Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Field Gulls assigns blame for each sack of Russell

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
  • https://streamable.com/tvp17

    The final count: Luke Joeckel 5, Rees Odhiambo 3, Ethan Pocic 3, Justin Britt 2, Duane Brown 2, Mark Glowinski 2, Germain Ifedi 2, Oday Aboushi 1, J.D. McKissic 1, Thomas Rawls 1, Matt Tobin 1

    https://www.fieldgulls.com/2018/2/10/16 ... ed-in-2017
    User avatar
    hawknation2018
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1953
    Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:04 pm


  • Someone saying all the Sacks are somehow his fault in 3....2....1..... :lol:
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 9780
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • Sure why not, fair is fair.

    Interesting article that leaves you asking how many of the 23 sacks that Wilson is at least partially responsible for or are wholly on him rather than upon coverage? Too many no doubt, and therein points to the need for Wilson to have earlier options, tale check downs, or just get rid of the ball instead of trying to make something out of nothing and taking a loss. It is however interesting to note the very high number of interior sacks which point fingers at the OLine and specific players there. In the end though the leader may be Wilson himself who bears the responsibility for the most sacks.

    I love Wilson’s ability to scramble but if anything he needs to have his game mature some so he uses his arm more and his legs less. Here I don’t want to take away that scrambling part of his game as it has brought huge rewards only to allow him more options to pass sooner, and to accept reality when the play is inevitably not likely to succeed and to get rid of the ball.
    Last edited by jammerhawk on Wed Feb 14, 2018 8:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
    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: 5264
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm


  • SoulfishHawk wrote:Someone saying all the Sacks are somehow his fault in 3....2....1..... :lol:


    :lol:

    FWIW I think the author did a smart thing with this that I hadn't seen before.

    The totals above are just for sacks that are clearly the fault of the lineman listed -- these are the sacks in which pass protection indisputably broke down before it can be expected to do so.

    As a result there's 23 sacks which are listed as "Coverage/Wilson", which is the right way to think about them, IMO.

    Without looking at the All 22 and knowing the play and Wilson's progressions, for these 23 other sacks we don't really know if they're Wilson's fault (e.g. for bailing on the play, for making a misread in coverage causing him to hold the ball too long, for not getting through his progressions fast enough, for not throwing to an open receiver, etc.) or the fault of the coverage and/or receivers (e.g. defense just won the coverage matchup, primary receiver got jammed at the line, db won the matchup, receiver ran the wrong route, etc.).

    I'm on the record many times over as saying that I think people (meaning all football fans) generally WAY over-attribute pass pro success and failure to offensive lines, and WAY under-attribute pass pro success and failure to QBs, but I think the author of that post is very, very smart to break things down that way, as it gives us a real sense of what is indisputably the fault of individual line members.
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4816
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


  • Very true!

    Well said too!!!
    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: 5264
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm


  • Too me the word blame is unfair, where primary responsibility seems more apt. Taking into consideration match-up issues and attempting to know protections called without more information offers more opportunities to play blame game rather than fixing the problems. Perhaps this is pure semantics but somehow the raw info points out that often blame is as you say misdirected.
    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: 5264
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm


  • jammerhawk wrote:Too me the word blame is unfair, where primary responsibility seems more apt. Taking into consideration match-up issues and attempting to know protections called without more information offers more opportunities to play blame game rather than fixing the problems. Perhaps this is pure semantics but somehow the raw info points out that often blame is as you say misdirected.


    Yeah, I'm totally fine with using "primary responsibility" rather than "blame" (the author uses "blame" and "culprit" :lol: ).

    For some of them I'm totally fine with going full on "blame" though: the first three sacks in the video are just soooo clearly absolute disasters in pass-pro in one-on-one matchups; at about 1 minute Wilson has the biggest and cleanest pocket imaginable to step into, and instead of stepping into it puts his LT in conflict and runs into a sack. Those four I'm *very* okay with "blame", whereas other ones "primary responsibility" makes more sense, and a lot of the "Coverage/Wilson" ones we just don't really know
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4816
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


  • Basically the left side of the Seahawk OL didn't earn their keep. Joeckel was a waste of $8M. I could have told you that just by watching the games. Also, this is only sacks not pressures. It doesn't add those, if it did, I'll bet Ifedi's numbers don't look as rosy as they do in this analysis.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7182
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • hawkfan68 wrote: Also, this is only sacks not pressures.


    Really good point.

    I think as fans we've for the most part begun to recognize that for defensive players pressures are a better statistic than sacks (pressures are much more predictive of past and future sack totals than are sack totals :lol:), yet for whatever reason we still primarily think of lineman in terms of sacks given up, rather than pressures given up.
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4816
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


  • "I sacked my neighbors wife while he was out of town....but that was Russell's fault". :twisted: :sarcasm_off:
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5081
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • Seymour wrote:"I sacked my neighbors wife while he was out of town....but that was Russell's fault". :twisted: :sarcasm_off:

    Well...If she hung onto the ball too long, she probably deserved to get sacked :P
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6446
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


  • Popeyejones wrote:
    SoulfishHawk wrote:Someone saying all the Sacks are somehow his fault in 3....2....1..... :lol:


    :lol:

    FWIW I think the author did a smart thing with this that I hadn't seen before.

    The totals above are just for sacks that are clearly the fault of the lineman listed -- these are the sacks in which pass protection indisputably broke down before it can be expected to do so.

    As a result there's 23 sacks which are listed as "Coverage/Wilson", which is the right way to think about them, IMO.

    Without looking at the All 22 and knowing the play and Wilson's progressions, for these 23 other sacks we don't really know if they're Wilson's fault (e.g. for bailing on the play, for making a misread in coverage causing him to hold the ball too long, for not getting through his progressions fast enough, for not throwing to an open receiver, etc.) or the fault of the coverage and/or receivers (e.g. defense just won the coverage matchup, primary receiver got jammed at the line, db won the matchup, receiver ran the wrong route, etc.).

    I'm on the record many times over as saying that I think people (meaning all football fans) generally WAY over-attribute pass pro success and failure to offensive lines, and WAY under-attribute pass pro success and failure to QBs, but I think the author of that post is very, very smart to break things down that way, as it gives us a real sense of what is indisputably the fault of individual line members.


    Popeye why don't you just go ahead and renounce your fandom for that team in Santa Clara and accept what your heart truly desires and profess your true allegiance to the Seattle Seahawks? :irishdrinkers: :stirthepot:

    The amount of time you spend here coupled with your genuine interest and involvement with anything and everything Seahawk related, for a 49er fan, is uncanny. That's not a bad thing, and you may in all actuality just be a NFL fan in general. I just don't see myself or any other Hawk fan spending as much time on a rivals forum let alone taking the time out to write very well posts about subject matter for a team that they don't primarily support.
    User avatar
    Mistashoesta
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1556
    Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:22 am


  • Mistashoesta wrote:
    Popeyejones wrote:
    SoulfishHawk wrote:Someone saying all the Sacks are somehow his fault in 3....2....1..... :lol:


    :lol:

    FWIW I think the author did a smart thing with this that I hadn't seen before.

    The totals above are just for sacks that are clearly the fault of the lineman listed -- these are the sacks in which pass protection indisputably broke down before it can be expected to do so.

    As a result there's 23 sacks which are listed as "Coverage/Wilson", which is the right way to think about them, IMO.

    Without looking at the All 22 and knowing the play and Wilson's progressions, for these 23 other sacks we don't really know if they're Wilson's fault (e.g. for bailing on the play, for making a misread in coverage causing him to hold the ball too long, for not getting through his progressions fast enough, for not throwing to an open receiver, etc.) or the fault of the coverage and/or receivers (e.g. defense just won the coverage matchup, primary receiver got jammed at the line, db won the matchup, receiver ran the wrong route, etc.).

    I'm on the record many times over as saying that I think people (meaning all football fans) generally WAY over-attribute pass pro success and failure to offensive lines, and WAY under-attribute pass pro success and failure to QBs, but I think the author of that post is very, very smart to break things down that way, as it gives us a real sense of what is indisputably the fault of individual line members.


