Turn Out the Lights

[Jville]

I've come to assume that many fans just are not seeing the adjustments and gamesmanship of both offensive and defensive play callers. It's a most important feature of any contest.

From the Matchup; "The most important thing isn't how fast a horse runs, but how a horse runs fast."
Get into horse racing JVille. You sound like a natural!

A bit off topic. But, the story and movie "Seabiscuit" does comes to mind.

 

[John63]

I can't see how starting faster than we have been would be a bad thing.
Seahawks have compiled an other-worldly win% stat when scoring first and leading by at least 4 at end of first half.
Que another piece of HISTORIAN magic in 3...2...1...

it would not be a bad thing at all, and KC was one of the fastest starting teams in the regular season. There is nothing wrong with starting fast and putting pressure on the other team at all.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

I can't see how starting faster than we have been would be a bad thing.
Seahawks have compiled an other-worldly win% stat when scoring first and leading by at least 4 at end of first half.
Que another piece of HISTORIAN magic in 3...2...1...

it would not be a bad thing at all, and KC was one of the fastest starting teams in the regular season. There is nothing wrong with starting fast and putting pressure on the other team at all.

Last edited by Jville on Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edited out false assertion

A false assertion from John? Say it ain't so.

 

[Nunya_]

I can't see how starting faster than we have been would be a bad thing.
Seahawks have compiled an other-worldly win% stat when scoring first and leading by at least 4 at end of first half.
Que another piece of HISTORIAN magic in 3...2...1...

it would not be a bad thing at all, and KC was one of the fastest starting teams in the regular season. There is nothing wrong with starting fast and putting pressure on the other team at all.

Tampa Bay was tied with KC as the most points scored in the first half at 17.2 points in 1st half. Didn't seem to help them much.

The Seahawks certainly could have done better (11.1), but they were in the middle and ranked at 16/32 in 1st half points. However, they were the lowest ranked in teams that made the playoffs.

 

[John63]

I can't see how starting faster than we have been would be a bad thing.
Seahawks have compiled an other-worldly win% stat when scoring first and leading by at least 4 at end of first half.
Que another piece of HISTORIAN magic in 3...2...1...

it would not be a bad thing at all, and KC was one of the fastest starting teams in the regular season. There is nothing wrong with starting fast and putting pressure on the other team at all.

Last edited by Jville on Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edited out false assertion

A false assertion from John? Say it ain't so.

Ah so you think we should not start fast and just play from behind got it.

 

[John63]

I can't see how starting faster than we have been would be a bad thing.
Seahawks have compiled an other-worldly win% stat when scoring first and leading by at least 4 at end of first half.
Que another piece of HISTORIAN magic in 3...2...1...

it would not be a bad thing at all, and KC was one of the fastest starting teams in the regular season. There is nothing wrong with starting fast and putting pressure on the other team at all.

Tampa Bay was tied with KC as the most points scored in the first half at 17.2 points in 1st half. Didn't seem to help them much.

The Seahawks certainly could have done better (11.1), but they were in the middle and ranked at 16/32 in 1st half points. However, they were the lowest ranked in teams that made the playoffs.

Lol one had a qb with as many ints as tds and one has an MVP really. Oh and we have Wilson. Nice try though.

Also let's look at the top 5 scoring in 1st half

Kc
TB
Baltimore
SF
NO


Hmm 4 of 5 are playoff teams hmm.
Fyi the 2 SB teams top 10 scoring both halves.

 

[Nunya]

I can't see how starting faster than we have been would be a bad thing.
Seahawks have compiled an other-worldly win% stat when scoring first and leading by at least 4 at end of first half.
Que another piece of HISTORIAN magic in 3...2...1...

it would not be a bad thing at all, and KC was one of the fastest starting teams in the regular season. There is nothing wrong with starting fast and putting pressure on the other team at all.

Tampa Bay was tied with KC as the most points scored in the first half at 17.2 points in 1st half. Didn't seem to help them much.

The Seahawks certainly could have done better (11.1), but they were in the middle and ranked at 16/32 in 1st half points. However, they were the lowest ranked in teams that made the playoffs.

Lol one had a qb with as many ints as tds and one has an MVP really. Oh and we have Wilson. Nice try though.

Also let's look at the top 5 scoring in 1st half

Kc
TB
Baltimore
SF
NO


Hmm 4 of 5 are playoff teams hmm.
Fyi the 2 SB teams top 10 scoring both halves.

My point was that "starting fast" does not necessarily guarantee a visit to the Superbowl or even the playoffs for that matter.

There is one thing (and only one thing) that I agree with you, though. The slow starts did hurt us and the odds will be against the Seahawks winning a SB if they do not address the issue next season. However, what I disagree with you on is how to address the issue or the cause of the issue. Only a fool would advocate the firing of a head coach after 8 winning seasons and where 6 of those 8 winning season were by double digits wins. I can only think of one time where a winning coach was fired after double digit wins in a winning season (Schottenheimer 2006 14-2). However he was fired because of controversy between Schottenheimer and the team's president, Spanos, and not because of on-field job performance.

I also disagree that the solution is as simple as you make it out to be with "up tempo" or "letting Russ cook". Football is not that simple. If it was, anybody (including you) could be head coach. You have no clue on what is happening on the sideline or in the huddle. As far you you know, it could be Russ's overuse of audibles that is causing the issue (not saying it is and likely is not).

I do know that the defense under performed this season. While the offence could have made things easier by scoring more, they did not do too badly. Unfortunately, no matter how good an offence does, it becomes irrelevant if the defense can not keep the other team from scoring as well. We had a poor pass rush this season and our zone coverage was torn apart. Our safety position was the weakest link until Diggs showed up, but we only had him for 5 games. Had the defense been as dominate as it had in the last few seasons, I am fairly confident that our season would have turned out much differently.

 

[Appyhawk]

You make some good points there Nunya.
One of the most successful coaches I ever knew is a defense first type. His theory, simplified, is that if they can't score they can't beat you.

Aside: " (Schottenheimer 2006 14-2). However he was fired because of controversy between Schottenheimer and the team's president, Spanos, and not because of on-field job performance."
Maybe my memory is at fault, but seems to me his firing included complaints against him (wasn't Seattle one who filed?) with the league that he was teaching and encouraging the use use of dangerous and illegal chop blocks? And those complaints were upheld by the league, weren't they?

 

[John63]

it would not be a bad thing at all, and KC was one of the fastest starting teams in the regular season. There is nothing wrong with starting fast and putting pressure on the other team at all.

Tampa Bay was tied with KC as the most points scored in the first half at 17.2 points in 1st half. Didn't seem to help them much.

The Seahawks certainly could have done better (11.1), but they were in the middle and ranked at 16/32 in 1st half points. However, they were the lowest ranked in teams that made the playoffs.

Lol one had a qb with as many ints as tds and one has an MVP really. Oh and we have Wilson. Nice try though.

Also let's look at the top 5 scoring in 1st half

Kc
TB
Baltimore
SF
NO


Hmm 4 of 5 are playoff teams hmm.
Fyi the 2 SB teams top 10 scoring both halves.

My point was that "starting fast" does not necessarily guarantee a visit to the Superbowl or even the playoffs for that matter.

There is one thing (and only one thing) that I agree with you, though. The slow starts did hurt us and the odds will be against the Seahawks winning a SB if they do not address the issue next season. However, what I disagree with you on is how to address the issue or the cause of the issue. Only a fool would advocate the firing of a head coach after 8 winning seasons and where 6 of those 8 winning season were by double digits wins. I can only think of one time where a winning coach was fired after double digit wins in a winning season (Schottenheimer 2006 14-2). However he was fired because of controversy between Schottenheimer and the team's president, Spanos, and not because of on-field job performance.

I also disagree that the solution is as simple as you make it out to be with "up tempo" or "letting Russ cook". Football is not that simple. If it was, anybody (including you) could be head coach. You have no clue on what is happening on the sideline or in the huddle. As far you you know, it could be Russ's overuse of audibles that is causing the issue (not saying it is and likely is not).

I do know that the defense under performed this season. While the offence could have made things easier by scoring more, they did not do too badly. Unfortunately, no matter how good an offence does, it becomes irrelevant if the defense can not keep the other team from scoring as well. We had a poor pass rush this season and our zone coverage was torn apart. Our safety position was the weakest link until Diggs showed up, but we only had him for 5 games. Had the defense been as dominate as it had in the last few seasons, I am fairly confident that our season would have turned out much differently.

some good points, and the reality is nothing but winning guarantees you an SB, but it is far easier to win with a lead then from behind, and the game starts in the first qtr so why not start scoring in the first qtr. Imagine how much better our defense would be knowing they have a lead from the start rather than having to play from behind.

 

[Appyhawk]

"Imagine how much better our defense would be knowing they have a lead from the start rather than having to play form behind."
Yeah, that's a point to ponder. Remember our games this past year vs Atlanta, Carolina, Eagles twice? I got the impression our defense more often than not became complacent when playing with a lead. We gave up yardage in chunk after chunk after chunk all the way down the field, allowing games to be much closer than they should have been.
But we did win those games, so there's that...

 

[John63]

"Imagine how much better our defense would be knowing they have a lead from the start rather than having to play form behind."
Yeah, that's a point to ponder. Remember our games this past year vs Atlanta, Carolina, Eagles twice? I got the impression our defense more often than not became complacent when playing with a lead. We gave up yardage in chunk after chunk after chunk all the way down the field, allowing games to be much closer than they should have been.
But we did win those games, so there's that...

no imagine we played 4 qtrs to win on both sides instead of playing not to loose for half a game

 

[Nunya]

Tampa Bay was tied with KC as the most points scored in the first half at 17.2 points in 1st half. Didn't seem to help them much.

The Seahawks certainly could have done better (11.1), but they were in the middle and ranked at 16/32 in 1st half points. However, they were the lowest ranked in teams that made the playoffs.

Lol one had a qb with as many ints as tds and one has an MVP really. Oh and we have Wilson. Nice try though.

Also let's look at the top 5 scoring in 1st half

Kc
TB
Baltimore
SF
NO


Hmm 4 of 5 are playoff teams hmm.
Fyi the 2 SB teams top 10 scoring both halves.

My point was that "starting fast" does not necessarily guarantee a visit to the Superbowl or even the playoffs for that matter.

There is one thing (and only one thing) that I agree with you, though. The slow starts did hurt us and the odds will be against the Seahawks winning a SB if they do not address the issue next season. However, what I disagree with you on is how to address the issue or the cause of the issue. Only a fool would advocate the firing of a head coach after 8 winning seasons and where 6 of those 8 winning season were by double digits wins. I can only think of one time where a winning coach was fired after double digit wins in a winning season (Schottenheimer 2006 14-2). However he was fired because of controversy between Schottenheimer and the team's president, Spanos, and not because of on-field job performance.

I also disagree that the solution is as simple as you make it out to be with "up tempo" or "letting Russ cook". Football is not that simple. If it was, anybody (including you) could be head coach. You have no clue on what is happening on the sideline or in the huddle. As far you you know, it could be Russ's overuse of audibles that is causing the issue (not saying it is and likely is not).

I do know that the defense under performed this season. While the offence could have made things easier by scoring more, they did not do too badly. Unfortunately, no matter how good an offence does, it becomes irrelevant if the defense can not keep the other team from scoring as well. We had a poor pass rush this season and our zone coverage was torn apart. Our safety position was the weakest link until Diggs showed up, but we only had him for 5 games. Had the defense been as dominate as it had in the last few seasons, I am fairly confident that our season would have turned out much differently.

some good points, and the reality is nothing but winning guarantees you an SB, but it is far easier to win with a lead then from behind, and the game starts in the first qtr so why not start scoring in the first qtr. Imagine how much better our defense would be knowing they have a lead from the start rather than having to play from behind.

Of course it is easier to win with a lead than from behind. However, it is much easier to wish for it to happen than it is to accomplish. Even the "Greatest show on Turf" (1999 Rams) only scored a max of 28 points in the first half and only did that in 3 games. They had 4 regular season games where they scored less than 14 points in the 1st half and did not score more than 14 in the 1st half in any of their playoff games nor in the Superbowl.

This is professional football. Even if a team completely sucks (record wise), every team still has many good players and coaches. Every team studies the other team and can often easily shut down any team in the first half, no matter how good that team is. Halftime adjustments are very important.

Do you honestly believe that the Seahawks are sandbagging in the 1st half? Do you honestly believe that they are NOT trying to score? If you do believe that then let me know and I will find the biggest "facepalm" meme on the internet and post it. Of course they would love to build a commanding lead in the 1st half....however, the other professional team on the other side of the ball is also trying to prevent that.

How much of a lead the offense build does not nor SHOULD NOT change the quality of the defense.

 

[Nunya]

You make some good points there Nunya.
One of the most successful coaches I ever knew is a defense first type. His theory, simplified, is that if they can't score they can't beat you.

Aside: " (Schottenheimer 2006 14-2). However he was fired because of controversy between Schottenheimer and the team's president, Spanos, and not because of on-field job performance."
Maybe my memory is at fault, but seems to me his firing included complaints against him (wasn't Seattle one who filed?) with the league that he was teaching and encouraging the use use of dangerous and illegal chop blocks? And those complaints were upheld by the league, weren't they?

I don't remember anything about the "chop block", but I'm not saying you are wrong. I do know that there was friction between Schottenheimer and Spanos (Prez) and Smith (GM) over Marty's constant coaching changes and Marty's desire to replace those coaches with family members. Brian Schottenheimer was the QB coach and everybody was fine with that. However, when Marty tried to replace Wade Phillips with his brother Kurt, it pissed everybody off. Cameron, Phillips, Chudzinski, and Manusky all quit after the 2006 season because of it.

 

[John63]

Lol one had a qb with as many ints as tds and one has an MVP really. Oh and we have Wilson. Nice try though.

Also let's look at the top 5 scoring in 1st half

Kc
TB
Baltimore
SF
NO


Hmm 4 of 5 are playoff teams hmm.
Fyi the 2 SB teams top 10 scoring both halves.

My point was that "starting fast" does not necessarily guarantee a visit to the Superbowl or even the playoffs for that matter.

There is one thing (and only one thing) that I agree with you, though. The slow starts did hurt us and the odds will be against the Seahawks winning a SB if they do not address the issue next season. However, what I disagree with you on is how to address the issue or the cause of the issue. Only a fool would advocate the firing of a head coach after 8 winning seasons and where 6 of those 8 winning season were by double digits wins. I can only think of one time where a winning coach was fired after double digit wins in a winning season (Schottenheimer 2006 14-2). However he was fired because of controversy between Schottenheimer and the team's president, Spanos, and not because of on-field job performance.

I also disagree that the solution is as simple as you make it out to be with "up tempo" or "letting Russ cook". Football is not that simple. If it was, anybody (including you) could be head coach. You have no clue on what is happening on the sideline or in the huddle. As far you you know, it could be Russ's overuse of audibles that is causing the issue (not saying it is and likely is not).

I do know that the defense under performed this season. While the offence could have made things easier by scoring more, they did not do too badly. Unfortunately, no matter how good an offence does, it becomes irrelevant if the defense can not keep the other team from scoring as well. We had a poor pass rush this season and our zone coverage was torn apart. Our safety position was the weakest link until Diggs showed up, but we only had him for 5 games. Had the defense been as dominate as it had in the last few seasons, I am fairly confident that our season would have turned out much differently.

some good points, and the reality is nothing but winning guarantees you an SB, but it is far easier to win with a lead then from behind, and the game starts in the first qtr so why not start scoring in the first qtr. Imagine how much better our defense would be knowing they have a lead from the start rather than having to play from behind.

Of course it is easier to win with a lead than from behind. However, it is much easier to wish for it to happen than it is to accomplish. Even the "Greatest show on Turf" (1999 Rams) only scored a max of 28 points in the first half and only did that in 3 games. They had 4 regular season games where they scored less than 14 points in the 1st half and did not score more than 14 in the 1st half in any of their playoff games nor in the Superbowl.

This is professional football. Even if a team completely sucks (record wise), every team still has many good players and coaches. Every team studies the other team and can often easily shut down any team in the first half, no matter how good that team is. Halftime adjustments are very important.

Do you honestly believe that the Seahawks are sandbagging in the 1st half? Do you honestly believe that they are NOT trying to score? If you do believe that then let me know and I will find the biggest "facepalm" meme on the internet and post it. Of course they would love to build a commanding lead in the 1st half....however, the other professional team on the other side of the ball is also trying to prevent that.

How much of a lead the offense build does not nor SHOULD NOT change the quality of the defense.

Playing it safe or not to loose and sandbagging is not the something. PC has said he plays it safe in the first half so this is not me making it up. As to the change the quality of the defense, ahh ever heard of prevent? We play alot of that with a lead and early in games, and only get aggressive when we have to.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

I can't see how starting faster than we have been would be a bad thing.
Seahawks have compiled an other-worldly win% stat when scoring first and leading by at least 4 at end of first half.
Que another piece of HISTORIAN magic in 3...2...1...

it would not be a bad thing at all, and KC was one of the fastest starting teams in the regular season. There is nothing wrong with starting fast and putting pressure on the other team at all.

Last edited by Jville on Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edited out false assertion

A false assertion from John? Say it ain't so.

Ah so you think we should not start fast and just play from behind got it.

No, I think you've once again gone into your file that says "first half" and copied and pasted the same post ad naseum. And I was referring to Jville, moderator, having to edit your post for a "false assertion" (his words). No idea what that was but with you it really doesn't matter. One could guess without too much effort. Perhaps me making his edit bold was beyond your comprehension?

 

[Nunya]

Playing it safe or not to loose and sandbagging is not the something. PC has said he plays it safe in the first half so this is not me making it up. As to the change the quality of the defense, ahh ever heard of prevent? We play alot of that with a lead and early in games, and only get aggressive when we have to.

You quite often make this claim. I have seen almost every press conference Pete has given and I have never heard him come close to that comment. PLEASE POST THE VIDEO. I'm thinking you are taking something out of context, misunderstood him, or are just plain making stuff up.

I do know he said he likes close games, but that does not mean what you claim. Heck, I like close games. They are more fun. However, I would gladly accept a blowout first half if they win....and I'm sure PC would as well.

I do know that EVERY team will use the first half to evaluate their opponent, but that doers not equate to "playing it safe".

 

[John63]

it would not be a bad thing at all, and KC was one of the fastest starting teams in the regular season. There is nothing wrong with starting fast and putting pressure on the other team at all.

Last edited by Jville on Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edited out false assertion

A false assertion from John? Say it ain't so.

Ah so you think we should not start fast and just play from behind got it.

No, I think you've once again gone into your file that says "first half" and copied and pasted the same post ad naseum. And I was referring to Jville, moderator, having to edit your post for a "false assertion" (his words). No idea what that was but with you it really doesn't matter. One could guess without too much effort. Perhaps me making his edit bold was beyond your comprehension?

LOL yeah whatever good by!

 

[Jville]

PC has said he plays it safe in the first half so this is not me making it up.

Dear John,

If your going to make assertions about what others have said, you need to provide a link to an authentic transcript, podcast, post ..... ect. to support such assertions.

Posts are subject to edits and/or deletions of false statements about what others are alleged to have said. That courtesy of editing out false statements is extended to members of the Seahawks organization.

Jville