This matchup reminds me of that line from the classic movie Cassablanca about all the dames in all the gin joints; only in this case, I would say, "of all the teams in all the stadiums, in all the world, you had to come into this one."I say that because of all the teams that were in the NFC playoffs, the ONE AND ONLY team that I was hoping the Seahawks WOULDN'T have to play, is the Redskins.
I didn't want the Hawks to play the Skins because, the Skins were red hot coming into the playoffs, featuring a terrific running game, and one of the leagues best and most underrated defenses.
I didn't want the Hawks to play the Skins because matchup wise, of all the NFC teams the Skins probably match up the best against the Hawks. They match up well because they have that stout defense, which tends to keep them in every game. They match up well, because they have a veteran QB and a big time play maker WR in Santana Moss, who can convert third downs, and make big plays. They match up well because the Hawks play a bend don't break defense, and the Skins have the ingredients necessary to take advantage of that defensive style and convert third downs keeping drives alive long enough to make something happen.
I didn't want the Hawks to play the Skins, because they have a legend as a head coach, one who is terrific in the playoffs, and whose track record against Holmgren is more than impressive.
I didn't want the Hawks to play the Skins because they have a very good offensive line and the Seahawks, despite leading the league in sacks, still have a rather underwhelming pass rush.
Having said all of that, after watching the Skins play against both the Eagles, in a game they had to win to get into the playoffs, and against the Buccaneers in the first round, I am convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that the Hawks will win this game, possibly in a rout.
read the rest
Monkey, did you forget the MOST IMPORTANT key, which is TAKE CARE OF THE FOOTBALL!
ReplyDeleteNothing will take our fans out of the game quicker than a couple of quick picks or fumbles. Remember that the only reason Washington beat the Bucs is that their DEFENSE scored two TDs.
The MOST important thing is to take care of the football.
I'd also throw in do whatever's necessary to avoid coming off the bye week flat. We've only had recent success with these vacation weeks, so let's not fall into any bad habits.
We also need to disguise some coverages like Pittsburgh did with Cincy, where the guy appears to be covering one guy but peels off to cover the hot route. We need to win the turn over battle to be sure.
Posted by alba
To save time, I just posted my keys to the game on my own home page. Check them out HERE!
ReplyDeletePosted by Chuck Darby
The key to the Redskins defence is Cornelius Griffin. He is pretty much the rock their D-line flows around. His return from injury coincided with the start of their win streak.
ReplyDeleteIf our offensive line can get some push against him and keep him out of the backfield, then SA will run wild. If not... he'll still run wild, but it'll be alot closer game
Posted by maomatt
Like Mr. Skimmer I think the #1 key is no turnovers! Make them actually beat us--long fields and no cheap defensive scores.
ReplyDeleteThe #2 key is the Defense stopping them on 3rd down. Keep the TOP and # of plays even and it's over.
My dream key is a sweep to the left where Walt, Hutch, Mack all block Springs and Shaun purposely runs into him.
Posted by bokonon
I truly believe this: If the Seahawks control time of possesion and don't turn the ball over they will win regardless of what the defense does.
ReplyDeletePosted by sacaja-weezy
I truly believe this: if the 'Skins control time of possession, keeping the dangerous Seattle offense off the field, and get a couple of turn overs - both events being likely, based on the Redskins performances this year - then the game should be close in the 4th quarter. The margin should be 7 or less. And if that is the case? If the 'Skins and 'Hakws are within 7 points of one another, because of the above issues? 'Skins win - regardless of what Alexander does.
ReplyDelete:)
Posted by TrickyBuddha
Mr. Meezy bullseyed it, short and sweet.
ReplyDeleteNo turnovers, and hold on to the ball...if they (washington) dont force a ton of 3 and outs, they're in trouble
Seattle has a tendecy to strike first the last several weeks, and drive down field to open the game...if they strike fast...ride Shaun the rest of the game
Washington is gonna get a dose of the most balanced and overall best offense in the NFL, at full strength...unlike last time...they contain Shaun...Hass picks them apart, they contain Hass...Shaun runs over them
And someone tell Josh Brown to stop making comments that could motivate them! Yes Hass is a way better then Simms, but dont give them incentive
"if the 'Skins control time of possession, keeping the dangerous Seattle offense off the field, and get a couple of turn overs - both events being likely, based on the Redskins performances this year"
ReplyDeleteAre you aware of the Seahawks' performance this year, when it comes to giveaways, Tricky?
Posted by Bluefoot
"Are you aware of the Seahawks' performance this year, when it comes to giveaways, Tricky? " Thank you Mr. Foot. Nuff said.
ReplyDelete"featuring a terrific running game, and one of the leagues best and most underrated defenses." I think you're over-rating the running game and giving un-warranted props to the D. They have lots of yards because they run their horse, but TDs? Only against weak teams (that works for Shaun, should work for Portis too, right?) And underrated D? The Pats don't get respect either. Just my opinion.
Key 1. I don't know if normal QB pressure is the key, containment is important I think, not like Vick, but similar. The key is matching up men, if they choose max protect, send LBer's, if not, base coverage. And assign a man (Boulware) to Cooley.
Key 2. Blitz only LBer's. Or the corner on whoever isn't on Moss. I want the S in coverage for the most part.
Key 3. Absolutely. Crushing coverage. Ideally, if he's full speed, from Dyson. I think he moves better than Tru against the speedy guys. And roll S help. James Thrash (or whomever is #2) can go ahead and beat us. Good luck.
Key 4. I don't think its a concern. Is Portis a good runner, sure, is the Seattle D good at stopping the run? Yes. I don't see him springing any devastating runs.
O Key 1. Concur, the playcalling recently has been tremendous. You can't guess what is coming from any formation. 3 wide can be a run with this line and WR blocking, 1 wide and 2 TE can be 3 in pattern. There is no stopping this O when it rolls.
Final score prediction, Slurs 9, Good guys 34.
Posted by JoSCh
>>> Are you aware of the Seahawks' performance this year, when it comes to giveaways, Tricky? <<<
ReplyDeleteI'm totally aware. I can't remember exactly, but I think you guys average just over one give-away a game. 17 for the season, with 27 take-aways, if I got it right. That's definitely impressive.
The 'Skins, however, are one of the best teams in the league in forcing fumbles (recovering them has been another story), and are also pretty decent with getting interceptions. It's the ol' irresistible force versus the immovable object argument at play.
:)
>>> James Thrash (or whomever is #2) can go ahead and beat us. Good luck. <<<
Cooley would be our #2. Thrash/Jacobs is more of a #3 or maybe even a #4 - you might rank the RB or another TE up there as #3.
Posted by TrickyBuddha
Yep, Tricky. And if you throw out the first game against JAC, (5) it's been 12 in 15 games. Normally throwing a game out like that could be considered turning the blinders on, but there is reason to think that Hasselbeck learned a lot from that game, as illustrated by this article .
ReplyDeleteAnd props to your factual takes. Your posts have been a welcome addition to the blog, I've enjoyed them.
Have you heard any scuttlebutt on James Thrash's hand? That seems like an awful short turnaround for having a plate put in, and especially when you consider the position he plays.
Posted by Bluefoot
I don't get Thrash's situation myself. I read at KFFL that he had surgery on this past Monday, and one day later they said he was expected to play. Gibbs said, however, that it's wait-and-see (though I would expect a coach to say no less). I'm guessing he'll be playing, if he does, at special teams and not at WR! That's his specialty, anyway.
ReplyDelete12 fumbles in 15 games is impressive, but I stand by the irresisible/immovable comment.
"Washington [created]... 19 fumbles... in the first 11 games [and]... 14 during its six-game winning streak."
:)
Posted by TrickyBuddha
Good post, monkey. But I think Brunell's main target on third downs will be Cooley, who's more of a safety blanket when the pressure's on.
ReplyDelete'Hawks will win as long as they come out clicking and don't take any quarters off, as they sometimes do. And yeah, there's a real chance for a blowout here.
Posted by Uffy
Buddha
ReplyDeleteI think Cincy relied on their turnover margin in the playoffs too. Problem is, turnovers are part skill and part luck. Most turnovers are initiated by a mistake from the offense - missing a read, holding the ball wrong, etc. Once that mistake is made, the defender needs to capitalize on that mistake and actually take the ball away. Of those mistake, only a minority lead to turnovers. Most lead to incomplete passes or other negative plays for the offense, but not directly to turnovers.
Washington has been very good at capitalizing on mistakes, no doubt about it. But against an efficient offense that doesn't make many mistakes, the opportunities for turnovers are slim.
The irresistable force/immovable object analogy isn't quite accurate. The offense ALWAYS had the advantage. If the offense does their job, they don't generate many opportunities for turnovers. That is especially true of Seattle, which has been incredibly efficient on offense all year.
With that said, if a well-informed Washington fan such as yourself hints that Washington will win because of turnovers, well, that's great news! Because turnovers rely on luck and mistakes. Seattle has been lucky this year, and they have made few mistakes. Indeed, muck of their "luck" stems from the fact that they have made few mistakes.
Posted by Highwatermark