HawkShack.com

Here's a good article with some interesting facts about our performance in the red zone:

The Seattle Seahawks have not been a good red zone team over the past two seasons—they were 28th in red zone touchdown rate in 2022 and “improved” to 25th last year. One of the main culprits? A truly horrendous running game inside the opponent’s 10-yard line.

For a team that has invested a ton of draft capital in its running backs, the Seahawks have failed to find an offensive line that can actually block for Kenneth Walker III and Zach Charbonnet near the end zone. The following data is exclusively Seattle running back carries from the opposition 10-to-1 yard line:

2022
19 carries for 11 yards (0.6 yards per carry, worst in the NFL),
2 touchdowns (fewest in the NFL)
52.6% stuff rate (carries resulting in 0 or lost yards, worst in the NFL by 11%)
21.1% positive EPA rate (worst in the NFL by 16%)

2023
32 carries for 18 yards (0.6 yards per carry, second-worst in the NFL)
7 touchdowns (17th in the NFL)
37.5% stuff rate (fifth-worst in the NFL)
43.8% positive EPA rate (seventh-worst in the NFL)

That’s right. The Seahawks have given the ball to their running backs 51 times for 29 yards within 10 yards of the end zone. A little under half of their carries are losing yards or gaining nothing. No other teams’ running backs have failed to clear 1.0 YPC inside the 10 over consecutive seasons. The league average is between 1.8 and 1.9 yards, which means Seattle isn’t remotely close.

https://www.fieldgulls.com/2024/5/29/24 ... grubb-huff

Now, does anyone wonder why I get so upset when I see us spending high draft picks on running backs and wide receivers?

Red zone inefficiency and poor 3rd down conversions were the 2 biggest flaws with this offense the last few seasons. I put a lot of that on dipsh*t Waldron.

This is a big reason why you can't just look at raw stats and assume a unit is performing well. Total yards, etc. don't matter.

We ran the same concepts over and over again, and teams knew it. Also, we had a 6'7" tight end that we never even tried to make a red zone weapon.

Scheme is a huge part of it, but like anything in football - it comes down to the trenches. I am hoping we see a significant improvement with a new OC, new OL coach, and an upgrade in players.

But also, receivers need to beat coverages and Geno needs to make smart decisions.

Irish Greg 2.0 wrote:Red zone inefficiency and poor 3rd down conversions were the 2 biggest flaws with this offense the last few seasons. I put a lot of that on dipsh*t Waldron.

This is a big reason why you can't just look at raw stats and assume a unit is performing well. Total yards, etc. don't matter.

We ran the same concepts over and over again, and teams knew it. Also, we had a 6'7" tight end that we never even tried to make a red zone weapon.

Scheme is a huge part of it, but like anything in football - it comes down to the trenches. I am hoping we see a significant improvement with a new OC, new OL coach, and an upgrade in players.

But also, receivers need to beat coverages and Geno needs to make smart decisions.

Gotta lay some of that 3rd down/red zone blame on the QB, too. He's the one pulling the trigger.

We didn't do a very good job of utilizing Metcalf in the red zone, either, who is arguably the biggest, strongest WR in the game and should create some mismatches.

Well on the bright side it can only get better from here, because those are some dismal numbers. I always felt whoever was OC under PC was good enough between the 20's, but when it came down to getting those tough yards our OL was the weakness. Whether it be blocking on runs or pass blocking. I am optimistic we have the tools to have some excitement and improvement for this upcoming season. I am not expecting us to be top 5 redzone team, but I willing to bet we are going to be in the middle of the pack with our redzone and 3rd down efficiency.

River_Dog wrote:Gotta lay some of that 3rd down/red zone blame on the QB, too. He's the one pulling the trigger.

We didn't do a very good job of utilizing Metcalf in the red zone, either, who is arguably the biggest, strongest WR in the game and should create some mismatches.

Agreed - and that's why the last sentence of my comment says "But also, receivers need to beat coverages and Geno needs to make smart decisions"

The point about the same concepts over and over is valid but it's been that way for almost the entire tenure of Pete Carroll.
I've been saying for years the Offense it too vanilla and that we just lined up and 'beat our man' without any type of deception or creativity.
This didn't happen with Waldron, but it also happened with Schottenheimer and Bevell.
We had a good change in I think 2019 when we won the first 5 games with an almost non existent Defense but a modern creative Offense, then Carroll came out and said it was football that he didn't understand. The Offense then retreated back to the same staid unimaginative product we saw last year. When Waldron first came here, the Offense looked creative and new but after the first 10 or so games it fell back into the same old tired Offense of the 80's that was predictable and frustrating to watch. The common denominator with all of this was Pete Carroll with 3 different OCs but pretty much the same Offense.

So I'm excited to see how Grubb uses the talent we have and expect a big step up in creativity from what we've seen the last decade or more.

NorthHawk wrote:The point about the same concepts over and over is valid but it's been that way for almost the entire tenure of Pete Carroll.
I've been saying for years the Offense it too vanilla and that we just lined up and 'beat our man' without any type of deception or creativity.
This didn't happen with Waldron, but it also happened with Schottenheimer and Bevell.
We had a good change in I think 2019 when we won the first 5 games with an almost non existent Defense but a modern creative Offense, then Carroll came out and said it was football that he didn't understand. The Offense then retreated back to the same staid unimaginative product we saw last year. When Waldron first came here, the Offense looked creative and new but after the first 10 or so games it fell back into the same old tired Offense of the 80's that was predictable and frustrating to watch. The common denominator with all of this was Pete Carroll with 3 different OCs but pretty much the same Offense.

So I'm excited to see how Grubb uses the talent we have and expect a big step up in creativity from what we've seen the last decade or more.

One of the things I am most excited about with Macdonald is I think he is going to let his coordinators run the show, of course he retains the discretion to step in.

Grubb will find ways to utilize his players strengths, unlike Waldron.

Definitely excited to see how the offense looks with a coach that is going to let his OC do the job without as much interference as Pete. Pete's great, but he was definitely a control freak. When it worked, it worked great. But when it didn't, you were mired in mediocrity as Pete was always good enough to never really let the team tank hard but also never really shine big again.

With Mike we should get some more freedom on the offensive side of the ball as he doesn't seem interested in running that side as tight as he will run the defense.

I gotta remind y'all that we don't know how Macdonald will manage the team as a head coach as he's never been one before. We all assume that he'll give his coordinators more freedom, but we don't know that for sure.

We're also making some assumptions about Grubb. He's never coached in the NFL. Will his college experience translate to the NFL? It didn't for Kliff Kingsbury.

But it's going to be fun to watch. I haven't been this excited about an upcoming season for a long time.

It’ll be different and that’s something to look forward to.

River_Dog wrote:I gotta remind y'all that we don't know how Macdonald will manage the team as a head coach as he's never been one before. We all assume that he'll give his coordinators more freedom, but we don't know that for sure.

We're also making some assumptions about Grubb. He's never coached in the NFL. Will his college experience translate to the NFL? It didn't for Kliff Kingsbury.

But it's going to be fun to watch. I haven't been this excited about an upcoming season for a long time.

Beats the heck out of watching Shane Waldron's offense

River_Dog wrote:I gotta remind y'all that we don't know how Macdonald will manage the team as a head coach as he's never been one before. We all assume that he'll give his coordinators more freedom, but we don't know that for sure.

We're also making some assumptions about Grubb. He's never coached in the NFL. Will his college experience translate to the NFL? It didn't for Kliff Kingsbury.

But it's going to be fun to watch. I haven't been this excited about an upcoming season for a long time.

Irish Greg 2.0 wrote:Beats the heck out of watching Shane Waldron's offense

It beats the heck out of watching a (insert DC)/Pete Carroll defense, too.

"bUt PeTe iS a DeFeNsIvE gUrU"

Kidding aside, I always maintained Carroll's defensive "prowess" was inflated by the incredible roster they formulated between 2010-2014. Once upon a time, we had the players that mattered more than the scheme. Carroll was never exactly an innovator.

Eventually, when the likes of Earl Thomas, Bobby Wagner, Richard Sherman, Kam Chancellor, KJ Wright and others moved on or slowed down, opposing offenses were able to exploit the weak spots in Carroll's 4-3 under. Pete no longer had the players to compensate, so we started seeing the cracks in the foundation.

I give Pete credit: he recognized a need for change, and that's where that Fangio 3-4 hybrid came from. But his Achilles Heal was probably (1) hiring the wrong people and, (2) remaining too loyal. Pete let his coordinators run their units, of course he retained the discretion to step in as needed, which he did. It was Pete getting involved that got the defense back on it's feet a few seasons ago. But..Clint Hurtt was a terrible hire, and an ode to Pete wanting to hire from within / nepotism. Hurtt was one of the worst in-game DC's I can recall - teams just ran the same concepts over and over and we never had answers. That didn't work with the Legion of Boom patrolling, but it did with the likes of Cody Barton etc. McVay and Shanahan, particularly, have absolutely abused us in the same concepts over and over and over the last 3 seasons. That sh*t ends now.

Pete also thought he could work magic with a guy like Jamal Adams, and had a specific role for him in mind. In retrospect, that ended up being one of the worst deals of the PC/JS era due to capital surrendered compared to games played and his performance. Again, I don't knock Pete for trying - he was always positive and optimistic and saw the best in his players.

Irish Greg 2.0 wrote:"bUt PeTe iS a DeFeNsIvE gUrU"

Kidding aside, I always maintained Carroll's defensive "prowess" was inflated by the incredible roster they formulated between 2010-2014. Once upon a time, we had the players that mattered more than the scheme. Carroll was never exactly an innovator.

Eventually, when the likes of Earl Thomas, Bobby Wagner, Richard Sherman, Kam Chancellor, KJ Wright and others moved on or slowed down, opposing offenses were able to exploit the weak spots in Carroll's 4-3 under. Pete no longer had the players to compensate, so we started seeing the cracks in the foundation.

I give Pete credit: he recognized a need for change, and that's where that Fangio 3-4 hybrid came from. But his Achilles Heal was probably (1) hiring the wrong people and, (2) remaining too loyal. Pete let his coordinators run their units, of course he retained the discretion to step in as needed, which he did. It was Pete getting involved that got the defense back on it's feet a few seasons ago. But..Clint Hurtt was a terrible hire, and an ode to Pete wanting to hire from within / nepotism. Hurtt was one of the worst in-game DC's I can recall - teams just ran the same concepts over and over and we never had answers. That didn't work with the Legion of Boom patrolling, but it did with the likes of Cody Barton etc. McVay and Shanahan, particularly, have absolutely abused us in the same concepts over and over and over the last 3 seasons. That sh*t ends now.

Pete also thought he could work magic with a guy like Jamal Adams, and had a specific role for him in mind. In retrospect, that ended up being one of the worst deals of the PC/JS era due to capital surrendered compared to games played and his performance. Again, I don't knock Pete for trying - he was always positive and optimistic and saw the best in his players.

I tend to agree. IMO one of the biggest factors in Pete's success in his early years with us is that he had an intimate knowledge of college players, particularly those on the west coast, guys like Richard Sherman and Doug Baldwin from Stanford, Brandon Browner from Oregon State, Beast from Cal, Kearse from UDub, Bobby Wagner from Utah State via LA, even Earl from Texas and Michael Bennett from A&M are players he likely recruited. The further Pete got away from his college days, the worse his player acquisition got. I don't think it a coincidence that Pete was a failure at his first two NFL stops, with the Jets and New England, then suddenly found it after he spent nearly a decade in the colleges.

The other thing that hurt him was that loss in SB 49. You could see it when the defense went back on the field for the kneel down and immediately started fighting with the Patriots players. His coddling of Russell Wilson, the Percy Harvin debacle, and the lack of any discipline led to an apathetic attitude with many of the players, particularly the defense. His rah-rah style no longer appealed to them. They had been there, done that.

Irish Greg 2.0 wrote:Kidding aside, I always maintained Carroll's defensive "prowess" was inflated by the incredible roster they formulated between 2010-2014. Once upon a time, we had the players that mattered more than the scheme. Carroll was never exactly an innovator.

Eventually, when the likes of Earl Thomas, Bobby Wagner, Richard Sherman, Kam Chancellor, KJ Wright and others moved on or slowed down, opposing offenses were able to exploit the weak spots in Carroll's 4-3 under. Pete no longer had the players to compensate, so we started seeing the cracks in the foundation.

He obviously had a philosophy and a scheme. He found the types of players to excel in it and execute it properly. It all made sense. Rangy, super fast free safety to cover the back end; enforcer strong safety, excellent zone corners, MLB second to none on QBing the defense. Unsung master of screen defense at weak side linebacker. I'm not sure how much can be attributed to scheme versus the right players versus finding true gems of players with NFL smarts. I know those last two sound similar, but there was something about that crew that I don't know if anybody can bring that together again. Thomas, Chancellor, Wright, Wagner, and Sherman just had uncanny situational awareness, and I have to believe that combined with their smarts allowed them to react to situations without having to say a word to each other. They just knew what they were seeing and that their teammate would pick up whatever they pass off. So, I think they knew what skillsets they were looking for, but I don't see how they could have known they picked the handful of elite mental players that they did.

I give Pete credit: he recognized a need for change, and that's where that Fangio 3-4 hybrid came from. But his Achilles Heal was probably (1) hiring the wrong people and, (2) remaining too loyal. Pete let his coordinators run their units, of course he retained the discretion to step in as needed, which he did. It was Pete getting involved that got the defense back on it's feet a few seasons ago. But..Clint Hurtt was a terrible hire, and an ode to Pete wanting to hire from within / nepotism. Hurtt was one of the worst in-game DC's I can recall - teams just ran the same concepts over and over and we never had answers. That didn't work with the Legion of Boom patrolling, but it did with the likes of Cody Barton etc. McVay and Shanahan, particularly, have absolutely abused us in the same concepts over and over and over the last 3 seasons. That sh*t ends now.

Yeah, piggy back on the level of talent they pulled. They never got it again. The team wide prowess of the legion of boom days went away. Hoping the new blood gets back to clean, focused, team oriented defensive play.

I didn't like the Jamal Adams trade solely based on the cost, but I do wonder what would have happened had they not pressed him into the passer rusher role. Jamal should have been a Chancellor-esque player, but that never materialized due to injuries and perhaps a lack of overall talent.

River_Dog wrote:The other thing that hurt him was that loss in SB 49. You could see it when the defense went back on the field for the kneel down and immediately started fighting with the Patriots players. His coddling of Russell Wilson, the Percy Harvin debacle, and the lack of any discipline led to an apathetic attitude with many of the players, particularly the defense. His rah-rah style no longer appealed to them. They had been there, done that.

I think that's taken a little too negatively as far as Carroll's demeanor; that's his deal to be rah-rah. It would make sense that, even under good circumstances, the older players start tuning out the rah-rah stuff. They know their jobs and don't need that to be motivated anymore, so it's not a surprise they openly stated it doesn't work for them. What underscores it emphatically is that no amount of rah-rah energy is going to bring those guys back from letting them down horribly with that SB 49 call. I wonder if Pete acknowledged at all that he screwed up, or did he just trot out the same old same old expecting them to put it behind them. Talk about life's terrible choices.

River_Dog wrote:The other thing that hurt him was that loss in SB 49. You could see it when the defense went back on the field for the kneel down and immediately started fighting with the Patriots players. His coddling of Russell Wilson, the Percy Harvin debacle, and the lack of any discipline led to an apathetic attitude with many of the players, particularly the defense. His rah-rah style no longer appealed to them. They had been there, done that.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:I think that's taken a little too negatively as far as Carroll's demeanor; that's his deal to be rah-rah. It would make sense that, even under good circumstances, the older players start tuning out the rah-rah stuff. They know their jobs and don't need that to be motivated anymore, so it's not a surprise they openly stated it doesn't work for them. What underscores it emphatically is that no amount of rah-rah energy is going to bring those guys back from letting them down horribly with that SB 49 call. I wonder if Pete acknowledged at all that he screwed up, or did he just trot out the same old same old expecting them to put it behind them. Talk about life's terrible choices.

I can't blame Pete for "the call." His only involvement and knowledge of the play was that Bevell told him that we were passing, actually a good decision as the Pats had their 'heavy' defense in. The Devil was in the details. It was the specific play call that was so horrible. Pete simply acknowledged it.

By then, the team had already started to disintegrate. When they traded Harvin a few months earlier, Beast nearly didn't get on the team bus to the airport for their next game. The rumors that Russell "wasn't black enough" had already begun to filter through the locker room. "The call" wasn't the genesis of the demise of the LOB, but it was like pouring gas on it when it happened. Had they won that game, it likely would have nipped it in the bud.

I don't know if Pete or Bevell ever fessed up as to how horrible that play selection was, but they certainly didn't try to defend it. I'll have nightmares about that play for the rest of my life.

A heavy defense has a much easier time defending the pass when the team is passing from the 2 yard line. Space is much less of an issue. If they wanted to pass, it should have been out of a set that left open every possibility. Instead they telegraphed it. When Pete saw a 4 wide shotgun formation trot out, he should have called a timeout. Ifs and buts so to speak, but it could have been avoided.

It was nail in the coffin though. It has a permanent spot in my memory.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:A heavy defense has a much easier time defending the pass when the team is passing from the 2 yard line. Space is much less of an issue. If they wanted to pass, it should have been out of a set that left open every possibility. Instead they telegraphed it. When Pete saw a 4 wide shotgun formation trot out, he should have called a timeout. Ifs and buts so to speak, but it could have been avoided.

It was nail in the coffin though. It has a permanent spot in my memory.

That's true, but it is a better matchup if you want to pass in order to preserve your options. The reason why we threw on that down was so that we could preserve our last timeout and take full advantage of having 4 downs to score. If we ran and didn't score, we would have been forced to call our final timeout, leaving us one do-or-die play. An incomplete pass still would have left us two downs on which to score. It was a very reasonable decision. But as you pointed out, throwing over the middle in a congested field with a 5'10" QB is just asking for something bad to happen, like an INT on a deflection. Besides, despite having Beast, we weren't a good short yardage running team. I remember losing a game to the Rams that season by running Beast on a do-or-die short yardage situation.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:That's true, but it is a better matchup if you want to pass in order to preserve your options. The reason why we threw on that down was so that we could preserve our last timeout and take full advantage of having 4 downs to score. If we ran and didn't score, we would have been forced to call our final timeout, leaving us one do-or-die play. An incomplete pass still would have left us two downs on which to score. It was a very reasonable decision. But as you pointed out, throwing over the middle in a congested field with a 5'10" QB is just asking for something bad to happen, like an INT on a deflection. Besides, despite having Beast, we weren't a good short yardage running team. I remember losing a game to the Rams that season by running Beast on a do-or-die short yardage situation.

I stated I'm not against passing, but there were better ways to go about it.

It makes think back to the play LSU used to beat Alabama in regulation with a 2-point conversion last season. A thing of beauty. Shotgun set with a dual threat QB. Motion in backfield. Got the Qb running and set up the TE on the flat with the two receivers creating an obstacle for the safety trying to run down the TE. Prime example of what I'm talking about. Bama's defense had to be ready for anything with very little to key on with that play call.

Pass if you want to but don't make it easy on the defense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQVXres9Ki0

River_Dog wrote:That's true, but it is a better matchup if you want to pass in order to preserve your options. The reason why we threw on that down was so that we could preserve our last timeout and take full advantage of having 4 downs to score. If we ran and didn't score, we would have been forced to call our final timeout, leaving us one do-or-die play. An incomplete pass still would have left us two downs on which to score. It was a very reasonable decision. But as you pointed out, throwing over the middle in a congested field with a 5'10" QB is just asking for something bad to happen, like an INT on a deflection. Besides, despite having Beast, we weren't a good short yardage running team. I remember losing a game to the Rams that season by running Beast on a do-or-die short yardage situation.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:I stated I'm not against passing, but there were better ways to go about it.

It makes think back to the play LSU used to beat Alabama in regulation with a 2-point conversion last season. A thing of beauty. Shotgun set with a dual threat QB. Motion in backfield. Got the Qb running and set up the TE on the flat with the two receivers creating an obstacle for the safety trying to run down the TE. Prime example of what I'm talking about. Bama's defense had to be ready for anything with very little to key on with that play call.

Pass if you want to but don't make it easy on the defense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQVXres9Ki0

You're preaching to the choir. My only point was that we had New England in a favorable position if we were going to pass. I was by no means defending that specific play call.

That play eats at my soul like acid whenever I think about it. We were so close to back to back Super Bowls. It has to hurt worse for Pete and the players to be that close and have lost that opportunity, then watch it all crumble.

Aseahawkfan wrote:That play eats at my soul like acid whenever I think about it. We were so close to back to back Super Bowls. It has to hurt worse for Pete and the players to be that close and have lost that opportunity, then watch it all crumble.

If it didn't eat at your soul, you wouldn't be a true Seahawk fan.

I can no longer watch the greatest plays from the Super Bowls type of segment because that play is always on it.