Superbowl AdsFollow

I still stand by the position that time clearly wasn't the factor, so obsessing over average times in the past doesn't tell us anything about the thought process involved. Carroll didn't call a pass play because he didn't think he could run 3 run plays in the time he had

He did, in fact. Can we be done with this now?



http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/2015/02/02/pete-carrolls-postgame-quotes-baffling-seahawks-final-play/32513/

No. He did not. He chose to burn 40 seconds off the clock between the previous Lynch run (1:06) and the second down pass that resulted in interception (:26). Presumably because he didn't want to score with enough time on the clock to allow the Patriot to score as well. Point being that he choose to do that for reasons other than not actually having enough time to run 3 run plays. He absolutely could have chosen a run play and started it earlier and left himself plenty of time to run two more (especially with a time out at his disposal).

This does not preclude him wanting to stop the clock after already burning that 40 seconds off. But the question isn't whether he threw a pass play to stop the clock but whether he had enough time to run three run plays. He did. He choose to burn time first, then throw a pass to stop the clock. That was a choice made entire for the purpose of minimizing the possible time he might leave to the Patriots. It had *nothing* to do with whether he actually had enough time to run three run plays if he wanted to.

Edited, Feb 6th 2015 5:20pm by gbaji

Smash. You have an amazingly bad habit of switching the words and logic around and arguing in reverse. I said that he had enough time to run three run plays. You countered with "but he threw a pass to stop the clock". I get that. But that doesn't actually disprove the words I actually said. You're not arguing that he could not have run three run plays, but why he chose to run a pass play. That's not actually the same thing and proving one does not disprove the other.

Sigh. But he made the choice to burn the clock first Smash. He did that intending to then use a pass play to stop the clock. That was a choice. It was not a necessity. He absolutely had the time to run three run plays if that was what he wanted to do.

Oh, sure. Let's be clear, though. That was never, ever, ever, ever your argument and hasn't entered the conversation until just now.

The Seahawks were really only in the position to have a chance there because of some physics fluke that ended with the receiver able to complete the pass anyway.

Except in post #75. I'll admit that I got caught up in the "they couldn't have run three run plays in 30 seconds bit". I thought everyone else remembered that they sat there burning a ton of clock off prior to running that second down play, so I assumed that we were all just arguing kind of a worst case scenario. Sometimes I forget that I have to explicitly state that I'm already giving a ton of ground on a position. I tend to skip right past "even if they didn't burn off 40 seconds which they could have used" because I assume everyone else gets that we're really just arguing a minor side hypothetical.

Yeah. I happen to also think you can run 3 run plays in 26 seconds with one time out left when you're one yard from the goal. That's a purely academic argument, but it's still one I'll argue. But that does not change the fact that if we're actually arguing all of the things Carroll could have done differently, that "not burn that 40 seconds" should be included.


Look. I've already stated (many many times) that I agree with Carroll's decision to burn the time down and then run a pass play. But this does not mean that I don't also think that he could have run 3 run plays in the remaining 26 seconds, or that he could have chosen not to burn the clock and give himself more time to do run plays if he'd wanted to, and it absolutely does not mean that I don't also think that the pass play he choose was a terrible choice to make in that situation.

You get that none of these are contradictory, right? This is not an either-or/pick-one situation. All of those statements can be true. All of those can be argued, by the same person, in the same thread.

You know what smash, Gbaji has a point. There were a whole bunch of plays in the last quarter that could have been played quite a bit faster. Carrol could have saved minutes of time, which you can clearly use to run the ball three times.

No, it would have been very unlikely he would have been able to run three running plays.

Edited, Feb 8th 2015 8:43am by Xsarus

This is as exciting as watching them play.