I Blame Wilson for Bad Throw

[Faun]

I pointed out the "breakdown". Maybe if you read more slowly and sound out the big words the facts will become more clear..

Seattle didn't have any huge depth issue to speak of..at least none that could have been dealt with deep into the playoffs.

Three out of the four starting DBs were playing with SIGNIFICANT injuries then Lane broke his wrist in N E's first drive of the game. There were two major injuries encountered in the previous game with GB. Thomas dislocated his shoulder and Sherman sustained ligament damage to his elbow. Chancellor received a knee bruise and tendon damage on second to last day of practice preceding SB.

There is no way for a team to prepare for the level of injuries Seattle sustained nor keep enough players on a 53 man roster to compensate for the loss or degradation of players of the level of a Thomas, Chancellor or Sherman. Lane's broken wrist was the Camel that broke the Hair's back leaving the Seahawks highly vulnerable to a passing surgeon such as Brady to pick apart. Therin is a gifted special teams player but just better than average at CB. Byron Maxwell was moved to the Nickle position after Lane's injury. He normally plays opposite Sherman but with the injured Starters was needed to help those players provide pressure from the middle of the field depending on what direction the Pat's receivers were deployed.

Lane normally played the little used Nickle position because the LOB usually required no extra help. That changed after GB. The Nickle became more important with the injuries to Chancellor, Thomas and Sherman.

I honestly believe that if the GB game injuries and Chancellors freak collision in practice AND Lane's broken wrist hadn't occurred Seattle would have mopped the field with the Patriots. But that's football. Like I said "No excuses".

Believe what you need to believe.

The Hawks defense was not deep enough to cover their injuries and got beat in the fourth.

Injuries or not, no excuses. Could the game had turned out differently? Yep, the pats could have touched Seattle in the first half, but it didn't happen.

You are giving the fact the DBs were injured as a reason, is an excuse.
Maybe you don't understand what "no excuses" really means.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Patriots did play great in the 4th quarter. No doubt. That's what they do. That doesn't erase the fact that the Seahawks put themselves into a position to win the game and made a call so stupid, it will likely be remembered as the worst call in Super Bowl history.

It's possible that it was the worst call, but that seems pretty unlikely. It wasn't THAT bad a call. There is sound reasoning behind it (trying to make sure they would have 3 tries at the end zone, including the possibility of 2 runs on 3rd and 4th down if they so chose), it's not as though the call was so completely outrageous that no one could ever imagine it.

I could agree with that had the Seahawks not had a RB like Marshawn Lynch in their backfield.

They could have had Christian Okoye in the backfield and I still think there is some sound reasoning behind the decision. It isn't something I agree with, I think Carroll overthought the situation, but the difference between a pass on second down so that they feel sure of at least an opportunity to run on third and fourth and just running on second is not so great. It was, I agree, a bad call, but not a horrible one.

This will probably be debated until the end of time, but I disagree. With 26 seconds and a timeout, there was enough time to give Lynch the ball three times, which is what I would have done. There was no reason to "waste that play" as Carroll put it.

 

[Papageorgio]

Believe what you need to believe.

The Hawks defense was not deep enough to cover their injuries and got beat in the fourth.

Injuries or not, no excuses. Could the game had turned out differently? Yep, the pats could have touched Seattle in the first half, but it didn't happen.

You are giving the fact the DBs were injured as a reason, is an excuse.
Maybe you don't understand what "no excuses" really means.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Patriots did play great in the 4th quarter. No doubt. That's what they do. That doesn't erase the fact that the Seahawks put themselves into a position to win the game and made a call so stupid, it will likely be remembered as the worst call in Super Bowl history.

It's possible that it was the worst call, but that seems pretty unlikely. It wasn't THAT bad a call. There is sound reasoning behind it (trying to make sure they would have 3 tries at the end zone, including the possibility of 2 runs on 3rd and 4th down if they so chose), it's not as though the call was so completely outrageous that no one could ever imagine it.

I could agree with that had the Seahawks not had a RB like Marshawn Lynch in their backfield.

They could have had Christian Okoye in the backfield and I still think there is some sound reasoning behind the decision. It isn't something I agree with, I think Carroll overthought the situation, but the difference between a pass on second down so that they feel sure of at least an opportunity to run on third and fourth and just running on second is not so great. It was, I agree, a bad call, but not a horrible one.

This will probably be debated until the end of time, but I disagree. With 26 seconds and a timeout, there was enough time to give Lynch the ball three times, which is what I would have done. There was no reason to "waste that play" as Carroll put it.

When the play was over there was 20 seconds, that is because the clock stopped right after the player had went down. If Lynch would have carried it and didn't get it over the goal in the clock would have continued.

It wasn't a great play call but no the worst in NFL Super Bowl history, Lynch was 20% effective from the 1 yd line during the regular season. The Patriots were ready for a goal line run. And they would all bet Lynch up the gut. Carroll tried to throw them off and pass on second, instead of third down.

I'm not debating, bad call, but not the worst, not even close.

 

[Faun]

The Patriots did play great in the 4th quarter. No doubt. That's what they do. That doesn't erase the fact that the Seahawks put themselves into a position to win the game and made a call so stupid, it will likely be remembered as the worst call in Super Bowl history.

It's possible that it was the worst call, but that seems pretty unlikely. It wasn't THAT bad a call. There is sound reasoning behind it (trying to make sure they would have 3 tries at the end zone, including the possibility of 2 runs on 3rd and 4th down if they so chose), it's not as though the call was so completely outrageous that no one could ever imagine it.

I could agree with that had the Seahawks not had a RB like Marshawn Lynch in their backfield.

They could have had Christian Okoye in the backfield and I still think there is some sound reasoning behind the decision. It isn't something I agree with, I think Carroll overthought the situation, but the difference between a pass on second down so that they feel sure of at least an opportunity to run on third and fourth and just running on second is not so great. It was, I agree, a bad call, but not a horrible one.

This will probably be debated until the end of time, but I disagree. With 26 seconds and a timeout, there was enough time to give Lynch the ball three times, which is what I would have done. There was no reason to "waste that play" as Carroll put it.

When the play was over there was 20 seconds, that is because the clock stopped right after the player had went down. If Lynch would have carried it and didn't get it over the goal in the clock would have continued.

It wasn't a great play call but no the worst in NFL Super Bowl history, Lynch was 20% effective from the 1 yd line during the regular season. The Patriots were ready for a goal line run. And they would all bet Lynch up the gut. Carroll tried to throw them off and pass on second, instead of third down.

I'm not debating, bad call, but not the worst, not even close.

And there still would have been time to run another play and call a time out with seconds remaining had Lynch not gotten in on third down.

What Super Bowl play do you think was worse?

 

[Papageorgio]

It's possible that it was the worst call, but that seems pretty unlikely. It wasn't THAT bad a call. There is sound reasoning behind it (trying to make sure they would have 3 tries at the end zone, including the possibility of 2 runs on 3rd and 4th down if they so chose), it's not as though the call was so completely outrageous that no one could ever imagine it.

I could agree with that had the Seahawks not had a RB like Marshawn Lynch in their backfield.

They could have had Christian Okoye in the backfield and I still think there is some sound reasoning behind the decision. It isn't something I agree with, I think Carroll overthought the situation, but the difference between a pass on second down so that they feel sure of at least an opportunity to run on third and fourth and just running on second is not so great. It was, I agree, a bad call, but not a horrible one.

This will probably be debated until the end of time, but I disagree. With 26 seconds and a timeout, there was enough time to give Lynch the ball three times, which is what I would have done. There was no reason to "waste that play" as Carroll put it.

When the play was over there was 20 seconds, that is because the clock stopped right after the player had went down. If Lynch would have carried it and didn't get it over the goal in the clock would have continued.

It wasn't a great play call but no the worst in NFL Super Bowl history, Lynch was 20% effective from the 1 yd line during the regular season. The Patriots were ready for a goal line run. And they would all bet Lynch up the gut. Carroll tried to throw them off and pass on second, instead of third down.

I'm not debating, bad call, but not the worst, not even close.

And there still would have been time to run another play and call a time out with seconds remaining had Lynch not gotten in on third down.

What Super Bowl play do you think was worse?

The play call that costs Seahawks Super Bowl victory wasn 8217 t a bad one - The Washington Post

There is sound reasons to make the call that was made, it was not a guarantee that a run would have made the difference.

And not much time to line up and make a play after two run plays that fail to score.

 

[Faun]

I could agree with that had the Seahawks not had a RB like Marshawn Lynch in their backfield.

They could have had Christian Okoye in the backfield and I still think there is some sound reasoning behind the decision. It isn't something I agree with, I think Carroll overthought the situation, but the difference between a pass on second down so that they feel sure of at least an opportunity to run on third and fourth and just running on second is not so great. It was, I agree, a bad call, but not a horrible one.

This will probably be debated until the end of time, but I disagree. With 26 seconds and a timeout, there was enough time to give Lynch the ball three times, which is what I would have done. There was no reason to "waste that play" as Carroll put it.

When the play was over there was 20 seconds, that is because the clock stopped right after the player had went down. If Lynch would have carried it and didn't get it over the goal in the clock would have continued.

It wasn't a great play call but no the worst in NFL Super Bowl history, Lynch was 20% effective from the 1 yd line during the regular season. The Patriots were ready for a goal line run. And they would all bet Lynch up the gut. Carroll tried to throw them off and pass on second, instead of third down.

I'm not debating, bad call, but not the worst, not even close.

And there still would have been time to run another play and call a time out with seconds remaining had Lynch not gotten in on third down.

What Super Bowl play do you think was worse?

The play call that costs Seahawks Super Bowl victory wasn 8217 t a bad one - The Washington Post

There is sound reasons to make the call that was made, it was not a guarantee that a run would have made the difference.

And not much time to line up and make a play after two run plays that fail to score.

Seriously? A link to an article that agrees with you? You realize I could easily post dozens calling it the worst call ever, right?

And again, name one that was worse.................

[edit: btw, did you read some of the tweets on that page ... ? My favorite (of course) .... "That was the worst play call in the history of the Superbowl!!! Worst QB decision Ever!!!!! Ever Ever! Naw I mean Ever!" ~ Deion Sanders]

 

[Papageorgio]

They could have had Christian Okoye in the backfield and I still think there is some sound reasoning behind the decision. It isn't something I agree with, I think Carroll overthought the situation, but the difference between a pass on second down so that they feel sure of at least an opportunity to run on third and fourth and just running on second is not so great. It was, I agree, a bad call, but not a horrible one.

This will probably be debated until the end of time, but I disagree. With 26 seconds and a timeout, there was enough time to give Lynch the ball three times, which is what I would have done. There was no reason to "waste that play" as Carroll put it.

When the play was over there was 20 seconds, that is because the clock stopped right after the player had went down. If Lynch would have carried it and didn't get it over the goal in the clock would have continued.

It wasn't a great play call but no the worst in NFL Super Bowl history, Lynch was 20% effective from the 1 yd line during the regular season. The Patriots were ready for a goal line run. And they would all bet Lynch up the gut. Carroll tried to throw them off and pass on second, instead of third down.

I'm not debating, bad call, but not the worst, not even close.

And there still would have been time to run another play and call a time out with seconds remaining had Lynch not gotten in on third down.

What Super Bowl play do you think was worse?

The play call that costs Seahawks Super Bowl victory wasn 8217 t a bad one - The Washington Post

There is sound reasons to make the call that was made, it was not a guarantee that a run would have made the difference.

And not much time to line up and make a play after two run plays that fail to score.

Seriously? A link to an article that agrees with you? You realize I could easily post dozens calling it the worst call ever, right?

And again, name one that was worse.................

[edit: btw, did you read some of the tweets on that page ... ? My favorite (of course) .... "That was the worst play call in the history of the Superbowl!!! Worst QB decision Ever!!!!! Ever Ever! Naw I mean Ever!" ~ Deion Sanders]

It's an opinion, you have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine. I gave you the reasons for my stand and you have your reason. Not sure why you need me to agree with you.

And Sanders is an expert in nothing but his opinion.

 

[Faun]

This will probably be debated until the end of time, but I disagree. With 26 seconds and a timeout, there was enough time to give Lynch the ball three times, which is what I would have done. There was no reason to "waste that play" as Carroll put it.

When the play was over there was 20 seconds, that is because the clock stopped right after the player had went down. If Lynch would have carried it and didn't get it over the goal in the clock would have continued.

It wasn't a great play call but no the worst in NFL Super Bowl history, Lynch was 20% effective from the 1 yd line during the regular season. The Patriots were ready for a goal line run. And they would all bet Lynch up the gut. Carroll tried to throw them off and pass on second, instead of third down.

I'm not debating, bad call, but not the worst, not even close.

And there still would have been time to run another play and call a time out with seconds remaining had Lynch not gotten in on third down.

What Super Bowl play do you think was worse?

The play call that costs Seahawks Super Bowl victory wasn 8217 t a bad one - The Washington Post

There is sound reasons to make the call that was made, it was not a guarantee that a run would have made the difference.

And not much time to line up and make a play after two run plays that fail to score.

Seriously? A link to an article that agrees with you? You realize I could easily post dozens calling it the worst call ever, right?

And again, name one that was worse.................

[edit: btw, did you read some of the tweets on that page ... ? My favorite (of course) .... "That was the worst play call in the history of the Superbowl!!! Worst QB decision Ever!!!!! Ever Ever! Naw I mean Ever!" ~ Deion Sanders]

It's an opinion, you have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine. I gave you the reasons for my stand and you have your reason. Not sure why you need me to agree with you.

Of course it's your opinion. And of course you have a right to it. But opinions should be based on fact. If, in your opinion, it's not the worst call ever in Super Bowl history, then that means ... in your opinion, there was a call even worse ......

...... so what was it ........... ?

 

[Papageorgio]

Denver vs Green Bay, Holmgren decided to let Denver score right away so they could get the ball back and tie the game up. He was under the assumption Denver was allowed to score on a first down, Green Bay had two timeouts, however it was second down and two timeouts. Green Bay could have worked on holding Denver and used the timeouts to stop the clock instead of letting Denver score and losing the Super Bowl.

Redskin and Raiders had another big blunder. Redskins had the ball and driving on the Raiders, Gibbs made the decision to throw a screen play that had worked against the ?Raiders earlier in the season, this time the Raiders intercepted Theisman and returned it for a TD and the rout was on.

Those are just two, Holmgren was confused and that made it the worst play, Carroll was taking a risk based on a time clock, he had time for two runs and a throw. Had the play worked, no one, not even you would call it a bad choice.

Holmgren, my here was no way he could make it work because he was under a false assumption.

 

[Montrovant]

How about the 49ers not running Gore a single time when they had first and goal against the Ravens? I think they ran LaMichael James and then passed 3 times.

 

[Papageorgio]

Had the pass play worked, everyone of these people would be hailing it as a genius play. It is crazy that people consider it such a bad play call.

It is only bad if it doesn't work.

Lol! New England came back on them after most everyone thought it was a forgone conclusion that Seattle would win. That is why the game is played.

New England outplayed Seattle for three quarters and won, and instead of giving the Pats their due, people whine and cry over the DBs not being at full strength, bad play call.

It was on that day, New England outplayed Seattle. Every team has injuries to overcome, I don't see Arizona complaining, they were the best team in the NFL until injuries changed that. That's life guys, say what you want, the results are what they are.

New England won the Super Bowl, whine, *****, moan, blame and make excuses, the result is still the same. New England won, Seattle lost.

Bottom line, nothing else matters, its final, it's over and it was a great game by two teams.

 

[Borillar]

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.

yep, for three and a half quarters.

 

[Faun]

Denver vs Green Bay, Holmgren decided to let Denver score right away so they could get the ball back and tie the game up. He was under the assumption Denver was allowed to score on a first down, Green Bay had two timeouts, however it was second down and two timeouts. Green Bay could have worked on holding Denver and used the timeouts to stop the clock instead of letting Denver score and losing the Super Bowl.

Redskin and Raiders had another big blunder. Redskins had the ball and driving on the Raiders, Gibbs made the decision to throw a screen play that had worked against the ?Raiders earlier in the season, this time the Raiders intercepted Theisman and returned it for a TD and the rout was on.

Those are just two, Holmgren was confused and that made it the worst play, Carroll was taking a risk based on a time clock, he had time for two runs and a throw. Had the play worked, no one, not even you would call it a bad choice.

Holmgren, my here was no way he could make it work because he was under a false assumption.

Fair enough. At least you have something to base your opinion on. I disagree, but that's nothing more than my opinion. Personally, I don't think either of those were as bad because neither were as catastrophic as the Seahawks play. Even in Holmgren's blunder, the Packers still had an opportunity.

 

[Papageorgio]

Denver vs Green Bay, Holmgren decided to let Denver score right away so they could get the ball back and tie the game up. He was under the assumption Denver was allowed to score on a first down, Green Bay had two timeouts, however it was second down and two timeouts. Green Bay could have worked on holding Denver and used the timeouts to stop the clock instead of letting Denver score and losing the Super Bowl.

Redskin and Raiders had another big blunder. Redskins had the ball and driving on the Raiders, Gibbs made the decision to throw a screen play that had worked against the ?Raiders earlier in the season, this time the Raiders intercepted Theisman and returned it for a TD and the rout was on.

Those are just two, Holmgren was confused and that made it the worst play, Carroll was taking a risk based on a time clock, he had time for two runs and a throw. Had the play worked, no one, not even you would call it a bad choice.

Holmgren, my here was no way he could make it work because he was under a false assumption.

Fair enough. At least you have something to base your opinion on. I disagree, but that's nothing more than my opinion. Personally, I don't think either of those were as bad because neither were as catastrophic as the Seahawks play. Even in Holmgren's blunder, the Packers still had an opportunity.

Really? They gave away 7 points, if Wilson's pass would have been caught, would you have said bad play call? Nope, Holmgren, no matter the outcome was a bad play call because it was based on misinformation. Carroll's call was based on a game situation that was correct, they knew the history of getting one yard and punching it in was average at best. They had three plays to get it in and one had to be a pass, why not use the pass first to control the clock and then use the timeout between the running plays to give Lynch some rest between the plays.

I do realize that no matter what, you have to be tied to this as the worst play call in Super Bowl history. Simplistically it looks like it however, it is a call the had the wrong result.

 

[Montrovant]

Had the pass play worked, everyone of these people would be hailing it as a genius play. It is crazy that people consider it such a bad play call.

It is only bad if it doesn't work.

Lol! New England came back on them after most everyone thought it was a forgone conclusion that Seattle would win. That is why the game is played.

New England outplayed Seattle for three quarters and won, and instead of giving the Pats their due, people whine and cry over the DBs not being at full strength, bad play call.

It was on that day, New England outplayed Seattle. Every team has injuries to overcome, I don't see Arizona complaining, they were the best team in the NFL until injuries changed that. That's life guys, say what you want, the results are what they are.

New England won the Super Bowl, whine, *****, moan, blame and make excuses, the result is still the same. New England won, Seattle lost.

Bottom line, nothing else matters, its final, it's over and it was a great game by two teams.

Actually, I think you can have a bad play call that works. Going for an onside kick in odd situations, for example, I think can be a bad call even if it works, just because I think it is too dangerous a move.

 

[Faun]

Denver vs Green Bay, Holmgren decided to let Denver score right away so they could get the ball back and tie the game up. He was under the assumption Denver was allowed to score on a first down, Green Bay had two timeouts, however it was second down and two timeouts. Green Bay could have worked on holding Denver and used the timeouts to stop the clock instead of letting Denver score and losing the Super Bowl.

Redskin and Raiders had another big blunder. Redskins had the ball and driving on the Raiders, Gibbs made the decision to throw a screen play that had worked against the ?Raiders earlier in the season, this time the Raiders intercepted Theisman and returned it for a TD and the rout was on.

Those are just two, Holmgren was confused and that made it the worst play, Carroll was taking a risk based on a time clock, he had time for two runs and a throw. Had the play worked, no one, not even you would call it a bad choice.

Holmgren, my here was no way he could make it work because he was under a false assumption.

Fair enough. At least you have something to base your opinion on. I disagree, but that's nothing more than my opinion. Personally, I don't think either of those were as bad because neither were as catastrophic as the Seahawks play. Even in Holmgren's blunder, the Packers still had an opportunity.

Really? They gave away 7 points, if Wilson's pass would have been caught, would you have said bad play call? Nope, Holmgren, no matter the outcome was a bad play call because it was based on misinformation. Carroll's call was based on a game situation that was correct, they knew the history of getting one yard and punching it in was average at best. They had three plays to get it in and one had to be a pass, why not use the pass first to control the clock and then use the timeout between the running plays to give Lynch some rest between the plays.

I do realize that no matter what, you have to be tied to this as the worst play call in Super Bowl history. Simplistically it looks like it however, it is a call the had the wrong result.

One did not have to be a pass. And regarding Holmgren's mistake, there's a good chance Denver would have scored anyway. We'll never know, but he still had more than a minute and a half with 2 TOs to try and come back. Seattle's blunder ended the game.

 

[HUGGY]

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.

Seattle's "breakdown" was when Jeramy Lane broke his wrist being tackled after intercepting Brady on the Patriots first drive. We were forced to play Therin(or whateverthefuckhisdumbassnameis) and he almost single handedly put the Patriots back in the game. With Sherman, Chancellor and Thomas playing with serious injuries there just were not enough healthy bodies to go around in the secondary. Brady rightly picked on Therin because he was the weak link. The move Julian Edelman put on Therin for the Patriots go ahead TD just about made me physically sick. No healthy member of the LOB would have allowed THAT completion. It wasn't a "breakdown" of the entire Seahawk defense. It was a substitute that had no business being in the game.

No excuses...We lost fair and square. But at times you appear to have very little football knowledge and just post nonsense to rattle people's cages with weak factual references and innuendo.

You are saying keys injuries were on defensive team. Yet, the defensive didn't breakdown? There was a breakdown somewhere. The interception occurred in the first quarter the third quarter the Pats were shut down. But they didn't breakdown when the Patriots were picking them apart? They what? Got out played? Made mental mistakes? What do you call the fourth quarter defensive team not holding New England out of the end zone, twice. I would really like to know.

14 points scored in under six minutes for a defensive team that did not allow 16 points on average for an entire game. If the defensive team didn't breakdown, what did they do? 11 players could not keep the other 11 players out of the end zone twice. Had Seattle not gotten to the one had Seattle had not gotten the miracle catch and lost, would you not have blamed a defense that could not hold the lead in the fourth quarter?

It's a team sport, and Seattle's depth issue was exposed. Your bias toward Seattle seems to cloud your acceptance of the facts. The fact is Seattle's "best defense of all time," showed no real depth, not like great defenses of the past like the Steelers, the Bears and the Ravens.

I see 32 NFL teams, not one. I don't let bias cloud my mind for wins or losses. New England was damn lucky to win a game that they outplayed in three out of four quarters. The defensive team broke down. It's pretty plain for most objective people.

I pointed out the "breakdown". Maybe if you read more slowly and sound out the big words the facts will become more clear..

Seattle didn't have any huge depth issue to speak of..at least none that could have been dealt with deep into the playoffs.

Three out of the four starting DBs were playing with SIGNIFICANT injuries then Lane broke his wrist in N E's first drive of the game. There were two major injuries encountered in the previous game with GB. Thomas dislocated his shoulder and Sherman sustained ligament damage to his elbow. Chancellor received a knee bruise and tendon damage on second to last day of practice preceding SB.

There is no way for a team to prepare for the level of injuries Seattle sustained nor keep enough players on a 53 man roster to compensate for the loss or degradation of players of the level of a Thomas, Chancellor or Sherman. Lane's broken wrist was the Camel that broke the Hair's back leaving the Seahawks highly vulnerable to a passing surgeon such as Brady to pick apart. Therin is a gifted special teams player but just better than average at CB. Byron Maxwell was moved to the Nickle position after Lane's injury. He normally plays opposite Sherman but with the injured Starters was needed to help those players provide pressure from the middle of the field depending on what direction the Pat's receivers were deployed.

Lane normally played the little used Nickle position because the LOB usually required no extra help. That changed after GB. The Nickle became more important with the injuries to Chancellor, Thomas and Sherman.

I honestly believe that if the GB game injuries and Chancellors freak collision in practice AND Lane's broken wrist hadn't occurred Seattle would have mopped the field with the Patriots. But that's football. Like I said "No excuses".

Believe what you need to believe.

The Hawks defense was not deep enough to cover their injuries and got beat in the fourth.

Injuries or not, no excuses. Could the game had turned out differently? Yep, the pats could have touched Seattle in the first half, but it didn't happen.

You are giving the fact the DBs were injured as a reason, is an excuse.
Maybe you don't understand what "no excuses" really means.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are such an asshole.

 

[HUGGY]

It's possible that it was the worst call, but that seems pretty unlikely. It wasn't THAT bad a call. There is sound reasoning behind it (trying to make sure they would have 3 tries at the end zone, including the possibility of 2 runs on 3rd and 4th down if they so chose), it's not as though the call was so completely outrageous that no one could ever imagine it.

I could agree with that had the Seahawks not had a RB like Marshawn Lynch in their backfield.

They could have had Christian Okoye in the backfield and I still think there is some sound reasoning behind the decision. It isn't something I agree with, I think Carroll overthought the situation, but the difference between a pass on second down so that they feel sure of at least an opportunity to run on third and fourth and just running on second is not so great. It was, I agree, a bad call, but not a horrible one.

This will probably be debated until the end of time, but I disagree. With 26 seconds and a timeout, there was enough time to give Lynch the ball three times, which is what I would have done. There was no reason to "waste that play" as Carroll put it.

When the play was over there was 20 seconds, that is because the clock stopped right after the player had went down. If Lynch would have carried it and didn't get it over the goal in the clock would have continued.

It wasn't a great play call but no the worst in NFL Super Bowl history, Lynch was 20% effective from the 1 yd line during the regular season. The Patriots were ready for a goal line run. And they would all bet Lynch up the gut. Carroll tried to throw them off and pass on second, instead of third down.

I'm not debating, bad call, but not the worst, not even close.

And there still would have been time to run another play and call a time out with seconds remaining had Lynch not gotten in on third down.

What Super Bowl play do you think was worse?

It wasn't the call that was so disappointing. It was the personnel deployed to execute it. We needed a beast to push Browner back and the only sure bet to do THAT job was Marshawn Lynch. Then we needed to deploy Baldwin or Kearse on the #1 hot read route that Lockett ran. The pass failed because the Patriots blew it up with superior athletes at the point of attack. We failed to match their skill and strength level and THAT's what caused the pass to turn from a completion to an interception.

Chris is just masterbating over a win that she has no idea how it actually happened. I'm happy for the Pat's fans. It's fun to win but to come on this MB and spout off on how people that think about the ins and outs of how football really works are just making excuses is rude and unnecessary. Popshisgoogoo is just a dick. He probably knows exactly what I am explaining but thinks it's cute to play dumb. Piss on him. I would rather hear stupid shit from Chris..at least she has the excuse that she has little to no football knowledge. She is just enjoying having won and goes overboard with her exuberance.

 

[HUGGY]

Had the pass play worked, everyone of these people would be hailing it as a genius play. It is crazy that people consider it such a bad play call.

It is only bad if it doesn't work.

Lol! New England came back on them after most everyone thought it was a forgone conclusion that Seattle would win. That is why the game is played.

New England outplayed Seattle for three quarters and won, and instead of giving the Pats their due, people whine and cry over the DBs not being at full strength, bad play call.

It was on that day, New England outplayed Seattle. Every team has injuries to overcome, I don't see Arizona complaining, they were the best team in the NFL until injuries changed that. That's life guys, say what you want, the results are what they are.

New England won the Super Bowl, whine, *****, moan, blame and make excuses, the result is still the same. New England won, Seattle lost.

Bottom line, nothing else matters, its final, it's over and it was a great game by two teams.

Go **** yourself you cynical cock sucker.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Seattle's "breakdown" was when Jeramy Lane broke his wrist being tackled after intercepting Brady on the Patriots first drive. We were forced to play Therin(or whateverthefuckhisdumbassnameis) and he almost single handedly put the Patriots back in the game. With Sherman, Chancellor and Thomas playing with serious injuries there just were not enough healthy bodies to go around in the secondary. Brady rightly picked on Therin because he was the weak link. The move Julian Edelman put on Therin for the Patriots go ahead TD just about made me physically sick. No healthy member of the LOB would have allowed THAT completion. It wasn't a "breakdown" of the entire Seahawk defense. It was a substitute that had no business being in the game.

No excuses...We lost fair and square. But at times you appear to have very little football knowledge and just post nonsense to rattle people's cages with weak factual references and innuendo.

You are saying keys injuries were on defensive team. Yet, the defensive didn't breakdown? There was a breakdown somewhere. The interception occurred in the first quarter the third quarter the Pats were shut down. But they didn't breakdown when the Patriots were picking them apart? They what? Got out played? Made mental mistakes? What do you call the fourth quarter defensive team not holding New England out of the end zone, twice. I would really like to know.

14 points scored in under six minutes for a defensive team that did not allow 16 points on average for an entire game. If the defensive team didn't breakdown, what did they do? 11 players could not keep the other 11 players out of the end zone twice. Had Seattle not gotten to the one had Seattle had not gotten the miracle catch and lost, would you not have blamed a defense that could not hold the lead in the fourth quarter?

It's a team sport, and Seattle's depth issue was exposed. Your bias toward Seattle seems to cloud your acceptance of the facts. The fact is Seattle's "best defense of all time," showed no real depth, not like great defenses of the past like the Steelers, the Bears and the Ravens.

I see 32 NFL teams, not one. I don't let bias cloud my mind for wins or losses. New England was damn lucky to win a game that they outplayed in three out of four quarters. The defensive team broke down. It's pretty plain for most objective people.

I pointed out the "breakdown". Maybe if you read more slowly and sound out the big words the facts will become more clear..

Seattle didn't have any huge depth issue to speak of..at least none that could have been dealt with deep into the playoffs.

Three out of the four starting DBs were playing with SIGNIFICANT injuries then Lane broke his wrist in N E's first drive of the game. There were two major injuries encountered in the previous game with GB. Thomas dislocated his shoulder and Sherman sustained ligament damage to his elbow. Chancellor received a knee bruise and tendon damage on second to last day of practice preceding SB.

There is no way for a team to prepare for the level of injuries Seattle sustained nor keep enough players on a 53 man roster to compensate for the loss or degradation of players of the level of a Thomas, Chancellor or Sherman. Lane's broken wrist was the Camel that broke the Hair's back leaving the Seahawks highly vulnerable to a passing surgeon such as Brady to pick apart. Therin is a gifted special teams player but just better than average at CB. Byron Maxwell was moved to the Nickle position after Lane's injury. He normally plays opposite Sherman but with the injured Starters was needed to help those players provide pressure from the middle of the field depending on what direction the Pat's receivers were deployed.

Lane normally played the little used Nickle position because the LOB usually required no extra help. That changed after GB. The Nickle became more important with the injuries to Chancellor, Thomas and Sherman.

I honestly believe that if the GB game injuries and Chancellors freak collision in practice AND Lane's broken wrist hadn't occurred Seattle would have mopped the field with the Patriots. But that's football. Like I said "No excuses".

Believe what you need to believe.

The Hawks defense was not deep enough to cover their injuries and got beat in the fourth.

Injuries or not, no excuses. Could the game had turned out differently? Yep, the pats could have touched Seattle in the first half, but it didn't happen.

You are giving the fact the DBs were injured as a reason, is an excuse.
Maybe you don't understand what "no excuses" really means.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are such an asshole.

So are you, now that we met, good bye.

 

[Papageorgio]

Had the pass play worked, everyone of these people would be hailing it as a genius play. It is crazy that people consider it such a bad play call.

It is only bad if it doesn't work.

Lol! New England came back on them after most everyone thought it was a forgone conclusion that Seattle would win. That is why the game is played.

New England outplayed Seattle for three quarters and won, and instead of giving the Pats their due, people whine and cry over the DBs not being at full strength, bad play call.

It was on that day, New England outplayed Seattle. Every team has injuries to overcome, I don't see Arizona complaining, they were the best team in the NFL until injuries changed that. That's life guys, say what you want, the results are what they are.

New England won the Super Bowl, whine, *****, moan, blame and make excuses, the result is still the same. New England won, Seattle lost.

Bottom line, nothing else matters, its final, it's over and it was a great game by two teams.

Go **** yourself you cynical cock sucker.

It's realistic and it is true. Seattle lost, it is over and there is not a damn thing you can do to change the reality.