Last Drive: Russell takes sack vs throwing: heads up play?

So the last drive the Seahawks had near the end of the 4th, Seahawks had 3rd and 4.

Russell drops back, however it's clear that the Eagles defense got through and is about to sack him.

Normally Russell rolls out, throws it away, etc.etc. Instead he took the sack. In in the normal game situation throwing the ball away out of bounds is better to not lose the yards.

Steve Raible comments: "The last thing you want to do is take a sack.."

My buddies and I talk. Eventually we realize: Russell made the right play

If Russell throws the ball
* low percentage of it actually completing, or making a first down
* while we save the yards, the CLOCK STOPS

If Russell takes the sack
* we lose 6 to 10 yards
* the clock keeps running
* at that point losing the 6 to 10 yards is worth it to keep the clock running

So... in hindsight we think Russell makes the right play, but this is after lots of discussion

Anyone wonder if Russell already thought this and knew this and just instinctively took the sack instead of throwing it away?

Or was that just good luck of circumstance?

It was a good sack. The right move was to not risk losing the ball.

It was a good sack to take.

Sometimes I wonder if that's why Pete and Bevell don't mind leaving Wilson back there looking for so many low-percentage deep shots all the time. Sacks aren't ideal, but they contribute towards their goal of clock control more than incompletions and interceptions do. If Wilson gets sacked, the clock keeps running. If Wilson scrambles, the DL gets tired AND the clock keeps running. If someone gets open on a deep crosser, big dividends.

Good points.

And I'm sure Russell has either gone through ever scenario in his head, or in his experience. And he's makes quick decisions.

Good play by Russell either way.

I don't think Russell made the decision as much as it was made for him as he was buried alive on that play. Also up 14 with 5 minutes or so left I doubt it mattered much anyway.

Agree with the posters here, it was a good decision by Russ, though Seymour may be right. Reminds me of Matt Ryan taking the sack on their last play on MNF

Seymour":3h7v3z2z said:

I don't think Russell made the decision as much as it was made for him as he was buried alive on that play. Also up 14 with 5 minutes or so left I doubt it mattered much anyway.

Click to expand...

Yeah, not sure Russ had much choice. He was swarmed.

Look at that again and you will realize RW basically falls down with two hands on the ball. He had absolutely zero intent of trying to get out and run. He made 100% sure the ball was secured and then goes to the ground.

Sack was totally fine there. Not like we were in FG range

A sack there is a lot better than throwing it up for grabs. Better to go down in a controlled fashion and punt it away.

Now, if we had been down 2 scores, yeah, he should have tried to escape and make something happen. But since we were up by 2 scores and our D was holding serve quite well on their O, Russ did the right thing.

Oh and yeah, he was pretty much swamped anyway. That was a patented Sehawks bullring protection scheme on that one.

ivotuk":3vqzvi5m said:

Good points.

And I'm sure Russell has either gone through ever scenario in his head, or in his experience. And he's makes quick decisions.

Good play by Russell either way.

Click to expand...

I was going to say, he probably played out the scenario in his head when he got the call; have to wait for the routes to develop, if they do then great, a complete pass when up 2 scores with less than 4 minutes left. If they get there before the receivers are open he could force the throw and risk being picked, scramble and risk being injured, or huddle up in a ball and take a sack and let the clock run. He made the right choice.

Great play. He didn't try to escape and risk a incomplete or turnover.

I remember thinking when it happened that they weren't really in Blair Walsh range (whatever that is) and that it was probably a good sack. It actually backed them up and made flipping the field on the ensuing punt more likely. The biggest thing at that point in the game is that it kept the clock running.

Incredibly smart play. Hit the deck and keep that clock running.

mikeak":ylhsrscn said:

Look at that again and you will realize RW basically falls down with two hands on the ball. He had absolutely zero intent of trying to get out and run. He made 100% sure the ball was secured and then goes to the ground.

Sack was totally fine there. Not like we were in FG range

Click to expand...

And 0 chance of getting away.

MontanaHawk05":1h6jder8 said:

Sacks aren't ideal, but they contribute towards their goal of clock control more than incompletions and interceptions do. If Wilson gets sacked, the clock keeps running. If Wilson scrambles, the DL gets tired AND the clock keeps running. If someone gets open on a deep crosser, big dividends.

Click to expand...

I really don't understand the strategy of running the clock to shorten the game. Sure it means less time that our defense sees the field, but it also means less time that the opposing team's defense sees the field too.

In that situation, they were up 14, NO reason to do anything other than running plays. Eat up that clock, make them use their timeouts etc. Very smart to hit the deck, uses the clock up. No need to risk a fluke tipped pass for a pick 6, or a player having one pop thru his hands and go into a defenders hands for a pick 6 etc.