Cliff Avril checks in on where things went wrong

[Seymour]

And yet the Seattle offense outgained the NE offense by 20 yards in that game and averaged 7.5 yards per pay to NE 5.2. But ya....it was all the offenses fault.

Follow the $$. The money was being paid to the defense, they need to take the lions share of the blame IMO.

 

[AROS]

I love the hell out of Avril, he's one of the most honorable stand up players to ever put on a Hawk uniform.............but I'm tired of this narrative.

It's too easy, it's too convenient, and it's just flat out wrong.

1. Our offense handed the defense a 10 pt lead going into the 4th quarter. Where was the defense taking responsibility?
2. MOST teams pass on the goal line with one time out and the defense showing heavy run goalline package. Doesn't make it a bad call. HORRIBLE execution obviously, but not a bad call.
3. All this does is diminish the integrity of those players who decided to dwell on a loss, instead of going even harder the next year with the most talented roster in the NFL.

So enough already with pinning this on Pete. That loss was on the players. Period. They didn't execute. They didn't hold the lead.

But I know, it's much easier to blame Pete for not running? BS.

100% agree. It's so much easier to blame the coaches instead of taking ownership as players for not executing. From the defense giving up a 10 point lead in the 4th (why is that rarely talked about?) to poor execution all around on that final play, ultimately the loss is on the players. But yeah, let's blame Pete for a pass call that probably works 9-out-of-10 times in that very scenario.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Shoot, has the D EVER taken blame for something? If so, it's extremely rare.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Passing up the middle into congestion with an empty backfield from the 1 on 1st through 3rd down is ALWAYS a bad call.

It's not always a bad call. Teams throw goalline slants all the time..........hell the Niners and Walsh wrote the book on how to legally pull off the pick/slant at the goalline, and the Patriots run it ad naseum in 20 different formations.

I agree, I would have also preferred that if we were going to pass to run a lower risk pass. But then again, we didn't exactly have the WR corp to pull off an endzone slant or fade route either, especially against Browner and Revis.

But sorry, not ALWAYS a bad call.

 

[Seymour]

Shoot, has the D EVER taken blame for something? If so, it's extremely rare.

They might now with Sherman and Bennett gone! :2thumbs:

 

[AgentDib]

The defensive players were clearly in the wrong. Kam's holdout was just as damaging to the beginning of 2015 as any hangover from that play, and then the whole thing was exacerbated by Lynch's attitude followed by RW's deserved extension.

Jealousy is a powerful force and it's clear that a faction on our defense would never have been content while earning less money than Russ. Hopefully the change in both coaching and personnel this off-season enables the team to move forwards. I'm not generally a believer in addition by subtraction, but issues like this are one reason why it may actually be true for this particular team.

 

[TwistedHusky]

We will see.

But until Wilson starts producing in all 4 quarters, this team depends on the defense to win.

So what the defense thinks matters more.

If the defensive players do not buy in, we better learn to win by outscoring teams. But for now, the guys that are most responsible for the Ws play on the D. Or did.

 

[jammerhawk]

So what I'm reading is Avril still believes Carroll's philosophy would have brought another superbowl win and it's because guys stopped believing in the philosophy that meant that we didn't

:ditto:

The firing of Bevell completed the circle, if you will, reaffirming the team's commitment to competition, accountability, and physicality.

The only problem with the discharge of Bevell was with it's timing. It was 3 seasons too late. The frustrations were allowed to fester, breed, and remained unanswered by the HC for too long. getting back to the core philosophy of competing and accountability took too long to be reinstated.

The changes have been made and more critically Coach Fable was revealed as incompetent, that change plus the unification of control over the whole O by one coordinator instead of the OC and the Run Game Coordinator should streamline the decision making process. My honest belief is the team will be stronger on O as a result of these changes.

It is interesting to have the insight into the mindset of the team through one of the quiet leaders of the team in Avril. Avril had his doubts but believed in his D teammates staying true to the central message of the team. His presence on the team will be missed more than those of Bennett or Sherman.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

They are a TEAM, choosing to not buy in is pretty damn selfish.

 

[mikeak]

Passing up the middle into congestion with an empty backfield from the 1 on 1st through 3rd down is ALWAYS a bad call.

It's not always a bad call. Teams throw goalline slants all the time..........hell the Niners and Walsh wrote the book on how to legally pull off the pick/slant at the goalline, and the Patriots run it ad naseum in 20 different formations.

I agree, I would have also preferred that if we were going to pass to run a lower risk pass. But then again, we didn't exactly have the WR corp to pull off an endzone slant or fade route either, especially against Browner and Revis.

But sorry, not ALWAYS a bad call.

Fair enough, but I would also make the argument that when you are passing to Richard Lockette up the middle then you also don’t have the WR corps to pull off that move.....

Which brings it full circle to lookin at some passing percentage for goal line plays is irrelevant because what matters is how the team was built and what type of pass play was called

I firmly believe we ran out there with an empty backfield group of players convinced that NE would use a timeout and we wanted them to burn one. When that didn’t happen we didn’t want to use ours nor did we have the right players for a run play so the pass play as called is kind of what we had left.

 

[mikeak]

They are TEAM, choosing to not buy in is pretty damn selfish.

When the ship is on fire then you can call it selfish when people start jumping into the water or call it naive when the Captain keep telling everyone to row......... sometimes the truth is in the middle

 

[Sun Tzu]

Passing up the middle into congestion with an empty backfield from the 1 on 1st through 3rd down is ALWAYS a bad call.

It's not always a bad call. Teams throw goalline slants all the time..........hell the Niners and Walsh wrote the book on how to legally pull off the pick/slant at the goalline, and the Patriots run it ad naseum in 20 different formations.

I agree, I would have also preferred that if we were going to pass to run a lower risk pass. But then again, we didn't exactly have the WR corp to pull off an endzone slant or fade route either, especially against Browner and Revis.

But sorry, not ALWAYS a bad call.

Fair enough, but I would also make the argument that when you are passing to Richard Lockette up the middle then you also don’t have the WR corps to pull off that move.....

Which brings it full circle to lookin at some passing percentage for goal line plays is irrelevant because what matters is how the team was built and what type of pass play was called

I firmly believe we ran out there with an empty backfield group of players convinced that NE would use a timeout and we wanted them to burn one. When that didn’t happen we didn’t want to use ours nor did we have the right players for a run play so the pass play as called is kind of what we had left.

You keep mentioning an empty backfield.
Watch the replay, Lynch is in the backfield. He does not go in motion as many on here have stated in the past. Lynch is in the backfield, hence we did not run out there with an empty backfield as you have stated. Lynch does not move until after the snap; we did not motion into an empty backfield.

 

[mikeak]

^ you are correct I was remembering it incorrectly. It was a shotgun play with Lynch to the side which was what “signaled” that we weren’t power running up the middle / QB sneak. It allowed the defense to spread out more

Thanks for correction

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Fair enough, but I would also make the argument that when you are passing to Richard Lockette up the middle then you also don’t have the WR corps to pull off that move..

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we run that exact play to Lockette earlier in the year, and it worked?

He was the biggest bodied receiver we had, and the Patriot's were in man to man coverage.

Again, I'm with you, wasn't fond of the playcall if we were going pass. But this is a situation where it's never going to make sense, because it didn't work.

But if we're TRULY being objective, which I know is impossible because it crushed our souls to watch it happen................throwing from the one is not objectively a "bad" playcall.

 

[Popeyejones]

THIS IS A SINCERE QUESTION THAT I'M REALLY CURIOUS ABOUT AND I'M REALLY, REALLY NOT TRYING TO BE A JERK:

If that play broke the Seahawks team a little bit, do you think it also broke the Seahawks fanbase a little bit?

I ask because it's four years later and folks are still arguing over the minutia of that play and the 4th quarter, making me think the answer *could be* yes?

This really is a sincere question, and am asking for insight from Hawks fans about what they think, not suggesting people *shouldn't be* talking about that play anymore, or *should be* one way or another or anything.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

If that play broke the Seahawks team a little bit, do you think it also broke the Seahawks fanbase a little bit?

Broke us? No, but as you see here, definitely fractured and put a big dent in the confidence we had in our team and coaches to keep the SB train rolling.

As any soul crushing SB defeat would to any fan base.

 

[Seymour]

THIS IS A SINCERE QUESTION THAT I'M REALLY CURIOUS ABOUT AND I'M REALLY, REALLY NOT TRYING TO BE A JERK:

If that play broke the Seahawks team a little bit, do you think it also broke the Seahawks fanbase a little bit?

I ask because it's four years later and folks are still arguing over the minutia of that play and the 4th quarter, making me think the answer *could be* yes?

This really is a sincere question, and am asking for insight from Hawks fans about what they think, not suggesting people *shouldn't be* talking about that play anymore, or *should be* one way or another or anything.

Are you assuming that "none of us" were broken before then play? :twisted:

 

[Milehighhawk]

All this does for me is cement the reality that as tough as those main defensive players were physically, they are very fragile mentally.

 

[AROS]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we run that exact play to Lockette earlier in the year, and it worked?

If memory serves, we did run that exact play earlier in the year with Lockette and that was the reason Butler was ready for it. He got burned in practice the week leading up to the SB when NE was running that very play and heard about it loud and clear. So when he saw the formation in the SB he knew precisely what to do and where to be. That's why it looked so incredible.

He literally saw it coming.

 

[mikeak]

If that play broke the Seahawks team a little bit, do you think it also broke the Seahawks fanbase a little bit?

Broke us? No, but as you see here, definitely fractured and put a big dent in the confidence we had in our team and coaches to keep the SB train rolling.

As any soul crushing SB defeat would to any fan base.

Agree - it didn’t break us from loyalty to the team. It certainly made us a lot more critical of decisions that were being made / not made