Seahawks new OC saying all the wrong things

[Donn2390]

Lazy sportswriting right there. LOL.

I don't think the writers are lazy, just bored. They get paid to turn in articles and since there is noting to write about in the off season, they just throw a bunch of crap together and send it in so they can collect their paycheck. I take most of the articles I read, sports or otherwise, with a grain of salt, knowing the writers have to produce something to keep their jobs.
Facts, reality, or truth has nothing to do with the stories they write, their only concern is keeping the flow of stories going.
We all know that truth and integrity left the journalism profession long ago, now it's whatever it takes to put food on their table. Perhaps if we could eliminate half of the writers, there might be enough honest stories left for the rest to write about. Better yet, find something else for them to do until real stories present themselves, like let em sweep the floors or clean the toilets...
On a more positive note, the phony stories give the forum bloggers something to discuss and write about......

 

[ivotuk]

"The best offensive coordinators in the league understand that running the ball is inefficient.... If you have a quarterback who can execute these plays with ease — and Seattle does — then running the ball is of little importance

.

The reason to remove text in a quote and using ... is because it is UNRELATED, NON IMPORTANT information. To take out VITAL language from the quote is in my opinion only twisting what was said / written.

The part you removed is below

Quick three-step passes, bubble screens and traditional screens to a back are far superior options and offer a much greater chance of producing an explosive play. If you have a quarterback who can execute these plays with ease — and Seattle does — then running the ball is of little importance.

What he is really saying is if you can move the ball in the backfield, with passes, and utilizing the RB in that position then you should still get your 1-3 yards but also a bigger chance of breaking one free.

It still takes time off the clock (high catch rate) the same way a running play does, you still use the RB to bruise players and move the lines. You are just opening up for the run as well.

If you look at the NBA game the 3 point shot has taken a long time to change the game but today it is a completely different game because of the value of the 3. Now you use it wrong it goes like Houston against GS and you miss 27 in a row because you are stupid........ if you have the right players, game plan and execution you take good open 3s and have a higher success rate and you score more. As long as you don't go quick 3 and out and use quick passes for short yardage then you are still moving the ball, still eating clock and maintain a high rate of ball security. Of course you will at times run the ball but it is not the primary focus of your game

I agree with this principal and wrote it in many posts last year when we talked about wanting to avoid turnovers, eating clock. It can be done with a passing game as well.

If you read my post, I'm responding to Spin's assertion that the author isn't saying running the ball is not important. I quoted the portion that refuted his argument. Everybody has access to the article and can read it. I "Twisted" nothing as I was responding to a poster on this board. To say that

Please read the entirety of my post instead of making assumptions and "twisting" what I was replying to.

The run game is very important in the NFL. NOBODY here has said the passing game is a negative either. Both are important.

But the part I quoted is the part where the author is saying that "the running game is inefficient" and "running the ball is of little importance" NO matter the context, is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

And it's plainly obvious that he took his story title from a local story that said" Schottenheimer saying all the right things." It's a biased story with little evidence to back it up. He seems to think that Pete's philosophy is the wrong one, and with Russell Wilson WR have everything we need to throw the ball a lot. Not true. Our QB has been getting beat up since our running game went down hill.

 

[TwistedHusky]

However, a run game is much less important than a pass game and much less important than it used to be.

The rules of the NFL (since the Manning / Brady changes) have been slanted in favor of the passing game.

When you focus on the run, you spurn all the benefits baked in for NFL QBs to create more passing yardage & scoring.

(Additionally, if you are going to pay your QB over 30M per year and then not focus leveraging the fact that he is your best player? That makes you an idiot. Because that 30M is going to strip your ability to pay other players and now you are ignoring half the utility you could have.)

You ignore the opportunity for 5 yds after contact that gets you 1st downs. (I have seen 3rd and 30s converted by iffy contact calls within 10 yds of the LOS)

You ignore the PI calls that can literally switch field position.

You ignore the disadvantage a 10 yd holding penalty creates for a run team vs the same penalty for a passing team.

The advantage with a run game is keeping the other offense off the field, lowering % chance of turnover, and resting the defense. But the #s are this:

A great RB is going to get you roughly 4 yds per carry.

