Petes decision to Punt on 4th and 1 at midfield.

[Barthawk]

I was LIVID that we didn't go for it there. So much so that I about lost it in my section where people had to laugh at me for blowing my lid.

THAT is the time you show your team and the world what's what.

Still pissed about it to be honest.

Agree completely. ATL just scored on two straight to tie it up. D was reeling and needed a break. Poor decision. 2 inches from their 41 yard line.

Didn't like it at all

 

[RiverDog]

Tough decision. Pete's usually a riverboat gambler in those situations, so I was surprised to see him punt. He must be getting more conservative in his old age. As upset as he was, I thought he was acting and setting up everyone for a fake, but I suppose the Falcons were too leery of one. What was worse was that idiot punt returner of the Falcons that called a fair catch on his own 2 (I think it was on that punt). I'm sure that they didn't have a return on as everyone else was defending against the fake and was told to fair catch the punt, but that was stupid. Even though it played in our favor, those kind of plays frustrate me.

 

[Silver Hawk]

Couldn't agree more Kiwi. Michaels doesn't have that fight for yards mentality that we've come to expect from every RB now that we've been spoiled by Lynch.

Pin them deep and trust your defense. That's Pete's mantra.

That's truly funny. Don't know what you've been watching but if nothing else, Michael is a fighter. Not sure about the Michaels guy though. Maybe he has issues.

What a bunch of whiners. Fire Kearse. Fire Bevell. Fire Richard. Pete doesn't have balls. Trade, or better yet, cut Jimmy Graham. Earl shouldn't have gotten married. Trade Kam. On and on.

I agree with you 100% that Michael fights through tackles and is now a hard working RB and really like what he brings.

With that said he twice screwed up yesterday.

First half he gets the ball by the sideline about 8 yard gain then steps out of bounds. If he takes the collision up-field he gets first down. I am 95% sure we punted as we failed to convert but I could be wrong

Later in the game he gets the ball on short down 3rd down. He gets 1 out of 2 yards because he stopped and tried to make a lot of out if when all he needed was a little. He should have hit the hole in that situation.

This is his first year starting so I expect some of this but it comes down to lack of situational awareness / instincts taking over. Doesn't mean that he doesn't have the fight for yards mentality just that he needs to understand when to fall forward and when it is ok to try to turn it into a big gain / go out of bounds instead. He will get it as he keeps playing

You are right. He did screw up there. I couldn't believe it when he stepped out of bounds. It seemed so inconsistent with how I think he normally plays. That was a head scratcher for sure but we did end up picking up the first down. On the other play, I haven't rewatched it but I remember thinking that there was nothing there to get anyway. Might be wrong. I wonder if his fumble at the end of the Rams game might have changed what he tries to do in certain situations?

 

[Anonymous]

I think he was thinking field position all the way.

Seemed to me that he went against his pete-isms several times in the game. That was just one of them. The flea-flicker play was cool, glad we snuck that one in.

Todd is correct though, a naked boot with a weak-side wheel route might have been an option. Russ has pursuit and chucks it opposite field to Spiller might have been worth the gamble, but Quinn knows that play too well and he'd have had a spy on the RB.

 

[fenderbender123]

We pinned them at the 2.

True, but it likely should have been a touchback which would have brought the ball up to the 25 and only netted us 15 yards. The PR for Atlanta called for a fair catch at the 2 yard line. Had he let it bounce like I'm sure he was supposed to, it likely would have gone into the endzone.

 

[Seanhawk]

We pinned them at the 2.

True, but it likely should have been a touchback which would have brought the ball up to the 25 and only netted us 15 yards. The PR for Atlanta called for a fair catch at the 2 yard line. Had he let it bounce like I'm sure he was supposed to, it likely would have gone into the endzone.

So now we're arguing in what should have happeneds? In that case, Michael should have gotten the first down on third down meaning this whole thread shouldn't exist.

 

[jammerhawk]

It was a sensible move by Pete, it was unfortunate Michael didn't quite make the line of gain for a !st down.

 

[The Breh]

I can't lie, this call made me furious. About as furious as I was that we ran the ball 2-3 straight times after being successful in the air in the first poss.
Those dudes are ok throwing the ball on the 1 with the SB there In our hands with a Lynch who never got popped for negative yards all game but a 4th and inches....too risky.
This was two powerhouse NFC likely playoff bound teams who'll meet again. It was statement time.
It didn't resemble the "toughness" our team is known, or wants to be known for.

 

[hawk45]

Having a hard time with the idea that the D reeling is a good time to risk handing Atlanta a short field instead of pinning them down at the 2.

 

[Jeremy517]

Having a hard time with the idea that the D reeling is a good time to risk handing Atlanta a short field instead of pinning them down at the 2.

There is no guarantee that a punt gets downed at the two-yard-line. Worst case scenario for a punt (other than blocks, dropped snap etc) is a touchback, in which case it is only a 25-yard net punt. Would you trade 25 yards of field position for a chance for the Seahawks offense to keep the ball? That answer should easily be yes. The average result of a punt is probably on the 10 yard line or so, not the two.

The defense reeling is an argument for going for it, not punting. Atlanta was averaging over 5 yards per play, and over 9 yards per play on their first two drives of the half, and you want to give them the ball back to face a tired defense?

You need to stop being results-oriented. Judge the decision-making, not the results. Extreme example: If Seattle has a fourth and 30 from their own five yard line, goes for it, and somehow gets the first down, the decision to go for it is still incredibly awful regardless of the fact that it worked. It is the same thing here, just not as extreme of a case. You have to look at the possible outcomes at the time of the punt and assess how likely each was to happen, and how each scenario affects the Seahawks chance of winning.

The bottom line is that having a huge percentage chance of keeping the ball and a small chance of turning the ball over at the ATL 45 is way better than giving the ball back to ATL with the average punt. It isn't even close.

 

[potatohead]

Having a hard time with the idea that the D reeling is a good time to risk handing Atlanta a short field instead of pinning them down at the 2.

There is no guarantee that a punt gets downed at the two-yard-line. Worst case scenario for a punt (other than blocks, dropped snap etc) is a touchback, in which case it is only a 25-yard net punt. Would you trade 25 yards of field position for a chance for the Seahawks offense to keep the ball? That answer should easily be yes. The average result of a punt is probably on the 10 yard line or so, not the two.

The defense reeling is an argument for going for it, not punting. Atlanta was averaging over 5 yards per play, and over 9 yards per play on their first two drives of the half, and you want to give them the ball back to face a tired defense?

You need to stop being results-oriented. Judge the decision-making, not the results. Extreme example: If Seattle has a fourth and 30 from their own five yard line, goes for it, and somehow gets the first down, the decision to go for it is still incredibly awful regardless of the fact that it worked. It is the same thing here, just not as extreme of a case. You have to look at the possible outcomes at the time of the punt and assess how likely each was to happen, and how each scenario affects the Seahawks chance of winning.

The bottom line is that having a huge percentage chance of keeping the ball and a small chance of turning the ball over at the ATL 45 is way better than giving the ball back to ATL with the average punt. It isn't even close.

100% correct. It was a terrible call, the odds to make a first down on that play has to be 80% or more. The way ATL was running over Sherman like he was drunk was all the more reason to go for it.

 

[Threedee]

That's truly funny. Don't know what you've been watching but if nothing else, Michael is a fighter. Not sure about the Michaels guy though. Maybe he has issues.

What a bunch of whiners. Fire Kearse. Fire Bevell. Fire Richard. Pete doesn't have balls. Trade, or better yet, cut Jimmy Graham. Earl shouldn't have gotten married. Trade Kam. On and on.

One of these sentiments is correct, however.

 

[TwistedHusky]

I'm good with Fire Bevell.

Either that or beat him soundly with a metal rod when he makes dumb decisions?

 

[NFSeahawks]

Pete is an awesome coach, but he is consistently over-conservative on fourth down. It is his biggest flaw. Punting there is lighting win equity on fire.

This isn't true at all.

He almost always goes for fourth downs.

The Seahawks had the fewest fourth down attempts last year. The Seahawks were tied for the seventh fewest attempts each of the two years before that. This year, the Seahawks are tied for the fifth-fewest attemps.

Pete is very conservative on fourth down now.

Generally speaking teams start to rack up fourth down attempts in games when they're behind late.

This is something important to consider when looking at number of attempts.

Seattle was 8 of 9 last year on 4th down attempts, best in the league. I trust Pete's judgement, he's usually right. It also doesnt make him conservative, just because he was this past Sunday.

 

[HawKnPeppa]

Ahaha! "Running over Sherman like he was drunk..." Some of these posts are so incredibly clueless that it's hard to takes this thread seriously.

 

[MD5eahawks]

Plain and simple, what that play call tells me is there was something that he was concerned with and we can only guess as to what it is.

 

[Largent80]

If you saw Michael's weird skipping tra-La towards the line of scrimmage on 3rd down you would punt too. WTF was that?

 

[HawkGA]

Anybody hear PC on the PC Show talk about it? It was pretty funny. Pretty much said "We're not gonna talk about that. What a great punt, huh?"

 

[hawker84]

If you saw Michael's weird skipping tra-La towards the line of scrimmage on 3rd down you would punt too. WTF was that?

agree Rawls gets that first down all day every day...

 

[CalgaryHawk]

If you saw Michael's weird skipping tra-La towards the line of scrimmage on 3rd down you would punt too. WTF was that?

Right, but if Pete can't trust Alex Collins to get one inch then what is he doing on the roster. And Collins already showed earlier in the game he could plow it in from a short distane on his TD run.

That was a terrible decision by Pete and not a way to fire up your team that had just surrendered 14 points in a row.