Not feed Lynch in SB last play.

[politicalfootball]

Why did they not just give the ball to Lynch he would have scored. Was it because of the time left ? It was 16 seconds if I remember. Can somebody help me out here.

[Anthony]

Why did they not just give the ball to Lynch he would have scored. Was it because of the time left ? It was 16 seconds if I remember. Can somebody help me out here.

Because he had a very poor success rate on the 1 yard line and they were expecting it and stacked the box, which is why the called a pass play right into that same stacked box...morons. They had plenty of time with a Timeout left. Run the blasted play going outside and roll Rw out and give him option he will score.

[politicalfootball]

I did not know we had lots of time or the time out left. Yeah they should have rolled out.

[jshawaii22]

If we had given Marshawn the ball and he fumbled it, what would the conversation been like today? "OH, they should of known that he does that at the goal line and only has a 33% success rate. Why would they hand it to him? They could of done ______________________!"

PF, It's always easy to use hindsight as a starting point. Too bad it happened. Too bad we're not two time champs. But, please don't go backwards and view the season as anything other then successful. Very few teams have EVER made the dance twice in a row. That's an accomplishment in itself.

js

[HawkDawg]

Sure it still hurts, it always will. I've only watched the SB once, the day it aired live on TV. It's sitting there recorded on my DVR (clogging up tons of room with all of the pre and post footage), yet I can't bring myself to watch it again. Haven't watched a single replay, on TV or online. Any time it has popped up on ESPN or wherever, I have changed the channel.

Here's the funny thing, I can't bring myself to delete the recording either, it just sits there like a ghost. Every time I look for a program we've recorded, it still lurks there at the bottom of my playlist, like a red headed step child. I have no idea what the hell to do with it, it just stays there in the basement.

Obviously the team/coaches/staff/etc. feel this tenfold...this is their life and career. We're not going to get anywhere by dwelling in the past. Carroll knows this and you know he's preaching it. That's what makes our current team what it is, one of the greatest teams in the NFL, if not the best, if not the best of all time. Certainly one of the greatest NFL stories of all time that will be passed down for decades...and to know that we were all here to be a part of it.

Here's to a new season with one hellava team! Thinking about deleting that recording. We have to move on, otherwise we just brood and dwell.

[obiken]

NO please we could beat this to death. Let it die. Coaches can lose games they are part of the team, period.

[c_hawkbob]

Sure glad somebody finally got around to asking that question ...

[Uppercut]

If Lockette would have made the catch it looked like he would have been tackled still about a yard short. On the other hand if he would have scored the talk would be, " What a brilliant call by PC and his staff"! It is what it is.

[NorthHawk]

What a disastrophe!

It was a bad play call plain and simple. A pass call is fine, but that particular play with that personnel wasn't our finest decision.
Lockette was put in a bad position as he's a part time WR whose primary role is to run deep routes and stretch the field as well as being a standout ST player - not the guy to get a quick slant into the middle of a Defense near the goal line that is stacking the box. Add in the magnitude of the game and time left and it's an even worse position to be put in.

What is really frustrating for me is we have probably the premier dual threat at QB and the quick slant took away his special qualities that make our Offense work.
When you are down at the goal line, with Wilson at QB, and the Defense crowds the box, wouldn't the better call be to have him roll out where he can use his athleticism and creativity?

I can't think of a worse call in the history of the NFL playoffs.
Even if it had worked, it was a far too risky play at that point in any game for a team that preaches it's all about protecting the ball.

[RiverDog]

Why did they not just give the ball to Lynch he would have scored. Was it because of the time left ? It was 16 seconds if I remember. Can somebody help me out here.

The official line was that we wanted to fully utilize the time remaining so we could run 3 plays, and since we didn't have enough time/timeouts, one would have to be a pass play if we didn't score on either of the preceding two plays. Shortly after the game, there were rumors running amok from conspiracy theorists everywhere that people from Pete Carroll to Roger Goodell didn't want Lynch to win the MVP, which he probably would have had he been given the ball and scored, but rather the squeaky clean "Go Hawks!" Russell Wilson, which had he most likely would have had he threw a TD pass rather than the interception.

Like North says, a pass play is fine, but not that particular one. I would have much rather seen either a run/pass option with Russell operating from deep in the pocket with an option to hit Lynch in the flat and get him in open space (can you imagine Beast in open space against a couple DB's and the goal line in front of him?) or some sort of a timing pattern to the corner or back of the end zone with the ball being placed where only our guy could possibly touch it. But, as the saying goes, hindsight is 20/20.

[NorthHawk]

The official line was that we wanted to fully utilize the time remaining so we could run 3 plays, and since we didn't have enough time/timeouts, one would have to be a pass play if we didn't score on either of the preceding two plays.

I heard that explanation, too.
I'm confused as to how a quick slant utilizes the time remaining.
If he caught the ball and was stopped short, it would have been the same as a run play stopped short without the risk of an INT.
A roll out would have taken more time and given Wilson the opportunity to throw it away.

I heard someone on TV or Radio say they thought it was a little arrogance on our coaching staff's part and thinking any play would work.
It might be part of it, but it might also be a little bit of panic at that time of the game, too.

In any event, it is what it is.

[Hawktawk]

Bad call, far worse execution. If either Kearse, Lockette, or especially Wilson is just a little tiny bit sharper it still works. Kearse got stuffed, Lockette was late and Wilson was late, weak, and too far out in front.Still the ball was literally a couple of inches from Lockettes hands when Butler knocked them away making the pick. I had to do a sports radio show the day after the SB. I couldn't sleep so I sat up watching the game and that F#@$ng play a hundred times. It is what it is. I haven't watched a second of the game since.

[RiverDog]

The official line was that we wanted to fully utilize the time remaining so we could run 3 plays, and since we didn't have enough time/timeouts, one would have to be a pass play if we didn't score on either of the preceding two plays.

I heard that explanation, too.
I'm confused as to how a quick slant utilizes the time remaining.
If he caught the ball and was stopped short, it would have been the same as a run play stopped short without the risk of an INT.
A roll out would have taken more time and given Wilson the opportunity to throw it away.

I heard someone on TV or Radio say they thought it was a little arrogance on our coaching staff's part and thinking any play would work.
It might be part of it, but it might also be a little bit of panic at that time of the game, too.

In any event, it is what it is.

One of my gripes is that the Hawks had their priorities screwed up. They should have called plays in sequence based on which play they felt had the best chance to score run or pass, not based on utilizing all the available plays. I was almost expecting us on that fateful 2nd down play to call a dive play to Lynch and if he didn't score, let the clock run down to inside 5 seconds and call our last timeout. It would have put pressure on the Pats to call one of their timeouts to conserve at least some time on the clock in the event that we scored, and in the process giving us our 3 plays.

But, it's all water under the bridge at this point. And I'm like Hawktalk. I haven't watched a second of SB 49 for months. I can't remember being as distraught over the end result of a sporting event as I was at the end of that game.

[politicalfootball]

However it turned out we should have been ahead if some of those FG were TD in the first half.

[obiken]

PF, IF Balwin would have caught the ball he should have, we would have been up by 17 with a quarter to go, no QB in the SB has ever overcome that lead. In the end it was just a great game that we lost. Like the Falcon, and GB losses.

[RiverDog]

If 'if's" and 'but's' were candy and nuts, what a Merry Christmas we would have had.

[politicalfootball]

LOL RD still I hate Boston / New England