Vancanhawksfan
New member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2015
- Messages
- 257
- Reaction score
- 0
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.
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.
