The PC philosophy

Dismas · Sep 25, 2017

Lots has been said, often, about the Pete Carroll philosophy . . . run the ball, play stifling defense, and shorten the game.

And it has worked, mostly, for the Seahawks.
But ...

I feel the team does not have the personnel on offense to carry out half of that plan, and the trap I feel Pete is falling into is that he is trying to adapt players now to fit a playstyle, rather than adapting the plan to fit the personnel he has.
The talk of the team identity is all well and good, but you cannot make somebody be what they are not.

If we break out the gold standard of coaching, Bill Belichik, we see a team that morphs every season to play to the strengths of whatever players they have . . heck, sometimes they change from game to game, to play up their strengths, and to exploit the weaknesses across the line.

I think it is time for Pete to unbend a little, and start finding and emphasizing strength, rather than keep trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.

Lords of Scythia · Sep 26, 2017

He won't have the personel to do anything on offense until the offensive line sucks it up and starts playing. They're slowly getting there. When we had Beast Mode we definitely designed a game plan to fit the player.

cymatica · Sep 26, 2017

Lords of Scythia":1pb6curp said:
He won't have the personel to do anything on offense until the offensive line sucks it up and starts playing. They're slowly getting there. When we had Beast Mode we definitely designed a game plan to fit the player.

This is just wrong. We have seen the offense work with this line

SoulfishHawk · Sep 26, 2017

And 4 Touchdowns drives on Sunday.

hawker84 · Sep 26, 2017

SoulfishHawk":dqzpsat6 said:
And 4 Touchdowns drives on Sunday.

In garbage time when Titans are playing soft zone. Seahawks were handled in that 3rd quarter, period....

Seymour · Sep 26, 2017

hawker84":l80cqf4k said:
SoulfishHawk":l80cqf4k said:

And 4 Touchdowns drives on Sunday.

Click to expand...

In garbage time when Titans are playing soft zone. Seahawks were handled in that 3rd quarter, period....

Handled period?

What about the opening 3rd Q 75 yard 9 play drive? That was not garbage time, nor was the late 2nd Q drive.

SoulfishHawk · Sep 26, 2017

So, when the offense does it, it's because the other team is in prevent. But if the D gets shredded, which they DID in the 2nd half of that game, it's because of the heat.

ok then

First downs in the game, Hawks 24, Titans 21
Total Yards, Hawks 433, Titans 420 (largely on TWO huge plays)
Passing 364 to 225 in favor of the Hawks
And it ended up 5 more minutes of time of possession in favor of the Titans.

The offense did a lot more good things than people are giving them credit for.

Now the slow start was a killer, and the 11 penalties for the Hawks to the 5 for the Titans........

Sgt. Largent · Sep 26, 2017

Lords of Scythia":p0zzqmz8 said:
He won't have the personel to do anything on offense until the offensive line sucks it up and starts playing. They're slowly getting there. When we had Beast Mode we definitely designed a game plan to fit the player.

There are two ways to slow down a defensive rush if you have a bad O-line..

1. Punishing dynamic run game full of stretch, zone and read option that doesn't allow a defense to miss gap assignments or cheat on the edge rush.

2. Quick short ball control passing game (Patriots).

Pete thinks the solution is #1, but IMO as the OP said, we don't have the run game personnel to be successful. #1 requires a 2012 Russell (faster and quicker taking more punishment), a bell cow RB (might have that in Carson), a lead FB that can also run and catch (definitely don't have that).........and good blocking TE's and receivers (also definitely don't have that).

So it's time to try #2, with Graham, bunch of small quick receivers, and a stable of capable RB's that can catch it's far more feasible that we'd be successful going this style, than #1.

Problem is it's not like you can just turn around an entire playbook and scheme on a dime, it takes months, even years to install. BUT you can tweak the current playcalling and schemes to play more like #2, if not a full blown scheme change.

AgentDib · Sep 26, 2017

It always depends on the opponent.

If you are confident that the defense can handle opponent A then why on earth would you take on unnecessary risk on the part of the offense and give them a chance to get in the game via a fluke? Conservative play in this case is about maximizing win percentage rather than expected points scored.

On the other hand, if you know that the opponent B can move the ball on us then you want to let it fly on offense in order to maximize our points per drive. There's a reason why our offense looks good whenever we get behind in games. We simply take on higher risk in exchange for higher rewards.

Where Pete Carroll differs from the average .NET poster is that he thinks most of the teams we play fall into the A category above and so he mainly just wants the offense not to screw things up. 12-3 really is a good win in his book because that could be 95%+ win probability despite the score differential.

It could be that Pete is right, and things would look a lot different this year but for one or two questionable calls, one or two key drops, and one or two key missed defensive assignments. It's important to consider that even heavy favorites in the NFL do not win much more than 80% of the time against bad teams. It could also be that Pete is overconfident in his defense and the unfortunate outcomes of late have been a sign of the fragility of a system that cannot withstand a key play or call going in the wrong direction.

Personally, as of week 4 I'm in the camp that people wildly underestimate how fragile every "good" NFL team is. I have no idea why fans want to ignore both our starting LT and our first draft pick landing on the IR before the first game, but that would matter for any of the 32 NFL teams. Our record with RW under Pete's conservative tutelage is now 69% and while a 1-2 start is a terrible outcome for this season so far, two bad outcomes doesn't suddenly overturn all of the good we've had here simply because they are recent.

MontanaHawk05 · Sep 26, 2017

AgentDib":3sq50knl said:
I have no idea why fans want to ignore both our starting LT and our first draft pick landing on the IR before the first game, but that would matter for any of the 32 NFL teams. Our record with RW under Pete's conservative tutelage is now 69% and while a 1-2 start is a terrible outcome for this season so far, two bad outcomes doesn't suddenly overturn all of the good we've had here simply because they are recent.

While I agree with most of your post, there wasn't really any reason to think that Fant would be serviceable. I was highly skeptical.

mikeak · Sep 26, 2017

MontanaHawk05":3bxufgqz said:
AgentDib":3bxufgqz said:

I have no idea why fans want to ignore both our starting LT and our first draft pick landing on the IR before the first game, but that would matter for any of the 32 NFL teams. Our record with RW under Pete's conservative tutelage is now 69% and while a 1-2 start is a terrible outcome for this season so far, two bad outcomes doesn't suddenly overturn all of the good we've had here simply because they are recent.

Click to expand...

While I agree with most of your post, there wasn't really any reason to think that Fant would be serviceable. I was highly skeptical.

Regardless if he would have been good or not he didn't show anything last year that told our coaches that yeah he will be a starting caliber NFL OL player.

To have Fant get injured and then throw up the hands and be like "oh now we are screwed" tells you everything about the FO when it comes to the O-line..........

Him being starting caliber should have been looked at as a bonus and the plan should have been that he is not. Finally the day you put a team out there that cannot sustain any injuries is the day you lose in the NFL

WmHBonney · Sep 26, 2017

Seymour":22ka5fpi said:
hawker84":22ka5fpi said:

SoulfishHawk":22ka5fpi said:

And 4 Touchdowns drives on Sunday.

Click to expand...

In garbage time when Titans are playing soft zone. Seahawks were handled in that 3rd quarter, period....

Click to expand...

Handled period?

What about the opening 3rd Q 75 yard 9 play drive? That was not garbage time, nor was the late 2nd Q drive.

Exactly. That opening drive of the 3rd quarter is what an NFL offense should look like. They proved they can do it. Then the OC pulled the frigging rug out from under them and went back to calling HIS style game. HIS STYLE DOESN'T WORK. Not with our personnel. Like I said before, Bevell must have been stuck on the shitter at the end of halftime and someone else called the plays on that first drive.

AgentDib · Sep 26, 2017

I had moderately low expectations for Fant as well, I just don't think it's fair to judge any decision without taking into account all of the factors. Fant and McDowell were two of the key off-season cogs and both were hurt after most of the key decisions had to be made. They do seem to have compensated for McDowell pretty well in the short term with the move for Richardson.

WmHBonney":35eao18p said:
Like I said before, Bevell must have been stuck on the shitter at the end of halftime and someone else called the plays on that first drive.

I know you're probably just venting here, but it's really not that complicated.

The first play in the second drive of the half was a downfield passing play and Wilson stepped up into a clean pocket. He hesitated about throwing it to Lockett and unfortunately moved to his next read just before Lockett broke open to the middle of the field. After 5 seconds RW ended up escaping the pocket to his left and chucked it away. The score was 14-16 at the time and this is exactly the sort of play that he's taught not to take chances with unless we need to. When we do need to take chances, as in the 4th quarter, he pulls the trigger on throws like this one.

By the way, the third down play in that drive was the easy pitch and catch slant pass to Baldwin where Russ lead him a bit too far and Baldwin couldn't make the catch, leading to a punt. Sometimes good plays fail too.

MontanaHawk05 · Sep 26, 2017

AgentDib":cf72drj3 said:
this is exactly the sort of play that he's taught not to take chances with unless we need to. When we do need to take chances, as in the 4th quarter, he pulls the trigger on throws like this one.

Exactly.

Basically, Pete is so cautious of turnovers that he has Wilson spend the first three quarters playing pattycake until we need to close the deal in the 4th. That means a lot of pressures and sacks that you don't see on other teams, because Wilson is holding onto the ball. Tom Brady's strikes and Matt Hasselbeck's interceptions become pressures and sacks with Wilson - cringeworthy, but statistically far less damaging.

Unfortunately, it also means we walk a high wire at the cost of not committing turnovers, and too often in the last two seasons, the fluke plays in the 4th have gone against us rather than for us.

Seanhawk · Sep 26, 2017

hawker84":rpoo3ta9 said:
SoulfishHawk":rpoo3ta9 said:

And 4 Touchdowns drives on Sunday.

Click to expand...

In garbage time when Titans are playing soft zone. Seahawks were handled in that 3rd quarter, period....

What's up with this garbage time narrative around here? Had we recovered the onside kick, we would have had a chance to score the game winning TD with over a minute left and one time out. Would everything leading up to the onside kick be considered garbage time then?

Seahawkfan80 · Sep 26, 2017

SoulfishHawk":31wfbav9 said:
So, when the offense does it, it's because the other team is in prevent. But if the D gets shredded, which they DID in the 2nd half of that game, it's because of the heat.

ok then

First downs in the game, Hawks 24, Titans 21
Total Yards, Hawks 433, Titans 420 (largely on TWO huge plays)
Passing 364 to 225 in favor of the Hawks
And it ended up 5 more minutes of time of possession in favor of the Titans.

The offense did a lot more good things than people are giving them credit for.

Now the slow start was a killer, and the 11 penalties for the Hawks to the 5 for the Titans........

Missed one stat I think...not to belabor this game but I found one....Sorry.

PENALTY WOES
The Seahawks finished with 11 penalties for 98 yards, with a trio of penalties on separate plays in the first quarter. The second came when three-time All-Pro cornerback Richard Sherman was flagged three times on a play erasing Kam Chancellor's interception. Sherman was flagged for pass interference and holding on Titans veteran wide receiver Eric Decker, and unsportsmanlike conduct. Sherman later was flagged for unnecessary roughness for hitting Mariota on the sideline, setting off a scrum that wound up with offsetting penalties.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/gametrack ... 4_SEA@TEN/

SoulfishHawk · Sep 27, 2017

Funny how when the Offense finally puts up 4 touchdowns, it's somehow because it's "garbage time"
The D gives up 33 points, and it's because it's hot out.

Seems legit

hawk45 · Sep 27, 2017

AgentDib":3m0137ig said:
It always depends on the opponent.

If you are confident that the defense can handle opponent A then why on earth would you take on unnecessary risk on the part of the offense and give them a chance to get in the game via a fluke? Conservative play in this case is about maximizing win percentage rather than expected points scored.

On the other hand, if you know that the opponent B can move the ball on us then you want to let it fly on offense in order to maximize our points per drive. There's a reason why our offense looks good whenever we get behind in games. We simply take on higher risk in exchange for higher rewards.

Where Pete Carroll differs from the average .NET poster is that he thinks most of the teams we play fall into the A category above and so he mainly just wants the offense not to screw things up. 12-3 really is a good win in his book because that could be 95%+ win probability despite the score differential.

It could be that Pete is right, and things would look a lot different this year but for one or two questionable calls, one or two key drops, and one or two key missed defensive assignments. It's important to consider that even heavy favorites in the NFL do not win much more than 80% of the time against bad teams. It could also be that Pete is overconfident in his defense and the unfortunate outcomes of late have been a sign of the fragility of a system that cannot withstand a key play or call going in the wrong direction.

Personally, as of week 4 I'm in the camp that people wildly underestimate how fragile every "good" NFL team is. I have no idea why fans want to ignore both our starting LT and our first draft pick landing on the IR before the first game, but that would matter for any of the 32 NFL teams. Our record with RW under Pete's conservative tutelage is now 69% and while a 1-2 start is a terrible outcome for this season so far, two bad outcomes doesn't suddenly overturn all of the good we've had here simply because they are recent.

I suspect you are right on all of the above (minus the supposition that we'd be much better off with Fant).

In the 2-minute drill to end the half, Pete probably figures a mistake is less likely to hurt him, which is why we see better offense there. And, as you mention, when it is absolutely necessary at the end of games.

I wish there were a middle ground where we could move the ball without maximum risk, but you need longer-than-usual protection for that is what I suspect, and that's not a strength of our line. When we're moving the ball later in games Russell is making throws more quickly as you point out in your other post in this thread, and that's inherently more dangerous.

A dink and dunk sort of approach might be called for, but we don't seem to have an effective version of that. Whether that's route design, other defenses not giving up the shorter routes like our defense does schematically, something about Russell, or all of the above.

So I don't see us doing much in the first half until later in the season when the line can - at times - hold up long enough for Russell to be able to hesitate until he can find the safe option. Or, when the line can run block to the extent that PA is more effective.

Seymour · Sep 27, 2017

Funny how Pete is so worried about turnovers that he takes it to the detriment of moving the ball to the point he does. How does this make sense when you turn the ball over 38 yards down the field via Ryans foot 5 of your first 6 drives (3 and outs).

You would be better off throwing 3 38 yard passes down field than punting using strictly logic, (same as a punt if it's picked off). Our problem is, Russell doesn't have time for his receivers to get even 10 yards down field 1/2 the time I suppose.

Sgt. Largent · Sep 27, 2017

hawk45":wfrumnja said:
A dink and dunk sort of approach might be called for, but we don't seem to have an effective version of that. Whether that's route design, other defenses not giving up the shorter routes like our defense does schematically, something about Russell, or all of the above..

Doug is the ONLY receiver we have that's good at quickly sitting down in a zone crease and being available for Russell to throw to.

You'd think that's also something Jimmy's good at, but he's not. He gets knocked off his route, chipped and slowed down easily.

So we're definitely TRYING to do what you're talking about. But too many times it's an unsuccessful slant that gets knocked down, or another forced ball into Doug because he's the only one Russell trusts to make a play 5 yards from the line of scrimmage.

It's a hard puzzle to solve when your line gets knocked off the ball immediately, your receivers are small and can't get separation from press cover and 9-10 men in the box cause the other team knows we have no time for downfield routes.

The PC philosophy

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Similar threads