HawkShack.com

by **savvyman** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 8:46 pm

Even With 3 minutes still to go I still feel safe in starting this thread now.

Well is this what it looks like when a former dominant team starts to decline some? Is this team not good enough like prior teams to overcome a bunch of penalties and win the game? Are the Seahawks way to boring and predictable in their offensive play calling in the first half of games? Why the heck do you get the best hands pass catching tight end in football if you do not plan on featuring him? And why wait so long before you do get him involved in the game? Can Seahawks go 13-1 or 12-2 to meet the preseason predictions of most every single Seahawk fan?

On the positive side, The Hawks have been competitive in both of these losses.

by **obiken** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 8:52 pm

I thought it was thin saying we could go into GB and beat then at Lambo, especially after dropping 3 in a row on them.

by **mykc14** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 10:29 pm

It would have been great to get a W here, but it was always going to be an uphill climb. 5-3 on the road and 7-1 at home will get you to 12 wins. It doesn't matter when those losses come. Before the season I thought the toughest road games for us would be the Pack, Boys, Rams, Ravens, Benglas, Cards, Vikes, and Niners (sorry future). The Cowboy game doesn't look as bad anymore. The reality is we could win all of those, but probably will drop at least 1 or 2 more, which means we need to take care of business at home, which appears to be a much easier schedule. Even with the way we are playing a 7-1, 8-0 home record is more than possible. First step is getting to 2-2. Then comes 3-4 on the road. Wouldn't at all be surprised to see us sitting at 5-3 after 8 games, same as last year.

by **HumanCockroach** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 10:59 pm

obiken wrote:I thought it was thin saying we could go into GB and beat then at Lambo, especially after dropping 3 in a row on them.

and yet, it was right there for the taking.

by **Zorn76** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:37 pm

We were in this game until the 4th qt INT with 6 minutes or so to go.

But by no means am I blaming RW for this loss. He played a good game overall, and the offense finally woke up in the 2nd half (as usual). I just didn't see that kind of turnover happening. Guy was right in front of him, and he didn't see him, for whatever reason.

There is so little margin for error when you're playing at Lambeau. We caught a couple of huge breaks - holding GB to a FG before half, and an offsides penalty that nullified a Seattle fumble. We were in a position to have a legit shot at winning.

The OL had some nice moments, but were getting manhandled in the first half. Beast only had 41 yds tonight on 15 carries for the game. On many occasions, he simply had nowhere to run in the first 2 quarters. Bevell was his usual unimaginative self for the opening 30 minutes, then finally pieced together some nice calls on TD drives to start the 3rd quarter.

Among the things that bothered me offensively, was losing focus on down and distance. 3rd and long is not the time to take a big shot down field, relative to the yardage needed for a 1st down. Take what the defense gives you. We've lost sight of that in the first two games now.

Beyond that...not sure why Graham wasn't the featured TE. Luke Wilson had a pretty nice game, but we paid Graham and brought him in to give this offense a boost, and he was targeted twice all night with one catch.

Penalties....I've run out of things to say here. Bennett? The guy is just flat out stupid at times. KJ completely lost his composure to get ejected. Sherman had an off night for him. We still cough up too many 3rd and longs.

Rodgers is the best in business right now. And at home under McCarthy they are 55-18 during his tenure. It's a tough place to win. Period. We had our chances - more than most teams get there - and came up short.

We finally get to play at home, against two teams we should be able to beat (Bears, Lions). One game at a time, get back to .500, and go from there.

by **obiken** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:49 pm

We lost, we were supposed to lose and I super OBI predicted it. Sorry 1/2 gallon of Cabernet will do that to you. Seriously, I never understood how people thought we would go into Lambo field and win this one. However, Hawk Sista, being wrong once in her career, realizes now how bad the 0-2 Lions really are, and how right I was. We should beat the Bears and the Lions, to put us at 2-2. We were 3-3 last year so we should be fine. I still think Kam will be back after 6 games. Too much money to leave on the table. Can you imagine how many Padron Family Reserve #45 cigars, I could buy with 275,000 a week! Wow.

by **RiverDog** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 4:15 am

A couple of observations:

The often discussed line play improved, at least as far as pass protection, but in general, we got stuffed on the run, including more short yardage stuffs.

Russell finally started keeping some on the read option, something that was there in St. Louis and wasn't taken advantage. Looked comfortable throwing the ball, especially in the 3rd quarter.

Where in the hell is Jimmy Graham?

Richard Sherman cost us, got beat for a TD after which he gave up on a pass play then tried to recover and committed a critical PI penalty at the end of the half that cost us 3 points.

Why can't Michael Bennett learn to stay onside? I lost track of the number of times he drew a flag last night. Heck, I've seen him LINE UP offside TWICE IN A ROW before.

A couple of bad mistakes by Russell that absolutely killed us, the fumble with Beast and the INT in the 4th quarter, and please Anthony, no excuses, huh?

The Chicago game is critical, but should be an easy win.

Where is the "0-2 is a disaster" thread"?

by **RiverDog** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 4:20 am

A couple of observations:

The often discussed line play improved, at least as far as pass protection, but in general, we got stuffed on the run, including more short yardage stuffs.

Russell finally started keeping some on the read option, something that was there in St. Louis and wasn't taken advantage. Looked comfortable throwing the ball, especially in the 3rd quarter.

Where in the hell is Jimmy Graham?

Richard Sherman cost us, got beat for a TD after which he gave up on a pass play then tried to recover and committed a critical PI penalty at the end of the half that cost us 3 points.

Why can't Michael Bennett learn to stay onside? I lost track of the number of times he drew a flag last night. Heck, I've seen him LINE UP offside TWICE IN A ROW before.

A couple of bad mistakes by Russell that absolutely killed us, the fumble with Beast and the INT in the 4th quarter, and please Anthony, no excuses, huh?

The Chicago game is critical, but should be an easy win.

Where is the "0-2 is a disaster" thread"?

by **kalibane** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 4:58 am

Holding up better in pass protection was more a function of facing of against a depleted defensive line that wasn't a strong pass rushing unit to begin with. The poor line play showed up more in the running game. Way too many guys in the backfield, stops for no gain or short loss. It's not just the pressure on Russell Wilson. This line stinks.

by **RiverDog** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 5:25 am

kalibane wrote:Holding up better in pass protection was more a function of facing of against a depleted defensive line that wasn't a strong pass rushing unit to begin with. The poor line play showed up more in the running game. Way too many guys in the backfield, stops for no gain or short loss. It's not just the pressure on Russell Wilson. This line stinks.

All true, but this Green Bay DL is going to be more like the DL's we will be facing this season than was the Rams, which is really outstanding, at least when they match up against us.

There were a few times that I thought Russell could have put a little more air under the ball and let his receivers go up and fight for it, one play in particular to Graham. I mean, you have a guy that's 6'7" and a former basketball player, put the ball in a position where he can go up for it instead of trying to thread it.

by **monkey** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 5:29 am

We played better though, we really did, had lots of chances against a good team at home.
Not usually a complainer about the calls but, why are they reviewing an "almost" touchdown??? Touchdowns are automatically reviewed, but almost touchdowns are not.
Why is Sweezy suddenly not allowed to play to the whistle and drive his guy to the ground like every other player?
Why no review of the fumble after the pick, especially after Britt CLEARLY jumped on the ball first, established possession, and then came out of the pile with the ball???
Those last two were HUUUUUUUUUGE in determining the outcome of this game. HUGE.
I have more to say but, no time.

by **RiverDog** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 5:57 am

monkey wrote:We played better though, we really did, had lots of chances against a good team at home.
Not usually a complainer about the calls but, why are they reviewing an "almost" touchdown??? Touchdowns are automatically reviewed, but almost touchdowns are not.
Why is Sweezy suddenly not allowed to play to the whistle and drive his guy to the ground like every other player?
Why no review of the fumble after the pick, especially after Britt CLEARLY jumped on the ball first, established possession, and then came out of the pile with the ball???
Those last two were HUUUUUUUUUGE in determining the outcome of this game. HUGE.
I have more to say but, no time.

J/B they didn't stop play doesn't mean they didn't review it. If one team got up to the LOS ready to snap the ball, I'm sure they would have buzzed the field crew, but as it was, there was quite a delay, un piling players, offense and defense changing sides, etc, all time the replay crew could utilize to review the play.

Agreed about the no touchdown review. That one was clear, and should have been confirmed almost instantaneously by the replay center. No need to stop play. But to the second part of your observation, all reviews in the last 2 minutes of the half go to the booth, so it didn't have to be a scoring play for it to be reviewed, so that part was legit.

by **Hawktawk** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 6:10 am

monkey wrote:We played better though, we really did, had lots of chances against a good team at home.
Not usually a complainer about the calls but, why are they reviewing an "almost" touchdown??? Touchdowns are automatically reviewed, but almost touchdowns are not.
Why is Sweezy suddenly not allowed to play to the whistle and drive his guy to the ground like every other player?
Why no review of the fumble after the pick, especially after Britt CLEARLY jumped on the ball first, established possession, and then came out of the pile with the ball???
Those last two were HUUUUUUUUUGE in determining the outcome of this game. HUGE.
I have more to say but, no time.

There was some slanted officiating for sure. I think the refs have had a collective boner ever since the golden hail mary and they finally got the perfect venue for the makeup calls. There were a couple of PIs not called, Pack held on every passing play, helping out a lot with Rodgers elusiveness.

But Bennet had more idiotic unforced errors, 12 men on the field etc. Seattle was right there though until the pick. Quietly RW, known for his care with the ball has thrown 7 picks in his last 4 games. Cams absence in this suddenly pedestrian defense is glaring. Folks Id like to say its all good were coming home to win 2 but I'm officially concerned about the 2015 version of the Seahawks. I wouldn't pencil them in against anyone right now.

by **RiverDog** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 7:17 am

Hawktawk wrote:There was some slanted officiating for sure. I think the refs have had a collective boner ever since the golden hail mary and they finally got the perfect venue for the makeup calls. There were a couple of PIs not called, Pack held on every passing play, helping out a lot with Rodgers elusiveness.

But Bennet had more idiotic unforced errors, 12 men on the field etc. Seattle was right there though until the pick. Quietly RW, known for his care with the ball has thrown 7 picks in his last 4 games. Cams absence in this suddenly pedestrian defense is glaring. Folks Id like to say its all good were coming home to win 2 but I'm officially concerned about the 2015 version of the Seahawks. I wouldn't pencil them in against anyone right now.

Good post, I agree with everything you've said. Richard Sherman wasn't all that hot last night, either, getting burned for a TD and getting called for a huge PI after he had given up on the play and was scrambling to recover. That's not like him. KJ got involved in a stupid penalty that got him ejected. Russell over threw a couple of open receivers.

Complaining about the OL and crying about Kam not being here is rationalizing some very glaring problems with some of our star players that should be sucking it up.

by **Hawktawk** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 7:51 am

[quote="RiverDog

Good post, I agree with everything you've said. Richard Sherman wasn't all that hot last night, either, getting burned for a TD and getting called for a huge PI after he had given up on the play and was scrambling to recover. That's not like him. KJ got involved in a stupid penalty that got him ejected. Russell over threw a couple of open receivers.

Complaining about the OL and crying about Kam not being here is rationalizing some very glaring problems with some of our star players that should be sucking it up.[/quote]

The scary thing is I think they are sucking it up. I think Cam made that big a difference. I heard him called the "eraser" on a show the other day. He erases other guys mistakes. Receivers don't go over the middle without looking both ways sometimes before they catch the ball.

There is no fear of our secondary or Sherman right now.

by **Anthony** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 7:53 am

RiverDog wrote:A couple of observations:

The often discussed line play improved, at least as far as pass protection, but in general, we got stuffed on the run, including more short yardage stuffs.

Russell finally started keeping some on the read option, something that was there in St. Louis and wasn't taken advantage. Looked comfortable throwing the ball, especially in the 3rd quarter.

Where in the hell is Jimmy Graham?

Richard Sherman cost us, got beat for a TD after which he gave up on a pass play then tried to recover and committed a critical PI penalty at the end of the half that cost us 3 points.

Why can't Michael Bennett learn to stay onside? I lost track of the number of times he drew a flag last night. Heck, I've seen him LINE UP offside TWICE IN A ROW before.

A couple of bad mistakes by Russell that absolutely killed us, the fumble with Beast and the INT in the 4th quarter, and please Anthony, no excuses, huh?

The Chicago game is critical, but should be an easy win.

Where is the "0-2 is a disaster" thread"?

I kept track of the plays and you can easily tell who calls the plays when things bog down and when we move the ball. Mama Lynch is right.

by **NorthHawk** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 8:14 am

They have to start the game with plays similar to how we started in the 2nd half.
Like a poster said a few days ago, Wilson's running is the key to offensive performance at this point.
I still believe our OL is terrible (and like I said before, 17 points isn't enough to win against good teams), but combining questionable play calling with becoming one dimensional isn't the path to success.

by **mykc14** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 8:34 am

RiverDog wrote:
A couple of bad mistakes by Russell that absolutely killed us, the fumble with Beast and the INT in the 4th quarter, and please Anthony, no excuses, huh?

The Chicago game is critical, but should be an easy win.

Where is the "0-2 is a disaster" thread"?

I am not exactly disagreeing, but that fumble with Lynch, which absolutely was RW's fault as the ball was way too high, didn't cost us at all as GB was lined up in the neutral zone and had a 15 yard penalty on the play, so actually we gained 20 yards. Conversely the pick thrown by Wilson was extremely costly but I don't blame him for that one as much. It was a great play by that DL, I haven't re-watched it much, but it appears Gilliam is blocking his guy too long (although #91 could have recognized screen and not gone upfield). Either way #91 makes a great play.

by **NorthHawk** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 9:15 am

That interception appeared to me to be one of those plays where a DL sticks his arm out hoping to knock it down and it happened to stick to his hands.
It's not something that would happen on a frequent basis, I would think.

by **Anthony** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 2:21 pm

NorthHawk wrote:That interception appeared to me to be one of those plays where a DL sticks his arm out hoping to knock it down and it happened to stick to his hands.
It's not something that would happen on a frequent basis, I would think.

Part of the issue is that because of Rw mobility and ability end tend to not always go balls out to the QB and that makes RB screens rough

by **Anthony** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 2:22 pm

mykc14 wrote:
I am not exactly disagreeing, but that fumble with Lynch, which absolutely was RW's fault as the ball was way too high, didn't cost us at all as GB was lined up in the neutral zone and had a 15 yard penalty on the play, so actually we gained 20 yards. Conversely the pick thrown by Wilson was extremely costly but I don't blame him for that one as much. It was a great play by that DL, I haven't re-watched it much, but it appears Gilliam is blocking his guy too long (although #91 could have recognized screen and not gone upfield). Either way #91 makes a great play.

I agree Fumble was on Wilson but also in the end did not matter. I also agree the int was rough but the guy made a great play period

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 2:34 pm

I am not exactly disagreeing, but that fumble with Lynch, which absolutely was RW's fault as the ball was way too high, didn't cost us at all as GB was lined up in the neutral zone and had a 15 yard penalty on the play, so actually we gained 20 yards. Conversely the pick thrown by Wilson was extremely costly but I don't blame him for that one as much. It was a great play by that DL, I haven't re-watched it much, but it appears Gilliam is blocking his guy too long (although #91 could have recognized screen and not gone upfield). Either way #91 makes a great play

Actually, Seattle did not receive the 15 yards, as the penalty occurred after change of possession, so Seattle took the offsides and only 5 yards. If they had taken the 15, GB would have maintained possession, stupid IMHO, but what was explained by the ref after the play.

by **mykc14** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 3:00 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:
Actually, Seattle did not receive the 15 yards, as the penalty occurred after change of possession, so Seattle took the offsides and only 5 yards. If they had taken the 15, GB would have maintained possession, stupid IMHO, but what was explained by the ref after the play.

That makes sense. After the play I was thinking they should have been further up field, but didn't feel like re-winding to figure out why. Also interesting that the penalty didn't count due to the initial infraction. Basically that means if Rodgers would have thrown an INT after any of those times we jumped off sides we could have totally blind-sided him or anything else without any penalty. Doesn't make much sense.

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 3:10 pm

Whenever that stuff occurs I always think of Necessary Roughness with Scott Bakula, they "have a scrimmage with a local team" which turns out to be a prison, the second they walk off the bus, the Prison team kicks the living sh#% out of them, and then get back on the bus. Never understood why some team that didn't care about that stuff ( say the old Raiders) didn't just tee off on guys after receiving a personal foul penalty, they can only enforce it once ( which IMHO is pretty stupid).

by **mykc14** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 3:24 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:Whenever that stuff occurs I always think of Necessary Roughness with Scott Bakula, they "have a scrimmage with a local team" which turns out to be a prison, the second they walk off the bus, the Prison team kicks the living sh#% out of them, and then get back on the bus. Never understood why some team that didn't care about that stuff ( say the old Raiders) didn't just tee off on guys after receiving a personal foul penalty, they can only enforce it once ( which IMHO is pretty stupid).

Yeah, I love that movie. Weren't the prison players current (at the time) or former NFL players? I remember one of them being Bill Romanowski. Anyway, great movie. I also agree with your point, seems like some team would think 'open season' as soon as one flag were thrown.

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 4:43 pm

Yep, every one of the prisoners were a former " tough guy" NFL player ( most former HOF players. Butkis was one I am positive of, I think Smith, and Lamonica were also there, pretty sure I saw Jim Kelly and a few others as well. Been a while since I watched that movie. But am constantly yelling don't throw it to stone hands whenever I see a drop).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_Roughness_(film)

My bad, missed several I guess.

by **RiverDog** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 5:24 pm

mykc14 wrote:I am not exactly disagreeing, but that fumble with Lynch, which absolutely was RW's fault as the ball was way too high, didn't cost us at all as GB was lined up in the neutral zone and had a 15 yard penalty on the play, so actually we gained 20 yards. Conversely the pick thrown by Wilson was extremely costly but I don't blame him for that one as much. It was a great play by that DL, I haven't re-watched it much, but it appears Gilliam is blocking his guy too long (although #91 could have recognized screen and not gone upfield). Either way #91 makes a great play.

Right you are about the fumble. My bad. Thanks for the correction.

I'll have to re-watch the INT but it appeared that it happened right in front of Russell and that he had to have seen him. This wasn't a receiver that broke the wrong way or a pass that bounced off the receiver's hands, so if not Russell, I can't see who you can hold responsible for that pick.

by **NorthHawk** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 6:08 pm

I thought the DL caught it with one hand (or arm).
If I'm right, it was just a good, or lucky play by him.

by **mykc14** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:20 pm

RiverDog wrote:Right you are about the fumble. My bad. Thanks for the correction.

I'll have to re-watch the INT but it appeared that it happened right in front of Russell and that he had to have seen him. This wasn't a receiver that broke the wrong way or a pass that bounced off the receiver's hands, so if not Russell, I can't see who you can hold responsible for that pick.

Yeah, I'm certainly not ready to completely absolve RW on that one, but screens can be tricky. He certainly had to see that he was throwing it through the trees. The only player that might be at fault, besides RW, would be Gilliam. If he holds his block too long the DE, who RW assumes is getting upfield, is right where RW is going to throw. Also, because the QB doesn't want to give the play away most screens are run where the QB doesn't really get to see where he is going to throw it before it's time to pull the trigger. With all of that being said I have not watched it enough to see if any of those things happened. For all I know RW gave the screen away too quickly by staring down Lynch and #91 didn't go upfield because he saw that or read screen, either way #91 was exactly where the Hawks, and RW didn't want/expect him to be.

by **RiverDog** » Tue Sep 22, 2015 4:16 am

mykc14 wrote:Yeah, I'm certainly not ready to completely absolve RW on that one, but screens can be tricky. He certainly had to see that he was throwing it through the trees. The only player that might be at fault, besides RW, would be Gilliam. If he holds his block too long the DE, who RW assumes is getting upfield, is right where RW is going to throw. Also, because the QB doesn't want to give the play away most screens are run where the QB doesn't really get to see where he is going to throw it before it's time to pull the trigger. With all of that being said I have not watched it enough to see if any of those things happened. For all I know RW gave the screen away too quickly by staring down Lynch and #91 didn't go upfield because he saw that or read screen, either way #91 was exactly where the Hawks, and RW didn't want/expect him to be.

It almost sounds like the SB 49 defense of Russell. He didn't see the defender or expect him to be there, so the interception wasn't his fault. One thing a quarterback has to have is that 6th sense, the ability to anticipate what a defender is going to do. They give quarterbacks a lot of credit when he gets into the head of a defender, is able to decoy them, do what they don't expect, but where's the accountability when the defender does the same to them?

by **mykc14** » Tue Sep 22, 2015 8:38 am

RiverDog wrote:
It almost sounds like the SB 49 defense of Russell. He didn't see the defender or expect him to be there, so the interception wasn't his fault. One thing a quarterback has to have is that 6th sense, the ability to anticipate what a defender is going to do. They give quarterbacks a lot of credit when he gets into the head of a defender, is able to decoy them, do what they don't expect, but where's the accountability when the defender does the same to them?

Yeah, I don't disagree with you it could totally be RW's fault, I'm just saying that screen passes are a little different in that the quarterback has to throw the ball into traffic usually and can't 'read' what the defense is doing as they usually don't even look towards the screen because it would give the play away. Also, if the wrong lineman blocks his guy too long it can lead to an easy INT. Again, that pick might have totally been on RW, but there's more to it than a normal int.

by **NorthHawk** » Tue Sep 22, 2015 8:46 am

It might have been a little of the pressure to make a big play.
Perhaps it looked to him like the Defense was out of position and if he got the ball to the receiver there was a lot of room for a huge gain so he took a chance to get the ball there quickly.
We don't really know what happened on that play.

by **Hawktawk** » Tue Sep 22, 2015 10:10 am

RiverDog wrote:
It almost sounds like the SB 49 defense of Russell. He didn't see the defender or expect him to be there, so the interception wasn't his fault. One thing a quarterback has to have is that 6th sense, the ability to anticipate what a defender is going to do. They give quarterbacks a lot of credit when he gets into the head of a defender, is able to decoy them, do what they don't expect, but where's the accountability when the defender does the same to them?

I agree completely RD. Unless a ball bounces off a receivers hands or the receiver runs the wrong timing route its ALWAYS on the QB. In the SB Butler was breaking over the top at a dead run at the snap. Wilson got tunnel vision, never saw him. The screen Sunday was a ball thrown low into traffic on an absolutely perfectly set up screen play. It didn't have any zip, allowing the defender the opportunity to scoop it out of the air with one hand. If Wilson holds it a millisecond longer and lofts it a bit Lynch might still be running. 100 % on Russ there, just like the week before again targeting Lynch and wheeling around to make a blind throw while moving away from the LOS allowing the defender to make a "great play"I dont want to hear any more about defenders making "great plays" if they aren't Seahawks. I want to hear about Russell and our offense making great plays to win games like we are accustomed to.

As I have said Wilson has quietly become turnover prone with 7 picks in his last 4 games and the botched exchange on Sunday. These are mistakes he hasn't been making most of his career.He hasn't played an outstanding game since the playoff game vs Carolina. I love Russ and hes our guy but I think he and this team have a collective hangover from Feb no matter what they may put out for public consumption. I trust they will figure it out soon because time is wasting on 2015.

by **mykc14** » Tue Sep 22, 2015 10:28 am

Hawktawk wrote:
I agree completely RD. Unless a ball bounces off a receivers hands or the receiver runs the wrong timing route its ALWAYS on the QB. In the SB Butler was breaking over the top at a dead run at the snap. Wilson got tunnel vision, never saw him. The screen Sunday was a ball thrown low into traffic on an absolutely perfectly set up screen play. It didn't have any zip, allowing the defender the opportunity to scoop it out of the air with one hand. If Wilson holds it a millisecond longer and lofts it a bit Lynch might still be running. 100 % on Russ there, just like the week before again targeting Lynch and wheeling around to make a blind throw while moving away from the LOS allowing the defender to make a "great play"I dont want to hear any more about defenders making "great plays" if they aren't Seahawks. I want to hear about Russell and our offense making great plays to win games like we are accustomed to.

Those 2 picks aren't even comparable. The pick against the Rams was a terrible decision and throw that just can't happen. Your discussion of the screen play doesn't make much sense. Denying that an O-lineman can have some culpability on a screen play is just wrong. They absolutely can cause an INT. Again, I am not saying it wasn't RW's fault, but if Gilliam is blocking his guy too long when he was supposed to let him go at least part of that INT is on him. Also, on a screen the QB is often throwing the ball with almost no time to see who is around the receiver, because the longer he looks the more opportunity it gives the D to react. You say if he holds the ball a millisecond longer than whatever happens. Talk about MMQB. If Gilliam holds his block a millisecond less it probably is a TD. Again this one might be totally on RW but it is not even close to the same as the INT in St. Louis.

by **NorthHawk** » Tue Sep 22, 2015 10:52 am

I see Russell'splay this year (other than this INT) as part of the OL issue.
He doesn't seem to trust the guys up front and without a solid run game from Lynch to keep the Defense honest, he might be putting a lot more on his shoulders and taking some uncharacteristic chances.

We saw the "Golden Boy" Andrew Luck last night turn the ball over last night in a large part because of his OL. Although he has not shown a proclivity for ball security in the past, it was a lot worse against the Jets and they could have had more INT's with a little good fortune.

by **RiverDog** » Tue Sep 22, 2015 7:33 pm

mykc14 wrote:Yeah, I don't disagree with you it could totally be RW's fault, I'm just saying that screen passes are a little different in that the quarterback has to throw the ball into traffic usually and can't 'read' what the defense is doing as they usually don't even look towards the screen because it would give the play away. Also, if the wrong lineman blocks his guy too long it can lead to an easy INT. Again, that pick might have totally been on RW, but there's more to it than a normal int.

Oh, I'm not saying anything was "totally" RW's fault and I realize that the situation that led to the pick on Sunday made Russell's choice understandable. I was just pointing out that unless something like perfectly thrown passes bounce off hands or the wrong routes are ran, that the QB always has to accept some degree of responsibility for interceptions.

by **RiverDog** » Tue Sep 22, 2015 7:47 pm

NorthHawk wrote:I see Russell'splay this year (other than this INT) as part of the OL issue.
He doesn't seem to trust the guys up front and without a solid run game from Lynch to keep the Defense honest, he might be putting a lot more on his shoulders and taking some uncharacteristic chances.

We saw the "Golden Boy" Andrew Luck last night turn the ball over last night in a large part because of his OL. Although he has not shown a proclivity for ball security in the past, it was a lot worse against the Jets and they could have had more INT's with a little good fortune.

The OL issues is one possible explanation for Russell's problems. I do know that he was having to make calls normally entrusted to the center, so you could be right.

Andrew Luck looked horrible last night, as he did in his previous outing. They've got problems in Indy.

by **obiken** » Tue Sep 22, 2015 9:14 pm

Ditto River, with Hilton out he has no weapons. Colts are in trouble.

by **Hawktawk** » Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:23 am

[Ditto River, with Hilton out he has no weapons. Colts are in trouble.[/quote]

The Colts look way worse than Seattle. 10.5 PPG lowest in the league for the next anointed HOF type QB. I kind of have to LOL. Russ is playing way better than Luck right now. Pagano absolutely called the golden boy out in his post game press conference about ball security. He said Luck has been here for 3 years and we need to get it figured out.
Indy is a hair fire.

by **RiverDog** » Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:37 am

Hawktawk wrote:[Ditto River, with Hilton out he has no weapons. Colts are in trouble.

The Colts look way worse than Seattle. 10.5 PPG lowest in the league for the next anointed HOF type QB. I kind of have to LOL. Russ is playing way better than Luck right now. Pagano absolutely called the golden boy out in his post game press conference about ball security. He said Luck has been here for 3 years and we need to get it figured out.
Indy is a hair fire.[/quote]

Agree 100%. We're in a lot better situation than they are in Indy. Indy's had two bad losses, one of them at home. Plus their franchise quarterback is having a tough time, to say the least. But their saving grace may well be their schedule.

It's interesting how fast things can change in the NFL. I picked 4 winners last week out of 16 games, and one of the winners I picked was the Packers. Like the saying goes, on any given Sunday...

HawkShack.com

Who is online