Another great defense bites the dust

[DJ_CJ]

How the F does Russ come up in this post, and let alone again blame on the best player we have had..EVER


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

Did you see where the defense turned the ball over on downs on a critical drive? Or the next series when they threw that interception? Pathetic.

Oh wait, that was the offense.

cum hoc ergo propter hoc: The logical fallacy by which coincidence implies causation.

Edit: Stupid board is masking Latin.

Yep on their last critical drive the offense starts by RUNNING THE BALL effectively but the HC/play caller abandoned it for 4 straight incompletions. Same guy abandoned the run in an earlier Super Bowl when he had a 28-3 lead and his team lost that one too. His playcalling was a large factor in 2 teams losing leads of a combined 48-13 in the 2nd halves of 2 Super Bowls.
But yeah c'mon, "Let Russ Cook".

John its lose, not loose.

Oh John, you did it again. Maybe you should call Si out for his spelling and then depart the NFL Forum like you departed the Shack. Problem is pretty soon you'll have no Forums left to depart from though.

 

[Nunya]

Anyone want to address the elephant in the room? A Sherman led defense has given up a 10 point lead with 1 qtr or less to go in the SB twice in a row now.

Really? You think that is an "elephant in the room"? 24 points than maybe it is something to talk about. 10 points? Does not even reach the level of a "mouse in the room".

Yeah I get it, I guess a top 3 defense is expected to lose a 10 point lead in leas than a qtr. I mean.it happens all the time, oh wait it doesn't. Oh well

What are you talking about? It does happen all the time.

The 49ers were not playing a scrub team, they were playing the AFC Champions. A team with a very potent offense. Heck, even we scored 14 on the 49ers in the 3rd quarter (to 49ers 0) in our first game against them....and 14 to their 7 in the 4th quarter in the second game and was an inch of scoring 7 more. However, I understand your desire to blame people for not being perfect. It is shown in just about everything you post on.

 

[Uncle Si]

Did you see where the defense turned the ball over on downs on a critical drive? Or the next series when they threw that interception? Pathetic.

Oh wait, that was the offense.

cu* hoc ergo propter hoc: The logical fallacy by which coincidence implies causation.

Edit: Stupid board is masking Latin.

Yep on their last critical drive the offense starts by RUNNING THE BALL effectively but the HC/play caller abandoned it for 4 straight incompletions. Same guy abandoned the run in an earlier Super Bowl when he had a 28-3 lead and his team lost that one too. His playcalling was a large factor in 2 teams losing leads of a combined 48-13 in the 2nd halves of 2 Super Bowls.
But yeah c'mon, "Let Russ Cook".

John its lose, not loose.

Oh John, you did it again. Maybe you should call Si out for his spelling and then depart the NFL Forum like you departed the Shack. Problem is pretty soon you'll have no Forums left to depart from though.

I assumed he was talking about some other mod.

But he reacted very defensively about Anthony!'s spelling issues. Makes you wonder.

Also.. I'm confused by the "another" great defense. Is the inference that great defenses tend to lose these games? Or that great defenses with Sherman on the team tend to lose these games?

either way.. the logic is poorly constructed.

 

[Shanegotyou11]

Did you see where the defense turned the ball over on downs on a critical drive? Or the next series when they threw that interception? Pathetic.

Oh wait, that was the offense.

cu* hoc ergo propter hoc: The logical fallacy by which coincidence implies causation.

Edit: Stupid board is masking Latin.

Yep on their last critical drive the offense starts by RUNNING THE BALL effectively but the HC/play caller abandoned it for 4 straight incompletions. Same guy abandoned the run in an earlier Super Bowl when he had a 28-3 lead and his team lost that one too. His playcalling was a large factor in 2 teams losing leads of a combined 48-13 in the 2nd halves of 2 Super Bowls.
But yeah c'mon, "Let Russ Cook".

John its lose, not loose.

Oh John, you did it again. Maybe you should call Si out for his spelling and then depart the NFL Forum like you departed the Shack. Problem is pretty soon you'll have no Forums left to depart from though.

You smoking again? Lol. You make zero sense. I don't partake in the shack and never did but i read in there. Most of the posts turn into wacko crap anyway. So you made it sound like i left for a reason. Then i will be here cuz I love NFL talk overall.

You need to cut back on the smoke and not the mary jane type.

 

[Shanegotyou11]

Did you see where the defense turned the ball over on downs on a critical drive? Or the next series when they threw that interception? Pathetic.

Oh wait, that was the offense.

cu* hoc ergo propter hoc: The logical fallacy by which coincidence implies causation.

Edit: Stupid board is masking Latin.

Yep on their last critical drive the offense starts by RUNNING THE BALL effectively but the HC/play caller abandoned it for 4 straight incompletions. Same guy abandoned the run in an earlier Super Bowl when he had a 28-3 lead and his team lost that one too. His playcalling was a large factor in 2 teams losing leads of a combined 48-13 in the 2nd halves of 2 Super Bowls.
But yeah c'mon, "Let Russ Cook".

John its lose, not loose.

Oh John, you did it again. Maybe you should call Si out for his spelling and then depart the NFL Forum like you departed the Shack. Problem is pretty soon you'll have no Forums left to depart from though.

I assumed he was talking about some other mod.

But he reacted very defensively about Anthony!'s spelling issues. Makes you wonder.

Also.. I'm confused by the "another" great defense. Is the inference that great defenses tend to lose these games? Or that great defenses with Sherman on the team tend to lose these games?

either way.. the logic is poorly constructed.

Damn i didnt know i would make hawksfan mad over helping John spell lose in the right meaning. My bad.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

Did you see where the defense turned the ball over on downs on a critical drive? Or the next series when they threw that interception? Pathetic.

Oh wait, that was the offense.

cu* hoc ergo propter hoc: The logical fallacy by which coincidence implies causation.

Edit: Stupid board is masking Latin.

Yep on their last critical drive the offense starts by RUNNING THE BALL effectively but the HC/play caller abandoned it for 4 straight incompletions. Same guy abandoned the run in an earlier Super Bowl when he had a 28-3 lead and his team lost that one too. His playcalling was a large factor in 2 teams losing leads of a combined 48-13 in the 2nd halves of 2 Super Bowls.
But yeah c'mon, "Let Russ Cook".

John its lose, not loose.

Oh John, you did it again. Maybe you should call Si out for his spelling and then depart the NFL Forum like you departed the Shack. Problem is pretty soon you'll have no Forums left to depart from though.

You smoking again? Lol. You make zero sense. I don't partake in the shack and never did but i read in there. Most of the posts turn into wacko crap anyway. So you made it sound like i left for a reason. Then i will be here cuz I love NFL talk overall.

You need to cut back on the smoke and not the mary jane type.

Ummmmm, do you not see that I said "Oh John you did it again"? Who's smoking here?

 

[Popeyejones]

So are we gonna talk about this being the smallest lead the Chiefs came back from in the playoffs this year, or no? :lol:

I of course wanted the 9ers to win, but the chiefs are a very, very good team, and if I had to watch my team lose, losing to a very good team with a coach who is long deserving of a SB win and a fanbase that hasn't gotten one in a half century is definitely the way I'd want to go down.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

So are we gonna talk about this being the smallest lead the Chiefs came back from in the playoffs this year, or no? :lol:

I of course wanted the 9ers to win, but the chiefs are a very, very good team, and if I had to watch my team lose, losing to a very good team with a coach who is long deserving of a SB win and a fanbase that hasn't gotten one in a half century is definitely the way I'd want to go down.

They came back down 10 vs. the Titans albeit twice.

 

[Popeyejones]

^^^ as small of rather than smallest, if preferred that way. :2thumbs:

My basic point was that between the webzone being entirely unreadable with insanity today (IMO) and .net being orgasmic in its celebration of the 9ers failure, what's kinda getting left out of the equation is that the Chiefs are a very good team (they didn't go into the game as slight favorites by accident or anything).

 

[Shanegotyou11]

Did you see where the defense turned the ball over on downs on a critical drive? Or the next series when they threw that interception? Pathetic.

Oh wait, that was the offense.

cu* hoc ergo propter hoc: The logical fallacy by which coincidence implies causation.

Edit: Stupid board is masking Latin.

Yep on their last critical drive the offense starts by RUNNING THE BALL effectively but the HC/play caller abandoned it for 4 straight incompletions. Same guy abandoned the run in an earlier Super Bowl when he had a 28-3 lead and his team lost that one too. His playcalling was a large factor in 2 teams losing leads of a combined 48-13 in the 2nd halves of 2 Super Bowls.
But yeah c'mon, "Let Russ Cook".

John its lose, not loose.

Oh John, you did it again. Maybe you should call Si out for his spelling and then depart the NFL Forum like you departed the Shack. Problem is pretty soon you'll have no Forums left to depart from though.

You smoking again? Lol. You make zero sense. I don't partake in the shack and never did but i read in there. Most of the posts turn into wacko crap anyway. So you made it sound like i left for a reason. Then i will be here cuz I love NFL talk overall.

You need to cut back on the smoke and not the mary jane type.

Ummmmm, do you not see that I said "Oh John you did it again"? Who's smoking here?

I might be doing meth. My bad if nothing was directed at me. Lmao

 

[HawkRiderFan]

This could totally be a coincidence but I read today that all 3 of these double digit Super Bowl comebacks being talked about were against defences based on the Seattle scheme.

