Seahawks Redzone

[nash72]

Carroll will have at least 2 and just might make it into the Hall before it's all said and done.

I doubt we will ever see another superbowl under Carrolls regime to be honest. Could but I doubt it. The thing about Pete is he seems to need the highest talent to be successful (USC, here). Once it diminishes, he struggles. He's a fantastic defensive minded coach and a good judge of talent, but I feel he's mediocre with the X's and O's for the most part. He got super lucky that Wilson panned out for him.

 

[Siouxhawk]

See, this right here is an example of the new labeled phenomenon called "fake news." You just did it. You said it was a quote from the Times' Bob Condotta, which would have been reputable, but in all actuality it was a blog from fansided from an author I've never heard of and it was nothing but his opinion. That's all. His opinion offers no more merit than a contributor on our .net forum here.

Bevell answered a question without malice. I'm sure even Ricardo himself wouldn't take issue with that explanation.

I'm guessing you didn't even read the article but felt the need to dismiss it. If you would have scrolled down the article you would have seen the tweet from Bob Condotta. You didn't because you knew it would refute what you've been standing behind all along so you had to dismiss it as "fake news".

I'm certain that any player wouldn't appreciate a coach throwing him under a bus.

If still is an opinion piece. It's a blog. Not an actual news story. That's the point.

The inclusion of Condotta was a paraphrased tweet. The actual quote was "we didn't go hard enough to the ball." That makes a difference. It unifies. It protects the team.

What you are doing is putting your own spin on it to fit your agenda.

 

[Hyak]

I've never said that so that would be your perception coming through. I'm sure Bevell wanted to see 3 more wins from the team as did all the coaching staff. But in retrospect, I'm sure they are proud of their work this year in lieu of all the key injuries and the struggling line. Lesser teams and coaching staffs wouldn't have gotten as far as we did.

So here's the difference between your and my mindset. I don't like to compare the Seahawks with lesser teams. I believe that they should be measured against the elite teams. I couldn't care less about what the lesser teams coaching staffs do. I care about what the Seahawks coaching staff does. In a few games against lesser coaching staffs this season, they got outcoached and outplayed. That's a fact.

Seattle has always played up or down to their competition under Carroll. Thats what separates New England from us in my opinion. They dont lose to teams they shouldnt lose to. Sure, maybe once it a blue moon buts its super rare. All the while it comes to no surprise to anybody when the Hawks lose to the Rams or the Saints. Thats the difference in coaching.

Agreed. Belichick is the greatest game planner in NFL history IMO and is just on another level than other coaches. I love Pete and he may be #2 or # 3 in terms of NFL coaches right now but the gap is big. NE seldom loses the trap games. Now the formula to beat them is still the same. Pressure Brady with your front 4, play physical, and tackle well. Few teams can do that.

What NE has done with BB and Brady in the Salary Cap era is unprecedented in terms of sustained success.

What PC has done here is very good and unprecedented in Seahawks history. The expectation now should be competing for the SB every year and that was not the case in the past. I thought 2015/2016 teams took a big step back in being legit contenders because of the OL issues and less effective depth on defense, which largely is a byproduct of losing some key guys in FA and lousy drafts in 2013/2014.

On the bright side, 2015 and 2016 look like they are better drafts and they need it to continue.

 

[Anthony!]

See, this right here is an example of the new labeled phenomenon called "fake news." You just did it. You said it was a quote from the Times' Bob Condotta, which would have been reputable, but in all actuality it was a blog from fansided from an author I've never heard of and it was nothing but his opinion. That's all. His opinion offers no more merit than a contributor on our .net forum here.

Bevell answered a question without malice. I'm sure even Ricardo himself wouldn't take issue with that explanation.

I'm guessing you didn't even read the article but felt the need to dismiss it. If you would have scrolled down the article you would have seen the tweet from Bob Condotta. You didn't because you knew it would refute what you've been standing behind all along so you had to dismiss it as "fake news".

I'm certain that any player wouldn't appreciate a coach throwing him under a bus.

If still is an opinion piece. It's a blog. Not an actual news story. That's the point.

The inclusion of Condotta was a paraphrased tweet. The actual quote was "we didn't go hard enough to the ball." That makes a difference. It unifies. It protects the team.

What you are doing is putting your own spin on it to fit your agenda.

