Is anyone else backtracking about the "worst call ever"?

[Sgt. Largent]

And if he ran the ball three times and they got stuffed he would be the scapegoat as most would say why did he not have the balls to try to pass it and win the game. It was not a great call to pass but Carroll made the call as he said so should he be fired? Bevell has made bad calls but every coach does(look at GB in the championship game, if they made the correct calls and gone for the TD's and not FG's Seahawks most likely would have lost). We will be at it again next year and better seasoned and have even a bigger chip on the shoulder than the previous years.

Nope, and I've had this discussion with friends.

If we hand it to Lynch or let Russell try and run it in on a RO and it gets stuffed 2-3 times? Then I tip my hat to NE for successfully defending an amazing goal line stand.

But instead you throw a high risk slant to.............................. a part time WR that primarily plays special teams.........AND THE ENTIRE REASON HE DOESN'T PLAY MORE IS BECAUSE HE DOESN'T RUN GOOD ROUTES AND MAKES MISTAKES.........AND HE DIDN'T RUN HIS ROUTE QUICK ENOUGH IN THE BIGGEST MOMENT OF THE GAME WHICH RESULTED IN AN INTERCEPTION AND SB LOSS!!!!!!!!

IN-F'ING-EXCUSABLE.

 

[NJlargent]

I think a lot of people trying to justify that play or a "pass play" are coping with this debacle and also believe that there is a good chance we get back to the Super Bowl next year or soon thereafter. I agree that there is a good chance for sure. However, assume we go the next 20 years without getting there again and make the divisional round only a couple of times in the playoffs. Then in 20 years we will definitely accept this call as the worst in Super Bowl history.

The call was atrocious and whether right or wrong, the correct response that leaves no wiggle room is to fire Bevell.

And if he ran the ball three times and they got stuffed he would be the scapegoat as most would say why did he not have the balls to try to pass it and win the game. It was not a great call to pass but Carroll made the call as he said so should he be fired? Bevell has made bad calls but every coach does(look at GB in the championship game, if they made the correct calls and gone for the TD's and not FG's Seahawks most likely would have lost). We will be at it again next year and better seasoned and have even a bigger chip on the shoulder than the previous years.

That assumes Carroll actually made the call and there is certainly a case to be made that he is merely covering for his assistants (which good coaches do). It would be a different story if Bevell was universally accepted as a great OC. However, there are many Seahawks fans that, prior to this game, found Bevell to be unhelpful and in need of being replaced. Their position was just handed tremendous credence. I recognize Lynch may have gotten stuffed 2 or 3 times but we weren't playing the 2013 Niners defense at the goal line and that should not be dismissed either when evaluating the call.

 

[Austin Hawk]

What bugs me about it is when we had that set up, and the clock ticking, I went back to Baldwin saying how the team wanted Marshawn to win the MVP, and how all the talk this week was about Marshawn being the heart and soul of the team, and I thought, “This is perfect. What better way to end this game then for Marshawn to punch the game winner into the end zone.”

When Russell went up to throw the ball, I thought, “What the hell? This is Marshawn’s moment? Why are you taking it away?”

Then I saw the ball slip out of Lockette’s hand, and I thought, “Okay, incomplete, stop the clock. Now, dance with the one that brought you here and pound it over the goal line with Beast. That’s the way this game should end, the way it HAS to end.”

And then I hear Al Michaels cry, “Intercepted!” and I collapsed on the floor. My wife started crying. Even if Lockette comes down with that ball and falls into the end zone, it would be fantastic, but in the back of my mind, this was Marshawn’s game to win, and he didn’t get a chance to win it.

Excellent response, and I agree 100% with everything you said. What makes the call and outcome so much more difficult is that it went completely against what our team is all about, and our identity. For the past two weeks, the hype around Marshawn created a perfect situation after Kearse's catch for us to end the game with our stamp. If we had given it to Marshawn and had a fumble, or if he had been stopped for a loss, there's no way any of us question the playcalling.

If we give it to him two more times and he STILL can't get it, then we go down in a blaze of glory and the Pats certainly deserve the accolades. But to let one man's intentional decision (which I believe was subconsciously influenced by a desire to give Wilson the MVP) to throw the ball is what makes this so hard to take.

Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, pointed to this being the moment for Lynch to bust through and win the game. History has been forever altered, and I whether it was the worst call or not, I will never be able to fully get over it.

 

[OrFan]

It is still, and always will be the worst call.

Years from now people, and tv recap shows, will look back on this play and laugh at what a loser Bevell was.

 

[hawk45]

........AND THE ENTIRE REASON HE DOESN'T PLAY MORE IS BECAUSE HE DOESN'T RUN GOOD ROUTES AND MAKES MISTAKES.........AND HE DIDN'T RUN HIS ROUTE QUICK ENOUGH IN THE BIGGEST MOMENT OF THE GAME WHICH RESULTED IN AN INTERCEPTION AND SB LOSS!!!!!!!!

I just don't see the counter-argument to this. You don't get to put the fate of your franchise in the hands of Ricardo Lockette while Beast Mode stands around and then deflect to execution.

And I keep hearing about how well NFL teams *in general* run slants, I want one person to try and say with a straight face that our NFL team *in specific* runs them well. Gameday forum is a chorus of "holy crap! a slant!" and "holy crap! we COMPLETED a slant!" whenever we run or complete one. And that was with PRich who seemed capable of running them.

 

[tom sawyer]

Well I never thought that originally, I was confused by the call. Yes. I'm not a coach of an NFL team, nor do I possess the knowledge, wisdom, and film research, etc. to question Pete Carroll.

No never thought "worst call", let alone "ever".

 

[Sgt. Largent]

........AND THE ENTIRE REASON HE DOESN'T PLAY MORE IS BECAUSE HE DOESN'T RUN GOOD ROUTES AND MAKES MISTAKES.........AND HE DIDN'T RUN HIS ROUTE QUICK ENOUGH IN THE BIGGEST MOMENT OF THE GAME WHICH RESULTED IN AN INTERCEPTION AND SB LOSS!!!!!!!!

I just don't see the counter-argument to this. You don't get to put the fate of your franchise in the hands of Ricardo Lockette while Beast Mode stands around and then deflect to execution.

And I keep hearing about how well NFL teams *in general* run slants, I want one person to try and say with a straight face that our NFL team *in specific* runs them well. Gameday forum is a chorus of "holy crap! a slant!" and "holy crap! we COMPLETED a slant!" whenever we run or complete one. And that was with PRich who seemed capable of running them.

Yep.

If you're running the slant with Megatron or Dez Bryant? Alright, I'll give the coordinator a pass cause you're trying to put the ball in the hands of your best player.

But Ricardo freakin' Lockette? No. Hell I would have rather seen Lynch run the slant, at least he wouldn't have gotten pushed out of the way like a bitch.

 

[Lords of Scythia]

I am totally backtracking. We just went from winning to losing horribly and the announcers are screaming about the "Worst call in Super Bowl history" I was with them. But after a lot of thinking and reading about, they didn't have time to run three times, they didn't have the right personel for it, a pass will either be incomplete (stopping the clock) or a td, and a int on the opponents' one-yard line is infantesimally unlikely.

Here's a great article that lays it out:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-h ... e-carroll/

 

[andyh64000]

I am totally backtracking. We just went from winning to losing horribly and the announcers are screaming about the "Worst call in Super Bowl history" I was with them. But after a lot of thinking and reading about, they didn't have time to run three times, they didn't have the right personel for it, a pass will either be incomplete (stopping the clock) or a td, and a int on the opponents' one-yard line is infantesimally unlikely.

Here's a great article that lays it out:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-h ... e-carroll/

That article is total horse crap. The 1 yard line passing success stats are all play action passes when the defense is expecting a run where you either hit a wide open receiver or throw it away (or in RWs case run it in). Our moron called a straight pass play with a ton of risk into the teeth of the defense where a deflection also leads to an INT.

And they didn't have the right personnel? They Burned 40 seconds...GET THE RIGHT PERSONNEL on the field...that is your freaking job!!!. If we put our goal line offense in (like NE did when they put their goal line D in) we can run a play action pass and RW probably walks into the end zone.

This is the worst play call in history...especially when you realize how they even screwed up the personnel in a non-hurry up situation. Winning super bowls is incredibly difficult. For those saying "oh well...we will just get it next year"...Dan Marino said the same thing. It is a ******* travesty that epic stupidity cost this franchise a place in history.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

I am totally backtracking. We just went from winning to losing horribly and the announcers are screaming about the "Worst call in Super Bowl history" I was with them. But after a lot of thinking and reading about, they didn't have time to run three times, they didn't have the right personel for it, a pass will either be incomplete (stopping the clock) or a td, and a int on the opponents' one-yard line is infantesimally unlikely.

Here's a great article that lays it out:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-h ... e-carroll/

That article is total horse crap. The 1 yard line passing success stats are all play action passes when the defense is expecting a run where you either hit a wide open receiver or throw it away (or in RWs case run it in). Our moron called a straight pass play with a ton of risk into the teeth of the defense where a deflection also leads to an INT.

And they didn't have the right personnel? They Burned 40 seconds...GET THE RIGHT PERSONNEL on the field...that is your freaking job!!!. If we put our goal line offense in (like NE did when they put their goal line D in) we can run a play action pass and RW probably walks into the end zone.

This is the worst play call in history...especially when you realize how they even screwed up the personnel in a non-hurry up situation. Winning super bowls is incredibly difficult. For those saying "oh well...we will just get it next year"...Dan Marino said the same thing. It is a ******* travesty that epic stupidity cost this franchise a place in history.

EXACTLY. They basically got outmanuevered because they had Atlanta on the brain and let Belicheck hoodwink them like they were 5 years old.

 

[formido]

The 538 article is bad. Benjamin Morris is a contrarian who has a long series of articles claiming Dennis Rodman is the best basketball player in history. I actually love Morris's stuff, but his contrarian streak bit him this time. The outrage is only a little about run vs pass and a lot about the play call. Seattle already threw a slant INT this year at the goal line to Lynch. We're just not that good at slants. You don't attack a team with your weakest pass play and a high risk pass play when there are 3 downs left to try something safer.

He's being a bit disingenuous even on pass vs run. He says, paraphrasing, "If you choose to say that Lynch would be better than average at making the one yard, it works out to be bit in favor of running." But, there's no choice to be made, Seattle was #1 in power run plays last year and New England was #30 in defending them. He's understating the advantage. Moreover, Seattle had "team of destiny" written all over them, had momentum, and Lynch just got a huge contract offer timed just right for this game. He'd been stuffed for no gain or a loss only twice in the game, I believe. Even the run vs pass issue is probably squarely with run.

Also, contrary to some snide comments, there'd be far less complaining if New England somehow managed to stuff Lynch 3 times from the one. I think all serious Seahawks fans can admit that.

Also, contrary to other snide comments, some of us still would have called out the play even had it succeeded, because it was bad process regardless.

Also, contrary to other snide comments, the decision at the end of the first half was great, ballsy, and there was plenty of game time to make up for it if it went south.

Fact is, Seattle had 67% probability of winning the game at the end if you only count the average outcomes of all previous similar situations. Given Seattle's rushing strength on Pats rushing weakness disparity, that's more like 85% in this specific case. But we went with weakness on strength, and that was a coaching decision, and it cost the Super Bowl.

 

[DavidSeven]

Also, contrary to some snide comments, there'd be far less complaining if New England somehow managed to stuff Lynch 3 times from the one. I think all serious Seahawks fans can admit that.

But... they didn't have time to run three times from the one. Let's assume Carroll is confident his team will score in one of his last three plays. In order to prevent a game-tying FG on NE's possession, the strategy is to milk the clock down after Lynch's 1st down run to its lowest available point (here, ~26 seconds). This strategy allows you to go some combination of R-R-P in the final three plays. If they had two timeouts, they could have gone R-R-R, but that wasn't the case. If, instead, they go with a second down run earlier and score, then the threat is that you leave 40-50 seconds for NE to get in FG range (which is ample time). Given this strategy of milking the clock down (which, in theory, is sound), you have to pass on at least one play to get three reasonable shots at the EZ.

The playcall on the type of pass was a bad one because it relied on too many variables and probably had a higher risk of INT than other potential calls. That being said, there are three potential outcomes of a pass: TD (YAY!), incomplete (no bigz b/c two more shots w/ Lynch), stopped short (bad but not catastrophic), INT (worst nightmare). The odds, generally, of an INT in this situation are extremely low -- this was the first INT from the 1 in the entire NFL this season. Also, Lynch was previously 1-for-5 at the goaline this season and had been previously stopped on a crucial 3rd-and-1 earlier in the game, so there are no guarantees there either (he's also fumbled in other crucial goal line plays).

