Who's Showing the Super Bowl?

[JulieM]

"Could be right but if they did not have enough confidence that they could get that yard and the touchdown with two running plays, they did not deserve to win. They have the best goal line running back in the game. Also with your(their) logic, a run on second would have caught the defense by surprise, wouldn't it?"

I don't know. Sometimes you call the play that is expected precisely because the other team thinks you won't do the expected. Or so guess. I've never been a football coach.

[arunsakda]

Certain analysts consider that powerful commercial interests may have been in play. Marshawn Lynch is somewhat of a bete noire in the league, is "old" (29), will be looking for a new contract soon, and avoids media. Not the guy they want with a camera in his face to say "I'm going to Disneyworld". Giving him the glory would provide him leverage in contract talks as well. On the other QB Wilson is younger with a more clean cut image, perhaps a better image to anchor the team going forward. Whatever you say about it the NFL is a gladiatorial spectacle that is about one thing only, MONEY. The halftime show was quite a spectacle but I liked 2013 better, when Beyonce became temporarily possessed by a demon and performed an actual Satanic ritual for the global audience.

Edited February 3, 2015 by arunsakda

[PHP87]

Wow! What was Pete Carroll thinking?

An incomplete pass stops the game clock. An unsuccessful run does not. A timeout also stops the clock, and Seattle only had one timeout left. So if the Seahawks had run on second down and failed to get a touchdown, they would have had to call timeout.

Now, it's third down, and they have no timeouts left. So if they run on third and fail, the game is over. But if they pass on third and fail, the clock will stop, and they can run another play. So they basically have to pass on third, and the New England defense knows they have to pass.

By contrast, if you throw on second down and fail, the clock stops. Now it's third down, and you still have your time out. That means you could run on third, fail, and use the timeout to stop the clock and run another play on fourth down. That means New England has to defend against both the pass and the run, which puts Seattle in a more advantageous strategic position than they would be had they run and failed.

(I found this on the web. Makes sense to me, I guess.)

Coming out of a Time Out in that situation, it's common to call two plays to run if the first one fails.

Besides, with :28 if Lynch gets stopped, they have plenty of time to run another play, especially if they called back to back plays during the Time Out. It's not like they needed 10 yards and would need to run down the field, line up, then snap the ball. If Lynch gets stopped it takes maybe 10 seconds off the clock max and another 10 seconds to line up and run another play.

If both plays fail, you burn your final TO and hope you can score on 4th down.

Besides, even if SEA caught that pass, it wouldn't have been a TD as it was short of the Goal Line and the clock keeps rolling.

Seattle had time to run two plays at the end of the first half - a pass and if it failed, a FG with :06 showing on the clock, so it's highly likely to run the ball twice in less than :25 seconds. They had a lot of options/scenarios in that situation to win the game and chose the worst one.

BTW, NFL teams ran the ball 72.8% of the time from the 1-yard line in the playoffs. Russell Wilson is a good QB, but having a 5'11", 24-year old QB throwing the ball into the middle on a short field when you can "Feed The Beast", who had just broken off a 6-yard gain, is a risky play as the ball can be deflected, intercepted, the QB sacked, etc...

If Lynch can't get 1-yard on two tries, then you at least tried your best. I'm not a SEA or a NE fan, but SEA basically had that game won and handed over the SB on a boneheaded play-call by Carroll. Much like when he had Reggie Bush on the bench on a key 4th and 1 in the 2005 Rose Bowl when Carroll coached at USC, a game they lost by 3 points.

Simply put, Pete Carroll got "too cute" and it cost him the SB

I would've have gone with a "Jumbo" package/personnel. Two TE's and a OL as a 3rd TE and punched it in with Lynch.

Hindsight is 20/20, but in that situation, you give it to The Beast.

[NancyL]

You've got to admit, it was one fun game. Personally, I don't really care about either team, it was just fun to watch. That's why I really liked the 8:30 pm re-broadcast on Channel 666 on Truevisions. Cut out nearly 2 hours. Moved right along. Got a chance to see a really good football game in record time.

