Richard Sherman won't let go and it's a problem

[bababooey]

2 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Imagine Chuck Pagano making that call, and Andrew Luck throwing that pick, with the Super Bowl on the line. How would you feel about it then?

DON'T YOU PUT THAT EVIL ON ME RICKY BOBBY

[Steamboat_Shaun]

27 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

The same way unfortunately, glad it wasn't them because that was real bad losing a SB like that.

 

Yep, bad call, bad execution. There's no way around it.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

2 minutes ago, bababooey said:

DON'T YOU PUT THAT EVIL ON ME RICKY BOBBY

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[wig]

2 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Imagine Chuck Pagano making that call, and Andrew Luck throwing that pick, with the Super Bowl on the line. How would you feel about it then?

 

I would be PO'd. And I would blame the coach. Not on the playcall, but knowing his personnel.  Wilson made a mistake that's inexcusable. Carroll misjudged his ability to execute and not make that mistake. 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

2 minutes ago, wig said:

 

I would be PO'd. And I would blame the coach. Not on the playcall, but knowing his personnel.  Wilson made a mistake that's inexcusable. Carroll misjudged his ability to execute and not make that mistake. 

 

Me if that exact situation happened to the Colts...

 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

12 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Me if that exact situation happened to the Colts...

 

 

Chuck Pagano if he did that to the Colts...

 

[southwest1]

11 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

To be fair I got a lot longer to think about the play then the Seahawks OC did.  Plus the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

 

Butler did make a tremendous play and like I said before I don't think this play was profoundly stupid, it just gets called that because of the result.  But if Wilson completes that pass for a TD, no one would have ever thought the play call to be strange.  If that ball falls incomplete but they got the TD on 3rd down, no one would say anything about that play call.  It's only with hindsight is this play call considered stupid. 

 

But with that hindsight I think I would have done the FB dive with Lynch faking a toss left.  Low risk, simple, along with the added bonus that the box defenders are likely going to be keying in on Lynch and given the situation, all it takes is for them to hesitate for half a second.  

 

I'm not an expert either although I have somewhat of a working knowledge of them because my wife majored in psychology and was really into this stuff.  So while reading that, it's something that came to mind if all of those claims are true that he just seems somewhat bipolar.  

 

Yes, the throw by Wilson wasn't a boneheaded play at all IMO either. Like you say V-2004, it just didn't yield the desired outcome Pete Carroll & the Seahawks wanted. Football is all about calculated risks & deception. When everybody in the stadium expects you to do something, that's when you change it up & not give the ball to Lynch. And I don't think Pete was trying to make Russel Wilson the SB MVP or Skittles man either. I roll my eyes every time I hear that ridiculous conspiracy theory. 

 

I do agree though that the Hawks have never been the same juggernaut team since falling short of victory on that fateful night. I've lost some respect for Sherman over his "You suck Wilson" outburst & telling the HC what plays to not run. That's beyond the pale to me. Look, I know losing SBs blows & hurts like hades, but going after your QB & coach isn't going to solve anything just widen the fracture of resentment bubbling beneath the surface. 

 

Richard is still wicked smart & a deep critical thinker. But, if he can't let this frustration go, he will be gone from the Pacific NW since you can't allow player mutiny by the secondary against the QB & man running the football program on the field. 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

9 hours ago, bababooey said:

DON'T YOU PUT THAT EVIL ON ME RICKY BOBBY

 

Big Like. 

 

(Hey Mods/Admins, let's get this "Big Like" thing rolling.  One per person per day)

[AZColt11]

3 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Big Like. 

 

(Hey Mods/Admins, let's get this "Big Like" thing rolling.  One per person per day)

I can't big like this......so a regular like will have to suffice.

[Valpo2004]

12 hours ago, southwest1 said:

Yes, the throw by Wilson wasn't a boneheaded play at all IMO either. Like you say V-2004, it just didn't yield the desired outcome Pete Carroll & the Seahawks wanted. Football is all about calculated risks & deception. When everybody in the stadium expects you to do something, that's when you change it up & not give the ball to Lynch. And I don't think Pete was trying to make Russel Wilson the SB MVP or Skittles man either. I roll my eyes every time I hear that ridiculous conspiracy theory. 

 

I do agree though that the Hawks have never been the same juggernaut team since falling short of victory on that fateful night. I've lost some respect for Sherman over his "You suck Wilson" outburst & telling the HC what plays to not run. That's beyond the pale to me. Look, I know losing SBs blows & hurts like hades, but going after your QB & coach isn't going to solve anything just widen the fracture of resentment bubbling beneath the surface. 

 

Richard is still wicked smart & a deep critical thinker. But, if he can't let this frustration go, he will be gone from the Pacific NW since you can't allow player mutiny by the secondary against the QB & man running the football program on the field. 

 

Exactly, it was a bit more risk then I would have liked given the situation but it wasn't extraordinarily risky.  It wasn't like they call the fumblerooski or something.  (And yes I'm aware that play is illegal.)

[GoPats]

On 5/26/2017 at 5:49 PM, bababooey said:

Dude, it was a TERRIBLE call.

 

The slant was not the right call, I agree with that part. Too much traffic and too risky to throw it inside. But I don't think it was outlandishly bad for them to throw there. 

 

It was second down, and the Seahawks had one timeout left. The clock was running. If they get stuffed on 2nd down, they're forced to call their final timeout, and then they almost HAVE to throw on 3rd down, with no timeouts left.

 

Just to reiterate, Lynch ran for a loss or no gain on four of his five attempts from the 1-yard line in the 2014 season. Only punched it in once. 

 

[bababooey]

44 minutes ago, GoPats said:

 

The slant was not the right call, I agree with that part. Too much traffic and too risky to throw it inside. But I don't think it was outlandishly bad for them to throw there. 

 

It was second down, and the Seahawks had one timeout left. The clock was running. If they get stuffed on 2nd down, they're forced to call their final timeout, and then they almost HAVE to throw on 3rd down, with no timeouts left.

 

Just to reiterate, Lynch ran for a loss or no gain on four of his five attempts from the 1-yard line in the 2014 season. Only punched it in once. 

 

He just got 5 yards the play before, they marched down the field that drive, everyone is gassed. It's incomparable to how he did from the 1 earlier in the season. You have the best RB in the game at the time in your backfield in that situation and just got 5 yards the play before, you run it. If he gets stuffed, you can run it again or throw it if you want to.

 

It will never not be a horrible call, please stop saying it wasn't.

[NewColtsFan]

 

Also,  Lynch was stopped twice in the Super Bowl on 3rd and 1...

 

Punching it in was not a slam-dunk lock.     But the call was bad.       Shockingly bad.

 

 

 

[aaron11]

3 hours ago, GoPats said:

 

The slant was not the right call, I agree with that part. Too much traffic and too risky to throw it inside. But I don't think it was outlandishly bad for them to throw there. 

 

It was second down, and the Seahawks had one timeout left. The clock was running. If they get stuffed on 2nd down, they're forced to call their final timeout, and then they almost HAVE to throw on 3rd down, with no timeouts left.

 

Just to reiterate, Lynch ran for a loss or no gain on four of his five attempts from the 1-yard line in the 2014 season. Only punched it in once. 

 

 

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Also,  Lynch was stopped twice in the Super Bowl on 3rd and 1...

 

Punching it in was not a slam-dunk lock.     But the call was bad.       Shockingly bad.

 

lots of ways to interpret the stats

 

does anyone have their numbers for passing at the one yard line or on third and one?  i doubt they look that much better

 

the number one rushing team had three downs to gain a single yard, i think they would have got there by running or maybe a read option.  

 

i think there was time for two runs then a time out.  some disagree, but we will never really know i guess

[GoPats]

2 hours ago, bababooey said:

He just got 5 yards the play before, they marched down the field that drive, everyone is gassed. It's incomparable to how he did from the 1 earlier in the season. You have the best RB in the game at the time in your backfield in that situation and just got 5 yards the play before, you run it. If he gets stuffed, you can run it again or throw it if you want to.

 

It will never not be a horrible call, please stop saying it wasn't.

 

They marched down the field via the pass. There was a swing pass to Lynch that he turned into a 30-yard gain to start the drive. They picked up zero yards on the ground until that second-to-last play. 

 

I'm just saying, it's easy to sit here and say "terrible call!" knowing how it all ended. At the time, calling a pass play on that down was not that ridiculous. 

 

 

[bababooey]

55 minutes ago, GoPats said:

 

They marched down the field via the pass. There was a swing pass to Lynch that he turned into a 30-yard gain to start the drive. They picked up zero yards on the ground until that second-to-last play. 

 

I'm just saying, it's easy to sit here and say "terrible call!" knowing how it all ended. At the time, calling a pass play on that down was not that ridiculous. 

 

 

It was so ridiculous and everyone knows it. You were given a gift, on top of the gift you got this year. Just be happy.

[footballhero1]

20 minutes ago, bababooey said:

It was so ridiculous and everyone knows it. You were given a gift, on top of the gift you got this year. Just be happy.

1. They drove down the field off a pass to Lynch before the 2 minute warning and then Kearse catch (which was about as much of gift as anything in that game).

 

2. Running 5 yards against a different formation isn't the same as running 5 yards goal line. It's a fact that Lynch got stuffed most of that game. It's a fact that Lynch was very bad in short yardage situations that year. He's a good player but he was overhyped because Peterson was injured and he was the best back in the best team, along with his press antics. He wasn't some no brainer lock like people try to pretend he was. 

 

3. Calling a pass play on 2nd down was the most efficient call they could make given the clock and the time out situation. It was the only time you could make the team guess and the only way you could have gauranteed 3 chances instead of 2 (which is significant). If its incomplete there, then you have two chances to run with Lynch and don't have to worry about the clock. 

 

4. That entire season no passes were intercepted in that position on the field. So if you are keeping score, the odds of an interception were low, Lynch's short yardage situations stats were very poor, and the most efficient clock management tactic was a pass. Everything you can actually measure before delving into hyperbole supports the pass. 

 

5. The only reason that ball was intercepted was because Butler made a great play he jumping the route AND Wilson made an off pass when he should have protected the ball more. If Butler is a fraction of a second slower or Wilson places the ball even a couple of inches closer to his receiver it's at worst an incompletion, realistically a TD. 

 

The only reason everybody "knows" it's a bad call is because of the outcome and media hysteria. 

[bababooey]

18 minutes ago, footballhero1 said:

1. They drove down the field off a pass to Lynch before the 2 minute warning and then Kearse catch (which was about as much of gift as anything in that game).

 

2. Running 5 yards against a different formation isn't the same as running 5 yards goal line. It's a fact that Lynch got stuffed most of that game. It's a fact that Lynch was very bad in short yardage situations that year. He's a good player but he was overhyped because Peterson was injured and he was the best back in the best team, along with his press antics. He wasn't some no brainer lock like people try to pretend he was. 

 

3. Calling a pass play on 2nd down was the most efficient call they could make given the clock and the time out situation. It was the only time you could make the team guess and the only way you could have gauranteed 3 chances instead of 2 (which is significant). If its incomplete there, then you have two chances to run with Lynch and don't have to worry about the clock. 

 

4. That entire season no passes were intercepted in that position on the field. So if you are keeping score, the odds of an interception were low, Lynch's short yardage situations stats were very poor, and the most efficient clock management tactic was a pass. Everything you can actually measure before delving into hyperbole supports the pass. 

 

5. The only reason that ball was intercepted was because Butler made a great play he jumping the route AND Wilson made an off pass when he should have protected the ball more. If Butler is a fraction of a second slower or Wilson places the ball even a couple of inches closer to his receiver it's at worst an incompletion, realistically a TD. 

 

The only reason everybody "knows" it's a bad call is because of the outcome and media hysteria. 

It was the worst call in history, but I'm glad you took the time to write such a ridiculous and long winded response.

[footballhero1]

4 hours ago, bababooey said:

It was the worst call in history, but I'm glad you took the time to write such a ridiculous and long winded response.

So I laid out the realities of all the relevant statistics and the situation (as others have) and your retort is "no it was the worst call ever". 

 

Actually it was a perfectly fine call that went the wrong way and the only fact to dispute it is that one CB recognized the play, one CB jumped the route and made a great play, and one QB threw a bad pass that made it vulnerable. 

 

I'm glad you took no time to have to no real argument besides "everybody thinks it is". 

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, footballhero1 said:

So I laid out the realities of all the relevant statistics and the situation (as others have) and your retort is "no it was the worst call ever". 

 

Actually it was a perfectly fine call that went the wrong way and the only fact to dispute it is that one CB recognized the play, one CB jumped the route and made a great play, and one QB threw a bad pass that made it vulnerable. 

 

I'm glad you took no time to have to no real argument besides "everybody thinks it is". 

It's all opinion. The most popular opinion is it was a bad call. That comes from all over the board including the media and pretty much anyone who knows football.

If you have a different opinion that's fine but it don't match too many others.

[footballhero1]

9 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

It's all opinion. The most popular opinion is it was a bad call. That comes from all over the board including the media and pretty much anyone who knows football.

If you have a different opinion that's fine but it don't match too many others.

It not an opinion if EVERY SINGLE RELEVANT stat you could possibly use to contextualize it says the opposite of that opinion. By throwing that ball they up their odds of scoring by 33%, they give themselves the element of surprise which they immediatly lose if they elect to run and fail the first time, Lynch failed far more than he succeeded in converting on short yardage situations that year, he got stuffed in that game on multiple short yardage plays (the best argument against that is a weak argument about him running for 5 yards against a completely different formation where he got stopped by a LB with a bad shoulder who needed surgery a couple days later), that entire season only one pass out of 99 thrown on at the 1 were intercepted (it was that one).

 

The only argument against it is that it failed, where there were a number of reasons why it failed outside of the play being called (a great play by a CB, another CB jamming the pick, a poor throw by the QB) and that with almost no proof at all the thought that Lynch was automatic (he wasn't by any factor you could measure). He wasn't even the RB that year. 

 

Saying everybody thinks it, isn't a good argument. If that was an incompletion, nobody would ever question that play call. If that was a TD, it's a clutch play call. Something very improbable happened on a play call designed to manage the clock that's only chance of being intercepted was two CB's reading and playing the play perfectly and a QB not protecting the ball. One of those 3 things doesn't happen, it's a TD or an incompletion (and it would have had to be an even worse throw than the one we got to not be a TD in that case). 

 

It's hindsight bias. Too many statistical measurements support the play call and two many in game variables were part of the failure of the play. It was a combination of poor mistakes by the QB and good execution by the CB's of the other team. 

 

The biggest argument you could make against that play is that you could have thrown a harder to catch, yet safer, ball out the back of the endzone. But then again, on the actual play only one person was near the ball on the other team. A receiver who recognized the play and jumped the route because someone else jammed the indended pick, who if he was even a fraction of a second off, can't make that interception.

 

I'm sorry, but you can't say "you win the game if you run Lynch". The facts and his play don't back that up. He's never been an automatic back. He's not even a HOF RB, let alone Adrian Peterson or something. 

 

 

[ReMeDy]

On 5/26/2017 at 3:21 PM, GoPats said:

 

Look at Lynch's stats on short-yardage carries that season. The Patriots also stuffed him on several runs late in the game. It was second down.

 

 

I agree with you, but here's the thing: Lynche is the Seahawks best weapon on that offense, and was performing insanely well, including having a great long passing reception during that final drive. Lynche was clearly fired up. Instead, the Seahawks didn't use their best weapon, and now we're left wondering, "What if?"

 

If the Seahawks had lost using Lynche, I would have been fine with that, but instead, we never got the chance to see him try. That to me is a travesty.

[crazycolt1]

7 hours ago, footballhero1 said:

It not an opinion if EVERY SINGLE RELEVANT stat you could possibly use to contextualize it says the opposite of that opinion. By throwing that ball they up their odds of scoring by 33%, they give themselves the element of surprise which they immediatly lose if they elect to run and fail the first time, Lynch failed far more than he succeeded in converting on short yardage situations that year, he got stuffed in that game on multiple short yardage plays (the best argument against that is a weak argument about him running for 5 yards against a completely different formation where he got stopped by a LB with a bad shoulder who needed surgery a couple days later), that entire season only one pass out of 99 thrown on at the 1 were intercepted (it was that one).

 

The only argument against it is that it failed, where there were a number of reasons why it failed outside of the play being called (a great play by a CB, another CB jamming the pick, a poor throw by the QB) and that with almost no proof at all the thought that Lynch was automatic (he wasn't by any factor you could measure). He wasn't even the RB that year. 

 

Saying everybody thinks it, isn't a good argument. If that was an incompletion, nobody would ever question that play call. If that was a TD, it's a clutch play call. Something very improbable happened on a play call designed to manage the clock that's only chance of being intercepted was two CB's reading and playing the play perfectly and a QB not protecting the ball. One of those 3 things doesn't happen, it's a TD or an incompletion (and it would have had to be an even worse throw than the one we got to not be a TD in that case). 

 

It's hindsight bias. Too many statistical measurements support the play call and two many in game variables were part of the failure of the play. It was a combination of poor mistakes by the QB and good execution by the CB's of the other team. 

 

The biggest argument you could make against that play is that you could have thrown a harder to catch, yet safer, ball out the back of the endzone. But then again, on the actual play only one person was near the ball on the other team. A receiver who recognized the play and jumped the route because someone else jammed the indended pick, who if he was even a fraction of a second off, can't make that interception.

 

I'm sorry, but you can't say "you win the game if you run Lynch". The facts and his play don't back that up. He's never been an automatic back. He's not even a HOF RB, let alone Adrian Peterson or something. 

 

 

Look, we all have different opinions. That is a fact of life.

There is no need for you to write a book trying to convince or change peoples minds to match your opinion.

[bababooey]

10 hours ago, footballhero1 said:

So I laid out the realities of all the relevant statistics and the situation (as others have) and your retort is "no it was the worst call ever". 

 

Actually it was a perfectly fine call that went the wrong way and the only fact to dispute it is that one CB recognized the play, one CB jumped the route and made a great play, and one QB threw a bad pass that made it vulnerable. 

 

I'm glad you took no time to have to no real argument besides "everybody thinks it is". 

It was the worst call ever in the biggest moment, ever.

[BlacknGold77]

16 hours ago, bababooey said:

It was so ridiculous and everyone knows it. You were given a gift, on top of the gift you got this year. Just be happy.

 

riiiiight, it was all a gift...

 

but apparently Seattle moving from the 50 to the 5 on 1 play because a deflected pass happened to land in the gut of a receiver lying on the ground isnt a gift??  really??

 

and tyree somehow making a catch stick to the top of his helmet isnt a gift and a fluke??

Wes Welker dropping a pass he catches 99 times out of 100 isnt a gift and a fluke??

 

point being, when you take off your pony colored glasses and look at the whole picture, flukes even themselves out.

 

and if anything, it was Atlanta who was given the gift in the 1st half.  Patriots were ahead comfortably in yards, plays and time of possession.  If not for 2 red zone turnovers they have the lead (21 pt swing as the pick took 7 off the board for NE and directly put 7 on for ATL)

[bababooey]

11 minutes ago, BlacknGold77 said:

 

riiiiight, it was all a gift...

 

but apparently Seattle moving from the 50 to the 5 on 1 play because a deflected pass happened to land in the gut of a receiver lying on the ground isnt a gift??  really??

 

and tyree somehow making a catch stick to the top of his helmet isnt a gift and a fluke??

Wes Welker dropping a pass he catches 99 times out of 100 isnt a gift and a fluke??

 

point being, when you take off your pony colored glasses and look at the whole picture, flukes even themselves out.

 

and if anything, it was Atlanta who was given the gift in the 1st half.  Patriots were ahead comfortably in yards, plays and time of possession.  If not for 2 red zone turnovers they have the lead (21 pt swing as the pick took 7 off the board for NE and directly put 7 on for ATL)

If the queen had balls she would have been a king. Every pass you mentioned was a great play that the offense had no choice to do given their situation, except Welker's. He gave the Giants a gift, definitely. Saying Atlanta was given a gift for making those plays is a joke lol.

 

Not running Lynch was the dumbest play in superbowl history, aside from Atlanta even putting the ball in the air after being in field goal range before the wheels came off. Just be happy you got two SB's gifted when some people don't even get to play in the game.

[footballhero1]

8 hours ago, ReMeDy said:

 

I agree with you, but here's the thing: Lynche is the Seahawks best weapon on that offense, and was performing insanely well, including having a great long passing reception during that final drive. Lynche was clearly fired up. Instead, the Seahawks didn't use their best weapon, and now we're left wondering, "What if?"

 

If the Seahawks had lost using Lynche, I would have been fine with that, but instead, we never got the chance to see him try. That to me is a travesty.

It doesn't matter though. The interception was an improbably outcome. More improbable than Lynch converting for a TD. If anything but that doesn't happen, it's most likely a TD. But even if it isn't, you still get to run Lynch twice. And because of the time on the clock that's all you were ever going to have time to do anyways. So you preserved how many chances you have Lynch and got yourself an extra play. The fact is if you didn't pass once you limited yourself to 2 plays instead of 3. 

 

The only thing wrong with the play play was the CB made an all time great play, a CB who played on the team last year jammed the player in charge of making a pick, and Wilson threw a bad ball. 

 

If your argument is you should run Lynch, you still were going to be able to. If your argument is you shouldn't pass at all, you are arguing to limit yourself to two plays instead of three. The only real argument is throw a pass that's more difficult to complete but harder to intercept. 

[aaron11]

24 minutes ago, footballhero1 said:

It doesn't matter though. The interception was an improbably outcome. More improbable than Lynch converting for a TD. If anything but that doesn't happen, it's most likely a TD. But even if it isn't, you still get to run Lynch twice. And because of the time on the clock that's all you were ever going to have time to do anyways. So you preserved how many chances you have Lynch and got yourself an extra play. The fact is if you didn't pass once you limited yourself to 2 plays instead of 3. 

 

The only thing wrong with the play play was the CB made an all time great play, a CB who played on the team last year jammed the player in charge of making a pick, and Wilson threw a bad ball. 

 

If your argument is you should run Lynch, you still were going to be able to. If your argument is you shouldn't pass at all, you are arguing to limit yourself to two plays instead of three. The only real argument is throw a pass that's more difficult to complete but harder to intercept. 

i disagree, there was time for two runs and then a time out, meaning 3 plays total. 

[GoPats]

10 hours ago, ReMeDy said:

 

I agree with you, but here's the thing: Lynche is the Seahawks best weapon on that offense, and was performing insanely well, including having a great long passing reception during that final drive. Lynche was clearly fired up. Instead, the Seahawks didn't use their best weapon, and now we're left wondering, "What if?"

 

If the Seahawks had lost using Lynche, I would have been fine with that, but instead, we never got the chance to see him try. That to me is a travesty.

 

Well I think you certainly WOULD have seen Lynch carry the ball on 3rd and 4th down, if the pass had just been incomplete or if Wilson had the presence of mind to chuck it through the back of the end zone. It was second down, and Carroll seemed to really over-think the situation. They had one timeout left, and with the Patriots in their goal line D, Pete over-coached the situation, trying to make sure the clock didn't become an issue. 

 

It's funny but it makes you realize... the make or break moment isn't necessarily always the call, it's the execution of the call. 

 

I also hold firm that the ending was just the football gods' way of making up for the Kearse catch, lol... 

 

 

[footballhero1]

56 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i disagree, there was time for two runs and then a time out, meaning 3 plays total. 

 

There wasnt. Because they had to call a timeout after the Kearse catch they had one time out they had a single timeout. They snapped the ball with 26 seconds left in the game. 

 

The play with Butler brought the clock down to 20 seconds and that was with the benefit of the clock stopping immediately after that play because of turnover.

 

The reality is let's say Lynch gets stuffed on 2nd down. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt that it happens in the same amount of time as the Butler interception and he doesn't get held up for any extra time. The clock is still running. The entire Seattle team now has 20 seconds to get Lynch up, avoid any confusion by the Patriots, get the ref who spotting the ball to determine the spot, place the ball, call a play, get in formation for the play, and have the ref blow the ball ready for play. 

 

How is long so you think that takes? It's not 5 seconds. It's probably closer to 10-15 if everyone is rushing. So now if Lynch gets stopped again, you are risking the game ending right there. 

 

If everything is as efficient as humanly possible, your best case scenario is maybe 2-3 seconds to hopefully call a timeout before the refs let the clock expire (which is just as likely). The truth of the matter is highly unlikely and it's probably not going as clean as that. The smart money says  aren't getting two running plays called in less than 20 seconds. If you run the first time with Lynch you pretty much have to call a timeout right there and then the only way you get a third play is...... if you call a pass play and it's incomplete. 

 

A pass play play is the most efficient way to manage the game. Sometimes things happen. 

[aaron11]

34 minutes ago, footballhero1 said:

 

There wasnt. Because they had to call a timeout after the Kearse catch they had one time out they had a single timeout. They snapped the ball with 26 seconds left in the game. 

 

The play with Butler brought the clock down to 20 seconds and that was with the benefit of the clock stopping immediately after that play because of turnover.

 

The reality is let's say Lynch gets stuffed on 2nd down. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt that it happens in the same amount of time as the Butler interception and he doesn't get held up for any extra time. The clock is still running. The entire Seattle team now has 20 seconds to get Lynch up, avoid any confusion by the Patriots, get the ref who spotting the ball to determine the spot, place the ball, call a play, get in formation for the play, and have the ref blow the ball ready for play. 

 

How is long so you think that takes? It's not 5 seconds. It's probably closer to 10-15 if everyone is rushing. So now if Lynch gets stopped again, you are risking the game ending right there. 

 

If everything is as efficient as humanly possible, your best case scenario is maybe 2-3 seconds to hopefully call a timeout before the refs let the clock expire (which is just as likely). The truth of the matter is highly unlikely and it's probably not going as clean as that. The smart money says  aren't getting two running plays called in less than 20 seconds. If you run the first time with Lynch you pretty much have to call a timeout right there and then the only way you get a third play is...... if you call a pass play and it's incomplete. 

 

A pass play play is the most efficient way to manage the game. Sometimes things happen. 

sure there was time

 

they only had to hurry back to the line once, after the first running play.  after that they can try a quick run up the middle and if it doesn get in, then take a knee and call a quick time out

[footballhero1]

Just now, aaron11 said:

sure there was time

 

they only had to hurry back to the line once, after the first running play.  after that they can try a quick run up the middle and if it doesn get in, then take a knee and call a quick time out

 

They can't do anything until the refs spot the ball and blow it ready for play. 10-15 seconds for that to occur is very common. You're also hoping Lynch doesn't get hung up by the defense and it doesn't take extra time off. Then you were worrying about how much extra lag time the officials take off. A quick pass that was intercepted and stopped the clock when it was down was a 6 second run off. 

 

There wasn't time. Everything would have had to gone clean and perfectly for that to happen. 

[Synthetic]

Can't believe there is such a lengthy discussion on here about "the call" at the goal line. 

 

Had they not blown a 10 point lead late in the 4th quarter, it wouldn't have even come down to that final drive. 

 

Kinda hard to win when your defense blows a 10 point lead at the end of the game and lets the opposing QB carve them to pieces for 4 TD's. 

 

For anyone on the Seahawks defense that blames that 1 call, their hands aren't clean either. They were supposedly a historically great defense and couldn't get it done in the 4th quarter. 

 

Seattle in 2014 showed signs that their defense wasn't all that great. Remember when the Cowboys beat them and then they went that whole long streak beating up on crap opponents. They would've lost to the Packers in the NFCCG if Green Bay wasn't such amazing choke artists and did everything to choke that game away after dominating for 3 quarters and snagging 5 interceptions off Wilson. 

 

 

[Synthetic]

9 hours ago, bababooey said:

 

 

Not running Lynch was the dumbest play in superbowl history, aside from Atlanta even putting the ball in the air after being in field goal range before the wheels came off. Just be happy you got two SB's gifted when some people don't even get to play in the game.

 

Had the Seahawks defense not blown a 10 point lead, the game wouldn't have even come down to that final play at the goal line. Not counting that they needed a circus catch on their final drive to even get there.

 

That's the bottom line...For all the controversy over not giving Lynch the ball, their #1 ranked, "historic" defense, should've been able to hold on with a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter. Instead, Tom Brady went off on them and led a comeback. 

 

They weren't "gifted" either of those SB's. If not for Brady's comebacks, the Pats lose both of them. Atlanta and Seattle should've been able to hang on with large 4th quarter leads, and no one would be having this conversation about play calling on offense. 

 

 

 

 

[bababooey]

1 hour ago, Synthetic said:

 

Had the Seahawks defense not blown a 10 point lead, the game wouldn't have even come down to that final play at the goal line. Not counting that they needed a circus catch on their final drive to even get there.

 

That's the bottom line...For all the controversy over not giving Lynch the ball, their #1 ranked, "historic" defense, should've been able to hold on with a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter. Instead, Tom Brady went off on them and led a comeback. 

 

They weren't "gifted" either of those SB's. If not for Brady's comebacks, the Pats lose both of them. Atlanta and Seattle should've been able to hang on with large 4th quarter leads, and no one would be having this conversation about play calling on offense. 

 

 

 

 

Everyone on that defense was beat up, needed surgery including a guy that broke his arm in the game after intercepting Brady. It was not a very historic defense that game

[2006Coltsbestever]

Pete's call was the worst call in SB history and not running Lynch was beyond boneheaded. It doesn't matter what chain of events happened before that play call, the plays leading up to the play call have the nothing to do with the play and play call itself. I could sit here and say the Onside Kick that the Saints got ultimately lead to Peyton's INT in the SB then. Because had the Colts got that instead and scored than Peyton would've never been put in a situation where he was behind and forcing the issue to try and tie the game late. I could make a strong argument had the Colts got that kick they would've won fairly easily had they scored because the Colts would've been up 17-6 at that point instead of down 13-10. Having said that all of that, the Onside Kick had nothing to do with Peyton's decision to throw to Wayne and get picked is my point.

[dynasty13]

12 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Pete's call was the worst call in SB history and not running Lynch was beyond boneheaded. It doesn't matter what chain of events happened before that play call, the plays leading up to the play call have the nothing to do with the play and play call itself. I could sit here and say the Onside Kick that the Saints got ultimately lead to Peyton's INT in the SB then. Because had the Colts got that instead and scored than Peyton would've never been put in a situation where he was behind and forcing the issue to try and tie the game late. I could make a strong argument had the Colts got that kick they would've won fairly easily had they scored because the Colts would've been up 17-6 at that point instead of down 13-10. Having said that all of that, the Onside Kick had nothing to do with Peyton's decision to throw to Wayne and get picked is my point.

 

Valid point to an extent...but at the same time, many many football games come down to one play here, one play there, one call this way, one call that way. You can look at any result of any game ever and question why a decision was made, but by doing that you are also making the case that a different result was guaranteed should they have made said decision.

 

What if the Seahawks decided to run the ball there and the handoff was bad, or Lynch got popped and fumbled the ball. Is that not a possible outcome as well? Then the narrative is "everyone in the world knew they were going to run the ball, that was too predictable and the Patriots were ready for it". We are all just 'assuming' that Lynch gets into the endzone if the play call was different....but weirder things have happened, and sometimes we as fans are just left shaking our heads at what we just witnessed. 

 

But when people try to make the case that the Patriots were 'gifted' 2 Superbowls, it undermines the job they did clawing back from the two biggest deficits in Superbowl history. I've said this before and ill say it again: the Patriots could very easily have 7 Championships right now, and they could very easily have zero. One play here, one play there, one penalty here, one play call there...sometime's that's the only difference in the game when the two best teams in the league are battling for the title. 

[bababooey]

54 minutes ago, dynasty13 said:

 

What if the Seahawks decided to run the ball there and the handoff was bad, or Lynch got popped and fumbled the ball. Is that not a possible outcome as well? Then the narrative is "everyone in the world knew they were going to run the ball, that was too predictable and the Patriots were ready for it".

 

But when people try to make the case that the Patriots were 'gifted' 2 Superbowls, it undermines the job they did clawing back from the two biggest deficits in Superbowl history. 

If they fumbled it would be the biggest choke for sure, but not the worst play call. 

 

They were gifted two Superbowls, all Seattle had to do was run Lynch and all Atlanta had to do was not put the ball in the air when in field goal range, and again after getting the ball back. A whole series of gifts, like Christmas morning at Trump Tower.

[aaron11]

what a shock, patriots fans dont like people calling this a choke

 

everyone has pretty much made up their mind about this, and it is a matter of opinion

[bababooey]

6 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

what a shock, patriots fans dont like people calling this a choke

 

everyone has pretty much made up their mind about this, and it is a matter of opinion

That's Boston's little brother complex for ya.