Red Zone Ineffectiveness

A

Anonymous

Guest
Well, that pass play we ran to Mike Rob in the Falcon's playoff game last season was awesome... ?

I think getting MRob back is a boost to what we can do inside the red zone. Yes, losing Rice was a big negative, and McCoy (IMHO) was another potential cause for the woes, but I think we will see changes in the right direction on Saturday.
 

RiverDog

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
5,457
Reaction score
3,110
Location
Kennewick, WA
Sgt. Largent":y326tsa7 said:
rjdriver":y326tsa7 said:
Are we really struggling in the RZ or is it just me?

It's just you. Here's the red zone stats for 2012 and 2013 for the Hawks.

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/re ... coring-pct

We're actually almost 3% higher this year than last. I think a lot of people are just remembering the last six games last year and the playoffs where our offense was REALLY clicking.

So IMO the question shouldn't be about Red Zone efficiency, the question should be "Should we expect this offense to do what it did during the 2nd half of 2012 ALL THE TIME?" Fair?

There are some striking differences between the 2nd half of last year vs. this season. We had the Niners at home in the second half, this year we had to play them on the road in December. The Cards were a runaway train heading towards a washed out bridge in 2012, on their way to losing something like 9 in a row, and we laid 58 on them. This season, they were in the playoff hunt right up into the final weekend. We played a dead-from-the neck-up Bills team on what was essentially a neutral field, and put 50 up on them. And as one poster pointed out, we had Sidney Rice playing the best football he's played since he signed with us.

We didn't have those kinds of schedule and personnel breaks in the second half of this season. We had to play the Niners on the road and Arizona was a completely changed team that was in the hunt right up until the last weekend. This year, we are short at the WR position, in more ways than one.

We are struggling in the red zone. There's no doubt about it, and using our performance in the last part of 2012 season isn't a good way to show that it's all in our minds. We have a 5'10" quarterback and our starting wide receivers are both 5'10". That fact tends to become more relevant as the field shrinks.
 

formido

New member
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
547
Reaction score
0
Location
Ventura, CA
RiverDog":5zp0fmoc said:
Sgt. Largent":5zp0fmoc said:
rjdriver":5zp0fmoc said:
Are we really struggling in the RZ or is it just me?

It's just you. Here's the red zone stats for 2012 and 2013 for the Hawks.

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/re ... coring-pct

We're actually almost 3% higher this year than last. I think a lot of people are just remembering the last six games last year and the playoffs where our offense was REALLY clicking.

So IMO the question shouldn't be about Red Zone efficiency, the question should be "Should we expect this offense to do what it did during the 2nd half of 2012 ALL THE TIME?" Fair?

There are some striking differences between the 2nd half of last year vs. this season. We had the Niners at home in the second half, this year we had to play them on the road in December. The Cards were a runaway train heading towards a washed out bridge in 2012, on their way to losing something like 9 in a row, and we laid 58 on them. This season, they were in the playoff hunt right up into the final weekend. We played a dead-from-the neck-up Bills team on what was essentially a neutral field, and put 50 up on them. And as one poster pointed out, we had Sidney Rice playing the best football he's played since he signed with us.

We didn't have those kinds of schedule and personnel breaks in the second half of this season. We had to play the Niners on the road and Arizona was a completely changed team that was in the hunt right up until the last weekend. This year, we are short at the WR position, in more ways than one.

We are struggling in the red zone. There's no doubt about it, and using our performance in the last part of 2012 season isn't a good way to show that it's all in our minds. We have a 5'10" quarterback and our starting wide receivers are both 5'10". That fact tends to become more relevant as the field shrinks.

The point of bringing up the end of last year is to show that unrealistic expectations are hampering peoples' abilities to evaluate our red zone efficiency with the proper perspective. Your post confirms that. On average, Seattle's red zone efficiency is higher than last year's.

Seattle has recently faced a string of extremely difficult defenses. Just like last year's end-of-season run caused people to lose perspective in one direction, this recent run against elite defenses is causing people to lose perspective in the other direction.

Seattle's red zone efficiency wasn't any better when Sidney Rice was playing. Lots of slot receivers, like Welker, are great red zone threats. Drew Brees is great in the red zone. Once a QB has passed the hurdle of becoming a starting QB in the NFL, there is no correlation between passing efficiency and height. I'd be very curious to see if you have any research verifying that there's a correlation between height and red zone efficiency. I would tend to doubt it. Short QBs, and particularly Wilson, can run in scores and buy time for receivers to get open, which we've seen time and again.
 

Laloosh

New member
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
8,688
Reaction score
0
Location
WA
Been looking at these stats a bit. Will post something in a while with actual numbers...
 

Anthony!

New member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
4,050
Reaction score
0
Location
Kent, wa
TO me the issue is play calling, we seem very reserve in the first half and the sometimes we open it up in the 2nd sometimes not. You want better red zone production the play calling must improve
 

Laloosh

New member
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
8,688
Reaction score
0
Location
WA
Okay, I took the final 4 games (weeks 14-17) and compared them to what should be considered a good stretch of games in which our offense thrived (weeks 9-13 which included a bye so it still comes out to 4 games).

The idea was to see what types of plays we ran (run/pass, how often, to whom and with what result). Basically I used a really cool website to pull two result sets then put the results side by side so it was nothing too complicated.

Here's the data:

Play ResultsPlay ResultsPlay ResultsPlay ResultsPlay ResultsPlay ResultsPlay TypesPlay Types
wk 9-13GPlaysToGoYds1st%TO%TDFG1stIntFumSackPassRush
4476.723.6836.20%2.10%125171001730
25.50%9.6%36.20%2.10%0%0%36.20%63.80%
wk 14-174386.132.5831.60%0.00%55120051820
13.20%11.4%31.60%0%0%13.20%47.40%52.60%
Items of note:
- Seattle had fewer trips into the red zone overall (11 vs 17).
- Ratio of trips to touchdowns is much worse (hopefully our data further down will highlight why).
- Russell was sacked 5 times (13% of total plays inside of the red zone) in weeks 14-17 (2/5 inside the 2 yard line, 4/5 inside the 5 and all 5 being inside of the 10 yard line).
- Pass to run ratio does not look to have swayed drastically in one direction or the other.


PassingPlayerCmpAttCmp%YdsTDIntSkY/ARate
wk 9-13Russell Wilson101662.50%858105.389.8
wk 14-17Russell Wilson51338.50%572054.492
Items of note:
- Russell had a MUCH lower completion percentage in weeks 14-17. Given the sack totals, it might be fair to conclude that he was hurried more as well. I recall seeing a chart that showed Russell's passing accuracy in the red zone about a month ago and it was VERY impressve. Perhaps teams have decided to pressure him in the red zone more often in an effort to force rushed throws? Just a theory.
- Obviously weeks 14-17 show a 75% drop in TDs but he hasn't thrown any picks. Yards per attempt are down but passer rating is up (odd?).


RushingPlayerAttYdsY/ATD
wk 9-13Russell Wilson7405.711
Marshawn Lynch19341.793
Christine Michael1990
Robert Turbin252.50
Totals29883.034
wk 14-17Marshawn Lynch16523.253
Russell Wilson21680
Doug Baldwin1330
Robert Turbin1000
Totals20713.553
Items of note:
- Marshawn has been more effective on the ground inside of the red zone from a Y/A standpoint (which surprised me).
- Russell has noticably run the ball less inside the red zone. Either he's been contained or simply chose to run less.


ReceivingPlayerTCPctYdsTD
wk 9-13Doug Baldwin5360.00%333
Jermaine Kearse4250.00%231
Marshawn Lynch22100.00%131
Derrick Coleman11100.00%81
Golden Tate2150.00%61
Zach Miller2150.00%21
Totals161062.50%858
wk 14-17Doug Baldwin22100.00%251
Jermaine Kearse4250.00%210
Zach Miller3133.30%111
Michael Robinson100.00%00
Marshawn Lynch100.00%00
Totals11545.50%572
Items of note:
- Baldwin was targeted the most in weeks 9-13, was the only receiver with more than one red zone TD and was targeted less in weeks 14-17. Maybe teams are emphasizing coverage on him inside of the red zone, could be play calling but it was the first thing to jump out at me.
- Overall completion percentage took a significant hit.


In Summary:
We made fewer trips, ran the ball at a higher rate than we passed and had better production (with similar results) in the run game but failed pretty miserably at passing inside the red zone over the final four weeks of the season.

Given what we can get from the stats, I'll be interested to go back and watch some of those red zone series and see how defenses seemed to be defending against the pass though I'd be more interested to hear what someone who actually knows about football thinks about those plays specificall. Maybe show us how teams are defending in the red zone and maybe call out any changes that have been made? Or, is it simply a lack of execution by the offense?

[edit] **Field goals are not included in play count but the percentages are accurate. I simply did not want actual field goal downs to be reflected in the play totals because they would skew the averages for yards per play. The percentages however, are based on total plays that include that play type.
 

Tokadub

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2013
Messages
964
Reaction score
12
Interesting that our redzone % is higher this year than last year. It sure feels pretty terrible this year and I think some of these other stats could attribute to this (thanks for link with all these stats).

Statistic: 2012 - 2013

First downs per game: 20.1 - 19.2

Yards per Game: 360 - 339

Rushing yards per game: 162.6 - 136.8

Passing yards per game: 197.5 - 202.2

Completion percentage: 63.81% - 63.57%

Third down conversion percentage: 40% - 37.25%

First downs per play: 0.326 - 0.316

QB sacked per game: 2.2 - 2.8

Time of Possesion: 31:24 - 29:53

Yards per play: 5.8 - 5.6


So out of all those statistics the only one we improved from 2012 to 2013 is passing yards per game we went up almost 5 yards per game. Meanwhile we lost over 20 rushing yards per game.

I'm not even cherry picking stats here this is even a bit worst than I expected, our offense has gotten worst this year no doubt, and our defense is really carrying us in my opinion.

So we may have a slightly higher red zone % this year but the majority of our other areas of offense have regressed so it may be kind of an illusion with red zone %.

I put most the blame on Bevell and our offensive line.
 

ivotuk

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
23,077
Reaction score
1,776
Location
North Pole, Alaska
IIRC our starting field position was worse in the last 3 NFCW games and that can make a big difference. I hope the bye week gave Schneider time to tune up special teams and getting them back to their usual elite status.

Edit: Pete always says that he likes to make a team go 80 yards because that's more time for them to make a mistake against our defense. Isn't it wonderful to have the #1 defense! Woohooo!!!! :179417:
 

Treefiddy

New member
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
294
Reaction score
0
The_Z_Man":140eo9ao said:
Sarlacc83":140eo9ao said:
I'm not banking on it. If the Saints win, they did it the same way as Arizona - keeping the score low. I mean, the Saints average 17 on the road, and they didn't even get to 27 against the Eagles defense. Why would anyone expect them to get there against Seattle?

The Saints have the advantage in this game. They will have a plan to counter what Seattle did to them. Meanwhile the Seahawks have a bunch of "success" to look at on tape. This is the reason why, when two top tier teams play and one gets blown out, it's pretty normal for them to come back and win the next game.

Payton is one of the best minds in the NFL, and Brees is a top end QB. The NFL rules favor offense.

I expect the Saints to be far more competitive and efficient than last game. Furthermore the Seahawks played about as well as they could possibly play... 34 to 7 wasn't indicative of how lopsided that game was.

All that the Saints need is a great game, a few key calls, and a lucky bounce and they walk out of the Clink with a win and avenge that insane wildcard loss a few seasons ago.

This game is huge, if the Seahawks show up and knock the Saints down in a convincing manner - it will give them an overwhelming advantage the following week, especially if they face the 49ers.
You are crazy if you think they drop 27. They are soft. Hawks D is gonna punch them in the mouth.
 
Top