I'm thinking more of a coincidence cause they happened differently. In the Hawks Patriots game it was all those short passes to the slot receivers and backs. Yesterday it was a couple of big plays.

 

[Chapow]

I didn't think the 49ers defense was the problem at all. I thought Shanahan and the offensive game plan cost them. SF defense held up.

They gave up 21 points in the fourth quarter. Shanahan didn't do them any favors, but at the end of the day, the defense fell apart when it mattered the most.

You're not wrong, but more specifically, that 9er defense gave up 21 points with less than half of the 4th quarter remaining.

49ers were winning 20-10 as late as barely over 6 minutes left in the game only to end up losing 31-20.

Ouch.

 

[Uncle Si]

^^^ as small of rather than smallest, if preferred that way. :2thumbs:

My basic point was that between the webzone being entirely unreadable with insanity today (IMO) and .net being orgasmic in its celebration of the 9ers failure, what's kinda getting left out of the equation is that the Chiefs are a very good team (they didn't go into the game as slight favorites by accident or anything).

Alot of people knew, on this board, that the Chiefs were a very good football team.

That was, of course, shouted down and ignored by the visiting faithful.

Bit late for objectivity

 

[James in PA]

Why isn’t this jackass on my tv screen every 2 seconds getting any of the blame?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Seahawkfan80]

^^^ as small of rather than smallest, if preferred that way. :2thumbs:

My basic point was that between the webzone being entirely unreadable with insanity today (IMO) and .net being orgasmic in its celebration of the 9ers failure, what's kinda getting left out of the equation is that the Chiefs are a very good team (they didn't go into the game as slight favorites by accident or anything).

Alot of people knew, on this board, that the Chiefs were a very good football team.

That was, of course, shouted down and ignored by the visiting faithful.

Bit late for objectivity

There was one that was really concerned. He will be back.

 

[Maulbert]

^^^ as small of rather than smallest, if preferred that way. :2thumbs:

My basic point was that between the webzone being entirely unreadable with insanity today (IMO) and .net being orgasmic in its celebration of the 9ers failure, what's kinda getting left out of the equation is that the Chiefs are a very good team (they didn't go into the game as slight favorites by accident or anything).

The fact that you'd rather be here right now than there speaks VOLUMES about the Webzone's quality and content.

 

[KiwiHawk]

KC's last score could have come back to bite them on the ass. Yes, the chance of it happening was miniscule, but do you remember the Seattle-Denver game from 1999?

4th quarter, 1:53 to go. Denver is up 23-20 and are on the Seattle 9 yard line with a 3rd-and-5. Seattle just called their last time out.

Griese hits Carswell for a 9 yard TD. Denver is up 30-20.

Elam squibs the kickoff and Seattle starts on the 45. 3 plays and 51 seconds later, Kitna hits Mays for a 36-yard TD. Devner 30, Seattle 27.

Seattle successfully makes the on-side kick, recovering at the 42. With 48 seconds to go, Kitna hits Dawkins for 26 yards to the Denver 32. That's a 49-yard field goal, at the edge of Peterson's reliable range. However, the next play Denver jumps offside, making it a 42-yard field goal. After 3 incomplete passes, it's 4th-and-5 from the 27 with 14 seconds to go when Peterson makes the field goal sending it to overtime.

Now, Denver goes on to win this game in overtime, but the lesson to be learned is if Denver doesn't score the TD at 1:53 to go, but still get the first down, they run out the clock and never have to go to overtime. By scoring, they gave Seattle a chance, however slim, to win the game.

This is why part of Pete's mantra is to end the game with ball in hand, and why we often don't pad the score late in the 4th quarter.

As for the alleged defensive letdown, things change in the 4th quarter when you're behind. Those 50/50 throws you wouldn't normally attempt become the regular thing. You have 4 downs to get 10 yards instead of 3. When they work, you win the game. When they don't, you haemorrhage points and it gets ugly. Two of KC's 4th-quarter touchdowns came off SF turnovers (interception, downs).

 

[TreeRon]

Firstly, if Hill doesn't get wide open and Mahomes doesn't launch a prayer 44 yards, it's a different ending.
Secondly, if JG completes the bomb to Saunders it's a different ending and all the talking heads are orgasmic over SF and JG this am.

Instead this morning and today we're hearing the Pat Mahomes is the greatest player of the decade and will win many many Super Bowls. He is untouchable.
(Remember two weeks ago it was Lamar Jackson?)

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

..........Instead this morning and today we're hearing the Pat Mahomes is the greatest player of the decade and will win many many Super Bowls. He is untouchable..........

I heard one douche, Clay Travis on FOX Radio national saying this morning that Mahomes has already secured his place in the Hall of Fame. Hyperbole much?
I changed the channel.