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  [ 25 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:09 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:38 pm
Posts: 2260
Hawks46 wrote:
A burner wouldn't have changed things today. Atlanta was playing a Cover 2 shell today; it's specifically designed to keep WRs in front of the secondary and not give up the big play. Having a guy vertically stretch the field into the teeth of the defense wouldn't have changed anything.

The way you beat that is what we did a bit in the 1st half, hit the TE. A running game would've made the safeties creep up, and then get hit over the top with the PA pass. The lack of a run game hurt us more than missing an elite WR, although it would be nice to see Tate and Rice win some one on one matchups against better than average CBs.

What we need is at least one more dominating OG. Sweezy isn't there yet (might not ever be dominating) and Moffitt just doesn't look like he takes it seriously enough.


Well two things, it could either create even MORE space in that intermediate gap if you have a guy flat out running towards the end-zone, second, if they catch the ball in that middle area and make one guy miss they can take it to the house. Right now I feel that even though Tate and Rice can catch the ball in the middle of the field and make a guy miss and/or break a tackle, they're still going to get caught before they break off a huge run


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:09 pm 
NET Starter
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 11:18 am
Posts: 380
Another weapon would be awesome....i'd like to see us package picks to get 4 or 5 guys we REALLY want....this team is young as is so lets get 'quality' rather than 'quantity'....

_________________
"I didn't do anything...i just headbutted him!"


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:09 pm 
NET Rookie
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:18 pm
Posts: 165
If we want a true burner, I think we would take a shot at Wallace. Dude is FAST.

But I see us approaching a true pass rusher. Maybe getting Randy Starks from Miami to stuff the run and provide some more pressure.

_________________
How many 49ers fans does it take to change a light bulb?

None, they will all show and talk about how good the old one was...


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:11 pm 
NET Rookie
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:39 am
Posts: 194
Location: big black hawk
hawker232 wrote:
If we want a true burner, I think we would take a shot at Wallace. Dude is FAST.

But I see us approaching a true pass rusher. Maybe getting Randy Starks from Miami to stuff the run and provide some more pressure.

yep mike wallace is one of the fastest receivers out there.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:15 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:42 am
Posts: 1738
Location: New Joisey
what about the Rocket Lockette?

Im sure the Niners drop him

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 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.