mykc14 wrote:Yeah, have to agree with a lot of what he says. I don't think it was that harsh on Wilson. He basically says often times when Wilson has a check down or somebody open short, early, and feels like he has some time in the pocket he will look downfield instead of taking that easy quick pass. This has led to a lot of big plays. The problem on Sunday was that the Rams played off that tendency leaving goes open and playing a 5 under zone (basically having 5 guys playing zone from 5-15 yards; really they were playing an intermediate zone) and a 2 over (2 guys covering deep). This took away a lot of those deep throws Wilson usually attempts. That combined with a pocket that closed quickly led to him not hitting some of those early open receivers. To me it explains why the Hawks only attempted 1 pass over 12 yards downfield. It also explains why the Hawks were able to have some success running. The sad thing is they should have been able to run all over that defense. Usually teams commit extra guys to stop the run but the Rams did the opposite, knowing their front 4 was good enough to both pressure RW and stop the run when they had to.
Anthony wrote:
The part that is funny he is completed 78% of his passes and he uses a lot of screen shots to prove a point that cannot be proven with screen shots. Not enough info to know or not to many variables. In the big picture Wilson was down on the list of why we lost.
HumanCockroach wrote:So you didn't see the coverage playing "off" ? Interesting, that article sums up a LOT of what I saw during the game, and why I will not simply bury my head in the sand. The line played poorly, but Wilson didn't help the matters, and some of those sacks can be directly attributed to Wilson's choices, don't believe me, ask Carroll, don't believe him, ask WILSON.
It has been bad in the past but part of that is that RW holds onto the ball, looking for the big play. Also, leaving the pocket when the OL forms a pocket can lead to a sack.
burrrton wrote:It's a valid point, but it hardly reflects well on the o-line, right?
savvyman wrote:I am re-watching the game right now - this article is so spot on - Receivers were left UN-convered for 10 yards the entire first half - the inside slant was wide open the entire first half. Shame on the Seahawks coaching staff for not exploiting this defensive scheme being ran by the Rams.
Old but Slow wrote:The elephant in the room is that despite scoring 31 points (31 points!), our defense let the game get away. When in the last few years have we scored as much and still lost? I am not looking at Wilson, or Bevell, or the offensive line. I am looking at Richard (defensive coordinator), the Legion of Gloom, and our linebackers. Sherman should have been called for PI early, but the officials missed it. Ram receivers were open all over the field and made Foles look like Unitas. Our defense was not ready for this game, and it was not all Chancellor.
.I do think that Russell does, at times, hold onto the ball too long and he does, indeed, have at times an excessive amount of aversion to turnovers. This helps explain the high number of sacks he takes and the number of times he has to scramble to make something out of a broken play. It is not a bad strategy as he/we have been very successful with it, but there are going to be times when that strategy is going to bite us in the ass
Agent 86 wrote:Yeah, this (aversion to throwing an INT) is what is good/bad with RW3. Although it is tough to tell on TV sometimes (because we can't see the receivers down field), we all know if the potential pass might mean a 50/50 chance for a catch/INT, he will most likely not throw the ball. He is extremely protective of it, almost always erring on the side of caution. As you said, not a bad strategy as it has led to success knowing there is a solid D to back you up. Nothing wrong with punting.
It is this aversion to turnovers to can be maddening, you watch him throw it away or take a sack and punt, and you think "why didn't he throw it??" Then you think it if was picked, momentum and field position are lost.
Very fine line, and RW3 rarely crosses it. In the end, I think most fans are fine with it, but want to see a little more aggressive approach as he develops through the years of his contract.
kalibane wrote:The offensive line play wasn't just bad it was putrid.
NorthHawk wrote:A competent - not great - NFL OL.
That's not much to ask from a team that has gone to 2 straight Super Bowls and should have won both.
kalibane wrote:1. There were really only a couple of drives where Russell had a clean pocket for more than a couple pass plays in a row, one in the 2nd quarter and one in the 4th quarter that I can remember.
2. It wasn't a defensive dominance it was a pass rush dominance. How many yards you rack up doesn't matter when drive after drive gets killed by poor blocking or holding penalties.
3. It's not just the plays where they actually got pressure. Russell was hurried and hit so much in that game the internal clock in his head speeds up because he has to anticipate the pressure that's been coming all game. That leads to rushed/errant throws and Russell breaking the pocket earlier than he should. And this is the main point that bothers me because line play like this is what ruined David Carr before he had a chance. You simply can't subject your QB to this many hits and this much pressure on a consistent basis.
The offensive line play wasn't just bad it was putrid. You can point out things that other people did wrong all you want but it all started with the domino that the line couldn't protect Wilson or get a consistent push in the running game.
The offense could never get in rhythm and when they started getting stuff going drives would be killed by sacks, penalties and runs getting stuffed at the LOS.
kalibane wrote:Riv,
It isn't a matter of what I expected. I half jokingly said during training camp that I'd just as soon sit Russell Wilson agains the Rams because this is exactly what I expected. The fact that I expected it doesn't make it better. What's really bothersome is the inability to run block. In previous years the line could at least do that.
And sorry HC putrid is an apt word for how the line played. The fact that it improved marginally in the second half didn't make it any better. They got more consistent but they still killed multiple drives.
kalibane wrote:Riv,
Let's just say I was drawing blood I was biting my tongue so hard when it came to the subject of the Offensive Line this offseason. I tried to give them every benefit of the doubt I could by just being silent (although it slipped out a couple of times how I felt).
My honest opinion is that the offensive line is going to sink this season. I think the the overal team will put up some good wins (I think they could win this week) but over the long haul it will cost them too many games and the offense won't be able to mount scoring drives when they absolutely need to.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 68 guests