The Interception: Amazing Breakdown

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/02/02/analysis-notebook-super-bowl-xlix-that-play/

FEAST Upon This!!

"He is moving before Ricardo Lockette even cuts inside. As soon as he makes that cut step Butler is already driving on the ball. It is great recognition by Butler, but the key to this was the Patriots defensive preparation and the fact they were expecting this play from Seattle."

"That knowledge is even more impressive because that is only the third time all year Seattle have run that formation on short yardage. The Patriots clearly excel at doing their homework and weren’t fooled by the Seahawks trying to throw them off with an unusual formation. While the formation differed, their tendencies remained the same."

"The bottom line in all of this is that this wasn’t some embarrassing debacle, a sad way to end an otherwise thrilling Super Bowl. This was a fantastic play that made logical sense to the offense, and was just defeated by better defensive play and stellar preparation from the New England Patriots.

If ever one play was going to define a Super Bowl this is a pretty fitting one to do so."

Time will tell if he is the second coming of Jonas Gray or a real phenom....

Great DB instincts..

yopats said:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/02/02/analysis-notebook-super-bowl-xlix-that-play/
.................

"The bottom line in all of this is that this wasn’t some embarrassing debacle, a sad way to end an otherwise thrilling Super Bowl. This was a fantastic play that made logical sense to the offense, and was just defeated by better defensive play and stellar preparation from the New England Patriots.

If ever one play was going to define a Super Bowl this is a pretty fitting one to do so."

Click to expand...

So many talking heads are saying this was a bad play and the obvious thing was to use "beast mode".
Well so obvious that maybe the Hawks thought PATS would be expecting "beast mode". Everyone
knows "Red Zone" TDs are much about deception. So the called play, they may have thought, was indeed a real good deceptive play. But as the writer above indicates it was
"just defeated by better defensive play" !!

But Pete's reputation will be tarnished forever because many talking heads don't really understand
the thought process of really great coaches .... they are very lacking to make such judgements!

Looking at that again I think it's even more pathetic that Bevell threw Lockette under the bus (said something like "well, he could have gone for it more strongly").

It's clear from the replay that Lockette had no idea Butler was even there until the moment their shoulders collided, at which point it was too late for Lockette to do anything.

rlcarr said:

Looking at that again I think it's even more pathetic that Bevell threw Lockette under the bus (said something like "well, he could have gone for it more strongly").

It's clear from the replay that Lockette had no idea Butler was even there until the moment their shoulders collided, at which point it was too late for Lockette to do anything.

Click to expand...

I hadn't heard that comment by Bevell....

rlcarr said:

Looking at that again I think it's even more pathetic that Bevell threw Lockette under the bus (said something like "well, he could have gone for it more strongly").

It's clear from the replay that Lockette had no idea Butler was even there until the moment their shoulders collided, at which point it was too late for Lockette to do anything.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly where Lockette left something on the field.He should expect the Db to come and fight for it. But still not good for a coach to let his frustration speak here.

DarrylS said:

Time will tell if he is the second coming of Jonas Gray or a real phenom....

Great DB instincts..

Click to expand...

Naw I think he is very different than Gray.. He seemed very well grounded and humble. As far as I know, he never got in trouble with the coaching staff. The big question is why didn't he play more?

rlcarr said:

Looking at that again I think it's even more pathetic that Bevell threw Lockette under the bus (said something like "well, he could have gone for it more strongly").

It's clear from the replay that Lockette had no idea Butler was even there until the moment their shoulders collided, at which point it was too late for Lockette to do anything.

Click to expand...

right. he didn't know Butler was there because Butler wasn't supposed to be there. Lockette expected that Kearse had jammed him, but Browner had foiled the plan.
I know it was a bang-bang play, but doesn't Wilson bear most of the blame for not reading the situation? The play had broken down. The ball should have been five feet over everybody's head.

FredFromDartmouth said:

Naw I think he is very different than Gray.. He seemed very well grounded and humble. As far as I know, he never got in trouble with the coaching staff. The big question is why didn't he play more?

Click to expand...

1. Revis
2. Browner
3. Arrington

I think I need a tissue.

That play was a perfectly valid call by carroll. You have 3 plays, 20 seconds and 1 timeout. You have to throw the ball 1 of the first 2 plays to take advantage of all 3 plays. You want the play to be quick so as not to use time and you don't want a 5 or 7 step drop and sack. The play they ran: check, check, check.

That play was all Butler. As an offense, you don't expect Revis to break on the ball that fast.

yopats said:

that is only the third time all year Seattle have run that formation on short yardage.

Click to expand...

