Is it arrogance?

[chris98251]

I think the better question is why you judge THIS team a success for what they did five years ago. Honestly, I don't think this regime will ever get us back to the bowl. Yeah, those back to back Super Bowls were great, but that was then and this is now. Listen, if you think that the the team making the right moves to become a contender again that is your right. I just think that it's ridiculous to say that because they did it in the past means that they will necessarily do it again. For me, I don't care how many Super Bowls they've had in the last seven years; I care that they haven't even been close to one in the past four.

TIL that the divisional playoff round isn't even close to the Super Bowl.

It's two wins away, dude. Closer than most of the league.

This "cutting through the bullcrap and telling it like it is" act isn't convincing. You didn't answer my question, because you know there's no good answer: you want Seattle to be winning lots of Super Bowls, but you probably acknowledge that it isn't realistic for any team other than the Patriots to do so. So Seattle is excelling in the same way that every other perennial contender is.

"That was then and this is now"...good grief, what an awful way to treat the gang that got you a Super Bowl.

You stated that the Pats are as successful as I would like the Hawks to be. It is possible. If the Pats can be that successful than I want the Hawks to be that successful. If Pete and John aren't going to bring us that level of success than I want to move to someone who might. I want as many if not more Super Bowl wins as the Pats.

Also, this board has really changed throughout the years. This whole "if you crtitque the team you are a bandwagoner" thing is really nonsense. Listen, the Hawks are a product I consume. I am the customer. I don't owe this brand any loyalty. I pay their salaries when I buy their merch, go to games, or watch them on TV. I don't have to "treat the gang that got you to the Super Bowl" in any sort of fashion. This whole fealty things that folks like you have is weird. The seahawks are not my kings. I do not have to bow to them and say, "thank you oh noble ones for what you have brought me." They went one the Super Bowl. Awesome. Folks like us have made them rich beyond most peoples wildest dreams. As a paying customer I want more from this product that it is currently giving me. Clearly you don't. Good for you. But I ain't gonna genuflect before them just cause I really enjoyed the product that they put out one year.

What utter nonsense.

Being negative doesnt make you objective. Doesnt make you clearer or right.

Its your perspective. Suggesting those that don't see it your way as blinded by fealty is ignorant and concending. Its also a clear indication of your hypocritical approach to others points and inability to engage in dissenting dialogue.

The board has changed?

Get over yourself

Can we throw him through the Moon Door Si can we ? Can we????????

 

[Uncle Si]

Had to google "Moon Door"

 

[chris98251]

Had to google "Moon Door"

:34853_doh:


You had one job....................

 

[Uncle Si]

Had to google "Moon Door"

:34853_doh:


You had one job....................

Ive never seen the show (im the one)

 

[SchadenfreudeHawk]

I think the better question is why you judge THIS team a success for what they did five years ago. Honestly, I don't think this regime will ever get us back to the bowl. Yeah, those back to back Super Bowls were great, but that was then and this is now. Listen, if you think that the the team making the right moves to become a contender again that is your right. I just think that it's ridiculous to say that because they did it in the past means that they will necessarily do it again. For me, I don't care how many Super Bowls they've had in the last seven years; I care that they haven't even been close to one in the past four.

TIL that the divisional playoff round isn't even close to the Super Bowl.

It's two wins away, dude. Closer than most of the league.

This "cutting through the bullcrap and telling it like it is" act isn't convincing. You didn't answer my question, because you know there's no good answer: you want Seattle to be winning lots of Super Bowls, but you probably acknowledge that it isn't realistic for any team other than the Patriots to do so. So Seattle is excelling in the same way that every other perennial contender is.

"That was then and this is now"...good grief, what an awful way to treat the gang that got you a Super Bowl.

You stated that the Pats are as successful as I would like the Hawks to be. It is possible. If the Pats can be that successful than I want the Hawks to be that successful. If Pete and John aren't going to bring us that level of success than I want to move to someone who might. I want as many if not more Super Bowl wins as the Pats.

