Some of you really don't understand how Pete operates

[lukerguy]

When we go up 24-0, the opponent is no longer the other team -- it is the clock. Pete loosens the D and doesn't care if we give up 23 points. He goes conservative on O, to avoid turnovers and keep the clock moving.

The goal is to WIN, that is to win the game -- period. Not win by a landslide. Winning by 50-0 is pointless because margin of victory only means something in college football, it is irrelevant in the NFL.

Sure, we could have tackled much better, and maybe a few offensive plays could have been better disguised. But in t the end, we have a W, and that's the only thing that counts.

I understand they used to beat teams regularly by 30-60+ in Russ's 2nd and 3rd year... when they were actually really good... and now they don't, because they are slightly above average.

The Hawks will be something like 10-6, wildcard, 1st or 2nd round exit.

No SB team in the modern era has ever won without getting pressure on the opposite QB. Even the (terrible defense) Manning led Colts teams with Freeney and Sanders.. they had the two edge rushers who could put on pressure and cause turnovers.

Unless the Hawks figure out how to get a pass rush (LIKE NE, SF, NO..or SEA year's past), they'll never be a SB contender.

 

[ZagHawk]

When we go up 24-0, the opponent is no longer the other team -- it is the clock. Pete loosens the D and doesn't care if we give up 23 points. He goes conservative on O, to avoid turnovers and keep the clock moving.

The goal is to WIN, that is to win the game -- period. Not win by a landslide. Winning by 50-0 is pointless because margin of victory only means something in college football, it is irrelevant in the NFL.

Sure, we could have tackled much better, and maybe a few offensive plays could have been better disguised. But in t the end, we have a W, and that's the only thing that counts.

No we understand how he works, we're just tired of it

 

[Tusc2000]

Most of us understand, we just don't agree.

I don't think you are the majority.
The most vocal, perhaps.

 

[John63]

We were not going to loSE that game, but they made it a game by going conservative. Should have went for the throat, it's 2019. Pete needs to stop living in his past and adjust. The Falcons got incredibly lucky when the Hawks dropped an easy pick 6. It goes both ways.

Pete does rely far too much on an elite defense he doesn't have anymore. Normally, I'd be fully with you that I am tired of playing it so conservative. I just don't think this game is a good example of it. The offense didn't execute in the second half, and the Falcons adapted on D. Unless you want the Hawk's to go for it on 4th down instead of kick the field goal after that 8 minute drive, they didn't really call it much differently than the first half. They were still passing on 3rd down. Russell was still holding on the ball to find people downfield (Lockett's big catches), he wasn't just throwing it away to play it safe.

Trust me, normally I would agree with you. But just factually to say this game was a good example of it is just ignoring what actually happened.

The play calling in the 2nd half were putrid, they went conservative as well, unless Wilson went off script that as the only time we really did anything that was not conservative. Point in case we threw 6 passes all 2nd half and all of them were on the one drive we got a FG on, that is conservative.

Which play calls do you have in mind that were "Putrid"? I re-watched the game and almost all of the play calls were pretty logical, and far from anything I was consider terrible. I've witness Bevell and Schotty call some pretty terrible mind numbing plays. There weren't any bubble screens on 3rd and 9. There weren't any all-go routes when we only needed 3 yards. The 'terrible' play calls just aren't there to be found.

I rewatched the game ADN saw an offense go conservative and play not to loose instead of to win. Going wiht a run on 3rd and 2 when everyone on defense was on the line waiting is a putrid call.

 

[John63]

Pete acknowledged that he didn't to a good job and has to do better. Problem is, we've heard it before.

Let's just call it what it is: playing not to lose. Last I checked that was a big sin in the NFL and sports in general.

I think the results were indicative of both Pete's philosophy and the lack of an elite defense to execute that philosophy.

We all know it will bite this team in the ass come the playoffs.

exactly if it were anyone else we would be asking for his head, but because PC with an historic defense and MVP QB got us our first SB 5 years ago he gets a pass.

 

[Tusc2000]

Five years ago in the same spot Pete continues to throttle down and blow the team out. As of late and especially yesterday he seems to play to not lose instead of playing to solidify a win.

I want the old Pete back.

I'm sure Pete would like the LOB of 5 years ago as well.
And Marshawn.
And Doug.
And Bennett and Irvin.
Et al
We all would.
Especially Pete.

 

[John63]

When we go up 24-0, the opponent is no longer the other team -- it is the clock. Pete loosens the D and doesn't care if we give up 23 points. He goes conservative on O, to avoid turnovers and keep the clock moving.

The goal is to WIN, that is to win the game -- period. Not win by a landslide. Winning by 50-0 is pointless because margin of victory only means something in college football, it is irrelevant in the NFL.

Sure, we could have tackled much better, and maybe a few offensive plays could have been better disguised. But in t the end, we have a W, and that's the only thing that counts.

I understand they used to beat teams regularly by 30-60+ in Russ's 2nd and 3rd year... when they were actually really good... and now they don't, because they are slightly above average.

The Hawks will be something like 10-6, wildcard, 1st or 2nd round exit.

No SB team in the modern era has ever won without getting pressure on the opposite QB. Even the (terrible defense) Manning led Colts teams with Freeney and Sanders.. they had the two edge rushers who could put on pressure and cause turnovers.

Unless the Hawks figure out how to get a pass rush (LIKE NE, SF, NO..or SEA year's past), they'll never be a SB contender.

I guess we need to define regulalry

WIlson 2nd year we won 0 games by 30 points and in fact only won 5 games by 20+
Wilsons 3rd year again 0 by 30+ and only 2 games by 20+

 

[AgentDib]

We got lucky wiht the fumble that ws not a fumble, if that is called correctly we loose. So yeah it was that close.

More incorrect hyperbole. Per PFR the Falcons had a 7.5% likelihood of winning prior to the fumble and a 3.4% chance of winning after the fumble. It was a significant play that reduced their chances by 55%, but assuming we would have lost is not defensible.

 

[lukerguy]

When we go up 24-0, the opponent is no longer the other team -- it is the clock. Pete loosens the D and doesn't care if we give up 23 points. He goes conservative on O, to avoid turnovers and keep the clock moving.

The goal is to WIN, that is to win the game -- period. Not win by a landslide. Winning by 50-0 is pointless because margin of victory only means something in college football, it is irrelevant in the NFL.

Sure, we could have tackled much better, and maybe a few offensive plays could have been better disguised. But in t the end, we have a W, and that's the only thing that counts.

I understand they used to beat teams regularly by 30-60+ in Russ's 2nd and 3rd year... when they were actually really good... and now they don't, because they are slightly above average.

The Hawks will be something like 10-6, wildcard, 1st or 2nd round exit.

No SB team in the modern era has ever won without getting pressure on the opposite QB. Even the (terrible defense) Manning led Colts teams with Freeney and Sanders.. they had the two edge rushers who could put on pressure and cause turnovers.

Unless the Hawks figure out how to get a pass rush (LIKE NE, SF, NO..or SEA year's past), they'll never be a SB contender.

I guess we need to define regulalry

WIlson 2nd year we won 0 games by 30 points and in fact only won 5 games by 20+
Wilsons 3rd year again 0 by 30+ and only 2 games by 20+

My mistake. 2012- Russ's rookie year. 58-0, 58-17, 42-13 (against elite team), 28-7.. All in the last 6 games of the season.

 

[tersal]

When we go up 24-0, the opponent is no longer the other team -- it is the clock. Pete loosens the D and doesn't care if we give up 23 points. He goes conservative on O, to avoid turnovers and keep the clock moving.

The goal is to WIN, that is to win the game -- period. Not win by a landslide. Winning by 50-0 is pointless because margin of victory only means something in college football, it is irrelevant in the NFL.

Sure, we could have tackled much better, and maybe a few offensive plays could have been better disguised. But in t the end, we have a W, and that's the only thing that counts.

Point differential is a tie breaker for a playoff spot. It is way down on the list and to my knowledge has never come in to play.

https://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingprocedures

 

[xray]

I can't believe we have won three 10-AM games. Has that happened before?

And it was hard to start medicating that early to cope .

 

[Uncle Si]

I can't believe we have won three 10-AM games. Has that happened before?

And it was hard to start medicating that early to cope .

Cope with winning?

 

[Maulbert]

I can't believe we have won three 10-AM games. Has that happened before?

And it was hard to start medicating that early to cope .

Cope with winning?

Yeah. It's probably rough for him coming on here and being pessimistic after a win.

 

[OrangeGravy]

Pete's philosophy basically guarantees that we finish with 9-11 wins. Things have to mesh well on both sides of the ball to get into the 12-14 range and it makes it really difficult to finish in the sub 8 win range. The whole thing is set up to get you into the playoffs and hopefully have a enough of the wrinkles ironed out to make a run.

I don't understand how anyone that loathes the "system" hangs around. Why would you suggest yourself to it? You know it isn't changing. You know unless they hit a 2-3 year skid of missing the playoffs, Pete isn't going anywhere. So why stick around and watch something you hate? You keep slamming your head into the brick wall hoping one day it won't be there. The wall isn't moving.

Question for those that hate the way this team plays. Would you be happier if we had a coach that plays fast and loose, but most years we finished 6-8 win range with the odd 14 win season? Seriously, what is it that you think we're missing out on? All of those teams that play the "other" way aren't winning more super bowls than the Hawks. They aren't winning more games year in and year out than the Hawks, so what is it we're missing out on other than looking good and racking up fantasy points. Is it the fact that we don't make sports center highlights very often? Is it just the fact that SF hasn't lost and they're the new darlings of the NFL (It was the Rams last year)? Is everyone that insecure about the Hawks? I don't get it. I get as frustrated as anyone at times with how we play, but I can't argue against the results over time.

 

[Tinymac2]

When we go up 24-0, the opponent is no longer the other team -- it is the clock. Pete loosens the D and doesn't care if we give up 23 points. He goes conservative on O, to avoid turnovers and keep the clock moving.

The goal is to WIN, that is to win the game -- period. Not win by a landslide. Winning by 50-0 is pointless because margin of victory only means something in college football, it is irrelevant in the NFL.

Sure, we could have tackled much better, and maybe a few offensive plays could have been better disguised. But in t the end, we have a W, and that's the only thing that counts.

I understand they used to beat teams regularly by 30-60+ in Russ's 2nd and 3rd year... when they were actually really good... and now they don't, because they are slightly above average.

The Hawks will be something like 10-6, wildcard, 1st or 2nd round exit.

No SB team in the modern era has ever won without getting pressure on the opposite QB. Even the (terrible defense) Manning led Colts teams with Freeney and Sanders.. they had the two edge rushers who could put on pressure and cause turnovers.

Unless the Hawks figure out how to get a pass rush (LIKE NE, SF, NO..or SEA year's past), they'll never be a SB contender.

I guess we need to define regulalry

WIlson 2nd year we won 0 games by 30 points and in fact only won 5 games by 20+
Wilsons 3rd year again 0 by 30+ and only 2 games by 20+

My mistake. 2012- Russ's rookie year. 58-0, 58-17, 42-13 (against elite team), 28-7.. All in the last 6 games of the season.

You mean the 4 -11 Cards, 6-10 Bills, or the Whiners who we whipped with a whopping 22 pass attempts for 177 yards in 2012? I’m Just razzing you but “elite” might be a little generous.

 

[Tamerlane]

When we were up 24-0, Pete thought "the only chance we can possibly lose this game is if we get cute and turn the ball over." So he didn't. He knew there was no way the Falcons could put up 24 and somehow if they did, all he would have to do is score once. And he was absolutely right. Again. And nobody can handle it. It's absolute insanity at this point.

Bingo. Someone elsewhere posted a win probability graph and based on those calculations the game was never particularly close at all. It just felt that way to some. Historically, I was curious how many teams have made up a 24 point margin but I couldn't quite find that statistic, but I did find the stat that teams with 25+ point leads have a win record of 2,545 - 4 - 2.. Turnovers are basically the only way.

"Putting your foot on the throat" sounds tough and all but it really doesn't make sense. It's precisely what Kyle Shanahan did in Superbowl LI, most fatally late in the game when he called repeated pass plays instead of setting up for what would have been an absolute game-sealing field goal. Pete is wiser than that. Those ridiculously tight throws to Lockette in the first half yesterday, those misses by Moore, etc -- tell me you want to tempt fate over and over again on that with a 4 score lead and expect nothing to go wrong. The week after a pick-six.

By the way, has anyone recently brought up the fact that the 2013 team had no less than 6 one-score victories in regular season, 2 in overtime? This is Peteball. And it's worked consistently well over two straight decades, including this year. I'm enjoying the season, I hope others are too, but I can't imagine how with all this hand-wringing over wins that weren't really close and a 6-2 record for squad in mid-rebuild.

 

[Ozzy]

Oh we understand how Pete operates, and we saw it in full effect yesterday..................create unnecessary close games by being too conservative with a big lead on offense, and go into prevent mode on defense.

Sure, a wins a win, we'll take it. But truthfully I wish in games like yesterday Pete would just turn the offense over to Russell in the 2nd half.

Because if this team has any hope of getting through the next stretch of super tough games? Then it needs to be confident and clicking on all cylinders, and not playing terrible 2nd halves of games looking like we're regressing on both sides of the ball.

You don't accomplish instilling confidence by taking your foot off the gas, you do it by stepping on bad team's throats. Didn't see that yesterday, or really ever with Pete.

Sarge brings up a good point. I think big picture wise it might help the confidence of some of the young players as well as the team as a whole if you can dominate a couple of teams. Even the local beat reporter said he got a weird vibe after that game in the locker room and it was as if they had lost.

We also all understand Pete it just seems like a plan that narrows the margin of error unnecessarily and we've gotten lucky a few times this year that it didn't end up biting us. People tend to narrow their choices as they get older to what they're comfortable with and I think Pete is getting even more conservative as he nears 70. It's human nature. It's also an approach that was perfect when you had a historically good defense. This team is built differently and should be coached differently. We can love Pete and wish for a slight shift in his thought process.....

 

[xray]

Five years ago in the same spot Pete continues to throttle down and blow the team out. As of late and especially yesterday he seems to play to not lose instead of playing to solidify a win.

I want the old Pete back.

Don't look now but you do have an OLD PETE.

 

[xray]

I can't believe we have won three 10-AM games. Has that happened before?

And it was hard to start medicating that early to cope .

Cope with winning?

With a frustrating win .

 

[Jville]

"Some of you really don't understand how Pete operates" ...........................

Even before he arrived in Seattle, not everyone wanted to understand Pete. We continue to see examples to this day. But for those who do and are willing to read for comprehension. Pete Carroll has made it easy to get up to speed ........................