Throwing the Slant

On an unusually warm day for New Jersey in February of 2014, a rare matchup occurred in the Super Bowl featuring the number one seed from each of the two NFL Conferences. Further, the contest pitted the number one offense, the Denver Broncos - led by five time NFL MVP Peyton Manning, against the number one defense - the Seattle Seahawks, known to fans as “The Legion of Boom” for their hard hitting ways. In the two week period prior to the championship game; oddsmakers, sportswriters, and general pontificators were all over the board in trying to predict the eventual outcome.

Since real money was on the line, bet by real people, the “spread” that gamblers are given offer a relatively simple proxy to the expected quality of the game. The line eventually settled with the Denver Broncos being considered a one point favorite. In other words, the entire gambling community expected this to be a very close game. Except it wasn’t. It wasn’t at all. The Seahawks were the victors in a 43-8 blowout that absolutely no one predicted.

The following year, the Seahawks were under pressure to be the first team to repeat as Super Bowl champions in over a decade. There were highs and lows to the year, at one point, it looked like they would barely make the playoffs. After a midseason slump, the Hawks returned to their winning ways. Following an incredible, improbable, and borderline miraculous come from behind victory against an NFC rival, the Green Bay Packers, the Seahawks found themselves back in the Super Bowl. This time their opponent was the New England Patriots.

Again, the oddsmakers, sportswriters, and prognosticators were befuddled trying to figure out who would eventually win the game. The line again settled at one point, but this time, the Seahawks were the slight favorite.

Super Bowl 49 was everything that Super Bowl 48 was not. This was a hard fought, back and forth game that went down to the last minute. Even after leading his team from a ten point deficit to a three point lead, ageing superstar Tom Brady could not have been confident leaving the field with just over two minutes left to play. Brady, who had found so much success so early in his career - winning three Super Bowls, had seen the last two Super Bowls slip away from him. He had played admirably, but winning the game was now out of his hands and it was up to the New England defense to preserve the lead.

The Seahawks rose to the challenge, putting up big play after big play. Tom Brady must have felt sick to his stomach, watching from the sidelines, as Russell Wilson completed an incredible 31 yard pass to Jermaine Kearse. At first and goal from the six, Marshawn Lynch banged out a powerful five yard run. It was now second and goal with 31 seconds remaining. The Seahawks had one timeout and needed to only gain a single yard to become the first back to back Super Bowl champions since the Patriots themselves had done it so many years ago.

With arguably one of the greatest running backs of the decade, Marshawn “Beast Mode” Lynch, in the Seahawks backfield; the common wisdom was that the Hawks would again attempt to rush the ball into the end zone. Bizarrely, coming out of a timeout with the game on the line, Quarterback Russell Wilson lined up in the shotgun formation, indicating a pass play was coming. The ball was snapped and Wilson threw it hard. I’m sure as the ball left his hand, he could taste the champagne that would soon be pouring as he hoisted the MVP trophy. In just his third year as a pro, Wilson would have already won two Super Bowl championships and would now be considered the best young quarterback in the league.

But… That’s now what happened. Instead, unheralded, undrafted rookie Cornerback Malcolm Butler jumped the route. Just as the ball was reaching the intended target, Ricardo Lockette’s hands; Butler snatched the ball away and got a yard or two before being tackled. Instead of scoring a touchdown, the Seahawks completely blew it and turned the ball over.

Immediately, there was outrage in the play calling. Every armchair quarterback and every wannabe offensive coordinator came to the same immediate conclusion, the ball should have gone to Lynch.

While I can sympathize with the outrage, the reality is this knee jerk reaction was an oversimplification of the problem. Lynch, known for his powerful, smashing, and relentless drives; almost certainly would have got the ball into the end zone given three chances to gain a measly yard. However, there are many more factors that need to be considered here.

First, what most non-fans do not appreciate about football is the importance of deception. The Patriots obviously knew the Seahawks had a great runner in Lynch. Their defensive scheme is obviously going to focus on stopping the run. Since they would be preoccupied with stopping the run, it might make sense to go for the pass. Secondly, and more importantly, there is the clock management aspect. At this point in the game, the Hawks were down to their last time out. On a running play, the clock continues to wind even after the play is over. However, after an incomplete pass, the clock stops. The Seahawks simply did not have enough time and timeouts to be able to run three consecutive running plays. They more or less had to throw a pass in there somewhere. Second down coming out of a timeout was as good a time as any to go for the pass.

Knowing that a pass had to be a part of the plan due to the time and timeout situation, the eventual play that was called was only slightly less horrible. Had the pass been successful, it would have been a high risk, high reward situation. There was a much better play that should have been called…

Wilson should have never been in the shotgun. Instead, he should have lined up under the center with Lynch to his right. This simple change would have forced the New England defense to focus on stopping Lynch. Granted, Lynch would have been a decoy, but the threat of his running prowess would have been simply too great to ignore. After the ball was hiked, Wilson should have faked to Lynch and Lynch should have proceeded to smash through the line sans the ball. Wilson, meanwhile, should have rolled to his left and looked for his Tight End, Luke Willson, in the corner. In this situation, Wilson (the quarterback, yes, it’s confusing when the player’s names are Wilson and Willson) - an improvisational master, would have had some choices. If Luke were open, he could have thrown it. If he were covered, Russell - an excellent runner in his own right, could have rushed for the yard himself. But… In the worst case scenario, if his intended target were covered and Russell was about to be sacked for a loss, Wilson could have easily hucked the ball well over his tight end’s head resulting in an incomplete pass, stopping the clock, and not losing any precious yardage. This play, probably has an equal or greater probability of succeeding, with much lower risk since it was unlikely to result in a turnover. It was low risk, high reward.

Sadly, the Seahawks threw the slant play and the Patriots snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. Although the aforementioned slant play was high risk, high reward; I like to refer to doing something that is high risk, low reward as “throwing the slant”.

Why on earth would someone ever seek to do something that is high risk, low reward? Great question! The short answer is, I honestly don’t know. Yet in software, I see it happen all the time. In fact, I created this two by two matrix in an attempt to get people to think a little bit about what it is they are asking for before they commit to it.

Part of the problem with software is that decisions are made by people who have no idea how software works. Another issue is that asking your average developer to explain why something is a bad idea results in a condescending, jargon filled lecture. There really is plenty of blame to go around. However, consider this… Software is kind of like a living, breathing organism. Small changes in one section of code can have drastic and unintended consequences. Code is usually so fragile that before anything is released, it is considered standard to do “regression testing”. Introducing bugs while trying to add a feature or fix another bug is so normal, that regression testing is simply a standard practice.

So when a product manager or executive decides to put a feature into a product that a customer never asked for, that is not backed by research, that will not be part of a marketing press release, is difficult to define, will not be touted by sales, and offers no value, while simultaneously directly messes with core functionality; that my friends, is what I like to refer to as “throwing the slant”. In the Super Bowl analogy, it would be like calling the “fumblerooski”, to end the game, except that has a small chance of actually working. No, it would be like calling the fumblerooski with the intention to run the ball backwards for no apparent reason.

I had taken a break from blogging for quite a while, and this is my first post. I plan to write about working in technology, living in Austin, and occasionally add in some references to the Seahawks and old school hip-hop. My intention is to help demystify tech, amuse, and educate. I hope that all walks of life can get something out of this and I will eventually start an open source coding project here.