Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Serious points to get the O to produce

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
Serious points to get the O to produce
Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:36 pm
  • With the O (personnel including coaches) the way it is now, and assuming there is no way Bevell/Cable are going anywhere soon, here are the things IMO that would make the O better:

    1- up tempo O. It seems when we run the O the traditional way the O cannot move the ball at all or at least with any consistency.
    2- bring some form of the read option back. At least for some plays to keep the D guessing.
    3- Shotgun almost every play. Russ seems to thrive out of the shotgun vs behind center.
    4- Ok I'll cheat a little by saying bring in a real FB like Marcel Reece to open some holes for sake.
    5- get rid of bubble screens
    6- when you need the 1st down, script a play to throw to the receiver past the 1st down marker.
    7- even during running plays spread out the personnel more to allow easier lanes for Russ to throw or the rb's to hit.

    Look I'm not an NFL coach but these at least to me are pretty obvious things that even a laymen like myself can see improving what we have. Thoughts?
    seabowl
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2327
    Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:20 am


  • seabowl wrote:With the O (personnel including coaches) the way it is now, and assuming there is no way Bevell/Cable are going anywhere soon, here are the things IMO that would make the O better:

    1- up tempo O. It seems when we run the O the traditional way the O cannot move the ball at all or at least with any consistency.
    2- bring some form of the read option back. At least for some plays to keep the D guessing.
    3- Shotgun almost every play. Russ seems to thrive out of the shotgun vs behind center.
    4- Ok I'll cheat a little by saying bring in a real FB like Marcel Reece to open some holes for sake.
    5- get rid of bubble screens
    6- when you need the 1st down, script a play to throw to the receiver past the 1st down marker.
    7- even during running plays spread out the personnel more to allow easier lanes for Russ to throw or the rb's to hit.

    Look I'm not an NFL coach but these at least to me are pretty obvious things that even a laymen like myself can see improving what we have. Thoughts?



    WINNER WINNER WINNER!!!
    User avatar
    Anthony!
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3612
    Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:51 pm
    Location: Kent, wa


  • Good thoughts, but are we really ready to abandon a full throttle running game yet? I think Pete says he wanted it to be more like 60/40 run instead of the 50/50 run/pass from a year ago. I think we tried that all day against the Packers, but were bottled up save for a few nice Carson rambles, but do we really abandon Pete's preferred philosophy a mere game into the season?
    User avatar
    Siouxhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3617
    Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:46 pm


  • Siouxhawk wrote:Good thoughts, but are we really ready to abandon a full throttle running game yet? I think Pete says he wanted it to be more like 60/40 run instead of the 50/50 run/pass from a year ago. I think we tried that all day against the Packers, but were bottled up save for a few nice Carson rambles, but do we really abandon Pete's preferred philosophy a mere game into the season?


    Sorry but I don't see anywhere in the list saying to abandon the running game. Up tempo does not insinuate just a passing game.
    seabowl
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2327
    Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:20 am


  • seabowl wrote:
    Siouxhawk wrote:Good thoughts, but are we really ready to abandon a full throttle running game yet? I think Pete says he wanted it to be more like 60/40 run instead of the 50/50 run/pass from a year ago. I think we tried that all day against the Packers, but were bottled up save for a few nice Carson rambles, but do we really abandon Pete's preferred philosophy a mere game into the season?


    Sorry but I don't see anywhere in the list saying to abandon the running game. Up tempo does not insinuate just a passing game.

    OK, my bad. I get where you're coming from now. I don't mind the uptempo game, but how long can you sustain that? And does uptempo and establishing the run complement each other? I could see picking your moments where we turn it on at different junctures of the game (just to change things up), but an entire game?
    User avatar
    Siouxhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3617
    Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:46 pm


  • Siouxhawk wrote:
    seabowl wrote:
    Siouxhawk wrote:Good thoughts, but are we really ready to abandon a full throttle running game yet? I think Pete says he wanted it to be more like 60/40 run instead of the 50/50 run/pass from a year ago. I think we tried that all day against the Packers, but were bottled up save for a few nice Carson rambles, but do we really abandon Pete's preferred philosophy a mere game into the season?


    Sorry but I don't see anywhere in the list saying to abandon the running game. Up tempo does not insinuate just a passing game.

    OK, my bad. I get where you're coming from now. I don't mind the uptempo game, but how long can you sustain that? And does uptempo and establishing the run complement each other? I could see picking your moments where we turn it on at different junctures of the game (just to change things up), but an entire game?



    Forget junction in the game, junctions in the series.
    User avatar
    Anthony!
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3612
    Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:51 pm
    Location: Kent, wa


  • Up Tempo means you have to have everyone tuned into things, personnel have to be ready to go in and play calls fast, a long run you have another back ready to go in as they unpile etc. We would need to have a lot better organizing on offense to do that all game.
    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: 22235
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • Siouxhawk wrote:Good thoughts, but are we really ready to abandon a full throttle running game yet? I think Pete says he wanted it to be more like 60/40 run instead of the 50/50 run/pass from a year ago. I think we tried that all day against the Packers, but were bottled up save for a few nice Carson rambles, but do we really abandon Pete's preferred philosophy a mere game into the season?


    Run game?

    What run game? 90 yards total. Lacy? = invisible, let's hope this isn't what we get.. Prosise? = invisible. He's a star though ??? Rawls? = hurt as usual. Carson? = 39yards and only one effective running play. How many running plays were called?

    The OLine= Matadors who can't pass block or run block. It was a poor gameplan that showed little ability to change up on O, and while I think Bevell at times can be effective he shows a paucity of ability to adjust.

    The O was ugly and put unreal pressure on the D who held a superior O to just 17 points. They spent almost 2/3 of the game on the field. Zero scores for the OC, zero for Coach Fable, yes the spelling is correct, zero for the game plan. Fable = the illusion he can create an OLine that can pass protect or even run block. Sure I'm po'd b/c the BS we've been fed on the OLine is all that.

    Eddy Lacy, ok, whatever? The team's best RB today is a rookie who got limited touches.

    I would have scrapped the run game b/c it sucked. Full throttle? I'd have been happy for some or any limited effectiveness.
    Until we develop a pass rush that will cause opposing teams to be forced to scheme to defend it we will never be able to consistently take the final step. The interior rush needs improvement. The OLine clearly still needs work.

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions at last after 38 seasons. Awesome!!!
    jammerhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4382
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm


  • Siouxhawk wrote:Good thoughts, but are we really ready to abandon a full throttle running game yet? I think Pete says he wanted it to be more like 60/40 run instead of the 50/50 run/pass from a year ago. I think we tried that all day against the Packers, but were bottled up save for a few nice Carson rambles, but do we really abandon Pete's preferred philosophy a mere game into the season?


    Run game?

    What run game? 90 yards total. Lacy? = invisible, let's hope this isn't what we get.. Prosise? = invisible. He's a star though ??? Rawls? = hurt as usual. Carson? = 39yards and only one effective running play. How many running plays were called?

    The OLine= Matadors who can't pass block or run block. It was a poor gameplan that showed little ability to change up on O, and while I think Bevell at times can be effective he shows a paucity of ability to adjust.

    The O was ugly and put unreal pressure on the D who held a superior O to just 17 points. They spent almost 2/3 of the game on the field. Zero scores for the OC, zero for Coach Fable, yes the spelling is correct, zero for the game plan. Fable = the illusion he can create an OLine that can pass protect or even run block. Sure I'm po'd b/c the BS we've been fed on the OLine is all that.

    Eddy Lacy, ok, whatever? The team's best RB today is a rookie who got limited touches.

    I would have scrapped the run game b/c it sucked. Full throttle? I'd have been happy for some or any limited effectiveness.
    Until we develop a pass rush that will cause opposing teams to be forced to scheme to defend it we will never be able to consistently take the final step. The interior rush needs improvement. The OLine clearly still needs work.

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions at last after 38 seasons. Awesome!!!
    jammerhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4382
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm


  • jammerhawk wrote:
    Siouxhawk wrote:Good thoughts, but are we really ready to abandon a full throttle running game yet? I think Pete says he wanted it to be more like 60/40 run instead of the 50/50 run/pass from a year ago. I think we tried that all day against the Packers, but were bottled up save for a few nice Carson rambles, but do we really abandon Pete's preferred philosophy a mere game into the season?


    Run game?

    What run game? 90 yards total. Lacy? = invisible, let's hope this isn't what we get.. Prosise? = invisible. He's a star though ??? Rawls? = hurt as usual. Carson? = 39yards and only one effective running play. How many running plays were called?

    The OLine= Matadors who can't pass block or run block. It was a poor gameplan that showed little ability to change up on O, and while I think Bevell at times can be effective he shows a paucity of ability to adjust.

    The O was ugly and put unreal pressure on the D who held a superior O to just 17 points. They spent almost 2/3 of the game on the field. Zero scores for the OC, zero for Coach Fable, yes the spelling is correct, zero for the game plan. Fable = the illusion he can create an OLine that can pass protect or even run block. Sure I'm po'd b/c the BS we've been fed on the OLine is all that.

    Eddy Lacy, ok, whatever? The team's best RB today is a rookie who got limited touches.

    I would have scrapped the run game b/c it sucked. Full throttle? I'd have been happy for some or any limited effectiveness.

    So would you already abandon Pete's proclamation that we will run the ball in excess of 60 percent of the game?
    That was supposed to be our offensive identity this year.
    User avatar
    Siouxhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3617
    Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:46 pm


  • So you were happy with us getting literally nothing play after play on the ground?
    User avatar
    Ambrose83
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 639
    Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:54 pm


  • My thought is that game plans vary from game to game because they reflect health and opponent strengths and weaknesses.
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 6903
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:49 pm


  • Siouxhawk wrote:Good thoughts, but are we really ready to abandon a full throttle running game yet? I think Pete says he wanted it to be more like 60/40 run instead of the 50/50 run/pass from a year ago. I think we tried that all day against the Packers, but were bottled up save for a few nice Carson rambles, but do we really abandon Pete's preferred philosophy a mere game into the season?


    Run game?

    What run game? 90 yards total. Lacy? = invisible, let's hope this isn't what we get.. Prosise? = invisible. He's a star though ??? Rawls? = hurt as usual. Carson? = 39yards and only one effective running play. How many running plays were called?

    The OLine= Matadors who can't pass block or run block. It was a poor gameplan that showed little ability to change up on O, and while I think Bevell at times can be effective he shows a paucity of ability to adjust.

    The O was ugly and put unreal pressure on the D who held a superior O to just 17 points. They spent almost 2/3 of the game on the field. Zero scores for the OC, zero for Coach Fable, yes the spelling is correct, zero for the game plan. Fable = the illusion he can create an OLine that can pass protect or even run block. Sure I'm po'd b/c the BS we've been fed on the OLine is all that.

    Eddy Lacy, ok, whatever? The team's best RB today is a rookie who got limited touches.

    I would have scrapped the run game b/c it sucked. Full throttle? I'd have been happy for some or any limited effectiveness.
    Until we develop a pass rush that will cause opposing teams to be forced to scheme to defend it we will never be able to consistently take the final step. The interior rush needs improvement. The OLine clearly still needs work.

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions at last after 38 seasons. Awesome!!!
    jammerhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4382
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm


  • Jville wrote:My thought is that game plans vary from game to game because they reflect health and opponent strengths and weaknesses.


    Sure do!

    Unfortunately when ours was not working out there was no significant adjustment.

    Our coaches got out coached, at. Least as far as the O was concerned.
    Until we develop a pass rush that will cause opposing teams to be forced to scheme to defend it we will never be able to consistently take the final step. The interior rush needs improvement. The OLine clearly still needs work.

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions at last after 38 seasons. Awesome!!!
    jammerhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4382
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm


  • Siouxhawk wrote:
    jammerhawk wrote:
    Siouxhawk wrote:Good thoughts, but are we really ready to abandon a full throttle running game yet? I think Pete says he wanted it to be more like 60/40 run instead of the 50/50 run/pass from a year ago. I think we tried that all day against the Packers, but were bottled up save for a few nice Carson rambles, but do we really abandon Pete's preferred philosophy a mere game into the season?


    Run game?

    What run game? 90 yards total. Lacy? = invisible, let's hope this isn't what we get.. Prosise? = invisible. He's a star though ??? Rawls? = hurt as usual. Carson? = 39yards and only one effective running play. How many running plays were called?

    The OLine= Matadors who can't pass block or run block. It was a poor gameplan that showed little ability to change up on O, and while I think Bevell at times can be effective he shows a paucity of ability to adjust.

    The O was ugly and put unreal pressure on the D who held a superior O to just 17 points. They spent almost 2/3 of the game on the field. Zero scores for the OC, zero for Coach Fable, yes the spelling is correct, zero for the game plan. Fable = the illusion he can create an OLine that can pass protect or even run block. Sure I'm po'd b/c the BS we've been fed on the OLine is all that.

    Eddy Lacy, ok, whatever? The team's best RB today is a rookie who got limited touches.

    I would have scrapped the run game b/c it sucked. Full throttle? I'd have been happy for some or any limited effectiveness.

    So would you already abandon Pete's proclamation that we will run the ball in excess of 60 percent of the game?
    That was supposed to be our offensive identity this year.


    If that was Pete's plan with this line, then yes, blow up that idea.

    Remember in 2007 when Holmgren said we can't run so we will just pass. It worked. He wanted a good run game but saw the o-line and adjusted accordingly.

    Maybe we need to adjust our philosophy to the reality that we can't just run at you. Use the pass to set up the run
    cymatica
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 994
    Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2014 7:40 am


  • One thought. I think it may be a wee bit early to give up on it, though. We have the Niners up next and I think we can get back on track against them.
    Adding Rawls will also help.
    User avatar
    Siouxhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3617
    Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:46 pm


  • If today was any reflection of the team's identity this season the D will be worn out by mid season.

    The O had no identity tonight. Thanks for nothing Coach Bevell. Thanks for nothing Coach Cable. The only RB that showed up was the rookie.

    The OLine was awful! The game plan failed to adjust.

    If the D had not played an exceptional game it would let have been a blow out instead of an 8 point L.

    SF at home next Sunday let's see how lame the 'run game' looks then.
    Until we develop a pass rush that will cause opposing teams to be forced to scheme to defend it we will never be able to consistently take the final step. The interior rush needs improvement. The OLine clearly still needs work.

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions at last after 38 seasons. Awesome!!!
    jammerhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4382
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm


  • Why do you say 'Lame?" You've experienced this team enough to know how fast they can get it together, especially at home against a division opponent. It's happened over and over again through the course of the last 5 seasons.
    I don't think Pete's going to let his vision of a dominant run game go quite yet. And I think we still have the wherewithal to make it happen.
    User avatar
    Siouxhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3617
    Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:46 pm


  • This was week 1, weird things happen week 1. The Packers were doing new things on defense, but that's it. Those don't excuse this performance, especially because we've seen this before, and it obviously needed to be fixed. The most troubling thing for me is, being that it was so obvious last year and yet was not fixed, does that mean that this was their best effort at fixing it? Or, is this Pete Carroll's acceptance of starting slow and coming together and banging the "it's how you finish" drum?

    If things don't GREATLY improve within 2 weeks, I believe this will be the final straw at which Pete starts losing fan base confidence en mass.

    Inept beginnings to seasons, and to games, an inept offense, it is now very unacceptable. This was old two years ago, it got Russ hurt and ruined the entire year last year, the script needs to be scrapped. Drastic changes must happen now or we will barely make the playoffs because of our historic defense and be one and done.

    So the two things that will keep this slow motion car crash going would be, an inept coaching staff, or a stubborn coaching staff. What troubles me is that I feel we're seeing a bit of both.

    What I would do:

    Start Chris Carson
    Pass to setup the run
    Commit to some read option, more than "sprinkled in"
    Mix up the tempo, not up tempo the whole game, but mix it up. Run it 2-3 times a half.

    I think that even with our o line personnel, we have the talent to win it all, but we need to suck it up and make big changes RIGHT NOW.
    User avatar
    SNDavidson
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1525
    Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:22 pm


  • Siouxhawk wrote:Good thoughts, but are we really ready to abandon a full throttle running game yet? I think Pete says he wanted it to be more like 60/40 run instead of the 50/50 run/pass from a year ago. I think we tried that all day against the Packers, but were bottled up save for a few nice Carson rambles, but do we really abandon Pete's preferred philosophy a mere game into the season?

    We don't have the offensive line to support the power run game anymore. The office let any one who was any good go and replaced them with rejects, projects, castoffs and UFA's no one else wanted. If you have a strong enough line any back can carry the ball.
    User avatar
    brimsalabim
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3715
    Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:50 am


  • brimsalabim wrote:
    Siouxhawk wrote:Good thoughts, but are we really ready to abandon a full throttle running game yet? I think Pete says he wanted it to be more like 60/40 run instead of the 50/50 run/pass from a year ago. I think we tried that all day against the Packers, but were bottled up save for a few nice Carson rambles, but do we really abandon Pete's preferred philosophy a mere game into the season?

    We don't have the offensive line to support the power run game anymore. The office let any one who was any good go and replaced them with rejects, projects, castoffs and UFA's no one else wanted. If you have a strong enough line any back can carry the ball.

    I see what you're saying, but I have a feeling that we'll ride out any changes this week and attempt to stay the course and run it in excess of 60 percent of the time against San Francisco. Hopefully our O line benefits from now having tape of a real regular season game and adjusts as needed.
    User avatar
    Siouxhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3617
    Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:46 pm


  • Siouxhawk wrote:
    brimsalabim wrote:
    Siouxhawk wrote:Good thoughts, but are we really ready to abandon a full throttle running game yet? I think Pete says he wanted it to be more like 60/40 run instead of the 50/50 run/pass from a year ago. I think we tried that all day against the Packers, but were bottled up save for a few nice Carson rambles, but do we really abandon Pete's preferred philosophy a mere game into the season?

    We don't have the offensive line to support the power run game anymore. The office let any one who was any good go and replaced them with rejects, projects, castoffs and UFA's no one else wanted. If you have a strong enough line any back can carry the ball.

    I see what you're saying, but I have a feeling that we'll ride out any changes this week and attempt to stay the course and run it in excess of 60 percent of the time against San Francisco. Hopefully our O line benefits from now having tape of a real regular season game and adjusts as needed.



    IF we are going to try to run the ball 60% of the time we are going to loose, Also if we are going to do that, trade Wilson and get a tier 3 QB here you dont need a top QB to run the ball 60% of the time, save the money so they can put more on defense. :sarcasm_off:
    User avatar
    Anthony!
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3612
    Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:51 pm
    Location: Kent, wa


Re: Serious points to get the O to produce
Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:44 pm
  • Where do you get this 60% run figure. I've only heard Caroll say he wants a balanced offense not run heavy. 60% run with this o-line would be just plain stupid
    cymatica
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 994
    Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2014 7:40 am


Re: Serious points to get the O to produce
Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:00 pm
  • Siouxhawk wrote:
    jammerhawk wrote:
    Siouxhawk wrote:Good thoughts, but are we really ready to abandon a full throttle running game yet? I think Pete says he wanted it to be more like 60/40 run instead of the 50/50 run/pass from a year ago. I think we tried that all day against the Packers, but were bottled up save for a few nice Carson rambles, but do we really abandon Pete's preferred philosophy a mere game into the season?


    Run game?

    What run game? 90 yards total. Lacy? = invisible, let's hope this isn't what we get.. Prosise? = invisible. He's a star though ??? Rawls? = hurt as usual. Carson? = 39yards and only one effective running play. How many running plays were called?

    The OLine= Matadors who can't pass block or run block. It was a poor gameplan that showed little ability to change up on O, and while I think Bevell at times can be effective he shows a paucity of ability to adjust.

    The O was ugly and put unreal pressure on the D who held a superior O to just 17 points. They spent almost 2/3 of the game on the field. Zero scores for the OC, zero for Coach Fable, yes the spelling is correct, zero for the game plan. Fable = the illusion he can create an OLine that can pass protect or even run block. Sure I'm po'd b/c the BS we've been fed on the OLine is all that.

    Eddy Lacy, ok, whatever? The team's best RB today is a rookie who got limited touches.

    I would have scrapped the run game b/c it sucked. Full throttle? I'd have been happy for some or any limited effectiveness.

    So would you already abandon Pete's proclamation that we will run the ball in excess of 60 percent of the game?
    That was supposed to be our offensive identity this year.


    Is Pete's proclamation to run more that 60% of the time really feasible before the OL learns to block well enough? It will probably begin working in four or five games. Maybe we should just run 100% of the time to maximize our time to learn to block. This would also protect Russ from being hurt, and this is crucial for winning the rest of the games.
    Netskier
    netskier
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1200
    Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 9:18 pm


Re: Serious points to get the O to produce
Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:04 pm
  • You guys are failing to see the insane loyalty to a love that NEVER was with Siouxhawk. He sees roses and champagne in the broken toilet in a Waffle House women's restroom.
    To him, this "all part of some grand plan" and "what's the problem? We just need to run the ball more, soon they'll be unstoppable, just wait and see how GREAT we are next week against the Mighty Niners! Whoo Hooo!"

    Disgusting.
    Love, Peace & Elbow Grease. Let's ROLL, Hawks!
    User avatar
    hgwellz12
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2289
    Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:17 pm


Re: Serious points to get the O to produce
Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:06 pm
  • netskier wrote:
    Siouxhawk wrote:
    jammerhawk wrote:
    Siouxhawk wrote:Good thoughts, but are we really ready to abandon a full throttle running game yet? I think Pete says he wanted it to be more like 60/40 run instead of the 50/50 run/pass from a year ago. I think we tried that all day against the Packers, but were bottled up save for a few nice Carson rambles, but do we really abandon Pete's preferred philosophy a mere game into the season?


    Run game?

    What run game? 90 yards total. Lacy? = invisible, let's hope this isn't what we get.. Prosise? = invisible. He's a star though ??? Rawls? = hurt as usual. Carson? = 39yards and only one effective running play. How many running plays were called?

    The OLine= Matadors who can't pass block or run block. It was a poor gameplan that showed little ability to change up on O, and while I think Bevell at times can be effective he shows a paucity of ability to adjust.

    The O was ugly and put unreal pressure on the D who held a superior O to just 17 points. They spent almost 2/3 of the game on the field. Zero scores for the OC, zero for Coach Fable, yes the spelling is correct, zero for the game plan. Fable = the illusion he can create an OLine that can pass protect or even run block. Sure I'm po'd b/c the BS we've been fed on the OLine is all that.

    Eddy Lacy, ok, whatever? The team's best RB today is a rookie who got limited touches.

    I would have scrapped the run game b/c it sucked. Full throttle? I'd have been happy for some or any limited effectiveness.

    So would you already abandon Pete's proclamation that we will run the ball in excess of 60 percent of the game?
    That was supposed to be our offensive identity this year.


    Is Pete's proclamation to run more that 60% of the time really feasible before the OL learns to block well enough? It will probably begin working in four or five games. Maybe we should just run 100% of the time to maximize our time to learn to block. This would also protect Russ from being hurt, and this is crucial for winning the rest of the games.



    *LIKE*
    Love, Peace & Elbow Grease. Let's ROLL, Hawks!
    User avatar
    hgwellz12
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2289
    Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:17 pm


Re: Serious points to get the O to produce
Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:11 pm
  • cymatica wrote:
    Siouxhawk wrote:
    jammerhawk wrote:
    Siouxhawk wrote:Good thoughts, but are we really ready to abandon a full throttle running game yet? I think Pete says he wanted it to be more like 60/40 run instead of the 50/50 run/pass from a year ago. I think we tried that all day against the Packers, but were bottled up save for a few nice Carson rambles, but do we really abandon Pete's preferred philosophy a mere game into the season?


    Run game?

    What run game? 90 yards total. Lacy? = invisible, let's hope this isn't what we get.. Prosise? = invisible. He's a star though ??? Rawls? = hurt as usual. Carson? = 39yards and only one effective running play. How many running plays were called?

    The OLine= Matadors who can't pass block or run block. It was a poor gameplan that showed little ability to change up on O, and while I think Bevell at times can be effective he shows a paucity of ability to adjust.

    The O was ugly and put unreal pressure on the D who held a superior O to just 17 points. They spent almost 2/3 of the game on the field. Zero scores for the OC, zero for Coach Fable, yes the spelling is correct, zero for the game plan. Fable = the illusion he can create an OLine that can pass protect or even run block. Sure I'm po'd b/c the BS we've been fed on the OLine is all that.

    Eddy Lacy, ok, whatever? The team's best RB today is a rookie who got limited touches.

    I would have scrapped the run game b/c it sucked. Full throttle? I'd have been happy for some or any limited effectiveness.

    So would you already abandon Pete's proclamation that we will run the ball in excess of 60 percent of the game?
    That was supposed to be our offensive identity this year.


    If that was Pete's plan with this line, then yes, blow up that idea.

    Remember in 2007 when Holmgren said we can't run so we will just pass. It worked. He wanted a good run game but saw the o-line and adjusted accordingly.

    Maybe we need to adjust our philosophy to the reality that we can't just run at you. Use the pass to set up the run


    But our problem is we can't pass block either. The passing attack puts Russ at risk for getting hurt. This whole approach seems braver than smart.

    Smart would be drafting some good offensive line men, particularly on the blind side.
    Netskier
    netskier
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1200
    Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 9:18 pm


  • netskier wrote:
    cymatica wrote:
    Siouxhawk wrote:
    jammerhawk wrote:
    Run game?

    What run game? 90 yards total. Lacy? = invisible, let's hope this isn't what we get.. Prosise? = invisible. He's a star though ??? Rawls? = hurt as usual. Carson? = 39yards and only one effective running play. How many running plays were called?

    The OLine= Matadors who can't pass block or run block. It was a poor gameplan that showed little ability to change up on O, and while I think Bevell at times can be effective he shows a paucity of ability to adjust.

    The O was ugly and put unreal pressure on the D who held a superior O to just 17 points. They spent almost 2/3 of the game on the field. Zero scores for the OC, zero for Coach Fable, yes the spelling is correct, zero for the game plan. Fable = the illusion he can create an OLine that can pass protect or even run block. Sure I'm po'd b/c the BS we've been fed on the OLine is all that.

    Eddy Lacy, ok, whatever? The team's best RB today is a rookie who got limited touches.

    I would have scrapped the run game b/c it sucked. Full throttle? I'd have been happy for some or any limited effectiveness.

    So would you already abandon Pete's proclamation that we will run the ball in excess of 60 percent of the game?
    That was supposed to be our offensive identity this year.


    If that was Pete's plan with this line, then yes, blow up that idea.

    Remember in 2007 when Holmgren said we can't run so we will just pass. It worked. He wanted a good run game but saw the o-line and adjusted accordingly.

    Maybe we need to adjust our philosophy to the reality that we can't just run at you. Use the pass to set up the run


    But our problem is we can't pass block either. The passing attack puts Russ at risk for getting hurt. This whole approach seems braver than smart.

    Smart would be drafting some good offensive line men, particularly on the blind side.

    The Packers couldn't pass block today either. Rodgers was knocked down, and sacked all game today. The difference is how McCarthy decided to respond to what we were doing. In response to our pass rush switched to a quick hitting offense. 3 step drop, and the ball was out of Rodgers hand. McCarthy also took advantage of our aggressiveness with misdirection plays.

    Now, compare that to what the Seahawks did. I saw a lot of under the center play from Russ, and long developing 5-7 step drop plays. We also played in tight formations, which only encouraged the Packers to attack the Seahawks where we are weakest; our line. I didn't see very much in the form check down routes either. The game plan baffled me, and even the Aikman seemed a bit confused by our approach to how the Packers were gaming our offense. No adjustments what so ever from our offensive coaches. This my friend, is the difference between our plebeian offensive and a high flying offense such as GBs.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2061
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:31 am


  • Spin Doctor wrote:The Packers couldn't pass block today either. Rodgers was knocked down, and sacked all game today. The difference is how McCarthy decided to respond to what we were doing. In response to our pass rush switched to a quick hitting offense. 3 step drop, and the ball was out of Rodgers hand. McCarthy also took advantage of our aggressiveness with misdirection plays.

    Now, compare that to what the Seahawks did. I saw a lot of under the center play from Russ, and long developing 5-7 step drop plays. We also played in tight formations, which only encouraged the Packers to attack the Seahawks where we are weakest; our line. I didn't see very much in the form check down routes either. The game plan baffled me, and even the Aikman seemed a bit confused by our approach to how the Packers were gaming our offense. No adjustments what so ever from our offensive coaches. This my friend, is the difference between our plebeian offensive and a high flying offense such as GBs.


    I missed most of the first half, coming in just to see our last drive where we marched down the field in short time to put 3 points on the board

    Then in the second half we had a drive where Wilson fumbled early on, a drive where he marched down field, and if not for an egregious non-call on PI we'd probably have a TD, a 3 and out on an appalling Jimmy Graham drop, and a quick march downfield which almost resulted in TD (actually, while Darboh's catch was spectacular there was no reason for him to leave his feet there, hopefully will come with experience).

    It was a really strange half in that yes, the O-line was bad, but we were fractionally away from executing and it made things look much much worse.

    If we get the TD on the interception return, or punch it in with 4 attempts from the 1 then the game probably plays out different, but those are the breaks you sometimes have to deal with. I feel confident that we'll get over it and look more adept on offense in the next few weeks.
    themunn
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3282
    Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:38 pm


  • seabowl wrote:With the O (personnel including coaches) the way it is now, and assuming there is no way Bevell/Cable are going anywhere soon, here are the things IMO that would make the O better:

    1- up tempo O. It seems when we run the O the traditional way the O cannot move the ball at all or at least with any consistency.
    2- bring some form of the read option back. At least for some plays to keep the D guessing.
    3- Shotgun almost every play. Russ seems to thrive out of the shotgun vs behind center.
    4- Ok I'll cheat a little by saying bring in a real FB like Marcel Reece to open some holes for sake.
    5- get rid of bubble screens
    6- when you need the 1st down, script a play to throw to the receiver past the 1st down marker.
    7- even during running plays spread out the personnel more to allow easier lanes for Russ to throw or the rb's to hit.

    Look I'm not an NFL coach but these at least to me are pretty obvious things that even a laymen like myself can see improving what we have. Thoughts?


    I actually laughed at #6, so true, so bleeping true.
    User avatar
    Aircrew
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 47
    Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2016 6:53 pm
    Location: Eastern Washington


  • Didn't Russell Wilson have half our rushing yards himself?
    User avatar
    brimsalabim
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3715
    Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:50 am


  • As bad as this offensive line performs we should be practicing nothing but screens.
    User avatar
    brimsalabim
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3715
    Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:50 am


Re: Serious points to get the O to produce
Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:17 am
  • Spin Doctor wrote:
    netskier wrote:
    cymatica wrote:
    Siouxhawk wrote:So would you already abandon Pete's proclamation that we will run the ball in excess of 60 percent of the game?
    That was supposed to be our offensive identity this year.


    If that was Pete's plan with this line, then yes, blow up that idea.

    Remember in 2007 when Holmgren said we can't run so we will just pass. It worked. He wanted a good run game but saw the o-line and adjusted accordingly.

    Maybe we need to adjust our philosophy to the reality that we can't just run at you. Use the pass to set up the run


    But our problem is we can't pass block either. The passing attack puts Russ at risk for getting hurt. This whole approach seems braver than smart.

    Smart would be drafting some good offensive line men, particularly on the blind side.

    The Packers couldn't pass block today either. Rodgers was knocked down, and sacked all game today. The difference is how McCarthy decided to respond to what we were doing. In response to our pass rush switched to a quick hitting offense. 3 step drop, and the ball was out of Rodgers hand. McCarthy also took advantage of our aggressiveness with misdirection plays.

    Now, compare that to what the Seahawks did. I saw a lot of under the center play from Russ, and long developing 5-7 step drop plays. We also played in tight formations, which only encouraged the Packers to attack the Seahawks where we are weakest; our line. I didn't see very much in the form check down routes either. The game plan baffled me, and even the Aikman seemed a bit confused by our approach to how the Packers were gaming our offense. No adjustments what so ever from our offensive coaches. This my friend, is the difference between our plebeian offensive and a high flying offense such as GBs.


    I agree completely.

    Adjusting as you suggest is the obviously right thing to do. Now, why do you think that our offensive coaches did not make this adjustment?
    Netskier
    netskier
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1200
    Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 9:18 pm


Hi Darrell, meet Mr. Screen Pass...
Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:04 pm
  • Agree with all the points made... though in my unprofessional opinion, a faster-tempo offense might, for this o-line ineptitude, just mean quicker 3-and-outs.

    Is it me, or does Seattle not run screen passes to the backs? I'm not talking about those wide receiver bubble screens (that go for a whopping 3 or 4 yards).

    With how awful our o-line is, it might actually work--as the d-line runs past the turnstile that is our o-line, instead of thinking "hmmm, maybe I'm being set up for a screen," the defense might instead just think this is par-for-the-course...

    One issue I keep hearing is how Pete and Darrell seem unable to adapt the offensive to the fact that our o-line isn't going to provide Wilson any time in the pocket...

    I would think it's rudimentary football 101; they need to talk to Coach Chris Petersen, because it's pretty clear that for this entire year, our o-line is going to be overmatched. Petersen showed he can consistently get his teams to play above their potential (aka Boise St vs Oklahoma in 2007 Fiesta Bow).
    User avatar
    doctorsubie
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 11
    Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 4:16 am
    Location: Kirkland


Re: Serious points to get the O to produce
Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:25 pm
  • netskier wrote:
    Siouxhawk wrote:
    jammerhawk wrote:
    Siouxhawk wrote:Good thoughts, but are we really ready to abandon a full throttle running game yet? I think Pete says he wanted it to be more like 60/40 run instead of the 50/50 run/pass from a year ago. I think we tried that all day against the Packers, but were bottled up save for a few nice Carson rambles, but do we really abandon Pete's preferred philosophy a mere game into the season?


    Run game?

    What run game? 90 yards total. Lacy? = invisible, let's hope this isn't what we get.. Prosise? = invisible. He's a star though ??? Rawls? = hurt as usual. Carson? = 39yards and only one effective running play. How many running plays were called?

    The OLine= Matadors who can't pass block or run block. It was a poor gameplan that showed little ability to change up on O, and while I think Bevell at times can be effective he shows a paucity of ability to adjust.

    The O was ugly and put unreal pressure on the D who held a superior O to just 17 points. They spent almost 2/3 of the game on the field. Zero scores for the OC, zero for Coach Fable, yes the spelling is correct, zero for the game plan. Fable = the illusion he can create an OLine that can pass protect or even run block. Sure I'm po'd b/c the BS we've been fed on the OLine is all that.

    Eddy Lacy, ok, whatever? The team's best RB today is a rookie who got limited touches.

    I would have scrapped the run game b/c it sucked. Full throttle? I'd have been happy for some or any limited effectiveness.

    So would you already abandon Pete's proclamation that we will run the ball in excess of 60 percent of the game?
    That was supposed to be our offensive identity this year.


    Is Pete's proclamation to run more that 60% of the time really feasible before the OL learns to block well enough? It will probably begin working in four or five games. Maybe we should just run 100% of the time to maximize our time to learn to block. This would also protect Russ from being hurt, and this is crucial for winning the rest of the games.


    Pete's commitment to the run game is BS. We had 18 rushes yesterday; two of which were scrambles. So 16 of 45 plays we're rushes. 3 of those were 'meaningless' rushes at the end of the half to run the clock out, and we actually got a first down.

    But a 2:1 pass to run ratio in a one-score game, where our defense was cramping up and down a DB. Lacy was garbage, but Carson and Procisse were making positive gains. We can run the ball if we call running plays. We don't though -- and then we throw in play action? Nobody in the building expects us to run unless we have two backs in -- in which case we ALWAYS run.

    If we ran the ball 30 times a game, we'd be 14-2 every year because nobody would have enough time to hang more than 10 points on this D.
    Own The West
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 116
    Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 7:20 pm


  • seabowl wrote:With the O (personnel including coaches) the way it is now, and assuming there is no way Bevell/Cable are going anywhere soon, here are the things IMO that would make the O better:

    1- up tempo O. It seems when we run the O the traditional way the O cannot move the ball at all or at least with any consistency.
    2- bring some form of the read option back. At least for some plays to keep the D guessing.
    3- Shotgun almost every play. Russ seems to thrive out of the shotgun vs behind center.
    4- Ok I'll cheat a little by saying bring in a real FB like Marcel Reece to open some holes for sake.
    5- get rid of bubble screens
    6- when you need the 1st down, script a play to throw to the receiver past the 1st down marker.
    7- even during running plays spread out the personnel more to allow easier lanes for Russ to throw or the rb's to hit.

    Look I'm not an NFL coach but these at least to me are pretty obvious things that even a laymen like myself can see improving what we have. Thoughts?



    I like it!
    "Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!"
    User avatar
    Ace_Rimmer
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 695
    Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 7:59 am
    Location: Vancouver, BC


  • Lets say you draw that nice play and practice it 10 times during the week.
    Then you get to GB and Bevell calls it. Russell walks to the huddle, relays the play to the guys and everyone knows what to do. Let's say the receiver will take 2 seconds to get to his spot.
    Now, let's imagine ... within 1 second after the ball is snapped, the DL is in Russell's face, because someone on the O-Line blew up his assignment.
    What shall we do?
    My point is: If the O-Line can't even block for a second, we can practice /call all the plays we want ... nothing is going to change.
    To me, the ONE thing that needs to be worked on all week ... is O-Line Blocking.
    Aircrew wrote:
    seabowl wrote:With the O (personnel including coaches) the way it is now, and assuming there is no way Bevell/Cable are going anywhere soon, here are the things IMO that would make the O better:
    1- up tempo O. It seems when we run the O the traditional way the O cannot move the ball at all or at least with any consistency.
    2- bring some form of the read option back. At least for some plays to keep the D guessing.
    3- Shotgun almost every play. Russ seems to thrive out of the shotgun vs behind center.
    4- Ok I'll cheat a little by saying bring in a real FB like Marcel Reece to open some holes for sake.
    5- get rid of bubble screens
    6- when you need the 1st down, script a play to throw to the receiver past the 1st down marker.
    7- even during running plays spread out the personnel more to allow easier lanes for Russ to throw or the rb's to hit.
    Look I'm not an NFL coach but these at least to me are pretty obvious things that even a laymen like myself can see improving what we have. Thoughts?

    I actually laughed at #6, so true, so bleeping true.
    joeseahawks
    *The Prophet*
     
    Posts: 2046
    Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2012 3:43 pm
    Location: NC


  • Own The West wrote:
    If we ran the ball 30 times a game, we'd be 14-2 every year because nobody would have enough time to hang more than 10 points on this D.


    This all falls apart without 1st downs or 3rd down conversions.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3257
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • seabowl wrote:With the O (personnel including coaches) the way it is now, and assuming there is no way Bevell/Cable are going anywhere soon, here are the things IMO that would make the O better:

    1- up tempo O. It seems when we run the O the traditional way the O cannot move the ball at all or at least with any consistency.
    2- bring some form of the read option back. At least for some plays to keep the D guessing.
    3- Shotgun almost every play. Russ seems to thrive out of the shotgun vs behind center.
    4- Ok I'll cheat a little by saying bring in a real FB like Marcel Reece to open some holes for sake.
    5- get rid of bubble screens
    6- when you need the 1st down, script a play to throw to the receiver past the 1st down marker.
    7- even during running plays spread out the personnel more to allow easier lanes for Russ to throw or the rb's to hit.

    Look I'm not an NFL coach but these at least to me are pretty obvious things that even a laymen like myself can see improving what we have. Thoughts?

    Beast Mode enabled the read option. Without him they're not sucking up on the middle--much easier to spy Wilson.
    http://www.sonicsrising.com/2016/3/10/11194382/sonics-arena-public-hearing-tip-off
    http://www.sonicsrising.com/2016/3/7/11 ... l-vacation
    FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER: @George_OGorman
    User avatar
    Lords of Scythia
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2225
    Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:32 am


  • Well there was some up tempo O happening albeit when we were down at the end and they had to. I did see some read option. The rest we need work on.
    seabowl
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2327
    Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:20 am


  • Another game sample to show the O can only move the ball with consistency under the hurry up. More proof that Bevell scripted calls are poo poo.

    Hey John, you ever going to sign a fullback?
    seabowl
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2327
    Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:20 am


  • seabowl wrote:With the O (personnel including coaches) the way it is now, and assuming there is no way Bevell/Cable are going anywhere soon, here are the things IMO that would make the O better:

    1- up tempo O. It seems when we run the O the traditional way the O cannot move the ball at all or at least with any consistency. This is a product of defenses running prevent formations late in the half. In other situations, no-huddle is not a guarantee and can only leave your defense tired. The Carson TD drive was not up-tempo.
    2- bring some form of the read option back. At least for some plays to keep the D guessing. See 1. Read-option isn't going to give Wilson a lot of open ground until the defense's back seven is playing fifteen yards off the line of scrimmage.
    3- Shotgun almost every play. Russ seems to thrive out of the shotgun vs behind center. Can't argue with that.
    4- Ok I'll cheat a little by saying bring in a real FB like Marcel Reece to open some holes for sake. Or that.
    5- get rid of bubble screens Do people really just coast on perceptions like this, long after they've ceased to be true? I've seen one bubble screen in the last three games that I remember. It went for ten yards. Last year, they were going for six and seven a pop.
    6- when you need the 1st down, script a play to throw to the receiver past the 1st down marker. This also annoys me. We don't have enough YAC talent to be doing this.
    7- even during running plays spread out the personnel more to allow easier lanes for Russ to throw or the rb's to hit. This is a consequence of wanting to protect Russell.

    Look I'm not an NFL coach but these at least to me are pretty obvious things that even a laymen like myself can see improving what we have. Thoughts?


    seabowl wrote:Another game sample to show the O can only move the ball with consistency under the hurry up. More proof that Bevell scripted calls are poo poo.

    Hey John, you ever going to sign a fullback?


    Bevell's scripted calls got us a TD on the opening drive last week. Or they were about to, until Prosise dropped it.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 15872
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    seabowl wrote:With the O (personnel including coaches) the way it is now, and assuming there is no way Bevell/Cable are going anywhere soon, here are the things IMO that would make the O better:

    1- up tempo O. It seems when we run the O the traditional way the O cannot move the ball at all or at least with any consistency. This is a product of defenses running prevent formations late in the half. In other situations, no-huddle is not a guarantee and can only leave your defense tired. The Carson TD drive was not up-tempo.
    2- bring some form of the read option back. At least for some plays to keep the D guessing. See 1. Read-option isn't going to give Wilson a lot of open ground until the defense's back seven is playing fifteen yards off the line of scrimmage.
    3- Shotgun almost every play. Russ seems to thrive out of the shotgun vs behind center. Can't argue with that.
    4- Ok I'll cheat a little by saying bring in a real FB like Marcel Reece to open some holes for sake. Or that.
    5- get rid of bubble screens Do people really just coast on perceptions like this, long after they've ceased to be true? I've seen one bubble screen in the last three games that I remember. It went for ten yards. Last year, they were going for six and seven a pop.
    6- when you need the 1st down, script a play to throw to the receiver past the 1st down marker. This also annoys me. We don't have enough YAC talent to be doing this.
    7- even during running plays spread out the personnel more to allow easier lanes for Russ to throw or the rb's to hit. This is a consequence of wanting to protect Russell.

    Look I'm not an NFL coach but these at least to me are pretty obvious things that even a laymen like myself can see improving what we have. Thoughts?


    seabowl wrote:Another game sample to show the O can only move the ball with consistency under the hurry up. More proof that Bevell scripted calls are poo poo.

    Hey John, you ever going to sign a fullback?


    Bevell's scripted calls got us a TD on the opening drive last week. Or they were about to, until Prosise dropped it.


    Every Bevell finds a nut once in a while.
    seabowl
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2327
    Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:20 am


  • Now that it has been some time since this was put on .Net I wanted to see what progress if any was made. I think the key is the first point where we need to run an up tempo O to sustain drives. It's beyond obvious now that Bevells scripted plays do not work as a whole and once Russ gets to play calls as he sees it on the field the O just plain plays better.

    What does this mean? We are better off without Bevell and his play calling.
    seabowl
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2327
    Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:20 am


  • seabowl wrote:Now that it has been some time since this was put on .Net I wanted to see what progress if any was made. I think the key is the first point where we need to run an up tempo O to sustain drives. It's beyond obvious now that Bevells scripted plays do not work as a whole and once Russ gets to play calls as he sees it on the field the O just plain plays better.

    What does this mean? We are better off without Bevell and his play calling.

    Wrong. Instead of being knee-jerk, take a look at the big picture and it's evident Bevell's play designs are working. But feel free to throw the ol' hands up in the air and panic on those rare times we stumble. Even in yesterday's game, the offense had the win on the tee with 90 seconds to go and the defense just needed to prevent a touchdown.

    But that didn't happen and we have 4 days to refocus on Drew Stanton.
    User avatar
    Siouxhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3617
    Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:46 pm


  • They got us the lead but 0 offensive points through 3 quarters against a depleted defense is terrible. Shoot, even if Walsh makes them it's only 9 points. That's just not good enough.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 618
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


  • This game was a perfect example of why you can't let an inferior team hang around. They had many many many chances to put up more points. Beat themselves, period.
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6668
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA




It is currently Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:49 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online