5 Keys to Success for the Seahawks in 2015

[RichNhansom]

But, opposing teams found ways in 2014 to deal better with the scrambling Wilson than they did in 2013.

Did they? Wilson scrambled for a career high of 849 yards last year. I don't believe teams figured out so much how to deal with it as much as I think we were really missing Rice,Miller and Tate. Teams pretty much just played man coverage and were able to slow our passing attack and dedicate more to run support.

With Graham they won't be able to do that and Baldwin won't be facing opponents best corners either. If one more receiver steps up we could be very dangerous.

The persuasive power of numbers: Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I'll still go with "Yes" - they did. And, if the Seahawks hadn't addressed the offense, it would get worse.

Yeah, I seem to remember the career high. Doesn't change my viewpoint. Wilson will always be a scrambler and get his yards and other teams know that's part of his game. Opposing teams had a year of film to work on containing him in "situational football" better than they did before.

Without the pieces we have now in Graham and Lockett (or, like you say... missing the others), he was left to scramble way more than they want him to be doing... which would be inflated numbers. (Didn't he get like over 100 yards vs. the Rams or some team like that? Sorry, I'm not going to look it up.)

Bottom line... I'm going by the eye ball test - teams put a spy on him. Not likely what the play designs called for. But, again, Wilson is Wilson. It's both cool and concerning that he had career high.

Yes they did put a spy on Wilson at least most of the time. A good example of when they didn't was the Rams game you referred to that Wilson did run over 100 yards and got a TD but they did slow down Lynch. So pick your poison. Keep in mind we lost the game that Wilson went over 100 yards where most games they spied Wilson Lynch went off and we won.

So the others figured out Wilson and lost. Makes sense. Now they will have to figure out Wilson and slow down Lynch while double covering Graham and Baldwin demoralizes single coverage from one of the scrub CB's because the opponents better CB will be helping a LB try and cover Graham. Now imagine if Luke Wilson or Chris Mathews goes off this season? The table is set for the other receivers to have great success. Will it be one, two or maybe even more that have break out years while opponents try and defend Wilson, Lynch and Graham? Haven't even Mentioned Tyler or Paul Richardson.

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

But, opposing teams found ways in 2014 to deal better with the scrambling Wilson than they did in 2013.

Did they? Wilson scrambled for a career high of 849 yards last year. I don't believe teams figured out so much how to deal with it as much as I think we were really missing Rice,Miller and Tate. Teams pretty much just played man coverage and were able to slow our passing attack and dedicate more to run support.

With Graham they won't be able to do that and Baldwin won't be facing opponents best corners either. If one more receiver steps up we could be very dangerous.

The persuasive power of numbers: Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I'll still go with "Yes" - they did. And, if the Seahawks hadn't addressed the offense, it would get worse.

Yeah, I seem to remember the career high. Doesn't change my viewpoint. Wilson will always be a scrambler and get his yards and other teams know that's part of his game. Opposing teams had a year of film to work on containing him in "situational football" better than they did before.

Without the pieces we have now in Graham and Lockett (or, like you say... missing the others), he was left to scramble way more than they want him to be doing... which would be inflated numbers. (Didn't he get like over 100 yards vs. the Rams or some team like that? Sorry, I'm not going to look it up.)

Bottom line... I'm going by the eye ball test - teams put a spy on him. Not likely what the play designs called for. But, again, Wilson is Wilson. It's both cool and concerning that he had career high.

Yes they did put a spy on Wilson at least most of the time. A good example of when they didn't was the Rams game you referred to that Wilson did run over 100 yards and got a TD but they did slow down Lynch. So pick your poison. Keep in mind we lost the game that Wilson went over 100 yards where most games they spied Wilson Lynch went off and we won.

So the others figured out Wilson and lost. Makes sense. Now they will have to figure out Wilson and slow down Lynch while double covering Graham and Baldwin demoralizes single coverage from one of the scrub CB's because the opponents better CB will be helping a LB try and cover Graham. Now imagine if Luke Wilson or Chris Mathews goes off this season? The table is set for the other receivers to have great success. Will it be one, two or maybe even more that have break out years while opponents try and defend Wilson, Lynch and Graham? Haven't even Mentioned Tyler or Paul Richardson.

Didn't quite "figure out" Wilson. They found ways to try to deal with what the offense was running while respecting what he can do. He's DangeRUSS. These additions should open up the possibilities.
I think we'll be talking about Tyler Lockett a lot here very soon.

Should be something to behold. Go Hawks

 

[Hawks46]

I love how it's such a weakness that we are towards the bottom of the ranks in passing yet we have been in back-to-back Super Bowls. Who cares? Our offense is predicated on run first, run first, run first and like Rocket said, we have TWO running backs who scare defenses (one just happens to be our QB). So if we are effective on offense (news flash: We are) why does the media feel so compelled to bring it back to anemic passing stats?

Again, who cares? Outside of fantasy numbers, I don't see why any Seahawks fan would care if #3 has 50 TDs and 4500 yards passing or 10 TDs and 1800 yards passing...As long as we are in the Big Show in February...It's all we could ever ask for...

Yea, I completely agree with this.

I also think it's ironic. We're in the top 10 in points scored, two or three years running. So, we need to improve on our passing attempts, passing yards, and passing TD's. I get that being able to pass for more yards typically indicates we're moving the chains more, which keeps the offense on the field more, which leads to more points scored. This assumes we're actually efficient on 3rd downs. But....we're top 10 in points scored.

Also, like Aros said, it works strategically. We've been to back to back Superbowls. What we do beats other teams, and what we do on offense complements our defense.

I think it's more accurate to say we need to be better on 3rd downs, but any HC on the league will say that at the start of the season. It would also be more accurate to say we need to be more efficient in the red zone, which Rocket already mentioned.

Obviously Graham helps in both departments. But it's silly to say "gee, the Seahawks need more passing yards and TD passes. Because that's what everyone else does, and it's cool". Just for the sake of saying it.

 

[scutterhawk]

I love how it's such a weakness that we are towards the bottom of the ranks in passing yet we have been in back-to-back Super Bowls. Who cares? Our offense is predicated on run first, run first, run first and like Rocket said, we have TWO running backs who scare defenses (one just happens to be our QB). So if we are effective on offense (news flash: We are) why does the media feel so compelled to bring it back to anemic passing stats?

Again, who cares? Outside of fantasy numbers, I don't see why any Seahawks fan would care if #3 has 50 TDs and 4500 yards passing or 10 TDs and 1800 yards passing...As long as we are in the Big Show in February...It's all we could ever ask for...

^ What he said ^