The elephant in the room (Graham)

[Hawkpower]

The real elephant in the room is the offensive coaching staff isn't very good, and Sunshine Pete continues to turn a blind eye, as the same mistakes continue to happen week to week, season to season.

It's not Graham's fault that Bevell/Cable, or whoever think's he is Zach Miller.

Zach Miller split out on pass routes 80% of the time?

"Sunshine Pete" should definitely blow things up. When you have been to two straight Super Bowls, its time to admit things just aren't working.

Hopefully we can get a real coaching staff in here stat that can take us to the next level. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[massari]

The real elephant in the room is the offensive coaching staff isn't very good, and Sunshine Pete continues to turn a blind eye, as the same mistakes continue to happen week to week, season to season.

It's not Graham's fault that Bevell/Cable, or whoever think's he is Zach Miller.

Zach Miller split out on pass routes 80% of the time?

"Sunshine Pete" should definitely blow things up. When you have been to two straight Super Bowls, its time to admit things just aren't working.

Hopefully we can get a real coaching staff in here stat that can take us to the next level. :lol: :lol: :lol:

If he had a better OC they would've won two straight super bowls as opposed to just being in two straight super bowls.

Also, Where did you get the stat that Graham is lined up as WR 80% of snaps? Seems way off.

 

[hawknation2015]

The real elephant in the room is the offensive coaching staff isn't very good, and Sunshine Pete continues to turn a blind eye, as the same mistakes continue to happen week to week, season to season.

It's not Graham's fault that Bevell/Cable, or whoever think's he is Zach Miller.

Zach Miller split out on pass routes 80% of the time?

"Sunshine Pete" should definitely blow things up. When you have been to two straight Super Bowls, its time to admit things just aren't working.

Hopefully we can get a real coaching staff in here stat that can take us to the next level. :lol: :lol: :lol:

If he had a better OC they would've won two straight super bowls as opposed to just being in two straight super bowls.

Also, Where did you get the stat that Graham is lined up as WR 80% of snaps? Seems way off.

Mostly in the slot . . . 60% of the time. Not the same thing as playing outside.

 

[Hawkpower]

The real elephant in the room is the offensive coaching staff isn't very good, and Sunshine Pete continues to turn a blind eye, as the same mistakes continue to happen week to week, season to season.

It's not Graham's fault that Bevell/Cable, or whoever think's he is Zach Miller.

Zach Miller split out on pass routes 80% of the time?

"Sunshine Pete" should definitely blow things up. When you have been to two straight Super Bowls, its time to admit things just aren't working.

Hopefully we can get a real coaching staff in here stat that can take us to the next level. :lol: :lol: :lol:

If he had a better OC they would've won two straight super bowls as opposed to just being in two straight super bowls.

Also, Where did you get the stat that Graham is lined up as WR 80% of snaps? Seems way off.

Its not way off. It was posted in another thread.

The tone of the post I responded to was ridiculous. Pete isnt perfect, no coach is, but he's the best we've had around here.

When we have fans stomping around screaming about all the "mistakes" our back to back Super Bowl head coach is making, I just shake my head.....

As a long suffering Seahawk fan, I have perspective on what terrible coaching looks like. I have to remember many fans here probably started following the Seahawks when blue friday became a required phenomenon at the Starbucks where they work.

 

[Fade]

The real elephant in the room is the offensive coaching staff isn't very good, and Sunshine Pete continues to turn a blind eye, as the same mistakes continue to happen week to week, season to season.

It's not Graham's fault that Bevell/Cable, or whoever think's he is Zach Miller.

Zach Miller split out on pass routes 80% of the time?

"Sunshine Pete" should definitely blow things up. When you have been to two straight Super Bowls, its time to admit things just aren't working.

Hopefully we can get a real coaching staff in here stat that can take us to the next level. :lol: :lol: :lol:

If he had a better OC they would've won two straight super bowls as opposed to just being in two straight super bowls.

Also, Where did you get the stat that Graham is lined up as WR 80% of snaps? Seems way off.

Its not way off. It was posted in another thread.

The tone of the post I responded to was ridiculous. Pete isnt perfect, no coach is, but he's the best we've had around here.

