Pete is delusional

[John63]

Incorrect. This has statically been debunked.
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/rushing-success-and-play-action-passing

And it was also disproven in this game.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/billbarnwell/status/1081773020912472065[/tweet]

Because..................we..........................were....................trying...........................to..............................run.

What defense outside of a special needs school for the blind bites on play action when they know it's not a run play.

You clearly didn't read the article as I just posted it, and it is very long.

Arguing against ignorance is futile.

But I will give you the TLDR version to help you out.

As long as LBs are coached to play the run when OL looks like they're run blocking = play action will work. Despite how the run game is actually doing. The stats bear this out.

"We've learned that a team's effectiveness on play-action is not related to its rushing frequency or success. But coaches appear to believe that it does." via link.

I read it, it's a theoretical argument based on a faulty premise...............that you don't need to run in order for play action to work.

The results look accurate, but there's no way there'd be any long term success with putting this theory into a playbook, because it'd only take a handful of games before teams stopped biting if they knew there wasn't any reason to bite on the run fake.

The only true constant is that play action works and doesn't worked based on what? The THREAT of a run. So yeah the stats can show otherwise, but take away the threat and what do you think this theoretical study would look like in another couple of years of far less running by these same teams and those defenders being coached up to not bite.

3 straight run, run, long 3rd and punt should have been enough to totally change the game plan, not give up on the run, but sprinkle in the pass more on 1dt and 2nd. When we did and there were no penalties we moved the ball and scored. After the 2nd they should have mixed I up. Wilson threw 12 passes in the first 40 minutes of the game, we will not win that way.

 

[mrt144]

Incorrect. This has statically been debunked.
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/rushing-success-and-play-action-passing

And it was also disproven in this game.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/billbarnwell/status/1081773020912472065[/tweet]

Because..................we..........................were....................trying...........................to..............................run.

What defense outside of a special needs school for the blind bites on play action when they know it's not a run play.

You clearly didn't read the article as I just posted it, and it is very long.

Arguing against ignorance is futile.

But I will give you the TLDR version to help you out.

As long as LBs are coached to play the run when OL looks like they're run blocking = play action will work. Despite how the run game is actually doing. The stats bear this out.

"We've learned that a team's effectiveness on play-action is not related to its rushing frequency or success. But coaches appear to believe that it does." via link.

I read it, it's a theoretical argument based on a faulty premise...............that you don't need to run in order for play action to work.

The results look accurate, but there's no way there'd be any long term success with putting this theory into a playbook, because it'd only take a handful of games before teams stopped biting if they knew there wasn't any reason to bite on the run fake.

The only true constant is that play action works and doesn't worked based on what? The THREAT of a run. So yeah the stats can show otherwise, but take away the threat and what do you think this theoretical study would look like in another couple of years of far less running by these same teams and those defenders being coached up to not bite.

Sgt. youre smart enough to know about marginal utility, floors and ceilings. The argument against the run setting up PA is that there is not much marginal utility difference for PA passes between doing 40 runs and 30 runs to set up PA nor is there the same marginal utility between 20 and 30.

Yes, if nobody in the league ever ran and then PA passed the league would adjust and metrics would change Basically youre arguing against the evidence by taking the theory below any floor established by any team, superimposing that basement across most teams and then saying it wouldnt add up at all. And yes, thats probably correct, but yours is a hypothetical counter in a hypothetical space that would take many seasons of diffusion across the NFL to appear.

Youre too smart to argue against a hypothetical limit.

 

[Fudwamper]

Wow 3 pages of it. Greg, different day but always right.

We had a great chance to win with petes game plan. We gave up 3 big first downs at the end. 2 on debatable penalties and Wagner's 1st missed tackle of the year.

 

[bigskydoc]

Coming into this game as the team that runs more than any other team in the league, even when it isn’t working, was enough to set the stage for a successful PA attack. We probably could have scored on a PA, Lockett go route on the first offensive snap because no one would expect it. We certainly didn’t have to establish the run in this game to get the PA to work, by metric or any other argument you want to make.

After a few R-R-P-Punt series, it would have likely worked even better. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

We should have mixed it in by the third series, and gone into the half with a nice lead and a rested defense.

 

[John63]

Coming into this game as the team that runs more than any other team in the league, even when it isn’t working, was enough to set the stage for a successful PA attack. We probably could have scored on a PA, Lockett go route on the first offensive snap because no one would expect it. We certainly didn’t have to establish the run in this game to get the PA to work, by metric or any other argument you want to make.

After a few R-R-P-Punt series, it would have likely worked even better. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

We should have mixed it in by the third series, and gone into the half with a nice lead and a rested defense.

Exactly

 

[Fade]

Coming into this game as the team that runs more than any other team in the league, even when it isn’t working, was enough to set the stage for a successful PA attack. We probably could have scored on a PA, Lockett go route on the first offensive snap because no one would expect it. We certainly didn’t have to establish the run in this game to get the PA to work, by metric or any other argument you want to make.

After a few R-R-P-Punt series, it would have likely worked even better. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

We should have mixed it in by the third series, and gone into the half with a nice lead and a rested defense.

Stahp with all of that logic, they aren't trying to hear it.


Seattle could've come out playaction heavy from the jump, and put 2 scores on the board in the first three possessions. (Dallas was 28th in the league defending playaction passes. Seattle was #1 at throwing playaction passes.) As they were geared up to stop the run early, so it would've worked. It then would put Dallas in the hole, and get Dallas to abandon their run game. Now you're a Dak turnover away from blowing the game wide open.


They refused to play offense at the start of the game. The first three possessions 9 plays for 5 yards. Excellent script there Schotty. The Seahawks on offense played like Blake Bortles was their QB not Russell Wilson.

Imagine playing against Rodgers, and GB just R-R-P over and over. Loading up the box on 1st and 2nd down, and GB keeps foolishly running into it. You would love it.

 

[John63]

Coming into this game as the team that runs more than any other team in the league, even when it isn’t working, was enough to set the stage for a successful PA attack. We probably could have scored on a PA, Lockett go route on the first offensive snap because no one would expect it. We certainly didn’t have to establish the run in this game to get the PA to work, by metric or any other argument you want to make.

After a few R-R-P-Punt series, it would have likely worked even better. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

We should have mixed it in by the third series, and gone into the half with a nice lead and a rested defense.

Stahp with all of that logic, they aren't trying to hear it.


Seattle could've come out playaction heavy from the jump, and put 2 scores on the board in the first three possessions. (Dallas was 28th in the league defending playaction passes. Seattle was #1 at throwing playaction passes.) As they were geared up to stop the run early, so it would've worked. It then would put Dallas in the hole, and get Dallas to abandon their run game. Now you're a Dak turnover away from blowing the game wide open.


They refused to play offense at the start of the game. The first three possessions 9 plays for 5 yards. Excellent script there Schotty. The Seahawks on offense played like Blake Bortles was their QB not Russell Wilson.

Imagine playing against Rodgers, and GB just R-R-P over and over. Loading up the box on 1st and 2nd down, and GB keeps foolishly running into it. You would love it.

Yup. IT amazes me how anyone can say anything other than the game plan was bad, and we stuck with it to long, I mean heck PC even said it,

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Youre too smart to argue against a hypothetical limit.

Here's something we're both smart enough to understand that's not a hypothetical theory, Russell only handed the ball off THREE more times than Tom Brady or Drew Brees this year. Three times.

So what exactly are we arguing about again, cause it sure seems like we're arguing about some false narrative that we're wasting Russell's talent because people are angry about the playcalling for one playoff game for a team that overachieved, had major key injuries, poorly executed and still made the playoffs in spite of being in a rebuild year.

 

[John63]

Youre too smart to argue against a hypothetical limit.

Here's something we're both smart enough to understand that's not a hypothetical theory, Russell only handed the ball off THREE more times than Tom Brady or Drew Brees this year. Three times.

So what exactly are we arguing about again, cause it sure seems like we're arguing about some false narrative that we're wasting Russell's talent because people are angry about the playcalling for one playoff game for a team that overachieved, had major key injuries, poorly executed and still made the playoffs in spite of being in a rebuild year.

That is true except for one problem
Brady handed off on 44% of their offensive plays
Brees on 45%
Wilson on 53%


That is the issue they run more plays than we do. Both of them through more than they ran, we did not. So the narrative is not false, it is factually real.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Youre too smart to argue against a hypothetical limit.

Here's something we're both smart enough to understand that's not a hypothetical theory, Russell only handed the ball off THREE more times than Tom Brady or Drew Brees this year. Three times.

So what exactly are we arguing about again, cause it sure seems like we're arguing about some false narrative that we're wasting Russell's talent because people are angry about the playcalling for one playoff game for a team that overachieved, had major key injuries, poorly executed and still made the playoffs in spite of being in a rebuild year.

That is true except for one problem
Brady handed off on 44% of their offensive plays
Brees on 45%
Wilson on 53%


That is the issue they run more plays than we do. Both of them through more than they ran, we did not. So the narrative is not false, it is factually real.

Right, because that's the ratio that wins in December and the playoffs.

Look at the stats of every playoff game this past weekend, every team that won ran for more yards and had more rushing attempts than their opponent, some to the tune of 2 to 1. No one's complaining in Dallas that they ran the ball down our throats 38 times.

So sorry, the crazy narrative you guys are peddling that we need some sort of wholesale scheme/coordinator/philosophical change in order to win is ridiculous.

You win in the playoffs by pounding the rock, playing Stout defense, minimizing mistakes and playing well on special teams. It's how we won a SB, and it's how most teams win SB's.

 

[Russ Willstrong]

The key is to win however you can.

It doesnt matter how much you pound your running back if your opponent has you figured out. The key is to identify and exploit weaknesses. We didnt do enough to adjust and it was our own stubborn philosophy that does us in. Richard knows Pete's tendencies and so does everyone else.

Pete strives for balance and ultimately we got 27 pass to 24 runs. Balance? If you watched the first 3 quarters it was anything but balanced.
What's worse is we offered no change up like RPO, zone reads, screens. Just straight up run, run, empty backfield/predictable passing downs then punt. Good thing Russ didnt get hurt.

 

[Russ Willstrong]

This was anything but playoff football effort on the part of coaches and even players. Yes even Russell needed to do more.

Wilson needs to waive off Schotty like he did in previous games when we needed to convert crucial drives. IMO, Russ sees things presnap that Schotty and Pete never will.
He understands Lockett and Baldwins tendencies against defenses and was able to exploit it.

 

[John63]

Youre too smart to argue against a hypothetical limit.

Here's something we're both smart enough to understand that's not a hypothetical theory, Russell only handed the ball off THREE more times than Tom Brady or Drew Brees this year. Three times.

So what exactly are we arguing about again, cause it sure seems like we're arguing about some false narrative that we're wasting Russell's talent because people are angry about the playcalling for one playoff game for a team that overachieved, had major key injuries, poorly executed and still made the playoffs in spite of being in a rebuild year.

That is true except for one problem
Brady handed off on 44% of their offensive plays
Brees on 45%
Wilson on 53%


That is the issue they run more plays than we do. Both of them through more than they ran, we did not. So the narrative is not false, it is factually real.

Right, because that's the ratio that wins in December and the playoffs.

Look at the stats of every playoff game this past weekend, every team that won ran for more yards and had more rushing attempts than their opponent, some to the tune of 2 to 1. No one's complaining in Dallas that they ran the ball down our throats 38 times.

So sorry, the crazy narrative you guys are peddling that we need some sort of wholesale scheme/coordinator/philosophical change in order to win is ridiculous.

You win in the playoffs by pounding the rock, playing Stout defense, minimizing mistakes and playing well on special teams. It's how we won a SB, and it's how most teams win SB's.

Ahh dude we did not even get 100 yards rushing in the SB. As to the playoffs ahh but they were all veing successful running the ball we were not. But we were having success passing. So our choice keeps doing what was not working or go with what was. For you, you were okay going with what was not working and losing, while most of us wanted to win, and could have. Most of all, one more time, Pete Carroll even we should have thrown more and sooner.

 

[John63]

There is a thread were Wilson himself says the same thing, and KJR has an interview with PC were he also admits they should have passed more and earlier.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

There is a thread were Wilson himself says the same thing, and KJR has an interview with PC were he also admits they should have passed more and earlier.

I've said numerous times in numerous different threads that we stuck with trying to establish a run game too long in the Dallas game and didn't go at Dallas's weakness, which is their secondary harder in the 2nd half.

So there are two different arguments going on here, a broader "we're wasting Russell and we need to be a more dynamic less predictable offense in GENERAL".............and "we should have passed more in the Dallas game."

I'm speaking to the former, not the latter.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

That is the issue they run more plays than we do.

So do their opponents.

 

[hawk45]

There is a thread were Wilson himself says the same thing, and KJR has an interview with PC were he also admits they should have passed more and earlier.

I've said numerous times in numerous different threads that we stuck with trying to establish a run game too long in the Dallas game and didn't go at Dallas's weakness, which is their secondary harder in the 2nd half.

So there are two different arguments going on here, a broader "we're wasting Russell and we need to be a more dynamic less predictable offense in GENERAL".............and "we should have passed more in the Dallas game."

I'm speaking to the former, not the latter.

The 2 have been conflated in this thread. Fade suggested - rightly IMO - that Dallas was still biting on the run fake. I'd go further and add that against the Seahawks and Chris Carson in 2018, and after pounding it in the first half, no amount of PA passing was going to stop them from biting in that game.

Your rebuttal was that PA only works if you run. Since you were directly responding to Fade's comment about the Dallas game, the appearance is that you are making a comment about that specific game, and suggesting that there was some danger of Dallas not responding to the run fake in that game (after we ran it an entire half).

I do understand that Twisted's comment began the dilution of the thread into a specific and a general topic. But if you agree that we should have passed more v Dallas, I don't think you and Fade actually have an argument in this thread.

I mean for a while you were arguing against an assumption that passing more would have resulted in a better outcome. I don't really understand why that is worth arguing. No, it's not a lock that a few more passes would have meant a win. But that doesn't have to be proven (and in fact cannot be known ahead of time). All the support for an argument for passing more lies in the fact that Dallas stoned our running game all game long.

Or are you arguing that the mere absence of 100% assurance of a good outcome from passing more was a good reason to just keep running Carson into a brick wall?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Or are you arguing that the mere absence of 100% assurance of a good outcome from passing more was a good reason to just keep running Carson into a brick wall?

This.

Bottom line should we have made better halftime adjustments and opened it up a little more in the 2nd half and not stuck with a run game that wasn't working? ABSOLUTELY, and Russell and Pete have said as much.

But I'm not down with Fade and others larger argument that one playoff game failure means we need some sort of wholesale scheme or philosophical change to how we can get back to another SB...........which is to build another great defense (of which we see Pete is doing), and continue to pound the rock and let Russell do his thing with play action and explosive plays.

It worked before, it's what allowed this team to overachieve despite a significant lack of talent vs teams we beat (Dallas, KC, Minnesota, Carolina, etc), and it can still work.

Pete is delusional? Nope, Pete knows who he is and what wins football games.

- a nasty defense
- a clutch dynamic QB that can make plays and win games in the 4th quarter
- physical ball control run game
- get the ball more than you give it up

 

[mrt144]

Or are you arguing that the mere absence of 100% assurance of a good outcome from passing more was a good reason to just keep running Carson into a brick wall?

This.

Bottom line should we have made better halftime adjustments and opened it up a little more in the 2nd half and not stuck with a run game that wasn't working? ABSOLUTELY, and Russell and Pete have said as much.

But I'm not down with Fade and others larger argument that one playoff game failure means we need some sort of wholesale scheme or philosophical change to how we can get back to another SB...........which is to build another great defense (of which we see Pete is doing), and continue to pound the rock and let Russell do his thing with play action and explosive plays.

It worked before, it's what allowed this team to overachieve despite a significant lack of talent vs teams we beat (Dallas, KC, Minnesota, Carolina, etc), and it can still work.

Pete is delusional? Nope, Pete knows who he is and what wins football games.

- a nasty defense
- a clutch dynamic QB that can make plays and win games in the 4th quarter
- physical ball control run game
- get the ball more than you give it up

So the team is 50% of the way to what Pete knows wins

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Or are you arguing that the mere absence of 100% assurance of a good outcome from passing more was a good reason to just keep running Carson into a brick wall?

This.

Bottom line should we have made better halftime adjustments and opened it up a little more in the 2nd half and not stuck with a run game that wasn't working? ABSOLUTELY, and Russell and Pete have said as much.

But I'm not down with Fade and others larger argument that one playoff game failure means we need some sort of wholesale scheme or philosophical change to how we can get back to another SB...........which is to build another great defense (of which we see Pete is doing), and continue to pound the rock and let Russell do his thing with play action and explosive plays.

It worked before, it's what allowed this team to overachieve despite a significant lack of talent vs teams we beat (Dallas, KC, Minnesota, Carolina, etc), and it can still work.

Pete is delusional? Nope, Pete knows who he is and what wins football games.

- a nasty defense
- a clutch dynamic QB that can make plays and win games in the 4th quarter
- physical ball control run game
- get the ball more than you give it up

So the team is 50% of the way to what Pete knows wins

I think that's accurate. Like I said, we overachieved this year, very few people thought we'd go 10-6 after that big of a roster turnover. Name the best 20 players on the field Saturday night, after Russell, Frank, Bobby and Tyler it's all Cowboys.

I have all the faith in the world that Pete and John can build another nasty great defense, keep Russell, keep building a great O-line with Solari and I think we get back to another SB in 2-3 years.

Make drastic scheme changes that might or might not work and stunt this plan? No thanks.