Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

In defense of conservative play calling..


CamMoon

Recommended Posts

On average an NFL teams will see the ball about 10-14 times a game. Since it was already halftime at best the Seahawks could have hoped for 7 more chances to score, barring turnovers or anything of that nature. The problem with being aggressive is that if you do turn the ball over, especially in your own territory the game is lengthened. Quick scores are killers when trying to maintain a lead so playing it safe was the best option. So, giving 10 yard cushions isn't a bad idea since time will continue to run off of the clock. There was literally no way for Seattle to come back unless we turned the ball over or they got a quick score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is nearly impossible to hold on to a big lead for an entire 30 minutes of football against a team like Seattle.  We did it once all season (home against  ATL).  That being said, basically Russell Wilson just made some sick throws under duress and they mounted a comeback.

The conservative play calling is definitely designed to not give up the big play and to run out the clock.  It worked.  We won.  It wasn't pretty, but the coaches did enough.  The players did enough.  One thing that may go overlooked:  We never trailed in that game.

The biggest problem was that our offense didn't really sustain much.  If we could have scored even 2 FGs in that entire half, the game would have been out of reach.  Not enough first downs.  That was a problem that put all the pressure on the defense to hold a huge lead with tons of time.  However, and this is huge:  We did not turn the ball over!

Everyone complains about the pattern of the Indy, GB, and NYG games.  It was the same today.  Point is: We won all of them.  4-0 in games that go like this one.

In the end we did enough things right to win the game.  That was Rivera's line.  I think he's exactly right.

Arizona is a team that can score fast and often and score 24 points in a half, so...

Would you rather have a close game that goes down to the wire?

Or

Have one team get out to a big lead only to have the game come down to an onside kick?

Either way it's the NFL.  You win the game, you go on to the next round.

We are on to the next round.  Doesn't matter how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

Get over it already.

get over what? Ohhhh you mean the we won thing.  No poo.  And no one was even talking about that.  I made a comment on his post, not the game.  He was pointing out that Seattle wouldn't have had enough time/possessions to comeback. which isnt true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

Get over it already.

But he's right. From a 31 point lead to a single-possession game hinging on an onside kick is silly when a team doesn't score a single point for an entire half in the playoffs. No one is saying Carolina should have gone for 60, but a minimum of a field goal changes everything. 

That said, a win is a win. If Seattle had recovered, however...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing missing that kept me from believing I was suffering from a degenerative memory condition was a 3rd and 7 draw play. 

Other than that, it looked like John Fox and Dan Henning were making guest appearances as second half coaches. 

And say all you want along the lines of, "I knew we had it all along," or, "There was never any doubt." Yeah okay, but there were 70,000 plus in that stadium yesterday who were dead silent for the last 25 minutes of that game who weren't convinced.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • So the last guy who had the job got hired by his former team directly into a role he has no direct experience in?
    • Hard to pass up millions for a couple of days work per week for a coaching gig in the NFL that is 60-80 hours each week during the season and a more relaxed 50 hours a week during the off season. Yeah, I'd love to see him as our DC but hard to see him giving up the cushy job there if he gets it. And he's going to be a great commentator for the network.
    • Really, I think that is where negotiations come in. If you've got a QB getting you to 10 wins but statistically he's not a great performer, then you say look you can take $22 million or you can try it on the market. Because let's face it, out there, any leadership skills that we're seeing aren't going to be on the table, it's just going to be performance and that lands him in the QB2 market, which is much, much less lucrative (although any of us would love that money).  No one is saying that Bryce will be a $50 million QB, barring something short of a miraculous jump. I'm just saying that if we are winning somehow with him at the helm, then it would be fuging stupid to dive back into the rookie pool all over again. Let's say we do hit the 10 win mark, heck, let's call it 11 and a second round in the playoffs. I think we can all say that would be a really uplifting result and one that should be doable if we have good play. What do we do then? Here's what I would offer if I were Morgan and Tepper. $25 million a year for 3 years, each year with up to $10 million in incentives for touchdowns, wins, playoff depth, being under 10 interceptions, completing a full season, passing yardage milestones, taking less than 15 sacks. Look, Bryce isn't a Ferrari, he isn't a Corvette, or a mid-level BMW. He's probably a new Toyota Sienna that will definitely get you somewhere and bring the whole team along with it, no fuss but not a lot of pizazz.  And really, it's about the destination, not about what drove you there.
×
×
  • Create New...