Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

This Week's Enemy Fan Forums: The Green Bay Packers

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
  • Hawkscanner wrote:
    ptisme wrote:1. McCarthy said he's not worried that Bulaga won't be available.


    Hmmm ... doesn't SOUND good for Bulaga. McCarthy may be right and he might very well play. The question I always have (especially when it comes to big guys and ankle injuries) is, "Should they play (especially in Week 1 of the season)?" Former Packers and Hawks Coach Mike Holmgren is a regular contributor on KJR-950 AM up here ... and I remember that's one thing he's talked about a bit in the past. He's mentioned that especially for those big guys, nagging ankle injuries (if you don't rest them and deal with them properly) can turn into bigger issues, as the body tends to compensate ... and eventually it's the knee that bothers you ... then maybe the other ankle, etc. So maybe he does play, I'm just wondering ...
    should he (for his health and for the good of the overall team long-term)?

    ptisme wrote:2. I'm glad you guys like Kevin King. He has struggled with the Packers WR (and Rodgers) in camp but that should only make him better.


    Definitely REALLY liked Kevin King - A LOT. Early struggles are to be expected with young guys, but I agree I think he's going to be a good one.

    ptisme wrote:3. I'm not convinced Lacy is your answer. I do share your man crush on Chris Carson... He needs to get some PT.


    I'd say I speak for most of us in saying that I don't think Lacy is the answer either. Now, Chris Carson? That guy is a flat out stud!! He definitely needs to get some PT. If it were me, I'd run a combo of Rawls and Carson in this game ... and splash in a bit of C.J. Prosise (who is a real dynamic player once he gets the ball in his hands. He's a dual running/receiving threat).

    No, I would say I'm not wishing you "luck" in this game either ... but I WILL hope and pray for no serious injuries -- for either of our teams. Should be a good game I believe.

    ptisme wrote:Question Seahawks fans: Who's the one RB I need on my team this season as a handcuff to Lacy (PPR)?

    Love to answer your question, but in all honesty, I'm not understanding exactly what you're asking. Care to clarify and unpack that a bit?

    It's fantasy football:) It's common to draft a backup to a first string running back (handcuff). PPR means you get a point per reception... That makes running backs that catch a lot of passes valuable. For instance, Rawls would be a more valuable starter than Lacy would
    User avatar
    ptisme
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 773
    Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:22 am


  • ptisme wrote:It's fantasy football:) It's common to draft a backup to a first string running back (handcuff). PPR means you get a point per reception... That makes running backs that catch a lot of passes valuable. For instance, Rawls would be a more valuable starter than Lacy would


    I thought that's what you were asking. OK, I'll say this -- IF he's healthy (BIG IF) and IF he's available in the later rounds ... I'd keep C.J. Prosise in mind. He showed last year that when he was healthy, he can be EXPLOSIVE. He was a receiver at Notre Dame before they switched him over to RB, so he literally is a dual receiving/running threat. He's got very good receiving skills. Prosise just has a bit of an extra gear that the other RB's on this roster don't have.

    Thomas Rawls would be the guy I would certainly target, as he's probably going to get the lion's share of the carries after Lacy. The Seahawks like to throw to their backs, so Rawls would be the guy (again, if he's healthy -- and he should be, as all we've heard is he's playing in this game). He's a lot like Carson style-wise -- very physical, shifty runner who is also a good receiver coming out of the backfield as well.
    User avatar
    Hawkscanner
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 2035
    Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:28 am
    Location: Middle of Nowhere, Washington


  • Hawkscanner wrote:
    ptisme wrote:It's fantasy football:) It's common to draft a backup to a first string running back (handcuff). PPR means you get a point per reception... That makes running backs that catch a lot of passes valuable. For instance, Rawls would be a more valuable starter than Lacy would


    I thought that's what you were asking. OK, I'll say this -- IF he's healthy (BIG IF) and IF he's available in the later rounds ... I'd keep C.J. Prosise in mind. He showed last year that when he was healthy, he can be EXPLOSIVE. He was a receiver at Notre Dame before they switched him over to RB, so he literally is a dual receiving/running threat. He's got very good receiving skills. Prosise just has a bit of an extra gear that the other RB's on this roster don't have.

    Thomas Rawls would be the guy I would certainly target, as he's probably going to get the lion's share of the carries after Lacy. The Seahawks like to throw to their backs, so Rawls would be the guy (again, if he's healthy -- and he should be, as all we've heard is he's playing in this game). He's a lot like Carson style-wise -- very physical, shifty runner who is also a good receiver coming out of the backfield as well.

    OK thanks. Carson is the only guy available in our league.... Seems too crowded for now to add him to my lineup.
    User avatar
    ptisme
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 773
    Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:22 am


  • ptisme wrote:
    Hawkscanner wrote:
    ptisme wrote:It's fantasy football:) It's common to draft a backup to a first string running back (handcuff). PPR means you get a point per reception... That makes running backs that catch a lot of passes valuable. For instance, Rawls would be a more valuable starter than Lacy would


    I thought that's what you were asking. OK, I'll say this -- IF he's healthy (BIG IF) and IF he's available in the later rounds ... I'd keep C.J. Prosise in mind. He showed last year that when he was healthy, he can be EXPLOSIVE. He was a receiver at Notre Dame before they switched him over to RB, so he literally is a dual receiving/running threat. He's got very good receiving skills. Prosise just has a bit of an extra gear that the other RB's on this roster don't have.

    Thomas Rawls would be the guy I would certainly target, as he's probably going to get the lion's share of the carries after Lacy. The Seahawks like to throw to their backs, so Rawls would be the guy (again, if he's healthy -- and he should be, as all we've heard is he's playing in this game). He's a lot like Carson style-wise -- very physical, shifty runner who is also a good receiver coming out of the backfield as well.


    OK thanks. Carson is the only guy available in our league.... Seems too crowded for now to add him to my lineup.


    If Carson's available -- nab him now. He's not the starter YET ... but I'm predicting by the end of the season, he will be (or he will be getting a significant amount of carries/game). What you see on that Youtube Highlight reel is who he's been in the Preseason. We'll see if that translates into the regular season, but I can't imagine it wouldn't. As I said, the dude is a flat out stud. Pete Carroll absolutely fell in love with the guy during the Pre-Draft process ... and most of us have a serious man crush on him as well. Chris Carson is a young guy to definitely be keeping an eye on.
    User avatar
    Hawkscanner
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 2035
    Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:28 am
    Location: Middle of Nowhere, Washington


  • Just FYI for anyone's who's interested ... Hawkblogger (Brian Nemhauser) is on LIVE right now with Aaron Nagler (a Packer's fan and expert) to preview this upcoming game. Good stuff so far ...

    https://youtu.be/GTbbOqwvzow

    Edit to Add:

    For those who are interested, here is the replay of Brian Nemhauser's HawkTalk podcast with Aaron Nagler (from PackerNews.com). It was a REALLY good and insightful discussion. So, if you're looking for detailed info on the Packers, you will more than get your fill ...
    [Conversation with Aaron Nagler starts around 19:45 or so]
    Last edited by Hawkscanner on Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    Hawkscanner
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 2035
    Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:28 am
    Location: Middle of Nowhere, Washington


  • ptisme wrote:This game depends entirely on Green Bay's offensive line. If the starting five are in there (assuming Bulaga is healthy) I don't see any defense putting a ton of pressure on Rodgers. However if even ONE GB Olinemen gets hurt, then Seattle defense will feast. Green Bay's backups failed to become serviceable this off season. Barring Oline injury Green Bay will not be beat in Lambeau with a healthy squad.

    Sooooo you believe your starting O-line is the best in the league. Alrighty.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 30962
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Bothell, WA


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    ptisme wrote:This game depends entirely on Green Bay's offensive line. If the starting five are in there (assuming Bulaga is healthy) I don't see any defense putting a ton of pressure on Rodgers. However if even ONE GB Olinemen gets hurt, then Seattle defense will feast. Green Bay's backups failed to become serviceable this off season. Barring Oline injury Green Bay will not be beat in Lambeau with a healthy squad.

    Sooooo you believe your starting O-line is the best in the league. Alrighty.


    That's not exactly what he meant, but I'd actually say they were the best pass protecting line in the league last year. Check out highlights against us and the Giants, both of whom boast great DL, and you'll see how great they were. The main change is Evans for Lang. Even with a small dropoff, it'll still be at least a top 5 unit in pass pro.

    I think what PT was getting at is that not only is the line excellent, Rodgers is a master at manipulating the rush with his movements in the pocket. He's really in sync with his OL and they help each other out in pass pro. Also, Rodgers is pretty mobile outside the pocket, similar to Russ.

    Note that they aren't at the same level in run blocking. They're still good, but not elite like they are in pass blocking. I think run blocking is the area where the loss of the Lang/Sitton combo hurts them the most.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 559
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


  • adeltaY wrote:
    RolandDeschain wrote:
    ptisme wrote:This game depends entirely on Green Bay's offensive line. If the starting five are in there (assuming Bulaga is healthy) I don't see any defense putting a ton of pressure on Rodgers. However if even ONE GB Olinemen gets hurt, then Seattle defense will feast. Green Bay's backups failed to become serviceable this off season. Barring Oline injury Green Bay will not be beat in Lambeau with a healthy squad.

    Sooooo you believe your starting O-line is the best in the league. Alrighty.


    That's not exactly what he meant, but I'd actually say they were the best pass protecting line in the league last year. Check out highlights against us and the Giants, both of whom boast great DL, and you'll see how great they were. The main change is Evans for Lang. Even with a small dropoff, it'll still be at least a top 5 unit in pass pro.

    I think what PT was getting at is that not only is the line excellent, Rodgers is a master at manipulating the rush with his movements in the pocket. He's really in sync with his OL and they help each other out in pass pro. Also, Rodgers is pretty mobile outside the pocket, similar to Russ.

    Note that they aren't at the same level in run blocking. They're still good, but not elite like they are in pass blocking. I think run blocking is the area where the loss of the Lang/Sitton combo hurts them the most.

    This. And they aren't elite run blocking. In fact I don't see them opening many holes Sunday. Now if Bulaga is out or can't finish the game it's going to get ugly real quick.
    User avatar
    ptisme
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 773
    Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:22 am


  • ptisme wrote:
    adeltaY wrote:
    RolandDeschain wrote:
    ptisme wrote:This game depends entirely on Green Bay's offensive line. If the starting five are in there (assuming Bulaga is healthy) I don't see any defense putting a ton of pressure on Rodgers. However if even ONE GB Olinemen gets hurt, then Seattle defense will feast. Green Bay's backups failed to become serviceable this off season. Barring Oline injury Green Bay will not be beat in Lambeau with a healthy squad.

    Sooooo you believe your starting O-line is the best in the league. Alrighty.


    That's not exactly what he meant, but I'd actually say they were the best pass protecting line in the league last year. Check out highlights against us and the Giants, both of whom boast great DL, and you'll see how great they were. The main change is Evans for Lang. Even with a small dropoff, it'll still be at least a top 5 unit in pass pro.

    I think what PT was getting at is that not only is the line excellent, Rodgers is a master at manipulating the rush with his movements in the pocket. He's really in sync with his OL and they help each other out in pass pro. Also, Rodgers is pretty mobile outside the pocket, similar to Russ.

    Note that they aren't at the same level in run blocking. They're still good, but not elite like they are in pass blocking. I think run blocking is the area where the loss of the Lang/Sitton combo hurts them the most.

    This. And they aren't elite run blocking. In fact I don't see them opening many holes Sunday. Now if Bulaga is out or can't finish the game it's going to get ugly real quick.


    Take this FWIW (in other words, it could be a pretty small grain of salt), but Aaron Nagler (who was a guest on Real Hawk Talk [see my previous post above] ) said that he honestly felt that Bulaga is going to miss this game. From the reports he's hearing, his chances of playing on Sunday aren't too promising. So, if Bulaga doesn't play, I think that could be a significant factor.

    The other real key factor IMO is the addition of Sheldon Richardson. Honestly, the Seahawks have not had an interior pass rusher quite like this probably since the days of Cortez Kennedy. He is a dominant force inside, as he is just able to cause so much disruption, mess up blocking schemes, and put pressure on QB's right up the gut. For as great as this Seahawks defense has been, that's the one true piece that's been missing. They have been looking for that guy and they may have just found him.

    Part of what makes Aaron Rodgers so great and so deadly is Rodgers' mobility. Green Bay's sacks allowed in many ways are going to mirror Seattle's because Rodgers is a lot like Russell Wilson in that he's deadliest on the run. He likes to get outside the pocket and create on the fly. Now with the addition of Richardson, I'm wondering how that affects this game, as he is going to be facing a "Death Row" (Michael Bennett's new name he's coined for their D-Line) of Richardson, Michael Bennett, Cliff Avril, Frank Clark, and a host of other pretty good pass rushers. I'm wondering if Richardson's addition is going to end up messing up a lot of what Rodgers likes to do because he and that group are just go danged fast and disruptive. I dunno. Just thinking out loud here. We'll see.
    Last edited by Hawkscanner on Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    Hawkscanner
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 2035
    Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:28 am
    Location: Middle of Nowhere, Washington


  • Question for you (or for any Packers fan who's lurking out there) ...

    We've been focusing a lot of our discussion on the Packers Offense vs. the Seahawks Defense. Let's flip to the other side of the ball. Can you guys tell me, what have been seeing from this Packers Defense? Give me your overall assessment. Love to hear a detailed breakdown of your guys' thoughts on this 2017 Packers Defense.
    User avatar
    Hawkscanner
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 2035
    Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:28 am
    Location: Middle of Nowhere, Washington


  • If Bulaga can't play this is going to be a VERY frustrating game for Packers fans to watch.... I will say though that the damage will be much more mitigated given:
    1. The game is at home where the crowd won't be blasting on the offense like if it was in Seattle.
    2. They've had a week to prepare
    User avatar
    ptisme
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 773
    Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:22 am


  • ptisme wrote:If Bulaga can't play this is going to be a VERY frustrating game for Packers fans to watch.... I will say though that the damage will be much more mitigated given:
    1. The game is at home where the crowd won't be blasting on the offense like if it was in Seattle.
    2. They've had a week to prepare


    Very true -- it'll be interesting for me to see exactly what kind of effect all that's going to have. I'm also very interested to see exactly what the effect of Jahri Evans (instead of T.J. Lang) is going to have. Evans is a decent pass protector, but nowhere even close to the run blocker that Lang is. If the Packers end up not being able to effectively run the ball, I'm curious what effect that's going to have.


    Again, Question for you (or for any Packers fan who's lurking out there) ...

    We've been focusing a lot of our discussion on the Packers Offense vs. the Seahawks Defense. Let's flip to the other side of the ball. Can you guys tell me, what have been seeing from this Packers Defense? Give me your overall assessment. Love to hear a detailed breakdown of your guys' thoughts on this 2017 Packers Defense.
    User avatar
    Hawkscanner
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 2035
    Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:28 am
    Location: Middle of Nowhere, Washington


  • Hawkscanner wrote:Just to enlighten you in case you hadn't heard about this, it was announced a week or so ago that K.J. Wright was going to be missing practice and out of town with what Pete Carroll mysteriously referred to as "a process" -- not a surgery, not a procedure, "a process". This had everybody scratching their head trying to figure out what the heck he was talking about. It finally came to light that he had gone for a Regenokine treatment. He returned with glowing results. Prior to the Week 4 Preseason Game, it was like a stampede, as 5 other veterans decided to miss the game and undergo the "process" as well.
    http://www.seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=137959


    Thanks for the insight, I had not heard that. Interesting, to say the least.

    Hawkscanner wrote:Question for you (or for any Packers fan who's lurking out there) ...

    We've been focusing a lot of our discussion on the Packers Offense vs. the Seahawks Defense. Let's flip to the other side of the ball. Can you guys tell me, what have been seeing from this Packers Defense? Give me your overall assessment. Love to hear a detailed breakdown of your guys' thoughts on this 2017 Packers Defense.


    I gave mine earlier in this thread. The Packers new "Nitro" defense is an unknown. We are lighter, faster and can cover sideline to sideline but a big back (Lacy, for instance) should be able to get yards through the middle.

    Wilson is always a threat to run and he should keep the Packers defense off balance. For some reason though, our defense tends to get a lot of turnovers from Seattle. Expect Lacy to give us the ball twice. Early in the year, he tends to be a fumbler and our guys know him well.

    Clark, Daniels and Lowry upfront are a nice combination and should do well this year. Especially Clark, he is coming along nicely.

    Matthews and Perry are a great duo on the outside but both are nicked up already. If they stay healthy, they will be very good this year. I suspect they play well against Seattle on Sunday. Brooks rotating in will be nice. Hopefully he has some game left in him.

    ILB's are Ryan and Matrinez. Both solid and have been improving each year. This could be a breakout year for them, especially given the improvements upfront. Still, neither are on the level of Wagner but also, better than "Just a guy" on defense. These guys are not terrible.

    Secondary:

    Randall - small, light, having issues on coverage. (RCB)
    House - Steady and solid, not a game changer (LCB)
    Burnett and Dix at Safety are very good and can cover the run very well.

    King and Jones are rookies and I really like these guys. They will be starters real soon. They play big and have a ton of upside.

    The real issue, IMO, is going to come down to how well the Packers can contain a heavy dose of running by stronger RB's and OL's. Not too worried about your OL (Not exactly on the level of the Dallas Cowboys), but Lacy can pack a wallop and he can shrink a defense down that opens up the edges and the passing game over the top. A speedster like Lockett, if he can get 1v1 coverage off of a play action could have a huge game.

    If I were the 'hawks, I test the inside running game early and often and let my defense dictate field position. Look for the play action to take shots deep as the Packers Safety cheats up to stuff the run. Let Wilson roll out wide and break contain. Show "jet Sweep" often to keep the defense spread. Pick on Ryan in the middle and avoid Daniels.

    Just my 2 cents.
    Image
    User avatar
    PackerNation
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 615
    Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:29 am
    Location: Austin, Texas


  • Hawkscanner wrote:
    ptisme wrote:If Bulaga can't play this is going to be a VERY frustrating game for Packers fans to watch.... I will say though that the damage will be much more mitigated given:
    1. The game is at home where the crowd won't be blasting on the offense like if it was in Seattle.
    2. They've had a week to prepare


    Very true -- it'll be interesting for me to see exactly what kind of effect all that's going to have. I'm also very interested to see exactly what the effect of Jahri Evans (instead of T.J. Lang) is going to have. Evans is a decent pass protector, but nowhere even close to the run blocker that Lang is. If the Packers end up not being able to effectively run the ball, I'm curious what effect that's going to have.


    Again, Question for you (or for any Packers fan who's lurking out there) ...

    We've been focusing a lot of our discussion on the Packers Offense vs. the Seahawks Defense. Let's flip to the other side of the ball. Can you guys tell me, what have been seeing from this Packers Defense? Give me your overall assessment. Love to hear a detailed breakdown of your guys' thoughts on this 2017 Packers Defense.

    The Packers don't expect to run the ball on Seattle even if they still had Lang... I like the Patriots approach when they used to play Buffalo's defense: We know we can't run on you so we're going to put the ball in the hands of our quarterback.

    GB's Defense:
    1. Team speed is much improved. I don't see Wilson running all over the place on them like him and Kaep used to do a few years ago.
    2. Run defense should be pretty stout.
    3. Safety play will be elite.
    4. In theory the CB's should be better with more talent there but they are young. However it couldn't be worse than last year.
    5. the problem on defense is going to be pass rush....
    User avatar
    ptisme
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 773
    Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:22 am


  • ptisme wrote:
    Followthelegion wrote:
    ptisme wrote:
    adeltaY wrote:Agree that the GB OL is the key to this game. Bulaga and Bakhtiari will absolutely shut down our edge rushers 99% of the time. They are phenomenal. Their guards, however, could be vulnerable. Depends how much Jahri Evans has in the tank and how much Lane Taylor has improved. Corey Linsley is pretty dang good, though. Also, Rodgers mitigates pressure with his pocket-ninja moves. If Richardson and Bennett can dial up some interior, pressure, it's going to be tough for him.

    Also, our OL needs to not be garbage and Russ needs to not throw 4 or 5 picks. I'm guessing Dom Capers sacrificed his defense against Kaep so they could be good against Russ or partook in some other devilry...

    This is all good insight. lane taylor is awesome. The question is Evans and how much he has left, as you said. I'm guessing they'll try to quickly get rid of the ball. On defense the packers drafted some cornerbacks with speed and skill the last two years. Unfortunately inexperience in the first game against guys like wilson and Baldwin could spell disaster.


    Anyone know Bulaga's understudy?

    From early reports it looks like he is still not practicing and is a big concern for Sunday. With the DL that Seattle boosts, this could make a big difference to the packages that the Packers O utilise.

    We traded up last year to draft Jason Spriggs. He's been a disaster and is not someone who should even sniff the field against that defense on Sunday. Kyle Murphy (sixth rounder last year) would be a much better option but.... He's not Bulaga. They'd need to help him with the TE, which would really limit what we do on offense. If any of our starters are out it would limit what we could do and I don't believe our offense could keep up with the Seahawks offense at that point.


    I actually feel for you guys regarding Spriggs. So difficult to draft College OL. Hawks have had issues in that area as well over the years. You wonder how talent evaluaters don't see it coming. They are like a girlfriend who thinks they can "fix" you but in the end they really can't.
    User avatar
    HawkerD
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 421
    Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 10:33 am
    Location: Covington WA


  • HawkerD wrote:
    ptisme wrote:
    Followthelegion wrote:
    ptisme wrote:This is all good insight. lane taylor is awesome. The question is Evans and how much he has left, as you said. I'm guessing they'll try to quickly get rid of the ball. On defense the packers drafted some cornerbacks with speed and skill the last two years. Unfortunately inexperience in the first game against guys like wilson and Baldwin could spell disaster.


    Anyone know Bulaga's understudy?

    From early reports it looks like he is still not practicing and is a big concern for Sunday. With the DL that Seattle boosts, this could make a big difference to the packages that the Packers O utilise.

    We traded up last year to draft Jason Spriggs. He's been a disaster and is not someone who should even sniff the field against that defense on Sunday. Kyle Murphy (sixth rounder last year) would be a much better option but.... He's not Bulaga. They'd need to help him with the TE, which would really limit what we do on offense. If any of our starters are out it would limit what we could do and I don't believe our offense could keep up with the Seahawks offense at that point.


    I actually feel for you guys regarding Spriggs. So difficult to draft College OL. Hawks have had issues in that area as well over the years. You wonder how talent evaluaters don't see it coming. They are like a girlfriend who thinks they can "fix" you but in the end they really can't.

    They're like pitchers: You bring in a ton of them and hope one or two gets it...
    User avatar
    ptisme
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 773
    Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:22 am


  • ptisme wrote:
    HawkerD wrote:
    ptisme wrote:I actually feel for you guys regarding Spriggs. So difficult to draft College OL. Hawks have had issues in that area as well over the years. You wonder how talent evaluaters don't see it coming. They are like a girlfriend who thinks they can "fix" you but in the end they really can't.


    They're like pitchers: You bring in a ton of them and hope one or two gets it...


    Yup. It's kind of a running joke around here how Offensive Line Coach Tom Cable is always looking to convert defensive linemen into offensive linemen. He did it successfully with J.R. Sweezy ... not successfully with Kristjan Sokoli ... and now again they are going to try to go down that road once again with Isaiah Battle.

    Cable has talked openly about this a few times in the past. His reasons (and why they are so picky when it comes to drafting offensive line) ... it's because the colleges (in general) are doing such a crappy job of preparing these offensive linemen for the NFL. They're coming into the NFL with poor technique, bad habits, with very little overall understanding of NFL blocking schemes ... AND (by in large) they're nowhere near as big and athletic as you'd like for the NFL game. So, rather than take a lesser skilled guy who has bad form, bad technique, bad habits, etc. --- a guy you're going to have to re-teach anyway -- why not take a more athletically talented guy and teach him how to be an NFL linemen? No bad habits and bad technique that you're going to have to have him UN-learn. He's certainly got a valid point. He's not wrong. Across the NFL, I think you're seeing the lack of really good NFL linemen very apparent.
    User avatar
    Hawkscanner
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 2035
    Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:28 am
    Location: Middle of Nowhere, Washington


  • PackerNation wrote:The real issue, IMO, is going to come down to how well the Packers can contain a heavy dose of running by stronger RB's and OL's. Not too worried about your OL (Not exactly on the level of the Dallas Cowboys), but Lacy can pack a wallop and he can shrink a defense down that opens up the edges and the passing game over the top. A speedster like Lockett, if he can get 1v1 coverage off of a play action could have a huge game.

    If I were the 'hawks, I test the inside running game early and often and let my defense dictate field position. Look for the play action to take shots deep as the Packers Safety cheats up to stuff the run. Let Wilson roll out wide and break contain. Show "jet Sweep" often to keep the defense spread. Pick on Ryan in the middle and avoid Daniels.

    Just my 2 cents.


    Thanks for that. Good stuff … and from watching Pete Carroll and this coaching staff over the past few years, I can say that’s undoubtedly exactly the approach that they are going to employ. It is NO secret that Carroll LOVES to run the football. He is first and foremost a guy who wants to establish the run -- pound a team into submission -- and then hit them with the deep shots downfield. Marshawn Lynch so typified exactly the kind of ball that Pete Carroll loves -- smash mouth football. That’s why they brought in an Eddie Lacy … and they have really physical runners in Thomas Rawls … and now Chris Carson.

    Seattle had 136 yards on the ground in that Week 14 game against the Packers in Lambeau last year … and I don’t see the focus shifting away from that approach. They are going to look to run the ball … FIRST AND FOREMOST … and run it a lot (especially on the road in a hostile, tough to play in, environment like Lambeau). Outside of last season, Seattle has always been among the league leaders in rushing. I don’t expect that focus to change anytime soon. They will certainly test that inside running game early and often, I can virtually promise that.

    Yes, I know that the Seahawks haven’t won in Green Bay since 1999 … BUT, I wonder if they just might have the team to do it this year. And I say that based upon a few things …

    1] Seattle’s Running Game. As I’ve noted above, running the football is in the Hawks DNA … and they’ve historically done it very well. The offensive line is improved and it looks like Seattle’s overall running attack is improved as well. Seattle did fairly well last year running the ball, so I would say they’re going to go to that well in this game. Stress clock management. Keep Aaron Rodgers and that offense OFF the field.


    2] Packers Pass Defense Issues?

    It’s interesting, as I’ve been studying this matchup more and more, I’ve been trying to figure out this Packers Pass Defense. I’ve noticed that there were definitely a lot of issues last year ...

    8.1 Yards/Pass Attempt Allowed (32nd overall)
    QB Rating Against of 95.9 (26th overall)
    64.8% Completion Against (25th overall)
    32 Passing TD’s Allowed (Tied 29th overall)
    58 plays of 20 yards+ Allowed (Tied 3rd Most)
    Allowed 41.2% of 3rd Downs to be converted (24th overall)


    The question I’ve been trying to answer … is WHY? Why such problems in pass coverage?

    After all, the Packers defense had 40 sacks (tied for 6th best) … just behind Seattle (who had 42, tied for 3rd). So, it doesn’t seem to be a matter of generating pressure, though I wonder if a lot of those sacks were generated by blitzing … which might account for possible holes in coverage schemes if the Packers can’t generate consistent pressure without it.

    It’s abundantly clear that there were issues last year though. Based upon what you guys are saying and what I’m hearing, I’m wondering if it might have had something to do with personnel. In the podcast that I cited above, Brian Nemhauser brought up some very interesting stats from Pro Football Focus ...

    Packers Pass Coverage (According to Pro Football Focus) 2016
    SS Morgan Burnett … +3.6
    DB LaDarius Gunter … +1.3
    DB Makinton Dorleant … +1.1
    FS Ha Ha Clinton Dix … +0.2

    ROLB Nick Perry … -1.1
    DB Sam Shields … -2.2
    DB Micah Hyde … -2.4
    ILB Jake Ryan … -3.7
    ILB Joe Thomas … -3.7
    DB Demetri Goodson … -3.8
    DB Quinten Rollins … -4.4
    ILB Blake Martinez … -5.2
    RCB Damarious Randall … -10.7


    Check out the negative pass coverage scores there -- I’ve highlighted guys who are still on this Packers team. You can certainly see the weak spots and where they were last year (noted in red).

    Now, that was last year. This year -- totally unknown at this point. It’ll be very interesting to see how the Packers new additions … and the new schemes they’ve implemented will affect things when it comes to coverage.

    Still, many of those guys I highlighted above are still starters, so I suspect that there will in fact be holes. Can Russell Wilson and company find and exploit those? That remains to be seen.


    3] Overall Improvement of Russell Wilson. Russell Wilson was pretty banged up and hobbled when the Seahawks met the Packers in Week 13 last year. It was very noticeable that he wasn’t moving around all that well. He wasn’t all that much of a running threat at that point of the season. This year, it’s clear that his wheels are back. He’s moving around really well, stepping up in the pocket, sliding around, making great throws on the fly. So far, Russell Wilson has looked SHARP. I concur with the NFL’s Elliot Harrison who said that Russell Wilson is looking like an early MVP Candidate. He most certainly has looked very good.

    4] Improvements to the Seahawks Defense Already noted above with the additions that the Hawks have made along with the new schemes that they are implementing. Like the Packers Defense, the new schemes that the Hawks are implementing are a virtual unknown … but I have to figure that it’s all going to be about shutting down those running lanes … and putting sustained pressure on Rodgers. If that offensive line is at all compromised, it could be a very long day.

    Honestly, to me the biggest key to this game is, “Can the Packers establish the run?” If they can … then it could be a long day for the Hawks. I just look at it from this standpoint though -- a Seahawks defense that was fairly banged up in Week 14 last year held the Packers to just 93 Yards Rushing in Lambeau. And now the Packers are minus T.J. Lang … and maybe minus Bulaga for this game as well … and they’re facing a defense that’s finally healthy again and looking more formidable than they’ve looked in years.

    I DO personally think that the Seahawks have the team to go into Lambeau and pull off the upset. I’m predicting that’s going to happen. Will it? Who knows? I can’t wait for this weekend to find out.
    User avatar
    Hawkscanner
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 2035
    Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:28 am
    Location: Middle of Nowhere, Washington


  • Hawkscanner wrote:
    PackerNation wrote:The real issue, IMO, is going to come down to how well the Packers can contain a heavy dose of running by stronger RB's and OL's. Not too worried about your OL (Not exactly on the level of the Dallas Cowboys), but Lacy can pack a wallop and he can shrink a defense down that opens up the edges and the passing game over the top. A speedster like Lockett, if he can get 1v1 coverage off of a play action could have a huge game.

    If I were the 'hawks, I test the inside running game early and often and let my defense dictate field position. Look for the play action to take shots deep as the Packers Safety cheats up to stuff the run. Let Wilson roll out wide and break contain. Show "jet Sweep" often to keep the defense spread. Pick on Ryan in the middle and avoid Daniels.

    Just my 2 cents.


    Thanks for that. Good stuff … and from watching Pete Carroll and this coaching staff over the past few years, I can say that’s undoubtedly exactly the approach that they are going to employ. It is NO secret that Carroll LOVES to run the football. He is first and foremost a guy who wants to establish the run -- pound a team into submission -- and then hit them with the deep shots downfield. Marshawn Lynch so typified exactly the kind of ball that Pete Carroll loves -- smash mouth football. That’s why they brought in an Eddie Lacy … and they have really physical runners in Thomas Rawls … and now Chris Carson.

    Seattle had 136 yards on the ground in that Week 14 game against the Packers in Lambeau last year … and I don’t see the focus shifting away from that approach. They are going to look to run the ball … FIRST AND FOREMOST … and run it a lot (especially on the road in a hostile, tough to play in, environment like Lambeau). Outside of last season, Seattle has always been among the league leaders in rushing. I don’t expect that focus to change anytime soon. They will certainly test that inside running game early and often, I can virtually promise that.

    Yes, I know that the Seahawks haven’t won in Green Bay since 1999 … BUT, I wonder if they just might have the team to do it this year. And I say that based upon a few things …

    1] Seattle’s Running Game. As I’ve noted above, running the football is in the Hawks DNA … and they’ve historically done it very well. The offensive line is improved and it looks like Seattle’s overall running attack is improved as well. Seattle did fairly well last year running the ball, so I would say they’re going to go to that well in this game. Stress clock management. Keep Aaron Rodgers and that offense OFF the field.


    2] Packers Pass Defense Issues?

    It’s interesting, as I’ve been studying this matchup more and more, I’ve been trying to figure out this Packers Pass Defense. I’ve noticed that there were definitely a lot of issues last year ...

    8.1 Yards/Pass Attempt Allowed (32nd overall)
    QB Rating Against of 95.9 (26th overall)
    64.8% Completion Against (25th overall)
    32 Passing TD’s Allowed (Tied 29th overall)
    58 plays of 20 yards+ Allowed (Tied 3rd Most)
    Allowed 41.2% of 3rd Downs to be converted (24th overall)


    The question I’ve been trying to answer … is WHY? Why such problems in pass coverage?

    After all, the Packers defense had 40 sacks (tied for 6th best) … just behind Seattle (who had 42, tied for 3rd). So, it doesn’t seem to be a matter of generating pressure, though I wonder if a lot of those sacks were generated by blitzing … which might account for possible holes in coverage schemes if the Packers can’t generate consistent pressure without it.

    It’s abundantly clear that there were issues last year though. Based upon what you guys are saying and what I’m hearing, I’m wondering if it might have had something to do with personnel. In the podcast that I cited above, Brian Nemhauser brought up some very interesting stats from Pro Football Focus ...

    Packers Pass Coverage (According to Pro Football Focus) 2016
    SS Morgan Burnett … +3.6
    DB LaDarius Gunter … +1.3
    DB Makinton Dorleant … +1.1
    FS Ha Ha Clinton Dix … +0.2

    ROLB Nick Perry … -1.1
    DB Sam Shields … -2.2
    DB Micah Hyde … -2.4
    ILB Jake Ryan … -3.7
    ILB Joe Thomas … -3.7
    DB Demetri Goodson … -3.8
    DB Quinten Rollins … -4.4
    ILB Blake Martinez … -5.2
    RCB Damarious Randall … -10.7


    Check out the negative pass coverage scores there -- I’ve highlighted guys who are still on this Packers team. You can certainly see the weak spots and where they were last year (noted in red).

    Now, that was last year. This year -- totally unknown at this point. It’ll be very interesting to see how the Packers new additions … and the new schemes they’ve implemented will affect things when it comes to coverage.

    Still, many of those guys I highlighted above are still starters, so I suspect that there will in fact be holes. Can Russell Wilson and company find and exploit those? That remains to be seen.


    3] Overall Improvement of Russell Wilson. Russell Wilson was pretty banged up and hobbled when the Seahawks met the Packers in Week 13 last year. It was very noticeable that he wasn’t moving around all that well. He wasn’t all that much of a running threat at that point of the season. This year, it’s clear that his wheels are back. He’s moving around really well, stepping up in the pocket, sliding around, making great throws on the fly. So far, Russell Wilson has looked SHARP. I concur with the NFL’s Elliot Harrison who said that Russell Wilson is looking like an early MVP Candidate. He most certainly has looked very good.

    4] Improvements to the Seahawks Defense Already noted above with the additions that the Hawks have made along with the new schemes that they are implementing. Like the Packers Defense, the new schemes that the Hawks are implementing are a virtual unknown … but I have to figure that it’s all going to be about shutting down those running lanes … and putting sustained pressure on Rodgers. If that offensive line is at all compromised, it could be a very long day.

    Honestly, to me the biggest key to this game is, “Can the Packers establish the run?” If they can … then it could be a long day for the Hawks. I just look at it from this standpoint though -- a Seahawks defense that was fairly banged up in Week 14 last year held the Packers to just 93 Yards Rushing in Lambeau. And now the Packers are minus T.J. Lang … and maybe minus Bulaga for this game as well … and they’re facing a defense that’s finally healthy again and looking more formidable than they’ve looked in years.

    I DO personally think that the Seahawks have the team to go into Lambeau and pull off the upset. I’m predicting that’s going to happen. Will it? Who knows? I can’t wait for this weekend to find out.

    2. The secondary for GB was the walking wounded. They were forced to start two rookies suffering from groin injuries. I'm not going to tell you they will be great this year because they are an unknown. But nothing you know about last year with regard to our pass defense should be applied to this year.
    User avatar
    ptisme
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 773
    Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:22 am


  • Hawkscanner wrote:
    PackerNation wrote:The real issue, IMO, is going to come down to how well the Packers can contain a heavy dose of running by stronger RB's and OL's. Not too worried about your OL (Not exactly on the level of the Dallas Cowboys), but Lacy can pack a wallop and he can shrink a defense down that opens up the edges and the passing game over the top. A speedster like Lockett, if he can get 1v1 coverage off of a play action could have a huge game.

    If I were the 'hawks, I test the inside running game early and often and let my defense dictate field position. Look for the play action to take shots deep as the Packers Safety cheats up to stuff the run. Let Wilson roll out wide and break contain. Show "jet Sweep" often to keep the defense spread. Pick on Ryan in the middle and avoid Daniels.

    Just my 2 cents.


    Thanks for that. Good stuff … and from watching Pete Carroll and this coaching staff over the past few years, I can say that’s undoubtedly exactly the approach that they are going to employ. It is NO secret that Carroll LOVES to run the football. He is first and foremost a guy who wants to establish the run -- pound a team into submission -- and then hit them with the deep shots downfield. Marshawn Lynch so typified exactly the kind of ball that Pete Carroll loves -- smash mouth football. That’s why they brought in an Eddie Lacy … and they have really physical runners in Thomas Rawls … and now Chris Carson.

    Seattle had 136 yards on the ground in that Week 14 game against the Packers in Lambeau last year … and I don’t see the focus shifting away from that approach. They are going to look to run the ball … FIRST AND FOREMOST … and run it a lot (especially on the road in a hostile, tough to play in, environment like Lambeau). Outside of last season, Seattle has always been among the league leaders in rushing. I don’t expect that focus to change anytime soon. They will certainly test that inside running game early and often, I can virtually promise that.

    Yes, I know that the Seahawks haven’t won in Green Bay since 1999 … BUT, I wonder if they just might have the team to do it this year. And I say that based upon a few things …

    1] Seattle’s Running Game. As I’ve noted above, running the football is in the Hawks DNA … and they’ve historically done it very well. The offensive line is improved and it looks like Seattle’s overall running attack is improved as well. Seattle did fairly well last year running the ball, so I would say they’re going to go to that well in this game. Stress clock management. Keep Aaron Rodgers and that offense OFF the field.


    2] Packers Pass Defense Issues?

    It’s interesting, as I’ve been studying this matchup more and more, I’ve been trying to figure out this Packers Pass Defense. I’ve noticed that there were definitely a lot of issues last year ...

    8.1 Yards/Pass Attempt Allowed (32nd overall)
    QB Rating Against of 95.9 (26th overall)
    64.8% Completion Against (25th overall)
    32 Passing TD’s Allowed (Tied 29th overall)
    58 plays of 20 yards+ Allowed (Tied 3rd Most)
    Allowed 41.2% of 3rd Downs to be converted (24th overall)


    The question I’ve been trying to answer … is WHY? Why such problems in pass coverage?

    After all, the Packers defense had 40 sacks (tied for 6th best) … just behind Seattle (who had 42, tied for 3rd). So, it doesn’t seem to be a matter of generating pressure, though I wonder if a lot of those sacks were generated by blitzing … which might account for possible holes in coverage schemes if the Packers can’t generate consistent pressure without it.

    It’s abundantly clear that there were issues last year though. Based upon what you guys are saying and what I’m hearing, I’m wondering if it might have had something to do with personnel. In the podcast that I cited above, Brian Nemhauser brought up some very interesting stats from Pro Football Focus ...

    Packers Pass Coverage (According to Pro Football Focus) 2016
    SS Morgan Burnett … +3.6
    DB LaDarius Gunter … +1.3
    DB Makinton Dorleant … +1.1
    FS Ha Ha Clinton Dix … +0.2

    ROLB Nick Perry … -1.1
    DB Sam Shields … -2.2
    DB Micah Hyde … -2.4
    ILB Jake Ryan … -3.7
    ILB Joe Thomas … -3.7
    DB Demetri Goodson … -3.8
    DB Quinten Rollins … -4.4
    ILB Blake Martinez … -5.2
    RCB Damarious Randall … -10.7


    Check out the negative pass coverage scores there -- I’ve highlighted guys who are still on this Packers team. You can certainly see the weak spots and where they were last year (noted in red).

    Now, that was last year. This year -- totally unknown at this point. It’ll be very interesting to see how the Packers new additions … and the new schemes they’ve implemented will affect things when it comes to coverage.

    Still, many of those guys I highlighted above are still starters, so I suspect that there will in fact be holes. Can Russell Wilson and company find and exploit those? That remains to be seen.


    3] Overall Improvement of Russell Wilson. Russell Wilson was pretty banged up and hobbled when the Seahawks met the Packers in Week 13 last year. It was very noticeable that he wasn’t moving around all that well. He wasn’t all that much of a running threat at that point of the season. This year, it’s clear that his wheels are back. He’s moving around really well, stepping up in the pocket, sliding around, making great throws on the fly. So far, Russell Wilson has looked SHARP. I concur with the NFL’s Elliot Harrison who said that Russell Wilson is looking like an early MVP Candidate. He most certainly has looked very good.

    4] Improvements to the Seahawks Defense Already noted above with the additions that the Hawks have made along with the new schemes that they are implementing. Like the Packers Defense, the new schemes that the Hawks are implementing are a virtual unknown … but I have to figure that it’s all going to be about shutting down those running lanes … and putting sustained pressure on Rodgers. If that offensive line is at all compromised, it could be a very long day.

    Honestly, to me the biggest key to this game is, “Can the Packers establish the run?” If they can … then it could be a long day for the Hawks. I just look at it from this standpoint though -- a Seahawks defense that was fairly banged up in Week 14 last year held the Packers to just 93 Yards Rushing in Lambeau. And now the Packers are minus T.J. Lang … and maybe minus Bulaga for this game as well … and they’re facing a defense that’s finally healthy again and looking more formidable than they’ve looked in years.

    I DO personally think that the Seahawks have the team to go into Lambeau and pull off the upset. I’m predicting that’s going to happen. Will it? Who knows? I can’t wait for this weekend to find out.

    4. from afar: The greatness that was the Seattle defense left with Dan Quinn... Until proven otherwise... IMHO from afar...
    User avatar
    ptisme
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 773
    Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:22 am


  • ptisme wrote:
    Hawkscanner wrote:
    PackerNation wrote:The real issue, IMO, is going to come down to how well the Packers can contain a heavy dose of running by stronger RB's and OL's. Not too worried about your OL (Not exactly on the level of the Dallas Cowboys), but Lacy can pack a wallop and he can shrink a defense down that opens up the edges and the passing game over the top. A speedster like Lockett, if he can get 1v1 coverage off of a play action could have a huge game.

    If I were the 'hawks, I test the inside running game early and often and let my defense dictate field position. Look for the play action to take shots deep as the Packers Safety cheats up to stuff the run. Let Wilson roll out wide and break contain. Show "jet Sweep" often to keep the defense spread. Pick on Ryan in the middle and avoid Daniels.

    Just my 2 cents.


    Thanks for that. Good stuff … and from watching Pete Carroll and this coaching staff over the past few years, I can say that’s undoubtedly exactly the approach that they are going to employ. It is NO secret that Carroll LOVES to run the football. He is first and foremost a guy who wants to establish the run -- pound a team into submission -- and then hit them with the deep shots downfield. Marshawn Lynch so typified exactly the kind of ball that Pete Carroll loves -- smash mouth football. That’s why they brought in an Eddie Lacy … and they have really physical runners in Thomas Rawls … and now Chris Carson.

    Seattle had 136 yards on the ground in that Week 14 game against the Packers in Lambeau last year … and I don’t see the focus shifting away from that approach. They are going to look to run the ball … FIRST AND FOREMOST … and run it a lot (especially on the road in a hostile, tough to play in, environment like Lambeau). Outside of last season, Seattle has always been among the league leaders in rushing. I don’t expect that focus to change anytime soon. They will certainly test that inside running game early and often, I can virtually promise that.

    Yes, I know that the Seahawks haven’t won in Green Bay since 1999 … BUT, I wonder if they just might have the team to do it this year. And I say that based upon a few things …

    1] Seattle’s Running Game. As I’ve noted above, running the football is in the Hawks DNA … and they’ve historically done it very well. The offensive line is improved and it looks like Seattle’s overall running attack is improved as well. Seattle did fairly well last year running the ball, so I would say they’re going to go to that well in this game. Stress clock management. Keep Aaron Rodgers and that offense OFF the field.


    2] Packers Pass Defense Issues?

    It’s interesting, as I’ve been studying this matchup more and more, I’ve been trying to figure out this Packers Pass Defense. I’ve noticed that there were definitely a lot of issues last year ...

    8.1 Yards/Pass Attempt Allowed (32nd overall)
    QB Rating Against of 95.9 (26th overall)
    64.8% Completion Against (25th overall)
    32 Passing TD’s Allowed (Tied 29th overall)
    58 plays of 20 yards+ Allowed (Tied 3rd Most)
    Allowed 41.2% of 3rd Downs to be converted (24th overall)


    The question I’ve been trying to answer … is WHY? Why such problems in pass coverage?

    After all, the Packers defense had 40 sacks (tied for 6th best) … just behind Seattle (who had 42, tied for 3rd). So, it doesn’t seem to be a matter of generating pressure, though I wonder if a lot of those sacks were generated by blitzing … which might account for possible holes in coverage schemes if the Packers can’t generate consistent pressure without it.

    It’s abundantly clear that there were issues last year though. Based upon what you guys are saying and what I’m hearing, I’m wondering if it might have had something to do with personnel. In the podcast that I cited above, Brian Nemhauser brought up some very interesting stats from Pro Football Focus ...

    Packers Pass Coverage (According to Pro Football Focus) 2016
    SS Morgan Burnett … +3.6
    DB LaDarius Gunter … +1.3
    DB Makinton Dorleant … +1.1
    FS Ha Ha Clinton Dix … +0.2

    ROLB Nick Perry … -1.1
    DB Sam Shields … -2.2
    DB Micah Hyde … -2.4
    ILB Jake Ryan … -3.7
    ILB Joe Thomas … -3.7
    DB Demetri Goodson … -3.8
    DB Quinten Rollins … -4.4
    ILB Blake Martinez … -5.2
    RCB Damarious Randall … -10.7


    Check out the negative pass coverage scores there -- I’ve highlighted guys who are still on this Packers team. You can certainly see the weak spots and where they were last year (noted in red).

    Now, that was last year. This year -- totally unknown at this point. It’ll be very interesting to see how the Packers new additions … and the new schemes they’ve implemented will affect things when it comes to coverage.

    Still, many of those guys I highlighted above are still starters, so I suspect that there will in fact be holes. Can Russell Wilson and company find and exploit those? That remains to be seen.


    3] Overall Improvement of Russell Wilson. Russell Wilson was pretty banged up and hobbled when the Seahawks met the Packers in Week 13 last year. It was very noticeable that he wasn’t moving around all that well. He wasn’t all that much of a running threat at that point of the season. This year, it’s clear that his wheels are back. He’s moving around really well, stepping up in the pocket, sliding around, making great throws on the fly. So far, Russell Wilson has looked SHARP. I concur with the NFL’s Elliot Harrison who said that Russell Wilson is looking like an early MVP Candidate. He most certainly has looked very good.

    4] Improvements to the Seahawks Defense Already noted above with the additions that the Hawks have made along with the new schemes that they are implementing. Like the Packers Defense, the new schemes that the Hawks are implementing are a virtual unknown … but I have to figure that it’s all going to be about shutting down those running lanes … and putting sustained pressure on Rodgers. If that offensive line is at all compromised, it could be a very long day.

    Honestly, to me the biggest key to this game is, “Can the Packers establish the run?” If they can … then it could be a long day for the Hawks. I just look at it from this standpoint though -- a Seahawks defense that was fairly banged up in Week 14 last year held the Packers to just 93 Yards Rushing in Lambeau. And now the Packers are minus T.J. Lang … and maybe minus Bulaga for this game as well … and they’re facing a defense that’s finally healthy again and looking more formidable than they’ve looked in years.

    I DO personally think that the Seahawks have the team to go into Lambeau and pull off the upset. I’m predicting that’s going to happen. Will it? Who knows? I can’t wait for this weekend to find out.

    4. from afar: The greatness that was the Seattle defense left with Dan Quinn... Until proven otherwise... IMHO from afar...
    PS, the key to this game is NOT whether GB can establish the run. I assume they won't... The key is if they can protect Rodgers...
    User avatar
    ptisme
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 773
    Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:22 am


  • ptisme wrote:4. from afar: The greatness that was the Seattle defense left with Dan Quinn... Until proven otherwise... IMHO from afar...
    PS, the key to this game is NOT whether GB can establish the run. I assume they won't... The key is if they can protect Rodgers...


    I won't argue with you that this defense hasn't been quite the same since Dan Quinn left. What it's exactly going to look like this Sunday and this season ... I think we can both agree is pretty much unknown. We'll see obviously.

    As far as Green Bay needing to establish the run -- here's my rationale with that. Take New England as a perfect example. As is the case with the Pats, I think that in order to be effective against the Hawks ... you have to at least establish the threat of the run. You've got to be able to show that defense that they are capable of running it any time they want. You do that, that opens up play action pass ... that gets those guys to cheat up (to stop the run) ... and that opens up a whole lot of options for you. If you show you CAN'T run the ball (for whatever reason), you run the risk of becoming 1 dimensional against this group. That's a lonely place to be ... because then, this group can just focus on pinning their ears back ... shutting down those escape routes for Rodgers ... and containing and going after him.

    That's what I've seen is the real key to beating this group. You have to at least show them you can run it anytime you want. If you can't ... Oooof!
    User avatar
    Hawkscanner
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 2035
    Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:28 am
    Location: Middle of Nowhere, Washington


  • Hawkscanner wrote:
    ptisme wrote:4. from afar: The greatness that was the Seattle defense left with Dan Quinn... Until proven otherwise... IMHO from afar...
    PS, the key to this game is NOT whether GB can establish the run. I assume they won't... The key is if they can protect Rodgers...


    I won't argue with you that this defense hasn't been quite the same since Dan Quinn left. What it's exactly going to look like this Sunday and this season ... I think we can both agree is pretty much unknown. We'll see obviously.

    As far as Green Bay needing to establish the run -- here's my rationale with that. Take New England as a perfect example. As is the case with the Pats, I think that in order to be effective against the Hawks ... you have to at least establish the threat of the run. You've got to be able to show that defense that they are capable of running it any time they want. You do that, that opens up play action pass ... that gets those guys to cheat up (to stop the run) ... and that opens up a whole lot of options for you. If you show you CAN'T run the ball (for whatever reason), you run the risk of becoming 1 dimensional against this group. That's a lonely place to be ... because then, this group can just focus on pinning their ears back ... shutting down those escape routes for Rodgers ... and containing and going after him.

    That's what I've seen is the real key to beating this group. You have to at least show them you can run it anytime you want. If you can't ... Oooof!

    Rodgers is arguably one of the most talented quarterbacks ever to play the game. He doesn't need the run. He needs SOME pass protection. If Rodgers has time to throw he will beat most secondaries. Then the play action will open up the run... GB isn't going to line the ball up Sunday and stuff it down Seattle's throat. You and I both know that.... They will get stopped for no gain twice in the first series and forget about the run... Seattle is way too strong up front and then there's Wagner/Cam. If GB wants to win Rodgers needs a few seconds to run through his progressions. If that happens it's game over for Seattle. If his receivers have no time to run their routes then it's advantage Seattle.
    User avatar
    ptisme
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 773
    Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:22 am


  • I don't think the game hinges on Rodgers scanning the field, it hinges on Martellus Bennett and Lance Kendricks.

    Rodgers is a special talent. We can talk all day about his accuracy, his mobility, his leadership, but when the rubber meets the road, what really differentiates him from other QBs is his post-snap read. In that split second between the snap, and his first or second step, I think Rodgers reads and diagnoses defenses better than any other QB I have ever seen play.

    However, Seattle takes this advantage away. They line up and show you exactly what they are going to do. In terms of pre and post snap reads, every QB is Aaron Rodgers. Beating Seattle, isn't about the reads, it's about the execution.

    Teams have proven, time and time again, that the Seattle defense's kryptonite is that tight end attack over the middle. The blueprint was laid out by Frank Reich, and executed to perfection by Rivers and Gates. It has been copied successfully ever since. Even Brady/ Belichick used it in the Super Bowl.

    I wouldn't go so far as to say it is the primary reason the Packers went out and secured this tight end tandem, but I do think it had some influence.

    Even if we get pressure up the gut, Rodgers can dissect us by dinking and dunking across the middle.

    I think the game comes down to this, and, Unless Richard/ Carroll have figured out an answer to the tight end conundrum, I think the Packers come away with the win

    13-6 Packers.
    Fire Tom Cable
    User avatar
    bigskydoc
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2096
    Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 9:27 am
    Location: Kalispell, MT


  • I'd argue any QB, no matter how good, needs to have some semblance of balance to be effective, especially against a great defense. To the Dan Quinn point, it's somewhat true, but the Hawks still led the league in points allowed in '15 and dropped to third in '16 after ETIII's injury. Quinn averaged a #1 ranking in points allowed and Richard averages #2... not too much of a drop-off. I will say that Richard's defenses have struggled a lot more in the playoffs against elite competition than Quinn's did.

    Then again, the Hawks have been on the road during those playoff stints as opposed to having homefield throughout when Quinn ran the defense.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 559
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR





  • Good. I'd much rather have it that way personally. I want to see BOTH clubs at full strength -- at their very best. It's a more true and accurate measurement IMO.

    ptisme wrote:Rodgers is arguably one of the most talented quarterbacks ever to play the game. He doesn't need the run. He needs SOME pass protection. If Rodgers has time to throw he will beat most secondaries. Then the play action will open up the run... GB isn't going to line the ball up Sunday and stuff it down Seattle's throat. You and I both know that.... They will get stopped for no gain twice in the first series and forget about the run... Seattle is way too strong up front and then there's Wagner/Cam. If GB wants to win Rodgers needs a few seconds to run through his progressions. If that happens it's game over for Seattle. If his receivers have no time to run their routes then it's advantage Seattle.


    I completely agree -- Rodgers isn't most QB's (he's one of the best of all time) ... and at the same time, Seattle's secondary isn't most secondaries either (they're one of the best secondaries of all time as well). That's what makes this match-up so intriguing this Sunday.

    In truth, there are many more unknowns than knowns at this point, as both the offenses and defenses (I think we can agree) have been pretty vanilla to this point. Both offensive and defensive coordinators in general are reluctant to tip their hand during the Preseason, so the public never sees the actual schemes and all the moving parts until they are rolled out there on opening day. I'm interested to see how both clubs look and what they end up throwing at each other this Sunday. Each of us is confident based upon what we know and have seen regarding our respective clubs. It'll be interesting to watch how this all unfolds once these 2 finally go head to head. Regardless of the eventual outcome of this particular contest, I think we can both agree -- these 2 teams (the Packers and the Seahawks) -- are going to be right there at the end, legitimately vying for the rights to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl.
    User avatar
    Hawkscanner
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 2035
    Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:28 am
    Location: Middle of Nowhere, Washington




  • We will see, practice with Kid Gloves on him versus a game with Boxing Gloves on will be a lot different.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 22149
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • Hawkscanner wrote:


    Good. I'd much rather have it that way personally. I want to see BOTH clubs at full strength -- at their very best. It's a more true and accurate measurement IMO.

    ptisme wrote:Rodgers is arguably one of the most talented quarterbacks ever to play the game. He doesn't need the run. He needs SOME pass protection. If Rodgers has time to throw he will beat most secondaries. Then the play action will open up the run... GB isn't going to line the ball up Sunday and stuff it down Seattle's throat. You and I both know that.... They will get stopped for no gain twice in the first series and forget about the run... Seattle is way too strong up front and then there's Wagner/Cam. If GB wants to win Rodgers needs a few seconds to run through his progressions. If that happens it's game over for Seattle. If his receivers have no time to run their routes then it's advantage Seattle.


    I completely agree -- Rodgers isn't most QB's (he's one of the best of all time) ... and at the same time, Seattle's secondary isn't most secondaries either (they're one of the best secondaries of all time as well). That's what makes this match-up so intriguing this Sunday.

    In truth, there are many more unknowns than knowns at this point, as both the offenses and defenses (I think we can agree) have been pretty vanilla to this point. Both offensive and defensive coordinators in general are reluctant to tip their hand during the Preseason, so the public never sees the actual schemes and all the moving parts until they are rolled out there on opening day. I'm interested to see how both clubs look and what they end up throwing at each other this Sunday. Each of us is confident based upon what we know and have seen regarding our respective clubs. It'll be interesting to watch how this all unfolds once these 2 finally go head to head. Regardless of the eventual outcome of this particular contest, I think we can both agree -- these 2 teams (the Packers and the Seahawks) -- are going to be right there at the end, legitimately vying for the rights to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl.

    Agreed on all above. And yet, after the game, whatever the result: it will have seemed obvious to us looking back:)
    User avatar
    ptisme
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 773
    Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:22 am


  • chris98251 wrote:


    We will see, practice with Kid Gloves on him versus a game with Boxing Gloves on will be a lot different.

    He's an offensive lineman, not a defensive back. And he practiced without a brace.
    User avatar
    ptisme
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 773
    Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:22 am


  • bigskydoc wrote:I don't think the game hinges on Rodgers scanning the field, it hinges on Martellus Bennett and Lance Kendricks.

    Rodgers is a special talent. We can talk all day about his accuracy, his mobility, his leadership, but when the rubber meets the road, what really differentiates him from other QBs is his post-snap read. In that split second between the snap, and his first or second step, I think Rodgers reads and diagnoses defenses better than any other QB I have ever seen play.

    However, Seattle takes this advantage away. They line up and show you exactly what they are going to do. In terms of pre and post snap reads, every QB is Aaron Rodgers. Beating Seattle, isn't about the reads, it's about the execution.

    Teams have proven, time and time again, that the Seattle defense's kryptonite is that tight end attack over the middle. The blueprint was laid out by Frank Reich, and executed to perfection by Rivers and Gates. It has been copied successfully ever since. Even Brady/ Belichick used it in the Super Bowl.

    I wouldn't go so far as to say it is the primary reason the Packers went out and secured this tight end tandem, but I do think it had some influence.

    Even if we get pressure up the gut, Rodgers can dissect us by dinking and dunking across the middle.

    I think the game comes down to this, and, Unless Richard/ Carroll have figured out an answer to the tight end conundrum, I think the Packers come away with the win

    13-6 Packers.


    You are exactly right Doc -- what you're describing there HAS been a major weakness of the Seahawks Defense for several years now. Those intermediate, over the middle zones HAVE been Seattle's kryptonite -- especially against Tight Ends.

    The other real true weakness (that again Brady and Belichick just pummeled us with OVER ... and OVER again against us in Super Bowl XLIX) have been those quick, jitterbug slot receivers (again, right in those same exact intermediate zones). Gronk was 1 issue YES ... but it was Julian Edelman whom the Hawks flat out had no answers for in that Super Bowl after Jeremy Lane went down. There simply wasn't anyone who was quick enough to deal with him. So, teams who have those kind of guys and use them in that way ... have been a real pain in the butt. I'll contend that Edelman was a major reason why Tyler Lockett ended up being drafted the next year -- because Schneider and company recognized the real value in having that kind of a slot receiver and how much damage they could do.

    All of that brings me to the personnel decisions that have been made THIS offseason. I will contend that Seattle's historic weakness against TE's (right over the middle) is exactly why the Hawks targeted and brought in Bradley McDougald. They have been extremely excited on him and have talked about the fact that they plan to use him. All this talk about speed (this emphasis on it) has led me (and others) to conclude that they are planning on running a bit of 4-2-5 Defense this year. Our own Rob Staton is one who has concluded the exact same thing.

    And it makes a lot of sense of what we've heard and all the personnel moves that have been made this offseason. Take LB out ... insert McDougald in ... and voila!! You've also seen Seattle target and land quicker slot CB's as well -- Justin Coleman, for example. We've heard a lot about this "Cheetah" package that we understand is designed for speed to the ball, so would obviously include Seattle's quicker players.

    So, I believe all of that is an attempt by Seattle to counter those weaknesses that have been very apparent (and exploited by other teams) for the past few years. I'm betting that we'll see several new things this Sunday. Will it end up working? [Shrug] Who knows? That remains to be seen. The one thing I DO know this -- I've seen over time that (if you give him time to prepare) Pete Carroll is one who is pretty good at coming up with a fairly effective game plan to take away an opponent's strengths. Should be interesting.
    User avatar
    Hawkscanner
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 2035
    Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:28 am
    Location: Middle of Nowhere, Washington


  • Hawkscanner wrote:
    bigskydoc wrote:I don't think the game hinges on Rodgers scanning the field, it hinges on Martellus Bennett and Lance Kendricks.

    Rodgers is a special talent. We can talk all day about his accuracy, his mobility, his leadership, but when the rubber meets the road, what really differentiates him from other QBs is his post-snap read. In that split second between the snap, and his first or second step, I think Rodgers reads and diagnoses defenses better than any other QB I have ever seen play.

    However, Seattle takes this advantage away. They line up and show you exactly what they are going to do. In terms of pre and post snap reads, every QB is Aaron Rodgers. Beating Seattle, isn't about the reads, it's about the execution.

    Teams have proven, time and time again, that the Seattle defense's kryptonite is that tight end attack over the middle. The blueprint was laid out by Frank Reich, and executed to perfection by Rivers and Gates. It has been copied successfully ever since. Even Brady/ Belichick used it in the Super Bowl.

    I wouldn't go so far as to say it is the primary reason the Packers went out and secured this tight end tandem, but I do think it had some influence.

    Even if we get pressure up the gut, Rodgers can dissect us by dinking and dunking across the middle.

    I think the game comes down to this, and, Unless Richard/ Carroll have figured out an answer to the tight end conundrum, I think the Packers come away with the win

    13-6 Packers.


    You are exactly right Doc -- what you're describing there HAS been a major weakness of the Seahawks Defense for several years now. Those intermediate, over the middle zones HAVE been Seattle's kryptonite -- especially against Tight Ends.

    The other real true weakness (that again Brady and Belichick just pummeled us with OVER ... and OVER again against us in Super Bowl XLIX) have been those quick, jitterbug slot receivers (again, right in those same exact intermediate zones). Gronk was 1 issue YES ... but it was Julian Edelman whom the Hawks flat out had no answers for in that Super Bowl after Jeremy Lane went down. There simply wasn't anyone who was quick enough to deal with him. So, teams who have those kind of guys and use them in that way ... have been a real pain in the butt. I'll contend that Edelman was a major reason why Tyler Lockett ended up being drafted the next year -- because Schneider and company recognized the real value in having that kind of a slot receiver and how much damage they could do.

    All of that brings me to the personnel decisions that have been made THIS offseason. I will contend that Seattle's historic weakness against TE's (right over the middle) is exactly why the Hawks targeted and brought in Bradley McDougald. They have been extremely excited on him and have talked about the fact that they plan to use him. All this talk about speed (this emphasis on it) has led me (and others) to conclude that they are planning on running a bit of 4-2-5 Defense this year. Our own Rob Staton is one who has concluded the exact same thing.

    And it makes a lot of sense of what we've heard and all the personnel moves that have been made this offseason. Take LB out ... insert McDougald in ... and voila!! You've also seen Seattle target and land quicker slot CB's as well -- Justin Coleman, for example. We've heard a lot about this "Cheetah" package that we understand is designed for speed to the ball, so would obviously include Seattle's quicker players.

    So, I believe all of that is an attempt by Seattle to counter those weaknesses that have been very apparent (and exploited by other teams) for the past few years. I'm betting that we'll see several new things this Sunday. Will it end up working? [Shrug] Who knows? That remains to be seen. The one thing I DO know this -- I've seen over time that (if you give him time to prepare) Pete Carroll is one who is pretty good at coming up with a fairly effective game plan to take away an opponent's strengths. Should be interesting.
    It'll come down to half time adjustments... McCarthy has the weapons at TE, WR and now Montgomery at RB that they could play any game they want, depending on the defense.
    User avatar
    ptisme
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 773
    Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:22 am


  • Hawkscanner wrote:
    I DO personally think that the Seahawks have the team to go into Lambeau and pull off the upset. I’m predicting that’s going to happen. Will it? Who knows? I can’t wait for this weekend to find out.


    Not so sure I would classify a Seattle win as an upset. A great defense will always keep you in the game and Seattle really has a great defense. From my end, it still comes down to how well Rodgers can pick it apart with his arm. He has weapons. Will he have time to throw? Will they execute.

    I am looking forward to seeing this match up as well. Thank God football is back. The offseason is just too long. :)
    Image
    User avatar
    PackerNation
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 615
    Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:29 am
    Location: Austin, Texas


  • I like Hawks in these type's of games. All the pressure is on GB being there home opener to start the season. We typically struggle on 10 am starts on the east coast where this is a afternoon game. GB needed 5 turnovers last year from Seattle to win that game which is very rare for a PC type team. If Seahawks can play a clean game and not have more then 2 turnovers they should have no problem winning this game. Seattle is the more balanced team (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-r ... rojections) and have improved on both sides of the ball from last year. I think people will be surprised how good this offense can and will be with a healthy RW and a much improved running game (Lacy, Rawls,Prosise and Carson). GB's O-line is not as dominant as it was in the past losing 3 key members in the last 2 years and without a hard-nose runner they have become all finesse which should allow a healthy Seattle D make them one-dimensional. This could spell trouble for Rodger and company against Hawks elite front 7. ET being back and the addition of Richardson will make the difference this time around.
    RCATES
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 246
    Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:09 am


  • I haven't seen the Hawks this amped going into week 1 since the 13' team. It wouldn't surprise me to see several turnovers in favor of Seattle in the first half due to their disruptive defense.
    Milehighhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 564
    Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:33 pm


  • ptisme wrote:
    Hawkscanner wrote:
    bigskydoc wrote:
    13-6 Packers.

