Brock and Danny - Pete coming on in a few minutes

[plyka]

Do you guys actually think its unreasonable to hope/expect that a team that is hugely struggling on offense would at least attempt to get something out of a second round pick who has demonstrated tremendous explosive playmaking ability as recently as the preseason? You really think I am out of line thinking that a playmaker like Michael could possibly help this offense right now if given a few touches here and there?

If he's not good in pass pro, give him a handoff. Call a screen pass for him. I don't think anyone on here has ever suggested he replace Lynch and be the every-down running back.

I agree. If he is not good in protection, then you don't want him out there on 20-30 plays, but put him out there on a random play here or there --a run, a quick pass, a screen, etc. It MAY tip your hand after a length of time --if he comes out there 20 times and all 20 are either runs or quick passes, it may give something away to the defense. But at first it should not give away the playcalling at all.

Not to mention coaches are not infallible. It's possible he steps up on the field, like so many others have. Let's remember that Lynch was a bust before he came to Seattle, Arian Foster was an undrafted free agent, Doug Baldwin was an undrafted free agent, Sherman/Maxwell/Lane/Browner are all late draft picks or off the street. It's possible that Christine steps on the field and blows up and provides that threat that is currently missing due to Percy being out.

If you are arguing that Michael SHOULD play, then why are you making the prime argument against yourself? Every player you listed was selected, evaluated and coached by our coaching staff to play at the level they are, this same exact staff is coaching and evaluating Michael. If he was so ready to play, they'd play him. If we had better pass protection without using the backs, we might play him either way, but anyone who watches our pass protection has already got to know that we need all the help we can get in that department and that making that any weaker than it is now will not bode well for our offense.

If what you're saying was true then you would be right, lol...Every team in the draft passed on Arian Foster, not a very good choice by every team and coaching staff in the league. When you finally got his SHOT he took over. Doug Baldwin was passed by EVERY TEAM AND COACHING STAFF IN THE LEAGUE, he got his shots (sparingly) and took over. Take Sherman and Browner --did the coaching staff decide that the best CB in the league was a starter from day 1? No, the coaching staff thought the best CB in the league was a backup. Sherman was a backup. Until Thurmond was injured, then Sherman got his shot and took over. The exact same scenario with Browner. Browner was a backup, until Thurmond was injured and he got his shot to take over, which he did.

The point is that coaches are not infallible, they of course saw something, but it took a chance an opportunity for these players to show what they had. Those opportunities typically came due to injuries or chance.

 

[JonRud]

Bottom line is the Hawks are getting zero production from the two players believed to be the most explosive on the offensive side - Michael and Harbin. It's really a shame and could be a game changer if 1 or both of these guys could contribute in the playoffs.

 

[kidhawk]

If what you're saying was true then you would be right, lol...Every team in the draft passed on Arian Foster, not a very good choice by every team and coaching staff in the league. When you finally got his SHOT he took over. Doug Baldwin was passed by EVERY TEAM AND COACHING STAFF IN THE LEAGUE, he got his shots (sparingly) and took over. Take Sherman and Browner --did the coaching staff decide that the best CB in the league was a starter from day 1? No, the coaching staff thought the best CB in the league was a backup. Sherman was a backup. Until Thurmond was injured, then Sherman got his shot and took over. The exact same scenario with Browner. Browner was a backup, until Thurmond was injured and he got his shot to take over, which he did.

The point is that coaches are not infallible, they of course saw something, but it took a chance an opportunity for these players to show what they had. Those opportunities typically came due to injuries or chance.

First of all, you are pointing it out in MY post, because you disagree with my conclusion, but I'm not the one who said it, I just repeated what was said by someone using it as a reason to PLAY Michael. It was bad logic used by the poster above me because THEIR logic would actually work against what they wanted. Comprehension is important in these discussions.

As for you using hand picked examples, you forget the MOST important part of what I said, and that is the combination of evaluating (and valuating) talent COMBINED with coaching that talent. Just because one team has a success with a player who was drafted late or not drafted at all, doesn't mean another staff would be able to coach him to make the most of his talents. This staff has done a tremendous job of taking players that other teams rank very low, and turning them into top notch players. It's at least as feasible that they can do this with Michael. Sure sometimes a player is tossed to the fire before they are ready due to necessity such as Sherman, but that hasn't been the case with Michael. His time will come, and he may become an all pro player when that time comes, but fans yelling for him to play is no different than fans screaming for Whitehurst over Hass.....fans go by emotion and limited knowledge.

 

[AgentDib]

fans go by emotion and limited knowledge.

Mostly a result of hope I think, which is hard to fault people for.

Let's say my take on the running game is that we are not winning at the line of the scrimmage, not making enough plays in the passing game to change their mind about playing man coverage, and that Lynch was being swarmed by multiple defenders on just about every play. There aren't many short term fixes for that. I could hope that Harvin gets healthy and force defenses to respect our passing game, I could hope that our OL improves significantly between week 16 and week 17 of the season, or I could hope that Bevell would find ways to turn OL and WR weaknesses into advantages. Those are all probably possible but do not seem very likely at this point.

On the other hand, let's say that the problem with our running game is that Lynch is playing with a lot of mileage and a sore back, and not hitting the hole well enough. We haven't seen Michael play much at all, maybe he is the next Arian Foster and we can fix our running game simply be playing him more. If you could choose what to believe wouldn't this option be more attractive to you?

 

[Missing_Clink]

First of all, you are pointing it out in MY post, because you disagree with my conclusion, but I'm not the one who said it, I just repeated what was said by someone using it as a reason to PLAY Michael. It was bad logic used by the poster above me because THEIR logic would actually work against what they wanted. Comprehension is important in these discussions.

My logic for giving Michael an occasional, limited role is absolutely sound. I've yet to see a credible argument demonstrating that there are no plays in which this would be possible. I've yet to see a credible argument that there are no plays in which he could be out there and Wilson's health would not be risked.

 

[Anthony!]

Pee was right, I was at the game, and the ref did say 1st down and changed it.

I guarantee he WILL make that "mistake" again if there are enough times where the refs tell him it's 1st down when it's really 3rd.

All Wilson and Lynch had to do was look at the scoreboard or the sideline markers. I would lean towards the side that they will be checking those a bit more closely in the future

Yes so they can get another delay of game, you should be able to trust the Ref to know what the call is.

 

[kidhawk]

First of all, you are pointing it out in MY post, because you disagree with my conclusion, but I'm not the one who said it, I just repeated what was said by someone using it as a reason to PLAY Michael. It was bad logic used by the poster above me because THEIR logic would actually work against what they wanted. Comprehension is important in these discussions.

My logic for giving Michael an occasional, limited role is absolutely sound. I've yet to see a credible argument demonstrating that there are no plays in which this would be possible. I've yet to see a credible argument that there are no plays in which he could be out there and Wilson's health would not be risked.

Pete has been asked this question many times and he answers it similarly each time. Michael isn't quite ready for the NFL yet. There is much more to playing in the NFL than physical abilities. Just because you don't find it logical that Pete and co. don't believe he's ready for it, doens't mean it's not logical.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

First of all, you are pointing it out in MY post, because you disagree with my conclusion, but I'm not the one who said it, I just repeated what was said by someone using it as a reason to PLAY Michael. It was bad logic used by the poster above me because THEIR logic would actually work against what they wanted. Comprehension is important in these discussions.

My logic for giving Michael an occasional, limited role is absolutely sound. I've yet to see a credible argument demonstrating that there are no plays in which this would be possible. I've yet to see a credible argument that there are no plays in which he could be out there and Wilson's health would not be risked......

any more than it already is when the Hawks are in that empty backfield set.
.
.
.
Added to your thought MC.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

Russell was in studying at the facility at 4am per Pete watching film and making adjustments.

After 30+ starts, everyone will have a clunker at somepoint.

He's hasn't been himself ever since the MVPs chants started after the Saints game. He has looked tired and burned out.

Love his work ethic but if I were his coach I would tell him to take a break, enjoy the holidays and come back refreshed and recharged.

Completely agree with you hoxrox.

 

[hawks4thewin]

Well I too would like to see Michael on the field. I'm Sure he is more explosive then turbin at returning kicks. And honestly when playing fast defenses I think he would be better at getting around the edge. I have no clue why lynch tried it SO MANY times other then the run game just isn't there.

ALl that being said. we only lost by 7... but 4 turnovers and losing is pathetic.... offense needs something.
anything. Perhaps sweezy is that good. and missing him killed us..

There ya go. sweezys fault.

Go hawks

 

[Seanhawk]

Pee was right, I was at the game, and the ref did say 1st down and changed it.

I guarantee he WILL make that "mistake" again if there are enough times where the refs tell him it's 1st down when it's really 3rd.

All Wilson and Lynch had to do was look at the scoreboard or the sideline markers. I would lean towards the side that they will be checking those a bit more closely in the future

Yes so they can get another delay of game, you should be able to trust the Ref to know what the call is.

How long does it take to look at the sticks on the sideline? A second or less? He could even do it while calling the cadence. I'm a Russell fan boy, but that is seriously a lame ass excuse.

 

[RufusPorter]

If he's not good in pass pro, give him a handoff. Call a screen pass for him. I don't think anyone on here has ever suggested he replace Lynch and be the every-down running back.

Shaun Alexander rarely (if ever) played on third down. What you're asking for is pretty common around the league. Heck we could even dictate to the opposing defenses with someone like Micheal. Micheal is in, hawks are not passing obviously.

Another part of me remembers years of Morris. I never understood why he was here. Maybe Holmgren's Morris is Carrol's Turbin?