RiverDog wrote:I'm not sure what the "fan bite" opinion classification is supposed to mean. It has the sound of sniping at some of the comments and opinions being made by other posters in this forum. Conventional wisdom might be a more appropriate term.
RiverDog wrote:I'm not sure what the "fan bite" opinion classification is supposed to mean. It has the sound of sniping at some of the comments and opinions being made by other posters in this forum. Conventional wisdom might be a more appropriate term.
tarlhawk wrote:It has nothing to do with "sniping"...its a spin on what a sound bite is (a brief snippet of recorded speech)...except a brief snippet of a fan's (mine) input is why I call it a fan bite...maybe if I had misspelled it as a fan byte...you would have gotten the drift.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I don't know if I think Geno or Lock will function well in an up tempo offense. I think Pete will want to limit the amount we throw with Geno and Lock to limit turnovers. Both Geno and Lock are turnover machines if asked to throw that much. If the O-line doesn't pass block well out of the gate, they will be under near constant pressure. Not sure how mobile Geno and Lock are to make plays under pressure.
tarlhawk wrote:This post was about the O-line but the QB does play a major role in how the O-line functions...Geno and Drew do not share a Seahawk turnover fest (thats a checkered past played elsewhere)...as for Drew there's a reason Noah Fant was the guy he hooked up most with...Denver receivers don't compare to DK and Lockett (in 2020...his only full season...he was without his no.1 receiver (Courtland Sutton-injured) and the highly acclaimed rookie WR (Jeudy) caught only 52 passes out of 113 targets...dropping 10 passes and giving his QB a QB rating of 58.7 with 6 interceptions. Both Geno and Drew are able to hit an "open" receiver in stride and in a wide spread Waldron offense...someone will get open from amongst our bevy of highly skilled play makers...
Aseahawkfan wrote:I don't think Pete will let them throw much. Contrary to hawktawk's take on Russell, it is Pete that likes the low volume passing game. He doesn't like turnovers. When Geno was playing, they kept the passing attempts low. I think Pete will do the same this year. Geno and Lock are not known for low turnovers when passing a lot. So I'm expecting Pete to rely heavily on the run game early with low volume passing unless the opponent runs the score up early and we have to try to throw. So that will test the O-line's ability to run block early and pass block in 3rd and long situations or when scoring.
Hawktawk wrote:I have no idea about lock but Pete will let Geno throw . He did last year . It’s gonna b the okey doke from hell. Haymaker
Aseahawkfan wrote:[
quote="Hawktawk"]I have no idea about lock but Pete will let Geno throw . He did last year . It’s gonna b the okey doke from hell. Haymaker
Hawktawk wrote:No, he did not. Geno had 17, 32, 22, and 24 attempts. That is a low volume passing game. He also kept the passing plays short. Geno had 131, 209, 167, and 195 yards for a total of 7.39 yards per attempt.
Pete did the same thing with Tarvaris and Hasselbeck. Pete does not like a high volume passing attack unless he has no choice. He even had Geno throw a low volume, high percentage passing attack that was focused on keeping turnovers low.
Pete likes the low volume passing attack and it has nothing to do with Russell. It is Pete's offensive philosophy he has practiced with every QB since he's been here. It's how he likes to do things.
You claim to know Pete Carroll, but show no sign of that at all. Pete has stated multiple times that he likes a play-action pass offense with the pass keying off the run. It is what he likes. Pete has metrics showing that the more you put the ball in the air, the higher chance of turnovers.
https://www.seahawks.com/news/pete-carroll-i-don-t-mind-being-different-when-it-comes-to-offensive-philosophy
I don't know why you don't understand the coach you keep defending. I know Carroll better than you apparently because I actually listen to Pete Carroll talk football and read a ton on him when he first arrived. Whereas you just keep thinking Pete Carroll kept a low volume passing attack because of Russell, which was not the case. Russell wanted a higher volume passing attack like his hero Drew Brees. he wants to throw more. Carroll doesn't like it. He likes a balanced attack with a strong run game. Always has, always will.
