Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

ESPN: A trade for Duane Brown wouldn't be easy to pull off

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13

  • It would have to be for Jimmy $$$ wise. Contracts would end up a wash that way basically.
    User avatar
    EverydayImRusselin
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1395
    Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:38 am


  • He's holding out for more money right? Why would he come back and play just because he got traded to another team? Any deal that gets done will have to come with an extension and more money on his contract, not just paying him his current contract. I don't know that Seattle has the money long term to pay him what it would take. He's already making basically 10M per year. He'll probably want that bumped up to 13M per year to play...
    User avatar
    DJrmb
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1019
    Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:53 pm


  • Hes not going to play for the texans i think hes made that clear. And they arent going to pay him, he will be cut or traded.
    Image
    User avatar
    RussB
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2142
    Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 2:42 pm
    Location: Spokane, WA


  • DJrmb wrote:He's holding out for more money right? Why would he come back and play just because he got traded to another team? Any deal that gets done will have to come with an extension and more money on his contract, not just paying him his current contract. I don't know that Seattle has the money long term to pay him what it would take. He's already making basically 10M per year. He'll probably want that bumped up to 13M per year to play...


    If he wants this season to count and be available to become a free agent sooner, he needs to report by the midpoint of the season, which would mean he'd have to come back (including bye) after week 9. If not, he would be stuck under the same terms as he is currently under. I believe I've read that he plans to come back in time to insure this season counts for him. Obviously him coming back and him going 100% are two completely different things. If anyone wants him to play and give 100% there needs to be some talk of a new contract for him.
    Image

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 21587
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • EverydayImRusselin wrote:It would have to be for Jimmy $$$ wise. Contracts would end up a wash that way basically.


    Trading the NFC's 2nd best TE in 2016 yardage isn't something you take that lightly.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 15632
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • I have a problem with this speculative part of the article. Without it the whole point of the article loses its mojo:

    It would likely require some sort of maneuvering, whether it be trading away a player to shed salary or freeing up cap space by restructuring another player's contract, something Schneider has said he doesn't like doing. He already had to once this season when he re-worked Doug Baldwin's deal in order to take on Sheldon Richardson's $8 million salary. Hard to imagine Schneider wanting to resort to that again.
    A-Dog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 822
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:11 pm


  • Kinda all what we've been saying in other threads.

    Hard caps are difficult to get around, especially mid season. You have to trade like salaries, or have one team absorb the cap hit if they have the room in order to dump a player they want to get rid of.

    Problem is Texans are now desperate for D-line help, not a position we're deep at, nor willing to part with guys like Bennett or Richardson which would fit that cap hit swap.

    Only way I see this working is the Texans taking lessor players like Lane AND a couple mid round picks............AND Brown agreeing to a long term deal with a low first year cap hit. Seems like it's too daunting to pull all this off right now.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 12029
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:Kinda all what we've been saying in other threads.

    Hard caps are difficult to get around, especially mid season. You have to trade like salaries, or have one team absorb the cap hit if they have the room in order to dump a player they want to get rid of.

    Problem is Texans are now desperate for D-line help, not a position we're deep at, nor willing to part with guys like Bennett or Richardson which would fit that cap hit swap.

    Only way I see this working is the Texans taking lessor players like Lane AND a couple mid round picks............AND Brown agreeing to a long term deal with a low first year cap hit. Seems like it's too daunting to pull all this off right now.


    Yet they found enough couch cushion $$ (Baldwin) to pay Richardson when McDowell face planted?

    It's all priorities.

    We will all just have to watch our offense continue to set records of futility I suppose. :snack:
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2521
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • Futility?

    Again its a matter of perspective,

    Despite everything we've seen thus far, the struggles, the growing pains, the missed opportunties, Seahawks by all accounts have a league average offense.

    We aren't as consistent as the top 5 teams, maybe not as explosive as the top 10, but we are average in terms of the stats acculmated in the league thus far in that 11-16 range.

    I'm even adjusting for Defensive fortune, Seahawks Offense rank currently at 10th in the league in both Points Scored and Yards. There Expected Value (PFREF) ranks them 16th. So, yeah they seem to fall in that average range. They definately aren't a top 10 offense, even though general stats currently say otherwise but as for "setting records of futility" that's really far-fetch.

    Seahawks have left a lot to be desired but they have performed better than half the league with stats putting them better than two-thirds of the league.

    I can live with an average offense for now especially when we are buoyed by what might be the best D in the NFL.

    A 32 year old hold-out LT that has missed OTC, TC, PS, and 1-2 months of the NFL season isn't going to come in here and save the day. It's wishful thinking, no matter how good he is. And Brown is no Walter Jones, not even close.
    WE ALL WE GOT, WE ALL WE NEED!!!!!!!!!!!
    Pandion Haliaetus
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3178
    Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:07 pm


  • Futility? Whatever???

    In case you haven't noticed the team is 3-2, and the understaffed and underachieving OLIne is getting incrementally better game to game.

    It's far from futile but could be significantly better and still only be slightly better than average.

    Price is everything in relation to this trade happening.
    Until we develop a pass rush that will cause opposing teams to be forced to scheme to defend it we will never be able to consistently take the final step. The interior rush needs improvement. The OLine clearly still needs work.

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions at last after 38 seasons. Awesome!!!
    jammerhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4273
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm


  • Pandion Haliaetus wrote:Futility?

    Again its a matter of perspective,


    Despite everything we've seen thus far, the struggles, the growing pains, the missed opportunties, Seahawks by all accounts have a league average offense.

    We aren't as consistent as the top 5 teams, maybe not as explosive as the top 10, but we are average in terms of the stats acculmated in the league thus far in that 11-16 range.

    I'm even adjusting for Defensive fortune, Seahawks Offense rank currently at 10th in the league in both Points Scored and Yards. There Expected Value (PFREF) ranks them 16th. So, yeah they seem to fall in that average range. They definately aren't a top 10 offense, even though general stats currently say otherwise but as for "setting records of futility" that's really far-fetch.

    Seahawks have left a lot to be desired but they have performed better than half the league with stats putting them better than two-thirds of the league.

    I can live with an average offense for now especially when we are buoyed by what might be the best D in the NFL.

    A 32 year old hold-out LT that has missed OTC, TC, PS, and 1-2 months of the NFL season isn't going to come in here and save the day. It's wishful thinking, no matter how good he is. And Brown is no Walter Jones, not even close.


    Not really. What would you call the NFL record of 18 games (and still running) of no opening TD drives Seattle holds and is setting higher every week? Old record was 16 games. That is a record of futility by all standards.
    Last edited by Seymour on Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2521
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • Seymour wrote:
    Pandion Haliaetus wrote:Futility?

    Again its a matter of perspective,


    Despite everything we've seen thus far, the struggles, the growing pains, the missed opportunties, Seahawks by all accounts have a league average offense.

    We aren't as consistent as the top 5 teams, maybe not as explosive as the top 10, but we are average in terms of the stats acculmated in the league thus far in that 11-16 range.

    I'm even adjusting for Defensive fortune, Seahawks Offense rank currently at 10th in the league in both Points Scored and Yards. There Expected Value (PFREF) ranks them 16th. So, yeah they seem to fall in that average range. They definately aren't a top 10 offense, even though general stats currently say otherwise but as for "setting records of futility" that's really far-fetch.

    Seahawks have left a lot to be desired but they have performed better than half the league with stats putting them better than two-thirds of the league.

    I can live with an average offense for now especially when we are buoyed by what might be the best D in the NFL.

    A 32 year old hold-out LT that has missed OTC, TC, PS, and 1-2 months of the NFL season isn't going to come in here and save the day. It's wishful thinking, no matter how good he is. And Brown is no Walter Jones, not even close.


    Not really. What would you call the NFL record of 18 games (and still running) of no opening TD drives Seattle holds and is setting higher every week? Old record was 16 games. That is a record of futility by all definitions.


    Again...3-2, league average offense. Go watch some second halves, you'll see some offense.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 15632
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • The Seahawks are undefeated in October. Duane Brown is the Texans problem.
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 6903
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:49 pm


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    Pandion Haliaetus wrote:Futility?

    Again its a matter of perspective,


    Despite everything we've seen thus far, the struggles, the growing pains, the missed opportunties, Seahawks by all accounts have a league average offense.

    We aren't as consistent as the top 5 teams, maybe not as explosive as the top 10, but we are average in terms of the stats acculmated in the league thus far in that 11-16 range.

    I'm even adjusting for Defensive fortune, Seahawks Offense rank currently at 10th in the league in both Points Scored and Yards. There Expected Value (PFREF) ranks them 16th. So, yeah they seem to fall in that average range. They definately aren't a top 10 offense, even though general stats currently say otherwise but as for "setting records of futility" that's really far-fetch.

    Seahawks have left a lot to be desired but they have performed better than half the league with stats putting them better than two-thirds of the league.

    I can live with an average offense for now especially when we are buoyed by what might be the best D in the NFL.

    A 32 year old hold-out LT that has missed OTC, TC, PS, and 1-2 months of the NFL season isn't going to come in here and save the day. It's wishful thinking, no matter how good he is. And Brown is no Walter Jones, not even close.


    Not really. What would you call the NFL record of 18 games (and still running) of no opening TD drives Seattle holds and is setting higher every week? Old record was 16 games. That is a record of futility by all definitions.


    Again...3-2, league average offense. Go watch some second halves, you'll see some offense.


    Doesn't make my statement that we will need to continue watching records of futility incorrect though does it?

    You guys just hate the way that sounds and don't want to hear it. It's the sad truth, and we have not even played any top 10 defenses yet.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2521
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • Seymour wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    Pandion Haliaetus wrote:Futility?

    Again its a matter of perspective,


    Despite everything we've seen thus far, the struggles, the growing pains, the missed opportunties, Seahawks by all accounts have a league average offense.

    We aren't as consistent as the top 5 teams, maybe not as explosive as the top 10, but we are average in terms of the stats acculmated in the league thus far in that 11-16 range.

    I'm even adjusting for Defensive fortune, Seahawks Offense rank currently at 10th in the league in both Points Scored and Yards. There Expected Value (PFREF) ranks them 16th. So, yeah they seem to fall in that average range. They definately aren't a top 10 offense, even though general stats currently say otherwise but as for "setting records of futility" that's really far-fetch.

    Seahawks have left a lot to be desired but they have performed better than half the league with stats putting them better than two-thirds of the league.

    I can live with an average offense for now especially when we are buoyed by what might be the best D in the NFL.

    A 32 year old hold-out LT that has missed OTC, TC, PS, and 1-2 months of the NFL season isn't going to come in here and save the day. It's wishful thinking, no matter how good he is. And Brown is no Walter Jones, not even close.


    Not really. What would you call the NFL record of 18 games (and still running) of no opening TD drives Seattle holds and is setting higher every week? Old record was 16 games. That is a record of futility by all definitions.


    Again...3-2, league average offense. Go watch some second halves, you'll see some offense.


    Doesn't make my statement that we will need to continue watching records of futility incorrect though does it?

    You guys just hate the way that sounds and don't want to hear it. It's the sad truth, and we have not even played any top 10 defenses yet.


    No, we just think that incidental records of going without opening scores happen to lessen in significance when you're still average in offense, leading the division, and posting ten wins every year. Not vanish, but lessen.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 15632
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:No, we just think that incidental records of going without opening scores happen to lessen in significance when you're still average in offense, leading the division, and posting ten wins every year. Not vanish, but lessen.


    I won't debate that. But I will add that it certainly not something to be proud of, and it is a good indication of just how bad of first halves we are having to endure right now (and last year).
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2521
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • Seymour wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:No, we just think that incidental records of going without opening scores happen to lessen in significance when you're still average in offense, leading the division, and posting ten wins every year. Not vanish, but lessen.


    I won't debate that. But I will add that it certainly not something to be proud of, and it is a good indication of just how bad of first halves we are having to endure right now (and last year).


    And I won't debate you on that.

    I just think we have to consider how much of a whopper of a trade is merited by the overall state of the offense. Rees Odhiambo is certainly an eyesore, but we're still scraping along on offense. "Schizophrenically average" is better than any of us would expect given our OL play. Think of it this way - if any team is BETTER equipped to withstand this train wreck of an offensive line, which is it? I don't see one.

    And the money needed to replace Rees with a guy like Duane Brown is being eaten up by players who are enormously instrumental (Graham, Sheldon). And there remain solutions to fixing LT that don't involve selling the house - like further rearranging contracts (if a willing player can be found), or having Pete pull his first-half playcalling out of his butt. So I just can't see this trade ATM, unless Duane decides he's open to a discount if it means playing on a Super Bowl contender, or Houston gets dumb and decides they reaaaallllyyy like what they see in Jeremy Lane.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 15632
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • Seymour wrote:Doesn't make my statement that we will need to continue watching records of futility incorrect though does it?

    You guys just hate the way that sounds and don't want to hear it. It's the sad truth, and we have not even played any top 10 defenses yet.

    That's not how Pete's Seahawks draw it up for ANY team we have faced, his game planning takes into account for 'Feel Out' of his opponent, with intentional slow starts, therefor, I believe it does nullify your "Statement", and thus makes it incorrect.
    Look, your 18 games of "Futility" includes the beating of mastermind Billicheat & the Patriots in 2016.
    I don't believe that anyone here is enamored with the slow starts, but I along with a couple hundred thousand other fans are on board with his winning %.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6114
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


  • scutterhawk wrote:
    Seymour wrote:Doesn't make my statement that we will need to continue watching records of futility incorrect though does it?

    You guys just hate the way that sounds and don't want to hear it. It's the sad truth, and we have not even played any top 10 defenses yet.

    That's not how Pete's Seahawks draw it up for ANY team we have faced, his game planning takes into account for 'Feel Out' of his opponent, with intentional slow starts, therefor, I believe it does nullify your "Statement", and thus makes it incorrect.
    Look, your 18 games of "Futility" includes the beating of mastermind Billicheat & the Patriots in 2016.
    I don't believe that anyone here is enamored with the slow starts, but I along with a couple hundred thousand other fans are on board with his winning %.


    That is a pure load of BS. You are saying that we by intention score less points?

    Absolutely the lost ridiculous thing I've heard here yet. Yes, they do intentionally use scripted plays to probe and chart the D that will be used, but in no way do they intentionally leave points on the field. :roll:
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2521
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • In the Ram game, we had, what, 1 sustained drive.
    We had 5 turnovers that we parlayed into a whopping 3 points I think.
    We made the 49ers D look great and I think we were wondering if they really were that good.
    We scored 9 points on the Packers who's given up more than 20 points /game to teams.
    We got a bunch of garbage points against Titans and Colts.

    I'd say our O is looking good. :)

    I agree, the notion that we "feel out" our opponents for the first half is hogwash. We've been in this league for several years, we know what they have and what they don't. Our O is just as someone else said, pedestrian, nooo.. it's worse than that, it's a crippled offense.. wonder why.
    User avatar
    Bobblehead
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1860
    Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:52 am


  • Bobblehead wrote:We got a bunch of garbage points against Titans and Colts.


    That's dismissing a lot of points in order to support a narrative in order to justifying bad free agency moves for a left tackle. The Colts game wasn't garbage time because...we were ahead. The Titans game wasn't garbage time because...we almost won. I will grant that neither defense is that impressive. Doesn't really work to just toss aside the points, though.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 15632
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Bobblehead wrote:We got a bunch of garbage points against Titans and Colts.


    That's dismissing a lot of points in order to support a narrative in order to justifying bad free agency moves for a left tackle. The Colts game wasn't garbage time because...we were ahead. The Titans game wasn't garbage time because...we almost won. I will grant that neither defense is that impressive. Doesn't really work to just toss aside the points, though.


    We almost won against Tennessee? Ummmm...

    http://www.espn.com/nfl/game?gameId=400951623

    That win probability graph says nothing of the sort.

    It's like you're projecting the rationale you're using yourself onto those who hypothetically would disagree with you.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3185
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • Seymour wrote:
    scutterhawk wrote:
    Seymour wrote:Doesn't make my statement that we will need to continue watching records of futility incorrect though does it?

    You guys just hate the way that sounds and don't want to hear it. It's the sad truth, and we have not even played any top 10 defenses yet.

    That's not how Pete's Seahawks draw it up for ANY team we have faced, his game planning takes into account for 'Feel Out' of his opponent, with intentional slow starts, therefor, I believe it does nullify your "Statement", and thus makes it incorrect.
    Look, your 18 games of "Futility" includes the beating of mastermind Billicheat & the Patriots in 2016.
    I don't believe that anyone here is enamored with the slow starts, but I along with a couple hundred thousand other fans are on board with his winning %.


    That is a pure load of BS. You are saying that we by intention score less points?

    Absolutely the lost ridiculous thing I've heard here yet. Yes, they do intentionally use scripted plays to probe and chart the D that will be used, but in no way do they intentionally leave points on the field. :roll:


    :roll: Get pissed all you want, I SAID NOTHING about leaving points on the field, your words, not mine.
    What I WAS INFERRING, is that NO game that Pete has EVER Coached, has been won or lost a game in the 1st, or even the 2nd quarter.
    Am I content with the slow starts?, hell no, but Pete absolutely DOES try to establish & dictate the tempo, and the slow starts are a part of his MO, so I'll take the good and the angst that goes with it.....Pete has earned my confidence.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6114
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


  • scutterhawk wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    scutterhawk wrote:
    Seymour wrote:Doesn't make my statement that we will need to continue watching records of futility incorrect though does it?

    You guys just hate the way that sounds and don't want to hear it. It's the sad truth, and we have not even played any top 10 defenses yet.

    That's not how Pete's Seahawks draw it up for ANY team we have faced, his game planning takes into account for 'Feel Out' of his opponent, with intentional slow starts, therefor, I believe it does nullify your "Statement", and thus makes it incorrect.
    Look, your 18 games of "Futility" includes the beating of mastermind Billicheat & the Patriots in 2016.
    I don't believe that anyone here is enamored with the slow starts, but I along with a couple hundred thousand other fans are on board with his winning %.


    That is a pure load of BS. You are saying that we by intention score less points?

    Absolutely the lost ridiculous thing I've heard here yet. Yes, they do intentionally use scripted plays to probe and chart the D that will be used, but in no way do they intentionally leave points on the field. :roll:


    :roll: Get pissed all you want, I SAID NOTHING about leaving points on the field, your words, not mine.
    What I WAS INFERRING, is that NO game that Pete has EVER Coached, has been won or lost a game in the 1st, or even the 2nd quarter.
    Am I content with the slow starts?, hell no, but Pete absolutely DOES try to establish & dictate the tempo, and the slow starts are a part of his MO, so I'll take the good and the angst that goes with it.....Pete has earned my confidence.


    Then define "intentional slow start".
    Slow to most people means take a lessor pace, or hold back, which obviously = scoring less.
    It would also mean you are not "always competing" and only competing 100% in the second half.

    Either way, it does not make my original statement untrue in any way. Here is a reminder of what you attempted to dispute. Each week we go scoreless, that record rises.

    We will all just have to watch our offense continue to set records of futility I suppose
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2521
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Bobblehead wrote:We got a bunch of garbage points against Titans and Colts.


    That's dismissing a lot of points in order to support a narrative in order to justifying bad free agency moves for a left tackle. The Colts game wasn't garbage time because...we were ahead. The Titans game wasn't garbage time because...we almost won. I will grant that neither defense is that impressive. Doesn't really work to just toss aside the points, though.



    Seahawks used to be notorious for giving up easy 2nd half points when we had the lead, do you not remember that? We would just sit back and wait for the int to happen.

    I don't know, Colts to me were like easy points, we should have been at half time by 42, instead we played at the Colts level for a whole half and finally busted out.

    Titans, sorry, never felt we were in the game or could win the game, they did what the Hawks used to do, get big and just sit on it.
    User avatar
    Bobblehead
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1860
    Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:52 am


  • IMHO the whole slow start thing is just part of the personality of this team. I don't feel we are terribly creative with play calls overall. But we make great halftime adjustments and then take off. We find the week spot.
    Our D has its problems as well. They usually let other teams look like they are going to roll over us the whole game first drive or two. Then they get a "feel" for what is going on. BWags said in his presser after the game against the Rams "they threw everything they had against us in the beginning then we settled in." That "throw everything new at them" works well in the short term but it is not a overall winning strategy. Our guys are smart and spend a lot of time in the film room. That is why we often have problem against rook QB's.
    User avatar
    Year of The Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 970
    Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:18 am


  • scutterhawk wrote:That's not how Pete's Seahawks draw it up for ANY team we have faced, his game planning takes into account for 'Feel Out' of his opponent, with intentional slow starts, therefor, I believe it does nullify your "Statement", and thus makes it incorrect.
    Look, your 18 games of "Futility" includes the beating of mastermind Billicheat & the Patriots in 2016.
    I don't believe that anyone here is enamored with the slow starts, but I along with a couple hundred thousand other fans are on board with his winning %.

    Let's see, master strategy of intentionally starting slow or crappy pre-game planning combined with conservative play-calling? I know which one I think it is.

    If the defense took a half to "feel out" the opponents each game we'd be out of it by the 2nd half.
    hawk45
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7990
    Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 1:08 pm


  • Bobblehead wrote:Titans, sorry, never felt we were in the game or could win the game, they did what the Hawks used to do, get big and just sit on it.


    We had the lead a couple different times in that game.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 15632
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Bobblehead wrote:Titans, sorry, never felt we were in the game or could win the game, they did what the Hawks used to do, get big and just sit on it.


    We had the lead a couple different times in that game.


    Did you feel good about it?
    User avatar
    Bobblehead
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1860
    Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:52 am


  • The biggest problem I have for trading for Brown is that he's held out so long. It's no secret that players that hold out this long typically get some sort of soft tissue injury when they return to play. So we'd be trading for a guy that might not even be able to help us for a good portion of the year.

    We also won't be able to restructure contracts without creating a real jackpot down the line, as we already did it to bring Richardson in.

    I don't think Odhiambo is set to be the next great OT, but he's shown steady progression. I know we're all tired of it and losing patience, but the guy is a rookie at the LT position. He's showing progress and it stands to reason that he can get better as the season progresses. We're seeing the same thing with Ifedi.

    All we need is league average. It's feasible.
    Hawks46
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7372
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm


  • Hawks46 wrote:I don't think Odhiambo is set to be the next great OT, but he's shown steady progression. I know we're all tired of it and losing patience, but the guy is a rookie at the LT position. He's showing progress and it stands to reason that he can get better as the season progresses. We're seeing the same thing with Ifedi.


    Eh. I'd say Ifedi has made a LOT more progress than Rees so far.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 15632
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am





It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:43 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information