Can I defend Pete Carroll for that last decision?

[hawknation2015]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/sidneyrice/status/562087412198035457[/tweet]

 

[Optimus25]

There was enough time to run the ball three times (Seattle had a timeout). Seattle had the #3 rush offense of all time, the toughest RB to tackle ever, vs. the 30th ranked power situations run defense, in the highest leverage set of downs in NFL history. From the 1 yard line.

Never in the history of the NFL did a situation call for a run more.

+1

 

[Vancanhawksfan]

Per PFF (as I've stated in other threads but bears repeating):
"Marshawn Lynch ran the ball from the 1 yard line 5 times this season. 1 TD, 2 runs for no gain, 2 runs for a loss."

It was not the worst call by carroll imo but it was done with very poor execution, Lockette didn't make much of a play on the ball, slants aren't Russell's forte e.t.c. But we did win in GB on ballsy calls, we've won other games the last couple years on ballsy calls. I think Pass (incompletion), Run, Run was much more conceivable than Run, TO, Run , hurry to line hope to get a play off.

I said it in another thread, and I'll say it here. While many posters are saying Lynch should have run it up the gut, and I don't necessarily disagree, it's a false dichotomy to assume the only options were 1) quick slant to Lockette or 2) Lynch up the gut. What is infuriating about the call is that if it was felt a pass was our best option, we have better options in plays and receivers. No disrespect to Lockette, it's just he shouldn't have been put in that situation.

The choice of passing play may not have been good. But that wasn't my point.

The point of this thread was to defend the decision to go to a passing play on 2nd down with 26 seconds left.

 

[Optimus25]

and what kills me the most is that if you're going to pass, how in the hell is it not a playaction with lynch and rollout so if nothing is there russ can just throw it away? we literally did the one thing a pats fan player owner would WANT us to do. the 1 damn thing.

 

[joeseahawks]

I keep hearing to give the ball to Beast Mode. Why can't Russell do QB Sneak? There is a chance ML could have lost yardage. But there is NO chance we lose yardage on Russell QB Sneak. NO WAY.

 

[Vancanhawksfan]

I keep hearing to give the ball to Beast Mode. Why can't Russell do QB Sneak? There is a chance ML could have lost yardage. But there is NO chance we lose yardage on Russell QB Sneak. NO WAY.

If you do and they get stopped you have to call a timeout. And then if you run the next play and get stopped you might not get a 4th down play off.

If you're going to run a QB sneak, do it on the next play or 4th down.

 

[Crabhawk]

Per PFF (as I've stated in other threads but bears repeating):
"Marshawn Lynch ran the ball from the 1 yard line 5 times this season. 1 TD, 2 runs for no gain, 2 runs for a loss."

It was not the worst call by carroll imo but it was done with very poor execution, Lockette didn't make much of a play on the ball, slants aren't Russell's forte e.t.c. But we did win in GB on ballsy calls, we've won other games the last couple years on ballsy calls. I think Pass (incompletion), Run, Run was much more conceivable than Run, TO, Run , hurry to line hope to get a play off.

I said it in another thread, and I'll say it here. While many posters are saying Lynch should have run it up the gut, and I don't necessarily disagree, it's a false dichotomy to assume the only options were 1) quick slant to Lockette or 2) Lynch up the gut. What is infuriating about the call is that if it was felt a pass was our best option, we have better options in plays and receivers. No disrespect to Lockette, it's just he shouldn't have been put in that situation.

The choice of passing play may not have been good. But that wasn't my point.

The point of this thread was to defend the decision to go to a passing play on 2nd down with 26 seconds left.

I'm not disagreeing that choosing to pass was necessarily good/bad, but you can't divorce the actual call from the equation. So, while I don't disagree that, in theory, passing on that down isn't defensible (that's probably a double negative, sorry), it's inescapable that THAT passing play was complete crap.

 

[NFSeahawks]

Hindsight is 20/20...thus I'd like to take a shot at defending Pete's decision to make a passing play in that situation. Note that I am NOT going to discuss their choice of play itself, but rather the decision to throw as opposed to running it.

Running the ball was clearly the obvious play and I was shocked even when I saw the Hawks spread out without Lynch in the backfield myself.

But I believe I understand what Pete's thinking was in choosing to run a passing play. He was attempting to preserve the possibility he might need all three plays to score.

Remember...it was 2nd and goal at the 2 yard line with only 1 timeout remaining. That means the Hawks could possibly have THREE shots at the end zone...but it would be extremely difficult, even with the one timeout, to execute three running plays in 26 seconds. No matter how you slice it, if the Seahawks do not run one passing play out of those three possible attempts then they run a big risk of only being able to take two shots at the end zone with a high likelihood of time running out before the guys can line up and get off the final play.

If you run a passing play that goes incomplete on 2nd down, then the Hawks can run on 3rd down and can call a timeout if they don't score.

If you execute a run play on 2nd down and get stopped they would probably have to call the timeout. And then on third down, even though you stopped the clock on the previous play, if they run and get stopped again things would get extremely squeezed by time for their last play.

The way Pete did it - assuming there is no turnover - this sequence was a the best way to get three plays in:

2nd down - passing play. Its either a touchdown or its incomplete. Time stops.

3rd down - either pass or run. If they pass and get stopped, or run and get stopped, they call a timeout.

4th down - run whatever the hell they want.

Pete does not play with a fear of losing - and he would assume that his offense is capable an extremely high percentage of the time to run a passing play and NOT turn it over. Pete plays to win.

