Green Bay's Key to beating the Hawks

[Marvin49]

Just stating that if you DON'T stop Lynch you don't even have a chance. If you want to argue THAT point, find me games where he played great...and they LOST.

Well, we lost at Indy and he had 102 yards with a 6.0 YPC, 24 long. No TDs, so not a great day, but a pretty good day just running on the field. How about 2012 @ St. Louis, 118 yards, 5.9 YPC, 1 TD. 2012 @ Detroit, 105 yards, 8.8 YPC, 1 TD, lost.

Just look at the last couple of years, I don't see much correlation between Lynch's performance and our wins and losses: http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_ ... hawn-lynch

As the fan of a team who is constructed similarly (not saying exact, but same general philosophy) I'd say the 1st thing you have to do when playing the 49ers is stop the run. If you don't devote an extra man to the box, they'll run on you all day.

Devoting that extra man opens up passing lanes. That's why you see guys WIDE OPEN at times.

I don't see any shame is saying that. I dunno why you would even argue with it. Do teams stack the box against the Seahawks? Why do you think they do that?

Its kinda the same reason I think its funny when peeps compare Lacy to Lynch...or even Gore. That's a joke to me. Lynch and Gore are running against 8 and 9 man fronts and STILL can't be stopped.

Lacy is running against Nickel defenses that are terrified of Aaron Rodgers.

...and that last comparison is kinda my point. What would happen to the Seahawks O if teams started playing nickel defenses on every down? Wilson would probably struggle a bit with so many men in coverage but more importantly, Lynch would run for 200+ yards per game.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Has nothing to do with shame, I don't mean it that way at all. I also completely understand the difference in how most teams defend our offense compared to Green Bay's. Not every defense sells out to stop the run against us, though.

As you said, though - to an extent, agree to disagree.

 

[Largent80]

Lynch is no longer the sole RB. They have to worry about Percy now. Things have changed and the NFL is in for a wake up because the Hawks offense will be better this year. The defense the same or even better if that is possible.

 

[WilsonMVP]

Just stating that if you DON'T stop Lynch you don't even have a chance. If you want to argue THAT point, find me games where he played great...and they LOST.

Well, we lost at Indy and he had 102 yards with a 6.0 YPC, 24 long. No TDs, so not a great day, but a pretty good day just running on the field. How about 2012 @ St. Louis, 118 yards, 5.9 YPC, 1 TD. 2012 @ Detroit, 105 yards, 8.8 YPC, 1 TD, lost.

Just look at the last couple of years, I don't see much correlation between Lynch's performance and our wins and losses: http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_ ... hawn-lynch

I think @Indy Wilson also had 100 rushing yards so we had over 200 yards rushing and still lost.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

Actually, I think the key to winning is to beat the secondary and limit our passing.

Seems teams that were successful at both had the best results against us. Stopping Lynch just exposes our opponents' defense to big passing plays.

Every team has to play to their own strengths. Selling out to stop Marshawn is a flawed concept. Seattle can win when other defenses cheat to win against one aspect of ours.

 

[Largent80]

If you watched the Chicago game, they showed the only way. A FAST, and Precision passing game.

They moved the ball fairly well doing that. Of course we were playing way off in the secondary, hence no "LOB" penalties in 3 games. But I see their chance as trying the no-huddle and using the same tactic.

Whatever they choose...They are going to get beat handily.

 

[Tech Worlds]

OK let me step in here and be the voice of reason... Listen up folks...

The year before Russell arrived we had Jackson as our QB. He quarterbacked us to a 7 win season. That team had a good running game and a good defense. Not last year's defense but a playoff caliber one.

The next two years under Russell Wilson's direction the team won double digit games each year and a superb owl last year.

So who again do you want to stop?

 

[Brahn]

Let's be honest. It's absolutely impossible to beat the Seahawks so why even theorize on how.

Looking back at the decade no SB winner that hasn't been caught cheating has ever failed to repeat. Why are writers writing and players even playing this year.

According to many Niner backers, you cannot beat the Hawks because the NFL wanted us to be champs. The game is fixed until the Niners win another one. That one of course will be fully earned with no bias on how.

See what I am saying. Until you beat us in the big game we are impossible to beat. Sure you may get a win here and there, but the fact you made that comment shows that we are impossible to beat. We are already in your head.

 

[Marvin49]

OK let me step in here and be the voice of reason... Listen up folks...

The year before Russell arrived we had Jackson as our QB. He quarterbacked us to a 7 win season. That team had a good running game and a good defense. Not last year's defense but a playoff caliber one.

The next two years under Russell Wilson's direction the team won double digit games each year and a superb owl last year.

So who again do you want to stop?

Right...because Wilson/Jackson is the only difference in those teams. :shock:

Of course Wilson is a very good QB, but are you really saying that the 'hawks could switch to a 4 WR package most of the time and have the same success? A lot of Wilsons passing efficiency comes because teams are stacking the box. No shame in that. Niners are built the same way. So were the Cowboys of the 90's.

I really don't understand why this is such news to some of you. Can they win without Lynch? Of course. You still need to focus on stopping him first tho. What would happen if teams just decided to stop Wilson first and defend the Seahawks the same way they defend GB/NE/Denver/NO?

Think about it.

 

[Tech Worlds]

OK let me step in here and be the voice of reason... Listen up folks...

The year before Russell arrived we had Jackson as our QB. He quarterbacked us to a 7 win season. That team had a good running game and a good defense. Not last year's defense but a playoff caliber one.

The next two years under Russell Wilson's direction the team won double digit games each year and a superb owl last year.

So who again do you want to stop?

Right...because Wilson/Jackson is the only difference in those teams. :shock:

Of course Wilson is a very good QB, but are you really saying that the 'hawks could switch to a 4 WR package most of the time and have the same success? A lot of Wilsons passing efficiency comes because teams are stacking the box. No shame in that. Niners are built the same way. So were the Cowboys of the 90's.

I really don't understand why this is such news to some of you. Can they win without Lynch? Of course. You still need to focus on stopping him first tho. What would happen if teams just decided to stop Wilson first and defend the Seahawks the same way they defend GB/NE/Denver/NO?

Think about it.

They stacked the box against Tavares as well. He couldn't make them pay.

What is so hard for you to understand?

 

[Marvin49]

OK let me step in here and be the voice of reason... Listen up folks...

The year before Russell arrived we had Jackson as our QB. He quarterbacked us to a 7 win season. That team had a good running game and a good defense. Not last year's defense but a playoff caliber one.

The next two years under Russell Wilson's direction the team won double digit games each year and a superb owl last year.

So who again do you want to stop?

Right...because Wilson/Jackson is the only difference in those teams. :shock:

Of course Wilson is a very good QB, but are you really saying that the 'hawks could switch to a 4 WR package most of the time and have the same success? A lot of Wilsons passing efficiency comes because teams are stacking the box. No shame in that. Niners are built the same way. So were the Cowboys of the 90's.

I really don't understand why this is such news to some of you. Can they win without Lynch? Of course. You still need to focus on stopping him first tho. What would happen if teams just decided to stop Wilson first and defend the Seahawks the same way they defend GB/NE/Denver/NO?

Think about it.

They stacked the box against Tavares as well. He couldn't make them pay.

What is so hard for you to understand?

Dude. Seriously?

Why do people take those comments as an insult? Did I say Wilson was no better than Tavares? Of course he is. That isn't and has never had even a passing relationship with my point.

Come on now...not complicated.

You also didn't answer my question in regards to what would happen if teams focused on stopping Wilson first. Seattle would LOVE that. Lynch would put up 3000 yards. LOL.

 

[rigelian]

OK let me step in here and be the voice of reason... Listen up folks...

The year before Russell arrived we had Jackson as our QB. He quarterbacked us to a 7 win season. That team had a good running game and a good defense. Not last year's defense but a playoff caliber one.

The next two years under Russell Wilson's direction the team won double digit games each year and a superb owl last year.

So who again do you want to stop?

Right...because Wilson/Jackson is the only difference in those teams. :shock:

Of course Wilson is a very good QB, but are you really saying that the 'hawks could switch to a 4 WR package most of the time and have the same success? A lot of Wilsons passing efficiency comes because teams are stacking the box. No shame in that. Niners are built the same way. So were the Cowboys of the 90's.

I really don't understand why this is such news to some of you. Can they win without Lynch? Of course. You still need to focus on stopping him first tho. What would happen if teams just decided to stop Wilson first and defend the Seahawks the same way they defend GB/NE/Denver/NO?

Think about it.

They stacked the box against Tavares as well. He couldn't make them pay.

What is so hard for you to understand?

Dude. Seriously?

Why do people take those comments as an insult? Did I say Wilson was no better than Tavares? Of course he is. That isn't and has never had even a passing relationship with my point.

Come on now...not complicated.

You also didn't answer my question in regards to what would happen if teams focused on stopping Wilson first. Seattle would LOVE that. Lynch would put up 3000 yards. LOL.

I actually think the 49ers focus on containing Wilson more than stopping Lynch. The 49ers almost always put a spy on Wilson, and they completely alter their pass rush. Which is one the reasons why Lynch tends to have rushing games way above what other running backs do against the 49ers.

The New Orleans Saints first game was a complete sellout to stop Lynch and it failed miserably. The Broncos were taken apart by Wilson when the did everything possible to stop Lynch.

I think the only workable solution is balanced, pretty much the way the 49ers have played it.

 

[Marvin49]

Right...because Wilson/Jackson is the only difference in those teams. :shock:

Of course Wilson is a very good QB, but are you really saying that the 'hawks could switch to a 4 WR package most of the time and have the same success? A lot of Wilsons passing efficiency comes because teams are stacking the box. No shame in that. Niners are built the same way. So were the Cowboys of the 90's.

I really don't understand why this is such news to some of you. Can they win without Lynch? Of course. You still need to focus on stopping him first tho. What would happen if teams just decided to stop Wilson first and defend the Seahawks the same way they defend GB/NE/Denver/NO?

Think about it.

They stacked the box against Tavares as well. He couldn't make them pay.

What is so hard for you to understand?

Dude. Seriously?

Why do people take those comments as an insult? Did I say Wilson was no better than Tavares? Of course he is. That isn't and has never had even a passing relationship with my point.

Come on now...not complicated.

You also didn't answer my question in regards to what would happen if teams focused on stopping Wilson first. Seattle would LOVE that. Lynch would put up 3000 yards. LOL.

I actually think the 49ers focus on containing Wilson more than stopping Lynch. The 49ers almost always put a spy on Wilson, and they completely alter their pass rush. Which is one the reasons why Lynch tends to have rushing games way above what other running backs do against the 49ers.

The New Orleans Saints first game was a complete sellout to stop Lynch and it failed miserably. The Broncos were taken apart by Wilson when the did everything possible to stop Lynch.

I think the only workable solution is balanced, pretty much the way the 49ers have played it.

Kinda true....but not everyone has the front 7 the Niners have had, so not really an option for many other teams.

 

[IndyHawk]

Two things..1 when I see Lynch have a good game against SC it's because he just beats them down till they give..It's nothing pretty-just smashmouth and then he starts getting 5,10 ect 2nd thing-last year we could be down offensive wise but DEFENSE makes plays,scores -puts us in great field spots ..I think this year will be the same..If you shut our offense down..Yours better be able to outscore what our defense gets us and that might happen 1 to 3 times ..Maybe not at all

 

[Sarlacc83]

It has to be a key for Green Bay. They don't have Raji. Other teams controlling the ball kills the Packers because of their passing offense.

I mean, their D is pretty much screwed either way, but the stance is somewhat justified.

 

[Smellyman]

Lynch has been shut down by a lot defenses. It leads to 8 comeback wins for the QB.

I have never seen a qb put his team on his back like RW does when called upon.

 

[TAB420]

Let's be honest. It's absolutely impossible to beat the Seahawks so why even theorize on how.

Looking back at the decade no SB winner that hasn't been caught cheating has ever failed to repeat. Why are writers writing and players even playing this year.

According to many Niner backers, you cannot beat the Hawks because the NFL wanted us to be champs. The game is fixed until the Niners win another one. That one of course will be fully earned with no bias on how.

See what I am saying. Until you beat us in the big game we are impossible to beat. Sure you may get a win here and there, but the fact you made that comment shows that we are impossible to beat. We are already in your head.

I asked a poster over at webzone if he really believed the NFCC game was fixed for Seattle to win, and after he stated that he did believe it was, I asked him why he bothered watching the NFL at all? And If the Niner's won the Super Bowl next year, would that mean it was fixed? He replied "no", it would mean the ref's got it right for once.

 

[Sports Hernia]

The last team that used that philosophy lost 43-8 even with the "worlds best offense"!
Granted I think AR is a tougher match up than Pey Pey, but I think the Hawks win this one easily.

 

[Marvin49]

Let's be honest. It's absolutely impossible to beat the Seahawks so why even theorize on how.

Looking back at the decade no SB winner that hasn't been caught cheating has ever failed to repeat. Why are writers writing and players even playing this year.

According to many Niner backers, you cannot beat the Hawks because the NFL wanted us to be champs. The game is fixed until the Niners win another one. That one of course will be fully earned with no bias on how.

See what I am saying. Until you beat us in the big game we are impossible to beat. Sure you may get a win here and there, but the fact you made that comment shows that we are impossible to beat. We are already in your head.

I asked a poster over at webzone if he really believed the NFCC game was fixed for Seattle to win, and after he stated that he did believe it was, I asked him why he bothered watching the NFL at all and If the Niner's won it all next year would that mean it was fixed? He replied no, it would mean the ref's got it right for once.

Right...because that's exactly how ever member of the 'zone thinks.

Sigh.

 

[TAB420]

Let's be honest. It's absolutely impossible to beat the Seahawks so why even theorize on how.

Looking back at the decade no SB winner that hasn't been caught cheating has ever failed to repeat. Why are writers writing and players even playing this year.

According to many Niner backers, you cannot beat the Hawks because the NFL wanted us to be champs. The game is fixed until the Niners win another one. That one of course will be fully earned with no bias on how.

See what I am saying. Until you beat us in the big game we are impossible to beat. Sure you may get a win here and there, but the fact you made that comment shows that we are impossible to beat. We are already in your head.

I asked a poster over at webzone if he really believed the NFCC game was fixed for Seattle to win, and after he stated that he did believe it was, I asked him why he bothered watching the NFL at all and If the Niner's won it all next year would that mean it was fixed? He replied no, it would mean the ref's got it right for once.

Right...because that's exactly how ever member of the 'zone thinks.

Sigh.

Did I say everyone Marvin? or did I say a poster?