Not sure if this will stick...

by Fear on Jan 13, 2009 12:05 PM PST Comment 59 comments

but Mora in today's press conference said Bruce DeHaven has been retained. In fact, it looks like there are only going to be a few coaching changes, which have already been announced. He said he's still looking for a cornerback's coach but other then that, he's basically done.

I'm not sure if this will stick, he might change his mind on someone (like DeHaven) and decide he needs to bring someone else in. But for now, he's saying he's done with most of the major coaching hires.

Also, Mora said that he wanted both Quinn AND Bradley to be his defensive coordinator. So Bradley got the job, but Quinn is going to be an assistant head coach/defensive line coach. I guess he's supposed to help out with the defensive coaching and schemes? Mora didn't really elaborate on the relationship there and the media didn't really ask a whole lot of questions about it.

Also as a side note, Mora is stressing the 3 hour time difference as something that needs to be addressed. Namely, he was talking about coaching the players in a way, and setting up situations in such a way that the players will (hopefully) be able to cope with it. Not sure how he intends to do that (maybe start practices at 10am?), but since that's been an achilles heel for Seattle for years it's at least promising that he intends to look into it.

A place to bury strangers.

0 recs | Comment 59 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I thought someone announced we hired someone to replace DeHaven.

BrianL I believe it was you.

YES YES YES YES YES

by Scruffy Lefty on Jan 13, 2009 12:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

No, I said the 'Hawks were bringing someone in to interview.

by BrianL on Jan 13, 2009 12:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And it was O'Neill at the Times who reported that.

by BrianL on Jan 13, 2009 12:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm

Damn you and getting my hopes up.

YES YES YES YES YES

by Scruffy Lefty on Jan 13, 2009 12:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Two things here...

First, in a good grouping, coaches work positions in practice, but when scheming they are just guys who work well together brain storming. Position titles aren’t nearly as important than having a group of guys who are willing to work effectively together.

Second, retaining DeHaven isn’t the end of the world. He may be old hand on the ranch, but he may have a few rodeos remaining. Remember he was dealing in a different format, where the special teams were not valued and better players not given to him, and our estimations thus far has been that Mora will make a resurgent special teams with head coach oversight a focal point.

If he doesn’t think DeHaven can get the job done, he wont be there. If he believes he can given the talent to work with, he’ll be there. Simple enough.

I'm kinda sad Shanahan is gone... I liked the Donkeys being 8-8 every year...

by whiskey chainsaw on Jan 13, 2009 12:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I think there's been some evidence in the past that shows Bruce DeHaven is incompetent.

I’m sure John would have the details.

by BrianL on Jan 13, 2009 12:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That proof is aired on Fox every 12 minutes in the form of the Lie to Me* commercial

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!

by abender20 on Jan 13, 2009 1:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Devil's advocate...

Seahawks finished 2nd in yards per kickoff return and 12th in yards per punt return, 9th in in FG pct., 12th in net punting. The team did struggle in defending punt and kick returns, finishing 20th and 31st respectively, something the ’Hawks have been struggling with for years, 31st and 27th in 2007, and 9th and 27th in 2006.

by Azimeir on Jan 13, 2009 2:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Do your credit DeHaven for Wilson's kick returns, Forsett's punt returns or Mare's field goal percentage?

Seattle was once again awful we’re you would expect a special teams coach to matter most.

by John Morgan on Jan 13, 2009 2:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Do you not credit him?

For any aspect of any of those things?

by Azimeir on Jan 13, 2009 2:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Some credit, but not a lot.

Because the majority of those things come from individual talent. Mare was always around an 80% FG with a strong leg that produced touchbacks. So how did DeHaven coach him? Just stand next to him and say, “Hey Olindo, keep doing that”? Josh Wilson was a dynamic KR in college, blessed with tons of pure speed. I’m sure DeHaven played some roll in refining his ability to spot lanes or follow the wedge, but did he teach him how to outrun guys once he was in the open field?

The one area where a ST coach should really make a difference is coverage. Making sure spacing is correct, players in position to cut off return lanes, good tackling, being aware of/spotting fakes, etc. And that’s the area we were the worst in.

by jteckmann on Jan 13, 2009 2:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Devil's Advocate...

Unless we believe that Devin Hester all the sudden got slow or lost his ability to return kicks this year, I think that one might conclude that proper blocking has a lot to do with successful kick and punt returns; it’s not just a fast return man.

I’m not going to lay poor tackling at the feet of a special teams coordinator. We tackled poorly across the board, and special teams are almost always assembled from leftovers.

Olindo Mare hit on 24 of 27 kicks for an 88.9% rate; over the last six seasons he converted on 119 of 159 kicks for a 74.8% rate, including last season when he was 10 of 17 for a measley 58.8%. If you don’t want to attribute it to Dehaven that’s fine, but don’t pish-posh the fact that a mediocre kicker had a great year.

I’m simply stating that one deserves the good to go along with his bad.

by Azimeir on Jan 13, 2009 4:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's very common for return men to have short peaks.

Speed declines quickly.

I’m curious how you think DeHaven made Mare a better field goal kicker.

by John Morgan on Jan 13, 2009 5:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

How exactly did DeHaven contribute to Mare’s increased FG percentage? o_O

by Fearless Frog on Jan 13, 2009 5:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It is possible...

…that Mare could’ve had some kind of problem with his mechanics. I think that Dehaven was a mediocre special teams coach, but I don’t think that the above successes have nothing to do with him.

Speed declines? Devin Hester is 26 years old!

by Azimeir on Jan 13, 2009 7:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Mare could have had something wrong with him that DeHaven may or may not have fixed.

Can you give us any actual reasons for Dehaven to be retained?

by Nate Dogg on Jan 13, 2009 7:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I did...

The overall numbers suggest that he may be mediocre, not shitty; if there’s no reason for Mora and Co. to believe that an upgrade is available, then why fire him?

Personally, I probably would’ve cut bait earlier in the season (like week 2), I was curious to answer the “Lie To Me” post, so I looked at the whole picture, hence the “Devil’s Advocate” post. The inability to improve the coverage teams in each of the last two years is probably enough to fire him.

by Azimeir on Jan 13, 2009 7:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's more likely that having to play wideout has messed with Hester.

I can’t imagine he’s lost a step.

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!

by abender20 on Jan 14, 2009 8:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Or could it be possible....

That he just didn’t get as good of blocking this year?

by Azimeir on Jan 14, 2009 11:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Doubt it

Watch his return style this year vs. previously, he’s running like he’s got something to save rather than something to prove. Alot to do with new contract (which is what he was running for in the first place) and expanded role.

by vanrijn on Jan 14, 2009 12:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

and I'm stating I've considered it - and that the bad still outweighs the good, IMO.

FG accuracy can vary wildly for any Kicker, year to year, while leg strength & touchbacks tend to stay consistent – a trend we just witnessed with Mare. This wasn’t unprecedented success for him – he’s kicked over 90% twice in his career before. And it doesn’t mean he’s suddenly “better” – he could easily go back to kicking 75% next year. Would DeHaven deserve the blame for that? IMO, no. It is something (both the good & bad) that is largely out of his control.

I’m not pish-poshing it – I personally wanted Mare to be the Kicker since training camp. I’m just trying to be realistic about where the improvement came from. My guess is that Mare’s % spike had more to do with a return to health (he kicked in NO during ’07 with a torn groin) getting out of bad weather AFC East stadiums (and a gusty Miami homefield), and a simple run of good luck than anything DeHaven was telling him.

DeHaven does play a role in setting up blocking, and I will give him credit for that – up to a point. But once Wilson (or any returner) breaks into the open, that’s pretty much his athleticism taking over, and individual talent plays a bigger role. Like John Morgan mentioned, return guys have short peaks. Some of that is because they loose speed, but another big factor is that opponents start coming up with ways to neutralize them. I’d guess that in Hester’s case you’ll see that in addition to a lower average, he had more fair catches and fewer opportunities – all signs that teams were kicking away from him, out of bounds, going for hang-time, etc.

Coverage will always be a bigger knock than return yardage, IMO – because the return game can be more influenced by an individual player, while coverage requires more teamwork, coordination, and fundamentals. And yes, poor tackling or failing to maintain lane responsibility is exactly the type of thing that should be laid at the ST coach’s feet.

by jteckmann on Jan 13, 2009 7:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Lane responsibility, yes...

…tackling, no. Should the ST coach be fired when defensive players miss tackles?

by Azimeir on Jan 13, 2009 7:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not necessarily.

But he should when the STers are frequently out of position and evidently not knowing their assignments.

by Fearless Frog on Jan 13, 2009 8:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hester

IMO, once they gave Hester the spot as a feature reciever, they ruined him as a returner. Primetime said it best, when you return, you haveto not think and just go; now Hester has more to lose if he gets injured and less to gain if he goes crazy on the return game. I think he could do it again easily, but the contract gives him more incentive to play a little on the conservative side now when fielding kicks.

by vanrijn on Jan 14, 2009 7:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

for the record, I do agree completely that he should go...

but I’m hopeful whatever mistakes he made with us in the past can
be remedied, and in Mora I trust.

If in Mora I trust means in DeHaven I trust, then so be it.

Today is a day of optimism and hope, and perhaps there is some upside
to be found in DeHaven if need forces us to acknowledge his return. Or
at worst, we can minimize the downside.

I'm kinda sad Shanahan is gone... I liked the Donkeys being 8-8 every year...

by whiskey chainsaw on Jan 13, 2009 1:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, at least next season he'll be on the hotseat. He knows his job is

in jeopardy. Maybe that’ll make him produce?

by redwolf75 on Jan 13, 2009 1:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Mora also

apparently spent quite a bit of time interviewing people. I believe he said he spent a good 18 hours interviewing Bradley or Quinn (I can’t remember which, sorry). Of course, this was mostly just spending a full day with him to get to know the guy. But that’s how Mora interviews. He wants to know the people, and does more then just spend 2-3 hours interviewing them in a room. Whether he made good choices remains to be seen of course.

by Fear on Jan 13, 2009 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

that goes back...

to the first portion of my original post. If you are going to spend 18 hours on a
day together brain storming, you want to make sure you can stand the guy you
are spending 18 hours with…

I'm kinda sad Shanahan is gone... I liked the Donkeys being 8-8 every year...

by whiskey chainsaw on Jan 13, 2009 1:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Why the hell DeHaven hasn't been kicked to the curb?

He’s awful and we were interviewing a lot of promising ST coach candidates.

by Fearless Frog on Jan 13, 2009 1:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Whatever the reason - luck, 'bio-clocks', on the road love affairs...

If the Seahawks don’t figure out how to win on the road against good teams they will never escape mediocrity; 2005 was a fluke.

by Azimeir on Jan 13, 2009 2:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

What the fuck dude

Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.

by BrettJMiller on Jan 13, 2009 5:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I repeat: a fluke.

2005 Seahawks were 5-3 on the road.

Wins: Rams (6-10), Cardinals (5-11), 49ers (4-12), Eagles (6-10), Titans (4-12)
Losses: Jaguars (12-4), Redskins (10-6), Packers (4-12)

‘Hawks finished 13-3 which, that year, was good enough to get home field advantage. Historically, it either takes at least a few wins against good teams to get home field or a weak year from one’s competitors. Failing this, the ability to win on the road in the playoffs becomes necessary.

The last time the ’Hawks won on the road against a team that finished the year 10-6 or better? November 11, 1990. Check it.

So we can wait around for everyone else to tank for us, or figure out how to win on the road against good teams.

by Azimeir on Jan 13, 2009 7:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well the Packers game doesn't matter because we didn't play our starters

Cause we had homefield clinched and we lost to the Redskins cause Josh Brown missed a FG.

So the 5-3 could of easily been 7-1. I don’t think it was much of a fluke.

NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!

by Scruffy Lefty on Jan 13, 2009 10:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And there isn't much shame in losing to good teams on the road

by Nate Dogg on Jan 13, 2009 10:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't get me wrong...

No shame. No shame at all; it’s just that I dream of rooting for a Seattle Seahawks team that is an undisputed powerhouse – an elite team – and considering how crappy the NFC West has been the ‘Hawks have been just slightly above average. Seattle’s inability to win on the road against good competition stands between what they have accomplished and what I would like them to accomplish.

Since that win in Kansas City, the Seahawks are 0-38 on the road against teams that finished the season 10-6 or better, including playoffs, including 0-2 in 2005 (not counting the neutral-site Super Bowl). Just to give it scale, the NFL in it’s entirety between 2002-2009 – including this last weekend – has posted a .236 winning percentage in the same conditions, and the last team that won a Super Bowl without posting at least one such win was the 1999 St. Louis Rams.

2005 was a year in which no other NFC team stood up (consider that the 2007 Packers were 13-3 and did not get home field advantage throughout were it not for New York) to contend and the Seahawks took care of their own business (the ‘Hawks do not have problems winning at home), albeit in a pathetic division. Seattle was never able to replicate the performance, lost the Super Bowl (which would’ve shut everyone up at least for one year) and slapping a pair of mediocre 9-7 seasons around it.

Fluke: A lucky or improbable occurrence, with the implication that the occurrence could not be repeated.

by Azimeir on Jan 13, 2009 11:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think fluke is the wrong word

If the 2005 Seahawks went 13-3 with a point differential of like +10 then I’d say they were a fluke, but the Seahawks pretty much dominated the rest of the NFC.

The weak division argument doesn’t hold much weight either, the Seahawks were 6-0 in the west with a +101 point differential (or something close to that), they beat the crap out of bad teams and thats what most contenders and super bowl winners do: beat the bad teams, break even with the good ones.

by MFAN on Jan 14, 2009 12:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think what he's trying to say

is that we havn’t been breaking even with the good ones. We’ve been losing all the road games (which shouldn’t happen, not ALL of them), and losing some of the home games (which is bound to happen). He’s saying we need to win at least some of our road games against the good teams, that we need to improve in that department. I think that’s his point.

by Fear on Jan 14, 2009 12:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

we're not the only west coast team that sucks on the east coast

see SD and Zona this year, I believe.

by djafrot on Jan 14, 2009 10:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

There's no "win on the road against good teams" skill

It’s obviously very hard to win on the road against a 10-6 or better team. And should be equally obvious that most Super Bowl winning teams do it once, especially when you include the postseason. Any team that wins the Super Bowl either A) posted a very good record earning home field throughout. This set of teams is likely to have beaten at least one very good team on the road, i.e. 10-6 or better. Or B) been a team that got hot late and beat a very good team one the road in the playoffs. But clearly it’s not an essential skill. Again, as you point out, the 1999 Rams, a very dominant team and eventual Super Bowl champion, doesn’t fit your criteria.

You have a conclusion and you’re picking and choosing facts to support it. If you’re truly interested in how good Seattle has been, you might want to investigate advanced metrics like Football Outsiders DVOA. It doesn’t pick theories or look for facts to support a presumed goal. It objectively rates the actual performance of football teams.

by John Morgan on Jan 14, 2009 11:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

But you're implying...

That Football Outsiders DVOA metrics are 100% infallible. As much as I like Football Outsiders, just because they’re objective doesn’t mean they’re perfect; the Arizona Cardinals are defying their DVOA ratings. I’m merely implying that, having watched every game of the 2007 Seahawks played, I do not believe that they were a top 5 defense (they were ranked 11th for the whole season, but weighted at 5th; I submit that they were not playing that well at the end of the season), which would be merely another anomaly in an otherwise highly accurate metric.

Quite frankly, I’m offended that you would imply that I’m “picking and choosing facts… to support a presumed goal”; I started doing research to do a Holmgren retrospective of his time in Seattle and his career overall. When I started to consider road failures, I tried to remember the last time they won on the road against a really good team and chose to use a 10-6 record as a cut off as I looked back through the seasons. I then thought that perhaps winning on the road against 10-6 or better teams was extremely rare. A .236 winning percentage is low, but it isn’t rare; that’s nearly 1 win for every 4 tough road games. From 1980-1990 the ‘Hawks were 8-27 for the league average winning percentage of .229. Over the last 18 years they’ve been 0-38.

It’s a simpler metric than DVOA (which only goes back to 1995 at this point) but no less valid.

by Azimeir on Jan 14, 2009 12:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The Cardinals "defying their DVOA ratings"

in no way invalidates the measure as a whole. The base DVOA numbers are not predictive of single future matchups, where team momentum (The Buzzsaw clicking fully) or luck (running into Jake Delhomme while seemingly drunk, or at least paying homage to Favre) are beyond prediction. The point is to look at what the team has accomplished already to get a feel for their talent as a whole. You can’t just take one example of a team defying expectation as justification for writing it off.

Also, casually watching a few games would in no way allow you to say “X had a bad defense”, much in the same way that watching Jodie Meeks drop 54 points for Kentucky last night would allow you to definitely say he is the best shooter in the country.

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!

by abender20 on Jan 14, 2009 12:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

All I said...

Was that DVOA ranking were not perfect. I like DVOA ratings. I respect DVOA ratings. However, since they are not perfect, one can’t simply use “DVOA rating was good” as the end all be all of all discussions.

So I didn’t write anything off, I referred to the Cardinals as an anomaly which would be my opinion of their performance regardless of metric. It seems that my opinion is being written off for giving undue consideration for wins and losses.

by Azimeir on Jan 14, 2009 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I am in no way implying that Football Outsiders DVOA metrics are 100% infallible.

Nor is one team a compelling argument against their methods.

It’s a simpler metric than DVOA (which only goes back to 1995 at this point) but no less valid.

It’s much less valid. It’s not a metric; it’s a statistical anomaly. What about the Seahawks franchise would make them incapable of winning on the road? It’s meaningless. It’s not a specific goal Seattle needs to achieve to be a great team. If the 2009 Seattle Seahawks went 16-0, but none of their road competition managed a 10-6 record, should they be considered less capable of winning the title? If they went 15-1, but their loan loss was to a future 12-4 team on the road, would that be a failed season? It’s just a coincidence. It’s not based on any sort of objective framework. It reads powerful, but if I spent enough time, I’m sure I could find some damning statistical anomaly about every Super Bowl losing and Super Bowl winning team that ever was. It’s not predicative and it’s not a meaningful criticism of the franchise.

by John Morgan on Jan 14, 2009 3:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What does this have to do with the topic of the diary?

