| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TheOsprey
Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 6526
Location: In a van, down by the river.
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 3:17 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| If this team scored more points, I doubt we'd even be bringing up talk of a new DC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sacks98
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 3507
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TheOsprey wrote: | | If this team scored more points, I doubt we'd even be bringing up talk of a new DC. |
Doubtful because there is still that glaring 3rd down weakness and the inability to get after the QB on the road.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tooki
Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 9563
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Sacks98 wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | If this team scored more points, I doubt we'd even be bringing up talk of a new DC. |
Doubtful because there is still that glaring 3rd down weakness and the inability to get after the QB on the road. |
I wasn't cheery when Pete decided to keep Gus Bradley. I felt like he deserved a chance only because he is a young co-ordinator and didn't have much time with this team. He has shown in 3 years that he isn't going to utilise the talent that he has to play with.
If he can fix the 3rd down calls and learn how to adjust, I will be happy with that. His 1st/2nd down playcalling is good enough for the most part.
Now offensively? It has gotten better. Our right side of the line is failing badly and isn't executing. Our penalties are also getting a (bit) better.
_________________
| sp6488 wrote: | | If the Chiefs finish ahead of the Ravens in the standings I will eat a printed copy of the standings. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheOsprey
Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 6526
Location: In a van, down by the river.
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Sacks98 wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | If this team scored more points, I doubt we'd even be bringing up talk of a new DC. |
Doubtful because there is still that glaring 3rd down weakness and the inability to get after the QB on the road. |
Think again. It's all about how many points you give up. Right now we are only giving up an average of 16.7 points per game. Third downs or not, that is very good. There is no excuse for us to have a 4-4 record when we're only giving up that many points a game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tooki
Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 9563
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TheOsprey wrote: | | Sacks98 wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | If this team scored more points, I doubt we'd even be bringing up talk of a new DC. |
Doubtful because there is still that glaring 3rd down weakness and the inability to get after the QB on the road. |
Think again. It's all about how many points you give up. Right now we are only giving up an average of 16.7 points per game. Third downs or not, that is very good. There is no excuse for us to have a 4-4 record when we're only giving up that many points a game. |
This is where the eye test comes handy. There is no excuse for a D that can stop plays well on 1st and 2nd down to give up so many plays on 3rd down. You can't sugar coat it with how we only give up 16.7 points per game.
_________________
| sp6488 wrote: | | If the Chiefs finish ahead of the Ravens in the standings I will eat a printed copy of the standings. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheOsprey
Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 6526
Location: In a van, down by the river.
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Tooki wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | Sacks98 wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | If this team scored more points, I doubt we'd even be bringing up talk of a new DC. |
Doubtful because there is still that glaring 3rd down weakness and the inability to get after the QB on the road. |
Think again. It's all about how many points you give up. Right now we are only giving up an average of 16.7 points per game. Third downs or not, that is very good. There is no excuse for us to have a 4-4 record when we're only giving up that many points a game. |
This is where the eye test comes handy. There is no excuse for a D that can stop plays well on 1st and 2nd down to give up so many plays on 3rd down. You can't sugar coat it with how we only give up 16.7 points per game. |
I'm not saying that 3rd downs aren't a problem. They are, but for God's sake, football comes down to points. You have to outscore your opponents and when the defense is only allowing 16.7 points a game, that means the bulk of the problems are on offense. We just aren't scoring enough points. That is a fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tooki
Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 9563
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TheOsprey wrote: | | Tooki wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | Sacks98 wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | If this team scored more points, I doubt we'd even be bringing up talk of a new DC. |
Doubtful because there is still that glaring 3rd down weakness and the inability to get after the QB on the road. |
Think again. It's all about how many points you give up. Right now we are only giving up an average of 16.7 points per game. Third downs or not, that is very good. There is no excuse for us to have a 4-4 record when we're only giving up that many points a game. |
This is where the eye test comes handy. There is no excuse for a D that can stop plays well on 1st and 2nd down to give up so many plays on 3rd down. You can't sugar coat it with how we only give up 16.7 points per game. |
I'm not saying that 3rd downs aren't a problem. They are, but for God's sake, football comes down to points. You have to outscore your opponents and when the defense is only allowing 16.7 points a game, that means the bulk of the problems are on offense. We just aren't scoring enough points. That is a fact. |
It's all good and well that we can stop points from being scored, but our average has gone up a bit in the past couple of weeks. If you can consistently stop teams on 3rd down, that is going to remove a lot of scoring opportunities for teams. The O is definitely to blame though. The less time that the opposing O has on the ball, the better.
_________________
| sp6488 wrote: | | If the Chiefs finish ahead of the Ravens in the standings I will eat a printed copy of the standings. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheOsprey
Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 6526
Location: In a van, down by the river.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Tooki wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | Tooki wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | Sacks98 wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | If this team scored more points, I doubt we'd even be bringing up talk of a new DC. |
Doubtful because there is still that glaring 3rd down weakness and the inability to get after the QB on the road. |
Think again. It's all about how many points you give up. Right now we are only giving up an average of 16.7 points per game. Third downs or not, that is very good. There is no excuse for us to have a 4-4 record when we're only giving up that many points a game. |
This is where the eye test comes handy. There is no excuse for a D that can stop plays well on 1st and 2nd down to give up so many plays on 3rd down. You can't sugar coat it with how we only give up 16.7 points per game. |
I'm not saying that 3rd downs aren't a problem. They are, but for God's sake, football comes down to points. You have to outscore your opponents and when the defense is only allowing 16.7 points a game, that means the bulk of the problems are on offense. We just aren't scoring enough points. That is a fact. |
It's all good and well that we can stop points from being scored, but our average has gone up a bit in the past couple of weeks. If you can consistently stop teams on 3rd down, that is going to remove a lot of scoring opportunities for teams. The O is definitely to blame though. The less time that the opposing O has on the ball, the better. |
Since football is all about scoring, there are only two stats that really matter.
Seattle ranks 27th in the league in points scored per game.
Seattle ranks 3rd in the NFL in points allowed per game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tooki
Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 9563
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TheOsprey wrote: | | Tooki wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | Tooki wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | Sacks98 wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | If this team scored more points, I doubt we'd even be bringing up talk of a new DC. |
Doubtful because there is still that glaring 3rd down weakness and the inability to get after the QB on the road. |
Think again. It's all about how many points you give up. Right now we are only giving up an average of 16.7 points per game. Third downs or not, that is very good. There is no excuse for us to have a 4-4 record when we're only giving up that many points a game. |
This is where the eye test comes handy. There is no excuse for a D that can stop plays well on 1st and 2nd down to give up so many plays on 3rd down. You can't sugar coat it with how we only give up 16.7 points per game. |
I'm not saying that 3rd downs aren't a problem. They are, but for God's sake, football comes down to points. You have to outscore your opponents and when the defense is only allowing 16.7 points a game, that means the bulk of the problems are on offense. We just aren't scoring enough points. That is a fact. |
It's all good and well that we can stop points from being scored, but our average has gone up a bit in the past couple of weeks. If you can consistently stop teams on 3rd down, that is going to remove a lot of scoring opportunities for teams. The O is definitely to blame though. The less time that the opposing O has on the ball, the better. |
Since football is all about scoring, there are only two stats that really matter.
Seattle ranks 27th in the league in points scored per game.
Seattle ranks 3rd in the NFL in points allowed per game. |
I'm not denying that that it's an unimportant stat. But 6 games isn't enough to give me a good scope on this D. A lot of people were quick to say that we finally have a pass rush, but it has disappeared and gone back to what it was last year.
If we can stop teams from converting 3rd downs, that will go a long long way.
_________________
| sp6488 wrote: | | If the Chiefs finish ahead of the Ravens in the standings I will eat a printed copy of the standings. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheOsprey
Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 6526
Location: In a van, down by the river.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Tooki wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | Tooki wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | Tooki wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | Sacks98 wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | If this team scored more points, I doubt we'd even be bringing up talk of a new DC. |
Doubtful because there is still that glaring 3rd down weakness and the inability to get after the QB on the road. |
Think again. It's all about how many points you give up. Right now we are only giving up an average of 16.7 points per game. Third downs or not, that is very good. There is no excuse for us to have a 4-4 record when we're only giving up that many points a game. |
This is where the eye test comes handy. There is no excuse for a D that can stop plays well on 1st and 2nd down to give up so many plays on 3rd down. You can't sugar coat it with how we only give up 16.7 points per game. |
I'm not saying that 3rd downs aren't a problem. They are, but for God's sake, football comes down to points. You have to outscore your opponents and when the defense is only allowing 16.7 points a game, that means the bulk of the problems are on offense. We just aren't scoring enough points. That is a fact. |
It's all good and well that we can stop points from being scored, but our average has gone up a bit in the past couple of weeks. If you can consistently stop teams on 3rd down, that is going to remove a lot of scoring opportunities for teams. The O is definitely to blame though. The less time that the opposing O has on the ball, the better. |
Since football is all about scoring, there are only two stats that really matter.
Seattle ranks 27th in the league in points scored per game.
Seattle ranks 3rd in the NFL in points allowed per game. |
I'm not denying that that it's an unimportant stat. But 6 games isn't enough to give me a good scope on this D. A lot of people were quick to say that we finally have a pass rush, but it has disappeared and gone back to what it was last year.
If we can stop teams from converting 3rd downs, that will go a long long way. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tooki
Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 9563
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TheOsprey wrote: | | Tooki wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | Tooki wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | Tooki wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | Sacks98 wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | If this team scored more points, I doubt we'd even be bringing up talk of a new DC. |
Doubtful because there is still that glaring 3rd down weakness and the inability to get after the QB on the road. |
Think again. It's all about how many points you give up. Right now we are only giving up an average of 16.7 points per game. Third downs or not, that is very good. There is no excuse for us to have a 4-4 record when we're only giving up that many points a game. |
This is where the eye test comes handy. There is no excuse for a D that can stop plays well on 1st and 2nd down to give up so many plays on 3rd down. You can't sugar coat it with how we only give up 16.7 points per game. |
I'm not saying that 3rd downs aren't a problem. They are, but for God's sake, football comes down to points. You have to outscore your opponents and when the defense is only allowing 16.7 points a game, that means the bulk of the problems are on offense. We just aren't scoring enough points. That is a fact. |
It's all good and well that we can stop points from being scored, but our average has gone up a bit in the past couple of weeks. If you can consistently stop teams on 3rd down, that is going to remove a lot of scoring opportunities for teams. The O is definitely to blame though. The less time that the opposing O has on the ball, the better. |
Since football is all about scoring, there are only two stats that really matter.
Seattle ranks 27th in the league in points scored per game.
Seattle ranks 3rd in the NFL in points allowed per game. |
I'm not denying that that it's an unimportant stat. But 6 games isn't enough to give me a good scope on this D. A lot of people were quick to say that we finally have a pass rush, but it has disappeared and gone back to what it was last year.
If we can stop teams from converting 3rd downs, that will go a long long way. |
|
What is facepalm worthy?
The topic of this discussion is Gus Bradley, and just because our D is scoring less than 20 points doesn't mean that he should keep his job. He is horrible at making adjustments and our 3rd down D is amongst the worst in the league. If Gus could even improve one of those things, I would give him another year.
There is no excuse for a defense with as much talent (and production) as ours to be so abysmal on 3rd down. And the top D's can consistently take teams off the field on 3rd downs. The Texans, Niners and Bears defenses can do that much better than we can.
_________________
| sp6488 wrote: | | If the Chiefs finish ahead of the Ravens in the standings I will eat a printed copy of the standings. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheOsprey
Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 6526
Location: In a van, down by the river.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Tooki wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | Tooki wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | Tooki wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | Tooki wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | Sacks98 wrote: | | TheOsprey wrote: | | If this team scored more points, I doubt we'd even be bringing up talk of a new DC. |
Doubtful because there is still that glaring 3rd down weakness and the inability to get after the QB on the road. |
Think again. It's all about how many points you give up. Right now we are only giving up an average of 16.7 points per game. Third downs or not, that is very good. There is no excuse for us to have a 4-4 record when we're only giving up that many points a game. |
This is where the eye test comes handy. There is no excuse for a D that can stop plays well on 1st and 2nd down to give up so many plays on 3rd down. You can't sugar coat it with how we only give up 16.7 points per game. |
I'm not saying that 3rd downs aren't a problem. They are, but for God's sake, football comes down to points. You have to outscore your opponents and when the defense is only allowing 16.7 points a game, that means the bulk of the problems are on offense. We just aren't scoring enough points. That is a fact. |
It's all good and well that we can stop points from being scored, but our average has gone up a bit in the past couple of weeks. If you can consistently stop teams on 3rd down, that is going to remove a lot of scoring opportunities for teams. The O is definitely to blame though. The less time that the opposing O has on the ball, the better. |
Since football is all about scoring, there are only two stats that really matter.
Seattle ranks 27th in the league in points scored per game.
Seattle ranks 3rd in the NFL in points allowed per game. |
I'm not denying that that it's an unimportant stat. But 6 games isn't enough to give me a good scope on this D. A lot of people were quick to say that we finally have a pass rush, but it has disappeared and gone back to what it was last year.
If we can stop teams from converting 3rd downs, that will go a long long way. |
|
What is facepalm worthy?
The topic of this discussion is Gus Bradley, and just because our D is scoring less than 20 points doesn't mean that he should keep his job. He is horrible at making adjustments and our 3rd down D is amongst the worst in the league. If Gus could even improve one of those things, I would give him another year.
There is no excuse for a defense with as much talent (and production) as ours to be so abysmal on 3rd down. And the top D's can consistently take teams off the field on 3rd downs. The Texans, Niners and Bears defenses can do that much better than we can. |
The topic of the discussion was our Defensive Coordinator and our Offensive Coordinator. The fact that the offense is ranked 27th in the NFL in points per game, versus 3rd in the NFL when it comes to points allowed per game for the defense, should trump everything. Problems or not when it comes to the defensive side of the ball, a team that is 3rd in the NFL in points allowed per game, should NOT be 4-4. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tooki
Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 9563
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I want BOTH co-ordinators gone. I'm not denying that this team should be better than 4-4 as well.
But our D has no glaring issues: Lack of a pass rush and 3rd down D. The first part is more or less due to personnel. We only have pass rusher on the field in our base package. Second part? That's on playcalling. The D is good enough to stop teams on first and second down, but why not third down? Oh wait, we are constantly playing a soft zone, without any contact whatsoever. That's on the co-ordinator, who has failed to adjust our third down D, even though it's clearly not doing a good job at stopping teams.
_________________
| sp6488 wrote: | | If the Chiefs finish ahead of the Ravens in the standings I will eat a printed copy of the standings. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
union hawk fan
Joined: 13 Nov 2012
Posts: 317
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Figured I'd bump this after the poor job Bradley did today, if he is no longer with the seahawks next year would you guys rather promote from within like Ken Norton or hire someone? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tooki
Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 9563
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| union hawk fan wrote: | | Figured I'd bump this after the poor job Bradley did today, if he is no longer with the seahawks next year would you guys rather promote from within like Ken Norton or hire someone? |
I think that Ken Norton's attitude is exactly what the defense needs. I can't say if he will be a good co-ordinator though.
_________________
| sp6488 wrote: | | If the Chiefs finish ahead of the Ravens in the standings I will eat a printed copy of the standings. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
