Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ    Contact Us  Your donations are greatly appreciated! Donate  Chat Room

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: We simply got taken to the woodshed...and trufant is bad.
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:12 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:16 pm
Posts: 2909
Location: Hamilton
There are only two major reasons we lost today.

1) Our lines got beat up all game. They have very good offensive and defensive lines who beat us up all game and in the fourth quarter they basically died - especially our defensive line who looked gassed by the beginning of the fourth. Maybe the heat played into it as well but our lines were the biggest disappointment this game - they clearly were not up to the task.

2) Trufant is bad. They basically kept Bess in the slot all game and we never doubled him even though an inferior corner was on him and couldn't handle him. But our defensive line didn't help out much today.

I thought play calling was adequate but you aren't going to win games when you give up 17 points in the fourth quarter and can't run the ball.

_________________
Driver of the PC/JS Super Bowl wagon since 2010
Image
Sherman looks like a ballet master in grand jeté –
a trash-talking, dreadlocked Baryshnikov suspended
impossibly above the turf – pro football's paean to
wanton human destruction slips into the sublime.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We simply got taken to the woodshed...and trufant is bad.
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:28 am 
*Scott of Smacksville*
*Scott of Smacksville*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 10041
I disagree. Their secondary sucks, and we failed to take advantage. Russell dropped back to pass just over 30 times, and had three negative plays doing so. If ever there was a team ripe for just throwing it all over the lot, it was Miami. Instead, we put the offense in 2nd and long and third and long by running on 2/3rds of our first downs.

Is there any doubt in your mind that some of the better offenses in the league would have started this game by trying to take Soliei and Starks out of the game plan by just airing it out? We played the Miami gameplan and lost because of it.

The playcalling was predicated on running the clock, not gaining yards. Until that changes, the Seahawks will be a limited offense.

_________________
SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We simply got taken to the woodshed...and trufant is bad.
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:39 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:32 pm
Posts: 525
One thing that I have seen and it troubles me about our Dline. Clemons and Irvin both get great up field pressure but instead of taking an inside move which would take them right to the QB, they continue up field. The QB steps up and kills us. Where is our middle pressure? Why aren't they recognizing this in films and correcting it or am I just way off base?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We simply got taken to the woodshed...and trufant is bad.
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:48 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:16 pm
Posts: 2909
Location: Hamilton
Scottemojo wrote:
I disagree. Their secondary sucks, and we failed to take advantage. Russell dropped back to pass just over 30 times, and had three negative plays doing so. If ever there was a team ripe for just throwing it all over the lot, it was Miami. Instead, we put the offense in 2nd and long and third and long by running on 2/3rds of our first downs.

Is there any doubt in your mind that some of the better offenses in the league would have started this game by trying to take Soliei and Starks out of the game plan by just airing it out? We played the Miami gameplan and lost because of it.

The playcalling was predicated on running the clock, not gaining yards. Until that changes, the Seahawks will be a limited offense.


But they had 8 men in the box frequently. Now the question becomes - without our commitment to the run and their commitment to stopping it - would we be as good in the air?

So if we just started airing out all game - and they started to play the pass - would we have been as successful? I really think our conditioning had a lot to do with it - as many games we average 2-3 yards a carry in the first quarter and then pound it out by the fourth. That didn't happen this game.

More importantly, as an offensive coordinator - when do you stop trying to pound the defense? When the game is tied in the third quarter? When you have a 7 point lead in the fourth and your defense needs a rest? At no point in that game did I believe we needed to start airing it out - except as time expired. Then I wish we had 7 more points. Hindsight bias at its best.

If we started to 3 and out in the fourth - giving Miami more chances people would be on here saying that we should have used more clock etc..

Simply put - it is easy to say today that we should have aired it out to put more points up (because we lost) but the fact of the matter is that - we will not blow out every team and our defense has to hold leads. Our offense put up an efficient performance on the road and we should have won that game. The defense blew it. Simple as that.

_________________
Driver of the PC/JS Super Bowl wagon since 2010
Image
Sherman looks like a ballet master in grand jeté –
a trash-talking, dreadlocked Baryshnikov suspended
impossibly above the turf – pro football's paean to
wanton human destruction slips into the sublime.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We simply got taken to the woodshed...and trufant is bad.
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:53 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
Posts: 1990
Location: Seattle
I don't understand why the Hawks D use man coverage pretty much every play. I do understand however, that our corners are better man-to-man. But when you play man all day, your opposing teams are going to read you like a book and run slant routes through the middle. No way any corner could keep up with a receiver like Bess on a slant. You have to play zone or man-zone to take care of that, let him run through the middle then. I guarantee one of the LB's or Safeties would destroy Bess [or any receiver with elite speed/quickness] coming across the center if you play zone. I actually think he did get hit pretty hard on one play where the Hawks were not playing strict man-to-man. Wagner I believe nailed him and Thomas came in as Bess was going down and put a shoulder into his back. At least from what I can remember, but my memory is horrible these days.

_________________
~ The Stache'


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We simply got taken to the woodshed...and trufant is bad.
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:02 am 
NET Ring Of Honor
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
Posts: 21063
Location: NFL WORLD CHAMPIONS 2013-2014
In the 4th quarter on our last drive we ended up punting because we tried to run. RW was on a roll, yet it almost felt like the obligatory, lets try and keep them off balance bullshit we have seen for many years.

Dolphins didn't do that. They kept throwing and won the game.

We ran 16 out of 23 tries on first down for a 1.8 YPC. Ridiculous to keep trying it.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We simply got taken to the woodshed...and trufant is bad.
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:37 am 
* Dirty Harry *
* Dirty Harry *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:51 am
Posts: 5420
Location: Magnolia, Texas
Two people cost us yesterday's game:

1.) Marcus Trufant
2.) Leroy Hill

It was just two passes caught, on just two plays, that cost us the win. Tru got burned big on one, and Hill got beat on the other.

Can't say it any more clearly. Can't point a finger squarely at any other players or at any other plays. Can't watch the game (yet another time on the DVR) to see two more pivotal moments in the game than those two plays (you know the ones).

That is all.

_________________
"God bless America, and God bless the Seattle Seahawks" - Cortez Kennedy


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We simply got taken to the woodshed...and trufant is bad.
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:44 am 
NET Pro Bowler
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am
Posts: 10149
Location: Vancouver, WA
Largent80 wrote:
In the 4th quarter on our last drive we ended up punting because we tried to run. RW was on a roll, yet it almost felt like the obligatory, lets try and keep them off balance bullshit we have seen for many years.

Dolphins didn't do that. They kept throwing and won the game.

We ran 16 out of 23 tries on first down for a 1.8 YPC. Ridiculous to keep trying it.

It's past time to start throwing more on first down. Russ is ready. The real question is this: is the o-line ready?

Line play yesterday was abysmal on both sides of the ball.

_________________
From the white sands
To the canyon lands
To the redwood stands
To the barren lands

Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We simply got taken to the woodshed...and trufant is bad.
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:52 am 
NET Starter
Offline

Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 8:30 pm
Posts: 387
Russell Wilson had a QB rating of 125 and yet the offense only scored 14 points. This tells me that our play calling was way to conservative. When you got a hot hand you have to roll with it. The seahawks were playing the whole game to try not to lose instead of trying to win. Since when does big balls Pete pass up on a 4th and 1 on the 38, or pass up on a 52 yard fg to punt?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We simply got taken to the woodshed...and trufant is bad.
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:03 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:14 am
Posts: 2227
Scottemojo wrote:
I disagree. Their secondary sucks, and we failed to take advantage. Russell dropped back to pass just over 30 times, and had three negative plays doing so. If ever there was a team ripe for just throwing it all over the lot, it was Miami. Instead, we put the offense in 2nd and long and third and long by running on 2/3rds of our first downs.

Is there any doubt in your mind that some of the better offenses in the league would have started this game by trying to take Soliei and Starks out of the game plan by just airing it out? We played the Miami gameplan and lost because of it.

The playcalling was predicated on running the clock, not gaining yards. Until that changes, the Seahawks will be a limited offense.

:13: I felt like our gameplan wasn't what it should have been on offense and the defense let us down again.

_________________
The artist formerly known as T-Sizzle


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We simply got taken to the woodshed...and trufant is bad.
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:04 am 
NET Pro Bowler
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am
Posts: 10149
Location: Vancouver, WA
edogg23 wrote:
Russell Wilson had a QB rating of 125 and yet the offense only scored 14 points. This tells me that our play calling was way to conservative. When you got a hot hand you have to roll with it. The seahawks were playing the whole game to try not to lose instead of trying to win. Since when does big balls Pete pass up on a 4th and 1 on the 38, or pass up on a 52 yard fg to punt?

Yet with a much less experinced Wilson who was nowhere near what he is now, Big Balls tries a freaking stupid as hell onside kick vs. the Lambs. That folks is NOT good coaching when the two situations are compared.

_________________
From the white sands
To the canyon lands
To the redwood stands
To the barren lands

Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We simply got taken to the woodshed...and trufant is bad.
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:10 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am
Posts: 2437
Zowert wrote:
I don't understand why the Hawks D use man coverage pretty much every play.


They don't, they use a hybrid scheme of man on the outside and inside zone. Which is why every time we get torched, it's down the middle because Trufant's terrible at covering the slot, and Wagner consistently is out of position in his gaps.

Scheming failures fall at the feet of the coaching staff. The Hawks have the talent to win these type of games, but our schemes on both sides of the ball is so F'ing predictable it's borderline embarrassing.

Maybe Carroll thinks that this is still USC where he can just do the same thing over and over and win cause he has more talent than the other team.

Miami knew going in that we were going to try and run the ball on offense, and play two deep down the middle zone on defense. So what'd they do? Put 8-9 men in the box to stop Lynch............and run between the tackles and throw down the middle.

Epic game plan failure of the year contender.

_________________
If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We simply got taken to the woodshed...and trufant is bad.
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:11 am 
NET Ring Of Honor
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
Posts: 21063
Location: NFL WORLD CHAMPIONS 2013-2014
I understand that running the ball runs the clock down, but so does completing passes. We needed about 10 yards was all to attempt the winning field goal.

Simply rolling out and completing passes might have ended up with 7 points, but this hard headed approach backfired and we lost in a miserable sickening fashion.

To me, this loss ranks second to XL. It is THAT bad for me personally.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We simply got taken to the woodshed...and trufant is bad.
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:20 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:45 pm
Posts: 1378
Largent80 wrote:
I understand that running the ball runs the clock down, but so does completing passes. We needed about 10 yards was all to attempt the winning field goal.

Simply rolling out and completing passes might have ended up with 7 points, but this hard headed approach backfired and we lost in a miserable sickening fashion.

To me, this loss ranks second to XL. It is THAT bad for me personally.


I just toss these games into the "burn with fire" compartment of my memory. There's honestly been way too many backbreaking defeats since I became a fan for me to even choose which ones are worse at this point. I'm starting to lose track! Maybe that's a good thing...

_________________
Talkin Seahawks All Day, All Night @ my blog Seafense! http://seafense.blogspot.com/


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We simply got taken to the woodshed...and trufant is bad.
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:27 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am
Posts: 2437
Largent80 wrote:
I understand that running the ball runs the clock down, but so does completing passes. We needed about 10 yards was all to attempt the winning field goal.


When you run the ball on the last eight first downs of the game with ZERO success, there's nothing else you can chalk it up to other than stubborn pride.........which is what Pete's famous for. 1.8 yards, that's the average first down run success of the Hawks yesterday. And that average would be even lower if it wasn't for Lynch's 16 yard run in the 4th quarter where Miller held like crazy.

Yeah we have a great run offense, but holy crap, when it's not working...........AND IT CLEARLY WASN'T WORKING YESTERDAY..........change it up for God's sake! Wilson was having great success throwing and making things happen with his legs. Why do you continue to run the ball? There's no answer other than pride.

_________________
If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We simply got taken to the woodshed...and trufant is bad.
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:13 pm 
*TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
*TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:56 pm
Posts: 1744
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Sgt. Largent wrote:
Largent80 wrote:
I understand that running the ball runs the clock down, but so does completing passes. We needed about 10 yards was all to attempt the winning field goal.


When you run the ball on the last eight first downs of the game with ZERO success, there's nothing else you can chalk it up to other than stubborn pride.........which is what Pete's famous for. 1.8 yards, that's the average first down run success of the Hawks yesterday. And that average would be even lower if it wasn't for Lynch's 16 yard run in the 4th quarter where Miller held like crazy.

Yeah we have a great run offense, but holy crap, when it's not working...........AND IT CLEARLY WASN'T WORKING YESTERDAY..........change it up for God's sake! Wilson was having great success throwing and making things happen with his legs. Why do you continue to run the ball? There's no answer other than pride.


I agree. And, this loss really sucks.

_________________
"I want to drink Ranier Beer out of a mug made from Jim harbaugh's hollowed out skull." CANHAWK


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We simply got taken to the woodshed...and trufant is bad.
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:56 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am
Posts: 568
edogg23 wrote:
Russell Wilson had a QB rating of 125 and yet the offense only scored 14 points. This tells me that our play calling was way to conservative. When you got a hot hand you have to roll with it. The seahawks were playing the whole game to try not to lose instead of trying to win. Since when does big balls Pete pass up on a 4th and 1 on the 38, or pass up on a 52 yard fg to punt?


What's truly amazing about it was that he started 1/5 with 0 yards and under heavy pressure much of the game.

We could have/should have won. Then again we could have been slaughtered with the way Miami stopped our run game.
Our running game was rendered ineffective. Our playcalling was again transparent--run early then throw a long pass to convert.
So to be competitive Russell merely put together a string of 16 passes while converting many obvious 3rd down throws along the way.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We simply got taken to the woodshed...and trufant is bad.
 Post Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:01 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:38 pm
Posts: 2261
TDOTSEAHAWK wrote:
But they had 8 men in the box frequently. Now the question becomes - without our commitment to the run and their commitment to stopping it - would we be as good in the air?

So if we just started airing out all game - and they started to play the pass - would we have been as successful? I really think our conditioning had a lot to do with it - as many games we average 2-3 yards a carry in the first quarter and then pound it out by the fourth. That didn't happen this game.

More importantly, as an offensive coordinator - when do you stop trying to pound the defense? When the game is tied in the third quarter? When you have a 7 point lead in the fourth and your defense needs a rest? At no point in that game did I believe we needed to start airing it out - except as time expired. Then I wish we had 7 more points. Hindsight bias at its best.

If we started to 3 and out in the fourth - giving Miami more chances people would be on here saying that we should have used more clock etc..

Simply put - it is easy to say today that we should have aired it out to put more points up (because we lost) but the fact of the matter is that - we will not blow out every team and our defense has to hold leads. Our offense put up an efficient performance on the road and we should have won that game. The defense blew it. Simple as that.


You abandon the run and the defense starts to "cheat" and play the pass. Then you hit them with the run until they respect it again and you go back to the pass and make them pay. You do this over and over and over until eventually they realise they can't focus on stopping one, and have to play a balanced defense (meaning we can attack them with a balanced playbook). Yes you can use the run to set-up play action, but the exact same works in reverse, if you use the pass to set up and run all over them you get Mike Holmgren's 2004-05 offense.

We're not deficient in the passing game or the running game, our offense should be based entirely on what the defense is giving us, rather than trying to impose your will on them. Earlier in the season the Dolphins had the best run-defense in the league, and it wasn't even close, they were allowing around 70 yards a game and the next closest was allowing around 90.
And it's hardly as if they faced poor running teams either, the first opponent out of the gate was Arian Foster. Even now with 3 big games that failed them recently, they still sit in 7th.
Andrew Luck threw over 400 yards against the Dolphins D and they rank 26th in passing yards. That tells you all you really need to know about what our strategy should have been.
It'd be like Tom Brady coming out here and saying "well I'm really good at passing so it doesn't matter if I target Richard Sherman".
Well we know exactly what happened when he tried that - and he's one of the best quarterbacks of all time.
If you have the ability to do it, you always attack an enemies weakness, no matter how good your greatest strength is.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We simply got taken to the woodshed...and trufant is bad.
 Post Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:18 am 
NET Starter
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:37 pm
Posts: 324
Zowert wrote:
I don't understand why the Hawks D use man coverage pretty much every play. I do understand however, that our corners are better man-to-man. But when you play man all day, your opposing teams are going to read you like a book and run slant routes through the middle. No way any corner could keep up with a receiver like Bess on a slant. You have to play zone or man-zone to take care of that, let him run through the middle then. I guarantee one of the LB's or Safeties would destroy Bess [or any receiver with elite speed/quickness] coming across the center if you play zone. I actually think he did get hit pretty hard on one play where the Hawks were not playing strict man-to-man. Wagner I believe nailed him and Thomas came in as Bess was going down and put a shoulder into his back. At least from what I can remember, but my memory is horrible these days.


We get destroyed playing that picket fence zone bullcrap happens every game. Happened this game happened in Detroit.


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]



 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Seahawks.NET is an independent fan site and not associated with the Seattle Seahawks or the NFL (National Football League).
All content within this Seahawks fan page is provided by, and for, Seattle Seahawks fans. Copyright © Seahawks.NET.