It's Official... We lost in ATL because...

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
It's Official... We lost in ATL because...
Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:49 pm
  • After watching the niners beat the falcons last night I have concluded that we lost because we had no pass rush. We did a lot of the same things that the 49ers did defensively to stop Matt Ryan and company but the difference is the pass rush. Matt Ryan took some big shots in the game, especially late in the 4th quarter. We had zero sacks if I remember correctly. That is no way to beat a top level passing attack. We really need to find some pass rush in the draft.
    Check out My Seahawks Youtube Channel:

    Image

    http://www.youtube.com/rxstr8
    User avatar
    FreshlySnipes
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 559
    Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 3:28 pm
    Location: Mercer Island/ Menlo Park


  • I'm pretty sure that our entire fan base knew this watching the game.
    @SeahawkGreg

    Image

    "I will be thrilled with 10 wins.... If we win 14 games, I will tattoo my nuts green and blue!" --13thMan
    User avatar
    FlyingGreg
    * Master Chief *
    * Master Chief *
     
    Posts: 7538
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:19 am
    Location: CVN-68


  • I realized this like a punch in the face WHILE watching the game...
    Tezz
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 6
    Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:42 am


  • This is why I think losing DT J. Jones to IR was just as big, if not bigger, a loss than losing DE C. Clemons to IR.
    BigMikeWill17:
    Its ok if you're a Hawks fan and didn't believe we would be division champs.. Just don't let it happen again. Hahahah
    User avatar
    Frostbyte
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 106
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:56 pm


  • Honestly I actually kind of disagree. To me it was the constant lack of stopping the run. Sure they passed the ball - we knew that. Fine better pass rush would have gotten the job done as well but heck every time they turned to the run it felt like they gashed us. Then us not putting any points on the board in the first half might also have had something minor to do with the game.

    Look at yesterday's game ATL up 17-0 and going into halftime if I remember it was a 10pt game instead. That was enough to come back and win it for 49ers. Seahawks not putting up any scores in the first half did us in. We drove twice and should have had 10pts on the board in the first half

    So put it together - we manage to score, stop the run and pass by Falcons and we dominate :D (yes I know that is the point of the game)
    2014 inagural .net Survivor pool CHAMPION
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3698
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • We lost because they made one more play then we did
    warden
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1955
    Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:31 pm


  • sorry....repost....hit the wrong button....nothing to see here....
    Last edited by Frostbyte on Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    BigMikeWill17:
    Its ok if you're a Hawks fan and didn't believe we would be division champs.. Just don't let it happen again. Hahahah
    User avatar
    Frostbyte
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 106
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:56 pm


  • I'm fairly confident we lost because they had the higher score when time expired.
    BirdsCommaAngry
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 666
    Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:25 pm


  • It's official...we've known this for over a week
    SUPERBOWL!!
    User avatar
    Hawkfan77
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1676
    Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 2:46 pm


  • Our Pass Rush was horrible, BUT 49ers stopped the running game. If there is one area we lost was because of our horrible running defense.
    User avatar
    Axx
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2539
    Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:37 pm


  • Honestly, the 49ers have the best pass rush in the league, and ATL did a very good job of protecting Ryan in that game too. They didn't have many sacks, but it did look like there was a bit more pressure.
    Image

    "We all we got, we all we need"
    User avatar
    lukerguy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1495
    Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:00 pm


  • There are several reasons, any one of which had been different, we probably would have won:

    1. If we'd had a strong base pass rush.
    2. If Shawn hadn't fumbled. Pretty sure Atlanta's choke job starts half a game early if not for that.
    3. If Clemons wasn't hurt. Unexpectedly allowing Atlanta so many rushing yards REALLY hurt.
    4. If we hadn't blitzed. We didn't blitz all year and relied on our all world secondary. QBs hear a ticking in their ear whether there's a good rush or not. Ryan likes to get the ball out of his hands fast. We've done a great job all year with little pressure. After the first pick by Ryan on a blitz, he absolutely shredded us on blitzes, including the last drive. Even though it was a popular sentiment around here, I expected Seattle to ignore the pressure and stick to its guns. Unfortunately, they didn't, and it's one decision that cost the game.
    5. If we'd played press man coverage on the final drive. We'd gotten Atlanta off the field on two previous critical drive but reverted to the "safe", but in reality most risky, soft zone coverage on the last drive. Brock Huard broke down the first play of that drive and mentioned that, as a QB, he always preferred to see the soft zone over the press man because it gave him lots of space to throw into.
    6. This is the weakest point by far, in my opinion, but the drive to end the first half could have been handled better. It's hard to say a field goal at that point is critical, though, so I'm not sure the call to go for it was wrong. The play call was poor in my opinion. After seeing the defense, I think Wilson should have checked out of it or something. I think it was pretty awful to call it twice in a row. At the ends of seasons, at critical points against really good teams, it doesn't pay to be predictable, no matter how many times that play had been called in the past. As Atlanta later said, they'd seen that play in film. We had no momentum at that point, playing on the road, Atlanta's defense amped up...I feel like everyone here must have known what was coming and that it would be stopped. Hindsight is 20/20, yeah, yeah, but sometimes stuff really is too predictable. Atlanta was absolutely primed to stop that play. A counter for their aggression would have been the perfect call. Also, you should already be using non-voice signals to communicate plays by then. Nor do I like how casual those end of first half drives have been lately. Anyway, although I've devoted the most space to this point, it's the least important.
    formido
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 484
    Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:41 pm
    Location: Ventura, CA


  • formido wrote:There are several reasons, any one of which had been different, we probably would have won:

    1. If we'd had a strong base pass rush.
    2. If Shawn hadn't fumbled. Pretty sure Atlanta's choke job starts half a game early if not for that.
    3. If Clemons wasn't hurt. Unexpectedly allowing Atlanta so many rushing yards REALLY hurt.
    4. If we hadn't blitzed. We didn't blitz all year and relied on our all world secondary. QBs hear a ticking in their ear whether there's a good rush or not. Ryan likes to get the ball out of his hands fast. We've done a great job all year with little pressure. After the first pick by Ryan on a blitz, he absolutely shredded us on blitzes, including the last drive. Even though it was a popular sentiment around here, I expected Seattle to ignore the pressure and stick to its guns. Unfortunately, they didn't, and it's one decision that cost the game.
    5. If we'd played press man coverage on the final drive. We'd gotten Atlanta off the field on two previous critical drive but reverted to the "safe", but in reality most risky, soft zone coverage on the last drive. Brock Huard broke down the first play of that drive and mentioned that, as a QB, he always preferred to see the soft zone over the press man because it gave him lots of space to throw into.
    6. This is the weakest point by far, in my opinion, but the drive to end the first half could have been handled better. It's hard to say a field goal at that point is critical, though, so I'm not sure the call to go for it was wrong. The play call was poor in my opinion. After seeing the defense, I think Wilson should have checked out of it or something. I think it was pretty awful to call it twice in a row. At the ends of seasons, at critical points against really good teams, it doesn't pay to be predictable, no matter how many times that play had been called in the past. As Atlanta later said, they'd seen that play in film. We had no momentum at that point, playing on the road, Atlanta's defense amped up...I feel like everyone here must have known what was coming and that it would be stopped. Hindsight is 20/20, yeah, yeah, but sometimes stuff really is too predictable. Atlanta was absolutely primed to stop that play. A counter for their aggression would have been the perfect call. Also, you should already be using non-voice signals to communicate plays by then. Nor do I like how casual those end of first half drives have been lately. Anyway, although I've devoted the most space to this point, it's the least important.


    Who is Shawn?
    User avatar
    CALIHAWK1
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 9342
    Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:00 pm
    Location: Is Everything


  • I knew this going in to the game. Wouldn't have had to watch a single game, just knowing Clemons was out and reading this board told me that. We didn't win though because Atlanta scored more points than we did :)
    Image
    User avatar
    SeAhAwKeR4life
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3973
    Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 2:43 pm
    Location: Port Townsend, WA


  • CALIHAWK1 wrote:
    formido wrote:There are several reasons, any one of which had been different, we probably would have won:

