Game Thread: Seattle Seahawks vs St. Louis Rams (Week 1)

[bksballer89]

It's life with Carroll. He gambles at some of the weirdest times. Sometimes it works. Other times...

As shaky as the defense was today, I don't understand the call.

That was my first impression of the call. He did not trust the defense to prevent the Rams from going 80 and scoring 6. There is no other reason to do an onside with the new OT rules unless you thought the defense would allow a TD

 

[WizardHawk]

Absolutely the same thing. You are holding Kam accountable for not playing because his replacement couldn't execute to the same standard. And that's not unreasonable. But Wagner, Wright, Sherman, Thomas., just about everyone...they all failed to execute even the most routine plays that any player, starter or bench warmer, should make. Our All Pro and Pro Bowl LBs consist talk failed to make simple wrap tackles on a third string scrub RBs. They blew assignments. They ole tackled. If they pull their head out of their ass for a drive or two we win easily.

And that's just our LBs. So many players and coaches were sub standard today.

Again, you can ask should of, would of, could of with lots of players in doing things different in this game. Same with coaches and calls. All of that is entirely different than not playing for selfish reasons and having that directly lead to a loss despite those things you named. It is night and day different.

 

[Cloud]

That was my first impression of the call. He did not trust the defense to prevent the Rams from going 80 and scoring 6. There is no other reason to do an onside with the new OT rules unless you thought the defense would allow a TD

It's not that. Pete likes to be trickery at times to catch the opponents off-guard. It back-fired big time in this case. He tried to play the game Fisher likes to play and it failed on him.

 

[WizardHawk]

That was my first impression of the call. He did not trust the defense to prevent the Rams from going 80 and scoring 6. There is no other reason to do an onside with the new OT rules unless you thought the defense would allow a TD

Announcers actually said the opposite. They believed Carroll called it because he trusted the gamble wouldn't lead to a TD as his defense would at least limit it to 3. It's all perspective.

Myself? Hated it. Kick the damned thing all the way out of the EZ and try to put pressure on Foles.

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

The onside kick. The lack of a TO with a minute left when the let 20+ seconds just grind off the clock in the first half and ended up running out of time. The TO just before the two minute warning. The overall defense letting the Rams score 34 (ok, well 27 was on the D with 7 coming from ST).

Lots of head scratching things from this staff today. Carroll included. This wasn't a team all on the same page coming out of the gate. They have a lot of things to fix all over the place.

They will get better, but months of prep and looking unfocused/sloppy is mind boggling.

 

[WizardHawk]

They will get better, but months of prep and looking unfocused/sloppy is mind boggling.

Maybe I'm not thinking clearly, but don't they normally start of slow each year, or at least have some early season spells where they seem to not play very well? Just feels like we've seen this before. Maybe I'm off.

 

[bksballer89]

Announcers actually said the opposite. They believed Carroll called it because he trusted the gamble wouldn't lead to a TD as his defense would at least limit it to 3. It's all perspective.

Myself? Hated it. Kick the damned thing all the way out of the EZ and try to put pressure on Foles.

It is a silly risk if you ask me. You're almost handing St. Louis 3 points. Basically all they needed was 20 yards to get into FG range and they have a kicker with a very strong leg.

 

[Cloud]

They will get better, but months of prep and looking unfocused/sloppy is mind boggling.

What else is new though? This is still the same undisciplined Pete Carroll's team from the past few years. It's amazing to me they still keep themselves in games and come back when needed.

 

[WizardHawk]

It is a silly risk if you ask me. You're almost handing St. Louis 3 points. Basically all they needed was 20 yards to get into FG range and they have a kicker with a very strong leg.

Given the recent rules that a FG doesn't win it the risk you are weighing is mid field with a short drive for your own game winning FG without the chance for the other team to get another chance (Onside works) vs giving the other team a better chance at 6 and no chance your team gets it back, but if you trust your D a failed onside can be limited to 3 and your own chance back.

It's probably not as much of a risk as it seems IF you really trust your D.

I just personally wouldn't have done that. I didn't like it.

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

Maybe I'm not thinking clearly, but don't they normally start of slow each year, or at least have some early season spells where they seem to not play very well? Just feels like we've seen this before. Maybe I'm off.

Your right on point. It does seem like Seattle does struggle early and it's damn frustrating.

 

[Cloud]

Given the recent rules that a FG doesn't win it the risk you are weighing is mid field with a short drive for your own game winning FG without the chance for the other team to get another chance (Onside works) vs giving the other team a better chance at 6 and no chance your team gets it back, but if you trust your D a failed onside can be limited to 3 and your own chance back.

It's probably not as much of a risk as it seems IF you really trust your D.

I just personally wouldn't have done that. I didn't like it.

The game is tied at that point. Treat it like a new game and kick it off normally, preferably out of the end zone to prevent any returns. It was silly and an unnecessary risk.

 

[Logicallylethal]

To address the back and forth about Kam with @WizardHawk and @gohusk

Having Kam definitely would have helped. Some of the missed tackles that led to first downs, Kam usually cleans up on those and puts the boom on the rb or wr before they get a chance to accelerate again.

Kam "probably" wouldn't have slipped but we've seen Kam get beat by a receiver/tight end on the outside before. There's no way we can say with certain that having Kam would change the outcome because the game would have likely been different.

What gohusk and others are saying is what is the point of even bringing Kam into this discussion. The problem lies with so many other things that actually happened in the game. Kam is just a hypothetical at this point. The play calling, the missed tackles, the bad punt coverage, Pete failing to outwit Fisher, etc. all rank ahead in terms blame.

 

[BHF]

Again, you can ask should of, would of, could of with lots of players in doing things different in this game. Same with coaches and calls. All of that is entirely different than not playing for selfish reasons and having that directly lead to a loss despite those things you named. It is night and day different.

Only because you want it to be, mate. You want to accuse me of playing"would of, could of"? Okay, sure.

What is saying "we would of wo if Kam played"?

 

[bksballer89]

Seattle will be fine. Schedule gets better after next week in GB. They probably win 4 of their 5 games following the GB game.

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

What else is new though? This is still the same undisciplined Pete Carroll's team from the past few years. It's amazing to me they still keep themselves in games and come back when needed.

The O-line can be undisciplined, but the defense is usually focused which was not the case today.

 

[Cloud]

To address the back and forth about Kam with @WizardHawk and @gohusk

Having Kam definitely would have helped. Some of the missed tackles that led to first downs, Kam usually cleans up on those and puts the boom on the rb or wr before they get a chance to accelerate again.

Kam "probably" wouldn't have slipped but we've seen Kam get beat by a receiver/tight end on the outside before. There's no way we can say with certain that having Kam would change the outcome because the game would have likely been different.

What gohusk and others are saying is what is the point of even bringing Kam into this discussion. The problem lies with so many other things that actually happened in the game. Kam is just a hypothetical at this point. The play calling, the missed tackles, the bad punt coverage, Pete failing to outwit Fisher, etc. all rank ahead in terms blame.

I agree and that's where the focus should be. What actually happened during the game. Anything else regarding Kam Chancellor is hypothetical and should be treated as such.

It was poor playing calling by Bevell and Lynch was nothing more than a sitting duck... it took way too long to developed. Read-option or QB sneak probably had a better chance of success that play which we've seen way too many times before.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Don't care for shotgun in short yardage situations .

 

[Battlelyon]

What did you guys think of the onside kick call? Honest question

If the Hawks recovered, Carroll is congratulated for another brilliant move.

 

[BHF]

Maybe I'm not thinking clearly, but don't they normally start of slow each year, or at least have some early season spells where they seem to not play very well? Just feels like we've seen this before. Maybe I'm off.

We started last season shakily as well. I wrote it off to "the Harvin Effect" as we played so much better after he was gone.

 

[BHF]

If the Hawks recovered, Carroll is congratulated for another brilliant move.

If the Hawks recover and kick a FG, the Rams still get a possessions, no?