ESPN Insider: Seahawks offense is sneaky good

[TXHawk]

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/ ... e-2014-nfl

Nine reasons the Seahawks' O is better than its defense this season

Which is better: the Seattle Seahawks' offense, or the Seattle Seahawks' defense?

You probably immediately answered "Defense!" That's the Legion of Boom, after all. Richard Sherman is on the cover of "Madden" this year. The Seattle defense is so deep that one of its backup linebackers won Super Bowl MVP.

Yet through the first five weeks of 2014, it's actually the Seattle offense that is doing more to drive the Seahawks' 3-1 record. This year the Seahawks rank second in Football Outsiders' offensive DVOA metric, trailing only the Denver Broncos. The defense is only fourth. (DVOA, or Defense-adjusted Value Over Average, is explained further here.)

Surprised? Don't be. Seattle has not suddenly gone from a one-sided defensive juggernaut to a balanced, all-around successful team. The Seahawks' offense has been good for three years now. Seattle ranked fourth in offensive DVOA in 2012 and seventh in 2013.

You know the big names: Russell Wilson, Marshawn Lynch, Percy Harvin. But did you know just how good the Seattle offense is, and how it works? Here are nine reasons the Super Bowl champions excel even when the Legion of Boom is on the sidelines.

I'd post the whole thing for those who don't have ESPN Insider but I don't know if that would be cool or not so here is a summary. It's got some interesting analysis even though he uses the wretched QBR at times.

1. They're built around the run. Hawks are first in rushing DVOA and Wilson is first in rushing DYAR among quarterbacks.

2. They don't depend on the zone-read option to have success running the ball. They are barely above league average on zone read runs this year but it forces defenders to respect run action and misdirections.

3. They excel in play action. The Seahawks use play action more than anyone else in the league and Wilson has an 88.5 QBR on PA passes.

4. Wilson's not as good outside of the pocket as you might think. He's been leaving the pocket less often than last year and his 56.5 QBR is ranked tenth, which is lower than his overall QBR. So it's not as though his success is limited to only when he's on the move.

5. They're deliberate. They are ranked at or near the bottom of the league the past several years in time between plays and they don't abandon the run when behind.

6. They avoid turnovers. The offense has turned the ball over only once this season and they were fifth in turnovers per drive last year.

7. They build leads. The Seahawks have the best DVOA in the league prior to halftime and are ninth in the second half. Last year they were fifth before halftime and 16th after. (This supports my opinion that they tend to be too conservative when they have the lead).

8. They depend heavily on undrafted wide receivers. Baldwin was second in the NFL in DVOA last year among wide receivers and Kearse, Lockette, and Walters have also been productive this year. Only seven teams since 1978 have gotten more production out of undrafted wide receivers than the Seahawks did last year, and the percentage is up this year.

9. They are shockingly right handed. Wilson has been at or near the top of the league in passes thrown to the right side of the field and DVOA on those passes over the past three seasons and that tendency to throw to the right by the Seahawks predates Wilson and even Pete Carroll.

 

[Anguish]

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11668428/the-seattle-seahawks-sneaky-good-offense-2014-nfl

Nine reasons the Seahawks' O is better than its defense this season

Which is better: the Seattle Seahawks' offense, or the Seattle Seahawks' defense?

You probably immediately answered "Defense!" That's the Legion of Boom, after all. Richard Sherman is on the cover of "Madden" this year. The Seattle defense is so deep that one of its backup linebackers won Super Bowl MVP.

Yet through the first five weeks of 2014, it's actually the Seattle offense that is doing more to drive the Seahawks' 3-1 record. This year the Seahawks rank second in Football Outsiders' offensive DVOA metric, trailing only the Denver Broncos. The defense is only fourth. (DVOA, or Defense-adjusted Value Over Average, is explained further here.)

Surprised? Don't be. Seattle has not suddenly gone from a one-sided defensive juggernaut to a balanced, all-around successful team. The Seahawks' offense has been good for three years now. Seattle ranked fourth in offensive DVOA in 2012 and seventh in 2013.

You know the big names: Russell Wilson, Marshawn Lynch, Percy Harvin. But did you know just how good the Seattle offense is, and how it works? Here are nine reasons the Super Bowl champions excel even when the Legion of Boom is on the sidelines.

I'd post the whole thing for those who don't have ESPN Insider but I don't know if that would be cool or not so here is a summary. It's got some interesting analysis even though he uses the wretched QBR at times.

1. They're built around the run. Hawks are first in rushing DVOA and Wilson is first in rushing DYAR among quarterbacks.

2. They don't depend on the zone-read option to have success running the ball. They are barely above league average on zone read runs this year but it forces defenders to respect run action and misdirections.

3. They excel in play action. The Seahawks use play action more than anyone else in the league and Wilson has an 88.5 QBR on PA passes.

4. Wilson's not as good outside of the pocket as you might think. He's been leaving the pocket less often than last year and his 56.5 QBR is ranked tenth, which is lower than his overall QBR. So it's not as though his success is limited to only when he's on the move.

5. They're deliberate. They are ranked at or near the bottom of the league the past several years in time between plays and they don't abandon the run when behind.

6. They avoid turnovers. The offense has turned the ball over only once this season and they were fifth in turnovers per drive last year.

7. They build leads. The Seahawks have the best DVOA in the league prior to halftime and are ninth in the second half. Last year they were fifth before halftime and 16th after. (This supports my opinion that they tend to be too conservative when they have the lead).

8. They depend heavily on undrafted wide receivers. Baldwin was second in the NFL in DVOA last year among wide receivers and Kearse, Lockette, and Walters have also been productive this year. Only seven teams since 1978 have gotten more production out of undrafted wide receivers than the Seahawks did last year, and the percentage is up this year.

9. They are shockingly right handed. Wilson has been at or near the top of the league in passes thrown to the right side of the field and DVOA on those passes over the past three seasons and that tendency to throw to the right by the Seahawks predates Wilson and even Pete Carroll.

It would not be cool. The rules state as much...

Thanks for pairing it down and paraphrasing.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

#6 is the biggest reason of all IMO. Pete might well agree.

 

[Anonymous]

All of that, but we are still #30 on passing offense so far this season.

Even though we are a running team, I'd just like to see us have a little more passing squeezed in there with all the other cool stuff we do well.

 

[Trenchbroom]

All of that, but we are still #30 on passing offense so far this season.

Even though we are a running team, I'd just like to see us have a little more passing squeezed in there with all the other cool stuff we do well.

Whatever works, I'm good.

 

[Treghc]

All of that, but we are still #30 on passing offense so far this season.

Even though we are a running team, I'd just like to see us have a little more passing squeezed in there with all the other cool stuff we do well.

No need to change at the moment. We're winning. The only game we lost was because of the defense against SD. The offense hasn't even been firing on all cylinders and we're still scoring with relative ease. I wouldn't be concerned about anything. Numbers are just numbers and the only ones that matter are what follows the W.

Thanks for paraphrasing the article, TXHawk.

 

[Lazyfingers]

I guess someone can delete the thread I started yesterday

 

[Cartire]

All of that, but we are still #30 on passing offense so far this season.

Even though we are a running team, I'd just like to see us have a little more passing squeezed in there with all the other cool stuff we do well.

Oh, in case you already forgot, they rank Passing offense by total yards. Its a simple mistake to forget that. Even though its pretty apparent efficiency and scoring are a far better indicator for success, total yards keeps getting the nod because of its sexy big number display.

(... Do we really have to do this every year? Complain about our yards when we have gone to the playoffs the last 2 years and have a superbowl from one of them. Are we really going to keep acting like we need more yards?)

 

[hawk45]

All of that, but we are still #30 on passing offense so far this season.

Even though we are a running team, I'd just like to see us have a little more passing squeezed in there with all the other cool stuff we do well.

Oh, in case you already forgot, they rank Passing offense by total yards. Its a simple mistake to forget that. Even though its pretty apparent efficiency and scoring are a far better indicator for success, total yards keeps getting the nod because of its sexy big number display.

(... Do we really have to do this every year? Complain about our yards when we have gone to the playoffs the last 2 years and have a superbowl from one of them. Are we really going to keep acting like we need more yards?)

So...passing yards are meaningless?

Scoring and efficiency have a lot to do with Russell's run threat and many things besides passing. When you rank 30th in passing yards, it's legit to say hey it'd be nice if we had a few more passing yards.

I dispute that we can ignore passing yards when evaluating how effective our passing offense is. But I'm actually happy with our offense and think it's plainly obvious how much better we are on offense this year and how much easier it makes these games. Last year we had short field after short field and the D forcing turnovers and could do nothing. If the offense managed 14 points we were happy. This year my main complaint would be that you watch our offense operate and get the sense that it should be much *better* than it actually is were it not for stupid mistakes, but that is a much much smaller complaint to have about the offense.

 

[Cartire]

All of that, but we are still #30 on passing offense so far this season.

Even though we are a running team, I'd just like to see us have a little more passing squeezed in there with all the other cool stuff we do well.

Oh, in case you already forgot, they rank Passing offense by total yards. Its a simple mistake to forget that. Even though its pretty apparent efficiency and scoring are a far better indicator for success, total yards keeps getting the nod because of its sexy big number display.

(... Do we really have to do this every year? Complain about our yards when we have gone to the playoffs the last 2 years and have a superbowl from one of them. Are we really going to keep acting like we need more yards?)

So...passing yards are meaningless?

Scoring and efficiency have a lot to do with Russell's run threat and many things besides passing. When you rank 30th in passing yards, it's legit to say hey it'd be nice if we had a few more passing yards.

I dispute that we can ignore passing yards when evaluating how effective our passing offense is. But I'm actually happy with our offense and think it's plainly obvious how much better we are on offense this year and how much easier it makes these games. Last year we had short field after short field and the D forcing turnovers and could do nothing. If the offense managed 14 points we were happy. This year my main complaint would be that you watch our offense operate and get the sense that it should be much *better* than it actually is were it not for stupid mistakes, but that is a much much smaller complaint to have about the offense.

Theyre not meaningless. But they are overvalued. The fact that when ever we rank an opposing offenses passing, its amassed yards screams fantasy football. Total yards dont correlate to very much when it comes to an actually effective passing attack. Completion %, YPA are always a far better way of seeing how well a passing attack does.

Now, with that being said. Im not against anyone wanting us to pass it more. Or go for longer bombs. But to request more yards just doesnt do it for me. We do pretty well for ourselves to not need to get caught up in the #30 ranking and see that as a downside.

 

[hawk45]

Gotcha, in that case Cartire we're totally on the same page. A few more passing yards wouldn't hurt our feelings, but as long as we're scoring pretty well (we are) and Russ is able to make plays through the air when necessary (we are), a #30 ranking in yards isn't reason to be disturbed.

 

[kearly]

Counting stats are dumb. Look at adjusted net yards per attempt and points per drive if you want to find out which offenses are helping their team win football games.

 

[Anonymous]

Counting stats are dumb. Look at adjusted net yards per attempt and points per drive if you want to find out which offenses are helping their team win football games.

I don't think I'm counting stats, per se, but they do indicate trends. With all of the Thursday night games and bye weeks, and with so few games played so far, it can be argued any trends can't be trusted either this early on.

I just look at the OP and I like what's happening, it's just going to take me a little while to get me head around the New NFL approaches to success. I really like the quote of yours that I made my sig with. Even though I took it somewhat out of context, it's about the polar shift you are seeing and how teams are getting by with fresh philosophies.

I'm just basking in the glow of the fact that we don't have to lean on two or three standout players to win games like more than a few teams have to do. We can get the job done using a handful and a half of guys all contributing key, above average play on a consistent basis.

When the two best players on a given team that hook up to smoke us for a play or three, that really stings. Like Luck to Hilton last night; their two elite players beat the Texans one elite player. If Luck, Hilton, or Watt went down, those teams would both tank almost immediately, IMO. The great news for us is that scenario can't happen. Even if Russell (Alien Overlord forbid) went down, we can still kick royal tail. I just think that is super cool.

:mrgreen:

 

[RolandDeschain]

Counting stats are dumb. Look at adjusted net yards per attempt and points per drive if you want to find out which offenses are helping their team win football games.

Points per drive is overrated, IMO.

You can average 3 points per drive kicking a ton of field goals and rarely getting touchdowns, or getting an even split, or having a feast-or-famine offense that either drives down for a TD or goes 3-and-out most of the time, etc.

You can't tell much from that stat. What's the better 2.5 points per drive offense, one that never kicks field goals and gets a touchdown every 3rd drive or an offense that always drives into field goal range but never gets touchdowns, having to settle for field goals all the time?

 

[v1rotv2]

All of that, but we are still #30 on passing offense so far this season.

Even though we are a running team, I'd just like to see us have a little more passing squeezed in there with all the other cool stuff we do well.

Oh, in case you already forgot, they rank Passing offense by total yards. Its a simple mistake to forget that. Even though its pretty apparent efficiency and scoring are a far better indicator for success, total yards keeps getting the nod because of its sexy big number display.

(... Do we really have to do this every year? Complain about our yards when we have gone to the playoffs the last 2 years and have a superbowl from one of them. Are we really going to keep acting like we need more yards?)

So...passing yards are meaningless?

Scoring and efficiency have a lot to do with Russell's run threat and many things besides passing. When you rank 30th in passing yards, it's legit to say hey it'd be nice if we had a few more passing yards.

I dispute that we can ignore passing yards when evaluating how effective our passing offense is. But I'm actually happy with our offense and think it's plainly obvious how much better we are on offense this year and how much easier it makes these games. Last year we had short field after short field and the D forcing turnovers and could do nothing. If the offense managed 14 points we were happy. This year my main complaint would be that you watch our offense operate and get the sense that it should be much *better* than it actually is were it not for stupid mistakes, but that is a much much smaller complaint to have about the offense.

Theyre not meaningless. But they are overvalued. The fact that when ever we rank an opposing offenses passing, its amassed yards screams fantasy football. Total yards dont correlate to very much when it comes to an actually effective passing attack. Completion %, YPA are always a far better way of seeing how well a passing attack does.

Now, with that being said. Im not against anyone wanting us to pass it more. Or go for longer bombs. But to request more yards just doesnt do it for me. We do pretty well for ourselves to not need to get caught up in the #30 ranking and see that as a downside.

Folks who put a premium on total passing yards don't really understand that it's not the quantity but the quality of those passing yards. Meaning that passing yards is just a means to an end, a tool. Do you want that a defense to know that you value passing yards above all else? Do you really want to be passing when your trying to chew up the clock? Coveting total passing yards is no better than those that want to just grind it out. The quality of the passing game is determined by it's effectiveness and that can only be measured by points scored. Great you passed for 500 yards but you lost the game! Great, now sit down and watch the playoffs on TV. It takes a special team to succeed while being one dimensional. Remember Ground Chuck? Same thing but in the other direction.

The way we're doing it is perfect in my opinion. I'll take a QB that can win the big one over a total passing yards champ every day.

 

[Cartire]

Counting stats are dumb. Look at adjusted net yards per attempt and points per drive if you want to find out which offenses are helping their team win football games.

Points per drive is overrated, IMO.

You can average 3 points per drive kicking a ton of field goals and rarely getting touchdowns, or getting an even split, or having a feast-or-famine offense that either drives down for a TD or goes 3-and-out most of the time, etc.

You can't tell much from that stat. What's the better 2.5 points per drive offense, one that never kicks field goals and gets a touchdown every 3rd drive or an offense that always drives into field goal range but never gets touchdowns, having to settle for field goals all the time?

If points per drive are more with FG's all the time then the occasional TD. Then yea, thats better. Might not be as flashy, but more points on average regardless of how you achieved them is a good thing. The number of drives matters how often youre on your field, the points you achieve from them is a good indicator of your success regardless of FG or TD.

Even if you go 3 and out twice in a row, then score a TD on the next one on average, you get a 2.3 PPD.

If you go 3 drives and each one ends in a FG, you get 3 PPD

If you go 3 drives with only 2 FG's, you get 2 PPD.

If you go 3 drives, get a FG and a TD and a 3 and out, you still get a 3.3.

Regardless of whats flashy, or what you like, the efficiency speaks for itself. Whats better, A score of 10, 9, 7, or 6 at the end of 3 drives? Obviously 10 points. So yea, I think PPD speaks just fine to an offenses efficiency at putting up points. Might not dictate style points, but I think the score is all that matters.

If you want to get into points per TOP, then I can see how 3 and outs can effect the overall average when fast TD's are scored occasionally. And then not show a true offensive productivity.