Ultra Conservative Offense is killing me

[Sgt. Largent]

What is killing this offense is the lack of intermediate passing.

Where are the TE's in the passing game? They are using Dickson and Vannett a lot to block, but still - other teams have figured out how to have their TE's do both, and if our line is so improved, why are we constantly having to keep receiving capable TEs out of the patterns?.

How can you have a passing TE game with the majority of your formations involving two blocking TE's (Dickson and Fant), and only having one barely receiving TE on the roster (Vannett).

Dissly was starting to flash, but that was about it for any of our TE's. Vannett is pedestrian at best, and easily covered by most safeties and LB's.

I agree on the intermediate passing game, but you can't criticize our TE receiving play when we don't have any athletic fast receiving TE's on the roster.

Understood. I didn't "criticize" it, I asked the question ("Where are the TEs")? But the TEs are just one piece of an intermediate passing game. You don't need "athletic fast" TEs to provide an outlet at 5-10 yards during a play for the QB to hit. That's why TEs are usually called security blankets.

More concerning than the TEs is the lack of intermediate targets in general, as I explained pretty clearly in the rest of my post.

It was my frustration with yesterdays game. Felt like the 9ers were willing to allow quick to intermediate passes in their man coverage in an effort to play the run.

But i didnt see many of those play calls

Outside the box yeah, which is why most of Russell's shallow to intermediate called pass plays are out routes.

Now that we're running it well I imagine most teams are scheming to stack the box with two high safeties and dare Russell to beat them over the top outside.

So not much in the middle for TE seam routes, and like I said nor do we have any TE's that can separate from DB's and fast LB's. Although I think Fant was open on that one long crossing route he ran...........but Russell didn't see him.

 

[bigskydoc]

We are still paying the price for the line that Cable built. Solari has done a masterful job turning this into a serviceable line, but there are still significant limitations, made more obvious when your first and second string guards go out, and your left with a Cable protege/ project filling in.

It will take another 2-3 years to rebuild the line. In the meantime, we will have to prioritize blocking, over receiving, out of our tight ends. There are only so many Kelces and Gronk’s in the world, who excel at both blocking and receiving. We really aren’t in a position to have a guy like Graham or Gates, who are really just an extra receiver on the field.

The line has made some great strides, and Solari has done a great job masking their deficiencies. For now, however, we still need to have the extra blocking, provided by Fant and the tight ends, to make this line work. This is partially responsible for the missing short-mid passing game (although Carroll seems to be pretty allergic to the concept of short-mid passing anyway).

I really do have hope that we will see a re-emergence of the passing attack that we saw in 2015 as our line improves. Bring a little better balance to the offensive attack. (For those who can’t figure it out, that’s not a dig on Wilson).

 

[Uncle Si]

We are still paying the price for the line that Cable built. Solari has done a masterful job turning this into a serviceable line, but there are still significant limitations, made more obvious when your first and second string guards go out, and your left with a Cable protege/ project filling in.

It will take another 2-3 years to rebuild the line. In the meantime, we will have to prioritize blocking, over receiving, out of our tight ends. There are only so many Kelces and Gronk’s in the world, who excel at both blocking and receiving. We really aren’t in a position to have a guy like Graham or Gates, who are really just an extra receiver on the field.

The line has made some great strides, and Solari has done a great job masking their deficiencies. For now, however, we still need to have the extra blocking, provided by Fant and the tight ends, to make this line work. This is partially responsible for the missing short-mid passing game (although Carroll seems to be pretty allergic to the concept of short-mid passing anyway).

I really do have hope that we will see a re-emergence of the passing attack that we saw in 2015 as our line improves. Bring a little better balance to the offensive attack. (For those who can’t figure it out, that’s not a dig on Wilson).

I think thats what a majority are hoping for... but sooner.

I love the run first attitude of the team. But the lack of balance in play calling and execution cost them yesterday.

 

[bigskydoc]

And the week before too, TBH. We just happened to pull that one out.

 

[semiahmoo]

How can you have a passing TE game with the majority of your formations involving two blocking TE's (Dickson and Fant), and only having one barely receiving TE on the roster (Vannett).

Dissly was starting to flash, but that was about it for any of our TE's. Vannett is pedestrian at best, and easily covered by most safeties and LB's.

I agree on the intermediate passing game, but you can't criticize our TE receiving play when we don't have any athletic fast receiving TE's on the roster.

Understood. I didn't "criticize" it, I asked the question ("Where are the TEs")? But the TEs are just one piece of an intermediate passing game. You don't need "athletic fast" TEs to provide an outlet at 5-10 yards during a play for the QB to hit. That's why TEs are usually called security blankets.

More concerning than the TEs is the lack of intermediate targets in general, as I explained pretty clearly in the rest of my post.

It was my frustration with yesterdays game. Felt like the 9ers were willing to allow quick to intermediate passes in their man coverage in an effort to play the run.

But i didnt see many of those play calls

Outside the box yeah, which is why most of Russell's shallow to intermediate called pass plays are out routes.

Now that we're running it well I imagine most teams are scheming to stack the box with two high safeties and dare Russell to beat them over the top outside.

So not much in the middle for TE seam routes, and like I said nor do we have any TE's that can separate from DB's and fast LB's. Although I think Fant was open on that one long crossing route he ran...........but Russell didn't see him.

Russ has some blind spots in those intermediate areas due to his short stature. It's a weakness but at least with the much-improved O-line he has more time to work on it. Another half step or so back in the pocket and those blind spots will open up. He just has to trust he'll have the time to do so. No easy task given the thumping he's received the last couple seasons during the darkest of the Cable era lines.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Russ has some blind spots in those intermediate areas due to his short stature. It's a weakness but at least with the much-improved O-line he has more time to work on it. Another half step or so back in the pocket and those blind spots will open up. He just has to trust he'll have the time to do so. No easy task given the thumping he's received the last couple seasons during the darkest of the Cable era lines.

Also a LOT of hesitation from Russell yesterday.

Quite a few times he could have slid up or out of the pocket and had receivers, as well as hesitating on a few quick rollouts to pick up first downs and he just didn't pull the trigger.

Russell is definitely a confidence first type of QB. His best series and games are when he's not hesitating and just confidently firing the ball quickly.

But IMO we lost because of special teams and the D, not Russell yesterday. He still had a 117 passer rating, 75% completion percentage, two TD's and almost 250 yard passing............in that mess of a field and weather.

 

[Fade]

With Doug Baldwin back in the lineup, Wilson hit on a couple throws in the middle of the field.

Pete's philosophy is the bigger factor at play here. Pete wants 100% safe throws when the game is still in control.

The problem I have with this philosophy is for long stretches of games they are pretty much refusing to play offense. Not trying to score on offense for say half of the game is a recipe for mediocrity as it allows bad teams to hang around.

This is not a theory at all as it has been proven over the years. When they play really explosive offensive teams the Seahawks will play offense for 4 quarters of the game. You will see it Sunday Night when they play the Chiefs.

My thought is, why not play like that every game? It's stupid. Pete costs his team about 2 games every year with this crap losing to guys like Nick Mullens, Drew Stanton, Austin freaking Davis, etc.

Get up 2 scores early on those scrubs, and watch the turnovers come in droves, and it will easily snowball into a blowout. Instead Pete does the opposite, and the results speak for themselves. Losses to some of the worst QBs in the NFL.

 

[justafan]

I agree. I was disappointed to see this in OT. We came out as if we had 4 qtrs to score.We started the drive with the same types of conservative plays we'd been running all day. There seemed to be no sense of urgency knowing we had to get a TD, if not that a FG and if not that at least get out to around mid field so as to give SF poor field position.
Once we punted from deep in our own territory it was pretty much game over with Gould as SF's kicker.
If we were going to play like that we should have let SF have the ball first.

Smash mouth ball isnt for every fan. But if you go back and chart the play by play drive by drive you will see we dont play the way you describe. Special teams, penalties at crucial times lost us the game.including the bumbled kickoff that cost FP,penalties on punt returns that cost us FP. We are still in the top 10 points scored even tho teams with worse records have more yardage.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

With Doug Baldwin back in the lineup, Wilson hit on a couple throws in the middle of the field.

Pete's philosophy is the bigger factor at play here. Pete wants 100% safe throws when the game is still in control.

The problem I have with this philosophy is for long stretches of games they are pretty much refusing to play offense. Not trying to score on offense for say half of the game is a recipe for mediocrity as it allows bad teams to hang around.

This is not a theory at all as it has been proven over the years. When they play really explosive offensive teams the Seahawks will play offense for 4 quarters of the game. You will see it Sunday Night when they play the Chiefs.

My thought is, why not play like that every game? It's stupid. Pete costs his team about 2 games every year with this crap losing to guys like Nick Mullens, Drew Stanton, Austin freaking Davis, etc.

Get up 2 scores early on those scrubs, and watch the turnovers come in droves, and it will easily snowball into a blowout. Instead Pete does the opposite, and the results speak for themselves. Losses to some of the worst QBs in the NFL.

