Does Russell throw enough interceptions?

bigwrm · Dec 9, 2014

I can't remember where I came across this, but I recently read someone talking about how it's possible for a quarterback to throw too few interceptions as it's an indication that they aren't taking enough chances. It's the same concept as a basketball player who hits 50% of his 3-pointers; if you're that efficient at making 3-point shots then you should be shooting more. Perhaps this is obvious, but I just hadn't thought of it in that way before.

It's clear that Russell/Pete have a conservative approach and want to limit turnovers, but I'd like to see them open it up and develop a more explosive passing attack. This season in particular it seems like Russell has been hesitant to go for big passing plays, but if he's going to develop into one of the better passers in the league he'll need to take more chances and trust his receivers. I know that a lot of people place the blame for that on our wide receivers' inability to get open, but the reality is that if you're not willing to throw until you see a receiver get open, then it may be too late.

We need to take more shots. If they don't connect, it still keeps the defense honest and opens up the opportunity for a big pass interference penalty, like Doug Baldwin got the benefit of against Philadelphia. And even if it is picked off, not all turnovers are created equally. Interceptions on deep balls are by far the best kind of turnover, since they often end up no worse than a punt would have.

For the sake of comparison, I looked up the interception rates for Russell and some of the top quarterbacks in the league. The first number is career interceptions per game, and the second is interceptions per 100 attempts:

Player (Int/Game, Int/100 Attempts)
Russell Wilson (0.53, 2.05)
Peyton Manning (0.91, 2.57)
Tom Brady (0.68, 1.99)
Drew Brees (0.95, 2.58)
Aaron Rodgers (0.51, 1.63)
Andrew Luck (0.89, 2.30)

While it's nice that Russell limits turnovers, I wouldn't mind seeing a few more picks given that some of the greatest QBs in NFL history like Peyton Manning and Drew Brees throw interceptions at a significantly higher rate. Of course it would be great to have someone like Aaron Rodgers who breaks the scale by being both ridiculously prolific and hardly throwing any picks, but that's why he's the top QB in the league.

Anthony! · Dec 9, 2014

bigwrm":2wxk0uwx said:
I can't remember where I came across this, but I recently read someone talking about how it's possible for a quarterback to throw too few interceptions as it's an indication that they aren't taking enough chances. It's the same concept as a basketball player who hits 50% of his 3-pointers; if you're that efficient at making 3-point shots then you should be shooting more. Perhaps this is obvious, but I just hadn't thought of it in that way before.

It's clear that Russell/Pete have a conservative approach and want to limit turnovers, but I'd like to see them open it up and develop a more explosive passing attack. This season in particular it seems like Russell has been hesitant to go for big passing plays, but if he's going to develop into one of the better passers in the league he'll need to take more chances and trust his receivers. I know that a lot of people place the blame for that on our wide receivers' inability to get open, but the reality is that if you're not willing to throw until you see a receiver get open, then it may be too late.

We need to take more shots. If they don't connect, it still keeps the defense honest and opens up the opportunity for a big pass interference penalty, like Doug Baldwin got the benefit of against Philadelphia. And even if it is picked off, not all turnovers are created equally. Interceptions on deep balls are by far the best kind of turnover, since they often end up no worse than a punt would have.

For the sake of comparison, I looked up the interception rates for Russell and some of the top quarterbacks in the league. The first number is career interceptions per game, and the second is interceptions per 100 attempts:

Player (Int/Game, Int/100 Attempts)
Russell Wilson (0.53, 2.05)
Peyton Manning (0.91, 2.57)
Tom Brady (0.68, 1.99)
Drew Brees (0.95, 2.58)
Aaron Rodgers (0.51, 1.63)
Andrew Luck (0.89, 2.30)

While it's nice that Russell limits turnovers, I wouldn't mind seeing a few more picks given that some of the greatest QBs in NFL history like Peyton Manning and Drew Brees throw interceptions at a significantly higher rate. Of course it would be great to have someone like Aaron Rodgers who breaks the scale by being both ridiculously prolific and hardly throwing any picks, but that's why he's the top QB in the league.

Interesting now lets look at who they throw to
Rw- ADB, Kearse, WIlson
Manning- Thomas, Welker, Sanders
Brady-Grink, Edleman
Brees-Graham, Colson, Cooks
Rodgers-Nelson, Cobb
Luck-HIlton, Nicks, Wayne

You see why Our best Wr ADB would not even be a 3 for those other QBs. Add out oline which is ranked 26th in pass blocking compared to 16th for Rordgers, 6th for Luck, 2nd for Manning, 5th for Brady, 8th for Brees. Add to that PC does not want turnovers period.

