It's Time to Dispel the Myth

bbsplitter · Sep 10, 2019

That our offensive coordinators have anything to do with the overall game plan. We are on our second coordinator now where over-commitment to the run game and the predictable run-run-pass-punt formula continues to be a problem.

Whether we like it or not, it is time to confirm that this is Pete's way of doing things. I don't know why we need to have the highest paid QB for this system to work (love Russ though), but that is the way the chips have fallen.

There were a few games under Bevell where him and Russell seemed to be unleashed - and I don't know the circumstances that prompt Pete to give that green light - but it seemed to be either completely random or down by 14 points or more.

When the system works as intended - it controls the clock and as long as we are gaining 4+ yards per carry we usually win the game.

However when it is not working - and we seem to have no interest or ability to adapt the game plan accordingly, I 100% believe that is PC's doing.

I spent my fair share of time bashing Bevell and on occasion more recently Schotty, however I have come to the conclusion that it is too obvious, too intentional to be the work of a free-thinking/acting coordinator. I've seen too many well-designed, thought out plays by both Bevell and Schotty to think that the willingly conduct such an ineffective strategy when it obviously isn't working. A drive or two or three fail? Understandable. For a whole game however to transpire as they typically do with our team on offensive, this has to be the work of PC's overall philosophy.

We run, we run, and then we try a deep pass with over extended routes. Yes, this limits turnover potential and promotes ball control/occasional big plays. However there are multiple downsides which show far too often.

We win this way. We lose this way. I think we are at the point however where we can admit "this way" will not be changed, not by fandom furor, or will of the offensive coordinator. We live by PC and we die by PC.

Sgt. Largent · Sep 10, 2019

I'm not as extreme as you, both Russell and Schotty have input into gameplanning and playcalling............but yes, in the end this is the offense Pete wants, and he wants it schemed, personnelled and run his way.

So not sure what myth you're referring to, I think we all know and admit this. It's why Pete hires the types of offensive coaches he hires, yes men that will call and scheme like he wants, and not coaches that want more autonomy.

Seymour · Sep 10, 2019

Exactly!

And this is also why I said that Schotty was just a puppet hire from day 1.

187483 3d man with string puppet isolated on white

SpokaneHawks · Sep 10, 2019

1 and 0.....the system works. Also, dont forget Russ is clutch, more so than any other QB, when it's the 4th and we need a score!

bbsplitter · Sep 10, 2019

Sgt. Largent":110az2ix said:
I'm not as extreme as you, both Russell and Schotty have input into gameplanning and playcalling............but yes, in the end this is the offense Pete wants, and he wants it schemed, personnelled and run his way.

So not sure what myth you're referring to, I think we all know and admit this. It's why Pete hires the types of offensive coaches he hires, yes men that will call and scheme like he wants, and not coaches that want more autonomy.

In retrospect, you are probably right, there isn't a persistent myth out there about it. The last game just served as my own personal nail-in-the-coffin to the 5% hope I was holding onto that maybe PC has been looking for a DeFillipo style offensive genius this whole time and had just been let down by Bevell.

Sgt. Largent · Sep 10, 2019

bbsplitter":16tqzot2 said:
Sgt. Largent":16tqzot2 said:

I'm not as extreme as you, both Russell and Schotty have input into gameplanning and playcalling............but yes, in the end this is the offense Pete wants, and he wants it schemed, personnelled and run his way.

So not sure what myth you're referring to, I think we all know and admit this. It's why Pete hires the types of offensive coaches he hires, yes men that will call and scheme like he wants, and not coaches that want more autonomy.

Click to expand...

In retrospect, you are probably right, there isn't a persistent myth out there about it. The last game just served as my own personal nail-in-the-coffin to the 5% hope I was holding onto that maybe PC has been looking for a DeFillipo style offensive genius this whole time and had just been let down by Bevell.

Pete's stubbornness frustrates me too, but his philosophies are also responsible for the winningest era in Seahawk football ever, so it's hard to fault him for sticking to his core philosophies.

I just wish he'd be a LITTLE more pliable when it comes to scheming for his opponent's weaknesses, and not just "we worry about us, not them" mentality, as I do think it has and will continue to cost us games unnecessarily.

tdlabrie · Sep 10, 2019

Even with Pete's mentality, I just can't understand why it is that, when our opponents are stacking the line in an obvious attempt to stop any run, why don't we just throw short passes until they back the hell up? Can anybody explain that to me?

sdog1981 · Sep 10, 2019

Pete's system will win games. By making the game shorter by focusing on running you will force your opponent to be perfect every time they have the ball. The system only works when big plays are not given up, that's what happened on Sunday, Cincy had two TDs from busted coverage. When Ross went into motion and slipped up the sideline, Kendricks did not follow him. When Ross caught the TD deep down the middle at the half, Tompson missed the jump and Flowers gave up thinking Thompson was going to catch it.

Pete's systems look archaic, hell Cincy rolled out a 5-2 defense that has not been seen in the NFL since the 1960s. But the system will work against teams that want to throw the ball 50 times a game.

jammerhawk · Sep 10, 2019

What myth? Pete is the head coach and the buck stops with him.

Just because the team has a mentality of playing physical football and preferring running over passing there are so many here that want throw Schotty under the bus, saying he has nothing to contribute or is simply a puppet for Pete. The game plan will open up when it's time for the game plan to open up. Meanwhile pound the rock, grind it out and create a basis for play action to work.

The OLine disappointed seriously in game 1, and RW was sacked 4 times. Perhaps he contributed to the total but RW doesn't like to take many uncertain chances with the ball, and in a sense we need to respect him for that care.

Seymour · Sep 10, 2019

Sgt. Largent":1u7r5cfq said:
bbsplitter":1u7r5cfq said:

Sgt. Largent":1u7r5cfq said:

I'm not as extreme as you, both Russell and Schotty have input into gameplanning and playcalling............but yes, in the end this is the offense Pete wants, and he wants it schemed, personnelled and run his way.

So not sure what myth you're referring to, I think we all know and admit this. It's why Pete hires the types of offensive coaches he hires, yes men that will call and scheme like he wants, and not coaches that want more autonomy.

Click to expand...

In retrospect, you are probably right, there isn't a persistent myth out there about it. The last game just served as my own personal nail-in-the-coffin to the 5% hope I was holding onto that maybe PC has been looking for a DeFillipo style offensive genius this whole time and had just been let down by Bevell.

Click to expand...

Pete's stubbornness frustrates me too, but his philosophies are also responsible for the winningest era in Seahawk football ever, so it's hard to fault him for sticking to his core philosophies.

I just wish he'd be a LITTLE more pliable when it comes to scheming for his opponent's weaknesses, and not just "we worry about us, not them" mentality, as I do think it has and will continue to cost us games unnecessarily.

That is a very debatable statement! IMO there are several coaches that likely would have struck gold more than once with that team they constructed. I will give him and John credit for putting that team together, and Pete for coaching up the players and providing the environment to compete.... but the offensive and defensive strategies or philosophies being the reason we won I seriously question. Especially the offensive one.

AROS · Sep 10, 2019

Perhaps off topic but did anyone see the segment where Bevell takes a time out at the most inopportune time and Stafford is like, "Really?" :lol:

Mad Dog · Sep 10, 2019

I have no problem with conservative game plans. I take issue with lack of creativity in the plays. You can commit to the run and run something other than inside zone into a stacked box.

You can throw something other than sideline fades and screen passes. And don't get me started on the inordinate number of pass plays where there is no outlet.

I could draw plays in the dirt more creative than some of the stuff in Schotty's playbook.

scutterhawk · Sep 10, 2019

As I see it, Schotty, and all OC's who've hired on under Pete Carroll, weren't hired on to change Pet's philosophy, they were hired on to iron out some of the wrinkles in it.
The only problem with Pete's brand, is that it requires an extraordinary Ball Carrier for it to work, Marshawn Lynch or a Chris Carson type pounder is best, only problem with that?, they need to be durable & consistent for Pete's philosophy to work well, and, under those constraints it's a tall order for any OC to meter.
Pete only ebbed on his philosophy about half way through 2015, as he had no choice or a RB that could make his system work, and had no choice but to turn loose the reins on Russell Wilson to save the season.
It didn't derail his basic mindset, he was as determined as ever to find a suitable replacement for Lynch.
Through it all though, Pete can thank his lucky stars that he had a one of a kind in Russell Wilson for his Philosophy to even work in the NFL.

bbsplitter · Sep 10, 2019

jammerhawk":2bmo13jl said:
What myth? Pete is the head coach and the buck stops with him.

Just because the team has a mentality of playing physical football and preferring running over passing there are so many here that want throw Schotty under the bus, saying he has nothing to contribute or is simply a puppet for Pete. The game plan will open up when it's time for the game plan to open up. Meanwhile pound the rock, grind it out and create a basis for play action to work.

The OLine disappointed seriously in game 1, and RW was sacked 4 times. Perhaps he contributed to the total but RW doesn't like to take many uncertain chances with the ball, and in a sense we need to respect him for that care.

I understand playing the long con and keeping your playbook close to the chest until you need it most, but in retrospect that system has been proven to not work as well all the time. Saying "The game plan will open up when it's time for the game plan to open up" for me is just part of the problem. When you start out 0-2 you eliminate a lot of room for error for the rest of the season. IMO the time for the playbook to open up is game 1, play 1. Especially with a veteran QB.

bbsplitter · Sep 10, 2019

Mad Dog":1z3kmvha said:
I have no problem with conservative game plans. I take issue with lack of creativity in the plays. You can commit to the run and run something other than inside zone into a stacked box.

You can throw something other than sideline fades and screen passes. And don't get me started on the inordinate number of pass plays where there is no outlet.

I could draw plays in the dirt more creative than some of the stuff in Schotty's playbook.

That's the thing though. These exact same, very specific issues were brought up with Bevell as well. I think PC has a lot more SPECIFIC control over the type of plays called than you are giving credit for.

Bevel did have plays that had proper concepts built into them, Schotty too. The fact that we are still complaining about the creativity of the type of plays 5 years later only further proves to me that PC has his strings tied way tighter than most people think.

sutz · Sep 10, 2019

bbsplitter":1z7mmbdk said:
jammerhawk":1z7mmbdk said:

What myth? Pete is the head coach and the buck stops with him.

Just because the team has a mentality of playing physical football and preferring running over passing there are so many here that want throw Schotty under the bus, saying he has nothing to contribute or is simply a puppet for Pete. The game plan will open up when it's time for the game plan to open up. Meanwhile pound the rock, grind it out and create a basis for play action to work.

The OLine disappointed seriously in game 1, and RW was sacked 4 times. Perhaps he contributed to the total but RW doesn't like to take many uncertain chances with the ball, and in a sense we need to respect him for that care.

Click to expand...

I understand playing the long con and keeping your playbook close to the chest until you need it most, but in retrospect that system has been proven to not work as well all the time. Saying "The game plan will open up when it's time for the game plan to open up" for me is just part of the problem. When you start out 0-2 you eliminate a lot of room for error for the rest of the season. IMO the time for the playbook to open up is game 1, play 1. Especially with a veteran QB.

We're 0-2? When did that happen? :twisted:

:laugh:

bbsplitter · Sep 10, 2019

sutz":1vx5e1lx said:
bbsplitter":1vx5e1lx said:

jammerhawk":1vx5e1lx said:

What myth? Pete is the head coach and the buck stops with him.

Just because the team has a mentality of playing physical football and preferring running over passing there are so many here that want throw Schotty under the bus, saying he has nothing to contribute or is simply a puppet for Pete. The game plan will open up when it's time for the game plan to open up. Meanwhile pound the rock, grind it out and create a basis for play action to work.

The OLine disappointed seriously in game 1, and RW was sacked 4 times. Perhaps he contributed to the total but RW doesn't like to take many uncertain chances with the ball, and in a sense we need to respect him for that care.

Click to expand...

I understand playing the long con and keeping your playbook close to the chest until you need it most, but in retrospect that system has been proven to not work as well all the time. Saying "The game plan will open up when it's time for the game plan to open up" for me is just part of the problem. When you start out 0-2 you eliminate a lot of room for error for the rest of the season. IMO the time for the playbook to open up is game 1, play 1. Especially with a veteran QB.

Click to expand...

We're 0-2? When did that happen? :twisted:

:laugh:

Last season

Sgt. Largent · Sep 10, 2019

Seymour":q1xk7i76 said:
Sgt. Largent":q1xk7i76 said:

bbsplitter":q1xk7i76 said:

Sgt. Largent":q1xk7i76 said:

I'm not as extreme as you, both Russell and Schotty have input into gameplanning and playcalling............but yes, in the end this is the offense Pete wants, and he wants it schemed, personnelled and run his way.

So not sure what myth you're referring to, I think we all know and admit this. It's why Pete hires the types of offensive coaches he hires, yes men that will call and scheme like he wants, and not coaches that want more autonomy.

Click to expand...

In retrospect, you are probably right, there isn't a persistent myth out there about it. The last game just served as my own personal nail-in-the-coffin to the 5% hope I was holding onto that maybe PC has been looking for a DeFillipo style offensive genius this whole time and had just been let down by Bevell.

Click to expand...

Pete's stubbornness frustrates me too, but his philosophies are also responsible for the winningest era in Seahawk football ever, so it's hard to fault him for sticking to his core philosophies.

I just wish he'd be a LITTLE more pliable when it comes to scheming for his opponent's weaknesses, and not just "we worry about us, not them" mentality, as I do think it has and will continue to cost us games unnecessarily.

Click to expand...

That is a very debatable statement! IMO there are several coaches that likely would have struck gold more than once with that team they constructed. I will give him and John credit for putting that team together, and Pete for coaching up the players and providing the environment to compete.... but the offensive and defensive strategies or philosophies being the reason we won I seriously question. Especially the offensive one.

Sure if we were trying to parse Pete's credit, I'd definitely put more of it on the defensive side of the ball where he helped draft and develop a bunch of nasty huge fast hungry defenders that punished and pummeled the other team into submission.

He also drafted and developed Russell, and traded for Marshawn, etc so he gets credit for that too. My point is it's hard to blame Pete for sticking to his core philosophies when they've worked for the better part of 30 years.

Hawkpower · Sep 10, 2019

Complaining about Pete's offensive philosophy ( a bi-weekly thread here at .net) is kind of pointless just because as we have all seen, it is NEVER going to change!

We can hope for Pete to leave if we don't like it I guess....of course with that comes a wild card of Coach X.

We know with Pete and Russ we will always be challenging for playoff spots, division titles and if things fall right, Super Bowls.

Our next coach may or may not have similar success. Could be a Belichick! Or....could be a dud.

Obviously perfect world Pete becomes a bit more modern and open. But its just not going to happen.

bmorepunk · Sep 10, 2019

bbsplitter":3beduwld said:
That our offensive coordinators have anything to do with the overall game plan. We are on our second coordinator now where over-commitment to the run game and the predictable run-run-pass-punt formula continues to be a problem.

The real myth here is that "run-run-pass-punt" is a thing. It's not. This last game had four drives out of 12 (two of the drives were kneels to end the game) that started "run-run-pass". And you know what two of those resulted in? Touchdowns.

Starting "run-run-pass" only happened on 1/3rd of the drives. And if you add the sacks (4) back into the pass attempts you get 24 pass plays to 25 run plays.

I remember somebody claiming "run-run-pass" last season too. Except when we went and pulled the play by play and went through it, you'd end up games consistently inconsistent on what sequence is chosen. It's almost as if the coaches mix up the play sequence so the defense doesn't know if it's going to be a pass or a run.

Here's the sequence from Sunday:

Code:

Drive 1 - Run/Pass/Pass/Punt
Drive 2 - Run/Pass/Run/Punt
Drive 3 - Pass/Run/Pass/Pass/Pass/Punt
Drive 4 - Run/Run/Pass/Pass/Run/Run/Pass/Run/TD 
Drive 5 - Run/Run/Pass/Punt
Drive 6 - Pass/Pass/Pass/Pass/Run/Pass/TD
Drive 7 - Kneel
Drive 8 - Run/Fumble
Drive 9 - Run/Run/Pass/Punt
Drive 10 - Pass/Pass/Pass/Punt
Drive 11 - Run/Run/Pass/Run/Pass/TD 
Drive 12 - Pass/Run/Pass/Punt
Drive 13 - Run/Run/Run/Run/Run/Run/Punt
Drive 14 - Kneel

It's Time to Dispel the Myth

Member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Administrator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads