ESPN: A trade for Duane Brown wouldn't be easy to pull off

[Bobblehead]

In the Ram game, we had, what, 1 sustained drive.
We had 5 turnovers that we parlayed into a whopping 3 points I think.
We made the 49ers D look great and I think we were wondering if they really were that good.
We scored 9 points on the Packers who's given up more than 20 points /game to teams.
We got a bunch of garbage points against Titans and Colts.

I'd say our O is looking good.

I agree, the notion that we "feel out" our opponents for the first half is hogwash. We've been in this league for several years, we know what they have and what they don't. Our O is just as someone else said, pedestrian, nooo.. it's worse than that, it's a crippled offense.. wonder why.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

We got a bunch of garbage points against Titans and Colts.

That's dismissing a lot of points in order to support a narrative in order to justifying bad free agency moves for a left tackle. The Colts game wasn't garbage time because...we were ahead. The Titans game wasn't garbage time because...we almost won. I will grant that neither defense is that impressive. Doesn't really work to just toss aside the points, though.

 

[mrt144]

We got a bunch of garbage points against Titans and Colts.

That's dismissing a lot of points in order to support a narrative in order to justifying bad free agency moves for a left tackle. The Colts game wasn't garbage time because...we were ahead. The Titans game wasn't garbage time because...we almost won. I will grant that neither defense is that impressive. Doesn't really work to just toss aside the points, though.

We almost won against Tennessee? Ummmm...

http://www.espn.com/nfl/game?gameId=400951623

That win probability graph says nothing of the sort.

It's like you're projecting the rationale you're using yourself onto those who hypothetically would disagree with you.

 

[scutterhawk]

Doesn't make my statement that we will need to continue watching records of futility incorrect though does it?

You guys just hate the way that sounds and don't want to hear it. It's the sad truth, and we have not even played any top 10 defenses yet.

That's not how Pete's Seahawks draw it up for ANY team we have faced, his game planning takes into account for 'Feel Out' of his opponent, with intentional slow starts, therefor, I believe it does nullify your "Statement", and thus makes it incorrect.
Look, your 18 games of "Futility" includes the beating of mastermind Billicheat & the Patriots in 2016.
I don't believe that anyone here is enamored with the slow starts, but I along with a couple hundred thousand other fans are on board with his winning %.

That is a pure load of BS. You are saying that we by intention score less points?

Absolutely the lost ridiculous thing I've heard here yet. Yes, they do intentionally use scripted plays to probe and chart the D that will be used, but in no way do they intentionally leave points on the field. :roll:

:roll: Get pissed all you want, I SAID NOTHING about leaving points on the field, your words, not mine.
What I WAS INFERRING, is that NO game that Pete has EVER Coached, has been won or lost a game in the 1st, or even the 2nd quarter.
Am I content with the slow starts?, hell no, but Pete absolutely DOES try to establish & dictate the tempo, and the slow starts are a part of his MO, so I'll take the good and the angst that goes with it.....Pete has earned my confidence.

 

[Seymour]

Doesn't make my statement that we will need to continue watching records of futility incorrect though does it?

You guys just hate the way that sounds and don't want to hear it. It's the sad truth, and we have not even played any top 10 defenses yet.

That's not how Pete's Seahawks draw it up for ANY team we have faced, his game planning takes into account for 'Feel Out' of his opponent, with intentional slow starts, therefor, I believe it does nullify your "Statement", and thus makes it incorrect.
Look, your 18 games of "Futility" includes the beating of mastermind Billicheat & the Patriots in 2016.
I don't believe that anyone here is enamored with the slow starts, but I along with a couple hundred thousand other fans are on board with his winning %.

That is a pure load of BS. You are saying that we by intention score less points?

Absolutely the lost ridiculous thing I've heard here yet. Yes, they do intentionally use scripted plays to probe and chart the D that will be used, but in no way do they intentionally leave points on the field. :roll:

:roll: Get pissed all you want, I SAID NOTHING about leaving points on the field, your words, not mine.
What I WAS INFERRING, is that NO game that Pete has EVER Coached, has been won or lost a game in the 1st, or even the 2nd quarter.
Am I content with the slow starts?, hell no, but Pete absolutely DOES try to establish & dictate the tempo, and the slow starts are a part of his MO, so I'll take the good and the angst that goes with it.....Pete has earned my confidence.

