Dallas/Seahawks - The Mistakes

[rpntex]

I, for one, agree with the Seattle offensive Cordinator's call. Simply for the sake of time.

Seattle only have one timeout remaining, and about 30 seconds remaining on the clock. By running the ball on second down, they are forced to use their final timeout if they don't make it. That puts them in a situation where they have to throw the ball on third down.

Bypassing the ball on second down however, they can serve the final timeout. They either score or throw an incompletion, leaving a timeout in their pocket. New England is expecting a run, as evidenced by their defensive set. As others have said, I don't agree with the pattern called. I don't agree with the particular receiver being targeted, either. It was not a bad strategy, but that particular play was not the right call.

Back to the scenario… By conserving their time out, Seattle give themselves the option to run or throw on third down. The defense can't load up and lay for the run, or substitute there nickel package and look for the pass. All of this is possible because Seattle still has a timeout in their pocket. They could theoretically run both third and fourth down. They could theoretically passed both downs. The point is New England would not have known what was coming. Have they chosen to run on second down, and not been successful, knowing one would have known the past was coming up on third down.

 

[waving monkey]

his is what makes the NFL so gut wrenching beautiful.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Sherman's face was priceless....I can see a pic [pick..LOL] coming out on this one...

As for the play calls...running in both situations is what I would vote for....but the season is over, it was over after the refs took it away from us.
Time for me to focus on FA and the Draft...and off season moves...1st up...SIGN DEZ....

It was almost like the Shockey field goal gif.

He sees kick go up. Thinks it's good. Then reaction.



Sherman saw throw. Thought it was good for a split second. Then realized... ITS A PICK!

 

[mahoneybill]

Yep. There's no doubt that interceptions in the red zone will get you beat. It's easy to say that running the ball is the right call once you know the pick was the alternative, but you can just as easily make the case that a different throw would also likely have been successful, and there's no way to disprove it.

At to the 4th and 2 call to Dez, that was a gutsy play and perfect execution by the Cowboys as far as I'm concerned. Not going to second-guess them a bit in that regard. It was a blown review by the officiating staff, plain and simple, and that's something that could happen on a run, too, theoretically, if your review staff is incompetent enough.

Agree. In our case we made the play only to have it overturned. No it wasn't a winning one, but we executed, and Seattle didn't. Carroll gave a weasel answer when he thought about the one time out etc and how he was thinking of using it later. 30 seconds the most I can see being run off on a failed run is 10, as he could have
told the ref, if we don't score we are calling our time out. Then you make the gutsier call. Run again with no time out or pass twice knowing that you lose, and if you score there is no or under 5 seconds left for NE to do anything.

Seattle was very successful gambling in their last years win with a 4th down pass, and even this years SB they passed and scored a TD, their rabbits feet, and cat lives didn't work on this occasion.

 

[mahoneybill]

It was almost like the Shockey field goal gif.

He sees kick go up. Thinks it's good. Then reaction.



Sherman saw throw. Thought it was good for a split second. Then realized... ITS A PICK!

Good memory. Smugness rewarded by ultimate failure.....

 

[Deep_South]

I, for one, agree with the Seattle offensive Cordinator's call. Simply for the sake of time.

Seattle only have one timeout remaining, and about 30 seconds remaining on the clock. By running the ball on second down, they are forced to use their final timeout if they don't make it. That puts them in a situation where they have to throw the ball on third down.

Bypassing the ball on second down however, they can serve the final timeout. They either score or throw an incompletion, leaving a timeout in their pocket. New England is expecting a run, as evidenced by their defensive set. As others have said, I don't agree with the pattern called. I don't agree with the particular receiver being targeted, either. It was not a bad strategy, but that particular play was not the right call.

Back to the scenario… By conserving their time out, Seattle give themselves the option to run or throw on third down. The defense can't load up and lay for the run, or substitute there nickel package and look for the pass. All of this is possible because Seattle still has a timeout in their pocket. They could theoretically run both third and fourth down. They could theoretically passed both downs. The point is New England would not have known what was coming. Have they chosen to run on second down, and not been successful, knowing one would have known the past was coming up on third down.

Yeah, the Seattle OC said the plan was to run all three plays. I don't think he planned on Wilson throwing an interception and if he had called a run he wouldn't have expected Lynch to fumble.

 

[tyke1doe]

I'm just sick of these play-callers trying to "fool" the defenses by doing the unexpected despite the fact that they don't need to. Going against tendencies is all well and good, but not when you're going away from your high percentage bread and butter plays and the game is on the line.

And if they had given it too Lynch, and he didn't make it the criticism would have been "The Seahawks got too predictable. Why didn't they play action."

Everyone's an expert and can call the perfect play after the fact.

And so it goes. ...

 

[ElGatoGrande]

And if they had given it too Lynch, and he didn't make it the criticism would have been "The Seahawks got too predictable. Why didn't they play action."

Everyone's an expert and can call the perfect play after the fact.

And so it goes. ...

Only the idiots would say that,,, no offense.

 

[tyke1doe]

Only the idiots would say that,,, no offense.

Of course, you say that now because the pass play didn't work. But I've heard similar comments even from Cowboys fans when we predictably handed the ball off on third and short and got stuffed. "Why didn't we do play action?" "Why didn't we throw it up to Dez?" Yada, yada, yada.

Everyone's an expert after-the-fact. Everyone calls the right play when they're relaxing on their couches with the only pressure being their teeth chomping down on Doritos as they watch the game from their comfy dens or living rooms.

The fan doesn't have to be the player. So they get to make the calls absent the pressures of a game. And they're always right. It's the whole fantasy football syndrome.

 

[DenCWBY]

Personally I go jumbo and feed the "beast". However, calling a pass play would have been ok if it was combined with Wilson rolling out and throwing a high percentage pass. A slant on the one is a horrible decision. It's beyond stupid.

The Cowboys decision was gutsy, and not nearly as dumb and it was an entirely different scenario. I take Bryant one on one with Shields all day every day.

After thinking about it. I line up Beast with a fullback in the backfield with QB under center and call a QB sneak, having Beast and FB pushing Wilson from behind to go in. You will not lose any yards and Wilson is crafty/quick enough to get in. With Beast and FB pushing the pile from behind, I like my chances of scoring.
It's easy to 2nd guess at this point but when your at 1 yrd line with a mobile QB, there are tons of options beside a slant in traffic.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Seattle only have one timeout remaining, and about 30 seconds remaining on the clock. By running the ball on second down, they are forced to use their final timeout if they don't make it.

Why would they be forced to call a time out? Just call 2 plays in the huddle on 2nd down. Run the ball on 2nd down and if they don't make it line up immediately and run it on 3rd down. You can't run two running plays from the 1 yard line then call a time out for 4th down if needed?

 

[fivetwos]

Wow.

Sack Elway to make it 3rd and 18, then allow a 20 yard completion on the next play.

That had to sting a bit.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I am not an offensive coordinator. I realize that comes as a complete shock to most of you who have known me over the years. But this is my take.

I sometimes wonder why it is coordinators don't prepare for situational football in a way that matches power for power.

Take for instance the 4th and 2 the Cowboys ended up throwing deep to Dez. It was brought up in this thread Green bay stacked the line with nine men. So, why would a team not work on that scenario for the precise time they needed to beat power with power?

A beast formation with Parnell and Clutts in the backfield with Murray, a TE and one receiver out wide. You still have the option of Dez. But create a crease and allow Murray to daylight. No guarantees. But then that deep pass had no guarantees either.

Or short yardage, you go four wides and Murray in the backfield. The defense demands they sit on the run, you have two hot routes for the short pass and Romo just finds the open guy.

Again, I am not a coordinator. And if Dez was awarded the catch he did make, Dallas punches the ball into the endzone and gives Rodgers the ball back with three minutes plus and only needing a field goal to win.

Someone said in this thread that we had been stopped and the offense was not having any success. But if that is the case, then we would not win anyway.

The championship drive is when you succeed and move the ball and do what needs doing. You earn your stripes.

Game management and clock management, especially in a game where the guy who has the ball last may be the guy who scores the winning TD, calls for all considerations be focus on being thew last guy with the ball.

One last point. Marinelli did not blitz Rodgers when he was lame in the first half. I think that was a mistake. A beat down on Rodgers when he was out of sync would have him looking over hos shoulder. And even Brady, who now is being anointed the greatest of all by the press showed if you bytch slap the QB enough, he starts to think about his face and not the play.

But that is just my opinion. I have been wrong at least fine times today. So says the female that made a poor life choice and decided to live with me as uttered..

 

[TwoDeep3]

Wow.

Sack Elway to make it 3rd and 18, then allow a 20 yard completion on the next play.

That had to sting a bit.

Kinda reminds you of a guy who plays in Dallas.

 

[THEHEREAFTER]

4th and 2 at the 33 is a little different than 2nd and goal at the half yard line? I love the call we made. 1 on 1 to Dez in that circumstance is like stealing. Just didn't work out for us.

 

[JDSmith]

Take for instance the 4th and 2 the Cowboys ended up throwing deep to Dez. It was brought up in this thread Green bay stacked the line with nine men. So, why would a team not work on that scenario for the precise time they needed to beat power with power?

It seems very rare when you face a situation where you absolutely have to beat power with power. Because in order for a team to sell out in one area, their power, they have to leave an opening somewhere else, their weakness. If they want to triple cover Dez they have less guys available to stop the run and cover other people. If they want to throw 9 guys at the LoS to stop Murray they have to single Dez or leave someone uncovered. So it makes more sense IMO to identify the area they have left exposed, and exploit that mismatch. The pass to Dez is the perfect example. GB sold out on the run, Romo threw it to Dez and we all know that was a catch. Running with Murray into a 9 man front would likely not have netted 2 yards, or at least the odds of success were probably no better than the odds of completing a pass to Dez when he's being singled by a guy who's 4 inches shorter and not as athletic.

I think that rather than spending the time and effort on beating power with power, the coordinators look for and develop the ability to identify the weakness created by that power, and ways to use that weakness advantageously.

 

[CF74]

Dallas was robbed, Seattle screwed themselves...

 

[rpntex]

Why would they be forced to call a time out? Just call 2 plays in the huddle on 2nd down. Run the ball on 2nd down and if they don't make it line up immediately and run it on 3rd down. You can't run two running plays from the 1 yard line then call a time out for 4th down if needed?

You do realize that the New England defenders would be in no hurry to get up off the ballcarrier, right? The ball was snapped at :26. Yo're talking a good 4-6 seconds to run a play, and at least another 10 to unpile (remember, Seattle ran :24 seconds off thre clock earlier in the drive between plays after a modest gain - it took that long to get everyone set). No, I believe - and it's just my opinion - that you leave yourself plenty of time as well as a TO wjen you're in that situation.

Coaches think more than just the one call at a time. I can promise you that the playcall on 2nd down was made with 3rd and 4th down in mind. I would bet tha all three playcalls were scripted, with a penalty of loss of yardage being the only thing that would make them deviate from the script. By passing there, they could run on both 3rd and 4th downs, which I assume they would be doing AND would have the luxury to do since they still had the TO in their pocket. BUT, New England couldn't sell out against either run or pass there, because of the TO left. Had Seatlle run on 2nd down and failed, it would almost certainly mean a pass was coming on 3rd down, and the Pats could sell out to stop it.

In the grand scheme of things, taking the entire series into account, the passing strategy wasn't a bad idea. It WAS a bad play selection, however. That route, to a receiver with 18 career catches, was what made that playcall a poor one - not the decision to throw the ball in general.

 

[JoeKing]

Seattle's slant play on the goal line was no worse a call than when Dallas did the shuffle toss to Witten on the goal line. The major difference is Dallas scored.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

You do realize that the New England defenders would be in no hurry to get up off the ballcarrier, right? The ball was snapped at :26. Yo're talking a good 4-6 seconds to run a play, and at least another 10 to unpile (remember, Seattle ran :24 seconds off thre clock earlier in the drive between plays after a modest gain - it took that long to get everyone set). No, I believe - and it's just my opinion - that you leave yourself plenty of time as well as a TO wjen you're in that situation.

Coaches think more than just the one call at a time. I can promise you that the playcall on 2nd down was made with 3rd and 4th down in mind. I would bet tha all three playcalls were scripted, with a penalty of loss of yardage being the only thing that would make them deviate from the script. By passing there, they could run on both 3rd and 4th downs, which I assume they would be doing AND would have the luxury to do since they still had the TO in their pocket. BUT, New England couldn't sell out against either run or pass there, because of the TO left. Had Seatlle run on 2nd down and failed, it would almost certainly mean a pass was coming on 3rd down, and the Pats could sell out to stop it.

In the grand scheme of things, taking the entire series into account, the passing strategy wasn't a bad idea. It WAS a bad play selection, however. That route, to a receiver with 18 career catches, was what made that playcall a poor one - not the decision to throw the ball in general.

If I was to call a pass play it would have been some thing with a roll out. Get the ball out of traffic and at the very least let Wilson try to run it in if every one was covered. I'm ok if you are going to pass but a slant in the middle of traffic from the 1? Stupid.