Do Not Sell My Personal Information

O Line

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE: PG-13
Re: O Line
Tue Dec 24, 2019 1:19 am
  • chris98251 wrote:
    xray wrote:
    Tamerlane wrote:Let's have some perspective here. The offensive line for much of yesterday's game was down to 3 backups and 2 starters. Think about that. For those not named backup Jamarco Jones, facing the #1 sacker in the entire NFL, the offensive line was responsible for all of 1 hit and 4 hurries yesterday according to PFF! Russell Wilson was credited with 2 sacks and 1 hurry. The average "time to sack" for Wilson was 4.22 seconds.

    The offensive line and the team as a whole were simply decimated by injuries. The line had improved throughout the year -- as I posted in another thread from week 9-15 they had the #8 pass blocking efficiency. They weathered the storm incredibly well losing their starting center, top pass blocking tight ends, and substituting guards from time to time (even against Aaron Donald). But losing their leader and best lineman, by far, on top of everything else was just too much.

    Some who cling to their preconceived notions don't want to hear facts. It's easier to man-rage against Pete, Schotty, the OL, or whoever is next in line. With team health on life support, I guess it's the perfect time for bitter cynics to crawl out of the woodwork with agendas. Down to one deep roster running back, we saw what it means to put the team entirely on the back of Russell Wilson and to live the Seahawks Twitter "analytics" dream. "Running backs don't matter". "Passing is more efficient - do a lot more, can't say how much, but do it a LOT more". "Russell Wilson is the best evar, just put the ball in his hands and the magic will happen - trust our statistics over any football common sense you think you know". The result yesterday: 31 passing attemps, 20 rushing. 1/12 third down conversions. Utter offensive deadlock. Cardinals get 35 mins time of possession and 70 plays on offense.

    The problem with the pass obssessed, Russell-Wilson-does-no-wrong, "Pete just holds him back" group is that they never, ever allow themselves to be disproven with facts or evidence. They have an unfalsifiable logic. When the team gets to 11-3 running the gauntlet of injuries and the most difficult schedule in the league, doing so with a balanced offense ranked #2 and #7 in pass/run DVOA, the reply from yahoos like Ben Baldwin is to suddenly move the goalposts of success to a brand new HYPER-ADVANCED super-metric called "Point Differential!" Think about this: the first rule of so-called "advanced" football statistics 101, which these guys will lecture you about at length normally, is to account for opponent strength! Like for example Football Outsider's DVOA measures. But no, all of the sudden, Ben Baldwin, faced with too much Seahawks success for his liking, becomes a die-hard convert to Point Differential, which takes no account of strengths of schedule. This conversion was of course necessary for him to hold on to his precious agendas. "Seahawks games are too close, should have passed more, pretenders lol".

    However, as soon as the Seahawks abandon the run, by choice (e.g. first two games last year) or by necessity (e.g. yesterday, most of 2017), and it doesn't turn out so well, the reply from the same peanut gallery is of course to deflect and blame anything but their own stupid ideas: head coach too old, the offensive line, offensive play calls (before anyone has even seen film of WR routes). Nevermind that most of these basement "statisticians" can't distinguish one WR route from another, don't acknowledge how often Wilson checks in to run plays, and so on. It's farcical really.

    I'm not blaming Wilson, by the way. He's a real warrior and did his best yesterday with a depleted and decapitated roster forced into a perilous one-dimensionality that was never going to work at the best of times. But this team will be (and should be) designed for a balace of run, pass, and defense and has had to do so on a -$35m cap budget, which is a challenge. Those who want the Green Bay Packers model of league high QB salary + league high OL salaries (but still one injury away from the precipice), leaving next to nothing for the rest of the team, you might as well settle in for the long run because that won't be happening on the Seahawks. Thankfully.

    NFL rosters are by necessity top heavy and the Seahawks by some measures are literally missing most of their high impact players: by PFF scores 4 out of the top 6 graded starters on offense and 4 out of the top 6 graded starters on defense. I don't know why it's so hard to appreciate how devastating this is.

    Can we have a word limit on posts in here ? or is it established at 50,000 words already ?


    Need to take your Adderall meds for more focus obviously, thought it was a great post,

    The bold part made sense to me.
    Actually the whole thing is pretty good..Long but good.
    IndyHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5260
    Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 2:42 pm


Re: O Line
Thu Dec 26, 2019 12:00 am
  • The point by some here, about how backup lineman are always bad make little sense. If Drew Brees, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers gets hammered like that, even by a backup..they’d be scolded. Front offices who care about their Quarterbacks, go out of their way to protect them. Even with backups.

    This isn’t hard, I have zero idea why acknowledging these facts and putting ego aside is so hard amongst Hawks fans. Our O-line is bad, has been bad for years, and that’s unacceptable for most 1st class organizations with a franchise QB. Focusing on the injuries on the O-line, as if this O-line hasn’t been statistically bad for years is intellectually dishonest. Every QB in the league cause SOME sacks, most QBs in the league aren’t asked to face as much consistent pressure as Russ does. This isn’t a reaction to an O-line that was good or great before, and is suddenly struggling with injuries. This is a long, consistent pattern of poor O-line play.

    I will always root for the Seahawks. But when we get a new owner, I would like Russ to not re-sign, and move to a team that creates the identity of the team around him. Have a running game, sure. But give him pass blocking O-linemen and maybe Julio, Fitz, Michael Thomas type number 1 receiver. This team has refused, even after Beast left, to TRULY build the team around Russ and it makes zero sense. And it’s tiring to hear fans, who claim they’re “FAIR” to Russell find a way to completely talk around our QB dealing with a bottom 5 O-line. Let’s just stick to being a running team with a cheap QB and a great defense. It doesn’t make sense for Russell to stay on a team where people don’t think it’s an outrage to not only have a poor O-line, but zero O-line depth.

    Jville wrote:John ........ I don't believe you can see beyond Russell Wilson. For you, the rest of the team is but a cast of extras.

    And that's ok. It's your choice.



    The people who are anti-Russ are worse. In fact, it’s a shame Russ isn’t as universally embraced by the fan base as Lynch is.

    Either way, why not allow yourself to be led by the facts? You responded to the thread saying “1 snap out of 50.” Someone responded to you not with their opinion, but an actual fact about what Russ is facing. As a Hawks fan, that should outrage you.
    Scorpion05
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1368
    Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:05 am


Re: O Line
Thu Dec 26, 2019 7:18 am
  • Scorpion05 wrote:The point by some here, about how backup lineman are always bad make little sense. If Drew Brees, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers gets hammered like that, even by a backup..they’d be scolded. Front offices who care about their Quarterbacks, go out of their way to protect them. Even with backups.

    This isn’t hard, I have zero idea why acknowledging these facts and putting ego aside is so hard amongst Hawks fans. Our O-line is bad, has been bad for years, and that’s unacceptable for most 1st class organizations with a franchise QB. Focusing on the injuries on the O-line, as if this O-line hasn’t been statistically bad for years is intellectually dishonest. Every QB in the league cause SOME sacks, most QBs in the league aren’t asked to face as much consistent pressure as Russ does. This isn’t a reaction to an O-line that was good or great before, and is suddenly struggling with injuries. This is a long, consistent pattern of poor O-line play.

    I will always root for the Seahawks. But when we get a new owner, I would like Russ to not re-sign, and move to a team that creates the identity of the team around him. Have a running game, sure. But give him pass blocking O-linemen and maybe Julio, Fitz, Michael Thomas type number 1 receiver. This team has refused, even after Beast left, to TRULY build the team around Russ and it makes zero sense. And it’s tiring to hear fans, who claim they’re “FAIR” to Russell find a way to completely talk around our QB dealing with a bottom 5 O-line. Let’s just stick to being a running team with a cheap QB and a great defense. It doesn’t make sense for Russell to stay on a team where people don’t think it’s an outrage to not only have a poor O-line, but zero O-line depth.

    Jville wrote:John ........ I don't believe you can see beyond Russell Wilson. For you, the rest of the team is but a cast of extras.

    And that's ok. It's your choice.



    The people who are anti-Russ are worse. In fact, it’s a shame Russ isn’t as universally embraced by the fan base as Lynch is.

    Either way, why not allow yourself to be led by the facts? You responded to the thread saying “1 snap out of 50.” Someone responded to you not with their opinion, but an actual fact about what Russ is facing. As a Hawks fan, that should outrage you.


