Like to hear the answers to these questions, too.

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
  • "We have to focus with every challenge we get. The bigger, the better. The more hyped, the better. We keep doing what we're doing. Tough matchups on the road, high-profile games - we want that, we feed off that, we should be able to develop the discipline to deal with that." Pete Carroll
    User avatar
    Hawkfish
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 745
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:12 pm
    Location: Monroe, WA


  • Pete was having a really bad day yesterday. I couldn't believe he challenged that. The ONLY difference between the catch and the penalty was about 3 yards. They still get the first down. Not worth the reward for risking the timeout. Bad idea pete
    Image

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 14950
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • Those are fair questions. There is no defense that doesn't run zone in certain situations, but Seattle did seem to run an excess of it.
    Last edited by MontanaHawk05 on Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11604
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • Pete, on KIRO, said he knew he shouldn't challenge, but someone on the headset said the ball came out and he, in all the excitement of the game, noticed the clock was at about 6 seconds, so he just quickly got the refs attention and challenged the play. He said he realized what he did after he threw the flag but it was too late.

    Little things like this really need to be rare occurrences, and on their own, the occasional error like this isn't a big deal, and I don't think it's necessarily a sign of a bad coach, but I really am starting to wonder if Pete's up to running an NFL offense.
    Image

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 14950
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • Great question on the soft zone, and one I've been asking for the last three weeks now.

    We have a great ATTACKING defense.....key word "attacking." Don't make them retreat into a soft zone on 3rd downs, keep attacking Pete!
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4044
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • I think you guys are missing the major point of the article...

    Why do we run zone defenses so often with 6'3 6'4 corners who are famous for being physical? I haven't ever really brought it up on the boards before, but I've been screaming it at my tv since I noticed it happening way too much in the 2nd half of the packers game. I'm not a huge x's and o's guy, so I figured since no one else had said anything about it then it must not be a big deal, but it seems like every time we run zone our defense is worse than the sum of its parts. By a lot.
    User avatar
    SilNWest
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 699
    Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:51 am
    Location: Auburn, Wa


  • Also even if the challenge was successful, wasn't there a penalty on the play that the Lions previously declined?
    User avatar
    hoxrox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1367
    Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:29 pm


  • hoxrox wrote:Also even if the challenge was successful, wasn't there a penalty on the play that the Lions previously declined?


    Yes, it was defensive holding on Browner...would have been 5 yards and a first down. Pete admitted on the radio that it was a bad idea, but he made the call in a split second and it was too late by the time he realized what had happened.
    Image

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 14950
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • Why couldn't he say he was challenging based on all of these stupid criteria like Harbaugh did? I don't know how he did it, but Harbaugh was able to challenge that last play against us, but only if.... and the ref gave some qualifiers. It's pretty weird how the league operates on a week-to-week basis. Maybe he thought that they had made their decision on the call and had to stick and the review could change it. Stupid yes... but after what happened last week, I guess nobody really understands the rules on challenges.

    I am wondering if anybody has clarified why Stafford wasn't called for grounding with 24 seconds left. It's too bad grounding isn't reviewable, because that one should have been reviewed in the booth... but it's a "judgement call". BS on that. That was a game changer and should have been called.
    Image
    R.I.P. Dad. I miss you. You will never be forgotten
    1/12/39 - 8/7/08
    User avatar
    SharkHawk
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 3883
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:47 am


  • SharkHawk wrote:Why couldn't he say he was challenging based on all of these stupid criteria like Harbaugh did? I don't know how he did it, but Harbaugh was able to challenge that last play against us, but only if.... and the ref gave some qualifiers. It's pretty weird how the league operates on a week-to-week basis. Maybe he thought that they had made their decision on the call and had to stick and the review could change it. Stupid yes... but after what happened last week, I guess nobody really understands the rules on challenges.

    I am wondering if anybody has clarified why Stafford wasn't called for grounding with 24 seconds left. It's too bad grounding isn't reviewable, because that one should have been reviewed in the booth... but it's a "judgement call". BS on that. That was a game changer and should have been called.


    I thought it should have been grounding too, and haven't heard much about that one.

    As for the challenge. Brock and Salk told Pete that he should have just said that he used the challenge instead of a timeout to give the defense a rest......Pete said that he didn't want to do that, and that he honestly just got overexcited and made a mistake. I'm glad he owned up to it, but it's something that really should have never happened and hopefully it won't happen again.
    Image

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 14950
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK




It is currently Sun Dec 21, 2014 3:19 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information