Then define "intentional slow start".
Slow to most people means take a lessor pace, or hold back, which obviously = scoring less.
It would also mean you are not "always competing" and only competing 100% in the second half.

Either way, it does not make my original statement untrue in any way. Here is a reminder of what you attempted to dispute. Each week we go scoreless, that record rises.

We will all just have to watch our offense continue to set records of futility I suppose

 

[Bobblehead]

We got a bunch of garbage points against Titans and Colts.

That's dismissing a lot of points in order to support a narrative in order to justifying bad free agency moves for a left tackle. The Colts game wasn't garbage time because...we were ahead. The Titans game wasn't garbage time because...we almost won. I will grant that neither defense is that impressive. Doesn't really work to just toss aside the points, though.

Seahawks used to be notorious for giving up easy 2nd half points when we had the lead, do you not remember that? We would just sit back and wait for the int to happen.

I don't know, Colts to me were like easy points, we should have been at half time by 42, instead we played at the Colts level for a whole half and finally busted out.

Titans, sorry, never felt we were in the game or could win the game, they did what the Hawks used to do, get big and just sit on it.

 

[Year of The Hawk]

IMHO the whole slow start thing is just part of the personality of this team. I don't feel we are terribly creative with play calls overall. But we make great halftime adjustments and then take off. We find the week spot.
Our D has its problems as well. They usually let other teams look like they are going to roll over us the whole game first drive or two. Then they get a "feel" for what is going on. BWags said in his presser after the game against the Rams "they threw everything they had against us in the beginning then we settled in." That "throw everything new at them" works well in the short term but it is not a overall winning strategy. Our guys are smart and spend a lot of time in the film room. That is why we often have problem against rook QB's.

 

[hawk45]

That's not how Pete's Seahawks draw it up for ANY team we have faced, his game planning takes into account for 'Feel Out' of his opponent, with intentional slow starts, therefor, I believe it does nullify your "Statement", and thus makes it incorrect.
Look, your 18 games of "Futility" includes the beating of mastermind Billicheat & the Patriots in 2016.
I don't believe that anyone here is enamored with the slow starts, but I along with a couple hundred thousand other fans are on board with his winning %.

Let's see, master strategy of intentionally starting slow or crappy pre-game planning combined with conservative play-calling? I know which one I think it is.

If the defense took a half to "feel out" the opponents each game we'd be out of it by the 2nd half.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Titans, sorry, never felt we were in the game or could win the game, they did what the Hawks used to do, get big and just sit on it.

We had the lead a couple different times in that game.

 

[Bobblehead]

Titans, sorry, never felt we were in the game or could win the game, they did what the Hawks used to do, get big and just sit on it.

We had the lead a couple different times in that game.

Did you feel good about it?

 

[Hawks46]

The biggest problem I have for trading for Brown is that he's held out so long. It's no secret that players that hold out this long typically get some sort of soft tissue injury when they return to play. So we'd be trading for a guy that might not even be able to help us for a good portion of the year.

We also won't be able to restructure contracts without creating a real jackpot down the line, as we already did it to bring Richardson in.

I don't think Odhiambo is set to be the next great OT, but he's shown steady progression. I know we're all tired of it and losing patience, but the guy is a rookie at the LT position. He's showing progress and it stands to reason that he can get better as the season progresses. We're seeing the same thing with Ifedi.

All we need is league average. It's feasible.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

I don't think Odhiambo is set to be the next great OT, but he's shown steady progression. I know we're all tired of it and losing patience, but the guy is a rookie at the LT position. He's showing progress and it stands to reason that he can get better as the season progresses. We're seeing the same thing with Ifedi.

Eh. I'd say Ifedi has made a LOT more progress than Rees so far.

 

[Erebus]

Brown might be a little harder to pry away from the Texans now. His replacement left today's game with a calf injury. That increases Brown's leverage against the Texans. As semi-contenders with an up-and-coming QB that needs protected, they may be forced to give in to his demands now.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ose-left-tackle-chris-clark-with-calf-injury/