Stupidity Rules the Day!!!!

[clydepepper]

What a play call that pass was!!!

[clydepepper]

and I was all set to get my money back on my Russell Wilson RCs...


oh well, I'll adopt the old-time Brooklyn manta:

'Wait 'til next year!'

[clydepepper]

Now, I'm hearing that Lynch REALLY wanted the ball....


Gosh, I wish he had spoken up. :D

[gregr2]

Now, I'm hearing that Lynch REALLY wanted the ball....


Gosh, I wish he had spoken up. :D

Nicely done!! :D

[vintagetoppsguy]

Seahawks fans are such hypocrites. If they would have caught that ball instead, all you would be hearing about this morning is “The Catch.” Instead, they’re calling it the worst play call ever.

You only need to look at the end of the first half to see another play call equally as bad. With six seconds to go in the half, they opted to go for the TD instead of kicking the field goal (and they would have got the ball to start the second half). Sure, it worked out, but if it hadn’t you would have been hearing about the OTHER bad play call. Why aren’t the Seahawks fans talking about that decision to go for the TD instead of the FG? Because the TD decision worked out. And if Wilson had thrown a TD instead of an interception, there would be no second guessing the play call afterwards because it would have worked out.

[jefferyepayne]

I would have run the ball. HOWEVER. I'm not an NFL coach. Would I have called for a fake field goal down 16 to the Packers? Gone for it on 4th down various times in the playoffs in critical situations?

The reality is that to succeed in the NFL you sometimes have to do what's unexpected and take a chance. I'm not sure this was exactly the play I would have called in that situation to take that chance but I applaud the Seattle coaches for going with their gut and going against the grain. If their fake field goal against the Packers hadn't worked out, they would have been skewered a game earlier.

This time it just didn't work out for them. That's football.

jeff

[tonyo]

If they would have caught that ball instead, all you would be hearing about this morning is “The Catch.” Instead, they’re calling it the worst play call ever.

You only need to look at the end of the first half to see another play call equally as bad. With six seconds to go in the half, they opted to go for the TD instead of kicking the field goal (and they would have got the ball to start the second half). Sure, it worked out, but if it hadn’t you would have been hearing about the OTHER bad play call. Why aren’t the Seahawks fans talking about that decision to go for the TD instead of the FG? Because the TD decision worked out. And if Wilson had thrown a TD instead of an interception, there would be no second guessing the play call afterwards because it would have worked out.

Great point - what a gutsy call that was at the end of the first half and Carroll will get few props for it.

I thought Pete Carroll's explanation right after the game was a good one. (paraphrasing:) "we didn't have a good personnel matchup, we thought it was a safe play, we were ready to run on 3rd and 4th down"

The kid from New England just made a great play. Browner certainly played it correctly, and apparently New England's prep for that exact play call paid off.


Congrats to the Patriots and I thought it was a terrific game.

[tonyo]

I would have run the ball. HOWEVER. I'm not an NFL coach. Would I have called for a fake field goal down 16 to the Packers? Gone for it on 4th down various times in the playoffs in critical situations?

The reality is that to succeed in the NFL you sometimes have to do what's unexpected and take a chance. I'm not sure this was exactly the play I would have called in that situation to take that chance but I applaud the Seattle coaches for going with their gut and going against the grain. If their fake field goal against the Packers hadn't worked out, they would have been skewered a game earlier.

This time it just didn't work out for them. That's football.

jeff

More good points.

More from the "I'm not an NFL coach" angle: I was actually saying that New England should've let Lynch into the endzone on his first attempt so Brady would have almost a minute to get into field goal range. HA!



I also thought the Pats drawing the offside on the next play was equally as exciting

[Econteachert205]

I certainly think pete Carroll made a mistake, but at the same time he is a great coach and Seahawks fans should be grateful for his work there.

[gregr2]

I certainly think pete Carroll made a mistake, but at the same time he is a great coach and Seahawks fans should be grateful for his work there.

Agree. He pretty much said that he made a mistake after the game.

“There is nobody to blame but me,” Carroll said. “They busted their tails and unfortunately it didn’t work out ... It’s a very, very hard lesson. I hate to learn the hard way, but there is no other way to look at it right now.”

[glchen]

Seahawks fans are such hypocrites. If they would have caught that ball instead, all you would be hearing about this morning is “The Catch.” Instead, they’re calling it the worst play call ever.

You only need to look at the end of the first half to see another play call equally as bad. With six seconds to go in the half, they opted to go for the TD instead of kicking the field goal (and they would have got the ball to start the second half). Sure, it worked out, but if it hadn’t you would have been hearing about the OTHER bad play call. Why aren’t the Seahawks fans talking about that decision to go for the TD instead of the FG? Because the TD decision worked out. And if Wilson had thrown a TD instead of an interception, there would be no second guessing the play call afterwards because it would have worked out.

There's a big difference between the end of game call and the end of 1st half call. If you miss the end of first half call, you still have the entire 2nd half to try to make it up. (See Kurt Warner's pick 6 at the end of the half against the Steelers in the SB a few years ago.) With the end of game call, you screw up, the game is over! It was just a horribly bad call. If they wanted to pass, they should have done the usual tackle eligible play action pass that you saw a lot. Then you could always throw the ball away if your receiver isn't open. You don't throw it into a huge crowd in the middle of the field. Too many bad things could have happened like a tipped ball or exactly what you saw happen on that play. Lynch gained 4 yards on the previous play, so I think the Pats were on their heels and probably in shock still over Kearse's catch. They should have just tried to pound it in with Lynch one more time. If he loses yards, you can do a run / pass option on third down. If Lynch gets stuff, you can try to run it in again.

I guess the GB game haunted the coaches in a way when they left time on the clock for Rodgers to come back and kick a field goal for a tie. However, as I have seen other articles say, you are losing, you can't afford to get cute. If it's a tie game, perhaps you can look at winding the clock down, but not when you are losing the game. Just a crazy call.

[itjclarke]

As mentioned in a couple other threads, the most surprising thing to me is that in deciding throw, they didn't use a hard play action fake to sell the run. Everyone expects run in the situation, and you get any one DB to bite, and someone's wide wide wide open. They could have done so and allowed a TE to sell block and sneak out into the flat (or even a tackle eligible like Gary suggests), or could utilize Wilson's mobilitiy and decisiveness on either a roll or a bootleg with several options to throw, or to keep.

