Super Bowl XLIX

[Gendo]

Wow, what a game! And I'm not just saying that as a Patriots fan either. I have to say that I felt like as a whole, Seahawks played better. The Patriots just looked like they couldn't do anything to really stop them; especially with failing to penetrate their offensive line. But for the game to then end on what is basically 2 instances of basically dumb luck almost back-to-back.

[BruceSmith78]

Yes, it was a great game, I have to admit. That catch, which I assume is the first instance of dumb luck to which you're referring, was a bit reminiscent of David Tyree. Just like holy-shit-wow-did-he-really-catch-that type of thing, and I was certain the Seahawks were gonna win at that point.

If that final interception is what you mean by the second instance of dumb luck, that was a great play on the ball by Butler and quite possibly the dumbest play call I've ever seen. They have a massive and nimble running back that is nearly unstoppable in the fourth quarter, they have three plays to get one yard, nearly 30 seconds on the clock, a timeout remaining, and they must at all costs avoid a turnover, and Wilson drops back to pass. There's no excuse for that idiocy. I guess you could say the Patriots got lucky that the Seahawks coaching staff went soft in the head, but I don't think luck had much to do with it.

[Gendo]

With the second instance of dumb luck, I guess dumb luck is the wrong word for it... I meant that the Patriots were extremely lucky that the Seahawks called the play that they did.

And everyone says that the catch reminded them of Tyree's catch in 2008, but I'm not sure I see it. Watching the replays; Tyree's catch was just a really hard-to-make grab that looked impressive in terms of the particular way in which he caught it. I don't see a lot of "luck" in it. This catch reminds me much more of "the immaculate reception", in which a catch was made only because of a particular set of lucky bounces that could have gone any other way. I mean, Kearse still gets credit for having the mindset to follow-through and try to catch it after it looked like it was over, but it was only by luck that he had that chance.

[Gendo]

A statistical analysis and defense of why that play call may have not been completely stupid: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-h ... e-carroll/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BruceSmith78]

A statistical analysis and defense of why that play call may have not been completely stupid: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-h ... e-carroll/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nope, not buying it. First of all, the entire argument is based on the assumption that 26 seconds and one timeout isn't enough time to run the ball three times, which is bullshit. Run the ball, get stopped, call timeout, 20 seconds left at least. You have time to call two plays, one as a backup in case the first fails, and if you're stopped you have 15 seconds to line up and snap the ball to run your backup play. Plenty of time.

So Carroll wanted to waste some time by running a slant play that lasted like 3 seconds? Really? If you want to waste some time with a pass, how about a fade route where Wilson can lob the ball to the corner of the end zone and a Patriot can't step in front of it? A pattern into the flat where you can toss it out of bounds if nothing's open? I repeat, no excuse for that idiocy.

[Gendo]

Agreed, but I still found the article and all the statistics interesting.

[BruceSmith78]

And the comparisons to David Tyree's catch are not so much the catch itself, but the circumstances surrounding it. They were both phenomenal plays seemingly defying the odds, and both crucial plays in come-from-behind drives late in the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl, both against the Patriots. I agree that Tyree's catch was much more skill than luck, as opposed to last night's catch which relied on a good deal of concentration, but an even greater deal of good fortune.