X’s and O’s help Please.

pmedic920 · Oct 2, 2017

Like everyone else, I watched two football games last night. Each of those games lasted 30 minutes, it was like a double header in baseball.

The first game the Seahawks struggled to stay in the game and keep it close.

The second game the Seahawks completely dominated the same opponent.

I’ve admitted many times, that I’m not an X’s/O’s guy but I’d like to understand what the difference was last night.

If you don’t think that it came down to X’s/O’s that’s cool, what do you think it was?

I heard RW say that they “fired on all cylinders” & “they clicked on all 3 phases” of the game. He also said that in the 2nd half they all fed off of each other. That’s all cool to hear but it doesn’t really explain anything.

Some are speculating that Pete did some play calling, maybe that’s true and played a role, if so that’s an X’s/O’s Issue but my mind doesn’t capture it while watching the game.

Any way, I’m rambling but I think I’ve said enough that you get my point.

Why did we see two games last night?
What was the difference in what we did, or didn’t do in each?

All thoughts and opinions are welcome but I’m really trying to figure out if it was an X’s/ O’s thing. If it was, how so?

Thanks in advance, I know that some of the answers may require some work.

MontanaHawk05 · Oct 2, 2017

pmedic920":110clr8f said:
If you don’t think that it came down to X’s/O’s that’s cool, what do you think it was?

You've probably heard my spiel before, but I'll say it again.

In the first half, Russell Wilson stands back there like a deer in the headlights, looking for big plays, and eventually gets coverage pressured/sacked. In the second half, he gets quick outs, slants, bubbles, picks, deep crossers, all by design.

Two explanations I see without the All-22.

Either those second-half options are not there in the first half, or they are and Wilson just isn't taking them.

I lean towards the first.

LoneHawkFan · Oct 2, 2017

MontanaHawk05":27jabv9y said:
pmedic920":27jabv9y said:

If you don’t think that it came down to X’s/O’s that’s cool, what do you think it was?

Click to expand...

You've probably heard my spiel before, but I'll say it again.

In the first half, Russell Wilson stands back there like a deer in the headlights, looking for big plays, and eventually gets coverage pressured/sacked. In the second half, he gets quick outs, slants, bubbles, picks, deep crossers, all by design.

Two explanations I see without the All-22.

Either those second-half options are not there in the first half, or they are and Wilson just isn't taking them.

I lean towards the first.

Two plays before RW's ball went through Jimmy's hands and was picked (2nd INT), RW rolled out on a bootleg and had Jimmy at the LOS wide open with room to run. Wilson did not choose to play the ball to Jimmy. Instead, he kept the ball and tried to force a ball to the next level and was incomplete. This was on 1st down. Next play 2nd and 10- run for no gain. 3rd and 10 was the interception.

What I'm getting at is that I think RW tries really hard to get it downfield even at times when he has guys short for a short gain. The very few successful passing plays in the fist half were quick throws to primary reads. There were three of these on the first drive alone. After that...I don't think he tried to hit his primary read the rest of the first half. I was screaming at him.

So I think there's something to what you're saying about him trying too hard at times and missing chances for the quick, short gains. I think they were there the first half more often than they weren't.

In regards to the OP...I believe it's as much mental as anything. Wagner said as much after the game. We can't expect these guys to be absolutely as focused and determined as they were against the Broncos in the Super Bowl. There's too fine a line between the best and the worst teams in the NFL...so when you're playing at 97% as a team...you'll have break downs.

Attyla the Hawk · Oct 3, 2017

It's not a sexy answer. But it's a truthful one.

It boiled down to executing on third down plain and simple.

1st half (3/6 on third down):

Drive 1: 7 plays, 1/2 on third down (FG)
Drive 2: 3 plays, 0/1 on third down (safety)
Drive 3: 6 plays, 1/2 on third down (punt)
Drive 4: 4 plays, 1/1 on third down (Intercepted)
Drive 5: 4 plays, 0/0 on third down (missed FG)

2nd Half (7 of 9):

Drive 1: 9 plays, 2/2 on third down (TD)
Drive 2: 5 plays, 0/1 on third down (Intercepted on Graham drop)
Drive 3: 6 plays, 1/1 on third down (TD)
Drive 4: 9 plays, 2/2 on third down (TD)
Drive 5: 11 plays, 2/3 on third down (TD on 4th down conversion).

The decided difference in the drives we scored and the ones we didn't was executing on third down. I wish it were something more of an 'Aha!' kind of reason. But the bottom line is not punting.

