Analysis of Seahawks stopping Rams on 4th down

[Runscott]

Them going for the field goal wouldn't have helped them much. Ball starts at the 35-yard line due to them being scared of Shaheed. With their defense getting cooked all day, we go right down and score a FG or TD, and they still would have needed a TD. So going for the TD there was the right call.

Yeah, it looked like a good situation having a field goal in your pocket and great qb and receivers, but it was basically no-win for McVay whether he got a field goal or a touchdown. The only bad outcome was choosing to go for the touchdown, and failing. In the end zone, 4 yards, against our secondary? I'm not a hindsight guy, as it's always 20-20 - but my Brother and I both thought it was the wrong decision, and we were both happy (but nervous) about it.

This has been the season of going for it on fourth. I guess I'm more conservative than I thought I was.

 

[Runscott]

I listened to the radio show and didn't hear anything like this, so not sure what Condotta is talking about. Maybe he is misinterpreting something.

Condotta's good - one of the few I don't generally question.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

I've said it a thousand times, or at least it feels like it................why are so many coaches allergic to just taking points? It has cost teams countless games. It makes NO sense to me and never will.

 

[Runscott]

I've said it a thousand times, or at least it feels like it................why are so many coaches allergic to just taking points? It has cost teams countless games. It makes NO sense to me and never will.

If it's your policy to go for it in such situations, and you are consistent, it often works - I forget which playoff game it was (Bears/Rams?) but the coach failed and lost 3 points, then succeeded and got 7. So he was up 1 in the end. But that's over a game...or at least a half. Less to think about than with 4:59.

Sean Peyton's situation was even more different in that he had a 2nd string qb and could be up 10-0 when his defense was playing well at home, and snow coming in. Analytics don't work for such situations.

 

[Smellyman]

Bob Condotta of the Seattle Times reports that Mike Macdonald admits that two people on Williams was a mistake:

https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seahawks/why-seahawks-nfc-title-win-was-historic-and-fortunate-four-downs/

From the quote, it doesn't seem obvious to me, though. What Macdonald said was: "We actually didn’t even execute that play well on fourth down." That's not exactly an admission that they screwed up. But Condotta says: "On his radio show Monday on Seattle Sports 710, Macdonald seemed to indicate that one of the mistakes might have been both Love and Lawrence dropping to cover Williams and that Seattle was supposed to have more rushers going after Stafford."

I didn't hear the radio show, so I don't know what Macdonald said. Did he admit both Love and Lawrence were not supposed to cover Williams on that play?

lot of inferring by Condotta there.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

If it's your policy to go for it in such situations, and you are consistent, it often works - I forget which playoff game it was (Bears/Rams?) but the coach failed and lost 3 points, then succeeded and got 7. So he was up 1 in the end. But that's over a game...or at least a half. Less to think about than with 4:59.

Sean Peyton's situation was even more different in that he had a 2nd string qb and could be up 10-0 when his defense was playing well at home, and snow coming in. Analytics don't work for such situations.

See Detroit Lions vs. the Niners a couple years back
See Chicago Bears, who went for it on 4th down 5 TIMES IN A HALF and only converted one time.
Broncos passed up a FG in a game where a snowstorm was coming in. They lost by..............3. STUPID.

Being too aggressive cost them, big time.

 

[Runscott]

See Detroit Lions vs. the Niners a couple years back

But that was Campbell's style all year - overall I think it worked (not sure - would have to look at stats). But 4th down decisions are often situational (like the examples we've been discussing from Sunday);i.e-(IMO), maybe you've been going for it all year, but in this particular situation it's not the right move. The Bronco decision was the worst. Not as bad as our Super Bowl debacle, but still not good.

If these great coaches didn't make decisions like these that we 'are certain' were mistakes, then we wouldn't have the opportunity to think we know something.

 

[hox]

See above. Macdonald says they didn't mean to double Williams, confirming what McVay says. So we got lucky.

Upon further investigation, he didn't say anything like that.






So not luck, but a part of the design.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Agree to disagree. Take the damn points.

 

[BDD222]

See above. Macdonald says they didn't mean to double Williams, confirming what McVay says. So we got lucky.

How did we get lucky? Technically, Nwosu(I believe) still beat the LT and was running at Stafford. Was the RB open if we didn't double? Didn't look like it to me. I guess that I do not understand the luck aspect.

Shouldn't luck be attributed to a scenario where we double the RB and leave a TE wide open, but they drop it?

 

[BDD222]

Yeah, it looked like a good situation having a field goal in your pocket and great qb and receivers, but it was basically no-win for McVay whether he got a field goal or a touchdown. The only bad outcome was choosing to go for the touchdown, and failing. In the end zone, 4 yards, against our secondary? I'm not a hindsight guy, as it's always 20-20 - but my Brother and I both thought it was the wrong decision, and we were both happy (but nervous) about it.

This has been the season of going for it on fourth. I guess I'm more conservative than I thought I was.

It was the correct call to go for it. As was mentioned above, we took the ball from our 6 to the Rams 32(FG range) before taken a 3/4 yard loss and then a 5/6 yard loss. If we muster a FG out of that by trying to pickup a first instead of running the clock then it is game over anyway. If we start from the 35 instead of the 6 would we not have been on theor 3 all things considered?

Fact is, their defense need to make a play regardless of whether the took a 3 there or gained 7. The Rams defense made no plays and we were in a position for a game tying FG if needed.

 

[Runscott]

It was the correct call to go for it. As was mentioned above, we took the ball from our 6 to the Rams 32(FG range) before taken a 3/4 yard loss and then a 5/6 yard loss. If we muster a FG out of that by trying to pickup a first instead of running the clock then it is game over anyway. If we start from the 35 instead of the 6 would we not have been on theor 3 all things considered?

Fact is, their defense need to make a play regardless of whether the took a 3 there or gained 7. The Rams defense made no plays and we were in a position for a game tying FG if needed.

I still disagree - did at the time, and still do. But watching the talking heads the last two days, it seems to be 50/50 (as opposed to almost unanimous regarding Sean Peyton's call).

McVay's probably the best coach in the NFC and he doesn't have regrets. We're just guys sitting on couches (or stadium seats). (I also can call balls and strikes from behind the Mariners dugout - even for left-handed batters )

 

[BDD222]

Upon further investigation, he didn't say anything like that.

View attachment 78084
View attachment 78085

View attachment 78086

So not luck, but a part of the design.

View attachment 78087

I don't believe that Williams was the checkdown. He was the primary target. You can see Stafford pump fake to Devante and look directly at Kyren.

 

[BDD222]

I still disagree - did at the time, and still do. But watching the talking heads the last two days, it seems to be 50/50 (as opposed to almost unanimous regarding Sean Peyton's call).

McVay's probably the best coach in the NFC and he doesn't have regrets. We're just guys sitting on couches (or stadium seats). (I also can call balls and strikes from behind the Mariners dugout - even for left-handed batters )

I agree with you about Sean Payton. He should have taken the points. McVay we disagree.

 

[JPatera76]

See above. Macdonald says they didn't mean to double Williams, confirming what McVay says. So we got lucky.

On the Mike Macdonald show with Brock and Saulk he said it was be design. And wasn’t a mistake. He said he knew they like to go Williams quite a bit on 3rd down situations

 

[JPatera76]

Upon further investigation, he didn't say anything like that.

View attachment 78084
View attachment 78085

View attachment 78086

So not luck, but a part of the design.

View attachment 78087

He also said it was the design on his show with Brock and Saulk

 

[Runscott]

I agree with you about Sean Payton. He should have taken the points. McVay we disagree.

It would be interesting to hear someone discuss this with Stafford well after the season's over. I don't think he's so egotistical that he wouldn't think about it. Same for Sean Peyton, but I think Peyton would stick to his guns. Did Pete Carroll ever express regret about the pass call in the Super Bowl? I really don't remember.

 

[hox]

I don't believe that Williams was the checkdown. He was the primary target. You can see Stafford pump fake to Devante and look directly at Kyren.

For sure. Williams was the blitz beater. We faked the blitz to trick them, ie, simulated pressure.

They fell for it, and the "luck" thing is a cope.

 

[glenwo2]

Bob Condotta of the Seattle Times reports that Mike Macdonald admits that two people on Williams was a mistake:

https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seahawks/why-seahawks-nfc-title-win-was-historic-and-fortunate-four-downs/

From the quote, it doesn't seem obvious to me, though. What Macdonald said was: "We actually didn’t even execute that play well on fourth down." That's not exactly an admission that they screwed up. But Condotta says: "On his radio show Monday on Seattle Sports 710, Macdonald seemed to indicate that one of the mistakes might have been both Love and Lawrence dropping to cover Williams and that Seattle was supposed to have more rushers going after Stafford."

I didn't hear the radio show, so I don't know what Macdonald said. Did he admit both Love and Lawrence were not supposed to cover Williams on that play?

Honestly, this doesn't really tell us much of anything.

He wasn't specific so we don't know if he's referring to that or not.

I'm going to say that he DID know and that it was PLANNED.

He outcoached McVay and McVay can EAT A DICK.

 

[Grahamhawker]

I don't believe that Williams was the checkdown. He was the primary target. You can see Stafford pump fake to Devante and look directly at Kyren.

And honestly, is DLaw going to be able to cover Williams? If Love wasn't on him all he has to do is break outside.