Shanegotyou11
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2017
- Messages
- 5,360
- Reaction score
- 378
Sgt. Largent":1r6fsi0i said:The FG's article is accurate.
Cable had some major influence and input into who we drafted along the O-line, as do most O-line coaches btw.
IMO the downfall of our O-line was just as much Pete and John's fault, as it was Cables. They put too much trust in Cable to make chicken salad out of chicken crap.............trusting that their saving major money on the line to spend elsewhere cause Cable was going to work his magic on deficient or project lineman would work.
Seymour":9yiew7o8 said:Sgt. Largent":9yiew7o8 said:The FG's article is accurate.
Cable had some major influence and input into who we drafted along the O-line, as do most O-line coaches btw.
IMO the downfall of our O-line was just as much Pete and John's fault, as it was Cables. They put too much trust in Cable to make chicken salad out of chicken crap.............trusting that their saving major money on the line to spend elsewhere cause Cable was going to work his magic on deficient or project lineman would work.
Disagree. Do you believe that Clint Hurtt has the major say in Dline selections then?
Seymour":3vcoe17s said:LOL. Position coaches do not earn more $$ than coordinators. :roll:
This is likely why they got away giving him his powers. Sub title "Assistant head coach". Not because he was "an empowered Oline coach like all the rest".
Sgt. Largent":1569zepe said:Seymour":1569zepe said:LOL. Position coaches do not earn more $$ than coordinators. :roll:
This is likely why they got away giving him his powers. Sub title "Assistant head coach". Not because he was "an empowered Oline coach like all the rest".
Now you're arguing levels of influence.
All I said was other team's O-Line coaches also have major input into their O-line draft and personnel moves. Maybe Cable had more than most? Idk, but the failure wasn't ALL on him...........Pete and John were the ones who let let that failed chain of command go on too long.
Shanegotyou11":2xr0ktnh said:
Jville":32xpeyc9 said:Shanegotyou11":32xpeyc9 said:
I noticed that article but it struck me as an exercise in shaping a data set to support a predetermined assertion. The author assumes Cable had no input on the Seahawk linemen included in his presentation while assuming exclusive determination of Seahawk linemen not included in the tables. Although I've long suspect there were two semi-disjointed groups making collective choices with regards to offensive linemen, the article is not persuasive in neatly proving that notion. I view the article as a faulty proof.
One sees far too much of this where a data set is massaged thru selective inclusion and exclusion of data to give the illusion of supporting a predetermined outcome. It's rampant in our society. Most of the author's articles are far better than this example.
Never-the-less thanks for posting. It does reminds us to examine and consider what we read.
Sgt. Largent":1gzb2tks said:Jville":1gzb2tks said:Shanegotyou11":1gzb2tks said:
I noticed that article but it struck me as an exercise in shaping a data set to support a predetermined assertion. The author assumes Cable had no input on the Seahawk linemen included in his presentation while assuming exclusive determination of Seahawk linemen not included in the tables. Although I've long suspect there were two semi-disjointed groups making collective choices with regards to offensive linemen, the article is not persuasive in neatly proving that notion. I view the article as a faulty proof.
One sees far too much of this where a data set is massaged thru selective inclusion and exclusion of data to give the illusion of supporting a predetermined outcome. It's rampant in our society. Most of the author's articles are far better than this example.
Never-the-less thanks for posting. It does reminds us to examine and consider what we read.
Not sure what the confusion is, Cable didn't have 0% total control over the O-line, and he didn't have 100% total control.
Did he have more than most O-line coaches? Yep, I believe he did, but as all the Bevell parrots didn't want to admit, in the end this is Pete's team and Pete had/has the final say on any and all draft picks and personnel decisions.
So you're right, no one outside of those war rooms during the draft will know just how much influence Cable had in who we drafted. My guess is Cable was heavily involved in the scouting and "type" of linemen he thought would work well in his ZBS system............then Pete, John and their scouting team narrowed those players down to which ones would and wouldn't be on their draft board. Then we picked.
Shanegotyou11":799e9emc said:
lukerguy":1jcw156o said:Shanegotyou11":1jcw156o said:
This article assumes Cable had autonomy in drafting OLINE in OAK. Reggie McKenzie isn't nearly stupid enough to let Cable do that.
The Breh":npxyew0v said:I do remember reading that Cable knew nothing of Pocic coming into last season so there's that.
It might seem strange the Seahawks would select someone so high without meeting with the position coach but the Seahawks didn’t want to tip their hand.
“He was the one guy that, quite frankly, we were really sweating out,” Schneider told reporters Friday night. “We felt like we were drafting maybe two and a half players with one guy, so we debated whether to go up and get him or just sit and wait and sweat it out. I changed my shirt [laughing].
“We thought he was so versatile, we just wanted to be very careful with how much interest we showed.”