Article on Russ and Waldron so far.

So not using the intermediate middle 10 - 20 yards, bailing on plays and not pulling the trigger and trusting his guys.

Jeez, sounds like a few threads we been reading here about .NET observations...............

I think most agree with the basic premise but the article itself doesn't seem very informative.

Matty Brown":1qf3ixl2 said:

Removing the last play of the encounter (a quick throw to Tyler Lockett versus prevent defense) and Freddie Swain’s gift of a 68-yard touchdown versus broken coverage...

Click to expand...

Any time you see something like this it should be a red flag. The problem is that when you arbitrarily remove plays for whatever reason you have nothing to compare to unless you apply the exact same rationale to every other NFL team. QBR, ANY/A, and Completion% when calculated for the rest of the league include broken plays, blown coverages, plays against prevent defenses, and plays in garbage time.

Our offense will look worse if you remove those plays but so will every other offense out there and there's nothing to say that we benefit more or less than other teams do. This issue crops up on these forums occasionally too, in the form of "if you ignore these X plays then..." but there's no clear logic regarding why those plays skew the data relative to other teams.

AgentDib":4ihagc8k said:

I think most agree with the basic premise but the article itself doesn't seem very informative.

Matty Brown":4ihagc8k said:

Removing the last play of the encounter (a quick throw to Tyler Lockett versus prevent defense) and Freddie Swain’s gift of a 68-yard touchdown versus broken coverage...

Click to expand...

Any time you see something like this it should be a red flag. The problem is that when you arbitrarily remove plays for whatever reason you have nothing to compare to unless you apply the exact same rationale to every other NFL team. QBR, ANY/A, and Completion% when calculated for the rest of the league include broken plays, blown coverages, plays against prevent defenses, and plays in garbage time.

Our offense will look worse if you remove those plays but so will every other offense out there and there's nothing to say that we benefit more or less than other teams do. This issue crops up on these forums occasionally too, in the form of "if you ignore these X plays then..." but there's no clear logic regarding why those plays skew the data relative to other teams.

Click to expand...

I think if we're analyzing Russ's ability to lead a pass-heavy offense, and discussing sustainable offense, it's not outlandish to opine that a broken coverage touchdown shouldn't weigh heavily in that conversation.

I agree with you generally that discounting plays is a game with no winners. I just do think that when looking at the yards racked up, and examining whether a QB can function in a structured offense when the explosives aren't there, the Swain TD omission doesn't bother me.

Can't throw the ball when line of sight to the WRs were blocked, may be our WRs could jump as high as they could and wave their hands? Coaching and WRs are failing to make adjustments.

This article sums up not just the start of this season, but the conundrum that is RW. The guy is gifted beyond measure, and flawed in ways not immediately obvious unless you have a strong basis for comparison ( which we do now with Waldron and his success running certain plays in LA), or have some knowledge about a given play's design.

I found this quote particularly telling:

Wilson worrying about getting hit or sacked on the first play of overtime is concerning too. The quarterback had the pass protection to comfortably execute the called passing concept. The adjustment he made to his drop was what allowed the penetration to come through; the offensive line was blocking for a landmark that Wilson decided not to hit.

From the stands, we see Russ scrambling around or rushing a pass due to pressure when in reality, there's so much more that contributes to the seeming success or failure of a given pass attempt.

It's also telling that Waldron has already whittled certain plays from his call sheet given Russ's comfort with them. That may be a bit overstated given the small sample size, but for 'staple' calls to be passed over in favor of the same sideline, or long hitting plays Russ has become known for... its telling.

The question is whether Waldron can coach Russ up and get those plays to run the way they're supposed to. Hopefully we can see some progress this week. We will need it.

hawk45":1x7irj7i said:

I think if we're analyzing Russ's ability to lead a pass-heavy offense, and discussing sustainable offense, it's not outlandish to opine that a broken coverage touchdown shouldn't weigh heavily in that conversation.

Click to expand...

Sure, but if our benchmark for sustainable offense is other offenses that can sustain drives then we should consider that many of them probably take advantage of broken plays as well. Or for example, a key factor of the Packers offense is trying to keep the opponent from substituting and then getting them with twelve men on the field if they do. As long as you are sustaining drives I don't think there's a 'best' approach out there, and importantly anytime you come up with a statistic it needs to be the same for everybody or it's giving false info.

Part of the complexity here is that the deep ball is clearly Wilson's strength, and being really opportunistic is also a great strength to have. If we sustain drives by being really opportunistic then they are still sustained. We want Russ to take the check down more often, but I hope nobody actually wants him to take it all of the time and eliminate his best tool.

AgentDib":2m3g4m8h said:

hawk45":2m3g4m8h said:

I think if we're analyzing Russ's ability to lead a pass-heavy offense, and discussing sustainable offense, it's not outlandish to opine that a broken coverage touchdown shouldn't weigh heavily in that conversation.

Click to expand...

Sure, but if our benchmark for sustainable offense is other offenses that can sustain drives then we should consider that many of them probably take advantage of broken plays as well. Or for example, a key factor of the Packers offense is trying to keep the opponent from substituting and then getting them with twelve men on the field if they do. As long as you are sustaining drives I don't think there's a 'best' approach out there, and importantly anytime you come up with a statistic it needs to be the same for everybody or it's giving false info.

Part of the complexity here is that the deep ball is clearly Wilson's strength, and being really opportunistic is also a great strength to have. If we sustain drives by being really opportunistic then they are still sustained. We want Russ to take the check down more often, but I hope nobody actually wants him to take it all of the time and eliminate his best tool.

Click to expand...

Seriously? When's the last time you saw a sustained drive (multiple plays by definition) of broken plays? Broken plays typically result in a score on the broken PLAY or shortly there after. When's the last time you saw a defense in the NFL consistently give up broken plays on defense from beginning to end?

Not one person has ever or will ever suggest that any QB pass up a broken play opportunity to check the ball down. I hope you're just being cheeky and actually understand that. If not, i dont know what to say. The whole point of being able to sustain drives is when the defense doesn't break down completely on one single play, you have answers to keep from having to punt after 3 plays.

Sustaining drives by being opportunistic is by definition taking what the defense gives you, not pressing the ball down field at the expense of open receivers elsewhere. You don't understand that long pass play doesn't equal broken play yes?

The routes are designed to get players open and disguise them, with formations and then different routes out of those same looks, if the defense bites on a in and Lockett or DK goes long thats the scheme getting them open and yes Russell should see that and go deep, if the deep is covered then the underneath should be there for one of the receivers by design or bad coverage, again Russell should see that and go there.

Not pass up the open underneath guy and throw to a guy with over under or double coverage.

This is a Matty Brown article...so it is essentially a Field Gulls article. If you've followed Matty recently, you know his arguments have been pretty slanted in one direction.

For example, he blamed the offense for the Titans loss. Even though a drive by drive breakdown revealed that the defense simply could not get off the field, as was the case with the Vikings game. He also tried to blame the Seahawks 3rd down percentage in recent years on Russ, when Russ' 3rd down percentage is consistent with the rest of the league. What hasn't been consistent on the team is the defense and the running game. With Lynch leaving, and Carson's health.

He overly critiques Russ for not throwing over the middle. When in reality, Russ' passing chart isn't that much different from other QBs around the league. Teams that prioritize low turnovers (like the Seahawks) tend to not throw over the middle often. As we saw in the Vikings game, Russ CAN throw over the middle. He's obviously advised not to in order to avoid turnovers.

The entire article is filled with convenient facts that ignore the big picture. Which is, what is Russ' passing chart and trends compared to other QBs in the league? How many possessions are the Seahawks offense getting, compared to other offenses in the league with at least average defenses?