28-0, 14-0, 20-0, 9-0 and 31-0.

[scutterhawk]

Show me a team, and I'll show you players playing in the mold of their head coach.

Of course it's the players on the field who ultimately are responsible for winning and losing. But that doesn't mean what I'm talking about isn't true.................and there's a 4-5 year history of playing like utter garbage in first halves of regular AND playoff games that prove me right.

That's not the players, it's how the players are coached. It's Pete's philosophy.

Well Sgt Lgt, I'll take Pete's 4-5 year history of playing like utter garbage ALONG WITH his Super Bowl Winning, Playoff records & Philosophy and overall successes since he's come to Seattle over your angst, and it's not even close.

I said in the first half.

But yeah, let's just keep stinking in first halves and not worry about it, it worked out fantastic yesterday.

I know what you said, but this post has devolved into a disgruntling pissing and moaning about Pete Carroll's philosophy not coinciding with yours, and a few others in this discussion, but to me?, the tail goes with the hide.
I am judging the WHOLE Pete Carroll package, and what he's been able to transition with the Seattle Seahawks Franchise.
Does he have his faults?, hell yes he does, but even with those negative glitches, he's earned a whole lot of 'Mulligans' with his credibility.
I mean some people going so damned far as wanting Paul Allen to call him on the carpet for not ditching Darrell Bevell, or some of his other Coaches?!?......I mean, REALLY??????
I'm pretty damned sure that he has his reasons for going with a feeling out of another teams game plans in the early stages, and then countering with his own plans to disrupt their timing, and then wire in his own game plan and dictate the pace.
It's a strategy that has worked pretty darned well for him, but not so much for some impatient fans.

He's initiated something quite spectacular with the Seahawks... It's called beating the odds, and has produced multiple winning Seasons, so.......In Pete We Trust..... I"M IN.

 

[Harley CVO]

I agree with the op. I get so mad at the one pass two runs punt. It happens all the time. Its gets old real quick. Pretty much every game we start slow. .

I'm with ya..

anybody noticed the Pat vs. KC game? Pats tossed 11 consecutive passes in their opening drive for a TD.
No long ball.. short to med passes that moved the chains.

Key word "opening drive". I would say the Pats strength is Bradys arm, and his targets.
Not their OL and running game. sounds like us, eh?
Play to your strength.

RW has shown he can pass with the best of them. why wait for desperation?

 

[justafan]

I agree with the op. I get so mad at the one pass two runs punt. It happens all the time. Its gets old real quick. Pretty much every game we start slow. .

I'm with ya..

anybody noticed the Pat vs. KC game? Pats tossed 11 consecutive passes in their opening drive for a TD.
No long ball.. short to med passes that moved the chains.

Key word "opening drive". I would say the Pats strength is Bradys arm, and his targets.
Not their OL and running game. sounds like us, eh?
Play to your strength.

RW has shown he can pass with the best of them. why wait for desperation?

When did the run run pass happen?
If the team would have ran the first 10 plays they may have won.I am pretty sure they wouldnt have been down 31-0.

 

[MarylandHawk]

I know one thing, in at least three of them we wouldn't have fallen in a hole if we did one simple thing: STOP DEFERRING!

If we hadn't deferred, Stewart wouldn't have broken that first run early, and their D wouldn't have started so charged up!

It puts pressure on our offense to come out and play from behind if our opponent scores on the first drive. Also, once they get that first score on the board, they start to play much more freely. Give our offense the chance to move the ball, and let the defense adjust to the game a bit before sending them in there. If the offense doesn't score, we punt -- and we're back to as if we had deferred to start with. No harm, no foul.

Cut this crap out! We do not have the same invincible defense we had in 2012-13, so stop acting like we do!

</rant>

 

[scutterhawk]

Here are our 12 playoff first half/second half splits under Pete sorted by start time.

@Panthers: 0-31 first half, 24-0 second half (10am)
@Vikings: 0-3 first half, 10-6 second half (10am)
@Falcons: 0-20 first half, 28-10 second half (10am)
@Bears: 0-21 first half, 24-14 second half (10am)
Packers: 0-16 first half, 22-6 second half (12pm)
Saints: 16-0 first half, 7-15 second half (1pm)
@Redskins: 13-14 first half, 11-0 second half (1pm)
Saints: 24-20 first half, 16-17 second half (1pm)
Patriots: 14-14 first half, 10-14 second half (3pm)
Broncos: 22-0 first half, 21-8 second half (3pm)
Panthers: 14-10 first half, 17-7 second half (5pm)
49ers: 3-10 first half, 20-7 second half (6pm)

Anything jump off the page at you? In games played at 1 pm PST or later we have outscored our opponents 106-68 in the first half. OTOH in games starting before 1pm we have been outscored 0-91 in the first half. This is not a general problem but rather a specific one.

If you haven't already done it, would you please put this on the "Effort" post?,

 

[HawKnPeppa]

These are the five road playoff games under Carroll that we've fallen behind on.

Why?

Is it all the rah rah Pete screaming about we can't win games in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarter? Is it because Pete preaches it's not about starting, it's about finishing?

Well he's wrong, sometimes you do HAVE to start strong. Can't keep relying on insane come from behind wins because you finally wake up in the 2nd half.

So Pete either needs to figure this out, or change his philosophy of preaching this to his players, because yesterday it bit us in the ass, and it wasn't the first time. It's now a full blown issue.

Where is he 'wrong?' What he says is completely correct, and the message is to keep fighting until the game clock hits zero.

What a wild stretch that anyone would think the players coast for three quarters because of that.

 

[Uncle Si]

But to OP point, why does nothing change?. If it's that obvious, it would seem to be a simple fix. For example, the same subpar offensive line was there in the second half. What changed?

Kearly points to circumstance. Which i see the point, but ultimately I'm with OP. The evidence is too strong and the numbers can't be excused and shushed. Too often we crap the bed out of the gate.

Nothing changes because Pete doesn't think it's a problem.

His philosophy is play conservative, see how the game unfolds and then pour it on to finish strong.............and he's won everywhere he's been. So hard to argue that philosophy.

But there's enough body of evidence to show that there's a fatal flaw in his philosophy and stubbornness to change how he coaches up his players and schemes/gameplans, and we saw it in spades yesterday.

Did he play it conservative against the Broncos? What about the last game with the Cardinals?

We have seen many games where the Hawks come out rolling, and others where they do not. Are we going to continue to ignore those games and focus on the ones we do not?

 

[hawknation2015]

But to OP point, why does nothing change?. If it's that obvious, it would seem to be a simple fix. For example, the same subpar offensive line was there in the second half. What changed?

Kearly points to circumstance. Which i see the point, but ultimately I'm with OP. The evidence is too strong and the numbers can't be excused and shushed. Too often we crap the bed out of the gate.

Nothing changes because Pete doesn't think it's a problem.

His philosophy is play conservative, see how the game unfolds and then pour it on to finish strong.............and he's won everywhere he's been. So hard to argue that philosophy.

But there's enough body of evidence to show that there's a fatal flaw in his philosophy and stubbornness to change how he coaches up his players and schemes/gameplans, and we saw it in spades yesterday.

Did he play it conservative against the Broncos? What about the last game with the Cardinals?

We have seen many games where the Hawks come out rolling, and others where they do not. Are we going to continue to ignore those games and focus on the ones we do not?

Personally, I think the team was mentally wiped out after playing in the 3rd coldest game in NFL history. Then there was the whole issue with the field and the cleats. It took them a half to mentally check back in and reset. The fact that they didn't give up and came back and went 24-0 in the second half, after getting stomped, is one of the greatest achievements in a losing effort I have ever seen. 99.9% of the teams would have caved.

 

[Uncle Si]

Could be... Back to back 10am starts, bouncing from -6 one week to a 15-1 team the next.

I am not even arguing there may not be some merit to the OP. However, it is ignoring games in which this team has just come out and buried opponents from the first quarter on, and seems to really want to focus on PC's speech at the end of the Vikings game as some "proof"...

In reality, he sends his D out to start a game whenever possible to set a tone and put the other team under pressure immediately... to me that's the opposite of "conservative".. he wants to make a statement.

It didn't work this week. I do think we need a new OC. But i don't think the team needs a new approach... just less 10am starts.

 

[johnnyfever]

But to OP point, why does nothing change?. If it's that obvious, it would seem to be a simple fix. For example, the same subpar offensive line was there in the second half. What changed?

Kearly points to circumstance. Which i see the point, but ultimately I'm with OP. The evidence is too strong and the numbers can't be excused and shushed. Too often we crap the bed out of the gate.

Nothing changes because Pete doesn't think it's a problem.

His philosophy is play conservative, see how the game unfolds and then pour it on to finish strong.............and he's won everywhere he's been. So hard to argue that philosophy.

But there's enough body of evidence to show that there's a fatal flaw in his philosophy and stubbornness to change how he coaches up his players and schemes/gameplans, and we saw it in spades yesterday.

Did he play it conservative against the Broncos? What about the last game with the Cardinals?

We have seen many games where the Hawks come out rolling, and others where they do not. Are we going to continue to ignore those games and focus on the ones we do not?

Personally, I think the team was mentally wiped out after playing in the 3rd coldest game in NFL history. Then there was the whole issue with the field and the cleats. It took them a half to mentally check back in and reset. The fact that they didn't give up and came back and went 24-0 in the second half, after getting stomped, is one of the greatest achievements in a losing effort I have ever seen. 99.9% of the teams would have caved.

Agreed. These guys showed a ton of heart. I was not near as bummed with that season ending loss as I was with some of their season 4th qtr losses.

 

[Uncle Si]

Its a good point Johnny...

If we lose that game 31-24, but are neck and neck the whole way and give up a late TD, what's the narrative this week?

I think every single Seahawk fan was absolutely shocked at the first half... and only a few were not surprised by the 2nd. Just that kind of a year, really.

 

[hawknation2015]

It is an interesting psychological query: whether emphasizing the importance of finishing impedes starting. Pete has been emphasizing finishing in the same way for over 15 years. He's coached a lot of games where his teams have dominated from the start, but he's also been known for having teams that finished games very strong. I guess in some ways it is a tradeoff. Overall, it is better to finish strong than it is to start strong. But ideally, you would want your team to do both things equally well.

It reminds me of the way USC fans would complain about Pete for emphasizing winning the Rose Bowl, rather than winning a National Championship. USC ended up finishing in the Top 4 nationally for seven-consecutive years, but they went to the Rose Bowl five times during that stretch instead of the National Championship game.

 

[Uncle Si]

It is an interesting psychological query: whether emphasizing the importance of finishing impedes starting. Pete has been emphasizing finishing in the same way for over 15 years. He's coached a lot of games where his teams have dominated from the start, but he's also been known for having teams that finished games very strong. I guess in some ways it is a tradeoff. Overall, it is better to finish strong than it is to start strong. But ideally, you would want your team to do both things equally well.

It reminds me of the way USC fans would complain about Pete for emphasizing winning the Rose Bowl, rather than winning a National Championship. USC ended up finishing in the Top 4 nationally for seven-consecutive years, but they went to the Rose Bowl five times during that stretch instead of the National Championship game.

In some ways the team is set up to do both...

With a strong running game and great defense, making sure the game is close in the 4th quarter increases his team's chances of winning. So maybe he does come out with the attitude that his team won't make the types of mistakes they made Sunday so they are close in the 4th where their physicality will win them the game.

But I look at some of they dynamic play of other games from the onset that suggest the game planning as not as predictable as some on here claim. There is clearly variations. Now, whether one can predict when it will be a bit more conservative and when it will not than you might have and answer as to why.

 

[hawknation2015]

It is an interesting psychological query: whether emphasizing the importance of finishing impedes starting. Pete has been emphasizing finishing in the same way for over 15 years. He's coached a lot of games where his teams have dominated from the start, but he's also been known for having teams that finished games very strong. I guess in some ways it is a tradeoff. Overall, it is better to finish strong than it is to start strong. But ideally, you would want your team to do both things equally well.

It reminds me of the way USC fans would complain about Pete for emphasizing winning the Rose Bowl, rather than winning a National Championship. USC ended up finishing in the Top 4 nationally for seven-consecutive years, but they went to the Rose Bowl five times during that stretch instead of the National Championship game.

In some ways the team is set up to do both...

With a strong running game and great defense, making sure the game is close in the 4th quarter increases his team's chances of winning. So maybe he does come out with the attitude that his team won't make the types of mistakes they made Sunday so they are close in the 4th where their physicality will win them the game.

But I look at some of they dynamic play of other games from the onset that suggest the game planning as not as predictable as some on here claim. There is clearly variations. Now, whether one can predict when it will be a bit more conservative and when it will not than you might have and answer as to why.

The last thing you want is for your team to be overly hyped before a game has started. Before a game, every player is naturally going to be hyped up. The problem for teams that make their players overly hyped up before a game is that too many of them burn out before the game has ended. You want your team to be as cool as possible to start the game, when the players' central nervous systems are innately pumping out chemicals in their bodies that are quickly burning energy. You want them to play with consistency, regardless of the opponent, so you emphasize the importance of finishing.

Emphasizing finishing is more important than starting because it is at the finish when players are at their most exhausted, and it's at that point where the game can actually be won. You also don't want the players to feel more hyped up for certain "important" games, which can lead to the loss of that psychological edge and a lack of energy and wherewithal against the non-"important" opponents. See: The Rams.

 

[WilsonMVP]

These are the five road playoff games under Carroll that we've fallen behind on.

Why?

Is it all the rah rah Pete screaming about we can't win games in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarter? Is it because Pete preaches it's not about starting, it's about finishing?

Well he's wrong, sometimes you do HAVE to start strong. Can't keep relying on insane come from behind wins because you finally wake up in the 2nd half.

So Pete either needs to figure this out, or change his philosophy of preaching this to his players, because yesterday it bit us in the ass, and it wasn't the first time. It's now a full blown issue.

Didn't help to have two interceptions thrown right from the get-go.
You can't come out cold and spot a 15 & 1 team 14 points....Wilson

Wilson, as much as I love him...always seem to play like shit at the begining of games too....not sure if its the gameplan itself or Oline that makes him that way but theres only been a handful of playoff games where he actually looked good in the first half

 

[Ozzy]

I want to keep Bevell and think it would be a bad idea to move on from him. There is definitely room for improvement from him and part of our slow start is a product of his approach at times. People seem to think he is the sole reason or plays zero part in the slow start when the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Running Lynch up the middle against the strength of the Carolina defense was a wasted play from the start. He can do better and usually does. Pete and company will find a way to improve in this regard, I'm confident of it.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

But to OP point, why does nothing change?. If it's that obvious, it would seem to be a simple fix. For example, the same subpar offensive line was there in the second half. What changed?

Kearly points to circumstance. Which i see the point, but ultimately I'm with OP. The evidence is too strong and the numbers can't be excused and shushed. Too often we crap the bed out of the gate.

Nothing changes because Pete doesn't think it's a problem.

His philosophy is play conservative, see how the game unfolds and then pour it on to finish strong.............and he's won everywhere he's been. So hard to argue that philosophy.

But there's enough body of evidence to show that there's a fatal flaw in his philosophy and stubbornness to change how he coaches up his players and schemes/gameplans, and we saw it in spades yesterday.

Did he play it conservative against the Broncos? What about the last game with the Cardinals?

We have seen many games where the Hawks come out rolling, and others where they do not. Are we going to continue to ignore those games and focus on the ones we do not?

Two out of 16 games, and two out of 18 games if you include the playoffs (which I do) is proving my point, not disputing it.

The trend and mentality in the Pete Carroll of our offense is to play conservative, run the ball and trust the defense to keep games close into the 4th quarter at which time trust Russell to be the difference maker.

Sorry, teams have caught up to that, so the GOOD teams now know that so they're forcing us to get into boat races and take us out of Pete's comfort zone.

So like all great coaches SHOULD do, change the philosophy and let's see how dynamic this offense can be. We're paying Russell and other offensive members like Graham (and soon to be Baldwin) a LOT of money......................take off the chains and let them play.

 

[hawknation2015]

But to OP point, why does nothing change?. If it's that obvious, it would seem to be a simple fix. For example, the same subpar offensive line was there in the second half. What changed?

Kearly points to circumstance. Which i see the point, but ultimately I'm with OP. The evidence is too strong and the numbers can't be excused and shushed. Too often we crap the bed out of the gate.

Nothing changes because Pete doesn't think it's a problem.

His philosophy is play conservative, see how the game unfolds and then pour it on to finish strong.............and he's won everywhere he's been. So hard to argue that philosophy.

But there's enough body of evidence to show that there's a fatal flaw in his philosophy and stubbornness to change how he coaches up his players and schemes/gameplans, and we saw it in spades yesterday.

Did he play it conservative against the Broncos? What about the last game with the Cardinals?

We have seen many games where the Hawks come out rolling, and others where they do not. Are we going to continue to ignore those games and focus on the ones we do not?

Two out of 16 games, and two out of 18 games if you include the playoffs (which I do) is proving my point, not disputing it.

The trend and mentality in the Pete Carroll of our offense is to play conservative, run the ball and trust the defense to keep games close into the 4th quarter at which time trust Russell to be the difference maker.

Sorry, teams have caught up to that, so the GOOD teams now know that so they're forcing us to get into boat races and take us out of Pete's comfort zone.

So like all great coaches SHOULD do, change the philosophy and let's see how dynamic this offense can be. We're paying Russell and other offensive members like Graham (and soon to be Baldwin) a LOT of money......................take off the chains and let them play.

It's not just two games . . . the Seahawks set an NFL record for most consecutive games in which they had a lead.

There were only three games this season where the Seahawks were losing at halftime.

The Cincinnati game, for example, was just the opposite. The Seahawks started strong, were leading at halftime, and were up 24-7 in the 4th Quarter. Then the very thing the philosophy is geared to avoid happened: Cincinnati mounted a furious comeback and won.

 

[kjreid]

imo, this has a lot more to do with our defense instead of our offense. I am not convinced that we game plan the beginning of the games well enough against the opposing teams "scripted plays". Momentum started with their teams offense marching down and scoring, once the home team is ahead then a defense can pin their ears back and blitz, blitz and blitz some more.

you blink and we are down 14 it takes our offense out of the game and we are doing stuff we normally don't do.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

imo, this has a lot more to do with our defense instead of our offense. I am not convinced that we game plan the beginning of the games well enough against the opposing teams "scripted plays". Momentum started with their teams offense marching down and scoring, once the home team is ahead then a defense can pin their ears back and blitz, blitz and blitz some more.

you blink and we are down 14 it takes our offense out of the game and we are doing stuff we normally don't do.

It's both.

I get Pete's philosophy..........but that conservative offensive approach and trust your elite defense only works if you actually have an elite defense. While our D ended the year in the top of most categories, it wasn't the lockdown D of 2013 where Russell and the offense only had to score 17-21 points.

There are some cracks in our D, and unless we're going to commit all of our available cap to fixing those cracks it's time to change the way we play offense as well.