Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Jeremy Crowhurst wrote:

Veeshik_ya wrote:

Jeremy Crowhurst wrote:So you want to see a team win a Super Bowl not because they earned it, but because of an unbelievably lucky, once-every-fifteen-years (Antonio Freeman in 2000 was the last time I can remember somebody having the ball fall on him while lying on his ass) reception. But you aren't okay with a team losing a Super Bowl because of a poorly chosen, poorly executed play that was defended incredibly well?

If you edit your comment/question for clarity, I will respond.

I think you already did.

Beg your pardon, the appearance of a question mark at the end of those two sentences made me think there was a question you wanted answered. I just couldn't figure out what it was.

No problem, carry on.

I still think running Lynch (or Wilson) is what should've happened, but I 've come around a little to thinking that running a pass play period in that situation isn't completely terrible. However, I still feel that running THAT pass play was terrible and indefensible. For all of Carroll's "it's about us, not them" talk, it sure seemed like the reverse happened during that final minute. Gotta play to your strengths there and Carroll and Bevell didn't.

Some observations on the game not related to that play:

-Malcolm Butler not only came up with the game-winning/saving int, he also got away with blatant tripping earlier in the quarter. It also looked like Brady got away with intentional grounding. On the flip side, Seattle got away with roughing the punter in the first quarter. Looked like there were missed/ignored OPI calls both ways.

-While it worked out for them, I thought Carroll's call to go for the TD before the half was pretty risky and, particularly since they got the ball first in the second half, would've completely understood if he had went for the chip-shot FG instead.

-Without question, the injuries to Lane and Avril were killer for Seattle. Simon, Lane's replacement, was abused by Brady and co. It looked like the pass rush was getting to Brady during the third quarter, but that pretty much disappeared after Avril left.

-KJ Wright on Gronkowski?! Multiple times?!

-I'm okay with Brady being the MVP, though you could also make a case for Edleman even though I think a fair amount of his success is a byproduct of all the attention that Gronkowski commands and that he probably should've been pulled from the game like Avril was.

-This is somewhat in hindsight, but Seattle probably should've moved Percy Harvin last off season and tried to find some way to keep Golden Tate. Maybe Chris Matthews, who was setting up to be in the role Malcolm Butler ended up in for a good portion of the game, can be part of the answer but, one way or another, Seattle has to do something about their decidely average receiving group.

-It ended up being a great SB overall, but I wouldn't say it was the best ever. The first quarter or so was pretty slow.

-Who's more likely to go back next year? As long as Brady and Belichick are around, NE will be in the mix unless/until Brady noticeably declines. However, it would seem that their chances of repeating hinge a decent amount on whether on not Revis stays. Only two teams have made it to three straight SBs, so that right there makes Seattle's odds of getting back very long. We also have to see what kind of carry over effect losing a SB and losing this way will have. Still, they would seem like a strong bet to at least win an NFC West that I don't think will be as tough overall next season. Arians has done a great job in Arizona, but I think he's maxed out what he can do with the qbs on his roster. The 49ers seem to be heading back to the mid-2000s at warp speed and while the Rams have talent defensively, they can't really be seen as a serious threat unless they get their qb situation straighted out.

26554 wrote:
-It ended up being a great SB overall, but I wouldn't say it was the best ever. The first quarter or so was pretty slow.

Actually the first quarter was one of the quickest played but you're right -
not much of interest happened.

Absolutely. What is lost here is Butler's All-World Dick Lane, Deion Sanders, Darrelle Revis, Sherman, Mike Haynes type of play. That was a phenomenal display of instincts, needless to say.

Oh, I was PISSED........ I was for Seattle.

Versatile John wrote:Absolutely. What is lost here is Butler's All-World Dick Lane, Deion Sanders, Darrelle Revis, Sherman, Mike Haynes type of play. That was a phenomenal display of instincts, needless to say.

Oh, I was PISSED........ I was for Seattle.

I'd call it good coaching, not instincts. Browner did a great job of sticking Kearse right at the LOS, which kept him from getting in Butler's way, and Butler responded exactly as he was taught: Jump the inside route.

OK...it was great coaching; I would agree on that.

But, still, it was a fabulous play by Butler. This was not Larry Brown having two balls thrown right to him that Blind Lemon Jefferson could have caught......then he gets the MVP.

Capiche?