Ongoing Super Bowl Thread

[mnsportsgeek]

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.

I disagree with everything here. There was enough time for the Seahawks to run 3 plays regardless of what they were. Pass or run really didn't matter. The patriots were going to have to stop them. The smart thing to do is to keep as much time on the clock as possible. If you stop them, then you take a knee and you win. If you don't, then at least you have 40 seconds on the clock to try and score a field goal. The timeouts most definitely should have been burned. Bill got lucky.

 

[BleedGopher]

I love these! Some language NSFW:


Go Gophers!!

 

[Winnipegopher]

I disagree with everything here. There was enough time for the Seahawks to run 3 plays regardless of what they were. Pass or run really didn't matter. The patriots were going to have to stop them. The smart thing to do is to keep as much time on the clock as possible. If you stop them, then you take a knee and you win. If you don't, then at least you have 40 seconds on the clock to try and score a field goal. The timeouts most definitely should have been burned. Bill got lucky.

Well, I am starting to feel like TinyArch but here is my rebuttal:

The Seahawks did not have time to run three plays, pass or run. They had only one time out. If they want to run three plays, they need to pass on second or third down. The Seahawks chose to pass on the second down because the Patriots had their goal line Defence in but the Seahawks hadn't gone to a goal line O before the first down run (this is interpreting what Carroll said, could be wrong). Moreover, during the regular season, Lynch had run 5 plays from the one yard line and scored only once. He may be a bruising back but they did not have a great success at the goal line. Passing the ball was an ok call. What has been lost in all the gnashing about the call is that Wilson threw behind the receiver. That throw needs to be in front. If thrown properly it is a touchdown or an incompletion.

As for the timeouts by the Patriots, I disagree. Seattle was not a finely tuned O driving for a touchdown. They got down to the goal line on a fluke play and had already burned two timeouts needlessly on the drive. If Patriots call time-out they let Seattle refocus and think about what they want to do.

The simple question you need to ask. If Seattle had more than one time-out, would they have called a time-out after Lynch's first down run? Yes, they would have and so would every other team in the NFL. If the O needs a time-out then the D should not take one and give them time to plan what to do.

 

[Winnipegopher]

Here is a Seattle Times article (which somewhat contradicts my post) that breaks down Seattle plays inside the 3 for all of 2014.

http://seattletimes.com/html/seahawks/2025607820_seahawksjenks03xml.html

In this article, it says Lynch scored touchdowns 5 times out of 11 runs. I heard 1 out of 5 from the one on the radio this morning.