28-0, 14-0, 20-0, 9-0 and 31-0.

[Uncle Si]

Again... The team has come out and played dynamically in many, many games in the PC/RW era. You've named 5 games. What about all the others?

I understand being upset at the slow starts of those games, but how does that translate to a pattern when there is plenty of other examples suggesting the opposite?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Again... The team has come out and played dynamically in many, many games in the PC/RW era. You've named 5 games. What about all the others?

I understand being upset at the slow starts of those games, but how does that translate to a pattern when there is plenty of other examples suggesting the opposite?

How many threads in this forum have been created over the past 4 years complaining about the slow starts?

It's a real thing. Yes there are games (mainly home) where we have leads going into halftime, but even most of those we say "damn, we should be up by more than just 10-3 or whatever due to red zone issues and conservative play calling."

Of course it's not ALL, it never is. But Pete admits his philosophy is to play it close to the vest, not make mistakes, pound the rock and pull ahead in the 4th.

All I'm saying is we have Russell in his prime, it's time to change that philosophy and install a more dynamic offensive approach. Why is that wrong?

 

[Uncle Si]

Again... The team has come out and played dynamically in many, many games in the PC/RW era. You've named 5 games. What about all the others?

I understand being upset at the slow starts of those games, but how does that translate to a pattern when there is plenty of other examples suggesting the opposite?

How many threads in this forum have been created over the past 4 years complaining about the slow starts?

It's a real thing. Yes there are games (mainly home) where we have leads going into halftime, but even most of those we say "damn, we should be up by more than just 10-3 or whatever due to red zone issues and conservative play calling."

Of course it's not ALL, it never is. But Pete admits his philosophy is to play it close to the vest, not make mistakes, pound the rock and pull ahead in the 4th.

All I'm saying is we have Russell in his prime, it's time to change that philosophy and install a more dynamic offensive approach. Why is that wrong?

Who said it's wrong? I mean slow starts are a "real thing" with every team. Any fan can point to their favorite team and say the same thing over the course of a season or coaching era. Even those Patriots.

It's disingenuous to criticize the head coach based on 5 games (thread title) when there is plenty of examples in the opposite direction. Yes, RW may be ready for a more dynamic approach from the onset. But this in itself is a drastic change from the gameplan that has won the team so many games, a ridiculous amount actually, over the last 4 years.

Pete can say whatever he wants, but game in and game out you get different game plans. Close to the vest in one game, guns blazing in others. And, outside the big early deficits in 10am games, I struggle to find a specific, common thread that determines one from the other.

Will this team morph into RWs next year? I'd say its likely, and in doing so PC's winning philosophy may change. However, the sentiment in the thread is that it NEEDS to change for the Seahawks to be successful, and that's just not true, as evidenced by the last 4 years.

Can it change? Sure. Should it change? Personal preference of the fan. Does it need to for the Seahawks to be in contention for the next Super Bowl... no.

 

[olyfan63]

We need a motivator coach, not that Pete isn't one, but some playbook thumping preacher coach who will put fire and brimstone under their arses before every game.

This is just dumb. Not even a factor.

We need game plans that attacks our opponents weaknesses.
Pete has plenty of rah rah already and there is no advantage to one style over another.
How do you explain "steady Eddie" Ron Rivera having the Panther's so ready to play?
See: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports ... 33830.html
Or do you give credit to Cam Newton's emotional leadership?

The issue Sunday was a passive, brain dead game plan that failed to, from the start, attack Carolina's weaknesses (Secondary) and didn't account for the matchup advantage of Carolina's DL and pass rush over our OL.
Carroll gets over-fixated on "we're going to play how we play" and fails to exploit opponent weaknesses.
This is one area where Bill Belichick is a superior coach. Hoodie will leave no stone unturned to find and exploit opponent weaknesses, and then actually incorporate them into the game plan.

