Largent80 wrote:Hopefully it doesn't come down to relying on The Great Gazoo to win the game.
politicalfootball wrote:I think if we win out we are set for HAD throughout the playoffs. Go Seahawks !
Rambo2014 wrote:Seahawks/Playoffs = Oxymoron
Done tomorrow then you all can relax with a doobie
"Playoffs" " No. 2 Seed" OMG LOLOLOL
c_hawkbob wrote:Must win is a pretty high bar for me, but this is as close as it gets without being absolute.
obiken wrote:
I disagree Cbob ...
obiken wrote:we have to win. IF not we would have to go on the road and win 3 games we are not a good road team. At this point with our MASH unit we will be lucky to even make it to 8-8. Again, I hope I am wrong.
Sox-n-hawks wrote:Win or lose there need to be some big coaching shake ups this off season for sure. I would START with a new strength and conditioning coach, followed by OC and OL positions. When your QB hires his own personal trainer and fitness coach to stay healthy, it's a sign.
Largent80 wrote:While wanting to win extremely badly, I would take a loss if it means the team gets rid of at least 2 (un-named) coaches at the end of the year.
c_hawkbob wrote:"While wanting to win extremely badly, I would take a loss if it means the team gets rid of at least 2 (un-named) coaches at the end of the year."
Not me. Ever.
RiverDog wrote:
Honest question: Do other NFL QB's hire a personal fitness trainer? I know that other highly paid athletes do.
I advocate getting rid of Bevell and especially Cable, but I wouldn't be shocked if Pete makes any high level changes like that. He's shown a pretty devoted loyalty towards coaches on hi staff.
RiverDog wrote:Honest question: Do other NFL QB's hire a personal fitness trainer? I know that other highly paid athletes do.
I advocate getting rid of Bevell and especially Cable, but I wouldn't be shocked if Pete makes any high level changes like that. He's shown a pretty devoted loyalty towards coaches on hi staff.
idhawkman wrote:Yeah, I'm on the side of not losing just to get rid of a couple of coaches. I'd rather the win.
Largent80 wrote:While wanting to win extremely badly, I would take a loss if it means the team gets rid of at least 2 (un-named) coaches at the end of the year. We can talk about O-Line continuity and many other things. In the end The Seahawks just have no offensive identity, and the pay calling has been exactly the same for too many years. It doesn't help that Bevell completely abandons what is working to try and out cute the DC. We are not taking advantage of the people we have, and it's sad and a waste.
It's no coincidence that we have no running game just because Lynch isn't here. The special teams is almost a liability now. A kicker who the team and himself have no confidence in , and can't get the ball into the endzone on kickoffs without a huge tail wind and containment on punts and kickoffs has gone downhill.
Of course all of this is on Pete Carroll. He is the one that has chosen to remain the same. There really shouldn't be any question marks in his brain when he sees the exact thing that everyone else sees. He has been over loyal in my opinion.
Pete has always been keen on keeping his "system" run the ball well, and play good defense with cover 1/3.
Here's the problem with the defense for this years team:
Cover 1: is strictly man coverage. If the defense is able to win a majority of the 11 match ups, they will succeed with this coverage. Unfortunately, they can't.
Cover 3: Sherm commands and is tasked with defending the left side in both Cover 1 and Cover 3, but his presence is gone so Seattle has a tougher time playing these schemes. Cover 1/3 is Carrolls bread and butter, if it's not working, he's all out of ideas. What generally conceals Carrolls weaknesses in these two schemes are a great pass rush. Seattle is no longer a great pass rushing team. So, the defense is then exploited by an intelligent coordinator and solid QB. Maxwell was picked on fairly easily by Blake friggin Bortles last week, and Goff is way better than him.
Largent80 wrote:Here's some BUTT nuggets for ya......
This felt like the end of an era. The Rams were younger, they were healthier and they were better in each and every aspect of a game that was billed as Seattle’s most pivotal regular-season game at CenturyLink Field since Russell Wilson became quarterback.
Instead, it was Seattle’s most pathetic showing since the Seahawks were beaten 41-7 by the Giants back on Nov. 7, 2010, when Pete Carroll was in his first season as Seattle’s coach and Charlie Whitehurst started for an injured Matt Hasselbeck.
The Rams began five drives in Seattle’s half of the field in the first half. Compare that to the Seahawks, who ran exactly one play from Los Angeles’ half of the field. That play resulted in a fumble.
The Rams had 109 yards worth of punt returns in the first half; the Seahawks had 59 yards of total offense.
Wilson completed 12 passes in the first three quarters of the game and had been sacked five times entering the final period.
It didn’t get better in the fourth quarter with Wilson flagged for intentional grounding from his own end zone with 10 minutes remaining after he threw a pass toward the sideline on a play in which receiver Paul Richardson had broken inside.
Rams running back Todd Gurley scored four touchdowns, and his 57-yard touchdown run in the final minute of the first half was just the last play in an utterly miserable half of football for Seattle.
The Seahawks had four first downs and committed two turnovers. The only two plays that could even be called a highlight for the Seahawks were a pair of completions to J.D. McKissic. One converted a third-and-7, the other produced a 26-yard gain.
Seattle’s second-longest gain of the first half turned out to be the Seahawks’ worst play as receiver Tanner McEvoy caught a pass on third down, picked up the first down and then fumbled after gaining 22 yards.
The Seahawks trailed 13-0 by the time they converted another first down in a first half with a disparity that was best evidenced by the field position. Seattle’s average starting position was its own 22. The Rams’ average starting position was the Seattle 42, and of the Rams’ seven first-half possessions, five began on Seattle’s half of the field.
Largent80 wrote:A first place schedule means squat in the NFL. That team and s young and hungry, remember that??
Our teams core players are getting up there and appear to be injury prone.
The offensive coaches should have been gone 2 years ago. It's all showing now regardless of injuries.
obiken wrote:I agree with Largent, the Rams have a great team even with all our defensive guys, we are a good team. We cannot, nor will we in the next 2 years, be able to run the ball.
Largent80 wrote:A first place schedule means squat in the NFL. That team and s young and hungry, remember that??
Our teams core players are getting up there and appear to be injury prone.
The offensive coaches should have been gone 2 years ago. It's all showing now regardless of injuries.
NorthHawk wrote:Possibly or maybe they've played a lot of high intensity football in the last 5 years and have just been ground down to the point where they need a year to refill the tank.
I think the will is there, but I'm beginning to doubt their bodies can keep up the pace and the injuries seem to support that to an extent.
mykc14 wrote:There is no doubt that they are young and hungry, but a first place schedule can add two tough games that can turn a season around, depending on who they play. Next year that could be the difference between having to play the Eagles Cowboys or Redskins, but it’s true you don’t know who the best team in the division is until the season actually starts...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests