It's Time to Dispel the Myth

[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.

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.

Yes, he has the ability to call different plays, that isn't the issue, it's his lack of timing and game-time adjustment.

 

[xray]

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.

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.

Yes, he has the ability to call different plays, that isn't the issue, it's his lack of timing and game-time adjustment.

Carroll has too much input with the offense . He is not an offensive mind at this level . He is a good defensive coach and by the looks of game 1 ; he needs to put his efforts there .

 

[Sox-n-Hawks]

Perhaps off topic but did anyone see the segment where Bevell takes a time out at the most inopportune time and Stafford is like, "Really?" :lol:

CLASSIC DB. I was watching that game saying... Detroit implodes in... 5.... 4.... 3..... 2.....

 

[Sports Hernia]

Perhaps off topic but did anyone see the segment where Bevell takes a time out at the most inopportune time and Stafford is like, "Really?" :lol:

< snicker >

Glad he’s not our problem anymore. Did he throw his players under the bus after the game?
We know he won’t take any personal responsibility for his error(s).

 

[justafan]

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.

Thank you for that chart.That is the myth. I always have felt execution trumps play calling on most occasions. The games we are heavy run run are games that we are winning and grounding the other team down. I love a physical running offense but our line didnt get there Sunday. It will get better.

 

[DomeHawk]

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.

I guess people can extrapolate whatever they want from anything but this statement directly contradicts what I wrote?:

"Carroll and Schottenheimer both seem to have a judiciously rosy view of Schottenheimer's résumé. In nine seasons as an offensive coordinator for an NFL team (Jets 2006-11, Rams 2012-14), Schottenheimer has never coached an offense that finished in the top third of the NFL in offensive DVOA. He has a credible claim to running a successful running game from 2008 to 2010, but Seahawks fans can be justifiably concerned that the brightest spot on their offensive coordinator's résumé is from a decade ago."

Did he do some good things? Yes, but so did Adolph Hitler, remember the Volkswagon Beetle? It was fabulous.

 

[Torc]

I sometimes think about the three games near the end of Russell's rookie season, when the Seahawks scored 58/50/42. Was there a coaches meeting after that where Pete told Bevell - "Don't you EVER score that many points so quickly ever again!!"

 

[Sports Hernia]

I sometimes think about the three games near the end of Russell's rookie season, when the Seahawks scored 58/50/42. Was there a coaches meeting after that where Pete told Bevell - "Don't you EVER score that many points so quickly ever again!!"

Good times. That was Bevell’s/Carroll’s greatest offensive run. I would have little problem with their offensive philosophy/play calling if they used that gameplan/playcalling.

 

[quadsas]

I sometimes think about the three games near the end of Russell's rookie season, when the Seahawks scored 58/50/42. Was there a coaches meeting after that where Pete told Bevell - "Don't you EVER score that many points so quickly ever again!!"

Good times. That was Bevell’s/Carroll’s greatest offensive run. I would have little problem with their offensive philosophy/play calling if they used that gameplan/playcalling.

Selfishly I hated those games. Soooooo boring

 

[Seymour]

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.

We are not exaggerating this, we lead the league in R,R,P,P last year. And this is also how we insanely ended the season!

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you-called-a-run-on-first-down-youre-already-screwed/

But that reliance on the run may have been Seattle’s undoing in its 24-22 loss to the Dallas Cowboys in the NFC wild-card game. In the first half the Seahawks’ running backs rushed nine times for an anemic 2.1 yards per carry. Most of those runs came in a particular sequence: rush-rush-pass. All but three of Seattle’s first-half rushing attempts originated from the rush-rush-pass play sequence. And despite the lack of success using that pattern of plays against the Dallas defensive front, Seattle opened its first possession of the second half by calling it again. The result was a punt.

Now here is where the real insanity takes over...

Over the course of the 2018 season, there was no three-play sequence that Seattle favored more than rush-rush-pass. The Seahawks called rush-rush-pass 26 percent of the time, a rate 10 percentage points higher than league average. Yet despite the high frequency with which Carroll and offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer used the pattern, they were not successful with it. Just 41.2 percent of their rush-rush-pass sequences ended in success.[Meanwhile, on three-play sequences where the Seahawks started with a pass and mixed in a run afterward, they were successful 88.9 percent of the time (pass-rush-rush), 71.4 percent of the time (pass-pass-rush) and 50 percent (pass-rush-pass) of the time .

 

[chris98251]

The last guy that went against Pete's wishes on Offense was Jeremy Bates, yes he was an ass I guess at a party with Paul Allen, but he wore that welcome mat thin with not doing what Pete wanted on offense.

 

[Spin Doctor]

The system is broken. I see some people applauding it for getting us to the Super Bowl but I'd say it was in spite of our offensive system. This is Carroll's weakest point as head coach. He exerts control over the offense, and he is rigid and dogmatic on his offense.

Our offense only succeeds because of a uniquely talented QB. I don't think even a player of Manning or Brady's calibre would succeed in this offense, and I doubt Pete would adjust it to their strengths. Even Hasselbeck was forced into a scheme that made him buy time with his legs and throw deep. Something that was the antithesis of his strengths.

What Carroll needs to understand is having a robust passing offense, and having a physical ground game doesn't have to be opposed to each other. Teams like the Rams spread defenses out via the passing game when teams sell out to stop the run. During the Holmgren years he did the same thing while having one of the best rushing teams in the NFL. The short passes, as well as the long bombs can set up the running game with lanes, and less crowded LOS. Pete doesn't seem to understand the value of these plays, or the passing game. It's really frustrating to watch.

 

[Recon_Hawk]

The things about using stats and analytics to argue against Pete and his philosophy is that they should ultimately prove that running the ball is bad and you lose games because of it except Pete keeps winning. He's been one of the most successful coaches in both college and NFL in the last 20 years. There's a good sample size to Pete, with him the main constant. Maybe Pete is running this team against modern trend, but he still has a way of making the statistically wrong philosophy work for this team. I don't think you can change the approach

Pete is the old contractor using an old fashion tool, but doing the project twice as fast as you.

He's the boxer planning his fight to go 12 rounds and knowing he only has to score barely better on the score card than his opponent.

He's the golfer that is playing for fairways and greens in regulations and letting the field aim every shot at the pin.

He's a relic, but the results over his career speak for themselves.

 

[Donn2390]

Looking over these pages of posts it's obvious there aren't a lot of true sports fans posting in here, just a lot of clueless know it alls who should find another team to follow. Find one with a coach that is as smart as all of you are, and with every position filled with all pros who never make mistakes. Might I suggest you get behind Miami?
I'm sure everyone of you is perfect in your chosen endeavor and have never made a mistake.
It's really difficult to read this drivel from all of you experts.. I wonder how much of this negatively is fueled by alcohol, at least that would be an excuse for the BS you post.....
Carry on......

 

[Spin Doctor]

The things about using stats and analytics to argue against Pete and his philosophy is that they should ultimately prove that running the ball is bad and you lose games because of it except Pete keeps winning except he's been one of the most successful coaches in both college and NFL in the last 20 years. There's a good sample size to Pete, with him the main constant. Maybe Pete is running this team against modern trend, but he still has a way of making the statistically wrong philosophy work for this team. I don't think you can change the approach

Pete is the old contractor using an old fashion tool, but doing the project twice as fast as you.

He's the boxer planning his fight to go 12 rounds and knowing he only has to score barely better on the score card than his opponent.

He's the golfer that is playing for fairways and greens in regulations and letting the field aim every shot at the pin.

He's a relic, but the results over his career speak for themselves.

I think you're wrong here. Carroll won his Super Bowl and fame through a defense that is one of the best of all time. A defense that is now talked about like the 85 Bears, and 2000 Ravens are. That is why Pete has found success in the NFL. He is a defensive mastermind. Even with coverage breakdowns, horrid mistakes his defense held the Bengals to 21 points. Even so --- they realistically should have only had 10-14, but due to penalties and a gimmie interception they got 21. Defense is Carroll's calling card.

His offense on the other hand is his downfall. I'm not talking about the running game either. The point of my post was to illustrate that you can use the passing game to make your running game more potent, and extend time the time of possession. This doesn't mean becoming a pass heavy team, it means changing the style of passing a bit. Playing the higher percentage plays, spreading the field out at times so that teams can't crowd the LOS. His QB also hides many of his offenses deficiencies.

 

[Sports Hernia]

Looking over these pages of posts it's obvious there aren't a lot of true sports fans posting in here, just a lot of clueless know it alls who should find another team to follow. Find one with a coach that is as smart as all of you are, and with every position filled with all pros who never make mistakes. Might I suggest you get behind Miami?
I'm sure everyone of you is perfect in your chosen endeavor and have never made a mistake.
It's really difficult to read this drivel from all of you experts.. I wonder how much of this negatively is fueled by alcohol, at least that would be an excuse for the BS you post.....
Carry on......

:177692: :34853_doh:
The “Super Fan” Card has been played. Duly noted.

 

[Year of The Hawk]

It seems like nobody here really gets Petes philosophy. He loves the run. Yes. He loves not turning the ball over. Yes. In his last interview I saw he was asked about fast start to games. He said he didn't care about that. He just wants them to go out and play football. He realizes it is a game not a one drive series. IT is 60 minutes. One series is nothing overall. I have noticed a trend with Pete games. They always look off in the beginning. I think much is scripted and he feels out the offense and defense of the other team. Invariable we see some boned head defensive play and the defense gives up an esy touchdown. Almost every game. Even in our SUper Bowl era this happened. He then tweaks. We start playing better. Then by end of the game he takes advantage of the weak spots he has noticed throughout the game. He will pound the rock on a ton of run plays and when the other team get sloppy and double down on the run Russ will go deep and exploit them. This philosophy also leads to less turnovers and theoretically more clock. Also running the ball more tires a defense out more over the course of a game. We usually see the longer breakout runs happen late 3rd/4th quarter because the defense is tired.

Also many times when something goes wrong it is usually someone not doing their job. That is why Doub Baldwin defended Bevell. Many plays were not successful becasue someone screwed up top not make it work. Not that I think Bevell was the bees knees. I am glad he is gone but other factors creates the failure jsut as much as coaching.

 

[Sports Hernia]

The things about using stats and analytics to argue against Pete and his philosophy is that they should ultimately prove that running the ball is bad and you lose games because of it except Pete keeps winning except he's been one of the most successful coaches in both college and NFL in the last 20 years. There's a good sample size to Pete, with him the main constant. Maybe Pete is running this team against modern trend, but he still has a way of making the statistically wrong philosophy work for this team. I don't think you can change the approach

Pete is the old contractor using an old fashion tool, but doing the project twice as fast as you.

He's the boxer planning his fight to go 12 rounds and knowing he only has to score barely better on the score card than his opponent.

He's the golfer that is playing for fairways and greens in regulations and letting the field aim every shot at the pin.

He's a relic, but the results over his career speak for themselves.

I think you're wrong here. Carroll won his Super Bowl and fame through a defense that is one of the best of all time. A defense that is now talked about like the 85 Bears, and 2000 Ravens are. That is why Pete has found success in the NFL. He is a defensive mastermind. Even with coverage breakdowns, horrid mistakes his defense held the Bengals to 21 points. Even so --- they realistically should have only had 10-14, but due to penalties and a gimmie interception they got 21. Defense is Carroll's calling card.

His offense on the other hand is his downfall. I'm not talking about the running game either. The point of my post was to illustrate that you can use the passing game to make your running game more potent, and extend time the time of possession. This doesn't mean becoming a pass heavy team, it means changing the style of passing a bit. Playing the higher percentage plays, spreading the field out at times so that teams can't crowd the LOS. His QB also hides many of his offenses deficiencies.

Great post.

 

[Recon_Hawk]

The things about using stats and analytics to argue against Pete and his philosophy is that they should ultimately prove that running the ball is bad and you lose games because of it except Pete keeps winning except he's been one of the most successful coaches in both college and NFL in the last 20 years. There's a good sample size to Pete, with him the main constant. Maybe Pete is running this team against modern trend, but he still has a way of making the statistically wrong philosophy work for this team. I don't think you can change the approach

Pete is the old contractor using an old fashion tool, but doing the project twice as fast as you.

He's the boxer planning his fight to go 12 rounds and knowing he only has to score barely better on the score card than his opponent.

He's the golfer that is playing for fairways and greens in regulations and letting the field aim every shot at the pin.

He's a relic, but the results over his career speak for themselves.

I think you're wrong here. Carroll won his Super Bowl and fame through a defense that is one of the best of all time. A defense that is now talked about like the 85 Bears, and 2000 Ravens are. That is why Pete has found success in the NFL. He is a defensive mastermind. Even with coverage breakdowns, horrid mistakes his defense held the Bengals to 21 points. Even so --- they realistically should have only had 10-14, but due to penalties and a gimmie interception they got 21. Defense is Carroll's calling card.

His offense on the other hand is his downfall. I'm not talking about the running game either. The point of my post was to illustrate that you can use the passing game to make your running game more potent, and extend time the time of possession. This doesn't mean becoming a pass heavy team, it means changing the style of passing a bit. Playing the higher percentage plays, spreading the field out at times so that teams can't crowd the LOS. His QB also hides many of his offenses deficiencies.

The Seahawks and even Trojans have had some top end offenses mixed in with an elite D. Yeah Pete is a damn good defensive coach, but he knows how a run first, play action and spread offense game can fit with the style he wants to play with. And however it all fits together, he figures it out.

Do you really think Pete made it this far in his football career in spite of the offense? Again, you'd expect more losses if Pete was so far opposite of a better offense. Personally I think it's from a plan that all fits together in a well played out game on the field, with small adjustments and big time plays, and great ST and Defense.

 

[Fade]

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

Just an FYI for those that don't know the Seahawks R-R-P more than any other team last season by a wide margin.

This sequence led to the highest % of punts for both the Seahawks and all NFL teams. It is no myth, it is backed by hard data.