Yes the visuals were awesome, but what happened to Lenny Kravitz? She made this big announcement that he was joining her, then he played 1/2 of one of her songs then disappeared.
What's the deal with that?
NFL 2014-2015 Season Discussion
- Thread starter tomalak301
- Start date
- Status
Yes the visuals were awesome, but what happened to Lenny Kravitz? She made this big announcement that he was joining her, then he played 1/2 of one of her songs then disappeared.
What's the deal with that?
I thought the halftime show was a lot of fun. 
Yes the visuals were awesome, but what happened to Lenny Kravitz? She made this big announcement that he was joining her, then he played 1/2 of one of her songs then disappeared.
What's the deal with that?
And the one-half of a song that he got was "I Kissed a Girl." When taking the lyrics into account, not the most ideal song choice for Lenny. Should have had him do "American Woman."
It seemed very out of place among the set that Katy was performing. If you're not going to allow Ms. Perry to stand on her own, at the very least give her supporting characters whose own music can blend together well with hers.
Still, not the worst decision made during that game...
Pretty sure Perry chose her guest performers (with league approval). I suspect Missy got more time because Perry may have been bigger fan of hers than Lenny. And Missy has had more hits (singles) than Lenny, no?Yes the visuals were awesome, but what happened to Lenny Kravitz? She made this big announcement that he was joining her, then he played 1/2 of one of her songs then disappeared.
What's the deal with that?
And the one-half of a song that he got was "I Kissed a Girl." When taking the lyrics into account, not the most ideal song choice for Lenny. Should have had him do "American Woman."
It seemed very out of place among the set that Katy was performing. If you're not going to allow Ms. Perry to stand on her own, at the very least give her supporting characters whose own music can blend together well with hers.
I don't think you need a cannon to complete the slant against most defensive backs in the league. It is a short throw and if the receiver does his job, which the Seattle receiver did not, then it should be a "gimme". Had the Hawks receiver run hard after his cut, I think the play might have been successful. Wilson threw the ball to a spot, a spot that the defender beat the receiver to. That should not have happened.
Still doesn't take away from the manificence of Malcolm Butler's play. On most any other corner at any other time, that would have been a touchdown.
The brilliance or stupidity of a play is decided by one thing... did it work?
Whatever the case may be (I'm certain you're correct), it still remains a jarring transition between the various artists.
I remember thinking the same thing about the play that got them the tying touchdown before halftime. I had been screaming at them to kick the more likely field goal to make it 14-10. When it works, it's brilliant.
Exactly.
Not necessarily.
I've seen plenty of things work, largely by chance, after which I said, "Wow, that was risky" or "Wow, that was lucky." Such would have been the case had the play in question worked. Because it worked does not make it smart. No.
That's my opinion, though. I've been conscious of this game for about twenty-five years, which is less than a lot of people, but I can say that I would never have called an inside slant against a defense that was stacked to defend it. I don't know what "numbers" people are looking at, though, that say it was sound.
I admit, also, that Wilson gets the other half of the blame. Poor throw, granted. Poor call, poor execution.
Focusing on results while ignoring the execution is not the way to measure performance and success. As I've said before, with some other quarterbacks and with more talented receivers (let's be honest: Seattle does not have a beast of a receiving corps), inside slant is absolutely the call to make there. But you gameplan and you strategize with what you have available to you -- and what Seattle had available was a short quarterback with a low release. That's why the call was bad, because it was attempting to force something with talent that was not capable of executing it.
http://buttersafe.com/2015/02/03/super-bowl-part-3/
It is true that it's easily to inflate things in dramatic moments. When you judge the quality of a play in poker, it has nothing to do with whether or not it led to positive results in the hand, it's all about whether making the same decision in the same situation every time would, on average, have positive results.
For most of the game, this is the same in football. You don't judge a call to go for it on 4th and 1 based on whether you make the yards, you judge it based on which call will yield the most point differential on average if you make the same call every time. Or, toward the end of the game, which will yield the greatest percentage chance of victory.
You're right that in the case where the actual result of the play is inflated in importance when there are major consequences like winning the Superbowl. There's no way a pass play was the highest percentage call there, but the percentage difference between the calls has been overstated.
It is true that it's easily to inflate things in dramatic moments. When you judge the quality of a play in poker, it has nothing to do with whether or not it led to positive results in the hand, it's all about whether making the same decision in the same situation every time would, on average, have positive results.
For most of the game, this is the same in football. You don't judge a call to go for it on 4th and 1 based on whether you make the yards, you judge it based on which call will yield the most point differential on average if you make the same call every time. Or, toward the end of the game, which will yield the greatest percentage chance of victory.
You're right that in the case where the actual result of the play is inflated in importance when there are major consequences like winning the Superbowl. There's no way a pass play was the highest percentage call there, but the percentage difference between the calls has been overstated.
But Timby, had the play worked, it would have been declared brilliant. Risky, maybe, but declared brilliant.
The point is, instead of trying to get cute there, if you just run it, you're likely declared Champions instead of brilliant. Which would you rather have?
And if you caught any of the mic'ed up stuff from the game, it wasn't called because it was going to be brilliant. It was called because the Seahawks screwed up and couldn't tell what defense the Patriots were in. You can hear them yelling that the Pats were in goal-line defense, when instead there were 3 CBs on the field to help defend against a pass play. So they would have been at a disadvantage had you run it, most likely. Or at least a tough spot, as the other 8 guys were at least the 'heavy' group for run stuffing, but if it was really a goal-line D, they would have taken the CBs off for bigger players. Carroll screwed up there, throwing a pass into a pass defense isn't brilliant...
And if you caught any of the mic'ed up stuff from the game, it wasn't called because it was going to be brilliant. It was called because the Seahawks screwed up and couldn't tell what defense the Patriots were in. You can hear them yelling that the Pats were in goal-line defense, when instead there were 3 CBs on the field to help defend against a pass play. So they would have been at a disadvantage had you run it, most likely. Or at least a tough spot, as the other 8 guys were at least the 'heavy' group for run stuffing, but if it was really a goal-line D, they would have taken the CBs off for bigger players. Carroll screwed up there, throwing a pass into a pass defense isn't brilliant...
No, it would be regarded as this:
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfkdZ3tXFSs[/yt]
That it looked freakin' easy? lol, yeah.
I've been going over the video from the fight. Bruce Irvin was telling the truth. Gronkowski was the one who hit first. I'm not saying what Bruce Irvin did was right, but I do think they both should've been ejected for that behavior.
http://nypost.com/2015/02/02/seahawks-explain-punch-trading-brawl-that-ended-super-bowl/ If you'll take a look at the video clip, you'll see that before Bruce Irvin threw that punch, Gronkowski deliberately hit Michael Bennett. I don't agree with punching Gronk back, but at the same time, it's understandable. I'd have ejected them both for that.
I've been going over the video from the fight. Bruce Irvin was telling the truth. Gronkowski was the one who hit first. I'm not saying what Bruce Irvin did was right, but I do think they both should've been ejected for that behavior.
http://nypost.com/2015/02/02/seahawks-explain-punch-trading-brawl-that-ended-super-bowl/ If you'll take a look at the video clip, you'll see that before Bruce Irvin threw that punch, Gronkowski deliberately hit Michael Bennett. I don't agree with punching Gronk back, but at the same time, it's understandable. I'd have ejected them both for that.
I can't seem to locate video or pictures online right now so I'm going to go by memory.
If there were no more than 3 Db's (regardless of whether they are listed as safeties or corners) in the game on that play, then the Pats likely had 8 in the box which is as close to "goal line D" as it gets. The "safety", meaning the inside Db on the left side of the D, was playing up on the line of scrimmage over the slotback. That looks like goal line D. The corner, Butler, was lined up a fw yards "off" the line of scrimmage. That is not an indication that the Pats WEREN'T in goal line D.
My point is, unless the Hawks had shown a definite tendancy to throw in that situation then the Pats, like everyone else, were probably looking for a run on that play. Why would they not be, unless, like I said, the Hawks had shown a tendancy to throw in that situation. I think the Pats were looking for run and their defensive front was set up accordingly. But, like I said, going by memory here.
Unless it works, which it did at the end of the first half, and everyone called Pete "brilliant" for that call. My only question about that first half play was this; if the Pats had switched that bigger corner onto the Hawks' big receiver, would the Hawks have still run that play?
Sportscasters would indeed have called the play brilliant, had it worked. They also consider it significant that a baseball player is 5-8 on Tuesdays when it's raining and there are runners on first and third against a left handed pitcher. Sports commentators are not, shall we say, statistics professors.
No, that the result was good but the thought process behind it was moronic.
- Status
Similar threads
