The massively underappreciated Brian Schottenheimer

[chris98251]

Not sure how many times people need to read that our Line was in a state that at Guard under normal conditions those players would be on IR. Those same people want to IGNORE that fact to get on their soap box to bash Schotty, Pete, the Offensive philosophy and players.

Tell me how fast you drive on 2 flat tires ?

Your a failure I guess for not replacing them, for ignoring they were flat and parking the car, but instead you drove it, busted the rims up and then blamed the car.

 

[DomeHawk]

We were 3rd worst in the NFL last year in 3 and outs behind the Jets and the Cardinals.

Source: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats ... atsoff2018

And THAT is the biggest problem the Seahawks have: the inability to sustain drives.

It is beyond obvious, the offense has to get more creative.

 

[nwHawk]

Not sure how many times people need to read that our Line was in a state that at Guard under normal conditions those players would be on IR. Those same people want to IGNORE that fact to get on their soap box to bash Schotty, Pete, the Offensive philosophy and players.

Tell me how fast you drive on 2 flat tires ?

Your a failure I guess for not replacing them, for ignoring they were flat and parking the car, but instead you drove it, busted the rims up and then blamed the car.

Chris, not sure if this is direct at me, but I'm certainly not bashing Pete or Shotty for the Dallas game. And I'll admit I don't read or try to remember everything everyone writes. Last season is over, and I am looking forward to an awesome season.
:irishdrinkers:

 

[chris98251]

Not sure how many times people need to read that our Line was in a state that at Guard under normal conditions those players would be on IR. Those same people want to IGNORE that fact to get on their soap box to bash Schotty, Pete, the Offensive philosophy and players.

Tell me how fast you drive on 2 flat tires ?

Your a failure I guess for not replacing them, for ignoring they were flat and parking the car, but instead you drove it, busted the rims up and then blamed the car.

Chris, not sure if this is direct at me, but I'm certainly not bashing Pete or Shotty for the Dallas game. And I'll admit I don't read or try to remember everything everyone writes. Last season is over, and I am looking forward to an awesome season.
:irishdrinkers:

Not a specific person but many, those that swear they are diehards should know a lot of this stuff especially if they frequent these forums, that and by watching how these guys move and the reports of how much they are held out of practice etc.

Also there were like pages of threads bashing the offense after the game, the news of both being injured was broadcast and then confirmed after the game as well.

 

[Ozzy]

We were 3rd worst in the NFL last year in 3 and outs behind the Jets and the Cardinals.

Source: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats ... atsoff2018

And THAT is the biggest problem the Seahawks have: the inability to sustain drives.

It is beyond obvious, the offense has to get more creative.

How this point keeps getting glossed over because the overall numbers were decent is baffling to me. Schott was better than I thought he would be but we have a ways to go and the overall volume numbers don't tell the whole story. I have some hope they realized they need to evolve a little and with Duane Brown being vocal about it, Wilson was vocal about it and other players I think we will see an improved version in his second year. I hope.

 

[Popeyejones]

Disagree. It's entirely possible that the mediocre offense was elevated to a top 6 run game and pass game by that same boneheaded philosophy.

If you run on 2nd and 10 when you should be passing you'll get more run yards per play that will elevate the stats of your running game.

If true, this means that on a per-play basis the run game is even worse than it appears to be, and the Schotty should be calling run plays even less than the stats suggest he should be.

If you run all the time, your play action becomes more effective and elevates the per play stats of your passing game.

As much as we can tell this isn't as true as we think it is, but there's some limitations to just using count data for this, obviously.

 

[John63]

this is simple

70% of the time we went run, run, pass. enough said. That has to change. We led the league in 3rd and long and this was the reason why.

 

[Tical21]

Whatever led to all of our success last year, we need to do more and better.

 

[Tical21]

this is simple

70% of the time we went run, run, pass. enough said. That has to change. We led the league in 3rd and long and this was the reason why.

Why the heck would you change? Tired of success?

 

[Tical21]

Disagree. It's entirely possible that the mediocre offense was elevated to a top 6 run game and pass game by that same boneheaded philosophy.

If you run on 2nd and 10 when you should be passing you'll get more run yards per play that will elevate the stats of your running game.

If true, this means that on a per-play basis the run game is even worse than it appears to be, and the Schotty should be calling run plays even less than the stats suggest he should be.

If you run all the time, your play action becomes more effective and elevates the per play stats of your passing game.

As much as we can tell this isn't as true as we think it is, but there's some limitations to just using count data for this, obviously.

It is true. Baldwin is a cherry-picking troll.
Russ saw his play-action completion percentage go up 6% in 18 vs. 17, largely because of a vastly improved running game.

 

[Popeyejones]

It is true. Baldwin is a cherry-picking troll.
Russ saw his play-action completion percentage go up 6% in 18 vs. 17, largely because of a vastly improved running game.

Sorry, but I really disagree with this.

CHERRY PICKING: To argue for the general truth of something, you pick a single way to measure that thing for a single player across the bare minimum number of seasons. What you're doing with Wilson is the definition of cherry picking.

NOT CHERRY PICKING: To argue for the general truth of something, you look at multiple ways to measure that thing across all the players available across all the years of available data. That's what Baldwin is doing. That is the opposite of cherry picking.

As I've alluded to I think there's major limitations to thinking about the relationship between running and play action passing using frequentest approaches (which most advanced stats use), but that doesn't mean they're all just bathwater, and given that we're making a frequentest argument about the run game, even those concerns aren't really relevant.*

*(to convert back into english, I think the relationship between running plays and play action passing is much more important than can be picked up by these advanced stats, but that doesn't require running the ball a lot. It's about stuff like seeing how a backside safety reacts to outside runs on the opposite side of the field and stuff like that, which is something you only need to do once or twice to set that guy up (it doesn't take running the ball more than anyone else in the league to do that).

 

[Tical21]

In cherry-picking, I mean that Baldwin only includes data that supports his narrative, and discards anything that hurts it (i.e. 4th quarter data or data when certain score discrepancies are reached.) He's credited with 90% of the myth that there isn't a correlation between play-action and running success, but his data is wildly combed. I mean, I could investigate more if I felt it was warranted, but the breaker of his theory is literally the team that he covers. I'd argue that picking Wilson as my data source isn't cherry-picking, since it is over a full season of data. If it is true that there isn't a correlation between the running game and play-action, then Russell should not have had such a drastic improvement over his previous play-action numbers last season. I told people for years that if we get a running game going, Russ will see huge benefits in the form of play-action success. Baldwin argued strongly against this. We got a running game again, and Russ' play-action success goes through the roof. I don't know what other evidence would be needed, seems pretty cut-and-dry.

The thing about your example of the backside safety being setup for a play-action pass is something that should show up in data somewhere. And it does, if you don't skew the metrics.

 

[ivotuk]

Where do people keep finding these obscure stats to bash our offense with?

There is only one stat that matters in football, points. Points = Wins. 3 and out percentage is meaningless when you WIN.

"Figures lie, and liars figure." A favorite quote of Brock Huard. Stats can be deceiving. Like "When player X gets 100 yards or more rushing, the team wins more often." Insinuating that all the team needs to do is get Player X 100 or more yards rushing to increase their win percentage. When in actuality, teams with the lead, run the ball more. Cart before the horse and such.

And those saying that Schottenheimer Senior was always an early out in the playoffs, know nothing about history or circumstances. He should have beat Denver and gone on to the Superbowl. Twice. But a fumble near the goal line ended their SB hopes.

Marty Schottenheimer takes the lowly Browns with Bernie Kosar, to the AFC Championship game, 2 Years in a Row. The same Bernie Kosar that started his NFL career completing 50% and 58% of his passes, Marty took to better than 60%.

If you look at Marty, he took poor teams to the playoffs. 3 times. But it's my humble opinion that he had poor support behind him. KC let him go, many say because of an unsubstantiated affair.

San Diego fired him after a 14 - 2 season. Because he lost to the Patriots in the playoffs...with Rivers in his first starting season. albeit, after he sat behind Drew Brees for 2 years. Still, first year starting for Philip, his first playoff game, against the Patriots, lost 24-21.

So much like his father, no matter how successful Brian Schottenheimer, is, people will bash him. And they will pull obscure statistics out to do so. Never mind that like his father, Brian has been to Back-to-Back AFC Championship games. Because this is a fan base that will bash OCs that don't throw the ball a lot, even though they may win a lot of games, or "only" win 1 Lombardi.

Here's a stat for you. On a team that led the league in rushing, 160 yards per game, and when (rarely) healthy on the OLine, beat the hell out of opposing defenses, our "Crappy" OC managed to have his offense score the 2nd most points in team history, behind only Mike Holmgren's 2005 team led by an elite OLine and MVP running back. 428 vs 452

The 2005 team 3rd down conversion rate? 39.6% 2018? 38.9% HORRIBLE! OMG!

Rushing YPA? 2005: 4.7 2018? 4.8 I don't see 2 HOF Olinemen on the 2018 team anywhere. Let alone an MVP RB.


Passing TD/INT: M. Hasselbeck: 24/9 R. Wilson: 35/7 Passing game wut?


And one more just for fun: TD% (TDs per Pass Attempt) 2005: 5.3% 2018: 8.2%

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... a/2018.htm

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... a/2005.htm

 

[Popeyejones]

In cherry-picking, I mean that Baldwin only includes data that supports his narrative, and discards anything that hurts it (i.e. 4th quarter data or data when certain score discrepancies are reached.)

I think this might just be a difference in perspective, TBH.

He's not discarding any data, though.

Instead, your critique is that he's not carving up the available data enough. Doing that, I think, risks running into what the statistician Andrew Gelman calls "the garden of forking paths" -- it can be useful as long as it is warranted, but it is often just a subtler form of p-hacking to try to get to a result.

I'd argue that picking Wilson as my data source isn't cherry-picking, since it is over a full season of data. If it is true that there isn't a correlation between the running game and play-action, then Russell should not have had such a drastic improvement over his previous play-action numbers last season.

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think we know it's actually true. Is a change in completion percentage on play action passes of 5% from one year to the next actually "drastic"? How many standard deviations out are we talking about here? How many completed passes are we talking about when we're talking about a change of five percentage points in the overall completion percentage for these types of throws? If the difference is meaningful what else could account for it? Is completion percentage actually the best way to measure passing effectiveness? Is it better or worse than other measures of passing effectiveness for something like the ostensible relationship between running and play action passing?

These are all the questions that become important when you decide to look at just one player across two years rather than throwing all the players and all the years into the hopper.

Just by way of example vis-a-vis cherry picking, Drew Brees completed 8% more of his play action passes between 2017 and 2018 compared to Wilson's 5, and the Saints had the same run/pass ratio across those seasons. If we did EXACTLY what you did for Wilson but randomly did it for Brees instead, we'd conclude there was no relationship between play action completion % and run/pass ratio, the exact opposite of what you're concluding from randomly doing the same thing with WIlson instead of Brees.

The thing about your example of the backside safety being setup for a play-action pass is something that should show up in data somewhere. And it does, if you don't skew the metrics.

TBF I don't think it would show up in the data we have because it's simply not a frequency thing and all of this stuff is measured in terms of frequency (which makes sense given the statistics people have to work with). And I think the people who study this stuff are for the most part pretty careful about acknowledging the limits of the claims their making -- you don't see anyone concluding from these findings that teams should NEVER run, for instance.

In any case, though, I'm kind of a nerd for this statistics-based stuff, so I hope my post isn't taken as combative. It's not intended that way. :2thumbs:

 

[John63]

Where do people keep finding these obscure stats to bash our offense with?

There is only one stat that matters in football, points. Points = Wins. 3 and out percentage is meaningless when you WIN.

"Figures lie, and liars figure." A favorite quote of Brock Huard. Stats can be deceiving. Like "When player X gets 100 yards or more rushing, the team wins more often." Insinuating that all the team needs to do is get Player X 100 or more yards rushing to increase their win percentage. When in actuality, teams with the lead, run the ball more. Cart before the horse and such.

And those saying that Schottenheimer Senior was always an early out in the playoffs, know nothing about history or circumstances. He should have beat Denver and gone on to the Superbowl. Twice. But a fumble near the goal line ended their SB hopes.

Marty Schottenheimer takes the lowly Browns with Bernie Kosar, to the AFC Championship game, 2 Years in a Row. The same Bernie Kosar that started his NFL career completing 50% and 58% of his passes, Marty took to better than 60%.

If you look at Marty, he took poor teams to the playoffs. 3 times. But it's my humble opinion that he had poor support behind him. KC let him go, many say because of an unsubstantiated affair.

San Diego fired him after a 14 - 2 season. Because he lost to the Patriots in the playoffs...with Rivers in his first starting season. albeit, after he sat behind Drew Brees for 2 years. Still, first year starting for Philip, his first playoff game, against the Patriots, lost 24-21.

So much like his father, no matter how successful Brian Schottenheimer, is, people will bash him. And they will pull obscure statistics out to do so. Never mind that like his father, Brian has been to Back-to-Back AFC Championship games. Because this is a fan base that will bash OCs that don't throw the ball a lot, even though they may win a lot of games, or "only" win 1 Lombardi.

Here's a stat for you. On a team that led the league in rushing, 160 yards per game, and when (rarely) healthy on the OLine, beat the hell out of opposing defenses, our "Crappy" OC managed to have his offense score the 2nd most points in team history, behind only Mike Holmgren's 2005 team led by an elite OLine and MVP running back. 428 vs 452

The 2005 team 3rd down conversion rate? 39.6% 2018? 38.9% HORRIBLE! OMG!

Rushing YPA? 2005: 4.7 2018? 4.8 I don't see 2 HOF Olinemen on the 2018 team anywhere. Let alone an MVP RB.


Passing TD/INT: M. Hasselbeck: 24/9 R. Wilson: 35/7 Passing game wut?


And one more just for fun: TD% (TDs per Pass Attempt) 2005: 5.3% 2018: 8.2%

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... a/2018.htm

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... a/2005.htm

So I am confused if as you quote and then agree with ""Figures lie, and liars figure." A favorite quote of Brock Huard. Stats can be deceiving. " you then follow it up with stats and figures.

That aside Shotty came in and did what PC wanted got the running game working again. So he did his job. Do I think we will win a Championship running it as much as we do, NO, do I think we can win a championship going run, run, pass 70+% of the time NO. DO I think they will change anything NO not as long as PC is here. Hopefully I am wrong but we will see.

Yes Wilson had a great year, he was up in a lot of areas, and he was down in some as well. All that said the reality still is our BEST weapon is Wilson, and we are not using him enough, it cost us a play off game. PC even said they should have thrown more and earlier. Maybe that will change, we will see. Now do I think Shotty is "massively underappreciated" no he came in and did what was asked of him. Do I think he is a top OC, no, nor is he bottom of the pile. He is middle of the road, which is fine, .....for now.

 

[AgentDib]

There is only one stat that matters in football, points. Points = Wins. 3 and out percentage is meaningless when you WIN.

"Figures lie, and liars figure." A favorite quote of Brock Huard. Stats can be deceiving. Like "When player X gets 100 yards or more rushing, the team wins more often." Insinuating that all the team needs to do is get Player X 100 or more yards rushing to increase their win percentage. When in actuality, teams with the lead, run the ball more. Cart before the horse and such.

I agree with the spirit of your post but would go farther; Wins are the only stat that matters. If the Seahawks have the #20 ranked scoring offense in the NFL this season but win the Super Bowl then only a couple of posters here are going to be disappointed in the season. Much of the complexity when discussing football statistics is due to the intertwined nature of NFL offensive performance and NFL defensive performance.

 

[Tical21]

In cherry-picking, I mean that Baldwin only includes data that supports his narrative, and discards anything that hurts it (i.e. 4th quarter data or data when certain score discrepancies are reached.)

I think this might just be a difference in perspective, TBH.

He's not discarding any data, though.

Instead, your critique is that he's not carving up the available data enough. Doing that, I think, risks running into what the statistician Andrew Gelman calls "the garden of forking paths" -- it can be useful as long as it is warranted, but it is often just a subtler form of p-hacking to try to get to a result.

I'd argue that picking Wilson as my data source isn't cherry-picking, since it is over a full season of data. If it is true that there isn't a correlation between the running game and play-action, then Russell should not have had such a drastic improvement over his previous play-action numbers last season.

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think we know it's actually true. Is a change in completion percentage on play action passes of 5% from one year to the next actually "drastic"? How many standard deviations out are we talking about here? How many completed passes are we talking about when we're talking about a change of five percentage points in the overall completion percentage for these types of throws? If the difference is meaningful what else could account for it? Is completion percentage actually the best way to measure passing effectiveness? Is it better or worse than other measures of passing effectiveness for something like the ostensible relationship between running and play action passing?

These are all the questions that become important when you decide to look at just one player across two years rather than throwing all the players and all the years into the hopper.

Just by way of example vis-a-vis cherry picking, Drew Brees completed 8% more of his play action passes between 2017 and 2018 compared to Wilson's 5, and the Saints had the same run/pass ratio across those seasons. If we did EXACTLY what you did for Wilson but randomly did it for Brees instead, we'd conclude there was no relationship between play action completion % and run/pass ratio, the exact opposite of what you're concluding from randomly doing the same thing with WIlson instead of Brees.

The thing about your example of the backside safety being setup for a play-action pass is something that should show up in data somewhere. And it does, if you don't skew the metrics.

TBF I don't think it would show up in the data we have because it's simply not a frequency thing and all of this stuff is measured in terms of frequency (which makes sense given the statistics people have to work with). And I think the people who study this stuff are for the most part pretty careful about acknowledging the limits of the claims their making -- you don't see anyone concluding from these findings that teams should NEVER run, for instance.

In any case, though, I'm kind of a nerd for this statistics-based stuff, so I hope my post isn't taken as combative. It's not intended that way. :2thumbs:

Actually, if you read Baldwin's story, he does strip a lot of the data. I'm not saying he should skew the data any certain way, I'm saying he shouldn't.

I don't have raw numbers on this. So it's hard to dig further. Looking at Brees though, their run/pass ratio was more skewed to run this season vs 17 (48% vs 45%), and his play-action completion percentage and efficiency metrics all jumped pretty significantly as well.

I'm not sure if completion % is the best measure, but seems fairly straight-forward. All the other efficiency metrics jumped in 2018 for Russ in a similar fashion, so pick whichever you'd like.

I need to think of more examples of team that found increased rushing success but most other factors were similar.

 

[mistaowen]

I will never be happy until the Seahawks have the #1 passing offense and #1 rushing offense.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I will never be happy until the Seahawks have the #1 passing offense and #1 rushing offense.

I wonder if that's ever been done in the modern salary cap era (post 49er/Cowboy dynasties of the 80's and early 90's).

I'll be happy with more balance, creativity with playcalling and Russell and the offense not looking like hot garbage in the first half of most games.

 

[Popeyejones]

Tical -- will go back to the Baldwin story, which it sounds like I'm mischaracterizing some. Thanks!