Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy
You're only saying the play call at the half wasn't bad because it worked out. What if it hadn't worked out? Is it still a good call then?
Just because a play call works out doesn't make it a good call. Likewise, just because a play call doesn't work out make it a bad call.
Edited to add: What if the interception near the end of the game would have been a Seahawks TD instead? Is it still a bad play call then or a good play call? I'm confused how you distinguish between the two???  |
I'm not sure if this is addressed to me, but if so.. no I am not, and no I am not. I feel like I know the game relatively well.. I've watched it all my life, played it much of my life... even now have a NFL coach in the family as an in law. This being said, I think I know myself well enough to know when I like or dislike a call, independent of outcome.
If Carroll and the Seahawks are confident Wilson will get rid of the ball within 2-3 seconds, I'm all for it. Most teams would not trust their O to execute and I know I wouldn't trust Colin Kaepernick in that situation, but I can definitely see why the Hawks' staff trusts Wilson. If it doesn't work, I still respect their willingness to show that confidence in their players... similar to how I respect Osborne's going for 2 in that Orange Bowl. And whether it works or not, I'm sure the players appreciate their coaches' trust as well.
At the end of the game, I'm pretty much OK with their passing (if they had needed and gotten all 4 downs, I'd guess 1 or 2 are passes), but in that situation, I think they failed to capitalize on a tremendous opportunity by not using play action. If you get one guy to bite, you have a wide open receiver. Their earlier TD pass to Baldwin (though he was screened open by the ref) is a great example... I formation, play fake, 2-3 guys bite up on the run and are non factors on the play. Why not revisit that general concept when at the 1???
If comments not addressed to me.. disregard my post