[tweet]https://twitter.com/TheSeahawksWire/status/1020775634476380161[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/JonRyan9/status/1020458995218186242[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/JonRyan9/status/1020458995218186242[/tweet]
Jon Ryan likes to troll former Seahawk Stephen Houschka
- Thread starter KitsapGuy
- Start date
Blitzhawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2,482
- Reaction score
- 41
.....And put some swimming trunks on; we don't wanna see your little "stubby" like that.
Sprfunk
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 862
- Reaction score
- 38
With that guy last season is 11 wins vs 9 wins all things being equal.
mikeak
Well-known member
The problem wasn’t letting him go
The problem was his replacement
The problem was his replacement
adeltaY
New member
The Breh":3ala0wci said:
Not for many of us. Hauschka's down year wasn't even that bad. Kickers have those sometimes and they bounce back frequently. I'd rather have a kicker who can't kick in Glendale than one who can't make kicks at home.
adeltaY
New member
The Breh":3rlrufsr said:
Not at all. Hauschka has proven to be a good kicker so I was more than willing to forgive a "supbar" year that wasn't even that bad even if he had trouble kicking in AZ. Signing Walsh with no competition was a bad idea because Walsh had shown to have issues so it's no surprise he cost us games with poor kicking, including games at home. That's not 20/20 hindsight, I and many others were saying that before the season even started. The fact that Walsh ended up being bad and Hauschka bounced back is not hindsight bias, it's simply making the correct judgment from the start.
twisted_steel2
Active member
Ryan, Hauschka, Gresham, what a great combo that was.
I liked Haush too, so don't get me wrong there.adeltaY":6gprdqmy said:
I specifically mentioned Glendale because that was a pain to stomach. It wasn't just there, or that one specific game for that matter.
And once upon a time Walsh was a good kicker too. We afforded him the same 2nd chance from a rough patch that you're saying we should have given Haush. The issues Walsh had that you speak of are the exact ones Haush had for us. He just came at a cheaper price and we were penny pinching.
Didn't work out with Walsh and Haush went on to have a killer season. I wish we kept him to begin with but nobody forecasted our season riding on a kicker.
Easy to make a statement about Walsh not being able to hit FG's at home over a 1/2 year later after the fact while Haush went and thrived.
I'll be interested in seeing folks opinions when we keep Dickson, how he plays, and how Ryan does following his departure.
People's tunes change quickly the second they get a chance to say "I told you so".
adeltaY
New member
I apologise for coming across as "I told you so" I just wanted to say that I've never thought letting Hauschka go to save money was the right decision.
TwistedHusky
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2013
- Messages
- 6,900
- Reaction score
- 1,076
I was pretty livid when they got rid of Stephen, because I knew his kicking issues were more the result of our OL being a nightmare and our weird proclivity to get rid of our capable LS in order to bring on some other LS that was 'more athletic'
Sure enough, he struggled. But he did just fine as soon as he left here and got an adequate line and adequate LS.
What blew my mind was that we then signed a mentally weak and barely capable kicker who had not only failed multiple times in key kicks for his last team, his failure LITERALLY got us to the next round in the playoffs. We had a front row seat to his mental issues and we still signed him.
For all those that want to wave the 'trust the Seahawks FO, Carroll and JS know what they are doing' flags, this is your example #1. They are good at their jobs but they do things to tank their own successes. This is how we got Harvin instead of Tate. Though you could argue it is how we got Lynch as well. We LOVE to bring in people's failures and see if we can redeem them. Most of the time it doesn't work, but sometimes, as with a Lynch, it works spectacularly.
The problem was that combined with that trait, we love to get cute. We make moves to get small advantages that not only don't work - they weaken us. The example of getting rid of capable LS is a perfect illustration of this. That was not bringing in a failure but it was removing someone doing their job successfully in order to bring in someone that you had no idea they could do the job. For a pivotal position, that our offense literally depended on. And it burned us bad. (And the job of the LS is to long snap, not to make special teams tackles!)
This team was on the top of the mountain and literally stepped off the ledge itself. It was less someone else taking their throne from them and more our team finding ways to shoot ourselves in the foot. Had Carroll and JS just stuck with what we had - we would have had a more successful run.
I wish we had kept him and just fixed the damn line and LS.
Sure enough, he struggled. But he did just fine as soon as he left here and got an adequate line and adequate LS.
What blew my mind was that we then signed a mentally weak and barely capable kicker who had not only failed multiple times in key kicks for his last team, his failure LITERALLY got us to the next round in the playoffs. We had a front row seat to his mental issues and we still signed him.
For all those that want to wave the 'trust the Seahawks FO, Carroll and JS know what they are doing' flags, this is your example #1. They are good at their jobs but they do things to tank their own successes. This is how we got Harvin instead of Tate. Though you could argue it is how we got Lynch as well. We LOVE to bring in people's failures and see if we can redeem them. Most of the time it doesn't work, but sometimes, as with a Lynch, it works spectacularly.
The problem was that combined with that trait, we love to get cute. We make moves to get small advantages that not only don't work - they weaken us. The example of getting rid of capable LS is a perfect illustration of this. That was not bringing in a failure but it was removing someone doing their job successfully in order to bring in someone that you had no idea they could do the job. For a pivotal position, that our offense literally depended on. And it burned us bad. (And the job of the LS is to long snap, not to make special teams tackles!)
This team was on the top of the mountain and literally stepped off the ledge itself. It was less someone else taking their throne from them and more our team finding ways to shoot ourselves in the foot. Had Carroll and JS just stuck with what we had - we would have had a more successful run.
I wish we had kept him and just fixed the damn line and LS.
SoulfishHawk
Well-known member
Do you ever get tired of complaining about the front office? :lol:
