Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Barnwell at ESPN predicts we take a step back

The Original Seattle Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute for Seahawks Talk, News, Rumors, Trades, and Analytics. LANGUAGE: PG-13
  • https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/296 ... more-games

    ^^Full article is linked above. Here is a small sample of what he had to say:

    The Seahawks' formula also seems difficult to sustain. As you can see from the numbers above, they went 11-5 while essentially battling their opponents to a draw in terms of point differential. Pete Carroll's team ranked eighth in DVOA, in part because they played the second-toughest schedule in the league by Football Outsiders' numbers, but their strategy was bizarre. Most weeks, Carroll would rely heavily on the run and play middling football for some or most of the game before reluctantly letting star quarterback Russell Wilson take over and lead Seattle to victory.
    groundchucklives
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 17
    Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:13 am


  • Well, he has a right to his wrong opinion. :irishdrinkers:
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15777
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • These are the same guy s who predicted a 4-12 season two years ago. They have been wrong about the team more often than any other news source. Even Prisco is better at assessing the Hawks, and we all know how little we care about his mostly negative assessments.

    There's a group here that will naturally enjoy the post but Barnwell is hardly a fan of the Hawks. The complaint seems to be Pete's teams don't blow other teams out, but they win, and that somehow isn't good enough. OK, sure thing Bill, cool story Bro.

    Style points mean diddly, it's all about winning and losing.
    jammerhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 7164
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:13 pm


  • Interestingly he calls the strategy to play close to the vest and then pull out the surprises at the end as a "bizarre" strategy.
    I
    t's called "rope a dope" and has worked in many sports effectively. Muhammed Ali and Pete Sampras are two athletes that effectively used that kind of strategy to win titles.

    Dismissing a strategy that gets you 11 victories seems myopic. We had a bad secondary/pass rush for most of the year and Pete protected them by giving the opponents no reason to light them up until all of a sudden we were in the lead. For all we know it was a brilliant strategy, but since we don't have the alternate reality of a balls to the walls strategy and it's outcome, we will never really know.

    I've seen Pete blow apart other teams when he knew he had the defense to back that strategy up. Our off season acquisitions indicate he knew we were susceptible to the pass and didn't want to make opponents test us. Now he's got a secondary again. We'll see what he'll do. I suspect we'll see a bit more wide open strategy this year.
    Mad Dog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1922
    Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 8:12 am


  • With the additions of Adams and Dunbar, I anticipate that our turnover differential will improve because I expect more INTs than we accomplished last year (16). Last year we were 4th best in the league at +12. The Patriots led the league at +21.

    And I also expect that our defense's points allowed per game will improve significantly from 24.9 last year to just under 20.0 this year, which would rank them 10th best in the league. I can definitely see that happening.
    onanygivensunday
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4276
    Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:59 am


  • Its a terrible strategy. It wins you games in the regular season but is mathematically almost sure to fail in the playoffs.

    And, it does. This is a key reason why we haven't won anything outside of a wildcard game since the SB. It works better on the barely .500 teams or below. When you face playoff teams, who score in the 1st half then you are stuck - because your team isn't used to having to score in the 1st half.

    So you end up multiple touchdowns behind, spend all your energy trying to claw your way into the game in the 2nd - and predictably fall short because you are facing one of the better teams that not only will stop you a few times (even with Wilson pulling miracles out to score against all odds)...but will find ways to score in the 2nd half when you bother to start actually using your offense to full potential.

    Your guys have played that way all year, when forced to try to change in the playoffs - they are not used to it. Even if you have to get into a shootout you are at a disadvantage.

    That is how it has been for this team since the SB loss. It is barely a game in any playoff game outside of a wildcard game since we are down multiple TDs by halftime. Sometimes we fight back to at least make it close. Most of the time we get shelled.




    This year, with a better defense, it should be different. We stand a chance at winning a non-wildcard game for the first time since our SB loss. Last year we were #26 against the pass. This year we should be top 10.

    But we will likely have a worse record. Because last year we played 5 teams that were starting 2nd string QBs. That likely won't happen again (unless Covid and nobody wants that).

    Still, so what? Worse regular season but better playoff performance? I will gladly take it.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4034
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:48 pm


  • I think field position is an underused estimated barometer for winning football games. Last year we gave up TONS of yards, which produced a negative effect on our field position and ability to manage clock in our favor. The improvements to our secondary (and perhaps our pass rush) could have a really good effect on that factor, which should improve our overall ability to gain control of the game. I'm hoping that results in fewer nail biting finishes while retaining our W/L ratio.
    Appyhawk
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 1286
    Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:43 pm
    Location: Ranch in Flint Hills of Kansas, formerly NW Montana.


ESPN - Team most likely to decline
Tue Aug 11, 2020 8:56 am
  • https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/296 ... more-games

    It just makes me laugh every year as the pundits decide Seattle cannot reproduce another season with above average games won by 7 points or less, issues on the oline, and relying on Wilson magic. Yet, every year here we are 10+ wins a season with everyone wondering how they did that.
    We all know it's all part of the plan. I just wish, as many of us do, that we didn't need to rely on the heart medication weekly.

    Go Hawks!
    Wizofwest
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 254
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:06 pm


  • And let me guess: this clown probably has DallASS going to the Owl. When will these morons ever learn?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    James in PA
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1537
    Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:36 pm


  • I honestly think we take a step back too. The biggest weaknesses on the team were offensive line and pass rush and neither have been fixed. Last year was historical in how many games the Hawks won by such a slim margin and it would be impossible to expect that to happen again. Petes reluctance to deviate from his game plan until its obvious its not going to work, will once again hamper us come playoff time. Expecting more than another wildcard win, is setting oneself up for disappointment.
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1507
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 11:19 am


  • You either win or you don't. Style points don't = wins. WAY too much is made of how it looks when they win a game. Sure it's frustrating and downright annoying at times. But, very few teams can say they win close games like the Hawks do and have over the last several years. It certainly helps when you have one of the best finishers in the history of the game under center.
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15777
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • 31 teams fail to win the Super Bowl every year. It seems to me that every team's strategy fails except for 1. Does that make 31 teams that have a strategy that is not sustainable?

    I disagree with him just based on the premise that John and Pete have shown their plan works. It gets us to the playoffs often. I especially feel good about the changes they made on the back end of the defense allowing that performance to turn into sacks for the D line.

    That said, what is not sustainable is time. Wagner, KJ and Pete are all issues that will need to be addressed sooner than later. Maybe we got 1 linebacker that can help this year but I still don't see where our plan is for replacing Pete should he decide to depart. Maybe the linebacker will be for the next head coach to solve.
    BullHawk33
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 450
    Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:47 pm
    Location: Puyallup


  • Every article barnwell has ever written, or interview he has ever had, is anti Seahawks. It's an easy target in his mind, build up big market teams, tear down small market teams because that is what makes the most readers happy.

    The guy is a no-talent hack that people think is smart because he talks fast.

    11-5 with the 2nd toughest schedule in the league. and inches away from owning the NFCW (AGAIN).

    SF has been a crap team for a long time, picking high in the draft and loading up on early 1st round talent on the DLine. We took them to the wall, and if not for a struggling defense, we should have been in the Superbowl.


    Barnwell is wrong. We will take a big step forward this year, 14 - 2 with with homefield throughout.
    ivotuk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 20454
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


  • If you keep the bulk of your games within 1 score, you give up control in terms of whether you win or lose.

    Because one mistake, even by a referee can literally swing the game results. We have seen this.

    In the playoffs, this is magnified. Because now, you need to be absolutely perfect at the end just to win.

    We have been lucky but look at the #s in terms of how many games we win within one score. Look at how many are won in the last few possessions. That is not sustainable. Just mathematically, you are literally setting up a game plan that depends on the ball bouncing your way - sometimes ish happens. When that does happen, be it a drop, fumble, missed call, etc - you lose the game.

    No, that many games won within 1 score is not sustainable. Something had to change. In this case, it was the defense. But it cannot be overstated that we ARE squandering offense. And it HAS been a key factor in our poor showing in the playoffs outside of wildcard games ( since the SB loss ).
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4034
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:48 pm


  • groundchucklives wrote:https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29634019/nfl-teams-most-likely-decline-2020-why-packers-seahawks-saints-lose-more-games

    ^^Full article is linked above. Here is a small sample of what he had to say:

    The Seahawks' formula also seems difficult to sustain. As you can see from the numbers above, they went 11-5 while essentially battling their opponents to a draw in terms of point differential. Pete Carroll's team ranked eighth in DVOA, in part because they played the second-toughest schedule in the league by Football Outsiders' numbers, but their strategy was bizarre. Most weeks, Carroll would rely heavily on the run and play middling football for some or most of the game before reluctantly letting star quarterback Russell Wilson take over and lead Seattle to victory.


    While I am not sure if we will take a step back or not. His premise is accurate. "Carroll would rely heavily on the run and play middling football for some or most of the game before reluctantly letting star quarterback Russell Wilson take over and lead Seattle to victory.[" this leave a small margin for error, and we have been lucky enough more often than not Wilson pull sit out. The bad part is it does not have to be that way. This is PC biggest problem. It worked well when they have a all great defense. But we have not and don't now and it is one of the reason we can't get past the 2nd round.

    Basically he has a Ferrari and a Pacer to choose for a race, and he chooses the pacer until he has no choice but to use the Ferrari and can only hope to win a close race, instead of using the Ferrari from the beginning and winning by 5 laps. Might work well in 16 games but as we have seen does not work well in 1 and done playoff situation.

    To little margin for error
    to much added and unneeded pressure on the players

    I mean the guys premise is a very widely viewed stance on the Hawks, he is not the only writer, expert or fan who sees it.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2988
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • You would think with that pillow of feathers from all the crow he has had to eat he would learn.....
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 32731
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • Who?
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 30774
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • First of all, whoever claims Barnwell hates the Seahawks simply isn't paying attention, and only focuses on the negative things he says. Yeah I know he's a Patriots fan, but he usually gives the Seahawks credit when warranted. He was on the Russell Wilson bandwagon early, well before any other talking head.

    The only real issue I have with this article is that he didn't adequately address our improvements and downplayed our injuries last year. He is right that if we play the exact same way as last year and manage a +7 point differential, we'll be 9-7 or 8-8. However, no team is exactly the same year to year.

    In regards to the injuries, he claimed we were the sixth healthiest team by adjusted games lost. That metric gives equal weight to all starters, and less weight to backups. This stat doesn't really grasp the impact of losing a starter and then his backup and have to rely on 3rd/4th string players at important positions. He neglected to mention the impact of those injuries on the style of play our offense is accustomed to. We lost our top three tight ends and running backs and our starting center. Those injuries had a monumental impact on the season, especially at the end. And Clowney played hurt.

    As far as improvements go, we had a bad defense last year because of a terrible secondary and a lack of pass rush. The secondary should be a strength now, possibly even elite. And instead of relying on just Clowney to generate pressure, Pete and John added four pass rushers (Irvin, Mayowa, Taylor, Robinson). Between these four, plus Collier and Green, it should be reasonable to expect at least two of them to contribute to the pass rush and improve upon last year. It's better to have a rotation of pass rushers and the pressure coming from more than just one player. Furthermore, we're very likely to add one more pass rusher such as Everson Griffen. The pass rush will be better.

    Barring more injuries, the Seahawks will be better this year. It may not result in more wins, but we'll have a better team that can advance further in the playoffs.
    Erebus
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1537
    Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:53 pm
    Location: San Antonio, TX


  • Who?
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 30774
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • I believe the 2019 Seahawks were one of the worst 11-5 teams in NFL history, however, is this some take leftover from 2017? The Seahawks trailed at half time 7 times last season and won 5 of those games. The team also took half time leads of 20-3, 24-0, 10-3, and 20-7. So the played out "hot take" of the Seahawks coming back and winning needs to be retired. The defense last season could not hold a lead to save its life.
    sdog1981
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2649
    Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:54 am


  • sdog1981 wrote:I believe the 2019 Seahawks were one of the worst 11-5 teams in NFL history, however, is this some take leftover from 2017? The Seahawks trailed at half time 7 times last season and won 5 of those games. The team also took half time leads of 20-3, 24-0, 10-3, and 20-7. So the played out "hot take" of the Seahawks coming back and winning needs to be retired. The defense last season could not hold a lead to save its life.


    Ahh not really if the hawks had a lead and then had to come back to win that would mean they 'HAD TO COME BACK TO WIN". In addition, part of the reason the other team was able to com back was us going to our prevent offense and defense. That is where we play not to lose rather than to win.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2988
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • Reversion to the mean should be the default opinion when projecting any upcoming season, but that applies to every good team and not just the Hawks. It's an NFL law that a couple of teams that were great last year are going to be bad, and a couple of bad teams are going to be great. The Hawks have done an amazing job over the years keeping things rolling but it's an uphill battle.

