12-0 over 250 yards

[Seymour]

Your defense won't get better.

The offense can.

Our best players are on offense.

And the offense wasn't even close to NFL standards as a whole.............

Is this some kind of joke? How can anyone say with a straight face only one side of the ball is capable of improvement??

Was the defense not better in the 2nd half the last 2 games?? :roll:

 

[TwistedHusky]

That is true.

You CAN leverage your worst players and try to get better.

Or you can leverage your best.

We have a top 7 QB in the league and he had thrown for 38 yd before the 2 min warning in the first half. 6 total passes.

Ask yourself how that is leveraging your best players to win.

Would you rather win games with Wilson or Tedric Thompson? Which one is more likely?

or you can rail against the defense but we don't have the horses, we have average players and we stole the DC from the Raiders (who they probably want back because he was terrible there and they are trying to lose). He hasn't been terrible here but it isn't a prescription for any kind of regular success against better than .500 teams.

In the NFL, you win with your best players. Our best players are on offense.

 

[mrt144]

Just curious what the stats are for games where we pass for less than 50 yards at the half?

I imagine not great.

So running for tons of yards while at the same time being almost unable to pass the ball and having a horrible 3rd down efficiency? They probably offset each other.

We did score 31 but we didn't do ourselves any favors running our own clock down when down by 2 scores.

It is a stat that makes sense but if you compare total offensive efficiency and effectiveness #s you get a bit of a different story.

I'm trying to find this via Pro Football Reference but there doesn't seem to be a way to get passing yards at half out of it.

Edit: I did the 2018 Season using a few filters that show me only completed passes by RW in the 1st and 2nd quarter, then sum the total yards passing by looking at the game log and then find out if it it was a win or not.

in 2018 they dipped below 100 passing yards in the 1st half and the record is 1-2. Against the Bears they had 68 yards passing in the first half and lost (24-17), 85 against the Cardinals and won (20-17), 39 against the Rams and lost (36-31).

2017 Since I'm doing this reverse chronological order I've already got two hits:

2nd Cardinals game - 36 passing yards at half - Loss
Cowboys - 35 Passing yards at half - Win

Interesting to note that the final was 26-24 Cards and 21-12 Hawks respectively.

Rams - 88 at half - Loss - (42-7 Rams)
Jags - 36 at half - Loss ( 30-24 Jags)
Eagles - 85 at half - Win (24-10)
Niners - 80 at Half - Win (24-13)
Skins - 98 at Half - Loss (17-14)
Packers 59 at Half - Loss (17-9)

I might do 2012-2016 later.

 

[Seymour]

That is true.

You CAN leverage your worst players and try to get better.

Or you can leverage your best.

We have a top 7 QB in the league and he had thrown for 38 yd before the 2 min warning in the first half. 6 total passes.

Ask yourself how that is leveraging your best players to win.

Would you rather win games with Wilson or Tedric Thompson? Which one is more likely?

or you can rail against the defense but we don't have the horses, we have average players and we stole the DC from the Raiders (who they probably want back because he was terrible there and they are trying to lose). He hasn't been terrible here but it isn't a prescription for any kind of regular success against better than .500 teams.

In the NFL, you win with your best players. Our best players are on offense.

Your entire premise that the offense is our clear strength is not even factual! Forget what you think you know and look at the numbers. Just going with points allowed / scored offense is #18 in the league and defense is #9. Scrap your entire plan IMO. From there look at how the team is designed to win. It's designed to win with a top 3-5 D and ball control. Get the D where it belongs and other things will fall into place. You want to change that and focus on offense? You'll need another head coach then!

Lastly. we have more youth on defense and vets on offense. By default that means that there is actually more room to improve and grow on defense. Again, exact opposite of what you stated.

 

[mrt144]

That is true.

You CAN leverage your worst players and try to get better.

Or you can leverage your best.

We have a top 7 QB in the league and he had thrown for 38 yd before the 2 min warning in the first half. 6 total passes.

Ask yourself how that is leveraging your best players to win.

Would you rather win games with Wilson or Tedric Thompson? Which one is more likely?

or you can rail against the defense but we don't have the horses, we have average players and we stole the DC from the Raiders (who they probably want back because he was terrible there and they are trying to lose). He hasn't been terrible here but it isn't a prescription for any kind of regular success against better than .500 teams.

In the NFL, you win with your best players. Our best players are on offense.

Your entire premise that the offense is our clear strength is not even factual! Forget what you think you know and look at the numbers. Just going with points allowed / scored offense is #18 in the league and defense is #9. Scrap your entire plan IMO. From there look at how the team is designed to win. It's designed to win with a top 3-5 D and ball control. Get the D where it belongs and other things will fall into place. You want to change that and focus on offense? You'll need another head coach then!

I think in terms of known quantities the offense is clearer than defense. But in terms of what the team needs to do to win within the parameters of their strategy, the D has to be even better than they are. And totally agree with the coaching aspect - there is nothing out there that shows that our tendencies and foibles will change because of Pete at the helm. But that doesn't make me less jealous of what Nagy and Mark Helfrich are doing with Trubisky as an example. Or hold back questioning why it is so important for Pete to pursue his dogmatic quest towards one 'true' football when it seems to require so many more ducks in a row to pull off.

 

[Seymour]

Not saying I like it either! I really don't like the lack of flexibility to do what is needed every week for every team. But we have what we have, and this is the fastest way to get the most of what we have with the given parameters of Pete ball.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Seymour,

The defense has nothing but average players on it. Our difference makers are primarily on offense.

We do have:
Clark
Wagner
KJ (?)

But for the most part, all those young players are young with average athletic ability. They are not something we can pin improvement on. They are high floor, low ceiling types. Maybe Griffin and Flowers have some run untapped stuff since they occasionally flash their potential but that is it.

I guess people are high on Naz and Green too but I have not really seen it in games.

Contrast to the offense:

Wilson
Baldwin
Lockett
Carson

(You could even put Penny, who still is flashing more potential than most of the young players on defense. Then again he was a higher pick).

Who can make more difference in a game,
Clark or Wilson?
Wagner or Baldwin?
Lockett or KJ

I get you are used to us being able to lean on the defense to keep us in games or win them. Those days are over. We either win with offense, play to a standstill or 'lose because of the defense'. We were rated #9 but if you look at who we played it would be apparent that #9 was inflated. The only game I saw against a decent team that the defense really looked above average was against the Cowboys.

Everyone looks good against the Raiders, they are trying to lose.
The Cards are not as bad as the Raiders, but they were still starting a rookie QB.
The Lions are, shockingly, the Lions. (Not sure why everyone thought they were good but that is another topic)

We aren't ending this year with our defense in the top 10, and that is with our run game protecting the defense massively. The upside is offense. The defense is actually playing better than the roster indicates they should.

 

[Seymour]

You are far too hung up on name familiarity and your vision of what you believe is "average". The numbers don't lie. All those lost all pro's were also average before they got their shot. Many on D were boosted because of the system. Maxwell, Browner, Thurmond, Marsh, Irvin, Smith come to mind for starters. Most of them flamed out after they left.

All those teams you point out as weaknesses, play both offense and defense too. So the stats go both ways so both sides get inflated not just "your side of the ball".

 

[Bandwagon76]

Really just comes down to sh*tting the bed. In every close loss this season it just seems like we get close then freeze up. This team is the definition of passive aggressive.

 

[chris98251]

Losing to the Rams and controlling the ball and getting the yards on the ground was an anomaly, 99 percent of the time you win with that formula, the turnover and on side attempt skewed things.

 

[mrt144]

Losing to the Rams and controlling the ball and getting the yards on the ground was an anomaly, 99 percent of the time you win with that formula, the turnover and on side attempt skewed things.

Interestingly enough I did a quick query of teams that have over 250 rushing yards in a game and gave up 30+ points along the way.

From 2012 to 2018 only 7 games qualify across the NFL.

2018:

SEA / 36-31 Loss

2016:

BUF / 34-31 Loss in OT

MIA/ 34-31 Win in OT (yes it was the same game)

2014:

SF / 35-38 Loss in OT

2013:

DEN / 34-31 Loss in OT
TB / 44-32 Win

2012:
CAR / 44-38 Win


I also looked at games where a team gave up 30+ points and had less than 250 yards passing - over 400 games qualified and strictly looking at W/L percentages, a team that gave up 30+ points and got less than 250 yards passing won around 5% of their games in that situation.

I further restricted to look at teams that got over 200 yards rushing in a game, gave up 30+ points and had less than 250 yards passing.

16 games qualified and Losers outweighed the Winners 11-5.

I opened the Passing Yards a bit to <300 and that increased the data size to 25. Losers still outweighed winners 15-10.

Finally I went all the way back to >250 yards rushing and giving up =< 30 points. 36 games qualified and Winners outweighed Loser 33-3! (And if you look at games where a team got 450 yards passing and gave up 30 points it's 10-3 Winners over Losers)

Obviously we are dealing with smaller than small sample sizes here but some of it at least makes some sort of sense - giving up 30+ points seems bad no matter how good your rushing offense is. And it seems worse if your passing game sucks on the same day. In fact, that Overtime Buffalo game Vs. Miami is the only game that qualified under the conditions of >250 yards rushing, >300 yards passing and giving up 30+ points across 2012-2018 season. And only Buffalo did. And they lost.

I will reiterate again that sample sizes are small in some situations so drawing a conclusion is murky but across the board it seems like giving up 30 points is bad.

 

[chris98251]

Losing to the Rams and controlling the ball and getting the yards on the ground was an anomaly, 99 percent of the time you win with that formula, the turnover and on side attempt skewed things.

Interestingly enough I did a quick query of teams that have over 250 rushing yards in a game and gave up 30+ points along the way.

From 2012 to 2018 only 7 games qualify across the NFL.

2018:

SEA / 36-31 Loss

2016:

BUF / 34-31 Loss in OT

MIA/ 34-31 Win in OT (yes it was the same game)

2014:

SF / 35-38 Loss in OT

2013:

DEN / 34-31 Loss in OT
TB / 44-32 Win

2012:
CAR / 44-38 Win


I also looked at games where a team gave up 30+ points and had less than 250 yards passing - over 400 games qualified and strictly looking at W/L percentages, a team that gave up 30+ points and got less than 250 yards passing won around 5% of their games in that situation.

I further restricted to look at teams that got over 200 yards rushing in a game, gave up 30+ points and had less than 250 yards passing.

16 games qualified and Losers outweighed the Winners 11-5.

I opened the Passing Yards a bit to <300 and that increased the data size to 25. Losers still outweighed winners 15-10.

Finally I went all the way back to >250 yards rushing and giving up =< 30 points. 36 games qualified and Winners outweighed Loser 33-3! (And if you look at games where a team got 450 yards passing and gave up 30 points it's 10-3 Winners over Losers)

Obviously we are dealing with smaller than small sample sizes here but some of it at least makes some sort of sense - giving up 30+ points seems bad no matter how good your rushing offense is. And it seems worse if your passing game sucks on the same day. In fact, that Overtime Buffalo game Vs. Miami is the only game that qualified under the conditions of >250 yards rushing, >300 yards passing and giving up 30+ points across 2012-2018 season. And only Buffalo did. And they lost.

I will reiterate again that sample sizes are small in some situations so drawing a conclusion is murky but across the board it seems like giving up 30 points is bad.

I was talking strictly from the rushing perspective, the fumble gave them more points, the onside kick set them up for more points. Most game you give up 30 plus points is bad also, they may not have hit the 30 mark if not for the two big mistakes. The defense was actually playing better in the second half.

 

[DomeHawk]

Just about any team that ran for 250 yds will win, it's not a relevant stat because it's a rare occurrence in today's game.

 

[CamanoIslandJQ]

Earlier today I read a stat (don't remember where) that since 2012 the Seahawks are 50-0 in games when they were up by 4 or more points at halftime. Assuming that is correct, it says a lot. More first half scoring may be needed this season to maintain that stat.

:smilingalien:

 

[bigskydoc]

I know he is hurt, my question is why he says he'll only be 80% all year and tip all the other teams to possibly switch coverage and put their #1 on Lockett.

On the final, and arguably most important, play of the Rams game. How did the coverage on Baldwin compare to the coverage on every other receiver on the field? He was double, smother covered like chili on a hot dog. Lockett, Moore, and Brown were all given huge zone cushions, and only stellar play by Donald, combined with bone headed play by Brown, prevented Wilson from making an easy toss, to a wide open receiver, for a first down.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Losing to the Rams and controlling the ball and getting the yards on the ground was an anomaly, 99 percent of the time you win with that formula, the turnover and on side attempt skewed things.

I think this is an antiquated stat that maybe proved out before the league turned into flag football with high powered offenses that are capable of moving the ball and scoring quickly.

Not that running the ball, controlling the clock and keeping the other team's offense on the bench isn't a good thing. But when you play teams like the Rams, Packers, Chargers and soon the Chiefs who score 30+ a game and score quickly, it's not going to be as successful........as we've found out the last two weeks.

 

[justafan]

Losing to the Rams and controlling the ball and getting the yards on the ground was an anomaly, 99 percent of the time you win with that formula, the turnover and on side attempt skewed things.

I think this is an antiquated stat that maybe proved out before the league turned into flag football with high powered offenses that are capable of moving the ball and scoring quickly.

Not that running the ball, controlling the clock and keeping the other team's offense on the bench isn't a good thing. But when you play teams like the Rams, Packers, Chargers and soon the Chiefs who score 30+ a game and score quickly, it's not going to be as successful........as we've found out the last two weeks.

I understand why people feel the strategy has not been a success but it has been IMO. It might not have shown up in the win column but I doubt very few teams have played a schedule as tough as we have . Every loss we have had I would say we had the weaker talent. Sometimes by a large margin. Yet we have stood toe to toe with some of the best teams in the league with chances to win at the end.


The roster needs upgrades throughout the D and until then it makes perfect sense to me to hide them behind our strengths and shorten the game.

Besides I love watching them ram the ball down teams throats,

 

[mrt144]

Losing to the Rams and controlling the ball and getting the yards on the ground was an anomaly, 99 percent of the time you win with that formula, the turnover and on side attempt skewed things.

I think this is an antiquated stat that maybe proved out before the league turned into flag football with high powered offenses that are capable of moving the ball and scoring quickly.

Not that running the ball, controlling the clock and keeping the other team's offense on the bench isn't a good thing. But when you play teams like the Rams, Packers, Chargers and soon the Chiefs who score 30+ a game and score quickly, it's not going to be as successful........as we've found out the last two weeks.

I understand why people feel the strategy has not been a success but it has been IMO. It might not have shown up in the win column but I doubt very few teams have played a schedule as tough as we have . Every loss we have had I would say we had the weaker talent. Sometimes by a large margin. Yet we have stood toe to toe with some of the best teams in the league with chances to win at the end.


The roster needs upgrades throughout the D and until then it makes perfect sense to me to hide them behind our strengths and shorten the game.

Besides I love watching them ram the ball down teams throats,

FWIW, looking at the Football Outsiders DVOA SoS our past games are ranked 9th hardest and 13th hardest schedule going forward as it stands now.

The only team with a better record and harder past schedule are the Bengals and the closest team to us with a better record are the Pats at 10th position and Rams at 11th position. So the schedule hasn't exactly been kind to us and there are certainly other teams doing worse within spitting distance of us but I don't think a drastically easier schedule tips maybe more than 2 wins our way - that's actually kind of huge but this feels like a slightly above average team with a slightly above average schedule toughness and a 4-5 record kinda reflects that at this point.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff

 

[justafan]

Losing to the Rams and controlling the ball and getting the yards on the ground was an anomaly, 99 percent of the time you win with that formula, the turnover and on side attempt skewed things.

I think this is an antiquated stat that maybe proved out before the league turned into flag football with high powered offenses that are capable of moving the ball and scoring quickly.

Not that running the ball, controlling the clock and keeping the other team's offense on the bench isn't a good thing. But when you play teams like the Rams, Packers, Chargers and soon the Chiefs who score 30+ a game and score quickly, it's not going to be as successful........as we've found out the last two weeks.

I understand why people feel the strategy has not been a success but it has been IMO. It might not have shown up in the win column but I doubt very few teams have played a schedule as tough as we have . Every loss we have had I would say we had the weaker talent. Sometimes by a large margin. Yet we have stood toe to toe with some of the best teams in the league with chances to win at the end.


The roster needs upgrades throughout the D and until then it makes perfect sense to me to hide them behind our strengths and shorten the game.

Besides I love watching them ram the ball down teams throats,

FWIW, looking at the Football Outsiders DVOA SoS our past games are ranked 9th hardest and 13th hardest schedule going forward as it stands now.

The only team with a better record and harder past schedule are the Bengals and the closest team to us with a better record are the Pats at 10th position and Rams at 11th position. So the schedule hasn't exactly been kind to us and there are certainly other teams doing worse within spitting distance of us but I don't think a drastically easier schedule tips maybe more than 2 wins our way - that's actually kind of huge but this feels like a slightly above average team with a slightly above average schedule toughness and a 4-5 record kinda reflects that at this point.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff

I would trade schedules with several of those teams ranked above us.

 

[chris98251]

Losing to the Rams and controlling the ball and getting the yards on the ground was an anomaly, 99 percent of the time you win with that formula, the turnover and on side attempt skewed things.

I think this is an antiquated stat that maybe proved out before the league turned into flag football with high powered offenses that are capable of moving the ball and scoring quickly.

Not that running the ball, controlling the clock and keeping the other team's offense on the bench isn't a good thing. But when you play teams like the Rams, Packers, Chargers and soon the Chiefs who score 30+ a game and score quickly, it's not going to be as successful........as we've found out the last two weeks.

Yeah nobody has ever thrown the ball before, Chargers didn't do shit with Fouts there, Marino never gained any yards either, neither did the Bills with the K Gun and Jim Kelly. Yep until the 2000's nobody ever moved the ball in the air. This controlling the ball is so old it has never been successful before since nobody ever threw the ball.