Best chance for a loss: At San Francisco?

[seabowl]

With 5 games remaining the obvious choices for a possible loss would be the MN game or KC game. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's at SF where we have the greatest chance for a loss. Here's the logic: We are home against SF this week and will probably win with somewhat ease. Then we have a HUGE Monday night game against MN that will probably be a victory as well. Then we are off to SF on a short week after a big victory playing s team we beat 2 weeks earlier with this probably being their Superbowl and looking for redemption. Possible letdown game here.

Look I very well could be wrong but we've seen things like this happen many times before. I hope after the MN game they keep their heads on straight and don't play down down competition. Thoughts?

 

[Seahawkfan80]

I was actually thinking along these lines in a different way. One of the best ways for some of the guys to get experience is to get in the game in a real time scenario. Playing in this game, rotating in and out with the prime players so they have backup and experienced teachers there with them is a plus. The best all around situation. I do not know if it is gonna be a loss, but I do think it will be primary that they get these guys some hard experience. If they are making a run, Next man up needs experience.

 

[Mad Dog]

We’ve been pretty good on the road this year. I get that SF will be up for playing us, especially a certain CB, but they are a bad team ravaged by injuries. It’s still KC at CLink followed by Minny as our most likely losses.

 

[AROS]

We’ve been pretty good on the road this year. I get that SF will be up for playing us, especially a certain CB, but they are a bad team ravaged by injuries. It’s still KC at CLink followed by Minny as our most likely losses.

Agreed.

 

[Sox-n-Hawks]

Nobody wants to play Seattle in December. Ever. They win the game at SF handily.

 

[Seymour]

With 5 games remaining the obvious choices for a possible loss would be the MN game or KC game. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's at SF where we have the greatest chance for a loss. Here's the logic: We are home against SF this week and will probably win with somewhat ease. Then we have a HUGE Monday night game against MN that will probably be a victory as well. Then we are off to SF on a short week after a big victory playing s team we beat 2 weeks earlier with this probably being their Superbowl and looking for redemption. Possible letdown game here.

Look I very well could be wrong but we've seen things like this happen many times before. I hope after the MN game they keep their heads on straight and don't play down down competition. Thoughts?

Where is the logic in that? We have a better road record than a home record over the last year and a half.

 

[sutz]

I suppose SF is the biggest chance for a trap game, but I don't think this team will fall for the trap.

The Seahawks will play that game like they play all the others, hard, and to the final whistle.

Color me not worried.

 

[kidhawk]

I suppose SF is the biggest chance for a trap game, but I don't think this team will fall for the trap.

The Seahawks will play that game like they play all the others, hard, and to the final whistle.

Color me not worried.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Perhaps last year with some of the veterans "checked out" from Pete's philosophy that might be the case, but we have a lot of young and hungry players right now with the playoffs on the line. I don't think we fall into any of the traps. If we lose to an "easy win team", it would be Arizona in the final week, and only if the game becomes unnecessary because we've either clinched or been eliminated.

 

[Seafan]

KC.

 

[chris98251]

I suppose SF is the biggest chance for a trap game, but I don't think this team will fall for the trap.

The Seahawks will play that game like they play all the others, hard, and to the final whistle.

Color me not worried.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Perhaps last year with some of the veterans "checked out" from Pete's philosophy that might be the case, but we have a lot of young and hungry players right now with the playoffs on the line. I don't think we fall into any of the traps. If we lose to an "easy win team", it would be Arizona in the final week, and only if the game becomes unnecessary because we've either clinched or been eliminated.

Don't think they checked out from the message until it was not shown to apply to everyone, mostly some coaches that are gone now, most the rifts were about Bevell and Cable, the same ones that we witnessed Baldwin, Sherm, Graham, and Lynch have issues with during games. I can only imagine meetings and practices where there were no cameras.

 

[kidhawk]

I suppose SF is the biggest chance for a trap game, but I don't think this team will fall for the trap.

The Seahawks will play that game like they play all the others, hard, and to the final whistle.

Color me not worried.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Perhaps last year with some of the veterans "checked out" from Pete's philosophy that might be the case, but we have a lot of young and hungry players right now with the playoffs on the line. I don't think we fall into any of the traps. If we lose to an "easy win team", it would be Arizona in the final week, and only if the game becomes unnecessary because we've either clinched or been eliminated.

Don't think they checked out from the message until it was not shown to apply to everyone, mostly some coaches that are gone now, most the rifts were about Bevell and Cable, the same ones that we witnessed Baldwin, Sherm, Graham, and Lynch have issues with during games. I can only imagine meetings and practices where there were no cameras.

Not saying there wasn't plenty blame to go around, only that we have a younger group who don't appear to be checked out at all this year. As the message is to focus on each week as a playoff game, I don't see them falling into the trap at San Francisco.

 

[JGfromtheNW]

What a hot take. Apparently we'll lose to a team tied for the worst record in the league at 2-9 and beat a team that's currently sitting at 9-2, the best record in the AFC...

 

[Jac]

I suppose SF is the biggest chance for a trap game, but I don't think this team will fall for the trap.

The Seahawks will play that game like they play all the others, hard, and to the final whistle.

Color me not worried.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Perhaps last year with some of the veterans "checked out" from Pete's philosophy that might be the case, but we have a lot of young and hungry players right now with the playoffs on the line. I don't think we fall into any of the traps. If we lose to an "easy win team", it would be Arizona in the final week, and only if the game becomes unnecessary because we've either clinched or been eliminated.

Don't think they checked out from the message until it was not shown to apply to everyone, mostly some coaches that are gone now, most the rifts were about Bevell and Cable, the same ones that we witnessed Baldwin, Sherm, Graham, and Lynch have issues with during games. I can only imagine meetings and practices where there were no cameras.

Not saying there wasn't plenty blame to go around, only that we have a younger group who don't appear to be checked out at all this year. As the message is to focus on each week as a playoff game, I don't see them falling into the trap at San Francisco.

I hope that's the case. There is so much national positivity around this young team now, you hope that they don't get sucked into reading their own press clippings and/or come out flat for one of these games.

 

[Polaris]

I get the logic but IMHO the best chance for a loss in the last five is Kansas City assuming that Kansas City still has something to play for in week 16 which is entirely possible.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I get the logic but IMHO the best chance for a loss in the last five is Kansas City assuming that Kansas City still has something to play for in week 16 which is entirely possible.

I don't get the logic.

We're suppose to take out the REAL best chances for a loss, and choose the NEXT best chance for a loss? "Here are your options, no you can't pick the realistic ones, just the unrealistic ones."

:?:

 

[pittpnthrs]

SF is bad enough that i'm not even worried about those 2 games. I think we lose against KC and the Vikings games is a toss up. The Cardinals is the trap game i'm worried about. They always seem to cause us grief.

 

[Hockey Guy]

So, you think the best chance for a loss would be right after beating Minny to put us firmly in the drivers seat for a wildcard spot then lose to a pretty bad team where motivation, for a multitude of reasons, shouldn't be an issue?

I'm not buying it.

I could see a loss in that game IF they somehow lose to Minny due to "an air out of the balloon" scenario but that's not the premise of this thread. They could play a really good game & still lose to KC so that would be the game I'd pick but I think they win that game too especially if they win out until then & KC might have nothing to play for, but I think they will.

 

[Russ Willstrong]

Lose to Santa Clara? Who they starting at qb?
Jim GQ in a wheelchair? Beat hard? Chris Mullins? Sherman?
I dont think so.

 

[KiwiHawk]

Don't think they checked out from the message until it was not shown to apply to everyone, mostly some coaches that are gone now, most the rifts were about Bevell and Cable, the same ones that we witnessed Baldwin, Sherm, Graham, and Lynch have issues with during games. I can only imagine meetings and practices where there were no cameras.

I think the problem was that players were given leave to be vocal and take leadership roles, and the players misinterpreted that to believe they were entitled to an opinion about how the team was managed, among other perceived entitlements.

In reality the coaches make the calls and the players execute them, and as soon as that chain breaks down, the team as a whole suffers. That's one of the fundamental issues with giving the players a voice without them having responsibility, and why some coaches keep a firm leash on their players.

Currently the entitled one with all-care-and-no-responsibility is Earl Thomas, and I can't imagine he will be long with the team unless he does a complete 180 on his attitude.

 

[chris98251]

Don't think they checked out from the message until it was not shown to apply to everyone, mostly some coaches that are gone now, most the rifts were about Bevell and Cable, the same ones that we witnessed Baldwin, Sherm, Graham, and Lynch have issues with during games. I can only imagine meetings and practices where there were no cameras.

I think the problem was that players were given leave to be vocal and take leadership roles, and the players misinterpreted that to believe they were entitled to an opinion about how the team was managed, among other perceived entitlements.

In reality the coaches make the calls and the players execute them, and as soon as that chain breaks down, the team as a whole suffers. That's one of the fundamental issues with giving the players a voice without them having responsibility, and why some coaches keep a firm leash on their players.

Currently the entitled one with all-care-and-no-responsibility is Earl Thomas, and I can't imagine he will be long with the team unless he does a complete 180 on his attitude.

They came back and went at it again and again the problem surfaced, if it was just Sherm that would be one thing but a lot of the defense as well as Doug and Graham were all on this.


A coach can lose his team quickly if they think they are ignoring the issue, this was what was beginning to happen. The corrections were made, the players that probably went further off camera about it gone now. It's a reset button and Pete has a new set of players to get going and it's working. I am sure he learned something also, he may be slow to change but he does learn.

He has always let his player be vocal, that won't change.