LOL no it does not it calls out one player there is only one player that the ball was thrown to, so there for he called the player out. Try this

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/footb ... -1.2102541

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foo ... terception

Now how will you explain that away LOL

Oh and lets think about this, if we go with your lame explanation and you saying Bevel said we could have gone stronger to the ball. HMm well we cant mean him since he is not the guy being thrown the ball, cant mean the wrs that were not thrown the ball, or anyone else that was not thrown the ball. It can only mean the person the ball was thrown to, so it is still a call out and as you can see Balwdin and others were not happy about it. PC took responsibility, Rw took responsibility, Lockette did, but not Bevel.

Le tme try it this way If I say we could have gone harder to the ball on that play, anyone with common sense knows I don't mean me, I mean the player who the ball was thrown to. There is no other way to take that and try as you might to make up one you cant. Thats why every media outlet took it that way, why Baldwin took it that way etc etc,.

 

[hawkfan68]

See, this right here is an example of the new labeled phenomenon called "fake news." You just did it. You said it was a quote from the Times' Bob Condotta, which would have been reputable, but in all actuality it was a blog from fansided from an author I've never heard of and it was nothing but his opinion. That's all. His opinion offers no more merit than a contributor on our .net forum here.

Bevell answered a question without malice. I'm sure even Ricardo himself wouldn't take issue with that explanation.

I'm guessing you didn't even read the article but felt the need to dismiss it. If you would have scrolled down the article you would have seen the tweet from Bob Condotta. You didn't because you knew it would refute what you've been standing behind all along so you had to dismiss it as "fake news".

I'm certain that any player wouldn't appreciate a coach throwing him under a bus.

If still is an opinion piece. It's a blog. Not an actual news story. That's the point.

The inclusion of Condotta was a paraphrased tweet. The actual quote was "we didn't go hard enough to the ball." That makes a difference. It unifies. It protects the team.

What you are doing is putting your own spin on it to fit your agenda.

I find it funny when you accuse spinning things to fit agendas because it's what you do with your post 99% of the time. Take a negative post about Bevell and spin it to fit your agenda. Except in your case, you provide zero proof of anything. Just your opinions which are closer to a "echo chamber myths" than anything else. No one here pretends to be any players or team personnel's best buddy like you do with Bevell. You project what you post as the truth but it's pure speculation. Anything against it is "fake news" or "not an issue" etc. :34853_doh:

 

[Siouxhawk]

See, this right here is an example of the new labeled phenomenon called "fake news." You just did it. You said it was a quote from the Times' Bob Condotta, which would have been reputable, but in all actuality it was a blog from fansided from an author I've never heard of and it was nothing but his opinion. That's all. His opinion offers no more merit than a contributor on our .net forum here.

Bevell answered a question without malice. I'm sure even Ricardo himself wouldn't take issue with that explanation.

I'm guessing you didn't even read the article but felt the need to dismiss it. If you would have scrolled down the article you would have seen the tweet from Bob Condotta. You didn't because you knew it would refute what you've been standing behind all along so you had to dismiss it as "fake news".

I'm certain that any player wouldn't appreciate a coach throwing him under a bus.

If still is an opinion piece. It's a blog. Not an actual news story. That's the point.

The inclusion of Condotta was a paraphrased tweet. The actual quote was "we didn't go hard enough to the ball." That makes a difference. It unifies. It protects the team.

What you are doing is putting your own spin on it to fit your agenda.

LOL no it does not it calls out one player there is only one player that the ball was thrown to, so there for he called the player out. Try this

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/footb ... -1.2102541

Now how will you explain that away LOL

Can you provide a link to the Seattle Times story and direct quotes that this internet-based story used attribution from?

 

[Anthony!]

I'm guessing you didn't even read the article but felt the need to dismiss it. If you would have scrolled down the article you would have seen the tweet from Bob Condotta. You didn't because you knew it would refute what you've been standing behind all along so you had to dismiss it as "fake news".

I'm certain that any player wouldn't appreciate a coach throwing him under a bus.

If still is an opinion piece. It's a blog. Not an actual news story. That's the point.

The inclusion of Condotta was a paraphrased tweet. The actual quote was "we didn't go hard enough to the ball." That makes a difference. It unifies. It protects the team.

What you are doing is putting your own spin on it to fit your agenda.

