Am I The Only One... Re: Pete Carroll

[bugatti]

Jon Gruden said he would've thrown there, but he would've ran Spider 2 Y Banana. He said the issue wasn't that they threw it, but that it was the wrong play for that situation.

 

Exactly. You see teams throw the ball all the time in short yardage situations. This play just went away from any of their strengths and did not give them the best chance of succeeding. I liken it to a team runs a traditional offense, then all of a sudden that team will run an option play which they are not comfortable at all running. Drives me insane.

[rjs4470]

Funny. I don't remember them having that option. :no::no:

 

I don't think the INT was part of the plan:lol2: Hey, I probably would have ran the ball in that situation too. I just don't think the play call was as horrible, or indefensible as many are making it out to be. I understand Carroll's logic behind the play call.

[DragonFire]

"Three things can happen when you pass and two of them are bad."

 

I said in the update thread that I thought the Patriots were stupid for not letting Lynch score (before the next play of course). That's because I couldn't fathom a world in which Lynch wouldn't be punching in on the next play - or worst case, the play after. If you want to pass, do a Russell Wilson rollout to give him some options. That way he can throw it into the end zone, throw it out of bounds, or maybe even run it in. But if you're not even doing that, at least do some semblance of play action.

 

I think the reason you see so much criticism is because this isn't even hindsight. Most people thought that Lynch should get the ball before the ball was snapped and all that happened confirmed it.

[CincySportsFan]

From a long time HS football coach in EKY, "there are 3 things that can happen when you pass the football, and 2 of them are bad".

 

There was a college coach up the road in Columbus that used to say that too.

[UKMustangFan]

"Three things can happen when you pass and two of them are bad."

 

 

Can't you say the same thing about running the ball?

[bugatti]

Can't you say the same thing about running the ball?

 

It's an old adage that has been around for decades. A multitude of things can happen on any play, but the conventional wisdom is that when you run the ball, the guy will get tackled. You throw the ball, it is either complete, incomplete, or intercepted. "Things are more likely to go bad on a pass play compared to a run play." That is how it should be amended to read and a fact.

[UKMustangFan]

It's an old adage that has been around for decades. A multitude of things can happen on any play, but the conventional wisdom is that when you run the ball, the guy will get tackled. You throw the ball, it is either complete, incomplete, or intercepted. "Things are more likely to go bad on a pass play compared to a run play." That is how it should be amended to read.

 

And when you run the ball you either gain yards, loss yards, or fumble. Same thing. 3 outcomes, 2 are bad. :idunno:

[bugatti]

And when you run the ball you either gain yards, loss yards, or fumble. Same thing. 3 outcomes, 2 are bad. :idunno:

 

The risk is much more passing the ball. That is a fact. Don't read more in to it than that.

[DragonFire]

And when you run the ball you either gain yards, loss yards, or fumble. Same thing. 3 outcomes, 2 are bad. :idunno:

 

Well by the same token then I could argue there are 3 things that can be bad on a pass with 4 outcomes - you could complete a pass for a loss of yardage, which does happen sometimes.

 

Lynch fumbled the ball twice in the entire season, and 14 times in his career. He scored 6.5 times for every time he fumbled this year, while Wilson had a ratio of just under 3:1 TDs to INTs. Plain and simple, passing it is typically riskier.

[rjs4470]

Well by the same token then I could argue there are 3 things that can be bad on a pass with 4 outcomes - you could complete a pass for a loss of yardage, which does happen sometimes.

 

Lynch fumbled the ball twice in the entire season, and 14 times in his career. He scored 6.5 times for every time he fumbled this year, while Wilson had a ratio of just under 3:1 TDs to INTs. Plain and simple, passing it is typically riskier.

 

And Lynch only scored a TD one time in 5 rushing attempts from the one yard line. All NFL teams attempt passes from the one. There are plenty of good arguments as to why throwing the ball wasn't a bad idea. Running the ball was not a sure thing.

[sweet16]

True. But what if they didn't score?? That timeout gives Seattle an opportunity to think, get personnel situated, etc. And it saves Seattle from using their final timeout. If you call that timeout, you might as well let Seattle score. Again, in my opinion, he was trusting his defense to make a couple plays.

 

If I got Tom Brady as my QB, I want the 40-50 seconds.

[rjs4470]

If I got Tom Brady as my QB, I want the 40-50 seconds.

 

Yes. And if it were a 3 point or less game I'd call the timeout in a heart beat, as even if the Pats stopped the Seahawks, a fieldgoal would have been automatic. But it was a 4 point game. A field goal was not an option...the Hawks needed a Touchdown. If the Patriots stopped them it's game over. Belichek, by not calling the time out, put the game in the hands of his defense. And put the pressure on Seattle. Given the situation, (Seattle needing a TD and only having one TO left), all the pressure was on Seattle. Seattle only having one time out was big. If they have 2, i think they would have run the ball no matter what. But only having one, had they gotten stopped, they would have been forced to pass the next two downs. I think that is the main reason they didn't run....they wanted to keep both options available and force New England to defend both the run and the pass if it came to another play.

[DragonFire]

And Lynch only scored a TD one time in 5 rushing attempts from the one yard line. All NFL teams attempt passes from the one. There are plenty of good arguments as to why throwing the ball wasn't a bad idea. Running the ball was not a sure thing.

 

109 attempts for the season collectively in the entire league. You're right, they all attempt them, but assuming they're not counting the playoffs, that's 109 attempts in 256 games played, or .43 attempts from that distance per game. There's a reason most teams run it there.

 

As for Lynch being 1/5 at the one, that's what I'd call a statistical outlier. On one of those stops when he lost a yard to the 2, they gave him the ball again and he scored (his only attempt of the year from the 2 BTW). He had five rushing attempts from the 3 yard line and scored on three of them. The two he didn't convert from that yardage he took down to the 1 - and one of those was the aforementioned score he got from the two on his third crack at it. In is career in Seattle, he's converted on 12/25 carries from the 1 yard line for TDs. Give him two cracks from the 1, my bet is he's getting one of them.

 

FWIW, Russell Wilson scored on the only non-Lynch rushing attempt made by the Seahawks at the 1.

[UKMustangFan]

109 attempts for the season collectively in the entire league. You're right, they all attempt them, but assuming they're not counting the playoffs, that's 109 attempts in 256 games played, or .43 attempts from that distance per game. There's a reason most teams run it there.

 

As for Lynch being 1/5 at the one, that's what I'd call a statistical outlier. On one of those stops when he lost a yard to the 2, they gave him the ball again and he scored (his only attempt of the year from the 2 BTW). He had five rushing attempts from the 3 yard line and scored on three of them. The two he didn't convert from that yardage he took down to the 1 - and one of those was the aforementioned score he got from the two on his third crack at it. In is career in Seattle, he's converted on 12/25 carries from the 1 yard line for TDs. Give him two cracks from the 1, my bet is he's getting one of them.

 

FWIW, Russell Wilson scored on the only non-Lynch rushing attempt made by the Seahawks at the 1.

 

That's where you're wrong. They only had one TO. They wouldn't have been able to give him two shots.

[sweet16]

Yes. And if it were a 3 point or less game I'd call the timeout in a heart beat, as even if the Pats stopped the Seahawks, a fieldgoal would have been automatic. But it was a 4 point game. A field goal was not an option...the Hawks needed a Touchdown. If the Patriots stopped them it's game over. Belichek, by not calling the time out, put the game in the hands of his defense. And put the pressure on Seattle. Given the situation, (Seattle needing a TD and only having one TO left), all the pressure was on Seattle. Seattle only having one time out was big. If they have 2, i think they would have run the ball no matter what. But only having one, had they gotten stopped, they would have been forced to pass the next two downs. I think that is the main reason they didn't run....they wanted to keep both options available and force New England to defend both the run and the pass if it came to another play.

 

IF the Seahawks would have scored a TD then the media would have been on the Patriots for not using their timeout to conserve time.