On average the WORST stats for yds per pass attempt were (2017)
5 yds per ATTEMPT
8 yds per COMPLETION
Obviously the variance is larger in pass vs run because run rarely gives you zero yards while a dropped/missed pass does.

And with defenses switching to faster lighter guys to rush the passer, there are more opportunities to exploit for runs. But lets not pretend that passing teams don't have a much better chance at getting to the playoffs or doing well once there. This is the same reason that being a great run stopping team isn't going to do much for you unless you can stop the pass.

 

[hawxfreak]

Everyone knows when you can run the ball you can tire a defense out in the fourth and shred them while taking up valuable clock and making them take more chances giving you more opportunities to win on both sides of the ball , seen it a million times and 80% of the time it works 90% of the time :2thumbs: :2thumbs: :2thumbs: :2thumbs:

If ya become one dimensional you're battling uphill and last year if anyone remembers that season , that was us , so I sure hope like hell we can run the ball this year
Go Hawks

SEA ...

 

[Atradees]

I see the same "Seahawks Dismantle defense" theme here. Its not true at all. Meh.....

Schotty never had RW.

 

[Jac]

The Patriots, who epitomize that type of quick-hit clock-controlling passing game, last year ran the ball 448 times for 1,889 yards and 16 touchdowns. The Saints, who were universally praised last year for finally developing a ground game, ran it 444 times for 2,070 yards and 23 touchdowns. The high-flying Eagles went for 473-2115-9.

I think the league when through an era recently where the run game felt de-emphasized because RBs weren't being picked in the first round. But I think that may have been more of a value argument in that teams believed they could find effective RBs later, not that they weren't interested in being able to run. With the Saints success last year and all the RBs taken early this year, it seems like teams are actually actively prioritizing this part of the game. That's a reason why the article is foolish, bored, or whatever.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

The Patriots, who epitomize that type of quick-hit clock-controlling passing game, last year ran the ball 448 times for 1,889 yards and 16 touchdowns. The Saints, who were universally praised last year for finally developing a ground game, ran it 444 times for 2,070 yards and 23 touchdowns. The high-flying Eagles went for 473-2115-9.

I think the league when through an era recently where the run game felt de-emphasized because RBs weren't being picked in the first round. But I think that may have been more of a value argument in that teams believed they could find effective RBs later, not that they weren't interested in being able to run. With the Saints success last year and all the RBs taken early this year, it seems like teams are actually actively prioritizing this part of the game. That's a reason why the article is foolish, bored, or whatever.

Right, it should be about balance, and not just crapping on the run game.

The NFL can pass all the QB/receiver friendly rules they want................football will always be about imposing your will, physicality and keeping your opponent off balance. That means not being predictable, and that's really been our problem with not having a productive run game the past two years.

In this offense, it's pretty simple. To use Russell correctly we have to run the ball successfully to open up play action.

 

[Seymour]

The Patriots, who epitomize that type of quick-hit clock-controlling passing game, last year ran the ball 448 times for 1,889 yards and 16 touchdowns. The Saints, who were universally praised last year for finally developing a ground game, ran it 444 times for 2,070 yards and 23 touchdowns. The high-flying Eagles went for 473-2115-9.

I think the league when through an era recently where the run game felt de-emphasized because RBs weren't being picked in the first round. But I think that may have been more of a value argument in that teams believed they could find effective RBs later, not that they weren't interested in being able to run. With the Saints success last year and all the RBs taken early this year, it seems like teams are actually actively prioritizing this part of the game. That's a reason why the article is foolish, bored, or whatever.

Right, it should be about balance, and not just crapping on the run game.

The NFL can pass all the QB/receiver friendly rules they want................football will always be about imposing your will, physicality and keeping your opponent off balance. That means not being predictable, and that's really been our problem with not having a productive run game the past two years.

In this offense, it's pretty simple. To use Russell correctly we have to run the ball successfully to open up play action.

I agree, but his statement was...."the key for Seahawks offense to improve, win games is to run the ball when defenses know they are going to run it in 2018".

That is blatantly advertising your predictability right there.

I get it. It's not to be taken literally every play, but his words are easy to attack.

 

[sc85sis]

Pete has said repeatedly over the years—including again a few weeks ago on Brock and Salk—that he wants balance on offense. That requires being able to establish the run game. We had no run game to speak of last year and it showed.

Pete does not want to run at the exclusion of the passing game. Bubble screens have been a big part of his offenses in the last 19 years. He also likes to use short passes to RB/FB/TEs along with play action and deep throws.

Anyone indicating otherwise hasn’t been paying attention

 

[adeltaY]

Success rate stats show running is most useful in short yardage situations, such as 3rd and 1 or at the goal line. Otherwise, passing is on average more successful and gains more yards (somewhat interchangeable, but not quite). The problem is that people take this to extremes. Some advocate only running in those situations, while others want a 50/50 split. The best spot is probably in the middle there and largely depends on your defense and ST.

If you can establish a lead by whatever means, you can just run on first and second and pass on third if you have to. That is, if you have confidence that your defense can get you the ball back without conceding points. If you fall behind, you have to pass.

For the Hawks, our running game has to improve. Point blank. Don't care how useless you think a run game is, we could not even run in short yardage and it hurt our offense. IMO, return the run game to middle of the pack and then it's all about the passing game, which also sucked last year. Don't get sucked into TD/INT ratio. It's close to meaningless as a stat without context. The passing game has to return to being more efficient. People are forgetting that in the years we were SB contenders, Russ was historically efficient as a passer (still is).

Gotta remember the human element too. A Kellen Clemens or Mark Sanchez pass is nowhere near as valuable as a RW or Matt Ryan pass.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

The Patriots, who epitomize that type of quick-hit clock-controlling passing game, last year ran the ball 448 times for 1,889 yards and 16 touchdowns. The Saints, who were universally praised last year for finally developing a ground game, ran it 444 times for 2,070 yards and 23 touchdowns. The high-flying Eagles went for 473-2115-9.

I think the league when through an era recently where the run game felt de-emphasized because RBs weren't being picked in the first round. But I think that may have been more of a value argument in that teams believed they could find effective RBs later, not that they weren't interested in being able to run. With the Saints success last year and all the RBs taken early this year, it seems like teams are actually actively prioritizing this part of the game. That's a reason why the article is foolish, bored, or whatever.

Right, it should be about balance, and not just crapping on the run game.

The NFL can pass all the QB/receiver friendly rules they want................football will always be about imposing your will, physicality and keeping your opponent off balance. That means not being predictable, and that's really been our problem with not having a productive run game the past two years.

In this offense, it's pretty simple. To use Russell correctly we have to run the ball successfully to open up play action.

I agree, but his statement was...."the key for Seahawks offense to improve, win games is to run the ball when defenses know they are going to run it in 2018".

That is blatantly advertising your predictability right there.

I get it. It's not to be taken literally every play, but his words are easy to attack.

He's using a little bravado hyperbole..........he's basically saying he wants us to get back to imposing our will on defenses in the run game, like we used to do with Marshawn.

Especially in the 4th quarter when we wore teams down and used to just ram it down their throat.

That's what he's talking about, so I have a hard time with this writer finding fault with what Schottenheimer is talking about. He's not talking about being predictable, or installing antiquated run heavy offenses in a pass heavy league. He's talking about balance and imposing will.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Don't give a rip what he says, I care what he does w/the play calling. People just love to get worked up. It just goes w/the territory with so many fans out there. They whined about wanting Bevell gone, now they are whining because the new guy doesn't say what they want to hear. He wants to pound the rock. Oh the horror :roll:

 

[Seymour]

The Patriots, who epitomize that type of quick-hit clock-controlling passing game, last year ran the ball 448 times for 1,889 yards and 16 touchdowns. The Saints, who were universally praised last year for finally developing a ground game, ran it 444 times for 2,070 yards and 23 touchdowns. The high-flying Eagles went for 473-2115-9.

I think the league when through an era recently where the run game felt de-emphasized because RBs weren't being picked in the first round. But I think that may have been more of a value argument in that teams believed they could find effective RBs later, not that they weren't interested in being able to run. With the Saints success last year and all the RBs taken early this year, it seems like teams are actually actively prioritizing this part of the game. That's a reason why the article is foolish, bored, or whatever.

Right, it should be about balance, and not just crapping on the run game.

The NFL can pass all the QB/receiver friendly rules they want................football will always be about imposing your will, physicality and keeping your opponent off balance. That means not being predictable, and that's really been our problem with not having a productive run game the past two years.

In this offense, it's pretty simple. To use Russell correctly we have to run the ball successfully to open up play action.

I agree, but his statement was...."the key for Seahawks offense to improve, win games is to run the ball when defenses know they are going to run it in 2018".

That is blatantly advertising your predictability right there.

I get it. It's not to be taken literally every play, but his words are easy to attack.

He's using a little bravado hyperbole..........he's basically saying he wants us to get back to imposing our will on defenses in the run game, like we used to do with Marshawn.

Especially in the 4th quarter when we wore teams down and used to just ram it down their throat.

That's what he's talking about, so I have a hard time with this writer finding fault with what Schottenheimer is talking about. He's not talking about being predictable, or installing antiquated run heavy offenses in a pass heavy league. He's talking about balance and imposing will.

Orrrr.......he COULD BE saying that if it's 2nd and goal with 26 seconds left to win a dynasty SB and the entire planet knows you are going to run it.....he WILL run it!! :twisted: :snack:

Orrrr......he knows how to pick up a 3rd and 1 without throwing a go route!

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Looking forward to an OC who doesn't try to get cute in the red zone.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Orrrr......he knows how to pick up a 3rd and 1 without throwing a go route!

Low percentage go routes are a result of this.




Russell: "Oh crap! *throws to outside receiver with one on one coverage and prays*

 

[TwistedHusky]

If we can just reliably convert the 3rd and shorts, it would really help.

I am all for running success when everyone knows you are running in the above scenario.

I don't believe that running is not important. I do believe that a run first, run focused offense would be foolish given our personnel. And I do believe that a strong passing game is much more important than a strong run game.

But a non-existent run game is bad regardless and that is what we had.

 

[Seymour]

Yep! Picking up 3rd and 1-2 on offense, and shutting down 3rd and 13 on defense will go a long ways to restoring some confidence.

 

[chris98251]

However, a run game is much less important than a pass game and much less important than it used to be.

The rules of the NFL (since the Manning / Brady changes) have been slanted in favor of the passing game.

When you focus on the run, you spurn all the benefits baked in for NFL QBs to create more passing yardage & scoring.

(Additionally, if you are going to pay your QB over 30M per year and then not focus leveraging the fact that he is your best player? That makes you an idiot. Because that 30M is going to strip your ability to pay other players and now you are ignoring half the utility you could have.)

You ignore the opportunity for 5 yds after contact that gets you 1st downs. (I have seen 3rd and 30s converted by iffy contact calls within 10 yds of the LOS)

You ignore the PI calls that can literally switch field position.

You ignore the disadvantage a 10 yd holding penalty creates for a run team vs the same penalty for a passing team.

The advantage with a run game is keeping the other offense off the field, lowering % chance of turnover, and resting the defense. But the #s are this:

A great RB is going to get you roughly 4 yds per carry.

On average the WORST stats for yds per pass attempt were (2017)
5 yds per ATTEMPT
8 yds per COMPLETION
Obviously the variance is larger in pass vs run because run rarely gives you zero yards while a dropped/missed pass does.

And with defenses switching to faster lighter guys to rush the passer, there are more opportunities to exploit for runs. But lets not pretend that passing teams don't have a much better chance at getting to the playoffs or doing well once there. This is the same reason that being a great run stopping team isn't going to do much for you unless you can stop the pass.

Well where's Manning, retired, where's Brady talking about leaving, retireing. Like Marino's quick release changed the game certain players can as well, but those players are unique. Lots of teams think they can can get cute and draft guys that look the part physically but we all know whats between the ears or not is what makes these unique players who they are, and what they can accomplish.


A solid running game is the balance for not having a Manning and or a Brady, hell the Pats drafted Sony this year and wanted Penny, Bill knows something, when is the last time he went after a RB that high.

 

[mikeak]

"The best offensive coordinators in the league understand that running the ball is inefficient.... If you have a quarterback who can execute these plays with ease — and Seattle does — then running the ball is of little importance

.

The reason to remove text in a quote and using ... is because it is UNRELATED, NON IMPORTANT information. To take out VITAL language from the quote is in my opinion only twisting what was said / written.

The part you removed is below

Quick three-step passes, bubble screens and traditional screens to a back are far superior options and offer a much greater chance of producing an explosive play. If you have a quarterback who can execute these plays with ease — and Seattle does — then running the ball is of little importance.

What he is really saying is if you can move the ball in the backfield, with passes, and utilizing the RB in that position then you should still get your 1-3 yards but also a bigger chance of breaking one free.

It still takes time off the clock (high catch rate) the same way a running play does, you still use the RB to bruise players and move the lines. You are just opening up for the run as well.

If you look at the NBA game the 3 point shot has taken a long time to change the game but today it is a completely different game because of the value of the 3. Now you use it wrong it goes like Houston against GS and you miss 27 in a row because you are stupid........ if you have the right players, game plan and execution you take good open 3s and have a higher success rate and you score more. As long as you don't go quick 3 and out and use quick passes for short yardage then you are still moving the ball, still eating clock and maintain a high rate of ball security. Of course you will at times run the ball but it is not the primary focus of your game

I agree with this principal and wrote it in many posts last year when we talked about wanting to avoid turnovers, eating clock. It can be done with a passing game as well.

Please read the entirety of my post .

I did

But the part I quoted is the part where the author is saying that "the running game is inefficient" and "running the ball is of little importance" NO matter the context, is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
.

This is incorrect. This is not what the author stated. Please read my entire post to see why this is not what he stated. To save the trouble

Quick three-step passes, bubble screens and traditional screens to a back are far superior options and offer a much greater chance of producing an explosive play. If you have a quarterback who can execute these plays with ease — and Seattle does — [then] running the ball is of little importance.

He says if you find other ways to involve the running back and get yards from him then the running the ball for the sake of running the ball is of little importance.

If you cannot execute those then stick to the running game. He is saying with RW at the helm we could negate the importance of the running game if you playcall right. THAT is why the part that was taken out intentionally or not skewed the statements of the author

 

[chris98251]

"The best offensive coordinators in the league understand that running the ball is inefficient.... If you have a quarterback who can execute these plays with ease — and Seattle does — then running the ball is of little importance

.

The reason to remove text in a quote and using ... is because it is UNRELATED, NON IMPORTANT information. To take out VITAL language from the quote is in my opinion only twisting what was said / written.

The part you removed is below

Quick three-step passes, bubble screens and traditional screens to a back are far superior options and offer a much greater chance of producing an explosive play. If you have a quarterback who can execute these plays with ease — and Seattle does — then running the ball is of little importance.

What he is really saying is if you can move the ball in the backfield, with passes, and utilizing the RB in that position then you should still get your 1-3 yards but also a bigger chance of breaking one free.

It still takes time off the clock (high catch rate) the same way a running play does, you still use the RB to bruise players and move the lines. You are just opening up for the run as well.

If you look at the NBA game the 3 point shot has taken a long time to change the game but today it is a completely different game because of the value of the 3. Now you use it wrong it goes like Houston against GS and you miss 27 in a row because you are stupid........ if you have the right players, game plan and execution you take good open 3s and have a higher success rate and you score more. As long as you don't go quick 3 and out and use quick passes for short yardage then you are still moving the ball, still eating clock and maintain a high rate of ball security. Of course you will at times run the ball but it is not the primary focus of your game

I agree with this principal and wrote it in many posts last year when we talked about wanting to avoid turnovers, eating clock. It can be done with a passing game as well.

Please read the entirety of my post .

I did

But the part I quoted is the part where the author is saying that "the running game is inefficient" and "running the ball is of little importance" NO matter the context, is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
.

This is incorrect. This is not what the author stated. Please read my entire post to see why this is not what he stated. To save the trouble

[i]Quick three-step passes, bubble screens and traditional screens to a back are far superior options and offer a much greater chance of producing an explosive play. If you have a quarterback who can execute these plays with ease — and Seattle does — [then] running the ball is of little importance.[/i]

He says if you find other ways to involve the running back and get yards from him then the running the ball for the sake of running the ball is of little importance.

If you cannot execute those then stick to the running game. He is saying with RW at the helm we could negate the importance of the running game if you playcall right. THAT is why the part that was taken out intentionally or not skewed the statements of the author

He lost it right there, trhee step drops are not what Wilson does, why he runs from the shotgun, this is where his height if he does not have defined lanes does get the better of him, and then he said the B word.