ANYBODY WANT TO DEFEND BEVELL NOW????

[boogiewithstu2007]

Maybe I worded this incorrectly. Wilson under center fakes the hand off to Lynch and boot legs to the corner of the end zone would have been an acceptable rushing call. Hopefully I worded this more properly. Anyways, my point is you still can get 3 rushing plays in under 26 sec with Lynch touching the ball at least twice.

Amen

 

[flyerhawk]

You guys have completely lost the plot.

I understand the argument that we should have run there. I disagree given the formation but I get it.

The notion that we should have run it 3 times is downright absurd.

 

[gohusk]

You guys have completely lost the plot.

I understand the argument that we should have run there. I disagree given the formation but I get it.

The notion that we should have run it 3 times is downright absurd.

I couldn't care less about the call to throw. It's the play they called which was absolutely mind boggling. Whoever called it is a fucking idiot. High risk throw like that from the 1 foot line with the game on the line? I'm just not going to think about it anymore though. Not thinking about the Seahawks again until the draft comes around.

 

[WizardHawk]

You guys have completely lost the plot.

I understand the argument that we should have run there. I disagree given the formation but I get it.

The notion that we should have run it 3 times is downright absurd.

Why is it absurd? Is it because they would have left too much time on the clock if the first one goes for 6? Because as I've been saying, it wasn't 3 plays with 26 seconds. Had they committed to running it and not worried about the clock they have about a full minute and could easily have ran it 3 times and not used their TO.

 

[flyerhawk]

I couldn't care less about the call to throw. It's the play they called which was absolutely mind boggling. Whoever called it is a fucking idiot. High risk throw like that from the 1 foot line with the game on the line? I'm just not going to think about it anymore though. Not thinking about the Seahawks again until the draft comes around.

It wasn't a high risk throw. One more time. This is pre-snap...

There is NO ONE in the middle of the field. And Lockette has inside leverage on his defender. Even with Browner rubbing out Kearse, the worst that should have happened was an incomplete. If Wilson throws it a little more inside the receiver or if the receiver puts his hands in front of his body it is probably a TD. But that didn't happen. If Lockette gets a hand on the ball it is an incomplete. It wasn't a high risk play given the defensive formation.

Some of you are confusing result with risk. And some of the plays you are proposing had far higher risk.

 

[flyerhawk]

Why is it absurd? Is it because they would have left too much time on the clock if the first one goes for 6? Because as I've been saying, it wasn't 3 plays with 26 seconds. Had they committed to running it and not worried about the clock they have about a full minute and could easily have ran it 3 times and not used their TO.

Well that was certainly part of it. The Seahawks hadn't been able to stop Brady at all in the 4th quarter. They were trying to seal the game.

 

[WizardHawk]

The risk was expecting Kearse to do anything against Browner. Maybe the worst idea of all time on that. You have to know the people you are going against. And of course others will point out expecting Lockette to do anything as a WR wasn't a great idea either.

And yes, I did say the game wasn't as much of a gimmie as a few of these want to suggest if they ran it because of giving Brady way too much time to get back down the field.

But lets face it, knowing what we know now wouldn't you have rather seen them score too quickly with a run and take your chances on defense instead of what they did?

 

[flyerhawk]

But lets face it, knowing what we know now wouldn't you have rather seen them score too quickly with a run and take your chances on defense instead of what they did?

Of course. And I wish that the Seahawks had burned more clock in 2012 against the Falcons as I was screaming for them to do.

Hindsight provides great clarity. If one of about 4 things didn't happen on that play the Seahawks likely score a TD on that drive and the Patriots have no chance to score. That didn't happen. That's just the way it goes.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

It wasn't a high risk throw. One more time. This is pre-snap...

There is NO ONE in the middle of the field. And Lockette has inside leverage on his defender. Even with Browner rubbing out Kearse, the worst that should have happened was an incomplete. If Wilson throws it a little more inside the receiver or if the receiver puts his hands in front of his body it is probably a TD. But that didn't happen. If Lockette gets a hand on the ball it is an incomplete. It wasn't a high risk play given the defensive formation.

Some of you are confusing result with risk. And some of the plays you are proposing had far higher risk.

A slant route is incredibly risky from where there at ... Remember DB's in that situation don't have a lot of field behind them so there more likely to jump routes and take more risks... Not only that but if the ball is not caught your risk it bouncing up in the air and having it picked that way... It was a very risky pass play being 1 yard from pay dirt....

 

[ElTexan]

Slant routes at the goal line against two on two man coverage with NO safety and NO LB help are "incredibly risky." Got it.

 

[tzorn10]

Several people that said the same thing that night have since changed their view after they heard the full story of what was going on.

Pull your head out of the sand.

Where is this information by the way? I'd love to read where some of those guys changed their mind.

 

[tzorn10]

Slant routes at the goal line against two on two man coverage with NO safety and NO LB help are "incredibly risky." Got it.

Of course not. What could go wrong?

Oh wait,,,,

 

[ElTexan]

Where is this information by the way? I'd love to read where some of those guys changed their mind.

Mike and Mike changed their minds Tuesday morning after the SB... You can listen to the podcast for free... 2 minutes 55 seconds into that day's podcast.

 

[flyerhawk]

A slant route is incredibly risky from where there at ... Remember DB's in that situation don't have a lot of field behind them so there more likely to jump routes and take more risks... Not only that but if the ball is not caught your risk it bouncing up in the air and having it picked that way... It was a very risky pass play being 1 yard from pay dirt....

ANY pass can bounce up in the air and be intercepted. That isn't a sign of a risky play. That's football.

DBs don't have a lot of field in that play? Butler is responsible for the ENTIRE field against Lockette. If Lockette cuts out he is WIDE OPEN because Butler jumped the route. He made the right call and Kearse failed to shed his block but the play call itself was perfectly fine.

 

[flyerhawk]

Slant routes at the goal line against two on two man coverage with NO safety and NO LB help are "incredibly risky." Got it.

Clearly people who have never played football in their lives. Slant on outiside man coverage is one of the safest passes you can throw.

This article explains it pretty well for those who bother to read it...

Film Breakdown: Butler's Super Bowl Interception on Wilson

This is actually a well-designed play. Some people are instantly throwing Bevell under the bus, but from a pure objective standpoint this is a good play on goal line when you have man-to-man coverage across the board plus a larger WR going up against a rookie undrafted CB. BUT the key here is that Kearse HAS to be able to interfere with Butler’s coverage responsibilities. Remember in a league where the talent disparity is so minuscule that even an undrafted rookie can make an impact.

 

[tzorn10]

Mike and Mike changed their minds Tuesday morning after the SB... You can listen to the podcast for free... 2 minutes 55 seconds into that day's podcast.

I figured you would have boycotted Mike and Mike by now.

Any of the football players I mentioned change their minds yet?

 

[ElTexan]

What does it matter? Appeal to authority is a black and white logical fallacy. Why do you keep using it?

I have explained to you the cold hard logic of why passing on second was the right thing to do. If you can't duspute the logic, you lose, child.

 

[ElTexan]

Carroll chose a course where he could get the personnel he wanted on every play.
Where he could try to get and exploit mismatches.
Where he could calmly run all plays instead of hurrying to get them off.
Where he made sure he could use all his downs.
Where he'd keep the D guessing on every down.

AND WHERE HE'D RUN LYNCH THREE OF THE FOUR DOWNS.

HTF are you dunces saying that's the worst call in history? You're plain wrong.

 

[tzorn10]

HTF are you dunces saying that's the worst call in history? You're plain wrong.

Your right. It was an excellent play call. The best that could have been called in that situation. You, Bevell, and Carroll are fucking geniuses. Its a call that every coach should use in the same exact instant. Just ignore the fact that you have the best power back in the league going up against a defense that was totally gasses and on their heels. That's irrelevant because we all know that he was only 1-5 in those types of plays due to totally different circumstances.

Its truly a miracle the play didn't work.

 

[BoBlake]

Your right. It was an excellent play call. The best that could have been called in that situation. You, Bevell, and Carroll are fucking geniuses. Its a call that every coach should use in the same exact instant. Just ignore the fact that you have the best power back in the league going up against a defense that was totally gasses and on their heels. That's irrelevant because we all know that he was only 1-5 in those types of plays due to totally different circumstances.

Its truly a miracle the play didn't work.

From now on, you're only worth a "moron meme" search on google. Here's the first one.