Stupidity Rules the Day!!!!

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

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.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

+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]

Originally Posted by Runscott

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

Originally Posted by Runscott

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?

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

http://seattletimes.com/html/seahawk...awks03xml.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]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

-1

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

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

http://seattletimes.com/html/seahawk...awks03xml.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?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

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

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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

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.