1. I really don't wanna find out what the disaster would be, too.
2. I am by no means surprised with the Colby Parkinson/Will Dissly snap counts but this may be because I think Colby could become a legendary, seahawks tight end.
3. I could not decide between Noah Fant and Charbs but ultimately chose Noah because Zach is already getting a lot of opportunities, trending upwards and showing what he can do. Fant is just not getting a lot and for him personally I think he could really need them being a free agent next off-season.
We all want more exciting, mistake free QB play and lament that Pete is a dinosaur and too reluctant to make changes or take chances. We forget that when first hired by the Hawks he and Schneider led the league for a couple of years in player churn. He then found a free agent QB, drafted a 3rd round QB and put them in a 3 way QB competition. The least likely contender won that competition so Pete rode him all the way to two Super Bowls and cut bait on the free agent. Based on that I have to believe that Geno truly has demonstrated to the coaches that he’s the best option for now.
Pete’s “always compete” mantra doesn’t just apply to the players! He wants to win every game which is why the idea of a “tear it all down” rebuild is anathema to him. He’ll study as many players as possible and then once he’s picked his guys he will stay loyal and not throw them under a bus publicly. It’s why most of the players like playing for him. They know the NFL is ruthless, even Pete, but if they win his approval then he’ll do everything he can to “teach them up” as he says. It’s not just because he’s a “people person”, but also because it gives him the best chance to achieve his goals. Smart leaders in any endeavor try to maximize the strengths of their available personnel and Pete has been pretty successful at this.
The most amazing thing is that Pete seems to be rebuilding a good program with mostly new players. Most dynasties had a solid core and when it was gone the coach struggled to recapture the magic. A few left a team after success and then were successful again somewhere else, like Holmgren and Reid, but rebuilding at the same franchise is rare. I thought the Patriots under Belichek were an example of rising, falling, and rising again, but that’s beginning to look like the key was Brady more than Belichek.
What Pete has done in Seattle is incredibly hard in today’s parity driven NFL. He’s not the greatest tactician, he makes maddening decisions, he’s easy to dismiss as all rah rah and little substance. And yet his teams keep winning.
Following my earlier question about who it is that actually calls plays & how they get called...
Ken wrote:
"I will say that during almost every single game this season, comments in the Seaside Joe live chat thread will end up centering around why the Seahawks should give Drew Lock a chance that day. I don’t think these comments are overreacting in terms of Geno’s play, because I do believe that the offense has been more inept at times than it has any business being and no, I do not blame that all on Shane Waldron."
We, the outside observers, have little (perhaps no) visibility into who is "to blame" for perceived offensive ineptitude.
To simplify, the OC doesn't actually "call the plays". While the OC may (or may not) suggest a preferred option, the most the OC really does is call the player package and an initial planned formation. The QB calls the play based on the pre-snap read. We assume that he (the QB) does so on the basis of how he's been coached in advance, and what he knows about the players in that package, and what he sees on the other side of the line.
Y'all probably know this backwards & forwards, but I'm still catching up. Also...y'know...House of Idiot.
We, the outside observers, have no insight into who actually screwed up the play calling on any given down. As suggested by some other commenters, Smith might be just trying to do as he's told, exercising no initiative. Or, he might be doing something different exercising complete initiative. Out here, we can rarely tell.
We can assume ("makes an Ass out of U and Me") that Smith is generally consistent with how he's coached when he makes those calls...at least more correct and consistent than they think Lock is. The basis for their action is similarly founded on information to which we, as outside observers, are not privy. We don't get to see any of what's going on in there. That assumption seems like relatively low risk, because Lock is still riding the bench.
The RW3 era was different because he (#3) improvised like a spastic cat in a room full of Whoopie cushions after pretty much every snap (and, sometimes, apparently, even before that), where Smith generally does not appear to do so. That improvisation was a two-edged sword. It cut his way more often than not, but when it cut wrong it really hurt.
On the whole, this revelation is going to save me a lot of time: as soon as my new "QB/OC Rant Detector" goes off, I can quit reading.
Related unsubstantiated aside: IMHO, FWIW (and, as usual, EIEIO) I still think there is a challenge designing plays to take advantage of Smith's strengths and to mitigate his weaknesses. I suspect, but (as a mere outside observer & an Idiot to boot) cannot substantiate, that is why so many routes seem to take so long to develop: he processes at some certain rate & gets in trouble trying to go faster. The slow-developing routes would give him just a little bit longer to analyze the situation. Given "just a little bit longer", his analysis is probably pretty good, as is his throwing accuracy. Maybe we don't need a "better" QB, we just need one that comes to a good (not perfect) decision faster...without much loss of either throwing accuracy or analytical skill.
P.S. - How they get a star like Goldberg to stay in a room with a spastic cat remains a mystery to me.
Well said. I agree, and I try to think of the OC and QB as an inseparable duo. We have to assign blame to both and success for both. We cannot differentiate between the two, but Pete can.
Pretty sure that prior to Smith most discussions everywhere were about Wilson and the OL with the difference being Wilson gave us play from kickoff to final that kept us on the edge of our seats.
Thnx. I come here to read such debate, so thank you. This has been a no-holds-barred fan page. I draw the line at betting on a team because I like the color of today's uniform. Pete may likely be taking any heat on Geno and steering it to himself, as a good Coach will. Let's hope something gels and Geno finds his Inner Champion in this next half of this season. As with us all, dealing with strong Passion is a most confusing enterprise. I suspect clarity is at hand.
In listening to Pete explain the botched end of the first half last week where he took the 'blame' for leaving points on the field, we see the level of control he demands from his QB. Geno abides the confusion, goes out and tries to do his best to comply, letting the chips fall as they may. That is a Company Man. Not thinking, he grounds the ball and is called for doing so intentionally (more like mad panic). No doubt Russ would call bullshit and take hold of any similar situation, giving Pete quiet fits if it didn't work out. My bet is Lock has displayed such unwanted tendencies as Wilson and this may answer why Pete does not want him at the helm. Geno does what he's told without question. He doesn't process any Plan B. If our opponents are reading/intuiting Pete's instructions, it goes a long way to explaining our sad 3rd down record. I also read Michigan coach Harbaugh has been suspended for doing this, sending agents to video their rivals...
But I have been studying my Agrippa (because I find that, in combination with Capo Ferro, it defeats the Thibault variant of Bonetti's defense on rocky terrain), and I have a question.
If I understand correctly (IIUC), or somewhere in the general vicinity of correctly's neighborhood (a.k.a. IIUC-WTF), the OC (subject to HC override) calls for a personnel package, an initial deployment, and a "preferred" play (combination of routes and blocking assignments). Options are inherent in the package and the initial deployment. At "the line", the (mumble) "reads" the defensive package and deployment thereof. The "play" might include "motion" by offensive players to aid in diagnosis and to help obfuscate the offensive intent. The (mumble) incorporates the diagnosis, into a decision about which specific "play" will be executed.
The ball gets snapped, all hell breaks loose, and the plan disintegrates on first contact with the enemy.
Here follows the question: who is (or are) "mumble"? Is it always and only the QB, or is there a little OC birdie talking in the QB's ear the whole time, telling him which option to call at the line?
I agree with SSJ on where blames lies. As he stated, it isn't ALL Waldron's fault. I capitalized "all" where he did not because I think he and I disagree on where the majority of it lies. I am about 60/40 currently
So...here is an example of my point elsewhere in this thread.
Because the radio cuts out no later than 15 seconds remaining on the play clock, we cannot readily obtain objective information about where lieth the responsibility, or any fraction thereof. The most we can objectively complain about on Waldron is for the package and the initial formation. All decisions after the 15 second mark are coming out of Smith's head...and the outside observer has essentially no way to tell how consistent he's being with how he's being coached. We can only guess that he's being more consistent therewith than the coaching staff expect Lock to be or, at least, consistent enough that they believe he's the best option at their disposal.
Now soooome people have a built-in need to chew responsibility down to the quick. I'm a lucky guy: I don't need to do that. Somewhere between Carroll, Waldron, Olson, and Smith...it ain't working so good. Which one shoulders the most blame? Don't care...the last three are Carroll's problem, and the first one is Allen's.
No birdies. The radio communications shuts off at some point. although I'm not sure exactly when. Lets just say 10 seconds left on the play clock. Somebody knows the right answer.
Found it: "The Coach-to-Player system allows a member of the coaching staff in the bench area or the coaches’ booth to communicate to a designated offensive or defensive player with a speaker in his helmet. The communication begins once a game official has signaled a down to be over and is cut off when the play clock reaches 15 seconds or the ball is snapped, whichever occurs first."
Flame throwers get noticed, but this survey indicates that generally people who pay attention to this space are a little more patient. Yeah, each game is its own dramatic story and in the NFL, unexpected results seem to be the norm.
The Pete Carrol Hawks have always been a bit of a thrill ride, with major swings and amazing heroics. This year we've had last minute winning drives as well as the total collapse in Baltimore. The defense looks like it could be great, but they haven't yet coalesced. Maybe the offense will settle in a little more as the line gets healthier.
They're a cool mix of young and older players. Anyway, Seaside, I think the survey was a good idea. Good work.
I know I could be overly optimistic, but I'm wondering if Geno is getting some of the poor decisions out of his system prior to showtime. I think Peter's and the return of Lucas might improve Geno even more. ZC getting more touches in the running game on early downs and a defense that may have not entirely jellied yet. Add more JSN along with more TE scheme against the pass rush monster and Seattle still has more in the tank. Williams will make his mark from here out. This team could be very good against the upcoming teams if everyone gets on the same page. Rather than fearing the upcoming bullies of the gridiron you can't help but think that Seattle could shift gears and give some of it back and catch some people off guard. I think those teams are counting on Geno writing back. Maybe he won't.
My biggest frustration with Geno comes down to misfiring with so many weapons at his disposal. IF Geno can keep "bad Geno" in a box the offense has the potential to explode on anybody. Better play from Geno and offense makes the defense better too--keeps them off the field and fresh. I am not optimistic that is going to happen but I will be eating crow for dinner, and gladly, if it does.
The key to eating crow is to prepare it while it is young, and tender. Old, tough crow is bitter and awful, but young and tender crow can be palatable. Drink lots of wine when eating it and it's all good.
Or Jayden Daniels. Unfortunately, neither of them will last until the 3rd round which is when I believe the Seahawks will pick their QB. I do believe that McCall will due to the fact that he is not getting any hype my the talking heads and sports media. That is why I believe there is a strong chance JS/PC will have an opportunity to grab him and take it. Particularly if they read Seaside Joe.
I voted to keep starting Geno even though I see him as Not Good Enough in the end. Even so, I can’t see benching the starting QB of a 6-3 team, especially when there’s every reason to believe that he has the support and respect of his teammates. In my mind, that trumps all, including getting Lock in for a few sets to see what he can do (which wouldn’t be conclusive anyway). I might feel differently if the team flounders through the next five games, but I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it.
Just some thoughts after reading:
1. I really don't wanna find out what the disaster would be, too.
2. I am by no means surprised with the Colby Parkinson/Will Dissly snap counts but this may be because I think Colby could become a legendary, seahawks tight end.
3. I could not decide between Noah Fant and Charbs but ultimately chose Noah because Zach is already getting a lot of opportunities, trending upwards and showing what he can do. Fant is just not getting a lot and for him personally I think he could really need them being a free agent next off-season.
We all want more exciting, mistake free QB play and lament that Pete is a dinosaur and too reluctant to make changes or take chances. We forget that when first hired by the Hawks he and Schneider led the league for a couple of years in player churn. He then found a free agent QB, drafted a 3rd round QB and put them in a 3 way QB competition. The least likely contender won that competition so Pete rode him all the way to two Super Bowls and cut bait on the free agent. Based on that I have to believe that Geno truly has demonstrated to the coaches that he’s the best option for now.
Pete’s “always compete” mantra doesn’t just apply to the players! He wants to win every game which is why the idea of a “tear it all down” rebuild is anathema to him. He’ll study as many players as possible and then once he’s picked his guys he will stay loyal and not throw them under a bus publicly. It’s why most of the players like playing for him. They know the NFL is ruthless, even Pete, but if they win his approval then he’ll do everything he can to “teach them up” as he says. It’s not just because he’s a “people person”, but also because it gives him the best chance to achieve his goals. Smart leaders in any endeavor try to maximize the strengths of their available personnel and Pete has been pretty successful at this.
The most amazing thing is that Pete seems to be rebuilding a good program with mostly new players. Most dynasties had a solid core and when it was gone the coach struggled to recapture the magic. A few left a team after success and then were successful again somewhere else, like Holmgren and Reid, but rebuilding at the same franchise is rare. I thought the Patriots under Belichek were an example of rising, falling, and rising again, but that’s beginning to look like the key was Brady more than Belichek.
What Pete has done in Seattle is incredibly hard in today’s parity driven NFL. He’s not the greatest tactician, he makes maddening decisions, he’s easy to dismiss as all rah rah and little substance. And yet his teams keep winning.
Following my earlier question about who it is that actually calls plays & how they get called...
Ken wrote:
"I will say that during almost every single game this season, comments in the Seaside Joe live chat thread will end up centering around why the Seahawks should give Drew Lock a chance that day. I don’t think these comments are overreacting in terms of Geno’s play, because I do believe that the offense has been more inept at times than it has any business being and no, I do not blame that all on Shane Waldron."
We, the outside observers, have little (perhaps no) visibility into who is "to blame" for perceived offensive ineptitude.
To simplify, the OC doesn't actually "call the plays". While the OC may (or may not) suggest a preferred option, the most the OC really does is call the player package and an initial planned formation. The QB calls the play based on the pre-snap read. We assume that he (the QB) does so on the basis of how he's been coached in advance, and what he knows about the players in that package, and what he sees on the other side of the line.
Y'all probably know this backwards & forwards, but I'm still catching up. Also...y'know...House of Idiot.
We, the outside observers, have no insight into who actually screwed up the play calling on any given down. As suggested by some other commenters, Smith might be just trying to do as he's told, exercising no initiative. Or, he might be doing something different exercising complete initiative. Out here, we can rarely tell.
We can assume ("makes an Ass out of U and Me") that Smith is generally consistent with how he's coached when he makes those calls...at least more correct and consistent than they think Lock is. The basis for their action is similarly founded on information to which we, as outside observers, are not privy. We don't get to see any of what's going on in there. That assumption seems like relatively low risk, because Lock is still riding the bench.
The RW3 era was different because he (#3) improvised like a spastic cat in a room full of Whoopie cushions after pretty much every snap (and, sometimes, apparently, even before that), where Smith generally does not appear to do so. That improvisation was a two-edged sword. It cut his way more often than not, but when it cut wrong it really hurt.
On the whole, this revelation is going to save me a lot of time: as soon as my new "QB/OC Rant Detector" goes off, I can quit reading.
Related unsubstantiated aside: IMHO, FWIW (and, as usual, EIEIO) I still think there is a challenge designing plays to take advantage of Smith's strengths and to mitigate his weaknesses. I suspect, but (as a mere outside observer & an Idiot to boot) cannot substantiate, that is why so many routes seem to take so long to develop: he processes at some certain rate & gets in trouble trying to go faster. The slow-developing routes would give him just a little bit longer to analyze the situation. Given "just a little bit longer", his analysis is probably pretty good, as is his throwing accuracy. Maybe we don't need a "better" QB, we just need one that comes to a good (not perfect) decision faster...without much loss of either throwing accuracy or analytical skill.
