The Game Goat Thread: Wk.2 at Seattle

richgedman'sghost

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2006
1,507
ct
His 3rd down play calling was terrible tonight, and he spent most of the second half having Cam throw short. Once they allowed him to throw deep they did much better, but by that point it wasn’t enough. Josh has these games were he gets too cute and tonight was one of them. Last play call wasn’t great either but that was mostly Seattle winning the line battle.

He wasn’t the only goat but he was a big part of it.

helluva game though.
I disagree with labeling McDaniels a GOAT though. The offense gained over 400 yards. The strategy changed in the second half obviously once Seattle had all those injuries. The final play call was debatable obviously but Seattle just beat the blocks on that play. I think SJH has become the nabob of negatively on this board.
The running game does need to improve over the next few weekw.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
2,968
I agreed with not using a timeout, but as I've said a million times, when teams run up to the line, then get a play called in, it seems like 90% of the time, the next play is an incompletion (or something worse), so they waste 10-15 seconds to end up at 2nd and 10, which is exactly where they would be if they just spiked it. If they don't convert on 2nd down, 3rd down and 4th down, the clock is going to expire anyway, so that 1st down play is basically meaningless. Use it preserve clock.
Are they wasting 10-15 seconds vs a spike though? 10-15 vs a timeout but play vs spike was probably a 4 or 5 second difference. In this case, considering the Pats nearly scored, I think a legitimate case can be made that running a play was a good decision.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
33,194
Are they wasting 10-15 seconds vs a spike though? 10-15 vs a timeout but play vs spike was probably a 4 or 5 second difference. In this case, considering the Pats nearly scored, I think a legitimate case can be made that running a play was a good decision.
Yes, it's absolutely 10-15 seconds between getting set, getting a play called, getting the snap off and then running the play. The play to Edelman on the sidelines was snapped with 36 seconds on the clock. Assuming 6 seconds for the play, and 10 seconds to get up and spike the ball, which is on the longer end on a 12 yard play like that, they are spiking the ball with about 20 seconds to go. IIRC, they were at the LOS at around 21-22 seconds when I started yelling and screaming.

They didn't snap the ball on the 1st down play (the incompletion to Edelman in the end zone) until there were 12 seconds left, and the play took 3 seconds.

So they ended up with 2nd and 10 with 9 seconds to go from the 13 yard line, instead of 2nd and 10 from the 13 yard line with about 21 seconds. And in either case, they still had the timeout in their pocket.

I think the part a lot of fans don't recognize is how long it takes to call a play, get in the right formation and then snap the ball. When everyone knows you are spiking it, there is nothing to call out, everyone goes to the same spot every time and they spike it. That 5-6-7 seconds with guys running all over the field, the offensive linemen figuring out their protections and then the snap takes forever, and then you still have to add in the actual length of time the play took.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
6,814
Westwood MA
I disagree with labeling McDaniels a GOAT though. The offense gained over 400 yards. The strategy changed in the second half obviously once Seattle had all those injuries. The final play call was debatable obviously but Seattle just beat the blocks on that play. I think SJH has become the nabob of negatively on this board.
The running game does need to improve over the next few weekw.
If you watch the highlights of the game, they scored two TD's by running basically the same play on the goal line.

Credit where credit is due, the Seahawks blew the play up, players make plays, that's what they do.

And again, as others have stated and Cam also admitted, he thinks if he kicked it outside once that one blocker got blown up, he scores.

Nobody is perfect, Cam owned it and he'll learn from it, he's been a great teammate so far and it looks like other players feel the same way.

He's got a lot of upside in this offense.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
33,194
If you watch the highlights of the game, they scored two TD's by running basically the same play on the goal line.

Credit where credit is due, the Seahawks blew the play up, players make plays, that's what they do.

And again, as others have stated and Cam also admitted, he thinks if he kicked it outside once that one blocker got blown up, he scores.

Nobody is perfect, Cam owned it and he'll learn from it, he's been a great teammate so far and it looks like other players feel the same way.

He's got a lot of upside in this offense.
Yeah, I can't get on the Pats for running that final play on the goal line. Cam has scored like 80% of the time when running from the 1. If the Pats called a pass play there instead, and it didn't work, folks would be lining up to shoot McDaniels for not calling a play that has almost never been stopped in Cam's career, including yesterday. It would have been basically the same as Carroll calling a pass play from the 1 in the Super Bowl instead of handing it to Lynch.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,865
Mansfield MA
Yes, it's absolutely 10-15 seconds between getting set, getting a play called, getting the snap off and then running the play. The play to Edelman on the sidelines was snapped with 36 seconds on the clock. Assuming 6 seconds for the play, and 10 seconds to get up and spike the ball, which is on the longer end on a 12 yard play like that, they are spiking the ball with about 20 seconds to go. IIRC, they were at the LOS at around 21-22 seconds when I started yelling and screaming.
They weren't in place that fast. The play before ended at about 28 seconds. At 18 seconds the center bent down over the ball, the OL was pretty much set at 17 seconds, the WR were set at 14 seconds, and then they snapped at 13 seconds. You can argue that without the need to position the WR, they get in place with the OL at 17 seconds and they snap at 16, but that only saves 3 seconds (not counting that the spike itself takes a second or two).
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
33,194
They weren't in place that fast. The play before ended at about 28 seconds. At 18 seconds the center bent down over the ball, the OL was pretty much set at 17 seconds, the WR were set at 14 seconds, and then they snapped at 13 seconds. You can argue that without the need to position the WR, they get in place with the OL at 17 seconds and they snap at 16, but that only saves 3 seconds (not counting that the spike itself takes a second or two).
Even if I grant you all that, which I won't for other reasons in a minute, you aren't accounting for the time it took to run the play to the end zone. Edelman was tackled right around the 28-29 second mark. The video is here: View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JARfiJicZSg


At worst, from that spot on the field, the Pats can get set and spike the ball in 10 seconds or less. We've seen it a million times over the years. So even if I grant you 28 and the full 10 seconds, the Pats are snapping on 2nd and 10 with literally double the amount of time they had yesterday after the play to JE in the end zone. It does not take 1-2 seconds to snap and spike the ball. Shit, it only took 3 seconds to snap the ball, drop back and throw an incompletion to JE in the end zone.

When you aren't spiking the ball, everything else takes longer. It takes longer for the center to get set, and the offensive line to get the play, look at the defense, figure out their protections, the wide receivers figuring out who is on the LOS and who isn't. That 5 seconds is the difference between 1 or 2 more plays. Like I said, they ran the play to JE in the end zone in 3 seconds. That stuff is an eternity in an end of game situation where every second matters, and I think they missed one last night.

I'll have to look back, but IIRC, the average length of time it takes to snap the ball, run the play, get up and then spike the ball is like 15.7 seconds. They snapped the ball at 36 seconds on the sideline play to JE, so assuming those numbers are accurate, they could have spiked the ball and had 19-20 seconds left, instead of 9 seconds.
 

mulluysavage

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
645
Last nights game was phenomenal. I thought NE would get pounded but they came within a yard of winning. Hard to get much closer than that. I’m not going to give out a goat for the week. The run defense struggled and the run offense did as well. But giving up 35 points to Wilson when he’s playing as well as he did isn’t disastrous. Two of his TD passes were just unfathomably great plays in excellent coverage that were inches away from not being completions at all. Sometimes great players just make great plays. And the D did score a TD themselves too.

Offensively they couldn’t run but I thought Cam was awesome last night. And that gives me hope that if they fall behind, he has the ability to make a comeback. There’s almost nobody that expected a Pats win in Seattle last night. But they stood toe to toe with them and that’s encouraging. And they did so with one or their primary weapons suddenly and tragically unavailable, and had to rework things on the fly.

The Pats served notice last night that they’re going to be a handful for any opponent this season. As far as losses go, this was as good as it gets.
+1

That game was a treat. No goats.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
9,747
They weren't in place that fast. The play before ended at about 28 seconds. At 18 seconds the center bent down over the ball, the OL was pretty much set at 17 seconds, the WR were set at 14 seconds, and then they snapped at 13 seconds. You can argue that without the need to position the WR, they get in place with the OL at 17 seconds and they snap at 16, but that only saves 3 seconds (not counting that the spike itself takes a second or two).
If Cam was rushing them for the spike, they could have gotten set several seconds faster. But if you're running a play, you want to make sure everyone knows what they're doing, so it's worth taking a couple of extra seconds to be certain there are no foul ups. They definitely could have spiked the ball and had 15 seconds left on the clock. Not even a question.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
2,171
Cultural hub of the universe
+1

That game was a treat. No goats.
Yup.

Re spiking the ball vs. running a play, I always thought that there's a real potential advantage to running a play while the D is struggling to get it together as well. There seems to be a much higher chance they'll blow a coverage in that situation than when they've got time to get set. It didn't play out that way in this instance, but that's got to be part of the calculus.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
4,746
But Harry went 32nd and Deebo when 36th, AJ Brown went 52st, Mecole Hardman went 56th, Parris Campbell went 59th, DK Metcalf went 64th, and Diontae Johnson went 66th.
Interestingly, after this weekend 50% of the above guys drafted after Harry are now on the shelf with serious injuries. In that regard Harry was a trend setter.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
2,171
Cultural hub of the universe
Sony had 7 carries for 19 yards, which is terrible, but Burkhead had 6 carries for 2 yards, so I'm not sure more of him is the answer, at least in the run game. The OL got worked last night. Honestly the Pats got dominated at both lines of scrimmage, all game long.
We got dominated in the run game on both sides for sure. Pass protection was damn good for the NE side, and we got at least inconsistent pressure on Wilson, better than they got on us.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
9,747
We got dominated in the run game on both sides for sure. Pass protection was damn good for the NE side, and we got at least inconsistent pressure on Wilson, better than they got on us.
The problem with Wilson is that he's so elusive, that even sometimes when you get pressure on him, he escapes and picks up big yards. In the first half the Pats started out playing zone, and Collinsworth pointed out that the Patriots are a great M2M secondary. The next Sea possession, NE went man, and on the very first pass play, they got excellent pressure, but Wilson escaped and had a big gain on the ground because it's much easier to scramble against a secondary playing man rather than zone.
 

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Dope
Jun 27, 2006
20,374
A Scud Away from Hell
Ebner and Vollmer were drafted players. Apples and hand grenades.
Sure, they certainly were.

I must be missing something, though. Jakob Johnson was signed as an UDFA through the International Player Pathway. Patriots developed all three from their first day as an NFL player (i.e., not a NFL free agent signed away from another team).
 

Ale Xander

Lacks black ink
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
32,044
Butler should be on that list. Andrews, Bolden, JC Jackson maybe too.

I'd say Jonathan Jones maybe first though.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
25,095
Hingham, MA
Sure, they certainly were.

I must be missing something, though. Jakob Johnson was signed as an UDFA through the International Player Pathway. Patriots developed all three from their first day as an NFL player (i.e., not a NFL free agent signed away from another team).
My point is if you draft a guy there is something you see that is worth investing value in, more so than a UDFA. Vollmer was a second round pick. Steve Neal didn’t even play college football. Jon Jones played at Auburn. Andrews at Georgia. Law firm at Ole Miss. All starters on SEC teams! I just dont see how you can compare the two. Even Edelman, he played QB in college. They aren’t not great stories, but guys like Steve Neal and Jakob Johnnson are IMO on a completely different level.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
16,977
Re spiking the ball vs. running a play, I always thought that there's a real potential advantage to running a play while the D is struggling to get it together as well. There seems to be a much higher chance they'll blow a coverage in that situation than when they've got time to get set. It didn't play out that way in this instance, but that's got to be part of the calculus.
That's what I thought BB was doing at the time. They had the defense on its heels. Dont give Carroll -- a great defensive coach -- time to regather things. It's not all that different from the SB. BB didn't call timeout on defense because he didn't think Seattle was quite together, and he didn't want to give them a chance to get there.
The underlying premise is that "my guys know what to do."
 

mulluysavage

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
645
Re: last play: the Pats have been great at beating you by adding wrinkles to plays they've shown, and the TD to Johnson was an example. The D is going to adjust when they see a play they've seen on tape or in-game, and the wrinkles = already adjusting to your expected adjustments. They went back to the well on the last play, but it was just straight up, no wrinkles, right? Wagner adjusted, went backside, as Matt Chatham pointed out. Ran out of wrinkles I guess. I have a feeling they'll be installing more.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
16,977
Re: last play: the Pats have been great at beating you by adding wrinkles to plays they've shown, and the TD to Johnson was an example. The D is going to adjust when they see a play they've seen on tape or in-game, and the wrinkles = already adjusting to your expected adjustments. They went back to the well on the last play, but it was just straight up, no wrinkles, right? Wagner adjusted, went backside, as Matt Chatham pointed out. Ran out of wrinkles I guess. I have a feeling they'll be installing more.
Post game, Newton mentioned that he missed taking the play outside when it got blown up in the middle. Not so much a wrinkle, but an available in-play option . Ultimately, that's the advantage of option plays. The QB gets to make the last call after seeing what the defense is doing. (Not blaming Newton. Wagner made a great play that gave Newton a split-second to adjust.) Just as you're right about McD installing new wrinkles out of the same set-up, I also think Newton will get sharper.
 

Over Guapo Grande

panty merchant
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2005
1,987
Worcester
If Wagner hadn't blown through the line (Andrews missed block?), Mason probably could have blocked the DL (91), giving Newton a pretty clear waltz. I can see why Cam didn't bounce outside on this read...

34363
 
Last edited:

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
10,713
Santa Monica, CA
That's what I thought BB was doing at the time. They had the defense on its heels. Dont give Carroll -- a great defensive coach -- time to regather things. It's not all that different from the SB. BB didn't call timeout on defense because he didn't think Seattle was quite together, and he didn't want to give them a chance to get there.
The underlying premise is that "my guys know what to do."
Didn't they get the great look to Edelman right after that decision? It kind of did work, they just didn't connect on the pass - by inches.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
31,401
Deep inside Muppet Labs
If Wagner hadn't blown through the line (Andrews missed block?), Mason probably could have blocked the DL (91), giving Newton a pretty clear waltz. I can see why Cam didn't bounce outside on this read...

View attachment 34363
91 is beating that block on his own, if that block had been held the play might have succeeded anyway, although Johnson got blown up.

They lost that play right at the snap. Really disappointing to see. They got destroyed on it. Had they executed properly that's a TD.
 
Last edited:

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
47,406
From a technique standpoint, what happened on that last play? Did Seattle just guess the right side and send more men over? It looked like their guys all went low and washed out our guys - is that something you can only do if you more or less know what’s coming?
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Re: last play: the Pats have been great at beating you by adding wrinkles to plays they've shown, and the TD to Johnson was an example. The D is going to adjust when they see a play they've seen on tape or in-game, and the wrinkles = already adjusting to your expected adjustments. They went back to the well on the last play, but it was just straight up, no wrinkles, right? Wagner adjusted, went backside, as Matt Chatham pointed out. Ran out of wrinkles I guess. I have a feeling they'll be installing more.
Good point. Going back to the Falcons Super Bowl, my recollection is that there was a lot of talk at the time about how impressive that the Pats had multiple goal-line plays to go to -- and they needed all of them, between some short-yardage TD's, plus the 2-point conversions.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
27,282
Good point. Going back to the Falcons Super Bowl, my recollection is that there was a lot of talk at the time about how impressive that the Pats had multiple goal-line plays to go to -- and they needed all of them, between some short-yardage TD's, plus the 2-point conversions.

Yes, IIRC, BB made a specific request to McD to devise and work on more of those plays in the prep for the SB.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
33,194
Irvin was out for about one play.
I don't know if he was out for one play, but if he was, I'm pretty sure he wasn't too effective after that, seeing as he blew out his ACL and is done for the season:

 

tmracht

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 19, 2009
1,409
From a technique standpoint, what happened on that last play? Did Seattle just guess the right side and send more men over? It looked like their guys all went low and washed out our guys - is that something you can only do if you more or less know what’s coming?
Yeah going low as a lineman to facilitate second level pressure and disrupt the blocking scheme works, but it means you're selling out to stop something specific. If its a play action or a bootleg or something, you've let yourself quite vulnerable on containment. If that's a pop pass and all those guys are diving and crashing the holes, it's hard to defend with a quick change of direction. Can't really hate the play call though from NE or SEA, it's Cam and he's faced these fronts and converted many times in his career.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
35,848
Is there a specific reason why Izzo couldn’t block and release? Would doing so be too risky in case Cam chose to run instead of pass?
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
16,977
Is there a specific reason why Izzo couldn’t block and release? Would doing so be too risky in case Cam chose to run instead of pass?
The play was probably designed only as a run for Newton -- somewhere. Izzo would have to see that the rest of the line was caving in order to leak out. I'm not even sure he was in a position to know what was happening off to his right. Maybe a better/more experienced TE pulls that off. OTOH--I expect that in future games there will be an identical look where the TE does block and release in the hope that the defender just rushes in or gets caught in nowhere land.
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
1,914
They would need a different play to give Cam an option. It was a designed run. The blocking scheme had linemen working to the LBs so any pass would be flagged for ineligible receiver down field.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
35,848
They would need a different play to give Cam an option. It was a designed run. The blocking scheme had linemen working to the LBs so any pass would be flagged for ineligible receiver down field.
Ah, thanks. Figured there was a reason.
 

SMU_Sox

loves his fluffykins
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
6,665
Dallas
My goat is the OL run blocking. A+ pass blocking and F run-blocking. I felt like the game had so much shit to process it was hard to come up with a goat. Gilmore gets an honorary mention here - although Russ is so fucking accurate that you just have to tip the cap.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
29,626
AZ
One yard from winning is closer than I thought we'd be so it's hard to pick a goat, but I guess when you come one yard from winning it's very hard not to want to pick a goat.

Game came down to one play and they won the stinking play and I'm just not sure that's anyone's fault. I almost wonder if the interior linemen got the snap count wrong on that play or if Seattle had figured out the snap count because they seemed off the ball so much quicker.
 

Bowhemian

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2015
3,001
Bow, NH
I think if White was in the game, a toss would have worked. The way Seattle stacked the box, there would likely have been just one man to beat.
 

SMU_Sox

loves his fluffykins
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
6,665
Dallas
Let's look at a couple of plays on the run game that kind of serve as a microcosm to me for the day. Both are in the first quarter. 2nd and 5 with 2:15 to go in the first. Sony runs right guard:


34369

The problem here is Eluemunor has to block Wright and he just doesn't get there. Had he been able to seal off Wright Sony gets 10+ yards. Instead? Gain of 1.

The very next play: Burkhead runs left guard and the center and the entire left side of the line as well as Izzo lose their run blocks.
34370

Wynn is hitting too high on his double team. You need to go for the hips/thighs there to move the guy. Instead he doesn't get any push, Thuney gets tossed aside, Wynn has to now get to the hole to block Adams (33) as well as his original target, 90, and this is what happens (Izzo also loses):
34371

We can complain about the backs all we want but if this is the blocking? Good luck. Took a big step back run blocking this week.
 

tmracht

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 19, 2009
1,409
Is there a specific reason why Izzo couldn’t block and release? Would doing so be too risky in case Cam chose to run instead of pass?
I'm not the best offensive mind, I only played DT and OG through HS, but really depends what the
Let's look at a couple of plays on the run game that kind of serve as a microcosm to me for the day. Both are in the first quarter. 2nd and 5 with 2:15 to go in the first. Sony runs right guard:


View attachment 34369

The problem here is Eluemunor has to block Wright and he just doesn't get there. Had he been able to seal off Wright Sony gets 10+ yards. Instead? Gain of 1.

The very next play: Burkhead runs left guard and the center and the entire left side of the line as well as Izzo lose their run blocks.
View attachment 34370

Wynn is hitting too high on his double team. You need to go for the hips/thighs there to move the guy. Instead he doesn't get any push, Thuney gets tossed aside, Wynn has to now get to the hole to block Adams (33) as well as his original target, 90, and this is what happens (Izzo also loses):
View attachment 34371

We can complain about the backs all we want but if this is the blocking? Good luck. Took a big step back run blocking this week.
Excellent analysis. Mistakes I used to make in HS that I noticed too.
 

SMU_Sox

loves his fluffykins
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
6,665
Dallas
Something positive for Sony.

1st and 10, 14:05, NE 41 3rd quarter. Nice play by Sony to make Wright commit then bounces outside for 4. He would have had more if 1) Byrd blocked better downfield, and 2) he could get better at getting more yards after contact. I suppose 3) he had better start/stop ability would also help there to bounce outside quicker.

34373

He sticks his right leg hard upfield getting Wright to jump that gap. It was a nice move.

I think Sony has his issues but today he got a lot of shit luck. I would still want to upgrade him and/or give Harris a shot as the lead back but that is based on his lack of + traits and inability to be used even for a checkdown option as of yet.

Another note on goats of the day: WR blocking. It seems they caught whatever virus the OL had and could not block as well! I will post a few more highlights that aren't already covered.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
29,626
AZ
The analysis and posts in the goat threads are always much more informative than the ones in the game ball threads. I think that's because we don't look as hard at the wins as we do at the losses.

I saw Jim Caldwell make a point about this once at a conference where he was talking about the concept of after-action reviews. (He was a surprisingly great speaker.) He talked about how sometimes you make twice as many mistakes in wins as you do in losses but it's hard to focus on them and correct them. I thought that was actually kind of Belichickian.

Anyway, that's a diversion from the point that I really appreciate the analysis that's going on here, though I much prefer the game ball threads.
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
3,271
Burrillville, RI
That's a good point. Perhaps instead of game balls for wins and goats for losses, we experiment with more of a 3 up 3 down format. Maybe we'd get the same analysis every game, win or loss
 

tmracht

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 19, 2009
1,409
The analysis and posts in the goat threads are always much more informative than the ones in the game ball threads. I think that's because we don't look as hard at the wins as we do at the losses.

I saw Jim Caldwell make a point about this once at a conference where he was talking about the concept of after-action reviews. (He was a surprisingly great speaker.) He talked about how sometimes you make twice as many mistakes in wins as you do in losses but it's hard to focus on them and correct them. I thought that was actually kind of Belichickian.

Anyway, that's a diversion from the point that I really appreciate the analysis that's going on here, though I much prefer the game ball threads.
Yes one of the biggest things I've failed to instill in my team at work is that good outcomes still have mistakes we can correct. They don't always see that, they see project complete as we did it! But, a failure as what can we do better next time. I'll have to see if I can find Caldwell speaking about this to see how he words it or someone similar.

That's a good point. Perhaps instead of game balls for wins and goats for losses, we experiment with more of a 3 up 3 down format. Maybe we'd get the same analysis every game, win or loss
That's a cool idea, I like that. I know podcasts that use similar formats and they work really well in win or loss.