It's not predictability, it's design and talent

mrt144 · Jun 7, 2019

https://www.fieldgulls.com/2019/6/7/186 ... n-3rd-down

So while I read over the article and found some of it interesting, the thing that got me was the point that the Hawks predictability wasn't quite that abnormal compared to other teams situationally. Especially on third downs between 5-10 yards. Most teams are passing 85%+ of the time there. So at the very base, the idea that we are predictable on 3rd down is kind of a canard.

BUT...BUT...If we do a little sleuthing via Pro Football reference we can see that the outcomes of what we did are different to average in composition. The conversion rate to 1st down? Almost completely average relative to the field. Likewise on distance to down. Slightly above average in rank (Good Thing). Total of 3rd down plays, also slightly above average in rank (Good thing).

But here is where we are divergent.

Sacks on 3rd down. Tied for 2nd in the league @26 with Oakland and only behind GB @28. They did have the highest sack rate on 3rd downs given the lower amount of 3rd down passing plays.
TDs. Led the league @ 16. 2nd was New England @12.
Turnovers. 5th in the league @ 6.5% behind Buffalo, Arizona, LA Rams, and Pittsburgh.

So how can we make sense of some of this?

1. Perhaps, there is a design element that elevates sacks and TDs and really puts a boom bust stamp on how 3rd downs are approached.

2. Perhaps, there is a talent gap on the field where the execution of 3rd downs results in these divergent outcomes. RW on down the line.

3. Perhaps, that's just the way it is with the Hawks on 3rd down and nothing to think about. We enjoy the spoils and spoilage of the approach.

Just kind of interesting to me how the Hawks aren't different in some ways, but quite different in others. I am particularly intrigued by the similarity in turnovers to the Rams and Steelers who are our closest 'like' peer in that regard, but the divergence between sacks and TDs for both relative to us and one another.

Thoughts?

ivotuk · Jun 7, 2019

Great post, interesting stuff. I look forward to reviewing it further. :2thumbs:

John63 · Jun 7, 2019

mrt144":2dcqh6un said:
https://www.fieldgulls.com/2019/6/7/18656268/how-predictable-seattle-seahawks-offense-1st-down-2018-2-minute-4th-quarter-russell-wilson-3rd-down

So while I read over the article and found some of it interesting, the thing that got me was the point that the Hawks predictability wasn't quite that abnormal compared to other teams situationally. Especially on third downs between 5-10 yards. Most teams are passing 85%+ of the time there. So at the very base, the idea that we are predictable on 3rd down is kind of a canard.

BUT...BUT...If we do a little sleuthing via Pro Football reference we can see that the outcomes of what we did are different to average in composition. The conversion rate to 1st down? Almost completely average relative to the field. Likewise on distance to down. Slightly above average in rank (Good Thing). Total of 3rd down plays, also slightly above average in rank (Good thing).

But here is where we are divergent.

Sacks on 3rd down. Tied for 2nd in the league @26 with Oakland and only behind GB @28. They did have the highest sack rate on 3rd downs given the lower amount of 3rd down passing plays.
TDs. Led the league @ 16. 2nd was New England @12.
Turnovers. 5th in the league @ 6.5% behind Buffalo, Arizona, LA Rams, and Pittsburgh.

So how can we make sense of some of this?

1. Perhaps, there is a design element that elevates sacks and TDs and really puts a boom bust stamp on how 3rd downs are approached.

2. Perhaps, there is a talent gap on the field where the execution of 3rd downs results in these divergent outcomes. RW on down the line.

3. Perhaps, that's just the way it is with the Hawks on 3rd down and nothing to think about. We enjoy the spoils and spoilage of the approach.

Just kind of interesting to me how the Hawks aren't different in some ways, but quite different in others. I am particularly intrigued by the similarity in turnovers to the Rams and Steelers who are our closest 'like' peer in that regard, but the divergence between sacks and TDs for both relative to us and one another.

Thoughts?

Okay except the place were we are different which would impact 3rd down, is we go run, run, pass on 75% of our drives. That is a huge difference. We are predictable because everyone knows we will do run, run pass, most of the time and that hurts us on 3rd down.

xray · Jun 10, 2019

How about pass-pass-punt....that will fool them ... LOL

vin.couve12 · Jun 10, 2019

Run run pass has given the Hawks much more manageable 3rd down yardage vs the previous 2 years of pass heavy offense that regularly put us in 3rd and very long. The OL was never as bad as advertised. RW is an extremely conservative QB. He'll eat it rather than take risks the vast majority of the time and I'm sure Pete wants it that way. Ain't no gun-slinging up in here.

mrt144 · Jun 10, 2019

John63":2c048660 said:
mrt144":2c048660 said:

https://www.fieldgulls.com/2019/6/7/18656268/how-predictable-seattle-seahawks-offense-1st-down-2018-2-minute-4th-quarter-russell-wilson-3rd-down

So while I read over the article and found some of it interesting, the thing that got me was the point that the Hawks predictability wasn't quite that abnormal compared to other teams situationally. Especially on third downs between 5-10 yards. Most teams are passing 85%+ of the time there. So at the very base, the idea that we are predictable on 3rd down is kind of a canard.

BUT...BUT...If we do a little sleuthing via Pro Football reference we can see that the outcomes of what we did are different to average in composition. The conversion rate to 1st down? Almost completely average relative to the field. Likewise on distance to down. Slightly above average in rank (Good Thing). Total of 3rd down plays, also slightly above average in rank (Good thing).

But here is where we are divergent.

Sacks on 3rd down. Tied for 2nd in the league @26 with Oakland and only behind GB @28. They did have the highest sack rate on 3rd downs given the lower amount of 3rd down passing plays.
TDs. Led the league @ 16. 2nd was New England @12.
Turnovers. 5th in the league @ 6.5% behind Buffalo, Arizona, LA Rams, and Pittsburgh.

So how can we make sense of some of this?

1. Perhaps, there is a design element that elevates sacks and TDs and really puts a boom bust stamp on how 3rd downs are approached.

2. Perhaps, there is a talent gap on the field where the execution of 3rd downs results in these divergent outcomes. RW on down the line.

3. Perhaps, that's just the way it is with the Hawks on 3rd down and nothing to think about. We enjoy the spoils and spoilage of the approach.

Just kind of interesting to me how the Hawks aren't different in some ways, but quite different in others. I am particularly intrigued by the similarity in turnovers to the Rams and Steelers who are our closest 'like' peer in that regard, but the divergence between sacks and TDs for both relative to us and one another.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Okay except the place were we are different which would impact 3rd down, is we go run, run, pass on 75% of our drives. That is a huge difference. We are predictable because everyone knows we will do run, run pass, most of the time and that hurts us on 3rd down.

Predictability doesn't exactly explain why the output on 3rd down was much more boom/bust than other teams. I mean, that is a tendency of the offense as it existed in 2018 but how does the defense exactly play boom/bust? I don't see it, really.

Now the setup for 3rd downs, sure run-run-pass is the mode we operated in much of the time but I thought this was an interesting wrinkle to run my fingers over.

AgentDib · Jun 10, 2019

In my view our third down sack rate is partly due to our head coach's philosophy (20%) and mostly due to our unique QB (80%). That split is apportioned mostly towards Russ because Pete does occasionally talk about needing to get the ball out more quickly. If you remember after the Bears loss, Pete had a whole series of interviews where he talked about Russ trying to do a little too much and suggesting that they would be working on throwing the ball away more often in future games.

On the whole, however, I think Pete is fine with Russ taking the occasional sack so long as he holds onto the football. Pete really hates turnovers and putting his defense on a short field. A sack is a vastly better outcome than an interception in his book and Pete doesn't mind punting with good field position. Pete recognizes that telling Russ to throw it away after 2.5 seconds each play would limit our upside.

Regarding Russ, his sack rate is a negative when looked at by itself. However, I think most of us see it as a negative symptom of his positive ability to extend plays. In 2018 he was #3 out of #39 QBs in time to throw (3.01 seconds) which led to many of his sacks. It's also probably a big reason why he was #1 in PFF's "big time throw" metric which supposedly charts throws into tight windows.

Own The West · Jun 10, 2019

The boom or bust on 3rd down makes sense to me. Russ hangs on to the ball way too long and either gets sacked, forces it, or the defense breaks down.

vin.couve12 · Jun 10, 2019

Own The West":3rnhbwy7 said:
The boom or bust on 3rd down makes sense to me. Russ hangs on to the ball way too long and either gets sacked, forces it, or the defense breaks down.

Forcing it is not really the norm for him. It happens once in a while, but he'll eat it or throw it away 90 to 95% of the time if the defense doesn't break down. Used to be more throw aways, but now it's more tuck and get down. He's not as quick and agile as he was.

I'm not faulting him for not forcing throws, btw. The TD to INT ratio is a direct derivative of that.

niveky · Jun 11, 2019

xray":nnex5e26 said:
How about pass-pass-punt....that will fool them ... LOL

Punting on 3rd down. Brilliant!!! This is a game changer.

Attyla the Hawk · Jun 11, 2019

AgentDib":272u8yow said:
On the whole, however, I think Pete is fine with Russ taking the occasional sack so long as he holds onto the football. Pete really hates turnovers and putting his defense on a short field. A sack is a vastly better outcome than an interception in his book and Pete doesn't mind punting with good field position. Pete recognizes that telling Russ to throw it away after 2.5 seconds each play would limit our upside.

Regarding Russ, his sack rate is a negative when looked at by itself. However, I think most of us see it as a negative symptom of his positive ability to extend plays. In 2018 he was #3 out of #39 QBs in time to throw (3.01 seconds) which led to many of his sacks. It's also probably a big reason why he was #1 in PFF's "big time throw" metric which supposedly charts throws into tight windows.

I would say this.

Realistically, what's the difference between taking a sack on 3rd down and punting, versus throwing the ball essentially away (out of bounds or too early and safely in a spot nobody gets to it). The result is in essence the same. And if I were a coach, that's exactly how I'd prefer to do it.

The ultimate barometer (ability to convert 3rd downs) is largely unaffected or rather it's mostly average to above average. But by taking sacks instead of directing panic throws -- it reduces the chances of interceptions (batted passes, errant throw aways or poorly timed throws that DBs can make better plays on the ball). It's a sound tradeoff and I have always felt that the bloated sack values for our offense have been largely a benign result of our philosophy and situational design.

If I were to change something, it would be to focus more on short outlet passing (flats/crossing the face of LB zones). Those patterns are generally safe chain movers in the context of "3rd down and manageable". Not utilizing those high percentage throws for free yardage kind of eliminates the value of getting to manageable distance in the first place. We either don't or can't implement those gift patterns. My guess is that we don't have the talent to make those plays. Procise was supposed to be that at the RB position. McKissic was actually pretty good at that. But in general we don't seem to be at our best in the short middle. Nor have we been successful at screen passes really since Holmgren left.

DomeHawk · Jun 11, 2019

John63":eql9e89g said:
mrt144":eql9e89g said:

https://www.fieldgulls.com/2019/6/7/18656268/how-predictable-seattle-seahawks-offense-1st-down-2018-2-minute-4th-quarter-russell-wilson-3rd-down

So while I read over the article and found some of it interesting, the thing that got me was the point that the Hawks predictability wasn't quite that abnormal compared to other teams situationally. Especially on third downs between 5-10 yards. Most teams are passing 85%+ of the time there. So at the very base, the idea that we are predictable on 3rd down is kind of a canard.

BUT...BUT...If we do a little sleuthing via Pro Football reference we can see that the outcomes of what we did are different to average in composition. The conversion rate to 1st down? Almost completely average relative to the field. Likewise on distance to down. Slightly above average in rank (Good Thing). Total of 3rd down plays, also slightly above average in rank (Good thing).

But here is where we are divergent.

Sacks on 3rd down. Tied for 2nd in the league @26 with Oakland and only behind GB @28. They did have the highest sack rate on 3rd downs given the lower amount of 3rd down passing plays.
TDs. Led the league @ 16. 2nd was New England @12.
Turnovers. 5th in the league @ 6.5% behind Buffalo, Arizona, LA Rams, and Pittsburgh.

So how can we make sense of some of this?

1. Perhaps, there is a design element that elevates sacks and TDs and really puts a boom bust stamp on how 3rd downs are approached.

2. Perhaps, there is a talent gap on the field where the execution of 3rd downs results in these divergent outcomes. RW on down the line.

3. Perhaps, that's just the way it is with the Hawks on 3rd down and nothing to think about. We enjoy the spoils and spoilage of the approach.

Just kind of interesting to me how the Hawks aren't different in some ways, but quite different in others. I am particularly intrigued by the similarity in turnovers to the Rams and Steelers who are our closest 'like' peer in that regard, but the divergence between sacks and TDs for both relative to us and one another.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Okay except the place were we are different which would impact 3rd down, is we go run, run, pass on 75% of our drives. That is a huge difference. We are predictable because everyone knows we will do run, run pass, most of the time and that hurts us on 3rd down.

^This

I don't care if we run the ball but when the other team knows WHEN you are going to run you are, yes, VERY predictable.

knownone · Jun 11, 2019

There are 9 combinations of binary play types through 3 downs. So every team is going to be predictable in some aspect. I think it would be easier to criticize the actual play-calls instead of the type of play called.

DomeHawk · Jun 11, 2019

knownone":3hzigzd5 said:
There are 9 combinations of binary play types through 3 downs. So every team is going to be predictable in some aspect. I think it would be easier to criticize the actual play-calls instead of the type of play called.

Really? Go back and watch the playoff game against the Cowboys.

"Every" team? Right, every team that almost always runs the ball on 1st and 2nd down. It's pretty simple, just stack the box. The Cowboys showed every team in the NFL how to beat the Seahawks just as the Patriots showed every team how to beat the Rams.

knownone · Jun 11, 2019

DomeHawk":2a50ooo6 said:
knownone":2a50ooo6 said:

There are 9 combinations of binary play types through 3 downs. So every team is going to be predictable in some aspect. I think it would be easier to criticize the actual play-calls instead of the type of play called.

Click to expand...

Really? Go back and watch the playoff game against the Cowboys.

"Every" team? Right, every team that almost always runs the ball on 1st and 2nd down. It's pretty simple, just stack the box. The Cowboys showed every team in the NFL how to beat the Seahawks just as the Patriots showed every team how to beat the Rams.

Yes, find me a team that is not predictable in their binary play calling. I'll save you the time; you won't.

The problem here is that people are using 'predictability' with regards to running only, but in order to do that you must throw out the logical inverse. Consider this, the Seahawk's run the ball 59% of the time on 1st and 2nd down, the Chiefs pass the ball 59% of the time on 1st and 2nd down. Which team is more predictable? What conclusion can be drawn?

Using the authors metrics, the least predictable teams in binary play calling on 1st and 2nd down are the 49ers, Jaguars, Dolphins and Jet's. So what does relative predictability tell us about offensive success abstract from the actual play being called? As far as I can tell, absolutely nothing.

chris98251 · Jun 11, 2019

DomeHawk":rvt8xnpp said:
knownone":rvt8xnpp said:

There are 9 combinations of binary play types through 3 downs. So every team is going to be predictable in some aspect. I think it would be easier to criticize the actual play-calls instead of the type of play called.

Click to expand...

Really? Go back and watch the playoff game against the Cowboys.

"Every" team? Right, every team that almost always runs the ball on 1st and 2nd down. It's pretty simple, just stack the box. The Cowboys showed every team in the NFL how to beat the Seahawks just as the Patriots showed every team how to beat the Rams.

They did, oh you mean with your best WR injured and two Guard that should have been on IR.

But ok I wonder how well the Cowboys would have done with Amari Cooper out and their two starting guards playing on one leg.

AgentDib · Jun 11, 2019

chris98251":1r8olf46 said:
They did, oh you mean with your best WR injured and two Guard that should have been on IR.

This is a great example of the connection between running and passing that lead to data analysis problems. With our interior OL seriously banged up we had difficulty running the ball and that led many to be upset after the fact that we didn't pass it more often. However, as off-season football forum posters well know a functional OL is also important for pass protection. We didn't see the possible outcome in which we came out throwing the ball like in Week 1, Russ got sacked eight times, and the fan base was instead furious that we abandoned the run.

Whether that outcome would have occurred or not is entirely speculation and is not very well informed by looking at statistics that include games where we had a healthy OL. The interconnected aspects and much lower sample size is what makes the NFL much more interesting to follow and debate than the other major sports IMO because there are few obvious answers.

mikeak · Jun 12, 2019

I don't care significantly if it is an incomplete, short of 1st down or a sack on third down. Exception within our own 20 yard line

I would be curious if you looked at the stats that way how they come out. Does it really matter if you take a sack or throw it away on 3rd down? RW extends the play and guess what boom or bust is the result.

Heck I am fine with the hail mary interceptions deep in opponent territory as long as we are in position to stop the person that intercepts the pass.

The problem with stats is that they often treat everything the same. Big difference between an int on 1st down over middle of the field at the 40 yard line vs a bomb / hail mary / desperate throw that gets downed around the 10 yard of the opponent side

mrt144 · Jun 12, 2019

mikeak":bpdi2okc said:
I don't care significantly if it is an incomplete, short of 1st down or a sack on third down. Exception within our own 20 yard line

I would be curious if you looked at the stats that way how they come out. Does it really matter if you take a sack or throw it away on 3rd down? RW extends the play and guess what boom or bust is the result.

Heck I am fine with the hail mary interceptions deep in opponent territory as long as we are in position to stop the person that intercepts the pass.

The problem with stats is that they often treat everything the same. Big difference between an int on 1st down over middle of the field at the 40 yard line vs a bomb / hail mary / desperate throw that gets downed around the 10 yard of the opponent side

I'll take some time and try and suss out some situational stuff. FWIW, there were around 150 third down plays during the season so coming away with firm stuff might be hard but I'll take a look at it.

I just had kind of an 'aha' moment of curiosity when I saw that the conversion rates were ho hum but the outcomes were more disparate than other teams.

xray · Jun 12, 2019

Since the Dallas game reared it's ugly head in this topic .It wasn't so much that the Hawks offense was predictable ; because they won 10 games with the same predictability . It was the Hawks defense that lost that game. IMO

It's not predictability, it's design and talent

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Member

Well-known member

DomeHawk

Guest

Well-known member

DomeHawk

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Similar threads