Some of you really don't understand how Pete operates

[HawkerD]

When we go up 24-0, the opponent is no longer the other team -- it is the clock. Pete loosens the D and doesn't care if we give up 23 points. He goes conservative on O, to avoid turnovers and keep the clock moving.

The goal is to WIN, that is to win the game -- period. Not win by a landslide. Winning by 50-0 is pointless because margin of victory only means something in college football, it is irrelevant in the NFL.

Sure, we could have tackled much better, and maybe a few offensive plays could have been better disguised. But in t the end, we have a W, and that's the only thing that counts.

This is one of the most ridicules statements I ever heard. The hawks were on the brink of losing the game. If that was the plan then Pete should be fired for incompetence. I understand loosening the D, let them use clock. But how do you explain the ineptitude on offense? Was the the plan as well. I mean to make it as close as possible you go 3 and out on two (or was it three) consecutive drives. If not for the questionable falcon fumble inside the 5, and 2 missed field goals that is a loss.

 

[JustTheTip]

WHY is the goal to milk the clock??? They were dominating that game. There is NO excuse for going conservative when a team can't stop you. He's a hell of a coach, but at some point when does the stubborn crap get old???

The answer is 4 years ago. The stubborn crap got old 4 years ago.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Exactly. It seems really odd to coach in a way that you WANT the game to be close. Even IF you are flat out smoking a team. :?

 

[JustTheTip]

Exactly. It seems really odd to coach in a way that you WANT the game to be close. Even IF you are flat out smoking a team. :?

It is also odd to coach "Always Compete" and then not always compete. Maybe the reporters always cut him off and what he is trying to say is "always compete in practice and for 2 or 3 quarters a game." And then the strategy is to make the other team guess which 2 to 3 quarters the Seahawks are going to compete in.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Good point. Seems to me that continuing to go for the throat and leaving Atlanta with a blowout would be good for confidence. A hell of a lot better than letting a team hanging around.
I'm loving the 6-2 start, but not going for the throat yesterday IS ridiculous.

 

[beaumaris]

When we go up 24-0, the opponent is no longer the other team -- it is the clock. Pete loosens the D and doesn't care if we give up 23 points. He goes conservative on O, to avoid turnovers and keep the clock moving.

The goal is to WIN, that is to win the game -- period. Not win by a landslide. Winning by 50-0 is pointless because margin of victory only means something in college football, it is irrelevant in the NFL.

Sure, we could have tackled much better, and maybe a few offensive plays could have been better disguised. But in t the end, we have a W, and that's the only thing that counts.

Agreed.

 

[RiverDog]

24-0 is a three score game. It's not THAT big of a lead to justify changing things up and playing not to lose with 30 minutes of football left to play, especially given that the Falcons were getting the ball 1st in the second half. I don't care how your team is built, you don't change a damn thing at halftime with a 3 score lead, and the fact that the Falcons were 2 yards and a turnover away from a tie score is proof positive that the premise in the OP is wrong. Even Pete said as much.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Truth. It's working, big time. Why change it??? I'll never understand that mentality. Take foot, step on throat, win game comfortably. Hello, McFly.
I don't really care overall how much they win by, no style points in the NFL. However, when you have a team on the ropes, enough with the play conservative crap. It's next level maddening.
And yes, I'm plenty happy with the win. However, yesterday just got to me for some reason.

 

[Tinymac2]

The Pats would of dropped a C-note on Atlanta. Dam GOATS.

What was Pete thinking sending Meyers out for a 54 yard FG? It’s hot and humid in Atlanta and the Sun might of been in his eyes.

On a serious note, The hawks give up sacks too often which kills drives. Next time someone wants to complain about Russ not throwing enough, do it when we are signing Lupati and Fluker. These guys are road graders built to run block.

 

[bbsplitter]

Typically, I would agree that PC should not be so conservative. However this year, with this talent we have on defense currently, I think going conservative is the smartest thing we could do to win games. We generate almost zero pass rush when we only rush 4, and I can just see it now, we decide to play "aggressive" defense and the QB has all day to throw and hits some wide open WR downfield for a super embarrassing TD, and all the sudden the opposing team is 7 points closer.

We cannot sit here and bash on the CB's and then turn around and say we should risk the lead by playing aggressive man to man coverage. Have a consistent philosophy. Know your personnel.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

I'm referring to the offense. They were locked in and decided to go conservative, instead of just doing what was clearly working.

 

[justafan]

Nobody complained when we ran the ball 6 straight times and scored a td. We dominated the line.

 

[bbsplitter]

I'm referring to the offense. They were locked in and decided to go conservative, instead of just doing what was clearly working.

As far as I remember they were calling pretty similar plays in the second half as they were the first half, some of Lockett's big catches were in the second half. They had an 8 minute drive that ended in a field goal because the players didn't execute and were faced with a 3 and out.

The Falcons might be trash but they also have a HC that can *shocked breath* make changes for the second half. The Falcons ran a lot more stunts on the D-Line in the second half and usually brought an extra guy or two. Double Lockett and suddenly your left with hoping DK beats his man, which lately is very spotty.

I do think the Hawk's were playing a bit more conservatively, but I think not as extremely as people are making it out to be.

 

[Tical21]

When we were up 24-0, Pete thought "the only chance we can possibly lose this game is if we get cute and turn the ball over." So he didn't. He knew there was no way the Falcons could put up 24 and somehow if they did, all he would have to do is score once. And he was absolutely right. Again. And nobody can handle it. It's absolute insanity at this point.

 

[Tusc2000]

Talk about your ridiculous statements. At no time were we ever on the brink of losing that game. But thanks for stopping by.

 

[John63]

He clearly DID let up. That doesn't make it right though. Go for the throat, period.
We are all aware of how Pete operates.

Look, we just don't have the offensive firepower of a team like the Chiefs (when fully healthy), who can go full throttle all the time. We do have some extraordinary talent that can do great things in bursts.

We simply can't unleash guys like Russ and Lockett all the time and expect them to hang 50 on the board. They go ijnto blast mode when they need to. Again, the goal is to win, regardless if it's it just by 1 score.

It's true we have gotten very lucky a few times this year (the Rams' FG attempt, obviously) -- but we often get lucky. I don't think it's sheer coincidence, these guys play extremely well under pressure -- not all opponents are able to do that..

If watching this team makes some of you queasy, that is unfortunate. Frankly, I find it fantastic.

really, and yet we have done that, and have shown we can. Lets not mistake what we can do with what we do, do. While the OPs explanation is silly, because what if they come back and then you have to try to turn it back on, that is not as easy as you think. At least it is an explanation.

 

[John63]

I'm referring to the offense. They were locked in and decided to go conservative, instead of just doing what was clearly working.

As far as I remember they were calling pretty similar plays in the second half as they were the first half, some of Lockett's big catches were in the second half. They had an 8 minute drive that ended in a field goal because the players didn't execute and were faced with a 3 and out.

The Falcons might be trash but they also have a HC that can *shocked breath* make changes for the second half. The Falcons ran a lot more stunts on the D-Line in the second half and usually brought an extra guy or two. Double Lockett and suddenly your left with hoping DK beats his man, which lately is very spotty.

I do think the Hawk's were playing a bit more conservatively, but I think not as extremely as people are making it out to be.

Actually they were playing more conservative, Lockets big plays in the 2nd half came off script not on. They ran more, ran even when everyone knew they would, and were very stubborn about it. They were in clock eating mode, which almost came back to bite us....again.

 

[Flyingsquad23]

Once again the difference in offense from first half to second was more about execution than play calls. First possession they called 2 run and 2 pass, Carson ran great in the first so one would think feeding him the rock to start the second with a big lead was the right cal but.... a penalty creating 1st & 15 and then a sack.

Second possession, 2 runs and one completed pass. Giving the ball to Carson on 3&3 is a call I’m ok with, didn’t work.

Third possession 10 plays over 6min and a FG, score 27-11. Can’t complain about that one.

4th possession 3 and out but Atalanta had to use all their T.O. And was left with 2:41 down by 13. I’m not mad at that sequence either.

Last possession.... kneel down winner

I know people here think that because Atlanta was 1-6 they sucked but they really are a better team than the record would suggest. Playing at home they showed a little pride and played a solid second half. HAWKS WIN

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Talk about your ridiculous statements. At no time were we ever on the brink of losing that game. But thanks for stopping by.

Eh, we were one overturned fumble call away from the Falcons being within six points going into the 4th quarter.....and it was close. If not for Freeman's fumble being called a fumble on the field, it probably would have been overturned.

My point, and others is no way in hell we should have let another bad team hang around like we did. Again. Just like the Bengals game, just like the Steelers game, and just like the Browns game............and I assume just like we'll do Sunday against a bad Bucs team.

It's just what we do, play up and down to our opponents.

 

[Tusc2000]

[ If not for the questionable falcon fumble inside the 5, and 2 missed field goals that is a loss.

Sure. And if Russ didn't throw those 2 TD passes and if Kendricks doesn't intercept that pass, and Bobby decides to sleep in yesterday, we get blown out and Pete makes the team walk home from Atlanta.