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

[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.

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.

You actually reinforce my point. PC and the Hawks are content to go 3 and out, or get 1 first down, then punt, and play field position. The Rams are more dynamic, don't care if something messes up. They gain 3 or 4 first downs, screw up, and either give up a turnover or try a long ass field goal. End of the day, the Rams are playing field position ball just like we do. They just take a different tact to accomplish the same end result.

Rams scored about 100 more points this year than we did. That is between 6 and 7 points a game. Their D gave up 40 some more points than ours for a difference of 2.5 points a game. That is the difference between 13-3 and 10-6.. A darn small margin statistically.

 

[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.

You actually reinforce my point. PC and the Hawks are content to go 3 and out, or get 1 first down, then punt, and play field position. The Rams are more dynamic, don't care if something messes up. They gain 3 or 4 first downs, screw up, and either give up a turnover or try a long ass field goal. End of the day, the Rams are playing field position ball just like we do. They just take a different tact to accomplish the same end result.

Rams scored about 100 more points this year than we did. That is between 6 and 7 points a game. Their D gave up 40 some more points than ours for a difference of 2.5 points a game. That is the difference between 13-3 and 10-6.. A darn small margin statistically.

I guess I was confused by how playbook utilization percentage can be used to determine much of anything. Wouldn't the diversity of the plays being called be a more significant determiner? Like, Seattle can use 30% of a 300-play playbook, and LA can use 90% of a 100-play playbook, and both teams will still end up with the exact same diversity in plays called.

Pete plays football like a defensive boxer boxes. His philosophy is like Floyd Mayweather's, he could go out there and trade punches with you but he knows that entails a great deal of risk, so he instead picks and chooses his moments to be aggressive. Contrast that with the Chiefs and Rams and you get more of a Mike Tyson, you can't stop me, philosophy. The main difference between the two philosophies; using the Pete (Floyd) approach keeps you in every fight and allows you to compete with more talented teams; using the Chiefs and Rams (Tyson) approach leads to the spectacular but it also leaves you vulnerable because everyone knows exactly what you are trying to do to them, and your defense gets exposed as more and more teams try to keep up with your offense.

The only difference I see between the Seahawks and Rams is a slight difference in talent. I don't believe their relative offensive philosophies had a big impact on who won 13 games and who won 10 games. I mean, 7 points are all that separates the Seahawks and Rams from the division title.

 

[John63]

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.

You actually reinforce my point. PC and the Hawks are content to go 3 and out, or get 1 first down, then punt, and play field position. The Rams are more dynamic, don't care if something messes up. They gain 3 or 4 first downs, screw up, and either give up a turnover or try a long ass field goal. End of the day, the Rams are playing field position ball just like we do. They just take a different tact to accomplish the same end result.

Rams scored about 100 more points this year than we did. That is between 6 and 7 points a game. Their D gave up 40 some more points than ours for a difference of 2.5 points a game. That is the difference between 13-3 and 10-6.. A darn small margin statistically.

I guess I was confused by how playbook utilization percentage can be used to determine much of anything. Wouldn't the diversity of the plays being called be a more significant determiner? Like, Seattle can use 30% of a 300-play playbook, and LA can use 90% of a 100-play playbook, and both teams will still end up with the exact same diversity in plays called.

Pete plays football like a defensive boxer boxes. His philosophy is like Floyd Mayweather's, he could go out there and trade punches with you but he knows that entails a great deal of risk, so he instead picks and chooses his moments to be aggressive. Contrast that with the Chiefs and Rams and you get more of a Mike Tyson, you can't stop me, philosophy. The main difference between the two philosophies; using the Pete (Floyd) approach keeps you in every fight and allows you to compete with more talented teams; using the Chiefs and Rams (Tyson) approach leads to the spectacular but it also leaves you vulnerable because everyone knows exactly what you are trying to do to them, and your defense gets exposed as more and more teams try to keep up with your offense.

The only difference I see between the Seahawks and Rams is a slight difference in talent. I don't believe their relative offensive philosophies had a big impact on who won 13 games and who won 10 games. I mean, 7 points are all that separates the Seahawks and Rams from the division title.

One team plays offense to win from the beginning of the game, the other plays to win at the end. One team is content trying to stay in the game and hoping to win at the end, and the other is fine putting it away early. One plays to not loose till the end when they play to win, the other plays to win from the beginning. That's the biggest difference, besides they are just plain more ingenious with their play design.

 

[knownone]

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.

You actually reinforce my point. PC and the Hawks are content to go 3 and out, or get 1 first down, then punt, and play field position. The Rams are more dynamic, don't care if something messes up. They gain 3 or 4 first downs, screw up, and either give up a turnover or try a long ass field goal. End of the day, the Rams are playing field position ball just like we do. They just take a different tact to accomplish the same end result.

Rams scored about 100 more points this year than we did. That is between 6 and 7 points a game. Their D gave up 40 some more points than ours for a difference of 2.5 points a game. That is the difference between 13-3 and 10-6.. A darn small margin statistically.

I guess I was confused by how playbook utilization percentage can be used to determine much of anything. Wouldn't the diversity of the plays being called be a more significant determiner? Like, Seattle can use 30% of a 300-play playbook, and LA can use 90% of a 100-play playbook, and both teams will still end up with the exact same diversity in plays called.

Pete plays football like a defensive boxer boxes. His philosophy is like Floyd Mayweather's, he could go out there and trade punches with you but he knows that entails a great deal of risk, so he instead picks and chooses his moments to be aggressive. Contrast that with the Chiefs and Rams and you get more of a Mike Tyson, you can't stop me, philosophy. The main difference between the two philosophies; using the Pete (Floyd) approach keeps you in every fight and allows you to compete with more talented teams; using the Chiefs and Rams (Tyson) approach leads to the spectacular but it also leaves you vulnerable because everyone knows exactly what you are trying to do to them, and your defense gets exposed as more and more teams try to keep up with your offense.

The only difference I see between the Seahawks and Rams is a slight difference in talent. I don't believe their relative offensive philosophies had a big impact on who won 13 games and who won 10 games. I mean, 7 points are all that separates the Seahawks and Rams from the division title.

One team plays offense to win from the beginning of the game, the other plays to win at the end. One team is content trying to stay in the game and hoping to win at the end, and the other is fine putting it away early. One plays to not loose till the end when they play to win, the other plays to win from the beginning. That's the biggest difference, besides they are just plain more ingenious with their play design.

I disagree with your characterization. Both teams are playing to win the game at the end. The Rams philosophy is akin to a boxer throwing power punches trying to control the fight early. The Seahawks philosophy is akin to setting up the jab and baiting the opponent into a fight that you know you can win.

The Rams philosophy works when you know you can simply out-talent your opponent, otherwise, you end up like the Steelers or Bucs. The Seahawks philosophy evens the playing field by magnifying the cost of mistakes and punishing you for aggression.

That's why I like the Floyd comparison. If Floyd used a more aggressive philosophy and tried to trade blow for blow with Canelo, he loses by KO 3/4 through the fight. By staying patient, he forces his opponent to avoid making a mistake and puts pressure on him to do things he's not accustomed to doing; in boxing, this is respecting the jab and not chasing punches for 12 rounds. In the NFL, this can be defending against a power running game and not trying to force the issue every time on offense for 4 quarters. Floyd's style much like Pete's is pretty boring. It's also the #1 reason the Seahawks have the second best record in the NFL since 2010.

The best way to compare these two philosophies is to compare teams with similar talent levels. If the 2013 Seahawks played the 2018 Rams, which team do you think wins?

 

[John63]

You actually reinforce my point. PC and the Hawks are content to go 3 and out, or get 1 first down, then punt, and play field position. The Rams are more dynamic, don't care if something messes up. They gain 3 or 4 first downs, screw up, and either give up a turnover or try a long ass field goal. End of the day, the Rams are playing field position ball just like we do. They just take a different tact to accomplish the same end result.

Rams scored about 100 more points this year than we did. That is between 6 and 7 points a game. Their D gave up 40 some more points than ours for a difference of 2.5 points a game. That is the difference between 13-3 and 10-6.. A darn small margin statistically.

I guess I was confused by how playbook utilization percentage can be used to determine much of anything. Wouldn't the diversity of the plays being called be a more significant determiner? Like, Seattle can use 30% of a 300-play playbook, and LA can use 90% of a 100-play playbook, and both teams will still end up with the exact same diversity in plays called.

Pete plays football like a defensive boxer boxes. His philosophy is like Floyd Mayweather's, he could go out there and trade punches with you but he knows that entails a great deal of risk, so he instead picks and chooses his moments to be aggressive. Contrast that with the Chiefs and Rams and you get more of a Mike Tyson, you can't stop me, philosophy. The main difference between the two philosophies; using the Pete (Floyd) approach keeps you in every fight and allows you to compete with more talented teams; using the Chiefs and Rams (Tyson) approach leads to the spectacular but it also leaves you vulnerable because everyone knows exactly what you are trying to do to them, and your defense gets exposed as more and more teams try to keep up with your offense.

The only difference I see between the Seahawks and Rams is a slight difference in talent. I don't believe their relative offensive philosophies had a big impact on who won 13 games and who won 10 games. I mean, 7 points are all that separates the Seahawks and Rams from the division title.

One team plays offense to win from the beginning of the game, the other plays to win at the end. One team is content trying to stay in the game and hoping to win at the end, and the other is fine putting it away early. One plays to not loose till the end when they play to win, the other plays to win from the beginning. That's the biggest difference, besides they are just plain more ingenious with their play design.

I disagree with your characterization. Both teams are playing to win the game at the end. The Rams philosophy is akin to a boxer throwing power punches trying to control the fight early. The Seahawks philosophy is akin to setting up the jab and baiting the opponent into a fight that you know you can win.

The Rams philosophy works when you know you can simply out-talent your opponent, otherwise, you end up like the Steelers or Bucs. The Seahawks philosophy evens the playing field by magnifying the cost of mistakes and punishing you for aggression.

That's why I like the Floyd comparison. If Floyd used a more aggressive philosophy and tried to trade blow for blow with Canelo, he loses by KO 3/4 through the fight. By staying patient, he forces his opponent to avoid making a mistake and puts pressure on him to do things he's not accustomed to doing; in boxing, this is respecting the jab and not chasing punches for 12 rounds. In the NFL, this can be defending against a power running game and not trying to force the issue every time on offense for 4 quarters. Floyd's style much like Pete's is pretty boring. It's also the #1 reason the Seahawks have the second best record in the NFL since 2010.

The best way to compare these two philosophies is to compare teams with similar talent levels. If the 2013 Seahawks played the 2018 Rams, which team do you think wins?

So you disagree and your way to prove it is the what if game. The reality is this the Rams had the #2 scoring team in the league, we were not in 2013 so still not a great comparison. Mostly because they play to win from the start, they don't play to keep it close and hope to win at the end now you want what if, what if we did that? Let's play what if, what if we played from the start of the game as we did in the last 22minutes on offense of the Dallas game? The answer we probably win. The difference in philosophy is one plays to win from the beginning and one plays to win at the end. Though you might disagree the problem is you can't really since its the fact that the HC Pete himself has said over and over again. They play to keep it close and win in the 4th, The Rams play to win from the start of the game. Imagine that playing to win form the start, not wanting to win at the end. By the way, I love you boxing analogy except once again it is a what if you really don't know what would have happened. What we know for a FACT is PC plays to keep it close and try to win in the 4th, while the Rams play to win from the start. ONe leaves littel margin for error and th eother leaves plenty.

 

[Sports Hernia]

Today’s Rams offense looked like the Darrell Bevell offense of the past couple of years.

 

[KiwiHawk]

Here's a difference I just noticed today: We at least scored a touchdown in our Super Bowl against the Patriots, and had a chance to win at the end.

For all of you drooling over the Rams, I'd rather have our offense than the crap the Rams put out today.

 

[Scorpion05]

The difference I noticed is that unlike Wilson, Goff can't carry a team. He can make some good to great throws, but he's not a gamer

No way, in the biggest game of the year would Wilson drop only 3 points especially in a Sean McVay offense. I don't care if he turned the ball over 5 times, Wilson is always a tough out

 

[TheLegendOfBoom]

Gurley man, can catch passes out in the flats, Carson does not.

Rams pass over the middle more than the Hawks.

 

[chris98251]

Gurley man, can catch passes out in the flats, Carson does not.

Rams pass over the middle more than the Hawks.

Ummm yes Carson can, he's a damn good receiver when used that way.

 

[TheLegendOfBoom]

Gurley man, can catch passes out in the flats, Carson does not.

Rams pass over the middle more than the Hawks.

Ummm yes Carson can, he's a damn good receiver when used that way.

Are you sure my man??

These stats would suggest otherwise.

Gurley catches more passes. It would suggest he has better hands than Carson.

I would even say Lynch when he was with Seattle caught more balls and has better hands than Carson.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... rsCh00.htm

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... rlTo01.htm

 

[brimsalabim]

Ram’s have better personnel to attempt to force the run with with the exception of a running threat at QB.

 

[chris98251]

Gurley man, can catch passes out in the flats, Carson does not.

Rams pass over the middle more than the Hawks.

Ummm yes Carson can, he's a damn good receiver when used that way.

Are you sure my man??

These stats would suggest otherwise.

Gurley catches more passes. It would suggest he has better hands than Carson.

I would even say Lynch when he was with Seattle caught more balls and has better hands than Carson.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... rsCh00.htm

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... rlTo01.htm

One has to be thrown to if your going to catch a pass, when he has he has done well, you can't look at some websites stat sheet and say Gurley is better when they incorporate him in the passing game routinely, we have a lot different offense and priority. He was in a passing offense in College and why he was advanced in pass protection.

 

[John63]

Ram’s have better personnel to attempt to force the run with with the exception of a running threat at QB.

Today you saw the Rams do something worse than what we did at Dallas. We waited too long to adjust, the never adjusted at all.

 

[Spin Doctor]

Ram’s have better personnel to attempt to force the run with with the exception of a running threat at QB.

Today you saw the Rams do something worse than what we did at Dallas. We waited too long to adjust, the never adjusted at all.

To be honest, I think that their HC put them in the right position to succeed, Goff just crapped the bed big time.

For example, they got Cooks wide open in the end-zone. Cooks was sitting there for 3 seconds before Goff noticed him and threw a floater down field. The DB came in from the other side of the field, and broke up the play. Goff missed an easy play that would have completely changed the game.

Goff also threw a critical interception, one that was clearly telegraphed. Once again he threw a floater, and the DB undercut the ball. This was near the redzone.

The theme of the day was Goff. He cost the Rams the game. The Patriots kept blitzing him, and showing fake pressure. They kept mixing up their coverage as well. Goff looked dazed and confused, he didn't look like he knew what was going on. They had opportunities, and McVay put his players in a position to succeed, it's just that his Quarterback was having a really rough day.

Compare Goff to Brady. While Brady didn't have the best day either, he also didn't take the big sacks. Brady got rid of the ball when pressure was on him and kept the drives moving. He made one move in particular where he stepped up on the pocket, and made a really slick side step to avoid pressure. The result was a first down, and extended drive. If that was Goff it would have been a sack 100%.

The moral of the story is that I saw wide open receivers. Billicheck blitzed early and often, and banked on Goff not being able to handle the pressure. Guess what? That is exactly what happened. Even when McVay adjusted Goff struggled.

 

[knownone]

So you disagree and your way to prove it is the what if game. The reality is this the Rams had the #2 scoring team in the league, we were not in 2013 so still not a great comparison. Mostly because they play to win from the start, they don't play to keep it close and hope to win at the end now you want what if, what if we did that? Let's play what if, what if we played from the start of the game as we did in the last 22minutes on offense of the Dallas game? The answer we probably win. The difference in philosophy is one plays to win from the beginning and one plays to win at the end. Though you might disagree the problem is you can't really since its the fact that the HC Pete himself has said over and over again. They play to keep it close and win in the 4th, The Rams play to win from the start of the game. Imagine that playing to win form the start, not wanting to win at the end. By the way, I love you boxing analogy except once again it is a what if you really don't know what would have happened. What we know for a FACT is PC plays to keep it close and try to win in the 4th, while the Rams play to win from the start. ONe leaves littel margin for error and th eother leaves plenty.

The idea that Pete isn’t trying to win the game early is silly to me. Pete’s philosophy is about limiting possessions which ties into his defensive philosophy of taking away big plays and making the offense consistently march down the field. This shortens the game which sometimes gives the appearance that they are playing passively when they are not. In this case, you are using a rallying cry (you play to win the game in the 4th) as evidence of Pete’s philosophy when it’s just a rallying cry.

The Rams are a volume offense, that is trying to get as many possessions per game as they can. You can say it leaves plenty of margin for error, but really the only major difference between the Seahawks and Rams this season was that the Rams blew out bad teams with a cake opening schedule. There is no statistically quantifiable margin for error anywhere else.

The Rams were 4-3 in the regular season against playoff teams, of those 4 wins 3 of them were decided on the final drive for a combined -4 point differential. Contrast that with Seattle who was 2-4 against playoff teams with 3 losses ending on the final drive for a combined -4 point differential.

Dig deeper into those games and you'll find the Rams overcoming some pretty ridiculous odds to win a few of these games; like in week 5, where they had a 30% chance to win in the 4th quarter but managed to overcome those odds with the help of 3 50/50 penalties, and a 4th down QB sneak in their own half of the field; or the Kansas City game which saw the Chiefs hit with a record amount a penalties in the first half, and Mahomes complete inability to put together a game-tying/winning drive, despite getting 3 opportunities to do so in the final 4 minutes.

Seriously, 7 points separate us from the Rams in the standings and there is a strong case to be made Seattle lost those games because they didn't finish the game in the 4th quarter; not because they didn't try to win it from the start.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Well, I bet the Hawks would have score more than 3 POINTS in the Super Bowl :lol:

 

[chris98251]

Well, I bet the Hawks would have score more than 3 POINTS in the Super Bowl :lol:

Only after it came down to 2:00 minutes left in the game

 

[John63]

So you disagree and your way to prove it is the what if game. The reality is this the Rams had the #2 scoring team in the league, we were not in 2013 so still not a great comparison. Mostly because they play to win from the start, they don't play to keep it close and hope to win at the end now you want what if, what if we did that? Let's play what if, what if we played from the start of the game as we did in the last 22minutes on offense of the Dallas game? The answer we probably win. The difference in philosophy is one plays to win from the beginning and one plays to win at the end. Though you might disagree the problem is you can't really since its the fact that the HC Pete himself has said over and over again. They play to keep it close and win in the 4th, The Rams play to win from the start of the game. Imagine that playing to win form the start, not wanting to win at the end. By the way, I love you boxing analogy except once again it is a what if you really don't know what would have happened. What we know for a FACT is PC plays to keep it close and try to win in the 4th, while the Rams play to win from the start. ONe leaves littel margin for error and th eother leaves plenty.

The idea that Pete isn’t trying to win the game early is silly to me. Pete’s philosophy is about limiting possessions which ties into his defensive philosophy of taking away big plays and making the offense consistently march down the field. This shortens the game which sometimes gives the appearance that they are playing passively when they are not. In this case, you are using a rallying cry (you play to win the game in the 4th) as evidence of Pete’s philosophy when it’s just a rallying cry.

The Rams are a volume offense, that is trying to get as many possessions per game as they can. You can say it leaves plenty of margin for error, but really the only major difference between the Seahawks and Rams this season was that the Rams blew out bad teams with a cake opening schedule. There is no statistically quantifiable margin for error anywhere else.

The Rams were 4-3 in the regular season against playoff teams, of those 4 wins 3 of them were decided on the final drive for a combined -4 point differential. Contrast that with Seattle who was 2-4 against playoff teams with 3 losses ending on the final drive for a combined -4 point differential.

Dig deeper into those games and you'll find the Rams overcoming some pretty ridiculous odds to win a few of these games; like in week 5, where they had a 30% chance to win in the 4th quarter but managed to overcome those odds with the help of 3 50/50 penalties, and a 4th down QB sneak in their own half of the field; or the Kansas City game which saw the Chiefs hit with a record amount a penalties in the first half, and Mahomes complete inability to put together a game-tying/winning drive, despite getting 3 opportunities to do so in the final 4 minutes.

Seriously, 7 points separate us from the Rams in the standings and there is a strong case to be made Seattle lost those games because they didn't finish the game in the 4th quarter; not because they didn't try to win it from the start.

And had they tried and played to win from the start they wouldn't need to wait till the end and try to win it. The margin for error playing this way is very very small.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Good point :irishdrinkers:
Seriously though, I realize people hate Bill B., but my god is one hell of a coach. Who shuts down the Rams to 3 points??? Give that guy 2 weeks to prepare, good luck.