But the play was more common? If so, the recognition may not be as impressive as that first sounds.

Which is what you should want from a receiver! 100% focus on the QB/ball and not a surrounding defender!

Butler read it perfectly and made the play!

VrabelJr said:

1. Revis
2. Browner
3. Arrington

Click to expand...

He was also bench because of some special team penalties for holding on punt returns mid season.

JR4 said:

So many talking heads are saying this was a bad play and the obvious thing was to use "beast mode".
Well so obvious that maybe the Hawks thought PATS would be expecting "beast mode". Everyone
knows "Red Zone" TDs are much about deception. So the called play, they may have thought, was indeed a real good deceptive play. But as the writer above indicates it was
"just defeated by better defensive play" !!

But Pete's reputation will be tarnished forever because many talking heads don't really understand
the thought process of really great coaches .... they are very lacking to make such judgements!

Click to expand...

So many of those idiotic talking heads also don't remember that Lynch was actually 1 of 5 in short yardage situations this year. As good as he is, that apparently is one area he doesn't really excel in, probably because the field is so compressed and cutbacks are risky in such situations.

PP2 said:

So many of those idiotic talking heads also don't remember that Lynch was actually 1 of 5 in short yardage situations this year. As good as he is, that apparently is one area he doesn't really excel in, probably because the field is so compressed and cutbacks are risky in such situations.

Click to expand...

I remember two instances during the SB (there could have been more) when Seattle had a 3rd and short, handed off to Lynch, and were stopped for a loss on both plays.

rlcarr said:

Looking at that again I think it's even more pathetic that Bevell threw Lockette under the bus (said something like "well, he could have gone for it more strongly").

It's clear from the replay that Lockette had no idea Butler was even there until the moment their shoulders collided, at which point it was too late for Lockette to do anything.

Click to expand...

Bevell said that? Considering how forcefully Butler had gotten into position, it would have taken a TE to knock him off course. Very poor taste by the OC.

The analysis of this play is frustrating; it is detracting from what I think is one of the greatest plays in the history of the Super Bowl...maybe even the NFL.

This wasn't a 'dumb' call. They're calling it that because it didn't work. I tell you what WAS a dumb call; going for a TD with 6 seconds left in the first half to a receiver who, granted had earlier made a great grab, had not made an NFL catch prior to that game. Had he dropped it, those two seconds would have likely run-off. That TD was a difference maker and they loved the call simply because it worked. They were calling Carroll a great coach for that...

We were set up against the run. They were going to have ONE shot to run the ball. They didn't have 'three chances with Lynch' as pundits suggested. They had one time out...had they used it they would have had to pass twice or risk letting the clock run away if they attempted another run.

It was quite smart; the Patriots had lined up to stop what everyone thought was going to happen...a Lynch hand-off. If we stuffed that run they had two passing plays in to the end zone. We would have been able to cheat to those two pass plays because we'd have known what was essentially happening.

So...why not get one of those passes off when we least expected it? I don't see how that logic is bad when we were quite clearly set up against the run. They tried to run a play they had run only two or three times at the goal line all season...defying all their tendencies. It was the ultimate deception play...or would have been had it not been for the genius of Malcolm Butler and his attention to detail.

This was just a great play. It's like 4th & 2...that was a 'terrible' call because it failed. Had we pulled that off it would have been hailed as coaching genius. I am surprised that some very smart former players and current players are slating this call based on simplistic logic such as 'just give it to your best player'. That's pretty simplistic...and some times simple is best...but to say there was no logic to this call is dumb. There is EVERY logic.

Well, if they'd run on 2nd down, they wouldn't have had to pass TWICE. You'd take your time out, pass on 3rd down, then you could do whatever you want on 4th down because if you don't get in the ball is turned over anyway. Time doesn't matter then.

The real answer to the question is, if you run on 2nd down, the defense now knows you HAVE to pass on 3rd. There's no way you're sacrificing a 4th down chance in that scenario, so you lose that element of surprise on 3rd down. I don't think the decision to pass was a bad one. The exact play they called could be questioned for sure.

VrabelJr said:

1. Revis
2. Browner
3. Arrington

Click to expand...

4. Dennard. (highly touted coming out of college, slipped in the draft due to off field issues but still very talented)
5. Maybe even Ryan.

Butler was an UDFA rookie from a Division 2 school. He had a long way to go to earn the trust of the coaches. And probably a lot to learn before he was on equal footing with his competition for playing time.

Thing is, after this he is on the map. If he can keep this from going to his head he should benefit more than most from the usual rookie to second year improvement. Looking forward to next year. Dennard may be on the bubble come training camp.