LOL no it does not it calls out one player there is only one player that the ball was thrown to, so there for he called the player out. Try this

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/footb ... -1.2102541

Now how will you explain that away LOL

Can you provide a link to the Seattle Times story and direct quotes that this internet-based story used attribution from?

Already did and once again using your version "we could have gone harder to the ball" so lets see, he was not talking about himself since he was not playing, not talking about Rw since he was throwing the ball, not talking about the RBs since the ball was not thrown to them, not talking about the Wrs the ball was not throws to, not talking about the defense, not talking about the oline. Hmm so who could he have been talking about that did not go hard enough to the ball hmm oh yea the Wr the ball was thrown too Lockette. I mean how hard headed are you. If the mariners loose a game and the Manager says we could have pitched better and the only use d1 pitcher it is obvious who they are talking about. There was only one Wr the ball was thrown to, and only one guy Bevel could have and was talking about. I mean its common sense to well everyone but you at this point

 

[Siouxhawk]

If still is an opinion piece. It's a blog. Not an actual news story. That's the point.

The inclusion of Condotta was a paraphrased tweet. The actual quote was "we didn't go hard enough to the ball." That makes a difference. It unifies. It protects the team.

What you are doing is putting your own spin on it to fit your agenda.

LOL no it does not it calls out one player there is only one player that the ball was thrown to, so there for he called the player out. Try this

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/footb ... -1.2102541

Now how will you explain that away LOL

Can you provide a link to the Seattle Times story and direct quotes that this internet-based story used attribution from?

Already did and once again using your version "we could have gone harder to the ball" so lets see, he was not talking about himself since he was not playing, not talking about Rw since he was throwing the ball, not talking about the RBs since the ball was not thrown to them, not talking about the Wrs the ball was not throws to, not talking about the defense, not talking about the oline. Hmm so who could he have been talking about that did not go hard enough to the ball hmm oh yea the Wr the ball was thrown too Lockette. I mean how hard headed are you. If the mariners loose a game and the Manager says we could have pitched better and the only use d1 pitcher it is obvious who they are talking about. There was only one Wr the ball was thrown to, and only one guy Bevel could have and was talking about. I mean its common sense to well everyone but you at this point

I didn't see a link to that Seattle Times article.

My perception of using "we" is that they are all in it together. It supports the team.

 

[Anthony!]

LOL no it does not it calls out one player there is only one player that the ball was thrown to, so there for he called the player out. Try this

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/footb ... -1.2102541

Now how will you explain that away LOL

Can you provide a link to the Seattle Times story and direct quotes that this internet-based story used attribution from?

Already did and once again using your version "we could have gone harder to the ball" so lets see, he was not talking about himself since he was not playing, not talking about Rw since he was throwing the ball, not talking about the RBs since the ball was not thrown to them, not talking about the Wrs the ball was not throws to, not talking about the defense, not talking about the oline. Hmm so who could he have been talking about that did not go hard enough to the ball hmm oh yea the Wr the ball was thrown too Lockette. I mean how hard headed are you. If the mariners loose a game and the Manager says we could have pitched better and the only use d1 pitcher it is obvious who they are talking about. There was only one Wr the ball was thrown to, and only one guy Bevel could have and was talking about. I mean its common sense to well everyone but you at this point

I didn't see a link to that Seattle Times article.

My perception of using "we" is that they are all in it together. It supports the team.

Yes your perception of using "we" is the right one and everyone else's, media, experts, other players on the team are wrong. LOL

 

[hawkfan68]

I didn't see a link to that Seattle Times article.

My perception of using "we" is that they are all in it together. It supports the team.

Here's the link to Bob Condotta's tweet - https://twitter.com/bcondotta/status/562097218895630336.

 

[Siouxhawk]

I didn't see a link to that Seattle Times article.

My perception of using "we" is that they are all in it together. It supports the team.

Here's the link to Bob Condotta's tweet - https://twitter.com/bcondotta/status/562097218895630336.

I see the tweet, but Condotta is paraphrasing there. Bevell's direct quote was "we didn't go hard enough ..." That may seem like splitting hairs, but it reinforces the protect the team approach.

Some of you act like he called out Ricardo for losing the game. It wasn't even remotely close to that.

 

[hawkfan68]

I didn't see a link to that Seattle Times article.

My perception of using "we" is that they are all in it together. It supports the team.

Here's the link to Bob Condotta's tweet - https://twitter.com/bcondotta/status/562097218895630336.

