HawkShack.com

Offseason feel-good fluff, I suppose, but I like them getting some props. I know you guys know the receivers have to block well, but it is not typically seen unless you are watching game tape. Keep it up fellas!

http://espn.go.com/blog/seattle-seahawk ... nning-team

Interesting article.

Tom Cable:
“I try to tell them every chance I get that we’re the best running team in football because of them. It’s not because of 24 [Lynch]. It’s not from those goons up front. It’s really the receivers.”

It's pretty obvious to most of us that the run game success isn't because of the OL.
They should, however, be better if the OL replacements don't have too much of a falloff in ability and Graham provides the necessary production to impact opposing defensive strategy.

That is a very interesting quote from Cable since I just watched him describe why JR Sweezy was one of the best run blocking guards in football today. He even compared him to Hutch. Now hold on just a tad.... how can both of those things be true? I understand making the point about our tough blocking wrs, but why dis 24 and the goons in the process, particularly after he just sang Sweezy's praises big time, with game tape and all. Even though I was personally always good for saying "Huck Futch" an awful lot, there's no denying he was an awesome guard - it's why the sting was so strong. I like JR, but Hutch he aint, at least not yet, IMHO.

Enough time has gone by that Steve has begun ingratiated himself back into the hearts of some of us with his appearances on programs and making his way back to Seattle. While disappointed in how things turned out with him here, it is stupid to deny that he was one of the (if not the) best guards to ever play in the PNW. I would not say the same of JR, even if isolating to run-blocking.

The BEST block I saw from a receiver unfortunately drew a flag - anyone care to guess which play? I do agree with the premise that our WRs are very good blockers.

Hawk Sista wrote:That is a very interesting quote from Cable since I just watched him describe why JR Sweezy was one of the best run blocking guards in football today. He even compared him to Hutch. Now hold on just a tad.... how can both of those things be true? I understand making the point about our tough blocking wrs, but why dis 24 and the goons in the process, particularly after he just sang Sweezy's praises big time, with game tape and all. Even though I was personally always good for saying "Huck Futch" an awful lot, there's no denying he was an awesome guard - it's why the sting was so strong. I like JR, but Hutch he aint, at least not yet, IMHO.

Enough time has gone by that Steve has begun ingratiated himself back into the hearts of some of us with his appearances on programs and making his way back to Seattle. While disappointed in how things turned out with him here, it is stupid to deny that he was one of the (if not the) best guards to ever play in the PNW. I would not say the same of JR, even if isolating to run-blocking.

The BEST block I saw from a receiver unfortunately drew a flag - anyone care to guess which play? I do agree with the premise that our WRs are very good blockers.

Golden Tate on Sean Lee vs. the Cowboys in 2013, although I don't think it drew a flag. He got fined.

I don't think that quote can be taken as absolutely literal, I think Cable was absolutey throwing some much needed weigh on the WR's side of the ledger but I also think the "It’s not from those goons up front" quote was equal parts giving his guys a hard time and (by extension) self depreciation.

Golden Tate on Sean Lee vs. the Cowboys in 2013, although I don't think it drew a flag. He got fined.

It was probably the best of the last 10 years, but Largents hit against the Denver DB was pretty good, too.

NorthHawk wrote:Golden Tate on Sean Lee vs. the Cowboys in 2013, although I don't think it drew a flag. He got fined.

It was probably the best of the last 10 years, but Largents hit against the Denver DB was pretty good, too.

Agreed, but that was a tackle not a block.

That's right, RD. And you are also right that it was a fine and not a penalty, I stand corrected. I thought it was a clean hit, but I "might" be biased for the Hawks and against the Cowgirls.

I agree with you, Bob. Just thought it was a lil over the top. But I love Cable, get what he was up to and support it.

FYI I was in attendance at both games of our WR block/tackle hits discussed above, ie Largent's de-cleating of Hardin and Tate's hit on Lee. Largent's was more enjoyable because it was payback and against our biggest rival at the time.

Hawk Sista wrote:That is a very interesting quote from Cable since I just watched him describe why JR Sweezy was one of the best run blocking guards in football today. He even compared him to Hutch. Now hold on just a tad.... how can both of those things be true? I understand making the point about our tough blocking wrs, but why dis 24 and the goons in the process, particularly after he just sang Sweezy's praises big time, with game tape and all.

With that comment, he seemed to be talking specifically about long runs, and why we have so many runs of 10+ yards. What separates the Hawks' run game is the number of explosive plays they generate, like the cherry on top of the sundae. The WRs are the cherries, and pointing them out doesn't dis Lynch or the OL, at least to me.

Largents hit was classic and beautiful, especially since it was not technically even a "play". Largent got no credit for the tackle, FF or the recovery, but I promise Harden remembered it the next time he went in for a cheap shot.

HumanCockroach wrote:Largents hit was classic and beautiful, especially since it was not technically even a "play". Largent got no credit for the tackle, FF or the recovery, but I promise Harden remembered it the next time he went in for a cheap shot.

Ii didn't consider Hardin's hit on Largent a cheap shot, at least not by the standards of the day, although Hardin did draw a fine, of which subsequently Largent offered to reimburse him for.

I think Roach's point was that Largent's hit was effectively payback for a cheap shot.

I understood the point. I was not talking about Largent's hit on Hardin earlier that same season in Denver, that I did not consider that hit a cheap shot. There were no rules at the time that would prohibit a defender from hitting a defenseless receiver in the head and neck area like there is today, so long as they didn't lead with the crown of their helmet, ie "spearing", which Hardin did not do, and thus did not draw a flag. If anyone was to blame, it was Dave Krieg. Quarterbacks were instructed to throw the ball at the receiver's knees, so they didn't stretch them out and expose them to hits such as Hardin's. Krieg strung out Largent and left him vulnerable.

Maybe I am misremember, I seem to remember Hardens crown hitting Largent in the facemask, breaking the mask and multiple teeth. At the time, I played and used my crown liberally, my immediate reaction was it was cheap and dirty, but I could be wrong. Was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

http://m.newsok.com/harden-fined-5000-f ... le/2240293

Sorry tried to find video, but all that came up was Largents hit, at least I remembered the FM and teeth. Hardin was fined 5k for the hit, during a time the NFL seldom fined players for hits, especially ones not flagged...

HumanCockroach wrote:Maybe I am misremember, I seem to remember Hardens crown hitting Largent in the facemask, breaking the mask and multiple teeth. At the time, I played and used my crown liberally, my immediate reaction was it was cheap and dirty, but I could be wrong. Was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

As I remember it, Largent chipped a tooth, not multiple teeth, but I get your point. He was on the ground for a long time, perhaps the longest of his career. I don't know if he returned that game, but I do know that it didn't cause him to miss a start.

I, too, cannot find a video of the hit and I am going off just memory of an event that happened some 25 years ago, but I do know that Hardin was not penalized for spearing. None of the announcers called it a cheap shot or felt that he should have been penalized, but the league did fine him, so I guess it's a push. All I can say is that at the time, I did not feel it was a cheap shot.

I think this is the harden hit to largent you are talking about right at the beginning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nlHt5TtWPw

Hawktown wrote:I think this is the harden hit to largent you are talking about right at the beginning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nlHt5TtWPw

Yup that's the one. I knew there was a good video out there of both hits, and Hardin's was absolutely a cheap shot (elbow's to the head were made illegal long before '88):

In the opening game of the 1988 season, Denver safety Mike Harden illegally hit Steve Largent with an elbow to the head. It left Largent unconscious with a concussion, cracking two of his teeth along with his facemask. Harden was subsequently fined $5,000.

http://espn.go.com/blog/seattle-seahawk ... evenge-hit

Hawktown wrote:I think this is the harden hit to largent you are talking about right at the beginning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nlHt5TtWPw

Yes, that's it! Thanks, Hawktown!

As you can see, Hardin did not lead with the crown of his helmet, to the contrary, it wouldn't have even been considered helmet-to-helmet. And as I recalled, Krieg should have thrown that pass much lower and not exposed his receiver.

I don't recall the forearm to the head as being illegal back in '88, Cbob. But they must have had some sort of grounds for fining Hardin, so I could be wrong. They certainly didn't call it very often, and didn't on that play. The announcers were not calling for a penalty or calling it a cheap shot, either, not that they're always right, and Chuck Knox did not mount a protest as he so often times did.

BTW, it brought back a lot of memories listening to Pete Gross's play-by-play. I used to turn down the volume of the TV and turn on the radio to hear his call vs. the network announcers. There's too much of a time delay between radio and TV to do the same thing nowadays.

HC, what you say?

From the "Evolution of the rules" on NFL.com:

1980
It is illegal for a player to strike, swing, or club an opponent in the head, neck, or face even if the initial contact is below the neck.

OK, I stand corrected.

Nevertheless, they did not call a penalty on that play, that I am sure of, and if my memory is longer than my manhood, there was no outrage, or if there was, a very muted one, from the Seahawk bench, which almost certainly would have ensued had they thought it was a cheap shot was taken on a teammate of theirs with Largent's status.

Not as I remembered, but to me at least, it looked like he targeted Largents head, still looks cheap to me, but I am not about to claim no one should feel differently. The elbow after the initial hit IMHO wasn't necessary, nor just a continuation of the initial hit. At no point is Harden looking at, or attempting to play the ball, so it still looks like a cheap shot to me, with the only intent to be to injure the receiver.

As someone that did indeed use my helmet a lot, I still feel it was a dirty hit, not saying I never did things simular, though I can honestly say I never did so with the intent to injure someone, and did not "add" to the initial hit. I have long been a staunch defender of the ability if defenders right to hit and intimidate opposing players, but to me, the added elbow shot, plus the intent took it way to far.

No problems if you feel opposite. Not like I am offended or disappointed in that view, and Hell after seeing it again, I am certainly not more convinced it was dirty, just haven't changed my opinion.

HumanCockroach wrote:Not as I remembered, but to me at least, it looked like he targeted Largents head, still looks cheap to me, but I am not about to claim no one should feel differently. The elbow after the initial hit IMHO wasn't necessary, nor just a continuation of the initial hit. At no point is Harden looking at, or attempting to play the ball, so it still looks like a cheap shot to me, with the only intent to be to injure the receiver.

As someone that did indeed use my helmet a lot, I still feel it was a dirty hit, not saying I never did things simular, though I can honestly say I never did so with the intent to injure someone, and did not "add" to the initial hit. I have long been a staunch defender of the ability if defenders right to hit and intimidate opposing players, but to me, the added elbow shot, plus the intent took it way to far.

No problems if you feel opposite. Not like I am offended or disappointed in that view, and Hell after seeing it again, I am certainly not more convinced it was dirty, just haven't changed my opinion.

OK, I can handle that. It's a matter of opinion. At least back then, I thought of cheap shots as being late hits after the whistle or out of bounds, but I can understand your logic. Back in my day, we used to be coached to take advantage of that extra step they used to give you and take a QB's head off ala James Harrison/Colt McCoy, and that influenced my opinion that Hardin's shot wasn't cheap. Nowadays, I would certainly call it cheap for the reasons you stated, but back then, plays like that one, even though it was technically illegal, was considered part of the game, which IMO is why a penalty wasn't called or a vehement protest lodged. I can remember being more pissed at Krieg for laying it out there like that than I was at Hardin for the hit. Krieg should have been aiming for Largent's knees.

IMHO I think the Hawks still need that WR who is in the top 10 in YPC and #number of passes caught. For one thing I don't like Wilson scrambling so much. We all know he can do it but I don't want to see him get hit hard. I'm afraid that while I have no complaints about the Hawks oline run blocking , they are not that good on pass plays that take more then 5 seconds. Then after our pass protection breaks down Wilson goes and scrambles we have no back up QB that can do what Wilson can do.
So in FA I want a good Oline man and a great WR.

politicalfootball wrote:IMHO I think the Hawks still need that WR who is in the top 10 in YPC and #number of passes caught.

I'm not sure that can even happen in Pete's offense. With the number of pass happy offenses around the league and the Hawks' run first style, I think this is an unrealistic bar for a good WR corps. Not saying that the Hawks are set right now--unless Pete uses Graham like he was in New Orleans, they probably could use more quality there--but I don't think that getting a top 10 WR is a good use of money for this team.

There already have had two of those guys, neither received the targets to do that, and that should not change IMHO.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:Offseason feel-good fluff, I suppose, but I like them getting some props. I know you guys know the receivers have to block well, but it is not typically seen unless you are watching game tape. Keep it up fellas!

http://espn.go.com/blog/seattle-seahawk ... nning-team

I would feel better if they were getting some separation instead of love........ And not taking any more craps in the end zones when half the Nation is watching.......