Pete admits this. His brand of football is pound the rock, don't make mistakes, take the ball away.............................. and trust the D to bend but don't break.

Which is a successful formula, until you make mistakes. Then as you say, you allow bad teams, or inferior teams to hang around, and these sorts of losses happen.

To defend Pete though, it's hard to just flip a switch mid game and go up tempo, or take more risks trying to be more explosive. Once the gameplan and offensive success is fostered, then you stick with what's worked. For us that's pound the rock, and make explosive plays off of play action.

In fact IMO what you're talking about is why we lost our first two games, trying to be an identity we didn't have the personnel to run, and weren't equipped to be successful at.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

With Doug Baldwin back in the lineup, Wilson hit on a couple throws in the middle of the field.

Pete's philosophy is the bigger factor at play here. Pete wants 100% safe throws when the game is still in control.

The problem I have with this philosophy is for long stretches of games they are pretty much refusing to play offense. Not trying to score on offense for say half of the game is a recipe for mediocrity as it allows bad teams to hang around.

This is not a theory at all as it has been proven over the years. When they play really explosive offensive teams the Seahawks will play offense for 4 quarters of the game. You will see it Sunday Night when they play the Chiefs.

My thought is, why not play like that every game? It's stupid. Pete costs his team about 2 games every year with this crap losing to guys like Nick Mullens, Drew Stanton, Austin freaking Davis, etc.

Get up 2 scores early on those scrubs, and watch the turnovers come in droves, and it will easily snowball into a blowout. Instead Pete does the opposite, and the results speak for themselves. Losses to some of the worst QBs in the NFL.

Pete admits this. His brand of football is pound the rock, don't make mistakes, take the ball away.............................. and trust the D to bend but don't break.

Which is a successful formula, until you make mistakes. Then as you say, you allow bad teams, or inferior teams to hang around, and these sorts of losses happen.

To defend Pete though, it's hard to just flip a switch mid game and go up tempo, or take more risks trying to be more explosive. Once the gameplan and offensive success is fostered, then you stick with what's worked. For us that's pound the rock, and make explosive plays off of play action.

In fact IMO what you're talking about is why we lost our first two games, trying to be an identity we didn't have the personnel to run, and weren't equipped to be successful at.

 

[Slick]

In what way are you deriving that this offense is conservative and ultra at that?

 

[scutterhawk]

Pouring Rain. Howling wind. Bad turf. What were you expecting?

It was weather tailor-made for this kind of offence. And it only got derailed by a seahawk record number of judgement call penalties. Otherwise we easily score 30 points.

You will not beat any team with 148yds in accepted penalty yards. Ever.

The offence is fine. It protects the defense, it scores enough points. It keeps the QB healthy.

Someone needed to tell Mullins and Shannahan.

Two running plays that got little, as SF was ready for them, and then a throw that was needed to bail out the negligible gains from plays one and two. That seemed to be our modus operandi
for most of the game.

I agree that there was too many penalty yards at key times.

Tell Mullins & Shannahan what?, that they can't count on the Officials to flag their opponents with RECORD BREAKING PENALTIES from here on out, and that they are going to have to PLAY A HELL OF A LOT BETTER IF THEY WANT TO WIN GAMES?

 

[brimsalabim]

Russ has some blind spots in those intermediate areas due to his short stature. It's a weakness but at least with the much-improved O-line he has more time to work on it. Another half step or so back in the pocket and those blind spots will open up. He just has to trust he'll have the time to do so. No easy task given the thumping he's received the last couple seasons during the darkest of the Cable era lines.

Also a LOT of hesitation from Russell yesterday.

Quite a few times he could have slid up or out of the pocket and had receivers, as well as hesitating on a few quick rollouts to pick up first downs and he just didn't pull the trigger.

Russell is definitely a confidence first type of QB. His best series and games are when he's not hesitating and just confidently firing the ball quickly.

But IMO we lost because of special teams and the D, not Russell yesterday. He still had a 117 passer rating, 75% completion percentage, two TD's and almost 250 yard passing............in that mess of a field and weather.

It's that "hesitance" he has developed that bothers me. I'm afraid they have him buttoned down too tight. I understand the need to do it but there is also a time where Russ needs to become DangeRuss!

 

[scutterhawk]

Pouring Rain. Howling wind. Bad turf. What were you expecting?

It was weather tailor-made for this kind of offence. And it only got derailed by a seahawk record number of judgement call penalties. Otherwise we easily score 30 points.

You will not beat any team with 148yds in accepted penalty yards. Ever.

The offence is fine. It protects the defense, it scores enough points. It keeps the QB healthy.

Someone needed to tell Mullins and Shannahan.

Two running plays that got little, as SF was ready for them, and then a throw that was needed to bail out the negligible gains from plays one and two. That seemed to be our modus operandi
for most of the game.

I agree that there was too many penalty yards at key times.

Tell Mullins & Shannahan what?, that they can't count on the Officials to flag their opponents with RECORD BREAKING PENALTIES from here on out, and that they are going to have to PLAY A HELL OF A LOT BETTER IF THEY WANT TO WIN GAMES?

 

[ivotuk]

Some of these posts are unreal. Russell has 31 Touchdown passes. 66% completion rate with who as a Wide Receiver? Doug Baldwin occasionally, and Tyler Lockett.

They're almost guaranteed to make the playoffs after dumping a good portion of their roster and coaching staff, when everyone else expected them to be 4-12.

For the year, the Seahawks have 4898 yards from scrimmage, their opponents? 5036. After 14 games that's a difference of 138 yards, most of which have come in garbage time.

Seattle has 44 touchdowns, their opponents? 34

Seattle has a +12 turnover ratio. One of the most important stats in the game.

Seattle has run 876 running and passing plays for an average of 5.6 yards per play.

Ultra conservative? I think not.

Patriots, who play in the AFC Least, have run 936 plays for an average of 5.9 yards per play. They must be conservative too.

 

[semiahmoo]

I agree. I was disappointed to see this in OT. We came out as if we had 4 qtrs to score.We started the drive with the same types of conservative plays we'd been running all day. There seemed to be no sense of urgency knowing we had to get a TD, if not that a FG and if not that at least get out to around mid field so as to give SF poor field position.
Once we punted from deep in our own territory it was pretty much game over with Gould as SF's kicker.
If we were going to play like that we should have let SF have the ball first.

Smash mouth ball isnt for every fan. But if you go back and chart the play by play drive by drive you will see we dont play the way you describe. Special teams, penalties at crucial times lost us the game.including the bumbled kickoff that cost FP,penalties on punt returns that cost us FP. We are still in the top 10 points scored even tho teams with worse records have more yardage.

YUP. The offense isn't nearly so conservative as some would complain about.

In fact, given how far we've exceeded expectations, I'd say Schotty's offense has performed remarkably well and players like Wilson have benefited greatly from it.

 

[chris98251]

Someone lost in their fantasy pool this week.

 

[chris98251]

Someone lost in their fantasy pool this week.

 

[Uncle Si]

I agree. I was disappointed to see this in OT. We came out as if we had 4 qtrs to score.We started the drive with the same types of conservative plays we'd been running all day. There seemed to be no sense of urgency knowing we had to get a TD, if not that a FG and if not that at least get out to around mid field so as to give SF poor field position.
Once we punted from deep in our own territory it was pretty much game over with Gould as SF's kicker.
If we were going to play like that we should have let SF have the ball first.

Smash mouth ball isnt for every fan. But if you go back and chart the play by play drive by drive you will see we dont play the way you describe. Special teams, penalties at crucial times lost us the game.including the bumbled kickoff that cost FP,penalties on punt returns that cost us FP. We are still in the top 10 points scored even tho teams with worse records have more yardage.

YUP. The offense isn't nearly so conservative as some would complain about.

In fact, given how far we've exceeded expectations, I'd say Schotty's offense has performed remarkably well and players like Wilson have benefited greatly from it.

Id agree. Greatly exceeded and greatly benefitted from.

Doesnt mean hes not due a bit of criticism for the offensive deficincies the past 2 weeks.

Its conservative. Thats perfectly fine as its been well balanced. Last two weeks there were opportunities to use the run to help the pass that were missed.

 

[semiahmoo]

Some of these posts are unreal. Russell has 31 Touchdown passes. 66% completion rate with who as a Wide Receiver? Doug Baldwin occasionally, and Tyler Lockett.

They're almost guaranteed to make the playoffs after dumping a good portion of their roster and coaching staff, when everyone else expected them to be 4-12.

For the year, the Seahawks have 4898 yards from scrimmage, their opponents? 5036. After 14 games that's a difference of 138 yards, most of which have come in garbage time.

Seattle has 44 touchdowns, their opponents? 34

Seattle has a +12 turnover ratio. One of the most important stats in the game.

Seattle has run 876 running and passing plays for an average of 5.6 yards per play.

Ultra conservative? I think not.

Patriots, who play in the AFC Least, have run 936 plays for an average of 5.9 yards per play. They must be conservative too.

AMEN.

"Ultra Conservative" -puleeeaze.

Schotty has greatly helped to transform this team and made a good QB even better.