Why would Pete go for it on 4th dn late in4th instead of fg?

[sutz]

The 4th down call was purely clock management. He felt sure we could make it (at least that's what he claimed later ) so the chance to burn off 2-5 more minutes of clock time was a good decision IMO. Even if we failed, which we ultimately did on the ensuing fumble, SF would have had the entire field to drive for a TD.

The difference? 10 point lead with nearly 6 minutes left, or possibly 10 or even 14 point lead with 2 minutes left?

You can't plan for a turnover like that, it just happens. Definitely would have kicked the FG on the second 4th down if we'd got there.

In the end, we pulled it off.

 

[Tinamedina]

I swear that was a 3rd down play after 2 stuffed runs. They would have gone for 3 if not for the fumble. Hard to blame Everett, I don't recall ever seeing a TE shovel pass on the goal line stuffed like that. Oline couldn't block.

Guess you don't watch KC, SF, LAR, or any number of teams, play much?

difference is they have an o line.

it comes down to the o line every single time.

and yall wonder why wilson has to throw the deep ball all the time? cause the short pass won't get them anywhere with this o line.

 

[Fade]

The 4th down call was purely clock management. He felt sure we could make it (at least that's what he claimed later ) so the chance to burn off 2-5 more minutes of clock time was a good decision IMO. Even if we failed, which we ultimately did on the ensuing fumble, SF would have had the entire field to drive for a TD.

The difference? 10 point lead with nearly 6 minutes left, or possibly 10 or even 14 point lead with 2 minutes left?

You can't plan for a turnover like that, it just happens. Definitely would have kicked the FG on the second 4th down if we'd got there.

In the end, we pulled it off.

Correct. That is how I saw it as it was playing out. The player fumbling was the problem, not the play calls or coaching decisions in that particular sequence.

But Pete calling a timeout to avoid a delay of game, only to get a delay of game after said timeout earlier was absolutely stupefying.

 

[RiverDog]

But Pete calling a timeout to avoid a delay of game, only to get a delay of game after said timeout earlier was absolutely stupefying.

I'm not sure who to blame that one on, Pete, Waldron, or Russell, but it was inexcusable.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

I certainly wanted them to take the FG and go up 2 scores.
But, it's not Pete's fault that Everett turned it over TWICE inside the 5. They should have won the game going away, period. But they showed enough heart to overcome. Zero ball security on his two fumbles, and that "interception" was ridiculous. Didn't mean to hit you in stride :?
I think he's a damn good player, but he almost lost that game all by himself.

 

[RiverDog]

I certainly wanted them to take the FG and go up 2 scores.
But, it's not Pete's fault that Everett turned it over TWICE inside the 5. They should have won the game going away, period. But they showed enough heart to overcome. Zero ball security on his two fumbles, and that "interception" was ridiculous. Didn't mean to hit you in stride :?
I think he's a damn good player, but he almost lost that game all by himself.

The success or failure of the play is irrelevant to the wisdom of the decision. What's relevant is that it was a 2 score game with less than 7 minutes left in the game, particularly at a point where our defense had completely shut down the Niners in the 2nd half and after a 13 play drive was well rested, our lack of success in short yardage situations including our failed 2 point conversion the week before, that we were without our best run blocking interior lineman, that our quarterback is not a Cam Newton-Josh Allen-Lamar Jackson type running threat, and that the success rate of a 20 something yard FG is 95%+ especially when it was a dry, calm day with the temperature around 45-50 degrees. All of those factors pointed to taking the gimme and going up by two scores.

You can't really venture an opinion that we should won that game going away without noting the 49'ers turnovers and penalties. They could just as easily make a similar argument.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

No, Everett literally handed them the ball inside the 5, TWICE. The first one was an EASY touchdown that bounces off his foot. Next level fluke. They should have won by 2 or 3 touchdowns. But you see it how you want.
Just because the Hawks are bad this year, it doesn't mean they shouldn't have blown them out.
And that doesn't even take in to account the failed 4th and 1 from their own side of the field where we stopped pretty boy, then it didn't count because of an "illegal snap"

 

[hoxrox]

The 4th down call was purely clock management. He felt sure we could make it (at least that's what he claimed later ) so the chance to burn off 2-5 more minutes of clock time was a good decision IMO. Even if we failed, which we ultimately did on the ensuing fumble, SF would have had the entire field to drive for a TD.

The difference? 10 point lead with nearly 6 minutes left, or possibly 10 or even 14 point lead with 2 minutes left?

You can't plan for a turnover like that, it just happens. Definitely would have kicked the FG on the second 4th down if we'd got there.

In the end, we pulled it off.

Correct. That is how I saw it as it was playing out. The player fumbling was the problem, not the play calls or coaching decisions in that particular sequence.

But Pete calling a timeout to avoid a delay of game, only to get a delay of game after said timeout earlier was absolutely stupefying.

Russell literally said in his post-game presser they did that on purpose to move them back, and give him some "more room to throw"

 

[SoulfishHawk]

While Waldron finally called a good game, that shuffle pass to butterfingers was a ridiculous play call. Just hand the ball off, if you're stopped, you kick the fg, 10 point game.

 

[RiverDog]

No, Everett literally handed them the ball inside the 5, TWICE. The first one was an EASY touchdown that bounces off his foot. Next level fluke. They should have won by 2 or 3 touchdowns. But you see it how you want.

Just because the Hawks are bad this year, it doesn't mean they shouldn't have blown them out.
And that doesn't even take in to account the failed 4th and 1 from their own side of the field where we stopped pretty boy, then it didn't count because of an "illegal snap"

My God, man! No where in my comment did I give an indication that I saw it "how I want" and specifically said "they", meaning not myself. Here's exactly what I said:

You can't really venture an opinion that we should won that game going away without noting the 49'ers turnovers and penalties. They could just as easily make a similar argument.

You're looking at the game from the POV of a Seahawk fan. I'm simply pointing out that a person could just as easily make a similar argument that the Niners should have won the game: 3 turnovers at or near their own 30 yard line, 10 penalties, 4 that resulted in first downs and a couple in critical 3rd downs that sustained drives.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Fair enough