Seahawks Win Weird Game Weirdly

Comments

1
Never before has a city wanted their quarterback to get laid quite so much as now.
2
The Seahawks need to make a huge trade for an offensive center. How about Tyler Lockett for a veteran center. Any veteran center! Our offensive line looks like a fraternity intramural entry from an Ivy League school.
3
@2: But if they did not make that Unger/Graham deal, who else would replace Graham's production of two catches and 20 some yards per game?

In fine NFL tradition, the Lions got screwed by officials who either were unfamiliar with the rules, or did not feel like applying them in certain situations. This happens to them constantly, it is kind of comical at this point. Poor bastards, they try so hard.

Along with what may have been the worse pass blocking I have ever seen, Seattle fans should be concerned that they have only looked good against the league's worst teams, and barely put away the 0-4 Lions, needing the refs to completely blow a huge call for them to do so. Not a good look, but the defense looks worlds better with Chancellor back there.

Good thing he folded his cards when his hand was at its strongest.
4
mediocre receiving corps (Baldwin included), crap o line. how they let this situation get past training camp baffles me. they simply don't have the horses to hang with the bengals this early in the season. field goals ain't going to cut it, and our D won't shut Cincy out on the road.

23-9.

ONE touchdown in the 1st half all season. yesterday, the offense had a net of 6 points.
5
As a New Englander, I remember last year -- a 2-2 record with a bad loss, a lucky win and lots of questions about our offensive line. People around here were ready to bench Brady. Sound familiar?

Then we were "on to Cincinnati" and suddenly looked unbeatable. It's your turn now.

You're still be the best team in the NFC. See you in February.
6
The best news for the Seahawks was the Rams beating Cardinals.

Not only did that drag down Arizona to within one game of us, but we have two games against them to get the lead.

The Rams winning vindicates our loss to them, that it is truly a tough team to beat, and we have to keep our eye out for them. Somewhat fortunately they seem expert at beating divisional teams and losing to everyone else.

7
Daryl Bevel has been the beneficiary of this teams success. During his tenure our only effective offense has been the result of having the two best players in the league at creating something out of nothing. Once again this team is asking way, way too much from the defense and they just keep delivering, regardless. It is hard to imagine how we muster enough from this offense to beat a loaded cincy team, but then again, if I was any other team, I would not want to play the Hawks this week. Sure, they won, but all they are going to hear all week is how lucky they were and how bad they are.

The catch 22 about these wins is that even though they expose the ineptitude of our offensive coordinator, losses are the only thing that will force the organizations hand to make the necessary change.
8
@6: in between beating Seattle & Arizona, the Rams lost to the Redskins and the Steelers, and scored a total of 16 points in those games. that un-vindicates our loss to them.
9
I think the Seahawks can keep winning with a thin offense and incredible defense, even against good teams. My real concern with the offensive line is not so much that they suck, but that the amount they suck forces Russell Wilson to take a lot of chances and a lot of hits. I'm worried he's either going to suffer a bad career-ending injury on one of each game's 4 or 5 sacks or 10 other big hits, or he's just going to accumulate damage to his body and train such that we're lucky to get more than a couple years out of him even if he avoids the big injury that could come at any time. If he plays like a running back, his longevity is going to look like a running back. And without Russell Wilson, even this defense wouldn't be able to avoid 10 or more losses each season.
10
@9: Also, Wilson fumbles a lot, it is just that he has had almost supernatural luck in the team recovering his fumbles (29 fumbles only 10 lost). That luck has to run out, such as the two lost fumbles to Detroit, which could have easily swung the game if Detroit's offense was consistant at all, Johnson simply held onto that ball, or had the refs called the play correctly.
11
Hey Stranger, you should post this comic I drew, which involves both Fanduel and the Oregon mass shooting.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQfExiMVAAAs…
12
This fantasy betting shit seems like it exploded out of nowhere—I don't care what people do with their money but can we please expose and punish* whatever asswipe legislator/lobbyist combo got this shit on the fast track legal so I can never see one of these ads again?

*I'm pretending that's a thing.
13
@12, AMEN!! Anyone with half a brain knows this fantasy crap will turn out to be a huge scam. I'm just waiting for the shit to hit the fan.
14
"I sensed the play was a violation, insofar as I twinged when it happened because whenever anything cool happens in the NFL that you don’t see very often, it’s usually an asinine and obscure penalty that will rob the viewer of the coolness they just witnessed."

Holy shit truest thing ever
15
now that I've read the stupid rule, I wonder: if wright had simply TRIED to grab it, but had run out of bounds before establishing possession, is that a "bat"? same effect; the ball would go over the end line after being fumbled without being possessed. a touchback.
16
Great win! Good call refs. Glad you didn't screw the Hawks. 17-2!
17
That's what 7-9 looks like folks!
18
@15: No, the bat has to be intentional, which is the excuse the ref used for not calling it, he did not think it was intentional.

Looking at the play, it is obvious to anyone it was intentional (player and coach confirmed as much later as well), so I find it more likely the ref was unfamiliar with the rule, but saying "I misinterpreted" is a lot better than saying "I didn't know."

@16: Almost as good a call as the "Fail Mary," right?
19
@18: Fail Mary was only a bad call because Golden Tate pushed off before he made the catch. But calling PI on a hail mary is as dumb as calling an illegal bat would've been on KJ Wright. Subjectivity has its place in the NFL.
20
@19: Um, how about no. Not calling a legitimate penalty just because it would spoil an exciting play? Why not do what the NBA does and not flag the superstars except for the most egregious violations?
21
@20: It only became a "legitimate penalty" when KJ Wright admitted (after the game) that he batted the ball. At the time, and at full speed, it was a judgement call by the ref. Erring on the side of "holy shit that was an amazing play by Kam Chancellor that probably shouldn't be negated by something I'm not sure I saw" is the right call.
22
@21: So your argument is that the wrong call is the right call? Does that only apply to Seattle?

The thing with subjectivity is that the rules essentially force the refs to make these judgement calls. When they make the wrong judgement call, it is still a mistake, regardless of it is benefits the team you like. Besides, everyone at home and at the game watching could see plain as day it was intentional. Huge blown call.
23
I would add though, that there is a rules problem here, which forces these "batting" rules to exist, and it is the idea that a fumble out of the endzone results in a turnover and touchback.

This makes no sense, as fumbles that go out of bounds unrecovered outside of the end zone simply act as dead balls, and possession does not change. This oddity forces the rules committee to make batting balls here illegal as it gives a huge advantage to the defense, and would allow "Holy Roller" plays for the offense.

The rule should be adjusted so that an unrecovered fumble out of the end zone is placed at the spot the runner lost control, and possession does not change. This removes the need to have it be illegal for defensive players to bat the ball out of the endzone. Takes out the subjectivity, and brings more consistency to the rule book.
24
@22: No. My argument is that it wasn't even a 50/50 call. The ball bounced off Wright and out of the end zone. That's a touchback. To say that everyone at the game could see "plain as day" that he batted the ball is absurd. But coming from you (a dude 3000 miles from the venue), not surprising.
25
@12: http://deadspin.com/the-daily-fantasy-ni…

I didn't know it was a penalty at the time, and I'm not sure if I could tell when I first saw the play that it was intentional, or if I just knew it was because the replay made it clear. I liked what someone said on Deadspin about it: it shouldn't have been called because it didn't make a difference, if he hadn't batted it the result would've been the same. If he tries to catch it instead and runs out, same thing happens, so it was just a coaching issue apparently...

Also, I'm a huge Pats fan, but fuck Rosevelt Colvin. You are why people hate us, not because we're good, but because we're assholes!