Need to have one in the final minute of the Superbowl.
Wow, Seahawks.
Re: I.Q.
Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:17 pm
by UAEebs86
All I know is a bunch of kids in Africa are getting Seahawks back-to-back champs shirts.
Nice to see a Cat score a TD in the Superbowl.
Re: I.Q.
Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:18 pm
by scumdevils86
Such an awful call good lord
Re: I.Q.
Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:21 pm
by PieceOfMeat
posted this in the other thread, will post it here too.
morons. that's what the seahawks were.
pete carrol wtf were you doing. 2nd and goal from the 1..plenty of time, timeouts, and you don't give it to lynch?
morons deserve to lose.
Re: I.Q.
Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:26 pm
by FreeSpiritCat
Seattle really Couged it something fierce.
Re: I.Q.
Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:35 pm
by 84Cat
Re: I.Q.
Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 9:26 pm
by ASUCatFan
Didn't Carroll make the same call against Texas? Totally boneheaded.
Re: I.Q.
Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 9:33 pm
by Daryl Zero
84Cat wrote:
Emmitt Smith just trying to be Bill Walton.
Re: I.Q.
Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 6:06 am
by EastCoastCat
After Lynch's first down run to the one, I was wondering why the Pats did not call a timeout as it was almost certain Seattle was going to score. Then the announcers were mentioning the Pats might let them score so they could get the ball back with some time left on the clock. Then the ill-fated pass.
That last minute was totally surreal.
Re: I.Q.
Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:22 am
by Merkin
Re: I.Q.
Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 1:01 pm
by Chicat
When after Lynch's 4 yard run the Seahawks made no urgent move to get the next snap off or to take a timeout, I knew they were going to throw the ball. I just couldn't imagine a scenario where they run the ball on 2nd down and then if they don't make it they're forced to take their last timeout with 20 seconds left. Because then the question of what to do at that point as far as run vs. pass looms.
I could tell Seattle was thinking, "let's throw it here and see if we can catch them off guard. Then if it's incomplete, the clock stops and we still have two more shots with Marshawn and our timeout."
Makes me wonder if New England was thinking the same thing.
Re: I.Q.
Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 1:15 pm
by CatzManiac
Chicat wrote:When after Lynch's 4 yard run the Seahawks made no urgent move to get the next snap off or to take a timeout, I knew they were going to throw the ball. I just couldn't imagine a scenario where they run the ball on 2nd down and then if they don't make it they're forced to take their last timeout with 20 seconds left. Because then the question of what to do at that point as far as run vs. pass looms.
I could tell Seattle was thinking, "let's throw it here and see if we can catch them off guard. Then if it's incomplete, the clock stops and we still have two more shots with Marshawn and our timeout."
Makes me wonder if New England was thinking the same thing.
Chicat wrote:When after Lynch's 4 yard run the Seahawks made no urgent move to get the next snap off or to take a timeout, I knew they were going to throw the ball. I just couldn't imagine a scenario where they run the ball on 2nd down and then if they don't make it they're forced to take their last timeout with 20 seconds left. Because then the question of what to do at that point as far as run vs. pass looms.
I could tell Seattle was thinking, "let's throw it here and see if we can catch them off guard. Then if it's incomplete, the clock stops and we still have two more shots with Marshawn and our timeout."
Makes me wonder if New England was thinking the same thing.
Chicat wrote:When after Lynch's 4 yard run the Seahawks made no urgent move to get the next snap off or to take a timeout, I knew they were going to throw the ball. I just couldn't imagine a scenario where they run the ball on 2nd down and then if they don't make it they're forced to take their last timeout with 20 seconds left. Because then the question of what to do at that point as far as run vs. pass looms.
I could tell Seattle was thinking, "let's throw it here and see if we can catch them off guard. Then if it's incomplete, the clock stops and we still have two more shots with Marshawn and our timeout."
Makes me wonder if New England was thinking the same thing.
Or you're a plagiarist, which is usually the issue with you "smart ones."
Re: I.Q.
Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:10 pm
by Chicat
Longhorned wrote:
Chicat wrote:
CatzManiac wrote:
Chicat wrote:When after Lynch's 4 yard run the Seahawks made no urgent move to get the next snap off or to take a timeout, I knew they were going to throw the ball. I just couldn't imagine a scenario where they run the ball on 2nd down and then if they don't make it they're forced to take their last timeout with 20 seconds left. Because then the question of what to do at that point as far as run vs. pass looms.
I could tell Seattle was thinking, "let's throw it here and see if we can catch them off guard. Then if it's incomplete, the clock stops and we still have two more shots with Marshawn and our timeout."
Makes me wonder if New England was thinking the same thing.
Or you're a plagiarist, which is usually the issue with you "smart ones."
I do read WaPo online, but honestly I had zero idea they covered sports. I learned something new while schooling you less intellectual types with my brain and stuff.
That’s right. On the 1-yard line, QBs threw 66 touchdowns with no interceptions prior to Wilson’s errant toss.3 Not mentioned: They also scored four touchdowns on scrambles (which Wilson is pretty good at last I checked). That’s a 60.9 percent success rate.
Just for comparison’s sake, here’s how more than 200 runs fared this year in the same situation:
125 led to touchdowns.
94 failed to score.
Of those, 23 were for loss of yardage.
Two resulted in lost fumbles.
So overall, runs do a bit worse than passes (57.1 percent vs. 60.9 percent).
