OT: Carrollfreude?

Submitted by YoungGeezy on February 1st, 2015 at 11:04 PM

Anyone else feel like this is karma for Pete Carroll? I can't help but still be bitter about the last couple of Rose Bowls we lost to him and he royally screwed the Trojans on the way out.

Most are calling the goal line play the worst call in the history of football, which might be hyperbole, but I can't say I feel bad for him.

Edit: Not Hyperbole. It was a horrendous call.

Comments

Jmilan

February 1st, 2015 at 11:07 PM ^

Well if karma is winning a super bowl one year and going back and almost winning another one than sign me up. I think he's a scumbag but the patriots pulled it out with come clutch plays at the end.

PrimeChronic

February 1st, 2015 at 11:08 PM ^

Definitely the worst call I can remember in playoffs, at least that decided a game.

But really if Brady would have lost another one after the 2nd luckiest catch ever in Super Bowl history... that would have SUCKED.

It's karma.

OccaM

February 1st, 2015 at 11:08 PM ^

Carroll is a great coach, but I just don't understand that call at all.

I've never had such a high/low sports moment like that back to back... 

 

Crazy decision on the Seahawks part. 

remdog

February 2nd, 2015 at 12:07 AM ^

trailing 19-11 (within one score) in the 4th quarter and ultimately only losing by two touchdowns is being "absolutely obliterated?

Michigan almost certainly had a huge letdown after just coming extremely close to winning their biggest game in many years and going to the national championship in 2007.  Yet they were within one score of USC in the fourth quarter of the Rose Bowl after playing unusually crappy.  They were very talented and very capable of beating USC.  And they were not "absolutely obliterated."

 

 

Yeoman

February 2nd, 2015 at 12:39 AM ^

Maybe we didn't really understand the phrase yet back in '06, but in the last seven years we've gotten some experience with "absolutely obliterated" and that wasn't it.

HokelessRomantic

February 2nd, 2015 at 10:06 AM ^

And it was never even close. Don't fool yourself. That late TD by Breaston to get it within 8 was USC getting bored with us. We were obliterated. It was never in doubt that we would lose that game. It was a classic Carr game. Flat and outplayed.

westwardwolverine

February 1st, 2015 at 11:10 PM ^

It was the worst call in the history of the NFL. Its not hyperbole. 

Lynch had 24 carries. He did not have a single negative play within those 24 carries. He did have two that counted as no gain, but he surely gained something on them. 

Given those numbers and given what we've seen from Lynch all year, the stage of the game and the stakes the playcall has to be the worst ever.

turtleboy

February 2nd, 2015 at 12:04 AM ^

Seattle fans have to be gutted. A split second before they're celebrating winning the super bowl. Everybody watching knew you hand it off to lynch one more time and it's game. Then they blink and the pats have the ball, game over, you lost. What a crazy gut wrenching ending for them. To be fair, though, that's how most of Seattle's games end, they're just usually winning that way, instead of being on the receiving end

Perkis-Size Me

February 1st, 2015 at 11:11 PM ^

Honestly, why you don't run Marshawn Lynch right up the gut is beyond me. He's as much a sure thing in this league as there will ever be at the RB position, and even if he doesn't punch it in, you still keep the clock going and give Brady less time to work with.

Carroll single handedly cost Seattle a second straight Super Bowl. He could win another few in his time there, but he will always be criticized for making that call. Rightfully so.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

coldnjl

February 2nd, 2015 at 7:59 AM ^

Since Carroll is the head coach and not the offensive coordinator (Derrell Bevell is), nor is he an offensive guy. You pointing him out for single-handedly costing him the game is asinine. 

Personally, I don't think it was a horrible call. Those plays are usually lower risk, and  it would have been open except for a damn good read and react by Butler. Giving it to Lynch may have been a good idea, but if he didn't get in, you may have been hurting more for time. Just my opinion.

pkatz

February 2nd, 2015 at 8:42 AM ^

You can have your opinion, but I think you are in the smallest of minorities - it was a bad call to throw a slant when the defense is packed at the line. Run the ball, throw a fade to the corner or rollout Wilson, but you do NOT throw a slant there.

Blue Mike

February 2nd, 2015 at 10:41 AM ^

And everyone on the internet is suffering from severe hindsight on the call.  What happens if they run Lynch and he gets stopped?  NE is loading up for the run, probably has a run blitz call on, and if Lynch does get stopped, you have to call timeout and now your stuck having to throw when NE knows you have to throw.  By throwing on 2nd down, you keep the timeout and keep Lynch involved.

I'm sure if Bevell knew that the undrafted rookie free-agent CB would make the perfect counter-play to the call and intercept it (not just knock it down with all of the traffic in the middle), he'd have called something else.

Was it a risky move?  Sure, but everybody celebrates Carroll as a genius if it works.  

Zarniwoop

February 1st, 2015 at 11:11 PM ^

I am thrilled for Brady and the other UM guys.

But I really dislike the patriots otherwise.

