Im getting sick of Pete's face.

[Maelstrom787]

The entire LOB would have been sitting on the bench waiting for the veterans ahead of them to retire.

Benched for every personal foul. Earl eternally in the doghouse. Lynch benched for not accepting coaching well. Russ never gets a chance because he won't throw on time.

 

[cymatica]

No, they are not. They absolutely are not the correct probabilities to compare, because again, you need the 3-and-out anyway.

The only chances that matter are how much the failed onside hurts your chances of winning the game overall vs. how much a successful onside helps them, weighed against the 5-6% chance of converting the onside.

It didn't matter worth a shit, anyway. The game was being lost. There was very, very, very, very little to lose.

What don't you understand about losing field position and a timeout and how that makes one 3 and out scenario worse than the other? You are completely ignoring key details

 

[xgeoff]

At least 5 titles

How many titles with a mini-Holmgren? Like, say 14 inches high?

 

[Maelstrom787]

What don't you understand about losing field position and a timeout and how that makes one 3 and out scenario worse than the other? You are completely ignoring key details

What don't you understand about those being secondary factors in this decision? I'm considering them. They just don't ******* matter as much as you think they do in a situation where the chance of winning the game is sub 5% to begin with.

The situation is already terrible. Why are we fighting to desperately defend a miniscule win percentage and trying to play conservatives when we're on a last gasp anyway? Take the goddamn shot!

 

[cymatica]

What don't you understand about those being secondary factors in this decision? I'm considering them. They just don't ******* matter as much as you think they do in a situation where the chance of winning the game is sub 5% to begin with.

The situation is already terrible. Why are we fighting to desperately defend a miniscule win percentage and trying to play conservatives when we're on a last gasp anyway? Take the goddamn shot!

Those are major factors that greatly improve your chances when taken into consideration.

Whatever though. If you think you know better than pretty much every other person who watches football then it's pointless for me to keep using logic

 

[djb28]

It’s like waking up to the same chick 15 years later and 75lbs heavier.

Are you spying on my life?

 

[James in PA]

THIS DEFENSE SUCKS AND HAS FOR YEARS!

 

[Grahamhawker]

How many titles with a mini-Holmgren? Like, say 14 inches high?

Hard to say, but I'd have to say less than five.

Actually,I'd take that paper from the burrito that was used to knock Pete off his motorcycle, wad it up good and tight and fire it straight at Mini-Holmgren, just to see what kind of damage it could do. Really tired of that guy!

 

[hinton]

At least 5 titles

i mean, this is so delusional that it must be trolling

 

[xgeoff]

Hard to say, but I'd have to say less than five.

Actually,I'd take that paper from the burrito that was used to knock Pete off his motorcycle, wad it up good and tight and fire it straight at Mini-Holmgren., just to see what kind of damage it could do. Really tired of that guy!

Hypothetically, let’s say the Seahawks get stranded, and the only one to show up for the game is full-size Holmgren. Who wins?

 

[Titus Pullo]

Does Geno ever call an audible?

 

[HawkFreak]

Does Geno ever call an audible?

No. That's an attribute that he lacks.

 

[Fade]

-Sherm started 4th on the depth chart. He needed injuries to Trufant and Thurmond to get on the field. Pete didn't anoint him.

-Kam was also a backup.

Holmgren, was also mostly hands off when it came to the defense. He wasn't a meddler. The cream would've risen to the top on defense.

RW would've developed under Holmgren. Gruden via Holmgren loved RW.

He also had Seneca who had no where near the arm talent of RW. Holmgren wins more with the most stacked roster of the decade. (Though he would never build it. I'm just talking coaching.)

Meanwhile, plop Pete onto Holmy's team, worst in the league.

 

[Ozzy]

I think Holmgren is underrated

 

[Dallashawksfan]

Yeah time for old man to retire

Don’t be selfish

 

[Grahamhawker]

Hire Holmgren!

 

[rjdriver]

You can't help yourself, can you? You're really, really hurt by me defending a decision based on straight-up win probability. It's weird.

I laid out my logic-based reasoning in great detail, and you've done nothing but piss and moan since.

It was logic based reasoning but it was not based on strait up win probability.

We would need presumptive probabilities for both a kick off touch back and an onside kicks.

Giving the probability for an onside kick is simply one variable.

I’ve always loved your posts and always will, you know way more about pigskin than I do, but I studied stats and probs at a high university level and feel confident that your supposition was flawed.

 

[hinton]

-Sherm started 4th on the depth chart. He needed injuries to Trufant and Thurmond to get on the field. Pete didn't anoint him.

-Kam was also a backup.

Holmgren, was also mostly hands off when it came to the defense. He wasn't a meddler. The cream would've risen to the top on defense.

RW would've developed under Holmgren. Gruden via Holmgren loved RW.

He also had Seneca who had no where near the arm talent of RW. Holmgren wins more with the most stacked roster of the decade. (Though he would never build it. I'm just talking coaching.)

Meanwhile, plop Pete onto Holmy's team, worst in the league.

Part of me wants to respond to this point by point But the parent in me thinks when someone else's kid started insisting 2 + 2 = 5 then I just kinda think its someone else's problem to deal with.

Holmgrem was good for us for a while, but ultimately he wasn't good enough to win it all. He also had the advantage of a really weak division throughout so we were almost guaranteed the playoffs. There's no way Holmgrem's ego would have either built a team like that, and he wouldn't have tolerated most of the players if he'd inherited it.

 

[Maelstrom787]

It was logic based reasoning but it was not based on strait up win probability.

We would need presumptive probabilities for both a kick off touch back and an onside kicks.

Giving the probability for an onside kick is simply one variable.

I’ve always loved your posts and always will, you know way more about pigskin than I do, but I studied stats and probs at a high university level and feel confident that your supposition was flawed.

This is fair, and I don't have all of the necessary pieces of probability data to make this an exact science, but it holds that the direct comparison between the probability of an onside recovery and a defensive three-and-out also isn't really what we should be looking at to judge the decision. There's a lot more to consider than that.

I'm just estimating based on what I have available, which is the general range of WP% prior to the onside being made (within 2-3%) and the probability of an onside recovery. Extrapolating from that, I really don't think it was worth defending the one realistic path we had towards a win over taking that chance at making it a real game.

This reasoning, to me, is objective. My reasoning is not a subjective determination based on an agenda to defend Pete Carroll, which is the accusation.

 

[Titus Pullo]

Hopefully, history doesn't repeat itself and Belichick replaces Carroll again.