Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Week 1: 20-16 Loss = Postgame Talk
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 33, 34, 35, 36, 37  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Seattle Seahawks
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
outside_Insider


Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 1218
Location: Calgary, AB
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stchamp98 wrote:
outside_Insider wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
outside_Insider wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
outside_Insider wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
C-Hawkin' wrote:
Nothing personal to you, but SOS doesn't always mean Save Our Sonics- in this case it refers to the playcalling/performance of the offense. A little basic math may illustrate.... Red Zone opps X FG's =/= W's.
I havent seen any mention of the replacement refs (tho I didn't read all 29 pages of comments). That shot Wilson took in the back was LONG after the ball was gone. The LB didn't pull up & that damn sure shoulda been roughing.[/code]


I'd say that last timeout kinda whipes out any bad call that went against you.

Head official has already come out and said he made the wrong call there.


Not exactly. The time out was inconsequential. We didn't need the time out- had we scored on the running play, then I may have to agree with you.

The Seahawks were told that timeout didn't count, so both the Cards, Refs, and Seahawks new they had 1 time out.


That's news to Ken Whisenhunt/The Arizona Cardinals:

"I went out there when the player was down in the end zone and said that is their last timeout, because a player injured in the last two minutes of the half ... if they have to stop play, they have to take their timeout," Whisenhunt said. "So I came back to the sideline thinking that they didn't have a timeout."

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/cardinals/articles/20120909arizona-cardinals-survive-timeout-gaffe-replacement-referees-seattle-seahawks.html


He's either lying, or the players new but he didn't. After they went to time out while Baldwin was grimacing on the sideline Peterson was yelling and throwing a tantrum with the refs for about 4-6 minutes and it was clearly about the T/O because after the hawks' used it he has another exact same rant to the ref.

If they don't tell the Hawks they have a time out, then it really doesn't change the game. They take 4 shots, and you know what, maybe they score on the first play passing, you never know.

The call was only significant because everyone except the fans (and maybe the cards coaching staff) thought they had 0 left and after the run it would seem as though the hawks would be in a terrible position.In reality it wasn't a big deal if they didn't award the hawks a time out, just don't tell them they have one.


They take 4 shots? Do you even know when the timeout was called? It was after a 1-2 yard run by Marshawn Lynch on 1st down. Without the timeout, you only get 3 shots and that's if they run a hurry up play that takes an average of about 8-12 seconds to get off. If you spike the ball there and re-group (Which is why Carroll called the fake timeout in the first place, to re-group) you only get 2 shots.

The timeout changed everything. And you'd never have 4 additional shots.


Read carefully, perhaps something might click..
I said, if we didn't have the time out awarded it wouldn't really have changed the game. Instead of a run and 3 passes it would have been 4 passes. In that event it may have been a better outcome for us.


LOL, now YOU read carefully:

You wouldn't have had 1 run and 3 passes or 4 passes because the timeout was incorrectly awarded AFTER you already ran your 1st down play, a 1-2 yard run by Marshawn Lynch.

I ask again, do you know when the timeout was called?


I am on the verge of using language that I am not accustomed to using, but I will abstain. However, the one word I will use for you is ignorant. You are completely ignorant to the situation.

The Seahawks were told they had a T/O and the Refs believed that had a time out. You can't tell a team they have T/O they call running play and then you realize you shouldn't have given them a T/O- then screw that team and say you actually can't use this and by the way the clock is running and there is 20 s left..You lose...

The fact of the matter is, the correct call would have been to have 0 times outs left, and if the Seahawks new this it would have changed their first down call. They would not have run it.

And YES I know that T/O was called after the 1st down run. Can you not understand that if the refs had got the call correctly the first time they wouldn't have run the ball of 1st down? Only an ignorant human being would want the refs to take away a time out after the opposing team had called a running play with the game on the line.
_________________


"We all we got, we all we need"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sacks98


Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 3948
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I always thought you got an injury time out when one of your player's get hurt i could be wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hdshot


Joined: 06 Dec 2011
Posts: 490
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sacks98 wrote:
I always thought you got an injury time out when one of your player's get hurt i could be wrong.


I don't know the whole rule but there are certain times towards the end of the game and a player gets hurt a TO is taken away. Helps prevent faking injuries to save TO's at crucial times of the game. No TO's left then there might be a 10 second run off the clock as well after injury.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mco65


Joined: 04 Feb 2011
Posts: 534
Location: US
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sacks98 wrote:
I always thought you got an injury time out when one of your player's get hurt i could be wrong.


Unless your inside of 2 minutes playing from behind.. Fact is, they REFs did not charge the Seahawks a timeout and they told them such which is why the called the next one... The cardinals argued they should not have a time out left which was true but the refs had already blown the call before hand.. either way, no harm no foul..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hdshot


Joined: 06 Dec 2011
Posts: 490
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sacks98 wrote:
I always thought you got an injury time out when one of your player's get hurt i could be wrong.


Remeber this drive with Wilson in the RB? Last 2 seconds Toon stays down game over since no TO's left bc there would of been a game clock run off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwwpGa5WxJg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stchamp98


Most Valuable Poster (3rd Ballot)

Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 52979
Location: Havre, Montana
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

outside_Insider wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
outside_Insider wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
outside_Insider wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
outside_Insider wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
C-Hawkin' wrote:
Nothing personal to you, but SOS doesn't always mean Save Our Sonics- in this case it refers to the playcalling/performance of the offense. A little basic math may illustrate.... Red Zone opps X FG's =/= W's.
I havent seen any mention of the replacement refs (tho I didn't read all 29 pages of comments). That shot Wilson took in the back was LONG after the ball was gone. The LB didn't pull up & that damn sure shoulda been roughing.[/code]


I'd say that last timeout kinda whipes out any bad call that went against you.

Head official has already come out and said he made the wrong call there.


Not exactly. The time out was inconsequential. We didn't need the time out- had we scored on the running play, then I may have to agree with you.

The Seahawks were told that timeout didn't count, so both the Cards, Refs, and Seahawks new they had 1 time out.


That's news to Ken Whisenhunt/The Arizona Cardinals:

"I went out there when the player was down in the end zone and said that is their last timeout, because a player injured in the last two minutes of the half ... if they have to stop play, they have to take their timeout," Whisenhunt said. "So I came back to the sideline thinking that they didn't have a timeout."

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/cardinals/articles/20120909arizona-cardinals-survive-timeout-gaffe-replacement-referees-seattle-seahawks.html


He's either lying, or the players new but he didn't. After they went to time out while Baldwin was grimacing on the sideline Peterson was yelling and throwing a tantrum with the refs for about 4-6 minutes and it was clearly about the T/O because after the hawks' used it he has another exact same rant to the ref.

If they don't tell the Hawks they have a time out, then it really doesn't change the game. They take 4 shots, and you know what, maybe they score on the first play passing, you never know.

The call was only significant because everyone except the fans (and maybe the cards coaching staff) thought they had 0 left and after the run it would seem as though the hawks would be in a terrible position.In reality it wasn't a big deal if they didn't award the hawks a time out, just don't tell them they have one.


They take 4 shots? Do you even know when the timeout was called? It was after a 1-2 yard run by Marshawn Lynch on 1st down. Without the timeout, you only get 3 shots and that's if they run a hurry up play that takes an average of about 8-12 seconds to get off. If you spike the ball there and re-group (Which is why Carroll called the fake timeout in the first place, to re-group) you only get 2 shots.

The timeout changed everything. And you'd never have 4 additional shots.


Read carefully, perhaps something might click..
I said, if we didn't have the time out awarded it wouldn't really have changed the game. Instead of a run and 3 passes it would have been 4 passes. In that event it may have been a better outcome for us.


LOL, now YOU read carefully:

You wouldn't have had 1 run and 3 passes or 4 passes because the timeout was incorrectly awarded AFTER you already ran your 1st down play, a 1-2 yard run by Marshawn Lynch.

I ask again, do you know when the timeout was called?


I am on the verge of using language that I am not accustomed to using, but I will abstain. However, the one word I will use for you is ignorant. You are completely ignorant to the situation.


So are you it appears, as you appear not to care that we weren't informed that you (Incorrectly...) had 1 timeout left.

Frankly, that whole situation is even more ridiculous than actually getting the timeout. You tell Pete Carroll but you don't tell Ken Whisenhunt? Nevermind the fact that Whiz is on the competition committee and not only knows the rules up and down but votes on their implementation, you can't tell Pete Carroll he has a timeout and allow him to strategize with that in mind and then not tell our head coach. That's why all of our players were yelling at the refs after that run by Lynch, they all thought Seattle was out of timeouts.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
outside_Insider


Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 1218
Location: Calgary, AB
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stchamp98 wrote:
outside_Insider wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
outside_Insider wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
outside_Insider wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
outside_Insider wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
C-Hawkin' wrote:
Nothing personal to you, but SOS doesn't always mean Save Our Sonics- in this case it refers to the playcalling/performance of the offense. A little basic math may illustrate.... Red Zone opps X FG's =/= W's.
I havent seen any mention of the replacement refs (tho I didn't read all 29 pages of comments). That shot Wilson took in the back was LONG after the ball was gone. The LB didn't pull up & that damn sure shoulda been roughing.[/code]


I'd say that last timeout kinda whipes out any bad call that went against you.


Head official has already come out and said he made the wrong call there.


Not exactly. The time out was inconsequential. We didn't need the time out- had we scored on the running play, then I may have to agree with you.


The Seahawks were told that timeout didn't count, so both the Cards, Refs, and Seahawks new they had 1 time out.


That's news to Ken Whisenhunt/The Arizona Cardinals:

"I went out there when the player was down in the end zone and said that is their last timeout, because a player injured in the last two minutes of the half ... if they have to stop play, they have to take their timeout," Whisenhunt said. "So I came back to the sideline thinking that they didn't have a timeout."

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/cardinals/articles/20120909arizona-cardinals-survive-timeout-gaffe-replacement-referees-seattle-seahawks.html


He's either lying, or the players new but he didn't. After they went to time out while Baldwin was grimacing on the sideline Peterson was yelling and throwing a tantrum with the refs for about 4-6 minutes and it was clearly about the T/O because after the hawks' used it he has another exact same rant to the ref.

If they don't tell the Hawks they have a time out, then it really doesn't change the game. They take 4 shots, and you know what, maybe they score on the first play passing, you never know.

The call was only significant because everyone except the fans (and maybe the cards coaching staff) thought they had 0 left and after the run it would seem as though the hawks would be in a terrible position.In reality it wasn't a big deal if they didn't award the hawks a time out, just don't tell them they have one.


They take 4 shots? Do you even know when the timeout was called? It was after a 1-2 yard run by Marshawn Lynch on 1st down. Without the timeout, you only get 3 shots and that's if they run a hurry up play that takes an average of about 8-12 seconds to get off. If you spike the ball there and re-group (Which is why Carroll called the fake timeout in the first place, to re-group) you only get 2 shots.

The timeout changed everything. And you'd never have 4 additional shots.


Read carefully, perhaps something might click..
I said, if we didn't have the time out awarded it wouldn't really have changed the game. Instead of a run and 3 passes it would have been 4 passes. In that event it may have been a better outcome for us.


LOL, now YOU read carefully:

You wouldn't have had 1 run and 3 passes or 4 passes because the timeout was incorrectly awarded AFTER you already ran your 1st down play, a 1-2 yard run by Marshawn Lynch.

I ask again, do you know when the timeout was called?


I am on the verge of using language that I am not accustomed to using, but I will abstain. However, the one word I will use for you is ignorant. You are completely ignorant to the situation.


So are you it appears, as you appear not to care that we weren't informed that you (Incorrectly...) had 1 timeout left.

Frankly, that whole situation is even more ridiculous than actually getting the timeout. You tell Pete Carroll but you don't tell Ken Whisenhunt? Nevermind the fact that Whiz is on the competition committee and not only knows the rules up and down but votes on their implementation, you can't tell Pete Carroll he has a timeout and allow him to strategize with that in mind and then not tell our head coach. That's why all of our players were yelling at the refs after that run by Lynch, they all thought Seattle was out of timeouts.


I completely agree. If they failed to inform Whiz then that was a big error- and it would have been even bigger if we had scored on the running play. Obviously Whiz wouldn't think that we would run it with 0 time outs- that would have been the biggest error. However, we didn't and so I'm saying that in actuality with how the game turned out, we could have been just as good without the time out going 1st and goal from the 6.

The time out could have been a much bigger issue than it was if we had scored on the 1st and goal.
_________________


"We all we got, we all we need"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
outside_Insider


Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 1218
Location: Calgary, AB
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In summary:

The final distinction I'm trying to make can be made from looking at both scenarios.

If the refs had called the game properly the following would have occurred:

Seattle would have had 1st and goal from the 6 with 0 time outs. They would have thrown 4 times and the outcome may or may not have changed.

Arizona would not have had 2 drives extended due to bull S*** PI calls on Sherm. Both of these calls resulted in points. If you take them away the Cardinals would have had at least 3 points taken off the board allowing the Hawks to attempt a FG try from the 6 or 15 yard line.
_________________


"We all we got, we all we need"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sacks98


Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 3948
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for explaining hdshot and mco65.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stchamp98


Most Valuable Poster (3rd Ballot)

Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 52979
Location: Havre, Montana
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

outside_Insider wrote:
In summary:

The final distinction I'm trying to make can be made from looking at both scenarios.

If the refs had called the game properly the following would have occurred:

Seattle would have had 1st and goal from the 6 with 0 time outs. They would have thrown 4 times and the outcome may or may not have changed.

Arizona would not have had 2 drives extended due to bull S*** PI calls on Sherm. Both of these calls resulted in points. If you take them away the Cardinals would have had at least 3 points taken off the board allowing the Hawks to attempt a FG try from the 6 or 15 yard line.


No, no, no. The only way you guys got to the 6-15 yard line is because you went for it on 4th down at the Cardinals 27 yard line (Where Patrick Peterson was called for an equally absurd PI call). If you were thinking field goal there, you wouldn't have gone for it on 4th down and would have kicked from 44 yards out, where you may or may not have it. We'd already blocked 1 field goal from just 5 yards further. Hauschka missed 3 kicks from within 45 yards last season.

In essence, that poor call on Sherman is no different than what you classify the timeout debacle to be. A bad call that may or may not have changed anything.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
outside_Insider


Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 1218
Location: Calgary, AB
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The yardage was besides the point...I didn't say "we would have won". I just said we would have been able to attempt a FG for the win at worst.

He may have missed 3 last season but how many did he make? SMH
_________________


"We all we got, we all we need"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stchamp98


Most Valuable Poster (3rd Ballot)

Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 52979
Location: Havre, Montana
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

outside_Insider wrote:
The yardage was besides the point...I didn't say "we would have won". I just said we would have been able to attempt a FG for the win at worst.

He may have missed 3 last season but how many did he make? SMH


There's a huge difference between a 23-32 yard field goal and a 44 yard field goal, especially when you've got to work around Calais Campbell.

One of those misses from 2011 was, surprise, surprise, a blocked kick in Arizona. Patrick Peterson off the edge. 2 blocks in our stadium on what, 5 kicks? I like those odds.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SaveourSonics


Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 45415
Location: Sleepless in Seattle
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I didn't think it was going to come back and bite us at the time, but that blocked field goal was huge. Take away that OR the stupid backward pass by Wilson and we take that game.

No question in my mind we beat them in Seattle.
_________________
'
Richard D!ck Sherman 4 Prez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
TheDudeAbides


Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Posts: 401
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Plenty of poor officiating that impacted that game on both sides of the ball. This wasn't SBXL - the overall affect upon the game itself was probably negligible, as I viewed the poor calls to be pretty evenly split between teams.

Poor Offensive Line play (in combination with very good Defensive Line play by Arizona) lost this game - our guys were simply dominated at the line of scrimmage yesterday. This is a run-first team with a QB who's played VERY limited reps with the 1s... this was the blueprint for how to beat us - take advantage of a young OLine with your confusing looks, stunts and blitz packages and wait for the mistakes. The Cards did this and it completely disrupted our squad. We lost a *close* game by 4.

I believe that if these two teams play 10 games - 5 in Phoenix, 5 in Seattle - The Hawks probably win 7 or 8, but Arizona was the better squad yesterday. Or, maybe more accurately, the less-crappy squad, heh. I doubt Cards fans felt as if their team put up their best effort either...

Grats on a tough win, Arizona... and I hope Skelton's prognosis is good and that you find a solution at QB. This could become quite a fun division to watch with an up and coming team in the desert.
_________________


TommyC376 on the Sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hawkman98272


Joined: 02 Jan 2009
Posts: 18812
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stchamp98 wrote:
outside_Insider wrote:
In summary:

The final distinction I'm trying to make can be made from looking at both scenarios.

If the refs had called the game properly the following would have occurred:

Seattle would have had 1st and goal from the 6 with 0 time outs. They would have thrown 4 times and the outcome may or may not have changed.

Arizona would not have had 2 drives extended due to bull S*** PI calls on Sherm. Both of these calls resulted in points. If you take them away the Cardinals would have had at least 3 points taken off the board allowing the Hawks to attempt a FG try from the 6 or 15 yard line.


No, no, no. The only way you guys got to the 6-15 yard line is because you went for it on 4th down at the Cardinals 27 yard line (Where Patrick Peterson was called for an equally absurd PI call). If you were thinking field goal there, you wouldn't have gone for it on 4th down and would have kicked from 44 yards out, where you may or may not have it. We'd already blocked 1 field goal from just 5 yards further. Hauschka missed 3 kicks from within 45 yards last season.

In essence, that poor call on Sherman is no different than what you classify the timeout debacle to be. A bad call that may or may not have changed anything.
Not sure if serious.

Peterson was all over the guy.
_________________

IDOG_det

#JDI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Seattle Seahawks All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 33, 34, 35, 36, 37  Next
Page 34 of 37

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group