Yeah what we thought

[olyfan63]

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.

Yup, you hope your OC has laid awake nights thinking about what would be the perfect call(s) for this situation.
Run clock leaving Brady no time, score the winning TD, Champions!! Unfortunately Bevell must have instead laid awake at night thinking how to deflect blame.

 

[MORGULON]

When Lynch took it to the goal line I was yelling for them to run up to the line of scrimmage and make the Patriots call time out . It would've forced them to show their hand.

Call 2 plays in the huddle and go for it.

Pick plays at the goal using a light assed special teamer is the cougiest thing I have ever witnessed. That was the end of what could've been ultra special

 

[MyrtleHawk]

Funny thing is the Patriots were expecting that play and had practiced for it.

That's the thing that's the most upsetting for me. Everyone on that coaching staff KNEW Brandon Browner was on that field at the time. They KNEW Browner knew the plays from the year prior, being part of the team that has run it multiple times and knew what to look out for, and yet they had the BALLS to call that play and actually run it thinking that it would work out. WHY WOULD YOU EVEN TAKE THE CHANCE to call a play that a player on the OPPOSING DEFENSE knew and ran multiple times?!

 

[hawks85]

I'm not opening "Pandora's box" again. I've already stated my feelings about this. There's more to this and I think we'll never know the whole thing what happened. A lot of people that know me outside of this know I was NEVER a fan of Wilson, and that he's involved more than what people are seeing. Over the years I've heard different things takes on this. All I'll say is none of it makes sense. Something isn't adding up.

 

[chris98251]

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.

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.

 

[chris98251]

That's the thing that's the most upsetting for me. Everyone on that coaching staff KNEW Brandon Browner was on that field at the time. They KNEW Browner knew the plays from the year prior, being part of the team that has run it multiple times and knew what to look out for, and yet they had the BALLS to call that play and actually run it thinking that it would work out. WHY WOULD YOU EVEN TAKE THE CHANCE to call a play that a player on the OPPOSING DEFENSE knew and ran multiple times?!

If you're going to run a play the other team knows then make it be one that uses your teams strength, Lynch against their weakness, run defense.

 

[RiverDog]

When Lynch took it to the goal line I was yelling for them to run up to the line of scrimmage and make the Patriots call time out . It would've forced them to show their hand.

Call 2 plays in the huddle and go for it.

Pick plays at the goal using a light assed special teamer is the cougiest thing I have ever witnessed. That was the end of what could've been ultra special

Excellent point. Getting right to the LOS before huddling up/changing personnel as we did would have put the Pats in a difficult predicament: Either go with the personnel they had on the field or call their last timeout and substitute their heavy package.

If the Pats burned their final timeout and we scored, then on the ensuing kickoff, they would have been forced to move the ball into FG position with about 30 seconds or less, severely limiting their play selection.

As it was, we huddled up and they were able to substitute.

I'm not critical of our decision to pass on that down as the logic was sound: It preserves our last timeout and ensures that we'll have a run/pass option on 3rd and 4th downs should we not score on 2nd down. But I like the above scenario better because of the pressure it would have put on the Patriots.

 

[MORGULON]

Excellent point. Getting right to the LOS before huddling up/changing personnel as we did would have put the Pats in a difficult predicament: Either go with the personnel they had on the field or call their last timeout and substitute their heavy package.

If the Pats burned their final timeout and we scored, then on the ensuing kickoff, they would have been forced to move the ball into FG position with about 30 seconds or less, severely limiting their play selection.

As it was, we huddled up and they were able to substitute.

I'm not critical of our decision to pass on that down as the logic was sound: It preserves our last timeout and ensures that we'll have a run/pass option on 3rd and 4th downs should we not score on 2nd down. But I like the above scenario better because of the pressure it would have put on the Patriots.

Agreed RiverDog.

A pass play isn't what upset me (or maybe you), it's the choice of plays and the targeted WR. Like someone else has said , why not isolate and roll #3 out with the option of running , safe pass or throw it away.

Baldwin would've made sure he caught it. I think he's about as good of WR Seattle has ever had . And yes I'm including #80 (not Rice).

 

[themunn]

When Lynch took it to the goal line I was yelling for them to run up to the line of scrimmage and make the Patriots call time out . It would've forced them to show their hand.

Call 2 plays in the huddle and go for it.

Pick plays at the goal using a light assed special teamer is the cougiest thing I have ever witnessed. That was the end of what could've been ultra special

Lockette wasn't a small guy - 6'3 and 211lbs the biggest receiver on the team not named Chris Matthews

And his 1-1 matchup was 5'110 190lb Malcolm Butler.

That play was blown up by Browner on Kearse, and in reality it's on the QB in that instance to recognise that is a poor match-up once the defense lines up.

 

[Glasgow Seahawk]

You're the only one to bring up XL here, so not sure your point. As for XLIX, yeah.... we lost fair and square. I don't see any dispute here. The most awful moment in Seattle Sports History tends to creep up from time to time. Come back here in 20 years and it will still be a raw, festering sore.

As will XL, true, but the controversy there is about external forces (refs, media). The problem with XLIX is the blame lies interely within. That makes the pain soooo much worse.

I think winning cures all and when we win or even make another super bowl it will help with moving on from it.

Even having a new regime here will help in that regard.

I'm an optimist and think we will be back at another super bowl in the next 5 years or so. Mariners on the other hands...nothings changing there until there is new owners.

 

[RiverDog]

Agreed RiverDog.

A pass play isn't what upset me (or maybe you), it's the choice of plays and the targeted WR. Like someone else has said , why not isolate and roll #3 out with the option of running , safe pass or throw it away.

Baldwin would've made sure he caught it. I think he's about as good of WR Seattle has ever had . And yes I'm including #80 (not Rice).

Actually, I agreed with passing on that down, but like you said, I would have preferred to have rolled Russell out and given him some options. We still had a timeout, so even if he got sacked or ran and failed to score, we'd still have a chance to win it on the next play. That or throw some kind of timing route to the corner or back of the end zone where only our guy can catch it.

But having a 5'10" QB throw the ball short over the middle in a congested field is just asking for something bad to happen.

Gotta give Russell some blame, too. Once he saw Browner stuff Kearse at the LOS, he should have known right then that the safety was free to jump the route, plus he should have thrown it low and made Lockette go down to get it.

But, as they say, hindsight is 20/20.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Call aside, Bevell handled the situation extremely poorly from a PR standpoint. His immediate response was to throw shade at Lockett and Wilson, then deflect all personal responsibility from the call and outcome.

This is what caused the unravelling of the Seahawks. Things were never the same under Pete's teams after this incident -- even with largely the same players. There was a double standard for coaches and players such as Russell Wilson. Carroll would say one thing than immediately absolve his coordinators and Wilson of the same responsibilities that the rest of the players had.

This is by and large why Carroll fell off, who he hired and the double standard he had for his coaches caused a rift. Guys such as Norton Jr. and Hurtt came out for years fielding defenses in the bottom quarter of the NFL, yet they got a free pass. Bevell came out and deflected, blamed everyone else but himself -- yet he got a free pass and continued coaching the Seahawks for years after.

Bevell should have been fired right there, not for the play itself, but for how he handled the resulting aftermath. Being an OC is also a bit like middle management and Bevell showed some poor decision making as a manager.

Oh, please.

 

[Glasgow Seahawk]

I just listened to it. Is Pete okay? Speech sounds slurred

 

[MORGULON]

I just listened to it. Is Pete okay? Speech sounds slurred

Maybe he smoked some shrub with #24

 

[IndyHawk]

Confirms my opinion on the whole matter ... which is that calling a pass wasn't the wrong decision, but calling that play to our worst offensive player was inexcusable. As an aside, Russ should have never thrown that ball but no one ever wants to blame the QB for THROWING A M****THER***F***ING INTERCEPTION TO LOSE THE Superbowl.

I do (sorry)
He threw it too late but I agree it was a bad play call.

 

[uncle fester]

I just listened to it. Is Pete okay? Speech sounds slurred

Yeah, I noticed that too

 

[RiverDog]

Call aside, Bevell handled the situation extremely poorly from a PR standpoint. His immediate response was to throw shade at Lockett and Wilson, then deflect all personal responsibility from the call and outcome.

This is what caused the unravelling of the Seahawks. Things were never the same under Pete's teams after this incident -- even with largely the same players. There was a double standard for coaches and players such as Russell Wilson. Carroll would say one thing than immediately absolve his coordinators and Wilson of the same responsibilities that the rest of the players had.

This is by and large why Carroll fell off, who he hired and the double standard he had for his coaches caused a rift. Guys such as Norton Jr. and Hurtt came out for years fielding defenses in the bottom quarter of the NFL, yet they got a free pass. Bevell came out and deflected, blamed everyone else but himself -- yet he got a free pass and continued coaching the Seahawks for years after.

Bevell should have been fired right there, not for the play itself, but for how he handled the resulting aftermath. Being an OC is also a bit like middle management and Bevell showed some poor decision making as a manager.

One of the things that Bevell should have been held accountable for and wasn't was the Percy Harvin debacle. Bevell was the OC at Minnesota when Harvin was with the Vikings, and he was a head case then, too, once running down the sidelines during a game to rant at his head coach. Bevell obviously had to have been one of the main guys who lobbied to trade for him.

It was Bevell who Harvin refused to obey when told to go into the game. Beast almost didn't board the bus to the airport when they found out that Harvin had been traded. I'm not defending Harvin by any means. He was a cancer and had to go. But Bevell either lobbied for the Harvin trade or should have known enough about him to stand up and say not to bring that SOB in, especially at the price we paid.

So yes, Bevell should have been fired that offseason, but not just for that infamous play call. It would have sent a signal to the team that coaches are held accountable, and instead, with Pete defending Bevell and Russell, it sent the opposite message.

 

[rocksteady029]

Pretty sure the play-call was not "Russ, throw an interception"...no matter who actually called it.

 

[WmHBonney]

Excellent point. Getting right to the LOS before huddling up/changing personnel as we did would have put the Pats in a difficult predicament: Either go with the personnel they had on the field or call their last timeout and substitute their heavy package.

If the Pats burned their final timeout and we scored, then on the ensuing kickoff, they would have been forced to move the ball into FG position with about 30 seconds or less, severely limiting their play selection.

As it was, we huddled up and they were able to substitute.

I'm not critical of our decision to pass on that down as the logic was sound: It preserves our last timeout and ensures that we'll have a run/pass option on 3rd and 4th downs should we not score on 2nd down. But I like the above scenario better because of the pressure it would have put on the Patriots.

That wasn't the last time we saw piss-poor game management by Pete. He was terrible at that stuff.

 

[NoGain]

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.