menu

Super Bowl And My Top 5 Reason I Wont Be Watching! - Page 2 1,658 views

I was hesitant to write my thoughts about the end of the game but why not. As good as Bill Belichick is, I was shocked he didn't let Seattle walk in the end zone on the first down play. He had two time outs left and a field goal would send the game into overtime. A goal line stand wasn't out of the question when everybody was keying on Lynch. Scoring a touchdown is not as easy as we all want to believe against New England. I guess that's why Belichick was willing to live or die with the defense.

If Seattle runs the ball and Lynch doesn't get in, they would find themselves in a passing situation for third and forth down. I believe they were stopped by New England a couple times during the game on the two or three yard line.

There's no question that New England was keying on Lynch and only Lynch. The quick slant on second down was not a bad call at all. It's actually a safe call on second down and I'm sure Butler was supposed to be blocked out of the play. Don't forget, this was a great play by Butler.

When you have a running back like Lynch, Seattle should have run the ball. That would have been safer. No second guessing. But maybe not. A fumble or Illegal motion or perhaps a goal line stand by New England would have made the game much different then most people think.

I still think it was a good idea to fake and throw a quick two yard slant on second down. You have to see that play get intercepted to believe it. The odds were greater for a fumble, penalty or a goal line stand then a quick slant under those circumstances getting intercepted.

4

Tucker, I'm going to have to disagree with most of what you wrote.

If they run it on 2nd down, with just under 30 seconds, they can easily line up and run it again. If they don't score, then they can call their last timeout, be it with 10 seconds left or 1 second, it doesn't matter, but they were not forced to pass it on 3rd down or 4th down. I just want to clarify that, as they could have easily of ran it 3 times in a row, but most likely on 4th down, they would have a run/pass option, with Wilson most likely faking it to Lynch and then looking to run/pass himself.

Also, New England had not stopped the running game all night, and not at the goal line either, so that's not true.

The slant is the WORST call to run on that play. What can go wrong on a short slant pass?

Let's see, the ball gets tipped at the line of scrimmage.

The WR tips the ball into the air and it gets intercepted.

The Defense player hits the WR and the ball flies into the air for a possible interception.

The Defense player hits the WR and he fumbles the ball, and then there's a scramble for it.

The Defense player intercepts the ball! lol, which of course happened.

That was the worst possible play call you could have run, if you don't run it.

Any other play would have been better. A quick out to the sideline with only the WR being able to catch the ball.

Wilson faking it to Lynch and then giving himself a rollout play to a WR, only within the reach of the WR.

Also, we have no idea if NE was going to let Lynch score on purpose on the 2nd play. Just because they let the clock run down doesn't mean that still wasn't a possibility.

Pete Carroll said the call was his. I contend that Wilson should have called a run play and overrode what the call was. He's a NFL QB and he audibles all the time. I've watched way too much football in my life, and I've seen short slant plays end up in tipped balls that get intercepted or the WR gets blown up and fumbles. That is NEVER the call to make in that situation.

You run it to Lynch and most likely he scores, as he was unstoppable in short yardage.

If he doesn't score, you run it again and he most likely scores, if he didn't score on 2nd down.

In the unlikely event if comes to 4th down, you have a run/pass option.

It was a bonehead call from the coach and a worse play by the QB to not change the call.

When a DB has nothing to lose, why not jump the short slant, which if you listen to what the DB said, he read the formation, he read Wilson before the snap, and he thought they were going to run a short slant with the stacked WRs.

The players thing the same thing:

"We had it," linebacker Bruce Irvin said. "I don't understand how you don't give it to the best back in the league, on not even the one-yard line. We were on the half-yard line and we throw a slant. I don't know what the offense had going on or what they saw. I just don't understand."

Said receiver Doug Baldwin: "All of us are surprised. In that moment with 20 seconds left on the clock and we still had a timeout. I felt like, from what I understand, we should take a shot and still have another down. If we ran the ball and didn't get in, then we had to stop the clock and it would limit our abilities to run or pass. I don't know. I am just trying to come up with an explanation for it. I really don't know."

"I'm a little bit surprised," Sherman said. "It was an unfortunate play."

Plain and simple, Seattle gave the game away at the end. It had nothing to do with the Patriots.

Edited 2/2/15 at 9:49AM by wacked - added player quotes

4

Another thing that was rough for the Seahawks is the hit out of bounds that got the Pats 15 yards in the 10 point down comeback. Commentators were saying they didn't see it. They said that more than once in the game.

My point: Some of these penalties need to be thrown out: if you make a leaping tackle at a guy WHILE he is in bound and you're flying through the air, then he goes OUT of bounds and since you do not have the power of controlled flight (like Superman) you make contact with him: boom the team gets 15 yards. That is too much. Crucial part of the game too.

The Refs need to look at the game differently: just be reasonable. Can a man have prevented that technical penalty from occurring? (No). Does giving this (any) penalty add to game for the fans? (usually no). Although, sometimes in big games you see the flags fly in on the team with the lead. Close exciting games are good business for the NFL. I get that...

1

@PCG,

That is a tough call. He did hit the player out of bounds, but he did launch himself while both he and Vereen were inbounds. I mean it's a tough call to make, but it's one I've seen made this whole year in the NFL. It could have gone either way, but there were more penalties in the 2nd half than the 1st half for sure.

Edited 2/2/15 at 9:53AM by wacked - No reason listed.

1

The goal for the refs should be to help a game happen where one team gets a legitimate win. Not make statements about safety and setting precedents. It is football. It is tough.

Everything about it revolves around this: the NFL's very worst fear:

A player dying on the field in front of millions of people.

...which I get.

2

I agree PCG, it's been the whole "new culture" of safety first in the NFL. They err on the side of caution... The NFL has changed so much, it never surprises me when I see a penalty anymore. I usually just expect it, and if it doesn't come, then oh well.

Speaking of penalties. I'm surprised they didn't call a penalty when Brady was hit on his 1st INT. Do I think it was a penalty, no, but I know I've seen hits close to the head called all year against the QB.

1
Well that sucked for all of us Seattle backers. Terrible call at the end for sure but I would say Seattle lost that game earlier by letting up with a 10 point lead. They also wouldn't have been in the position to throw that inside slant if Kearse hadn't made the miraculous catch so the luck flows both ways. All in all it was a great game and I am already looking forward to next season.
2
Tucker - I agree with your first statement. I was surprised the Pats didn't call time out and let them score. Be honest people, unless you're a die hard Pats fan, 99.9% of viewers felt Seattle would score and win the game. So letting them score, saving clock, and trying to get into field goal range would have been prudent.

As far as the call goes, a small part of me might understand throwing in that situation if Wilson had at least play faked to Lynch, but he didn't. I agree with wacked, too much congestion for a slant. High risk. If you want to throw it, fake it to Lynch and get Wilson on the edge for a run/pass option. Less risk.

Probably sour grapes by me. Oh well, time to move on.
3
I disagree with wacked that Lynch was running the ball well. New England wasn't necessarily getting to Wilson but he sure didn't have too many places to throw the ball all night and Lynch wasn't really running wild either. New England was doing a pretty good job on Lynch and Wilson most of the night, with the exception of a 10 minute period in the game, Seattle didn't do a lot IMO. Wilson had time but the receivers were covered for the most part. New England's secondary won this game in my opinion but it should have never came down to that. As Wacked also stated above, Seattle was ahead 24-14 and throwing deep passes on 3rd and 2. You have all the momentum and the best momentum RB in the world. Run him to death at that point of the game! Or at least do a fake and let Wilson do his thing out in the open again. Just horrendous cocky ass play calling by Pete Carroll and their staff and it burned them in the end. Overall, a great Super Bowl. I wasn't impressed with the commercials or the halftime show(dancing sharks and palm trees? Missy Elliott?), but the game was top notch.
1

Lynch had 102 yards on 24 carries for a 4.25 ypg avg. I guess that's not running the ball too well?

Here's the breakdown of each carry, and the only time he got less than 1 yard was on 3rd down.

1st QTR

3

5

0 (3rd down)

4

2nd QTR

3

5

5

4

5

5

3

3 (3rd down) (TD)

3rd QTR

3

15

7

0 (3rd down) (Next play FG)

3

14

1 (Next play TD pass to Baldwin)

2

4th QTR

2

1

5

31

4

Edited 2/2/15 at 3:02PM by wacked - No reason listed.

2
35 of those yards were on the last 2 plays he ran. So he had 67 yards on 22 carries up until the last 2. I would say that's way better than average against Lynch and being bottled up for "most" of the game.

Edited 2/2/15 at 3:21PM by Schwang17 - No reason listed.

1
The fact remains, every event result is hinged on a number of plays throughout the event itself. This game is no different. It could have gone either way even if the last play had a different result because there were countless other plays that, if altered, would then have altered the outcome anyhow. From a handicapper/forecaster perspective, no one can predict every single occurrence within the framework of an event, hence luck is the greatest determining factor for wins and losses, it's the side management that means the most... money management, patience & discipline, and emotional detachment.
2
@Schwang, Lynch gets better as the game goes on. You just proved my point for me.
1
not really. You said he was running the ball well. And up until that point he really wasn't. But think what you want, sir. I'm done arguing about it. lol
0

Please Login or Register to reply.

Ready to start winning?

Yes, Sign me up now No, show me the handicappers first