tarlhawk wrote:Perhaps Noah Fant will be the "security" for Drew Lock...that Tyler Lockett was for Russell Wilson?
Hawktawk wrote:All the analysis assume the player is healthy . Who knows about Penney or anyone else next year .
NorthHawk wrote:I heard some comments from Denver fans suggesting Fant dropped more passes than he should have.
Maybe it was some sour grapes, but with our QB situation it can’t become anywhere near common.
Hawktawk wrote:All the analysis assume the player is healthy . Who knows about Penney or anyone else next year .
NorthHawk wrote:All the analysis assume the player is healthy . Who knows about Penney or anyone else next year .
Well in that case, Prosise would have been given an All Pro designation.
Availability absolutely has to be considered or evaluations are pretty much worthless.
Procise ? That’s absurd . He’s never been half the talent to begin with and never put together a stretch of games like Penney who has 7 games of 100+ yards in 6 starts and picking up the scraps from Carson .3 of them Are over 130 , one was 175 and one was 190.
tarlhawk wrote:“Folks are usually about as happy as they make their minds up to be.”
― Abraham Lincoln
“Those who look for the bad in people will surely find it.”
― Abraham Lincoln
“And in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years.”
― Abraham Lincoln
What is the benefit of unbalanced criticism...finding "dirt" on someone somehow elevates ones happiness? When the focus is a troubled past (injury/misfortune/poor opportunity) as if you are tethered to your past only discourages hope...what purpose?
Aseahawkfan wrote:It has nothing to do with being unhappy. I don't know why you continue to frame analysis in an emotional manner as some kind of deflection because you don't want to analyze injury history. I guarantee you the scouts, GM, and the coaches analyze injury history when evaluating players. It's a huge part of roster management.
Hawktalk wrote:Procise ? That’s absurd . He’s never been half the talent to begin with and never put together a stretch of games like Penney who has 7 games of 100+ yards in 6 starts and picking up the scraps from Carson .3 of them Are over 130 , one was 175 and one was 190.
NorthHawk wrote:Procise showed like Penny. When he was healthy he had great flashes. That's why he lasted so long on the team, but like Penny he was always injured. Penny is exactly the same way. And he can't be trusted to complete any season and at 26 he's getting old for a RB who has never really done much in the NFL.
It's why he's on a one year prove-it contract and not signed longer term.
tarlhawk wrote:I have two differing opinions with Procise and Pennys 1 year extension. Procise indeed had "flashes" but Rashaad Penny was a break out back who did things consistently with explosive play after explosive play...not mere flashes.
Point number two is the 1 yr extension is similar to the pay he would have gotten if we had picked up his 5th year option (which was indeed not picked up because a 5th yr is FULLY Guaranteed and he needed to prove he could be counted on as THE back in 2021 without injury)
Penny and Sidney were both given 1 year contracts despite both showing the skills that got them drafted in the first place...not "prove it deals" but deals to help our minimal 2022 cap space (2022 still impacted by 26 million "dead money" *which counts against 2022 cap* from RW's contract since the Broncos weren't asked to pay for any of it) 2023 cap will allow some multi year contracts should both perform as expected.
Aseahawkfan wrote:It would be real nice if Penny has a second coming. Gonna make him real expensive on a one year contract and he does prove he can go. But at the moment I'm glad the team is being cautious with the contract even though it might cost them next year trying to re-sign him. The reality it is more likely that Penny's six games was an anomaly, but hell, I'd take Penny just being a very solid 1000 yard rusher platoon back. That would keep the run game on time and regular. I don't need Penny to maintain last year's pace. I want to see the kid stay healthy, be consistently productive, and have a good career for 4 or 5 years. Make his money and help the Seahawks win. Win-win situation. He's gotta make sure he's ready and conditioned for the NFL. I hope he realizes how hard it is to have an NFL career and how hard he is going to have to work to just to be a good back, much less an amazing back.
tarlhawk wrote:I have two differing opinions with Procise and Pennys 1 year extension. Procise indeed had "flashes" but Rashaad Penny was a break out back who did things consistently with explosive play after explosive play...not mere flashes.
Point number two is the 1 yr extension is similar to the pay he would have gotten if we had picked up his 5th year option (which was indeed not picked up because a 5th yr is FULLY Guaranteed and he needed to prove he could be counted on as THE back in 2021 without injury)
Penny and Sidney were both given 1 year contracts despite both showing the skills that got them drafted in the first place...not "prove it deals" but deals to help our minimal 2022 cap space (2022 still impacted by 26 million "dead money" *which counts against 2022 cap* from RW's contract since the Broncos weren't asked to pay for any of it) 2023 cap will allow some multi year contracts should both perform as expected.
RiverDog wrote:Depending on how Walker produces, it's likely going to be a tag team operation between Penny and Walker, similar to how the Browns rotate between Nick Chubb and Kareem Hunt. Given Penny's injury history and suspect blocking, limiting his work load to 12-15 touches a game would make a ton of sense. It also gives us the option of playing the hot hand, play which ever RB is having the best success at the time.
But who's carrying the rock is just one part of the equation. There's lots of question marks on the OL, including the prospect of starting two rookies at tackle. And if the defense struggles, it could force us to abandon the running game early.
It's going to be an interesting season, at least to start out with.
RiverDog wrote:Depending on how Walker produces, it's likely going to be a tag team operation between Penny and Walker, similar to how the Browns rotate between Nick Chubb and Kareem Hunt. Given Penny's injury history and suspect blocking, limiting his work load to 12-15 touches a game would make a ton of sense. It also gives us the option of playing the hot hand, play which ever RB is having the best success at the time.
But who's carrying the rock is just one part of the equation. There's lots of question marks on the OL, including the prospect of starting two rookies at tackle. And if the defense struggles, it could force us to abandon the running game early.
It's going to be an interesting season, at least to start out with.
Aseahawkfan wrote:If you're going to get things going in the right direction during a year with low expectations, you don't abandon the run game. You keep grinding so your tackles and backs can learn. I think Pete is fairly disciplined about sticking with the plan even if losing big as he knows he's building for the future and wants to keep the game plan to see if they're meshing by the second half of the season.
I expect to keep grinding regardless of how other units are doing. Pete knows what it takes to get a team to mesh and test the talent. He won't turn desperate if it starts off slow in the first half with the rooks. He don't have the QBs to get desperate anyway. I'm pretty certain he knows that. If the run game isn't working, he isn't going to be able to rely on Lock and Smith to take over games like he could Wilson.
RiverDog wrote:If you're down 21-0 in the 2nd half, you're not going to keep pounding the rock. The game situation will drive play calling.
RiverDog wrote:If you're down 21-0 in the 2nd half, you're not going to keep pounding the rock. The game situation will drive play calling.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Pete will keep pounding the rock.
The game situation only dictates play calling if you have the personnel for that to work, which we don't and won't next year.
I disagree. I think the stats will bear it out should we be in that situation next year. We will keep an eye on it.
RiverDog wrote:No, he won't. Pete's stubborn, but he's not that stubborn. No NFL coach is going to stick with his original game plan if he's down 3 TD's in the 2nd half.
I will say that Pete Ball calls for keeping games close with good defense and running the ball, so there wasn't a lot of situations where he had to venture away from his game plan. I think that at one point, we set an NFL record for the most consecutive games where we didn't lose by more than 10 points, which is a tribute to his philosophy.
But that was then. We don't have a top 5 defense like Pete had for the first half of his tenure here. He's not going to be able to stuff the ball down the throats of his opponents like he used to. IMO he's going to be forced to open it up.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Then we have a gentleman's bet, because I've seen us be down by 21 points and keep on pounding the rock in the early years. Why? We didn't have the capability to do anything else.
NorthHawk wrote:The Titan's OL is far superior to the Seahawks. There's absolutely no comparison.
As well, Tannehill is a much better QB than either of ours so the threat to pass was still there.
RiverDog wrote:You didn't see very many games with us down 3 TD's in the 2nd half in those early years because it never happened. From 2011-2014, we set an all time NFL record by playing 46 consecutive games without losing by more than 8 points:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Seahawks/comme ... ut_losing/
So unless you're talking about Pete's first season in 2010, it didn't happen. That streak was mostly a byproduct of our top 5 defenses and what allowed Pete to play as conservative of an offense as he did in those early years. We no longer have a defense anywhere close to as good as those early teams had, so I guarantee you that if Pete finds himself down by 3 TD's in the 2nd half, like any other NFL coach, he's going to do what it takes to win that game and will throw his game plan out the window. He won't continue to pound the rock just out of pure stubbornness.
But I'll gladly take your gentleman's bet.
Aseahawkfan wrote:It was Pete's first year here. It's been that long. And it was our top 5 defense and brutal run game that kept the games close. You don't give up on run games because there is no better way to keep the opposing offense off the field than to run the ball. Passing gets to 3 and out real quick with no clock used.
The reason Pete likes a run game is not because of Pete Ball like some people like to call it. It's the strategy of most defensive coaches because a run game is the best way to play defense on offense. Eat clock, grind yards, sustain drives, keep the opposing offense off the field. That's why I don't think Pete will give up on the run game. He has to get it going as it is part of his overall team strategy.
So how exactly are we deciding how this bet gets settled? How many times does Pete have to run when down substantially to not be considered as abandoning the run game?
RiverDog wrote:I think you're memory is a bit faulty.
First of all, we did not have a top 5 defense in 2010. We were ranked 27th in the league in yards allowed per game.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/stats/team/_/v ... s/dir/desc
Secondly, the games that we lost big we did not run the ball much. Here's the list of all the games we lost in 2010, all of which were by at least 2 TD's, and our run/pass ratio:
At Oakland, 33-3 loss: 32 passing attempts, 19 rushing attempts.
Vs. NY Giants, 41-7 loss: 23 passing attempts, 14 rushing attempts.
At Denver, 31-14 loss: 35 passing attempts, 20 rushing attempts.
At StL Rams, 20-3 loss: 37 passing attempts, 24 rushing attempts.
At New Orleans, 34-19 loss: 44 passing attempts, 17 rushing attempts.
Vs. Kansas City, 42-24 loss: 37 passing attempts, 12 rushing attempts.
At San Francisco, 40-21 loss: 42 passing attempts, 22 rushing attempts.
Vs. Atlanta, 34-18 loss: 33 passing attempts, 21 rushing attempts.
At Tampa Bay, 38-15 loss: 22 passing attempts, 28 rushing attempts.
The only game that would fit your theory is the loss against Tampa Bay, and in it, 4 of those running attempts were quarterbacks, so it's actually a little over a 50/50 split.
And lastly, in 2010, we ranked 31st in the league in total rushing yards, 28th in total rushing attempts:
https://www.espn.com/nfl/stats/team/_/v ... s/dir/desc
Pete was not pounding the rock in 2010, and by 2011, he'd built a top 10 defense whereby he never trailed by much.
RiverDog wrote:I think you're memory is a bit faulty.
First of all, we did not have a top 5 defense in 2010. We were ranked 27th in the league in yards allowed per game.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/stats/team/_/v ... s/dir/desc
Secondly, the games that we lost big we did not run the ball much. Here's the list of all the games we lost in 2010, all of which were by at least 2 TD's, and our run/pass ratio:
At Oakland, 33-3 loss: 32 passing attempts, 19 rushing attempts.
Vs. NY Giants, 41-7 loss: 23 passing attempts, 14 rushing attempts.
At Denver, 31-14 loss: 35 passing attempts, 20 rushing attempts.
At StL Rams, 20-3 loss: 37 passing attempts, 24 rushing attempts.
At New Orleans, 34-19 loss: 44 passing attempts, 17 rushing attempts.
Vs. Kansas City, 42-24 loss: 37 passing attempts, 12 rushing attempts.
At San Francisco, 40-21 loss: 42 passing attempts, 22 rushing attempts.
Vs. Atlanta, 34-18 loss: 33 passing attempts, 21 rushing attempts.
At Tampa Bay, 38-15 loss: 22 passing attempts, 28 rushing attempts.
The only game that would fit your theory is the loss against Tampa Bay, and in it, 4 of those running attempts were quarterbacks, so it's actually a little over a 50/50 split.
And lastly, in 2010, we ranked 31st in the league in total rushing yards, 28th in total rushing attempts:
https://www.espn.com/nfl/stats/team/_/v ... s/dir/desc
Pete was not pounding the rock in 2010, and by 2011, he'd built a top 10 defense whereby he never trailed by much.
Aseahawkfan wrote:What do you mean fit my theory? You haven't even come up with the criteria for what you consider abandoning the run. Come up with the criteria for what you consider abandoning the run. I think he will still run the ball even if we're down substantially.
I'm not talking about that first year. I'm talking in general. The run game is necessary for a defensive team. Pete likes to run the ball because it is a defensive strategy. The first year is irrelevant.
Just come up with the criteria for us to settle this bet. You almost always have more passing attempts than rushing attempts. But what's your expectation for the ratio if we get down? 0 rushing? 2/3 passing to 1/3 rushing? What is the criteria?
Right now we're at the point where you think I'm saying he's going to run more than pass which I am not and I'm thinking you're saying if we get down he will completely abandon the run game and not run at all. I'm not sure you're thinking that either.
So what is the criteria you're looking at?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests