Tell The Truth Tuesday

[LeftHandSmoke]

No hyperbole allowed. Whatcha got?

First time the 9ers look to get 8 men in the box, the truth is that this our best play: Throw the Lady Parts at them - They'll never see that coming!

Keenum sees ghosts when that many are lined up, 49ers had a blue print, I kept saying line em 8 up.

Ha, true of me too.

On offense, PC suggested yesterday they will recommit to running the ball, so perhaps he sees the 9ers as an opportunity to get going with what looked good early (1's on 1's) in some of the preseason games when posters even here began to absolutely rave about the holes the interior line was opening up for CM. It's possible that the OL shows some of that road-grader ability, including by our (massive) interim RG, and they start blowing people off the line in the way this OL was fashioned after. Fingers crossed.

My 'Tell the Truth Tuesday' admission is that I confidently predicted that our offense would significantly improve after the Dolphins game. I was wrong. But I am even more confident this time with predicting it, Navarro B be damned.

 

[sutz]

Mid-September is the wrong time to panic.

 

[iigakusei]

We have become so spoiled as a fanbase.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

We've sold one of the NFL's greatest defenses of all time down the road.

wat

 

[chris98251]

On offense and defense we did not come out with the swagger of a champion, we let the Ram dictate the physicality, we need attitude and the confidence we showed before. We have seen this before, attributed it to a Super Bowl Hangover and it took 6 games to correct. We can't wait 6 games.

 

[hawker84]

You made a claim, he refuted it with scores that don't look like ugly wins at all. You then claim he cherry picked 12 games out of 40. He came back with data that says the Seahawks won 22 games between 2014 to 2015 (out of 32). Even if you could make the argument that 51% of ugly wins means "usually", that would still be wrong as they seem to have won more than half their games with scores that don't look like they were ugly wins. They look like dominant wins. I don't see how requiring the defense getting a turnover makes it any less dominant. I don't see why great field position makes it any less dominant. In fact, those things are probably, more often than not, what makes a team dominate over another.

It seems to me that your claims (with no stats) have been refuted by a couple of stats. You then demand more stats from him to further back his numbers up. To tell you the truth, I'm more convinced with his argument and am now waiting to see if you can come up with stats from those 12 games that back your theory up and refute his. I'm all for changing my mind, but his numbers have me more convinced at this moment in time.

So you got me curious, and decided to do a little digging on some of the games in 2015 he listed as dominating wins. Here's some info on those games.

First off there was more than 32 games played if you count post season, so not sure 51% is accurate? Anyhoo: let's just start with 2015......

1. Cards - week 17 - 36 to 6 - No doubt, dominating win by the Hawks. We scored 30 in the first half and led Arizona by 24 going into the 3rd quarter. We scored two more field goals in the second half, shut them out in the second half. Great win down there.

2. Browns - Week 15 - 30 to 13 - So off the top of my head and looking at the box scores this looks like a dominating victory by the Hawks, and it was by all accounts. But let's take into account we were playing the Johnny Football led Browns and their vaunting 27th ranked defense. Their leading tackler that day was Tashaun Gipson, ya that's what I said too, Who?
besides having the 27th ranked overall defense they were:
27th points per game - 27.0
30th against the run
22nd against the pass

So yes great win against one of the league's cellar dwellers.

Niners (both games) 20-3 and 29-13 respectfully. Both great wins against a Colin Sackorpick lead offense and a completely gutted 9ers Defense. Let's look a little closer. Despite the loss of how many pro bowl caliber players on D, the 9ers still managed to have the:

29th ranked overall defense
29th against the run
27th against the pass

Yep they pretty much sucked on both sides of the ball. Again one of the leagues worst teams last year.

Da Bears - 26-0 Hawks win. Again good game, we did what we're suppose to do against a craptastick Jimmy Clausen lead bears team with arguably one of the worst O lines in the league. But I'm more interested in the offense, so let's see how they ranked defensively.

14th overall defense ( not bad at all )
22nd against the run
4th against the pass (damn good)

Great win against a decent D, but let's face it their offensive was atrocious and could not stay on the field, and we all know what happens when the D is on the field all game. By the way, we lead 6-0 going into the 3rd quarter which further validates my claim that this offense starts slow, even in a dominating win.

Vikings - 38-7 - great win up there. But let's not pretend that Bridgewater wasn't in a little over his head in his second year. A year in which he threw 292 completions on 447 attempts for a whopping 65.3%. 14 TD's against 9 picks and just over 3,000yrds. The Vikings were as good as they were because of their D. A defense we faced missing Linval Joseph (pro bowler) and on our very first drive lost Anthony Barr and Harrison Smith. Their top 3 defenders ( the equivalent of losing Bennett, Wagner and Kam ). Those 3 then faced us in the playoffs, little bit of a different defense with them in there, yes? But none the less great win.

So in my opinion, we did what we're suppose to do against teams like these (hence my cherry picking comment). How did we fair against teams who actually were pretty good? Shall we delve into that?

P.S. I got my numbers from NFL.com so if they're wrong blame them....

 

[RolandDeschain]

I don't understand how splitting Tukuafu out wide on 1st and 20 creates a mismatch.

"They'll be confused and we'll get a big gain!"

 

[FlyingGreg]

"We don't adapt, we make the opposition adapt."

That is the stance that our coaching staff has taken. A few years ago, it appeared that they had every reason to believe this. However, other teams have adapted, studied the film, gotten better themselves, and come up with ways to stifle us on offense and sometimes even stifle our defense with the same repeated formula.

I wish our coaches weren't so stubborn and realized that adapting isn't an indictment of their own failure. Straying from the gameplan for a week or two to get optimum results isn't a huge sin that should result in blowing everything up and rebuilding. Playing to your strengths and knowing your weaknesses doesn't mean you've "abandoned the system" or anything, it just means that you're willing to do whatever it takes to get a victory.

I hate to reference Belicheat and the Pats, but they are not tied to a style at all (other than constantly cheating). They are as "chameleon" as it gets. If they feel that the way to beat their opponent is by running some backs you've never heard of 40 times, they will do it. If Brady needs to throw it 50 times to decimate the opposition, they'll do that, too. They are comfortable playing any type of game, unless their opponent is Eli Manning and the New York Giants. The Giants are to the Pats as the Rams have been to us the past few seasons. They own us. To a man, their players physically dominate ours, and their coaching staff continues to bend ours over.

It used to be that we could rely upon the coaching staff to at least make excellent adjustments at the half of game's that would lead to incredible second half performances. This season (small sample size of course, and a ton of injuries, yes, but we've got to deal with it) it appears that our half time adjustments aren't so hot, and we're saving it all up for the final drive to try and win it, while leaving the opposition with no time on the clock. Leaving a razor thin margin for error, and possibly leading to a 1-1 record. 1-1 isn't terrible, but the fact that the loss to the Rams was as predictable as any loss to the Rams under Carroll is what's troubling. Fisher and company must have been thrilled with the way both teams' gameplan's played themselves out.

I'm a huge Pete Carroll fan and know that without him, we wouldn't even have a Lombardi Trophy to celebrate. However, I'm a realist and also realize that Pete's hubris probably cost us a Lombardi, as well. Pete giveth, and he taketh away. Still, I love the man and watching him go ballistic after those OPI calls was the highlight of the game for me, unfortunately, since there wasn't really much to cheer about.

Look, I know that the team will probably look like crap for a few more weeks before having their annual "love thy brother", "kumbayaa" moment and steamrolling to the playoffs. The only thing I worry about, is Pete and company getting outfoxed in the playoffs, mostly because of their own pride and not just wanting to win, but having to win "their way."

TLDR version; It's a team game, everyone contributed to the loss, some more than others, but ultimately "the blame" falls at the feet of the head coach, especially when he picks the players and the coaches. Pete must continue to evolve, ala Belicheck, as must his staff.

GREAT post, David. One of the best I have read in here in awhile.

This is exactly the problem we have right now. This staff will not innovate and adapt.

Teams know how to play us close now. Fact. It is time for us to create wrinkles.

 

[dogorama]

We've sold one of the NFL's greatest defenses of all time down the road.

wat

wat right back at you.

