Postgame: Seahawks 27 - Chargers 20
by John Morgan on Sep 26, 2010 5:27 PM PDT
Email
PrintMan, I have no words. I do not even know if I enjoyed this win, not during the win at least. I enjoyed portions of the game. I enjoyed the outcome. I still can not exactly piece together how it happened.
Maybe that's just how it feels when special teams and turnovers win the game.
There wasn't a defining drive, or a big catch, except maybe Earl Thomas's last second interception. Justin Forsett fit a couple nice runs, between battling blockers in the backfield, and Matt Hasselbeck found open receivers, but the Seahawks best pass play ended in an excruciating fumble by Deion Branch. That fumble, much of the game felt like that fumble. Except, in the metaphorical version, Branch tracks down the ball and falls on it for the touchdown.
I'm all spun around and worked over and not yet happy even though I know the Seahawks have won, should win next week, should command the division with a 3-1 record entering the bye, should take the NFC West, should host a playoff game-
Let me regroup.
For three years, Seattle settled for special teams coach Bruce Dehaven. Dehaven continued unchallenged because of a solid reputation, despite mostly poor results. Coverage teams played poorly. The Seahawks were unprepared for trick plays. The kick and punt return units were more or less ignored, with lots of good enough players allowed to stick around, while free alternatives were never pursued.
In a lowkey move this off-season, Pete Carroll hired Brian Schneider. Schneider's only been around a little while, helped "coach" Shane Lechler to a pair of Pro Bowl bids, which is impossible to interpret from the outside. Is Lechler gifted with a golden leg? Is Lechler gifted with a terrible offense giving him space to boom punts as long as possible? Is the Pro Bowl a worthy distinction fraught with head-scratching errors?
No, Schneider didn't have much of a reputation.
What he has is the Seahawks special teams playing like God-damned men possessed. Attacking, fiery, flying around and shedding blocks and controlling lanes and making blocks and, today, winning the game.
Leon Washington is a quality return man, great even, but he doesn't block for himself. Dude had blocks. His presence, alone, is a victory for Schneider and John Schneider. It's about doing every little thing possible to win, and if anything at all today was half-assed, taken for granted or ignored, the Seahawks don' win.
This was winning the hard scrabble way. The effort above talent way. The way a team that's been down and out for a damn long time wins. It counts as shiny and pristine and virginal and awesome in a biblical sense as any other.
Game Balls
Chris Clemons
Clemons will always be hot and cold, and he seemed torrid in the first half and a lot colder down the stretch. And, yes, he was facing a backup. But ends are opportunistic creatures by nature, prone to big showings and disappearances. When you have a good matchup, and you have the talent at end to take advantage of that matchup, if only for a few snaps here and there, that's how you win a game. Clemons showed up not just as a pass rusher but with a couple stops in the run game. Maybe we don't get this level of play every week, but as long as Clemons can cash in when the matchup's favorable, that'll do. That's more than enough from a throw in.
Earl Thomas
Rapacious. You know this one. Thomas has insane ball skills. Just insane. No need to pile words on top of it. Thomas can spot a ball in flight and coordinate his break angle and hand placement better than you or I can tie our shoes.
Leon Washington
I also thought David Hawthorne had a very nice game, forcing a fumble, tipping a Thomas interception, and executing an inside blitz that reminds us that he's a former Horned Frog.
This was discord ending in harmony, as nerve-wracking as it was exciting, and I am still far from recovered, but a win. The Seahawks won. The Seahawks won.
264 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Carroll says he was "banged up" a bit, but never elaborated
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
Scary win
Damn good thing the defense played so well, and special teams.
The more I think about it, the angrier I get: the offense put the entire burden on the defense late in the second half, when a few first downs would have made all the difference.
I don’t know the stats, but the defense was on the field a shit-load in the second half, and still the heart they showed. Amazing.
Damn, I wish Seattle had a QB that could make plays, could actually connect with a receiver down the field.
Some fun stats:
Points:
Special Teams: 20, Offense: 7 (well, 6 to be precise), Leon: 7
Yardage:
Special Teams: 352, Offense: 271, Leon: 253
Don't you mean 14 for Leon?
He did have two return touchdowns: 101 + 99…
The offense was downright terrible in the 2nd half, along with the zone defense from hell. But a “W” is a “W”, and we coulda, shoulda been up big going into the half.
You gotta say it louder, John.
The Seahawks WON!!
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
This was one of the funnest games I ever went to.
Maybe it wasn’t a dominating performance, although the opportunities to dominate were there, but it was certainly exciting.
I think Earl Thomas is even more impressive live. On lots of plays he’ll drop 30+ yards back, I don’t know how he gets involved in as many plays as he does.
DO IT!
Karma police, arrest this man.
by wyte_lightning on Sep 26, 2010 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions
That's not being an asshole,
It’s being a proud fan! Do it!
by Woodinville_12thMan on Sep 26, 2010 5:40 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
It's not Oakland, you'll be fine
Just avoid restaurants and cafes
I wear my Seahawks gear in Oakland all the time,
No one seems to care all that much, although we’ll see what happens on Halloween at the game…
I want our DC fired.
How many times is he going to get burned by his zone coverage before he calls some man Defence? Denver killed the zone, and now San Diego killed the zone. If not for Leon and Earl, they lose by 10. The pass Defence was atrocious.
OOOOOH!!!!! That was NASTY!!!!!!!!
Both Bradley and Carroll favor zones
I respect what you’re saying, but zone defense is here to stay. It’s just about getting the kids coached up and adding some talent to the pass rush.
It wasn't just Gates. Rivers threw for nearly 400 yards in the second half.
OOOOOH!!!!! That was NASTY!!!!!!!!
That and because they abondoned the running game
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
I would have too if I had open recievers to throw to all day due to the DC not adjusting his playcalling.
OOOOOH!!!!! That was NASTY!!!!!!!!
We couldn't get pass rush with Bane out.
And the Chargers have great receivers and an amazing passer of a QB. Cut em some slack.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
If it was just one game, sure. If it was just a few plays in the game, sure.
Denver was like 14/15 on 3rd down. SD couldn’t be stopped on 3rd down in the second half.
OOOOOH!!!!! That was NASTY!!!!!!!!
All I meant was,
I didn’t get the feeling that the coordinator wasn’t trying new things. The blitz had some shining moments and was frequently in Rivers’ face. Most other quarterbacks would’ve crumbled to that pressure.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
Injuries or not, you have to adjust the playcalling.
For those who can watch the game again, how many times did SD throw to someone who didn’t have anyone within 5 yards (or more) near him?
I try to pay close attention to things like formations and the like, and I think I could count on one hand the number of times showed man coverage.
OOOOOH!!!!! That was NASTY!!!!!!!!
Agreed.
Our Zone got brutalized so badly. I mean Rivers set the Chargers single game passing record, w/o V.Jack. Rivers has been in the NFL since 2004
He also had the ball the entire 2nd half
by Scruffy Lefty on Sep 26, 2010 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, we had the ball 5 times in the second half
And only managed one first down.
by B.B.Finnegan on Sep 27, 2010 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions
I was very close to throwing my
shoe at the tv.
John Hancock
by mrcoffee1969 on Sep 27, 2010 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions
At this rate, every team we play against will be abandoning the running game
by B.B.Finnegan on Sep 26, 2010 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, exactly.
Also, they are just going to run anti zone routes against then and put up huge numbers like Rivers did.
OOOOOH!!!!! That was NASTY!!!!!!!!
Had the offense been able to keep the ball a bit...
…Rivers would have thrown for a lot less. And the pass rush and secondary would have had a chance to breathe.
I'm guessing they use it so much since the defense is out there like 75% of the time
I just prefer they’d switch to Man on 3rd downs
With a better pass rush, the zone wouldnt look as bad.
And if the O would stay on the field for a little bit, the D could get some rest. In Denver and tonight, the D was absolutely exhausted.
Best book I've read lately:
"The Blade Itself" by Joe Abercrombie
by Wayward Llama on Sep 26, 2010 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions
The pass rush wasn't horrible.
It was definitely inconsistent though. Rivers is a man. Some of his throws happened while getting nailed. There are only a small handful of QBs in the league that would have had the same type of outing with guys in his face all afternoon.
Unfortunately, it seems as if Carroll also is a fan of the zone "D"
Compete in everything, except for a decent pass defense. I really can’t see how going man could be much worse. There were many times Sunday where there wasn’t a defender within 10 yards of receivers. It looked really, really, easy. Granted Rivers is elite and the Chargers have good receivers, but that pass defense was a big bag of fail, which is doubly frustrating as the run defense is usually so stout (prior to being exhausted, but that is another topic)
Dude it's Philip Rivers and Norv Turner.
They nearly had some big-time TD passes. Would you rather have Rivers set a league record against us? Abandoning zone coverage because it’s not working, going to man cover, in many ways can be out of the frying pan into the fire.
In man cover the offense dictates where your defenders are, on the field. First you have to have the talent to not die from mismatches, in man. But then whenthey see you staying in man all day they can move your last tiers of defense to where they want, so they can run what they want. Where you aren’t. Both running and passing.
Zone cover not working doesn’t mean man will. The nature of the NFL today against good QBs is they are going to get receptions and yards.
by jacobstevens on Sep 27, 2010 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions
How many forced fumbles? Sacks? QB hits/hurries? Interceptions?
That’s what kept the points off the board.
When your offenses gives the ball back
And your special teams score, the opposing team will be on the field more.
by Moresoftness on Sep 26, 2010 6:55 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
But
you give yourself some momentum and points on the board. And if those points mean you took the lead or extended a lead, then you most likely will make the opposing offense one dimensional. ’Cause now they have to pass letting a defense play the pass more aggressively.
Man, SD was using a lot of play action to throw off Thomas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCK7njbgDO8
Prepare for scare
"It's always a bad play when the other team scores." - John Madden
by jubelthebear on Sep 27, 2010 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Matt didn't play well
Better than last week, but not well. And he won’t play well with this hodge-podge offensive line in front of him. The line is man-blocking half the time and almost exclusively focused on protecting Matt. This is not the ZBS game that Gibbs coached all summer, that’s been put on hold. And it won’t be fixed and won’t move forward until we get Okung in at LT, Andrews over to RT, PItts in at OG, and figure out who our other OG is.
Get the O line straightened out, then get the TEs involved in the passing game, and then we’ll get to find out if Matt can still play the game.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
In his post-game presser
Carroll acutally called the play at the end of the half as GREAT. Yes, a great QB sneak play.
I don't really understand the reaction from some of you.
This was a damn exciting football game full of big plays and tense moments that yielded the desired outcome: a win! A beautiful, glorious, motherfuckin win!!! Sure, we didn’t do it perfectly, but I know that I am damn thankful for meaningful and exciting football once again. If Tru and Mebane aren’t injured, I don’t think Rivers goes off like that. Nevermind that though, a W like this should be celebrated and cherished! Winning football. You have to love it, if you don’t then I question the height of your expectations and your ability to enjoy the sport at all. GO HAWKS!!!
by Woodinville_12thMan on Sep 26, 2010 5:46 PM PDT via mobile reply actions 5 recs
I am very happy that they won.
However, it will be a long season if our coaches do not adjust to hide our defensive shortcomings.
OOOOOH!!!!! That was NASTY!!!!!!!!
How about the offensive shortcomings?
Every week the defense has played well enough to win, including last week, and its the offense that completey screws it up, and almost did again today.
Or am I missing something?
Nope
Matt was bad. I mean really bad. How many big plays/TDs did he underthrow? I had the count at four, but I could be wrong.
He had a few good passes in there but there was a lot of carry-over from the last few years.
Underthrown passes, lobbed tosses with no zip etc.
Happy with the win
But man, Hasselbeck reminds me Delhomme circa 2009. Most plays/passes are prayers.
It is what it is...
lets say for arguments sake that they do make they adjustments your suggesting and run more man coverage....
with Curry and Tru out- who is going to man up on Gates and be big enough to box him out or win a jump ball while also being fast enough to run with him?
S.D. does an excellent job with their deep routes which found soft spots in our zone- which they do against everyone not just Seattle. However, in man coverage I dont see a Hawks player who matches up well against Gates or being able to cover Floyd and their other big receivers. I think aside from zone being the prefered defense of Carrol and Bradley- it also helps with poor matchups where those bigger receivers have a huge advantage on smaller defenders. And also allows Thomas, Babs, and Milloy to be in a position to play the ball and get interceptions make big hits. I think asking Jennings and Walter (with Trus absence) to run with Floyd, Davis, Crayton, and Naanee puts the defense in a worst position than allowing them to get deep drops and close on defenders in front of them. Which would also mean we have a linebacker or Thomas, Milloy or Babs on Gates and whoever above lines up in the slot….poor mis-match for the Hawks IMO.
In the first half with Curry in the game- they did a good job with the zone defense and limiting Gates’ impact.
I'm glad at the good result but holy shit it was some bad process along the way.
Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?
Victory!
And thank god I can lord it over all my friends down here in San Diego for the next four years, not the other way around.
by lemonverbena on Sep 26, 2010 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Thankyou
About time some real fans showed up! Go Hawks!
Negative rec.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
Bates has got to be chomping at the bit to try CW
Let him play like Chicago and Martz plays Cutler. let it rip, babeh!
It is what it is...
I'd love to see it.
Sure, CW will make mistakes Hass wouldn’t, but he will also execute plays down field that Hass cannot make, opening up the entire playbook.
Every time the D-coordinator sees Seattle coming up with Hass at the helm has to smile – ain’t gonna get burned down field, ever.
Agreed
Martz expects picks from Cutler, because they will take risks, stretch the defense. Seattle’s running game becomes stagnant in the second half after defensive adjustments.
I really like Bates potential. I really do not enjoy watching Hasselbeck execute it (literally ?) I would surely like to see “competition” win out. Reads/Experience be damned. Throw the damn ball down the field.
It is what it is...
Not only that...
…but a deep pass from mid-field that is intercepted often isn’t all that different than a punt.
Throw the damn ball down the field.
He did and you saw what happened with that.
Kind of hard for the offense to get going
when the return guy keeps housing it. Messes up the TOM too.
Oh well, I’ll take the points.
Washington's second return for a TD saved the game for Seattle.
Because at that point, the offense wasn’t going to do anything with a possession, other than punt it away.
Branch fumbling away the TD, Hass getting picked on a wide open TD pass..
The QB sneak at the half? Hawks should have been up 20+ at the half.
I’d say ET save the game though. I sat in the end zone, so I’ve got to see some highlights of the game because my perspective is all jacked up.
Okung will make everything OK again.
It’s hard to run when the defense knows which direction you are running in
I like that Balmer seems to be getting involved.
He had some good pressure on Rivers when that lineman cut him down from behind causing the 10 yard penalty.
by Mind of no mind on Sep 26, 2010 6:06 PM PDT reply actions
He's no Bane, but yeah I thought he looked alright.
If nothing else he looks like a decent rotational player and a step up from the Howard Green/Craig Terrill crowd.
Eat that, San Fran.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
Exactly, the 49ers fans acted like they got a steal getting a 6th rounder for him.
He also had a nice tackle for a loss last week.
by Mind of no mind on Sep 26, 2010 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions
I feel so honored to have shook Brian Schneider's hand this summer.
When we talked, he talked about Tate returning punts and Washington kicks and the awesome potential that they each had.
Goddammit I’m so fucking happy right now.
The most encouraging thing for me today was
Many of our offseason acqusitions contributed. Thomas with two INTs. Tate with some nice receptions (including that one where he got upended near the goal line). And Leon Washington. Sweet mother of God, Leon Washington.
If we can get us a young QB to take over the reins when Matt hangs them up, we might be a good team for a while. (Which is kinda like NASA saying they’ve built the rocket and all they have to do is point it at the moon.)
FG's second favorite football-illiterate semi-troll.
most of these guys were 2nd stringers somewhere ese
now the Tapp -Clemons trade doesn’t look so bad does it, I think Darryl got cut. The O-line’s better
yea dude
He just didn't suit up the first two games
He played this week for the first time this season and got a sack
Then you're a smarter man than I.
Also better prognosticator.
by jacobstevens on Sep 27, 2010 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Sorry to hear you're sick--
—but that should give you plenty of time to bust out a Pete Carroll Techno-Viking gif!
inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
It looks like boltsfromtheblue is going a little NN on us in not wanting to give any credit to the opposition .
I can see to some extent what they mean, but it’s not like we didn’t shoot ourselves in the foot a bunch of times as well. The game should not have been so close.
by Mind of no mind on Sep 26, 2010 7:20 PM PDT reply actions
Wait a tic
Did that Chargers fan say that the ref were biased FOR the Seahawks? Really? Doesn’t he know that he’s talking about the franchise that was literally butt fucked in the Super Bowl by the refs?
I swear, I’m truly over the Super Bowl….but nevertheless we should be exempt from all “the refs gave you that game” talk FOR THE REST OF TIME. (And in our own defense, the refs originally called Darren Sproles obvious fumble as down by contact, and it took a booth review to get it right. Bias, indeed.)
The "Defense" in the second half better be a byproduct
of injuries and not complete lack of understanding of the same things one PC preaches.
How is leaving the best TE in football “competing” every down?
How about that play on the slot and over the middle. Out classed today it seems.
If not for Neon Leon shining through (big time, my Jets fan friends still hate losing him) this would go down as RiverGate(s) for Ole PC.
Yeah... I get many of the reactions here...
It’s the kind of win that makes you say “geeesh…we got lucky” — that “we cant return 2 kicks for scores every week”….
BUT
I also dont think that we fail to cash in on so many opportunities as well.
1. Branch’s 42 yard TD punched out.
2. Hass’s goal-line INT
3. No points from a first-and-ten inside the Chargers 11 to end the half.
I think that just, as Leon’s heroics cant be counted on every week, I also feel that the other end of that pendulum swings our way as well. The Chargers could have easily been blown out today.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
PS: Screen name isn't what you think it means.
Or
We could have easily been blown out today if not for some special teams play and turnovers.
Both the offense and defense were out classed. THey had injuries as well. They adjusted and really, should have won this game.
I’m not convinced this team is any better than last year. I want to be wrong here.
I didn't even mention injuries...
And the crux of my argument is that…
- Branch losing a fluke punch out at the goal line
- Hass throwing a GL pick
- …and some freak clock management at the end of the half.
…and the Seahawks are up at least 23-0 and potentially 31-0. Those are offensive drives (good ones at that) that the Bolts got lucky to come away from unscathed.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
PS: Screen name isn't what you think it means.
Forgot to summarize...
It isn’t like the Seahawks couldn’t move the ball or get into scoring position, yet won on 2 fluke returns. We were in a position to have completely end the game at half… we didn’t of course and played sloppy football to let them back in it…. but isn’t that what good teams do?
Overcome bad play and still win? I dont think this game indicates we are a good team yet, but it does show (without question), that we are able to win games in which we underperform. The difference last year is we needed to play perfect football to win. This should indicate an improvement.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
PS: Screen name isn't what you think it means.
They need a road victory.
Before they get that I’m not convinced either. The crowd noise at Qwest made a difference today.
We're on the road next week
Of course, beating the Rams probably doesn’t count (although they did just kick the Redskins ass today, didn’t they?).
The team is clearly better
Just the QB position is not.
Is that...bad?
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
Huge win
It was this same time last year we blew a sizeable lead and a winnable game against Chicago. Now we’ve beaten another division favorite (it should’ve been by a lot more).
The Rams look better so I wouldn’t sleep on them, but Bradford needs a rookie wake-up call.
I don’t think I want to bother with Hasselbeck. That’s about as great a performance as he’ll have this season. He’s thrown an INT (dating back to last season) in 7 consecutive games. I’d contend if Hasselbeck had to win the game he’d have thrown another interception or gotten sacked.
Thank you Leon. We need to give him a nickname.
Bandwagon leader for Michael Robinson as Seattle Seahawks starting QB.
Well today it certainly was...
Lean-on Washington.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
PS: Screen name isn't what you think it means.
by iverson2169 on Sep 26, 2010 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
You put the song in my head.
Lean-on “Me” Washington.
Interesting.
Yes, I think so.
The sad part to me is Hasselbeck is playing absolutely fantastic, and almost all of his picks would be great receptions if he could just zip it a bit more.
Fouts was not hesitant about calling out underthrows and weakly thrown balls. It must be painfully obvious to him, both from his own career and his broadcasting as one of the top teams on CBS so covering some of the elite QBs in this generation with some regularity.
The way the team is playing, and Hasselbeck is playing, around this arm strength liability, is more than anyone could anticipate or ask for. The team has problems, but they are playing extremely well considering what they have to work around.
That also means it’s probably too much to expect it to continue.
by jacobstevens on Sep 27, 2010 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I forgot what harrowing games felt like.
I spilled 3/4 of my Temptation (You were right Abender…it’s delicious) and so I had to crack open my Ethereme early. That was such a stressful game.
Leon almost had 3 TD returns in the second half….that’s crazy.
It was awesome hearing Carroll talk about Brian Schneider's ST plan against the Chargers.
And how Brian called the 1st TD as soon as the blockers hit SD’s first wave of defenders. He said Brian started yelling, “we got em, we got em!” He said Schneider’s plan was, they’re super fierce and aggressive up front, bu just that first wave, they aren’t disciplined behind it and we just need to get past the first tier.
So that Kansas City special teams rout wasn’t a fluke after all, I guess.
by jacobstevens on Sep 27, 2010 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Mary Poppins.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
Are we sure we don't want to spend the money to re-up Leon Washington next year?
by broadbill birdwatcher on Sep 26, 2010 8:03 PM PDT reply actions
But it also should up his compensatory pick value if we lose him.
I think we got him for a 5th round pick, and we get a year of service from him, plus a possible compensatory draft pick which is very likely to be higher than a 5th.
by Mind of no mind on Sep 26, 2010 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions
This game had its ugly moments, but there is so much potential, too.
Earl Thomas, Golden Tate, Carlson, BMW, Curry, Mebane… and we haven’t seen our cornerstone left tackle yet. Weapons. Beasts. Machines. A juggernaut is forming, we just need a captain of a quarterback to lead them.
This team has me giddy. We just need to bear through the growing pains and savor every victory along the way. The 2011 QB draft class is the last missing piece.
Gee, it's just too bad the Seahawks keep on winning, huh?
I’m not going to worry about the 2011 until after the Super Bowl. It’ll probably be a good idea if everyone else do the same thing, because actual college performance seems to be only one factor in determining where a player will be drafted.
It’s best just to not sweat the “QB Lotto” for a long while.
But it's so hard...
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
This draft looks pretty deep for QBs though
Luck, Locker, Mallet, Ponder, Moore
Assuming they’re all in the draft of course
I'm not even considering Mallet after watching him single-handedly throw away the game
against Bama the other day, Seriously. That was embarrassing.
Best book I've read lately:
"The Blade Itself" by Joe Abercrombie
by Wayward Llama on Sep 27, 2010 5:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Mallet was Ryan Leaf esk against Alabama
Either Mallet becomes Roethlisberger or Leaf… He was Fragile, I know Kellen Moore was taking harder hits than Mallet and looked tougher with more resolve on Saturday.
Fade routes to Deion Branch only work against Kelly Jennings
by BleedGreenandBlue on Sep 27, 2010 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions
No one has mentioned it
But Tyler Polumbus has been very good as a pass blocker. Does he play any other position on the line?
Bandwagon leader for Michael Robinson as Seattle Seahawks starting QB.
Right Tackle, perhaps?
With Andrews over at RG, there’s not much depth behind Locklear. Our line might be better off if Polumbus keeps starting on the line after Okung comes back. Perhaps.
If I remember right....
wasn’t Locklear a mauler of a guard at one point?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
PS: Screen name isn't what you think it means.
I'm guessing future RT.
I’ve been really happy with him. For all of our pre-week 1 hysteria, the line has been pretty good.
Best book I've read lately:
"The Blade Itself" by Joe Abercrombie
by Wayward Llama on Sep 27, 2010 5:44 AM PDT up reply actions
It's because good LTs
are invisible and hence unmentionable.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
Tenacious, disjointed and very promising
In years past, given the stalled drives and turnovers, this team would have lost heart. But thus far this year we are witnessing something refreshing — heart and tenacity.
This team has also undergone tons of personnel turnover and I think it contributes to the feeling of disjointedness about aspects of this team – particularly the offense. I think that starting about week 5, barring injuries, we may see this team begin putting it all together.
There is reason to hope and feel positive – and not just about next season.
Few thoughts after attending the game
1) Leon Washington is the real deal.
2) Qwest Field is a tremendous home field advantage.
3) The offense needs to get it’s shit together real fast, or we will be throwing away a (possibly) great defensive and special teams season.
4) Earl Thomas may be my new favorite Seahawk.
5) Can’t wait to see if this team can get it’s shit together on the road.
No. 3
That sounds incredbily accurate when I think about it
Split Seahawks/Texans fan. Don't like it? Don't care.
Just stopping by as a Jets fan
Just wanted to say I am so happy Leon has been good for you guys. It was a hard day in Jet land when he was traded. So it is sad to see him playing for the Seahawks but he is a good guy and I am happy to see him fully recovered from his injury.
.
Big Big win for you guys today, congrats on beating the Chargers
"Sorry bro, he Jason Bourned me"- Drama
by BL3ACH on Sep 26, 2010 9:50 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
LOL
Yeah we have some bad apples in the bunch, we have some down to earth realistic ones also.
.
How about earl thomas huh? You guys are putting together playmakers in a hurry.
"Sorry bro, he Jason Bourned me"- Drama
Yeah, we may still suck, but at least we can be fun to watch (unlike the last few years)
I doubt we’ll be able to keep Leon next year…and this makes me cry.
Well as far as I can tell, Leon is a honorable guy
I mean this is business but since Seattle traded for him and gave him a chance when most thought he was done from that injury, If you guys gave him a fair offer I am almost positive he would take it. Unless you mean you can’t keep him for a different reason?
"Sorry bro, he Jason Bourned me"- Drama
I just think he'll want more money than we can/will offer.
I think he wants to be on a better team, and teams will pay for his skill set. I can’t be sure of course, but I feel like the deck is stacked against us. Can’t fault him in any event.
yeah I see your point but you never know
He could come to love the city or his wife and kids could get attached to the area. Carrol seems like a guy the players want to play for.
"Sorry bro, he Jason Bourned me"- Drama
Back at you.
Honestly I’m really surprised at L.T. so far. Huge road win. Good to see Sanchez shaking off week 1 issues. And how about Keller— has the light come on for him, or what?
Today was a perfect day for Braylon Edwards to show a little humility. Gorgeous long score, but really, Bray? Dancing? A day after you called the Commish to apologize for being a d-bag?
inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
I got to be honest with L.T.
I thought bringing L.T. in was a sad attempt at selling PSLs and jersey and stuff. I don’t think I have ever been happier to be wrong in my life. So far he has been great.
.
Yeah it is kind of weird timing, over at the Jets page last couple weeks most were saying they thought they were getting more when Keller was drafted. Well he has been shutting us up. He had some blocks tonight that were almost shocking (in a good way)
.
I certainly could of done without celebration like you said but that was more of an after thought. At the time I was so excited, the replay I noticed the same thing though.
"Sorry bro, he Jason Bourned me"- Drama
Funny, I thought the opposite about Tomlinson.
While he certainly had slowed down some, he was still pretty fast, just not able to be in the same stratosphere as his former self. The Jets offensive line is awesome at run blocking, and I didn’t think much of Greene, so I thought he’d get his.
I really love LT
But another injury is inevitable.
by lemonverbena on Sep 27, 2010 7:42 AM PDT up reply actions
LT wasn't really "done"
he had week one injuries 2 straight years, and last year the O-line was decimated by injuries, as well has having “tweeners” for Fullbacks. Both FB’s were college RB’s learning the position. That, and Tomlinson never being 100% healthy killed his chances of another year in SD. I personally never believed he was done though.
Need a hand? Call for help! Superduperboltman is here!
by Superduperboltman on Sep 27, 2010 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Regardless of who should have won or who played better or all of the other arguments we can make about this game.
I haven’t seen the Hawks play a full game like this and win since ’07 except maybe the 49ers game last year. After so many games the last two years being over before half-time, this was an awesome change to that. And against a good team. Seahawks are finally on their way back to the top.
I have to revise my previously pessimistic assumption about our record.
We could honestly win 9 or 10 games. But it will be ugly.
Well there are 7 very winnable games to look forward to:
At either Arizona or San Fran, Oakland, Tampa Bay, St Louis, St Louis, KC, and Carolina. Wow… this could actually happen.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
Some things I have learned;
Stop predicting the outcome of games a week in advance.
Matt is not now and has not been for some time, a good NFL QB.
Earl Thomas was the right choice vis a vis Thomas/Mayes.
J-Force might actually crack 100 yards when we get our line back to full strength.
Thurmond (rookie cb) is really, really good. Not great…..yet.
The Rivers led Chargers are one hell of a good football team…..except when covering kickoffs.
One last thing…..pretty sure I am man-crushing hard. Leon, you complete me.
John Hancock
They miss Kassim Osgood so, so much
One of AJ Smith’s biggest gaffes was misjudging Osgood’s value as the best ST gunner in the league.
by lemonverbena on Sep 27, 2010 7:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Osgood
so far, has turned out to be a bigger loss than McNeil or Jackson. With him, the Chargers are likely 3 and 0. Amazing. All because he wanted to play WR. We should have sucked it up and let him line up a few snaps a game at WR, just to make him happy. Would it have been that difficult?
It sounds like Smith was the bigger loser here.
Why is Osgood a loser for being good at his job and wanting a chance to do other work? Comparing his situation to McNeil’s and Jackson’s makes no sense to me.
I think you misread the tone of his comment
He’s saying they should have kept him. AJ Smith’s hardball negotiating style doesn’t always pan out for them is the point. Some thought Osgood would give San Diego the hometown discount.
by lemonverbena on Sep 27, 2010 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions
bigger "loss"
not loser.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
Its a hard Game to process
and we all miss Kassim Osgood. He was a special teams monster.
The Seahawks beat a top ten offense and a top ten defense. Thanks to their 32nd ranked special teams. The game couldn’t have gone much worse. 5 turnovers… 3 of them killers. But the 12th should be happy with the win. The better team lost, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing or an insult to the hawks. Come thursday night football december 16th, we hope to knock the 49ers out of division contention by beating them down though. Hawks should win the crown for the nfcw.
Need a hand? Call for help! Superduperboltman is here!
by Superduperboltman on Sep 27, 2010 9:07 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Should be interesting weather the Chiefs keep the competition up
and challenge the Chargers for the AFC west
Fade routes to Deion Branch only work against Kelly Jennings
by BleedGreenandBlue on Sep 27, 2010 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Whether, damn typos, when are we going to fix errors Field Gulls?
Fade routes to Deion Branch only work against Kelly Jennings
by BleedGreenandBlue on Sep 27, 2010 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't see anything wrong with the Chargers
except for their Special Teams. Well, that, and a few fumbles by guys getting used to new starting roles. STs is an area they can and will fix. Each game this season, they’ve dominated offensively and defensively. We’ve just played like garbage on cover units. 500 yards of offense this early in the season? The Chargers, as they always do, will only get better as the season progresses. Last year at this time, aside from special teams, they looked MUCH worse. Chargers will be scary good by the end of the season. The defense is light years ahead of where they were at the beginning of last year. The Chargers are already good now, except for their… I don’t even want to say it again.
Class act
Bolts by 35 over the Niners please?
John Hancock
by mrcoffee1969 on Sep 27, 2010 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Is that what you want?
to see the Chargers beat them by 35??? Lol. Sounds like me wanting to see the Raiders lose 40-3 every week. Chiefs are overrated. We’ll see where everyone stands come November.
Need a hand? Call for help! Superduperboltman is here!
by Superduperboltman on Sep 27, 2010 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions
I am more than confident you can blow out San Fran.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
I'm not sure how you can say that the "better" team lost here.
It should not have come down to Leon’s returns. Branch’s fumble and getting just 3 points at the end of the first half would have just about sealed it.
Not to mention Matt missing wide-open potential touchdown passes. The Bolts weren’t the only team to shoot themselves in the foot in this game.
Good points, but if I am honest, on a neutral field
The Bolts crushed our rebuilding, QB-challenged, zone defense challenged, Hawks 70% + of the time.
The 12th man is absolutely huge for our pass rush and team morale, and we don’t win yesterday outside of Qwest, and were also a play away from a loss even given all of the help from playing at home.
San Diego is clearly a better team right now.
Define "crushed".
They were able to gain lots of yards, yes, but this defense is going to do that, and was expected to, with the “bend but don’t break” mentality. Plus, the Charger’s passing attack (and that’s ALL they did in the second half) is pretty awesome.
Was it frustrating as hell to watch? Yes. But gameplans aren’t always pretty.
There is no evidence that a team can consistently bend (allow yards) but not break (allow points)
by John Morgan on Sep 27, 2010 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Isn't that what the Tampa 2 is all about?
One of the most prolific defenses of all time?
No.
Yards and points correlate very strongly.
by John Morgan on Sep 27, 2010 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Interesting.
Why are so many teams are subscribing to this philosphy, then? It seems like teams want to limit big plays and keep things in front of them these days, which sounds like “bend but don’t break” to me.
Disagree
Points win games and we scored more than the Chargers did. Assuming one agrees the officiating was fair, that made us the better team yesterday for those four quarters. Special teams is just another phase of the game like offense or defense. Yesterday, the difference in special teams play happened to be so large that it was a, if not the, defining factor in the result.
What percentage of the time would we win again if we played another 100 times? I don’t know, neither does anyone else and what’s more it doesn’t matter – the point is that we played yesterday and our guys came through with the win yesterday. The Seahawks were the better team. written by John earlier this week says it all far better than I just have.
This written by John...
Sorry – will learn how to link one day.
San Diego clearly has the better talent
But that and $3.50 gets you a cup of coffee. Scoreboard!
by lemonverbena on Sep 27, 2010 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Leon Washington
When are they going to start using him on Offense? Why is he not the 3rd down back. Give him a little space he is gone. Get him out in space on some passing downs and he could be the spark the O needs.
What did he have 1 carry yesterday. Forsett is great, but you have to get the ball in this guys hands.
Anybody else see the Niners fired Jimmy Raye, the O coor.
no surprise there
It's about time
couple of more games for the Hawks of the “feared” 3 man rush/NO secondary coverage at all and Gus Bradley might be standing next to him in the unemployment line.
John Hancock
by mrcoffee1969 on Sep 27, 2010 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Agreed. Our pass defense is broken from a scheme/coaching point-of-view
Either the guys weren’t executing in coverage (poor coaching), or the scheme is idiotic. Rivers and co made it look WAY too easy. The guys were so incredibly wide open for much of the 2nd half.
Great run defense, and really really poor coverage.
Two reasons for this.
1. Our defense was protecting a lead with soft zones. This is a bend-but-don’t-break defense. Just because it’s frustrating to watch doesn’t mean it isn’t effective. It’s basically the same defense as last year, only we have the playmakers to make it work. Turnovers are key in this style of defense, and you saw the successful results.
2. Injuries. Big ones, which led to rookie mistakes.
Again, hell yeah it’s frustrating to watch, but Philip Rivers and that offense putting up 20 points (the only stat that REALLY matters) is not a BAD performance by ANY defense. It isn’t stellar by any means, but it was acceptable.
How can you be so hard on the defense when they kept us in this game?
No defense should give up 544 yards. Not acceptable
Minus a couple plays, we lose this game. We need to be able to defend the pass and get off the field on 3rd down.
You can’t count on the turnovers. They come in bunches with no necessary rhyme or reason — see the Denver game.
The Chargers were dealing with injuries of their own.
I am more worried about our offense, but the past two games is showing we are having trouble defending the pass in a passing league.
Put us on the road outside of Qwest where the “D” has the help of the crowd to get off the ball and rush the passer, and it is even more of a problem.
The defense didn’t keep us in the game. Leon Washington and the kick return team kept us in the game.
I beg to differ.
544 yards is an ugly amount, and I’m not happy with it. The obvious broken zones were not pretty, and they need to be fixed. I’m not telling you that this is how our defense should play, I’m just telling you that if you expect this pass D to be a NY Jets style of defense with aggressive blitzes and tight man coverage, then you’ll be sorely disappointed.
The Chargers had the ball in our red zone TWICE in the final minutes, and our D stopped them each time.
Bend, don’t break.
The defense definitely kept us in this game.
Getting an interception on the final drive was key
We were a swallowed whistle away from PI on a play or two around the same time. This doesn’t translate to the entire season or to road games. We were playing with fire and came out OK this time. It is not a philosophy I agree with. You do. Let’s leave it at that.
I really don't care how many yards our defense gives up
It could be 1000 yards every game and we could set every single record for yards allowed, but if we keep them out of the endzone and put more points on the board.. That’s really all that matters.
This game should not have been this close.
Branch’s fumble into the endzone, Matt missing two wide-open touchdowns, and the missing points at the end of the first half.
We should have dominated this game. If we clean up our offense I think we have a real shot.
The Chargers also caused Branch's fumble and stopped the QB sneak
They had 5 turnovers, I believe. Woulda coulda shoulda
We dominated the 1st half, and could have been up by 24+; they dominated the 2nd half.
What are you saying?
That Branch’s fumble was a product of the Chargers playing good defense, but their turnovers were just them being sloppy/careless with the ball?
Frankly
we need to concentrate more on the run game. Without an athletically competent QB to lead this team, the run game MUST become more of a point of emphasis. I don’t care if you have to go two TE on every damned snap and only get 3 yards a carry, 3rd and 4 does not suck. I really don’t trust Matt to be accurate past 7 or 8 yards any longer. I would not yet call for CW but there are throws that he can make, yes along with mistakes, that matt just can’t or wont.
John Hancock
by mrcoffee1969 on Sep 27, 2010 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions
TOTALLY agreed.
This offense would be helped immensely if we had a running game that defenses had to honor. Matt is a smart, west-coast, play action quarterback with a less-than-stellar arm that can’t do it on his own like a Tom Brady or Peyton Manning can.
I was reacting to "We should have dominated this game"
They put up 544 yards on us, we put up 288 yards on them. I just feel they have a stronger argument about should have dominated/should have won than we can.
I agree that if we can get our offense going, we have a shot at winning a post-season game. I am not hopeful about our QB situation, however.
peace out.
You are really fixated on yardage.
Why? The end result is what matters.
I doubt we will get 5 turnovers again this season (or possibly, even next)
Plus, a great deal of the success is predicated on the noise of the 12th man, which doesn’t translate on the road. We made Orton look like a Pro Bowler last week in Denver.
I am focused on process as well as results because good process is repeatable and has predictive value. Counting on turnovers is poor process because they are not predictable and repeatable in the same way.
When you rip at the ball constantly like our D did today
you’re going to get fumbles. The interceptions are lucky breaks, I agree, and you can’t depend on them.
For an example of what I’m talking about, check out what the Colts did against the Broncos yesterday. Orton passed for 476 yards, but the Colts shut them down in the red zone (sound familiar?) and walked away with the win.
This IS a Tampa-2 style of defense, and this is what it looks like across the NFL. We aren’t playing the scheme perfectly by any means, but yardage does not worry me in the least when we’re talking about our D.
Michael Lombardi on Baltimore's defense.
"I like Baltimore’s team. In fact, what I love most about the Ravens is that they don’t kid around about still being a dominating defense. Organizationally, they have accepted the fact that the rules no longer allow any team to be a dominating defense. In their rebranding effort, the Ravens have given up trying to be a complete unit, and have concentrated on putting together a great red-zone defense. In the final eight games of last season, the Ravens ranked second in the NFL in points allowed, which is the only statistic that matters now on defense. Forget yards allowed, most teams can gain yards between the 20-yard lines, but these new Ravens know that in order to be considered a great defense in this era, they have to be a great red-zone team — which is why I love them…"
I am not confident bend but not break will translate on the road or even consistently (including fumbles)
I guess again, we will have to agree to disagree
I'm presenting you with evidence for my case that yardage does not matter for this defense
and you’re dismissing it. That’s not “agreeing to disagree”, that’s just clinging to your view out of stubbornness. “Bend but don’t break” has won championships.
Anyway, I AM agreeing with you that the defense needs to improve. It just isn’t as bad as some are painting it.
I'll try one more time, and then bail
The brand of bend-but-don’t-break the Seahawks played on Sunday fails without turnovers. Turnovers are not predictable or dependable. Even if we keep people from scoring touchdowns, with our QB play, we will lose to field gulls and will tire out if teams march down the field on us all game.
Bend-but-not-break is maybe all we can realistically hope for, but we both agree that we will lose most games where we give up 544 yards.
Excellent point about the offense.
Bend but don’t break needs an offense that can score points to work, and NO defense can be effective if they’re tired from being out on the field all game long.
I don't know what Lombardi is trying to argue
by John Morgan on Sep 27, 2010 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions
I think he's trying to argue exactly what I am
and what you have written about numerous times; that limiting big plays and tightening up in the red zone (bend but don’t break) is more about forcing the offense to beat you consistently lots of times to get points instead of huge plays for points (which is the Charger’s forte).
Well said.
The 544 yards allowed sounds worse than it looked. It was frustrating seeing the Chargers come back at the end, but that is a very common thing to see. For some teams. Potent teams that can see what the defense is doing to derail them, and respond.
The defense is vulnerable to these kind of performances against good offenses, and it will likely lead to some losses, and surely a loss in the playoffs if we make it that far. But it’s not as bad as it looked.
by jacobstevens on Sep 27, 2010 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Because giving up huge chunks of yardage routinely correlates to sucking.
inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
For god's sake
No, this is not how the defense should play. This is an anomaly and any time a team has 4 turnovers on offense it is a rarity. It is ridiculous to justify allowing teams to march down to the opponent’s red zone and then toughen up on defense as part of “bend but don’t break”. That’s flawed and honestly it’s dumb football. There is no way that kind of crap works against the Saints or the Packers, who actually have functioning offenses and QBs who can throw accurate passes in the end zone.
Bandwagon leader for Michael Robinson as Seattle Seahawks starting QB.
Yes, Philip Rivers, who is second all-time in career passer rating
is just horrible. Plain awful.
The defense didn’t play like anybody wanted them to, that is nobody’s argument. The fact remains that the D kept us in the game while giving up way too many yards.
My argument is simply that yards do not matter when points are absent.
Again, this is an argument about results and process.
Yes, the Seahawks allowed a ton of yards and not a lot of points this week. Is that good? Possibly, but probably not. It worked yesterday, but will it work in the future? Like John said above, there is a strong correlation between yards allowed and points allowed.
Just because it works sometimes doesn’t mean that it’s going to continue to work. Can you honestly say that you’re not at all worried about the defense moving forward? I sure as hell am.
by Phil Hatzenbuehler on Sep 27, 2010 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Like I said in the above post,
the defense didn’t play at all like any Seahawks fan wanted them to. I’m worried, but not nearly as worried about them as I am about our offense.
I’m just assuming that this is the way they gameplanned for the Chargers after we had the lead; make them run lots of plays to chew up the clock and not allow Rivers quick scores. That’s exactly how I’d play them at that stage in the game.
Furthermore,
Our defense becoming suddenly not-so-stingy in the second half strengthens my argument that the defense was trying to force the offense to chew clock as part of a gameplan.
It also is a product of the huge injuries we had. Blown coverages weren’t so abundant before Tru went down.
Points/yards strongly correlate because offensive points are not scored without yards.
Turnovers and field position can give short fields, though, of course. But the correlation is so obvious and inherent to the nature of the game, it’s a little questionable in application of use. Offenses do not score without yards. Would anyone expect any other kind of correlation?
But certainly, good offenses will get yards, and points. Certainly, there’s no way to defensively scheme a distinction between yards and points. The idea, if it truly is active and present anywhere in the NFL, that you can give up yards and tighten up in the red zone, is foolish and not feasible.
I seriously question whether the idea is active in the league. What I am certain is, is an approach that prevent big plays, and in turn sacrificing some strength against plays underneath. It leans on current averages, and forces offenses to raise their level of consistent execution to get points. The ideal offense to defend against with this approach would be a Norv Turner offense that consistently takes big shots down the field to score points and shift the game.
Playing averages is more of a losing proposition today than prior to the passing rules emphasis. That’s the achilles. It certainly has a weakness.
But it’s not forsaking yards. Systemic weighting, an acknowledged sacrificing of some yards, is not forsaking them. Have you seen any defense that appears to actually forsake yards or completions or successful plays, just backing off the whole drive, waiting for a mistake, otherwise biding their time to start giving full effort on a shorter field in the red zone?
The Jim Mora Seahawks felt that way. But seriously. Teams try their damndest to stop the offense on every play. “BDB” might suggest otherwise, but it’s not the case.
In today’s NFL, what kind of defense doesn’t give up yards? I mean, schematically. Obviously a talented one would be more effective than a less talented one. Schematically. Is there a “don’t bend or break” philosophy out there? How is it working out for them? Are they just an unmovable force, everywhere on the field? That must work real well. I don’t know why every team doesn’t do that.
“BDB” is priority weighting. It’s a sensible approach. The straw man idea that it forsakes yards is almost ridiculous as an actual idea that really would forsake yards. I think people make a bigger deal out of it than is warranted.
by jacobstevens on Sep 27, 2010 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's a strawman.
Yards do matter because they increase probability of points. This was a needlessly close game and basically as great as the defense was forcing turnovers they put themselves in some precarious positions.
Putting yourself in precarious positions is bad process.
Bandwagon leader for Michael Robinson as Seattle Seahawks starting QB.
Football statistics.
So useful for damning for being “random” and “useless” when they don’t support your position and heralding with claims of “trends” and “odds” when they do.
The result is what matters here, and the result was our defense gave up yards in exchange for time off the clock, and came up big when they needed to.
Also, the game was “needlessly close” because of offensive misfires. Branch’s fumble and the missing points at the half are what REALLY put our defense in this position.
You pulled a statistic that was completely irrelevant to the discussion.
The result is what matters, but it’s stupid to think that time off the clock is what the defense was looking for as a way to sacrifice yardage. That crap cannot possibly work against elite offenses. It’s bad process, bad football, and it’s a higher likelihood you’ll give up points than get defensive stands time and time again.
Bandwagon leader for Michael Robinson as Seattle Seahawks starting QB.
It's stupid to think
that a defense would rather give up lots of smaller plays than one big play, thus taking time off the clock?
Do you think I’m advocating giving up yards on purpose in exchange for clock time? Please. The defense must get off the field and let our offense chew up said clock if at all possible.
That being said, keeping plays in front of them definitely helped the clock situation.
Also, look at our schedule. Besides the Saints and MAYBE the Falcons, we do not play a better offense than the Chargers this year. “Elite offenses” my ass, this was a damn good one that is known for scoring points.
And, as for my statistic, I pulled it because your “we played a crap QB” argument was more ridiculous than saying our D played the way we’d like them to in the future.
Oh okay sorry I see what you meant
I didn’t mean to degrade Rivers but I would consider better offenses than San Diego running over us.
You’re saying this is the right thing to do on a sample size of 1 when I could easily say that it didn’t work in week 2 when they scored on 3 red zone possessions.
Bandwagon leader for Michael Robinson as Seattle Seahawks starting QB.
Exactly.
This was the right plan of action to protect the lead against this offense.
You thought I meant the style of play in the 2nd quarter is what I want to see the rest of the year? Guess we got our wires crossed.
No I meant I see why you pulled that statistic out
Because you thought I meant Rivers sucked.
Let’s put it this way, I don’t advocate bend but don’t break defense.
Bandwagon leader for Michael Robinson as Seattle Seahawks starting QB.
It's frustrating as hell to watch, I'll give you that.
I barely made it home from the game yesterday, I was so exhausted.
I know
I had to leave in a few minutes for my weekend job after that with my heart racing.
Bandwagon leader for Michael Robinson as Seattle Seahawks starting QB.
ah the ol'
strawman,
Agreed SSreporters. How many 3rd downs did SD convert off of the defense?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCK7njbgDO8
Prepare for scare
"It's always a bad play when the other team scores." - John Madden
by jubelthebear on Sep 27, 2010 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions
It was a needlessly close game
Because of the offense in the 2nd half. 5 offensive possesions in the 2nd half and you only net one 1st down? You can bet the Defense is going to be giving up a ton of yardage. The D isn’t designed to be on the field that long. If they had eliminated the 1st half mistakes we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Not denying the offense was the major problem
But I’m saying the defense contributed to the problem. It’s not necessarily the players but it is the scheme I have a massive problem with.
Bandwagon leader for Michael Robinson as Seattle Seahawks starting QB.
A strawman is actually characterizing a a defense as "bend-don't-break."
Literally using the term as a pejorative to argue against it— that’s a strawman. Since the term was brought up.
by jacobstevens on Sep 27, 2010 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Congrats on the big win.
It was nice to see Leon Washington have a big game after his injury last year.
Lifelong Arizona Cardinals/Chicago Bears fan [I have always lived in Arizona, dad is from Chicago].
I can't stand fair-weather/bandwagon fans, stick with your team, throughout the good and the bad. And don't switch to whichever team wins the Super Bowl each year.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
