Official Seahawks vsCardinals Christmas Eve POST Game Thread

[HumanCockroach]

I don't know if I agree with that or not. With Rawls out and the OL over matched, I don't know if things would have been a lot different if we had decided to run the ball more often

I'm not entirely sure that's accurate. There's been several games were the line wasn't overmatched and they ran the ball effectively, when they ran it ( NO comes immediately to mind 10 carries 6 YPC) and amongst the backs Rawls continues to struggle, even over guys like Collins which is saying something. Who knows what happens if Micheal, Procise or Collins get significant carries? Hell, who knows what happens if Rawls does. Truth is, Seattle this season hasn't really tested it to see.

[Anthony]

I believe there are a number of issues on offense, obviously oline is probably the biggest, the 15 scripted plays is not far behind as I can not remember the last time they worked, Bevel play calling and design, this probing mentality they have on offense, PC said something about them using the first half to probe to see what will work. Ahh isn't that what film is for, and game planning. The big question is who is to blame for all the aforementioned, is it Bevel? Is it PC, is it Cable is it our GM, or is it all of the above. Could it actually be that they all play a role in this? Is Bevel calling the plays PC wants? Is Cable doing what he can with what he is given? Is PC and our GM giving him garbage? Those are all huge questions. However I keep coming back to something PC said, He wants his offense to not turn the ball over, play it close and get a lead at the end and turn it over to the defense. Well that is what he is getting sometimes. I mean even in games where we did get a lead early the offense would go back to run, run pass, punt until the other team caught up and then away we go. Why is it when we are in the hurry up, uptempo, no-huddle whatever we move the ball fine. Why is it knowing that, we do not do it all the time. Why is it takes a half to decide you know what the quick passing game might work, I mean we did it most of the 2nd half of last year and it worked great, but for some reason they don't want to do it this year until they absolutely have to. A lot of question and the more I think about it the more I am convinced this is more than just Bevel or Cable. I Mean if they want that smash mouth running type of team, then build it, but if we want the team built around our QB then build that, you want something a little bit of both fine build it. Right now they have built nothing as the o-line can't run or pass block. Lots of questions, and as I said I think this is more than just Bevel or Cable or PC, I think it is a little bit of all of them. Rather than find a game plan that works for what they have and sticking to it, they keep trying to use a game plan that is not suited for the players they have. Look AT NE they are so good because they mold their game plan around the players they have. We want to be a power rushing team but we do not have the players for that, we do have the players for a quick passing game, but we refuse to use it until it is too late. Lots of questions, one thing is for sure this offseason will be interesting and tell us a lot.

[ACES 13]

You have a ghostwriter Antne?

[RiverDog]

RD I agree with the limited playbook when overmatched on the line, but again, I look at the "whole" not the game here and there. Every line is overmatched from time to time, it's the nature of the NFL is it not? What I don't understand is the refusal to run the ball when NOT overmatched, or refusal to adjust prior to the second half or fourth quarter when it's obvious your plan isn't going to work.

IMO this line IS vastly improved from the one they rolled out last season, and while your dismay that I compare that line to the one previous continues to be a sticking point for you, I honestly cannot for the life of me understand the thinking on your part , that some how teams wave a magic wand and go back three years or ten or whatever, that seems unrealistic and completely out of touch with reality.

My overmatched comment came in response mainly to the AZ game and criticism of Bevell's play calling. It seems that about half the games in which we've played that our OL was over matched. That combined with the status of our RB situation with both Rawls and Prosise out places some severe limitations on play calling.

I still vehemently disagree with your "vastly" improved characterization of our OL. Here's an article ranking our OL 30th out of the 32 teams, about the same spot that they were last season:

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/nfls-best- ... d=44212949

"Seattle has allowed quarterback pressures on a league high 37% of quarterback drop backs"

And I'd like to point out that the article was written on 12/15, before the Arizona game. 30th out of 32 and leading the league in pressures allowed doesn't sound like a "vast" improvement to me no matter who you're comparing them to. Does it to you?

Here's another article, ranking us 25th in pass protection and 26th in run blocking:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

And like the previous link, the article was written as of Week 15 BEFORE factoring in the Arizona game, so the odds are that our horrid performance against the Cards will cause those rankings to drop us at least into the bottom 5.

If you don't like my disagreeing with you over your use of a subjective term like "vastly", then that's fine, and I'll admit that I've been rubbing your nose in it, which has probably affected your objectivity. But please, don't tell me I'm out of touch with reality when there's plenty of evidence out there to support a POV such as the one I happen to hold. Those rankings aren't something I've made up.

[NorthHawk]

It seems to me they made the decision to play 3 inexperienced players on the OL. They let J'hari Evans go and he's playing very well in New Orleans so it must be a conscious decision to gamble this year.
It takes time for veterans to learn to work together so with 3 rookies (if you include Glowinski), it's not going to work in one year. I would suggest an OL would have problems even if they were all 1st round picks, let alone later selections and former basketball players. But having said that, these guys should be a lot better next year. Unfortunately that doesn't help us today.

[HumanCockroach]

RD, I used the term out of touch with reality in reference to the belief you can just magically improve the line without any growing pains, not in your steadfast refusal to objectively look at the line because of some articles that agree with you.

There is no magic wand, the line isn't going to magically improve, spending money doesn't equate to automatic improvement. There isn't some glut of premier lineman year in and year out wandering around looking for jobs. You aren't going to be drafting the best one or two offensive lineman at the end of round one, and more often than not considering how lean the offensive lineman quality is the last decade or so, you're going to HAVE to develop them. That's reality, and the belief you can simply go out and build a line through free agency is not grounded in reality.

I'm not sure what exactly you would prefer at this point. Five to eight years of a top three draft pick ( IE 5 or 6 total wins in this five to eight years) so you can get the line you want ( though even that is an insane gamble as about half the high level lineman flame out or are garbage, IE the turnstile guard Seattle cut despite owing him) or remaining competitive and attempting to contininue succeeding. You really don't get to have both. Either you cope with those growing pains, or you blow the whole thing up, and pray your high picks hit.

[Hawktawk]

Teams that cant run or don't try to run get their QB hit more often.Attacking defenders instead of being on their heels much of the game warms up linemen and wears down defenders.Asking a green line to pass block most of the game against a good team is asking for games like saturday.

PC said after the Tampa game"we needed to quit trying to figure out what was wrong with the passing game and run the ball" Same with Green Bay. With a winged secondary and Russell playing as poorly as at any time in his career it might have been the thing to do.
On the one hand Bevell cant be blamed for a couple of wide open receivers being missed by a mile,unforced picks or tipped balls leading to more picks. But sometimes plan A aint working and you gotta figure it out.The only game in the last month they made a real commitment to the run was Carolina and they had their way with a pretty good defense.

Saturday lets assume Seattle ran the ball early and often and averaged even a yard or 2 per carry. Isn't that better than 3rd and 25 and fumbled wraparound handoffs?
I think our defense is just far more vulnerable without Earl. Take out the beat down of a frankly horrible Jarred Goff they've given up 30+ points the last 2 times they faced a competent offense.
Now you will have Kirk Cousins or Eli manning or the like coming to town then you go to Atlanta.
The offense has to at least kill clock and change field position every possession and they cant afford turnovers
.They cant come away with no points on first and goal from the half yard line at home or on the road,

This team has no shot unless they tighten it up.

[RiverDog]

RD, I used the term out of touch with reality in reference to the belief you can just magically improve the line without any growing pains, not in your steadfast refusal to objectively look at the line because of some articles that agree with you.

There is no magic wand, the line isn't going to magically improve, spending money doesn't equate to automatic improvement. There isn't some glut of premier lineman year in and year out wandering around looking for jobs. You aren't going to be drafting the best one or two offensive lineman at the end of round one, and more often than not considering how lean the offensive lineman quality is the last decade or so, you're going to HAVE to develop them. That's reality, and the belief you can simply go out and build a line through free agency is not grounded in reality.

I'm not sure what exactly you would prefer at this point. Five to eight years of a top three draft pick ( IE 5 or 6 total wins in this five to eight years) so you can get the line you want ( though even that is an insane gamble as about half the high level lineman flame out or are garbage, IE the turnstile guard Seattle cut despite owing him) or remaining competitive and attempting to contininue succeeding. You really don't get to have both. Either you cope with those growing pains, or you blow the whole thing up, and pray your high picks hit.

To my knowledge, I never said anything about what I expected out of our OL, nor have I discussed any of my preferences as to what we should have or should do to improve it. My comments have been more about results, not expectations, and from my point of view, I do not see a whole heck of a lot of difference between the results of this year's edition of our OL and last year's like you apparently do. I have noted that, for one reason or another, we haven't resigned any of our OL's to 2nd contracts since Pete's been here (except Unger, whom we traded), but that's not to be construed into assuming that I felt we should have resigned any of the OL's we've parted ways with.

My disagreement with you has been over your use of one very subjective term that you used in a thread months ago, and continue to cling to, and that is that our OL is "vastly" improved over last year's unit, and I simply do not see it that way and I don't understand where it is you're seeing improvement at if we're dead last in protecting the QB and near the bottom in run blocking.

That's not to say that I don't think it will get better or that I think that we'll end up blowing it up at the end of this season like we did last year. Honestly, I don't know what the heck we're going to do about this mess.

[NorthHawk]

PC said after the Tampa game"we needed to quit trying to figure out what was wrong with the passing game and run the ball" Same with Green Bay. With a winged secondary and Russell playing as poorly as at any time in his career it might have been the thing to do.

Then they come out throwing early and not setting the tone against the Cards.
Without a dominating running back, it's going to be difficult to establish that run game.
However, what you said later is right - they have to keep at it if only to open up some quick passes to the TE later on.
It's almost like they've given up on the run this year.

[Anthony]

Teams that cant run or don't try to run get their QB hit more often.Attacking defenders instead of being on their heels much of the game warms up linemen and wears down defenders.Asking a green line to pass block most of the game against a good team is asking for games like saturday.

PC said after the Tampa game"we needed to quit trying to figure out what was wrong with the passing game and run the ball" Same with Green Bay. With a winged secondary and Russell playing as poorly as at any time in his career it might have been the thing to do.
On the one hand Bevell cant be blamed for a couple of wide open receivers being missed by a mile,unforced picks or tipped balls leading to more picks. But sometimes plan A aint working and you gotta figure it out.The only game in the last month they made a real commitment to the run was Carolina and they had their way with a pretty good defense.

Saturday lets assume Seattle ran the ball early and often and averaged even a yard or 2 per carry. Isn't that better than 3rd and 25 and fumbled wraparound handoffs?
I think our defense is just far more vulnerable without Earl. Take out the beat down of a frankly horrible Jarred Goff they've given up 30+ points the last 2 times they faced a competent offense.
Now you will have Kirk Cousins or Eli manning or the like coming to town then you go to Atlanta.
The offense has to at least kill clock and change field position every possession and they cant afford turnovers
.They cant come away with no points on first and goal from the half yard line at home or on the road,

This team has no shot unless they tighten it up.

In theory, I agree but I think teams are run blitzing, meaning they are blitzing their gaps knowing our oline can't stop them, knowing out RBs can't make their own yards and if its not a run they just keep going to the QB. The problem still is why we waited so long to go to the quick passing game when it works every time. At some point you have to go with what works but for some reason we refuse to.

[NorthHawk]

But you have to keep trying, Anthony. It keeps the Defense honest and if a run play gets a big result, their whole Defensive point of view changes as they don't want that to happen again.

[Anthony]

But you have to keep trying, Anthony. It keeps the Defense honest and if a run play gets a big result, their whole Defensive point of view changes as they don't want that to happen again.

I am not saying don't try I just think we need to be smarter. For example, a 3 yards pass completion is better than a 2 yards rush loss. The problem with trying is if you are not successful you put the offense in a whole and then they are 3 and out. Why not run some quick passes make them respect that and worry about it, removing a few from the box and then start sprinkling in the run. Let the pass set up the run. Here is what we know the run is not working, the whatever Bevel calls it passing game is not working, but the quick passing game is, so use it to set up the run. Otherwise, we get what we got the first half of last game and a lot of others nothing.

[HumanCockroach]

My disagreement with you has been over your use of one very subjective term that you used in a thread months ago, and continue to cling to, and that is that our OL is "vastly" improved over last year's unit, and I simply do not see it that way and I don't understand where it is you're seeing improvement at if we're dead last in protecting the QB and near the bottom in run blocking.

My reference was to your insistence that last year's line shouldn't for some reason be the measuring stick. In regards to improvement. My claim was that the line was performing vastly superior to the line from the year before ( and to date that is the ONLY claim I've made). You continue to bring up measuring sticks from MULTIPLE seasons ago as some form of defense against that. Which makes little to no sense. Even IF you want to credit me with some bizarre claim about the lines greatness ( which I've never once made) truth is, the line IS protecting Wilson better through 15 games than anyone had any right to expect, even if the line is looked at in a vacuum, instead of acknowledging the improved play from last season to this one, considering the inexperience of the players on it. Seems pretty unrealistic and downright silly to "expect" consistency at the level of ten year veterans, from players with two years or less.

It also seems incredibly unrealistic to expect franchise cornerstone lineman to be available at the end of the first round, or wandering the streets looking for work. Everyone can WANT have the most dominant line in the NFL, the unrealistic portion comes when people EXPECT to have that, despite not having the opportunities to get the players necessary to do that.

People complain about the money spent, but as you said, don't WANT to spend the money on the players available. People complain about the unpolished aspect of the players playing, but REFUSE to acknowledge the lack of polished players available via draft to begin with. People complain about the players here, and then complain when the players are gone. Realistically, is it any wonder why I have posted that "Seattle fans can't be happy unless they are complaining about the line. It happens EVERY year"? That isn't a stretch on my part, it's just acknowledging that Seattle could have literally five all pros, and they STILL wouldn't cut the mustard for a large portion of this fan base.

Ultimately, if a RB has a freeway lane to run through and instead runs to contact, it's the lines fault, If the QB is indecisive, or holds the ball to long, or scrambles INTO contact it's the lines fault. If the receivers aren't open, or are running slow developing routes, and there's pressure, it's the lines fault, if there's pressure on a kicker causing a bad punt or FG , it's the lines fault, if a defender makes a great play, it's the lines fault..... I simply don't work that way. I never have, and I never will. I may not be close to perfect in my analyst of the offenses play ( and have never claimed to be) but I feel OK with understanding and reading the mistakes made.

Here's a simple example of how to do it. IF you have time to say "well throw it, throw the Ball Russ" two or three times, before pressure, that is NOT the lines fault, it may not be Wilson's either, but more often than not, it IS.

If an unlocked rusher is coming hard off the edge when the defense brings more than four, again that is NOT the lines fault. It's up to the QB to read that and either make them miss our get the ball out of his hand.

These things aren't complicated.

On a side note, I DO wonder how many sacks are actually created by the coaching staffs philosophy of not turning the ball over? It's impossible to really tell, but I personally do believe it inflates those totals. A LOT of QBs throw balls under pressure, or take chances without it, I really don't see Wilson do that. Typically the throws he makes are to receivers with LARGE cushions ( not all, but as a whole yeah). I wonder if because of the philosophy, Wilson doesn't take as many, which in turn would lead to holding the ball longer, making blocking more difficult, more pressures and sacks etc.. just something I've been kicking around for the last couple years.

[NorthHawk]

I am not saying don't try I just think we need to be smarter. For example, a 3 yards pass completion is better than a 2 yards rush loss. The problem with trying is if you are not successful you put the offense in a whole and then they are 3 and out. Why not run some quick passes make them respect that and worry about it, removing a few from the box and then start sprinkling in the run. Let the pass set up the run. Here is what we know the run is not working, the whatever Bevel calls it passing game is not working, but the quick passing game is, so use it to set up the run. Otherwise, we get what we got the first half of last game and a lot of others nothing.

If the Defense sits on short passes early, we might be looking at pick sixes. Typically we have started with the run, then gone to the pass as the Defense wouldn't know which to focus on defending.
It worked very well with a good running back and decent run blocking in previous years. I'm not sure that's available this year, but it still has to be tried keep it in mind of the Defense.

[NorthHawk]

If an unlocked rusher is coming hard off the edge when the defense brings more than four, again that is NOT the lines fault. It's up to the QB to read that and either make them miss our get the ball out of his hand.

These things aren't complicated.

On a side note, I DO wonder how many sacks are actually created by the coaching staffs philosophy of not turning the ball over? It's impossible to really tell, but I personally do believe it inflates those totals. A LOT of QBs throw balls under pressure, or take chances without it, I really don't see Wilson do that. Typically the throws he makes are to receivers with LARGE cushions ( not all, but as a whole yeah). I wonder if because of the philosophy, Wilson doesn't take as many, which in turn would lead to holding the ball longer, making blocking more difficult, more pressures and sacks etc.. just something I've been kicking around for the last couple years.

Protecting the ball has crossed my mind a little, too, but throwing it away is also protecting the ball. If the QB has one receiver on an out route, then throw it well over his head if he's covered.
I also wonder if in the last couple of years, so much pressure has caused Wilson to focus early on getting out of trouble instead of sticking it out in the pocket. Having a weak pass blocking OL causes even the best QBs to lower their eyes to the oncoming traffic. It's part of the human survival instinct.

[Anthony]

If the Defense sits on short passes early, we might be looking at pick sixes. Typically we have started with the run, then gone to the pass as the Defense wouldn't know which to focus on defending.
It worked very well with a good running back and decent run blocking in previous years. I'm not sure that's available this year, but it still has to be tried keep it in mind of the Defense.

Agreed but if it is not working then trying does nothing. The definition of lunacy is trying the same thing over and over again expecting a different results. Running not working, quick passing working. Once quick passing get going then the run starts to work. Pass to set up the run. As to the possibility of a pick 6, if our RB or QB gets killed in the backfield on almost every play we might be looking at a fumble 6. To me its simple you go with what is working, and it ain't run first or the traditional passing offense it is the quick passing offense. At this point it is either that or we keep getting what we are getting a half of nothing, followed by a half of almost enough but losing anyway.

[NorthHawk]

Agreed but if it is not working then trying does nothing. The definition of lunacy is trying the same thing over and over again expecting a different results. Running not working, quick passing working. Once quick passing get going then the run starts to work. Pass to set up the run. As to the possibility of a pick 6, if our RB or QB gets killed int eh backfield on almost every play we might be looking at a fumble 6. To me its simple you go with what is working, and it ain't run first or the traditional passing offense it is the quick passing offense. At this point it is either that or we keep getting what we are getting a half of nothing, followed by a half of almost enough but losing anyway.

If the Defense stacks the box and stuffs the run, then it's no gain or a slight loss. If the Defense sits on short, quick passing routes, the chance of a Defensive TD increases considerably.
The reason you run is to keep the Defense from sitting on the pass routes and picking them off. It's part of the larger picture, and you have to keep running it even if it doesn't work regularly.
If they pop a run for 10 or more yards, then the whole Defense looks at their task differently as it creates doubt. They change their mindset to ensure that doesn't happen again and can't sit on the short passes because they have to protect against the run. This can now open intermediate routes and maybe deep throws.

[Anthony]

If the Defense stacks the box and stuffs the run, then it's no gain or a slight loss. If the Defense sits on short, quick passing routes, the chance of a Defensive TD increases considerably.
The reason you run is to keep the Defense from sitting on the pass routes and picking them off. It's part of the larger picture, and you have to keep running it even if it doesn't work regularly.
If they pop a run for 10 or more yards, then the whole Defense looks at their task differently as it creates doubt. They change their mindset to ensure that doesn't happen again and can't sit on the short passes because they have to protect against the run. This can now open intermediate routes and maybe deep throws.

but its not working, and its setting up the offense with 2nd and 3rd and long and 3 and outs. We have a choice go with what is working or go with what is not. You want to fo with what is not, I want to go with what is I guess we can agree to disagree. Again I am not saying don't run, I am saying let the pass set up the run

[RiverDog]

My reference was to your insistence that last year's line shouldn't for some reason be the measuring stick.

It shouldn't. We all agree that last year's unit was horrible and unsatisfactory. Using that unit as a measuring stick makes little sense. It's like comparing our -10 degree low temperature from last week and feeling warm because it's only -5 degrees for a low this week. Measure against the goal or the objective, not some unsatisfactory result.

You continue to bring up measuring sticks from MULTIPLE seasons ago as some form of defense against that.

I don't think I have, but if I did, it would make more sense to compare one result (this year's line) with a desirable result (2013, for example) instead of an undesirable result (the 2015 OL).

Even IF you want to credit me with some bizarre claim about the lines greatness ( which I've never once made) truth is, the line IS protecting Wilson better through 15 games than anyone had any right to expect

But that's not how you've framed your argument, or at least the part of your argument that I'm disagreeing with. You are framing your argument by comparing this year's unit to last year's unit, not to what we should expect out of them. I've been very consistent in expressing my low expectations out of this motley bunch.

It also seems incredibly unrealistic to expect franchise cornerstone lineman to be available at the end of the first round, or wandering the streets looking for work. Everyone can WANT have the most dominant line in the NFL, the unrealistic portion comes when people EXPECT to have that, despite not having the opportunities to get the players necessary to do that.

People complain about the money spent, but as you said, don't WANT to spend the money on the players available. People complain about the unpolished aspect of the players playing, but REFUSE to acknowledge the lack of polished players available via draft to begin with. People complain about the players here, and then complain when the players are gone. Realistically, is it any wonder why I have posted that "Seattle fans can't be happy unless they are complaining about the line. It happens EVERY year"? That isn't a stretch on my part, it's just acknowledging that Seattle could have literally five all pros, and they STILL wouldn't cut the mustard for a large portion of this fan base.

Ultimately, if a RB has a freeway lane to run through and instead runs to contact, it's the lines fault, If the QB is indecisive, or holds the ball to long, or scrambles INTO contact it's the lines fault. If the receivers aren't open, or are running slow developing routes, and there's pressure, it's the lines fault, if there's pressure on a kicker causing a bad punt or FG , it's the lines fault, if a defender makes a great play, it's the lines fault..... I simply don't work that way. I never have, and I never will. I may not be close to perfect in my analyst of the offenses play ( and have never claimed to be) but I feel OK with understanding and reading the mistakes made.

Here's a simple example of how to do it. IF you have time to say "well throw it, throw the Ball Russ" two or three times, before pressure, that is NOT the lines fault, it may not be Wilson's either, but more often than not, it IS.

If an unlocked rusher is coming hard off the edge when the defense brings more than four, again that is NOT the lines fault. It's up to the QB to read that and either make them miss our get the ball out of his hand.

These things aren't complicated.

On a side note, I DO wonder how many sacks are actually created by the coaching staffs philosophy of not turning the ball over? It's impossible to really tell, but I personally do believe it inflates those totals. A LOT of QBs throw balls under pressure, or take chances without it, I really don't see Wilson do that. Typically the throws he makes are to receivers with LARGE cushions ( not all, but as a whole yeah). I wonder if because of the philosophy, Wilson doesn't take as many, which in turn would lead to holding the ball longer, making blocking more difficult, more pressures and sacks etc.. just something I've been kicking around for the last couple years.

I pretty much agree with the rest.

[Agent 86]

HumanCockroach wrote:

On a side note, I DO wonder how many sacks are actually created by the coaching staffs philosophy of not turning the ball over? It's impossible to really tell, but I personally do believe it inflates those totals. A LOT of QBs throw balls under pressure, or take chances without it, I really don't see Wilson do that. Typically the throws he makes are to receivers with LARGE cushions ( not all, but as a whole yeah). I wonder if because of the philosophy, Wilson doesn't take as many, which in turn would lead to holding the ball longer, making blocking more difficult, more pressures and sacks etc.. just something I've been kicking around for the last couple years.

Yah, I have thought this since RW3's 2nd year. It always feels like he's too cautious at times, refusing to throw up a 50/50 ball for fear of a turnover. We all know Pete's philosophy on turnovers, so this has to factor in on Wilson's decision making. It has been etched into his work for 5 years now.

I know you have been all over him for his overthrows recently. I have seen the same thing. It's almost always an overthrow though right, very few underthrows? Again, I believe he is content with an overthrow incompletion rather than a possible INT if it's underthrown.

It's a bit strange for me in that I often wish he would throw up more of those 50/50 balls to JG88, but think how mad I would get if it got picked off. This defense has been so good the last 4 years, and is the kind of defense I have longed for all my life to watch play, I even became content to punt it away and not risk the INT.

I think in time you will start to see this change towards a more aggressive approach. But for now, unless it's a comeback being mounted (or maybe a playoff game will do the trick?), I don't think this will change much. Jimmy Graham has got to be pretty frustrated at this point, but I think we have a chance in the playoffs if we can get some semblance of a running game going and Jimmy being that difference maker.

[HumanCockroach]

It shouldn't. We all agree that last year's unit was horrible and unsatisfactory. Using that unit as a measuring stick makes little sense. It's like comparing our -10 degree low temperature from last week and feeling warm because it's only -5 degrees for a low this week. Measure against the goal or the objective, not some unsatisfactory result.

I honestly don't understand this reasoning. You have to START from SOMEWHERE don't you? Your using an example that isn't really comparable. If your building something, say a building, but believe that the foundation, or first row of stones ISN'T a vast improvement of an uncleared tract of land, and instead proceed to spend the whole time lamenting that it isn't the Taj Mahal seems more in line with your thinking. You HAVE to start somewhere, and lamenting not starting with a completely finished, and polished product is unacceptable seems absolutely absurd.

My ENTIRE claim has ALWAYS been, that this line has VASTLY outperformed the line it replaced, I've never wavered on that, and I genuinely don't understand why that seems like such a sticking point for you. They HAVE done so, and the numbers bear that out, even in the woeful run game ( more average yards before contact this season than last) less pressure, less sacks. Ultimately, it's subjective, and you obviously don't have to agree, but you could at least stop pretending like I'm saying things I'm not, or stating facts I'm not.

I have never once said this line has performed great this season, never once have I claimed they have been consistently good, nor have I claimed it's a finished product, or that it can't improve. I've done none of that RD. The difference seems to be, that like with wanting to wait for the QB, while many were clamoring to draft Sanchize, I'm willing to wait for the line to get there, partially because I'm not of the "Happy meal over filet mignon" thought process, and partially because I have NO choice in the matter. You're grumbling for instant satisfaction when the McDonalds is boarded up, burned to the ground and vacant, I on the other hand am busy waiting for my reservation at the four star steakhouse that might take a year or two to get in to.

[burrrton]

Even IF you want to credit me with some bizarre claim about the lines greatness ( which I've never once made) truth is, the line IS protecting Wilson better through 15 games than anyone had any right to expect

Not sure what we "had the right to expect", but they haven't protected sh*t. Any reduction in sack #s is due purely to other factors (RW either bailing out of the pocket or throwing the ball after a count of one-one-thousand, etc).

Rawls had a yards-before-contact stat of something like less than one last time I checked, and we can see RW can't even finish a dropback half the time. Quit defending this line.

[HumanCockroach]

Unfortunately, I don't operate in a way that many here do Burton. I don't expect sh#t, I take it as it comes, and I don't lambast something simply because it doesn't go the way I WANT it to, and I certainly do not blame something simply because it is "easy" to do it, and simpler to blame it than look at all the other factors, NOR am I "defending" the line by pointing out the other factors. I'm not going to apologise for looking at all of the factors, or for pointing out the OBVIOUS improvements. Never once have I claimed this lines performance as great or top tier for the season, that is a whole lot of assumptions by many because I refused to lay all the blame at their feet. There's a difference between being capable of assigning blame when they play poorly, and blindly laying blame out of convenience or emotional attachments to other players. I don't do it, despite ridiculous claims about "wanting" to blame the best QB to ever suit up for the Seahawks, or "wanting" to blame the OC or "wanting" to blame the RB. I blame who I feel is responsible, from watching them play. I don't come in with a COMPLETELY exaggerated " Wilson has been running for his life all season" or a "the line is complete garbage" or a completely unsubstantiated "he's playing poorly because he doesn't trust his line" claim. Those things I leave to you guys.

It's NOT defending to point out there has been vast improvement from where they were last season, it's improvement, and improvement in my book is ALWAYS positive.

[Hawktawk]

This staff has a philosophy of limiting turnovers. Russ also holds the ball lots of times looking for deep routes when he could throw it away. He hates throwing it away and some good things have come of it, bad too including lines getting blamed for sacks. In theory it should limit picks although in Green Bay....I don't agree Russ never throws in tight windows. When hes on he can lay it in Jimmy Grahams right hand like a handoff, right down the chimney. When Russ MISSES its usually high. He went through it late in the 2013 season (SB champs) 2014 one too many high throws...2015 first half of season behind a horrific line, second half best football he ever played.
Russ hasn't been accurate lately. That being said he finished last game with the deadliest hottest quarter of his professional career.Hopefully the switch has flipped.

With our defensive deficiencies we will need it to win.

[RiverDog]

Unfortunately, I don't operate in a way that many here do Burton. I don't expect sh#t, I take it as it comes, and I don't lambast something simply because it doesn't go the way I WANT it to, and I certainly do not blame something simply because it is "easy" to do it, and simpler to blame it than look at all the other factors, NOR am I "defending" the line by pointing out the other factors. I'm not going to apologise for looking at all of the factors, or for pointing out the OBVIOUS improvements. Never once have I claimed this lines performance as great or top tier for the season, that is a whole lot of assumptions by many because I refused to lay all the blame at their feet. There's a difference between being capable of assigning blame when they play poorly, and blindly laying blame out of convenience or emotional attachments to other players. I don't do it, despite ridiculous claims about "wanting" to blame the best QB to ever suit up for the Seahawks, or "wanting" to blame the OC or "wanting" to blame the RB. I blame who I feel is responsible, from watching them play. I don't come in with a COMPLETELY exaggerated " Wilson has been running for his life all season" or a "the line is complete garbage" or a completely unsubstantiated "he's playing poorly because he doesn't trust his line" claim. Those things I leave to you guys.

It's NOT defending to point out there has been vast improvement from where they were last season, it's improvement, and improvement in my book is ALWAYS positive.

Yes, improvement is always positive, unless we're improving our draft position.

[HumanCockroach]

Well the good news RD is it would allow them to draft better line prospects...

Always looking for some positives...

[Anthony]

Not sure what we "had the right to expect", but they haven't protected sh*t. Any reduction in sack #s is due purely to other factors (RW either bailing out of the pocket or throwing the ball after a count of one-one-thousand, etc).

Rawls had a yards-before-contact stat of something like less than one last time I checked, and we can see RW can't even finish a dropback half the time. Quit defending this line.

Also while sacks have gone down, hits and hurries have gone up a lot, people sometimes forget about those and they do have a cumulative effect on a QB

[HumanCockroach]

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats? ... =2&role=TM

Nope.

[c_hawkbob]

Nope what?

We were 7th (most) in sacks allowed last year, we're 7th in sacks allowed this year. We were 3rd in QB hits allowed last year, we're 4th this year ...

[HumanCockroach]

Read the numbers and the claim. Nope.

[c_hawkbob]

Again, nope what? Who are you even replying to? there have been a lot of "claims" made.

[Anthony]

Again, nope what? Who are you even replying to? there have been a lot of "claims" made.

Well I had foed him so I did not read his post till you and he started going back and fourth. I believe he is replying to me when I said while sacks may have gone down hits and hurries have gone up. The link he provided does show hits and sacks but does not show hurries or pressures. So it really does not apply to what I said. In addition, the hits and sacks for 2015 which is a total of 160 is based on 16 games and is an avg of 10 per game, While the totals for 2016 of 144 is for 15 games. That's an average of 9.6 per game, so not much of an improvement at all and not counting hurries/pressures. But we will not really know even those numbers till after Sunday. However again that does not count hurries and pressures. In my original post I said while sacks have gone down, hits and hurries have gone up alot. His link does not show hurries/pressures. According to http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-a ... ssure-2015 Wilson had a pressure rate of 31.7% in 2015. According to PFF https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-to ... -pressure/ he has been pressured on 41.5% of his drop backs this year a significant increase so my point stands. While sacks may have gone down and mind you not by much with 1 game still to play, his hits and hurries/pressures have gone up alot.

[RiverDog]

Not only are the number of sacks just slightly less than last season, you have to remember that they were skewed heavily towards the first part of the season before the emphasis on Russell getting the ball out of his hands more quickly started to drive the sack numbers down.

So really, there is very little difference between what ever performance metrics that can be applied to this year's OL and last year's, and certainly not "vastly" improved. That is, unless you want to start employing some sort of "eye test" criteria to support the "vastly improved" claim.

[HumanCockroach]

RD you just made an argument in my favor. You realize that right? The Sack numbers went down drastically when an emphasis was placed on getting the ball out quickly, something that HASN'T been an emphasis this season.

[RiverDog]

RD you just made an argument in my favor. You realize that right? The Sack numbers went down drastically when an emphasis was placed on getting the ball out quickly, something that HASN'T been an emphasis this season.

OK, you stats geeks. After noting that last year's sack rate was extraordinarily high in the first 7 games, I thought I'd do something to factor out the "wow's" and use a little different method rather than strict average and total sacks to measure our sacks allowed performance, so here's what I did:

First, I determined the average number of sacks allowed in an NFL game. It seems it is something around 2.2 or so sacks. I went back and recorded our sacks surrendered for each game of the 2015 and 2016 seasons, and using 0, 1, and 2 as below average or acceptable and 3+ as above average or unacceptable, here's what I found:

In 16 games in 2015, we surrendered 2 or fewer sacks in 9 games. Consequently, after 15 games this season, we surrendered 2 or fewer in 8 games. So from that angle, we have NOT improved one little bit.

But what stuck out was how the sacks were grouped from the start of the season to the end. Last season, we surrendered 2 or fewer sacks in 8 of our last game. This season, it is the opposite. We have surrendered 2 or more sacks in 6 of our last 8 games. This might suggest that our OL performance is getting worse...or that we gave up fewer sacks in the first part of the season because Russell was hurt and not attempting to get out of sacks. Who knows.

I'm not drawing any definite conclusions, rather I just thought it was an interesting way to look at our OL performances in 2015 and 2016.

[NorthHawk]

I don't know where you are getting your numbers from, RD, but it would be interesting to compare to 2012/2013 when we were a serious threat to win it all.

[Anthony]

I don't know where you are getting your numbers from, RD, but it would be interesting to compare to 2012/2013 when we were a serious threat to win it all.

Hmm that would be interesting, what I find still interesting is all we are dealing with is sacks and hits. hurrries/pressures impact a QB just as much and in this department are numbers are way up. Also is the quick passing game is what is helping the oline that does not mean the line has gotten better, that means we have found a way to work around them being bad. All in all so far nothing shown here in this thread proves anything other than the oline is bad and has not gotten better.

[RiverDog]

I don't know where you are getting your numbers from, RD, but it would be interesting to compare to 2012/2013 when we were a serious threat to win it all.

I added up the sacks of all 32 teams in the 2015 season (Denver led the league with 57 sacks), divided by 32 teams then divided that result by 16 games to arrive at an average of something like 2.3 sacks per game.

Then I went back to the game logs of all the games in the 2015 and 2016 seasons and looked for the number of sacks we surrendered and counted the number of games when that number was 2 or less, or under the league average.

I think we all agree that sacks are not a perfect metric to measure OL performance. To show the inadequacy of a simple sack number, I discovered was that the Arizona game down there, the one that ended in a tie, where our OL perhaps had their worst game, we only gave up 1 sack. But it is a readily available stat and thought it interesting.

And I agree, it would be interesting to compare the 2012-2014 seasons and see what it shows. But I'm a little short on time.

[RiverDog]

All in all so far nothing shown here in this thread proves anything other than the oline is bad and has not gotten better.

I agree with the first part of your sentence. Our OL in both 2015 and 2016 was/is bad. As far as not gotten any better, I won't go quite that far except to say that it almost certainly has not been a "vast" improvement over last season.

The other thing we have to keep in mind is that pass protection is just one component of OL performance, the other being run blocking. But that's probably even harder to measure as our RB/QB situation is so variable.

[HumanCockroach]

RD so in essence you threw out the quality of the opponents, and averaged the sacks across the board? I'm not sure that's much of a solid barometer. Doesn't a team facing say ten of sixteen top ten pass rush teams in a season expect to have higher pressures, hits and sacks as opposed to one facing three or four?

I'm not claiming your "wrong" or anything, I'm pointing out how those numbers can drastically change depending on whether you add different criteria. Also be interesting to add in average time before release, number of releases vs throws etc.

It's far more complicated than a simple averaging of sack totals IMHO.

I do think Seattle LIKES the explosive plays, IE vertical passing, unfortunately, that INCREASES sacks, hits and pressure across the league. Just part of the package ( hence guys like Rodgers etc are almost always right at the top in those categories regardless of who is on the line, while QBs like Smith and Bridgewater are at the bottom).

Another important factor is ability to move, running success etc. Awfully difficult to avoid pressure when the QB can't effectively, or there's zero running game to keep the defense honest.

I'm not attacking your work, I just believe in a larger picture, as opposed to simply pointing at numbers and saying "see!".

Same reason I didn't feel Arizona was going to be some creampuffs last week. They are the number 3 defense, and the number 8 offense, if I was only looking at the wins and losses, I wouldn't have felt that way, but I look further, and always have, and probably always will.