Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Week 4: Seattle Seahawks @ St. Louis Sheep
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 31, 32, 33
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Seattle Seahawks
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
outside_Insider


Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 1216
Location: Calgary, AB
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=577&a=9946961&p=3&n=

Warren Moon is a RW believer.

RW asked him for criticism and told him, but he also said that RW can handle A LOT more than they are giving him. "Open it up".

I'd recommend listening to the whole interview. The criticism was that his first move when he feels pressure is to climb the pocket, and if he needs to scramble, to go up the middle. OLB's are too fast to have the first move be outside the pocket.
_________________


"We all we got, we all we need"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JOEJOE


Joined: 30 Aug 2011
Posts: 695
Location: 'DrunkMode' in Playersville
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tooki wrote:
JOEJOE wrote:
Tooki wrote:


Although, would the OL and OC duties be too much work for him?



That's a good question, I would have to say no, reason being that our offensive game plan is so closely tied to our running game, who else would know how to exploit match ups better than Cable?

I hate Bevell, but I'm not a big fan of Cable being our OC either. I just wish Pete would get a hold of this situation and tell Bevell this is a 'RUNNING TEAM' not a passing team...

This game will stick with me for the entire year, (not taking anything away from the Rams), but we should have won this game with no problems....


True true.

Although if Bevell calls the pass plays and Cable calls the run plays, then Pete must be making the call on if it's a pass or run. (Otherwise, we would have two co-ordinators arguing on what play we should run).

If that is so, some of the blame must fall upon Pete. There have been situations where we have questioned that the play should have been a run, or vice versa.



I agree, I don't like the situation that our offense is in at this point.. There should only be one man calling the plays from the sideline, not two...

The only thing I can think of that would explain what Pete is doing in regards of Bevell & Cable, is telling both coaches that Bevell has the play calling powers and will only refer to Cable for the running plays..
_________________
Adopt-a-Hawk

Bruce Irvin= Sacks: 4-1/2, Tackles: 5, FF: 1

Golden Tate= Rec: 10, Yds: 144, Avg: 14.4, TD: 3


Last edited by JOEJOE on Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sacks98


Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 3834
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

outside_Insider wrote:
http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=577&a=9946961&p=3&n=

Warren Moon is a RW believer.

RW asked him for criticism and told him, but he also said that RW can handle A LOT more than they are giving him. "Open it up".

I'd recommend listening to the whole interview. The criticism was that his first move when he feels pressure is to climb the pocket, and if he needs to scramble, to go up the middle. OLB's are too fast to have the first move be outside the pocket.


Sounds like Moon isn't a big fan of or OC either lol.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
outside_Insider


Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 1216
Location: Calgary, AB
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As I recall, Cable was calling plays for Oakland when he was Head coach. I remember their offense actually being pretty good.
_________________


"We all we got, we all we need"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
klyon7634


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 11422
Location: New York
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

outside_Insider wrote:
http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=577&a=9946961&p=3&n=

Warren Moon is a RW believer.

RW asked him for criticism and told him, but he also said that RW can handle A LOT more than they are giving him. "Open it up".

I'd recommend listening to the whole interview. The criticism was that his first move when he feels pressure is to climb the pocket, and if he needs to scramble, to go up the middle. OLB's are too fast to have the first move be outside the pocket.


I like the Criticism Moon gave him. Now lets see if he listens to it!!
_________________


Seahawks~ Yankees~ Knicks~ Syracuse Orange


#JDI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tooki


Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 10664
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

JOEJOE wrote:
Tooki wrote:
JOEJOE wrote:
Tooki wrote:


Although, would the OL and OC duties be too much work for him?



That's a good question, I would have to say no, reason being that our offensive game plan is so closely tied to our running game, who else would know how to exploit match ups better than Cable?

I hate Bevell, but I'm not a big fan of Cable being our OC either. I just wish Pete would get a hold of this situation and tell Bevell this is a 'RUNNING TEAM' not a passing team...

This game will stick with me for the entire year, (not taking anything away from the Rams), but we should have won this game with no problems....


True true.

Although if Bevell calls the pass plays and Cable calls the run plays, then Pete must be making the call on if it's a pass or run. (Otherwise, we would have two co-ordinators arguing on what play we should run).

If that is so, some of the blame must fall upon Pete. There have been situations where we have questioned that the play should have been a run, or vice versa.



I agree, I don't like the situation that our offense is in at this point.. There should only be one man calling the plays from the sideline, not two...

The only thing I can think of that would explain what Pete is doing in regards of Bevell & Cable, is telling both coaches that Bevell has the play calling powers and will only refer to Cable for the running plays..


I agree. The situation that you suggested could also be plausible.

Pete needs to go for one or the other though. Having 2 playcallers on O is stupid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JOEJOE


Joined: 30 Aug 2011
Posts: 695
Location: 'DrunkMode' in Playersville
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheOsprey wrote:


You cannot be serious? 16, 7, 12 and 13. That is the point totals we've accumulated in each game this year. If not for the defense, we should be 0-4. I don't know what standard you go by, but to me, you need at least 20 points in a game, to have a good chance at winning. We haven't reached that once!

We are facing a bad defense this week, especially in the secondary. If Wilson can't lead us to at least 20 points this week against the Panthers, he's gotta sit the bench.



Re-check those numbers Osprey, We scored 27 against the Cowboys, and 14 vs. Green Bay.... and as I have already stated Wilson has faced 4 really good defenses so far...
_________________
Adopt-a-Hawk

Bruce Irvin= Sacks: 4-1/2, Tackles: 5, FF: 1

Golden Tate= Rec: 10, Yds: 144, Avg: 14.4, TD: 3
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheOsprey


Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 7568
Location: In a van, down by the river.
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JOEJOE wrote:
TheOsprey wrote:


You cannot be serious? 16, 7, 12 and 13. That is the point totals we've accumulated in each game this year. If not for the defense, we should be 0-4. I don't know what standard you go by, but to me, you need at least 20 points in a game, to have a good chance at winning. We haven't reached that once!

We are facing a bad defense this week, especially in the secondary. If Wilson can't lead us to at least 20 points this week against the Panthers, he's gotta sit the bench.



Re-check those numbers Osprey, We scored 27 against the Cowboys, and 14 vs. Green Bay.... and as I have already stated Wilson has faced 4 really good defenses so far...


My bad. I have no memory anymore, so I looked on ESPN and I just glanced at the loser's scores for some reason. To be fair though, 7 of the points in the Dallas game came on a Jeron Johnson blocked punt and 7 points in the Green Bay game came on an INT which was ruled a TD pass. Laughing

I ammended the numbers in the other thread as well. I had a brain fart! Thanks for pointing out my mistake. When you're old, the first thing to go is the memory.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tooki


Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 10664
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't wish for this to happen, but how much support would Russell Wilson have if our D wasn't playing as well as it is.

What if we were giving up at least 20 points a game?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheOsprey


Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 7568
Location: In a van, down by the river.
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tooki wrote:
I don't wish for this to happen, but how much support would Russell Wilson have if our D wasn't playing as well as it is.

What if we were giving up at least 20 points a game?




It's just too ugly to imagine.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JOEJOE


Joined: 30 Aug 2011
Posts: 695
Location: 'DrunkMode' in Playersville
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tooki wrote:
I don't wish for this to happen, but how much support would Russell Wilson have if our D wasn't playing as well as it is.

What if we were giving up at least 20 points a game?


he would be booed right to the bench, but that's not the case here.. Pete has built a team that's based on running the ball and playing good defense. I truly believe if we would have ran the ball more in the Rams game we would have won, and sitting at 3-1 and no one would be talking about benching Wilson... We have a good young team although some times a very stupid team that makes mistake like 15yd personal fouls, but good none the less.. Even though I'm backing Wilson here, I still don't think he should be throwing the ball on average 25 times a game, no way.
_________________
Adopt-a-Hawk

Bruce Irvin= Sacks: 4-1/2, Tackles: 5, FF: 1

Golden Tate= Rec: 10, Yds: 144, Avg: 14.4, TD: 3
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tooki


Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 10664
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

JOEJOE wrote:
Tooki wrote:
I don't wish for this to happen, but how much support would Russell Wilson have if our D wasn't playing as well as it is.

What if we were giving up at least 20 points a game?


he would be booed right to the bench, but that's not the case here.. Pete has built a team that's based on running the ball and playing good defense. I truly believe if we would have ran the ball more in the Rams game we would have won, and sitting at 3-1 and no one would be talking about benching Wilson... We have a good young team although some times a very stupid team that makes mistake like 15yd personal fouls, but good none the less.. Even though I'm backing Wilson here, I still don't think he should be throwing the ball on average 25 times a game, no way.


I don't doubt that we would have beaten the Rams if we stuck to our original gameplan. (Pounding the ball, and passing off the play-action)

But as you say, it's not the case. I just wanted to bring the point up, because our D is half the reason that Wilson hasn't played himself onto the bench.

Darrell Bevell holds most of the blame in regards to our offensive woes, but Wilson is doing things that are unexcusable, like taking off out of the pocket and into the path od DE's, even though the protection is holding up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Seattle Seahawks All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 31, 32, 33
Page 33 of 33

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group