Premise: the Wilson INT is not like the SD game

This topic has 9 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 10 months ago by bnw.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)

Author

Posts
February 2, 2015 at 11:23 am #17829

zn
Moderator

Because of the game-ending INT yesterday, a lot of people recall the Rams game in SD and complain again about the playcall in that game that led to the INT. I had absolutely no problem with that call, myself. Meaning, the Rams call.

The play worked. Cunningham was open. It was a sure bet score (ie. as designed it was).

In fact, under Schott, when Bradford was playing he was nearly 50% (2012 & 2013 combined) on TDs to attempts inside the 10…and with only 2 INTs on all 49 throws. That’s throwing every pass imaginable, out of every offensive set imaginable, AND with the entire team PLUS the defenses they faced knowing they were not very good running the ball inside the 10.

Hill should have waited half a beat. He locked on to Britt instead. Shrug. To me that was execution.

Anyway, the Rams didn’t have Lynch and on top of it, they had a really mediocre short yardage running game. In fact, if you combine Stacy, Cunningham, and Mason for the entire year they ran inside the 10 26 total times all season, with 5 TDs. Lynch by himself did it 29 times with 11 TDs. That’s a 19% success rate v. 38% success rate.

I understand the playcall yesterday but they will always raise doubts because they had Lynch. Even though the Patz were stacked against the run.

Either way, I also don’t care. I was just watching a good game. I didn’t really root for anyone, I was just curious about a good football game. A lot of guys in Ramsland all over the net are acting like Seattle let them down personally. I don’t feel anything remotely like that. Fine with me that they lost, fine with me how they lost. If Seattle had won, I would have said the same thing about the Patz.

February 2, 2015 at 11:38 am #17830

rfl
Participant

In general, agreed.

The question with the SB pick is Caroll’s decision-making. And, the fact that he had the league’s best power running game which NE had had trouble stopping. AND a TO left.

The question with Hill was … Hill. We had no power on the goal line all year. Our chances throwing were better than running it. (I can’t remember if the play ran off an empty backfield. If so, that would be a problem.)

Wilson tried to make a play to a guy who seemed, if not open, available. And he’s a much better QB.

I’d put the difference this way. If Wilson chose to throw the ball away, I would trust him to do that successfully.

My problem with Hill is not that he threw a pick. It’s that he was throwing the ball away and he didn’t have the presence of mind to throw it straight down or OB. He threw it down into a pile of bodies. That ain’t good.

But the call was fine. You have to trust a QB to see an opening or successfully throw it away to kick the FG.

By virtue of the absurd ...

February 2, 2015 at 12:04 pm #17831

zn
Moderator

It was an empty backfield, and I have no problem with that–it put a linebacker on Cunningham, and Cunningham beat him. As I understand it, the advantages of an empty backfield in that situation are twofold–one is, by sending out a back and then lining him up wide, the defense which has to honor the presence of a back with their personnel grouping, suddenly is caught in a mismatch. Usually of course a back can beat most LBs. Then if the defense honored the run personnel, they are lining up 2 CBs plus safeties and LBs against 5 receivers. That’s going to leave 3 guys with single coverage. Some say you lose the element of deception you get with a back in the backfield, but to me that’s 6 of one half of dozen of the other–deception or mismatch on the line. The 2nd advantage is that once you line up with 5 WRs the defense has to declare its coverage by how it lines up to counter, so you get a very useful pre-snap read.

Hill locked on to Britt, is the problem. He didn’t wait half a beat for Cunningham, who did spring free quickly.

February 2, 2015 at 12:26 pm #17832

Winnbrad
Participant

I have no problem with the call by Carroll. If it works, he’s hailed as a genius. If it doesn’t, then Carroll is probably expecting, at worst, an incompletion, which stops the clock.

Very low chance of a sack on that type of play, and if there is one, Seattle still has one time out left.

And he still has two chances left to score.

