Interesting take on Pete Carroll.....

Saw this tweet from Davis Hsu and thought it was an interesting take.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/scott_peterson4/status/912345600380739586[/tweet]

Hey Blitzer, I'm not versed at the Twitter machine.

Is that Hsu's notes, or Scott Peterson's addition to them?

What was the original Tweet by Hsu ?

pmedic920":26d0yob6 said:

Hey Blitzer, I'm not versed at the Twitter machine.

Is that Hsu's notes, or Scott Peterson's addition to them?

What was the original Tweet by Hsu ?

Click to expand...

They are thoughts from Hsu that Peterson expanded upon and put to paper or in this case computer screen.

Pretty much nails it, IMO.

Blitzer88":1xv4vmyq said:

pmedic920":1xv4vmyq said:

Hey Blitzer, I'm not versed at the Twitter machine.

Is that Hsu's notes, or Scott Peterson's addition to them?

What was the original Tweet by Hsu ?

Click to expand...

They are thoughts from Hsu that Peterson expanded upon and put to paper or in this case computer screen.

Click to expand...

Thanks :{)

Pete has a good team philosophy that is broken by his or Cables, or both's, philosophy on building an offensive line. My thought is the problem is Cable, he is on record saying we should be saving money on the offensive line and that he'll make the scraps he gets into legit NFL players.

Almost exactly what I said in another thread

Lynch was only a part of why our run game excelled 4-5 years ago.

- MUCH better line, especially the kind of nasty dudes like Okung, Carp, Sweezy, Breno, etc.
- Much better running Russell. Let's face it, Russell's only about 75% of his quickness and speed of his first two years
- Playcalling. Bevell and Pete called a lot more run/play action and option with Russell back then.

Now the line stinks, no Beastmode and a diminished running Russell. That all spells doom for the run game.

So my question isn't why aren't we a successful run team anymore, that's easy to explain as I just did above. My question is why does Pete continue to try?

It's that philosophical stubbornness that's holding back this offense, not the personnel.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately I don't think Pete has it in him to change.

Sgt. Largent":137obgs8 said:

Almost exactly what I said in another thread

Lynch was only a part of why our run game excelled 4-5 years ago.

- MUCH better line, especially the kind of nasty dudes like Okung, Carp, Sweezy, Breno, etc.
- Much better running Russell. Let's face it, Russell's only about 75% of his quickness and speed of his first two years
- Playcalling. Bevell and Pete called a lot more run/play action and option with Russell back then.

Now the line stinks, no Beastmode and a diminished running Russell. That all spells doom for the run game.

So my question isn't why aren't we a successful run team anymore, that's easy to explain as I just did above. My question is why does Pete continue to try?

It's that philosophical stubbornness that's holding back this offense, not the personnel.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately I don't think Pete has it in him to change.

Click to expand...

People have been saying it for awhile, but when people would question what this team would look like without Lynch people would laugh them off and say "We have Wilson, we'll be fine." We've basically been without Lynch for 3 years and everything people were worried about has happened. We've lost our identity, we can't maintain a consistent run game, and Wilson hasn't picked up the slack that Lynch once carried in part due to offensive philosophy not adjusting to the current reality, and an offensive line unable to protect him.

I think we see Pete's unwillingness to change everytime we watch our offense struggle to move the ball a few yards before going 3 and out, and then move the ball at will when the offense focuses on what works when in in desperation mode to win the game.

Some valid points, but it still hangs it's hat on a false narrative. That without Lynch, the running production fell apart. That's not true, as they continued to be able to run even after Lynch sat most of his last year.

The running game didn't fall apart until Wilson was hurt last year. Look at before Wilson arrived and Seattle was a middle of the road running team, even with Lynch. Lynch provided some attitude and cushion to below average OL effort, but it's not true that he "carried" the run game.

That article shines light on part of the problem, but all but ignores another factor: poor trades and FA acquisitions. Maybe we're singing a different tune if Pete sticks to his philo but:

1.) Keeps Unger and the 1st rounder we traded for Graham
2.) Signs Lang and Whitworth instead of Joeckel and Lacy (Graham's money required)

Honestly, the Harvin and Graham trades seem counter to Pete's philo. Maybe things go wrong because he doesn't stick to it with a clear vision.

razor150":3fnep80t said:

I think we see Pete's unwillingness to change everytime we watch our offense struggle to move the ball a few yards before going 3 and out, and then move the ball at will when the offense focuses on what works when in in desperation mode to win the game.

Click to expand...

Pete would argue that throwing it around and going up tempo keeps the defense on the field too long and takes risks with Russell's health getting hit over and over.

But that's happening ANYWAY! So holy moly just spread it out and unleash Russell. I got it when he was in his first couple years, he didn't have command of the offense or knew how to read defenses very well.

But he does now, so enough already with the predictable plodding run game that we don't even have the personnel to run.

There's more than one way to win a title. Patriots are a recent example. You play to your strengths.

I remember games where Lynch was ineffective and we won some of those games. We will have to do the same thing now. We've never had a dominant OL under Pete.

The irony is that the greatest team success was based on complementary football. Great run game, explosive and efficient pass game, dominating defense, good special teams. All of those pieces helped make the team great.

It also means holding up when the other aspects are not doing it.

The OL as of right now is a complete hinderance to any kind of efficient offense. Hence the stretches of complete ineffectiveness that helps wear down the defense.

That said, the defense doesn't have room to woof and whine when they get dominated like they did in the 2nd half while the offense actually put up some points.

Of course, it's still early and 1-2 with losses at 2 likely playoff teams isn't cause for running for the razors just yet.

CodeWarrior":1pm7tcbe said:

That article shines light on part of the problem, but all but ignores another factor: poor trades and FA acquisitions. Maybe we're singing a different tune if Pete sticks to his philo but:

1.) Keeps Unger and the 1st rounder we traded for Graham
2.) Signs Lang and Whitworth instead of Joeckel and Lacy (Graham's money required)

Honestly, the Harvin and Graham trades seem counter to Pete's philo. Maybe things go wrong because he doesn't stick to it with a clear vision.

Click to expand...

I think he is sticking to his philo but the philo itself is a bit schizophrenic.

He wants a grind-it-out offense that is still capable of explosive plays. I think that is why he falls in love with easy-button players like Graham and Harvin.

He believes he can have grinding offense with crappy OL and "wow" skill players when the opposite is true. If he had an OL that was creating running lanes - which requires some actual talent - he could play action to his heart's content.

Protecting the ball also complicates being explosive and can put the OC and QB in a box where redline throws off of PA are all they have to work with until game circumstances become dire.

It's possible that he will accept reality and increase his appetite for risk in the year or two it takes them to infuse talent at the OL while they cycle through failed experiments like Glowinski until they get it right. But it's more likely he'll adapt temporarily, and at the first sign of a running game go right back to one-dimensional offense (too soon).

so then why did we py so much for russell if all we need is a amazing oline, and bruising rb to consistently hand the ball off to? Wouldnt boykin or davis suffice? a little irony as well as sarcasm but yeah, I totally agree on HSU's tweet though. All great points

Sgt. Largent":1a6roilg said:

Almost exactly what I said in another thread

Lynch was only a part of why our run game excelled 4-5 years ago.

- MUCH better line, especially the kind of nasty dudes like Okung, Carp, Sweezy, Breno, etc.
- Much better running Russell. Let's face it, Russell's only about 75% of his quickness and speed of his first two years
- Playcalling. Bevell and Pete called a lot more run/play action and option with Russell back then.

Now the line stinks, no Beastmode and a diminished running Russell. That all spells doom for the run game.

So my question isn't why aren't we a successful run team anymore, that's easy to explain as I just did above. My question is why does Pete continue to try?

It's that philosophical stubbornness that's holding back this offense, not the personnel.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately I don't think Pete has it in him to change.

Click to expand...

You never ever saw the five whiff block play Russell's first three seasons. It's just about a weekly occurrence now. Look at that play. Had he been able to hand the ball to Lynch Beast mode still goes no where. The offensive line is where the difference lies. There is no consistent running behind this offensive line.

Sgt. Largent":3bf9e1dz said:

Pete would argue that throwing it around and going up tempo keeps the defense on the field too long and takes risks with Russell's health getting hit over and over.

But that's happening ANYWAY! So holy moly just spread it out and unleash Russell. I got it when he was in his first couple years, he didn't have command of the offense or knew how to read defenses very well.

But he does now, so enough already with the predictable plodding run game that we don't even have the personnel to run.

Click to expand...

Exactly. With our defense the way it is we could build up a healthy lead because the defense will hold for 2 quarters, and then when the other team gives up on the run we can unleash our 4 pass rushers on onto their QB. Let the other team bash their head against the strength of our team.

Keeping the score close, trying to run the ball and going 3 and out, so that other team doesn't have to change their offense is the biggest reason our defense gets gassed. If we aren't going to use a lot of time we might as well be doing it because we are going down the field to fast than going 3 and out and punting.

What other team out there pays a QB top money and is a true run first team? Atlanta is closest, but all teams that pay a QB top dollar live and die by the QB passing the ball. Salary cap dictates it and trying to pin yourself as a run first time with a $20M+ QB is silly.

CodeWarrior":2rhhrtde said:

What other team out there pays a QB top money and is a true run first team? Atlanta is closest, but all teams that pay a QB top dollar live and die by the QB passing the ball. Salary cap dictates it and trying to pin yourself as a run first time with a $20M+ QB is silly.

Click to expand...

Russell is pretty unique, we're not just paying him to facilitate the run game like some game manager. We're paying him for his athleticism and quickness........and what that does to opposing defenses.

But yes, with how Pete likes his offense run, way too often that's all Russell is, a game manager. IMO we're not taking enough of an advantage of what he can do, both passing or running.

I get that Pete doesn't like Russell running and exposed out on the perimeter. But I'd argue he's more at risk INSIDE the pocket with how terrible this line is than rolling out, running or doing more read option.

Sgt. Largent":29wkgetl said:

CodeWarrior":29wkgetl said:

What other team out there pays a QB top money and is a true run first team? Atlanta is closest, but all teams that pay a QB top dollar live and die by the QB passing the ball. Salary cap dictates it and trying to pin yourself as a run first time with a $20M+ QB is silly.

Click to expand...

Russell is pretty unique, we're not just paying him to facilitate the run game like some game manager. We're paying him for his athleticism and quickness........and what that does to opposing defenses.

But yes, with how Pete likes his offense run, way too often that's all Russell is, a game manager. IMO we're not taking enough of an advantage of what he can do, both passing or running.

I get that Pete doesn't like Russell running and exposed out on the perimeter. But I'd argue he's more at risk INSIDE the pocket with how terrible this line is than rolling out, running or doing more read option.

Click to expand...

Your last paragraph is spot on. :2thumbs:

Been saying that for years.

It's harder to hit a moving target than a stationary one.
Russ is good at throwing on the run, most of his success comes from when he's moving around.

If you had a good line, he should be in the pocket more, since the line is crap, he needs to be on the move more IMHO!