Why do Hawks tend to start slow?

Living on the east coast, I miss a lot of games. But the ones I saw usually followed the same pattern, including of course the game against the Packers. The Hawks start slow, the other team builds a lead, and then the Hawks launch a comeback, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. Often, I thought the Hawks would get blown out, only to see them win, but sadly not against the Packers. It seems like the team, especially the defense, starts flat and then picks up steam. Thoughts, comments?

:snack:

"You can't win the game in the 1st quarter." (Pete Carroll statement on numerous occasions)

The Seahawks and Pete Carroll seem stubbornly committed to the run. Which is fine with a healthy Carson and Penny. But maybe not so good down to your 4th and 5th string RB's. Then they get behind and unleash Russell Wilson who is very good and has some good young weapons like DK Metcalf. But on the flip side you don't want 50 passes a game and putting all the pressure on Wilson for every play for all 4 quarters. That can make it harder too. I think there is nothing wrong with the philosophy. In general running wears down the other team, runs the clock, keeps the other team off the field and there are less bad things that can happen. Like sacks, sack and fumble, incompletions, and interceptions. It's just the injuries ruined that philosophy for this year for you. But it's not a bad way to go generally IMO.

It is also easier and less tiring for an OL to run block than pass block.

The challenge is that while easier, it creates a lack of urgency that puts you behind later. Expecting to come back, demands your defense hold the other team from scoring WHILE you come back. We don't have a defense to do this anymore.

Pete might feel that with a patchwork OL, this is his only recourse. But then, why the long developing pass plays?

Ultimately, this is more just his preference. He has a philosophy and for the most, it works for him. There is no reason to start fast because he rarely needs it. But it also makes it hard on us.

I've started rooting for us to be behind at the half, just so we start passing more and getting more urgency to score in the 2nd half. It is not generally good for us to have the lead at the half, it leads to a 3rd quarter much like the 1st 2 quarters.

We start slow because scoring in the 1st half isn't a priority for him. The goal for most teams is to score TDs in each opportunity. Pete has a goal of establishing the run, draining the clock, and trying to wait for the 3th+4th to start catching back up.

If we start getting behind, we speed up and score in the 1st half to at least get close. But that stops working in the playoffs, yet we are used to it - so we stick with what we know. Resulting in the other team scoring while we remain content to try to run down our own clock, thinking we can catch up later like we always do against lesser teams.

The defense has started slow since losing all the stars basically. However, it is exaserbated by the offense that has always started out slow. The running game covers up RW early game jitters and always has. RW camps with the ball, throws high, low, etc throughout the first half until the very conservative QB unpuckers at the 2 minute drill.

The Seahawks are 1 and 3 in their last 4 games with no running game. That isn't abnormal for any team to have problems winning without an honest running game, but you cannot rely on RW in the first half of any game. I don't see how anyone could possibly dispute that.

Maybe I am wrong but I don't think anyone is advocating going to the 5 wide spread O and playing bombs away. But like in these last 2 playoff games, if the run is not working, especially up the middle, you have to find other ways to move the ball. The old saying "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".

Different story to keep going back to the run when you were doing what San Fran and Tennessee were doing this weekend and consistently getting good yardage.

HawkRiderFan":ysin2v78 said:

Maybe I am wrong but I don't think anyone is advocating going to the 5 wide spread O and playing bombs away. But like in these last 2 playoff games, if the run is not working, especially up the middle, you have to find other ways to move the ball. The old saying "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".

Different story to keep going back to the run when you were doing what San Fran and Tennessee were doing this weekend and consistently getting good yardage.

Click to expand...

Not advocating that. I'm saying that we're screwed in the first half without the running game to keep it competitive. RW isn't going to save you at that point. Never has and never will. He's at his best at the 2 minute before the half and about the 2nd or 3rd drive in the 3rd quarter on through the 4th. He's close to being a fainting goat in the first half otherwise. Always has been, speaking of expecting a different result....

We're screwed without a running game. That's the answer.

I call these threads "Groundhog Day" threads. Conversations we have over, and over..........and over.

Pete's offensive philosophy is;

- minimize possessions for the other team
- physical run game
- explosive play action

He just so happens to have a QB that can play this sort of offense, but Russell also is a QB that excels in two and four minute offenses when Pete and Schotty let him go up tempo.

So that's your answer. Slow, plodding predictable offense that takes forever to get going in first halves of games because that's the way the coach wants it.

vin.couve12":3ciykcxk said:

HawkRiderFan":3ciykcxk said:

Maybe I am wrong but I don't think anyone is advocating going to the 5 wide spread O and playing bombs away. But like in these last 2 playoff games, if the run is not working, especially up the middle, you have to find other ways to move the ball. The old saying "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".

Different story to keep going back to the run when you were doing what San Fran and Tennessee were doing this weekend and consistently getting good yardage.

Click to expand...

Not advocating that. I'm saying that we're screwed in the first half without the running game to keep it competitive. RW isn't going to save you at that point. Never has and never will. He's at his best at the 2 minute before the half and about the 2nd or 3rd drive in the 3rd quarter on through the 4th. He's close to being a fainting goat in the first half otherwise. Always has been, speaking of expecting a different result....

We're screwed without a running game. That's the answer.

Click to expand...

SNAP hit that right on the nose everybody thinks it's poor play calling and it's the coaches and Wilson doesn't play in the first half except the last 2 minutes IMO he doesn't read the defenses good enough to be comfortable. He has plenty of opportunities doesn't read the blitzs and he doesn't let his receivers fight for the ball but look at his interception ratio you can't complain about that.

As far as the defense they just stink 1st half 2nd half doesn't matter I wouldn't want to be up by 2 and an opposing offense get's the ball with 45sec on the clock odds are we lose. All in all I thought it was a good season I can't believe they went as far as they did with putting this D on the field.

I know everybody is upset at the moment but take a good look at the season how many even thought we would have went 11-5 I for one didn't think so I also thought it was going to be a blow out in GB with a lot of garbage TD for the Hawks it even look like Rodgers got a little nervous.

I satisfied with the season and hope they address the line on both sides of the Ball they need to hire someone who's the best at evaluating lineman because I don't think they have one.

Pete's philosophy has been keep it close with a chance at the end. It's tough to say if that's the reason though. IMO, it has a little to do with Russell Wilson being better when he plays loose, not thinking about defenses or schemes but just letting the game come to him, fast and loose.

People like to point to our 'conservative' play calling and commitment to the running game, but that doesn't always hold up upon further inspection. For instance, we threw the ball 15 times and ran it 9 times in the first half against the Packers. That includes our first drive where we passed all 3 times, our 3rd drive where we passed 4 out of 5 times, and our 4th drive where we passed 4 out of 7 times. What that means is, in 3 out of 4 drives to start the game the ball was primarily in Russell's hands and we were still down 21-3.

I think the real issue has to do with the offensive line getting settled into games. Re-watching that first half was brutal, Russ was running for his live for most of those plays and on the rare occasions he wasn't our guys couldn't get open. It sucks that for the 4th straight off-season one of our biggest needs is still offensive line.

knownone":26aze11f said:

People like to point to our 'conservative' play calling and commitment to the running game, but that doesn't always hold up upon further inspection. For instance, we threw the ball 15 times and ran it 9 times in the first half against the Packers. That includes our first drive where we passed all 3 times, our 3rd drive where we passed 4 out of 5 times, and our 4th drive where we passed 4 out of 7 times. What that means is, in 3 out of 4 drives to start the game the ball was primarily in Russell's hands and we were still down 21-3.

I think the real issue has to do with the offensive line getting settled into games. Re-watching that first half was brutal, Russ was running for his live for most of those plays and on the rare occasions he wasn't our guys couldn't get open. It sucks that for the 4th straight off-season one of our biggest needs is still offensive line.

Click to expand...

Passing more doesn't make your offense not conservative, especially in our case where we're only passing the ball most of the time because the run game isn't working.

If you didn't notice the stark contrast in motion, layered routes and misdirection between LaFleur's offense and what we ran, which is ram Marshawn into the line unsuccessfully and Russell running around for his life making plays off schedule, then you weren't paying attention.

Was there a big talent gap between the Packers and Hawks last night? I didn't see one. I did see a dynamic gap of scheme on both sides of the ball.

Doesn't mean I want Pete to change, but holy moly does it mean I need him to be more open minded and flexible when we're decimated by injury and desperately need him to be open to changing things up both gameplan wise, and in game playcalling/adjustments.

All teams have their unique practice priorities.

The Seahawks set aside significant practice time rehearsing improvisation and game situations that determine outcomes. So that, among other factors, probably contributes to how they play.

By the 4th quarter, the defense is exhausted from chasing Russ, and that's when we strike.

The Hawks remind me a little of Elway and the Broncos under Reeves. It starts of conservative, then they get behind, and unleash Elway. That drove Elway crazy and lead to a coaching change. Not saying the Hawks should change coaches. Broncos got an upgrade, but that is rare. Remember what happened to the Chargers when they fired Schottenheimer after a 12-4 season? Have not been the same sense. One thing that is worse than losing in the playoffs, is not making the playoffs. Still, I would like to see the Hawks make better use of RW earlier on, not just when we are down by multiple touchdowns--especially--as others haven noted--when we know our running game is in trouble.

diver110":1sbn6sty said:

Living on the east coast, I miss a lot of games. But the ones I saw usually followed the same pattern, including of course the game against the Packers. The Hawks start slow, the other team builds a lead, and then the Hawks launch a comeback, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. Often, I thought the Hawks would get blown out, only to see them win, but sadly not against the Packers. It seems like the team, especially the defense, starts flat and then picks up steam. Thoughts, comments?

Click to expand...

they just have a habit of starting like crap. Sacks, penalties, drops usuallty starts with the oline.