Clayton: Seahawks’ D made strides, but playoff loss proves i

Clayton: Seahawks’ D made strides, but playoff loss proves it has room to grow

'Here is where I don’t get the criticism of the play-calling. In the first possession, Chris Carson opened with a 5-yard run. Carson ran for 3 more yards, setting up a third-and-2, exactly what a coach and a quarterback likes, but Seattle threw an incompletion and had to punt.

Then the second possession was damaged when the Seahawks got away from the run on first down, trying a pass to Carson that lost 8 yards. The third series opened with a 4-yard run by Carson; four-yard first-down runs are wins. Maybe the Seahawks should have tried a pass on second down, as Carson was stuffed for no gain.

Three three-and-outs cost them the first quarter, but they came out trailing just by three points and still entered the fourth quarter with a 14-10 lead.
'

The offensive line didn’t have its best day, but the players showed how tough they are. Sweezy played with a broken bone in his foot, while Fluker was fighting through a hamstring injury.

What caused problems was the Cowboys’ defensive line. Defensive tackle Maliek Collins didn’t play in the Week 3 game against the Seahawks, and his return was huge. Collins and Antwaun Woods are big defensive tackles who can move, and their stunting created trouble.

http://sports.mynorthwest.com/581018/cl ... ss-dallas/

Offense really lacks creativity.

joeseahawks":3alymzb5 said:

Offense really lacks creativity.

Click to expand...

There is a common problem in thinking creativity will always, automatically bypass talent on the other side.

joeseahawks":1wg6ua46 said:

Offense really lacks creativity.

Click to expand...

LOL! Some people just can't let that narrative go. The defense lost the game by not getting off the field. 3rd and 14 they allow Dak to run for 16 yards?

ivotuk":26l3om8y said:

joeseahawks":26l3om8y said:

Offense really lacks creativity.

Click to expand...

LOL! Some people just can't let that narrative go. The defense lost the game by not getting off the field. 3rd and 14 they allow Dak to run for 16 yards?

Click to expand...

LOl yeah and being left on the field for 10 minutes more had nothing to do with it. The reality is the offensive game plan was not good period. Pete admitted they should have thrown more and sooner, so sorry Clayton, if the Head Coach says it was an issue it was. FYI we had people playing with injuries on defense too, both DBs.

There's a danger if you throw more, the O gets off the field even quicker leaving more time on the clock for the opposing O.
No guarantee that throwing would have been successful.
Hey, we lost and IMO the Boys played better. That was plain to me throughout the game. Both of their lines were pushing us around. Had we won we'd have stolen the game.

We need to continue to develop our players and collect talent.

We're just not good enough right now. 10-6 with this roster, and taking the Cowboys to the wall was impressive.

TreeRon":1e6vm9yj said:

There's a danger if you throw more, the O gets off the field even quicker leaving more time on the clock for the opposing O.
No guarantee that throwing would have been successful.
Hey, we lost and IMO the Boys played better. That was plain to me throughout the game. Both of their lines were pushing us around. Had we won we'd have stolen the game.

Click to expand...

All true but you have to try and when we finally did we moved the ball and scored

For the love of God, people don’t have an issue with the Seahawks faltering early in the game. They have an issue with the playcalling by the third quarter, which outside of one drive was very skewed towards running. I don’t understand why Clayton is so stubborn. If he truly believes this, the least he could do is paint the whole picture for the 1st 3 quarters, rather than highlight only the part that supports his argument. Who cares if we led 14-10? We could have been leading 21-10 possibly with a better game plan. And we have an extremely young defense, so blaming that young defense for predictably doing what a young defense might do is really stupid and Pete should be aware of that

The defense couldnt get off the field because the offense couldn't stay on the field. Go hawks!

TreeRon":3i5pa4o0 said:

There's a danger if you throw more, the O gets off the field even quicker leaving more time on the clock for the opposing O.
No guarantee that throwing would have been successful.
Hey, we lost and IMO the Boys played better. That was plain to me throughout the game. Both of their lines were pushing us around. Had we won we'd have stolen the game.

Click to expand...

In a situation where you go 3 and out, one that draws out the clock is perhaps better. But the question shouldnt be "if we go 3 and out what's better". That's like...really defeatist?

The reasons you could still maintain a good TOP with a passing heavy game relies on higher % passes completed probably~ %70, running the clock down on almost every down, and simply accruing first downs on second and third. Median completion % this season was 66%. Dude, think about that for a second. The risk of overpassing is basically 2/3*Expected Yards Per Pass < Expected Yards Per Rush, right?

Regardless of how you construct the first series of your drive by play type, the primary goal should be getting a first down, not milking the clock. If milking the clock on the first series of your drive is important, it better be because there is a looming point of no return for the other team. Something in the 2nd and 3rd quarter doesn't qualify.

On that first drive, Carson for 5 yards and then 3 yards, setting up 3rd and 2... Did anyone else scratch their head at the 3rd down empty set shot gun? I know I sure did.

KARAVARUS":3ewu7qim said:

On that first drive, Carson for 5 yards and then 3 yards, setting up 3rd and 2... Did anyone else scratch their head at the 3rd down empty set shot gun? I know I sure did.

Click to expand...

I quit scratching my head. I was already suffering hair loss from the previous 10+ times I've seen that crap. We should just start telling the D our play call with that level of arrogance / stupidity. ukeface:

Scorpion05":130l6kg4 said:

Who cares if we led 14-10? We could have been leading 21-10 possibly with a better game plan.

Click to expand...

The score has a big influence on what plays are called. That's true across the league, not just in Seattle.

KARAVARUS":10p0dwzt said:

On that first drive, Carson for 5 yards and then 3 yards, setting up 3rd and 2... Did anyone else scratch their head at the 3rd down empty set shot gun? I know I sure did.

Click to expand...

I didn't. It got proven statistically a while ago (having trouble finding where) that empty sets on 3rd down aren't actually any more statistically unlikely to succeed than otherwise. Casual watchers generally put way too much stock in the predictability of a play, egged on by commentators who are just as ignorant.

mrt144":2kcecg3j said:

TreeRon":2kcecg3j said:

There's a danger if you throw more, the O gets off the field even quicker leaving more time on the clock for the opposing O.
No guarantee that throwing would have been successful.
Hey, we lost and IMO the Boys played better. That was plain to me throughout the game. Both of their lines were pushing us around. Had we won we'd have stolen the game.

Click to expand...

In a situation where you go 3 and out, one that draws out the clock is perhaps better. But the question shouldnt be "if we go 3 and out what's better". That's like...really defeatist?

Click to expand...

I think that right there is where most of these anti-run arguments are failing. Pete would truly be a poor tactician not to take into account the risk of failure in each scenario. Yes, a 3-and-out run-heavy drive might chew up only two minutes, but a failed PPP might take up only 20-60 seconds. Add a few of those in there and Pete is arguably right to ask, "What could an opponent do with all that extra time?"

Pete has already acknowledged he could have passed a bit more, but I'm sure he's also thinking that if he doesn't run as much as he did, there's equal chance that Dak wins by 12 rather than Seattle automatically winning. Most people in here are operating under the assumption that pass = automatic success.

Statistics and analytics also say that play action isn’t affected by a great run game, or that empty sets can still convert a third and short statistically. Doesn’t mean it makes sense. Ask the Browns or Steelers how “analytics” worked for them. That’s not football, and it’s not how you win games. It’s basic common sense

Great coaches make adjustments. They take risks. I’ve watched Belicheck, Pederson, and other winning coaches make gutsy calls or adjustments in key moments. I’ve watched Anthony Lynn make great adjustments throughout a game this year. Does it always work? No, but try something. The Cowboys are not a high powered offense, they want to run the ball and play ball control. We played into that by never adjusting after Carson kept getting stuffed

I’m not even just mad at them not using Russ to run the ball, or not using play action to attack their secondary. They took way too long to incorporate Penny and Davis. Even that switch up in the run game would have been reasonable. This isn’t hard or complicated, I love Carroll, but he was wrong. The same way Russ is wrong when he makes mistakes. Difference is some are more quick to criticize Russ but don’t apply that same standard to coaches. Be balanced on both sides. Clayton and those who agree with him aren’t being balanced here. Utilize Penny more, utilize Davis more, use more play action. We have a defensive minded conservative head coach and an O-coordinator that no one wanted. Everyone can see their mistake

MontanaHawk05":974r7vke said:

mrt144":974r7vke said:

TreeRon":974r7vke said:

There's a danger if you throw more, the O gets off the field even quicker leaving more time on the clock for the opposing O.
No guarantee that throwing would have been successful.
Hey, we lost and IMO the Boys played better. That was plain to me throughout the game. Both of their lines were pushing us around. Had we won we'd have stolen the game.

Click to expand...

In a situation where you go 3 and out, one that draws out the clock is perhaps better. But the question shouldnt be "if we go 3 and out what's better". That's like...really defeatist?

Click to expand...

I think that right there is where most of these anti-run arguments are failing. Pete would truly be a poor tactician not to take into account the risk of failure in each scenario. Yes, a 3-and-out run-heavy drive might chew up only two minutes, but a failed PPP might take up only 20-60 seconds. Add a few of those in there and Pete is arguably right to ask, "What could an opponent do with all that extra time?"

Pete has already acknowledged he could have passed a bit more, but I'm sure he's also thinking that if he doesn't run as much as he did, there's equal chance that Dak wins by 12 rather than Seattle automatically winning. Most people in here are operating under the assumption that pass = automatic success.

Click to expand...

So this raises an interesting point and invokes a question about whether or not acknowledgment of potential risk guides one down a path to bearing that risk.

If Pete thinks about fail states in the game like 3 and Outs and wants to mitigate their downside, he could be employing a strategy that mitigates some of the peril of 3 and Outs while not actually reducing the number of 3 and Outs, if that makes sense. It almost seems like more of a remediation strategy for potential failure rather than a proactive strategy to mitigate or prevent potential failure.

Which is certainly a way to go about it.

Let's give Pete and Norton credit, the defense overachieved this year..........they were FAR better then most of us locally and nationally thought they'd be.

That's why I'm optimistic for the next 2-3 years, this year has shown me that Pete hasn't lost it. That he still knows how to mold raw talent and mine the most from his defensive players, and get them to play at a high level within his defensive schemes.

Just not there yet, and we saw that in the Dallas game, the talent, depth and injuries were too much to overcome. Use the draft and free agency, and get 2-3 more playmakers on that side of the ball and I have no doubt we'll be back in the SB conversation.