HawkShack.com

This guy takes a different tack and goes full passive-aggressive:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2014/st ... -advantage

I wonder if this fckhead took a look at the *type* of penalties we incur at such a high rate and pondered whether he really had a point.

Let's take a little trip back to media day. Michael Bennet was asked why people outside of Seattle don't like the Seahawks. His response:

"People hate us because when you talk a lot of smack people usually hate you." "Talk a lot of smack and back it up, people hate you more."

Such is life... so even in the face of an actual cheating scandal it was pretty much inevitable that the Seahawks would eventually become the bad guys... and I'm totally good with that.

Personally I found the article more complimentary than disparaging. We DO play on the razors edge! The difference between the Pats and the Seahawks however is that the Seahawks play on the edge of aggressiveness on the field and accept the consequences of that play on the field of play while the Pats play fast and loose more with administrative type rules.

If I were a Pats fan I'd be perfectly happy with Belichick and his way of gaining an edge. As it is I'm ecstatic with everything about Pete and what he does to gain and maintain an edge.

Personally I found the article more complimentary than disparaging.

That's (IMO) his passive-aggressiveness.

Instead of Yet Another Article About Seahawks Penalties™, he tries to use the fact that Seattle commits the most penalties overall as proof that our defensive backfield gets away with murder (which is nonsense, because it's not our D backfield that commits the bulk of the penalties), but since that's been written 1000x already, he tries to mask it as mad respect for them getting away with it.

As it is I'm ecstatic with everything about Pete and what he does to gain and maintain an edge.

Same here- I just think it's obvious at this point that one of our edges *is not* simply committing a sht-load of PI/holding and daring them to flag them all, which is what I thought he was trying to imply.

I found the article complimentary as well. He mentioned twice the fact that Seattle is 15th in the league in DPI calls, whereas NE is 6th or something like that, also, he mentioned that the bulk of calls against Seattle are against the offense, so it came off to me that he was pointing out the penalties as more of a strategy thing rather than mistakes.

This picture sums up the NFL front office viewpoint on how they instructed their referees to call Seahawk games this past season.

The ref in the picture is looking right at this blatant penalty on the Cowboys - And no flag is thrown.





Now you know why whenever a team played the Seahawks this past season - - almost all of them registered their season low in penalties.

Vegaseahawk wrote:I found the article complimentary as well. He mentioned twice the fact that Seattle is 15th in the league in DPI calls, whereas NE is 6th or something like that, also, he mentioned that the bulk of calls against Seattle are against the offense, so it came off to me that he was pointing out the penalties as more of a strategy thing rather than mistakes.

Perhaps I should give him a little more credit- those who don't read far enough might take that away.

However:

The takeaway from his article for me (and I think most readers) isn't so much that the Hawks play with a reckless style- it's that the Hawks have consciously decided they'll commit penalties on virtually every play and dare the refs to slow the game down calling them all**.

The former is reasonable- the latter is nonsense.

**"Exploiting loopholes in the rule book", "the Seahawks have expertly exploited a TV-centric business model (flags are boring for viewers and bad for ratings)", etc.

burrrton wrote:
Perhaps I should give him a little more credit- those who don't read far enough might take that away.

However:

The takeaway from his article for me (and I think most readers) isn't so much that the Hawks play with a reckless style- it's that the Hawks have consciously decided they'll commit penalties on virtually every play and dare the refs to slow the game down calling them all**.

The former is reasonable- the latter is nonsense.

**"Exploiting loopholes in the rule book", "the Seahawks have expertly exploited a TV-centric business model (flags are boring for viewers and bad for ratings)", etc.

2 Problems with that post Burr: first you assume that most people interpret the article the same as you do and secondly that you say that if someone were to see it differently it must be because they didn't read the whole article.

Condescend much?

I read the whole article and while the digs were obvious, they were not my primary takeaway from it. His begrudging respect (for both coaches) even as he was stirring the sh!tpot, was. I don't mind being a team that plays on the edge, especially if it's on the edge of how aggressive teams are allowed to be.

Sure I also disagree with the author about inundating the game with too many penalties for all of them to be called as a strategic goal of either coach, but so what? Writers say stupid sh!t all the time, I don't mind ignoring that aspect.

Condescend much?

Oh for pete's sake, Bob.

It's written in plain English- the "digs" were not some divination of mine, and the "digs" didn't come until later in the article.

Either way, I didn't mean it condescendingly, so apologies if it came off that way, and in fact I thought I was ceding your point to a certain degree- the first half of the article, where a columnist typically features the main thrust, *could* be taken more admiringly than I gave him credit for.

Brandon Browner had almost as many penalties by himself as were called on the LOB. And he missed 4 games. This is what everyone misses. They base their issues against the refs based on what happened while Brandon was a Seahawk. Can't do that. If the refs call anyone for penalties, it will be him, holding Doug or Kearse as they fly by him.

js

Oh for pete's sake, Bob.

Right, as if "those who don't read far enough might take that away" is somehow not condescending ...

Come on man, not everyone has to take the same things from an article that you do for them to have read and comprehended it. It is possible to look past the low hanging fruit the guy obviously wants everyone to to latch onto and not that he's got a point about both teams concerning themselves less with being the least penalized team in the league in preference for pushing the limits of the rule book.

I'm not saying your observations regarding that piece are invalid, I'm just saying that you shouldn't consider somebody else's less valid because they didn't share your opinion on the primary take away from it.

I didn't intend it so, but I see your point, Bob- again, apologies.

It's cool man, come tomorrow we both going to be just as happy about being the only team in the league with a chance to threepete!

Just heard Mooch on NFL network talking about Gronk. He said Gronk "will draw holding penalties that will extend drives and help him contribute to the team yardage". Not "might" but "will".
I think the fix is in. I hope I'm wrong. Seattle has to play their cleanest game of the year. No stupid stuff because they are going to get reamed by the refs anyway. In hope I'm dead wrong....