This one's on Dan

I feel the same way about you, @studmuffin . :joy:

AG is no doubt a scary issue. Outside of injuries it’s the next most likely reason that we underperform.

You tell yourself whatever you need to, lol. We were totally playing for a FG. It was not the same aggressive Dan playcalling we are used to.

1:) You do understand that Dan is not calling the plays, right? We have an Offensive Coordinator. His name is Ben Johnson. Most think he’s pretty good at his job.

2:) of course they weren’t playing for a Field Goal. IMO that’s an absurd insinuation. Go listen to Dan’s presser again. He’s very clear as to what the strategy was. Make sure Seattle doesn’t get the ball back with any time AND see if we can get close enough to score a TD. We were trying to thread that needle. Dan says so. You can disapprove of the strategy but misrepresenting the strategy as simply “hey guys let’s just go to overtime here” is not representative of reality.

3:) There are three decision makers at play here. Jared, Ben and Dan. Of that trio Dan neither has direct say in where the ball is going or what specific route combos are being run. Go watch first down. Marvin runs something vertical and Jared almost lets it rip. Instead pump faking and taking the safe check down to Gibbs. I don’t have the all 22 to tell why Jared didn’t rip it to Jones but I’m sure he saw something he didn’t like.

4:) now go watch the second down play. Should have been completed. That put us 1st and 10 at the 15ish with 20 seconds left. Enough time for three plays and a field goal. That’s fairly close to ideal. As I said many times I would have preferred we have 7-10 more seconds but the clock situation was really handled fairly well given the objectives that Dan clearly stated in his press conference.

5:) we had a gimpy St., Reynolds, two rookies and the oldest WR in the NFL. We were facing a secondary with a top 10 CB that runs in the 4.2s, an All Pro Safety, a top 5 pick and a guy who already had a pick 6. Our pass protecting back was out injured. The OL was down two starters and giving up some pressure. The field is condensed. The risk of a TO is inherently significantly higher under these circumstances. Risk aversion from Jared and our offensive minds is both warranted and IMO commendable.

6:) @Mr.Peabody tried bringing this up and so many refused to listen. Dan brought it up to Justin Rogers as well. We kicked the field goal bc it was fourth down not bc of a lack of time. We still had plenty of time to score a TD. But Seattle stopped us and forced a fourth down. I don’t get what is so hard about this basic fact of Football 101.

So there you go. The above is an actual point for point explanation of mine (and I believe Dan’s) point of view. If you have a point for point explanation explaining why you think Dan was playing for the tie I would love to read it. Some people want to disagree and say that you should just score a TD and if worst case you fail to do so (like we did) and leave Seattle 50 seconds, the ball and one TO in a tie game then so be it. That is fine. I am totally okay with people disagreeing with the strategy and do recognize that an old school ball coach would have likely proceeded this way. Personally I like Dan’s progressiveness and as a general rule I like aiming for the moon which in terms of late game play is what we were doing. We wanted the walk off TD (or damn close to it).

What I’m not okay with is people ludicrously portraying Dan as not wanting to win the game in regulation but instead preferring to go to OT. IMO that’s a silly argument, one that I think with time people will be able to reflect on and realize no way does Dan think that way. Dan clearly was simultaneously trying to win the game while also make sure there was no chance we don’t at least see overtime. I don’t understand why that simple bit of nuance is giving some people so much trouble. My guess is that it’s simply frustration over the loss.