Amazing game by Russell Wilson today

[erik2690]

Scheme effects TTT though.


You can't be honestly pointing to TTT and completely ignore the scheme.

Scheme is the biggest factor in TTT.

If time to throw is a big concern then you need to point the finger at the coaching staff, as RW showed last week, he has no trouble getting the ball out quick against zone if the scheme demands it.

Coach doesn't like dink and dunk. So don't be surprised when his QBs have a high TTT.

In ‘17 our scheme was based on short passing game and he held the ball the second longest behind Watson.

GUYS! LOOK HERE TO SEE TICAL'S GAME. He does this every thread I see and just keeps thinking no one will check. This thing about 2017 being based on short passing which he clearly states as if it's factual isn't even worth lying about but it's just what he does. The reality is that Wilson was 5th in the league that year in "Average Intended Air Yards" (1 of the QB's in front only had 100 attempts so he was more accurately 4th in league). This stat tells us pretty explicitly that the line from Tical about it being a short passing attack is absolute BS. He does this constantly. States things as facts that clearly have no research or actual stats behind them. Wilson was also 7th in "Average Completed Air Yards". These 2 stats basically say that both on attempts and completions Wilson was going deep relative to league average. For these stats to turn into "In ‘17 our scheme was based on short passing game" is nothing short of lying or ignorance. Thanks for listening to my TED Talk entitled "Tical's Game".

Lol nothin from nothin but you’re proving my point. Did the quick game work? No, not at all. Not even close. So what did Russ do? When he saw cover-3, did he find the windows to throw the ball into? Surely you don’t think he was throwing deep balls off boot-action like he does now. So how could we possibly explain these numbers? Kick it around a while and let me know what hits you.

You never showed any stats that actually showed we were running quick passing game in 2017. You just said it, but showed nothing to back it up. That stats that are available don't back up what you said. Like also I know you keep trying to act like Russ was some disaster in 2017 despite the top 10 worst rushing attack in history, but he was still 3rd best in completion +/- with 34 TD's and almost 4k yards in the air. He was still completing more throws than would be expected based on depth of target and WR separation than almost anyone. But again I have seen no evidence to support your claim that 2017 was a quick passing game scheme. We know you won't bring any stats to back it up and the ones I see tell kinda the opposite story. If you can find the numbers vs. Cover 3 in 2017 I'll look at them, we already showed you his 2018 passer rating against zone and you didn't like that lol. You can't just keep stating things w/o using facts. You keep getting caught and yet remain very arrogant.

 

[Seymour]

So would being slow to read zones make it more likely that the pressure gets there forcing him to run.

My perception is similar to Tical based on what I see with my eyes. But there is no way to quantify it.

Scheme effects TTT though.


You can't be honestly pointing to TTT and completely ignore the scheme.

Scheme is the biggest factor in TTT.

If time to throw is a big concern then you need to point the finger at the coaching staff, as RW showed last week, he has no trouble getting the ball out quick against zone if the scheme demands it.

Coach doesn't like dink and dunk. So don't be surprised when his QBs have a high TTT.

In ‘17 our scheme was based on short passing game and he held the ball the second longest behind Watson.

GUYS! LOOK HERE TO SEE TICAL'S GAME. He does this every thread I see and just keeps thinking no one will check. This thing about 2017 being based on short passing which he clearly states as if it's factual isn't even worth lying about but it's just what he does. The reality is that Wilson was 5th in the league that year in "Average Intended Air Yards" (1 of the QB's in front only had 100 attempts so he was more accurately 4th in league). This stat tells us pretty explicitly that the line from Tical about it being a short passing attack is absolute BS. He does this constantly. States things as facts that clearly have no research or actual stats behind them. Wilson was also 7th in "Average Completed Air Yards". These 2 stats basically say that both on attempts and completions Wilson was going deep relative to league average. For these stats to turn into "In ‘17 our scheme was based on short passing game" is nothing short of lying or ignorance. Thanks for listening to my TED Talk entitled "Tical's Game".

Well clearly you haven't been issued the "Tical Decoder". When he says "short passes" he is talking strictly about the QB being under 6" tall.

We do however appreciate your contribution to "The Real Facts"!! :2thumbs:

 

[John63]

Nah, he's not God. He's just a hell of a QB, best we've ever had. And he can and will get even better imo.

I foed him so he went with the god thing, that is basically his last ditch effort to try to not have to man up and say he is wrong. Which he has been proven to be factually wrong time and time again

 

[Fade]

GUYS! LOOK HERE TO SEE TICAL'S GAME. He does this every thread I see and just keeps thinking no one will check. This thing about 2017 being based on short passing which he clearly states as if it's factual isn't even worth lying about but it's just what he does. The reality is that Wilson was 5th in the league that year in "Average Intended Air Yards" (1 of the QB's in front only had 100 attempts so he was more accurately 4th in league). This stat tells us pretty explicitly that the line from Tical about it being a short passing attack is absolute BS. He does this constantly. States things as facts that clearly have no research or actual stats behind them. Wilson was also 7th in "Average Completed Air Yards". These 2 stats basically say that both on attempts and completions Wilson was going deep relative to league average. For these stats to turn into "In ‘17 our scheme was based on short passing game" is nothing short of lying or ignorance. Thanks for listening to my TED Talk entitled "Tical's Game".

Hey Tical, why you did you lie about this bro?

 

[John63]

GUYS! LOOK HERE TO SEE TICAL'S GAME. He does this every thread I see and just keeps thinking no one will check. This thing about 2017 being based on short passing which he clearly states as if it's factual isn't even worth lying about but it's just what he does. The reality is that Wilson was 5th in the league that year in "Average Intended Air Yards" (1 of the QB's in front only had 100 attempts so he was more accurately 4th in league). This stat tells us pretty explicitly that the line from Tical about it being a short passing attack is absolute BS. He does this constantly. States things as facts that clearly have no research or actual stats behind them. Wilson was also 7th in "Average Completed Air Yards". These 2 stats basically say that both on attempts and completions Wilson was going deep relative to league average. For these stats to turn into "In ‘17 our scheme was based on short passing game" is nothing short of lying or ignorance. Thanks for listening to my TED Talk entitled "Tical's Game".

Hey Tical, why you did you lie about this bro?

LOL do you really need to ask? LOL

 

[McGruff]

GUYS! LOOK HERE TO SEE TICAL'S GAME. He does this every thread I see and just keeps thinking no one will check. This thing about 2017 being based on short passing which he clearly states as if it's factual isn't even worth lying about but it's just what he does. The reality is that Wilson was 5th in the league that year in "Average Intended Air Yards" (1 of the QB's in front only had 100 attempts so he was more accurately 4th in league). This stat tells us pretty explicitly that the line from Tical about it being a short passing attack is absolute BS. He does this constantly. States things as facts that clearly have no research or actual stats behind them. Wilson was also 7th in "Average Completed Air Yards". These 2 stats basically say that both on attempts and completions Wilson was going deep relative to league average. For these stats to turn into "In ‘17 our scheme was based on short passing game" is nothing short of lying or ignorance. Thanks for listening to my TED Talk entitled "Tical's Game".

Hey Tical, why you did you lie about this bro?

Just because that's what we did, doesnt mean that's what we wanted to do.

 

[Tical21]

Fair enough. Tell me then. What kind of offense did we implement for the ‘17 season?

 

[John63]

GUYS! LOOK HERE TO SEE TICAL'S GAME. He does this every thread I see and just keeps thinking no one will check. This thing about 2017 being based on short passing which he clearly states as if it's factual isn't even worth lying about but it's just what he does. The reality is that Wilson was 5th in the league that year in "Average Intended Air Yards" (1 of the QB's in front only had 100 attempts so he was more accurately 4th in league). This stat tells us pretty explicitly that the line from Tical about it being a short passing attack is absolute BS. He does this constantly. States things as facts that clearly have no research or actual stats behind them. Wilson was also 7th in "Average Completed Air Yards". These 2 stats basically say that both on attempts and completions Wilson was going deep relative to league average. For these stats to turn into "In ‘17 our scheme was based on short passing game" is nothing short of lying or ignorance. Thanks for listening to my TED Talk entitled "Tical's Game".

Hey Tical, why you did you lie about this bro?

Just because that's what we did, doesnt mean that's what we wanted to do.

That is true but does not fit the narrative he is pushing. Also does not explain the falsehood.

 

[erik2690]

Fair enough. Tell me then. What kind of offense did we implement for the ‘17 season?

LOL, say something as if factual, get shown it isn't then tell everyone else to do your work for you? How do you think that's a good strategy? You were the one saying they were running quick passing game, no other poster was declaring what type of scheme they were running. How exactly do you want someone to go about this? I showed you the depth of target numbers, what specific info are you looking for? If you want to argue the stats are telling a false story, then do that work, chart the plays/routes etc. But just declaring the stats are misleading with nothing to back it up is just silly. Over a sample of an entire season the fact that his depth of target was top 5 gives you a very good idea that the scheme wasn't dink and dunk short passing. The % chance that stat is so misleading and that we were actually wanting to throw short but somehow ended up in the top 5 there is super minimal. I won't declare it impossible as that would be anti-science, but it isn't a reasonable assumption at all without a ton of data to back it. Again I don't know exactly what info you want, I can say we used PA passing 9th most in the league in 2017 which is rarely about dink and dunk short passes. Beyond that I think you would need PFF's stats or something to prove your point. I don't know of a free site that tracks all the routes on most plays. I find it odd that you think a Pete team went to a quick passing scheme for a full year though. I'd need to see convincing data to make me buy that since it's so against his MO. Again why are we saying 2017 was so different scheme wise, I haven't seen you explain that logic. Based on memory and checking stats, it seems like we used P-Rich and Tyler Lockett on deep routes with Doug doing all from the slot and Jimmy G was fairly productive in Red Zone. None of that seems like a big departure from other years. What exactly is making you stick to this 2017=short passing narrative? I just checked Next Gen and we had 3 WR (Doug, Tyler, P-Rich) all above 12.5 average targeted air yards. P-Rich was one of the tops in the league at 15.1. Again no stat will tell you everything, but I'm at least providing verifiable info and none of it frankly is pointing to 2017 being about short passing.

 

[Fade]

GUYS! LOOK HERE TO SEE TICAL'S GAME. He does this every thread I see and just keeps thinking no one will check. This thing about 2017 being based on short passing which he clearly states as if it's factual isn't even worth lying about but it's just what he does. The reality is that Wilson was 5th in the league that year in "Average Intended Air Yards" (1 of the QB's in front only had 100 attempts so he was more accurately 4th in league). This stat tells us pretty explicitly that the line from Tical about it being a short passing attack is absolute BS. He does this constantly. States things as facts that clearly have no research or actual stats behind them. Wilson was also 7th in "Average Completed Air Yards". These 2 stats basically say that both on attempts and completions Wilson was going deep relative to league average. For these stats to turn into "In ‘17 our scheme was based on short passing game" is nothing short of lying or ignorance. Thanks for listening to my TED Talk entitled "Tical's Game".

Hey Tical, why you did you lie about this bro?

Just because that's what we did, doesnt mean that's what we wanted to do.

Fair enough. Tell me then. What kind of offense did we implement for the ‘17 season?

So you guys were on that team!?!?

The same offense as before (Pete Ball), with more Bevell bubble screens mixed in to be a substitute for the anemic, and historically bad running game.

2017 1st qtr split
69/119
57.98% Completion
671 yards
4 TDs
3 INTs
5.6 YPA -->(Bubble Screens) (Conservative, don't lose the game.) <--
74.6 Passer Rating
Sacked 14 times

2017 4th qtr split (By now the gameplan is in the trash.)
94/139
67.63%
1303 yards
19 TDs (NFL Record)
1 INT
9.4 YPA
134.1 Passer Rating
Sacked only 3 times!!!

Wilson had no running game to lean on in the 4th qtr. 22 eyeballs were on Wilson, and they couldn't stop him.

Let me guess opponents were running zone in the 1st qtr, and they played man in the 4th qtr. The scheme and Pete's philosophy itself had very little to do with it. LOL. Wilson can't read zone defenses. LMAO. No, this was a product of scheme and poor gameplanning (Cabevell).

 

[John63]

GUYS! LOOK HERE TO SEE TICAL'S GAME. He does this every thread I see and just keeps thinking no one will check. This thing about 2017 being based on short passing which he clearly states as if it's factual isn't even worth lying about but it's just what he does. The reality is that Wilson was 5th in the league that year in "Average Intended Air Yards" (1 of the QB's in front only had 100 attempts so he was more accurately 4th in league). This stat tells us pretty explicitly that the line from Tical about it being a short passing attack is absolute BS. He does this constantly. States things as facts that clearly have no research or actual stats behind them. Wilson was also 7th in "Average Completed Air Yards". These 2 stats basically say that both on attempts and completions Wilson was going deep relative to league average. For these stats to turn into "In ‘17 our scheme was based on short passing game" is nothing short of lying or ignorance. Thanks for listening to my TED Talk entitled "Tical's Game".

Hey Tical, why you did you lie about this bro?

Just because that's what we did, doesnt mean that's what we wanted to do.

Fair enough. Tell me then. What kind of offense did we implement for the ‘17 season?

So you guys were on that team!?!?

The same offense as before (Pete Ball), with more Bevell bubble screens mixed in to be a substitute for the anemic, and historically bad running game.

2017 1st qtr split
69/119
57.98% Completion
671 yards
4 TDs
3 INTs
5.6 YPA -->(Bubble Screens) (Conservative, don't lose the game.) <--
74.6 Passer Rating
Sacked 14 times

2017 4th qtr split (By now the gameplan is in the trash.)
94/139
67.63%
1303 yards
19 TDs (NFL Record)
1 INT
9.4 YPA
134.1 Passer Rating
Sacked only 3 times!!!

Wilson had no running game to lean on in the 4th qtr. 22 eyeballs were on Wilson, and they couldn't stop him.

Let me guess opponents were running zone in the 1st qtr, and they played man in the 4th qtr. The scheme and Pete's philosophy itself had very little to do with it. LOL. Wilson can't read zone defenses. LMAO. No, this was a product of scheme and poor gameplanning (Cabevell).

Lol wait for it. Wait for it.

 

[KiwiHawk]

Fact. Holds the ball longer than anyone. Verifiable. Fact. Always near the top of the league in sacks. If you were to try to decipher if someone had trouble reading zone coverages, aren’t those EXACTLY what you would look at?

Where are these FACTS you keep bragging about providing?

Wait why would those stats be more relevant than things like Passer Rating against zone coverage? LOL. Sacks can happen in zone or man. The passer rating stat cited is specific to the thing you're talking about. I can't see how that wouldn't be more relevant.

Sacks is not one of the components of passer rating. It couldn't be less relevant in a discussion about sacks.

I feel like you've missed something b/c your comment doesn't make sense. Tical is through this thread arguing Wilson doesn't do good against zone coverages. Someone posted a stat that Wilson had the highest passer rating against zone coverage of any QB in the league, seems pretty relevant to a disscussion about if he's good against zone. Instead Tical says the stats that prove he's bad against zone are TTT and sacks. I'm saying both of those things happen against zone and man coverage so aren't really direct links at all to his point about zone coverage. However the passer rating stat cited earlier was specifically about vs. Zone coverage therefore more relevant. I was in no way saying that sacks were part of passer rating. So yeah, the overarching discussion was about zone coverage reading not sacks as you said. Tical is just saying that sacks being high is a stat that proves his point about Russ vs. zone, that's were the sacks talk came from.

Ok, I'll explain.

Let's use a completely silly hypothetical model to highlight the point. Our fictional QB throws the ball 10 times for 10 completions for 120 yards and 2 touchdowns. He gets a perfect passer rating of 156.3. But let's say he did that on 67 passing attempts, where the remainder ended in sacks. 10 passes, 10 completions, but 57 sacks. What is his QB rating now? Still 156.3. As long as he doesn't throw the ball, the passer rating remains perfect.

Now, 10/10 for 120 and 2TD says the guy is effective against the zone, without any more information. However, if you include the sacks, you can't say he's an effective passer against the zone.

So because one of the points is that Wilson takes too many sacks vs zone coverage, you can't say that passer rating is a valid measure of effectiveness vs zone, because it ignores any plays resulting in sacks.

In fact, passer rating is really a measure of interceptions, since that is what it punishes hardest. Let's say our guy throws no TDs. Rating drops to 116.7. Still impressive. But let's say he does throw 2 TDs, but also throws an Int. 116.7 again. One INT negates 2 TDs. What about the yards? One INT negates ALL of the yards. Even with only 2 yards passing, both for 1-yard TDs, our QB has a rating of 118.8.

So yards are not important, and TDs are only half as good as INTs are bad, and sacks don't count at all.

If I said "this guys is good against the zone" while ignoring yards, discounting TDs, and not counting sacks, you'd laugh at me.

As long as Wilson doesn't throw picks, it doesn't matter if he holds the ball forever (TTT) and eventually take sacks, because those numbers don't show up on Passer Rating. Therefore, Passer Rating is not evidence against either of those claims, and is pretty much irrelevant to the conversation (in part because it's one of the NFL's most irrelevant stats to begin with).

You know why Wilson has a great passer rating over his career? Because his head coach hates turnovers and teaches him not to make them. That's it.

 

[McGruff]

Nailed it.

 

[Tical21]

Fair enough. Tell me then. What kind of offense did we implement for the ‘17 season?

LOL, say something as if factual, get shown it isn't then tell everyone else to do your work for you? How do you think that's a good strategy? You were the one saying they were running quick passing game, no other poster was declaring what type of scheme they were running. How exactly do you want someone to go about this? I showed you the depth of target numbers, what specific info are you looking for? If you want to argue the stats are telling a false story, then do that work, chart the plays/routes etc. But just declaring the stats are misleading with nothing to back it up is just silly. Over a sample of an entire season the fact that his depth of target was top 5 gives you a very good idea that the scheme wasn't dink and dunk short passing. The % chance that stat is so misleading and that we were actually wanting to throw short but somehow ended up in the top 5 there is super minimal. I won't declare it impossible as that would be anti-science, but it isn't a reasonable assumption at all without a ton of data to back it. Again I don't know exactly what info you want, I can say we used PA passing 9th most in the league in 2017 which is rarely about dink and dunk short passes. Beyond that I think you would need PFF's stats or something to prove your point. I don't know of a free site that tracks all the routes on most plays. I find it odd that you think a Pete team went to a quick passing scheme for a full year though. I'd need to see convincing data to make me buy that since it's so against his MO. Again why are we saying 2017 was so different scheme wise, I haven't seen you explain that logic. Based on memory and checking stats, it seems like we used P-Rich and Tyler Lockett on deep routes with Doug doing all from the slot and Jimmy G was fairly productive in Red Zone. None of that seems like a big departure from other years. What exactly is making you stick to this 2017=short passing narrative? I just checked Next Gen and we had 3 WR (Doug, Tyler, P-Rich) all above 12.5 average targeted air yards. P-Rich was one of the tops in the league at 15.1. Again no stat will tell you everything, but I'm at least providing verifiable info and none of it frankly is pointing to 2017 being about short passing.

Curious, if you don’t mind. How does this compare to 15 and 18?

 

[Tical21]

Wait why would those stats be more relevant than things like Passer Rating against zone coverage? LOL. Sacks can happen in zone or man. The passer rating stat cited is specific to the thing you're talking about. I can't see how that wouldn't be more relevant.

Sacks is not one of the components of passer rating. It couldn't be less relevant in a discussion about sacks.

I feel like you've missed something b/c your comment doesn't make sense. Tical is through this thread arguing Wilson doesn't do good against zone coverages. Someone posted a stat that Wilson had the highest passer rating against zone coverage of any QB in the league, seems pretty relevant to a disscussion about if he's good against zone. Instead Tical says the stats that prove he's bad against zone are TTT and sacks. I'm saying both of those things happen against zone and man coverage so aren't really direct links at all to his point about zone coverage. However the passer rating stat cited earlier was specifically about vs. Zone coverage therefore more relevant. I was in no way saying that sacks were part of passer rating. So yeah, the overarching discussion was about zone coverage reading not sacks as you said. Tical is just saying that sacks being high is a stat that proves his point about Russ vs. zone, that's were the sacks talk came from.

Ok, I'll explain.

Let's use a completely silly hypothetical model to highlight the point. Our fictional QB throws the ball 10 times for 10 completions for 120 yards and 2 touchdowns. He gets a perfect passer rating of 156.3. But let's say he did that on 67 passing attempts, where the remainder ended in sacks. 10 passes, 10 completions, but 57 sacks. What is his QB rating now? Still 156.3. As long as he doesn't throw the ball, the passer rating remains perfect.

Now, 10/10 for 120 and 2TD says the guy is effective against the zone, without any more information. However, if you include the sacks, you can't say he's an effective passer against the zone.

So because one of the points is that Wilson takes too many sacks vs zone coverage, you can't say that passer rating is a valid measure of effectiveness vs zone, because it ignores any plays resulting in sacks.

In fact, passer rating is really a measure of interceptions, since that is what it punishes hardest. Let's say our guy throws no TDs. Rating drops to 116.7. Still impressive. But let's say he does throw 2 TDs, but also throws an Int. 116.7 again. One INT negates 2 TDs. What about the yards? One INT negates ALL of the yards. Even with only 2 yards passing, both for 1-yard TDs, our QB has a rating of 118.8.

So yards are not important, and TDs are only half as good as INTs are bad, and sacks don't count at all.

If I said "this guys is good against the zone" while ignoring yards, discounting TDs, and not counting sacks, you'd laugh at me.

As long as Wilson doesn't throw picks, it doesn't matter if he holds the ball forever (TTT) and eventually take sacks, because those numbers don't show up on Passer Rating. Therefore, Passer Rating is not evidence against either of those claims, and is pretty much irrelevant to the conversation (in part because it's one of the NFL's most irrelevant stats to begin with).

You know why Wilson has a great passer rating over his career? Because his head coach hates turnovers and teaches him not to make them. That's it.

Not entirely it. He’s also a VERY accurate passer.

 

[John63]

Wait why would those stats be more relevant than things like Passer Rating against zone coverage? LOL. Sacks can happen in zone or man. The passer rating stat cited is specific to the thing you're talking about. I can't see how that wouldn't be more relevant.

Sacks is not one of the components of passer rating. It couldn't be less relevant in a discussion about sacks.

I feel like you've missed something b/c your comment doesn't make sense. Tical is through this thread arguing Wilson doesn't do good against zone coverages. Someone posted a stat that Wilson had the highest passer rating against zone coverage of any QB in the league, seems pretty relevant to a disscussion about if he's good against zone. Instead Tical says the stats that prove he's bad against zone are TTT and sacks. I'm saying both of those things happen against zone and man coverage so aren't really direct links at all to his point about zone coverage. However the passer rating stat cited earlier was specifically about vs. Zone coverage therefore more relevant. I was in no way saying that sacks were part of passer rating. So yeah, the overarching discussion was about zone coverage reading not sacks as you said. Tical is just saying that sacks being high is a stat that proves his point about Russ vs. zone, that's were the sacks talk came from.

Ok, I'll explain.

Let's use a completely silly hypothetical model to highlight the point. Our fictional QB throws the ball 10 times for 10 completions for 120 yards and 2 touchdowns. He gets a perfect passer rating of 156.3. But let's say he did that on 67 passing attempts, where the remainder ended in sacks. 10 passes, 10 completions, but 57 sacks. What is his QB rating now? Still 156.3. As long as he doesn't throw the ball, the passer rating remains perfect.

Now, 10/10 for 120 and 2TD says the guy is effective against the zone, without any more information. However, if you include the sacks, you can't say he's an effective passer against the zone.

So because one of the points is that Wilson takes too many sacks vs zone coverage, you can't say that passer rating is a valid measure of effectiveness vs zone, because it ignores any plays resulting in sacks.

In fact, passer rating is really a measure of interceptions, since that is what it punishes hardest. Let's say our guy throws no TDs. Rating drops to 116.7. Still impressive. But let's say he does throw 2 TDs, but also throws an Int. 116.7 again. One INT negates 2 TDs. What about the yards? One INT negates ALL of the yards. Even with only 2 yards passing, both for 1-yard TDs, our QB has a rating of 118.8.

So yards are not important, and TDs are only half as good as INTs are bad, and sacks don't count at all.

If I said "this guys is good against the zone" while ignoring yards, discounting TDs, and not counting sacks, you'd laugh at me.

As long as Wilson doesn't throw picks, it doesn't matter if he holds the ball forever (TTT) and eventually take sacks, because those numbers don't show up on Passer Rating. Therefore, Passer Rating is not evidence against either of those claims, and is pretty much irrelevant to the conversation (in part because it's one of the NFL's most irrelevant stats to begin with).

You know why Wilson has a great passer rating over his career? Because his head coach hates turnovers and teaches him not to make them. That's it.

Okay you opinion good for you. Does not support anything tical has tried to push and unless you have a better measuring stat or fact we go with what we got.

 

[John63]

Enough said. Offensive coor Brian Schottenheimer says reason #Seahawks just don’t go quick throws in pass game all the time is they value the deep, play-action passes and using the run to set that up. “It varies,” he says. @thenewstribune https://t.co/CNJeMimkm7

 

[Fade]

Wait why would those stats be more relevant than things like Passer Rating against zone coverage? LOL. Sacks can happen in zone or man. The passer rating stat cited is specific to the thing you're talking about. I can't see how that wouldn't be more relevant.

Sacks is not one of the components of passer rating. It couldn't be less relevant in a discussion about sacks.

I feel like you've missed something b/c your comment doesn't make sense. Tical is through this thread arguing Wilson doesn't do good against zone coverages. Someone posted a stat that Wilson had the highest passer rating against zone coverage of any QB in the league, seems pretty relevant to a disscussion about if he's good against zone. Instead Tical says the stats that prove he's bad against zone are TTT and sacks. I'm saying both of those things happen against zone and man coverage so aren't really direct links at all to his point about zone coverage. However the passer rating stat cited earlier was specifically about vs. Zone coverage therefore more relevant. I was in no way saying that sacks were part of passer rating. So yeah, the overarching discussion was about zone coverage reading not sacks as you said. Tical is just saying that sacks being high is a stat that proves his point about Russ vs. zone, that's were the sacks talk came from.

Ok, I'll explain.

Let's use a completely silly hypothetical model to highlight the point. Our fictional QB throws the ball 10 times for 10 completions for 120 yards and 2 touchdowns. He gets a perfect passer rating of 156.3. But let's say he did that on 67 passing attempts, where the remainder ended in sacks. 10 passes, 10 completions, but 57 sacks. What is his QB rating now? Still 156.3. As long as he doesn't throw the ball, the passer rating remains perfect.

Now, 10/10 for 120 and 2TD says the guy is effective against the zone, without any more information. However, if you include the sacks, you can't say he's an effective passer against the zone.

So because one of the points is that Wilson takes too many sacks vs zone coverage, you can't say that passer rating is a valid measure of effectiveness vs zone, because it ignores any plays resulting in sacks.

In fact, passer rating is really a measure of interceptions, since that is what it punishes hardest. Let's say our guy throws no TDs. Rating drops to 116.7. Still impressive. But let's say he does throw 2 TDs, but also throws an Int. 116.7 again. One INT negates 2 TDs. What about the yards? One INT negates ALL of the yards. Even with only 2 yards passing, both for 1-yard TDs, our QB has a rating of 118.8.

So yards are not important, and TDs are only half as good as INTs are bad, and sacks don't count at all.

If I said "this guys is good against the zone" while ignoring yards, discounting TDs, and not counting sacks, you'd laugh at me.

As long as Wilson doesn't throw picks, it doesn't matter if he holds the ball forever (TTT) and eventually take sacks, because those numbers don't show up on Passer Rating. Therefore, Passer Rating is not evidence against either of those claims, and is pretty much irrelevant to the conversation (in part because it's one of the NFL's most irrelevant stats to begin with).

You know why Wilson has a great passer rating over his career? Because his head coach hates turnovers and teaches him not to make them. That's it.

Nailed it.

Nailed nothing. Kiwi & Tical are throwing out a hypothetical theory, trying to make it a reality.

When I got the numbers right here. The Real Reality.

2017 1st qtr split
69/119
57.98% Completion
671 yards
4 TDs
3 INTs
5.6 YPA -->(Bubble Screens) (Conservative, don't lose the game.) <--
74.6 Passer Rating
Sacked 14 times

2017 4th qtr split (By now the gameplan is in the trash.)
94/139
67.63%
1303 yards
19 TDs (NFL Record)
1 INT
9.4 YPA
134.1 Passer Rating
Sacked only 3 times!!!

Wilson had no running game to lean on in the 4th qtr. 22 eyeballs were on Wilson, and they couldn't stop him.

Let me guess opponents were running zone in the 1st qtr, and they played man in the 4th qtr. The scheme and Pete's philosophy itself had very little to do with it. LOL. Wilson can't read zone defenses. LMAO. No, this was a product of scheme and poor gameplanning (Cabevell).

Take a long hard look at the sacks please.

 

[erik2690]

Wait why would those stats be more relevant than things like Passer Rating against zone coverage? LOL. Sacks can happen in zone or man. The passer rating stat cited is specific to the thing you're talking about. I can't see how that wouldn't be more relevant.

Sacks is not one of the components of passer rating. It couldn't be less relevant in a discussion about sacks.

I feel like you've missed something b/c your comment doesn't make sense. Tical is through this thread arguing Wilson doesn't do good against zone coverages. Someone posted a stat that Wilson had the highest passer rating against zone coverage of any QB in the league, seems pretty relevant to a disscussion about if he's good against zone. Instead Tical says the stats that prove he's bad against zone are TTT and sacks. I'm saying both of those things happen against zone and man coverage so aren't really direct links at all to his point about zone coverage. However the passer rating stat cited earlier was specifically about vs. Zone coverage therefore more relevant. I was in no way saying that sacks were part of passer rating. So yeah, the overarching discussion was about zone coverage reading not sacks as you said. Tical is just saying that sacks being high is a stat that proves his point about Russ vs. zone, that's were the sacks talk came from.

Ok, I'll explain.

Let's use a completely silly hypothetical model to highlight the point. Our fictional QB throws the ball 10 times for 10 completions for 120 yards and 2 touchdowns. He gets a perfect passer rating of 156.3. But let's say he did that on 67 passing attempts, where the remainder ended in sacks. 10 passes, 10 completions, but 57 sacks. What is his QB rating now? Still 156.3. As long as he doesn't throw the ball, the passer rating remains perfect.

Now, 10/10 for 120 and 2TD says the guy is effective against the zone, without any more information. However, if you include the sacks, you can't say he's an effective passer against the zone.

So because one of the points is that Wilson takes too many sacks vs zone coverage, you can't say that passer rating is a valid measure of effectiveness vs zone, because it ignores any plays resulting in sacks.

In fact, passer rating is really a measure of interceptions, since that is what it punishes hardest. Let's say our guy throws no TDs. Rating drops to 116.7. Still impressive. But let's say he does throw 2 TDs, but also throws an Int. 116.7 again. One INT negates 2 TDs. What about the yards? One INT negates ALL of the yards. Even with only 2 yards passing, both for 1-yard TDs, our QB has a rating of 118.8.

So yards are not important, and TDs are only half as good as INTs are bad, and sacks don't count at all.

If I said "this guys is good against the zone" while ignoring yards, discounting TDs, and not counting sacks, you'd laugh at me.

As long as Wilson doesn't throw picks, it doesn't matter if he holds the ball forever (TTT) and eventually take sacks, because those numbers don't show up on Passer Rating. Therefore, Passer Rating is not evidence against either of those claims, and is pretty much irrelevant to the conversation (in part because it's one of the NFL's most irrelevant stats to begin with).

You know why Wilson has a great passer rating over his career? Because his head coach hates turnovers and teaches him not to make them. That's it.

But no one has shown "sacks vs. zone coverage", none of you. Just "sacks" which happen vs. man as well and therefore are less relevant to a discussion specifically about Zone coverage than a stat like "passer rating vs. Zone coverage" b/c it's specific to the coverage you are arguing about. Same with TTT, until you show me the gap in TTT and sacks vs Man and vs Zone it has very little relevance to a Zone specific discussion. You side stepped the point again and just wrote a long paragraph about passer rating not being a perfect stat which was not close to my point. Yes, Wilson was an INT. machine in college and most head coaches don't preach against INt. brilliant. It was all Pete teaching Russ how to not throw to the other team. Also just FYI passer ratings correlation to winning is one of the highest of any stats. It's not perfect by any means but you can play the game you are with almost any stat. Again I'm confused by how silly this is, my main point was that citing sacks which come vs man and zone as a way to show poor play vs. only 1 of them just doesn't make any logical sense until you show the differential. Your issue with the passer rating stat can be used against Tical's point the same way. Saying he takes more sacks vs. Zone (you haven't shown that) doesn't prove he's bad against zone the same way you argue passer rating doesn't show he's great vs. zone. Like both can be true, but at least the passer rating stat was specific to the coverage being discussed. Using hypothetical stats to try to say the passer rating doesn't matter is kinda silly. Go find the actual stats to negate instead of 'well maybe he got sacked 100 times and threw for no yards but had couple TD's', it's kinda silly. There's rarely a high passer rating performance where if you break it down even by sacks the QB played badly. Over the sample size of a season the likelihood his bad play vs. zone is just masked by a league best passer rating vs. zone is extremely small. That's just not a reasonable assumption w/o seeing data to show it. Over a small attempt sample passer rating and most stats can be pretty tricky as you showed, but I'm not buying that over a season long sample size his bad play was just in the areas PR doesn't factor in well.

 

[erik2690]

Curious, if you don’t mind. How does this compare to 15 and 18?

What specifically are you asking about? What stat?