After a day to think about it...

[pehawk]

I was speaking about Turbin in the NE game, last year. That was the Sunday before they headed to SF (for a TNF) game, DavidSeven. That's an example of Pete forgoing one week for the other.

I guess I can pull the gamelog...?

Did he say that was his intent? That was a game where Seattle played from behind almost the entire way, so it makes sense that his carries were limited.

And he had less carries against Detroit.

Okay, maybe. Good catch on Detroit. I'd have to see snaps played, etc. All I remember from that game was Lynch wasn't in as much, and explained why I thought that to be the case.

 

[SmokinHawk]

Your #3 point is nuts.

Ya think? Maybe...some of those plays with Wilson making their DL look like keystone cops seemed out of place.

Poor pass blocking on the line, forcing our QB to run for his life, is about as sound an offensive approach as twisting fullbacks.

 

[PNWJoshua]

Limited the play calling for what purpose? Are you suggesting they limited their playbook against Carolina, so they could spring some surprises on SF the next week? That seems like it goes against one of Pete Carroll's primary coaching philosophies -- every week is a championship week. No one game matters more than the other.

Then why not do pitch passes and trick plays all the time? There are a lot of reasons to not run certain plays. Main one being if you can run safer plays and still win then you do that. If you can run run pass and continue to get 1st downs then why go pass pass run? Obviously the first quarter didnt work too well but they got it going in the second quarter with only simple changes to play calling. the run game was getting stuffed for three quarters but we kept calling it...because it was accomplishing more than just yards. It was getting the D tired, it was safe, it was keeping the D honest so they couldnt sit on passing routes. By the 4th quarter they couldnt stop us and we got first downs till we could run the clock out. Who has a doubt in their mind that we couldnt have ran the ball into the endzone on the last possession if we needed to?

Did you mean to write that in response to my post? I agree with what you're saying, but it doesn't seem closely tied to what I wrote.

I wrote that primarily in response to your first sentence about every week is championship week. I didnt really address the second part. More on playing every game like its a championship. I think he referrers more to play with that kind of intensity than play calling.

As far as the play calling to hide plays from San fran, that does happen BUT not on game day. That is a preparation factor. When i played football we definitely took plays out of the playbook because a) they would not be effective against the current opponent and/or we dont want to show our hand for a future opponent. Even then, if the game was getting out of hand throw the playbook at em for the win! In this case we really didnt need to. We only won by what 5 points? but thats because we went for 2 (failed) then when we got the ball back we kept it till end of the game but during that time we were having our way with the panthers. No doubt we were going to score if we needed to.

 

[PNWJoshua]

I have been trying to harp this over and over again. On a surface level the game looked 'Ugly'. Being a student of the game i clearly saw the genius of the game. I saw what carolina was trying to do but that it was only mildly effective. Instead of freaking out, we stayed with our game plan and grinded out the win. We won despite their defensive play. We hardly had to adjust! Had they made adjustments, we very well could have put 30 points on carolina but why? To have a pretty, "look at us and how we killed Carolina" win? So that future teams see our film of our adjustments? So that we are hyped up as some super team and bring their A+++ game? How would san fran feel about this game if we went down to carolina and stoned them 28-7?

LOL, no. I am not talking about holding back plays per se...Every team has a game plan going into a game. We had ours, Carolina has theirs. A lot of thought goes into these game plans and this is where all the external factors are factored in. Every game plan is tailored for the opponent and all other factors. This is where you might not include plays due to holding them back from showing future opponents.

That being said...Come game time it is time to WIN! You start with your game plan and then make variations to that game plan. Often this is easy because when you game plan you dont know exactly how the opponent will respond so you already have a few variations already practiced and ready. Now, if the game is going to your expectations then you maintain your playcalling. If its not working then you make game time adjustments and do what ever you need to do to win. Sometimes this means calling plays that were not practiced or intended to be played.

My point being, we were moving the ball in a way that the coaching staff felt comfortable with and didnt need to throw the kitchen sink at the panthers to win. Yes it was a close game but our last drive started with 4:48 left in the game and we were up 12-7. We had plenty of time to score again if we happened to have to punt but instead we marched the ball, burned their timeouts and ended the game. We could have won that 19-7 but didnt need to...

 

[akseahawkfan]

How many read/option plays were called? However many, I expected to see a lot more.

Our OL looked terribly outmatched - as in not even close. When Wilson has to run 20-30 back behind the line of scrimmage I don't see how anyone can think that was part of the plan. Seattle did barely enough to win. Had it not been the late turnover by the Panthers closing in for a score, this game could have been more likely a loss than a win.

I expect them to play a lot better against SF. They'll need to in order to come away with a win.

 

[Sports Hernia]

O line is definitely going to want to redeem themselves this week, and they better bring their "A" game.

A lot of people forget we didn't have Justin Smith to contend with last December when we kicked the snot of the 49ers. He's back.

It's going to be a war.

Justin Smith is good, but he ain't 29 points good, sorry!

 

[Cartire]

I dont know about hiding or what not. But I was extremely surprised we didnt do way more HB Screens with the constant pressure they were applying.

 

[pehawk]

I dont know about hiding or what not. But I was extremely surprised we didnt do way more HB Screens with the constant pressure they were applying.

Yeah, seemed obvious.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

I'm really starting to think Bevell-Cable limited their playcalling yesterday. The Panthers came hard, and often, in a manner which would've been so easy to exploit.

I know that sounds odd, since it seemed like it could've been a loss, but Pete does things like that.

1) Pete SLOWLY added things to Russell Wilson's playbook last year. The easy play, for most, would've been going with Flynn. It would've shielded Pete from any criticism early on, really. But, with the playoffs in mind, an up to speed Wilson was the best long-term choice.

2) Against NE last year, Marshaun Lynch split reps with Turbin, ALOT. At the time I remember thinking; I bet he's saving him for their next game, on a short week, at SF.

3) Hosting SF last year, it sure looked like Wilson had some instructions to "wear out" the 49ers defense as much as possible. Yeah, that's what Wilson does, but he ran in his own backfield more than any other game. Makes sense...wear them out before their division clinching game the following week.

Am I nuts?

Yes you're nuts but insanity often brings insight. I for one definitely believe you hit on one or full on. Just like the 49ets played possum in the preseason we did against Carolina partially. In the majority it actually is a function of us readjusting the offense on the fly because of Harvin being out until midseason.

 

[sutz]

I seem to recall an interview from Bevell where he admitted they sometimes look several games ahead when game planning, with an eye towards not showing something they might need to use there, or practicing something they might need in game situations. I don't think they intentionally try to throw games or anything, but I do believe they plan ahead that way. It just makes too much sense.

Now I understand all of Pete's rhetoric, and how the 'every game's a championship game' meme works, but that doesn't mean they don't take calculated risks when assessing what they need to do in the current game plan to not reveal something they need the week after, or two weeks after...whatever. And of course, when the fertilizer hits the ventilator, all bets are off and they'll do what needs to be done to win. For all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth around here, the Carolina game was never out of reach. It was always within one score, we were always in it. Even if that fumble had not occurred and the Panthers had scored on that 4th quarter drive, the game was still within reasonable reach.

It stands to reason we'll see something we didn't do against Carolina this Sunday night. And it'll probably be something we'll all shake our heads at and think, "That would have made a win in Carolina so much easier." It will happen many times through the course of the season, I'd bet. Last season was not just having training wheels on Russ, it was also how they plan the season IMHO. I think they have a master plan for the season where they unveil new stuff as the season progresses, in order to keep the rest of the league on their heels.

 

[Cartire]

I seem to recall an interview from Bevell where he admitted they sometimes look several games ahead when game planning, with an eye towards not showing something they might need to use there, or practicing something they might need in game situations. I don't think they intentionally try to throw games or anything, but I do believe they plan ahead that way. It just makes too much sense.

Now I understand all of Pete's rhetoric, and how the 'every game's a championship game' meme works, but that doesn't mean they don't take calculated risks when assessing what they need to do in the current game plan to not reveal something they need the week after, or two weeks after...whatever. And of course, when the fertilizer hits the ventilator, all bets are off and they'll do what needs to be done to win. For all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth around here, the Carolina game was never out of reach. It was always within one score, we were always in it. Even if that fumble had not occurred and the Panthers had scored on that 4th quarter drive, the game was still within reasonable reach.

It stands to reason we'll see something we didn't do against Carolina this Sunday night. And it'll probably be something we'll all shake our heads at and think, "That would have made a win in Carolina so much easier." It will happen many times through the course of the season, I'd bet. Last season was not just having training wheels on Russ, it was also how they plan the season IMHO. I think they have a master plan for the season where they unveil new stuff as the season progresses, in order to keep the rest of the league on their heels.

Sorta true. But most of it just has to do with a gameplan designed against each team. You wont do certain stuff in Carolina that you will do against Houston, because their D and their Offenses are far different. So you will run different designed plays regardless of how effective they are versus someone else. Where every team does have plays they like for any situation, its almost always different each week depending on the opponent.

 

[Lady Talon]

I'm sure Pete limited the playbook to hide a few plays that would reveal future game plans, but I also think he was deliberately challenging the team to fight their way through several hurdles- 10 am, road game, injuries, heat, first real game, etc, and win on their own merit, rather than awe us all with exotic schemes.

Lot of hype associated with the Hawks this year. I think Pete was bringing them face to face with that in a game he felt he could afford to gamble on.

No proof of this besides my feeling, but if it's true I hope the lessons they learned in Carolina pay dividends later in the season.

 

[akseahawkfan]

I think they have a master plan for the season where they unveil new stuff as the season progresses, in order to keep the rest of the league on their heels.

Well, I'm just a simple fan of the game, but I would think basic run/pass blocking would be something they would unveil week one.

 

[Tech Worlds]

I don't think teams sandbag during the regular season prior to having a playoff spot locked up.

Wins are too hard to get

 

[keasley45]

I generally agree with the OP on point 1. For those who take his statement as The Hawks intentionally sucking to hide their bag of tricks from SanFran, i think you are missing the point. Pete, as he did last year with the question mark we had at QB at the start of the season, played every game close. Keep it simple, keep it safe, and only take risks when you have to. Its a bland, no frills approach, but one that got us results and built confidence over the season. I think yesterday, the gameplan going in was just as simple because of A) this team's hardships and general lack of confidence in itself at the 10am start and B) because they wanted to show as little as possible to sanfran heading into week 2. Was the oline supposed to play as badly as it did? no. Was it supposed to be as close as it was? no. I just dont think that what they saw from the team yesterday was bad enough to warrant changing their strategy.

I think they absolustely do have a masterplan for the season and that that plan is predicated on going 2-0. Its huge. To do that, you have to do what this team has rarely done.Win on opening day, on the road, at 10am, going into a season with a huge bullseye on its back, with a starting G out of shape and 2 weeks from being game ready and a defense missing 4 key players. If you were a defensive minded coach with a Top 3 D, what type of gameplan would you put together? I posted about this in another thread but will summarize :

This season comes down to beating the 9ers at home and winning 4 road games (minimum) - holding ground at home being assumed. Of those games, Carolina, Houston, Indy, Atlanta and the Giants (5 of those 8 ) are 10am starts. Of that list, Carolina was THE must win. As it stands, the W puts us at a very reasonable 9 wins, again, assuming we hold serve at home. Add in road victories at Arizona and St Louis (both late starts) and we are at 11 wins. The entire 2013 season then essentially comes down to Houston, Indy, Atlanta and the Giants. If we split those 10am starts, even if we lose to the 9ers at their place, we still finish at... wait for it, 13 - 3. Going undefeated at home is VERY doable. Of all of our home opponents this year, I only see the Saints as a real threat.

The 9ers on the other hand have only two 10am starts, @ the Bucs and Jags. Not likely they'll have trouble there. Granted, anything can happen on Sunday, but their only potential road L's include vs us, @ the Redskins and @ the Saints. They do get the Panthers,Texans, us and the Falcons at home, so there's a reasonable chance they drop one or two there, or when the Colts come to visit, but other than that there isnt a whole lot there to stop them.. So, say we beat them at home and they lose to either the Redskins or the Saints + drop one to either us, Panthers (not likely), the Texans, or Falcons at home. That leaves them at 13-3. Its hard to envision them being a whole lot worse, although the Rams seem to play them well. Us getting to 13-3 was a lot harder without the W yesterday... just not the same margin for error. Yesterday's win and maintaining a strategic advantage going into week 2 are huge to making the season successful.

 

[pehawk]

That breakdown in the schedule's depressing.

 

[AgentDib]

It's an interesting thought, but one I do not agree with and I suspect you may not either. Good teams lose to worse opponents all the time in the NFL, and I do not believe that Carroll philosophically would look past an opponent and let off the gas in the game plan. That goes against his messaging and his general risk aversion.

Also, let's not kid ourselves about the outcome. I am thrilled with the win but it could have very easily been a loss; thank goodness we saw the version of history where Earl forced that fumble and Sherman recovered it. The only way that this team would intentionally use an inferior game plan and just assume that they could win a 10 am EST road game against a good defense anyway is if they bought into the Superbowl hype, and that is only a fan occurrence only.

I do agree that Carroll may prioritize long term needs over short term gains when it comes to playing time. There are strong NFL conventions surrounding making sure your guys are fully healthy before they get back on the field, giving playing time to youngsters when rebuilding, and making sure that your players are rested going into key games and the playoffs. Carroll stretches these conventions if anything though. Consider how many veteran backups we kept in 2010 to the consternation of experts everywhere and how our young players have had to earn their spots from the veterans. Is there a single young player that we have started even though they were not our best option on the roster at the time?

 

[keasley45]

It's an interesting thought, but one I do not agree with and I suspect you may not either. Good teams lose to worse opponents all the time in the NFL, and I do not believe that Carroll philosophically would look past an opponent and let off the gas in the game plan.

The only way that this team would intentionally use an inferior game plan and just assume that they could win a 10 am EST road game against a good defense anyway is if they bought into the Superbowl hype, and that is only a fan occurrence only.

The fact that good teams lose to worse teams all the time might be exactly why the game plan was simplified. The team is cursed when it comes to 10am starts. They cant get out of their own way and have routinely lost to inferior opponents on the road. I dont see it as letting off the gas as much as i do not pushing it into the corner and putting the car into the wall. The game plan wasnt inferior, it was crafted to combat our own propensity to royally screw things up. I think Pete is smart enough to know that when we take to the road in early games we're playing ourselves as much if not more than we are playing our opponent. The need to mitigate against that and the gravity of Sunday's game could very well have lead to the straight-up, simple approach.

And again, who knows how 'vanilla' the plan really was. i think it looked inferior because it was plain executed poorly. If we couldnt execute the simple version, it stands to reason we wouldnt have executed the 'wide open' version any better. And yes, i agree that we could have lost the game if not for the forced fumble late. But we could also have been up 10-7 going into the half and 17-7 with Kearse's catch.

 

[keasley45]

I also wouldnt minimize Carp's impact on what we ran yesterday. The offense is in a bit of a pickle in that they're relying on him to start and be 100% for them to be as effective as they feel they can be. He's been limited in preseason so you have to play him now to get him ready to roll but probably cant run everything you want cuz the dude is a major work in progress. Yeah, they could juggle the line again, but that would defeat the purpose of establishing continuity and getting Carp as many reps as possible.

 

[AgentDib]

You are making a couple of large assumptions there, namely that simplicity is better and that our previous problems have been due to complexity. Obviously, we are not going to be putting things in the gameplan that we do not think we can handle. However, RW entering his second season with a full offseason of work is nothing like the RW of last year. What makes you think they would put less on his shoulders vs. a good defense on the road in his 19th game, than they put on his shoulders at home vs. the Bears last year in his 12th game?

Carroll mentioned a few things on Brock and Salk today that are relevant here. To paraphrase, he said that he expected Carolina to play well and that they had shown they had climbed to a different level based on the end of last season. They didn't think they would struggle as much in the running game, but Carroll said he took responsibility because they didn't "hit it like they should have."

I feel like.. i had us... we tried a little bit too much, and, as far as coming off the football. We didn't get our rhythm and it made it difficult on Tom to figure it, to get them adjusted properly as we always do. It's no big deal, it's just something that happened in this game and I think that we're going to come around and we'll come out smoking in the next couple games and show you what we're all about.