Danny O'Neil claims Coleman "beat out" Mike Rob

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
  • Like others have said, Danny is technically correct. I mean Mike Rob was extremely sick, making a lot of money, not a good mix this day and age for veteran players.
    Image
    User avatar
    Blitzer88
    * NET Eeyore *
     
    Posts: 10816
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:47 am
    Location: Pasco, WA


  • CANHawk wrote:
    Teqneek wrote:
    CANHawk wrote:Coleman DID beat out Mike Rob. The fact that Mike Rob was down to 180lbs, using a walker and set to make $2.5m obviously played a huge factor in it, but Coleman STILL beat him. Could Coleman beat out a HEALTHY Mike Rob? Probably not, but lucky for Coleman, he didn't have to...

    And FWIW, I really like Danny O'Neil. His strange fetish for bow ties notwithstanding. I think he's a pretty sharp guy. He does his homework and knows his stuff, unlike half the chuckleheads on this board these days...


    grasping much there.. 180 lbs? LOL.. Just pulling numbers out our butt now eh ;) 212 was the number.. but hey whats 32 lbs right?


    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm


    See also: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=canhawk
    President of the Perfect Parents Society - est. 2013
    User avatar
    JesterHawk
    * Smackmeister *
     
    Posts: 6972
    Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:56 pm


  • That's right bitch. CANHawk can NOT be defined. He is too amazing to be defined by normal words. You'd need several pictures and at least one instance of improper touching to be able to define CANHawk...
    So you're admitting I'm a celeb...
    User avatar
    CANHawk
    * Gangnameister *
     
    Posts: 11192
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada


  • ivotuk wrote:O'Neill is an ass kisser and I get so tired of his faked laugh that he makes overly loud. He has some occasional good points but then he gets arrogant and says the stupidest isht! He even overrides Brock sometimes which is completely ignorant.

    Danny is very knowledgeable, but he needs to tone it down some with his "volume."

    And to say Coleman outperformed Robinson on the field appears to be an attempt to kiss up to Pete and John, but it's far from reality. Someone as smart as Mr. O'Neill should know that "outperforming" someone, or something means a head to head competition under similar conditions.



    I used to listen to Brock and Salk but with Danny there it is just unbearable. His extended GIRLEY giggle belongs on an Ophra Winfrey show. For someone whom probable never owned a set of cleats he sure is given a lot of leeway in providing his opinion. I think all in all KJR is much more informative and entertaining. Especially SOFTTY!
    scakfan
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 110
    Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:55 pm


  • To clarify, Danny was definitely insinuating that Coleman outperformed Robinson on the field. He wasn't saying the Robinson got sick and Coleman won the job by default.

    This isn't the first time either, over the past few months every time the MRob topic has come up, Danny has made comments to that effect. It's a ludicrous position that I wish Brock would call him on.
    User avatar
    BigBallsPete
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 40
    Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 6:06 pm


  • To be fair to Danny, didn't a few prominent Seahawk bloggers predict Ware and/or Coleman would "beat out" Mike Rob before he got ill (w/ cap hit and age factored in, of course)? And those guys did look good in pre-season. In retrospect, I think there definitely was a chance Mike Rob would have lost this job even if healthy, though I would've considered it a mistake. His illness just made it harder for him to fight for it. However, I agree that saying Mike Rob was "outperformed" during pre-season isn't fair.
    User avatar
    DavidSeven
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3432
    Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:15 am


  • BigBallsPete wrote:To clarify, Danny was definitely insinuating that Coleman outperformed Robinson on the field. He wasn't saying the Robinson got sick and Coleman won the job by default.

    This isn't the first time either, over the past few months every time the MRob topic has come up, Danny has made comments to that effect. It's a ludicrous position that I wish Brock would call him on.


    Can we have the quote? I still don't see what is so ridiculous about it (Though you're free to disagree with Danny's opinion). MRob missed preseason games and it's Danny's job to cover the team. He also has access to coaches and personnel that we don't. We never saw what Mike Rob was like in a regular season game, so the best any fan can go off is their own preference.

    I like Mike Rob's play as much as the next fan, but my opinion is entirely based on what i saw last year. Same as most fans.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2899
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


  • All of Mr Robinson's blocks better be pancakes because you all have really built him up to the stuff of legend.
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9070
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


  • Tech Worlds wrote:All of Mr Robinson's blocks better be pancakes because you all have really built him up to the stuff of legend.


    This is exactlywhat I'm thinking. I like MRob too and am really glad he's back, but that's a mighty high bar everyone's setting for him. This isn't exactly Mike Alstott or Jim Taylor we're talking about here. Rob's good but c'mon people...
    So you're admitting I'm a celeb...
    User avatar
    CANHawk
    * Gangnameister *
     
    Posts: 11192
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada


  • Basis4day wrote:
    BigBallsPete wrote:To clarify, Danny was definitely insinuating that Coleman outperformed Robinson on the field. He wasn't saying the Robinson got sick and Coleman won the job by default.