I get that my statement does not make sense to YOU, but in terms of it rising to the level of "wat," that term describes a statement that not only does not make sense but is in fact, nonsensical:

wat
1: If all the animals on the equator were capable of flattery, Halloween and Easter would fall on the same day.

Given that many posters on this forum, and in fact in the national media itself, share my view that the Seahawks have sacrificed their offense by an almost total lack of investment in their offensive line, this term would not apply.

- HTH

 

[AROS]

"We don't adapt, we make the opposition adapt."

That is the stance that our coaching staff has taken. A few years ago, it appeared that they had every reason to believe this. However, other teams have adapted, studied the film, gotten better themselves, and come up with ways to stifle us on offense and sometimes even stifle our defense with the same repeated formula.

I wish our coaches weren't so stubborn and realized that adapting isn't an indictment of their own failure. Straying from the gameplan for a week or two to get optimum results isn't a huge sin that should result in blowing everything up and rebuilding. Playing to your strengths and knowing your weaknesses doesn't mean you've "abandoned the system" or anything, it just means that you're willing to do whatever it takes to get a victory.

I hate to reference Belicheat and the Pats, but they are not tied to a style at all (other than constantly cheating). They are as "chameleon" as it gets. If they feel that the way to beat their opponent is by running some backs you've never heard of 40 times, they will do it. If Brady needs to throw it 50 times to decimate the opposition, they'll do that, too. They are comfortable playing any type of game, unless their opponent is Eli Manning and the New York Giants. The Giants are to the Pats as the Rams have been to us the past few seasons. They own us. To a man, their players physically dominate ours, and their coaching staff continues to bend ours over.

It used to be that we could rely upon the coaching staff to at least make excellent adjustments at the half of game's that would lead to incredible second half performances. This season (small sample size of course, and a ton of injuries, yes, but we've got to deal with it) it appears that our half time adjustments aren't so hot, and we're saving it all up for the final drive to try and win it, while leaving the opposition with no time on the clock. Leaving a razor thin margin for error, and possibly leading to a 1-1 record. 1-1 isn't terrible, but the fact that the loss to the Rams was as predictable as any loss to the Rams under Carroll is what's troubling. Fisher and company must have been thrilled with the way both teams' gameplan's played themselves out.

I'm a huge Pete Carroll fan and know that without him, we wouldn't even have a Lombardi Trophy to celebrate. However, I'm a realist and also realize that Pete's hubris probably cost us a Lombardi, as well. Pete giveth, and he taketh away. Still, I love the man and watching him go ballistic after those OPI calls was the highlight of the game for me, unfortunately, since there wasn't really much to cheer about.

Look, I know that the team will probably look like crap for a few more weeks before having their annual "love thy brother", "kumbayaa" moment and steamrolling to the playoffs. The only thing I worry about, is Pete and company getting outfoxed in the playoffs, mostly because of their own pride and not just wanting to win, but having to win "their way."

TLDR version; It's a team game, everyone contributed to the loss, some more than others, but ultimately "the blame" falls at the feet of the head coach, especially when he picks the players and the coaches. Pete must continue to evolve, ala Belicheck, as must his staff.

Dave, you really need to post more. Great stuff. See ya in New York!

 

[dogorama]

"We don't adapt, we make the opposition adapt."

That is the stance that our coaching staff has taken. A few years ago, it appeared that they had every reason to believe this. However, other teams have adapted, studied the film, gotten better themselves, and come up with ways to stifle us on offense and sometimes even stifle our defense with the same repeated formula.

I wish our coaches weren't so stubborn and realized that adapting isn't an indictment of their own failure. Straying from the gameplan for a week or two to get optimum results isn't a huge sin that should result in blowing everything up and rebuilding. Playing to your strengths and knowing your weaknesses doesn't mean you've "abandoned the system" or anything, it just means that you're willing to do whatever it takes to get a victory.

I hate to reference Belicheat and the Pats, but they are not tied to a style at all (other than constantly cheating). They are as "chameleon" as it gets. If they feel that the way to beat their opponent is by running some backs you've never heard of 40 times, they will do it. If Brady needs to throw it 50 times to decimate the opposition, they'll do that, too. They are comfortable playing any type of game, unless their opponent is Eli Manning and the New York Giants. The Giants are to the Pats as the Rams have been to us the past few seasons. They own us. To a man, their players physically dominate ours, and their coaching staff continues to bend ours over.

It used to be that we could rely upon the coaching staff to at least make excellent adjustments at the half of game's that would lead to incredible second half performances. This season (small sample size of course, and a ton of injuries, yes, but we've got to deal with it) it appears that our half time adjustments aren't so hot, and we're saving it all up for the final drive to try and win it, while leaving the opposition with no time on the clock. Leaving a razor thin margin for error, and possibly leading to a 1-1 record. 1-1 isn't terrible, but the fact that the loss to the Rams was as predictable as any loss to the Rams under Carroll is what's troubling. Fisher and company must have been thrilled with the way both teams' gameplan's played themselves out.

I'm a huge Pete Carroll fan and know that without him, we wouldn't even have a Lombardi Trophy to celebrate. However, I'm a realist and also realize that Pete's hubris probably cost us a Lombardi, as well. Pete giveth, and he taketh away. Still, I love the man and watching him go ballistic after those OPI calls was the highlight of the game for me, unfortunately, since there wasn't really much to cheer about.

Look, I know that the team will probably look like crap for a few more weeks before having their annual "love thy brother", "kumbayaa" moment and steamrolling to the playoffs. The only thing I worry about, is Pete and company getting outfoxed in the playoffs, mostly because of their own pride and not just wanting to win, but having to win "their way."

TLDR version; It's a team game, everyone contributed to the loss, some more than others, but ultimately "the blame" falls at the feet of the head coach, especially when he picks the players and the coaches. Pete must continue to evolve, ala Belicheck, as must his staff.

Good post, and what you are describing is what is known in modern management theory as "continuous innovation." Given that Pete is such a big fan of modern management practices I am surprised that this has gotten by him, if in fact it has. Another critical component of modern management theory is change management, the NFL mirrors business in that it is constantly evolving, those that are standing still, risk being left behind, e.g., Kodak, Nokia, Xerox, Blockbuster, Atari, etc. the list goes on and on. Apple's iPhone might be a good example of continuous innovation with the iPhone 1,2,3,.......

Always compete, always innovate.

 

[Rocket]

A slow, sore and taped Wilson can not function behind a rookie damaged Cable o-line if the running back fumbles.
This I know to be true.
So help me God,
Amen

 

[Jazzhawk]

The repetitive fire Bevell crowd keeps me away from .net.

This.

And penalties are killing the offense as much as anything else.

 

[Sealake80]

If we can get healthy soon and stay healthy we will be dominating by the end of the year.

 

[chris98251]

If we can get healthy soon and stay healthy we will be dominating by the end of the year.

Dominating at 8 and 8 and not beating division opponents is not making the playoffs.

 

[Seymour]

I don't understand how splitting Tukuafu out wide on 1st and 20 creates a mismatch.

Send one big un out wide, and takes 2 from D to follow, Sheer genius trickery by Darrell bro's football.

 

[anonFAFA]

You made a claim, he refuted it with scores that don't look like ugly wins at all. You then claim he cherry picked 12 games out of 40. He came back with data that says the Seahawks won 22 games between 2014 to 2015 (out of 32). Even if you could make the argument that 51% of ugly wins means "usually", that would still be wrong as they seem to have won more than half their games with scores that don't look like they were ugly wins. They look like dominant wins. I don't see how requiring the defense getting a turnover makes it any less dominant. I don't see why great field position makes it any less dominant. In fact, those things are probably, more often than not, what makes a team dominate over another.

It seems to me that your claims (with no stats) have been refuted by a couple of stats. You then demand more stats from him to further back his numbers up. To tell you the truth, I'm more convinced with his argument and am now waiting to see if you can come up with stats from those 12 games that back your theory up and refute his. I'm all for changing my mind, but his numbers have me more convinced at this moment in time.

So you got me curious, and decided to do a little digging on some of the games in 2015 he listed as dominating wins. Here's some info on those games.

First off there was more than 32 games played if you count post season, so not sure 51% is accurate? Anyhoo: let's just start with 2015......

1. Cards - week 17 - 36 to 6 - No doubt, dominating win by the Hawks. We scored 30 in the first half and led Arizona by 24 going into the 3rd quarter. We scored two more field goals in the second half, shut them out in the second half. Great win down there.

2. Browns - Week 15 - 30 to 13 - So off the top of my head and looking at the box scores this looks like a dominating victory by the Hawks, and it was by all accounts. But let's take into account we were playing the Johnny Football led Browns and their vaunting 27th ranked defense. Their leading tackler that day was Tashaun Gipson, ya that's what I said too, Who?
besides having the 27th ranked overall defense they were:
27th points per game - 27.0
30th against the run
22nd against the pass

So yes great win against one of the league's cellar dwellers.

Niners (both games) 20-3 and 29-13 respectfully. Both great wins against a Colin Sackorpick lead offense and a completely gutted 9ers Defense. Let's look a little closer. Despite the loss of how many pro bowl caliber players on D, the 9ers still managed to have the:

29th ranked overall defense
29th against the run
27th against the pass

Yep they pretty much sucked on both sides of the ball. Again one of the leagues worst teams last year.

Da Bears - 26-0 Hawks win. Again good game, we did what we're suppose to do against a craptastick Jimmy Clausen lead bears team with arguably one of the worst O lines in the league. But I'm more interested in the offense, so let's see how they ranked defensively.

14th overall defense ( not bad at all )
22nd against the run
4th against the pass (damn good)

Great win against a decent D, but let's face it their offensive was atrocious and could not stay on the field, and we all know what happens when the D is on the field all game. By the way, we lead 6-0 going into the 3rd quarter which further validates my claim that this offense starts slow, even in a dominating win.

Vikings - 38-7 - great win up there. But let's not pretend that Bridgewater wasn't in a little over his head in his second year. A year in which he threw 292 completions on 447 attempts for a whopping 65.3%. 14 TD's against 9 picks and just over 3,000yrds. The Vikings were as good as they were because of their D. A defense we faced missing Linval Joseph (pro bowler) and on our very first drive lost Anthony Barr and Harrison Smith. Their top 3 defenders ( the equivalent of losing Bennett, Wagner and Kam ). Those 3 then faced us in the playoffs, little bit of a different defense with them in there, yes? But none the less great win.

So in my opinion, we did what we're suppose to do against teams like these (hence my cherry picking comment). How did we fair against teams who actually were pretty good? Shall we delve into that?

P.S. I got my numbers from NFL.com so if they're wrong blame them....

Dude, I honestly don't know what you are talking about right now. You claimed that the Seahawks are always going to win ugly. Someone comes along and refutes that. Then you come along and basically say that the Seahawks take care of business when they should. Now you're asking about the performance against good teams?

Man, I just want to basically say that your comment that when the Seahawks win, it's usually ugly seems to be factually wrong given that it looks like 12 of the 22 wins were won in dominant, good performance fashion. The other 10 could have been ugly and the Seahawks will have still won in a non-ugly way for most of their games.

 

[irocdave]

I put our new Seahawks flag out Sunday morning. It will be the last time that flags goes out this year, if the Hawks continue to look like dog shit I may burn it.

Sorry, my lucky flag got left out the night the Hawks won the SB and some ass clown stole it.

My bad, wont happen again.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

I put our new Seahawks flag out Sunday morning. It will be the last time that flags goes out this year, if the Hawks continue to look like dog shit I may burn it.

Sorry, my lucky flag got left out the night the Hawks won the SB and some ass clown stole it.

My bad, wont happen again.

Ah ha! So it's all your fault!

 

[Siouxhawk]

I put our new Seahawks flag out Sunday morning. It will be the last time that flags goes out this year, if the Hawks continue to look like dog shit I may burn it.

Sorry, my lucky flag got left out the night the Hawks won the SB and some ass clown stole it.

My bad, wont happen again.

I don't even know what to say about this except to say I truly hope you are joking.