Oct. 7th Rams Game Review

[NorthHawk]

Well, that was a fun game to watch. Too bad it didn't fall in our favor, but teams that go on to win over the course of the year often get the breaks at the right time.
In this game it was the holding call late in the 4th Quarter.

Offense:
It's great to see the run game come alive and we can see what a blocking scheme and commitment to the run game can do for an Offense.
The different play calling is having an effect with more shorter passes and variety of looks. We're still not like the Saints or Rams, but we never will be.
We never expected to win shootouts, but to put up 31 points (and should have had a chance to score 34) on the Rams is a big positive.
Both Carson and Davis run hard, but I doubt both will be able to last the year without losing significant time to injury.
David Moore is starting to make plays and Lockett seems to be back to form after his gruesome broken leg of 2 years ago.
In all a big positive on Offense. Let's hope it wasn't just home team emotion and revenge for last year and we can get that effort every game for the rest of the year.

Defense:
Need a consistent pass rush, which will help the secondary.
Flowers and Griffin played pretty good on the edges, but we're still soft in the middle. That can be fixed with more pressure.
For the most part Gurly was held in check. He's going to get his yards, but he didn't have a lot of big yardage runs.
We missed ET, but Thompson played pretty well and should improve with consistent playing time. Experience will correct the mistakes he made, but he looks to
have the ability to be a solid Safety.

Special Teams:
Didn't like the blocked punt, but the drop kick kickoffs were interesting. Teams around the league are testing which tactics work best to limit returns and we're
no different.
Coverage needs some work, but there's hope.

In all, a positive result if you can have one with a loss.
After all, not many expected us to win outright and a lot of people expected a blowout.
That we matched them until the end shows we have some promise on both sides of the ball.

[RiverDog]

This was Russell's 3rd straight solid effort, with zero turnovers and no stupid sacks. He's finally starting to step up into the pocket, and although he still absorbed a couple of sacks, at least they were for 6-8 yard loss instead of 15 yards.

The offensive line has started to get some push up front, and both running backs ran well. The fakes on play action passes have more credibility to them. Tyler Lockett seems to have replaced Doug Baldwin as Russell's favorite receiver.

I thought that Bradley McDougald had a very good game, and is rapidly becoming one of our team leaders. He's Kam Chancellor lite.

Dickson's drop kicks on kickoffs are intriuging. The guy has some amazing control when it comes to kicking a football.

In the end, two penalties killed us. We would have had to play a perfect game to beat the Rams, and we almost did if it hadn't have been for a false start and offensive holding penalties that took us out of FG range.

I'm still sticking by my 7-9 forecast.

[NorthHawk]

Good points about Wilson and McDougald. They are both playing pretty well and Russell seems to be settling into the changes Schottenheimer has made.
I had a quick look at the remaining schedule and I think the best we can do is 8-8, but who knows how it will unfold.

When are you leaving for London?

[RiverDog]

Good points about Wilson and McDougald. They are both playing pretty well and Russell seems to be settling into the changes Schottenheimer has made.
I had a quick look at the remaining schedule and I think the best we can do is 8-8, but who knows how it will unfold.

When are you leaving for London?

One of my other points was Pete's game management. Why did he wait until after the 2 minute warning to call his timeouts instead of before?

My first leg on my flight to London leaves Wednesday at 7:00am, arrive in London on Thursday at 6:40am local. We got what looks like some really great seats, 1st row in the 2nd level, off the 10 yard line, and they were cheaper than what I paid in Seattle for the Cowboys game for much worse seats. One oddity is that the tickets, bought from Ticketmaster UK, are the old fashion type instead of electronic and were shipped via DHL. Brits must be stuck in the 21st century. I'll be meeting Irish Greg there, and we plan on spending a week in the UK, including a trip to Dublin to honor Greg's heritage. There's a pub right at the base of London Bridge that's serving as Seahawk headquarters, with a rally scheduled for Saturday night. Thanks for asking!

[c_hawkbob]

It was a great game that we just happened to wind up on the wrong end of. We could just as easily have won that game as lost it. We played the best team in the league and proved ourselves capable of holding our own with them. I feel much better about our team now than I did before the game that's for sure! I'm sticking with my preseason assertion that we are capable of being in the hunt for a playoff spot at the end of the year.

Now that I've made it clear that I am not unhappy with the team I want to address that Timeout atthe end of the game that so many were insisting was "the only way to go" or "the right move 100 out of 100 times" ...

It was a bad timeout.

There was 1:39 on the clock (not 1:20) and the ref had already wound the clock, time was running off and they were in formation to punt it. Pete wanted to save the 33 seconds (not 40) that were left on the play clock thinking they could run it all the way down, take a delay and then punt with 1:06 left.

It would have been a sound move if we hadn't just wasted our 2nd time out, leaving us with just the one. Using that last one put the Lambs in position to end the game with a successful 4th down conversion, which at a half a yard was not that difficult for the players to coax the coach into.

If he'd just let the clock run we'd have had the ball, Russell Wilson, a minute left on the clock and a time out to use. Remember now, they had no time outs themselves, so there is no thinking that they were just trying to draw us offsides and then gone for it if we hadn't ... no, they were lined up to punt with no timeouts, they were going to punt.

But calling the time out to save those 33 seconds gave them the chance to change their minds and go for it and us with no recourse. Game over.

I'm over it though. I am not calling for Pete's head on a platter, just clarifying my position from a previous debate.

[idhawkman]

I knew as soon as Pete called that TO that it was the wrong thing to do. We only needed 3 points.

That said the previous drive we were in FG range for seabass, too. All we needed to do was run the ball three times up the middle and make sure the ball was in the middle of the hash marks on the third one.

[HumanCockroach]

Mistake to wait until after 2 minute warning to use timeouts imho, absolutely NOT one to attempt to give Wilson more time to move in to FG range.... 60+ yard kicks aren't something you look for at that moment around 4 minutes left in the game. Jankowski has the leg to hit from there, but sub 70% accuracy certainly doesn't make most warm and fuzzy( unfortunately it's got to go through them bars... lol)....

Ultimately, the final drive, and the first first down of the Rams ensuing one, ended the game. Disappointing to see the offense unable to run a second and 11 play within the play clock / false start, unfortunately, a TO there might indeed have won Seattle the game, but understandable, keeping the two... I'm honestly not sure if Ifedi moved because play clock had expired, or if he moved do to Wilson screaming for the ball( or if he got the yips, though weird timing if that's the case).... the hold from what they showed wasn't egregious, but was certainly a hold, unfortunate that the officials decided that then was when they would start calling it on either team for pretty much the entirety of the gane.... even THEN there was a chance, but as Seattle has a tendency to do, they wanted it ALL back, which is silly, 10 to 15 yards.... you are at the VERY least in a position to decide between a long fg attempt, a punt, or even going for it on 4th down.... instead, they have themselves 0 choices, the defense that had been stout in one area all afternoon, picked the worst moment to go soft against the run, the most talented kicker I've ever seen punted a ball 29 yards, to place them on their 20, instead of pinning them, as he has done fantastically since he's been in Seattle.... you add all that up, and you never really gave yourself a chance.... it's unfortunate, but it simply doesn't always go your way.

[RiverDog]

Mistake to wait until after 2 minute warning to use timeouts imho, absolutely NOT one to attempt to give Wilson more time to move in to FG range.... 60+ yard kicks aren't something you look for at that moment around 4 minutes left in the game. Jankowski has the leg to hit from there, but sub 70% accuracy certainly doesn't make most warm and fuzzy( unfortunately it's got to go through them bars... lol)....

Ultimately, the final drive, and the first first down of the Rams ensuing one, ended the game. Disappointing to see the offense unable to run a second and 11 play within the play clock / false start, unfortunately, a TO there might indeed have won Seattle the game, but understandable, keeping the two... I'm honestly not sure if Ifedi moved because play clock had expired, or if he moved do to Wilson screaming for the ball( or if he got the yips, though weird timing if that's the case).... the hold from what they showed wasn't egregious, but was certainly a hold, unfortunate that the officials decided that then was when they would start calling it on either team for pretty much the entirety of the gane.... even THEN there was a chance, but as Seattle has a tendency to do, they wanted it ALL back, which is silly, 10 to 15 yards.... you are at the VERY least in a position to decide between a long fg attempt, a punt, or even going for it on 4th down.... instead, they have themselves 0 choices, the defense that had been stout in one area all afternoon, picked the worst moment to go soft against the run, the most talented kicker I've ever seen punted a ball 29 yards, to place them on their 20, instead of pinning them, as he has done fantastically since he's been in Seattle.... you add all that up, and you never really gave yourself a chance.... it's unfortunate, but it simply doesn't always go your way.

Cbob has a valid point about the timeout at 1:39, but I'm still wondering why Pete didn't call his timeouts before the 2 minute warning rather than after. To me, that was the worse of the two decisions.

[jshawaii22]

Isn't 20/20 hindsight a wonderful thing? Nothing works every time you do it. That would be too easy. You have to play percentages, and every ex-football talking head mostly agreed with the move (and it certainly has been a talking point on national TV) --

As Pete said after the game, you can't get 'time' back. 33 seconds (OK, Bob?) is a lot of time and even though we didn't stop them on 4th down (which, by the way, if we had stopped them, none of this discussion would be valid) it doesn't take away the facts that were known only at that exact time in space and by all accounts, the timeout was correct.

This is similar to the post Super Bowl because of not handing off to Beast. Reasoning: he had fumbled multiple time at the goal line.. Because we only had something like 2- 6 work during the year... But none of that mattered, It goes down as the #1 worst calls ever, because we called a play that didn't work, not because it was 'wrong' to do it. Hindsight --

[Aseahawkfan]

I loved seeing the run game powering the offense again. If had our defense like old, it would have been our usual recipe for destruction. Pete's offense is boring, but it does work if the run game is going and the defense is strong. Not so much in our current situation. It sure helped us compete this week.

[RiverDog]

I loved seeing the run game powering the offense again. If had our defense like old, it would have been our usual recipe for destruction. Pete's offense is boring, but it does work if the run game is going and the defense is strong. Not so much in our current situation. It sure helped us compete this week.

If a run-orientated offense is expected to compete with a high scoring, prolific offense like the Rams, it has to be near perfect...no turnovers or drive killing penalties. We were almost perfect last Sunday, until that last drive, when two penalties killed us.

[Anthony]

If a run-orientated offense is expected to compete with a high scoring, prolific offense like the Rams, it has to be near perfect...no turnovers or drive killing penalties. We were almost perfect last Sunday, until that last drive, when two penalties killed us.

I think this offense will not be able to compete with high powered offenses on a consistent basis. However now that the run game is working, if they can meld that with the latter half 2015 offense, then we have something that can compete night in and night out The question though is will PC do it or not? I have a feeling, unfortunately, the answer is no, but we will see.

[Aseahawkfan]

If a run-orientated offense is expected to compete with a high scoring, prolific offense like the Rams, it has to be near perfect...no turnovers or drive killing penalties. We were almost perfect last Sunday, until that last drive, when two penalties killed us.

This is the type offense we've had since Pete arrived. We went to five straight playoffs. It doesn't need to be perfect. It needs to be backed up by a strong defense. This type of ball Pete wants is nothing more than Steeler football. Play action pass run offense with a strong defense. Run game grinds the clock down and moves the ball, pass game scores and gets chunks of yards, and the defense makes the stops to get the ball back. When you have the defense and run game for it, it works beautifully. When you lack one of those components, it's what you see on the field when we fail. Lack of defense doesn't get the ball back and lets them put points on the board forcing you to pass more negating the clock killing benefit of the run game. If you don't have the run game, offense gives the ball up too quick and keeps the defense on the field too long tiring them out. Right now it's looking like the run game is back. Now if Pete can rebuild the defense to top 5 or 10, we're back in business.

[HumanCockroach]

I'm not sure I agree completely with that assessment, clearly, that 9 game stretch following Graham's injury was not a deelio ball, run heavy offense... More like a west coast one, and to be honest, one I miss in the worst way.... that's this offenses ceiling, and one they've never attempted to replicate for some reason.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm not sure I agree completely with that assessment, clearly, that 9 game stretch following Graham's injury was not a deelio ball, run heavy offense... More like a west coast one, and to be honest, one I miss in the worst way.... that's this offenses ceiling, and one they've never attempted to replicate for some reason.

What do you mean "for some reason"? The reason is known: Pete. Pete wants to play run first, tough defense, ball control football. Only reason we've switched at any point is because our run game wasn't working or some aspect of the game. I know many fans want one of those fast passing attacks, but that isn't Pete. For Pete running the ball is dictating on offense, just like stopping the run is dictating on defense. That's just how he works. His metrics indicate that running the football with hard defense wins championships. Whether those metrics hold up in the modern NFL is open to debate.

[RiverDog]

If a run-orientated offense is expected to compete with a high scoring, prolific offense like the Rams, it has to be near perfect...no turnovers or drive killing penalties. We were almost perfect last Sunday, until that last drive, when two penalties killed us.

This is the type offense we've had since Pete arrived. We went to five straight playoffs. It doesn't need to be perfect. It needs to be backed up by a strong defense. This type of ball Pete wants is nothing more than Steeler football. Play action pass run offense with a strong defense. Run game grinds the clock down and moves the ball, pass game scores and gets chunks of yards, and the defense makes the stops to get the ball back. When you have the defense and run game for it, it works beautifully. When you lack one of those components, it's what you see on the field when we fail. Lack of defense doesn't get the ball back and lets them put points on the board forcing you to pass more negating the clock killing benefit of the run game. If you don't have the run game, offense gives the ball up too quick and keeps the defense on the field too long tiring them out. Right now it's looking like the run game is back. Now if Pete can rebuild the defense to top 5 or 10, we're back in business.

We don't have a strong defense, and probably won't for the next couple of years, so my logic stands: At least for the time being, if we are to compete consistently with a high scoring, passing offense like the Rams, we have to play a near perfect game with no turnovers and very few penalties.

That's one of the reasons why the Patriots have been successful, because they aren't dependent on fielding a top 3 defense ala Pete's philosphy.

[NorthHawk]

I generally agree with RD's comments on this. The Offense is under more pressure to succeed than in past years.
This past game showed us a little of how much better we can be when we commit to running and change things up a bit
like going up tempo, taking what the Defense is giving us when passing, more pre-snap motion and plain power running.

[NorthHawk]

My first leg on my flight to London leaves Wednesday at 7:00am, arrive in London on Thursday at 6:40am local. We got what looks like some really great seats, 1st row in the 2nd level, off the 10 yard line, and they were cheaper than what I paid in Seattle for the Cowboys game for much worse seats. One oddity is that the tickets, bought from Ticketmaster UK, are the old fashion type instead of electronic and were shipped via DHL. Brits must be stuck in the 21st century. I'll be meeting Irish Greg there, and we plan on spending a week in the UK, including a trip to Dublin to honor Greg's heritage. There's a pub right at the base of London Bridge that's serving as Seahawk headquarters, with a rally scheduled for Saturday night. Thanks for asking!

That sounds like it should be a lot of fun and it sounds like you two have good seats. Great to know you have a Seahawk home to visit prior to the game.
Have a great time and say hi to Greg.

[c_hawkbob]

Isn't 20/20 hindsight a wonderful thing? Nothing works every time you do it. That would be too easy. You have to play percentages, and every ex-football talking head mostly agreed with the move (and it certainly has been a talking point on national TV) --

As Pete said after the game, you can't get 'time' back. 33 seconds (OK, Bob?) is a lot of time and even though we didn't stop them on 4th down (which, by the way, if we had stopped them, none of this discussion would be valid) it doesn't take away the facts that were known only at that exact time in space and by all accounts, the timeout was correct.

This is similar to the post Super Bowl because of not handing off to Beast. Reasoning: he had fumbled multiple time at the goal line.. Because we only had something like 2- 6 work during the year... But none of that mattered, It goes down as the #1 worst calls ever, because we called a play that didn't work, not because it was 'wrong' to do it. Hindsight --

It's not hindsight man, it was real time sight! The instant he called that TO I told my wife it was going to cost us the game. I understand about conventional wisdom like you can't get 'time' back, but conventional wisdom are rules of thumb, not gospel written in stone. You have to be able to take individual circumstances into account, especially when the game is on the line. I understand why Pete called it, but I think his frustration with people asking him about the situation is a bit of obstinance on his part, it doesn't take a whole love of brain power to see that there was another way he could have gone and had a better outcome. And yes, in that regard it's just like the call at the end of XLIX. There was an equally reasonable alternative that could have changed the outcome of the game.

[Aseahawkfan]

We don't have a strong defense, and probably won't for the next couple of years, so my logic stands: At least for the time being, if we are to compete consistently with a high scoring, passing offense like the Rams, we have to play a near perfect game with no turnovers and very few penalties.

That's one of the reasons why the Patriots have been successful, because they aren't dependent on fielding a top 3 defense ala Pete's philosphy.

Exaggeration there much? Pete's offense isn't reliant on a top 3 defense. Contrary to what you state, the Patriots have maintained a top 10 points allowed defense consistently, sometimes top 5. That's about all we need to make this offense work. Funny how because Brady is the face man fans forget that Belichick at heart is a defensive coach. He has never let his defense slack. A better analogue would have been the Colts with Peyton Manning, which sounds like the type of team some fans here want including you.

We won't compete with a high scoring offense and not much of a defense. If you don't have a defense, you don't compete consistently. Any great coach knows this.

As far as changing philosophies, you have to spend serious resources to have a high scoring offense. Since this is a game of limited resources, you have to pick a philosophy to build around and maintain it because you don't get to just switch for a few years and then go back when you feel like it. Football doesn't work like that. Thus you won't change to a high scoring offense without the pieces to execute it.

As far as playing perfect ball, that doesn't happen for anyone. Tight games go one way or the other for teams all year. Nothing is going to change that.

Simple reality is we have to wait until Pete and John either rebuild the team in accordance with their philosophy or they fail and we change coaches and GM entering the unknown of a new coach. That's our options right now. Some people want to jump ship for the unknown hoping to find the next great coach even though that is extremely rare and some want to stick with Pete seeing if he can get his type of team rebuilt.

I expect a losing to borderline playoff year. If I see development of the pieces, then I'm good with it. I'm patient. The only team I've seen compete in the playoffs every year in the modern NFL is New England. There is only one Belichick. He doesn't coach for us. No one is likely to find that perfect HC and QB combo they have in New England again in our lifetime.

[Anthony]

I'm not sure I agree completely with that assessment, clearly, that 9 game stretch following Graham's injury was not a deelio ball, run heavy offense... More like a west coast one, and to be honest, one I miss in the worst way.... that's this offenses ceiling, and one they've never attempted to replicate for some reason.

WOW I agree. However, We all know why they don't replicate it. It is not the way PC wants to play. PC would rather struggle or even lose his way then win another, he has made that obvious, adn while with a to defense it can work, without it, it cant consistently work. A nice meld of the 2 would be great but again not what PC wants.

To be honest if this is what PC wants, I would trade Wilson now, as you don't need an Elite QB, you need a caretaker. Use the money and pics to improve the defense. We get a better defense presuming they can use the money and picks right which is questionable, and Wilson gets to a team that will build/use an offense built around and for him. Win-win

[Anthony]

Exaggeration there much? Pete's offense isn't reliant on a top 3 defense. Contrary to what you state, the Patriots have maintained a top 10 points allowed defense consistently, sometimes top 5. That's about all we need to make this offense work. Funny how because Brady is the face man fans forget that Belichick at heart is a defensive coach. He has never let his defense slack. A better analogue would have been the Colts with Peyton Manning, which sounds like the type of team some fans here want including you.

