Asking Pete the tough questions

[Tical21]

I've discussed this ad nauseam around here today, so I will keep this brief, and feel free to look at the over Marshawn and Bevell threads for a little bit more depth, but I support that Bevell was stubborn in trying to stick with the game plan of trying to complete slants. You only need to get cute if you can't complete the basic plays like slants and fades. We need to get a lot better at those plays, by hook or by crook. No better way to try to work out the kinks than in the middle of a real game when you're 6-1 and still winning the game.

If we were more desparate, sure, run 9 screens, run gimmick rollouts and put a band-aid on the fact that you just can't complete a slant play. I am very thankful to Bevell for not doing that, as there will be huge benefits down the road when we start to burn teams with the slant.

Not if you have to raise Russell from the dead to benefit from it.

Throw slants from max protect. Besides, the idea is the OL injuries are temporary. Worry about keeping your QB alive during the temporary issue, not about some far-off future gain that may or may not happen. Then your tackles come back and you can work on slants or whatever other routes you want to work on to your heart's content.

Besides the problem with the slants is that our doods don't catch 'em. They probably run a million in practice, not sure how getting Russell killed to have them to it in a game solves that problem.

Want to get the heat off Russell and keep him alive? Complete a couple slants or big plays, problem solved. Look, like it or not, everybody else is going to employ this tactic. If we don't learn to complete slants, and very quickly, we're not going to score very many points.

 

[Seaswab]

We tried a slant, kearse dropped it

 

[Thunderhawk]

We've had a series of games where we have abandoned the run - even when it has been performing well. I, too, would like to understand why we continue to do this.

Marshawn Lynch can flip me off, my family off, my pastor off, and my dog off - I wouldn't care so long as he can still beast and help us win games.

But, we're 7-1 even with all the injuries so I just can't get that upset right now.

 

[CANHawk]

We tried a slant, kearse dropped it

But he was wide open and had a step. Rusty put it right on his hands, in stride. The slant totally worked (except for the catching it part). If chop chop actually caught it (which isn't a tall order) he was off to the races........

 

[gtcotcakya]

I really hope our offense spends a lot of time this week working on quick throws against 8 man gap run blitzes...'cause I'd guess we're going to be seeing a lot of that going forward, at least until we can prove that's a good way to get burned.

 

[Paschtorian]

I've always had a beef with our Seahawks and their lack of ability to make adjustments EARLIER in the game.

This "We'll deal-with-it-at-halftime" mentality needs to go.

Adjustments need to start happening in the SECOND quarter of each game. Period. We're always a quarter-behind.

As far as culpability,.........I think Cable's the one dropping the ball (literally) when setting-up pass protections. Now, I realize he's working within Bevell's game plan,..........but really??

NO help to EITHER backup tackle ALL NIGHT??? No backfield/tight end help (after the first THREE sacks)? REALLY???

Bevell/Cable,..........whatever. Adjustments need to be priority ONE for the coaching staff. Or Russell's NOT going to make it.

 

[PlinytheCenter]

Back up tackles or no, they have had six weeks to work together. You'd think they would have had it down somewhat. Oh well, on to the Bucs, home cookin' and the enveloping embrace of the 12th Man.

 

[Bigpumpkin]

We tried a slant, kearse dropped it

But he was wide open and had a step. Rusty put it right on his hands, in stride. The slant totally worked (except for the catching it part). If chop chop actually caught it (which isn't a tall order) he was off to the races........

There's an old saying, "Anything worth doing......is worth doing poorly.... for a little while". I have no doubts that practice this week will be very intense at the VMAC!!!

 

[kobebryant]

I really don't care what is asked, answered or said. I just want to see improvements on the field; talk is just that - talk.

I don't follow sports media at all (the commute is for tunes) - I get more useful stuff on sites like this.

 

[Tech Worlds]

I really don't care what is asked, answered or said. I just want to see improvements on the field; talk is just that - talk.

I don't follow sports media at all (the commute is for tunes) - I get more useful stuff on sites like this.

Exactly. But where do you think sites like this get their info from?

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

If Russell Wilson goes down I will never forgive Pete.

Ditto. Never.

 

[themunn]

Who will ask the tough questions like
"why are we winning so many games?"
"why do we have the best start to a season in franchise history"
"why - despite the fact we've been missing our starting tackles and missed our center for two games - does Russell Wilson keep getting sacked"

There are around 30 teams in the league that would kill for our problems.

Maybe the media aren't asking the tough questions. The mediaheads in Philly and New York know what's up. They asked the tough questions of Andy Reid and eventually managed to get rid of him to bring in a far superior replacement. Where's Reid now? The media knows best

 

[Tokadub]

I'm really not too sure how much influence on the offense Pete really has. He seems more cheerleader material than mastermind to me, does he even call plays?

But really it seems to me for whatever reason Bevell has decided that Russel needs to stand in the pocket this season. We've almost lost several games already because of this. Wilson is taking WAY more sacks than last season. He also has more fumbles. This strategy does not work with our crap offensive line yet it is clear to me for whatever reason they are tying to make him stand in the pocket and at this rate they gonna get him killed.

 

[Tech Worlds]

I'm really not too sure how much influence on the offense Pete really has. He seems more cheerleader material than mastermind to me, does he even call plays?

But really it seems to me for whatever reason Bevell has decided that Russel needs to stand in the pocket this season. We've almost lost several games already because of this. Wilson is taking WAY more sacks than last season. He also has more fumbles. This strategy does not work with our crap offensive line yet it is clear to me for whatever reason they are tying to make him stand in the pocket and at this rate they gonna get him killed.

Pete is the head coach and the buck stops with him.

I do not know why everyone blames Bevell for everything when Pete is signing off on it.

 

[mrblitz]

i like the idea of running too much instead of too little. also, we might begin to get some effectiveness out of the short passing. it looked like there were at least 2 or 3 plays - including kearse's drop - that could have done better.

in the running game, pound it more, and aim for the odd breakaway here and there amid all of the stuffs, breakaways which make the overall ypc respectable. they want to put 8 or 9 up on the line? if the running back breaks through that, watch out.

 

[AgentDib]

Of course you can take it too far like Mora Sr. did, but the coaches do have more information than we do as fans. That information advantage is bottom up; they have a huge amount of additional information about a nuts and bolts detail such as the protection scheme on a specific play call. However, their information advantage is significantly reduced as you start to take a step back and look at broader issues. Ultimately, we all saw the results over the course of the game, so it is to be expected that we form our own opinions about whether something like our passing offense is doing well or not.

An issue such as whether we should have kept an additional TE in to pass protect exists somewhere in the middle. It's a valid question to ask, but as a question and not a condemnation. We don't know what those protection schemes were supposed to be, whether RBs were supposed to be chipping but failing, whether Wilson was supposed to be diagnosing something that he missed, what we thought Fisher was going to be doing, etc. The condemnation aspect is appropriate only at a very high level, e.g., as a unit our passing offense got owned by the Rams defense and that sucks and needs improvement. It absolutely starts and stops with Pete.

I would support max protect, running the ball too much (vs too little), more screens, more rollouts, and I wouldn't complain if the shortcomings of all of those types of plays were made manifest. At this point it's between having no offense but a breathing QB and having no offense and a dead QB.

The problem I see with this sort of plan is that you are scheming to try to avoid the impact of poor offensive line play in the passing game, without consideration of the opposing defense or the ineffectiveness of those same backup linemen in the running game. Screens require blocking as well, and most of the time you see this as a counter to an aggressive pass rush when you have your starters and are just scheming to beat their scheme. If Bowie cannot make the correct second level block then you just took the risk of having your undersized QB throw a screen past a free releasing Robert Quinn for nothing.

Furthermore, the point that we won the game behind a very good defensive performance should absolutely have an effect on how you judge our offense. If you know that it is going to be difficult for the opposing team to score points, it makes sense to be risk averse yourself and I am sure Carroll had a lengthy talk with Wilson about not forcing anything. He took a lot of sacks rather than then doing anything that might lead to a turnover, but that is a reflection of our opponent and us leading the game.

I would wager that against a team with a better offense, our own offensive game plan would have been a lot different and Wilson would have thrown the ball to receivers who were not as completely open.

 

[HawkAroundTheClock]

I have no interest in what kinds of questions are asked of our players and coaches. They play to win the game (TM, Hermcorp) not to appease curious fans. If we want to know what they're doing to fix the problems, we can watch the games.

Tough journalists don't make a team or its coaches better.

 

[aawolf]

Of course you can take it too far like Mora Sr. did, but the coaches do have more information than we do as fans. That information advantage is bottom up; they have a huge amount of additional information about a nuts and bolts detail such as the protection scheme on a specific play call. However, their information advantage is significantly reduced as you start to take a step back and look at broader issues. Ultimately, we all saw the results over the course of the game, so it is to be expected that we form our own opinions about whether something like our passing offense is doing well or not.

An issue such as whether we should have kept an additional TE in to pass protect exists somewhere in the middle. It's a valid question to ask, but as a question and not a condemnation. We don't know what those protection schemes were supposed to be, whether RBs were supposed to be chipping but failing, whether Wilson was supposed to be diagnosing something that he missed, what we thought Fisher was going to be doing, etc. The condemnation aspect is appropriate only at a very high level, e.g., as a unit our passing offense got owned by the Rams defense and that sucks and needs improvement. It absolutely starts and stops with Pete.

I would support max protect, running the ball too much (vs too little), more screens, more rollouts, and I wouldn't complain if the shortcomings of all of those types of plays were made manifest. At this point it's between having no offense but a breathing QB and having no offense and a dead QB.

The problem I see with this sort of plan is that you are scheming to try to avoid the impact of poor offensive line play in the passing game, without consideration of the opposing defense or the ineffectiveness of those same backup linemen in the running game. Screens require blocking as well, and most of the time you see this as a counter to an aggressive pass rush when you have your starters and are just scheming to beat their scheme. If Bowie cannot make the correct second level block then you just took the risk of having your undersized QB throw a screen past a free releasing Robert Quinn for nothing.

Furthermore, the point that we won the game behind a very good defensive performance should absolutely have an effect on how you judge our offense. If you know that it is going to be difficult for the opposing team to score points, it makes sense to be risk averse yourself and I am sure Carroll had a lengthy talk with Wilson about not forcing anything. He took a lot of sacks rather than then doing anything that might lead to a turnover, but that is a reflection of our opponent and us leading the game.

I would wager that against a team with a better offense, our own offensive game plan would have been a lot different and Wilson would have thrown the ball to receivers who were not as completely open.

I was going to ask why we didn't use TE's more to block the edge, and I guess AgentDibs kind of answered it--its unnecessary if RBs help. I would have used more multiple TE sets in this game, but I'm nobody. Even if I had a good scheme going in, I would have switched to multiple TE sets after the 3rd sack to protect my QB from getting curb-stomped and maybe opening something up in the running game.

 

[plyka]

Legit questions that do need to be asked.

Couldn't agree more. Instead the KJR folks don't even broach the subject. I even heard Brock Huard defending Bevell, whether it's Bevell, Pete, Cable or the entire staff is irrelevant, he was defending whoever created the game plan.

It was mind boggling to watch these pathetic offensive coaches in action. Finally I bet we will see some diversity in the playcalling next week, but the fact that they were like deer caught in the headlights does not engender confidence. Why not attempt something quick? Slants, outs, hooks, etc, anything which requires a 3 step drop instead of a 7 step drop. Why not attempt 2 TE sets with a back in order to increase protection? Why not run screens, why not bubble screens, why not run the back into the flat, why not move the pocket. There are literally dozens of actions which COULD have been taken. Instead, they attempted the same failing calls, drop the QB back 7 steps and leave the tackles all on their lonesome. Even Gruden was amazed --why not chip the edge rusher with backs, TEs, WRs?

I think this team needs a new OC

I'm not sure some people are really getting it. You can scheme and adjust all you want, but if you don't have the horses to pull it off, it's futile. Everybody knows our Oline SUCKS, and now every team is just gonna attack us in a full-blown Blitz-O-Rama! We just don't have the personnel on that pathetic line to do anything. Even when we eventually get our tackles back, we'll obviously be much better, but we'll still be paper thin in that crucial area of the team, and one single injury could equal DOOM in the playoffs. What good is getting Percy back if Russell can't get off a pass to him? What good is Marshawn if they stack the box and stuff him immediately? Things just collapse so quickly that there is no time to run the offense in an effective manner. Now, I realize that the Rams have a very, very good defense, as did the Panthers, Texans, Colts, and even the Titans, and we struggled offensively in all those games. Until we get our guys back on the line, expect more of the same from our opposition. The Bucs are probably gonna try their best to copycat, but they actually lack the horses on their D to get it done... hopefully... So, let's at least give our coaches the benefit of the doubt here. Their offensive game-plan surely wouldn't look so bad if they had guys that could actually block. My only bitch is the stubbornness of keeping Wilson in the pocket. Let him do what he does so well... Cut him loose damnit! There is no pocket anymore for him to sit in, so get him the hell out of there so he can at least throw it away if necessary and not get him killed. If he goes down, stick a fork in us, obviously. (Well, TJax would have a much better team around him than last time he started for us, so who knows? But I would really rather not test that little theory out).

Then how in the world is the team 7-1? If what you're saying is correct, how did this team dominate SF? How did they pull off the victory against Houston? Tennessee? Carolina? And yes, even a team some consider the best or one of the best in the league in Indy? Indy destroyed Peyton, they did not destroy Wilson. They lost against Indy, but not due to the offense who put up plenty of points and yardage. The Hawks had one of the worst offensive performances I have ever seen against the Rams. Compare that performance to the one against all the other teams they played.