I probably would run there, pass on 3rd down, and do whatever is needed on 4th. As was, they passed, then I'm sure would have run on 3rd and done either on 4th. I don't fault the decision to throw (they likely would have thrown on at least one of 3 downs), as much as the play design/call.

[tonyo]

...........Everyone expects run in the situation, .............

Everyone is making very good points, and I can't believe I'm supporting the Patriots this morning since I don't think I've rooted for them once in the Belichick era. Not a fan of his.

Regardless, maybe the play wasn't the absolute best choice by Carroll and the Seahawks, but I'm giving all the credit I can to the play made by the Patriots and their apparent preparation for that exact play. In Belichicks interview by the sideline reporter (and I'm paraphrasing again) she asked if he was surprised by the play call and he responded with "no we felt like we knew all of their goal line sets and we were ready for anything" That apparently was exactly the case.

In the past few years as I evolved into my current state of football fandom, when I watch a game and don't have a rooting interest, I generally am pulling for players and teams to make great plays to determine the outcome of games. That game had plenty of them and from my point of view the game ended more with New England making a great play than with Seattle making a bad choice.

[1952boyntoncollector]

As mentioned in a couple other threads, the most surprising thing to me is that in deciding throw, they didn't use a hard play action fake to sell the run. Everyone expects run in the situation, and you get any one DB to bite, and someone's wide wide wide open. They could have done so and allowed a TE to sell block and sneak out into the flat (or even a tackle eligible like Gary suggests), or could utilize Wilson's mobilitiy and decisiveness on either a roll or a bootleg with several options to throw, or to keep.

I probably would run there, pass on 3rd down, and do whatever is needed on 4th. As was, they passed, then I'm sure would have run on 3rd and done either on 4th. I don't fault the decision to throw (they likely would have thrown on at least one of 3 downs), as much as the play design/call.


Whats funny is if they score...everyone would be criticizing belichek for not calling a timeout with a minute left..instead he let it tick down to 30 secs...which would of been more than enough time for seahawks to run 3 plays as they had a timeout ....all the pats would of needed would of been a fg to tie the game like green bay did a week earlier...no reason not to call your 3 timeouts if seahawks run ball and are stopped....but..

the irony is...if a timeout was called...I pretty sure seattle ends up running the ball when they have time to think about it on 2nd down..plus another reason they run is they would want ne to burn more timeouts if stopped on a run versus an incomplete pass......

[itjclarke]

Whats funny is if they score...everyone would be criticizing belichek for not calling a timeout with a minute left..instead he let it tick down to 30 secs...which would of been more than enough time for seahawks to run 3 plays as they had a timeout ....all the pats would of needed would of been a fg to tie the game like green bay did a week earlier...no reason not to call your 3 timeouts if seahawks run ball and are stopped....but..

the irony is...if a timeout was called...I pretty sure seattle ends up running the ball when they have time to think about it on 2nd down..plus another reason they run is they would want ne to burn more timeouts if stopped on a run versus an incomplete pass......

Yeah, I've said the same thing in other threads, and yes, do think there's a good chance Seattle runs if Belicheck calls TO. You should definitely have called TO in that situation because Seattle wasn't rushed, and if you hold, you're assured to e able to run that minute or less off the clock. But it worked out perfectly.

Not to be lost, Butler made an amazing jump on that play.. Amazing. He sold out completely before the ball's thrown, trusting the scouting/tendencies, etc. That's the play of a lifetime, and he'd already made two amazing plays on that drive.

Separately, did anyone see Baldwin pretend to take his pants off and crap out the ball?? NBC was quick to cut that one out. So classy

[glchen]

Whats funny is if they score...everyone would be criticizing belichek for not calling a timeout with a minute left..instead he let it tick down to 30 secs...which would of been more than enough time for seahawks to run 3 plays as they had a timeout ....all the pats would of needed would of been a fg to tie the game like green bay did a week earlier...no reason not to call your 3 timeouts if seahawks run ball and are stopped....but..

the irony is...if a timeout was called...I pretty sure seattle ends up running the ball when they have time to think about it on 2nd down..plus another reason they run is they would want ne to burn more timeouts if stopped on a run versus an incomplete pass......

Yea, I completely agree here. As the play was happening, I was thinking that Belichick was making a major mistake and not calling a timeout. If the Seahawks had scored there, then Brady would have had less than 30 seconds to try to get into field goal range, very tough for even him, when they could have given him a whole minute which would have been a decent amount of time since they had timeouts also. Then we could have been debating Belichick's brain cramp instead of Carroll's. And I also agree that if NE calls a TO, the Seahawks probably would have realized what a crazy mistake they were thinking of trying to do a pass play there, and probably would have changed it to a run or at least a better designed pass play.

[Tabe]

Great point - what a gutsy call that was at the end of the first half and Carroll will get few props for it.

I thought Pete Carroll's explanation right after the game was a good one. (paraphrasing:) "we didn't have a good personnel matchup, we thought it was a safe play, we were ready to run on 3rd and 4th down"
Carroll's explanation was terrible. He said they threw the ball there because the matchup was bad. Well, the only reason the matchup was bad was because Seattle didn't put out their short yardage team. They decided before even looking at the matchup that they were going to throw!

[Tabe]

Seahawks fans are such hypocrites. If they would have caught that ball instead, all you would be hearing about this morning is “The Catch.” Instead, they’re calling it the worst play call ever.

You only need to look at the end of the first half to see another play call equally as bad. With six seconds to go in the half, they opted to go for the TD instead of kicking the field goal (and they would have got the ball to start the second half). Sure, it worked out, but if it hadn’t you would have been hearing about the OTHER bad play call. Why aren’t the Seahawks fans talking about that decision to go for the TD instead of the FG? Because the TD decision worked out.
That wasn't a bad play call there at all. The only risk is if time runs out on you via a scramble or sack. You're throwing into the end zone so it's either going to be an incomplete, TD, or pick. Odds of a pick on that throw were very low. A TD is obviously the preferred outcome. An incomplete stops the clock, they kick the FG.

The two calls are not even close to the same.

[Runscott]

Seahawks fans are such hypocrites. If they would have caught that ball instead, all you would be hearing about this morning is “The Catch.” Instead, they’re calling it the worst play call ever.


David, I don't think you can call someone a hypocrite for an alternate scenario that was brewed up inside YOUR head.

I just keep thinking about the 1967 NFC Championship game - if only Bart Starr had thrown a pass...

[vintagetoppsguy]

That wasn't a bad play call there at all. The only risk is if time runs out on you via a scramble or sack. You're throwing into the end zone so it's either going to be an incomplete, TD, or pick. Odds of a pick on that throw were very low. A TD is obviously the preferred outcome. An incomplete stops the clock, they kick the FG.

The two calls are not even close to the same.

The play call before the half wasn't bad to you because it resulted in a TD. If the time had ran out and they didn't put any points on the board, I think you would have a different opinion. Just like you would have a different opinion had they scored a TD on their last offensive play of the game. If that had been a TD instead of an interception, would you still be saying it was a bad play call?

This is exactly what I mean by the hypocritical Seattle fans.

[Runscott]

Carroll's explanation was terrible. He said they threw the ball there because the matchup was bad. Well, the only reason the matchup was bad was because Seattle didn't put out their short yardage team. They decided before even looking at the matchup that they were going to throw!

Yeah, I didn't get that explanation - he had receivers stacked to the right side, which was what clued the guy in. Obviously, the Pats were going to have a goal-line defense set up…duh.

[Runscott]

The play call before the half wasn't bad to you because it resulted in a TD. If the time had ran out and they didn't put any points on the board, I think you would have a different opinion. Just like you would have a different opinion had they scored a TD on their last offensive play of the game. If that had been a TD instead of an interception, would you still be saying it was a bad play call?

This is exactly what I mean by the hypocritical Seattle fans.

David, that's not how all Seattle fans felt. I agree that it should have been a field goal attempt, as did everyone who was watching the play with me. We let out a gasp of relief when he got the touchdown. Same for the Jon Ryan Pass against Green Bay. You get good with the bad with this offensive play-calling. Overall, I'll take it.

But I have to ask: why all the anger? Did you have a bad experience in Seattle? I would call Seattlites passive-aggressive, falling-off-the-cliff left-wing, hypocrites when it comes to screaming for change but then drinking a latte and letting the street kids do their marching, etc, etc., but not football hypocrites. That's crazy talk.

[Runscott]

HOW ABOUT THOSE SEATTLE MARINERS ??????!!!!!?????

We are going to win it all, baby!!!

[vintagetoppsguy]

David, that's not how all Seattle fans felt. I agree that it should have been a field goal attempt, as did everyone who was watching the play with me. We let out a gasp of relief when he got the touchdown. Same for the Jon Ryan Pass against Green Bay. You get good with the bad with this offensive play-calling. Overall, I'll take it.

But I have to ask: why all the anger? Did you have a bad experience in Seattle? I would call Seattlites passive-aggressive, falling-off-the-cliff left-wing, hypocrites when it comes to screaming for change but then drinking a latte and letting the street kids do their marching, etc, etc., but not football hypocrites. That's crazy talk.

Scott, I'm not angry, I'm confused. Here's what I'm confused about. The call to go for it with 6 seconds left in the half was EQUALLY as BAD as the call to pass it on 2nd and goal (when we can pretty much all agree that they should have given it to Lynch). So why are the Seattle fans only talking about the poor play call at the end of the game? Why no discussion about the poor play call to end the half? I'll tell you why. Because the bad play call to end the half resulted in a TD and the bad play call at the end of the game resulted in an interception. I think it's hypocritical to criticize one and not the other. They were both equally bad.

I also think that if that would have been a TD instead of an interception, Hawks fans would have been bragging about the brilliant play call. You know I'm right on that one.

[Runscott]

Scott, I'm not angry, I'm confused. Here's what I'm confused about. The call to go for it with 6 seconds left in the half was EQUALLY as BAD as the call to pass it on 2nd and goal (when we can pretty much all agree that they should have given it to Lynch). So why are the Seattle fans only talking about the poor play call at the end of the game? Why no discussion about the poor play call to end the half? I'll tell you why. Because the bad play call to end the half resulted in a TD and the bad play call at the end of the game resulted in an interception. I think it's hypocritical to criticize one and not the other. They were both equally bad.

I also think that if that would have been a TD instead of an interception, Hawks fans would have been bragging about the brilliant play call. You know I'm right on that one.

No, you're wrong, both about the calls being equally bad, and about your hypothetical fan reaction to a play that didn't occur. I don't think you read my response where I clearly stated that, even though the first half play worked, EVERYONE who was watching it with me in Seattle (all strangers) thought the first half touchdown toss was an ill-advised decision. David, I have no reason to lie to you. You can relax and believe me. But I'll be okay either way.

Even with this weird anger of yours, you should be able to see that screwing up the first half play would not end the game as a loss, while the final interception did. This isn't rocket science.

But it's over and if you must gloat, you need to make better sense. No offense, but I'm just really surprised at some of your logic and some of your suppositions.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Even with this weird anger of yours, you should be able to see that screwing up the first half play would not end the game as a loss, while the final interception did. This isn't rocket science.

You're correct, screwing up the first half play would not end the game as a loss. But if the first half play had gone awry then we wouldn't be having this discussion because the interception wouldn't have had an impact on the game - because of only being 4 points down, they would have been 11 points down. You're right, this isn't rocket science.

Edited to add: When I complained about the poor Green Bay play calling in the NFC championship game, you dismissed my comments and bragged about how well Seattle executed when they had to. Now you want to use poor play calling as an excuse instead of admitting that it was perfect execution by the Patriots. :confused:

[D. Bergin]

It wasn't a bad call because they threw the ball instead of handing it to Lynch. It was a bad call because it was a slant pattern to the middle of the field where everybody is already bunched up, because they are on the 1 Yard line..........and the throw itself barely made the line of scrimmage, let alone the goal line.

Wilson had plenty of time and protection. There was no reason for him to get rid of the ball that fast, with 2 downs left to get the TD. If they were going to throw it, the ball should have been pulled back to look for an obvious open guy in the endzone, and if it's not there, throw it away.

[nebboy]

The most stupid part of the game was the half time show. Game was a good one from the standpoint of my teams not playing. Close game untill the end drama and good plays!

[vintagetoppsguy]

It wasn't a bad call because they threw the ball instead of handing it to Lynch. It was a bad call because it was a slant pattern to the middle of the field where everybody is already bunched up, because they are on the 1 Yard line..........and the throw itself barely made the line of scrimmage, let alone the goal line.

Wilson had plenty of time and protection. There was no reason for him to get rid of the ball that fast, with 2 downs left to get the TD. If they were going to throw it, the ball should have been pulled back to look for an obvious open guy in the endzone, and if it's not there, throw it away.

Agreed. And there was an obvious open guy in the endzone - Lynch. Watch the replay guys, he was wide open. Russell missed him.

[Runscott]

You're correct, screwing up the first half play would not end the game as a loss. But if the first half play had gone awry then we wouldn't be having this discussion because the interception wouldn't have had an impact on the game - because of only being 4 points down, they would have been 11 points down. You're right, this isn't rocket science.

Edited to add: When I complained about the poor Green Bay play calling in the NFC championship game, you dismissed my comments and bragged about how well Seattle executed when they had to. Now you want to use poor play calling as an excuse instead of admitting that it was perfect execution by the Patriots. :confused:

I didn't brag - I don't play football for the Seahawks. But now you're doing the 'straw man' thing. I haven't said that the Patriots were lucky, have I? It's two totally different situations and I do believe that the Packers made bad calls as well. The failure to return the interception with 5 minutes to go is just one example. But you also disagree with me on that... :confused:

This game had nothing to do with luck, and everything to do with play-calling and execution. Belechick, in my opinion, was making a huge gaff by not calling time-out in the last 45 seconds of the game. But perhaps he did that to pressure Carroll into making quick decisions that might result in an error? If so, I commend him. In any case, I'm not a coach or a player - just a fan. I'll get over this a lot quicker than they will, as will all the Seahawks fans. So the gloating isn't accomplishing anything other than making us wonder what your deal is? <== get the reference?

And no, I am not using 'poor play calling' as an excuse. If you have read my other posts, you will find one that commends Brady on his two touchdown drives, and that also posits that the Pats might very well have stopped the Seahawks on a goal-line stand, even if they ran Lynch at them.

I could toss out hypotheticals about how the Patriots fans, you and Bill Gregory and others, would have reacted if the Seahawks would have won, but that would be caca.

It was truly a great and classic game.

[vintagetoppsguy]

It was truly a great and classic game.

True. I'll leave it at that.

And, FWIW, by no means am I Pats fan.

[nolemmings]

It was the worst play call I can ever recall in a Super Bowl. Don't tell me it takes a perfect defensive effort to stop that play. SOOOOOOO many things could go wrong-- ball glances off a lineman's helmet or fingers in the very narrow window provided; ball bounces off of receiver's hands or chest plate, all in the most congested part of the field where about a dozen guys could start volley-balling it around. That play is major-league dumbass in game one of the pre-season, let alone with the trophy on the line.

RUN the F'n ball, twice if you have to. One yard and possibly the toughest RB in the game, who just ripped off four, and you call that play. Unreal.

[nolemmings]

BTW, I disagree that the first-half ending play was a bad decision. If you can't get a 20 yard pass play done within 5 seconds you are no Super Bowl QB. I guess there was some risk of INT depending on the type of pass play (SEE BONEHEAD DECISION AT END OF GAME), but the strategic decision was fine by me. I didn't think it would work and they'd have to settle for 3, but as a neutral fan who doesn't like either team I thought the decision to go for it was fine.

[Runscott]

True. I'll leave it at that.

And, FWIW, by no means am I Pats fan.

I now you aren't, and I would not have responded to your posts the way I did if I thought it would cause you and me to get pissed at one another. It really is just football - fans have to keep things in perspective.

I am still a Dallas Cowboys fan first, but Seahawks a strong second. So this has been an up-and-down playoffs for me. The Cowboy loss was depressing, but the play last night was horrifying. Not kidding. It would have been a lot easier to see the Patriots do to us what we did to the Broncos last year.

But I did have a great moment of perspective - I visited a kid in King County jail right before the game and he showed noticeable mental improvement. I got on the bus and made it back to Tacoma just in time for kick-off. It was tough leaving Seattle, as downtown was crazy - cops on horses, streets fenced off, etc. If the beer lines had been shorter, maybe I would have stayed. I thought about that kid last night after the game and realized that this is only football. If I were part of the Seahawk team, it would be real life, but it really isn't.

[HRBAKER]

It was by sheer luck on that incredible reception that they were in a position to score in the first place, Cinderella just turned back into a pumpkin 20 seconds too early. They didn't give the game to anyone - The Pats (Tom Brady) carved them up for 14 points on a near perfect performance in the 4th quarter to even be close - and that's the best D in football as we have been reminded ad nauseum for the past two weeks. Look at it this way - they simply gave back the one Brady gave them in the first half in the end zone.

Jeff
(also far from a Pats fan)

[Runscott]

Jeff - you are right on.

Before the game, the analyses that made the most sense to me were that Brady's short pass game was similar to what the Chargers had used to beat Seattle, and there was no indication that Seattle was prepared to react any differently. We did a good job of making quick tackles the first half, but just got torn to pieces in the second half for yards-after-catch. The Kearse catch was as close to a miracle as you'll see.

[nolemmings]

While the Kearse catch was indeed lucky, the Seahawks were moving the ball down the field anyway, and New England did not show great signs of stopping them. The ball would have been inside the 40 with a minute or so to go had that pass to Kearse dropped incomplete. Who knows what happens. The point is if that ball gets handed off to Lynch we almost certainly have a different champion and Brady not only does not win MVP, he is likely considered the second best QB on the field.

Just edited to add that I'm not taking anything away from the Patriots, and thank both teams for a very entertaining game.

[itjclarke]

BTW, I disagree that the first-half ending play was a bad decision. If you can't get a 20 yard pass play done within 5 seconds you are no Super Bowl QB. I guess there was some risk of INT depending on the type of pass play (SEE BONEHEAD DECISION AT END OF GAME), but the strategic decision was fine by me. I didn't think it would work and they'd have to settle for 3, but as a neutral fan who doesn't like either team I thought the decision to go for it was fine.

I also agree that the call at the end of the half wasn't bad. IMO it was really gutsy and definitely risky, but I've always seen R Wilson as a guy who has incredible situational awareness. I'm guessing they've practiced those sorts plays with a clock and know nearly exactly how quickly they can execute certain routes. 6 seconds is really tight, and I expect most teams (80%+) in the league would kick there. However Carroll had total trust in Wilson to execute the throw if it was there, and throw it away if not... no progression, no running around, just cut it loose... in this case guessing it was to find a one on one matchup pre-snap, throw to the back shoulder if the DB is off, over top if he beats him, or out of bounds. What's amazing, they still had 2 seconds left after.

