Do they even have a WR who would be even a number 2 let alone a number 1 on most other teams? Granted you can say with Gronk the WR/TE distinction is pointless But even with that, Brady has made a bunch of second rate receivers and third rate running backs look good again. That’s why he gets the credit for me.
I think it would be great if they would give the MVP to an entire team, but what would they do with the truck?
Anyway, it would have been great if Malcolm Butler or Julian Edelman could get the MVP, but I think for an image-conscious league it’s hard not to give it to a guy who broke two Joe Montana records, even if he was a bit uneven earlier in the game.
It’s a meaningless award anyway.
The Seahawks coaching fell in love with the gutsy play. Gutsy plays, such as the wide receiver passing to a newbie receiver for a TD versus Green Bay, is what got them to the Super Bowl this year. But you only call the gutsy play when the situation requires it. If they gave it to Lynch twice and failed, all anyone could say is they gave it their best shot.
I get why Brady got the MVP. Leading two TD drives in the 4th quarter to overcome a 10 point deficit against the #1 defense who had not given up a single 4th quarter point in the last 6 games is, frankly, incredible. It was a legendary 4th quarter comeback.
That said, they simply do not win that game without Butler’s INT. So IMO that’s the most valuable play and Butler the MVP. I don’t care if Butler sat on the bench for the whole game and came in for that one play, I’d still give it to him.
Yes, but other quarterbacks don’t make as many of those not-difficult passes, or score as many points in a Super Bowl.
If it’s not difficult, then why did T Brady just break several NFL records last night?
It’s the Super Bowl, it’s not a regular game.
MVP means outstanding individual performance. Insert a different quarterback and they do not put up the same numbers, and that means the game ends with Seattle with more points on the board, and no need for a come-from-behind attempt from them at the end.
relevant linkage, some good stuff there.
Is it just me or are all of Wilson’s passes these sort of lobs that require the receivers to out jump their protection? I never see Wilson hitting guys in stride across the middle, making bullet like laser passes, or threading between defenders.
He’s pretty good at floating the ball to where it needs to be but quick sharp passes don’t seem to be his thing.
Give him the truck, and let him hold the trophy for 20 extra minutes.
Butler never gets into that position without Brady, and we’re talking about outstanding overall contributions.
It’s like saying Jonas Gray was our best running back this season because he put up crazy numbers in that one game. It’s more about the overall picture.
Overall, Jonas Gray didn’t matter. He mattered a lot in that one instance, but overall, no.
Almost every other play of the game, Butler wasn’t a major factor, though I did see a couple of other good plays by him to be fair.
But every significant play of the Patriots offensive game, Tom Brady made a positive difference, or put points on the board, and had way way more of those than non-difference making plays or failures.
But people see what the MVP means differently.
Best play of the game? Yes, for Butler.
Best playER of the game? Not by a mile. Gronk, Edelmen, Ninkovich, Brady, etc. all put up better performances.
Game plan. He threw the ball 50 times. He threw it to the right place (mostly) at the right time (mostly), and he was very good. But, once again, they weren’t the most difficult throws, he was only sacked once, and he got a lot of help from his pass catchers.
Football is a team game, and the Patriots offense played very well as a team. So the QB gets the MVP, because it’s an individual award.
You keep saying this, but there is no evidence for it. They weren’t difficult throws, they weren’t preternaturally accurate, and the performance wasn’t something that some other QB’s couldn’t have matched if they threw it 50 times.
And they wouldn’t have needed an amazingly stupid play call to get the win if he hadn’t thrown a couple interceptions, one on the goal line. We can play “what if” all day.
He set one single game record last night. That was for most completions in the game. He tied for 3rd on most attempts, which is, like the most completions, the result of the game plan and not anything outstanding.
Look, I’m not saying Brady is bad, or that he’s not one the best QB’s of all time. I’m just trying to put his performance last night into perspective.
Just as an aside, Russell Wilson attempted 21 passes last night. If we extrapolate and give him 50 attempts, he would have been (roughly): 30 for 50 for 617 yards, 5 td’s and 2.5 interceptions.
Note: I’m not saying Wilson is better than Brady. I know the extrapolation isn’t fair, and the throws Wilson made were much more high-risk and further down the field. I’m just making a point about Brady’s performance.
While that’s often true, Wilson is capable of throwing right on the money to a receiver in stride such as the long touchdown pass versus Green Bay to Kearse which was no lob. He was lobbing to Chris Mathews because of his distinct height advantage over his defenders.
I’m sure the Seahawks coaching staff figured that he’d ground the ball before he’d throw an interception because he’s usually good at safeguarding the ball, but that throw was right between the numbers of … the defender.
Best I can do is letting a pitcher bat in the ninth inning of a tie game in the World Series.
I do think the Seahawks pass gets some kind of trophy for “Most Outcome-Oriented Criticism” ever. I mean, even semi-rational people who could grudgingly accept that a failed 4th-and-one was the right call, somehow are completely losing it here.
The simple facts are:
- There was not enough time on the clock for three more running plays. If Seattle wanted the most chances to score (and that’s a reasonable goal from the one) they need to pass on 2nd or 3rd down.
- As Bill Barnwell proved, passing is NOT riskier than running.
Going back more years makes the percentages just about equal for success and for turnovers.
3. That was an insanely great and lucky play by an undrafted free agent gambling that he read the play right. Had the pass route been ‘fake inside, then fade to the outside’, the receiver would have been open by ten yards for the easiest game-winning pitch and catch in Superbowl history. And no doubt there would have been millions of people saying “Yes, it worked, but really it was a bad play call. You should never do what the defense isn’t expecting; you should always, every single play, go with your predictable strength.”
Let me put it this way: How many of you criticising the pass call at the end of the game are also criticising the pass at the end of the first half (where Carroll took a big chance of losing three sure points)? Was it that the halftime decision was clearly the right call, or just that it worked, while the end-game one didn’t?
Do your stats account for passing down the middle into coverage versus passing to open receivers at the sidelines? The down the middle pass call makes sense insofar as it takes the least time off of the clock, but it’s still a risky play. I would take chances with two relatively safe plays versus three plays, one of them being risky. It wasn’t just any touchdown attempt; it was for the Super Bowl.
Has this ever happened before?
And even then I’m not sure it’s necessarily as bad, it depends on the circumstances. If your pitcher is a monster ace and he’s thrown eight shutout innings and he’s only up to 89 pitches and still throwing gas and it’s two out and nobody on, maybe you let him hit and send him out for the ninth. You aren’t gonna pull a stud like David Price in that situation, necessarily.
Even the Grady Little/Pedro Martinez decision wasn’t as bad. That decision cost the Red Sox the LEAD, but not the game; they still had a chance to win. Perhaps more pertinently, Little was not choosing to let Pedro in over an obvious decision that almost guaranteed victory, which is what Carroll did.
In took 20 years but I finally understand why the Jets fired Pete Carroll to hire Rich Kotite.
In 2013, John Farrell let reliever Brandon Workman bat in the ninth inning while Mike Napoli (who could have PH) sat on the bench.
But I agree…there are no real comparisons to what Carroll did.
I would also have to point out that this just isn’t true. The second down snap came AFTER Seattle had deliberately burned time off the clock. Had they acted with any sense of urgency, they could have run a play at about 0:40 to 0:45, and had it failed, called a timeout between 0:30 and 0:35, run the third down play, and hurried into a fourth down play.
Funny you should ask, because we here were this way/that way about the call. We leaned towards “kick the field goal.” But I didn’t feel one tenth as strongly about it, and was going “what the hell” the moment it appeared Wilson was passing at the end of the game.
Also in 2013 the Red Sox won the World Series. So even if we were to put this sort of thing on the same level, well, results matter.
That’s a league average. Seattle has a good power run game and the Patriots have a lousy power run defense. As Barnwell himself points out later in that article.
And as he also states, it’s really hard to justify the decision. It just didn’t make sense in the context of the game. It’s not the worst decision ever made, but you have to be Stretch Armstrong to think there’s a universe in which that decision was better than marginal.
From today’s Boston Globe: “15 years after he was fired by Patriots owner Bob Kraft, Seahawks coach Carroll finally delivered a Lombardi trophy to New England.”