We won't compete with a high scoring offense and not much of a defense. If you don't have a defense, you don't compete consistently. Any great coach knows this.

As far as changing philosophies, you have to spend serious resources to have a high scoring offense. Since this is a game of limited resources, you have to pick a philosophy to build around and maintain it because you don't get to just switch for a few years and then go back when you feel like it. Football doesn't work like that. Thus you won't change to a high scoring offense without the pieces to execute it.

As far as playing perfect ball, that doesn't happen for anyone. Tight games go one way or the other for teams all year. Nothing is going to change that.

Simple reality is we have to wait until Pete and John either rebuild the team in accordance with their philosophy or they fail and we change coaches and GM entering the unknown of a new coach. That's our options right now. Some people want to jump ship for the unknown hoping to find the next great coach even though that is extremely rare and some want to stick with Pete seeing if he can get his type of team rebuilt.

I expect a losing to borderline playoff year. If I see development of the pieces, then I'm good with it. I'm patient. The only team I've seen compete in the playoffs every year in the modern NFL is New England. There is only one Belichick. He doesn't coach for us. No one is likely to find that perfect HC and QB combo they have in New England again in our lifetime.

ahh disagree PC offense does require a top defense, last game for an example. Using the Pats as an example is fools gold as that offense is built around and for Brady, and any other Qb pretty much as almost all the ones that have played when Brady was hurt did well. Our offense is not built around or for our QB. Now the LOl moment "you have to spend serious resources to have a high scoring offense. " ahh in the latter half of 2015 we avg over 30 points again and we had one of the lowest cost of an offense there is. All you need is the right system for the QB and players. So sorry yoru whole premis eis flawed and inaccurate.

[HumanCockroach]

What do you mean "for some reason"? The reason is known: Pete. Pete wants to play run first, tough defense, ball control football. Only reason we've switched at any point is because our run game wasn't working or some aspect of the game. I know many fans want one of those fast passing attacks, but that isn't Pete. For Pete running the ball is dictating on offense, just like stopping the run is dictating on defense. That's just how he works. His metrics indicate that running the football with hard defense wins championships. Whether those metrics hold up in the modern NFL is open to debate

If that's true. I'm officially in the get out of town band.... as should any fan that watched that historically successful run....

The thing is, saying the running game wasn't working. Or that Seattle wasn't running the ball effectively, isn't really accurate either. A good west coast offense. Has to be capable of running it ( as does pretty much any successful offense) guys like Craig weren't show pieces.... the issue that precluded that offense wasn't inability to run, but actually the loss of a receiver ( specifically Jimmy Graham) for the season.

Wilson wasn't passing the ball more than really any time during the last three seasons ( with a few games were it wad an exception not the rule), the shift wasn't some sort of new found dedication to the run, but instead, a fascination with "explosive " plays.... during that stretch, there were SOME, but they were a part of the passing game, not the bulk of it, as the bulk was short to midrange throws, not long bomb play action double moves, with an empty backfield and every receiver running 35 yard routes ( or deeper) .

As I've been discussing for quite some time... defenses study tendacies, Seattle's tendency has been, and continues to be the same, game in and game out... truth be told, a team that continuously chucks the ball down the field may be the EASIEST type of offense to defend, basically, it puts the offense in a bad position basically before they step on the field....

The reason that offense was so incredibly good, was defenses had to cover EVERYTHING, which creates thinking, and hesitation.... running, short passing, ins, outs, deep balls... etc, etc, etc.... the more they have to face, the BETTER it gets for EVERY single player on that offense.

[The POPE]

WOW I agree. However, We all know why they don't replicate it. It is not the way PC wants to play. PC would rather struggle or even lose his way then win another, he has made that obvious, adn while with a to defense it can work, without it, it cant consistently work. A nice meld of the 2 would be great but again not what PC wants.

To be honest if this is what PC wants, I would trade Wilson now, as you don't need an Elite QB, you need a caretaker. Use the money and pics to improve the defense. We get a better defense presuming they can use the money and picks right which is questionable, and Wilson gets to a team that will build/use an offense built around and for him. Win-win[/quote]

Anthony, for the majority of us it not all about Russell. Don't think anybody on this forum has advocated trading Russell. Yet, it sounds like your all for it as long as he can go somewhere were he is the focus of the offense. Russell is an above average QB, but Elite is a word that should be used carefully. Rogers = elite, Brady = elite, Russell? I'm not placing any bets with the Popes bookie for HOF enshrinement just yet. So my question to you that you don't want to answer is: are you a fan of the Seahawks or just the want to be president of Russells fan club? If Russell were to leave, I bet you would go with him. I wonder if Vegas would offer odds on that wager? Oh wait, here it comes, The pope twisted Anthony's words to suit his narrative, The Popes a troll....
Answer the question. Are you a Seahawk fan or just here because of your man crush?

Pope out

[jshawaii22]

Bob Wrote:

It's not hindsight man, it was real time sight! The instant he called that TO I told my wife it was going to cost us the game. I understand about conventional wisdom like you can't get 'time' back, but conventional wisdom are rules of thumb, not gospel written in stone. You have to be able to take individual circumstances into account, especially when the game is on the line. I understand why Pete called it, but I think his frustration with people asking him about the situation is a bit of obstinance on his part, it doesn't take a whole love of brain power to see that there was another way he could have gone and had a better outcome. And yes, in that regard it's just like the call at the end of XLIX. There was an equally reasonable alternative that could have changed the outcome of the game.

I guess the question is whether Russell, if they had punted, and then with 40 seconds and no timeouts has a better chance to get us "X" yards down the field and possible GW Field goal, or risk what happened. I will say that the Russell had torched the Rams all day, so maybe that would of worked.
Too bad they didn't stop the Rams on 4th down. All I wanted was to get across it wasn't necessarily a bad decision, it just didn't work.

[Anthony]

WOW I agree. However, We all know why they don't replicate it. It is not the way PC wants to play. PC would rather struggle or even lose his way then win another, he has made that obvious, adn while with a to defense it can work, without it, it cant consistently work. A nice meld of the 2 would be great but again not what PC wants.

To be honest if this is what PC wants, I would trade Wilson now, as you don't need an Elite QB, you need a caretaker. Use the money and pics to improve the defense. We get a better defense presuming they can use the money and picks right which is questionable, and Wilson gets to a team that will build/use an offense built around and for him. Win-win

Anthony, for the majority of us it not all about Russell. Don't think anybody on this forum has advocated trading Russell. Yet, it sounds like your all for it as long as he can go somewhere were he is the focus of the offense. Russell is an above average QB, but Elite is a word that should be used carefully. Rogers = elite, Brady = elite, Russell? I'm not placing any bets with the Popes bookie for HOF enshrinement just yet. So my question to you that you don't want to answer is: are you a fan of the Seahawks or just the want to be president of Russells fan club? If Russell were to leave, I bet you would go with him. I wonder if Vegas would offer odds on that wager? Oh wait, here it comes, The pope twisted Anthony's words to suit his narrative, The Popes a troll....
Answer the question. Are you a Seahawk fan or just here because of your man crush?

Pope out[/quote]

Ahh the troll resurfaces talking out the side of his face. I guees you missed the part were i said it would be good for us, you know draft picks, money to use. But hey i know it did not fit your narrative to truthfully say all i said, instead, only the few parts that suited you. Thenproblem is you quoted thr whole thing so people can see the win win, and the money and picks we would get. Fyi I have been a Hawks fan since the beging, unlike you who are just a troll

[HumanCockroach]

Smdh

[c_hawkbob]

I guess the question is whether Russell, if they had punted, and then with 40 seconds and no timeouts has a better chance to get us "X" yards down the field and possible GW Field goal, or risk what happened. I will say that the Russell had torched the Rams all day, so maybe that would of worked.
Too bad they didn't stop the Rams on 4th down. All I wanted was to get across it wasn't necessarily a bad decision, it just didn't work.

We would have had at least a minute left and 1 time out. they would have had to punt at 1:06 on the clock, so unless there was a killer return, Russ would have had more than enough time to get us into FG position.