Random thoughts on the Chargers game

[RolandDeschain]

ahh so instead of taking the 3 tds we should have eaten more time and hoped we got them later. dumb statement

No, the only thing dumb here is your interpretation of what I said. The drives we DIDN'T score on, or even really start driving down the field on, are our fault. Our offense was given the ball with time to work just as many times as the Chargers offense was.

 

[hoxrox]

Pete just said on the radio that M.L's back had tightened up, that Sherman was "really tired" and that the heat WAS a factor.

Ok hopefully that explains why they went 'out of character' and didn't use him as much as they should have. Efficiency, high yards per play and scoring fast is fine, but it obviously wasn't a good game plan in this situation. I don't care if the score is 9 to 6, as long as we win.

The offense should have slowed down the tempo and kept the Chargers D on the field, and Rivers off the field.

Chargers played keep away and it worked to perfection. Efficient dink and dunk passes, which put them in 3rd and manageable situations. Look for Denver to do the exact same thing.

 

[hawkfan68]

Pete just said on the radio that M.L's back had tightened up, that Sherman was "really tired" and that the heat WAS a factor.

Ok hopefully that explains why they went 'out of character' and didn't use him as much as they should have. Efficiency, high yards per play and scoring fast is fine, but it obviously wasn't a good game plan in this situation. I don't care if the score is 9 to 6, as long as we win.

The offense should have slowed down the tempo and kept the Chargers D on the field, and Rivers off the field.

Chargers played keep away and it worked to perfection. Efficient dink and dunk passes, which put them in 3rd and manageable situations. Look for Denver to do the exact same thing.

Good points. Denver did dink and dunk a lot in the Superbowl. The difference was that the threat was minimized by solid tackling and aggressive defense. The difference in yesterday's game was the tackling was subpar resulting in yards after catch plays that kept drives going. Thus the Chargers owning the time of possession. The defense was not as aggressive yesterday for whatever reason. I think it had to do with the lack of respect for the Charger receivers and passing game. They just stopped GB which has better QB and WRs the prior week. They thought they could walk in and go through the motions with the same result. They got burned. Hopefully it was a lesson learned and doesn't happen again.

 

[Reaneypark]

Pete just said on the radio that M.L's back had tightened up, that Sherman was "really tired" and that the heat WAS a factor.

Ok hopefully that explains why they went 'out of character' and didn't use him as much as they should have. Efficiency, high yards per play and scoring fast is fine, but it obviously wasn't a good game plan in this situation. I don't care if the score is 9 to 6, as long as we win.

The offense should have slowed down the tempo and kept the Chargers D on the field, and Rivers off the field.

Chargers played keep away and it worked to perfection. Efficient dink and dunk passes, which put them in 3rd and manageable situations. Look for Denver to do the exact same thing.

Good points. Denver did dink and dunk a lot in the Superbowl. The difference was that the threat was minimized by solid tackling and aggressive defense. The difference in yesterday's game was the tackling was subpar resulting in yards after catch plays that kept drives going. Thus the Chargers owning the time of possession. The defense was not as aggressive yesterday for whatever reason. I think it had to do with the lack of respect for the Charger receivers and passing game. They just stopped GB which has better QB and WRs the prior week. They thought they could walk in and go through the motions with the same result. They got burned. Hopefully it was a lesson learned and doesn't happen again.

That's what I saw too, the D was a step off on how it normally attacks an offense. They seemed more content to let San Diego force the action and hope they made mistakes, rather than force them into mistakes.

 

[dontbelikethat]

Also, I can't fathom people putting this on offensive play calling. The team was ridiculously efficient in their limited opps. Lynch didn't get the ball because we didn't have the ball enough and some penalties/blown up plays took the run game out of the mix.

This game was won on Rivers' ability to covert 3rd down on our defense. He's made an elite career on that, and I tip my cap to him. Would've loved to play him in typical SD conditions, but oh well, it is what it is.

Agree with pretty much everything you've said in the thread. It's pretty much how I felt about it all. Also, it's not like the Hawks didn't get their chances to come back, got some good chances in there but just couldn't capitalize at the end.

 

[Cinnamongirl]

You have been a troll on this board for months. You don't come into the main forum to discuss football but rather post exclusively in the Shack. You can't even pretend to be anything other than what you are/do.

On the football field, your team will find out how football should be played. We are 9-1 in the RW era after a loss, and undefeated at home in those games.

If you want to come here and talk football, don't come in here with a backhanded compliment to me. I grew up playing football and have been a student of the game for years.

I had just never seen it. I just think you got out coached. SD was watching the film and found a way to throw shorter passes under the seahawks then add the mistakes and you had a bad game.

 

[themunn]

Pete just said on the radio that M.L's back had tightened up, that Sherman was "really tired" and that the heat WAS a factor.

Yeah, a factor affecting the other team just as much as our own. Excuse for nothing.

The heat was only a factor because the defense couldn't stop a 3rd down conversion so couldn't get of the field. Hence the start of a viscious cycle that culminated in allowing San Diego to have the ball for 42:15. Which then allowed the heat to take effect. Basically it was on the defense not the weather because if the defense had done their job the weather would have been irrelevant.