19 games is not a fluke.

by John Morgan on Jan 14, 2009 3:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm starting to feel a little persecuted...

Also as a side note, Mora is stressing the 3 hour time difference as something that needs to be addressed. Namely, he was talking about coaching the players in a way, and setting up situations in such a way that the players will (hopefully) be able to cope with it. Not sure how he intends to do that (maybe start practices at 10am?), but since that’s been an achilles heel for Seattle for years it’s at least promising that he intends to look into it.

This is me agreeing with Mora’s focus on this issue, supporting my team’s coach’s thought process. Aside from 2005 (and 1984 if you want to go back that far), the Seahawks have been mired in mediocrity, winning 11+ games only twice since the franchise’s inception. With regards to road woes, the ‘Hawks were 0-22 under Holmgren on the road against teams that finished the season 10-6 or better. The ’Hawks were 6-25 during Knox’s reign, much closer to the league’s overall winning percentage against this type of competition. I believe that it’s possible that a coach – his manner of preparation, coaching philosophy, attitude, whatever – may affect this number, and there is some evidence – which you believe is coincidental – that supports this.

Regardless, it is on topic.

by Azimeir on Jan 15, 2009 1:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Your second post of this subthreaded intentionally derailed the fanpost.

By using that comment to expound upon your belief that the 2005 season was a fluke you steered the aim of the conversation away from this fanpost’s subject and towards something entirely different. You went trolling for a reaction, got it, and ran with it.

by BrianL on Jan 15, 2009 2:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I did not troll

Merely cut off what was the likely response to:

If the Seahawks don’t figure out how to win on the road against good teams they will never escape mediocrity.

by Azimeir on Jan 15, 2009 2:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Basically you should of left off - "2005 was a fluke"

NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!

by Scruffy Lefty on Jan 15, 2009 3:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Kind of agree with something there

In that it was infuriating how Holmgren refused to acknowledge that was a problem and seemed to hope it would vanish on its own without attempting to fix it.

by Fearless Frog on Jan 15, 2009 4:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

But thats not true

He has said that he has tried everything from flying in early to practicing early etc….

NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!

by Scruffy Lefty on Jan 15, 2009 4:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I've never read a good argument that it is a problem

Seattle has recently played poorly in the ET because they’ve been overmatched by the teams that play in the ET.

by John Morgan on Jan 15, 2009 5:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Mora mentioned Seattle playing in the ET

You steered that to Seattle’s inability to beat 10-6 (or better) teams on the road. That’s tangentially connected at best. The post is clearly about Mora’s press conference and not Holmgren’s record on the road. And really, I don’t think you’re giving yourself credit. It sounds like you’re researching something interesting, so make it a FanPost of its own. It’s only respectful of the creator of the post and the people reading the post that discussion stays somewhat on topic. I’m not very strict about this, but it’s getting out of control.

by John Morgan on Jan 15, 2009 5:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hm...

Curious. Anyone know what Holmgren’s record is against 10-6 teams on the road when he was the Packer’s coach? If it is similarily below average then maybe Azimeir is onto something.

by LantermanC on Jan 15, 2009 10:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

On topic

Anyone attempting to hijack a FanPost or front page post will have their content deleted, be warned and be banned if they continue to do so.

by John Morgan on Jan 14, 2009 3:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Well

“Also as a side note, Mora is stressing the 3 hour time difference as something that needs to be addressed. Namely, he was talking about coaching the players in a way, and setting up situations in such a way that the players will (hopefully) be able to cope with it. Not sure how he intends to do that (maybe start practices at 10am?), but since that’s been an achilles heel for Seattle for years it’s at least promising that he intends to look into it.”

I’m pretty sure this side-note was what caused the discussion, which would make it “on-topic.” A little research brought on a discussion that turned into a discussion about methods and such, but it progressed naturally as far as I can tell.

Am I reading the situation wrong?

by cashless on Jan 14, 2009 5:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If something is only very loosely connected to the topic

like Mora mentioning Seattle’s ability to play in the ET and how that connects to Holmgren’s overall record on the road, it would be better to turn it into its own FanPost. The discussion here is about Mora’s press conference and I see no strong connection between that and Holmgren’s record on the road against good teams.

by John Morgan on Jan 15, 2009 5:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs