Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

"Pete" ball defined -

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
"Pete" ball defined -
Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:39 pm
  • "Pete" ball defined -

    adj-
    1. An antiquated offense that ignores the opponent, and personnel of either team.

    2. Leaning heavily towards the run, except when it should, then you throw it (short yardage situations).

    3. Simple route concepts so the players can play fast. (In reality it just makes them easier to cover.) Mostly vertical routes to try to get big gains, but usually turns into the QB holding the ball and getting killed.

    4. Lethargic, and slow breaking the huddle cannot give the QB time to adjust and change the play, also leads to unnecessary usage of timeouts. Sloppy play, heavy on pre-snap penalties. Disorganization is routine.


    "Pete" ball is applicable to all these situations. It has nothing to do with specifically just running or passing, but applies to the entire offense regardless of what they are doing on a particular play. This is "Pete" ball.


    You're going to be hearing this term a lot over the course of the rest of the season. I'm just helping people out in case they don't understand what the term exactly means.
    User avatar
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1792
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:15 am
  • Fade wrote:"Pete" ball defined -

    adj-
    1. An antiquated offense that ignores the opponent, and personnel of either team.

    2. Leaning heavily towards the run, except when it should, then you throw it (short yardage situations).

    3. Simple route concepts so the players can play fast. (In reality it just makes them easier to cover.) Mostly vertical routes to try to get big gains, but usually turns into the QB holding the ball and getting killed.

    4. Lethargic, and slow breaking the huddle cannot give the QB time to adjust and change the play, also leads to unnecessary usage of timeouts. Sloppy play, heavy on pre-snap penalties. Disorganization is routine.


    "Pete" ball is applicable to all these situations. It has nothing to do with specifically just running or passing, but applies to the entire offense regardless of what they are doing on a particular play. This is "Pete" ball.


    You're going to be hearing this term a lot over the course of the rest of the season. I'm just helping people out in case they don't understand what the term exactly means.


    Your input continues to impress.

    "Pete Ball" with the above definition is unfortunately all too accurate.
    semiahmoo
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1690
    Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 12:10 pm


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:21 am
  • Very sad truth

    And this is exactly why I've stated several times, Pete is incapable of winning another SB without a top 3 defense. His offense is offensive to fans and his defense!
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5610
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:36 am
  • Fade wrote:"Pete" ball defined -

    [i][u][b]adj-
    1. An antiquated offense that ignores the opponent, and personnel of either team..



    Why do you think we passed the ball so much in the Denver and Chicago games, and ran the ball more in the Dallas and Arizona games?

    It certainly wasn't because Pete and the coordinators were ignoring personnel...........it was BECAUSE of personnel. Both Denver and Chicago have great D-lines, so more passing.

    We can certainly discuss the antiquated part of your statements, because I agree with that part of "Pete Ball." But the ignoring of personnel isn't true at all.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13648
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:46 am
  • Pete Ball is a slogging, barely watchable offensive system that relies on rare talent at RB and a generational defense to be effective. Otherwise, you just end up with the most boring .500 team in the league
    ducks41468
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 328
    Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:41 pm


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:55 am
  • It's driving me crazy, I literally can't watch this offense.
    Apple Cup Week: "I've always felt that being a Cougar prepares you for life. You learn not to expect too much."
    --UW Coach Don James
    User avatar
    DomeHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 816
    Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:20 am
    Location: Meadowdale


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:02 am
  • You guys do realize Pete doesn’t call the offensive plays?
    User avatar
    Hawk-Lock
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3907
    Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:29 am


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:04 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Fade wrote:"Pete" ball defined -

    [i][u][b]adj-
    1. An antiquated offense that ignores the opponent, and personnel of either team..



    Why do you think we passed the ball so much in the Denver and Chicago games, and ran the ball more in the Dallas and Arizona games?

    It certainly wasn't because Pete and the coordinators were ignoring personnel...........it was BECAUSE of personnel. Both Denver and Chicago have great D-lines, so more passing.

    We can certainly discuss the antiquated part of your statements, because I agree with that part of "Pete Ball." But the ignoring of personnel isn't true at all.


    I would agree with this to some extent if Ifedi wasn't such a liability in Pass Pro against any of the top 5 to 10 DEs or pass rushing LBs in the league. Great D lines put you through the ringer on what to do situationally but the Ifedi Factor...
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3240
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:06 am
  • Hawk-Lock wrote:You guys do realize Pete doesn’t call the offensive plays?


    But he does define the offensive philosophy, which is why we've switched OC's and still see the same nonsense.
    ducks41468
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 328
    Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:41 pm


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:07 am
  • Hawk-Lock wrote:You guys do realize Pete doesn’t call the offensive plays?


    Except when he interjects explicitly. Except then.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3240
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:10 am
  • Hawk-Lock wrote:You guys do realize Pete doesn’t call the offensive plays?


    If you haven't figured out that our OC's are running Pete's offense, then I suggest you look hard at what they have in common. Pete himself said the offense is 75% the same as with Bevell.

    That is Pete's playbook, and Pete hires his coordinator's based on their ability to follow orders.

    Image
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5610
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:11 am
  • I watch maybe a couple of first half drives and the 4th Q now. Can't stand watching inept offense all game especially the first drives. Pete ball is all about playing to the level of the competition where blowouts are limited and it works to an extent but its frustrating to watch knowing you have a QB that can match production with the best in the league.
    bandiger
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 625
    Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:58 am


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:11 am
  • Hawk-Lock wrote:You guys do realize Pete doesn’t call the offensive plays?


    Call them? No.

    Dictate offensive scheme and playcall installation during the week, AND override, meddle and take over situation playcalling in real time during games? ABSOLUTELY.

    Why do you think we're so horrible at situational playcalling when time's running out and it's 3rd or 4th and 1. Some terrible dysfunction going on between OC, Pete and Russell.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13648
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:14 am
  • Fade is dead on. I would add this.....Some how Pete Carroll has taken some fairly good football players and made them look below average. Very frustrating for the fans....can't imagine what the players are feeling. :roll:
    User avatar
    xray
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 300
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2018 5:29 am
    Location: AZ


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:22 am
  • xray wrote:Fade is dead on. I would add this.....Some how Pete Carroll has taken some fairly good football players and made them look below average. Very frustrating for the fans....can't imagine what the players are feeling. :roll:


    He's also helped low draft picks and undrafted rookies into Pro Bowlers and very wealthy men.

    Pete may need to be changed, but the reason he is still here is because he's been very successful.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13761
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:36 am
  • Can anyone of you here tell me another Seahawks HC who has taken us to multiple SBs? Or has won a SB with this team?

    Asking for a friend.
    In the clearing stands a boxer and a fighter by his trade.........

    Paulie S.
    User avatar
    LymonHawk
    * El Primo *
     
    Posts: 7253
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Skagit County, WA


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:39 am
  • Fade wrote:You're going to be hearing this term a lot over the course of the rest of the season. I'm just helping people out in case they don't understand what the term exactly means.


    Image
    User avatar
    bmorepunk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1974
    Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:56 pm


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:44 am
  • LymonHawk wrote:Can anyone of you here tell me another Seahawks HC who has taken us to multiple SBs? Or has won a SB with this team?

    Asking for a friend.


    And that's why Paul Allen's given Pete and John a chance to rebuild this thing, they've earned that goodwill.

    But just like Allen's patience will run out if it's clear that Pete's lost it, so is our patience. Obviously some fans quicker than others.

    No one's discounting what Pete's done for this franchise Lymon, but it doesn't mean we should just have blind faith in perpetuity if we think it's not working anymore.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13648
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:45 am
  • LymonHawk wrote:Can anyone of you here tell me another Seahawks HC who has taken us to multiple SBs? Or has won a SB with this team?

    Asking for a friend.


    So we should keep him because we won a SB five years ago and made another four years ago? After which we made it to the divisional round twice, got beat cleanly twice, and then missed the playoffs.

    We now no longer have the talent to play Pete Ball and he hasn't adapted the offense. Defense looks good, I must say, for the talent and experience level. The offense was supposed to carry though, and they simply haven't.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3281
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:51 am
  • adeltaY wrote:
    LymonHawk wrote:Can anyone of you here tell me another Seahawks HC who has taken us to multiple SBs? Or has won a SB with this team?

    Asking for a friend.


    So we should keep him because we won a SB five years ago and made another four years ago? After which we made it to the divisional round twice, got beat cleanly twice, and then missed the playoffs.

    We now no longer have the talent to play Pete Ball and he hasn't adapted the offense. Defense looks good, I must say, for the talent and experience level. The offense was supposed to carry though, and they simply haven't.


    Perhaps you can show me were I said we should keep him?
    In the clearing stands a boxer and a fighter by his trade.........

    Paulie S.
    User avatar
    LymonHawk
    * El Primo *
     
    Posts: 7253
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Skagit County, WA


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:53 am
  • adeltaY wrote:
    LymonHawk wrote:Can anyone of you here tell me another Seahawks HC who has taken us to multiple SBs? Or has won a SB with this team?

    Asking for a friend.


    So we should keep him because we won a SB five years ago and made another four years ago? After which we made it to the divisional round twice, got beat cleanly twice, and then missed the playoffs.

    We now no longer have the talent to play Pete Ball and he hasn't adapted the offense. Defense looks good, I must say, for the talent and experience level. The offense was supposed to carry though, and they simply haven't.


    The simple question here is does the FO trust Pete to guide the team back through the talent development and acquisition process and into the playoffs again.

    He was successful once. The team is not up to it at the moment.

    What now? Blaming PC takes some work. But saying it's time to move on doesn't really.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13761
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:58 am
  • LymonHawk wrote:
    adeltaY wrote:
    LymonHawk wrote:Can anyone of you here tell me another Seahawks HC who has taken us to multiple SBs? Or has won a SB with this team?

    Asking for a friend.


    So we should keep him because we won a SB five years ago and made another four years ago? After which we made it to the divisional round twice, got beat cleanly twice, and then missed the playoffs.

    We now no longer have the talent to play Pete Ball and he hasn't adapted the offense. Defense looks good, I must say, for the talent and experience level. The offense was supposed to carry though, and they simply haven't.


    Perhaps you can show me were I said we should keep him?



    Maybe be more clear when you post, instead of just writing a rhetorical statement about Pete's coaching accomplishments insinuating that you support him.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13648
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:05 am
  • I will forever trust Pete Carroll running the defense and for the most part the entire team. His vision as a HC has absolutely been successful. The offensive side of the ball worked when we had a guy like Marshawn who got better as the game went, turned a tackle for loss into a 4 yard play, and had a defense setting historic records. As players got older, other teams learned how to attack the defense and these close game the Hawks would win turned into close losses. Given all the turnover, this defense is playing at a much higher level than I ever expected.

    However, the offense is getting worse and has been for 2.5 years. There are no adaptations or new wrinkles to what has been figured out. The route trees are insanely simple and defenders beat the receivers to their spot regularly. We brought in a new, boring guy who takes 75% of Pete's already declining offense and seem to be putting Russell into game manager mode. Russell throwing for under 200, maybe 1 or 2 TD's, and winning a low scoring ball controlled game is Pete's dream. Today's offenses are throwing for 300+ yards a game with ease by combination of scheme and personnel. I don't see a roster currently that can win against the new era of offense and needs something new on offense to compete. Cards dropped a handful of huge passes yesterday that likely change the outcome of the game, above average teams will capitalize every time.

    *Edit - I know firing coaches mid season can be hit or miss but I really wish they pulled a Bengals and fired Schotty to bring in a new guy who fits Russell better. I forever thought Dalton would be the reason the Bengals are 1 and done in the playoffs but he's been lights out since that change last year. I couldn't tell you a specific name of someone to bring in, there are a bunch in college I would be interested in, but we have to bring someone in who can build an offense around Russell's strengths.
    Last edited by mistaowen on Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    mistaowen
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4339
    Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:54 pm


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:06 am
  • Someone mentioned the defense looks good.

    It doesn't look great.

    Pete needs great players to win. Not good.

    Pete used to be very good at finding and developing great players. But he has not done that in years - at least not much better than other teams that can also do the normal HC stuff too.

    Without that ability to contribute that additional value, he does not have any because most of the other things you want in a HC he cannot do or does below average to poorly. He was always so good at that turning diamonds in the rough into Top 5 players at their position, he could get by on it. But that no longer applies. It is like when a speedster WR loses his speed, but never had the route running or hands otherwise.

    Pete is a 2 trick pony that hasn't shown or been able to do his best trick in a while. Not even sure he can anymore.

    Without that, Pete ball cannot work and doesn't. So we get this record-breaking garbage that we call an offense.

    Breaking records like:

    Least TDs over a span of games.
    Lowest scoring in the 1st half over a season.
    Longest span of 1st drives without a score.

    And shooting for # of 3rd downs in a row without a conversion.

    These are all symptoms of an offense that is either ill-suited to the personnel or poorly schemed/conceived in the first place. And yet Pete is still focusing on 'his' preferred offense that does not work and won't work because he never bothered to hire a good OC, he hired an obedient one instead.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3348
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:48 pm


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:12 am
  • Unfortunately, for the most part I agree. Pretty frustrating at times.

    The OP did omit the part of Pete ball that deals with challenging calls that clearly should not be challenged at a prodigious rate.
    Now a guppy driver. Loving the Hawks with my bro Nanomoz for over 30 years
    User avatar
    rjdriver
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1945
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:11 am
    Location: Utah


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:24 am
  • I might be on board with some of this if we get lambasted by the Rams in our house again.

    But my view of Pete Ball is this:
    1) Stop the Run on defense and Run the ball on offense
    2) Nothing Deep, Nothing Cheap in pass defense
    3) Risk Averse passing (only 3 things can happen when you pass and 2 of them are bad)
    4) It's all about the ball

    It's really that simple. Is it unwatchable at times? Depends on what you consider unwatchable. I really liked our running game yesterday and was stoked after Davis' first TD with Russell leading the way.. The passing attack was remedial at times but that doesn't make a game unwatchable for me. I've been a Seahawk fan a long time and tough defense and good rushing attack has defined this franchise for 35 yrs.

    Anyways, since we've not had a losing record in the Wilson era, I'm not ready to pull the plug on Pete Ball at this point. Saying the game has passed Pete by when he has the same record as the Eagles, is more wishful thinking, than reality.
    Mad Dog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 499
    Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 7:12 am


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:31 am
  • I would add that the number one goal of the offense it to limit putting the defense into bad positions. The number two goal is to keep the score low. The number three goal is to shorten the game by taking time off the clock. Scoring points is actually goal number 4. Winning is still the end goal number 5 though.
    User avatar
    brimsalabim
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4154
    Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:50 am


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:35 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:The simple question here is does the FO trust Pete to guide the team back through the talent development and acquisition process and into the playoffs again.

    He was successful once. The team is not up to it at the moment.

    What now? Blaming PC takes some work. But saying it's time to move on doesn't really.


    Si's right. This is where the fanbase gets split. Some believe Pete can rebuild and turn the team around and some dont (not getting into reasons for either side). The big question is how long of a leash does Paul Allen allow him? The guys the oldest coach in the league and his contract is up after next season. If he's going to be successful in rebuilding the team, he doesnt have long to do it in my opinion.
    Last edited by pittpnthrs on Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1092
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 10:19 am


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:36 am
  • Mad Dog wrote:I might be on board with some of this if we get lambasted by the Rams in our house again.

    But my view of Pete Ball is this:
    1) Stop the Run on defense and Run the ball on offense
    2) Nothing Deep, Nothing Cheap in pass defense
    3) Risk Averse passing (only 3 things can happen when you pass and 2 of them are bad)
    4) It's all about the ball

    It's really that simple. Is it unwatchable at times? Depends on what you consider unwatchable. I really liked our running game yesterday and was stoked after Davis' first TD with Russell leading the way.. The passing attack was remedial at times but that doesn't make a game unwatchable for me. I've been a Seahawk fan a long time and tough defense and good rushing attack has defined this franchise for 35 yrs.

    Anyways, since we've not had a losing record in the Wilson era, I'm not ready to pull the plug on Pete Ball at this point. Saying the game has passed Pete by when he has the same record as the Eagles, is more wishful thinking, than reality.


    Wrong! Penalty on defense can be huge, and we just got spotted on the 1 in fact.

    1) Complete to offense
    2) Incomplete
    3) Intercepted
    4) Penalty on defense
    5) Penalty on offense
    Last edited by Seymour on Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5610
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:36 am
  • Mad Dog wrote:I might be on board with some of this if we get lambasted by the Rams in our house again.

    But my view of Pete Ball is this:
    1) Stop the Run on defense and Run the ball on offense
    2) Nothing Deep, Nothing Cheap in pass defense
    3) Risk Averse passing (only 3 things can happen when you pass and 2 of them are bad)
    4) It's all about the ball

    It's really that simple. Is it unwatchable at times? Depends on what you consider unwatchable. I really liked our running game yesterday and was stoked after Davis' first TD with Russell leading the way.. The passing attack was remedial at times but that doesn't make a game unwatchable for me. I've been a Seahawk fan a long time and tough defense and good rushing attack has defined this franchise for 35 yrs.

    Anyways, since we've not had a losing record in the Wilson era, I'm not ready to pull the plug on Pete Ball at this point. Saying the game has passed Pete by when he has the same record as the Eagles, is more wishful thinking, than reality.


    The Eagles played two games with Nick Foles at QB and they just got Wentz back off an injury he sustained around ten months ago. They also played the red-hot Bucs with Fitzmagic and a 3-1 Titans team. It's not a good comparison.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3281
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:42 am
  • There's also a Pete Ball component of "feeling out the other team," rope-a-dope and "not wanting to show our hand early"-the concept of you can only win the game when you're in a mad panic desperation mode late in the 4th.

    Under the Pete Ball Federal Code, Chapter 48, Sections 25- 31, intimidating defense with strong press coverage is the cornerstone and foundation for success. For situational cuteness on offense, also a Pete Ball staple, see Chapter 49, Sections 3-83 sans section 24 (withdrawn).
    User avatar
    West TX Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2037
    Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:24 am


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:48 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    adeltaY wrote:
    LymonHawk wrote:Can anyone of you here tell me another Seahawks HC who has taken us to multiple SBs? Or has won a SB with this team?

    Asking for a friend.


    So we should keep him because we won a SB five years ago and made another four years ago? After which we made it to the divisional round twice, got beat cleanly twice, and then missed the playoffs.

    We now no longer have the talent to play Pete Ball and he hasn't adapted the offense. Defense looks good, I must say, for the talent and experience level. The offense was supposed to carry though, and they simply haven't.


    The simple question here is does the FO trust Pete to guide the team back through the talent development and acquisition process and into the playoffs again.

    He was successful once. The team is not up to it at the moment.

    What now? Blaming PC takes some work. But saying it's time to move on doesn't really.


    Si, I believe you meant ownership rather than FO. Is that correct? Because Pete, as Executive VP of Football Operations, is part of the FO. So there would be some trust in Pete unless he doesn't trust himself. https://www.seahawks.com/team/coaches-roster/
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7299
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:49 am
  • adeltaY wrote:
    Mad Dog wrote:I might be on board with some of this if we get lambasted by the Rams in our house again.

    But my view of Pete Ball is this:
    1) Stop the Run on defense and Run the ball on offense
    2) Nothing Deep, Nothing Cheap in pass defense
    3) Risk Averse passing (only 3 things can happen when you pass and 2 of them are bad)
    4) It's all about the ball

    It's really that simple. Is it unwatchable at times? Depends on what you consider unwatchable. I really liked our running game yesterday and was stoked after Davis' first TD with Russell leading the way.. The passing attack was remedial at times but that doesn't make a game unwatchable for me. I've been a Seahawk fan a long time and tough defense and good rushing attack has defined this franchise for 35 yrs.

    Anyways, since we've not had a losing record in the Wilson era, I'm not ready to pull the plug on Pete Ball at this point. Saying the game has passed Pete by when he has the same record as the Eagles, is more wishful thinking, than reality.


    The Eagles played two games with Nick Foles at QB and they just got Wentz back off an injury he sustained around ten months ago. They also played the red-hot Bucs with Fitzmagic and a 3-1 Titans team. It's not a good comparison.


    Not sure a team that won 2 games at the beginning of the season can be considered "red hot". And that same Bucs team got blasted by a Bears team that barely beat us.

    And I'm pretty sure Nick Foles won the SB last year.

    All NFL teams are hard and the gaps between best and worst are not the same as college football. Which is why, "Any Given Sunday" is a thing. Fact is, you are what your record says you are. Right now we are 2-2 on a 2 game win streak and haven't lost by more than 7 yet.

    I think the rumors of Pete's demise may be a bit premature. We shall see if all the nay-sayers are right but I'm not throwing in the towel this soon in a season.
    Mad Dog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 499
    Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 7:12 am


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:58 am
  • hawkfan68 wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    adeltaY wrote:
    LymonHawk wrote:Can anyone of you here tell me another Seahawks HC who has taken us to multiple SBs? Or has won a SB with this team?

    Asking for a friend.


    So we should keep him because we won a SB five years ago and made another four years ago? After which we made it to the divisional round twice, got beat cleanly twice, and then missed the playoffs.

    We now no longer have the talent to play Pete Ball and he hasn't adapted the offense. Defense looks good, I must say, for the talent and experience level. The offense was supposed to carry though, and they simply haven't.


    The simple question here is does the FO trust Pete to guide the team back through the talent development and acquisition process and into the playoffs again.

    He was successful once. The team is not up to it at the moment.

    What now? Blaming PC takes some work. But saying it's time to move on doesn't really.


    Si, I believe you meant ownership rather than FO. Is that correct? Because Pete, as Executive VP of Football Operations, is part of the FO. So there would be some trust in Pete unless he doesn't trust himself. https://www.seahawks.com/team/coaches-roster/



    yes... that is what I was meaning.

    Thanks!
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13761
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:07 pm
  • LymonHawk wrote:
    adeltaY wrote:
    LymonHawk wrote:Can anyone of you here tell me another Seahawks HC who has taken us to multiple SBs? Or has won a SB with this team?

    Asking for a friend.


    So we should keep him because we won a SB five years ago and made another four years ago? After which we made it to the divisional round twice, got beat cleanly twice, and then missed the playoffs.

    We now no longer have the talent to play Pete Ball and he hasn't adapted the offense. Defense looks good, I must say, for the talent and experience level. The offense was supposed to carry though, and they simply haven't.


    Perhaps you can show me were I said we should keep him?


    Oh stop with your passive agrresive non sense. Your post is clearly implying that he should not be fired.
    User avatar
    Steve2222
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1880
    Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 7:12 am


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:08 pm
  • TwistedHusky wrote:Someone mentioned the defense looks good.


    It looks better than most of us including myself thought it'd look.

    Unfortunately the offense still looks like the same old frustrating offense we've come to know and hate over the past couple of years.

    Which makes sense, cause Pete knows how to develop defenses, he knows body types, fits and how to scheme on defense. But he's stuck in the stone age on offense still, and that's probably never going to change.

    He's said it many many times, he wants to control the ball, run, be physical........and not have an offense dependent on the QB. Voila, I give you our offense in a nutshell.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13648
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:37 pm
  • ducks41468 wrote:Pete Ball is a slogging, barely watchable offensive system that relies on rare talent at RB and a generational defense to be effective. Otherwise, you just end up with the most boring .500 team in the league


    Agreed.
    semiahmoo
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1690
    Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 12:10 pm


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:16 pm
  • Pete Carroll views his offense as having one job: keeping the toxic differential low. All of his routes, and offensive concepts are designed specifically to minimize turnover potential. This is why short yardage timing passes over the middle that are the bread and butter of modern NFL teams are missing from the Seahawks playbook. He also favors the big play, to him that is what breaks teams. One of the way he tries to catch teams off balance is to run plays at times where it makes the most sense to run something else. Occasionally it works, but most of the time it provides us with stalled drives. Teams are expecting this from the Seahawks.

    I think the biggest indictment against Pete ball is the fact that we haven't scored a TD on our first possession in over two years. No other NFL team has accomplished this feat. An indication of how bad an offense is, is the scripted plays.

    The problem with Pete is he approaches the game the same way every time with no regard for personnel or match ups. Even the rigid Mike Holmgren was capable of abandoning, and changing up his philosophy based on the enemies strengths/weaknesses and his own teams strengths/weaknesses. A good example of this is in 2007. He saw that our line was bad, and our running game was non-existent. He said "i'm going to go back to my roots" and he implemented a Bill Walsh style west coast offense that used the shotgun quite frequently, a formation he did not like much. As a result the Seahawks had a very good offense that year despite lacking WR talent and a running game.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2694
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:31 am


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:18 pm
  • Spin Doctor wrote:Pete Carroll views his offense as having one job: keeping the toxic differential low. All of his routes, and offensive concepts are designed specifically to minimize turnover potential. This is why short yardage timing passes over the middle that are the bread and butter of modern NFL teams are missing from the Seahawks playbook. He also favors the big play, to him that is what breaks teams. One of the way he tries to catch teams off balance is to run plays at times where it makes the most sense to run something else. Occasionally it works, but most of the time it provides us with stalled drives. Teams are expecting this from the Seahawks.

    I think the biggest indictment against Pete ball is the fact that we haven't scored a TD on our first possession in over two years. No other NFL team has accomplished this feat. An indication of how bad an offense is, is the scripted plays.

    The problem with Pete is he approaches the game the same way every time with no regard for personnel or match ups. Even the rigid Mike Holmgren was capable of abandoning, and changing up his philosophy based on the enemies strengths/weaknesses and his own teams strengths/weaknesses. A good example of this is in 2007. He saw that our line was bad, and our running game was non-existent. He said "i'm going to go back to my roots" and he implemented a Bill Walsh style west coast offense that used the shotgun quite frequently, a formation he did not like much. As a result the Seahawks had a very good offense that year despite lacking WR talent and a running game.


    The puckish sprite in me says "Isn't a 3 and Out a turnover as well?" :evil:
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3240
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:55 pm
  • I love an offense that rams the ball down peoples throats.I will take a team winning 23 17 and running for 170 yds over winning 45 42.

    We all knew after the huge turnover we had from last year we couldnt replace the all that talent that was lost.We were going to have a mediocre team.As long as these guys keep playing as hard as they are things will get better.

    With a QB like Wilson Bevel was actually a better oc than Schotty. Wilson wont be a QB like the Bradys or even Goff.He is one of a kind. I want him out there being the playmaker he has been. I want him out there running for 4 or 500 yds a season putting pressure on the perimeter.

    It reminds me of his first years, low on talent he circled around a strong running game while building a young D.

    I hope Pete retires here myself.I will take the good with the bad.
    justafan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1110
    Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:37 am


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:07 pm
  • Fade wrote:"Pete" ball defined -

    adj-
    1. An antiquated offense that ignores the opponent, and personnel of either team.

    2. Leaning heavily towards the run, except when it should, then you throw it (short yardage situations).

    3. Simple route concepts so the players can play fast. (In reality it just makes them easier to cover.) Mostly vertical routes to try to get big gains, but usually turns into the QB holding the ball and getting killed.

    4. Lethargic, and slow breaking the huddle cannot give the QB time to adjust and change the play, also leads to unnecessary usage of timeouts. Sloppy play, heavy on pre-snap penalties. Disorganization is routine.


    "Pete" ball is applicable to all these situations. It has nothing to do with specifically just running or passing, but applies to the entire offense regardless of what they are doing on a particular play. This is "Pete" ball.


    You're going to be hearing this term a lot over the course of the rest of the season. I'm just helping people out in case they don't understand what the term exactly means.



    The offense is the last to come around. It is a work in progress, as the number of practices are severely restricted by union rules. By week 9 or 10, they will be going gangbusters.
    jeremiah
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 107
    Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 6:10 pm


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:09 pm
  • Really, the only quote you need to know from Pete is from the fateful last play of Sooperbowl 49, sorry to beat that dead horse, but I think it's appropriate here:

    "Why didn't you just run the ball?" (Or give the ball to Marshawn, whatever)

    "Well, we had a couple of downs to burn."

    Downs to burn. At that point. You know, feel out the opposition. That's his philosophy. Granted, football is a tactical chess match, but feeling comfortable going into half time every game 'only' down by one score because you're trying to feel the other team out (the old 'rope a dope' as mentioned above) can work for only so long. Yep, won a Super Bowl. Not many coaches can say that. Almost won two in a row, except guess what? When you're a one trick pony, people figure that out sooner than later. If you are Pete's age, and had the success he had on a college and pro level, why would you change the formula? Could you even reinvent yourself at this point? You go with what you know and ride off into the sunset.

    Theoretically it could work again. It won't. It's not. But you don't slaughter your cash cow...so...now we wait for the old bull to go out to pasture. Thanks for the memories?
    AubHawk71
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 61
    Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:46 am


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:12 pm
  • Seymour wrote:
    Hawk-Lock wrote:You guys do realize Pete doesn’t call the offensive plays?


    If you haven't figured out that our OC's are running Pete's offense, then I suggest you look hard at what they have in common. Pete himself said the offense is 75% the same as with Bevell.

    That is Pete's playbook, and Pete hires his coordinator's based on their ability to follow orders.

    Image


    What do you guys want, or what did you guys expect. We have a great QB with below average players around him on offense. Our WR core probably falls in the bottom third of the league. Tyler Lockett has been our #1 WR for the first few games, he is a #3 on most NFL teams. Not to mention Doug isn't healthy. Our offensive line and RB's likely also rank in the bottom third of the league. You just can't expect us to be the Rams without the pieces. We have zero receiving TE's and no great pass catching backs.

    Everyone wants to be the Rams, well there is only one Sean McVay. Go on every NFL fan forum and I'd guess about 80% of them aren't happy with the offense. We suck on offense because we just aren't that great at it.

    The idea is to get back to the old Seahawks style of pound the ball, lets try it for maybe a season before we want to throw it out. You guys do realize it's only week 5 right? Just give it some time, don't forget how banged up we are. A lot of the NFL comes down to the guys you have on your team.
    User avatar
    Hawk-Lock
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3907
    Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:29 am


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:24 pm
  • Hawk-Lock wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    Hawk-Lock wrote:You guys do realize Pete doesn’t call the offensive plays?


    If you haven't figured out that our OC's are running Pete's offense, then I suggest you look hard at what they have in common. Pete himself said the offense is 75% the same as with Bevell.

    That is Pete's playbook, and Pete hires his coordinator's based on their ability to follow orders.

    Image


    What do you guys want, or what did you guys expect. We have a great QB with below average players around him on offense. Our WR core probably falls in the bottom third of the league. Tyler Lockett has been our #1 WR for the first few games, he is a #3 on most NFL teams. Not to mention Doug isn't healthy. Our offensive line and RB's likely also rank in the bottom third of the league. You just can't expect us to be the Rams without the pieces. We have zero receiving TE's and no great pass catching backs.

    Everyone wants to be the Rams, well there is only one Sean McVay. Go on every NFL fan forum and I'd guess about 80% of them aren't happy with the offense. We suck on offense because we just aren't that great at it.

    The idea is to get back to the old Seahawks style of pound the ball, lets try it for maybe a season before we want to throw it out. You guys do realize it's only week 5 right? Just give it some time, don't forget how banged up we are. A lot of the NFL comes down to the guys you have on your team.



    A fresh look from a new coaching staff (and FO) that isn't riding on the successes from 4-5 years ago? 'We cracked the code guys! We're going to win forever!'

    A touchdown on the opening drive? Is that too much to ask for a $250 single game ticket? Nothing lasts forever. Look at rock bands, or any sports franchise. This season is not a complete bust, but...but. but.
    AubHawk71
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 61
    Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:46 am


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:30 pm
  • You say only one McVay, well we had a Coryell, a Luckman, Walsh that all innovated and opened up a game changing offense, someone else will as well. The rule changes will mean adapting changes to defense and offense to take advantage of allowable things that get created.
    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: 25094
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:00 pm
  • We have meh players on offense but do you see a concerted effort get them into space and scheme them open? I don't. Where did all the rub routes go? Even Bev knew to use those frequently.

    Also, RW is the highest rated passer on play action this year and yet

    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3281
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:41 pm
  • The circle is complete. :mrgreen:

    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3281
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:35 pm
  • adeltaY wrote:The circle is complete. :mrgreen:




    Somewhere Souixhawk is changing his onesies from a 7 to a 3.
    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: 25094
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:23 pm
  • adeltaY wrote:The circle is complete. :mrgreen:



    "No Russy, you're not allowed to sit at the adult table with the rest of the real QB's. Back to the kiddie table with the rest of the game managers and washouts."

    -Pete
    ducks41468
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 328
    Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:41 pm


Re: "Pete" ball defined -
Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:27 pm
  • If you ever wanted evidence that says there is no way Wilson stays here, what Pete is doing to his numbers has to be example #1.

    If I am Wilson's agent, I am going FA at the earliest opportunity and letting the team know I will sit until Game 9 if you try to tag me.

    I get Wilson is not perfect. I never expected him to be Elite.

    But we are doing a terrible job helping him. And I bet another coach would find a way to make him much more effective than he has been.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3348
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:48 pm


Next


It is currently Wed Nov 21, 2018 12:16 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online