Playing down to weaker opponents.

[purpleneer]

Thanks for starting this topic. It is a real thing and has actually cost games. It's a result of coaching philosophy, caring too much about "how" the team wins or loses. Pete wants wins over truly lesser opponents especially to be a simple show of superiority, so he's even less willing than usual to adapt to the opponent or take what they make easier. He also likes to try to sit on leads as if there's something wrong with extending them first.

 

[John63]

This phenom always has puzzled me ; because there really isn't an excuse for it . My example for this thread will be the two AZ games from last year. 9/30/2018...Seahawks 20--Az 17...12/30/18...Seahawks 27--Az 24. AZ . AZ was the worst team in the NFL last year . The Hawks should of mauled them ; but barely squeaked out those wins . Is it lack of preparation for opponents like this ; lack of focus on game day ; or being overly confident . Probably a boring topic but it is a boring time of year . :snack:

It's not that we play down to our opponents it's that the game plan is down to our opponents. They get even more conservative.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Thanks for starting this topic. It is a real thing and has actually cost games. It's a result of coaching philosophy, caring too much about "how" the team wins or loses. Pete wants wins over truly lesser opponents especially to be a simple show of superiority, so he's even less willing than usual to adapt to the opponent or take what they make easier. He also likes to try to sit on leads as if there's something wrong with extending them first.

Hopefully Pete learned from the Dallas playoff game last year that he's too stubborn with how he wants to win, and allow Russell and Schotty more control over the offense with in game adjustments and situational playcalling.

He did admit this post game, so we'll see.

 

[Seymour]

The NFL is a parity league, the average margin of victory across the entire league is less than 7 pts.

So it's not just us, it's hard to win an NFL game, against any team.............

Nope. We should destroy a team or 2 every year IMO.

 

[Seymour]

Our game-plan lends itself to closer games regardless of the talent level of the opponent. We are hard to finish when our opponent has a clear talent advantage, and we lack the arsenal to put teams away when we are better than them.

The Seahawks are the Pernell Whitaker of football teams.

Bingo!!!

He gets it!

 

[Sgt. Largent]

The NFL is a parity league, the average margin of victory across the entire league is less than 7 pts.

So it's not just us, it's hard to win an NFL game, against any team.............

Nope. We should destroy a team or 2 every year IMO.

We destroyed four teams last year, in a year we weren't even suppose to be that good.

Lions 28-14
Raiders 28-3
Niners 43-16
Vikings 21-7


Didn't play down to nary a one of them. We beat the Raiders so bad we made their QB cry. You guys have very selective memories.........unless your point is "when we have one of the greatest defenses in NFL history, you can blow more teams out per year."

Not exactly an earth shattering statement to make. So we can talk about Pete's conservative blinders on style of scheming and playcalling, that's certainly a legitimate discussion. But every year we blow teams out, certainly far more than we get blown out. Another testament to Pete, rarely do we get embarrassed.

 

[Seymour]

The NFL is a parity league, the average margin of victory across the entire league is less than 7 pts.

So it's not just us, it's hard to win an NFL game, against any team.............

Nope. We should destroy a team or 2 every year IMO.

We destroyed four teams last year, in a year we weren't even suppose to be that good.

Lions 28-14
Raiders 28-3
Niners 43-16
Vikings 21-7


Didn't play down to nary a one of them. We beat the Raiders so bad we made their QB cry. You guys have very selective memories.........unless your point is "when we have one of the greatest defenses in NFL history, you can blow more teams out per year."

Not exactly an earth shattering statement to make. So we can talk about Pete's conservative blinders on style of scheming and playcalling, that's certainly a legitimate discussion. But every year we blow teams out, certainly far more than we get blown out. Another testament to Pete, rarely do we get embarrassed.

OK...I'll give you 2. But 2 score games are not destruction IMO. None the less, you proved my point we should destroy 2, I just missed the mark we did actually twice last year...so you win. :2thumbs:

My main gripe is playing down to the Tards I think is pretty SOP no matter who is coaching them (like the OP states)

 

[Sgt. Largent]

My main gripe is playing down to the Tards I think is pretty SOP no matter who is coaching them (like the OP states)

I'll agree all day long that Pete's philosophical approaches on both sides of the ball are simplistic and downright stubborn sometimes, especially on the offensive side of the ball (three yards and cloud of dust pound the rock pays off in the 4th quarter, etc etc).

I just don't think that equals "playing down to weaker opponents." That's not IMO what's going on, and it's not taking into account the OP's example using the Cardinals. Same reason sometimes the Jets or Dolphins jump up and beat the Pats every couple of years shocking everyone.

For your weaker divisional opponents, playing you IS their Superbowl. So more has to be taken into account than just playing down to them. Football is an effort sport.................your divisional opponent is jacked up to play you, and you're not up all that much to play them, that has to be part of the equation when discussing this topic.

 

[knownone]

My main gripe is playing down to the Tards I think is pretty SOP no matter who is coaching them (like the OP states)

I'll agree all day long that Pete's philosophical approaches on both sides of the ball are simplistic and downright stubborn sometimes, especially on the offensive side of the ball (three yards and cloud of dust pound the rock pays off in the 4th quarter, etc etc).

I don't think Pete's philosophical approach is simplistic or stubborn. His philosophy is all about minimizing short-term risk and playing without fear of his opponent. It's easy to take a balls to the wall approach and live and die by your offense every game. However, to exercise restraint and trust your preparation enough to know that you'll be able to overcome whatever obstacle is thrown your way is one of the most complicated philosophies to pull off, and one proven to provide the most consistent long term success.

There is a reason Pete is fond of 'stoicism' and 'grit'. Every team is good when they don't face a great deal of adversity. Very few teams excel in adverse situations. The Seahawks excel in adverse situations because their philosophy is not about winning one game, but rather - as Pete would say - winning forever. So they put an emphasis on proper execution while sticking to their formula rather than trying to maximize the score on every offensive possession. This lends itself to more and more adverse situations whether against weak or strong teams. But those experiences are why Pete is great at developing young players, and why we can hang against more talented teams (KC, LA, Etc..).

 

[Sgt. Largent]

My main gripe is playing down to the Tards I think is pretty SOP no matter who is coaching them (like the OP states)

I'll agree all day long that Pete's philosophical approaches on both sides of the ball are simplistic and downright stubborn sometimes, especially on the offensive side of the ball (three yards and cloud of dust pound the rock pays off in the 4th quarter, etc etc).

I don't think Pete's philosophical approach is simplistic or stubborn. His philosophy is all about minimizing short-term risk and playing without fear of his opponent. It's easy to take a balls to the wall approach and live and die by your offense every game. However, to exercise restraint and trust your preparation enough to know that you'll be able to overcome whatever obstacle is thrown your way is one of the most complicated philosophies to pull off, and one proven to provide the most consistent long term success.

There is a reason Pete is fond of 'stoicism' and 'grit'. Every team is good when they don't face a great deal of adversity. Very few teams excel in adverse situations. The Seahawks excel in adverse situations because their philosophy is not about winning one game, but rather - as Pete would say - winning forever. So they put an emphasis on proper execution while sticking to their formula rather than trying to maximize the score on every offensive possession. This lends itself to more and more adverse situations whether against weak or strong teams. But those experiences are why Pete is great at developing young players, and why we can hang against more talented teams (KC, LA, Etc..).

You can still play with toughness, athleticism, grit and stoicism (whatever that means), yet be more dynamic and fluid with your schemes and playcalling opponent to opponent.

For all that Pete does well, and there's a lot........he's one of the greatest motivators and teachers of football ever. But his strong suit has never been offensive scheme or X's and O's. He relies on having tougher, stronger and better athletes than his opponent. Which like I said to Seymour, that's an awesome approach to have when you have one of the greatest defenses in the history of the NFL allowing your offense to be conservative and pound your opponent into submission.

But as we've seen since our defense became mortal, that approach on offense hasn't been as successful, and Pete's post Dallas playoff game comments echo this. He himself said he remained with the run game/conservative offense approach too long.

This is what I'm talking about. Be more dynamic, be more fluid in game, allow Russell more freedom to use his unique skillset to open up the offense.

 

[Tical21]

Russell usually kind of takes that week off, preparation wise, knowing we'll probably just get by on talent anyways.

 

[knownone]

My main gripe is playing down to the Tards I think is pretty SOP no matter who is coaching them (like the OP states)

I'll agree all day long that Pete's philosophical approaches on both sides of the ball are simplistic and downright stubborn sometimes, especially on the offensive side of the ball (three yards and cloud of dust pound the rock pays off in the 4th quarter, etc etc).

I don't think Pete's philosophical approach is simplistic or stubborn. His philosophy is all about minimizing short-term risk and playing without fear of his opponent. It's easy to take a balls to the wall approach and live and die by your offense every game. However, to exercise restraint and trust your preparation enough to know that you'll be able to overcome whatever obstacle is thrown your way is one of the most complicated philosophies to pull off, and one proven to provide the most consistent long term success.

There is a reason Pete is fond of 'stoicism' and 'grit'. Every team is good when they don't face a great deal of adversity. Very few teams excel in adverse situations. The Seahawks excel in adverse situations because their philosophy is not about winning one game, but rather - as Pete would say - winning forever. So they put an emphasis on proper execution while sticking to their formula rather than trying to maximize the score on every offensive possession. This lends itself to more and more adverse situations whether against weak or strong teams. But those experiences are why Pete is great at developing young players, and why we can hang against more talented teams (KC, LA, Etc..).

You can still play with toughness, athleticism, grit and stoicism (whatever that means), yet be more dynamic and fluid with your schemes and playcalling opponent to opponent.

For all that Pete does well, and there's a lot........he's one of the greatest motivators and teachers of football ever. But his strong suit has never been offensive scheme or X's and O's. He relies on having tougher, stronger and better athletes than his opponent. Which like I said to Seymour, that's an awesome approach to have when you have one of the greatest defenses in the history of the NFL allowing your offense to be conservative and pound your opponent into submission.

But as we've seen since our defense became mortal, that approach on offense hasn't been as successful, and Pete's post Dallas playoff game comments echo this. He himself said he remained with the run game/conservative offense approach too long.

This is what I'm talking about. Be more dynamic, be more fluid in game, allow Russell more freedom to use his unique skillset to open up the offense.

Who are these tougher, stronger, and better athletes on offense? Percy, Lynch, and Graham for half a season? Pete's pretty much built our entire offense around undersized over achievers and late round picks. They win by out executing their opponent not by superior athleticism.

Our offense stalled because of personnel decisions not because of the defense. If we kept Unger, Okung, and Tate we'd have remained a top 10 offense regardless of the defense. This is pretty obvious when you look at our offensive rankings. Our worst year on offense since 2012 was 2016, we had the #3 ranked defense that year. Last year was our second worst year on defense since 2011, we lead the league in rushing attempts and our offense ranked #6. Interestingly enough, every year we've been in the top 3 of rushing attempts, we've had a top 10 offense.

The real reason we're not as successful as in years past is because our talent level has declined relative to the rest of the elite teams. It has absolutely nothing to do with Pete's philosophy. If anything Pete's philosophy is the only reason we've been able to sustain our success without a major drop in performance.

 

[TheLegendOfBoom]

Human psychology. Sometimes you're not as motivated as the other team.

Yes, "on paper" you (the better team) should win convincingly but there sometimes the other team is just hungrier!

There is a reason there is the expression, "Any given Sunday."

If you don't come to play, you'll lose!

It's that simple. Sort of.

 

[zelter]

I hate to say it but watch out for the Bengals Week 1
The Bengals were really hit with the Injury bug last year and had an average offseason and draft
They have a new coach for the first time in years and the team could be reinvigorated
Everyone is penciling in a win Week 1 but I think it will be a much closer game than we think

 

[John63]

Russell usually kind of takes that week off, preparation wise, knowing we'll probably just get by on talent anyways.

Your proof of this is? Oh wait never mind there is none

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Don't bother John, you'd have better luck clapping with one hand when it comes to Russ and Tical. Not even worth the effort.

 

[ApnaHawk]

It's pro-sports. The team lining up against you is also littered with world class athletes at its highest levels. That's why you always have to be on your A game, because even the weakest teams / players in the league can knock you on your chin. This is true for all sports.

Every team wins ugly - Patriots, Warriors, Real Madrid, Barcelona, etc etc..