For you Michael K.

Post Reply
ThePro
Posts: 1636
Joined: Wed May 15, 2019 2:12 am

For you Michael K.

Post by ThePro » Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:26 pm


DanielVogelbach
Posts: 260
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:43 pm

Re: For you Michael K.

Post by DanielVogelbach » Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:49 pm

"The shackles were off. The coaching staff could no longer get in the way."

Give me a break. So, did Belichick cause the Patriots to lose this year as well?

Russ had opportunities to run in the first half where he simply did not take them. That's not Pete's fault.

Rodgers was lights out the entire game including two 3rd down conversions on the final drive to win the game. Pete's so called abysmal strategy wins the game if the Hawks play just a little more defense or maybe make the second FG attempt. I can't fathom how anyone is looking at this game and pointing fingers at offense strategy when the defense was so close to getting off the field so many times, but Rodgers burned em. We're judging their first half offense, when the reality is their first half offense was hardly even on the field. Part of that is on the D. RW was on a game winning drive and our guy dropped the ball. Simple as that. You want to go find another head coach and plug him into this franchise? To me that would be about the dumbest move ownership could ever make. For the sake of the Hawks continuing to kick-ass, I hope they keep Pete on the sidelines.

Michael K.
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 5:27 am

Re: For you Michael K.

Post by Michael K. » Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:51 pm

I posted that somewhere in here. I actually had to stop and think if I was now writing articles for the USA Today and simply forgot!? :lol:

D-train
Posts: 7653
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:33 am
Location: Kirkland

Re: For you Michael K.

Post by D-train » Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:55 pm

Michael K. wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:51 pm
I posted that somewhere in here. I actually had to stop and think if I was now writing articles for the USA Today and simply forgot!? :lol:
Mickael K. stage name: Steven Ruiz! :)
dt

Michael K.
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 5:27 am

Re: For you Michael K.

Post by Michael K. » Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:11 pm

DanielVogelbach wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:49 pm
"The shackles were off. The coaching staff could no longer get in the way."

Give me a break. So, did Belichick cause the Patriots to lose this year as well?
Did you watch the Patriots this year? Zero weapons in the passing game besides a gimpy Edelman, so they got creative. I promise you, if Bill Belicheck had Russell Wilson at QB with Metcalf and Lockett...they don't score three points in the first half last night.
DanielVogelbach wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:49 pm
Russ had opportunities to run in the first half where he simply did not take them. That's not Pete's fault.
4 plays for 11 yards and a punt
3 plays for 9 yards and a punt
6 plays for 32 yards and a FG
8 plays for 50 yards and a missed FG
6 plays for 33 yards before a stupid ass Hail Mary

In all of these drives, it was a few opportunities for Russ to run that you credit with hindering our offense? He accounted for 341 yards of offense. We had 4 other guys run the ball. 17 carries for 46 yards is what they accounted for. So, 10 more carries for 18 fewer yards. Yep, if only that damn Russell had run more in the first half. :shock: :roll:
DanielVogelbach wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:49 pm
Rodgers was lights out the entire game including two 3rd down conversions on the final drive to win the game. Pete's so called abysmal strategy wins the game if the Hawks play just a little more defense or maybe make the second FG attempt. I can't fathom how anyone is looking at this game and pointing fingers at offense strategy when the defense was so close to getting off the field so many times, but Rodgers burned em.
Because everyone but you and Pete Carroll realizes our defense sucks and wasn't going to win the game for us. We would have to score....certainly more than three in the first half!
DanielVogelbach wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:49 pm
We're judging their first half offense, when the reality is their first half offense was hardly even on the field.
Maybe don't run three straight dive plays for a punt? Maybe don't call 2nd and 10 dive plays two different times, so you can punt. The defense forced a three and out, and one that was deep in Green Bay terrirotry. We received the punt at our own 33...proceeded to run it three times for 9 yards and punt it right back to them. Genius. The game was 7 to nothing at the time. Good thing your punts win the game strategy was employeed there because guess what? We forced another punt after that. Got it at our own 42 but could only manage 32 yards before kicking a FG. Two times in a row we couldn't take advantage of a defensive stop. One of those after three dive plays! And you defend this shit. SMH.
DanielVogelbach wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:49 pm
Part of that is on the D. RW was on a game winning drive and our guy dropped the ball. Simple as that. You want to go find another head coach and plug him into this franchise? To me that would be about the dumbest move ownership could ever make. For the sake of the Hawks continuing to kick-ass, I hope they keep Pete on the sidelines.
Guys drop passes. They hurt a lot less when you don't dig a 21 to 3 first half hole! Once again, coaching the first half like our defense might actually stop them is stupid. Defending it is even stupider.

DanielVogelbach
Posts: 260
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:43 pm

Re: For you Michael K.

