Will we lose our running identity?

So...If Marshawn does retire that gives us a fair whack extra to splash on a FA, I can imagine our run first game transition to a pass first game with the addition of one of two FA's as well as some WR draft signings to develop alongside the number 1 and 2 WR's.

Opinions? If he retires will it change our general game plan of run first?

No.

Nope. PC's team will always be run first...with or without Lynch. IMHO

I think the team may lose some of it's punishing physical, etc identity without Marshwn, but no not doing a 180 in offensive philosophy and all of a sudden throwing it 40 times a game.

Pete has always ran a balanced offense, and would continue to do so with our without Lynch. But you can't take a runner like Marshawn off this team and all that he brings attitude and how hard and physical he runs and not lose some of that identity.

Many people have the cause and effect confused. Pete will do what is required to win. If that is passing 50 times a game then so be it. It just so happens that the Seahawks are having success at this point in time by playing stellar defense and controlling the ball with the ground game.

fridayfrenzy":6imljb8i said:

Many people have the cause and effect confused. Pete will do what is required to win. If that is passing 50 times a game then so be it. It just so happens that the Seahawks are having success at this point in time by playing stellar defense and controlling the ball with the ground game.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, there is Ideal vs Reality.

Pete Ideal is a balanced ball control offense with strong defense and preventing turnovers. He is always going to try to build and maintain a team that way. If the situation of a given season forces them to throw the ball more, so be it. But hes not going to build/design a team that way.

We will lose our Identity in the Run Game when Lynch leaves, but we won't lose our Run Game Identity.

I can see where we might throw the ball more if we had a couple of dominant WRs and some weaker RBs, but it would be a situation kind of like Holmgren's offenses: we'd throw a bit to open up the run. We've already done that, based upon opponent's strengths and weaknesses.

Right now, even if Lynch retired, no way we would start slinging the ball around 30+ times a game. I don't care how the WRs are, our OL isn't built for it, and Wilson would end up getting worn down and beat up.

We have one of the worst pass blocking OL's in the league. We'll run it next year not matter what.

We couldn't complete a pass until almost halftime in the Super Bowl. If we lose our running identity we're screwwwwwed.

Dont think so. If Marshawn leaves we would trade for a veteran back. I am thinking Christine Micheal has ball security issues. He cant be trusted in critical situations right now. I assume he will be given all the preseason work load. to really see what we have.

It's already been said, we will not lose our identity more so the attitude our offense has when Lynch is out there playing.

However, I believe that the offensive philosophy of Pete Carroll, mixed with the success that we have achieved as a result to the run game we are committed to will lead many RB's to want to come play for us. No longer will we have to sign over the hill RB's ( J. Jones, R. Watters). instead they will seek us out because they know they can be successful. Take this off season for example. IF Lynch did retire (which I don't think he will) were all talking, legitimately mind you about guys like AP and DeMarco coming to play. two premier RB's that know they could be successful.

During the playoffs I read on another website that If Eddie Lacy hit the market he would be a perfect fit in Seattle. The article gave props to Lynch's success that RB's can be successful in our system and that Seattle could be home to an RB factory in the next couple years.

First off, I fully expect Lynch back next year. But if he doesn't, what are our realistic expectations at RB? Could it be a committee of Turbin and CMike? Or do we bring someone in? I'm hearing that Adrian Peterson's days are all but over in Minnesota, curious what type of money he will demand. Another candidate who has a similar running style to Lynch is Mark Ingrham.

You find a back like we did from Buffalo, or you draft one, physical style and a guy that can catch and run were USC's hallmark, Lynch can do both and Turbin has good hands. I think the key is the hands as not to tip your play calling, slasher and speed and power and physicality. We may go platoon but we will run and run some more.

Running the football is a successful and winning formula.

It's basic: Wear down the opposing defense, chew up the clock, keep your defense rested, put together long sustained drives.

Running the ball is a lot less of a risk to turn the ball over than passing. Pete's philosophy is all about the ball.

Without Marshawn, our running game won't be as physical, but they will find other guys to hand the ball to. I don't see Wilson throwing over 40 times a game and expect to win.

I am baffled why so many people seem to forget that Russell Wilson is a passing gunslinger. Watch his college tape. One of the few times he was called on to do this in the pros was the Atlanta playoff game in 2012.

If Russell throws the ball 40 times a game, I expect we would win at a rate roughly comparable to the .750 clip of the last few years, but only IF we got him some higher quality receivers to throw to. However, our defense would spend more time on the field, from all the quick scores. It's a mixed bag. Not arguing to have Russell throw 40 times a game, but if the Lions somehow stole him from us, in the same Detroit offense, Russell would outperform Stafford and throw fewer picks and the Lions would win more games. Kid's a gunslinger. Pete just rarely turns him loose.

Let's just not have Russell throwing a bunch of 3rd-and-1 slants.

olyfan63":27yblz3u said:

If Russell throws the ball 40 times a game, I expect we would win at a rate roughly comparable to the .750 clip of the last few years, but only IF we got him some higher quality receivers to throw to.

Click to expand...

Not with the way the Hawks are currently constructed we wouldn't win at a .750 clip.

If you're gonna huck the ball around 40-50 times a game like the Patriots, Lions, Packers, etc then you have to invest in TE's and WR's.

Could Russell be successful in an offense like that? Probably, but IMO Pete and Bevell have created a perfect offense for him. Give him a nasty D and a nasty talented RB to use his allusiveness to make key plays when we need him to, as opposed to relying on him to throw it 40 times a game and have your 10M a year RB not in the equation.

I also think the way Russell plays, he'd get hurt if he had to carry a pass happy offense. That's 20 more drop backs a game where he might get hit or scramble/run and get hit.

The question in the thread title needs to be more specific. The answer is both yes and no. If the question is taken literally, the answer is no because as long as Pete is here the goal will always be to rush 50% or more of plays. However, the real answer to the question is yes.

How many times has it been said that Lynch IS our team's identity? Fans have said this. Players too. Even Pete Carroll has preached at length about how Lynch is the heart and soul of the entire franchise. If Lynch left, Seattle would still be a running team, but the "identity" of that team would change dramatically.

Both Turbin and Michael are good RBs, but neither one is physical enough to be a true "run first" back. Both are guys that would be best suited in a pass to set up the run offense like Denver. Pete Carroll is an adaptive coach, and if the Seahawks had to start Turbin/Michael next season you'd see a lot more passing on 1st downs and more running in non-obvious situations (the 3rd and long draws everyone loves so much).

The result of this would be teams game planning Wilson a lot more, and Bevell calling a lot more short, high percentage passes to set up the running game. The result would be a significant drop in YPA for Wilson, though in such a system I would expect Michael and Turbin to be very productive.

Basically, the Seahawks would shift from an 85 Bears type of identity to maybe something more along the lines of the Chip Kelly Eagles with a better defense. The Eagles are one of the highest run percentage teams in the NFL, and so are the Broncos, but that's not what those teams are known for. They are not known for being physical.

Now, I think Seattle would morph into the Eagles is exaggeration for effect. But I do think Seattle would slide in that direction if Turbin and Michael were the guys next season.

Another difference would be that Lynch is one of those rare RBs that can still take over a game consistently even when opponents make stopping him their #1 priority. Very, very few RBs in this league can still dominate even when defenses commit to stopping them.

To me, Lynch is the top priority this team should have this offseason. Do what it takes. Get him back. Make him happy.

Sgt. Largent":81zl5ni6 said:

olyfan63":81zl5ni6 said:

If Russell throws the ball 40 times a game, I expect we would win at a rate roughly comparable to the .750 clip of the last few years, but only IF we got him some higher quality receivers to throw to.

Click to expand...

Not with the way the Hawks are currently constructed we wouldn't win at a .750 clip.
<snip>

I also think the way Russell plays, he'd get hurt if he had to carry a pass happy offense. That's 20 more drop backs a game where he might get hit or scramble/run and get hit.

Click to expand...

Notice the name at the front of the list for single-season NCAA Passer Rating all-time record: Russell Wilson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NC ... ll_records
Highest passing efficiency rating, season (min. 15 attempts per game)
FBS: 191.8 – Russell Wilson, Wisconsin, 2011[14]

As far as WINs, and win rate, you don't know that and neither does anyone else. We're talking a bunch of hypotheticals here. The point is, Russell Wilson CAN carry an NFL passing offense, if called on to do so.

Pete as a coach is committed to a run-first identity. That's his current approach as a coach. If he felt he had to change for some reason, personnel available during a given season, rule changes, etc., I believe he could adapt and achieve a similar win rate with a more passing-oriented offense. Agreed, the current team is constructed as a run-first team, for a variety of reasons, but primarily because overall, Pete believes that approach gives his team the best chance to win.

We could go into how it's cheaper to find run-blocking OL and coach them up in a ZBS approach, leaving salary cap money for more defensive talent, or how on any given play, a run has less chance of a turnover; then there's the issue of a fast-scoring offense putting the defense back on the field more. Pete has his model, calculated model, of what he feels is best, and part of the equation is what he feels most comfortable in teaching. It's Pete's own "secret recipe", and it's been very successful for him for the last decade-plus at every level.

No question Russell Wilson could carry a pass-oriented offense in the NFL. Will we see that from Pete? Unlikely, without additional rule changes or player talent availability changes that shift Pete's internal calculation in that direction. Bill Belichick uses his own flavor of that particular calculation, and the Patriots were successful enough with it to win the Super Bowl. None of us expect Pete to make that type of change based merely on the SB49 result though. In fact, the SB49 result and how it occurred would argue for staying with the run-first identity.

I'm not feeling weird about losing Lynch...I dont like the way he holds this team hostage... Im not sure how the Hawks will fill that hole but I know they will and although it might not be the same production as Lynch it will be good enough... an infusion of a Number one WR and some depth to the O line might be just what they need...


LTH

I would have to question whether we truly have a running identity to begin with.

Seattle does run more than it passes. But consider our goal to goal play distribution. In that scenario, a run first team should be predominantly run v. pass. But for us, it is not at all.


Total goal to go plays in 2014: 69

Lynch runs: 26 (38%)
Wilson passes: 34 (49%)
Wilson designed runs: 6 (9%)
Other runs: 3 (4%)

By down and distance:

10+ yards: Lynch 5, Wilson passes 8, Wilson runs 0, Other runs 2
5-9 yards: Lynch 10, passes 17, Wilson runs 3, Other 0
2-4 yards: Lynch 6, passes 5, QB runs 1, Other 0
1-2 yards: Lynch 5, passes 4, QB runs 2, Other 1

Even in short yardage, Lynch runs are at 50% or less than QB plays (pass and run). Seattle actually tends to abandon it's running identity in situations where you'd expect them to really get after it with power.

In only 4 goal to go drives (out of 33 total) did we ever run Lynch more than one time in the series. From a tendency standpoint, we lay up and rely on Wilson predominantly. Ultimately, if Lynch doesn't get it in with his first carry -- he's not likely to see the ball again unless it's a pass.

I would say, that Seattle has a running identity in name only. When it comes to putting the hammer down and getting tough -- Seattle is about as finesse as it comes. That's a play calling thing entirely. And it's kind of amazing when you consider the amount of effort and talent put into the running game how quickly and reliably we abandon it when the situation calls for it the most.

Good, nah, GREAT postage Attila! Never bothered to look at it from that angle. Very interesting.