My thought on the peril of a run first identity

mrt144

New member
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
4,065
Reaction score
0
First, I get it. It's typically lower variance in outcome than passing, it can leverage other things you want to do, it keeps the clock moving under your possession, etc etc.

Here are the problems though.

Rushing already has a lower expected value than passing even if you're very good at rushing. But that doesn't matter much if your rushing is in fact very good because distance to down will be achievable with consistent rushes.

So why do I invoke the expected lower value? Think of it like an investment - we are investing a lot of capital and labor into something that already has lower returns than another investment type.

The calamity starts when the running game is straight up bad though. Sometimes we still get the dividend of play action passing sometimes we don't. I know that this seems really obvious, like "No duh T, bad things are bad" but the problem is focusing on the running game at the expense of other possibilities in formulating a gameplan, plays themselves, etc etc is it leaves you in a brittle situation.

Brittle how?

Rushes are getting sub 3 YPC. Which means in general we're having to execute passing plays on 3rd down around 4+ yards which isn't insurmountable by any means but...

If we had the ability to consistently hit passes that went for 5-7 yards on 2nd down, we wouldn't necessarily NEED to on 3rd and it's quite possible that we'd actually be more competent at it when we needed it on 3rd down by virtue of making it a strong part of our offense.

But it feels completely absent. It isn't but it feels like this is an schematic aspect of our offense that is just completely lacking. We can hit the showtime down the field shots and that's awesome. But if the stakes of a 3rd down is 4 yards, we seem tragically incapable of doing that.

So why is this short passing game seemingly absent or seemingly inept? I can only guess that for the ranges they would cover that a run seems just as good from a risk reward perspective (And that does ask how risky they think it is to pass with RW short. I swear to god, if SB49 made PC this risk adverse, that's quite the millstone). That's a PC/Schotty judgment call.

How else does the run first mentality make the offense brittle? The game situation might call for you to score faster than the running game can deliver. Or you want to preserve clock as much as possible so that you can ensure your offense gets more opportunities down the road. But if the two things your offense excels at are taken away by the defense and you're under the gun with needing to score quickly and not burn a ton of clock in the pursuit of that...welp, hope you have a short passing game that can help.

Finally, and this is the Pete Carroll specific problem. If your running game accrues holding penalties especially but any penalty you're completely screwed. Runs won't dig you out of the hole, the short/intermediate passing game you avoid isn't developed enough to get you out of the hole, so you're just hucking it up there and going 3 and out. Pete's consistently undisciplined OLs, no matter who is their coach is just one of them things that will always undermine his offensive passion with rushing.

Thems my thoughts. Happy offseason!
 

tdlabrie

Active member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
0
It has always been my assumption that if the opposing defense "stacked the line" to make successful rushing more difficult, the remedy was to fire off some short-to-midrange passes until they had to back off. Yet we never seem to do that and I can't help but wonder why?

Also, Carroll's logic seems to be "we know you know we're going to run, but we're going to do it anyway." Is there something wrong about adding a little mystery with our play calling? How many times did we 1) run, 2) run, 3) attempt a pass and get sacked, 4) punt? Just think how the complexion of the entire game might have changed if, on the very first offensive play, Russ aired out a bomb? Success or fail, the Dallas defense would have to at least re-think their strategy.
 

OpHawk

New member
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
622
Reaction score
0
If you are run first team like us, you must also be EXTREMELY disciplined. I thought overall we did a good job of cleaning up penalties this year considering what we've been. But overall we are still too sloppy to overcome our undisciplined nature in the gauntlet of win-or-go-home that is the playoffs. Negative plays are near death sentences to a drive against good teams in a run first offense.
 

SeahawksCanuck

New member
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
114
Reaction score
0
Good post. I've always disliked the "run-first" philosophy - it can work well during the season but inevitably we'll hit a defense that will cause problems.

Granted, the philosophy did win us a Superbowl, but consider that at the time:
1.) We had the most expensive o-line in the league (IIRC) and the best running back not named Adrian Peterson - the team actually built for it. Now most of our money on offense is going to the QB and WRs.
2.) We were taking much more advantage of read-option and similar plays that made the run-game less predictable than what we saw last night (notably the two run calls I liked last night and that worked were the read-option plays Wilson kept)
3.) Too often it still felt like we had to pull rabbits out of our hat to win, usually Wilson's miraculous comeback drives (while this was partially something Wilson was very good at, it also involved a significant amount of luck to get the right bounces), and the defense bailing the offense out with key takeaways.

Having such a public offensive philosophy is almost certainly a gift to opposing defensive coordinators.
 

mrblitz

Well-known member
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
1,669
Reaction score
40
a running team needs o-line depth, so when they lose players like fluker and simmons, they don't lose a step. losing fluker was bad enough, but once simmons was out, things weren't the same. ymmv
 

John63

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
6,651
Reaction score
149
SeahawksCanuck":3pwuri5z said:
Good post. I've always disliked the "run-first" philosophy - it can work well during the season but inevitably we'll hit a defense that will cause problems.

Granted, the philosophy did win us a Superbowl, but consider that at the time:
1.) We had the most expensive o-line in the league (IIRC) and the best running back not named Adrian Peterson - the team actually built for it. Now most of our money on offense is going to the QB and WRs.
2.) We were taking much more advantage of read-option and similar plays that made the run-game less predictable than what we saw last night (notably the two run calls I liked last night and that worked were the read-option plays Wilson kept)
3.) Too often it still felt like we had to pull rabbits out of our hat to win, usually Wilson's miraculous comeback drives (while this was partially something Wilson was very good at, it also involved a significant amount of luck to get the right bounces), and the defense bailing the offense out with key takeaways.

Having such a public offensive philosophy is almost certainly a gift to opposing defensive coordinators.


Some of what you say is correct, some not so much. Example of our top 10 paid players, 3 are the QB and 2 WRs, 5 are on defense, 2 are oline. Your QB will always be the highest paid unless they are on a rookie contract or not very good. Bobby is only making 700k less than Baldwin, and We have both Earl and Kam on the books for 10 and 12 mil each.
 

chris98251

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
39,634
Reaction score
1,649
Location
Roy Wa.
The skill set match up favored Dallas when you consider Pocic and moving Ifedi to Guard and Fant to tackle. It still favored Dallas last night if you watched and what we learned. Fluker was not getting his normal push and getting to the second level, his Hamstring was still bothering him, secondly and most impressive from a guts standpoint is Sweezy played with a broken foot, no way he had the push and ability to move and sustain blocks with his foot broke that he normally would.


None of those guys would use this as a excuse, but you have limitations when your body can't function without pain and comfort.
 

John63

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
6,651
Reaction score
149
chris98251":2ich3ohg said:
The skill set match up favored Dallas when you consider Pocic and moving Ifedi to Guard and Fant to tackle. It still favored Dallas last night if you watched and what we learned. Fluker was not getting his normal push and getting to the second level, his Hamstring was still bothering him, secondly and most impressive from a guts standpoint is Sweezy played with a broken foot, no way he had the push and ability to move and sustain blocks with his foot broke that he normally would.


None of those guys would use this as a excuse, but you have limitations when your body can't function without pain and comfort.


I agree which makes it, even more, confusing why when the run did not work they did not adjust till it was too late.
 

Elemas

New member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
1,369
Reaction score
7
Great post. I've enjoyed the "run first" mentality and am excited to see what the future holds for Carson and Penny.

But...the whole "they know we're going to run but we're going to run anyway" thing....won't work against defenses like Dallas. They stuffed the line...repeatedly. Run, run, 3rd and long pass, punt.

Play action, hitting the outside, etc....would've served us well. Our long pass game opens up due to the run but, our slot receiving isn't to shabby.

Not sure why we can't adjust.
 

Sports Hernia

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,755
Reaction score
3,372
Location
The pit
I have no problem with the run first philosophy.
But when it’s not working it shouldn’t take you 3 and a half quarters to see that.

Coaches making quicker in game adjustments needs to be fixed. Stubbornness = L’s.
 

John63

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
6,651
Reaction score
149
Sports Hernia":3v0t2h39 said:
I have no problem with the run first philosophy.
But when it’s not working it shouldn’t take you 3 and a half quarters to see that.

Coaches making quicker in game adjustments needs to be fixed. Stubbornness = L’s.


This!!
 

mikeak

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
8,202
Reaction score
25
Location
Anchorage, AK
I do not believe we stopped running in the fourth because they realized it wasn't working

We stopped running because we ran out of time and were down two scores.

If we played again today they would run until it was to late.

Biggest issue I have. Failure to recognize the issue and now looking at it like "we were close within 2pts"

I wish we were blown out....
 

IndyHawk

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
8,006
Reaction score
1,644
John63":33icfhk1 said:
Sports Hernia":33icfhk1 said:
I have no problem with the run first philosophy.
But when it’s not working it shouldn’t take you 3 and a half quarters to see that.

Coaches making quicker in game adjustments needs to be fixed. Stubbornness = L’s.


This!!
Next! :2thumbs:
 

SoulfishHawk

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
29,839
Reaction score
10,281
Location
Sammamish, WA
I love that they are a running team. But, pounding it up the middle over and over and over and it's not working....change it up! My goodness it's maddening.
 

pmedic920

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Messages
28,790
Reaction score
4,533
Location
On the lake, Livingston Texas
The Dallas game was super frustrating.

I felt that their secondary looked weak, and was screaming to throw the ball.

I think that we failed to adjust quick enough.

Having said that, I remember our SB48 year well.

We were a run first team that played great Defense.

I don’t hate the philosophy.

I hate the failure to recognize the need to adjust when it’s not working, or when you may need to set up the running game with some passes.

Just a few deep balls, even if unsuccessful will spread the box out a bit.
Seems simple too me but what the Hell do I know.

I’m a cheerleader for crying out loud.
 

SoulfishHawk

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
29,839
Reaction score
10,281
Location
Sammamish, WA
The stubborn nature of our coaching staff and head coach killed us in this one. You have to switch it up and adjust. They just flat out refused to change it up.
 
OP
OP
M

mrt144

New member
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
4,065
Reaction score
0
SoulfishHawk":brz4xixi said:
I love that they are a running team. But, pounding it up the middle over and over and over and it's not working....change it up! My goodness it's maddening.

This is more of a Schotty than Pete issue. He has a few colors on his palette and kept using Red, over and over again. Try Blue and Yellow - they're both acceptable RB colors!
 

StoneCold

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
3,085
Reaction score
267
mrt144":10wgshzp said:
SoulfishHawk":10wgshzp said:
I love that they are a running team. But, pounding it up the middle over and over and over and it's not working....change it up! My goodness it's maddening.

This is more of a Schotty than Pete issue. He has a few colors on his palette and kept using Red, over and over again. Try Blue and Yellow - they're both acceptable RB colors!

I would add that no matter your teams identity you have to be healthy. Sweezy and likely Fluker, were not 100%, which made running very tough. So you say why didn't we pass more? And I answer bad pass blocking. Russell was swamped repeatedly. That could also be attributed to health of the line. So I'm not sure "pass more" was the answer. A couple of stops on D and a few less penalties on O and we win this game even without a kicker.

We have a good core. Add some more depth across the board and we can make another run next year as a running team.
 
OP
OP
M

mrt144

New member
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
4,065
Reaction score
0
StoneCold":1iyttxmj said:
mrt144":1iyttxmj said:
SoulfishHawk":1iyttxmj said:
I love that they are a running team. But, pounding it up the middle over and over and over and it's not working....change it up! My goodness it's maddening.

This is more of a Schotty than Pete issue. He has a few colors on his palette and kept using Red, over and over again. Try Blue and Yellow - they're both acceptable RB colors!

I would add that no matter your teams identity you have to be healthy. Sweezy and likely Fluker, were not 100%, which made running very tough. So you say why didn't we pass more? And I answer bad pass blocking. Russell was swamped repeatedly. That could also be attributed to health of the line. So I'm not sure "pass more" was the answer. A couple of stops on D and a few less penalties on O and we win this game even without a kicker.

We have a good core. Add some more depth across the board and we can make another run next year as a running team.

Health no doubt helps as is integral but it was so frustrating to see the inside runs with Carson get stuffed and it be repeatedly called. Again, choosing to go with one back when you have options and different aptitudes and different run plays that suit each one better or worse...that's a Schotty issue, not a Pete commanding runs issue.

This is an adaptive thing that needs to be worked on by the coaching staff to at least give us a better shot with the overall gameplan they want to enact. You can still run Schotty and Pete, just maybe try out your stable of backs you spent a season developing instead of jamming your finger in the doorframe and slamming the door on it repeatedly.
 
Top