hawkfannj
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 3,771
- Reaction score
- 160
The Way we are using this guy!?!? That deal doesn't look as sweet as it sounded when it first happened
Jimmy Graham for Max Unger
- Thread starter hawkfannj
- Start date
Thepeelsessions
New member
It didn't sound sweet when it happened.hawkfannj":1hs0zfxt said:
Max and a 1st
for
Jimmy and a 4th
I don't know, I didn't like it when it happened. Max was the anchor on the o-line. I wish he was still a Seahawk.
If Max was here Britt would be out of a job, it's not like center has been the problem. Without Graham imagine what this offense would look like? He's about the only difference maker we have right now, if he's not catching the ball he's drawing coverage.
LeftHandSmoke
Active member
- Joined
- May 14, 2016
- Messages
- 1,580
- Reaction score
- 1
:2thumbs:getnasty":3nt12tif said:
Graham is a big-time difference-maker, he proved it again today.
West TX Hawk
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2013
- Messages
- 2,476
- Reaction score
- 1
Jimmy Graham is not in any way the problem. Any (insert adjective for good that is not demeaning and offensive to people with special needs) OC would call first read targets to him in the RZ. He had only 5 targets all day, IIRC. Without Graham, we don't beat ATL this year or even tie Ariz. It's not his fault at all.
And Britt has been more than serviceable at C. Unger is aging and still injury prone. Graham is an absolute warrior to come back from that injury and play like he has.
And Britt has been more than serviceable at C. Unger is aging and still injury prone. Graham is an absolute warrior to come back from that injury and play like he has.
LeftHandSmoke
Active member
- Joined
- May 14, 2016
- Messages
- 1,580
- Reaction score
- 1
Yep. The guy is (again) on track for one of his best seasons in an already-incredible string of them.getnasty":3ct1oa6j said:
Trading a top pick plus not too much else, for an already-proven superstar instead of a gamble, was a very good move.
WindCityHawk
New member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2010
- Messages
- 2,502
- Reaction score
- 0
But we needed someone to block while we throw to Kearse!
Fire Bevell.
Fire Bevell.
TwistedHusky
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2013
- Messages
- 6,903
- Reaction score
- 1,083
Imagine this team with Lynch and Rawls, because we kept Unger....
Likely a bit different outcome on some of the scoreboards then.
I hated the Graham trade then, hate it now and will likely hate it forever. We probably lost at least one SB opportunity because of it, maybe 2 when we don't do anything this year.
Likely a bit different outcome on some of the scoreboards then.
I hated the Graham trade then, hate it now and will likely hate it forever. We probably lost at least one SB opportunity because of it, maybe 2 when we don't do anything this year.
Seanhawk
New member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Messages
- 6,819
- Reaction score
- 0
TwistedHusky":30orcfs7 said:
So you're saying the trade is to blame for Lynch retiring and Rawls getting hurt?
Northwest Seahawk
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2015
- Messages
- 1,836
- Reaction score
- 14
Lewis was fine at Center . So the real question is was cutting your starting Center in preseason for no apparent reason a huge mistake . Yes it was a monumental fail on part of the FO.
ludakrishna
Active member
:ditto: I couldn't understand the playcall. DB, Lockett and Jimmy on one side with Kearse on the other on an island. I thought I would never say this but I absolutely miss Jeremy Bates and his 3rd and 1 fades to Mike Williams. With Jimmy in that role, we would actually succeed. The blame is on RW as much as Bevell. He needs to know who the playmakers are and make the appropriate audibles.WindCityHawk":13hsbgd2 said:
Seanhawk":2ab84fy5 said:
He's saying the running game would be vastly improved, with historical data backing this assertion. Unger supposedly was responsible for 1.0 ypc by himself in 2014.
Quickest way to restore dominance to Seattle is to stock up on OL and dominant RBs.
Popeyejones
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2013
- Messages
- 5,525
- Reaction score
- 0
WindCityHawk":3mt5rjic said:
Pulled the still from the other thread, but the other way to look at this is that it's only BECAUSE of Graham that (and the three or four defenders bracketing him) that a 50-50 ball to Kearse was even an option in the first place.
You can never know for certain, but take out Graham and install Luke Wilson as the Hawks starting TE and you're not even going to get odds that good on one of your receivers to begin with.
WindCityHawk
New member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2010
- Messages
- 2,502
- Reaction score
- 0
Popeyejones":1k6wdfu2 said:WindCityHawk":1k6wdfu2 said:
Pulled the still from the other thread, but the other way to look at this is that it's only BECAUSE of Graham that (and the three or four defenders bracketing him) that a 50-50 ball to Kearse was even an option in the first place.
You can never know for certain, but take out Graham and install Luke Wilson as the Hawks starting TE and you're not even going to get odds that good on one of your receivers to begin with.
But if you want to set up a 50/50 ball, why not throw it to the man known for coming down with them? Isn't that why we paid a king's ransom for Graham in the first place? To win those jump balls? In the red zone, no less?
For all our hand-wringing, I think the simplest answer is the correct one: Bevell does not adapt his plans to his players' strengths. Never has, never will. He's a stubborn OC who too often tries to get cute by calling surprise bullcrap. Well, surprise! It never works!
With the game on the line, you don't call plays, you call players. We mortgaged the farm for Jimmy Graham, and when the game was on the line, Bevell called a fade to Kearse. That's everything you need to know about Darrell Bevell.
Siouxhawk
New member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2015
- Messages
- 3,776
- Reaction score
- 0
Jimmy ran the route and was an option, but as Popeye said, he was triple covered. This gave Kearse 1-on-1 coverage and Russell opted to go that way and was half a yard from completing that comeback. Being upset with the OC on this play is just foolish and shows an agenda that is really hard to take seriously.
RichNhansom
Active member
- Joined
- May 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,256
- Reaction score
- 5
WindCityHawk":8m2yqtg5 said:Popeyejones":8m2yqtg5 said:WindCityHawk":8m2yqtg5 said:
Pulled the still from the other thread, but the other way to look at this is that it's only BECAUSE of Graham that (and the three or four defenders bracketing him) that a 50-50 ball to Kearse was even an option in the first place.
You can never know for certain, but take out Graham and install Luke Wilson as the Hawks starting TE and you're not even going to get odds that good on one of your receivers to begin with.
But if you want to set up a 50/50 ball, why not throw it to the man known for coming down with them? Isn't that why we paid a king's ransom for Graham in the first place? To win those jump balls? In the red zone, no less?
For all our hand-wringing, I think the simplest answer is the correct one: Bevell does not adapt his plans to his players' strengths. Never has, never will. He's a stubborn OC who too often tries to get cute by calling surprise bullcrap. Well, surprise! It never works!
With the game on the line, you don't call plays, you call players. We mortgaged the farm for Jimmy Graham, and when the game was on the line, Bevell called a fade to Kearse. That's everything you need to know about Darrell Bevell.
Popeye is correct and if you swap Jimmy and Kearse they change thier alignment also.
The play design was good and actually worked how we wanted it to. We got a 6'2 proven clutch receiver matched up against a 5'9" scrub CB one on one. That is exactly what we wanted. The only problem was an uncatcheable pass.
Maybe if you put the blame were it belongs every once in a while you might actually see the ignorance of trying to blame one person for everything that could possibly go wrong.
Bevell isn't the best OC but he is far from what some here trying and imagine.
Sgt. Largent
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2012
- Messages
- 25,560
- Reaction score
- 7,612
WindCityHawk":25ujf2at said:
But when Graham's bracketed high and low, it's not a 50/50 ball, it's a 33/66 ball.
Believe me, I get it. I was yelling about the ball not going to Graham either.........but after watching back the replays the right call was to Kearse because he's the only receiver that had one on one coverage. But man, Russell's gotta see that DB backed off and throw a back shoulder on the goal line, not a stupid fade route...............and throw it late as well.
Horrible execution on Russell's part. He either should have seen the DB off and checked to a back shoulder short, or throw it quicker.
Similar threads
