The massively underappreciated Brian Schottenheimer

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
  • https://www.fieldgulls.com/2019/6/14/18 ... son-scheme

    This was the second-highest scoring offense in the history of the franchise. It was not the gross failure most view it as.





    It's not a one-sided praise-piece - Matty has some criticisms of Schotty. But this strikes me as a credible piece given Matty's earlier predisposition against our OC after the season. He was a lot more down on the guy at first, then went back and looked at the tape and data, and revised his opinions accordingly. Not many people can do that.

    I particularly liked his subtle point that any discussion of running effectiveness needs to include personnel. Most teams don't perform as well when going run-first, true, but then again, most teams aren't built like the Seahawks, with a backfield like ours, an offensive line selected and trained to run-block first, and more variety in our run schemes than Cable ever came up with. Another spurious variable that the pass-first peanut gallery has never really given its due weight.

    And his point about recency bias (i.e. the tendency to judge something based on its most recent performance, rather than its overall performance). Seattle was great running all year.
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 17144
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:46 am


  • Too lazy to look it up, but I suspect our revitalized running game has helped us win the time of possession battle, which makes our defense better, which gives our offense more drives, which ... oh, just give us the damn trophy! :D
    Own The West
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 277
    Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:20 pm


  • A stubborn headed refusal to adjust the game plan when the running game isn't working was a hallmark of his father at both San Diego and Kansas City. It resulted in early outs in the playoffs and zero super bowl appearances.

    His son isn't any different and I am worried we will get the same results. Nothing from last year changed my mind.
    JayhawkMike
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 215
    Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:06 pm


  • JayhawkMike wrote:A stubborn headed refusal to adjust the game plan when the running game isn't working was a hallmark of his father at both San Diego and Kansas City. It resulted in early outs in the playoffs and zero super bowl appearances.

    His son isn't any different and I am worried we will get the same results. Nothing from last year changed my mind.

    When would you have adjusted your gameplan? When the Running game was going for 4 YPC after the first quarter and the passing game resulted in -20 yards? At halftime when Carson had 6 carries and we had the lead? In the 4th quarter when we had the lead on the road in a playoff game? You would have changed then? Yeah, maybe, considering we ran like once after that.

    This is the most tired argument currently involving the Seahawks.

    When would you have changed your gameplan in the Dallas game, and what would you have done differently?
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4380
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:37 pm


  • He hurt us badly in the first 2 games with that pass happy offense. Hard to understand after the run first mantra before the season.

    They recovered once his head got connected. He needs to adapt better and quicker. Otherwise it's Bevell 2.0
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 35045
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:38 pm


  • I think I'm just gonna :snack: on this one. :twisted:
    sutz
    USMC 1970-77
     
    Posts: 17204
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:41 am
    Location: Kent, WA


  • Own The West wrote:Too lazy to look it up, but I suspect our revitalized running game has helped us win the time of possession battle, which makes our defense better, which gives our offense more drives, which ... oh, just give us the damn trophy! :D


    We won the TOP by almost 3 minutes during the season, but when it really counted in the playoff game we lost it by almost 10 minutes.

    Also, most of the positive stats are skewed by wins against non-playoff teams.

    https://www.seahawks.com/team/stats/

    https://www.espn.com/nfl/matchup?gameId=401038953
    DomeHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2137
    Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:20 am
    Location: Ravenna


  • JayhawkMike wrote:A stubborn headed refusal to adjust the game plan when the running game isn't working was a hallmark of his father at both San Diego and Kansas City. It resulted in early outs in the playoffs and zero super bowl appearances.

    His son isn't any different and I am worried we will get the same results. Nothing from last year changed my mind.


    Yep, and that doesn't mean you have to have a "pass-happy" offense, it just means that you have to have an imaginative modern offense that isn't too predictable.
    DomeHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2137
    Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:20 am
    Location: Ravenna


  • DomeHawk wrote:
    Own The West wrote:Too lazy to look it up, but I suspect our revitalized running game has helped us win the time of possession battle, which makes our defense better, which gives our offense more drives, which ... oh, just give us the damn trophy! :D


    We won the TOP by almost 3 minutes during the season, but when it really counted in the playoff game we lost it by almost 10 minutes.

