S.O.S. =

[Brian in Boston]

Same Old Seahawks.

As a die-hard Seahawks fan, I was having a difficult time convincing friends of mine that I thought the team was going to take a step back this season, before improving more next year. I based that upon the fact that they compiled their 10 and 6 record last year playing one of the league's easiest shedules. Then, national media types started jumping on our bandwagon after the Seahawks' 3-0 start, despite the fact that the wins came against "weak-sister" teams. Bottom line? While I was happy enough that my favorite team was undefeated, I wasn't exactly booking a flight to Jacksonville.

Still, to see the team roll over and play dead the way they did down the stretch today was a bitter pill to swallow. I'm sick to death of Mike Holmgren's penchant for coaching "not to lose", rather than coaching "to win". He and Ray Rhodes were both completely out-coached at half-time of this game. The Seahawks' "brain trust" lost the "chess match" at half-time. Mike Martz and the Rams' coaching staff made adjustments that Holmgren and Rhodes completely mishandled.

In fact, the irony is that Holmgren and Rhodes really didn't have to change up what they were doing in the first half. In today's game, the best adjustments to make were... none at all. On offense, the Seahawks simply had to continue mixing it up. But no! Holmgren went into his conservative, "small ball", "let's try running out the clock", "we've got a 17-point lead to protect" offense the minute the second-half started. Rhodes decided top play the Prevent Defense for the entire 4th quarter... even after he'd been burned doing it twice in 6 minutes. End result? The 'Hawks offense found themselves facing third-and-long time and time again in the second half. Hmmm... I wonder if the Rams knew the 'Hawks were going to be forced to pass in that situation? The Seattle defense got torched deep. Brilliant guys... just brilliant.

And don't even get me started about the fact that Holmgren can't manage to "coach his way out of a paper bag" after the bye week affords him two weeks of preparation. Or the fact that he still hasn't managed to instill any discipline into a receiving corps that routinely underachieves. I can't wait until Paul Allen cans his fat a$$!

The Seahawks squad that showed up out there today will get crushed next week in New England, which will put them at 3 and 2. Frankly, I think that they'll have a tough time finishing 10 and 6 this season. I'm betting that they go 9 and 7, tops. That loss today completely revitalized a demoralized St. Louis Rams team. I'm betting that the Rams take the division title now. We have NO CHANCE of beating them in St. Louis... not playing the way we did today.

Everybody crowed about how Seattle had already won more road games this year then they had all of last season. Well, we've now LOST MORE HOME GAMES than we did all of last season.

I'll be a die-hard Seahawks fan until the day they put me in the ground, but there's no way that this squad is one of the NFL's "elite" teams.

[See Red]

That was embarassing today. I completely agree with Mike Homgren coaching 'not to lose' rather than coaching to win. It's kinda funny that they played conservative until they tried passing on their final drive when the Rams had no timeouts, and the incompletion or two ended up helping the Rams.

You just had to have that feeling that once the Rams scored to cut the lead to 3, that they were going to win that football game.

On this note, I never really agreed with the 'prevent defense'. And it goes along with the 'coaching not to lose' thing. I've seen too many teams blow games because they give up a game tieing FG because they're afraid to give up a TD. The way I see it -- why go into a prevent defense when what you've been doing the entire game has worked? It's kinda senseless to go away from what has worked all game.

[STL FANATIC]

The Rams certainly made me excited with that comeback today, and I realized I really don't like the Seahawks, so that makes it five games I care about winning (SF, SF, NE, SEA, SEA).

However, the Rams really aren't a very good team, so while they may get pumped up and beat the Seahawks again, I wouldn't be surprised to see Seattle take the division.

[Brian in Boston]

Well, given that the Rams are now 3 and 0 in the division, should they be able to beat Seattle in St. Louis... I'd say that will pretty much give them the division title. After all, it would make us 1 and 2 in the division. Even if the 'Hawks swept two games from the Cardinals and beat the 49ers in San Francisco, that would mean that the best they could finish in the division would be 4 and 2. The way I see things playing out, the worst the Rams can finish in the division is 4 and 2. However, St. Louis would win the NFC West based on head-to-head.

The loss yesterday was the type of set-back that derails entire seasons.

