Is that when we went back to Pete ball that is when the defense improved. Maybe it's because our up tempod high scoring offense was getting the D tired from being on the field all the time? It's a pick your poison type thing. I see a lot of people saying Pete broke the offense but before the defense was broken. The analysts have talked a lot about dialing back the offense for that reason specifically. And how much did Pete really put the reigns on Russ? It seemed like Russ was still dropping back to pass. What I don't like is our play calling specifically. Get some more creative routes, etc.

I feel like Pete went back to PeteBall "when" the defense improved. There are plenty of quick scoring offenses around the league that dont have completely trash defenses. You can have a dynamic offense and still have a decent defense. I dont think we should fall into that trap that this is the only way to do it and romanticize the LOB era and the way that offense way built.

Welshers wrote:Is that when we went back to Pete ball that is when the defense improved. Maybe it's because our up tempod high scoring offense was getting the D tired from being on the field all the time? It's a pick your poison type thing. I see a lot of people saying Pete broke the offense but before the defense was broken. The analysts have talked a lot about dialing back the offense for that reason specifically. And how much did Pete really put the reigns on Russ? It seemed like Russ was still dropping back to pass. What I don't like is our play calling specifically. Get some more creative routes, etc.

Maybe a little uptick from this move but IMO The defense improved because we played a bunch of scrubs towards the end

I have to laugh at keeping the defense off the field. Yesterday was Pete Ball level 2.0 and the Rams still posessed the ball for six minutes longer than the Hawks.

Beginning of the season they were 5-1 with an overtime loss. Afterwards when Pete put the clamp on they were 7-4 and Russ' numbers went in the toilet.

Welshers wrote:Is that when we went back to Pete ball that is when the defense improved. Maybe it's because our up tempod high scoring offense was getting the D tired from being on the field all the time? It's a pick your poison type thing. I see a lot of people saying Pete broke the offense but before the defense was broken. The analysts have talked a lot about dialing back the offense for that reason specifically. And how much did Pete really put the reigns on Russ? It seemed like Russ was still dropping back to pass. What I don't like is our play calling specifically. Get some more creative routes, etc.

And how does constantly going 3 and out keep your defense off the field?

A quick scoring drive takes longer than a 3 and out, giving your defense more rest AND the ability to play with the lead.

The one take that makes sense is that when the Seahawks had the lead the other team passed more. Because our pass defense sucked so bad they were successful and made the defense look even worse.

Maybe PC thought if we just purposely suck on offense the other team will slow play it and then we can open it up and RW can make miracles at the end of the game and the clock will run out in that short period of time before our defense gets blown up again?

HEEEEYYY, I think you may have nailed it!!!! PC thought our best chance of winning was to suck on offense!

edit: that last sentence may come off as sarcasm, but I'm not so sure. We've been talking for years about the 1st 2nsd 3rd 4th quarter mantra. Maybe PC really believes that neutering your offense in q1-q3 gives you the best chance to win games. I always laughed that off but now I'm not so sure. He must have really hated being 5-0 if it was because he had to let the offense actually try hard to score for q1-3. Well, he sure put an end to that.

Welshers wrote:Is that when we went back to Pete ball that is when the defense improved. Maybe it's because our up tempod high scoring offense was getting the D tired from being on the field all the time? It's a pick your poison type thing. I see a lot of people saying Pete broke the offense but before the defense was broken. The analysts have talked a lot about dialing back the offense for that reason specifically. And how much did Pete really put the reigns on Russ? It seemed like Russ was still dropping back to pass. What I don't like is our play calling specifically. Get some more creative routes, etc.

How does being tired explain them being trash at the start of games?

Welshers wrote:Is that when we went back to Pete ball that is when the defense improved. Maybe it's because our up tempod high scoring offense was getting the D tired from being on the field all the time? It's a pick your poison type thing. I see a lot of people saying Pete broke the offense but before the defense was broken. The analysts have talked a lot about dialing back the offense for that reason specifically. And how much did Pete really put the reigns on Russ? It seemed like Russ was still dropping back to pass. What I don't like is our play calling specifically. Get some more creative routes, etc.

we had a higher TOP with the high scoring offense. And yes PC pulled in the reigns. it was never about how many times he throws but the kind of passes and the tempo, etc. PC pulled in the reigns forcing them to go back to the snap with 5 or less almost every time. You stopped seeing the quick passing as much, you stopped seeing screens, you stopped seeing Russ run early. That all started game 6 and that is all PC.

Welshers wrote:Is that when we went back to Pete ball that is when the defense improved. Maybe it's because our up tempod high scoring offense was getting the D tired from being on the field all the time? It's a pick your poison type thing. I see a lot of people saying Pete broke the offense but before the defense was broken. The analysts have talked a lot about dialing back the offense for that reason specifically. And how much did Pete really put the reigns on Russ? It seemed like Russ was still dropping back to pass. What I don't like is our play calling specifically. Get some more creative routes, etc.

Typically great D beats great O.. that's why Pete leans D and thats been proven over the years even with the hawks SB victory over peyton and the Broncos..

It obvious that the Hawks had a hard time protecting wilson for the last several years... Maybe some of that is O scheme and thats why Carroll went more conservative because he was trying to be efficient and limit turnovers..

But the truth is it doesn't matter what he does... when the let Russ cook people were flipping out, they wanted to fire Pete because they thought Pete should let Russ cook... then when Pete did let Russ cook they had some success because the O line was giving Russ some time to throw the ball then the NFL D's adjusted and took away the long ball... then everyone wanted Pete's head because they didn't adjust ... Part of that was because they didn't have a run game cause all the running backs were hurt... then the hawks got healthy and won 4 in a row and lost to the Best D in the NFL...

Ok your point about the Hawks D being on the field to long is legit but the truth is nobody was playing great D in the beginning of the season it was a trend in the NFL because of no training camp...and yeah it takes a toll on a D to be on the field all the time... the Hawks worked through massive adversity and turned the D around...

Did Carroll handcuff Russ? I would say that Carroll believes in efficiency and wanted to get back to the run game because of all the turnovers... I believe if the Hawks would have ran the ball early and often and loosened up that Rams D they would have won the game.. they didn't do that when AD got hurt they believed they had an opportunity to make a come back... but the truth is the Rams D is not just about AD... they have a really good D line as well as a really good secondary and the Hawks O line could not protect Wilson.... that's just the facts...


LTH