"Pete" ball defined -

Fade · Oct 1, 2018

"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.

semiahmoo · Oct 1, 2018

Fade":m22mwolt said:
"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.

Seymour · Oct 1, 2018

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!

Sgt. Largent · Oct 1, 2018

Fade":9lxg29f8 said:
"Pete" ball defined -

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.

ducks41468 · Oct 1, 2018

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

DomeHawk · Oct 1, 2018

It's driving me crazy, I literally can't watch this offense.

Hawk-Lock · Oct 1, 2018

You guys do realize Pete doesn’t call the offensive plays?

mrt144 · Oct 1, 2018

Sgt. Largent":1zfaj17f said:
Fade":1zfaj17f said:

"Pete" ball defined -

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

Click to expand...

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...

ducks41468 · Oct 1, 2018

Hawk-Lock":2rr2mimi said:
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.

mrt144 · Oct 1, 2018

Hawk-Lock":2iciwl0e said:
You guys do realize Pete doesn’t call the offensive plays?

Except when he interjects explicitly. Except then.

Seymour · Oct 1, 2018

Hawk-Lock":1col6u47 said:
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.

bandiger · Oct 1, 2018

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.

Sgt. Largent · Oct 1, 2018

Hawk-Lock":1eiv5ye4 said:
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.

xray · Oct 1, 2018

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:

Uncle Si · Oct 1, 2018

xray":28j2vkkq said:
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.

LymonHawk · Oct 1, 2018

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.

bmorepunk · Oct 1, 2018

Fade":2hpiwq86 said:
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.

Sgt. Largent · Oct 1, 2018

LymonHawk":1n0woj6g said:
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.

adeltaY · Oct 1, 2018

LymonHawk":o1vtv4sf said:
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.

LymonHawk · Oct 1, 2018

adeltaY":2vvlv9yo said:
LymonHawk":2vvlv9yo said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

"Pete" ball defined -

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

DomeHawk

Guest

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Similar threads