    That being said, using NFL point differentials from previous seasons is an awful predictor. It's a small sample size in the first place and then there's a ton of off-season change in terms of injuries, coaching strategies, roster personnel, and schedule difficulty. If you want to predict the outcome of the upcoming 2020 Seahawks @ Falcons opener then you need to exhaust truly a mountain of information before the "2019 Seahawks/Eagles score differential" becomes your next most useful piece of data.

    Erebus wrote:He neglected to mention the impact of those injuries on the style of play our offense is accustomed to. We lost our top three tight ends and running backs and our starting center.

    I agree this was a key oversight on his part. I would bet as a Pats fan he just saw the adjusted games lost thing and assumed that we were relatively healthy, without realizing that the specific people we lost (and when we lost them) was catastrophic to the end of our season.
    AgentDib
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4215
    Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:08 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • Really John, the Hawks don't play to win? :34853_doh:
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15777
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • jammerhawk wrote:These are the same guy s who predicted a 4-12 season two years ago. They have been wrong about the team more often than any other news source. Even Prisco is better at assessing the Hawks, and we all know how little we care about his mostly negative assessments.

    There's a group here that will naturally enjoy the post but Barnwell is hardly a fan of the Hawks. The complaint seems to be Pete's teams don't blow other teams out, but they win, and that somehow isn't good enough. OK, sure thing Bill, cool story Bro.

    Style points mean diddly, it's all about winning and losing.


    I have found (in all sports) over many years,that those know nothing “Knowalls” are wrong about 90% of the time. :roll:
    beaumaris
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 100
    Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 4:09 pm


  • They've been predicting bad Hawks seasons for years. Maybe they'll be right at some point.....a decade too late.
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15777
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • The biggest reasons this team has had issues has been our bad offensive play in the first half and a defense that gives up too much ground every game. We haven't been able to extend drives on offense, or get off the field on 3rd down for our defense. I don't think anyone will disagree with either of those points.

    It is for these reasons that we have had to play from behind resulting in close games at the end. RW is the only reason we have been able to pull out close wins, or lose close games at the end. I don't see any reason to question those points as well.

    Is Barnwell a piece of s$%T for always digging on the Hawks. Yes.

    I would personally like to see us open up the offense early in the game and start putting pressure on the other team to keep up with us. It would be a change of pace. Hopefully, adding Olsen with a healthy Dissly will give us a better 3rd down win percentage. Add in our WR's with a possible Gordon signing and I think we can be more explosive on offense. PC just needs to let RW be aggressive much sooner in the game. We still have our run game, but just need to be more creative. That has been his biggest mistake.

    Our defense has been a work in progress. With the added secondary trades we should be much tighter. I even think our pass rush rotation will be better than last year. Perhaps not the name guy that we had with Clowney, but then he hasn't shown a real interest in staying with this team. Just a lot of talk. We could use a solid DT in the rotation and maybe a Griffin if he comes at a fair price. Other than that I'm excited to see us improve on defense. We couldn't be much worse than the last few years.

    I really just hope that I can see four quarters of solid play each week from this team, and not have to wait until the last third of the game for us to wake up and really play to win. That would be a welcome change.
    Last edited by kf3339 on Wed Aug 12, 2020 10:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
    kf3339
    Platinum Supporter
    Platinum Supporter
     
    Posts: 3199
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:52 pm


  • The point differential seems to be the premise of his conclusion. And thats fair. Its easy to assume that the wins total is not sustainable with such a low differential.

    That will need to improve for the hawks to push past 9 wins.

    But not "that" much considering the game plan of the team.. and pushing this on the offensive scheme seems to miss the issue.


    In 2013 the differential was 11 per game.. scoring 417 points. In 2014 it was 8 per, scoring 394.

    In 2018 it was 5 per, scoring 428 points.

    Last year, less than 0, scoring 405.

    The difference here is the defense, not the offense.

    Does Dunbar and Adams help the D? What about a Clowney or Griffen?
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 19415
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:34 am


  • It was a reasonably balanced effort by Barnwell, I thought, not so much a hater effort. The reason he's wrong and his arguments are meaningless is that our D will be much better this year, with the addition of Adams and Dunbar, working along with Quandre Diggs, plus the LB speed upgrade from the addition of Jordyn Brooks. Our pass rush HAS to improve--it couldn't get much worse. So there's that.

    I think our OL will be better than he believes it will be, but it may take a few games for timing and cohesiveness to kick in. Our OL talent overall is better. There are some wildcards in terms of who comes back healthy and contributes on offense, between Dissly, Carson, and Penny.

    With all that, Barnwell might be only a game or three off. He does pick us to be .500 or above, so, say 9-7. In my unreasonably optimistic preseason mindset, I'm thinking 11-5 +/- 1 game.
    olyfan63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3362
    Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:03 am


  • He has always said that the kind of “high record vs low differential” (there’s probably a more eloquent term) is not sustainable. I hope he’s wrong in this case, but at least he’s consistent.
    Rat
    * NET Cynic *
     
    Posts: 6021
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:42 pm
    Location: Grand Rapids, MI


  • SoulfishHawk wrote:Really John, the Hawks don't play to win? :34853_doh:


    ahh yes the old I know what you mean, but I am going to try to make it something else to belittle you thing. Good job. You know exactly what I mean. BUt to help you, example hey we got a 20 point lead by mixing in pass and urn but we have a lead now let's run 70% of the time. And yes we have done that a lot. OR he we are holding them to no point playing aggressive, but we have a lead so let's pull back and not take chances.

    When you get a lead and stop them playing a particular way you keep doing it till they stop it. You don't pull back. nice try though
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2988
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • kf3339 wrote:The biggest reasons this team has had issues has been our bad offensive play in the first half and a defense that gives up too much ground every game. We haven't been able to extend drives on offense, or get off the field on 3rd down for our defense. I don't think anyone will disagree with either of those points.

    It is for these reasons that we have had to play from behind resulting in close games at the end. RW is the only reason we have been able to pull out close wins, or lose close games at the end. I don't see any reason to question those points as well.

    Is Barnwell a piece of s$%T for always digging on the Hawks. Yes.

    I would personally like to see us open up the offense early in the game and start putting pressure on the other team to keep up with us. It would be a change of pace. Hopefully, adding Olsen with a healthy Dissly will give us a better 3rd down win percentage. Add in our WR's with a possible Gordon signing and I think we can be more explosive on offense. PC just needs to let RW be aggressive much sooner in the game. We still have our run game, but just need to be more creative. That has been his biggest mistake.

    Our defense has been a work in progress. With the added secondary trades we should be much tighter. I even think our pass rush rotation will be better than last year. Perhaps not the name guy that we had with Clowney, but then he hasn't shown a real interest in staying with this team. Just a lot of talk. We could use a solid DT in the rotation and maybe a Griffin if he comes at a fair price. Other than that I'm excited to see us improve on defense. We couldn't be much worse than the last few years.

    I really just hope that I can see four quarters of solid play each week from this team, and not have to wait until the last third of the game for us to wake up and really play to win. That would be a welcome change.



    DING DING DING we have a winner
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2988
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • Every year we are amongst the tops in close games. Even back in the LOB days. He has said he like to keep it close and win in the end. Great when you have a top defense, great when you have a great oline. Not great with what we have had since 2015. Yes we win, but we have such a slim margin for error and really so much for Wilson to do magic that eventually it has to catch up to us. Not to mention it cannot get us beyond the 2nd round. The reality is until PC or someone opens up the offense and keeps the peddle to the mettle we are at best 2nd round playoff and out team. That's pressuming we keep beating the odds on all these close games every year.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2988
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • I'm not belittling you at all. I just find it interesting that you actually think they don't play to win.
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15777
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • SoulfishHawk wrote:I'm not belittling you at all. I just find it interesting that you actually think they don't play to win.



    I find it interesting you are purposely being dense when I just spelled out what I meant and you know what I meant.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2988
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • John63 wrote:BUt to help you, example hey we got a 20 point lead by mixing in pass and urn but we have a lead now let's run 70% of the time. And yes we have done that a lot.

    Are you talking about the Seahawks? When has Pete ever lost a game here that he was leading by 20 points?!

    This does happen sometimes in the NFL, notably to the Falcons in the Super Bowl, when teams do not secure the lead and let the other team back into the game with turnovers and a fast tempo.
    AgentDib
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4215
    Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:08 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • AgentDib wrote:
    John63 wrote:BUt to help you, example hey we got a 20 point lead by mixing in pass and urn but we have a lead now let's run 70% of the time. And yes we have done that a lot.

    Are you talking about the Seahawks? When has Pete ever lost a game here that he was leading by 20 points?!

    This does happen sometimes in the NFL, notably to the Falcons in the Super Bowl, when teams do not secure the lead and let the other team back into the game with turnovers and a fast tempo.



    I guess you missed the part of EXAMPLE. As to your last turnovers and fast tempo, yes but slowing it down, being predictable, and playing not to lose is not the answer. There is a middle ground that so far he has not found or does not want to find. Also yes not 20 but 17 point lead in 2015. Let me help you we went into the 4th qtr with 17 point lead. Also great we have never lost by 20 but how many times did we loose when we should have won if only we kept the peddle to the metal or did not wait so long to put the foot on the peddle.

    Here are just 2 examples

    https://seahawkswire.usatoday.com/2020/01/13/slow-starts-hampered-seahawks-pete-carroll-era/

    https://sports.mynorthwest.com/750145/huard-why-seahawks-offense-starts-slow-finishes-fast/?




    enough said
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2988
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • There is a reason we lead the league in defibrillator sales since Carroll took over.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 32731
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • Wah wah. Somebody in the media stated their opinion. I am salty.
    Smellyman
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5787
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:58 pm
    Location: Taipei


  • And they're wrong so often, it makes it fun to look back. Good, I always hope the media underestimates the Hawks. Not that it matters even a little bit.
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15777
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • Whether or not you like him or not ....

    He's no hack. He has NEVER predicted the Seahawks at 4-12 so it is ridiculous to compare him to Prisco. He has a better working knowledge of all 32 teams then any writer I have come across lately. I have heard him a few times on John Clayton's show and he had never been anti-Seahawk. Hit the archives and read what he said about the 2013 Seahawks being underrated.

    He speaks math. His two points are simple.
    1. Winning at a high percentage with a very slim point differential is usually statistically unsustainable. If the other team has a chance to win at the very end, eventually they just might.

    2. Rusell Wilson is undisputedly the best weapon the Seahawks have. Barnwell is of the impression that we don't utilize that weapon efficiently, which leads to the Seahawks never enjoying a high point differential lead at the end of games..which leads us back to his first point.

    Remember, all it takes is one more loss to literally take a "step back", and hell maybe the Niners make that field goal next year. If the Seahawks come out of the gate and start beating teams by more than 7 points, he will change his tune quickly, because the statistics he uses will mandate it.
    rjdriver
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2068
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:11 am
    Location: Utah


  • Or maybe the refs call the obvious PI in the end zone and the Hawks win the division.
    Or maybe KJ doesn't drop an easy game ending pick in that same game where the Niners somehow only lost because of a missed FG.
    But hey, eventually idiots like this will be "right" if they keep predicting doom and gloom every year.

    This isn't the BCS, you either win or you don't. This team gets it done, dwelling on how it looks doesn't and/or saying they barely won etc. doesn't change it.
    Last edited by SoulfishHawk on Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15777
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • There's the old saying that bad $ex is better than no $ex, and that's how it has felt the last few years watching the Seahawks play. Sure, you get there eventually, but did anyone enjoy themselves on the way?

    I would also posit that when you have been coaching since WWII, like Pete, that you start to get hung up on inventing new ways to keep yourself interested. Thus, never drafting high ranking players, finding ways to dig a hole to get yourself out of (Think of yourself/teenager shooting hoops, then deciding that only shots banked off the garage roof count).

    As has been said a trilliion times before, Pete has this luxury because of the Ol Russ Magic. I don't expect any change from a coach who is pushing 70. You do have to wait a while for the Cialis to kick in, I guess. Consult your doctor for games lasting more than 4 hours...
    AubHawk71
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 171
    Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:46 pm


  • :2thumbs:
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15777
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • :2thumbs: :2thumbs:
    SoulfishHawk wrote::2thumbs:
    AubHawk71
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 171
    Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:46 pm


  • SoulfishHawk wrote:Or maybe the refs call the obvious PI in the end zone and the Hawks win the division.
    Or maybe KJ doesn't drop an easy game ending pick in that same game where the Niners somehow only lost because of a missed FG.
    But hey, eventually idiots like this will be "right" if they keep predicting doom and gloom every year.

    This isn't the BCS, you either win or you don't. This team gets it done, dwelling on how it looks doesn't and/or saying they barely won etc. doesn't change it.



    But in there lies the problem, if you played more aggressive like its the 4th qtr all game you would not loose or win on 1 play so much. FYI the goal is the SB we have not gotten it done since 2014, we have not even gotten to the Conference champs since 2014. So sorry what we are doing is treading water good enough to get in but not good enough to get it done.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2988
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • SoulfishHawk wrote:Or maybe the refs call the obvious PI in the end zone and the Hawks win the division.
    Or maybe KJ doesn't drop an easy game ending pick in that same game where the Niners somehow only lost because of a missed FG.
    But hey, eventually idiots like this will be "right" if they keep predicting doom and gloom every year.

    This isn't the BCS, you either win or you don't. This team gets it done, dwelling on how it looks doesn't and/or saying they barely won etc. doesn't change it.



    Seriously?
    "Idiots like this"?
    "Doom and gloom"?

    Lets look at the actual headline of the article...
    "Why the Packers, Seahawks, Saints COULD lose more games.."

    Then he states later ...

    " The goal isn't to put anyone down or ruin anybody's excitement over the season but rather to try to see whether there are reliable indicators of future success or failure."

    Such doom and gloom!

    He simply states that according to a formula based on math Seattle is a LIKELY candidate to win ONE less game than last year. Has this "hack" had any success in the past using this formula called the Pythagorean expectation? From the article...
    "Over the past three years, I've identified 16 teams who I expected to decline in their upcoming campaign.
    Fourteen of those 16 teams did decline, while two maintained their prior record. Not a single one improved."

    That's a statistically sound assumption. Now, I love your optimism and I share it. As a matter of fact, I think Seattle will win more games than last year because I think they have made substantial personnel upgrades. But to call Barnwell a "Anti Seahawk Hack" or a "doom and gloomer" is preposterous and intellectually dishonest.
    Last edited by rjdriver on Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    rjdriver
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2068
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:11 am
    Location: Utah


  • The hidden costs of playing not to lose until the fourth quarter is that:
    1. You need to keep your starters in the whole game leading to them being more worn out later in the year and more susceptible to injury.
    2. You don’t get a chance to play your backups as much giving them much needed reps.
    JayhawkMike
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 402
    Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:06 pm


  • JayhawkMike wrote:The hidden costs of playing not to lose until the fourth quarter is that:
    1. You need to keep your starters in the whole game leading to them being more worn out later in the year and more susceptible to injury.
    2. You don’t get a chance to play your backups as much giving them much needed reps.



    And you margin for error is smaller
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2988
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • Barnwell isn't necessarily wrong. He is a numbers guy, and Seattle's point diff indicates they will take a step back based on mathematical history.

    I like some of the moves that have been made, but if they don't go more uptempo on offense and start taking it to teams, early and often, than yes they will lose more games upcoming. Just gotta hope Pete has seen the light. Wilson has commented on it as well during the offseason so there is a chance, maybe.

    It's pretty interesting, though that any analyst who studies the Seahawks comes away baffled. Reluctantly let their HoF QB takeover the game. Until that gets fixed Seattle isn't doing anything significant in this league again.
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2730
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • Exactly.

    Wilson has even been recently quoted that he would really like to play every quarter like the 4th.

    If that is not a passive aggressive shot across Carroll's bow, not sure what is. But until Carroll gives up this insane strategy that hamstrings us in every non-wildcard playoff game - there is no reason to expect much from this team.

    It still is amazing to watch in the regular season though. The nice thing about a crappy defense is that at least we start scoring sooner. My fear is that with a better defense we will go back to running the clock down in the 1st, and that boring goddawful type of 'football' we were subjected to a few years ago. At least last year the games were exciting.

    Playing the way we did last year, will get us a worse record. And because Carroll likes to keep games close, having a better defense won't change that. It just means we won't start our own scoring until later in the game because we won't be giving up scores and so won't prioritize it.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4034
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:48 pm




It is currently Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:50 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ SEATTLE SEAHAWKS FOOTBALL ]




Information
  • Who is online