Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Great article from the Ringer-Seahawks run

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
Great article from the Ringer-Seahawks run
Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:51 pm
  • https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/1/6/ ... card-round

    NFL teams ran less in 2018 than any other season in NFL history. Rushing attempts per team per game dipped below 26 for the first time since at least 1936, when stats started being tracked. Meanwhile, teams also scored 23.3 points and gained 352.2 yards per team per game, the second-highest mark of all time for each category. These two stats are related. Passing is more efficient than running, and the entire NFL is running less and scoring more.

    You’d never know it from watching the Seahawks, who fell to the Dallas Cowboys 24-22 on Saturday night because of a stunningly conservative game plan. Head coach Pete Carroll and offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer stuck to the run despite MVP-caliber quarterback Russell Wilson idling in the backfield like an unused getaway Ferrari in a bank robbery. Seattle followed up its only playoff-less season of Russell Wilson’s career in 2017 with something worse in 2018: a playoff loss that could have EASILY been a win had the Seahawks bothered to let their All-Pro QB Wilson you know...actually throw the ball and play quarterback.

    ^^^Just a taste. Complete article linked above. It is a pretty honest, objective take.
    StouffersPizza
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 6
    Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:35 am


  • StouffersPizza wrote:https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/1/6/18168786/seattle-seahawks-dallas-cowboys-wild-card-round

    NFL teams ran less in 2018 than any other season in NFL history. Rushing attempts per team per game dipped below 26 for the first time since at least 1936, when stats started being tracked. Meanwhile, teams also scored 23.3 points and gained 352.2 yards per team per game, the second-highest mark of all time for each category. These two stats are related. Passing is more efficient than running, and the entire NFL is running less and scoring more.

    You’d never know it from watching the Seahawks, who fell to the Dallas Cowboys 24-22 on Saturday night because of a stunningly conservative game plan. Head coach Pete Carroll and offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer stuck to the run despite MVP-caliber quarterback Russell Wilson idling in the backfield like an unused getaway Ferrari in a bank robbery. Seattle followed up its only playoff-less season of Russell Wilson’s career in 2017 with something worse in 2018: a playoff loss that could have EASILY been a win had the Seahawks bothered to let their All-Pro QB Wilson you know...actually throw the ball and play quarterback.

    ^^^Just a taste. Complete article linked above. It is a pretty honest, objective take.


    So true.
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2064
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • Ignorant, lazy, pathetic article. Typical national press take on the Seahawks. I read it before you posted it and it annoyed me more than any other article. As you can probably tell I couldn't disagree more with this piece of so called journalism BS.
    idle Eric
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 49
    Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:32 am
    Location: England


  • Great article. A team has to be able to adapt. We’re one of the few run first teams in NFL history with a QB as talented. We needed leverage that balance more often. Get one more receiver, invest in O-line depth, and focus more on keeping teams guessing. No reason we couldn’t pass more with the QB we have. A QB who’s more than capable of being in a pass first offense. No less than a Brees or maybe Baker Mayfield could
    Scorpion05
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1012
    Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:05 am


  • Truth, NO reason this team can't pass a lot more when needed. The main reason they lost that game on Sunday: blatant refusal to adapt. The running game was NOT going to work in that game. Get over your "this is what we are" crap and adjust, adapt and let Russ fling it all over the yard. He has done it on many occasions. It's maddening that they don't just let him loose, and in a sense it IS wasting his talent.
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11230
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • Russ can play with and without a running game. He had more overall TDs last season, although this year his efficiency was on another level. Can’t believe there are people who insist he can’t do it without a run game when he literally did it last year lol. And he accounted for all but one touchdown. No other QB would be criticized by some members of the fan base for such an effort

    Seahawks tried to outlast the Cowboys but that should have been thrown out the moment we weren’t stopping them. They were dominating time of possession early and that’s usually our bread and butter. Force Dak to play from behind. Part of the reason the Patriots win so often is because they adjust their offense to whatever game plan is needed. If that means Brady throws for 150 yards but they rush for 200, so be it. We have the QB and 3/4 the personnel to be really versatile on offense
    Scorpion05
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1012
    Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:05 am


  • Why is it that we blame the play calling when the play fails but when its successful we say the players did it? it just seems selective in trying to build an argument. Couldn't it be that the plays called were actually ok and that they players didn't execute? Why is Russel the king of passing when things go well (and he made some amazing throws) but when he can't complete on 3rd down we don't hold him accountable? Its very selective anger I am hearing.

    I'm not arguing that we had a perfect game called by coaches but the bias against the play calling stinks like Bevell hangover...

    game 1 and 2 we blamed the play calling too when we didn't run enough. Nobody was saying pass more then. people get angry that on 3 and 17 we run a conservative play which has little to no hope of being successful (there is more to it than that, long developing pass plays need good protection, create dangerous turnover scenarios - one we struggle with and the other we are allergic too). How about don't get in 3rd and 17 with penalties or sacks? Those down and distances do not succeed in the NFL, so playing the numbers makes sense.

    We are in close games every game because of the same conservative mentality that we also complain about when it isn't successful. Its hard to lose but suddenly the heavy run game is the worst idea ever?

    Dance with the girl you brought. /rant
    gammam
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 1
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:59 am


  • Heavy run game is great. But on Saturday, it was NOT working. They chose to ignore it and chose to wait way too long, yet again to adjust to the game as it was unfolding. We have seen this time and time again.
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11230
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • I think it's been said by others but i have no issues with trying to establish a run or going with that philosophy. Just be willing to check out of it when it's clearly not working. I've heard of "using the pass to establish the run". Once the Cowboys were shutting down the first down run and the play action pass was working, why not keep hitting them with the play action pass until they finally started honoring that, then hitting them with the run?

    I just didn't see that predictability coming. I think of the Chiefs game late where when you think we would go conservative and run on second down, Schotty called the deep shot to Lockett.
    HawkRiderFan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 665
    Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:10 pm


  • Stats aside, I think we squeezed as much success from this team as possible with the run first mentality. Coming into this season, we were projected to be 4-12 (by some accounts), were rebuilding, and realigning under new strategies.

