Gutsy performance by the team.

hawknation2016 · Sep 11, 2016

* Very difficult to win an NFL game with a hobbled QB, especially against a defensive line like Miami's.

* Russell found a way to play through it and get the "W."

* Doug Baldwin is money.

* Offensive line stepped up big time in the 2nd half.

* Rawls had a BEASTMODE like run, dragging defenders, and Michael converted a huge 4th and inches.

* Defense played mostly great, sans its normally best player, Earl Thomas.

* Cassius Marsh was the Player of the Game -- blocked FG and recorded his first sack of his career with a strip at a critical moment at the end.

* Just win, baby. And get healthy, Russ. Gutsy performance. On to Week 2.

FlyingGreg · Sep 11, 2016

An awesome win.

falcongoggles · Sep 11, 2016

I'm very happy with that win. I hope the coaching staff is both pumping up there guys while flipping over desks.

OpHawk · Sep 11, 2016

falcongoggles":3g3yrsbt said:
I'm very happy with that win. I hope the coaching staff is both pumping up there guys while flipping over desks.

lol lets hope this is not what is happening. If this was a performance to be "flipping" over our standards have sunk to new lows.

TwilightError · Sep 11, 2016

Doug Baldwin is God.

Reaneypark · Sep 11, 2016

When Russell got hurt, all bets were off and the Hawks just needed the W any way they got it. Teams with good D lines will always be a problem for this team.

scutterhawk · Sep 11, 2016

An UGLY win, but a good ugly win. :lol:

kearly · Sep 11, 2016

This was a lot like the Detroit game last year. It was a huge win not because the team played great or that the win had special significance, but because of how big a disaster it would have been to lose at home against a lousy team early in the season when you are trying to set the tone for a new year.

I hope this means that Seattle takes a long hard look in the mirror about how their current offensive personnel isn't a great fit for their identity goals, that far too many talented offensive players are not being played to their strengths. I'm guessing they'll continue to turn a blind eye to the issues and Seattle could end up squandering a soft opening to the 2016 schedule. But given that today was so ugly offensively, I just really hope that today was the wake-up call for Pete. I hope, but am doubtful.

Seahawk · Sep 11, 2016

Didn't need it for the W but why didn't we get the Safety 2pts on the sack?

Glasgow Seahawk · Sep 11, 2016

1-0 is all that matters. Just keep improving for next week.

Beating the Rams is huge given they normally beat us. Think most fans have week 2 down as a loss

theincrediblesok · Sep 11, 2016

Seahawk":1e58fro4 said:
Didn't need it for the W but why didn't we get the Safety 2pts on the sack?

I was wondering this myself, I think the time ran out and Tannehill was already wrapped up before he was tackle for a safety.

tmobilchawker79 · Sep 11, 2016

kearly said:
This was a lot like the Detroit game last year. It was a huge win not because the team played great or that the win had special significance, but because of how big a disaster it would have been to lose at home against a lousy team early in the season when you are trying to set the tone for a new year.

I hope this means that Seattle takes a long hard look in the mirror about how their current offensive personnel isn't a great fit for their identity goals, that far too many talented offensive players are not being played to their strengths. I'm guessing they'll continue to turn a blind eye to the issues and Seattle could end up squandering a soft opening to the 2016 schedule. But given that today was so ugly offensively, I just really hope that today was the wake-up call for Pete. I hope, but am doubtful.[/quote

For example? Not sure who you are referring to that the staff are playing incorrectly...

crosfam · Sep 11, 2016

theincrediblesok":105q6qlm said:
Seahawk":105q6qlm said:

Didn't need it for the W but why didn't we get the Safety 2pts on the sack?

Click to expand...

I was wondering this myself, I think the time ran out and Tannehill was already wrapped up before he was tackle for a safety.

His forward progress was stopped while he was still north of the end zone.

Seymour · Sep 11, 2016

Seahawk":grwxfyb5 said:
Didn't need it for the W but why didn't we get the Safety 2pts on the sack?

He was initially hit outside the end zone. Forward progress stops there at around the 1.

Followthelegion · Sep 11, 2016

The last play was never live. Tannehill didn't get the snap off before clock hit zeros.

hawknation2016 · Sep 12, 2016

After Russell got his ankle stepped up, I felt like the team came together and played with great ferociousness and determination.

Hawks46 · Sep 12, 2016

Followthelegion":2yaz1dse said:
The last play was never live. Tannehill didn't get the snap off before clock hit zeros.

This. The refs were frantically blowing their whistles trying to stop the play, but no one could hear over the crowd noise.

Not sure how the clock was still running. The call on the field was the ball was out of bounds when Tannehill tried to bat it. It looked to be the correct call, but that would've stopped the clock.

McGruff · Sep 12, 2016

theincrediblesok":a6njenmt said:
Seahawk":a6njenmt said:

Didn't need it for the W but why didn't we get the Safety 2pts on the sack?

Click to expand...

I was wondering this myself, I think the time ran out and Tannehill was already wrapped up before he was tackle for a safety.

I'm guessing it was similar to forward progrezs. Tannehill has wrapped up out of the end zone and then pulled to the ground in the endzone.

hawknation2016 · Sep 12, 2016

McGruff":1oz08ypn said:
theincrediblesok":1oz08ypn said:

Seahawk":1oz08ypn said:

Didn't need it for the W but why didn't we get the Safety 2pts on the sack?

Click to expand...

I was wondering this myself, I think the time ran out and Tannehill was already wrapped up before he was tackle for a safety.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing it was similar to forward progrezs. Tannehill has wrapped up out of the end zone and then pulled to the ground in the endzone.

No, it would have gone down as a sack/safety had time not expired before the snap.

hawknation2016 · Sep 12, 2016

Hawks46":3jcyucwx said:
Followthelegion":3jcyucwx said:

The last play was never live. Tannehill didn't get the snap off before clock hit zeros.

Click to expand...

This. The refs were frantically blowing their whistles trying to stop the play, but no one could hear over the crowd noise.

Not sure how the clock was still running. The call on the field was the ball was out of bounds when Tannehill tried to bat it. It looked to be the correct call, but that would've stopped the clock.

By rule, when the ball is fumbled out of bounds, the game clock starts when an official places the ball at the inbounds line, and the referee signals that the ball is ready for play.

Think of it this way, without this rule, an offensive player could toss the ball out of bounds any time he wanted to permanently stop the clock. This gives the referees just enough time to place the ball before starting the clock.

Gutsy performance by the team.

New member

Active member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Similar threads