    So, I believe all of that is an attempt by Seattle to counter those weaknesses that have been very apparent (and exploited by other teams) for the past few years. I'm betting that we'll see several new things this Sunday. Will it end up working? [Shrug] Who knows? That remains to be seen.
    It'll come down to half time adjustments... McCarthy has the weapons at TE, WR and now Montgomery at RB that they could play any game they want, depending on the defense.


    Great thoughts from both of you gents, and nice to see ptisme back. Always appreciate your thoughts and analysis.

    While I'll stick by my prediction of 13-6 Packers, I see this going one of two ways. A tight, low scoring game (mostly due to an ineffective, slow starting Seahawks offense combined with a smothering, but worn out, defense), or a relative Seahawks blowout. I don't see the Pack putting up more than 24 points on us, and likely it will be closer to the 13-17 range. If our offense is clicking on all cylinders, I can see us putting up anywhere from 21-31 points.

    Perhaps blowout is the wrong term, but to me, the Seahawks winning by a solid 10-14 points over the Packers is a relative blowout.

    :irishdrinkers: To an injury free game
    Fire Tom Cable
    User avatar
    bigskydoc
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2096
    Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 9:27 am
    Location: Kalispell, MT


  • RCATES wrote:I like Hawks in these type's of games. All the pressure is on GB being there home opener to start the season. We typically struggle on 10 am starts on the east coast where this is a afternoon game. GB needed 5 turnovers last year from Seattle to win that game which is very rare for a PC type team. If Seahawks can play a clean game and not have more then 2 turnovers they should have no problem winning this game. Seattle is the more balanced team (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-r ... rojections) and have improved on both sides of the ball from last year. I think people will be surprised how good this offense can and will be with a healthy RW and a much improved running game (Lacy, Rawls,Prosise and Carson). GB's O-line is not as dominant as it was in the past losing 3 key members in the last 2 years and without a hard-nose runner they have become all finesse which should allow a healthy Seattle D make them one-dimensional. This could spell trouble for Rodger and company against Hawks elite front 7. ET being back and the addition of Richardson will make the difference this time around.

    Spoken like a true Homer:)
    User avatar
    ptisme
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 773
    Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:22 am


  • bigskydoc wrote:
    ptisme wrote:
    Hawkscanner wrote:
    bigskydoc wrote:
    13-6 Packers.

    So, I believe all of that is an attempt by Seattle to counter those weaknesses that have been very apparent (and exploited by other teams) for the past few years. I'm betting that we'll see several new things this Sunday. Will it end up working? [Shrug] Who knows? That remains to be seen.
    It'll come down to half time adjustments... McCarthy has the weapons at TE, WR and now Montgomery at RB that they could play any game they want, depending on the defense.


    Great thoughts from both of you gents, and nice to see ptisme back. Always appreciate your thoughts and analysis.

    While I'll stick by my prediction of 13-6 Packers, I see this going one of two ways. A tight, low scoring game (mostly due to an ineffective, slow starting Seahawks offense combined with a smothering, but worn out, defense), or a relative Seahawks blowout. I don't see the Pack putting up more than 24 points on us, and likely it will be closer to the 13-17 range. If our offense is clicking on all cylinders, I can see us putting up anywhere from 21-31 points.

    Perhaps blowout is the wrong term, but to me, the Seahawks winning by a solid 10-14 points over the Packers is a relative blowout.

    :irishdrinkers: To an injury free game

    Thanks for the kind words.... If it's a blowout I would probably say Seattles on top... That defense isn't going to let a game get out of hand... Last year was a blowout only because of the turnovers... Here's to a healthy game for both clubs and let's not get too hammered before the ball is even kicked off:)
    :irishdrinkers:
    User avatar
    ptisme
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 773
    Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:22 am


  • ptisme wrote:
    RCATES wrote:I like Hawks in these type's of games. All the pressure is on GB being there home opener to start the season. We typically struggle on 10 am starts on the east coast where this is a afternoon game. GB needed 5 turnovers last year from Seattle to win that game which is very rare for a PC type team. If Seahawks can play a clean game and not have more then 2 turnovers they should have no problem winning this game. Seattle is the more balanced team (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-r ... rojections) and have improved on both sides of the ball from last year. I think people will be surprised how good this offense can and will be with a healthy RW and a much improved running game (Lacy, Rawls,Prosise and Carson). GB's O-line is not as dominant as it was in the past losing 3 key members in the last 2 years and without a hard-nose runner they have become all finesse which should allow a healthy Seattle D make them one-dimensional. This could spell trouble for Rodger and company against Hawks elite front 7. ET being back and the addition of Richardson will make the difference this time around.

    Spoken like a true Homer:)


    Solid Argument :2thumbs:
    RCATES
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 246
    Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:09 am


  • ptisme wrote:Last year was a blowout only because of the turnovers... Here's to a healthy game for both clubs and let's not get too hammered before the ball is even kicked off:)
    :irishdrinkers:


    and injuries. The loss of Thomas, destroyed our defense, and left it vulnerable to Rodgers strength. Obviously, significant injuries to any of our super stars change my prediction radically.
    Fire Tom Cable
    User avatar
    bigskydoc
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2096
    Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 9:27 am
    Location: Kalispell, MT


  • bigskydoc wrote:
    ptisme wrote:Last year was a blowout only because of the turnovers... Here's to a healthy game for both clubs and let's not get too hammered before the ball is even kicked off:)
    :irishdrinkers:


    and injuries. The loss of Thomas, destroyed our defense, and left it vulnerable to Rodgers strength. Obviously, significant injuries to any of our super stars change my prediction radically.


    Apparently Sherman was hurt the second part of last year as well. We all know Chancellor wasn't himself. Having ET out just opened up too many things for their offense last year. I still think our single biggest issue last year was interior pressure on the d-line. Teams like GB would double-up and focus on keeping Avril and Mike B to the outside. With a monster like Richardson now in the middle needing a double-team I expect MB, Avril and Clark to have big years.
    RCATES
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 246
    Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:09 am


  • ptisme wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:


    We will see, practice with Kid Gloves on him versus a game with Boxing Gloves on will be a lot different.

    He's an offensive lineman, not a defensive back. And he practiced without a brace.


    Yeah but not having to support a full assault of 300 pounders and getting caught in the wash and having guys roll under you like a game is different on a gimpy ankle.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 22149
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • RCATES wrote:
    bigskydoc wrote:
    ptisme wrote:Last year was a blowout only because of the turnovers... Here's to a healthy game for both clubs and let's not get too hammered before the ball is even kicked off:)
    :irishdrinkers:


    and injuries. The loss of Thomas, destroyed our defense, and left it vulnerable to Rodgers strength. Obviously, significant injuries to any of our super stars change my prediction radically.


    Apparently Sherman was hurt the second part of last year as well. We all know Chancellor wasn't himself. Having ET out just opened up too many things for their offense last year. I still think our single biggest issue last year was interior pressure on the d-line. Teams like GB would double-up and focus on keeping Avril and Mike B to the outside. With a monster like Richardson now in the middle needing a double-team I expect MB, Avril and Clark to have big years.

    Here's what I would do:
    I don't think your fourth CB can hang with our fourth WR. I'd go four wides and one TE (Bennett). Get you out of your 4-3 and remove a talented person from that front seven. I'd put Rodgers in the shotgun and get rid of it before your Dline can get to their secondary pass rushing move.... Or go three wides, a TE and Montgomery (converted WR) out of the backfield. Either way I'd attack the middle of the field and when you take that away I'd start running go routes with Devante Adams (on Jeremy Lane) and Jordy Nelson...
    User avatar
    ptisme
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 773
    Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:22 am


  • ptisme wrote:
    RCATES wrote:
    bigskydoc wrote:
    ptisme wrote:Last year was a blowout only because of the turnovers... Here's to a healthy game for both clubs and let's not get too hammered before the ball is even kicked off:)
    :irishdrinkers:


    and injuries. The loss of Thomas, destroyed our defense, and left it vulnerable to Rodgers strength. Obviously, significant injuries to any of our super stars change my prediction radically.


    Apparently Sherman was hurt the second part of last year as well. We all know Chancellor wasn't himself. Having ET out just opened up too many things for their offense last year. I still think our single biggest issue last year was interior pressure on the d-line. Teams like GB would double-up and focus on keeping Avril and Mike B to the outside. With a monster like Richardson now in the middle needing a double-team I expect MB, Avril and Clark to have big years.

    Here's what I would do:
    I don't think your fourth CB can hang with our fourth WR. I'd go four wides and one TE (Bennett). Get you out of your 4-3 and remove a talented person from that front seven. I'd put Rodgers in the shotgun and get rid of it before your Dline can get to their secondary pass rushing move.... Or go three wides, a TE and Montgomery (converted WR) out of the backfield. Either way I'd attack the middle of the field and when you take that away I'd start running go routes with Devante Adams (on Jeremy Lane) and Jordy Nelson...


    Well first of all, I know how the official depth chart reads (as I just verified this on the Seahawks.com and other sites) and that it says that Jeremy Lane is going to be the starting RCB. BUT ... from my standpoint, what I've seen, heard, etc. -- my understanding is that rookie Shaq Griffin won that spot. Flat out. Now, I'm sure someone's going to rush to tell me I'm wrong on this one (and perhaps I am) ... but that's my understanding is that Shaq Griffin is going to be the guy starting opposite Sherman.

    I would say that's a pretty solid plan that you're laying out overall ... but one thing I would add is that with the addition of Sheldon Richardson especially, it changes the equation a bit, as (in theory on paper) the Hawks now have the ability to generate consistent pressure with JUST the Front 4 Down Linemen. Michael Bennett, Cliff Avril, Sheldon Richardson, and Jarran Reed are a handful for any defense.

    And they have an extremely deep group there that they can keep rotating in D-Linemen and really not miss a beat in terms of pressure. Frank Clark is a beast in his own right (he had 10 sacks last season). Naz Jones (the rookie out of North Carolina) has looked really good this season. He looks like he could be a force there at the 3 Tech himself. David Bass (the free agent signing out of Oakland) really opened some eyes during the Preseason as well.

    So, I would say I don't think that this group (in general) is going to NEED to commit LB's, Safeties, and CB's to blitz on a consistent basis in order to generate pressure. The way this looks to be stacking up, I honestly think opposing linemen are going to have their hands plenty full just dealing with the Front 4 of Seattle.

    Last year, MLB Bobby Wagner was one that they committed to blitzing off and on in order to apply pressure in order to make up for the lack of consistent interior pass pressure. This year, I envision the Hawks being able to drop Wagner and the rest of those quick LB's back into coverage for the most part. That alone should help to mitigate some of the issues this team has had with those holes that have existed in years past in those middle/intermediate zones.

    Again, I also cannot stress enough how much Earl Thomas being out in Week 14 last year impacted that game. We're talking about an All Pro Safety that (when it's all said and done) will IMO be a sure fire Hall of Famer. Many people in the know will tell you that Earl Thomas is THE KEY to that Seahawks Defense that really makes it go. He is the cog that makes that engine go ... and makes them able to do what they do ...

    http://insidethepylon.com/nfl/long-form-editorial/profiles/2014/09/26/earl-thomas-the-key-to-the-seahawks-cover-3-defense/

    Thomas is finally back healthy and looking like his old self. He is going to playing that deep CF, with the express focus of trying to take away those deep go routes to guys like Jordy Nelson and Devante Adams. And he's been extremely good at taking away those deep shots throughout this career, as the Seahawks (since he's been in Seattle) have ranked in the upper echelon in terms of fewest explosive plays allowed.

    So, I'm not saying that Rodgers and the Packers won't make plays and score points. They most certainly will. I just contend that THIS time around, scoring is going to be a MUCH tougher task than it was in Week 14 last year against a fairly beat up Seahawks defense at that time.
    User avatar
    Hawkscanner
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 2035
    Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:28 am
    Location: Middle of Nowhere, Washington


  • Hawkscanner wrote:
    ptisme wrote:
    RCATES wrote:
    bigskydoc wrote:
    and injuries. The loss of Thomas, destroyed our defense, and left it vulnerable to Rodgers strength. Obviously, significant injuries to any of our super stars change my prediction radically.


    Apparently Sherman was hurt the second part of last year as well. We all know Chancellor wasn't himself. Having ET out just opened up too many things for their offense last year. I still think our single biggest issue last year was interior pressure on the d-line. Teams like GB would double-up and focus on keeping Avril and Mike B to the outside. With a monster like Richardson now in the middle needing a double-team I expect MB, Avril and Clark to have big years.

    Here's what I would do:
    I don't think your fourth CB can hang with our fourth WR. I'd go four wides and one TE (Bennett). Get you out of your 4-3 and remove a talented person from that front seven. I'd put Rodgers in the shotgun and get rid of it before your Dline can get to their secondary pass rushing move.... Or go three wides, a TE and Montgomery (converted WR) out of the backfield. Either way I'd attack the middle of the field and when you take that away I'd start running go routes with Devante Adams (on Jeremy Lane) and Jordy Nelson...


    Well first of all, I know how the official depth chart reads (as I just verified this on the Seahawks.com and other sites) and that it says that Jeremy Lane is going to be the starting RCB. BUT ... from my standpoint, what I've seen, heard, etc. -- my understanding is that rookie Shaq Griffin won that spot. Flat out. Now, I'm sure someone's going to rush to tell me I'm wrong on this one (and perhaps I am) ... but that's my understanding is that Shaq Griffin is going to be the guy starting opposite Sherman.

    I would say that's a pretty solid plan that you're laying out overall ... but one thing I would add is that with the addition of Sheldon Richardson especially, it changes the equation a bit, as (in theory on paper) the Hawks now have the ability to generate consistent pressure with JUST the Front 4 Down Linemen. Michael Bennett, Cliff Avril, Sheldon Richardson, and Jarran Reed are a handful for any defense.

    And they have an extremely deep group there that they can keep rotating in D-Linemen and really not miss a beat in terms of pressure. Frank Clark is a beast in his own right (he had 10 sacks last season). Naz Jones (the rookie out of North Carolina) has looked really good this season. He looks like he could be a force there at the 3 Tech himself. David Bass (the free agent signing out of Oakland) really opened some eyes during the Preseason as well.

    So, I would say I don't think that this group (in general) is going to NEED to commit LB's, Safeties, and CB's to blitz on a consistent basis in order to generate pressure. The way this looks to be stacking up, I honestly think opposing linemen are going to have their hands plenty full just dealing with the Front 4 of Seattle.

    Last year, MLB Bobby Wagner was one that they committed to blitzing off and on in order to apply pressure in order to make up for the lack of consistent interior pass pressure. This year, I envision the Hawks being able to drop Wagner and the rest of those quick LB's back into coverage for the most part. That alone should help to mitigate some of the issues this team has had with those holes that have existed in years past in those middle/intermediate zones.

    Again, I also cannot stress enough how much Earl Thomas being out in Week 14 last year impacted that game. We're talking about an All Pro Safety that (when it's all said and done) will IMO be a sure fire Hall of Famer. Many people in the know will tell you that Earl Thomas is THE KEY to that Seahawks Defense that really makes it go. He is the cog that makes that engine go ... and makes them able to do what they do ...

    http://insidethepylon.com/nfl/long-form-editorial/profiles/2014/09/26/earl-thomas-the-key-to-the-seahawks-cover-3-defense/

    Thomas is finally back healthy and looking like his old self. He is going to playing that deep CF, with the express focus of trying to take away those deep go routes to guys like Jordy Nelson and Devante Adams. And he's been extremely good at taking away those deep shots throughout this career, as the Seahawks (since he's been in Seattle) have ranked in the upper echelon in terms of fewest explosive plays allowed.

    So, I'm not saying that Rodgers and the Packers won't make plays and score points. They most certainly will. I just contend that THIS time around, scoring is going to be a MUCH tougher task than it was in Week 14 last year against a fairly beat up Seahawks defense at that time.

    That's the cat and mouse. If Thomas plays deep CF you attack the short to intermediate field. Get the ball out quick. This packer line isn't the same one you pass rushed against in 2013. I like my chances with Cobb and Adams on a guy playing in his first start. Doing this we don't have to block you for 5-7 seconds. Rodgers can get the ball out in under two seconds. Doesn't matter how good your line is.
    User avatar
    ptisme
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 773
    Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:22 am


  • Hawkscanner wrote:
    ptisme wrote:
    adeltaY wrote:
    RolandDeschain wrote:Sooooo you believe your starting O-line is the best in the league. Alrighty.


    That's not exactly what he meant, but I'd actually say they were the best pass protecting line in the league last year. Check out highlights against us and the Giants, both of whom boast great DL, and you'll see how great they were. The main change is Evans for Lang. Even with a small dropoff, it'll still be at least a top 5 unit in pass pro.

    I think what PT was getting at is that not only is the line excellent, Rodgers is a master at manipulating the rush with his movements in the pocket. He's really in sync with his OL and they help each other out in pass pro. Also, Rodgers is pretty mobile outside the pocket, similar to Russ.

    Note that they aren't at the same level in run blocking. They're still good, but not elite like they are in pass blocking. I think run blocking is the area where the loss of the Lang/Sitton combo hurts them the most.

    This. And they aren't elite run blocking. In fact I don't see them opening many holes Sunday. Now if Bulaga is out or can't finish the game it's going to get ugly real quick.


    Take this FWIW (in other words, it could be a pretty small grain of salt), but Aaron Nagler (who was a guest on Real Hawk Talk [see my previous post above] ) said that he honestly felt that Bulaga is going to miss this game. From the reports he's hearing, his chances of playing on Sunday aren't too promising. So, if Bulaga doesn't play, I think that could be a significant factor.

    The other real key factor IMO is the addition of Sheldon Richardson. Honestly, the Seahawks have not had an interior pass rusher quite like this probably since the days of Cortez Kennedy. He is a dominant force inside, as he is just able to cause so much disruption, mess up blocking schemes, and put pressure on QB's right up the gut. For as great as this Seahawks defense has been, that's the one true piece that's been missing. They have been looking for that guy and they may have just found him.

    Part of what makes Aaron Rodgers so great and so deadly is Rodgers' mobility. Green Bay's sacks allowed in many ways are going to mirror Seattle's because Rodgers is a lot like Russell Wilson in that he's deadliest on the run. He likes to get outside the pocket and create on the fly. Now with the addition of Richardson, I'm wondering how that affects this game, as he is going to be facing a "Death Row" (Michael Bennett's new name he's coined for their D-Line) of Richardson, Michael Bennett, Cliff Avril, Frank Clark, and a host of other pretty good pass rushers. I'm wondering if Richardson's addition is going to end up messing up a lot of what Rodgers likes to do because he and that group are just go danged fast and disruptive. I dunno. Just thinking out loud here. We'll see.



    Rodgers likes the outside, but against the Hawks he's always slipping the outside pressure by stepping up, and why not, he
    User avatar
    Bobblehead
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1933
    Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:52 am


  • ptisme wrote:That's the cat and mouse. If Thomas plays deep CF you attack the short to intermediate field. Get the ball out quick. This packer line isn't the same one you pass rushed against in 2013. I like my chances with Cobb and Adams on a guy playing in his first start. Doing this we don't have to block you for 5-7 seconds. Rodgers can get the ball out in under two seconds. Doesn't matter how good your line is.


    Yeah, I know that about Rodgers and his quick release -- have seen it consistently for years now. The flip side of the equation will also true against the Packers Defense, as on average, Russell Wilson is also getting the ball out quick as well (on average, his snap to release was about 2.37 seconds last year -- in the top 10 fastest among all QB's).

    I don't know that I'd agree that "it doesn't matter how good the Seahawks D-line is" ... but that's why they play the games. We shall see I guess. Again, let's mutually agree to root for there to be no significant injuries for either of our teams.
    User avatar
    Hawkscanner
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 2035
    Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:28 am
    Location: Middle of Nowhere, Washington


  • What? They are still making Lacy Fat Jokes over there. That's as outdated as the comments from them and some ESPN commentators I have heard about the horrible O-Line of Seattle.
    User avatar
    SPIRITOF12
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 284
    Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2014 11:19 am


  • Hawkscanner wrote:
    ptisme wrote:That's the cat and mouse. If Thomas plays deep CF you attack the short to intermediate field. Get the ball out quick. This packer line isn't the same one you pass rushed against in 2013. I like my chances with Cobb and Adams on a guy playing in his first start. Doing this we don't have to block you for 5-7 seconds. Rodgers can get the ball out in under two seconds. Doesn't matter how good your line is.


    Yeah, I know that about Rodgers and his quick release -- have seen it consistently for years now. The flip side of the equation will also true against the Packers Defense, as on average, Russell Wilson is also getting the ball out quick as well (on average, his snap to release was about 2.37 seconds last year -- in the top 10 fastest among all QB's).

    I don't know that I'd agree that "it doesn't matter how good the Seahawks D-line is" ... but that's why they play the games. We shall see I guess. Again, let's mutually agree to root for there to be no significant injuries for either of our teams.

    :2thumbs:
    User avatar
    ptisme
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 773
    Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:22 am


  • Your not going top get to isolate Griffin, you try to go 5 wide and it will be Kam, Earl, Shaq, Lane, McDougal, Sherman and Coleman. Well at least for a few series or till one of them catches a ball, it's the first game and these guys have been dying to unleash the hounds on guys. Not sure or know as much about Coleman but everyone else in that secondary Hits and tackles. After the first crossing route or pass their heads are going to worried about what's coming that they can't see.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 22149
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


PreviousNext


It is currently Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:46 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online