Why is offense the focus for so many?

[BASF]

As we get deeper and deeper into the offseason and as so many are bored from being at home, there are more and more posters who are banging their drum to improve the offense. Why is it that the team was ninth in points scored and eighth in yards gained, but that isn't enough? I decided I needed to dig little deeper to figure out why so many seem to think our offense isn't good enough.

On a team that had the tenth lowest attempts, they ranked fourteenth in passing yards and fourth in passing touchdowns. It is almost like we have a seriously good passing attack and if we had more attempts, we would probably ranked in the top ten in yards and number one in touchdowns. All that success seems to indicate quite a bit of talent in the passing game. I wonder if it means that these people are looking to gain more yards through passing, but I found it interesting that only three of the top ten teams in passing yards made the playoffs. I also found it interesting that of the top half of the league in attempts, only four of the sixteen teams made the playoffs. Only two playoff teams were in the top ten of attempts. So, what is the obsession with improving our passing game?

In regards to rushing attack, we have some serious questions regarding the health of our running backs, but our success was obvious until the injuries. Even after the injuries, the Seahawks finished third in attempts and fourth in yards. They finished a perplexing fifteenth in rushing touchdowns, but there were obviously more opportunities for play action when we made the red zone as our coaches intelligently took advantage of our propensity to run. I found it interesting that eight of the top ten teams in rushing attempts made the playoffs. So, our running game is honestly our biggest question mark on offense, yet I keep seeing people posting about needing to improve the passing game. I would like to know why.

All of that is ignoring the most obvious glaring weakness on the Seahawks which has been discussed to death and needs to be addressed far more than anything offensively. Twenty-sixth in yards allowed overall, and with having faced only the seventh lowest amount of rushing attempts, it was obvious the teams we faced did not respect our passing defense at all. Why would they? For a team to have faced the sixth most pass attempts to finish thirty-first in sacks is horrendously bad. While they did finish fifth in interceptions, that was pretty much in line with everyone else who faced a lot of pass attempts.

 

[Appyhawk]

Our passing game is far more lethal if our running game is working. One good hit on Carson's hip and we're down to Homer. Therefore RB is a glaring need.
The other glaring need is our defense which, if we get get it to the level we want it to be, could take a lot of the pressure off our offense to need to score more points than we can...that plus protecting our top investment. So we've got a lot of ground to cover to get to where we want to be.
Other than a good RB, I'm focusing on our D. If they can't score they can't beat you.

 

[John63]

As we get deeper and deeper into the offseason and as so many are bored from being at home, there are more and more posters who are banging their drum to improve the offense. Why is it that the team was ninth in points scored and eighth in yards gained, but that isn't enough? I decided I needed to dig little deeper to figure out why so many seem to think our offense isn't good enough.

On a team that had the tenth lowest attempts, they ranked fourteenth in passing yards and fourth in passing touchdowns. It is almost like we have a seriously good passing attack and if we had more attempts, we would probably ranked in the top ten in yards and number one in touchdowns. All that success seems to indicate quite a bit of talent in the passing game. I wonder if it means that these people are looking to gain more yards through passing, but I found it interesting that only three of the top ten teams in passing yards made the playoffs. I also found it interesting that of the top half of the league in attempts, only four of the sixteen teams made the playoffs. Only two playoff teams were in the top ten of attempts. So, what is the obsession with improving our passing game?

In regards to rushing attack, we have some serious questions regarding the health of our running backs, but our success was obvious until the injuries. Even after the injuries, the Seahawks finished third in attempts and fourth in yards. They finished a perplexing fifteenth in rushing touchdowns, but there were obviously more opportunities for play action when we made the red zone as our coaches intelligently took advantage of our propensity to run. I found it interesting that eight of the top ten teams in rushing attempts made the playoffs. So, our running game is honestly our biggest question mark on offense, yet I keep seeing people posting about needing to improve the passing game. I would like to know why.

