knownone":1zqj5pjq said:
Sgt. Largent":1zqj5pjq said:
Seymour":1zqj5pjq said:
My main gripe is playing down to the Tards I think is pretty SOP no matter who is coaching them (like the OP states)
I'll agree all day long that Pete's philosophical approaches on both sides of the ball are simplistic and downright stubborn sometimes, especially on the offensive side of the ball (three yards and cloud of dust pound the rock pays off in the 4th quarter, etc etc).
I don't think Pete's philosophical approach is simplistic or stubborn. His philosophy is all about minimizing short-term risk and playing without fear of his opponent. It's easy to take a balls to the wall approach and live and die by your offense every game. However, to exercise restraint and trust your preparation enough to know that you'll be able to overcome whatever obstacle is thrown your way is one of the most complicated philosophies to pull off, and one proven to provide the most consistent long term success.
There is a reason Pete is fond of 'stoicism' and 'grit'. Every team is good when they don't face a great deal of adversity. Very few teams excel in adverse situations. The Seahawks excel in adverse situations because their philosophy is not about winning one game, but rather - as Pete would say - winning forever. So they put an emphasis on proper execution while sticking to their formula rather than trying to maximize the score on every offensive possession. This lends itself to more and more adverse situations whether against weak or strong teams. But those experiences are why Pete is great at developing young players, and why we can hang against more talented teams (KC, LA, Etc..).
You can still play with toughness, athleticism, grit and stoicism (whatever that means), yet be more dynamic and fluid with your schemes and playcalling opponent to opponent.
For all that Pete does well, and there's a lot........he's one of the greatest motivators and teachers of football ever. But his strong suit has never been offensive scheme or X's and O's. He relies on having tougher, stronger and better athletes than his opponent. Which like I said to Seymour, that's an awesome approach to have when you have one of the greatest defenses in the history of the NFL allowing your offense to be conservative and pound your opponent into submission.
But as we've seen since our defense became mortal, that approach on offense hasn't been as successful, and Pete's post Dallas playoff game comments echo this. He himself said he remained with the run game/conservative offense approach too long.
This is what I'm talking about. Be more dynamic, be more fluid in game, allow Russell more freedom to use his unique skillset to open up the offense.