Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Seattle had no drops (Sando)

A collection of NET's best and most memorable threads. Predictions, debates, laughs, and X's & O's. LANGUAGE RATING: PG to NC-17
Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:29 am
  • amill87 wrote:Without the turnovers and long returns, we get shut out.


    Such horrible logic. I have seen this pop up so much with the popularity of fantasy football. "Well, if you remove X players long TD run, he had a horrible day." The game of football does not work that way. The exact same thing could be said for AZ, without their good plays they could have been shutout. We weren't shutout, we were moments away from winning the game.

    Either way, to think that this is the worst offensive performance from a QB is extremely myopic.
    HawksFTW
    * NET E-Knight *
     
    Posts: 4142
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:06 am


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:29 am
  • Charlie lead our team to a loss in a game where we kept the other team to 6 points with no touchdowns, that's all I have to say.
    the ditch
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1645
    Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:05 am
    Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:31 am
  • cboom wrote:Will you at least be man enough to leave it there when he gets benched?


    I think this is where your problem lies...You think that something said on the internet, has anything to do with being a man. If Wilson gets benched so be it. Your statement would still be ridiculous, even in that context.
    HawksFTW
    * NET E-Knight *
     
    Posts: 4142
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:06 am


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:34 am
  • HawksFTW wrote:
    amill87 wrote:Without the turnovers and long returns, we get shut out.


    Such horrible logic. I have seen this pop up so much with the popularity of fantasy football. "Well, if you remove X players long TD run, he had a horrible day." The game of football does not work that way. The exact same thing could be said for AZ, without their good plays they could have been shutout. We weren't shutout, we were moments away from winning the game.

    Either way, to think that this is the worst offensive performance from a QB is extremely myopic.


    I didn't say it was the worst performance from a QB. I said it was one of the worst offensive performances (whole offense). Arizona was able to score without a turnover or special teams. Our offense couldn't do anything. It's not fantasy logic. The offense as a whole (minus Lynch) was terrible. The o-line was a turnstile and Wilson was erratic. I do not think Wilson had the worst performance from a QB but he was the QB of an offense that was very bad.

    In fact, I would argue sitting back and saying "we weren't shut out, our offense put up 16 points and almost won!" is more fantasy. That is purely looking at the stat sheet.
    amill87
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1374
    Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:35 pm


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:35 am
  • amill87 wrote:
    cboom wrote:Sando was spot on. In fact throughout the game the receivers made some great catches on bad throws. Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.


    If you make an OUTRAGEOUS statement like this expect a equal response. Do us all favor and never speak on the matter again.
    beasthawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 680
    Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:13 pm
    Location: Everett WA


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:35 am
  • Chukarhawk wrote:Troll Clean up aisle 3!!

    Clearly Football is not your game Cboof.


    Football is not my game because I'm not jumping on the bandwagon of believing a short QB will lead this team to the promise land? A couple years from now Wilson will be forgotten about and you will forget I said he would fail.
    cboom
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 145
    Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:05 pm


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:35 am
  • cboom wrote:Sando was spot on. In fact throughout the game the receivers made some great catches on bad throws. Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.

    Lol. Ludicrous!
    -The Glove-
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7689
    Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:12 am


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:43 am
  • amill87 wrote:... I said it was one of the worst offensive performances (whole offense).


    Actually after 1 week we only dropped 1 place from #28 to #29 in total offense from last year. And 1 yard better then the team that beat us. 8)
    Verndog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1590
    Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:54 pm
    Location: Auburn, Wa


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:46 am
  • cboom wrote:
    Chukarhawk wrote:Troll Clean up aisle 3!!

    Clearly Football is not your game Cboof.


    Football is not my game because I'm not jumping on the bandwagon of believing a short QB will lead this team to the promise land? A couple years from now Wilson will be forgotten about and you will forget I said he would fail.


    Please remain a .Net Bench Warmer...

    Will you admit you're wrong when Wilson hits a home run and has more goals than anyone else in power play situations on the court?
    KARAVARUS
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3497
    Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:09 am
    Location: Omaha, NE


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:47 am
  • cboom wrote:Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan.


    Then you clearly don't understand what you're seeing when you watch football.

    I don't care what metric Sando quotes. Braylon dropped that ball.
    Last edited by MontanaHawk05 on Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 16390
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:49 am
  • Cboom was leading the Charlie Whithurst chants last year. He now is cheering for this years backup. True story the internet told me so.. lol JK man don't get upset just fooling with ya...

    That said we need better protection and you'll see Russell's leadership and playmaking take over. I watched the 22 coaches tape last night. Good start for the rookie he got better as the game went on. He showed toughness and confidence. He was battling hard at the end and was dissapointed we lost. I could see he really cares. Sidney was also upset.. i like that they want to be really good. it's gona take some time..
    redeye81
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1533
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:58 pm
    Location: Boise


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:50 am
  • cboom wrote:Sando was spot on. In fact throughout the game the receivers made some great catches on bad throws. Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.
    Attachments
    57207182_George_Takei_oh_my_xlarge.jpeg
    57207182_George_Takei_oh_my_xlarge.jpeg (9.99 KiB) Viewed 9526 times
    tacomahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 726
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:36 am
    Location: T-town


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:02 am
  • amill87 wrote:I didn't say it was the worst performance from a QB. I said it was one of the worst offensive performances (whole offense). Arizona was able to score without a turnover or special teams. Our offense couldn't do anything. It's not fantasy logic. The offense as a whole (minus Lynch) was terrible. The o-line was a turnstile and Wilson was erratic. I do not think Wilson had the worst performance from a QB but he was the QB of an offense that was very bad.

    In fact, I would argue sitting back and saying "we weren't shut out, our offense put up 16 points and almost won!" is more fantasy. That is purely looking at the stat sheet.


    For what it is worth, I wasn't speaking directly to you, just in general to the sentiment of the thread (and some posters therein). But replying to your post here, if you think that is one of the worst offensive performances you have ever seen, you haven't seen many Hawks games. Hell you can look to just last year to see a worse game.

    Overall Seattle ran the ball well. They had moments in the passing game. Enough of an offensive to at least put 20 on the board. You want to take those 20 off the board because they come from special teams and turnovers, well guess what? That is the part of the plan. You cannot discount the fact that as a team, they had multiple shots to win the game. That is a far f-cking cry from being shut out. If you don't realize the difference between those two, there isn't much else to say to you. Go back and watch the Cleveland game last year, or the Pittsburgh game last year, or any number of the games in between 2006-2010. You are being intellectually dishonest, and trying to disguise it as real analysis.
    HawksFTW
    * NET E-Knight *
     
    Posts: 4142
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:06 am


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:07 am
  • I love the smell of trolls in the morning.

    Smells like........well, trolls I guess. Kinda wrote myself into a corner there.

    Come back to me later, I can do much better than this.
    peachesenregalia
    * NET Starfish *
     
    Posts: 14322
    Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:29 am
    Location: Down at the old Milk Plus


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:12 am
  • HawksFTW wrote:
    amill87 wrote:I didn't say it was the worst performance from a QB. I said it was one of the worst offensive performances (whole offense). Arizona was able to score without a turnover or special teams. Our offense couldn't do anything. It's not fantasy logic. The offense as a whole (minus Lynch) was terrible. The o-line was a turnstile and Wilson was erratic. I do not think Wilson had the worst performance from a QB but he was the QB of an offense that was very bad.

    In fact, I would argue sitting back and saying "we weren't shut out, our offense put up 16 points and almost won!" is more fantasy. That is purely looking at the stat sheet.


    For what it is worth, I wasn't speaking directly to you, just in general to the sentiment of the thread (and some posters therein). But replying to your post here, if you think that is one of the worst offensive performances you have ever seen, you haven't seen many Hawks games. Hell you can look to just last year to see a worse game.

    Overall Seattle ran the ball well. They had moments in the passing game. Enough of an offensive to at least put 20 on the board. You want to take those 20 off the board because they come from special teams and turnovers, well guess what? That is the part of the plan. You cannot discount the fact that as a team, they had multiple shots to win the game. That is a far f-cking cry from being shut out. If you don't realize the difference between those two, there isn't much else to say to you. Go back and watch the Cleveland game last year, or the Pittsburgh game last year, or any number of the games in between 2006-2010. You are being intellectually dishonest, and trying to disguise it as real analysis.



    How many points did the offense score without a short field? Stop staring at the stat sheet. The offense was terrible. If Lynch doesn't play, this is an ugly ugly game. Most of the catches the WR's had to make were pretty good catches on their part. When the WR's had chances to win the game, they just ran out of awesome catches to pull it off. I'm sorry I don't expect all of my WRs to make spectacular catches all game.

    This message board is seriously going down hill. We have almost 3 pages of posts in this thread and most of them are "lol wut?" and telling someone they don't know football or haven't been a fan for a long time. It's a god damn joke. I feel like I'm reading the message board for a mmo most the time around here. If someone has a different opinion than you than they a) Don't know anything about football b) haven't been a fan very long and c) have a secret agenda they are trying to push. I'm seriously about this close to just giving up on this board, it's nothing like it once was.
    amill87
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1374
    Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:35 pm


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:13 am
  • cboom wrote:Sando was spot on. In fact throughout the game the receivers made some great catches on bad throws. Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.


    Kelly Stouffer started 16 games for the Seahawks, and played in another 6 for a total of 22.

    In those games completed 51.5 percent of his passes.
    He threw for 7 touchdowns.
    He threw 19 interceptions.
    He fumbled the ball 20 times.
    His CAREER quarterback ranking was 54.5.
    He threw for 2333 yards (even if you remove his six non-started games that would only be an average of 146 yards/game).

    These facts here make your statement about Wilson the most ridiculous thing I can ever remember reading on this board.

    As far as being "man enough" to keep that statement in his sig I would ask you the same thing. Are you "man enough" to make that statement your signature and leave it there for as long as Wilson is our starter? It'll be kind of like tattooing a criminal, even years down the road we'll still be able to look at your posts and remember this statement.
    IBleedBlueAndGreen
    * NET Injury Guru *
     
    Posts: 2115
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:56 am
    Location: Poulsbo, WA


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:24 am
  • amill87 wrote:How many points did the offense score without a short field? Stop staring at the stat sheet. The offense was terrible. If Lynch doesn't play, this is an ugly ugly game. Most of the catches the WR's had to make were pretty good catches on their part. When the WR's had chances to win the game, they just ran out of awesome catches to pull it off. I'm sorry I don't expect all of my WRs to make spectacular catches all game.

    This message board is seriously going down hill. We have almost 3 pages of posts in this thread and most of them are "lol wut?" and telling someone they don't know football or haven't been a fan for a long time. It's a god damn joke. I feel like I'm reading the message board for a mmo most the time around here. If someone has a different opinion than you than they a) Don't know anything about football b) haven't been a fan very long and c) have a secret agenda they are trying to push. I'm seriously about this close to just giving up on this board, it's nothing like it once was.


    No one is saying this is the most explosive offense of all time. You are actively trying to discount the positives in this game, while emphasizing the negative. You say stop looking at the stat sheet, when you are the one that started this thread essentially over stats.

    As for the message board going down hill, there is a very good reason for that, and it isn't because people are questioning your football knowledge. We can take this to the shack if you want my real opinion. When you say things like this is one of the worst offensive performances you have EVER seen, that is extremely hyperbolic. I get that it is an emotional thing, but then when questioned on it you continue to try to back it up with nothing more than slanted opinions.

    How about this, list out in order where you think this game lies on the spectrum of horrible games, and then we can talk. Because in context, this is no where near the worst performance from just the Seahawks, let alone the NFL in general, and that statement just makes your opinion look uninformed.
    HawksFTW
    * NET E-Knight *
     
    Posts: 4142
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:06 am


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:44 am
  • IBleedBlueAndGreen wrote:
    cboom wrote:Sando was spot on. In fact throughout the game the receivers made some great catches on bad throws. Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.


    Kelly Stouffer started 16 games for the Seahawks, and played in another 6 for a total of 22.

    In those games completed 51.5 percent of his passes.
    He threw for 7 touchdowns.
    He threw 19 interceptions.
    He fumbled the ball 20 times.
    His CAREER quarterback ranking was 54.5.
    He threw for 2333 yards (even if you remove his six non-started games that would only be an average of 146 yards/game).

    These facts here make your statement about Wilson the most ridiculous thing I can ever remember reading on this board.

    As far as being "man enough" to keep that statement in his sig I would ask you the same thing. Are you "man enough" to make that statement your signature and leave it there for as long as Wilson is our starter? It'll be kind of like tattooing a criminal, even years down the road we'll still be able to look at your posts and remember this statement.


    Done
    cboom
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 145
    Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:05 pm


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:15 am
  • NOM NOM NOM! TROLLS NOM NOM! WORST SEAHAWKS QB EVER AFTER ONE START! TROLLOLOLOLOLOLO!!!!

    So, after watching all these 'hawks QBs...you must have been out of your mind watching Peyton Manning's first season....that guy ###king sucks. I guess Mike Vick is terrible too, I mean that dude doesn't stay in the pocket ever. Wish the NFL would screen for better players.

    TROLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    This place has all the best incite sometime!
    SouthSoundHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2262
    Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:06 am


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:20 am
  • SouthSoundHawk wrote:This place has all the best incite sometime!


    Not much for insight, except for a few very knowledgeable posters, but it absolutely does have the best incite!
    Seahawk Sailor
    * .NET Navy Bad Ass *
     
    Posts: 22425
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
    Location: California via Negros Occidental, Philippines


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:28 am
  • Vick does suck - how many years in this league and he still can't read defenses....Yes he has tremendous mobility, yes he has a cannon for an arm but if you cannot read defenses you hit your ceiling pretty quickly. I am one of the few that said that Vick would be a huge NFL success when he came out of W. Virginia. Most people said the mobility wouldn't work in the NFL but I had seen that arm of his sling it downfield and knew he could throw. I didn't know he was lazy

    RW played as a rookie - I expect reading defenses to get better, I expect coordinators to start calling smarter plays - like many of us has said that includes slants, screens and dump-offs to RB's. Look at the rinkity-dink football that SD did on Monday basically "long handoffs" that forces the D to stay honest

    RW will be fine
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7504
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:30 am
  • IBleedBlueAndGreen wrote:
    cboom wrote:Sando was spot on. In fact throughout the game the receivers made some great catches on bad throws. Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.


    Kelly Stouffer started 16 games for the Seahawks, and played in another 6 for a total of 22.

    In those games completed 51.5 percent of his passes.
    He threw for 7 touchdowns.
    He threw 19 interceptions.
    He fumbled the ball 20 times.
    His CAREER quarterback ranking was 54.5.
    He threw for 2333 yards (even if you remove his six non-started games that would only be an average of 146 yards/game).

    These facts here make your statement about Wilson the most ridiculous thing I can ever remember reading on this board.


    IMO, Stan Gelbaugh was worse than Stouffer.

    1-8 in Games as a starter for Seattle
    48% completion rating
    7- TDs
    12 INTs
    Overall QB rating 54.1
    Greenhell
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3353
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:46 am


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:31 am
  • Before this thread got blown up in the beginning I think the original post does go a long way to proving a point that there are lot of people on this board with RW glasses on that think the receivers let RW down, when in fact there was not a single real drop in the game, just a bunch of poorly placed balls.
    edogg23
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 856
    Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 8:30 pm


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:31 am
  • Holy crap balls, Batman!

    If this is how this place looks after one loss, just imagine how insane it will be after the second.

    Crymany!

    My take is this:
    Wilson didn't make the best choices out there on Sunday, and the outcome of the game cannot firmly be placed on his shoulders alone. There were more than enough shortcomings to go around over 1/3 of the squad. Thankfully, it could have been a hell of a lot worse.
    HoustonHawk82
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 12351
    Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:51 am
    Location: Beneath, Between & Behind


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:32 am
  • HoustonHawk82 wrote:Thankfully, it could have been a hell of a lot worse.


    Nope. Worst performance ever.
    HawksFTW
    * NET E-Knight *
     
    Posts: 4142
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:06 am


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:35 am
  • mikeak wrote:Vick does suck - how many years in this league and he still can't read defenses....Yes he has tremendous mobility, yes he has a cannon for an arm but if you cannot read defenses you hit your ceiling pretty quickly. I am one of the few that said that Vick would be a huge NFL success when he came out of W. Virginia. Most people said the mobility wouldn't work in the NFL but I had seen that arm of his sling it downfield and knew he could throw. I didn't know he was lazy


    I can't tell what my favorite part of this paragraph is:

    The air of knowledge about Michael Vick followed by getting his college wrong (Hint: Virginia Tech)

    or

    The claim you were one of the few people to say Michael Vick would be a huge NFL success when he was a #1 overall pick.
    Sarlacc83
    * NET Philistine *
     
    Posts: 16946
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:37 am
  • HawksFTW wrote:
    HoustonHawk82 wrote:Thankfully, it could have been a hell of a lot worse.


    Nope. Worst performance ever.


    So, just so I'm clear...

    one interception is as worse as it could have got?
    HoustonHawk82
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 12351
    Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:51 am
    Location: Beneath, Between & Behind


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:42 am
  • HoustonHawk82 wrote:
    HawksFTW wrote:
    HoustonHawk82 wrote:Thankfully, it could have been a hell of a lot worse.


    Nope. Worst performance ever.


    So, just so I'm clear...

    one interception is as worse as it could have got?


    That was sarcasm.
    HawksFTW
    * NET E-Knight *
     
    Posts: 4142
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:06 am


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:49 am
  • cboom wrote:Sando was spot on. In fact throughout the game the receivers made some great catches on bad throws. Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.

    Bombastic bullshit. Must still be tell the truth Monday.
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 14663
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:53 am
  • cboom wrote:Sando was spot on. In fact throughout the game the receivers made some great catches on bad throws. Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.

    Thanks for checking in Millen. :roll:
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 24494
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
    Location: The pit


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:59 am
  • cboom wrote:
    Chukarhawk wrote:Troll Clean up aisle 3!!

    Clearly Football is not your game Cboof.


    Football is not my game because I'm not jumping on the bandwagon of believing a short QB will lead this team to the promise land? A couple years from now Wilson will be forgotten about and you will forget I said he would fail.

    Your hero Millen is CBJ (Whitehurst) without the cool beard.
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 24494
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
    Location: The pit


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:03 am
  • Wow and nobody has even brought up Steakboy Sean Salisbury yet.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 25883
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:11 am
  • HoustonHawk82 wrote:Holy crap balls, Batman!

    If this is how this place looks after one loss, just imagine how insane it will be after the second.

    Crymany!

    My take is this:
    Wilson didn't make the best choices out there on Sunday, and the outcome of the game cannot firmly be placed on his shoulders alone. There were more than enough shortcomings to go around over 1/3 of the squad. Thankfully, it could have been a hell of a lot worse.


    I have a feeling we saw our worst offensive game of this season last Sunday. Wilson showed improvement during the game and I think the coaches got woken up a bit. We may score less points in other games this season but I think the offense will look better.
    amill87
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1374
    Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:35 pm


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:12 am
  • cboom wrote:
    Chukarhawk wrote:Troll Clean up aisle 3!!

    Clearly Football is not your game Cboof.


    Football is not my game because I'm not jumping on the bandwagon of believing a short QB will lead this team to the promise land? A couple years from now Wilson will be forgotten about and you will forget I said he would fail.


    For a game you admittedly don't know, you sure are dogmatic.

    6 centuries ago you would have been the guy saying "I know without a doubt the world is flat", despite people much more informed than you and smarter than you telling you otherwise.
    lukerguy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2160
    Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:00 pm


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:16 am
  • Sarlacc83 wrote:
    mikeak wrote:Vick does suck - how many years in this league and he still can't read defenses....Yes he has tremendous mobility, yes he has a cannon for an arm but if you cannot read defenses you hit your ceiling pretty quickly. I am one of the few that said that Vick would be a huge NFL success when he came out of W. Virginia. Most people said the mobility wouldn't work in the NFL but I had seen that arm of his sling it downfield and knew he could throw. I didn't know he was lazy


    I can't tell what my favorite part of this paragraph is:

    The air of knowledge about Michael Vick followed by getting his college wrong (Hint: Virginia Tech)

    or

    The claim you were one of the few people to say Michael Vick would be a huge NFL success when he was a #1 overall pick.



    LOL yeah getting the college wrong was pretty bad. I was so stuck on his awesome performance against West Virgina where he single handedly won the game and made me a believer. Yes VT my bad sorry Vick and Beamer

    Yes he was the number one pick but many experts didn't expect him to work. Many non-experts (ie people on these forums) did not expect him to work. Just like the comments about Cam Newton he was the number one pick are you telling me there weren't a TON of doubters out there? I was one of them and it sure felt like I was in the majority and turned out that I was wrong
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7504
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:31 am
  • cboom wrote:Sando was spot on. In fact throughout the game the receivers made some great catches on bad throws. Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.


    What a spectacular wheelbarrow full of crap. I can only presume you didn't see Jackson or CBJ - last season. Much less the murderer's row of "NFL arms" this team has rolled out over the last thirty years. If Wilson never gets better than last Sunday he still won't crack the bottom-five for this franchise.

    Makes for an entertaining thread, though.
    KillerB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 302
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:38 am
    Location: Issaquah, WA


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:22 pm
  • Last I checked, NFL football is a TEAM game, one weak link brings the whole team down. The Seahawks just had too many weak links in this game. I think Wilson played fairly well for a rookie starter, to put the loss on his back is ignoring ALL of the other negatives of this game. Starting with the coaches play calling, the ineffective & penalty ridden OL and the lack of having more decent receivers. Sure, Wilson made some mistakes (while he was being chased around by an aggressive defense) and I'm sure he'll learn from those mistakes and perform more up to this boards expectations. The QB is just the easiest and laziest way to blame a poor game performance by the whole TEAM.
    CamanoIslandJQ
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1429
    Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:11 am
    Location: Camano Island, WA


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:40 pm
  • amill87 wrote:Worst QB may be a bit of an exaggeration but I said in another post he was the QB on one of the worst offensive performances I've seen. Without the turnovers and long returns, we get shut out. He had a bad day which is unusual from him.

    He's played in one game. We don't know what's usual for him yet.
    Rat
    * NET Cynic *
     
    Posts: 5140
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
    Location: Grand Rapids, MI


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:44 pm
  • I agree with Sando. I didn't see any honest-to-god drops. I saw a lot of passes that the WR had a chance to catch, but that's different from an accurate pass that was dropped.
    Snohomie
    * NET Draft Guru *
     
    Posts: 3591
    Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:06 pm
    Location: Bellingham, WA


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:51 pm
  • The worst QB'ing I have seen in a long time was the year Mora jr. was coaching especially Seneca vs the Colts.
    VHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2524
    Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:44 am
    Location: Naples, FL


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:52 pm
  • VHawk wrote:The worst QB'ing I have seen in a long time was the year Mora jr. was coaching especially Seneca vs the Colts.


    I guess everyone forgets the Charlie Frye game.
    HawksFTW
    * NET E-Knight *
     
    Posts: 4142
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:06 am


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:56 pm
  • HawksFTW wrote:
    VHawk wrote:The worst QB'ing I have seen in a long time was the year Mora jr. was coaching especially Seneca vs the Colts.


    I guess everyone forgets the Charlie Frye game.

    Repressed memories.

    * shudders*
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 14663
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:15 pm
  • HawksFTW wrote:
    VHawk wrote:The worst QB'ing I have seen in a long time was the year Mora jr. was coaching especially Seneca vs the Colts.


    I guess everyone forgets the Charlie Frye game.


    I forgot we had Frye on the team...
    Sarlacc83
    * NET Philistine *
     
    Posts: 16946
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:33 pm
  • HawksFTW wrote:
    cboom wrote:Sando was spot on. In fact throughout the game the receivers made some great catches on bad throws. Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.


    This is going in my sig, so we can all make fun of you later.

    Not fair you got to that quicker than me! Can I do it too? PLEASE?!
    HawkMania
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 233
    Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 11:17 am


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:57 pm
  • cboom wrote:Sando was spot on. In fact throughout the game the receivers made some great catches on bad throws. Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.


    LOL, you got to be kidding me......I mean he may not have played the best game last Sunday, but there is no way he is the worst Hawk QB ever. Guess you were a Flynn guy........
    Blitzer88
    * NET Eeyore *
     
    Posts: 12764
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:47 am
    Location: Seattle, WA


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 3:34 pm
  • Sarlacc83 wrote:I forgot we had Frye on the team...


    His 83 yards are easily forgettable. Unlike CBJ's 69 yards against Cleveland, which forever will be seared into my brain.
    HawksFTW
    * NET E-Knight *
     
    Posts: 4142
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:06 am


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 5:11 pm
  • LOL

    Worst offensive output ever??? Check out the “79” Seattle VS LA Rams game.

    I was at that game, if you didn’t get back from the snack bar with your “King Kup” in time after halftime, you missed their ONLY first down of the game. Zorn’s pass to Largent for 11yds; first play of the second half.

    They had minus seven yards TOTAL offense…Zorn was not a rookie in that game, in fact “79” was his best statistical year.

    By the way that team went 9 and 7 just missing out on the playoffs to the 10 and 6 Broncos….
    FidelisHawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 489
    Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:39 am


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 5:15 pm
  • amill87 wrote:NFC West Blog


    Interesting article. According to ESPN stats and information, we had no drops over the weekend. They define a drop as "passes the receiver should have caught with ordinary effort, and only when the receiver is 100 percent at fault."

    I played WR in High School and my coaches always drilled into our heads that if the ball hits you in the hands, you catch it but how much blame do we want to put on the WR? None of our WRs are elite. Rice is the closest thing and he didn't have a drop in the endzone.


    Not to crucify the messenger but we all know statisticians don't play football. The words "ordinary effort" and "100% at fault" are subjective descriptors that can't be added or determined. Keep in mind this is the NFL where playmakers are everywhere and effort is anything but ordinary. From the likes of it some self-proclaimed expert posters here are likely peewee league coaches with weak arms and bricks for hands. Unless I was playing the wrong sport growing up, I think the general consensus remains that in American football a drop is when a receiver is in position to make a catch and the ball touches his hands but fall to the ground without the receiver gaining possession. Fault can be attributed to qb and receiver to any degree AND remain a DROPPED BALL. How do you determine "100% fault" and whether or not Edwards even gave his "ordinary effort" when a defender was running full steam at him is debatable and always has been. These writers are full of themselves. As stated earlier 'statisticians don't play football' but busy themselves with the newest ratings and analysts concern themselves with how to they can errantly project talent during the upcoming drafts. Journalists will write their opinions and continue to sell it as facts. Just my two pennies. But you can count their opinions as truths if you like.
    Russ Willstrong
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1622
    Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 5:24 pm
  • cboom wrote:Sando was spot on. In fact throughout the game the receivers made some great catches on bad throws. Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.


    Can someone please send the troll back to his cave? Worst you have seen....I'm guessing you're all of 10 years old if you think he's the worst Seattle has had on the field.
    Bakergirl
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3297
    Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:13 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Seattle had no drops (Sando)
Wed Sep 12, 2012 5:35 pm
  • amill87 wrote:
    HawksFTW wrote:
    amill87 wrote:I didn't say it was the worst performance from a QB. I said it was one of the worst offensive performances (whole offense). Arizona was able to score without a turnover or special teams. Our offense couldn't do anything. It's not fantasy logic. The offense as a whole (minus Lynch) was terrible. The o-line was a turnstile and Wilson was erratic. I do not think Wilson had the worst performance from a QB but he was the QB of an offense that was very bad.

    In fact, I would argue sitting back and saying "we weren't shut out, our offense put up 16 points and almost won!" is more fantasy. That is purely looking at the stat sheet.


    For what it is worth, I wasn't speaking directly to you, just in general to the sentiment of the thread (and some posters therein). But replying to your post here, if you think that is one of the worst offensive performances you have ever seen, you haven't seen many Hawks games. Hell you can look to just last year to see a worse game.

    Overall Seattle ran the ball well. They had moments in the passing game. Enough of an offensive to at least put 20 on the board. You want to take those 20 off the board because they come from special teams and turnovers, well guess what? That is the part of the plan. You cannot discount the fact that as a team, they had multiple shots to win the game. That is a far f-cking cry from being shut out. If you don't realize the difference between those two, there isn't much else to say to you. Go back and watch the Cleveland game last year, or the Pittsburgh game last year, or any number of the games in between 2006-2010. You are being intellectually dishonest, and trying to disguise it as real analysis.



    How many points did the offense score without a short field? Stop staring at the stat sheet. The offense was terrible. If Lynch doesn't play, this is an ugly ugly game. Most of the catches the WR's had to make were pretty good catches on their part. When the WR's had chances to win the game, they just ran out of awesome catches to pull it off. I'm sorry I don't expect all of my WRs to make spectacular catches all game.

    This message board is seriously going down hill. We have almost 3 pages of posts in this thread and most of them are "lol wut?" and telling someone they don't know football or haven't been a fan for a long time. It's a god damn joke. I feel like I'm reading the message board for a mmo most the time around here. If someone has a different opinion than you than they a) Don't know anything about football b) haven't been a fan very long and c) have a secret agenda they are trying to push. I'm seriously about this close to just giving up on this board, it's nothing like it once was.


    Can we shack this already?
    Bakergirl
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3297
    Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:13 pm
    Location: Seattle


Next


It is currently Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:26 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE ARCHIVES ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests