Barnwell at ESPN predicts we take a step back

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.

Well, he has a right to his wrong opinion. :irishdrinkers:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ).

groundchucklives":1jww2v6f said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

You would think with that pillow of feathers from all the crow he has had to eat he would learn.....

Who?

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.

Who?

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.