Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Really tired of Lynch's attitude

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • trc1962
    replied
    I guess you can smile out of frustration, or you can give a Richard Sherman face. I think Lynch chose right. The Sherman look is being made into a T-shirt LOL. Maybe it was a "should of given the ball to me smile/grimace.

    Leave a comment:


  • InsaneBlaze23
    replied
    Originally posted by broncoslover115 View Post
    I'm not sure that's how I'd characterize it. He was smiling yes, but it seemed like more out of frustration. Almost like an are you kidding me type smile. I've heard he and Bevell have been having issues about not utilizing him more and I think he was frustrated. That's my take and what I read.
    Likely what it is. Some people laugh out of frustration/anger.

    Leave a comment:


  • broncoslover115
    replied
    Originally posted by JT24Champ View Post
    did anyone see the clip of lynch's immediate reaction after the int in the super bowl?

    fricken laughing and smiling
    I'm not sure that's how I'd characterize it. He was smiling yes, but it seemed like more out of frustration. Almost like an are you kidding me type smile. I've heard he and Bevell have been having issues about not utilizing him more and I think he was frustrated. That's my take and what I read.

    Leave a comment:


  • JT24Champ
    replied
    did anyone see the clip of lynch's immediate reaction after the int in the super bowl?

    fricken laughing and smiling

    Leave a comment:


  • FL BRONCO
    replied
    Originally posted by fallforward3y+ View Post
    If it's being criticized for not being a different kind of pass, that's one thing. However, the guy may have scored if he had caught it. Plus, you said they hadn't stopped Lynch yet, but the thing is that they had...twice in a short yardage situation.
    Look at the play again, the defender is in better postition then the reciever, when he hits the reciever he does so still in the field of play and the reciever lands two yards backwards. Watch it again and I think you will see that even if the reciever does catch that ball he has no chance of scoring ont the play. He didn't even have a chance to catch it let alone move forward. They pretty much hadn't stopped Lynch for most of the day. Yep a couple times on short yardage. But you got a tired defense who he just ran 4.5 yards on and he is what got you there. If not him then you give it to your other star Wilson and let him do what he does best. You want the ball in the hands of your playmakers doing what they do when its all on the line. They did the opposite. I'm not going to rehash the whole last post, but it made no sense whatsoever. Even if you decide to pass instead of run, you don't call that play. That play was a terrible call imo. It had your young qb doing something that is not exactly his strength, and to boot he is throwing into the thick of the defense with 3 seperate defenders who can tip it or intercept it to a spot where your reciever (and by far not your best one) isnt even at yet and is outnumbered and he wont make it in the endzone if he catches it so you still waste the timeout. I can find plenty of reasoning to call a pass play on that down, I wouldn't of, but I can definitely see the strategy and it makes sense. I find no excuse for calling that play then.

    Leave a comment:


  • fallforward3y+
    replied
    Originally posted by trc1962 View Post
    I think many would have criticized the call even if it had been successful because it was riskier than handing the ball off to Lynch, who rarely fumbles. I have issues with how they handled the play clock after Lynch got to the 1 yard line and let too much time run. It was obvious that the seahawks expected Bellicheck to burn a time out and when he didn't they got all panicked. I also think they got it backwards, run on 1st and 2nd and maybe even 3rd down and then if all else fails throw on 4th and don't just have Wilson stand in the pocket, add some play action and a bootleg with the option to throw a pass in the flat. To take the risk on 3rd and 4th down to put the ball in the air would be understandable AFTER Lynch was stopped. Carroll contends the call was fine and most seahawk fans would be fine with it on 4th down, but second down, no. He may never be forgiven here in the pacific northwest.
    The handling of the play clock should be criticized more than the call imo. Had they not called the time out, it wouldn't have been risky to run on 2nd down. However, because they called the time out they would have had only 1 more play to score if they didn't get the ball in the end zone on the 2nd down run.

    Leave a comment:


  • trc1962
    replied
    I think many would have criticized the call even if it had been successful because it was riskier than handing the ball off to Lynch, who rarely fumbles. I have issues with how they handled the play clock after Lynch got to the 1 yard line and let too much time run. It was obvious that the seahawks expected Bellicheck to burn a time out and when he didn't they got all panicked. I also think they got it backwards, run on 1st and 2nd and maybe even 3rd down and then if all else fails throw on 4th and don't just have Wilson stand in the pocket, add some play action and a bootleg with the option to throw a pass in the flat. To take the risk on 3rd and 4th down to put the ball in the air would be understandable AFTER Lynch was stopped. Carroll contends the call was fine and most seahawk fans would be fine with it on 4th down, but second down, no. He may never be forgiven here in the pacific northwest.

    Leave a comment:


  • fallforward3y+
    replied
    Originally posted by baphamet View Post
    i agree totally with fallforward.

    everyone wants to jump on the badwagon and blame the play call rather than the decision to throw it in the first place or the fact that his guy was open but the patriot player made a great play.

    no you do not know they would have punched it in without a doubt had they fed it to lynch. and if he would have caught that ball? what would people be saying then? that it was a great call of course!
    Bingo. It was one thing to criticize it when it first happened, but after thinking about it it seems a bit asinine for the call to warrant this kind of criticism.

    Your probably right, the call would likely not get very much criticism if the pass was completed. IMO it should only get criticized if it had slim chances of working, and it didn't imo. If a play call is good when it works, it is good when it doesn't. I think a sign of how play calling is at times overrated, and that execution is at times underrated.

    People call Sean Payton's onside kick call in the Super Bowl against the Colts some brilliant call, but really it was terrible imo. However, sometimes a team gets lucky, Baskett bobbled the ball and people say it was a genius call.

    Baskett catching it or not catching it doesn't relate to anything the Saints did imo, so it seems asinine to me to attribute it to some genius of Sean Payton.
    Last edited by fallforward3y+; 02-05-2015, 07:16 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • fallforward3y+
    replied
    Originally posted by FL BRONCO View Post
    Get your point and its certainly valid. However, if you look back on the play even if the reciever makes the catch he is not getting in and you have to waste the timeout. I get that somewhere in the next 3 plays you probably mix in a pass especially with only 1 timeout left. I even get that 2nd down might be a good down for it. But to throw a pass where there a are 3 of their guys and one of yours has to get there (and not your best players at that), imo horrible call. You could have had Lynch in backfield, faked to him and let wilson go out on bootleg then either run it in, throw to reciever coming open where only he could get it, or throw it 5 yards in the stands. Thats where Wilson is at his best, its well known he has problems in the pocket and instead thats where you put him and give him a play he is not use too ? Could have run pass play that worked earlier with your tall reciever and thrown it to him 1 on 1 where only he was going to cathch it. Coulda run a fade and thrown it up 1 on 1 where your guy gets it or no one does. You coulda just given it too Lynch, they hadn't stopped him yet and that D was tired and deflated, and if he didn't score, the Patriots probably call a time out there. You coulda done a lot of things. But throwing it in the middle into a crowd of Patriots where your guy wasn't even there yet and was out numbered and wason't going to score if he had caught it was just a horrible play call in that scenario. Especially with the SB on the line. It sucks for all involved cause it was a gutsy call at end of first half by the same people and that was a great call. But no matter how you want to sugar coat it, even if you believe the pass was a good call on that down, that play WAS NOT.
    If it's being criticized for not being a different kind of pass, that's one thing. However, the guy may have scored if he had caught it. Plus, you said they hadn't stopped Lynch yet, but the thing is that they had...twice in a short yardage situation.

    Leave a comment:


  • baphamet
    replied
    i agree totally with fallforward.

    everyone wants to jump on the badwagon and blame the play call rather than the decision to throw it in the first place or the fact that his guy was open but the patriot player made a great play.

    no you do not know they would have punched it in without a doubt had they fed it to lynch. and if he would have caught that ball? what would people be saying then? that it was a great call of course!

    Leave a comment:


  • FL BRONCO
    replied
    Originally posted by fallforward3y+ View Post
    People who keep arguing about Lynch's game seem to be missing the point. No matter how much it is ignored, it doesn't change that goal line situations are different imo. There are likely backs who average over 5 yards a carry that would be terrible in goal line situations.

    What got you there shouldn't be taken into account imo, it's about what play call is best for the situation. It was the 1 yard line, you don't have to be a pass happy offense to be able to complete a 1 yard pass. Throwing the ball was more likely to allow them more opportunities if their first play ended up failing.

    It is not for certain whether or not Lynch would have scored, saying otherwise imo is just a bunch of 'captain hindsight' nonsense after knowing the play that was called wasn't executed well.

    The Seahawks ran Lynch twice in short yardage situations earlier in the game...neither were converted. This idea people seem to have that running Lynch would have been automatic seems very misguided. The Pats have Vince Wilfork in the middle, I wouldn't say it's crazy to think they would have stopped him, especially when they had already done it twice in the game in a situation.

    Ironically, the argument of how his game had gone so far actually goes against calling a short yardage run imo, despite that many people seemingly are trying to use it as an argument for calling it.







    Get your point and its certainly valid. However, if you look back on the play even if the reciever makes the catch he is not getting in and you have to waste the timeout. I get that somewhere in the next 3 plays you probably mix in a pass especially with only 1 timeout left. I even get that 2nd down might be a good down for it. But to throw a pass where there a are 3 of their guys and one of yours has to get there (and not your best players at that), imo horrible call. You could have had Lynch in backfield, faked to him and let wilson go out on bootleg then either run it in, throw to reciever coming open where only he could get it, or throw it 5 yards in the stands. Thats where Wilson is at his best, its well known he has problems in the pocket and instead thats where you put him and give him a play he is not use too ? Could have run pass play that worked earlier with your tall reciever and thrown it to him 1 on 1 where only he was going to cathch it. Coulda run a fade and thrown it up 1 on 1 where your guy gets it or no one does. You coulda just given it too Lynch, they hadn't stopped him yet and that D was tired and deflated, and if he didn't score, the Patriots probably call a time out there. You coulda done a lot of things. But throwing it in the middle into a crowd of Patriots where your guy wasn't even there yet and was out numbered and wason't going to score if he had caught it was just a horrible play call in that scenario. Especially with the SB on the line. It sucks for all involved cause it was a gutsy call at end of first half by the same people and that was a great call. But no matter how you want to sugar coat it, even if you believe the pass was a good call on that down, that play WAS NOT.

    Leave a comment:


  • fallforward3y+
    replied
    Originally posted by trc1962 View Post
    I don't agree that "the play did not cost them the game" because it did. Look at the effort Lynch put out all afternoon and he was really close to the goal line on the 1st down play. Here is where I think they screwed up; after Lynch was stopped at the 1, they should have hurried to the line, snapped the ball and given it to Lynch and he would have scored. NE wouldn't have had time to put in their goal line defense and it is a safe play. If it doesn't work then they can use their time out and set up play action with a bootleg. What about leaving too much time? They have the #1 defense in the NFL and should have been able to hold. Carroll and Bevell called all kind of gimmick plays to get to the super bowl when they were behind, but when you get to the 1 yard line you go with what got you there, Lynch running the ball and defense. They had no business calling what they did and they aren't renigging now, but you have to wonder how the players feel, especially Lynch.
    People who keep arguing about Lynch's game seem to be missing the point. No matter how much it is ignored, it doesn't change that goal line situations are different imo. There are likely backs who average over 5 yards a carry that would be terrible in goal line situations.

    What got you there shouldn't be taken into account imo, it's about what play call is best for the situation. It was the 1 yard line, you don't have to be a pass happy offense to be able to complete a 1 yard pass. Throwing the ball was more likely to allow them more opportunities if their first play ended up failing.

    It is not for certain whether or not Lynch would have scored, saying otherwise imo is just a bunch of 'captain hindsight' nonsense after knowing the play that was called wasn't executed well.

    The Seahawks ran Lynch twice in short yardage situations earlier in the game...neither were converted. This idea people seem to have that running Lynch would have been automatic seems very misguided. The Pats have Vince Wilfork in the middle, I wouldn't say it's crazy to think they would have stopped him, especially when they had already done it twice in the game in a situation.

    Ironically, the argument of how his game had gone so far actually goes against calling a short yardage run imo, despite that many people seemingly are trying to use it as an argument for calling it.

    Leave a comment:


  • trc1962
    replied
    I don't agree that "the play did not cost them the game" because it did. Look at the effort Lynch put out all afternoon and he was really close to the goal line on the 1st down play. Here is where I think they screwed up; after Lynch was stopped at the 1, they should have hurried to the line, snapped the ball and given it to Lynch and he would have scored. NE wouldn't have had time to put in their goal line defense and it is a safe play. If it doesn't work then they can use their time out and set up play action with a bootleg. What about leaving too much time? They have the #1 defense in the NFL and should have been able to hold. Carroll and Bevell called all kind of gimmick plays to get to the super bowl when they were behind, but when you get to the 1 yard line you go with what got you there, Lynch running the ball and defense. They had no business calling what they did and they aren't renigging now, but you have to wonder how the players feel, especially Lynch.

    Leave a comment:


  • fallforward3y+
    replied
    Originally posted by canadiansbronco View Post
    I just dont see how you are not seeing they made the wrong call, the whole football word is.... If they where going to pass at least go for a fade where only you guy can get it....

    Anyway, i am not going to argue this haha i was just happy to see shermans stupid face when wilson got picked
    I think the football world is blowing it out of proportion, and it seems very 'captain hindsight' like to me. I could see your point about a fade to the back of the end zone, but that isn't what most people seem to be focusing on, plus I don't think it's big enough to be blown up like this.

    I did however, LOVE the look on Sherman's face, and I love it even more after hearing about how he started talking about how Brady was losing his heart during the game. EPIC!

    I don't mind some cockiness, and in truth I would expect some out of a great player, but he's to the point where it starts to get annoying imo, so it was particularly funny to watch that happen to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • fallforward3y+
    replied
    Originally posted by CanDB View Post
    First I attributed it to the second time out called......after the whacky reception. That time out was like gold. Two timeouts and four downs was almost a given, with Lynch and Wilson.

    Then I attributed to the fact that I was pulling for Seattle for the first time in years, only because I have a heavy duty disdain for The Pats (but I'm in goooooood company).

    Finally, I realized that the real reason Seattle messed up that series, was.........

    "karma"

    Because after The Pack game, I figured Seattle had used up all its "gift certificates".
    Watch the Saints 2009 season, believe me a team can ride lucky 'gift certificates' for a very long time. They were a very good team, don't get me wrong but they were INSANELY lucky also it seemed. The Vikings gave them 5 turnovers....people remember Favre getting knocked around but there was not a single turnover MN had that was the result of pressure. Also the ball bouncing out of Baskett's hands, and the pick 6 from Peyton.

    I remember their game vs ATL in 2010 where the ending seemed like karma. That game probably never goes to OT without a muffed punt that bounces off of the back of a Falcons player DeCoud who wasn't looking, and then in OT NO misses a 29 yard field goal. That may have been the biggest instance of 'football karma' I have ever seen.

    I agree that the time out is the biggest reason for why it happened that way, and that the Seahawks had been very lucky up to that point. I doubt karma caused them to take a TO, lol but they had even been lucky in the Super Bowl.

    That 29 second drive was impressive by them, however it was also an epic collapse by NE's defense, probably even worse than GB's defense collapsed at the end of the NFCC game. If not for NE seemingly being in 'half time mode' they probably don't even get a FG there, and if not for a facemask they probably don't get a TD. Also the boneheaded pick Brady threw after a great drive. NE had outplayed SEA significantly for most of the first half IMO but at the end of the half it was tied. It did seem like SEA was lucky to be in that game imo.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X