Barnwell once again nails it

[WilsonMVP]

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.

This..if we are going to throw for the love of god roll Russ out..or do a PA or something..not a quick slant with Lynch immediately going to the other side.

 

[volsunghawk]

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.

Sad but true.

From Football Outsiders' SB XLIX Quick Reads:

Twenty-two of Lynch's 24 runs gained at least 1 yard, but the Seahawks threw a pass on second-and-goal from the 1. Lynch's Success Rate was 58 percent, but the Seahawks threw a pass on second-and-goal from the 1. Lynch's five first downs (one of them a touchdown) included conversions on second-and-1, second-and-3, and third-and-1, but the Seahawks threw a pass on second-and-goal from the 1. Lynch had ten carries on second down, gaining positive yards on all of them and at least 3 yards on 9 of them, but the Seahawks threw a pass on second-and-goal from the 1.

According to FO stats, we had the leading WR in the game (Matthews), the leading RB in the game, and if it weren't for the game-sealing pick, the leading QB in the game.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/quick- ... uick-reads

There are plenty of times where fans (and sometimes players) of the losing team claim, "We should have won that game!" where the claim is only based on the perceived strengths of the two teams. This game is one where we can justify the claim. We should have won that game.

 

[hangumhi]

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.

Ditto. Not only was it overzealous to try to think that far ahead from the one yard line but it's pure stupidity to take the rock out of Lynch's hands and even more stupid to throw a slant into the heart of a goal line defense. And even more stupid to throw it to Lockette. If I'm going to throw a slant inside (WHICH I'M NOT!!!) I'm going to throw it to Baldwin who would be much quicker out of the break. ONCE AGAIN, DON'T EVER THROW AN INSIDE SLANT INTO A GOAL LINE DEFENSE ON THE ONE YARD LINE IN THE SUPERBOWL WHEN YOU HAVE A BEAST FOR A RUNNING BACK!!! THERE'S LIKE FOUR REASONS THERE NOT TO DO WHAT BEVELL DID....CHOOSE ONE!

 

[3Girls'HawkDad]

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.

Gotta agree with Si. Running a slant into the meat of that D, vs Browners side ( the meanest CB in football) to #5 receiver. Still pissed

 

[pehawk]

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.

Gotta agree with Si. Running a slant into the meat of that D, vs Browners side ( the meanest CB in football) to #5 receiver. Still pissed

Name me 5 OC's to replace him. Oh and DVOA!

 

[drcool]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-h ... e-carroll/ Another article saying pretty much the same thing.

But it only deals with pass plays vs. running plays in general. The slant call? Not good. Could a pass have been a better call with a play action or roll out or fade or something like that? Yes.

 

[volsunghawk]

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.

Gotta agree with Si. Running a slant into the meat of that D, vs Browners side ( the meanest CB in football) to #5 receiver. Still pissed

Name me 5 OC's to replace him. Oh and DVOA!

Dunno about 5, but my pipe dream is Gus Malzahn.

 

[kearly]

Barnwell has a bit of a contrarian streak that causes him to whiff on obvious stuff sometimes. In this case, he completely fails to notice that Seattle's 1st down run to Lynch ends with 1:02 still on the clock. The next play is snapped with 0:26 on the clock. That's 36 seconds the Seahawks had to get their 3 WRs off the field. No mention of that, instead he buys Carroll's grenade covering ruse that they were forced into the play by personnel, which is incredibly disingenuous given that the Seahawks had 36 seconds to get their power run personnel on the field and didn't do it.

He also whiffs by running with the logic that Seattle couldn't have run three times. WIth 1:02 left on the clock and the ball probably being spotted for play around 0:50, there is absolutely enough time for three runs. Even at 0:26, there was still enough time for three runs had Seattle called two run plays in the huddle.

 

[drcool]

Barnwell has a bit of a contrarian streak that causes him to whiff on obvious stuff sometimes. In this case, he completely fails to notice that Seattle's 1st down run to Lynch ends with 1:02 still on the clock. The next play is snapped with 0:26 on the clock. That's 36 seconds the Seahawks had to get their 3 WRs off the field. No mention of that, instead he buys Carroll's grenade covering ruse that they were forced into the play by personnel, which is incredibly disingenuous given that the Seahawks had 36 seconds to get their power run personnel on the field and didn't do it.

He also whiffs by running with the logic that Seattle couldn't have run three times. WIth 1:02 left on the clock and the ball probably being spotted for play around 0:50, there is absolutely enough time for three runs. Even at 0:26, there was still enough time for three runs had Seattle called two run plays in the huddle.

Yeah, if they would have snapped the ball quicker they probably could have gotten 3 runs in. After the first one it isn't like they would have to move far to get lined up again.

 

[brimsalabim]

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.

No no no! it didn't almost work. Didn't even come close. Your not paying attention. We were baited into that play. They expected it. They new what was coming and it was never going to succeed.

 

[Hawks46]

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.

Add to this that the Patriots are near the bottom of the league in 1 and 2 yards to go, they've give up 5/5 TDs/attempts in the same situation all year, and they weren't stopping us in that particular game.

Clock management my ass. You want to score with less than 10 seconds left, as you only go up by a FG and the Pats had 2 Time outs left. You had enough time to run whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted. No one can convince me that anything other than a bootleg pass with Wilson would equal to handing it off to Lynch. That or a RO keeper.

 

[Optimus25]

you know, my blood pressure only comes down and stays down until i read posts like this.

1. 99 times out of a 100 blah blah....1st INT at the 1 yard line in the NFL all year blah blah blah...
Guess what? first of all, when you run a rub route slant, at the 1, you compress the offense which allows the defense to cover less space really. how terrible did you feel when the Pats where in the red zone and their receivers were running in all that space putting so much pressure on our defenders? 99 times out of a 100 from the 50 yard line, that same rub route ends in completion or incompletion, and 1 time it will get picked. but on the 1 yard line, which compresses everything into tighter windows? No, the statistic I promise you is more like 95 times out of a 100, which is still small, but 5 times more likely for an INT. And the reason no one else has thrown an INT on the 1 is that so many O coordinator choose playaction, which is easily the most baffling factor of all considering nearly all of our passing this year comes from at least some sort of playaction pass. playaction simply gives Russell plenty of time to abort and live to see 3rd down, let alone possibly create something.

2.These stats about Lynch at the goal line. wanna know why that is? Because we play santa clara twice a year, arizona twice a year, carolina once a year...I don't recall one time lynch didn't gain at least 1/2 yard last night after contact. so block enough to get him 1/2 yard before contact and we repeat as sb champs. ukeface:

3. run or pass almost equal chance of success? guaranteed that is a no. you are delusional if you convince yourself of that. marshawn lynch gains a yard i'd say offhand 75 percent of the time. russell wilson completes a 1 yd pass, shoot, i'd say 50% of the time? Who would get the seperation? i think RW rushing from not finding anyone to throw to probably comes out higher in terms of likelihood of TD.