The last 30-35 yards

[Siouxhawk]

It's obviously nice to score more touchdowns as that's the object of the game, but when are some of you going to get it through your heads that coming away with a field goal helps the Hawks more than any team in the league. Why? Because by and large, we give up the fewest points in the league on defense. I could see that happening again this year. So those 3 points at a time are more valuable to us than any team in the league as we maximize their production.

It also diminishes our chances of taking risks, making us less likely to throw a pass in late down and short distance situations when we are in field goal range. That's why kickers need to be productive for us.

So it's not like we're eschewing touchdowns because we prefer field goals. It's just that with our defense being as good as it is, we protect our points better. It's the philosophy Pete has held firmly his length of time with the Hawks. I'm not going to argue with it because it works.

So think before you get all freaked out about red zone production and rankings, where field goals bring that number down. Maybe a better indicator is the number of plays run or possessions in the red zone. There's a formula there somewhere that Pete must rely on that maybe you statniks can pinpoint. My only concern is our won-lost record.

 

[Sports Hernia]

Some of it is on Russ, but IMHO it's the playcalling and OC that are the main problem in the red zone.
Would like to see Russ audible out of crap playcalls more when he sees them, especially down in the red zone.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

I agree with the OP on the O-zone. For the last couple of years, I cringed at us making it to the 20. Throw it in at the 21 yd line and see what happens...but no...they run it 3 yds for the first down at the 18yd line. Dammit...need another beverage. Then field goal. Maybe it could be different with a different play set. Brim had a good idea...let RW put it on his back a few times to see if he has what it takes. If we dont make it the first 4 times....take back the reins and go on. Experiments can work sometimes. Heck, they brought him in. Hopefully the O-Zone works better tho. Go Hawks.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Some of it is on Russ, but IMHO it's the playcalling and OC that are the main problem in the red zone.
Would like to see Russ audible out of crap playcalls more when he sees them, especially down in the red zone.

This statement is confusing. You do realize that even if Russ checks into another play, he's doing so into the scheme drawn up by the OC and staff, don't you? You also must realize that the OC has been working with Russ to try and read defensive tells better and fully encourages him to dial up an audible if he thinks he could exploit the defense and maximize a scoring chance.

 

[sdog1981]

Wilson's red zone completion percentage was at its lowest point of his career last season. Follow this link and you can see his completion percentage in the red zone since 2012. Unfortunately, He has never gone about 50% red zone completion rate since his rookie year.

At this point, we have to ask is this a player issue or is this a scheme issue?

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... assing.htm

 

[LolaRox]

It's obviously nice to score more touchdowns as that's the object of the game, but when are some of you going to get it through your heads that coming away with a field goal helps the Hawks more than any team in the league. Why? Because by and large, we give up the fewest points in the league on defense. I could see that happening again this year. So those 3 points at a time are more valuable to us than any team in the league as we maximize their production.
It also diminishes our chances of taking risks, making us less likely to throw a pass in late down and short distance situations when we are in field goal range. That's why kickers need to be productive for us.
So it's not like we're eschewing touchdowns because we prefer field goals. It's just that with our defense being as good as it is, we protect our points better. It's the philosophy Pete has held firmly his length of time with the Hawks. I'm not going to argue with it because it works.
So think before you get all freaked out about red zone production and rankings, where field goals bring that number down. Maybe a better indicator is the number of plays run or possessions in the red zone. There's a formula there somewhere that Pete must rely on that maybe you statniks can pinpoint. My only concern is our won-lost record.

I don't think anyone is saying TD or nothing. Obviously 3 is better than 0, but 6 is better than 3 and if they can even flip one FG into a TD it would go a long way to improving the games outcome.

2 Examples from last yr -

SEA/NO game - in 4Q they were down around the 5 and end up settling for a FG, if they score a TD(+XP) they go up by 2 instead of down by 2 - that changes how the rest of the game is played. And even if NO still goes down and scores their FG to take the lead back, the Hawks only need a FG on that last possession to win, not a TD.

SEA/AZ @Clink - Early in the game Hauschka misses a RZ FG attempt, on the possession that Lockett gets hurt the ball is at the 1, but they come away with 0 points - a TD on either possession may have changed the outcome of that game. We focus on the missed FG (and XP) but the offense could've done more when they had the opportunity.

I'm not saying that either of games' outcomes would have changed, but it gives them a better chance to win, and if they win either of those games, Hawks get #2 seed and who knows from there.

The offenses' job is to score as many points as it can and 6>3.

 

[Siouxhawk]

It's obviously nice to score more touchdowns as that's the object of the game, but when are some of you going to get it through your heads that coming away with a field goal helps the Hawks more than any team in the league. Why? Because by and large, we give up the fewest points in the league on defense. I could see that happening again this year. So those 3 points at a time are more valuable to us than any team in the league as we maximize their production.
It also diminishes our chances of taking risks, making us less likely to throw a pass in late down and short distance situations when we are in field goal range. That's why kickers need to be productive for us.
So it's not like we're eschewing touchdowns because we prefer field goals. It's just that with our defense being as good as it is, we protect our points better. It's the philosophy Pete has held firmly his length of time with the Hawks. I'm not going to argue with it because it works.
So think before you get all freaked out about red zone production and rankings, where field goals bring that number down. Maybe a better indicator is the number of plays run or possessions in the red zone. There's a formula there somewhere that Pete must rely on that maybe you statniks can pinpoint. My only concern is our won-lost record.

I don't think anyone is saying TD or nothing. Obviously 3 is better than 0, but 6 is better than 3 and if they can even flip one FG into a TD it would go a long way to improving the games outcome.

2 Examples from last yr -

SEA/NO game - in 4Q they were down around the 5 and end up settling for a FG, if they score a TD(+XP) they go up by 2 instead of down by 2 - that changes how the rest of the game is played. And even if NO still goes down and scores their FG to take the lead back, the Hawks only need a FG on that last possession to win, not a TD.

SEA/AZ @Clink - Early in the game Hauschka misses a RZ FG attempt, on the possession that Lockett gets hurt the ball is at the 1, but they come away with 0 points - a TD on either possession may have changed the outcome of that game. We focus on the missed FG (and XP) but the offense could've done more when they had the opportunity.

I'm not saying that either of games' outcomes would have changed, but it gives them a better chance to win, and if they win either of those games, Hawks get #2 seed and who knows from there.

The offenses' job is to score as many points as it can and 6>3.

I guess I'm just referring to those red zone rankings, where it's calculated as touchdown or nothing, making a field goal no better than being denied points in the red zone.

Pete's underlying philosophy of "protect the ball," score what we can, when we can and choke our opponent's points off with our stifling defense makes that red zone efficiency stat inconsequential to what we are trying to do as a team. I'd imagine if you just looked at points in the red zone vs. TDs in the red zone, we'd be right up there.

This also plays out in offensive decisions about field position. Pete's like a clever chess player, thinking 2 moves ahead of our opponent, putting opposing offenses in deep holes so that our opportunistic defense can make a game-changing play that directly results in a touchdown or sets our offense up in prime scoring territory. In fact, if you want to take a look at any stat that historically comes into play as far as wins and losses during Pete's tenure, I'd say it would be turnover differential.

 

[sutz]

In fact, if you want to take a look at any stat that historically comes into play as far as wins and losses during Pete's tenure, I'd say it would be turnover differential.

Turnover differential is key for any team. :229031_shrug:

 

[mikeak]

Maybe Wilson's 'cautious' playing style just suffers when the field is more condensed. It sure seems like the playcalling becomes less aggressive. Quite possible, once in scoring range, the coaches have decided it's better to play it safe based on the strengths and weaknesses of the team. As frustrating as it seems sometimes, playing for the fieldgoal may actually work better for this team in some situations.

This is what I believe

1) Cautios play calling
2) Conservative / no-turnover throws
3) lack of separation

It creates the perfect storm every time we hit the RZ

Most QBs will rifle it in there, have aggressive player

We go with the conservative corner fade and then add more caution in the pass itself by RW and it falls incomplete out of bounds

 

[LolaRox]

It's obviously nice to score more touchdowns as that's the object of the game, but when are some of you going to get it through your heads that coming away with a field goal helps the Hawks more than any team in the league. Why? Because by and large, we give up the fewest points in the league on defense. I could see that happening again this year. So those 3 points at a time are more valuable to us than any team in the league as we maximize their production...
.

I don't think anyone is saying TD or nothing. Obviously 3 is better than 0, but 6 is better than 3 and if they can even flip one FG into a TD it would go a long way to improving the games outcome.

2 Examples from last yr -

SEA/NO game - in 4Q they were down around the 5 and end up settling for a FG, if they score a TD(+XP) they go up by 2 instead of down by 2 - that changes how the rest of the game is played. And even if NO still goes down and scores their FG to take the lead back, the Hawks only need a FG on that last possession to win, not a TD.

SEA/AZ @Clink - Early in the game Hauschka misses a RZ FG attempt, on the possession that Lockett gets hurt the ball is at the 1, but they come away with 0 points - a TD on either possession may have changed the outcome of that game. We focus on the missed FG (and XP) but the offense could've done more when they had the opportunity.

I'm not saying that either of games' outcomes would have changed, but it gives them a better chance to win, and if they win either of those games, Hawks get #2 seed and who knows from there.

The offenses' job is to score as many points as it can and 6>3.

I guess I'm just referring to those red zone rankings, where it's calculated as touchdown or nothing, making a field goal no better than being denied points in the red zone.

Pete's underlying philosophy of "protect the ball," score what we can, when we can and choke our opponent's points off with our stifling defense makes that red zone efficiency stat inconsequential to what we are trying to do as a team. I'd imagine if you just looked at points in the red zone vs. TDs in the red zone, we'd be right up there.

This also plays out in offensive decisions about field position. Pete's like a clever chess player, thinking 2 moves ahead of our opponent, putting opposing offenses in deep holes so that our opportunistic defense can make a game-changing play that directly results in a touchdown or sets our offense up in prime scoring territory. In fact, if you want to take a look at any stat that historically comes into play as far as wins and losses during Pete's tenure, I'd say it would be turnover differential.

Not sure why you're bringing up Pete's philosophy of protecting the ball, unless you think it's too risky to go for TD and/or the only other outcome is turning the ball over.

Football outsiders says the Hawks avg 4.54 points in the RZ which ranks 23rd - that needs to be better.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestatsoff

Team Drives TDs/Dr FG/Dr Punts/Dr 3Outs/Dr LOS/KO TD/FG Pts/RZ TDs/RZ Avg. Lead
CIN 172 .203 (17) .163 (10) .453 (26) .209 (16) 26.77 (2) 1.25 (19) 4.87 (15) .537 (19) 0.13 (10)
SEA 179 .201 (18) .184 (7) .397 (10) .184 (5) 26.73 (3) 1.09 (25) 4.54 (23) .464 (28) 0.95 (4)

*noting Football Outsiders RZTD% is a little different than Team Rankings. FO Hawks = 4.6% (28th)

 

[Wartooth]

Go back and watch the game over...
Jimmy was wide open in the back of the endzone when Russ threw that batted pass to Madden...
Russ flat out didn't see him.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Obviously 2016 is our anomaly season with Russ's injuries and consistently poor offensive line play. The body of work since Russ has been under center is more of what I was looking at.

 

[Anthony!]

Go back and watch the game over...
Jimmy was wide open in the back of the endzone when Russ threw that batted pass to Madden...
Russ flat out didn't see him.

So was Madden and we scored, so this makes no sense

 

[Siouxhawk]

It's a good red zone offense that has so many options.

 

[Anthony!]

Once again the biggest issue in the RZ is online. Our less than desirable RZ issues includes running or not being able to. This and penalties, sacks etc all go back to oline issues, we're is our biggest problem.

 

[Anthony!]

It's a good red zone offense that has so many options.

If our online stays out of our way. Even last night with a false start they cost us

 

[Jville]

Learning from and overcoming imperfections is how they will collectively become a better 2017 red zone offense. It is all about the details. They are collectively ahead of last year.

 

[Anthony!]

Learning from and overcoming imperfections is how they will collectively become a better 2017 red zone offense. They are collectively ahead of last year.

Agreed

 

[Siouxhawk]

Learning from and overcoming imperfections is how they will collectively become a better 2017 red zone offense. It is all about the details. They are collectively ahead of last year.

Exactly Jville. They're not sticking their heads in the sand ignoring the issue. They'll grow as a team from last season's breakdowns and be that much better. It's what this organization does.

 

[LolaRox]

Obviously 2016 is our anomaly season with Russ's injuries and consistently poor offensive line play. The body of work since Russ has been under center is more of what I was looking at.

I will move on, but are you looking at specific data when you make your assessments about the RZ production?

I agree 2016 was negatively impacted by Russ' injuries, but they've been trending downward since 2012 (with a little bump in 2015)

2012 RzPts 5.13(5) Rz TD% .574(10)
2013 RzPts 4.98(7) Rz TD% .561(14)
2014 RzPts 4.80(14) Rz TD% .525(19)
2015 RzPts 5.02(11) Rz TD% .551(16)
2016 RzPts 4.54(23) Rz TD% .464(28)

*Reference - Football Outsiders

I hope they get back to whatever they were doing at the end of 2015 regular season, but RZ production shouldn't be left unaddressed by this coaching staff.