Seahawks Redzone

[Siouxhawk]

Whether or not we agree doesn't really matter as it's 2 years down the road and it's not an issue. And as far as either of us know, it never was an issue to begin with. Ask Doug on his twitter account and maybe that will get your answer to the windmill you've been chasing.

 

[Anthony!]

Whether or not we agree doesn't really matter as it's 2 years down the road and it's not an issue. And as far as either of us know, it never was an issue to begin with. Ask Doug on his twitter account and maybe that will get your answer to the windmill you've been chasing.

LOL whatever you need to tell yourself to fit your reality, enjoy the unicorns

 

[mistaowen]

I miss Charlie Whitehurst

 

[Seymour]

I didn't see a link to that Seattle Times article.

My perception of using "we" is that they are all in it together. It supports the team.

Here's the link to Bob Condotta's tweet - https://twitter.com/bcondotta/status/562097218895630336.

I see the tweet, but Condotta is paraphrasing there. Bevell's direct quote was "we didn't go hard enough ..." That may seem like splitting hairs, but it reinforces the protect the team approach.

Some of you act like he called out Ricardo for losing the game. It wasn't even remotely close to that.

If you are going to quote this another 100 times, don't you think you should at least get it right?
By WE, he is talking about his team and the player involved, or was Bevell and the other 52 out there running the route also? Use or should I say get a little common sense.
Read the comments! EVERYONE else thinks he threw Lockette under the bus except you of course.

WHY IS THAT????????????????????

[tweet]https://twitter.com/gbellseattle/status/562097798892363776[/tweet]

 

[Siouxhawk]

I didn't see a link to that Seattle Times article.

My perception of using "we" is that they are all in it together. It supports the team.

Here's the link to Bob Condotta's tweet - https://twitter.com/bcondotta/status/562097218895630336.

I see the tweet, but Condotta is paraphrasing there. Bevell's direct quote was "we didn't go hard enough ..." That may seem like splitting hairs, but it reinforces the protect the team approach.

Some of you act like he called out Ricardo for losing the game. It wasn't even remotely close to that.

If you are going to quote this another 100 times, don't you think you should at least get it right?
By WE, he is talking about his team and the player involved, or was Bevell and the other 52 out there running the route also? Use or should I say get a little common sense.
Read the comments! EVERYONE else thinks he threw Lockette under the bus except you of course.

WHY IS THAT????????????????????

[tweet]https://twitter.com/gbellseattle/status/562097798892363776[/tweet]

"We" is coachspeak. It's used all the time. The purpose is to convey a sense of unity and togetherness. It also answered a specific question about what happened on the last play of the game.

It's not like the reporter asked "why did you lose?" and Bev said: "Because Ricardo didn't make that catch?" That would be an example of throwing someone under the bus. This simply stated why 1 play broke down.

Compare it to baseball where if a double play is made in the bottom of the ninth, the Mariners win the game. A grounder is hit to short, who makes the flip to second. But the second baseman doesn't get to the bag in time and the ball bounds into the outfield. The visiting team wins. A reporter asks the shortstop why that pivotal play didn't work and he answers: "Because we didn't get to the bag in time." In that context, it sums things up while still being pretty benign.

Maybe it is just semantics and some people are more sensitive to every little word used. I'm from an era where we weren't handed out shiny trophies to everyone so you couldn't distinguish between 1st or 50th place. We didn't need safe spaces to deal with superficially perceived problems either. And we certainly wouldn't consider that quote as being benevolent.

 

[Anthony!]

My perception of using "we" is that they are all in it together. It supports the team.

Here's the link to Bob Condotta's tweet - https://twitter.com/bcondotta/status/562097218895630336.

I see the tweet, but Condotta is paraphrasing there. Bevell's direct quote was "we didn't go hard enough ..." That may seem like splitting hairs, but it reinforces the protect the team approach.

Some of you act like he called out Ricardo for losing the game. It wasn't even remotely close to that.

If you are going to quote this another 100 times, don't you think you should at least get it right?
By WE, he is talking about his team and the player involved, or was Bevell and the other 52 out there running the route also? Use or should I say get a little common sense.
Read the comments! EVERYONE else thinks he threw Lockette under the bus except you of course.

WHY IS THAT????????????????????

[tweet]https://twitter.com/gbellseattle/status/562097798892363776[/tweet]

"We" is coachspeak. It's used all the time. The purpose is to convey a sense of unity and togetherness. It also answered a specific question about what happened on the last play of the game.

It's not like the reporter asked "why did you lose?" and Bev said: "Because Ricardo didn't make that catch?" That would be an example of throwing someone under the bus. This simply stated why 1 play broke down.

Compare it to baseball where if a double play is made in the bottom of the ninth, the Mariners win the game. A grounder is hit to short, who makes the flip to second. But the second baseman doesn't get to the bag in time and the ball bounds into the outfield. The visiting team wins. A reporter asks the shortstop why that pivotal play didn't work and he answers: "Because we didn't get to the bag in time." In that context, it sums things up while still being pretty benign.

Maybe it is just semantics and some people are more sensitive to every little word used. I'm from an era where we weren't handed out shiny trophies to everyone so you couldn't distinguish between 1st or 50th place. We didn't need safe spaces to deal with superficially perceived problems either. And we certainly wouldn't consider that quote as being benevolent.[/quote]


Dude give it a break there is no way anyone with any sense of intelligence is buying this BS you have convinced yourself of. Unity would be saying "we did not do a good job with that last play in any way, play calling, to design to execution". Unity is not saying we did not go strong to the ball given only 1 player ran the route. It is calling a player out. FYI your example does not help your case at all, The SS is calling out the guy going to the bag. Now if he says we messed up timing then that is benign. But saying we did not get to the bag in time points to the guy who was suppose to get to the bag. Wow common sense dude common sense enjoy the unicorns

 

[Siouxhawk]

We obviously have different sensivity to words and phrases.