It was just one of those crazy football plays. We’ve all seen hundreds of them. Heck, there was one two plays before that, with the wacky catch.

Tough break for Seattle. Great play by the NE corner.

February 2, 2015 at 12:37 pm #17833

wv
Participant

Winnbrad wrote:

I have no problem with the call by Carroll. If it works, he’s hailed as a genius. If it doesn’t, then Carroll is probably expecting, at worst, an incompletion, which stops the clock.

Very low chance of a sack on that type of play, and if there is one, Seattle still has one time out left.

And he still has two chances left to score.

It was just one of those crazy football plays. We’ve all seen hundreds of them. Heck, there was one two plays before that, with the wacky catch.

Tough break for Seattle. Great play by the NE corner.

I remember a game between the Purple Gang
and the Rams.

Roman ran the ball three straight times at the one yard
line. Maybe it was four, i forget — stoned every time.

I got no problem with a pass down there
on second down.

w
v

February 2, 2015 at 1:10 pm #17834

canadaram
Participant

I didn’t think the super bowl play was exactly like the SD game either. Still, it totally took me back to that moment in San Diego. Or to that moment in when I watched it in my mancave.

February 2, 2015 at 1:31 pm #17838

Dak
Participant

Well, if you ask me, Wilson certainly telegraphed the throw. That corner saw his eyes and jumped the pass. Plus, I don’t know if I’d trust that Seattle WR to make the catch, honestly. I don’t remember the ‘Hawks trying a pass like that all game.

I do feel like Lynch should have been an equation in that play, because you have the option of Wilson faking to Lynch and getting to the outside, where he’s so dangerous. Then, if it doesn’t work, he can safely throw the ball away, and if not, you still have a timeout.

I don’t put everything on the play call, but I still think it was the wrong call.

February 2, 2015 at 1:58 pm #17841

joemad
Participant

I think almost every Ram fan that saw that final offensive play by Seattle initially thought San Diego…… “Russell Wilson just “Shawn Hilled” it”

but yes, different circumstances with similar season ending heartbreaking results….

New England dominated that game in the 1st half and 4th quarter……. Seattle was lucky to be in position to win that game….

it was one entertaining Super Bowl…….

February 2, 2015 at 3:21 pm #17844

rfl
Participant

Dak wrote:

Well, if you ask me, Wilson certainly telegraphed the throw. That corner saw his eyes and jumped the pass. Plus, I don’t know if I’d trust that Seattle WR to make the catch, honestly. I don’t remember the ‘Hawks trying a pass like that all game.

I do feel like Lynch should have been an equation in that play, because you have the option of Wilson faking to Lynch and getting to the outside, where he’s so dangerous. Then, if it doesn’t work, he can safely throw the ball away, and if not, you still have a timeout.

I don’t put everything on the play call, but I still think it was the wrong call.

There are 2 issues here. They’re related, but distinct.

Execution is one thing.
Making the call is another.

I didn’t watch the game, and found out about the play later. But, to me, the call is a pretty good one. You have to trust your QB, and Wilson deserves a lot of trust in a situation like that.

By virtue of the absurd ...

February 2, 2015 at 7:39 pm #17860

bnw
Blocked

Dak wrote:

Well, if you ask me, Wilson certainly telegraphed the throw. That corner saw his eyes and jumped the pass. Plus, I don’t know if I’d trust that Seattle WR to make the catch, honestly. I don’t remember the ‘Hawks trying a pass like that all game.

I do feel like Lynch should have been an equation in that play, because you have the option of Wilson faking to Lynch and getting to the outside, where he’s so dangerous. Then, if it doesn’t work, he can safely throw the ball away, and if not, you still have a timeout.

I don’t put everything on the play call, but I still think it was the wrong call.

I agree. Lynch and Wilson running are the strength of their offense and they abandoned their game. Terribly stupid call.

The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

Sprinkles are for winners.
Author

Posts