    What do you think is more likely to lead you to a more accurate conclusion, using a sample size of 1 or using a sample size of 16? ;)

    Also, most of the positive stats are skewed by wins against non-playoff teams.

    Of course. It stands to reason that teams are generally going to put up better stats against bad teams then against good teams. For instance, I wonder if the Patriots offensive stats are skewed by playing the Jets, Bills, and Dolphins six times a year? Why would it be a bad thing if they were? Aren't good teams supposed to put up better numbers against bad teams?

    https://www.seahawks.com/team/stats/

    https://www.espn.com/nfl/matchup?gameId=401038953
    Chapow
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3282
    Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:38 pm


  • Largent80 wrote:He hurt us badly in the first 2 games with that pass happy offense. Hard to understand after the run first mantra before the season.

    They recovered once his head got connected. He needs to adapt better and quicker. Otherwise it's Bevell 2.0


    That was mandated by Pete. I remember he went out of his way to take the blame for it, although I do remember also reading that Schottie was really impressed with Wilson as a qb and wanted to play with his new toy.

    Either way, both were at fault.

    Nice post Montana.
    acer1240
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1418
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Sandpoint , Idaho


  • Chapow wrote:
    DomeHawk wrote:
    Own The West wrote:Too lazy to look it up, but I suspect our revitalized running game has helped us win the time of possession battle, which makes our defense better, which gives our offense more drives, which ... oh, just give us the damn trophy! :D


    We won the TOP by almost 3 minutes during the season, but when it really counted in the playoff game we lost it by almost 10 minutes.

    What do you think is more likely to lead you to a more accurate conclusion, using a sample size of 1 or using a sample size of 16? ;)

    When you consider we are sampling two different things: regular season and playoffs, then each has its own conclusion.

    Also, most of the positive stats are skewed by wins against non-playoff teams.

    Of course. It stands to reason that teams are generally going to put up better stats against bad teams then against good teams. For instance, I wonder if the Patriots offensive stats are skewed by playing the Jets, Bills, and Dolphins six times a year? Why would it be a bad thing if they were? Aren't good teams supposed to put up better numbers against bad teams?

    Poor analogy, the Patriots have a coaching staff that can adapt to almost any situation it seems.

    https://www.seahawks.com/team/stats/

    https://www.espn.com/nfl/matchup?gameId=401038953
    DomeHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2137
    Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:20 am
    Location: Ravenna


  • DomeHawk wrote:We won the TOP by almost 3 minutes during the season, but when it really counted in the playoff game we lost it by almost 10 minutes.

    We know a road playoff game is a tougher task than the average regular season game, and we know that our team was better without Baldwin, Fluker and Sweezy hurt. Do you think either of those could affect TOP?
    Last edited by AgentDib on Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    AgentDib
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3981
    Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:08 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • DomeHawk wrote:
    Chapow wrote:
    DomeHawk wrote:
    Own The West wrote:Too lazy to look it up, but I suspect our revitalized running game has helped us win the time of possession battle, which makes our defense better, which gives our offense more drives, which ... oh, just give us the damn trophy! :D


    We won the TOP by almost 3 minutes during the season, but when it really counted in the playoff game we lost it by almost 10 minutes.

    What do you think is more likely to lead you to a more accurate conclusion, using a sample size of 1 or using a sample size of 16? ;)

    When you consider we are sampling two different things: regular season and playoffs, then each has its own conclusion.

    Also, most of the positive stats are skewed by wins against non-playoff teams.

    Of course. It stands to reason that teams are generally going to put up better stats against bad teams then against good teams. For instance, I wonder if the Patriots offensive stats are skewed by playing the Jets, Bills, and Dolphins six times a year? Why would it be a bad thing if they were? Aren't good teams supposed to put up better numbers against bad teams?

    Poor analogy, the Patriots have a coaching staff that can adapt to almost any situation it seems.

    https://www.seahawks.com/team/stats/

    https://www.espn.com/nfl/matchup?gameId=401038953


    No. They are not two different things. It's the same players, the same coaches, and the same offense doing the same thing. Playing a football game.

    My second comment wasn't an analogy and you appear to have missed the point completely or chosen to disregard it so I'm just going to move on.
    Chapow
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3282
    Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:38 pm


  • DomeHawk wrote:
    JayhawkMike wrote:A stubborn headed refusal to adjust the game plan when the running game isn't working was a hallmark of his father at both San Diego and Kansas City. It resulted in early outs in the playoffs and zero super bowl appearances.

    His son isn't any different and I am worried we will get the same results. Nothing from last year changed my mind.


    Yep, and that doesn't mean you have to have a "pass-happy" offense, it just means that you have to have an imaginative modern offense that isn't too predictable.

    Some Lincoln Riley influence maybe?
    It's not like injuries to key Offensive players (Baldwin / Dissley) didn't have a negative impact on plays that were available to his formulating game plans, Wilson, Lockett, & Carson kept the Seahawks in the mix.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7039
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:48 pm


  • JayhawkMike wrote:A stubborn headed refusal to adjust the game plan when the running game isn't working was a hallmark of his father at both San Diego and Kansas City. It resulted in early outs in the playoffs and zero super bowl appearances.

    His son isn't any different and I am worried we will get the same results. Nothing from last year changed my mind.


    Yea, every son is just like or mostly like his father right ?

    I know I am nothing like my father other than being an "A" personality and I bet most of us are quite different than our fathers.
    BTW, my 4 sons are different from each other and none are like me nor my father.
    TreeRon
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 882
    Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:48 pm


  • Fieldgull's is one of the major voices behind undervaluing Schotty. Now they are playing both sides of the issue they've been fueling. I know polarization leads to discussion which leads to more views, but anyone whose been pragmatic about the situation realizes that Schotty isn't the dumpster fire he's been portrayed as.
    knownone
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2216
    Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:10 am


  • He's got a sophomore year coming up just like several players. let's see how it goes. Players and coaches can't really hide . They are right out there in front of the world every week. Coaches are as important as a franchise QB. IMO
    xray
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1384
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:29 am
    Location: AZ


  • I give most of the credit to Solari but i will say Schotty was better then i thought. Still not good but better then i thought.
    getnasty
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3923
    Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:22 pm


  • My gripe about Schottenheimer is he is too slow in making adjustments. The *allas playoff game was a glaring example.
    .....but is he following Pete’s orders on this? Or maybe they are both at fault on this,
    I don’t know.


    I will say I like him better than the previous guy, but that’s a pretty low bar to step over IMHO.
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 26522
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote: https://www.fieldgulls.com/2019/6/14/18 ... son-scheme

    This was the second-highest scoring offense in the history of the franchise. It was not the gross failure most view it as.





    It's not a one-sided praise-piece - Matty has some criticisms of Schotty. But this strikes me as a credible piece given Matty's earlier predisposition against our OC after the season. He was a lot more down on the guy at first, then went back and looked at the tape and data, and revised his opinions accordingly. Not many people can do that.

    I particularly liked his subtle point that any discussion of running effectiveness needs to include personnel. Most teams don't perform as well when going run-first, true, but then again, most teams aren't built like the Seahawks, with a backfield like ours, an offensive line selected and trained to run-block first, and more variety in our run schemes than Cable ever came up with. Another spurious variable that the pass-first peanut gallery has never really given its due weight.

    And his point about recency bias (i.e. the tendency to judge something based on its most recent performance, rather than its overall performance). Seattle was great running all year.


    Enjoyed the linked article and your accompanying perspective. :2thumbs: It's so easy to get hung up on a singular game or play or stat and miss out on the entirety of it all. I've come to appreciate the growth of Matty Brown's work. The links to his previous articles provide an open book on his work. Work that seems to be improving over time. Fieldgulls is fortunate to have found such a developing talent.

    Thanks for posting!
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 9148
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:49 pm


  • Since PC became our HC, our regular season record is 89-54-1. Basically that equates into 9 years of going 10-6. Leave out the first 2 years that were both 7-9, and it becomes 75-36-1. Basically 11-5 for 7 years in a row. The only other franchise that equates or beats that is the Pats. We have had 3 OC's under PC, and for all the grief they get from fans, our OC's have been better than we tend to give them credit. The Hawks may not be as much fun to watch as other teams, their entertainment factor could be higher, but consistency is unbelievably hard to maintain in the NFL, and maligned or not, our OC's played their part in what our team has accomplished.
    seedhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2896
    Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:51 am


  • seedhawk wrote:Since PC became our HC, our regular season record is 89-54-1. Basically that equates into 9 years of going 10-6. Leave out the first 2 years that were both 7-9, and it becomes 75-36-1. Basically 11-5 for 7 years in a row. The only other franchise that equates or beats that is the Pats. We have had 3 OC's under PC, and for all the grief they get from fans, our OC's have been better than we tend to give them credit. The Hawks may not be as much fun to watch as other teams, their entertainment factor could be higher, but consistency is unbelievably hard to maintain in the NFL, and maligned or not, our OC's played their part in what our team has accomplished.

    Truth ^
    Even though most around here like to rag on Bevell, it was BEVELL who was charged with taking what Pete wanted done Offensively, which by the way, was good enough to get our Seahawks their first Lombardi, and a chance for a second the following season.
    Russell Wilson & Doug Baldwin seemed to like the hell out of him, and their opinions carry a lot more weight that a bunch of disgruntled fans.
    I was happy to see Tom Cable hit the road, but not so much to see Darryl Bevell get his walking papers....I'm kind of curious, as to how he would have faired, working with Solari and his O-Line acumen.
    Again, I have to bring up, how Doug Baldwin shushed Cable when he started to interrupt RW when he was on the sideline going over crappy play with the O-Line.
    I believe credit needs to go where credit is due, and likewise with blame.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7039
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:48 pm


  • scutterhawk wrote:
    seedhawk wrote:Since PC became our HC, our regular season record is 89-54-1. Basically that equates into 9 years of going 10-6. Leave out the first 2 years that were both 7-9, and it becomes 75-36-1. Basically 11-5 for 7 years in a row. The only other franchise that equates or beats that is the Pats. We have had 3 OC's under PC, and for all the grief they get from fans, our OC's have been better than we tend to give them credit. The Hawks may not be as much fun to watch as other teams, their entertainment factor could be higher, but consistency is unbelievably hard to maintain in the NFL, and maligned or not, our OC's played their part in what our team has accomplished.

    Truth ^
    Even though most around here like to rag on Bevell, it was BEVELL who was charged with taking what Pete wanted done Offensively, which by the way, was good enough to get our Seahawks their first Lombardi, and a chance for a second the following season.
    Russell Wilson & Doug Baldwin seemed to like the hell out of him, and their opinions carry a lot more weight that a bunch of disgruntled fans.
    I was happy to see Tom Cable hit the road, but not so much to see Darryl Bevell get his walking papers....I'm kind of curious, as to how he would have faired, working with Solari and his O-Line acumen.
    Again, I have to bring up, how Doug Baldwin shushed Cable when he started to interrupt RW when he was on the sideline going over crappy play with the O-Line.
    I believe credit needs to go where credit is due, and likewise with blame.

    Bevell isn’t a victim other than of his own poor decision making. He is a crap OC IMHO.
    The lions are going to regret hiring him, watch and see.
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 26522
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • AgentDib wrote:
    DomeHawk wrote:We won the TOP by almost 3 minutes during the season, but when it really counted in the playoff game we lost it by almost 10 minutes.

    We know a road playoff game is a tougher task than the average regular season game, and we know that our team was better without Baldwin, Fluker and Sweezy hurt. Do you think either of those could affect TOP?


    I think the same as just about every sportswriter and former NFL players thought: the Cowboy's coaching staff had us all figured out.
    DomeHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2137
    Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:20 am
    Location: Ravenna


  • Sports Hernia wrote:My gripe about Schottenheimer is he is too slow in making adjustments. The *allas playoff game was a glaring example.
    .....but is he following Pete’s orders on this? Or maybe they are both at fault on this,
    I don’t know.


    I will say I like him better than the previous guy, but that’s a pretty low bar to step over IMHO.


    Totally agree and, as getnasty so correctly pointed out, Solari gets most of the credit for whatever improvements the offense made.
    DomeHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2137
    Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:20 am
    Location: Ravenna


  • Cool. So if he adapts from the constant run-run-pass, we might have a really good offense instead of a pretty good one.
    BirdsCommaAngry
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1148
    Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:25 pm


  • Sports Hernia wrote:
    scutterhawk wrote:
    seedhawk wrote:Since PC became our HC, our regular season record is 89-54-1. Basically that equates into 9 years of going 10-6. Leave out the first 2 years that were both 7-9, and it becomes 75-36-1. Basically 11-5 for 7 years in a row. The only other franchise that equates or beats that is the Pats. We have had 3 OC's under PC, and for all the grief they get from fans, our OC's have been better than we tend to give them credit. The Hawks may not be as much fun to watch as other teams, their entertainment factor could be higher, but consistency is unbelievably hard to maintain in the NFL, and maligned or not, our OC's played their part in what our team has accomplished.

    Truth ^
    Even though most around here like to rag on Bevell, it was BEVELL who was charged with taking what Pete wanted done Offensively, which by the way, was good enough to get our Seahawks their first Lombardi, and a chance for a second the following season.
    Russell Wilson & Doug Baldwin seemed to like the hell out of him, and their opinions carry a lot more weight that a bunch of disgruntled fans.
    I was happy to see Tom Cable hit the road, but not so much to see Darryl Bevell get his walking papers....I'm kind of curious, as to how he would have faired, working with Solari and his O-Line acumen.
    Again, I have to bring up, how Doug Baldwin shushed Cable when he started to interrupt RW when he was on the sideline going over crappy play with the O-Line.
    I believe credit needs to go where credit is due, and likewise with blame.

    Bevell isn’t a victim other than of his own poor decision making. He is a crap OC IMHO.
    The lions are going to regret hiring him, watch and see.

    Your "Honest Opinion" vs. that of Russell Wilson & Doug Baldwin?.....Hmm, Yeah.., I'm going with the two players that are sporting Super Bowl Rings, eh :stirthepot:
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7039
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:48 pm


  • Well stated Sutter!
    acer1240
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1418
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Sandpoint , Idaho


  • Tical21 wrote:
    JayhawkMike wrote:A stubborn headed refusal to adjust the game plan when the running game isn't working was a hallmark of his father at both San Diego and Kansas City. It resulted in early outs in the playoffs and zero super bowl appearances.

    His son isn't any different and I am worried we will get the same results. Nothing from last year changed my mind.

    When would you have adjusted your gameplan? When the Running game was going for 4 YPC after the first quarter and the passing game resulted in -20 yards? At halftime when Carson had 6 carries and we had the lead? In the 4th quarter when we had the lead on the road in a playoff game? You would have changed then? Yeah, maybe, considering we ran like once after that.

    This is the most tired argument currently involving the Seahawks.

    When would you have changed your gameplan in the Dallas game, and what would you have done differently?

    I agree.. :2thumbs:
    IndyHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4891
    Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 2:42 pm



  • JayhawkMike wrote:We were 3rd worst in the NFL last year in 3 and outs behind the Jets and the Cardinals.

    Source: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats ... atsoff2018


    All the Schotty critics cling to that one stat like it says everything that needs to be said. There are plenty of others that go the other direction, like Seattle having its second highest-scoring offense in franchise history, or being 6th in both passing and rushing DVOA.
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 17144
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:46 am


  • Tical21 wrote:
    JayhawkMike wrote:A stubborn headed refusal to adjust the game plan when the running game isn't working was a hallmark of his father at both San Diego and Kansas City. It resulted in early outs in the playoffs and zero super bowl appearances.

    His son isn't any different and I am worried we will get the same results. Nothing from last year changed my mind.

    When would you have adjusted your gameplan? When the Running game was going for 4 YPC after the first quarter and the passing game resulted in -20 yards? At halftime when Carson had 6 carries and we had the lead? In the 4th quarter when we had the lead on the road in a playoff game? You would have changed then? Yeah, maybe, considering we ran like once after that.

    This is the most tired argument currently involving the Seahawks.

    When would you have changed your gameplan in the Dallas game, and what would you have done differently?


    This.
    Seafan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6050
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:30 pm
    Location: Helotes, TX


  • Largent80 wrote:He hurt us badly in the first 2 games with that pass happy offense. Hard to understand after the run first mantra before the season.

    They recovered once his head got connected. He needs to adapt better and quicker. Otherwise it's Bevell 2.0


    Once is a fluke. Once is an off game. Once is an anomaly. Once is a one-off, not to be included in statistics determining how a team behaves and what to look for in upcoming games.

    Twice, well, as the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Twice is considering something has changed for the better or worse. Twice is significant of change. Twice indicates an issue that must be watched for to change things in the future.

    "Look, once was a variance in what we were seeing. Twice, well twice indicates something needs to be changed. Let's change it now after two occurrences rather than waiting."

    At what point would most people change something that appeared to be going wrong? The third time at bare minimum is any sane person changes something based on the realization of a problem. Longer than that? Sure, you're reacting slow. Quicker than that? You're overreacting to a "problem" that may or may not be a problem, trend, issue, or just anomaly.
    Seahawk Sailor
    * .NET Navy Bad Ass *
     
    Posts: 22809
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:23 am
    Location: California via Negros Occidental, Philippines


  • I like how one of our forum members gets called out by Matty in a Tweet for being a tool at the bottom of that article. ;)
    RolandDeschain
    * Spelling High Lord *
     
    Posts: 30960
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:39 am
    Location: Phoenix, AZ


  • RolandDeschain wrote:I like how one of our forum members gets called out by Matty in a Tweet for being a tool at the bottom of that article. ;)


    Ha, that's awesome!
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 106757
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:29 pm


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    JayhawkMike wrote:We were 3rd worst in the NFL last year in 3 and outs behind the Jets and the Cardinals.

    Source: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats ... atsoff2018


    All the Schotty critics cling to that one stat like it says everything that needs to be said. There are plenty of others that go the other direction, like Seattle having its second highest-scoring offense in franchise history, or being 6th in both passing and rushing DVOA.


    Or being tied with the Chargers and Steelers for 6th most points per game for the season. In a 32 team league, there were only 5 teams that averaged more ppg than the Seahawks.
    There is certainly room for improvement in some areas, but they were pretty damn far from bad.
    Chapow
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3282
    Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:38 pm


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    JayhawkMike wrote:We were 3rd worst in the NFL last year in 3 and outs behind the Jets and the Cardinals.

    Source: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats ... atsoff2018


    All the Schotty critics cling to that one stat like it says everything that needs to be said. There are plenty of others that go the other direction, like Seattle having its second highest-scoring offense in franchise history, or being 6th in both passing and rushing DVOA.


    That's exactly the problem, though.

    On a per-play basis the Seahawks have a 6th rated run game and a 6th rated pass game (THOSE ARE GOOD!), but on a non-per play basis they have a 14th rated offense by the exact same metric, and for how good they are on a per play basis, they're also 29th for avoiding three and outs.

    There's really only one way to turn a top run game and top pass game into an only average offense that also goes three and out all the time, and that's by having a boneheaded offensive philosophy. And there's a lot of face validity to all of this too. The statistics absolutely line up with what the Head Coach proclaimed he was going for last offseason, and with what the coordinator he hired has long been criticized for.

    Because the Seahawks were good on a per play basis I don't think Schottenheimer is the total disaster that was predicted by many people, but he's generating exactly the problems that were warned about and that caused fans of other NFCW teams to be glad that the Seahawks hired him, IMO.
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5346
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:58 am


  • Popeyejones wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    JayhawkMike wrote:We were 3rd worst in the NFL last year in 3 and outs behind the Jets and the Cardinals.

    Source: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats ... atsoff2018


    All the Schotty critics cling to that one stat like it says everything that needs to be said. There are plenty of others that go the other direction, like Seattle having its second highest-scoring offense in franchise history, or being 6th in both passing and rushing DVOA.


    That's exactly the problem, though.

    On a per-play basis the Seahawks have a 6th rated run game and a 6th rated pass game (THOSE ARE GOOD!), but on a non-per play basis they have a 14th rated offense by the exact same metric, and for how good they are on a per play basis, they're also 29th for avoiding three and outs.

    There's really only one way to turn a top run game and top pass game into an only average offense that also goes three and out all the time, and that's by having a boneheaded offensive philosophy. And there's a lot of face validity to all of this too. The statistics absolutely line up with what the Head Coach proclaimed he was going for last offseason, and with what the coordinator he hired has long been criticized for.

    Because the Seahawks were good on a per play basis I don't think Schottenheimer is the total disaster that was predicted by many people, but he's generating exactly the problems that were warned about and that caused fans of other NFCW teams to be glad that the Seahawks hired him, IMO.


    Sorry folks but this is absolute truth!
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6973
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 5:41 pm


  • Seymour wrote:
    Popeyejones wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    JayhawkMike wrote:We were 3rd worst in the NFL last year in 3 and outs behind the Jets and the Cardinals.

    Source: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats ... atsoff2018


    All the Schotty critics cling to that one stat like it says everything that needs to be said. There are plenty of others that go the other direction, like Seattle having its second highest-scoring offense in franchise history, or being 6th in both passing and rushing DVOA.


    That's exactly the problem, though.

    On a per-play basis the Seahawks have a 6th rated run game and a 6th rated pass game (THOSE ARE GOOD!), but on a non-per play basis they have a 14th rated offense by the exact same metric, and for how good they are on a per play basis, they're also 29th for avoiding three and outs.

    There's really only one way to turn a top run game and top pass game into an only average offense that also goes three and out all the time, and that's by having a boneheaded offensive philosophy. And there's a lot of face validity to all of this too. The statistics absolutely line up with what the Head Coach proclaimed he was going for last offseason, and with what the coordinator he hired has long been criticized for.

    Because the Seahawks were good on a per play basis I don't think Schottenheimer is the total disaster that was predicted by many people, but he's generating exactly the problems that were warned about and that caused fans of other NFCW teams to be glad that the Seahawks hired him, IMO.


    Sorry folks but this is absolute truth!


    Disagree. It's entirely possible that the mediocre offense was elevated to a top 6 run game and pass game by that same boneheaded philosophy.

    If you run on 2nd and 10 when you should be passing you'll get more run yards per play that will elevate the stats of your running game. If you run all the time, your play action becomes more effective and elevates the per play stats of your passing game. So you can look good on a per play basis but only because you are going against the grain more often by running a lot when teams are expecting pass.

    Schottenheimer is his father's son. And Marty Ball has always been successful in the regular season and always failed miserably in the postseason. As long as Pete has the sense to recognize that this year after last years spectacular recapitulation of all things Schottenheimer, I hope we will be better.

    But failing to learn from history is one of man's greatest tragic flaws.
    Mad Dog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1479
    Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 8:12 am


  • DomeHawk wrote:
    Own The West wrote:Too lazy to look it up, but I suspect our revitalized running game has helped us win the time of possession battle, which makes our defense better, which gives our offense more drives, which ... oh, just give us the damn trophy! :D


    We won the TOP by almost 3 minutes during the season, but when it really counted in the playoff game we lost it by almost 10 minutes.

    Also, most of the positive stats are skewed by wins against non-playoff teams.

    https://www.seahawks.com/team/stats/

    https://www.espn.com/nfl/matchup?gameId=401038953


    It might be worth noting that Sweezy played that Dallas game with a broken foot. In hindsight, that game based on the gameplan might have been different if we replaced him... but then again our depth was poor at guard.
    nwHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1284
    Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 12:14 pm


  • Not sure how many times people need to read that our Line was in a state that at Guard under normal conditions those players would be on IR. Those same people want to IGNORE that fact to get on their soap box to bash Schotty, Pete, the Offensive philosophy and players.

    Tell me how fast you drive on 2 flat tires ?

    Your a failure I guess for not replacing them, for ignoring they were flat and parking the car, but instead you drove it, busted the rims up and then blamed the car.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 28968
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • JayhawkMike wrote:We were 3rd worst in the NFL last year in 3 and outs behind the Jets and the Cardinals.

    Source: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats ... atsoff2018


    And THAT is the biggest problem the Seahawks have: the inability to sustain drives.

    It is beyond obvious, the offense has to get more creative.
    DomeHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2137
    Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:20 am
    Location: Ravenna


  • chris98251 wrote:Not sure how many times people need to read that our Line was in a state that at Guard under normal conditions those players would be on IR. Those same people want to IGNORE that fact to get on their soap box to bash Schotty, Pete, the Offensive philosophy and players.

    Tell me how fast you drive on 2 flat tires ?

    Your a failure I guess for not replacing them, for ignoring they were flat and parking the car, but instead you drove it, busted the rims up and then blamed the car.


    Chris, not sure if this is direct at me, but I'm certainly not bashing Pete or Shotty for the Dallas game. And I'll admit I don't read or try to remember everything everyone writes. Last season is over, and I am looking forward to an awesome season.
    :irishdrinkers:
    nwHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1284
    Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 12:14 pm


  • nwHawk wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:Not sure how many times people need to read that our Line was in a state that at Guard under normal conditions those players would be on IR. Those same people want to IGNORE that fact to get on their soap box to bash Schotty, Pete, the Offensive philosophy and players.

    Tell me how fast you drive on 2 flat tires ?

    Your a failure I guess for not replacing them, for ignoring they were flat and parking the car, but instead you drove it, busted the rims up and then blamed the car.


    Chris, not sure if this is direct at me, but I'm certainly not bashing Pete or Shotty for the Dallas game. And I'll admit I don't read or try to remember everything everyone writes. Last season is over, and I am looking forward to an awesome season.
    :irishdrinkers:


    Not a specific person but many, those that swear they are diehards should know a lot of this stuff especially if they frequent these forums, that and by watching how these guys move and the reports of how much they are held out of practice etc.

    Also there were like pages of threads bashing the offense after the game, the news of both being injured was broadcast and then confirmed after the game as well.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 28968
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • DomeHawk wrote:
    JayhawkMike wrote:We were 3rd worst in the NFL last year in 3 and outs behind the Jets and the Cardinals.

    Source: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats ... atsoff2018


    And THAT is the biggest problem the Seahawks have: the inability to sustain drives.

    It is beyond obvious, the offense has to get more creative.


    How this point keeps getting glossed over because the overall numbers were decent is baffling to me. Schott was better than I thought he would be but we have a ways to go and the overall volume numbers don't tell the whole story. I have some hope they realized they need to evolve a little and with Duane Brown being vocal about it, Wilson was vocal about it and other players I think we will see an improved version in his second year. I hope.
    austinslater25
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3387
    Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:05 pm
    Location: Tri-Cities, Washington


  • Mad Dog wrote:Disagree. It's entirely possible that the mediocre offense was elevated to a top 6 run game and pass game by that same boneheaded philosophy.

    If you run on 2nd and 10 when you should be passing you'll get more run yards per play that will elevate the stats of your running game.


    If true, this means that on a per-play basis the run game is even worse than it appears to be, and the Schotty should be calling run plays even less than the stats suggest he should be.

    Mad Dog wrote:If you run all the time, your play action becomes more effective and elevates the per play stats of your passing game.


    As much as we can tell this isn't as true as we think it is, but there's some limitations to just using count data for this, obviously.
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5346
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:58 am


  • this is simple

    70% of the time we went run, run, pass. enough said. That has to change. We led the league in 3rd and long and this was the reason why.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1676
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • Whatever led to all of our success last year, we need to do more and better.
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4380
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:37 pm


  • John63 wrote:this is simple

    70% of the time we went run, run, pass. enough said. That has to change. We led the league in 3rd and long and this was the reason why.

    Why the heck would you change? Tired of success?
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4380
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:37 pm


  • Popeyejones wrote:
    Mad Dog wrote:Disagree. It's entirely possible that the mediocre offense was elevated to a top 6 run game and pass game by that same boneheaded philosophy.

    If you run on 2nd and 10 when you should be passing you'll get more run yards per play that will elevate the stats of your running game.


    If true, this means that on a per-play basis the run game is even worse than it appears to be, and the Schotty should be calling run plays even less than the stats suggest he should be.

    Mad Dog wrote:If you run all the time, your play action becomes more effective and elevates the per play stats of your passing game.


    As much as we can tell this isn't as true as we think it is, but there's some limitations to just using count data for this, obviously.

    It is true. Baldwin is a cherry-picking troll.
    Russ saw his play-action completion percentage go up 6% in 18 vs. 17, largely because of a vastly improved running game.
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4380
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:37 pm


Next


It is currently Fri Dec 13, 2019 3:43 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], OpHawk, themunn and 177 guests