My least favorite talking point making the rounds

[kearly]

"Will Seattle play their first complete game of the season next week?"

This bugs me.

I mean, Carolina, sure. SF, even with a blowout score, sure. Texans, obviously not a complete game. I thought the Seahawks played more than well enough to win against the Colts and lost because of factors outside their control. Seattle went 3-1 in those games, but you could argue none of them were complete efforts.

But let's be real. They were up 31-0 on Jacksonville, put their backups in, and basically broke even the rest of the way en route to a 45-17 blowout that probably isn't that close if not for Pete wanting to be nice to Gus. That's a complete game.

The Titans game would have been 23-6 if not for one of the most unusual and freakish plays in team history. Seattle gained 400+ on a defense that entered that game ranked top ten in the league, while completely smothering the Titans offense. That's a complete game.

The Seahawks were up by 3 scores in the fourth quarter against Arizona, and only gave up points in garbage time with prevent defense or on fumbles (which are notoriously random). Even with all those hemorraged points, they still won by 12 on the road, and dominated much more than that 12 point victory indicated.

Have the Seahawks played their best football every week? No. But they have played complete football games. Anyone that thinks otherwise, how many games from 2012 were complete games? By such an impossible standard, what, 3?

 

[BullHawk33]

I've always hated folks that get on their soapbox about a "complete game" because it completely disregards anything the opposing team does. These teams don't just roll over and let us take it to them, they make adjustments and try to win.

Frankly, I don't give a rats ass if we have a complete game or not as long as we keep winning, although it would be awesome to see a complete game for the last game of the season.

 

[HolyCatfish]

I'm with you Kearly, not sure what some of these talking-heads could be seeing. Our offense is amazingly varied. Not sure what else we could possibly add to the play book on O. Our D hasn't met it's match and special teams is on fire. The complete game seems to suggest we aren't finishing or the Hawks are weak somewhere.

 

[McGruff]

Even if it's true, who cares?

We're 6-1. No reason to make excuses for that . . .

W're the 5th ranked scoring offense, the 2nd ranked scoring defense, and one of the top ST's teams as well. I'd say we're reamrkably complete.

 

[Timberhawk]

Look at how well Carolina's D is playing now and how that team is coming along. Granted Carolina hasn't played the toughest teams the last three games, but 10AM start on the road against them in week one and that win is looking better every week, and like it was more of a complete game.

I agree, the team has played more complete than they are getting credit for. That said I think this only helps stoke the fire for a team that constantly plays bigger and better when they have a chip on their shoulder and while playing under the bright lights. So keep the doubt and concerns coming that's fine by me. Even welcomed.

 

[Tech Worlds]

The game had a start.

The game had an end.


Seams to be complete to me.

 

[AbsolutNET]

I have a feeling in order to have a complete game, you need to go on the road against a team like Denver, NOLA or SF and beat them handily. Beating teams like Jax and Tenn at home just doesn't count because the standards for our team are so high. I get caught up in it too, but a truly complete game in the NFL doesn't happen very often judging by the way people look for them.

 

[drdiags]

I think the players and coaches use this to motivate themselves. The media uses it to chart a team's performance. Fans use it to look forward to their all-phases beat down of the opponent.

It is just jargon used like "giving 110%". I don't pay it much mind but it is a conversation starter, even if it is subjective.

 

[hawk45]

I'm way more interested in when the Seahawks will play their first game where pass protection looks decent by NFL standards.

That'd be my definition of complete. It would...complete me. Er...

 

[RolandDeschain]

W're the 5th ranked scoring offense, the 2nd ranked scoring defense, and one of the top ST's teams as well. I'd say we're reamrkably complete.

That's like looking at a billionaire and going "they must really be good at making money". It's not that simple.

I just want us to stop making multiple boneheaded mistakes every single game. We've had 17 fumbles on offense this year, tied for worst in the league in that regard. Averaging more than 2 per game. Yet, our defense has forced 16 fumbles this year - #1 in the league. Talk about polar opposites. If some people think it's just fine to keep going forward fumbling that much on offense, so be it. Personally, I think it needs to be fixed.

 

[jblaze]

Yeah it's funny how perception and expectation changes when you're becoming "elite". No longer is a win good enough, you have to dominate and beat everyone by 30 points. Top 5 offense and defense each and every week or there's some sort of problem.

It's unfair but a good problem to have to be honest. The expectations change and usually that's for good reason. I'll take a W anyday though.

That said, it would be "fun" to watch a complete game on all three phases, not because it means anything necessarily, but I love watching my team play well.

Also, I think we're lining up to play our best football at the end of the season and into the playoffs. We're still growing and building right now and figuring out how we're going to do some things. In the last quarter of the season, I think we'll know exactly who we are and how we're going to bring it each and every week. This bodes well for our playoff aspirations.

 

[sutz]

Agreed, Kip, one of the more over-used cliches in the talking head-o-sphere.

I'm not sure I even know what it means. One thing I do know, it doesn't mean what Roland and his ilk are implying. It doesn't mean "we accept poor play in some aspects of our game" and move on.

Hell, if we did play a "complete game" it could mean that the team has peaked, and nobody really wants to peak in Sept/Oct, do they?

Rather than thinking I 'love mediocre play,' I choose to think I am enjoying the team piling up wins while it improves week to week. I don't see a lot of people outright ignoring flaws. I do see people saying they are unhappy after winning games.
:229031_shrug:

 

[Seahawks Guy]

I swear Seattle was on the field for all 4 quarters of every game this year....

 

[Tical21]

Let us be honest, the Jax game doesn't count. In the Tennessee game, our ofewnse really struggled for long stretches. The Arizona game was the first time it looked like most of the phases played really well for most of the game.

 

[RolandDeschain]

One thing I do know, it doesn't mean what Roland and his ilk are implying.

Oh, do you, now? :roll:

 

[Hawks46]

I have a feeling in order to have a complete game, you need to go on the road against a team like Denver, NOLA or SF and beat them handily. Beating teams like Jax and Tenn at home just doesn't count because the standards for our team are so high. I get caught up in it too, but a truly complete game in the NFL doesn't happen very often judging by the way people look for them.

It's funny about expectations, but true. A lot of fans bemoan the lack of national exposure. Most teams with national exposure are good, year after year. Finally, we get a lot of pub, and with it comes raised expectations. NFL Network isn't going to talk about us non stop unless we: A. have interesting players with a lot of skill (check! Wilson and Sherman), and B. are winning games or are expected to make a lot of noise in the playoffs and shape the NFL season.

I'd say a lot of these games were complete. No, we didn't play the best on offense against SF, but that's a good defense and most teams have done worse. Tennesse was a complete game but for one ST gaffe. So, almost complete?

I think calling AZ incomplete is lazy analysis. Looking at the box score, and seeing them score 22, you'd thinkit was closer. If you watched the game, it wasn't.

I also think these are being mislabeled. They're complete games, but we've been sloppy. In AZ, we dominated them, but gave up some cheap scores via dumb turnovers. That can and usually does improve. I think most mediots are looking at this team and theorizing that we can play so much better.

We also looked cleaner, smoother and more dominating in the last half of last year. I think people are waiting for that to happen again.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I don't think a true "complete" game is possible, but that doesn't mean the Hawks can't improve on some things that we haven't done well on;

1. Pass protection
2. Turnovers
3. Penalties
4. 3rd down conversions
5. Red Zone efficiency

So when you hear the talking heads say "complete game," these things are what they're talking about wanting to see improvements on. Btw, some of the items I mentioned we have improved on, but others like stupid turnovers we haven't. Not being critical, it's just that we have high expectations of how well the Hawks SHOULD play in games like these against far inferior teams. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[C-Dub]

I just want a win on MNF. I don't care if it's "complete."

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Anyone who doubts the Seahawks are in contender territory are just fooling themselves. We've let teams hang around a little longer than necessary in a few games, sure, but the Tennessee game was the only one that really irked me. And that was largely because it was at home against a backup QB.

Every Super Bowl team has a few close calls (and even losses) during the regular season.

 

[Greenhell]

Lets say we have a "complete" game this Monday. The meatheaded media would say otherwise. I ignore or take with a grain of salt. We're 6-1 and winning. There are things that need to be tightened up but there are games left in the season to improve on before the Hawks make their run. It starts with a healthy o-line and letting Russ do his thing.

1st world problems.