We should have lost this game anyway.

[TwistedHusky]

I don't think anyone following the Seahawks and watching this year's defense expected us to beat the Saints, even at home. It was only when Drew Brees got injured that we really stood a chance. So losing this game only helps drive home the reality that we can no longer trust this defense.

It might be good for us.

We cannot hope to keep the game close and come back and score. Because even coming back to take the lead later in the game won't matter if the opposing team just marches up the field again to beat us.

We do not have the horses on the defense to depend on. We do have the horses on the offense. To be competitive in this NFL, you need to score 24 points per game. With an average defense, you need closer to 28. That means at least 1 TD per quarter or 2 FGs per quarter.

If you are not on pace to do this, from quarter 1, then you are putting yourself behind and lowering your chance of winning the football game.

The big issue is that Pete, being a former DC, likes to trust his defense and does not like to trust his offense. He likes to lean on the D and not the O. But outside of guys like Wagner and Clowney, most of our defense are JAGs.

The difference makers for this team are on offense.

We now lost a game we were going to lose anyway, but hopefully learned that depending on the D this year is not a pathway to success. We have to outscore opponents, not bleed clock away while keeping the game close.

 

[Torc]

We should not have lost this game - change three plays and it is a win: the punt return, the fumble and the penalty on the missed field goal. Those directly accounted for 21 points. The defense played a pretty decent game for the most part, and the offense was moving pretty well considering they couldn't count on Carson for anything.

 

[hawkfannj]

The difference between good teams bad teams and great teams are the teams to take advantage of the situations that are presented to them yes we might’ve chopped up a lost Drew Brees but he wasn’t there. I’d like to think that we would’ve played better if he was there .

 

[nwHawk]

We should not have lost this game - change three plays and it is a win: the punt return, the fumble and the penalty on the missed field goal. Those directly accounted for 21 points. The defense played a pretty decent game for the most part, and the offense was moving pretty well considering they couldn't count on Carson for anything.

Truth

 

[TwistedHusky]

Drew Brees would have violated this secondary.

We have up over 300, almost 400 to Andy Dalton!

Then we have since given up plenty of yards to 2 backups.

The idea that Drew Brees wouldn't have just had his way with this defense is laughable. We have fielded a garbage secondary from day 1.

And this, 'but for the 16 fumbles, 3 interceptions, and 800 yards the defense gave up we could have won!' stance is hilarious. At one point it seemed to be 27-7. We were shelled. By a backup QB. There was never a circumstance where we 'almost won'.

The Saint did start playing looser defense and not focusing on scoring as much in the 2nd half - but regardless, they owned us.

 

[DomeHawk]

I don't think anyone following the Seahawks and watching this year's defense expected us to beat the Saints, even at home. It was only when Drew Brees got injured that we really stood a chance. So losing this game only helps drive home the reality that we can no longer trust this defense.

It might be good for us.

We cannot hope to keep the game close and come back and score. Because even coming back to take the lead later in the game won't matter if the opposing team just marches up the field again to beat us.

We do not have the horses on the defense to depend on. We do have the horses on the offense. To be competitive in this NFL, you need to score 24 points per game. With an average defense, you need closer to 28. That means at least 1 TD per quarter or 2 FGs per quarter.

If you are not on pace to do this, from quarter 1, then you are putting yourself behind and lowering your chance of winning the football game.

The big issue is that Pete, being a former DC, likes to trust his defense and does not like to trust his offense. He likes to lean on the D and not the O. But outside of guys like Wagner and Clowney, most of our defense are JAGs.

The difference makers for this team are on offense.

We now lost a game we were going to lose anyway, but hopefully learned that depending on the D this year is not a pathway to success. We have to outscore opponents, not bleed clock away while keeping the game close.

^^^^This

I have been saying the exact same thing since I have been here. As soon as you do, you get the stick-to-the-formula homers who don't realize that the "formula" was based on having a low-cost group of players that we got real lucky with.

Here's the formula:

Russell Wilson before the contract

The Beast

The Legion of Boom (also before contracts)

Bobby Wagner and KJ before the contracts

A good O-line including all-pro Max Unger

Doug Baldwin, Golden Tate, Jermaine Kearce, Percy Harvin

A defensive line that included Red Bryant, Chris Clemons, Michael Bennett, Cliff Avril,Brandon Mebane, Tony McDaniel, Clinton McDonald.

That's not a formula people, that's a once-in-a-generation roster that gets you a 43-8 final Super Bowl score!

 

[ZagHawk]

We should not have lost this game - change three plays and it is a win: the punt return, the fumble and the penalty on the missed field goal. Those directly accounted for 21 points. The defense played a pretty decent game for the most part, and the offense was moving pretty well considering they couldn't count on Carson for anything.

Give the Bengals three plays and they win game 1.

 

[ZagHawk]

I don't think anyone following the Seahawks and watching this year's defense expected us to beat the Saints, even at home. It was only when Drew Brees got injured that we really stood a chance. So losing this game only helps drive home the reality that we can no longer trust this defense.

It might be good for us.

We cannot hope to keep the game close and come back and score. Because even coming back to take the lead later in the game won't matter if the opposing team just marches up the field again to beat us.

We do not have the horses on the defense to depend on. We do have the horses on the offense. To be competitive in this NFL, you need to score 24 points per game. With an average defense, you need closer to 28. That means at least 1 TD per quarter or 2 FGs per quarter.

If you are not on pace to do this, from quarter 1, then you are putting yourself behind and lowering your chance of winning the football game.

The big issue is that Pete, being a former DC, likes to trust his defense and does not like to trust his offense. He likes to lean on the D and not the O. But outside of guys like Wagner and Clowney, most of our defense are JAGs.

The difference makers for this team are on offense.

We now lost a game we were going to lose anyway, but hopefully learned that depending on the D this year is not a pathway to success. We have to outscore opponents, not bleed clock away while keeping the game close.

^^^^This

I have been saying the exact same thing since I have been here. As soon as you do, you get the stick-to-the-formula homers who don't realize that the "formula" was based on having a low-cost group of players that we got real lucky with.

Here's the formula:

Russell Wilson before the contract

The Beast

The Legion of Boom (also before contracts)

Bobby Wagner and KJ before the contracts

A good O-line including all-pro Max Unger

Doug Baldwin, Golden Tate, Jermaine Kearce, Percy Harvin

A defensive that included Red Bryant, Chris Clemons, Michael Bennett, Cliff Avril,Brandon Mebane, Tony McDaniel, Clinton McDonald.

That's not a formula people, that's a once-in-a-generation roster that gets you a 43-8 final Super Bowl score!

A once in a generation roster that could have repeated had they ran the ball...I always wonder had they ran the ball, won that SB...what could have been? maybe even 3 wins in 4-5 years. It also would have changed the narrative of the Seahawks and RW being the new Brady and Patriots team of the decade (they kept comparing stats), but instead the Patriots win and instead ends all question to "is Brady's career over"..yeah...oh well

 

[TwistedHusky]

The new formula is that we have one of the best QBs in the NFL that is not scoring enough TDs to justify his contract.

However, he could be scoring those TDs, we just refuse to use him as our primary weapon.

Would we go to the SB like that? No. But this defense wasn't going to get us that anyway.

We could do like Green Bay did, and ride the QB to regular playoff appearances and even a few playoff wins.

We either have to start scoring 27+ points a game as the goal, or lose a lot more winnable football games. There is no other option.

 

[JustTheTip]

Agreed. The "you win football games in the fourth quarter" bs needs to go away. This team has got to play 60 minutes all out every game to be competitive. I mean, by Pete's standards you only win football games on the final play, so why not rest your starters for that one play and really make it count.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Agreed. The "you win football games in the fourth quarter" bs needs to go away. This team has got to play 60 minutes all out every game to be competitive. I mean, by Pete's standards you only win football games on the final play, so why not rest your starters for that one play and really make it count.

Lockett said this after the game, that we have to get going earlier and not just think Russell's going to pull it out late.

Maybe he should talk to his head coach, who is the stubborn scheme and playcaller that thinks this is how you consistently win football games..........to rely on your terrible O-line to run block for your RB that has fumblitis that every team so far has stuffed your ass and watch your defense not make plays and give up 25 points a game?

Brilliant Pete!

 

[DomeHawk]

Agreed. The "you win football games in the fourth quarter" bs needs to go away. This team has got to play 60 minutes all out every game to be competitive. I mean, by Pete's standards you only win football games on the final play, so why not rest your starters for that one play and really make it count.

I absolutely HATE that "you win football games in the fourth quarter" crap!

 

[xray]

I don't think anyone following the Seahawks and watching this year's defense expected us to beat the Saints, even at home. It was only when Drew Brees got injured that we really stood a chance. So losing this game only helps drive home the reality that we can no longer trust this defense.

It might be good for us.

We cannot hope to keep the game close and come back and score. Because even coming back to take the lead later in the game won't matter if the opposing team just marches up the field again to beat us.

We do not have the horses on the defense to depend on. We do have the horses on the offense. To be competitive in this NFL, you need to score 24 points per game. With an average defense, you need closer to 28. That means at least 1 TD per quarter or 2 FGs per quarter.

If you are not on pace to do this, from quarter 1, then you are putting yourself behind and lowering your chance of winning the football game.

The big issue is that Pete, being a former DC, likes to trust his defense and does not like to trust his offense. He likes to lean on the D and not the O. But outside of guys like Wagner and Clowney, most of our defense are JAGs.

The difference makers for this team are on offense.

We now lost a game we were going to lose anyway, but hopefully learned that depending on the D this year is not a pathway to success. We have to outscore opponents, not bleed clock away while keeping the game close.

^^^^This

I have been saying the exact same thing since I have been here. As soon as you do, you get the stick-to-the-formula homers who don't realize that the "formula" was based on having a low-cost group of players that we got real lucky with.

Here's the formula:

Russell Wilson before the contract

The Beast

The Legion of Boom (also before contracts)

Bobby Wagner and KJ before the contracts

A good O-line including all-pro Max Unger

Doug Baldwin, Golden Tate, Jermaine Kearce, Percy Harvin

A defensive that included Red Bryant, Chris Clemons, Michael Bennett, Cliff Avril,Brandon Mebane, Tony McDaniel, Clinton McDonald.

That's not a formula people, that's a once-in-a-generation roster that gets you a 43-8 final Super Bowl score!

A once in a generation roster that could have repeated had they ran the ball...I always wonder had they ran the ball, won that SB...what could have been? maybe even 3 wins in 4-5 years. It also would have changed the narrative of the Seahawks and RW being the new Brady and Patriots team of the decade (they kept comparing stats), but instead the Patriots win and instead ends all question to "is Brady's career over"..yeah...oh well

That final SB play will forever will be known as the play that devastated a possible dynasty team . The stench still lingers.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

This game might be a welcome wake-up call, as Lockett pointed out. If you see the team come out more disciplined and focused on Thursday, it did its job.

They weren't going to wake up as long as Wilson was bailing them out of their stupid mistakes. Pete said that, Brown said that, Lockett said that.

 

[chris98251]

Don't think we should have lost this game, Kamara put up a total of 96 yards rushing and receiving, when he was out there he looked like a man amongst boys but we kept him under a 100, We shot ourselves in the foot more then anything else, mental Mistakes that would have had Holmgren so pissed he may have cut everyone involved the next day.

Carson, looking at his shoes I wonder if the tape was causing less grip for his cleats, he had both ankles taped and it looked like the tape went under the shoes. Just a observation, that would cause slippage and less footing on a slick day.

The Fumble he had it tucked and held where he was suppose to, but after the first few weeks players are not tackling the ball and punching on it a lot as well, wet and slick holding to tight and it can move.

This is something he is going to have to work through now the rest of the season, he has a target on him.

Lining up over Center, that can't happen.

No time out after the 52 yard gain right before the half, unforgivable, you call that play you better have options ready when it succeeds.

The return, again gap control and bad tackling s well as angles.

Most if not all mental mistakes all around.

We out gained them, we held them well on defense for when they were out there statistically we just didn't out play them mentally.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

???? They barely had 260 yards and were flat out HANDED two touchdowns.
No, we gave this one away. They came to play and were very disciplined. But come on, in no way should we have lost this game.

 

[TwistedHusky]

My point was, this was a game that we stood little to no chance of winning if Brees played.

So seeing this on the schedule, even at home, mentally I chalked it up to a loss.

Losing their QB, should have meant we lucked out and won this. But somehow we lost to a backup QB that looked like trash against the Rams. He actually looked so bad that I think the Seahawks might have overlooked the Saints. But with the Cards next up, I am not sure why the team would have felt the need to do so.

Either way, a healthy Brees and this game is no contest (though it really was no contest anyway). So getting upset about losing a game we, by all rights, should have lost anyway would be odd.

Losing 1 game does not end a season. I think losing to a backup QB is the larger concern.

But this was an L almost as soon as it appeared on the schedule. With our secondary, there was going to be no way to compete with this offense fielding a healthy Brees.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

I hear ya, they certainly did their best to throw out a crap performance. Reminded me of the Mora teams with the level of stupid we saw out there. Luckily it's not the norm, but man that was tough to watch.
No team is unbeatable, so we can agree to disagree that the Hawks had no shot if Brees would have played.

 

[Uncle Si]

The new formula is that we have one of the best QBs in the NFL that is not scoring enough TDs to justify his contract.

However, he could be scoring those TDs, we just refuse to use him as our primary weapon.

Would we go to the SB like that? No. But this defense wasn't going to get us that anyway.

We could do like Green Bay did, and ride the QB to regular playoff appearances and even a few playoff wins.

We either have to start scoring 27+ points a game as the goal, or lose a lot more winnable football games. There is no other option.

I don't disagree with the premise..

But Wilson has 9 total TDs in 3 games with a 119 qbr

The team is scoring 25 points a game.

The issues lie elsewhere

 

[Sgt. Largent]

The new formula is that we have one of the best QBs in the NFL that is not scoring enough TDs to justify his contract.

However, he could be scoring those TDs, we just refuse to use him as our primary weapon.

Would we go to the SB like that? No. But this defense wasn't going to get us that anyway.

We could do like Green Bay did, and ride the QB to regular playoff appearances and even a few playoff wins.

We either have to start scoring 27+ points a game as the goal, or lose a lot more winnable football games. There is no other option.

I don't disagree with the premise..

But Wilson has 9 total TDs in 3 games with a 119 qbr

The team is scoring 25 points a game.

The issues lie elsewhere

Bingo.

25 pts a game should be enough to win in a Pete Carroll defense, which is suppose to be his strength as a coach and talent evaluator.

Husky brings up Green Bay, but what has Green Bay done over the past five years? They've LOADED up the defensive side of the ball with high picks. Why did they do this? Because they saw that just letting Rodgers sling it around 40-50 times a game trying to win shootouts wasn't working.

Yes the game of football's changed, but defense still wins.