PC and sacks

[nwHawk]

Not to mention how hard it is to convert a 1st down after a big sack. 2nd or 3rd down and 12+ yards to go is a death sentence to any offensive line. We see that time and time again. Love to see a statistic on quantity and impact.

 

[Palmegranite]

I wonder what Wilson's sack total would be if he would of learned to ' throw the ball away '. Sacks always mean loss of down and usually loss of yards . Throwing the ball away or out of bounds when necessary results in loss of down only . All good QB's should know when and how to use this tactic. It's part of the game . IMO

So if you can identify the issue as Wilson needing to learn to throw the ball away, certainly this can be coached. Exercises and practice routines to improve this deficiency.

I mean it seems absurd to coach the other 50 odd players and assume the QB is good, no assistance needed here.

 

[John63]

I wonder what Wilson's sack total would be if he would of learned to ' throw the ball away '. Sacks always mean loss of down and usually loss of yards . Throwing the ball away or out of bounds when necessary results in loss of down only . All good QB's should know when and how to use this tactic. It's part of the game . IMO

well he was top 5 in throw away's, so I am guessing he knows. The problem is you can't throw it away every time. All great QBs no you can't throw the ball away every time.

 

[John63]

Pete's career in Seattle has almost entirely been with RW. To argue the wins are Russ's credit, but the sacks are Pete's fault is a strange, and inconsistent argument, with zero nuance.

wrong he had 2 years with other QBs. My point was you cant give PC credit for all this without also getting on him for the bad.

 

[John63]

If your QB is being sacked at a high rate year in, year out, it's on the head coach. The buck stops with Pete Carroll.
It's glaringly obvious to every fan, and our mild mannered QB is complaining about it so yes, PC needs to remedy the problem in the off season.

By the way, I've watched the press conferences since RW came to Seattle. The local press are not doing their job. This should be the first and repeated question to Carroll after every game. "Why can't you and your coaching staff solve the high sack rate?"

They've tried to fix the O-line through the draft. They failed. The only solid lineman we've had in the past 5 years has been Brown, who came via trade. The drafting has been very sub-par for years. Pestering Pete in press conferences solves nothing, he's very glib. Having a better college scouting organization is necessary going forward..

Brown came as a trade with Wilson redoing his contract to provide the cap room.

 

[keasley45]

And by comparison:
2012-2020: Tom Brady: 244
2012-2020: Russell Wilson 394

Fix it Pete.

Apparently Pete can't make Russ get the ball out the way Brady can. But then again, all but Rogers and Brees are capable of doing coming close to Tom B.

It's not all about the line.

 

[flv]

Carroll has a 145-94-1 won-lost-tied record. The Sack record is way less important. A 10-yard sack on 1st down is probably very important. A 2-yard sack on 3rd down probably isn't important. Raw data always lacks context.

 

[John63]

Carroll has a 145-94-1 won-lost-tied record. The Sack record is way less important. A 10-yard sack on 1st down is probably very important. A 2-yard sack on 3rd down probably isn't important. Raw data always lacks context.

and the record without Wilson is under .500% with Wilson over .600%. As to raw data when it's a pattern yes it does matter and have context.

 

[flv]

and the record without Wilson is under .500% with Wilson over .600%. As to raw data when it's a pattern yes it does matter and have context.

Carroll coaches to win rather than produce stats. The tactics he has chosen to employ have been successful in that regard. The point is that a higher sack rate has resulted in a higher win rate rather than a lower win rate. Wilson has been 'unnaturally' durable in not missing a start in 9 seasons. You can say Carroll has been lucky with QB health. That would be a valid opinion.

Most would conclude that Carroll does care about sacks and pass blocking, but that he's prepared to accept a higher risk of a QB injury in pursuit of wins.

 

[LoneHawkFan]

Carroll has a 145-94-1 won-lost-tied record. The Sack record is way less important. A 10-yard sack on 1st down is probably very important. A 2-yard sack on 3rd down probably isn't important. Raw data always lacks context.

and the record without Wilson is under .500% with Wilson over .600%. As to raw data when it's a pattern yes it does matter and have context.

Even comparing RW's 2020 sack statistics to RW's 2012 sack statistics is essentially moot: he was a much less-mobile QB in 2020; he probably took 5-6 sacks in 2020 that he would have escaped from in 2012, maybe more some might say. He also threw like 150 more passes in 2020 than in 2012, so of course his sacks would go up this year...for BOTH reasons. And they did...from 33 (2012) to 47 (2020).

But that cant possibly tell the whole story- it needs more context...because his sack RATE in 2020 was exactly the same as in 2012. So, if he was more mobile and escaped more sacks in 2012...why did he still take the same RATE of sacks then?

Was it Pete?

Without nuance and context, data is an enigma.

Here's a statement using sack stats as it's base:

"In 2018, Russ was sacked on 10.7% of his dropbacks, and we won 10 games. In 2019, Russ was sacked on 8.5% of his dropbacks, and we won 11 games. In 2020, Russ was only sacked on 7.8% of his dropbacks, and we won 12 games. We win more games when Russ gets sacked at a lower rate."

Makes sense, huh? However, in 2016 and 2017, Russ was sacked only 7.0% and 7.2% of his dropbacks- the two lowest rates of his career- and we won 10 and 9 games, respectively.

Point being, man...there's just so much nuance inside sack data. Without context, raw sack data is a complete enigma.

 

[John63]

and the record without Wilson is under .500% with Wilson over .600%. As to raw data when it's a pattern yes it does matter and have context.

Carroll coaches to win rather than produce stats. The tactics he has chosen to employ have been successful in that regard. The point is that a higher sack rate has resulted in a higher win rate rather than a lower win rate. Wilson has been 'unnaturally' durable in not missing a start in 9 seasons. You can say Carroll has been lucky with QB health. That would be a valid opinion.

Most would conclude that Carroll does care about sacks and pass blocking, but that he's prepared to accept a higher risk of a QB injury in pursuit of wins.

Except that "accept a higher risk of a QB injury in pursuit of wins" did not work till he got Wilson

 

[John63]

Carroll has a 145-94-1 won-lost-tied record. The Sack record is way less important. A 10-yard sack on 1st down is probably very important. A 2-yard sack on 3rd down probably isn't important. Raw data always lacks context.

and the record without Wilson is under .500% with Wilson over .600%. As to raw data when it's a pattern yes it does matter and have context.

Even comparing RW's 2020 sack statistics to RW's 2012 sack statistics is essentially moot: he was a much less-mobile QB in 2020; he probably took 5-6 sacks in 2020 that he would have escaped from in 2012, maybe more some might say. He also threw like 150 more passes in 2020 than in 2012, so of course his sacks would go up this year...for BOTH reasons. And they did...from 33 (2012) to 47 (2020).

But that cant possibly tell the whole story- it needs more context...because his sack RATE in 2020 was exactly the same as in 2012. So, if he was more mobile and escaped more sacks in 2012...why did he still take the same RATE of sacks then?

Was it Pete?

Without nuance and context, data is an enigma.

Here's a statement using sack stats as it's base:

"In 2018, Russ was sacked on 10.7% of his dropbacks, and we won 10 games. In 2019, Russ was sacked on 8.5% of his dropbacks, and we won 11 games. In 2020, Russ was only sacked on 7.8% of his dropbacks, and we won 12 games. We win more games when Russ gets sacked at a lower rate."

Makes sense, huh? However, in 2016 and 2017, Russ was sacked only 7.0% and 7.2% of his dropbacks- the two lowest rates of his career- and we won 10 and 9 games, respectively.

Point being, man...there's just so much nuance inside sack data. Without context, raw sack data is a complete enigma.

Except again the stats does show that PC has always had QBs who get sacked alot and appears to be okay with it no matter how it impacts the QB, Now why would you want to play for a coach who is okay with his Qb getting sacked 40+ times a year and risking injury? The point of this whole thread was to show the pattern PC has had in the NFL of his QBs being highly sacked, to disprove the accretion some have that it is just Wilson. It is not it is an outcome of the style PC plays, and he has shown he is okay with it.

 

[LoneHawkFan]

Carroll has a 145-94-1 won-lost-tied record. The Sack record is way less important. A 10-yard sack on 1st down is probably very important. A 2-yard sack on 3rd down probably isn't important. Raw data always lacks context.

and the record without Wilson is under .500% with Wilson over .600%. As to raw data when it's a pattern yes it does matter and have context.

Even comparing RW's 2020 sack statistics to RW's 2012 sack statistics is essentially moot: he was a much less-mobile QB in 2020; he probably took 5-6 sacks in 2020 that he would have escaped from in 2012, maybe more some might say. He also threw like 150 more passes in 2020 than in 2012, so of course his sacks would go up this year...for BOTH reasons. And they did...from 33 (2012) to 47 (2020).

But that cant possibly tell the whole story- it needs more context...because his sack RATE in 2020 was exactly the same as in 2012. So, if he was more mobile and escaped more sacks in 2012...why did he still take the same RATE of sacks then?

Was it Pete?

Without nuance and context, data is an enigma.

Here's a statement using sack stats as it's base:

"In 2018, Russ was sacked on 10.7% of his dropbacks, and we won 10 games. In 2019, Russ was sacked on 8.5% of his dropbacks, and we won 11 games. In 2020, Russ was only sacked on 7.8% of his dropbacks, and we won 12 games. We win more games when Russ gets sacked at a lower rate."

Makes sense, huh? However, in 2016 and 2017, Russ was sacked only 7.0% and 7.2% of his dropbacks- the two lowest rates of his career- and we won 10 and 9 games, respectively.

Point being, man...there's just so much nuance inside sack data. Without context, raw sack data is a complete enigma.

Except again the stats does show that PC has always had QBs who get sacked alot and appears to be okay with it no matter how it impacts the QB, Now why would you want to play for a coach who is okay with his Qb getting sacked 40+ times a year and risking injury? The point of this whole thread was to show the pattern PC has had in the NFL of his QBs being highly sacked, to disprove the accretion some have that it is just Wilson. It is not it is an outcome of the style PC plays, and he has shown he is okay with it.

Before I go another post without saying it...I love reading your posts. I love the lack of grammar, spell-check, punctuation...all of it. I love that you appear to be ok with it no matter how it impacts what people think of you.

If the point of the whole thread was to disprove the assertion (I'm assuming that's what you meant) that it isn't "just Wilson", then this has been successful insofar as there are people that actually believe the sack issue is "just Wilson".

But that's just ludicrous.

The world is not binary, dude. It's not one or the other. There is absolutely NOBODY on this board that believes it is "just Wilson". EVERYONE believes it is some part scheme/some part Wilson. If you don't see by watching the games themselves that Russell does take some sacks THAT WERE HIS FAULT, then it's over for you. You have no reason to be here. That's insane. Just as...if you don't see by watching the games that the OLine gets overwhelmed more often than should be happening for a "championship caliber team"...then you're also insane.

 

[IndyHawk]

Pressure Brady and he will consistently hit the hot route, and dink and dunk you to death. Like Manning, his management of the game is just different than Wilson. Brady makes his offensive line better, as did Manning. As Wilson ages, he can’t escape in his old Houdini fashion, and teams know it.

This is exactly what John and others fail to understand..Great point NW!
I may add they also read defenses much better and audible into favorable
plays..Things I don't believe Russ is good at.
Yeah it's easy to blame PC but he's not behind the center and he can't think
or see for him.

 

[chris98251]

Pressure Brady and he will consistently hit the hot route, and dink and dunk you to death. Like Manning, his management of the game is just different than Wilson. Brady makes his offensive line better, as did Manning. As Wilson ages, he can’t escape in his old Houdini fashion, and teams know it.

This is exactly what John and others fail to understand..Great point NW!
I may add they also read defenses much better and audible into favorable
plays..Things I don't believe Russ is good at.
Yeah it's easy to blame PC but he's not behind the center and he can't think
or see for him.

Russell is not bad at audibles, it's whether he allowed to audible, last season I think there was an article on how he was not allowed to audible into certain passing plays. Again Pete control. There was a game Wilson had to call a time out due to this.

 

[TwistedHusky]

What Pete needs is a starting QB that is pretty good, really good with a terrible line, great at improvising with horrible play calling, fairly accurate on the run, and so happy to be starting at all that he will listen + adhere to any stupid rules Pete puts in place.

There really is only one guy that fits that description: Gardner Minshew.

Maybe Pete has a plan to trade for him?

That would be interesting because we have no trade capital at all. But it will be weird to see us essentially swap out Wilson for Minshew.

Because there is little chance any other plan will work.

That wouldn't win a SB, but it could keep us at 8-8 if Norton is not a complete dumpster fire again.

 

[flv]

Is it possible Wilson could have played in a system where he took less sacks and/or had a lower sack-to-drop-back ratio but the team still ended up having a below .500 record?

Absolutely!

The coaching system is a means to an end. How and where you throw the ball is also a means to an end, because some QBs will put their receivers in harm's way more often than others. I'm not looking at Wilson in that regard, it's just part of football. Any FA QB offered a contract with the Seahawks will factor the HC and playing system in to their decision, as they would with offers from other teams.

 

[IndyHawk]

Pressure Brady and he will consistently hit the hot route, and dink and dunk you to death. Like Manning, his management of the game is just different than Wilson. Brady makes his offensive line better, as did Manning. As Wilson ages, he can’t escape in his old Houdini fashion, and teams know it.

This is exactly what John and others fail to understand..Great point NW!
I may add they also read defenses much better and audible into favorable
plays..Things I don't believe Russ is good at.
Yeah it's easy to blame PC but he's not behind the center and he can't think
or see for him.

Russell is not bad at audibles, it's whether he allowed to audible, last season I think there was an article on how he was not allowed to audible into certain passing plays. Again Pete control. There was a game Wilson had to call a time out due to this.

I also mean using audible to run..You figure that would have helped a lot
but never seemed to be used.
It's the QB's job to do this and call protections ect I'm not buying that PC
controls that..Maybe he has to do certain things because Russ isn't
what people think he is?We just don't know.

 

[HawkinNY]

And by comparison:
2012-2020: Tom Brady: 244
2012-2020: Russell Wilson 394

Fix it Pete.

Apparently Pete can't make Russ get the ball out the way Brady can. But then again, all but Rogers and Brees are capable of doing coming close to Tom B.

It's not all about the line.

I honestly believe Wilson has trouble with his height at times. There was a lot of open receivers Wilson didn’t even look at the past few years. I think next year Wilson is gone. Can’t do it this year cause of the cap hit. Wilson will play good for 5-6 weeks then crap out again and everyone will blame the online once again. Then someone will finally point out Wilson is missing open targets and when he does the same with the next team then maybe people will understand Wilson is just great with a great running game and elite defense.

I bet it’s Pete’s fault Wilson threw that pic in the Super Bowl too?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[misfit]

the sacks are a function of Pete's offensive system no matter the QB

Im not sure why this is so hard to understand