> "The only problem was that it didn't work. If the Seahawks had scored, the press would have called the coach's call genius." Not at all. If the world thinks

> "The only problem was that it didn't work. If the Seahawks had scored, the press would have called the coach's call genius." Not at all. If the world thinks you are a fool, you are indeed a fool. Pete Carrol the coach (and also the person, given the magnitude of the Super Bowl) could only lose out by calling a passing play on the 2yd line, and the Seahawks as an organization as well. Only other coaches and statisticians might think that he made the right call and that Bellichick screwed up by not letting them score (as he did in Super Bowl XLVI). But in the end an HC has to get inside the head of the players, he needs players to believe in what he is telling them. They are his audience, not statisticians and other head coaches. The fans are also his audience almost in the same way as the players. The reputational damage when you become a meme for bad decision making has to be taken into account. Pete Carrol and the Seahawks franchise were heavily damaged by the epilogue of that Super Bowl. There were 3 possible outcomes at that point, ranking them: 1) Getting a TD and winning the SB 2) Not getting a TD and losing the SB due to an epic goal line stand from New England. then there are 50 ft of crap and then there's 3) Giving the impression that you threw away the SB with an extravagant and forced call (regardless of how good it was) The 49ers didn't suffer the same reputational damage when they failed to get in Baltimore's end zone for 4 straight times at the end of the "blackout" Super Bowl. In conclusion an organization which is worth billions such as any NFL team cannot afford to call plays like they have nothing to lose from a financial and reputational standpoint, they are not some High School in Montana and it's not like the Seahawks were going to be dissolved after the end of that game.