For you Michael K.

Post Reply
57reasons
Posts: 1582
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 4:19 am
Location: 98118

Re: For you Michael K.

Post by 57reasons » Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:06 pm

Sibelius Hindemith wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 3:41 am
He turned 4 picks and Frank Clark into 11 picks, then used them to draft 10 players who had little to no impact on the season.
DK and Clowney had no impact on the season? Clowney he and his cap number dont arrive if Clark resigned to huge $. Other than i partially agree, though i see future value in Blair, Barton, and Haynes, and potentially Ursua as well.

57reasons
Posts: 1582
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 4:19 am
Location: 98118

Re: For you Michael K.

Post by 57reasons » Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:10 pm

oops, just saw that my last post totally duplicated Pro's previous response. sorry buddy, guess great minds think alike.

DanielVogelbach
Posts: 748
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:43 pm

Re: For you Michael K.

Post by DanielVogelbach » Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:12 pm

Michael K. wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:31 pm
You can be OK with over .500. I have witnessed enough NFL football to know that these types of QBs only happen so often, so over .500 and losing in the playoffs in the first or second round is a little less than I think Russ deserves. Losing in the playoffs is one thing, losing the same ridiculous way all the time and being happy because we got close is stupid. But thanks for giving me permission to watch football the way I want. I really don't care if you approve of me being pissed off or playing fantasy football or not.
Not just over .500. They're one of only 4 teams to play over .500 for the last 4 years consecutively.

I think RW is in a good situation with Pete as his coach. For me, it's an exciting team that's fun to watch.

Losses are disappointing for fans, but I'll never get too bent out of shape over losing a divisional round game as the road team underdog. Where the season really went wrong for the Hawks was at home vs. Arizona. But, of course, what really does matter is how you finish, so we're all looking at the Green Bay game.

57reasons
Posts: 1582
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 4:19 am
Location: 98118

Re: For you Michael K.

Post by 57reasons » Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:23 pm

Michael K. wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 3:07 pm

A dynasty, that was the talk after whooping Denver. Then, second and goal and a mind numbing number of other bumbles. But, the guys motivates his players, so let’s give him the keys to the city.




I put the blame for loss of dynasty more on the big ego malcontents (Sherman, Bennett, Earl) who wouldnt let SB49 go than i do on the coaches. Granted Carroll's over-allegiance to Cable/Bevell helped push them down that road, but with all the influence they had, they could have been SO much more constructive, possibly affecting the O coaches ouster, rather than the destructive element they became. Imagine if this year's team still had Sherman at LCB and Griffin on the right? or even Earl instead of Tedric or Lano? There's no reason it couldnt have happened, if they had just not been so jealous of Russ and been willing to take a slightly humbler path. so Sherman may get one more ring out of it (hope not), but the others none, where they all 3 could have had a few.

Michael K.
Posts: 11345
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 5:27 am

Re: For you Michael K.

Post by Michael K. » Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:24 pm

DanielVogelbach wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:12 pm

Not just over .500. They're one of only 4 teams to play over .500 for the last 4 years consecutively.

Didn't deny that. How did the other four fair in the playoffs?

I think RW is in a good situation with Pete as his coach. For me, it's an exciting team that's fun to watch.

The second halves are usually exciting, and mostly because of the hole we dug in the first half.

Losses are disappointing for fans, but I'll never get too bent out of shape over losing a divisional round game as the road team underdog. Where the season really went wrong for the Hawks was at home vs. Arizona. But, of course, what really does matter is how you finish, so we're all looking at the Green Bay game.
Losing as an underdog is no sin. Hell, losing is no sin. It happens. I have never said they should win every game or that they should always play in and win the Super Bowl. What I would like to see is them not do it in the very same way each and every time. Do you seriously watch a first half offensive shit show from this team ever and say "well, that surprises me."? I bet you don't....and imagine how much different things might be if we ever did anything different in the first half? Mix up Tempo would be a huge one. No one is saying they have to go straight no huddle, but how about doing it before down three scores? How about if after every single first down play that is less than successful, we run something besides a dive play for little or no gain? They mix that up quit a bit in the second halves, but it is pretty much a given that every second and long in the first half will be a dive play and that it will virtually always result in a third and long, and then normally a punt. What does that mean? Means if we can't simple beat the other team with a first down run play, we are often looking at 3rd and long.

How about if when you are looking at a fifty yard FG on 4th and 1, your response would be go for it, instead of missing the FG and saying "I was closer to punting that I was going for it." The same man that throws challenge flags around like beads at Marti Gras, the same guy that once without a timeout called for a fake FG from well away from the endzone on 4th and goal, the same guy that OK'd a slant to the gunner on the punt team...this guy won't every go for it. We have missed many of those FGs, but going for it is never an option. I don't get it.

Yet, he goes for two on Sunday. Missing that meant that in just about every single scenario after he would have to go for it again. Missing it meant we trailed by 5. A TD from the Pack either way was disastrous, so that shouldn't play into the choice. If the Packers kicked a FG we would be now down 8, and have to go for two again. If the Packers punted we would still need a TD and another 2 point attempt to go up more than a FG. The same guy that won't go for it on any 4th and short felt like the odds were good that they convert a 2 point try? And by failing, which is often, put the team in the hole.

When he decides to get aggressive and when he doesn't makes zero sense. He is overly hormonal. Which is why he is a great motivator...but is also why he blows it often in clock management and with in game decision making. And, I HATE the neutered way he runs the offense until he is behind. And don't tell me he doesn't run the offense. Bates, Bevell and Schotty. What has changed? Not much.

Michael K.
Posts: 11345
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 5:27 am

Re: For you Michael K.

Post by Michael K. » Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:27 pm

57reasons wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:23 pm

I put the blame for loss of dynasty more on the big ego malcontents (Sherman, Bennett, Earl) who wouldnt let SB49 go than i do on the coaches. Granted Carroll's over-allegiance to Cable/Bevell helped push them down that road, but with all the influence they had, they could have been SO much more constructive, possibly affecting the O coaches ouster, rather than the destructive element they became. Imagine if this year's team still had Sherman at LCB and Griffin on the right? or even Earl instead of Tedric or Lano? There's no reason it couldnt have happened, if they had just not been so jealous of Russ and been willing to take a slightly humbler path. so Sherman may get one more ring out of it (hope not), but the others none, where they all 3 could have had a few.
They wouldn't have had to get over a 2nd and Goal INT if there hadn't been one. Was it jealousy or did that play call further drive home what they already believed....that Pete didn't care about them the way he did Russ. It is foolish, the team should have been Russ's and those guys should have understood that. I will never get over Sherm, Bennett and Earl being candy asses....and never understand whey there was nothing done about that. As a player on that team, hell, as a fan of that team, I wanted someone's head. Bevell and Cable should have never made it as long as they did, and Bevell should have been gone before Monday morning after second and goal. Maybe, just maybe, the reason he wasn't was because Pete is actually the one that made the call?

DanielVogelbach
Posts: 748
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:43 pm

Re: For you Michael K.

Post by DanielVogelbach » Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:59 pm

Michael K. wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:24 pm
What does that mean? Means if we can't simple beat the other team with a first down run play, we are often looking at 3rd
Drive 3
4 pass plays (2 complete, 2 incomplete)
1 running play

Drive 4
4 pass play (1 complete 3 incomplete)
1 running play

Drive 5
5 pass plays (2 complete, 1 incomplete, 1 scramble, 1 sack)
2 running plays

Drive 6
5 passing plays (2 complete, 1 incomplete, 1 scramble, 1 sack)
1 spike
0 running plays

Michael K.
Posts: 11345
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 5:27 am

Re: For you Michael K.

Post by Michael K. » Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:14 pm

DanielVogelbach wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:59 pm
Michael K. wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:24 pm
What does that mean? Means if we can't simple beat the other team with a first down run play, we are often looking at 3rd
Drive 3
4 pass plays (2 complete, 2 incomplete)
1 running play

Drive 4
4 pass play (1 complete 3 incomplete)
1 running play

Drive 5
5 pass plays (2 complete, 1 incomplete, 1 scramble, 1 sack)
2 running plays

Drive 6
5 passing plays (2 complete, 1 incomplete, 1 scramble, 1 sack)
1 spike
0 running plays
So, now we are back to talking about one game. I'm done. The one common denominator in every ass kicking we have taken in the first half of a road playoff game is the head coach. But God forbid we wonder why.

Are you telling me you watched the game Sunday and thought Russ was terrible, or did you think we played with no urgency and the design was passive at best and flat out boringly conservative at worst?

User avatar
Donn Beach
Posts: 13261
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 1:06 am

Re: For you Michael K.

Post by Donn Beach » Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:55 pm

Sibelius Hindemith wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:40 pm
Donn Beach wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:10 pm
guess you are going to have to suffer though some more miserable seasons with him...sorry about that
:roll:

I guess you enjoy witnessing insanity in play with your (supposed) fave NFL team. Me, i don't enjoy that. Yeah, expectations are high and they haven't lived up to them lately for reasons that seem correctable. You are happy though with them scraping into the playoffs and then vomiting all over themselves because the head coach won't change an approach that doesn't work with the kind of team he has had lately (i.e. elite QB + WRs and mediocre to bad D). You are the sports fan equivalent of sheeple.
Because I enjoy being a Hawk fan?...Yeah, i have to admit it, I enjoy it..how about you, why are watching?...enjoy suffering?

User avatar
Donn Beach
Posts: 13261
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 1:06 am

Re: For you Michael K.

Post by Donn Beach » Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:58 pm

I keep reading here how its a given with RW that we would have a championship team, what happened to all the talk about how his contract was going to cripple us? I thought there was a number of teams that once they paid their QB they didn't make the playoffs, what happened to all that?

Post Reply