What should have happened with this team

[Sgt. Largent]

This team should have stuck with Lynch and it would have likely had 1 more SB appearance and potentially one more SB win..

Not sure how you could jump to this conclusion. Lynch was coming off an injury, and needed an entire year to heal just to be slightly above average for the Raiders this year (#15 in rushing). That certainly doesn't translate to dominating for us delivering another SB in 2016.

I'm open to all sorts of theories as to what we should have done over the past 2-3 years;

1. Not trade for Graham
2. Not give guys like Kam, Richard and Bennett extensions
3. Not sign Joeckel and go harder after Lang, etc
4. Have the cap space to resign Haushka instead of dumpster diving for Walsh
5. Fire Bevell and Cable earlier than we did

Lots of scenarios that could have made sense and kept this train rolling..............but keeping Lynch, his bloated salary and all the nonsense that came with him? Nope, that was ABSOLUTELY the right decision.

 

[Ozzy]

I think we actually kept Lynch one year too long. Sgt. I think I could be on board with all those theories. the only one I waffle on is Graham. I can be convinced either way depending on my mood.

 

[Uncle Si]

I am suggesting that even while hurt, a hurt Lynch would have been a better bet to focus the team on than a healthy Wilson.

Especially with some of the other backs spelling Lynch at the time.

Lynch being hurt did not remove our chances to get to the SB in the other runs.

Why would we expect that to be different the very next year?

What DID diminish our chances was trading away a key cog in our blocking for him, in order to get a shiny new toy for the passing offense. A toy we never really bothered to use anyway, until years later.

At the time of the Unger trade, I pointed out this would drive out Lynch. It likely was not the ONLY reason, but it was very likely a contributing factor. And it was certainly an indicator that we were going to try to push our QB to move the chains instead of the RB being the workhorse on that task.

Lynch made this team a SB contender and the Unger trade was a sign to anymore looking that we wanted this team to ride the QB to the SB instead of relying on the run game.

It was a bad bet , this trade was the evidence that our efforts shifted, and it was very likely one of the changes that shut the door on our chances.

So now it's not Lynch, but Unger? (you're also guessing that Lynch's injuries were the same from year to year, assuming the other backs could aptly fill in for him, and inferring he may have been faking... all in two posts)

Man, you're all over the place here.

If you're suggesting the move from a power running game was the precursor to the team's struggles... i'd say that's partly true.

I would say that they never fully invested RW as "the man" either. It's been a little column A, little column B and it's left the group in limbo.

 

[Seymour]

This thread is way over complicated.

Here is where we went wrong.


Trusting in.....

 

[Bobblehead]

There was only one move they needed to make after the SB.. that was to fire Bevel. Hawks would have cut ties with their escaped goat and all probably would have been happy.

 

[flmmkrz]

Where we went wrong is we were a split personality team, half what pete wanted us to be and half what we were built to be. Moving on from Lynch was the right move but you either build the line with a competent line coach and install a good rb and stay the course or you take the reigns off Russ and let him start and finish games, not let him play 2 minutes of a first half and then 1 quarter in the 4th and think its enough to keep pulling victories out of the fire. They did neither and we ended up with a half assed in between mess.

 

[Bobblehead]

Where we went wrong is we were a split personality team, half what pete wanted us to be and half what we were built to be. Moving on from Lynch was the right move but you either build the line with a competent line coach and install a good rb and stay the course or you take the reigns off Russ and let him start and finish games, not let him play 2 minutes of a first half and then 1 quarter in the 4th and think its enough to keep pulling victories out of the fire. They did neither and we ended up with a half assed in between mess.

Well, at the time after Lynch, we had Rawls and I don't think there was anyone who didn't think Rawls was the next man up. who knew?

 

[adeltaY]

I don't get why you're insisting that Lynch could've carried the team in 2015. Not only did Rawls outperform him overally, Lynch had his first surgery and was OUT for most of the season. You say he played hurt before. There is a big difference between playing with the bumps and nicks that every player picks up throughout the season and the hernia that Lynch required surgery to repair.

To say that Lynch was healthy enough to be the focal point of our offense in 2015 is revisionist history.