I even watched an interview with K.J. Wright recently where he was asked about Russell and Pete. KJ said he loved Russell, but Pete and Russ were not seeing eye to eye. He thought the trade was good because Pete can go back to his philosophy of a low volume, run oriented offense and Russell can take his shot in Denver with a higher volume passing attack like his hero Drew Brees does. Time will tell if Russ can adapt to a high volume passing attack and if his new HC Nathaniel Hackett will tolerate higher turnovers for more yards and TDs which Pete would not.
That was the gist of why Pete traded Russell. Pete wants things his way. Russ wants them his way. Pete won the argument. We have yet to see if the Seahawks HC made the right decision.
When you show me where I’ve said Pete runs a wide open offense I’ll listen to you insult me dude . Geno threw for 131 yards and put up 10 points on the rams in a quarter , right off the bench 98 yards and a stick to Dk. He completed over 70% in 2 of 3 games despite playing 3 really good defenses and completed 80% vs his only bad team . In his first start in 5 years he was sacked 5 times , hit hard , laid out a few times , 3 tipped passes and still 72% completion and led scoring drives 4 of our last 5 possessions . Geno might be harder to defend these days as he knows there’s a middle of the field . Point being Geno functioned quite well despite no protection , 13 sacks , 1 every quarter and still 102 passer rating , 700 yards , 68.5 comp , no picks in 3 starts and only one turnover despite all the sacks and hits and 17-21 targeting DK with 4 TDs .
I fail to see how our line will be worse . I think we will have a more consistent offense next year then last . Points ? More than the other guys . But it’s not like we can’t throw the ball without Gods gift to Seattle around .
Old but Slow wrote:Concerning the offensive line, I have mixed feelings about Jackson. I would like to see one of the younger guys beat him out, but at the same time, he will be the most experienced and could be helpful to a young RT. Also, because of the rookie tackles, could we see the exceedingly rare situation of platooning tackles? We now have 4 young OTs with promise, and while it is likely that the rookies will eventually prevail, this season could feature a rotation.
Center will be interesting to watch, and I am hopeful that it will be better than what we have had recently. To me it has felt as though we were relying on guards to play out of position at center, and now we are going with a real center, and with that perhaps a better grasp of line calls and recognizing defenses. The position does not require a mauler, but needs a technician, and if he is a mauler/technician, he's all-pro. I'll take a technician.
NorthHawk wrote:Center has been an overlooked or perhaps an unappreciated position during most of this regime. We’ve never
really recovered from the Unger trade and it seems that the feeling is that any interior lineman can make do.
We’ve had Guards and Tackles play there but never drafted a true Center of consequence and until now not added one via FA. Certainly not a draft priority by how many they’ve passed by over the years.
Considering all the turnover on the OL and never acquiring an anchor in the middle it suggests they struggle at
building an Offensive Line that is any good. We’ve had OL coaches who have been effective in other organizations
so it seems we struggle identifying talent.
Hawktawk wrote:I think 2021 was our highest offensive production ever . It was Wilson’s most prolific year for sure.
RiverDog wrote:There is little doubt that Pete has historically under valued the offensive line and it was one of the major reasons why I wanted to see his head on a platter at the end of this season, but by using a #1 and a #3 this past draft, I'm optimistic that he may have had a change in heart.
RiverDog wrote:There is little doubt that Pete has historically under valued the offensive line and it was one of the major reasons why I wanted to see his head on a platter at the end of this season, but by using a #1 and a #3 this past draft, I'm optimistic that he may have had a change in heart.
NorthHawk wrote:We’ve spent lots of resources on OL in the past with poor results (post Okung) including Carpenter, Britt, and Ifedi.
It seems they either can’t identify NFL talent or they don’t know how or have the required patience to develop them.
I said earlier if we see Lucas moved to Guard it will be the first step in ruining his career like they did Ifedi’s. Maybe
they will,platoon those positions as Forsythe and Curhan are inexperienced as well. That might help ease the struggles
of them learning how to play at this level as they mature. But does Pete have that patience? He hasn’t shown it
in the past.
Hawktawk wrote:I think 2021 was our highest offensive production ever . It was Wilson’s most prolific year for sure.
RiverDog wrote:This is simply not true. In 2021, we averaged 324 ypg total offense, which ranked us 20th in the league. In the previous season, in 2020, we averaged 370 ypg total offense, good enough for 17th. In 2019, we averaged 374 ypg, 8th in the league. But pick whatever category you like, 2021 was not anywhere close to our highest offensive production season.
https://www.footballdb.com/stats/teamst ... up=O&conf=
Same story with Russell's production. His highest QB rating was in 2018 at 110.9. In 2021, he posted a 103.1 rate, his 5th highest rate of his career.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... lsRu00.htm
I'm not sure how you're coming away with these impressions of yours, but our 7-11 record alone, contrasted with winning seasons in every year since 2011, would tell most people that 2021 was not a very good year for our offense.
Hawktawk wrote:I meant 2020 but I’m off on total offense . It was easily the most TD passes by Russ . I’d be curious how we stacked up in scoring offense because that’s the bottom line . Nobody thought 21 was a good year for anyone except Penny and Geno . Misprint
NorthHawk wrote:Cross will have an uphill battle to become a solid starter in my opinion. Even though the “Air Raid” Offense has been around
for some time with a lot of success there aren’t many if any OTs that have become starters. They’ve just had too much ground
to make up to become a solid player and most teams don’t give them that time. Pete hasn’t shown any willingness to let a
player develop on the OL so Cross will really have to show signs of improvement quickly. He’s young and seems to be a smart kid,
but it’s stacked against him at the moment.
RiverDog wrote:There is little doubt that Pete has historically under valued the offensive line and it was one of the major reasons why I wanted to see his head on a platter at the end of this season, but by using a #1 and a #3 this past draft, I'm optimistic that he may have had a change in heart.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Does anyone have metrics showing offensive line leads to more wins and Super Bowls? In a league with a salary cap, you have to pick where you save money. Pete and I think many other teams have chosen to save money on the O-line position group. If you want to have a strong defense, you have to pay for that. If you want a great QB, you have to pay really insane money. Great receivers are costing a lot now. So how do you expect a team to pay for a high quality O-line when so many other positions seem to be of higher value and cost a lot of money?
RiverDog wrote:OL performance is hard to quantify, but if I had a point to prove, I'd start with PFF's offensive line rankings. They are the gold standard for that type of information. Here's the Super Bowl winners and their final regular season PFF ranking:
2021 Rams 7th
2020 Tampa Bay 5th
2019 Kansas City 16th
2018 New England 4th
2017 Philadelphia 1st
Over the past 5 seasons, the only SB champ that did not have an offensive line ranked 7th or higher was Kansas City, and of course, Mahomes likely made up for that deficiency by his scrambling and elusiveness. So to answer your question, I'd say yes, that unless you have a very good, mobile quarterback, that having a very solid offensive line is essential for a Lombardi-winning team.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Now we need to figure out how much they were paying for their O-line. If it was good drafting or O-line retention after first contracts.
Old but Slow wrote:Just read an interesting stat. Only 4 teams in the last 20 years (adjusted to 16 game season) had fewer offensive snaps than the 2021 Seahawks. That was offset some by the top 10 ranking in explosive plays. That is a lot of pressure to put on a defense, as it needs to be on the field too long.
Old but Slow wrote:Just read an interesting stat. Only 4 teams in the last 20 years (adjusted to 16 game season) had fewer offensive snaps than the 2021 Seahawks. That was offset some by the top 10 ranking in explosive plays. That is a lot of pressure to put on a defense, as it needs to be on the field too long.
Old but Slow wrote:Just read an interesting stat. Only 4 teams in the last 20 years (adjusted to 16 game season) had fewer offensive snaps than the 2021 Seahawks. That was offset some by the top 10 ranking in explosive plays. That is a lot of pressure to put on a defense, as it needs to be on the field too long.
RiverDog wrote:Being 26th in 3rd down conversions and dead last on 4th down is a more telling stat than explosive plays, as was Russell's 3rd down completion percentage, which even before his injury was worst in the league amongst starting QB's. That's one area where I agree with Hawktawk regarding Russell as his penchant for lower percentage sideline routes and not utilizing the middle of the field had a profound effect on our 3rd/4th down conversions.
But it's also a direct reflection on our offensive line, too. Lots of factors in the equation.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests