Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Cam and Edelman looking human against Raiders

Discuss any and all NFL-related topics. Ex-Seahawks fall into NFL topics. LANGUAGE: PG-13
  • Pretty obvious that these guys were made to look superhuman by a very poor scheme on the part of the Seahawks. A little bit of pressure, a little bit of coverage, and all of a sudden Cam and Edelman look like who they are. Good, not great.

    Norton needs to get his act together. Hoping that happens against Dallas today. Fingers crossed.
    xgeoff
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1475
    Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 4:45 pm


  • The Raiders' early success has been really impressive...they're a better team than last year
    SantaClaraHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7217
    Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 11:17 am


  • The Raiders got tucked by the refs again.
    Threedee
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2631
    Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:08 pm
    Location: Federal Way, WA


  • Agreed. As a team, they are much better. But they are not THAT great. And with just a little bit of pressure, Cam's play deteriorates drastically. Not a whole bunch of big names that I can see. For example, some no-name nickelback made a play on Edelman in man-man coverage, no problem.

    Bottom line is that Cam and Edelman are NOT as superhuman as they appeared against us. We ENABLED that crap. Just like we did with some of the sorry-ass Cardinal QB's in the past.
    xgeoff
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1475
    Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 4:45 pm


  • Also, it looks like Bill is wearing a coffee filter over his face.
    Threedee
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2631
    Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:08 pm
    Location: Federal Way, WA


  • Threedee wrote:Also, it looks like Bill is wearing a coffee filter over his face.


    Well, he is known for his fashion sense ;)
    xgeoff
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1475
    Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 4:45 pm


  • We are number 32 in total defense in the NFL. This is obviously not good. With our injuries things may be worse.
    BigBill1945
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1915
    Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:39 pm


  • I missed it, did the Raiders lose their starting safety already
    Flyingsquad23
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 317
    Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:47 pm


  • Seattle always gets everyone’s best shot as well.
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 31683
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • Flyingsquad23 wrote:I missed it, did the Raiders lose their starting safety already


    LOL, nice. No, they didn't. They did not lose undrafted free-agent, former CFL standout Erik Harris. Who I'm sure should be considered a Pro-bowl safety, but has just been overlooked so far. But no, he's fine... :roll:
    xgeoff
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1475
    Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 4:45 pm


  • Our defense is sub par is why.
    Shanegotyou11
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3478
    Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:08 pm


  • Sports Hernia wrote:Seattle always gets everyone’s best shot as well.


    I've heard that argument before, but it doesn't resonate with me. Rather it seems like we enable teams. For example, remember a couple years ago when the Washington Football Club came to town and they had three of their starting offensive linemen out.

    Many people could (and did) say this was just a fantastic effort by that Washington ramshackle line, which made our pass rush look non-existent and allowed Kirk Cousins to look like Cam Newton did last week. Did we just get Washington's best effort, because their line was crap after the game against us. Or, as is more likely, did we just have (and continue to have) a defensive line and defensive scheme that is incapable of applying pressure on the QB. I say the evidence is on the latter.
    xgeoff
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1475
    Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 4:45 pm


  • I agree the defense is weak but I’m not sure what magic is out there for Norton when he has nobody on the DL who can get pressure. He’s already sending Adams on blitzes left and right, but that tactic has a short half life as QBs realize they have man matchups and can throw right at the blitz.
    hawk45
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 9433
    Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:08 pm


  • hawk45 wrote:I agree the defense is weak but I’m not sure what magic is out there for Norton when he has nobody on the DL who can get pressure. He’s already sending Adams on blitzes left and right, but that tactic has a short half life as QBs realize they have man matchups and can throw right at the blitz.


    Right, so one strategy would be that in obvious passing situations you take Reed and Poona off the field. You go with a pass rushing package of, say Mayowa, Robinson, Brooks, and Collier.

    Another option is you rush the passer with Mayowa, Collier, Brooks and Adams and bring in an extra DB for Adams in the back. Now, I know that the DB's are now depleted because of injuries, but you could have Diggs, Dunbar, Shaq, Amadi and Flowers as DB's, and Wagner plus Barton in passing situations.

    I mean, you can TRY things with personnel packages like these that don't necessitate playing any particular coverage.
    xgeoff
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1475
    Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 4:45 pm


  • Nothing wrong with our defense. RW just has to put 35 plus every week.
    Cyrus12
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 10105
    Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:20 am
    Location: BC Canada


  • Cyrus12 wrote:Nothing wrong with our defense. RW just has to put 35 plus every week.


    LOL, touche!
    xgeoff
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1475
    Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 4:45 pm


  • xgeoff wrote:
    Sports Hernia wrote:Seattle always gets everyone’s best shot as well.


    I've heard that argument before, but it doesn't resonate with me. Rather it seems like we enable teams. For example, remember a couple years ago when the Washington Football Club came to town and they had three of their starting offensive linemen out.

    Many people could (and did) say this was just a fantastic effort by that Washington ramshackle line, which made our pass rush look non-existent and allowed Kirk Cousins to look like Cam Newton did last week. Did we just get Washington's best effort, because their line was crap after the game against us. Or, as is more likely, did we just have (and continue to have) a defensive line and defensive scheme that is incapable of applying pressure on the QB. I say the evidence is on the latter.

    It doesn’t have to be an either or situation. I’m the first one to b!@ch about playing down to the opponents, I’m also always one of the first to b!@ch about lack of pressure on the opposing QB in the game day forums, so I’m aware of defensive inefficiencies. :)
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 31683
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • So far the Pats have 20 and the raiders 10. Is that better than what we did? The pats have more yards and points at this same point of the 3rd quarter, then against us.
    CPHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3618
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:49 pm


  • 207 rushing yards allowed...
    Flyingsquad23
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 317
    Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:47 pm


  • xgeoff wrote:Pretty obvious that these guys were made to look superhuman by a very poor scheme on the part of the Seahawks. A little bit of pressure, a little bit of coverage, and all of a sudden Cam and Edelman look like who they are. Good, not great.

    Norton needs to get his act together. Hoping that happens against Dallas today. Fingers crossed.


    Patriots offense has scored more points this week than they did against Seattle.
    KinesProf
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 193
    Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:05 am


  • This hot take didn’t age well.
    Flyingsquad23
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 317
    Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:47 pm


  • Sports Hernia wrote:
    xgeoff wrote:
    Sports Hernia wrote:Seattle always gets everyone’s best shot as well.


    I've heard that argument before, but it doesn't resonate with me. Rather it seems like we enable teams. For example, remember a couple years ago when the Washington Football Club came to town and they had three of their starting offensive linemen out.

    Many people could (and did) say this was just a fantastic effort by that Washington ramshackle line, which made our pass rush look non-existent and allowed Kirk Cousins to look like Cam Newton did last week. Did we just get Washington's best effort, because their line was crap after the game against us. Or, as is more likely, did we just have (and continue to have) a defensive line and defensive scheme that is incapable of applying pressure on the QB. I say the evidence is on the latter.

    It doesn’t have to be an either or situation. I’m the first one to b!@ch about playing down to the opponents, I’m also always one of the first to b!@ch about lack of pressure on the opposing QB in the game day forums, so I’m aware of defensive inefficiencies. :)


    I'm with you brother. Just pointing out that this problem that the Seahawks have is not new, has been around for awhile, seems to happen regardless of personnel, and the DC doesn't seem to be doing anything scheme-wise to address it. Except for blitzing Adams, which I approve of and i think he deserves some credit for dialing this up. But when I see
    Cam Newton drive down the field on us with no pressure on him, and Poona and Reed on the field, I'm going to b!@tch about the DC calls :)
    xgeoff
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1475
    Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 4:45 pm


  • xgeoff wrote:
    hawk45 wrote:I agree the defense is weak but I’m not sure what magic is out there for Norton when he has nobody on the DL who can get pressure. He’s already sending Adams on blitzes left and right, but that tactic has a short half life as QBs realize they have man matchups and can throw right at the blitz.


    Right, so one strategy would be that in obvious passing situations you take Reed and Poona off the field. You go with a pass rushing package of, say Mayowa, Robinson, Brooks, and Collier.

    Another option is you rush the passer with Mayowa, Collier, Brooks and Adams and bring in an extra DB for Adams in the back. Now, I know that the DB's are now depleted because of injuries, but you could have Diggs, Dunbar, Shaq, Amadi and Flowers as DB's, and Wagner plus Barton in passing situations.

    I mean, you can TRY things with personnel packages like these that don't necessitate playing any particular coverage.
    This post is looking pretty prescient. Robinson, mayowa, even a little shaquem made a big difference at the end
    hawk45
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 9433
    Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:08 pm




It is currently Sat Oct 31, 2020 10:06 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ NFL NATION ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: rcaido and 97 guests