Tell The Truth Tuesday

[LegendKiller]

We are no longer a Super Bowl team and will probably miss playoffs....until o-line gets fixed and our offensive play calling gets better. We have gotten progressively worse each year after we won the Super Bowl .

 

[NYCoug]

Sweet post, NYCoug. We have the coaching staff to figure things out and the playmakers to get it done.

I agree with you, Sioux, and I honestly wouldn't trade this coaching staff for any in the game of football. Yes, even Belicheat and company, because I'd rather not sell my soul to the devil just to watch my team win some tainted trophies. I love this version of the team, because, they are a lot like me, and a lot like a lot of us. They are head strong and believe in themselves to the utmost degree. Believe me, you can ask my girlfriend, she still wonders how I make some of the same mistakes that I would make when we first met 5 years ago. I've probably fallen asleep on the subway and didn't make it home til the next morning about 12 times since we've gotten together, if not more, and yet, it still happens sometimes. However, she'd probably also tell you that we've shared some glorious moments that we wouldn't trade for the world.

It's the same way with Pete and these Seahawks. The problems are always the same, pretty much every year, as was pointed out above with the inability to address the same annual problems such as fielding a non-horrific OLine or covering a tight end for once. Still, we find a way to win more often than not, and if you read 'Win Forever', Pete openly states that he'd prefer "competing forever" over anything else. As long as we're able to field a squad that's always in the game, Pete will be a happy man, and so will I, because I remember the old days and how bad it can be.

 

[drrew]

As long as we have Bevell and Caroll calling the shots, this is what you're going to get on Sundays. We've seen it for 4 years now. When we win, we'll usually win ugly....

This was completely backed up in 2015 with games that ended 26-0, 20-3, 29-13, 38-7, 30-13, and 36-6.
Or 2014 with games that ended 20-6, 35-6, 19-3, 19-3, 38-17, and 36-16.

Ugly Ugly Ugly.

you cherry picked 12 out of 40 games give or take? nice. Plus I see you failed to see the "usually win ugly part" Curious as to know how many of those games came in the first half of the season or second? especially in 2015......

The Seahawks won 22 games between 2014 and 2015. If they won 12 of those 22 by multiple touchdowns, then "When we win, we'll usually win ugly" is nonsense. This is 'Tell The Truth Tuesday'. Not 'Make Shit Up Tuesday'. Save that for later in the week.

 

[Yxes1122]

I don't understand how splitting Tukuafu out wide on 1st and 20 creates a mismatch.

 

[pmedic920]

Tuesday?

Tuesday is Monday's ugly lil sister.

100% truth
:{)

 

[Bobblehead]

I don't understand how splitting Tukuafu out wide on 1st and 20 creates a mismatch.

I was scratching my head over that one as well.

 

[hawker84]

What's the common denominator to those questions?...

Pete Carroll
Pete Carroll
and.............Pete Carroll

You listed off all the telltale characteristics of a Pete Carroll team, for good and bad. Luckily for us, mostly good.

But yeah, Pete's teams, even in college committed a lot of penalties playing fast and loose. In Seattle he wants to be a run first don't turn the ball over offense and trust your more physical than the other team defense to take the ball away and win close games................gathering momentum when it counts most, in November and December.

Problem is while the D has played well, they're still not taking the ball away. Which mean this terrible offense right now has been given terrible field position for two games.........and can't drive the ball 80-90 yards.

Agree 100%

 

[hawker84]

As long as we have Bevell and Caroll calling the shots, this is what you're going to get on Sundays. We've seen it for 4 years now. When we win, we'll usually win ugly....

This was completely backed up in 2015 with games that ended 26-0, 20-3, 29-13, 38-7, 30-13, and 36-6.
Or 2014 with games that ended 20-6, 35-6, 19-3, 19-3, 38-17, and 36-16.

Ugly Ugly Ugly.

you cherry picked 12 out of 40 games give or take? nice. Plus I see you failed to see the "usually win ugly part" Curious as to know how many of those games came in the first half of the season or second? especially in 2015......

The Seahawks won 22 games between 2014 and 2015. If they won 12 of those 22 by multiple touchdowns, then "When we win, we'll usually win ugly" is nonsense. This is 'Tell The Truth Tuesday'. Not 'Make Shit Up Tuesday'. Save that for later in the week.

To each his own, you look at the final score as to whether we win ugly or not, because we all know, the final score always paints an accurate picture of the actual game. Me personally, I look at the actual play on the field. How many of those blow outs you listed, did the D get a turnover and put us in great field position? How many of those games we won big was because the other team was missing key personnel? come on Mr stat guy, seeing how it's tell the truth Tuesday, not hide the truth Tuesday.

Don't don't agree with my post fine, but if you're going to attack it, let's see some actual stats to back up your claims, you know stats that show, our offense went out and dominated all those teams you listed. speaking of, how many back up and 3rd string QB's did we face last year in all those great wins? How many teams missing key defensive personnel did we face, the game in Minnesota ring a bell?

 

[Siouxhawk]

Sweet post, NYCoug. We have the coaching staff to figure things out and the playmakers to get it done.

I agree with you, Sioux, and I honestly wouldn't trade this coaching staff for any in the game of football. Yes, even Belicheat and company, because I'd rather not sell my soul to the devil just to watch my team win some tainted trophies. I love this version of the team, because, they are a lot like me, and a lot like a lot of us. They are head strong and believe in themselves to the utmost degree. Believe me, you can ask my girlfriend, she still wonders how I make some of the same mistakes that I would make when we first met 5 years ago. I've probably fallen asleep on the subway and didn't make it home til the next morning about 12 times since we've gotten together, if not more, and yet, it still happens sometimes. However, she'd probably also tell you that we've shared some glorious moments that we wouldn't trade for the world.

It's the same way with Pete and these Seahawks. The problems are always the same, pretty much every year, as was pointed out above with the inability to address the same annual problems such as fielding a non-horrific OLine or covering a tight end for once. Still, we find a way to win more often than not, and if you read 'Win Forever', Pete openly states that he'd prefer "competing forever" over anything else. As long as we're able to field a squad that's always in the game, Pete will be a happy man, and so will I, because I remember the old days and how bad it can be.

Dude, you are cracking me up with these posts. I'd be scared as hell if I fell asleep on a subway in the Big Apple and didn't wake up until morning. Don't do that again.
Yes, and I'm hard-headed too and have the utmost confidence in our coaching staff. Hell, Sunday I was surrounded by gloating Vikings fans at the sports bar I go to who couldn't resist taking shots at me because I was wearing my Hawks jersey. Some of them I even consider friends. But I'm patient and I believe we will have the final laugh.
Now you get yourself some strong coffee before you get on that subway.

 

[anonFAFA]

To each his own, you look at the final score as to whether we win ugly or not, because we all know, the final score always paints an accurate picture of the actual game. Me personally, I look at the actual play on the field. How many of those blow outs you listed, did the D get a turnover and put us in great field position? How many of those games we won big was because the other team was missing key personnel? come on Mr stat guy, seeing how it's tell the truth Tuesday, not hide the truth Tuesday.

Don't don't agree with my post fine, but if you're going to attack it, let's see some offensive stats to back up your claims.... how many back up and 3rd string QB's did we face last year in all those great wins?

You made a claim, he refuted it with scores that don't look like ugly wins at all. You then claim he cherry picked 12 games out of 40. He came back with data that says the Seahawks won 22 games between 2014 to 2015 (out of 32). Even if you could make the argument that 51% of ugly wins means "usually", that would still be wrong as they seem to have won more than half their games with scores that don't look like they were ugly wins. They look like dominant wins. I don't see how requiring the defense getting a turnover makes it any less dominant. I don't see why great field position makes it any less dominant. In fact, those things are probably, more often than not, what makes a team dominate over another.

It seems to me that your claims (with no stats) have been refuted by a couple of stats. You then demand more stats from him to further back his numbers up. To tell you the truth, I'm more convinced with his argument and am now waiting to see if you can come up with stats from those 12 games that back your theory up and refute his. I'm all for changing my mind, but his numbers have me more convinced at this moment in time.

 

[Hawknight]

No hyperbole allowed. Whatcha got?

1) Boykin should have played-Russell should have tried to recover. Chances are better for a mobile QB rather than a limping QB. He's our back up for a reason...Start him!

2) Earl Thomas...Can't seem to finish the tackle. Somewhat better vs Rams....barely.

3) Shead---(insert foul language here)

4) Rawls--Don't judge him. With a limping QB...Teams are going to stack vs the run...forcing us to throw with a 70% QB.

5) San Fransciso plays like a Super Bowl caliber team against the Rams followed by Seattle playing mediocre against the Rams=A very long day vs San Francisco this weekend. (sigh).

Final thoughts...Reserving judgment on whether or not we make it to the playoffs. I do want to note that whichever team member was quoted as saying that this is the best team ever assembled so far should be drug tested immediately. I am thinking it was Sherman...does anyone have any recollection of this being stated by one of the players?

 

[hawker84]

To each his own, you look at the final score as to whether we win ugly or not, because we all know, the final score always paints an accurate picture of the actual game. Me personally, I look at the actual play on the field. How many of those blow outs you listed, did the D get a turnover and put us in great field position? How many of those games we won big was because the other team was missing key personnel? come on Mr stat guy, seeing how it's tell the truth Tuesday, not hide the truth Tuesday.

Don't don't agree with my post fine, but if you're going to attack it, let's see some offensive stats to back up your claims.... how many back up and 3rd string QB's did we face last year in all those great wins?

You made a claim, he refuted it with scores that don't look like ugly wins at all. You then claim he cherry picked 12 games out of 40. He came back with data that says the Seahawks won 22 games between 2014 to 2015 (out of 32). Even if you could make the argument that 51% of ugly wins means "usually", that would still be wrong as they seem to have won more than half their games with scores that don't look like they were ugly wins. They look like dominant wins. I don't see how requiring the defense getting a turnover makes it any less dominant. I don't see why great field position makes it any less dominant. In fact, those things are probably, more often than not, what makes a team dominate over another.

It seems to me that your claims (with no stats) have been refuted by a couple of stats. You then demand more stats from him to further back his numbers up. To tell you the truth, I'm more convinced with his argument and am now waiting to see if you can come up with stats from those 12 games that back your theory up and refute his. I'm all for changing my mind, but his numbers have me more convinced at this moment in time.

You don't think turnovers and field position have any effects on victories and losses, or scores? interesting.

He's the one that said we dominated in those wins, let him look up the stats, or you if you're that interested. The basic jist of my reply to his post is, you cannot judge a quality win by the final score, there are two many other factors that play a roll in a score? would you say that is an accurate statement?

We had better stats than the Dolphins in almost every category, some would say we dominated in the stats, yet the score did not reflect that. Did that feel like a quality win to you, sure as heck didn't look like one to my eyes. It works both ways.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

The Seahawks are very close to being 2-0. They are also very close to being 0-2. Therefore, the 1-1 record is what they are at present.

Pete: you can win with a more pass oriented approach because you have the QB to do it. However, you need o-linemen that can pass pro far better than the ones you have.
John: Please allocate more resources to o-linemen that can pass block and fewer on offensive "toys" (this message for you too Pete).
Tom Cable: learn to do a better job of teaching pass pro or take a job elsewhere
Darrell Bevell: learn to scheme to score more TDs in place of FGs in the red zone, stop calling empty sets on 3rd or 4th and short, stop running the RO with a QB that's no threat to run due to injury, and so on.......



Lastly as NYCoug so eloquently put it (GREAT post man!) and as related to my comment above directed toward Pete: please adjust to the adjustments that have been made to deal with how the Seahawks play..

 

[JSeahawks]

I don't understand how splitting Tukuafu out wide on 1st and 20 creates a mismatch.

I was scratching my head over that one as well.

The only thing I can think of is that by having the fullback on the field they were trying to keep the defense in their base personnel group, then soreading them out rather than the nickel or dime.

 

[EverydayImRusselin]

To each his own, you look at the final score as to whether we win ugly or not, because we all know, the final score always paints an accurate picture of the actual game. Me personally, I look at the actual play on the field. How many of those blow outs you listed, did the D get a turnover and put us in great field position? How many of those games we won big was because the other team was missing key personnel? come on Mr stat guy, seeing how it's tell the truth Tuesday, not hide the truth Tuesday.

Don't don't agree with my post fine, but if you're going to attack it, let's see some offensive stats to back up your claims.... how many back up and 3rd string QB's did we face last year in all those great wins?

You made a claim, he refuted it with scores that don't look like ugly wins at all. You then claim he cherry picked 12 games out of 40. He came back with data that says the Seahawks won 22 games between 2014 to 2015 (out of 32). Even if you could make the argument that 51% of ugly wins means "usually", that would still be wrong as they seem to have won more than half their games with scores that don't look like they were ugly wins. They look like dominant wins. I don't see how requiring the defense getting a turnover makes it any less dominant. I don't see why great field position makes it any less dominant. In fact, those things are probably, more often than not, what makes a team dominate over another.

It seems to me that your claims (with no stats) have been refuted by a couple of stats. You then demand more stats from him to further back his numbers up. To tell you the truth, I'm more convinced with his argument and am now waiting to see if you can come up with stats from those 12 games that back your theory up and refute his. I'm all for changing my mind, but his numbers have me more convinced at this moment in time.

You don't think turnovers and field position have any effects on victories and losses, or scores? interesting.

He's the one that said we dominated in those wins, let him look up the stats, or you if you're that interested. The basic jist of my reply to his post is, you cannot judge a quality win by the final score, there are two many other factors that play a roll in a score? would you say that is an accurate statement?

We had better stats than the Dolphins in almost every category, some would say we dominated in the stats, yet the score did not reflect that. Did that feel like a quality win to you, sure as heck didn't look like one to my eyes. It works both ways.

Just off the top of my head, that 26-0 last year was the bears game and all we heard was constant whining about how the team should have put up 60 on a woeful bears team with Jimmy Clausen at QB. I'm sure digging into more of them would reveal other similar games.

 

[dogorama]

We've sold one of the NFL's greatest defenses of all time down the road.

 

[Own The West]

1a) Russ holds on to the ball too long.
1b) Russ holds on to the ball way too long for a guy with a twisted ankle.
2) The 49ers scored 28, we scored 3.
a) Russ was 22/35 against the Rams, so was Blaine Gabbert.
b) Hyde averaged 3.8 ypc on 23 attempts. CMike averaged 6.0 ypc on 10 attempts.
3) My guess is Doug Martin gets 25 carries next week and the Bucs come away with the W.

 

[LeftHandSmoke]

No hyperbole allowed. Whatcha got?

First time the 9ers look to get 8 men in the box, the truth is that this our best play: Throw the Lady Parts at them - They'll never see that coming!

 

[Bobblehead]

No hyperbole allowed. Whatcha got?

First time the 9ers look to get 8 men in the box, the truth is that this our best play: Throw the Lady Parts at them - They'll never see that coming!

Keenum sees ghosts when that many are lined up, 49ers had a blue print, I kept saying line em 8 up.

 

[Largent80]

2 games.

1 TD