OT: Seahawks Special Teams

HillsboroDuck said:

Love watching these guys fly around, even it's just preseason.

ST is basically three things. In order: coaching, desire and athleticism. The 'Hawks clearly have all three.

When was the last time the Huskies had a good special teams, let alone great?

I've said before on here I view ST as a sign of coaching. The Seahawks have had good special teams since Carroll has arrived while under Holmgren they were decent but never good.

With the Huskies? When was the last time we had a kick off return go for a TD? How about a punt? Last punt that was blocked? Last FG that was blocked vs a real team(Portland State doesn't count) ?

When was the last time UW won a close game where we looked back and said we won cause of special teams as we had better field position all game?

I honestly don't remember the answer to those questions.

As for our last good special teams? I remember them being good in the Slick Rick era but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

IMALOSER_ said:

2011 Special Teams Rankings - Pac-12

Kick Off Return - #3
Kick Off Coverage - #10
Net Punting - #2
Punt Return - #6

Not exactly great being the #10 Kick off coverage team, but the rest was respectable. How hard is it to find a guy that can kick the ball into the endzone?

2012 was a particularly crappy Special Teams performance, all around. 2010 Stats are currently not available on Pac-12 site.

Looks like a mixed bag.

Thanks for disagreeing with us then providing stats to back up our point. I see your shitty posting style from Dawgboard hasn't changed at all.

IMALOSER_ said:

Where did I disagree or agree with anyone?

I just posted the rankings from two years ago and stated 3 of the 4 categories were respectable.

Then stated 2012 was crappy.

Still looking for where I disagreed with anyone...................

You are pressing really bad. Take a deep breath.

Perhaps you voting down both my statements is a sign of disagreement, also saying "it's been a mix bag" when it's actually been pretty fucking shitty as sven pointed out.

Only 2011 was a "mixed bag" and that year had some glaring bad as in kickoff coverage.

IMALOSER_ said:

Since I was discussing the 2011 season and stated two were respectable and one was not great. I assumed you would know that stating it was a mixed bag was discussing the 2011 season.

The top of the page headline states 2011 Special Teams Rankings.

"2012 was a particularly crappy Special Teams performance, all around. 2010 Stats are currently not available on Pac-12 site.

Looks like a mixed bag."

Too bad you used the mixed bag statement after talking about 2012 and 2010 as well on top of your 2011.

Nice try.

IMALOSER_ said:

HillsboroDuck said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

IMALOSER_ said:

HillsboroDuck said:

IMALOSER_ said:

2011 Special Teams Rankings - Pac-12

Kick Off Return - #3
Kick Off Coverage - #10
Net Punting - #2
Punt Return - #6

Not exactly great being the #10 Kick off coverage team, but the rest was respectable. How hard is it to find a guy that can kick the ball into the endzone?

2012 was a particularly crappy Special Teams performance, all around. 2010 Stats are currently not available on Pac-12 site.

Looks like a mixed bag.

Those rankings in aggregate break down to 5.25th out of 12th. That's above average I guess, but not what I would consider good. Certainly not great.

Just curious how you would rate the coaching of a team that had the following special teams rankings. Would it be awful, bad, good or great coaching? Just trying to get a feel for what you think is good, etc?

2012 Pac-12 Special Teams Rankings - Team A

Kick Off Return - #10
Kick off Coverage - #10
Net Punting - #9
Punt Return - #1

That's pretty bad. If it's Chip Kelly's special teams, I'll also point out that missed field goals cost him dearly in 2011 and 2012.

If you're really, really good in the other two phases, you can overcome bad special teams.

Regardless of which coach it is, you should mention his other seasons too so that we don't think you are cherrypicking data.

It's pretty explainable really - they didn't return many kicks, but they did kick off a million times, they didn't punt often, but they did return a bunch of punts. I'm assuming Loser is using total KO returns and total KO coverage, which is pretty meaningless when you are kicking off at least 5 times a game more than your opponents. It's possible the punting numbers are averaged, in which case the punting is bad, no excuses.

They are all averages. Who in the fuck would do rankings by total yards for Kick offs? Nice spin.

He_Needs_More_Time said:

IMALOSER is the king of cherrypicking stats/using misleading stats to make whatever stupid point he can make.

Just like when talking about Sark's special teams he points the one year where Sark was decent.

With the Seahawks he points out one game out of 18 to make it seem like the Seahawks are devoted to running the ball.

You mean when I responded to a poster that asked when the last time the Huskies had good, not great special team play? Why the fuck would I post seasons that they sucked to answer the question? Are you really a fucktard or do you just play one on the interwebs?

The poster said the Seahawks were dedicated to running to set up the pass. I went back and looked at their last/most important game of the year and they had a 2/1 pass/run ratio in the first half. If you want to break down the first half of all the Seahawk games......have fun.

The Huskies special teams by your own words were a "mix bag" in 2011 not good. The other years they were terrible.

As for your Seahawks example they fell behind 20-0 so of course they are going to be throwing the ball a lot more than running the ball.

Last year the Seahawks were 27th in the league in passing yards per game while 3rd in the league in rushing yards. Of course you didn't point that out.

Of course you didn't point out that in the ATL game Seattle's first two plays of the game were running plays. Of course you don't point out Seattle threw 7 times and ran 5 times in the first quarter.

Of course you didn't point out the previous week in the playoffs the Seahawks threw the ball 26 times and ran the ball 37 fucking times.

As is the case you cherry pick a stat to make your point when you know your point is wrong.

Why no mention of the Seahawks 58-0 win where they ran the ball 42 times and threw only 22 times?

The Seahawks like we all pointed out were devoted to the run and only when they were down big early did they ditch the run. That was the right play as Wilson was lighting up their secondary while they were stuffing Lynch. That's called good coaching something Sark is incapable of.

IMALOSER_ said:

He_Needs_More_Time said:

IMALOSER_ said:

HillsboroDuck said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

IMALOSER_ said:

HillsboroDuck said:

IMALOSER_ said:

2011 Special Teams Rankings - Pac-12

Kick Off Return - #3
Kick Off Coverage - #10
Net Punting - #2
Punt Return - #6

Not exactly great being the #10 Kick off coverage team, but the rest was respectable. How hard is it to find a guy that can kick the ball into the endzone?

2012 was a particularly crappy Special Teams performance, all around. 2010 Stats are currently not available on Pac-12 site.

Looks like a mixed bag.

Those rankings in aggregate break down to 5.25th out of 12th. That's above average I guess, but not what I would consider good. Certainly not great.

Just curious how you would rate the coaching of a team that had the following special teams rankings. Would it be awful, bad, good or great coaching? Just trying to get a feel for what you think is good, etc?

2012 Pac-12 Special Teams Rankings - Team A

Kick Off Return - #10
Kick off Coverage - #10
Net Punting - #9
Punt Return - #1

That's pretty bad. If it's Chip Kelly's special teams, I'll also point out that missed field goals cost him dearly in 2011 and 2012.

If you're really, really good in the other two phases, you can overcome bad special teams.

Regardless of which coach it is, you should mention his other seasons too so that we don't think you are cherrypicking data.

It's pretty explainable really - they didn't return many kicks, but they did kick off a million times, they didn't punt often, but they did return a bunch of punts. I'm assuming Loser is using total KO returns and total KO coverage, which is pretty meaningless when you are kicking off at least 5 times a game more than your opponents. It's possible the punting numbers are averaged, in which case the punting is bad, no excuses.

They are all averages. Who in the fuck would do rankings by total yards for Kick offs? Nice spin.

He_Needs_More_Time said:

IMALOSER is the king of cherrypicking stats/using misleading stats to make whatever stupid point he can make.

Just like when talking about Sark's special teams he points the one year where Sark was decent.

With the Seahawks he points out one game out of 18 to make it seem like the Seahawks are devoted to running the ball.

You mean when I responded to a poster that asked when the last time the Huskies had good, not great special team play? Why the fuck would I post seasons that they sucked to answer the question? Are you really a fucktard or do you just play one on the interwebs?

The poster said the Seahawks were dedicated to running to set up the pass. I went back and looked at their last/most important game of the year and they had a 2/1 pass/run ratio in the first half. If you want to break down the first half of all the Seahawk games......have fun.

The Huskies special teams by your own words were a "mix bag" in 2011 not good. The other years they were terrible.

As for your Seahawks example they fell behind 20-0 so of course they are going to be throwing the ball a lot more than running the ball.

Last year the Seahawks were 27th in the league in passing yards per game while 3rd in the league in rushing yards. Of course you didn't point that out.

Of course you didn't point out that in the ATL game Seattle's first two plays of the game were running plays. Of course you don't point out Seattle threw 7 times and ran 5 times in the first quarter.

Of course you didn't point out the previous week in the playoffs the Seahawks threw the ball 26 times and ran the ball 37 fucking times.

As is the case you cherry pick a stat to make your point when you know your point is wrong.

Why no mention of the Seahawks 58-0 win where they ran the ball 42 times and threw only 22 times?

The Seahawks like we all pointed out were devoted to the run and only when they were down big early did they ditch the run. That was the right play as Wilson was lighting up their secondary while they were stuffing Lynch. That's called good coaching something Sark is incapable of.

So when the Seahawks win games they run more than they pass. When the Seahawks lose games they pass more than they run.

You think they win because they run more. You think they lose because they pass more.

In reality it's just like any team. When you are winning, you run the ball to control possession and the clock. When you are losing you have to throw the ball to catch up.

I love it when you fucktards rip on UW after winning a game. Your favorite, see we ran the ball and we won the game. Why don't we do that every week? No we were winning the game and were able to run the ball.

It's not fucking rocket surgery!!!!!

We actually watch the games which you apparently don't. So we see that UW is running successful vs AZ in 2012, Nebraska in 2010, ASU in 2010, BYU in 2010, Nebraska in 2011, Oregon State in 2011, Oregon in 2012 where Sark then completely ignores these trends and goes pass happy.

Then UW is blown out and fucktards like you go "Sark couldn't run the ball UW was so far behind" when at the time he chose to ditch the run UW was only down 7-10 points.

The Seahawks playoffs vs the Redskins which you still have ignored ever happen ran the ball 37 times and threw 26 times. They fell behind 14-0. That is a classic case where Sark would have panic and ditch the run. The Seahawks didn't and stuck with the run as it was successful.

IMALOSER_ said:

He_Needs_More_Time said:

IMALOSER_ said:

He_Needs_More_Time said:

IMALOSER_ said:

HillsboroDuck said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

IMALOSER_ said:

HillsboroDuck said:

IMALOSER_ said:

2011 Special Teams Rankings - Pac-12

Kick Off Return - #3
Kick Off Coverage - #10
Net Punting - #2
Punt Return - #6

Not exactly great being the #10 Kick off coverage team, but the rest was respectable. How hard is it to find a guy that can kick the ball into the endzone?

2012 was a particularly crappy Special Teams performance, all around. 2010 Stats are currently not available on Pac-12 site.

Looks like a mixed bag.

Those rankings in aggregate break down to 5.25th out of 12th. That's above average I guess, but not what I would consider good. Certainly not great.

Just curious how you would rate the coaching of a team that had the following special teams rankings. Would it be awful, bad, good or great coaching? Just trying to get a feel for what you think is good, etc?

2012 Pac-12 Special Teams Rankings - Team A

Kick Off Return - #10
Kick off Coverage - #10
Net Punting - #9
Punt Return - #1

That's pretty bad. If it's Chip Kelly's special teams, I'll also point out that missed field goals cost him dearly in 2011 and 2012.

If you're really, really good in the other two phases, you can overcome bad special teams.

Regardless of which coach it is, you should mention his other seasons too so that we don't think you are cherrypicking data.

It's pretty explainable really - they didn't return many kicks, but they did kick off a million times, they didn't punt often, but they did return a bunch of punts. I'm assuming Loser is using total KO returns and total KO coverage, which is pretty meaningless when you are kicking off at least 5 times a game more than your opponents. It's possible the punting numbers are averaged, in which case the punting is bad, no excuses.

They are all averages. Who in the fuck would do rankings by total yards for Kick offs? Nice spin.

He_Needs_More_Time said:

IMALOSER is the king of cherrypicking stats/using misleading stats to make whatever stupid point he can make.

Just like when talking about Sark's special teams he points the one year where Sark was decent.

With the Seahawks he points out one game out of 18 to make it seem like the Seahawks are devoted to running the ball.

You mean when I responded to a poster that asked when the last time the Huskies had good, not great special team play? Why the fuck would I post seasons that they sucked to answer the question? Are you really a fucktard or do you just play one on the interwebs?

The poster said the Seahawks were dedicated to running to set up the pass. I went back and looked at their last/most important game of the year and they had a 2/1 pass/run ratio in the first half. If you want to break down the first half of all the Seahawk games......have fun.

The Huskies special teams by your own words were a "mix bag" in 2011 not good. The other years they were terrible.

As for your Seahawks example they fell behind 20-0 so of course they are going to be throwing the ball a lot more than running the ball.

Last year the Seahawks were 27th in the league in passing yards per game while 3rd in the league in rushing yards. Of course you didn't point that out.

Of course you didn't point out that in the ATL game Seattle's first two plays of the game were running plays. Of course you don't point out Seattle threw 7 times and ran 5 times in the first quarter.

Of course you didn't point out the previous week in the playoffs the Seahawks threw the ball 26 times and ran the ball 37 fucking times.

As is the case you cherry pick a stat to make your point when you know your point is wrong.

Why no mention of the Seahawks 58-0 win where they ran the ball 42 times and threw only 22 times?

The Seahawks like we all pointed out were devoted to the run and only when they were down big early did they ditch the run. That was the right play as Wilson was lighting up their secondary while they were stuffing Lynch. That's called good coaching something Sark is incapable of.

So when the Seahawks win games they run more than they pass. When the Seahawks lose games they pass more than they run.

You think they win because they run more. You think they lose because they pass more.

In reality it's just like any team. When you are winning, you run the ball to control possession and the clock. When you are losing you have to throw the ball to catch up.

I love it when you fucktards rip on UW after winning a game. Your favorite, see we ran the ball and we won the game. Why don't we do that every week? No we were winning the game and were able to run the ball.

It's not fucking rocket surgery!!!!!

We actually watch the games which you apparently don't. So we see that UW is running successful vs AZ in 2012, Nebraska in 2010, ASU in 2010, BYU in 2010, Nebraska in 2011, Oregon State in 2011, Oregon in 2012 where Sark then completely ignores these trends and goes pass happy.

Then UW is blown out and fucktards like you go "Sark couldn't run the ball UW was so far behind" when at the time he chose to ditch the run UW was only down 7-10 points.

The Seahawks playoffs vs the Redskins which you still have ignored ever happen ran the ball 37 times and threw 26 times. They fell behind 14-0. That is a classic case where Sark would have panic and ditch the run. The Seahawks didn't and stuck with the run as it was successful.

If you actually would have followed that game you would have known.......

Seattle ran more Passing Plays in the first half then they did Running Plays. You would also know that they had more Passing Plays than Running Plays up until they took the lead in the 4th quarter. They then salted the game away running the ball.

You're not very good at this!!!!

You should just stick to the script and accuse me of sucking Sark's balls.

1st quarter: 5 passes, 2 runs(trail 14-0)
2nd quarter: 13 runs, 11 passes
3rd quarter: 8 runs, 7 passes
4th quarter: 12 runs, 9 passes

I was also generous in counting most of Wilson's runs as "pass" plays although some of those were designed runs. Only the first quarter did Seattle pass more than run. They went three and out first series all on passing plays then went to the run.