04 Feb


Posted by Marck E. Estemil
Lesson learned from this year's Super Bowl 2015

I expected coach Pete Carroll of the Seattle Seahawks to take full responsibility for the team's lost, as he should and did, to end the 2015 Super Bowl. I believe that he made a wise RISKY decision at the end of the first half which I agreed with, although everyone around me was yelling at the TV, "he shouldn't pass the ball". It worked with that first decision just before halftime. It worked because the first half decision boosted the moral of the team who was struggling to find their usual identity and swagger. That play call for a pass instead of kicking the field goal would have been a good risk to build team confidence whether or not it proved successful.

Transition to the end of the game when coach Caroll took a HUGE RISK by calling a passing play to end the game. In my opinion that was a wrong decision especially considering the field position they were in after a miraculous catch by their wide receiver. Team moral and confidence was at an all time high because they were in a position to win a hard fought game. Furthermore, coach Caroll's decision was even more costly when you add the fact that he had the VERY BEST running back in football, Marshawn Lynch, at his disposal. A traditional run may have been expected and lack the dramatic flair but it would've been the right call.

I believe that the end of the game's play call was a bad risk because it was unnecessary. That situation didn't warrant a need to take risks because team moral was already high and they were positioned in a clear field advantage for the win. As a result coach Caroll's play call for a pass cost them more than what the risk was worth.

As a leader and owner of an agency responsible for our clients' brand, I sometimes have to take RISKS but it must be done so wisely and not for the sake of being a RISK TAKER. Taking risk is in the interest of our client's best interest, not unlike most leaders who have to be able to make risky decision to improve team performance, a product, and the organization they represent. Contrast that with just being a risk taker; a "risk taker" is in the interest of stroking of his/her own ego when the situation doesn't warrant a need to take risks; there is a clear difference. What do you think, should leaders always be risk takers?