Sports: NFL

[dok]

I completely reject the idea that you can't run three times there. Getting back to the line and running 2 plays in 25 seconds is something these teams know how to do. Moreover, if they thought they needed another 10 seconds to pull it off, then snap the ball 10 seconds earlier.

- Running the ball has a higher chance of scoring
- Running the ball has a lower chance of a turnover
- Running the ball is better from a clock management perspective

In isolation, this is not the worst call I've ever seen, except by the measure of "call that most lowers your team's chance to win the Super Bowl", which is a pretty meaningful measure. It's really a too-cute-by-more-than-half call; trying to go against the conventional wisdom when the conventional wisdom is, in fact, totally correct.

If you think the Pats are all-in on Lynch, fine, then run read option and get Wilson on the edge.

[Aldin]

Me? I think we should use the benefit of all the time in the world and perfect hindsight to figure out what the Seahawks should have done.

~Aldin, concerned that the only reason the Niners had a competent (and highly compensated) coach for the past three years is because they needed a good team for a few years to justify a big stadium deal

[dok]

The thing is, Aldin, as I said, this is conventional wisdom we're talking about. Everybody runs there, and for good reason. It's not really hindsight when I was thinking "wha- they're PASSING?" the moment I saw Wilson start his throwing motion.

Everyone in the building thought they would run... at least, until they sent in a 3-wide set. Belichick claims that if they had sent in goal line he would have burned a time out immediately, to potentially save time on the back end for a tying FG drive. Unless he's lying, which honest Bill Belichick would never do, then that pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of the clock management argument for passing there.

Hey look, conspiracy theory! It makes some sense (easier to low-ball Lynch if he's not super bowl MVP) until you remember that the Seahawks really wanted to win that game.

[Dad_Scaper]

There was a terrible accident in New York today, in which a train hit an SUV. There are conflicting and incomplete reports about the driver of the SUV, who got out of the vehicle before the accident but may have gotten back in or attempted to get back in before she died.

Clearly, when you're in the vehicle stuck on the tracks, you need to (1) get out and (2) get away. "Hindsight may be 20/20," but we can nevertheless perceive that she chose foolishly when, observing the reason and opportunity to flee on foot, she did not do so.

Sometimes something happens and you can still safely second guess. I agree with dok that this is one of those occasions.

[Aldin]

Those are some powerful assertions guys.

Without parsing too finely @dok , obviously not "everybody" runs it there. I've seen all sorts of stat breakdowns and whatnot that say that it isn't even close to "everybody" runs it there. Most apparently, the Seahawks, being somebody and therefore part of everybody, did not run it there. That doesn't even begin to get into your claim that you know the thoughts of the over 100,000 people in attendance.

And as for you @Dad_Scaper , I'm having so much fun with comparing the Seahawks to an honest to goodness train wreck that I'm having difficulty focusing on the point there. It looks like you're saying that, knowing the lady was killed, it becomes obvious in hindsight that she chose poorly in failing to get away from her vehicle. Somehow that seems less associatable with what happened and more on par with a situation where the Seahawks decided to intentionally take the ball and lateral it back to the 20 yard line with no one there to receive it.

~Aldin, who wants to laugh about the Seahawks as a train wreck but feels awful about the fact that an actual person actually died in order for him to get his allusion

[Dad_Scaper]

Some mistakes are so glaringly obvious that they can be observed by the naked eye without resort to hindsight. Get away from the oncoming train. Run with Lynch, at least line up like you intend to do so. These two mistakes are so plain that the presence or absence of hindsight makes no difference.

[Aldin]

Using the term "glaringly obvious" in this context is baffling to me. It seems glaringly obvious that if one is in the path of an onrushing train that bad things are highly likely to happen. It doesn't seem obvious, much less glaringly so, that passing the ball on 2nd and goal from the 1 with 1 timeout and 26 seconds remaining means that bad things are highly likely to happen. Your example is simply too strong to be applied to the situation.

~Aldin, who hopes never to hear anyone speaking in hindsight about some glaringly obvious mistake he may have made

[spidysox]

I think this quote from Belichick sums it up.

[Dad_Scaper]

Eh. Belichik is careful to talk that way about others.

Aldin, I watch a lot of football. This is the first time I remember second guessing an individual called play. Do not presume you are talking to a serial mmqb. It presented only downside compared to a variety of other plays. Consider that Belichik said he declined to use a timeout when he saw they were 3 wide. They were more likely to stop the clock and more likely to turn the ball over with a pass and, worse, by lining up in that formation with that personnel they were communicating pass.

People make mistakes. Selecting that play at that time is an example of one.

[spidysox]

I think you missed the point.
"I think the criticism they've gotten for the game is totally out of line and by a lot of people who I don't think are anywhere near even qualified to be commenting on it."

[Dad_Scaper]

So? As rarely as I second guess individual coaching decisions, that's my right as a fan. If Carroll wants to lob a persuasive answer I'm all ears. Plus see my edit to my preceding post.

[XDVincent]

While I agree that the Seahawks should have run, and probably could have done it three times, the idea to throw was supposed to make it fool proof.

Running the ball has a lower chance of a turnover

However this was the first interception on a play from the 1 yard line this year, compared to two fumble recovered by the defense. The overall success rate was actually better for a pass in that area of the field. Obviously this is all speculative, but still.

Anyways if you're more interested, this article explains my point a little more.