Blah, blah, I'm not defending the playcall in itself, but there is logic behind the R-P-R-R sequence (just as the 538 article points out) they went with. The New York Times made a similar argument based on Game Theory. Obviously, I wish they had done anything else because the damn thing got blown up in epic fashion. And yes, it could be said that they are guilty of over-thinking this one.

 

[marko358]

, generally, of an INT in this situation are extremely low -- this was the first INT from the 1 in the entire NFL this season. Also, Lynch was previously 1-for-5 at the goaline this season

1 for 5 is about as small a sample size as you can get. And what relevance do those other 5 opportunities have since they were against a different opponent and our OLine was finally at full strength in this game? And to boot, NE was awful in this situation this year.

 

[byau]

Agreed. I think Russell didn't execute. Had he also passed behind him a bit instead of leading him into coverage, Lockette could have made that play and we'd be celebrating a win.

Thinking about it now (on day 3), Russell didn't seem as focused or dialed in this game, making quite a few inaccurate throws. So no matter what you thought of the play call, Russell still could have executed it. I'm sure he knows that and will learn from it.

You can keep blaming the QB, WRs, whoever you want to deflect from insane Bevell's playcall. Our two best playmakers are just limited one as a decoy the other just takes a 2-3 drop step and throw. Leave it to Lockette of all people to make the play happen, I just don't know anymore how some fans can keep deflecting such a bad playcall. Whats the point of saving time, if the play occurred successfully you still give Brady time to make plays. I'm getting angry again

I agree it's not a good playcall. I would have run it again too. Marshawn just went HUGE on a run. He was primed and ready to go again I'm guessing. We are agreed there.

I'm just saying that even with the questionable playcall, the Seahawks are capable of executing that playcall most of the time. But seems to me they weren't dialed in 100% combined with a spectacular play by the D.

Basically, I am just thinking. If we scored on the pass, how surprised would I have been? Vs. how surprised I was that there was an INT. I am more surprised there was an INT which leads me to believe overall the Seahawks can execute that most of the time.

And that led me to thinking about the entire 4th quarter - as a whole the team did not execute.

But yeah, doesn't mean I agree with the playcall. Hope that makes sense.

 

[andyh64000]

The odds, generally, of an INT in this situation are extremely low -- this was the first INT from the 1 in the entire NFL this season.

Yes...because in every other situation the team on the 1 yard line had their goal line offense in and called a play action pass which ends up as a wide open TD or a throw away. If other teams OC had the epic stupidity to call a slant from the 1 yard line there would have been many more INTs (any deflection in that situation is also almost certainly an INT...just like Lynch VS Carolina).

 

[DavidSeven]

, generally, of an INT in this situation are extremely low -- this was the first INT from the 1 in the entire NFL this season. Also, Lynch was previously 1-for-5 at the goaline this season

1 for 5 is about as small a sample size as you can get. And what relevance do those other 5 opportunities have since they were against a different opponent and our OLine was finally at full strength in this game? And to boot, NE was awful in this situation this year.

Not disagreeing completely. I would have felt more comfortable with a run, too. Just breaking down the logic of the R-P-R-R sequence that they ultimately went with and showing that neither play is necessary guaranteed for success. They chose 3 runs vs. 1 pass, which shows that they favored the run though.

 

[marko358]

We had 162 yards rushing on the day to that point and Lynch just barreled through a guy to get to the one. There was no way they were going to stop him on the next play.

Again, 2700 yards rushing for the season which is 3rd best all time. Our OLine was healthy and mauling in the game and the Pats had virtually no success in stopping the run all day. 31 other coaches would have called for Lynch to punch it in.

 

[jlwaters1]

You can explain it however you want but stats about Pats goaline defense against the run says otherwise.

lots of former players saying the formation and play call were easy to read though. so maybe not a run in that particular instance, but surely the slant wasnt a good call?

We're not even talking about this if Lockette actually makes an effort to go get the ball. Lockette, let's the ball come to him allowing the DB to make a play. That play would have been impossible if Lockette actually did his job and attacked the football. Also It would have been avoided entirely if Wilson doesn't lead him so much, puts it more into his body.

 

[Daytomann]

No.....
Worst call ever.

 

[Tyakack]

It was the worst call ever because of the result. If he gets a TD there nobody says anything, obviously. Its easy to call a call terrible when it doesn't workout. I will admit that I think running it was the best option however I don't think the play call was as terrible as people are making it seem. The execution is what was terrible.