Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Seahawks new OC saying all the wrong things

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13

  • I don't pay any attention to coach speak.
    User avatar
    Smellyman
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4387
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:58 pm
    Location: Taipei


  • "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.
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy

    http://ivotuk.com/
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 17192
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm
    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.
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy

    http://ivotuk.com/
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 17192
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


  • 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.
    User avatar
    uncle fester
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1140
    Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:21 am


  • 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.
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 7432
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:49 pm


  • The article overlooks the benefit of a run game from a clock management perspective.
    NJlargent
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1336
    Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:02 pm


  • Lazy sportswriting right there. LOL.
    SEATTLE SEAHAWKS SUPERBOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS!

    May the spirit of our friend The Radish live on forever!

    I SO do not care about your fantasy team and who's on it!
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 24626
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • 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.
    Talent can get you to the playoffs.
    It takes character to win when you get there.

    SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS
    User avatar
    sutz
    USMC 1970-77
     
    Posts: 17493
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
    Location: Kent, WA


  • Almost broke out in a yawn
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8869
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • Sports Hernia wrote: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.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2261
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:31 am


  • 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!
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy

    http://ivotuk.com/
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 17192
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm
    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.
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy

    http://ivotuk.com/
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 17192
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


  • 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.
    "Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!"
    User avatar
    Ace_Rimmer
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 809
    Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 7:59 am
    Location: Vancouver, BC


  • 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.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4566
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • If a coach or coordinator ever said anything of substance in a press conference, it'd be the first time.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13743
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • ivotuk wrote:
    "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
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7070
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • Sgt. Largent wrote: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
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7070
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • mikeak wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote: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.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13743
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • ivotuk wrote: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:
    kf3339
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2531
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:52 pm


  • Sports Hernia wrote:Lazy sportswriting right there. LOL.

    I don't think the writers are lazy, just bored. They get paid to turn in articles and since there is noting to write about in the off season, they just throw a bunch of crap together and send it in so they can collect their paycheck. I take most of the articles I read, sports or otherwise, with a grain of salt, knowing the writers have to produce something to keep their jobs.
    Facts, reality, or truth has nothing to do with the stories they write, their only concern is keeping the flow of stories going.
    We all know that truth and integrity left the journalism profession long ago, now it's whatever it takes to put food on their table. Perhaps if we could eliminate half of the writers, there might be enough honest stories left for the rest to write about. Better yet, find something else for them to do until real stories present themselves, like let em sweep the floors or clean the toilets...
    On a more positive note, the phony stories give the forum bloggers something to discuss and write about......
    Donn2390
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 308
    Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:16 am
    Location: Apple Valley, California


  • mikeak wrote:
    ivotuk wrote:
    "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.


    If you read my post, I'm responding to Spin's assertion that the author isn't saying running the ball is not important. I quoted the portion that refuted his argument. Everybody has access to the article and can read it. I "Twisted" nothing as I was responding to a poster on this board. To say that

    Please read the entirety of my post instead of making assumptions and "twisting" what I was replying to.

    The run game is very important in the NFL. NOBODY here has said the passing game is a negative either. Both are important.

    But the part I quoted is the part where the author is saying that "the running game is inefficient" and "running the ball is of little importance" NO matter the context, is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

    And it's plainly obvious that he took his story title from a local story that said" Schottenheimer saying all the right things." It's a biased story with little evidence to back it up. He seems to think that Pete's philosophy is the wrong one, and with Russell Wilson WR have everything we need to throw the ball a lot. Not true. Our QB has been getting beat up since our running game went down hill.
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy

    http://ivotuk.com/
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 17192
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


  • However, a run game is much less important than a pass game and much less important than it used to be.

    The rules of the NFL (since the Manning / Brady changes) have been slanted in favor of the passing game.

    When you focus on the run, you spurn all the benefits baked in for NFL QBs to create more passing yardage & scoring.

    (Additionally, if you are going to pay your QB over 30M per year and then not focus leveraging the fact that he is your best player? That makes you an idiot. Because that 30M is going to strip your ability to pay other players and now you are ignoring half the utility you could have.)

    You ignore the opportunity for 5 yds after contact that gets you 1st downs. (I have seen 3rd and 30s converted by iffy contact calls within 10 yds of the LOS)

    You ignore the PI calls that can literally switch field position.

    You ignore the disadvantage a 10 yd holding penalty creates for a run team vs the same penalty for a passing team.

    The advantage with a run game is keeping the other offense off the field, lowering % chance of turnover, and resting the defense. But the #s are this:

    A great RB is going to get you roughly 4 yds per carry.

    On average the WORST stats for yds per pass attempt were (2017)
    5 yds per ATTEMPT
    8 yds per COMPLETION
    Obviously the variance is larger in pass vs run because run rarely gives you zero yards while a dropped/missed pass does.

    And with defenses switching to faster lighter guys to rush the passer, there are more opportunities to exploit for runs. But lets not pretend that passing teams don't have a much better chance at getting to the playoffs or doing well once there. This is the same reason that being a great run stopping team isn't going to do much for you unless you can stop the pass.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2821
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:48 pm


  • Everyone knows when you can run the ball you can tire a defense out in the fourth and shred them while taking up valuable clock and making them take more chances giving you more opportunities to win on both sides of the ball , seen it a million times and 80% of the time it works 90% of the time :2thumbs: :2thumbs: :2thumbs: :2thumbs:

    If ya become one dimensional you're battling uphill and last year if anyone remembers that season , that was us , so I sure hope like hell we can run the ball this year
    Go Hawks

    SEA ...
    What are you
    I'm a mog , half man , half dog
    I'm my own best friend
    User avatar
    hawxfreak
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 482
    Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:04 pm
    Location: The Burbs in Lacey


  • I see the same "Seahawks Dismantle defense" theme here. Its not true at all. Meh.....

    Schotty never had RW.
    Michael Dickson, P, Texas: 2018 Adopt a Probowl Rookie
    User avatar
    Atradees
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3310
    Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:22 pm
    Location: South of Heaven


  • The Patriots, who epitomize that type of quick-hit clock-controlling passing game, last year ran the ball 448 times for 1,889 yards and 16 touchdowns. The Saints, who were universally praised last year for finally developing a ground game, ran it 444 times for 2,070 yards and 23 touchdowns. The high-flying Eagles went for 473-2115-9.

    I think the league when through an era recently where the run game felt de-emphasized because RBs weren't being picked in the first round. But I think that may have been more of a value argument in that teams believed they could find effective RBs later, not that they weren't interested in being able to run. With the Saints success last year and all the RBs taken early this year, it seems like teams are actually actively prioritizing this part of the game. That's a reason why the article is foolish, bored, or whatever.
    User avatar
    Jac
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 737
    Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:50 am


  • Jac wrote:The Patriots, who epitomize that type of quick-hit clock-controlling passing game, last year ran the ball 448 times for 1,889 yards and 16 touchdowns. The Saints, who were universally praised last year for finally developing a ground game, ran it 444 times for 2,070 yards and 23 touchdowns. The high-flying Eagles went for 473-2115-9.

    I think the league when through an era recently where the run game felt de-emphasized because RBs weren't being picked in the first round. But I think that may have been more of a value argument in that teams believed they could find effective RBs later, not that they weren't interested in being able to run. With the Saints success last year and all the RBs taken early this year, it seems like teams are actually actively prioritizing this part of the game. That's a reason why the article is foolish, bored, or whatever.


    Right, it should be about balance, and not just crapping on the run game.

    The NFL can pass all the QB/receiver friendly rules they want................football will always be about imposing your will, physicality and keeping your opponent off balance. That means not being predictable, and that's really been our problem with not having a productive run game the past two years.

    In this offense, it's pretty simple. To use Russell correctly we have to run the ball successfully to open up play action.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13743
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Jac wrote:The Patriots, who epitomize that type of quick-hit clock-controlling passing game, last year ran the ball 448 times for 1,889 yards and 16 touchdowns. The Saints, who were universally praised last year for finally developing a ground game, ran it 444 times for 2,070 yards and 23 touchdowns. The high-flying Eagles went for 473-2115-9.

    I think the league when through an era recently where the run game felt de-emphasized because RBs weren't being picked in the first round. But I think that may have been more of a value argument in that teams believed they could find effective RBs later, not that they weren't interested in being able to run. With the Saints success last year and all the RBs taken early this year, it seems like teams are actually actively prioritizing this part of the game. That's a reason why the article is foolish, bored, or whatever.


    Right, it should be about balance, and not just crapping on the run game.

    The NFL can pass all the QB/receiver friendly rules they want................football will always be about imposing your will, physicality and keeping your opponent off balance. That means not being predictable, and that's really been our problem with not having a productive run game the past two years.

    In this offense, it's pretty simple. To use Russell correctly we have to run the ball successfully to open up play action.


    I agree, but his statement was...."the key for Seahawks offense to improve, win games is to run the ball when defenses know they are going to run it in 2018".

    That is blatantly advertising your predictability right there.

    I get it. It's not to be taken literally every play, but his words are easy to attack.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4566
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • Pete has said repeatedly over the years—including again a few weeks ago on Brock and Salk—that he wants balance on offense. That requires being able to establish the run game. We had no run game to speak of last year and it showed.

    Pete does not want to run at the exclusion of the passing game. Bubble screens have been a big part of his offenses in the last 19 years. He also likes to use short passes to RB/FB/TEs along with play action and deep throws.

    Anyone indicating otherwise hasn’t been paying attention
    Help bring peace to the South LA / Puget Sound communities. Are you in?
    http://www.abetterla.org | http://www.abetterseattle.com
    User avatar
    sc85sis
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6642
    Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:40 am
    Location: Southern CA


  • Success rate stats show running is most useful in short yardage situations, such as 3rd and 1 or at the goal line. Otherwise, passing is on average more successful and gains more yards (somewhat interchangeable, but not quite). The problem is that people take this to extremes. Some advocate only running in those situations, while others want a 50/50 split. The best spot is probably in the middle there and largely depends on your defense and ST.

    If you can establish a lead by whatever means, you can just run on first and second and pass on third if you have to. That is, if you have confidence that your defense can get you the ball back without conceding points. If you fall behind, you have to pass.

    For the Hawks, our running game has to improve. Point blank. Don't care how useless you think a run game is, we could not even run in short yardage and it hurt our offense. IMO, return the run game to middle of the pack and then it's all about the passing game, which also sucked last year. Don't get sucked into TD/INT ratio. It's close to meaningless as a stat without context. The passing game has to return to being more efficient. People are forgetting that in the years we were SB contenders, Russ was historically efficient as a passer (still is).

    Gotta remember the human element too. A Kellen Clemens or Mark Sanchez pass is nowhere near as valuable as a RW or Matt Ryan pass.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2121
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


  • Seymour wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Jac wrote:The Patriots, who epitomize that type of quick-hit clock-controlling passing game, last year ran the ball 448 times for 1,889 yards and 16 touchdowns. The Saints, who were universally praised last year for finally developing a ground game, ran it 444 times for 2,070 yards and 23 touchdowns. The high-flying Eagles went for 473-2115-9.

    I think the league when through an era recently where the run game felt de-emphasized because RBs weren't being picked in the first round. But I think that may have been more of a value argument in that teams believed they could find effective RBs later, not that they weren't interested in being able to run. With the Saints success last year and all the RBs taken early this year, it seems like teams are actually actively prioritizing this part of the game. That's a reason why the article is foolish, bored, or whatever.


    Right, it should be about balance, and not just crapping on the run game.

    The NFL can pass all the QB/receiver friendly rules they want................football will always be about imposing your will, physicality and keeping your opponent off balance. That means not being predictable, and that's really been our problem with not having a productive run game the past two years.

    In this offense, it's pretty simple. To use Russell correctly we have to run the ball successfully to open up play action.


    I agree, but his statement was...."the key for Seahawks offense to improve, win games is to run the ball when defenses know they are going to run it in 2018".

    That is blatantly advertising your predictability right there.

    I get it. It's not to be taken literally every play, but his words are easy to attack.


    He's using a little bravado hyperbole..........he's basically saying he wants us to get back to imposing our will on defenses in the run game, like we used to do with Marshawn.

    Especially in the 4th quarter when we wore teams down and used to just ram it down their throat.

    That's what he's talking about, so I have a hard time with this writer finding fault with what Schottenheimer is talking about. He's not talking about being predictable, or installing antiquated run heavy offenses in a pass heavy league. He's talking about balance and imposing will.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13743
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Don't give a rip what he says, I care what he does w/the play calling. People just love to get worked up. It just goes w/the territory with so many fans out there. They whined about wanting Bevell gone, now they are whining because the new guy doesn't say what they want to hear. He wants to pound the rock. Oh the horror :roll:
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8869
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Jac wrote:The Patriots, who epitomize that type of quick-hit clock-controlling passing game, last year ran the ball 448 times for 1,889 yards and 16 touchdowns. The Saints, who were universally praised last year for finally developing a ground game, ran it 444 times for 2,070 yards and 23 touchdowns. The high-flying Eagles went for 473-2115-9.

    I think the league when through an era recently where the run game felt de-emphasized because RBs weren't being picked in the first round. But I think that may have been more of a value argument in that teams believed they could find effective RBs later, not that they weren't interested in being able to run. With the Saints success last year and all the RBs taken early this year, it seems like teams are actually actively prioritizing this part of the game. That's a reason why the article is foolish, bored, or whatever.


    Right, it should be about balance, and not just crapping on the run game.

    The NFL can pass all the QB/receiver friendly rules they want................football will always be about imposing your will, physicality and keeping your opponent off balance. That means not being predictable, and that's really been our problem with not having a productive run game the past two years.

    In this offense, it's pretty simple. To use Russell correctly we have to run the ball successfully to open up play action.


    I agree, but his statement was...."the key for Seahawks offense to improve, win games is to run the ball when defenses know they are going to run it in 2018".

    That is blatantly advertising your predictability right there.

    I get it. It's not to be taken literally every play, but his words are easy to attack.


    He's using a little bravado hyperbole..........he's basically saying he wants us to get back to imposing our will on defenses in the run game, like we used to do with Marshawn.

    Especially in the 4th quarter when we wore teams down and used to just ram it down their throat.

    That's what he's talking about, so I have a hard time with this writer finding fault with what Schottenheimer is talking about. He's not talking about being predictable, or installing antiquated run heavy offenses in a pass heavy league. He's talking about balance and imposing will.


    Orrrr.......he COULD BE saying that if it's 2nd and goal with 26 seconds left to win a dynasty SB and the entire planet knows you are going to run it.....he WILL run it!! :twisted: :snack:

    Orrrr......he knows how to pick up a 3rd and 1 without throwing a go route!
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4566
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • Looking forward to an OC who doesn't try to get cute in the red zone.
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8869
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • Seymour wrote:
    Orrrr......he knows how to pick up a 3rd and 1 without throwing a go route!


    Low percentage go routes are a result of this.

    Image


    Russell: "Oh crap! *throws to outside receiver with one on one coverage and prays*
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13743
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • If we can just reliably convert the 3rd and shorts, it would really help.

    I am all for running success when everyone knows you are running in the above scenario.

    I don't believe that running is not important. I do believe that a run first, run focused offense would be foolish given our personnel. And I do believe that a strong passing game is much more important than a strong run game.

    But a non-existent run game is bad regardless and that is what we had.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2821
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:48 pm


  • Yep! Picking up 3rd and 1-2 on offense, and shutting down 3rd and 13 on defense will go a long ways to restoring some confidence.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4566
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • TwistedHusky wrote:However, a run game is much less important than a pass game and much less important than it used to be.

    The rules of the NFL (since the Manning / Brady changes) have been slanted in favor of the passing game.

    When you focus on the run, you spurn all the benefits baked in for NFL QBs to create more passing yardage & scoring.

    (Additionally, if you are going to pay your QB over 30M per year and then not focus leveraging the fact that he is your best player? That makes you an idiot. Because that 30M is going to strip your ability to pay other players and now you are ignoring half the utility you could have.)

    You ignore the opportunity for 5 yds after contact that gets you 1st downs. (I have seen 3rd and 30s converted by iffy contact calls within 10 yds of the LOS)

    You ignore the PI calls that can literally switch field position.

    You ignore the disadvantage a 10 yd holding penalty creates for a run team vs the same penalty for a passing team.

    The advantage with a run game is keeping the other offense off the field, lowering % chance of turnover, and resting the defense. But the #s are this:

    A great RB is going to get you roughly 4 yds per carry.

    On average the WORST stats for yds per pass attempt were (2017)
    5 yds per ATTEMPT
    8 yds per COMPLETION
    Obviously the variance is larger in pass vs run because run rarely gives you zero yards while a dropped/missed pass does.

    And with defenses switching to faster lighter guys to rush the passer, there are more opportunities to exploit for runs. But lets not pretend that passing teams don't have a much better chance at getting to the playoffs or doing well once there. This is the same reason that being a great run stopping team isn't going to do much for you unless you can stop the pass.



    Well where's Manning, retired, where's Brady talking about leaving, retireing. Like Marino's quick release changed the game certain players can as well, but those players are unique. Lots of teams think they can can get cute and draft guys that look the part physically but we all know whats between the ears or not is what makes these unique players who they are, and what they can accomplish.


    A solid running game is the balance for not having a Manning and or a Brady, hell the Pats drafted Sony this year and wanted Penny, Bill knows something, when is the last time he went after a RB that high.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 24230
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • ivotuk wrote:
    mikeak wrote:
    ivotuk wrote:
    "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.


    Please read the entirety of my post .


    I did

    ivotuk wrote:But the part I quoted is the part where the author is saying that "the running game is inefficient" and "running the ball is of little importance" NO matter the context, is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
    .


    This is incorrect. This is not what the author stated. Please read my entire post to see why this is not what he stated. To save the trouble

    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.

    He says if you find other ways to involve the running back and get yards from him then the running the ball for the sake of running the ball is of little importance.

    If you cannot execute those then stick to the running game. He is saying with RW at the helm we could negate the importance of the running game if you playcall right. THAT is why the part that was taken out intentionally or not skewed the statements of the author
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7070
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • mikeak wrote:
    ivotuk wrote:
    mikeak wrote:
    ivotuk wrote:
    "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.


    Please read the entirety of my post .


    I did

    ivotuk wrote:But the part I quoted is the part where the author is saying that "the running game is inefficient" and "running the ball is of little importance" NO matter the context, is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
    .


    This is incorrect. This is not what the author stated. Please read my entire post to see why this is not what he stated. To save the trouble

    [i]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.[/i]

    He says if you find other ways to involve the running back and get yards from him then the running the ball for the sake of running the ball is of little importance.

    If you cannot execute those then stick to the running game. He is saying with RW at the helm we could negate the importance of the running game if you playcall right. THAT is why the part that was taken out intentionally or not skewed the statements of the author



    He lost it right there, trhee step drops are not what Wilson does, why he runs from the shotgun, this is where his height if he does not have defined lanes does get the better of him, and then he said the B word.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 24230
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • chris98251 wrote:
    mikeak wrote:
    ivotuk wrote:
    mikeak wrote:
    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.


    Please read the entirety of my post .


    I did

    ivotuk wrote:But the part I quoted is the part where the author is saying that "the running game is inefficient" and "running the ball is of little importance" NO matter the context, is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
    .


    This is incorrect. This is not what the author stated. Please read my entire post to see why this is not what he stated. To save the trouble

    [i]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.[/i]

    He says if you find other ways to involve the running back and get yards from him then the running the ball for the sake of running the ball is of little importance.

    If you cannot execute those then stick to the running game. He is saying with RW at the helm we could negate the importance of the running game if you playcall right. THAT is why the part that was taken out intentionally or not skewed the statements of the author



    He lost it right there, trhee step drops are not what Wilson does, why he runs from the shotgun, this is where his height if he does not have defined lanes does get the better of him, and then he said the B word.
    I never have seen RW throw a quick slant and his short passes are really not that good either.
    He is limited in a few ways but thats why you see him in shotgun that's just how it is with him.
    RW needs a running game to open up his passing more than a Favre or Brady did.
    Will Dissly
    2018 Adopt a rookie
    User avatar
    IndyHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3883
    Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 1:42 pm


  • Ok Our new OC wasn’t my choice and was disappointed at the announcement of his hiring.

    BUT

    I do believe his statement of “run successfully even when the defense would be prepared for run” was a direct if subtle reach to old timers on our team to address our Super Bowl debacle. He basically tell boys that we will run with ball on one yard line and power though.

    Nation media missed that point, our new OC’s effort to win the hearts and minds.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    toffee
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 513
    Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 7:44 pm


  • :34853_doh:

    I've been watching the Seahawks for a lot of years. Throughout the Pete Carroll era, we have NOT necessarily been "run first" team. I think people miss the point, and it goes right to what the OC meant. The Pete Carroll Seahawks have always thrown a lot in the first half, perhaps too much, because, yeah it's hard to develop the run game from scratch in the 2d half.

    The idea is to score first, or at least get the lead and then in the 2d half, you run a lot more than in the 1st half, burn the clock and rely on your D to keep the other guy from out-scoring you. The thing is, everybody tries to do that, except for the pass happy teams who can't run when they need to. So everybody knows you're going to run in the 2d half if you get the lead. That's when you need to be able to pick up "3 yards and a cloud of dust."

    I think Schotty will probably do fine here.
    Talent can get you to the playoffs.
    It takes character to win when you get there.

    SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS
    User avatar
    sutz
    USMC 1970-77
     
    Posts: 17493
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
    Location: Kent, WA


  • ivotuk wrote: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.


    Ivo, keep in mind against the Texans we were using play action over and over again and they kept falling for it....we had five rushing yards that game. The key to play action is faking the run, not actually being able to run. There are stats that back this up.

    Not saying anything about Schotty. Listened to his press conference and it sounded good to me. Pete wants the balanced attack, but I'm afraid the defense will not be good enough to play that style of ball. Jags were able to do it last year, but their pass defense was superb, one of the best in years. Even then they only made 10-6.

    To your Gurley, Saquon points. With Gurley the pattern is already there. Their offense sucked in 2016 and Gurley sucked. Their offense was great in 2017 and Gurley was great. RBs can only do so much. OL, offensive system, and QB are more important. Similarly, Jags were only 7-6 when Fournette started, he had a limited impact. Their OL was more important in their run game success. I think Saquon was a reach due to position. It all depends on the team tbh. A pass rusher, stud OL, obviously QB, maybe WR are more valuable IMO.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2121
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


  • Smellyman wrote:I don't pay any attention to coach speak.



    Sgt. Largent wrote:If a coach or coordinator ever said anything of substance in a press conference, it'd be the first time.


    Yup
    User avatar
    Smellyman
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4387
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:58 pm
    Location: Taipei


  • ivotuk wrote: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!

    Where did that game plan get the New York Jets? They were playing right into the strength of the Lions. As soon as Rex Ryan told him to stop using the game plan they went on to win the game. I don't care if that was what Rex Ryan initially wanted, rarely do things go as you draw them up in practice. One of the things that defines offensive coordinators is their ability to adjust to what defenses are throwing at them. Schottenheimer has not demonstrated this ability in any of his stints. He does exactly what his HC asks of him, and this is his greatest weakness. He does not deviate from his game plans, he will continue down the path to hell unless he is specifically told to otherwise. I don't want that kind of guy on the Seahawks, especially with Pete Carroll as head coach. Carroll has proven time and time again that his judgement is questionable at best when it comes to the offensive side of the ball. I want a guy that is able to make his own decisions when the situation calls for it, I don't think Schottenheimer is capable of that.

    As far as his past stints never did he have a "very good offense", his highest rated offense was 11th, most of the time he was hanging in the late teens, and 20s. The only thing Schottenheimer has consistently in the NFL is trot out mediocre offenses. His track record is not very good no matter which way you look at it. I don't see how you can reconcile this fact. I understand that people want to be pumped up about the Seahawks, but his track record is pretty bad.

    As far as the Super Bowl is concerned we had a few things going for us. The first thing is our defense. We had one of the best defenses that this NFL has ever seen. We are one of those defenses legendary defenses that even had a nickname that will forever be associated with it (legion of boom). We completely defined the way teams look at secondaries, and approached the game schematically. Now tall cornerbacks are in vogue, and many teams are aiming to copy the 2013 Seahawks defense, many with success. Pete Carroll is a bonafide defensive savant. What he did was unprecidented, and in the years 2013, and 2014 we boasted the number 1 defense. In 2015 and 2016 we were very close to being at that level as well.

    With this style of defense you want to lean on them, and limit mistakes on offense. What we did in those years was absolutely the best coarse of action. The question I'm going to ask is can we replicate that kind of success with our current roster? My answer is no.

    We have a host of wholesale changes, a few things need to happen in order for the Seahawks to reclaim their greatness on the defensive side of the ball. Griffin had a good rookie year, he needs to build upon that and become a true shutdown cornerback. We need to have a safety that is able to adequately fill in for Chancellor. He may never play another snap again, and if he does he has a less than stellar recent history with injuries. We need another pass rusher to develop next to Clark, and we need his pass rush to be more consistent. I think Maxwell will be fine with Thomas shading him. Realistically I don't think every single one of these things will happen.

    I do not think we have the personnel on the offense to have a great running game on offense. I don't think Solari will magically fix that with one season of work, and a huge hold over of Cable guys. We really should be looking to structure this offense around Russell Wilson, and his unique talents. Again, I don't think Schottenheimer is capable of accomplishing this task or rather, I don't think Carroll is capable of making this a reality. Schottenheimer is just a rank and file guy. He is really going to be running Pete's offense. That doesn't mean abandoning the run. What I'm saying is we need to be playing to our strengths as a team. The team will be better at running this year, no doubt, but I don't think we have the personnel to run a full on ground and pound style of offense like we had in 2013, nor do I think we should run that style due to big question marks on our defense.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2261
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:31 am


  • I don't care what you take from all this. The threat of a running game will make any offense better. Statistically, RW was one of the best passers in the league last year but without a threat of a running game the team was not a contender. You ignore the running game at your own peril. Pete understands the need for balance. So does Schott.
    Thomas Paine: To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead
    User avatar
    Seafan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6047
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:30 pm
    Location: Helotes, TX


  • Steven Ruiz comes off looking like a CLOWN, sorry.

    A strong run game increases the probability of pass success rate.
    User avatar
    hawknation2018
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1252
    Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:04 pm


  • Spin Doctor wrote:
    ivotuk wrote: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!

    Where did that game plan get the New York Jets? They were playing right into the strength of the Lions. As soon as Rex Ryan told him to stop using the game plan they went on to win the game. I don't care if that was what Rex Ryan initially wanted, rarely do things go as you draw them up in practice. One of the things that defines offensive coordinators is their ability to adjust to what defenses are throwing at them. Schottenheimer has not demonstrated this ability in any of his stints. He does exactly what his HC asks of him, and this is his greatest weakness. He does not deviate from his game plans, he will continue down the path to hell unless he is specifically told to otherwise. I don't want that kind of guy on the Seahawks, especially with Pete Carroll as head coach. Carroll has proven time and time again that his judgement is questionable at best when it comes to the offensive side of the ball. I want a guy that is able to make his own decisions when the situation calls for it, I don't think Schottenheimer is capable of that.

    As far as his past stints never did he have a "very good offense", his highest rated offense was 11th, most of the time he was hanging in the late teens, and 20s. The only thing Schottenheimer has consistently in the NFL is trot out mediocre offenses. His track record is not very good no matter which way you look at it. I don't see how you can reconcile this fact. I understand that people want to be pumped up about the Seahawks, but his track record is pretty bad.

    As far as the Super Bowl is concerned we had a few things going for us. The first thing is our defense. We had one of the best defenses that this NFL has ever seen. We are one of those defenses legendary defenses that even had a nickname that will forever be associated with it (legion of boom). We completely defined the way teams look at secondaries, and approached the game schematically. Now tall cornerbacks are in vogue, and many teams are aiming to copy the 2013 Seahawks defense, many with success. Pete Carroll is a bonafide defensive savant. What he did was unprecidented, and in the years 2013, and 2014 we boasted the number 1 defense. In 2015 and 2016 we were very close to being at that level as well.

    With this style of defense you want to lean on them, and limit mistakes on offense. What we did in those years was absolutely the best coarse of action. The question I'm going to ask is can we replicate that kind of success with our current roster? My answer is no.

    We have a host of wholesale changes, a few things need to happen in order for the Seahawks to reclaim their greatness on the defensive side of the ball. Griffin had a good rookie year, he needs to build upon that and become a true shutdown cornerback. We need to have a safety that is able to adequately fill in for Chancellor. He may never play another snap again, and if he does he has a less than stellar recent history with injuries. We need another pass rusher to develop next to Clark, and we need his pass rush to be more consistent. I think Maxwell will be fine with Thomas shading him. Realistically I don't think every single one of these things will happen.

    I do not think we have the personnel on the offense to have a great running game on offense. I don't think Solari will magically fix that with one season of work, and a huge hold over of Cable guys. We really should be looking to structure this offense around Russell Wilson, and his unique talents. Again, I don't think Schottenheimer is capable of accomplishing this task or rather, I don't think Carroll is capable of making this a reality. Schottenheimer is just a rank and file guy. He is really going to be running Pete's offense. That doesn't mean abandoning the run. What I'm saying is we need to be playing to our strengths as a team. The team will be better at running this year, no doubt, but I don't think we have the personnel to run a full on ground and pound style of offense like we had in 2013, nor do I think we should run that style due to big question marks on our defense.


    Jeremy Bates was fired for not doing what Pete wanted, go against the Head Coach at your peril, he also had a incident I heard at a party but his pushing the deep ball instead of the run was a major factor as well.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 24230
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • It's all conjecture. Bates wasn't getting stuff done. Bevell wasn't getting stuff done.

    Just listening to Brian Schottenheimer, he speaks with a level of intelligence and authenticity that is a stark departure from previous Carroll offensive coordinators. His understanding of the run game is another departure.
    User avatar
    hawknation2018
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1252
    Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:04 pm


Next


It is currently Sat Jun 23, 2018 11:16 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], yeash28 and 153 guests