Yeah what we thought

[Maelstrom787]

But they had a TO called, Pete is on the headset listening, why if it was called as a pass and that was it then once in the huddle the pay called yeah I can see that. But if they called the play on the sideline there was time. Secondly if Russell seen the defense alignment was set against the success of it why no damn audible ? Unless he was scared to or not allowed to. Seeing Browner lined up across from Kearse would have been an automatic indicator.

Pretty sure any QB that was a leader would have changed it and took the hit after the play or fallout, chances are it would not have been an INT. I am betting Hass, Favre, Brady, hell almost everyone that played and was in high stakes games would have made a decision to audible and took the heat if it needed. Thats what a leader does.

We got everything the opposite, failed leadership in the huddle and on the field, failed execution of a bad play to begin with, failed accountability by Bevell, throwing a player under the bus again Bevell, Pete doing the honorable thing in taking heat, but failed to hold Bevell accountable, failed to address Bevell's throwing a player under the bus, all that caused us the failure to keep the team together, the divide had been made, the trust broken.

There wasn't a lot of time to audible, and there was 5 seconds left on the playclock. The game clock was running and they had one timeout. An audible there is complicated - checking to run into an 8-man box is a terrible choice (without the benefit of hindsight) and it forces you to take a timeout afterward - which means you really can't run on the next snap, telegraphing the pass.

There are a lot of plays in the NFL in which the defense knows what is coming. Execution is hard to defend regardless of whether you know what is coming or not, and even with Browner recognizing the play it took several things going exactly wrong for Seattle for that play to end in a turnover. Between ball placement, Kearse's block, Lockette's attempt at the catch, and Butler JUST getting there... even with Browner knowing, you don't expect that to end in a turnover.

There's no world in which Russ, again without the benefit in hindsight, would've been right to check into a run against an 8 man box - and an audible into a separate pass play would've taken too much time off that clock.

I get where you're coming from, but this line of thinking would end in on-field disaster more often than not when you're down to every single second mattering like Seattle was. There just wasn't time.

I've analyzed this over and over, frame by frame like the Zapruder film. Studied the game situation, the personnel on the field, the dynamics of the formation and call, Browner's body language, Marshawn's eyes, Russell's throw, Malcolm's angle to the ball... all of it. I have an unhealthy obsession with the end of that game.

After countless hours of doing nothing but pondering every aspect of that play, it becomes clear to me...

We just got really, really f****** unlucky.

It took so many things going wrong at the same exact time for that ball to end up intercepted. Removing hindsight from the equation makes the decision to pass and even the individual call itself totally defensible.

Even with Browner knowing the play, we had the exact look we wanted. Lockette had a butt ass naked path to the endzone. The route didn't flatten enough into the open space, the throw led Lockette too far, Kearse really didn't block nearly as well as he could've, Lockette's attempt at the catch was poor...

They knew what was coming and they still had a perfectly reasonable shot at a touchdown. Just like a goal line fade, or a simple goal line rush. Goal line plays are often extremely predictable and players know what's coming. That isn't always the end-all be-all. The staples are the staples because in the NFL, knowing what's coming is not enough. The good plays work anyway if they're executed properly.

Most of the real mistakes happened after the game with regard to ownership and accountability. No healing could take place with certain parties responding in certain ways.

I'm fine with the decision to pass. I'm fine with the individual play. God, fate, random chance, whatever... we weren't meant to win that game. I've made my peace with it.

There's comfort in the knowledge that sometimes, things just don't work out. Accepting that is a big part of life.

 

[WmHBonney]

The thing is, that was the most shocking, gut wrenching, inexplicable loss in a game of that magnitude in all the major team sports I've ever witnessed. And it happened to my team. Honestly speaking, if I had to say what was more impactful as a Hawks fan, either positively or negatively, us winning the SB or that loss and the way it happened, I would have to say that loss.

I can remember my first thought after that play. It was that no matter what happens in future seasons, this is one that got away. Followed by my belief that Pete would lose at least some of those players and that he would never again lead Seattle to the Superbowl.

 

[chris98251]

There wasn't a lot of time to audible, and there was 5 seconds left on the playclock. The game clock was running and they had one timeout. An audible there is complicated - checking to run into an 8-man box is a terrible choice (without the benefit of hindsight) and it forces you to take a timeout afterward - which means you really can't run on the next snap, telegraphing the pass.

There are a lot of plays in the NFL in which the defense knows what is coming. Execution is hard to defend regardless of whether you know what is coming or not, and even with Browner recognizing the play it took several things going exactly wrong for Seattle for that play to end in a turnover. Between ball placement, Kearse's block, Lockette's attempt at the catch, and Butler JUST getting there... even with Browner knowing, you don't expect that to end in a turnover.

There's no world in which Russ, again without the benefit in hindsight, would've been right to check into a run against an 8 man box - and an audible into a separate pass play would've taken too much time off that clock.

I get where you're coming from, but this line of thinking would end in on-field disaster more often than not when you're down to every single second mattering like Seattle was. There just wasn't time.

I've analyzed this over and over, frame by frame like the Zapruder film. Studied the game situation, the personnel on the field, the dynamics of the formation and call, Browner's body language, Marshawn's eyes, Russell's throw, Malcolm's angle to the ball... all of it. I have an unhealthy obsession with the end of that game.

After countless hours of doing nothing but pondering every aspect of that play, it becomes clear to me...

We just got really, really f****** unlucky.

It took so many things going wrong at the same exact time for that ball to end up intercepted. Removing hindsight from the equation makes the decision to pass and even the individual call itself totally defensible.

Even with Browner knowing the play, we had the exact look we wanted. Lockette had a butt ass naked path to the endzone. The route didn't flatten enough into the open space, the throw led Lockette too far, Kearse really didn't block nearly as well as he could've, Lockette's attempt at the catch was poor...

They knew what was coming and they still had a perfectly reasonable shot at a touchdown. Just like a goal line fade, or a simple goal line rush. Goal line plays are often extremely predictable and players know what's coming. That isn't always the end-all be-all. The staples are the staples because in the NFL, knowing what's coming is not enough. The good plays work anyway if they're executed properly.

Most of the real mistakes happened after the game with regard to ownership and accountability. No healing could take place with certain parties responding in certain ways.

I'm fine with the decision to pass. I'm fine with the individual play. God, fate, random chance, whatever... we weren't meant to win that game. I've made my peace with it.

There's comfort in the knowledge that sometimes, things just don't work out. Accepting that is a big part of life.

Worst case he spikes the ball immediately when he seen the match up, Wilson just didn't have that kind of Moxie in him. I say this because the post game interviews had the people in the Huddle going WTF at the call to begin with.

 

[RiverDog]

The thing is, that was the most shocking, gut wrenching, inexplicable loss in a game of that magnitude in all the major team sports I've ever witnessed. And it happened to my team. Honestly speaking, if I had to say what was more impactful as a Hawks fan, either positively or negatively, us winning the SB or that loss and the way it happened, I would have to say that loss.

I was going through my memory banks trying to come up with something comparable. The only thing I could come up was when the US basketball team lost in the Olympics to the Russians when the Russians were given three opportunities in the final few seconds to throw a length of the court pass that resulted in a shocking loss for team USA.

You have to be older to remember that one.

I remember that basketball loss to the USSR in the Olympics and having to watch the Russian players toss their teammate in the air and catching him. First time we hadn't won a gold medal in that sport. Montreal, not sure what year, maybe 68. Absolutely devasting. But we made up for it by beating their ass in hockey in 1980.

 

[NoGain]

I remember that basketball loss to the USSR in the Olympics and having to watch the Russian players toss their teammate in the air and catching him. First time we hadn't won a gold medal in that sport. Montreal, not sure what year, maybe 68. Absolutely devasting. But we made up for it by beating their ass in hockey in 1980.

Yeah. Red Sox fans might like to throw in that easy ground ball to first baseman Bill Buckner that went right through his legs in that WS loss. But it's damn hard to come up with something comparable.

 

[NoGain]

Just think of where that Kearse catch would rank in SB lore if we had scored and won that game. It's barely a footnote now if you're not a Hawks fan.

 

[Spin Doctor]

There wasn't a lot of time to audible, and there was 5 seconds left on the playclock. The game clock was running and they had one timeout. An audible there is complicated - checking to run into an 8-man box is a terrible choice (without the benefit of hindsight) and it forces you to take a timeout afterward - which means you really can't run on the next snap, telegraphing the pass.

There are a lot of plays in the NFL in which the defense knows what is coming. Execution is hard to defend regardless of whether you know what is coming or not, and even with Browner recognizing the play it took several things going exactly wrong for Seattle for that play to end in a turnover. Between ball placement, Kearse's block, Lockette's attempt at the catch, and Butler JUST getting there... even with Browner knowing, you don't expect that to end in a turnover.

There's no world in which Russ, again without the benefit in hindsight, would've been right to check into a run against an 8 man box - and an audible into a separate pass play would've taken too much time off that clock.

I get where you're coming from, but this line of thinking would end in on-field disaster more often than not when you're down to every single second mattering like Seattle was. There just wasn't time.

I've analyzed this over and over, frame by frame like the Zapruder film. Studied the game situation, the personnel on the field, the dynamics of the formation and call, Browner's body language, Marshawn's eyes, Russell's throw, Malcolm's angle to the ball... all of it. I have an unhealthy obsession with the end of that game.

After countless hours of doing nothing but pondering every aspect of that play, it becomes clear to me...

We just got really, really f****** unlucky.

It took so many things going wrong at the same exact time for that ball to end up intercepted. Removing hindsight from the equation makes the decision to pass and even the individual call itself totally defensible.

Even with Browner knowing the play, we had the exact look we wanted. Lockette had a butt ass naked path to the endzone. The route didn't flatten enough into the open space, the throw led Lockette too far, Kearse really didn't block nearly as well as he could've, Lockette's attempt at the catch was poor...

They knew what was coming and they still had a perfectly reasonable shot at a touchdown. Just like a goal line fade, or a simple goal line rush. Goal line plays are often extremely predictable and players know what's coming. That isn't always the end-all be-all. The staples are the staples because in the NFL, knowing what's coming is not enough. The good plays work anyway if they're executed properly.

Most of the real mistakes happened after the game with regard to ownership and accountability. No healing could take place with certain parties responding in certain ways.

I'm fine with the decision to pass. I'm fine with the individual play. God, fate, random chance, whatever... we weren't meant to win that game. I've made my peace with it.

There's comfort in the knowledge that sometimes, things just don't work out. Accepting that is a big part of life.

You're right, football isn't all about subterfuge. Teams such as the Rams and Chiefs will line up and run the exact same play and run it until defenses can stop it. I don't think a pass was the wrong play here, I just question the play at hand for several reasons:

1. Matchups were unfavorable. We called a play that relied on Kearse being able to pickoff the largest, most physically domineering DB in the NFL in an area with limited space. A player, mind you that made a career in the NFL blowing up plays like this. The play hinged on Kearse being able to make the pick, but instead he can't even get off the LOS because that is what Browner specializes in.

2. We didn't play to our players strengths. We asked our worst route runner to run a play that required precise route running. What happened? He cut his route too wide and ran a lazy route which allowed Butler to swoop in. If that would have been Baldwin, the worst thing that would have happened is an incomplete pass.

Russell Wilson has never exceled at these types of routes. His short accuracy and anticipation on these timing routes has always been inconsistent. We asked him to hang in the pocket and put it right on the target. That is not what Wilson was good at.

Why not run a play like a play action bootleg that puts him on the move and allows him to potentially improvise and play to his strengths.

At the end of the day, we didn't put our players into good positions. The play itself is an NFL bread and butter play, but the execution as well as the players we called on to make the play were highly suspect. We also didn't take into account the opposition on the other side of the ball either. Requiring a receiver to get off of Browner at the LOS to make a pick play is smooth brained. Calling on our worst route runner to run a precise play, also suspect. If Baldwin was in that position I doubt the ball gets picked off even if Wilson's placement is off

There is just so much wrong with this play. I don't question a pass, but I certainly question the personal called upon to make this play. At the end of the day we played to Lockette's and Wilson's weaknesses and we played into Brandon Browners strengths. These are all players that the Seahawks should've known well. Bevell did not put our players in a good position to make a play.

Instead of acknowledging this, he went on to blame everyone else but himself for the play. Yes, Bevell did correctly diagnose the issues with execution, but he also put these players in a position that wasn't their strengths. Kind of like us trying to pigeon hole Jimmy Graham in as an inline blocking TE when we first got him.

 

[RiverDog]

Just think of where that Kearse catch would rank in SB lore if we had scored and won that game. It's barely a footnote now if you're not a Hawks fan.

Yeah, it would have ranked up there with Lynn Swann's diving catch in SB 10 and David Tyree's helmet catch in SB 42. But like you said, it would have required that the team won.

 

[RiverDog]

You're right, football isn't all about subterfuge. Teams such as the Rams and Chiefs will line up and run the exact same play and run it until defenses can stop it. I don't think a pass was the wrong play here, I just question the play at hand for several reasons:

1. Matchups were unfavorable. We called a play that relied on Kearse being able to pickoff the largest, most physically domineering DB in the NFL in an area with limited space. A player, mind you that made a career in the NFL blowing up plays like this. The play hinged on Kearse being able to make the pick, but instead he can't even get off the LOS because that is what Browner specializes in.

