Why didn't we use our tight ends in the SB?

VegasSeaHawk

Active member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
240
Reaction score
26
Did anyone else notice we didn't use our tight ends at all during the SB?

Did Russell even throw a single pass their way?
 

RolandDeschain

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
33,119
Reaction score
950
Location
Kissimmee, FL
All part of our brilliant plan to throw a quick slant from the one-yard line into a tight group of approximately 73 defenders where nothing's likely to have gone wrong.
 

mikeak

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
8,202
Reaction score
25
Location
Anchorage, AK
The problem is we are all asking the question but the person that can answer isn't here...

I couldn't believe we didn't go to Willson on the 3rd down play where we ended up kicking the FG
 

HawKnPeppa

New member
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
4,733
Reaction score
0
Normally I'd go back and look at the game to figure out how the TEs were being used, but this is one of those games I can't watch twice. :oops:
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,612
Willson was out there a bunch, he just didn't get open.

NE wasn't falling for the seam routes and wheel routes that Luke's had success with, so I guess give the Pats credit their gameplan to smother our WR's and TE's worked.
 

Ozzy

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
9,289
Reaction score
3,816
RolandDeschain":22a6nrij said:
All part of our brilliant plan to throw a quick slant from the one-yard line into a tight group of approximately 73 defenders where nothing's likely to have gone wrong.

You would of called it a brilliant play if it worked though. :stirthepot:
 

mikeak

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
8,202
Reaction score
25
Location
Anchorage, AK
austinslater25":22ztgseb said:
RolandDeschain":22ztgseb said:
All part of our brilliant plan to throw a quick slant from the one-yard line into a tight group of approximately 73 defenders where nothing's likely to have gone wrong.

You would of called it a brilliant play if it worked though. :stirthepot:

I keep hearing this comment and the true answer from those that like to watch sports and analyze it is - No we wouldn't

Lets switch to basketball for a second. I can't tell you how many times I have said - horrible shot and then watch it go in and thought to myself "I am really happy they made it but that was a horrible decision".

At least for me - the outcome isn't what makes me say if it was a bad or good decision. It is the situation and the call as it happened.

if that was a PA call with a roll-out that got intercepted I would have said crap can't believe that happened
 

Bob_the_Destroyer

New member
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
VegasSeaHawk":25huq5kt said:
Did anyone else notice we didn't use our tight ends at all during the SB?

Did Russell even throw a single pass their way?

Why didn't we use out tight ends in the Super Bowl? You want the truth? Because our tight ends are not very good and it was trivial for Belichick to neutralize them.

Zach Miller, who should be back next season (he is signed with a cap hit of $4 million), has the necessary talent -- far, far better than Luke Willson -- but the Seahawks have been so conservative in passing that they haven't targeted him as much as they should have. Miller was the tight end at Arizona State just before Gronkowski and probably had a slightly better college career than Gronk. Miller was drafted at #38 and Gronk at #42.

Miller had a good three seasons (2008-2010) at Oakland, leading the run-first team in receiving every year, making the Pro Bowl the third year before signing with Seattle, where his pass catching skills have been under-utilized. Gronkowski, on the other had, was fortunate to land on a team with a coach who knew how to utilize tight ends and flourished in the passing game becoming one of the best pass catching tight ends ever.

The New England offense is light years beyond ours in sophistication and player acquisition and development. Pete Carroll knows defense but because he knows very little about offense has resorted to a very basic, unsophisticated offense that he can understand. He claims it is our "identity", but that is a lame excuse for inhibiting the offense. Every time he says the running game is out identity, I interpret it to mean that he is too Luckily, we have Russell Wilson and Marshawn Lynch, who have made a very basic offense pretty good, but the Seahawks are still not playing to their potential offensively.

Who knows how Miller would have done if he had gone to New England?

Bill Belichick, who like Pete Carroll came up as a defensive secondary coach, but who unlike Carroll, was open-minded enough to learn and take on dynamic offenses that maximized yards and scoring. Because he has worked at it, Belichick's understanding of offenses, particularly the passing game is light years beyond Darrell Bevell and Pete Carroll. Bevell thought he was running a sophisticated play at the end of the Super Bowl, but it was trivial to Belichick who had it completely covered and had practiced it before the Super Bowl. When it comes to offense, Belichick is on the cutting edge and the Seahawks are in the stone ages.

Pete Carroll is a great coach, who has built a great, very successful organization, system and defense, but because he does not know offenses, he is too conservative and has not maximized the potential of an offense with Russell Wilson, Marshawn Lynch (who is a great receiver for a running back), Zach Miller, Jermaine Kearse, Baldwin, etc. With the system and defense Carroll has built, we would be unbeatable if he became more open-minded and unleashed the offense.

.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,612
Bob_the_Destroyer":21ejvok2 said:
Bill Belichick, who like Pete Carroll came up as a defensive secondary coach, but who unlike Carroll, was open-minded enough to learn and take on dynamic offenses that maximized yards and scoring. Because he has worked at it, Belichick's understanding of offenses, particularly the passing game is light years beyond Darrell Bevell and Pete Carroll. Bevell thought he was running a sophisticated play at the end of the Super Bowl, but it was trivial to Belichick who had it completely covered and had practiced it before the Super Bowl. When it comes to offense, Belichick is on the cutting edge and the Seahawks are in the stone ages.

Pete Carroll is a great coach, who has built a great, very successful organization, system and defense, but because he does not know offenses, he is too conservative and has not maximized the potential of an offense with Russell Wilson, Marshawn Lynch (who is a great receiver for a running back), Zach Miller, Jermaine Kearse, Baldwin, etc. With the system and defense Carroll has built, we would be unbeatable if he became more open-minded and unleashed the offense.

Don't you think you're being a little harsh?

Carroll built one of the most dynamic college offensives of all time at USC, continually putting up 50+ a game running and passing, and now has built a top 10 offense, and a #1 rushing offense.............AND we led the league in explosive offensive plays.

Sorry, but in order to "unleash" an offense, you need playmakers.........and we only have that at the QB and RB position. Our WR's and TE's are average to below average at best, and certainly no one would call any of them "playmakers."

Richardson could turn into one, but he got hurt.
 

dumbrabbit

New member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
821
Reaction score
0
If Chris Matthews didn't have his big game, perhaps we would have seen more from the tight ends.
 
Top