Also, I heard it was because they wanted more team members to be represented in the play, not just one (Lynch). Or, as Pete Carroll said after the game, it was because they wanted a 3rd or 4th down so that the Patriots wouldn't have enough time left on the clock to score. Still, I think you absolutely run it on that play. Sure, you may want to get more teammates involved, but you've been throwing and catching touchdowns all regular season- and in the Super Bowl, you play to win. I'm questioning whether that offensive coordinator will have a job in Seattle next year or not. Also, on a side note: How about that fighting after the Patriots got the ball back at the end of the game? What an immature move on the parts of the players (especially the Seattle guy who started throwing a bunch of punches).
I agree with your last statement. How is it the Patriots fault for taking an opportunity for a win? Seattle should have accepted their loss and not be childish babies.
Bruce Irvin picked on the wrong guy in Hoomawanui too xD Gronk and Hooma were out to kill him if it weren't for flags and whistles.
All in all the pats suck bill belicheat is a lying idiot and cheater. Tom brady is a baby and SUCH a poor sport. Next year will be a much different story and if peyton doesnt retire and if they are all healthy broncos will win superbowl against packers.
They were not the better team...thats the thing. In reality, they only have Brady and Gronkowski, and in all honesty thats what rages me most, is they did NOT deserve that win, they were getting their butts kicked for most of the game and barely scraped up to that last play where they gained, and then the coach ruined it for them, not the players. Better coaches, maybe, players, and overall team, no.
Just throwing it out there....Seattle won in freak fashion against Green Bay. If you watched the entirety of that game, Seattle looked atrocious for 58 minutes. In a way, had Slocum and McCarthy played smart, Seattle wouldn't have even been IN the Super Bowl. It would have been Packers V Patriots. Therefore, you can say that Seattle didn't even deserve to be in it in the first place. Plus, the Patriots have a lot more than just Gronk and Brady, and I won't even go there (Julian Edelman, Darelle Revis, Vince Wilfork, Rob Ninkovich, Jaime Collins, LeGarrete Blount...Just to name a few off the top of my head at the writing of this post.) And what do you mean, the "coach ruined it"? Sure, it was a bad call in hindsight, but, had Lockette pulled the catch off, would we be heading complaining? No. Russell Wilson threw the ball into traffic, and it got picked off. That's how it goes sometimes. And who was getting their butt kicked in that game? It sure wasn't either team. The Patriots ran and passed all over the Legion of Boom and the Seattle defense, and Seattle picked apart the New England defense. If it was a "buttkicking" with the Patriots only winning on "1 play," then why was the score 28-24? But, consider your last statement again for a second. The Patrioots have the better coaches. Ok, sure. Likely better players. Ok, sounds good. But they are the worse overall team? What do you have to have to be the "best team" by that standard? If you have the better coaches and players, you are better, enough said. I just am a bit confused, as one might assume. Also, I'm not a professional sports writer, so don't mark my words on everything I said.
Denver has a lot of things to fix after losing to Indianapolis. As much as I would like to see them back, there's more than just Peyton not retiring to getting the Broncos back.
As much as I would like to see them back... Oh boy. If you're saying you want DENVER back... oh man you're not on my good side atm. jk, jk
