|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
In March, quarterback Russell Wilson did what Carroll couldn’t do. Wilson organized a large group of veteran players and took them to Hawaii for informal workouts. Everyone knew about the Hawaii trip when it happened, thanks to the social media accounts of some of the players who went. Greg Bishop of SI.com has provided more details that reveal how bad it had gotten. “[T]here was tension,” receiver Doug Baldwin told Bishop. “People thinking we should have done this, we should have done that [in the Super Bowl]. There were a lot of questions that needed to be answered. And a lot that needed to be asked.” First, Wilson had to convince players to go on the trip. He persuaded Baldwin to help, and they then recruited safety Kam Chancellor. “Kam was pivotal,” Baldwin said. “He’s like the godfather of the locker room. Any problems, any issues, you go to him.” (By the way, Chancellor is currently holding out, with no end in sight.) Chancellor helped persuade more defensive players to attend the carefully-planned retreat that included daily workouts, outings, and dinners. As Bishop explains it, however, “the tension endured” throughout the trip, with some of the players skipping “a handful” of workouts. On the sixth day of the trip, a bus took the players to the edge of a cliff for what the Seahawks now call a “come to Jesus” meeting. The 45-minute session included comments from all players in attendance, with “harsh words” uttered and “all grievances” being aired. Players who thought that the decision to pass the ball was aimed at delivering the Super Bowl MVP trophy to Wilson said so, per Bishop. Players who thought teammates had not taken responsibility for their role in the outcome said so, too. Wilson said the meeting gave him “chills,” but that doesn’t mean all is well. “We didn’t know if the trip was going to work,” Baldwin said. “We still don’t.” |
I did it above and asked you to refute it and you haven't.
I agree about not running so much time on the clock. But that is not the argument. False logic or willful ignorance on your part
26 seconds - everyone generally agrees, you can only run it twice there...
Lynch is their best player...not wilson?
It was a free play really..
Jordan passed to an open three pointer in a championship game too remember....lol
1. If you think Wilson is a better football player than Lynch, any credibility you have in this argument is gone. Yes, Lynch is better than Wilson.
2. If it was a free play, why didnt they get another play afterwards? You know why? Because it wasnt free.
3. And in your example, the ball was still in the hands of the best player. In Seattle, the best player did not touch the ball.
Pick one option
Run -
Pass -
Run
Pass
Run
Run
Run
Run
There was a minute left.
Pick one option
Run -
Pass -
Run
Pass
Run
Run
Run
Run
You have it wrong. It's more like this:
1:00 left
Run
Run
Run
Run
Win Super Bowl.
You think if Carroll thought he could run it 3x there, he wouldn't have? Think about it..
Quote:
26 seconds left
Pick one option
Run -
Pass -
Run
Pass
Run
Run
Run
Run
You have it wrong. It's more like this:
1:00 left
Run
Run
Run
Run
Win Super Bowl.
Your wrong here Terps. You would have only needed 2 runs, not 4.
There's that absolute again. Everyone. No one.
Everyone doesn't agree. it is not only possible, it can be done with time left to run the ball three times with a time out left. There is one time out left!
Again - I put the scenario above. Refute it or stop bullshitting with this everybody/no one absolute nonsensical shit.
First you are assuming Lynch gets in...what was his % of success in these situations before...
Second you are assuming Brady wont come back down and score
This should not factor one iota into the discussion.
Quote:
26 seconds left
Pick one option
Run -
Pass -
Run
Pass
Run
Run
Run
Run
You have it wrong. It's more like this:
1:00 left
Run
Run
Run
Run
Win Super Bowl.
It was second down, you had a minute and a timeout to get off three plays. Or 26 seconds, if you want to have your own facts.
I give up
1-run the ball. Let's say clock runs down to 10 or below
2-run the ball again, even if it runs down to 1 second left on clock
3-call TO with 1 second on clock and run it again
for the 20th time on these threads. My argument is that pass was correct with only 26 seconds left on the clock and one timeout. Statistically, it would also be correct.
He won't refute it - because he's a dumbass. A dumbass calling others mouthbreathers.
Welcome to the mouthbreathing club, old man.
No. You never, ever, ever approach the situation like that when you are trailing. Ever.
Carroll had the title and he gave it up. There is no rationalization for that. Using a % sign doesn't make you a statistician, nor does it mean you are conducting any form of valid quantitative analysis.
I give up
NO IT SHOULDN'T. JFC YOU ARE FUCKING DENSE!
You have the best defense in the league, Brady didn't do shit all day. Score the fucking touchdown with your best weapon whom the other team is afraid to even tackle on a low risk play and stop the other guys.
What a stupid fuck you are.
The funny part to this is FMIC and the few here will say, see it was a G2G, all they had to do was get reset...completely ignoring that in a G2G formation like that, NE would be in the best possible situtation to stop the run. And Lynch is not that great in those situations either. He is not a miracle worker. But no one is willing to give me those stats and I am too bored with this by now to go look them up.
Secondly, it is a pileup so people have to be uncovered, pulled off...
Way too risky.
In reality, he should have left about 35 seconds on the clock but he was trying to have his cake and eat it too which again was probably correct mathematically
for the 20th time on these threads. My argument is that pass was correct with only 26 seconds left on the clock and one timeout. Statistically, it would also be correct.
You keep saying there was 26 seconds left, and sharing analysis starting there. As this wasn't remotely true, I don't see why you keep doing it.
If you had considerations other than scoring, then go ahead, pass all three times even. It's batshiat, but whatever.
You're about to take a three point lead with less than a minute to go. You have a good defense. Score the points. Worrying about the clock is idiocy.
You guys are awesome today...new levels of stupid are coming out.
And NE didn't do anything all day? They just erased a 10 pt deficit to take the lead...Holy shit..
You guys are awesome today...new levels of stupid are coming out.
And NE didn't do anything all day? They just erased a 10 pt deficit to take the lead...Holy shit..
Yes asshole. RUN THE FUCKING BALL AND SCORE. MAKE THE OTHER TEAM BEAT YOU. What a fucking moron.
Down to the dumbest comments like Jordan always took the shot and Lynch is their best player....
Now you say you score immediately leaving a full minute on the clock when you could easily run some time off it by calling the time out later or running the play later in the clock.
Funny stuff
Down to the dumbest comments like Jordan always took the shot and Lynch is their best player....
You have proven nothing. You have linked to articles based on the same flawed premise.
Further, if you are worried about New England getting the ball back with too much time, why throw it at all? Nearly every scenario stops the clock. It's flawed thinking within the already flawed premise that you should first aim to control how much time New England had to come back.
Regardless, you have given no arguments. You've only copied someone else's, and their argument is flawed.
I give up
That's not playing to win as much as it's playing not to lose. The Hawks brad and butter is Lynch and their defense. IMO, Lynch gets the ball and you win or go down with your best. If the defense blows it, shame on them.
Yes, reminds me of a Japanese portfolio manager I worked with about 20 years ago. Kept shorting 2 yr Treasuries while the Fed was easing. Lost his ass, our jobs.
Quote:
LOl. So how much time you leave your opponent to go down and kick a FG shouldn't factor into the discussion now?
I give up
That's not playing to win as much as it's playing not to lose. The Hawks brad and butter is Lynch and their defense. IMO, Lynch gets the ball and you win or go down with your best. If the defense blows it, shame on them.
exactly
I keep waiting.
funny thing is, you've pretty mcuh conceded taht in a goal to goal situation the players are all right around the ball - which makes running plays 10-12 seconds apart not only possible - but probable.
And - there is still a time out left. That is huge in allowing 3 runs to take place.
Now you say you score immediately leaving a full minute on the clock when you could easily run some time off it by calling the time out later or running the play later in the clock.
Funny stuff
Further more asshole, passing takes no time off the clock. And incomplete pass stops the clock. A slant route through the line in compressed space is suicidal. The Giants tried it once to Nicks against Dallas in the reg season and Eli threw a pick 6.
You're undoubtedly the single biggest asshole ever to stain this site.
I guess you never saw that terrific show, "Numbers."
I give up
nope not at all. if the game was tied, then yes you run the time down.
you need to score. score first, worry later. because if you don't dcore... well we know what happened.
My point is that with 26 seconds left, passing on 2nd down is the right call. That is my though. I did not argue the play call itself, nor am I arguing they left the right amount of time on the clock. None of you seem to be able to grasp these simple concepts.
A couple of you or one really believes you should have run it 3x with 26 seconds which most of you don't believe but wont argue with him.
Some of you are saying you should not let the clock run at all and run and if you score the TD from the 1 yard line right there with 1 minute left, so be it since NE didn't do anything all game ignoring there comeback to take the lead erasing a 10 pt deficit....an most of you don't believe that but won't argue with them.
Funny stuff
Link - ( New Window )
That is what we call circular reporting in the intelligence world. It's done by mistake or done by someone, who is lazy and wants to bolster their case by providing false sense of higher probability.
What are the odds of winning in that scenario? Or 538 didn't work that one out for you?
That is probably the funniest part of all of this.
Quote:
hope that if I ever return to coaching that the guy on the other sideline is carrying a slide rule, abacus, calculator or a laptop so he can work the odds.
I guess you never saw that terrific show, "Numbers."
Indeed, I have.
Good show. Didn't convince me, though not to give the ball to my best back behind my best two linemen or against their worst two.
Those are the only two things I consider. Which one provides the better chance to score.
Who agree's with Schabadoo that you should call timeout with 1 minute left, run the ball in from the 1 yard line and give NE a minute to possible be able kick a FG to tie the game?
Lets have a vote for him
Who agrees...?
Would you rather
Pass once
run it twice
or just run it twice?
Or do we need Stephen Hawking to do a paper on it?
Who agree's with Schabadoo that you should call timeout with 1 minute left, run the ball in from the 1 yard line and give NE a minute to possible be able kick a FG to tie the game?
Lets have a vote for him
Who agrees...?
I do. Unless you can score the game-winning points without scoring a touchdown, the only thing that matters is scoring that touchdown. Until you have the lead or are in position to win the game with a simply executed chip-shot FG, your only focus should be scoring the points necessary to put you ahead.