[yh]

Brian, (or any other Seahawks fan that wishes to chime in) do you think it would have been better for Holmgren and Rhodes to have used a blitz-heavy package on the final series rather than play the prevent? In my analysis, I think they would have been better off giving up the deep field coverage and concentrating on either sacking Bulger or forcing a bad throw. The guy had three interceptions on the day, so in my mind the additional pressure would have been a better bet in preventing a completed pass than throwing a bunch of guys downfield.

And don't be too down on the Hawks right now. They certainly had a bad second half but two quarters or so doth not a season make. They are still a tough team to beat at home and frankly, unless the Rams have really turned a corner with this game, I think they're still very vulnerable, especially with the challenging schedule they continue to face. I would fully expect the Seahawks to bring their "A" game into next week's contest against the Pats and put on a good show. I look forward to watching that game.

[See Red]

The pathetic thing in all of this is that Jackson has more dropped passes than he does receptions (13) this year.

I figured the Seahawks would get over their habit of dropping balls, as it costed them a lot lats season, especially in OT against the Packers -- but I guess I was wrong.

[STL FANATIC]

Well, given that the Rams are now 3 and 0 in the division, should they be able to beat Seattle in St. Louis... I'd say that will pretty much give them the division title. After all, it would make us 1 and 2 in the division. Even if the 'Hawks swept two games from the Cardinals and beat the 49ers in San Francisco, that would mean that the best they could finish in the division would be 4 and 2. The way I see things playing out, the worst the Rams can finish in the division is 4 and 2. However, St. Louis would win the NFC West based on head-to-head.

The loss yesterday was the type of set-back that derails entire seasons.

See BiB, your looking at the stats that matter if they have an identitical record. I'm not so sure the Rams are gonna be able to end up with as many wins as the Seahawks overall when all is said and done.

[DarthMan]

I watched the game and the Seahawks just looked awful! At the end, their prevent was really bad.

Oh well. Eagles- now the default best team in the NFC!

[Gary]

it's kinda like saying same ol' Cardinals, it will never change

[Brian in Boston]

See BiB, your looking at the stats that matter if they have an identitical record. I'm not so sure the Rams are gonna be able to end up with as many wins as the Seahawks overall when all is said and done.

Yeah, I know. And I also haven't looked at the St. Louis Rams' entire schedule. However, what I do know is this: IMHO, the Seahawks will finish no better than 10 - 6 this season... and I wouldn't be shocked if we ended up 8 - 8. I mean, I only see five more wins that I'm confident of the rest of the way. I also see five games that I consider losses as I sit here right now.

I mean, look at the nature of that loss yesterday... the receiving corps continued penchant to drop catchable balls... Holmgren's conservative tendencies and inability to instill any sense of responsibility for consistent play in this team. With all that taken into consideration, this is how I look at the schedule the rest of the way:

10/17 @ New England = LOSS (3 - 2)... No way they beat Pats in Foxboro.

10/24 @ Arizona = WIN (4 - 2)... A win, but I'm not convinced it will be easy.

10/31 Carolina = WIN (5 -2) or LOSS (4 - 3)... IMHO, this is too close to call.

11/7 @ San Francisco = WIN (6 - 2 or 5 - 3)... Should handle 49ers.

11/14 @ St. Louis = LOSS (6 - 3 or 5 - 4)... I don't see us winning there after yesterday.

11/21 Miami = WIN (7 - 3 or 6 - 4)... Should handle the Dolphins at home.

11/28 Buffalo = WIN (8 - 3 or 7 - 4)... I think we can rattle Bledsoe.

12/6 Dallas = LOSS (8 - 4 or 7 - 5)... I see Parcells figuring out a way to win on the road.

12/12 @ Minnesota = LOSS (8 - 5 or 7 - 6)... I see their offense torching us.

12/19 @ New York Jets = LOSS (8 - 6 or 7 - 7)... A brutal place to play late in the year.

12/26 Arizona = WIN (9 - 6 or 8 - 7)... If we can't win this one, we're worse than I think.

1/2 Atlanta = WIN or LOSS (10 - 6, 9 -7 or 8 - 8)... Right now, IMHO it's a toss up.

