Anthony!":114w95so said:
I agree with the protect the ball at all cost thing has slowed things for Wilson. I do not believe he will struggle as a traditional passer as long as he gets the protection, play calls and play design required for a traditional passer. Similar to what we saw against SF. Now can or Will Bevell do it or allow it to happen again.
I think Pete is still in a state of shock at how many times the 'Hawks have won the turnover battle but lost the game. He's mentioned this a couple times in his pressers; it's like an alternate universe to him. In particular,TWO defensive TD's off turnovers vs. Arizona and we still lose. (I count the TD that the offense took the final 5 yards as being essentially a defensive TD)
Hawkblogger had an interesting article on turnover differential as a predictor of wins.
http://www.hawkblogger.com/2015/10/turn ... ed-up.html
Turns out it's less of a predictor of a win than having a higher 3rd down conversion percentage.
It's been painful to watch all the 3rd and 3, 3rd and 4 we've failed on this year, and failed badly. To me, our ineptness on that range of down and distance is #1 reason why we are losing games. IMO, most of that is on the OC.
Seahawks are 0-4 in games in which they won the turnover battle, but 4-1 in the games they lost the turnover battle.
Turnover battle by game: Team, Turnovers Seattle-Opponent, (Score):
@Rams, W 3-1 (L 34-31) **
@GB, L 1-2 (L 27-17)
Chicago, D 0-0 (W 26-0)
Detroit, L 1-3 (W 13-10) **
@Cincinnati W 2-1 (L 24-27) **
Panthers W 2-0 (L 23-27) **
@SF L 2-0 (W 20-3) **
@Cowboys L 0-1 (W 13-12) **
Cardinals W 3-1 (L 39-32) **
SF D 0-0 (W 29-13)
**For Seattle this year, seven out of ten games, 70% of the time, the team that lost the turnover battle has won the game. In fact, throw out the two turnover "Draw" games, and the team that lost the turnover battle has won 7 out of 8 games. I believe this "alternate universe" is causing Pete to revisit and re-evaluate.
Failed 3rd down conversions, or at least a high number of them, amount to turnovers. If it's "all about the ball", as Pete says, I think he'll start focusing more on 3rd down conversions, Seattle making them, and denying them to opponents. Seattle is consistently failing on 3rd and medium (3-5 yards) and it's killing us, just as much as if the offense was giving away turnovers.
In the games we've lost, 3rd down conversion differential has been the key. Our opponents conversions led to successful drives and scores, and our ongoing failures led to giving the ball back without scoring, without flipping field position, and without even running clock to protect a multi-score lead.
I don't offhand know of a stat/metric that speaks to this, but it seems that repeated 3 and outs amount to turnovers. Perhaps every two 3-and-outs* "equal" a turnover. It also seems like drives of 4 plays or less and under 15 net yards are equivalent to a 3-and-out. So a 12-yard completion for a first down on play 1, followed by 3 plays, a holding penalty, and an incomplete pass on 3rd down is pretty similar to a 3-and-out. Maybe I'd call it "Failed Drives" (tm). OK, so I'm probably not the first to think of this.
It would be interesting to review the Bengals, Panthers, and Cardinals games in particular, and apply this type of metric.
The ballyhooed "Toxic Differential" stat mostly works, but adding "Failed Drives" to the calculation in some way might tell more of the story for the Seahawks this season.
Improving the "Failed Drives" stat on the offensive side is where there's the most upside potential. So that's where I'd expect Pete & co to focus.