Also, this board has really changed throughout the years. This whole "if you crtitque the team you are a bandwagoner" thing is really nonsense. Listen, the Hawks are a product I consume. I am the customer. I don't owe this brand any loyalty. I pay their salaries when I buy their merch, go to games, or watch them on TV. I don't have to "treat the gang that got you to the Super Bowl" in any sort of fashion. This whole fealty things that folks like you have is weird. The seahawks are not my kings. I do not have to bow to them and say, "thank you oh noble ones for what you have brought me." They went one the Super Bowl. Awesome. Folks like us have made them rich beyond most peoples wildest dreams. As a paying customer I want more from this product that it is currently giving me. Clearly you don't. Good for you. But I ain't gonna genuflect before them just cause I really enjoyed the product that they put out one year.

What utter nonsense.

Being negative doesnt make you objective. Doesnt make you clearer or right.

Its your perspective. Suggesting those that don't see it your way as blinded by fealty is ignorant and concending. Its also a clear indication of your hypocritical approach to others points and inability to engage in dissenting dialogue.

The board has changed?

Get over yourself

I was responding to the comment "good grief, what an awful way to treat the gang that got you a Super Bowl." That is feality, bro dawg. You can totally disagree with me about the state of the Seahawks franchise but telling me that I have to "treat the gang" in a specific way is creepy and weird. I think a part of this is that different folks have different ideas about what it means to be a fan. Wanna disagree with me on the merits of my argument? Totes fine. Telling me that I owe some sort of alligence to this regime is a different story. My response was sensical.

 

[mrt144]

TIL that the divisional playoff round isn't even close to the Super Bowl.

It's two wins away, dude. Closer than most of the league.

This "cutting through the bullcrap and telling it like it is" act isn't convincing. You didn't answer my question, because you know there's no good answer: you want Seattle to be winning lots of Super Bowls, but you probably acknowledge that it isn't realistic for any team other than the Patriots to do so. So Seattle is excelling in the same way that every other perennial contender is.

"That was then and this is now"...good grief, what an awful way to treat the gang that got you a Super Bowl.

You stated that the Pats are as successful as I would like the Hawks to be. It is possible. If the Pats can be that successful than I want the Hawks to be that successful. If Pete and John aren't going to bring us that level of success than I want to move to someone who might. I want as many if not more Super Bowl wins as the Pats.

Also, this board has really changed throughout the years. This whole "if you crtitque the team you are a bandwagoner" thing is really nonsense. Listen, the Hawks are a product I consume. I am the customer. I don't owe this brand any loyalty. I pay their salaries when I buy their merch, go to games, or watch them on TV. I don't have to "treat the gang that got you to the Super Bowl" in any sort of fashion. This whole fealty things that folks like you have is weird. The seahawks are not my kings. I do not have to bow to them and say, "thank you oh noble ones for what you have brought me." They went one the Super Bowl. Awesome. Folks like us have made them rich beyond most peoples wildest dreams. As a paying customer I want more from this product that it is currently giving me. Clearly you don't. Good for you. But I ain't gonna genuflect before them just cause I really enjoyed the product that they put out one year.

What utter nonsense.

Being negative doesnt make you objective. Doesnt make you clearer or right.

Its your perspective. Suggesting those that don't see it your way as blinded by fealty is ignorant and concending. Its also a clear indication of your hypocritical approach to others points and inability to engage in dissenting dialogue.

The board has changed?

Get over yourself

I was responding to the comment "good grief, what an awful way to treat the gang that got you a Super Bowl." That is feality, bro dawg. You can totally disagree with me about the state of the Seahawks franchise but telling me that I have to "treat the gang" in a specific way is creepy and weird. I think a part of this is that different folks have different ideas about what it means to be a fan. Wanna disagree with me on the merits of my argument? Totes fine. Telling me that I owe some sort of alligence to this regime is a different story. My response was sensical.

In the future, your response may be interpreted the way you mean if you devote a little more thought and effort to it. Strutting in and being like "Sup sycophants, drink Pete's bathwater today?" isn't going to help convey your thoughts in an effective way.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

:snack:

 

[Uncle Si]

TIL that the divisional playoff round isn't even close to the Super Bowl.

It's two wins away, dude. Closer than most of the league.

This "cutting through the bullcrap and telling it like it is" act isn't convincing. You didn't answer my question, because you know there's no good answer: you want Seattle to be winning lots of Super Bowls, but you probably acknowledge that it isn't realistic for any team other than the Patriots to do so. So Seattle is excelling in the same way that every other perennial contender is.

"That was then and this is now"...good grief, what an awful way to treat the gang that got you a Super Bowl.

You stated that the Pats are as successful as I would like the Hawks to be. It is possible. If the Pats can be that successful than I want the Hawks to be that successful. If Pete and John aren't going to bring us that level of success than I want to move to someone who might. I want as many if not more Super Bowl wins as the Pats.

Also, this board has really changed throughout the years. This whole "if you crtitque the team you are a bandwagoner" thing is really nonsense. Listen, the Hawks are a product I consume. I am the customer. I don't owe this brand any loyalty. I pay their salaries when I buy their merch, go to games, or watch them on TV. I don't have to "treat the gang that got you to the Super Bowl" in any sort of fashion. This whole fealty things that folks like you have is weird. The seahawks are not my kings. I do not have to bow to them and say, "thank you oh noble ones for what you have brought me." They went one the Super Bowl. Awesome. Folks like us have made them rich beyond most peoples wildest dreams. As a paying customer I want more from this product that it is currently giving me. Clearly you don't. Good for you. But I ain't gonna genuflect before them just cause I really enjoyed the product that they put out one year.

What utter nonsense.

Being negative doesnt make you objective. Doesnt make you clearer or right.

Its your perspective. Suggesting those that don't see it your way as blinded by fealty is ignorant and concending. Its also a clear indication of your hypocritical approach to others points and inability to engage in dissenting dialogue.

The board has changed?

Get over yourself

I was responding to the comment "good grief, what an awful way to treat the gang that got you a Super Bowl." That is feality, bro dawg. You can totally disagree with me about the state of the Seahawks franchise but telling me that I have to "treat the gang" in a specific way is creepy and weird. I think a part of this is that different folks have different ideas about what it means to be a fan. Wanna disagree with me on the merits of my argument? Totes fine. Telling me that I owe some sort of alligence to this regime is a different story. My response was sensical.

Your premise is sensical. No argument, and id think most agree with most your points. I do.

Your approach is condescending and incorrect. I didn't tell you how to "treat the gang" (dumb premise). I disagreed that the team is failing.

Your choice on how you want it to be received.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

We go through this most years. We let good players go and don’t address needs in free agency. I have always thought it is because Pete and JS think they are just that much brighter than everyone else. They think they can take other teams trash and turn it into starters. They ignore all the draft projections and take picks rounds earlier because they are just that much better. In the end they fail more than they succeed.

It’s frustrating.

So let me get this straight, you'd like to be the Jets, Browns, Cardinals, Raiders, Lions and all the other bad teams that are 80% of the teams that overspend every year in this first wave of ridiculous contract free agency, and then still stink ever year.

If you need to build your roster through the first wave of overpriced terrible contracts of free agency, then you're doomed for failure.

Fortunately that's not how we build our roster, we build through the draft and mining value in free agency. It's how you get a DJ Fluker, and not overpay for TJ Lang. You wait until all the stupid franchise overpay, then you get value.

And not sure how you call a FO that's put together a perennial playoff roster and gone to two SB's "fail more than succeed."

What a terrible take.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Yeah, you don't want to be the team that "wins the off-season"
There's a reason certain teams are spending a boat load of $ on players. Very few of the playoff teams from last year jumped on the initial frenzy. Did I read that correctly? Fail more than succeed???? :34853_doh:

 

[mrt144]

We go through this most years. We let good players go and don’t address needs in free agency. I have always thought it is because Pete and JS think they are just that much brighter than everyone else. They think they can take other teams trash and turn it into starters. They ignore all the draft projections and take picks rounds earlier because they are just that much better. In the end they fail more than they succeed.

It’s frustrating.

So let me get this straight, you'd like to be the Jets, Browns, Cardinals, Raiders, Lions and all the other bad teams that are 80% of the teams that overspend every year in this first wave of ridiculous contract free agency, and then still stink ever year.

If you need to build your roster through the first wave of overpriced terrible contracts of free agency, then you're doomed for failure.

Fortunately that's not how we build our roster, we build through the draft and mining value in free agency. It's how you get a DJ Fluker, and not overpay for TJ Lang. You wait until all the stupid franchise overpay, then you get value.

And not sure how you call a FO that's put together a perennial playoff roster and gone to two SB's "fail more than succeed."

What a terrible take.

