The massively underappreciated Brian Schottenheimer

[seedhawk]

Since PC became our HC, our regular season record is 89-54-1. Basically that equates into 9 years of going 10-6. Leave out the first 2 years that were both 7-9, and it becomes 75-36-1. Basically 11-5 for 7 years in a row. The only other franchise that equates or beats that is the Pats. We have had 3 OC's under PC, and for all the grief they get from fans, our OC's have been better than we tend to give them credit. The Hawks may not be as much fun to watch as other teams, their entertainment factor could be higher, but consistency is unbelievably hard to maintain in the NFL, and maligned or not, our OC's played their part in what our team has accomplished.

 

[scutterhawk]

Since PC became our HC, our regular season record is 89-54-1. Basically that equates into 9 years of going 10-6. Leave out the first 2 years that were both 7-9, and it becomes 75-36-1. Basically 11-5 for 7 years in a row. The only other franchise that equates or beats that is the Pats. We have had 3 OC's under PC, and for all the grief they get from fans, our OC's have been better than we tend to give them credit. The Hawks may not be as much fun to watch as other teams, their entertainment factor could be higher, but consistency is unbelievably hard to maintain in the NFL, and maligned or not, our OC's played their part in what our team has accomplished.

Truth ^
Even though most around here like to rag on Bevell, it was BEVELL who was charged with taking what Pete wanted done Offensively, which by the way, was good enough to get our Seahawks their first Lombardi, and a chance for a second the following season.
Russell Wilson & Doug Baldwin seemed to like the hell out of him, and their opinions carry a lot more weight that a bunch of disgruntled fans.
I was happy to see Tom Cable hit the road, but not so much to see Darryl Bevell get his walking papers....I'm kind of curious, as to how he would have faired, working with Solari and his O-Line acumen.
Again, I have to bring up, how Doug Baldwin shushed Cable when he started to interrupt RW when he was on the sideline going over crappy play with the O-Line.
I believe credit needs to go where credit is due, and likewise with blame.

 

[Sports Hernia]

Since PC became our HC, our regular season record is 89-54-1. Basically that equates into 9 years of going 10-6. Leave out the first 2 years that were both 7-9, and it becomes 75-36-1. Basically 11-5 for 7 years in a row. The only other franchise that equates or beats that is the Pats. We have had 3 OC's under PC, and for all the grief they get from fans, our OC's have been better than we tend to give them credit. The Hawks may not be as much fun to watch as other teams, their entertainment factor could be higher, but consistency is unbelievably hard to maintain in the NFL, and maligned or not, our OC's played their part in what our team has accomplished.

Truth ^
Even though most around here like to rag on Bevell, it was BEVELL who was charged with taking what Pete wanted done Offensively, which by the way, was good enough to get our Seahawks their first Lombardi, and a chance for a second the following season.
Russell Wilson & Doug Baldwin seemed to like the hell out of him, and their opinions carry a lot more weight that a bunch of disgruntled fans.
I was happy to see Tom Cable hit the road, but not so much to see Darryl Bevell get his walking papers....I'm kind of curious, as to how he would have faired, working with Solari and his O-Line acumen.
Again, I have to bring up, how Doug Baldwin shushed Cable when he started to interrupt RW when he was on the sideline going over crappy play with the O-Line.
I believe credit needs to go where credit is due, and likewise with blame.

Bevell isn’t a victim other than of his own poor decision making. He is a crap OC IMHO.
The lions are going to regret hiring him, watch and see.

 

[DomeHawk]

We won the TOP by almost 3 minutes during the season, but when it really counted in the playoff game we lost it by almost 10 minutes.

We know a road playoff game is a tougher task than the average regular season game, and we know that our team was better without Baldwin, Fluker and Sweezy hurt. Do you think either of those could affect TOP?

I think the same as just about every sportswriter and former NFL players thought: the Cowboy's coaching staff had us all figured out.

 

[DomeHawk]

My gripe about Schottenheimer is he is too slow in making adjustments. The *allas playoff game was a glaring example.
.....but is he following Pete’s orders on this? Or maybe they are both at fault on this,
I don’t know.


I will say I like him better than the previous guy, but that’s a pretty low bar to step over IMHO.

Totally agree and, as getnasty so correctly pointed out, Solari gets most of the credit for whatever improvements the offense made.

 

[BirdsCommaAngry]

Cool. So if he adapts from the constant run-run-pass, we might have a really good offense instead of a pretty good one.

 

[scutterhawk]

Since PC became our HC, our regular season record is 89-54-1. Basically that equates into 9 years of going 10-6. Leave out the first 2 years that were both 7-9, and it becomes 75-36-1. Basically 11-5 for 7 years in a row. The only other franchise that equates or beats that is the Pats. We have had 3 OC's under PC, and for all the grief they get from fans, our OC's have been better than we tend to give them credit. The Hawks may not be as much fun to watch as other teams, their entertainment factor could be higher, but consistency is unbelievably hard to maintain in the NFL, and maligned or not, our OC's played their part in what our team has accomplished.

Truth ^
Even though most around here like to rag on Bevell, it was BEVELL who was charged with taking what Pete wanted done Offensively, which by the way, was good enough to get our Seahawks their first Lombardi, and a chance for a second the following season.
Russell Wilson & Doug Baldwin seemed to like the hell out of him, and their opinions carry a lot more weight that a bunch of disgruntled fans.
I was happy to see Tom Cable hit the road, but not so much to see Darryl Bevell get his walking papers....I'm kind of curious, as to how he would have faired, working with Solari and his O-Line acumen.
Again, I have to bring up, how Doug Baldwin shushed Cable when he started to interrupt RW when he was on the sideline going over crappy play with the O-Line.
I believe credit needs to go where credit is due, and likewise with blame.

Bevell isn’t a victim other than of his own poor decision making. He is a crap OC IMHO.
The lions are going to regret hiring him, watch and see.

Your "Honest Opinion" vs. that of Russell Wilson & Doug Baldwin?.....Hmm, Yeah.., I'm going with the two players that are sporting Super Bowl Rings, eh :stirthepot:

 

[acer1240]

Well stated Sutter!

 

[IndyHawk]

A stubborn headed refusal to adjust the game plan when the running game isn't working was a hallmark of his father at both San Diego and Kansas City. It resulted in early outs in the playoffs and zero super bowl appearances.

His son isn't any different and I am worried we will get the same results. Nothing from last year changed my mind.

When would you have adjusted your gameplan? When the Running game was going for 4 YPC after the first quarter and the passing game resulted in -20 yards? At halftime when Carson had 6 carries and we had the lead? In the 4th quarter when we had the lead on the road in a playoff game? You would have changed then? Yeah, maybe, considering we ran like once after that.

This is the most tired argument currently involving the Seahawks.

When would you have changed your gameplan in the Dallas game, and what would you have done differently?

I agree.. :2thumbs:

 

[JayhawkMike]

We were 3rd worst in the NFL last year in 3 and outs behind the Jets and the Cardinals.

Source: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats ... atsoff2018

 

[MontanaHawk05]

We were 3rd worst in the NFL last year in 3 and outs behind the Jets and the Cardinals.

Source: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats ... atsoff2018

All the Schotty critics cling to that one stat like it says everything that needs to be said. There are plenty of others that go the other direction, like Seattle having its second highest-scoring offense in franchise history, or being 6th in both passing and rushing DVOA.

 

[Seafan]

A stubborn headed refusal to adjust the game plan when the running game isn't working was a hallmark of his father at both San Diego and Kansas City. It resulted in early outs in the playoffs and zero super bowl appearances.

His son isn't any different and I am worried we will get the same results. Nothing from last year changed my mind.

When would you have adjusted your gameplan? When the Running game was going for 4 YPC after the first quarter and the passing game resulted in -20 yards? At halftime when Carson had 6 carries and we had the lead? In the 4th quarter when we had the lead on the road in a playoff game? You would have changed then? Yeah, maybe, considering we ran like once after that.

This is the most tired argument currently involving the Seahawks.

When would you have changed your gameplan in the Dallas game, and what would you have done differently?

This.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

He hurt us badly in the first 2 games with that pass happy offense. Hard to understand after the run first mantra before the season.

They recovered once his head got connected. He needs to adapt better and quicker. Otherwise it's Bevell 2.0

Once is a fluke. Once is an off game. Once is an anomaly. Once is a one-off, not to be included in statistics determining how a team behaves and what to look for in upcoming games.

Twice, well, as the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Twice is considering something has changed for the better or worse. Twice is significant of change. Twice indicates an issue that must be watched for to change things in the future.

"Look, once was a variance in what we were seeing. Twice, well twice indicates something needs to be changed. Let's change it now after two occurrences rather than waiting."

At what point would most people change something that appeared to be going wrong? The third time at bare minimum is any sane person changes something based on the realization of a problem. Longer than that? Sure, you're reacting slow. Quicker than that? You're overreacting to a "problem" that may or may not be a problem, trend, issue, or just anomaly.

 

[RolandDeschain]

I like how one of our forum members gets called out by Matty in a Tweet for being a tool at the bottom of that article.

 

[HawkGA]

I like how one of our forum members gets called out by Matty in a Tweet for being a tool at the bottom of that article.

Ha, that's awesome!

 

[Chapow]

We were 3rd worst in the NFL last year in 3 and outs behind the Jets and the Cardinals.

Source: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats ... atsoff2018

All the Schotty critics cling to that one stat like it says everything that needs to be said. There are plenty of others that go the other direction, like Seattle having its second highest-scoring offense in franchise history, or being 6th in both passing and rushing DVOA.

Or being tied with the Chargers and Steelers for 6th most points per game for the season. In a 32 team league, there were only 5 teams that averaged more ppg than the Seahawks.
There is certainly room for improvement in some areas, but they were pretty damn far from bad.

 

[Popeyejones]

We were 3rd worst in the NFL last year in 3 and outs behind the Jets and the Cardinals.

Source: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats ... atsoff2018

All the Schotty critics cling to that one stat like it says everything that needs to be said. There are plenty of others that go the other direction, like Seattle having its second highest-scoring offense in franchise history, or being 6th in both passing and rushing DVOA.

That's exactly the problem, though.

On a per-play basis the Seahawks have a 6th rated run game and a 6th rated pass game (THOSE ARE GOOD!), but on a non-per play basis they have a 14th rated offense by the exact same metric, and for how good they are on a per play basis, they're also 29th for avoiding three and outs.

There's really only one way to turn a top run game and top pass game into an only average offense that also goes three and out all the time, and that's by having a boneheaded offensive philosophy. And there's a lot of face validity to all of this too. The statistics absolutely line up with what the Head Coach proclaimed he was going for last offseason, and with what the coordinator he hired has long been criticized for.

Because the Seahawks were good on a per play basis I don't think Schottenheimer is the total disaster that was predicted by many people, but he's generating exactly the problems that were warned about and that caused fans of other NFCW teams to be glad that the Seahawks hired him, IMO.

 

[Seymour]

We were 3rd worst in the NFL last year in 3 and outs behind the Jets and the Cardinals.

Source: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats ... atsoff2018

All the Schotty critics cling to that one stat like it says everything that needs to be said. There are plenty of others that go the other direction, like Seattle having its second highest-scoring offense in franchise history, or being 6th in both passing and rushing DVOA.

That's exactly the problem, though.

On a per-play basis the Seahawks have a 6th rated run game and a 6th rated pass game (THOSE ARE GOOD!), but on a non-per play basis they have a 14th rated offense by the exact same metric, and for how good they are on a per play basis, they're also 29th for avoiding three and outs.

There's really only one way to turn a top run game and top pass game into an only average offense that also goes three and out all the time, and that's by having a boneheaded offensive philosophy. And there's a lot of face validity to all of this too. The statistics absolutely line up with what the Head Coach proclaimed he was going for last offseason, and with what the coordinator he hired has long been criticized for.

Because the Seahawks were good on a per play basis I don't think Schottenheimer is the total disaster that was predicted by many people, but he's generating exactly the problems that were warned about and that caused fans of other NFCW teams to be glad that the Seahawks hired him, IMO.

Sorry folks but this is absolute truth!

 

[Mad Dog]

We were 3rd worst in the NFL last year in 3 and outs behind the Jets and the Cardinals.

Source: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats ... atsoff2018

All the Schotty critics cling to that one stat like it says everything that needs to be said. There are plenty of others that go the other direction, like Seattle having its second highest-scoring offense in franchise history, or being 6th in both passing and rushing DVOA.

That's exactly the problem, though.

On a per-play basis the Seahawks have a 6th rated run game and a 6th rated pass game (THOSE ARE GOOD!), but on a non-per play basis they have a 14th rated offense by the exact same metric, and for how good they are on a per play basis, they're also 29th for avoiding three and outs.

There's really only one way to turn a top run game and top pass game into an only average offense that also goes three and out all the time, and that's by having a boneheaded offensive philosophy. And there's a lot of face validity to all of this too. The statistics absolutely line up with what the Head Coach proclaimed he was going for last offseason, and with what the coordinator he hired has long been criticized for.

Because the Seahawks were good on a per play basis I don't think Schottenheimer is the total disaster that was predicted by many people, but he's generating exactly the problems that were warned about and that caused fans of other NFCW teams to be glad that the Seahawks hired him, IMO.

Sorry folks but this is absolute truth!

Disagree. It's entirely possible that the mediocre offense was elevated to a top 6 run game and pass game by that same boneheaded philosophy.

If you run on 2nd and 10 when you should be passing you'll get more run yards per play that will elevate the stats of your running game. If you run all the time, your play action becomes more effective and elevates the per play stats of your passing game. So you can look good on a per play basis but only because you are going against the grain more often by running a lot when teams are expecting pass.

Schottenheimer is his father's son. And Marty Ball has always been successful in the regular season and always failed miserably in the postseason. As long as Pete has the sense to recognize that this year after last years spectacular recapitulation of all things Schottenheimer, I hope we will be better.

But failing to learn from history is one of man's greatest tragic flaws.

 

[nwHawk]

Too lazy to look it up, but I suspect our revitalized running game has helped us win the time of possession battle, which makes our defense better, which gives our offense more drives, which ... oh, just give us the damn trophy!

We won the TOP by almost 3 minutes during the season, but when it really counted in the playoff game we lost it by almost 10 minutes.

Also, most of the positive stats are skewed by wins against non-playoff teams.

https://www.seahawks.com/team/stats/

https://www.espn.com/nfl/matchup?gameId=401038953

It might be worth noting that Sweezy played that Dallas game with a broken foot. In hindsight, that game based on the gameplan might have been different if we replaced him... but then again our depth was poor at guard.