Should he have called the pass play they ran - that's a different discussion. But the choice to make a passing play can be defended at least. It may not have been the best call (because it obviously can be argued it wasn't) but I think he can defend his thought process for why he did.

Poor clock management and the team is lazy at times, cost us timeouts. RW needs to be more aware.

 

[The Twelvethman]

NO!

 

[HawkRiderFan]

If it's 3 running plays get stopped at least we can say the Hawks went with what they do best and simply got beat. It just feels like we got cheated right now going away from our strength at the most important time ever.

 

[hawknation2015]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/DeionSanders/status/562084453237809152[/tweet]

 

[Vancanhawksfan]

Hindsight is 20/20...thus I'd like to take a shot at defending Pete's decision to make a passing play in that situation. Note that I am NOT going to discuss their choice of play itself, but rather the decision to throw as opposed to running it.

Running the ball was clearly the obvious play and I was shocked even when I saw the Hawks spread out without Lynch in the backfield myself.

But I believe I understand what Pete's thinking was in choosing to run a passing play. He was attempting to preserve the possibility he might need all three plays to score.

Remember...it was 2nd and goal at the 2 yard line with only 1 timeout remaining. That means the Hawks could possibly have THREE shots at the end zone...but it would be extremely difficult, even with the one timeout, to execute three running plays in 26 seconds. No matter how you slice it, if the Seahawks do not run one passing play out of those three possible attempts then they run a big risk of only being able to take two shots at the end zone with a high likelihood of time running out before the guys can line up and get off the final play.

If you run a passing play that goes incomplete on 2nd down, then the Hawks can run on 3rd down and can call a timeout if they don't score.

If you execute a run play on 2nd down and get stopped they would probably have to call the timeout. And then on third down, even though you stopped the clock on the previous play, if they run and get stopped again things would get extremely squeezed by time for their last play.

The way Pete did it - assuming there is no turnover - this sequence was a the best way to get three plays in:

2nd down - passing play. Its either a touchdown or its incomplete. Time stops.

3rd down - either pass or run. If they pass and get stopped, or run and get stopped, they call a timeout.

4th down - run whatever the hell they want.

Pete does not play with a fear of losing - and he would assume that his offense is capable an extremely high percentage of the time to run a passing play and NOT turn it over. Pete plays to win.

Should he have called the pass play they ran - that's a different discussion. But the choice to make a passing play can be defended at least. It may not have been the best call (because it obviously can be argued it wasn't) but I think he can defend his thought process for why he did.

Poor clock management and the team is lazy at times, cost us timeouts. RW needs to be more aware.

Yes, agreed. When Russ had to call that timeout earlier in the drive I cursed about it.

 

[Vancanhawksfan]

If it's 3 running plays get stopped at least we can say the Hawks went with what they do best and simply got beat. It just feels like we got cheated right now going away from our strength at the most important time ever.

They don't likely get three running plays off in 26 seconds. Only two.

 

[seahawks08]

I have absolutely no problem with the play calling, I just wished we had called it earlier in the season and got some real time game experience. Our red zone offense was a problem, but I am more concerned about our defense. It almost feel the defense did not stand up when we normally do. i don't think LOB was healthy. Losing Lane and Avril just made a big difference we could not recover from. We did not have Lane earlier, so I would have thought Avril made the difference today, totally. Looking forward to the next season.

 

[brimsalabim]

There was enough time to run the ball three times (Seattle had a timeout). Seattle had the #3 rush offense of all time, the toughest RB to tackle ever, vs. the 30th ranked power situations run defense, in the highest leverage set of downs in NFL history. From the 1 yard line.

Never in the history of the NFL did a situation call for a run more.

Incomplete pass and they get a shot to run two more times.

We walked into a trap there. Revis said they new the play from study. They new when we lined up from that position group in that formation. They new all Browner had to do was defeat the pick. We were on the door step of destiny and got suckered.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

There was enough time to run the ball three times (Seattle had a timeout). Seattle had the #3 rush offense of all time, the toughest RB to tackle ever, vs. the 30th ranked power situations run defense, in the highest leverage set of downs in NFL history. From the 1 yard line.

Never in the history of the NFL did a situation call for a run more.

Thank you for getting straight to the heart of the matter Kip.

 

[SPIRITOF12]

My wife and I were yelling, "don't throw it, - run it, run it" at the TV, when we saw how they were lining up. If we can see the foolishness in it, why can't the coaches, and yes I will say players, all who get paid a lot of money to make the right call.

 

[brimsalabim]

I have absolutely no problem with the play calling, I just wished we had called it earlier in the season and got some real time game experience. Our red zone offense was a problem, but I am more concerned about our defense. It almost feel the defense did not stand up when we normally do. i don't think LOB was healthy. Losing Lane and Avril just made a big difference we could not recover from. We did not have Lane earlier, so I would have thought Avril made the difference today, totally. Looking forward to the next season.

losing Quinn to weeks ago hurt the most. Pete should have taken over as soon as he found out Quinn was a Falcon.

 

[LTH]

At this point we have to give credit to NE for making a great play at the ending of the game and move on....

LTH

 

[pugs1]

Like everyone else I would have ran it but if you are gonna throw it how about a play where you put it where only your WR can get it or Russell throws it away. How many slant plays do you see get tipped up and then picked. Still shaking my head but I'm proud of the Seahawks.