So Bevell says...

[TheDman875]

We ran that play to kill the clock.



Someone drug test this idiot. A play call to throw the ball in heavy traffic to kill the clock. Brilliant.

Bye Bevell.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

Bevell needs to be gone... I"m serious... And right now NO ONE is gonna hire him... The league is bashing him like he's a crazy man right now... And they should ... I think every O coordinator in the NFL was scratching there head thinking WTF did I just watch ? Emitt Smith called it the worst call in Super Bowl history... And he's right...

 

[droider]

We ran that play to kill the clock.



Someone drug test this idiot. A play call to throw the ball in heavy traffic to kill the clock. Brilliant.

Bye Bevell.

And not only that, but throwing to the end zone from any point on the field doesn't kill clock. It either gets caught for a TD (clock stops), falls incomplete (clock stops), or gets intercepted (clock stops + game over).

And throwing into the end zone from the 1 yard line certainly 'kills' it the least.

There's just so many funny things that can be said about his statement that you almost have to wonder if the guy lives on another planet.

 

[TheDman875]

I hope Paul Allen saran wrapped him around a cactus and left him in AZ.

 

[blstoker]

We ran that play to kill the clock.

That isn't what he said, he said they were conscious of the clock and wanted to use it.

They felt that they had three chances at the end zone in the time remaining if they threw the ball on the first attempt - cause they trusted with Wilson that the result would be TD or INC, not INT. Had it been INC, then they run the ball with Lynch. If he doesn't get in, then TO and then one more shot for the game. It's unfortunate that the pass was INT, but the idea behind their play calling had nothing to do with running the clock out.

 

[WizardHawk]

That isn't what he said, he said they were conscious of the clock and wanted to use it.

They felt that they had three chances at the end zone in the time remaining if they threw the ball on the first attempt - cause they trusted with Wilson that the result would be TD or INC, not INT. Had it been INC, then they run the ball with Lynch. If he doesn't get in, then TO and then one more shot for the game. It's unfortunate that the pass was INT, but the idea behind their play calling had nothing to do with running the clock out.

I've been trying to say that in the other thread. Seems there is no one interested in what actually happened, just finding reasons to fuel their blind hatred.

 

[blstoker]

I've been trying to say that in the other thread. Seems there is no one interested in what actually happened, just finding reasons to fuel their blind hatred.

Yeah, I've seen people talk about three running attempts, and I'm just not seeing their logic on how we'd get three chances running the ball in that situation.

 

[TheDman875]

I'll concede the loose terminology being used, but I'm still miffed at an inside slant call. A corner fade route with that many defenders stacked in the box has a much MUCH higher chance of going incomplete instead of being picked. Carroll wanted to pass? Fine, but Bevell called the play which was right in to the teeth of that defensive formation that was expecting Lynch to get the football.

 

[droider]

Wiz and Stoker - You guys are also forgetting that Bevell's play calling also killed us once we went up 10 with plenty of time still left in the 3rd qtr.

We went 3 and out on the next 4 series where he had Wilson throw the ball 75% of the time. I kept talking about this in the game thread.. why was he calling plays as if we were down 10, instead of up 10? It was like he suddenly opened the play book but for no good reason.

We totally got away from the running game once we went up 10 and that's what really cost us the game. Go watch the replay if you didn't notice it while it was happening. Bevell even threw on 3rd & 2 when we should've run and were close to FG range. But instead he called a very low % throw to Kearse who couldn't quite haul it in, we had to punt.

The focus right now is on the last play because it's easy to target, but Bevell totally flipped the script on our offensive game plan after we went up 10 and it cost us the title.

 

[WizardHawk]

I'll concede the loose terminology being used, but I'm still miffed at an inside slant call. A corner fade route with that many defenders stacked in the box has a much MUCH higher chance of going incomplete instead of being picked. Carroll wanted to pass? Fine, but Bevell called the play which was right in to the teeth of that defensive formation that was expecting Lynch to get the football.

A corner route vs two of the leagues top corners instead of inside routes vs guys you match up well against considering they were in goal line defense?

Was there a better play to be called if you thought a pass was in order? I don't know and I'd be open to consider other options, but a corner fade is NOT one of them. Revis would have destroyed that and you aren't getting one over Browner.

The focus right now is on the last play because it's easy to target, but Bevell totally flipped the script on our offensive game plan after we went up 10 and it cost us the title.

Valid criticism. The problem again is understanding the match ups and what their game plan charts tell them. I'd have to see what defense they were running to even comment. Were they stuffing the box to force those plays?

 

[blstoker]

We went 3 and out on the next 4 series where he had Wilson throw the ball 75% of the time. I kept talking about this in the game thread.. why was he calling plays as if we were down 10, instead of up 10? It was like he suddenly opened the play book but for no good reason.

You throw that number around, but it's exaggerated:

Pass - 25 yard gain
run - 2 yard gain
pass - 6 y ard gain
pass - incomplete

run - 2 yards gain
run - 1 yard gain
pass - sack

pass - incomplete
run - 5 yard gain
pass - incomplete

So, it was 4 runs for 10 yards and six passes for 23 yards. for such a small sample size (from the time the Seahawks went up 24-14 til they were down 28-24), it's still pretty balanced. Staying balanced would have been key had the offense managed more than 1 first down in 3 drives, and half of those pass plays happened on 3rd down. Doesn't really look like the "got away" from the run, just happened to have more passes than runs at the time. We weren't gonna be able to kill the clock with 14 minutes left in the game, so running the ball every play would have had the same result (if not worse) than what actually happened.

 

[WizardHawk]

What were the other options they could have taken?
The clock was running, second down, one TO left, they had 11 personnel on the field and the Pats had goal line.

1. Run a different pass play. Reason to pass to begin with is to setup for 3 tries at the end zone. First one either scores or stops the clock with an incomplete giving you time to switch to your goal line offense and then the TO stops the clock after the first running play setting up 4th and game. If you don't like the inside pass then a different pass play. As stated above, a corner fade is a BAD idea against their corners. So TE? Who knows. Not sure any other pass play has a higher chance.

2. Go for a run anyway, knowing your match up was shit. You are then giving your team just one chance at it with your goal line offense after the TO you undoubtedly would have used due to a very low chance of beating them with that 11 set you were in.

3. Call the TO anyway, set your goal line offense out there with standing order to spike the ball in the event you don't make it. Always dicey, but it gives you two shots at running it in your sets without a pass.

 

[droider]

You throw that number around, but it's exaggerated:

Pass - 25 yard gain
run - 2 yard gain
pass - 6 y ard gain
pass - incomplete

run - 2 yards gain
run - 1 yard gain
pass - sack

pass - incomplete
run - 5 yard gain
pass - incomplete

So, it was 4 runs for 10 yards and six passes for 23 yards. for such a small sample size (from the time the Seahawks went up 24-14 til they were down 28-24), it's still pretty balanced. Staying balanced would have been key had the offense managed more than 1 first down in 3 drives, and half of those pass plays happened on 3rd down. Doesn't really look like the "got away" from the run, just happened to have more passes than runs at the time. We weren't gonna be able to kill the clock with 14 minutes left in the game, so running the ball every play would have had the same result (if not worse) than what actually happened.

I didn't say we should've run it every play. Whatsmore, the types of throws that were called were all medium depth balls, not a single throw to the LOS or a screen. We also had decent field position on all of those possessions, so we wasted several opportunities at more points.

Also, how could have it been any 'worse' even if we did run the ball each time? Not only did we not score any points either way, but all those incompletions stopped the clock and the Pats scored the game winner at 2 mins.

 

[WizardHawk]

So droider, what play option above should they have taken instead of the one they did?

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

Everything that happened in the game was irrelevant to me when it was second and goal from the half yard line with the Super Bowl on the line.... That is all that mattered... HAND THE BALL TO LYNCH... I don't care if you have to hand it to him 3 times in a row.... HAND THE BALL TO LYNCH...

