Topic: I still can't understand it. On the 1-yardline, 3 downs left, 1 timeout left. Pass the ball?
Posted by .
Unregistered


. said: An incomplete pass stops the game clock. An unsuccessful run does not. A timeout also stops the clock, and Seattle only had one timeout left. So if the Seahawks had run on second down and failed to get a touchdown, they would have had to call timeout.


Now, it's third down, and they have no timeouts left. So if they run on third and fail, the game is over. But if they pass on third and fail, the clock will stop, and they can run another play. So they basically have to pass on third, and the New England defense knows they have to pass.

By contrast, if you throw on second down and fail, the clock stops. Now it's third down, and you still have your time out. That means you could run on third, fail, and use the timeout to stop the clock and run another play on fourth down. That means New England has to defend against both the pass and the run, which puts Seattle in a more advantageous strategic position than they would be had they run and failed.

Two many words


Posted by .
Unregistered


Too bad so sad. :lol:


Posted by .
Unregistered


So why didn't he throw it to one of his own guys?


Posted by .
Unregistered


Are you retards still obsessing over a stupid football game?

God damn some people are truly ignorant and undeserving of life.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said: An incomplete pass stops the game clock. An unsuccessful run does not. A timeout also stops the clock, and Seattle only had one timeout left. So if the Seahawks had run on second down and failed to get a touchdown, they would have had to call timeout.


Now, it's third down, and they have no timeouts left. So if they run on third and fail, the game is over. But if they pass on third and fail, the clock will stop, and they can run another play. So they basically have to pass on third, and the New England defense knows they have to pass.

By contrast, if you throw on second down and fail, the clock stops. Now it's third down, and you still have your time out. That means you could run on third, fail, and use the timeout to stop the clock and run another play on fourth down. That means New England has to defend against both the pass and the run, which puts Seattle in a more advantageous strategic position than they would be had they run and failed.

­Your theory is flawed. Seattle had 1:06 left on the clock at the 1 yd line, plenty for 3 running plays using the 1 timeout they had left. Instead they let the clock run down to 26 seconds so the Patriots wouldn't have much time left after the Hawks scored.  Worst call ever. Even if it succeeded I'd think the same thing.


Posted by .
Unregistered


"We were going to win the game," Carroll said.

He meant on this pass play to oblivion. If the throw ended up an incompletion, Carroll figured it was no biggie.
"It's not the right matchup for us to run the football," he said, "so on second down we were throwing the ball really to kind of waste that play."
Yes, Carroll actually said that. With less than half a minute to play down 28-24 in a Super Bowl, he thought it was sound strategy to kinda, sorta waste a play. Lynch was ready to clean up the mess, anyway.


Posted by .
Unregistered


I'm broken up over this.......BROKEN
\
:lib:


Clarence, come duck the dark outta me
\
:lib:


Posted by .
Unregistered




//
Remember this call--the brett favre interception when the vikings were driving and in field goal range in the final seconds of the 2009 nfc championchip game against new orleans?  

The same guy--DERELL BEVELL--was responsible for both calls.


WHY WOULD YOU PONDER PASSING??!!
/

:manlet:


Posted by .
Unregistered


Carroll tried to out streetsmart Belichick.

He'll think we are going to run it in so fuck him
\
:winner:


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said: An incomplete pass stops the game clock. An unsuccessful run does not. A timeout also stops the clock, and Seattle only had one timeout left. So if the Seahawks had run on second down and failed to get a touchdown, they would have had to call timeout.


Now, it's third down, and they have no timeouts left. So if they run on third and fail, the game is over. But if they pass on third and fail, the clock will stop, and they can run another play. So they basically have to pass on third, and the New England defense knows they have to pass.

By contrast, if you throw on second down and fail, the clock stops. Now it's third down, and you still have your time out. That means you could run on third, fail, and use the timeout to stop the clock and run another play on fourth down. That means New England has to defend against both the pass and the run, which puts Seattle in a more advantageous strategic position than they would be had they run and failed.

­They had 1:06 left on the 4 yard line. Plenty of time to run it 4 times if they hustled back to the line. Maybe include a pass near the sidelines where the receiver went out of bounds to keep NE honest. Anyway, with your theory which is sensible, that pass in the middle was idiotic. A corner of the end zone pass to a tight end sounds better.


Posted by Yuo Equal Fag
Unregistered


:lol: :fag:              :c3po:


Posted by Divorce Field
Unregistered


Russell Wilson and Pete Carroll are breaking up. :lol:



Quick Reply
Moniker:
 

Registration Required

Thank you for your vote!

But in order to make it count, you must be a registered user.

Log In | Register | Close