Barnwell once again nails it

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/super ... -seahawks/

Pretty much sums up my feelings. Give the ball to Lynch. That is the call we all want made in that situation.

But looking at the numbers the odds of success and failure with a run or pass in that situation are almost equal. If Lockette makes the catch Bevell and Carroll are praised for not running into a stacked goal line formation. And 99 times out of 100 that pass is either incomplete or a TD giving Seattle either the win or 2 more shots at a TD.

And Lynch is not really a "goal line" back. Only 5 for 12 in those situations in the past 3 years.

Like everyone I hate the play call and would have rather seen the ball in Lynch's hands but this outcome was a bit too much of a fluke to make me really angry about it.

I didnt mind the decision to throw on 2nd down. i did not like the rub rout slant call. too many moving pieces and Lockettes not the person i wanted entrusted with hauling in the Super Bowl winning catch.

Passing on 2nd down with 26 seconds to go and only one time out is good clock management. It ensured the Hawks get three attempts at goal. If you run on 2nd down then you may very likely only get two attempts.

For Lynch not being a short yardage back he sure ran it in from short yardage earlier in the game. The play calling got entirely too cute and it cost dearly.

Nope, it should have gone to Lynch. period. There is no justification. Screw percentages and all that blah.
You've got the Pats on their heels, you've got an ANGRY running back with a yard to gain with the SB win on the line. You feed him.
Given that particular situation you can take all goal line percentage BS ...hell you can take all the odds and percentages for that matter...and throw them out the window. Look the play was FUBAR there is no rationalizing or defense for it. So stop.

Personally, I would've given it to turbin. Got to be clever to beat NE.

soxhawk":2blos21o said:

Personally, I would've given it to turbin. Got to be clever to beat NE.

Click to expand...

Lol!!! look where clever got us.

If you want to throw, you run a jumbo package play action pass with a TE going to the back of the endzone, and a WR running a slant and out. If there is someone in Russell's face right away he simply launches it over the head of the TE and out of the endzone. If the TE is covered and Russell has some room he can roll right and throw to the WR, run it in, or throw it away.

Lynch has to be part of the play, either via a fake run or by giving him the ball. Not using him is unacceptable.

TheWalrus":3m21hoey said:

If you want to throw, you run a jumbo package play action pass with a TE going to the back of the endzone, and a WR running a slant and out. If there is someone in Russell's face right away he simply launches it over the head of the TE and out of the endzone. If the TE is covered and Russell has some room he can roll right and throw to the WR, run it in, or throw it away.

Lynch has to be part of the play, either via a fake run or by giving him the ball. Not using him is unacceptable.

Click to expand...

This +1,000,000

I was as furious as anyone last night at the decision to pass instead of run. But at the end of the day, for me, its exactly what walrus stated. if you are going to throw, give yourself an outlet... an option to throw it away... for Russ to scramble and make something happen. Poor call on the choice of pass play, not the decision to throw vs run. Lynch was 5 for 12 in similar situations over the last 3 years. Honestly, just before play started, i was having flashbacks of the NFC CG last year when we had the ball at the one against SF and Lynch got hit in the backfield and fumbled. The KC this year also came to mind...

You never know what might have been. Just wish they'd chosen a different play.. run, pass, whatever. just not a slant, on Browner's side, into the middle of the defense.

drcool":1n5u5xk8 said:

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/super-bowl-new-england-patriots-seattle-seahawks/

and 99 times out of 100 that pass is either incomplete or a TD .

Click to expand...

I don't agree in fact I'ts quite the opposite. You have Brandon Browner out there. He has seen that play, practiced against it, and knows well all he has to do is hold Kearse and Butler has a free run at the ball. The only result in question would have been weather or not the kid holds on to the int or drops it.

Running the slant from a bunch formation when every player on the field is congested between the hashes is beyond stupid. Run it, roll out, different pass etc. anything but what you did. The crazy thing is it still almost worked.

Vancanhawksfan":1ylj8oyd said:

Passing on 2nd down with 26 seconds to go and only one time out is good clock management. It ensured the Hawks get three attempts at goal. If you run on 2nd down then you may very likely only get two attempts.

Click to expand...

This. I completely understood the decision to pass. It was the formation and play that is making me blow my stack this morning (and last night...same thing since I didn't really sleep either). If you're going to pass, then make it an ultra-low risk pass that's either a TD or an incompletion. The one thing you DON'T do is throw a slant that has the highest risk of something going sidewise in a situation like that!

I am not normally one that calls for a coach's head based on one bad game, but this is an exception. That call was so obviously and egregiously bad, that Bevell needs to be fired within the week, or any sense of accountability within this franchise becomes a complete joke.

I didn't mind passing at the time - reading other peoples thoughts - I think they had an even better idea, going jumbo, looking at the back corner, etc.

My biggest issue though is the idea that we weren't playing for a TD right there? Pete can be misinterpreted sometimes, but the idea that we "were playing for 3rd and 4th down there" like we were running clock is insane if true. You get the lead and get your best unit on the field. However you can.

If we were going to pass, we should have at least done a play action pass. But not even making New England crash at the Line of Scrimmage to stop Beast was stupid.

The slant call bothered me even more considering the troubles we had with it in the GB game.

Daytomann":31ljeirg said:

Nope, it should have gone to Lynch. period. There is no justification. Screw percentages and all that blah.
You've got the Pats on their heels, you've got an ANGRY running back with a yard to gain with the SB win on the line. You feed him.
Given that particular situation you can take all goal line percentage BS ...hell you can take all the odds and percentages for that matter...and throw them out the window. Look the play was FUBAR there is no rationalizing or defense for it. So stop.

Click to expand...

hard to argue this post...Lockette has a role on the team but throwing the biggest pass in NFL history to a 5th receiver is a recipe for disaster. Not his fault though...well unless you ask Bevell

Nobody seems to be talking about execution. Play calling is important, yes, but execution is more important. Truth is, Wilson did not execute on that play. Had he thrown the ball a bit further back, it wouldn't have been an int. Had he thrown the ball at the stomach, it likely would've been caught, but at least not an int. Wilson has some of the blame on that play. It makes sense for clock management, but I still wish they would've run the damned ball anyways. Nearly impossible to argue that Lynch can't get one yard in two plays.

Treghc":2deb97vh said:

Nobody seems to be talking about execution. Play calling is important, yes, but execution is more important. Truth is, Wilson did not execute on that play. Had he thrown the ball a bit further back, it wouldn't have been an int. Had he thrown the ball at the stomach, it likely would've been caught, but at least not an int. Wilson has some of the blame on that play. It makes sense for clock management, but I still wish they would've run the damned ball anyways. Nearly impossible to argue that Lynch can't get one yard in two plays.

Click to expand...

I agree somewhat - but shouldn't we be calling plays to RW's strengths? Throwing slants and short timing patterns is not what he does best.

Fault for execution is, in my opinion on Kearse and Lockette. Kearse should have done a better job of setting the pick and Lockette should have been more aggressive in the route. He seemed to be running at half speed.

It doesn't matter what the success rate is, Lynch was going crazy in the 2nd half, just as he always does........and he just ran for five yards. AND you still have a time out if he does get stuffed.

31 out of 32 coaches hand it to Lynch, unfortunately we had the only idiot coach that tried to get cute, and it cost us a SB.

I seem to recall Beast running it in from the 1 yd line in SB XLVIII. He would have punched it in. But we'll never know.