The play call may not have been the right call but it's not nearly as

[Reality Man]

bad as some want to portray the call by the Seahawks. Ready?


1. People do realize that on the previous TD by the Seahawks that on 2nd and goal they play action faked for a score on a throw. Lynch had run on the previous 1st down play..

2. On the TD before halftime...the Seahawks scored on a quick pass with 6 seconds left.

So basically the Seahawks were completely within reason to think a pass would be effective especially when the Pats would be looking for the run.

Now to most important reasons.

3. People do realize that if Seattle runs the ball twice and doesn't score then everyone would be bashing them for not using one additional play. As Carroll stated...they were planning to run the ball twice on 3rd and 4th. The logic was sound. They were going to run the ball 3 out of 4 times with Lynch. Why is that a problem? Don't you need to keep the Pat's honest when you play call or do you think any defense could stop an offense if they didn't feel a pass was a possibility.

4. If Seattle runs the play sooner then they could score quicker and give Brady the ball with 3 TO's. Did Seattle score before the half with only 30 seconds?

5. Who is the best offensive player on the Seahawks during this game? Matthews? Lynch? Wilson? See the point.


My point is the logic was there in the heat of battle. Maybe the Seahawks should have thrown a fade to Matthews. At the end of the day...the Seahawks knew it wasn't going to necessarily be easy to get into the end zone. Ask the Packers how easy it is vs. the Seahawks on the first couple of drives. This is Monday morning quarterbacking to the extreme.


Reaction.



Reality Man

 

[ArrowheadBlue]

the LA Times said it was the ghost of the Rose Bowl past


story went on to said on 4-and-2 Carroll ran the ball, was stuffed and Texas wins.

What was lacking were some facts: 1) one timeout (one wasted earlier) left; 2) best inside runner in the game who gained 4 yards the one player earlier; 3) trying to kill as much clock time as possible; 4) a tired NE defense; 5) throw the ball outside if you want to pass, not inside. Sorry your analysis didn't add up to me and 200 million other football fans. the call sucked. It reminded me of Green Bay the week before -- snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[scfanblue]

Interesting points, however, logic, clock management, and physics may defy your points. Correct me if I am wrong but there was 37 seconds left and Seattle had three time outs remaining? Plenty of time to further drain the clock down and assemble your best run package which is highlighted by having a huge physical RB in Lynch. Finally, it was also a boneheaded play by the guy who intercepted the ball by running it out the -1 yard line. Ugh!!! I felt that the call was an ego call which is usually typical for a football coach who often out coach themselves by calling stupid plays like the world witnessed last night. For all of the things that Pete Carroll has done like his rebuilding of USC into a powerhouse (cheating to get there though) and winning last year, unfortunately, as the head coach, he will forever own the WORST PLAY CALL IN FOOTBALL HISTORY AND IT WAS ONLY THE SUPER BOWL. I bet Brady Hoke said" It's the Super Bowl for God's sake."

 

[Reality Man]

Re: the LA Times said it was the ghost of the Rose Bowl past


Well Seattle was planning on running the ball 3 out potentially 4 plays.

Would you have criticized Seattle for leaving 1 play on the field by running two more times?

Even with the 1 TO...they can only run the ball 2 times unless they run...call a TO and then pass and then run.

You see...the pass had to be part of the equation if you want to maximize 3 plays. That is smart coaching..to give yourself 3 plays and not 2 plays.

I heard a stat...I didn't hear exactly...but Lynch was 0-6 running the ball to get into the end zone on the goal line?

Do you want Seattle to hurry up and possibly fumble. Either way...Seattle is going to get criticized if they don't score a TD and running Lynch on every play and leaving a play on the field. Just think about this logic.

If Seattle runs the ball on 2nd down and doesn't score and then throws the same pass on 3rd down and it gets intercepted...would you be complaining?




Reality Man

 

[Reality Man]

Only had 1 TO left. **

*

 

[Reality Man]

Googled this...for your review..


On the other hand, there are also statistics for Lynch's success from that distance all season, and they're not pretty: He went a mere 6 of 15 from the five

 

[TDFever]

agp*

D

 

[StillnotaToomer]

im surprised you agreed with this...

you needed less than a yard and have the best running back in the game. Terrible play call.

 

[Reality Man]

Seattle would have had 2 other chances to run the ball in....

even though on numerous occasions they haven't been successful in this same situation.

Seems like a reasonable call to me. Maybe not your call but if they had run the ball and not made it...you would have been advocating a pass on 3rd down otherwise a play would be left on the field.

The Butler made a great play.



Reality Man
This post was edited on 2/2 4:38 PM by Reality Man

 

[TDFever]

Re: im surprised you agreed with this...

Originally posted by StillnotaToomer:
you needed less than a yard and have the best running back in the game. Terrible play call.

The overreaction to the play call has been ridiculous. With 2nd & goal from the 1 and only 1 timeout, the first thing you want to do is to ensure that you 3 more shots at the endzone. You can do whatever you want on 4th down because that's the game. But with only 1 timeout, you can only run it on 2nd OR 3rd down. If you run it on 2nd down, then the Pats KNOW you have to throw it on 3rd down. So they decided to throw it first and then keep the whole playbook available. It didn't work out. Lots of things can and do go wrong, but it wasn't that stupid. The dude made one of the finest individual defensive plays any of us have seen. Did you know that there were 109 passes thrown from inside the 1 in the NFL this year...and that was the ONLY pass that was intercepted?

I've heard some people suggest that you run it on 2nd, call timeout. Then call 2 plays and run it twice more. Maybe that works out, but I think it's a lot more stupid to be rushing up to the LOS on 4th & goal from the 1 trying to get one last snap off...when that's not necessary. And you have to remember that a procedure penalty inside 10 seconds loses the game for you completely.

 

[Aoichi]

Re: im surprised you agreed with this...

You can pass it there but you cannot pass it over the middle.

But having to burn a TO earlier in the series hurt a lot.

 

[TDFever]

You know what's kind of interesting about that play....

that nobody has mentioned...is that it was a helmet to helmet hit. It wasn't pass interference, because he was making a legal play on the ball, but he absolutely knocked the receiver off his route when their heads cracked. I'd be interested in hearing an official's explanation of that, because nobody has brought it up. Why would a helmet to helmet hit become legal just because the guy intercepts it?

 

[Reality Man]

Don't know if this is true....maybe the percentages were going to catch up

to a team....(for your review).



109 previous passes from the 1 yard line in 2014 had resulted in 0 INTs. Seattle scored from the 3 yard line with a pass in the 3rd quarter, NE scored with 3 and 4 yard passes in the 4th. It's easy to arm chair the call but at the time it wasn't a bad call.





Reality Man

 

[ArrowheadBlue]

run on 2nd down, thrown a fade on 3rd down, Wilson


rollout option on 4th.

Any way you slice it, stupid call especially after gaining 4.5 yards on 1st down.

 

[blueinohio]

Re: You know what's kind of interesting about that play....

probably because the intent(targeting) wasn't there as compared to a safety lining up a receiver's head after a catch. I think that rule is normally way too difficult to call correctly.

 

[GoBlue_since1985]

Re: You know what's kind of interesting about that play....

That hit was nothing compared to the one Edelman took in the noggin and then still ran 20 more yards.

 

[goblue31602]

Re: You know what's kind of interesting about that play....

First, to me it looked like they hit shoulders. I don't think they hit helmets. Second, he was going for the ball, they'd consider that incidental contact anyway.