And it was THE worst call of the super bowl era. Without it, the pats almost certainly lose.

Felix.M.Blue

February 1st, 2015 at 11:14 PM ^

Don't feel bad for him or any of the Seahawks.

They showed what kind of team they are the play after that pick.

The only thing better would have been Lynch fumbling the ball and the Pats taking it back for a TD in that situation.

kb

February 1st, 2015 at 11:15 PM ^

the play call was probably if they threw an incompletion they would run Lynch on the next down.....I don't think they were counting on an interception especially from a guy who doesn't throw many. Bad decision in hindsight I guess.

kb

February 1st, 2015 at 11:30 PM ^

I don't think we are giving enough credit to the guy (an undrafted rookie) who made a crazy interception against one of the hardest plays to defend in football.

Blue Mike

February 2nd, 2015 at 10:46 AM ^

The real mistake Carroll made was bleeding so much time off the clock after the 1st down run.  He should have had the 2nd down call ready (they called timeout before the 1st down call) and gone hurry up.  NE wouldn't get to substitute or has to call a timeout.  

Either way, Carroll forced his own hand by letting the clock run down.  He played it like the touchdown was guaranteed and he got to choose how much time would be left afterward.  Never play the game like anything is guaranteed.  Make sure you score, then trust your defense to stop the other team, no matter how much time is left.

ML88

February 2nd, 2015 at 1:12 PM ^

This is true, but you have to keep in mind that if he kept more time on the clock and punched it in immediately, he is giving Tom Brady and the Pats more time to try to march it down the field, and all they would have needed was a field goal to tie and send it into overtime.

Carroll was interviewed after the game and specifically said it was his decision to throw on second down because he knew if they didnt get it, the clock would stop, and they would try to punch it in on third down. If they didnt punch it in on third down, they would use their last timeout and then try again on fourth down. I can understand his logic, but still not a good call. Then again, he is likely taking the blame and covering for someone else's poor decision...

Blue in St Lou

February 1st, 2015 at 11:20 PM ^

they had a timeout.  If Lynch doesn't make it, they call a t.o., and either run him again or throw a pass and run him on 4th down.

Of course, I remember when Notre Dame ran it up the middle against us on the goal line four straight times, didn't make it, and lost.

Muttley

February 2nd, 2015 at 1:16 AM ^

for that bizzarro call would be Carroll forcing the Patriots to defend both the run & the pass on all three downs.

If Marshawn was stopped on 2nd down, then the Seahawks would have had to use their last timeout. From there, if the Seahawks had run on 3rd down and didn't make it, they would either have seen the clock run out before the 4th down snap or they would have gotten off a harried 4th down play.

So perhaps Carroll was thinking, I have two runs and one pass left.  Why don't I use the pass when no one expects it?

OK, I tried.

EDIT:

Oops, Pete Carroll is on the hook, I and tried to let 'im off.

The first down snap (Marshawn to the 1) occurred at 1:06. Say the play took 5 seconds and it took 15 seconds to get set (generous). That leaves ~45 seconds for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th downs. Plenty of time for three runs with one timeout.

That there were only 20 seconds left after the interception play was because Seattle wanted the clock run down.

bronxblue

February 1st, 2015 at 11:19 PM ^

It wasn't that it was a terrible playcall - it would have been a TD with 6 more inches, but that it was 2nd down and you had a TO.  Run the ball up the gut; at worst you have an incredibly short field for 3rd down, and best you score.  And if you want to throw, do it to the outside where your WR isn't surrounded by Pats.  But throwing inside made no sense there.

bronxblue

February 1st, 2015 at 11:55 PM ^

It was a dumb playcall, but again it could have been a completion with a bit more air/time.  To me, truly terrible playcalls are ones that never had much chance of success and couldn't be justified in really any context.  Like, when McNabb tried to rally the Eagles and had terrible playcalls that ate up time, that was horrible playcalling.  This was just a bad play, one exasperated by a better option.  

It's probably semantics I'm arguing here; it obviously didn't work out.  But had Wilson connected people wouldn't be calling it a terrible playcall at all.

bronxblue

February 1st, 2015 at 11:50 PM ^

The play itself wasn't terrible; there are far worse plays they could have run there.  But it wasn't the right time.  Had that been the 3rd-down call, I wouldn't have had an issue.

To me, a far worse playcall was the Pats coverage on the Seattle TD right before the half.  The Pats gave huge cushions to both outside receivers for Seattle, and Matthews wasn't even touched before the ball go to the endzone.  That was a terrible playcall.  

westwardwolverine

February 2nd, 2015 at 12:06 AM ^

So let's be clear: You think that the Patriots defense before the half was a worse decision than the Seahawks foregoing Marshawn Lynch - as close to a sure thing as there is in the NFL to gain one yard, a guy who hadn't had a negative rush all game - on the one yard line with thirty seconds left with the Super Bowl on the line?

You're making your argument in a vacuum. Crawl out of that Kirby and step into the real world my friend.