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  [ 22 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: We needed a close game after having three blowout victories.
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:43 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:06 pm
Posts: 951
This was big, I didnt want to go into the playoffs with four straight blow outs. This come back from behind victory was exactly what we needed, a close tight game.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We needed a close game after having three blowout victories.
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:45 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:37 pm
Posts: 32
VancitySeahawk wrote:
This was big, I didnt want to go into the playoffs with four straight blow outs. This come back from behind victory was exactly what we needed, a close tight game.


:lol:


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We needed a close game after having three blowout victories.
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:47 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:37 pm
Posts: 2539
i wanted to go into the playoffs not having any blatant weaknesses, looks like the side of the o-line is where everyone's going to exploit us, and the pass rush was the worst all year long.

But then again i dont think to many coaches in the play offs are smarter than Jeff Fisher


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We needed a close game after having three blowout victories.
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:49 pm 
* NET Attorney *
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:58 am
Posts: 691
Location: Seattle, WA
I agree actually. From a psychological standpoint, I think this will prevent players from going into cruise control. Not that they would be lacking motivation going into a playoff game, but still, it will help.

I loved seeing Sherm with the INT at the end though. :D


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We needed a close game after having three blowout victories.
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:55 pm 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:26 am
Posts: 248
Location: Whittier, CA
Yoonhawk wrote:


I loved seeing Sherm with the INT at the end though. :D


Yeah, classic Sherm, baiting the QB!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We needed a close game after having three blowout victories.
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm 
* NET X's & O's Guru *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:24 am
Posts: 8616
Location: PNW
ScarScream wrote:
VancitySeahawk wrote:
This was big, I didnt want to go into the playoffs with four straight blow outs. This come back from behind victory was exactly what we needed, a close tight game.


:lol:


Shocker, a 9ers fan shows up here after they win....

Unless you plan on contributing, please leave or I will help you along.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We needed a close game after having three blowout victories.
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm 
US Navy ET Nuc
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:29 pm
Posts: 3859
Location: Orting WA, Great Northwet
Putting Easy Sweezy out there and making Moffit inactive is the coaches' equivalent of Sherman baiting the QB. Show the other guys something that isn't really there, then WHAM!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We needed a close game after having three blowout victories.
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:01 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:37 pm
Posts: 32
AbsolutNET wrote:
Shocker, a 9ers fan shows up here after they win....

Unless you plan on contributing, please leave or I will help you along.


Just saying.. You guys would have won with a blowout you would have been screaming SB all night long.

Winning in the last seconds of the game? Same thing.

Just a funny observation. No need to feel all touchy.

I mean it's like your "we lost the 2nd seed because of the Dolphins game" thread.

What do you think about Akers missing 2 game winning FGs in 2 games against the Rams? #2 seed for you guys would have been out of the question if it wasn't for that.

Like some other Seahawk fan on this board said. It goes both ways.

Good win for you guys and great job on making the playoffs. Here's to hoping we meet you guys again at Candlestick.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We needed a close game after having three blowout victories.
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:05 pm 
US Navy ET Nuc
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:29 pm
Posts: 3859
Location: Orting WA, Great Northwet
[quote="ScarScream"]
What do you think about Akers missing 2 game winning FGs in 2 games against the Rams? #2 seed for you guys would have been out of the question if it wasn't for that.[quote]

I think that's exactly what Akers does, is choke when it's on the line. He's like Feeley in that way. And you're stuck with him. That's what I think about Akers.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We needed a close game after having three blowout victories.
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:05 pm 
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:20 pm
Posts: 4510
Location: UT
I'm neither here nor there on the subject of close game/blowout. I trust the coaching staff to have guys prepared for playoffs. If the team's focus in the playoffs was affected by big victory margins closing out the season, it'd be quite an idictment of the character of the team and/or the coaches' handle on the team.

But: the fans on these boards definitely underrated the Ram defense. Their defensive line is for real. It's deep. It's young. And it'll pose challenges going forward.

_________________
“We need to be challenged, ... and we need to be under the gun to respond.” --Pete Carroll


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We needed a close game after having three blowout victories.
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:06 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:37 pm
Posts: 32
GeekHawk wrote:
ScarScream wrote:
What do you think about Akers missing 2 game winning FGs in 2 games against the Rams? #2 seed for you guys would have been out of the question if it wasn't for that.
Quote:

I think that's exactly what Akers does, is choke when it's on the line. He's like Feeley in that way. And you're stuck with him. That's what I think about Akers.


Yeah except Akers beat the record for FGs made last season. And he's been playing injured for the bigger part of the year..


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We needed a close game after having three blowout victories.
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:07 pm 
US Navy ET Nuc
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:29 pm
Posts: 3859
Location: Orting WA, Great Northwet
Yeah but, yeah but, yeah but...


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We needed a close game after having three blowout victories.
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:29 pm 
*SILVER SUPPORTER*
*SILVER SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:40 am
Posts: 4378
Location: Southern CA
Pete said it was good that they fought back and won a tough, close game like this.

_________________
Help bring peace to the South LA / Puget Sound communities. Are you in?
http://www.abetterla.org | http://www.abetterseattle.com


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We needed a close game after having three blowout victories.
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:30 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:28 pm
Posts: 5301
Location: Wilsonville, Oregon
AbsolutNET wrote:
ScarScream wrote:
VancitySeahawk wrote:
This was big, I didnt want to go into the playoffs with four straight blow outs. This come back from behind victory was exactly what we needed, a close tight game.


:lol:


Shocker, a 9ers fan shows up here after they win....

Unless you plan on contributing, please leave or I will help you along.


thats right, bout to get an absolut smackdown


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We needed a close game after having three blowout victories.
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:40 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 2:43 pm
Posts: 916
Winning is better than losing. I'll take it!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We needed a close game after having three blowout victories.
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:42 pm 
NET Starter
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 9:57 pm
Posts: 348
The Rams are a good team. Now we can see clearly how they tied SF and even beat them. They are disciplined and smart. They play just as physical and we and SF do. They have some good players who are young and only going to get better. I see great Hawk/Ram matchups in the future.

Jeff Fisher is a good coach, no doubt about it.

Incredible to me though how we simply can't muster up any type of pass rush whatsoever. I wonder if it is due to the lack of strength or aggressiveness in our DL, or is is scheme?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We needed a close game after having three blowout victories.
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:46 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:01 pm
Posts: 2360
Yoonhawk wrote:
I agree actually. From a psychological standpoint, I think this will prevent players from going into cruise control. Not that they would be lacking motivation going into a playoff game, but still, it will help.

I loved seeing Sherm with the INT at the end though. :D


Close victories are great as long as the performances on both sides of the ball, from both teams, was sound. In this case, a weakness was exposed on our side, and I'm not liking it much at all. When you look at WHY the score was tight, it was because our QB was getting battered and chased around way too much. If the OL was worth a damn in pass pro, the score wouldn't have been so close.

We all know Wilson is the Ice Man in any situation, so I don't see any benefit in him getting sacked 6 times and harrassed on multiple others. Would there be a benefit from a 'psychological standpoint' if we lost RW for the post season? He's already hard as nails from a mental standpoint, so I see no postives from a 'let him get sacked several times to toughen him up' approach (sarcastic joke).

A close, hard fought, well-played game is one thing. The Defense played well enough to give us a chance, the run game was working well enought of to give us chance. The QB was definitely playing well enough to give us a chance, DESPITE the OL's best attempts to get him flattened...That doesn't settle well with me.

I'll definitely take the win, but if if you want to see close-fought games that toughened up an entire team metally, see some of the old Pittsburge/Houston games from the seventies.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We needed a close game after having three blowout victories.
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:55 pm 
* Capt'n Dom *
* Capt'n Dom *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
Posts: 8836
Location: Granite Falls, WA
ScarScream wrote:
AbsolutNET wrote:
Shocker, a 9ers fan shows up here after they win....

Unless you plan on contributing, please leave or I will help you along.


Just saying.. You guys would have won with a blowout you would have been screaming SB all night long.

Winning in the last seconds of the game? Same thing.

Just a funny observation. No need to feel all touchy.

I mean it's like your "we lost the 2nd seed because of the Dolphins game" thread.

What do you think about Akers missing 2 game winning FGs in 2 games against the Rams? #2 seed for you guys would have been out of the question if it wasn't for that.

Like some other Seahawk fan on this board said. It goes both ways.

Good win for you guys and great job on making the playoffs. Here's to hoping we meet you guys again at Candlestick.


Where were you last week?

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We needed a close game after having three blowout victories.
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:09 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:40 am
Posts: 1275
Well. Most teams don't have a Mr Long on that side. Did the best they could and we won.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We needed a close game after having three blowout victories.
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:33 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:37 pm
Posts: 32
bellingerga wrote:

thats right, bout to get an absolut smackdown


Tech Worlds wrote:

Where were you last week?


And that's called contribution? :roll:


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We needed a close game after having three blowout victories.
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:39 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:38 am
Posts: 668
I disagree. the first half seemed exactly like the bevell of old. couldn't adjust his gameplan to match the flow of the game. ie-flat out outcoached by fischer and company. I don't think that is what we needed at all. the defense obviously did their job the whole game once again, the offense was offensive in the first half, and par the second.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We needed a close game after having three blowout victories.
 Post Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 10:46 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Online

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:30 pm
Posts: 1297
Location: Olympia
This one felt eerily similar to some of those early season games, like AZ. Only this time, we did the little things and were able to FINISH! YES!

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 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.