Are Pete's assistants on his level?

[cymatica]

1-2?

It's how you finish.

How did the "it's not how you start it's how you finish" mantra work in Teseasons? How about the last few seasons?

Fill me in on what a Teseason is first?

Tennessee

 

[Siouxhawk]

If your only barometer for deciding if a season is successful is making the Super Bowl, your rate of enjoyment for following the Hawks, or any team for that matter, will be severely compromised. If you can live with that going in, fine, but to bemoan the blemishes that derail the lofty goals you have prescribed is simply arrogant.

 

[Uncle Si]

If your only barometer for deciding if a season is successful is making the Super Bowl, your rate of enjoyment for following the Hawks, or any team for that matter, will be severely compromised. If you can live with that going in, fine, but to bemoan the blemishes that derail the lofty goals you have prescribed is simply arrogant.

"Lofty" should be competent, consistent offensive play that gives the team a chance to compete for s Super Bowl. That hasn't been something the Hawks fans can feel good about since 2015.

If in the grand scheme of being a fan you expect a Super Bowl every year then yes, you are not being wholly realistic. But... when you have historically good players, including arguably one of the best 5 defenses of all time and the franchises best QB ever then you should want to expect your team is atleast "good enough" to make a Super Bowl run.

This team has not been since the Panthers ran them into the dirt in 2015. There is no argument here. There are slightly above average won totals reflective of below average offensive play and exceptional defensive play.

 

[Siouxhawk]

If your only barometer for deciding if a season is successful is making the Super Bowl, your rate of enjoyment for following the Hawks, or any team for that matter, will be severely compromised. If you can live with that going in, fine, but to bemoan the blemishes that derail the lofty goals you have prescribed is simply arrogant.

"Lofty" should be competent, consistent offensive play that gives the team a chance to compete for s Super Bowl. That hasn't been something the Hawks fans can feel good about since 2015.

If in the grand scheme of being a fan you expect a Super Bowl every year then yes, you are not being wholly realistic. But... when you have historically good players, including arguably one of the best 5 defenses of all time and the franchises best QB ever then you should want to expect your team is atleast "good enough" to make a Super Bowl run.

This team has not been since the Panthers ran them into the dirt in 2015. There is no argument here. There are slightly above average won totals reflective of below average offensive play and exceptional defensive play.

And even with that being said, Green Bay, New England, Kansas City and Pittsburgh are the only other teams to have reached that 'lofty' point in what you and others intimate as being not 'good enough.'

And that's my basic point. We have a system in place that routinely puts us in the hunt and poised to make a swing at the Super Bowl every year. Few teams can make such a claim.

 

[jammerhawk]

Sioux, I agree and the last 7 years have been exceptional. Only the very critical around here would argue the team has not played at a top level since the arrival of Wilson, who was a missing piece of the puzzle. But the present staff and front office are still doing it better than any other regime in the history of the team.

I don't agree with your premise however if you believe this halcyon period has occurred because of the team's offensive prowess, In fact lately for the past 3 seasons the O is holding the team back. Lately cracks are starting to show as other teams have figured out how to best exploit a period great D and frustrate a frequently toothless O, that can't give them a fair amount of time off. If you want a meaningful stat start looking at the inequity in TOP. If there is a reason why the team is not winning as much it relates to a weaker than usual O. Is that scheme, or a consistently poor OLine that gets rebuilt annually with castoff spare parts, draft picks, or mostly inexperienced players who do not stay together; to their noticeable inability; and which seems perpetually incapable of protection and run blocking? Arguably each factor plays into the discontent as the scheme seems glacially slow to adjust to the reality the 5 guys up front are doing their best to look like speed bumps. Unfortunately even then an inability to use the mismatch talent the team has on the roster is causing the brakes to continue to drag on the O. With the O underperforming excess pressure is being heaped on the D and they are wearing out, To me change seems to be mandated.

I think every single coach on the staff is an NFL caliber coach because of their ability and not because of Pet's loyalty. Each has the ability to deliver a good product but a team is more than one unit doing it's job. Of course. They are not on Pete's level though a few may become as capable. The present front office OLine philosophy of going cheap on the OLine and the reality that the O has a weakened ability to do the stuff they want to do as a result has not been compensated for by any noticeable adjustments in scheme. The team still prefers longer splash type passing and would love to be able to run effectively yet the run blocking and pass protection aren't there to allow it. Here the fingers can be pointed at the whole organization. A quicker developing O that by it's speed offers more protection to RW may help, but that hasn't shown up yet. Is this on Pete, Cable, Bevell, or because of a FO philosophy necessitated by cap restrictions it's hard to know but the O is waekening the D.

I still think all the problems are fixable but some change needs to happen first.

 

[Siouxhawk]

I agree with most of your points, jammer. And for the record, I never said that the offense has carried the team. I understand how the franchise has been built in Pete's image and that is to win with a staunch defense and manufacture points with an offense that is sure to protect the ball, maintain decent field position, wear them out so that the running game gets more effective as the game moves on and hit just enough big splash plays to keep them guessing. It's been a recipe for success.

For me, it's too early to see where we stand. Sure the offensive line has struggled in the early going, but even in the last game they showed signs that things might be clicking. I think the plan is to have them working as a cohesive unit by the midpoint of the season and it seems we're tracking in that direction. The ideal plan is for that to happen and then these young, hungry and fairly inexpensive unit will go from a detriment to a building block for at least the remainder of Pete's contract.

 

[scutterhawk]

There are several obstacles facing Cable, Bevell and some of the other position coaches.
You have one of the finest Defenses in the NFL that you can practice playing against, but you can NOT practice your Cut Blocks on them, in fact you can't go full bore at practice in any facet of play. like you MUST when facing an opponent that is going balls out at you, on every play, and sometimes even after the whistle has blown.
Russell wears a red "NO CONTACT" jersey, so the Defense has to pull their punches in practice sessions.
Bevell has to be able to evaluate how proficient the O-Line is at running certain plays, and judging by the floundering around on the ground O-Line, after attempting to cut block, leads one to assess that some really good plays are likely off the table......The O-Line is just not there yet, at least not where they need to be for Bevell to pull out all the stops on play calling.
Hell, with our anemic O-Line, just trying to keep Wilson from getting pulverized is the reason Jimmy Graham is being misused...SOMEONE needs to help block on certain plays (like Gronk does for the Patriots) (like Golden Tate used to for us)

How is this different from what the rest of the NFL does in practice?

I'm glad you asked.....As there is no way to prepare for "Live Rounds", Offensive Line coaches are charged to get the players trained to DEFEND the line of scrimmage, hold their ground, open holes for RB's, and form a defense for their Quarterbacks to prosper, BUT, here's the rub, there are several O-Lines across the League that have a huge advantage, they are playing shoulder to shoulder with EXPERIENCED veterans, AND have that established continuity......The Seahawks Offensive Line on the other hand, is sucking hind teat they are green as hell.
The Seahawks aren't the only team with this problem, but not all teams are anywhere near having EQUAL footing, eh?

 

[Uncle Si]

If your only barometer for deciding if a season is successful is making the Super Bowl, your rate of enjoyment for following the Hawks, or any team for that matter, will be severely compromised. If you can live with that going in, fine, but to bemoan the blemishes that derail the lofty goals you have prescribed is simply arrogant.

"Lofty" should be competent, consistent offensive play that gives the team a chance to compete for s Super Bowl. That hasn't been something the Hawks fans can feel good about since 2015.

If in the grand scheme of being a fan you expect a Super Bowl every year then yes, you are not being wholly realistic. But... when you have historically good players, including arguably one of the best 5 defenses of all time and the franchises best QB ever then you should want to expect your team is atleast "good enough" to make a Super Bowl run.

This team has not been since the Panthers ran them into the dirt in 2015. There is no argument here. There are slightly above average won totals reflective of below average offensive play and exceptional defensive play.

And even with that being said, Green Bay, New England, Kansas City and Pittsburgh are the only other teams to have reached that 'lofty' point in what you and others intimate as being not 'good enough.'

And that's my basic point. We have a system in place that routinely puts us in the hunt and poised to make a swing at the Super Bowl every year. Few teams can make such a claim.

The argument is that the system has not done enough on the offensive side of the ball to have a legitimate "swing" at the Super Bowl.

 

[Hawkfish]

No. And not one of them should be considered for HC when Carroll leaves, PERIOD.

 

[jammerhawk]

For me, it's too early to see where we stand. Sure the offensive line has struggled in the early going, but even in the last game they showed signs that things might be clicking. I think the plan is to have them working as a cohesive unit by the midpoint of the season and it seems we're tracking in that direction. The ideal plan is for that to happen and then these young, hungry and fairly inexpensive unit will go from a detriment to a building block for at least the remainder of Pete's contract.

Here we completely agree and for those having problems with the slow start it would be wise to have a hard look at the roster and notice how many players are new, , in their second season, or playing a new position. The players the team has have all competed for their spots and now are learning to play together.

Of course this true for other team's too, our O is simply underperforming b/c the scheme is not in sinc with what they are a blessing to do.

 

[TwistedHusky]

As long as Bevel is on this team it will be held back.

Pete will not only never win another SB with Bevel on this team, he will never even reach another.

I said this several years ago and I have been proven right. It will probably take a few more years of underperforming for us to lose Bevel and it will probably mean losing Pete to do it. Which is too bad, but I don't see Pete winning more than a wild card game with this staff.

 

[bmorepunk]

As long as Bevel is on this team it will be held back.

Pete will not only never win another SB with Bevel on this team, he will never even reach another.

I said this several years ago and I have been proven right. It will probably take a few more years of underperforming for us to lose Bevel and it will probably mean losing Pete to do it. Which is too bad, but I don't see Pete winning more than a wild card game with this staff.

It's pretty easy to make a statement that a team will never win a Super Bowl without <insert something here>. I could bet that with any aspect of any team in the NFL straight up and win big with the exception of the Patriots. Even that is probably still not a terrible bet. It took those guys nearly a decade in between Super Bowl wins.

Bevell might be holding this team back, but your alleged prescience is absurd.

 

[TwistedHusky]

It isnt psychic super powers.

Bevell is a terrible below average producer on our team.

This was evident then and it is more clear now.

We have no chance w Bevell as OC.

Nor prescient, just smart enough to see the obvious.

 

[bmorepunk]

If they had the best OC in history it is still a low probability they win a Super Bowl. Do you also predict I-5 traffic sucks during rush hour?

 

[Siouxhawk]

Bevell obviously knows the path to the Super Bowl as he's been there twice and won a ring. So to say imperially that the Hawks would never again win a Super Bowl with him as the OC is incongruous.

 

[jammerhawk]

Thought Bevell called a brilliant game today, slants, quick, outs and consistent and successful use of the TEs. Now for quick developing sideline fades with the height differentials of Graham, Willson, and McEvoy.

Maybe they were not there b/c once the protections improved so did the downfield O. Then the running game :2thumbs: .