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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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"?
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.
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 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
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Hawktawk wrote:[Ditto River, with Hilton out he has no weapons. Colts are in trouble.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests