Pete is delusional

[HawkRiderFan]

Keeping my fingers crossed that at this time last year, didn't Pete's sound bytes make it sound like Bevell and Cable would be back? Not saying I want Shotty fired, but at last be willing to change when necessary.
Or maybe what happened in 2012 when after a few weeks of little offense, they actually make chances and took the training wheels off, let Russ do some RPO stuff that the Redskins were doing with RG3?

With Pete signed for another few years, I guess hope that he adapts is all i have. I know he will never change to the point of turning this into a passing O, but just adapt enough to let Russ do his thing when necessary

 

[John63]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/BradyHenderson/status/1082331554079068160[/tweet]

Does Pete not understand the reason for this was predictably running on 1st & 2nd down leading to 3rd and longs which are extremely hard to convert?

Pete might be delusional.

He is blaming not converting 3rd downs, but is failing to connect a single dot.

It's not hard Pete.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/SamuelRGold/status/1082071448917893125[/tweet]

We passed on earlier downs more against Dallas Sunday than we did in the first matchup, almost twice as much. Sando did a breakdown.




Were we too predictable and stubborn on changing up the gameplan and playcalling going into the 2nd half? Absolutely. But for the people who just wanted more early down passing, we tried that too, and it also didn't work.

Give Dallas credit, their front seven REALLY played well, and I'm not sure just abandoning the run and trying to pass more would have resulted in better results...........as our O-line was getting destroyed by obvious passing downs by the Cowboy's front.

ahh we scored on almost every drive were we passed on 1st down, so it was working. I still give them credit, but we did not adjust till it was to late

 

[Russ Willstrong]

Pete always sticking to a conservative gameplan. Talks about being "balanced" on offense but can't identify his mismatches or even adjust until its too late.
Guys like Bill Belichick wont talk about "balance" but instead find weaknesses and abuse you. They may be Cheatriots but they prepare and win.

 

[Fade]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/BradyHenderson/status/1082331554079068160[/tweet]

Does Pete not understand the reason for this was predictably running on 1st & 2nd down leading to 3rd and longs which are extremely hard to convert?

Pete might be delusional.

He is blaming not converting 3rd downs, but is failing to connect a single dot.

It's not hard Pete.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/SamuelRGold/status/1082071448917893125[/tweet]

We passed on earlier downs more against Dallas Sunday than we did in the first matchup, almost twice as much. Sando did a breakdown.




Were we too predictable and stubborn on changing up the gameplan and playcalling going into the 2nd half? Absolutely. But for the people who just wanted more early down passing, we tried that too, and it also didn't work.

Give Dallas credit, their front seven REALLY played well, and I'm not sure just abandoning the run and trying to pass more would have resulted in better results...........as our O-line was getting destroyed by obvious passing downs by the Cowboy's front.

Horrible argument.

O-line was holding up just fine on playaction. They were biting on the run fake.

The O-Line looked bad at times due to the opponent being about to cheat and play the run on early downs, and pin their ears back on 3rd and long to go get Russ.

Want to hazard a guess when they looked good?


Run-Run-Russell Wilson save us, was and is a horrible game plan.

 

[John63]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/BradyHenderson/status/1082331554079068160[/tweet]

Does Pete not understand the reason for this was predictably running on 1st & 2nd down leading to 3rd and longs which are extremely hard to convert?

Pete might be delusional.

He is blaming not converting 3rd downs, but is failing to connect a single dot.

It's not hard Pete.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/SamuelRGold/status/1082071448917893125[/tweet]

We passed on earlier downs more against Dallas Sunday than we did in the first matchup, almost twice as much. Sando did a breakdown.




Were we too predictable and stubborn on changing up the gameplan and playcalling going into the 2nd half? Absolutely. But for the people who just wanted more early down passing, we tried that too, and it also didn't work.

Give Dallas credit, their front seven REALLY played well, and I'm not sure just abandoning the run and trying to pass more would have resulted in better results...........as our O-line was getting destroyed by obvious passing downs by the Cowboy's front.

Horrible argument.

O-line was holding up just fine on playaction. They were biting on the run fake.

The O-Line looked bad at times due to the opponent being about to cheat and play the run on early downs, and pin their ears back on 3rd and long to go get Russ.

Want to hazard a guess when they looked good?


Run-Run-Russell Wilson save us, was and is a horrible game plan.

and yet that was the game plan and is all too often

 

[John63]

"On 16 first downs over the first three quarters of Saturday’s Wild Card game, the Seahawks ran 10 times and passed six. Chris Carson had six carries for 10 yards. Mike Davis had one carry for three yards. Rashaad Penny had three carries for 24 yards but didn’t get his first attempt until the third quarter and one of them was for 27 yards. Meanwhile, when throwing on first downs, Russell Wilson was 5-of-6 for 71 yards (11.8 yards per attempt). By the time the Seahawks allowed Wilson to throw, it was too late. Seattle coaches — whether the blame is on Pete Carroll, Brian Schottenheimer, or both — cost the Seahawks the game."

This says it all

https://www.bigblueview.com/2019/1/7/18172024/nfl-playoffs-takeaways-from-the-wild-card-round

 

[Seymour]

Horrible argument.

O-line was holding up just fine on playaction. They were biting on the run fake.

The O-Line looked bad at times due to the opponent being about to cheat and play the run on early downs, and pin their ears back on 3rd and long to go get Russ.

Want to hazard a guess when they looked good?


Run-Run-Russell Wilson save us, was and is a horrible game plan.

More like run, run, Russell save yourself because they will be on your ass in under 2 seconds. :177692:

Solari did a great job this year, but oline is still a major problem. Now give him some real help and quit piecing together scrap heap olines. Last game they held and held and killed the offense. This week they stop holding and that is the result. 7 yd loss for Penny, in the backfield all day, and a QB with half his attempts having to scramble or die. ukeface:

 

[John63]

https://deadspin.com/the-seahawks-forgot-they-had-russell-wilson-until-it-wa-1831527621

Why is it every expert, every media see is but a select few

 

[HawkRiderFan]

Here's where I counter Pete's argument that they were up 14-10 in the 4th quarter to justify things. Yes, the Hawks were up at that point. But what if they went more aggressive with play action passing and were actually up by 2 scores or so? Now you might take Dallas out of their strength of pounding Elliott at you. You put the game completely on Prescott's shoulders and as well as he's played recently, I'll take that 10 times out of 10 vs a heavy dose of Elliott.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Being up 14-10 in the 4th quarter while somehow holding on with a middling defense is not a great place to be. Better than behind, but when you are facing an offense that needs to run the ball to sustain drives - you need to have a large enough lead to force them to abandon the run.

Oh, and you have no kicker. So if it is a close game and you need a kick to tie? You are screwed. That means you need at least a few TDs to assure your lack of kicker is not an issue.

Being up 14-10 in the 4th is a sign you are not on pace to win, because your defense was going to give up a score in the 4th and likely at least a FG in another drive. You had to assume they would score at least 20, which means you need to score more than that.

We did, but in garbage time when it no longer mattered.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Horrible argument.

O-line was holding up just fine on playaction. They were biting on the run fake..

Teams only bite on run fake play action if you run, talk about horrible arguments.

Yes we were too predictable, yes we stuck with the gameplan too long. But abandoning the run entirely and just throwing on 1st and 2nd down has rarely worked for this offense, nor Russell............and if you think anything's changing with Pete and how he wants his team built you might as well just log off and find another team to root for.

 

[ronnieboycefanclub]

An example of a delusion is that the kicking issues can be resolved by Dickson drop kicking.

A rugby ball is bigger and rounder than a football an can be controlled better. Also almost all rugby is played on natural turf. At one time the grass was quite long. Look at highlights of old Internationals from the 1970's and compare the areas where the grass has been cut short on the pitch markings.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Why not let him kick it off the tee? Anyone can kick a ball off the tee? Just seems odd they would do a drop kick when he could do it off the tee.

 

[Fade]

Teams only bite on run fake play action if you run, talk about horrible arguments.

Incorrect. This has statically been debunked.
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/rushing-success-and-play-action-passing

And it was also disproven in this game.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/billbarnwell/status/1081773020912472065[/tweet]

 

[Seymour]

Why not let him kick it off the tee? Anyone can kick a ball off the tee? Just seems odd they would do a drop kick when he could do it off the tee.

It is an entertainment industry. The higher the degree of difficulty, the more entertained the "customers" are.

Were you not entertained? :shock: :sarcasm_off:

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Teams only bite on run fake play action if you run, talk about horrible arguments.

Incorrect. This has statically been debunked.
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/rushing-success-and-play-action-passing

And it was also disproven in this game.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/billbarnwell/status/1081773020912472065[/tweet]

Because..................we..........................were....................trying...........................to..............................run.

What defense outside of a special needs school for the blind bites on play action when they know it's not a run play.

 

[Fade]

Teams only bite on run fake play action if you run, talk about horrible arguments.

Incorrect. This has statically been debunked.
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/rushing-success-and-play-action-passing

And it was also disproven in this game.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/billbarnwell/status/1081773020912472065[/tweet]

Because..................we..........................were....................trying...........................to..............................run.

What defense outside of a special needs school for the blind bites on play action when they know it's not a run play.

You clearly didn't read the article as I just posted it, and it is very long.

Arguing against ignorance is futile.

But I will give you the TLDR version to help you out.

As long as LBs are coached to play the run when OL looks like they're run blocking = play action will work. Despite how the run game is actually doing. The stats bear this out.

"We've learned that a team's effectiveness on play-action is not related to its rushing frequency or success. But coaches appear to believe that it does." via link.

 

[brimsalabim]

THis but we still stick to the run till it is too late

You should have known entering this game Dallas was #5 vs the run & #16 vs the pass YTD.

You nailed it and if they decided to to go the run heavy despite them being #5 then RW should have kept it more often than handed off. There was at least 5 plays with wide open field for RW but he handed off for losses and short gains.

If he would have kept it then they could have opened up the run game.

Are you sure that you saw "at least 5 plays with wide open field" ... Dallas had a linebacker spy Wilson for most of the game.

 

[brimsalabim]

So because there was an outlier of the facts backed up by years of statistical evidence to show the contrary, it would have worked?

History has shown that when we become predictable throwing the ball Russell gets destroyed and we don't win. .

ummmm OK...How about WE DON"T BE SO PREDICTABLE !!!!!!! Good lord quit player checkers on the chess board!!!

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Teams only bite on run fake play action if you run, talk about horrible arguments.

Incorrect. This has statically been debunked.
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/rushing-success-and-play-action-passing

And it was also disproven in this game.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/billbarnwell/status/1081773020912472065[/tweet]

Because..................we..........................were....................trying...........................to..............................run.

What defense outside of a special needs school for the blind bites on play action when they know it's not a run play.

You clearly didn't read the article as I just posted it, and it is very long.

Arguing against ignorance is futile.

But I will give you the TLDR version to help you out.

As long as LBs are coached to play the run when OL looks like they're run blocking = play action will work. Despite how the run game is actually doing. The stats bear this out.

"We've learned that a team's effectiveness on play-action is not related to its rushing frequency or success. But coaches appear to believe that it does." via link.

I read it, it's a theoretical argument based on a faulty premise...............that you don't need to run in order for play action to work.

The results look accurate, but there's no way there'd be any long term success with putting this theory into a playbook, because it'd only take a handful of games before teams stopped biting if they knew there wasn't any reason to bite on the run fake.

The only true constant is that play action works and doesn't worked based on what? The THREAT of a run. So yeah the stats can show otherwise, but take away the threat and what do you think this theoretical study would look like in another couple of years of far less running by these same teams and those defenders being coached up to not bite.