 

[Seymour]

We obviously have different sensivity to words and phrases.

Nope. Just you vs everyone else. You did not answer my question. Reading the comments on tweet, why are you literally the only one taking Bevells side on what he said?

https://twitter.com/gbellseattle/status/562097798892363776?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

 

[Anthony!]

We obviously have different sensivity to words and phrases.

No its not, LOL this is not a case of sensitivity it is a case of denialism-denialism is a person's choice to deny reality or ego yours being so big that you would really think everyone one, players, media, experts, and fans who have weighed in on this subject is wrong and you are right. The problem is it is probably both

 

[Siouxhawk]

I think you both need some help. It's not an issue with seemingly anyone but you two.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Much more important question: Waffles, Pancakes or French Toast????? GO

 

[hawkfan68]

Much more important question: Waffles, Pancakes or French Toast????? GO

This is a no-brainer for me.....French Toast all the way!!!

 

[Anthony!]

Much more important question: Waffles, Pancakes or French Toast????? GO

This is a no-brainer for me.....French Toast all the way!!!

Especially if it is sprinkled with cinnamon.

 

[West TX Hawk]

Much more important question: Waffles, Pancakes or French Toast????? GO

This is a no-brainer for me.....French Toast all the way!!!

Especially if it is sprinkled with cinnamon.

Bevell waffles, which is why he routinely takes too long to get the play in to Russ.

I myself have come to enjoy occasional buckwheat flapjacks with blueberries on top and a little Adam's crunchy peanut butter. No syrup anymore, but if you do go with Kodiak 100% maple or a Vermont variety.

 

[hawknation2017]

The Anthony vs Siouxhawk battle in this thread was like the Batman vs Superman of .NET. Proud to say I played a small role in instigating it. :2thumbs:

:snack:

 

[Anthony!]

Much more important question: Waffles, Pancakes or French Toast????? GO

This is a no-brainer for me.....French Toast all the way!!!

Especially if it is sprinkled with cinnamon.

Bevell waffles, which is why he routinely takes too long to get the play in to Russ.

I myself have come to enjoy occasional buckwheat flapjacks with blueberries on top and a little Adam's crunchy peanut butter. No syrup anymore, but if you do go with Kodiak 100% maple or a Vermont variety.

I am allergic to peanuts and peanut butter but the Kadiak I am all in on

 

[Largent80]

Pussies. Bacon wrapped maple bars.

 

[Bux005]

Siouxhawk... Why do you have a pic of Clayton Harris and Tarvaris Jackson as your avatar?

 

[ZagHawk]

You know some here keep talking about his height being a factor, I am still waiting for some proof of that. So far none, all speculations, and assumptions. Well when there no facts to support you just make it up.

No real facts to back that up. Just a theory based on lack of production. I for one want to discount it because if it was true Drew Brees would not be as efficient as he is in the red zone with only 1/2 inch height advantage.

Im just making stuff up, but perhaps Drew stands just a little taller and that 1/2" is more like 1 or 1.5" inches which you know could be the difference between a helmet obstructing your view and being able to see everything.

Regardless, The Seahawks Red Zone efficiency is terrible. Since the RW era, if you take all their Red Zone trips and turn even 1/2 of their 3 pt trips into 6/7s. The Hawks would probably be an offensive power house along with the defense.

Fault goes all around. Playcalling (which is on Bevell AND PC), execution (RW) and of course O-Line (which I blame front office and coaching because of lack of talent).

Sad thing too is Red Zone defense for the Hawks have been regressing as well. Where as in years past you could almost be sure the defense were going to somehow take that ball away or make sure the MOST the other team ever got was 3. And it wasn't uncommon to see teams punch it in the end zone this year.

 

[Anthony!]

You know some here keep talking about his height being a factor, I am still waiting for some proof of that. So far none, all speculations, and assumptions. Well when there no facts to support you just make it up.

No real facts to back that up. Just a theory based on lack of production. I for one want to discount it because if it was true Drew Brees would not be as efficient as he is in the red zone with only 1/2 inch height advantage.

Im just making stuff up, but perhaps Drew stands just a little taller and that 1/2" is more like 1 or 1.5" inches which you know could be the difference between a helmet obstructing your view and being able to see everything.

Regardless, The Seahawks Red Zone efficiency is terrible. Since the RW era, if you take all their Red Zone trips and turn even 1/2 of their 3 pt trips into 6/7s. The Hawks would probably be an offensive power house along with the defense.

Fault goes all around. Playcalling (which is on Bevell AND PC), execution (RW) and of course O-Line (which I blame front office and coaching because of lack of talent).

Sad thing too is Red Zone defense for the Hawks have been regressing as well. Where as in years past you could almost be sure the defense were going to somehow take that ball away or make sure the MOST the other team ever got was 3. And it wasn't uncommon to see teams punch it in the end zone this year.

Actually, Seattle has not been good in the red zone since 2007 when they were 10th, In the Pete Carroll are the best we have been is 14th. I think a lof of it is PCs not liking to take chances more than anything else, IN the red zone things a compacted throws are tighter PC does not like tight throws

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/r ... 2008-02-04