Official Seahawks vs Saints GAME Thread

[Hawkstar]

As expected, the NFL came out and said the Two pick plays ran by the Saints should have been called Offensive Pass Interference and the Holding call on Shead, wasn't a penalty.

Such Bullshit that the officiating is so Shitty they can make such horrible errors that have a huge impact on the outcome of a game. It's easy to see why the NFL is losing viewership. Feels fixed.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/team/_/name/sea ... e-seahawks

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

As expected, the NFL came out and said the Two pick plays ran by the Saints should have been called Offensive Pass Interference and the Holding call on Shead, wasn't a penalty.

Such Bullshit that the officiating is so Shitty they can make such horrible errors that have a huge impact on the outcome of a game. It's easy to see why the NFL is losing viewership. Feels fixed.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/team/_/name/sea ... e-seahawks

Yeah, the officiating was complete lameness. I wish the Seahawks offense had played better, but it didn't help that these bogus calls/no calls were perpetrated.

[burrrton]

It wasn't just that they blew so many calls and no-calls- it's that they had a direct impact on the outcome of the game. Get two *obvious* OPI calls correct and we win that game despite how badly we played.

Those plays weren't even the type where you can say "they literally knock defenders to the ground while the ball's in the air on *every* play" (as with hand fighting between DBs and WRs, so sometimes they miss it or let it go, etc)- they were almost exactly like false starts- when the tackle starts backpedaling a count before the ball is snapped, that's not really a judgment call, right?

But instead, like in XL, NO was allowed to play a certain way the entire game, and SEA was held to a completely different standard, and on the types of plays where there's really very little wiggle room for f'ing it up.

Grrr.

[RiverDog]

It wasn't just that they blew so many calls and no-calls- it's that they had a direct impact on the outcome of the game. Get two *obvious* OPI calls correct and we win that game despite how badly we played.

Those plays weren't even the type where you can say "they literally knock defenders to the ground while the ball's in the air on *every* play" (as with hand fighting between DBs and WRs, so sometimes they miss it or let it go, etc)- they were almost exactly like false starts- when the tackle starts backpedaling a count before the ball is snapped, that's not really a judgment call, right?

But instead, like in XL, NO was allowed to play a certain way the entire game, and SEA was held to a completely different standard, and on the types of plays where there's really very little wiggle room for f'ing it up.

Grrr.

It's not much consolation that the league came out and admitted what we all knew was the truth: That those two pick plays ran by the Saints should have been flagged and that the OPI on Shead was B.S. I particularly felt badly for Shead because that's perhaps the best play on a ball that he's made as a professional and he got flagged for it.

But penalties aside, we stunk, and didn't deserve to win that game, so I'm not going to join in any outrage. I sometimes think that losing a stinker like that can be a blessing in disguise in that it sends a message to our team. Winning a game like that would be like not suffering a hangover after you partied all night. No consequences, no correction.

[burrrton]

Wowza- Sherm lets the NFL have it over the officiating:

http://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-seahaw ... e-seahawks

Is he wrong?

[burrrton]

But penalties aside, we stunk, and didn't deserve to win that game, so I'm not going to join in any outrage.

"Deserve" is pretty subjective, but I'd submit we did deserve to win the game- we didn't look great, but we played well *enough*. We just got an official apology for NFL officials blowing three obvious penalties that kept three drives alive, gifting them somewhere between 11 and 21 points.

There are times (IMO) that it's clear a team has no business being in the game and/or should have no expectation of a win (fluke circumstances, that sort of thing), and if this was one of those times, I'd agree we didn't "deserve" the W- that wasn't the case, though.

In my humble opinion, so on and etcetera.

[NorthHawk]

The Defense deserved wins, the Offense not so much.

[burrrton]

The Defense deserved wins, the Offense not so much.

By what measure? Again, we all know they didn't play that well, but do you think they didn't play well enough to win the game absent at least 3 blown calls?

[NorthHawk]

No, they didn't play well enough to win either game.
The Defense on the other hand played well enough to win both.

[burrrton]

No, they didn't play well enough to win either game.

We lost by 5 points and bogus penalties gave them at least 11**, so this is demonstrably untrue.

I get that you (and we all) are frustrated by their poor play, but playing poorly doesn't necessarily mean they didn't play well enough to win (and therefore didn't "deserve" to win).

**And even having NO kick a FG instead of getting a TD, as they should have had to do after the OPI in the endzone, would have been enough to give us the win- we'd have likely been down 21-20 on the final drive and kicked a chip-shot FG (no gimme lately, of course, but the O still played well enough to win).

[HumanCockroach]

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2016/11/4/135 ... wks-saints

[NorthHawk]

We lost by 5 points and bogus penalties gave them at least 11**, so this is demonstrably untrue.

I get that you (and we all) are frustrated by their poor play, but playing poorly doesn't necessarily mean they didn't play well enough to win (and therefore didn't "deserve" to win).

**And even having NO kick a FG instead of getting a TD, as they should have had to do after the OPI in the endzone, would have been enough to give us the win- we'd have likely been down 21-20 on the final drive and kicked a chip-shot FG (no gimme lately, of course, but the O still played well enough to win).

We have one of the best Defenses in the NFL and one of the worst Offenses in the NFL from a scoring perspective.
The only room to improve is on Offense and they played against one of the worst Defenses in one game. There were too many 3 and outs and missed opportunities to extend drives to come to the conclusion the Defense didn't deserve to win regardless of penalties. The Defense even scored a TD in the NO game and without that it would make the penalties a non factor.

[burrrton]

And yet... we still should have won the game if not for bogus penalties.

[NorthHawk]

You have to play well enough to eliminate the Refs from the equation especially when going against a poor Defense and when your Offense has so much room to improve.

[burrrton]

You have to play well enough to eliminate the Refs from the equation especially when going against a poor Defense and when your Offense has so much room to improve.

That's what the players should tell themselves- that's not what we're obligated to do as outside observers.

Look, if you want to say we didn't "deserve" to win because we didn't outscore the NO offense by 14 points with a hobbled QB and o-line with all those issues, go ahead. But I think reasonable people can see despite all that, we still would have won the game had the officiating not botched it up, and I think anytime you can say that, you were deserving of it.

[NorthHawk]

I think reasonable people also know that Refs make mistakes and an Offense going against one of the worst Defenses in the league should be able to score more than 13 points.
Face it, the Defense deserved to win, but the Offense did not.

[burrrton]

Reasonable people know refs make mistakes - they don't, however, expect that they'll make multiple blatant mistakes, the absence of any one of which would have allowed you to win the game.

Sorry, North- offense didn't play great, but they did play well enough to win, which is "deserving" by any reasonable definition.

Yeah, it would have been great if our injured QB and banged up, first-time together line would have put up 40 and taken officiating out of the equation, but the failure to do so doesn't make a team undeserving of what they earned.

[c_hawkbob]

You have to play well enough to eliminate the Refs from the equation especially when going against a poor Defense and when your Offense has so much room to improve.

You shouldn't. You should only have to play well enough to beat your opponent. That's the game, you vs them. Not you vs them and the zebras.

As a coach talking to his players, sure, get 'em ready for all comers. But as fans evaluating what just happened? Uh uh. Shouldn't have to put up with it.

[NorthHawk]

Nobody except you is talking about 40 points, burrrton.
20 would have done against one of the worst Defenses in the league.
Especially true for a team that should otherwise have a legitimate goal of a Super Bowl appearance.
Refs make bad calls every year and the good teams find ways to overcome them.

[burrrton]

20 would have done against one of the worst Defenses in the league.

How about when the refs gift the other team a couple TDs- should 20 do it then?

[burrrton]

Refs make bad calls every year and the good teams find ways to overcome them.

The question isn't that- it's whether teams should have to accept that the outcome is on *any* shortcoming *they* had in a game when they get a decade's worth of blown, game-changing calls against them in a single game.

C'mon, North- you don't have to act like you're on the team here. Just admit you know the calls had a profound effect. Everyone else knows.