Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Mon Nov 05, 2018 2:40 pm

Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:50 pm
  • Maybe we should let a certain Aussie kicker try it instead.
    User avatar
    Year of The Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1057
    Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:18 am


Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:58 pm
  • Year of The Hawk wrote:Maybe we should let a certain Aussie kicker try it instead.


    Agree, pretty certain the odds are better than zero. May as well kick it off and hope for a fumble, odds are also better than zero.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5594
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:02 pm
  • I don't know where you get the "Pete thinks he can pull it off." The one time they tried, they used a drop kick with Big Balls.
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 105427
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:29 pm


Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:08 pm
  • HawkGA wrote:I don't know where you get the "Pete thinks he can pull it off." The one time they tried, they used a drop kick with Big Balls.


    Ummm from the Chargers game where he kicked it 18 yards with 1:50 left. Weird question, did you watch the game?
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5594
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:14 pm
  • Simple probability theory would tell you that the chance of getting an onside kick is almost completely random. The average rate of recovery before the rule change was right around 20% now it's roughly between 10-15%. So, from a probability standpoint being upset about going for the onside kick solely because Seabass is your kicker is kind of ridiculous.
    knownone
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1338
    Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:10 pm


Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:15 pm
  • They really need to just go with Dickson on these. I don’t know what the hell that thing was yesterday. It wasn’t an onsides, it wasn’t a pooch—it was just poop.
    User avatar
    West TX Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2011
    Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:24 am


Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:41 pm
  • knownone wrote:Simple probability theory would tell you that the chance of getting an onside kick is almost completely random. The average rate of recovery before the rule change was right around 20% now it's roughly between 10-15%. So, from a probability standpoint being upset about going for the onside kick solely because Seabass is your kicker is kind of ridiculous.


    The probability would not be the same for every kicker obviously. If he tends to kick it too far, it drops the chance of recovery. 17 years with none....did that not sink in with you? :roll:
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5594
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:04 pm
  • West TX Hawk wrote:They really need to just go with Dickson on these. I don’t know what the hell that thing was yesterday. It wasn’t an onsides, it wasn’t a pooch—it was just poop.


    It was awful.
    User avatar
    Vesuve
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 260
    Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:02 pm


Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:34 pm
  • Heard someone on radio the other day, maybe Brock Huard?

    Anyway, he was of the opinion that we should have just kicked it deep. We had the 3 TOs and if we had made the stops like we did back on their end of the field, we'd have been that much closer when we finally got the ball.

    Made a lot of sense.
    Talent can get you to the playoffs.
    It takes character to win when you get there.

    SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS
    User avatar
    sutz
    USMC 1970-77
     
    Posts: 15406
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
    Location: Kent, WA


Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:55 pm
  • Seymour wrote:
    knownone wrote:Simple probability theory would tell you that the chance of getting an onside kick is almost completely random. The average rate of recovery before the rule change was right around 20% now it's roughly between 10-15%. So, from a probability standpoint being upset about going for the onside kick solely because Seabass is your kicker is kind of ridiculous.


    The probability would not be the same for every kicker obviously. If he tends to kick it too far, it drops the chance of recovery. 17 years with none....did that not sink in with you? :roll:

    The amount of time does not matter the sample size matters. Going 0/25 is not a significant enough sample size to determine if Seabass is bad or simply unlucky. Considering the best of the best is only recovering 4/25 onside kicks and each attempt is an event with its own independent set of variables, meaning no two onside kicks are the same. Then you could reasonably conclude that the gap between Seabass and the very best kicker at recovering onsides kicks is less than 5%. In other words, if Seabass has a 15% chance to recover an onside kick, the very best kicker in the world only has a 20% chance... and with those odds quibbling about it seems slightly silly.

    You're entitled to your opinion though.
    knownone
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1338
    Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:10 pm


Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:54 am
  • knownone wrote:Simple probability theory would tell you that the chance of getting an onside kick is almost completely random. The average rate of recovery before the rule change was right around 20% now it's roughly between 10-15%. So, from a probability standpoint being upset about going for the onside kick solely because Seabass is your kicker is kind of ridiculous.


    When you say "completely random" here, what do you mean? It doesn't seem to fit will with your second sentence; are you just saying it can be modeled as a random process (due to all the variables) with a distribution that lends itself to a low probability of success? It's not a truly random process, which is how I read "completely random", but some of the variables in the process are.

    knownone wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    knownone wrote:Simple probability theory would tell you that the chance of getting an onside kick is almost completely random. The average rate of recovery before the rule change was right around 20% now it's roughly between 10-15%. So, from a probability standpoint being upset about going for the onside kick solely because Seabass is your kicker is kind of ridiculous.