    1. If we'd had a strong base pass rush.
    2. If Shawn hadn't fumbled. Pretty sure Atlanta's choke job starts half a game early if not for that.
    3. If Clemons wasn't hurt. Unexpectedly allowing Atlanta so many rushing yards REALLY hurt.
    4. If we hadn't blitzed. We didn't blitz all year and relied on our all world secondary. QBs hear a ticking in their ear whether there's a good rush or not. Ryan likes to get the ball out of his hands fast. We've done a great job all year with little pressure. After the first pick by Ryan on a blitz, he absolutely shredded us on blitzes, including the last drive. Even though it was a popular sentiment around here, I expected Seattle to ignore the pressure and stick to its guns. Unfortunately, they didn't, and it's one decision that cost the game.
    5. If we'd played press man coverage on the final drive. We'd gotten Atlanta off the field on two previous critical drive but reverted to the "safe", but in reality most risky, soft zone coverage on the last drive. Brock Huard broke down the first play of that drive and mentioned that, as a QB, he always preferred to see the soft zone over the press man because it gave him lots of space to throw into.
    6. This is the weakest point by far, in my opinion, but the drive to end the first half could have been handled better. It's hard to say a field goal at that point is critical, though, so I'm not sure the call to go for it was wrong. The play call was poor in my opinion. After seeing the defense, I think Wilson should have checked out of it or something. I think it was pretty awful to call it twice in a row. At the ends of seasons, at critical points against really good teams, it doesn't pay to be predictable, no matter how many times that play had been called in the past. As Atlanta later said, they'd seen that play in film. We had no momentum at that point, playing on the road, Atlanta's defense amped up...I feel like everyone here must have known what was coming and that it would be stopped. Hindsight is 20/20, yeah, yeah, but sometimes stuff really is too predictable. Atlanta was absolutely primed to stop that play. A counter for their aggression would have been the perfect call. Also, you should already be using non-voice signals to communicate plays by then. Nor do I like how casual those end of first half drives have been lately. Anyway, although I've devoted the most space to this point, it's the least important.


    Who is Shawn?


    On the Real Rob Report, Marshawn Lynch is referred to as just "Shawn".
    Image
    User avatar
    DHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1677
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:50 pm
    Location: Phoenix, AZ


  • OH.. I thought they scored more points then we did.
    User avatar
    Bobblehead
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 307
    Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:52 am


  • mikeak wrote:Honestly I actually kind of disagree. To me it was the constant lack of stopping the run. Sure they passed the ball - we knew that. Fine better pass rush would have gotten the job done as well but heck every time they turned to the run it felt like they gashed us. Then us not putting any points on the board in the first half might also have had something minor to do with the game.

    Look at yesterday's game ATL up 17-0 and going into halftime if I remember it was a 10pt game instead. That was enough to come back and win it for 49ers. Seahawks not putting up any scores in the first half did us in. We drove twice and should have had 10pts on the board in the first half

    So put it together - we manage to score, stop the run and pass by Falcons and we dominate :D (yes I know that is the point of the game)


    Sort of the same thing though in a sense. We had no pass rush because Jones and Clemons were out but that also lead to our issues with run D as well. Irvin is a specialist not an every down pass rush/run stuffer like Clemons.

    Weird thing is Ryan only had 250 yards against the Hawks but 396 against the Niners. However to your point they hung 167 yards on the Hawks running the ball but only 81 on the Niners.
    Last edited by SeaWolv on Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    SeaWolv
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 360
    Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:31 am


  • I kinda knew this already, but there were many other factors that hurt us as well.
    Image
    User avatar
    Blitzer88
    * NET Eeyore *
     
    Posts: 11249
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:47 am
    Location: Pasco, WA


  • FlyingGreg wrote:I'm pretty sure that our entire fan base knew this watching the game.


    This
    Status: Active lieutenant in the 12th Man Army
    User avatar
    12thMan1
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 723
    Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:19 am


  • Somewhere, RW is blaming himself.
    User avatar
    Slick
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 652
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:52 am
    Location: Bellevue, WA


  • can we just agree that the injuries to the D line, and the lack of production from the D line that was in there was horrible on all accounts.. Rush D and putting pressure on Ryan.... couldn't stop the run, couldn't put pressure on him to force throws early , mess up his timing... we kept white and Jones in check most of that game., but ryan had all day to find Gonzales...

    and turner looked like gore rushing the ball.. not a good recipe for victory.
    World Champs - Sounds good don't it
    User avatar
    hawker84
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4058
    Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:22 pm
    Location: Tri Cities, WA


  • FreshlySnipes wrote:After watching the niners beat the falcons last night I have concluded that we lost because we had no pass rush. We did a lot of the same things that the 49ers did defensively to stop Matt Ryan and company but the difference is the pass rush. Matt Ryan took some big shots in the game, especially late in the 4th quarter. We had zero sacks if I remember correctly. That is no way to beat a top level passing attack. We really need to find some pass rush in the draft.


    Another entry into my "NO SHIT!" file :roll:
    Why is it when I try to come off as a smart ass, the opposite happens? :-(
    User avatar
    grizbob
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 2357
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:17 am
    Location: Born in Oakharbor, raised in the west, sentenced to life in St George


  • ... our prevent defense sucks?
    Image
    Leon Washington 2010-2012 Red Bryant 2008-2013 Chris Clemons 2010-2013 Golden Tate 2010-2013
    Brandon Browner 2011-2013 Breno Giacomini 2011-2013 - Gone but not forgotten.
    R.I.P Les "PithyRadish" Norton 9/13/2014
    User avatar
    drdiags
    * The Doc *
    * The Doc *
     
    Posts: 9407
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:33 am
    Location: Covington, Washington


  • Pass rush was a huge problem for us, but it wasn't much better for SF. Keep in mind that Ryan threw for almost 150 more yards against SF than he did against us.

    I think the main reason we lost is because we were down by 20 at halftime whereas the 49ers were only down by 10. Coming back from 20 is almost impossible, it's a damn miracle that we almost won. The 49ers got off to a bad start. The Seahawks got off to a disaster start.

    In terms of the specific aspects that lost us the game, I think run defense (poor tackling) is right up there with pass rush. I think luck played a factor as well, it's pretty unusual to rack up 193 first half yards and score 0 points. Even the Falcon's players couldn't believe they led 20-0 at halftime. Seattle finished with 28 points on almost 500 yards of offense. In the past they'd often scored in the 40s and 50s when putting up that kind of yardage.

    Seattle has problems to fix, but I think they were absolutely good enough to win it all this year. Really a shame that they underachieved so much in that Falcons game only to just barely lose.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11394
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • Media bias
    "it'd be a newborn deer" - pehawk
    User avatar
    Hawk Strap
    * Handsome *
     
    Posts: 3142
    Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:37 pm
    Location: Tri Cities, WA


  • We were not in prevent at the end of the ATL game

    I agree with Kearly. We started in a deep hole and that really created a mountain to overcome. Maybe doing what Walsh and his protégés did. Script some plays for Wilson. I think we can count on our offense to get us ahead some of the time.

    A bigger push up the middle that we expected Jones to provide is what I see as missing.
    User avatar
    Happypuppy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1911
    Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:40 pm


  • Have to go with Kearly here. I think the combo of the east coast travel, second week of long travel stacked on top of a 10am start was the difference. If we even get rolling in the late second quarter we win that game but going into the half down 20 was nearly impossible.

    There are things that could have helped us alot in my opinion and most can be attributed to Fedex field. Losing Clemons was huge but maybe even bigger was losing Houshka (spelling) in that the final kick off being a touch back vs them starting near they're 40 was enormous with under 30 seconds to play plus it was likely a big momentum boost for Atlanta to believe they could make it another 30 yards or so to get into field goal range. Lynch hurting his ankle at Fedex was obviously a problem also. We had no running game and on top of that Lynch was taking himself out of the game on huge 3rd and ones.

    Losing Jones obviously hurt but I don't know that it was a difference maker unless you package it with losing Clemons. All in all I would have to say thank to Dan Schneider for producing a disaster of a playing field that not only cost him his QB but I believe contributed largely to our loss the following week.
    The Lion has no interest in the opinion of the sheep.
    RichNhansom
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3027
    Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 7:26 am


  • kearly wrote:Pass rush was a huge problem for us, but it wasn't much better for SF. Keep in mind that Ryan threw for almost 150 more yards against SF than he did against us.

    I think the main reason we lost is because we were down by 20 at halftime whereas the 49ers were only down by 10. Coming back from 20 is almost impossible, it's a damn miracle that we almost won. The 49ers got off to a bad start. The Seahawks got off to a disaster start.

    In terms of the specific aspects that lost us the game, I think run defense (poor tackling) is right up there with pass rush. I think luck played a factor as well, it's pretty unusual to rack up 193 first half yards and score 0 points. Even the Falcon's players couldn't believe they led 20-0 at halftime. Seattle finished with 28 points on almost 500 yards of offense. In the past they'd often scored in the 40s and 50s when putting up that kind of yardage.

    Seattle has problems to fix, but I think they were absolutely good enough to win it all this year. Really a shame that they underachieved so much in that Falcons game only to just barely lose.


    You are right about the 20 point deficit after the first half. But in reality that to me is on PC more than the team. There just is no excuse why we didn't have at least 3 points and probably 6 with two FG's. But going for it at 4th and 1 was just stupid. We were only down by 13 and a FG cuts the lead to 10 and gets us on the board. That was a momentum shift for both teams. They took that turn over and turned it into a TD on their possession. Also the messed up FG at the end of the 1st half is on PC for not making it clear to RW and Bevell that if the play is not there throw it out of bounds and kick the FG. That sack should not have even been allowed to happen.

    At least that is how I see it.
    Last edited by kf3339 on Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    kf3339
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1418
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:52 pm


  • Ah, yes. I would have added the 10 AM start to my earlier list. The effect is too statistically well established to be ignored. I think the tackling would have been better and I don't think we go down 20 in the first half at a normal start time.
    formido
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 484
    Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:41 pm
    Location: Ventura, CA


  • kearly wrote:Pass rush was a huge problem for us, but it wasn't much better for SF. Keep in mind that Ryan threw for almost 150 more yards against SF than he did against us.

    I think the main reason we lost is because we were down by 20 at halftime whereas the 49ers were only down by 10. Coming back from 20 is almost impossible, it's a damn miracle that we almost won. The 49ers got off to a bad start. The Seahawks got off to a disaster start.

    In terms of the specific aspects that lost us the game, I think run defense (poor tackling) is right up there with pass rush. I think luck played a factor as well, it's pretty unusual to rack up 193 first half yards and score 0 points. Even the Falcon's players couldn't believe they led 20-0 at halftime. Seattle finished with 28 points on almost 500 yards of offense. In the past they'd often scored in the 40s and 50s when putting up that kind of yardage.

    Seattle has problems to fix, but I think they were absolutely good enough to win it all this year. Really a shame that they underachieved so much in that Falcons game only to just barely lose.


    i think this as well. very well put.
    I don't know why I bother... no one cares what I think.
    zhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 525
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 7:35 am


  • kearly wrote:Pass rush was a huge problem for us, but it wasn't much better for SF. Keep in mind that Ryan threw for almost 150 more yards against SF than he did against us.

    I think the main reason we lost is because we were down by 20 at halftime whereas the 49ers were only down by 10. Coming back from 20 is almost impossible, it's a damn miracle that we almost won. The 49ers got off to a bad start. The Seahawks got off to a disaster start.

    In terms of the specific aspects that lost us the game, I think run defense (poor tackling) is right up there with pass rush. I think luck played a factor as well, it's pretty unusual to rack up 193 first half yards and score 0 points. Even the Falcon's players couldn't believe they led 20-0 at halftime. Seattle finished with 28 points on almost 500 yards of offense. In the past they'd often scored in the 40s and 50s when putting up that kind of yardage.

    Seattle has problems to fix, but I think they were absolutely good enough to win it all this year. Really a shame that they underachieved so much in that Falcons game only to just barely lose.


    After watching the Patriots go the entire 2nd half with zero points just demonstrates that even the best teams can go "flat". Next year, we'll improve in several areas, but then may retreat in other areas.
    Bigpumpkin
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 4867
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:13 pm
    Location: Puyallup, WA USA


  • One thing for sure, SF has a better front 7 than ours. Let's face it, they are better at DE, DT, and particularly at LB. Our secondary is better than theirs but not by much. Pete and JS need to continually bring in more talent at those specific positions and let the competition play itself out. Eventually I think we can get to SF's level, but right now I notice a clear difference just watching as a fan.
    kmedic
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1342
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:36 am
    Location: Los Angeles, CA


  • Frostbyte wrote:This is why I think losing DT J. Jones to IR was just as big, if not bigger, a loss than losing DE C. Clemons to IR.


    Jason Jones was a huge disappointment this year....basically a non-factor in games he played!
    "I didn't do anything...i just headbutted him!"
    User avatar
    purpleworld
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 390
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 11:18 am


  • Yes... Our pass rush was null and void with Chris Clemons and Jason Jones getting injured, but we lost because we didn't put points on the board 1 of the 2 times we were in the redzone in the first half when Lynch didn't fumble the ball. The hurry up fullback dive on 4th and short was a head-shaker for me. Always try to draw the pre-snap penalty from the defense or call a timeout before hurrying a 4th and short play. I did not like the hurry up FB dive on 4th and 1.
    firebee
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1301
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:43 pm
    Location: Florence, Oregon


  • I HATE the complaining about going for it in 4th down. All the stats available show that in that area of the field you get in average MORE points going for it there.

    With that sai hate the playcall on 3rd and 4th down
    2014 inagural .net Survivor pool CHAMPION
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3698
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • ... how about the team cannot hold a lead? Is that better? Lot of excuses. 41 yds in 15 seconds with a trip to the NFCCG on the line.
    Image
    Leon Washington 2010-2012 Red Bryant 2008-2013 Chris Clemons 2010-2013 Golden Tate 2010-2013
    Brandon Browner 2011-2013 Breno Giacomini 2011-2013 - Gone but not forgotten.
    R.I.P Les "PithyRadish" Norton 9/13/2014
    User avatar
    drdiags
    * The Doc *
    * The Doc *
     
    Posts: 9407
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:33 am
    Location: Covington, Washington


  • drdiags wrote:... how about the team cannot hold a lead? Is that better? Lot of excuses. 41 yds in 15 seconds with a trip to the NFCCG on the line.


    Yes but in their defense it was the first time this season somethin like that happened.....

    Oh wait
    2014 inagural .net Survivor pool CHAMPION
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3698
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • Leaving the middle of the field wide open lost us the game because we had it won. Case closed.
    The new Santa Clara stadium name?..........Dungaree Dump
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 25004
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: Yes, that is a Bacon Wrapped Turkey


  • I liked how the games showed some contrast between the Seahawks and the 49ers.

    Whereas our team struggled a bit with running the ball and stopping the rush, the 49ers had better success in that regards. Their front 7 outperformed our front 7.

    The 49ers were able to pressure Matt Ryan, whereas we failed to do so, even though the Clemons and Jones injuries didn't help.

    Whereas the 49ers struggled with passing defense, allowing Jones, White, and Gonzalez to go off against them, we were able to contain their big passing threats to a better degree. Our secondary was superior to the 49ers secondary.

    Both of our teams started off slow out of the gate against the Falcons, allowing their team to jump to early leads.

    Both the Seahawks and 49ers were able to exploit the Falcons mid-field passing defense, leading to both Miller and Davis having big games.

    It's really quite remarkable how similar our team and the 49ers are. Similarity breeds contempt, add on to the mix that we're bitter divisional rivals and this matchup will be awesome for years to come. I love that we're the new Ravens-Steelers rivalry.
    Image
    User avatar
    Winterfell
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 128
    Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:55 pm
    Location: The Wall


  • Good points above. Consider that Seahawks beat 49ers with the deep ball both games this year in top of that. Sure stats won't show it for game one but they were beat deep durin the first half many times
    2014 inagural .net Survivor pool CHAMPION
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3698
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • mikeak wrote:Honestly I actually kind of disagree. To me it was the constant lack of stopping the run. Sure they passed the ball - we knew that. Fine better pass rush would have gotten the job done as well but heck every time they turned to the run it felt like they gashed us. Then us not putting any points on the board in the first half might also have had something minor to do with the game.

    Look at yesterday's game ATL up 17-0 and going into halftime if I remember it was a 10pt game instead. That was enough to come back and win it for 49ers. Seahawks not putting up any scores in the first half did us in. We drove twice and should have had 10pts on the board in the first half

    So put it together - we manage to score, stop the run and pass by Falcons and we dominate :D (yes I know that is the point of the game)


    stopping the run/not getting any pass rush, etc etc is all on the D line

    we lost because of our bad D line play. Lets just put it that way.

    and throw in the fact that at the end of the game we were safety blitzing. I have no idea why. That's why im glad Gus is gone.
    ImageImageImageImageImage
    U MAD BRAH?
    User avatar
    Crizilla
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 840
    Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:52 pm
    Location: Redmond, WA


  • We had no pass rush for most of the second half of the season it seems. Relied on a shutdown corner and a bid and fast secondary to contain the passing attack. A better pass rush and we would have hosted the NFCCG, I have no doubt
    User avatar
    rjdriver
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1105
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:11 am
    Location: Utah


  • It didn't help that Marshawn Lynch was hurt and could only muster 46 yards (?). I also wonder if this took away from his concentration and focus leading to his fumbles.
    User avatar
    captSE
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 457
    Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:45 pm
    Location: Southeast Alaska


  • Bobblehead wrote:OH.. I thought they scored more points then we did.

    Yeah, im on the same level here.
    No autographs please
    User avatar
    Jerhawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 353
    Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:39 am
    Location: Spokane, WA




It is currently Sat Nov 22, 2014 11:40 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information