Aaron Levine: Seahawks undefeated at home when they give up

[sutz]

400 yards passing under Pete Carroll.

Haven't verified that, but it is interesting. :mrgreen:

 

[Jville]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/AaronQ13Fox/status/1170838819861487616[/tweet][tweet]https://twitter.com/Curtis_Crabtree/status/1170869007206862849[/tweet]

 

[sutz]

Thanks for posting that. I was just repeating what he said on air. Apparently off a tad, but still an interesting stat. :mrgreen:

 

[ApnaHawk]

And that’s why you always play to stop the run first

 

[Sports Hernia]

Wow, that’s an odd stat. An Anomaly I’m sure.

 

[chris98251]

Sure glad we are in a passing league

 

[SeaChase]

When the other team is down they have to throw...

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Heard that last night too, strange stat for sure. That long pass at the end of the half was a next level fluke. Thompson crapped the bed on that one to say the least, zero excuse for letting ANYONE get behind you like that. Let alone jumping up like it's a rebound :roll:

 

[sutz]

Wow, that’s an odd stat. An Anomaly I’m sure.

I'm not so sure. As an :les: I remember an old stat they used to track regarding rushing yards (I'll get to passing yards directly). Back in the day, 15-20 years ago, the talking heads used to put up stats like "winning % when a team rushes for 100 yds" and such. The never really went into detail about how teams got to 100 yards, but they seemed to like it.

Now at the time, rushing for 100 yds was a 75% or more indicator of winning, particularly for the old Dallas teams that went to several SBs. Concurrently, the winning percentage for 300 yd passing games was more like 50%.

Now, in the modern game, 300 yard passing games are more prevalent and I'm sure the winning percentage is probably higher, though I can't really say so, I don't look at stats that deeply.

The point being, asking why they threw for 300+ yards had meaning. If they wre desperate and playing the whole game from behind, then yeah, they're gonna get more yards. If it was in the game plan, if they planned to throw for yards even when they were ahead in the score, it doesn't mean as much. Nowadays, I suspect 400 is the new 300, in that teams that throw that much are probably more in the desperation mode than the ball control mode.

In the end, burning up clock and shortening the game are easier in the running game than the passing game, where mistakes and/or good defensive plays can stop the clock.

 

[getnasty]

Makes sense that teams are down and are gonna have to throw but yesterday was a little different story.

 

[MD5eahawks]

I think people are looking at that in the wrong light.

First thing that you should take into account is that it has only happened 6 times. So a PC coached team rarely gives up a lot of yardage. I think there are two reasons for this.
1. The run first offense. It eats the clock. There just isn’t enough time to rack up all those yards.
2. PC coaching of tackling fundamentals. It’s not common for a lot of YAC.

Furthermore, PC doesn’t care about yards between the 20’s. His defenses are usually among the best in the Red Zone.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Maybe they should cut WAY back on that stupid draw play though.

 

[Mad Dog]

Makes sense that teams are down and are gonna have to throw but yesterday was a little different story.

except in those games listed the team was often ahead or only down by one score. So yesterday fit the mold.

I think the big thing in those games is that a) we were stopping the run and b) we were playing soft zones giving them open receivers all day. But eventually those zones tighten up making it hard to score consistently.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

The Jump ball touchdown at the end of the half added to that total, and what a horrific "effort" by Tedric. He's just not that good, period. We had just taken the lead and all the momentum and he allows that to happen.