Well that's the point. You are in a situation where the play your coach called requires absolute perfection or it's a turnover. In that situation, you have so much margin for error with just about any other playcall. It's like deliberately playing chess blindfolded where instead you could have been eyes open and known your opponents move in advance, and Carroll chose to play blindfolded. Also, some of the greatest most celebrated passes in SB and NFL history came on throws that weren't anywhere near "perfect," the receiver instead made a great play (helmet catch, "the catch," etc.). Can you hold Wilson a little bit accountable? Sure, I guess, but gimme a break
I hold Wilson as accountable for that interception on the goalline as I would have held Carroll/Bevell responsible if they had given it to Lynch and he fumbled (somewhere in the neighborhood of less than one percent responsibility).
"One of those downs we were likely to throw the ball and maybe two of those downs," Carroll said, "depending on how we had to save the clock to get in all of our plays. It wasn't just run the ball. That wasn't what the thought was." Pete Carroll's explanation is bizarre considering the situation. I've seen where the Seahawks are tops at the power run in short/goaline situations and the Pats are near last in same. You dance with who brung ya...
SEA was second in the league in power situations, getting stuffed just 17% of the time. Lynch converted 17 of 20 3rd/4ths & short this year. The Pats allowed opponents to score 81% of the time in power situations (runs on 3rd/4th & <2, or w/i 2 yds of goalline). Dead last in NFL.
It's not bizarre at all. What Carroll is saying is they have 3 chances to score of which only two can be runs but if they run the ball on 2nd down then they have to call their last TO and pass it on 3rd down to preserve a chance on 4th down and everyone knows they have to pass it on 3rd down so its better to pass on second down and leave some doubt about third down. Now if you say a slant is too risky that might be a legit argument but passing on 2nd down was the smart call from a strategic standpoint.
I coached high school football for years ... not once did i ever have a freshman high school football team (freshman - not even varsity) that was incapable of running three sneaks with a minute of time (and no time outs, let alone one). It's bizarre because it's completely idiotic. If a professional team can't get on the ball and run a sneak without it "getting sent in from the sidelines" then you don't deserve to be a pro head coach. In the past 48 hours, i've talked to probably 30 former high school and college coaches; not one could come up with any reasonable explanation for not running the ball three times from the one foot line. Somebody had to make "the dumbest coaching decision of all time" ... and now we know who it was.
A guy at work (who is not a football fan) tried to convince me today that it was a good call and the ONLY reason that people are saying it was a bad call is because the announcer called it one of the worst plays in history. So, yeah, 100+ million people watching the game have no way of forming an opinion themselves, the analysts, current and former players are complete morons that just have to tow the line of whatever the announcer said. Hell, 90% of people were screaming when it happened and didn't even hear what the announcer said anyway. Needless to say I told him he didn't know what the hell he was talking about.
They didn't have a minute of time. There was 26 seconds on the clock when the ball was snapped on 2nd down.
What about when Brady was in the end zone after the int? It looked as if he'll actually play it safe and take a knee. Hawks could of got the ball back. Sent from my LG-LS720 using Tapatalk
Honestly, how the hell do you not hand the ball off to Lynch 3 times. You need half a yard and the guy is a beast. He's gonna get the half yard. If you cant get half a yard in 3 plays you dont deserve the win.
My thoughts exactly. If you do the smart play and still lose then what can you do? If you do the risky/dumb play and lose then people will say that is the reason you lost, whether that's fair or not. Maybe had the run it they wouldn't have got in anyway. Maybe Lynch would have fumbled the ball. We'll never know. What we do know is they chose to throw it to a no-name WR and it cost them the Super Bowl. That's why they are getting ripped apart by everyone and, in my opinion, deservedly so.
But no one called timeout so that clock continued to run. Seattle substituted players which means that NE had to be given time to substitute as well, as per NFL rules. Seattle broke the huddle and lined up at the 36 second mark. Ball was snapped at the 26 second mark.
Yes, no kidding - they wasted a ton of time and generally did a pathetic job of managing the end of a professional football game. That's not in dispute. As I stated earlier, high school football teams are capable of getting on the ball (yes, without changing personnel) and running three sneaks in less than a minute. Of course, most high school coaches aren't under the delusion that they are the smartest guy in the room and have to trick the other team to show how brilliant you are - they just pick up the yard and win the game.
THIS ARGUMENT I can at least understand. However, do a rollout/bootleg, play action, even a fade pass, etc. LITERALLY anything else than a dangerous slant pass in the middle of the field when the margin of error is very small in those circumstances.
First, it was a pick and the pick guy ran wrong and whiffed the pick. Second, that pass has to be thrown low and inside, Russell threw it high and outside. Anything else it would have worked. Nono execution!
