It's Time to Dispel the Myth

[xray]

I'm not as extreme as you, both Russell and Schotty have input into gameplanning and playcalling............but yes, in the end this is the offense Pete wants, and he wants it schemed, personnelled and run his way.

So not sure what myth you're referring to, I think we all know and admit this. It's why Pete hires the types of offensive coaches he hires, yes men that will call and scheme like he wants, and not coaches that want more autonomy.

In retrospect, you are probably right, there isn't a persistent myth out there about it. The last game just served as my own personal nail-in-the-coffin to the 5% hope I was holding onto that maybe PC has been looking for a DeFillipo style offensive genius this whole time and had just been let down by Bevell.

Pete's stubbornness frustrates me too, but his philosophies are also responsible for the winningest era in Seahawk football ever, so it's hard to fault him for sticking to his core philosophies.

I just wish he'd be a LITTLE more pliable when it comes to scheming for his opponent's weaknesses, and not just "we worry about us, not them" mentality, as I do think it has and will continue to cost us games unnecessarily.

That is a very debatable statement! IMO there are several coaches that likely would have struck gold more than once with that team they constructed. I will give him and John credit for putting that team together, and Pete for coaching up the players and providing the environment to compete.... but the offensive and defensive strategies or philosophies being the reason we won I seriously question. Especially the offensive one.

IMO philosophies don't win football games players do . Good players need some coaching : but great players only need minimal coaching at all . We all see how coaching can muck up a game . Your'e right about striking gold more than once with different coaches and the same team . I'm guessing 3 rings by now .

 

[John63]

That our offensive coordinators have anything to do with the overall game plan. We are on our second coordinator now where over-commitment to the run game and the predictable run-run-pass-punt formula continues to be a problem.

The real myth here is that "run-run-pass-punt" is a thing. It's not. This last game had four drives out of 12 (two of the drives were kneels to end the game) that started "run-run-pass". And you know what two of those resulted in? Touchdowns.

Starting "run-run-pass" only happened on 1/3rd of the drives. And if you add the sacks (4) back into the pass attempts you get 24 pass plays to 25 run plays.

I remember somebody claiming "run-run-pass" last season too. Except when we went and pulled the play by play and went through it, you'd end up games consistently inconsistent on what sequence is chosen. It's almost as if the coaches mix up the play sequence so the defense doesn't know if it's going to be a pass or a run.

Here's the sequence from Sunday:

Drive 1 - Run/Pass/Pass/Punt
Drive 2 - Run/Pass/Run/Punt
Drive 3 - Pass/Run/Pass/Pass/Pass/Punt
Drive 4 - Run/Run/Pass/Pass/Run/Run/Pass/Run/TD 
Drive 5 - Run/Run/Pass/Punt
Drive 6 - Pass/Pass/Pass/Pass/Run/Pass/TD
Drive 7 - Kneel
Drive 8 - Run/Fumble
Drive 9 - Run/Run/Pass/Punt
Drive 10 - Pass/Pass/Pass/Punt
Drive 11 - Run/Run/Pass/Run/Pass/TD 
Drive 12 - Pass/Run/Pass/Punt
Drive 13 - Run/Run/Run/Run/Run/Run/Punt
Drive 14 - Kneel

I agree we are not run run pas as much so far as last year, that said unfortunately it is obvious when we are running and when we are passing. The only exception is When Wilson is calling the shots which is only when we have 2 minutes or less or we are behind in the 4th

 

[bbsplitter]

That our offensive coordinators have anything to do with the overall game plan. We are on our second coordinator now where over-commitment to the run game and the predictable run-run-pass-punt formula continues to be a problem.

The real myth here is that "run-run-pass-punt" is a thing. It's not. This last game had four drives out of 12 (two of the drives were kneels to end the game) that started "run-run-pass". And you know what two of those resulted in? Touchdowns.

Starting "run-run-pass" only happened on 1/3rd of the drives. And if you add the sacks (4) back into the pass attempts you get 24 pass plays to 25 run plays.

I remember somebody claiming "run-run-pass" last season too. Except when we went and pulled the play by play and went through it, you'd end up games consistently inconsistent on what sequence is chosen. It's almost as if the coaches mix up the play sequence so the defense doesn't know if it's going to be a pass or a run.

Here's the sequence from Sunday:

Drive 1 - Run/Pass/Pass/Punt
Drive 2 - Run/Pass/Run/Punt
Drive 3 - Pass/Run/Pass/Pass/Pass/Punt
Drive 4 - Run/Run/Pass/Pass/Run/Run/Pass/Run/TD 
Drive 5 - Run/Run/Pass/Punt
Drive 6 - Pass/Pass/Pass/Pass/Run/Pass/TD
Drive 7 - Kneel
Drive 8 - Run/Fumble
Drive 9 - Run/Run/Pass/Punt
Drive 10 - Pass/Pass/Pass/Punt
Drive 11 - Run/Run/Pass/Run/Pass/TD 
Drive 12 - Pass/Run/Pass/Punt
Drive 13 - Run/Run/Run/Run/Run/Run/Punt
Drive 14 - Kneel

You are probably right that myself and others exaggerate the run-run-pass trope, I'm not above admitting my own personal bias might make me more sensitive to noticing the times it does happen. However I will say what these end result play breakdowns don't take into account is the situation those plays ended up being called in.

If we lose three yards on a run on first down, it becomes exponentially more likely/predictable we will need to throw for the next two downs, which in turn the defense recognizes and proceeds accordingly. Rinse repeat.

 

[Seymour]

Even with Pete's mentality, I just can't understand why it is that, when our opponents are stacking the line in an obvious attempt to stop any run, why don't we just throw short passes until they back the hell up? Can anybody explain that to me?

Pete can!!

And given history I would imagine his answer would be what I've heard too many times. "It's not about them, it's about us".

Well Pete....if they are stopping our ass and we are not moving the ball, then start telling "us" to switch gears!

 

[bmorepunk]

That our offensive coordinators have anything to do with the overall game plan. We are on our second coordinator now where over-commitment to the run game and the predictable run-run-pass-punt formula continues to be a problem.

The real myth here is that "run-run-pass-punt" is a thing. It's not. This last game had four drives out of 12 (two of the drives were kneels to end the game) that started "run-run-pass". And you know what two of those resulted in? Touchdowns.

Starting "run-run-pass" only happened on 1/3rd of the drives. And if you add the sacks (4) back into the pass attempts you get 24 pass plays to 25 run plays.

I remember somebody claiming "run-run-pass" last season too. Except when we went and pulled the play by play and went through it, you'd end up games consistently inconsistent on what sequence is chosen. It's almost as if the coaches mix up the play sequence so the defense doesn't know if it's going to be a pass or a run.

Here's the sequence from Sunday:

Drive 1 - Run/Pass/Pass/Punt
Drive 2 - Run/Pass/Run/Punt
Drive 3 - Pass/Run/Pass/Pass/Pass/Punt
Drive 4 - Run/Run/Pass/Pass/Run/Run/Pass/Run/TD 
Drive 5 - Run/Run/Pass/Punt
Drive 6 - Pass/Pass/Pass/Pass/Run/Pass/TD
Drive 7 - Kneel
Drive 8 - Run/Fumble
Drive 9 - Run/Run/Pass/Punt
Drive 10 - Pass/Pass/Pass/Punt
Drive 11 - Run/Run/Pass/Run/Pass/TD 
Drive 12 - Pass/Run/Pass/Punt
Drive 13 - Run/Run/Run/Run/Run/Run/Punt
Drive 14 - Kneel

You are probably right that myself and others exaggerate the run-run-pass trope, I'm not above admitting my own personal bias might make me more sensitive to noticing the times it does happen. However I will say what these end result play breakdowns don't take into account is the situation those plays ended up being called in.

If we lose three yards on a run on first down, it becomes exponentially more likely/predictable we will need to throw for the next two downs, which in turn the defense recognizes and proceeds accordingly. Rinse repeat.

I think what you're wanting to see is more passes on the first play. This game had about a 2:1 runass on the first play ratio.

 

[bbsplitter]

That our offensive coordinators have anything to do with the overall game plan. We are on our second coordinator now where over-commitment to the run game and the predictable run-run-pass-punt formula continues to be a problem.

The real myth here is that "run-run-pass-punt" is a thing. It's not. This last game had four drives out of 12 (two of the drives were kneels to end the game) that started "run-run-pass". And you know what two of those resulted in? Touchdowns.

Starting "run-run-pass" only happened on 1/3rd of the drives. And if you add the sacks (4) back into the pass attempts you get 24 pass plays to 25 run plays.

I remember somebody claiming "run-run-pass" last season too. Except when we went and pulled the play by play and went through it, you'd end up games consistently inconsistent on what sequence is chosen. It's almost as if the coaches mix up the play sequence so the defense doesn't know if it's going to be a pass or a run.

Here's the sequence from Sunday:

Drive 1 - Run/Pass/Pass/Punt
Drive 2 - Run/Pass/Run/Punt
Drive 3 - Pass/Run/Pass/Pass/Pass/Punt
Drive 4 - Run/Run/Pass/Pass/Run/Run/Pass/Run/TD 
Drive 5 - Run/Run/Pass/Punt
Drive 6 - Pass/Pass/Pass/Pass/Run/Pass/TD
Drive 7 - Kneel
Drive 8 - Run/Fumble
Drive 9 - Run/Run/Pass/Punt
Drive 10 - Pass/Pass/Pass/Punt
Drive 11 - Run/Run/Pass/Run/Pass/TD 
Drive 12 - Pass/Run/Pass/Punt
Drive 13 - Run/Run/Run/Run/Run/Run/Punt
Drive 14 - Kneel

You are probably right that myself and others exaggerate the run-run-pass trope, I'm not above admitting my own personal bias might make me more sensitive to noticing the times it does happen. However I will say what these end result play breakdowns don't take into account is the situation those plays ended up being called in.

If we lose three yards on a run on first down, it becomes exponentially more likely/predictable we will need to throw for the next two downs, which in turn the defense recognizes and proceeds accordingly. Rinse repeat.

I think what you're wanting to see is more passes on the first play. This game had about a 2:1 runass on the first play ratio.

I'm honestly not really looking for anything specific to be done on each of the play sequences or such. I just want plays that are even SLIGHTLY more reactionary to what the defense is presenting. If the defense in loading the box each play, lets not run an interior zone read into that... like ever.

Reacting naturally to the defense I think would just automatically lead to a more productive/less predictable drives for the offense.

That's mainly what was being bought up is how Pete is the opposite of a reactionary coach. Which serves you well in some instances and not so well in others. I don't see any wrong in trying to improve the chances in running successful plays though. Yes PC's system works, and has won us a lot of games. However I don't think anyone has any business saying we can't do better, and it's understandable that some people are becoming slightly frustrated when there seems to be so much stubbornness to change something that seems so simple.

 

[xray]

Same topic as last year " run run pass punt " If the OL doesn't get a whole bunch better ; it won't matter what they do .
Run-run -run-punt...Pass-pass-pass-punt . Too many bad or broken plays that start with OL . Carroll has had many years to address this . and it never seems to get better . The other great QBs in the league always seem to have good Ols...what's their secret ?

 

[xray]

The real myth here is that "run-run-pass-punt" is a thing. It's not. This last game had four drives out of 12 (two of the drives were kneels to end the game) that started "run-run-pass". And you know what two of those resulted in? Touchdowns.

Starting "run-run-pass" only happened on 1/3rd of the drives. And if you add the sacks (4) back into the pass attempts you get 24 pass plays to 25 run plays.

I remember somebody claiming "run-run-pass" last season too. Except when we went and pulled the play by play and went through it, you'd end up games consistently inconsistent on what sequence is chosen. It's almost as if the coaches mix up the play sequence so the defense doesn't know if it's going to be a pass or a run.

Here's the sequence from Sunday:

Drive 1 - Run/Pass/Pass/Punt
Drive 2 - Run/Pass/Run/Punt
Drive 3 - Pass/Run/Pass/Pass/Pass/Punt
Drive 4 - Run/Run/Pass/Pass/Run/Run/Pass/Run/TD 
Drive 5 - Run/Run/Pass/Punt
Drive 6 - Pass/Pass/Pass/Pass/Run/Pass/TD
Drive 7 - Kneel
Drive 8 - Run/Fumble
Drive 9 - Run/Run/Pass/Punt
Drive 10 - Pass/Pass/Pass/Punt
Drive 11 - Run/Run/Pass/Run/Pass/TD 
Drive 12 - Pass/Run/Pass/Punt
Drive 13 - Run/Run/Run/Run/Run/Run/Punt
Drive 14 - Kneel

You are probably right that myself and others exaggerate the run-run-pass trope, I'm not above admitting my own personal bias might make me more sensitive to noticing the times it does happen. However I will say what these end result play breakdowns don't take into account is the situation those plays ended up being called in.

If we lose three yards on a run on first down, it becomes exponentially more likely/predictable we will need to throw for the next two downs, which in turn the defense recognizes and proceeds accordingly. Rinse repeat.

I think what you're wanting to see is more passes on the first play. This game had about a 2:1 runass on the first play ratio.

I'm honestly not really looking for anything specific to be done on each of the play sequences or such. I just want plays that are even SLIGHTLY more reactionary to what the defense is presenting. If the defense in loading the box each play, lets not run an interior zone read into that... like ever.

Reacting naturally to the defense I think would just automatically lead to a more productive/less predictable drives for the offense.

That's mainly what was being bought up is how Pete is the opposite of a reactionary coach. Which serves you well in some instances and not so well in others. I don't see any wrong in trying to improve the chances in running successful plays though. Yes PC's system works, and has won us a lot of games. However I don't think anyone has any business saying we can't do better, and it's understandable that some people are becoming slightly frustrated when there seems to be so much stubbornness to change something that seems so simple.

How about Wilson throws his earpiece to the turf and calls his own plays .; and Carroll and Shotty ride the pine .

 

[bbsplitter]

Same topic as last year " run run pass punt " If the OL doesn't get a whole bunch better ; it won't matter what they do .
Run-run -run-punt...Pass-pass-pass-punt . Too many bad or broken plays that start with OL . Carroll has had many years to address this . and it never seems to get better . The other great QBs in the league always seem to have good Ols...what's their secret ?

Except it has been proven that deficiencies can be schemed around/covered up. Prime example of this is actually as easy as looking at the Bengals o-line. We loaded up to stop the run, kept 3 linebackers on the field, and they have a terrible mash up of left over offensive lineman. They adapted to it, threw a ton of short passes and generally had their way with us.

Yes we still won, but if we reverse the situation, and had the Benagals be the ones to not adapt, they would have lost by a lot more than they did. We can always improve, and if we were able to recognize these problems and adapt before they lost us a game, that would be very beneficial.

 

[DomeHawk]

Exactly!

And this is also why I said that Schotty was just a puppet hire from day 1.

This is only partially true, go back and look at Schotty's history, this is who he is.

 

[bbsplitter]

Exactly!

And this is also why I said that Schotty was just a puppet hire from day 1.

This is only partially true, go back and look at Schotty's history, this is who he is.

He has run some pretty pass heavy schemes. Which was part of the problem he had historically because he had some pretty crappy QB's that gave them that many more opportunities to throw INT's.

 

[xray]

Same topic as last year " run run pass punt " If the OL doesn't get a whole bunch better ; it won't matter what they do .
Run-run -run-punt...Pass-pass-pass-punt . Too many bad or broken plays that start with OL . Carroll has had many years to address this . and it never seems to get better . The other great QBs in the league always seem to have good Ols...what's their secret ?

Except it has been proven that deficiencies can be schemed around/covered up. Prime example of this is actually as easy as looking at the Bengals o-line. We loaded up to stop the run, kept 3 linebackers on the field, and they have a terrible mash up of left over offensive lineman. They adapted to it, threw a ton of short passes and generally had their way with us.

Yes we still won, but if we reverse the situation, and had the Benagals be the ones to not adapt, they would have lost by a lot more than they did. We can always improve, and if we were able to recognize these problems and adapt before they lost us a game, that would be very beneficial.

I don't think that a deficient OL can be covered up . It is what it is . This takes us back to the Dallas wild card game . They figured out how to throttle down the Hawks run game ; and this year on day 1 ; the run game gets throttled down again . I wonder if the Hawks run game finally got exposed and our opponents will concentrate on shutting it down knowing the Hawks aren't very good at pass blocking . It's all about the trenches boys and girls . IMO

 

[bbsplitter]

Same topic as last year " run run pass punt " If the OL doesn't get a whole bunch better ; it won't matter what they do .
Run-run -run-punt...Pass-pass-pass-punt . Too many bad or broken plays that start with OL . Carroll has had many years to address this . and it never seems to get better . The other great QBs in the league always seem to have good Ols...what's their secret ?

Except it has been proven that deficiencies can be schemed around/covered up. Prime example of this is actually as easy as looking at the Bengals o-line. We loaded up to stop the run, kept 3 linebackers on the field, and they have a terrible mash up of left over offensive lineman. They adapted to it, threw a ton of short passes and generally had their way with us.

Yes we still won, but if we reverse the situation, and had the Benagals be the ones to not adapt, they would have lost by a lot more than they did. We can always improve, and if we were able to recognize these problems and adapt before they lost us a game, that would be very beneficial.

I don't think that a deficient OL can be covered up . It is what it is . This takes us back to the Dallas wild card game . They figured out how to throttle down the Hawks run game ; and this year on day 1 ; the run game gets throttled down again . I wonder if the Hawks run game finally got exposed and our opponents will concentrate on shutting it down knowing the Hawks aren't very good at pass blocking . It's all about the trenches boys and girls . IMO

I don't really think teams have ever really needed to "figure out" what we were doing as far as the run game. Our running scheme has always been pretty straightforward - it's mainly a question of which teams have the personnel to match up, and how much we shoot ourselves in the foot while trying to execute said run game.

 

[Seymour]

Exactly!

And this is also why I said that Schotty was just a puppet hire from day 1.

This is only partially true, go back and look at Schotty's history, this is who he is.

Agree except part of the puppet masters job is to choose a puppet that takes little effort to move how you like him too. In other words, Pete choose him for that reason, and he was unemployed (as an OC) for a reason as well. Most of the dinosaurs have been blown out your tailpipe. :lol:

 

[DomeHawk]

Exactly!

And this is also why I said that Schotty was just a puppet hire from day 1.

This is only partially true, go back and look at Schotty's history, this is who he is.

He has run some pretty pass heavy schemes. Which was part of the problem he had historically because he had some pretty crappy QB's that gave them that many more opportunities to throw INT's.

He's never done anything.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattufford ... 8389191839

 

[JGreen79]

Last season

You mean the two games Pete went against his offensive philosophy?

 

[bbsplitter]

Exactly!

And this is also why I said that Schotty was just a puppet hire from day 1.

This is only partially true, go back and look at Schotty's history, this is who he is.

He has run some pretty pass heavy schemes. Which was part of the problem he had historically because he had some pretty crappy QB's that gave them that many more opportunities to throw INT's.

He's never done anything.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattufford ... 8389191839

I'm not really sure what I am supposed to gain from your post, from the article you posted it directly contradicts what you wrote. He has definitely done many things. Otherwise there would be no history to judge. That is the definition of having a history.

I am confused.

 

[Seymour]

I believe dome was saying anything productive.

You have to go back 10 years to see he had a decent running game. He was demoted to QB coach for a reason IMO.

 

[bbsplitter]

I believe dome was saying anything productive.

You have to go back 10 years to see he had a decent running game. He was demoted to QB coach for a reason IMO.

Gotcha. Yeah I definitely am not one to sing the praises of Schotty any time soon. I view him as a fairly average coordinator until he produces some statistically better seasons in a row. I just think he has shown he at least has the capacity to call different style plays, the strict adherence to the game plan is PC's and not his.

 

[DomeHawk]

I believe dome was saying anything productive.

You have to go back 10 years to see he had a decent running game. He was demoted to QB coach for a reason IMO.

Gotcha. Yeah I definitely am not one to sing the praises of Schotty any time soon. I view him as a fairly average coordinator until he produces some statistically better seasons in a row. I just think he has shown he at least has the capacity to call different style plays, the strict adherence to the game plan is PC's and not his.

He's Bevell 2.0