It's Time to Dispel the Myth

[Torc]

I don't think anyone is really upset about the run first philosophy. Winning is fun to watch, whether it is running or passing. Strong defense is BLAST to watch - when you're confident that no matter how many yards the opposing offense racks up, the defense is going to get a turnover or a couple tackles for a loss and stop a drive, that's really fun to see and cheer for.

What isn't fun to watch is starting a game with three or four (or more) 3-and-outs in a row. If they can, in the first three drives, take at least one of those down the field, methodically pounding the rock, I'll cheer my head off. What some people seem to be forgetting is those defenses a few years ago were taking advantage of playing with a lead, frustrating the other team, and making them one dimensional. Every drive was using Marshawn to eat up four or five minutes of clock even if they didn't score. Punting the ball and pinning the other team deep in their own territory made the defense even hungrier. It's a TEAM game - good offense (again, even without a score) leads to good defense and vice versa.

The past couple of years, it seems like each drive at the beginning of the game uses about a minute and then the punting unit comes on - the Seahawks aren't often winning the field position game anymore (although Dickson really helps a lot).

But hey, we're 1-0.

 

[Spin Doctor]

The things about using stats and analytics to argue against Pete and his philosophy is that they should ultimately prove that running the ball is bad and you lose games because of it except Pete keeps winning except he's been one of the most successful coaches in both college and NFL in the last 20 years. There's a good sample size to Pete, with him the main constant. Maybe Pete is running this team against modern trend, but he still has a way of making the statistically wrong philosophy work for this team. I don't think you can change the approach

Pete is the old contractor using an old fashion tool, but doing the project twice as fast as you.

He's the boxer planning his fight to go 12 rounds and knowing he only has to score barely better on the score card than his opponent.

He's the golfer that is playing for fairways and greens in regulations and letting the field aim every shot at the pin.

He's a relic, but the results over his career speak for themselves.

I think you're wrong here. Carroll won his Super Bowl and fame through a defense that is one of the best of all time. A defense that is now talked about like the 85 Bears, and 2000 Ravens are. That is why Pete has found success in the NFL. He is a defensive mastermind. Even with coverage breakdowns, horrid mistakes his defense held the Bengals to 21 points. Even so --- they realistically should have only had 10-14, but due to penalties and a gimmie interception they got 21. Defense is Carroll's calling card.

His offense on the other hand is his downfall. I'm not talking about the running game either. The point of my post was to illustrate that you can use the passing game to make your running game more potent, and extend time the time of possession. This doesn't mean becoming a pass heavy team, it means changing the style of passing a bit. Playing the higher percentage plays, spreading the field out at times so that teams can't crowd the LOS. His QB also hides many of his offenses deficiencies.

The Seahawks and even Trojans have had some top end offenses mixed in with an elite D. Yeah Pete is a damn good defensive coach, but he knows how a run first, play action and spread offense game can fit with the style he wants to play with. And however it all fits together, he figures it out.

Do you really think Pete made it this far in his football career in spite of the offense? Again, you'd expect more losses if Pete was so far opposite of a better offense. Personally I think it's from a plan that all fits together in a well played out game on the field, with small adjustments and big time plays, and great ST and Defense.

Yes, I do. His offensive scheme is one of the worst in the NFL. Its deficiencies are covered up in the NFL by a top 5 NFL QB with a unique skillset. There have been other HC's that have succeeded that fit Carroll's profile as well. Horrible offensively, defensive mastermind.

How does Carroll win with a horrible offensive scheme? Simple -- he has a top 5 QB that is able to improvise when things go south. The Seahawks best offensive moments come in crunch time when the Seahawks abandon their offensive strategy. Wilson covers many of the deficits that this offensive scheme has.

It should also be mentioned that the best year offensively that Carroll has had in the NFL, 2015 came when he implemented the strategies that I talked about. We went more spread, and added routes that we didn't normally use. We still had a lot of long developing plays, but it was a balanced approach.

The offense we use now doesn't even run a full NFL route tree most of the time, and runs plays that take a long time to set up. Even when the line is struggling we continue to do the same thing and expect different results. Usually what happens is Russell improvises and gets a deep pass off to a receiver at least once a game. For most of the game he is getting hammered, and having to get rid of the ball. In reality most competent NFL coordinators would set up those sort of plays without the beating part.

Carroll needs to step back from the offensive side of the ball. He doesn't understand it properly and he has a mindset that is stuck in an era that is bygone. He needs, like all coaches to stick with what he is good at. Good talent acquisition, great defensive mastermind, inadequate offensively.

 

[John63]

The things about using stats and analytics to argue against Pete and his philosophy is that they should ultimately prove that running the ball is bad and you lose games because of it except Pete keeps winning except he's been one of the most successful coaches in both college and NFL in the last 20 years. There's a good sample size to Pete, with him the main constant. Maybe Pete is running this team against modern trend, but he still has a way of making the statistically wrong philosophy work for this team. I don't think you can change the approach

Pete is the old contractor using an old fashion tool, but doing the project twice as fast as you.

He's the boxer planning his fight to go 12 rounds and knowing he only has to score barely better on the score card than his opponent.

He's the golfer that is playing for fairways and greens in regulations and letting the field aim every shot at the pin.

He's a relic, but the results over his career speak for themselves.

I think you're wrong here. Carroll won his Super Bowl and fame through a defense that is one of the best of all time. A defense that is now talked about like the 85 Bears, and 2000 Ravens are. That is why Pete has found success in the NFL. He is a defensive mastermind. Even with coverage breakdowns, horrid mistakes his defense held the Bengals to 21 points. Even so --- they realistically should have only had 10-14, but due to penalties and a gimmie interception they got 21. Defense is Carroll's calling card.

His offense on the other hand is his downfall. I'm not talking about the running game either. The point of my post was to illustrate that you can use the passing game to make your running game more potent, and extend time the time of possession. This doesn't mean becoming a pass heavy team, it means changing the style of passing a bit. Playing the higher percentage plays, spreading the field out at times so that teams can't crowd the LOS. His QB also hides many of his offenses deficiencies.

The Seahawks and even Trojans have had some top end offenses mixed in with an elite D. Yeah Pete is a damn good defensive coach, but he knows how a run first, play action and spread offense game can fit with the style he wants to play with. And however it all fits together, he figures it out.

Do you really think Pete made it this far in his football career in spite of the offense? Again, you'd expect more losses if Pete was so far opposite of a better offense. Personally I think it's from a plan that all fits together in a well played out game on the field, with small adjustments and big time plays, and great ST and Defense.

Yes, I do. His offensive scheme is one of the worst in the NFL. Its deficiencies are covered up in the NFL by a top 5 NFL QB with a unique skillset. There have been other HC's that have succeeded that fit Carroll's profile as well. Horrible offensively, defensive mastermind.

How does Carroll win with a horrible offensive scheme? Simple -- he has a top 5 QB that is able to improvise when things go south. The Seahawks best offensive moments come in crunch time when the Seahawks abandon their offensive strategy. Wilson covers many of the deficits that this offensive scheme has.

It should also be mentioned that the best year offensively that Carroll has had in the NFL, 2015 came when he implemented the strategies that I talked about. We went more spread, and added routes that we didn't normally use. We still had a lot of long developing plays, but it was a balanced approach.

The offense we use now doesn't even run a full NFL route tree most of the time, and runs plays that take a long time to set up. Even when the line is struggling we continue to do the same thing and expect different results. Usually what happens is Russell improvises and gets a deep pass off to a receiver at least once a game. For most of the game he is getting hammered, and having to get rid of the ball. In reality most competent NFL coordinators would set up those sort of plays without the beating part.

Carroll needs to step back from the offensive side of the ball. He doesn't understand it properly and he has a mindset that is stuck in an era that is bygone. He needs, like all coaches to stick with what he is good at. Good talent acquisition, great defensive mastermind, inadequate offensively.

I agree!! That said I don't expect anything to change.

 

[Tical21]

It’s time to dispel two more myths:

A. That this hasn’t been extremely successful.

B. That this isn’t the best way to maximize Russell’s unique skill set and manage the weaker parts of his game.

 

[Sports Hernia]

The things about using stats and analytics to argue against Pete and his philosophy is that they should ultimately prove that running the ball is bad and you lose games because of it except Pete keeps winning except he's been one of the most successful coaches in both college and NFL in the last 20 years. There's a good sample size to Pete, with him the main constant. Maybe Pete is running this team against modern trend, but he still has a way of making the statistically wrong philosophy work for this team. I don't think you can change the approach

Pete is the old contractor using an old fashion tool, but doing the project twice as fast as you.

He's the boxer planning his fight to go 12 rounds and knowing he only has to score barely better on the score card than his opponent.

He's the golfer that is playing for fairways and greens in regulations and letting the field aim every shot at the pin.

He's a relic, but the results over his career speak for themselves.

I think you're wrong here. Carroll won his Super Bowl and fame through a defense that is one of the best of all time. A defense that is now talked about like the 85 Bears, and 2000 Ravens are. That is why Pete has found success in the NFL. He is a defensive mastermind. Even with coverage breakdowns, horrid mistakes his defense held the Bengals to 21 points. Even so --- they realistically should have only had 10-14, but due to penalties and a gimmie interception they got 21. Defense is Carroll's calling card.

His offense on the other hand is his downfall. I'm not talking about the running game either. The point of my post was to illustrate that you can use the passing game to make your running game more potent, and extend time the time of possession. This doesn't mean becoming a pass heavy team, it means changing the style of passing a bit. Playing the higher percentage plays, spreading the field out at times so that teams can't crowd the LOS. His QB also hides many of his offenses deficiencies.

The Seahawks and even Trojans have had some top end offenses mixed in with an elite D. Yeah Pete is a damn good defensive coach, but he knows how a run first, play action and spread offense game can fit with the style he wants to play with. And however it all fits together, he figures it out.

Do you really think Pete made it this far in his football career in spite of the offense? Again, you'd expect more losses if Pete was so far opposite of a better offense. Personally I think it's from a plan that all fits together in a well played out game on the field, with small adjustments and big time plays, and great ST and Defense.

Yes, I do. His offensive scheme is one of the worst in the NFL. Its deficiencies are covered up in the NFL by a top 5 NFL QB with a unique skillset. There have been other HC's that have succeeded that fit Carroll's profile as well. Horrible offensively, defensive mastermind.

How does Carroll win with a horrible offensive scheme? Simple -- he has a top 5 QB that is able to improvise when things go south. The Seahawks best offensive moments come in crunch time when the Seahawks abandon their offensive strategy. Wilson covers many of the deficits that this offensive scheme has.

It should also be mentioned that the best year offensively that Carroll has had in the NFL, 2015 came when he implemented the strategies that I talked about. We went more spread, and added routes that we didn't normally use. We still had a lot of long developing plays, but it was a balanced approach.

The offense we use now doesn't even run a full NFL route tree most of the time, and runs plays that take a long time to set up. Even when the line is struggling we continue to do the same thing and expect different results. Usually what happens is Russell improvises and gets a deep pass off to a receiver at least once a game. For most of the game he is getting hammered, and having to get rid of the ball. In reality most competent NFL coordinators would set up those sort of plays without the beating part.

Carroll needs to step back from the offensive side of the ball. He doesn't understand it properly and he has a mindset that is stuck in an era that is bygone. He needs, like all coaches to stick with what he is good at. Good talent acquisition, great defensive mastermind, inadequate offensively.

Well said sir! :2thumbs:

 

[Recon_Hawk]

The things about using stats and analytics to argue against Pete and his philosophy is that they should ultimately prove that running the ball is bad and you lose games because of it except Pete keeps winning except he's been one of the most successful coaches in both college and NFL in the last 20 years. There's a good sample size to Pete, with him the main constant. Maybe Pete is running this team against modern trend, but he still has a way of making the statistically wrong philosophy work for this team. I don't think you can change the approach

Pete is the old contractor using an old fashion tool, but doing the project twice as fast as you.

He's the boxer planning his fight to go 12 rounds and knowing he only has to score barely better on the score card than his opponent.

He's the golfer that is playing for fairways and greens in regulations and letting the field aim every shot at the pin.

He's a relic, but the results over his career speak for themselves.

I think you're wrong here. Carroll won his Super Bowl and fame through a defense that is one of the best of all time. A defense that is now talked about like the 85 Bears, and 2000 Ravens are. That is why Pete has found success in the NFL. He is a defensive mastermind. Even with coverage breakdowns, horrid mistakes his defense held the Bengals to 21 points. Even so --- they realistically should have only had 10-14, but due to penalties and a gimmie interception they got 21. Defense is Carroll's calling card.

His offense on the other hand is his downfall. I'm not talking about the running game either. The point of my post was to illustrate that you can use the passing game to make your running game more potent, and extend time the time of possession. This doesn't mean becoming a pass heavy team, it means changing the style of passing a bit. Playing the higher percentage plays, spreading the field out at times so that teams can't crowd the LOS. His QB also hides many of his offenses deficiencies.

The Seahawks and even Trojans have had some top end offenses mixed in with an elite D. Yeah Pete is a damn good defensive coach, but he knows how a run first, play action and spread offense game can fit with the style he wants to play with. And however it all fits together, he figures it out.

Do you really think Pete made it this far in his football career in spite of the offense? Again, you'd expect more losses if Pete was so far opposite of a better offense. Personally I think it's from a plan that all fits together in a well played out game on the field, with small adjustments and big time plays, and great ST and Defense.

Yes, I do. His offensive scheme is one of the worst in the NFL. Its deficiencies are covered up in the NFL by a top 5 NFL QB with a unique skillset. There have been other HC's that have succeeded that fit Carroll's profile as well. Horrible offensively, defensive mastermind.

How does Carroll win with a horrible offensive scheme? Simple -- he has a top 5 QB that is able to improvise when things go south. The Seahawks best offensive moments come in crunch time when the Seahawks abandon their offensive strategy. Wilson covers many of the deficits that this offensive scheme has.

It should also be mentioned that the best year offensively that Carroll has had in the NFL, 2015 came when he implemented the strategies that I talked about. We went more spread, and added routes that we didn't normally use. We still had a lot of long developing plays, but it was a balanced approach.

The offense we use now doesn't even run a full NFL route tree most of the time, and runs plays that take a long time to set up. Even when the line is struggling we continue to do the same thing and expect different results. Usually what happens is Russell improvises and gets a deep pass off to a receiver at least once a game. For most of the game he is getting hammered, and having to get rid of the ball. In reality most competent NFL coordinators would set up those sort of plays without the beating part.

Carroll needs to step back from the offensive side of the ball. He doesn't understand it properly and he has a mindset that is stuck in an era that is bygone. He needs, like all coaches to stick with what he is good at. Good talent acquisition, great defensive mastermind, inadequate offensively.

I'll have to disagree. You can't be a #1 rushing offense and be the worst offensive scheme in the NFL. I mean, really? You must put a huge value on throwing the ball and nothing about running it. I'm sorry, but we're not going to get a high risk/high reward offense that aims to plays aggressive from start to finish. And even without the 40+ pass attempts, in this ball controlled offense, they have highly effective balanced offense throughout Pete's tenure at both College and NFL. You can call this offense horrible, but the numbers don't prove that and the wins keep stacking up.

 

[Spin Doctor]

I think you're wrong here. Carroll won his Super Bowl and fame through a defense that is one of the best of all time. A defense that is now talked about like the 85 Bears, and 2000 Ravens are. That is why Pete has found success in the NFL. He is a defensive mastermind. Even with coverage breakdowns, horrid mistakes his defense held the Bengals to 21 points. Even so --- they realistically should have only had 10-14, but due to penalties and a gimmie interception they got 21. Defense is Carroll's calling card.

His offense on the other hand is his downfall. I'm not talking about the running game either. The point of my post was to illustrate that you can use the passing game to make your running game more potent, and extend time the time of possession. This doesn't mean becoming a pass heavy team, it means changing the style of passing a bit. Playing the higher percentage plays, spreading the field out at times so that teams can't crowd the LOS. His QB also hides many of his offenses deficiencies.

The Seahawks and even Trojans have had some top end offenses mixed in with an elite D. Yeah Pete is a damn good defensive coach, but he knows how a run first, play action and spread offense game can fit with the style he wants to play with. And however it all fits together, he figures it out.

Do you really think Pete made it this far in his football career in spite of the offense? Again, you'd expect more losses if Pete was so far opposite of a better offense. Personally I think it's from a plan that all fits together in a well played out game on the field, with small adjustments and big time plays, and great ST and Defense.

Yes, I do. His offensive scheme is one of the worst in the NFL. Its deficiencies are covered up in the NFL by a top 5 NFL QB with a unique skillset. There have been other HC's that have succeeded that fit Carroll's profile as well. Horrible offensively, defensive mastermind.

How does Carroll win with a horrible offensive scheme? Simple -- he has a top 5 QB that is able to improvise when things go south. The Seahawks best offensive moments come in crunch time when the Seahawks abandon their offensive strategy. Wilson covers many of the deficits that this offensive scheme has.

It should also be mentioned that the best year offensively that Carroll has had in the NFL, 2015 came when he implemented the strategies that I talked about. We went more spread, and added routes that we didn't normally use. We still had a lot of long developing plays, but it was a balanced approach.

The offense we use now doesn't even run a full NFL route tree most of the time, and runs plays that take a long time to set up. Even when the line is struggling we continue to do the same thing and expect different results. Usually what happens is Russell improvises and gets a deep pass off to a receiver at least once a game. For most of the game he is getting hammered, and having to get rid of the ball. In reality most competent NFL coordinators would set up those sort of plays without the beating part.

Carroll needs to step back from the offensive side of the ball. He doesn't understand it properly and he has a mindset that is stuck in an era that is bygone. He needs, like all coaches to stick with what he is good at. Good talent acquisition, great defensive mastermind, inadequate offensively.

I'll have to disagree. You can't be a #1 rushing offense and be the worst offensive scheme in the NFL. I mean, really? You must put a huge value on throwing the ball and nothing about running it. I'm sorry, but we're not going to get a high risk/high reward offense that aims to plays aggressive from start to finish. And even without the 40+ pass attempts, in this ball controlled offense, they have highly effective balanced offense throughout Pete's tenure at both College and NFL. You can call this offense horrible, but the numbers don't prove that and the wins keep stacking up.

I mean if three and outs are your thing, I guess his system is top tier!

Carroll's offense is a boat anchor. Every coach has a weakness and this is one of Carroll's. Initial gameplans are almost always trash. We've struggled in the first half of games for a very long time. We've also lost many games we should have won due to these slow starts as well. The Seahawks, like clockwork almost always are near the top of the league in three and outs. Why is this? We rely on big splash plays, and low percentage plays to move the ball through the air. This predicament is opposed to what a defensive team wants. They want to stay on the sideline, and they want a short game. This is all despite having some very talented players. We had one of the best receiving TEs, a receiver that was one of, if not the best route runner in the NFL in Doug Baldwin, whom was also a 1000 yard plus receiver, and Tyler Lockett/Golden Tate who were also great receivers PLUS Marshawn Lynch for a good portion of time. It is also worth noting that before Miller came to the Seahawks he was considered one of the better pass catching TE's in the league. Under most other offensive coordinators with Wilson at the helm these offenses would be near the top of the NFL even with a run heavy bias during most years.

The fact is we move the balls best when we throw the game plan in the trash and improvise. Funnily enough last minute improvisation is how we have won most of our games on offense. Curling into a ball, and hoping your QB saves you late game is not a good offensive strategy. Carroll's offensive scheming and overall offensive structure is god awful. His philosophy isn't wrong, the way he goes about executing it is.

 

[KiwiHawk]

You are probably right that myself and others exaggerate the run-run-pass trope, I'm not above admitting my own personal bias might make me more sensitive to noticing the times it does happen. However I will say what these end result play breakdowns don't take into account is the situation those plays ended up being called in.

If we lose three yards on a run on first down, it becomes exponentially more likely/predictable we will need to throw for the next two downs, which in turn the defense recognizes and proceeds accordingly. Rinse repeat.

We are not exaggerating this, we lead the league in R,R,P,P last year. And this is also how we insanely ended the season!

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you-called-a-run-on-first-down-youre-already-screwed/

But that reliance on the run may have been Seattle’s undoing in its 24-22 loss to the Dallas Cowboys in the NFC wild-card game. In the first half the Seahawks’ running backs rushed nine times for an anemic 2.1 yards per carry. Most of those runs came in a particular sequence: rush-rush-pass. All but three of Seattle’s first-half rushing attempts originated from the rush-rush-pass play sequence. And despite the lack of success using that pattern of plays against the Dallas defensive front, Seattle opened its first possession of the second half by calling it again. The result was a punt.

Now here is where the real insanity takes over...

Over the course of the 2018 season, there was no three-play sequence that Seattle favored more than rush-rush-pass. The Seahawks called rush-rush-pass 26 percent of the time, a rate 10 percentage points higher than league average. Yet despite the high frequency with which Carroll and offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer used the pattern, they were not successful with it. Just 41.2 percent of their rush-rush-pass sequences ended in success.[Meanwhile, on three-play sequences where the Seahawks started with a pass and mixed in a run afterward, they were successful 88.9 percent of the time (pass-rush-rush), 71.4 percent of the time (pass-pass-rush) and 50 percent (pass-rush-pass) of the time .

That's not insanity; that's cherry-picking. When do you go P-R-R? When the pass puts you in short yardage. So obviously it will be high-percentage.

Crap stat is crap.

 

[Popeyejones]

Game plan doesn't equal offensive philosophy.

PC doesn't have to force an offensive philosophy on Schotty as PC hired Schotty because they already share an offensive philosophy. It's why he was hired to begin with.

 

[Seymour]

You are probably right that myself and others exaggerate the run-run-pass trope, I'm not above admitting my own personal bias might make me more sensitive to noticing the times it does happen. However I will say what these end result play breakdowns don't take into account is the situation those plays ended up being called in.

If we lose three yards on a run on first down, it becomes exponentially more likely/predictable we will need to throw for the next two downs, which in turn the defense recognizes and proceeds accordingly. Rinse repeat.

We are not exaggerating this, we lead the league in R,R,P,P last year. And this is also how we insanely ended the season!

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you-called-a-run-on-first-down-youre-already-screwed/

But that reliance on the run may have been Seattle’s undoing in its 24-22 loss to the Dallas Cowboys in the NFC wild-card game. In the first half the Seahawks’ running backs rushed nine times for an anemic 2.1 yards per carry. Most of those runs came in a particular sequence: rush-rush-pass. All but three of Seattle’s first-half rushing attempts originated from the rush-rush-pass play sequence. And despite the lack of success using that pattern of plays against the Dallas defensive front, Seattle opened its first possession of the second half by calling it again. The result was a punt.

Now here is where the real insanity takes over...

Over the course of the 2018 season, there was no three-play sequence that Seattle favored more than rush-rush-pass. The Seahawks called rush-rush-pass 26 percent of the time, a rate 10 percentage points higher than league average. Yet despite the high frequency with which Carroll and offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer used the pattern, they were not successful with it. Just 41.2 percent of their rush-rush-pass sequences ended in success.[Meanwhile, on three-play sequences where the Seahawks started with a pass and mixed in a run afterward, they were successful 88.9 percent of the time (pass-rush-rush), 71.4 percent of the time (pass-pass-rush) and 50 percent (pass-rush-pass) of the time .

That's not insanity; that's cherry-picking. When do you go P-R-R? When the pass puts you in short yardage. So obviously it will be high-percentage.

Crap stat is crap.

Wise up.
You are still starting with a pass and having FAR greater success no matter what the following succession is. :roll:

 

[Tical21]

You guys are TOTALLY missing the point of our offense. We WANT, DESPERATELY to be predictable. We don't care if you load up your front, we need to run it into the teeth of that front anyways. To reinforce your belief that we're going to run on 1st down. Then, we get the coverage we want.

The deep pass to DK. The deep TD to Lockett. The deep pass that Lockett dropped. All on first down. All because the Bengals were convinced we were going to run and gave Russ easy coverages to read.

If you like our big explosive plays, you do not want to pass the ball on first down. The more we pass on first down, the more our opposition plays zone, the more the big play gets neutered. The more sacks and negative plays we get. The more we lose.

 

[Tical21]

You are probably right that myself and others exaggerate the run-run-pass trope, I'm not above admitting my own personal bias might make me more sensitive to noticing the times it does happen. However I will say what these end result play breakdowns don't take into account is the situation those plays ended up being called in.

If we lose three yards on a run on first down, it becomes exponentially more likely/predictable we will need to throw for the next two downs, which in turn the defense recognizes and proceeds accordingly. Rinse repeat.

We are not exaggerating this, we lead the league in R,R,P,P last year. And this is also how we insanely ended the season!

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you-called-a-run-on-first-down-youre-already-screwed/

But that reliance on the run may have been Seattle’s undoing in its 24-22 loss to the Dallas Cowboys in the NFC wild-card game. In the first half the Seahawks’ running backs rushed nine times for an anemic 2.1 yards per carry. Most of those runs came in a particular sequence: rush-rush-pass. All but three of Seattle’s first-half rushing attempts originated from the rush-rush-pass play sequence. And despite the lack of success using that pattern of plays against the Dallas defensive front, Seattle opened its first possession of the second half by calling it again. The result was a punt.

Now here is where the real insanity takes over...

Over the course of the 2018 season, there was no three-play sequence that Seattle favored more than rush-rush-pass. The Seahawks called rush-rush-pass 26 percent of the time, a rate 10 percentage points higher than league average. Yet despite the high frequency with which Carroll and offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer used the pattern, they were not successful with it. Just 41.2 percent of their rush-rush-pass sequences ended in success.[Meanwhile, on three-play sequences where the Seahawks started with a pass and mixed in a run afterward, they were successful 88.9 percent of the time (pass-rush-rush), 71.4 percent of the time (pass-pass-rush) and 50 percent (pass-rush-pass) of the time .

That's not insanity; that's cherry-picking. When do you go P-R-R? When the pass puts you in short yardage. So obviously it will be high-percentage.

Crap stat is crap.

Wise up.
You are still starting with a pass and having FAR greater success no matter what the following succession is. :roll:

Of all the wrong crap you spew on a daily basis, this is probably the most wrong.

 

[McGruff]

To my knowledge there is no correlation between either passing or running and winning.

If someone can demonstrate that teams that pass more win more, I'm game for those argument.

But I dont beleive anyone will find that to be true.

 

[McGruff]

Also, as a purely coincidental side note, two of our three scoring drives began with run-run-pass.

 

[Sarlacc83]

To my knowledge there is no correlation between either passing or running and winning.

If someone can demonstrate that teams that pass more win more, I'm game for those argument.

But I dont beleive anyone will find that to be true.

But, but, but, if you do it the other way, you'll have better EPA! Which are exactly the same thing as real game points when put onto a piece of paper!!!

 

[Sgt. Largent]

To my knowledge there is no correlation between either passing or running and winning.

If someone can demonstrate that teams that pass more win more, I'm game for those argument.

But I dont beleive anyone will find that to be true.

It's about what it's always been about............balance, taking advantage of your opponents weaknesses and execution.

We're good on the balance and execution part, the part of our scheming and playcalling that we lack IMO is the taking advantage of our opponent's weaknesses.

Pete has his philosophy of run the ball, physicality, and that leads to wearing down the defense at which times play action and explosive plays open up.

And that's a great theory, but as we saw Sunday (and we see on many Sundays and in the playoffs last year) we don't ever get to the play action/explosive play part because the other team knows exactly what we were trying to do the first three quarters, and stuffs it.

Stubbornness. Predictability. Those are the two things I wish Pete's style and philosophy would be more open and pliable to adapting towards.

 

[Tical21]

To my knowledge there is no correlation between either passing or running and winning.

If someone can demonstrate that teams that pass more win more, I'm game for those argument.

But I dont beleive anyone will find that to be true.

Pete has his philosophy of run the ball, physicality, and that leads to wearing down the defense at which times play action and explosive plays open up.

And that's a great theory, but as we saw Sunday (and we see on many Sundays and in the playoffs last year) we don't ever get to the play action/explosive play part because the other team knows exactly what we were trying to do the first three quarters, and stuffs it.

Stubbornness. Predictability. Those are the two things I wish Pete's style and philosophy would be more open and pliable to adapting towards.

Huh? You mean the play-action deep pass to DK, the play-action TD to Lockett and the deep pass that Lockett dropped, all on first down, were all a part of my imagination?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

To my knowledge there is no correlation between either passing or running and winning.

If someone can demonstrate that teams that pass more win more, I'm game for those argument.

But I dont beleive anyone will find that to be true.

Pete has his philosophy of run the ball, physicality, and that leads to wearing down the defense at which times play action and explosive plays open up.

And that's a great theory, but as we saw Sunday (and we see on many Sundays and in the playoffs last year) we don't ever get to the play action/explosive play part because the other team knows exactly what we were trying to do the first three quarters, and stuffs it.

Stubbornness. Predictability. Those are the two things I wish Pete's style and philosophy would be more open and pliable to adapting towards.

Huh? You mean the play-action deep pass to DK, the play-action TD to Lockett and the deep pass that Lockett dropped, all on first down, were all a part of my imagination?

233 total yards, if that's an successful offensive showing by your standards, you need to raise your expectations. This is a game we should have won 35-20, not 21-20. Too conservative, too predictable.

I'm talking about realizing the full potential of Russell and our offense. A wins a win, that's great........but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.

 

[sutz]

Examine these stat lines and tell me who won the game:

Statistic Seattle Seahawks Pittsburgh Steelers
First downs 20 14
First downs rushing 5 6
First downs passing 15 8
First downs penalty 0 0
Third down efficiency 5/17 8/15
Fourth down efficiency 1/2 0/0
Net yards rushing 137 181
Rushing attempts 25 33
Yards per rush 5.5 5.5
Passing – Completions-attempts 26/49 10/22
Times sacked-total yards 3–14 1–8
Interceptions thrown 1 2
Net yards passing 259 158
Total net yards 396 339
Punt returns-total yards 4–27 2–32
Kickoff returns-total yards 4–71 2–43
Interceptions-total return yards 2–76 1–24
Punts-average yardage 6–50.2 6–48.7
Fumbles-lost 0–0 0–0
Penalties-yards 7–70 3–20
Time of possession 33:02 26:58
Turnovers 1 2

Final score was 21-10.

Any Seahawk fan should remember that game. :twisted:

 

[Tical21]

To my knowledge there is no correlation between either passing or running and winning.

If someone can demonstrate that teams that pass more win more, I'm game for those argument.

But I dont beleive anyone will find that to be true.

Pete has his philosophy of run the ball, physicality, and that leads to wearing down the defense at which times play action and explosive plays open up.

And that's a great theory, but as we saw Sunday (and we see on many Sundays and in the playoffs last year) we don't ever get to the play action/explosive play part because the other team knows exactly what we were trying to do the first three quarters, and stuffs it.

Stubbornness. Predictability. Those are the two things I wish Pete's style and philosophy would be more open and pliable to adapting towards.

Huh? You mean the play-action deep pass to DK, the play-action TD to Lockett and the deep pass that Lockett dropped, all on first down, were all a part of my imagination?

233 total yards, if that's an successful offensive showing by your standards, you need to raise your expectations. This is a game we should have won 35-20, not 21-20. Too conservative, too predictable.

I'm talking about realizing the full potential of Russell and our offense. A wins a win, that's great........but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.

Dude, our pass pro was abysmal. The only reason we got to 233 total yards was our ability to generate some big plays. Also, we didn't run that many plays. I don't know what you're reaching for here. Our offensive line got manhandled. Are you suggesting that you want to go to a quick passing game?