Decreased offensive versatility: cause?

[Attyla the Hawk]

Would it be safe to say that we are adapting to what we have in the player department ?

I think this is very much the case.

I do think there is something missing or not quite right with this offense. While I'm not one to really believe in 'eye tests', this sentiment has been repeated exhaustively by fans during the season and the offseason. There is literally no shortage of opinions on where our needs lie (below average OL, lack of big #1 receiver, red zone options, Bevell etc.) The opinions really kind of scatter all across the map.

The offense does have a lot going for it too, and when one looks at how we compare statistically, we kind of shake our heads and go, "Really? They did that well?" And then move on to the next problem du jour with the offense.

When I looked at all of our drives over the course of the year, there really seemed to be several consistent observations offensively.

1. Seattle was very good at scoring outside of the red zone. Explosive plays served us well. We had a very large number of scoring drives with under 7 plays. Not all of that scoring was TDs.

2. Our total scoring per drive was 41.1%. Good for 5th in the league. GB topped the league at 48%

In my examination, the clear issue that truly limited Seattle, was our ability to extend drives on third down. We didn't fare very well in that regard. While we were better than the 10 year average for the NFL in short yardage (3rd and 3 or less), Seattle was actually at or below league average in conversions in the 4 to 6 yard range. And with just a very few exceptions (3rd and 9 and 3rd and 10), we were far below league average in 3rd and 7 to 3rd and 10. But third and 11+, Seattle was positively awful compared to the entire league.

Seattle had difficulty converting and extending drives compared to the league average. Yet what stood out most to me, was that on drives where we converted at least one 3rd down, our scoring rate was a massive 60%.

What that indicates to me, is that this offense, as is today, is extremely effective -- well above the best in the NFL in it's ability to score. The explosive plays are a major feature of the offense and we only need to really just keep the ball an extra handful of plays in order to score at an extremely high level.

I think the combination of the two traits (good/improving offensive numbers, explosive plays, drive killing 3rd down failures) tends to make this offense very Jekyll/Hyde when we try to put our fingers on what's off. Ultimately, Seattle was good at scoring. Particularly in instances where we could extend drives. But we didn't perform well at extending drives. Or rather, we really suffered when trying to convert 3rd and medium/long.

I am super excited to see how Graham and Lockett operate for this team. Both players are extremely skilled in solving the kinds of issues that we struggled with. Converting money downs. Lockett hasn't done this at the NFL level, but I am very bullish on how his game will translate at this level. Particularly his strengths as a route runner and a guy innately gifted at getting open. I do think these two will largely solve our conversion issues in that 4 to 10 yard range. And if the offensive personnel remains as effective as they did last year in other respects, our scoring rate should be around Green Bay's this year.

 

[rideaducati]

We never had much diversity in playcalling at all. Stating that Sidney Rice was "great" is also revisionist history.

Wouldn't agree with revisionist, how about just my opinion and my own eye test? I've been watching two to three games a day now when I can get some media time in, starting back Game 1 in 2012 and now almost done with 2014. And it's definitely what I am seeing

Which is pretty much what prompted my OP

I guess Rice would seem to be great when compared to what the Seahawks replaced him with. Have you seen the catch where Rice didn't fall down?

 

[theincrediblesok]

Rice was great in our offense, when healthy. Kearse couldn't replace Sidney's role and it shows in TDs. Kearse was given the starter position and was only able to haul in one TD in 15 games. In 2013 even though Sidney had a bad reception completion he still was able to haul in 3 TD before going out after 8 games. When Kearse had the backup role he did well for himself, but as teams adjust you saw how others were able to defend him easily. I love Kearse's clutch in the postseason though, but wish he had more consistency in the regular season games.

Receiving TDs Only
18 TDs total from our WRs in 2012. We got 17 TDs from 2013 and 7 TDs in 2014

6 TDs total from our TE in 2012. We got 7 TDs from 2013 and 6 TDs in 2014

3 TDs total from our RB in 2012. We got 3 TDs from 2013 and 7 TDs in 2014

The biggest thing that stood out, 2014 receiving TD from the WRs and RBs. It tells you that we had to relied on our RBs alot in the passing games just to score.

Kansas City Chiefs had the same issue last year as well. Most of their TDs came from TEs and RBs. Dwayne Bowe the year before had 5 TDs, in 2014 he had none. They also had Dexter McCluster in 2013 who was lethal as a returner and their 2nd best receiver.

I think I see a pattern. Once we lost Tate as a return-man our field position wasn't as good and we had to work extra hard to get further down the field, which on 3rd downs could be tough as we had to rely more on explosive plays to get us further down. Teams knew we had to throw deep on 3rd and long they just sit and play closer to our LOS without having to worry about our WRs. That's where we ended up getting creative to get our RBs open to create some receiving plays for them.

Personnel have a lot to do with what had happened between 2012 to 2014 the lost of a great return-man affected field position as well as lost of talented WRs also affected our redzone efficiency.

This is why I believe they wanted Tyler Lockett so bad and traded those draft picks to make sure they get him. Added to Graham's Redzone threat, this team will make it to a 3rd Superbowl.

 

[Scottemojo]

The OP has 2 answers. Boom or bust big play offense, red zone inefficiency. I would throw too many personnel packages into the mix, but that is a personal gripe and opinion, not a fact.

Graham should change the red zone efficiency. The boom or bust (punt) nature of our offense is part and parcel of both Pete and Russ.

 

[Jville]

Been rewatching the entire Russell Wilson era (2012, 2013, 2014) on Game Rewind (condensed version) and when watching back-to-back-to-back, at least for me it seems there is a lot less offensive versatility in the passing game.

I have no numbers to back any of this up, just watching it. Running a bit more variety of plays, running plays (both of the running and passing variety) for our fullback M-Rob, a few flea-flickers here and there, and even our WR were throwing the ball downfield.

So curious: first, do you agree or disagree?

If you agree: what do you think might be the root cause?

1) Sidney Rice and Golden Tate in 2012 were mad ballin
2) Russell's play has changed and gotten more stagnant or more paranoid (perhaps related to point 1)
3) Bevell's playcalling has changed and gotten more stagnant or more paranoid (perhaps related to point 1 and point 2)
4) Other .....?

If you disagree: tell me why I'm off my rocker

Just curious.

Mostly because after reading the great article on Lockett (posted here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=110534 ) and a few other discussions about Jimmy, I'm almost inclined to think about points 2) and 3): Russell and Bevell have gotten a bit lazy in the mental game, relying on Russell's backyard ball to get us out of scrapes. And now bringing in physical talent like Lockett and Jimmy - will it make it even worse with Russell and Bevell using these new talents as crutches?

Is this overthinking it? Maybe bringing in physical talent like Lockett and JG will make things much easier and why complicate things and get cute if it can be easy?

What think y'all?

Your frame work is focused on the passing game over a specific time frame. So, most of my response is directed there.

1. I think that threatening as much of the field as possible is one of the annual objectives of putting together the offense. The bigger the threat radius .... the more opportunities are opened up inside of that expanded perimeter and the more varied the play calling and attack.

In my mind, Sidney Rice had the speed, length and catch radius to maximize the perimeter of that threat both deep and along the sidelines. Sidney's injuries and eventual departure reduced the size of that threat in succeeding games. Evidence of a threat like Rice shows up directly in his productivity and it shows up indirectly in the productivity of team mates. Unfortunately, he never learned how to fall, or as I like to say, land. To date, they have not been able to find a field expanding threat like Sidney that can land minus the injuries that result from crash landings.

2. Russell Wilson brings a varied threat and preferred style to the field that few others can approach. He has broadened the offense threat and made their attack more varied. Wilson is still improving and working down the learning curve.

3. Just as Russell Wilson must play within the limits of the principles and talent and chemistry he has to work with, so to must Darrell Bevell. Bevell has pressed on and continued to adapt to personnel changes and what opposing defensive coordinators are throwing at him.

4. Other

.... a. Injuries and/or skills decline have deprived the game day roster of some versatile assets. Versatile assets who, when on the field, instilled uncertainty in the minds of opponents. Examples include, guys that linked the passing game and running game together ........ such as a Zach Miller or a Michael Robinson.

.... b. Less versatile additions have earned a spot because of an exceptional dimension that they bring to the offensive threat. That use of and dependence on an exceptional dimension makes the offense more predictable. For that reason, the dimension that they bring must dominant to counter the predictability and heads up signal they present to opposing defenses.

.... c. Decoying is used as an alternative to blocking for purposes of drawing defenders away from the ball. It may not be the preferred style for projecting a teams' will on another, but it is useful toward advancing the football. We should continue to see more dependence on indirect methods to influence and decoy when more versatile and well rounded players are off the field.

 

[scutterhawk]

Also, Wilson has expanded his role as a runner. His yardage there pushed him over 4000 total and had to impact the passing volume.

When being faced with a stacked box, + Inconsistency with his receivers and tight ends play, Wilson has been forced to Improvise.
For whatever reason there seemed to be a rift between Tate and Wilson, so that niche of consistency was severed.
Having Miller and Rice gone, and the Percy Harvin experiment having gone to hell in a hand basket, Wilson has done a masterful job of picking the fly shit out of the pepper, and making due with a depleted receiver group.

 

[Tical21]

Sidney Rice? Come on. Dude NEVER caught more than 50 balls here. Not even once. 41 million he signed for. Stole a crapload of money from the franchise, and is revered like a perennial all-pro. One of the the bigger busts in franchise history. Couldn't get open a lick, couldn't get on the field, wouldn't practice even when healthy. But he's a really nice guy and leader. Adrian Beltre all over again.

 

[Jville]

I don't think there is a suggestion that Sidney Rice had a great career or even an exceptional year in Seattle. Only that his presence reflected a significant influence on the offense and it's make up at that time.

 

[zhawk]

yup. lack of talent and back to back superbowls.... time to push the panic button. or maybe that's just me :sarcasm_off:

 

[zhawk]

btw .... I'm in.

 

[byau]

yup. lack of talent and back to back superbowls.... time to push the panic button. or maybe that's just me :sarcasm_off:

Not sure whom you're directing your comment at, if it's me and my original post, not sure what your basis is

My first paragraph:

"Been rewatching the entire Russell Wilson era (2012, 2013, 2014) on Game Rewind (condensed version) and when watching back-to-back-to-back, at least for me it seems there is a lot less offensive versatility in the passing game. "

I don't see anything about panic in there.

I'm asking a question: my eye test sees less offensive versatility, and i was curious if 1) other people saw it too, and 2) if so, curious what you think caused it.

(p.s. everyone else: The responses so far have been really awesome btw, thanks .NET!)

 

[Laloosh]

Sidney Rice? Come on. Dude NEVER caught more than 50 balls here. Not even once. 41 million he signed for. Stole a crapload of money from the franchise, and is revered like a perennial all-pro. One of the the bigger busts in franchise history. Couldn't get open a lick, couldn't get on the field, wouldn't practice even when healthy. But he's a really nice guy and leader. Adrian Beltre all over again.

I think everybody remembers some of the big plays. OT in Chicago being the big one. He did have a nice 2012 season (nothing crazy, but respectable).

Personally I recalled him having a larger impact on the passing game than he actually did. He had a decent amount of targets but his catch rate was much lower than Tate, Baldwin and Miller (a lot lower).

Regarding the OP, I think once we lost Tate, teams just saw that Baldwin was the only real threat in the passing game. Kearse has had some HUGE catches at key moments in a game but Baldwin has really been the only consistent and reliable target in the passing game.

I honestly wouldn't be shocked to see Russ have a 2015 that isn't much different than Romo's 2014 season. Graham could realistically have as many (or more) TD's in 2015 as Zach Miller over the past 3.

 

[Largent80]

I hated the way we used Harvin last year. After he was let go, the offense had to be changed a LOT even though the guy had maybe 3 plays designed specifically for him. I went to the SD game and feel that was an anomaly, but the next week vs. the Rams I was questioning whether the team would even make the playoffs.

Considering all of that, I was amazed at the resiliency of the team. Now we have added some much needed special teams help in Lockett. THAT was a major problem last year...starting a lot of drives with a long field. Getting Graham, and watching Matthews in the SB has me optimistic.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

Now we have added some much needed special teams help in Lockett. THAT was a major problem last year...starting a lot of drives with a long field. Getting Graham, and watching Matthews in the SB has me optimistic.

Just for clarity, Seattle's average starting field position in 2014 was 30.16. That was the 4th best average starting field position in the NFL. 2013 we were 3rd in the league with 31.28 average field position.

We don't start with a long field. We were still quite good at that.

 

[Anonymous]

I think if you were to watch all those games again, while paying closer attention to how defenses were playing us while charting personnel groups and formations, you'd see the value in what PC/DB's offense brings. It is predicated on reads, not matchups like a Holmgren scheme does. It is driven by how successful defenses were reacting to formations, motion, and not by coverage of specific players and/or matchups, and created to funnel looks into as small a window as possible. When Russell is able to know what a LB is going to do to the route his guy is running is no longer his main thought. He is going to audible to the play that his blockers will be in the best position to handle first, THEN he adjusts the routes/lanes.

I think what we've seen from Russell is the progression of how that system has been tried and re-approached based on film study focused on a smaller subsection of criterion and by understanding what teams will try to do in only a few scenarios, not a whole bunch of them. What everybody is calling a "basic" offense is anything but that. It is a read-and-react scheme that requires the blockers to make the right moves and the skill guys follow them. If it is read and blocked correctly, any WR or TE we play will be making the catch and getting the yards, provided he is in the spot he is supposed to be following a successful pre-snap and post-snap read and subsequent adjustment.

Not to judge, but I think a lot of us here get too wound up on given players getting separation at the wideout position more so than other guys, and all that goes with that. In the past, and in a "matchup-based" offensive scheme, yes; absolutely. However, in the Seahawks offense of today, it is all about the team being wise and able to read and react just like the player ahead of them in the lineup. Our guys don't have to be big and fast and glue-handed, they need to be smart and understand that being disciplined and patient gets them the touches they crave.

Team sport folks, team sport.

 

[Schadie001]

It isn't our WR's. I read an article just the other day that said Baldwin was open the whole SB while being covered by Revis but Wilson didn't pull the trigger. This is all a matter of Wilson playing game manager instead of gun slinger. It very well could be that he has been told unless you feel they are wide open don't pull the trigger. IDK...I have read several article that say our WR's are open.

 

[KiwiHawk]

Russell Wilson ...Lazy? I don't think so. I do believe he is loath to stray from a game plan though.

Wait, what?

Russell Wilson seems like he always wants to ad-lib. He doesn't hit guys over the middle when they make a move on the corner - he runs around until the play is well into sandlot time before getting rid of the ball. He'd be best off if the receivers just ran whatever routes they were in the mood for and cut out all the play-design stuff.

Teams script the first 20 plays to establish some patters so that they can go against those patterns later. I don't know if playing by the script is too restrictive for Wilson, or if the script is just bad, or what it is, but so many times we start cold. A lot gets made about Wilson's come-back ability, but seriously with our defense holding teams to 16 points per game on average, we should be coasting to wins instead of coming from behind.

Blowouts may not be kosher in the NFL but I'm one who wants to see a lot more coming from the Seahawks than they currently do. I thought back in 2012 when we had that stretch of 150 points over 3 games that the offense finally "got it", but since then there have been far too many heart-attack games.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

Oh great, another how shitty are our WR's thread. Never mind RW missed a wide open Baldwin all day in the Super Bowl. I think the OP is right about it being 1 and 2. Wilson is trying too hard to find the guy where Tate and Rice used to be. He needed last year to dump off to ADB more often.

 

[Largent80]

My comment about the long field was based on what we netted on PR/KR. When we really needed yardage, we didn't get it. That stat is skewed by our defense.

 

[hawkfannj]

IMHO I think RW is gun shy . There are open WRs so let's just stop sayin we got no WRs ! I mean for gods sake look at the Super Bowl Baldwin was open almost every play against Revis if you bother to acualy look aT the tape . There are plays he is running free across the field and RW just won't let it go basically looking right at him .ove seen this trend if the WR is not like crazy all alone wide open he won't throw that in the short passing game which is basically non existent . I love his leadership and all that comes with that but with the kinda power run game and historically great defense we have I really expect a lot more In the passing game .i do however think he needs to really grow into a passer to be complete. The back yard run around football is very exciting but I'd love to just carve up a defense like the True passers of this league . Well one thing is for dam sure now that Jimmy Graham is here Zero excuse in the short passing game . I can't wait to here we got no WRs cause JG is basically a huge WR playing TE with yes increadable hands . So this is the year he either becomes a passer as well or just an increadable athlete with great leadership skills IMHO .

Here is the real ? Could RW win game after game if the defense was mediocre and we had RB by Committee Type system with his passing skills basically on his arm. That's friends is the real ? Yes 2 superbowls all the winning etc . But let's be honest take Way the LOB and lynch well....