HawkShack.com

How long was the deal signed by Walsh with the Hawks? This is an area we definitely need to upgrade. Walsh has not been reliable.

I don't care when it's up or what the dead cap is (it won't be that much, he was a cost saving measure in the first place, costing roughly a third of what H-Kick would have cost if memory serves) he needs to go.

He's as good as gone. I doubt that we'll even try to resign him.

River Dog can kick better than him and do it with a bad leg.

Largent80 wrote:River Dog can kick better than him and do it with a bad leg.

Expect us to draft one or even two PK's in the 6th or 7th round next spring.

Time to search through some USA Rugby rosters for kickers. Get a place kicker that can tackle too! That would be worth its weight in gold.

It was only a 1 year deal, and he is making $1,034,375 this season.

It's pretty bad whenever your kicker trots out for either a FG or Xtra point, you have 0 faith he will make it. I'm sorry, but that kick he missed in the playoffs against the 'Hawks is something that will he will never forget. And kicking being such a mental thing, he's done with the year he is having. A fresh start for him was needed to see if he could get over that mental hurdle, but not to be.

I honestly think we should consider doing the old "go for every 4th down and every 2-pt conversion" thing.

Well, except that 3/4 of our running plays go for negative yardage, and our QB has become an INT-throwing machine... tough decision.

burrrton wrote:I honestly think we should consider doing the old "go for every 4th down and every 2-pt conversion" thing.

Well, except that 3/4 of our running plays go for negative yardage, and our QB has become an INT-throwing machine... tough decision.

I’m in agreement . I thought we should go on the first drive from the 38 . They got a field goal
anyway after we pinned them deep.

I hate Walsh . He’s come apart. There’s more voices in his head than mine . Not sure what JS and PC were thinking .

Not soon enough. Get this clown out of here.

Pete and John were thinking the same as they were the past two seasons when addressing O line needs: "We can get him cheap. Maybe we can coach him up and get by."

Maybe Cable can make him an O lineman

burrrton wrote:I honestly think we should consider doing the old "go for every 4th down and every 2-pt conversion" thing.

Well, except that 3/4 of our running plays go for negative yardage, and our QB has become an INT-throwing machine... tough decision.

That's one of the problems with Walsh now, that he's making things tough for his head coach. Remember all the grief that Pete took over his fake FG attempt in the Falcons game? It's going to place Pete in a no win situation. He'll be faced with forgoing the best odds decision, which would be kicking a FG...as bad as he's played, Walsh still makes far more FG's than he misses....and call a higher risk/lower reward play like a fake or simply going for it.

But I have little sympathy for Pete. He's the one that cut Hauschka loose over mere peanuts. He made his own bed, now he has to sleep in it.

I'm saying, we need a 200lb Fly Half from a Rugby team to be our kicker.

He's the one that cut Hauschka loose over mere peanuts.

Yeah, Hausch and Gresham were two releases I never understood, although Hausch was going to get a pretty significant raise, wasn't he?

It looks like it would have been money well spent now whatever it was, of course...

burrrton wrote:Yeah, Hausch and Gresham were two releases I never understood, although Hausch was going to get a pretty significant raise, wasn't he?

It looks like it would have been money well spent now whatever it was, of course...

A significant raise for a kicker, but peanuts when you look at it from a team standpoint.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20 and it's easy for us to say that it's peanuts, but I did question it when they let him go.

RiverDog wrote:
But I have little sympathy for Pete. He's the one that cut Hauschka loose over mere peanuts. He made his own bed, now he has to sleep in it.

Mere peanuts... The Hawks saved 2.4 million on the cap by going with Walsh. I don't like the outcome but 2.4 million on a championship team isn't mere peanuts. Housch has had a great year, don't get me wrong, but he had a bad year last year and became the 2nd highest paid kicker in terms of cash paid out. I can see why the Hawks were a bit hesitant to give him that much.

mykc14 wrote:Mere peanuts... The Hawks saved 2.4 million on the cap by going with Walsh. I don't like the outcome but 2.4 million on a championship team isn't mere peanuts. Housch has had a great year, don't get me wrong, but he had a bad year last year and became the 2nd highest paid kicker in terms of cash paid out. I can see why the Hawks were a bit hesitant to give him that much.

OK, I'll agree that "peanuts" is a little over the top, but no more so than your characterization of our 2016 squad that won a 4 team division where the other 3 teams had sub .500 records as a "championship" team.

RiverDog wrote:
OK, I'll agree that "peanuts" is a little over the top, but no more so than your characterization of our 2016 squad that won a 4 team division where the other 3 teams had sub .500 records as a "championship" team.

Although that sounds like something that I would say I do not remember saying that the 2016 Seahawks were a 'championship' team. Do you recall the context that I said that? Maybe I said they had the potential to be a championship team? I don't usually call a team a championship team unless they are champions of something (maybe division champions?). I would defensively say they could win the championship or something like that, but I can't remember what I said. You might be older than me but your memory is probably a bit sharper than mine.

mykc14 wrote:Although that sounds like something that I would say I do not remember saying that the 2016 Seahawks were a 'championship' team. Do you recall the context that I said that? Maybe I said they had the potential to be a championship team? I don't usually call a team a championship team unless they are champions of something (maybe division champions?). I would defensively say they could win the championship or something like that, but I can't remember what I said. You might be older than me but your memory is probably a bit sharper than mine.

From your previous post:

"Mere peanuts... The Hawks saved 2.4 million on the cap by going with Walsh. I don't like the outcome but 2.4 million on a championship team isn't mere peanuts. Housch has had a great year, don't get me wrong, but he had a bad year last year and became the 2nd highest paid kicker in terms of cash paid out. I can see why the Hawks were a bit hesitant to give him that much."

By that I inferred that you considered us a 'championship' team as in defending champions. That's usually what people are referring to when speaking in the present tense as we were. Or were you predicting a championship for us this season?

Our Cap room is something like $850,000 at the moment, so there would have to have been either cuts or more contract fiddling to get the players we have now on the roster.
When people say Championship team, I always infer they are talking about a team with legitimate championship aspirations as we had at the beginning of the year.

NorthHawk wrote:Our Cap room is something like $850,000 at the moment, so there would have to have been either cuts or more contract fiddling to get the players we have now on the roster.
When people say Championship team, I always infer they are talking about a team with legitimate championship aspirations as we had at the beginning of the year.

So today, if an NFL fan says "we are the champions", which fan has the legitimacy to make that statement?

Answer: Patriot fans, because they are the defending champs.

RiverDog wrote:
From your previous post:

"Mere peanuts... The Hawks saved 2.4 million on the cap by going with Walsh. I don't like the outcome but 2.4 million on a championship team isn't mere peanuts. Housch has had a great year, don't get me wrong, but he had a bad year last year and became the 2nd highest paid kicker in terms of cash paid out. I can see why the Hawks were a bit hesitant to give him that much."

By that I inferred that you considered us a 'championship' team as in defending champions. That's usually what people are referring to when speaking in the present tense as we were. Or were you predicting a championship for us this season?

I see what you are saying. What I was saying was in terms of this season, as in "saving $2.4 million for a championship team (as in we need that money so we can spend it elsewhere so that we can win the whole dang thing) isn't mere peanuts." We didn't save 2.4 million last year so I wasn't saying that last year's team was a championship team, I was talking about this year's team (which might not even make the playoffs, but still can be a championship team). At any rate I can see the confusion and perhaps a more clear way to say it would have been "2.4 million on a potential championship team isn't mere peanuts..."

mykc14 wrote:I see what you are saying. What I was saying was in terms of this season, as in "saving $2.4 million for a championship team (as in we need that money so we can spend it elsewhere so that we can win the whole dang thing) isn't mere peanuts." We didn't save 2.4 million last year so I wasn't saying that last year's team was a championship team, I was talking about this year's team (which might not even make the playoffs, but still can be a championship team). At any rate I can see the confusion and perhaps a more clear way to say it would have been "2.4 million on a potential championship team isn't mere peanuts..."

Ahh, it's amazing how exchanging a two letter word for a three letter word can change the entire meaning of the sentence. I would have been less likely to object had you not used the word "on" rather than "for" as it appears in your revised statement. It's a good lesson for a communications class.

It's no big deal. We're essentially arguing over semantics. I'll grant you that the re-signing of Hauschka would have been more expensive than I had indicated when I called the money we would have had to spent to resign him "peanuts." Sometimes I throw those terms out there for effect and don't expect to get called on them.

RiverDog wrote:
It's no big deal. We're essentially arguing over semantics. I'll grant you that the re-signing of Hauschka would have been more expensive than I had indicated when I called the money we would have had to spent to resign him "peanuts." Sometimes I throw those terms out there for effect and don't expect to get called on them.

I hear you. I also agree that right now it looks like that 2.4 million would have been well spent on Hauschka. The fact that it worried many of us when it went down last spring doesn't help either. I can't remember a time when I have been more nervous about a kicker kicking a field goal than I am right now with Walsh. It's not a good feeling.

My replacement would be a guy like this

https://youtu.be/Bvno_0Y6zzo

RiverDog wrote:
It's no big deal. We're essentially arguing over semantics. I'll grant you that the re-signing of Hauschka would have been more expensive than I had indicated when I called the money we would have had to spent to resign him "peanuts." Sometimes I throw those terms out there for effect and don't expect to get called on them.

mykc14 wrote:
I hear you. I also agree that right now it looks like that 2.4 million would have been well spent on Hauschka. The fact that it worried many of us when it went down last spring doesn't help either. I can't remember a time when I have been more nervous about a kicker kicking a field goal than I am right now with Walsh. It's not a good feeling.

If the Hawks had kept Houschka they wouldn't have had the money to get Richardson or Brown. Which would be the one we shouldn't have gotten?

Getting rid of Haush was ABSOLUTELY a must. Blair Walsh? Not the worst decision to be made BUT it was a gamble that failed. Find a new kicker.

If it were up to me, his contract woulda been done the day after the Washington game. And I was never thrilled w/ whatever we paid for Eddie. I know hindsight is 20/20, but I’d trade Lacy for Steve.

The correct answer is not soon enough.

So today, if an NFL fan says "we are the champions", which fan has the legitimacy to make that statement?

Answer: Patriot fans, because they are the defending champs.

But nobody said we are the champions. It was something like on a championship team, which is completely different.
That's something you inferred incorrectly.

Walsh cost us 2 games. He gots to go.

Notice the resemblance??