Are we really a run first team anymore?

I am in the midst of wondering if we really are a run first team. In 2014 our run/pass split was 525/454. We ran the ball 53% of the time. Considering our opponents ran the ball 43% of the time I guess you could say 53% equates to run first. However if you took out Wilson's improvised runs we would have been closer to 50/50

But when I think of run first teams I think of heavy sets with multiple TE. Power "I" or pro sets with a fullback. We no longer have what you can consider a run blocking TE. Our FB was on the field for 6 snaps. When we talk about being a run first team, I am not sure I can believe it anymore.

You make some good points unfortunately we do not have a pass blocking Oline at all.

You could also consider, no one pays a Qb 80+ to just hand the ball off.

No we are not a run first team, and I doubt that was ever our goal, meaning Pete's goal. It may well have been the average fan's goal. Iirc, Pete has always wanted an evenly balanced attack. Even balance maximizes defensive uncertainty, thus maximizing offensive efficacy.

netskier":2wpja85n said:

No we are not a run first team, and I doubt that was ever our goal, meaning Pete's goal. It may well have been the average fan's goal. Iirc, Pete has always wanted an evenly balanced attack. Even balance maximizes defensive uncertainty, thus maximizing offensive efficacy.

Click to expand...

This. Pete wants a balanced attack, though he does want the toughness of a run-first team and generally uses run to establish the pass far more than the opposite. His teams use a lot of play-action off the run.

netskier":429ncm0g said:

No we are not a run first team, and I doubt that was ever our goal, meaning Pete's goal. It may well have been the average fan's goal. Iirc, Pete has always wanted an evenly balanced attack. Even balance maximizes defensive uncertainty, thus maximizing offensive efficacy.

Click to expand...

What?

Pete's style is ball-control, limit turnovers, rely on defense, rushing, and special teams to win the game. At least it used to be. This wasn't something the average fan projected, in fact many average fans wanted him to take the governor off of Russ and let him huck it more from day 1.

It's valid to point out that we have deviated a fair amount from what we once were. Sure, Pete wants a balanced attack, but one that is as heavy on running as possible without being too heavy.

Balanced means equal, as in equally weighted. Unequally weighted scales to to one side because they are not balanced.

His goal is balance, but he does not always have the weapons to achieve balance.

I am just interpreting that Pete has said over the years, plus taking into account his player resources.

How many games has this team played this season?

We almost have no choice.

Our entire defense is built to attack and my understanding is we shoot for faster guys but we also tend to have smaller players at the positions than the league average (this was based on information gathered on a study released last year so I have no idea if it is still valid).

The key with a run offense is it keeps your defense fresher, so they can play all out more. There is not as much need to pace yourself, which allows your D to fly around more.

Shifting to a pass offense, unless we do a version of the WC offense that still bleeds clock, is going to put pressure on our defense - turning our strength into a weakness. Because smaller guys faster guys tire, and tired smaller guys get slower.

One of the biggest problems with giving the keys to Wilson and letting him drive the team, instead of Lynch, is that even if he can do that, it makes those closer scoring higher scoring games. Because your defense becomes less of a factor (unless you can reliably get turnovers - I think our SB winning year 1 in 4 opponent drives ended in a turnover, which is a crazy number)

bmorepunk":2blvopzq said:

How many games has this team played this season?

Click to expand...

A good point in terms of the percentages of each type of play called. One game is nothing.

In terms of waning use of power sets and fullback, that's a trend that has spanned a few years now.

60 percent runs on Sunday, unless they get way behind. Pete likes to pound the rock, did the same thing at USC.

I don't know if the Hawks are a run first team in 2015. They sure as hell weren't in week 1. The offense is definitely evolving away from the run this year.

That said, Seattle was definitely a run first team from 2011-2014. To explain the lack of TE and FB snaps on run plays, our TEs and FBs suck ass at blocking. Our run game dominates out or 3 WR, 1 TE 1 RB (11 personnel) read option formations. I read that Lynch is averaging 4.9 yards per carry out of those looks, which is by far his best out of all the various combinations.

It was one game

Tempo has a lot to do with it. When you're playing up tempo, as we did in the second half against the Rams, you're going to see less I-formation because you're not subbing. The 11 personnel -- i.e. 3WR/1TE (Baldwin/Kearse/Lockett/Graham) -- is Seattle's best personnel group (for both run and pass), and that's the one I expect them to stick with in no huddle scenarios.

Few thoughts:

1. We're really likely more like a 50/50 team. The rush percentage is skewed slightly by designed passes where Russell scrambles and runs. Those get tallied as rushing plays but really are passing calls.

EDIT: I'd also add, that while our rushing totals are near the top of the league -- the manner in which we accumulate those totals tend to invalidate some of the presumptions we take away from that feat. Seattle isn't a power rushing team. So it's not like we're pounding teams down and wearing them out similar to a downhill power man blocking scheme. Seattle doesn't derive a lot of benefit late in games or situationally in short yardage despite their rushing acumen. We are slightly better at converting 3rd and short relative to the league average. But it's pretty small. And the sample size is pretty small too -- making it difficult to draw correlations in that regard.

2. We can't imply a change based on just one game. It was a matchup that was bad on a couple levels. One, that DL is just plain nasty. Tough to run effectively against them. Has been for a couple years now. Two, we are still breaking in 3 new OL players. It's hard to lean on that kind of inexperience.

I'd guess this week, we get a bit more run heavy. GB's defensive front is not equal to the Rams'. But despite that, I'd still expect us to ease in the new OL a bit. In the ZBS, the runs are the more complex plays for the OL. Inexperience and an understandable lack of complete trust probably affects our run/pass split. We may not start seeing our preferred play distribution until mid October.

Early last season the team went away from the run. Seattle gave a determined effort to manufacture more passes for Wilson. It didn't work. The experiment only lasted for about 5 games, ending with the trade of Harvin and a return to the previously established Wilson-era offense.

This year, I'm seeing something pretty similar.

It's just one game, but the determination to get the football to Graham and Lockett reminds me how the team was determined to find targets for Harvin last year. Seattle was actually running the ball decently well on the Rams, but opted for a pass heavy game plan despite the insane difficulty in doing so. Establishing the pass and some rhythm was a glaringly obvious objective in game 1.

Seattle just paid Wilson a lot of money, and I think that partly motivates the team to develop him into an elite passer. Trading a bajillion picks for Lockett and making a blockbuster deal for Graham actually hurt our run game, but gave Wilson two fantastic weapons. I think like with Harvin, there is a lot of internal pressure this year to justify those investments with an uptick in the passing game.

kearly":23shb8ys said:

Early last season the team went away from the run. Seattle gave a determined effort to manufacture more passes for Wilson. It didn't work. The experiment only lasted for about 5 games, ending with the trade of Harvin and a return to the previously established Wilson-era offense.

This year, I'm seeing something pretty similar.

It's just one game, but the determination to get the football to Graham and Lockett reminds me how the team was determined to find targets for Percy last year. Seattle was actually running the ball decently well on the Rams, but opted for a pass heavy game plan despite the insane difficulty in doing so.

Seattle just paid Wilson a lot of money, and I think that partly motivates the team to develop him into an elite passer. Trading a bajillion picks for Lockett and making a blockbuster deal for Graham actually hurt our run game, but gave Wilson two fantastic weapons. I think like Percy, there is a lot of internal pressure this year to justify those investments with an uptick in the passing game.

Click to expand...

We must have been watching two separate games. I thought until the 4th quarter, I was shocked at how little they targeted Graham. Almost every time Wilson targeted him it was a completion, there were hardly any forced targets to him. As far as Lockett, he was targeted just a few times and capitalized on each target. The case could be made that they both need to become more involved in the game plan early and throughout the game IMO.

I believe that the proper metric for answering this question should be snaps, and not yards gained. Either the differential or the ratio, or both, for first order approximations.

For second order approximations, use the expected values of yards gained running versus passing, compared as differentials or ratios, or both, as above.

pcbball12":1mnbf1fk said:

We must have been watching two separate games. I thought until the 4th quarter, I was shocked at how little they targeted Graham. Almost every time Wilson targeted him it was a completion, there were hardly any forced targets to him. As far as Lockett, he was targeted just a few times and capitalized on each target. The case could be made that they both need to become more involved in the game plan early and throughout the game IMO.

Click to expand...

The Rams are very good at defending TEs. As was posted elsewhere, Graham only had something like 2-3 catches per game in his previous three games against the Rams. He had six catches on eight targets on Sunday, so in relative terms it was actually a lot more action for Graham than what might have been predicted based on his past history in this matchup.

Lockett was a rookie #3 receiver, and he had #3 type targets, but it felt like at the end of the game that Wilson was looking for Graham and Lockett more than the other guys. I think he wanted to get them going. Sometimes you feed targets to players to see if they start clicking.