It's Time to Dispel the Myth

[Sarlacc83]

To my knowledge there is no correlation between either passing or running and winning.

If someone can demonstrate that teams that pass more win more, I'm game for those argument.

But I dont beleive anyone will find that to be true.

Pete has his philosophy of run the ball, physicality, and that leads to wearing down the defense at which times play action and explosive plays open up.

And that's a great theory, but as we saw Sunday (and we see on many Sundays and in the playoffs last year) we don't ever get to the play action/explosive play part because the other team knows exactly what we were trying to do the first three quarters, and stuffs it.

Stubbornness. Predictability. Those are the two things I wish Pete's style and philosophy would be more open and pliable to adapting towards.

Huh? You mean the play-action deep pass to DK, the play-action TD to Lockett and the deep pass that Lockett dropped, all on first down, were all a part of my imagination?

233 total yards, if that's an successful offensive showing by your standards, you need to raise your expectations. This is a game we should have won 35-20, not 21-20. Too conservative, too predictable.

I'm talking about realizing the full potential of Russell and our offense. A wins a win, that's great........but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.

The O-line was practically falling over themselves in the run game Sunday -- missing blocks, bad angles, losing ground if not getting trucked entirely. There is room for improvement and it starts in Solari's office.

 

[Fade]

Just putting it out there. The Seahawks offense didn't get going until they went to the quick passing game on their first TD drive.

 

[Seymour]

Of all the wrong crap you spew on a daily basis, this is probably the most wrong.

LOL.

Welcome back. Are you finished pouting now? Awesome evidence you have presented us. Buckle up!! :lol:

 

[Tical21]

Of all the wrong crap you spew on a daily basis, this is probably the most wrong.

LOL.

Welcome back. Are you finished pouting now? Awesome evidence you have presented us. Buckle up!! :lol:

Evidence. Have you not ever seen the Seahawks play pass-first football? Did you not watch 16,17 or the first two games of 18? Yeah, that works.

 

[bmorepunk]

What isn't fun to watch is starting a game with three or four (or more) 3-and-outs in a row. If they can, in the first three drives, take at least one of those down the field, methodically pounding the rock, I'll cheer my head off. What some people seem to be forgetting is those defenses a few years ago were taking advantage of playing with a lead, frustrating the other team, and making them one dimensional. Every drive was using Marshawn to eat up four or five minutes of clock even if they didn't score. Punting the ball and pinning the other team deep in their own territory made the defense even hungrier. It's a TEAM game - good offense (again, even without a score) leads to good defense and vice versa.

The ability to grind on the ground was missing until last year, and it made a huge difference. And if you look at games last year, they played with the lead going into the half and fourth quarter in about half the games. That was the same rate as in 2013; they only played with a lead in about half the games going into the half/fourth quarter. A lot of people idealize the 2013 season people seemingly forgot. The biggest difference is when they did have the lead in the fourth, they were able to often impose the running game on the last drive and sustain it for a big chunk of the fourth quarter.

Yes, in this last game the first three series were essentially three and outs. But I was curious about how often this really happens, and after looking through all the games last season, this was actually a rare occurrence. They typically moved the ball some on first three drives, and even got a FG or TD. I don't think your perception of how things happened matches how they actually occurred. And that was primarily due to getting a more stable offensive line and having the ability to run the ball in a reasonably consistent manner again.

 

[Seymour]

Of all the wrong crap you spew on a daily basis, this is probably the most wrong.

LOL.

Welcome back. Are you finished pouting now? Awesome evidence you have presented us. Buckle up!! :lol:

Evidence. Have you not ever seen the Seahawks play pass-first football? Did you not watch 16,17 or the first two games of 18? Yeah, that works.

Don't listen to me.....listen to others. :roll:

Just putting it out there. The Seahawks offense didn't get going until they went to the quick passing game on their first TD drive.

Long developing routes with no hot route are what are killing the passing game.
Failing to take pressure off with screens (that are working btw when they finally try then inexplicably stop) is another fault. Not using rollouts with Russ, and running him early a couple times is another failure.

 

[Tical21]

Of all the wrong crap you spew on a daily basis, this is probably the most wrong.

LOL.

Welcome back. Are you finished pouting now? Awesome evidence you have presented us. Buckle up!! :lol:

Evidence. Have you not ever seen the Seahawks play pass-first football? Did you not watch 16,17 or the first two games of 18? Yeah, that works.

Don't listen to me.....listen to others. :roll:

Excuse me?

 

[Seymour]

LOL.

Welcome back. Are you finished pouting now? Awesome evidence you have presented us. Buckle up!! :lol:

Evidence. Have you not ever seen the Seahawks play pass-first football? Did you not watch 16,17 or the first two games of 18? Yeah, that works.

Don't listen to me.....listen to others. :roll:

Excuse me?

Here we go again. Every post needs to come with instructions because you write before you read. :roll:

Read the following quote, and what others are saying. I highlighted the important part in red and that still didn't make it to it's intended destination.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Pete has his philosophy of run the ball, physicality, and that leads to wearing down the defense at which times play action and explosive plays open up.

And that's a great theory, but as we saw Sunday (and we see on many Sundays and in the playoffs last year) we don't ever get to the play action/explosive play part because the other team knows exactly what we were trying to do the first three quarters, and stuffs it.

Stubbornness. Predictability. Those are the two things I wish Pete's style and philosophy would be more open and pliable to adapting towards.

Huh? You mean the play-action deep pass to DK, the play-action TD to Lockett and the deep pass that Lockett dropped, all on first down, were all a part of my imagination?

233 total yards, if that's an successful offensive showing by your standards, you need to raise your expectations. This is a game we should have won 35-20, not 21-20. Too conservative, too predictable.

I'm talking about realizing the full potential of Russell and our offense. A wins a win, that's great........but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.

Dude, our pass pro was abysmal. The only reason we got to 233 total yards was our ability to generate some big plays. Also, we didn't run that many plays. I don't know what you're reaching for here. Our offensive line got manhandled. Are you suggesting that you want to go to a quick passing game?

Do you think maybe if our opponent's didn't know before the game started when they saw that we were only dressing four WR's that just maybe we were going to try to establish the run, and that contributed to being in 2nd and 3rd and long predictable passing plays......of which said terrible pass pro O-line was manhandled by Cincy's front seven?

So yes, for the love of god I'd love to see us come out with some sort of up tempo offense trying to tire out the defense for once, instead of it ALWAYS being our defense that's out on the field for 75% of the first half snaps getting worn the hell out because Pete's so damn conservative our offense can never get it going early.

 

[Chawker]

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.

Whether we like it or not, it is time to confirm that this is Pete's way of doing things. I don't know why we need to have the highest paid QB for this system to work (love Russ though), but that is the way the chips have fallen.

There were a few games under Bevell where him and Russell seemed to be unleashed - and I don't know the circumstances that prompt Pete to give that green light - but it seemed to be either completely random or down by 14 points or more.

When the system works as intended - it controls the clock and as long as we are gaining 4+ yards per carry we usually win the game.

However when it is not working - and we seem to have no interest or ability to adapt the game plan accordingly, I 100% believe that is PC's doing.

I spent my fair share of time bashing Bevell and on occasion more recently Schotty, however I have come to the conclusion that it is too obvious, too intentional to be the work of a free-thinking/acting coordinator. I've seen too many well-designed, thought out plays by both Bevell and Schotty to think that the willingly conduct such an ineffective strategy when it obviously isn't working. A drive or two or three fail? Understandable. For a whole game however to transpire as they typically do with our team on offensive, this has to be the work of PC's overall philosophy.

We run, we run, and then we try a deep pass with over extended routes. Yes, this limits turnover potential and promotes ball control/occasional big plays. However there are multiple downsides which show far too often.

We win this way. We lose this way. I think we are at the point however where we can admit "this way" will not be changed, not by fandom furor, or will of the offensive coordinator. We live by PC and we die by PC.

Hmm...Pete has taken us two superbowls, we made the playoffs last year. (I'm tapping my fingers on my desk) it would be alot easer to just ditch one SO CALL fan.

 

[Tical21]

Huh? You mean the play-action deep pass to DK, the play-action TD to Lockett and the deep pass that Lockett dropped, all on first down, were all a part of my imagination?

233 total yards, if that's an successful offensive showing by your standards, you need to raise your expectations. This is a game we should have won 35-20, not 21-20. Too conservative, too predictable.

I'm talking about realizing the full potential of Russell and our offense. A wins a win, that's great........but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.

Dude, our pass pro was abysmal. The only reason we got to 233 total yards was our ability to generate some big plays. Also, we didn't run that many plays. I don't know what you're reaching for here. Our offensive line got manhandled. Are you suggesting that you want to go to a quick passing game?

Do you think maybe if our opponent's didn't know before the game started when they saw that we were only dressing four WR's that just maybe we were going to try to establish the run, and that contributed to being in 2nd and 3rd and long predictable passing plays......of which said terrible pass pro O-line was manhandled by Cincy's front seven?

So yes, for the love of god I'd love to see us come out with some sort of up tempo offense trying to tire out the defense for once, instead of it ALWAYS being our defense that's out on the field for 75% of the first half snaps getting worn the hell out because Pete's so damn conservative our offense can never get it going early.

I'm pretty sure we won TOP in the first half last year.

Up-tempo offense, and passing? I want to curl up and cry.

I don't understand why we can't be content with having a really high scoring offense, watching Russell play his most efficient football, and winning football games.

 

[Tical21]

Evidence. Have you not ever seen the Seahawks play pass-first football? Did you not watch 16,17 or the first two games of 18? Yeah, that works.

Don't listen to me.....listen to others. :roll:

Excuse me?

Here we go again. Every post needs to come with instructions because you write before you read. :roll:

Read the following quote, and what others are saying. I highlighted the important part in red and that still didn't make it to it's intended destination.

Our first touchdown drive came because we hit DK on a deep ball on first down, because we had established our desire to run the football. We did also hit a slant, which was awesome. It's okay to admit you don't understand football. We won't hold it against you. But to spew wrongness in every direction and then try to belittle folks that call you out on it is so 12.

 

[Seymour]

Don't listen to me.....listen to others. :roll:

Excuse me?

Here we go again. Every post needs to come with instructions because you write before you read. :roll:

Read the following quote, and what others are saying. I highlighted the important part in red and that still didn't make it to it's intended destination.

Our first touchdown drive came because we hit DK on a deep ball on first down, because we had established our desire to run the football. We did also hit a slant, which was awesome. It's okay to admit you don't understand football. We won't hold it against you. But to spew wrongness in every direction and then try to belittle folks that call you out on it is so 12.

Wrong.

Suiting up only 4 wideouts, past history, Carroll again and again stating and showing he plans to run the ball established that. They came out prepared to stop the run and did.

And the idea that Metacalf cannot get open without the D being fooled is not only flawed, it is ridiculous. :177692:

But keep spewing your "wrongness" and showing your lack of processing power, you wear it well. :2thumbs:

We knew they were going to pass the ball, yet they still put up over 400 yards with Andy flippen Dalton, proof your excuse is ridiculous right there.

 

[Tical21]

Excuse me?

Here we go again. Every post needs to come with instructions because you write before you read. :roll:

Read the following quote, and what others are saying. I highlighted the important part in red and that still didn't make it to it's intended destination.

Our first touchdown drive came because we hit DK on a deep ball on first down, because we had established our desire to run the football. We did also hit a slant, which was awesome. It's okay to admit you don't understand football. We won't hold it against you. But to spew wrongness in every direction and then try to belittle folks that call you out on it is so 12.

Wrong.

Suiting up only 4 wideouts, past history, Carroll again and again stating and showing he plans to run the ball established that. They came out prepared to stop the run and did.

And the idea that Metacalf cannot get open without the D being fooled is not only flawed, it is ridiculous. :177692:

But keep spewing your "wrongness" and showing your lack of processing power, you wear it well. :2thumbs:

We knew they were going to pass the ball, yet they still put up over 400 yards with Andy flippen Dalton, proof your excuse is ridiculous right there.

