...yeah, the question is not whether they really needed to cheat to win, but whether or not they cheated period. And like I said, if they did indeed tamper with the balls they should be penalized but since they are the Champs it will make Goodell's decision that much harder.
Nobody & I mean N O B O D Y agreed with that call to pass the ball. Every sportscaster I listened to, every sportswriter I read, all the ex pros on Sports center ALL agreed it was a foolish play. So yeah Ron even if that pass was completed the call IMO would have still been questioned. Of course not to the extent that its being questioned now but still questioned. Seriously 3 downs (because you know it was going to be a 4 & out) to go 1 yard with NO CHANCE of an interception & you put the ball in the air?
...I think I've already addressed that...like I said, it gives "experts" and novices and bloggers and message boarders something to cackle about. ...I'll ask again, if Wilson and the receiver had executed that play properly would we be discussing this?...hell no we wouldn't, which again means that the problem is not so much the play that was called but instead, the poor way it was executed. ...I just think it's silly to focus so much on Seattle's failure instead of what the Pats accomplished. Their offense showed up in the 4th quarter, as did their defense. The Sea Hawks' last 4 possessions resulted in punt, punt, punt, interception...The Patriots fully deserved to win that game.
Oh I'm not looking to take anything away from the Pats, they played an awesome game & executed when they needed to. It was a great game & a brain freeze on the part of Carroll shouldn't take away from that. Over all even with the questionable final play it was the best super bowl I've seen in years.
This article states it better than I probably can; "1) The matchup was wrong for a Seahawks run play According to Seahawks coach Pete Carroll, the matchup was all wrong for a run play on 2nd down. The Patriots sent in a goal line defense, while the Seahawks had a three wide receiver setup. As a result, a quick pass play made more sense than a run play: We went to three receivers, they sent in their goal-line people. We had plenty of downs and timeouts. We really didn’t want to run against their goal-line group right there. We would have subbed for third or fourth down. We would have used our timeout and would have taken those shots. That’s it. We call the play. 2) The Seahawks didn’t have enough time for three run plays When Pete Carroll made his call, there were barely 30 seconds left in the game, and the Seahawks had only one timeout. In all likelihood, they just didn’t have time for three run plays in under 30 seconds with only one timeout left. If they needed all three plays to get into the end zone, the Seahawks were going to have to pass the ball on one of them. When you combine that time restraint with the facts that the Seahawks had pass personnel on the field after the 1st down call and that the Patriots had a goal line, run defense on the field, the pass call makes a little more sense. 3) Marshawn Lynch hadn’t performed well from the 1-yard line this season According to ESPN, Marshawn “Beast Mode” Lynch’s stats from the 1-yard line this season weren’t great. Up until the Super Bowl, the Seahawks had run nine plays from their opponent’s 1-yard line. They ran the ball seven times and passed it twice. They scored a touchdown on three of those run plays (a 43% TD conversion rate), and they scored a touchdown on one of the pass plays (a 50% TD conversion rate). From ESPN.com: Three plays to win it and make Wilson the first quarterback in history to win two Super Bowls in his first three NFL seasons. Three plays to give Wilson his 16th comeback win as the Seattle quarterback and his sixth of the season. The fairy tale changed to a nightmare on one seemingly senseless play. This was the 10th time this season the Seahawks had a play at their opponents’ 1-yard line. They had rushed the ball on seven of the previous nine such chances. They scored a touchdown on three of the seven runs and one of the two dropbacks. Lynch had five rushes from the 1-yard line this season for minus-1 yard and one touchdown. This time, they threw it into a crowded middle of the field with everything on the line. Why did Pete Carroll run a pass play? Throughout the season, the Seahawks performed better with pass plays than run plays from the 1-yard line, and Marshawn Lynch hadn’t performed well that close to the end zone. The Seahawks didn’t have the right matchup for a run play on 2nd down. And given the amount of time left in the game, Seattle didn’t have time to run three run plays in a row. They were going to have to pass it at least once if they needed all three plays to score a touchdown. In hindsight, the pass play call obviously looks horrible, but those three reasons explain why Pete Carroll might have made that call to pass on 2nd down, and why that play call might not have been completely bonkers. If anything, it wasn’t a pass play itself that was a bad idea, but that pass play. If you’re worried about the defense jamming the middle with a goal line defense, then why on earth would you call an inside slant? And why would you call it against a defense that would likely jam the receivers right as they came off the line? A Russell Wilson bootleg, a short out route, or a quick slant to the outside (any of which could have been combined with play-action) might have made a lot more sense if you were set on doing a pass play. Sure, a pass call itself actually does make a lot of sense, but the particular play that Pete Carroll called was incredibly risky, and the Seahawks paid the price."
The last paragraph sums it up perfectly if you're going to be intent on passing the ball in that situation. As Belichick said after the game they were ready for either a pass or run. It wasn't a full blown goal line package. They also had a corner back set to guard against the pass. In other words the best coach in the game as ready for whatever.
One IMO, couldn't be more articulate in all angles of thought on that play. I only wish he'd of thrown it away. I would of had no problem at all, on 2nd down with a goal life defense, to hit the outside corner with an over shoulder back slant outside pass. Had any pass play of worked, then we'd not be having this discussion. Tho' it reminded me of those 60s Packers, who would of probably did an outside pulling Guards Sweep, with one helluva hard nosed Jim Taylor, and Golden Boy hopping over downed defense men. Tho' Lombardi used that play more for a 10-20 or possibly more run. Tho' he'd use it on occasion, when only yards from the Goal line. Seemed like nothing could stop that Mack Truck Alley Sweeper of Huge Open Hole, like a back alleyway. Never really any telling what Montana would of pulled out of his hat, or Bill. I guess a potpourri of you name it, or as much, a custom special practiced play, made just for this type, and time of the game play,.
Pass wise I would've went play action. Worst case you toss it out of the end zone and save your final time out. Best case maybe the middle opens up for Wilson, maybe he can role out and run it in or he simply finds an open receiver.
"poor man's Michael Vick" That's a good one.....lol...funny. Wilson has thrown for over 3000 yds in his first three seasons. Vick has managed to do it just twice. I believe Wilson is the only QB in history to pass for 3000 yds and run for at least 800 yds (a good amount for many RBs) in the same season. Vick is a 56% career passer with a TD/INT ratio of 131/87. Wilson is 63.4% with a TD/INT ratio of 72/26..... approx 3-1. Vick has averaged 6.2 yds per carry - Wilson 6.4 Wilson is a QB first, and uses his running ability as a complimentary weapon.... ....Vick is a RB masquerading as an out of control QB. Have your jollies with Wilson's crushing Super Bowl INT....but let's not get crazy. IMO, If they were to replace Lynch with some other "pretty good" non featured RB, but added a top flight receiver or tight end, his all around QB ability will probably show even more and get better. And yes, I agree he threw a stinker in the end zone.
After seeing the headlines from various papers just in NY alone I can only imagine what the Seattle papers had to say. New York Post....SUPERBAD! "Carroll's moronic play call at end gift wraps Pats 4th title" New York Daily News....AIR-HEADS! "Seattle's senseless goal-line pass leads to INT & Patroit championship".
Kearse grabs a miracle which should motivate his team to win, like Suggs. However, you have Lynch wondering why Wilson threw a ball akin to driving a mack truck into a mousehole. Second down, plenty of time, a timeout and a RB with complete dominance staring at Brady spining and pump fistin.
...as DH said, "give us dirty laundry"...because that's the American way...let's all play the blame game and point fingers at someone...I'm surprised that the jackals are not calling for Carroll to be fired. ...you said earlier that you were "not taking anything away from the Pats"... sure seems like it to me.
I have a silly question. When was the last time you saw a quick slant INT? ..that DB made a spectacular play.
Play action works there 9 out of 10. I hear the argument that Carrol stayed true to himself and played cute but this is the Super Bowl with not much time left and a championship right there for you. I just don't get it.
...again, outcome based armchair QBing usually end up like this. ...for the last 3 years combined, the rate at which teams throw an interception from the 1 yard line 1.9%...the rate of fumbling from the 1 yard line is 1.7%.
