Two extremely contrasting views on yesterday's win

[theENGLISHseahawk]

I read two articles today, one on ESPN by Kevin Seifert. The other on NFL.com by Michael Silver.

The Seifert piece is extremely negative.

LINK: http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/ ... earing-act

Consider my glass half empty. NFL teams and their fans rarely pause to question the means of a playoff victory. They're hard to come by, no matter how they happen. But do you realize how close the Seahawks were to a divisional round knockout at the hands of a lesser -- and much dumber -- team? And do you agree that it provides at least a pause in anticipating a Super Bowl championship?

From my vantage point, however, the Seahawks looked like they were struggling more than they were just waiting for the right moment to strike. They lost whatever momentum they gained by the brief return of receiver Percy Harvin, whose concussion puts his availability in doubt for the NFC Championship Game. The Saints play good defense, but are they better than the San Francisco 49ers or the Carolina Panthers, one of whom will stand between the Seahawks and the Super Bowl? By my count, Wilson missed on two easy slant passes that would have converted third downs during that 26:11 stretch. Running back Marshawn Lynch, meanwhile, managed only 33 yards on 11 carries in that span.

The Michael Silver piece is titled "Seattle Seahawks peaking at right time".

LINK: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200000 ... r-bowl-run

You don't spit into the wind, or so the saying goes, but if you're Russell Wilson, the uncannily mature young leader of a loaded football team, and the pocket is collapsing on third-and-8 with 4:41 remaining in the first half of a divisional-round playoff game, you do throw into the wind and driving rain, lofting a perilously high floater into harm's way, when the guy on the other end is as scary-good as Percy Harvin.

That's one of the many revelations that came out of the Seattle Seahawks' 23-15 victory over the New Orleans Saints at gusty, soggy CenturyLink Field on Saturday, an ear-splitting madhouse that will also play host to next Sunday's NFC Championship Game. And whether it's the San Francisco 49ers or Carolina Panthers who earn the right to do battle with top-seeded Seattle, the Seahawks will be exceptionally confident in their ability to reach the franchise's second Super Bowl, because a team constructed for this moment is finally getting its sea legs.

Opinions are fun.

 

[sutz]

So, Wilson is "ineffective" for 26 minutes and his glass is half empty. What about Brees and no offense for 3 quarters? :229031_shrug:

 

[ivotuk]

Silver is smarter than Seifert.

Every pundit, coach, and player out there said it would be a much tougher, and closer game than the last one. THey also said the weather would have an effect on the throwing game.

We did exactly what Pete Carroll wanted us to do, run the ball with Lynch (140 yards), play great defense, and protect the ball (on a blustery, rainy day) on offense.

The defense did their job and only a rare poor punt by Jon Ryan and an odd DB deflected pass caught by a saint made it look worse than it did.

Russell Wilson protected the wet ball by being careful with his throws in gusty conditions and threw it away a lot. There were a couple of off target and dropped balls but we were playing the #2 passing defense (under 200 yards per game allowed) which is #4 overall with 49 sacks on the season.

It wasn't pretty, but it wasn't mean to be. The weather dictated a lot of how that game went. :thcoffee:

 

[Polaris]

Don't forget too (esp late in the game) that unlike the MNF game, virtually every luckly bounce and fluke play that could go the Saints way, did go their way. This happens. All too often, it means that the team that gets the lucky bounces advances regardless (esp in the playoffs). Seattle was able to survive it, and that in itself is remarkable.

Saints tried a lot of low percentage stuff late in the game and a heck of a lot of it worked and by no fault of the Seahawks.

 

[Reaneypark]

Good, I hope we hear crap like Seifert's all week. We know what happens when this team gets underestimated.

 

[keasley45]

Silver is smarter than Seifert.

Every pundit, coach, and player out there said it would be a much tougher, and closer game than the last one. THey also said the weather would have an effect on the throwing game.

We did exactly what Pete Carroll wanted us to do, run the ball with Lynch (140 yards), play great defense, and protect the ball (on a blustery, rainy day) on offense.

The defense did their job and only a rare poor punt by Jon Ryan and an odd DB deflected pass caught by a saint made it look worse than it did.

Russell Wilson protected the wet ball by being careful with his throws in gusty conditions and threw it away a lot. There were a couple of off target and dropped balls but we were playing the #2 passing defense (under 200 yards per game allowed) which is #4 overall with 49 sacks on the season.

It wasn't pretty, but it wasn't mean to be. The weather dictated a lot of how that game went. :thcoffee:

Two things. First, yeah, what we saw yesterday and in previous weeks might be 100% according to Pete's plan to play conservative and let the D win the game but being conservative does not mean you have to be predictable and lack a plan to attack a defense or any creatively utilize th eplayers you have to run an effective offense.

Second, if this is the philosophy by which we plan to ultimately win it all, i have serious concerns we aren't going to get there. Either Pete needs to light a fire under Bevell's ass and actually get him to run a real NFL offense, or, if he cant, we need to modify the approach a bit. We've been lucky to eek out a few wins this season and have lost a few we should have won not because the opposition was our equal, but because we play soooooooo uninspired and 'safe' on O that if the opposing team has a competent D and even a moderately effective gameplan, they'll be in position to beat us in the end. And my fear is that Pete sees this and is stubbornly just ignoring it and sticking to what basically amounts to an approach that says run into a stacked box and if you have to, either throw a slant or toss the ball up along the sideline and see if Doug or Tate can make a catch. I vividly remember the dumbfounded look of surprise on his face when it was obvious we were going to lose against both AZ and SF and how shocked he looked at StL when the rams were 3 yards away from beating us as time expired. I fear that if he cant see the problem, we're doomed to fail unless we are extremely lucky and the D plays 2 more games of completely dominant football.

I think if it was SF or Carolina yesterday, we lose. Why? because Brees NEEDS to beat our secondary to win and their are few teams that can do that. Cam and Kaep dont have to rely on the pass, they can each run effectively either by design or out of necessity. also, their defenses know what we want to do and are better equipped to shut that down than NO was. If our O cant produce and be part of the reason we win the game, either of our opponents next week have the skill both at the QB position and on DEF to wear us down and beat us.

 

[Riley12]

I have no contrasting views on the game - seeing it live and then again on the DVR.

That is, we were in control of that game from the time of the pregame warmups until 9 minutes left in the 3rd quarter.
From that point on, we started to shut it down on offense to run the clock, and slightly less so on defense when we started
playing a softer style.

Was I happy about it? No. You play for 60 minutes.
Was I worried? Also no. (Maybe a bit when Tate flubbed the onside kick.)

 

[seahawks08]

I have been in the boat where I used to think the same way after the 40, 50 points offense from last year. Then I had the same expectations this year. However when I started seeing 49ers score, they just get by winning by 1 or 2 points at the end. To me, that's smart football. Winning is all that matters, if your team figures out a way to win at the end, that is a team that can go deep for a Superbowl run. Yes for us fans, there is an element of entertainment factor and fireworks that we expect but I would rather have a team that wins more often than a team that put on 30 40 or 50 points.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

Silver is smarter than Seifert.

Every pundit, coach, and player out there said it would be a much tougher, and closer game than the last one. THey also said the weather would have an effect on the throwing game.

We did exactly what Pete Carroll wanted us to do, run the ball with Lynch (140 yards), play great defense, and protect the ball (on a blustery, rainy day) on offense.

The defense did their job and only a rare poor punt by Jon Ryan and an odd DB deflected pass caught by a saint made it look worse than it did.

Russell Wilson protected the wet ball by being careful with his throws in gusty conditions and threw it away a lot. There were a couple of off target and dropped balls but we were playing the #2 passing defense (under 200 yards per game allowed) which is #4 overall with 49 sacks on the season.

It wasn't pretty, but it wasn't mean to be. The weather dictated a lot of how that game went. :thcoffee:

Two things. First, yeah, what we saw yesterday and in previous weeks might be 100% according to Pete's plan to play conservative and let the D win the game but being conservative does not mean you have to be predictable and lack a plan to attack a defense or any creatively utilize th eplayers you have to run an effective offense.

Second, if this is the philosophy by which we plan to ultimately win it all, i have serious concerns we aren't going to get there. Either Pete needs to light a fire under Bevell's ass and actually get him to run a real NFL offense, or, if he cant, we need to modify the approach a bit. We've been lucky to eek out a few wins this season and have lost a few we should have won not because the opposition was our equal, but because we play soooooooo uninspired and 'safe' on O that if the opposing team has a competent D and even a moderately effective gameplan, they'll be in position to beat us in the end. And my fear is that Pete sees this and is stubbornly just ignoring it and sticking to what basically amounts to an approach that says run into a stacked box and if you have to, either throw a slant or toss the ball up along the sideline and see if Doug or Tate can make a catch. I vividly remember the dumbfounded look of surprise on his face when it was obvious we were going to lose against both AZ and SF and how shocked he looked at StL when the rams were 3 yards away from beating us as time expired. I fear that if he cant see the problem, we're doomed to fail unless we are extremely lucky and the D plays 2 more games of completely dominant football.

I think if it was SF or Carolina yesterday, we lose. Why? because Brees NEEDS to beat our secondary to win and their are few teams that can do that. Cam and Kaep dont have to rely on the pass, they can each run effectively either by design or out of necessity. also, their defenses know what we want to do and are better equipped to shut that down than NO was. If our O cant produce and be part of the reason we win the game, either of our opponents next week have the skill both at the QB position and on DEF to wear us down and beat us.

They had a plan and they executed it: Keep the ball on the ground, avoid passing in bad weather conditions that might cause turnovers and let the defense hold Carolina, who was also fighting bad weather conditions. The plan worked. Lynch ran for 140 yards and the defense shut down Brees for three quarters.

It wasn't Carolina or SF yesterday, it was NO. So the plan we implemented was how we went about beating THEM. We'll have a different plan to beat whoever we play next week. It will be a solid plan. How do I know? Because we've won 14 out of 17 games this season, that's how I know. Pete's plans usually work.

 

[TXHawkFan]

Seifert is an NFC North homer who was so upset about the Golden Tate Hail Mary pass against the Packers last year that he wrote a column about it each week updating pretend standings showing GB winning the game. He was ridiculed and mocked for this and I think he holds a grudge against the Hawks and the 12th Man. Everything I ever read him write about the Seahawks is negative. He's easily the worst of ESPN's NFL bloggers.

 

[razor150]

Defensively this team is peaking. Offensively this team has been in serious decline for awhile. Teams have figured our offense out and there have been no adjustments to turn things around. Infact it looks like the offense has become more conservative as time has gone by. They seem to be playing to not be the reason we lose, and that isn't a winning formula.

 

[keasley45]

Silver is smarter than Seifert.

Every pundit, coach, and player out there said it would be a much tougher, and closer game than the last one. THey also said the weather would have an effect on the throwing game.

We did exactly what Pete Carroll wanted us to do, run the ball with Lynch (140 yards), play great defense, and protect the ball (on a blustery, rainy day) on offense.

The defense did their job and only a rare poor punt by Jon Ryan and an odd DB deflected pass caught by a saint made it look worse than it did.

Russell Wilson protected the wet ball by being careful with his throws in gusty conditions and threw it away a lot. There were a couple of off target and dropped balls but we were playing the #2 passing defense (under 200 yards per game allowed) which is #4 overall with 49 sacks on the season.

It wasn't pretty, but it wasn't mean to be. The weather dictated a lot of how that game went. :thcoffee:

Two things. First, yeah, what we saw yesterday and in previous weeks might be 100% according to Pete's plan to play conservative and let the D win the game but being conservative does not mean you have to be predictable and lack a plan to attack a defense or any creatively utilize th eplayers you have to run an effective offense.

Second, if this is the philosophy by which we plan to ultimately win it all, i have serious concerns we aren't going to get there. Either Pete needs to light a fire under Bevell's ass and actually get him to run a real NFL offense, or, if he cant, we need to modify the approach a bit. We've been lucky to eek out a few wins this season and have lost a few we should have won not because the opposition was our equal, but because we play soooooooo uninspired and 'safe' on O that if the opposing team has a competent D and even a moderately effective gameplan, they'll be in position to beat us in the end. And my fear is that Pete sees this and is stubbornly just ignoring it and sticking to what basically amounts to an approach that says run into a stacked box and if you have to, either throw a slant or toss the ball up along the sideline and see if Doug or Tate can make a catch. I vividly remember the dumbfounded look of surprise on his face when it was obvious we were going to lose against both AZ and SF and how shocked he looked at StL when the rams were 3 yards away from beating us as time expired. I fear that if he cant see the problem, we're doomed to fail unless we are extremely lucky and the D plays 2 more games of completely dominant football.

I think if it was SF or Carolina yesterday, we lose. Why? because Brees NEEDS to beat our secondary to win and their are few teams that can do that. Cam and Kaep dont have to rely on the pass, they can each run effectively either by design or out of necessity. also, their defenses know what we want to do and are better equipped to shut that down than NO was. If our O cant produce and be part of the reason we win the game, either of our opponents next week have the skill both at the QB position and on DEF to wear us down and beat us.

They had a plan and they executed it: Keep the ball on the ground, avoid passing in bad weather conditions that might cause turnovers and let the defense hold Carolina, who was also fighting bad weather conditions. The plan worked. Lynch ran for 140 yards and the defense shut down Brees for three quarters.

It wasn't Carolina or SF yesterday, it was NO. So the plan we implemented was how we went about beating THEM. We'll have a different plan to beat whoever we play next week. It will be a solid plan. How do I know? Because we've won 14 out of 17 games this season, that's how I know. Pete's plans usually work.

And our plan against New Orleans differed from the plan we've implemented against our last 4 opponents in what way? Please explain to me the nuanced differences because I'm not seeing them. It's the same plan. It's weak sauce. It's a one dimensional approach as a whole that says we'll win with our defense, and one dimensional offensively that does nothing creative and simply waits for the same 5 plays we run all the time to finally work.

 

[Blitzer88]

Defensively this team is peaking. Offensively this team has been in serious decline for awhile. Teams have figured our offense out and there have been no adjustments to turn things around. Infact it looks like the offense has become more conservative as time has gone by. They seem to be playing to not be the reason we lose, and that isn't a winning formula.

Well said Razor.

 

[keasley45]

Defensively this team is peaking. Offensively this team has been in serious decline for awhile. Teams have figured our offense out and there have been no adjustments to turn things around. Infact it looks like the offense has become more conservative as time has gone by. They seem to be playing to not be the reason we lose, and that isn't a winning formula.

Well said Razor.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

Silver's an idiot. So is Seifert. I'll wait to see what guys like Robert Mays have to say about this game. Or hell, even Bill Barnwell.

 

[WarHawks]

Defensively this team is peaking. Offensively this team has been in serious decline for awhile. Teams have figured our offense out and there have been no adjustments to turn things around. Infact it looks like the offense has become more conservative as time has gone by. They seem to be playing to not be the reason we lose, and that isn't a winning formula.

Agree 100%. Happy that we're winning obviously, but I'm not confident we can continue to do so without adjustments to our offense.

 

[purpleworld]

Defensively this team is peaking. Offensively this team has been in serious decline for awhile. Teams have figured our offense out and there have been no adjustments to turn things around. Infact it looks like the offense has become more conservative as time has gone by. They seem to be playing to not be the reason we lose, and that isn't a winning formula.

Well said Razor.

Couldn't agree more.

...except, we KEEP winning, hmmmmm.....

 

[Cartire]

I really feel like no one understands football in that type of weather. Seattle's gameplan was perfect. Russell was probably a tad over conservative and could have trusted his arm a bit more, but after watching Bree's have some horrible overthrows, you just understood that the gameplan had very little risk involved.

Which judging by the win, was the smart play.

 

[razor150]

Defensively this team is peaking. Offensively this team has been in serious decline for awhile. Teams have figured our offense out and there have been no adjustments to turn things around. Infact it looks like the offense has become more conservative as time has gone by. They seem to be playing to not be the reason we lose, and that isn't a winning formula.

Well said Razor.

Couldn't agree more.

...except, we KEEP winning, hmmmmm.....

Didn't work well against the 49ers and Cards, with the 49ers being a potential team we could be facing next week. The Panthers are another team that could beat us if the offense continues to lay eggs on the field like this. Very rarely does a team with an offense that has been playing this consistently bad win a Superbowl, much less make it to one. It isn't like this game is an anomaly since this is what Russell Wilson and the offense has looked like for over a month. Which BTW includes 2 of our 3 losses.

 

[The Radish]

Being discussed here

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=85595