Page 1 of 1

Can we really replace Beast??

PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 10:28 pm
by obiken
Beast allowed us to have a mediocre OL, he allowed us to throw the ball with accuracy, he was a real leader.
We all think that RB by committee will replace him, and I am one of them, but could we be way off?
Rawls is hurt, CM is great against bad defenses, but falters against good teams, and can we survive RW running around? Just asking I am not bating. The guys on CSN here in Portland say no way, they predict 8-8. We'll see.

Re: Can we really replace Beast??

PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 10:48 pm
by FolkCrusader
I don't think it's really possible to replace a guy like Marshawn, but I think it's important to remember that he grew in to the role too. He had his struggles in Buffalo. He also struggled somewhat with Cable's system. Once he understood what Tom wanted and he realized he had all the physical skills needed to excel in that system, that's when we saw the real beast come out.

CM has shown some great maturity over the last year or so, now he gets to prove it. Rawls has already shown us what he has, he just needs his health and fitness to catch up. And honestly, if Procise gets the right carries - he looks explosive to me. I think it will be fun to watch.

Re: Can we really replace Beast??

PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:46 pm
by NorthHawk
Replace? No way. Can the Offense adapt and succeed without him? Absolutely.

I doubt anyone of us really knows Marshawn beyond what we read, but if you hear or read what team mates say about him, his presence is going to be missed.
Those iconic runs where he kept on pushing the pile or seemingly willed himself through tackles are something that can never be replaced. They energized the entire team often when it needed a lift.

Re: Can we really replace Beast??

PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:51 pm
by jshawaii22
You can expect the team to slowly move to 60/40 passes, with more screens and swings to the backs. All of the top 3 backs can catch and run.

I would expect less under center, too, but that part has more to do with the OLine then the running game.

Re: Can we really replace Beast??

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2016 5:19 am
by HumanCockroach
Considering that the runnning production actually went up not down last season without Lynch I would say the production will be there, the leadership is an entirely different matter...

Re: Can we really replace Beast??

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2016 6:16 am
by Hawktawk
We did.. at mid season. Rawls had 2 games in 7 starts with more yards than any game of Beasts career.

Look at risk of sounding ungrateful Beast hasn't been a part of the team since his abdominal wall surgery. He conducted his 8 week rehab in socal leading to the famous "at large" comment from PC.(Compare this with Rawls staying at the team facility the entire offseason to get rehab)
He refused to board the bus to Minnesota with no warning after eating the first team reps all week. Ill never believe it wasn't a factor in the offensive ineptitude and sleepwalking effort in the game. Then after a valiant effort in the subzero weather by C mike Lynch was again inserted into the starting lineup for Carolina where he was completely ineffective and combined with Wilson on a huge blown play and pick 6 right out of the gate.
I will always wonder what would have happened had Carroll not made the mistake of relying on the rusty Lynch vs Carolina and instead riding the hot hand and explosive athleticism of the rapidly improving CMike.

Don't misunderstand. I was at the Clink the day Beast was born vs the saints. He's our best ever RB and a HOF candidate IMO.
But the way he went out the door will always take a little bit of the shine off his luster for me.
Enjoy retirement and thanks for the overwhelming majority of the memories Beast Mode.
The Hawks will be fine.

Re: Can we really replace Beast??

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2016 6:43 am
by savvyman
The Answer to your Question?

NO

Re: Can we really replace Beast??

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:13 am
by RiverDog
savvyman wrote:The Answer to your Question?

NO


Yep. A big No.

Re: Can we really replace Beast??

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:24 am
by HawkandBalls
Hawktawk wrote:We did.. at mid season. Rawls had 2 games in 7 starts with more yards than any game of Beasts career.

Look at risk of sounding ungrateful Beast hasn't been a part of the team since his abdominal wall surgery. He conducted his 8 week rehab in socal leading to the famous "at large" comment from PC.(Compare this with Rawls staying at the team facility the entire offseason to get rehab)
He refused to board the bus to Minnesota with no warning after eating the first team reps all week. Ill never believe it wasn't a factor in the offensive ineptitude and sleepwalking effort in the game. Then after a valiant effort in the subzero weather by C mike Lynch was again inserted into the starting lineup for Carolina where he was completely ineffective and combined with Wilson on a huge blown play and pick 6 right out of the gate.
I will always wonder what would have happened had Carroll not made the mistake of relying on the rusty Lynch vs Carolina and instead riding the hot hand and explosive athleticism of the rapidly improving CMike.

Don't misunderstand. I was at the Clink the day Beast was born vs the saints. He's our best ever RB and a HOF candidate IMO.
But the way he went out the door will always take a little bit of the shine off his luster for me.
Enjoy retirement and thanks for the overwhelming majority of the memories Beast Mode.
The Hawks will be fine.



Could not have said it better myself.

Re: Can we really replace Beast??

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:33 am
by Hawktawk
Could not have said it better myself.[/quote]
Thanks Hawkandballs.

I'm usually on Hawktawk island but the only thing I shut down is conversations it seems.
I understand Beast was an emotional leader unlike anyone and his superhuman efforts in crunch time were what set him apart. My comments were directed at last season where he was pretty much ineffective playing hurt and then basically abandoned the team for 2 months in a playoff push. Then refusing to even travel to Minnesota? He could have at least been a decoy, a part of the game plan. That was not leadership. At the end the Beast did not lead like he always did before. I don't know why but it is undeniable
It was RW or Beast. It was time.

We will see. Sometimes you don't know what you have until its gone.

Re: Can we really replace Beast??

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2016 5:09 pm
by politicalfootball
Hawktawk wrote:We did.. at mid season. Rawls had 2 games in 7 starts with more yards than any game of Beasts career.

Look at risk of sounding ungrateful Beast hasn't been a part of the team since his abdominal wall surgery. He conducted his 8 week rehab in socal leading to the famous "at large" comment from PC.(Compare this with Rawls staying at the team facility the entire offseason to get rehab)
He refused to board the bus to Minnesota with no warning after eating the first team reps all week. Ill never believe it wasn't a factor in the offensive ineptitude and sleepwalking effort in the game. Then after a valiant effort in the subzero weather by C mike Lynch was again inserted into the starting lineup for Carolina where he was completely ineffective and combined with Wilson on a huge blown play and pick 6 right out of the gate.
I will always wonder what would have happened had Carroll not made the mistake of relying on the rusty Lynch vs Carolina and instead riding the hot hand and explosive athleticism of the rapidly improving CMike.

Don't misunderstand. I was at the Clink the day Beast was born vs the saints. He's our best ever RB and a HOF candidate IMO.
But the way he went out the door will always take a little bit of the shine off his luster for me.
Enjoy retirement and thanks for the overwhelming majority of the memories Beast Mode.
The Hawks will be fine.


Yeas Rawls is the answer and he will be able to handle the load and Micheals will give him a break off and on. :D :D :D :D :D :D

Re: Can we really replace Beast??

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2016 5:25 pm
by c_hawkbob
They're saying on the Kickoff Show that Marshawn is mulling coming back.

Re: Can we really replace Beast??

PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 8:36 am
by Hawktawk
No
Beast is finished. Please dont give us melodrama BM.
last year was tough to watch. The tank is empty.

Re: Can we really replace Beast??

PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 9:44 pm
by HumanCockroach
More Florio Draama... Nothing like good, solid, accurate reporting....

:lol:

Re: Can we really replace Beast??

PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 6:07 pm
by RiverDog
Hawktawk wrote: I'm usually on Hawktawk island but the only thing I shut down is conversations it seems.


Not always. I agree with you a lot. And if you shut down conversations, then shame on them. If a person's argument is so weak that someone like yourself can shut them down with a couple of typewritten words, then they deserve to be shut down.

Re: Can we really replace Beast??

PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 7:26 am
by monkey
Hawktawk wrote:We did.. at mid season. Rawls had 2 games in 7 starts with more yards than any game of Beasts career.

The Hawks will be fine.

Ding ding! Winner.

I expect this offense to be the best one we've ever had. Ever.
I expect that not because any of the running backs are necessarily better players than Lynch was, but because Rawls, Michael et all, are quicker to, and through the line of scrimmage, which better suits our play style, and because we've had to adapt, by changing the offensive scheme, to a quick throwing offense that will both help Wilson avoid sacks, and will shift the focus of the offense post Lynch, to a more Wilson oriented offense, that I believe will make the offense far more dynamic.
Add in the fact that our personnel is FAR superior, with guys like Lockett and Graham, and with a third down back in Procise who gives the offense more flexibility, and I believe that we are looking at the best offense the Seahawks have ever had, BY A COUNTRY MILE.

After we win the Super Bowl, those clowns making those ridiculous 8-8 predictions based on the loss of just one player (Who as Hawktawk accurately pointed out, we essentially already lost LAST YEAR), will look very foolish indeed.