hawknation2018
New member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2018
- Messages
- 3,082
- Reaction score
- 0
Field Gulls assigns blame for each sack of Russell
- Thread starter hawknation2018
- Start date
SoulfishHawk
Well-known member
Someone saying all the Sacks are somehow his fault in 3....2....1..... :lol:
jammerhawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 10,175
- Reaction score
- 1,778
Sure why not, fair is fair.
Interesting article that leaves you asking how many of the 23 sacks that Wilson is at least partially responsible for or are wholly on him rather than upon coverage? Too many no doubt, and therein points to the need for Wilson to have earlier options, tale check downs, or just get rid of the ball instead of trying to make something out of nothing and taking a loss. It is however interesting to note the very high number of interior sacks which point fingers at the OLine and specific players there. In the end though the leader may be Wilson himself who bears the responsibility for the most sacks.
I love Wilson’s ability to scramble but if anything he needs to have his game mature some so he uses his arm more and his legs less. Here I don’t want to take away that scrambling part of his game as it has brought huge rewards only to allow him more options to pass sooner, and to accept reality when the play is inevitably not likely to succeed and to get rid of the ball.
Interesting article that leaves you asking how many of the 23 sacks that Wilson is at least partially responsible for or are wholly on him rather than upon coverage? Too many no doubt, and therein points to the need for Wilson to have earlier options, tale check downs, or just get rid of the ball instead of trying to make something out of nothing and taking a loss. It is however interesting to note the very high number of interior sacks which point fingers at the OLine and specific players there. In the end though the leader may be Wilson himself who bears the responsibility for the most sacks.
I love Wilson’s ability to scramble but if anything he needs to have his game mature some so he uses his arm more and his legs less. Here I don’t want to take away that scrambling part of his game as it has brought huge rewards only to allow him more options to pass sooner, and to accept reality when the play is inevitably not likely to succeed and to get rid of the ball.
Popeyejones
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2013
- Messages
- 5,525
- Reaction score
- 0
SoulfishHawk":3o00krn4 said:
:lol:
FWIW I think the author did a smart thing with this that I hadn't seen before.
The totals above are just for sacks that are clearly the fault of the lineman listed -- these are the sacks in which pass protection indisputably broke down before it can be expected to do so.
As a result there's 23 sacks which are listed as "Coverage/Wilson", which is the right way to think about them, IMO.
Without looking at the All 22 and knowing the play and Wilson's progressions, for these 23 other sacks we don't really know if they're Wilson's fault (e.g. for bailing on the play, for making a misread in coverage causing him to hold the ball too long, for not getting through his progressions fast enough, for not throwing to an open receiver, etc.) or the fault of the coverage and/or receivers (e.g. defense just won the coverage matchup, primary receiver got jammed at the line, db won the matchup, receiver ran the wrong route, etc.).
I'm on the record many times over as saying that I think people (meaning all football fans) generally WAY over-attribute pass pro success and failure to offensive lines, and WAY under-attribute pass pro success and failure to QBs, but I think the author of that post is very, very smart to break things down that way, as it gives us a real sense of what is indisputably the fault of individual line members.
jammerhawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 10,175
- Reaction score
- 1,778
Very true!
Well said too!!!
Well said too!!!
jammerhawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 10,175
- Reaction score
- 1,778
Too me the word blame is unfair, where primary responsibility seems more apt. Taking into consideration match-up issues and attempting to know protections called without more information offers more opportunities to play blame game rather than fixing the problems. Perhaps this is pure semantics but somehow the raw info points out that often blame is as you say misdirected.
Popeyejones
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2013
- Messages
- 5,525
- Reaction score
- 0
jammerhawk":706xm8zo said:
Yeah, I'm totally fine with using "primary responsibility" rather than "blame" (the author uses "blame" and "culprit" :lol: ).
For some of them I'm totally fine with going full on "blame" though: the first three sacks in the video are just soooo clearly absolute disasters in pass-pro in one-on-one matchups; at about 1 minute Wilson has the biggest and cleanest pocket imaginable to step into, and instead of stepping into it puts his LT in conflict and runs into a sack. Those four I'm *very* okay with "blame", whereas other ones "primary responsibility" makes more sense, and a lot of the "Coverage/Wilson" ones we just don't really know
hawkfan68
Well-known member
Basically the left side of the Seahawk OL didn't earn their keep. Joeckel was a waste of $8M. I could have told you that just by watching the games. Also, this is only sacks not pressures. It doesn't add those, if it did, I'll bet Ifedi's numbers don't look as rosy as they do in this analysis.
Popeyejones
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2013
- Messages
- 5,525
- Reaction score
- 0
hawkfan68":2uixavp0 said:
Really good point.
I think as fans we've for the most part begun to recognize that for defensive players pressures are a better statistic than sacks (pressures are much more predictive of past and future sack totals than are sack totals :lol
, yet for whatever reason we still primarily think of lineman in terms of sacks given up, rather than pressures given up.
Seymour
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2015
- Messages
- 7,459
- Reaction score
- 22
"I sacked my neighbors wife while he was out of town....but that was Russell's fault". :twisted: :sarcasm_off:
scutterhawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2010
- Messages
- 9,823
- Reaction score
- 1,791
Well...If she hung onto the ball too long, she probably deserved to get sackedSeymour":217h6wpg said:
Mistashoesta
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 2,690
- Reaction score
- 1,239
Popeyejones":lnnaicka said:
Popeye why don't you just go ahead and renounce your fandom for that team in Santa Clara and accept what your heart truly desires and profess your true allegiance to the Seattle Seahawks? :irishdrinkers: :stirthepot:
The amount of time you spend here coupled with your genuine interest and involvement with anything and everything Seahawk related, for a 49er fan, is uncanny. That's not a bad thing, and you may in all actuality just be a NFL fan in general. I just don't see myself or any other Hawk fan spending as much time on a rivals forum let alone taking the time out to write very well posts about subject matter for a team that they don't primarily support.
TwistedHusky
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2013
- Messages
- 6,900
- Reaction score
- 1,076
Roughly 1,400 people a week are moving into the Greater Seattle area from the Bay Area alone.
It would not be weird for him join the crowd.
It would not be weird for him join the crowd.
Popeyejones
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2013
- Messages
- 5,525
- Reaction score
- 0
Mistashoesta":313nqa10 said:
:lol:
It's off-topic so no need to respond but what happened was:
a) The hawks have a lot of individual players I really like and root for (meaning I follow the team more).
b) I took more interest in the Hawks when they had their brief rivalry with the 9ers (which brought me here).
c) the webzone moderation practice of bundling everything into the same endlessly long threads annoys me and isn't great for sustained convo (which kept me here).
d) the 9ers have been a friggin disaster (which makes posting about them depressing as heck over these last few years).
How you know I'm always gonna be a 9ers fan and not a Hawks fan: When the 9ers lose I avoid the Zone so I don't have to wade through the insanity and overreaction; when the Hawks lose I lurk here and smirk at the insansity and overreaction (altho I ususally try to avoid posting here for a few days after a loss so as to not piss people off). :lol: :2thumbs:
MontanaHawk05
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 17,891
- Reaction score
- 405
hawkfan68":379dbnn8 said:
The left side?
The LEFT side???!!!?!!?!!?!
Ifedi was the league's most penalized player, Pocic gave up two insta-sacks on potential game-winning drives, and yet we're talking about the LEFT side.
Good grief. I do not get the irrational hatred for anything and everything "free agent".
IndyHawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 7,993
- Reaction score
- 1,626
You and Marvin have been here for so long..Popeyejones":25xa45xh said:
I don't even care if you like whatever other team really.
It's not like I see you trolling the gameday forum or anything.
I can see you guys know the game so I'm good with it.
hawkfan68
Well-known member
MontanaHawk05":2p15stdl said:
Do you think Joeckel and Rees O played superbly this season? Joeckel wasn’t worth 8 peanuts yet he got $8M; in hindsight that money could have gone to better use.
Furthermore, the topic of thread is sacks and not penalties. According to the numbers in the OP, Joeckel gave up the most sacks.
Seanhawk
New member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Messages
- 6,819
- Reaction score
- 0
hawkfan68":3b5yfvjs said:
I don't know, $8 seems like a bargain for high school tackle, let alone one that was a former top 5 pick. That's not even going to cover one meal at McDonald's.
Similar threads
