Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

What should have happened with this team

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
What should have happened with this team
Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:29 am
  • 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.
    Last edited by TwistedHusky on Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2908
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:48 pm


  • 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.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13137
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


  • 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.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2908
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:48 pm


  • Reading way too far into things.

    And Lynch was hurt worse in 2015.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 15561
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • 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.
    User avatar
    sdog1981
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1960
    Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:54 am


  • 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.
    www.hawk-talk.com

    Image

    Richard Sherman wrote:People look forward to writing us off. Our demise was greatly overstated.
    User avatar
    original poster
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 3140
    Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 1:55 am


  • TwistedHusky wrote: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.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13137
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


  • 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.
    Until we develop a pass rush that will cause opposing teams to be forced to scheme to defend it we will never be able to consistently take the final step. The interior rush needs improvement. The OLine clearly still needs work.

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions at last after 38 seasons. Awesome!!!
    jammerhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5125
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm


  • 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.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2908
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:48 pm


  • ^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.
    www.hawk-talk.com

    Image

    Richard Sherman wrote:People look forward to writing us off. Our demise was greatly overstated.
    User avatar
    original poster
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 3140
    Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 1:55 am


  • TwistedHusky wrote: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.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 15561
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • 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.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4770
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • 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.
    User avatar
    WindCityHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2502
    Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:51 pm


  • 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.
    Choices and actions build character & content of character, matters.
    sprhawk73
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 33
    Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:54 am


  • TwistedHusky wrote: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.
    SEATTLE SEAHAWKS SUPERBOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS!

    May the spirit of our friend The Radish live on forever!

    I SO do not care about your fantasy team and who's on it!
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 23147
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • 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
    Hass2Carlson
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 130
    Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 4:42 pm


  • 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.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2908
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:48 pm


  • ^^^
    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.
    T-Hawk
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 56
    Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:47 pm


  • 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.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 23960
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • 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.
    Go Hawks!
    oldhawkfan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1568
    Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:06 pm
    Location: Spokane


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


    Not sure how you could jump to this conclusion. Lynch was coming off an injury, and needed an entire year to heal just to be slightly above average for the Raiders this year (#15 in rushing). That certainly doesn't translate to dominating for us delivering another SB in 2016.

    I'm open to all sorts of theories as to what we should have done over the past 2-3 years;

    1. Not trade for Graham
    2. Not give guys like Kam, Richard and Bennett extensions
    3. Not sign Joeckel and go harder after Lang, etc
    4. Have the cap space to resign Haushka instead of dumpster diving for Walsh
    5. Fire Bevell and Cable earlier than we did

    Lots of scenarios that could have made sense and kept this train rolling..............but keeping Lynch, his bloated salary and all the nonsense that came with him? Nope, that was ABSOLUTELY the right decision.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 12742
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • I think we actually kept Lynch one year too long. Sgt. I think I could be on board with all those theories. the only one I waffle on is Graham. I can be convinced either way depending on my mood.
    User avatar
    austinslater25
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3219
    Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:05 pm
    Location: Tri-Cities, Washington


  • TwistedHusky wrote: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.



    So now it's not Lynch, but Unger? (you're also guessing that Lynch's injuries were the same from year to year, assuming the other backs could aptly fill in for him, and inferring he may have been faking... all in two posts)

    Man, you're all over the place here.

    If you're suggesting the move from a power running game was the precursor to the team's struggles... i'd say that's partly true.

    I would say that they never fully invested RW as "the man" either. It's been a little column A, little column B and it's left the group in limbo.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13137
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


  • This thread is way over complicated.

    Here is where we went wrong.


    Trusting in.....

    Image
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4770
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • There was only one move they needed to make after the SB.. that was to fire Bevel. Hawks would have cut ties with their escaped goat and all probably would have been happy.
    User avatar
    Bobblehead
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2317
    Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:52 am


  • Where we went wrong is we were a split personality team, half what pete wanted us to be and half what we were built to be. Moving on from Lynch was the right move but you either build the line with a competent line coach and install a good rb and stay the course or you take the reigns off Russ and let him start and finish games, not let him play 2 minutes of a first half and then 1 quarter in the 4th and think its enough to keep pulling victories out of the fire. They did neither and we ended up with a half assed in between mess.
    flmmkrz
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1539
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:13 am


  • flmmkrz wrote:Where we went wrong is we were a split personality team, half what pete wanted us to be and half what we were built to be. Moving on from Lynch was the right move but you either build the line with a competent line coach and install a good rb and stay the course or you take the reigns off Russ and let him start and finish games, not let him play 2 minutes of a first half and then 1 quarter in the 4th and think its enough to keep pulling victories out of the fire. They did neither and we ended up with a half assed in between mess.



    Well, at the time after Lynch, we had Rawls and I don't think there was anyone who didn't think Rawls was the next man up. who knew?
    User avatar
    Bobblehead
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2317
    Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:52 am


  • I don't get why you're insisting that Lynch could've carried the team in 2015. Not only did Rawls outperform him overally, Lynch had his first surgery and was OUT for most of the season. You say he played hurt before. There is a big difference between playing with the bumps and nicks that every player picks up throughout the season and the hernia that Lynch required surgery to repair.

    To say that Lynch was healthy enough to be the focal point of our offense in 2015 is revisionist history.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2448
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


  • Bobblehead wrote:
    flmmkrz wrote:Where we went wrong is we were a split personality team, half what pete wanted us to be and half what we were built to be. Moving on from Lynch was the right move but you either build the line with a competent line coach and install a good rb and stay the course or you take the reigns off Russ and let him start and finish games, not let him play 2 minutes of a first half and then 1 quarter in the 4th and think its enough to keep pulling victories out of the fire. They did neither and we ended up with a half assed in between mess.



    Well, at the time after Lynch, we had Rawls and I don't think there was anyone who didn't think Rawls was the next man up. who knew?


    That's fair but the line was still inadequate for the game plan even if Rawls was the man. He was running like a man possessed but they weren't built to play Petes game and Cable clearly wasn't helping the line improve, so there was still a disconnect.
    flmmkrz
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1539
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:13 am


  • TwistedHusky wrote: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.


    I'm just not buying the conspiracy talk. That there is an agenda from the FO & coaches to "push" Wilson into the spotlight.

    Or they had to make a decision, Lynch or Wilson.

    Nope. Sorry man. Didn't Lynch get a run right before the pass? It was just an amazing play from the Pats, thats it. If it was an incomplete pass, Lynch probably would have gotten the call next.

    Sometimes we read into things way too much.
    Long you live and high you fly, and smiles you’ll give and tears you’ll cry, and all you touch and all you see Is all your life will ever be
    User avatar
    twisted_steel2
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6628
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:41 am
    Location: Ballard


  • twisted_steel2 wrote:
    TwistedHusky wrote: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.


    I'm just not buying the conspiracy talk. That there is an agenda from the FO & coaches to "push" Wilson into the spotlight.

    Or they had to make a decision, Lynch or Wilson.

    Nope. Sorry man. Didn't Lynch get a run right before the pass? It was just an amazing play from the Pats, thats it. If it was an incomplete pass, Lynch probably would have gotten the call next.

    Sometimes we read into things way too much.


    Yeah,as I recall, he was arm tackled down.
    Beast is beast, but, through out the season he was known to be stopped at the LOS so, I don't care what anyone says, it wasn't a sure play that he would have gotten in. However, it was the Pats and the Pats didn't have a history of being a super run stopping team at the LOS. My beef with the play is that it was to Lockette.. our 5th or 6th receiver..
    User avatar
    Bobblehead
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2317
    Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:52 am


  • austinslater25 wrote:I think we actually kept Lynch one year too long. Sgt. I think I could be on board with all those theories. the only one I waffle on is Graham. I can be convinced either way depending on my mood.


    Graham only made sense if we opened up our offensive scheme, and we didn't.............at least not on purpose.

    Russell ended up throwing it more, but that's only because we couldn't run the ball anymore. Wasn't because Pete and Bevell/Cable weren't still trying unsuccessfully, as Graham got mowed over and thrown aside by DE's for 50% of his snaps.

    In the end if Pete wasn't willing to open up the offense, then the right decision should have been to keep Unger and use cap or draft capital to find the next stud RB to pound it.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 12742
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • I think Lynch would have been a worthy bet.

    And I think Lynch with adequate blocking gets us to the SB the year after the Minnesota miss. But that is besides the point.

    I don't think that Lynch was faking but I do think we could have gotten one more useful year out of him. That year, the tremendously weak Panthers made it.

    The Unger deal was the shift, from a power running team to a finesse passing team. And some of you were right, we did a halfass job on that transition but the personnel moves were CLEARLY in that direction. Most player moves past that point,, on the offensive side of the ball, weakened our run game,

    A key point, already previously brought up was the decision to remove the FB (which was stupid stupid stupid).

    To me, that is a pretty strong indication this team changed focus and did its best to showcase the QB. The offense of 2015 was about the best Wilson could play, and even so - with him playing about as well as he could....we made a wildcard game we almost lost.

    If Lynch goes down, as suggested, with the framework for a run game we had - we still probably would have been OK. But the shift to a pass oriented offense, while somewhat successful in the regular season, murdered us in the playoffs. Apparently everyone is forgetting the interception and fumble that we had to come back from that was a large part of the reason the Panthers had such a big lead in the first place.

    Say what you want, but that Unger trade led to a series of cascading failures in our run game, the defense and eventually the Seahawks as reasonable SuperBowl contenders. It turned us into a wildcard team because we went far away from what worked in order to try to win on the back of a QB that was not ready for it at all.

    You remain convinced Lynch would not have mattered, I disagree, but that is immaterial. Losing Unger was a symptom of a change in strategy that was doomed to failure and it was rooted building our passing attack at the expense of our run game.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2908
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:48 pm


  • Wow.
    Last edited by Tinymac2 on Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Tinymac2
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 161
    Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 11:18 am


  • I think they had thought that when they traded Unger, our backup was ready for primetime. And that was a mistake. What the coaching staff and GM thought is that they had enough backup and skills in them learning the system enough that we were covered. They were wrong and that is the failure of the system. On our SB run, we had a great front line and a depth that was scary. We lost a lot of that in the next 2 years.

    What we thought were great next man up...ended up being na not so fast young lad. You will be learning under CAble...

    What we thought were the offense is gonna kick it and kick it hard.....Charlie Browned with Lucy as OC. Although we squeaked by, we were in no means the biggo man on the block. We got a few trades that stank to high skunk and then were shown the door by other teams showing us we just got rid of their baggage. One could not "Cary" the load and some others could not get their "headcase" in the game. It was not just on the defense, but also was very offensive on that side of the ball too.

    As Jammer said above, I think we have slowed the rocking on the ship side to side and the sails may prove to not be totally full, but they are aimed in the direction that the wind can go our way. By that, I mean a change in leadership that should have happened a couple of years ago.

    All we can do is watch and see if there is smooth sailing...or find that cask in belowdecks and make sure it is full.....

    :irishdrinkers: :irishdrinkers: :irishdrinkers: :vodka:
    R.I.P. Queen.
    User avatar
    Seahawkfan80
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7723
    Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:20 pm
    Location: A little ways from Boise.


  • You can't change what happened five minutes ago... What's the point of rehashing these things? You're beating a dead mule, time to get a new one!
    User avatar
    Wartooth
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1171
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:29 pm


  • I thought it was the players stopped buying in because coaches weren't being held accountable.

    Always Compete.*

    *Unless you're a coach.

    Pete finally fired a bunch of coaches now they can get back to,,,

    Always Compete.
    User avatar
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1384
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • T-Hawk wrote:^^^
    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.


    As much as I liked Lynch he KILLED us coming back to play in that Carolina game. Our team was rolling and then they changed it back up and we got whipped in the first half. I was actually really pissed off he came back we would of been fine without him.

    The Graham trade IN RESTROSPECT was a bad one BUT only because we misused Jimmy about as bad as you can. We tried to run our same offense by getting rid of a very good center and having a TE who sucks at blocking block alot. If they were more creative in using Jimmy and not using him to block a bunch the trade wouldnt of looked as bad.

    Honestly though EVERYTHING after our SB loss to NE comes down to the OL play. It would seem it has gotten worse year by year even with so much capital put into it. FINALLY we fired Bevell and Cable so we will see how much of a difference that makes. The Vikings were horrible last year on the OL and this year they made huge improvements so hopefully we can follow the same pattern. If we do there is no reason we cant go 12-4 or 13-3 like the vikings did with Case Keenum.

    I also think there was growing resentment against Bevell year by year after that superbowl and you saw the cracks and hints at that in play comments and just general attitudes. If he is fired after the SB loss I think this team looks alot different.
    Image

    "Jed York does not own the 49ers; Russell Wilson does"
    User avatar
    WilsonMVP
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2768
    Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:40 am


  • Bobblehead wrote:There was only one move they needed to make after the SB.. that was to fire Bevel. Hawks would have cut ties with their escaped goat and all probably would have been happy.


    This 1000%. By keeping Bevell the locker room became divided. Lynch was done in 2015 as was Pete's philosophy. The Hawks were forced to deviate from the tired old, stale philosophy half way through 2015 and our offense never looked better. Its still mind boggling that Pete reverted back to it in 2016 and onward. The torch was passed on to Wilson because there was no other choice. Cable ruined whatever was left of the Oline and we couldnt/cant run the ball like Pete wanted to (even though he stubbornly continued to try). Regardless, I believe if Bevell was fired like he should have been after 49, the players would have stuck together and the results would have been better.
    User avatar
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 793
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 10:19 am


  • IF your premise is true then the correct move would have been to give the keys to the QB and get rid of any malcontents unable to deal with it.
    User avatar
    brimsalabim
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4056
    Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:50 am


  • Losing Unger hasn't hurt this team in any year other then 2015. Britt has been better then Unger the last 2 years.
    getnasty
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2713
    Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:22 pm


  • I'm so tired about hearing the Superbowl pass had anything to do with Lynch or Wilson. That is just ridiculous. As if any highly competitive person on the verge of winning the biggest game of their lives is going to even think about that... Just ludicrous.
    "Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories." - Sun Tzu
    User avatar
    BigMeach
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 606
    Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:11 am


  • BigMeach wrote:I'm so tired about hearing the Superbowl pass had anything to do with Lynch or Wilson. That is just ridiculous. As if any highly competitive person on the verge of winning the biggest game of their lives is going to even think about that... Just ludicrous.


    Yeah I dont look very far into all that favoritism jazz either. It was just a horrid play call that had horrid results.
    User avatar
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 793
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 10:19 am


  • The best 2018 option for the Seahawks is to trade as many draft picks as necessary to get Unger back, obviously he is the missing piece to future super bowls, even if his injury history gets even worse. Got to go get him and maybe then they could also offer $20/million a year and convince Lynch to come out of retirement, after all, even in a wheel chair, he's the GOAT at RB (except when he doesn't feel like it 'cause his back hurts or he's hormonal or he's just pissed off.)
    :sarcasm_off:
    ------------------Rashaad Penny, the next great Seahawks RB.------------------
    User avatar
    CamanoIslandJQ
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1360
    Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:11 am
    Location: Camano Island, WA


  • getnasty wrote:Losing Unger hasn't hurt this team in any year other then 2015. Britt has been better then Unger the last 2 years.


    Definitely not this year. Britt was subpar this year and Unger was great. Not sure about last year, they were probably even.

    I agree that Lynch shouldn't even have come back in 2015, he threw us off. Look at the pick six Kuechly got on us in the Panthers game. Wilson tries to check down to Lynch but they aren't even close to being on the same page and it goes the other way. They weren't in sync.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2448
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


  • The team was duped into believing the BS from Cable/Bevell. The engine of the O was broken (the OLine) and the coaches in charge of the O, as aforesaid, had no clue how to fix things. Cable gained more power over the running game after the release of Coach Sherman Smith and totally killed the remnants of the running game too.

    Both should have been released after XLIX.
    Until we develop a pass rush that will cause opposing teams to be forced to scheme to defend it we will never be able to consistently take the final step. The interior rush needs improvement. The OLine clearly still needs work.

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions at last after 38 seasons. Awesome!!!
    jammerhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5125
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm


  • Completely agree with the OP. Any important winning this team has ever done its entire history was because of Lynch and the LOB.

    As both of those things deteriorated, everything went downhill.
    SixSeahawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 340
    Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 11:23 pm


  • TwistedHusky wrote:I think Lynch would have been a worthy bet.

    And I think Lynch with adequate blocking gets us to the SB the year after the Minnesota miss. But that is besides the point.

    I don't think that Lynch was faking but I do think we could have gotten one more useful year out of him. That year, the tremendously weak Panthers made it.

    The Unger deal was the shift, from a power running team to a finesse passing team. And some of you were right, we did a halfass job on that transition but the personnel moves were CLEARLY in that direction. Most player moves past that point,, on the offensive side of the ball, weakened our run game,

    A key point, already previously brought up was the decision to remove the FB (which was stupid stupid stupid).

    To me, that is a pretty strong indication this team changed focus and did its best to showcase the QB. The offense of 2015 was about the best Wilson could play, and even so - with him playing about as well as he could....we made a wildcard game we almost lost.

    If Lynch goes down, as suggested, with the framework for a run game we had - we still probably would have been OK. But the shift to a pass oriented offense, while somewhat successful in the regular season, murdered us in the playoffs. Apparently everyone is forgetting the interception and fumble that we had to come back from that was a large part of the reason the Panthers had such a big lead in the first place.

    Say what you want, but that Unger trade led to a series of cascading failures in our run game, the defense and eventually the Seahawks as reasonable SuperBowl contenders. It turned us into a wildcard team because we went far away from what worked in order to try to win on the back of a QB that was not ready for it at all.

    You remain convinced Lynch would not have mattered, I disagree, but that is immaterial. Losing Unger was a symptom of a change in strategy that was doomed to failure and it was rooted building our passing attack at the expense of our run game.



    The premise of the argument is sound. I think its the insistence on Lynch in particular being the catalyst that I struggle with. Yes, the team opted to shift their mentality to rely more on RW as a passer. They never fully committed to that and the team has struggled.

    However, if they were going to remain a power running team, i still do not believe Lynch was going to be the key runner. Had Rawls stayed healthy one could argue he would have been that back.

    I think the team is priming to return to that style of offense... something similar to what we saw with Lynch/Graham sidelined and Rawls running
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13137
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


  • original poster wrote: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.

    The Pass sets up the Run game, just as the Run sets up the Passing game.
    Wilson & Lynch were THE perfect complement to each other ...symbiosis
    After the shootout with the Steelers in 2015 (no Lynch) Wilson & Baldwin went on a tear for the remainder of that season, PROVING that Wilson could still get it done without having a stellar run game....Playoffs.
    That doesn't mean that Wilson can do it all by himself, or that he doesn't need a RB to HELP take the pressure off the Passing game.
    The Seahawks had one of the worst RUN Games in the entire League, Shitty Pass Protection, Crap for Run Blocking, and our best Rusher was Russell Wilson, where the Seahawks win NINE games, and are just a few bad kicks away from winning ELEVEN or TWELVE, and making it into the playoffs tells ya everything you need to know.
    The problem ISN'T Russell Wilson NOT being the "Identity" of the Seahawks Offense, because he ABSOLUTELY IS (MVP Candidate) it's that ANYONE would actually believe that he could do it all, without ANY help.
    Cable & Bevell losing their jobs verifies this ^^^
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6399
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


  • TwistedHusky wrote: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.

    Lynch was in his prime for Christs sake, AND some of the Seahawks success in the Run Game was because Russell Wilson was ADDING 500 to 600 Yards of runs to the tally...That's right, Lynch actually benefitted from Wilson's ability to do the RO, which helped to keep drives alive.
    Second half of 2015 also disproves that it was ALL LYNCH.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6399
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


Next


It is currently Sat Aug 18, 2018 6:44 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online