 

[flmmkrz]

Where we went wrong is we were a split personality team, half what pete wanted us to be and half what we were built to be. Moving on from Lynch was the right move but you either build the line with a competent line coach and install a good rb and stay the course or you take the reigns off Russ and let him start and finish games, not let him play 2 minutes of a first half and then 1 quarter in the 4th and think its enough to keep pulling victories out of the fire. They did neither and we ended up with a half assed in between mess.

Well, at the time after Lynch, we had Rawls and I don't think there was anyone who didn't think Rawls was the next man up. who knew?

That's fair but the line was still inadequate for the game plan even if Rawls was the man. He was running like a man possessed but they weren't built to play Petes game and Cable clearly wasn't helping the line improve, so there was still a disconnect.

 

[twisted_steel2]

With the trade of Unger, it was clear this team was going to go all in on Wilson. Though you could easily argue that bad pass in the SB was an attempt to push Wilson to the center of the spotlight before that.

I'm just not buying the conspiracy talk. That there is an agenda from the FO & coaches to "push" Wilson into the spotlight.

Or they had to make a decision, Lynch or Wilson.

Nope. Sorry man. Didn't Lynch get a run right before the pass? It was just an amazing play from the Pats, thats it. If it was an incomplete pass, Lynch probably would have gotten the call next.

Sometimes we read into things way too much.

 

[Bobblehead]

With the trade of Unger, it was clear this team was going to go all in on Wilson. Though you could easily argue that bad pass in the SB was an attempt to push Wilson to the center of the spotlight before that.

I'm just not buying the conspiracy talk. That there is an agenda from the FO & coaches to "push" Wilson into the spotlight.

Or they had to make a decision, Lynch or Wilson.

Nope. Sorry man. Didn't Lynch get a run right before the pass? It was just an amazing play from the Pats, thats it. If it was an incomplete pass, Lynch probably would have gotten the call next.

Sometimes we read into things way too much.

Yeah,as I recall, he was arm tackled down.
Beast is beast, but, through out the season he was known to be stopped at the LOS so, I don't care what anyone says, it wasn't a sure play that he would have gotten in. However, it was the Pats and the Pats didn't have a history of being a super run stopping team at the LOS. My beef with the play is that it was to Lockette.. our 5th or 6th receiver..

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I think we actually kept Lynch one year too long. Sgt. I think I could be on board with all those theories. the only one I waffle on is Graham. I can be convinced either way depending on my mood.

Graham only made sense if we opened up our offensive scheme, and we didn't.............at least not on purpose.

Russell ended up throwing it more, but that's only because we couldn't run the ball anymore. Wasn't because Pete and Bevell/Cable weren't still trying unsuccessfully, as Graham got mowed over and thrown aside by DE's for 50% of his snaps.

In the end if Pete wasn't willing to open up the offense, then the right decision should have been to keep Unger and use cap or draft capital to find the next stud RB to pound it.

 

[TwistedHusky]

I think Lynch would have been a worthy bet.

And I think Lynch with adequate blocking gets us to the SB the year after the Minnesota miss. But that is besides the point.

I don't think that Lynch was faking but I do think we could have gotten one more useful year out of him. That year, the tremendously weak Panthers made it.

The Unger deal was the shift, from a power running team to a finesse passing team. And some of you were right, we did a halfass job on that transition but the personnel moves were CLEARLY in that direction. Most player moves past that point,, on the offensive side of the ball, weakened our run game,

A key point, already previously brought up was the decision to remove the FB (which was stupid stupid stupid).

To me, that is a pretty strong indication this team changed focus and did its best to showcase the QB. The offense of 2015 was about the best Wilson could play, and even so - with him playing about as well as he could....we made a wildcard game we almost lost.

If Lynch goes down, as suggested, with the framework for a run game we had - we still probably would have been OK. But the shift to a pass oriented offense, while somewhat successful in the regular season, murdered us in the playoffs. Apparently everyone is forgetting the interception and fumble that we had to come back from that was a large part of the reason the Panthers had such a big lead in the first place.

Say what you want, but that Unger trade led to a series of cascading failures in our run game, the defense and eventually the Seahawks as reasonable SuperBowl contenders. It turned us into a wildcard team because we went far away from what worked in order to try to win on the back of a QB that was not ready for it at all.

You remain convinced Lynch would not have mattered, I disagree, but that is immaterial. Losing Unger was a symptom of a change in strategy that was doomed to failure and it was rooted building our passing attack at the expense of our run game.

 

[Tinymac2]

Wow.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

I think they had thought that when they traded Unger, our backup was ready for primetime. And that was a mistake. What the coaching staff and GM thought is that they had enough backup and skills in them learning the system enough that we were covered. They were wrong and that is the failure of the system. On our SB run, we had a great front line and a depth that was scary. We lost a lot of that in the next 2 years.

What we thought were great next man up...ended up being na not so fast young lad. You will be learning under CAble...

What we thought were the offense is gonna kick it and kick it hard.....Charlie Browned with Lucy as OC. Although we squeaked by, we were in no means the biggo man on the block. We got a few trades that stank to high skunk and then were shown the door by other teams showing us we just got rid of their baggage. One could not "Cary" the load and some others could not get their "headcase" in the game. It was not just on the defense, but also was very offensive on that side of the ball too.

As Jammer said above, I think we have slowed the rocking on the ship side to side and the sails may prove to not be totally full, but they are aimed in the direction that the wind can go our way. By that, I mean a change in leadership that should have happened a couple of years ago.

All we can do is watch and see if there is smooth sailing...or find that cask in belowdecks and make sure it is full.....

:irishdrinkers: :irishdrinkers: :irishdrinkers: :vodka:

 

[Wartooth]

You can't change what happened five minutes ago... What's the point of rehashing these things? You're beating a dead mule, time to get a new one!

 

[Fade]

I thought it was the players stopped buying in because coaches weren't being held accountable.

Always Compete.*

*Unless you're a coach.

Pete finally fired a bunch of coaches now they can get back to,,,

Always Compete.

 

[WilsonMVP]

^^^
In 2015 Russell did carry the offense, and a big part was the OC (who for the record I'm glad he's gone) did game plan well and help, not hamstring Wilson.

We finished 2015 on a tear without Marshawn, squeaked by the ice bowl without him, then against Carolina went back to our old offense with him and were promptly whipped. Then we went back to what had been working, come storming back and if we had another few minutes left we win that game.

One could argue that if we didn't go back to committing to Marshawn, and stuck with what was working with Wilson, we could have been to a third straight Super Bowl.

I don't want to come across as bashing Lynch, loved him here and miss the days of screaming Beastmode at my TV, but his time here was done, and we could not continue to commit to him.

As much as I liked Lynch he KILLED us coming back to play in that Carolina game. Our team was rolling and then they changed it back up and we got whipped in the first half. I was actually really pissed off he came back we would of been fine without him.

The Graham trade IN RESTROSPECT was a bad one BUT only because we misused Jimmy about as bad as you can. We tried to run our same offense by getting rid of a very good center and having a TE who sucks at blocking block alot. If they were more creative in using Jimmy and not using him to block a bunch the trade wouldnt of looked as bad.

Honestly though EVERYTHING after our SB loss to NE comes down to the OL play. It would seem it has gotten worse year by year even with so much capital put into it. FINALLY we fired Bevell and Cable so we will see how much of a difference that makes. The Vikings were horrible last year on the OL and this year they made huge improvements so hopefully we can follow the same pattern. If we do there is no reason we cant go 12-4 or 13-3 like the vikings did with Case Keenum.

I also think there was growing resentment against Bevell year by year after that superbowl and you saw the cracks and hints at that in play comments and just general attitudes. If he is fired after the SB loss I think this team looks alot different.

 

[pittpnthrs]

There was only one move they needed to make after the SB.. that was to fire Bevel. Hawks would have cut ties with their escaped goat and all probably would have been happy.

This 1000%. By keeping Bevell the locker room became divided. Lynch was done in 2015 as was Pete's philosophy. The Hawks were forced to deviate from the tired old, stale philosophy half way through 2015 and our offense never looked better. Its still mind boggling that Pete reverted back to it in 2016 and onward. The torch was passed on to Wilson because there was no other choice. Cable ruined whatever was left of the Oline and we couldnt/cant run the ball like Pete wanted to (even though he stubbornly continued to try). Regardless, I believe if Bevell was fired like he should have been after 49, the players would have stuck together and the results would have been better.

 

[brimsalabim]

IF your premise is true then the correct move would have been to give the keys to the QB and get rid of any malcontents unable to deal with it.