Ongoing Super Bowl Thread

Donate To GopherHole
This trophy presentation is ridiculous, embarrassing, silly. Just give 'em the fricking trophy.
 

badgergopher said:
If he takes a timeout Carroll & co. probably talk themselves out of that call.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If there's an extra 30 ticks on the clock, I seriously doubt they throw the ball at all at the goal line as you'd have no risk of getting 3 plays off
 


Too GD funny. Watching Wilson choke it was the cherry on top
 

At least Carroll was man enough to say that he messed up the call.
 


Passing on second down was the right call since they only had one timeout.

If they run on second down and don't score, they either pass twice or lose a down. Chances of an interception are small though a fade to Matthews seems like a better throw. As someone said earlier losing two time-outs on that drive hurt them
 

Markous15 said:
What's funny is that that terrible decision covered up the equally terrible Belichick decision of sitting on two timeouts, and watching the clock run out. If Seattle runs it in for a TD there, the wasted 30 seconds would have been huge. Brain farts all around!
Click to expand...

Yep - they may be great football coaches, but geniuses they are not.
 

Gopher07 said:
Too GD funny. Watching Wilson choke it was the cherry on top
Click to expand...

Wilson knocks the air out of the Packers the weak before, then takes a bite out of his Popcorn Skunk alum (ahem!) to end the next game. This on the backs of the 59-0 OSU beatdown of the Badgers almost makes one feel just a little less crappy about being a Gopher and Viking fan for four decades.
 

Winnipegopher said:
Passing on second down was the right call since they only had one timeout.

If they run on second down and don't score, they either pass twice or lose a down. Chances of an interception are small though a fade to Matthews seems like a better throw. As someone said earlier losing two time-outs on that drive hurt them
Click to expand...

Not when you have Marshawn Lynch...or a mobile QB. Credit the NE rookie (!!) with making a huge play - it is rare to see a DB step in front to challenge a slant pass. That play was a thing of beauty.
 



XMan said:
Ha so true. Most crushing loss in packer history. Kind of interesting, Lions lost to cowboys with a BS call, Cowboys lost to packers on a bs call and Packers melt down and lose to Seattle on some fluke plays. Never seen anything like it.
Click to expand...

Did you wait another hour to watch this finish?
 

cncmin said:
Yep - they may be great football coaches, but geniuses they are not.
Click to expand...

I suppose Belichick could have been thinking that if he let the clock run he would limit Seattle's play calling choices. That puts the entire Superbowl on stopping a team for three downs on the one yard line though. Its one of those calls that won't get talked about but if Seattle had scored Belichick would be the one being called out right now.
 

cncmin said:
Not when you have Marshawn Lynch...or a mobile QB. Credit the NE rookie (!!) with making a huge play - it is rare to see a DB step in front to challenge a slant pass. That play was a thing of beauty.
Click to expand...

So in your opinion, it is better to have two running plays to score rather than a pass play and two running plays? The interception was a worst case scenario and it might not have been the right pass call but a pass is absolutely the right call. Three chances instead of two.

PS Anyone who thinks Belischek should be calling time-outs is insane. If you are winning you don't slow down the clock and give more plays.
 

Winnipegopher said:
So in your opinion, it is better to have two running plays to score rather than a pass play and two running plays? The interception was a worst case scenario and it might not have been the right pass call but a pass is absolutely the right call. Three chances instead of two.

PS Anyone who thinks Belischek should be calling time-outs is insane. If you are winning you don't slow down the clock and give more plays.
Click to expand...

Seattle had 3 plays whichever way they went. It was 3 plays from the 1 with 30 seconds left, and they had 1 timeout. It was an awful play call. As for Belichek, he lucked out on this one. Brady and that receiving corps - along with a capable Gostkowski - are more than capable of tying the game up with a FG given 50 seconds to work with. Stopping Seattle given 3 plays from the 1 seemed like the much more difficult path forward. And yet it all worked out anyway. No doubt that team believes they can win, and that's a big part of a winning tradition.
 



cncmin said:
Seattle had 3 plays whichever way they went. It was 3 plays from the 1 with 30 seconds left, and they had 1 timeout. It was an awful play call. As for Belichek, he lucked out on this one. Brady and that receiv- along with a capable Gostkowski - are more than capable of tying the game up with a FG given 50 seconds to work with. Stopping Seattle given 3 plays from the 1 seemed like the much more difficult path forward. And yet it all worked out anyway. No doubt that team believes they can win, and that's a big part of a winning tradition.
Click to expand...

Be thankful that we have a coach in Jerry Kill that never would have allowed the horrible call D. Bevell made tonight to be made.

Jerry Kill is going to go with the power game or outside play action throw every time, not an awful call like the one that pissed away a Super Bowl tonight.

To make it even worse, with Russell Wilson, Seattle had the outside play action (or handoff to Lynch). Had the play not been right there,Wilson would have been a throw away or a QB run to the end zone.

What a horrible call by Darrell Bevell. This guy has ruined his career for good.
 

Winnipegopher said:
So in your opinion, it is better to have two running plays to score rather than a pass play and two running plays? The interception was a worst case scenario and it might not have been the right pass call but a pass is absolutely the right call. Three chances instead of two.

PS Anyone who thinks Belischek should be calling time-outs is insane. If you are winning you don't slow down the clock and give more plays.
Click to expand...

Why couldn't you run on 2nd, take a timeout, pass on 3rd, and then pass or run on 4th down? Either way, you get 3 plays unless you screw up big time.

Their best chance of scoring there is running the ball and it isn't even close. They went away from what they do best.
 



I thought New England botched the end of the first half as well.

6 seconds left, Seattle gets the ball all the way down to around the 11 yard line; Seattle rolls the dice deciding to try a quick pass play to score before settling for a FG to close the half. All NE had to do, in the DB backfield, was hold, commit pass interference, tackle the receivers, etc. Most of the clock would have been run out, ball either placed at half the distance to the goal line or at the 1 (for a PI call in the end zone), and just a second or two on the clock.

Seattle would have HAD to kick the FG. Terrible, terrible strategy by NE, and they called a TO to gather themselves and figure that out as well. That cost them 4 points.
 


Winnipegopher said:
So in your opinion, it is better to have two running plays to score rather than a pass play and two running plays? The interception was a worst case scenario and it might not have been the right pass call but a pass is absolutely the right call. Three chances instead of two.

PS Anyone who thinks Belischek should be calling time-outs is insane. If you are winning you don't slow down the clock and give more plays.
Click to expand...


Agree on the timeout take, but I completely disagree with your first take. They had plenty of time to get two running plays off with the best scoring running back in the league. Even a sneak would have been fine. They got too cute and Pete agreed that he messed up.
 


who cares! Just wake me up when my vikings get to the super bowl. Meanwhile make sure the next eon goes smoothly america, think I will be sleep for a while.
 

MNKOY1M.gif
 

Here's the breakdown of why I think Belichick should have used his timeouts.
Situation 1: Belichick uses his 2 timeouts, once at the 1:00 mark and the next after the second down play.
Pros: If Seattle scores on 2nd or 3rd down, the Pats will have 50 seconds to drive down to get a field goal. Worst case would be that the Seattle doesn't score in their first two plays and could run the clock down prior to the fourth down play. Then it would be one play to decide the super bowl.
Con: Seattle would have their whole playbook in play for all three downs.
Situation 2: Belichick doesn't take the timeout.
Pros. This makes Seattle throw on either 2nd or 3rd down.
Cons: Seattle has three chances to win the game from the one yard line, with almost zero chance of the Pats being able to tie the game back up.

I am of the opinion that situation one gives you the most chances to win. By taking the timeouts you only give Seattle one play from the one yard line to effectely clinch the game. If you don't take the timeout you give them three chances to win it from the one.
Now obviously it worked in the Pats favor this time, but I think if it wasn't for a questionable play call and a not great decision by Wilson, we would all be talking about Belichicks blunder, not Bevell's.
 





Thank God another supper bowl was finished last night.

Now we can follow more crickett, polo, and swimming.
 

More hilarious Russell Wilson moment:
This INT to end super bowl

or

Failing to spike the ball as time runs out in the Rose Bowl against Oregon?

Answer:
All of the above.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom