HawkShack.com

Excuse me, passing from the ONE wit the the SUPER BOWL on the line?..That alone is a fireable offense. Making Ricardo stinking Lockette the main receiver for that suck-wad play....Double Fireable.

Thank Gawd that douche is outta here.

Largent80 wrote:Excuse me, passing from the ONE wit the the SUPER BOWL on the line?..That alone is a fireable offense. Making Ricardo stinking Lockette the main receiver for that suck-wad play....Double Fireable.

Thank Gawd that douche is outta here.

I don't have a problem with them passing on the one yard line, but the called play didn't play to their strengths which would have been roll Wilson to the wide side and put pressure on the edge of their Defense.
If it wasn't going to work, he could have thrown it out of the end zone and still had a dozen seconds left and maybe run it then.
That play call with Lockette as the primary receiver was just too low % to use at that point in the game.

Largent80 wrote:Excuse me, passing from the ONE wit the the SUPER BOWL on the line?..That alone is a fireable offense. Making Ricardo stinking Lockette the main receiver for that suck-wad play....Double Fireable.

Thank Gawd that douche is outta here.

Lots of NFL teams pass on 2nd and goal from the one, especially when you consider that we've never been a great short yardage running team even with Beast in the lineup, and our QB is the smallest in the league, which takes away an otherwise viable short yardage option.

The reason given for passing on 2nd down was so that if we failed, we could conserve the one timeout we had left and be assured of having a full complement of plays available to punch it in. Had that pass fell incomplete, we attempt a running play on 3rd down, and if that didn't work, we let the clock run down, call our last timeout, and run some sort of play action/RPO on 4th down.

It was just a horrendous play selection/personnel grouping, for all the reasons mentioned in this thread, and Russell didn't read the play correctly and made a bad throw that allowed Butler his opportunity.

Everyone and even their dead grandmother knows you don't do what they did, and especially with all that on the line.

I've never seen a worse call in my 65 years.

Largent80 wrote:Everyone and even their dead grandmother knows you don't do what they did, and especially with all that on the line.

I've never seen a worse call in my 65 years.

If you factor in what was on the line, yes, I agree.

But I've seen a lot of stupid calls, including that fake FG against the Falcons earlier this season.

RiverDog wrote:According to Brock Huard, the moment Browner stuffed Kearse at the LOS, the entire play was dead. Russell had to have been, or should have been, watching that matchup when he made the decision to pull the trigger on that pass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHD4qjgEOvs

And yes, it was a poor throw, he should have made Lockette go down for it. But in that situation, 2nd and goal from the one with one timeout remaining and thus not do-or-die, Russell has to be 100% sure that the receiver is open before he lets it fly. He makes the decision as to whether or not to pull the trigger, and I think Huard points that out pretty well.

Russell executed the play called. That's what the QB does the vast majority of the time. I won't blame him for it. Unless you know how much rope he had, you can't either. Simple reality is some coaches require the player to do it as it is called or suffer the consequences. They don't let the QB Cowboy it too often unless it is designed that way. I have no idea what kind of options Russell was given, no one does but Russell, Pete, and Bevfool.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Russell executed the play called. That's what the QB does the vast majority of the time. I won't blame him for it. Unless you know how much rope he had, you can't either. Simple reality is some coaches require the player to do it as it is called or suffer the consequences. They don't let the QB Cowboy it too often unless it is designed that way. I have no idea what kind of options Russell was given, no one does but Russell, Pete, and Bevfool.

You're right, neither of us know how much rope Russell was given. But what either of us thinks isn't the point. The point I'm making is that a former NFL quarterback and a beat reporter close to the team was quoted as saying that once Kearse got stuffed at the LOS, that play was dead.

So unless you want to either (1) refute what Huard is saying or (2) claim that Russell, knowing that Kearse had to beat his man in order for that play to work, couldn't have seen what was happening at the snap on his throwing side at the LOS, what you are telling me is that Russell may have had instructions to proceed with a play he knew was dead. I find that unlikely.

I went through this same argument 3 years ago with Anthony, who to this day claims that Russell had ZERO responsibility for that pick.

I think the point many of us were/are making is Wilson should never have been put in that position by such a low % play call at that point in the game.
Instead of creating mismatches, the call limited what made our team different, and that's putting pressure on the Defense. As a poster above said,we
didn't play to our strength with that call.
Do you really want to play to their strength with your weakness at that point of the game?
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

NorthHawk wrote:I think the point many of us were/are making is Wilson should never have been put in that position by such a low % play call at that point in the game.
Instead of creating mismatches, the call limited what made our team different, and that's putting pressure on the Defense. As a poster above said,we
didn't play to our strength with that call.
Do you really want to play to their strength with your weakness at that point of the game?
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

And I agree 100% with that point. I'm just saying that I felt that Russell had a little more control over the outcome of that play than some of us want to admit to.

RiverDog wrote:You're right, neither of us know how much rope Russell was given. But what either of us thinks isn't the point. The point I'm making is that a former NFL quarterback and a beat reporter close to the team was quoted as saying that once Kearse got stuffed at the LOS, that play was dead.

So unless you want to either (1) refute what Huard is saying or (2) claim that Russell, knowing that Kearse had to beat his man in order for that play to work, couldn't have seen what was happening at the snap on his throwing side at the LOS, what you are telling me is that Russell may have had instructions to proceed with a play he knew was dead. I find that unlikely.

I went through this same argument 3 years ago with Anthony, who to this day claims that Russell had ZERO responsibility for that pick.

I don't claim Russell had zero responsibility. The throw was off.

I don't blame him for the play. I don't rely on the statements of Huard who is watching film after the fact. Huard himself when playing the actual game made more mistakes than Russell by far because it is far easier to make good decisions watching film after the fact than in real time on the field. That's why QBs like Russell Wilson are building Hall of Fame careers and winning Super Bowls and QBs like Huard are sideline guys doing analysis. Not to say I don't like Brock, but he knows better than make any claim about Russell's decision making process in a high pressure situation with split second decision making.

You don't put your players in position to fail. Bevell put his players in a position to fail, they did so spectacularly. I don't blame Russell for that play or the read at all. At the time he was a 3rd year QB playing in a tight Super Bowl against the best team of his generation. He was given a play by his OC to execute as it was called. He had Doug Baldwin guarded by Darrel Revis, the only other DB as good as Sherman. He caught that ball, made that read, and threw a throw likely to the spot he was supposed to throw to all within a few seconds. Lockette didn't get to the spot because the pick failed and he got blown up by Butler. All within seconds.

Bevell put them all in a very bad position.

You of all people know that QBs train to throw to spots, not to players. They drop back, count steps, look to the spot, and throw it. The receiver needs to be at the spot when the ball hits. If he's not, we have a possible problem. I bet they practiced that play all week. I bet Russell had a spot he was supposed to throw to on a count. I bet Lockette was supposed to hit a certain spot on a count or number of steps. Lockette didn't get there. Russell threw to the spot. Butler jumped it.

That's why I can never be sure if Russell's throw was bad. Lockette ran the route wrong. Or what not. The only thing I 100% know for sure is that Bevell set his players up to fail with a bad call given the personnel he was using to execute the play and the personnel he was going against. That's all I 100% am sure of. The two things I'm most sure of is that Lockette was the worst receiver to ask to run a short slant into tight coverage and asking any receiver to pick Browner is dumber than dumb. Other than that, I don't know all the other parts that went wrong.

Yes it was a horrible play call. I suppose you can start another thread about this over-used topic. This thread was about a new OC coming in, so we should all be rejoicing that at least Bevell got fired! The horse is dead; stop beating it.

The only way we can all move on is hope beyond hope that our offense - and defense - can retool and re-create the magic that got us into a mini dynasty. Move the f past that play, or we will all live in a downward spiral of regret.

Go Hawks. And Go Eagles!

Aseahawkfan wrote:I don't claim Russell had zero responsibility. The throw was off.

I don't blame him for the play. I don't rely on the statements of Huard who is watching film after the fact. Huard himself when playing the actual game made more mistakes than Russell by far because it is far easier to make good decisions watching film after the fact than in real time on the field. That's why QBs like Russell Wilson are building Hall of Fame careers and winning Super Bowls and QBs like Huard are sideline guys doing analysis. Not to say I don't like Brock, but he knows better than make any claim about Russell's decision making process in a high pressure situation with split second decision making.

You don't put your players in position to fail. Bevell put his players in a position to fail, they did so spectacularly. I don't blame Russell for that play or the read at all. At the time he was a 3rd year QB playing in a tight Super Bowl against the best team of his generation. He was given a play by his OC to execute as it was called. He had Doug Baldwin guarded by Darrel Revis, the only other DB as good as Sherman. He caught that ball, made that read, and threw a throw likely to the spot he was supposed to throw to all within a few seconds. Lockette didn't get to the spot because the pick failed and he got blown up by Butler. All within seconds.

Bevell put them all in a very bad position.

You of all people know that QBs train to throw to spots, not to players. They drop back, count steps, look to the spot, and throw it. The receiver needs to be at the spot when the ball hits. If he's not, we have a possible problem. I bet they practiced that play all week. I bet Russell had a spot he was supposed to throw to on a count. I bet Lockette was supposed to hit a certain spot on a count or number of steps. Lockette didn't get there. Russell threw to the spot. Butler jumped it.

That's why I can never be sure if Russell's throw was bad. Lockette ran the route wrong. Or what not. The only thing I 100% know for sure is that Bevell set his players up to fail with a bad call given the personnel he was using to execute the play and the personnel he was going against. That's all I 100% am sure of. The two things I'm most sure of is that Lockette was the worst receiver to ask to run a short slant into tight coverage and asking any receiver to pick Browner is dumber than dumb. Other than that, I don't know all the other parts that went wrong.

I realize that you don't consider Russell blameless. There's only one person in this fourm with the audacity to make such an idiodic statement.

I'm not saying that Huard is right, and you're correct, regardless of his qualifications, he's a Monday morning quarterback just like the rest of us. What I was trying to do was to demonstrate that there's some very smart football people out there that have broken down that play and came to a similar conclusion that I have. And perhaps I'm being too harsh or not using the right term when I say "blame" with regards to that play. The way I should put that question is if Russell Wilson had a chance to run that play over again, was there anything he could have seen within the framework of how that play was to be ran and before he let the ball fly that he could have seen that would cause him not to make that throw?

I think that the answer to that question is yes. His first look, his only look, should have been to the right side of the field to where Kearse was lined up against Browner.

Everything else you've said with regards to the play selection and personnel groupings I agree with. I hate that play. It was high risk to begin with in throwing the ball into the middle of such a congested field. I would have much rather seen something to the corner or back of the end zone that would have allowed Russell to put the ball in a position where only our guy had a chance of making the catch. If it were 4th down and in Bevell's judgement that play had the best chance at success, then I could handle it. But that was far from a do-or-die play.

RiverDog wrote:I realize that you don't consider Russell blameless. There's only one person in this fourm with the audacity to make such an idiodic statement.

I'm not saying that Huard is right, and you're correct, regardless of his qualifications, he's a Monday morning quarterback just like the rest of us. What I was trying to do was to demonstrate that there's some very smart football people out there that have broken down that play and came to a similar conclusion that I have. And perhaps I'm being too harsh or not using the right term when I say "blame" with regards to that play. The way I should put that question is if Russell Wilson had a chance to run that play over again, was there anything he could have seen within the framework of how that play was to be ran and before he let the ball fly that he could have seen that would cause him not to make that throw?

I think that the answer to that question is yes. His first look, his only look, should have been to the right side of the field to where Kearse was lined up against Browner.

Everything else you've said with regards to the play selection and personnel groupings I agree with. I hate that play. It was high risk to begin with in throwing the ball into the middle of such a congested field. I would have much rather seen something to the corner or back of the end zone that would have allowed Russell to put the ball in a position where only our guy had a chance of making the catch. If it were 4th down and in Bevell's judgement that play had the best chance at success, then I could handle it. But that was far from a do-or-die play.

I didn't like the giveaway look either. I watched that and he didn't do his usual scan the field look. He locked on to Lockette. It wasn't smart as it gave away exactly what was going to happen.

I didn't mind the design of the play with the right receiver. Plays like that can work if the players executing are good. They can even work quite well with a low chance of failure to the magnitude this one failed. Not with 6th string receivers that were back on your team because he didn't make it on another team and you're desperate, so you signed him back.

For me it was all the personnel for and against. An OC is paid to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the personnel he is using. And Bevell had a unique insight into Browner, since he had played for us. If Browner was some guy on the Patriots we didn't know much about, then I wouldn't be as upset. But we knew him well and what he was capable of, Bevell should have known. Bevell was paid millions to know how to use personnel in a strong fashion. Pete's expertise was defense. He hired Bevell for knowledge of offense. Bevell failed him on that play in an unforgivable manner without any excuse for his stupidity.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I didn't like the giveaway look either. I watched that and he didn't do his usual scan the field look. He locked on to Lockette. It wasn't smart as it gave away exactly what was going to happen.

I didn't mind the design of the play with the right receiver. Plays like that can work if the players executing are good. They can even work quite well with a low chance of failure to the magnitude this one failed. Not with 6th string receivers that were back on your team because he didn't make it on another team and you're desperate, so you signed him back.

For me it was all the personnel for and against. An OC is paid to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the personnel he is using. And Bevell had a unique insight into Browner, since he had played for us. If Browner was some guy on the Patriots we didn't know much about, then I wouldn't be as upset. But we knew him well and what he was capable of, Bevell should have known. Bevell was paid millions to know how to use personnel in a strong fashion. Pete's expertise was defense. He hired Bevell for knowledge of offense. Bevell failed him on that play in an unforgivable manner without any excuse for his stupidity.

Man, I'm going to hate myself for doing it, but I'm going to have to defend Bevell a little bit. He did not have a whole lot of time to analyze who was going to be lining up where for the Pats. He only had about 5-10 seconds to decide what play to call. So when he sent that play in, was he sure that Browner was going to line up opposite Kearse? It's an honest question.

But you're absolutely right about our side of the equation. That route was not playing to Lockette's strength. Plus as I've said before, I just hate passing across the short middle from the one yard line into all that congestion. Too many bad things can happen.

Watch it and you see even if Lockette caught the ball Butler had him dead to rights at the one yard line still. A look to curse or a pump and drop back or roll and Lynch was wide open on the left side, they did not cover him if you were going to pass the ball. If Lynch dropped it nobody was there to pick it off.

Browner had stepped up to initiate contact and Kearse never even was able to get off the line to make the pick play.

RiverDog wrote:Man, I'm going to hate myself for doing it, but I'm going to have to defend Bevell a little bit. He did not have a whole lot of time to analyze who was going to be lining up where for the Pats. He only had about 5-10 seconds to decide what play to call. So when he sent that play in, was he sure that Browner was going to line up opposite Kearse? It's an honest question.

But you're absolutely right about our side of the equation. That route was not playing to Lockette's strength. Plus as I've said before, I just hate passing across the short middle from the one yard line into all that congestion. Too many bad things can happen.

He knew, RD. Revis was shutting Baldwin down. Browner was assigned to the bigger receiver opposite: Matthews or Kearse. Even if he didn't know who would line up where it doesn't matter who Bevell asked to pick Browner, receivers including guys like Fitzgerald or Hines Ward don't pick Browner. Browner was the most physical DB in the league. He was a uniquely big and strong corner. His only weakness was smoking too much weed and not being able to flip his hips quick enough because of his size. Any time picking Browner is part of your thought process, you are wrong.

Aseahawkfan wrote:He knew, RD. Revis was shutting Baldwin down. Browner was assigned to the bigger receiver opposite: Matthews or Kearse. Even if he didn't know who would line up where it doesn't matter who Bevell asked to pick Browner, receivers including guys like Fitzgerald or Hines Ward don't pick Browner. Browner was the most physical DB in the league. He was a uniquely big and strong corner. His only weakness was smoking too much weed and not being able to flip his hips quick enough because of his size. Any time picking Browner is part of your thought process, you are wrong.

Yea, I suppose. But nevertheless, he didn't have a heck of a lot of time for equivocation, perhaps 10 seconds after Beast got tackled at the one, to come up with the next play and get the correct personnel in the game. Not that I'm making excuses for him, just trying to see things from his POV. Bottom line is that it was a historically bad play call, one that has to go down in the record books as the worst in SB history.

Browner had a few more weaknesses than weed and slow hip movements. He was not fast enough to keep up with most NFL WR's and as a result, got caught holding a lot. He was a penalty machine when he was with us. That's why he matched up so well against Mathews in that game, because Mathews wasn't a speed merchant, either, and Browner was just as if not more physical. But he was the perfect DB for that situation as a WR can't utilize his speed when the LOS is the 1 yard line.