Does Russell throw enough interceptions?

[RiverDog]

I can't remember where I came across this, but I recently read someone talking about how it's possible for a quarterback to throw too few interceptions as it's an indication that they aren't taking enough chances. It's the same concept as a basketball player who hits 50% of his 3-pointers; if you're that efficient at making 3-point shots then you should be shooting more. Perhaps this is obvious, but I just hadn't thought of it in that way before.

It's clear that Russell/Pete have a conservative approach and want to limit turnovers, but I'd like to see them open it up and develop a more explosive passing attack. This season in particular it seems like Russell has been hesitant to go for big passing plays, but if he's going to develop into one of the better passers in the league he'll need to take more chances and trust his receivers. I know that a lot of people place the blame for that on our wide receivers' inability to get open, but the reality is that if you're not willing to throw until you see a receiver get open, then it may be too late.

We need to take more shots. If they don't connect, it still keeps the defense honest and opens up the opportunity for a big pass interference penalty, like Doug Baldwin got the benefit of against Philadelphia. And even if it is picked off, not all turnovers are created equally. Interceptions on deep balls are by far the best kind of turnover, since they often end up no worse than a punt would have.

For the sake of comparison, I looked up the interception rates for Russell and some of the top quarterbacks in the league. The first number is career interceptions per game, and the second is interceptions per 100 attempts:

Player (Int/Game, Int/100 Attempts)
Russell Wilson (0.53, 2.05)
Peyton Manning (0.91, 2.57)
Tom Brady (0.68, 1.99)
Drew Brees (0.95, 2.58)
Aaron Rodgers (0.51, 1.63)
Andrew Luck (0.89, 2.30)

While it's nice that Russell limits turnovers, I wouldn't mind seeing a few more picks given that some of the greatest QBs in NFL history like Peyton Manning and Drew Brees throw interceptions at a significantly higher rate. Of course it would be great to have someone like Aaron Rodgers who breaks the scale by being both ridiculously prolific and hardly throwing any picks, but that's why he's the top QB in the league.

I like your guts. Posting anything that's even hints of criticizing Russell can be counted on to draw thousands of poison darts.

To answer the question, yes, it is possible to throw too few interceptions. It means you are not taking enough chances.

But not with regard to Russell. He plays on a team with a very strong defense, one of if not the best running back in the league, an offense that lacks playmakers at the WR position, and a PK that's extremely reliable. I don't like the term "game manager" as it has been used to define a quarterback without traditional NFL skills, but what our team requires out of our quarterback is a player that is going to almost at all costs avoid turning the ball over and putting the defense in bad positions and wait for an opportunity to present itself.

The last 3 games have been very typical Seahawk football. Low scoring, very few turnovers. We've only had one turnover in the past 3 games, that being Lynch's fumble last Sunday...unless you want to count Ryan's butterfingers punt attempt...and we've won all 3 against very credible opposition in a convincing fashion. That's our formula to success.

 

[RunTheBall]

Not with the team constructed the way it is right now, with our elite defense there is no reason to be forcing more passes in tight windows that could easily get picked and change momentum. In the Hasselbeck Era he pretty much had to force more passes because we never had a defense that was even above-average when he was QB, all were either mediocre or bad/terrible.

 

[WilsonMVP]

Andrew Luck gets the glamour and the interceptions to go along with it. Overcoming his interceptions with late game heroics to perpetuate the legend. He overcomes the long odds that he creates for himself.

Andrew Luck also plays in a joke division where throwing 3 picks a game means you still have a chance. He got to play Cleveland this year where he threw 2 pick 6's and still won the game. This wasnt the greatness of Andrew Luck that let them win. This was the ineptitude of the teams he played against.

Before the Andrew Luck defenders come from the woodwork, hes still a great QB. But his legend is ballooned by the poor play of the other teams around him.

lol this...When Luck and the Colts played the NFC W last year he had 4TD and 4INT. If you take out Seattle he had 2TD and 4INT, those 3 D's that Wilson has to face 6 times a season. Even with his 100+ QB rating against Seattle Luck only managed a 74.9 QB Rating against the NFC W last year... (Wilson had a 89.4 rating last year in the division, and has 115.6 rating this year)

 

[LawlessHawk]

FYI this was a stupid thread to begin with throw more INts really.

Not stupid... I don't happen to agree with the premiss that more interceptions = a better overall QB, but it is an interesting discussion...

 

[HomerJHawk]

We're built around the run and a stifling D. Our passing game is what it is, and we win games. I'd rather focus on getting Turbo or CM or whoever set up to take Shawn's place and keep this train rolling.

 

[tom sawyer]

Keep it or kick it.
Never give them a turnover!

I love this philosophy.

 

[volsunghawk]

FYI this was a stupid thread to begin with throw more INts really.

Not stupid... I don't happen to agree with the premiss that more interceptions = a better overall QB, but it is an interesting discussion...

Agreed, it's not a stupid thread.

What it boils down to is some concepts that look to be in opposition... ball security/control versus big plays. Big plays are crucial for an offense in order to keep it from becoming stagnant and turning into an Alex Smith/Chiefs type of deal. Against the Chiefs, teams know they don't really have to defend the deep ball, and it makes gameplanning for them a bit different. At the same time, you don't want your offense turning the ball over all the time. The Bengals have tons of weapons and a nice defense, but they turn the ball over at a much greater rate than Seattle does, and that would help explain why a stacked team keeps going one-and-done in the postseason.

For Seattle, I just don't see Pete ever going away from the ball control philosophy, and I think Wilson is fine with that. He doesn't seem like he's worried about how his stats are viewed by the pundits and fans. And that's a huge reason why the Seahawks have been in the top 10 each season in fewest turnovers since Wilson took over in 2012 (7th in 2012, 4th last year, 2nd right now). But for anyone who has watched the Seahawks over the last couple of years, you can't say it's completely eliminated the big play. Wilson's long accuracy has been stellar, and the Seahawks have made plenty of teams pay for cheating up by beating them over the top with big plays (though that element of the offense has been missing this year to some degree... I would pin that on the Harvin/Tate/FO misfire).

 

[HawkFan72]

If you throw more INTs you are going to get Andrew Luck results: More yards and TDS, but not necessarily more wins...and in the playoffs it may cost you the game.

 

[sutz]

No. We don't need to throw more interceptions. We could possibly ramp up the number of deep throws we try, to stretch defenses and keep the back end honest, but we don't need to 'take more chances.'

Most of Russ's late game heroics is predicated on the game not being out of reach. Our D tends to keep things within one score against anybody in the league, even the most high powered offenses, so usually even if we're trailing in the 4th Qtr, it's only by 3-7 points. One good drive and we're back on top or at least tied.

Now, if some team gets up on us by 15-20 points, then yeah, all bets are off. We'd need to open it up, and I suspect that Wilson and the guys would do just fine in those situations. But throwing more interceptions just leads to those situations, it doesn't prevent them. Even the best QBs in league history are not that good when asked to come from behind by 3-4 scores.

I don't like the premise of the question. If you want to ask "Should we throw deep more?" I'll grant that is a legitimate question. But to just say we need to take more chances for the sake of taking chances is a bit weird IMHO.

 

[Boycie]

I can't remember where I came across this, but I recently read someone talking about how it's possible for a quarterback to throw too few interceptions as it's an indication that they aren't taking enough chances. It's the same concept as a basketball player who hits 50% of his 3-pointers; if you're that efficient at making 3-point shots then you should be shooting more. Perhaps this is obvious, but I just hadn't thought of it in that way before.

It's clear that Russell/Pete have a conservative approach and want to limit turnovers, but I'd like to see them open it up and develop a more explosive passing attack. This season in particular it seems like Russell has been hesitant to go for big passing plays, but if he's going to develop into one of the better passers in the league he'll need to take more chances and trust his receivers. I know that a lot of people place the blame for that on our wide receivers' inability to get open, but the reality is that if you're not willing to throw until you see a receiver get open, then it may be too late.

We need to take more shots. If they don't connect, it still keeps the defense honest and opens up the opportunity for a big pass interference penalty, like Doug Baldwin got the benefit of against Philadelphia. And even if it is picked off, not all turnovers are created equally. Interceptions on deep balls are by far the best kind of turnover, since they often end up no worse than a punt would have.

For the sake of comparison, I looked up the interception rates for Russell and some of the top quarterbacks in the league. The first number is career interceptions per game, and the second is interceptions per 100 attempts:

Player (Int/Game, Int/100 Attempts)
Russell Wilson (0.53, 2.05)
Peyton Manning (0.91, 2.57)
Tom Brady (0.68, 1.99)
Drew Brees (0.95, 2.58)
Aaron Rodgers (0.51, 1.63)
Andrew Luck (0.89, 2.30)

While it's nice that Russell limits turnovers, I wouldn't mind seeing a few more picks given that some of the greatest QBs in NFL history like Peyton Manning and Drew Brees throw interceptions at a significantly higher rate. Of course it would be great to have someone like Aaron Rodgers who breaks the scale by being both ridiculously prolific and hardly throwing any picks, but that's why he's the top QB in the league.

Pete preaches to protect the football at all times. We run the ball because we have the best run game in the league, and it eats time off the clock, and keeps our D fresh. From the first day that Pete got here, he said that he was going to turn this team into a run first team, and that is exactly what we have, and we have won a SB doing so. We take games over in the last half of the game because we have pounded the crap out of the the other team's D line, and soften them up. It is the Hawks identity, and I see no need to change it.

 

[LawlessHawk]

Sutz brings up a good point, in that in Russell's tenure, the Hawks really haven't been down by very many points in many games, and when it has happened, it's been earlier in games where it wasn't necessary to break away too far from their normal game plan or panic like a lot of teams do... and by mostly sticking to the "plan" they've come back and won those games or made them very close at the end...

 

[mikeak]

Not every int is equal and while we all know that the stats make no difference.

Throwing one in the end zone gives up points - bad
Third down from your own 40 down to opponents 10 where the receiver has a chance in the ball and ends up making a tackle - not so bad
On your own 20, across the field - bad

So yes. I believe more shots down the field has a value that is worth the risk. I made a long post about it awhile ago and pointed out that one of the commentators during RWs record setting NCAA game (most consecutive passing attempts without an int) said it could be a negative. If you can complete three 50 yard passes in a game and the fourth is picked off - wouldn't you take that?

Things working good is not a reason why you shouldn't look to improve...

Throwing more int would not be improving, it would be go backwards. Also 3 50 yards great but if you cannot score form them and do not score they mean nothing at all.

FYI this was a stupid thread to begin with throw more INts really.

FGs count as scoring something I think you ignored

 

[Hawks46]

I'm not advocating for a complete change of offensive philosophy, I just want Russell to take a few extra chances a game instead of bailing and scrambling. Especially earlier in the year I feel like they were looking to take deep shots like last year, but for whatever reason Russell hasn't been comfortable making those throws

I'd agree with this. You can make safe downfield throws; if you overthrow into single coverage, you'll simply overthrow the receiver and coverage. If you make a poor downfield throw into double coverage, many times you're picked off.

Our lack of throwing anything deep was letting teams not only stack the box, but compress the box and jump all of our short throws, run shallow zones, and make life tougher against the run. Even attempting longer passes makes teams at least respect it. Last year was a great example; teams knew we were going deep a few times a game, and it made easier sledding for Lynch. We're making it harder running for Lynch as he's getting older and more beat up, and I feel bad for him. He's a victim of his own success....he breaks so many tackles, it's easy to just give him the ball and let him go to work and not scheme anything for it.

I see what Bigwrm is getting at. Being terrified of throwing deep turns you into Kansas City. They had 1 minute and a few timeouts to make 40 yards to kick a FG against AZ, and AZ blitzed them a few times and it was over. Blitzing a team forces them to throw short, then you can direct it and jump the short routes and limit plays. We do it all the time. Smith literally can't win a game if he has to throw downfield and make up points from behind.

I do find those stats pretty amazing. Some of those guys have lower numbers than Russ, and they throw a TON more. Stats sometimes lie though; look at Luck's numbers and they're not much worse than Russ's, but how many games have they lost in 2 years due to INT's from Luck ? I'd say 2 a year.

 

[AgentDib]

I'd agree with this. You can make safe downfield throws; if you overthrow into single coverage, you'll simply overthrow the receiver and coverage.

The opportunity cost is also the easier (shorter) pass or scramble they could have had instead. If Russ pulls it down and scrambles then maybe that's a few more yards of field position and a higher completion third down opportunity. There's also no such thing as a completely safe throw; there are game situations at the end of most games in which the leading team should no longer throw the ball under any circumstance. You can make things as safe as possible but if the alternative is a guaranteed win then it is foolish to accept a 99.9% chance of winning instead.

Of course, if our defense does fall apart in the future then we are going to lose a lot of football games when our offense under Pete is not suited or allowed to open things up as much as necessary. That being said, our defense should be good as long as Pete is here and so giving up expected value on offense is not a cause for concern.

 

[bigwrm]

Thanks guys, appreciate the mostly thoughtful discussion. Just to be clear, obviously I don't believe that an interception on its own is a good outcome, but it's not necessarily a bad thing if it's the outcome of a more aggressive approach.

Some good points were made about our defensive strength lending itself to a more conservative offense, which I do agree with. It might also be the case that a higher variance approach is dangerous in the playoffs with its one-and-done format, particularly for a team that doesn't necessarily need a lot of points to win.

But I also don't think that arguing for the status quo based on our past success makes sense, especially since it seems like Russell was actually taking more deep shots last year. Maybe that's just a function of losing Golden Tate, but it's worth questioning.

 

[Brahn]

Interesting now lets look at who they throw to
Rw- ADB, Kearse, WIlson
Manning- Thomas, Welker, Sanders
Brady-Grink, Edleman
Brees-Graham, Colson, Cooks
Rodgers-Nelson, Cobb
Luck-HIlton, Nicks, Wayne

You see why Our best Wr ADB would not even be a 3 for those other QBs. Add out oline which is ranked 26th in pass blocking compared to 16th for Rordgers, 6th for Luck, 2nd for Manning, 5th for Brady, 8th for Brees. Add to that PC does not want turnovers period.

You may want it, but this team is not constructed to do that, they lack the oline, weapons, and offensive playcalling.

Come on Baldwin would be in Brady's and Rodger's top 3 :mrgreen:

 

[sc85sis]

For whatever it's worth, Pete does want more explosive plays, and that means Russell needs to be willing to let it rip once in a while. He needs to find the balance between being too cautious and reckless. He is perhaps leaning a bit on the "too cautious" side of things recently.

He said Russell Wilson “played great” and that he was most impressed with the way he hung in the pocket in the second half and was “in there ripping the ball down the field.” Seattle wanted to try to throw more vertically and Wilson was able to get that done a bit. “We need that element to kind of blossom with the rest of our attack,” Carroll said.
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/seahawks/ ... know-that/

 

[LawlessHawk]

I don't think there's anyone that prowls around this board that wouldn't like to see more of this... maybe even in the Superbowl...

http://www.seahawks.com/videos-phot...e-winner/a9a34e29-7a5e-4395-85c0-217aacf90481

 

[Basis4day]

I don't think there's anyone that prowls around this board that wouldn't like to see more of this... maybe even in the Superbowl...

http://www.seahawks.com/videos-phot...e-winner/a9a34e29-7a5e-4395-85c0-217aacf90481

You don't think they would do that this season if we were down by a TD while on the 50 with 90 secs left in the 4th?

The team doesn't need 9 routes for the sake of them alone.

 

[LawlessHawk]

I don't think there's anyone that prowls around this board that wouldn't like to see more of this... maybe even in the Superbowl...

http://www.seahawks.com/videos-phot...e-winner/a9a34e29-7a5e-4395-85c0-217aacf90481

You don't think they would do that this season if we were down by a TD while on the 50 with 90 secs left in the 4th?

Let's say it wouldn't surprise me if they took a shot... and let's say it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't... I do have to say, though, that I've been pretty damn confident in our ability to score in the situation you mention above, by whatever means, since about half way through Russell Wilson's first season...