Seattle converted at least one third down on 7 of their 10 possessions. They scored on 5 of those. The three they failed to convert a 3rd down, they didn't score in any of those.

Not executing on third down is key. To be as good as we were in the second half, we either have to be better on third down, or we have to not have 3rd downs to begin with. Half of our 22 total first downs were made on first or second down.

I did a year long review here I think for the Seahawks 2015 season (maybe 2014). Basically our scoring rate on every drive where we converted one or more 3rd downs was just over double that where we didn't. Was something like 66% when we do, and 31% when we didn't.

pmedic920 · Oct 3, 2017

Attyla the Hawk":2ruube8e said:
It's not a sexy answer. But it's a truthful one.

It boiled down to executing on third down plain and simple.

1st half (3/6 on third down):

Drive 1: 7 plays, 1/2 on third down (FG)
Drive 2: 3 plays, 0/1 on third down (safety)
Drive 3: 6 plays, 1/2 on third down (punt)
Drive 4: 4 plays, 1/1 on third down (Intercepted)
Drive 5: 4 plays, 0/0 on third down (missed FG)

2nd Half (7 of 9):

Drive 1: 9 plays, 2/2 on third down (TD)
Drive 2: 5 plays, 0/1 on third down (Intercepted on Graham drop)
Drive 3: 6 plays, 1/1 on third down (TD)
Drive 4: 9 plays, 2/2 on third down (TD)
Drive 5: 11 plays, 2/3 on third down (TD on 4th down conversion).

The decided difference in the drives we scored and the ones we didn't was executing on third down. I wish it were something more of an 'Aha!' kind of reason. But the bottom line is not punting.

Seattle converted at least one third down on 7 of their 10 possessions. They scored on 5 of those. The three they failed to convert a 3rd down, they didn't score in any of those.

Not executing on third down is key. To be as good as we were in the second half, we either have to be better on third down, or we have to not have 3rd downs to begin with. Half of our 22 total first downs were made on first or second down.

I did a year long review here I think for the Seahawks 2015 season (maybe 2014). Basically our scoring rate on every drive where we converted one or more 3rd downs was just over double that where we didn't. Was something like 66% when we do, and 31% when we didn't.

Thanks to all that have replied.

This is some of the type of analysis I was hoping for.

Since you went into the depth, and have focused on 3rd downs, do you have data/an opinion on the types of plays that were called?

Our “play caller” takes a lot of heat here at .Net, and from an untrained eye, he deserves a lot of it but I’m not convinced that he actually does.
I DO NOT want to turn this into a “fire” anybody conversation but I’m really curious if we are actually calling the wrong plays, are we calling plays that carry a low percentage success rate, or is it more to do with the execution of the called plays?

Did/do you see a reason that we didn’t /don’t convert?

I think of the failed 1 yard pass that cost us dearly a couple years ago. After hearing Pete explain the reasoning behind calling that play, I don’t feel it was a terrible call, I think the way it was executed was terrible.

Do you think we are calling the wrong plays in the wrong situation ?

Did they play calls change significantly in the 2nd half?

Sgt. Largent · Oct 3, 2017

Attyla the Hawk":3fbhb3u7 said:
It's not a sexy answer. But it's a truthful one.

It boiled down to executing on third down plain and simple.

1st half (3/6 on third down):

Drive 1: 7 plays, 1/2 on third down (FG)
Drive 2: 3 plays, 0/1 on third down (safety)
Drive 3: 6 plays, 1/2 on third down (punt)
Drive 4: 4 plays, 1/1 on third down (Intercepted)
Drive 5: 4 plays, 0/0 on third down (missed FG)

2nd Half (7 of 9):

Drive 1: 9 plays, 2/2 on third down (TD)
Drive 2: 5 plays, 0/1 on third down (Intercepted on Graham drop)
Drive 3: 6 plays, 1/1 on third down (TD)
Drive 4: 9 plays, 2/2 on third down (TD)
Drive 5: 11 plays, 2/3 on third down (TD on 4th down conversion).

The decided difference in the drives we scored and the ones we didn't was executing on third down. I wish it were something more of an 'Aha!' kind of reason. But the bottom line is not punting.

Seattle converted at least one third down on 7 of their 10 possessions. They scored on 5 of those. The three they failed to convert a 3rd down, they didn't score in any of those.

Not executing on third down is key. To be as good as we were in the second half, we either have to be better on third down, or we have to not have 3rd downs to begin with. Half of our 22 total first downs were made on first or second down.

I did a year long review here I think for the Seahawks 2015 season (maybe 2014). Basically our scoring rate on every drive where we converted one or more 3rd downs was just over double that where we didn't. Was something like 66% when we do, and 31% when we didn't.

