Four changes that worked for the Seahawks defense vs Arizona...

[keasley45]

So the coaches didn't encourage their players to play aggressively Weeks 1 through 5? I guess that was a totally novel concept to them, playing aggressively in the NFL!

I believe it's in regard to the line hold the point of attack vs rushing upfield in the new system. just a Guess.

This. I noticed that as well

 

[SoulfishHawk]

The defensive plan was much better overall w/out a doubt. And they didn't win because the Cards suck, or they were missing x player. They won because the Hawks played a much better game than Arizona did. They forced them in to only scoring 3 points of offense.

 

[Sun Tzu]

Or maybe they just played BETTER than the cards. Why make excuses for why they WON the game? Same crap after every win for YEARS around here. Come on man. Believe it or not, sometimes they actually........wait for it.......play better than their opponent. Mind....blown. Hawks were without Penny or Adams. It goes both ways.
They played tough, and controlled the game. Other than the special teams handing them 6, Arizona was controlled, all game. 3 points of offense. 3, total.
It is strange af how people fight tooth and nail to downplay a WIN by the Hawks.

Who are you arguing with? Who is downplaying the win in this thread?

 

[Ruminator]

This. I noticed that as well

OK. There are a lot of things I miss these days, not being able to watch the full games live, only catching highlights afterwards. Oh well. Still considering signing up for Sunday Ticket.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Funny Sun, downplaying wins on here has been going on for years. This isn't news. Just another reason for you to argue with me over something stupid. Go figure.

 

[CalgaryFan05]

Or maybe they just played BETTER than the cards. Why make excuses for why they WON the game? Same crap after every win for YEARS around here. Come on man. Believe it or not, sometimes they actually........wait for it.......play better than their opponent. Mind....blown. Hawks were without Penny or Adams. It goes both ways.
They played tough, and controlled the game. Other than the special teams handing them 6, Arizona was controlled, all game. 3 points of offense. 3, total.
It is strange af how people fight tooth and nail to downplay a WIN by the Hawks.

Thank you. This.

And ya know, next man up. Penny - that sucks. Walker's steppin up.

I'm very pumped for the second 2/3 of the season here. I think, as PC said: "We're starting to click".

I wasn't particularly happy games 2 and 3, and kinda ranted - but I have to say, I agree with you: Jesus - celebrate a win once in a while other than "this dude blew this, and this dude could have blown this".

 

[hawkfan68]

I saw that Al Woods was inactive against the Cards but I thought the DL played better. This makes me think that they may have been playing him too much in early on. Maybe a better rotation is needed on DL to give him a breather.

 

[Lagartixa]

View attachment 55273

Who are you arguing with? Who is downplaying the win in this thread?

@SoulfishHawk already responded to your post, but chose not to quote the posts to which he was responding when he complained about people downplaying the win.

Here are some people downplaying the win in this thread...

They missed the most important part. They played the Cardinals.

Weren’t they without their top RB?

@Sun Tzu , I agree with most of what you post here and value your contribution very highly. You're among my favorite .NET posters. However, on this subject, I agree with @Rainger and @SoulfishHawk that the Eeyores' constant downplaying and "yeah, but"-ing of Seahawks wins gets pretty annoying.

I wasn't on .NET in 2012, but I can imagine the Eeyores responding to the Seahawks beating the Cardinals 58-0 and then the Bills 50-17 the next week with "yeah, but it was just the 4-9 Cardinals (finished the season 5-11) and the 5-9 Bills (finished the season 6-10)."

We saw this kind of crap during the preseason when @keasley45 and @Maelstrom787 were pointing out that Geno Smith's performance last season and in the preseason indicated he might be better than we thought (i.e., not awful), and the Eeyores were all writing off Geno's performance against the Jaguars with variations on "it's just the Jaguars," even though Smith did things against the Jaguars no other QB managed to do, and those same Jaguars beat the Bills the following week.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

He just doesn't like me, and I'm cool with that

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Mike Sando mentioned on The Athletic Podcast that they let some of the D-Line pin their ears back a bit more against Arizona.

He mentioned the transition to more of a Fangio scheme has more layers and nuances and requires more communication and thinking for the players.

Stop the run and have some fun, that's what a couple of the players said was the gameplan going into Sunday.

It worked, it USUALLY works.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

No doubt. Especially against a team with an even WORSE run D than the Hawks have.

 

[Boycie]

Every week the game plan should include #3

We traded him to Denver.

 

[AgentDib]

More snaps with Bryant and less snaps with Barton was effective against Arizona, but there were more personnel changes than that alone. Shelby and QJeff looked effective in for Woods, Sidney looked good in 11 snaps replacing Burns and Taylor/Poona were used a bit more situationally.

Snap differential week 7 vs week 6
+27% Bryant, 75%>48%
+19% QJeff, 55%>36%
+15% S.Jones, 15%>0%
+14% J.Jones, 32%>18%
+07% Harris, 62%>55%
+06% Jackson, 85%>79%
+06% Mafe, 51%>45%
+03% Mone, 51%>48%
+01% Adams, 30%>29%
+01% C.Jones, 14%>13%
+00% Brooks, 100%
+00% Woolen, 100%
+00% Diggs, 100%
+00% Neal, 100%
-01% Nwosu, 83%<84%
-05% Taylor, 52%<57%
-08% Poona, 56%<64%
-21% Burns, 0%<21%
-26% Woods, 0%<26%
-38% Barton, 39%<77%

 

[cymatica]

We traded him to Denver.

Whoosh?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

One thing people aren't talking enough about in regards to the defense playing better, is Ryan Neal.

He's brought some much needed stability to the defensive backfield, which has had a trickle down affect on Diggs, who low and behold is also playing better now. Neal >>>>> Jackson.

 

[Boycie]

Whoosh?

I tried

 

[toffee]

Sounded like we are going back to Pete/Norton bear front? Bear front did save Norton's career for one year if my recollection is correct. But didn't we hire Sean Desai and Hurtt, so we will move away from the bear front? OK, I never played and not well versed in X and O, can someone educate me on the pros and cons of bear front??

 

[CPHawk]

@SoulfishHawk already responded to your post, but chose not to quote the posts to which he was responding when he complained about people downplaying the win.

Here are some people downplaying the win in this thread...



@Sun Tzu , I agree with most of what you post here and value your contribution very highly. You're among my favorite .NET posters. However, on this subject, I agree with @Rainger and @SoulfishHawk that the Eeyores' constant downplaying and "yeah, but"-ing of Seahawks wins gets pretty annoying.

I wasn't on .NET in 2012, but I can imagine the Eeyores responding to the Seahawks beating the Cardinals 58-0 and then the Bills 50-17 the next week with "yeah, but it was just the 4-9 Cardinals (finished the season 5-11) and the 5-9 Bills (finished the season 6-10)."

We saw this kind of crap during the preseason when @keasley45 and @Maelstrom787 were pointing out that Geno Smith's performance last season and in the preseason indicated he might be better than we thought (i.e., not awful), and the Eeyores were all writing off Geno's performance against the Jaguars with variations on "it's just the Jaguars," even though Smith did things against the Jaguars no other QB managed to do, and those same Jaguars beat the Bills the following week.

I thought we would win that game. It’s not being negative to not think our run D is suddenly fixed. I’ll gladly eat crow if they go onto stop the run a bunch of weeks in a row.

 

[morgulon1]

@SoulfishHawk already responded to your post, but chose not to quote the posts to which he was responding when he complained about people downplaying the win.

Here are some people downplaying the win in this thread...



@Sun Tzu , I agree with most of what you post here and value your contribution very highly. You're among my favorite .NET posters. However, on this subject, I agree with @Rainger and @SoulfishHawk that the Eeyores' constant downplaying and "yeah, but"-ing of Seahawks wins gets pretty annoying.

I wasn't on .NET in 2012, but I can imagine the Eeyores responding to the Seahawks beating the Cardinals 58-0 and then the Bills 50-17 the next week with "yeah, but it was just the 4-9 Cardinals (finished the season 5-11) and the 5-9 Bills (finished the season 6-10)."

We saw this kind of crap during the preseason when @keasley45 and @Maelstrom787 were pointing out that Geno Smith's performance last season and in the preseason indicated he might be better than we thought (i.e., not awful), and the Eeyores were all writing off Geno's performance against the Jaguars with variations on "it's just the Jaguars," even though Smith did things against the Jaguars no other QB managed to do, and those same Jaguars beat the Bills the following week.

Where's Fade?

 

[morgulon1]

I thought we would win that game. It’s not being negative to not think our run D is suddenly fixed. I’ll gladly eat crow if they go onto stop the run a bunch of weeks in a row.

It's probably going to be hit and miss depending on who we play and how they play us. We change a little , the next coordinator changes a little. C'mon man
You know, know the the thing.