Unger and Breno out...

[pehawk]

so if you have criticism or concern about anything, you're just whining.

got it!

No, no, no.

There was criticism and concern over the Seahawks drafting and starting a QB under 6'. That wasn't whining. The whining was people using that criticism to rail for their boy, Flynn (the longest replies in this thread are owned by known Flynnites, ironically enough).

The Hawks OL isn't perfect, but its perfect to run the ball and be physically imposing. By default, that usually means the OL isn't necessarily going to be the "Gallant" version of any Highlights article on pass protection.

Wilson isn't a QB that can drop and release quickly, because of his height. And, Pete wants Wilson to look for big plays. So, a line that by design isn't built for pass protection is actually being asked to pass protect longer to match the QB and HC's style of play.

Ignoring that IS whining, IMO.

 

[CANHawk]

So much hand wringing here, but you have to remember that their offense, quite possibly without the help of one Andre Johnson, will be up against the #1 defense in the league and the LoB. Don't be so quick to chalk this up as a loss ya bunch of daisies. Their defense just might beat up our offense, but our defense WILL beat up theirs and OUR defense can SCORE.

I'm not about to go all Broadway Joe on this one, but I do like our chances in spite of our O-line troubles...

 

[hawks4thewin]

IM going to post then read this crap.
how do any of us know weather or not Bowie and baily aren't going to be fantastic.
remember when Thurmond went down, then in came trufant, then he went down then in came sherm did you think then
our seasons over. No..... next man up. its the philosophy of this team now and we are trying to hold on to the old culture.

Its gonna be fine Regardless who is on our line.
and we are going to get to see some new players... I hope we see Michael run a few times too. he shoots out of the back so fast you don't need a line.

 

[pehawk]

I'm not about to go all Broadway Joe on this one, but I do like our chances in spite of our O-line troubles...

Gee, a Canadian hesitant to pick a side. Never heard that before.

This aint your sexuality, pick one, creep.

 

[hawk45]

so if you have criticism or concern about anything, you're just whining.

got it!

As far as I can tell, it's the people who want the O-line to be the disaster who are casting the stones.

The lulz continue.

It's even worse than missing 3 starters, it's more like we're missing 4.

McQ was starting at guard before Okung got hurt, so although technically he is a starter, he's playing out of position. Carp is playing now, and say what you want about Carp vs. McQ, Carp was starting at the beginning of the year. The coaches thought McQ was their best option. If you don't buy that, and you think that McQ is weak and Carp should've been starting over him, then you really must be loving McQ at LT. So out of 5 positions on the OL, the only healthy starter playing his position is...Sweezy.

Yep, nothing to worry about here. It's all folks who derive pleasure from inventing weak spots on the team. It's that we want the line to suck, we're imagining the injuries and ineffectiveness we've seen. Having 4 of 5 positions on the OL manned by folks who didn't start the year there, that's not truly important when going against a good defense and one of the best D lineman in the NFL right now on the road. No, really we're just bored and looking for attention. /sarcasm

 

[2_0_6]

what if.......

Our O-line subs step up and have a great game? I wonder what the conversation will be like on Monday?

 

[Sarlacc83]

so if you have criticism or concern about anything, you're just whining.

got it!

As far as I can tell, it's the people who want the O-line to be the disaster who are casting the stones.

The lulz continue.

It's even worse than missing 3 starters, it's more like we're missing 4.

McQ was starting at guard before Okung got hurt, so although technically he is a starter, he's playing out of position. Carp is playing now, and say what you want about Carp vs. McQ, Carp was starting at the beginning of the year. The coaches thought McQ was their best option. If you don't buy that, and you think that McQ is weak and Carp should've been starting over him, then you really must be loving McQ at LT. So out of 5 positions on the OL, the only healthy starter playing his position is...Sweezy.

Yep, nothing to worry about here. It's all folks who derive pleasure from inventing weak spots on the team. It's that we want the line to suck, we're imagining the injuries and ineffectiveness we've seen. Having 4 of 5 positions on the OL manned by folks who didn't start the year there, that's not truly important when going against a good defense and one of the best D lineman in the NFL right now on the road. No, really we're just bored and looking for attention. /sarcasm

Reading comprehension: a lost art. My point was that the name calling emanates from one side not the other.