The Seahawks coaching staff also badly underestimated how badly the Seattle OL would struggle against Carolina's pass rush in the sets we ran early in the game. So we didn't effectively game plan for how to mitigate our matchup disadvantages. (It's a similar ongoing issue vs. the Rams, apparently Fisher is a superior game-planner to Pete with the particular matchups involved, and Pete keeps doing things that don't work well enough against that team, asking our team to simply "try harder" with a poor plan)

We don't need more "Mike Ditka" fire and brimstone, we need more "Bill Walsh".
Vince Lombardi would be a LOSING coach in todays NFL. Lombardi was successful IN SPITE OF, not because of, fire and brimstone.

I used to blame Bevell, but have come to realize the issue is more Pete handcuffing Bevell.
Pete underestimated Carolina's offense and overestimated our D's ability to contain Carolina.
The second half defensive performance? Well, a 31-point lead reduces Carolina's urgency a bit.

Pete needs to adjust the balance between "We're going to play how we play", and "exploiting opponent weaknesses", and adjust it so game plans include more of exploiting opponent weaknesses. Especially in the playoffs.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Can it change? Sure. Should it change? Personal preference of the fan. Does it need to for the Seahawks to be in contention for the next Super Bowl... no.

If we have more depth and talent than the rest of the league as in 2013? I agree with you, Pete's stubborn "we don't change the way we play, we force other teams to change" philosophy can work to win SB's.

But that's never going to happen again. There's a reason the Patriots are perennial SB contenders, and have won 4..........because they have a coach and philosophy that changes with their personnel and who they're playing from a week to week, year to year basis.

THAT'S what I want, and frankly I don't see Pete as that type of coach. For all his good qualities, and there are many, his faults are he's arrogant and rigid with his philosophy.

 

[mrt144]

Can it change? Sure. Should it change? Personal preference of the fan. Does it need to for the Seahawks to be in contention for the next Super Bowl... no.

If we have more depth and talent than the rest of the league as in 2013? I agree with you, Pete's stubborn "we don't change the way we play, we force other teams to change" philosophy can work to win SB's.

But that's never going to happen again. There's a reason the Patriots are perennial SB contenders, and have won 4..........because they have a coach and philosophy that changes with their personnel and who they're playing from a week to week, year to year basis.

THAT'S what I want, and frankly I don't see Pete as that type of coach. For all his good qualities, and there are many, his faults are he's arrogant and rigid with his philosophy.

Adaptability is a hard thing to pick up though because it feels like a betrayal of prior beliefs.

 

[Uncle Si]

Can it change? Sure. Should it change? Personal preference of the fan. Does it need to for the Seahawks to be in contention for the next Super Bowl... no.

If we have more depth and talent than the rest of the league as in 2013? I agree with you, Pete's stubborn "we don't change the way we play, we force other teams to change" philosophy can work to win SB's.

But that's never going to happen again. There's a reason the Patriots are perennial SB contenders, and have won 4..........because they have a coach and philosophy that changes with their personnel and who they're playing from a week to week, year to year basis.

THAT'S what I want, and frankly I don't see Pete as that type of coach. For all his good qualities, and there are many, his faults are he's arrogant and rigid with his philosophy.

But Bills Patriots have lost many games, and many due to slow starts. They went 7 years without a Super Bowl appearance as well.

Again, you're fixated on the games that went wrong and ignoring the one's in which we just decimated teams, including this year (including twice on the road against playoff teams in which we were up 3+ TDs at halftime).

So clearly there are differences in the way these games start. You're upset he got at wrong against the Panthers. Were you upset he got it right against Minnesota? Arizona? even Cincy? and that's just focusing on this year's away games.

Oly's post hit it a bit more... there needs to be a bit more consistency and balance in preparation. But some are suggesting there needs to be dynamic change, which I disagree with.

As for 2013, 2014, 2015 and the future.. this team's roster is still one of, if not the, most complete and balanced in the NFL. It's still young as well.

 

[Bobblehead]

We need a motivator coach, not that Pete isn't one, but some playbook thumping preacher coach who will put fire and brimstone under their arses before every game.

This is just dumb. Not even a factor.

We need game plans that attacks our opponents weaknesses.
Pete has plenty of rah rah already and there is no advantage to one style over another.
How do you explain "steady Eddie" Ron Rivera having the Panther's so ready to play?
See: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports ... 33830.html
Or do you give credit to Cam Newton's emotional leadership?

The issue Sunday was a passive, brain dead game plan that failed to, from the start, attack Carolina's weaknesses (Secondary) and didn't account for the matchup advantage of Carolina's DL and pass rush over our OL.
Carroll gets over-fixated on "we're going to play how we play" and fails to exploit opponent weaknesses.
This is one area where Bill Belichick is a superior coach. Hoodie will leave no stone unturned to find and exploit opponent weaknesses, and then actually incorporate them into the game plan.

The Seahawks coaching staff also badly underestimated how badly the Seattle OL would struggle against Carolina's pass rush in the sets we ran early in the game. So we didn't effectively game plan for how to mitigate our matchup disadvantages. (It's a similar ongoing issue vs. the Rams, apparently Fisher is a superior game-planner to Pete with the particular matchups involved, and Pete keeps doing things that don't work well enough against that team, asking our team to simply "try harder" with a poor plan)

We don't need more "Mike Ditka" fire and brimstone, we need more "Bill Walsh".
Vince Lombardi would be a LOSING coach in todays NFL. Lombardi was successful IN SPITE OF, not because of, fire and brimstone.

I used to blame Bevell, but have come to realize the issue is more Pete handcuffing Bevell.
Pete underestimated Carolina's offense and overestimated our D's ability to contain Carolina.
The second half defensive performance? Well, a 31-point lead reduces Carolina's urgency a bit.

Pete needs to adjust the balance between "We're going to play how we play", and "exploiting opponent weaknesses", and adjust it so game plans include more of exploiting opponent weaknesses. Especially in the playoffs.

Just being facetious.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Oly's post hit it a bit more... there needs to be a bit more consistency and balance in preparation. But some are suggesting there needs to be dynamic change, which I disagree with. .

Well, then I fear there are going to be more needless seasons like this one where it takes half the year for our team to play like Pete wants them to play, as opposed to letting Russell take charge and install the dynamic offense we know he and Bevell are capable of.

And yes the Pats aren't perfect, but my sentiment holds true. They are constantly changing, and that my friend is how you win in this league over long period of time. Because other teams catch up to what you're doing, and the worst thing you can be in the NFL is predictable.

 

[NJlargent]

I have enjoyed reading this thread and think that it is filled with good stuff on all sides of this equation. I agree with the post immediately above that the Patriots are SB contenders every year because Belichick does adapt to the circumstances. I see that lacking tremendously with Pete and the current staff.

It seems we come out each game with the "pound the rock" mentality and then lean on our defense. Undoubtedly, that worked well in 2013 but that was also because our defense may have been worthy of the greatest of all time label. The 2014 defense was a bit more suspect, but good enough to make it to the SB. Unfortunately the defense was not the 2013 squad and hence we gave up the lead to the Pats in the 4th quarter. This year, our defense was barely a shadow of the 2013 squad. Our pass rush was suspect and I think our run defense was exposed at times as being a bit overrated. Still a great defense, but far from shutdown, which is what Pete's offensive game plan appears to be predicated upon.

I would have liked to see Pete have us come out some of these games and recognize the final score might be 30-24 and not necessarily 13-10. It is also frustrating considering that our OL has gone downhill since 2013 as has Beast. Somewhere Pete should recognize he needs to adapt to the fact that we have a stud QB but no OL to pound the rock behind as use the QB. He should also recognize that our defense is good but cannot be relied upon to give up under 17 every game.

He's a good coach and I think we need to keep him. I am not a fan of giving him absolute immunity from losses though simply because we went to 2 SBs (especially the 2013 squad that was loaded). He has to adjust to the fact we now need to score points to win games and open up Wilson a bit. Otherwise these losses due to slow starts will have to rightfully come back on him.

 

[Uncle Si]

Oly's post hit it a bit more... there needs to be a bit more consistency and balance in preparation. But some are suggesting there needs to be dynamic change, which I disagree with. .

Well, then I fear there are going to be more needless seasons like this one where it takes half the year for our team to play like Pete wants them to play, as opposed to letting Russell take charge and install the dynamic offense we know he and Bevell are capable of.

And yes the Pats aren't perfect, but my sentiment holds true. They are constantly changing, and that my friend is how you win in this league over long period of time. Because other teams catch up to what you're doing, and the worst thing you can be in the NFL is predictable.

More needless seasons? Like the just one that we just had? Because the two before didn't take much time. Do you think other factors may have played a role this year?

And the Pats aren't "constantly changing".. they basically have been doing the same thing since Brady took over. Brady's just really good and Belichick is really good at ensuring that Brady is in a position to win the game. They still do it with a surprising amount of runs and good, steady D behind him.

 

[RussB]

Next season they need home field advantage in the playoffs.

 

[Seymour]

This topic is dumb. That has nothing to do with why we fell behind.

The reasons are obvious.

1) Sub-par offensive line that gets exposed against good D-lines.

2) Down field plays, and 5 step drops against those defenses, when you should know better by now.

3) Refusal to adjust the game plan until half time.

LOL, yet it continues. This post is spot on and not much needs to be added. But since it's the thing to do, I'll add it IS how you start, and how you finish. But that is somewhat covered on #3.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

Fair enough but who was involved in the opening series game plan?. Pretty sure Pete is in the mix.

And the opening series was absolute garbage.

Of course players are the tip of the spear out there, but to say Russ wasn't put in a position to fail on our opening series and the other INT is flat wrong.

They had a broken secondary unit, correct?. So why is our first play a RO and the second one which has Russ's safety valve going to the middle of the field?.

Isn't kuechly considered all pro?

Don't both those plays just flat out go right at the teeth of that defense?

Where's the quick slant to Doug?. Wheel route to lynch down the sideline?. Anything to the edges?

Allowing game planning to escape culpability is naivety at its finest.

Russell Wilson DID NOT EXECUTE.
Look, we can hash, and rehash on this til hell freezes over, but that ill advised and errant pass is still going to go against RW, JUST as his sensational play in the second half gets laid at his doorstep.
It wasn't Bevell nor was it Pete that messed up the execution of those two interception plays.
I guarantee you that both Pete and Darrell have given Wilson a whole lot more freedom to change a play, especially when they KNOW that he's quite capable of pulling off some fantastic plays, but if and when he does alter the plays, the buck stops there with him.

Yes, the pick 6 was ALL on Russ. HORRIBLE decision. The second pick that set up their 3rd TD was not one bit on him. Okung got beat (and injured) on the play and Russ was pasted from the blind side causing the pass to be errant.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

This topic is dumb. That has nothing to do with why we fell behind.

The reasons are obvious.

1) Sub-par offensive line that gets exposed against good D-lines.

2) Down field plays, and 5 step drops against those defenses, when you should know better by now.

3) Refusal to adjust the game plan until half time.

LOL, yet it continues. This post is spot on and not much needs to be added. But since it's the thing to do, I'll add it IS how you start, and how you finish. But that is somewhat covered on #3.

Agree with both of you and throw in RW making a very bad decision on the pick 6 making the early hole deeper.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

This topic is dumb. That has nothing to do with why we fell behind.

The reasons are obvious.

1) Sub-par offensive line that gets exposed against good D-lines.

2) Down field plays, and 5 step drops against those defenses, when you should know better by now.

3) Refusal to adjust the game plan until half time.

LOL, yet it continues. This post is spot on and not much needs to be added. But since it's the thing to do, I'll add it IS how you start, and how you finish. But that is somewhat covered on #3.

It's ironic that you guys agree with each other, yet #3 is what I'm talking about.

Now THAT'S a LOL.

 

[irfuben32]

Wilson, as much as I love him...always seem to play like shit at the begining of games too....not sure if its the gameplan itself or Oline that makes him that way but theres only been a handful of playoff games where he actually looked good in the first half

I see the same thing. It takes him some time to get in the flow of things. If it were up to me I would call some designed runs for Wilson early in the game to get his blood flowing. Not read-options because I can't remember him keeping a read-option in the first half of a game ever.

 

[scutterhawk]

This topic is dumb. That has nothing to do with why we fell behind.

The reasons are obvious.

1) Sub-par offensive line that gets exposed against good D-lines.

2) Down field plays, and 5 step drops against those defenses, when you should know better by now.

3) Refusal to adjust the game plan until half time.

LOL, yet it continues. This post is spot on and not much needs to be added. But since it's the thing to do, I'll add it IS how you start, and how you finish. But that is somewhat covered on #3.

There's a legitimate reason that some games don't go as planned, I don't think there's enough focus on the adjustments that Pete, and his Coaching staff have to make when their guys are playing on the road in 7AM (inner clocks) games, and going up against a 15 & 1 team that is well rested (two weeks), and it doesn't help that the mix & match O-Line was still floundering.
Pete and his crew had to make some on the fly adjustments, try to get some control back by trying to establish a workable pace.
Trying to force a pass that get's intercepted also took them out of their game and Offensive schemes had to be altered early on.
The mess-ups that the Seahawks Coaching had to overcome didn't start with this game, it started with the very first game of the Season, as the Offensive Line was NOT playing anywhere close to where they needed to be.
With Lynch out of the mix, It took some time for them to re-tool, and put a good portion of game planning around Russell Wilson.
He won us a lot of games, but the O-Line was still having their misfires, and our opponents knew that the young and inexperienced players there were the weakest link.
Defense had it's share of flubbed up games....Kam Chancellor?, Williams?, Sherman & Thomas having to play out of position character to make up for Kam's absence and Williams inept and unfamiliarity with the play schemes.
These are only a smattering of issues that a Head Coach has to make adjustments for, and each and every game calls for ongoing adjustments, because each and every other team has it's own uniqueness.
That's why the Rams always seem to play us so well.

 

[scutterhawk]

Fair enough but who was involved in the opening series game plan?. Pretty sure Pete is in the mix.

And the opening series was absolute garbage.

Of course players are the tip of the spear out there, but to say Russ wasn't put in a position to fail on our opening series and the other INT is flat wrong.

They had a broken secondary unit, correct?. So why is our first play a RO and the second one which has Russ's safety valve going to the middle of the field?.

Isn't kuechly considered all pro?

Don't both those plays just flat out go right at the teeth of that defense?

Where's the quick slant to Doug?. Wheel route to lynch down the sideline?. Anything to the edges?

Allowing game planning to escape culpability is naivety at its finest.

Russell Wilson DID NOT EXECUTE.
Look, we can hash, and rehash on this til hell freezes over, but that ill advised and errant pass is still going to go against RW, JUST as his sensational play in the second half gets laid at his doorstep.
It wasn't Bevell nor was it Pete that messed up the execution of those two interception plays.
I guarantee you that both Pete and Darrell have given Wilson a whole lot more freedom to change a play, especially when they KNOW that he's quite capable of pulling off some fantastic plays, but if and when he does alter the plays, the buck stops there with him.

Yes, the pick 6 was ALL on Russ. HORRIBLE decision. The second pick that set up their 3rd TD was not one bit on him. Okung got beat (and injured) on the play and Russ was pasted from the blind side causing the pass to be errant.

Okay, so the final score would have been 24 - 24 had he not thrown that interception to LK, and we go to OT.
Oh, and where were the Seahawks Defense, and how many interceptions, or turnovers did they manage to rake from the Panthers...Just saying

 

[sc85sis]

You haven't been paying attention. Pete has said multiple times he wants better starts. His comments about winning in the fourth quarter are about finishing the game out and that's something every coach preaches.