Seattle Seahawks 2nd Half Offense Playcalling Article

This article is well written and expresses my displeasure with our playcalling in the 2nd half (sans overtime obviously).

http://www.rantsports.com/nfl/2014/09/2 ... ahawksGrid

Careful, people will start castigated you for being negative about a win, and insult your football intelligence.

I like this paragraph, it's exactly how I feel about it:

"Yes, Seattle was able to dominate in overtime, but it was because they returned to the more creative set of plays they ran in the first half. Teams that play to win when ahead typically do so; those that play not to lose tend to fall short. Seattle may have squeaked out the game Sunday, but their fans should hope they learned that lesson before they do so in a crucial and probably devastating loss"

That article hardly even addresses the actual play calling. There's virtually no actual information in it. It's just a few paragraphs by somebody who's displeased that we didn't score more and that we let them score too much.

Zebulon Dak":38x0vf3c said:

That article hardly even addresses the actual play calling. There's virtually no actual information in it. It's just a few paragraphs by somebody who's displeased that we didn't score more and that we let them score too much.

Click to expand...

Not everyone is capable of in depth play-calling analysis, but the generalization was well spoken.

Zebulon Dak":1xi1udwx said:

That article hardly even addresses the actual play calling. There's virtually no actual information in it. It's just a few paragraphs by somebody who's displeased that we didn't score more and that we let them score too much.

Click to expand...

So you didn't think Pete went into "conservative we have the lead let's let the defense hold them" mode? Cause I did.

No creativity for any of the 3rd and most of the 4th quarter. 17-3 at half, we should have come out and gone for the throat to put the game away, not get conservative and let Denver hang around.

Sgt. Largent":341vbtxn said:

Zebulon Dak":341vbtxn said:

That article hardly even addresses the actual play calling. There's virtually no actual information in it. It's just a few paragraphs by somebody who's displeased that we didn't score more and that we let them score too much.

Click to expand...

So you didn't think Pete went into "conservative we have the lead let's let the defense hold them" mode? Cause I did.

No creativity for any of the 3rd and most of the 4th quarter. 17-3 at half, we should have come out and gone for the throat to put the game away, not get conservative and let Denver hang around.

Click to expand...

I don't know what Pete did. I know it's easy to call a play that doesn't get positive yardage a bad play call. I know it's easy to call a stalled drive playing conservatively. I know it's easy to call a few stalled drives not going for the throat.

I know sometimes I like to believe that when we don't march down the field and score a TD it's only because we decided not to but I understand that's that's probably not actually true.

Zeb, just admit that his assertion of the Seahawks having a tendency to play to not lose on offense as opposed to playing to win is pretty accurate overall.

Seriously, dude.

KitsapHawk":31ul94m9 said:

Zebulon Dak":31ul94m9 said:

That article hardly even addresses the actual play calling. There's virtually no actual information in it. It's just a few paragraphs by somebody who's displeased that we didn't score more and that we let them score too much.

Click to expand...

Not everyone is capable of in depth play-calling analysis, but the generalization was well spoken.

Click to expand...

First off, what about the defensive play-calling on that last drive? The coverage was a vanilla zone that Peyton exploited twice for big gains, including a touchdown.

Moreover, without the evidence of play tracking - it is just hollow. It perpetuates bias. Show me an analysis of time left and then compare it to the first half and I may pay attention to it.

Though this once again comes down to the ultimate issues with ANY playcalling argument:

1) You call the plays that will win you the game - not score the most points. Keeping the play clock moving with a lead can be as important as taking higher risks to score more. Ultimately, if you won the game - you called the right plays.

2) There is NEVER an ability to go back and play this game again with different playcalling. So any talk about alternate playcalling is fraught with bias. No one ever talks about whether different, higher variance playcalling might have actually cost us the game. What if higher variance playcalling would have cost us the game? These arguments always assume that play calling could get better if changed. None of them discuss the very REAL possibility that differences in playcalling could have had no difference or a worse outcome. For example, I'd argue that the Wilson INT, on a first down play, was an unnecessary high variance play call. I would have preferred to keep running the clock. It almost cost us the game.

Ultimately, these are never about playcalls but about play results. For example, in the article the OT playcalling was considered "creative" and praised but in OT Russell scrambled 3-4 times and many were simple runs we already ran earlier in the game. Those Wilson scrambles were not the plays called and thus playcalling had nothing to do with those plays. People just like the results so they like the playcalling. It is silly.

RolandDeschain":1u3gw970 said:

Zeb, just admit that his assertion of the Seahawks having a tendency to play to not lose on offense as opposed to playing to win is pretty accurate overall.

Seriously, dude.

Click to expand...

Crap - I usually try not to agree with you Roland...

The two plays that hurt Seattle the most by far in the 4th quarter were a sack taken by Wilson after holding the ball way too long on a deep read (which set up a safety on the next play) and an interception on a pass that went about 20 air yards. To say that Seattle blew it on offense by playing not to lose is grossly misleading.

Seattle once again called more pass plays than run plays (when moving Wilson's ad-libbed scrambles into the pass column). That's three games in a row now. And considering that Seattle led almost the entire game, that speaks a lot to Seattle maintaining an aggressive mentality so far in 2014.

After three years of Bevell doing too little, this year he seems to be doing too much. It's weird. That said, I think he'll get it sorted out as the season goes along.

If you want to see a team with a serious "gas off the pedal" issue, go watch the 49ers.

TDOT sums it up perfectly. I think Seattle was conservative when it was appropriate. Seattle actually shot themselves in the foot on two "riskier" plays (as kearly pointed out -- Wilson's errant throw and also calling a pass play near SEA's endzone).

Rant Sports? Seriously?

I agree with Kearly, and I also think the tendency to say "playing not to lose" while assuming it's somehow different than the Pete philosophy of grinding it out and take what they give you is bizarre.

This team's entire offensive philosophy is essentially to slow the game to a crawl and beat the other team up until you can get shots over the top. Denver took away the top and did a pretty good job against the run. There were mistakes but this team took what the Denver defense gave them <and those guys on the other side are no joke>.

Denver had to play Seahawk football yesterday and it worked out in Seahawk favor.

RolandDeschain":tu13i3uk said:

Zeb, just admit that his assertion of the Seahawks having a tendency to play to not lose on offense as opposed to playing to win is pretty accurate overall.

Seriously, dude.

Click to expand...

They play the strategy with the least variance in expected outcome. Higher variance strategies are for the teams with less skill. Read any book on strategy. The best teams want to minimize risk and variance. The worst teams want to maximize them. A higher variance play call led to Wilson's INT for example.

Everyone loves Bates here for his remarkable game he called against the Saints in the 2010 playoffs. That level of creativity was only necessary because we were so overmatched. It isn't Pete's preference.

The Giants and Steelers won their Super Bowls with conservative game planning.

Why do you think we rarely blitz on defense? Blitzing is high variance.

Pete's whole philosophy is on minimizing risk and variance while winning the game. Against teams with good defenses - this means closer, low scoring games - always. Why increase variance in the other team's favor?

The one downer from yesterday was that Seattle went back to being afraid of throwing over/across the middle again. If we're wondering why WIlson can run around for six seconds and never find anybody, it might be because Seattle is not even using large chunks of the field.

Denver looked very vulnerable on "slashing" pass plays, whether it was Lynch's slant route or Percy's many drag routes. If these teams meet in the Super Bowl, I expect those kind of routes to be a big part of our game plan.

Not to mention. These play calling arguments never lend credence to the effective play/playcalling of the opposing team. Its always what we didnt do, and never what they did do.

However, flip the switch, and when were on D, its what we called and how we executed, and never what they called and how they executed.

I always come back to the simple conclusion that there are 22 guys on the field and multiple coaches with scheme matchups calling shots. Anyone, at anytime, from either side, can make a mistake and it wont be noticed. But its super easy to watch a play fail/succeed and assume it was the play called and not the execution.

Cartire ftw.

TDOT and kearly sum up my thoughts pretty much perfectly. All I ask is that people that want to place blame on individuals or philosophies, bring some information and evidence other than "it felt like" or "it looked like" or "he should have done this or that" while we as the fans have the benefit of television angles and hindsight.

Zebulon Dak":mqdq4o5x said:

I know sometimes I like to believe that when we don't march down the field and score a TD it's only because we decided not to but I understand that's that's probably not actually true.

Click to expand...

Well look at the plays run in the 3rd and 4th quarter, all runs and short safe passes.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/playbypla ... 6&period=3

The only pass you'd consider intermediate to long was the interception Talib tipped. So you can't tell me the plan at halftime wasn't to come out and play more conservative and let the defense continue to stop Manning.

IMO we now have the explosive offense to not do that anymore, Russell can be trusted to open things up in order to bury a team like the Broncos, instead of letting them hang around.

Heck, even after Kam picked it off and the personal foul on Talib, it was three straight runs to set up the FG. Why not try to score a TD? Not saying throw three straight 20 yard passes into the endzone, but holy moly run some more imaginative plays than Lynch 3 times into the middle to set up a FG.

We get it, our offensive play calling is always perfect and never lacking. :roll:

As much as it sucked in the 2nd half, it was damn good in the Overtime :lol:
I'm not a bevell guy at all, make no secret of that. But, he deserves credit for that OT drive, outstanding play calling.