It's Time to Dispel the Myth

[Seymour]

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.

Holmgren did a talk on this last year and said many teams are poor at it because it takes a lot of practice to perfect and many teams won't spend the time. When we do it, it often has good success, and if we worked more I believe we'd see even better results. It takes pressure off the QB, no doubt about that!

 

[LymonHawk]

Agree. With all the many terrific talents RW has, screens and fades have never been his strong suites.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

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.

Holmgren did a talk on this last year and said many teams are poor at it because it takes a lot of practice to perfect and many teams won't spend the time. When we do it, it often has good success, and if we worked more I believe we'd see even better results. It takes pressure off the QB, no doubt about that!

You also have to have O-linemen that are quicker and more athletic, and we've got maulers and road graders........much harder for them to get out into space on time to block who they need to block.

 

[Tical21]

Screens to RBs are always going to be harder to execute when you have very mobile QB's. When you have a stationary QB, in passing formations, the DE's are going to be thinking about getting to a spot. Whether they go to the outside or an inside move, doesn't matter, they just have to get to their spot. Against a mobile QB, they have to keep their lanes, keep their eyes on the QB and make sure they keep contain. They're just generally far more aware of "weird stuff." When you watch Russ, or Lamar, or when Vick was playing, the DE, LB's that may be in zone or even spy and even the DT's are way quicker to diagnose a screen because they're looking for weird stuff. Some coaches in college account for this and make sure the DE is blocked, rather than releasing him, but it's still a problem that needs to be solved.

That, and Russ does look incredibly awkward with his footwork and throwing motion/trajectory on screen passes. Even the really successful one to Carson last week was very strange. Part of this sometimes is a height thing as well. If Russ has to loft a screen over a jumping DE. the ball is going to sit in the air and allow the defense to flow to the ball.

 

[Fade]

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.[/quote]

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.

Stupefying. They are giving themselves less darts to throw at the dart board. (Score Points). And unnecessarily wearing down their defense which can, and usually does lead to giving up more points.

Think back on the Dallas playoff loss, and many others. In the game's Seattle lost, they went 3-and-out at an alarming clip.

If they want to take the next step as an offense and team, they need to stop going 3-and-out so frequently.

Now look across the league, and the Seahawks. Which play sequence leads to the most 3-and-outs?

 

[Spin Doctor]

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.

What I’m talking about is the WCO, Holmgren adapted it to fit certain situations. FYI the only time the Holmgren teams were 60/40 was 2007 when we had bum RBs. The highest it got was 56% passing, the lowest was 48% passing in 2005. The year prior it was 52 to 48 and Alexander was one carry away from the rushing title. In those years the Seahawks were the top or near the top in rushing yardage.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

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.

I'm seeing statements online that Fluker didn't allow one hurry, hit, or sack in the game. 75.1 PFF rating.

 

[McGruff]

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.

Stupefying. They are giving themselves less darts to throw at the dart board. (Score Points). And unnecessarily wearing down their defense which can, and usually does lead to giving up more points.

Think back on the Dallas playoff loss, and many others. In the game's Seattle lost, they went 3-and-out at an alarming clip.

If they want to take the next step as an offense and team, they need to stop going 3-and-out so frequently.

Now look across the league, and the Seahawks. Which play sequence leads to the most 3-and-outs?[/quote]

You arent wearing out your defense when you are 7th in the NFL in time of possession

 

[KiwiHawk]

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

And when, precisely, did Metcalf prove this such that Carroll would rely on it as a strategy in our first game? How many reps did Metcalf get with Wilson and the first-string offense during the pre-season games? How many receptions did Metcalf have in pre-season games?

Receivers that flash in college don't always make it in the pros. To build an offensive scheme around a rookie who spent the past 3 weeks injured and hadn't yet caught a football in a game situation would be stupid in the extreme.

AFTER week 1 we can say he's a good target, but what about BEFORE when the game-plan is being made? Did Metcalf prove beyond reasonable doubt he could be The Guy to game plan around?

Please justify your position.

 

[Fade]

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.

Stupefying. They are giving themselves less darts to throw at the dart board. (Score Points). And unnecessarily wearing down their defense which can, and usually does lead to giving up more points.

Think back on the Dallas playoff loss, and many others. In the game's Seattle lost, they went 3-and-out at an alarming clip.

If they want to take the next step as an offense and team, they need to stop going 3-and-out so frequently.

Now look across the league, and the Seahawks. Which play sequence leads to the most 3-and-outs?[/quote]

You arent wearing out your defense when you are 7th in the NFL in time of possession

On Sunday against the Bengals, they got killed in T.O.P. and vs. number of plays run. It is pretty easy to point to the 3-and-outs that they had.