Super Bowl 2015

[thorsten]

If most of the Americans that grew up with an understanding of Am. football agrees its the wrong play, but one person (not American) thinks its the right one, that pretty much just shows you dont "know" the game or its stratagy. I would explain it to you but dont have the time now.. Maybe next yr we could meet during a game for a refreshing coctail and you can be schooled.

Ohhh, I didn't know knowledge is based on nationality. Now your argument makes totally sense...

 

[Dublin2BuenosAires]

Ohhh, I didn't know knowledge is based on nationality. Now your argument makes totally sense...

Plenty of Americans on here spouting nonsense during the world cup.

We'll call it a draw.

 

[hannstew]

True that MG..

Thorston, point made.. The invitation still stands to have a cool beverage at a game showing next year though. The point I was making was if it was the right play to call, why would the majority of people (any nationality) think it was wrong, including the announcers and professionals of the game. Just saying..

 

[Macanudo]

With 26 seconds to play and one timeout you can get three shots at the end zone if you throw at least on pass, without throwing any passes you only have two shots to score. Do you think your chances of scoring are better with two plays or three plays? Of course there is always the possibility of an interception or a fumble, but great teams play with confidence not fear.

Let's say you run It on second down and don't score, you call your last time out with 18 seconds left. Now it's third down, do you run again and if you don't make it the game is over, or do you pass and if it's incomplete you get another play with 10 seconds left?

 

[ghost]

Monday morning quarterbacks are all screaming out the next play.

 

[thorsten]

hannes, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the play made was the best play possible. All I'm saying is that it's a valid alternative play and clearly not "the worst call in history" as many people consider it. It should be obvious that any optimal strategy should contain at least some percentage of passes as a pure run strategy enables the defending team to get an advantage.
Regarding the majority opinions: if you read some post-analysis of the play, you will find that there are more and more opinions that give credit to the play compared to directly after the game, which is natural: the play and its result looks incredibly stupid and people are highly biased based on the result. I'm pretty sure if it would have resulted in a TD, not a single reporter would say "that was the most stupid call I ever saw". There were several similar situations during the season and in none of them we had an interception; same play, different result - and no comments aka "worst call"...

 

[Dublin2BuenosAires]

As i understand it, and I understand the game just about enough to enjoy watching it, doing the unexpected on offence is Pete Carroll's m.o. Most other coaches would have taken the field goal before ht whereas he took at shot at the endzone with less than 10 seconds on the clock. He saw some outrageous calls work against the poor old Packers. I suppose Carroll might argue that predictable doesn't win superbowls. The man is a maniac, he'd probably have gone for a 2 pt conversion after the touchdown if he had made it.

The bigger failure was to underestimate the dark arts of Belichick who had his secondary prepped, familiar with the "tells" in the offense and ready to jump out in front of the play. He seemed to get inside Carroll's head, who didn't seem to fancy taking on the Patriot's goal ine defensive unit.

Good game, so much better than last years victory parade... at least for the happily ignorant amongst us. I even got my wife to watch an hour or so of the game. On the basis that she wanted "Sleepless in Seattle" to win. Hmmm...