You're right in that it's a vicious cycle - it's likely that the gameplan was to play mistake free football without being overly aggressive (aggression=effort=more tiring) and rely on San Diego making mistakes. Unfortunately the result was that San Diego made almost zero mistakes and left our guys on the field, tired, and unable to play aggressively or they'd make mistakes.

It was poor gameplanning from the outset and it cost us

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Pete just said on the radio that M.L's back had tightened up, that Sherman was "really tired" and that the heat WAS a factor.

Yeah, a factor affecting the other team just as much as our own. Excuse for nothing.

The heat was only a factor because the defense couldn't stop a 3rd down conversion so couldn't get of the field. Hence the start of a viscious cycle that culminated in allowing San Diego to have the ball for 42:15. Which then allowed the heat to take effect. Basically it was on the defense not the weather because if the defense had done their job the weather would have been irrelevant.

You're right in that it's a vicious cycle - it's likely that the gameplan was to play mistake free football without being overly aggressive (aggression=effort=more tiring) and rely on San Diego making mistakes. Unfortunately the result was that San Diego made almost zero mistakes and left our guys on the field, tired, and unable to play aggressively or they'd make mistakes.

It was poor gameplanning from the outset and it cost us

It happens, remember they did the exact same to Denver last year. What did Denver do? They adjusted and blew them out of the building the next time they played. The first game Denver was passive on defense but the second game they were having none of it they got into San Diego's grill and refused to let them dink and dunk and forced Rivers to throw the ball into riskier windows.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

Not worried about offensive game plan. Hard to argue with the efficiency or points put up given the snaps and time we got. We lost the turnover battle and the TOP battle decisively. But we did well with the time we did have the ball.

The one issue I had, I hope is something we grow from:

Defensive hubris.

Seattle has during this off season hammered home this idea that we 'do what we do' and force teams to adjust to us. And while I think that served us well last year -- I think we should come to grips that the losses of Clemons and McDonald are going to have a strong impact on our 4 man rush this year. We didn't replace those elements this year.

I mentioned elsewhere, that I really hoped that we would game plan for the SD game this time. Rivers reminds me of a much better version of Marc Bulger. Both QBs are ridiculously good when they don't face pressure. And SD has difficulty managing the blitz. I had hoped that Seattle would tailor their defensive approach to an opponents' weakness this week and we didn't do that in the first half.

Now in the second half, we blitzed with near abandon. And it worked very well. But it seemed that it was a lesson learned just a bit too late.

Going forward, I am hoping that Seattle deviates from our approach. I think it's merely hubris to think we're going to have the same results as last year because we did lose some pass rush talent along the line. We may need to mix it up more aggressively as a result of that lost productivity. This is a flexible defense with a lot of interchangeable parts. So we should be well equipped to tailor our approach to each teams' weaknesses.

Ultimately, Rivers is a much worse QB if he faces pressure and can't establish a rhythm. IMO, we let him go bananas on our defense by design in the first half. I hope we get more creative with our future opponents.

 

[Largent80]

New trends get figured out quickly in the NFL. There are people that make money trying to figure them out.

Yes, we have great athletes that execute, however, the curve has to narrow at some point.

 

[Anthony!]

ahh so instead of taking the 3 tds we should have eaten more time and hoped we got them later. dumb statement

No, the only thing dumb here is your interpretation of what I said. The drives we DIDN'T score on, or even really start driving down the field on, are our fault. Our offense was given the ball with time to work just as many times as the Chargers offense was.

Your are right your statement is dumb, you are basically giving the defense a pass to try and blame the offense when they did all they could given how little they had the ball. Sorry this is on the defense period. Could the offense have done more yeah, I mean the o-line could have tried to pass block, the wr could have not had 4 drops, but when your defense lets the other team hold the ball 12 minutes in the first qtr and your offense scores a TD in the 3 minutes they get the ball your defense is a problem.

 

[Anthony!]

Pete just said on the radio that M.L's back had tightened up, that Sherman was "really tired" and that the heat WAS a factor.

Ok hopefully that explains why they went 'out of character' and didn't use him as much as they should have. Efficiency, high yards per play and scoring fast is fine, but it obviously wasn't a good game plan in this situation. I don't care if the score is 9 to 6, as long as we win.

The offense should have slowed down the tempo and kept the Chargers D on the field, and Rivers off the field.

Chargers played keep away and it worked to perfection. Efficient dink and dunk passes, which put them in 3rd and manageable situations. Look for Denver to do the exact same thing.

Good points. Denver did dink and dunk a lot in the Superbowl. The difference was that the threat was minimized by solid tackling and aggressive defense. The difference in yesterday's game was the tackling was subpar resulting in yards after catch plays that kept drives going. Thus the Chargers owning the time of possession. The defense was not as aggressive yesterday for whatever reason. I think it had to do with the lack of respect for the Charger receivers and passing game. They just stopped GB which has better QB and WRs the prior week. They thought they could walk in and go through the motions with the same result. They got burned. Hopefully it was a lesson learned and doesn't happen again.

That's what I saw too, the D was a step off on how it normally attacks an offense. They seemed more content to let San Diego force the action and hope they made mistakes, rather than force them into mistakes.

Agreed the D was off and hopefully this gets fixed, Some concerns on pass protection and wr drops as well as penalties though but mostly D.

 

[hawkfan68]

Agreed the D was off and hopefully this gets fixed, Some concerns on pass protection and wr drops as well as penalties though but mostly D.

I agree. Here's another way to look at it - The Seahawks held the ball for 17:45 and scored 21 points in that time. The Chargers had the ball for 42:15 and scored 30 points. So which team was more efficient scoring in the time they had the ball?

 

[RolandDeschain]

Your are right your statement is dumb, you are basically giving the defense a pass to try and blame the offense when they did all they could given how little they had the ball. Sorry this is on the defense period. Could the offense have done more yeah, I mean the o-line could have tried to pass block, the wr could have not had 4 drops, but when your defense lets the other team hold the ball 12 minutes in the first qtr and your offense scores a TD in the 3 minutes they get the ball your defense is a problem.

Reading comprehension must require about eight years of college to acquire based on how difficult you find it. I'm not giving the defense a pass for the mediocre-at-best product they fielded yesterday.

 

[Cinnamongirl]

Better for you and Denver that we won yesterday. I'd be prepared for it to get real ugly real fast if I were you.

I agree. I would have rather seen them win it is going to make it harder.

 

[HawkFan72]

All Seahawks fans can look at this game after the fact and nod their heads that this was a typical trap game that the Seahawks seem to always fall into.

I agree, the Chargers played out of their minds. They seem to always get up for these big regular season games. Remember they toppled Denver at the top of their game last year too. They just have a problem in the playoffs. But regular season, they know how to get up for big games. Rivers goes into another mode.

This was one we should have seen coming. Some of you did, I just didn't want to admit it.

 

[Cinnamongirl]

All Seahawks fans can look at this game after the fact and nod their heads that this was a typical trap game that the Seahawks seem to always fall into.

I agree, the Chargers played out of their minds. They seem to always get up for these big regular season games. Remember they toppled Denver at the top of their game last year too. They just have a problem in the playoffs. But regular season, they know how to get up for big games. Rivers goes into another mode.

This was one we should have seen coming. Some of you did, I just didn't want to admit it.

SD has a way of doing that we know and have been there. But one game in the scheme of things is not a big deal. Winning the super bowl and all the playoff games makes it hard to go undefeated.

 

[themunn]

ahh so instead of taking the 3 tds we should have eaten more time and hoped we got them later. dumb statement

No, the only thing dumb here is your interpretation of what I said. The drives we DIDN'T score on, or even really start driving down the field on, are our fault. Our offense was given the ball with time to work just as many times as the Chargers offense was.

On the other hand, the offense wasn't given the ball on San Diego's 32 yard line (Percy fumble), which, even had we failed to score a TD would have been a surefire FG. Neither did we get the ball on San Diego's 5 yard line (turnover on downs).
And we DEFINITELY didn't have a drive extended after a failure to convert on third down TWICE (Malcolm Smith holding and Bruce Irvin personal foul).

Do you think we could have scored 30 points to match the Chargers if the offense had been given those same opportunities the Chargers had?

The fumble by Harvin on the kickoff gave the Chargers an extra drive and helped the Chargers score 10 points without our offense touching the ball. We keep that ball there's 4 minutes on the clock. Drive up the field and score and instead of going into the half down 6, we go in up 1. That's not on the defense of course, but that's what cost us in the end.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Munn, the loss of offensive possession by Percy's fumble is kind of washed out by the extra possession the Chargers had where they only had time to kneel before the half. Go look at the drive chart and count how many times each offense actually received the ball to start a fresh set of downs with.

 

[themunn]

Munn, the loss of offensive possession by Percy's fumble is kind of washed out by the extra possession the Chargers had where they only had time to kneel before the half. Go look at the drive chart and count how many times each offense actually received the ball to start a fresh set of downs with.

If you ignore that possession it makes sense to ignore the final possession where we got the ball with 13 seconds to go when 9 points down.

In which case there were 9 SD possessions and 8 Seattle possessions.

SD - FG, TD, FG, TD (Harvin fumble), Punt, TD, Punt, Punt, FG
SEA - Punt, TD, Punt, TD, Punt, TD, Punt, Turnover on Downs

If SD don't get the possession we gifted them with the fumble, we punt on that final drive and SD have to drive up the field for a FG to win.
Even if we score our second TD in a minute again (of course, we would have attempted to eat clock instead of score on a 1 minute drill), at the very least we kick off to them and they have to drive the length of the field instead of start on our 32.

If Irvin doesn't push Rivers out of bounds that TD becomes a FG.

We spotted them 11 points with a special teams gaffe and a defensive gaffe. When starting drives in their own half the Chargers scored 20 points (and one of those drives started at their own 45 yard line after Ryan's dreadful punt). When starting drives in their own half the Seahawks scored 21 points.

It's easy for me to say that the Chargers offense played better than ours because they scored points AND controlled the clock. But I can't pin any blame on the offense for the way they played, because the defense and special teams mishaps were what put them in that position.