Yesterday was the type of loss that comes back to haunt teams.

[Brian in Boston]

Brian, (or any other Seahawks fan that wishes to chime in) do you think it would have been better for Holmgren and Rhodes to have used a blitz-heavy package on the final series rather than play the prevent? In my analysis, I think they would have been better off giving up the deep field coverage and concentrating on either sacking Bulger or forcing a bad throw. The guy had three interceptions on the day, so in my mind the additional pressure would have been a better bet in preventing a completed pass than throwing a bunch of guys downfield.

I think that offensively, Holmgren tried to run out the clock with 30 minutes of football left to be played. He got far too conservative with his play calling far too early in the second half. He coached "not to lose", rather than coaching "to win". Then, when his back started to get pressed to the wall by the Rams' come back, he panicked and exacerbated his initially conservative play-calling mistake by throwing the ball when he should have been trying to run out the clock.

Defensively, Rhodes went into what amounted to a prevent defense with 15 minutes of football left to be played.

Bottom line? Both coaches got away from what had staked the Seahawks to the lead to begin with. Sometimes the best half-time adjustment is no half-time adjustment. Do what worked in the first half until its proven not to be working anymore. Questionable coaching, along with too many dropped balls by the receivers and piss-poor coverage by the DBs late is going to add up to a loss just about all of the time... unless your opponent is flat-out horrible. The Rams aren't that bad, so we sustained a loss where we could ill-afford to have one.

[See Red]

I think you're right on on most of those. But I'd give the 'Hawks more credit against Carolina. If nothing else, Shaun Alexander should have a great game unless that Panthers d-line can quit being underachievers.

[Brian in Boston]

I think you're right on on most of those. But I'd give the 'Hawks more credit against Carolina. If nothing else, Shaun Alexander should have a great game unless that Panthers d-line can quit being underachievers.

So... like I said, either 10 and 6 or 9 and 7.

[TFoA]

I'm sick to death of Mike Holmgren's penchant for coaching "not to lose", rather than coaching "to win". He and Ray Rhodes were both completely out-coached at half-time of this game. The Seahawks' "brain trust" lost the "chess match" at half-time. Mike Martz and the Rams' coaching staff made adjustments that Holmgren and Rhodes completely mishandled.

I saw the end of that game, and I was shocked.. It's bad when you don't have the killer instinct to bury a team when they are down 17 with 5 minutes left to go, and its even worse if you get outcoached by of all people in the NFL, Mike Martz

[See Red]

Here's the remainder of the Rams schedule

Mon. Oct. 18  Buccaneers 8 pm ABC*   
Sun. Oct. 24  @ Dolphins 12 pm FOX   
Sun. Oct. 31 BYE BYE BYE   
Sun. Nov. 7  Patriots 3:15 pm CBS*   
Sun. Nov. 14   Seahawks 12 pm FOX   
Sun. Nov. 21  @ Bills 12 pm FOX   
Mon. Nov. 29  @ Packers 8 pm ABC*   
Sun. Dec. 5   49ers 12 pm FOX   
Sun. Dec. 12  @ Panthers 3:15 pm FOX   
Sun. Dec. 19  @ Cardinals 3:05 pm FOX   
Mon. Dec. 27   Eagles 8 pm ABC*   
Sun. Jan. 2   Jets 12 pm CBS 

Not a very tough schedule aside from 3 games or so, atleast they get the Jets and Eagles at home. Actually.. all their games against good opponents are at home.

I can definetely see it coming down to it being a tie and the best division record taking the division. Whichever team loses, however, will probably get a Wildcard spot.

I'd say the Rams are definetely looking at the somewhere between 11-5 and 9-7, too, most likely probably 10-6, in my opinion.

[STL FANATIC]

This Rams team just hasn't decided how they are gonna play this year...I can see them ranging from 7-9 to 11-5...

[Brian in Boston]

The problem for the Seahawks is that squeaking in as a Wild Card does them absolutely no good. What they needed to do was win the NFC West, and hope that the fact that they were competing in a weaker division than the NFC East would translate into finishing with a better record than the Eagles. The Seahawks desperately need - no, REQUIRE - home field throughout the playoffs. Otherwise, they are "one and out".