    With that said....the team has to adapt. Banging your head (our run game last week) against the wall (Dallas' run D) repetitively wont garner much success.

    I hope we consider another receiving threat for this team and try to find some balance on the offensive end of things. We have Russ...no excuse to not let him loose.
    Elemas
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 113
    Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 12:02 pm


  • gammam wrote:Why is it that we blame the play calling when the play fails but when its successful we say the players did it? it just seems selective in trying to build an argument. Couldn't it be that the plays called were actually ok and that they players didn't execute? Why is Russel the king of passing when things go well (and he made some amazing throws) but when he can't complete on 3rd down we don't hold him accountable? Its very selective anger I am hearing.

    I'm not arguing that we had a perfect game called by coaches but the bias against the play calling stinks like Bevell hangover...

    game 1 and 2 we blamed the play calling too when we didn't run enough. Nobody was saying pass more then. people get angry that on 3 and 17 we run a conservative play which has little to no hope of being successful (there is more to it than that, long developing pass plays need good protection, create dangerous turnover scenarios - one we struggle with and the other we are allergic too). How about don't get in 3rd and 17 with penalties or sacks? Those down and distances do not succeed in the NFL, so playing the numbers makes sense.

    We are in close games every game because of the same conservative mentality that we also complain about when it isn't successful. Its hard to lose but suddenly the heavy run game is the worst idea ever?

    Dance with the girl you brought. /rant


    You dance with the girl you brought until she can't dance no more and then you switch partners? I'm trying to carry your analogy to the endzone here ;)
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3511
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • There is a great article on Field Gulls about why the Seahawk offense would not work in the playoffs (against better defenses).

    https://www.fieldgulls.com/2019/1/7/181 ... l-defenses

    I did not know it was this bad, but I realized that you were going to get a lot of artificially inflated #s playing a number of teams literally falling apart at the end of the season (Packers, Vikings, Cards, 49ers).

    The thing is, this was the very indicator of what was known as 'Marty Ball'. Didn't Marty put up pretty good records regularly before flaming out regularly? Didn't he even put up a 14-2 record one year?

    It works in putting together a solid record with a team that really won't be able to compete against the better teams in the Post Season.

    It makes your team (and especially the defense) look better than they are, because it limits the # of opposing possessions.

    So it is a great strategy if you don't have a great QB or are missing some pieces on offense. The problem for us, is we have a great QB. So we have the advantage that so many teams covet but we don't bother using it but sporadically.

    Either way, this offense was not going to work against good defenses and DIDN'T work against the freaking Cardinals leading up to the playoffs. That we thought it would work against a BETTER defense while we fielded two INJURED STARTING OL in the game? That part was baffling.

    Even more baffling considering Wilson has shown repeatedly that he can produce when his OL is struggling. So let's not give him the ball? Until near the end?

    For some reason they relied on our offense being able to score but then our defense being able to stop them. Our defense was going to give up a score at least 1 out of 3 possessions (lazy estimate but viable for 4th qtr). Why not at least try to get enough points that you leave a cushion for when your young defense has a setback or two?
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3446
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:48 pm


  • Yep, same record many times. No excuse for not balling out in the 1st half of games. No excuse for waiting til the 4th quarter to the let Russ do what he does. It makes no sense. But...but....we are a running team. Just stop. It was NOT WORKING, change it up. Play 4 quarters of football, change things up, keep the opponent guessing etc.
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11230
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • I get the dance with the girl you brought idea. However if the DJ switches to a slow dance song and you're still dancing like you did for the techno songs, you look weird
    HawkRiderFan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 665
    Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:10 pm


  • Seahawks played the style that gives them the best chance to win. They did all that passing offense stuff in the first games of this season and they lost. This team just was not ready for a super bowl yet, next year will be a different story.
    TwilightError
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1036
    Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:28 am


  • HawkRiderFan wrote:I think it's been said by others but i have no issues with trying to establish a run or going with that philosophy. Just be willing to check out of it when it's clearly not working. I've heard of "using the pass to establish the run". Once the Cowboys were shutting down the first down run and the play action pass was working, why not keep hitting them with the play action pass until they finally started honoring that, then hitting them with the run?

    I just didn't see that predictability coming. I think of the Chiefs game late where when you think we would go conservative and run on second down, Schotty called the deep shot to Lockett.

    IIRC, that was a play where Wilson said he waived off Schotty. Wilson and Lockett can improvise as they did on the 50 yr pass that set up the final td against Dallas.
    I love Schotty but he's still learning his players. He has gifted RBs who can catch but not a single screen call. You want to run it then why not mix it up in the backfield with a 2 back set. We have good TE who can block and catch. Where's the POP/RPO to our TE down the seam against this aggressive front that usually works? We have enough speed to create misdirection why not use it?
    Russ Willstrong
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1622
    Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am


  • The Patriots love to throw the ball. They will throw the ball 50 times a game. But in the playoffs, they shock teams with how much they run it. When they beat the Colts in the AFC title game they ran the ball 40 times and blew the Colts out, then in the Superbowl, they ran the ball 21 times and still won.

    The team needs to be run first, run first will get teams to quit on you. But the team also needs to be able to quickly change once that is no longer possible.

    Look at the Seahawks KC game this year. The Hawks got the ball back with a 31-28 everyone knows the running focused Seahawks were going to run the ball and grind out the game. What did the Hawks do on that drive? They threw the ball 6 times and set up a 1 yard Chris Carson TD run and a 10 point lead. They did not do anything like that against the Cowboys.
    sdog1981
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2296
    Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:54 am


  • TwilightError wrote:Seahawks played the style that gives them the best chance to win. They did all that passing offense stuff in the first games of this season and they lost. This team just was not ready for a super bowl yet, next year will be a different story.


    If adjustments are made, yes.

    I think thats most peoples concerns. The offense was so much more effective than last year while remaining very simple in nature.

    Is schorty capable of taking the next step
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 14227
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


  • gammam wrote: Dance with the girl you brought. /rant


    If the girl you brought to the dance is repeatedly stuffed by the entire defensive line, time to change partners...
    DynoHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1095
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:58 pm


  • DynoHawk wrote:
    gammam wrote: Dance with the girl you brought. /rant


    If the girl you brought to the dance is repeatedly stuffed by the entire defensive line, time to change partners...


    I don't know, that sounds like a fun kinky time. ;)
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3511
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • TwistedHusky wrote:It makes your team (and especially the defense) look better than they are, because it limits the # of opposing possessions.


    As if the # of opposing team's possessions has no effect on the final scoreboard. :roll:

    Seattle's rushing attempts total this year was right in the same neighborhood as 2013 and 2014. Nothing was done significantly different this year. Had Seattle's run blocking been up to its regular season form, and had the NFL's best linebacking duo not bizarrely flopped and given up a QB run on 3rd and 14, we're not having this conversation.

    From that perspective, in my mind, the Schotty outrage is unwarranted. Concern, sure. Hell, I would have called a couple more pass plays here and there.
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 16390
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • StouffersPizza wrote:https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/1/6/18168786/seattle-seahawks-dallas-cowboys-wild-card-round

    NFL teams ran less in 2018 than any other season in NFL history. Rushing attempts per team per game dipped below 26 for the first time since at least 1936, when stats started being tracked. Meanwhile, teams also scored 23.3 points and gained 352.2 yards per team per game, the second-highest mark of all time for each category. These two stats are related. Passing is more efficient than running, and the entire NFL is running less and scoring more.

    You’d never know it from watching the Seahawks, who fell to the Dallas Cowboys 24-22 on Saturday night because of a stunningly conservative game plan. Head coach Pete Carroll and offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer stuck to the run despite MVP-caliber quarterback Russell Wilson idling in the backfield like an unused getaway Ferrari in a bank robbery. Seattle followed up its only playoff-less season of Russell Wilson’s career in 2017 with something worse in 2018: a playoff loss that could have EASILY been a win had the Seahawks bothered to let their All-Pro QB Wilson you know...actually throw the ball and play quarterback.

    ^^^Just a taste. Complete article linked above. It is a pretty honest, objective take.



    Its accurate, supported by facts, and pretty much every expert out there and our head coach who said they should have started throwing sooner.
    John63
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 262
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:56 pm


  • TwilightError wrote:Seahawks played the style that gives them the best chance to win. They did all that passing offense stuff in the first games of this season and they lost. This team just was not ready for a super bowl yet, next year will be a different story.


    First no one is saying going back to the 1st 2 games, the problem is they went from one extreme to the other. The first 2 games did not work because the oline cannot pass block, they still cant but the run slows the defense up enough most of the time. In the first 2 games they were to heavy pass. 33 passes to only 16 runs. They should be more like 28-21. Most importantly the passing game plan itself did not vary, lots of long developing pass plays, nothing short. in 2015 the pass first offense worked because of quick passing, making it so the pass blocking did not have to last long. So basically they decided to pass first and more but did not adjust the pass plan. Had they it would have worked. We have proof they could have and it can work from the Carolina game, which PC alluded to when he said we should have passed more earlier. We ran the ball 28 times, and passed 31. The mixed in the run and pass very well there were few run, run pass unlike the cowboy game. We were less predictable.
    John63
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 262
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:56 pm


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    TwistedHusky wrote:It makes your team (and especially the defense) look better than they are, because it limits the # of opposing possessions.


    As if the # of opposing team's possessions has no effect on the final scoreboard. :roll:

    Seattle's rushing attempts total this year was right in the same neighborhood as 2013 and 2014. Nothing was done significantly different this year. Had Seattle's run blocking been up to its regular season form, and had the NFL's best linebacking duo not bizarrely flopped and given up a QB run on 3rd and 14, we're not having this conversation.

    From that perspective, in my mind, the Schotty outrage is unwarranted. Concern, sure. Hell, I would have called a couple more pass plays here and there.



    While I Can't speak for everyone I am not saying fire Schotty, only that he and PC need to adjust earlier. PC agreed so most of us are on the same sheet. Hopefully, they learned.
    John63
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 262
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:56 pm


  • John63 wrote:
    StouffersPizza wrote:https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/1/6/18168786/seattle-seahawks-dallas-cowboys-wild-card-round

    NFL teams ran less in 2018 than any other season in NFL history. Rushing attempts per team per game dipped below 26 for the first time since at least 1936, when stats started being tracked. Meanwhile, teams also scored 23.3 points and gained 352.2 yards per team per game, the second-highest mark of all time for each category. These two stats are related. Passing is more efficient than running, and the entire NFL is running less and scoring more.

    You’d never know it from watching the Seahawks, who fell to the Dallas Cowboys 24-22 on Saturday night because of a stunningly conservative game plan. Head coach Pete Carroll and offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer stuck to the run despite MVP-caliber quarterback Russell Wilson idling in the backfield like an unused getaway Ferrari in a bank robbery. Seattle followed up its only playoff-less season of Russell Wilson’s career in 2017 with something worse in 2018: a playoff loss that could have EASILY been a win had the Seahawks bothered to let their All-Pro QB Wilson you know...actually throw the ball and play quarterback.

    ^^^Just a taste. Complete article linked above. It is a pretty honest, objective take.



    Its accurate, supported by facts, and pretty much every expert out there and our head coach who said they should have started throwing sooner.


    No it's not if it says the Entire NFL threw more then ran, we know better since the Seahawks are in the NFL, and rushed more then we threw the ball.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 25887
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • The best players play even better in the playoffs.

    Our best player is Wilson.

    Wouldn't it make sense to adjust our approach in order to allow him to have more impact on the game, knowing that his escalating his level of play gives us a much better chance to win.

    I get playing the %s but you are playing bad math if you think putting the outcome of the game on lesser players is going to pan out for you.

    We relied on our average defense to save the game (which made no sense) in hoping it would not give up scores. That was a mistake.

    We expected our offense to be able to keep the game close and then allow Wilson to come back near the end. But that neglects the reality that each failed offensive possession in the interim is going to make you have to spin the wheel with your defense. Some of those possessions are going to result in the opposing offense scoring.

    They did and people blamed the defense. But those people are morons. Because the defense did its job. It allowed scoring that was below the league average. The offense did not meet the league average in this game. Your magic # is 28.

    28 pts is what a winner generally scores. Our defense gave up 24.

    We seemed to be satisfied when we hit 14-10 but we were nowhere near on pace to hit 28 and our defense was assuredly going to give up additional scores. So we lost - because that is exactly what happened.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3446
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:48 pm


  • chris98251 wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    StouffersPizza wrote:https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/1/6/18168786/seattle-seahawks-dallas-cowboys-wild-card-round

    NFL teams ran less in 2018 than any other season in NFL history. Rushing attempts per team per game dipped below 26 for the first time since at least 1936, when stats started being tracked. Meanwhile, teams also scored 23.3 points and gained 352.2 yards per team per game, the second-highest mark of all time for each category. These two stats are related. Passing is more efficient than running, and the entire NFL is running less and scoring more.

    You’d never know it from watching the Seahawks, who fell to the Dallas Cowboys 24-22 on Saturday night because of a stunningly conservative game plan. Head coach Pete Carroll and offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer stuck to the run despite MVP-caliber quarterback Russell Wilson idling in the backfield like an unused getaway Ferrari in a bank robbery. Seattle followed up its only playoff-less season of Russell Wilson’s career in 2017 with something worse in 2018: a playoff loss that could have EASILY been a win had the Seahawks bothered to let their All-Pro QB Wilson you know...actually throw the ball and play quarterback.

    ^^^Just a taste. Complete article linked above. It is a pretty honest, objective take.



    Its accurate, supported by facts, and pretty much every expert out there and our head coach who said they should have started throwing sooner.


    No it's not if it says the Entire NFL threw more then ran, we know better since the Seahawks are in the NFL, and rushed more then we threw the ball.



    I did not see any place in this article were it said " Entire NFL threw more then ran"
    John63
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 262
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:56 pm


  • John63 wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    StouffersPizza wrote:https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/1/6/18168786/seattle-seahawks-dallas-cowboys-wild-card-round

    NFL teams ran less in 2018 than any other season in NFL history. Rushing attempts per team per game dipped below 26 for the first time since at least 1936, when stats started being tracked. Meanwhile, teams also scored 23.3 points and gained 352.2 yards per team per game, the second-highest mark of all time for each category. These two stats are related. Passing is more efficient than running, and the entire NFL is running less and scoring more.

    You’d never know it from watching the Seahawks, who fell to the Dallas Cowboys 24-22 on Saturday night because of a stunningly conservative game plan. Head coach Pete Carroll and offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer stuck to the run despite MVP-caliber quarterback Russell Wilson idling in the backfield like an unused getaway Ferrari in a bank robbery. Seattle followed up its only playoff-less season of Russell Wilson’s career in 2017 with something worse in 2018: a playoff loss that could have EASILY been a win had the Seahawks bothered to let their All-Pro QB Wilson you know...actually throw the ball and play quarterback.

    ^^^Just a taste. Complete article linked above. It is a pretty honest, objective take.



    Its accurate, supported by facts, and pretty much every expert out there and our head coach who said they should have started throwing sooner.


    No it's not if it says the Entire NFL threw more then ran, we know better since the Seahawks are in the NFL, and rushed more then we threw the ball.



    I did not see any place in this article were it said " Entire NFL threw more then ran"


    See it now?
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 25887
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • chris98251 wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:
    John63 wrote:

    Its accurate, supported by facts, and pretty much every expert out there and our head coach who said they should have started throwing sooner.


    No it's not if it says the Entire NFL threw more then ran, we know better since the Seahawks are in the NFL, and rushed more then we threw the ball.



    I did not see any place in this article were it said " Entire NFL threw more then ran"


    See it now?



    Here is what was said with regards to ran or run

    "The Seahawks Just Ran Themselves Out of the Playoffs"
    "NFL teams ran less in 2018 than any other season in NFL history."
    "Fancy that! Seattle naturally ran the ball on first and second down for a combined 5 yards before Wilson bailed them out again on third-and-5, then watched Carson get a 1-yard rush and said “screw it, I’ll do it myself” and ran the ball in for a touchdown."
    "Yet those games came against Kansas City and Arizona, who ranked 32nd and 29th in rushing defense DVOA. The Cowboys ranked fifth, and they played like it on Saturday."
    "these two stats are related. Passing is more efficient than running, and the entire NFL is running less and scoring more."
    "Head coach Pete Carroll and offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer stuck to the run despite MVP-caliber quarterback Russell Wilson idling in the backfield like an unused getaway Ferrari in a bank robbery. "
    "he quarterback finished the game with 18 completions on 27 attempts for 233 yards and a solid 8.6 yards per pass attempt, more than three times as efficient as the team’s running plays."
    "Their first drive of the third quarter featured two runs for 4 yards and a Wilson incompletion on third-and-6 that forced a punt and a three-and-out. "
    "The drive after that nearly ended with a run, yes a run, by backup running back Mike Davis on third-and-7 that gained 2 yards."
    "Under Schottenheimer (and likely at the direction of Carroll), Seattle was the only team to run more than it passed in 2018. "
    "Admittedly, Seattle did quite well running the ball at the tail end of the season, managing 392 rushing yards in the final two games of the season."
    "Unlike Baltimore, Seattle did not run in a unique style that changes the fundamental math of football and hides a raw quarterback, like when the Ravens have Lamar Jackson run a read-option."


    No place does it say " Entire NFL threw more then ran" The closest thing is "NFL teams ran less in 2018 than any other season in NFL history." or "These two stats are related. Passing is more efficient than running, and the entire NFL is running less and scoring more."

    And all 3 are true statements

    Example this year the entire NFL ran the ball 13270 times but passed it 17671. So the NFL did pass more than run
    Last edited by John63 on Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
    John63
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 262
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:56 pm


  • Oh my god are we going to have to go over sets, supersets, subsets and set notation?
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3511
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • Scorpion05 wrote:Great article. A team has to be able to adapt. We’re one of the few run first teams in NFL history with a QB as talented. We needed leverage that balance more often. Get one more receiver, invest in O-line depth, and focus more on keeping teams guessing. No reason we couldn’t pass more with the QB we have. A QB who’s more than capable of being in a pass first offense. No less than a Brees or maybe Baker Mayfield could


    I am dead serious when I say this: make RW the co-offensive coordinator, he has put in the work and has a better feel for the flow of the offense.

    I absolutely believe that he would do a better job of calling plays than Schotty.
    DomeHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1065
    Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:20 am
    Location: Meadowdale


  • John63 wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:
    No it's not if it says the Entire NFL threw more then ran, we know better since the Seahawks are in the NFL, and rushed more then we threw the ball.



    I did not see any place in this article were it said " Entire NFL threw more then ran"


    See it now?



    Here is what was said with regards to ran or run

    "The Seahawks Just Ran Themselves Out of the Playoffs"
    "NFL teams ran less in 2018 than any other season in NFL history."
    "Fancy that! Seattle naturally ran the ball on first and second down for a combined 5 yards before Wilson bailed them out again on third-and-5, then watched Carson get a 1-yard rush and said “screw it, I’ll do it myself” and ran the ball in for a touchdown."
    "Yet those games came against Kansas City and Arizona, who ranked 32nd and 29th in rushing defense DVOA. The Cowboys ranked fifth, and they played like it on Saturday."
    "these two stats are related. Passing is more efficient than running, and the entire NFL is running less and scoring more."
    "Head coach Pete Carroll and offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer stuck to the run despite MVP-caliber quarterback Russell Wilson idling in the backfield like an unused getaway Ferrari in a bank robbery. "
    "he quarterback finished the game with 18 completions on 27 attempts for 233 yards and a solid 8.6 yards per pass attempt, more than three times as efficient as the team’s running plays."
    "Their first drive of the third quarter featured two runs for 4 yards and a Wilson incompletion on third-and-6 that forced a punt and a three-and-out. "
    "The drive after that nearly ended with a run, yes a run, by backup running back Mike Davis on third-and-7 that gained 2 yards."
    "Under Schottenheimer (and likely at the direction of Carroll), Seattle was the only team to run more than it passed in 2018. "
    "Admittedly, Seattle did quite well running the ball at the tail end of the season, managing 392 rushing yards in the final two games of the season."
    "Unlike Baltimore, Seattle did not run in a unique style that changes the fundamental math of football and hides a raw quarterback, like when the Ravens have Lamar Jackson run a read-option."


    No place does it say " Entire NFL threw more then ran" The closest thing is "NFL teams ran less in 2018 than any other season in NFL history." or "These two stats are related. Passing is more efficient than running, and the entire NFL is running less and scoring more."

    And all 3 are true statements

    Example this year the entire NFL ran the ball 13270 times but passed it 17671. So the NFL did pass more than run


    So you didn't post that link that said
    the entire NFL is running less and scoring more
    that I highlighted and now you say that it didn't say it , I guess since it's under your name someone hacked your account then.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 25887
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • And, while I am at it: FIRE SCHOTTY NOW!

    That performance was more than enough to get anyone fired. Pull the trigger Pete!

    I do NOT want to go through another 3-4 years of Bevel-esque frustration!
    DomeHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1065
    Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:20 am
    Location: Meadowdale


  • chris98251 wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:
    John63 wrote:

    I did not see any place in this article were it said " Entire NFL threw more then ran"


    See it now?



    Here is what was said with regards to ran or run

    "The Seahawks Just Ran Themselves Out of the Playoffs"
    "NFL teams ran less in 2018 than any other season in NFL history."
    "Fancy that! Seattle naturally ran the ball on first and second down for a combined 5 yards before Wilson bailed them out again on third-and-5, then watched Carson get a 1-yard rush and said “screw it, I’ll do it myself” and ran the ball in for a touchdown."
    "Yet those games came against Kansas City and Arizona, who ranked 32nd and 29th in rushing defense DVOA. The Cowboys ranked fifth, and they played like it on Saturday."
    "these two stats are related. Passing is more efficient than running, and the entire NFL is running less and scoring more."
    "Head coach Pete Carroll and offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer stuck to the run despite MVP-caliber quarterback Russell Wilson idling in the backfield like an unused getaway Ferrari in a bank robbery. "
    "he quarterback finished the game with 18 completions on 27 attempts for 233 yards and a solid 8.6 yards per pass attempt, more than three times as efficient as the team’s running plays."
    "Their first drive of the third quarter featured two runs for 4 yards and a Wilson incompletion on third-and-6 that forced a punt and a three-and-out. "
    "The drive after that nearly ended with a run, yes a run, by backup running back Mike Davis on third-and-7 that gained 2 yards."
    "Under Schottenheimer (and likely at the direction of Carroll), Seattle was the only team to run more than it passed in 2018. "
    "Admittedly, Seattle did quite well running the ball at the tail end of the season, managing 392 rushing yards in the final two games of the season."
    "Unlike Baltimore, Seattle did not run in a unique style that changes the fundamental math of football and hides a raw quarterback, like when the Ravens have Lamar Jackson run a read-option."


    No place does it say " Entire NFL threw more then ran" The closest thing is "NFL teams ran less in 2018 than any other season in NFL history." or "These two stats are related. Passing is more efficient than running, and the entire NFL is running less and scoring more."

    And all 3 are true statements

    Example this year the entire NFL ran the ball 13270 times but passed it 17671. So the NFL did pass more than run


    So you didn't post that link that said
    the entire NFL is running less and scoring more
    that I highlighted and now you say that it didn't say it , I guess since it's under your name someone hacked your account then.


    Well first off as I pointed out that is true, but again the article does not say "Entire NFL threw more then ran" and again, either way, it is true I showed it, the NFL as a whole through 17671 times and ran only 13270, He does not say every team, he says the NFL that would be in total. I think that is where our disconnect is.
    John63
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 262
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:56 pm


  • DomeHawk wrote:And, while I am at it: FIRE SCHOTTY NOW!

    That performance was more than enough to get anyone fired. Pull the trigger Pete!

    I do NOT want to go through another 3-4 years of Bevel-esque frustration!


    not sure it would matter not convinced it is the OC but the HC
    John63
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 262
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:56 pm


  • John63 wrote:
    DomeHawk wrote:And, while I am at it: FIRE SCHOTTY NOW!

    That performance was more than enough to get anyone fired. Pull the trigger Pete!

    I do NOT want to go through another 3-4 years of Bevel-esque frustration!


    not sure it would matter not convinced it is the OC but the HC


    You might be right.

    The reason I am so frustrated is, in so many years playing and watching the game, that might be the worst second-half offensive coaching performance I have ever seen.

    I mean that.
    DomeHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1065
    Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:20 am
    Location: Meadowdale


  • DomeHawk wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    DomeHawk wrote:And, while I am at it: FIRE SCHOTTY NOW!

    That performance was more than enough to get anyone fired. Pull the trigger Pete!

    I do NOT want to go through another 3-4 years of Bevel-esque frustration!


    not sure it would matter not convinced it is the OC but the HC


    You might be right.

    The reason I am so frustrated is, in so many years playing and watching the game, that might be the worst second-half offensive coaching performance I have ever seen.

    I mean that.



    I am with you been playing, coaching, reffing and watching for over 50 years
    John63
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 262
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:56 pm


  • John63 wrote:
    DomeHawk wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    DomeHawk wrote:And, while I am at it: FIRE SCHOTTY NOW!

    That performance was more than enough to get anyone fired. Pull the trigger Pete!

    I do NOT want to go through another 3-4 years of Bevel-esque frustration!


    not sure it would matter not convinced it is the OC but the HC


    You might be right.

    The reason I am so frustrated is, in so many years playing and watching the game, that might be the worst second-half offensive coaching performance I have ever seen.

    I mean that.



    I am with you been playing, coaching, reffing and watching for over 50 years


    For a team you're rooting for? Cause we could rattle off some humdingers for other teams
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3511
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • mrt144 wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    DomeHawk wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    not sure it would matter not convinced it is the OC but the HC


    You might be right.

    The reason I am so frustrated is, in so many years playing and watching the game, that might be the worst second-half offensive coaching performance I have ever seen.

    I mean that.



    I am with you been playing, coaching, reffing and watching for over 50 years


    For a team you're rooting for? Cause we could rattle off some humdingers for other teams


    LOL yeah we could
    John63
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 262
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:56 pm


  • gammam wrote:Why is it that we blame the play calling when the play fails but when its successful we say the players did it? it just seems selective in trying to build an argument. Couldn't it be that the plays called were actually ok and that they players didn't execute? Why is Russel the king of passing when things go well (and he made some amazing throws) but when he can't complete on 3rd down we don't hold him accountable? Its very selective anger I am hearing.

    I'm not arguing that we had a perfect game called by coaches but the bias against the play calling stinks like Bevell hangover...

    game 1 and 2 we blamed the play calling too when we didn't run enough. Nobody was saying pass more then. people get angry that on 3 and 17 we run a conservative play which has little to no hope of being successful (there is more to it than that, long developing pass plays need good protection, create dangerous turnover scenarios - one we struggle with and the other we are allergic too). How about don't get in 3rd and 17 with penalties or sacks? Those down and distances do not succeed in the NFL, so playing the numbers makes sense.

    We are in close games every game because of the same conservative mentality that we also complain about when it isn't successful. Its hard to lose but suddenly the heavy run game is the worst idea ever?

    Dance with the girl you brought. /rant

    If the OC is -> ADJUSTING <- he is -> OPTIMIZING <-, if he is staying with a game plan that isn't producing, he deserves the criticisms that are sure to follow.
    The Cowboys were the 5th BEST Defense Against The Run all season, which called for a game plan that -> MAXIMIZES <- your Players to compensate for THEIR Players WEAKNESSES.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6675
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


  • scutterhawk wrote:
    gammam wrote:Why is it that we blame the play calling when the play fails but when its successful we say the players did it? it just seems selective in trying to build an argument. Couldn't it be that the plays called were actually ok and that they players didn't execute? Why is Russel the king of passing when things go well (and he made some amazing throws) but when he can't complete on 3rd down we don't hold him accountable? Its very selective anger I am hearing.

    I'm not arguing that we had a perfect game called by coaches but the bias against the play calling stinks like Bevell hangover...

    game 1 and 2 we blamed the play calling too when we didn't run enough. Nobody was saying pass more then. people get angry that on 3 and 17 we run a conservative play which has little to no hope of being successful (there is more to it than that, long developing pass plays need good protection, create dangerous turnover scenarios - one we struggle with and the other we are allergic too). How about don't get in 3rd and 17 with penalties or sacks? Those down and distances do not succeed in the NFL, so playing the numbers makes sense.

    We are in close games every game because of the same conservative mentality that we also complain about when it isn't successful. Its hard to lose but suddenly the heavy run game is the worst idea ever?

    Dance with the girl you brought. /rant

    If the OC is -> ADJUSTING <- he is -> OPTIMIZING <-, if he is staying with a game plan that isn't producing, he deserves the criticisms that are sure to follow.
    The Cowboys were the 5th BEST Defense Against The Run all season, which called for a game plan that -> MAXIMIZES <- your Players to compensate for THEIR Players WEAKNESSES.

    This is the definition of good coaching. In a salary capped league, maximizing strengths, minimizing weakness and exposing/taking advantage of oppositions weaknesses is the difference between success and failure. I think Pete does a pretty good job of maximizing strengths and minimizing weakness, but he routinely gets blindsided by not gameplanning correctly for the way our opponents are put together. The wild card game made that glaringly obvious. I think this is where Pete needs to focus. He does the rest of his job exceptionally well. We see this as "playing down to bad teams or up to good ones" .

    The reality is just do what we do regardless of the other team, and sometimes it works. I don't mind being a run first team, but as has been said, we have the tools here to adjust to win games.

    I don't think he will change though. He is set in his ways, and convinced it will eventually work again once the young defense matures. He might be right, but it seems like a much lower probability of success than being able to slightly adapt to take advantage of opportunities when they arise.

    If you rewatch the cowboys game, they didnt do anything creative. They just stacked the box and completely sold out to stop the run and contain wilson from running. The back end was always super sparse. As we saw in the 4th quarter, we easily took advantage of that, just wished we would have done it earlier.
    johnnyfever
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1187
    Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 3:38 pm
    Location: Spokane


  • johnnyfever wrote: The reality is just do what we do regardless of the other team, and sometimes it works. I don't mind being a run first team, but as has been said, we have the tools here to adjust to win games.

    I don't think he will change though. He is set in his ways, and convinced it will eventually work again once the young defense matures. He might be right, but it seems like a much lower probability of success than being able to slightly adapt to take advantage of opportunities when they arise.

    If you rewatch the cowboys game, they didnt do anything creative. They just stacked the box and completely sold out to stop the run and contain wilson from running. The back end was always super sparse. As we saw in the 4th quarter, we easily took advantage of that, just wished we would have done it earlier.


    Pete is nothing if not adaptable. Does he always adapt timely? NO.
    Pete brings his philosophy and it is one that has worked for him for national titles and a Super Bowl win.
    We saw this year how badly Pete was hamstrung by Bevell and Cable for YEARS due to Pete's excessively loyalty to the INCOMPETENT Tom Cable. (In hindsight it's hard to blame Bevell quite so much given the defective Cable O-Lines he had to work with to try to make playcalls work)

    The interesting thing is that Pete was actually *right* about his approach, to this game, but Wagner and McDougald BOTH failing to tackle Dak short of the first down and force a field goal--that was an outlier occurrence. If they stop Prescott there, the Seahawks probably win. Then there was Tre Flowers losing contain on that Zeke 41 yard run leading to the Cowboys TD just prior to half--rookie mistake, guarantee he won't make again. However, the larger criticisms are still very valid. Seahawks O going 3 and out repeatedly left an average Seahawks defense out there too long, and they got tired and couldn't stop Dallas, with the most critical failure being the Dak run on 3rd and 14.

    Pete's plan A did not allow enough margin for error. As TwistedHusky stated, Pete needed to go in with the plan that the offense needs to score 28 or more, because the D is ilkely to give up 21-24 points against that Dallas O. And really, Pete should have thought in terms of Dallas scoring 28, allowing for fluke plays, a pick 6, etc., and having a game plan/target to score 31, and adjusting in-game with more urgency when it was clear the run game was getting stuffed.

    I guarantee Pete will review and reevaluate *everything* this offseason. Schotty will for sure be back, and that is a very good thing. Russell is progressing forward again. I think after Cable Pete may have learned his lesson on excessive loyalty to assistant coaches who are not performing.

    The truth is that Pete is one of the most adaptable NFL Head Coaches EVER. Who is more adaptable? Only one comes to mind. Yeah, that guy. Look at all the non-adapting NFL head coaches who are long gone, that Pete has FAR outlasted.

    It's HARD to adapt in real-time, in the heat of the moment, in a hard-fought physical battle, and Pete deluded himself, thinking "We're up 14-10 in the 4th, my plan is WORKING!!" I think Pete's adaptation to this year's playoff lesson will take multiple forms, which he will address primarily through offseason planning; yes, he will continue to improve the D; that's a given. Next year's D might be good enough to cover up a failed game plan like the Dallas game, like the '13 and '14 Seahawks D's were. I believe Pete will also work to improve game planning (wtih Schotty) and having a better-developed Plan B and Plan C for when Plan A isn't working, and will develop a better system, with his assistants, on when to switch to Plan B or Plan C during a game.

    TwistedHusky had a fantastic analysis earlier in this thread. (Copied below) Maybe Pete will hire him as a game plan and n in-game QC coach, to be his Jiminy Cricket, telling Pete when it's time to cut bait and move to a different plan? Certainly, the game was a strategy and adjustment failure; when our strength (Run offense) failed to overpower their strength (Run defense), we did not adjust rapidly enough, to try a different strength (Russell's passing, and maybe even an up-tempo offense) and force Dallas to try to adapt to that strength.

    TwistedHusky wrote:The best players play even better in the playoffs.
    Our best player is Wilson.

    Wouldn't it make sense to adjust our approach in order to allow him to have more impact on the game, knowing that his escalating his level of play gives us a much better chance to win.

    I get playing the %s but you are playing bad math if you think putting the outcome of the game on lesser players is going to pan out for you.

    We relied on our average defense to save the game (which made no sense) in hoping it would not give up scores. That was a mistake.

    We expected our offense to be able to keep the game close and then allow Wilson to come back near the end. But that neglects the reality that each failed offensive possession in the interim is going to make you have to spin the wheel with your defense. Some of those possessions are going to result in the opposing offense scoring.

    They did and people blamed the defense. But those people are morons. Because the defense did its job. It allowed scoring that was below the league average. The offense did not meet the league average in this game. Your magic # is 28.
    28 pts is what a winner generally scores. Our defense gave up 24.

    We seemed to be satisfied when we hit 14-10 but we were nowhere near on pace to hit 28 and our defense was assuredly going to give up additional scores. So we lost - because that is exactly what happened.
    olyfan63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2179
    Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:03 am


  • https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you-called-a-run-on-first-down-youre-already-screwed/


    R-R-P is literally the worst approach not only league wide, but also with the SEAHAWKS!

    Seattle R-R-P more than anyone in the league.

    The most effective approach is P-P-R league wide which of course is not coincidentally the opposite of R-R-P.


    "Over the course of the 2018 season, there was no three-play sequence that Seattle favored more than rush-rush-pass. The Seahawks called rush-rush-pass 26 percent of the time, a rate 10 percentage points higher than league average. Yet despite the high frequency with which Carroll and offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer used the pattern, they were not successful with it. Just 41.2 percent of their rush-rush-pass sequences ended in success. Meanwhile, on three-play sequences where the Seahawks started with a pass and mixed in a run afterward, they were successful 88.9 percent of the time (pass-rush-rush), 71.4 percent of the time (pass-pass-rush) and 50 percent (pass-rush-pass) of the time."
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2064
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • Fade wrote:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you-called-a-run-on-first-down-youre-already-screwed/


    R-R-P is literally the worst approach not only league wide, but also with the SEAHAWKS!

    Seattle R-R-P more than anyone in the league.

    The most effective approach is P-P-R league wide which of course is not coincidentally the opposite of R-R-P.


    "Over the course of the 2018 season, there was no three-play sequence that Seattle favored more than rush-rush-pass. The Seahawks called rush-rush-pass 26 percent of the time, a rate 10 percentage points higher than league average. Yet despite the high frequency with which Carroll and offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer used the pattern, they were not successful with it. Just 41.2 percent of their rush-rush-pass sequences ended in success. Meanwhile, on three-play sequences where the Seahawks started with a pass and mixed in a run afterward, they were successful 88.9 percent of the time (pass-rush-rush), 71.4 percent of the time (pass-pass-rush) and 50 percent (pass-rush-pass) of the time."


    Do Pete and Schotty have enough humility to soak this in?

    Edit: This also reminds me of looking at the run direction stats from Football Outsiders in 2016 and 2017 and seeing a consistent pattern where the direction and types of run that were most selected were also the least effective which isn't too surprising except for LEAST effective. LEAST.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3511
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • We came into this season knowing that the defense was young, we lacked depth, and that the offense would have to shoulder much of the burden. Yet we have media members and fans blaming the defense. Unbelievable
    Scorpion05
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1012
    Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:05 am


  • Biased Article IMO

    The author of the Ringer article self identifies as antagonistic toward Brian Schottenheimer and Pete Carroll style of football. That doesn't support any semblance of a balanced article offering any useful utility. What such biased and narrowly focused articles do is generate comments of similar bias from similar antagonists. Perhaps that is it's sole purpose.
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 8134
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:49 pm


  • Jville wrote:Biased Article IMO

    The author of the Ringer article self identifies as antagonistic toward Brian Schottenheimer and Pete Carroll style of football. That doesn't support any semblance of a balanced article offering any useful utility. What such biased and narrowly focused articles do is generate comments of similar bias from similar antagonists. Perhaps that is it's sole purpose.

    'Perhaps or maybe he is correct, a lot of articles, and experts, and PC and Schotty have said they should have adjusted earlier
    John63
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 262
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:56 pm


  • John63 wrote:
    Jville wrote:Biased Article IMO

    The author of the Ringer article self identifies as antagonistic toward Brian Schottenheimer and Pete Carroll style of football. That doesn't support any semblance of a balanced article offering any useful utility. What such biased and narrowly focused articles do is generate comments of similar bias from similar antagonists. Perhaps that is it's sole purpose.

    'Perhaps or maybe he is correct, a lot of articles, and experts, and PC and Schotty have said they should have adjusted earlier


    Of course he is ........ trapped in his own biased and antagonistic mind set ....... LOL
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 8134
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:49 pm


  • Jville wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    Jville wrote:Biased Article IMO

    The author of the Ringer article self identifies as antagonistic toward Brian Schottenheimer and Pete Carroll style of football. That doesn't support any semblance of a balanced article offering any useful utility. What such biased and narrowly focused articles do is generate comments of similar bias from similar antagonists. Perhaps that is it's sole purpose.

    'Perhaps or maybe he is correct, a lot of articles, and experts, and PC and Schotty have said they should have adjusted earlier


    Of course he is ........ trapped in his own biased and antagonistic mind set ....... LOL


    Sounds more like you dont agree so he is biased.
    John63
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 262
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:56 pm


  • John63 wrote:
    Jville wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    Jville wrote:Biased Article IMO

    The author of the Ringer article self identifies as antagonistic toward Brian Schottenheimer and Pete Carroll style of football. That doesn't support any semblance of a balanced article offering any useful utility. What such biased and narrowly focused articles do is generate comments of similar bias from similar antagonists. Perhaps that is it's sole purpose.

    'Perhaps or maybe he is correct, a lot of articles, and experts, and PC and Schotty have said they should have adjusted earlier


    Of course he is ........ trapped in his own biased and antagonistic mind set ....... LOL


    Sounds more like you dont agree so he is biased.


    Omission is the friend of bias.

    As an example, Schottenheimer and Wilson were down to two wide receivers that they fully trusted going into the wild card weekend ...... Doug Baldwin and Tyler Lockett. And that had an impact on the game plan and on the options available to them. The competition had come to understand the role of the rest of the wide receivers as decoys or blockers. In fact, running back J.D. McKissic finally saw some action as an alternative receiver. And, hind sight might have wished that had of happen sooner.

    There are other relevant omissions that befriends an authors bias. As an exercise, I'll leave it to you to uncover and identify other glaring omissions made by the article's author.
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 8134
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:49 pm




It is currently Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:26 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online