Post by DanielVogelbach » Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:04 pm

If Myers hit the field goal in the first half, it might have been 14-6. A little red zone D like they had versus Philly, and you're talking tie game at halftime. I believe there were two 3rd and goals converted. You're going off the deep end here quoting every post 10 times. LOL. They lost a close game. Lot of different things might have swung it, which is typical for an NFL playoff game. Hawks could've been winning at halftime and still lost. You never know. Rodgers did hit for another TD in the 3rd and he had the big drive at the end to win it. You're pretty much admitting that the D couldn't stop Rodgers, so how is any sort of offensive strategy going to change the need to pull out the win in 4th quarter clutch time? You're assuming that if Pete would've just done this and that, then Seattle would've won by 50. I feel like it was going to be a 4th quarter nailbiter no matter what. I liked the position they ended up in, although I wouldn't have gone for 2 when they did. I was prepared for RW to get to the endzone and then go for 2 to try and extend the lead to 3. It didn't happen, and then I saw the defense fail on 2 third and longs including the key strike to Jimmy Graham who got the first down by an inch. I thought it was a tremendously solid showing by the Hawks with their depleted roster, on the road in GB in January temps.

D-train
Posts: 7653
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:33 am
Location: Kirkland

Re: For you Michael K.

Post by D-train » Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:27 pm

Here is an idea, Einstein. Do what you do in the second half!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dave “Softy” Mahler
@Softykjr
Carroll on first half woes: "I dont have a lock on it. I'd change it if I did. We need to be more powerful to start these games."
dt

Michael K.
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 5:27 am

Re: For you Michael K.

Post by Michael K. » Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:04 am

DanielVogelbach wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:04 pm
If Myers hit the field goal in the first half, it might have been 14-6. A little red zone D like they had versus Philly, and you're talking tie game at halftime. I believe there were two 3rd and goals converted. You're going off the deep end here quoting every post 10 times. LOL. They lost a close game. Lot of different things might have swung it, which is typical for an NFL playoff game. Hawks could've been winning at halftime and still lost. You never know. Rodgers did hit for another TD in the 3rd and he had the big drive at the end to win it. You're pretty much admitting that the D couldn't stop Rodgers, so how is any sort of offensive strategy going to change the need to pull out the win in 4th quarter clutch time? You're assuming that if Pete would've just done this and that, then Seattle would've won by 50. I feel like it was going to be a 4th quarter nailbiter no matter what. I liked the position they ended up in, although I wouldn't have gone for 2 when they did. I was prepared for RW to get to the endzone and then go for 2 to try and extend the lead to 3. It didn't happen, and then I saw the defense fail on 2 third and longs including the key strike to Jimmy Graham who got the first down by an inch. I thought it was a tremendously solid showing by the Hawks with their depleted roster, on the road in GB in January temps.
What I just read there was a lot of IFs.

What I know is....they scored 3 first half points and lost because they tried to force feed a run game. They scored 20 second half points because they put the ball in the hands of their best player. Somehow this confuses you...I have no idea how.

DanielVogelbach
Posts: 260
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:43 pm

Re: For you Michael K.

Post by DanielVogelbach » Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:03 am

Michael K. wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:04 am
What I know is....they scored 3 first half points and lost because they tried to force feed a run game. They scored 20 second half points because they put the ball in the hands of their best player. Somehow this confuses you...I have no idea how.
I'm not disputing that the run game got bottled up or that RW was sensational. I'm just saying it was probably going to come down to 4th quarter crunch time regardless of the first half. I'm also saying that I view Pete as major asset.

HawkandMariner88
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat May 04, 2019 10:33 pm

Re: For you Michael K.

Post by HawkandMariner88 » Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:30 am

DanielVogelbach wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:49 pm
"The shackles were off. The coaching staff could no longer get in the way."

Give me a break. So, did Belichick cause the Patriots to lose this year as well?

Russ had opportunities to run in the first half where he simply did not take them. That's not Pete's fault.

Rodgers was lights out the entire game including two 3rd down conversions on the final drive to win the game. Pete's so called abysmal strategy wins the game if the Hawks play just a little more defense or maybe make the second FG attempt. I can't fathom how anyone is looking at this game and pointing fingers at offense strategy when the defense was so close to getting off the field so many times, but Rodgers burned em. We're judging their first half offense, when the reality is their first half offense was hardly even on the field. Part of that is on the D. RW was on a game winning drive and our guy dropped the ball. Simple as that. You want to go find another head coach and plug him into this franchise? To me that would be about the dumbest move ownership could ever make. For the sake of the Hawks continuing to kick-ass, I hope they keep Pete on the sidelines.
Maybe if they converted a few more first downs & controlled the clock just a little bit longer might have been a better outcome.

Post Reply