Seahawks have #2 offense in the NFL per DVOA

[theENGLISHseahawk]

9-5. Wild card.

And?

 

[themunn]

9-5. Wild card.

Means we get to watch an extra game this year. I'm not complaining.
Wild card weeks sucks when we're not involved

 

[RichNhansom]

9-5. Wild card.

Means we get to watch an extra game this year. I'm not complaining.
Wild card weeks sucks when we're not involved

Means we have the opportunity to do it all on the road and prove how dominant this team really is.

I'm excited for this years run maybe more than any other. If we are successful it will go a very long way in solidifying this Seahawks team as a true dynasty and at the same time prove this team is dangerous anywhere, home or away.

 

[Ozzy]

Montana is a great poster although I disagree with him here.

Rob bevell is doing an incredible job. I still think some criticism is warranted. A lot of the recent success is because of changes that he should of made weeks ago. But regardless there isn't anyone else I would rather have right now leading this offense. He's doing a great job.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

At this stage last season the Seahawks were 10-4. One whole win better off.

Whatever point Montana is trying to make is lost on me.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

Nope, but of all the advanced metrics, I find it's the most reliable and most neutral, and it has a good track record going back more than a decade. Frankly when it comes to evaluating who is better than whom in the NFL (as opposed to who has the better record), I have found it to be the gold standard (and so has most of the knowledgeable fans in the NFL). The PFF ratings are right up there as well and IMHO should be looked at together.

I'll have to look into both of them a bit more...

Not trying to rain on anybody's parade I just don't put a lot of stock into statistics beyond W's and L's.... old school I guess.

Cheers.

Personally, I think it's the single best team statistic in football. It would be really cool for the team to finish #1 for the fourth year in a row, as it speaks to the quality and consistency of the team under Pete Carroll. The relative lack of Super Bowl winners isn't any more meaningful than the struggles of top-2 seeded teams before the last couple of years. It just means there are other good teams out there, several of which have a much easier path to the Super Bowl (including the Cardinals, who will probably finish #2 in DVOA).

Point taken.. I'll check it out.

W-L means jack shit in the Post-Season, its a new season. As long as youre in, you have a chance.

Things that might matter more is HFA, health, experience, and late season momentum from a team standpoint.

W-L is important but DVOA is a statistical weighted understanding that a team might have 9-5 record but they still might be one of the best teams in the NFL... #2 Offense, #5 Defense, and #9 ST.... Seahawks can match-up against any team in the NFL and have a good chance of winning.

 

[Yxes1122]

At this stage last season the Seahawks were 10-4. One whole win better off.

Whatever point Montana is trying to make is lost on me.

I think he is trying to point out that only 6 Wild Card teams have won the Super Bowl. And that no matter what our DVOA is, it won't mean anything if we lose because we have to go on the road 3 times.

Remember in 2012 we were #1 in DVOA again, and we still lost.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

At this stage last season the Seahawks were 10-4. One whole win better off.

Whatever point Montana is trying to make is lost on me.

I think he is trying to point out that only 6 Wild Card teams have won the Super Bowl. And that no matter what our DVOA is, it won't mean anything if we lose because we have to go on the road 3 times.

Remember in 2012 we were #1 in DVOA again, and we still lost.

If that's the point -- I'm still not sure why it's relevant.

Nobody's suggesting the Seahawks will win the Super Bowl because of DVOA. This thread merely highlights how well the offense has performed (again) this year.

 

[kearly]

So many folks were wrong about Darrell Bevell - myself included.

Amazing what this offense has done.

I don't think it's really a case of anybody being wrong. Bevell had issues as a play designer and playcaller for 4.5 years (issues that apparently dated back to his days in Minnesota). Seattle still had a good offense because the ingredients were good, but it was in spite of Bevell for 4.5 years.

But ever since the team made changes at the bye week, we now have a scheme that properly compliments our QB and non-Lynch RBs. Bevell has drawn up better plays and is finally using route combinations and spread formations as staple plays.

These changes have not only impacted the offense in a dramatically good way, but they also eliminated the need for Bevell to 'fool' the defense with 'they'll never see it coming' sub-optimal plays that were necessitated by the extremely simple and predictable nature of the previous offense. In just one week, Pete fixed Bevell's two biggest issues while simultaneously putting our existing skill players in a much better position to succeed with the switch to a spread offense.

For the first 3.5 years of Wilson's career, our offense was unabashedly based on the idea of having Lynch and Wilson create magic on their own. Today, the Seahawks are using scheme to get Wilson easy open targets at the back of his drop with consistency, and all of a sudden Wilson has morphed into the deadliest pocket passer in the league this season.

I'm a big fan of Darrell Bevell today. But I think the dramatic and sudden improvement after making changes guys like Scottemojo called for earlier in the season highlights how poor of a job the offensive coaching staff did prior to this year's bye week compared to afterwards. The recent profound success of the offense does not exhonerate Bevell's past sins, it simply proves just how badly fixes needed to be made and it's a shame they were not implemented years sooner.

Like I said, I am firmly on the pro-Bevell side right now. I'm actually at the point now where I think his negative reputation is an asset to the Seahawks because it will help them keep him a while longer. He's clearly helping the team at this point.

But his recent success doesn't prove he was always this good or that he never had problems to fix. He's basically the OC equivalent of Hasselbeck in 2002 or Christine Michael last week. I don't mind if people crow when right, but in cases like these it's a bit of revisionist history.

 

[Jville]

I am ok with DVOA as a useful indicator because of the details on how it is generated. The key word is indicator.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/JacsonBevens/status/679750377420406784[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/zjwhitman/status/679565016127807489[/tweet]

Of interest to me are 2015 PACE STATS ..... I think it a bigger indicator than generally appreciated. >>> [urltargetblank]http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/pacestats[/urltargetblank]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/JacsonBevens/status/679783180245716993[/tweet][tweet]https://twitter.com/DavisHsuSeattle/status/679787352294752257[/tweet][tweet]https://twitter.com/DavisHsuSeattle/status/679787584071966720[/tweet]

 

[DavidSeven]

The recent profound success of the offense does not exhonerate Bevell's past sins, it simply proves just how badly fixes needed to be made and it's a shame they were not implemented years sooner.

Odd statement considering the team is coming off two consecutive Super Bowl appearances, has consistently finished at the top of the league in terms of offensive efficiency, and has led in all the metrics that Pete Carroll cares about (explosives, turnover ratio, pace, etc.). You do not win on all those metrics by just being "lucky" with Lynch and Wilson. That is by careful design.

IMO, the biggest mistake people on this forum make is that they think that they have a more sophisticated understanding of offense than the guy Pete Carroll pays to run his offense. They think that if the team is running simple schemes, it's because the play-caller is too dumb to create something more complex. That is a ridiculously naive and short-sighted notion and is a theory that has effectively been shred to pieces in the last 5-6 games, as the team has had to lean more heavily on the quick-passing game due to injuries and personnel mistakes.

If the team is running their offense a certain way, it's because it has a very well thought-out reason for it. By the way, if you read up on NFL offenses around the league, you'll find that a lot of teams are now making an effort to scale back the complexity of their offense. Couple big examples from Carroll disciples: (1) Gus Bradley fired his OC last year for creating an overly complicated offense; brings in a new guy to implement simpler schemes and Bortles/Robinson are excelling like crazy; (2) reports are that Kyle Shanahan (Dan Quinn's OC) has been scaling back his offense for the last few weeks, because they feel it's too complicated for MATT RYAN, who's in his 8th year as an NFL starter and having the worst season of his career. Bunch of stories like this around the league about play-callers who are now trying to do it the Seahawks way.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

I don't think it's really a case of anybody being wrong. Bevell had issues as a play designer and playcaller for 4.5 years (issues that apparently dated back to his days in Minnesota). Seattle still had a good offense because the ingredients were good, but it was in spite of Bevell for 4.5 years.

But ever since the team made changes at the bye week, we now have a scheme that properly compliments our QB and non-Lynch RBs. Bevell has drawn up better plays and is finally using route combinations and spread formations as staple plays.

These changes have not only impacted the offense in a dramatically good way, but they also eliminated the need for Bevell to 'fool' the defense with 'they'll never see it coming' sub-optimal plays that were necessitated by the extremely simple and predictable nature of the previous offense. In just one week, Pete fixed Bevell's two biggest issues while simultaneously putting our existing skill players in a much better position to succeed with the switch to a spread offense.

For the first 3.5 years of Wilson's career, our offense was unabashedly based on the idea of having Lynch and Wilson create magic on their own. Today, the Seahawks are using scheme to get Wilson easy open targets at the back of his drop with consistency, and all of a sudden Wilson has morphed into the deadliest pocket passer in the league this season.

I'm a big fan of Darrell Bevell today. But I think the dramatic and sudden improvement after making changes guys like Scottemojo called for earlier in the season highlights how poor of a job the offensive coaching staff did prior to this year's bye week compared to afterwards. The recent profound success of the offense does not exhonerate Bevell's past sins, it simply proves just how badly fixes needed to be made and it's a shame they were not implemented years sooner.

Like I said, I am firmly on the pro-Bevell side right now. I'm actually at the point now where I think his negative reputation is an asset to the Seahawks because it will help them keep him a while longer. He's clearly helping the team at this point.

But his recent success doesn't prove he was always this good or that he never had problems to fix. He's basically the OC equivalent of Hasselbeck in 2002 or Christine Michael last week. I don't mind if people crow when right, but in cases like these it's a bit of revisionist history.

Pete Carroll's philosophy is run first while also wanting to be the best scrambling team in the NFL.

If there was an over-reliance on Lynch and Wilson to 'create' -- I would argue that Carroll's vision played a significant role there. Bevell is, let's be right here, a passing game coordinator. It's not 'his' offense.

(I also wouldn't agree with that assertion personally. I think the Seahawks offense has been excellent and has shown great adaptability to fit numerous styles and personnel while remaining effective over several years as proven by the DVOA ranking. And I think it's decidedly unfair to suggest Bevell deserves little or no credit for 3-4 years and only now is earning his corn. There's a reason the unquestioned greatest Head Coach this franchise has ever had has ultimate faith in Darrell Bevell.)

Odd statement considering the team is coming off two consecutive Super Bowl appearances, has consistently finished at the top of the league in terms of offensive efficiency, and has led in all the metrics that Pete Carroll cares about (explosives, turnover ratio, pace, etc.). You do not win on all those metrics by just being "lucky" with Lynch and Wilson. That is by careful design.

IMO, the biggest mistake people on this forum make is that they think that they have a more sophisticated understanding of offense than the guy Pete Carroll pays to run his offense. They think that if the team is running simple schemes, it's because the play-caller is too dumb to create something more complex. That is a ridiculously naive and short-sighted notion and is a theory that has effectively been shred to pieces in the last 5-6 games, as the team has had to lean more heavily on the quick-passing game due to injuries and personnel mistakes.

If the team is running their offense a certain way, it's because it has a very well thought-out reason for it. By the way, if you read up on NFL offenses around the league, you'll find that a lot of teams are now making an effort to scale back the complexity of their offense. Couple big examples from Carroll disciples: (1) Gus Bradley fired his OC last year for creating an overly complicated offense; brings in a new guy to implement simpler schemes and Bortles/Robinson are excelling like crazy; (2) reports are that Kyle Shanahan (Dan Quinn's OC) has been scaling back his offense for the last few weeks, because they feel it's too complicated for MATT RYAN, who's in his 8th year as an NFL starter and having the worst season of his career. Bunch of stories like this around the league about play-callers who are now trying to do it the Seahawks way.

Some excellent points here in fairness.

 

[Ozzy]

So many folks were wrong about Darrell Bevell - myself included.

Amazing what this offense has done.

I don't think it's really a case of anybody being wrong. Bevell had issues as a play designer and playcaller for 4.5 years (issues that apparently dated back to his days in Minnesota). Seattle still had a good offense because the ingredients were good, but it was in spite of Bevell for 4.5 years.

But ever since the team made changes at the bye week, we now have a scheme that properly compliments our QB and non-Lynch RBs. Bevell has drawn up better plays and is finally using route combinations and spread formations as staple plays.

These changes have not only impacted the offense in a dramatically good way, but they also eliminated the need for Bevell to 'fool' the defense with 'they'll never see it coming' sub-optimal plays that were necessitated by the extremely simple and predictable nature of the previous offense. In just one week, Pete fixed Bevell's two biggest issues while simultaneously putting our existing skill players in a much better position to succeed with the switch to a spread offense.

For the first 3.5 years of Wilson's career, our offense was unabashedly based on the idea of having Lynch and Wilson create magic on their own. Today, the Seahawks are using scheme to get Wilson easy open targets at the back of his drop with consistency, and all of a sudden Wilson has morphed into the deadliest pocket passer in the league this season.

I'm a big fan of Darrell Bevell today. But I think the dramatic and sudden improvement after making changes guys like Scottemojo called for earlier in the season highlights how poor of a job the offensive coaching staff did prior to this year's bye week compared to afterwards. The recent profound success of the offense does not exhonerate Bevell's past sins, it simply proves just how badly fixes needed to be made and it's a shame they were not implemented years sooner.

Like I said, I am firmly on the pro-Bevell side right now. I'm actually at the point now where I think his negative reputation is an asset to the Seahawks because it will help them keep him a while longer. He's clearly helping the team at this point.

But his recent success doesn't prove he was always this good or that he never had problems to fix. He's basically the OC equivalent of Hasselbeck in 2002 or Christine Michael last week. I don't mind if people crow when right, but in cases like these it's a bit of revisionist history.

This was a great post and echos my thoughts. I'm definitely pro bevell today and going forward but I'm still baffled that it took so long for some of the changes. I'm excited about the offense moving forward and our chances to get back.

 

[Hawks46]

At this stage last season the Seahawks were 10-4. One whole win better off.

Whatever point Montana is trying to make is lost on me.

Yup the biggest difference is how Arizona is doing. We're not that far off from a wins/losses perspective.

 

[Seymour]

When fairly evaluating Bevell it is not just about how many W's or SB's we are in or what we do compared to last year. It comes down to how are we doing vs our offensive potential and how we do at adjusting week to week to put our players in the best position possible to succeed.

So going back to week 1 this year and watching the near destruction of our franchise QB, week after week same thing then FINALLY doing the obvious tweaks that allow an outlet and combine some shorter routes with intermediate and longer routes instead of everyone run a 20 yard route and watch our QB get hammered again that we had to endure. That is my problem with Bevell. He "can" call a good game after endless enduring pain required to make those changes needed. No, our problems surely were not all on him, but he did nothing to help until we were nearly out of contention, and that is pure BS. Now that we've seen the transition and what our true potential has been (with less weapons no less), that makes Bevell all that much more obviously the key to the problem IMO.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

then FINALLY doing the obvious tweaks that allow an outlet and combine some shorter routes with intermediate and longer routes instead of everyone run a 20 yard route and watch our QB get hammered again that we had to endure. That is my problem with Bevell. He "can" call a good game after endless enduring pain required to make those changes needed. No, our problems surely were not all on him, but he did nothing to help until we were nearly out of contention, and that is pure BS. Now that we've seen the transition and what our true potential has been (with less weapons no less), that makes Bevell all that much more obviously the key to the problem IMO.

Here someone on an internet chat forum is claiming he knew all along what the problem was -- and that Pete Carroll, Darrell Bevell and Tom Cable were all oblivious to it.

It's any wonder he hasn't been appointed to run a NFL offense.

Or maybe, just maybe, it's a little more complex than you're making out?

 

[Seymour]

then FINALLY doing the obvious tweaks that allow an outlet and combine some shorter routes with intermediate and longer routes instead of everyone run a 20 yard route and watch our QB get hammered again that we had to endure. That is my problem with Bevell. He "can" call a good game after endless enduring pain required to make those changes needed. No, our problems surely were not all on him, but he did nothing to help until we were nearly out of contention, and that is pure BS. Now that we've seen the transition and what our true potential has been (with less weapons no less), that makes Bevell all that much more obviously the key to the problem IMO.

Here someone on an internet chat forum is claiming he knew all along what the problem was -- and that Pete Carroll, Darrell Bevell and Tom Cable were all oblivious to it.

It's any wonder he hasn't been appointed to run a NFL offense.

Or maybe, just maybe, it's a little more complex than you're making out?

Wrong. The problems were obvious for anyone to see and our coaches knew the solution. Arrogance, pride and stubbornness kept that from happening. Is that how you dismiss all the Bevell doubters? Pretty weak sauce you have there.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

Wrong. The problems were obvious for anyone to see and our coaches knew the solution. Arrogance, pride and stubbornness kept that from happening. Is that how you dismiss all the Bevell doubters? Pretty weak sauce you have there.

So the problems were obvious -- the fix was staring them in the face -- and Carroll, Bevell and Cable did nothing about it because of their own sheer arrogance, pride and stubbornness?

You don't half talk some rubbish.

 

[Fudwamper]

When fairly evaluating Bevell it is not just about how many W's or SB's we are in or what we do compared to last year. It comes down to how are we doing vs our offensive potential and how we do at adjusting week to week to put our players in the best position possible to succeed.

So going back to week 1 this year and watching the near destruction of our franchise QB, week after week same thing then FINALLY doing the obvious tweaks that allow an outlet and combine some shorter routes with intermediate and longer routes instead of everyone run a 20 yard route and watch our QB get hammered again that we had to endure. That is my problem with Bevell. He "can" call a good game after endless enduring pain required to make those changes needed. No, our problems surely were not all on him, but he did nothing to help until we were nearly out of contention, and that is pure BS. Now that we've seen the transition and what our true potential has been (with less weapons no less), that makes Bevell all that much more obviously the key to the problem IMO.

This is how I feel, I know scotte placed an all 22 with routes on 3rd down. The biggest change we saw in those is a hot route. I would love to see a sample size of a few 22 views of passing plays from similar down and distance from the beginning of the season compared to the last few games.

 

[kearly]

Odd statement considering the team is coming off two consecutive Super Bowl appearances, has consistently finished at the top of the league in terms of offensive efficiency, and has led in all the metrics that Pete Carroll cares about (explosives, turnover ratio, pace, etc.). You do not win on all those metrics by just being "lucky" with Lynch and Wilson. That is by careful design.

To be clear, I never said Seattle was lucky to post good offensive DVOA numbers in previous seasons. And especially in 2012, the simplified offense and reliance on freeform playmaking with a rookie QB and teams having no answer for read option made a lot of sense.

I just think that the offense you see dominating right now, with route combinations and spread plays as staple, was something Russell probably could have handled sooner than 3.5 years into his career. We only saw it now because Lynch was hurt and ineffective, the red zone effectiveness was the worst the team had seen in decades, and the OL was on a historic pace for sacks. Necessity is the mother of invention as they say.

In retrospect, the struggles earlier this season might have been a huge blessing in disguise, much like when Dilfer went down with a season ending injury at Dallas in 2002.

IMO, the biggest mistake people on this forum make is that they think that they have a more sophisticated understanding of offense than the guy Pete Carroll pays to run his offense. They think that if the team is running simple schemes, it's because the play-caller is too dumb to create something more complex. That is a ridiculously naive and short-sighted notion and is a theory that has effectively been shred to pieces in the last 5-6 games, as the team has had to lean more heavily on the quick-passing game due to injuries and personnel mistakes.

I don't think anyone here is saying they are more qualified than an NFL HC or OC, but that doesn't make NFL coaches immune from judgement or criticism. I probably have less than 1% the football knowledge of Joe Philbin, but I can safely say that Joe Philbin probably wasn't a very effective coach at Miami.

Sure, there are many specific criticisms that may prove inaccurate when all the facts are brought to the light, but to throw out all observations because we don't have the qualifications necessary is like the first cousin of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Maybe some of the critics should have exercised more humility, but that doesn't make their observations categorically wrong. Just because we do not know every piece of information does not mean certain designs or decisions can't be baffling.

Where I am sympathetic to your cause is that even the (seemingly) valid criticisms of the aspects actually under Bevell's control are often petty. The real complaints I had about the offense fall more into Pete's court, and now Pete has fixed the things that needed to be fixed and it has put Bevell in far fewer situations where he has to make zany playcalls. All this time that we were complaining about Bevell, but it was really Pete who held the keys to change.

That is a ridiculously naive and short-sighted notion and is a theory that has effectively been shred to pieces in the last 5-6 games, as the team has had to lean more heavily on the quick-passing game due to injuries and personnel mistakes.

It's not really the same offense as before. It might be the same playbook, but the staple plays of the offense have changed and there has been a transformative effect on philosophy with regards to holding the ball, spreading teams out, and running route combinations.

What the past five games have proven is that Wilson is really freaking good as a spread QB. He's had something like 12 yards per attempt out spread formation the past 5 weeks. The team rarely used spread before, and now it is the staple. It's not as if Seattle is running the same exact offense as before and Wilson is just on a random hot streak.

If the team is running their offense a certain way, it's because it has a very well thought-out reason for it. By the way, if you read up on NFL offenses around the league, you'll find that a lot of teams are now making an effort to scale back the complexity of their offense. Couple big examples from Carroll disciples: (1) Gus Bradley fired his OC last year for creating an overly complicated offense; brings in a new guy to implement simpler schemes and Bortles/Robinson are excelling like crazy; (2) reports are that Kyle Shanahan (Dan Quinn's OC) has been scaling back his offense for the last few weeks, because they feel it's too complicated for MATT RYAN, who's in his 8th year as an NFL starter and having the worst season of his career. Bunch of stories like this around the league about play-callers who are now trying to do it the Seahawks way.

Sounds like a fun read. The two examples you gave are both Carroll disciples but I would guess it's probably something you'd see a lot of in the NFL this season with so many new QBs around the league.

Bortles was young and struggling and had talent at WR. Simplifying things to help him establish a rhythm makes sense.

I'm not really sure what's going on in Atlanta, but Matt Ryan has been a struggling badly the past couple months. The Falcons haven't scored over 25 points since week 4.

I don't think simplicity is evil. I think part of the reason Wilson is thriving right now is because there isn't a lot that's complicated about making presnap reads and knowing that your 1st read is going to be open on time most plays due to the difficulty of defending route combinations or the inability to properly disguise a blitz when spread out. These route concepts might be more complicated for the WRs, but for the QB there's an awful lot of pitch and catch. And it suits our QB very well.