Seahawks haven’t managed an opening drive TD in almost 2 yrs

[Mistashoesta]

Seattle’s last opening drive TD was Week 3 of the 2016 against the San Francisco 49ers, when Christine Michael scored his first touchdown on a 41-yard burst. Since then? Here are the ensuing end results over the next 31 weeks:

Punt
Punt
Punt
Punt
Blocked Punt
Field Goal
Punt
Punt
Field Goal
Field Goal
Punt
Fumble
Field Goal
Punt
Field Goal
Punt
Field Goal
Punt
Punt
Punt
Punt
Punt
Interception
Interception
Field Goal
Punt
Fumble
Punt
Punt
Punt
Punt

https://www.fieldgulls.com/2018/9/19/17 ... statistics

Hahahahahahahhahaha ukeface:

 

[Seymour]

I heard that the other day yet I could have sworn that we finally broke that pathetic record (an all time NFL record) around game 28 (total) last year? Not sure which game, but a swear it ended??

edit...hmmm could have been a TD kick return I thought ended it??

 

[Seahawk_Dan]

At least we're the best at something right? :stirthepot:

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Surprised Jon Ryan's leg didn't fall off.

 

[Seahawk_Dan]

Surprised Jon Ryan's leg didn't fall off.

I think that's why we drafted Dickson because we wanted to keep the trend alive and needed a fresh, young leg.

 

[canucklehead]

Brings to mind Einstein's quote about the definition of insanity "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result"

 

[Seahawk_Dan]

Brings to mind Einsein's quote about the definition of insanity "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result"

Technically Einstein didn't say that, though the quote is still attributed to him. Regardless the meaning is still the same.

 

[bmorepunk]

Brings to mind Einsein's quote about the definition of insanity "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result"

Technically Einstein didn't say that, though the quote is still attributed to him. Regardless the meaning is still the same.

No, the meaning is still terrible, especially when attributed to a scientist.

When you take measurements in a scientific process, you almost always get different results. That's what statistical distributions and the whole 95% confidence interval thing are for. But you do the same thing over and over.

When I estimate how long it will take to drive across town? Always different results. Light timing and the existence of other cars and the behavior of the drivers would never allow for the same result.

Baseball players throw and swing at the same kinds of pitches constantly. All sorts of different results.

Football players do many of the same things over and over again. Different results.

Einstein would have never said something so stupid.

 

[Fade]

Gotta love "Pete" ball.

He again doubled down at his presser today. When asked about the offense. Something about staying the same, just gotta "stick with it" propaganda. And yes I am calling it propaganda at this point. You have to call it that after multiple years of this.

Pete is insane.

 

[Seahawk_Dan]

Gotta love "Pete" ball.

He again doubled down at his presser today. When asked about the offense. Something about staying the same, just gotta "stick with it" propaganda. And yes I am calling it propaganda at this point. You have to call it that after multiple years of this.

Pete is insane.

If we drop to 1-6 and the Pete quotes stay the same then I imagine he's gone. Maybe not during the season but by the end.

 

[Chapow]

Brings to mind Einsein's quote about the definition of insanity "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result"

Technically Einstein didn't say that, though the quote is still attributed to him. Regardless the meaning is still the same.

:34853_doh:

That isn't the definition of insanity and that isn't what it means.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... nsanity-is

 

[mrt144]

Brings to mind Einsein's quote about the definition of insanity "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result"

Technically Einstein didn't say that, though the quote is still attributed to him. Regardless the meaning is still the same.

:34853_doh:

That isn't the definition of insanity and that isn't what it means.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... nsanity-is

You're being stubborn if you think you can repeat your objections over and over again and get a different result

 

[Seahawk_Dan]

No, the meaning is still terrible, especially when attributed to a scientist.

When you take measurements in a scientific process, you almost always get different results. That's what statistical distributions and the whole 95% confidence interval thing are for. But you do the same thing over and over.

When I estimate how long it will take to drive across town? Always different results. Light timing and the existence of other cars and the behavior of the drivers would never allow for the same result.

Baseball players throw and swing at the same kinds of pitches constantly. All sorts of different results.

Football players do many of the same things over and over again. Different results.

Einstein would have never said something so stupid.

:34853_doh:

That isn't the definition of insanity and that isn't what it means.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... nsanity-is

Yes on a scientific and definition stand point the quote is not only attributed to the wrong person, as I stated in my post, but the phrase itself is colloquial. Used so many times that it either lost it's original meaning or spawned a new one all together. However when someone says the phrase you understand the general meaning of what they're saying, despite being incorrect on a technical level when you look into it.

 

[sdog1981]

New Rule:

If you go 5 wide on 3rd and 2, you should be shot.

 

[bmorepunk]

Or at least tickled.

 

[mrt144]

Or at least tickled.

A fate worse than death really.

 

[Chapow]

No, the meaning is still terrible, especially when attributed to a scientist.

When you take measurements in a scientific process, you almost always get different results. That's what statistical distributions and the whole 95% confidence interval thing are for. But you do the same thing over and over.

When I estimate how long it will take to drive across town? Always different results. Light timing and the existence of other cars and the behavior of the drivers would never allow for the same result.

Baseball players throw and swing at the same kinds of pitches constantly. All sorts of different results.

Football players do many of the same things over and over again. Different results.

Einstein would have never said something so stupid.

:34853_doh:

That isn't the definition of insanity and that isn't what it means.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... nsanity-is

Yes on a scientific and definition stand point the quote is not only attributed to the wrong person, as I stated in my post, but the phrase itself is colloquial. Used so many times that it either lost it's original meaning or spawned a new one all together. However when someone says the phrase you understand the general meaning of what they're saying, despite being incorrect on a technical level when you look into it.

This is a reasonable, intelligent, and well stated response.

The only possible explanation is you must be messing with me somehow.

 

[Seahawk_Dan]

No, the meaning is still terrible, especially when attributed to a scientist.

When you take measurements in a scientific process, you almost always get different results. That's what statistical distributions and the whole 95% confidence interval thing are for. But you do the same thing over and over.

When I estimate how long it will take to drive across town? Always different results. Light timing and the existence of other cars and the behavior of the drivers would never allow for the same result.

Baseball players throw and swing at the same kinds of pitches constantly. All sorts of different results.

Football players do many of the same things over and over again. Different results.

Einstein would have never said something so stupid.

:34853_doh:

That isn't the definition of insanity and that isn't what it means.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... nsanity-is

Yes on a scientific and definition stand point the quote is not only attributed to the wrong person, as I stated in my post, but the phrase itself is colloquial. Used so many times that it either lost it's original meaning or spawned a new one all together. However when someone says the phrase you understand the general meaning of what they're saying, despite being incorrect on a technical level when you look into it.

This is a reasonable, intelligent, and well stated response.

The only possible explanation is you must be messing with me somehow.

I assure you I'm not messing with you. Lol. Just stating that yes, both you and bmore are correct by definition but that the quote is a turn of phrase.

 

[seahawkfreak]

Brings to mind Einsein's quote about the definition of insanity "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result"

Technically Einstein didn't say that, though the quote is still attributed to him. Regardless the meaning is still the same.

It was created by an author in some book written in, I think in 83', that used the term towards alcoholism. I have know idea how this saying has been attributed to Einstein.

 

[West TX Hawk]

2 years is just abysmal and sums up many of the O philosophy issues. It would be nice if Pete for once just thew caution to the wind and came out with hurry-up or a run 'n shoot style to change the pace, get the tempo going immediately and shock the opposing defense.

After 2 years, try something-anything different!