|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
-1 You cite an article that explains Carroll's coaching philosophy and then you say not everyone understands it? Well, if they read the article, they should understand it, right? http://seattletimes.com/html/seahawk...awks03xml.html So now my statement is even MORE true: "I just think it's hypocritical (not you) for anybody (Seattle fan or not) to say one call was good and the other call was bad when the article (according to Pete Carroll) said that both calls were born from the same philosophy." |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
EVERYONE WHO HAS READ THE ARTICLE ABOUT PETE CARROLL'S COACHING PHILOSOPHY AND WHO UNDERSTANDS IT, YET STILL THINKS THAT ONE PLAY WAS STUPID AND THE OTHER WAS SMART, AND WHO AGREES THAT THEY WOULD PREFER THAT PETE CARROLL CONTINUE TO IMPLEMENT HIS COACHING AND PLAY-CALLING PHILOSOPHY AS OPPOSED TO THEIR OWN..... ......IS A HYPOCRITE. Will that do? Because I would agree that the above (all caps stuff) is true. But quite frankly, I really don't care if some Seattle fans are hypocrites or not. All the ones I've run into have been quite pleasant, and I think we could use more of that and less of the bashing;i.e-let them be. They are miserable - isn't that enough for you?
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I guess Bill and I are the only ones that have ran into the arrogant Seahawks fans. They must all be in Texas
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
I have no idea who you and Bill are running into in Texas. And I don't get the eye-rolling thing either. If you just zinged me, I missed it while trying to have a discussion.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I do think that Pete is back-tracking, double-speaking, and contradicting himself somewhat, but I see this more as damage control than the expression of some sort of lotus-positioned, palms extended upward, chanting philosophy. The decision in the first half to go for the end-zone was one that was not that high risk, IMO. My take is that if he runs that same play 100 times, 90 times it results in a field goal after an incomplete pass or scramble out of bounds; 5 times there’s a TD, 3 times a pick and twice stopped short with time expired. However you want to tweak those I still think Carroll played the percentages correctly. Either way, what he is saying is I don’t care about the clock-- I’m playing for the TD. By contrast, at the end of the game his decision really had nothing to do with the clock, and his statements to the contrary do not ring true. Any mention that he didn’t want to give the ball back to Brady with less than 30 seconds left is insulting to his defense, so he recanted or downplayed that once he knew that it showed no confidence in his team. Any thought that he had to pass to get the maximum # of plays is weak, and I don’t think he believes it. They could have run the ball 3 more times if need be, given their timeout, or could have mixed in a pass or two on third and/or fourth down. So his excuses are made up after the fact, IMO. In any event, whatever concern he had about the clock in the second half was certainly absent in the first half. So now we are left to wonder why that play call? He claims that it was because of matchups by the defense, but: a) it is not clear that the Pats were in a strict goal-line defense that would have thwarted a Lynch run; and b) even if they were, as you and others have noted a play action or something that provided options was much more in order than a play that carried such disastrous potential. Was it in line with his play-calling “philosophy”? I don’t know, but I doubt it--there, maybe I am now suggesting that it was inconsistent. Seattle runs the ball a lot, and rightfully so–good production with very low risk of fumble. They also throw a lot of deeper balls, which have a lower percentage of success than the slants and quick outs but also have a lower chance of abject failure (interception). This play did not fit their pattern at all.
__________________
If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other. - Ulysses S. Grant, military commander, 18th US President. Last edited by nolemmings; 02-03-2015 at 05:49 PM. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Now this is pur stupidity | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 13 | 01-29-2006 07:38 PM |
stupidity | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 12 | 10-24-2005 01:30 AM |
Stupidity at work | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 6 | 11-28-2004 06:18 AM |
Ebay's stupidity, (again) | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 02-05-2003 12:17 PM |
good article about the stupidity of the veteran's committee | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 0 | 01-09-2003 01:53 PM |