MontanaHawk05":n8udmq27 said:mrt144":n8udmq27 said: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.
KiwiHawk":1h84816e said:Only on .Net is going 10-6 and making the playoffs during a rebuilding year with new OC/DC/OL coaches considered "capitulating".
KiwiHawk":oy6b5xa5 said: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":133klpmw said:John63":133klpmw said:MontanaHawk05":133klpmw said: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.MontanaHawk05":jcb425dd said:John63":jcb425dd said:MontanaHawk05":jcb425dd said: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?
KiwiHawk":3ikgaaqu said: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.
Spin Doctor":3c3fco4l said: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.MontanaHawk05":3c3fco4l said:John63":3c3fco4l said:MontanaHawk05":3c3fco4l said: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?
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.
I guess I forgot that, as head Coach, Pete Carroll and his lateral-thinking philosophy is limited to defense. Thank you for correcting me.Seymour":auo3h7p2 said:KiwiHawk":auo3h7p2 said: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.
KiwiHawk":rtflhzao said:I guess I forgot that, as head Coach, Pete Carroll and his lateral-thinking philosophy is limited to defense. Thank you for correcting me.Seymour":rtflhzao said:KiwiHawk":rtflhzao said: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.
Wait... then why is he called Head Coach instead of Head Defense Coach?
KiwiHawk":1bu1czaf said:I guess I forgot that, as head Coach, Pete Carroll and his lateral-thinking philosophy is limited to defense. Thank you for correcting me.Seymour":1bu1czaf said:KiwiHawk":1bu1czaf said: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.
Wait... then why is he called Head Coach instead of Head Defense Coach?
I would just say the 70s AND the 90s. The 80s were the Knox era. Damn good teams.Seymour":2jmnywzf said:KiwiHawk":2jmnywzf said: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 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.mrt144":2l8o027t said:Man, all those years to accrue talent by being a bottom feeder wasted. I wonder why the Hawks of yore never put it together.Seymour":2l8o027t said: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.
Spin Doctor":1jdjguih said:[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.
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.seedhawk":nxyql8rj said: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.