After an impressive victory in Week 7, the Seahawks suffered a tough loss on Sunday, falling 31-10 to the Bills, a result that dropped Seattle's record to 4-4 for the season. Next up, an NFC West showdown with the Rams, but before we turn our attention to that game, it's time once again to open up the mailbag and answer some questions from you, the fans.

As always, thanks to everyone who asked questions this week, and apologies if I wasn't able to get to yours this time around. And remember, the mailbag is always open for submissions at Seahawks.com/mailbag.

@MrEd315 asks, "In your opinion, how surprising was it to see the Seahawks give up several long scoring drives, eventually getting blown out at home?"

A: The Bills are a really good team, and have one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL, so the fact that they had success on offense and won the game isn't a big shocker. Obviously, the Seahawks have high expectations and feel like they should be in every game, but teams in the NFL are too talented to be stunned by any result in any given week. That being said, I don't think anyone saw such a lopsided loss coming, especially not at home and coming off a 20-point win in Atlanta.

If anything, Sunday's game showed how, with a few breaks, a close game can get out of hand in a hurry. That's not to say the Bills didn't deserve to win or weren't the better team on Sunday—they definitely were—but that game would have felt a lot different if, say, Connor Williams doesn't snap the ball over Geno Smith's head in the red zone, or if Smith doesn't get tripped on the next red zone trip, causing the Seahawks to settle for just three total points on two drives that got inside the 5-yard line. Or what if Josh Allen's third-down fumble, which came the second quarter of a 7-3 game, had rolled to a Seahawks player, or at least been recovered short of the line to gain, leading to a punt? Or what if on Buffalo's opening drive, Boye Mafe's first-and-15 sacks hadn't been negated by an illegal contact penalty that extended a long scoring drive? Again, the Bills very well may have won with none of that taking place, but those are the kind of breaks that can cause a close game between two good teams to turn into a lopsided affair.

"We faced a really good football team, and we did not play our best football by any stretch," Macdonald said. "All three phases. You would go back and go through the series of events. It felt like in order for us to win that game, you have to capitalize on the opportunities when they present themselves. We didn't do that on offense or defense earlier in the game. Special teams didn't have as many opportunities to affect the game until later and we got out of whack there at the end and that's how a game ends up 31-10."

@CaptainPeters says, "Ask coach Macdonald what his team does well and what they have improved upon as the season has progressed."

A: Macdonald was in fact asked a very similar question on Monday, so I'll start with his answer.

"You've got to talk about it in different phases," Macdonald said. "I mean to start with offense, I think one thing that gives us an edge is how we move and shift and formation and varied tempos and so I think that's something that we need to double down on and we'll do that. I think the run game can come alive in some of those things. Special teams, I think we're a heck of a coverage team right now. We've got some really good tape of guys making a lot of great plays in the coverage areas and defensively, situationally, I think we have done some good things. It just does seem it's a little hot and cold right now on a per-game basis. The red zone and third down stat's last game, but on the whole, I feel like we've made a jump in those areas, so there's a lot of good stuff on tape, but you come off a loss like that and you get punched in the chin, you got to take it and you got to move forward."

In general, the Seahawks have shown plenty of potential in the passing game, and when at full strength their pass defense, both coverage and rush, have been good. The problem, of course, in both cases, is that if you can't complement those things with a solid run game on offense and good run defense, it makes those other things more difficult. From a bigger picture standpoint, I'd also argue, that a team learning new schemes on both sides of the ball under a new coaching staff was always going to go through some growing pains. Obviously, they want to minimize that and expected to better than 4-4 at this point, but it's also very reasonable to expect that the Seahawks should get better on both sides of the ball as players get more comfortable in a new offense and defense.

@tompage asks, "The players seemed too emotional in the game, which resulted in a lot of mistakes. Do we blame the coaches or players for that?"

A: I would argue that sloppy play hurt the Seahawks in that game a lot more than emotion. Yes, Jarran Reed and Derick Hall did have a heated exchange on the field and later on the sideline after Hall's roughing the passer penalty, but that moment itself had no impact on the game, and Hall's penalty wasn't an emotional one, just the result of him doing a little too much trying to make a play. And it wasn't being emotional that led to the bad snap and trip of Geno Smith in the red zone that ruined those two possessions, nor was it emotions leading to the defense's inability to stop the Bills.

The only other thing I'd chalk up to emotion in the game was Geno Smith's taunting penalty, but A. that was when the game was pretty out of hand already, and B. not knowing what was said, it's hard to judge that moment too much knowing how inconsistently taunting is called in the NFL.

As for the Reed and Hall exchange, they quickly cooled off and had a calmer discussion, and Hall noted after the game that all was good between them. And ultimately, every NFL coach would rather have a team where emotions run a little hot than one that needs help getting fired up. Obviously there's a line to walk, but football is a really emotional game, and sometimes things can cross that line a bit, but in this case I wouldn't put emotion near the top of the reasons why the Seahawks lost.

"I know guys were frustrated towards the end, and you like us to be more poised in that situation, but it goes both ways," Macdonald said. "If the guys didn't care and they weren't upset about it, then you get a host of other issues. I'd rather be living in this where you'd rather tell them 'whoa' than 'go'. Derick and I talked this morning, and Derick was great. He's more upset with himself about the penalty than the interaction with Jarran and onward we go."

But don't just take my word for it, Super Bowl champion Bruce Irvin said heated disagreements were a regular occurrence on the teams he played for a decade ago.

Sharry from Bremerton, @wenfot and others asked about homefield advantage with the Seahawks losing a third straight at home, and with, as several people have people have pointed out, a healthy number of opposing fans in the building.

A: There certainly were a good number of Bills fans at Lumen Field on Sunday. And while no team wants opposing fans to be loud in their building, I would argue that, since the early days of Lumen Field, or even the beginning of the Legion of Boom era, a lot has changed in the NFL. Tickets are much easier to buy online for any fan, and they can buy them on the resale market without the original seller knowing their allegiance. The fact that Lumen Field has a reputation as one of the league's best stadiums, and that Seattle is a desirable city to visit, only increases the number of opposing fans who want to attend games here.

Also, there are significantly more flights and more people traveling every year—minus 2020—so it's easier than ever for opposing fans to plan trips to see their team, and all around the league, it's a normal occurrence to see opposing fans turn out in big numbers. Just last weekend, "Sea-Hawks!" chants were audible throughout Mercedes-Benz Stadium as the Seahawks rolled to a win over a first-place team.

And I know some people get mad at season-ticket holders for selling their tickets, but I for one am not going to hold it against a fan if they can't get to a game or two and decide to sell some of their tickets, and again, there's no way to know who is buying tickets on the resale market or who they're cheering for.

I'd also add to all of that the fact that, despite there being some opposing fans in the building, Lumen Field is still a GREAT gameday environment packed with 12s, easily one of the best and loudest in the NFL.

Ultimately, the best cure to this issue is to be so good and so in demand in your own market that it's harder for visiting fans to procure tickets. No team will ever keep every opposing fan out, but winning more frequently at home certainly would help.

"We have to win," Macdonald said. "We've got to win, period, so opposing fans won't want to show up if we're consistently kicking butt and doing what we're supposed to do. Our fans are doing a great job and they're sticking with us all the way through the end of the game I know we're fighting and they're fighting with us and we have to do a better job of putting a product out there that they want to root really hard for."

@CalvinoBlanco asks, "Please explain why the illegal motion was ignored and roughing the passer was enforced? Why wasn't the play blown dead?"

A: This is actually the second time this season that this unusual rules quirk has worked against the Seahawks. As this question notes, the Bills were flagged Sunday for an illegal shift on a play that ended with an incomplete pass on third down late in the second quarter. Had that been the only flag on the play, the Seahawks could have declined the penalty, likely resulting in a 42-yard field goal attempt, no gimme in the hard rain and breezy conditions at the time, or Seattle could have backed the Bills up, replayed third down, and hoped for a stop to make it an even longer attempt.

But because Derick Hall hit Josh Allen high and late, the official instead enforced a roughing the passer call, which by rule is enforced with the 5-yard penalty disregarded. In that case, the Bills used that first down to get a touchdown to end the half, meaning they led 14-3 instead of possibly 10-3 or 7-3, or, had the Seahawks put a quick drive together, by even less.

In Week 6, the Seahawks had a similar situation work against them when Leonard Williams was called for a facemask after the 49ers had a false start, resulting in a 49ers first down. That call was even more frustrating for the Seahawks, because unlike the illegal shift, which would have been a live play regardless, the false start should have been blown dead long before Williams could have committed the foul.

As for the why behind those two rulings, it's a player safety issue aimed at making sure players can't use an initial penalty as an excuse to commit a more serious foul, such an intentionally roughing a quarterback or some other dangerous play. That's not to say that was Hall or Williams' intent in those situations, both were just trying to make football plays, but that's the spirit of the rule. Would it be more equitable to still enforce the 5-yard penalty for a net 10-yard penalty? Perhaps, but that's not how the rule is written.