Poll: "Surprise pick for which play Seattle should have run"

Terry Blount from ESPN ran a fan poll to see what play the Hawks "should have run" instead of the ill-fated slant play - a pass - that ended the Super Bowl.

http://espn.go.com/blog/seattle-seahawk ... d-have-run

It turned out that most people who voted didn't think calling a pass instead of a run was as retarded as most of these other know-it-alls railing on about how it should have been handed off to Lynch on 2nd down with 26 seconds to go (only 32 percent).

At least 59% would have chosen a pass play of some type being called as their first option (with another 8% wanting a read-option which could also result in a pass) - with the benefit of hindsight of course.


That said...all I can say is that hind-sight is 20/20. All the "experts" on this board keep railing about how risky the slant play is??? The facts are that it is typically a very low risk play - there is a stat floating around that this year in the NFL that quick slant was called 106 times and NOT ONCE was an interception thrown - until the end of the Super Bowl.

I personally would have wanted to see a roll out pass or a read option...but whatever. I think everyone criticizing the coaching staff for making this call are only doing so simply because the result didn't go our way.

We should have punted. No way they see that coming.

Fake field goal followed with a 2 point conversion cause Hasselbeck needed a new avatar

106 quick slants were thrown, but how many into a congested goal line defense? And how many teams have the league's best running game?

Yeah, that's the problem. Seems like anything at all would have been better than what was called. That's how it rolls.

12evanf":smf2ifxg said:

106 quick slants were thrown, but how many into a congested goal line defense? And how many teams have the league's best running game?

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, the goaline is ALWAYS congested at the 1 yard line, the stat was 106 passes from the 1 yard line and no picks. The risk of fumbling on a run or throwing a pick were virtually identical.

I don't have a problem with a pass play in the situation, my problem is with the slant play. It should have been a play that gave Wilson the option to throw away the ball, avoiding the risk. The clock stops and you still have one timeout left to stop it if they don't score on third down.

If Pete choose this particular slant play, then he deserves all the criticism, but I don't think he did, I believe he ordered pass play, but not this specific play, and I think Bevell choose it.

But Alas, this one will take some time to heal.

My biggest issue with the called play is that it was one that Brandon Browner instantly recognized and as is now known, had the Pats' D completely prepared for. With 2 weeks leading up to the game and knowing you'd be facing a very good corner that had been on your team the past few seasons, it blows my mind that they wouldn't have something "new" for that situation. Can someone give me a sensible answer to that so I can resume sleeping more than 3-4 hours a night?

I'm fully aware that I shouldn't let it affect me to that degree, but it is what it is. Thanks.

SeahawksBMX":v72e4ru1 said:

My biggest issue with the called play is that it was one that Brandon Browner instantly recognized and as is now known, had the Pats' D completely prepared for. With 2 weeks leading up to the game and knowing you'd be facing a very good corner that had been on your team the past few seasons, it blows my mind that they wouldn't have something "new" for that situation. Can someone give me a sensible answer to that so I can resume sleeping more than 3-4 hours a night?

I'm fully aware that I shouldn't let it affect me to that degree, but it is what it is. Thanks.

Click to expand...

It sucks for all of us that it didn't work out.

But even the world's greatest coaches will lose a play (or a game) on occasion because the other coach won it. That's just sports (and life).

They complete that pass 70% of the time...this one just didn't work out. Just like at the end of the first half Bevell beat Belichik with the play call to Matthews in the corner of the end zone for the TD which was VERY unpredictable.

grizbob":3jrcbcie said:

Fake field goal followed with a 2 point conversion cause Hasselbeck needed a new avatar

Click to expand...

MOAR JON RYAN FACE

I'll tell you where the play fell apart. It was early on when Seattle subbed in the 3WR/1TE group. IMO, Bevell was probably planning to run read-option on 2nd and 1. A perfectly reasonable call with this personnel. However, NE did something unexpected. Instead of subbing in 4-5 DBs to counter this "spread" look, they went heavy + 3 DBs. This means NE had numbers against the run -- 8 run stuffers vs. 6 blockers. Calling a slant, though my least favorite call, probably isn't that surprising out of this grouping against cover-0. I could be wrong, but I don't think we run as much play-action/bootlegs out of this group; it's our passing/read-option personnel. A triple-option pass would've been possible, but it's not one of our bread-and-butter plays.

If we had stuck with I-Formation personnel (1 RB/1 FB) on 2nd down, I bet we would have seen play-action. Knowing the results, I wish we had run read-option on 1st-and-5 and then swapped in the I-Formation for 2nd down... oh well.

Hasselbeck":32t1jq0u said:

grizbob":32t1jq0u said:

Fake field goal followed with a 2 point conversion cause Hasselbeck needed a new avatar

Click to expand...

MOAR JON RYAN FACE

Click to expand...

LOL every time I see that :th2thumbs:

SeahawksBMX":3i23dmwp said:

My biggest issue with the called play is that it was one that Brandon Browner instantly recognized and as is now known, had the Pats' D completely prepared for. With 2 weeks leading up to the game and knowing you'd be facing a very good corner that had been on your team the past few seasons, it blows my mind that they wouldn't have something "new" for that situation. Can someone give me a sensible answer to that so I can resume sleeping more than 3-4 hours a night?

I'm fully aware that I shouldn't let it affect me to that degree, but it is what it is. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Curious about this. Why did Browner recognize the play? I mean, how many times has Seattle used that play in the last 2-3 years? I have seen every single Seahawks play for probably the last 16 years. This is not a play that I remember. Which isn't to say that they haven't used it, I just don't recall it as ever sticking out or being something that the team does well or relies upon.

I saw a somewhat similar concept (pick) in a play that Seattle used against Denver this year but it was not the same formation. It was Miller and Lynch out wide and not stacked. Outside of that, I just can't piece together how this was a play that NE might expect to see from Seattle.

Apologists keep glossing over the fact that there was more than a minute left after 5he first down play. Leaving that out changes the whole narrative.

nanomoz":l27syz3r said:

Apologists keep glossing over the fact that there was more than a minute left after 5he first down play. Leaving that out changes the whole narrative.

Click to expand...

Players were making their way back to the huddle at the 1:00 minute mark. Burned 34 seconds before snapping the ball. That definitely impacted what could be done.

Snap the ball at 40 seconds and we could have run three times and yet still had the threat of a pass. Snap the ball at 26 seconds and a pass is going to have to be one of the three possible remaining plays.

They ran it down to 26 seconds because that was the shortest amount of time you could leave while still guaranteeing three more shots at the endzone. Obviously, the concern was leaving Brady too much time to tie if they scored on 2nd down. They definitely over-thought it, but running it down to :26 was intentional.

It was the Atlanta game that doomed us. They left :34 for Matt Ryan. Wanted to leave less for Brady.

DavidSeven":3e93dx2r said:

They ran it down to 26 seconds because that was the shortest amount of time you could leave while still guaranteeing three more shots at the endzone. Obviously, the concern was leaving Brady too much time to tie if they scored on 2nd. They definitely over-thought it, but running it down to :26 was intentional.

It was the 2012 Atlanta game that doomed us. They left :34 for Matt Ryan. Wanted to leave less for Brady.

Click to expand...

Which also eliminated the realistic possibility of running the ball three times.

Silver Hawk":1ql59so2 said:

DavidSeven":1ql59so2 said:

They ran it down to 26 seconds because that was the shortest amount of time you could leave while still guaranteeing three more shots at the endzone. Obviously, the concern was leaving Brady too much time to tie if they scored on 2nd. They definitely over-thought it, but running it down to :26 was intentional.

It was the 2012 Atlanta game that doomed us. They left :34 for Matt Ryan. Wanted to leave less for Brady.

Click to expand...

Which also eliminated the realistic possibility of running the ball three times.

Click to expand...

Yeah, true. Not saying it was a great decision, but it was one they consciously made. Personally, I wish they ran it at the 40 second mark. However, given what happened in Atlanta and against Green Bay, I can understand the logic of milking the clock. I think it will be a lesson for the future: worry about scoring first, let the rest work itself out later.

DavidSeven":19ww5gpt said:

Silver Hawk":19ww5gpt said:

DavidSeven":19ww5gpt said:

They ran it down to 26 seconds because that was the shortest amount of time you could leave while still guaranteeing three more shots at the endzone. Obviously, the concern was leaving Brady too much time to tie if they scored on 2nd. They definitely over-thought it, but running it down to :26 was intentional.

It was the 2012 Atlanta game that doomed us. They left :34 for Matt Ryan. Wanted to leave less for Brady.

Click to expand...

Which also eliminated the realistic possibility of running the ball three times.

Click to expand...

Yeah, true. Not saying it was a great decision, but it was one they consciously made. Personally, I wish they ran it at the 40 second mark. However, given what happened in Atlanta and against Green Bay, I can understand the logic of milking the clock. I think it will be a lesson for the future: worry about scoring first, let the rest work itself out later.

Click to expand...

That - or - get better at time management. Using two timeouts on that last drive was a killer. With one more time out, they could have run the ball 3 times, even with 26 seconds. IMO, that is exactly what they would have done. That's what I will find hard to ever forget. I think that was the difference right there - a squandered timeout.

Silver Hawk":22o1y0f2 said:

SeahawksBMX":22o1y0f2 said:

My biggest issue with the called play is that it was one that Brandon Browner instantly recognized and as is now known, had the Pats' D completely prepared for. With 2 weeks leading up to the game and knowing you'd be facing a very good corner that had been on your team the past few seasons, it blows my mind that they wouldn't have something "new" for that situation. Can someone give me a sensible answer to that so I can resume sleeping more than 3-4 hours a night?

I'm fully aware that I shouldn't let it affect me to that degree, but it is what it is. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Curious about this. Why did Browner recognize the play? I mean, how many times has Seattle used that play in the last 2-3 years? I have seen every single Seahawks play for probably the last 16 years. This is not a play that I remember. Which isn't to say that they haven't used it, I just don't recall it as ever sticking out or being something that the team does well or relies upon.

I saw a somewhat similar concept (pick) in a play that Seattle used against Denver this year but it was not the same formation. It was Miller and Lynch out wide and not stacked. Outside of that, I just can't piece together how this was a play that NE might expect to see from Seattle.

Click to expand...

You forget how many times that play is practiced when he was here, a play like that requires the pick and the route and timing for the catch, I would imagine they ran it several times with different receivers when Browner was a Seahawk.