Lesson Learned

[VerticalThreat]

 

My issue is mostly with Pete Carroll's explanation after the game.

 

Here's what Carroll said: "We sent in our personnel, they sent in their goal-line. It was not the right matchup for us to run the football, so on second down we throw the ball to really kind of waste that play. If we score, we do, if we don't, then we run it on third and fourth down."

 

He also mentioned wanting to run out the clock so as not to give Tom Brady time for a comeback. So, with 26 seconds left in the game, from the one yard line with a human wrecking ball whom everyone refers to as "Beast Mode" standing in your backfield, you throw a "wasted play" over the middle? I'll call BS on that.  

 

For 2 years the Seahawks have claimed (and played like) one of, if not the best, defenses in NFL history. You have 1 timeout left and you're worried about your "elite" defense having to defend for what would end up being about :15 seconds? I'll say it. You don't deserve to win and you don't deserve to refer to your defense as elite if you yourself don't even believe that. Your decision would show that you don't truly believe the "rah-rah" message you deliver.

 

Like Jeremy said, "If you cannot impose your will at the most critical time, you don't deserve to win."

 

 

They had the game where they wanted and all they had to do was do what they've done every game all season. Pound the rock and then let your defense win the game. 

[csx]

 

 

I understand Seattle's thinking in the situation. New England was in their goal line defense and appeared ready to sell out and stop the run. A seemingly reasonable option then would be to throw the ball. Unfortunately for Seattle, the old saying "Three things can happen when you throw the ball, and two of them are bad" rang true.

 

 

 

Bellichick said they had extra DBs in compared to a pure goal line defense because they anticipated a possible pass play. It wasn't a standard goal line defense according to Bellichick.

[chknwing]

I'm sure that appeals to the testosterone in us men. However, sometimes team match up well and the other team can make plays too. so then strategy comes into play, not just imposing will.

[TheRed]

Carroll can go with 3 plays if he passes, only 2 if he runs.

Seahawks ran Lynch from the 1 yd line 5 times this past season and he scored only once.

Just a call, not the worst in history

I agree. Honestly it wasn't that bad, the Patriots defender just made a hell of a play, give him credit. It happens.

[Mr. Scot]

Passing isn't the problem, it is the type of pass... high risk there

Yep.

Play action followed by a pass to the left flat or something of that sort would have been fine (something high percentage).

[Mr. Scot]

One thing you have to remember listening to anything Carroll says...

Pretty good chance he's lying to cover for his people.

[teeray]

Interesting point by Gil Brandt on twitter.

Lynch had 5 carries from 1 yard line this season.

Only scored once.

Did that play a factor in the decision?

[Jeremy Igo]

Interesting point by Gil Brandt on twitter.

Lynch had 5 carries from 1 yard line this season.

Only scored once.

Did that play a factor in the decision?

How did he do on his run just prior to the 2nd and 1?

[csx]

This from Bill Bellichick suggests they were expecting a pass potential. Both teams were playing with personnell from a prior substitution. I dont brlieve either had the ability to put in their true goal line packages since timeouts were not called. The Pats likely did not want to give them the chance to put in the extra big bodies.

"We would have used our timeouts if that had been a running play on the interception," Belichick said. "We might have done that. We put in our goal line defense with just corners. It wasn’t true goal line because they had three receivers in the game. So we were in our goal line with all eight guys stacked on the line of scrimmage and we were man-to-man on the three receivers. We prepare for that situation as part of our goal line package -- three corners, two corners, one corner, no corners if they have all tight ends and an offensive line in there. That’s what they were in for that play.”

[teeray]

How did he do on his run just prior to the 2nd and 1?

It is different running from the 5 and running from the 1.

I also think that sense there was 35 seconds left and they only had one timeout they may have been thinking:

2nd down- Pass: TD or at least stops the clock with incompletion

3Rd down Run: if we don't get it use last TO

4th down- whatevs, last play

They had the look they wanted. Defender made a good play and other WR missed pick.

I am not just sticking up for the guy, they very well could have run it, if they didn't get it throw on 3rd down and done whatever on 4th.

Just trying to lend perspective. Lynch didn't have a great success rate from the 1 yard line this season. That may have been a factor in the decision to pass. Still can be wron decision, I am just asking if that possibly played a part in the decision.

[Jeremy Igo]

I'm not so sure 5 carries is a large enough sample size to determine much considering how many variables are involved.

[teeray]

This from Bill Bellichick suggests they were expecting a pass potential. Both teams were playing with personnell from a prior substitution. I dont brlieve either had the ability to put in their true goal line packages since timeouts were not called. The Pats likely did not want to give them the chance to put in the extra big bodies.

"We would have used our timeouts if that had been a running play on the interception," Belichick said. "We might have done that. We put in our goal line defense with just corners. It wasn’t true goal line because they had three receivers in the game. So we were in our goal line with all eight guys stacked on the line of scrimmage and we were man-to-man on the three receivers. We prepare for that situation as part of our goal line package -- three corners, two corners, one corner, no corners if they have all tight ends and an offensive line in there. That’s what they were in for that play.”

I think that is exactly what they likely saw. 8 in the box and man outside. And they had a good playcall for that coverage it just didnt work out.

Having said that, if it was me I would have had everyone at the line and either ran with Lynch or booted Wilson with TE and one of those run/pass options.

But I am a message board poster and not an OC so what do I know

[teeray]

I'm not so sure 5 carries is a large enough sample size to determine much considering how many variables are involved.

One of those variable being that Super Bowl was on the line so do you go with a 20% success rate with Super Bowl on the line?

I get it though. I understand why people are critical of the playcall. I was to at first glance and still agree they should have gone to Lynch. I am just playing a little Devil's advocate.

When I was watching I was wondering why they were even in a shotgun formation when they lined up. My thinking was pound the ball, if u don't get it use a timeout and pass on 3rd and 4th.

But, for instance, what if they run the ball on 2nd, don't get it, use their last timeout and on 3rd Russell gets sacked.

You can't spike it because it is 4th down and you have to panic and get a 4th down playcall in with clock going to 0 and no personnel changes.

That is why I think they threw on 2nd. Then run on 3rd. If u don't get in use timeout and make sure u have good playcall and personnel on 4th.

But again, I am playing devil's advocate a little bit

[Jeremy Igo]

One of those variable being that Super Bowl was on the line so do you go with a 20% success rate with Super Bowl on the line?

I get it though. I understand why people are critical of the playcall. I was to at first glance and still agree they should have gone to Lynch. I am just playing a little Devil's advocate.

When I was watching I was wondering why they were even in a shotgun formation when they lined up. My thinking was pound the ball, if u don't get it use a timeout and pass on 3rd and 4th.

That 20% success rate is invalid due to sample size and variables. Too simplistic. Doesn't mean much.