P.S. - How they get a star like Goldberg to stay in a room with a spastic cat remains a mystery to me.
Well said. I agree, and I try to think of the OC and QB as an inseparable duo. We have to assign blame to both and success for both. We cannot differentiate between the two, but Pete can.
Pretty sure that prior to Smith most discussions everywhere were about Wilson and the OL with the difference being Wilson gave us play from kickoff to final that kept us on the edge of our seats.
Thnx. I come here to read such debate, so thank you. This has been a no-holds-barred fan page. I draw the line at betting on a team because I like the color of today's uniform. Pete may likely be taking any heat on Geno and steering it to himself, as a good Coach will. Let's hope something gels and Geno finds his Inner Champion in this next half of this season. As with us all, dealing with strong Passion is a most confusing enterprise. I suspect clarity is at hand.
You're welcome.
Also, right back atcha.
"a status quo-rterback"
Whoa! ... what kind of mind can come up with these?
Only From the Mind of KenJoe.
In listening to Pete explain the botched end of the first half last week where he took the 'blame' for leaving points on the field, we see the level of control he demands from his QB. Geno abides the confusion, goes out and tries to do his best to comply, letting the chips fall as they may. That is a Company Man. Not thinking, he grounds the ball and is called for doing so intentionally (more like mad panic). No doubt Russ would call bullshit and take hold of any similar situation, giving Pete quiet fits if it didn't work out. My bet is Lock has displayed such unwanted tendencies as Wilson and this may answer why Pete does not want him at the helm. Geno does what he's told without question. He doesn't process any Plan B. If our opponents are reading/intuiting Pete's instructions, it goes a long way to explaining our sad 3rd down record. I also read Michigan coach Harbaugh has been suspended for doing this, sending agents to video their rivals...
Here we are, talking about Smith & Waldron again.
But I have been studying my Agrippa (because I find that, in combination with Capo Ferro, it defeats the Thibault variant of Bonetti's defense on rocky terrain), and I have a question.
If I understand correctly (IIUC), or somewhere in the general vicinity of correctly's neighborhood (a.k.a. IIUC-WTF), the OC (subject to HC override) calls for a personnel package, an initial deployment, and a "preferred" play (combination of routes and blocking assignments). Options are inherent in the package and the initial deployment. At "the line", the (mumble) "reads" the defensive package and deployment thereof. The "play" might include "motion" by offensive players to aid in diagnosis and to help obfuscate the offensive intent. The (mumble) incorporates the diagnosis, into a decision about which specific "play" will be executed.
The ball gets snapped, all hell breaks loose, and the plan disintegrates on first contact with the enemy.
Here follows the question: who is (or are) "mumble"? Is it always and only the QB, or is there a little OC birdie talking in the QB's ear the whole time, telling him which option to call at the line?
I agree with SSJ on where blames lies. As he stated, it isn't ALL Waldron's fault. I capitalized "all" where he did not because I think he and I disagree on where the majority of it lies. I am about 60/40 currently
So...here is an example of my point elsewhere in this thread.
Because the radio cuts out no later than 15 seconds remaining on the play clock, we cannot readily obtain objective information about where lieth the responsibility, or any fraction thereof. The most we can objectively complain about on Waldron is for the package and the initial formation. All decisions after the 15 second mark are coming out of Smith's head...and the outside observer has essentially no way to tell how consistent he's being with how he's being coached. We can only guess that he's being more consistent therewith than the coaching staff expect Lock to be or, at least, consistent enough that they believe he's the best option at their disposal.
Now soooome people have a built-in need to chew responsibility down to the quick. I'm a lucky guy: I don't need to do that. Somewhere between Carroll, Waldron, Olson, and Smith...it ain't working so good. Which one shoulders the most blame? Don't care...the last three are Carroll's problem, and the first one is Allen's.
You are wonderful! I must know who you are!
No one of consequence.
mkay
I combined "who are you" and "I must know", but I like how you made thr scene work by giving me my cue anyway. Well done
Disappointment takes some getting used to.
Please just don't hurt an artisan such as myself
No birdies. The radio communications shuts off at some point. although I'm not sure exactly when. Lets just say 10 seconds left on the play clock. Somebody knows the right answer.
Found it: "The Coach-to-Player system allows a member of the coaching staff in the bench area or the coaches’ booth to communicate to a designated offensive or defensive player with a speaker in his helmet. The communication begins once a game official has signaled a down to be over and is cut off when the play clock reaches 15 seconds or the ball is snapped, whichever occurs first."
https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-rulebook/
Follow-on question(s) for the enthralled throng will follow after a bit of thought collection.
Flame throwers get noticed, but this survey indicates that generally people who pay attention to this space are a little more patient. Yeah, each game is its own dramatic story and in the NFL, unexpected results seem to be the norm.
The Pete Carrol Hawks have always been a bit of a thrill ride, with major swings and amazing heroics. This year we've had last minute winning drives as well as the total collapse in Baltimore. The defense looks like it could be great, but they haven't yet coalesced. Maybe the offense will settle in a little more as the line gets healthier.
They're a cool mix of young and older players. Anyway, Seaside, I think the survey was a good idea. Good work.
I know I could be overly optimistic, but I'm wondering if Geno is getting some of the poor decisions out of his system prior to showtime. I think Peter's and the return of Lucas might improve Geno even more. ZC getting more touches in the running game on early downs and a defense that may have not entirely jellied yet. Add more JSN along with more TE scheme against the pass rush monster and Seattle still has more in the tank. Williams will make his mark from here out. This team could be very good against the upcoming teams if everyone gets on the same page. Rather than fearing the upcoming bullies of the gridiron you can't help but think that Seattle could shift gears and give some of it back and catch some people off guard. I think those teams are counting on Geno writing back. Maybe he won't.
This.
My biggest frustration with Geno comes down to misfiring with so many weapons at his disposal. IF Geno can keep "bad Geno" in a box the offense has the potential to explode on anybody. Better play from Geno and offense makes the defense better too--keeps them off the field and fresh. I am not optimistic that is going to happen but I will be eating crow for dinner, and gladly, if it does.
Eating crow instead of Turkey? OK, Doug's Fresh, how do you prepare that meal?
The key to eating crow is to prepare it while it is young, and tender. Old, tough crow is bitter and awful, but young and tender crow can be palatable. Drink lots of wine when eating it and it's all good.
I know your post is humorous, but as a crow friend I must protest since birds are telepathic, and would know if I didn't.
I believe the quantity of wine is the key.
If we don't make the playoffs or we're one and done, Geno is gone. The Hawks are a heathy Oline and a young mobile QB from SB contenders. ( Pennix )
An innovative OC wouldn't hurt. Most of the pieces are there !
I'm watching Van Dyke, QB for Miami, and I like what I see sort of. He just missed a TD to come back against Louisville.
Or Jayden Daniels. Unfortunately, neither of them will last until the 3rd round which is when I believe the Seahawks will pick their QB. I do believe that McCall will due to the fact that he is not getting any hype my the talking heads and sports media. That is why I believe there is a strong chance JS/PC will have an opportunity to grab him and take it. Particularly if they read Seaside Joe.
Seahawks end season goal: please don't embarrass us and yourselves
Thought on Geno: quarterbacks are so hit and miss and system dependent that guaranteeing even average play is hard to do
See Jim Plunkett, A bust in NE , HOF in San Fran.
I voted to keep starting Geno even though I see him as Not Good Enough in the end. Even so, I can’t see benching the starting QB of a 6-3 team, especially when there’s every reason to believe that he has the support and respect of his teammates. In my mind, that trumps all, including getting Lock in for a few sets to see what he can do (which wouldn’t be conclusive anyway). I might feel differently if the team flounders through the next five games, but I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it.