Skip to main content

Seattle's Monday night win was uglier than an obese Medusa on a bad hair day with morning breath

I like watching the Seattle Seahawks. In what is becoming increasingly rare in both the college and pro ranks, Seattle actually plays good and aggressive defense quite consistently. This is especially true of their secondary. When's the last time you heard football commentators agree that a team's secondary is tough? Anymore, the words tough secondary play like the ultimate of oxymorons in football. However, in saying all this, I think Seattle's 14-9 Monday night win against St. Louis may have redefined how to win ugly. I'm not sure I've seen an uglier win than the one displayed on Monday night.

Not only was Seattle penalized 10 times for 83 yards, but quarterback Russell Wilson got sacked a career high 7 times for a loss of 48 yards. Those aren't even the really crazy numbers I'm about to present. For the game, Seattle managed to convert only 7 first downs - 2 of those via penalty. They were just 2 for 11 on 3rd down (18.2%). They ran a mere 40 plays for the game, 31 fewer than St. Louis. On 18 pass attempts, the Seahawks gained 91 yards (5.1 per), and on 15 rushes, the team gained 44 yards (2.9 per). Yes, for the game, Seattle gained only 135 yards  from scrimmage (3.4 per play). Those numbers look bleak enough as it is, but I'm about to make them look a whole lot worse. You see, one of Seattle's two touchdowns came courtesy of an 80-yard pass from Russell Wilson to Golden Tate. Yes, a single play comprised 59.3% of the team's offense for the game. Without that one play, Seattle would have finished with just 55 yards of offense on 39 plays (1.4 per), and 11 yards passing on 17 attempts (0.6 per).

For the game, Seattle was: -16 in first downs, -31 in plays, -204 in yards, -48 in passing yards, -156 in rushing yards, -30 in penalty yards, -16:18 in time of possession, but +2 in turnovers. Yeah, as cliche as it may be, if a team wins the turnover battle, they have a chance at a victory, no matter how ugly it may be. The exception to this is the Dallas Cowboys, who seem to find ways to lose even when finishing a game +4 in turnover margin.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more