Stupidity Rules the Day!!!!

[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.