The Way Too Early Prediction Thread

[RiverDog]

Starting slow is maybe the wrong way of talking about it. What I see is that Pete likes to feel out the opponent, making conservative calls until he has a grip on what the other team is doing. For me, I would prefer to force the other team to be adapting to us rather than us adapting to them. It reminds me of a boxer who goes easy early to find the other fighters weak spots before turning up the attack. It is a conservative approach, smart, and has been successful much of the time. But, it is an approach for a team that fears it is over matched. If you are confident, you do not worry about what the other team can do, because you know you can handle it, so no need to take a soft introduction.

Maybe we are not yet good enough for an aggressive game plan, but I would like to see the team become that good.

Good point. It's quite possible that Pete, or any other coach for that matter, may vary their approach depending on the opponent. For example, there may not be as much of a need to "feel out" an interdivisional opponent that we play twice a season as you already have a pretty good idea of how they're going to play. But if you're playing a team in another conference that you play just once every 4 seasons, you may want to take the "feel out" approach. Same goes for teams with new coaches/OC's vs teams that have had the same coaching staff for years.

[c_hawkbob]

Almost all coaches are that way, it's the basic principle behind the '15 scripted plays; to see how the other guy reacts to certain formations and personnel groupings, planning counterpunches to their counterpunches.

[Old but Slow]

Hmmmm. Maybe we are seeking a solution without a problem. Not the first time I have been drawkcab.

[Aseahawkfan]

Starting slow is maybe the wrong way of talking about it. What I see is that Pete likes to feel out the opponent, making conservative calls until he has a grip on what the other team is doing. For me, I would prefer to force the other team to be adapting to us rather than us adapting to them. It reminds me of a boxer who goes easy early to find the other fighters weak spots before turning up the attack. It is a conservative approach, smart, and has been successful much of the time. But, it is an approach for a team that fears it is over matched. If you are confident, you do not worry about what the other team can do, because you know you can handle it, so no need to take a soft introduction.

Maybe we are not yet good enough for an aggressive game plan, but I would like to see the team become that good.

I can see Pete being conservative. He hates turnovers. He doesn't like mistakes that give the other team the ball. I've heard Pete talk a lot of about the turnover ratio being a key metric in the win-loss record. Win the turnover battle and you will likely win the game, which makes Pete more likely to support a conservative, careful offense that keeps the ball on the ground and takes fewer chances.

[RiverDog]

I can see Pete being conservative. He hates turnovers. He doesn't like mistakes that give the other team the ball. I've heard Pete talk a lot of about the turnover ratio being a key metric in the win-loss record. Win the turnover battle and you will likely win the game, which makes Pete more likely to support a conservative, careful offense that keeps the ball on the ground and takes fewer chances.

All coaches hate turnovers. Matt Hasselbeck, after throwing a pick, used to go to the end of the bench to avoid having to confront Mike Holmgren. I can't remember the player's name, but The Walrus once shipped off a running back because he kept putting the ball on the ground. Holmgren had very little patience for mistakes in general and turnovers specifically.

I get your point, but rather than saying that Pete ' hates turnovers', I'd express it in a little different way. Pete is less risk tolerant than other NFL coaches.

[Stream Hawk]

@ River. Ahman Green. I might have spelled his 1st name wrong, but I loved that guy. Fast and could definitely catch the rock. Seems like he got much better when he went to Green Bay.

[Old but Slow]

Speaking of turnovers, there is a revealing article at Field Gulls. In 2022 Seattle had 25 turnovers which led to 17 scores by the opponents, 13 touchdowns and 4 field goals. That put the team at the top 3 in points off turnovers. By comparison, the 2018 team had 11 turnovers all season, while last year we gave up more TDs than that.

Geno had 17 turnovers (12 interceptions), which is a high number for a Carroll quarterback.

That is an area that needs to be cleaned up.

[RiverDog]

@ River. Ahman Green. I might have spelled his 1st name wrong, but I loved that guy. Fast and could definitely catch the rock. Seems like he got much better when he went to Green Bay.

I was going to say last name Green. Thanks for helping me dust off the cob webs!

[Aseahawkfan]

I get your point, but rather than saying that Pete ' hates turnovers', I'd express it in a little different way. Pete is less risk tolerant than other NFL coaches.

My point is that Pete puts an immense emphasis on the turnover ratio metric for winning games. I've heard him discuss a few metrics off the top of my head and turnover ratio is a big one.

Pete wants to run a ball control offense with an aggressive turnover seeking defense.

Pete wants too keep explosive plays down on defense keeping plays under 20 yards and get explosive plays on offense set up by the run game. He always says, "Run to move the ball, throw to score."

To me none of this is what I call Pete-ball as some like to call it. To me it's a classic, balanced ball control offense fueled by the run with an aggressive, strong defense many defensive coaches prefer. When you have the parts, it works amazing. When you have a weak defense, it really doesn't work.

If Pete could, we would put up 50 every week and hold the other team to zero. But that isn't how football works. Pete certainly isn't trying to start slow or only win in the fourth quarter. People focus on that due to Pete's aphorism, "It's not how you start, it's how you finish." People take that to mean Pete has some kind of "start slow, win at the end strategy" while I see it as as Pete-Speak. Just more positive fluff he tosses out there to frame whatever we're doing.

I'm sure the preferred method for Pete and every other NFL coach is score as fast and as often as possible and keep points off the board, win as big as possible all the time. But this is the NFL and the NFL don't work like that.

[NorthHawk]

It's off topic, but check out this KJ All Day podcast with Luke Willson. They talk about some of the things that went on behind closed doors within the team, the Jimmy Graham trade, SB 49 and 'The Play', and other stuff.
It's fairly long, but if you have the time check it out. I had to listen to it over a couple of days because life got in the way but it's about 85 minutes long.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWnS-Teih_E

[RiverDog]

I get your point, but rather than saying that Pete ' hates turnovers', I'd express it in a little different way. Pete is less risk tolerant than other NFL coaches.

My point is that Pete puts an immense emphasis on the turnover ratio metric for winning games. I've heard him discuss a few metrics off the top of my head and turnover ratio is a big one.

Pete wants to run a ball control offense with an aggressive turnover seeking defense.

Pete wants too keep explosive plays down on defense keeping plays under 20 yards and get explosive plays on offense set up by the run game. He always says, "Run to move the ball, throw to score."

To me none of this is what I call Pete-ball as some like to call it. To me it's a classic, balanced ball control offense fueled by the run with an aggressive, strong defense many defensive coaches prefer. When you have the parts, it works amazing. When you have a weak defense, it really doesn't work.

If Pete could, we would put up 50 every week and hold the other team to zero. But that isn't how football works. Pete certainly isn't trying to start slow or only win in the fourth quarter. People focus on that due to Pete's aphorism, "It's not how you start, it's how you finish." People take that to mean Pete has some kind of "start slow, win at the end strategy" while I see it as as Pete-Speak. Just more positive fluff he tosses out there to frame whatever we're doing.

I'm sure the preferred method for Pete and every other NFL coach is score as fast and as often as possible and keep points off the board, win as big as possible all the time. But this is the NFL and the NFL don't work like that.

I'm mostly in agreement. My problem was with how you characterized Pete, that he 'hates' turnovers. All coaches hate turnovers, and there are others, like Holmgren, that arguably hate them more than Pete does.

I agree that Pete doesn't intentionally 'start slow.' Plus, I'll add that Pete saying that he 'prefers' to win by a score of 23-17 isn't necessarily an indication of his game planning. It's simply what his dream game might look like. Heck, I don't like watching a 45-42 game anymore than I like watching a 7-0 game. One game reminds me of arena football, the other of a soccer game. If I'm a coach, I want to win every game 50-0, and I don't think that Pete is any different.

[NorthHawk]

I think on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being George Allen and 10 being Don Coryell, Pete lands around 3 or 4. I don't think that cuts it in today's NFL with the rules skewed in favor of the Offense and passing.
Unfortunately for those not liking 45-42 games, the NFL seems to think that higher scoring games attract more viewers. For me, I don't mind 10-7 games and I also don't mind 45-42 games because I watch a lot of other things that go on during the games like the individual battles in the trenches and how the defenses are shutting down the other teams offense. But most people don't view the games like some of us do and get excited only by scoring.

I think (when he has a good Defense) the plan is to be conservative at the beginning and win at the end. That means slow starts at the beginning.
It can work if you have a big power RB like we had in Lynch or Derrick Henry who would wear down the Defenses by hammering them, but when you don't have one, it's going to be much less effective.
We've seen that without a good Defense the team comes out strong early. The pattern is clear to me that the plan is to have a low scoring 1st half - which again means a slow start.

[RiverDog]

I think on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being George Allen and 10 being Don Coryell, Pete lands around 3 or 4. I don't think that cuts it in today's NFL with the rules skewed in favor of the Offense and passing.
Unfortunately for those not liking 45-42 games, the NFL seems to think that higher scoring games attract more viewers. For me, I don't mind 10-7 games and I also don't mind 45-42 games because I watch a lot of other things that go on during the games like the individual battles in the trenches and how the defenses are shutting down the other teams offense. But most people don't view the games like some of us do and get excited only by scoring.

I think (when he has a good Defense) the plan is to be conservative at the beginning and win at the end. That means slow starts at the beginning.
It can work if you have a big power RB like we had in Lynch or Derrick Henry who would wear down the Defenses by hammering them, but when you don't have one, it's going to be much less effective.
We've seen that without a good Defense the team comes out strong early. The pattern is clear to me that the plan is to have a low scoring 1st half - which again means a slow start.

At least as far as contemporary, current day NFL coaches goes, I'd put Pete much lower on the scale, a 1 or 2 on a scale of 1-10. That's one of the reasons why I think that the game has passed him by.

I attended the Seahawks-Lions game in Detroit last year, a game of which we won 48-45. Even though we won, I didn't like it. It seemed like I was having to stand up and high 5 my fellow Seahawk fans every few minutes. It was a game of frustration, watching the Lions cut through our defense like a hot knife through butter. Detroit punted just once, and we didn't punt at all. I got the feeling that we didn't really win the game, rather that we just happened to be ahead when the clock finally ran out.

[NorthHawk]

With shootout type games, I often feel it's just a matter of survival, not victory in the sense of beating the opponent.
But that game showed how much better the Lions are - or were at the end of last year than a few years ago. I think they have a chance to be a legitimate dark horse team this year. Almost certainly a spoiler if not.

[RiverDog]

With shootout type games, I often feel it's just a matter of survival, not victory in the sense of beating the opponent.
But that game showed how much better the Lions are - or were at the end of last year than a few years ago. I think they have a chance to be a legitimate dark horse team this year. Almost certainly a spoiler if not.

Agreed about the Lions. Goff was the most underrated QB in the league last year and may have finally found his groove. After starting the season at 1-6, the Lions went 8-2 over their last 10 games, they play in a weak division, and they would seem to have a favorable schedule. If I were a betting man, I'd lay a hundred bucks on them to win the Super Bowl.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

We've seen the Lions get up before when Schwartz (?) was coach. They fizzled, but I agree they look to be a talented team that finished on a high note last season as well as having a nice draft this year and last. They keep that level of play up from last season, they'll be tough to beat.

Looking at the Seahawks' stats from last season, there were 573 passing attempts and 425 rushing attempts. Not accounting for called runs vs scrambles (Geno had 68 carries), that's a 57/43 pass:rush ratio. I think Pete is perfectly happy with small-balling it with the passing game as long as they protect the ball. I'll be curious to see if the defense starts playing better, will he let Waldron continue to pass as much. Given the talent at WR and TE, why not? Let those guys YAC the other team to death.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm going to make my current prediction 11-6. We make the playoffs and possibly win the division. Our division doesn't look strong this year.