A defense of why Seattle passed on 2nd and goal instead of running The Beast, Marshawn Lynch

Seattle probably was very lucky to have everything go their way last week to win and then that long completion at the end of the game to get in scoring position in the SB. Their luck ran out!!! Butler made an exceptional play - don't blame Wilson - if his receiver just knocks the ball down, they still have two plays to score the touchdown.

jama wrote:

Seattle probably was very lucky to have everything go their way last week to win and then that long completion at the end of the game to get in scoring position in the SB. Their luck ran out!!! Butler made an exceptional play - don't blame Wilson - if his receiver just knocks the ball down, they still have two plays to score the touchdown.

4 interceptions was everything going their way?

The long catch at the end was lucky. But it wasn't 4th down, they still could have made it downfield. Given NE's difficulty stopping the long ball and/or Lynch it was very conceivable.

Seattle showed they deserved to be where they were until their last play. Totally boneheaded.

wejo wrote:

If you get stopped and call TO you have 3rd down with 22 seconds left. I still think you could run twice there on 3rd and 4th downs. 4th down would be hectic as hell so maybe a lot of coaches don't do it and they pass on 3rd down and then have the option of running off of 4th down with time to huddle up. But you still would be able to run twice in that scenario and don't have to pass on 2nd down like they did.

I don't think it was terrible to pass there - a fade maybe to your big WR. I think there was much more time to work with than Carroll realized. When you're in goal line O, it only takes about 4-5s to clock the ball, so even if you burn a time out there, you can trade a down for some time.

Regardless of bonehead play calling, nobody's mentioned that the Seattle DEFENSE did not play well at all, and that's the strength of this team. They allowed the largest 4th quarter Super Bowl comeback ever. It was clear from the start that New England's strategy was to move the ball with short passes and they did not deviate for the whole game. Seattle did not adjust and never did stop their short passing game. Seattle's tackling after the catch was not good either. I don't think the defense got one stop the whole 4th quarter.

You're right, the defense wasn't great. Really, it's a 60 minute game.

But having said that...that was the biggest idiot play call ever. I get that some teams have run that play with success lately -- the Packers like to do it with Randall Cobb. But Wilson is not Rodgers, and Lockette is not Cobb (not even close). With that much traffic in such a compressed area of the field, if you throw it like that, the receiver HAS to catch it or at least defend it. Just horrible, horrible, horrible call. There were so many better play calls there even if you don't want to run Lynch straight up the gut. How about a naked QB bootleg to the right? Send everyone left with Lynch and Wilson runs it in? Or drag a TE across the back of the end zone while bootlegging right? Or a fade deep back corner where no one but the wr can catch it? That dumb play was so low percentage on success....god dam!

Look, even Lynch understood it is a team game and that they had to run out more of the clock. If they had scored, Brady would have had the ball with more than a minuted left only needing a field goal. Their defense just wasn't up to that, yesterday.

Hindsight is 20/20. But Pete Carroll's explanation made a lot of sense to me. If they make that play, no one would be questioning it.

klad0934 wrote:

If they had scored, Brady would have had the ball with more than a minuted left only needing a field goal. Their defense just wasn't up to that, yesterday.

Not a minute left...there was 26 seconds on the clock when they snapped the ball on the INT play..

Even if Seattle scores, the extra point and resulting kickoff could easily drain another 6-7 seconds, leaving 20 seconds or less to drive the field for a FG try. I'd take those odds.

Pete Carroll got caught trying to be too smart. It was just a dumb call. And Wilson didn't execute it well, either. I'm as big a fan of his as anyone, and I don't call that play in that situation with him as QB....maybe Manning, maybe Rodgers, maybe Brady. Not RW.

Les wrote:

Regardless of bonehead play calling, nobody's mentioned that the Seattle DEFENSE did not play well at all, and that's the strength of this team. They allowed the largest 4th quarter Super Bowl comeback ever. It was clear from the start that New England's strategy was to move the ball with short passes and they did not deviate for the whole game. Seattle did not adjust and never did stop their short passing game. Seattle's tackling after the catch was not good either. I don't think the defense got one stop the whole 4th quarter.

There "Legion of Doom" defense in the 4th quarter was horrible. For a defense that likes to think of themselves as one of the best of all time, you don't blow a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter of the biggest game of the season.

Brady did what he does, though, to every team and just picked them apart. Lots of dink and dunk plays that add up, and as you said Les, when the tackling is horrible it only adds yards to each catch.

I'd play poker with you any time...

Your analysis is flawed.

Run on 2nd down. Timeout. Pass on 3rd down. Incomplete. RUN ON 4th DOWN, as any result other than a TD or defensive penalty renders the clock irrelevant. That's two chances to run Lynch.

I agree with rojo's assessment this time.

If you run on that second down (and don't get it) then yes you call the time out.

And yes, you then throw on third down but that throw will be expected and they might drop a linebacker into coverage.

The Patriots were not expecting pass on that play and they rushed the linebackers.

Greta call against that defense.

Usually if you have a goal line interception on a slant it is by a linebacker dropping back and getting between the QB an d the receiver. Not on this play because the linebackers were rushing.

Malcom Butler just flat out guessed the slant route and jumped it. It is very rare for the coverage DB to pick-off a slant from that close.

The Patriots defense as a team gets no credit on that play, just Butler.

If they run a stop, an out or a fade he's wide open because Butler sold out on the slant.

The Seahawks had a 75% chance of scoring on that call. Pretty good odds. Pretty good call.

The chance of an interception was the same as a chance of a fumble- not likely. But it happened.

I think that was just an incredible play by Butler. He came from a spot behind the receiver that was probably almost a blind spot to Wilson, and somehow managed to out wrestle the (unexpecting) receiver in a ball that was probably 80-20 the receiver's ball and during a collision that knocked them both the opposite direction managed to make the catch. Spectacular play.

Also, I don't think the naysayers are using "hindsight". I think everyone in the building thought the percentage play was to run Lynch after they ran the clock down. Patriots looked absolutely dead after the freak catch 2 plays before. They were reeling.

Three things can happen when you pass the ball and two of them are bad.

Woody Hayes..... wrote:

Three things can happen when you pass the ball and two of them are bad.

And if you run the ball, you can score, be stopped or fumble.

So - it's the same, 2 out of 3 are bad.

But if you run and are stopped, the clock keeps ticking. So you have to rush or burn a timeout that me be needed later.

With an incomplete pass, you keep that timeout.

Then they would have had more options on 3rd or 4th down.

If they ran and were stuffed, the options would have been more limited.

That was rojo's point.

There was time for run-pass-run using a timeout as said above. And if they don't want to run Lynch up the middle, then fake to him and have Wilson roll out and run it in, or throw a corner route in the end zone. But don't attempt a pass in heavy traffic on the goal line.

The Patriots WERE expecting a pass and that is why Butler was on the field. He even said that the Patriots practiced against the exact same situation with the scout team. In practice, Butler played it safe and gave up the pass and that is why he charged the ball in this situation instead of staying back. The Patriots knew what the Seahawks were going to do but the Seahawks had no idea what the Patriots were going to do.

Outcoached

Carroll made a reasonable call.

You have 26 seconds left and one timeout. If you run you have to use your timeout, stopping the clock at perhaps 21 seconds. If Lynch was stopped, then at that point you have to pass on third down. So if you have to pass anyways, why not do it on second down when it's not expected? By contrast, if you pass, then you save your timeout and the Patriots have to defend against both the pass and the run on third down.

Duck Down wrote:

But don't attempt a pass in heavy traffic on the goal line.

It wasn't heavy traffic because the linebackers didn't drop back.

It was one-on-one coverage. A Very high percentage pass.

Statistically, you have to look at each offensive play independently. You run your best play in this this situation which was a Wilson read option or beast mode. No one was able to touch Wilson on the roll out the whole game. Just because you would not have had time to run three rushing plays, does not mean you should have passed up your best play -the run or option run.

I heard Carrolls explanation, but way too risky.

Great game