If you are interested, more statistical evidence that offense actually wasn't that big of an issue

[PhillyB]

the problem is nobody can reconcile being a good offense with only seven points put on the scoreboard. that's because few people stop to consider the difference between performance - as it pertains to ability - and efficiency. in terms of raw ability to move the ball it looks like we performed great, as highlighted by OP. we were, however, terribly inefficient by turning the ball over or choking just shy of scoring range.

 

therefore: if you believe that guys will always drop balls in critical moments or fumble in the red zone all but one time during every game, then yes, hysteria is justified. if you think these things will be fixed, then, well, you can assume this offense will pay dividends.

 

time will tell

[teeray]

None of that shows up on the scoreboard. The offense scored 7 points. That's an issue.

 

It explains why we only scored 7 points.

 

Before the fumble Seattle only had 3 points.

 

The main argument against this post is simply well, they should have played above their expected yardage.

 

In order to score a lot of points based on the factors of the game, we would have had to play better than our offense performed over the course of last season and Seattle's defense would have to underperform what they did last season.

 

Everything, as far as moving the ball worked out about as to be expected based on past performances.

 

Seattle had trouble scoring also until field position was improved based off of the fumble on the punt.

 

Doesn't mean it was impossible to score, or we couldn't have scored, but based off of averages we were not going to be in scoring position 75% of the time based on starting field position.

 

You only have 8 possessions, you are likely to only have one or two scoring opportunities in the course of that game.  We had two.  One resulted in a TD, the other we fumbled.

 

Point being their wasn't anything different or unusual about our offense's ability when compared to last season.

 

We just weren't in advantageous positions, and the times we were we didn't capitalize or we turned the ball over.

 

It is amazing how they score 9 of their points after the punt fumble.

[Peppers90 NC]

7 points is and will always be an issue.  No one played particularly bad but now looking at some of these photos Cam missing some open guys is concerning.

[TheRed]

Cam is the problem! Trade him!

[teeray]

the problem is nobody can reconcile being a good offense with only seven points put on the scoreboard. that's because few people stop to consider the difference between performance - as it pertains to ability - and efficiency. in terms of raw ability to move the ball it looks like we performed great, as highlighted by OP. we were, however, terribly inefficient by turning the ball over or choking just shy of scoring range.

 

therefore: if you believe that guys will always drop balls in critical moments or fumble in the red zone all but one time during every game, then yes, hysteria is justified. if you think these things will be fixed, then, well, you can assume this offense will pay dividends.

 

time will tell

 

This is probably putting it in better terms.

 

Things even themselves out over the course of the season, so failed opportunities in one game, does not mean every opportunity you will fail.

 

Olsen had some drops and D-Will had a fumble.  That cost us in scoring opportunities.  But in the future when they make those catches or don't fumble it will result in points.

 

We didn't have very many possessions, so in a low possession, low snap game, these issues are magnified.

[chef17]

We just weren't in advantageous positions, and the times we were we didn't capitalize or we turned the ball over.

 

 

So the offense doesn't capitalize when they are in an advantageous position but that isn't an issue?

 

[Delhommey]

I'd appreciate if someone would go back and do this for the 7 close losses from last year so we can feel better about 2012 too.

[R0CKnR0LLA]

I'd rather have a crappy offense that scores a lot of points.

[Delhommey]

It explains why we only scored 7 points.

 

Before the fumble Seattle only had 3 points.

 

The main argument against this post is simply well, they should have played above their expected yardage.

 

In order to score a lot of points based on the factors of the game, we would have had to play better than our offense performed over the course of last season and Seattle's defense would have to underperform what they did last season.

 

Everything, as far as moving the ball worked out about as to be expected based on past performances.

 

Seattle had trouble scoring also until field position was improved based off of the fumble on the punt.

 

Doesn't mean it was impossible to score, or we couldn't have scored, but based off of averages we were not going to be in scoring position 75% of the time based on starting field position.

 

You only have 8 possessions, you are likely to only have one or two scoring opportunities in the course of that game.  We had two.  One resulted in a TD, the other we fumbled.

 

Point being their wasn't anything different or unusual about our offense's ability when compared to last season.

 

We just weren't in advantageous positions, and the times we were we didn't capitalize or we turned the ball over.

 

It is amazing how they score 9 of their points after the punt fumble.

 

Where are Seattle's multiple dropped passes and 109 penalty yards they gifted to us factored in btw?

[Ken]

Good post.

 

I personally am not worried. We move the ball fairly well and if not for mistakes the team could've easily scored at least 10+ points.(not even counting the last drive)

[C47]

Where are Seattle's multiple dropped passes and 109 penalty yards they gifted to us factored in btw?

 

Probably hiding in the same place all those Shula plays we kept hearing they were holding back till the start of the season are....

[Care-Oh-Linuh]

I agree that the fumbled punt was big, but according to your statistics, even if we field that punt cleanly, we wouldn't have scored......

The Williams fumble however would have guaranteed ATLEAST a fg.(I think we would get 7)

I like your optimistic outlook, but come on........

[Happy Panther]

1st drive: ended with 3rd and 2 incomplete pass by Cam - Punt

2nd drive: needed 12 yards, got 8 from Olsen - Punt

3rd drive: 3rd and 7 incomplete pass - Punt (This was the Olsen miss long left)

4th Drive - Touchdown!

5th Drive - cut off by halftime

6th Drive - 2nd and 2 goes to 3rd and 2 goes to 4th and 1 when Williams couldn't gain 2 yards over 2 plays - Punt

7th drive - 3rd and 12. Cam rushes for 10. - Punt

8th drive - 2nd and 2. The infamous Deangelo fumble.

 

The fumble sucks but we should have been well up by that point. 

 

Add to that an anemic 250 yards total  and it is hard for me to say we weren't pretty bad. The average yards per drive is a neat stat but only two of our drives netted decent yards. The one touchdown and the fumble drive. The others were mostly punts from between the CAR 32 and SEA 41.

 

On the good side the O-Line looked decent and we only had 4 penalties. Cam protected the ball.

 

Seattle is good but if we play disjointed and stagnant like we did Sunday there are plenty of teams with good enough defenses to make us look bad. Probably the Bills among them

 

 

 

[SgtJoo]

So you're saying I should back away from the edge of the cliff?