When we have fans stomping around screaming about all the "mistakes" our back to back Super Bowl head coach is making, I just shake my head.....

As a long suffering Seahawk fan, I have perspective on what terrible coaching looks like. I have to remember many fans here probably started following the Seahawks when blue friday became a required phenomenon at the Starbucks where they work.

Pete Carroll is a genius on defense, and I hope he coaches the Hawks forever but,
The Truth Hurts - Pete Carroll is allowing systemic failure and dysfunction on offense.

The #1 issue with the offense. The reason every hawks fan should be at the very least worried, is they can't run the ball. This is systemic failure, Cable has been with the team 5 years, the few teams that have employed a ZBS around the NFL have good running games 5 years in because of the system.Take away Russell Wilson, and the Seahawks avg 84 yards a game on the ground.

Jimmy Graham has been mis-utulized from the jump. His WR alignments % wise have taken a jump recently because now they have taken him off the field entirely. So yay for that, he can't block inline so let's take him off the field. Instead of say Kearse, and flanking JImmy out possibly drawing 2 defenders away from the box.

I'm here to discuss the current issues of my fav football team, not ignore them, and pretend everything is hunky dory. The point of my post you were so easily offended by, was the Jimmy Graham issue, is only one problem, in a vast array of problems that stem back to offensive coaching.

 

[justafan]

Its not way off. It was posted in another thread.

The tone of the post I responded to was ridiculous. Pete isnt perfect, no coach is, but he's the best we've had around here.

When we have fans stomping around screaming about all the "mistakes" our back to back Super Bowl head coach is making, I just shake my head.....

As a long suffering Seahawk fan, I have perspective on what terrible coaching looks like. I have to remember many fans here probably started following the Seahawks when blue friday became a required phenomenon at the Starbucks where they work.[/quote]

Pete Carroll is a genius on defense, and I hope he coaches the Hawks forever but,
The Truth Hurts - Pete Carroll is allowing systemic failure and dysfunction on offense.

The #1 issue with the offense. The reason every hawks fan should be at the very least worried, is they can't run the ball. This is systemic failure, Cable has been with the team 5 years, the few teams that have employed a ZBS around the NFL have good running games 5 years in because of the system.Take away Russell Wilson, and the Seahawks avg 84 yards a game on the ground.

Jimmy Graham has been mis-utulized from the jump. His WR alignments % wise have taken a jump recently because now they have taken him off the field entirely. So yay for that, he can't block inline so let's take him off the field. Instead of say Kearse, and flanking JImmy out possibly drawing 2 defenders away from the box.

I'm here to discuss the current issues of my fav football team, not ignore them, and pretend everything is hunky dory. The point of my post you were so easily offended by, was the Jimmy Graham issue, is only one problem, in a vast array of problems that stem back to offensive coaching.[/quote]


I dont think its a scheme problem I think its a talent problem.They chose shiney pieces over the meat and potatoes players that win games and made us tough and physical.

During most of Brees time in NO they have always tried to keep a talented G C G combo that gave DB all the time he needed.
With the combo of Jimmy and DB they put up great fantasy points but they couldnt beat us to take the next step.Payton knew they never would with Jimmy.IMO it was more of Brees being a great QB than Jimmy being a great TE
In both games in 2013 Zach had better numbers than Jimmy,I bet he blocked better also.So maybe this staff knows how to use TEs to win maybe even better than the great Payton does.

Maybe they arent using Jimmy the way people here want them to but the mistake in my mind was paying a player like him over paying for Ol or a TE this team needs.

The old "its not the xs and os its the steves and joes that win games"

 

[Hawkpower]

Zach Miller split out on pass routes 80% of the time?

"Sunshine Pete" should definitely blow things up. When you have been to two straight Super Bowls, its time to admit things just aren't working.

Hopefully we can get a real coaching staff in here stat that can take us to the next level. :lol: :lol: :lol:[/quote]

If he had a better OC they would've won two straight super bowls as opposed to just being in two straight super bowls.

Also, Where did you get the stat that Graham is lined up as WR 80% of snaps? Seems way off.[/quote]



Its not way off. It was posted in another thread.

The tone of the post I responded to was ridiculous. Pete isnt perfect, no coach is, but he's the best we've had around here.

When we have fans stomping around screaming about all the "mistakes" our back to back Super Bowl head coach is making, I just shake my head.....

As a long suffering Seahawk fan, I have perspective on what terrible coaching looks like. I have to remember many fans here probably started following the Seahawks when blue friday became a required phenomenon at the Starbucks where they work.[/quote]

Pete Carroll is a genius on defense, and I hope he coaches the Hawks forever but,
The Truth Hurts - Pete Carroll is allowing systemic failure and dysfunction on offense.

The #1 issue with the offense. The reason every hawks fan should be at the very least worried, is they can't run the ball. This is systemic failure, Cable has been with the team 5 years, the few teams that have employed a ZBS around the NFL have good running games 5 years in because of the system.Take away Russell Wilson, and the Seahawks avg 84 yards a game on the ground.

Jimmy Graham has been mis-utulized from the jump. His WR alignments % wise have taken a jump recently because now they have taken him off the field entirely. So yay for that, he can't block inline so let's take him off the field. Instead of say Kearse, and flanking JImmy out possibly drawing 2 defenders away from the box.

I'm here to discuss the current issues of my fav football team, not ignore them, and pretend everything is hunky dory. The point of my post you were so easily offended by, was the Jimmy Graham issue, is only one problem, in a vast array of problems that stem back to offensive coaching.[/quote]




The Seahawks have been the top rushing team in the NFL for most of Pete's tenure here.

Our offense was top 10 in both 2013 and 2014.

Thanks.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

The real elephant in the room is the offensive coaching staff isn't very good, and Sunshine Pete continues to turn a blind eye, as the same mistakes continue to happen week to week, season to season.

It's not Graham's fault that Bevell/Cable, or whoever think's he is Zach Miller.

You mean the been twice to the SB, one title, #1 rush offense in the league, #1 explosive play offense in the league, top 3 RB in the league, top 5 QB in the league over the past three years offensive coaching staff?

 

[chiltech500]

"Graham is who he is. The Seahawks knew who he is. They now want him to be who he isn’t. And no one is criticizing the Seahawks for that, for failing to get the ball in his hands, and for trading for him in the first place.

Surely, they didn’t give up a first-round pick and $27 million over three years for a blocking tight end. They made that investment for a weapon in the passing game. And he’s quickly becoming the latest high-priced weapon in the passing game that the Seahawks can’t figure out how to properly use."

Excuse makers, whose fault is that?

 

[mrt144]

"Graham is who he is. The Seahawks knew who he is. They now want him to be who he isn’t. And no one is criticizing the Seahawks for that, for failing to get the ball in his hands, and for trading for him in the first place.

Surely, they didn’t give up a first-round pick and $27 million over three years for a blocking tight end. They made that investment for a weapon in the passing game. And he’s quickly becoming the latest high-priced weapon in the passing game that the Seahawks can’t figure out how to properly use."

Excuse makers, whose fault is that?

Front office. The reasoning is sound, the execution is wanting.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Once the line solidifies, you'll see Jimmy at his very best. And I expect he'll get his share of TDs once we get into the red zone. The season's only a quarter of the way old. And has been mentioned, he's already leading the team in receptions. He's an important cog in our receiving corps and will continue to be so.

 

[netskier]

Why not deploy Graham right now to help the still gelling line? We need a solution before the line gels.

 

[Spin Doctor]

The real elephant in the room is the offensive coaching staff isn't very good, and Sunshine Pete continues to turn a blind eye, as the same mistakes continue to happen week to week, season to season.

It's not Graham's fault that Bevell/Cable, or whoever think's he is Zach Miller.

You mean the been twice to the SB, one title, #1 rush offense in the league, #1 explosive play offense in the league, top 3 RB in the league, top 5 QB in the league over the past three years offensive coaching staff?

Yes, we got a super bowl ring and we have been to the superbowl twice, but I contend that the offense was a liability both times. The offense was supported by a defense that was among the best in creating turnovers, and big plays. It is also the same defense that is mentioned in the same breath as the 2000 Ravens, 2003 Buccaneers, and 1985 Bears. The offense did keep the clock running, but there were times that they really crapped the bed. Our red-zone and third down percentage were woefully bad, and I feel like the offense let's opposing teams hang around for far too long. When the Hawks' needed to answer other teams in a shootout we have a very bad record. If the opposing team scores 24 or more points the Seahawks are only 2-9 in the Russell Wilson/Bevell era.

Moreover there are periods in the game that our offense disappears completely, no run game, no big plays, no progress, nothing. Essentially we're relying too much on Wilson's improv skills, to generate offensive production. If you look at our playbook there are some plays where he doesn't even have a checkdown, it's just intermediate routes, and deep routes or bust. I've been critical of Wilson, but I don't think the coaching staff is setting him up for success. He's a special player, with unique traits, and they are not setting the offense up with those traits in mind. It even goes so far as little details, for example how the line pass blocks. In NO for example, the line is trained to open up huge throwing lanes for Drew Brees. In Seattle our pockets look like a wall of mass. No throwing lanes, which is something that is very important for a vertically challenged QB.

Last, but not least we've had a lot of huge misses on the offensive side of the ball, the most recent being Percy Harvin for a first, and a whooping contract. Aside from Okung I'm not sure any of our early lineman have panned out. Moffit, and Carpenter were either terrible, or mediocre. Sidney Rice was a bust (injuries) for us, and our coaching staff under utilized Zack Miller. We also traded a third for Charlie Whitehurst. In the draft we've missed on a lot of receivers, the only starting caliber WR's that we've produced thus far are Doug Baldwin and Golden Tate, the jury is our on Lockett, and Richardson (both look decent thus far), and in my mind Kearse is not somebody that would be starting on most teams.

Our history on the offensive side of the ball is quite frankly not flattering. We did find Wilson, yes, but aside from Wilson you've got Tate, and Baldwin from home grown talent --- maybe Sweezy and Okung (both of them are not performing well this year) that the Seahawks have produced. I'm not quite convinced in our offensive staff members.

 

[Basis4day]

Why not deploy Graham right now to help the still gelling line? We need a solution before the line gels.

It won't matter if Wilson is getting sacked the second the ball is snapped.

 

[SeatownJay]

Seattle has never, EVER, had a good tight end. Jimmy Graham is currently on pace to have the single greatest season by a tight end in the team's history, 72 receptions, 692 yards, 8 touchdowns. All of which would be single season team records for a Seahawks tight end.

 

[Siouxhawk]

The real elephant in the room is the offensive coaching staff isn't very good, and Sunshine Pete continues to turn a blind eye, as the same mistakes continue to happen week to week, season to season.

It's not Graham's fault that Bevell/Cable, or whoever think's he is Zach Miller.

You mean the been twice to the SB, one title, #1 rush offense in the league, #1 explosive play offense in the league, top 3 RB in the league, top 5 QB in the league over the past three years offensive coaching staff?

Yes, we got a super bowl ring and we have been to the superbowl twice, but I contend that the offense was a liability both times. The offense was supported by a defense that was among the best in creating turnovers, and big plays. It is also the same defense that is mentioned in the same breath as the 2000 Ravens, 2003 Buccaneers, and 1985 Bears. The offense did keep the clock running, but there were times that they really crapped the bed. Our red-zone and third down percentage were woefully bad, and I feel like the offense let's opposing teams hang around for far too long. When the Hawks' needed to answer other teams in a shootout we have a very bad record. If the opposing team scores 24 or more points the Seahawks are only 2-9 in the Russell Wilson/Bevell era.

Moreover there are periods in the game that our offense disappears completely, no run game, no big plays, no progress, nothing. Essentially we're relying too much on Wilson's improv skills, to generate offensive production. If you look at our playbook there are some plays where he doesn't even have a checkdown, it's just intermediate routes, and deep routes or bust. I've been critical of Wilson, but I don't think the coaching staff is setting him up for success. He's a special player, with unique traits, and they are not setting the offense up with those traits in mind. It even goes so far as little details, for example how the line pass blocks. In NO for example, the line is trained to open up huge throwing lanes for Drew Brees. In Seattle our pockets look like a wall of mass. No throwing lanes, which is something that is very important for a vertically challenged QB.

