Offensive and defensive questions

TraderGary

Member
Joined
May 25, 2020
Messages
313
Reaction score
0
This is my first post here in a while, but there are a lot of knowledgeable people here and I’d like to hear others opinions on these questions. I guess it's also a bit of a rant. I’ll start with the offense.

In the first game against the Colts, the offense was far more innovative and balanced, plenty of motion to aid Russ in reading the defense, and we used the entire field very effectively, spreading the ball around, and even (gasp!) throwing over the middle and getting the tight ends involved. But against the Titans, we went back to very little pre-snap motion, and throwing almost exclusively to the sidelines other than the deep balls to Lockett. The offense was very vanilla and the play calling at times was nothing short of abysmal, particularly during that overtime 3 and out. Low percentage passes even on 3rd down when we desperately needed to move the chains in overtime.

As others have said here, the offensive scheme looked eerily similar to years past, and the only constant through the 4 offensive coordinators is PC. It’s very difficult for me to believe this was strictly a Waldron scheme. This had PC’s footprint all over it and it would be very difficult for anyone to convince me otherwise.

We were all hoping Pete would let Waldron design and run the offense his way, but it appears that lasted all of one game. Everyone knows PC’s irrational fear of turnovers, and I think that’s why he consistently all but eliminates the middle of the field as it’s inherently a more risky throw.

Does anyone have an opposite opinion regarding the offense and the likelihood of Pete meddling yet again? Seems he just can’t get out of his own way at times.

Now to the defense. This has been an issue since Pete took over, even during the LOB years, and might be the most frustrating thing for me personally when watching a Seahawks game because it seems so obvious and even counter intuitive.

Pete preaches to the DB’s and LB’s to keep everything in front of them and protect against the deep ball, because much like his irrational fear of turnovers, he also has this irrational fear of getting beat deep. And yet he’s fine with leaving the middle of the field wide open and giving up the easy 8 to 10 yard completions and allowing the opposing offense to march right down the field with very little resistance, which is exactly what we saw on the Titans tying TD drive in the 4th quarter. I’m 68 years old and I could have completed passes against that defense. The LB’s were literally dropping 12-15 yards every play and leaving the middle of the field virtually wide open. I was absolutely flabbergasted at what I was seeing. I couldn’t believe the lack of defenders in the middle of the field. I’ve never seen anything like it in that situation. I’ve seen many prevent style defenses over the years, but that had to be the softest one I have ever witnessed.

So here’s my question to the forum. Someone please explain to me how allowing a team easy 10 yard completions and check downs with no defenders in sight is more effective than using a defensive scheme that actually has a chance of stopping someone and getting off the field, because I just don’t get it. How is that better than playing tight coverage, or even any coverage at all and risk getting beat deep. And burning the clock was not an issue as the Titans had more than enough time to engineer a long drive.

If I was a HC in the NFL, if I'm going to get beat, I'm going to get beat playing to win versus playing "not to lose" as PC is so fond of. I'm going to force the other team to beat me. But I'm sure as hell not gifting the opposing teams easy TD's with no resistance because I'm afraid of getting beat deep.

Anyway, this has been a thorn in my side in all the years of the PC era, and it has cost us too many games in the past including last Sunday. How the hell can PC not see the flaws in that strategy after getting burned so many times? Someone please talk me off the ledge. It’s some of the worst coaching I’ve ever seen. There’s too much talent on that defense and it’s being wasted. It’s my firm belief that Pete and the rest of the coaching staff are not putting them in a position to succeed. Pete does less with more than nearly any other coach in the league in my opinion. Vastly overrated as a game day HC.

I apologize for the lengthy post and if you made it this far, thanks for reading. Being concise has never been one of my strengths. :)
 

BASF

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
2,220
Reaction score
182
TraderGary":1kj85l91 said:
Does anyone have an opposite opinion regarding the offense and the likelihood of Pete meddling yet again? Seems he just can’t get out of his own way at times.

If Pete was meddling there would have been an actual attempt to run the ball in the second half. Some people who were at the game mentioned that Carroll was not around Waldron or Wilson during the game. They were with each other whenever Wilson was on the sidelines. There were several instances in the press conferences where it was mentioned things that worked in the past, so Wilson and Waldron were doing things that looked like last years play book. Also, Wilson specifically said that he was going to the receivers when the TE's were open. So, Wilson makes the decisions when the ball is in his hands. It was also specifically said by Wilson, Waldron and Carroll that Wilson can audible to any play in the playbook. So anytime the playbook looks like Carroll is doing something, be mindful that his desire is to pound the ball and enforce our will on teams to burn clock and shorten the game. That is Peteball and had we actually done it against the Titans we probably win by double digits.
 

John63

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
6,542
Reaction score
95
BASF":381sukhi said:
TraderGary":381sukhi said:
Does anyone have an opposite opinion regarding the offense and the likelihood of Pete meddling yet again? Seems he just can’t get out of his own way at times.

If Pete was meddling there would have been an actual attempt to run the ball in the second quarter. Some people who were at the game mentioned that Carroll was not around Waldron or Wilson during the game. They were with each other whenever Wilson was on the sidelines. There were several instances in the press conferences where it was mentioned things that worked in the past, so Wilson and Waldron were doing things that looked like last years play book. Also, Wilson specifically said that he was going to the receivers when the TE's were open. So, Wilson makes the decisions when the ball is in his hands. It was also specifically said by Wilson, Waldron and Carroll that Wilson can audible to any play in the playbook. So anytime the playbook looks like Carroll is doing something, be mindful that his desire is to pound the ball and enforce our will on teams to burn clock and shorten the game. That is Peteball and had we actually done it against the Titans we probably win by double digits.

and of course you have links to were they all said al lof this right.


Le time help you

"“I thought Russ took advantage of the game, well, until that last sequence we just, we had a play-action pass and I wish we could have controlled the ball and checked the ball down there,” Carroll explained. “[We] took a shot at Tyler [Lockett] and then we went up to D.K. [Metcalf] on second down, and then our opportunity escapes us right there. They get the ball inside the 40, you know."

I do agree Wilson played that last series in OT bad. But the rest of the game as PC said he played well.

https://heavy.com/sports/seattle-seahawks/pete-carroll-sends-russell-wilson-message/

AS to whether PC was or was not around Wilson and Waldron is irrelevant since he has a headset and can talk to them that way. Also, just because Wilson can change the play whenever he wants does not mean he does. So now please tell me which times he changed the play? and which he did not? So I guess just please post the links. I would genuinely like to see them.
 

AgentDib

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
4,941
Reaction score
111
Location
Seattle
TraderGary":1covb9yi said:
We were all hoping Pete would let Waldron design and run the offense his way, but it appears that lasted all of one game. Everyone knows PC’s irrational fear of turnovers, and I think that’s why he consistently all but eliminates the middle of the field as it’s inherently a more risky throw.
Let's say all of that was true. This theory has Pete completely green lightning the approach we saw in week 1, and then completely changing it AFTER the week 1 plan was highly successful and had zero interceptions. That timing doesn't begin to add up and I find it borderline insane that a few here seem to seriously believe it. That's like flat earther level conspiracy theory.

TraderGary":1covb9yi said:
Someone please explain to me how allowing a team easy 10 yard completions and check downs with no defenders in sight is more effective than using a defensive scheme that actually has a chance of stopping someone and getting off the field, because I just don’t get it.
Consider that the Seahawks would likely have won that game if they had kept everything in front of them. When Jamal Adams free styled to try to make a big play, lost edge contain, and let Derrick Henry run for a 60 yard TD that let the Titans right back into the game.

Also, if our offense hadn't completely failed at the same time then they could have run the clock down as well. If it makes you feel better, think about soft defense as the team having faith in the offense to hold up their part. Obviously if we knew that our offense was going to go MIA in the 4th quarter then they would have had to tighten up on defense and risk getting beat over the top.

TraderGary":1covb9yi said:
How is that better than playing tight coverage, or even any coverage at all and risk getting beat deep.
It's better because we had DJ Reed and Tre Flowers covering AJ Brown and Julio Jones. Our cornerback coverage is not the strength of this roster and the Titans had one of the best offenses in the NFL last season before they added Julio. Things naturally tighten up as the offense approaches the endzone and the field contracts - but making them take five minutes off the clock to get down there instead of no minutes is why this team has been extremely successful over the years in turning leads into victories (while frustrating fans such as yourself who look at yardage).

TraderGary":1covb9yi said:
If I was a HC in the NFL, if I'm going to get beat, I'm going to get beat playing to win versus playing "not to lose" as PC is so fond of.
What if "playing to win" has a 92% chance of winning and "playing not to lose" has a 94% chance of winning? Every head coach in the NFL plays softer defense when protecting a large lead. It's never been exclusive to Pete and if you watch any other game on Sunday you are likely to see the winning team do many of the same things you don't like us doing because it works.
 

hawkfan68

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
8,550
Reaction score
68
Location
Sammamish, WA
Great points TraderGary. Especially keyed on the TE usage. That is what perplexes me the most about PC's strategy and the offense. So much in a position that is inconsistently utilized from week to week. Against Colts it was very successful. Then the TE was not utilized against Titans. This has gone on since Zach Miller left. I wonder if Everett is having second thoughts of becoming a Seahawk. I wouldn't blame him if he did.
 

hoxrox

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
97
hawkfan68":1kek9zd4 said:
Great points TraderGary. Especially keyed on the TE usage. That is what perplexes me the most about PC's strategy and the offense. So much in a position that is inconsistently utilized from week to week. Against Colts it was very successful. Then the TE was not utilized against Titans. This has gone on since Zach Miller left. I wonder if Everett is having second thoughts of becoming a Seahawk. I wouldn't blame him if he did.

In the 4th quarter, Everett was open for the first down on 3rd and 3, when Russell decided to throw the jump ball to DK.

Make no mistake, this is a Russell Waldron offense.

At the moment of truth, Russell is the one who executes and decides where to go with the ball.

Posters continue to conflate PeteBall with Russell Waldron ball, and in my view, it is an inaccurate assessment of the dynamic at play here.
 

hawkfan68

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
8,550
Reaction score
68
Location
Sammamish, WA
hoxrox":3pddnrxe said:
hawkfan68":3pddnrxe said:
Great points TraderGary. Especially keyed on the TE usage. That is what perplexes me the most about PC's strategy and the offense. So much in a position that is inconsistently utilized from week to week. Against Colts it was very successful. Then the TE was not utilized against Titans. This has gone on since Zach Miller left. I wonder if Everett is having second thoughts of becoming a Seahawk. I wouldn't blame him if he did.

In the 4th quarter, Everett was open for the first down on 3rd and 3, when Russell decided to throw the jump ball to DK.

Make no mistake, this is a Russell Waldron offense.

At the moment of truth, Russell is the one who executes and decides where to go with the ball.

Posters continue to conflate PeteBall with Russell Waldron ball, and in my view, it is an inaccurate assessment of the dynamic at play here.

I understand your point. Wilson saw Zach Miller just fine in 2012-14 and went to him often those years. So I don't believe it's all on Wilson either.
 

hoxrox

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
97
hawkfan68":1pe2s3c3 said:
hoxrox":1pe2s3c3 said:
hawkfan68":1pe2s3c3 said:
Great points TraderGary. Especially keyed on the TE usage. That is what perplexes me the most about PC's strategy and the offense. So much in a position that is inconsistently utilized from week to week. Against Colts it was very successful. Then the TE was not utilized against Titans. This has gone on since Zach Miller left. I wonder if Everett is having second thoughts of becoming a Seahawk. I wouldn't blame him if he did.

In the 4th quarter, Everett was open for the first down on 3rd and 3, when Russell decided to throw the jump ball to DK.

Make no mistake, this is a Russell Waldron offense.

At the moment of truth, Russell is the one who executes and decides where to go with the ball.

Posters continue to conflate PeteBall with Russell Waldron ball, and in my view, it is an inaccurate assessment of the dynamic at play here.

I understand your point. Wilson saw Zach Miller just fine in 2012-14 and went to him often those years. So I don't believe it's all on Wilson either.

Yeah I liked Zach too, especially on those seam routes. Maybe Wilson needs to develop more chemistry with Everett. Maybe Waldron needs to scheme the TEs better. We'll see as the offense progresses.
 

chris98251

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
38,417
Reaction score
77
Location
Renton Wa.
The against the sidelines passes and deep ball passes as stated act like a defender, but they also eliminate tips many time and any over throw won't be picked off since nobody is there, I also think it is why we see little usage of TE passes, they don't typically go up and over to the sidelines, seams and curls and slants are what they do a lot of in the MIDDLE OF THE FEILD.
 

LTH

Active member
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
3,431
Reaction score
3
John63":1ofsjn82 said:
BASF":1ofsjn82 said:
TraderGary":1ofsjn82 said:
Does anyone have an opposite opinion regarding the offense and the likelihood of Pete meddling yet again? Seems he just can’t get out of his own way at times.

If Pete was meddling there would have been an actual attempt to run the ball in the second quarter. Some people who were at the game mentioned that Carroll was not around Waldron or Wilson during the game. They were with each other whenever Wilson was on the sidelines. There were several instances in the press conferences where it was mentioned things that worked in the past, so Wilson and Waldron were doing things that looked like last years play book. Also, Wilson specifically said that he was going to the receivers when the TE's were open. So, Wilson makes the decisions when the ball is in his hands. It was also specifically said by Wilson, Waldron and Carroll that Wilson can audible to any play in the playbook. So anytime the playbook looks like Carroll is doing something, be mindful that his desire is to pound the ball and enforce our will on teams to burn clock and shorten the game. That is Peteball and had we actually done it against the Titans we probably win by double digits.

and of course you have links to were they all said al lof this right.


Le time help you

"“I thought Russ took advantage of the game, well, until that last sequence we just, we had a play-action pass and I wish we could have controlled the ball and checked the ball down there,” Carroll explained. “[We] took a shot at Tyler [Lockett] and then we went up to D.K. [Metcalf] on second down, and then our opportunity escapes us right there. They get the ball inside the 40, you know."

I do agree Wilson played that last series in OT bad. But the rest of the game as PC said he played well.

https://heavy.com/sports/seattle-seahawks/pete-carroll-sends-russell-wilson-message/

AS to whether PC was or was not around Wilson and Waldron is irrelevant since he has a headset and can talk to them that way. Also, just because Wilson can change the play whenever he wants does not mean he does. So now please tell me which times he changed the play? and which he did not? So I guess just please post the links. I would genuinely like to see them.

I think your a bit over the top dude... u want to put that much time into fine ... I don't and I don't think it should be a expectation. his post was completely reasonable. If you think he was wrong you do the work and prove him wrong...Geeze. :2thumbs:


LTH
 
OP
OP
T

TraderGary

Member
Joined
May 25, 2020
Messages
313
Reaction score
0
AgentDib":mxk0iqt2 said:
TraderGary":mxk0iqt2 said:
We were all hoping Pete would let Waldron design and run the offense his way, but it appears that lasted all of one game. Everyone knows PC’s irrational fear of turnovers, and I think that’s why he consistently all but eliminates the middle of the field as it’s inherently a more risky throw.
Let's say all of that was true. This theory has Pete completely green lightning the approach we saw in week 1, and then completely changing it AFTER the week 1 plan was highly successful and had zero interceptions. That timing doesn't begin to add up and I find it borderline insane that a few here seem to seriously believe it. That's like flat earther level conspiracy theory.

You're absolutely right, it makes no sense at all. But how else do you explain a drastic looking offense from week 1 to week 2? Is it just a coincidence that the offense in week 2 looked exactly like the offenses we've been watching for years under the PC regime despite who the OC is?

TraderGary":mxk0iqt2 said:
Someone please explain to me how allowing a team easy 10 yard completions and check downs with no defenders in sight is more effective than using a defensive scheme that actually has a chance of stopping someone and getting off the field, because I just don’t get it.
Consider that the Seahawks would likely have won that game if they had kept everything in front of them. When Jamal Adams free styled to try to make a big play, lost edge contain, and let Derrick Henry run for a 60 yard TD that let the Titans right back into the game.

Also, if our offense hadn't completely failed at the same time then they could have run the clock down as well. If it makes you feel better, think about soft defense as the team having faith in the offense to hold up their part. Obviously if we knew that our offense was going to go MIA in the 4th quarter then they would have had to tighten up on defense and risk getting beat over the top.

Yes Adams was going for the glory play instead of maintaining his gap integrity. That's solely on him. But that one bonehead gaffe does not justify the extremely soft, virtually no one in the middle of the field within 15 yards of the LOS defense on the Titans TYING td drive. Why even have a defense on the field if they're going to gift them easy 10 yard completions to wide open receivers, RB's and TE's all the way down the field. It makes no sense to me. Pete may as well have just said, "here, we'll give you a TD as long as you don't throw it deep on us, oh and let's take 5 minutes off the clock for good measure". It's insane!

As for the offense not doing its part, no argument from me on that.


TraderGary":mxk0iqt2 said:
How is that better than playing tight coverage, or even any coverage at all and risk getting beat deep.
It's better because we had DJ Reed and Tre Flowers covering AJ Brown and Julio Jones. Our cornerback coverage is not the strength of this roster and the Titans had one of the best offenses in the NFL last season before they added Julio. Things naturally tighten up as the offense approaches the endzone and the field contracts - but making them take five minutes off the clock to get down there instead of no minutes is why this team has been extremely successful over the years in turning leads into victories (while frustrating fans such as yourself who look at yardage).

Again, I go back to my point of how is it better to just gift them an easy TD with literally zero resistance from your defense. And forcing them to burn 5 minutes off the clock assured that we would not be able to engineer a scoring drive to win the game in regulation. I fail to see how that's a better option.

As for the CB's being the weak link of the defense, again, no argument from me there. Hoping to see a change against a desperate Vikings team this weekend.


TraderGary":mxk0iqt2 said:
If I was a HC in the NFL, if I'm going to get beat, I'm going to get beat playing to win versus playing "not to lose" as PC is so fond of.
What if "playing to win" has a 92% chance of winning and "playing not to lose" has a 94% chance of winning? Every head coach in the NFL plays softer defense when protecting a large lead. It's never been exclusive to Pete and if you watch any other game on Sunday you are likely to see the winning team do many of the same things you don't like us doing because it works.

Yes I'm a very avid football fan, both college and pro, and I do enjoy watching games other than the Seahawks. And yes I do see prevent defenses on a game by game basis. But I've never seen one that soft where there was literally not a defender in the middle of the field within 15 yards of the LOS. Where's the logic in that? Serious question.

Had there been less than 30 seconds on the clock when the Titans began their drive, then sure I would not have an issue with it. But there was obviously more than enough time on the clock for the Titans to do whatever the hell they wanted.

On a side note, I do enjoy reading your posts on this site, and I appreciate your input along with the others who've posted in this thread. I just don't necessarily agree with everything you said here.
 

hoxrox

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
97
TraderGary":3hj2xfd2 said:
How is that better than playing tight coverage, or even any coverage at all and risk getting beat deep.
AgentDib":3hj2xfd2 said:
It's better because we had DJ Reed and Tre Flowers covering AJ Brown and Julio Jones. Our cornerback coverage is not the strength of this roster and the Titans had one of the best offenses in the NFL last season before they added Julio. Things naturally tighten up as the offense approaches the endzone and the field contracts - but making them take five minutes off the clock to get down there instead of no minutes is why this team has been extremely successful over the years in turning leads into victories (while frustrating fans such as yourself who look at yardage).

So there was about 3 minutes left in the 4th, and the Titans had 3 timeouts at that point.

You're basically saying that Pete and KNJ were banking on the defense to hold the Titans in the red zone, in a what would have been a 4-down situation for them. They were basically asking the defense to make 4 stops because I'm sure the Titans would have gone for the tie, instead of kicking the FG.

OR, they could have played the middle more aggressively AND perhaps given up big play early (say at 2 minutes left) BUT also given the offense a chance to march down into FG range and win the game in regulation.

OR, they could have played the middle more aggressively AND force Tannehill to make the much harder throws, which could have been incompletions (Brown was dropping them all day)

OR, they could have played the middle more aggressively AND force Tannehill to make the much harder throws, which could have ended up in pick.

OR, they could have called a timeout to stop the clock during that drive.

Instead the bend but not break approach proved costly and the Titans scored anyway, while milking the clock out, and forcing overtime.

I can see where Pete and KNJ are coming from, but they were banking on a tired defense to make 4 stops in the redzone instead of giving the offense at least 4 chances to get into FG range at that point in the game.
 
OP
OP
T

TraderGary

Member
Joined
May 25, 2020
Messages
313
Reaction score
0
hoxrox":15p7sa5o said:
TraderGary":15p7sa5o said:
How is that better than playing tight coverage, or even any coverage at all and risk getting beat deep.
AgentDib":15p7sa5o said:
It's better because we had DJ Reed and Tre Flowers covering AJ Brown and Julio Jones. Our cornerback coverage is not the strength of this roster and the Titans had one of the best offenses in the NFL last season before they added Julio. Things naturally tighten up as the offense approaches the endzone and the field contracts - but making them take five minutes off the clock to get down there instead of no minutes is why this team has been extremely successful over the years in turning leads into victories (while frustrating fans such as yourself who look at yardage).

So there was about 3 minutes left in the 4th, and the Titans had 3 timeouts at that point.

You're basically saying that Pete and KNJ were banking on the defense to hold the Titans in the red zone, in a what would have been a 4-down situation for them. They were basically asking the defense to make 4 stops because I'm sure the Titans would have gone for the tie, instead of kicking the FG.

OR, they could have played the middle more aggressively AND perhaps given up big play early (say at 2 minutes left) BUT also given the offense a chance to march down into FG range and win the game in regulation.

OR, they could have played the middle more aggressively AND force Tannehill to make the much harder throws, which could have been incompletions (Brown was dropping them all day)

OR, they could have played the middle more aggressively AND force Tannehill to make the much harder throws, which could have ended up in pick.

OR, they could have called a timeout to stop the clock during that drive.

Instead the bend but not break approach proved costly and the Titans scored anyway, while milking the clock out, and forcing overtime.

I can see where Pete and KNJ are coming from, but they were banking on a tired defense to make 4 stops in the redzone instead of giving the offense at least 4 chances to get into FG range at that point in the game.

Exactly!
 

AgentDib

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
4,941
Reaction score
111
Location
Seattle
TraderGary":1kwm226r said:
You're absolutely right, it makes no sense at all. But how else do you explain a drastic looking offense from week 1 to week 2?
Rather than going with a theory that definitely doesn't make sense, let's look at what did change. We were playing a different opponent, with their own unique players, who had a week to study the film of what we had done the previous week. The Titans DL did a much better job against our running game than the Colts DL did for one thing.

We also had a couple of OL banged up and two skill players out who are ideal for the more creative play calling that we saw the previous week (Eskridge, Penny). The play caller and QB are also human, which means they are going to have better days and worse days. I do completely agree that the lack of creativity is a mystery after what we saw week 1.

TraderGary":1kwm226r said:
Again, I go back to my point of how is it better to just gift them an easy TD with literally zero resistance from your defense. And forcing them to burn 5 minutes off the clock assured that we would not be able to engineer a scoring drive to win the game in regulation. I fail to see how that's a better option.
hoxrox":1kwm226r said:
OR, they could have played the middle more aggressively AND perhaps given up big play early (say at 2 minutes left) BUT also given the offense a chance to march down into FG range and win the game in regulation.
The reason why I disagree is that I do not think they were surrendering the TD. They were surrendering the FG which was meaningless at that point.

With our weak secondary the likelihood of an opponent scoring a TD really doesn't go up much as they move from their own 30 to midfield to our 30. The field shortens and suddenly our CBs no longer have to worry about getting beaten deep. Our defense being tired hurts us at every point along the field; people talk about it hurting our run defense but in the fourth quarter our corners were dragging just as much while we have a much deeper rotation along our front seven.

Sure we saw the Titans punch it in for a TD there, but in that exact same situation our defense can make that stop around half the time, TOP difference included. I also thought there was poor execution on run defense on the final drive from our second level from Brooks and both safeties.
 

BASF

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
2,220
Reaction score
182
LTH":3nrvl037 said:
John63":3nrvl037 said:
BASF":3nrvl037 said:
TraderGary":3nrvl037 said:
Does anyone have an opposite opinion regarding the offense and the likelihood of Pete meddling yet again? Seems he just can’t get out of his own way at times.

If Pete was meddling there would have been an actual attempt to run the ball in the second quarter. Some people who were at the game mentioned that Carroll was not around Waldron or Wilson during the game. They were with each other whenever Wilson was on the sidelines. There were several instances in the press conferences where it was mentioned things that worked in the past, so Wilson and Waldron were doing things that looked like last years play book. Also, Wilson specifically said that he was going to the receivers when the TE's were open. So, Wilson makes the decisions when the ball is in his hands. It was also specifically said by Wilson, Waldron and Carroll that Wilson can audible to any play in the playbook. So anytime the playbook looks like Carroll is doing something, be mindful that his desire is to pound the ball and enforce our will on teams to burn clock and shorten the game. That is Peteball and had we actually done it against the Titans we probably win by double digits.

and of course you have links to were they all said al lof this right.


Le time help you

"“I thought Russ took advantage of the game, well, until that last sequence we just, we had a play-action pass and I wish we could have controlled the ball and checked the ball down there,” Carroll explained. “[We] took a shot at Tyler [Lockett] and then we went up to D.K. [Metcalf] on second down, and then our opportunity escapes us right there. They get the ball inside the 40, you know."

I do agree Wilson played that last series in OT bad. But the rest of the game as PC said he played well.

https://heavy.com/sports/seattle-seahawks/pete-carroll-sends-russell-wilson-message/

AS to whether PC was or was not around Wilson and Waldron is irrelevant since he has a headset and can talk to them that way. Also, just because Wilson can change the play whenever he wants does not mean he does. So now please tell me which times he changed the play? and which he did not? So I guess just please post the links. I would genuinely like to see them.

I think your a bit over the top dude... u want to put that much time into fine ... I don't and I don't think it should be a expectation. his post was completely reasonable. If you think he was wrong you do the work and prove him wrong...Geeze. :2thumbs:


LTH

What is funny is that he replies to me at all. He knows that he is on my foes list and the only time I see his posts is when someone quotes him. He makes it a point to be inane. He asks for links to where they said those things where I say specifically in my post that it was in their press conferences. Gee, maybe he should check the Youtube videos of their press conferences to find where they said these things.
 

hoxrox

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
97
AgentDib":1h0la0e4 said:
The reason why I disagree is that I do not think they were surrendering the TD. They were surrendering the FG which was meaningless at that point.

With our weak secondary the likelihood of an opponent scoring a TD really doesn't go up much as they move from their own 30 to midfield to our 30. The field shortens and suddenly our CBs no longer have to worry about getting beaten deep. Our defense being tired hurts us at every point along the field; people talk about it hurting our run defense but in the fourth quarter our corners were dragging just as much while we have a much deeper rotation along our front seven.

Sure we saw the Titans punch it in for a TD there, but in that exact same situation our defense can make that stop around half the time, TOP difference included. I also thought there was poor execution on run defense on the final drive from our second level from Brooks and both safeties.

The Titans were down by 7 at that point in the game. Surely they would have used 4 downs to go for the TD instead of the FG.

Half the time is basically a coin flip. This is essentially what the coaches banked on with this strategy.

In any case, I hope Jones is the answer at corner. He was below Shaq Griffin on the depth chart, so I don't have high hopes that it will pan out.
 

AgentDib

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
4,941
Reaction score
111
Location
Seattle
hoxrox":3nwszynz said:
The Titans were down by 7 at that point in the game. Surely they would have used 4 downs to go for the TD instead of the FG.
Yep, that's what I mean about the FG being meaningless and if the FG does matter then that's a strong reason to tighten up the coverage.

hoxrox":3nwszynz said:
Half the time is basically a coin flip. This is essentially what the coaches banked on with this strategy.
It sounds like you are saying that as a criticism, but with our defense and their offense a coin flip is about as good as it gets. That's why I think the real problem was the previous defensive miscue that let Henry get an easy TD, along with the offense being unable to run clock and protect the lead.

Another way of looking at this is from the opponent's viewpoint. In the same scenario Russ would much prefer if the opponent was playing aggressive and giving him a shot at a big play. I can't speak to how Tannehill feels but I bet it's similar.
 
Top