As mentioned before, I think the call at the end was definitely questionable, but I think there's more to this. Was thinking about it more today, and Carroll was so defensive he was almost on the offensive (in a classy way). He repeated the same thing almost verbatim many many times. If anyone's seen "The Lives of Others" one of the points the lead character, an East German Stasi interrogator says, is that when someone's lying, they repeat the same phrases and sentences over and over. Now, I don't really think he's fully lying or there's some great conspiracy, but I do think he was covering for Bevell (or someone) big time.

The Pats acknowledged they weren't in true goal line (they had 3 DBs), but according to Carroll the Seahawks subbed to a 3 receiver set to counter the Pats' goal line D (2 DBs). This means someone in the booth (usually assistant to OC upstairs with binocs) didn't recognize the Pats' personnel package correctly. They also subbed really late, as they'd had a full back and I think 2 TEs on the prior 1st down run.. this is why 30+ seconds ran off. Once all the players were on the field, Wilson still had to shift Lynch and Baldwin to the left just prior to the snap, so I think things were in flux until the last moments, which makes me think there was a lot of indecisiveness in their play calling booth. As for Wilson's "decision" to hit the slant on that play... I'd think this is probably almost as pre-determined as a throw gets (similar to a screen pass). It's a pick play, so it's all about timing up with that pick.. and he wants to hit the slant immediately after he crosses the guy setting the pick (which is very illegal). From Wilson's POV, I think he saw the route quickly develop like he'd expect and Lockette with space in front, just had no idea Butler would cover that much ground, or didn't see him at all. I don't fault him.. I think he probably throws that ball unless his guy falls down, or there's someone directly in front of him.

What still gets me most about the play, is why didn't they try to sell a run fake???????? Everyone on the field, in the stands, at home, expects a run. If you want to slip in a pass (perfectly reasonable on one of the next two downs), do it after using a hard play action fake... and if that's your thinking, you just leave in the prior play's big personnel, to even better sell the run fake. If it's not there, Wilson throws it out of the end zone, and you get exactly what Carroll alluded to post game.. a clock stoppage and time to regroup for 3rd down. Or better yet, you let Wilson boot away or roll toward the play fake and isolate a Pat DB in that always perfect situation--- force him to either come up on Wilson who's running, or stay on his guy in the end zone. Wilson is the perfect QB in that situation and has proven it many times. If they are set on passing, I have no idea why you neutralize Wilson's greatest strengths?

Or of course, just pound it between the tackles with Lynch.

[Runscott]

I also agree that the call at the end of the half wasn't bad. IMO it was really gutsy and definitely risky, but I've always seen R Wilson as a guy who has incredible situational awareness.

Agreed. Akin to the fake field goal touchdown pass against Green Bay. I was against that one as well, but these things seem to work out for Seattle.

What still gets me most about the play, is why didn't they try to sell a run fake???????? Everyone on the field, in the stands, at home, expects a run. If you want to slip in a pass (perfectly reasonable on one of the next two downs), do it after using a hard play action fake... and if that's your thinking, you just leave in the prior play's big personnel, to even better sell the run fake. If it's not there, Wilson throws it out of the end zone, and you get exactly what Carroll alluded to post game.. a clock stoppage and time to regroup for 3rd down. Or better yet, you let Wilson boot away or roll toward the play fake and isolate a Pat DB in that always perfect situation--- force him to either come up on Wilson who's running, or stay on his guy in the end zone. Wilson is the perfect QB in that situation and has proven it many times. If they are set on passing, I have no idea why you neutralize Wilson's greatest strengths?

Or of course, just pound it between the tackles with Lynch.

You are right. All I remember thinking when Wilson started in the shotgun was being totally confused and figuring it would be a deep handoff or roll-out, neither of which made sense to me. It was a WTF moment for sure. But I don't feel as bad about the call after stewing for over a day. We have seen fumbles in those sorts of situations as well - were the odds any better of that particular pass being intercepted, than Lynch or Wilson getting stripped of the ball? I don't know. The interception was a horror for Seattle fans, but a fumble would have been just as gut-wrenching.

As an older fan of a team that has been in a lot of big games in my lifetime (Cowboys), I can tell the younger fans that you will go through this many more times in your life. It comes with the games on the opposite end of the spectrum (remember just two weeks ago?). I felt much worse when Lynn Swann made that catch in the Super Bowl against Dallas, or when Jackie Smith dropped the pass from Staubach, or 'the catch' by the blasted 49'ers. I just wish Bart Starr had passed in the 1967 NFC Championship game :eek:

[vintagetoppsguy]

You're only saying the play call at the half wasn't bad because it worked out. What if it hadn't worked out? Is it still a good call then?

Just because a play call works out doesn't make it a good call. Likewise, just because a play call doesn't work out make it a bad call.

Edited to add: What if the interception near the end of the game would have been a Seahawks TD instead? Is it still a bad play call then or a good play call? I'm confused how you distinguish between the two??? :confused:

[Runscott]

There is a good article in today's Seattle Times where Carroll explains his coaching philosophy about such plays. You should read it.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Scott, I did and here's an excerpt.

"The pass from the 1-yard line with 26 seconds left, he said, was born out of the same philosophy that led to the touchdown pass on which Seattle scored with six seconds to go in the first half."

My contention is that they were both bad calls. If you disagree, I respect that. But they're either BOTH good calls or BOTH bad calls. It can't be one is good and one is bad when the article says they were BOTH born from the same philosophy.

[Runscott]

Scott, I did and here's an excerpt.

"The pass from the 1-yard line with 26 seconds left, he said, was born out of the same philosophy that led to the touchdown pass on which Seattle scored with six seconds to go in the first half."

My contention is that they were both bad calls. If you disagree, I respect that. But they're either BOTH good calls or BOTH bad calls. It can't be one is good and one is bad when the article says they were BOTH born from the same philosophy.

Thanks, David. No, I have publicly stated here that I personally disagreed with both calls. I'm certain you read my comments, so I'm not really getting this.

I did; however, say that the call at the end of the first half did not have the same potential for being 'devastating'. There is really no need to put words in my mouth;e.g- "If you disagree…" - I have stated very clearly what I believe…several times. Your issue here is going to have to be with the Seattle fans who you have labeled as "hypocrites", who I have not actually met or heard from, even though I am right here amongst them. They must be in North Carolina, hiding :confused:

[vintagetoppsguy]

Thanks, David. No, I have publicly stated here that I personally disagreed with both calls. I'm certain you read my comments, so I'm not really getting this.

I did; however, say that the call at the end of the first half did not have the same potential for being 'devastating'. There is really no need to put words in my mouth;e.g- "If you disagree…" - I have stated very clearly what I believe…several times. Your issue here is going to have to be with the Seattle fans who you have labeled as "hypocrites", who I have not actually met or heard from, even though I am right here amongst them. They must be in North Carolina, hiding :confused:

Scott, if you disagree with both calls, so be it. I could care less if you agree or disagree. I just think it's hypocritical (not you) for anybody (Seattle fan or not) to say one call was good and the other call was bad when the article (according to Pete Carroll) said that both calls were born from the same philosophy. Fair enough?

[nolemmings]

First of all, the notion that both plays were "born of the same philosophy" is the writer's choice of words, not Carroll's. It does not lead to the conclusion that both were either right or wrong calls. Carrolls' words were “I don’t ever coach these guys at one time thinking that they’re going to throw an interception, thinking that we’re going to fumble the ball’’.

They were two different plays and decisions. One decision was not a play-call, but a tactical decision. No one is saying that the first-half pass should have been a run or different pass route. Rather, the argument against it was that it could leave no time on the clock if it fell incomplete, and thus the play should not have occurred at all. While the INT was I suppose a possibility, if there were 10-12 seconds left nobody would have found the decision to go for the end zone a problem. Thus, the "philosophy" that Carroll doesn't think of interceptions or fumbles didn't really matter at all in the first half.

The game-ender is a different story altogether. It was a horrific play call, with far too many risks, including not only those I mentioned before but also the dreaded Notre Dame--FSU outcome of an offensive PI flag on the pick, which needlessly backs you up and takes away the run. The "philosophy" of ignoring the possibility of mistakes is boneheaded there--you take the low risk play, especially with downs and a timeout in your pocket.

[vintagetoppsguy]

First of all, the notion that both plays were "born of the same philosophy" is the writer's choice of words, not Carroll's. It does not lead to the conclusion that both were either right or wrong calls.

I don't know if Carroll said exactly that or not. The article makes if sound as if he said it.

From the article: The pass from the 1-yard line with 26 seconds left, he said, was born out of the same philosophy that led to the touchdown pass on which Seattle scored with six seconds to go in the first half.

I do know Carroll said this though (and it's very similar), "When we make our decisions, just like when we made the decision with 6 seconds left in the half, we are counting on our guys, we are trusting the process, we go with what we know and what we’ve learned and how we can believe in our guys and that’s why we do what we do."

So doesn't that pretty much sound like "both decisions were born from the same philosophy" even if he didn't use those exact words?

And you're right, it doesn't lead to the conclusion that both plays were either right or wrong. That's up to the ididvidual fan to decide. But both plays were born from the same philosophy (or whatever wording you want to use) so it's very hypocritical for someone to say one play was a good decsion, the other play was a bad decsion. I'm talking about the play call itself, not the result of the play call.

[Runscott]

Scott, if you disagree with both calls, so be it. I could care less if you agree or disagree. I just think it's hypocritical (not you) for anybody (Seattle fan or not) to say one call was good and the other call was bad when the article (according to Pete Carroll) said that both calls were born from the same philosophy. Fair enough?

If a person were making the calls themselves, they could very well disagree with one and not the other. Not everyone understands Pete Carroll's coaching philosophy - that doesn't make them hypocrites.

[nolemmings]

If a person were making the calls themselves, they could very well disagree with one and not the other. Not everyone understands Pete Carroll's coaching philosophy - that doesn't make them hypocrites.

+1

Again, it is a question of assessing risk from a time management standpoint in the first half, and of assessing risk from a possibility of turnover standpoint in the second half. I would venture a guess that half or more head coaches would make a stab at the end zone in the first half (depending on their confidence in the QB and the times they've practiced that situation), and that none or nearly none would have made that play call at the end. This would confirm that you can agree with one decision and not the other. If you take into account the situation on the field---time, down and distance (and personnel, i.e. Lynch)--I believe that point becomes even more obvious.

[vintagetoppsguy]

There is a good article in today's Seattle Times where Carroll explains his coaching philosophy about such plays. You should read it.


Not everyone understands Pete Carroll's coaching philosophy

-1

You cite an article that explains Carroll's coaching philosophy and then you say not everyone understands it? :confused:

Well, if they read the article, they should understand it, right?

http://seattletimes.com/html/seahawks/2025607618_seahawks03xml.html

So now my statement is even MORE true: "I just think it's hypocritical (not you) for anybody (Seattle fan or not) to say one call was good and the other call was bad when the article (according to Pete Carroll) said that both calls were born from the same philosophy."

[Runscott]

-1

You cite an article that explains Carroll's coaching philosophy and then you say not everyone understands it? :confused:

Well, if they read the article, they should understand it, right?

http://seattletimes.com/html/seahawks/2025607618_seahawks03xml.html

So now my statement is even MORE true: "I just think it's hypocritical (not you) for anybody (Seattle fan or not) to say one call was good and the other call was bad when the article (according to Pete Carroll) said that both calls were born from the same philosophy."

David, you baffle me. Okay, here you go:

EVERYONE WHO HAS READ THE ARTICLE ABOUT PETE CARROLL'S COACHING PHILOSOPHY AND WHO UNDERSTANDS IT, YET STILL THINKS THAT ONE PLAY WAS STUPID AND THE OTHER WAS SMART, AND WHO AGREES THAT THEY WOULD PREFER THAT PETE CARROLL CONTINUE TO IMPLEMENT HIS COACHING AND PLAY-CALLING PHILOSOPHY AS OPPOSED TO THEIR OWN.....

......IS A HYPOCRITE.

Will that do? Because I would agree that the above (all caps stuff) is true.

But quite frankly, I really don't care if some Seattle fans are hypocrites or not. All the ones I've run into have been quite pleasant, and I think we could use more of that and less of the bashing;i.e-let them be. They are miserable - isn't that enough for you?

[Runscott]

+1

Again, it is a question of assessing risk from a time management standpoint in the first half, and of assessing risk from a possibility of turnover standpoint in the second half. I would venture a guess that half or more head coaches would make a stab at the end zone in the first half (depending on their confidence in the QB and the times they've practiced that situation), and that none or nearly none would have made that play call at the end. This would confirm that you can agree with one decision and not the other. If you take into account the situation on the field---time, down and distance (and personnel, i.e. Lynch)--I believe that point becomes even more obvious.

Uh oh - a plot twist. So are you saying (not trying to put words in your mouth) that Pete Carroll wasn't consistent with his own play-calling philosophy on that last call? Or maybe just that a Seattle fan can agree with Pete Carroll's play-calling philosophy, but feel that running Marshawn at the end would ALSO have been consistent (or even MORE consistent) with his normal play-calling philosophy?

Personally, as a Seahawk fan, I will say that if Pete Carroll makes a 'mistake' like the one in question at the end, that I can live with that as long as I continue to get his overall play-calling implemented at his current success rate. But that's just me.

Thanks David, for making me analyze this until I almost feel okay about losing.

[vintagetoppsguy]

But quite frankly, I really don't care if some Seattle fans are hypocrites or not. All the ones I've run into have been quite pleasant..

I guess Bill and I are the only ones that have ran into the arrogant Seahawks fans. They must all be in Texas :rolleyes:

[Runscott]

I guess Bill and I are the only ones that have ran into the arrogant Seahawks fans. They must all be in Texas :rolleyes:

I have no idea who you and Bill are running into in Texas. And I don't get the eye-rolling thing either. If you just zinged me, I missed it while trying to have a discussion.

[nolemmings]

Uh oh - a plot twist. So are you saying (not trying to put words in your mouth) that Pete Carroll wasn't consistent with his own play-calling philosophy on that last call? Or maybe just that a Seattle fan can agree with Pete Carroll's play-calling philosophy, but feel that running Marshawn at the end would ALSO have been consistent (or even MORE consistent) with his normal play-calling philosophy?

I don't know where you got that from Scott, but that's not what I meant to say. I only meant to say that is not hypocritical to call the first-half decision good and the second-half decision bad because they involve different risk analyses and that the importance of those risk analyses is magnified when you only have 20 seconds left to fix a mistake as opposed to 30 minutes.

I do think that Pete is back-tracking, double-speaking, and contradicting himself somewhat, but I see this more as damage control than the expression of some sort of lotus-positioned, palms extended upward, chanting philosophy. The decision in the first half to go for the end-zone was one that was not that high risk, IMO. My take is that if he runs that same play 100 times, 90 times it results in a field goal after an incomplete pass or scramble out of bounds; 5 times there’s a TD, 3 times a pick and twice stopped short with time expired. However you want to tweak those I still think Carroll played the percentages correctly. Either way, what he is saying is I don’t care about the clock-- I’m playing for the TD.

By contrast, at the end of the game his decision really had nothing to do with the clock, and his statements to the contrary do not ring true. Any mention that he didn’t want to give the ball back to Brady with less than 30 seconds left is insulting to his defense, so he recanted or downplayed that once he knew that it showed no confidence in his team. Any thought that he had to pass to get the maximum # of plays is weak, and I don’t think he believes it. They could have run the ball 3 more times if need be, given their timeout, or could have mixed in a pass or two on third and/or fourth down. So his excuses are made up after the fact, IMO. In any event, whatever concern he had about the clock in the second half was certainly absent in the first half.

So now we are left to wonder why that play call? He claims that it was because of matchups by the defense, but: a) it is not clear that the Pats were in a strict goal-line defense that would have thwarted a Lynch run; and b) even if they were, as you and others have noted a play action or something that provided options was much more in order than a play that carried such disastrous potential. Was it in line with his play-calling “philosophy”? I don’t know, but I doubt it--there, maybe I am now suggesting that it was inconsistent. Seattle runs the ball a lot, and rightfully so–good production with very low risk of fumble. They also throw a lot of deeper balls, which have a lower percentage of success than the slants and quick outs but also have a lower chance of abject failure (interception). This play did not fit their pattern at all.

[Runscott]

Sorry Todd - that was the reason for the disclaimer.

I definitely could be guilty of rationalizing Carroll's call. It's difficult to swallow that he might have severely blown it and given away the Super Bowl, but that was certainly my initial reaction. I believe I am done with this topic - moving ahead to baseball is a healthy emotional thing for me at this point - but it has been a great discussion.

[itjclarke]

You're only saying the play call at the half wasn't bad because it worked out. What if it hadn't worked out? Is it still a good call then?

Just because a play call works out doesn't make it a good call. Likewise, just because a play call doesn't work out make it a bad call.

Edited to add: What if the interception near the end of the game would have been a Seahawks TD instead? Is it still a bad play call then or a good play call? I'm confused how you distinguish between the two??? :confused:

I'm not sure if this is addressed to me, but if so.. no I am not, and no I am not. I feel like I know the game relatively well.. I've watched it all my life, played it much of my life... even now have a NFL coach in the family as an in law. This being said, I think I know myself well enough to know when I like or dislike a call, independent of outcome.

If Carroll and the Seahawks are confident Wilson will get rid of the ball within 2-3 seconds, I'm all for it. Most teams would not trust their O to execute and I know I wouldn't trust Colin Kaepernick in that situation, but I can definitely see why the Hawks' staff trusts Wilson. If it doesn't work, I still respect their willingness to show that confidence in their players... similar to how I respect Osborne's going for 2 in that Orange Bowl. And whether it works or not, I'm sure the players appreciate their coaches' trust as well.

At the end of the game, I'm pretty much OK with their passing (if they had needed and gotten all 4 downs, I'd guess 1 or 2 are passes), but in that situation, I think they failed to capitalize on a tremendous opportunity by not using play action. If you get one guy to bite, you have a wide open receiver. Their earlier TD pass to Baldwin (though he was screened open by the ref) is a great example... I formation, play fake, 2-3 guys bite up on the run and are non factors on the play. Why not revisit that general concept when at the 1???

If comments not addressed to me.. disregard my post

[itjclarke]

also the dreaded Notre Dame--FSU outcome of an offensive PI flag on the pick, which needlessly backs you up and takes away the run. The "philosophy" of ignoring the possibility of mistakes is boneheaded there--you take the low risk play, especially with downs and a timeout in your pocket.

This is a great example... that play killed ND, and the offensive PI rules in the NFL are far more strict than in college. Browner did most of the manhandling on that play, so no flags were gonna come, but any pick call is always a risk of penalty... and nothing aside from the actual outcome would have been worse than a 10 yard penalty at the 1.

[itjclarke]

As an older fan of a team that has been in a lot of big games in my lifetime (Cowboys), I can tell the younger fans that you will go through this many more times in your life. It comes with the games on the opposite end of the spectrum (remember just two weeks ago?). I felt much worse when Lynn Swann made that catch in the Super Bowl against Dallas, or when Jackie Smith dropped the pass from Staubach, or 'the catch' by the blasted 49'ers. I just wish Bart Starr had passed in the 1967 NFC Championship game :eek:

Well, as an older fan this Cowboy memory will make you happy. One of my coaches in HS was the guy (Larry Schreiber) who scored 3 TDs against the Cowboys in the '72 Divisional round game, to put the Niners up 21-6... but Staubach came in late and lead a crazy 4th quarter comeback, including on side kick, to win 30-28. I think that's when the nickname "Captain Comeback" was coined, right?

Re- comments about Seattle fans, I'm not speaking in reference to any of these ridiculous videos, or conspiracy theories (coaches didn't want Marshawn to win MVP?? Please:rolleyes:), but my personal experience at games in Seattle has been incredible. I've been to 3 Niner games there, including the NFC Champ game last year. Each time, I wore my red Niner gear, and never once did someone try to instigate a fight. I got a few light hearted heckles, but the kind where we're both smiling while talking trash. One thing about the Seattle fans I've seen, they don't seem to try and escalate the situation, and if you don't wanna take their sh*t they just leave you alone. Niner fans (at Candlestick) on the other hand have been an embarrassment for the last decade or so. I've seen so many people just egg and egg opposing fans until a fight breaks out. I've been to a few of the recent Packer games, and remember watching a group of fans across the parking lot follow a cheese head, knock off his hat, step on it... then knock it off again and again and again. The Packer fan (nicest fans ever) just kept walking away, but those situations often got uglier. So dumb, it's just a football game.

[BigRedOne]

You're only saying the play call at the half wasn't bad because it worked out. What if it hadn't worked out? Is it still a good call then?

Just because a play call works out doesn't make it a good call. Likewise, just because a play call doesn't work out make it a bad call.

Edited to add: What if the interception near the end of the game would have been a Seahawks TD instead? Is it still a bad play call then or a good play call? I'm confused how you distinguish between the two??? :confused:


If this is the case maybe its best if you stop watching Football. Trying to compare two TOTALLY different game situations. You are correct about one thing, you are confused.

#1 (As stated previously) The Play at the half doesn't lose the game. It was also a highly safe pass on a mismatched defender. What part of that don't you get? It was more than worth the risk at that point. So YES even if it fails its still a good call.

#2 They still get the 3 points even if the pass fails there, as there was still 2 seconds left.

#3 With 6 seconds? Risky? maybe, But its a no brainer that top playoff teams are all likely going to run a play for a TD chance in that situation.

So to answer your question.... YES, even if the most horrible play call in SB history had somehow been successful, it would still be a highly ill advisable and dumb call.

[vintagetoppsguy]

The Play at the half doesn't lose the game.

The play at the half looses the game if its unsuccessful because instead of trailing by 4 with 2 minutes to go, they're trailing by 11. I know that's a 'what if' scenario, but its no more of a 'what if' than saying to give the ball to Lynch 3 more times to try and pound it in.

[packs]

I don't see how anyone could view that call as anything but the worst possible thing you could do in that situation. Throwing the ball on the half yard line to try to trick a defense is something you do in Madden. It's not something you do in real life. That play is your entire season. You can't lose on an interception.

[HRBAKER]

...............a friend sent me this and I found it funny:

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s172/hrbaker/Decorated%20images/IMG_7774_zpsev6r5ve2.jpg

[itjclarke]

I don't see how anyone could view that call as anything but the worst possible thing you could do in that situation. Throwing the ball on the half yard line to try to trick a defense is something you do in Madden. It's not something you do in real life. That play is your entire season. You can't lose on an interception.

Deception and trickery is 100% a part of football.... this is why coaches pro and college will hold 2, even 3 separate personnel packages on the sideline as the play clock runs down before they send one on the field, goal being to trick the D coordinator into sending the wrong defensive personnel package on the field... or Peyton Manning making hundreds of meaningless signals in a game... or linebackers faking a blitz (at risk of being caught out of position at the snap)... etc.

I agree that the play as called was terrible, but I don't have much issue with them passing on that down. However if you're going to do so, go all in on the deception... get Wilson under center, line up in the I with a fullback and 2 TEs, and sell the run via play action. In that situation, especially its being on 2nd down, I'd guess most/all Pats would have been fooled... and if not all, you'd at least catch one out of position, which is all you really need.

[packs]

I understand deception but like I said that particular call at that particular moment, the final moments of the Super Bowl, was a terrible decision. There should be nothing left to chance on the half yard line with the clock ticking down and a championship is on the line.

You have a battering ram of a running back. You give him the ball. Lose on a fumble and accept it. Get stopped on the line and accept it. I could never accept losing on an interception.

[itjclarke]

I agree in that I'd have preferred to run on that play. NE barely stopped him on 1st down, and you may as well continue pounding. That said, they probably will pass at least once (assuming it goes 4 downs), and a 2nd down pass would definitely be more surprising than a 3rd down pass had Lynch been stuffed... But they totally squandered the opportunity to fully sell the run there. Both by formation/personnel and by absence of a fake. If you're gonna get clever, you may as well go all in, as opposed to being half clever.

As mentioned before you've also gotta give the Pats their due. It was an incredible individual play by Butler, with a big assist from Browner and his jam.

Brady and Co's 4th quarter are also the only reason the Pats were ahead at that point. Greatest SB comeback against a great D.

[HRBAKER]

At the end of the day it was a seriously questionable call, but.............the Pats had to and DID make a play and they covered a 10 point 4th quarter deficit against the best D in football. They raked the same D that made Peyton Manning look lost just a year before.

[Runscott]

At the end of the day it was a seriously questionable call, but.............the Pats had to and DID make a play and they covered a 10 point 4th quarter deficit against the best D in football. They raked the same D that made Peyton Manning look lost just a year before.

And I think that point has gotten lost as a result of the interception. If, instead, New England had followed up the two touchdown drives with a goal-line stand at the end, it would have been a lot easier for Seahawks fans to swallow...I think.