Hasselbeck
New member
- Joined
- May 2, 2009
- Messages
- 11,397
- Reaction score
- 4
What say you?
Can this team still win SB51 without Earl Thomas?
- Thread starter Hasselbeck
- Start date
Year of The Hawk
Well-known member
There will be a drop off but Terrell is not terrible. Its not like we are replacing Earl with a gimp in a wheelchair. Plus give him some more game time and he will get even better. We will be fine. The sky is not falling and our D will still be dominant.
The key will be Terrell and Kam staying healthy.
Terrell has the range, and that is the key. No one else has it. Terrell must stay healthy.
And as long as Kam is out there to coach guys and get them lined up, I like our chances of covering the loss.
Terrell has the range, and that is the key. No one else has it. Terrell must stay healthy.
And as long as Kam is out there to coach guys and get them lined up, I like our chances of covering the loss.
Sports Hernia
Well-known member
This. If the offense can put up 35+, yes, not a problem.253hawk":31bm1a62 said:
Sports Hernia":13uu3yy4 said:
I think that is unrealistic and unnecessary. With Earl the team is giving up 15 points a game. There is not a 10-15 point swing without Earl.
What the offense will need to do is up the time of possession. Better running, safer passing, less penalties.
And the defense will need to adjust the underneath zones and especially learn to cover the wide runs that Earl is so good at converging against.
Hawkscanner
New member
Sports Hernia":11rn3j4u said:
Totally agreed ... and I would say that much of that depends on which version of our offensive line decides to show up.
zchurch74
Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2015
- Messages
- 917
- Reaction score
- 4
We have to stay healthy. As long as we don't have any major injuries.
McGruff":1sqna3zd said:
^This.
It is a real shame about Earl, but he will be back next season. Our defense will be fine and it really looks like our offense could really be ready to shine. If they give us 25 points and a balanced time of possession no one is going to beat us.
Hawkscanner
New member
McGruff":fxwrkreh said:
I would agree that there isn't necessary a 10-15 point swing without Earl, but that depends on who we're playing. If you're talking about Tom Brady, there might be. The Carson Palmers of the world, another story.
I would say that the offense needs to average (say) between 24-28 points a game. If they can do that (and do that consistently) ... then absolutely this team has what it takes to win the Super Bowl. No doubt.
Austin Hawk
Member
If our offense plays like it did last night, then no one will beat us. But if we continue to lay eggs offensively against weak opponents then we are screwed.
Rat
Well-known member
I think this was around the time of year we lost Ken Hamlin. We were surviving without him, until Marquand Manuel also got hurt, and both Michael Boulware and Etric Pruitt were disasters in the Super Bowl.
I don't know why I'm even posting this, it's not the same team, but I guess it kind of piggybacks off McGruff points that we really, really need Kam to stay healthy.
I don't know why I'm even posting this, it's not the same team, but I guess it kind of piggybacks off McGruff points that we really, really need Kam to stay healthy.
I went with no.
Terrell is good, but he doesn't cover the outside runs and other things that Earl does so well.
Rodgers is on fire lately, and we're going to lose at GB (I hate to be negative, but we will).
It's not about big picture, but several smaller pictures: we likely lose to GB, do we eat AZ who also loves to throw deep? If Earl being out costs us a couple of games, we probably lose a 1st round bye and have to go on the road.
The margin of error starts to get thin. We have GB, AZ and the Rams coming up, which on paper looks pretty easy. But GB will be away in the snow, AZ can exploit us deep without Earl, and seriously....the Rams. We should be clown stomping this team every year, but they've won what....6 of the last 7 ? We all keep thinking we'll win those games, and we just keep losing them.
Terrell is good, but he doesn't cover the outside runs and other things that Earl does so well.
Rodgers is on fire lately, and we're going to lose at GB (I hate to be negative, but we will).
It's not about big picture, but several smaller pictures: we likely lose to GB, do we eat AZ who also loves to throw deep? If Earl being out costs us a couple of games, we probably lose a 1st round bye and have to go on the road.
The margin of error starts to get thin. We have GB, AZ and the Rams coming up, which on paper looks pretty easy. But GB will be away in the snow, AZ can exploit us deep without Earl, and seriously....the Rams. We should be clown stomping this team every year, but they've won what....6 of the last 7 ? We all keep thinking we'll win those games, and we just keep losing them.
HawkFan72
Active member
I'm more worried about GETTING to the Super Bowl. Getting past the Cowboys is much tougher without Earl.
Sgt. Largent
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2012
- Messages
- 25,560
- Reaction score
- 7,613
Deion Sanders explained it pretty well after the game last night when asked this question.
He said as good as Earl is, this is nowhere near the dire situation as losing a great CB like Sherman would be to our defense. He said good teams have mediocre safeties all over this league, that's why formations and schemes like cover 2 and cover 3 were invented............to mask safety deficiencies with zone help from the LB's and nickel/dime corners.
You can't replace a player like Earl, but Terrell can play more than well enough for us to win a SB.
The real question is can we stay freaking healthy enough for another SB chance? Cause this team seemingly can't go two consecutive weeks without a major injury to someone important.
He said as good as Earl is, this is nowhere near the dire situation as losing a great CB like Sherman would be to our defense. He said good teams have mediocre safeties all over this league, that's why formations and schemes like cover 2 and cover 3 were invented............to mask safety deficiencies with zone help from the LB's and nickel/dime corners.
You can't replace a player like Earl, but Terrell can play more than well enough for us to win a SB.
The real question is can we stay freaking healthy enough for another SB chance? Cause this team seemingly can't go two consecutive weeks without a major injury to someone important.
Austin Hawk":1v9ypaqb said:
Two points . . . Once in the playoffa, we won't face weak opponents.
Second, we can't "continue" to do what we haven't been doing. The current trend is high output offense production. The eggs have been the outlier, not the norm.
cymatica
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2014
- Messages
- 4,416
- Reaction score
- 3,109
Assuming no other major injuries, and assuming they make it in, then yes.
I think the only thing in their way would be a defensive line that can give them fits. Even then, you would think they have faced the gauntlet in that area already, so adjustments have been made.
The real question is which AFC team has the best d-line, and will they make the suberbowl?
I think the only thing in their way would be a defensive line that can give them fits. Even then, you would think they have faced the gauntlet in that area already, so adjustments have been made.
The real question is which AFC team has the best d-line, and will they make the suberbowl?
Hawks46":mk1gahmq said:
I'm not all that worried about teams passing deep on us. Terrell can get that.
I am worried about the wide runs and wr screens. Earls ability to read and reaCT to the run is rare.
GB doesn't worry me. The rams don't worry me. Arizona and David Johnson worries me.
Largent80
New member
Hawks46":3ap6zu5l said:
I watched that entire game, and the Texans CB fell down on one TD, it isn't about Rodgers being on fire. The Texans are a bad team, we are NOT. So I'm disagreeing with you loss assessment and Rodgers being on fire.
Our defense pitched a shutout except for one big play last night and that was without Thomas on the field.
The offense put up 40 and left at least 2 TD's on the field. We win that game comfortably.
Sgt. Largent
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2012
- Messages
- 25,560
- Reaction score
- 7,613
McGruff":1ccm4d6n said:
Don't you remember what happened in the SB against Brady once Lane went out?
Losing a DB starter against a great QB matters, cause it means your rookies or backups are going to be abused by that great QB, like Brady did to Simon in the SB.
So I am a little worried about guys like Rodgers, Brees, Ryan............and Carr, Brady, etc if we make it to the SB, WAY more than RB's. Our front 7 rarely allows a good RB to go off, but a gimpy depleted LOB is a MAJOR issue going forward if any more injuries happen.
Similar threads
