Underwelmed with the Dline

[ptisme]

Our D-line dominated the packers o-line. The difference is that the packers STILL could move the ball without a running game and great pass protection. something we seem unable to do. If everything not perfect for us we fall apart.

It was a battle between an all time great QB and an all time great defense... The QB won this one at home... In Seattle with that crowd noise it probably goes the other way...

Even though GB won I think our defense owned him. If our offense wasnt inept Rodgers only scores 10 points AT HOME with our #2 CB being ejected early in the game and the refs in his pocket. I have rarely if ever seen Rodgers under that much pressure in a game.

In fact OUR D scored the same ammount of TDs rodgers did but the refs decided to take it back on two bullshit calls

On the D side of the ball I am pumped off from what I see. This defense is IMO BETTER than the superbowl winning one. Our DL is the best it has ever been, Wright and Wagner are more experienced and very good, Thomas and Kam are as good as ever and Sherm, Lane, Griffen and even that guy we got from the pats all looked great yesterday. I dont even know who you would say a weak spot on our D is..the nickel CB? Almost the whole side on defense is probowl caliber or borderline probowl IMO

I think you're right about your defense being better than a few years ago... But the bottom line was this: GB, while not scoring many points was able to move the ball and convert third downs. In the first half our backup RT gave up two drive killing sacks due to poor footwork. Bulaga would have never given those up. GB generally moved the ball while Seattle was generally three and out. You were dominated in TOP by double. That's not on the refs.

 

[Ad Hawk]

I think what Seahawks fans see as a dominant DL performance and what most of the rest of the league sees is way different. Our OL is so bad that opposing DL dominate them to a ridiculous level with pressure after 1.5 seconds on every other play. That is unrealistic against a decent or solid OL and damn near impossible against a Cowboys or Raiders level OL.

Our DL did about as good a job as any against Rodgers, especially in GB. Can't think of one that has dominated him at Lambeau to a greater extent. Maybe Minnesota week 17 in 2015?

This is exactly right.

Hawk fans have, in general, no idea what a good o-line looks like, so every d-line we play seems fantastic.

What our defense did in GB was fantastic. The offense had it's shots downfield, and it was only a 1-score game for most of the 2nd half. You can't ask your D to do more than what they did.

Well, I suppose you could, actually. If our offense does any worse, they'll need to be on the field 3 whole quarters instead of 2/3 of the game.

Having Jones, Hutchinson, Tobeck, Gray, and Locklear must have been a figment of our imagination I suppose, we really don't know anything about how a line is suppose to look. Locklear being our weak link. We rotated RT a lot with Womack and Wedderburn and others, but WE DO KNOW WHAT A GOOD LINE LOOKS LIKE.

No, you're absolutely right, Chris. That line was indeed fantastic.

I guess my point is that fans today far more likely to compare our line to the ones we're playing against, or that are currently playing in 2017/18.

Comparing any line to that of the Holmgren era would leave most wanting. Can you imagine having even half of that strength with the rest of our Offense?

 

[MontanaHawk05]

OP is right and wrong. He's referring to the fact that our sacks were hustle sacks, coming thanks to Rodgers' lack of options downfield, instead of immediate knifing pressure up the gut like Green Bay's DL got on us. For the most part, Rodgers was still getting the chance to go through at least a couple reads before having to bail.

Problem with OP's view is that our OL was having one of its very worst performances (right alongside Tampa '16 or Houston '13, ironically the year we won it all), so knifing pressure was readily available in a manner for Green Bay's DL that isn't typical for an NFL game. Not even the best DL is going to look like THAT very often. So holding up Green Bay's DL as "the standard" and comparing ours to them, doesn't work too well.

 

[Seafan]

They did what they were supposed to do.

Except for Bennett's two off side penalties the DL played amazingly well and considering they were all cramping up out there it was impressive.

I believe against inferior QBs the sacks will increase.

 

[hawksfanohio]

I think what Seahawks fans see as a dominant DL performance and what most of the rest of the league sees is way different. Our OL is so bad that opposing DL dominate them to a ridiculous level with pressure after 1.5 seconds on every other play. That is unrealistic against a decent or solid OL and damn near impossible against a Cowboys or Raiders level OL.

Our DL did about as good a job as any against Rodgers, especially in GB. Can't think of one that has dominated him at Lambeau to a greater extent. Maybe Minnesota week 17 in 2015?

This is exactly right.

Hawk fans have, in general, no idea what a good o-line looks like, so every d-line we play seems fantastic.

What our defense did in GB was fantastic. The offense had it's shots downfield, and it was only a 1-score game for most of the 2nd half. You can't ask your D to do more than what they did.

Well, I suppose you could, actually. If our offense does any worse, they'll need to be on the field 3 whole quarters instead of 2/3 of the game.

Having Jones, Hutchinson, Tobeck, Gray, and Locklear must have been a figment of our imagination I suppose, we really don't know anything about how a line is suppose to look. Locklear being our weak link. We rotated RT a lot with Womack and Wedderburn and others, but WE DO KNOW WHAT A GOOD LINE LOOKS LIKE.

No, you're absolutely right, Chris. That line was indeed fantastic.

I guess my point is that fans today far more likely to compare our line to the ones we're playing against, or that are currently playing in 2017/18.

Comparing any line to that of the Holmgren era would leave most wanting. Can you imagine having even half of that strength with the rest of our Offense?

You put Holmgren's line on this team, zone blocking scheme or not, Seattle would be unstoppable on offense, regardless of Bevell.

 

[Seanhawk]

If it wasn't for the Dline we'd have probably lost by at least 4 TD's.

So true. If we couldn't stop a TD with 12 guys on the field, how would we do it with only 7?

 

[seahawksny]

D gave up 0 points in first half against great QB.
Testament to D as a whole.

 

[Hawks46]

Jesus, Bennett, Avril, Richardson, Clark should be impossible to stop, but frankly they were pretty average. The 4 sacks I would say 3 of them were coverage sacks.

I know that the refs never call GB for holding but come on man. They had just as many questions on the oline as we did. But they held up....against a far superior unit....

UGHHHH

Well you just answered your own post.

When you allow OL's to hold and get away with it more often than not, you can get a lot done. You eliminate pressure and wear out a DL. Imagine if our OL was allowed to get away with 5-7 more holding calls a game. What do you think our offense would've looked like on Sunday ?

Weird thing about GB.....they'll call minor stuff and even bring plays back. You'll almost never see a holding call on their TD plays even when it's ridiculously egregious. It's like the NFL just doesn't want to negate TD's. You'll also never see a holding call when someone is bearing down on Rodgers. No real imminent danger ? Flag comes out. Rodgers about to get creamed from the blind side? Go ahead and violate that DLman Texas Prison style. Same with Brady. Pisses me off to no end.