We do not win the Seattle game if Mo was one of our top 3 corners

[Pessimist_cowboy]

I hate to say it, but we do not win the Seattle game if Mo was one of our top 3 corners. Wilson is good enough to find the weak link, and many of those third down stops would have been completions because Mo was playing off his man or penalties because he held or interfered. Addition by subtraction...

No we win by 21 instead of 7 .

 

[Texas_Pete]

I'd rather Moore than Mo at this point.

 

[Marktui]

I hate to say it, but we do not win the Seattle game if Mo was one of our top 3 corners. Wilson is good enough to find the weak link, and many of those third down stops would have been completions because Mo was playing off his man or penalties because he held or interfered. Addition by subtraction...

I believe Mo is still a good cover corner. I just don't think he is mentally strong enough for the NFL game. In college he could cover anyone in the SEC. I don't think he ever had a bad game or a game where fingers were pointed at him. Too much pressure was put upon this kid and he has yet to recover. Carr also came in with high expectations, 50 Million dollar man and all. But Carr didn't blink, he didn't play well at times but he kept coming back and is now playing well. Scandrick or Sandpaper as what Broaddus calls him is mentally tough. He could have asked for a trade when Carr and Claiborn came in. Remember Jenkins got the nod over Scandrick a few years back. But look who is playing his best ball right now!

Mo's biggest problem is himself. He needs to fight. If he gets beat, then he needs to say "I will get you on the next one" or "try me again cause I won't let happen again". Mo still has time to bounce back, but he can't wait much longer.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

All these coaches we are showering praise on....JG...Rod....Scott.

These are the same coaches that made the decision that Mo is better than Moore. Either you trust them or you don't. But in their history they have consistently shown that they play the best man period. See Scandrick, Orlando

As an aside Moore was not very good on Sunday. He shied away from some tackles and was in poor position on the long ball (credit to him for fighting through the finish and disrupting the reception).

Mo is better than Moore and i'm sorry that we lost him for what is looking like it could be a special year if things break right.

 

[ConstantReboot]

So, you use the "stats" and ignore what really happened? If that's how you want to do it, don't let me stop you.

LOL stats tell the truth. Unlike people who have a tendency to bend the truth in order to prove their right.

 

[ConstantReboot]

All these coaches we are showering praise on....JG...Rod....Scott.

These are the same coaches that made the decision that Mo is better than Moore. Either you trust them or you don't. But in their history they have consistently shown that they play the best man period. See Scandrick, Orlando

As an aside Moore was not very good on Sunday. He shied away from some tackles and was in poor position on the long ball (credit to him for fighting through the finish and disrupting the reception).

Mo is better than Moore and i'm sorry that we lost him for what is looking like it could be a special year if things break right.

Mo is not better than Moore. Never was and probably never will be.

Mo was the weakest link on defense.

 

[Risen Star]

I hate to say it, but we do not win the Seattle game if Mo was one of our top 3 corners. Wilson is good enough to find the weak link, and many of those third down stops would have been completions because Mo was playing off his man or penalties because he held or interfered. Addition by subtraction...

Russell Wilson isn't good enough as a passer to expose anyone consistently down the field.

I saw a YouTube scout in here this week talking about how our safeties had to play well or we wouldn't have won the game. That's nonsense. That's the type of thing you say when you're playing Peyton Manning or Aaron Rodgers not a glorified running back like Wilson.

He can make some throws but he can't do it consistently. That's the key.

 

[dogunwo]

I hate to say it, but we do not win the Seattle game if Mo was one of our top 3 corners. Wilson is good enough to find the weak link, and many of those third down stops would have been completions because Mo was playing off his man or penalties because he held or interfered. Addition by subtraction...

Why do you hate to say it?

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Mo is not better than Moore. Never was and probably never will be.

Mo was the weakest link on defense.

And now Moore is. Says nothing about their relative ability.

Again... Coaches coaching for their jobs... Who see these players everyday.... Who have consistently played the best guy regardless.... Started MO.

 

[Kevinicus]

LOL stats tell the truth. Unlike people who have a tendency to bend the truth in order to prove their right.

Right...go actually WATCH the completion to Britt on Mo, and a couple of the incompletions to Britt against Carr. The stats on those say Carr was much better, but if you actually watch the plays and come to the same conclusion, then you're lost, and there is no help.

 

[Beast_from_East]

He is too fragile to play free safety.

Agreed................he wouldn't last 3 games at safety


How sad is it that a guy we drafted 6th overall can go down for the season and there is no drop off whatsoever in the defense, in fact they may actually be playing better without him.

 

[PoundTheRock]

I wish they would look at his skill set and perhaps try him as a Free Safety. I thought he just plays better when the game is in front of him and not as a CB. If he can't do that, release him and move on. This team may be better off just drafting a CB in the mid rounds and let this coaching staff coach him up. Just my take.

He's not a free safety because he doesn't want to tackle. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want a safety that's afraid to tackle. Let Wilcox keep doing his thing. He's not there yet, but he's shown more than Claiborne.

 

[blindzebra]

LOL stats tell the truth. Unlike people who have a tendency to bend the truth in order to prove their right.

Stats don't lie but the people using them misrepresent them all the time...and FYI that stat on Carr for zero completions was wrong.

 

[ConstantReboot]

Right...go actually WATCH the completion to Britt on Mo, and a couple of the incompletions to Britt against Carr. The stats on those say Carr was much better, but if you actually watch the plays and come to the same conclusion, then you're lost, and there is no help.

- Completion to Britt on Mo.
- Incompletion to Britt against Carr.
Those are from your own words.

There was no completion on Carr despite 4 passes.
I pointed out Mo was at least responsible on 17 points that the rams scored.

Your doesn't make sense trying to argue that Mo did better than Carr. Give it up. Mo was awful. Thus he was benched.

You just gotta stop making stuff up.

 

[ConstantReboot]

And now Moore is. Says nothing about their relative ability.

Again... Coaches coaching for their jobs... Who see these players everyday.... Who have consistently played the best guy regardless.... Started MO.

Yes coaches know what their doing. Thus they benched Mo and there is a reason for it. Have they benched Moore yet? In fact, Moore has taken over for Mo.

Moore is better than Mo and its the reason why our secondary have tightened up with coverage. Mo was nothing more than a liability.

 

[ConstantReboot]

Stats don't lie but the people using them misrepresent them all the time...and FYI that stat on Carr for zero completions was wrong.

LOL

YOU said stats don't lie.
Then YOU say that stat on Carr for zero completion is wrong.

Pick which point you want to argue. You can't have it both ways and say your right.

 

[Kevinicus]

- Completion to Britt on Mo.
- Incompletion to Britt against Carr.
Those are from your own words.

There was no completion on Carr despite 4 passes.
I pointed out Mo was at least responsible on 17 points that the rams scored.

Your doesn't make sense trying to argue that Mo did better than Carr. Give it up. Mo was awful. Thus he was benched.

You just gotta stop making stuff up.

So you think a CB who is beat by 3 steps but was fortunate the pass wasn't completed did a better job than someone who had blanket coverage on a pass that was completed? I guess that Dez catch against Houston wasn't all that special. It was just poor coverage.

 

[ConstantReboot]

So you think a CB who is beat by 3 steps did a better job than someone who had blanket coverage?

Mo did not have blanket coverage at all. So your point is moot. Rams picked on him consistently. Thus they were able to score from mostly his side of the ball.

Why do you think that the coaches demoted him? Was it for being a good corner against the Rams?

You asked for stats and I showed it to you.

Now your saying stats lie and its incorrect.

Just face it. There is a reason why coaches benched Mo. It was certainly not for good play in which he was responsible for 17 points. Stats don't lie. Carr was flat out better in this game than Mo.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Yes coaches know what their doing. Thus they benched Mo and there is a reason for it. Have they benched Moore yet? In fact, Moore has taken over for Mo.

Moore is better than Mo and its the reason why our secondary have tightened up with coverage. Mo was nothing more than a liability.

They benched Mo for OScan.

It was not their intention...at any point...to bench Mo for Moore. You drinking?

 

[ConstantReboot]

They benched Mo for OScan.

It was not their intention...at any point...to bench Mo for Moore. You drinking?

They DEMOTED Mo. A demotion means that they were not happy with his performance.

I know that OScan took his place. Read what I stated. I never said that they benched Mo for Moore. I just asked the question if Moore was benched because of poor play. Mo was benched for poor play. Moore hasn't and has played better than Mo since.