Elephant in the Room

[strohmin]

Give Drew Lock a chance. If Geno continues playing bad ball Lock will replace him at some point.

I agree with that but until Pete fixes the defense, Drew Lock will probably look the same. The worst thing for an offense is having to sit on the sideline watching their defense getting slowly torched up and down the field with time consuming scores. Give smith more oppurtunities to establish an offensive rythem and see how he does. If he doesnt produce then replace him. However, I dont agree with putting the majority of the blame on him. We didnt even place blame on Wilson for how bad the offense looked over the years eveb after giving him huge contracts.

 

[Wheetie]

It's a core philosophy of Pete to not play the game in a complicated way and rely instead on high execution and chemistry.

Starts with the philosophy and then those calling the plays within that framework.

Then, there's the players.

There were mistakes, but not to the degree that woukd warrant how lopsided the game was. Most of what I saw was a defense still not clicking on the backend with too many holes in our zone, just poor calls on D (Hurtt), and stale playbook in the 2nd half (waldron).

I think it was against the 9ers the first go-round last year when Pete remarked that the offense needed to open up. After that, we did, and were damn near unstoppable for 6 weeks.

Pete needs to get his D to 'get it', rely less on emotion, and more on focused play.

I think in the end, that's the biggest piece here. We have a team built in an unconventional way, around an unconventional philosophy. One that prioritizes intangibles, bond, and the individually will and spirit. This team is rich in that this year. They aren't yet (obviously) on the same xs and os page.

So, when we lose, the losses inherently look different than the typical, 'we got beat' loss. You coukd feel that even in the end of theLOB days. When the intangibles failed, so did the D.

So the answer. The philosophy is Pete's. If you want to fault him in losses, you have to acknowledge it was the same philosophy that made us the most euccessful team in thr league over a decade.

Does it mean the page has turned and this team is lost? Maybe. Or maybe the combination of talent and intangibles will come together over the season and this was just the wake-up call the players needed to understand its not just about the comraderie.

Whether that happens will depend on vets who aren't afraid to get in guys @sses and keep their heads in the game and assignment correct. When we were great, we had a Earl, Cam, and Sherm who woukdnt allow failure. Who is that on the defense now? Not Bobby. Different personality. Not Diggs. Not the young guys, for all their talent. The closest guy we've got? Reed and Adams... others need to step up.

Pete's philosophy needs generals more than most because it's built on the fire of youth.

So as troubling as the D was, and as shaky a ground Clint seems to be on ( I'm not sold on him either for the risk that he may very well lose the confidence of the guys very soon if he can't get them in position to succeed), I don't think what we sae Sunday is the identity of the team. Love is a vet, but new. He's finding his place. Same with Jones. And we will see what changes when Adams comes back and Witherspoon huts the field.

Hard to say how bad a game Waldron called. But there were some questionable decisions. The only way we succeed moving forward though is if the playbook opens up. It has to. The 'execute the simple stuff' philosophy needs to be abandoned.

I think Sunday was a combination of a team philosophy being forced into failure by injury on the O line.

I for one am thankful for the wakeup call 40 minutes into the season, rather than in November when the games get really tough.

We will see how the team responds.

Problem is, a loss like this due to garbage schemes could maybe lose a locker room, even this early. I would guess some players might now have the mindset of no matter how much more effort is given, it can't be enough to overcome being put in a position not to succeed. Now they have seen the scheme in real action, I'm certain of lot of their eyes have been open to the uphill battle in trying to find success in the schemes they're put in, especially the new guys.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Give Drew Lock a chance. If Geno continues playing bad ball Lock will replace him at some point.

Dang it, I ran out of popcorn. Brb...........

 

[RiverDog]

Give Drew Lock a chance. If Geno continues playing bad ball Lock will replace him at some point.

We're still a long way away from seriously considering a QB change. If we start out 1-3 and depending on how Geno plays, then it might be worth contemplating. But for better or worse, Geno's our man.

 

[keasley45]

Problem is, a loss like this due to garbage schemes could maybe lose a locker room, even this early. I would guess some players might now have the mindset of no matter how much more effort is given, it can't be enough to overcome being put in a position not to succeed. Now they have seen the scheme in real action, I'm certain of lot of their eyes have been open to the uphill battle in trying to find success in the schemes they're put in, especially the new guys.

True

 

[strohmin]

Problem is, a loss like this due to garbage schemes could maybe lose a locker room, even this early. I would guess some players might now have the mindset of no matter how much more effort is given, it can't be enough to overcome being put in a position not to succeed. Now they have seen the scheme in real action, I'm certain of lot of their eyes have been open to the uphill battle in trying to find success in the schemes they're put in, especially the new guys.

I feel the same way. How are you supposed to play your best when you are put in a scheme that doeant cater to your strengths.

 

[Titus Pullo]

Geno has plateaued. This is the best he's been and will ever be.....Which still might be good enough.

If you are thinking he'll have a breakout season, you will be very disappointed.

With that said, there are problems elsewhere that need to be fixed.

 

[WarHawks]

Geno has plateaued. This is the best he's been and will ever be.....Which still might be good enough.

If you are thinking he'll have a breakout season, you will be very disappointed.

With that said, there are problems elsewhere that need to be fixed.

Yep. Game one, and we're already rearranging the deck chairs and talking new qb's. Sigh.

 

[pittpnthrs]

It's a core philosophy of Pete to not play the game in a complicated way and rely instead on high execution and chemistry.

Starts with the philosophy and then those calling the plays within that framework.

Then, there's the players.

There were mistakes, but not to the degree that woukd warrant how lopsided the game was. Most of what I saw was a defense still not clicking on the backend with too many holes in our zone, just poor calls on D (Hurtt), and stale playbook in the 2nd half (waldron).

I think it was against the 9ers the first go-round last year when Pete remarked that the offense needed to open up. After that, we did, and were damn near unstoppable for 6 weeks.

Pete needs to get his D to 'get it', rely less on emotion, and more on focused play.

I think in the end, that's the biggest piece here. We have a team built in an unconventional way, around an unconventional philosophy. One that prioritizes intangibles, bond, and the individually will and spirit. This team is rich in that this year. They aren't yet (obviously) on the same xs and os page.

So, when we lose, the losses inherently look different than the typical, 'we got beat' loss. You coukd feel that even in the end of theLOB days. When the intangibles failed, so did the D.

So the answer. The philosophy is Pete's. If you want to fault him in losses, you have to acknowledge it was the same philosophy that made us the most euccessful team in thr league over a decade.

Does it mean the page has turned and this team is lost? Maybe. Or maybe the combination of talent and intangibles will come together over the season and this was just the wake-up call the players needed to understand its not just about the comraderie.

Whether that happens will depend on vets who aren't afraid to get in guys @sses and keep their heads in the game and assignment correct. When we were great, we had a Earl, Cam, and Sherm who woukdnt allow failure. Who is that on the defense now? Not Bobby. Different personality. Not Diggs. Not the young guys, for all their talent. The closest guy we've got? Reed and Adams... others need to step up.

Pete's philosophy needs generals more than most because it's built on the fire of youth.

So as troubling as the D was, and as shaky a ground Clint seems to be on ( I'm not sold on him either for the risk that he may very well lose the confidence of the guys very soon if he can't get them in position to succeed), I don't think what we sae Sunday is the identity of the team. Love is a vet, but new. He's finding his place. Same with Jones. And we will see what changes when Adams comes back and Witherspoon huts the field.

Hard to say how bad a game Waldron called. But there were some questionable decisions. The only way we succeed moving forward though is if the playbook opens up. It has to. The 'execute the simple stuff' philosophy needs to be abandoned.

I think Sunday was a combination of a team philosophy being forced into failure by injury on the O line.

I for one am thankful for the wakeup call 40 minutes into the season, rather than in November when the games get really tough.

We will see how the team responds.

Good post. There's a few things i'd like to touch upon though. Pete's philosophy is stagnant in my opinion. I realize he wants to keep turnovers to a minimum and wear teams down in a controlled manner, but they dont have the horses for that. I cant understand why the playbook isnt open from the outset? Why wait until week 4 to do it when it has to be done out of necessity? The foot should be on the gas at all times. We fans recognize that the defense isnt built to impose their wills on other teams so why doesnt Pete? Seattle needs to outscore teams in shootouts unfortunately so I dont get the conservative offense.

Also speaking about the philosophy, yes it worked in the LOB days because that team had more talent than other teams and the league was different back then. They had a running back who led the league in yards after contact and a QB that sustained drives with his feet that played perfectly within Petes philosophy. The current team has none of that. The team was special back in the LOB days and they played up Petes philosophy to a tee with a league that allowed much more physical play at the time. The league has changed while Petes philosophy hasent. Do you see the issue here? Dont let the flashes of regular season success fool you when looking at the big picture. That is why i'm anxious for new blood on the sidelines even if it means regression for a few seasons. At least they would be building on something. Pete is stuck regardless of how the roster changes. It doesnt matter who they bring in, draft, or how young or old the players are. Its going to be the samething over and over.

 

[pittpnthrs]

Yep. Game one, and we're already rearranging the deck chairs and talking new qb's. Sigh.

He's not wrong though. Did anybody have any confidence that Geno could bring the team back in the 4th quarter? I didnt. I chalked up the loss with 12 minutes left on the clock. Anytime the game warrants Geno to do more than the script asks for, its almost guaranteed to end in failure.

 

[Maelstrom787]

Geno has plateaued. This is the best he's been and will ever be.....Which still might be good enough.

If you are thinking he'll have a breakout season, you will be very disappointed.

With that said, there are problems elsewhere that need to be fixed.

Thank you for renewing my hope that this may be another breakout season.

 

[Lagartixa]

Geno has plateaued. This is the best he's been and will ever be.....Which still might be good enough.

If you are thinking he'll have a breakout season, you will be very disappointed.

With that said, there are problems elsewhere that need to be fixed.

I wonder how much weight we should give to the opinion of an expert who said in September of last year

Drew Lock will be our next QB in a few weeks. After that, maybe one of those listed above.

"Those listed above" included college QBs who were considered potential top draft picks at the time (Young, Stroud, Levis, Richardson) and some others like Hendon Hooker and Jaren Hall.

 

[GemCity]

I'll take a shot at this, and I've always been an ardent PC supporter.

His football philosophy is to limit explosives and stop the run. You do both of those things well and you're more likely to win games. And he has had a lot of success using this formula.

The problem is the data which he derived these two tenets are based on studying football games that were played in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. As we know, football, and offenses specifically, have significantly changed since those days.

Sure there are still teams that are heavy run teams, but for most part, it's a pass happy league. That's what brings in the viewers and the NFL revenue.

What we saw on Sunday was a lot of soft zone, designed to limit explosives. The sideline explosives were limited, sure, but the result was that McVay and Stafford dinked and dunked their way to the endzone all day. Short and intermediate crossers over the middle all damn day. The defense was on the field for too long and it was another lopsided TOP game (40 mins to 20). The Rams controlled the clock and our offense really had no opportunity to get into a rhythm. Bookend tackles went out and it was a disaster with a new center still learning protection calls.

Furthermore, of the sounds and looks of it, it looks like they're scrapping the "Fangio 3-4" and reverting back to the defense of old (2-man / 4-man fronts)? It looked like that on Sunday.

Or are they? See, they don't even know. Hurtt says in pressers that their goal is to be "multiple." In other words, they have no real identity on defense. They're just kind of winging it. Maybe they thought that with Kupp out, McVay would run the ball all day. They were wrong.

They limited the Rams run game to 2.3 yards per carry. That was great. But that pass defense looked like the Norton days. It's like we've seen this show before. And it's getting kind of stale.

I agree with this. Pete’s philosophy, imo, is to play to not lose…,not play to win.
Huge difference.

 

[flv2]

Walker was averaging over 5 yards a carry. Let's just go ahead and abandon something that is actually working. Yet again.

The Seahawks had 2 2nd half drives before the 9:45 remaining in the game point, (when they were 11 points behind). Those 2 drives totalled 7 plays, and 2 of those plays were 3rd down & passing distance plays, (which failed). 5 plays, (3 of which were runs), isn't enough to determine what the offense was intended to be. At 9:45 they went with 3 passes from shotgun, which was to be expected in a 2-score game. Smith missed a few 2nd half passes, but I don't see why Waldron would get any blame for this game.

 

[flv2]

There's not really a single reason the game fell the way it did. Seahawks performed poorly in every aspect so fixing a single issue won't change the outcome in games to come. However, Rams have the Seahawks number. They consistently win v Seattle. This year, they also had the advantage of 6 mo of Bradford (and McVay) learning BWagz' weaknesses. He has more than he used to. Every short, over the middle, crosser... pass was a showcase on how to find matchups and manipulate the D and specifically ILB in coverage. He had a lot of tackles because his coverage responsibility caught the ball a lot. Bradford won't look as good in most games and BWagz probably won't be as poor in coverage.

Again, that's just one of many problems. Addressing BWagz in coverage doesn't fix gimpy OTs or a plethora of other issues. I just point out the above because there is reason to expect some improvement here and it hasn't been pointed out yet.

Bradford???

 

[SoulfishHawk]

The Seahawks had 2 2nd half drives before the 9:45 remaining in the game point, (when they were 11 points behind). Those 2 drives totalled 7 plays, and 2 of those plays were 3rd down & passing distance plays, (which failed). 5 plays, (3 of which were runs), isn't enough to determine what the offense was intended to be. At 9:45 they went with 3 passes from shotgun, which was to be expected in a 2-score game. Smith missed a few 2nd half passes, but I don't see why Waldron would get any blame for this game.

He gets blame like plenty of other people. Walker was averaging over 5 yards. How many times have we seen them abandon the run when it's actually working? A LOT. Out coached across the board, again. Pattern.

 

[Lagartixa]

Bradford???

I thought the same thing when I saw @chrispy's comment yesterday and assumed he meant Stafford.

 

[hawkfan68]

He gets blame like plenty of other people. Walker was averaging over 5 yards. How many times have we seen them abandon the run when it's actually working? A LOT. Out coached across the board, again. Pattern.

This pattern has been consistent the past several years. If something is working, let's stop doing it. Common logic suggests to keep doing things that work but not in the Seahawks world. It's working so let's get cute and try something else, like throwing 40 yard bombs for incompletions on a 3rd and 4.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Yeah, that long pass OUT OF BOUNDS on 3rd down was a real peach.

 

[keasley45]

Good post. There's a few things i'd like to touch upon though. Pete's philosophy is stagnant in my opinion. I realize he wants to keep turnovers to a minimum and wear teams down in a controlled manner, but they dont have the horses for that. I cant understand why the playbook isnt open from the outset? Why wait until week 4 to do it when it has to be done out of necessity? The foot should be on the gas at all times. We fans recognize that the defense isnt built to impose their wills on other teams so why doesnt Pete? Seattle needs to outscore teams in shootouts unfortunately so I dont get the conservative offense.

Also speaking about the philosophy, yes it worked in the LOB days because that team had more talent than other teams and the league was different back then. They had a running back who led the league in yards after contact and a QB that sustained drives with his feet that played perfectly within Petes philosophy. The current team has none of that. The team was special back in the LOB days and they played up Petes philosophy to a tee with a league that allowed much more physical play at the time. The league has changed while Petes philosophy hasent. Do you see the issue here? Dont let the flashes of regular season success fool you when looking at the big picture. That is why i'm anxious for new blood on the sidelines even if it means regression for a few seasons. At least they would be building on something. Pete is stuck regardless of how the roster changes. It doesnt matter who they bring in, draft, or how young or old the players are. Its going to be the samething over and over.

I think they need to be quick to open things up this year and instill a sense of urgency here and now.

But let's all not pretend that the LOB came into being with elite players. Many of those players seemed elite because they played here. Maxwell wasn't the same dude on the Eagles. Thomas, Browner, Clemons, Bryant, Smith never achieved remotely the same success elsewhere... the system made the players as much as the players made the system. Sherm, Bam, Bennet, Wagner... all great regardless, but it's not as though 11 HOfer made the D go.


Thing is, with all the hand wringing and calls for firings, it is one week with a significantly different team than last year and a wake up call out the gate that things need to shift for them to succeed. The team can easily improve because we have the talent to do so. And when things click for this group, I think the results can still be very good.

The key will be keeping everybody together and focused on task.

Love, Jones and the new guys need to find their place in the lockerroom as much as on the field. Leadership, accountability are what will turn this, from the coaches down.

But the bend but don't break philosophy on D and 'walk, but don't run' strategy on O needs to go.

Get aggressive. Play angry. Call plays like you have nothing to lose. If they do that, we may all be singing a different tune come the bye.