John Clayton sets the Record Straight

[Ozzy]

He does often "struggle" against the blitz, but makes plays to offset the "struggle."

Do you even try anymore? He's one of the best in the league against the blitz based on the statistics. You used to be a solid poster and now it seems you've dug in just to get a response from everyone and have left the realm of debate and dialogue. Not sure why I responded because I doubt you care but moving on..... :irishdrinkers:

 

[TwilightError]

Clayton :2thumbs:

 

[SoulfishHawk]

No, he doesn't often struggle against the blitz. Now you're gonna' tell me he can't throw from the pocket too :roll:

 

[John63]

He does often "struggle" against the blitz, but makes plays to offset the "struggle."

Do you even try anymore? He's one of the best in the league against the blitz based on the statistics. You used to be a solid poster and now it seems you've dug in just to get a response from everyone and have left the realm of debate and dialogue. Not sure why I responded because I doubt you care but moving on..... :irishdrinkers:

That's why I foed him, you can't have a rational d8iscussioin with someone who refuses to be rational.

 

[John63]

No, he doesn't often struggle against the blitz. Now you're gonna' tell me he can't throw from the pocket too :roll:

"Elaine Thompson/Associated Press

Russellin some feathers
Russell Wilson has the highest passer rating in the NFL when blitzed at 123.8, throwing 13 touchdowns with just 1 interception when blitzed this season. The Cardinals blitz at the highest rate in the NFL, bringing extra defenders on 41.7 percent of opponent's dropbacks."


http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap3000001004652/mind-boggling-stats-for-2018-week-17

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Just STOP trying to manipulate what everyone saw with their own eyes.

Eyes lie. People's first impressions upon viewing are often wrong. That's why we're relying on other factors.

 

[erik2690]

It actually doesn't what? Show almost no correlation? It does, Football Outsiders and others have done pretty big sample size analysis. Can you provide any data to back your position on this? And can you actually use words and detail instead of snark so I actually understand your position. Are you arguing that the years of data is wrong? If so, why? Again I get the instinct to make a run sets up PA connection, but why would it not show in data if it was true? The theory which seems pretty logical is that LB's are keyed to read the OL so strictly that it gets a bite no matter how well or often you are rushing. Very anecdotal and not as pertinent as the larger data set analysis but our 2017 Seahawks had something like the 4th worst RB rushing attack in league history and yet were league average in play action. If there was strong correlation you would certainly expect in a team that was historically bad.

Baldwin's work was intellectually dishonest. Look at the data he chose to include vs the data he chose to ignore.

What, would you guess, is the Seahawks play-action success rate this year vs last?

Either you are trolling or being silly. You throw out the 7 years of data Football Outsiders looked at for some vague reason you won't explain and then try to draw causation argument from 1 year of data from a single team? That's an insane way to show causation. Like it makes no sense to take that small of a sample size and point to it as proof. So what specifically did FO miss that no one else has been able to disprove and do you have data sets larger than 1 year? No one has said PA rates don't vary, you tying it to rushing b/c they improved in both PA and rushing is almost a textbook case of correlation is not causation. That's the whole point of using large sample sizes over time. I'll show you why your argument is bad. We rushed better and more often in 2015 than 2016 by a decent margin. Yet in PA passing we had almost 3 extra yards per attempt and a higher DVOA in 2016. How do you explain this via your '1 year changes prove everything' style of stat analysis? What a great example of the lack of correlation. Even within the same team and same QB the PA success can fluctuate up or down regardless of rush success. Amazing stuff.

Not really though in some cases at least. It would depend on what the average team struggles with the most offensively. If your team is poor at pass blocking then it will help more than say just the average line. Our team still does not pass block well, and Wilson doesn't help them with his never give up attitude. Give him 1 extra second and you'll see the results. That extra second in his case is closer to the same average time to throw as other QB's with better pass blocking lines so it would effect them less.

Doesn't mean you ignore the data, it means you should determine if that data is useful for your exact situation.

Well the analysis by FO compared the PA success with standard dropbacks to get the differentials. So it seems like that would be sorted out at least partially in the data. It wasn't PA vs. nothing. What I read seemed to factor in teams success on regular dropback passes. It still didn't find a correlation that showed those type of teams you are talking about had fluctuation in PA success when they ran more or less or ran more or less successfully. Like your point would speak more toward what teams might benefit more from PA than others, but I don't see how your caveats have any affect on rush attempts/success vs PA success. You get what I mean? Like yes the Seahawks might benefit more from PA than a better pass blocking team, but that doesn't mean the Seahawks PA gets better if they run more or run better. Those seem like 2 separate points to me.

 

[ivotuk]

14 - 10 is "down 2 scores?" And they did throw it in the 4th quarter.

What about the Defense letting the Cowboys chew up clock and score 14 points late?

The Seahawks were down 2 scores in the 4th qtr.

14 to 24.

Clayton arguing that throwing too much at the end of the game is a false correlation and is asinine, especially when they were far more effective throwing the whole night than running.


The defense was gassed because the offense forced the run and continued going 3-'n-out too many times.

First 3 possessions. All 3-'n-outs, 9 plays 5 yards total.


Pete Carroll, Russell Wilson, and many intelligent football people have admitted, or stated they should've thrown more.

Bro,

When Seattle scored to go up 14-10, our defense then allowed a touchdown on a 9 play 67 yard drive that took 4:31 of clock . 17-14 Cowboys.

Seattle then goes 3 and out on a -1 yard run by Carson (last run play of the game for Seattle) and two throws (5 yards to Baldwin. Incomplete deep to Lockett on 3rd and 6).

Next drive for the Cowboys was the KJ Wright pick in the end zone. Could have been PI. I thought it was okay, but I'm a defense guy and liked how he played it.

Seattle goes 3 and out again on 4 straight short passes (could have been 2nd and 4 on the first throw, but holding was called...). No runs.

Cowboys get the killer drive. Seattle answers. Onside kick sucked. Game.

Can't really blame that Seattle ran it too much when they ran it only once after their TD drive that gave them the 14-10 lead.

The D failed us in the 4th, man. Simple as that. That was the game. The 3 quarters before that when they ran it "too much", they had the lead...was it a 20 point lead and total domination? No. Could they have mixed it up more to have a better lead going into the 4th? Yes! But they ended that game passing it. That's all OP and Clayton are saying...

Whoa! A dose of reality!

 

[Seymour]

Baldwin's work was intellectually dishonest. Look at the data he chose to include vs the data he chose to ignore.

What, would you guess, is the Seahawks play-action success rate this year vs last?

Either you are trolling or being silly. You throw out the 7 years of data Football Outsiders looked at for some vague reason you won't explain and then try to draw causation argument from 1 year of data from a single team? That's an insane way to show causation. Like it makes no sense to take that small of a sample size and point to it as proof. So what specifically did FO miss that no one else has been able to disprove and do you have data sets larger than 1 year? No one has said PA rates don't vary, you tying it to rushing b/c they improved in both PA and rushing is almost a textbook case of correlation is not causation. That's the whole point of using large sample sizes over time. I'll show you why your argument is bad. We rushed better and more often in 2015 than 2016 by a decent margin. Yet in PA passing we had almost 3 extra yards per attempt and a higher DVOA in 2016. How do you explain this via your '1 year changes prove everything' style of stat analysis? What a great example of the lack of correlation. Even within the same team and same QB the PA success can fluctuate up or down regardless of rush success. Amazing stuff.

Not really though in some cases at least. It would depend on what the average team struggles with the most offensively. If your team is poor at pass blocking then it will help more than say just the average line. Our team still does not pass block well, and Wilson doesn't help them with his never give up attitude. Give him 1 extra second and you'll see the results. That extra second in his case is closer to the same average time to throw as other QB's with better pass blocking lines so it would effect them less.

Doesn't mean you ignore the data, it means you should determine if that data is useful for your exact situation.

Well the analysis by FO compared the PA success with standard dropbacks to get the differentials. So it seems like that would be sorted out at least partially in the data. It wasn't PA vs. nothing. What I read seemed to factor in teams success on regular dropback passes. It still didn't find a correlation that showed those type of teams you are talking about had fluctuation in PA success when they ran more or less or ran more or less successfully. Like your point would speak more toward what teams might benefit more from PA than others, but I don't see how your caveats have any affect on rush attempts/success vs PA success. You get what I mean? Like yes the Seahawks might benefit more from PA than a better pass blocking team, but that doesn't mean the Seahawks PA gets better if they run more or run better. Those seem like 2 separate points to me.

Small sample size but I believe they showed that the first 3 weeks. First 2 weeks we passed more than run and Wilson got destroyed and had very little time to throw. 3rd game they committed to the run and he was clearly allowed more time as a passer to find targets. A couple of games it seemed he had all day.

Some of that has to do with competition too though. Miller and Mack in the 1st 2 weeks doesn't help. We seem to struggle more than other teams against elite pass rushers.

 

[Tical21]

Erik, it isn't a FO team doing an article, it is Ben Baldwin. A fraud with an agenda. He takes out 4th quarter instances and instances with the lead, something like that, I cant remember exactly what. I haven't looked at his data in a while. He plays with the data and keeps deleting parts until it fits his agenda. As far as 2016, I'd have to look at it, but it isnt like there is just no reason.

 

[Tical21]

No, he doesn't often struggle against the blitz. Now you're gonna' tell me he can't throw from the pocket too :roll:

"Elaine Thompson/Associated Press

Russellin some feathers
Russell Wilson has the highest passer rating in the NFL when blitzed at 123.8, throwing 13 touchdowns with just 1 interception when blitzed this season. The Cardinals blitz at the highest rate in the NFL, bringing extra defenders on 41.7 percent of opponent's dropbacks."


http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap3000001004652/mind-boggling-stats-for-2018-week-17

Rating doesnt take sacks into account.

 

[erik2690]

Either you are trolling or being silly. You throw out the 7 years of data Football Outsiders looked at for some vague reason you won't explain and then try to draw causation argument from 1 year of data from a single team? That's an insane way to show causation. Like it makes no sense to take that small of a sample size and point to it as proof. So what specifically did FO miss that no one else has been able to disprove and do you have data sets larger than 1 year? No one has said PA rates don't vary, you tying it to rushing b/c they improved in both PA and rushing is almost a textbook case of correlation is not causation. That's the whole point of using large sample sizes over time. I'll show you why your argument is bad. We rushed better and more often in 2015 than 2016 by a decent margin. Yet in PA passing we had almost 3 extra yards per attempt and a higher DVOA in 2016. How do you explain this via your '1 year changes prove everything' style of stat analysis? What a great example of the lack of correlation. Even within the same team and same QB the PA success can fluctuate up or down regardless of rush success. Amazing stuff.

Not really though in some cases at least. It would depend on what the average team struggles with the most offensively. If your team is poor at pass blocking then it will help more than say just the average line. Our team still does not pass block well, and Wilson doesn't help them with his never give up attitude. Give him 1 extra second and you'll see the results. That extra second in his case is closer to the same average time to throw as other QB's with better pass blocking lines so it would effect them less.

Doesn't mean you ignore the data, it means you should determine if that data is useful for your exact situation.

Well the analysis by FO compared the PA success with standard dropbacks to get the differentials. So it seems like that would be sorted out at least partially in the data. It wasn't PA vs. nothing. What I read seemed to factor in teams success on regular dropback passes. It still didn't find a correlation that showed those type of teams you are talking about had fluctuation in PA success when they ran more or less or ran more or less successfully. Like your point would speak more toward what teams might benefit more from PA than others, but I don't see how your caveats have any affect on rush attempts/success vs PA success. You get what I mean? Like yes the Seahawks might benefit more from PA than a better pass blocking team, but that doesn't mean the Seahawks PA gets better if they run more or run better. Those seem like 2 separate points to me.

Small sample size but I believe they showed that the first 3 weeks. First 2 weeks we passed more than run and Wilson got destroyed and had very little time to throw. 3rd game they committed to the run and he was clearly allowed more time as a passer to find targets. A couple of games it seemed he had all day.

Some of that has to do with competition too though. Miller and Mack in the 1st 2 weeks doesn't help. We seem to struggle more than other teams against elite pass rushers.

Ok so as you said that's an incredibly small sample size and your biggest problem is that we aren't talking about "passing" at least I'm not. I'm talking about Play Action passing and Wilson's numbers on Play Action in the first 2 weeks were very solid actually (can't find the numbers right now but he had a 154.2 rating on PA through week 4 so there's no way he had a bad time in half those games). So yeah, I don't find any part of that a strong counter argument honestly but I understand the thought. That's why this Play Action data is tough b/c it does go against some conventional and fairly logical thoughts, but convention can be wrong. That just isn't strong data vs. 7 years of charting.

Here's week 1 play action: Russell Wilson on play action week 1: 7 dropbacks -- 5/6 for 150 yards, 2 TD/0 INT, 25.0 YPA (!!!), 158.3 passer rating (!!!)

That's one of the games you're saying would show a PA deficit b/c we didn't run much. But he killed PA.......

 

[erik2690]

Erik, it isn't a FO team doing an article, it is Ben Baldwin. A fraud with an agenda. He takes out 4th quarter instances and instances with the lead, something like that, I cant remember exactly what. I haven't looked at his data in a while. He plays with the data and keeps deleting parts until it fits his agenda. As far as 2016, I'd have to look at it, but it isnt like there is just no reason.

So look at the data then. You get how silly you sound coming in declaring things and then saying 'I'll have to look at the data' after making declarations? Removing as many non-neutral game situations as possible would be completely fine although I didn't see that in the FO article I read. Looking at situations were teams are clearly doing one thing or the other does skew data. Like the stat about teams winning run more or whatever when you break that down it's of course teams piling up runs late with a lead. The more you can eliminate things like that from data analysis the better.

"but it isnt like there is just no reason"

No one is arguing that it's some mystical randomness. The argument is purely about how causational rushing attempts/success are to PA success. There are many more variables in football that rushing attempts/success so saying those don't have high correlation is not the same as saying it's random. Although there is of course high variance between years in many stats that's why you pointing to the uptick in 1 season is so bad as analysis. Variance is a real thing. But PA changes could also of course be due to better line play and better schemeing on PA. Or just hitting some throws you didn't in other years. For example this year Wilson had one of the highest success rates on tight window throws. Logical to think some came during PA, maybe some that he didn't hit the year before. There's many ways to explain variance in PA success w/o tying it to rushing directly. I've seen no data from you or anyone that shows this connection and I've seen data to suggest the opposite no matter how much you think that data doesn't tell the full story. You aren't offering a compelling counter other than 1 year correlation changes which I quickly debunked by just picking a different 1 year change on the exact same team.

 

[erik2690]

No, he doesn't often struggle against the blitz. Now you're gonna' tell me he can't throw from the pocket too :roll:

"Elaine Thompson/Associated Press

Russellin some feathers
Russell Wilson has the highest passer rating in the NFL when blitzed at 123.8, throwing 13 touchdowns with just 1 interception when blitzed this season. The Cardinals blitz at the highest rate in the NFL, bringing extra defenders on 41.7 percent of opponent's dropbacks."


http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap3000001004652/mind-boggling-stats-for-2018-week-17

Rating doesnt take sacks into account.

So do you have any stats to back your counter narrative. Like this is a pattern with you. Come in and make a declarative factual statement, someone posts actual data that counters you, 'that data doesn't tell the full story' but posts nothing to back up your narrative. Like you are right that rating isn't perfect at all, but if he's literally #1 in rating against the blitz then you have to come with something better than 'that stat isn't complete' when you are the one making the initial claim. It's lame dude, post some stats/facts not just you declaring.

 

[John63]

No, he doesn't often struggle against the blitz. Now you're gonna' tell me he can't throw from the pocket too :roll:

"Elaine Thompson/Associated Press

Russellin some feathers
Russell Wilson has the highest passer rating in the NFL when blitzed at 123.8, throwing 13 touchdowns with just 1 interception when blitzed this season. The Cardinals blitz at the highest rate in the NFL, bringing extra defenders on 41.7 percent of opponent's dropbacks."


http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap3000001004652/mind-boggling-stats-for-2018-week-17

Rating doesnt take sacks into account.

So do you have any stats to back your counter narrative. Like this is a pattern with you. Come in and make a declarative factual statement, someone posts actual data that counters you, 'that data doesn't tell the full story' but posts nothing to back up your narrative. Like you are right that rating isn't perfect at all, but if he's literally #1 in rating against the blitz then you have to come with something better than 'that stat isn't complete' when you are the one making the initial claim. It's lame dude, post some stats/facts not just you declaring.

ahh the narrative was he is bad against the Blitz, the stats say that is wrong. Sacks are not what was asked, Guess what they figure out a QBs success against the blits the same for all QBs. At this point, he is just making up crap so he can say told you so. Now if he can show that sacks were not counted against Wilsons numbers but were against everyone else sure, but he cant. I foed him just for this reason, is insane need to show Wilson sucks

 

[scutterhawk]

14 - 10 is "down 2 scores?" And they did throw it in the 4th quarter.

What about the Defense letting the Cowboys chew up clock and score 14 points late?

The Seahawks were down 2 scores in the 4th qtr.

14 to 24.

Clayton arguing that throwing too much at the end of the game is a false correlation and is asinine, especially when they were far more effective throwing the whole night than running.


The defense was gassed because the offense forced the run and continued going 3-'n-out too many times.

First 3 possessions. All 3-'n-outs, 9 plays 5 yards total.


Pete Carroll, Russell Wilson, and many intelligent football people have admitted, or stated they should've thrown more.

Bro,

When Seattle scored to go up 14-10, our defense then allowed a touchdown on a 9 play 67 yard drive that took 4:31 of clock . 17-14 Cowboys.

Seattle then goes 3 and out on a -1 yard run by Carson (last run play of the game for Seattle) and two throws (5 yards to Baldwin. Incomplete deep to Lockett on 3rd and 6).

Next drive for the Cowboys was the KJ Wright pick in the end zone. Could have been PI. I thought it was okay, but I'm a defense guy and liked how he played it.

Seattle goes 3 and out again on 4 straight short passes (could have been 2nd and 4 on the first throw, but holding was called...). No runs.

Cowboys get the killer drive. Seattle answers. Onside kick sucked. Game.

Can't really blame that Seattle ran it too much when they ran it only once after their TD drive that gave them the 14-10 lead.

The D failed us in the 4th, man. Simple as that. That was the game. The 3 quarters before that when they ran it "too much", they had the lead...was it a 20 point lead and total domination? No. Could they have mixed it up more to have a better lead going into the 4th? Yes! But they ended that game passing it. That's all OP and Clayton are saying...

The D had to deal with the effect.

There was a cause.

Which was the D gassed out. Thanks to the offense going 3-'in-out 6 times, and leaving them on the field for far too long.

This.^^^^^^at least SOMEONE HERE gets it. The Offensive game plan was NOT fluid, not enough in game adjustments were made early in the game, and the sputtering Defense paid for it with their sweat (Defense was Okay, but not good enough to keep up with the Boycows attack.
You just can't hang the Defense out to dry for that long, and expect them to keep rising to the swarming challenges.

 

[scutterhawk]

14 - 10 is "down 2 scores?" And they did throw it in the 4th quarter.

What about the Defense letting the Cowboys chew up clock and score 14 points late?

The Seahawks were down 2 scores in the 4th qtr.

14 to 24.

Clayton arguing that throwing too much at the end of the game is a false correlation and is asinine, especially when they were far more effective throwing the whole night than running.


The defense was gassed because the offense forced the run and continued going 3-'n-out too many times.

First 3 possessions. All 3-'n-outs, 9 plays 5 yards total.


Pete Carroll, Russell Wilson, and many intelligent football people have admitted, or stated they should've thrown more.

Bro,

When Seattle scored to go up 14-10, our defense then allowed a touchdown on a 9 play 67 yard drive that took 4:31 of clock . 17-14 Cowboys.

Seattle then goes 3 and out on a -1 yard run by Carson (last run play of the game for Seattle) and two throws (5 yards to Baldwin. Incomplete deep to Lockett on 3rd and 6).

Next drive for the Cowboys was the KJ Wright pick in the end zone. Could have been PI. I thought it was okay, but I'm a defense guy and liked how he played it.

Seattle goes 3 and out again on 4 straight short passes (could have been 2nd and 4 on the first throw, but holding was called...). No runs.

Cowboys get the killer drive. Seattle answers. Onside kick sucked. Game.

Can't really blame that Seattle ran it too much when they ran it only once after their TD drive that gave them the 14-10 lead.

The D failed us in the 4th, man. Simple as that. That was the game. The 3 quarters before that when they ran it "too much", they had the lead...was it a 20 point lead and total domination? No. Could they have mixed it up more to have a better lead going into the 4th? Yes! But they ended that game passing it. That's all OP and Clayton are saying...

The D had to deal with the effect.

There was a cause.

Which was the D gassed out. Thanks to the offense going 3-'in-out 6 times, and leaving them on the field for far too long.

This.^^^^^^at least SOMEONE HERE gets it. The Offensive game plan was NOT fluid, not enough in game adjustments were made early in the game, and the sputtering Defense paid for it with their sweat (Defense was Okay, but not good enough to keep up with the Boycows attack.
You just can't hang the Defense out to dry for that long, and expect them to keep rising to the swarming challenges.

 

[Smellyman]

"Elaine Thompson/Associated Press

Russellin some feathers
Russell Wilson has the highest passer rating in the NFL when blitzed at 123.8, throwing 13 touchdowns with just 1 interception when blitzed this season. The Cardinals blitz at the highest rate in the NFL, bringing extra defenders on 41.7 percent of opponent's dropbacks."


http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap3000001004652/mind-boggling-stats-for-2018-week-17

Rating doesnt take sacks into account.

So do you have any stats to back your counter narrative. Like this is a pattern with you. Come in and make a declarative factual statement, someone posts actual data that counters you, 'that data doesn't tell the full story' but posts nothing to back up your narrative. Like you are right that rating isn't perfect at all, but if he's literally #1 in rating against the blitz then you have to come with something better than 'that stat isn't complete' when you are the one making the initial claim. It's lame dude, post some stats/facts not just you declaring.

ahh the narrative was he is bad against the Blitz, the stats say that is wrong. Sacks are not what was asked, Guess what they figure out a QBs success against the blits the same for all QBs. At this point, he is just making up crap so he can say told you so. Now if he can show that sacks were not counted against Wilsons numbers but were against everyone else sure, but he cant. I foed him just for this reason, is insane need to show Wilson sucks

Only Wilson gets sacked when blitzed. No other QBs get sacked when blitzed. If's a fact.

 

[mrt144]

It actually doesn't what? Show almost no correlation? It does, Football Outsiders and others have done pretty big sample size analysis. Can you provide any data to back your position on this? And can you actually use words and detail instead of snark so I actually understand your position. Are you arguing that the years of data is wrong? If so, why? Again I get the instinct to make a run sets up PA connection, but why would it not show in data if it was true? The theory which seems pretty logical is that LB's are keyed to read the OL so strictly that it gets a bite no matter how well or often you are rushing. Very anecdotal and not as pertinent as the larger data set analysis but our 2017 Seahawks had something like the 4th worst RB rushing attack in league history and yet were league average in play action. If there was strong correlation you would certainly expect in a team that was historically bad.

Baldwin's work was intellectually dishonest. Look at the data he chose to include vs the data he chose to ignore.

What, would you guess, is the Seahawks play-action success rate this year vs last?

Either you are trolling or being silly. You throw out the 7 years of data Football Outsiders looked at for some vague reason you won't explain and then try to draw causation argument from 1 year of data from a single team? That's an insane way to show causation. Like it makes no sense to take that small of a sample size and point to it as proof. So what specifically did FO miss that no one else has been able to disprove and do you have data sets larger than 1 year? No one has said PA rates don't vary, you tying it to rushing b/c they improved in both PA and rushing is almost a textbook case of correlation is not causation. That's the whole point of using large sample sizes over time. I'll show you why your argument is bad. We rushed better and more often in 2015 than 2016 by a decent margin. Yet in PA passing we had almost 3 extra yards per attempt and a higher DVOA in 2016. How do you explain this via your '1 year changes prove everything' style of stat analysis? What a great example of the lack of correlation. Even within the same team and same QB the PA success can fluctuate up or down regardless of rush success. Amazing stuff.

Not really though in some cases at least. It would depend on what the average team struggles with the most offensively. If your team is poor at pass blocking then it will help more than say just the average line. Our team still does not pass block well, and Wilson doesn't help them with his never give up attitude. Give him 1 extra second and you'll see the results. That extra second in his case is closer to the same average time to throw as other QB's with better pass blocking lines so it would effect them less.

Doesn't mean you ignore the data, it means you should determine if that data is useful for your exact situation.

No football guy is ever going to correctly identify how adjacent their situation is to average. That'd take some humility.

 

[justafan]

I dont buy all the bad play calls is the problem posts.. We will just disagree on that. Now if you can convince me Wilson didnt miss audibles,oline didnt miss blocks or line calls,WRs didnt blow option routes, or breakdowns in execution didnt contribute to 3 for whatever 3rd down conversion rate I will listen.

If you can explain why 26 carries for 5.3 yds a carry isnt a major reason we lost we can have a conversation or 1 sack,blowing coverages or letting a 3rd and 14 QB draws wasnt a big reason we lost we can talk.

So you want to debate imaginary narratives, but not the actual plays and game?

unbelievable.

I just have a different opinion. Thats all. I see a team getting physically dominated at the los on offense and defense the actual playcall doesnt bother me. The opposing team was more physical in the trenches and that is what lost the game IMO.

Ahh so you gave up, you do not think they should have tried anything different, Hey we are a run first team, we can't run lets just loose. Once again you refuse to see the point the few times they mixed it up we moved the ball and score. Last I checked the idea is to win, not give up, or say they are beating us up. You make adjustments when they work you stick with them. PC already said they should have thrown more, so that tells you the play calling was bad. It's not a difference of opinion it is fact against fiction as the play when passing more as opposed to running factually proved that we should have passed more earlier.

We didnt RRP on the first 3 drives.

1st drive 2 4 yrd runs had us at 3rd and 2 exactly where we want to be. Pocket collapses and Wilson scrambles and throws the ball away. I dont see a problem.You cant really tell why the 3rd down failed.Wilson seemed to get jumpy early.

2nd drive.
1st play motion jet sweep right,Wilson looks right turns to throw a screen left. LT gets bumrushed back into carson and by the time the cluster uck gets straightened out the DT wrecks the play. If the Rams run that play with there talent its a genius call by wonder boy. We lose 8 yrds. 2nd down and another 4 or 5 yrd run by Carson. 3rd and 13 Wilson drops back WRs clear out the right side and Wilson doesnt hit the TE who was wide open and would have gotten 7 or 8 yrds,maybe a 1st down you cant see the field on TV. Not a bad playcall IMO.

3rd drive. 1st down run for 4 yrds good play good call.2nd run read option right. Wilson should have kept it. He would have had 4 easy yds maybe a 1st downGood call
3rd down. Blitz resulting in a sack. Who is to blame? Schotty? Fluker for blocking the LB and ignoring the RDT who wrecks the play?Davis was there, he could have stopped the LB. Britt for double teaming the LDT with Sweezy and not touching the RDT? Britt for missing a line call,Wilson for not recognizing it? I blame the ref for missing a flagrant face mask.

4th drive. 2 great calls. 2 1 st down playactiion in a row,set up by Carsons running up to that point. 1st and 10 at the 12. Another good 3 or 4 yrd run in the redzone.Another run for no gain and a 3rd and 7 bad pass by RW under pressure. FG to tie.

We shorten the game with some runs, a few breakdowns stop drives, a blown call by the refs,a few great 1st down play actions and at 7 mins left in the half we are tied. We didnt lose the game in the 1st 3 drives.