I Blame Wilson for Bad Throw

[Faun]

Hot read passes actually have to be thrown below the gut so the pass is incomplete if not caught as opposed to getting intercepted. Wilson threw too high and blew the S-Bowl. I don't blame Carroll. It's on Wilson.........

One of the best S-Bowls evah!!!

Why can't you blame them both?

Why can't people give the Pats credit for a heads up play. It's funny because there was absolutely no guarantees that the running back would have scored, having a less than 50% success rating in the red zone. Lol. I think the Pats were ready to stuff him. That's why the pass play was called, but our guy scoped it out and was ready, came in and intercepted the ball. THAT was no guarantee either. That was pure skill.

A) the red zone is 20 yards. Lynch needed just one.
B) he could have had 3 chances, which means even a 33% success rate would have won the Super Bowl for the Seahawks.

He has a less than 50% success rating in the red zone. I think he is rated at 41%. That would mean he had LESS THAN 50% chance of getting it in there. When you are within 5-10 yards of the end zone, it's not that easy to knock one in there. They're waiting for you.

Idiot ... he needed one yard. Not 5, not 10, not 20. Yes, it's in the red zone. Yes, yardage is harder to gain. But again, he needed one yard. And again, he could have had 3 chances.

The smart play would have been to give him the ball.

 

[Rocko]

Hot read passes actually have to be thrown below the gut so the pass is incomplete if not caught as opposed to getting intercepted. Wilson threw too high and blew the S-Bowl. I don't blame Carroll. It's on Wilson.........

One of the best S-Bowls evah!!!

Why can't you blame them both?

Why can't people give the Pats credit for a heads up play. It's funny because there was absolutely no guarantees that the running back would have scored, having a less than 50% success rating in the red zone. Lol. I think the Pats were ready to stuff him. That's why the pass play was called, but our guy scoped it out and was ready, came in and intercepted the ball. THAT was no guarantee either. That was pure skill.

A) the red zone is 20 yards. Lynch needed just one.
B) he could have had 3 chances, which means even a 33% success rate would have won the Super Bowl for the Seahawks.

He has a less than 50% success rating in the red zone. I think he is rated at 41%. That would mean he had LESS THAN 50% chance of getting it in there. When you are within 5-10 yards of the end zone, it's not that easy to knock one in there. They're waiting for you.

Idiot ... he needed one yard. Not 5, not 10, not 20. Yes, it's in the red zone. Yes, yardage is harder to gain. But again, he needed one yard. And again, he could have had 3 chances.

The smart play would have been to give him the ball.

What if he would have ran into Vince wilfork and fumbled that ball??

The seahawks were lucky to be playing in the super bowl in the first place. They lost, and they won't make it back. So enough with the would have could have should haves - it's over - you weren't good enough - sucks to be you.

 

[ChrisL]

Hot read passes actually have to be thrown below the gut so the pass is incomplete if not caught as opposed to getting intercepted. Wilson threw too high and blew the S-Bowl. I don't blame Carroll. It's on Wilson.........

One of the best S-Bowls evah!!!

Why can't you blame them both?

Why can't people give the Pats credit for a heads up play. It's funny because there was absolutely no guarantees that the running back would have scored, having a less than 50% success rating in the red zone. Lol. I think the Pats were ready to stuff him. That's why the pass play was called, but our guy scoped it out and was ready, came in and intercepted the ball. THAT was no guarantee either. That was pure skill.

A) the red zone is 20 yards. Lynch needed just one.
B) he could have had 3 chances, which means even a 33% success rate would have won the Super Bowl for the Seahawks.

He has a less than 50% success rating in the red zone. I think he is rated at 41%. That would mean he had LESS THAN 50% chance of getting it in there. When you are within 5-10 yards of the end zone, it's not that easy to knock one in there. They're waiting for you.

Idiot ... he needed one yard. Not 5, not 10, not 20. Yes, it's in the red zone. Yes, yardage is harder to gain. But again, he needed one yard. And again, he could have had 3 chances.

The smart play would have been to give him the ball.

One yard is even more difficult. It's much easier for the defense to stuff him at the goal line. They are waiting for him.

 

[ChrisL]

Why can't you blame them both?

Why can't people give the Pats credit for a heads up play. It's funny because there was absolutely no guarantees that the running back would have scored, having a less than 50% success rating in the red zone. Lol. I think the Pats were ready to stuff him. That's why the pass play was called, but our guy scoped it out and was ready, came in and intercepted the ball. THAT was no guarantee either. That was pure skill.

A) the red zone is 20 yards. Lynch needed just one.
B) he could have had 3 chances, which means even a 33% success rate would have won the Super Bowl for the Seahawks.

He has a less than 50% success rating in the red zone. I think he is rated at 41%. That would mean he had LESS THAN 50% chance of getting it in there. When you are within 5-10 yards of the end zone, it's not that easy to knock one in there. They're waiting for you.

Idiot ... he needed one yard. Not 5, not 10, not 20. Yes, it's in the red zone. Yes, yardage is harder to gain. But again, he needed one yard. And again, he could have had 3 chances.

The smart play would have been to give him the ball.

What if he would have ran into Vince wilfork and fumbled that ball??

The seahawks were lucky to be playing in the super bowl in the first place. They lost, and they won't make it back. So enough with the would have could have should haves - it's over - you weren't good enough - sucks to be you.

Agree. Isn't it amusing how angry they get? Lol. Passing game counts too.

 

[ChrisL]

Why can't you blame them both?

Why can't people give the Pats credit for a heads up play. It's funny because there was absolutely no guarantees that the running back would have scored, having a less than 50% success rating in the red zone. Lol. I think the Pats were ready to stuff him. That's why the pass play was called, but our guy scoped it out and was ready, came in and intercepted the ball. THAT was no guarantee either. That was pure skill.

A) the red zone is 20 yards. Lynch needed just one.
B) he could have had 3 chances, which means even a 33% success rate would have won the Super Bowl for the Seahawks.

He has a less than 50% success rating in the red zone. I think he is rated at 41%. That would mean he had LESS THAN 50% chance of getting it in there. When you are within 5-10 yards of the end zone, it's not that easy to knock one in there. They're waiting for you.

Idiot ... he needed one yard. Not 5, not 10, not 20. Yes, it's in the red zone. Yes, yardage is harder to gain. But again, he needed one yard. And again, he could have had 3 chances.

The smart play would have been to give him the ball.

One yard is even more difficult. It's much easier for the defense to stuff him at the goal line. They are waiting for him.

Funny how they think a run play would have guaranteed a win. The best thing about football is that it's unpredictable and anything can happen. Like you say, they could have fumbled, or the Pats could have FORCED a fumble.

 

[Rocko]

Why can't people give the Pats credit for a heads up play. It's funny because there was absolutely no guarantees that the running back would have scored, having a less than 50% success rating in the red zone. Lol. I think the Pats were ready to stuff him. That's why the pass play was called, but our guy scoped it out and was ready, came in and intercepted the ball. THAT was no guarantee either. That was pure skill.

A) the red zone is 20 yards. Lynch needed just one.
B) he could have had 3 chances, which means even a 33% success rate would have won the Super Bowl for the Seahawks.

He has a less than 50% success rating in the red zone. I think he is rated at 41%. That would mean he had LESS THAN 50% chance of getting it in there. When you are within 5-10 yards of the end zone, it's not that easy to knock one in there. They're waiting for you.

Idiot ... he needed one yard. Not 5, not 10, not 20. Yes, it's in the red zone. Yes, yardage is harder to gain. But again, he needed one yard. And again, he could have had 3 chances.

The smart play would have been to give him the ball.

What if he would have ran into Vince wilfork and fumbled that ball??

The seahawks were lucky to be playing in the super bowl in the first place. They lost, and they won't make it back. So enough with the would have could have should haves - it's over - you weren't good enough - sucks to be you.

Agree. Isn't it amusing how angry they get? Lol. Passing game counts too.

They're sore losers. The truth is they didn't even deserve to be playing in that game.

 

[ChrisL]

A) the red zone is 20 yards. Lynch needed just one.
B) he could have had 3 chances, which means even a 33% success rate would have won the Super Bowl for the Seahawks.

He has a less than 50% success rating in the red zone. I think he is rated at 41%. That would mean he had LESS THAN 50% chance of getting it in there. When you are within 5-10 yards of the end zone, it's not that easy to knock one in there. They're waiting for you.

Idiot ... he needed one yard. Not 5, not 10, not 20. Yes, it's in the red zone. Yes, yardage is harder to gain. But again, he needed one yard. And again, he could have had 3 chances.

The smart play would have been to give him the ball.

What if he would have ran into Vince wilfork and fumbled that ball??

The seahawks were lucky to be playing in the super bowl in the first place. They lost, and they won't make it back. So enough with the would have could have should haves - it's over - you weren't good enough - sucks to be you.

Agree. Isn't it amusing how angry they get? Lol. Passing game counts too.

They're sore losers. The truth is they didn't even deserve to be playing in that game.

I agree. Green Bay WAY outplayed them in just about every aspect. They got lucky is all. Now that they lost, all the sore losers can't stop whining. The Patriots won fair and square. They outplayed them, regardless of whether it was a running or a passing play, they got beat.

 

[Montrovant]

Why can't people give the Pats credit for a heads up play. It's funny because there was absolutely no guarantees that the running back would have scored, having a less than 50% success rating in the red zone. Lol. I think the Pats were ready to stuff him. That's why the pass play was called, but our guy scoped it out and was ready, came in and intercepted the ball. THAT was no guarantee either. That was pure skill.

A) the red zone is 20 yards. Lynch needed just one.
B) he could have had 3 chances, which means even a 33% success rate would have won the Super Bowl for the Seahawks.

He has a less than 50% success rating in the red zone. I think he is rated at 41%. That would mean he had LESS THAN 50% chance of getting it in there. When you are within 5-10 yards of the end zone, it's not that easy to knock one in there. They're waiting for you.

Idiot ... he needed one yard. Not 5, not 10, not 20. Yes, it's in the red zone. Yes, yardage is harder to gain. But again, he needed one yard. And again, he could have had 3 chances.

The smart play would have been to give him the ball.

One yard is even more difficult. It's much easier for the defense to stuff him at the goal line. They are waiting for him.

Funny how they think a run play would have guaranteed a win. The best thing about football is that it's unpredictable and anything can happen. Like you say, they could have fumbled, or the Pats could have FORCED a fumble.

It's got nothing to do with guarantees. It's simply that Lynch is the best power runner in the game, he's the lynchpin (pun intended) of the offense, and with the ball on the 1 yard line and the Super Bowl on the line, going with your workhorse power back, the guy your offense is designed around, seems like the smart choice.

I understand Carrol's reasoning and how the time left affected his decision. As a Niner fan, though, I absolutely feel the Seahawks fans' pain when your power running team decides to throw the ball from in close and loses.

 

[Faun]

A) the red zone is 20 yards. Lynch needed just one.
B) he could have had 3 chances, which means even a 33% success rate would have won the Super Bowl for the Seahawks.

He has a less than 50% success rating in the red zone. I think he is rated at 41%. That would mean he had LESS THAN 50% chance of getting it in there. When you are within 5-10 yards of the end zone, it's not that easy to knock one in there. They're waiting for you.

Idiot ... he needed one yard. Not 5, not 10, not 20. Yes, it's in the red zone. Yes, yardage is harder to gain. But again, he needed one yard. And again, he could have had 3 chances.

The smart play would have been to give him the ball.

What if he would have ran into Vince wilfork and fumbled that ball??

The seahawks were lucky to be playing in the super bowl in the first place. They lost, and they won't make it back. So enough with the would have could have should haves - it's over - you weren't good enough - sucks to be you.

Agree. Isn't it amusing how angry they get? Lol. Passing game counts too.

They're sore losers. The truth is they didn't even deserve to be playing in that game.

How am I a sore loser? I'm not a Seahawks fan. I didn't care who won. I'm merely pointimg out how the Seahawks committed what is probably the biggest choke in Super Bowl history.

What's stupid is to think the team tied with the best record in the NFL, the team which gave up the fewest points in 2014, the defending national champs, and the team that came within one play of a repeat championship -- didn't deserve to play in that game.

 

[ChrisL]

He has a less than 50% success rating in the red zone. I think he is rated at 41%. That would mean he had LESS THAN 50% chance of getting it in there. When you are within 5-10 yards of the end zone, it's not that easy to knock one in there. They're waiting for you.

Idiot ... he needed one yard. Not 5, not 10, not 20. Yes, it's in the red zone. Yes, yardage is harder to gain. But again, he needed one yard. And again, he could have had 3 chances.

The smart play would have been to give him the ball.

What if he would have ran into Vince wilfork and fumbled that ball??

The seahawks were lucky to be playing in the super bowl in the first place. They lost, and they won't make it back. So enough with the would have could have should haves - it's over - you weren't good enough - sucks to be you.

Agree. Isn't it amusing how angry they get? Lol. Passing game counts too.

They're sore losers. The truth is they didn't even deserve to be playing in that game.

How am I a sore loser? I'm not a Seahawks fan. I didn't care who won. I'm merely pointimg out how the Seahawks committed what is probably the biggest choke in Super Bowl history.

What's stupid is to think the team tied with the best record in the NFL, the team which gave up the fewest points in 2014, the defending national champs, and the team that came within one play of a repeat championship -- didn't deserve to play in that game.

Watch the Seahawks/Packers game. Packers outplayed them too.

 

[ChrisL]

A) the red zone is 20 yards. Lynch needed just one.
B) he could have had 3 chances, which means even a 33% success rate would have won the Super Bowl for the Seahawks.

He has a less than 50% success rating in the red zone. I think he is rated at 41%. That would mean he had LESS THAN 50% chance of getting it in there. When you are within 5-10 yards of the end zone, it's not that easy to knock one in there. They're waiting for you.

Idiot ... he needed one yard. Not 5, not 10, not 20. Yes, it's in the red zone. Yes, yardage is harder to gain. But again, he needed one yard. And again, he could have had 3 chances.

The smart play would have been to give him the ball.

One yard is even more difficult. It's much easier for the defense to stuff him at the goal line. They are waiting for him.

Funny how they think a run play would have guaranteed a win. The best thing about football is that it's unpredictable and anything can happen. Like you say, they could have fumbled, or the Pats could have FORCED a fumble.

It's got nothing to do with guarantees. It's simply that Lynch is the best power runner in the game, he's the lynchpin (pun intended) of the offense, and with the ball on the 1 yard line and the Super Bowl on the line, going with your workhorse power back, the guy your offense is designed around, seems like the smart choice.

I understand Carrol's reasoning and how the time left affected his decision. As a Niner fan, though, I absolutely feel the Seahawks fans' pain when your power running team decides to throw the ball from in close and loses.

Well, I think the reason why Pete Carroll chose the pass play is because the Pats defense was expecting it. That is the game of football. It's kind of like gambling. There is absolutely no guarantee that a run play would have won the game for them. Besides, that is no excuse. They should also be able to have a proficient pass game. They didn't, and so they lost.

 

[Rocko]

He has a less than 50% success rating in the red zone. I think he is rated at 41%. That would mean he had LESS THAN 50% chance of getting it in there. When you are within 5-10 yards of the end zone, it's not that easy to knock one in there. They're waiting for you.

Idiot ... he needed one yard. Not 5, not 10, not 20. Yes, it's in the red zone. Yes, yardage is harder to gain. But again, he needed one yard. And again, he could have had 3 chances.

The smart play would have been to give him the ball.

What if he would have ran into Vince wilfork and fumbled that ball??

The seahawks were lucky to be playing in the super bowl in the first place. They lost, and they won't make it back. So enough with the would have could have should haves - it's over - you weren't good enough - sucks to be you.

Agree. Isn't it amusing how angry they get? Lol. Passing game counts too.

They're sore losers. The truth is they didn't even deserve to be playing in that game.

How am I a sore loser? I'm not a Seahawks fan. I didn't care who won. I'm merely pointimg out how the Seahawks committed what is probably the biggest choke in Super Bowl history.

What's stupid is to think the team tied with the best record in the NFL, the team which gave up the fewest points in 2014, the defending national champs, and the team that came within one play of a repeat championship -- didn't deserve to play in that game.

Apparently you had your head stuck in Hussein Obama's ass and missed the Packers game - a game in which the seafags were uterly dominated in.

 

[Faun]

Idiot ... he needed one yard. Not 5, not 10, not 20. Yes, it's in the red zone. Yes, yardage is harder to gain. But again, he needed one yard. And again, he could have had 3 chances.

The smart play would have been to give him the ball.

What if he would have ran into Vince wilfork and fumbled that ball??

The seahawks were lucky to be playing in the super bowl in the first place. They lost, and they won't make it back. So enough with the would have could have should haves - it's over - you weren't good enough - sucks to be you.

Agree. Isn't it amusing how angry they get? Lol. Passing game counts too.

They're sore losers. The truth is they didn't even deserve to be playing in that game.

How am I a sore loser? I'm not a Seahawks fan. I didn't care who won. I'm merely pointimg out how the Seahawks committed what is probably the biggest choke in Super Bowl history.

What's stupid is to think the team tied with the best record in the NFL, the team which gave up the fewest points in 2014, the defending national champs, and the team that came within one play of a repeat championship -- didn't deserve to play in that game.

Apparently you had your head stuck in Hussein Obama's ass and missed the Packers game - a game in which the seafags were uterly dominated in.

Ah, yes, the Packers game. Edit...

What's stupid is to think the team tied with the best record in the NFL, the team which gave up the fewest points in 2014, the team which beat the Packers to advance to the Super Bowl, the defending national champs, and the team that came within one play of a repeat championship -- didn't deserve to play in that game.

 

[ChrisL]

What if he would have ran into Vince wilfork and fumbled that ball??

The seahawks were lucky to be playing in the super bowl in the first place. They lost, and they won't make it back. So enough with the would have could have should haves - it's over - you weren't good enough - sucks to be you.

Agree. Isn't it amusing how angry they get? Lol. Passing game counts too.

They're sore losers. The truth is they didn't even deserve to be playing in that game.

How am I a sore loser? I'm not a Seahawks fan. I didn't care who won. I'm merely pointimg out how the Seahawks committed what is probably the biggest choke in Super Bowl history.

What's stupid is to think the team tied with the best record in the NFL, the team which gave up the fewest points in 2014, the defending national champs, and the team that came within one play of a repeat championship -- didn't deserve to play in that game.

Apparently you had your head stuck in Hussein Obama's ass and missed the Packers game - a game in which the seafags were uterly dominated in.

Ah, yes, the Packers game. Edit...

What's stupid is to think the team tied with the best record in the NFL, the team which gave up the fewest points in 2014, the team which beat the Packers to advance to the Super Bowl, the defending national champs, and the team that came within one play of a repeat championship -- didn't deserve to play in that game.

Sorry. I watched that game from start to finish. The Packers were the better team.

 

[ChrisL]

What if he would have ran into Vince wilfork and fumbled that ball??

The seahawks were lucky to be playing in the super bowl in the first place. They lost, and they won't make it back. So enough with the would have could have should haves - it's over - you weren't good enough - sucks to be you.

Agree. Isn't it amusing how angry they get? Lol. Passing game counts too.

They're sore losers. The truth is they didn't even deserve to be playing in that game.

How am I a sore loser? I'm not a Seahawks fan. I didn't care who won. I'm merely pointimg out how the Seahawks committed what is probably the biggest choke in Super Bowl history.

What's stupid is to think the team tied with the best record in the NFL, the team which gave up the fewest points in 2014, the defending national champs, and the team that came within one play of a repeat championship -- didn't deserve to play in that game.

Apparently you had your head stuck in Hussein Obama's ass and missed the Packers game - a game in which the seafags were uterly dominated in.

Ah, yes, the Packers game. Edit...

What's stupid is to think the team tied with the best record in the NFL, the team which gave up the fewest points in 2014, the team which beat the Packers to advance to the Super Bowl, the defending national champs, and the team that came within one play of a repeat championship -- didn't deserve to play in that game.

You know something else? Winning games is a TEAM effort. You don't and shouldn't rely on ONE guy to win games for you. You should have multiple weapons and attacks. If the Seahawks are a one-dimensional team who has to rely on the run, then that's what happens. The better team with more weapons is going to beat you.

 

[Faun]

Agree. Isn't it amusing how angry they get? Lol. Passing game counts too.

They're sore losers. The truth is they didn't even deserve to be playing in that game.

How am I a sore loser? I'm not a Seahawks fan. I didn't care who won. I'm merely pointimg out how the Seahawks committed what is probably the biggest choke in Super Bowl history.

What's stupid is to think the team tied with the best record in the NFL, the team which gave up the fewest points in 2014, the defending national champs, and the team that came within one play of a repeat championship -- didn't deserve to play in that game.

Apparently you had your head stuck in Hussein Obama's ass and missed the Packers game - a game in which the seafags were uterly dominated in.

Ah, yes, the Packers game. Edit...

What's stupid is to think the team tied with the best record in the NFL, the team which gave up the fewest points in 2014, the team which beat the Packers to advance to the Super Bowl, the defending national champs, and the team that came within one play of a repeat championship -- didn't deserve to play in that game.

Sorry. I watched that game from start to finish. The Packers were the better team.

Not good enough, apparently.

 

[ChrisL]

They're sore losers. The truth is they didn't even deserve to be playing in that game.

How am I a sore loser? I'm not a Seahawks fan. I didn't care who won. I'm merely pointimg out how the Seahawks committed what is probably the biggest choke in Super Bowl history.

What's stupid is to think the team tied with the best record in the NFL, the team which gave up the fewest points in 2014, the defending national champs, and the team that came within one play of a repeat championship -- didn't deserve to play in that game.

Apparently you had your head stuck in Hussein Obama's ass and missed the Packers game - a game in which the seafags were uterly dominated in.

Ah, yes, the Packers game. Edit...

What's stupid is to think the team tied with the best record in the NFL, the team which gave up the fewest points in 2014, the team which beat the Packers to advance to the Super Bowl, the defending national champs, and the team that came within one play of a repeat championship -- didn't deserve to play in that game.

Sorry. I watched that game from start to finish. The Packers were the better team.

Not good enough, apparently.

Like the Seahawks against the Pats. Not good enough. Lol. Our rookie USED the Seahawks veteran receiver in the end zone. Lol. He was totally used and abused.

 

[Faun]

Agree. Isn't it amusing how angry they get? Lol. Passing game counts too.

They're sore losers. The truth is they didn't even deserve to be playing in that game.

How am I a sore loser? I'm not a Seahawks fan. I didn't care who won. I'm merely pointimg out how the Seahawks committed what is probably the biggest choke in Super Bowl history.

What's stupid is to think the team tied with the best record in the NFL, the team which gave up the fewest points in 2014, the defending national champs, and the team that came within one play of a repeat championship -- didn't deserve to play in that game.

Apparently you had your head stuck in Hussein Obama's ass and missed the Packers game - a game in which the seafags were uterly dominated in.

Ah, yes, the Packers game. Edit...

What's stupid is to think the team tied with the best record in the NFL, the team which gave up the fewest points in 2014, the team which beat the Packers to advance to the Super Bowl, the defending national champs, and the team that came within one play of a repeat championship -- didn't deserve to play in that game.

You know something else? Winning games is a TEAM effort. You don't and shouldn't rely on ONE guy to win games for you. You should have multiple weapons and attacks. If the Seahawks are a one-dimensional team who has to rely on the run, then that's what happens. The better team with more weapons is going to beat you.

Of course it's a team effort. The team put them in a position to win the game. But it was a stupid call by the coaches and poor execution by the QB which cost them the Super Bowl. Biggest fuck up in Super Bowl history.

 

[ChrisL]

They're sore losers. The truth is they didn't even deserve to be playing in that game.

How am I a sore loser? I'm not a Seahawks fan. I didn't care who won. I'm merely pointimg out how the Seahawks committed what is probably the biggest choke in Super Bowl history.

What's stupid is to think the team tied with the best record in the NFL, the team which gave up the fewest points in 2014, the defending national champs, and the team that came within one play of a repeat championship -- didn't deserve to play in that game.

Apparently you had your head stuck in Hussein Obama's ass and missed the Packers game - a game in which the seafags were uterly dominated in.

Ah, yes, the Packers game. Edit...

What's stupid is to think the team tied with the best record in the NFL, the team which gave up the fewest points in 2014, the team which beat the Packers to advance to the Super Bowl, the defending national champs, and the team that came within one play of a repeat championship -- didn't deserve to play in that game.

You know something else? Winning games is a TEAM effort. You don't and shouldn't rely on ONE guy to win games for you. You should have multiple weapons and attacks. If the Seahawks are a one-dimensional team who has to rely on the run, then that's what happens. The better team with more weapons is going to beat you.

Of course it's a team effort. The team put them in a position to win the game. But it was a stupid call by the coaches and poor execution by the QB which cost them the Super Bowl. Biggest fuck up in Super Bowl history.

Nope, your passing game should be proficient as well. That's why a one-dimensional team won't beat one with many weapons at it's disposal. You don't rely on one guy to win games for you. A superbowl caliber team should have a proficient passing game and not cry because their "hero" wasn't able to run one in.

 

[ChrisL]

I also thought that the receivers for the Seahawks did most of the work when it came to the passing game. A lot of those balls were just lobbed up high in the air and the receivers had to go up to retrieve them. A lot of those balls SHOULD have been intercepted, especially if we didn't have stupid Arrington covering one of the best receivers.

Then, we have the lucky ball bounce. Come on, that ball could have bounced anywhere, but it just so happens it bounced right into the receiver's face. Lol.