on usa today‘s for the win blog, chris chase posted about a matt lauer interview on the today show with seattle seahawks head coach pete carroll.
chase believes that lauer asks “fine questions and follow-ups” (follow-ups are questions generated during the course of the conversation by carroll’s answers). and that the interview is worthy (deserving) of twenty minutes of your time.
seattle seahawks head coach pete carroll talks to matt lauer about how super bowl xlix ended.
at the beginning of the video, carroll explains that he has needed to be accountable (ready with an explanation, responsible) in the days since the super bowl. at the same time, as the headline of the article says
Pete Carroll insists he didn’t blow the Super Bowl
blow it is an idiom that means failing to take advantage of an opportunity.
in defense of his decision to pass the ball rather than (instead of) give it to running back marshawn lynch inside the one-yard line in the final minute of super bowl xlix, carroll addressed the situation hypothetically
the call would have been a great one if we catch it. it would have been just fine and nobody would have thought twice about it.
later in the interview lauer asks him if 5 years down the road he will be thinking (also hypothetically) about what coulda, shoulda been.
comparing carroll in this interview to how he was facing the media immediately after the game, chase commented
this was not the hyper, rambling (but still classy) coach we heard in the minutes after the game.
additionally, chase notes that carroll
neither criticizes his own players for the play’s poor execution, nor praises malcolm butler for his amazing interception.
neither….nor is used to present two alternatives that didn’t happen. it is the negative equivalent of either…..or.
do u think pete carroll blew the super bowl? share your opinion under leave a reply