I see the tweet, but Condotta is paraphrasing there. Bevell's direct quote was "we didn't go hard enough ..." That may seem like splitting hairs, but it reinforces the protect the team approach.

Some of you act like he called out Ricardo for losing the game. It wasn't even remotely close to that.

Fair enough. It's not worth debating over semantics. I looked at the OP of the thread and it wasn't supposed to turn into another Bevell thread. I'm sorry for my part in derailing the thread from the original intent. Sorry sdog1981 and all.

I hope that you're correct, Sioux, that Bevell and the team will continue to improve. That's what most Seahawk fans wish for anyway. I do. Any improvement by the players, coaches, etc is good. Especially improvement in the areas that they have struggled in the past couple of years, like the red zone. It think punching it in a couple of more times rather than settling for 3pts or less would have changed the fortunes of the past season. It's crying over spilled milk.

Expectations have been raised by the good run they've had so far. So the bar is high. I hope your prediction of at least one SB championship in the next 3 years does come true. Go Hawks!!!

 

[sdog1981]

I didn't see a link to that Seattle Times article.

My perception of using "we" is that they are all in it together. It supports the team.

Here's the link to Bob Condotta's tweet - https://twitter.com/bcondotta/status/562097218895630336.

I see the tweet, but Condotta is paraphrasing there. Bevell's direct quote was "we didn't go hard enough ..." That may seem like splitting hairs, but it reinforces the protect the team approach.

Some of you act like he called out Ricardo for losing the game. It wasn't even remotely close to that.

Fair enough. It's not worth debating over semantics. I looked at the OP of the thread and it wasn't supposed to turn into another Bevell thread. I'm sorry for my part in derailing the thread from the original intent. Sorry sdog1981 and all.

I hope that you're correct, Sioux, that Bevell and the team will continue to improve. That's what most Seahawk fans wish for anyway. I do. Any improvement by the players, coaches, etc is good. Especially improvement in the areas that they have struggled in the past couple of years, like the red zone. It think punching it in a couple of more times rather than settling for 3pts or less would have changed the fortunes of the past season. It's crying over spilled milk.

Expectations have been raised by the good run they've had so far. So the bar is high. I hope your prediction of at least one SB championship in the next 3 years does come true. Go Hawks!!!

We can't talk about the offense without talking about Bevell. I was hopping we could talk about all the factors that lead to red zone performance.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Thank you hawkfan68 for the good conversation. We are both of one mind that we want to see our team succeed.

I don't know of any present-day team that has the kind of drama and roller-coaster swings of emotion like ours. And personally, I don't know if it's a good thing or bad thing, but we certainly don't get cheated out of excitement being a fan of this team. On this forum site alone, I've seen a dozen posts from people worried about their blood pressure. And they were being serious as a heart attack, full pun intended. :smilingalien: I'm just past 50 now, so that pertains to me as well.

Next year's Super Bowl is as close as it's going to get to where I live. I will be doing my best pmedic impression next year and sending pics back to the .netters. So I'm really hoping the Hawks are one of the guests of honor. And then win it all in back-to-back cold-weather locales.

We need to get healthy, stay healthy, have functional line play and pry loose some turnovers. That alone will get us back to the NFC final. Then we bank on our veteran leadership to get No. 2 in 52.

Take a breath and exhale. More fun is on the way.

 

[RolandDeschain]

I see the tweet, but Condotta is paraphrasing there. Bevell's direct quote was "we didn't go hard enough ..." That may seem like splitting hairs, but it reinforces the protect the team approach.

Some of you act like he called out Ricardo for losing the game. It wasn't even remotely close to that.

Seeing as how the pass was targeted at one person, and near that one person, "we" is just Bevell trying to avoid LOOKING like he's throwing one player under the bus. I mean, seriously. What, you think he was expecting the other 10 guys on offense to all try and catch it? :roll:

Hey, if that works, then I can escape culpability on pretty much anything. "We" didn't like your defense of Bevell.

Carroll can say "We didn't throw the pass well enough" and that way it's a team thing and not a comment directed at the quarterback. Fantastic.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Anthony!]

I see the tweet, but Condotta is paraphrasing there. Bevell's direct quote was "we didn't go hard enough ..." That may seem like splitting hairs, but it reinforces the protect the team approach.

Some of you act like he called out Ricardo for losing the game. It wasn't even remotely close to that.

