Why Carroll's explanation doesn't hold up

On Lynch's go-ahead TD run against GB, he said he always prefers to just get the ball in the end zone and not worry about how much time is left. He said it's more important to score. He said this when asked if he may have wanted Lynch to fall down at the 1 so they could take some time off the clock, but Carroll said no, they always want the score and the clock is what it is.

Yet now in this game, he says they wanted to waste a play to burn more clock? Huh? That doesn't add up. He just said the game before scoring is more important.

This has to come down to trying to take the bullet for Bevell.

I think a pass attempt there makes sense because if it's complete it's a TD and if it's incomplete you stop the clock, that gives you 3rd and 1 and 4th and 1 if you fail to make the run, but with that all important time out.

If we ran on 2nd down and got stopped we can stop the clock, but then in 3rd down we either have to convert or have an even more obvious pass to give us the 4 attempts.

I see what you are saying but that being the case we still ran a bad play based on Brandon Browner being there.

If Im being completely rational I understand passing the ball under this circumstance.

Fade to Chris Mathews. Throw it high and to the corner. He gets it or incomplete.

A throw short and down the middle? Yuck

Oh yeah, the specific playcall made no sense.

I'd have expected a PA bootleg in that case, Wilson gets out of the pocket and has the chance to throw the ball out of the back of the endzone or run it in if there's space (or throw the TD if somebody is open obviously).

cesame":2omw6zoe said:

On Lynch's go-ahead TD run against GB, he said he always prefers to just get the ball in the end zone and not worry about how much time is left. He said it's more important to score. He said this when asked if he may have wanted Lynch to fall down at the 1 so they could take some time off the clock, but Carroll said no, they always want the score and the clock is what it is.

Yet now in this game, he says they wanted to waste a play to burn more clock? Huh? That doesn't add up. He just said the game before scoring is more important.

This has to come down to trying to take the bullet for Bevell.

Click to expand...

You're logic is completely flawed.

In Green Bay he was explaining that you cannot forego getting the touchdown by falling on the one just to run out the clock - because you cannot guarantee that he will score on any of the next plays. It is imperative to take the score when you can, to pass up the score and assume you will get the TD on a future play just to run out the clock is pure stupidity.

In yesterday's game it was 2nd and goal on the 2 with 26 seconds and only one time out left. If Pete wanted to ensure that he could run three plays (if he needed them) in 26 seconds then the clock needed to be managed. The Seahawks have a far better chance to score if they get three attempts to score rather than two (it increases their probabilities by 33%) . The most prudent way to manage the clock is to pass on 2nd down - if there is no score then its an incompletion and the clock stops. On 3rd down you can run and call a time out if you're stopped - on 4th down the clock doesn't matter.

If you do not throw on that play and run Marshawn then any other scenario the Hawks are either in a HUGE rush, or else they only get two plays off which is far more realistic.

So, based on your choice of playcalling you would only get two attempts to run Marshawn and the game would be a loss if Marshawn's stopped on both plays.

Based on Carroll's play choices he gets one pass attempt to score and then also get's two attempts on runs if the pass doesn't work.

I like Pete's decision better than yours.

If we were casual observers of a Super Bowl and it was Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith, Terrel Davis, Jerome Bettis, etc who didn't get the ball in that scenario I guarantee there is not one of us who defend anything about the garbage playcall.

cesame":2xwyrir3 said:

On Lynch's go-ahead TD run against GB, he said he always prefers to just get the ball in the end zone and not worry about how much time is left. He said it's more important to score. He said this when asked if he may have wanted Lynch to fall down at the 1 so they could take some time off the clock, but Carroll said no, they always want the score and the clock is what it is.

Yet now in this game, he says they wanted to waste a play to burn more clock? Huh? That doesn't add up. He just said the game before scoring is more important.

This has to come down to trying to take the bullet for Bevell.

Click to expand...

That sounds about right because it goes against what Pete talks about in his book (Win Forever). In his book, he talks about preparing his players to the point where they are so confident that they aren't 'playing scared.' He explains this level of preparedness as a state of mind that allows them to stay loose as opposed to tightening up due to lack of confidence.
Bevell prioritizing running time off the clock sounds a strategy based upon 'fear,' paranoia or however you want to term it. I'm not saying I whole-heartedly agree with everything Pete writes....just saying that the white-knuckled mentality of Bevell's play calling in that instance is at odds with Pete's philosophy.

Why was that play called on 2nd and goal from the 1 yd line with the SB on the line?

1. Lockette has been to 3 consecutive SBs, no SB TDs, hook the guy up with an opportunity.
2. Russell was underdog for MVP, if he makes that TD, he probably gets it.

I think the call was awful. Just my 2 cents. I love the Hawks still, super proud of what they accomplished, I hope we learn from our mistakes, and we got a lot to be excited about in the coming years.

12thManHawkFan":2e2b5guy said:

Why was that play called on 2nd and goal from the 1 yd line with the SB on the line?

1. Lockette has been to 3 consecutive SBs, no SB TDs, hook the guy up with an opportunity.
2. Russell was underdog for MVP, if he makes that TD, he probably gets it.

I think the call was awful. Just my 2 cents. I love the Hawks still, super proud of what they accomplished, I hope we learn from our mistakes, and we got a lot to be excited about in the coming years.

Click to expand...

but
3. Brandon Browner has seen the play in practice a hundred times and knows all he has to do to blow it up is to hold Kearse on the line. There is no excuse for calling that play.

cesame":3n5cghez said:

On Lynch's go-ahead TD run against GB, he said he always prefers to just get the ball in the end zone and not worry about how much time is left. He said it's more important to score. He said this when asked if he may have wanted Lynch to fall down at the 1 so they could take some time off the clock, but Carroll said no, they always want the score and the clock is what it is.

Yet now in this game, he says they wanted to waste a play to burn more clock? Huh? That doesn't add up. He just said the game before scoring is more important.

This has to come down to trying to take the bullet for Bevell.

Click to expand...

Pete's explanation does not pass the smell test. If they wanted to run the game clock down, all they had to do was snap the ball back to Russell, he runs right, scrambles around for a few seconds, and when they get close, he throws it out of bounds. The play was designed to score. Anyone that knows the first thing about football can see through that phony smoke screen.

Yea, Pete is trying to take some heat off of Bevell, and I respect him for that. But that explanation of his is worse than Belichick's explanation of the laws of physics.

RiverDog":1xyoi2fh said:

cesame":1xyoi2fh said:

On Lynch's go-ahead TD run against GB, he said he always prefers to just get the ball in the end zone and not worry about how much time is left. He said it's more important to score. He said this when asked if he may have wanted Lynch to fall down at the 1 so they could take some time off the clock, but Carroll said no, they always want the score and the clock is what it is.

Yet now in this game, he says they wanted to waste a play to burn more clock? Huh? That doesn't add up. He just said the game before scoring is more important.

This has to come down to trying to take the bullet for Bevell.

Click to expand...

Pete's explanation does not pass the smell test. If they wanted to run the game clock down, all they had to do was snap the ball back to Russell, he runs right, scrambles around for a few seconds, and when they get close, he throws it out of bounds. The play was designed to score. Anyone that knows the first thing about football can see through that phony smoke screen.

Yea, Pete is trying to take some heat off of Bevell, and I respect him for that. But that explanation of his is worse than Belichick's explanation of the laws of physics.

Click to expand...

:177692:

He didn't want to run the clock down. He wanted to preserve the ability to run 3 plays in 26 seconds. If you run on that play you almost guarantee you only get one more play if you run it again. To get three plays you had to pass at least once (if you don't score on any of the first two plays)

Vancanhawksfan":2t1stgaa said:

RiverDog":2t1stgaa said:

cesame":2t1stgaa said:

On Lynch's go-ahead TD run against GB, he said he always prefers to just get the ball in the end zone and not worry about how much time is left. He said it's more important to score. He said this when asked if he may have wanted Lynch to fall down at the 1 so they could take some time off the clock, but Carroll said no, they always want the score and the clock is what it is.

Yet now in this game, he says they wanted to waste a play to burn more clock? Huh? That doesn't add up. He just said the game before scoring is more important.

This has to come down to trying to take the bullet for Bevell.

Click to expand...

Pete's explanation does not pass the smell test. If they wanted to run the game clock down, all they had to do was snap the ball back to Russell, he runs right, scrambles around for a few seconds, and when they get close, he throws it out of bounds. The play was designed to score. Anyone that knows the first thing about football can see through that phony smoke screen.

Yea, Pete is trying to take some heat off of Bevell, and I respect him for that. But that explanation of his is worse than Belichick's explanation of the laws of physics.

Click to expand...

:177692:

He didn't want to run the clock down. He wanted to preserve the ability to run 3 plays in 26 seconds. If you run on that play you almost guarantee you only get one more play if you run it again. To get three plays you had to pass at least once (if you don't score on any of the first two plays)

Click to expand...

Whether or not they wanted to run the clock down isn't the point. The point is that if they wanted to burn a play, that play selection was not a very good choice. You burn a play by throwing the ball in such a manner that only your receiver has a chance to make a play on it, in the corner or back of the end zone, so that the worst possible outcome is an incomplete pass. It gives Russell a chance to hit the abort button and throw it away if the play isn't there. Throwing the ball on a quick slant in very heavy traffic is a very high risk play considering that they had the entire short yardage playbook at their disposal.