Last, but not least we've had a lot of huge misses on the offensive side of the ball, the most recent being Percy Harvin for a first, and a whooping contract. Aside from Okung I'm not sure any of our early lineman have panned out. Moffit, and Carpenter were either terrible, or mediocre. Sidney Rice was a bust (injuries) for us, and our coaching staff under utilized Zack Miller. We also traded a third for Charlie Whitehurst. In the draft we've missed on a lot of receivers, the only starting caliber WR's that we've produced thus far are Doug Baldwin and Golden Tate, the jury is our on Lockett, and Richardson (both look decent thus far), and in my mind Kearse is not somebody that would be starting on most teams.

Our history on the offensive side of the ball is quite frankly not flattering. We did find Wilson, yes, but aside from Wilson you've got Tate, and Baldwin from home grown talent --- maybe Sweezy and Okung (both of them are not performing well this year) that the Seahawks have produced. I'm not quite convinced in our offensive staff members.

But you miss the point on what the offense does for the defense. It helps it out with field position and clock usage. It's no coincidence that Pete favors a run-first approach. His concept is to have a first-rate defense that keeps the score low and an offense that scores just enough to win. Sometimes we score more than we need to win, so that's a bonus. But low-risk, ball-possession, win-the-turnover-battle offense is what Pete wants and it's been a winning formula. Go play Madden if you want to see 44-43 scores.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

The real elephant in the room is the offensive coaching staff isn't very good, and Sunshine Pete continues to turn a blind eye, as the same mistakes continue to happen week to week, season to season.

It's not Graham's fault that Bevell/Cable, or whoever think's he is Zach Miller.

You mean the been twice to the SB, one title, #1 rush offense in the league, #1 explosive play offense in the league, top 3 RB in the league, top 5 QB in the league over the past three years offensive coaching staff?

Yes, we got a super bowl ring and we have been to the superbowl twice, but I contend that the offense was a liability both times. The offense was supported by a defense that was among the best in creating turnovers, and big plays. It is also the same defense that is mentioned in the same breath as the 2000 Ravens, 2003 Buccaneers, and 1985 Bears. The offense did keep the clock running, but there were times that they really crapped the bed. Our red-zone and third down percentage were woefully bad, and I feel like the offense let's opposing teams hang around for far too long. When the Hawks' needed to answer other teams in a shootout we have a very bad record. If the opposing team scores 24 or more points the Seahawks are only 2-9 in the Russell Wilson/Bevell era.

Moreover there are periods in the game that our offense disappears completely, no run game, no big plays, no progress, nothing. Essentially we're relying too much on Wilson's improv skills, to generate offensive production. If you look at our playbook there are some plays where he doesn't even have a checkdown, it's just intermediate routes, and deep routes or bust. I've been critical of Wilson, but I don't think the coaching staff is setting him up for success. He's a special player, with unique traits, and they are not setting the offense up with those traits in mind. It even goes so far as little details, for example how the line pass blocks. In NO for example, the line is trained to open up huge throwing lanes for Drew Brees. In Seattle our pockets look like a wall of mass. No throwing lanes, which is something that is very important for a vertically challenged QB.

Last, but not least we've had a lot of huge misses on the offensive side of the ball, the most recent being Percy Harvin for a first, and a whooping contract. Aside from Okung I'm not sure any of our early lineman have panned out. Moffit, and Carpenter were either terrible, or mediocre. Sidney Rice was a bust (injuries) for us, and our coaching staff under utilized Zack Miller. We also traded a third for Charlie Whitehurst. In the draft we've missed on a lot of receivers, the only starting caliber WR's that we've produced thus far are Doug Baldwin and Golden Tate, the jury is our on Lockett, and Richardson (both look decent thus far), and in my mind Kearse is not somebody that would be starting on most teams.

Our history on the offensive side of the ball is quite frankly not flattering. We did find Wilson, yes, but aside from Wilson you've got Tate, and Baldwin from home grown talent --- maybe Sweezy and Okung (both of them are not performing well this year) that the Seahawks have produced. I'm not quite convinced in our offensive staff members.

But you miss the point on what the offense does for the defense. It helps it out with field position and clock usage. It's no coincidence that Pete favors a run-first approach. His concept is to have a first-rate defense that keeps the score low and an offense that scores just enough to win. Sometimes we score more than we need to win, so that's a bonus. But low-risk, ball-possession, win-the-turnover-battle offense is what Pete wants and it's been a winning formula. Go play Madden if you want to see 44-43 scores.

Don't be condescending. There's still plenty of room for improvement on this team, even with the run-first philosophy intact.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Of course there's room for improvement. But the philosophy will stay the same, so I'm just saying that if you're looking for shootouts, you probably should look elsewhere. It's not gonna happen much with Pete.

 

[Spin Doctor]

The real elephant in the room is the offensive coaching staff isn't very good, and Sunshine Pete continues to turn a blind eye, as the same mistakes continue to happen week to week, season to season.

It's not Graham's fault that Bevell/Cable, or whoever think's he is Zach Miller.

You mean the been twice to the SB, one title, #1 rush offense in the league, #1 explosive play offense in the league, top 3 RB in the league, top 5 QB in the league over the past three years offensive coaching staff?

Yes, we got a super bowl ring and we have been to the superbowl twice, but I contend that the offense was a liability both times. The offense was supported by a defense that was among the best in creating turnovers, and big plays. It is also the same defense that is mentioned in the same breath as the 2000 Ravens, 2003 Buccaneers, and 1985 Bears. The offense did keep the clock running, but there were times that they really crapped the bed. Our red-zone and third down percentage were woefully bad, and I feel like the offense let's opposing teams hang around for far too long. When the Hawks' needed to answer other teams in a shootout we have a very bad record. If the opposing team scores 24 or more points the Seahawks are only 2-9 in the Russell Wilson/Bevell era.

Moreover there are periods in the game that our offense disappears completely, no run game, no big plays, no progress, nothing. Essentially we're relying too much on Wilson's improv skills, to generate offensive production. If you look at our playbook there are some plays where he doesn't even have a checkdown, it's just intermediate routes, and deep routes or bust. I've been critical of Wilson, but I don't think the coaching staff is setting him up for success. He's a special player, with unique traits, and they are not setting the offense up with those traits in mind. It even goes so far as little details, for example how the line pass blocks. In NO for example, the line is trained to open up huge throwing lanes for Drew Brees. In Seattle our pockets look like a wall of mass. No throwing lanes, which is something that is very important for a vertically challenged QB.

Last, but not least we've had a lot of huge misses on the offensive side of the ball, the most recent being Percy Harvin for a first, and a whooping contract. Aside from Okung I'm not sure any of our early lineman have panned out. Moffit, and Carpenter were either terrible, or mediocre. Sidney Rice was a bust (injuries) for us, and our coaching staff under utilized Zack Miller. We also traded a third for Charlie Whitehurst. In the draft we've missed on a lot of receivers, the only starting caliber WR's that we've produced thus far are Doug Baldwin and Golden Tate, the jury is our on Lockett, and Richardson (both look decent thus far), and in my mind Kearse is not somebody that would be starting on most teams.

Our history on the offensive side of the ball is quite frankly not flattering. We did find Wilson, yes, but aside from Wilson you've got Tate, and Baldwin from home grown talent --- maybe Sweezy and Okung (both of them are not performing well this year) that the Seahawks have produced. I'm not quite convinced in our offensive staff members.

But you miss the point on what the offense does for the defense. It helps it out with field position and clock usage. It's no coincidence that Pete favors a run-first approach. His concept is to have a first-rate defense that keeps the score low and an offense that scores just enough to win. Sometimes we score more than we need to win, so that's a bonus. But low-risk, ball-possession, win-the-turnover-battle offense is what Pete wants and it's been a winning formula. Go play Madden if you want to see 44-43 scores.

Quite frankly I think that madden comment was uncalled for. Very condescending, just a little tip, little jabs like that do not help you make your point.

Now, onto the matter at hand. I'm not looking for madden like scores, I'm not looking to blow teams out, no -- I want our offense to take advantage of opportunities that they are given. Our third down percentage, and redzone percentages are dismal, especially when you consider that we have Marshawn Lynch and Russell Wilson on our team. Converting third downs also goes hand, in hand with the ball control mentality. Converting third downs means keeping your defense rested, and keeping the opposing team off of the field. The current Seahawks offense relies on big burst plays, which is counter intuitive considering that the Seahawks want an offense that controls time of possession, keeping the opposing team's offense off of the field.

 

[Siouxhawk]

You mean the been twice to the SB, one title, #1 rush offense in the league, #1 explosive play offense in the league, top 3 RB in the league, top 5 QB in the league over the past three years offensive coaching staff?

Yes, we got a super bowl ring and we have been to the superbowl twice, but I contend that the offense was a liability both times. The offense was supported by a defense that was among the best in creating turnovers, and big plays. It is also the same defense that is mentioned in the same breath as the 2000 Ravens, 2003 Buccaneers, and 1985 Bears. The offense did keep the clock running, but there were times that they really crapped the bed. Our red-zone and third down percentage were woefully bad, and I feel like the offense let's opposing teams hang around for far too long. When the Hawks' needed to answer other teams in a shootout we have a very bad record. If the opposing team scores 24 or more points the Seahawks are only 2-9 in the Russell Wilson/Bevell era.

Moreover there are periods in the game that our offense disappears completely, no run game, no big plays, no progress, nothing. Essentially we're relying too much on Wilson's improv skills, to generate offensive production. If you look at our playbook there are some plays where he doesn't even have a checkdown, it's just intermediate routes, and deep routes or bust. I've been critical of Wilson, but I don't think the coaching staff is setting him up for success. He's a special player, with unique traits, and they are not setting the offense up with those traits in mind. It even goes so far as little details, for example how the line pass blocks. In NO for example, the line is trained to open up huge throwing lanes for Drew Brees. In Seattle our pockets look like a wall of mass. No throwing lanes, which is something that is very important for a vertically challenged QB.

Last, but not least we've had a lot of huge misses on the offensive side of the ball, the most recent being Percy Harvin for a first, and a whooping contract. Aside from Okung I'm not sure any of our early lineman have panned out. Moffit, and Carpenter were either terrible, or mediocre. Sidney Rice was a bust (injuries) for us, and our coaching staff under utilized Zack Miller. We also traded a third for Charlie Whitehurst. In the draft we've missed on a lot of receivers, the only starting caliber WR's that we've produced thus far are Doug Baldwin and Golden Tate, the jury is our on Lockett, and Richardson (both look decent thus far), and in my mind Kearse is not somebody that would be starting on most teams.

Our history on the offensive side of the ball is quite frankly not flattering. We did find Wilson, yes, but aside from Wilson you've got Tate, and Baldwin from home grown talent --- maybe Sweezy and Okung (both of them are not performing well this year) that the Seahawks have produced. I'm not quite convinced in our offensive staff members.

But you miss the point on what the offense does for the defense. It helps it out with field position and clock usage. It's no coincidence that Pete favors a run-first approach. His concept is to have a first-rate defense that keeps the score low and an offense that scores just enough to win. Sometimes we score more than we need to win, so that's a bonus. But low-risk, ball-possession, win-the-turnover-battle offense is what Pete wants and it's been a winning formula. Go play Madden if you want to see 44-43 scores.

Quite frankly I think that madden comment was uncalled for. Very condescending, just a little tip, little jabs like that do not help you make your point.

Now, onto the matter at hand. I'm not looking for madden like scores, I'm not looking to blow teams out, no -- I want our offense to take advantage of opportunities that they are given. Our third down percentage, and redzone percentages are dismal, especially when you consider that we have Marshawn Lynch and Russell Wilson on our team. Converting third downs also goes hand, in hand with the ball control mentality. Converting third downs means keeping your defense rested, and keeping the opposing team off of the field. The current Seahawks offense relies on big burst plays, which is counter intuitive considering that the Seahawks want an offense that controls time of possession, keeping the opposing team's offense off of the field.

You get pinball scores when you play Madden. Only condescending if that's how you receive it. I was referring to high-scoring games.
Again, our offense ranked first in explosive plays and I believe we ranked first for running plays within the red zone. So yeah, I'll take 20 plays within the red zone with a lower TD percentage than the team that runs 5 plays and has 1 TD. The field goals that we convert go a lot further with the defensive makeup of our team because once we have the lead, we seldom lose it. Our offense reminds me of a year ago and it surfaced just fine.