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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In the Spirit of the Conversation...........
 

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

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s...psev6r5ve2.jpg

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.

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.

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.

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.