Pete and the Definition of Insanity

[Seymour]

I feel bad for Tom Cable. He has been given garbage. We are spending less than 10% of the cap on the line. The options at tackle are slim. He had to turn a power forward into a decent LT on the fly . . . and then he got hurt. We have been left with an embarrassing draft choice who looks physically overmatched. Cable was given a Prius to drive at the Indy 500, and people are calling for the drivers' head.

I shudder to think how much less physical this play calling could become, and how much more they would be forced to rely on finesse and trickery, if Cable was not in Bevell's ear trying to right the ship.

I have shown you personally and given links showing he is key in picking the garbage....yet the madness and excuses continue?? I will remember that next time you ask for further information.

That "embarrassing draft choice" was a pickup up by Cable. His words "what I saw was some of the best guard play in the NFL last year". ukeface:

Enough already.

Cable is a coach; he is not a scout. Being a scout is a full-time johe season.b during the season. As GM, Schneider leads the front office in selecting the players in the draft. If Cable is giving bad advice on who to draft, then it is Schneider's job to draft someone else.

I don't think any offensive line coach in NFL history could turn Odhiambo into an adequate LT. And we have very few alternatives, since we chose not to draft players like Cam Robinson and Taylor Moton.

That is a whole lot of double talk. The scouts present their information to the decision makers. The decision makers have to know scouting and are responsible to work closely with them and trust them. If not, they get sent down the road. Lastly, the scouts are looking for the attributes the decision makers set as priority.

Prime example on the Ifedi selection.....
Another "I can fix him" Cable selection....

“When you watch him, he can get out of whack,’’ Cable said. “But he was the one guy the scouts and I felt like could right himself. He could get out of whack but could get himself back in position. He was picked for a reason. He was the one guy you feel like you can clean up right away.
”

http://www.union-bulletin.com/sport...cle_2b26e8a2-0e2d-11e6-8c95-3b13a36ea0a2.html

 

[hawknation2017]

I feel bad for Tom Cable. He has been given garbage. We are spending less than 10% of the cap on the line. The options at tackle are slim. He had to turn a power forward into a decent LT on the fly . . . and then he got hurt. We have been left with an embarrassing draft choice who looks physically overmatched. Cable was given a Prius to drive at the Indy 500, and people are calling for the drivers' head.

I shudder to think how much less physical this play calling could become, and how much more they would be forced to rely on finesse and trickery, if Cable was not in Bevell's ear trying to right the ship.

I have shown you personally and given links showing he is key in picking the garbage....yet the madness and excuses continue?? I will remember that next time you ask for further information.

That "embarrassing draft choice" was a pickup up by Cable. His words "what I saw was some of the best guard play in the NFL last year". ukeface:

Enough already.

Cable is a coach; he is not a scout. Being a scout is a full-time johe season.b during the season. As GM, Schneider leads the front office in selecting the players in the draft. If Cable is giving bad advice on who to draft, then it is Schneider's job to draft someone else.

I don't think any offensive line coach in NFL history could turn Odhiambo into an adequate LT. And we have very few alternatives, since we chose not to draft players like Cam Robinson and Taylor Moton.

That is a whole lot of double talk. The scouts present their information to the decision makers. The decision makers have to know scouting and are responsible to work closely with them and trust them. If not, they get sent down the road.

Prime example on the Ifedi selection.....
Another "I can fix him" Cable selection....

“When you watch him, he can get out of whack,’’ Cable said. “But he was the one guy the scouts and I felt like could right himself. He could get out of whack but could get himself back in position. He was picked for a reason. He was the one guy you feel like you can clean up right away.
”

http://www.union-bulletin.com/sport...cle_2b26e8a2-0e2d-11e6-8c95-3b13a36ea0a2.html

It's a difference in delegation of responsibility that most people understand when they have a job.

Schneider and the scouts have ALL YEAR to evaluate linemen. The coaches get a much shorter time frame, and their suggestions are thus much more limited. If your problem is with a draft pick, then that responsibility falls on the GM and his crew.

Cable liked Ifedi. I liked Ifedi too. Ifedi showed some promise on Sunday against Clay Matthews, so perhaps you should have used a better example.

 

[mistaowen]

Pete chose to play max protect against the Packers, and all it did was take targets away from Russell and allow the existing 3 targets to get blanketed by 5 defenders. Whether because of that, an instruction to look for the "big play" again, or both, Wilson ended up holding onto the ball longer, and it put him under pressure. It was the same as Tampa last year - I could tell within one quarter that Pete had reverted to his lust for the chunk play, abandoning the quick-passing game that had beaten the Patriots and Eagles.

Pete is fighting his own worst impulses here. He wants to be run-first and get back-breaking big plays, but we don't have the horses (or at least the right horses aren't starting at the moment).

If he could only swallow his pride and stick with the spread-based pass-first approach we implemented in 2015, which Wilson has proven can work even with Christine Michael at RB, the field would look entirely different. Slants, rubs, etc. Linebackers would be sitting back in zones instead of blitzing recklessly (which is how the Packers got several of their pressures Sunday), and the line would look less molested and perform better as a result.

Instead, Pete insists on a gameplan that magnifies the problems of the OL and places more of the burden on them. It's infuriating.

Terrific points. This offensive line cannot succeed with the run-first, deep developing play Pete likes with how defenses play them now. GB had everyone in the box and sent constant pressure. It didn't matter if it was ILB, CB, safeties....they all got home. Teams that play this way all seem to have success. The past few seasons, Rams left their very average CBs on islands all game because they knew their front would disrupt the play. With Marshawn and the RO, teams keyed on stopping the run which allowed the big homerun passes. (Good) Defenses don't care about that anymore.

The players on the roster thrive in the spread style and getting back to that with quick, one-cut RBs like Rawls and Carson would open up the run game. DB is terrific in space, Lockett as well. Jimmy would have better one on one chances against LBs who can't match him if they don't have the luxury of leaving a safety to help. I just don't know why they continue the force this power run game that doesn't have the ingredients to make it happen.

 

[Jville]

Pete chose to play max protect against the Packers, and all it did was take targets away from Russell and allow the existing 3 targets to get blanketed by 5 defenders. Whether because of that, an instruction to look for the "big play" again, or both, Wilson ended up holding onto the ball longer, and it put him under pressure. It was the same as Tampa last year - I could tell within one quarter that Pete had reverted to his lust for the chunk play, abandoning the quick-passing game that had beaten the Patriots and Eagles.

Pete is fighting his own worst impulses here. He wants to be run-first and get back-breaking big plays, but we don't have the horses (or at least the right horses aren't starting at the moment).

If he could only swallow his pride and stick with the spread-based pass-first approach we implemented in 2015, which Wilson has proven can work even with Christine Michael at RB, the field would look entirely different. Slants, rubs, etc. Linebackers would be sitting back in zones instead of blitzing recklessly (which is how the Packers got several of their pressures Sunday), and the line would look less molested and perform better as a result.

Instead, Pete insists on a gameplan that magnifies the problems of the OL and places more of the burden on them. It's infuriating.

When I attempt to visualize Pete's vision for the offense, a word that often comes to mind is .... conflicted.

 

[Foghawk]

Pete chose to play max protect against the Packers, and all it did was take targets away from Russell and allow the existing 3 targets to get blanketed by 5 defenders. Whether because of that, an instruction to look for the "big play" again, or both, Wilson ended up holding onto the ball longer, and it put him under pressure. It was the same as Tampa last year - I could tell within one quarter that Pete had reverted to his lust for the chunk play, abandoning the quick-passing game that had beaten the Patriots and Eagles.

Pete is fighting his own worst impulses here. He wants to be run-first and get back-breaking big plays, but we don't have the horses (or at least the right horses aren't starting at the moment).

If he could only swallow his pride and stick with the spread-based pass-first approach we implemented in 2015, which Wilson has proven can work even with Christine Michael at RB, the field would look entirely different. Slants, rubs, etc. Linebackers would be sitting back in zones instead of blitzing recklessly (which is how the Packers got several of their pressures Sunday), and the line would look less molested and perform better as a result.

Instead, Pete insists on a gameplan that magnifies the problems of the OL and places more of the burden on them. It's infuriating.

Great post MH. Pete needs to get off the 2013/2014 offense train, the sooner he does this the quicker this offense can progress.

 

[Foghawk]

Is that a Game Day Program from last Sunday?

 

[Seymour]

Pete chose to play max protect against the Packers, and all it did was take targets away from Russell and allow the existing 3 targets to get blanketed by 5 defenders. Whether because of that, an instruction to look for the "big play" again, or both, Wilson ended up holding onto the ball longer, and it put him under pressure. It was the same as Tampa last year - I could tell within one quarter that Pete had reverted to his lust for the chunk play, abandoning the quick-passing game that had beaten the Patriots and Eagles.

Pete is fighting his own worst impulses here. He wants to be run-first and get back-breaking big plays, but we don't have the horses (or at least the right horses aren't starting at the moment).

If he could only swallow his pride and stick with the spread-based pass-first approach we implemented in 2015, which Wilson has proven can work even with Christine Michael at RB, the field would look entirely different. Slants, rubs, etc. Linebackers would be sitting back in zones instead of blitzing recklessly (which is how the Packers got several of their pressures Sunday), and the line would look less molested and perform better as a result.

Instead, Pete insists on a gameplan that magnifies the problems of the OL and places more of the burden on them. It's infuriating.

Well that too is on topic, and for the most part I agree with what is said here. Point: It doesn't have to be as bad as we are witnessing, you just happened to put it on Pete instead of Bevell which is also fine by me.

 

[ivotuk]

Two of the 3 upper-level coaches with the best winning percentage in team history. So if you don't like the Hawks to win, you don't like these guys.

I appreciate your Bevell fandom Siouxhawk, but that is not a valid argument. They've been given good head coaches and talented teams.

Barry Switzer won a Superbowl, with the team that Jimmy Johnson built. After that, the Cowboys went downhill. Troy Aikman said: "We lost our edge, we just didn't have the fire we had when Jimmy was coaching us.


Personally, I think DB is an "okay" OC, and Cable would be a much better OLine coach, if he were somewhere else.

I think Tom Cable has 2 problems.

1. Pete has given him too much reign, and with the team success, he's going overboard with what he's always thought are the best things but never had the guts to try.

Things like making and playing versatile OLinemen, but Olinemen that can't play the one position that well. His approach doesn't allow continuity on the line. It's BS. I've never heard of another coach that places so much importance on having everybody able to play different positions!

"Jack of all trades, Master of NONE!"

2. Tom Cable is trying to be somebody he's not. If you look at his coaching style in Oakland, he was rough and tumble, hell he punched a guy in the jaw. Maybe the guy deserved it, or maybe Cable is just a volatile guy. But now he's trying to be like Pete, Mr Positivity, always motivating players. It's not who he is. Pete Carroll preaches being yourself, but Cable's not.

One or the other should be replaced. Or maybe try Cable out at OC and hire a different line coach. Is Alex Gibbs still alive?

 

[Siouxhawk]

Two of the 3 upper-level coaches with the best winning percentage in team history. So if you don't like the Hawks to win, you don't like these guys.

I appreciate your Bevell fandom Siouxhawk, but that is not a valid argument. They've been given good head coaches and talented teams.

Barry Switzer won a Superbowl, with the team that Jimmy Johnson built. After that, the Cowboys went downhill. Troy Aikman said: "We lost our edge, we just didn't have the fire we had when Jimmy was coaching us.


Personally, I think DB is an "okay" OC, and Cable would be a much better OLine coach, if he were somewhere else.

I think Tom Cable has 2 problems.

1. Pete has given him too much reign, and with the team success, he's going overboard with what he's always thought are the best things but never had the guts to try.

Things like making and playing versatile OLinemen, but Olinemen that can't play the one position that well. His approach doesn't allow continuity on the line. It's BS. I've never heard of another coach that places so much importance on having everybody able to play different positions!

"Jack of all trades, Master of NONE!"

2. Tom Cable is trying to be somebody he's not. If you look at his coaching style in Oakland, he was rough and tumble, hell he punched a guy in the jaw. Maybe the guy deserved it, or maybe Cable is just a volatile guy. But now he's trying to be like Pete, Mr Positivity, always motivating players. It's not who he is. Pete Carroll preaches being yourself, but Cable's not.

One or the other should be replaced. Or maybe try Cable out at OC and hire a different line coach. Is Alex Gibbs still alive?

I was just talking Seahawks organization, ivotuk. Those 3 I mentioned have the best winning percentage compiled in team history.

 

[Seymour]

Two of the 3 upper-level coaches with the best winning percentage in team history. So if you don't like the Hawks to win, you don't like these guys.

I appreciate your Bevell fandom Siouxhawk, but that is not a valid argument. They've been given good head coaches and talented teams.

Barry Switzer won a Superbowl, with the team that Jimmy Johnson built. After that, the Cowboys went downhill. Troy Aikman said: "We lost our edge, we just didn't have the fire we had when Jimmy was coaching us.


Personally, I think DB is an "okay" OC, and Cable would be a much better OLine coach, if he were somewhere else.

I think Tom Cable has 2 problems.

1. Pete has given him too much reign, and with the team success, he's going overboard with what he's always thought are the best things but never had the guts to try.

Things like making and playing versatile OLinemen, but Olinemen that can't play the one position that well. His approach doesn't allow continuity on the line. It's BS. I've never heard of another coach that places so much importance on having everybody able to play different positions!

"Jack of all trades, Master of NONE!"

2. Tom Cable is trying to be somebody he's not. If you look at his coaching style in Oakland, he was rough and tumble, hell he punched a guy in the jaw. Maybe the guy deserved it, or maybe Cable is just a volatile guy. But now he's trying to be like Pete, Mr Positivity, always motivating players. It's not who he is. Pete Carroll preaches being yourself, but Cable's not.

One or the other should be replaced. Or maybe try Cable out at OC and hire a different line coach. Is Alex Gibbs still alive?

That is an excellent point and one I've not considered. But I agree, he was taken out of his comfort zone and attempted to adapt and the end results have been a disaster.