What's the difference between offenses for Rams & Hawks?

HawkGA · Jan 30, 2019

So bear with me a bit. I don't watch much in the way of actual games anymore and just do most of my "footballing" by following it online and reading articles so I don't see much of this stuff play out.

But on my way home this morning I was listening to Fox Sports radio and Shannon and Skip were on. They were discussing whether Goff was a system QB or not. Shannon was arguing that all QBs are system QBs and most other players are system players. He used himself as an example that when he was coming out of college, only 3 teams used H-backs. But back to QBs. Sharpe was saying that McVay came him, he looked at what Goff did well and built a system around that. Specifically, that you don't see a lot of short passes in their offense but you do see a lot of play action and then deep throws (that works for Goff because he has a strong arm). They already had Gurley when McVay got there so it worked well to build around the run and play action.

Anyway, listening to that . . . isn't that exactly what Seattle tries to do? Yet McVay is held up as some sort of offensive genius.

Seymour · Jan 30, 2019

2 major reasons. 1) One of the best olines in the NFL vs a bottom 1/3 oline. 2) Superior offensive scheme.

I'll disagree the Rams don't throw the short passes much also as they clearly do.
Gurley had 59 receptions for 580 yards this year.
Carson had 20 receptions for 163 yards this year.

Uncle Si · Jan 30, 2019

Seymour":2o024ngw said:
2 major reasons. 1) One of the best olines in the NFL vs a bottom 1/3 oline. 2) Superior offensive scheme.

I'll disagree the Rams don't throw the short passes much also as they clearly do.
Gurley had 59 receptions for 580 yards this year.
Carson had 20 receptions for 163 yards this year.

I think the only comparison between the two is that the coaches have gone a long ways in dwvising a scheme that works best for their personnel. The schemes, however, a far different.

Seahawks could use a bit of the Rams innovation at the line of scrimmage.

Seymour · Jan 30, 2019

Uncle Si":2b0jsqtq said:
Seymour":2b0jsqtq said:

2 major reasons. 1) One of the best olines in the NFL vs a bottom 1/3 oline. 2) Superior offensive scheme.

I'll disagree the Rams don't throw the short passes much also as they clearly do.
Gurley had 59 receptions for 580 yards this year.
Carson had 20 receptions for 163 yards this year.

Click to expand...

I think the only comparison between the two is that the coaches have gone a long ways in dwvising a scheme that works best for their personnel. The schemes, however, a far different.

Seahawks could use a bit of the Rams innovation at the line of scrimmage.

Carrolls scheme has changed very little even after the OC change. I say it is more accurate that Carroll goes after guys that fit his scheme rather than he uses their ability to the utmost degree and build around that.
See Wilson being turned into a game manager then asked to bail them out only when it's nearly too late for example #1. They are not using his skills to build around, they are forcing the square peg into the round hole IMO.

MontanaHawk05 · Jan 30, 2019

Wilson is good at deep shots, curls, and rub routes, so Seattle does a lot of those.

But because it's simpler, it doesn't get the talking heads fawning over it.

John63 · Jan 30, 2019

MontanaHawk05":16mumhrf said:
Wilson is good at deep shots, curls, and rub routes, so Seattle does a lot of those.

But because it's simpler, it doesn't get the talking heads fawning over it.

So that is the issue it is simple, predictable, and you can see it coming. Wilson has shown he can make any and every throw on the field, yet we refuse to use 1/3 of the filed, and we are simplistic in our routes. As has been said we play a simple predictable game, as Pete has said " we are going to do what we do, better than them", and then rely on Wilson to save us when we finally let him off his lease. Imagine if we incorporated some of the stuff the Rams do, or that we did in 2015, we would be unstoppable, but that is not what Pete wants. That is my biggest issue with Pete, on offense, he does not build a complete offense around his best players. Now on Defense he does, he fins player she likes sees what they do best and puts them in positions, even if it means making some changes to take advantage of what they do best. On Offense nope.

HawkGA · Jan 30, 2019

Thank you all for chiming in. So when you say "scheme" what exactly are you meaning? Routes the WRs run? Formations? Both? Something else entirely?

MontanaHawk05 · Jan 30, 2019

John63":a3jnhqwv said:
MontanaHawk05":a3jnhqwv said:

Wilson is good at deep shots, curls, and rub routes, so Seattle does a lot of those.

But because it's simpler, it doesn't get the talking heads fawning over it.

Click to expand...

So that is the issue it is simple, predictable, and you can see it coming.

It got us to two Super Bowls, and a 10-6 record this year.

Predictability is underrated. Common fans think it's bad because they've never played the game and it's their THEORY that predictability makes life easier for the defense. It's true to some extent.

But if you listen to honest players, lack of execution has a much bigger role in making predictability bad. If you execute well, you can pretty much do what you want, even if the other team knows it's coming.

Remember all the talk in Holmgren's offense about how they could telegraph their plays all day and the defense still couldn't do anything about it?

KiwiHawk · Jan 30, 2019

What's the difference?

Years of sucking ass put them among the first picks in every round of the draft for years - they're basically drafting a round higher than we are, given that we tend to draft quite late having had winning seasons, playoff appearances, etc.

Then they get lucky with the Griffin trade, getting 3 first-round picks AND having the Redskins suck, increasing the value of those picks.

This place pretty much implodes when we go 9-7. Imagine what it would be like to be a bottom-feeder for a few years straight.

Hmm... Actually that may cause the negative nellies to bail - might be worth it.

mrt144 · Jan 30, 2019

HawkGA":22q4whqc said:
So bear with me a bit. I don't watch much in the way of actual games anymore and just do most of my "footballing" by following it online and reading articles so I don't see much of this stuff play out.

But on my way home this morning I was listening to Fox Sports radio and Shannon and Skip were on. They were discussing whether Goff was a system QB or not. Shannon was arguing that all QBs are system QBs and most other players are system players. He used himself as an example that when he was coming out of college, only 3 teams used H-backs. But back to QBs. Sharpe was saying that McVay came him, he looked at what Goff did well and built a system around that. Specifically, that you don't see a lot of short passes in their offense but you do see a lot of play action and then deep throws (that works for Goff because he has a strong arm). They already had Gurley when McVay got there so it worked well to build around the run and play action.

Anyway, listening to that . . . isn't that exactly what Seattle tries to do? Yet McVay is held up as some sort of offensive genius.

You gotta watch the games man. Watching even one game of the Rams will show you the differences: from motion pre snap, to alignments, to personnel packages, routes run and combo routes, running play design.

That they have the horses to run it as they do is why it's as successful as it is at this moment. If they were more talent deficient it might not be as gleaming.

Overall it isn't much different than what the Hawks try to do at the highest level - the devil is in the details of accomplishing that high level goal and in my estimation, Schotty has a less dynamic method of getting there.

mrt144 · Jan 30, 2019

MontanaHawk05":3dnqdl5d said:
John63":3dnqdl5d said:

MontanaHawk05":3dnqdl5d said:

Wilson is good at deep shots, curls, and rub routes, so Seattle does a lot of those.

But because it's simpler, it doesn't get the talking heads fawning over it.

Click to expand...

So that is the issue it is simple, predictable, and you can see it coming.

Click to expand...

It got us to two Super Bowls, and a 10-6 record this year.

Predictability is underrated. Common fans think it's bad because they've never played the game and it's their THEORY that predictability makes life easier for the defense. It's true to some extent.

But if you listen to honest players, lack of execution has a much bigger role in making predictability bad. If you execute well, you can pretty much do what you want, even if the other team knows it's coming.

Remember all the talk in Holmgren's offense about how they could telegraph their plays all day and the defense still couldn't do anything about it?

Executing well consistently is a function of talent, both inherent and coached. Ifedi doesn't just wake up one day and decide, "no more penalties", he is conditionally bound by his own aptitudes and coaching to mitigate his downsides. Lack of execution isn't some randomized outcome, it's a reflection of talent.

It's kind of a 'no duh' statement that posits if you are talented enough, it doesn't explicitly matter what you do so long as you do it well. That still leaves a chasm of intrigue on what to do when you don't have the talent to execute so consistently that you can telegraph every move and still can't be stopped.

I think it is an incredibly brittle and obvious system to simply rely mostly or wholly on talent to win the day. Labor dynamics in the NFL aren't so fluid that you can consistently make a bunch of talent adjustments over the season (or two seasons) to get to the point of talent being that dominant.

mrt144 · Jan 30, 2019

Seymour":362gbscg said:
2 major reasons. 1) One of the best olines in the NFL vs a bottom 1/3 oline. 2) Superior offensive scheme.

I'll disagree the Rams don't throw the short passes much also as they clearly do.
Gurley had 59 receptions for 580 yards this year.
Carson had 20 receptions for 163 yards this year.

One might not include RBs into the short passing game categorically but that is obviously there and done by the Rams.

Seymour · Jan 30, 2019

KiwiHawk":1hchehkc said:
What's the difference?

Years of sucking ass put them among the first picks in every round of the draft for years - they're basically drafting a round higher than we are, given that we tend to draft quite late having had winning seasons, playoff appearances, etc.

Then they get lucky with the Griffin trade, getting 3 first-round picks AND having the Redskins suck, increasing the value of those picks.

This place pretty much implodes when we go 9-7. Imagine what it would be like to be a bottom-feeder for a few years straight.

Hmm... Actually that may cause the negative nellies to bail - might be worth it.

No need to "imagine" that. Any lifelong fan knows quite well after watching the 70's through the 90's Seahawks. Many of us watched entire games hoping to just see a few great plays without real concern about W's and L's.

mrt144 · Jan 30, 2019

Seymour":30ylze00 said:
KiwiHawk":30ylze00 said:

What's the difference?

Years of sucking ass put them among the first picks in every round of the draft for years - they're basically drafting a round higher than we are, given that we tend to draft quite late having had winning seasons, playoff appearances, etc.

Then they get lucky with the Griffin trade, getting 3 first-round picks AND having the Redskins suck, increasing the value of those picks.

This place pretty much implodes when we go 9-7. Imagine what it would be like to be a bottom-feeder for a few years straight.

Hmm... Actually that may cause the negative nellies to bail - might be worth it.

Click to expand...

No need to "imagine" that. Any lifelong fan knows quite well after watching the 70's through the 90's Seahawks. Many of us watched entire games hoping to just see a few great plays without real concern about W's and L's.

Man, all those years to accrue talent by being a bottom feeder wasted. I wonder why the Hawks of yore never put it together.

Seymour · Jan 30, 2019

mrt144":1qu0rqdk said:
Seymour":1qu0rqdk said:

KiwiHawk":1qu0rqdk said:

What's the difference?

Years of sucking ass put them among the first picks in every round of the draft for years - they're basically drafting a round higher than we are, given that we tend to draft quite late having had winning seasons, playoff appearances, etc.

Then they get lucky with the Griffin trade, getting 3 first-round picks AND having the Redskins suck, increasing the value of those picks.

This place pretty much implodes when we go 9-7. Imagine what it would be like to be a bottom-feeder for a few years straight.

Hmm... Actually that may cause the negative nellies to bail - might be worth it.

Click to expand...

No need to "imagine" that. Any lifelong fan knows quite well after watching the 70's through the 90's Seahawks. Many of us watched entire games hoping to just see a few great plays without real concern about W's and L's.

Click to expand...

Man, all those years to accrue talent by being a bottom feeder wasted. I wonder why the Hawks of yore never put it together.

I don't!!
.....for starters.

VS

JGreen79 · Jan 30, 2019

Seymour":14v4epc4 said:
2 major reasons. 1) One of the best olines in the NFL vs a bottom 1/3 oline. 2) Superior offensive scheme.

I'll disagree the Rams don't throw the short passes much also as they clearly do.
Gurley had 59 receptions for 580 yards this year.
Carson had 20 receptions for 163 yards this year.

The Rams threw a lower percentage of passes to RB's than the Seahawks did.

Seattle RB's were targeted 19.9% of the time while LA's RB's were targeted 17.2% of the time.

Also Gurley has played 100% of the offensive snaps in at least one game this year, while Carson isn't even the 3rd down back.

Seymour · Jan 30, 2019

JGreen79":1b8j5x82 said:
Seymour":1b8j5x82 said:

2 major reasons. 1) One of the best olines in the NFL vs a bottom 1/3 oline. 2) Superior offensive scheme.

I'll disagree the Rams don't throw the short passes much also as they clearly do.
Gurley had 59 receptions for 580 yards this year.
Carson had 20 receptions for 163 yards this year.

Click to expand...

The Rams threw a lower percentage of passes to RB's than the Seahawks did.

Seattle RB's were targeted 19.9% of the time while LA's RB's were targeted 17.2% of the time.

Also Gurley has played 100% of the offensive snaps in at least one game this year, while Carson isn't even the 3rd down back.

%'s are misleading in that we threw far less overall. Also it wasn't really about who threw more to RB's, it was to show they have a short passing game that I questioned.

mrt144 · Jan 30, 2019

This just highlights how insipid the "accrue talent, profit" ideal is. There are so many things stacked against that from ownership hiring nitwit GMs and coaches, to GMs and coaches accruing nitwit players.

Its not trivial to accrue pieces and then get them working together well and yet so many are acting like it was exactly that for McVay. Accruing those players by being awful consistently doesnt negate McVays commanded Rams for meeting overall expectations of such a talent heavy team.

.net, where folks hold 2-3 years of Fischer over McVays head while simultaneously holding McVays lack of SBs over his own head while also simultaneously pleading that all we need on the Hawks is more talent while simultaneously bitching about a 10-6 season while simultaneously crapping on the hypothetical Rams 2019 and 2020 runs.

Seymour · Jan 30, 2019

mrt144":1zi51ptj said:
This just highlights how insipid the "accrue talent, profit" ideal is. There are so many things stacked against that from ownership hiring nitwit GMs and coaches, to GMs and coaches accruing nitwit players.

Its not trivial to accrue pieces and then get them working together well and yet so many are acting like it was exactly that for McVay. Accruing those players by being awful consistently doesnt negate McVays commanded Rams for meeting overall expectations of such a talent heavy team.

.net, where folks hold 2-3 years of Fischer over McVays head while simultaneously holding McVays lack of SBs over his own head while also simultaneously pleading that all we need on the Hawks is more talent while simultaneously bitching about a 10-6 season while simultaneously crapping on the hypothetical Rams 2019 and 2020 runs.

And nothing wrong with that! If you can beat them, discredit them and lie about them if you need to. All is fair in love and war....and Rams = war. :lol: :irishdrinkers:

MontanaHawk05 · Jan 30, 2019

mrt144":3lwbc3t9 said:
That still leaves a chasm of intrigue on what to do when you don't have the talent to execute so consistently that you can telegraph every move and still can't be stopped.

If you don't have that level of talent, it stands to reason that you don't have the talent to memorize and execute a more complicated scheme, either.

What's the difference between offenses for Rams & Hawks?

New member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Similar threads