As a girl from the Great Lakes region, I would have had more buy-in if Green Bay, Chicago, or Detroit were playing, but oh well. Not this year. It was interesting to see the little homage to hockey during the final minutes. Don't see that very often at the SB, do we?

[just_Elaine]

Certain analysts consider that powerful commercial interests may have been in play. Marshawn Lynch is somewhat of a bete noire in the league, is "old" (29), will be looking for a new contract soon, and avoids media. Not the guy they want with a camera in his face to say "I'm going to Disneyworld". Giving him the glory would provide him leverage in contract talks as well. On the other QB Wilson is younger with a more clean cut image, perhaps a better image to anchor the team going forward. Whatever you say about it the NFL is a gladiatorial spectacle that is about one thing only, MONEY. The halftime show was quite a spectacle but I liked 2013 better, when Beyonce became temporarily possessed by a demon and performed an actual Satanic ritual for the global audience.

I saw an article a couple of days ago that Seattle offered Lynch a contract extension. I don't remember what it said, but it didn't say he accepted it either.

Not sure why, the Seahawks did not try "Beast" mode. I found it a disappointing ending to a good game. Oh well, hopefully, lesson learned....

[PHP87]

It was a good game indeed, but a disappointing ending to a well-played game by a boneheaded call.

And yeah, a nice little skirmish at the end. Instead of pulling the jersey over the head like in hockey, they pull the helmet off their opponent's head so they don't break their own hands punching hard plastic.

[uptheos]

So, who watched the Superbowl where?

how about some feedback regarding where you watched it?

[khwaibah]

From excellent source 65 were at B&B Sugar Bar & Restaurant.

[NancyL]

So, who watched the Superbowl where?

how about some feedback regarding where you watched it?

That's not really relevant. We're discussing the game.

Let's not turn this into a thread that bashes certain businesses or groups that organized Super Bowl events.

P.S. Notice how the women really watched the game, too! There were some interesting decisions made during play. It was really fun to watch the strategy of what they were doing on the field. Personally, I really liked watching the "condensed version" at 8:30 pm on Channel 666. I haven't actually sit down and watched a game non-stop for a long time because they're so blasted long. By cutting out all the commercials, time-outs and fluff it's possible to really, actually enjoy the gamesmanship going on out there on the field. Oh sure, watching in a group setting at a bar is fun, too, but this was one game really worth studying without distractions.

Edited February 4, 2015 by NancyL

[hml367]

So, who watched the Superbowl where?

how about some feedback regarding where you watched it?

That's not really relevant. We're discussing the game.

Let's not turn this into a thread that bashes certain businesses or groups that organized Super Bowl events.

P.S. Notice how the women really watched the game, too! There were some interesting decisions made during play. It was really fun to watch the strategy of what they were doing on the field.

The title of the thread is Who's Showing the Superbowl? Discussing the game seems to have gone off that topic.

[hml367]

So, who watched the Superbowl where?

how about some feedback regarding where you watched it?

I watched at my house.... True Visions satellite.

[uptheos]

So, who watched the Superbowl where?

how about some feedback regarding where you watched it?

That's not really relevant. We're discussing the game.

Let's not turn this into a thread that bashes certain businesses or groups that organized Super Bowl events.

P.S. Notice how the women really watched the game, too! There were some interesting decisions made during play. It was really fun to watch the strategy of what they were doing on the field. Personally, I really liked watching the "condensed version" at 8:30 pm on Channel 666. I haven't actually sit down and watched a game non-stop for a long time because they're so blasted long. By cutting out all the commercials, time-outs and fluff it's possible to really, actually enjoy the gamesmanship going on out there on the field. Oh sure, watching in a group setting at a bar is fun, too, but this was one game really worth studying without distractions.

The thread has gone away from the original title, so anything relating to the Superbowl is relevant whether you think so or not!

It's not a question of bashing certain businesses although I know how you might see it leading that way. it's merely asking who watched it where and how was it, a good indicator for future events.

I will ask whatever question I like once the game is over and the thread has deviated and I will thank you to keep your nose out.

[onthedarkside]

Posts removed ..

Forum rule 7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

[just_Elaine]

We watched at home too...

[northernjohn]

The game is over. I would like to know who can change the outcome.

[khwaibah]

IPTV at home.