2. We didn't play to our players strengths. We asked our worst route runner to run a play that required precise route running. What happened? He cut his route too wide and ran a lazy route which allowed Butler to swoop in. If that would have been Baldwin, the worst thing that would have happened is an incomplete pass.

Russell Wilson has never exceled at these types of routes. His short accuracy and anticipation on these timing routes has always been inconsistent. We asked him to hang in the pocket and put it right on the target. That is not what Wilson was good at.

Why not run a play like a play action bootleg that puts him on the move and allows him to potentially improvise and play to his strengths.

At the end of the day, we didn't put our players into good positions. The play itself is an NFL bread and butter play, but the execution as well as the players we called on to make the play were highly suspect. We also didn't take into account the opposition on the other side of the ball either. Requiring a receiver to get off of Browner at the LOS to make a pick play is smooth brained. Calling on our worst route runner to run a precise play, also suspect. If Baldwin was in that position I doubt the ball gets picked off even if Wilson's placement is off

There is just so much wrong with this play. I don't question a pass, but I certainly question the personal called upon to make this play. At the end of the day we played to Lockette's and Wilson's weaknesses and we played into Brandon Browners strengths. These are all players that the Seahawks should've known well. Bevell did not put our players in a good position to make a play.

Instead of acknowledging this, he went on to blame everyone else but himself for the play. Yes, Bevell did correctly diagnose the issues with execution, but he also put these players in a position that wasn't their strengths. Kind of like us trying to pigeon hole Jimmy Graham in as an inline blocking TE when we first got him.

That's a very good summation, and I agree with nearly all of it.

However, in defense of Bevell, the weaknesses in Russell's game of which you correctly pointed out may not have been that apparent at that time. He didn't have the benefit of another 7-8 years of history to reference as we do today, kind of a hindsight is 20/20 proposition.

 

[pittpnthrs]

There wasn't a lot of time to audible, and there was 5 seconds left on the playclock. The game clock was running and they had one timeout. An audible there is complicated - checking to run into an 8-man box is a terrible choice (without the benefit of hindsight) and it forces you to take a timeout afterward - which means you really can't run on the next snap, telegraphing the pass.

There are a lot of plays in the NFL in which the defense knows what is coming. Execution is hard to defend regardless of whether you know what is coming or not, and even with Browner recognizing the play it took several things going exactly wrong for Seattle for that play to end in a turnover. Between ball placement, Kearse's block, Lockette's attempt at the catch, and Butler JUST getting there... even with Browner knowing, you don't expect that to end in a turnover.

There's no world in which Russ, again without the benefit in hindsight, would've been right to check into a run against an 8 man box - and an audible into a separate pass play would've taken too much time off that clock.

I get where you're coming from, but this line of thinking would end in on-field disaster more often than not when you're down to every single second mattering like Seattle was. There just wasn't time.

I've analyzed this over and over, frame by frame like the Zapruder film. Studied the game situation, the personnel on the field, the dynamics of the formation and call, Browner's body language, Marshawn's eyes, Russell's throw, Malcolm's angle to the ball... all of it. I have an unhealthy obsession with the end of that game.

After countless hours of doing nothing but pondering every aspect of that play, it becomes clear to me...

We just got really, really f****** unlucky.

It took so many things going wrong at the same exact time for that ball to end up intercepted. Removing hindsight from the equation makes the decision to pass and even the individual call itself totally defensible.

Even with Browner knowing the play, we had the exact look we wanted. Lockette had a butt ass naked path to the endzone. The route didn't flatten enough into the open space, the throw led Lockette too far, Kearse really didn't block nearly as well as he could've, Lockette's attempt at the catch was poor...

They knew what was coming and they still had a perfectly reasonable shot at a touchdown. Just like a goal line fade, or a simple goal line rush. Goal line plays are often extremely predictable and players know what's coming. That isn't always the end-all be-all. The staples are the staples because in the NFL, knowing what's coming is not enough. The good plays work anyway if they're executed properly.

Most of the real mistakes happened after the game with regard to ownership and accountability. No healing could take place with certain parties responding in certain ways.

I'm fine with the decision to pass. I'm fine with the individual play. God, fate, random chance, whatever... we weren't meant to win that game. I've made my peace with it.

There's comfort in the knowledge that sometimes, things just don't work out. Accepting that is a big part of life.

Mael, curious about your opinion on something. No right or wrong answer and no debate. Do you think Ricardo scores if he catches the ball? I've watched that play 100 times too and I think he still comes up short. Butler was right there and I think he stuffs him short of the goalline. Just my opinion.

 

[SeaWolv]

My understanding is that Bevell told Pete that we were throwing on that down and Pete simply nodded his head. Even if he disagreed, there wasn't enough time for a debate as there's literally a matter of seconds for the OC to make his call. We would have had to burn a timeout, and that would have meant giving up a possible 4th down play if we chose to run on 3rd down and didn't score.

It was a reasonable decision, as the plan was that if the receiver wasn't open, Russell throws the ball away, the clock stops, and we have two more downs and a timeout, giving us 4 total shots at the end zone. At that time, I was hoping we wouldn't score on that down as I didn't want to give Brady very much time to respond as they'd need just a FG to tie the game.

Ultimately, it was Pete's fault for the failure as it always comes back to the head coach. To his credit...and one of the things I've always admired about him is that he accepted responsibility for the call. That's what we saw in this podcast. Beast knows this about Pete, and wanted to make sure the truth was told.

Why would you try to get cute there and go away from what's been working all game?

You have 26 seconds left (plenty of time) and a timeout. It's 2nd and goal at the NE 5. Marshawn just ripped off 4 yards on the previous play. It's 4 down territory and Marshawn has racked up 102 rushing yards. You give the rock to Skittles and see if he can punch it in on 2nd down. If that doesn't work use your final timeout. You then have 3rd down to do what you said and throw it away to stop the clock if the receiver isn't open and take one more shot on 4th.

If Beast gets stuffed on 2nd down then you throw the ball, not before.

 

[themunn]

But they had a TO called, Pete is on the headset listening, why if it was called as a pass and that was it then once in the huddle the pay called yeah I can see that. But if they called the play on the sideline there was time. Secondly if Russell seen the defense alignment was set against the success of it why no damn audible ? Unless he was scared to or not allowed to. Seeing Browner lined up across from Kearse would have been an automatic indicator.

Pretty sure any QB that was a leader would have changed it and took the hit after the play or fallout, chances are it would not have been an INT. I am betting Hass, Favre, Brady, hell almost everyone that played and was in high stakes games would have made a decision to audible and took the heat if it needed. Thats what a leader does.

We got everything the opposite, failed leadership in the huddle and on the field, failed execution of a bad play to begin with, failed accountability by Bevell, throwing a player under the bus again Bevell, Pete doing the honorable thing in taking heat, but failed to hold Bevell accountable, failed to address Bevell's throwing a player under the bus, all that caused us the failure to keep the team together, the divide had been made, the trust broken.

They didn't have a TO called - we called the TO after Kearse made his grab, Marshawn then ran the ball from around the 7/8 to the 1, and the clock continued ticking from over a minute left down to around 25s. It was a very ballsy move by Belichick not to stop the clock given in theory we had 3 attempts from the 1 with a TO remaining - instead of giving Brady potentially up to a minute to get back into FG range and score it would have been <20 seconds. He backed their defense and they came up in the moment.

 

[cymatica]

That's a very good summation, and I agree with nearly all of it.

However, in defense of Bevell, the weaknesses in Russell's game of which you correctly pointed out may not have been that apparent at that time. He didn't have the benefit of another 7-8 years of history to reference as we do today, kind of a hindsight is 20/20 proposition.

Coaches shouldn't need years of hindsight to understand their player's strengths and weaknesses. Right after the loss fans were already dissecting that play and pointing out why it was a bad call.

 

[Ozzy]

I do . I have . I will.

This is on dangersnatch as much as a stupid play call by bevell

I'm still baffled people blame the throw. If you know play design its a bang bang throw that is dependant on a block holding up which didn't. Every QB makes that same throw in that situation. If Kearse even slows Browner down its a touchdown. If Lockette doesn't round it slightly its a touchdown. The throw was the last thing we should be blaming on that play and people that do I think just have a massive issue with Russ so its an easy target. We should be blaming Bevel for calling that play knowing it was based on Kearse blocking Browner(which wasn't going to happen) and your special teams gunner running a tough precise route. Russ wasn't the problem on that play.

 

[Ozzy]

That's the thing. A lot of people don't account for just how little time there was to make any adjustment to the call. Under 30 seconds, running clock, 1 timeout, and you need to make sure you can get 3 quality attempts off at scoring that touchdown.

There was no time to overrule. You let your OC call his plays and you live with it.

Those most critical of Pete's "meddling" are always the first to say he should've meddled.

I've been super critical of Pete at times as you know but this play wasn't on him, it was on Bevell. I have zero issues with a pass play there, I have a problem with Bevell calling that particular play.

 

[RiverDog]

Coaches shouldn't need years of hindsight to understand their player's strengths and weaknesses. Right after the loss fans were already dissecting that play and pointing out why it was a bad call.

I agree. But nine full seasons since that game is a lot of time. That's roughly 150 games that Russell has played since then. What is a well-known fact now wasn't nearly as obvious back then. It's an advantage we have today that Bevell didn't have in SB 49.

 

[RiverDog]

Why would you try to get cute there and go away from what's been working all game?

You have 26 seconds left (plenty of time) and a timeout. It's 2nd and goal at the NE 5. Marshawn just ripped off 4 yards on the previous play. It's 4 down territory and Marshawn has racked up 102 rushing yards. You give the rock to Skittles and see if he can punch it in on 2nd down. If that doesn't work use your final timeout. You then have 3rd down to do what you said and throw it away to stop the clock if the receiver isn't open and take one more shot on 4th.

If Beast gets stuffed on 2nd down then you throw the ball, not before.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. All I'm saying is that their reasoning was sound. They wanted to insure themselves of the use of all 4 downs and preserve their run/pass option.

Let's assume that we ran Beast on 2nd down and he got stuffed...they had just substituted their heavy package, which wasn't in on 1st down when Beast ran 4 yards to the two...and we weren't that great of a short yardage running team. We lost a game that season vs. the Rams when Beast got stuffed on a 4th and one. In any event, if we run and don't score, we are forced to call our last timeout.

That makes it 3rd and goal with no way to stop the clock. If we run on 3rd down and don't get in, the game is over, so essentially it forces us into a passing situation if we want to insure ourselves of two shots at the end zone.

As I said, I'm not saying what Bevell did was the ideal course of action. I would have preferred @morgulon1 idea of getting right to the LOS and run a play before the Pats could get their heavy package in.

 

[chris98251]

I'm still baffled people blame the throw. If you know play design its a bang bang throw that is dependant on a block holding up which didn't. Every QB makes that same throw in that situation. If Kearse even slows Browner down its a touchdown. If Lockette doesn't round it slightly its a touchdown. The throw was the last thing we should be blaming on that play and people that do I think just have a massive issue with Russ so its an easy target. We should be blaming Bevel for calling that play knowing it was based on Kearse blocking Browner(which wasn't going to happen) and your special teams gunner running a tough precise route. Russ wasn't the problem on that play.

Russell threw the ball, the interception was on him, Bevell was not in the game, as soon as he seen Browner over Kearse he could have done two things, audible, they had a lot of time if they would not have screwed up as always and took a long time to get the play in, or Russell spikes the ball and we reset. The so called leader on offense did not lead.

 

[RiverDog]

Russell threw the ball, the interception was on him, Bevell was not in the game, as soon as he seen Browner over Kearse he could have done two things, audible, they had a lot of time if they would not have screwed up as always and took a long time to get the play in, or Russell spikes the ball and we reset. The so called leader on offense did not lead.

Spiking the ball when we still had a timeout doesn't make a lot of sense. Call the timeout and keep it at 2nd down and 3 shots from the 2. But I agree, Russell has to accept a big part of that blame. He's the one who pulled the trigger and threw off target.

 

[MORGULON]

I'm still baffled people blame the throw. If you know play design its a bang bang throw that is dependant on a block holding up which didn't. Every QB makes that same throw in that situation. If Kearse even slows Browner down its a touchdown. If Lockette doesn't round it slightly its a touchdown. The throw was the last thing we should be blaming on that play and people that do I think just have a massive issue with Russ so its an easy target. We should be blaming Bevel for calling that play knowing it was based on Kearse blocking Browner(which wasn't going to happen) and your special teams gunner running a tough precise route. Russ wasn't the problem on that play.

In your opinion.

I think they're all at fault. You have chosen to blame the receivers .

That's fine .

I choose to blame the coach who selected the play, then I put it on the supposed franchise QB to use discretion and make the right choice, to have a feel for the game , the players , the opponent. Like a Drew Brees , Tom Brady etc..

They were letting Russ cook and he blew it.