Let's make this clear

[gohusk]

I'm not a dipshit. 99.9% of people are calling this the dumbest call because they didn't hand the ball to Lynch including the OP which is why I wrote this. And you know it. Dumb. Fuck. Learn to read.

Just take a hike. If you want to play Seahawks expert then take it to the main board that's also loaded with half baked opinions. You know nothing about this team.

 

[ElTexan]

Just take a hike. If you want to play Seahawks expert then take it to the main board that's also loaded with half baked opinions. You know nothing about this team.

More name csllng and rants.

Can you counter this or not. It's even numbered for your simplicity:

26 seconds, 1 time out, 2nd down. There are three options:

A. Run Lynch twice and not even worry about running a play on a 4th down... a 4th down you'll never see because of time. We call this option the DUMB option.

B. Run Lynch on 2nd down, call Time Out, and then the Defense knows that you have to Pass on 3rd.

C. Throw on 2nd which saves Time Out and keeps options open on 3rd [run or pass].

=====================

C. is the best option, which is what Carroll did.

 

[Vitamike]

WRONG. They started the game with an above average super bowl defense for sure (several key guys on IR, but still a pretty strong unit). Losing Lane and Avril dropped that down to average or below when you factor in that after the game ended we learned Thomas is getting shoulder surgery, Sherman Tommy John, Kam work on his knee, and of course Lane snapped his arm completely and will be gone for a while after his surgery.

And the offense/coaches knew all of that.

Brady had just marched at will to a TD twice that quarter after Avril went down. In fact that last drive they never even faced a 3rd down.

That defense was NOT going to stop Brady again. No chance. NONE.

And both drives took them over 4 minutes each (4:15 & 4:50 respectively).

Sure the Seattle defense took on some injuries but we are talking scenarios here. So that 'less than a minute scenario' was only if the Hawks scored on 2nd down. A feat a lot of Hawk fans have been on this thread arguing that Marshawn and company had difficulty scoring in short goal to go situations this year.

I think with the Championship on the line, he gets in on one of those three downs and if that Seahawk defense can't hold the Pats out of the end zone for some 45 seconds or so along with 2 timeouts in a worse case scenario, than they didn't deserve to win anyway.

You gotta score there and it had to be priority one. I believe it's a losers mentality that worries about the change left on the clock.

Worry about the game clock and defensive match-ups after the score. I think you take that timeout as soon as possible after the first down run and give the ball to Marshawn three plays in a row or until he scores.

Who knows, the game could have come down to a 4th and goal on a final snap of the game as time expires.

What an exciting finish that would have been!

 

[gohusk]

More name csllng and rants.

Can you counter this or not. It's even numbered for your simplicity:

26 seconds, 1 time out, 2nd down. There are three options:

A. Run Lynch twice and not even worry about running a play on a 4th down... a 4th down you'll never see because of time. We call this option the DUMB option.

B. Run Lynch on 2nd down, call Time Out, and then the Defense knows that you have to Pass on 3rd.

C. Throw on 2nd which saves Time Out and keeps options open on 3rd [run or pass].

=====================

C. is the best option, which is what Carroll did.

The discussion is way beyond whether or not passing was a good call. It's about calling a play where the primary receiver is running a slant. That's stupid shit in that situation. But you add no value to this conversation because you don't know a thing about this team. And you bag on "experts". What the hell do you know?

 

[WizardHawk]

I believe it's a losers mentality that worries about the change left on the clock.

There have been many head coaches vilified for poor clock management late in games. And not all of them were for not having enough time. It is very much something all coaches look at in their assessments of options.

Can't be more clear than I have been, but I'll say it again: forget going out in 11 personnel and trying to run out of it. Line up in power formation and go for it. Don't care if you only get two tries. But that's just my opinion. Get that score and if it happens right away then I'm fine with it. Doesn't mean I don't get why they would be factoring that in on their sideline. The defense was beat up and full of backups. It had to be something they were conscious of.

 

[WizardHawk]

The discussion is way beyond whether or not passing was a good call. It's about calling a play where the primary receiver is running a slant. That's stupid shit in that situation. But you add no value to this conversation because you don't know a thing about this team. And you bag on "experts". What the hell do you know?

FWIW Kurt Warner thinks that pass play was the best option in terms of passing against the defensive formation and says it's an easy walk in TD if ran right.

Don't really care either way about which pass vs another. I'd still have ran it. That's me. Just putting it out there that it's not a slam dunk that it was the wrong pass play according to people who actually played the game and know a thing or two about passing. Take it as you want.

 

[nefansince75]

The discussion is way beyond whether or not passing was a good call. It's about calling a play where the primary receiver is running a slant. That's stupid shit in that situation. But you add no value to this conversation because you don't know a thing about this team. And you bag on "experts". What the hell do you know?

It wasn't just a slant. It was a slant behind a pick. It was a pick on a rookie who wasn't even drafted. I'm pretty sure they were quite pleased with the opportunity to victimize him.

 

[gohusk]

It wasn't just a slant. It was a slant behind a pick. It was a pick on a rookie who wasn't even drafted. I'm pretty sure they were quite pleased with the opportunity to victimize him.

It's about risk/reward. Who in their right mind risks what ended up happening when you have the #1 rusing offense in the league? It was absolutely mindless. And what's with all the Seahawks "experts" popping up on this board? Stick to your own team page or the main board because your opinion is worth next to nothing here.

 

[nefansince75]

It's about risk/reward. Who in their right mind risks what ended up happening when you have the #1 rusing offense in the league? It was absolutely mindless. And what's with all the Seahawks "experts" popping up on this board? Stick to your own team page or the main board because your opinion is worth next to nothing here.

This board is here for discussing the Seahawks, not exclusively for Seahawk fans. I'm not here to rub anyone's nose into the defeat. I've been there.

As the time was ticking down I said out loud "Why isn't he (Belichick) calling timeout". As I said it I answered my own question. He thought applying pressure was a better play (doesn't mean I was right).

At the moment I realized the interception happened I shouted "Why didn't they run?". Of course I was elated they didn't run, but I still asked it... and that was before Collinsworth started saying it. I'm pretty sure all of you were saying it before Collinsworth too.

I like the 'hawks which is why I'm here. I'm really interested in all the thoughts on this subject. You all had a great season, even similar to the Pats where it started with some adversity before gaining traction. Next year you're on a mission!

 

[nefansince75]

It's about risk/reward. Who in their right mind risks what ended up happening when you have the #1 rusing offense in the league? It was absolutely mindless. And what's with all the Seahawks "experts" popping up on this board? Stick to your own team page or the main board because your opinion is worth next to nothing here.

Also, you are correct about the risk and reward. That is exactly the crux of the decision. They thought they had little risk...

 

[Vitamike]

There have been many head coaches vilified for poor clock management late in games. And not all of them were for not having enough time. It is very much something all coaches look at in their assessments of options.

Can't be more clear than I have been, but I'll say it again: forget going out in 11 personnel and trying to run out of it. Line up in power formation and go for it. Don't care if you only get two tries. But that's just my opinion. Get that score and if it happens right away then I'm fine with it. Doesn't mean I don't get why they would be factoring that in on their sideline. The defense was beat up and full of backups. It had to be something they were conscious of.

It looks like we are pretty much on the same page.

Sure they were conscious of their situation but it had to be secondary to taking the lead.

 

[Vitamike]

It's about risk/reward. Who in their right mind risks what ended up happening when you have the #1 rusing offense in the league? It was absolutely mindless. And what's with all the Seahawks "experts" popping up on this board? Stick to your own team page or the main board because your opinion is worth next to nothing here.

Maybe you can be a little more specific here.

I can understand if some posters are being disrespectful while coming on your boards to discuss your team but that does not seem to be your complaint.

 

[blstoker]

It's about risk/reward. Who in their right mind risks what ended up happening when you have the #1 rusing offense in the league? It was absolutely mindless. And what's with all the Seahawks "experts" popping up on this board? Stick to your own team page or the main board because your opinion is worth next to nothing here.

What? So, risk/reward is what it's about? So, giving Russell Wilson a chance - a QB who throws interceptions 1.4% of his called passes (not including times he scrambled into a running play, which would put that closer to 1.2%) - is so much riskier than handing the ball to Lynch, who fumbles 1.2% of his touches, that it's insanity to think that throwing the ball into a perceived ideal situation would result in either a TD or an incompletion? We have one of the best QBs at avoiding turnovers, so why think that the play is any riskier than handing the ball off? If the reasoning is that it's riskier because we know what happened, well that doesn't float, cause it could have just as easily been fumbled (cause remember - Wilson fumbles the ball a lot himself). We were having a good game, Wilson in particular, so why not have confidence in him to get the job done?

The hyperbole on this topic is just over the top. People, both fans and supposed NFL experts, need to just calm down about the play. The call wasn't nearly as bad as the execution. Had the play been executed properly, then no one is talking about how horrible the play call is, actually no one really cares that Lynch didn't score because if executed properly we most likely win the game. The DB made a great play - It isn't like he didn't have anything to do with it. Hell, it's not like Lynch is all that sure at goal line situations (1 for 5 this year I believe, and the one was against the pathetic run defense of the Giants) because the line usually can't hold when it's a sure run play.

 

[Anointed One]

Great breakdown of the play call by Kurt Warner...

Warner doesn't credit the play call for the interception but instead said it shares blame with the Seahawks' execution of it. Receiver Jermaine Kearse needed to screen Butler on the play, but he was jammed at the line of scrimmage by another Patriots cornerback, Brandon Browner, allowing Butler to see the play develop and react unimpeded. Lockette's route also left some to be desired.

"I believe that interception was as much about the execution of the play as it was the play call," Warner said. "They had a perfect situation on the outside, they had man-to-man coverage, they had a stack formation, the inside guy (Kearse) was pressed, the outside guy (Lockette) had a guy five yards off of him (Butler). In that situation you need 1 yard – that's easy. You run a bit of a rub play, it's easy.


"What happened, the outside receiver didn't push up at all. When you push up you hold your defender because he doesn't know if you're going inside or out. You push up and it creates a little more of a rub, helps the guy on the inside. You push up and break across, I believe it's a touchdown. He goes right now, which allows Butler to see it right now, and Butler makes a phenomenal play, bee-lining to the perfect spot right where the ball was, and makes the interception."

 

[WizardHawk]

The hyperbole on this topic is just over the top. People, both fans and supposed NFL experts, need to just calm down about the play. The call wasn't nearly as bad as the execution. Had the play been executed properly, then no one is talking about how horrible the play call is, actually no one really cares that Lynch didn't score because if executed properly we most likely win the game. The DB made a great play - It isn't like he didn't have anything to do with it. Hell, it's not like Lynch is all that sure at goal line situations (1 for 5 this year I believe, and the one was against the pathetic run defense of the Giants) because the line usually can't hold when it's a sure run play.

We are on an uphill battle on this one I'm afraid. The good news is a couple of days later and some of the smarter insiders are taking a second look at it and are now saying it wasn't that bad of a call, more it was just really bad execution. More will come around.

Great breakdown of the play call by Kurt Warner...

Yeah, he did a long response on a local Arizona radio station where he broke the whole thing down. The clowns running that show kept trying to say it was the worst ever and he kept correcting them on the things they were saying. He was entirely spot on. 100% He would have still probably ran a running play, but he fully understands the choice that was made and said it was a good call given the defense and formation they had in play. Just not done right.

So basically, we were in position to win it because of Kearse's great play and then lost it because of Kearse's inability to get a simple rub. That's football.

 

[WizardHawk]

Maybe you can be a little more specific here.

I can understand if some posters are being disrespectful while coming on your boards to discuss your team but that does not seem to be your complaint.

Don't worry, fans are often overly sensitive in the aftermath of these things and push back against outsiders, but none of these guys can do anything about it.

As long as non hawks fans aren't trolling or taunting up here Harold and I won't stop them from posting here. We always welcome all who want to have a discussion. Just can't be a jackass.

And no, you weren't, nor have the pats fans that are up here right now.

The hardest part for outsiders is basically it's ok for hawks fans to be asses on their own board, but you can't be one back to them or you are gone. It's not fair, but that's how it is and how it should be. Save the return fighting for the general board.

 

[ElTexan]

I'm actually posting in support of the Seahawks coaches and the mega-fans are trying to ban me and telling me to take a hike. Irony.

 

[WizardHawk]

I'm actually posting in support of the Seahawks coaches and the mega-fans are trying to ban me and telling me to take a hike. Irony.

You won't get banned for your opinion. You would only get banned for trolling or attacking. I know it's hard when you are being attacked first, but just keep how you say things in as much check as you can and it's all good. We aren't that ban happy up here. Just keep it fairly civil.

 

[JMR]

I definitely hope this is a place where non-Seattle fans want to come and contribute to a good discussion.

 

[ElTexan]

I definitely hope this is a place where non-Seattle fans want to come and contribute to a good discussion.

I wrote this right after the super bowl and have been pasting it without insult IN SUPPORT OF SEATTLE COACHES, and all I get back is rant, name-calling, etc.
Here it is in cold, clean, logic. Can anyone counter this substantively:

26 seconds, 1 time out, 2nd down. There are three options:

A. Run Lynch twice and not even worry about running a play on a 4th down... a 4th down you'll never see because of time. We call this option the DUMB option.

B. Run Lynch on 2nd down, call Time Out, and then the Defense knows that you have to Pass on 3rd.

C. Throw on 2nd which saves Time Out and keeps options open on 3rd [run or pass].

=====================

All options run Lynch twice.
C. is the best option, which is what Carroll did.