Who Will Sherman Bitch at Now?

[Sir Robin Of Camelot]

Everyone, it is his nature

Clearly.

 

[seafandoghawk]

Nah. I've accepted that this team likely won't get it done. Just too inconsistent. Today's game was a pretty good microcosm of the season.

Me too. Genuinely good teams are fairly consistent; and this Hawks team has been anything but. I think of them as maybe a potentially dangerous team in that, on any given week, they are capable of giving even good teams all that they can handle. But they may end up being the weakest team overall of any of the six on the NFC side.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

And other team's fans "don't yell like idiots for 3 hours plus"?

They don't name themselves and think they are important..... Bozos.....

And for the record, I loved SF beating your Rams yesterday.....

 

[Hank Kingsley]

How did the Raiders become "insignificant", didn't the Raiders win today?

Didn't they just lose Carr?

McGloin??

Insignificant. The Dolphins with Moore are more of a threat.

 

[The Oldtimer]

Didn't they just lose Carr?

McGloin??

Insignificant. The Dolphins with Moore are more of a threat.

Fair enough, we will find out.

 

[The Oldtimer]

They don't name themselves and think they are important..... Bozos.....

And for the record, I loved SF beating your Rams yesterday.....

Yep the Rams sucked dead donkey dicks this year. I was/am very disappointed with the Rams this year.

 

[The Oldtimer]

Me too. Genuinely good teams are fairly consistent; and this Hawks team has been anything but. I think of them as maybe a potentially dangerous team in that, on any given week, they are capable of giving even good teams all that they can handle. But they may end up being the weakest team overall of any of the six on the NFC side.

The Hawks could be the weakest team of the six on the NFC side, but beware they are still very dangerous.

 

[Dolemite censored]

Seahawks are just not that good on offense, and the defense gets worn down as a result.

Seahawks were in the red zone 3 times and came away with just 3 points.

Pathetic.

Seahawks are 1 and done in the wild card round.

I say Bevel is gone after the season and so is DC Richard.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

Fair enough, we will find out.

It's a no brainer.

No Carr? No chance.....

 

[The Oldtimer]

It's a no brainer.

No Carr? No chance.....

Okay.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

Seahawks are just not that good on offense, and the defense gets worn down as a result.

Seahawks were in the red zone 3 times and came away with just 3 points.

Pathetic.

Seahawks are 1 and done in the wild card round.

I say Bevel is gone after the season and so is DC Richard.

Did you see the Wee One punching air after he hit Richardson for the "tying" TD?

And then mere seconds later, everything goes pear shaped.....


Even if The Great Gazoo (Hauschka of the small head, big helemt)

hits the convert, they were dead because Arizona simply zipped down the field and got the FG.....

The whole game made my Xmas Eve.....

 

[Hank Kingsley]

Okay.

Damn skippy OK.

 

[Moab]

Seahawks are just not that good on offense, and the defense gets worn down as a result.

Seahawks were in the red zone 3 times and came away with just 3 points.

Pathetic.

Seahawks are 1 and done in the wild card round.

I say Bevel is gone after the season and so is DC Richard.

I giggled a bit when they ran it and got stuffed on the goal line...maybe Sherman should worry about his responsibilities and let the coaches and O handle their responsibilities....that might just be me though

 

[Hank Kingsley]

I giggled a bit when they ran it and got stuffed on the goal line...maybe Sherman should worry about his responsibilities and let the coaches and O handle their responsibilities....that might just be me though

I didn't giggle, but I did roar when the tried for the pass from the one and the Wee One couldn't even get turned to make the throw before he was sacked.....

 

[Moab]

I didn't giggle, but I did roar when the tried for the pass from the one and the Wee One couldn't even get turned to make the throw before he was sacked.....

Right, and that sequence pretty much exposed their biggest issue...the offensive line...it's very offensive!!!

 

[jarntt]

They deserve all the criticism they will get. Look like a one and done in the post season

Eh...maybe so, but along with the Giants and Pack they're still the teams I don't want to play...

 

[LambeauLegs]

Did you bother to look at how many solid UDFAs Seattle has found over that time? I have a feeling it's quite a few.

Yes this was also discussed back in the Packer/Seahawk trash talk thread and the Seahawks had a good amount of undrafted free agents back before 2012. When looking at the last 4 years since they drafted or developed that defense from 2010 - 2012 they have not done shit with undrafted free agents. Here is the history.

In this thread drafting success and undrafted free agents were discussed with both teams from the years 2013 up until now which is the time elapsed since the LOB was obtained from 2010 - 2012 to see how the management of that team has done to try and maintain what they have built. Previously in this thread the drafting was discussed and now here is the undrafted free agents that were signed and kept and still on the team from 2013 until now.

It does not look good if that is what they are using to build depth or starters.

Post 1018 of this thread: Official Seahawks vs Packers smack thread

Ok had a chance to look and compare undrafted free agents that are currently on each of the teams keeping in the same time frame from 2013 through 2016.

