The Hits Against PC/Schotty Keep Coming

[erik2690]

All I'm saying is that you can win either way. That's all I was ever saying. 48 was a win against the exact kind of offensive philosophy that's now dominating the playoffs.

Do you get that D won't be replicated?

 

[Tinymac2]

First, 3 of the 4 teams left have top 10 rushing attacks. To be fair, 3 also have top 10 passing offenses as well. To me, that says balance is the key.

Second, we had the best rushing offense in the league. To grab one stat and blame it on our ground attack, to me, doesn't work.

I do agree that our pass offense needs to be tweaked. The problem I have with our pass offense is it's lack of reliability over the last 3-4 years. It seems to disappear for drives, quarters, or even halves. Why is the key issue we need to identify and fix.
I'm not willing to take the easy route and blame PC and Schotty at this time because, they just win. Tweak yes, start over again next year, no.

 

[Mad Dog]

This is a long thread to basically say what we all know: Our short and intermediate passing game needs work.

I know it. The advanced stats point to it. You all are saying it in different ways. We need to balance an excellent ground game and deep passing attack with a solid, innovative mid range passing scheme. That's really what put KC, NO and LAR over the top. NE is essentially just a midrange and short passing scheme alone and is in the final 4. That is our critical deficiency.

Maybe Schotty is capable enough. Maybe he isn't. The offense was good enough I'm willing to give him another year before jumping on any "fire Schotty" bandwagon. Marty Schottoenheimer lost a bazillion playoff games running too much. Andy Reid lost a bazillion playoff games passing too much. You need balance.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

It's the fatalism of outcome that bugs me the most. That is such an anti-competitive mindset. You don't wildly thrash about trying to avoid catastrophe when you're struggling but you also don't stoically pretend like everything is fine while the house is on fire. If you walk away from a game, literally any game thinking there was nothing that could have been done better, especially on your account, then I don't think you're maximizing your opportunity to do better at the game next time.

The coaches and players seem to at least have enough humility to toss that out there, even if its a platitude, I don't get why some folks on .net feel like they have to be the armor against player and coach agency in how they played the game at a cognitive level.

No one thinks this, inside or outside the organization or fanbase.

When you lose and don't accomplish your goals there are always reasons, and those are the reasons to try to improve. Pete knows that. This is an ever evolving, changing and fluid sport.

Fatalism is what you guys are doing, thinking Pete won't change and we're doomed for mediocrity. Will his core principles change of how he thinks you win football games and championships (physical ball control run game/explosive downfield play action and stout nasty defense?) No.

But that doesn't mean he's not trying to get better within the confines of that philosophy. You guys are the ones who seem to be resigned to seeing things otherwise.

 

[mrt144]

First, 3 of the 4 teams left have top 10 rushing attacks. To be fair, 3 also have top 10 passing offenses as well. To me, that says balance is the key.

Second, we had the best rushing offense in the league. To grab one stat and blame it on our ground attack, to me, doesn't work.

I do agree that our pass offense needs to be tweaked. The problem I have with our pass offense is it's lack of reliability over the last 3-4 years. It seems to disappear for drives, quarters, or even halves. Why is the key issue we need to identify and fix.
I'm not willing to take the easy route and blame PC and Schotty at this time because, they just win. Tweak yes, start over again next year, no.

There are several stats referenced in the post I linked that give an indication that we led the league in rushing because we simply chose to do it more as our SOP and possibly at expense of overall potential efficiency. We are polar opposites to some teams whose running is jolly and passing is jolly by how much we emphasize the run early in series. We are sufficiently different from the SOPs of other offenses to wonder aloud what the pros and cons of it all are.

And I'm all for tweaks! But this is a cognitive coaching exercise - not individuals or groups of players getting the gumption to play better and execute better.

 

[mrt144]

It's the fatalism of outcome that bugs me the most. That is such an anti-competitive mindset. You don't wildly thrash about trying to avoid catastrophe when you're struggling but you also don't stoically pretend like everything is fine while the house is on fire. If you walk away from a game, literally any game thinking there was nothing that could have been done better, especially on your account, then I don't think you're maximizing your opportunity to do better at the game next time.

The coaches and players seem to at least have enough humility to toss that out there, even if its a platitude, I don't get why some folks on .net feel like they have to be the armor against player and coach agency in how they played the game at a cognitive level.

No one thinks this, inside or outside the organization or fanbase.

When you lose and don't accomplish your goals there are always reasons, and those are the reasons to try to improve. Pete knows that. This is an ever evolving, changing and fluid sport.

Fatalism is what you guys are doing, thinking Pete won't change and we're doomed for mediocrity. Will his core principles change of how he thinks you win football games and championships (physical ball control run game/explosive downfield play action and stout nasty defense?) No.

But that doesn't mean he's not trying to get better within the confines of that philosophy. You guys are the ones who seem to be resigned to seeing things otherwise.

You're right, I am extremely dubious on things in this particular facet improving which is dumb and disingenuous of me, especially after claiming others are indulging in fatalism. At the very least, I doubt things will improve to a level that genuinely excites me because it is contra to some of Pete's core principles and that's my problem as a fan, not Pete's as a coach. Coaches don't need to excite me, a fan who has a taste for some of the aesthetic beauty other teams exhibit on offense. It really IS my problem, not Pete's or Schotty's.

Still though, I wish they'd personally throw me a daggum bone on this.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

It's the fatalism of outcome that bugs me the most. That is such an anti-competitive mindset. You don't wildly thrash about trying to avoid catastrophe when you're struggling but you also don't stoically pretend like everything is fine while the house is on fire. If you walk away from a game, literally any game thinking there was nothing that could have been done better, especially on your account, then I don't think you're maximizing your opportunity to do better at the game next time.

The coaches and players seem to at least have enough humility to toss that out there, even if its a platitude, I don't get why some folks on .net feel like they have to be the armor against player and coach agency in how they played the game at a cognitive level.

No one thinks this, inside or outside the organization or fanbase.

When you lose and don't accomplish your goals there are always reasons, and those are the reasons to try to improve. Pete knows that. This is an ever evolving, changing and fluid sport.

Fatalism is what you guys are doing, thinking Pete won't change and we're doomed for mediocrity. Will his core principles change of how he thinks you win football games and championships (physical ball control run game/explosive downfield play action and stout nasty defense?) No.

But that doesn't mean he's not trying to get better within the confines of that philosophy. You guys are the ones who seem to be resigned to seeing things otherwise.

You're right, I am extremely dubious on things in this particular facet improving which is dumb and disingenuous of me, especially after claiming others are indulging in fatalism. At the very least, I doubt things will improve to a level that genuinely excites me because it is contra to some of Pete's core principles and that's my problem as a fan, not Pete's as a coach. Coaches don't need to excite me, a fan who has a taste for some of the aesthetic beauty other teams exhibit on offense. It really IS my problem, not Pete's or Schotty's.

Still though, I wish they'd personally throw me a daggum bone on this.

It's easy to look at the new flavors around the league like the Chiefs or Saints and become envious of watching those high flying offenses and think "wow, why can't we see that here?"

The reality is though there are about 28 fanbases around the league that say that about Russell and us. Wow it'd be great to just ram the ball down people's throats and watch Russell run around and make big plays.

Not sure how old you guys are, but I have news for you............this is as good as it's ever going to get in our lifetimes. When Pete retires and Russell decides to retire or move on? We will miss these years of success.

So enjoy the ride, I really do think we're building another SB caliber defense that will compliment the offense that hopefully combined gets us back to the promised land.

 

[mrt144]

It's the fatalism of outcome that bugs me the most. That is such an anti-competitive mindset. You don't wildly thrash about trying to avoid catastrophe when you're struggling but you also don't stoically pretend like everything is fine while the house is on fire. If you walk away from a game, literally any game thinking there was nothing that could have been done better, especially on your account, then I don't think you're maximizing your opportunity to do better at the game next time.

The coaches and players seem to at least have enough humility to toss that out there, even if its a platitude, I don't get why some folks on .net feel like they have to be the armor against player and coach agency in how they played the game at a cognitive level.

No one thinks this, inside or outside the organization or fanbase.

When you lose and don't accomplish your goals there are always reasons, and those are the reasons to try to improve. Pete knows that. This is an ever evolving, changing and fluid sport.

Fatalism is what you guys are doing, thinking Pete won't change and we're doomed for mediocrity. Will his core principles change of how he thinks you win football games and championships (physical ball control run game/explosive downfield play action and stout nasty defense?) No.

But that doesn't mean he's not trying to get better within the confines of that philosophy. You guys are the ones who seem to be resigned to seeing things otherwise.

You're right, I am extremely dubious on things in this particular facet improving which is dumb and disingenuous of me, especially after claiming others are indulging in fatalism. At the very least, I doubt things will improve to a level that genuinely excites me because it is contra to some of Pete's core principles and that's my problem as a fan, not Pete's as a coach. Coaches don't need to excite me, a fan who has a taste for some of the aesthetic beauty other teams exhibit on offense. It really IS my problem, not Pete's or Schotty's.

Still though, I wish they'd personally throw me a daggum bone on this.

It's easy to look at the new flavors around the league like the Chiefs or Saints and become envious of watching those high flying offenses and think "wow, why can't we see that here?"

The reality is though there are about 28 fanbases around the league that say that about Russell and us. Wow it'd be great to just ram the ball down people's throats and watch Russell run around and make big plays.

Not sure how old you guys are, but I have news for you............this is as good as it's ever going to get in our lifetimes. When Pete retires and Russell decides to retire or move on? We will miss these years of success.

So enjoy the ride, I really do think we're building another SB caliber defense that will compliment the offense that hopefully combined gets us back to the promised land.

Well we once had a new flavor that was perfectly suited for the overall objectives of the offense in the Read Option and sure, no dog lives forever, but that was something that genuinely worked well and was a unique facet to our offense and yes, carried its own risks but was just a novel way to execute running plays that we were already predisposed towards calling. We even saw it twice in the most recent playoff game but as a last resort almost.

And it's not just looking at the top teams now and being slightly jealous because they're indulging in the tactical game to the extent that makes me swoon, it's that some amount of teams like at least a 3rd of the league, at least, not just the 4 remaining are simultaneously embracing aspects of this tactical upheaval and ours is defiantly doing the opposite despite there being some prior history of being open to novelty.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Well we once had a new flavor that was perfectly suited for the overall objectives of the offense in the Read Option and sure, no dog lives forever, but that was something that genuinely worked well and was a unique facet to our offense and yes, carried its own risks but was just a novel way to execute running plays that we were already predisposed towards calling. We even saw it twice in the most recent playoff game but as a last resort almost.

You're right, but Pete and Bevell found out pretty fast that using Russell like this opened him up to getting hit more and hurt. If it's not obvious that there's now a concerted effort to not expose Russell too often to the RO and dropbacks getting hit, then it should be. Admit it or not, but he's not as fast as he used to be. Age, injuries, whatever, but the truth is you can't just do what worked in 2010-2013, because Russell wouldn't make it a full year.

See, change. More pocket passing, more getting the ball out quickly.

And it's not just looking at the top teams now and being slightly jealous because they're indulging in the tactical game to the extent that makes me swoon, it's that some amount of teams like at least a 3rd of the league, at least, not just the 4 remaining are simultaneously embracing aspects of this tactical upheaval and ours is defiantly doing the opposite despite there being some prior history of being open to novelty.

Again, it's about balance. I agree I'd like to see the run/pass get closer to 50/50, and not lean so heavily on the run, which means it takes longer for Russell to get into rhythm and become more effective.

So I'm with you there. But make no mistake, the four remaining teams all had (Chiefs)/have top 10 run offenses with premier RB's for a reason. You have to be balanced to win, because guys like Belichick, Payton, Reid and McVay will hand your ass to you if you're one dimensional.

 

[mrt144]

Well we once had a new flavor that was perfectly suited for the overall objectives of the offense in the Read Option and sure, no dog lives forever, but that was something that genuinely worked well and was a unique facet to our offense and yes, carried its own risks but was just a novel way to execute running plays that we were already predisposed towards calling. We even saw it twice in the most recent playoff game but as a last resort almost.

You're right, but Pete and Bevell found out pretty fast that using Russell like this opened him up to getting hit more and hurt. If it's not obvious that there's now a concerted effort to not expose Russell too often to the RO and dropbacks getting hit, then it should be. Admit it or not, but he's not as fast as he used to be. Age, injuries, whatever, but the truth is you can't just do what worked in 2010-2013, because Russell wouldn't make it a full year.

See, change. More pocket passing, more getting the ball out quickly.

And it's not just looking at the top teams now and being slightly jealous because they're indulging in the tactical game to the extent that makes me swoon, it's that some amount of teams like at least a 3rd of the league, at least, not just the 4 remaining are simultaneously embracing aspects of this tactical upheaval and ours is defiantly doing the opposite despite there being some prior history of being open to novelty.

Again, it's about balance. I agree I'd like to see the run/pass get closer to 50/50, and not lean so heavily on the run, which means it takes longer for Russell to get into rhythm and become more effective.

So I'm with you there. But make no mistake, the four remaining teams all had (Chiefs)/have top 10 run offenses with premier RB's for a reason. You have to be balanced to win, because guys like Belichick, Payton, Reid and McVay will hand your ass to you if you're one dimensional.

Well, make no mistake, I'm not saying I want to see the Read Option brought back full bore just because it worked for 3 years when RW was a greenhorn. I want to see us stumble upon the next Read Option style tactic insomuch that it's something relatively unique that enhances a primary goal of our team instead of being a wholesale departure from Pete's vision. If Schotty and Pete did something like that, unveiled a unique little wrinkle that we do better than any other team consistently, I'd be happy as a clam. That'd be freaking cool!

 

[chris98251]

If we had Bobby Engrum, Doug Baldwin and Steve Largent, Brian Blades, the intermediate passing game would not be an issue. If the second issue is also not a problem. We only have one, and the rest of the guys don't have either skill or the body type for durability to do a intermediate passing attack consistently. Second either Pete mandates we don't use it or Russell has issues with seeing the guys break on their routes. That's our issues intermediate and using the quick hit routes for YAC's in the middle and short range patterns.

 

[ivotuk]

The fundamental error in my opinion from Pete and Schotty is refusing to acknowledge that the climate of the NFL has changed and passing simply is that much better if you devote sufficient cognitive and personnel resources to it. Maybe the investment in tailoring the team towards that is too difficult a task for PC and Schotty to manage.

Or maybe they reached two Super Bowls with a run-first approach when all the same talking heads were predicting Manning to win for the exact same reason.

Remember how we lost 49 by passing instead of running?

Dynamic systems are dynamic. If you think things havent changed since 2013 and 2014 seasons across the league, well, no further need to talk about the future with you.

Well it looks like the answer is easy then! Just hire an elite Offensive Coordinator! Or maybe one of the posters on here could take over and be more creative than Schotty. So easy!

The difference between the Seahawks and teams like the Rams is the Seahawks have been winning for years. So we pick late. Plus, we are paying our players for their success, so we're up against the cap.


The Rams have been losing for years, so they accumulate early round talent.

Then they find a once in a blue moon OC, and add more talent through FA because they have the Cap Space, Then in his 2nd year as Head Coach, his team really improves by adding even MORE talent...because they have a cheap QB (Kind of like Pete and John did way back when).

Meanwhile, the Seahawks overturn the roster and the coaching staff. Everyone is in their 1st season, learning the offense, so how much the team can handle, and bringing it on as fast as they can while keeping the execution level up.

And everyone wants to get rid of Schottenheimer, who went 10-6.

That's what shitty teams do. If they don't win the Superbowl, they get mad and fire people, and they do this over and over and over. Even Patriots fans rebel when their team isn't 16-0. "Tom Brady is too old, Belicheck is behind the times."

We fans can discuss what went wrong, what we'd like to see different, but let's not fool ourselves in to thinking that we have the answer. If we did, we wouldn't be here.

 

[mrt144]

The fundamental error in my opinion from Pete and Schotty is refusing to acknowledge that the climate of the NFL has changed and passing simply is that much better if you devote sufficient cognitive and personnel resources to it. Maybe the investment in tailoring the team towards that is too difficult a task for PC and Schotty to manage.

Or maybe they reached two Super Bowls with a run-first approach when all the same talking heads were predicting Manning to win for the exact same reason.

Remember how we lost 49 by passing instead of running?

Dynamic systems are dynamic. If you think things havent changed since 2013 and 2014 seasons across the league, well, no further need to talk about the future with you.

Well it looks like the answer is easy then! Just hire an elite Offensive Coordinator! Or maybe one of the posters on here could take over and be more creative than Schotty. So easy!

The difference between the Seahawks and teams like the Rams is the Seahawks have been winning for years. So we pick late. Plus, we are paying our players for their success, so we're up against the cap.


The Rams have been losing for years, so they accumulate early round talent.

Then they find a once in a blue moon OC, and add more talent through FA because they have the Cap Space, Then in his 2nd year as Head Coach, his team really improves by adding even MORE talent...because they have a cheap QB (Kind of like Pete and John did way back when).

Meanwhile, the Seahawks overturn the roster and the coaching staff. Everyone is in their 1st season, learning the offense, so how much the team can handle, and bringing it on as fast as they can while keeping the execution level up.

And everyone wants to get rid of Schottenheimer, who went 10-6.

That's what shitty teams do. If they don't win the Superbowl, they get mad and fire people, and they do this over and over and over. Even Patriots fans rebel when their team isn't 16-0. "Tom Brady is too old, Belicheck is behind the times."

We fans can discuss what went wrong, what we'd like to see different, but let's not fool ourselves in to thinking that we have the answer. If we did, we wouldn't be here.

I wish it was as easy as just hiring "The One" but I know it isn't and never will be. The most I can hope for at this juncture is that the talent tide raises all boats for the Hawks. There's no plausibility in Schotty's ouster and given that PC hired Schotty in the first place there's no plausibility that PC would ever hire an OC who didn't conform to his specs which are decidedly against aspects of new wave football.

I know there are no silver bullets here with coaching and I'm beyond asking for them. I just want to see some incremental advancement where I think we reasonably could see it in the big picture. I do think 2012 did a number on what I could reasonably expect from PCJS.

 

[knownone]

The data itself doesn't show us anything.

(simplified) The best offenses in the league are more efficient passing the ball on all 3 downs. Seattle is a run first team and the stats show they run the ball. Conclusion... Seattle would be more efficient if they passed the ball?

Football is a non-linear generator, you can't really draw conclusions from micro-analyzing stats and comparing them to other teams.

Here's the thing, I work in data science, we are very good at telling you why something happened, we are not good at telling you how it could have been different if y happened instead of x. At the end of the day, the only thing people are doing is using data to fit their narrative. The data itself is not a prognosticative tool that can tell us what could have happened or will happen in the future if we adjust variables.

 

[mrt144]

The data itself doesn't show us anything.

(simplified) The best offenses in the league are more efficient passing the ball on all 3 downs. Seattle is a run first team and the stats show they run the ball. Conclusion... Seattle would be more efficient if they passed the ball?

Football is a non-linear generator, you can't really draw conclusions from micro-analyzing stats and comparing them to other teams.

Here's the thing, I work in data science, we are very good at telling you why something happened, we are not good at telling you how it could have been different if y happened instead of x. At the end of the day, the only thing people are doing is using data to fit their narrative. The data itself is not a prognosticative tool that can tell us what could have happened or will happen in the future if we adjust variables.

My conclusion is different than the canned one you offer up - my conclusion based on the petite details offered in that post is that we ARE markedly different than other teams in how we pursue our game plan and there might be room for improvement by not pursuing a tendency to the most extreme end in the NFL - might be. I'm not making any sort of predictive conjecture based on what other teams do or saying that doing as the Chiefs do will elevate our offense - that is reductive to a fault. I do have opinions on what the team could do with some of this information but they're likely stupid and wrong ideas and won't happen anyway so why waste my time fleshing them out in any more detail than I already have?

 

[SoulfishHawk]

The Fire Schotty and Fire Pete stuff was ridiculous after that loss. Give me a break :roll:

 

[mrt144]

The Fire Schotty and Fire Pete stuff was ridiculous after that loss. Give me a break :roll:

Then give those people the stick, not me Why am I accountable for every gung ho adjacent opinion that might have some overlap with mine if you were being super ungenerous.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

My conclusion is different than the canned one you offer up - my conclusion based on the petite details offered in that post is that we ARE markedly different than other teams in how we pursue our game plan and there might be room for improvement by not pursuing a tendency to the most extreme end in the NFL - might be. I'm not making any sort of predictive conjecture based on what other teams do or saying that doing as the Chiefs do will elevate our offense - that is reductive to a fault. I do have opinions on what the team could do with some of this information but they're likely stupid and wrong ideas and won't happen anyway so why waste my time fleshing them out in any more detail than I already have?

Yep, and why other's that want Pete to change are also yelling into the wind.

For all that Pete does great, and that list is long.............he's never been a great offensive mind, schemer or situational playcaller/decisionmaker.

It's why games like Dallas happen, and why we're constantly scratching our heads at his in game decisions, challenges and playcalls.

What we have to hope for, and I DO think there's plenty to be hopeful about is his ability to recognize, motivate and develop great defenders. Combine that with still having Russell in his prime, and finally a run game that's back on track?......and we have just as much hope as any other fanbase.

Because if we're checking boxes for what it takes to win a SB, we have 70-80% of the boxes checked.

- Great ownership, check.
- Great GM, check.
- Great coach, check.
- Salary cap in good shape, check.
- Top 5 QB in his prime, check.
- Young hungry roster on the rise, check.
- Great facilities, city and fanbase to attract free agents, check.
- Great coordinators? Eh, half checked.

Not too many franchises have this many boxes checked. What, maybe 4-5? Bottom line, I like our chances over the next 4-5 years to contend.

 

[Jville]

I remember new wave narratives from years ago.

I think publishers have fans in the palm of their hand. So much so, they can change a few words around and recycle many of the same narratives down thru the years.

 

[mrt144]

I remember new wave narratives from years ago.

I think publishers have fans in the palm of their hand. So much so, they can change a few words around and recycle many of the same narratives down thru the years.

Publishers like Pro Football Reference? Drew Brees completion % is ~1000 basis points higher in 2018 than it was a decade ago. The median completion of starting NFL QBs % is ~600 basis points higher than median a decade ago and ~1000 basis points higher than median from 15 years ago. This is just one of many metrics which are materially different than previous seasons of football. By what metrics have things mostly remained static on offense from 2013 and 2008 and 2003? Have an actual conversation with me rather than intimating that I'm putty in the hands of BIG STATISTICS!

These measurable differences have been incremental over time in small amounts to the extent that you might not even realize there has been that much of a change. If you don't think there are any or many material differences between what offenses are capable of in 2018 versus 2013 or 2008 or 2003 evidenced by the statistics they generate in their pursuit of playing the game, say so. I think it's quite obvious that what offenses are capable of in 2018 is distinctly different than even 5 years ago, 10 years ago, whenever. Maybe not 2017, but I didn't say 2017. Maybe not 2016, but I didn't say 2016. But if you set up some admittedly arbitrary points like 5 and 10 years you do get a sense there has been an evolution of what is possible on offense over and between those periods.

It is possible to do things like throw at a 67% completion % and have lower than a 2% INT rate per pass attempt in 2018 as a median NFL offense. Or AY/A being a half yard higher now than 2013 for the median QB. That ostensibly should change risk reward calculus for how you plan an offense but I'm going to stop there because it's just shouting into the wind.

Don't lazily rest on some back patting narrative "everyone's been duped into thinking things have changed but not me, I know the true essence of football and that's never changed. Not even once."

And if that isn't what you're doing then I have no idea what you are trying to convey with your post. I am reading it in the least generous terms possible only because your seeming denial is that absurd and dismissive. And I apologize if I'm being ungenerous but I already dealt with a boobus here who tried the same exact tactic (crap, was it you?) that he's heard ALL the reports that the league has irrevocably changed forever and we're still here in 2018 where rushing matters, ipso facto, the league is still the same materially as it's ever been.

How many times am I going to edit this post out of complete confusion of what your point was?