Was a little surprised that there was agreement by everyone around the table on what they'd have rather seen McCarthy choose to do...
... because I think McCarthy had two very justifiable objectives.
Yes, defending a head coach I am... dangerous as that can be.
First, he was determined to get points. The almost
last thing he wanted was to leave any chance that SEA could tie the game on a FG. So, once you make that decision, you've effectively established, then, you're definitely going for the FG on 4th down, no matter what happens on 3rd (ie, short of a first down or a TD).
Second, yes, you could run the ball on 3rd down to try to get the 1st. Or, you could take a shot at the end zone and pretty much win the game then and there.
I have zero problems with taking a shot at winning the game. Didn't work out, but the decision itself was stout.
Broaddus and Eagleton both passionately advocated for running the ball on both downs, and worst-case, turning the ball over on downs but having ran the clock to something in the neighborhood of 60 seconds left. Walker, not as passionate, but agreed.
Good heavens no.
That's still too much time, and especially when one of their weapons has burned you all night long with his speed... they could get to FG position very easily in that situation.
But what's crazy to me is they talk like it was/is so difficult for them to figure out McCarthy's thinking. Disagree, that's fine. But this wasn't rocket science. Even if it turned out to be a bad decision... and it didn't, of course... it was not hard to decipher the line of reason.