2013

Seattle: 0 undrafted free agents

Packers: 1 undrafted free agent Lane Taylor who is now a starting left guard taking over for the pro bowl guard Josh Sitton who was cut. SO yes one who is a starter and has been doing a great job as you never hear his name called which is the net thing if you are on the O line

2014

Seattle: 2 undrafted free agents still on the team Coyle a back up on defense and Gilliam a back up on O line. One on offense and one on defense

Packers: 3 undrafted free agents still on the team. J Thomas LB, J Elliot LB, M Pennel DL with all 3 being on defense

2015

Seattle: 1 undrafted free agent Rawls RB on offense

Packers: 1 undrafted free agent Gunter CB #3 or 4 behind Randall and Rollins

2016

Seattle: 4 undrafted free agents with Boykin, Fant, McEvoy, and Powell with one of these being on defense. There is one started though by default with Fant on the Oline

Packers: 4 undrafted free agents with Geronimo Allison a WR, Brice a safety, Hawkins a CB, and Dorlorient a CB. These were the CBs playing when Randall, Shields, and Rollins were out those 4 weeks or so when the DS sucked. They are #5, 6, 7 on the team.

Since this whole discussion has been about defense when looking at undrafted free agents we find here that:

Seattle has 2 undrafted defensive players on the current team that were signed between 2013 up until currently. But they do have one starter in Fant. Not sure how many other teams he would start in though.

Packers have 7 undrafted defensive players on the current team that were signed between 2013 up until currently. Gunter plays quite a bit as you saw last week, the others will be developed as back ups because the starting DBs are only i their second year. You saw they did quite well last week.

So to review

Seattle from 2013 to 2016 over those 4 years have 7 undrafted free agents on the team with 1 starter Fant. The amount of defensive undrafted free agents = 2

Green Bay from 2013 to 2016 over those 4 years have 9 undrafted free agents on the team with 1 starter Lane Taylor. The amount of defensive undrafted free agents = 7

So as I look at this and if your feelings are that Seattle does a great job with undrafted free agents as we look back over the last 4 drafts it appears the Packers have done a bit better with 2 more of them and the one starter being of much higher quality. When looking at the defense the Packers had 7 of them compared to 2 for Seattle.

So if the Hawks do a good job what word should I use to describe the Packers with it being a bit better then the Seahawks?

 

[seafandoghawk]

The Hawks could be the weakest team of the six on the NFC side, but beware they are still very dangerous.

I agree. Their whole roster is made up of hyper-competitive guys, who will undoubtedly turn on to opportunity to make noise in the playoffs.

But as the Cards game revealed, this team has holes in all phases of the game-- offensively, defensively, and on special teams. And their inconsistency not only manifests between weeks, but even between halves. Plug a hole that started leaking here in the first half, and another one pops up over there in the second half. Temporarily plug each at relatively the same time, and a third one appears back in that other corner. They didn't experience much of that at all in 2013-2014

That may be a bit of a harsh overreaction on my part, but this is a team that had practically zero offense in four or five games this year, whose defense hasn't demonstrated customary execution every other week for a while now, and whose kicking game now makes me hold my breath every time that it's called on in clutch situations.

I hope that the team itself is beginning to accept that it isn't 2013-2014, that they can and do struggle more than they used to, and that they no longer intimidate teams like they once did. Yeah it can be a dangerous team to face on any given Sunday-- it still has too much talent on the roster to be otherwise. But I think they'll need to find within themselves another gear to provide the level of consistency that's going to be necessary.

 

[The Oldtimer]

I agree. Their whole roster is made up of hyper-competitive guys, who will undoubtedly turn on to opportunity to make noise in the playoffs.

But as the Cards game revealed, this team has holes in all phases of the game-- offensively, defensively, and on special teams. And their inconsistency not only manifests between weeks, but even between halves. Plug a hole that started leaking here in the first half, and another one pops up over there in the second half. Temporarily plug each at relatively the same time, and a third one appears back in that other corner. They didn't experience much of that at all in 2013-2014

That may be a bit of a harsh overreaction on my part, but this is a team that had practically zero offense in four or five games this year, whose defense hasn't demonstrated customary execution every other week for a while now, and whose kicking game now makes me hold my breath every time that it's called on in clutch situations.

I hope that the team itself is beginning to accept that it isn't 2013-2014, that they can and do struggle more than they used to, and that they no longer intimidate teams like they once did. Yeah it can be a dangerous team to face on any given Sunday-- it still has too much talent on the roster to be otherwise. But I think they'll need to find within themselves another gear to provide the level of consistency that's going to be necessary.

Good comment and I totally agree. The Hawks have no running game, I guess it is due to poor O-line play. The Seahawks of the past had a very good running game. The Hawks won't go very far in the playoffs with getting only 50/60 yards rushing per game. As I said before, the best defense is a good offense. Just move the yard sticks and keep your defense off the field.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

Eh...maybe so, but along with the Giants and Pack they're still the teams I don't want to play...

Fear not the Canal Pheasants.....