What's the difference between offenses for Rams & Hawks?

[lobohawk]

Mcvay calls the play at the line of scrimmage unlike other coaches. Goff is just the speaker.

jk.....a little

 

[mrt144]

That still leaves a chasm of intrigue on what to do when you don't have the talent to execute so consistently that you can telegraph every move and still can't be stopped.

If you don't have that level of talent, it stands to reason that you don't have the talent to memorize and execute a more complicated scheme, either.

A scheme that can make average talent more useful and poor talent not an anchor doesn't necessarily need to be more or less complex than a simple scheme with loaded talent. If a limiting factor for the Hawks is that they just can't find players with the discipline and awareness to execute their simple gameplan that's worth looking into. If it's because of players lacking in athleticism and technique, that's something to look into. We can't conflate adaptable with complex.

Avoiding route concepts that could yield higher YAC than curls and outs isn't less complex than running more slants or fully fleshed out mesh concepts. That doesn't reside on the spectrum of complex and simple especially given the basis of both of those in the college game. Nor is having your WRs TEs and RBs run a combo of patterns, expect from the perspective of the QB (and do you want to go there in postulating that RW cant grasp the complexity of anything beyond Bevell and Schotty? I don't).

I put this back on you for a moment though - how do other teams cope with talent gaps if they are even able to do so? And is it okay for a coaching staff to capitulate (basically practice for next year by avoiding possible alternatives during the course of the season) because they know they don't have the talent to execute their scheme this season?

 

[KiwiHawk]

Only on .Net is going 10-6 and making the playoffs during a rebuilding year with new OC/DC/OL coaches considered "capitulating".

Just because they don't run the kind of offense you prefer doesn't mean they are doing it wrong.

Pete Carroll built the best defense in the history of the league by "doing it wrong". I am willing to grant him some leeway with regard to going against league norms.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Only on .Net is going 10-6 and making the playoffs during a rebuilding year with new OC/DC/OL coaches considered "capitulating".

Pretty much this.

Five to six great teams make the playoffs every year and fall short of the Super Bowl. It doesn't mean they're fundamentally flawed. It just means NFL rules only allow one winner.

I really just do not see the big emergency with this team, other than some severe talent deficiencies that we all agree on - most of them on defense.

 

[Seymour]

Only on .Net is going 10-6 and making the playoffs during a rebuilding year with new OC/DC/OL coaches considered "capitulating".

Just because they don't run the kind of offense you prefer doesn't mean they are doing it wrong.

Pete Carroll built the best defense in the history of the league by "doing it wrong". I am willing to grant him some leeway with regard to going against league norms.

Where does that come from?
This thread is about the offense not defense.

 

[John63]

Wilson is good at deep shots, curls, and rub routes, so Seattle does a lot of those.

But because it's simpler, it doesn't get the talking heads fawning over it.

So that is the issue it is simple, predictable, and you can see it coming.

It got us to two Super Bowls, and a 10-6 record this year.

Predictability is underrated. Common fans think it's bad because they've never played the game and it's their THEORY that predictability makes life easier for the defense. It's true to some extent.

But if you listen to honest players, lack of execution has a much bigger role in making predictability bad. If you execute well, you can pretty much do what you want, even if the other team knows it's coming.

Remember all the talk in Holmgren's offense about how they could telegraph their plays all day and the defense still couldn't do anything about it?

Just because it got us to 2 SBs does not mean it can't be better., if it is so great we should have gotten there a few more times. This is a fallacy used by some to protect coaches, there is no such thing as a bad play only bad execution, That is not true you can have a bad play call or design. Also if the defense knows what's coming it is hard to execute, part of being able to execute well is that you know the play and they don't. If they know the play execution becomes an issue, as the offense no longer has that advantage. Under your premise of its all about execution, so there is not bad play call or design, there would be no reason to spend high dollars on any player just execute correctly and you are set. However, we all know the better the players, the better the play design and call the better the chances of success. They work hand in hand.

 

[Spin Doctor]

Wilson is good at deep shots, curls, and rub routes, so Seattle does a lot of those.

But because it's simpler, it doesn't get the talking heads fawning over it.

So that is the issue it is simple, predictable, and you can see it coming.

It got us to two Super Bowls, and a 10-6 record this year.

Predictability is underrated. Common fans think it's bad because they've never played the game and it's their THEORY that predictability makes life easier for the defense. It's true to some extent.

But if you listen to honest players, lack of execution has a much bigger role in making predictability bad. If you execute well, you can pretty much do what you want, even if the other team knows it's coming.

Remember all the talk in Holmgren's offense about how they could telegraph their plays all day and the defense still couldn't do anything about it?

We got to those Super Bowls because of our defense, and a historic glut of talent. Despite that fact we still under-performed for how good our roster was. The offense played a part, but it was more of an accessory in those runs.

The offensive play calling straight up lost us some games we should have won this year.

Pete Carroll is perhaps the best defensive mind in football, but he is utterly clueless when it comes to the offense. His scheme is a relic from the 70s. It's main goal is to eliminate turnovers, and make big plays every now and then to demoralize the opponent. Carroll plays a game of attrition, and slowly grinding down his opponents. It works more often than not, but when the initial game plan doesn't work he has trouble adjusting. Carroll also puts really tight reigns on his QB's. Not a lot of freedom in audibles, and we flat out don't run certain routes, and concepts because in his mind they lead to more turnovers.

The problem with Carroll is he isn't adaptable in the least bit on offense. He forces players into roles that they are not good in. For example, Jimmy Graham being used as an inline blocker. Graham was NOT Miller yet we were using him like he was for the longest time. In the Super Bowl running Ricardo Lockette, our worst route runner on a play that required precision. He doesn't understand offensive intricacies, and he often times forces things that aren't there.

 

[mrt144]

Only on .Net is going 10-6 and making the playoffs during a rebuilding year with new OC/DC/OL coaches considered "capitulating".

Just because they don't run the kind of offense you prefer doesn't mean they are doing it wrong.

Pete Carroll built the best defense in the history of the league by "doing it wrong". I am willing to grant him some leeway with regard to going against league norms.

And we don't have that defense at current. And it isn't even about doing it wrong, cause I don't claim there's a single right way to do it - if the Hawks actually could run their offense as designed in spite of there being two busted up guards and stacked boxes you wouldn't hear a peep from me. But they didn't and don't and can't. They knew their own faults precisely, did their thing anyway, thought a 4 point lead was safe enough to not reach for points or up the risk ante even though the ground game was arrested and the D a far cry from the best defense in the league. Is what it is and I hope they learn something, anything from that experience.

A 10-6 record is great for a team rebuilding, I just expect a bit more fire and chutzpah from a team in the playoffs and the sensation of the team being yoked by design isn't a sensation you just dismiss going forward with expectations.

 

[mrt144]

Wilson is good at deep shots, curls, and rub routes, so Seattle does a lot of those.

But because it's simpler, it doesn't get the talking heads fawning over it.

So that is the issue it is simple, predictable, and you can see it coming.

It got us to two Super Bowls, and a 10-6 record this year.

Predictability is underrated. Common fans think it's bad because they've never played the game and it's their THEORY that predictability makes life easier for the defense. It's true to some extent.

But if you listen to honest players, lack of execution has a much bigger role in making predictability bad. If you execute well, you can pretty much do what you want, even if the other team knows it's coming.

Remember all the talk in Holmgren's offense about how they could telegraph their plays all day and the defense still couldn't do anything about it?

We got to those Super Bowls because of our defense, and a historic glut of talent. Despite that fact we still under-performed for how good our roster was. The offense played a part, but it was more of an accessory in those runs.

The offensive play calling straight up lost us some games we should have won this year.

Pete Carroll is perhaps the best defensive mind in football, but he is utterly clueless when it comes to the offense. His scheme is a relic from the 70s. It's main goal is to eliminate turnovers, and make big plays every now and then to demoralize the opponent. Carroll plays a game of attrition, and slowly grinding down his opponents. It works more often than not, but when the initial game plan doesn't work he has trouble adjusting. Carroll also puts really tight reigns on his QB's. Not a lot of freedom in audibles, and we flat out don't run certain routes, and concepts because in his mind they lead to more turnovers.

The problem with Carroll is he isn't adaptable in the least bit on offense. He forces players into roles that they are not good in. For example, Jimmy Graham being used as an inline blocker. Graham was NOT Miller yet we were using him like he was for the longest time. In the Super Bowl running Ricardo Lockette, our worst route runner on a play that required precision. He doesn't understand offensive intricacies, and he often times forces things that aren't there.

It's almost like he disrespects offenses to the extent that he does exactly the opposite on offense of what he wants to see against his defense.

And there's no doubt this can work yet he doesn't seemingly have many answers if he doesn't have the right horses to do it. It's a testament to his ability that floor of his coaching ability is still really good but like many good coaches, they have limiting factors in their abilities, insight, everything that undermines them in specific high stakes instances. That's fine BUT that's not a goddamn excuse for him to rest on his laurels and for some of you to carry water for him. Why don't you want better out of Pete in areas where he could improve? Just resigned that he is too old to grow? Constant self improvement and introspection doesn't stop cause you won a SB, cause you are consistently good, cause you have a high floor on your team's fortunes. That's stunting and will catch up to you at some point.

Personally, my attitude on this came about because I play games online competitively (for ego benefits, not money) and it breaks my heart and head to see very competent and talented dudes paid to coach fall into the same cognitive traps I do sometimes, only because I expect them to be better than that at their job than I am at my hobby. But obviously a lot of football coaches at all levels don't fully realize that this is a game with rules and meta that is ripe for exploring and exploitation if they want to flirt with it. I don't believe there's one true way to play football to win nor are coaches going full throttle to win because of outdated notions on what is possible in the current NFL meta. I'm a big gaming nerd, that's the lens i'm viewing this through.

 

[KiwiHawk]

Only on .Net is going 10-6 and making the playoffs during a rebuilding year with new OC/DC/OL coaches considered "capitulating".

Just because they don't run the kind of offense you prefer doesn't mean they are doing it wrong.

Pete Carroll built the best defense in the history of the league by "doing it wrong". I am willing to grant him some leeway with regard to going against league norms.

Where does that come from?
This thread is about the offense not defense.

I guess I forgot that, as head Coach, Pete Carroll and his lateral-thinking philosophy is limited to defense. Thank you for correcting me.

Wait... then why is he called Head Coach instead of Head Defense Coach?

 

[mrt144]

Only on .Net is going 10-6 and making the playoffs during a rebuilding year with new OC/DC/OL coaches considered "capitulating".

Just because they don't run the kind of offense you prefer doesn't mean they are doing it wrong.

Pete Carroll built the best defense in the history of the league by "doing it wrong". I am willing to grant him some leeway with regard to going against league norms.

Where does that come from?
This thread is about the offense not defense.

I guess I forgot that, as head Coach, Pete Carroll and his lateral-thinking philosophy is limited to defense. Thank you for correcting me.

Wait... then why is he called Head Coach instead of Head Defense Coach?

So you're saying he get's to reap all the reward of being a "Head Coach" while diffusing shortcomings on everyone else besides him. What a sweet gig!

 

[Seymour]

Only on .Net is going 10-6 and making the playoffs during a rebuilding year with new OC/DC/OL coaches considered "capitulating".

Just because they don't run the kind of offense you prefer doesn't mean they are doing it wrong.

Pete Carroll built the best defense in the history of the league by "doing it wrong". I am willing to grant him some leeway with regard to going against league norms.

Where does that come from?
This thread is about the offense not defense.

I guess I forgot that, as head Coach, Pete Carroll and his lateral-thinking philosophy is limited to defense. Thank you for correcting me.

Wait... then why is he called Head Coach instead of Head Defense Coach?

Or possibly Carroll is light years better as a defensive strategist then he is on offense so keeping to the actual topic is pretty important?? :roll:

 

[Seahwkgal]

What's the difference?

Years of sucking ass put them among the first picks in every round of the draft for years - they're basically drafting a round higher than we are, given that we tend to draft quite late having had winning seasons, playoff appearances, etc.

Then they get lucky with the Griffin trade, getting 3 first-round picks AND having the Redskins suck, increasing the value of those picks.

This place pretty much implodes when we go 9-7. Imagine what it would be like to be a bottom-feeder for a few years straight.

Hmm... Actually that may cause the negative nellies to bail - might be worth it.

No need to "imagine" that. Any lifelong fan knows quite well after watching the 70's through the 90's Seahawks. Many of us watched entire games hoping to just see a few great plays without real concern about W's and L's.

I would just say the 70s AND the 90s. The 80s were the Knox era. Damn good teams.

 

[seedhawk]

Well, since every playbook in the league consists of thousands of plays, all the same, and in everyone's ability, I put forth the theory that the Rams, and Saints, Chiefs, Pats, etc. utilize 90% of their playbook. We however, only utilize about 30% simply because that is the way Pete wants it.

 

[chris98251]

Rams have the personnel to line up with the same look and run 8 or more plays out of it, shift out a couple guys and then have another 8 or more plays they can run not counting situational plays that give multiple options.


Fluidity of play calling and a Coach that takes Risks much like Pederson in Philly and you have a potentially explosive offense. Throw in their D line that can reduce the oppositions chances and it's a pretty big favor on their side of the Scale.

 

[AgentDib]

No need to "imagine" that. Any lifelong fan knows quite well after watching the 70's through the 90's Seahawks. Many of us watched entire games hoping to just see a few great plays without real concern about W's and L's.

Man, all those years to accrue talent by being a bottom feeder wasted. I wonder why the Hawks of yore never put it together.

I know there's some hyperbole here but I have to point out that we had a winning record in the 80's. We may have only had the one AFC championship game but that was a very tough division throughout the decade and we held serve at home pretty well.

We've only had a few awful seasons in our entire history. The Rams on the other hand had just 46 wins against 113 losses the entire period between 2008 and 2016.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

[We got to those Super Bowls because of our defense, and a historic glut of talent. Despite that fact we still under-performed for how good our roster was. The offense played a part, but it was more of an accessory in those runs.

Yes. Marshawn Lynch was an accessory. :roll:

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Lynch an accessory? I suppose Russ was too? :34853_doh:
Regardless what the Russ bashers think, they don't make it to EITHER Super Bowl w/out Russ. And Lynch played a HUGE part in the success of the team.

 

[HawkRiderFan]

The Ringer has a lot of good stuff that breaks down the x's and o's of football (just avoid Simmons gushing over his Pats).

I really enjoy Danny Kelly's breakdowns. He had a good one too dissecting how motion and formation set up the Rams blocks when they were gashing the Cowboys. As someone said, high picks leading to top end talent on O helps too.

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/1/31 ... super-bowl

 

[knownone]

Well, since every playbook in the league consists of thousands of plays, all the same, and in everyone's ability, I put forth the theory that the Rams, and Saints, Chiefs, Pats, etc. utilize 90% of their playbook. We however, only utilize about 30% simply because that is the way Pete wants it.

I would be surprised if the Rams or Chiefs utilize even 100 plays from their playbook. The perception of what people think those offenses are and what they actually are is very striking.