What should have happened with this team

TwistedHusky

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
6,900
Reaction score
1,075
It was apparent right after the SB that this team was dividing into factions.

There was those that wanted to follow Lynch and those that wanted to give the keys to Wilson.

The keys were given to Wilson, and this team really never reached the peak again.

This team should have stuck with Lynch and it would have likely had 1 more SB appearance and potentially one more SB win.

When this team won the SB, I looked at the team and figured we would probably reach 2 more SB with this roster and then we would have a period we were competitive but not primary threats. Finally, with a Seasoned Wilson we would probably reach one more SB after a 2-4 year gap from the others.

Our system worked. A great run game made it much easier for our QB. That run game allowed our defensive to stay fresh, which allowed them to be much more aggressive. And it wore out the opposing defense so that opposing teams would start to fall apart by the late 3rd quarter.

The key moment everything changed was the Unger trade. With the trade of Unger, it was clear this team was going to go all in on Wilson. Though you could easily argue that bad pass in the SB was an attempt to push Wilson to the center of the spotlight before that.

It gutted the run game, and Lynch left soon after. Yes, Lynch was hurt anyway. But Lynch was hurt during both runs up to the SB and still produced. The key was Lynch was not going to take a backseat and was not meshing with the coaches.

This team never recovered from the loss of Lynch. But the loss of Unger was the writing on the wall where this team was going to put its focus. And so the team made a choice, a choice that led to being essentially a wildcard team ever after. I remain convinced we went away from Lynch because he challenged our coaches and because we wanted to push Wilson as the leader of this team.

Lynch was probably frustrating to deal with, somewhat intractable and not really the marketing dream that Wilson was supposedly going to be. But he, and how he complemented this defense, was a key to what made this team a SB contender.


The Hawks should have looked at the 49ers for lessons on how removing wild players can hurt you. The 49ers used to have a guy name Charles Haley, but because he was doing crazy things (awful things like peeing on desks and jerking off in front of other people, according to the stories), he was allowed to go to Dallas. But...that suddenly shifted things and instead of the 49ers going to SBs, Dallas did. The 49ers did not really get back until years later, I think when Richard Dent finally joined them.

There were, I am sure, many reasons that Haley was a problem for the 49ers but in getting rid of him they vaulted Dallas over themselves.

Haley was always crazy, he famously threatened the team owner if the owner did not pay Smith during Smith's holdout. But, the team won. Because great players win you games, not great people.

In the same vein, I believe this team jettisoned Lynch because he was pushing Wilson to the side. This is a team that should have been to 3 SBs but squandered it because it jumped the gun and gave the reins of the team to Wilson instead of Lynch. Years later, that change could have been made and we likely would have had one or two more shots at the ring accordingly.

Jumping the gun on that transition just killed us. And you can probably point to the Unger trade as the day we realistically went from contending for SBs to barely making wildcard games.
 

Uncle Si

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
20,596
Reaction score
3
The team "jettisoned" Lynch because he became a less than effective, often hurt, running back.

I don't disagree the team started to make a transition from a defensive led team to a RW led team. But even that transition was half-assed and confused.
 
OP
OP
T

TwistedHusky

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
6,900
Reaction score
1,075
Lynch was hurt through both SB runs.

We still got there.

Half of the stories on the guy were him on the sidelines for his back.
 

MontanaHawk05

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
17,891
Reaction score
405
Reading way too far into things.

And Lynch was hurt worse in 2015.
 

sdog1981

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,367
Reaction score
240
OR......They had the worst line coach in NFL history which soaked up draft picks and free agents with no positive results. Every pick Cable got was a pick that did not go to replenish depth on the team. I don't care who you had running the ball behind those lines they were not going to be successful. The Seahawks did leave SB's on the table and the dumpster fire of an Oline is the main reason.

As with the Haley thing you kind of left out the part about the 49ers winning 4 SB's (He was there for 2) before they let him go and they still won one more without him.
 

original poster

New member
Joined
Nov 24, 2014
Messages
3,201
Reaction score
1
This should be a good one.


I’m surprised Seattle still hasn’t found an identity, they’ve had long enough. Looks like the starting pieces are at least in place to get one, though.
 

Uncle Si

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
20,596
Reaction score
3
TwistedHusky":cv6zcbcb said:
Lynch was hurt through both SB runs.

We still got there.

Half of the stories on the guy were him on the sidelines for his back.

because... he was hurt...

suggesting otherwise should require more than your conjecture or its simply begging for overreaction.
 

jammerhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
10,173
Reaction score
1,778
Loss of Identity, divided factions, OK whatever.

Simply put the OLine play was not up to snuff, the team couldn't run or protect Wilson, i.e.: it was a toothless O that was predictable and easily defended. The O failed to support the D, the team became one dimensional.

The D was thus overworked, and the D was uncharacteristically charitable on 3rd downs; the team stopped being the bully and became a patsy for tough teams to smack them in the mouth. For sure there was a loss of identity but it came down to the work of the O, and particualarly the rubbish served up run blocking and pass protecting.

What should have happened after XLIX is tough questions should have been asked why the team was unsure of their ability to run it in from the 1 with Lynch. What were the reasons for that stupid game ending call and who should bear the responsibility for the loss. Both Cable and Bevell should have been on the hot seat. Accountability was avoided and Pete believed Cable's BS about the OLine which was obviously false. The BS went on and eventually a good RBs coach was axed so Cable could screw things up more and he did as we saw clearly this last season. It was obvious Bevell didn't know how to use players to their maximum or to effectively maximize the advantages created by the mismatches of size, quickness or extreme athleticisim. Both should have been gone at least a season or more previous to now.

I'm glad the changes have now been made and there was acountability for the coaches who were not performing.

It's time to look forward rather than backwards.
 
OP
OP
T

TwistedHusky

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
6,900
Reaction score
1,075
I am suggesting that even while hurt, a hurt Lynch would have been a better bet to focus the team on than a healthy Wilson.

Especially with some of the other backs spelling Lynch at the time.

Lynch being hurt did not remove our chances to get to the SB in the other runs.

Why would we expect that to be different the very next year?

What DID diminish our chances was trading away a key cog in our blocking for him, in order to get a shiny new toy for the passing offense. A toy we never really bothered to use anyway, until years later.

At the time of the Unger trade, I pointed out this would drive out Lynch. It likely was not the ONLY reason, but it was very likely a contributing factor. And it was certainly an indicator that we were going to try to push our QB to move the chains instead of the RB being the workhorse on that task.

Lynch made this team a SB contender and the Unger trade was a sign to anymore looking that we wanted this team to ride the QB to the SB instead of relying on the run game.

It was a bad bet , this trade was the evidence that our efforts shifted, and it was very likely one of the changes that shut the door on our chances.
 

original poster

New member
Joined
Nov 24, 2014
Messages
3,201
Reaction score
1
^as they should have done IMO.

You build your offense around a QB, not a RB. At least where possible, anyway. And for the Seahawks, it was possible.
 

MontanaHawk05

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
17,891
Reaction score
405
TwistedHusky":flw3wcx6 said:
Why would we expect that to be different the very next year?

Because it was a more severe injury that caused the team doctors to rule him out.
 

Seymour

Active member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
7,459
Reaction score
22
Lynch was where we went wrong?

LMAO. No way in hell. People don't seem to remember the passing of the torch too well.

2015 Lynch 111 carries 417 yds. 3.8 ave per carry.
2015 Rawls 147 carries 830 yds. 5.6 ave per carry.

Rawls blew Lynch out of the water and topped Lynches best season in average per carry by over 1/2 yard (a lot!!)

Not even close to the main problem IMO.
 

WindCityHawk

New member
Joined
Aug 28, 2010
Messages
2,502
Reaction score
0
I can't believe I clicked on this. What do you want with a post like this? A job in the front office? To be told you're right? You already believe you are, so what would it matter? I swear, we could lift another Lombardi next year and you'd be right there saying, "Yeah, but..."

Criticism is one thing, but this is just silly.
 

sprhawk73

Active member
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
492
Reaction score
112
I blame the old ideology "the ball didn't bounce our way"

What should have happened after the SB is identify who called that terrible play and fire them. We are where we are because of that "oh well" mentality. There's an imbalanced division between development and ownership for coaches that apparently doesn't apply equally to the players. I know PC preaches ownership and responsibility, hell they dedicate a whole day each week to it.
 

Sports Hernia

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,755
Reaction score
3,372
Location
The pit
TwistedHusky":2rsex7o4 said:
It was apparent right after the SB that this team was dividing into factions.

There was those that wanted to follow Lynch and those that wanted to give the keys to Wilson.

The keys were given to Wilson, and this team really never reached the peak again.

This team should have stuck with Lynch and it would have likely had 1 more SB appearance and potentially one more SB win.

When this team won the SB, I looked at the team and figured we would probably reach 2 more SB with this roster and then we would have a period we were competitive but not primary threats. Finally, with a Seasoned Wilson we would probably reach one more SB after a 2-4 year gap from the others.

Our system worked. A great run game made it much easier for our QB. That run game allowed our defensive to stay fresh, which allowed them to be much more aggressive. And it wore out the opposing defense so that opposing teams would start to fall apart by the late 3rd quarter.

The key moment everything changed was the Unger trade. With the trade of Unger, it was clear this team was going to go all in on Wilson. Though you could easily argue that bad pass in the SB was an attempt to push Wilson to the center of the spotlight before that.

It gutted the run game, and Lynch left soon after. Yes, Lynch was hurt anyway. But Lynch was hurt during both runs up to the SB and still produced. The key was Lynch was not going to take a backseat and was not meshing with the coaches.

This team never recovered from the loss of Lynch. But the loss of Unger was the writing on the wall where this team was going to put its focus. And so the team made a choice, a choice that led to being essentially a wildcard team ever after. I remain convinced we went away from Lynch because he challenged our coaches and because we wanted to push Wilson as the leader of this team.

Lynch was probably frustrating to deal with, somewhat intractable and not really the marketing dream that Wilson was supposedly going to be. But he, and how he complemented this defense, was a key to what made this team a SB contender.


The Hawks should have looked at the 49ers for lessons on how removing wild players can hurt you. The 49ers used to have a guy name Charles Haley, but because he was doing crazy things (awful things like peeing on desks and jerking off in front of other people, according to the stories), he was allowed to go to Dallas. But...that suddenly shifted things and instead of the 49ers going to SBs, Dallas did. The 49ers did not really get back until years later, I think when Richard Dent finally joined them.

There were, I am sure, many reasons that Haley was a problem for the 49ers but in getting rid of him they vaulted Dallas over themselves.

Haley was always crazy, he famously threatened the team owner if the owner did not pay Smith during Smith's holdout. But, the team won. Because great players win you games, not great people.

In the same vein, I believe this team jettisoned Lynch because he was pushing Wilson to the side. This is a team that should have been to 3 SBs but squandered it because it jumped the gun and gave the reins of the team to Wilson instead of Lynch. Years later, that change could have been made and we likely would have had one or two more shots at the ring accordingly.

Jumping the gun on that transition just killed us. And you can probably point to the Unger trade as the day we realistically went from contending for SBs to barely making wildcard games.

Naw, trading Unger had nothing to do with the downfall, misusing Jimmy Graham did though.

The salary cap, injuries, age, missing on some draft picks, and most importantly not having enough talent to cover the severe coaching deficiencies that have been there all along (see DB, TC). The gameplanning and playcalling being piss poor also played a huge factor. Stubbornness to admit the status quo wasn’t working anymore also played a key.
 

Hass2Carlson

Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
166
Reaction score
3
Lynch wasn’t just banged up in 2015, he begged out of a playoff game in Minnesota. I think he seemed done with football in every aspect. He wouldn’t have played for Seattle, or at all without the year off. No way Seattle could have planned a future with him going forward and I love Marshawn and hope he gets in the Hall of Fame
 
OP
OP
T

TwistedHusky

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
6,900
Reaction score
1,075
Wasn't Unger traded in 2015? So Lynch did not have Unger blocking in that Minnesota game. Of course he was worn out by then, we got rid of his blocking.

Regardless, the issue is not me being right or wrong. It is about this FO consistently making poor strategic decisions that impacted our SB chances.

Actions have consequences.

The Harvin pickup led to the loss of Tate and likely was a huge factor in the loss of Kam.

While you build around your QB, you do not change your team dynamic in the middle of a freaking SB run. But we did.

When we made that Unger trade, it was clear that we were moving from a run focus to a pass focus. I didn't think Wilson was going to be able to carry the team like our run game did, and he couldn't. To be fair, likely hamstrung by our OC.

And it seems Carroll seems to believe that this team cannot win consistently with Wilson carrying the team (which I do not agree with) since he is now claiming to be shifting to focus on the run, even though our best offensive options are through the pass.

The move from run focus to pass focus killed us then, and the personnel we have acquired since now matches the pass focus we supposedly were trying for that we will now shift away from?

This FO is making lefts when it should go right and vice versa. We don't have a HOF RB in the stable now and we might not even have above average run game. We have small WRs that tend to be light. And we have a TE that shouldn't be blocking EVER.

The funny part is that with a good OC, I think we could win consistently with our pass game being the focus. Maybe even West Coast Offense to mitigate the impact of a somewhat less effective run game.

But we went all in on our QB when we should have stuck with a run offense, and now we are making noise like we are going focus on the run when our best resources are set for a team that throws the ball.

It does not make you optimistic at all. Though, we have to wait until summer to see what this team looks like on offense now. The strategic decisions of the FO & coaching staff, up to this point, are not tremendously encouraging.
 

T-Hawk

New member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
98
Reaction score
1
^^^
In 2015 Russell did carry the offense, and a big part was the OC (who for the record I'm glad he's gone) did game plan well and help, not hamstring Wilson.

We finished 2015 on a tear without Marshawn, squeaked by the ice bowl without him, then against Carolina went back to our old offense with him and were promptly whipped. Then we went back to what had been working, come storming back and if we had another few minutes left we win that game.

One could argue that if we didn't go back to committing to Marshawn, and stuck with what was working with Wilson, we could have been to a third straight Super Bowl.

I don't want to come across as bashing Lynch, loved him here and miss the days of screaming Beastmode at my TV, but his time here was done, and we could not continue to commit to him.
 

chris98251

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
39,589
Reaction score
1,597
Location
Roy Wa.
We came on at the end of 2015 because they used a power scheme with Reece at FB and Rawls and the I formation, then stopped using it in 2016 again, one of my complaints was it was working and working well why go backwards to a plan that doesn't.
 

oldhawkfan

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
4,136
Reaction score
1,527
Location
Spokane
I'm not sure anyone can say with 100% accuracy if the choice to shift focus was intentional or out of necessity because of the fact that Lynch was done.
 
Top