Pete Carroll

[Husky25]

Husky you're wrong.

On that final play, it was a bread and butter offensive set for seattle. Strong side left, trips right single back set. WR goes in motion R > L and draws coverage with him. At the snap, TE releases off scrimmage for a route, WR in motion goes out on a route, RB releases to the flat on a route, 2 remaining receivers on R do an inside out pick slant route.

5 receivers.

Yes. By virtue of their number, there were 5 players eligible to catch the ball beyond the line of scrimmage, but by virtue of the pick play, Kearse eliminates himself as a option. By virtue of Russell Wilson lasering in on the right side of the field, he eliminated Wilson, Baldwin, and Lynch.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Yes. By virtue of their number, there were 5 players eligible to catch the ball beyond the line of scrimmage, but by virtue of the pick play, Kearse eliminates himself as a option. By virtue of Russell Wilson lasering in on the right side of the field, he eliminated Wilson, Baldwin, and Lynch.

LOL. So you agree - Wilson is the problem, not the play call. I win.

 

[Husky25]

LOL. So you agree - Wilson is the problem, not the play call. I win.

It is true that I think a Beast Mode run would have been a better call. However, I've maintained that a pass play was not necessarily wrong. Just not that particular pass play.

You are letting poor execution (on which we both agree) get in the way of a bad call. Even if Lockette catches the ball, it's still a bad play call, IMO. Too much risk.

 

[superjohn]

While this is entertaining, I'll stop for now, and leave with the same thing I've said over and over, and what I believe. A play call is only bad when it doesn't it work. There is no such thing as a bad play call that works. Passing the ball in that situation was a safe call, given the situation. Wilson facked it up.

(edit: The given condition and assumption here is that you've got a sound fundamental football philosophy and approach to playing the game on offense, and your game plans are sound, and you are operating within your game plan designed for your own personnel, having already scouted and prepared for your opponent in detail)

(I write that, because I think, not about the McEntee interception against Vandy, but the unbelievable triple option wishbone formation that Deleone once called late in a game against Buffalo at home.)

Got to be operating within your system, and your game plans that make sense.

The play call was horrendous. Seriously everything about this post is absurd and it's even more amazing coming from a UConn football fan.

 

[Carl Spackler]

It is true that I think a Beast Mode run would have been a better call. However, I've maintained that a pass play was not necessarily wrong. Just not that particular pass play.

You are letting poor execution (on which we both agree) get in the way of a bad call. Even if Lockette catches the ball, it's still a bad play call, IMO. Too much risk.

Now we're really at the point where we agree/disagree. Boiled it down. I think given all the variables, (clock, need for points, ball position, down, TO's, game plan, offensive philosophy and fundamentals), that calling a pass play out of a bread and butter formation was a LOW risk call. A well executed play either gets you the TD, or leaves you really - 2 more shots at the endzone. I think the play call at the end of the first half, given all the same variables, was HIGH risk. A well executed play there, gets you the TD, or potentially nothing.

I will concede that there are big differences between low risk and high risk play calling, but I will not concede that the only reason a play call is bad, ANY play call - is because it doesn't work (given the assumptions I laid out above - with regards to my unpleasant memories of George Deleone and the wishbone).

You can have plenty of bad play calls when your game plans are unsound, your offensive philosophy is disjointed or non-existent, and worst of all, you have no confidence in your players. None of that applies to the Seattle Seahawks.

The thing about play calls, is that most people only see the individual play. Can't do that, if you are evaluating play calling - you got to look at the whole picture, because reality is that the only thing that makes any individual play call bad - is success or failure of the individual play.

I don't question Pete Carroll's play call there at all, it was sound decision within the game plan, the offensive philosophy, the confidence in the offensive unit and players, and the flow the game, and the situation. Low risk, and gave at least 2 more opportunites to put the ball into the endzone. Wilson made a terrible play.

Is it signing day or what? I'm hoping for no drama today.

 

[Husky25]

I will concede that there are big differences between low risk and high risk play calling, but I will not concede that the only reason a play call is bad, ANY play call - is because it doesn't work (given the assumptions I laid out above - with regards to my unpleasant memories of George Deleone and the wishbone).

You don't have to concede that to me, because that was never my stance. The play call was bad because of the limitations placed on it by the situation. This occurs pre-snap. Poor execution (post-snap) doesn't excuse it. That is where we will agree to disagree.

 

[Husky25]

After watching the replay 12 or so times, Wilson said he wouldn’t have done anything differently. However, he would like to put the play and the loss behind him.

Methinks he is lying. He would have liked to throw the ball to Lockette's back shoulder.

 

[Carl Spackler]

You don't have to concede that to me, because that was never my stance. The play call was bad because of the limitations placed on it by the situation. This occurs pre-snap. Poor execution (post-snap) doesn't excuse it. That is where we will agree to disagree.

This has been entertaining. Thanks for engaging.

I will agree that there are definitely situations pre-snap where limitations exist. You come up to scrimmage with a play call on offense, and the defense matches up and you just know it's not a good play for the offense against the defensive match up (therein lies the inherent advantage of offensive football - knowledge of the play call) and why the patriots cheated a long time ago, in getting video to prepare for the St. Louis Rams offense in the Super Bowl....

In those cases, you hope that that your offensive concepts and structure is developed to the point where you have multiple options in blocking and moving the ball and can adjust. Or you call a timeout, as either the QB on the field, or a coach on the sideline or in the booth, or you recognize it, and run it anyway. It doesn't happen that often, really, Maybe a couple times a game.

It's just not realistic to think you can get through 65-75 plays a game on average, and expecting that you get the ideal situation where your offensive play call is lined up at scrimmage with a total mismatch on D? You're lucky if that happens more than 1 or 2 times a game, and usually finding that situation on offense, is the art and skill of a great play caller within a sound game plan for an opponent based on strategy and personnel - and that involves thinking play calls 3, 4 steps ahead from whatever is actually happening on the field.

For the goal line play, it was a pass play by Seattle against a pass defense by New England. For me personally, 2nd and short at the goal line, with :26 seconds on the clock in the game, and you need a TD to win, a FG does nothing? That's a passing down every time. Leaves you 2 opportunites to still score. Apparently both Pete Carroll and Bill Belichick think so too.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

This has been entertaining. Thanks for engaging.

I will agree that there are definitely situations pre-snap where limitations exist. You come up to scrimmage with a play call on offense, and the defense matches up and you just know it's not a good play for the offense against the defensive match up (therein lies the inherent advantage of offensive football - knowledge of the play call) and why the patriots cheated a long time ago, in getting video to prepare for the St. Louis Rams offense in the Super Bowl....

In those cases, you hope that that your offensive concepts and structure is developed to the point where you have multiple options in blocking and moving the ball and can adjust. Or you call a timeout, as either the QB on the field, or a coach on the sideline or in the booth, or you recognize it, and run it anyway. It doesn't happen that often, really, Maybe a couple times a game.

It's just not realistic to think you can get through 65-75 plays a game on average, and expecting that you get the ideal situation where your offensive play call is lined up at scrimmage with a total mismatch on D? You're lucky if that happens more than 1 or 2 times a game, and usually finding that situation on offense, is the art and skill of a great play caller within a sound game plan for an opponent based on strategy and personnel - and that involves thinking play calls 3, 4 steps ahead from whatever is actually happening on the field.

For the goal line play, it was a pass play by Seattle against a pass defense by New England. For me personally, 2nd and short at the goal line, with :26 seconds on the clock in the game, and you need a TD to win, a FG does nothing? That's a passing down every time. Leaves you 2 opportunites to still score. Apparently both Pete Carroll and Bill Belichick think so too.

I'll keep this short (that's what she said).

When they snapped the ball on 1st down there was 1:06 left on the clock. You now have about 1 minute plus a TO. More than enough time to run Lynch 3 more times to get 1 yard.

Mistake #1 - Belichick inexplicably not calling TO.

Mistake #2 - Carroll inexplicably letting the entire 40 second play clock run off before snapping 2nd down.

Mistake #3 - Throwing the damn football.

You can wax poetic all you want with your defensive schemes and offensive sets and how players need to execute. It really comes down to those 3 points.

 

[Husky25]

I'll keep this short (that's what she said).

When they snapped the ball on 1st down there was 1:06 left on the clock. You now have about 1 minute plus a TO. More than enough time to run Lynch 3 more times to get 1 yard.

Mistake #1 - Belichick inexplicably not calling TO.

Mistake #2 - Carroll inexplicably letting the entire 40 second play clock run off before snapping 2nd down.

Mistake #3 - Throwing the damn football.

You can wax poetic all you want with your defensive schemes and offensive sets and how players need to execute. It really comes down to those 3 points.

This has been entertaining. Thanks for engaging.

I will agree that there are definitely situations pre-snap where limitations exist. You come up to scrimmage with a play call on offense, and the defense matches up and you just know it's not a good play for the offense against the defensive match up (therein lies the inherent advantage of offensive football - knowledge of the play call) and why the patriots cheated a long time ago, in getting video to prepare for the St. Louis Rams offense in the Super Bowl....

In those cases, you hope that that your offensive concepts and structure is developed to the point where you have multiple options in blocking and moving the ball and can adjust. Or you call a timeout, as either the QB on the field, or a coach on the sideline or in the booth, or you recognize it, and run it anyway. It doesn't happen that often, really, Maybe a couple times a game.

It's just not realistic to think you can get through 65-75 plays a game on average, and expecting that you get the ideal situation where your offensive play call is lined up at scrimmage with a total mismatch on D? You're lucky if that happens more than 1 or 2 times a game, and usually finding that situation on offense, is the art and skill of a great play caller within a sound game plan for an opponent based on strategy and personnel - and that involves thinking play calls 3, 4 steps ahead from whatever is actually happening on the field.

For the goal line play, it was a pass play by Seattle against a pass defense by New England. For me personally, 2nd and short at the goal line, with :26 seconds on the clock in the game, and you need a TD to win, a FG does nothing? That's a passing down every time. Leaves you 2 opportunites to still score. Apparently both Pete Carroll and Bill Belichick think so too.

See what we did over the last 3+ pages there?

We had an intelligent conversation without being outright nasty or negative. It can be done.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

See what we did over the last 3+ pages there?

We had an intelligent conversation without being outright nasty or negative. It can be done.

you 25.

 

[Husky25]

you 25.

No. No, Jimmy. F...U.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Wilson added that he thought the play “looked open enough.”

“When I threw it,” he said, “it was, ‘Touchdown. Second Super Bowl ring. Here we go.'”

After watching the replay 12 or so times, Wilson said he wouldn’t have done anything differently. However, he would like to put the play and the loss behind him.

“Let’s keep the focus on the future, not what’s behind,” he said. “The part that I hate is I have to wait seven months to play another game. I can use this for something else. I can use this for life.”

http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports...wouldnt-have-done-final-play-any-differently/


That's my kind of player. Love it. We need 105 of these characters at UCONN. His team is 1-1 in Super Bowls, and he's their leader and he's not changing a damn thing. He'll take it, and learn from it and apply to the future.