Seeing as how the pass was targeted at one person, and near that one person, "we" is just Bevell trying to avoid LOOKING like he's throwing one player under the bus. I mean, seriously. What, you think he was expecting the other 10 guys on offense to all try and catch it? :roll:

Hey, if that works, then I can escape culpability on pretty much anything. "We" didn't like your defense of Bevell.

Carroll can say "We didn't throw the pass well enough" and that way it's a team thing and not a comment directed at the quarterback. Fantastic.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Add to that Baldwin in a link I posted says Yeah, I would be lying if I said it didn’t bother us,” Seahawks receiver Doug Baldwin told reporters in Seattle on Tuesday, according to The Seattle Times. “He’s a coach and so you take that criticism or whatnot and you look in the mirror and figure out what you could have done with it. It’s harsh.”


So your really going to try this BS game, No he did not specify Lockette he only said we need to go hard to the ball when asked about that play, Let's see who of the 11 guys, the only one the ball was thrown to that would have to go harder to the ball was Lockette. Come on you cant be that silly. I suppose if PC says we did not punt well in this game he id not talking about our Punter right Good lord.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Baldwin basically said in the aftermath of 49 that what's done is done and the most important thing is to remain together as a team. He's had face-to-face meetings with Bevell, what, about 400 times since then? In sure they hashed it out right away and have had a good relationship since.

 

[Anthony!]

Baldwin basically said in the aftermath of 49 that what's done is done and the most important thing is to remain together as a team. He's had face-to-face meetings with Bevell, what, about 400 times since then? In sure they hashed it out right away and have had a good relationship since.

Great but again missing the point probably on purpose even Baldwin had a problem with Bevel throwing Lockette under the bus that is the point you trying to deflect away from it does not change the fact he did it, Baldwin had a problem with it as did pretty much everyone, except you because you refuse to acknowledge that he did it even though the facts are clear he did.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Baldwin basically said in the aftermath of 49 that what's done is done and the most important thing is to remain together as a team. He's had face-to-face meetings with Bevell, what, about 400 times since then? In sure they hashed it out right away and have had a good relationship since.

Great but again missing the point probably on purpose even Baldwin had a problem with Bevel throwing Lockette under the bus that is the point you trying to deflect away from it does not change the fact he did it, Baldwin had a problem with it as did pretty much everyone, except you because you refuse to acknowledge that he did it even though the facts are clear he did.

You've proven nothing. You don't know what goes on behind the scenes of the locker room and neither do I. To sit and speculate about it, especially something that happened 2 years ago is a complete exercise in futility. Even if there was a brief moment of friction between Doug and Bev, they've obviously gotten over it and have complete respect for one another. Baldwin, in fact, has championed Bevell's performance many times on record in the last 2 years.

 

[Anthony!]

Baldwin basically said in the aftermath of 49 that what's done is done and the most important thing is to remain together as a team. He's had face-to-face meetings with Bevell, what, about 400 times since then? In sure they hashed it out right away and have had a good relationship since.

Great but again missing the point probably on purpose even Baldwin had a problem with Bevel throwing Lockette under the bus that is the point you trying to deflect away from it does not change the fact he did it, Baldwin had a problem with it as did pretty much everyone, except you because you refuse to acknowledge that he did it even though the facts are clear he did.

You've proven nothing. You don't know what goes on behind the scenes of the locker room and neither do I. To sit and speculate about it, especially something that happened 2 years ago is a complete exercise in futility. Even if there was a brief moment of friction between Doug and Bev, they've obviously gotten over it and have complete respect for one another. Baldwin, in fact, has championed Bevell's performance many times on record in the last 2 years.

lol WOW once again you are trying your best to ignore the point. let me help you this all started when many of us said Bevel through Lockette under the bus about the play in the SB, You said no, You offered no proof while we offered proof. You still continued to say no, then we offered more proof and even a player saying it. Now you are trying to change this into something different because you refuse to admit the truth. We are into debating whether Baldwin and Bevel have patched things up or not, this whole disagreement is around the FACT that bevel through Lockette under the bus, and everyone but you know it to include Baldwin. The fact that since then Baldwin has championed Bevel does not change the facts that at the time this happened Bevel through Lockette under the bus and Baldwin did not like it.


So let me make this simple for you

Bevel through Lockette under the bus
Baldwin amongst others did not like it
Baldwin and Bevel have since patched things up

That's it