Spoon Leaks SB LXIX Script

[xray]

How many points do you have to score to “win” in the first quarter?

I juggled some numbers and came up with 117 pts . It actually came out to 116 pts. so I rounded it off .

 

[rigelian]

I guess it depends on the defence. I just looked back at the boxscore of Super Bowl 48 and the Seahawks only outscored the Broncos 8-0 in the 1st quarter of that game. And yet somehow it seemed like the game was basically over after the first 5 minutes. But maybe that's just my memory playing tricks on me.

It was over, we just didn't know it yet.

 

[xray]

This just in...The Hawks have played , balls to the wall for all 4 quarters only 23 1/2 times in 48 years .

 

[JustTheTip]

(X - Y) + 1 = Z

Z = the number of points you must score in the 4th quarter to win.

If you can't figure out what X & Y are in this equation...you should probably stop voicing your opinions online because...

View attachment 65181

But Y = (A + B + C). So really (X-(A + B + C) + 1 = Z. A, B and C are no less important than Z. In fact Z can be negative and the equation still valid. No need to get snippy or indicate I can't understand simple equations. It is just that, in my opinion, the equation you posted (when referring to how many points are necessary to win in the fourth quarter as stated in Pete's war chant) is a bit over simplified. Especially when you apply what I said about Pete's team in another post in this thread. The point is, you win a football game over the course of the entire game and Pete's saying only applies when you actually win the game but played poorly through a portion (and quite often a large portion) of it. There were also games where Pete's team did essentially win it in the first quarter despite playing like crap the rest of the game.

 

[chris98251]

Pete didn't start slow, he tried to defer and start on defense, then he would try and get a lead, once a lead he wanted to play it safe, bend don't break, ball control offense except we had three and outs so much it was predictable from game to game, this took momentum away from the offense if it was clicking, how many times did we have success doing something and get ahead and not use it again, even if we fell behind. Then we required Hero ball in the 4th or last 4 minutes to pull it out.

 

[Cyrus12]

No way the nfl would allow that match up...

 

[olyfan63]

- I am always amused at how the anti PC crowd suggest that mantra is about not being aggressive in the first half, or whatever moronic way you want to frame it. It is a reference to not panicking if you get down early, because when you say "you" can't win the game in the first quarter, it also means "they" can't win the game in the first quarter. The mantra also means that if you do get up big early, you have to fight to avoid a letdown. So you can score 30 in the first quarter, but if you give up 31 in the the rest of the game without scoring yourself, you lose. YOU LOSE.

- This seems like a simple concept, but some of you really tie yourselves in knots trying to prove that PC sucks.

Mase

I watched some of the 2013 games again, and several of them the Seahawks had essentially wrapped up in the first half. There were 7 blowouts, which I will define blowouts as games the Hawks won by 3+ scores. Then there was 43-8, for a total of 8 blowouts out of 19 games. So this proves the Seahawks, at least in 2013, could often times put the other team in a world of hurt in the first half.

 

[HomerJHawk]

Is that a safety in the 4th? Is that how we close out the game? Niiice.

 

[bigcc]

Casuals: concerned about nerd shit

Vets: recognize he gave us the bye

Me: not sure if the math adds up

 

[sutz]

Is that a safety in the 4th? Is that how we close out the game? Niiice.

No. TD and 2-pt conversion to protect against the 4 point FG.

 

[SNDavidson]

kid is quick diagnosing the play but damn this is a whole other level , this was on another platform fan created tho

 

[morgulon1]

- I am always amused at how the anti PC crowd suggest that mantra is about not being aggressive in the first half, or whatever moronic way you want to frame it. It is a reference to not panicking if you get down early, because when you say "you" can't win the game in the first quarter, it also means "they" can't win the game in the first quarter. The mantra also means that if you do get up big early, you have to fight to avoid a letdown. So you can score 30 in the first quarter, but if you give up 31 in the the rest of the game without scoring yourself, you lose. YOU LOSE.

- This seems like a simple concept, but some of you really tie yourselves in knots trying to prove that PC sucks.

Mase

I personally don't think PC sucks , in fact he was outstanding the first 5 years , maybe even innovative. He took Seattle to two Superbowls back to back then the team slowly devolved to slightly above mediocre . The fact that he was successful bought him a other 10 seasons of good will . His message was growing stale along with his corny phrases , his scheme that McVay and Shanahan were able to solve then abuse.

That 2023-15 team should've taken home two Lombardi's at least.

IMHO

 

[FlyingGunHawk]

21 points in the 3rd quarter? The fix is definitely in.

 

[OneLofaTatupu]

I dunno Welsher the Print Room Diddler may be on to something here. Or into something. On top?…..

 

[olyfan63]

Is that a safety in the 4th? Is that how we close out the game? Niiice.

I figured the "8" in the 4th qtr was from a TD and a 2-point conversion. However, it doesn't add up because that means the score would be 30-26 after the last Hawks TD. There's no real advantage to 32-26 vs 31-26. A FG doesn't beat you in either one and a TD by the Raiders wins in either scenario, as long as the Raiders kick the extra point successfully.

Closing out with a safety makes as much sense. A repeat of the Peyton Manning play perhaps. I suppose it's a fool's errand to try to make sense out of a hypothetical like this anyhow.

 

[bigcc]

The fact that some of you criticize Pete specifically because apparently he made every roster decision that kept the seahawks winning for a decade is wild.

I'm happy we moved on considering we landed Macdonald, but you're out of your god damn minds if you think Dan Quinn or the giants OC or whoever was going to be an improvement over Pete.

 

[morgulon1]

The fact that some of you criticize Pete specifically because apparently he made every roster decision that kept the seahawks winning for a decade is wild.

I'm happy we moved on considering we landed Macdonald, but you're out of your god damn minds if you think Dan Quinn or the giants OC or whoever was going to be an improvement over Pete.

I don't know how well MacDonald will do. Rookie HC , OC and DC. I am glad they hired him .

Carroll made savvy moves early, but the team did regress as time went on.

Was it PC? I can't say I know, but it appears to me like he was ultimately responsible and got a little careless , then desperate with some of the decisions he was making . Ms Allen steps in and clips his wings then turned to Schneider to draft the last couple of seasons. My guess is she probably gave him the requirement to keep his position.
Probably get out of the wildcard round .
Heck , maybe divisional ?

I think he knew what was going to happen after the season was over.

That's my theory (unproven)

 

[olyfan63]

Pete's GM decisions the last decade were about making Pete look good and put the team in salary cap hell with an overpaid, underperforming roster. This was in contrast to Pete's first 4-5 years where the roster was full of overperforming players.