    Popeye why don't you just go ahead and renounce your fandom for that team in Santa Clara and accept what your heart truly desires and profess your true allegiance to the Seattle Seahawks? :irishdrinkers: :stirthepot:

    The amount of time you spend here coupled with your genuine interest and involvement with anything and everything Seahawk related, for a 49er fan, is uncanny. That's not a bad thing, and you may in all actuality just be a NFL fan in general. I just don't see myself or any other Hawk fan spending as much time on a rivals forum let alone taking the time out to write very well posts about subject matter for a team that they don't primarily support.


    He just needs to purchase a 3 bed 2 bath in Wallingford to complete the transition.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2997
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • Roughly 1,400 people a week are moving into the Greater Seattle area from the Bay Area alone.

    It would not be weird for him join the crowd.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3177
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:48 pm


  • Mistashoesta wrote:Popeye why don't you just go ahead and renounce your fandom for that team in Santa Clara and accept what your heart truly desires and profess your true allegiance to the Seattle Seahawks? :irishdrinkers: :stirthepot:

    The amount of time you spend here coupled with your genuine interest and involvement with anything and everything Seahawk related, for a 49er fan, is uncanny. That's not a bad thing, and you may in all actuality just be a NFL fan in general. I just don't see myself or any other Hawk fan spending as much time on a rivals forum let alone taking the time out to write very well posts about subject matter for a team that they don't primarily support.


    :lol:

    It's off-topic so no need to respond but what happened was:

    a) The hawks have a lot of individual players I really like and root for (meaning I follow the team more).
    b) I took more interest in the Hawks when they had their brief rivalry with the 9ers (which brought me here).
    c) the webzone moderation practice of bundling everything into the same endlessly long threads annoys me and isn't great for sustained convo (which kept me here).
    d) the 9ers have been a friggin disaster (which makes posting about them depressing as heck over these last few years).

    How you know I'm always gonna be a 9ers fan and not a Hawks fan: When the 9ers lose I avoid the Zone so I don't have to wade through the insanity and overreaction; when the Hawks lose I lurk here and smirk at the insansity and overreaction (altho I ususally try to avoid posting here for a few days after a loss so as to not piss people off). :lol: :2thumbs:
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4816
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


  • hawkfan68 wrote:Basically the left side of the Seahawk OL didn't earn their keep.


    The left side?

    The LEFT side???!!!?!!?!!?!

    Ifedi was the league's most penalized player, Pocic gave up two insta-sacks on potential game-winning drives, and yet we're talking about the LEFT side.

    Good grief. I do not get the irrational hatred for anything and everything "free agent".
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 15765
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • Popeyejones wrote:
    Mistashoesta wrote:Popeye why don't you just go ahead and renounce your fandom for that team in Santa Clara and accept what your heart truly desires and profess your true allegiance to the Seattle Seahawks? :irishdrinkers: :stirthepot:

    The amount of time you spend here coupled with your genuine interest and involvement with anything and everything Seahawk related, for a 49er fan, is uncanny. That's not a bad thing, and you may in all actuality just be a NFL fan in general. I just don't see myself or any other Hawk fan spending as much time on a rivals forum let alone taking the time out to write very well posts about subject matter for a team that they don't primarily support.


    :lol:

    It's off-topic so no need to respond but what happened was:

    a) The hawks have a lot of individual players I really like and root for (meaning I follow the team more).
    b) I took more interest in the Hawks when they had their brief rivalry with the 9ers (which brought me here).
    c) the webzone moderation practice of bundling everything into the same endlessly long threads annoys me and isn't great for sustained convo (which kept me here).
    d) the 9ers have been a friggin disaster (which makes posting about them depressing as heck over these last few years).

    How you know I'm always gonna be a 9ers fan and not a Hawks fan: When the 9ers lose I avoid the Zone so I don't have to wade through the insanity and overreaction; when the Hawks lose I lurk here and smirk at the insansity and overreaction (altho I ususally try to avoid posting here for a few days after a loss so as to not piss people off). :lol: :2thumbs:

    You and Marvin have been here for so long..
    I don't even care if you like whatever other team really.
    It's not like I see you trolling the gameday forum or anything.
    I can see you guys know the game so I'm good with it.
    Will Dissly
    2018 Adopt a rookie
    User avatar
    IndyHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3922
    Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 1:42 pm


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    hawkfan68 wrote:Basically the left side of the Seahawk OL didn't earn their keep.


    The left side?

    The LEFT side???!!!?!!?!!?!

    Ifedi was the league's most penalized player, Pocic gave up two insta-sacks on potential game-winning drives, and yet we're talking about the LEFT side.

    Good grief. I do not get the irrational hatred for anything and everything "free agent".


    Do you think Joeckel and Rees O played superbly this season? Joeckel wasn’t worth 8 peanuts yet he got $8M; in hindsight that money could have gone to better use.
    Furthermore, the topic of thread is sacks and not penalties. According to the numbers in the OP, Joeckel gave up the most sacks.
    Last edited by hawkfan68 on Thu Feb 15, 2018 6:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7182
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • Yep, I noticed Joke-lol is responsible for most sacks of Russ as well.

    Guy is trash.
    ImageImageImageImageImage
    WhyDidntWeRun.jpg
    User avatar
    Crizilla
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2723
    Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:52 pm
    Location: Kirkland


  • hawkfan68 wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    hawkfan68 wrote:Basically the left side of the Seahawk OL didn't earn their keep.


    The left side?

    The LEFT side???!!!?!!?!!?!

    Ifedi was the league's most penalized player, Pocic gave up two insta-sacks on potential game-winning drives, and yet we're talking about the LEFT side.

    Good grief. I do not get the irrational hatred for anything and everything "free agent".


    Do you think Joeckel and Rees O played superbly this season? Joeckel wasn’t worth 8 peanuts yet he got $8; in hindsight that money could have gone to better use.
    Furthermore, the topic of thread is sacks and not penalties. According to the numbers in the OP, Joeckel gave up the most sacks.


    I don't know, $8 seems like a bargain for high school tackle, let alone one that was a former top 5 pick. That's not even going to cover one meal at McDonald's.
    User avatar
    Seanhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5375
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:04 pm


  • Seanhawk wrote:
    hawkfan68 wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    hawkfan68 wrote:Basically the left side of the Seahawk OL didn't earn their keep.


    The left side?

    The LEFT side???!!!?!!?!!?!

    Ifedi was the league's most penalized player, Pocic gave up two insta-sacks on potential game-winning drives, and yet we're talking about the LEFT side.

    Good grief. I do not get the irrational hatred for anything and everything "free agent".


    Do you think Joeckel and Rees O played superbly this season? Joeckel wasn’t worth 8 peanuts yet he got $8; in hindsight that money could have gone to better use.
    Furthermore, the topic of thread is sacks and not penalties. According to the numbers in the OP, Joeckel gave up the most sacks.


    I don't know, $8 seems like a bargain for high school tackle, let alone one that was a former top 5 pick. That's not even going to cover one meal at McDonald's.


    LOL....Thanks. It's fixed now to $8M
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7182
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • I was surprised Wilson was sacked only 23 times. In that horrible offense it seemed like 60 times. I don't what cable was teaching but these lineman appeared clueless. Wilson was also holding the ball too long. Becoming skittish and shellshocked.
    Michael Dickson, P, Texas: 2018 Adopt a Probowl Rookie
    User avatar
    Atradees
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3379
    Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:22 pm
    Location: South of Heaven


  • Other QB's would have been sacked 70 times
    Last edited by SoulfishHawk on Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 9780
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • Atradees wrote:I was surprised Wilson was sacked only 23 times. In that horrible offense it seemed like 60 times. I don't what cable was teaching but these lineman appeared clueless. Wilson was also holding the ball too long. Becoming skittish and shellshocked.

    Wilson was sacked 47 times. The article lists 23 of them as "Wilson/Ccoverage." The ones being discussed were just the ones fairly obviously because of an error by the O-linemen.
    Talent can get you to the playoffs.
    It takes character to win when you get there.

    SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS
    User avatar
    sutz
    USMC 1970-77
     
    Posts: 15039
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
    Location: Kent, WA


  • If Joeckel gave up 5 sacks, and FO paid Joeckel 8MM for 1 year... Who's fault really is it?
    Image

    "We all we got, we all we need"
    User avatar
    lukerguy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2070
    Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:00 pm


  • sutz wrote:
    Atradees wrote:I was surprised Wilson was sacked only 23 times. In that horrible offense it seemed like 60 times. I don't what cable was teaching but these lineman appeared clueless. Wilson was also holding the ball too long. Becoming skittish and shellshocked.

    Wilson was sacked 47 times. The article lists 23 of them as "Wilson/Ccoverage." The ones being discussed were just the ones fairly obviously because of an error by the O-linemen.


    So the final count should actually be: Russell Wilson 24, Luke Joeckel 5, Rees Odhiambo 3, Ethan Pocic 3, Justin Britt 2, Duane Brown 2, Mark Glowinski 2, Germain Ifedi 2, Oday Aboushi 1, J.D. McKissic 1, Thomas Rawls 1, Matt Tobin 1?
    Image

    "We all we got, we all we need"
    User avatar
    lukerguy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2070
    Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:00 pm


  • lukerguy wrote:
    sutz wrote:
    Atradees wrote:I was surprised Wilson was sacked only 23 times. In that horrible offense it seemed like 60 times. I don't what cable was teaching but these lineman appeared clueless. Wilson was also holding the ball too long. Becoming skittish and shellshocked.

    Wilson was sacked 47 times. The article lists 23 of them as "Wilson/Ccoverage." The ones being discussed were just the ones fairly obviously because of an error by the O-linemen.


    So the final count should actually be: Russell Wilson 24, Luke Joeckel 5, Rees Odhiambo 3, Ethan Pocic 3, Justin Britt 2, Duane Brown 2, Mark Glowinski 2, Germain Ifedi 2, Oday Aboushi 1, J.D. McKissic 1, Thomas Rawls 1, Matt Tobin 1?


    No, it should be: Non-protection related sacks 23, Luke Joeckel 5, Rees Odhiambo 3, Ethan Pocic 3, Justin Britt 2, Duane Brown 2, Mark Glowinski 2, Germain Ifedi 2, Oday Aboushi 1, J.D. McKissic 1, Thomas Rawls 1, Matt Tobin 1?

    The 23 that are not directly related to protection can not be placed ALL on Russell Wilson. Could be scheme, coverage, miscommunication, game situation. Those 23 have not been broken down to the point where you can assign them solely to Wilson.
    Mojambo
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1641
    Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:38 pm


  • SoulfishHawk wrote:Someone saying all the Sacks are somehow his fault in 3....2....1..... :lol:


    With how putrid the Offensive line played for the first ELEVEN games, and how badly Graham whiffed on blocking, & going after the passes coming his way, I'm surprised that Wilson didn't just throw the damned ball up for grabs out of self preservation, get up off the ground, (because you know that they are going to hit him within three seconds, whether or not he still has the ball,) walk over to the sidelines and scream at Cable to do a better job GETTING HIS O-LINEMEN COACHED UP 2015 level.
    Either Block for a Run Game, or Give me SOME semblance of PROTECTION, better yet, COACH them on how to do BOTH.

    I'll say it again...Second half of 2015 was an eye opener on just how historically good a Quarterback that Wilson CAN BE with an even MEDIOCRE Offensive Line, eh?
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6446
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


  • Wilson is amazing and could down as one of the best ever. 47 was the number. 23 would be good I guess. I like the power run game myself. I think any guy can be a good rb with blocking. Hopefully these scrubs on the line can be blended w vets.
    Michael Dickson, P, Texas: 2018 Adopt a Probowl Rookie
    User avatar
    Atradees
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3379
    Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:22 pm
    Location: South of Heaven


  • Yep, my wife suggested that he throw it to himself since it looks like he's the only one who cares on offense at times :lol:
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 9780
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • SoulfishHawk wrote:Yep, my wife suggested that he throw it to himself since it looks like he's the only one who cares on offense at times :lol:

    I'll call BS to that - I've never seen Baldwin take a play off or give up on a play. I've seen him fight to get open when he was just a decoy setting the pick resulting in a famed Wilson-scrambles-and-hits-Baldwin play.
    User avatar
    KiwiHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2075
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 3:22 pm
    Location: Auckland, New Zealand


  • Dude, it's just my wife being angry because the offense sucks so bad. She's aware how good Baldwin is. It's more just frustrating at the crap show that was the offense this year. It was funny at the time, and it's still funny. The O was so bad at times, all you could do is laugh to keep yourself from going crazy :2thumbs:
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 9780
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • My Old lady likes yelling at the tv. The blame has to go to the overall plan. Personel, coaching the gm for letting it go for so long. Some these parts would be better with vets...
    Michael Dickson, P, Texas: 2018 Adopt a Probowl Rookie
    User avatar
    Atradees
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3379
    Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:22 pm
    Location: South of Heaven


  • How many sacks were created by Ifedi creating 3rd and infiniti after his penalties?
    2018 Adopt a Rookie: Rashaad Penny

    Image
    User avatar
    Sox-n-Hawks
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1780
    Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:26 am


  • hawkfan68 wrote:Furthermore, the topic of thread is sacks and not penalties.


    Your post left that foundation of specificity by addressing generic quality.

    And I wasn't a fan of Joeckel, either. It's just weird that people single out the left side, and I'm betting it's because it didn't involve any draft picks that people have an emotional connection to.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 15765
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    hawkfan68 wrote:Furthermore, the topic of thread is sacks and not penalties.


    Your post left that foundation of specificity by addressing generic quality.

    And I wasn't a fan of Joeckel, either. It's just weird that people single out the left side, and I'm betting it's because it didn't involve any draft picks that people have an emotional connection to.


    From what I can tell, the overwhelmingly popular emotion fans feel for Ifedi is sheer outrage.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2900
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


  • No surprises here and I agree it would be more interesting to see a breakdown of pressures. Russ was responsible for a number of those "non-OL" sacks but remember that was partly intended early in games when he was coached to avoid throwing contested passes. If we're trying to maximize winning probability instead of points then with a good enough defense it makes sense to be overly conservative on offense.

    I also agree that pressures should be heavily weighted situationally. Taking a sack on 3rd and 10+ is not remotely the same as a four man rush blowing up a play when it's 2nd and 3. I'd bet that a large number of pressures this year were indirectly set up by either penalties that put the offense in a predictable place, or the lack of a running game that put the offense in a predictable place.
    User avatar
    AgentDib
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3461
    Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 9:08 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • adeltaY wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    hawkfan68 wrote:Furthermore, the topic of thread is sacks and not penalties.


    Your post left that foundation of specificity by addressing generic quality.

    And I wasn't a fan of Joeckel, either. It's just weird that people single out the left side, and I'm betting it's because it didn't involve any draft picks that people have an emotional connection to.


    From what I can tell, the overwhelmingly popular emotion fans feel for Ifedi is sheer outrage.


    Ifedi is getting quite a bit of second chance murmurs. "Well ya know, Solari, and there's the whole Germain-admitting-he-gets-triggered thing, let's give him another shot" and such. No such goodwill towards Joeckel.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 15765
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • Joker was overpaid by every $ paid above vet minimum. He’s a draft bust big time.The team would have been better to have played Odi @ LG all year and saved the cap wasted on him. I even think Roos would have been a better long term choice.

    So glad to be rid of Cable so real change can happen uninterrupted by his BS.

    Time will now tell if the team has some capable bodies here already and there is the nucleus of a real OLine here already. I’d lketo see a quality G added in the draft.

    Brown, Fant, Odhiambo, Britt, Pocic Roos, and Ifedi are a reasonable base to build upon.
    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: 5264
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    hawkfan68 wrote:Furthermore, the topic of thread is sacks and not penalties.


    Your post left that foundation of specificity by addressing generic quality.

    And I wasn't a fan of Joeckel, either. It's just weird that people single out the left side, and I'm betting it's because it didn't involve any draft picks that people have an emotional connection to.


    There is no emotional connection to Ifedi from me. I have been critical of him since last season. His play does leave a lot to be desired. But he's a player in his second year. Joeckel is a veteran player (6th year) making the same mistakes as a rookie or 2nd year player. At $8M , you expect more from Joeckel than you do from Ifedi, who is still on his rookie deal. They could have retained Bradley Sowell rather than Joeckel and still get the same amount of production they received. If Joeckel hadn't been terrible, they may have not had to be desperate in trading for Brown. Not that Brown is a bad player (he's a good LT) but he's costly.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7182
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • Eh we have Ifedi for cheap for at least two more years, while we sunk 8M in Joeckel and he was gone. We're kinda stuck with Ifedi and can let Joeckel go with no problems. Definitely think Ifedi gets hated on the most.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2900
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR




It is currently Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:39 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online