O’Neil: What We Learned from the Seahawks’ largest loss in five years

Before we begin with the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over the Seahawks’ largest loss in five seasons, let’s pause for a little bit of perspective.

Two years ago, the Patriots lost 41-14 at Kansas City, a result so lackluster that coach Bill Belichick was being asked afterward if and when he would consider benching Tom Brady. New England won its fourth Super Bowl that season.

Four years ago, the Ravens lost four of their final five regular-season games, including a 17-point loss at home to Denver. Baltimore won its second Super Bowl that season.

That isn’t to say that Seattle’s 28-point loss in Green Bay doesn’t matter. It certainly does if only for the continuing difficulty that the Seahawks’ offense encounters on the road. But it’s not necessarily a death knell for Seattle’s season, and with that in mind, here’s a look at what we learned and what we’re still trying to figure out:

Three things we learned

This team depends more on Russell Wilson than it ever has. For Wilson’s first three seasons, he was the trump card that put Seattle over the top. A passing play was covered? Well, he’d just scramble a little bit to buy time. The blocking broke down? Don’t worry, he was always a threat to run. The rushing offense was the engine that provided the bulk of the horsepower, and Wilson was like the nitrous who provided that extra bit of boost, Fast-and-Furious style. Seattle’s past two losses have shown that he’s now the engine for the offense, the rudder who determines which direction the team is going and the keel who keeps the whole thing from capsizing, too. When he struggles like he did Sunday in Green Bay, the Seahawks have no shot. And when he’s not particularly good – which was the case in Tampa Bay – the Seahawks are going to have a hard time ever putting the ball in the end zone.

Seattle’s running game isn’t the sore spot it once was. The Seahawks rushed for 100 yards as a team twice in the first nine games of the season. They’ve hit triple digits in each of the past four games, and while it was easy to overlook in Sunday’s blowout loss, the Seahawks were again effective on the ground. Thomas Rawls carried only 12 times, but he averaged more than 5 yards per carry, and Wilson was also able to gain yardage on the ground. In fact, the Seahawks ran the ball so well that some wondered why Seattle didn’t stick with it. There was a simple reason for that: No way Seattle was going to make up its largest halftime deficit in five years without Wilson throwing the ball effectively. But going forward, Seattle’s consistency on the ground is encouraging.

Buckle up, Seattle. This is a different kind of season. Seattle suffered its biggest loss in five years at precisely the point in the season when the Seahawks usually take off. They were 18-4 in the month of December over the previous five seasons. Those four losses were by a combined total of 17 points. Now, they’re coming off a 28-point defeat, and with three straight games against opponents in the worst division in football, the loss in Green Bay is going to cast a shadow over any playoff expectations for the Seahawks once the postseason begins.

Three things we’re still trying to figure out

What happened to Seattle’s pass rush? Seattle had 31 sacks through the first 10 games, ranking among the top five teams in the league. The Seahawks have one sack over the past three games. One. That came at the end of the third quarter on Sunday, and at that point, Seattle already trailed by 25 points. The expectation was that Michael Bennett’s return from a knee injury would turbo charge the pass rush. He has been back two games, and that hasn’t been the case so far.

Why is Seattle’s offense performing so differently at home compared to the road? This happened in 2007, too, but that time the difference manifested itself in the defense. That made sense. After all, a defense would figure to get a significant advantage at home in Seattle, where the crowd noise impacts an opponent’s ability to communicate at the line of scrimmage and gives the pass rush an edge. It’s harder to figure out why an offense would struggle away from home, especially since the Seahawks haven’t played in any stadiums considered to be particularly loud.

Is Steven Terrell going to be an area of concern for Seattle? He had one tackle on Sunday against Green Bay, which was a sign of just how few plays went his way. The vulnerability in Seattle’s defense was down the sideline, especially as quarterback Aaron Rodgers was able to extend plays. The Packers did not target Terrell’s area of coverage. Rodgers did not seek to pick on him. That doesn’t mean future teams aren’t going to target Seattle’s free safety, though, with Earl Thomas out for the year. And it’s worth watching whether that will become a vulnerability on the back end of the defense.

Follow @dannyoneil