Execution is 80% of the game of football. It's why the Patriots win so many close games, they make less mistakes, commit less penalties and execute. They don't have more talent than most other teams, but they're so well coached and prepares that they're constantly winning close games because they out execute the other team.

And unfortunately we're not very good at these things. We have more talent than most of the teams we play, but if you look at our losses? Too many mistakes, dumb penalties and poor execution.

RussB · Oct 3, 2017

They seemed alot more aggressive on both sides of the ball.

MontanaHawk05 · Oct 3, 2017

Attyla the Hawk":34behmj5 said:
It's not a sexy answer. But it's a truthful one.

It boiled down to executing on third down plain and simple.

1st half (3/6 on third down):

Drive 1: 7 plays, 1/2 on third down (FG)
Drive 2: 3 plays, 0/1 on third down (safety)
Drive 3: 6 plays, 1/2 on third down (punt)
Drive 4: 4 plays, 1/1 on third down (Intercepted)
Drive 5: 4 plays, 0/0 on third down (missed FG)

2nd Half (7 of 9):

Drive 1: 9 plays, 2/2 on third down (TD)
Drive 2: 5 plays, 0/1 on third down (Intercepted on Graham drop)
Drive 3: 6 plays, 1/1 on third down (TD)
Drive 4: 9 plays, 2/2 on third down (TD)
Drive 5: 11 plays, 2/3 on third down (TD on 4th down conversion).

The decided difference in the drives we scored and the ones we didn't was executing on third down. I wish it were something more of an 'Aha!' kind of reason. But the bottom line is not punting.

Seattle converted at least one third down on 7 of their 10 possessions. They scored on 5 of those. The three they failed to convert a 3rd down, they didn't score in any of those.

Not executing on third down is key. To be as good as we were in the second half, we either have to be better on third down, or we have to not have 3rd downs to begin with. Half of our 22 total first downs were made on first or second down.

I did a year long review here I think for the Seahawks 2015 season (maybe 2014). Basically our scoring rate on every drive where we converted one or more 3rd downs was just over double that where we didn't. Was something like 66% when we do, and 31% when we didn't.

If we really want to get all Inception here, I also notice a lot of 1st down plays failing to get any yardage, which then make 3rd down situations longer and harder to execute. Have you done any cataloguing of our first down success perchance? Could be revealing.

Attyla the Hawk · Oct 3, 2017

MontanaHawk05":100ynovq said:
If we really want to get all Inception here, I also notice a lot of 1st down plays failing to get any yardage, which then make 3rd down situations longer and harder to execute. Have you done any cataloguing of our first down success perchance? Could be revealing.

First downs and series outcome. Using the FO benchmarks for successful plays (45% of needed yardage on 1st down, 60% on second and 100% on third) I'll highlight those.

Drive 1:

Carson rush for 0 - Third down converted.
Baldwin pass for 4 - FG scored

Drive 2:

Lacy rush for 0 - Wilson scrambled to safety

Drive 3:

Carson rush for 8 - Third down converted
Darboh pass for 5 - Third down failed (note holding penalty nullified conversion)

Drive 4:

Carson rush for 0 - Third down converted

Drive 5:

Carson pass for 9 - no third down
Richardson pass for 37 - no third down: Failed FG attempt

Drive 6:

Lockett pass for 8 - no third down
Carson rush for 3 - no third down
Richardson pass for 21 - no third down
Carson rush for 5 - third down converted
Carson rush for 5 - third down converted (TD)

Drive 7:

Darboh pass for 5 - no third down
Darboh incomplete - third down failed (Graham drop for interception)

Drive 8:

Lockett pass for 5 - third down converted
Graham pass for 33 - no third down
Wilson sacked for - 3 - no third down (TD)

Drive 9:

Carson rush for 2 - third down converted
McKissic rush for 10 - no third down
McKissic rush for - 2 - third down converted
McKissic rush for 0 - no third down (TD)

Drive 10:

Lacy rush for 11 - no third down
Carson rush for 3 - third down converted
Carson rush for 0 - third down converted
Graham pass for 4 - third down failed (4th down converted for TD)

Seattle did very well with having successful first down gains. 15 successful plays out of 26 first down plays. And further, on those 11 that failed to meet success on first down, we ended up either converting the subsequent 3rd down or scored outright on 9 of those.

Seattle executed very well. Either on first down, or later on to convert or score after failure.

MontanaHawk05 · Oct 3, 2017

Attyla the Hawk":3n9c6j3u said:
MontanaHawk05":3n9c6j3u said:

If we really want to get all Inception here, I also notice a lot of 1st down plays failing to get any yardage, which then make 3rd down situations longer and harder to execute. Have you done any cataloguing of our first down success perchance? Could be revealing.

Click to expand...

First downs and series outcome. Using the FO benchmarks for successful plays (45% of needed yardage on 1st down, 60% on second and 100% on third) I'll highlight those.

Drive 1:

Carson rush for 0 - Third down converted.
Baldwin pass for 4 - FG scored

Drive 2:

Lacy rush for 0 - Wilson scrambled to safety

Drive 3:

Carson rush for 8 - Third down converted
Darboh pass for 5 - Third down failed (note holding penalty nullified conversion)

Drive 4:

Carson rush for 0 - Third down converted

Drive 5:

Carson pass for 9 - no third down
Richardson pass for 37 - no third down: Failed FG attempt

Drive 6:

Lockett pass for 8 - no third down
Carson rush for 3 - no third down
Richardson pass for 21 - no third down
Carson rush for 5 - third down converted
Carson rush for 5 - third down converted (TD)

Drive 7:

Darboh pass for 5 - no third down
Darboh incomplete - third down failed (Graham drop for interception)

Drive 8:

Lockett pass for 5 - third down converted
Graham pass for 33 - no third down
Wilson sacked for - 3 - no third down (TD)

Drive 9:

Carson rush for 2 - third down converted
McKissic rush for 10 - no third down
McKissic rush for - 2 - third down converted
McKissic rush for 0 - no third down (TD)

Drive 10:

Lacy rush for 11 - no third down
Carson rush for 3 - third down converted
Carson rush for 0 - third down converted
Graham pass for 4 - third down failed (4th down converted for TD)

Seattle did very well with having successful first down gains. 15 successful plays out of 26 first down plays. And further, on those 11 that failed to meet success on first down, we ended up either converting the subsequent 3rd down or scored outright on 9 of those.

Seattle executed very well. Either on first down, or later on to convert or score after failure.

I meant in the first three games.

IndyHawk · Oct 3, 2017

Chris pointed out in another post that they switched from zone blocking to a power scheme in the second half.
I hope thats on the menu from here out.

seahawkfreak · Oct 3, 2017

IndyHawk":3bmrvbaw said:
Chris pointed out in another post that they switched from zone blocking to a power scheme in the second half.
I hope thats on the menu from here out.

Or at least mix it up sum. They did the same in the Detroit game last year. It may be a coincidence but this may have something to do with the O-lines communication improvement.

Ad Hawk · Oct 3, 2017

I would love to see longer plays that didn't require 3rd down situations. Runs of 3 yards aren't helpful over the long haul when we have had trouble converting 4-yard pass plays.

Every single one is a high-pressure situation and also raises the blood pressure of players and coaches... not to mention too many fragile Hawk fans at present.

MontanaHawk05 · Oct 3, 2017

Ad Hawk":n5ualnsg said:
I would love to see longer plays that didn't require 3rd down situations. Runs of 3 yards aren't helpful over the long haul when we have had trouble converting 4-yard pass plays.

Every single one is a high-pressure situation and also raises the blood pressure of players and coaches... not to mention too many fragile Hawk fans at present.

Part of our success in 2013 and 2014 was our ability to routinely get into 2nd-and-5 or 2nd-and-4, at which point you could credibly call either a run or pass and make the guessing games much harder on the defense. We haven't been doing that since Lynch was injured.

That doesn't mean we have no identity - we have one waiting in the wings: "Russell Wilson is awesome". We just need to commit to it consistently, and we're not doing that by giving him nothing but four-verts for the entire half and watching him get buried after holding onto the ball for longer than four seconds.

NFSeahawks · Oct 3, 2017

Ad Hawk":2hjiygiw said:
I would love to see longer plays that didn't require 3rd down situations. Runs of 3 yards aren't helpful over the long haul when we have had trouble converting 4-yard pass plays.

Every single one is a high-pressure situation and also raises the blood pressure of players and coaches... not to mention too many fragile Hawk fans at present.

Incorrect, you take those positive 3 yard gains all the time because generally speaking it makes 2nd and 3rd down easier.
Looking for chunk plays that don't hit immediately put you in the hole.

Now that were finding some running lanes we should continue to establish that run must like the Seahawks teams of the past. Make the game two-dimensional with a balance of run and pass.

Tical21 · Oct 3, 2017

We did a little more man blocking in the second half. Also got a little bit more into our playaction boot game to give Russell more time and space. The game for me changed after the first pick to Graham. Russell just got beyond frustrated, and for the first time this season, stopped aiming the ball. He said Fart it, and just started throwing laser beams. 88 didn't get the memo evidently. His passes were putting out audible noise as they whizzed down the field. The ball to PRich to end the half was a 45 yard rocket. Russ stopped overthinking, stopped trying to be perfect, started being decisive and firing the ball.

The drives the Colts were putting together earlier were perfect drives. They were making perfect plays and converting things just barely, showing great poise and playcalling, and you just knew that couldn't continue forever. Also, for as much bravado as they showed in the first half, the Colts stopped fighting pretty early in the 3rd quarter and tapped out.

Defensively, we kept things pretty vanilla. A lot of that is due to Coleman being in there.

Josea16 · Oct 3, 2017

MontanaHawk05":fmbh2amv said:
pmedic920":fmbh2amv said:

If you don’t think that it came down to X’s/O’s that’s cool, what do you think it was?

Click to expand...

You've probably heard my spiel before, but I'll say it again.

In the first half, Russell Wilson stands back there like a deer in the headlights, looking for big plays, and eventually gets coverage pressured/sacked. In the second half, he gets quick outs, slants, bubbles, picks, deep crossers, all by design.

Two explanations I see without the All-22.

Either those second-half options are not there in the first half, or they are and Wilson just isn't taking them.

I lean towards the first.

They are but they are going off a script so the defense can adjust. Understand Pete expects the defense to actually win games like some Alhiemer patient while demanding Wilson be top level with NOTHING. It's ridiculous and stupid. Just stop the madness and power block already and be 14-2. Jesus quit the Floyd Mrarywheather crap and play to your strengths already...say like the Rams? They are terrible on defense so RELEX. We have this 30-20.

Josea16 · Oct 3, 2017

Josea16":2a6vny6c said:
MontanaHawk05":2a6vny6c said:

pmedic920":2a6vny6c said:

If you don’t think that it came down to X’s/O’s that’s cool, what do you think it was?

Click to expand...

You've probably heard my spiel before, but I'll say it again.

In the first half, Russell Wilson stands back there like a deer in the headlights, looking for big plays, and eventually gets coverage pressured/sacked. In the second half, he gets quick outs, slants, bubbles, picks, deep crossers, all by design.

Two explanations I see without the All-22.

Either those second-half options are not there in the first half, or they are and Wilson just isn't taking them.

I lean towards the first.

Click to expand...

They are but they are going off a script so the defense can adjust.

Understand Pete expects the defense to actually win games like some Alhiemer patient while demanding Wilson be top level with NOTHING.

It's ridiculous and stupid. Just stop the madness and power block already and be 14-2. Jesus quit the Floyd Mrarywheather crap and play to your strengths already...say like the Rams? They are terrible on defense so RELEX. We have this 30-20.

Attyla the Hawk · Oct 4, 2017

MontanaHawk05":2l5rv4zk said:
I meant in the first three games.

So I saw today that Seattle currently ranks sixth in the league in yardage per first down play. So looks like we're dominating in that department.

It's important to bear in mind that we naturally remember the bad instances (particularly if we're struggling overall). It's really not unlike the consideration of the OL. In point of fact, we never actually credit when players do well. They can block 10 plays perfectly but if they get bull rushed onto their end, that's all that is remembered.

Same in this case, where we are scoring less than 10 points in a half, we want to naturally find faults that would account for that. We can gain 5+ yards on 5 first down plays. But if we get stuffed for no gain on a couple first downs, especially if they lead to punts, then we attribute struggles there that don't exist.

MontanaHawk05 · Oct 4, 2017

Attyla the Hawk":28797sw8 said:
MontanaHawk05":28797sw8 said:

I meant in the first three games.

Click to expand...

So I saw today that Seattle currently ranks sixth in the league in yardage per first down play. So looks like we're dominating in that department.

It's important to bear in mind that we naturally remember the bad instances (particularly if we're struggling overall).

I'm well aware of cognitive bias and I usually do pretty well guarding against it, though I appreciate your away of putting such things graciously. You're a good example for us all in that department, reminds me of Kearly.

I'm curious to find where my impression of 1st down failure is coming from. Maybe it is bias. Perhaps breaking it down by half will show me what I'm thinking of, because I know the first half has been a different story than the second half.

If not, well, then it is third down - i.e. those nine fatal third-down drops vs the 49ers and Titans, plus Wilson's poor play.

X’s and O’s help Please.

Moderator

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads