HawkShack.com

No, it's not about RW's contract...


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/20/referee-bill-leavy-retiring-from-field-will-become-supervisor/


... we won't have him to b**** about any more, at least not as an active ref.

I've long since forgotten about XL. My angst was forever displaced this past February. We had a lot better chance of getting a Lombardi with one decent play call in SB 49 than we would have with 3-4 correctly called plays in XL.

A Supervisor?
The Peter Principle in action.

Yeah, If you can't move 'em out, move 'em up.

Ill never forget XL. I could handle what happened this year more, although it wasn't easy to absorb either. But in 49 we had a chance and lost fair and square. In 40 it was 60 minutes of huge calls against Seattle and huge no calls against Pittsburgh. May Bill Leavy rot in purgatory knowing he stole a potentially great Superbowl from everyone, Seattle, Pittsburgh, and the millions of fans watching around the world. Making that clown a teacher is unbelievable.

Hawktawk wrote:Ill never forget XL. I could handle what happened this year more, although it wasn't easy to absorb either. But in 49 we had a chance and lost fair and square. In 40 it was 60 minutes of huge calls against Seattle and huge no calls against Pittsburgh. May Bill Leavy rot in purgatory knowing he stole a potentially great Superbowl from everyone, Seattle, Pittsburgh, and the millions of fans watching around the world. Making that clown a teacher is unbelievable.

We can't control the refs, but we can control our own play calling. That's what made SB 49 so much more frustrating than XL, at least for me. In XL, even if the game had been correctly called, a lot of other things would have had to have gone our way to have erased what ended up being an 11 point loss. But in 49, we were that close, and snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. We shot ourselves in the foot.

RiverDog wrote:
We can't control the refs, but we can control our own play calling. That's what made SB 49 so much more frustrating than XL, at least for me. In XL, even if the game had been correctly called, a lot of other things would have had to have gone our way to have erased what ended up being an 11 point loss. But in 49, we were that close, and snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. We shot ourselves in the foot.

Oh no argument there RD. We shot ourselves in the foot no doubt. But it started with giving up 2 TD drives in the 4th quarter then bungling the time management and timeout situation on the final drive leaving limited options. And also we have to accept the NE defenders, especially the rook but also Browner made excellent plays , Kearse, Lockette and especially Wilson were weak on the play or its still a TD.It was inches from Lockettes hands.

Still got beat fair and square though, unlike 40. It was so screwed up we will never know what would have happened. IMO if the game was called remotely evenly(holding and pushing off) it would have been a rout similar to the Carolina game 2 weeks before the way it was starting. Teams scoring the first TD have won 70% of Superbowl's. Well we did for a second there.
40 was about 60 minutes of fury at the GDMN referees.Never getting over it.

Hawktawk wrote: Still got beat fair and square though, unlike 40. It was so screwed up we will never know what would have happened. IMO if the game was called remotely evenly(holding and pushing off) it would have been a rout similar to the Carolina game 2 weeks before the way it was starting. Teams scoring the first TD have won 70% of Superbowl's. Well we did for a second there.
40 was about 60 minutes of fury at the GDMN referees.Never getting over it.

Well, SB 49 was played fair and square. A few people might have a problem or two about how our opponent got there in the first place, though, but that's another subject.

I don't want to re-visit XL and kick a dead horse again, but I do want it known that I disagree with your assumption that a fairly called game would have resulted in a rout ala Carolina in the NFCCG. We did not bring our 'A' game that day like we did against the Panthers.

RiverDog wrote:
Well, SB 49 was played fair and square. A few people might have a problem or two about how our opponent got there in the first place, though, but that's another subject.

I don't want to re-visit XL and kick a dead horse again, but I do want it known that I disagree with your assumption that a fairly called game would have resulted in a rout ala Carolina in the NFCCG. We did not bring our 'A' game that day like we did against the Panthers.

Geezus RD you are going to make me do this again.

In the 2005 season the Seahawks were the least penalized team in the league in the regular season but were rung up for 7 crucial penalties that took over 180 total yard of offense off the field along with 7 points and first and goal on the 1 yd line in SB XL. And 6 of the 7 penalties were BS if the same standard of evidence was applied to the Stealers non calls. On the crucial Locklear holding call it is clear the Pittsburgh edge rusher is at least a yard offside and Locklear did not hold to boot. Next play the defender is even further offside. Locklear is shell shocked and has no chance leading to a sack. Next play is the horse collar on SA the MVP of the league by loudmouth Joey Porter within 5 feet of an official, a violation so blatant that Al Micheal actually mentioned it on the broadcast. Next play Hass cracks and throws the pick. He is called for a low block making the tackle, moving the ball from the 30 to the 45 yard line where the Stealers hit the clinching trick play. RD if you want to criticize the Hawks go for it. You are a shill man.I will never judge my boys for that day. That was the biggest abortion in NFL playoff history....

In XL, even if the game had been correctly called, a lot of other things would have had to have gone our way to have erased what ended up being an 11 point loss.

You can't go down this road any more validly than someone can go down it in the other direction. I disagree with both.

The point with XL is that it was a demonstrably lopsided game (in the officiating), so the 'real' outcome was stolen from viewers. You can't say even officiating definitely would have won the game for us, but neither can you say we "didn't make enough plays".

If a phantom holding call isn't whistled, a clear 'lineman down field' call is made, and so on, that's a MUCH different game. Don't pretend to know the outcome absent them.

We did not bring our 'A' game that day like we did against the Panthers.

We had pretty dmn close to an 'A' game that day- nearly 400 yards of offense *after* all the calls, Roethlisburger was historically bad, and on and on.

We *waxed* them statistically. Half their yardage for the day consisted of a busted run for 90 some yards, and a broken play hail mary when their offensive linemen should have been called for being down-field.

PIT got their ass handed to them in every aspect except the score (which is most important, of course, but I think there's a reasonable explanation for the delta).

I just remember Hass's Clip... that was the worst penalty I've ever seen called. And in a SB. The rest of it is so common, the missed and phantom calls, etc --

js

Sorry, guys...I'm not going down the XL road again. I know it's the offseason, but there has to be something a little more contemporary to discuss than a 9+ year old event.

But you were first to say last year was worse than XL (no way, no how IMO), you started this thread down this road.

c_hawkbob wrote:But you were first to say last year was worse than XL (no way, no how IMO), you started this thread down this road.

The OP was about not having Bill Leavy to b**ch about anymore, which to any Seahawk fan with a memory longer than their manhood means XL, so no, I'm not the one that started this thread down this road.

RiverDog wrote:The OP was about not having Bill Leavy to b**ch about anymore, which to any Seahawk fan with a memory longer than their manhood means XL, so no, I'm not the one that started this thread down this road.

The OP was just information, it may have opened the road up to travel if the reader so chose, but you didn't have to. A simple "good, he's gone" or "too bad" or even "who cares" would have sufficed if you really didn't want to go down this road.

Nothing wrong with having an opinion, but having stated it you've squarely placed both feet "on this road". I guess what you're saying is you don't want to go further down this road.

c_hawkbob wrote:The OP was just information, it may have opened the road up to travel if the reader so chose, but you didn't have to. A simple "good, he's gone" or "too bad" or even "who cares" would have sufficed if you really didn't want to go down this road.

Nothing wrong with having an opinion, but having stated it you've squarely placed both feet "on this road". I guess what you're saying is you don't want to go further down this road.

The link in the OP was "just information". The subjective statement regarding our "b**tching" about Leavy was not.

But continue to spin the OP and my comments as it fits your purpose, whatever that may be. I have no wish to debate this topic anymore than we already have.

I don't have a purpose and you're taking this way too seriously. I just found it funny you saying you didn't want to go down a road you clearly already went down.

Relax.

c_hawkbob wrote:I don't have a purpose and you're taking this way too seriously. I just found it funny you saying you didn't want to go down a road you clearly already went down.

Relax.

I don't see what difference it makes who started the discussion or who started down what road. After Hawktalk threw down the gauntlet with his specifics, I could see where the discussion was heading and decided that I no longer wanted to pursue it. This has been a topic that has generated a lot of angst over the years, particularly between the two of us, and I got the impression that you were trying to goad me with the way you were twisting my statements.

But I'll take your advice and relax. It's not worth arguing over anymore, it's been 9 years and enough is enough. Peace?

That's just it man, you see people throwing down gauntlets and trying to goad you just because they say something that doesn't align perfectly with your idea of how a thing went down. This is just a discussion board, we're just discussing, not trying to pick fights.

Peace? Of course peace! Even if I give you a hard time about such a small thing as I did in this thread it's not a hostile act. I've told you I try to treat this place as I would a bunch of friends drinking beer and playing pool. Whether you can see it that way or not, you need to look at what I say in that sort of a context.

c_hawkbob wrote:That's just it man, you see people throwing down gauntlets and trying to goad you just because they say something that doesn't align perfectly with your idea of how a thing went down. This is just a discussion board, we're just discussing, not trying to pick fights.

Peace? Of course peace! Even if I give you a hard time about such a small thing as I did in this thread it's not a hostile act. I've told you I try to treat this place as I would a bunch of friends drinking beer and playing pool. Whether you can see it that way or not, you need to look at what I say in that sort of a context.

The ONLY comments you made in this thread were directed at me about my comments. That's why I got so defensive.

I appreciate your suggestions as to how to treat this place and I'll try to take them to heart, and here's one from me: Take some responsibility for the misunderstandings in here rather than blaming the other guy for 100% of the misalignment. Communication is a two way street.

I did take responsibility. I already told you I was giving you a hard time about saying you didn't want to go down a road you were already going down ... how is that not "taking responsibility"? I also told you I considered it to be a small thing and it was intended to be good-natured.

I didn't say anything else in this thread because to me this a long dead horse being beaten yet again. It's a road I really didn't want to go down.

It's a road I really didn't want to go down.

FTR, I'm happy to 'go down the road' again if anyone wants to argue XL wasn't a lopsided game.

I've got spreadsheets, screenshots, video, and so on- it'll be fun!

FTR, I'm happy to 'go down the road' again if anyone wants to argue XL wasn't a lopsided game.

I've got spreadsheets, screenshots, video, and so on- it'll be fun!

Lol....for the record, I am in the camp that had a much easier time dealing with last year's loss than XL. I will never forget XL, although a lot of the angst melted away with the Super Bowl win 2 years ago.

Like many have said, we were all left wondering what could have been in that game, the calls (and non calls) against the 'Hawks were simply mind boggling.

Last year's loss left no wondering, there was a bad play call made, bad execution, and an amazing defensive play all in one.

c_hawkbob wrote:I did take responsibility. I already told you I was giving you a hard time about saying you didn't want to go down a road you were already going down ... how is that not "taking responsibility"? I also told you I considered it to be a small thing and it was intended to be good-natured.

I didn't say anything else in this thread because to me this a long dead horse being beaten yet again. It's a road I rButeally didn't want to go down.

Not that I want to perpetuate this, but rather to answer a question that you posed, when I think of taking responsibility for misunderstandings, I think of statements such as "sorry, bro, I didn't mean it that way" or "yea, I can see where you might have gotten that impression, that's not how I wanted it to come out", not "...because they say something doesn't align perfectly with your idea of how a thing went down". That's what has been missing from some of your comments.

Now let's shake hands and move on. We're both Seahawk buddies Life is good!

Well I'm to OP on this and I have 4 words for each of you (that's RD and C_Hawk...) Next Rounds on Me!

You guys lost me about 20 posts ago, but thanks for helping keep the off-season fun.

That SB sucked. This last one hurt. Both will never be forgotten. We could be 2 rings back of the 49'ers... and we're not.

js

RiverDog wrote:Sorry, guys...I'm not going down the XL road again. I know it's the offseason, but there has to be something a little more contemporary to discuss than a 9+ year old event.

Theres nothing wrong with discussing something that is part of our history. In fact, I, for one, love reminiscing about the games that the Hawks have played over the years. It's part of the nostalgia of our team.

We can also console ourselves with the fact we aren't Buffalo or Minnesota who have got to the big dance numerous times and came away empty handed every time.
By all rights, we should have had 3, but at least we have the monkey off our back with our first win.

NorthHawk wrote:We can also console ourselves with the fact we aren't Buffalo or Minnesota who have got to the big dance numerous times and came away empty handed every time.
By all rights, we should have had 3, but at least we have the monkey off our back with our first win.

...& more to come!

NorthHawk wrote:We can also console ourselves with the fact we aren't Buffalo or Minnesota who have got to the big dance numerous times and came away empty handed every time.
By all rights, we should have had 3, but at least we have the monkey off our back with our first win.

At least Buffalo and Minnesota have been to the SB on multiple occasions. How would you like to be a Detroit Lions fan that has been to all of ONE conference championship game in 49 years? Or how would you like to be a Cleveland Browns fan and not only never get to a SB, but then to have your team taken away and re-named and in their reincarnation have just two winning seasons in 15 years?

It seems that history is treating Buffalo's 4 straight SB appearances with a little more respect than their contemporaries ever did, as well they should. Especially in this day and age of parity, it is incredibly difficult to get to just one SB not to mention 4 straight. All the stars have to line up just so even to get to one.