On the other hand, the sky is falling posts about the OL are a bit much. This team is well coached, and that includes the offensive line. It's either Tom Cable is a master at his job or he's awful at it and can only turn some people in stars. The board can't have it both ways. (And let's not forget that Giacomini was practice squad in GB while Sweezy was a 7th round pick. The proposition that Bowie and Jeanpierre have something to show us isn't as preposterous as some people want it to be.) Sounds the alarms after our backups show themselves to be completely incompetent.

 

[CallMeADawg]

Looks like Breno and Max are gametime decisions:

https://twitter.com/Seahawks/status/383682705382461440

 

[Tech Worlds]

You lose three fifths of your starting offensive line it is going to effect your chances of winning.

That's not whining. That's reality.

This sucks.

 

[AgentDib]

"Whining" and "Excuses" are both terms that we are better off without; they are typically used to dismiss arguments without addressing their merits. If you feel that a particular argument or concern is baseless, then why not make that case directly? As far as I can tell we have plenty of space to work with here.

Amongst all the noise I think there are some good points being made. Line play on both side of the ball is hugely important, and our injured starters were starting because the coaching staff thought they were better than the backups. Continuity is also important, so there are at least a couple of reasons to think that our offense may perform worse than anticipated earlier. How much worse? I think there is some consensus that it will have a lot to do with how well Wilson plays. The Texans' best two CBs are still banged up and there may be opportunities for Wilson to roll out away from Watt and connect down field.

I don't see this as a reason to run the football more, as I think most of what Breno brings to the table is his run blocking. I view Lynch as the sort of power back who turns something into something more, rather than an elusive guy like Murry who provides value by turning nothing into something.

 

[dukestar]

Not worried. I watched the Texans play SD and they were lucky to win. Read about the Titans almost beating them. Saw the Ravens beat them with their weak ass D. Texans aren't as close to Hawks talent wise as a team. Maybe going player by player they look close but as a team they are a notch or two below.

So with a beat up oline we still win. Also, this isn't your dads Hawks team anymore. We will dominate on the road now. Book it. Hawks 24 Titans 10.

 

[mikeak]

Russell's style of play will ALWAYS make pass protection look worse than it is. That style of play also means deep drops and longer routes. The line is built to run first, from the ground up. Just because you guys don't understand that doesn't mean the line sucks. I don't understand physics, but I also don't argue about when the pyramids were made.

This team, with Russell, will never be masters of the short passing game. Will never happen.

I am not disagreeing with this but I guess I am confused, and you are pretty good at clearing things up in direct terms, so hoping for some help.

So what do you think will change on Sunday that means that these two injuries don't negatively impact the game?

You already state that our style combined with RW is to hold the ball longer and go for big plays. - So is that changing?

Or do you think that our O-line with the two replacement will be equally good to the one that played against Carolina?

From the point of this thread I think it is irrelevant if our O-line is great / good / crappy before the injuries because of our playing style. What matters is how will the injuries impact the play of the O-line?

If it gets worse is that not an issue or do we mitigate the issue by changing the style of football?

 

[CallMeADawg]

Not worried. I watched the Texans play SD and they were lucky to win. Read about the Titans almost beating them. Saw the Ravens beat them with their weak ass D. Texans aren't as close to Hawks talent wise as a team. Maybe going player by player they look close but as a team they are a notch or two below.

So with a beat up oline we still win. Also, this isn't your dads Hawks team anymore. We will dominate on the road now. Book it. Hawks 24 Titans 10.

You mean Texans...

 

[CANHawk]

I'm not about to go all Broadway Joe on this one, but I do like our chances in spite of our O-line troubles...

Gee, a Canadian hesitant to pick a side. Never heard that before.

This aint your sexuality, pick one, creep.

I pick whatever side you're on sugah...

 

[SalishHawkFan]

So what we're saying is that an injured center DOESN'T have a shockingly big effect on game play and outcomes? :stirthepot:

The point of my Denver comparison is that one guy being out isn't a death knell, and sure as hell does't mean "we will probably lose this game."

Multiple guys being out is ABSOLUTELY a cause for concern, but as we have seen repeatedly, teams can overcome poor O-line play if the QB can escape the increased pressure he'll likely face. One way of escaping that pressure is getting the ball out quickly on a short drop and quick slant, as Manning has shown time and again over his career. Another way of escaping that pressure is by designing plays that move the QB out of the pocket, which we have done often since Wilson won the starting job. A third way is simply through QB scrambling/improvisation, which is another thing that Wilson has done regularly.

Obviously, having multiple backup O-linemen playing is not the ideal situation, especially when you've got 2 road games against strong teams coming up. But it by no means is a guarantee of a loss, and people need to stop acting as if it is.

You use the ONE example where losing the center doesn't impact the team. In every other instance, it does. Nice try, but epic fail making your point.

Nice try? Epic fail? Are you flashing back to being 12?

I cited ONE example from this freaking year. I figured it was a very good one since it's happening right now, and the team that's dealing with it is considered one of the top 2 in the league. The simple fact is that teams that lose a center and fall completely apart are almost always teams that weren't all that great in the first place. And teams that are strong in lots of other ways often find ways to overcome a loss, regardless of where that loss is.

Which kind of team do you think the Seahawks are?

The point being made is that centers share in calling adjustments and catching the defensive schemes with the quarterback. That means losing your center and bringing in an inexperienced center will put more burden on the QB. The SOLE EXCEPTION IN THE ENTIRE NFL is Peyton Manning. Peyton will walk his RB's to a spot and tell them "you block here, get that guy". Peyton will audible because he knows who's blitzing when even analysts using 22 to watch afterwards can't figure out what he saw that gave it away.

So which example do you use to say losing the center will have little to no impact? Why Peyton Mannings team of course.

Sorry, that doesn't carry water.

Meanwhile, Wilson will have to carry a bigger load because Unger was very good at helping the team by calling out adjustments. I very much doubt his replacement is going to be near to Ungers level. That's why Unger went to the Pro Bowl. Or did you just think that it was because he hiked so well? That's going to impact the offense.

Sarlacc's right, our guys playing hurt didn't look so sharp and so putting in healthy guys might actually be an upgrade. That doesn't change the equation, however. We're playing the second best defense in the league and three of our 5 starting olinemen are out. Yes, Wilson will scramble, it's what he does. He's also on pace for 42 to 43 sacks.

Do you think our QB will get sacked more or less often with 3/5ths the oline out?

Do you think our QB will get sacked more or less often with a backup center with little NFL experience?

Houston only gives up 3.3 yds per rush. Do you think the Hawks 3.7 ypc will improve vs Texas with only 2/5ths our starting oline, one being Sweezy the other being Carp?

Since these injuries will negatively impact our running game and negatively impact our passing game, how is making that observation about these injuries "whining"?

Is this "whining" or is this simply trying to make an intelligent analysis of the situation?

As for those making the argument that people were "whining" about the oline prior to these injuries, does the fact that Unger and Breno were playing injured not infer that their performance was negatively impacted and therefore everyone who was "whining" was actually pointing out poor play and the injuries only EXPLAIN why the "whiners" were CORRECT?

Can those calling people "whiners" please move past name calling and actually move onto accepting the oline will have a tough time the offense will be less efficient until the players are healthy again, admit this is a weak spot on an otherwise incredibly strong team and let us all discuss how the Hawks are going to adapt to this situation? Instead of, you know, labelling everyone who isn't wearing their fanboy pants "whiners"?

 

[dukestar]

Yes texans and in 2 weeks titans

 

[pehawk]

I knew what you were saying Sarc. I am throwing stones. I think most of the line criticism fails to factor in the; QB, HC and play-calling.

You want to know the easiest way to make the pass protection appear better? Get a taller QB, who throw WCO style routes. Thatd make it look improved overnight. So, yeah, I think its whining. Its whining about a reality that will never manifest with Wilson at QB. He needs deeper drops. Pete likes big plays. Yap, yap, yap. But, at least IMO, its worth it with Wilson.

 

[Scottemojo]

So, I checked my Madden Ratings. Unger was rated really high, 92.
Lemuel Jeanpierre? Rated at double zero. Corpse rating. Evidently he is a sack of bones. I bet he lines up facing the wrong way or something.

We are so boned.

 

[ivotuk]

I remember hearing about Carolinas offensive line woes and thinking "we are going to eat their lunch." Instead they ran the ball down our throat. I can t think of a better time to focus on the running game.

 

[CallMeADawg]

Well, per twitter (link provided above) Max and Breno are game-time decisions, so don't rule them out yet. We'll find out Sunday.