Watched the game replay and now am seriously worried

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
  • I guess the thing that worries me is that the teams we have let run all over us late in the 4th quarter have been just CRAPPY teams. :white_flag:
    Tru2RedNGold25 wrote:Us as Niners fan have every right to rep Niners all day everyday when we have the hardware to back it up do can u guys say that???


    2013 Adopt-a-rookie: #humblethug
    2014 Adopt-a-rookie: Kevin Norwood
    User avatar
    razgriz737
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1602
    Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:12 pm
    Location: Spokane/Seattle


  • FlyingGreg wrote:
    hawksfansinceday1 wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:We gave up a TD on a short drive spurred by a fumble recovery on the first drive, and a late (last second) FG that was set up by a poor pass rush, broken coverage and a bad play by one of our DBs. In between we gave up one TD, stopped the Bears on 4th and 1 which is now the single most important play the D made all day.

    17 points on the road to an 8-3 team. Seems good to me. Not great, but good. Given the circumstances behind 10 of the 17 points the time betwen the defense played well. Again, not great. No QB sacks, little pressure and Marshall caught 150 yards worth. But 17 points, and only 7 in the 50 minutes between the first and last scores

    Point is, we are not the defense of the first 6 weeks. But Wilson is not the same QB either. We are also not the same D on the road. I was really excited that despite the Marshall play we held them to 17 points given that it looked like we could be down two scores early.

    All very good points. The concern for me is the late game problems/"letdowns" that have lead to wins by Az., Mia., Det. and a tie by Chi. It has seemed like when they are most needed, the D has let the team down. Being home for 3 of the next 4 should help a lot.


    That's exactly the problem - they are breaking down at the worst possible time. Overall, a good defense. Late in the game - they are scary and not in a good way.

    A defense faltering at the end of the games is not a good thing.



    True they've failed against Miami, Detroit to Arizona. But on the other hand you have to credit them for closing out the Carolina and Patriots games. This is a young defense which will be inconsistent at times. The defense is 2-3 in games they could have closed out. obviously we'd like to be 5-0 in those situation but we aren't experienced enough to do that. I think the extremely high expectations are the cause of all the angst. This defense is good. Not great, but good. With an improving offense that's all we can really hope for at this point.
    jlwaters1
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2413
    Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:48 pm


  • FlyingGreg wrote:A defense faltering at the end of the games is not a good thing.

    Especially when our team is built to play close games. Doesn't leave a lot of room for error.
    Tru2RedNGold25 wrote:Us as Niners fan have every right to rep Niners all day everyday when we have the hardware to back it up do can u guys say that???


    2013 Adopt-a-rookie: #humblethug
    2014 Adopt-a-rookie: Kevin Norwood
    User avatar
    razgriz737
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1602
    Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:12 pm
    Location: Spokane/Seattle


  • I'm sorry but your completely wrong on the 2 highlighted items. A) Coverage wasn't blown on that dropped TD. Browner had him the whole way. He just got caught looking at the QB and lost track of his man. Yes it was his fault but it wasn't a "blown" coverage. B) Marshall wasn't left unattended. Sherman was coming over to try to intercept or break up the pass. He misjudged his jump carried him past (behind) Marshall aggressively came back towards the ball. Great play by him. Both players made mistakes that is all.



    Why are you sorry? its your opinion.

    Now let me say my example of a "blown" coverage includes a player/players making dumb mistakes.

    So if Browner didn't blow the coverage by looking at the QB rather than his responsiblity what else would you call it?

    And Sherman playing the ball rather than the player and whiffed the play? Again in my opinion that is clearly the player "blowing" the coverage.

    Good defenders temper where they take chances. The place to take chances is not in the final 30 seconds of the game.

    So lets agree to disagree. to me making a mistake=blowing the coverage.

    :les:


    And one more thing,,,,I'm damned tired of this "oh they're a young team" bullshit!(no I didn't mean you said that) Yep it was true months ago. But they had played 11 games prior to Chi-Town, they aren't kids anymore!

    If they are going to use that excuse don't count on playoffs or if some doing well. We're WAY PAST time to use such a grade school excuse. Do your jobs!!!

    :141847_bnono:
    Image
    On to week two. Week one was not a fluke!
    User avatar
    The Radish
    * NET Radish *
     
    Posts: 18655
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:18 pm
    Location: Spokane, Wa.


  • hawksfansinceday1 wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:We gave up a TD on a short drive spurred by a fumble recovery on the first drive, and a late (last second) FG that was set up by a poor pass rush, broken coverage and a bad play by one of our DBs. In between we gave up one TD, stopped the Bears on 4th and 1 which is now the single most important play the D made all day.

    17 points on the road to an 8-3 team. Seems good to me. Not great, but good. Given the circumstances behind 10 of the 17 points the time betwen the defense played well. Again, not great. No QB sacks, little pressure and Marshall caught 150 yards worth. But 17 points, and only 7 in the 50 minutes between the first and last scores

    Point is, we are not the defense of the first 6 weeks. But Wilson is not the same QB either. We are also not the same D on the road. I was really excited that despite the Marshall play we held them to 17 points given that it looked like we could be down two scores early.

    All very good points. The concern for me is the late game problems/"letdowns" that have lead to wins by Az., Mia., Det. and a tie by Chi. It has seemed like when they are most needed, the D has let the team down. Being home for 3 of the next 4 should help a lot.



    whats really interesting is that all four of those are on the road... is it really that simple? We've had close games at home too. Anyways, found this stat interesting (it does not take into account when points are scored or where)...

    first 8 games D allowed 16.8 points/game, (4-4), last 4 games 17.0 (3-1, this includes Wilson's fumble returned for TD).

    It also does not include the fact that Wilson has not thrown a pick in any of the last 4 games, which also helps the D immensely. I think where the team needs to improve is a little bit better drive management by the offense (an extra field goal earlier in the game makes the difference in all 4 games) and turnovers by the D. be nice to see an interception/fumble or 2 over the next 4 weeks
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5000
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


  • We stopped the run well most of the day.

    I don't get why we had Browner in zone coverage on Marshall, which isn't his strong suite. I also don't get why we didn't double Marshall....yea Browner should be good enough to cover him one on one, but they had him in a poor coverage for his talents. Double team Marshall and make Cutler at least looks somewhere else. That might give our pass rush time to get to him.

    Still wondering where the pass rush was against a bad Bears' OL. We blitzed a few times and Cutler made us pay for it, so I don't blame them for not going back to it.

    Overall, I thought we did ok, points wise we did decent on the road against a team that scores a lot of points. Now, at least we aren't trending downwards like we were, but there are still some problems and holes.
    Hawks46
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3642
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm


  • Marshall and Cutler have worked together for years and have serious chemistry...like peyton and marvin not tooo long ago...tough for anyone to stop, but the NFL game is that of adjustments and we did that in the second half

    not how you start its how you finish, but to stop that we had to back off pressure...result was we won!

    as far as the run....what do you expect with a Rookie Middle Linebacker...goes with the territory
    zayden185
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 599
    Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:04 am


  • I agree with the spirit of this thread- I agree that the coin toss probably decided the game.

    That said, the run defense was very good in the Chicago game. The bears averaged just 4 yards per carry and quite frankly I think they lost the game and allowed Seattle's comeback by going more run heavy in the second half.

    The secondary sucked though. I blame the lack of blitzing and the abundance of zone coverage.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11051
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am




It is currently Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:41 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online