You may want it, but this team is not constructed to do that, they lack the oline, weapons, and offensive playcalling.

Cartire · Dec 9, 2014

t's clear that Russell/Pete have a conservative approach and want to limit turnovers, but I'd like to see them open it up and develop a more explosive passing attack.

If Pete has done anything, he's proven his method of limiting turnovers takes precedence over a more explosive passing attack. We won a superbowl last year with this scheme. We currently control our destiny for the NFCW and are 1 GB loss away from the #1 seed again.

Sure, as a fan, it would be a lot of fun to see constant attempts down the field.
But as a fan, it would become constantly irritating to see the balled intercepted and give the ball up.

RW does exactly what is asked of him. And right now, thats the World Champs doing what they do. This style has won the Super Bowl and on its way for a repeat (and later a 3-pete). Keep doing what we do.

bigwrm · Dec 9, 2014

Cartire":vfzr72x0 said:
t's clear that Russell/Pete have a conservative approach and want to limit turnovers, but I'd like to see them open it up and develop a more explosive passing attack.

Click to expand...

If Pete has done anything, he's proven his method of limiting turnovers takes precedence over a more explosive passing attack. We won a superbowl last year with this scheme. We currently control our destiny for the NFCW and are 1 GB loss away from the #1 seed again.

Sure, as a fan, it would be a lot of fun to see constant attempts down the field.
But as a fan, it would become constantly irritating to see the balled intercepted and give the ball up.

RW does exactly what is asked of him. And right now, thats the World Champs doing what they do. This style has won the Super Bowl and on its way for a repeat (and later a 3-pete). Keep doing what we do.

I'm not advocating for a complete change of offensive philosophy, I just want Russell to take a few extra chances a game instead of bailing and scrambling. Especially earlier in the year I feel like they were looking to take deep shots like last year, but for whatever reason Russell hasn't been comfortable making those throws.

Scottemojo · Dec 9, 2014

Russ was tied for the NFL record after his first two years for total touchdown throws. He lost his best two receivers from last year. he is just fine.

Year of The Hawk · Dec 9, 2014

Why is it that everyone wants to change a winning formula. Like every aspect of our game could be perfect. Russell not giving up the ball is EXACTLY what Pete wants. Turnovers are more than just giving the other team the ball. It is also giving them hope and perhaps a spark. Plus even if you have to punt more it is a game of field position for our defense which favors use greatly.

Mick063 · Dec 9, 2014

Andrew Luck gets the glamour and the interceptions to go along with it. Overcoming his interceptions with late game heroics to perpetuate the legend. He overcomes the long odds that he creates for himself.

Earlier in the season, I called upon Russell to find the singled up receivers, throw into coverage, and give his receivers a chance to make a play. I thought it was his weakness, his reluctance to not throw the ball unless the receiver was absolutely open, but that was at a time when the defense looked like a shadow of their former selves. In other words, to compensate for the defense, Wilson would need to be more aggressive in the passing game as more points would be required for victory.

Now that the defense is back, I would not deviate from the tried and true method. In other words, Wilson doesn't need to take undue risk if the defense plays at a legendary level. I would not change a thing with Russell's game.

There will come a day when he will be called upon to carry the team. We will know that day when the defense and running game begin to decline, Then there will be no other choice. The Seahawks will attempt to emulate what the Colts are doing. Ask the quarterback to carry the team. It is at that point, and only at that point, where the media will begin to fawn over Wilson as an elite quarterback.....like Luck.

In the mean time, the team has some trophies to collect.

shawnsim · Dec 9, 2014

Year of The Hawk":l085dvhq said:
Why is it that everyone wants to change a winning formula. Like every aspect of our game could be perfect. Russell not giving up the ball is EXACTLY what Pete wants. Turnovers are more than just giving the other team the ball. It is also giving them hope and perhaps a spark. Plus even if you have to punt more it is a game of field position for our defense which favors use greatly.

Yeah good post. Momentum is huge.

DrDix · Dec 9, 2014

Russ has been coached to not take chances. Pete has said it over and over, not sure why it's still a question.

He wants to play solid defense, pound the rock and throw when we need to.

It's that simple.

Cartire · Dec 9, 2014

Mick063":3mgtyvuc said:
Andrew Luck gets the glamour and the interceptions to go along with it. Overcoming his interceptions with late game heroics to perpetuate the legend. He overcomes the long odds that he creates for himself.

Andrew Luck also plays in a joke division where throwing 3 picks a game means you still have a chance. He got to play Cleveland this year where he threw 2 pick 6's and still won the game. This wasnt the greatness of Andrew Luck that let them win. This was the ineptitude of the teams he played against.

Before the Andrew Luck defenders come from the woodwork, hes still a great QB. But his legend is ballooned by the poor play of the other teams around him.

Basis4day · Dec 9, 2014

Year of The Hawk":ag6lyqmm said:
Why is it that everyone wants to change a winning formula. Like every aspect of our game could be perfect. Russell not giving up the ball is EXACTLY what Pete wants. Turnovers are more than just giving the other team the ball. It is also giving them hope and perhaps a spark. Plus even if you have to punt more it is a game of field position for our defense which favors use greatly.

Pretty much spot on.

Basis4day · Dec 9, 2014

bigwrm":3l62sxnn said:
I can't remember where I came across this, but I recently read someone talking about how it's possible for a quarterback to throw too few interceptions as it's an indication that they aren't taking enough chances. It's the same concept as a basketball player who hits 50% of his 3-pointers; if you're that efficient at making 3-point shots then you should be shooting more. Perhaps this is obvious, but I just hadn't thought of it in that way before.

It's clear that Russell/Pete have a conservative approach and want to limit turnovers, but I'd like to see them open it up and develop a more explosive passing attack. This season in particular it seems like Russell has been hesitant to go for big passing plays, but if he's going to develop into one of the better passers in the league he'll need to take more chances and trust his receivers. I know that a lot of people place the blame for that on our wide receivers' inability to get open, but the reality is that if you're not willing to throw until you see a receiver get open, then it may be too late.

We need to take more shots. If they don't connect, it still keeps the defense honest and opens up the opportunity for a big pass interference penalty, like Doug Baldwin got the benefit of against Philadelphia. And even if it is picked off, not all turnovers are created equally. Interceptions on deep balls are by far the best kind of turnover, since they often end up no worse than a punt would have.

For the sake of comparison, I looked up the interception rates for Russell and some of the top quarterbacks in the league. The first number is career interceptions per game, and the second is interceptions per 100 attempts:

Player (Int/Game, Int/100 Attempts)
Russell Wilson (0.53, 2.05)
Peyton Manning (0.91, 2.57)
Tom Brady (0.68, 1.99)
Drew Brees (0.95, 2.58)
Aaron Rodgers (0.51, 1.63)
Andrew Luck (0.89, 2.30)

While it's nice that Russell limits turnovers, I wouldn't mind seeing a few more picks given that some of the greatest QBs in NFL history like Peyton Manning and Drew Brees throw interceptions at a significantly higher rate. Of course it would be great to have someone like Aaron Rodgers who breaks the scale by being both ridiculously prolific and hardly throwing any picks, but that's why he's the top QB in the league.

And yet Wilson is tied with Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and Aaron Rodgers in the only stat that matters: Lombardi Trophies. And it's only his third year in the league.

This is a team sport and i'm more concerned with that than i am with style points of any single player on the team. When Pete's system no longer works i'll change my opinion on his approach.

Throwdown · Dec 9, 2014

I don't know about yall, but I don't miss the days of wondering what the hell out QB saw when the threw a pick

AgentDib · Dec 9, 2014

This is an odd question because it clearly depends on how good your defense is and our defense is very good. If the defense is absolutely dominant then turnovers and special teams errors are the only way you can lose; therefore the optimal number of interceptions is zero. If you have a leaky sieve of a defense then punting will lose you the game, so you have to throw up deep prayers and hope you get lucky.

IMO the conflict between Pete and Bates/Hass in 2010 was about how good the defense could be. Hass was used to an increasingly shaky defense from '06-'09 and as a result he didn't throw away many passes on third downs, especially not if we were already down in the game. That drove Pete crazy because he thought that if we just stopped turning the ball over then his defense could hold and even create turnovers of their own. We all underestimated just how well Pete could build a defense and now that we have the benefit of hindsight Pete's focus on turnovers has been validated due to how well his defense plays.

mikeak · Dec 10, 2014

Not every int is equal and while we all know that the stats make no difference.

Throwing one in the end zone gives up points - bad
Third down from your own 40 down to opponents 10 where the receiver has a chance in the ball and ends up making a tackle - not so bad
On your own 20, across the field - bad

So yes. I believe more shots down the field has a value that is worth the risk. I made a long post about it awhile ago and pointed out that one of the commentators during RWs record setting NCAA game (most consecutive passing attempts without an int) said it could be a negative. If you can complete three 50 yard passes in a game and the fourth is picked off - wouldn't you take that?

Things working good is not a reason why you shouldn't look to improve...

schkoot · Dec 10, 2014

Interesting. I don't want to opine on whether or not Wilson should or should not take more shots down field, but this argument mirrors something I learned in the USMC. When training for CQB, there is a concept known as BSA (balance of speed and accuracy). If you are all over the place, you are shooting too fast. If you are too accurate, you are not shooting aggressively enough.

I'm not sure the two disciplines translate well, but there might be something to it. Counter arguments might be that Wilson is in the perfect balance of speed and accuracy because we win so much.

Just thought I'd chime in with a cool story bro.

Anthony! · Dec 10, 2014

mikeak":myfviyjd said:
Not every int is equal and while we all know that the stats make no difference.

Throwing one in the end zone gives up points - bad
Third down from your own 40 down to opponents 10 where the receiver has a chance in the ball and ends up making a tackle - not so bad
On your own 20, across the field - bad

So yes. I believe more shots down the field has a value that is worth the risk. I made a long post about it awhile ago and pointed out that one of the commentators during RWs record setting NCAA game (most consecutive passing attempts without an int) said it could be a negative. If you can complete three 50 yard passes in a game and the fourth is picked off - wouldn't you take that?

Things working good is not a reason why you shouldn't look to improve...

Throwing more int would not be improving, it would be go backwards. Also 3 50 yards great but if you cannot score form them and do not score they mean nothing at all.

FYI this was a stupid thread to begin with throw more INts really.

scutterhawk · Dec 10, 2014

bigwrm":521r2qjo said:
Cartire":521r2qjo said:

t's clear that Russell/Pete have a conservative approach and want to limit turnovers, but I'd like to see them open it up and develop a more explosive passing attack.

Click to expand...

If Pete has done anything, he's proven his method of limiting turnovers takes precedence over a more explosive passing attack. We won a superbowl last year with this scheme. We currently control our destiny for the NFCW and are 1 GB loss away from the #1 seed again.

Sure, as a fan, it would be a lot of fun to see constant attempts down the field.
But as a fan, it would become constantly irritating to see the balled intercepted and give the ball up.

RW does exactly what is asked of him. And right now, thats the World Champs doing what they do. This style has won the Super Bowl and on its way for a repeat (and later a 3-pete). Keep doing what we do.

Click to expand...

I'm not advocating for a complete change of offensive philosophy, I just want Russell to take a few extra chances a game instead of bailing and scrambling. Especially earlier in the year I feel like they were looking to take deep shots like last year, but for whatever reason Russell hasn't been comfortable making those throws.

Fewer reliable targets are the reason for the letup, and taking more chances and producing more turnovers makes no sense.
One of the biggest reason for the Seahawks success, is because Pete harps on ball control over just about every other aspect of the game.
The opponent can't score if they ain't got the ball.

themunn · Dec 10, 2014

Partly I agree but I think one of the reasons Wilson is a comeback god is because when he starts taking those chances in the 4th quarter, defenses see it so rarely that they don't know how to deal with it.

It sounds counterintuitive to limit your play purposely to have that Joker card you play when you need it, but as long as we keep winning games without taking risks there's no need to show our hand.

The Atlanta comeback in 2012 was a case on ATL having absolutely no idea what to do to stop Wilson - same with the Rams this year where they would have given the game away for free if they didn't convert the fake punt - but by that time they felt like it didn't matter I Wilson got the ball in Rams territory, Seahawk territory or all the way back in Seattle - with 3 minutes left he was scoring from whereever he started

justafan · Dec 10, 2014

Im ok with the number of passes but i do wish they threw more passes the way they were drawn up.Not blaming wilson but usually the plays are made after the play breaks down.

Does Russell throw enough interceptions?

New member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

New member

New member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Similar threads