The massively underappreciated Brian Schottenheimer

Most of you clowns wanting Schotty gone right now, it took several years (or more) to realize Bevell sucked.

Give me a break. Read up on offensive schemes then analyze what we do, and WHEN we do it under Schotty compared to Bevell. Solari is a bigger upgrade to the O-line than Schotty is to the offense, but it's not the huge gap many believe it to be.

The good news is, Schotty has tons of room for improvement going forward. Better YAC, better 3rd down %, etc etc. If you don't think little things like that make a difference to the overall performance of the offense then there's no point in conversation about it. Deny that there is room for improvement and be done with it.

The OC isn't going to mean squat here as long as Pete Ball is in play. Pete needs a #1 defense to win it all because he is limited by himself only.

:snack:

Seymour":15a88ld8 said:

The OC isn't going to mean squat here as long as Pete Ball is in play. Pete needs a #1 defense to win it all because he is limited by himself only.

:snack:

Click to expand...

Pretty much. The OC can help, but with the offense on a tight leash until the final 2 mins of the 1st half. The OC & QB are performing with one arm tied behind their backs.

O-Line & Defense are far more important for how Pete wants to build his teams.

By way of observation, these are among the same words and phrases we saw during the Chuck Knox era.

"A stubborn headed refusal to ...............

" ....... you have to have an imaginative modern offense that isn't ..........

" ...........and that's by having a boneheaded offensive philosophy .............

"It is beyond obvious, the offense has to get more creative ..............

" ......... but with the offense on a tight leash......................

" .......... performing with one arm tied behind their backs ......

Click to expand...

Many find a run 1st philosophy intolerable because they are not entertained. Instead, they are all in on a pass first offense because of individual preference. Personal preferences drive much of what is posted here.

flv":1o3ckla5 said:

Scottenheimer's record in close games, (games decided by 8 points or less), is far better than I thought it was. He was 25-22 with the Jets during their 51-45 overall record, and he was 8-10-1 with the Rams during their 20-27-1 overall record. I can't say it was his offense or the team's defense that was ultimately responsible, and i'm still not a big fan, but labelling him as a sub .400 coach is close games is unjustified.

...even if the Seahawks were 5-6 in 1-score games last year.

Click to expand...

So across these three stops he's 38-38-2 in games decided by 8 points or less. He's .500 perfectly.

This is what we'd expect, as over time one socre games* are coin flips, and for the most part you'd find the exact same thing with everybody.**


*This is usually done with 3 points or 7 points, not sure why you picked 8 (which is debatable, given that the 2 pt conversion rate is slightly under 50%), but I think we can extrapolate.

**The exception to this is really, really good teams tend to over-perform on average in one score games and really, really bad teams tend to under-perform, but that's easily explainable and doesn't contradict the basic finding. In essence, really good teams tend to go up early and really bad teams tend to go down early, so by the time you get to the fourth quarter the good teams are bleeding out the clock, meaning sometimes the bad teams "lose" one score games that they were never really in to begin with, and the good teams "win" one score games that are only one score games to begin with because of clock bleeding.

RolandDeschain":nuapuy8h said:

Smellyman":nuapuy8h said:

Bev+Solari is probably better than Schotty+Solari

Click to expand...

Absolutely not.

Click to expand...

Agree!

Popeyejones":2fgl5e71 said:

So across these three stops he's 38-38-2 in games decided by 8 points or less. He's .500 perfectly.

This is what we'd expect, as over time one socre games* are coin flips, and for the most part you'd find the exact same thing with everybody.**


*This is usually done with 3 points or 7 points, not sure why you picked 8 (which is debatable, given that the 2 pt conversion rate is slightly under 50%), but I think we can extrapolate.

**The exception to this is really, really good teams tend to over-perform on average in one score games and really, really bad teams tend to under-perform, but that's easily explainable and doesn't contradict the basic finding. In essence, really good teams tend to go up early and really bad teams tend to go down early, so by the time you get to the fourth quarter the good teams are bleeding out the clock, meaning sometimes the bad teams "lose" one score games that they were never really in to begin with, and the good teams "win" one score games that are only one score games to begin with because of clock bleeding.

Click to expand...

I weighed in on this topic because i've watched quite a lot of Schottenheimer's NFL career as an OC. He's 81- 78-1 as an OC. He's 38-38-1 in close games. Both numbers surprised me. There wasn't an agenda behind 8 points or 7 points. The agenda was in my perception that he was well under .500 in close games, which didn't hold true. I don't know if 7 points would be significantly different but I doubt it. There are several possible reasons for the discrepancy. #1 is obviously that my memory is faulty. It's possible he's a good 4th quarter OC who turned narrow wins into big wins and big defeats into narrow defeats. It's also possible he's a bad 4th quarter OC who turns narrow defeats into big defeats and close wins into close losses. I honestly think that's more accurate than him being a good 4th quarter OC but i'm not going to spend the time collating 4th quarter point differentials. In his previous 2 NFL stints he almost always had an offense that had less cap resources put into it than the team's defense. In those circumstances it's tough to look good and I always tried to take that into account. If there's 1 game that sticks with me it's a Rams-49ers game when the 49ers had injuries at NT and ILB and the Rams had Steven Jackson. The very predictable game plan was to run the ball up the middle - except Jackson was unavailable leaving the Rams with outside RB Richardson and the 49ers weren't so weak up the middle. The Rams ended up crashing the A-gaps 20 times for about 24 yards. At some point you would have thought Schottenheimer would have adjusted, but it didn't happen. 0 sweeps, 0 reverses, and another big loss. Overall he's not a bad OC. He's an OC whose stubbornness drags him back to being average.

Jville":15gwcrjd said:

By way of observation, these are among the same words and phrases we saw during the Chuck Knox era.

"A stubborn headed refusal to ...............

" ....... you have to have an imaginative modern offense that isn't ..........

" ...........and that's by having a boneheaded offensive philosophy .............

"It is beyond obvious, the offense has to get more creative ..............

" ......... but with the offense on a tight leash......................

" .......... performing with one arm tied behind their backs ......

Click to expand...

Many find a run 1st philosophy intolerable because they are not entertained. Instead, they are all in on a pass first offense because of individual preference. Personal preferences drive much of what is posted here.

Click to expand...

I am a balanced offense guy 50/50. With a shade towards the run. 50.5 to 49.5. Hardly pass happy.

You can run too much, and you can pass too much.

The key is to find the sweet spot.

Context wise Pete wanted to over correct because of the previous two seasons of not being to run the ball at all. They will still be run 1st this year again, but they are going to dial it back a tick.

They will run playaction more on 1st down this year, and they will throw to the backs more in general.

Their 1st down run % will drop down from 64% I guarantee it.

Something being left out of the critique of Schottenheimer, who the head coach was, and who his QB was.


NY Coaches: Eric Mangina, Rex Ryan QBs: Chad Pennington, Kellen Clemens, Brett Favre, Mark "The Sanchize" Sanchez, Geno Smith

Rams Coach: Jeff Fisher QBs: Sam Bradford, Kellen Clemens, Austin Davis, Shaun Hill.

Do I think Schotty is a top talent at OC? No. But he's a very good OC that can get us to, and win a SuperB Owl. Even with a mediocre defense.

During the last half of the season the Seahawks were scoring 30 points a game. That's 4+ touchdowns every game. He's a good OC, and I expect we go deep in the playoffs this year now that everyone has learned the offense.

ivotuk":14npdhm7 said:

Something being left out of the critique of Schottenheimer, who the head coach was, and who his QB was.


NY Coaches: Eric Mangina, Rex Ryan QBs: Chad Pennington, Kellen Clemens, Brett Favre, Mark "The Sanchize" Sanchez, Geno Smith

Rams Coach: Jeff Fisher QBs: Sam Bradford, Kellen Clemens, Austin Davis, Shaun Hill.

Do I think Schotty is a top talent at OC? No. But he's a very good OC that can get us to, and win a SuperB Owl. Even with a mediocre defense.

During the last half of the season the Seahawks were scoring 30 points a game. That's 4+ touchdowns every game. He's a good OC, and I expect we go deep in the playoffs this year now that everyone has learned the offense.

Click to expand...

The thing that strikes me though is that maybe, perhaps, he picked up some very conservative best practices based on the QB talent he had in the stable. Is RW as bereft of talent as these other quarterbacks? Certianly not, but some of the telltale signs of Schotty's overall ethos are already here.

ivotuk":530uao8t said:

Something being left out of the critique of Schottenheimer, who the head coach was, and who his QB was.


NY Coaches: Eric Mangina, Rex Ryan QBs: Chad Pennington, Kellen Clemens, Brett Favre, Mark "The Sanchize" Sanchez, Geno Smith

Rams Coach: Jeff Fisher QBs: Sam Bradford, Kellen Clemens, Austin Davis, Shaun Hill.

Do I think Schotty is a top talent at OC? No. But he's a very good OC that can get us to, and win a SuperB Owl. Even with a mediocre defense.

During the last half of the season the Seahawks were scoring 30 points a game. That's 4+ touchdowns every game. He's a good OC, and I expect we go deep in the playoffs this year now that everyone has learned the offense.

Click to expand...

He helped Wilson improve his pocket mechanics, and made him a better QB. He along with Solari remade their running game, adding far more varriance to it which it desperately needed. Schotty also improved the redzone pass-playcalling last year. This year I would like him to see him improve his play selection on 2nd and long. Way too many giveup plays on that down & distance.

That DAL playoff game was absolutely brutal though. Whenever I start to get optomistic, I think about that game and wonder how a good OC, takes the ball out of his best player's hands play after play after play. When he was effective, when given his very limited opportunities. (8 YPPA) vs (2 YPRA).

Its going to take a while for me after that performance to rubber stamp him as very good. Very good gets you head coaching offers.

Right now he is in the easily better than Bevell category, and I need to see another season due to him spending so many seasons with Bad QBs. and mediocre HCs as you mentioned. There really isn't enough there to actually evaluate. Unless you subscribe to the theory he made them Bad QBs. I don't, but also too he has never developed a young star QB as an OC either.

The book on him is he can turn you into a great running team, and he can Marty Ball you right out of the playoffs.

That is exactly what happened in year 1. Spooky.

I'm not going to hold anything Schottenheimer did with the Jets against him.

The Jets, as a franchise, have had a top-10 scoring offense twice and a top-10 yards offense 4 times IN THE LAST 30 YEARS.

In fact, Schotty had the ONLY top-10 yardage offense for the Jets in the past TWENTY years.

So shitting on him because he didn't field top-10 offenses with the Jets is absurd in the extreme.

Fade":l9mbh2x9 said:

ivotuk":l9mbh2x9 said:

Something being left out of the critique of Schottenheimer, who the head coach was, and who his QB was.


NY Coaches: Eric Mangina, Rex Ryan QBs: Chad Pennington, Kellen Clemens, Brett Favre, Mark "The Sanchize" Sanchez, Geno Smith

Rams Coach: Jeff Fisher QBs: Sam Bradford, Kellen Clemens, Austin Davis, Shaun Hill.

Do I think Schotty is a top talent at OC? No. But he's a very good OC that can get us to, and win a SuperB Owl. Even with a mediocre defense.

During the last half of the season the Seahawks were scoring 30 points a game. That's 4+ touchdowns every game. He's a good OC, and I expect we go deep in the playoffs this year now that everyone has learned the offense.

Click to expand...

He helped Wilson improve his pocket mechanics, and made him a better QB. He along with Solari remade their running game, adding far more varriance to it which it desperately needed. Schotty also improved the redzone pass-playcalling last year. This year I would like him to see him improve his play selection on 2nd and long. Way too many giveup plays on that down & distance.

That DAL playoff game was absolutely brutal though. Whenever I start to get optomistic, I think about that game and wonder how a good OC, takes the ball out of his best player's hands play after play after play. When he was effective, when given his very limited opportunities. (8 YPPA) vs (2 YPRA).

Its going to take a while for me after that performance to rubber stamp him as very good. Very good gets you head coaching offers.

Right now he is in the easily better than Bevell category, and I need to see another season due to him spending so many seasons with Bad QBs. and mediocre HCs as you mentioned. There really isn't enough there to actually evaluate. Unless you subscribe to the theory he made them Bad QBs. I don't, but also too he has never developed a young star QB as an OC either.

The book on him is he can turn you into a great running team, and he can Marty Ball you right out of the playoffs.

That is exactly what happened in year 1. Spooky.

Click to expand...

At what point in that game would you have abandoned the running game?

Jville":16wjclj6 said:

By way of observation, these are among the same words and phrases we saw during the Chuck Knox era.

"A stubborn headed refusal to ...............

" ....... you have to have an imaginative modern offense that isn't ..........

" ...........and that's by having a boneheaded offensive philosophy .............

"It is beyond obvious, the offense has to get more creative ..............

" ......... but with the offense on a tight leash......................

" .......... performing with one arm tied behind their backs ......

Click to expand...

Many find a run 1st philosophy intolerable because they are not entertained. Instead, they are all in on a pass first offense because of individual preference. Personal preferences drive much of what is posted here.

Click to expand...

Yep, there's a lot of non-expert experts round these parts.
Passing attacks are always more action packed, and run first game plans, where you are most times grinding out wins almost always seem to leave us fans feeling like there's just something missing.
As already shown, Offensive stats for last season, rival Mike Holmgren's 2005's Offense, and that is actually a GOOD thing, AND, Doug Baldwin was playing INJURED for most of 2018, another of Wilson's targets, Will Dissley (sp) was injured and out, so Wilson Lockett & Carson were pretty much the only healthy players THAT GOT KEY'D ON in the Dallas (AWAY GAME) loss.

I want the team to pound the crap out of the rock. It just seems like at times, you need to decide how many times you're going to bash your head against the wall before you try something new. This team could CLEARLY throw the ball on Dallas. Very good chance they win that game if they let Russ actually chuck it around and let him be who he is.
I prefer a run the rock, eat the clock approach. Just seems like sometimes, they wait way too long to adjust to something else IF the running game isn't working. But, they were the top running game in the NFL, so easier said than done obviously.

Fade":1h0lqt80 said:

He Marty ball'd the Seahawks right out of the playoffs, there is nothing to appreciate. He is still better than Bevell, but that isn't saying much.

OP should be praising Mike Solari instead. He is the biggest reason why they improved.


@Tical.

Russell Wilson doesn't need an elite running game to be an elite PA passer. He was better in 2016 with an anemic running game.

Wilson is a beast that props up the under performers around him, he has been doing it his whole career. You should apreciate that more.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/PFF_Seahawks/status/1141450260218204160[/tweet]




Sam Gold recently did a breakdown on Luck vs Wilson as pure passers, factoring in scheme.Sam Gold pointed out how their inefficient scheme puts Wilson in constant 3rd and longs, and then Wilson bails them out.

[youtube]k2o2Y49_0xU[/youtube]


Wilson consistently has less open receivers, worse O-Line, and unoptimal play calling.

Wilson is by no means perfect, he has his flaws, as every elite QB does. But make no mistake, Wilson last year propped up a 5-11 type of offense and made it a respectable 10-6 type of offense.

The defense is going to have to win the championships, as Pete has too tight of a leash on the O, for them to ever maximize their true ceiling.

That is where everyone's energy needs to lie. Getting the defense to an elite level again. That will be the difference if the Seahawks ever become a dominant team again. It has to happen on defense.

Click to expand...

There is a lot of really flawed logic in that video. For example:

It is in my strong opinion that Pete Carroll and Brian Schottenheimer are wasting Wilson's talents and they're being a lot more inefficient than they could be - even if you compare the Seahawks and Colts on first-downs, Seattle was actually more efficient at passing passing than the Colts, yet they did it literally half as much. This just doesn't make any sense. Yes, you could argue that increasing passing attempts might decrease efficiency, but this effect is not enough to sway the relative gain you get from passing.

Click to expand...

He believes the Seahawks are being less efficient than they could be on offense. He then tells us that they are more efficient than the Colts passing the ball while having half the number of attempts. He concludes that even though adding more passing attempts might decrease the Seahawk's efficiency, it's not enough to offset the relative gain from passing... What?

Here's the thing, the Seahawk's system is by definition maximizing Wilson's efficiency. You can argue that his talents are being under utilized and that the under-utilization, despite being more efficient, is not better for the offense as a whole. That's fine. Just don't lead your argument by describing the Seahawk's system as being 'a lot more inefficient than it could be' with regards to Wilson's talents while only providing evidence to the contrary and failing to account for the degrees of freedom in your analysis (the bold-ed section).

I doubt I'm the only one who wishes this team would go for the throat in the 1st half of games. This whole feel each other out in the first half stuff gets old. I see WHY they do it, but sometimes it just seems like the first half of so many games, they are just going thru the motions.

Fade":q8g8vb3y said:

He Marty ball'd the Seahawks right out of the playoffs, there is nothing to appreciate. He is still better than Bevell, but that isn't saying much.

OP should be praising Mike Solari instead. He is the biggest reason why they improved.


@Tical.

Russell Wilson doesn't need an elite running game to be an elite PA passer. He was better in 2016 with an anemic running game.

Wilson is a beast that props up the under performers around him, he has been doing it his whole career. You should apreciate that more.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/PFF_Seahawks/status/1141450260218204160[/tweet]




Sam Gold recently did a breakdown on Luck vs Wilson as pure passers, factoring in scheme.Sam Gold pointed out how their inefficient scheme puts Wilson in constant 3rd and longs, and then Wilson bails them out.

[youtube]k2o2Y49_0xU[/youtube]


Wilson consistently has less open receivers, worse O-Line, and unoptimal play calling.

Wilson is by no means perfect, he has his flaws, as every elite QB does. But make no mistake, Wilson last year propped up a 5-11 type of offense and made it a respectable 10-6 type of offense.

The defense is going to have to win the championships, as Pete has too tight of a leash on the O, for them to ever maximize their true ceiling.

That is where everyone's energy needs to lie. Getting the defense to an elite level again. That will be the difference if the Seahawks ever become a dominant team again. It has to happen on defense.

Click to expand...

LOL never going to happen, you are asking him to give props to Wilson, will not happen.

Seymour":1z0zeh9u said:

The OC isn't going to mean squat here as long as Pete Ball is in play. Pete needs a #1 defense to win it all because he is limited by himself only.

:snack:

Click to expand...

Agreed!!