[sygazelle]

First, I am not an expert in football. I am not an expert on strategy or play calling. That said, I've read all the reasons why the Seahawk's call was the worst in Superbowl history.

From my non-expert point of view, it was not the best call, but I don't think it was as horrible as it is being made out to be.

Key points:

- the Patriots were set up for a run defense.
- a pass play stops the clock if incomplete
- Lynch has had trouble advancing close to the end zone
- the guy who intercepted made an an unbelievable play to get the ball
- the Seahawks fumble percentage is higher than their interception percentage (1.5% to 1.2%) if I read the season stats correctly.

There is no guarantee that Lynch would have made it into the end zone. Also, there is a risk that he would fumble, just like there is a risk that the pass would be intercepted.

Certainly, a pass across the middle is more dangerous, but still their interception rate is darn low. Whoever made the call apparently thought the risk of the pass was acceptable given that the Patriots were set up for the run and also the concern for time management.

Sure, the outcome was bad. But, in the moment, was it really as horrible a call as the fans and press are making it out to be? Or was it just horrible after the fact because of the outcome?

I'm not a Seahawk fan or a Pete Carroll fan so I'm not trying to defend anything. I'm just wondering if the hate is totally justified. What am I missing?