    This isn't the first time either, over the past few months every time the MRob topic has come up, Danny has made comments to that effect. It's a ludicrous position that I wish Brock would call him on.


    Can we have the quote? I still don't see what is so ridiculous about it (Though you're free to disagree with Danny's opinion). MRob missed preseason games and it's Danny's job to cover the team. He also has access to coaches and personnel that we don't. We never saw what Mike Rob was like in a regular season game, so the best any fan can go off is their own preference.

    I like Mike Rob's play as much as the next fan, but my opinion is entirely based on what i saw last year. Same as most fans.


    I don't feel like going back through the 3 hour podcast yesterday, that's why I asked if any of you caught the show. Please correct me if I didn't hear him right. My point is that Robinson is a proven commodity who has been playing at a high level in real NFL games for years.

    Does anybody here think Coleman is a better football player than Robinson (money and health being equal)?

    Does anyone here seriously question whether there will be a performance dropoff because we now have Mike instead of Coleman? To me, that last question is asenine.
    User avatar
    BigBallsPete
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 40
    Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 6:06 pm


  • Tech Worlds wrote:All of Mr Robinson's blocks better be pancakes because you all have really built him up to the stuff of legend.


    This isn't about Mike Rob being Chuck Norris. It's about Derrick Coleman being Steve Urkell, for the first six games, at least.

    Everyone that watched Coleman closely agreed that he was hurting the offense by being out there. The coaches obviously agreed, because Coleman's role was being reduced in every successive game, meaning that very important parts of our playbook were going away with him.

    He did play very well in the Cardinals game before his injury, but I thought even at the end of the preseason that Seattle would be nuts to keep Coleman, much less ditch Mike Rob for him. Based on what we've learned this week, they didn't have a choice.

    On that note, Danny O'Neil is a moron for thinking the Coleman swap was in any way based upon on-field performance. He's a nice guy, but his football knowledge is far weaker than Huard's and as a result he has to rely on clichés and talking points way too much.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 10231
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


Re: Danny O'Neil claims Coleman
Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:29 pm
  • -The Glove- wrote:
    Missing_Clink wrote:What's wrong with saying that Coleman beat out a guy who had lost 40 pounds from an illness and was hospitalized? Can't play fullback from a hospital bed


    To say Coleman "beat out" Robinson infers he outperformed MRob on the field


    Bingo

    Coleman beat out Ware for the FB spot, Mike Rob was pretty much gone after his illness.
    Image
    3elieve
    User avatar
    Throwdown
    * NET Baller *
     
    Posts: 18750
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Graham, WA


  • kearly wrote:
    Tech Worlds wrote:All of Mr Robinson's blocks better be pancakes because you all have really built him up to the stuff of legend.


    This isn't about Mike Rob being Chuck Norris. It's about Derrick Coleman being Steve Urkell, for the first six games, at least.

    Everyone that watched Coleman closely agreed that he was hurting the offense by being out there. The coaches obviously agreed, because Coleman's role was being reduced in every successive game, meaning that very important parts of our playbook were going away with him.

    He did play very well in the Cardinals game before his injury, but I thought even at the end of the preseason that Seattle would be nuts to keep Coleman, much less ditch Mike Rob for him. Based on what we've learned this week, they didn't have a choice.

    On that note, Danny O'Neil is a moron for thinking the Coleman swap was in any way based upon on-field performance. He's a nice guy, but his football knowledge is far weaker than Huard's and as a result he has to rely on clichés and talking points way too much.


    Honesty kearly I do not believe that most people on this board watched Coleman closely at all. They are merely parroting what you say.

    Not that you are incorrect in your assessment.

    This guy has quickly became Paul Bunion.
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9070
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


  • CANHawk wrote:That's right bitch. CANHawk can NOT be defined. He is too amazing to be defined by normal words. You'd need several pictures and at least one instance of improper touching to be able to define CANHawk...

    Adding your own entries into Urban Dictionary makes you a tool. 8)
    Rams bet status: honored. Bradford still sucks.
    RedAlice is right.
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 24019
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • BigBallsPete wrote:
    Basis4day wrote:
    BigBallsPete wrote:To clarify, Danny was definitely insinuating that Coleman outperformed Robinson on the field. He wasn't saying the Robinson got sick and Coleman won the job by default.

    This isn't the first time either, over the past few months every time the MRob topic has come up, Danny has made comments to that effect. It's a ludicrous position that I wish Brock would call him on.


    Can we have the quote? I still don't see what is so ridiculous about it (Though you're free to disagree with Danny's opinion). MRob missed preseason games and it's Danny's job to cover the team. He also has access to coaches and personnel that we don't. We never saw what Mike Rob was like in a regular season game, so the best any fan can go off is their own preference.

    I like Mike Rob's play as much as the next fan, but my opinion is entirely based on what i saw last year. Same as most fans.


    I don't feel like going back through the 3 hour podcast yesterday, that's why I asked if any of you caught the show. Please correct me if I didn't hear him right. My point is that Robinson is a proven commodity who has been playing at a high level in real NFL games for years.

    Does anybody here think Coleman is a better football player than Robinson (money and health being equal)?

    Does anyone here seriously question whether there will be a performance dropoff because we now have Mike instead of Coleman? To me, that last question is asenine.


    And therein lies the rub. It's pretty clear that MRob's health played a major factor in the decision to cut him. Whether or not a healthy MRob beats out Coleman is irrelevant because you're disagreeing with O'Neal based on MRob being healthy all through camp. That isn't what happened.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2899
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Re: Danny O'Neil claims Coleman
Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:40 pm
  • Tech Worlds wrote:
    kearly wrote:
    Tech Worlds wrote:All of Mr Robinson's blocks better be pancakes because you all have really built him up to the stuff of legend.


    This isn't about Mike Rob being Chuck Norris. It's about Derrick Coleman being Steve Urkell, for the first six games, at least.

    Everyone that watched Coleman closely agreed that he was hurting the offense by being out there. The coaches obviously agreed, because Coleman's role was being reduced in every successive game, meaning that very important parts of our playbook were going away with him.

    He did play very well in the Cardinals game before his injury, but I thought even at the end of the preseason that Seattle would be nuts to keep Coleman, much less ditch Mike Rob for him. Based on what we've learned this week, they didn't have a choice.

    On that note, Danny O'Neil is a moron for thinking the Coleman swap was in any way based upon on-field performance. He's a nice guy, but his football knowledge is far weaker than Huard's and as a result he has to rely on clichés and talking points way too much.


    Honesty kearly I do not believe that most people on this board watched Coleman closely at all. They are merely parroting what you say.

    Not that you are incorrect in your assessment.


    This guy has quickly became Paul Bunion.


    Extremely relevant.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2899
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


  • The Radish wrote:Nice article about it in our newspaper this morning. I'd post it but if you don't subscribe to our paper they charge for access to their files.

    Its from MikeRobs side and he said just what is posted above, he was ill, making more money than any fullback in the league.

    The team had to make a decision, keep him and pay him $2.5 million or cut him and take a chance on younger talent. That experiment didn't work as well as they hoped because it takes a while for a new blocker to "get it" about that position.

    I'd now be interested in what happens next year.

    :les:

    In my paper too and it's free to read here (and yes, it's a very good read):

    http://www.columbian.com/news/2013/oct/ ... -robinson/
    Last edited by hawksfansinceday1 on Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    From the white sands
    To the canyon lands
    To the redwood stands
    To the barren lands

    Image
    User avatar
    hawksfansinceday1
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 10732
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


  • I wonder if everybody realizes that we are averaging 4.5 yards per carry so far this season? Obviously I would love for it to be even better with MRob, but blaming our offensive struggles on Derrick Coleman is hilariously silly.
    "Check out my 2012 NFL Draft Grades. I just gave the worst grade ever to Seattle." - WalterFootball.com
    User avatar
    AgentDib
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2098
    Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 9:08 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    CANHawk wrote:That's right bitch. CANHawk can NOT be defined. He is too amazing to be defined by normal words. You'd need several pictures and at least one instance of improper touching to be able to define CANHawk...

    Adding your own entries into Urban Dictionary makes you a tool. 8)


    CANHawk didn't add his own entry. Jester did that, but the urban dictionary denied him! Because it is not POSSIBLE to define the CANHawk.
    So you're admitting I'm a celeb...
    User avatar
    CANHawk
    * Gangnameister *
     
    Posts: 11192
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada


  • AgentDib wrote:I wonder if everybody realizes that we are averaging 4.5 yards per carry so far this season? Obviously I would love for it to be even better with MRob, but blaming our offensive struggles on Derrick Coleman is hilariously silly.

    Did you factor in that Wilson's runs account for a good chunk of that?

    Like several folks here already said, I sincerely hope people's expectations for MRob aren't too sky high, especially for the first couple of games.
    From the white sands
    To the canyon lands
    To the redwood stands
    To the barren lands

    Image
    User avatar
    hawksfansinceday1
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 10732
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


  • AgentDib wrote:I wonder if everybody realizes that we are averaging 4.5 yards per carry so far this season? Obviously I would love for it to be even better with MRob, but blaming our offensive struggles on Derrick Coleman is hilariously silly.


    Yerp. Marshwn is on pace for 1,300 yards this season. That's bang on pace for what he's done the last two full seasons he's played. Giving MRob as much credit for Marshawn's success as some people around here are giving him is an insult to Marshawn.

    And this is coming from a guy who PLAYED fullback! I NEVER think my kind get enough credit, but people are being a bit silly fawning over MRob these days.
    So you're admitting I'm a celeb...
    User avatar
    CANHawk
    * Gangnameister *
     
    Posts: 11192
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada


Re: Danny O'Neil claims Coleman
Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:01 pm
  • Tech Worlds wrote:
    kearly wrote:
    Tech Worlds wrote:All of Mr Robinson's blocks better be pancakes because you all have really built him up to the stuff of legend.


    This isn't about Mike Rob being Chuck Norris. It's about Derrick Coleman being Steve Urkell, for the first six games, at least.

    Everyone that watched Coleman closely agreed that he was hurting the offense by being out there. The coaches obviously agreed, because Coleman's role was being reduced in every successive game, meaning that very important parts of our playbook were going away with him.

    He did play very well in the Cardinals game before his injury, but I thought even at the end of the preseason that Seattle would be nuts to keep Coleman, much less ditch Mike Rob for him. Based on what we've learned this week, they didn't have a choice.

    On that note, Danny O'Neil is a moron for thinking the Coleman swap was in any way based upon on-field performance. He's a nice guy, but his football knowledge is far weaker than Huard's and as a result he has to rely on clichés and talking points way too much.


    Honesty kearly I do not believe that most people on this board watched Coleman closely at all. They are merely parroting what you say.

    Not that you are incorrect in your assessment.

    This guy has quickly became Paul Bunion.


    Nah, you just cherish being the bit of grit in the oyster on every topic. I'm still waiting for the pearls. Many of us have our own opinions, so you might as well not try to read other peoples' minds. MR was better than Coleman in the preseason and he was much better last season than Coleman has been this season. According to PFF, Coleman's DVOA is -3.1, which is bad. MR's was 3.0 last year.

    MR is an upgrade. He's not a world beater. Crucially, no one said he is.

    So far this season, the optimists are winning in a landslide.
    formido
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 472
    Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:41 pm
    Location: Ventura, CA


  • formido wrote:
    Tech Worlds wrote:
    kearly wrote:
    Tech Worlds wrote:All of Mr Robinson's blocks better be pancakes because you all have really built him up to the stuff of legend.


    This isn't about Mike Rob being Chuck Norris. It's about Derrick Coleman being Steve Urkell, for the first six games, at least.

    Everyone that watched Coleman closely agreed that he was hurting the offense by being out there. The coaches obviously agreed, because Coleman's role was being reduced in every successive game, meaning that very important parts of our playbook were going away with him.

    He did play very well in the Cardinals game before his injury, but I thought even at the end of the preseason that Seattle would be nuts to keep Coleman, much less ditch Mike Rob for him. Based on what we've learned this week, they didn't have a choice.

    On that note, Danny O'Neil is a moron for thinking the Coleman swap was in any way based upon on-field performance. He's a nice guy, but his football knowledge is far weaker than Huard's and as a result he has to rely on clichés and talking points way too much.


    Honesty kearly I do not believe that most people on this board watched Coleman closely at all. They are merely parroting what you say.

    Not that you are incorrect in your assessment.

    This guy has quickly became Paul Bunion.


    Nah, you just cherish being the bit of grit in the oyster on every topic. I'm still waiting for the pearls. Many of us have our own opinions, so you might as well not try to read other peoples' minds. MR was better than Coleman in the preseason and he was much better last season than Coleman has been this season. According to PFF, Coleman's DVOA is -3.1, which is bad. MR's was 3.0 last year.

    MR is an upgrade. He's not a world beater. Crucially, no one said he is.

    So far this season, the optimists are winning in a landslide.


    You sir are obviously the exception. Congratulations for a job well done.
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9070
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


  • In fairness to O'Neil, technically Coleman did beat out MRob...which isn't a huge accomplishment as I could have beat out MRob by default of being in the hospital.

    2 things...I'd caution a seamless transition. Not only has MRob been out of the loop in terms of practice, but he's also not going to be the same physically for a few months.

    Last thing, O'Neil is a huge tool. It's sad that Brock has this clown as a side kick on what could be a really top notch radio program. But hey, good for O'Neil.
    Mtjhoyas
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 307
    Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 2:03 pm


  • scakfan wrote:
    ivotuk wrote:O'Neill is an ass kisser and I get so tired of his faked laugh that he makes overly loud. He has some occasional good points but then he gets arrogant and says the stupidest isht! He even overrides Brock sometimes which is completely ignorant.

    Danny is very knowledgeable, but he needs to tone it down some with his "volume."

    And to say Coleman outperformed Robinson on the field appears to be an attempt to kiss up to Pete and John, but it's far from reality. Someone as smart as Mr. O'Neill should know that "outperforming" someone, or something means a head to head competition under similar conditions.



    I used to listen to Brock and Salk but with Danny there it is just unbearable. His extended GIRLEY giggle belongs on an Ophra Winfrey show. For someone whom probable never owned a set of cleats he sure is given a lot of leeway in providing his opinion. I think all in all KJR is much more informative and entertaining. Especially SOFTTY!

    :13:
    Danny's laugh is sooooo annoying and his attempts at being funning are awkward/nerdy. Sometimes it seems like Brock is annoyed with Danny and wants to grab him by the neck to choke him out.
    cover-2
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 534
    Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:47 am


  • CANHawk wrote:
    AgentDib wrote:I wonder if everybody realizes that we are averaging 4.5 yards per carry so far this season? Obviously I would love for it to be even better with MRob, but blaming our offensive struggles on Derrick Coleman is hilariously silly.


    Yerp. Marshwn is on pace for 1,300 yards this season. That's bang on pace for what he's done the last two full seasons he's played. Giving MRob as much credit for Marshawn's success as some people around here are giving him is an insult to Marshawn.

    And this is coming from a guy who PLAYED fullback! I NEVER think my kind get enough credit, but people are being a bit silly fawning over MRob these days.


    This is what happens when you cherry pick stats. How about looking at our rushing average out of....say, I formation ? Or how about comparing every formation with a FB. Take out the rushes from Wilson. You'd have a better idea how Coleman is doing, and it's not good. It affects Lynch; he doesn't trust his blocking, even when it's there. Some teams figured it out and clogged the cut back lanes, which ended up with lower rushing totals.

    What Kearly said was that "very important pieces were being left ouf of the playbook". We were leaving the fullback on the sidelines, running 3 WRs, spreading the defense out, and running Lynch out of single set back. Anyone notice that we haven't been wearing teams out in the 4th quarter with our run game ? I formation has a lot to do with that; you beat up people a hell of a lot more with a FB than spreading the defense out and finding lanes that way. It's a finesse way to run, and people honestly have to admit that Carroll definately doesn't want to be a finesse team.
    Hawks46
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3332
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm


  • Aros wrote:You simply cannot put a price on having Lynch's trust. Thank God MRob is back!


    Trust. Something he hasn't had this season wrt fullbacks.
    "We walked our (pedestrian) ass to the Super Bowl"
    Angry Doug
    "We're looking for grit"
    Pete Carroll
    "We got grit. That's it."
    Earl Thomas.
    User avatar
    Rocket
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1191
    Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:12 pm
    Location: The Rain Forest


  • Tech Worlds wrote:
    kearly wrote:
    Tech Worlds wrote:All of Mr Robinson's blocks better be pancakes because you all have really built him up to the stuff of legend.


    This isn't about Mike Rob being Chuck Norris. It's about Derrick Coleman being Steve Urkell, for the first six games, at least.

    Everyone that watched Coleman closely agreed that he was hurting the offense by being out there. The coaches obviously agreed, because Coleman's role was being reduced in every successive game, meaning that very important parts of our playbook were going away with him.

    He did play very well in the Cardinals game before his injury, but I thought even at the end of the preseason that Seattle would be nuts to keep Coleman, much less ditch Mike Rob for him. Based on what we've learned this week, they didn't have a choice.

    On that note, Danny O'Neil is a moron for thinking the Coleman swap was in any way based upon on-field performance. He's a nice guy, but his football knowledge is far weaker than Huard's and as a result he has to rely on clichés and talking points way too much.


    Honesty kearly I do not believe that most people on this board watched Coleman closely at all. They are merely parroting what you say.

    Not that you are incorrect in your assessment.

    This guy has quickly became Paul Bunion.


    I have my own set of eyes and a brain (some would argue otherwise) and I've seen too many times where Coleman would merely just get in the way of a pass rusher. As fast and athletic as these guys are, they can recover and attack RW and Lynch in a split second.
    User avatar
    -The Glove-
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6815
    Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:12 am


  • TwilightError wrote:He just makes provocative comments as part of his profession. MikeRob is an ox!


    Part of the radio business...nay...all of the radio biz is entertainment. It looks like Danny boy is learning lessons from Skip Bayless. If you're an old or overweight white guy, pretend as though you're down with the kids, then take insane positions in order to excite the viewers either in anger or agreement. It's a proven recipe for success, as you've seen with Mr Skip who has been in the biz for generations and still has a career. I don't fault them particularly. It's what they do to survive. Can you imagine Danny boy playing the hip hop angle if he was on TV, lol? No way. A 45 year old 250 lb white guy regurgitating hip hop lines? What about grandpa skip, how does a 75 year old have a show on ESPN?

    It's obvious to any and all that Mrob was "beat out" due to the fact that he was owed 2.5 mil. The Hawks made a financial decision. And I agree with the decision. But the guy was not beat out by Coleman at any time for football reasons.
    User avatar
    plyka
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1320
    Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:40 pm


  • Rocket wrote:
    Aros wrote:You simply cannot put a price on having Lynch's trust. Thank God MRob is back!


    Trust. Something he hasn't had this season wrt fullbacks.


    Correct me if I'm wrong never heard anyone discuss whether or not Lynch "trusts" his FB until Kearly said it in his Random Thoughts.
    Kind of goes along with Tech World's point if that's where people picked it up.

    That being said, it doesn't affect whether it's true or not.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2899
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Re: Danny O'Neil claims Coleman
Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:31 pm
  • Tech Worlds wrote:
    kearly wrote:
    Tech Worlds wrote:All of Mr Robinson's blocks better be pancakes because you all have really built him up to the stuff of legend.


    This isn't about Mike Rob being Chuck Norris. It's about Derrick Coleman being Steve Urkell, for the first six games, at least.

    Everyone that watched Coleman closely agreed that he was hurting the offense by being out there. The coaches obviously agreed, because Coleman's role was being reduced in every successive game, meaning that very important parts of our playbook were going away with him.

    He did play very well in the Cardinals game before his injury, but I thought even at the end of the preseason that Seattle would be nuts to keep Coleman, much less ditch Mike Rob for him. Based on what we've learned this week, they didn't have a choice.

    On that note, Danny O'Neil is a moron for thinking the Coleman swap was in any way based upon on-field performance. He's a nice guy, but his football knowledge is far weaker than Huard's and as a result he has to rely on clichés and talking points way too much.


    Honesty kearly I do not believe that most people on this board watched Coleman closely at all. They are merely parroting what you say.

    Not that you are incorrect in your assessment.

    This guy has quickly became Paul Bunion.


    I let Kip pick out what I'm going to wear, but when it comes to football I do my own thinking. And I thought Coleman was pretty bad.
    I like you pointing out groupthink. Like you said, it doesn't make it wrong.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 10503
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • It's funny that the Hawks get so much love and respect right now that people have to find things like this to get worked up over.
    User avatar
    Missing_Clink
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2386
    Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:53 am


  • Scottemojo wrote:
    Tech Worlds wrote:
    kearly wrote:
    Tech Worlds wrote:All of Mr Robinson's blocks better be pancakes because you all have really built him up to the stuff of legend.


    This isn't about Mike Rob being Chuck Norris. It's about Derrick Coleman being Steve Urkell, for the first six games, at least.

    Everyone that watched Coleman closely agreed that he was hurting the offense by being out there. The coaches obviously agreed, because Coleman's role was being reduced in every successive game, meaning that very important parts of our playbook were going away with him.

    He did play very well in the Cardinals game before his injury, but I thought even at the end of the preseason that Seattle would be nuts to keep Coleman, much less ditch Mike Rob for him. Based on what we've learned this week, they didn't have a choice.

    On that note, Danny O'Neil is a moron for thinking the Coleman swap was in any way based upon on-field performance. He's a nice guy, but his football knowledge is far weaker than Huard's and as a result he has to rely on clichés and talking points way too much.


    Honesty kearly I do not believe that most people on this board watched Coleman closely at all. They are merely parroting what you say.

    Not that you are incorrect in your assessment.

    This guy has quickly became Paul Bunion.


    I let Kip pick out what I'm going to wear, but when it comes to football I do my own thinking. And I thought Coleman was pretty bad.
    I like you pointing out groupthink. Like you said, it doesn't make it wrong.


    You know I know you ain't one of the sheep brother.
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9070
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


  • Basis4day wrote:
    Rocket wrote:
    Aros wrote:You simply cannot put a price on having Lynch's trust. Thank God MRob is back!


    Trust. Something he hasn't had this season wrt fullbacks.


    Correct me if I'm wrong never heard anyone discuss whether or not Lynch "trusts" his FB until Kearly said it in his Random Thoughts.
    Kind of goes along with Tech World's point if that's where people picked it up.

    That being said, it doesn't affect whether it's true or not.


    You and Mr Tech world are using cheap shots with no evidence. You're assuming that everyone that disagrees with Danny boy is the same, ie they don't have their own thoughts and are following in herd like manner behind this Kearly fella. Secondly, you're reading minds as if you somehow have insight into people's motives. Not one person, but everyone who disagrees with Danny boy. They are all the same and since they disagree with you and Danny boy they don't have their own thoughts.

    I wish I could think up this wildly smart tactic...oh wait, someone defined it thousands of years ago...it's called an ad hominem attack. You don't debate the argument but their motives, you don't argue the point you attack their character.
    User avatar
    plyka
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1320
    Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:40 pm


  • I don't remember one great play from Mike Rob in the pre season. I remember several from Coleman. I could be really dumb, and I certainly wasn't as practices, but Coleman had a good pre-season.

    Not every good pre season performance is an indicator of things to come.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 10503
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    CANHawk wrote:That's right bitch. CANHawk can NOT be defined. He is too amazing to be defined by normal words. You'd need several pictures and at least one instance of improper touching to be able to define CANHawk...

    Adding your own entries into Urban Dictionary makes you a tool. 8)


    Clearly you didn't click on the link
    User avatar
    thebanjodude
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 472
    Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 9:18 am


  • Here's an idea... Ask Beast.

    According to Robinson in his presser they spoke EVERY day.

    That doesn't sound like someone who was "moving on" and fully embracing the "next man up" mentality.

    There's something to be said about close working relationships in life as well as in sports... sometimes maybe "that guy" isn't necessarily the best at his job anymore... but maybe that guy's best asset is that he brings out the best in others.

    I think a big key to this teams success is that maybe the Seahawks are excelling right now (or at least trying hard) to meld that fine line between running a business and creating a "TEAM". This situation with Robinson is an excellent example of that effort which goes far beyond Robinson going out on Monday and pancaking every LB that trys to lay a finger on his running back...
    Image
    User avatar
    LawlessHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1015
    Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:50 am
    Location: Tonasket, WA to Temecula, CA


Re: Danny O'Neil claims Coleman
Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:07 pm
  • Tech Worlds wrote:You know I know you ain't one of the sheep brother.


    FWIW, I actually appreciate your "sheep" comments Tech. That's not accusing anyone of being a sheep, it's just that like you, I'd prefer people to think for themselves. It is one of the bigger reasons I've scaled back in the past month.

    Scottemojo wrote:I don't remember one great play from Mike Rob in the pre season. I remember several from Coleman. I could be really dumb, and I certainly wasn't as practices, but Coleman had a good pre-season.

    Not every good pre season performance is an indicator of things to come.


    In the preseason, I thought Coleman looked terrific as a possession receiver out of the backfield. Then in the last two preseason games I actually watched his run blocking closely, and it was every bit as bad as we've come to know it in regular season play. Though oddly enough, his run blocking performance in the season opener was actually very good, and PFF agreed with me giving Coleman a very high score for that game. Between then and the Cardinals game, he was a mess. Probably a learning curve thing. His progress in the Cardinals game left me genuinely optimistic about his future.

    I do believe in the preseason as an indicator. It indicates correctly more often than it does not. But it does seem like we've seen a lot of players recently who were strikingly different in the preseason vs. regular season. In particular, JeanPierre and Turbin. Back in 2011, it was T-Jack and Golden Tate.
    Last edited by kearly on Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 10231
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • AgentDib wrote:I wonder if everybody realizes that we are averaging 4.5 yards per carry so far this season? Obviously I would love for it to be even better with MRob, but blaming our offensive struggles on Derrick Coleman is hilariously silly.


    IMO, Coleman was a problem for the first six games. He was getting blown up by LBs, whiffing on blocks, and even when he didn't mess up, Lynch wouldn't trust it half the time. That's based on the eyeball test and watching the game closely.

    But the stats verify as well. We had, what, 6.0 yards per carry last season after the read option switch last year? I didn't expect 6.0 over a full season in 2013, but a drop to 4.5 is what I would consider to be substantial. And though I can't confirm, the eyeball test leads me to believe that drop is coming mostly from I-formation plays, which we have been miserable on for most of the season.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 10231
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • Hawks46 wrote:
    CANHawk wrote:
    AgentDib wrote:I wonder if everybody realizes that we are averaging 4.5 yards per carry so far this season? Obviously I would love for it to be even better with MRob, but blaming our offensive struggles on Derrick Coleman is hilariously silly.


    Yerp. Marshwn is on pace for 1,300 yards this season. That's bang on pace for what he's done the last two full seasons he's played. Giving MRob as much credit for Marshawn's success as some people around here are giving him is an insult to Marshawn.

    And this is coming from a guy who PLAYED fullback! I NEVER think my kind get enough credit, but people are being a bit silly fawning over MRob these days.


    This is what happens when you cherry pick stats. How about looking at our rushing average out of....say, I formation ? Or how about comparing every formation with a FB. Take out the rushes from Wilson. You'd have a better idea how Coleman is doing, and it's not good. It affects Lynch; he doesn't trust his blocking, even when it's there. Some teams figured it out and clogged the cut back lanes, which ended up with lower rushing totals.

    What Kearly said was that "very important pieces were being left ouf of the playbook". We were leaving the fullback on the sidelines, running 3 WRs, spreading the defense out, and running Lynch out of single set back. Anyone notice that we haven't been wearing teams out in the 4th quarter with our run game ? I formation has a lot to do with that; you beat up people a hell of a lot more with a FB than spreading the defense out and finding lanes that way. It's a finesse way to run, and people honestly have to admit that Carroll definately doesn't want to be a finesse team.


    How am I cherry picking stats? And what the hell does Russell Wilson's rushing total have to do with Marshawn personally being on pace to put up 1,300 individual rushing yards this year? He has 578 yards through 7 games in 2013, 578/7=82.6YPG. 82.6x16 games=1,322 yard pace for the 2013 season. Show me what I cherry picked...

    No, I think you missed my point that Marshawn Lynch is perfectly capable of being a feature back that puts up 1,000+ yards a season without Mike Robinson. At no point did I specifically mention I formation when I said that. To hear some around here talk, you'd think Marshawn incapable of putting on his own shoes or feeding himself without Michael Robinson there to help and I call bullshit. Marshawn is a fricken BEAST.

    You make a good point about I Form contributing to beating teams up in the first 3 quarters and I totally agree with that. But you're also forgetting to factor in the fact we're playing with 2 back up tackles (one of whom is a pro bowler and the other a bad mutha trucka) and had 2 games without our All Pro center. You don't think THAT might ALSO be a contributing factor in why we're not beating teams up in the 4th? And I'm the one cherry picking...

    Look, I hope Mike's return has as big of an impact on that part of our identity as many here seem to think it will be. If he's healthy and he's the same guy he was at the end of last year, then he will absolutely be an improvement over the deaf blind mute. But Tech's right; people are putting this one guy on way too high of a pedestil. Setting expectations for one guy as high as people are only sets us up for dissapointment...
    Last edited by CANHawk on Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    So you're admitting I'm a celeb...
    User avatar
    CANHawk
    * Gangnameister *
     
    Posts: 11192
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada


  • Danny, good writer, funny, good insight and Brock, Danny and Tom have a great time working with each other.


    Some poeple in this thread need to be better in life
    User avatar
    Smellyman
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 591
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:58 pm
    Location: Hong Kong


  • I wasn't that high on Coleman from the beginning, even after Week 1 when people seemed to be sold on him as the long-term answer. I'm pretty sure I said as much multiple times, but I won't go out of my way to prove it.

    The truth, however, is in the numbers. We were using Mike Rob on approximately 30% of the snaps last season. Coleman's usage has dropped to around 10-20% over the last few weeks. We're using him about as much as we're using Kellen Davis right now. Marshawn's YPC is also down around 4.1; it was 5.0 last season. Admittedly, his 2012 numbers got a boost in the last quarter of 2012 when we were devastating teams with the read-option that no one seemed prepared for.

    With all that said, I don't necessarily expect our run game to explode just because Mike Rob is back. I wish he had been healthy at the start of the season, so he'd be on the same page with everyone in terms of scheme and conditioning. Right now, I'm mostly expecting things to stay fairly level on that front (no appreciable drop-off or gain from Coleman-to-MRob). It's definitely good that we have him, though. I'm one who believes the I-formation is an important part of the overall offense even if the gains from those plays seem relatively minimal. The impact of those plays shows up at the end of the game.
    User avatar
    DavidSeven
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3432
    Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:15 am


  • I look at it this way CANHawk, if you had a great OL but just 1 very important player goes down and is replaced by someone who is a disaster, the whole OL suddenly looks much worse as a result. Even though it's just one guy!

    Similarly, the running game is built off of five plus blockers all executing their assignments, and if just one guy screws up, the play probably goes nowhere. Coleman screwed up often, and it ruined a ton of plays where there was good run blocking otherwise. He's just one guy, but he was sabotaging our run game out of certain formations the way that Tom Ashworth used to sabotage our pass protection.

    In other words, this isn't about celebration a "Paul Bunyan" type acquisition. It's about finding a solution to a nagging problem that had been one of thing bigger things to hold our offense back early in the season.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 10231
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • Smellyman wrote:Danny, good writer, funny, good insight and Brock, Danny and Tom have a great time working with each other.

    Some poeple in this thread need to be better in life


    Ironically, I read this comment in my head using Skip Bailess voice.

    Tom Wassel is great. Funny, insightful, and IMO the sharpest mind of the three. Wouldn't mind one bit it becomes the Brock and Tom show down the road.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 10231
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • @agentDib. break down the YPC from the plays where Coleman was on the field, not the overall YPC. Also, take Russell's yards and run attempts out of theat number, and you won't feel near as good.

    I get the feeling that Rob is here for this year, but it will be Ware and Coleman next year, with Coleman being the backup plan for Rob if he gets hurt this year.

    I love the Robinson move. I can't think of one on field negative, and he was money down the stretch and in the playoffs last year. It feels like one of those moves that might pay off big in a single post season moment where he does something a younger player wouldn't even consider.

    I also thought it noteworthy that Clemons, before he had even signed, addressed him as captain. He has the respect of his team, not just Marshawn. Everything about this feels right.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 10503
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • kearly wrote:
    Smellyman wrote:Danny, good writer, funny, good insight and Brock, Danny and Tom have a great time working with each other.

    Some poeple in this thread need to be better in life


    Ironically, I read this comment in my head using Skip Bailess voice.

    Tom Wassel is great. Funny, insightful, and IMO the sharpest mind of the three. Wouldn't mind one bit it becomes the Brock and Tom show down the road.

    BORING! BORING! BORING!
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 10503
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • You could argue that Mike Robinson isn't a world-beater, if you wanted. But teams with Super Bowl aspirations aren't looking for a world-beater; they're just looking for the tiny extra inch or that one crucial play that pushes them over the top. Robinson is the kind of contributor who could provide that.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11233
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • Scottemojo wrote:BORING! BORING! BORING!


    Hey, I never said he was perfect. I'd still take his mannerisms over Danny's any day.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 10231
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • kearly wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:BORING! BORING! BORING!


    Hey, I never said he was perfect. I'd still take his mannerisms over Danny's any day.


    I actually laugh every time I hear them play that "boring" sound clip. I think it's pretty funny. I may start using it on here.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 10503
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • Danny you S**t head, show me anytime this season when coleman was able to do this. It's usually the other way aruond.

    User avatar
    Axx
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2539
    Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:37 pm


Next


It is currently Mon Jul 21, 2014 11:38 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online