Largent80 wrote:Hard to argue that. Methinks Pete doesn't have much confidence in Walsh. All he had to do was keep Haush. I don't blame Walsh for coming up short on the last FG either because if Pete hadn't foolishly used a challenge on an obvious Baldwin incompletion we would have had at minimum one more play to run and possibly many more, with time still left on the clock.
Pete tripped over himself a few times in this game.
The right side of the o-line is dreadful, and even if we make the playoffs, this is quite clearly not a SB caliber winning team.
RiverDog wrote:It's the end of the half, 7 seconds remaining in a close game with the Hawks trailing by a single score, ball on the 17 yard line, 4th and 1.
Now can somebody estimate what the odds are of scoring a touchdown from 17 yards out on a fake FG featuring a running play?
That had to be one of the stupidest gambles that I've seen in my over 50 years of watching football.
Largent80 wrote:Hard to argue that. Methinks Pete doesn't have much confidence in Walsh. All he had to do was keep Haush. I don't blame Walsh for coming up short on the last FG either because if Pete hadn't foolishly used a challenge on an obvious Baldwin incompletion we would have had at minimum one more play to run and possibly many more, with time still left on the clock.
Pete tripped over himself a few times in this game.
The right side of the o-line is dreadful, and even if we make the playoffs, this is quite clearly not a SB caliber winning team.
Oly wrote:Yep. This. I'm baffled how a SB-winning coach could be that stupid in critical situations.
Hawktawk wrote:It was a ridiculously stupid call. Inexcusable.indefensible . Another hormonal moment by our usually awesome coach.
idhawkman wrote:Actually, if you look a the play, OTT our LS stands up instead of cutting the guy to the play side. Had he cut that guy, Luke would have scored. The lane to the end zone was so wide it was ridiculous. But... it always comes down to one guy NOT doing his job.
idhawkman wrote:It wasn't a jet sweep Riv. It was a fake field goal and they had no safety to roam the secondary. There literally was no one between the end zone and Luke except for the guy OTT let go by him by standing up instead of cut blocking or even just blocking him.
RiverDog wrote:That had to be one of the stupidest gambles that I've seen in my over 50 years of watching football.
idhawkman wrote:Actually, if you look a the play, OTT our LS stands up instead of cutting the guy to the play side. Had he cut that guy, Luke would have scored. The lane to the end zone was so wide it was ridiculous. But... it always comes down to one guy NOT doing his job.
burrrton wrote:This. However, it's not like we ended up needing those three points...
mykc14 wrote:I tend to give play callers the benefit of the doubt more often than not, but there is really no way to justify this fake field goal in this situation... risk FAR outweighed potential reward. On top of that the play was extremely hard to execute. To be successful you’re relying on somebody who NEVER blocks anybody 1 on 1 to block a DT who crosses his face, while he is starting from a head-down long snapping position. Ott really has no chance to block him in that situation. He had to snap, look up, and find which direction the DT went and then figure out which type of block to execute (cut/down/maybe reach although I doubt it)... just a head scratcher all around
Hawk Sista wrote:I think if you listen to Pete, you’d understand the play call and what they’d been seeing. Hindsight is 20/20 but had Luke gotten wide of Grady, it’s a TD all the way. There were 15 seconds left, not the 7 seconds shown on the TV screen and we had a timeout left. Pete & the players were getting the right look earlier and had practiced that play for a bit. OTT was not supposed to block Grady, the look was that Grady wasn’t there. It feels like the day dumbest play in the world right now, but remember that part of situational football is the score. The Falcons would have called different plays had the score been different. It’s an easy thing to point to, and pretty easy from the couch after it failed. We have not witnessed 5 years of success because Pete is conservative.
Hawk Sista wrote:I think if you listen to Pete, you’d understand the play call and what they’d been seeing. Hindsight is 20/20 but had Luke gotten wide of Grady, it’s a TD all the way. There were 15 seconds left, not the 7 seconds shown on the TV screen and we had a timeout left. Pete & the players were getting the right look earlier and had practiced that play for a bit. OTT was not supposed to block Grady, the look was that Grady wasn’t there. It feels like the day dumbest play in the world right now, but remember that part of situational football is the score. The Falcons would have called different plays had the score been different. It’s an easy thing to point to, and pretty easy from the couch after it failed. We have not witnessed 5 years of success because Pete is conservative.
mykc14 wrote:idhawkman,
Overall the concept seems good, except for the fact that Ott is required to make a very tough block and he NEVER blocks 1 on 1... Even from your pictures he is beat before he even lifts his head from snapping. He had zero chance of making his block... IF the DT stays on his left the play probably works, but that is a BIG if as many DT's cross the center's face on PAT/Field goal attempts (this could be something that the Seahawks coaches noticed that the Falcon DT doesn't usually do though...)
Aseahawkfan wrote:Irritating choice. As IdHawkman pointed out, it could have worked. I expect this kind of play from Pete on occasion. The exaggerations about dumbest call they've seen in 50 years or the like, that's pretty ridiculous. There have been worse calls. Pete's made gambles before that didn't pay off. I've gotten used to him not taking the field goal when he should. It's cost more than a few games. When you have a coach that gambles, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. You have to take both good and bad outcomes.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests