Kiss the No. 2 Seed Goodbye

by Shrug on Dec 10, 2006 4:23 PM PST in Seahawks Game Recaps

Well, it wouldn't be Christmas without the spirit of generosity.

The Seahawks lost to the Arizona Cardinals, 27-21, thanks primarily to a series of key turnovers that gave the Cardinals opportunties galore. The game leaves Seattle at 8-5, and still in position to clinch the division on Thursday night against the 49ers.

But they've lowered their conference record to 6-4. With the 8-4 Saints and 8-4 Cowboys going at it this evening, after tonight the Seahawks will be either the third or fourth seed going into Week 15. If the Saints win they'll be in the drivers' seat with an unbelievable 8-1 conference record. If the Cowboys win they'll be 6-3 in the conference.

Super Bowl contenders do not lose games like this.

Tweet Comment 27 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

damn

how come you guys always lose to the shitty teams. welcome to the club. and shrug is right, super contenders don't lose to the cardinals. ever.

by stlcardinalsfang on Dec 10, 2006 4:28 PM PST reply actions

so how do you feel about the bears?

"I got to fulfill every defender's dream of punching Tom Nalen in the head" - Chuck Darby

by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 10, 2006 4:35 PM PST up reply actions

they are very good

but the rams are going to kick their ass on monday night so everyone can see.

by stlcardinalsfang on Dec 10, 2006 7:46 PM PST up reply actions

Right now:

To be perfectly honest, it would not surprise me one bit if the Rams beat up on Chicago tomorrow night. The Bears D is great, but you cannot win consistently if your quarterback has been playing the way Grossman has lately. It's been beyond bad.

An early Bears exit in the divisionals wouldn't surprise me one whit. Frankly, seeing how the Saints are just decimating the Cowboys right now, the NFC championship picture is far cloudier than it was earlier this season.

--Shrug

by Shrug on Dec 10, 2006 7:54 PM PST up reply actions

i agree

with both points.....i think the rams will emerge from the clouds to gain the NFC #6 seed and go on a run like last year's steelers and win the super bowl for the first time in six years. (i wish i could actually believe what i type).

by stlcardinalsfang on Dec 10, 2006 8:03 PM PST up reply actions

well with the 2 seed baiscally gone

at least I dont have to root for Dallas,lol.

Josh Brown is better than you.

by MFAN on Dec 10, 2006 4:35 PM PST reply actions

I should point out...

We could still get the #2 seed. But it would take three disasterous weeks by the Cowboys and Saints.

Dallas's remaining schedule, after tonight: Atlanta on the road, Philly and Detroit at home.

New Orleans after tonight: Washington and Carolina at home, the New York Giants on the road.

Basically, best case scenario for the Hawks getting the #2 seed would be Dallas winning tonight, then losing at least two of those games. Then New Orleans would have to lose pretty much the remaining games on their schedule. And the Seahawks would pretty much have to win out.

If the tie breakers go to the steps below conference records (common games, net points in conference games, net points in all games), I'm pretty certain the Seahawks wouldn't come out on top against either Dallas or New Orleans. So it basically has to be that perfect storm outlined about.

--Shrug

by Shrug on Dec 10, 2006 4:53 PM PST up reply actions

I'll root for the Saints and hope for the

3 seed

"I got to fulfill every defender's dream of punching Tom Nalen in the head" - Chuck Darby

by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 10, 2006 5:16 PM PST up reply actions

We're not a Super Bowl contender

Not with this defense. At best, we win the wild card game at home and then suffer through a miserable double-digit loss at whatever mediocre team gets a first-round bye. This year is ripe for the picking but our defense sucks so much ass, we're realistically not one of those teams teams that's going to do the picking.

by dinosco on Dec 10, 2006 4:56 PM PST reply actions

nuts

The defense lost Marquand Manuel, got Ken Hamlin healthy, and picked up Julian Peterson.

...yet they're just exponentially worse than last year. They just had it last year. They don't have it this year.

Now if we could just define "it"...

Sports and Bremertonians. Because we can.

by wackomann on Dec 10, 2006 5:05 PM PST up reply actions

exactly

Well said. I dunno what "it" is but we certainly don't have it. We can't pressure the QB, we can't stop the run, we can't tackle. Personnel is pretty much the same or theoretically better than last year.

One theory that my friend had, that I give a lot of credence to, is that last year the defense overperformed because the offense was so good that we a) had the ball much of the game, and 2) forced opposing offenses to pass more and therefore we had a better idea of what was coming. This year, with every game being down to the wire, our guys are simply overmatched when they have to bear down and not key on the catch-up passing game.

Whatever the case, our defense sucks. That's about the only way to put it.

by dinosco on Dec 10, 2006 5:10 PM PST up reply actions

"it" = Tubbs

its that simple. Lofa is having the same problem stopping the run as Ray Lewis was last year. You can't expect your MLB to take on a guard or center 1 on 1 everytime the other team runs the ball.

"I got to fulfill every defender's dream of punching Tom Nalen in the head" - Chuck Darby

by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 10, 2006 5:19 PM PST up reply actions

offense

Yeah, a lot has been said about the offense being that good last year and holding the ball so much that they set it up well for the defense.

Today, well, Arizona started out 5-for-7 on first down, which reeked so much of 2004 it's not funny.

I just can't believe that other than Manuel leaving and Peterson, Jennings, and Hamlin coming on board, these are the exact same guys as last year. Unless you consider Marcus Tubbs the key to this entire defense (the Minnesota game was his last of the season), this defense is comprised of pretty much the same guys. What gives?

Sports and Bremertonians. Because we can.

by wackomann on Dec 10, 2006 5:29 PM PST up reply actions

Tubbs

in the games he played in minus Minnesota. We didn't give up a 100 yards rusher.

And if you take away Taylors 95 yard against us he would of only had like 80 yards. Plus on that run he blew up the line but they ran the play away from him.

LB can't make plays unless DT eat up blocks

"I got to fulfill every defender's dream of punching Tom Nalen in the head" - Chuck Darby

by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 10, 2006 5:50 PM PST up reply actions

I don't mind the DTs

Wistrom, Fisher, and Terrill are all 270-280 pounds, and they do they job they're payed for, and they do it well: sack the QB. On the other hand, we only have Davis and Tubbs being over 300 and ready to stuff runs. If Tubbs was that important to the defense, it forces the question why was our run defense so dependent on one man?

by Captain Morgan on Dec 10, 2006 6:00 PM PST up reply actions

actually

It's come to my attention that we have more then 5 DTs, most notably Chuck Darby and Rocky Bernard. The question still stands though-if Tubb's absence is the reason the defense sucks, why was our defense so dependent on one man?

by Captain Morgan on Dec 10, 2006 6:11 PM PST up reply actions

its not dependent on one man

its just that one man is the only one that can do the job the correct way

"I got to fulfill every defender's dream of punching Tom Nalen in the head" - Chuck Darby

by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 10, 2006 7:19 PM PST up reply actions

blech, I say

blech, and blah, and damn it.

At least I know what to expect every game- an early hole because of dumb turnovers, a late climb out of the hole, and a 50/50 chance at winning after the other team takes the lead with about 2 minutes left.

by Captain Morgan on Dec 10, 2006 7:55 PM PST up reply actions

but really a DT

shouldn't really have stats because most of them just take on two or three blockers. Ruskell knew this and went out and got Davis but unfortunately he hasn't been as good as advertised.

"I got to fulfill every defender's dream of punching Tom Nalen in the head" - Chuck Darby

by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 10, 2006 8:19 PM PST up reply actions

last year's offense

Last year's offense made our defense look better then it really was, but the clues were there if you looked for it- for example, I see a big connection between Chester Taylor's 95 yard TD run this year and Willie Parker's breakaway TD run last year in the Super Bowl that helped ice us.

I'm sick of John Marshall. It's not even a blitz/zone split, it's that the defense is painfully bland. We never try and disguise a blitz, Hugh Millen pointed out he was totally surprised that against Denver the Hawks never checked into or out of blitzes to throw off Jay Cutler. We have another rookie QB today, and the obnoxious Fox announcer is pointing out that Leinart's audibling into and out of runs based on whether or not we're blitzing. And the Hawks never adjusted. On top of all that, the players are missing tackles and giving up big plays. With a 15th ranked DVOA pass defense and a 24th ranked rush, sloppy tacklers, and an unimaginative attack, is there any advantage that Marshall brings to the table?

by Captain Morgan on Dec 10, 2006 5:54 PM PST up reply actions

As for what you said about Marshall

Ya I don't know why he doesn't blitz as much or for that matter disguise his blitzs considering he was under Ray Rhodes.

As for the Run though its still the play of the D-Line. Watch a replay for any game this year and everytime we give up a big play the RB goes through our line untouched and it happen way to often.

"I got to fulfill every defender's dream of punching Tom Nalen in the head" - Chuck Darby

by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 10, 2006 10:25 PM PST up reply actions

well as bad as everything is

were the number 3 seed right now.

I dont want to get ahead..but lets be honest we will be 9-5 (yes I know I jinxed that). I think we will be the 3 seed when it's all said and done.

I obviously want the 2 seed, but its not like we will have an "improbable" road to the super bowl. I certainly don't think we are a super bowl team, but things can change very quickly.

Oh by the way...New Orleans is for real, im offically on the bandwagon.

Josh Brown is better than you.

by MFAN on Dec 10, 2006 8:31 PM PST reply actions

In the seahawks favor

there is no real "Complete" team out there except maybe the Chargers.

Colts can't stop the run. The bears have QB problems. We can't stop anything that involves the other teams offense. Ravens can't score. Saints can be beat deep same with the Cowboys. Patriots defense is in shambles.

"I got to fulfill every defender's dream of punching Tom Nalen in the head" - Chuck Darby

by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 10, 2006 10:29 PM PST up reply actions

exactly

The NFC seems to have a new favorite every week. At first it was Chicago, then the giants, then the cowboys and now the saints, you can probably throw the hawks in there somewhere.

I agree outside of the chargers, every team has some major holes. I have not watched the chargers much, but im sure they have some holes that can be exploited(sp?).

I GUARENTEE if we beat BOTH the niners and chargers the ESNP, CBS, FOX guys will be back on our nuts and all of the sudden the hawks will be the NFC's flavor of the month.

I admit I can be a bandwagon guy at times, and right now I do like the saints and I would give them the edge over us right now. But overall, are the saints going to be able to shut Matt, Shaun, Deion and D-jack down? As long as we avoid silly turnovers we will move the ball on them. Obviously that game would be on the shoulders of our D. Can they stop Bush? Brees? Colsten( I think I spelled that right)?...I know they shut down dallas, but we do have more weapons than Dallas, IMO.

We might not even play the saints, but it looks like a very possible 2nd round game.

Obviously im an eternal optimist, but as easily as the Hawks could one and done, they could just as easily be 60 minutes away from Miami.

Josh Brown is better than you.

by MFAN on Dec 10, 2006 10:50 PM PST up reply actions

The Chargers only real flaw

is Marty Ball but right now he can't even screw it up. The injuries they have had on defense could effect them but it hasn't so far.

The saints are scary but I believe any team could get in a shootout with them if they wanted and come out victorious

"I got to fulfill every defender's dream of punching Tom Nalen in the head" - Chuck Darby

by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 10, 2006 11:05 PM PST up reply actions

It's pretty cool

that we at least have the same record as the Cowboys. Also, if we can just avoid stupid mistakes in the playoffs, we will be hard to beat. It's just a matter of putting a complete game together on both sides of the ball

by John Spartan @ Field Gulls on Dec 10, 2006 10:43 PM PST reply actions