    The number of anti Russell fans is about 2. People are critical of him because he's the most important peice to the puzzle and when he messes up it's he should be called out. Just like with any sucsess we ever have he'll get the credit.

    People want an average OL? Top 5 in run blocking and bottom 5 in pass blocking = Average

    The teams that are better then us right now are not better because they have a better OL, they are better because they play defense.
    getnasty
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4308
    Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:22 pm


Re: O Line
Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:19 am
  • 47 sacks and counting says volumes . I know it's more involved than that ; SOME of those sacks are on Wilson but most are on the OL ; which Carroll and co. have proudly assembled and brag about . Go figure
    xray
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1961
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:29 am
    Location: AZ


Re: O Line
Thu Dec 26, 2019 9:14 am
  • xray wrote:47 sacks and counting says volumes . I know it's more involved than that ; SOME of those sacks are on Wilson but most are on the OL ; which Carroll and co. have proudly assembled and brag about . Go figure


    Can you show us where Pete has bragged about that?
    getnasty
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4308
    Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:22 pm


Re: O Line
Thu Dec 26, 2019 2:41 pm
  • Seymour wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Seymour wrote:Not asking for an elite oline. Read again.

    Average would be awesome!


    What you're really asking for is a new head coach that implements a more dynamic and balanced playcalling scheme.

    Because it'd be insane to spend the time and cap resources into developing a better pass blocking O-line on such a run heavy offensive team
    .


    Wrong!!

    Use facts and don't just shoot from the hip. :roll:

    We pass 53.4% of the time this season. The niners run more than we do yet they pass protect far better (#9 in pass blocking)


    I agree 100 percent we will not do jack in the playoffs with this turd of an 0-line. It has to get better if were ever going to win again in the playoffs. Just making the playoffs is not enough i'd rather take a step back for 2 years and come out the other side with a chance at the NFC Championship game than continue to lose the first playoff game. We haven't won a divisional playoff game since 2014 and we haven't won the wildcard game since 2016 at Detroit that was back when we still had a defense and an average descent O-line. If this O-line had stayed healthy and we had Britt and Brown maybe things would have been different. We need better depth, O-line and LB has to be a priority this next draft.
    Northwest Seahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1554
    Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:10 pm


Re: O Line
Fri Dec 27, 2019 2:40 pm
  • John63 wrote:
    Tamerlane wrote:Let's have some perspective here. The offensive line for much of yesterday's game was down to 3 backups and 2 starters. Think about that. For those not named backup Jamarco Jones, facing the #1 sacker in the entire NFL, the offensive line was responsible for all of 1 hit and 4 hurries yesterday according to PFF! Russell Wilson was credited with 2 sacks and 1 hurry. The average "time to sack" for Wilson was 4.22 seconds.

    The offensive line and the team as a whole were simply decimated by injuries. The line had improved throughout the year -- as I posted in another thread from week 9-15 they had the #8 pass blocking efficiency. They weathered the storm incredibly well losing their starting center, top pass blocking tight ends, and substituting guards from time to time (even against Aaron Donald). But losing their leader and best lineman, by far, on top of everything else was just too much.

    Some who cling to their preconceived notions don't want to hear facts. It's easier to man-rage against Pete, Schotty, the OL, or whoever is next in line. With team health on life support, I guess it's the perfect time for bitter cynics to crawl out of the woodwork with agendas. Down to one deep roster running back, we saw what it means to put the team entirely on the back of Russell Wilson and to live the Seahawks Twitter "analytics" dream. "Running backs don't matter". "Passing is more efficient - do a lot more, can't say how much, but do it a LOT more". "Russell Wilson is the best evar, just put the ball in his hands and the magic will happen - trust our statistics over any football common sense you think you know". The result yesterday: 31 passing attemps, 20 rushing. 1/12 third down conversions. Utter offensive deadlock. Cardinals get 35 mins time of possession and 70 plays on offense.

    The problem with the pass obssessed, Russell-Wilson-does-no-wrong, "Pete just holds him back" group is that they never, ever allow themselves to be disproven with facts or evidence. They have an unfalsifiable logic. When the team gets to 11-3 running the gauntlet of injuries and the most difficult schedule in the league, doing so with a balanced offense ranked #2 and #7 in pass/run DVOA, the reply from yahoos like Ben Baldwin is to suddenly move the goalposts of success to a brand new HYPER-ADVANCED super-metric called "Point Differential!" Think about this: the first rule of so-called "advanced" football statistics 101, which these guys will lecture you about at length normally, is to account for opponent strength! Like for example Football Outsider's DVOA measures. But no, all of the sudden, Ben Baldwin, faced with too much Seahawks success for his liking, becomes a die-hard convert to Point Differential, which takes no account of strengths of schedule. This conversion was of course necessary for him to hold on to his precious agendas. "Seahawks games are too close, should have passed more, pretenders lol".

    However, as soon as the Seahawks abandon the run, by choice (e.g. first two games last year) or by necessity (e.g. yesterday, most of 2017), and it doesn't turn out so well, the reply from the same peanut gallery is of course to deflect and blame anything but their own stupid ideas: head coach too old, the offensive line, offensive play calls (before anyone has even seen film of WR routes). Nevermind that most of these basement "statisticians" can't distinguish one WR route from another, don't acknowledge how often Wilson checks in to run plays, and so on. It's farcical really.

    I'm not blaming Wilson, by the way. He's a real warrior and did his best yesterday with a depleted and decapitated roster forced into a perilous one-dimensionality that was never going to work at the best of times. But this team will be (and should be) designed for a balace of run, pass, and defense and has had to do so on a -$35m cap budget, which is a challenge. Those who want the Green Bay Packers model of league high QB salary + league high OL salaries (but still one injury away from the precipice), leaving next to nothing for the rest of the team, you might as well settle in for the long run because that won't be happening on the Seahawks. Thankfully.

    NFL rosters are by necessity top heavy and the Seahawks by some measures are literally missing most of their high impact players: by PFF scores 4 out of the top 6 graded starters on offense and 4 out of the top 6 graded starters on defense. I don't know why it's so hard to appreciate how devastating this is.



    Ahh we did not abandon the run till we had to. As to rest some good, some bad, so misguided but at least a well thought out post.

    Misguided only for people like you, Ben Baldwin, etc.
    More like post of the year.
    hawksfansinceday1
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 24567
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:38 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


Re: O Line
Fri Dec 27, 2019 2:47 pm
  • hawksfansinceday1 wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    Tamerlane wrote:Let's have some perspective here. The offensive line for much of yesterday's game was down to 3 backups and 2 starters. Think about that. For those not named backup Jamarco Jones, facing the #1 sacker in the entire NFL, the offensive line was responsible for all of 1 hit and 4 hurries yesterday according to PFF! Russell Wilson was credited with 2 sacks and 1 hurry. The average "time to sack" for Wilson was 4.22 seconds.

    The offensive line and the team as a whole were simply decimated by injuries. The line had improved throughout the year -- as I posted in another thread from week 9-15 they had the #8 pass blocking efficiency. They weathered the storm incredibly well losing their starting center, top pass blocking tight ends, and substituting guards from time to time (even against Aaron Donald). But losing their leader and best lineman, by far, on top of everything else was just too much.

    Some who cling to their preconceived notions don't want to hear facts. It's easier to man-rage against Pete, Schotty, the OL, or whoever is next in line. With team health on life support, I guess it's the perfect time for bitter cynics to crawl out of the woodwork with agendas. Down to one deep roster running back, we saw what it means to put the team entirely on the back of Russell Wilson and to live the Seahawks Twitter "analytics" dream. "Running backs don't matter". "Passing is more efficient - do a lot more, can't say how much, but do it a LOT more". "Russell Wilson is the best evar, just put the ball in his hands and the magic will happen - trust our statistics over any football common sense you think you know". The result yesterday: 31 passing attemps, 20 rushing. 1/12 third down conversions. Utter offensive deadlock. Cardinals get 35 mins time of possession and 70 plays on offense.

    The problem with the pass obssessed, Russell-Wilson-does-no-wrong, "Pete just holds him back" group is that they never, ever allow themselves to be disproven with facts or evidence. They have an unfalsifiable logic. When the team gets to 11-3 running the gauntlet of injuries and the most difficult schedule in the league, doing so with a balanced offense ranked #2 and #7 in pass/run DVOA, the reply from yahoos like Ben Baldwin is to suddenly move the goalposts of success to a brand new HYPER-ADVANCED super-metric called "Point Differential!" Think about this: the first rule of so-called "advanced" football statistics 101, which these guys will lecture you about at length normally, is to account for opponent strength! Like for example Football Outsider's DVOA measures. But no, all of the sudden, Ben Baldwin, faced with too much Seahawks success for his liking, becomes a die-hard convert to Point Differential, which takes no account of strengths of schedule. This conversion was of course necessary for him to hold on to his precious agendas. "Seahawks games are too close, should have passed more, pretenders lol".

    However, as soon as the Seahawks abandon the run, by choice (e.g. first two games last year) or by necessity (e.g. yesterday, most of 2017), and it doesn't turn out so well, the reply from the same peanut gallery is of course to deflect and blame anything but their own stupid ideas: head coach too old, the offensive line, offensive play calls (before anyone has even seen film of WR routes). Nevermind that most of these basement "statisticians" can't distinguish one WR route from another, don't acknowledge how often Wilson checks in to run plays, and so on. It's farcical really.

    I'm not blaming Wilson, by the way. He's a real warrior and did his best yesterday with a depleted and decapitated roster forced into a perilous one-dimensionality that was never going to work at the best of times. But this team will be (and should be) designed for a balace of run, pass, and defense and has had to do so on a -$35m cap budget, which is a challenge. Those who want the Green Bay Packers model of league high QB salary + league high OL salaries (but still one injury away from the precipice), leaving next to nothing for the rest of the team, you might as well settle in for the long run because that won't be happening on the Seahawks. Thankfully.

    NFL rosters are by necessity top heavy and the Seahawks by some measures are literally missing most of their high impact players: by PFF scores 4 out of the top 6 graded starters on offense and 4 out of the top 6 graded starters on defense. I don't know why it's so hard to appreciate how devastating this is.



    Ahh we did not abandon the run till we had to. As to rest some good, some bad, so misguided but at least a well thought out post.

    Misguided only for people like you, Ben Baldwin, etc.
    More like post of the year.



    LOL sure whatever you say :lol:
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2690
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


Re: O Line
Fri Dec 27, 2019 2:51 pm
  • Is LOL your response to everything?...If so...LOL @You.
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 36105
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:38 pm
    Location: The Tex-ASS


Re: O Line
Fri Dec 27, 2019 3:06 pm
  • Tamerlane wrote:Let's have some perspective here. The offensive line for much of yesterday's game was down to 3 backups and 2 starters. Think about that. For those not named backup Jamarco Jones, facing the #1 sacker in the entire NFL, the offensive line was responsible for all of 1 hit and 4 hurries yesterday according to PFF! Russell Wilson was credited with 2 sacks and 1 hurry. The average "time to sack" for Wilson was 4.22 seconds.

    The offensive line and the team as a whole were simply decimated by injuries. The line had improved throughout the year -- as I posted in another thread from week 9-15 they had the #8 pass blocking efficiency. They weathered the storm incredibly well losing their starting center, top pass blocking tight ends, and substituting guards from time to time (even against Aaron Donald). But losing their leader and best lineman, by far, on top of everything else was just too much.

    Some who cling to their preconceived notions don't want to hear facts. It's easier to man-rage against Pete, Schotty, the OL, or whoever is next in line. With team health on life support, I guess it's the perfect time for bitter cynics to crawl out of the woodwork with agendas. Down to one deep roster running back, we saw what it means to put the team entirely on the back of Russell Wilson and to live the Seahawks Twitter "analytics" dream. "Running backs don't matter". "Passing is more efficient - do a lot more, can't say how much, but do it a LOT more". "Russell Wilson is the best evar, just put the ball in his hands and the magic will happen - trust our statistics over any football common sense you think you know". The result yesterday: 31 passing attemps, 20 rushing. 1/12 third down conversions. Utter offensive deadlock. Cardinals get 35 mins time of possession and 70 plays on offense.

    The problem with the pass obssessed, Russell-Wilson-does-no-wrong, "Pete just holds him back" group is that they never, ever allow themselves to be disproven with facts or evidence. They have an unfalsifiable logic. When the team gets to 11-3 running the gauntlet of injuries and the most difficult schedule in the league, doing so with a balanced offense ranked #2 and #7 in pass/run DVOA, the reply from yahoos like Ben Baldwin is to suddenly move the goalposts of success to a brand new HYPER-ADVANCED super-metric called "Point Differential!" Think about this: the first rule of so-called "advanced" football statistics 101, which these guys will lecture you about at length normally, is to account for opponent strength! Like for example Football Outsider's DVOA measures. But no, all of the sudden, Ben Baldwin, faced with too much Seahawks success for his liking, becomes a die-hard convert to Point Differential, which takes no account of strengths of schedule. This conversion was of course necessary for him to hold on to his precious agendas. "Seahawks games are too close, should have passed more, pretenders lol".

    However, as soon as the Seahawks abandon the run, by choice (e.g. first two games last year) or by necessity (e.g. yesterday, most of 2017), and it doesn't turn out so well, the reply from the same peanut gallery is of course to deflect and blame anything but their own stupid ideas: head coach too old, the offensive line, offensive play calls (before anyone has even seen film of WR routes). Nevermind that most of these basement "statisticians" can't distinguish one WR route from another, don't acknowledge how often Wilson checks in to run plays, and so on. It's farcical really.

    I'm not blaming Wilson, by the way. He's a real warrior and did his best yesterday with a depleted and decapitated roster forced into a perilous one-dimensionality that was never going to work at the best of times. But this team will be (and should be) designed for a balace of run, pass, and defense and has had to do so on a -$35m cap budget, which is a challenge. Those who want the Green Bay Packers model of league high QB salary + league high OL salaries (but still one injury away from the precipice), leaving next to nothing for the rest of the team, you might as well settle in for the long run because that won't be happening on the Seahawks. Thankfully.

    NFL rosters are by necessity top heavy and the Seahawks by some measures are literally missing most of their high impact players: by PFF scores 4 out of the top 6 graded starters on offense and 4 out of the top 6 graded starters on defense. I don't know why it's so hard to appreciate how devastating this is.


    Enjoyed your post. I'm looking forward to the privileged of seeing and reading your thoughts more often.

    Thanks for posting :2thumbs: The forum needs quality posts.
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 9584
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:49 pm


Re: O Line
Fri Dec 27, 2019 4:55 pm
  • I do think the loss of Dissley was an absolutely huge loss to any chance of mixing in a short passing game. Not only was he our best pass blocking TE as Tamerlane said, but he was also our best short to mid-range receiver. Had he stayed healthy and Gordon continue to get integrated into the offense along with the improved pass blocking as Tamerlane also mentioned, surviving the loss of our top 2 RBs would be far easier. No Duane Brown, no Dissley and no Gordon spells no short to mid-range passing game.
    hawksfansinceday1
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 24567
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:38 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


Re: O Line
Fri Dec 27, 2019 5:10 pm
  • Judas Priest...quit quoting the wall of text post
    Smellyman
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5687
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:58 pm
    Location: Taipei


Re: O Line
Fri Dec 27, 2019 5:36 pm
  • Largent80 wrote:Is LOL your response to everything?...If so...LOL @You.


    You already know it is not, I just choose not to engage further with that person. As to your retort, whatever floats your boat and makes you happy. Happy holidays.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2690
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


Re: O Line
Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:41 pm
  • hawksfansinceday1 wrote:I do think the loss of Dissley was an absolutely huge loss to any chance of mixing in a short passing game. Not only was he our best pass blocking TE as Tamerlane said, but he was also our best short to mid-range receiver. Had he stayed healthy and Gordon continue to get integrated into the offense along with the improved pass blocking as Tamerlane also mentioned, surviving the loss of our top 2 RBs would be far easier. No Duane Brown, no Dissley and no Gordon spells no short to mid-range passing game.


    Luke Wilson was just down graded for Sunday's game. Another lost option for edge protection help for our offensive tackles.
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 9584
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:49 pm


Re: O Line
Sat Dec 28, 2019 9:46 pm
  • Jville wrote:
    hawksfansinceday1 wrote:I do think the loss of Dissley was an absolutely huge loss to any chance of mixing in a short passing game. Not only was he our best pass blocking TE as Tamerlane said, but he was also our best short to mid-range receiver. Had he stayed healthy and Gordon continue to get integrated into the offense along with the improved pass blocking as Tamerlane also mentioned, surviving the loss of our top 2 RBs would be far easier. No Duane Brown, no Dissley and no Gordon spells no short to mid-range passing game.


    Luke Wilson was just down graded for Sunday's game. Another lost option for edge protection help for our offensive tackles.

    SIGH
    hawksfansinceday1
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 24567
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:38 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


Re: O Line
Sun Dec 29, 2019 6:34 pm
  • getnasty wrote:
    Scorpion05 wrote:The point by some here, about how backup lineman are always bad make little sense. If Drew Brees, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers gets hammered like that, even by a backup..they’d be scolded. Front offices who care about their Quarterbacks, go out of their way to protect them. Even with backups.

    This isn’t hard, I have zero idea why acknowledging these facts and putting ego aside is so hard amongst Hawks fans. Our O-line is bad, has been bad for years, and that’s unacceptable for most 1st class organizations with a franchise QB. Focusing on the injuries on the O-line, as if this O-line hasn’t been statistically bad for years is intellectually dishonest. Every QB in the league cause SOME sacks, most QBs in the league aren’t asked to face as much consistent pressure as Russ does. This isn’t a reaction to an O-line that was good or great before, and is suddenly struggling with injuries. This is a long, consistent pattern of poor O-line play.

    I will always root for the Seahawks. But when we get a new owner, I would like Russ to not re-sign, and move to a team that creates the identity of the team around him. Have a running game, sure. But give him pass blocking O-linemen and maybe Julio, Fitz, Michael Thomas type number 1 receiver. This team has refused, even after Beast left, to TRULY build the team around Russ and it makes zero sense. And it’s tiring to hear fans, who claim they’re “FAIR” to Russell find a way to completely talk around our QB dealing with a bottom 5 O-line. Let’s just stick to being a running team with a cheap QB and a great defense. It doesn’t make sense for Russell to stay on a team where people don’t think it’s an outrage to not only have a poor O-line, but zero O-line depth.

    Jville wrote:John ........ I don't believe you can see beyond Russell Wilson. For you, the rest of the team is but a cast of extras.

    And that's ok. It's your choice.



    The people who are anti-Russ are worse. In fact, it’s a shame Russ isn’t as universally embraced by the fan base as Lynch is.

    Either way, why not allow yourself to be led by the facts? You responded to the thread saying “1 snap out of 50.” Someone responded to you not with their opinion, but an actual fact about what Russ is facing. As a Hawks fan, that should outrage you.


    The number of anti Russell fans is about 2. People are critical of him because he's the most important peice to the puzzle and when he messes up it's he should be called out. Just like with any sucsess we ever have he'll get the credit.

    People want an average OL? Top 5 in run blocking and bottom 5 in pass blocking = Average

    The teams that are better then us right now are not better because they have a better OL, they are better because they play defense.



    This is a joke right? If you want to argue that most Seahawks fan support Wilson, fine. But from the moment he was drafted he wasn't fully embraced. And he's been nitpicked and critiqued by fans for years. Even when he played through injuries, even when his O-line was absolute garbage, even when he's had pressure in his face on every drop back. Even when he was the leading rusher on the team. When we made the Super Bowl, for many he was only 10-20% of the reason for our success.

    The teams that are better than us win in the trenches. We don't on offense and we don't on defense. Having a good to great O-line is important for any legitimate offense. Not sure how this is debatable. Drew Brees, Rodgers, Brady, Mahomes, they all have good O-lines that don't kill drives.
    Scorpion05
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1368
    Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:05 am


Re: O Line
Sun Dec 29, 2019 7:41 pm
  • Wouldn't mind most of our draft picks next year being offensive linemen.

    We might not have s choice.
    Elemas
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 363
    Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:02 pm


Previous


It is currently Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:47 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ SEATTLE SEAHAWKS FOOTBALL ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: AgentDib, Majestic-12 [Bot], rcaido and 128 guests