(February 2, 2015 at 3:13 pm)rasetsu Wrote: I think all this complaining about the call is over-wrought. Football is about taking risks. You don't put together winning seasons without taking risks. If Carroll hadn't risked going for the endzone at the end of the first half, they might not have even been in that position at the end. The defender got a good jump on the ball and picked it. It happens. If he hadn't, that likely would have been a Seattle touchdown and nobody would be whining about Carroll's play calling now. They got lucky with that Kearse reception. And then fate turned around and dished them dirt. That's life. And football.
The call itself was flawed. When the field is that constricted and short, the middle is going to be crowded; the defense has to guard against a QB sneak, or Lynch up the gut, and that means putting bodies in the box. Throwing into traffic is not a good thing to do. If you throw over the middle near the goal line, you throw to the back of the endzone, where either your guy gets it or it goes out of bounds.
Yes, it was sixty minutes of ball, and there are several play calls that could be questioned. But the rubber meets the road at four points down, 20 seconds left, and you have to make that call right right then.
There's nothing wrong with taking risks -- it's part of good playcalling. However, risks should not be heedless or unnecessary. Calculation and cost/benefits analysis are required on the gridiron, too. I could think of three or four plays keeping the ball at low risk, with a better chance of getting one yard and winning the game. This is a call I would have criticized even had it not resulted in the game-ending interception.
