Seahawks new OC saying all the wrong things

ivotuk

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
23,060
Reaction score
1,763
Location
North Pole, Alaska
"Running the ball had nothing to do with success inn the NFL."

Okay.....so St. Louis should cut Gurley? And why was Saquon Barkley taken in the top 5?

Then there's the charts of total offensive yards under Schottenheimer. Talk about slanted stats. They totally ignore the wins.
 

ivotuk

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
23,060
Reaction score
1,763
Location
North Pole, Alaska
Oh, and what about getting the Sanchez Jets to the AFCCG twice?

They want to blame the failures of Rex Ryan and Jeff Fisher on Brian. Typical mainstream media slandering the Seahawks because we're an easy target. South Alaska don'tcha know.
 

uncle fester

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
164
Teams are passing more because teams pay attention to analytics, and the analytics show that more passing leads to more points.

This writer must've been on vacation when the Seahawks were turning out 10+ win seasons and a Lombardi based on running the ball and conceding the fewest points in the NFL.

This writer must also be oblivious to Matt Stafford, Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning and Drew Brees continually having to chase games, despite their amazing Fantasy stats, as there's no money left over to pay for a good defense.

Piling up points is not the main solution if you're forever conceding them.
 

Jville

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
13,187
Reaction score
1,548
The article's author and referenced associates advocate dismissal of the run game because they think their limited collection of statistics dictates that they do so. Thankfully, the conclusions derived from within a limited statistical bubble has no bearing on what the 2018 Seahawk offense is striving to become. None. Because at the VMAC, analytics are viewed as tools ..... not masters. We can look forward to a much richer and varied and far less predictable offense than what the article's blinders advocate.

It's both easy and common for well meaning people to misuse analytics. We will undoubtedly see many more examples of this kind of misuse.
 

NJlargent

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Messages
2,302
Reaction score
234
The article overlooks the benefit of a run game from a clock management perspective.
 

sutz

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
29,163
Reaction score
5,185
Location
Kent, WA
Typical offseason drivel. Even the most pass happy teams have to run once in a while. The only thing they got right was that yes, Seattle sucked at running the ball in 2017. So they advocate just giving up on it? Actually that's pretty much what we did, and we missed the playoffs.

No, we're not "going back" to some distant past where teams won games 5-3 by running the ball 60 times. Pete wants to have a balanced attack. I support that idea whole-heartedly. If we're gonna be "balanced" we need to run the ball better. They've done a lot of things to make that happen so far. I'm all in.
 

Spin Doctor

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
5,235
Reaction score
2,158
Sports Hernia":2s9ulvzs said:
Lazy sportswriting right there. LOL.
I'll agree that this is lazy sports-writing, but I do think the author has a legitimate claim. I've watched Schottenheimer, and poured over what he did in his previous stints. The man had an unhealthy obsession with establishing a running game. It should be noted that a run game is vital for any team in the NFL, we saw this last season with the Super Bowl champions, the Eagles and other teams as well. What the author is implying that running, just for the sake of running is an unhealthy ideology, much like passing with reckless abandon. The best teams are able to strike a balance between both. Schottenheimer has never been able to do that as an NFL offensive coordinator.

There was one game against the Lions when they had one of the most stacked defensive lines in the NFL He tried wanted to run the ball over 40 times against him, that was the game plan. Rex Ryan told him to scrap that plan, it wasn't working. Schottenheimer did, and they ended up winning in OT when they decided to pass and run no huddle in the second half. He also is very rigid when sticking to a game plan, even more so than Mr. Bevell.

The author also mentioned something that is very important, his offenses have underwhelmed wherever he has went. I really hope he has learned from his last failure or we are going to be in for a rough ride. Schottenheimer adheres to an archaic offensive system that would have been great in the 70s and 80s, but is not suited for modern day football. The man is a great QB coach, but as an offensive coordinator he is rigid, stubborn, and very bad at making adjustments. It is also worth noting that his playbooks are horrendously complicated. I was happy to hear that we were keeping 75 percent of the playbook, it is the other 25 percent that I'm worried about.

In summery -- Schottenheimer does not like to deviate from his original plans. If he decides that the team will run 40 times, then they will run the ball 40 times. He has an unhealthy obsession with running the ball. Running the ball is important, but Schottenheimer lies on the unhealthy side of the spectrum. Think of him as the bizarro Mike Martz. He is very much so a disciple of the old air coryell system. On the bright side we do have the ideal Quarterback for that type of attack.
 

ivotuk

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
23,060
Reaction score
1,763
Location
North Pole, Alaska
Usually I agree with your posts, but this one is way off and you're using only the negative aspects of Schottenheimer's past. He was so "rigid" about running the ball because that was his best chances at winning, and that's what Rex asked him to do.

Rex Ryan's favorite saying was "Ground and Pound! Ground and Pound!" He and Brian set up the game plan against Detroit because Ryan prefers to play a strong defense, run the ball, and throw as little as possible. Why? Because his QB had a 53.8% completion rating.

At one time in New York, they had the #9 ranked offense. People keep trashing him over his time with the Jets and the Rams! That is completely idiotic! You can't blame him for Rex Ryan and Jeff Fisher! Jeebus!

I've gone back and looked at his offensive successes and failures, and they all have one thing that mirrors the results, the QB he had, and the completion percentage.

When he had a healthy Chad Pennington or a healthy Brett Favre, Schottenheimer had very good offenses.

But when he had Mark Sanchez or Austin Davis, he had to rely on the running game. It was all he had. Yet people choose to ignore the facts, and blame the failures of Jeff Fisher and Austin Davis on Brian. Rex Ryan and Mark Sanchez are his fault too, as was the ButtFumble.

The only things he had going for him were Zac Stacy (who kicked our ass), Leon Washington and Thomas Jones.

Brian Schottenheimer's philosophy is the same one that got us to our first SuperB Owl win. Run the ball and use play action passes to control time of possession, thereby keeping your defense fresh and fired up to go!

It's a successful model that helped us have the number one defense 4 years in a row. Our offense wasn't ranked up there all the time, but that didn't matter. All that matterEd was T.O.P and wearing down the opposing defense.

People need to stop pigeon holing Schottenheimer based on rigged and incomplete statistics!
 

ivotuk

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
23,060
Reaction score
1,763
Location
North Pole, Alaska
And, the author is not implying that "Running just for the sake of running is an unhealthy ideology."

He's specifically saying that teams don't need much of a running game, that passing is king in the NFL.

"The best offensive coordinators in the league understand that running the ball is inefficient.... If you have a quarterback who can execute these plays with ease — and Seattle does — then running the ball is of little importance

Because if you rarely run the ball and just throw it a lot, the defenses...what? Can't stop pass plays? Don't know what's coming? Aren't able to pin their ears back and rush the passer?

That was the most idiotic, and biased article I think I've ever read. The author was in a bad mood and wanted to trash somebody. Hey, Seattle is a soft target. Let's tear them down.

That's like the tweet from some former NFL executive named Banner badmouthing Schottenheimer. Which is rich, considering the"former" exec was fired from the Browns.
 

Boycie

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
2,787
Reaction score
552
Location
Florida and loving GOP country!
The guy who wrote this article has no idea what he is talking about. Stating that running the ball is less productive than passing is just wrong.

Our identity has always been to run the ball and control the clock. This guy has no idea about what Seahawks football is.
 

Seymour

Active member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
7,459
Reaction score
22
Sounds a lot like Pete to me. I plan to give the guy his chance, but if he refuses to adjust to what is happening on the field, I'll be plenty vocal about that for sure.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,610
If a coach or coordinator ever said anything of substance in a press conference, it'd be the first time.
 

mikeak

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
8,202
Reaction score
25
Location
Anchorage, AK
ivotuk":9kkf5eb0 said:
"The best offensive coordinators in the league understand that running the ball is inefficient.... If you have a quarterback who can execute these plays with ease — and Seattle does — then running the ball is of little importance

.

The reason to remove text in a quote and using ... is because it is UNRELATED, NON IMPORTANT information. To take out VITAL language from the quote is in my opinion only twisting what was said / written.

The part you removed is below

Quick three-step passes, bubble screens and traditional screens to a back are far superior options and offer a much greater chance of producing an explosive play. If you have a quarterback who can execute these plays with ease — and Seattle does — then running the ball is of little importance.

What he is really saying is if you can move the ball in the backfield, with passes, and utilizing the RB in that position then you should still get your 1-3 yards but also a bigger chance of breaking one free.

It still takes time off the clock (high catch rate) the same way a running play does, you still use the RB to bruise players and move the lines. You are just opening up for the run as well.

If you look at the NBA game the 3 point shot has taken a long time to change the game but today it is a completely different game because of the value of the 3. Now you use it wrong it goes like Houston against GS and you miss 27 in a row because you are stupid........ if you have the right players, game plan and execution you take good open 3s and have a higher success rate and you score more. As long as you don't go quick 3 and out and use quick passes for short yardage then you are still moving the ball, still eating clock and maintain a high rate of ball security. Of course you will at times run the ball but it is not the primary focus of your game

I agree with this principal and wrote it in many posts last year when we talked about wanting to avoid turnovers, eating clock. It can be done with a passing game as well.
 

mikeak

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
8,202
Reaction score
25
Location
Anchorage, AK
Sgt. Largent":5095ebm3 said:
If a coach or coordinator ever said anything of substance in a press conference, it'd be the first time.

I don't think it can really be argued that we are not going back to the running game (not saying good or bad here). We drafted a RB, we drafted blocking TE and other players. We signed a TE to block, we signed an OC that is known for running game. Everything we have done this offseason aligns 100% with what the OC said at the podium

The Seahawks intends to pound the ball
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,610
mikeak":8idq9xf6 said:
Sgt. Largent":8idq9xf6 said:
If a coach or coordinator ever said anything of substance in a press conference, it'd be the first time.

I don't think it can really be argued that we are not going back to the running game (not saying good or bad here). We drafted a RB, we drafted blocking TE and other players. We signed a TE to block, we signed an OC that is known for running game. Everything we have done this offseason aligns 100% with what the OC said at the podium

The Seahawks intends to pound the ball

I'm not disputing any of this. I'm saying Schottenheimer, like all coaches never give up anything of substance..............it's all just superficial generalities that don't interest me.

The things we'd be interested in as hardcore fans stays behind closed doors, as it should be. What's said to the press is just cliches, bromides and generalities that even if you barely follow a team you already know.

Really? We're going to try and run the ball? Wow, stop the presses.
 

kf3339

Active member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
3,708
Reaction score
10
ivotuk":3suawho2 said:
Usually I agree with your posts, but this one is way off and you're using only the negative aspects of Schottenheimer's past. He was so "rigid" about running the ball because that was his best chances at winning, and that's what Rex asked him to do.

Rex Ryan's favorite saying was "Ground and Pound! Ground and Pound!" He and Brian set up the game plan against Detroit because Ryan prefers to play a strong defense, run the ball, and throw as little as possible. Why? Because his QB had a 53.8% completion rating.

At one time in New York, they had the #9 ranked offense. People keep trashing him over his time with the Jets and the Rams! That is completely idiotic! You can't blame him for Rex Ryan and Jeff Fisher! Jeebus!

I've gone back and looked at his offensive successes and failures, and they all have one thing that mirrors the results, the QB he had, and the completion percentage.

When he had a healthy Chad Pennington or a healthy Brett Favre, Schottenheimer had very good offenses.

But when he had Mark Sanchez or Austin Davis, he had to rely on the running game. It was all he had. Yet people choose to ignore the facts, and blame the failures of Jeff Fisher and Austin Davis on Brian. Rex Ryan and Mark Sanchez are his fault too, as was the ButtFumble.

The only things he had going for him were Zac Stacy (who kicked our ass), Leon Washington and Thomas Jones.

Brian Schottenheimer's philosophy is the same one that got us to our first SuperB Owl win. Run the ball and use play action passes to control time of possession, thereby keeping your defense fresh and fired up to go!

It's a successful model that helped us have the number one defense 4 years in a row. Our offense wasn't ranked up there all the time, but that didn't matter. All that matterEd was T.O.P and wearing down the opposing defense.

People need to stop pigeon holing Schottenheimer based on rigged and incomplete statistics!

Great post! :irishdrinkers:
 
Top