Can this be a real instance of FOMO?

I mean, I totally get it. Other teams are tricking themselves out with fat spoilers, fat exhaust pipes, etc etc.

It's funny that I find more arrogance in the strategic/tactical side of things than with personnel. I mean Percy and Jimmy are two things that might lend themselves to arrogance, sure, but that's still a partial reflection on how they were used strategically and tactically. Is speculation arrogance inherently?

 

[Chapow]

We go through this most years. We let good players go and don’t address needs in free agency. I have always thought it is because Pete and JS think they are just that much brighter than everyone else. They think they can take other teams trash and turn it into starters. They ignore all the draft projections and take picks rounds earlier because they are just that much better. In the end they fail more than they succeed.

It’s frustrating.

So let me get this straight, you'd like to be the Jets, Browns, Cardinals, Raiders, Lions and all the other bad teams that are 80% of the teams that overspend every year in this first wave of ridiculous contract free agency, and then still stink ever year.

If you need to build your roster through the first wave of overpriced terrible contracts of free agency, then you're doomed for failure.

Fortunately that's not how we build our roster, we build through the draft and mining value in free agency. It's how you get a DJ Fluker, and not overpay for TJ Lang. You wait until all the stupid franchise overpay, then you get value.

And not sure how you call a FO that's put together a perennial playoff roster and gone to two SB's "fail more than succeed."

What a terrible take.

Agreed.

Is it arrogance?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

It's funny that I find more arrogance in the strategic/tactical side of things than with personnel. I mean Percy and Jimmy are two things that might lend themselves to arrogance, sure, but that's still a partial reflection on how they were used strategically and tactically. Is speculation arrogance inherently?

Definitely another interesting conversation. I do think Pete is VERY arrogant tactically.......he believes in his core philosophies on both sides of the ball, and that's that.

He's also arrogant with personnel, he thinks he can mine the best out of troubled or under performing players once they're indoctrinated into his locker room culture.

Sometimes it works (Lynch, Kendricks, Clark, Fluker), and sometimes it doesn't (Harvin, McDowell).

I guess people want perfection, and you're never going to get perfection when it comes to evaluating human beings, especially young human beings playing a sport. You just want to succeed more than fail, and Pete and John have done that, very well. There is no disputing that.

 

[FidelisHawk]

Fans are fans, and most of us have played, coached, or watched the game most our adult lives. In the simplest terms, we all know if your team has 22 players that are better any other team’s 22 players your team will win the most games.

Unfortunately, the NFL has spent years devising a system to make that impossible.

Yet as fans we want that disparity for our favorite team, we want our team to be better, have better players, be coached better, play better, and have any luck that comes along, fall in our favor. If we didn’t, we’d be casual observers not “fans”. And the ways to rail against the NFL’s system, to achieve the consummate team, are as long and numerous as there are fans.

Even teams the casual observer considers great, like the Patriots, have their disparagers. A quick trip to any Patriots’ forum will find much of the same free agency, draft picks, trades, front office and coaching criticisms.

As fans, to strive for perfection is human nature, but to expect it, is the definition of delusional.

So, are the Seahawks perfect? No.
Is the front office striving to make them perfect? I think so, why wouldn’t they?
Will they reach perfection? That would be delusional.
As fans should we hope, wish, pray, contemplate, dissect, discuss, or argue the ways to perfection?

Well, fans are fans and most of us...

 

[mrt144]

It's funny that I find more arrogance in the strategic/tactical side of things than with personnel. I mean Percy and Jimmy are two things that might lend themselves to arrogance, sure, but that's still a partial reflection on how they were used strategically and tactically. Is speculation arrogance inherently?

Definitely another interesting conversation. I do think Pete is VERY arrogant tactically.......he believes in his core philosophies on both sides of the ball, and that's that.

He's also arrogant with personnel, he thinks he can mine the best out of troubled or under performing players once they're indoctrinated into his locker room culture.

Sometimes it works (Lynch, Kendricks, Clark, Fluker), and sometimes it doesn't (Harvin, McDowell).

I guess people want perfection, and you're never going to get perfection when it comes to evaluating human beings, especially young human beings playing a sport. You just want to succeed more than fail, and Pete and John have done that, very well. There is no disputing that.

Full agreement here. The question arrived to me though because speculation - seeking to find maligned assets that can perform as well if not better than non maligned assets - in football personnel resources could be misconstrued as arrogance OR it could merely be a more variable outcome risk/reward method of acquisition. We'd have to interview the coaching and management staff to be sure.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

It's funny that I find more arrogance in the strategic/tactical side of things than with personnel. I mean Percy and Jimmy are two things that might lend themselves to arrogance, sure, but that's still a partial reflection on how they were used strategically and tactically. Is speculation arrogance inherently?

Definitely another interesting conversation. I do think Pete is VERY arrogant tactically.......he believes in his core philosophies on both sides of the ball, and that's that.

He's also arrogant with personnel, he thinks he can mine the best out of troubled or under performing players once they're indoctrinated into his locker room culture.

Sometimes it works (Lynch, Kendricks, Clark, Fluker), and sometimes it doesn't (Harvin, McDowell).

I guess people want perfection, and you're never going to get perfection when it comes to evaluating human beings, especially young human beings playing a sport. You just want to succeed more than fail, and Pete and John have done that, very well. There is no disputing that.

Full agreement here. The question arrived to me though because speculation - seeking to find maligned assets that can perform as well if not better than non maligned assets - in football personnel resources could be misconstrued as arrogance OR it could merely be a more variable outcome risk/reward method of acquisition. We'd have to interview the coaching and management staff to be sure.

I think it starts and ends with one word, value.

All the information on every players is mined, vetted and analyzed intensely and thoroughly ad naseum................until a calculated educated determination (guess) can be arrived at.

Each FO has their own process, our's is no exception. But make no mistake it's all about value. Can you take a risk on a player with the large majority of your core physical, mental and emotional traits, yet has baggage.

Frank Clark it worked (top 15 value vs liklihood of being a problem or bust due to emotional issues). Malik McDowell it didn't work (top 15 value vs. immature and work ethic red flags).

And I'd LOVE to interview our front office guys, man that'd be so interesting for a football junkie. Learning about their process. It'd be incredible.

 

[mrt144]

It's funny that I find more arrogance in the strategic/tactical side of things than with personnel. I mean Percy and Jimmy are two things that might lend themselves to arrogance, sure, but that's still a partial reflection on how they were used strategically and tactically. Is speculation arrogance inherently?

Definitely another interesting conversation. I do think Pete is VERY arrogant tactically.......he believes in his core philosophies on both sides of the ball, and that's that.

He's also arrogant with personnel, he thinks he can mine the best out of troubled or under performing players once they're indoctrinated into his locker room culture.

Sometimes it works (Lynch, Kendricks, Clark, Fluker), and sometimes it doesn't (Harvin, McDowell).

I guess people want perfection, and you're never going to get perfection when it comes to evaluating human beings, especially young human beings playing a sport. You just want to succeed more than fail, and Pete and John have done that, very well. There is no disputing that.

Full agreement here. The question arrived to me though because speculation - seeking to find maligned assets that can perform as well if not better than non maligned assets - in football personnel resources could be misconstrued as arrogance OR it could merely be a more variable outcome risk/reward method of acquisition. We'd have to interview the coaching and management staff to be sure.

I think it starts and ends with one word, value.

All the information on every players is mined, vetted and analyzed intensely and thoroughly ad naseum................until a calculated educated determination (guess) can be arrived at.

Each FO has their own process, our's is no exception. But make no mistake it's all about value. Can you take a risk on a player with the large majority of your core physical, mental and emotional traits, yet has baggage.

Frank Clark it worked (top 15 value vs liklihood of being a problem or bust due to emotional issues). Malik McDowell it didn't work (top 15 value vs. immature and work ethic red flags).

And I'd LOVE to interview our front office guys, man that'd be so interesting for a football junkie. Learning about their process. It'd be incredible.

I really wish that more people in the football industry would write books and articles contemporaneously but slow reveal them like 5-6 years later. I actually don't like the mystery of why people do things.

 

[SchadenfreudeHawk]

You stated that the Pats are as successful as I would like the Hawks to be. It is possible. If the Pats can be that successful than I want the Hawks to be that successful. If Pete and John aren't going to bring us that level of success than I want to move to someone who might. I want as many if not more Super Bowl wins as the Pats.

Also, this board has really changed throughout the years. This whole "if you crtitque the team you are a bandwagoner" thing is really nonsense. Listen, the Hawks are a product I consume. I am the customer. I don't owe this brand any loyalty. I pay their salaries when I buy their merch, go to games, or watch them on TV. I don't have to "treat the gang that got you to the Super Bowl" in any sort of fashion. This whole fealty things that folks like you have is weird. The seahawks are not my kings. I do not have to bow to them and say, "thank you oh noble ones for what you have brought me." They went one the Super Bowl. Awesome. Folks like us have made them rich beyond most peoples wildest dreams. As a paying customer I want more from this product that it is currently giving me. Clearly you don't. Good for you. But I ain't gonna genuflect before them just cause I really enjoyed the product that they put out one year.

What utter nonsense.

Being negative doesnt make you objective. Doesnt make you clearer or right.

Its your perspective. Suggesting those that don't see it your way as blinded by fealty is ignorant and concending. Its also a clear indication of your hypocritical approach to others points and inability to engage in dissenting dialogue.

The board has changed?

Get over yourself

I was responding to the comment "good grief, what an awful way to treat the gang that got you a Super Bowl." That is feality, bro dawg. You can totally disagree with me about the state of the Seahawks franchise but telling me that I have to "treat the gang" in a specific way is creepy and weird. I think a part of this is that different folks have different ideas about what it means to be a fan. Wanna disagree with me on the merits of my argument? Totes fine. Telling me that I owe some sort of alligence to this regime is a different story. My response was sensical.

Your premise is sensical. No argument, and id think most agree with most your points. I do.

Your approach is condescending and incorrect. I didn't tell you how to "treat the gang" (dumb premise). I disagreed that the team is failing.

Your choice on how you want it to be received.

The OP made a point that goes against the common wisdom of this board and got a lot of negative feedback. I made a comment of support of the OP and got lambasted. You didn't talk about how to "treat the gang" but someone else did. I responded. The truth is, I am being received the way that I am being received because I have an unpopular opinion. I feel like this board has become a place where practicing "wrong think" gets one slammed. The first couple years of this regime was one where they found market inefficiencies and picked players that were passed over by other teams. I think the league has caught up but Pete/John still think they can find diamonds in the rough. Disagree with me all you want, man. But don't selectively tone police based on the viewpoint of the poster. Pete/John optimists come off just as condescending as those of us who are more on the glass half empty tip.

 

[mrt144]

What utter nonsense.

Being negative doesnt make you objective. Doesnt make you clearer or right.

Its your perspective. Suggesting those that don't see it your way as blinded by fealty is ignorant and concending. Its also a clear indication of your hypocritical approach to others points and inability to engage in dissenting dialogue.

The board has changed?

Get over yourself

I was responding to the comment "good grief, what an awful way to treat the gang that got you a Super Bowl." That is feality, bro dawg. You can totally disagree with me about the state of the Seahawks franchise but telling me that I have to "treat the gang" in a specific way is creepy and weird. I think a part of this is that different folks have different ideas about what it means to be a fan. Wanna disagree with me on the merits of my argument? Totes fine. Telling me that I owe some sort of alligence to this regime is a different story. My response was sensical.

Your premise is sensical. No argument, and id think most agree with most your points. I do.

Your approach is condescending and incorrect. I didn't tell you how to "treat the gang" (dumb premise). I disagreed that the team is failing.

Your choice on how you want it to be received.

The OP made a point that goes against the common wisdom of this board and got a lot of negative feedback. I made a comment of support of the OP and got lambasted. You didn't talk about how to "treat the gang" but someone else did. I responded. The truth is, I am being received the way that I am being received because I have an unpopular opinion. I feel like this board has become a place where practicing "wrong think" gets one slammed. The first couple years of this regime was one where they found market inefficiencies and picked players that were passed over by other teams. I think the league has caught up but Pete/John still think they can find diamonds in the rough. Disagree with me all you want, man. But don't selectively tone police based on the viewpoint of the poster. Pete/John optimists come off just as condescending as those of us who are more on the glass half empty tip.

By what virtue is the glass half empty based on record?
Relative to other teams you don't root for?
Or in absolute terms of what your ideal is for them?

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Being an optimist makes someone condescending? Ok then :roll:
Screw hope, everything sucks. :?