12-0 over 250 yards

Prior to Sundays game the Seahawks are 12-0 in games they rush for 250 or more yards. So that makes the first loss in team history when we rush for over 250.

Defense and poor coaching decisions lost this game IMO. Sure you could bring up the strip sack as a factor, but we've also lost games where we were plus 3 in turnovers also, so that is not a given.

With 108 yards on the ground, Seahawks rookie Rashad Penny spearheaded a Seattle rushing attack that steamrolled the Rams for 273 yards, and surprisingly, Seattle lost. ... the Seahawks lost a game where they rushed for more than 250 yards. Before Sunday, they had been 12-0 when hitting that mark.

Click to expand...

Cant link Seattle Times article....they want me to pay. :roll:

That goes to show you how important that one mistake can be, Pete always talks about mistakes and how we need to take care of our mistakes. Without that one fumble its a different outcome.
Cheers

Yep, they were in this game the entire time. Onside kick and choosing to let Russ sit in the pocket cost them another game in the 4th quarter. I for one am sick of them getting outcoached in the 4th quarter.

SoulfishHawk":1iqifssz said:

Yep, they were in this game the entire time. Onside kick and choosing to let Russ sit in the pocket cost them another game in the 4th quarter. I for one am sick of them getting outcoached in the 4th quarter.

Click to expand...

Agree 100%. Nothing like making your QB a sitting duck during duck season with empty backfields and no outlets and no rollouts on must pass situations with a Dline like that. ukeface:

Pete still preaches that "It's not about them it's about us" BS. Not against that Dline!! :141847_bnono: It's about them, and if you don't game plan to keep your QB clean bad sh!t is going to happen.

Seymour":2wvr4zjz said:

Cant link Seattle Times article....they want me to pay. :roll:

Click to expand...

Good business model. "Hey we know you can find this information on a dozen other sites, but give us $10 a month to read our crappy articles."

It is frustrating to rush for so many yards and lose. I think what the Ram's game showed is that even if we're rushing well we have to find some passing balance so that Russell is in rhythm and rolling in the 4th quarter, and isn't expected to just flip a switch and lead two straight passing drives.

How many passing yards did we have in the first half, like 39? Gotta find some balance.

Sgt. Largent":1w126i3r said:

Seymour":1w126i3r said:

Cant link Seattle Times article....they want me to pay. :roll:

Click to expand...

Good business model. "Hey we know you can find this information on a dozen other sites, but give us $10 a month to read our crappy articles."

It is frustrating to rush for so many yards and lose. I think what the Ram's game showed is that even if we're rushing well we have to find some passing balance so that Russell is in rhythm and rolling in the 4th quarter, and isn't expected to just flip a switch and lead two straight passing drives.

How many passing yards did we have in the first half, like 39? Gotta find some balance.

Click to expand...

Agree on balance. He needs to get into the flow of the game, we've seen that with all the first half slow starts last years and early this year. Not just Wilson either, the WR's get tired running full speed routes then never getting a target.

And I don't know what is up with Baldwin, but he is a NO SHOW! He averages 850 yards and 6 TD's per year. This season past halfway point he has 275 yards and ZERO TD's. Something is up with him when he announces "I'm only going to be 80% this season". Why even tell everyone that? :roll: :141847_bnono:

Baldwin vs Rams. 6 reception 40 yards zero TD's in 2 games!

Seymour":7f1psz9w said:

And I don't know what is up with Baldwin, but he is a NO SHOW! He averages 850 yards and 6 TD's per year. This season past halfway point he has 275 yards and ZERO TD's. Something is up with him when he announces "I'm only going to be 80% this season". Why even tell everyone that? :roll: :141847_bnono:

Baldwin vs Rams. 6 reception 40 yards zero TD's in 2 games!

Click to expand...

He's hurt, and he's been hurt all year.

Baldwin needs that burst off the line to get that separation from the DB..........and he just hasn't had it with his knee.

He did look quicker and sharper on Sunday, so maybe that's a good sign he's feeling better.

Sgt. Largent":2d0er3yk said:

Seymour":2d0er3yk said:

And I don't know what is up with Baldwin, but he is a NO SHOW! He averages 850 yards and 6 TD's per year. This season past halfway point he has 275 yards and ZERO TD's. Something is up with him when he announces "I'm only going to be 80% this season". Why even tell everyone that? :roll: :141847_bnono:

Baldwin vs Rams. 6 reception 40 yards zero TD's in 2 games!

Click to expand...

He's hurt, and he's been hurt all year.

Baldwin needs that burst off the line to get that separation from the DB..........and he just hasn't had it with his knee.

He did look quicker and sharper on Sunday, so maybe that's a good sign he's feeling better.

Click to expand...

Well, he was better than the first game where he had 1 reception for 1 yard....so there is that.

I know he is hurt, my question is why he says he'll only be 80% all year and tip all the other teams to possibly switch coverage and put their #1 on Lockett.

Seymour":3oby9ec1 said:

Sgt. Largent":3oby9ec1 said:

Seymour":3oby9ec1 said:

And I don't know what is up with Baldwin, but he is a NO SHOW! He averages 850 yards and 6 TD's per year. This season past halfway point he has 275 yards and ZERO TD's. Something is up with him when he announces "I'm only going to be 80% this season". Why even tell everyone that? :roll: :141847_bnono:

Baldwin vs Rams. 6 reception 40 yards zero TD's in 2 games!

Click to expand...

He's hurt, and he's been hurt all year.

Baldwin needs that burst off the line to get that separation from the DB..........and he just hasn't had it with his knee.

He did look quicker and sharper on Sunday, so maybe that's a good sign he's feeling better.

Click to expand...

Well, he was better than the first game where he had 1 reception for 1 yard....so there is that.

I know he is hurt, my question is why he says he'll only be 80% all year and tip all the other teams to possibly switch coverage and put their #1 on Lockett.

Click to expand...

Film doesn't lie, he could say he's 100% but teams would know he's not. Him saying it doesn't change anything.

Lockett's had his best year as a WR, so it's not like it's affected coverage.

We put up over 30 points. This loss is on the defense. It isn’t even debatable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Got to give some credit to the opponent. Rams are a Top 2 team in the NFL right now. We’ve run over their defense pretty well. Our own defense just hasn’t stopped them enough.

The Rams defense is really bad at times but when they needed to get a stop they did.

Sox-n-Hawks":2ivywjl5 said:

We put up over 30 points. This loss is on the defense. It isn’t even debatable.

Click to expand...

What's the motivation to assign blame to either the defense or the offense? We had bad and good plays on both sides of the ball. One more good play on either side and we could have gotten a win against a more talented team on the road.

The Rams are currently #1 in offensive efficiency and #25 in defensive efficiency (yards per play). Nobody has shut down that offense yet but they can be run on and beaten in a shoot out. The upcoming Chiefs game will be very similar as they are #24 in defensive efficiency, so a game in which we win is more likely to be a 38-33 game then a 14-10 affair.

AgentDib":3igqs1ia said:

Sox-n-Hawks":3igqs1ia said:

We put up over 30 points. This loss is on the defense. It isn’t even debatable.

Click to expand...

What's the motivation to assign blame to either the defense or the offense? We had bad and good plays on both sides of the ball. One more good play on either side and we could have gotten a win against a more talented team on the road.

The Rams are currently #1 in offensive efficiency and #25 in defensive efficiency (yards per play). Nobody has shut down that offense yet but they can be run on and beaten in a shoot out. The upcoming Chiefs game will be very similar as they are #24 in defensive efficiency, so a game in which we win is more likely to be a 38-33 game then a 14-10 affair.

Click to expand...

How many games have we won under PC where the opponent scored over 27 points? Not many. Bottom line. If the offense puts up 30+ points the LOSS isn’t on their shoulders. They did their job. The defense has some work to do. How’d we beat the donkeys in the Super Bowl? Shut down the most prolific offense.

It’s not about blame, it’s a simple equation. Make them score less than you do. When the offense puts up 30+, it’s awfully hard to put the loss on their shoulders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Losing these games in many ways. But ignoring problems with the D has been very common the last few years on here. As if they are above criticism. They are getting shredded in the run game and over the middle.

Seymour":2at1sqt9 said:

Prior to Sundays game the Seahawks are 12-0 in games they rush for 250 or more yards. So that makes the first loss in team history when we rush for over 250.

Defense and poor coaching decisions lost this game IMO. Sure you could bring up the strip sack as a factor, but we've also lost games where we were plus 3 in turnovers also, so that is not a given.

With 108 yards on the ground, Seahawks rookie Rashad Penny spearheaded a Seattle rushing attack that steamrolled the Rams for 273 yards, and surprisingly, Seattle lost. ... the Seahawks lost a game where they rushed for more than 250 yards. Before Sunday, they had been 12-0 when hitting that mark.

Click to expand...

Cant link Seattle Times article....they want me to pay. :roll:

Click to expand...

I think the 250 yards means less than it used to because the amount of offense is so much more these days with all the QB protection and passing game emphasis. As a result, you can put up 300 - 400 yards passing so much easier than even 10 years ago -- and that means 250 yards rushing doesn't mean as much UNLESS you have a defense that is dominant. If you defense is dominant and you rack up 250 yards rushing then it means you are running the ball all game long, the other team knows you are running the ball and they still cannot stop you. In last week's game, the Rams didn't care at points in the game if the Seahawks ran the ball because with the Rams' passing attack the Rams knew they could score a TD with a minute or 2 on the clock. The problem with 250 yards rushing in a shoot out game is that it took them 6 minutes to go down the field in their 2 minute offense.

We all knew before the game even started that the defense weren't good enough to "WIN" this game for them. If they were to have a chance It was always going to come down to the Seahawks playing a near flawless game on offense and RW making the clutch plays down the stretch. Wilson did NOT do that so I don't see how he doesn't shoulder the blame for the loss if you are going to make someone responsible. I think the coaches knew that they don't pass protect that well when the other team knows they are passing so they had to stick with the run to give them a shot. If you are going to criticize some of the strange pass play calling (I think warranted) then they need just as much credit for calling the running plays they did and getting the yardage they did. There were quite a few on this board that believed Fluker was the main reason they could run the ball and without him that it would fall apart.

As an aside, I cant help but roll my eyes when I hear statistics these days about "1st QB in History to throw for 3000+ yards in 5 straight seasons" or "fastest WR to reach 10000 career yards or 500 receptions etc". Al the passing stats are so inflated now that reaching 3000 yards in a season for a QB is almost a bare minimum Right now, Josh Rosen (who has looked terrible) at his current pace would hit 3000 yards by the end of this year if he had played 16 games. If that doesn't show that we 3000 yards means nothing these days and that it is pointless to compare current passing stats to seasons prior to 2008.

Z.

Just curious what the stats are for games where we pass for less than 50 yards at the half?

I imagine not great.

So running for tons of yards while at the same time being almost unable to pass the ball and having a horrible 3rd down efficiency? They probably offset each other.

We did score 31 but we didn't do ourselves any favors running our own clock down when down by 2 scores.

It is a stat that makes sense but if you compare total offensive efficiency and effectiveness #s you get a bit of a different story.

I do not understand all the focus on offense here? This record being broken this year is FAR more on an indictment of the defense, not the offense.

Your defense won't get better.

The offense can.

Our best players are on offense.


And the offense wasn't even close to NFL standards as a whole.

So we can complain about a defense that is weak because we cut most of the best players or let them go. (Specifically running a defense that is predicated on great play by the safeties where we pretty much have average safeties (McD and TT somewhat cancel each other out))

Or we can look at what can be fixed, which would more likely be the offense. We knew this defense was going to give up 20-30 points a game (or should have known). But as pointed out by another poster, when we play top offenses that have relatively weak defenses - the onus is on the offense to win those games. An average defense against a great offense is not a good matchup.

Our passing game is horrific. Either we have no WRs (and where is Brown?) or we just are not even trying. I honestly don't know that answer but I know we face bleak prospects against better than .500 teams if we cannot figure it out.

The defense won't win games for us. It has to be our offense.

TwistedHusky":3fqiffvk said:

Just curious what the stats are for games where we pass for less than 50 yards at the half?

I imagine not great.

So running for tons of yards while at the same time being almost unable to pass the ball and having a horrible 3rd down efficiency? They probably offset each other.

We did score 31 but we didn't do ourselves any favors running our own clock down when down by 2 scores.

It is a stat that makes sense but if you compare total offensive efficiency and effectiveness #s you get a bit of a different story.

Click to expand...

I'm trying to find this via Pro Football Reference but there doesn't seem to be a way to get passing yards at half out of it.