Stats abour our play patterns

[mikeak]

The weird thing is that we are doing good in points and touchdowns per drive bit yet we are 30th!!! When it comes to three and out.

So that keeps the offense from getting in a rythm as we saw against Dallas

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

 

[chris98251]

There fixed it for you, maybe it's because your pretty new but history has shown the Mediots are almost clueless about what makes this team work. Remember these same Mediots were the ones picking us to be 4 - 12 or 6 - 10 almost across the board. Most here seem to jump on their coat tails like yourself and think of it as gospel. Then there are those that use their own eyes, look at the roster and what Pete and John have done and continue to do and make their assessments based on what THEY see not what someone tells them.


The people that I respect more then most of them and their opinions are right here, members that are tuned in and see the day to day struggles and successes of this team and what players and coaches do day in and day out.


They typically are a minority becasue again they form an opinion based on what the see and know about the game or have expeierinced playing and coaching the game. They get shouted down by those claiming the Mediots are right, by advanced stats and all. But thats not the whole game.


Just like Billy Beane in Oakland and Money Ball, used it to evaluate players to a degree but damn I am trying to remember the last time the A 's won a world series...


Heart. desire, and willingness to sacrifice is something not on a stat sheet. It's also something the players Pete bring's in have in a large amount.

Again Peta and Schotty said it, so that's it, you can try as you like to ignore it, but when your head coach, OC, and your QB all say the samethign that means that is what it is.

How often do you buy Coach speak, they should have said neither Fluker or Sweezy should have been out there normally, no scheme can compensate for guys that can't play at the level needed.


Thats not their style however.



If they said they had beach front property in Death Valley for sale for pennies on the dollar you would say count me in as well I suppose. Because Pete and Schotty said so.

Well you add in nearly every expert out there also I am sorry I know your opinion is the only that in your mind is right, but the facts, stats, experts, and HC, OC and QB all disagree. Since they know a lot more than you or I will go with them. Oh and by the way, no scheme and yet when they finally did adjust we moved the ball and had a chance HMm makes you stance moot.

What facts? What Stats, Dallas was in a prevent so it wasn't a standard Defense, and Experts, well most don't know the names of half our players. Again the Coach speakl if you have not been tuning in is always to protect the team, they will not throw anyone under the bus. They will speak in generic terms. Those are facts.

 

[John63]

I don't know what you're trying to debate here but you aren't participating in any sort of discussion. You posted an article with an assertion you obviously were backing, a bunch of people discussed why that article was not done particularly well, and your reply has nothing to do with the article or any points made, but rather that other people exist who agree with you.

Obviously you have not read the whole thread so goodby

 

[John63]

Again Peta and Schotty said it, so that's it, you can try as you like to ignore it, but when your head coach, OC, and your QB all say the samethign that means that is what it is.

How often do you buy Coach speak, they should have said neither Fluker or Sweezy should have been out there normally, no scheme can compensate for guys that can't play at the level needed.


Thats not their style however.



If they said they had beach front property in Death Valley for sale for pennies on the dollar you would say count me in as well I suppose. Because Pete and Schotty said so.

Well you add in nearly every expert out there also I am sorry I know your opinion is the only that in your mind is right, but the facts, stats, experts, and HC, OC and QB all disagree. Since they know a lot more than you or I will go with them. Oh and by the way, no scheme and yet when they finally did adjust we moved the ball and had a chance HMm makes you stance moot.

What facts? What Stats, Dallas was in a prevent so it wasn't a standard Defense, and Experts, well most don't know the names of half our players. Again the Coach speakl if you have not been tuning in is always to protect the team, they will not throw anyone under the bus. They will speak in generic terms. Those are facts.

Once again Dallas was not in prevent al the time so that is untrue. At this point this is a waste of my time, If you want to put your head in the sand and ignore the facts, the HC, the OC, the QB, and most of the experts that is your problem. That said the fact is we did not adjust soon enough period.

 

[HawkRiderFan]

Figure this is a good place to ask this. I had no desire to rewatch any of that game, but going by memory did we see less of that jet sweep action with Lockett than usual in that game or did I just not see it?

 

[chris98251]

How often do you buy Coach speak, they should have said neither Fluker or Sweezy should have been out there normally, no scheme can compensate for guys that can't play at the level needed.


Thats not their style however.



If they said they had beach front property in Death Valley for sale for pennies on the dollar you would say count me in as well I suppose. Because Pete and Schotty said so.

Well you add in nearly every expert out there also I am sorry I know your opinion is the only that in your mind is right, but the facts, stats, experts, and HC, OC and QB all disagree. Since they know a lot more than you or I will go with them. Oh and by the way, no scheme and yet when they finally did adjust we moved the ball and had a chance HMm makes you stance moot.

What facts? What Stats, Dallas was in a prevent so it wasn't a standard Defense, and Experts, well most don't know the names of half our players. Again the Coach speakl if you have not been tuning in is always to protect the team, they will not throw anyone under the bus. They will speak in generic terms. Those are facts.

Once again Dallas was not in prevent al the time so that is untrue. At this point this is a waste of my time, If you want to put your head in the sand and ignore the facts, the HC, the OC, the QB, and most of the experts that is your problem. That said the fact is we did not adjust soon enough period.

And your beginning to sound like a troll that just want's to stir the pot, they were in prevent most the 4th quarter when the so called adjustments were made, not in it when a short yardage situation was happening. Did you even watch the game or just going of Blog posts to argue.

 

[John63]

Figure this is a good place to ask this. I had no desire to rewatch any of that game, but going by memory did we see less of that jet sweep action with Lockett than usual in that game or did I just not see it?

I do not recall seeing it much if at all

 

[chris98251]

Figure this is a good place to ask this. I had no desire to rewatch any of that game, but going by memory did we see less of that jet sweep action with Lockett than usual in that game or did I just not see it?

I do not recall seeing it much if at all

Because of the speed of the Cowboys defense on the edge with their LB's.

 

[HawkRiderFan]

Figure this is a good place to ask this. I had no desire to rewatch any of that game, but going by memory did we see less of that jet sweep action with Lockett than usual in that game or did I just not see it?

I do not recall seeing it much if at all

Because of the speed of the Cowboys defense on the edge with their LB's.

Was that the official reason given? Sure didn't stop the Rams

 

[mrt144]

Figure this is a good place to ask this. I had no desire to rewatch any of that game, but going by memory did we see less of that jet sweep action with Lockett than usual in that game or did I just not see it?

I do not recall seeing it much if at all

Because of the speed of the Cowboys defense on the edge with their LB's.

Was that the official reason given? Sure didn't stop the Rams

Buried deep in the apologetic for the Hawks failures is a deep admiration and respect for the Rams, I guess?

 

[chris98251]

Figure this is a good place to ask this. I had no desire to rewatch any of that game, but going by memory did we see less of that jet sweep action with Lockett than usual in that game or did I just not see it?

I do not recall seeing it much if at all

Because of the speed of the Cowboys defense on the edge with their LB's.

Was that the official reason given? Sure didn't stop the Rams

Well there is the factor of only having Lockett that can pull that off.

 

[HawkRiderFan]

Put me in the camp of those who are ok with having a run first philosophy but willing to adapt when things aren't working. I guess a season long example I just thought of (yeah I am up there in age) goes back to the 1984 season. Chuck Knox's love of the run game had given him the "ground Chuck" nickname over the year. Well then Curt Warner is lost for the year early and he adapts the offence with Kreig finishing second only to Marino in TD passes that year (I believe)

 

[Fade]

What I want to know is why defend and damage control this coaching failure?

Do you get a reward?


--> "but.but...bbut 2013!!!."


They had a legendary defense then, you could afford to be sub-optimal on offense and still win. Unless Pete can build another defense like that, they are going to have to be smarter on offense if they want to win a Super Bowl.

Running into loaded boxes for 3 quarters with no success, and treating your Franchise QB like he is Blake Bortles is indefensible.

The experts, analysts, observers, fans, media, math nerds, coaches, players, and the QB himself acknowledge/or admit it was a mistake.

538 not only broke down the Seahawks, but the whole league, it is foolish to consistently utilize the r-r-p sequence, it leads to the most failure league wide. The Seahawks lived in it at 26%, far more than anyone in the league, and they still failed right alongside everyone else, They weren't bucking the trend of failure which makes it even more baffling to continue with it.

Just because the Seahawks succeeded at times despite this does not justify it. Kind of like justifying keeping CaBevell because they are going to the playoffs every year. They were going to the playoffs every year in spite of them, not because of them. Likewise here, the Seahawks went to the playoffs in spite of r-r-p, not because of it.

The Seahawks just need to balance out their offensive attack by 5% Run/Pass ratio, With nearly all of it being playaction on 1st down. Which will make the running game even more effective. Then make the natural improvements to their defense this off-season and they can win the Super Bowl next year. Do it Pete.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

What I want to know is why defend and damage control this coaching failure?

Do you get a reward?


--> "but.but...bbut 2013!!!."


They had a legendary defense then, you could afford to be sub-optimal on offense and still win.

Yes, that's the only thing the 2010-2014 Seahawks were legendary for. :lol:

 

[Ozzy]

Whatever you guys say.

Can't call a first down run, so it MUST be a first down pass - well, that's predictable, too.

Man I hate when people use the extreme example to prove the other side wrong, twitter has been filled with this lazy approach. Not a single person believes we should pass every first down. Statistically, the numbers prove, is that it is probably more efficient and should be a slight bigger piece of the equation for the Seahawks. I can guarantee you opposing teams when scouting for a game love seeing a team that rarely deviates in certain situations because its much easier to coach against.

 

[knownone]

Whatever you guys say.

Can't call a first down run, so it MUST be a first down pass - well, that's predictable, too.

Man I hate when people use the extreme example to prove the other side wrong, twitter has been filled with this lazy approach. Not a single person believes we should pass every first down. Statistically, the numbers prove, is that it is probably more efficient and should be a slight bigger piece of the equation for the Seahawks. I can guarantee you opposing teams when scouting for a game love seeing a team that rarely deviates in certain situations because its much easier to coach against.

From a purely statistical perspective, the numbers don't tell us anything other than what took place. I think in some ways that is what Montana is hinting at. We don't know if Seattle's efficiency passing on first down would have continued if they did it more often and if we could adjust the numbers for more passing plays then the passing game then becomes more predictable.

Furthermore, Seattle's offense is actually built around their perceived predictability. They are top 5 in explosive plays largely because teams have to respect the run. It's that predictability that allows Russ to be top 5 in TDs while passing less than everyone in the league. It's also that predictability that makes the passing numbers look more impressive, teams don't expect you to pass, so the pass becomes more effective on the rare occasions you use it.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't pass more or even make adjustments. I just think it's naive to say a change would for sure make this offense better. It's entirely possible a less predictable running game would lead to less explosive plays and a less effective offense overall. The opposite could also be true but the numbers don't tell us which outcome is true. So the conclusions drawn on both sides of the argument are flawed.

 

[mrt144]

Whatever you guys say.

Can't call a first down run, so it MUST be a first down pass - well, that's predictable, too.

Man I hate when people use the extreme example to prove the other side wrong, twitter has been filled with this lazy approach. Not a single person believes we should pass every first down. Statistically, the numbers prove, is that it is probably more efficient and should be a slight bigger piece of the equation for the Seahawks. I can guarantee you opposing teams when scouting for a game love seeing a team that rarely deviates in certain situations because its much easier to coach against.

From a purely statistical perspective, the numbers don't tell us anything other than what took place. I think in some ways that is what Montana is hinting at. We don't know if Seattle's efficiency passing on first down would have continued if they did it more often and if we could adjust the numbers for more passing plays then the passing game then becomes more predictable.

Furthermore, Seattle's offense is actually built around their perceived predictability. They are top 5 in explosive plays largely because teams have to respect the run. It's that predictability that allows Russ to be top 5 in TDs while passing less than everyone in the league. It's also that predictability that makes the passing numbers look more impressive, teams don't expect you to pass, so the pass becomes more effective on the rare occasions you use it.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't pass more or even make adjustments. I just think it's naive to say a change would for sure make this offense better. It's entirely possible a less predictable running game would lead to less explosive plays and a less effective offense overall. The opposite could also be true but the numbers don't tell us which outcome is true. So the conclusions drawn on both sides of the argument are flawed.

I will only offer this rebuttal - other teams that are inclined to treat the offense as a focal point of the team don't seem to suffer the same kinda of gaps in efficiency in either rushing or passing that are speculated as possible or probable if the Hawks deviated from their current MO. I qualified that with the focal point of the team to make it clear that this isn't as simple as 'ape the best and success follows'. Rather it's 'literally become an ape through genetic modification and you might be able to get there'. There are proof of concepts clanging around the NFL now that suggest you can almost 'have it all' if you pursue it with all your vigor, thought, and personnel.

And I don't disagree that maybe a Schotty led offense would have these speculative issues if it changed, but that's a Schotty led offense (and being Pete's underling) issue based on what he brings to the table as an OC, not a rebuttal against teams doing the damn thing on offense without seemingly sacrificing balance, predictability vs unpredictability, explosive plays, 3rd down conversion rates, or whatever else you appreciate about our offense.

Actually, it is impressive that the Hawks offense does as well as it does compared to other teams given the clear break points where they differ and resemble clearly worse offenses. But it isn't so impressive that the good they do bring to the table in spite of their weirdo outlier status translated in any meaningful way in the playoff game vs. the Cowboys, for various reasons we've already poured over.

 

[XxXdragonXxX]

Figure this is a good place to ask this. I had no desire to rewatch any of that game, but going by memory did we see less of that jet sweep action with Lockett than usual in that game or did I just not see it?

I only remember seeing it once, on the screen to Carson that lost 8 yards. Lockett was leg whipped by the DE, should have been a tripping penalty.

 

[Leee-roy]

What I see is a lack of self scouting, thinking ,"what adjustments will they make ", and "what will we do if they do X".
also it seems that teams defend the middle up close to stuff the run or send a LB to rush the pass. I think that's because they're not affraid of crossing patterns or in slants cuz Russ can't see the middle of the field. His best passes are when he runs around and throws deep, and you can't depend on that for a strategy. Am I alone in my thinking?

 

[John63]

What I see is a lack of self scouting, thinking ,"what adjustments will they make ", and "what will we do if they do X".
also it seems that teams defend the middle up close to stuff the run or send a LB to rush the pass. I think that's because they're not affraid of crossing patterns or in slants cuz Russ can't see the middle of the field. His best passes are when he runs around and throws deep, and you can't depend on that for a strategy. Am I alone in my thinking?

PCs motto is we are going to do what we do, and better than them. Not let's do what they don't do. He wants to out-execute rather than out gameplan. The only problem is execution give the coaching staff an out, the players did not execute right and makes us predictable, game planning does not as that is all on coaching.