I Blame Wilson for Bad Throw

[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.

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.

That again is your opinion, the fact is, if the play went as a completed pass, you would never have questioned the play call, nor would anyone have called it a bad play call.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Actually, the blunder of Seattle's that ended the game was when Bennett went offsides on the ensuing play. Had Seattle managed to force a safety, they still had a small window in which to get the ball, get into long field goal range and win the game.

And while it may have been possible to have 3 running plays with less than 30 seconds remaining, it's unlikely any coach would try it. That would require not only using their time out but a whole lot of speed in between plays and no changing of personnel or play call.

 

[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.

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.

Actually, the blunder of Seattle's that ended the game was when Bennett went offsides on the ensuing play. Had Seattle managed to force a safety, they still had a small window in which to get the ball, get into long field goal range and win the game.

And while it may have been possible to have 3 running plays with less than 30 seconds remaining, it's unlikely any coach would try it. That would require not only using their time out but a whole lot of speed in between plays and no changing of personnel or play call.

I agree, the game was still in doubt after the interception, if the Seahawks had gotten a safety, they would have only needed a FG to win.

I believe you are right on three running plays with 30 seconds, it could have been a disaster.

 

[Unkotare]

A safety would have been unlikely.

 

[Papageorgio]

As unlikely as that catch at the 5, or the interception?

 

[Montrovant]

A safety would have been unlikely.

Oh, absolutely. I'm not saying I think they would do it. But they are talked about as one of the best defenses in the history of the league, so it certainly wasn't out of the question.

 

[HUGGY]

You people are dreamers.

 

[ChrisL]

You people are dreamers.

At first, I thought I might be dreaming, but nope! Lol.

 

[B. Kidd]

You people are dreamers.

Pap is right on. You need to go on a 2-week drunk to get over it and put things in proper perspective...........

 

[ChrisL]

You people are dreamers.