HawkShack.com

Posted: **Wed Jul 06, 2016 9:07 pm**

https://medium.com/@RossRichendrfer/how-do-you-follow-an-earthquake-the-thomas-rawls-conundrum-291102069650#.8mxn5htxu
A very good article which proves that, Thomas Rawls doesn't have to be Beast Mode 2.0, to be good enough.
Personally, I am expecting HUGE things from Rawls this year. As long as the injury isn't one of those lingering things, or one of those things that sets him back in training camp, so he ends up missing stuff, and as to play catch up, he's going to be a top 5 RB this year, I think. But, he doesn't HAVE to, for the Seahawks run game to be good enough for the team to be a Super Bowl contender.
Which is nice to know.

Posted: **Wed Jul 06, 2016 9:24 pm**

Rawls already has an NFL rookie record and 2 games with rushing yards better than any in Beast Modes entire career in like 7 career starts. Its not sacrilege, its a fact.

My fear is Rawls ankle will not be the same. If it is he will lead the league in rushing. If not Micheal may be starting. I'm rooting hard for option A.If Rawls is ready and plays 16 games Seattle may not lose.

Posted: **Sun Jul 10, 2016 8:44 pm**

Hawktawk wrote:
My fear is Rawls ankle will not be the same. If it is he will lead the league in rushing. If not Micheal may be starting. I'm rooting hard for option A.If Rawls is ready and plays 16 games Seattle may not lose.

Today Rawls said that he will for sure be ready for training camp.
http://www.fieldgulls.com/2016/7/10/12142210/seahawks-rb-thomas-rawls-says-hell-be-full-go-by-start-of-training

I don't know about y'all, but man that gets me excited!
Choo choo! Thomas the Train is back on track 12.

Posted: **Mon Jul 11, 2016 1:14 am**

Rawls is faster than Lynch, but he's not a strong. For our blocking scheme he's ideal because he needs a quick hole not a huge one. I'll think he'll be fine.

Posted: **Mon Jul 11, 2016 3:21 pm**

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZE1d_scQvg

I posted this in another thread, but it belongs here. Ladies & gentlemen, our RBOTF

Posted: **Tue Jul 12, 2016 10:58 am**

monkey wrote:Today Rawls said that he will for sure be ready for training camp.
http://www.fieldgulls.com/2016/7/10/12142210/seahawks-rb-thomas-rawls-says-hell-be-full-go-by-start-of-training

I don't know about y'all, but man that gets me excited!
Choo choo! Thomas the Train is back on track 12.

Great news, indeed!

And yes, despite my reservations about the status of our OL, I'm VERY excited about the upcoming season, too. Always am.

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2016 9:55 am**

[quote="obiken"]Rawls is faster than Lynch, but he's not a strong. For our blocking scheme he's ideal because he needs a quick hole not a huge one. I'll think he'll be fine.[/quote

Not too many guys are as strong as the Beast was but Rawls isnt weak by any means. I saw him level a few people when he had to. MOF the play he got hurt on he was playing die hard with about 4 guys when he got his ankle rolled up on. If the schwerve is still there the guy may lead the league in rushing.

If he plays like that for 10 years hes going to have HOF credentials and the Hawks are going to have a lot more hardware. I'm drooling at the mouth with the potential of this franchise.

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2016 12:34 pm**

Hawktawk wrote:Not too many guys are as strong as the Beast was but Rawls isnt weak by any means. I saw him level a few people when he had to. MOF the play he got hurt on he was playing die hard with about 4 guys when he got his ankle rolled up on. If the schwerve is still there the guy may lead the league in rushing.

If he plays like that for 10 years hes going to have HOF credentials and the Hawks are going to have a lot more hardware. I'm drooling at the mouth with the potential of this franchise.

IMO there are a lot of running backs with Beast's strength. What made him different was his wide legged running style, so he was better balanced and in a better position to take shots without getting knocked off his feet. That and of course, his motor, which was second to none.

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2016 3:50 pm**

I totally agree with RD, beast had uncanny balance...

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2016 6:07 pm**

I too agree that he had uncanny balance, (that's inarguable), because of his wide stance. I agree also that his tenacity was second to none.
I don't agree that there are "a lot of running backs with Beast's strength".
Name one. Seriously, name just one. I cannot think of one running back as strong as Marshawn, not one playing at the time he played anyway.
Adrian Peterson is the closest. He is an incredibly strong athlete. But Marshawn is BRUTALLY strong.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:09 am**

monkey wrote:I too agree that he had uncanny balance, (that's inarguable), because of his wide stance. I agree also that his tenacity was second to none.
I don't agree that there are "a lot of running backs with Beast's strength".
Name one. Seriously, name just one. I cannot think of one running back as strong as Marshawn, not one playing at the time he played anyway.
Adrian Peterson is the closest. He is an incredibly strong athlete. But Marshawn is BRUTALLY strong.

Perhaps I overstated it by saying "a lot" of RB's have Beast's strength. My point is that it wasn't Beast's strength that made him great. I'd place his strength down the list of those attributes that made him great, below his balance and his motor. But to answer your question...Eddie Lacy is IMO every bit as strong as Beast. Same height (5'11), same speed (4.44), but significantly heavier (234 vs 215). More than any other back currently playing, Lacy is the one that reminds me the most of Beast.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 9:43 am**

I think you are forgetting about his vision.
All great RBs have it, but all he needed to do was move a little so the defender couldn't get a clean shot and his power could pull him out of many a tackle.
For a bruising Running Back, he had a lot of subtleties to his play which in my mind differentiates him from other great power backs. It's a rare combination to have power, vision, agility, and patience.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:10 pm**

RiverDog wrote:.Eddie Lacy is IMO every bit as strong as Beast. Same height (5'11), same speed (4.44), but significantly heavier (234 vs 215). More than any other back currently playing, Lacy is the one that reminds me the most of Beast.

Interesting. No offense meant but, I couldn't disagree more strongly.
Lacy is a fat, slow, wannabe Jerome Bettis with not even half the talent. He's not even in Marshawn's league in terms of strength, and run power. The league is littered with guys who run harder and weigh less than the grossly overrated Lacy.
He reminds me nothing whatsoever of Lynch. The last player to truly remind me of Lynch was the Cowboys Marion Barber. The biggest difference was, Marshawn was faster, and stayed healthier longer.
It's all good though

We can disagree on this.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 5:54 pm**

http://www.nfl.com/player/eddielacy/2540168/careerstats

http://www.nfl.com/player/marshawnlynch ... areerstats

Interesting, when looking for the back currently playing most similar to Lynch, I ALWAYS point to Lacy ( though to be fair, it's the productive Lacy, not the plodding two tons of fun version the Pack rolled out last season).

Their running styles are incredibly similar, power, refusal to go down etc. That isn't an insult to Lynch, as Lacy isn't even approaching his production or success, that doesn't remove the similarities.

Lacy was fantastic his rookie year, and followed that with an impressive sophomore season. The only thing holding Lacy back is Lacy, the talent is undeniable, and from all reports he's lost a ton of that fat. Whether he approaches Lynch is a question, however in two of his three seasons he's rushed for more than 1100 yards.

I'm not dismissing Lynch in any way, just find those knocks so far out of whack as to say something. You don't GET to the NFL being fat, slow and lazy, and if you become that way you're on a one way ticket the hell out of the league fast.

Lacy has weight concerns, but until last season, it didn't in any way limit his success ( anymore than Lynch chronic back pain). Even last season was a "productive" if unspectacular year with nearly 800 yards rushing in a limited role.

Posted: **Sun Jul 17, 2016 4:35 am**

monkey wrote:Interesting. No offense meant but, I couldn't disagree more strongly.
Lacy is a fat, slow, wannabe Jerome Bettis with not even half the talent. He's not even in Marshawn's league in terms of strength, and run power. The league is littered with guys who run harder and weigh less than the grossly overrated Lacy.
He reminds me nothing whatsoever of Lynch. The last player to truly remind me of Lynch was the Cowboys Marion Barber. The biggest difference was, Marshawn was faster, and stayed healthier longer.
It's all good though We can disagree on this.

As a rookie, Eddie Lacy was timed in the 40 from 4.44-4.59. That's not slow by any means. Heck, Russell Wilson's 40 time was only 4.55 (although straight ahead speed isn't Russell's long suit), so for a power back like Lacy to have that kind of speed is significant. Beast's 40 time was in the same neighborhood. Besides, the main point we were arguing about wasn't Lacy's speed, it was about his strength. You asked me to name a player that had equal body strength to Beast's and I submitted Eddie Lacy, and I still stand by that comparison.

And yes, we certainly can disagree. I have a healthy respect for your opinion and one disagreement won't change that.

Posted: **Sun Jul 17, 2016 6:34 am**

I had sort of forgotten that Lacy could run in his rookie year...it's been long enough of watching him get vastly overrated every year, and every year failing to measure up, because the guy is constantly out of shape, since his rookie season, that I'd forgotten about how he was highly thought of as a collegiate runner at Bama.
Personally I see him just like I do Ron Dane, and all those Wisconsin RB's who tear it up in college and fail in the pro's. Bama has become the new Wisconsin in that way, turning out back after back who don't live up to expectations in the NFL.
Whatever though, big and strong he is. So I guess I will concede the point Riv.

But only so far! I'll say that Lacy has similar traits to Marshawn in that he is strong, and just leave it at that.

Posted: **Sun Jul 17, 2016 8:22 am**

HumanCockroach wrote:http://www.nfl.com/player/eddielacy/2540168/careerstats

http://www.nfl.com/player/marshawnlynch ... areerstats

Interesting, when looking for the back currently playing most similar to Lynch, I ALWAYS point to Lacy ( though to be fair, it's the productive Lacy, not the plodding two tons of fun version the Pack rolled out last season).

Their running styles are incredibly similar, power, refusal to go down etc. That isn't an insult to Lynch, as Lacy isn't even approaching his production or success, that doesn't remove the similarities.

Lacy was fantastic his rookie year, and followed that with an impressive sophomore season. The only thing holding Lacy back is Lacy, the talent is undeniable, and from all reports he's lost a ton of that fat. Whether he approaches Lynch is a question, however in two of his three seasons he's rushed for more than 1100 yards.

I'm not dismissing Lynch in any way, just find those knocks so far out of whack as to say something. You don't GET to the NFL being fat, slow and lazy, and if you become that way you're on a one way ticket the hell out of the league fast.

Lacy has weight concerns, but until last season, it didn't in any way limit his success ( anymore than Lynch chronic back pain). Even last season was a "productive" if unspectacular year with nearly 800 yards rushing in a limited role.

Agreed - When I saw Lacy running in the two games I watched in his rookie year I immediately thought of Beastmode - I also pictured John Schneider slapping his forehead and going "How did we miss this one?"

Posted: **Sun Jul 17, 2016 10:46 am**

OK, so, I'll give you Lacy,

(it's really subjective isn't it) and say he's got enough similarities to Marshawn to be a fair comparison (though with a LOT less talent than Lynch!), but then you have to give me this one.

Thomas Rawls = Curt Warner

I'll just post this here, as it's good, related to Rawls, and is what reminded me of the similarities between those two again. (I've often thought Rawls should wear #28.)
http://www.fieldgulls.com/2016/7/17/12187034/curt-warner-thomas-rawls-seahawks-running-back-rookies-injury-ypa-dvoa

Posted: **Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:30 am**

I have little issue with that comparison. Both go 0 to 60 in 1 second flat.

Posted: **Sun Jul 17, 2016 2:05 pm**

monkey wrote:OK, so, I'll give you Lacy, (it's really subjective isn't it) and say he's got enough similarities to Marshawn to be a fair comparison (though with a LOT less talent than Lynch!), but then you have to give me this one.

Thomas Rawls = Curt Warner

I'll just post this here, as it's good, related to Rawls, and is what reminded me of the similarities between those two again. (I've often thought Rawls should wear #28.)
http://www.fieldgulls.com/2016/7/17/12187034/curt-warner-thomas-rawls-seahawks-running-back-rookies-injury-ypa-dvoa

Unfortunately I remember Curt Warner. He was never the same after his injury. But before his injury? He had the most wicked cut move of any running back that I can recall.

Posted: **Sun Jul 17, 2016 4:42 pm**

I've never thought of the Rawls-Warner comparison. It's been so long ago since I watched a healthy Curt Warner that I've lost my frame of reference. But I agree with Savvy. Prior to his knee injury, Warner was an awesome running back. Similar to my thoughts about Gale Sayers, Joe Namath, et al, I often wonder what he would have done had he the benefit of 21st century knee surgery procedures. Adrian Peterson can count his lucky stars that he played when he did.

Posted: **Sun Jul 17, 2016 5:47 pm**

Always thought that cut was LT before LT. Never was as explosive after the ACL, which was a shame. Honestly felt he would end up in the HOF watching him play that first season.

Posted: **Wed Jul 27, 2016 11:53 pm**

IMO, Rawls is the biggest x-factor for this season.

The OL needed the overhaul it received. A healthy, explosive RB, will help offset the pressure they'll be facing in a big way, especially during the first few games.

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 8:29 am**

[quote="savvyman

Unfortunately I remember Curt Warner. He was never the same after his injury. But before his injury? He had the most wicked cut move of any running back that I can recall.[/quote]

Well Oj Simpson had some pretty good cut moves too, on and unfortunately off the field. The Hawks signed a veteran lineman whose name escapes me who had blocked for the juice in buffalo. He said Warner had the moves but didn't quite have the same speed..
Lynch is the greatest Hawks back ever.#2 SA, #3 Warner #4 ?

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 8:36 am**

Zorn76 wrote:IMO, Rawls is the biggest x-factor for this season.

The OL needed the overhaul it received. A healthy, explosive RB, will help offset the pressure they'll be facing in a big way, especially during the first few games.

Rawls at 100% is going to be key like you said early as the OL might be completely different from last year and it takes a while for that group to learn to work together as a single unit, not to mention any rookies suffering from learning curve issues.

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 10:09 am**

Reggie McKenzie Zorn.

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 12:54 pm**

Hawktawk wrote:Well Oj Simpson had some pretty good cut moves too, on and unfortunately off the field. The Hawks signed a veteran lineman whose name escapes me who had blocked for the juice in buffalo. He said Warner had the moves but didn't quite have the same speed..
Lynch is the greatest Hawks back ever.#2 SA, #3 Warner #4 ?

Yea, Reggie McKenzie was part of the Electric Company, because they turned on The Juice. The best player in that utility was Joe Delamiliere (sp.).

As far as your rankings go, I agree. SA has to be ahead of Warner because of his longevity and Warner's diminished ability after his injury, otherwise I'd rank Warner #2. As a matter of fact, I'd probably have to drop Warner to #4 below Chris Warren.

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 4:21 pm**

Rawls and Graham not participating in the first practice.
Don't know if it's just an abundance of caution or not.

Posted: **Fri Jul 29, 2016 6:47 am**

Bummer. Hopefully it is just caution.
Imagine if Warner or Warren had been able to run behind SA's line. Beast Mode for that matter. :shock:

Warner was never as explosive after his injury but he was still pretty good. He had several seasons over 1000 yards, quite remarkable considering the nature of the injury and medical practices at that time.

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 11:27 am**

NorthHawk wrote:Rawls and Graham not participating in the first practice.
Don't know if it's just an abundance of caution or not.

I missed this last week...

I'm not sure I'd even characterize it as an abundance of caution: I don't think *anybody* expected either of them to be participating at all the first week or two of TC- at least I haven't seen anyone say it.

What they have said is that they (one or both?) are expected to be ready by week 1 of the regular season.

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:14 pm**

Based on what I've been reading so this camp, and how he played since he re-joined the Hawks last year, I predict CMike will have a bigger year than Rawls in keeping our running game going. Everything I've read reflects his maturing attitude and his commitment to being the player the Seahawks saw when they used their top pick on him. Physically, he's never had a problem...it's mostly been what's between his ears where the problem has been. If he can take where he was at the end of last year, and continue to develop even a little bit of Marshawn's uncanny ability to withstand the initial tackle (and more), I can see him carrying this team along with Wilson. But I admit, I've always been high on CMike, so I could be totally wrong ;P

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:55 pm**

I saw an article where they said that Graham wasn't practicing but they didn't say anything about Rawls. It's still a little early to worry about them not being ready to go by September.

HawkShack.com

How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum

Re: How do you follow an earthquake? The Rawls conundrum