Things missing

[sutz]

Bottom line is that Pete is not going to install a West Coast Offense in Seattle. :229031_shrug:

 

[Own The West]

Travis Homer had about seven touches too many.

I'd like to see DJ Dallas get those seven touches. I'm not sure I even like Homer returning kickoffs.

 

[HawkRiderFan]

Looking at the stats we had a lot of completions to the tight ends and backs so I think the short passes were there. As for the reason for less no-huddle, I wonder if part of that was due to the conditions, and with the heat that the team is not used to, they wanted to make sure the D got their rest.

 

[DomeHawk]

I never thought at anytime during the game that we would lose but I noticed some stuff too. As for the short passing game I thought coming into this game that was an area we could exploit also. For the first three games we threw so many long balls resulting in TD's that I thought we would have their DB's on their heels protecting against the long ball.

Yesterday though, especially early in the game, they were doing a good job of stopping the run. That tells me that they had personnel in the box so that dictated what we did in pass routes. We really miss ADB in the slot here too. He was our true possession receiver and to some extent the TE's are taking up that slack but I still miss Baldwin in that role.

Another thing I miss Baldwin in in his scramble drill proficiency. This group of receivers simply are not good at it and we see RW often struggling to find someone downfield or just open anywhere now when he has scrambled out or just has addl time. They need to work on that.

As for our O-Line, they were pretty good for the most part yesterday and did not commit a single false start or holding penalty. This is a GREAT stat. "Fansided" even gave the O-Line an A for the day.

https://12thmanrising.com/2020/10/05/se ... r-victory/

 

[John63]

I did not a see alot of the short passing game. WILSON did not run much early. Very little roll outs. Don't understand any of it. Not a good game plan today.

Cool.

I'm guessing Pete, Schotty & Russ didn't consult you about this week's gameplan. What a shame.

Also, stop yelling.

ahh so in other words you have nothing to say go it.

 

[John63]

I did not a see alot of the short passing game. WILSON did not run much early. Very little roll outs. Don't understand any of it. Not a good game plan today.

Dude, any ROAD WIN in the NFL is a GOOD WIN. The Dolphins are not a bad team. Those Phins play hard and with heart. It was a mostly excellent game plan by the Hawks, as evidenced by the outcome. I am with you on them needing to do something to slow down the rush, whether rolling Russell out more, or using screens more. I may have missed a couple plays, but don't really recall any screens. The bubble-screen-ish thing to DK that he nearly scored on doesn't count as a screen.

I did not say it was not a good win, only there were things missing to me. I did not think our game plan was good.

 

[John63]

Guys you can try all you want to bully me, but it want change much like mos tof you I post my thoughts, that is what a forum is for. Even in wins there are things that can be wquesionted or improved on. If you cant handle that then either dont read it, leave the forum, foe me or just keep proving why we dont get many new people becasue of the heard bully mentality that exists on this forum.


Now back on track I felt the game plan was not good. Guess what you can win but stil lnto have a good game plan.

 

[chris98251]

I did not a see alot of the short passing game. WILSON did not run much early. Very little roll outs. Don't understand any of it. Not a good game plan today.

Don't do roll outs when the Ends were coming up straight and then in to contain, Wilson would roll into them for an easy tackle, you use the running game to exploit the spread and then short passing game, which we did.

So game plan solid for what they showed.

 

[John63]

Lolmywah have to disagree we look bad for alot of the game.

I dont they looked bad at all..

Wasn't as easy as the past 3 weeks.

Still put up 31 with a red zone 4 and out and an end one INT.

3 drops 1 foe td, 2 bad passes, way to much hits and pressure. Qe looked better in 2nd half. Good side no oline penalties.

That's got nothing to do with the gameplan.

I did nto say it did, I was point out other things that heppened, does not change the point I think the game plan was bad. Alot of things that had been working not used and alot of well predictable stuff. Very littel roll outs, etc. Which I said in my original post.

 

[John63]

Bottom line is that Pete is not going to install a West Coast Offense in Seattle. :229031_shrug:

ahh who said we wanted that. Look again I pointed out that I thought the game plan was bad and why. So far no one has addressed that only well nothing but smart a$$ replied and bully attempts.

 

[chris98251]

I dont they looked bad at all..

Wasn't as easy as the past 3 weeks.

Still put up 31 with a red zone 4 and out and an end one INT.

3 drops 1 foe td, 2 bad passes, way to much hits and pressure. Qe looked better in 2nd half. Good side no oline penalties.

That's got nothing to do with the gameplan.

I did nto say it did, I was point out other things that heppened, does not change the point I think the game plan was bad. Alot of things that had been working not used and alot of well predictable stuff. Very littel roll outs, etc. Which I said in my original post.

Do you think week in and week out you get the same defense and look from every team with players of equal skill sets in all positions?

You adapt to who is healthy on your team, then match up and what the stats tell you can be exploited.

I do have a brand new rope here, but you may want to look at it to complain before you use it.

 

[John63]

Looking at the stats we had a lot of completions to the tight ends and backs so I think the short passes were there. As for the reason for less no-huddle, I wonder if part of that was due to the conditions, and with the heat that the team is not used to, they wanted to make sure the D got their rest.

As to Te and Backs maybe its because it seemed like they were more standard passes then what we had been doing. As to no huddle, perhaps the heat and humidity was why might be why few if any roll outs as well and not much running my Wilson early, perhaps that is why. Thanks for a reasonable reply.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Bottom line is that Pete is not going to install a West Coast Offense in Seattle. :229031_shrug:

ahh who said we wanted that. Look again I pointed out that I thought the game plan was bad and why. So far no one has addressed that only well nothing but smart a$$ replied and bully attempts.

I addressed it, you chose to look past all the reasonable posts and fixate on the "smart ass" posts.

You could tell Flores and his front seven made a concerted effort to pressure, create havok and make Russell uncomfortable taking away the easy crossing routes and roll out screens, etc that we've had success with in the first three games.

Again, give Miami credit, they have a very young, tough and aggressive front seven that carried out that game plan very well.

 

[John63]

I did not a see alot of the short passing game. WILSON did not run much early. Very little roll outs. Don't understand any of it. Not a good game plan today.

Don't do roll outs when the Ends were coming up straight and then in to contain, Wilson would roll into them for an easy tackle, you use the running game to exploit the spread and then short passing game, which we did.

So game plan solid for what they showed.

But that did not happen on every play, and they never even tried it. I mean they were teeing off on Wilson and moving the pocket more might have helped alot. Maybe that is what they thought they needed to do and it worked but seems to not even try a roll out, make no sense. Thank you for a civil response.

 

[John63]

Bottom line is that Pete is not going to install a West Coast Offense in Seattle. :229031_shrug:

ahh who said we wanted that. Look again I pointed out that I thought the game plan was bad and why. So far no one has addressed that only well nothing but smart a$$ replied and bully attempts.

I addressed it, you chose to look past all the reasonable posts and fixate on the "smart ass" posts.

You could tell Flores and his front seven made a concerted effort to pressure, create havok and make Russell uncomfortable taking away the easy crossing routes and roll out screens, etc that we've had success with in the first three games.

Again, give Miami credit, they have a very young, tough and aggressive front seven that carried out that game plan very well.

Hmm you could be right, that would explain it. Sorry if I missed it earlier, some times hard to see the good with all the bad.

 

[chris98251]

I did not a see alot of the short passing game. WILSON did not run much early. Very little roll outs. Don't understand any of it. Not a good game plan today.

Don't do roll outs when the Ends were coming up straight and then in to contain, Wilson would roll into them for an easy tackle, you use the running game to exploit the spread and then short passing game, which we did.

So game plan solid for what they showed.

But that did not happen on every play, and they never even tried it. I mean they were teeing off on Wilson and moving the pocket more might have helped alot. Maybe that is what they thought they needed to do and it worked but seems to not even try a roll out, make no sense. Thank you for a civil response.

Not on every play, but you don't know unless there is a tell, contain , pressure or play run, partially why those outside the tackle runs also failed they played wide.

 

[DomeHawk]

Guys you can try all you want to bully me, but it want change much like mos tof you I post my thoughts, that is what a forum is for. Even in wins there are things that can be wquesionted or improved on. If you cant handle that then either dont read it, leave the forum, foe me or just keep proving why we dont get many new people becasue of the heard bully mentality that exists on this forum.


Now back on track I felt the game plan was not good. Guess what you can win but stil lnto have a good game plan.

It's confusing how you alternate between the most aggressive personal attacking poster on the board to the most victimized. It's an interesting dichotomy.

 

[John63]

Guys you can try all you want to bully me, but it want change much like mos tof you I post my thoughts, that is what a forum is for. Even in wins there are things that can be wquesionted or improved on. If you cant handle that then either dont read it, leave the forum, foe me or just keep proving why we dont get many new people becasue of the heard bully mentality that exists on this forum.


Now back on track I felt the game plan was not good. Guess what you can win but stil lnto have a good game plan.

It's confusing how you alternate between the most aggressive personal attacking poster on the board to the most victimized. It's an interesting dichotomy.

it is amazing to me how some people do nothing but attack no matter what, and others can actually have a decent conversation. My alternation is in proportion to how I am treated. I started this thread with no aggressiveness or anything point out my thoughts, and I got attacked, so I got aggressive. Then someone actually made a civil comment and I also went civil and even apologized. Maybe if somewhere were more civil things would be better. I rarely start it, but I will not back down either.,

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Why is it not a good game plan? Honest question. It's not about what we want, it's about what works. And it worked, yet again.

 

[Maelstrom787]

it is amazing to me how some people do nothing but attack no matter what, and others can actually have a decent conversation. My alternation is in proportion to how I am treated. I started this thread with no aggressiveness or anything point out my thoughts, and I got attacked, so I got aggressive. Then someone actually made a civil comment and I also went civil and even apologized. Maybe if somewhere were more civil things would be better. I rarely start it, but I will not back down either.,

John, I'd like to bring up an excerpt from your introductory post here early last year.

I don't tend to say things without something to back up what I say, so you will not get much well it does not pass the eye test stuff. Mainly that is because I don't feel that is fair as we don't know what the player sees, what was called, what others should have done etc. Now that is not to say if it is obvious that I will not remark on it, like a high pass, or drop, or fumble etc. I do not resort to name calling or putting others down and am likely to just foe anyone who does.

See that? That's a perfectly reasonable way of conducting yourself that would play well in this community. But that is not what you've been doing.

You've been constantly posting definitive statements about the team that aren't even remotely backed by any objective evidence - the exact thing you said you wouldn't be doing in your very first post here. Naturally, posters here will attack the substance of your post, but you seem to take this incredibly personally and then start your head-in-the-sand "YOU'RE WRONG" routine while repeating the same thing over and over.

Everything you post is eye test, and then you blindly post a link that is vaguely related to your point, referring to it as "definitive proof." Kind of like you said Ethan Pocic was bad because he played badly for a 22 snap stint at a different position according to PFF, for example. People called out the logic, and you got defensive.

Maybe just ask yourself why you're consistently the subject of critical responses? Doesn't really seem to happen to most of us here... maybe, JUST MAYBE, it's got to do with your conduct instead of the conduct of others? Food for thought. Sorry, no PFF links to back it up for you.

Anyway, in regards to your critique of the gameplan for not passing quickly enough, allow me to quote that introductory post again:

I don't feel that is fair as we don't know what the player sees, what was called, what others should have done etc.

Exactly! You don't really know the gameplan. What we can look at is how the passing attack was largely successful, yet again. I really don't see a need to switch to predominantly quick passes when there really isn't much of any weakness being exposed by our current scheme.