quote:

... Or ice hockey? I'd forgotten that one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


In 2015, February 1, the Hawks made some crazy penetrations and scores in the 2nd and 3rd quarters on Sunday that the Patriots should never have allowed, but....the SeaHawks made an awful decision when it mattered and, you know why the Patriots deserved to win?

Because at the end of the game, they had more points than the Hawks and that's why they're the Super Bowl champs and the Hawks aren't.

Considering the Hawks record over the last 4+ years, I'd have to disagree....they've earned their place at the top and....they'll be back again.

It's that simple.

This is one of the best analyses of the game that I have seen, read or heard.

Lookie, as a fellow Seattleite, I'm sure you've heard a lot of the same things that I have over the past several days. Last night, I was listening to a portion of a radio call-in program, wherein the theme was "talk it out". Literally, don't keep the frustrations in...just call and vent. I thought it was a great idea, until the topic of the "philosophy of football" came up. Ok...I *get* football. I'm a college graduate. But once the conversation turns to why Seattle should have won because of some philosophical nonsense..I couldn't follow. From what I could gather, even though NE scored more points, Seattle was the "better team" and should have won. Yeah, I don't get it either...

It reminds me of the silly question that is asked of the coach of a team that is losing after halftime. "What do you need to do in the second half?" "Score more points than they do?"

It's not rocket surgery. Some really good plays, a couple of lucky ones, and a questionable call all added up to the Hawks losing. There's a reason why an actual game is played and the Lombardi trophy isn't just given to the "best team on paper". Any given Sunday....

For sure they will be a force to be reckoned with in years to come. No doubt about that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

Typical second half, Hawks tear it up and, unfortunately, they made the wrong decision with seconds to go.

There's always next year :)

Carrol said they ran that play because they got the look they wanted. In other words, NE was set up for Lynch so they ran the opposite, a play they thought would work

And had it worked out, it would have been considered a great call

Yup, just like any play in the NFL. If it works, it's great. If it doesn't...well...yeah.

But, good on Pete to fall on the sword.

It will be interesting to see who's on the Hawks roster come September.

I heard speculation that had Lynch ran it in,he would have wound up receiving the MVP.....a sight that Hawks management wasn't necessarily keen to see.That they have no plans to sign him for next year.
The 81(IIRC) World Series Steinbrenner ordered his manager not to play Reggie Jackson in game three(the Yankees led the series 2 games to 0) against the Dodgers .Reggie was a free agent and The Boss had no intention of re-signing him
The Yankees never won another game that Series and Steinbrenner reportedly got into a fight with some Dodger fans in the elevator after the deciding game.
That was his story anyway,I somehow doubt two unruly fans were riding the elevator with the Boss...he punched a damm wall lol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

I heard speculation that had Lynch ran it in,he would have wound up receiving the MVP.....a sight that Hawks management wasn't necessarily keen to see.That they have no plans to sign him for next year.

The conspiracy theory was out within minutes of the interception.

I'm wondering if even the most skeptical person would lend any credence to it.

Best explanation I have heard - it was about clock management

Run it and fail three times with under thirty seconds to go and just one time out and you will be forced to throw, to stop the clock

And the Pats would have known when you have to throw it

Rather than letting the Pats know theyre forced to throw it, throw it to stop the clock (if the pass is incomplete) early, to save time AND run a play that wasnt expected

quote:

Cheers, Marc. :-) As long as it's not one of those silly games.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Is the 'Super Bowl' to do with baseball, or American football?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

I heard speculation that had Lynch ran it in,he would have wound up receiving the MVP.....a sight that Hawks management wasn't necessarily keen to see.That they have no plans to sign him for next year.

The conspiracy theory was out within minutes of the interception.

I'm wondering if even the most skeptical person would lend any credence to it.

Best explanation I have heard - it was about clock management

Run it and fail three times with under thirty seconds to go and just one time out and you will be forced to throw, to stop the clock

And the Pats would have known when you have to throw it

Rather than letting the Pats know theyre forced to throw it, throw it to stop the clock (if the pass is incomplete) early, to save time AND run a play that wasnt expected

Yep....since the game, I've heard some pretty rational (incredibly skillful) explanations why they may have done what they did (the above was the one that made the most sense to me) and, not being all that knowledgeable about the sport, I'd have to rely on the coaching staff to have thought all the possibilities out fairly carefully.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

But even then they should have thrown to the back of the end zone, not the most crowded part of the field.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

... Or ice hockey? I'd forgotten that one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


But even then they should have thrown to the back of the end zone, not the most crowded part of the field.

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


But even then they should have thrown to the back of the end zone, not the most crowded part of the field.

Of course, there's always the option to throw the ball away...

But heck, what do we know?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


But even then they should have thrown to the back of the end zone, not the most crowded part of the field.

Of course, there's always the option to throw the ball away...

But heck, what do we know?

Part of the reason for throwing to the back of the end zone, throwing it away is easier.

quote:

milksops.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


But even then they should have thrown to the back of the end zone, not the most crowded part of the field.

Of course, there's always the option to throw the ball away...

But heck, what do we know?

Part of the reason for throwing to the back of the end zone, throwing it away is easier.

But if proven....penalties.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


But even then they should have thrown to the back of the end zone, not the most crowded part of the field.

Of course, there's always the option to throw the ball away...

But heck, what do we know?

Part of the reason for throwing to the back of the end zone, throwing it away is easier.

But if proven....penalties.

No if the guy is covered you throw high enough that the coverage can't intercept if your guy catches it great, if not nobody does.
Keep in mind that the excuse given is to stop the clock, that would mean throwing it away.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


But even then they should have thrown to the back of the end zone, not the most crowded part of the field.

Of course, there's always the option to throw the ball away...

But heck, what do we know?

Part of the reason for throwing to the back of the end zone, throwing it away is easier.

But if proven....penalties.

No if the guy is covered you throw high enough that the coverage can't intercept if your guy catches it great, if not nobody does.
Keep in mind that the excuse given is to stop the clock, that would mean throwing it away.

Ya know Bama...it was "one of those things".....if we (the Hawks) had have been victorious....it would have been the talk of the nation....and the NFL....for decades....a play that changed everything but....it....we....didn't.

And it wasn't.

Woulda/coulda/shoulda.....no one will ever know....all the "the NFL didn't want Lynch to be MVP...so there was an elevator meeting with Goodell at halftime." and a half million other (bullshit) scenarios will never change the fact that.....

The Patriots had more points at the end of the game and they.....were deserving....by every measure....of the grandest trophy in American sports.

As a Hawks fan....I'm of course, disappointed....and was.....but in the end...it's a game...it was a blast to watch and it provided every energy rush that a Super Bowl should.....crazy shit....wild up to the very end.....and.....I'm glad I had health insurance because...I damn near called 911.