if Bev called 4 running plays and they got stuffed?

[firemanseahawk]

:13: :13: :13: :13:

I hate goalline passes with a passion, so absolutely id rather run.

In addition to that, running is our strength and our identity.

If we run 3 or 4 times and fail to get in then we don't deserve to win. If the Pats stuffed us at the goalline to win the game I would tip my hat to them and accept the loss.

But that is an unlikely if. The hawks score if we pound the ball.

:13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: I agree. but the problem I have I saying i'm smarter than Pete and his coaches. I'm just ........... ...aghhhhhhhh. Seattle fan.... It still is better ride year after year than 20 years ago!

 

[AirStrike]

I'd rather lose the game knowing they stuffed beast mode and outworked and outmuscled our offensive line to win the championship multiple times in a row, than take the chance and throwing the football like a finesse team on the goal line.

 

[bandiger]

It would have been two running place most likely. But if they failed , we wouldn't be calling for someones head this morning. We instead would be talking about how to improve the O Line, because the current one has struggled in such situations too many times this year.

Pretty much but the way Lynch and the O-line was doing its job, obvious they had slim chance to stop it. God I'm sick

 

[Krieg's list]

To answer the original question, which was calling all runs and still failing, how would you feel . . .

I can guarantee that posters would be blasting Bevell for not recognizing the Patriots stacking the box and calling a pass play from a spread formation. I guarantee it. No one will admit it, but if Bevell goes non-traditional and the play fails, he gets blasted, and if Bevell goes conservative and fails he gets blasted as well.

Being an OC is the hardest job in the NFL IMO. Easy to second guess, but hard to evaluate all the factors that go into a play call and execution.

As a long-time Bevell hater, this is a fantastic post. Absolutely true that 3 straight failed Lynch runs-- however unlikely-- would've drawn the ire of Hawks fans, including me.

But this is only because the "run it with Lynch 3 more times" argument is an oversimplification done for dramatic effect. In reality, most fans would expect them to run Lynch twice. Having failed to score on two attempts, no one would begrudge a pass play on 4th down. This run-run-pass sequence was probably the first choice of the coaches, but since Belicheck did not use a timeout AND they did not want to snap the ball early on 2nd down and possibly leave NE too much time, they felt pass-run-either was the best option to ensure minimal time remaining after a go-ahead TD.

Ignoring that the actual pass play selected was probably the absolute worst imaginable, the choice to pass on 2nd down leaves a bad taste because-- to add another clunky analogy to the growing pile-- it's like bringing in your lights-out closer with 2 out in the 9th and then having him throw a first pitch change-up because the batter is gonna be looking for a fastball. Only the change-up is a hanger and gets crushed. Get beat with your best pitch, save the change-up for after he's fouled a couple fastballs straight back.

 

[randomation]

If they could stuff Beast 3 times from the 1 they deserved to win given that he almost got the endzone the previous play that wasn't going to happen.

 

[hawknation2015]

As a long-time Bevell hater, this is a fantastic post. Absolutely true that 3 straight failed Lynch runs-- however unlikely-- would've drawn the ire of Hawks fans, including me.

Not from me, not from a lot of people who have more faith in Marshawn to reach the end zone than any receiver on this team. A Russell Wilson QB sneak also would have been acceptable from the one-yard line.

We should have gone down swinging by fighting power with more power, rather than trying to outsmart them with a finesse pass pay from a shotgun formation. That was a huge departure from what the identity of this offense was supposed to be.

 

[Krieg's list]

As a long-time Bevell hater, this is a fantastic post. Absolutely true that 3 straight failed Lynch runs-- however unlikely-- would've drawn the ire of Hawks fans, including me.

Not from me, not from a lot of people who have more faith in Marshawn to reach the end zone than any receiver on this team. A Russell Wilson QB sneak also would have been acceptable from the one-yard line.

We should have gone down swinging by fighting power with more power, rather than trying to outsmart them with a finesse pass pay from a shotgun formation. That was a huge departure from what the identity of this offense was supposed to be.

Thanks for cutting out the rest of my post so as to take this completely out of context and not to undermine your point. :sarcasm_off:

Also, you conflate that anyone who would hypothetically be critical of running Lynch four straight times while failing to score is someone who supports the actual 2nd down play call. There is nothing that excludes being critical of both, although obviously the 2nd down pass was far more controversial and is easier to measure reactions to because it actual happened and is not hypothetical like the question in the OP is.

I think you are failing to actually imagine that, hypothetically, the Hawks have been stonewalled (and have possibly lost yardage) on 2nd and 3rd down. You have now hypothetically given Lynch 3 chances (including 1st and goal from the 5) to punch it in and have failed. You call run again and get stuffed short. You are telling me your first reaction isn't going to be "Wow" and then "Why didn't we at least roll Russ out to see if he could make a play?" "They KNEW we were gonna run it with Lynch" etc, etc? If so, I don't believe you have a strong enough imagination to truly understand this hypothetical situation. In your mind, it never even gets to 4th down because you are confident Lynch won't be stopped. AND WE ALL AGREE WITH YOU. Everyone is confident Lynch would have scored if given the opportunities. But that was NOT the hypothetical in the OP. And you are lying to yourself if you think you wouldn't question the playcalling after four consecutive Lynch rushes that failed to yield a TD. There is no "faith" at that point-- he has already tried and failed. You don't seem to get that.

 

[Scottemojo]

A truth our coaching staff forgot in the pressure of the moment: It is about players, not plays. Just becasue you think you can beat somebody blindfolded and with a hand tied behind your back doesn't mean you should, and we tried to beat the Pats just that way.

At his prime, would you have had Joey Cora pinch hit for Ken Griffey?

Throwing at their fifth string rookie cb was playing blindfolded with a hand behind our back?

Joey Cora batting off the long reliever is still Joey Cora, and Lockette is no higher on the depth chart.

Tell you what, show me all the short slants Lockette has caught. I'll wait for you.

 

[hawk45]

I bet if we had a reel of all the short slants caught period by this team it would make for some scary viewing. We have sucked at slants hard forever. Seems like PRich managed a few that didn't look like they were the most difficult thing on Earth, but other than that they were dicey.

That it was to Lockette, proud owner of 18 career catches, makes it just that much more of an indictment.

And I don't want to hear about Matthews being untested. One, we tried it once when the entire game wasn't on the line, it worked, and we went back to it. Almost like a smart coach like Belichick would. Two, Russell throws the best "jump ball" in the league bar none and we've lived on those for years.

Zero defense for the slant. Even Rome tore Bevell a new one about having the shortest NFL QB throw a slant to a career backup wideout. It lowers my blood pressure that the entire nation is turning Bevell in to Buckner, because there are no signs he'll be held accountable by Pete, who was the genius behind winding the clock down to 30 seconds in the first place and putting us in the situation.

 

[hawknation2015]

As a long-time Bevell hater, this is a fantastic post. Absolutely true that 3 straight failed Lynch runs-- however unlikely-- would've drawn the ire of Hawks fans, including me.

Not from me, not from a lot of people who have more faith in Marshawn to reach the end zone than any receiver on this team. A Russell Wilson QB sneak also would have been acceptable from the one-yard line.

We should have gone down swinging by fighting power with more power, rather than trying to outsmart them with a finesse pass pay from a shotgun formation. That was a huge departure from what the identity of this offense was supposed to be.

Thanks for cutting out the rest of my post so as to take this completely out of context and not to undermine your point. :sarcasm_off:

Also, you conflate that anyone who would hypothetically be critical of running Lynch four straight times while failing to score is someone who supports the actual 2nd down play call. There is nothing that excludes being critical of both, although obviously the 2nd down pass was far more controversial and is easier to measure reactions to because it actual happened and is not hypothetical like the question in the OP is.

I think you are failing to actually imagine that, hypothetically, the Hawks have been stonewalled (and have possibly lost yardage) on 2nd and 3rd down. You have now hypothetically given Lynch 3 chances (including 1st and goal from the 5) to punch it in and have failed. You call run again and get stuffed short. You are telling me your first reaction isn't going to be "Wow" and then "Why didn't we at least roll Russ out to see if he could make a play?" "They KNEW we were gonna run it with Lynch" etc, etc? If so, I don't believe you have a strong enough imagination to truly understand this hypothetical situation. In your mind, it never even gets to 4th down because you are confident Lynch won't be stopped. AND WE ALL AGREE WITH YOU. Everyone is confident Lynch would have scored if given the opportunities. But that was NOT the hypothetical in the OP. And you are lying to yourself if you think you wouldn't question the playcalling after four consecutive Lynch rushes that failed to yield a TD. There is no "faith" at that point-- he has already tried and failed. You don't seem to get that.

I think you are being overly sensitive (notice how I am quoting your post in its entirety this time). I don't believe in abandoning the run, even if it were stopped twice at the one-yard line. That's maybe a philosophy difference I have with you . . . it has nothing to do with not having "a strong enough imagination to truly understand this hypothetical situation."

Just because they happen to stop the run twice does not mean they will stop it a 3rd time. In my mind, a 3rd run would still be preferable to a pass on the one-yard line. Therefore, the coaches would not have been criticized by me if that 3rd run failed.

 

[NJlargent]

I would like to know the teams' defenses that Marshawn previously went 1 for 5 on from the 1 yard line and compare those defenses against the Pats.

 

[FanSince82]

Then it would be a famous goal-line stand, and not the "dumbest play in NFL history"

A QB sneak would have done it, IMHO

 

[marko358]

Then it would be a famous goal-line stand, and not the "dumbest play in NFL history"

So simple yet brilliant

 

[DavidSeven]

I would like to know the teams' defenses that Marshawn previously went 1 for 5 on from the 1 yard line and compare those defenses against the Pats.

Here:

Broncos - One yard loss
Giants - TD
Giants - One yard loss
Giants - No Gain
49ers - No Gain

Run Defense Rankings:

Broncos - #2 (DVOA: 3, Power Rank: 3)
49ers - #7 (DVOA: 10, Power Rank: 25)
Patriots - #9 (DVOA: 14, Power Rank: 32)
Giants - #30 (DVOA: 27, Power Rank: 14)

 

[firemanseahawk]

Heal my Hawks brothers. We have to go through the steps. Believe me from a 12 before there was such a thing. It's still a great time to be Hawk!

 

[firemanseahawk]

Heal my Hawks brothers. We have to go through the steps. Believe me from a 12 before there was such a thing. It's still a great time to be Hawk!

 

[nanomoz]

I think you're more likely to get hit in the head by a meteor while simultaneously seeing God's existence proven than to watch Marshawn Lynch be stopped from getting a single solitary yard on four attempts, but anything's possible.....

1. he wouldn't have 4 attempts. It was 2nd and goal with 26 seconds remaining. At most Marshawn gets two shots. Pass on 2nd down then the Hawks get three plays - a pass play and then 2 run plays if they choose. But if you run on 2nd down, and then run on 3rd down - that's going to be the last play they run. They lose one attempt at goal because time will run out.

2. were there meteors flying around when Marshawn went 1/5 on goal line attempts from the one yard line previously?

There was a minute left when Russell Wilson went to the line of scrimmage at the one-yard line. We then preceded to run 25 seconds off the clock, as the team casually walked to the line of scrimmage to get lined up and then waited until there were just 5 seconds remaining on the play clock before snapping the ball. They showed zero urgency in preserving time, which eviscerates Bevell's argument that they threw the ball in order to conserve time on the clock.

If they wanted to conserve time, then they would have rushed to the line to run a play with about 54 seconds remaining, immediately run again with about 34 seconds remaining (10 seconds for the short run and 10 seconds to get lined up), then call a time out after running the clock all the way down before the final handoff or QB sneak on 4th down. Of course, I think Marshawn would have probably run it in the first time if not then the second time.

This fact gets overlooked over and over and over by apologists. The hawks appeared in no rush, they could have changed personnel twice.

 

[CANHawk]

The thing for me that makes the results of Super Bowl 49 easier to take... Super Bowl 48. If that happened with our first Super Bowl on the line... I think I'd still be hiding in my bed listening to the Johnny Cash rendition of Hurt.

Don't get me wrong, this TOTALLY sucks, but I'm handling it much better having a trophy in the cabinet already.

As for the OP question, no. I wouldn't hold it against him. We would have stayed true to who we are and went out doing what we do. This almost feels like Andre the Giant losing because he tried jumping off the top rope because he thought it'd be fun.

 

[West TX Hawk]

I think you're more likely to get hit in the head by a meteor while simultaneously seeing God's existence proven than to watch Marshawn Lynch be stopped from getting a single solitary yard on four attempts, but anything's possible.....

1. he wouldn't have 4 attempts. It was 2nd and goal with 26 seconds remaining. At most Marshawn gets two shots. Pass on 2nd down then the Hawks get three plays - a pass play and then 2 run plays if they choose. But if you run on 2nd down, and then run on 3rd down - that's going to be the last play they run. They lose one attempt at goal because time will run out.

2. were there meteors flying around when Marshawn went 1/5 on goal line attempts from the one yard line previously?

There was a minute left when Russell Wilson went to the line of scrimmage at the one-yard line. We then preceded to run 25 seconds off the clock, as the team casually walked to the line of scrimmage to get lined up and then waited until there were just 5 seconds remaining on the play clock before snapping the ball. They showed zero urgency in preserving time, which eviscerates Bevell's argument that they threw the ball in order to conserve time on the clock.

If they wanted to conserve time, then they would have rushed to the line to run a play with about 54 seconds remaining, immediately run again with about 34 seconds remaining (10 seconds for the short run and 10 seconds to get lined up), then call a time out after running the clock all the way down before the final handoff or QB sneak on 4th down. Of course, I think Marshawn would have probably run it in the first time if not then the second time.

This fact gets overlooked over and over and over by apologists. The hawks appeared in no rush, they could have changed personnel twice.

Yep. A full minute was on the clock after Lynch got to the 1. Absolutely inexcusable clock and personnel management in those 34+ seconds.

To answer the OP, if we ran Lynch on 2nd, 3rd and 4th downs and didn't get in I would be fully satisfied in that we at least went down with our very best. Tip your cap to the Patriots in that situation but we went down with a fight with our best player. All the cliches apply-you dance with who brung ya; you never throw your 3rd or 4th best pitch in a crucial situation; you give it to Lebron, Jordan, Kobe or whoever your star is for the last shot, etc, etc.

And I don't give a damn if they're in full goal line defense and know we're running. You give it to Lynch, have Tukufu leading and say here it is Patriots, come beat us. I've been thinking about the end of the Ice Bowl and how Lombardi powered it in w Starr on the sneak. Do you think Lombardi was thinking "Gosh they're in goal line defense expecting we'll run! What are we going to do??" With the title on the line, you keep it simple and go down with your best. Never over-think it. Inexcusable and flat-out incompetence by Bevell and Carroll cost us the championship. That is all.

 

[byau]

Run on first and goal.
Pass on second and goal.
Run on third and goal.

Worst play call ever

By the way, that's how we scored our second touchdown in the NFCCG against Green Bay. Where was the outcry ?

The difference? In the NFCCG Russell in the pass play did his checks, saw nothing, saw an opening to run and took off and almost made it in.

I have come around to if Pete says to run a pass play, that's alright

If Bevell called a slant for the play, it doesn't look like a horrible call

If Russell saw an opening and went for it, he usually makes good decisions and takes care of the ball. That was his only INT

Overall it was just not as good execution by Russell and superior execution by New England