ANYBODY WANT TO DEFEND BEVELL NOW????

[blstoker]

Whatever dude. You got no answers. Throwing the ball over the middle has dangers. Throwing the ball over the middle when the line is stacked "tipped ball" out of the shotgun with the back of the goal line is risky by nature. And there's no point taking that risk with the most mobile qb in the league and the best power running game in the league on 2nd down.

Seattle doesn't have the "best" power running game - or at least not the best short yardage power running game. In fact, with 1 yard to go the Seahawks were ranked 12th when running the ball and were only 2 for 6 from the 1 yard line (Lynch was 1 for 5), and were 31st in turnovers running the ball in that situation, turning it over 7.0% of the time (only the Rams were worse at 11.1%). When throwing the ball, Seattle was ranked 9th and didn't have a turnover (until the SB).

I'm sure if Bevell knew Russell would throw an interception on the slant - he would have called something else, but situationally it wasn't a bad call. Not what I would have called, but there should have been very little risk on that play.

 

[tzorn10]

I give up. You're right. The players are not at fault at all and our coaches suck and we should replace them.

This is a common tactic from you. You make a hyperbolic and extreme claim("This was the worst call in the history of football") and then when someone says "No it was not" you respond with "You're right. It was the greatest call ever made in the history of sports" which absolutely no one even approached saying. This is just a form of reductio ad absurdum in which you try and use an absurd claim to justify your claim.

 

[tzorn10]

Seattle doesn't have the "best" power running game - or at least not the best short yardage power running game. In fact, with 1 yard to go the Seahawks were ranked 12th when running the ball and were only 2 for 6 from the 1 yard line (Lynch was 1 for 5), and were 31st in turnovers running the ball in that situation, turning it over 7.0% of the time (only the Rams were worse at 11.1%). When throwing the ball, Seattle was ranked 9th and didn't have a turnover (until the SB).

New Englands defense was ranked 28th in short yardage situations. I like our chances.

 

[blstoker]

New Englands defense was ranked 28th in short yardage situations. I like our chances.

That may be so, but that doesn't change the fact that Seattle isn't the best, which has been stated over and over again as the reason why they should have run a different play. New England was actually worse against the pass from the 1 than against the run (which just means the one time they succeeded in stopping the team was a running play). Probability was on Seattle's side either way.

 

[gohusk]

Seattle doesn't have the "best" power running game - or at least not the best short yardage power running game. In fact, with 1 yard to go the Seahawks were ranked 12th when running the ball and were only 2 for 6 from the 1 yard line (Lynch was 1 for 5), and were 31st in turnovers running the ball in that situation, turning it over 7.0% of the time (only the Rams were worse at 11.1%). When throwing the ball, Seattle was ranked 9th and didn't have a turnover (until the SB).

I'm sure if Bevell knew Russell would throw an interception on the slant - he would have called something else, but situationally it wasn't a bad call. Not what I would have called, but there should have been very little risk on that play.

Fine, we have one of the best power running backs in the league. And one of the reasons Lynch was so low is because we'd run it out of the fucking read option. Why not line up an I in goal line situations? QB sneak? Anything but a slant?

And it doesn't matter what Bevell would have done if he knew the outcome. The point is that the route that's most likely to get picked in that situation was the one they threw because it was an automatic throw over the middle. Wilson knew where he was going before the ball was snapped. Don't run that route out of the gun. Run it under center if you got a guy like Big Ben at QB. It was fucking stupid.

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

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.

With the game on the line, your best player should have the football in his hands. From the 1 yd line Lynch should have ran the ball on second down.

 

[Tech_God]

It's going to be a LONG off season at the rate this is going.

 

[tzorn10]

With the game on the line, your best player should have the football in his hands. From the 1 yd line Lynch should have ran the ball on second down.

Thank you. Certainly not Ricardo Fucking Lockette.

 

[JMR]

Since when is a slant considered an "over the middle" pass??

 

[HaroldSeattle]

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.

Thanks for the post. You explained it very well, it really wasn't a bad idea, just piss poor execution.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

Have you ever actually played football? Do you understand the difference between man and zone coverage and what sort of routes each is better suited to defend?

In a man coverage situation a slant route with zero zone protection the slant route is NOT dangerous.

When your on the goal-line a slant route over the middle is incredibly dangerous because again I'll say it... DB"s don't have as much field behind them so they are more likely to jump the route... It's not rocket science.. Just because it's 1 on 1 coverage does not make it safe with such a short field ... For god sake did you watch the play ? The DB was there at the same time the receiver was... WHY? Because he wasn't worried about getting beat over the top he just darted for the slant.... It was as stupid Q#$^@#Q call ... There is a reason it's being called the WORST play call in Super Bowl history....

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

Whatever dude. You got no answers. Throwing the ball over the middle has dangers. Throwing the ball over the middle when the line is stacked "tipped ball" out of the shotgun with the back of the goal line is risky by nature. And there's no point taking that risk with the most mobile qb in the league and the best power running game in the league on 2nd down.

^^^^
THIS

 

[HaroldSeattle]

When your on the goal-line a slant route over the middle is incredibly dangerous because again I'll say it... DB"s don't have as much field behind them so they are more likely to jump the route... It's not rocket science.. Just because it's 1 on 1 coverage does not make it safe with such a short field ... For god sake did you watch the play ? The DB was there at the same time the receiver was... WHY? Because he wasn't worried about getting beat over the top he just darted for the slant.... It was as stupid Q#$^@#Q call ... There is a reason it's being called the WORST play call in Super Bowl history....

boogie I wished they had run the ball because Lynch looked like he was feeling it and I think he would of scored. Where I disagree with you is thinking that a slant pass is dangerous because of lack of field. The biggest danger is a linemen jumping up and tipping the pass, but Wilson had a clear passing lane so that wasn't a issue. All Wilson had to do was not lead the WR and there is no way in hell it's a interception. Slant plays hardly ever get intercepted and if they do, it's because of execution ( or a tipped ball). Let's not forget fumbles happen on running plays and you can bet the Pats would of been looking to strip the ball.
At the end of the day, it's the results that suck. Would of, could of and should of is just torturing yourself. I'm moving on, because next season looks bright to me.

 

[Screamin12th]

The Defender on Lockette lined up on Lockette's inside shoulder, that means Lockette does not have inside leverage. The CB ( Butler ) is giving up the outside shoulder throw but is closing off the slant.

It was a play that Wilson should have alerted out of.

 

[gohusk]

Why defend this play call? It was stupid. NE's defense was worn out. Just roll Wilson out and he probably walks in. If he doesn't, he finds the open receiver, and if that doesn't work he throws it out of the back of the end zone. Let him make the decision, not the coaching staff. Sick of seeing this guy with an enormous amount of talent being walked around with a leash by the coaching staff. And we're about to pay him close to 20 million a season. 7 of the points were on a 30 second drive that he was able to put together.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

The Defender on Lockette lined up on Lockette's inside shoulder, that means Lockette does not have inside leverage. The CB ( Butler ) is giving up the outside shoulder throw but is closing off the slant.

It was a play that Wilson should have alerted out of.

Wilson shouldn't of lead Lockette, because Butler read it all the way. Just throw the ball so Lockette is between the ball and anyone else going for it. Leading him gave Butler the chance to beat him to the spot.

 

[WizardHawk]

 

[gohusk]

Wilson shouldn't of lead Lockette, because Butler read it all the way. Just throw the ball so Lockette is between the ball and anyone else going for it. Leading him gave Butler the chance to beat him to the spot.

So you're saying that a play that went absolutely horrible because the ball was about 2 feet off wasn't a bad call when it was 2nd and goal at the 1?

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

boogie I wished they had run the ball because Lynch looked like he was feeling it and I think he would of scored. Where I disagree with you is thinking that a slant pass is dangerous because of lack of field. The biggest danger is a linemen jumping up and tipping the pass, but Wilson had a clear passing lane so that wasn't a issue. All Wilson had to do was not lead the WR and there is no way in hell it's a interception. Slant plays hardly ever get intercepted and if they do, it's because of execution ( or a tipped ball). Let's not forget fumbles happen on running plays and you can bet the Pats would of been looking to strip the ball.
At the end of the day, it's the results that suck. Would of, could of and should of is just torturing yourself. I'm moving on, because next season looks bright to me.

True, at some point we gotta move on... I think were all healing ... It was a tough pill ... And I agree Lynch was feeling it... See there I go again torturing myself... I gotta let go of this also... I think the biggest thing that makes it all easier is the fact that we won it all in 2013... Thanks god for that... We'll always feel deep pride of what this team accomplished... Wilson is gonna only get better, and if we can give him more targets and improve our pass rush on the defensive side look out ... Pieces are still in place in a lot of areas...

 

[ElTexan]

Have you ever actually played football? Do you understand the difference between man and zone coverage and what sort of routes each is better suited to defend?

In a man coverage situation a slant route with zero zone protection the slant route is NOT dangerous.

No. No. No. It's the most dangerous thing in the universe, don't ya know.