    The probability would not be the same for every kicker obviously. If he tends to kick it too far, it drops the chance of recovery. 17 years with none....did that not sink in with you? :roll:

    The amount of time does not matter the sample size matters. Going 0/25 is not a significant enough sample size to determine if Seabass is bad or simply unlucky. Considering the best of the best is only recovering 4/25 onside kicks and each attempt is an event with its own independent set of variables, meaning no two onside kicks are the same. Then you could reasonably conclude that the gap between Seabass and the very best kicker at recovering onsides kicks is less than 5%. In other words, if Seabass has a 15% chance to recover an onside kick, the very best kicker in the world only has a 20% chance... and with those odds quibbling about it seems slightly silly.

    You're entitled to your opinion though.


    Seymour is probably right here to an extent, in that certain kickers are going to be better at this than others. But you're also right that we don't have enough data to make reasonable distinctions about who might be better at it than others. Even if a kicker is better at it, it matters a lot just how good (and lucky) the players are on both sides trying to recover the ball are as well.

    Clearly onside kicks (at least expected ones) work out a low percentage of the time, and they're relatively rare events in the NFL. Comparing one onsider kicker to another using numbers may not be that useful; it may be way more useful to use a trained "eye test" to determine who might be better at it.

    Given how rare this is, I don't think this is a critical factor in kicker performance. If a kicker is really effective at kickoffs, field goals, and extra points, then that is what is going to get you the high probability things you need. Onside kicking may be right up there with the ability of a kicker to throw a pass or run; it's really great when you're desperate or doing trickery, but it's used so little that the other things drown it out.
    User avatar
    bmorepunk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1969
    Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:56 pm


Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:58 am
  • knownone wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    knownone wrote:Simple probability theory would tell you that the chance of getting an onside kick is almost completely random. The average rate of recovery before the rule change was right around 20% now it's roughly between 10-15%. So, from a probability standpoint being upset about going for the onside kick solely because Seabass is your kicker is kind of ridiculous.


    The probability would not be the same for every kicker obviously. If he tends to kick it too far, it drops the chance of recovery. 17 years with none....did that not sink in with you? :roll:

    The amount of time does not matter the sample size matters. Going 0/25 is not a significant enough sample size to determine if Seabass is bad or simply unlucky. Considering the best of the best is only recovering 4/25 onside kicks and each attempt is an event with its own independent set of variables, meaning no two onside kicks are the same. Then you could reasonably conclude that the gap between Seabass and the very best kicker at recovering onsides kicks is less than 5%. In other words, if Seabass has a 15% chance to recover an onside kick, the very best kicker in the world only has a 20% chance... and with those odds quibbling about it seems slightly silly.

    You're entitled to your opinion though.


    Dude...I only pulled out the stats since 2009! This has been going on for 17 years and he probably has more like 50 failed attempts! That is not bad luck....good god. :177692: This is a pointless discussion, and it's magnitude clearly is not sinking in with you. DId you see that pathetic kick even? It was a gift from heaven floating in the air for crying out loud. You cannot calculate his "odds", history says they are ZERO, it is a task beyond his capabilities! Could be something like the yips with golfers that he just cannot shake who knows but I don't like his odds. You?? Go ahead and lay money on the guy for all I care.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5594
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:17 am
  • bmorepunk wrote:.....Given how rare this is, I don't think this is a critical factor in kicker performance. If a kicker is really effective at kickoffs, field goals, and extra points, then that is what is going to get you the high probability things you need. Onside kicking may be right up there with the ability of a kicker to throw a pass or run; it's really great when you're desperate or doing trickery, but it's used so little that the other things drown it out.


    I agree it is at the bottom of "needs" list, but disagree it is not a critical factor. With no successful onside kicks, we lose NFC championship game and no SB49. That changes the entire mis-fortune of the Seahawks unravelling.
    Attachments
    Packers-Hawks-2014.jpg
    Packers-Hawks-2014.jpg (109.21 KiB) Viewed 269 times
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5594
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:24 am
  • Sure, but that wasnt successful because of the kicker.

    Maybe just something that needs attention in training, not necessarily through roster moves
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13727
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:28 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:Sure, but that wasnt successful because of the kicker.

    Maybe just something that needs attention in training, not necessarily through roster moves


    If kicker A kicks 10 yards with a jump ball, and kicker B kicks it 20 yards right to the return team would it be the kicker that made the most difference?

    You cannot make that statement with ANY certainty.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5594
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:53 am
  • Seymour wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:Sure, but that wasnt successful because of the kicker.

    Maybe just something that needs attention in training, not necessarily through roster moves


    If kicker A kicks 10 yards with a jump ball, and kicker B kicks it 20 yards right to the return team would it be the kicker that made the most difference?

    You cannot make that statement with ANY certainty.


    Both balls went directly to the return team. The Packers guy muffed an easy catch. If he hadnt jumped jordy nelson was going to catch it without leaving his feet.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13727
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:56 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:Sure, but that wasnt successful because of the kicker.

    Maybe just something that needs attention in training, not necessarily through roster moves


    If kicker A kicks 10 yards with a jump ball, and kicker B kicks it 20 yards right to the return team would it be the kicker that made the most difference?

    You cannot make that statement with ANY certainty.


    Both balls went directly to the return team. The Packers guy muffed an easy catch. If he hadnt jumped jordy nelson was going to catch it without leaving his feet.


    The one that goes 20 yards will have NO Seahawks around the ball because it traveled too far. You cannot recover a ball that has no Seahawks near it!

    Today this is even harder with no running start also!
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5594
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:04 am
  • No i get that. Just saying that even the success you highlighted required some luck.

    Just think the team should train it, not address it through roster moves
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13727
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:15 am
  • Don't forget kickoff rules changed so you can't get a running start and you can't overload one side of the field vs. the other the way it was for many years so most onside kicks regardless of who is kicking the ball will be affected pretty negatively.

    As mentioned earlier I thought kicking it deep and making them drive for first downs to kill the clock or force a three and out was a better choice IMO as if we would have forced a three and out like we did, it would have left a much shorter field for the offense to deal with.

    It's all hindsight at this point and we have only lost 4 games so a 12-4 record is still doable, right? :lol: :lol: :lol:

    GO HAWKS!!!
    Paul G Allen 1953-2018

    RIP My Friend, You Were The Best Sports Franchise Owner A Fan Could Ever Hope For.
    User avatar
    12HawkFan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 560
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:50 am
    Location: Kitsap County


Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:16 am
  • I think the better discussion here is this:

    Given his struggles with onside kicks, given the low percentage of recoveries anyway (especially with the new rules) and considering we had all three timeouts, shouldn't they have kicked it deep?

    Considering how the game ended, those potential extra 30 or so yards may have been the difference in the game.

    To me, an onside kick should only be used in desperation. I don't think the Hawks were in a desperate situation there.
    Hawkpower
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2139
    Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:53 am
    Location: Phoenix az


Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:27 am
  • Hawkpower wrote:I think the better discussion here is this:

    Given his struggles with onside kicks, given the low percentage of recoveries anyway (especially with the new rules) and considering we had all three timeouts, shouldn't they have kicked it deep?

    Considering how the game ended, those potential extra 30 or so yards may have been the difference in the game.

    To me, an onside kick should only be used in desperation. I don't think the Hawks were in a desperate situation there.


    Absolutely we should have! we stopped them and got it back anyway. It was another ill conceived Pete call that was borderline insane knowing the facts. #2 best attempt would be let anyone besides SeaBass try it.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5594
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:44 am
  • I agree that Michael Dickson should have been the one if they decided to onside kick it. Even without looking at the stats behind SeaBass' attempts, I wouldn't think he would be the man for the job. An onside kick requires a certain flexibility to twist ones body at the last second to restrict the kick to only 10 yards downfield.

    Flexibility is not the first thing I think of when I think of SeaBass. Hence his deeper ineffective kicks. He uses proper form squaring up to the kick until the last second to not give the direction away, but when he initiates the kick he simply cant twist fast enough to get the right angle.
    “How vain it is to sit down to write when you have not stood up to live.”

    - Henry David Thoreau
    User avatar
    bbsplitter
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 506
    Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:39 pm


Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:54 am
  • Hawkpower wrote:I think the better discussion here is this:

    Given his struggles with onside kicks, given the low percentage of recoveries anyway (especially with the new rules) and considering we had all three timeouts, shouldn't they have kicked it deep?

    Considering how the game ended, those potential extra 30 or so yards may have been the difference in the game.

    To me, an onside kick should only be used in desperation. I don't think the Hawks were in a desperate situation there.


    Really good point. 3 timeouts plus the 2 minute warning
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13727
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:07 am
  • bbsplitter wrote:I agree that Michael Dickson should have been the one if they decided to onside kick it. Even without looking at the stats behind SeaBass' attempts, I wouldn't think he would be the man for the job. An onside kick requires a certain flexibility to twist ones body at the last second to restrict the kick to only 10 yards downfield.

    Flexibility is not the first thing I think of when I think of SeaBass. Hence his deeper ineffective kicks.
    He uses proper form squaring up to the kick until the last second to not give the direction away, but when he initiates the kick he simply cant twist fast enough to get the right angle.


    Great post!
    Not sure how you know all that, but it fits and is logical. The numbers also clearly support some effect of this type is happening there.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5594
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Not so Fun Fact on SeaBass
Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:16 am
  • I really hope they find a better kicker next year.

    Dude is under 70% right now. He doesn't have a lot of attempts compared to some other guys, but if he keeps this going, that's really bad.
    User avatar
    bmorepunk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1969
    Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:56 pm




It is currently Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:40 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online