I Blame Wilson for Bad Throw

[Faun]

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.

None of which has anything to do with the Seahawks making an incredibly stupid choice of not giving the ball to their premier running back, who in all likelihood, would have gotten the ball in the end zone.

 

[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.

None of which has anything to do with the Seahawks making an incredibly stupid choice of not giving the ball to their premier running back, who in all likelihood, would have gotten the ball in the end zone.

It has everything to do with it. Teams that rely on a "star" player are easy to beat.

 

[HUGGY]

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.

Chris, Chris, Chris.... You are being silly. Seattle is a RUN FIRST team. Everybody knows it. They are ALWAYS waiting for the run. Yet somehow for the last two seasons the Hawks have LED the NFL in rushing.

That said I have no problem with the call. The execution of the play broke down. THAT is why it failed. The mistake was two fold. Putting Kearse on Browner was a mismatch in favor of the Patriots. If Kearse was able to handle Browner properly Butler would have been forced to move farther behind Lockett. Still no guarantee of a completion but almost no opportunity for the interception. The second part of the failure was making Lockett the #1 read. He has almost NO experience in game conditions at the right slot position. Over 90% of Lockett's success has been at the left wide out position on go routes. His ONLY real advantage is his speed and height going up for long looping passes near the sideline. I also didn't mention that Lockett is Seattle's #5 receiver. Baldwin or Kearse or even Lynch are far better receivers in traffic on crossing routes. I don't care how much the team practiced with Lockett. I can't recall him EVER catching a goal line pass on a crossing route in a game successfully. Lynch for instance has done it dozens of times with huge success.

 

[Faun]

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.

None of which has anything to do with the Seahawks making an incredibly stupid choice of not giving the ball to their premier running back, who in all likelihood, would have gotten the ball in the end zone.

It has everything to do with it. Teams that rely on a "star" player are easy to beat.

Pretty sophistry observation given the Seahawks finished the season with a 14-5 record on the season, 2nd best in the NFL. Clearly, they weren't as easy to beat as your ignorant opinion claims. Not to mention, they likely lost the Super Bowl because they didn't put the ball in the hands of their star running back.

 

[HUGGY]

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.

Really? Rushing? ...Passing?....First Downs? Of these categories which did Green Bay win?

 

[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.

Chris, Chris, Chris.... You are being silly. Seattle is a RUN FIRST team. Everybody knows it. They are ALWAYS waiting for the run. Yet somehow for the last two seasons the Hawks have LED the NFL in rushing.

That said I have no problem with the call. The execution of the play broke down. THAT is why it failed. The mistake was two fold. Putting Kearse on Browner was a mismatch in favor of the Patriots. If Kearse was able to handle Browner properly Butler would have been forced to move farther behind Lockett. Still no guarantee of a completion but almost no opportunity for the interception. The second part of the failure was making Lockett the #1 read. He has almost NO experience in game conditions at the right slot position. Over 90% of Lockett's success has been at the left wide out position on go routes. His ONLY real advantage is his speed and height going up for long looping passes near the sideline. I also didn't mention that Lockett is Seattle's #5 receiver. Baldwin or Kearse or even Lynch are far better receivers in traffic on crossing routes. I don't care how much the team practiced with Lockett. I can't recall him EVER catching a goal line pass on a crossing route in a game successfully. Lynch for instance has done it dozens of times with huge success.

As Lynch has only 9 career receiving TDs according to nfl.com, I don't think he's successfully caught a goal line pass on a crossing route dozens of times.

 

[HUGGY]

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.

Chris, Chris, Chris.... You are being silly. Seattle is a RUN FIRST team. Everybody knows it. They are ALWAYS waiting for the run. Yet somehow for the last two seasons the Hawks have LED the NFL in rushing.

That said I have no problem with the call. The execution of the play broke down. THAT is why it failed. The mistake was two fold. Putting Kearse on Browner was a mismatch in favor of the Patriots. If Kearse was able to handle Browner properly Butler would have been forced to move farther behind Lockett. Still no guarantee of a completion but almost no opportunity for the interception. The second part of the failure was making Lockett the #1 read. He has almost NO experience in game conditions at the right slot position. Over 90% of Lockett's success has been at the left wide out position on go routes. His ONLY real advantage is his speed and height going up for long looping passes near the sideline. I also didn't mention that Lockett is Seattle's #5 receiver. Baldwin or Kearse or even Lynch are far better receivers in traffic on crossing routes. I don't care how much the team practiced with Lockett. I can't recall him EVER catching a goal line pass on a crossing route in a game successfully. Lynch for instance has done it dozens of times with huge success.

As Lynch has only 9 career receiving TDs according to nfl.com, I don't think he's successfully caught a goal line pass on a crossing route dozens of times.

Ya ...an exaggeration...my bad... but still 9 more than Lockett.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Chris, Chris, Chris.... You are being silly. Seattle is a RUN FIRST team. Everybody knows it. They are ALWAYS waiting for the run. Yet somehow for the last two seasons the Hawks have LED the NFL in rushing.

That said I have no problem with the call. The execution of the play broke down. THAT is why it failed. The mistake was two fold. Putting Kearse on Browner was a mismatch in favor of the Patriots. If Kearse was able to handle Browner properly Butler would have been forced to move farther behind Lockett. Still no guarantee of a completion but almost no opportunity for the interception. The second part of the failure was making Lockett the #1 read. He has almost NO experience in game conditions at the right slot position. Over 90% of Lockett's success has been at the left wide out position on go routes. His ONLY real advantage is his speed and height going up for long looping passes near the sideline. I also didn't mention that Lockett is Seattle's #5 receiver. Baldwin or Kearse or even Lynch are far better receivers in traffic on crossing routes. I don't care how much the team practiced with Lockett. I can't recall him EVER catching a goal line pass on a crossing route in a game successfully. Lynch for instance has done it dozens of times with huge success.

Of course, Lynch is their star player. The Patriots don't really do things that way anymore since Randy Moss. Brady likes to spread the ball around.

On defense, we had Arington, and he didn't do much. Arington kept going up for the ball, when he should have been concentrating on breaking up the play.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

None of which has anything to do with the Seahawks making an incredibly stupid choice of not giving the ball to their premier running back, who in all likelihood, would have gotten the ball in the end zone.

It has everything to do with it. Teams that rely on a "star" player are easy to beat.

Pretty sophistry observation given the Seahawks finished the season with a 14-5 record on the season, 2nd best in the NFL. Clearly, they weren't as easy to beat as your ignorant opinion claims. Not to mention, they likely lost the Super Bowl because they didn't put the ball in the hands of their star running back.

The game should never had come down to one play. Seattle let New England back into a game. The Seattle defense, was terrible in the fourth quarter, they had a huge breakdown and the Patriots scored 14 points inside of six minutes.

The Seattle defense was a big missing ingredient in the fourth, Brady made it look easy against the league's best D.

The one yard throw was a way to either score or go incomplete and stop the clock. Then Lynch would have two plays to punch it in and if not the first play, call a time out and run a third play. The should,have had three chances to punch it in. It was not a given that Lynch would have ran it in. Five times this season Lynch carried from the one and only once did he punch it in.

 

[Faun]

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.

None of which has anything to do with the Seahawks making an incredibly stupid choice of not giving the ball to their premier running back, who in all likelihood, would have gotten the ball in the end zone.

It has everything to do with it. Teams that rely on a "star" player are easy to beat.

Pretty sophistry observation given the Seahawks finished the season with a 14-5 record on the season, 2nd best in the NFL. Clearly, they weren't as easy to beat as your ignorant opinion claims. Not to mention, they likely lost the Super Bowl because they didn't put the ball in the hands of their star running back.

The game should never had come down to one play. Seattle let New England back into a game. The Seattle defense, was terrible in the fourth quarter, they had a huge breakdown and the Patriots scored 14 points inside of six minutes.

The Seattle defense was a big missing ingredient in the fourth, Brady made it look easy against the league's best D.

The one yard throw was a way to either score or go incomplete and stop the clock. Then Lynch would have two plays to punch it in and if not the first play, call a time out and run a third play. The should,have had three chances to punch it in. It was not a given that Lynch would have ran it in. Five times this season Lynch carried from the one and only once did he punch it in.

Games frequently come down to one play. And the play to call is to put the ball in the hands of what got you there. For the Seahawks, that was Lynch. There's plenty of reason to blame Wilson for throwing a bad pass -- but the coaches blew that call.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

None of which has anything to do with the Seahawks making an incredibly stupid choice of not giving the ball to their premier running back, who in all likelihood, would have gotten the ball in the end zone.

It has everything to do with it. Teams that rely on a "star" player are easy to beat.

Pretty sophistry observation given the Seahawks finished the season with a 14-5 record on the season, 2nd best in the NFL. Clearly, they weren't as easy to beat as your ignorant opinion claims. Not to mention, they likely lost the Super Bowl because they didn't put the ball in the hands of their star running back.

The game should never had come down to one play. Seattle let New England back into a game. The Seattle defense, was terrible in the fourth quarter, they had a huge breakdown and the Patriots scored 14 points inside of six minutes.

The Seattle defense was a big missing ingredient in the fourth, Brady made it look easy against the league's best D.

The one yard throw was a way to either score or go incomplete and stop the clock. Then Lynch would have two plays to punch it in and if not the first play, call a time out and run a third play. The should,have had three chances to punch it in. It was not a given that Lynch would have ran it in. Five times this season Lynch carried from the one and only once did he punch it in.

Games frequently come down to one play. And the play to call is to put the ball in the hands of what got you there. For the Seahawks, that was Lynch. There's plenty of reason to blame Wilson for throwing a bad pass -- but the coaches blew that call.

They had time for three plays, not one, had the ball went incomplete or scored, nobody would question the call. If it went for a TD, Carroll would have been a genius. Wilson the greatest QB of all time.

If it had come to one play, run it. Three plays, pass, set up the next two run plays, you still have a timeout to burn.

Nowhere in any book does it call for you to go with the one that got you there when you have three plays. Lynch was 1 for 5 from the one this past year.

Take three plays, you have the time.

Your hindsight is 20/20, your game coaching has a lot to be desired.

Belichick not call a timeout, lining up for a run, changed Carroll's play calling, he didn't want to be predictable, it didn't work, a great play was made by Butler. End of story.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Chris, Chris, Chris.... You are being silly. Seattle is a RUN FIRST team. Everybody knows it. They are ALWAYS waiting for the run. Yet somehow for the last two seasons the Hawks have LED the NFL in rushing.

That said I have no problem with the call. The execution of the play broke down. THAT is why it failed. The mistake was two fold. Putting Kearse on Browner was a mismatch in favor of the Patriots. If Kearse was able to handle Browner properly Butler would have been forced to move farther behind Lockett. Still no guarantee of a completion but almost no opportunity for the interception. The second part of the failure was making Lockett the #1 read. He has almost NO experience in game conditions at the right slot position. Over 90% of Lockett's success has been at the left wide out position on go routes. His ONLY real advantage is his speed and height going up for long looping passes near the sideline. I also didn't mention that Lockett is Seattle's #5 receiver. Baldwin or Kearse or even Lynch are far better receivers in traffic on crossing routes. I don't care how much the team practiced with Lockett. I can't recall him EVER catching a goal line pass on a crossing route in a game successfully. Lynch for instance has done it dozens of times with huge success.

As Lynch has only 9 career receiving TDs according to nfl.com, I don't think he's successfully caught a goal line pass on a crossing route dozens of times.

Ya ...an exaggeration...my bad... but still 9 more than Lockett.

Actually, Lockette has 3 career receiving TDs. I'm pretty sure all of Lynch's weren't goal line crossing routes.

 

[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.

None of which has anything to do with the Seahawks making an incredibly stupid choice of not giving the ball to their premier running back, who in all likelihood, would have gotten the ball in the end zone.

It has everything to do with it. Teams that rely on a "star" player are easy to beat.

Pretty sophistry observation given the Seahawks finished the season with a 14-5 record on the season, 2nd best in the NFL. Clearly, they weren't as easy to beat as your ignorant opinion claims. Not to mention, they likely lost the Super Bowl because they didn't put the ball in the hands of their star running back.

Lol. They were outplayed and lost the game. They had a 10-point lead and couldn't hold on to it. Stop whining. Everyone is growing tired of it.

Oh, and CLEARLY they were since they DID get beat.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

None of which has anything to do with the Seahawks making an incredibly stupid choice of not giving the ball to their premier running back, who in all likelihood, would have gotten the ball in the end zone.

It has everything to do with it. Teams that rely on a "star" player are easy to beat.

Pretty sophistry observation given the Seahawks finished the season with a 14-5 record on the season, 2nd best in the NFL. Clearly, they weren't as easy to beat as your ignorant opinion claims. Not to mention, they likely lost the Super Bowl because they didn't put the ball in the hands of their star running back.

Lol. They were outplayed and lost the game. They had a 10-point lead and couldn't hold on to it. Stop whining. Everyone is growing tired of it.

Oh, and CLEARLY they were since they DID get beat.

Being beaten doesn't mean it was easy. Having to mount a 14 point 4th quarter comeback and only holding on to that win by way of an interception on a pass from the 1 yard line is pretty much the very definition of a game that wasn't easy.

 

[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.

None of which has anything to do with the Seahawks making an incredibly stupid choice of not giving the ball to their premier running back, who in all likelihood, would have gotten the ball in the end zone.

It has everything to do with it. Teams that rely on a "star" player are easy to beat.

Pretty sophistry observation given the Seahawks finished the season with a 14-5 record on the season, 2nd best in the NFL. Clearly, they weren't as easy to beat as your ignorant opinion claims. Not to mention, they likely lost the Super Bowl because they didn't put the ball in the hands of their star running back.

Lol. They were outplayed and lost the game. They had a 10-point lead and couldn't hold on to it. Stop whining. Everyone is growing tired of it.

Oh, and CLEARLY they were since they DID get beat.

Being beaten doesn't mean it was easy. Having to mount a 14 point 4th quarter comeback and only holding on to that win by way of an interception on a pass from the 1 yard line is pretty much the very definition of a game that wasn't easy.

I don't care. I'm throwing their shit back at them is all. They aren't going to give the Patriots credit for winning. I'm not going to give them any credit at all.

 

[ChrisL]

I'm sick and tired of hearing about how they should have run the ball. There is no guarantee that the Patriots couldn't have stopped them, or forced a fumble, or anything. Anyways, all of these things COUNT in the game of football. Coaching counts, pass plays count, bad calls count. It all makes or breaks your game.

The things some people are coming out with are just utterly ridiculous. I grow tired of all the whining.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm sick and tired of hearing about how they should have run the ball. There is no guarantee that the Patriots couldn't have stopped them, or forced a fumble, or anything. Anyways, all of these things COUNT in the game of football. Coaching counts, pass plays count, bad calls count. It all makes or breaks your game.

The things some people are coming out with are just utterly ridiculous. I grow tired of all the whining.

I'm sure plenty of Pats fans looked back and complained about things in their Super Bowl losses. It's the nature of fandom. We invest a lot into the teams and when they lose, it's frustrating.

Of course the Seahawks weren't guaranteed to score by running Lynch. That doesn't change that it is frustrating to see a power running team, when the Super Bowl is on the line, from the 1 yard line, go with a pass. I'm not a Seahawks fan. I'm a 49er fan, so I generally root against the Hawks. However, the two teams have been built around similar philosophies : play strong defense and run the ball to wear down the opponent. Wilson has certainly made some great plays in his short time starting, but the Seahawks offense still starts with Lynch. Carroll, IMO, overthought things and Wilson made a bad choice in the throw. Butler made an incredible play on the ball, and there you go.

The Pats won, the Seahawks lost. As with the Green Bay game, while there was some luck involved (and there nearly always is in close games), the team that won, WON. Whether because of a mistake by the opponent or a good call by the winners doesn't really matter. In the end the Patriots coaches and players were just a bit better than the Seahawks.

The real tragedy is that we'll never get to see this kind of thing decided in a series. That's where the real playoff excitement is!

 

[ChrisL]

I'm sick and tired of hearing about how they should have run the ball. There is no guarantee that the Patriots couldn't have stopped them, or forced a fumble, or anything. Anyways, all of these things COUNT in the game of football. Coaching counts, pass plays count, bad calls count. It all makes or breaks your game.

The things some people are coming out with are just utterly ridiculous. I grow tired of all the whining.

I'm sure plenty of Pats fans looked back and complained about things in their Super Bowl losses. It's the nature of fandom. We invest a lot into the teams and when they lose, it's frustrating.

Of course the Seahawks weren't guaranteed to score by running Lynch. That doesn't change that it is frustrating to see a power running team, when the Super Bowl is on the line, from the 1 yard line, go with a pass. I'm not a Seahawks fan. I'm a 49er fan, so I generally root against the Hawks. However, the two teams have been built around similar philosophies : play strong defense and run the ball to wear down the opponent. Wilson has certainly made some great plays in his short time starting, but the Seahawks offense still starts with Lynch. Carroll, IMO, overthought things and Wilson made a bad choice in the throw. Butler made an incredible play on the ball, and there you go.

The Pats won, the Seahawks lost. As with the Green Bay game, while there was some luck involved (and there nearly always is in close games), the team that won, WON. Whether because of a mistake by the opponent or a good call by the winners doesn't really matter. In the end the Patriots coaches and players were just a bit better than the Seahawks.

The real tragedy is that we'll never get to see this kind of thing decided in a series. That's where the real playoff excitement is!

I know you're right. I just get annoyed sometimes. I love my football team.

 

[Moonglow]

I'm not complaining cause OU sucked this year, would good would it do?

 

[Faun]

None of which has anything to do with the Seahawks making an incredibly stupid choice of not giving the ball to their premier running back, who in all likelihood, would have gotten the ball in the end zone.

It has everything to do with it. Teams that rely on a "star" player are easy to beat.

Pretty sophistry observation given the Seahawks finished the season with a 14-5 record on the season, 2nd best in the NFL. Clearly, they weren't as easy to beat as your ignorant opinion claims. Not to mention, they likely lost the Super Bowl because they didn't put the ball in the hands of their star running back.

Lol. They were outplayed and lost the game. They had a 10-point lead and couldn't hold on to it. Stop whining. Everyone is growing tired of it.

Oh, and CLEARLY they were since they DID get beat.

Being beaten doesn't mean it was easy. Having to mount a 14 point 4th quarter comeback and only holding on to that win by way of an interception on a pass from the 1 yard line is pretty much the very definition of a game that wasn't easy.

I don't care. I'm throwing their shit back at them is all. They aren't going to give the Patriots credit for winning. I'm not going to give them any credit at all.

You're not giving anything back because I'm not a fan of either team. All you're doing is exposing your ignorance of the sport; like claiming the Seahawks with the second best record in the NFL, were easy to beat.

It was still a stupid call and it very well likely cost them the Super Bowl.