Seahawks Redzone

[Seymour]

....Only a brief hesitation by Ricardo off his break and a fantastic play by Butler in his coming-out party prevented a touchdown.

Spoken like a true Bev.

 

[Siouxhawk]

....Only a brief hesitation by Ricardo off his break and a fantastic play by Butler in his coming-out party prevented a touchdown.

Spoken like a true Bev.

Watch the play and you'll notice it. He pauses ever so slightly and that's all it took. It's right in front of you if you care to open your eyes.

 

[hawkfan68]

....Only a brief hesitation by Ricardo off his break and a fantastic play by Butler in his coming-out party prevented a touchdown.

Spoken like a true Bev.

Watch the play and you'll notice it. He pauses ever so slightly and that's all it took. It's right in front of you if you care to open your eyes.

That's why Lockette shouldn't have been in the play. That's a coaching decision. That's why I'm saying the personnel was not a fit to execute the play correctly.

 

[Seymour]

Watch the play and you'll notice it. He pauses ever so slightly and that's all it took. It's right in front of you if you care to open your eyes.

What you fail to acknowledge, is that even if he catches the ball, he is stopped short of the goal by Butler and another LB closing in. That completely erases the entire reason to throw (stop the clock or score) Failed call....period.

 

[Anthony!]

The players we had in for the topic of discussion easily could have made that work if executed properly, which is the tonic of every successful play. In fact, the personnel group was likely the same that had been in there practicing that particular package for 2 weeks.

If Ricardo gets to that spot a split second quicker, it's a touchdown. It's as simple as that.

What factors lead to executing properly and what factors work against it? Your superficial understanding of cooperative work are laid bare without you even having to answer.

So again this theory absolves the OC for anything at all, its never his fault as execution is always the excuse. Sorry that's BS. First how do we know Loc9kette practiced as the primary all week? We dont, 2nd if so how do we know he ran it right then and was coached how to do it right. Maybe Bevell missed him doing git wrong every time which is Bevels Fault. Sorry but this execution excuse is BS. The fact is it was a bad play call period and is only 1 in a plethora of bad play calls.

 

[Siouxhawk]

....Only a brief hesitation by Ricardo off his break and a fantastic play by Butler in his coming-out party prevented a touchdown.

Spoken like a true Bev.

Watch the play and you'll notice it. He pauses ever so slightly and that's all it took. It's right in front of you if you care to open your eyes.

That's why Lockette shouldn't have been in the play. That's a coaching decision. That's why I'm saying the personnel was not a fit to execute the play correctly.

Who else should have been in Lockette's place? Would said player have been installed in that package while preparing for the game? How do you know said player wouldn't have the same hesitation off the snap? These are all answers you can give with 20/20 hindsight, by the way.

Also, Lockette was pretty active in that game and seemed to have a good rapport with Russ. So if you use the 'feed the hot hand' theory ...

 

[Siouxhawk]

Watch the play and you'll notice it. He pauses ever so slightly and that's all it took. It's right in front of you if you care to open your eyes.

What you fail to acknowledge, is that even if he catches the ball, he is stopped short of the goal by Butler and another LB closing in. That completely erases the entire reason to throw (stop the clock or score) Failed call....period.

Maybe. It's also possible his momentum at that angle gets him past the goal line before the backer gets there.

 

[mrt144]

The players we had in for the topic of discussion easily could have made that work if executed properly, which is the tonic of every successful play. In fact, the personnel group was likely the same that had been in there practicing that particular package for 2 weeks.

If Ricardo gets to that spot a split second quicker, it's a touchdown. It's as simple as that.

Doesn't matter... it wasn't our strongest play call or using our best players to their strengths. It was a bad call and cost the team a Super Bowl. There really is no debate here.

You can breakdown why the play didn't work, but the fact is it asked role players to do important things in the biggest moment of the biggest game, and our QB to do something that's not his biggest attribute.

Bad. call.

And it's easy with 20/20 hindsight to say it wouldn't work and cost us 49, but Marshawn could have fumbled as well and you'd have the same end result and second guessing.

And as I said, the players in on that play were likely the ones practicing it for 2 weeks or longer leading up to the game. So all the coaches were in on it and knew what was coming. Only a brief hesitation by Ricardo off his break and a fantastic play by Butler in his coming-out party prevented a touchdown.

This speculation is based on what? We saw a receiver 5th on the depth chart do something a player 5th on the depth chart would do to justify that place on the depth chart in one of the most pivotal plays of the game. Yes, there were other plays that could have sealed the deal - those plays warrant introspection in themselves and detailing what went wrong and room for improvement. They are not excuses for an instance of the OC being seemingly agnostic towards the relative talents between his WR personnel.

The Seahawks coaching staff aren't infallible, they make mistakes like everyone else. They happened to make a gaffe in this case. By not taking ownership of that gaffe and assigning blame to the 5th WR who made hay on special teams, they stunted a huge learning opportunity and they continue to make little gaffes like this along the way in this vein. Like not directly addressing RW to Kearse despite it being a net negative all year long.

In some ways, I don't care if that the play itself failed, nothing to be done but learn from it. I don't feel they learned from it. And as long as you put everything on execution without any reference to the coaching staff putting players in the best position to execute to their ability, you'll just continue down this path of vacuous excuses for why Seahawks players can't get it done. It's a team game, start acting like coaches are part of the team.

 

[Seymour]

Watch it a few 100 more times. Hightower was closing in even if he manages to get past Butler which is doubtful. Bad play design for that situation....period....exclamation point.

 

[Anthony!]

The players we had in for the topic of discussion easily could have made that work if executed properly, which is the tonic of every successful play. In fact, the personnel group was likely the same that had been in there practicing that particular package for 2 weeks.

If Ricardo gets to that spot a split second quicker, it's a touchdown. It's as simple as that.

Doesn't matter... it wasn't our strongest play call or using our best players to their strengths. It was a bad call and cost the team a Super Bowl. There really is no debate here.

You can breakdown why the play didn't work, but the fact is it asked role players to do important things in the biggest moment of the biggest game, and our QB to do something that's not his biggest attribute.

Bad. call.

And it's easy with 20/20 hindsight to say it wouldn't work and cost us 49, but Marshawn could have fumbled as well and you'd have the same end result and second guessing.

And as I said, the players in on that play were likely the ones practicing it for 2 weeks or longer leading up to the game. So all the coaches were in on it and knew what was coming. Only a brief hesitation by Ricardo off his break and a fantastic play by Butler in his coming-out party prevented a touchdown.

This speculation is based on what? We saw a receiver 5th on the depth chart do something a player 5th on the depth chart would do to justify that place on the depth chart in one of the most pivotal plays of the game. Yes, there were other plays that could have sealed the deal - those plays warrant introspection in themselves and detailing what went wrong and room for improvement. They are not excuses for an instance of the OC being seemingly agnostic towards the relative talents between his WR personnel.

The Seahawks coaching staff aren't infallible, they make mistakes like everyone else. They happened to make a gaffe in this case. By not taking ownership of that gaffe and assigning blame to the 5th WR who made hay on special teams, they stunted a huge learning opportunity and they continue to make little gaffes like this along the way in this vein. Like not directly addressing RW to Kearse despite it being a net negative all year long.

In some ways, I don't care if that the play itself failed, nothing to be done but learn from it. I don't feel they learned from it. And as long as you put everything on execution without any reference to the coaching staff putting players in the best position to execute to their ability, you'll just continue down this path of vacuous excuses for why Seahawks players can't get it done. It's a team game, start acting like coaches are part of the team.

Oh my god okay lets play the game no it was not Lockettes fault it was the play call, the throw, Kearse, the oline they all did not execute right. Oh and its not Kearse's fault it is LOckettes, Wilson, Oline and Bevel they did not call or execute right, etc etc, Hmm well I guess it was no ones fault no accountability for anything at all ever. Sarcasm Off.

Now dont get me wrong I agree Lockette hesitated he also ran the route wrong which makes me wonder if they did practice it he did not cut across, he angles across taking him deeper towards the CB, Kearse did not get his jam, Wilson should have tried to hold back, or throw it into the ground, and most importantly THAT PLAY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CALLED AT THAT TIME WITH THOSE PLAYERs PERIOD! THATS ON BEVEL PERIOD. also Bevel should not have throw his player to the wolves no matter what that is not good coaching

 

[Uncle Si]

The players we had in for the topic of discussion easily could have made that work if executed properly, which is the tonic of every successful play. In fact, the personnel group was likely the same that had been in there practicing that particular package for 2 weeks.

If Ricardo gets to that spot a split second quicker, it's a touchdown. It's as simple as that.

Doesn't matter... it wasn't our strongest play call or using our best players to their strengths. It was a bad call and cost the team a Super Bowl. There really is no debate here.

You can breakdown why the play didn't work, but the fact is it asked role players to do important things in the biggest moment of the biggest game, and our QB to do something that's not his biggest attribute.

Bad. call.

And it's easy with 20/20 hindsight to say it wouldn't work and cost us 49, but Marshawn could have fumbled as well and you'd have the same end result and second guessing.

And as I said, the players in on that play were likely the ones practicing it for 2 weeks or longer leading up to the game. So all the coaches were in on it and knew what was coming. Only a brief hesitation by Ricardo off his break and a fantastic play by Butler in his coming-out party prevented a touchdown.

I love this... If only Ricardo Lockette had done his job better.. that's your defense (in defense of something I'm not even critiquing by name and happened two years ago).

Marshawn fumbling still puts the ball in the hands of our best (2nd best if you want) offensive player in a position and in a play that the team had relied on for years in building towards that moment. Noone is going to question that decision if it goes wrong

You're covering for something that not's even being questioned. Makes it hard to have any sort of logical conversation on the matter. But, to put it out there... that decision and the mindset behind it is one of the reasons this team has underpeformed since that pass.

 

[Siouxhawk]

The players we had in for the topic of discussion easily could have made that work if executed properly, which is the tonic of every successful play. In fact, the personnel group was likely the same that had been in there practicing that particular package for 2 weeks.

If Ricardo gets to that spot a split second quicker, it's a touchdown. It's as simple as that.

Doesn't matter... it wasn't our strongest play call or using our best players to their strengths. It was a bad call and cost the team a Super Bowl. There really is no debate here.

You can breakdown why the play didn't work, but the fact is it asked role players to do important things in the biggest moment of the biggest game, and our QB to do something that's not his biggest attribute.

Bad. call.

And it's easy with 20/20 hindsight to say it wouldn't work and cost us 49, but Marshawn could have fumbled as well and you'd have the same end result and second guessing.

And as I said, the players in on that play were likely the ones practicing it for 2 weeks or longer leading up to the game. So all the coaches were in on it and knew what was coming. Only a brief hesitation by Ricardo off his break and a fantastic play by Butler in his coming-out party prevented a touchdown.

This speculation is based on what? We saw a receiver 5th on the depth chart do something a player 5th on the depth chart would do to justify that place on the depth chart in one of the most pivotal plays of the game. Yes, there were other plays that could have sealed the deal - those plays warrant introspection in themselves and detailing what went wrong and room for improvement. They are not excuses for an instance of the OC being seemingly agnostic towards the relative talents between his WR personnel.

The Seahawks coaching staff aren't infallible, they make mistakes like everyone else. They happened to make a gaffe in this case. By not taking ownership of that gaffe and assigning blame to the 5th WR who made hay on special teams, they stunted a huge learning opportunity and they continue to make little gaffes like this along the way in this vein. Like not directly addressing RW to Kearse despite it being a net negative all year long.

In some ways, I don't care if that the play itself failed, nothing to be done but learn from it. I don't feel they learned from it. And as long as you put everything on execution without any reference to the coaching staff putting players in the best position to execute to their ability, you'll just continue down this path of vacuous excuses for why Seahawks players can't get it done. It's a team game, start acting like coaches are part of the team.

They are called packages. Every team installs them and the corresponding personnel fit into those packages and to avoid confusion, teams don't usually deviate from those personnel sets. I thought you would have known that.

And what makes you think there was no learning gained from that play? Pete has gone on record many times saying that one will be stored in the back of their minds for future reference. I believe him.

And let me tell you about the dynamics of coaching and execution. It's the coaches job to put the player in the most opportune position to succeed. That comes through film study, practice and meetings. Many, many hours devoted to that. But the player has to take that knowledge and preparation and carry it out. That is execution. For the most part with our team, the success rate between them go hand in hand.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Watch it a few 100 more times. Hightower was closing in even if he manages to get past Butler which is doubtful. Bad play design for that situation....period....exclamation point.

He scores before Hightower reaches him. That's easy to see.

 

[Largent80]

Watch it a few 100 more times. Hightower was closing in even if he manages to get past Butler which is doubtful. Bad play design for that situation....period....exclamation point.

He scores before Hightower reaches him. That's easy to see.

Beast wide open running to the left. If they weren't going to run it with him, they should have thrown it to him.

 

[mrt144]

Who else should have been in Lockette's place? Would said player have been installed in that package while preparing for the game? How do you know said player wouldn't have the same hesitation off the snap? These are all answers you can give with 20/20 hindsight, by the way.

Also, Lockette was pretty active in that game and seemed to have a good rapport with Russ. So if you use the 'feed the hot hand' theory ...

Yes or no - we measure player talents by their repeated ability to execute a gameplan/play more successfully than other players.

Yes or no - coaches insert personnel and draw up depth charts based on observed 'talent'

Possibilities:

1. The Seahawks aren't contiguously talented enough to run DB's offense to optimal output. So let's talk about that.
2. DB's offense is too dogmatic to adjust to the respective player's talent and suffers from inefficiency because of it. So let's talk about that.

Either way there is a yoke on getting more out of the team and while there is always room for player improvement, that improvement happens through guidance from coaching, not from players blithely stumbling upon the answer and deciding to play better. At a certain point your talent to work with is your talent to work with and you spend time cursing the talent or you own the situation and find the best ways to use players.

I will always let players off the hook for screwing up occasionally because if they do it enough times, they will be held accountable by the opportunities they get, the money they earn, and the career they have. Not only do they need to be superior athletes, they need the mental acuity to grow over time and be receptive to coaching insight. I will let coaches off the hook for making mistakes occasionally but not if they make the same mistakes again and again there is no accountability or growth from those mistakes. And I will be even less sympathetic if they always assign blame to everyone but themselves for a team effort.

 

[Seymour]

He scores before Hightower reaches him. That's easy to see.

Thank you for the reminder why I started ignoring your posts. Hightower hits the brakes when they both go up. You will always see through the eyes of the Bev.
Farewell.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Who else should have been in Lockette's place? Would said player have been installed in that package while preparing for the game? How do you know said player wouldn't have the same hesitation off the snap? These are all answers you can give with 20/20 hindsight, by the way.

Also, Lockette was pretty active in that game and seemed to have a good rapport with Russ. So if you use the 'feed the hot hand' theory ...

Yes or no - we measure player talents by their repeated ability to execute a gameplan/play more successfully than other players.

Yes or no - coaches insert personnel and draw up depth charts based on observed 'talent'

Possibilities:

1. The Seahawks aren't contiguously talented enough to run DB's offense to optimal output. So let's talk about that.
2. DB's offense is too dogmatic to adjust to the respective player's talent and suffers from inefficiency because of it. So let's talk about that.

Either way there is a yoke on getting more out of the team and while there is always room for player improvement, that improvement happens through guidance from coaching, not from players blithely stumbling upon the answer and deciding to play better. At a certain point your talent to work with is your talent to work with and you spend time cursing the talent or you own the situation and find the best ways to use players.

I will always let players off the hook for screwing up occasionally because if they do it enough times, they will be held accountable by the opportunities they get, the money they earn, and the career they have. Not only do they need to be superior athletes, they need the mental acuity to grow over time and be receptive to coaching insight. I will let coaches off the hook for making mistakes occasionally but not if they make the same mistakes again and again there is no accountability or growth from those mistakes. And I will be even less sympathetic if they always assign blame to everyone but themselves for a team effort.

And being to back-to-back Super Bowls (I believe we're still talking about 49) and winning one proves without a doubt that the coaching preparation vs. player development balance was in full harmony. You don't get to that point if it's not.

It's also not evidence that just because Lockette didn't come through in this instance, that he wasn't the right player on the roster to run that route. This was something that was determined in all those hours leading up to the game.

 

[hawknation2017]

It's also not evidence that just because Lockette didn't come through in this instance, that he wasn't the right player on the roster to run that route. This was something that was determined in all those hours leading up to the game.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA. :2thumbs:

:snack:

 

[Siouxhawk]

It's also not evidence that just because Lockette didn't come through in this instance, that he wasn't the right player on the roster to run that route. This was something that was determined in all those hours leading up to the game.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA. :2thumbs:

:snack:

Were you at practice so that you can refute that?

 

[mrt144]

Oh my god okay lets play the game no it was not Lockettes fault it was the play call, the throw, Kearse, the oline they all did not execute right. Oh and its not Kearse's fault it is LOckettes, Wilson, Oline and Bevel they did not call or execute right, etc etc, Hmm well I guess it was no ones fault no accountability for anything at all ever. Sarcasm Off.

Everyone has to shoulder some of the blame on the play and that's the reality I inhabit. This is true of every play - success or failure isn't down to 1 person (not even RW magic happens through his effort alone). Dragging the OC and his sycophants to the table to eat a share of the blame is impossible. And it's not borne out of any meaningful deep analysis, it's a defensive reaction to the possibility of eating 100% of the blame and dealing with the possibility that your respective team crush isn't the best there ever was.

Why people are so ridiculously partisan in nature to where the team's warts lie is baffling to me but it exists.

I'm a huge fan of RW but he has his warts - yet you resist any blame assigned to him because you view it as 100% blame
Souixhawk does this with Bevell
Other people do it with the defense.
Some do it with Pete.

Loyalty to one specific person on the team isn't getting you paid or laid so why hold on to it?