It's Time to Dispel the Myth

[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.

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

Yeah, in spite of. They could have been even higher.

Kind of like how the Seahawks made a second Super Bowl with Justin Britt @ RT. He wasn't the reason why, they made it, no it was in spite of him. Just like using a play sequence that led to them going 3 and out the highest %. Going 3 and out isn't the reason why they scored at a higher clip.

That is what they need to fix if they want to get better as an offense.

 

[bbsplitter]

I'm pretty sure we can all argue which stats mean what and pull stats out of our rear ends to prove whatever point we are trying to make until the cows come home.

I'm not saying Carrol hasn't been a large reason for our success over the years.

The general spirit behind my post is that it is aggravating for the times we do not adapt to what the defense is doing, which through my eyes seems to happen quite a bit.

I'm not calling for an end of the commitment to the run.
I'm not calling for Pete's head.
I'm not saying Pete can't run a successful offense.

I simply want the offense to at least try and adapt more actively to what the defense is presenting to them drive after drive.
It's very frustrating to watch a generic inside zone run called over and over against a ridiculously stacked box. No matter what down it is or how you want to break it up as far as run-run-pass or any other combination.

 

[DomeHawk]

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.

Yes, I do. His offensive scheme is one of the worst in the NFL. Its deficiencies are covered up in the NFL by a top 5 NFL QB with a unique skillset. There have been other HC's that have succeeded that fit Carroll's profile as well. Horrible offensively, defensive mastermind.

How does Carroll win with a horrible offensive scheme? Simple -- he has a top 5 QB that is able to improvise when things go south. The Seahawks best offensive moments come in crunch time when the Seahawks abandon their offensive strategy. Wilson covers many of the deficits that this offensive scheme has.

It should also be mentioned that the best year offensively that Carroll has had in the NFL, 2015 came when he implemented the strategies that I talked about. We went more spread, and added routes that we didn't normally use. We still had a lot of long developing plays, but it was a balanced approach.

The offense we use now doesn't even run a full NFL route tree most of the time, and runs plays that take a long time to set up. Even when the line is struggling we continue to do the same thing and expect different results. Usually what happens is Russell improvises and gets a deep pass off to a receiver at least once a game. For most of the game he is getting hammered, and having to get rid of the ball. In reality most competent NFL coordinators would set up those sort of plays without the beating part.

Carroll needs to step back from the offensive side of the ball. He doesn't understand it properly and he has a mindset that is stuck in an era that is bygone. He needs, like all coaches to stick with what he is good at. Good talent acquisition, great defensive mastermind, inadequate offensively.

I'll have to disagree. You can't be a #1 rushing offense and be the worst offensive scheme in the NFL. I mean, really? You must put a huge value on throwing the ball and nothing about running it. I'm sorry, but we're not going to get a high risk/high reward offense that aims to plays aggressive from start to finish. And even without the 40+ pass attempts, in this ball controlled offense, they have highly effective balanced offense throughout Pete's tenure at both College and NFL. You can call this offense horrible, but the numbers don't prove that and the wins keep stacking up.

#1 rushing offense? We lead the league in rushing simply by the virtue that we run more than anyone!

 

[LTH]

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.

I'm not sure that I understand the frustration around the play calling...

Typically speaking most head coaches have major input into the offensive game plan... Look at Holmgren... He was a total control freak...Gil Haskel was a total yes man...

It's my impression that Carroll has a lot of input into the offensive game plan but I would be highly surprised if Carroll didn't not give Shotty room to create and grow...

Shotty knows football and he is a good OC and coach... of course the O is based off of PC philosophy but that doesn't mean that Shotty does not integrate his experiences into the philosophy...

I've read that the hawks game plan just enough to win and what makes them so effective is the halftime adjustments and i.m sure that shotty has a part in that... Carroll has a good staff and they work well together...

I don't have a problem with the play calling as most of it is execution anyway...

LTH

 

[LTH]

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.

Yeah, in spite of. They could have been even higher.

Kind of like how the Seahawks made a second Super Bowl with Justin Britt @ RT. He wasn't the reason why, they made it, no it was in spite of him. Just like using a play sequence that led to them going 3 and out the highest %. Going 3 and out isn't the reason why they scored at a higher clip.

That is what they need to fix if they want to get better as an offense.

Every team knew what Mike Holmgren was going to throw at them... the main factor was could the other team stop it... that's what they call execution... So the play calling is not as bad as the execution the play calling is just getting the rap...


LTH

 

[Recon_Hawk]

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.

Yes, I do. His offensive scheme is one of the worst in the NFL. Its deficiencies are covered up in the NFL by a top 5 NFL QB with a unique skillset. There have been other HC's that have succeeded that fit Carroll's profile as well. Horrible offensively, defensive mastermind.

How does Carroll win with a horrible offensive scheme? Simple -- he has a top 5 QB that is able to improvise when things go south. The Seahawks best offensive moments come in crunch time when the Seahawks abandon their offensive strategy. Wilson covers many of the deficits that this offensive scheme has.

It should also be mentioned that the best year offensively that Carroll has had in the NFL, 2015 came when he implemented the strategies that I talked about. We went more spread, and added routes that we didn't normally use. We still had a lot of long developing plays, but it was a balanced approach.

The offense we use now doesn't even run a full NFL route tree most of the time, and runs plays that take a long time to set up. Even when the line is struggling we continue to do the same thing and expect different results. Usually what happens is Russell improvises and gets a deep pass off to a receiver at least once a game. For most of the game he is getting hammered, and having to get rid of the ball. In reality most competent NFL coordinators would set up those sort of plays without the beating part.

Carroll needs to step back from the offensive side of the ball. He doesn't understand it properly and he has a mindset that is stuck in an era that is bygone. He needs, like all coaches to stick with what he is good at. Good talent acquisition, great defensive mastermind, inadequate offensively.

I'll have to disagree. You can't be a #1 rushing offense and be the worst offensive scheme in the NFL. I mean, really? You must put a huge value on throwing the ball and nothing about running it. I'm sorry, but we're not going to get a high risk/high reward offense that aims to plays aggressive from start to finish. And even without the 40+ pass attempts, in this ball controlled offense, they have highly effective balanced offense throughout Pete's tenure at both College and NFL. You can call this offense horrible, but the numbers don't prove that and the wins keep stacking up.

#1 rushing offense? We lead the league in rushing simply by the virtue that we run more than anyone!

Any way you want to look at it, we were still near league leading in most rushing and efficiency stats.

 

[Spin Doctor]

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.

Yeah, in spite of. They could have been even higher.

Kind of like how the Seahawks made a second Super Bowl with Justin Britt @ RT. He wasn't the reason why, they made it, no it was in spite of him. Just like using a play sequence that led to them going 3 and out the highest %. Going 3 and out isn't the reason why they scored at a higher clip.

That is what they need to fix if they want to get better as an offense.

Every team knew what Mike Holmgren was going to throw at them... the main factor was could the other team stop it... that's what they call execution... So the play calling is not as bad as the execution the play calling is just getting the rap...


LTH

Holmgren ran a balanced offense. Teams didn't necessarily know he was going to throw. During most of Holmgren's tenure we ran almost as much as we passed. The Seahawks were often times were near the top of the league or close to it under Holmgren in rushing. Holmgren also went to great lengths to set up his plays. He was a chess player on offense, he didn't just line up and say "stop me". We ran lots of misdirection plays, and short passes that functioned like run plays. When teams would cheat up Holmgren would dial-up a long bomb. Then Holmgren would hit them with the run.

Holmgren was varied in his game strategies and he was an offensive play caller that could beat you in a multitude of different ways on offense. He didn't go into games like the Seahawks offense does. His team could shift identities based on match ups on offense. Unfortunately, like Carroll he was very good on one side of the ball, mediocre on the other. He also was not very good at finding players in the draft, and had to rely on GMs like Ruskell.

 

[justafan]

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

Yeah, in spite of. They could have been even higher.

Kind of like how the Seahawks made a second Super Bowl with Justin Britt @ RT. He wasn't the reason why, they made it, no it was in spite of him. Just like using a play sequence that led to them going 3 and out the highest %. Going 3 and out isn't the reason why they scored at a higher clip.

That is what they need to fix if they want to get better as an offense.

Every team knew what Mike Holmgren was going to throw at them... the main factor was could the other team stop it... that's what they call execution... So the play calling is not as bad as the execution the play calling is just getting the rap...


LTH

Holmgren ran a balanced offense. Teams didn't necessarily know he was going to throw. During most of Holmgren's tenure we ran almost as much as we passed. The Seahawks were often times were near the top of the league or close to it under Holmgren in rushing. Holmgren also went to great lengths to set up his plays. He was a chess player on offense, he didn't just line up and say "stop me". We ran lots of misdirection plays, and short passes that functioned like run plays. When teams would cheat up Holmgren would dial-up a long bomb. Then Holmgren would hit them with the run.

Holmgren was varied in his game strategies and he was an offensive play caller that could beat you in a multitude of different ways on offense. He didn't go into games like the Seahawks offense does. His team could shift identities based on match ups on offense. Unfortunately, like Carroll he was very good on one side of the ball, mediocre on the other. He also was not very good at finding players in the draft, and had to rely on GMs like Ruskell.

People gave Holmgren the same crap about playcalling as they do PC. They will do the same thing tp the next OC.

 

[sutz]

Holmgren ran a balanced offense. Teams didn't necessarily know he was going to throw. During most of Holmgren's tenure we ran almost as much as we passed. The Seahawks were often times were near the top of the league or close to it under Holmgren in rushing. Holmgren also went to great lengths to set up his plays. He was a chess player on offense, he didn't just line up and say "stop me". We ran lots of misdirection plays, and short passes that functioned like run plays. When teams would cheat up Holmgren would dial-up a long bomb. Then Holmgren would hit them with the run.

Holmgren was varied in his game strategies and he was an offensive play caller that could beat you in a multitude of different ways on offense. He didn't go into games like the Seahawks offense does. His team could shift identities based on match ups on offense. Unfortunately, like Carroll he was very good on one side of the ball, mediocre on the other. He also was not very good at finding players in the draft, and had to rely on GMs like Ruskell.

Living up to your name, I see.

Holmgren ran a near pure West Coast Offense, a term he didn't really like BTW. His pass/run ratio ran about 60/40 most games. It was really surprising that he won a rushing title with Alexander, nobody expected it. He had about 4 rushing plays in his playbook-yeah, that's hyperbole, but not that far from the truth. There was no sophistication to Holmie's running game. It was built on the solidity of the left side of the O-line, until they botched the Hutch situation.

 

[Tical21]

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.

Yeah, in spite of. They could have been even higher.

Kind of like how the Seahawks made a second Super Bowl with Justin Britt @ RT. He wasn't the reason why, they made it, no it was in spite of him. Just like using a play sequence that led to them going 3 and out the highest %. Going 3 and out isn't the reason why they scored at a higher clip.

That is what they need to fix if they want to get better as an offense.

Then I suppose for us it's probably a good thing they determine wins and losses by who scores the most points and not your 3 and out percentage.

 

[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?

Well........we're waiting......

 

[Seymour]

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.

Yeah, in spite of. They could have been even higher.

Kind of like how the Seahawks made a second Super Bowl with Justin Britt @ RT. He wasn't the reason why, they made it, no it was in spite of him. Just like using a play sequence that led to them going 3 and out the highest %. Going 3 and out isn't the reason why they scored at a higher clip.

That is what they need to fix if they want to get better as an offense.

Every team knew what Mike Holmgren was going to throw at them... the main factor was could the other team stop it... that's what they call execution... So the play calling is not as bad as the execution the play calling is just getting the rap...


LTH

This is chicken or egg discussion. If the execution is ineffective over and over again, most sane people would learn from that and attempt something different and work that problem out at a better time other than in game. If they don't, then they just became part of the problem rather than the solution.

 

[Seymour]

Well........we're waiting......

Correction. You are waiting and will continue to. Nobody else cares about your baited response. :roll:

 

[Tical21]

Well........we're waiting......

Correction. You are waiting and will continue to. Nobody else cares about your baited response. :roll:

Yeah, kinda what I figured you'd say. So you can sit on your high horse and attack for years and you get put to task and you got run and hide. How could I have guessed that would happen?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Every team knew what Mike Holmgren was going to throw at them... the main factor was could the other team stop it... that's what they call execution... So the play calling is not as bad as the execution the play calling is just getting the rap...

Not true at all, the west coast office was born out of deception and turning the old style of three yards and a cloud of dust on it's head and instead employing a quick tempo short passing game through a complex route tree that was do dizzying complicated that Hasselbeck himself said it took him years to learn before being confident enough to run it under Holmgren's scrutinizing head coaching.

Did you guys listen to Ronde Barber this morning on Brock and Salk? He said the zone blocking scheme we run is about as simple as it gets in the NFL, and that Cincy knew EXACTLY what we were doing on most plays just by what formation we were in.

That's Pete in a nutshell. I don't care if you know, we're going to run it anyway..........and yes when you have superior players than your opponents on both sides of the ball as we saw from 2012-2015, that philosophy works.

Well we don't anymore. Which is how you keep a mediocre team like the Bengals in the game til the very end.

 

[Seymour]

Well........we're waiting......

Correction. You are waiting and will continue to. Nobody else cares about your baited response. :roll:

Yeah, kinda what I figured you'd say. So you can sit on your high horse and attack for years and you get put to task and you got run and hide. How could I have guessed that would happen?

LOL! Hide? More delusion. You are the one that bailed not me. Like I said, don't listen to me as you have a block to hear the words being spoken and you refuse to read and understand important details. Listen to others and see if you can get we are not asking to stop the running attack. We are asking for more reasonable, proven working solutions when inside read runs are not working.

 

[Tical21]

Well........we're waiting......

Correction. You are waiting and will continue to. Nobody else cares about your baited response. :roll:

Yeah, kinda what I figured you'd say. So you can sit on your high horse and attack for years and you get put to task and you got run and hide. How could I have guessed that would happen?

LOL! Hide? More delusion. You are the one that bailed not me. Like I said, don't listen to me as you have a block to hear the words being spoken and you refuse to read and understand important details. Listen to others and see if you can get we are not asking to stop the running attack. We are asking for more reasonable, proven working solutions when inside read runs are not working.

We have proven working solutions. We hit DK on a deep ball. We hit Lockett on a deep ball, shoulda been two. We hit Penny on an outside run that got called back. We hit a screen pass. We hit a slant. Two actually.

Judge this team by points and wins, like the league does. If you try to judge them on first down or 3 and out percentage, you don't get what they're doing, and doing very well.

I think Schotty was pretty slow to adjust this week to inside zone, and should have gone to more gap. But the zone looks were there, we just weren't executing. I will not fault a coach for continuing to call their bread and butter plays when they're getting the looks they want, especially early in the season. You can't always put on a band-aid. Sometimes you need to just iron out your execution. Fluker was awful. Not sure if it is time to be alarmed, but guys you count on like we count on him can't have games like that very often.

Pass protection was abysmal. Passing more is not a realistic solution IMO. Especially the short passing game, where none of our weapons or QB excel.

 

[Seymour]

Correction. You are waiting and will continue to. Nobody else cares about your baited response. :roll:

Yeah, kinda what I figured you'd say. So you can sit on your high horse and attack for years and you get put to task and you got run and hide. How could I have guessed that would happen?

LOL! Hide? More delusion. You are the one that bailed not me. Like I said, don't listen to me as you have a block to hear the words being spoken and you refuse to read and understand important details. Listen to others and see if you can get we are not asking to stop the running attack. We are asking for more reasonable, proven working solutions when inside read runs are not working.

We have proven working solutions. We hit DK on a deep ball. We hit Lockett on a deep ball, shoulda been two. We hit Penny on an outside run that got called back. We hit a screen pass. We hit a slant. Two actually.

Judge this team by points and wins, like the league does. If you try to judge them on first down or 3 and out percentage, you don't get what they're doing, and doing very well.

I think Schotty was pretty slow to adjust this week to inside zone, and should have gone to more gap. But the zone looks were there, we just weren't executing. I will not fault a coach for continuing to call their bread and butter plays when they're getting the looks they want, especially early in the season. You can't always put on a band-aid. Sometimes you need to just iron out your execution. Fluker was awful. Not sure if it is time to be alarmed, but guys you count on like we count on him can't have games like that very often.

Pass protection was abysmal. Passing more is not a realistic solution IMO. Especially the short passing game, where none of our weapons or QB excel.

Disagree. The screen games takes advantage of pressure and was working yet we ran what once or twice? We have a whole list of plays and short passes for Prosise, he is finally healthy and can allude and change of pace well in space yet he sits after waiting year after year to unveil?? These are the type of baffling questions myself and others have. Even Russell keeping one or 2 of those early would still be a run and help keep the DE honest.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

I'd love to see more screen passes, lord knows teams have killed us on it. Shoot, on Sunday it was over and over again. D rushes the QB, he dumps it off.....huge chunk of yards.

 

[McGruff]

Have you guys seen your screen game?

Doesnt matter who we have at OC, through 7 years Russ throwing screens is about as graceful and effective and Hasselbeck running bootlegs.