All of that is ignoring the most obvious glaring weakness on the Seahawks which has been discussed to death and needs to be addressed far more than anything offensively. Twenty-sixth in yards allowed overall, and with having faced only the seventh lowest amount of rushing attempts, it was obvious the teams we faced did not respect our passing defense at all. Why would they? For a team to have faced the sixth most pass attempts to finish thirty-first in sacks is horrendously bad. While they did finish fifth in interceptions, that was pretty much in line with everyone else who faced a lot of pass attempts.

You like alot in this board think we mean more attempts which for the most part is not what we are saying. Here is how the game goes typically. We waste half to 3/4 of the game playing not to loose, and then us it's close we ask Wilson to save our behinds. Meanwhile what we should be doing is playing to win from the start. Opening thing up from the start. Not be predictable from the start. This does mean an Increase in passing it means a diversification of the passing game and tempo to take what we do in the 2and half and do it throughout the game. Since when we do this we win TOP by our biggest margin and we score more this can also help our defense. We also have WAY less 3 and outs doing this. So do t mistake passing more for what most of us our saying. That is just an excuse some use. That is not what most of us are saying.

Think of it as this we are talking type and tempo not quantity. Or even better quality not quatity. The end game is to start faster and win more when it counts.

 

[IndyHawk]

John..
Scoring more will mean faster scores which hurts TOP and that will
wear the defense down.
Now if you mean go up to the line,call the play@line and not sub so
the clock keeps moving while wearing the D down that is a thought.
My focus is on the D because we have an offense but the D was weak
last season.

 

[John63]

Our passing game is far more lethal if our running game is working. One good hit on Carson's hip and we're down to Homer. Therefore RB is a glaring need.
The other glaring need is our defense which, if we get get it to the level we want it to be, could take a lot of the pressure off our offense to need to score more points than we can...that plus protecting our top investment. So we've igot a lot of ground to cover to get to where we want to be.
Other than a good RB, I'm focusing on our D. If they can't score they can't beat you.

First all teams passing game are better with a run game. In our case it is because as PC has said he was it's to line up and out execute the other team, hence why we are predictable for 3 qtrs. The fact superior talent combined with predictability of the opponent counters execution. Opening up the offense from the start takes care of all these issues, and makes us much less reliant on a historic defense.

 

[John63]

John..
Scoring more will mean faster scores which hurts TOP and that will
wear the defense down.
Now if you mean go up to the line,call the play@line and not sub so
the clock keeps moving while wearing the D down that is a thought.
My focus is on the D because we have an offense but the D was weak
last season.

And yet our TOP is higher in the 2and half the. First after we open things up. We get about 6 drives a game, if we score every drive 4 tds 2 fg that is 34 points if each drive take 6 minutes we win TOP by 6 minutes. You can score more and win TOP. My focus is on both as a have holes in both. On offense it is scheme and pass blocking, on defense it is DB and pass rush. We need to fix both to get back to the SB.

 

[KiwiHawk]

John..
Scoring more will mean faster scores which hurts TOP and that will
wear the defense down.
Now if you mean go up to the line,call the play@line and not sub so
the clock keeps moving while wearing the D down that is a thought.
My focus is on the D because we have an offense but the D was weak
last season.

And yet our TOP is higher in the 2and half the. First after we open things up. We get about 6 drives a game, if we score every drive 4 tds 2 fg that is 34 points if each drive take 6 minutes we win TOP by 6 minutes. You can score more and win TOP. My focus is on both as a have holes in both. On offense it is scheme and pass blocking, on defense it is DB and pass rush. We need to fix both to get back to the SB.

6 drives per game, when the NFL average is 12? Why do we get 6 fewer drives than the NFL average per game? No wonder our TOP is down! You should investigate this and get to the bottom of it!

There are multiple reasons for a TOP differential, one of which being we prefer to kick off to open the game rather than receive.

Then there are plays that we run in the first half that are specifically designed to show a look so that we can run a different play from the same look in the second half and expect the defense to bite onw hat we did in the first half. It's great if they work, but the purpose of them is to make the play later.

There are plays we run early on to test certain things - match ups, tendencies, formations, etc.

We don't have an offense that can just show up and score a bajillion points regardless of what the defense does. That's a good thing, because when people figure out those offenses, they shut them down, and the offense has no answer to that. See our Super Bowl vs Broncos as a clear example.

So instead of that we use strategy to get an edge in the second half. It's just how Carroll runs things, and it's been effective.

 

[sutz]

I blame fantasy football. Of course, I blame a lot of things on fantasy football, but I don't think I'm wrong. It leads to the "one more player" obsession, that all we need is that one more superstar RB, or WR, or TE that will make 100 catches and get 20 TDs. Whatever. FF thinking leads one to over value the offense.

So yes, while needing a few more pieces to improve like beefing up the OL and deepening our RB roster, our O is actually pretty good, and will be as long as Russ is upright. The real needs are on D, primarily at pass rush and getting a little more stout against the run, thus DL in all it's aspects. They've added a few parts, but we'll need some help through the draft, too.

 

[chris98251]

I blame fantasy football. Of course, I blame a lot of things on fantasy football, but I don't think I'm wrong. It leads to the "one more player" obsession, that all we need is that one more superstar RB, or WR, or TE that will make 100 catches and get 20 TDs. Whatever. FF thinking leads one to over value the offense.

So yes, while needing a few more pieces to improve like beefing up the OL and deepening our RB roster, our O is actually pretty good, and will be as long as Russ is upright. The real needs are on D, primarily at pass rush and getting a little more stout against the run, thus DL in all it's aspects. They've added a few parts, but we'll need some help through the draft, too.

Stated in another thread pretty much this, when the D line has issues everyone else is compensating for it, no pass rush the secondary looks worse, leaky run game the LB's are cheating to support it and are taking on O lineman instead of protected by D line man to make tackles, all this creating bigger holes for a team to get passing lanes as well.

 

[xray]

The offense is pretty damn good ; when Wilson can play...The defense needs the tuneup . IMO

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Depends on what you mean by "focus".

If you're talking about people's focus on player acquisition, we're comparatively okay on O, though not perfect.

If you're talking about people's focus on philosophy and execution, we've got work to do in first halves and at the end of halves. That's what's getting focus. Some of it has merit and some of it is probably an overreaction IMHO, but it's understandable that people go there, and it's not inappropriate just because the defensive line is a swirling vortex in terms of talent quotient.

 

[John63]

Depends on what you mean by "focus".

If you're talking about people's focus on player acquisition, we're comparatively okay on O, though not perfect.

If you're talking about people's focus on philosophy and execution, we've got work to do in first halves and at the end of halves. That's what's getting focus. Some of it has merit and some of it is probably an overreaction IMHO, but it's understandable that people go there, and it's not inappropriate just because the defensive line is a swirling vortex in terms of talent quotient.

And that si the point, for whatever reason in the 2nd half when we need it we change focus, tempo and scheme adn we do whatever we want, adn own TOP. We need to do that in the first halfl to. Thats what we are tlaking about with reagrds to the passing game. I agree we need to do some stuf fon defense as well, but that doe snto mean we cant improve the offense as well.

 

[John63]

John..
Scoring more will mean faster scores which hurts TOP and that will
wear the defense down.
Now if you mean go up to the line,call the play@line and not sub so
the clock keeps moving while wearing the D down that is a thought.
My focus is on the D because we have an offense but the D was weak
last season.

And yet our TOP is higher in the 2and half the. First after we open things up. We get about 6 drives a game, if we score every drive 4 tds 2 fg that is 34 points if each drive take 6 minutes we win TOP by 6 minutes. You can score more and win TOP. My focus is on both as a have holes in both. On offense it is scheme and pass blocking, on defense it is DB and pass rush. We need to fix both to get back to the SB.

6 drives per game, when the NFL average is 12? Why do we get 6 fewer drives than the NFL average per game? No wonder our TOP is down! You should investigate this and get to the bottom of it!

There are multiple reasons for a TOP differential, one of which being we prefer to kick off to open the game rather than receive.

Then there are plays that we run in the first half that are specifically designed to show a look so that we can run a different play from the same look in the second half and expect the defense to bite onw hat we did in the first half. It's great if they work, but the purpose of them is to make the play later.

There are plays we run early on to test certain things - match ups, tendencies, formations, etc.

We don't have an offense that can just show up and score a bajillion points regardless of what the defense does. That's a good thing, because when people figure out those offenses, they shut them down, and the offense has no answer to that. See our Super Bowl vs Broncos as a clear example.

So instead of that we use strategy to get an edge in the second half. It's just how Carroll runs things, and it's been effective.

12 drives is for both teams and that avg to 6 fo each team. As to "So instead of that we use strategy to get an edge in the second half. It's just how Carroll runs things, and it's been effective" again when was the last time we won the NFC west? The NFC? Went beyond the 2nd round? Been a while that measn it is not working, if it were we would have done those things at least once in the laast 3+ years. Is workign to tease us, to say hey we have a winning record adn we are getting into tthe playofs, but thats all. We are doing just enough to get in adn win a game and that all. Like the team I want more.

 

[John63]

I blame fantasy football. Of course, I blame a lot of things on fantasy football, but I don't think I'm wrong. It leads to the "one more player" obsession, that all we need is that one more superstar RB, or WR, or TE that will make 100 catches and get 20 TDs. Whatever. FF thinking leads one to over value the offense.

So yes, while needing a few more pieces to improve like beefing up the OL and deepening our RB roster, our O is actually pretty good, and will be as long as Russ is upright. The real needs are on D, primarily at pass rush and getting a little more stout against the run, thus DL in all it's aspects. They've added a few parts, but we'll need some help through the draft, too.

This has nothing to do with fantasy football as I dont even play. It has to do with giving us the best chane to win, something I woudl think you would be open to.

 

[John63]

The offense is pretty damn good ; when Wilson can play...The defense needs the tuneup . IMO

and this is the problem "when Wilson can play" that equal only 1 half of football, when we are done wasting a half testing the other team, something that should be known already before the game.

 

[chris98251]

The offense is pretty damn good ; when Wilson can play...The defense needs the tuneup . IMO

adn this is the problem "when Wilson can play" that equal only 1 half of football, when we ar edone wastin hga half testing the other team, something that should be known already before the game.

Really what you have been complaining about then is you want to fire Pete and bring in hmmmm hard to say but Winston was best passer last year as far as QBR so Byron Leftwich.

 

[KiwiHawk]

12 drives is for both teams and that avg to 6 fo each team. As to "So instead of that we use strategy to get an edge in the second half. It's just how Carroll runs things, and it's been effective" again when was the last time we won the NFC west? The NFC? Went beyond the 2nd round? Been a while that measn it is not working, if it were we would have done those things at least once in the laast 3+ years. Is workign to tease us, to say hey we have a winning record adn we are getting into tthe playofs, but thats all. We are doing just enough to get in adn win a game and that all. Like the team I want more.

If you think the average is 6 possession per team, per game, then there goes your credibility. You're completely full of whatever word I can use to represent bovine faeces on the main forum.

That's endemic of the reliability of your insight - just pulled out of your ass with no relation to reality whatsoever.

Watch a game sometime. Just for fun. Count the number of possessions for starters. See if it's really 6. (Hint: there were 26 possessions in the Seattle's first game last year, and 23 in the 2nd game). Those must have been freaking amazing games if the average is 12.

There are 32 teams in the NFL all investing millions of dollars with the ultimate goal of winning the Super Bowl, and the reality is that few teams actually do. It takes talent, coaching, health, and a bit of luck just to get there. That we have consistently been in the running means we're doing it right.

That you don't even understand the sport well enough to know the number of possessions in a game is an example of doing it wrong.

 

[John63]

The offense is pretty damn good ; when Wilson can play...The defense needs the tuneup . IMO

adn this is the problem "when Wilson can play" that equal only 1 half of football, when we ar edone wastin hga half testing the other team, something that should be known already before the game.

Really what you have been complaining about then is you want to fire Pete and bring in hmmmm hard to say but Winston was best passer last year as far as QBR so Byron Leftwich.

I either want PC to do what a good coach should do and that is run a system built for his players he has or get a coach who will.

FYi Jackson had the best QBr not Winston, Winston also did not have the best Qb rating either.

Winston was ranked 27th in qb rating and 16th in QBR so no thanks.

 

[John63]

12 drives is for both teams and that avg to 6 fo each team. As to "So instead of that we use strategy to get an edge in the second half. It's just how Carroll runs things, and it's been effective" again when was the last time we won the NFC west? The NFC? Went beyond the 2nd round? Been a while that measn it is not working, if it were we would have done those things at least once in the laast 3+ years. Is workign to tease us, to say hey we have a winning record adn we are getting into tthe playofs, but thats all. We are doing just enough to get in adn win a game and that all. Like the team I want more.

If you think the average is 6 possession per team, per game, then there goes your credibility. You're completely full of whatever word I can use to represent bovine faeces on the main forum.

That's endemic of the reliability of your insight - just pulled out of your ass with no relation to reality whatsoever.

Watch a game sometime. Just for fun. Count the number of possessions for starters. See if it's really 6. (Hint: there were 26 possessions in the Seattle's first game last year, and 23 in the 2nd game). Those must have been freaking amazing games if the average is 12.

There are 32 teams in the NFL all investing millions of dollars with the ultimate goal of winning the Super Bowl, and the reality is that few teams actually do. It takes talent, coaching, health, and a bit of luck just to get there. That we have consistently been in the running means we're doing it right.

That you don't even understand the sport well enough to know the number of possessions in a game is an example of doing it wrong.

Actually you have a point I am completley forgetting all the drives that stall out. According to football outsiders the legue avg per game was 10.8, so you were close, alot closer than me. That said we avg 11.25 this is not a good thing that means we have more failed drives than leagu avg. In fact in pretty much all the dirve categories, out side of INt per drive were we rank 3 in fewest Int per drive and were we start our drive were we are 4th we are middle of the pack imagine if we were just a little higher. But Despite your attacking reply thanks for showing my mistake.


As to the rest of your post, the fact you cant just argue the point and have to ridicule someone who made an honest mistake shows your true collors and as such will now be foed. I dont have time for people who cant have a decent conversation without ridicule.

That said for future referecne let me show you how is shoudl hav ebeen done.

I think you may have made a mistake with your clain of 6 drives. The info I have from (put in your site ) shows this. I woudld have replide well like I did.

that said to the foe you go.

 

[KiwiHawk]

Actually you have a point I am completley forgetting all the drives that stall out. According to football outsiders the legue avg per game was 10.8, so you were close, alot closer than me. That said we avg 11.25 this is not a good thing that means we have more failed drives than leagu avg. In fact in pretty much all the dirve categories, out side of INt per drive were we rank 3 in fewest Int per drive and were we start our drive were we are 4th we are middle of the pack imagine if we were just a little higher. But Despite your attacking reply thanks for showing my mistake.


As to the rest of your post, the fact you cant just argue the point and have to ridicule someone who made an honest mistake shows your true collors and as such will now be foed. I dont have time for people who cant have a decent conversation without ridicule.

That said for future referecne let me show you how is shoudl hav ebeen done.

I think you may have made a mistake with your clain of 6 drives. The info I have from (put in your site ) shows this. I woudld have replide well like I did.

that said to the foe you go.

If you actually watch a football game instead of staring at stats, you would intuitively know that there are more than 3 possessions per quarter. It's beyond obvious.

Since you either don't watch, or can't figure out immediately that 6 possessions per game is ludicrously low, how am I supposed to put any credence into any of your other opinions? Particularly since you're all about this intangible unmeasurable metric you promote that no one can ever satisfy since you'll just more the goalposts anyway.

It's literally pointless arguing anything with you, because you don't use proper logic, you don't observe the game very well, and you think minor variations in small statistic sets are significant.