>
> Peter Reggio wrote:
>
>>> So if you wanna revel in a 20-17 loss and consider it a moral victory,
>>> by all means, be my guest. As for me, I'm practically looking forward
>>> to the end of the season so I'm no longer compelled to continue
>>> watching this amazingly disappointing shitstorm that used to be a
>>> pretty good football team. It's just getting to be too painful.
>>>
>>> Dino
>>
>> Actually, I didn't get to see the performance...was with relatives
>> for
>> the holiday. However, in view of how everyone expected us to lose by 3
>> TDs
>> or more, *something* must have occurred to put us in the lead for part of
>> the game and only lose by 3 at the end.
>
> What occurred was, for the most part, a solid effort by the defense
> (undone by some boneheaded play) combined with a really below-par day
> for Rivers. And I'm not gonna credit the Seattle D *too much* for
> "forcing" Rivers into a bad day because he had more than enough time to
> throw on most plays. Outside of a few lapses, our defense looked
> pretty good -- about as good as it has all year, really -- but those
> lapses are just so fucking idiotic that for me, it severely detracts
> from the greater performance.
How many did they rush against Rivers? Did he have time because we were
covering in secondary or double-teaming LT? BTW...what about the last
couple of teams that got burned by the Chargers...do we appear to have done
better than they did, even considering the loss?
>> LT got 123...but 62 of that was one huge run. So, other than that,
>> LT
>> was 21/61 or less than 3 ypc. He also had 1 catch for 10. Remember,
>> this
>> is the hero of the league...he's supposed to put up 3-4 TDs and 150+
>> all-purpose yards every game...was it that he was bad or our d held him?
>> Do
>> they get credit or don't they?
>
> See above. We held him in check for the most part, and that was good.
> That said, if Rivers starts completing passes a la Alex Smith last
> week, LT probably starts getting more yards. Everything is
> interconnected and this defense has already proven beyond a shadow of
> any doubt that they simply cannot defend against both the run and the
> pass with any sort of extended success. Take one of those facets out
> of the equation, and they can do okay. Today, Rivers threw some really
> bad balls. Some of that credit goes to our D, some probably gets stuck
> on Rivers because he is young and inexperienced,the weather was not
> very good, and maybe he just simply had a bad day.
I don't about "young and inexperienced". He might have had a bad
day...he may even have been hampered by rain...too damned bad if he
did...weather is weather. He's been riding the pine, learning the playbook
for a couple years while his contemporaries have been thrown out on the
field to live or die. I believe his class included Eli, JP Losman and
Rugelbagel.
>
>> Going by stats alone, the weakest part on our side appears to have
>> been
>> Hass...but Hass' bad numbers could have any number of contributing
>> factors.
>> This appears to be the case for the last 2 games...the offense can't seal
>> the deal and eventually the defense makes a mistake. If Hass were on the
>> mark, he'd have 2 TDs instead of 2 INTs and we wouldn't care about a
>> mistake
>> on defense. I figure Holmgren will be working the offense like dogs this
>> week.
>
> Holmgren's had 16 weeks plus training camp to "work them like dogs."
> Look, when you're into December, shit just doesn't just magically
> happen and problems don't fix themselves. Whatever is ailing the 2006
> Seahawks -- and there are a lot of problems -- is, with almost
> certainty, going to continue into next week and into the playoffs.
> Outside of injury issues, there is no magic elixir the coaches can find
> to "right the boat" that they wouldn't have found already.
Uh, Rivers has had 16 weeks plus training camp to be a good QB. If
Holmgren doesn't get a pass, neither does he. Fair is fair.
It's been noted that our O-line is in it's 7th phase this year alone,
Hass has been back for 6 weeks since his injury, not 16 (and is still
probably wearing the brace), Shaun's been back 6.5, Engram 1.5-ish (he was
in the game last week I believe, but didn't do much).
>
>> So if you want to jump on the Chico-wagon, go ahead. But remember
>> this
>> overall truth: with us in the playoffs already, the Tampa game is a
>> chance
>> to experiment...so it won't matter if we win or lose that one. I doubt
>> it
>> will affect our seeding anyway, we're likely to be #4 after losing today:
>
> Experiment with what?
Finding what will get the O clicking again.
>
>> New Orleans basically sealed #2 by beating the Giants.
>> If Dallas wins one of the last 2 games, they get the #3 on League
>> Record.
>> If Dallas loses the division to Philly, they get the #3 on League
>> and/or
>> NFC record.
>
> We'll be #4. We may or may not beat #5 at home; I guess there's a
> better than 50%% chance we will, but we could lay an egg. We will, with
> reasonably high probability, lose at Chicago the next week if we win
> the home game. Those outcomes are the easiest to envision and the ones
> most likely to come to pass, and while we can hope for something
> different, I certainly wouldn't expect it. The team has now had 15
> games to establish different expectations and they haven't.
>
> Dino
Depends on whether #6 beats #3, in which case they would go to Chicago.
I think our D is becoming consistent...last week they held up only 3
quarters, this week it came down to SD's last possession. Hopefully, they
can take this loss and use it as motivation and not lose heart. If the O
can get it together, even though it's the last game of the season, then I'd
say we're going into the playoffs with a good chance to do better than
one-and-done.
Regis
