PA-PLAYA This is easy to question in hindsight, but there was a deep statistical analysis that showed passing at the 1yd line versus running only has a 1% higher chance for a turnover. Further, when you're at the 1 with a prolific running back, there's value in doing what the other team is NOT expecting.
The result was catastrophic of course, but I did not feel that the decision itself was inexcusable. If it had worked, people would be praising the cunning and guts to throw there.
I think Seattle expected NE to call a timeout after the 1d rub. NE didn't (I imagine a conscious choice to get Seattle hurrying unexpectedly, doing what is unexpected is useful!) and had the perfect defense to stop a slant. Still, Butler makes an outstanding play. Half a second before the pass, the receiver is totally open.
If Seattle ran and didn't score on 2d they were going to need to use their last timeout. They would probably have to throw on 3d at that point. The pass in that position is not so crazy, would need to throw at 2d or 3d to guarantee you have time to attempt a possible 4d play.
But NE NOT calling timeout there... That's some Jedi mind trick shit, and extraordinary confidence in your team. Especially with that 4pt lead - some coaches would be using their timeouts knowing that theyd only need a field goal to tie. The logic is sound there too. Sometimes things don't work out - doesn't necessarily mean it was a bad decision. The other team is trying to win, too.
No one would call NE invincible. But they are able to overcome a lot, and have been good enough to win most of the time against almost everybody. Edelman out all year, Gronk down, they find a way to give themselves a chance. Last year's impossible comeback? Playing conservative when you're up 28-3 is not so crazy - you're thinking that you'll score a couple more times and continue to suffocate them. Why not? Reasonable. Would probably work 98% of the time. Hold the ball, don't turn it over. If it worked out, nobody is questioning it.