Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Ken Norton Jr, Think this should be his last season

The Original Seattle Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute for Seahawks Talk, News, Rumors, Trades, and Analytics. LANGUAGE: PG-13
  • The dude is the...... dare i say it?

    Darrell Bevel of the Defense
    JPatera76
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1043
    Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:32 am


  • JPatera76 wrote:The dude is the...... dare i say it?

    Darrell Bevel of the Defense


    At lease he is not the Jack Patera of the defence, they would be woefully bad.
    907Hawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 433
    Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 6:03 pm
    Location: Fairbanks Alaska


  • 400+ yards from Ryan.

    Geez.

    Norton not adjusting.

    He should be dismissed.
    TheLegendOfBoom
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 1445
    Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 7:12 pm
    Location: Westcoastin’


  • Defense only gave up 18 points until there was less than a minute to go in the game and we were up by 20.
    Chapow
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3500
    Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:38 pm


  • I willing to see this year out. Not a fan of his last year, not a fan of going into the prevent/soft zone too early.
    Liked him better as a LB’ers coach. Hope he proves me wrong.
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 30852
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • Sometimes I wish Pete would take over play calling.
    sc85sis
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 7228
    Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 2:40 am
    Location: Southern CA


  • sc85sis wrote:Sometimes I wish Pete would take over play calling.



    What makes you think he doesn’t already?

    The defensive scheme has been the same since Carroll became coach. Only things that have changed is the talent and the rules. But the DCs have been merely an extension of Pete’s philosophy.
    Mad Dog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1925
    Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 8:12 am


  • TheLegendOfBoom wrote:400+ yards from Ryan...


    And only 1 TD in the first 59 minutes of the game from Ryan...

    Yards don't mean much if you aren't scoring.
    Chapow
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3500
    Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:38 pm


  • TheLegendOfBoom wrote:400+ yards from Ryan.

    Geez.

    Norton not adjusting.

    He should be dismissed.


    Aren't the Hawks under Pete like 9-1 against 400 yard passers?
    nanomoz
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6055
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:20 pm
    Location: UT


  • Thought the defense was pretty good when it counted today. I'm not a huge Norton fan but today he was fine.
    getnasty
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4539
    Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:22 pm


  • nanomoz wrote:
    TheLegendOfBoom wrote:400+ yards from Ryan.

    Geez.

    Norton not adjusting.

    He should be dismissed.


    Aren't the Hawks under Pete like 9-1 against 400 yard passers?


    That would make sense because usually when a qb racks up 400+ yards it's because they're either in a shoot out or down by a lot in the 4th quarter.

    Ryan racked up a lot of yardage when his team was down by multiple scores in the 4th quarter today. I doubt he's very stoked about his 450 yards though.
    Chapow
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3500
    Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:38 pm


  • Last season, should of been his last season.
    CPHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3584
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:49 pm


  • This place is funny. Win convincingly but let's fire someone because the other team got some meaningless stats when the game was no longer in doubt.

    Never change Seahawks.net, never change.
    Hockey Guy
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 341
    Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2017 9:03 am


  • Matt Ryan may have put up a ton of yards, but the defense stepped up to the challenge when it counted. They stopped Atlanta when it counted.

    Atlanta was 0-4 on 4th down. Id argue that was the key stat of the day.

    I was at the game last year when Schaub put up 300+ yards on our secondary. Their offense is explosive and they've always put up points against us even with the LOB.

    This was the first game and a lot to sort out and fix, no doubt.

    But I liked how they utilized Adams and blitzed a bit more today. I'm not ready to fire Norton (yet.)
    Jerhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3176
    Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:39 am
    Location: Spokane, WA


  • Not a fan of Norton, but again I will give him credit for using Adams well today.
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1508
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 11:19 am


  • Jerhawk wrote:Matt Ryan may have put up a ton of yards, but the defense stepped up to the challenge when it counted. They stopped Atlanta when it counted.

    Atlanta was 0-4 on 4th down. Id argue that was the key stat of the day.

    I was at the game last year when Schaub put up 300+ yards on our secondary. Their offense is explosive and they've always put up points against us even with the LOB.

    This was the first game and a lot to sort out and fix, no doubt.

    But I liked how they utilized Adams and blitzed a bit more today. I'm not ready to fire Norton (yet.)


    Schaub actually threw for 460 against us last year. So today was a bit of an improvement.
    Erebus
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1539
    Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:53 pm
    Location: San Antonio, TX


  • Mad Dog wrote:
    sc85sis wrote:Sometimes I wish Pete would take over play calling.



    What makes you think he doesn’t already?

    The defensive scheme has been the same since Carroll became coach. Only things that have changed is the talent and the rules. But the DCs have been merely an extension of Pete’s philosophy.
    Unless.something has changed, he doesn't. He made it very clear when he came to Seattle that he would let the DC call the plays.
    sc85sis
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 7228
    Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 2:40 am
    Location: Southern CA


  • I’m curious - do you all think the 2:00 minute scoring drive in the 4th by Matt Ryan was on Norton or our secondary? My biggest fear as a Hawks fan is knowing that the Air-Raid is coming by the opposing team. Seems like these guys have a tendency to lose composure and become tunnel-visioned, leading to massive gains by opposing receivers in an incredibly short window of time. Maybe my criticism is misguided - I just feel like Norton doesn’t have a real plan to defend the pass in these instances when you know the opposing team will be looking to make up ground with major chunk-yardage plays.
    Wrash
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 1
    Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2020 6:04 pm


  • TheLegendOfBoom wrote:400+ yards from Ryan.

    Geez.

    Norton not adjusting.

    He should be dismissed.

    Yup, I have been telling people this for a while. Loaded secondary or not, we got torched for over 400 yards. I dont care if it was garbage time. It won't say that on the stat sheet. Norton is a GARBAGE DC, but I'll wont completely judge yet. I know there was no pre-season games etc...so by week 5-6 there should be MAJOR improvement on that Pass D. I already want Norton replaced, but I wanna see what they do when they get some playing time under their belt.
    hawks85
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 580
    Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 6:55 pm
    Location: Seattle, Washington


  • Not a fan of Norton but I don't see how you could use today as an example of the problem with him.

    Offenses are FAR ahead of defenses across the league right now.

    Considering that, he did OK.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4040
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:48 pm


  • Not sure it's his fault that Pete and John didn't get him a D-line this year.
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 17517
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:46 am


  • Pete is 10 and 0 when a QB throws for over 400 yards.
    Shanegotyou11
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3308
    Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:08 pm


  • I was watching on Gamepass and I thought in the 4th quarter I hope an effort is being made that the Defence keep their focus. The commentators said that the Falcon's kicker made three successful on side kicks in a game last season and also one in this game, which he made look very easy. Also he recovered at least one fumble on a kick off last year as well.
    ronnieboycefanclub
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 66
    Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:31 pm


  • As far as Norton, in Pete I trust on this one. One of Norton's superpowers is kicking ass and lighting a fire under guys. Pete needs a bad cop.

    Last year I was on the Fire Norton! bandwagon at times, but we also didn't really have the talent and speed on our D that we'd had in the past. We couldn't match up with the Rams offense, for example. I'd hate to bail on a guy over personnel/talent issues and bring in a replacement who had to face the same issues and then have him do no better than Norton.

    Giving up 25 points to ATL, most in garbage time, isn't a bad showing. The D did enough to win.

    I, too, miss the Dan Quinn days. Ken Norton, Jr. may not be Dan Quinn, but I'm not sure he needs to be. Pete is the architect of this defense, and maybe all that's really needed is a chief ass-kicker who truly understands the D, and Norton is a good fit for that role.

    We saw Jamal Adams' abilities being utilized and having a serious impact. Good start. Maybe Norton isn't, and wasn't, the problem. Like Pete evaluating his assistants at season's end (and firing Cabevell), I don't think we should evaluate until the end of the season.
    olyfan63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3364
    Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:03 am


  • It was 38-18 with 3:45 left in the game when the Hawks scored their dagger TD. This game was a blowout. I'm not buying that the Defense still sucks one bit. Much of it was garbage time yardage and points. Meh.
    Also, when you stop a powerful offense for converting on 4th down 4 times? That's damn good defense. They absolutely need to get better, and I suspect they will.
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15791
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • I'm not a big fan of Norton as a DC, but this isn't the game to criticize.

    They have a lot of new pieces, didn't play a pre-season, and the O built a big lead, leading to Matt Ryan to pile up a bunch of yards in garbage time.

    The Seahawks are now lead by their offense, the defenses job is to not screw it up.

    They should improve as the season goes along, if they do not, then it will be worth talking about mid-season.
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2730
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:Not sure it's his fault that Pete and John didn't get him a D-line this year.

    Yup. But the season is young... signings and trades still out there, for D-Line help, and for sure they are working this every day.

    On the bright side, Pete and John did get Norton an upgraded secondary, as well as some speedy LB energy, Irvin and Brooks, and the program has several sophomores and juniors starting to perform a little better all the time on the D side of the ball. Mayowa had a fantastic sack on Ryan on 4th down too.

    Aint it fun so far though, watching the offensive juggernaut and Russell the gunslinger?
    olyfan63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3364
    Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:03 am


  • D played a great game! Very happy with how Norton jr had the D performing.
    PNW
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 16
    Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 5:26 pm


  • Garbage time or not.

    It bothers me to allow huge chunks of yardage in a soft zone.

    The “let them have it” mentality is lost with me even when Seattle is up a few touchdowns.

    It’s that kind of thinking and rationale that allows a good team to comeback and win.

    I’m more so of the put your foot on their throat and suffocate them until the game is over.

    My approach may not be popular among coaches wanting to be respectful on each other and not become points greedy, but if you aren’t playing to win the game, then what are you doing exactly?

    The best teams impose their will on the other.

    I wish these Seahawks coaches had that killer instinct.

    But apparently not.

    And that bothers me, I’ll admit it.

    You do not want teams being able to make comebacks against you.

    Remember the Falcons/Patriots SuperBowl?

    I rest my case.
    TheLegendOfBoom
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 1445
    Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 7:12 pm
    Location: Westcoastin’


  • TheLegendOfBoom wrote:Garbage time or not.
    It bothers me to allow huge chunks of yardage in a soft zone.
    The “let them have it” mentality is lost with me even when Seattle is up a few touchdowns.
    It’s that kind of thinking and rationale that allows a good team to comeback and win.
    I’m more so of the put your foot on their throat and suffocate them until the game is over.
    My approach may not be popular among coaches wanting to be respectful on each other and not become points greedy, but if you aren’t playing to win the game, then what are you doing exactly?
    The best teams impose their will on the other.
    I wish these Seahawks coaches had that killer instinct.
    But apparently not.
    And that bothers me, I’ll admit it.
    You do not want teams being able to make comebacks against you.
    Remember the Falcons/Patriots SuperBowl?
    I rest my case.


    I can't really argue with your overall reasoning, but consider this:
    The NFL *wants* games to be high-scoring and close, for fan engagement purposes. We saw the Patriots come back and nearly win but be stopped by a heroic play by the Seahawks D on the game's final play.

    Throwing deep on 3rd-and-1, when a 2 yard run ends the game? I'd say the "intent" matches your concept of "put your foot on their throat and suffocate them until the game is over", but the execution did not. The bad snap screwed the play.

    Norton wasn't the problem vs NE, the problem was our lack of pass rush from the D-Line and Cam playing great and being on target in the passing game. Plus us being down 2 DBs, including our ace Free Safety Diggs, and NE doing their best to take advantage of that.

    I'll take the W and breathe a sigh of relief.
    olyfan63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3364
    Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:03 am


  • The Falcons game was not a game to criticize Norton but this game certainly is.

    The Patriots had 1 good receiver, another guy named Byrd, and a bunch of guys that nobody can remember or care about.

    They still threw for near 400 yds.
    (I am going to laugh ruefully when Cam looks a lot more mortal of a passer against all the other defenses in the NFL. )

    It was weird to win a game but be filled with a sense of dread.

    Norton might be a lead anchor that Wilson will have to overcome all year.

    This team is going to have to score 30+ points every game to have a shot at winning. And even then, QBs will be fighting for the opportunity to play against our substandard, bottom-half DC.

    It was an amazing game that should have never been that close but for our DC being completely inept. To the point where a win almost feels like a loss because you just know this is going to bite us, hard, later. And teams with this bad a defense have almost no chance in the playoffs.

    We lived with years of Carroll holding Wilson back, even still our QB was putting up top QB numbers while essentially only playing a half. Who knows how great this team could have been had Carroll not been so rigid in trying to run the ball with a HOF QB being asked to sit on his talent? Now we finally unleash our QB, after allegedly being threatened into it, and that QB puts up #s exceeding the best in the NFL. And now, all that opportunity may be for naught because our DC is terrible. (Just like he was for the Raiders)
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4040
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:48 pm


  • Hockey Guy wrote:This place is funny. Win convincingly but let's fire someone because the other team got some meaningless stats when the game was no longer in doubt.

    Never change Seahawks.net, never change.


    We didn't win convincingly, and the game was never "no longer in doubt".

    I'd just like to see someone present a schematic explanation of why Norton is struggling, other than just purely the results, which can be caused by all kinds of things - including losing two safeties, or having no pass rush personnel.
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 17517
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:46 am


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Hockey Guy wrote:This place is funny. Win convincingly but let's fire someone because the other team got some meaningless stats when the game was no longer in doubt.

    Never change Seahawks.net, never change.


    We didn't win convincingly, and the game was never "no longer in doubt".

    I'd just like to see someone present a schematic explanation of why Norton is struggling, other than just purely the results, which can be caused by all kinds of things - including losing two safeties, or having no pass rush personnel.


    You do understand my comment was about the Falcons game don't you? Seriously!
    Hockey Guy
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 341
    Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2017 9:03 am


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Hockey Guy wrote:This place is funny. Win convincingly but let's fire someone because the other team got some meaningless stats when the game was no longer in doubt.

    Never change Seahawks.net, never change.


    We didn't win convincingly, and the game was never "no longer in doubt".

    I'd just like to see someone present a schematic explanation of why Norton is struggling, other than just purely the results, which can be caused by all kinds of things - including losing two safeties, or having no pass rush personnel.

    It's been the same result last week. and the entire year of 2019. Losing 2 safeties, C'mon bro, really, Your gonna blame losing 2 safeties when clearly there is a deeper issue. Explain to me on how Norton isn't struggling since your so confident.
    For starters our weak link is the D-line but Norton keeps rushing the 4 D-linemen and the LB's are ALWAYS dropping in coverage, all 3 of them all the time. Why not incorporate the LB's in the the pass rush, like in a 3-4 Defense. I like the idea of blitzing Adams but they are doing way to much. They need to include the other DB's and the LB's. There is no excuse for Wagner to be in the deep second level breaking up passes like what I saw yesterday a few times. I don't see anyone spying the QB at all. Everyone is always in coverage.
    hawks85
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 580
    Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 6:55 pm
    Location: Seattle, Washington


  • hawks85 wrote:Losing 2 safeties, C'mon bro, really, Your gonna blame losing 2 safeties when clearly there is a deeper issue. Explain to me on how Norton isn't struggling since your so confident.
    For starters our weak link is the D-line but Norton keeps rushing the 4 D-linemen and the LB's are ALWAYS dropping in coverage, all 3 of them all the time. Why not incorporate the LB's in the the pass rush, like in a 3-4 Defense. I like the idea of blitzing Adams but they are doing way to much. They need to include the other DB's and the LB's. There is no excuse for Wagner to be in the deep second level breaking up passes like what I saw yesterday a few times. I don't see anyone spying the QB at all. Everyone is always in coverage.


    You don't just recklessly blitz Cam Newton. Nor do you blitz a Bill Belichick-coached offense, even if the pretty-boy has moved on. The gameplan really wasn't that crazy.

    And yes, losing TWO STARTERS on a defense is going to matter. Did you seriously just imply it shouldn't?
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 17517
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:46 am


  • That is weird.

    Kris Richard lost 2 starters when we played Arizona.

    He didn't allow a has-been QB to throw for nearly 400 yds against him. Those were lynchpin players too. He kept the defense at least reasonably effective without them.

    Also, was Norton missing those starters back when he sucked in Oakland too?

    The problem with Norton wasn't just last night. That was just another poor performance and some new excuses. The problem has been festering for a while.

    Last year, against the pass, I think we were 26th. This year we are dead last.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4040
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:48 pm


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    hawks85 wrote:Losing 2 safeties, C'mon bro, really, Your gonna blame losing 2 safeties when clearly there is a deeper issue. Explain to me on how Norton isn't struggling since your so confident.
    For starters our weak link is the D-line but Norton keeps rushing the 4 D-linemen and the LB's are ALWAYS dropping in coverage, all 3 of them all the time. Why not incorporate the LB's in the the pass rush, like in a 3-4 Defense. I like the idea of blitzing Adams but they are doing way to much. They need to include the other DB's and the LB's. There is no excuse for Wagner to be in the deep second level breaking up passes like what I saw yesterday a few times. I don't see anyone spying the QB at all. Everyone is always in coverage.


    You don't just recklessly blitz Cam Newton. Nor do you blitz a Bill Belichick-coached offense, even if the pretty-boy has moved on. The gameplan really wasn't that crazy.

    And yes, losing TWO STARTERS on a defense is going to matter. Did you seriously just imply it shouldn't?


    Overall, I'm with MontanaHawk05 on this one, can someone provide more convincing and specific examples on how it's NORTON who is failing? The Hawks certainly used Jamal Adams well, and Adams was personally responsible for +6 points on the night, aka the margin of victory. The D got a pick, should have been 3, off of Cam, with 2 of them being pick-6's.

    So the assertion that nobody was spying Newton, that's a place to start. Is it true? Is it because the Hawks D strategy was to rush in lanes with a pocket contain on Newton? Who would we have spy Newton? The fast-enough candidates are, Bruce Irvin (out with ACL), Jamal Adams (we blitzed him instead of spying), Jordyn Brooks (a green rookie), and Bobby Wagner (super-valuable in coverage and all-around). On top of that, Cam presents a unique challenge, on account of his running threat, as does Kyler Murray. So some of what we saw could be Cam-specific game-plan choices coming from Carroll.

    Last year I was on the "Fire Norton!" bandwagon, at times, and to a certain extent. Yet Pete brought him back, and clearly has faith in him. What I see is that Norton is also the "bad cop" that Pete needs at times, to get in people's faces, because Pete is much more "good cop".

    Can we crowd-source a clearer list of what Norton be doing with the available personnel that he isn't doing, to have a clearer indictment of him? And to see if those flaws and issues are consistent issues over time?

    NORTON'S POOR CHOICES LIST:
    * Only rushing 4, no LB blitzes, LBs always drop into coverage, no DB blitzes aside from Adams
    * No spy on Cam Newton (not sure if this is accurate; did we NEVER spy Cam, or just seldom spy him?)
    olyfan63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3364
    Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:03 am


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    hawks85 wrote:Losing 2 safeties, C'mon bro, really, Your gonna blame losing 2 safeties when clearly there is a deeper issue. Explain to me on how Norton isn't struggling since your so confident.
    For starters our weak link is the D-line but Norton keeps rushing the 4 D-linemen and the LB's are ALWAYS dropping in coverage, all 3 of them all the time. Why not incorporate the LB's in the the pass rush, like in a 3-4 Defense. I like the idea of blitzing Adams but they are doing way to much. They need to include the other DB's and the LB's. There is no excuse for Wagner to be in the deep second level breaking up passes like what I saw yesterday a few times. I don't see anyone spying the QB at all. Everyone is always in coverage.


    You don't just recklessly blitz Cam Newton. Nor do you blitz a Bill Belichick-coached offense, even if the pretty-boy has moved on. The gameplan really wasn't that crazy.

    And yes, losing TWO STARTERS on a defense is going to matter. Did you seriously just imply it shouldn't?


    Yes losing 2 starters does matter, but what I'm saying those 2 lost starters were in the game last week and they still got torched, and we got torched all last season. Matter of fact ever Norton has been DC. That scheme isn't working. They need to adjust and make some changes. If this continues our Passing D will be torched for 20 thousand yards at the end of the season. If I were DC I would have blitzed 50-60 percent of the time rattling the $h!t out of that QB. I would do stunts and twist's and a consistent spy on the QB, I would have created pressure from every angle.
    hawks85
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 580
    Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 6:55 pm
    Location: Seattle, Washington


  • olyfan63 wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    hawks85 wrote:Losing 2 safeties, C'mon bro, really, Your gonna blame losing 2 safeties when clearly there is a deeper issue. Explain to me on how Norton isn't struggling since your so confident.
    For starters our weak link is the D-line but Norton keeps rushing the 4 D-linemen and the LB's are ALWAYS dropping in coverage, all 3 of them all the time. Why not incorporate the LB's in the the pass rush, like in a 3-4 Defense. I like the idea of blitzing Adams but they are doing way to much. They need to include the other DB's and the LB's. There is no excuse for Wagner to be in the deep second level breaking up passes like what I saw yesterday a few times. I don't see anyone spying the QB at all. Everyone is always in coverage.


    You don't just recklessly blitz Cam Newton. Nor do you blitz a Bill Belichick-coached offense, even if the pretty-boy has moved on. The gameplan really wasn't that crazy.

    And yes, losing TWO STARTERS on a defense is going to matter. Did you seriously just imply it shouldn't?


    Overall, I'm with MontanaHawk05 on this one, can someone provide more convincing and specific examples on how it's NORTON who is failing? The Hawks certainly used Jamal Adams well, and Adams was personally responsible for +6 points on the night, aka the margin of victory. The D got a pick, should have been 3, off of Cam, with 2 of them being pick-6's.

    So the assertion that nobody was spying Newton, that's a place to start. Is it true? Is it because the Hawks D strategy was to rush in lanes with a pocket contain on Newton? Who would we have spy Newton? The fast-enough candidates are, Bruce Irvin (out with ACL), Jamal Adams (we blitzed him instead of spying), Jordyn Brooks (a green rookie), and Bobby Wagner (super-valuable in coverage and all-around). On top of that, Cam presents a unique challenge, on account of his running threat, as does Kyler Murray. So some of what we saw could be Cam-specific game-plan choices coming from Carroll.

    Last year I was on the "Fire Norton!" bandwagon, at times, and to a certain extent. Yet Pete brought him back, and clearly has faith in him. What I see is that Norton is also the "bad cop" that Pete needs at times, to get in people's faces, because Pete is much more "good cop".

    Can we crowd-source a clearer list of what Norton be doing with the available personnel that he isn't doing, to have a clearer indictment of him? And to see if those flaws and issues are consistent issues over time?

    NORTON'S POOR CHOICES LIST:
    * Only rushing 4, no LB blitzes, LBs always drop into coverage, no DB blitzes aside from Adams
    * No spy on Cam Newton (not sure if this is accurate; did we NEVER spy Cam, or just seldom spy him?)


    I seen at least one blitz from Dunbar, they are shooting other people.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 32751
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.




It is currently Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:09 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ SEATTLE SEAHAWKS FOOTBALL ]




Information
  • Who is online