Just kidding, of course. Dan and I argued about this in another thread. And I am walking around the table more!
What I think Darren saw:
-The way to approach the 4 balls that were already open below the rack was from the lower left side of the table, but nothing led easily to get down there to play the 13 or 14.
-He could have played 7 to 11 to get on the 10-ball secondary break, but he would not only lose the 10-ball as a potential break shot, the balls below the rack would likely get even more clogged by the cueball striking the 5 and 3 sending them in that direction. The 5 doesn't look to be a good option to break up the balls if it goes at all.
-The 4-ball blocks all balls to the lower left pocket except maybe a half pocket for the 9-ball. Playing the 7 to the 15 to the bottom rail for the 4-ball would require pinpoint precision, and he could very easily get trapped having to play a difficult 13-4 combination if he chose that route.
-The only other option I see makes the cueball travel a lot. 7 in the right side, 11 in the left side, 4 bouncing off of the foot rail back up to the head of the table for the 15 or 2-15 to play the balls below the rack from the right side, or the 2 to drift down to the left side of the same balls.
-The 7-ball was the only reasonable first shot, and after weighing all of the options, he saw he could create a break ball with the 9-ball and hopefully stir up a few balls into a better arrangement. There was plenty of insurance by taking the shot he did.
So it looked crazy, but after analyzing the entire table, I think it was a well thought out decision.