You just keep digging that hole, don't you?

Past history and a philosophy that you commit to isn't establishing your desire to run the football?

The thinking that it isn't easier to hit plays over the top because you get simpler coverages and have safeties leery of the run is about as amateur as it gets.

I knew trying to speak with logic with you was a fool's errand. But I'm committed, because you've earned it. What ya got next? This is fun.

 

[Seymour]

You just keep digging that hole, don't you?

Past history and a philosophy that you commit to isn't establishing your desire to run the football?

The thinking that it isn't easier to hit plays over the top because you get simpler coverages and have safeties leery of the run is about as amateur as it gets.

I knew trying to speak with logic with you was a fool's errand. But I'm committed, because you've earned it. What ya got next? This is fun.

Like I said, everything needs to be explained to you and that gets old.

I never said that running the ball would not help open up deeper routes. :177692: I'm saying running on early downs was netting punts and 3 and outs and wearing the D down! I'm also saying quick passing and passing on 1st down (mixing it up better) statistically is more effective for us, and produces the same results bringing the D in and DOESN'T wear the D out and moves the sticks.

I already showed the numbers from last season that prove this.

 

[scutterhawk]

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.

I pretty much get where you're coming from, and mostly agree with your summation, and want to add, that I believe that because Pete is indeed a Defensive Guru, wouldn't it also stand to reason, that he would also understand what it would take from an Offense to put the most pressure on an his or any other teams Defense?
Pete likes to preach on perfecting fundamentals in Defense, Offense & Special Teams play....Take care of the little details, cover your assignments, and everything else will fall into place.

 

[Tical21]

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.

Also lead to the 6th most points in second half of the season.

 

[Tical21]

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 .

Please tell me these were the stats you are referring to...please, please please......

Question for you....Russell has the highest average per play when throwing deep to Lockett off play-action. So why don't we just throw deep to Lockett off play-action every play?

 

[Recon_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.

I pretty much get where you're coming from, and mostly agree with your summation, and want to add, that I believe that because Pete is indeed a Defensive Guru, wouldn't it also stand to reason, that he would also understand what it would take from an Offense to put the most pressure on an his or any other teams Defense?
Pete likes to preach on perfecting fundamentals in Defense, Offense & Special Teams play....Take care of the little details, cover your assignments, and everything else will fall into place.

That's the irony of those agreeing Pete is a defensive guru, but thinking that his offense is completely backwards.

Pete's defense has always been based around stopping the run, preventing explosive plays in the throwing game, and causing turnovers.

So what does Pete want to do on offense? Establish the run, make big throws down the field, and protect the ball.

What do fans want? Run less and give up on the run if it's not working initially, let the defense dictate the offense by forcing them to use a quick, short passing offense, and in general, take more risks in the passing game.

If Pete was playing the offense that people are arguing the Hawks should run, it would play right into the defense he's set up for.

 

[FidelisHawk]

These are great fan discussions, because there is no right or wrong argument. Since there are only two offensive plays, you have to call (by default) either a passing play or a running play.

The only correct call (from a fan’s perspective) would be the play that results in a positive outcome, every other outcome is by definition a failed play. It goes to follow if the chosen call results in a failed outcome the other choice must be the better of the two options.

Since as fans we know the outcome of a failed play call, we also know (by default) the other option could/should (depending how firmly you stand on one side or the other) be better. Fortunately, there are plenty of statistics to backup our analysis that “the other play is better”, no matter if the play called resulted in an incomplete pass or a run stuffed at the line of scrimmage.

This is why there is no right or wrong answer. “The other play is always better” only because the outcome is unknown and a great play is always the best call because the outcome is great. Beast-Quake was not a great play because it was a run and Lockette’s failed slant was not the worst call in the history of Super Bowls because it was a pass.

As fans the reality is, all we care about is the outcome be it a play, a series, a drive, a game or a season. If all the plays called (be they pass or run) have positive results, the “the other play is better” argument becomes moot, only because nobody cares.

And if every play called is a struggle to gain yards, “the other play” will always be the great unknown worth investigating...