I remember that. That decision was… unusual.
The big difference is 30 minutes of remaining game time vs. 30 seconds of remaining game time. Going into halftime down by 7 isn’t that bad (especially when you’re receiving the ball to start the second half). You can afford to make the risky call. Down by 4 with 30 seconds left, you give the ball to Lynch.
And as long as we’re quoting Barnwell, you should include this part too:
That’s not really proof of anything other than NFL statistics. Beast Mode was going to get in the end zone, you have to believe that. Even if he fumbled the ball away, oh well it happens I guess. Nobody would be questioning the play call.
I was stuck at work yesterday and had to watch the game on about a 90 minute delay (gotta love that DVR). So I didn’t get a chance to look at the online discussion of the game while it was in progress and I’m getting around to reading this thread this morning. I’ll agree with Omniscient and others that calling a pass there wasn’t necessarily a bad idea given the clock situation and only having one timeout (the consequence of wasting a couple of them earlier). It would have been a stretch to run Lynch 3 times there - run on 2nd down, if that doesn’t work, use the last timeout with probably 17-18 seconds on the clock. Run him again on 3rd down, if that doesn’t work, now you have to line up in a scramble for one last play. Maybe you get it off, maybe you don’t. The most likely scenario if Lynch gets stuffed on 2nd down is that they call the timeout and run a pass play on 3rd, with the defense being more keyed to the pass there.
The pass they used there wasn’t great, I would have been more inclined to use play action there and throw it out the back of the end zone if nothing was open. Definitely don’t want to throw into coverage there.
I was a little baffled at the end that NE didn’t use a timeout of their own to save some time for a last ditch drive if Seattle scored there. If that had gone the other way, which it easily could have, they would have had next to no time left on the clock. If they used a timeout (or two) there, they could have had 45-50 seconds left on the clock and probably at least one timeout left if Seattle got the TD. Not too crazy to think that they could have mounted a drive to get in FG range to tie the game there.
Anyway, hell of a game. Can’t even imagine the stress of being a fan of either team at the end of that one.
Hey, I’m satisfied with someone calling it ‘marginal’. But from the commentary, you’d think Carroll had kicked a field goal down four with 20 seconds to go, or something.
I mean, I think it was reasonable (which is a step better than ‘marginal’?). Given the time, the choices were:
- run twice (then time runs out before fourth down);
- pass on second or third down AND run on second/third and fourth down as well.
How is it not a no-brainer to take the extra free chance to score?
No way. It’s a marginal call if you stretch. Without giving them quite as much benefit of the doubt, it was a bad call. Maybe not the absolute worst in history but still a bad call.
The Patriots are among the league worst at stopping power running, i.e. exactly what Marshawn Lynch does. Passing isn’t the worst thing to do, but it is bizarre. It’s not reasonable.
It’s defensible (barely) but not reasonable.
The reasonable thing is putting the ball in the hands of your best player, which they had time to do at least twice. If your best player can’t get in the endzone, so be it. There are worse ways (as we saw) to lose the Super Bowl than relying on your best player and failing.
It’s good to see Pete Carroll taking the hit for his OC, though. That was a stand up thing to do, even if everybody knows where the fault probably lies.
I think some are taking a generic approach to a specific situation.
You have 1 yard to go, to win the super bowl. You have an insanely talented running back who plows through defenses, and an opponent who sucked at stopping him.
You also have a QB who threw 4 picks in the previous game, and any interception loses you the game, period.
You have two very safe shots to gain 1 yard if you run. You have a risky shot to gain 1 yard if you throw, and with an INT, you get zero more chances.
The optimist goes for the extra score attempt, without calculating the risk. The realist understands the risks involved and carries the ball over the goal line in dramatic and winning fashion.
Anyway, people have already picked sides on that, doubtful anyone changes their mind here.
I tend to agree, at least for most of the game. Hell, Chad Pennington could have probably run that gameplan better than Brady did.
But I’ve changed my mind on the MVP. Watching Mike & Mike, I was convinced that Brady earned the MVP fair and square with his fourth quarter heroics. That was an impressive quarter.
And no, you don’t have to do it for the entire 60 minutes. A phenomenal fourth quarter alone is plenty sufficient. Hell, some argue for Butler on the basis of a single play!
If you can’t trust the best running back in the league to get you one yard in, at least, two or, possibly, three tries, I don’t know what to say.
Hell, if you are that worried they are stacking the line for Lynch, bootleg. Lynch goes into the stack, Wilson’s a runner. he goes around the stack for six.
If you are wasting a play, throw it high. The worst possible play there is a slant into a goal line defense. Just unbelievable.
The one thing I wish I could see a replay of is myself as I went from cursing the very existence of football to jumping up and down like a little girl who just got a new pony. I can’t wait to rewatch the whole shootin’ match on the ol’ DVR.
And if you look through the Seahawks schedule this year, they beat a lot of good quarterbacks. Only Peyton Manning put up similar numbers to Brady, and the Seahawks won that game in OT. But the Seahawks managed to pretty much crush Kaepernick, Newton and Rodgers twice each.
If any good QB could have performed like Brady, then one must conclude that pretty much every coach Seattle faced this year had a bad game plan.
If you ask me what is more likely: Brady performed very, very well; or that Mike McCarthy, Jim Harbaugh, Bruce Arians, Jasan Garrett, and several other highly regarded coaches simply couldn’t put together a game plan against Seattle, I think the answer is obvious. Brady managed to execute. The other good quarterbacks that Seattle faced – Rodgers, Kaepernick, Newton, Eli Manning, and others – did not execute.
You mean, because they wanted to get half as good even faster?
And now we know the whole truth of what happened.
The Onion can be a little spotty these days, but this made me laugh.
Interesting stat that may help explain the thinking behind the playcall. According to pro-football-reference, during the 2014 season Marshawn Lynch had 5 carries from the opponent’s 1 yard line. Only once did he get a touchdown. That’s 1 for 5. The one time he scored was against the Giants, and it took three runs in a row for him to punch it in.
Cite.
Seattle’s secondary was banged up, and didn’t play as well as they had in prior games. Had they been healthy, and played as they had against those other QB’s, they would have performed better. They lost Lane to injury, and Sherman was still great, but he was the only one. The kinds of passes that Brady made yesterday were high percentage, short throws where the work was done by the receivers. And, it worked, because Seattle’s secondary didn’t play as well as they had in the past.
Give Brady credit for executing the gameplan, but were it not for a stupifyingly stupid play call, no one would have thought his performance was very special, especially after those two interceptions.
I don’t disagree with this, but I still don’t see the alternate candidates for MVP. Edelman with 9 for 109 and a TD? Vereen with 13 yards on the ground and 11 catches for 64 (this was really the run game, without the handoffs as Blount only gained 40 yards)? Gronk with 6 for 68 and a TD? Jamie Collins because he led the defense with 6 tackles?
Really there is no one else, except Butler if you want to hand out the MVP for a single play.
The Seahawks had a simply miraculous season, with many gutsy play calls along the way and an amazing win versus Green Bay that received hardly any coverage, which could have ended, upon a handoff to Skittles Lynch, with vindication for Carroll and accolades for the back-to-back Super Bowl victories. Instead it ended like the minister’s golf game in a thunderstorm in Caddyshack.
I agree with this. Unless there is an obvious choice, it’s generally the winning QB.
Butler, according to Pro Football Focus, allowed only one completion for 6 yards (outside of the fluke ball-bouncing play that got Seattle to their last play), in the game. Add in the biggest play of the game, and I wouldn’t have a problem with him getting it. Edelman would work too. Heck, even Brady is fine. It’s more a problem I have with the individual award than the team game that actually won it.
Exactly. The question facing the Seahawks wasn’t the generic “If you want to gain a yard, do you pass or give it to Lynch?”.
The question, because of the specific clock and time-out situation, was “would you rather have two Lynch runs (and no other plays), or two Lynch runs PLUS a pass?” How can anyone seriously think the right answer is the first one? Why would any competent coach give up one more chance to score?
And, while nobody will believe it because, damn it, they saw with their own eyes what happened in that one particular play, and no other similar situations could ever have possibly existed, THE PASS IS NOT REALLY RISKIER THAN THE RUN!
Well, no doubt, Carroll should have done the safe, conservative thing – just like Mike McCarthy would have done – and avoided even handing it off, to minimize fumble chances. I mean, with a mobile QB, running it in from the one, nothing bad could possibly happen, right?
[And, I can’t find it right now, but didn’t Tom Brady this year lose a fumble on a QB sneak attempt, to lose a game?]