Am I giving the Texans too much credit?

[SalishHawkFan]

Translation: The plays that work: INSPIRED. The plays that don't work: UNINSPIRED.

No. I'm talking about just more creative and aggressive plays. Look at what we started off with last Sunday. Run through an A gap, run through an A gap, pass, punt.

Also, we need to go deep more often, in my opinion. We're good at it, and since our guys don't tend to get separation, there's usually a DB right on them with a high probability of getting PI called on them.

Now that's cynical optimism if I ever heard it! :th2thumbs:

 

[12thMan1]

Our pass rush is gonna light their QB up like a Christmas tree. :thirishdrinkers:

 

[Hawkfan77]

Not sure why you're worried.

Andre Johnson is most likely out which means the rookie Hopkins will be going up against Sherm and Browner. Advantage Seahawks.

Arian Foster has looked pretty terrible this year and Ben Tate hasn't gotten a ton of work. Owen Daniels is having a good, but Matt Schaub is his QB. I just don't see Schaub beating this defense when his offense is so hobbled. JJ Watt scares me, but that's about it. I'll take our team over theirs even during a 10am game.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Also, we need to go deep more often, in my opinion. We're good at it, and since our guys don't tend to get separation, there's usually a DB right on them with a high probability of getting PI called on them.

Now that's cynical optimism if I ever heard it! :th2thumbs:

Hey; am I wrong about it?

 

[davidonmi]

@kearly- reliant stadium is indoors so hot weather shouldn't be a problem

 

[kmedic]

This will be a tough game. Could go either way.

I do find it odd that greater than 95% of fans on their forum boards are predicting a Hawks win. They really don't have a lot of faith in Schaub right now.

 

[RolandDeschain]

This will be a tough game. Could go either way.

I do find it odd that greater than 95% of fans on their forum boards are predicting a Hawks win. They really don't have a lot of faith in Schaub right now.

Their QB is a career game manager, and he's not even doing that well right now. A large part of that is their O-line looking worse than expected, something Seahawks fans are intimately familiar with. I don't blame them.

 

[Dtowers]

Arian Foster has looked pretty terrible this year and Ben Tate hasn't gotten a ton of work.

Have you actually watched the games or are you just going off of boxscores?

 

[ZagHawk]

All I know is that both the Texans and the Colts are fully capable of beating this Seahawks team (much like we're fully capable of beating those two teams). However both games are on the road and back to back. Which makes things even more difficult. If the Hawks can come 2-0 or even 1-1 these next two weeks. It'll speak a lot about the caliber of this team. These next 5 weeks are going to be a true test to this team SB caliber team.

 

[Laloosh]

I am less worried about these next two games than I was about Jacksonville. We have some issues with o-line injuries but overall have a healthy team. Defense travels (and our defense was terrific in Carolina). We'll have Irvin (and Breno if he's out this weekend) so I see us taking at least one of the two games. We were supposed to win @ home vs Jacksonville. Splitting these two is just fine for me.

If Russell OR Marshawn can have a reasonable amount of success, I think we win in Houston. If we lose the turnover battle and Houston is able to capitalize, then we're in trouble.

 

[hawk45]

Defense looked good in Carolina, that's a small sample size. Historically defense has NOT traveled well for us, specifically the pass rush.

I agree that if RW / Lynch can have some success we have a good shot. I don't know how much I see that happening with our OL, but Russ has made magic before on the road. I agree a split would be fine.

 

[C-Dub]

Houston is one of the most overrated teams. It's going to be a blowout! We'll stuff the run, cover their pathetic WR corp, and when Schaub rolls out, he won't find anyone. He'll probably throw for 2 INT and fumble it away for another turnover. The only reason the Texans will score a touch down is if we cough up the football and give them one.

On offense, Beast Mode is going run straight through Watt for some massive gains. 100+ yards easy this weekend. JJ won't know what to do. Russell will slip by him over and over, and torch this overrated Texans defense. We'll put up 30+ points on these clowns.

Special teams is going to be just as dominant. The Hawks' defense and/or special teams will put a TD on the board for us as well.

The talent level and chemistry on this team is on a whole other level compared to these pathetic Texans.

 

[Seeker]

Schaub is basically Charlie brown.
He will @#$@# the bed when the pressure is on and who puts on more pressure than the L.O.B.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Everyone around here second-guesses things about our team occasionally, why should play calling be exempt?

Because second-guessing the playcalling needs to contain a heckuva lot more than just griping about run-run-pass-punt. That's all I see you (and most playcalling critics) do. We did run-run-pass-punt for years with Shaun Alexander and nobody had a problem until it stopped working. You don't delve into down-and-distance matters, you don't break down play designs, you don't acknowledge the goals of the team (i.e. set up play-action by establishing the run), you don't acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of the team (i.e. inexperienced TE's, Russell Wilson is short, little separation from our WR's), and too often you do confuse bad design with bad execution.

Playcalling is extremely complicated and something that needs complicated analysis. If I see something in-depth that reveals a pattern of poor decisions by Bevell, I'll listen. But griping about run-run-pass over and over for years on end is not respectable criticism.

 

[bestfightstory]

Everyone around here second-guesses things about our team occasionally, why should play calling be exempt?

Because second-guessing the playcalling needs to contain a heckuva lot more than just griping about run-run-pass-punt. That's all I see you (and most playcalling critics) do. We did run-run-pass-punt for years with Shaun Alexander and nobody had a problem until it stopped working. You don't delve into down-and-distance matters, you don't break down play designs, you don't acknowledge the goals of the team (i.e. set up play-action by establishing the run), you don't acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of the team (i.e. inexperienced TE's, Russell Wilson is short, little separation from our WR's), and too often you do confuse bad design with bad execution.

Playcalling is extremely complicated and something that needs complicated analysis. If I see something in-depth that reveals a pattern of poor decisions by Bevell, I'll listen. But griping about run-run-pass over and over for years on end is not respectable criticism.

Thank You-very well said.

In addition, I can't count the times I have seen some football rube scream in aggravation over a playcall and alter midcourse when they realize the execution of the play is successful.

So many wannabe co-ordinators do their criticism from the vantagepoint of hindsight-not real difficult to be an expert in retrospect. It's a very 'results based' way of thinking.

Look at it like this. There are 4 scenarios:
Good call/Good result. Good call/Bad result. Bad call/Bad result. Bad call/Good result.

I see the coordinator's critics focused solely on BR and attributing it to BC.
:1: It's myopic.

Not to mention, any gameplan constructed by Bevell/Cable and Quinn/(Bradley before him) surely has Pete's fingerprints and philosophy and blessing all over it.

 

[Sports Hernia]

Everyone around here second-guesses things about our team occasionally, why should play calling be exempt?

Because second-guessing the playcalling needs to contain a heckuva lot more than just griping about run-run-pass-punt. That's all I see you (and most playcalling critics) do. We did run-run-pass-punt for years with Shaun Alexander and nobody had a problem until it stopped working. You don't delve into down-and-distance matters, you don't break down play designs, you don't acknowledge the goals of the team (i.e. set up play-action by establishing the run), you don't acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of the team (i.e. inexperienced TE's, Russell Wilson is short, little separation from our WR's), and too often you do confuse bad design with bad execution.

Playcalling is extremely complicated and something that needs complicated analysis. If I see something in-depth that reveals a pattern of poor decisions by Bevell, I'll listen. But griping about run-run-pass over and over for years on end is not respectable criticism.

Thank You-very well said.

In addition, I can't count the times I have seen some football rube scream in aggravation over a playcall and alter midcourse when they realize the execution of the play is successful.

So many wannabe co-ordinators do their criticism from the vantagepoint of hindsight-not real difficult to be an expert in retrospect. It's a very 'results based' way of thinking.

Look at it like this. There are 4 scenarios:
Good call/Good result. Good call/Bad result. Bad call/Bad result. Bad call/Good result.

I see the coordinator's critics focused solely on BR and attributing it to BC.
:1: It's myopic.

Not to mention, any gameplan constructed by Bevell/Cable and Quinn/(Bradley before him) surely has Pete's fingerprints and philosophy and blessing all over it.

Don't take this personal, but, are you or were you a pee wee football coach or kids coach. See lots of former coaches that will DEFEND play calling regardless, almost instinctual, almost like they would defend their favorite political party, very defensive of any criticism.

 

[Sports Hernia]

Translation: The plays that work: INSPIRED. The plays that don't work: UNINSPIRED.

No. I'm talking about just more creative and aggressive plays. Look at what we started off with last Sunday. Run through an A gap, run through an A gap, pass, punt.

Also, we need to go deep more often, in my opinion. We're good at it, and since our guys don't tend to get separation, there's usually a DB right on them with a high probability of getting PI called on them.

We are 3-0.


Maybe we are calling the right plays?

Also, I recall Wilson's early passes vs Carolina and San Fran... Not so impressive.

Second guessing OC calls is all too easy.

You know what is even easier than that?
Blindly defending playcalling.
You've gotta be a former coach who's play calling was second guessed? You seem way too butthurt not to be!

 

[RolandDeschain]

Because second-guessing the playcalling needs to contain a heckuva lot more than just griping about run-run-pass-punt. That's all I see you (and most playcalling critics) do. We did run-run-pass-punt for years with Shaun Alexander and nobody had a problem until it stopped working. You don't delve into down-and-distance matters, you don't break down play designs, you don't acknowledge the goals of the team (i.e. set up play-action by establishing the run), you don't acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of the team (i.e. inexperienced TE's, Russell Wilson is short, little separation from our WR's), and too often you do confuse bad design with bad execution.

Playcalling is extremely complicated and something that needs complicated analysis. If I see something in-depth that reveals a pattern of poor decisions by Bevell, I'll listen. But griping about run-run-pass over and over for years on end is not respectable criticism.

Thank You-very well said.

In addition, I can't count the times I have seen some football rube scream in aggravation over a playcall and alter midcourse when they realize the execution of the play is successful.

So many wannabe co-ordinators do their criticism from the vantagepoint of hindsight-not real difficult to be an expert in retrospect. It's a very 'results based' way of thinking.

Look at it like this. There are 4 scenarios:
Good call/Good result. Good call/Bad result. Bad call/Bad result. Bad call/Good result.

I see the coordinator's critics focused solely on BR and attributing it to BC.
:1: It's myopic.

Not to mention, any gameplan constructed by Bevell/Cable and Quinn/(Bradley before him) surely has Pete's fingerprints and philosophy and blessing all over it.

Alright. I'm sitting here waiting for that kind of analysis from you two, then.

Let's hear it. Unless your whole point is that hypocrisy is fine; you two take issue with me criticizing it because I haven't gone into extended detail. Well, defending it without going into extended detail to back it up is hypocritical after accusing me of the same.

I think the play calling is very up and down. You think it's great. You call me out for not backing my point of view; I think I'll return the courtesy.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Alright. I'm sitting here waiting for that kind of analysis from you two, then.

I apologize if my post was a little abrasive, as it seemed upon second reading.

BUT...we're 3-0 right now. I'm not really the one with the burden of proof here.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Yeah, that's what I thought.