]

I hated the call then, and hate it now. The only thing that was going to save NE was a turnover or miraculous goal line stand, and we throw it into the teeth of the defense.

If they were in the wrong personnel, fine: Do a roll out, drag the back and front of the end zone, and if it's not there throw it out the back of the end zone. I understand that they run that play in short yardage all the time, but when there's only 11 yards of field to defend, you got to expect a quick-hitter like that to be contested.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

I wonder what Viking has-been Bevell will go after next...AP?

 

[Krieg's list]

Nope, and I've had this discussion with friends.

If we hand it to Lynch or let Russell try and run it in on a RO and it gets stuffed 2-3 times? Then I tip my hat to NE for successfully defending an amazing goal line stand.

But instead you throw a high risk slant to.............................. a part time WR that primarily plays special teams.........AND THE ENTIRE REASON HE DOESN'T PLAY MORE IS BECAUSE HE DOESN'T RUN GOOD ROUTES AND MAKES MISTAKES.........AND HE DIDN'T RUN HIS ROUTE QUICK ENOUGH IN THE BIGGEST MOMENT OF THE GAME WHICH RESULTED IN AN INTERCEPTION AND SB LOSS!!!!!!!!

IN-F'ING-EXCUSABLE.

RW Quote.

Wilson: "I had no doubt in the play call. Still don't. If we made the play you'd be here asking different questions."

So this is proof of what? That Russ refuses to throw his OC under the bus and is overconfident in his own ability to make plays regardless of the call?

Proof it is a team game and if it was called a TD no one would be saying shit. Good play by Butler. If it was Simon who intercepted Brady you would say it was the player that made the play and not the bad call by the OC of the Pats.

If it was Simon who intercepted Brady I would be thanking my lucky stars they hadn't called a Brady sneak while laughing at Belicheck's stupidity.

 

[Lords of Scythia]

I am totally backtracking. We just went from winning to losing horribly and the announcers are screaming about the "Worst call in Super Bowl history" I was with them. But after a lot of thinking and reading about, they didn't have time to run three times, they didn't have the right personel for it, a pass will either be incomplete (stopping the clock) or a td, and a int on the opponents' one-yard line is infantesimally unlikely.

Here's a great article that lays it out:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-h ... e-carroll/

That article is total horse crap. The 1 yard line passing success stats are all play action passes when the defense is expecting a run where you either hit a wide open receiver or throw it away (or in RWs case run it in). Our moron called a straight pass play with a ton of risk into the teeth of the defense where a deflection also leads to an INT.

And they didn't have the right personnel? They Burned 40 seconds...GET THE RIGHT PERSONNEL on the field...that is your freaking job!!!. If we put our goal line offense in (like NE did when they put their goal line D in) we can run a play action pass and RW probably walks into the end zone.

This is the worst play call in history...especially when you realize how they even screwed up the personnel in a non-hurry up situation. Winning super bowls is incredibly difficult. For those saying "oh well...we will just get it next year"...Dan Marino said the same thing. It is a ******* travesty that epic stupidity cost this franchise a place in history.

Wilson had the option to throw it away over the back of the end zone and stop the clock. The reciever just didn't make the superhuman effort to get to the ball that the db did. The guy was an undrafted rookie--he shouldnt've done that. It was a freakish play that beat us. The call was not a bad call--Wilson could've just threw it away--boom, we can substitute our grunt package in.

 

[Ambrose83]

It was the worst call in the history of football because of its expected value, which is defined s the product of the probability of the event times the value of the event. The value of winning the Superbowl is the maximum possible within the sport. The probability of complying this slant was quite low govern the risk factors already listed by others.

I challenge anyone to nominate a play that would be imaginably worse than this slant, because this slant minimizes the expected value of winning the Superbowl. Wasted plays are stupid. Maximum stupidity means worst play in history.

aside from Russ walking up and handing the ball to browner after the snap? NOTHING... if we have 50 pass plays this one in that situation would be #50...... JFC anything would have been better.... anything.... how anyone can argue that is mind blowing to me.... I am no football expert or DC... but when we had it on the 1... I said LYNCH.. like all of us.. BUT.. if i had to pass I would have had luke wilson on the left.. 2 wide outs on the right.. play action to lynch to suck the D in... luke rolls out as russ rolls to the left... either its a wide open TD or Russ walks in..................... its not that hard... unless your name is %$%^^ Bevell............. SMH

 

[Krieg's list]

I am totally backtracking. We just went from winning to losing horribly and the announcers are screaming about the "Worst call in Super Bowl history" I was with them. But after a lot of thinking and reading about, they didn't have time to run three times, they didn't have the right personel for it, a pass will either be incomplete (stopping the clock) or a td, and a int on the opponents' one-yard line is infantesimally unlikely.

Here's a great article that lays it out:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-h ... e-carroll/

That article is total horse crap. The 1 yard line passing success stats are all play action passes when the defense is expecting a run where you either hit a wide open receiver or throw it away (or in RWs case run it in). Our moron called a straight pass play with a ton of risk into the teeth of the defense where a deflection also leads to an INT.

And they didn't have the right personnel? They Burned 40 seconds...GET THE RIGHT PERSONNEL on the field...that is your freaking job!!!. If we put our goal line offense in (like NE did when they put their goal line D in) we can run a play action pass and RW probably walks into the end zone.

This is the worst play call in history...especially when you realize how they even screwed up the personnel in a non-hurry up situation. Winning super bowls is incredibly difficult. For those saying "oh well...we will just get it next year"...Dan Marino said the same thing. It is a ******* travesty that epic stupidity cost this franchise a place in history.

Wilson had the option to throw it away over the back of the end zone and stop the clock. The reciever just didn't make the superhuman effort to get to the ball that the db did. The guy was an undrafted rookie--he shouldnt've done that. It was a freakish play that beat us. The call was not a bad call--Wilson could've just threw it away--boom, we can substitute our grunt package in.

You are still making a results-based argument though, albeit in an unusual manner. You are rationalizing that because the actual outcome (an amazing play by a rookie CB) was so unbelievably unlikely, the decision behind it was not flawed. But by focusing on the actual result, you are ignoring the other possible negative results...

Imagine Butler doesn't break on the ball. Since Russ threw it high and in front, there was absolutely a chance it could deflect off Lockette's hands into the air, where either Butler or Browner may have come down with a SB-clinching INT. As Hawk fans remember, a similar instance occurred on an inside breaking route to Lynch in the CAR game earlier this season. There are just too many things that could have gone wrong with that play. A DE could've jumped out and tipped the pass. Lockette could've bobbled the ball and had it taken away. These risks were all small, but they existed. This should be clear because the ACTUAL RESULT was the occurrence one of these risks. Trying to justify the playcall by pointing out circumstances that intuitively make the actual result seem less likely than it was does not change the fact it was an unbelievably poor decision with clear, known risks.

 

[andyh64000]

I am totally backtracking. We just went from winning to losing horribly and the announcers are screaming about the "Worst call in Super Bowl history" I was with them. But after a lot of thinking and reading about, they didn't have time to run three times, they didn't have the right personel for it, a pass will either be incomplete (stopping the clock) or a td, and a int on the opponents' one-yard line is infantesimally unlikely.

Here's a great article that lays it out:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-h ... e-carroll/

That article is total horse crap. The 1 yard line passing success stats are all play action passes when the defense is expecting a run where you either hit a wide open receiver or throw it away (or in RWs case run it in). Our moron called a straight pass play with a ton of risk into the teeth of the defense where a deflection also leads to an INT.

And they didn't have the right personnel? They Burned 40 seconds...GET THE RIGHT PERSONNEL on the field...that is your freaking job!!!. If we put our goal line offense in (like NE did when they put their goal line D in) we can run a play action pass and RW probably walks into the end zone.

This is the worst play call in history...especially when you realize how they even screwed up the personnel in a non-hurry up situation. Winning super bowls is incredibly difficult. For those saying "oh well...we will just get it next year"...Dan Marino said the same thing. It is a ******* travesty that epic stupidity cost this franchise a place in history.

Wilson had the option to throw it away over the back of the end zone and stop the clock. The reciever just didn't make the superhuman effort to get to the ball that the db did. The guy was an undrafted rookie--he shouldnt've done that. It was a freakish play that beat us. The call was not a bad call--Wilson could've just threw it away--boom, we can substitute our grunt package in.

Part of what made this play such a horrible call is that it is such a quick timing route the QB doesn't have much time to read and think. Snap - step - throw...absent of Lockette falling down he was going to throw that ball.