 

[WizardHawk]

Everything that happened in the game was irrelevant to me when it was second and goal from the half yard line with the Super Bowl on the line.... That is all that mattered... HAND THE BALL TO LYNCH... I don't care if you have to hand it to him 3 times in a row.... HAND THE BALL TO LYNCH...

It was at the 1y line exactly, not half.

There wasn't any option for 3 runs.

If they ran it without a TO they were in 11 (1 TE, 1 RB rest WR's) against goal line. The odds of making that, even with the best RB in the league, isn't that high.

If you call the TO and get your group in you have one shot, maybe two if you spike it in time. You are selling all out on running.

You can't just say they should have ran it without saying HOW and why that is a better option besides the obvious "because what they did didn't work"

 

[TheDman875]

A corner route vs two of the leagues top corners instead of inside routes vs guys you match up well against considering they were in goal line defense?

Was there a better play to be called if you thought a pass was in order? I don't know and I'd be open to consider other options, but a corner fade is NOT one of them. Revis would have destroyed that and you aren't getting one over Browner.

That's just it. Browner was on Kearse, Revis was on Baldwin, and Butler was on Lockette. There were only 3 DB's on that play if I'm not mistaken. An inside slant in that much traffic, too many things can happen. A tipped ball to a defender, or in this case a jumped route as Lockette got hammered as the ball was picked. Even if one of those two corners disrupt a corner route, the odds are much better the ball doesn't get picked in an isolated one on one matchup. I was asking myself why the TE's weren't being utilized at all tonight. Granted Willson doesn't have the best of hands, but I liked those odds better with a LB on him than throwing it in to heavy traffic.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

It was at the 1y line exactly, not half.

There wasn't any option for 3 runs.

If they ran it without a TO they were in 11 (1 TE, 1 RB rest WR's) against goal line. The odds of making that, even with the best RB in the league, isn't that high.

If you call the TO and get your group in you have one shot, maybe two if you spike it in time. You are selling all out on running.

You can't just say they should have ran it without saying HOW and why that is a better option besides the obvious "because what they did didn't work"

Then get the right personal in there after Lynch's first run... We had time... There is just no excuse .. And if you hell bent on trying a throw play it safer... Play action ROLL out with Wilson and take a shot in the corner, if it's not there Wilson can throw it away or run for the TD himself... Don't run a dam slant in the middle of the defense... It was a very risky play call...

 

[blstoker]

I didn't say we should've run it every play. Whatsmore, the types of throws that were called were all medium depth balls, not a single throw to the LOS or a screen. We also had decent field position on all of those possessions, so we wasted several opportunities at more points.

First, how is the Seahawks' 20, 36 and 20 decent field position?

Second, it's now not too many passes but what passes were called? Wilson was 7-10 for 141 yards and 2 touchdowns running those plays, because they were working. If Marshawn Lynch doesn't stop his route with 7 minutes left in the fourth, we most likely get at least a field goal out of that drive and take another 3 minutes off the clock.

The team played a great game, and they could very easily be the ones to have raised the trophy after the game, but it didn't work out that way, and it was more than one poor call/poorly executed play that cost them the game.

 

[WizardHawk]

That's just it. Browner was on Kearse, Revis was on Baldwin, and Butler was on Lockette. There were only 3 DB's on that play if I'm not mistaken. An inside slant in that much traffic, too many things can happen. A tipped ball to a defender, or in this case a jumped route as Lockette got hammered as the ball was picked. Even if one of those two corners disrupt a corner route, the odds are much better the ball doesn't get picked. I was asking myself why the TE's weren't being utilized at all tonight. Granted Willson doesn't have the best of hands, but I liked those odds better than throwing it in to heavy traffic.

Well then it would be nice to know if the route to Lockette was the primary. I don't know if the TE route was hot on that play or not. Maybe that info will come out. Still, most people are saying it was the idea of any pass vs run that is proof Bevell is the worst play caller in league history.