Why Seattle's offensive line may not be as bad as you think.

[Casino Blitz]

I think there are some question marks at RT with the loss of Breno but other than that I think the O-Line is fine and you never know who might step up be very good so not worried right now.

 

[Anthony!]

Again I never said that and you do not know if coverage sacks are on Wilson or not, you can only guess. I think I will go with the faacts done by experts that puts 1 sack on Wilson. And by the way for a QB to release the ball quick there has to be someone to release it to, hence the term "Coverage Sack" no one was open to release it to.

What exactly did you not say? I quoted you saying that holding on to the ball was not an issue, and that's what I'm disagreeing with. Is saying that you never said something your go-to response for every single debate?

I think I will go with the faacts done by experts that puts 1 sack on Wilson.

My gods, are you freaking serious? First, point me to the expert that said this. Are you referring to Football Outsiders' stat that one sack was the QB's fault? That doesn't mean what you think it means at all. If you actually read the article, they say that such sakcs are when "a quarterback "sacks himself" by tripping on his own feet, his lineman's feet, or just drop[ped] the ball without being hit." Sacks where the QB held it too long don't fall under that, but they're clearly the QB's fault. And a bit of common sense, which you seem to ignore in favor of stats, will tell you that Wilson was responsible for far more than one sack.

And by the way for a QB to release the ball quick there has to be someone to release it to, hence the term "Coverage Sack" no one was open to release it to.

Or, the QB didn't spot an open receiver. Or, the QB didn't move in the pocket correctly to escape a blocker. Or, the QB didn't throw it away when he could have. It's amazing how certain QBs consistently don't have many coverage sacks despite not particularly impressive receiving corps.

Simple if they were do to Rw holding on to the ball to long then they would have said on Rw not coverage, Obviously there was no one open pretty simple concept.

 

[Scottemojo]

Now it is time for stats.

The average NFL sack takes between 2.7 and 2.8 seconds.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/06/16/qbs-in-focus-time-to-throw/

Look at all those charts on QBs, broken down by the length of time they had to throw the ball.

As per PFF, Wilson had 164 dropbacks where he held the ball for more than 3.6 seconds. 32 of those ended in sacks, 47 in scrambles, and he threw 10 TDs and 3 INTs on those plays. He was right around the league average of 2.78 seconds before being pressured on those plays.

Nobody else in the NFL had as many plays where they held the ball for at least 3.6 seconds as Russell. Few took as many sacks as Russell did when holding on to the ball, and nobody threw as many touchdowns as Russell when holding on the ball.

Like I said, it is kind of his thing.

Of note, Russell took 6 sacks when he held the ball 3.1 to 3.5 seconds,
5 sacks when he led the ball 2.6 to 3.0,
1 sack when holding the ball from 2.1 to 2.5
and 0 sacks on the 109 attempts where he held the ball under 2 seconds.

 

[HawKnPeppa]

Again I never said that and you do not know if coverage sacks are on Wilson or not, you can only guess. I think I will go with the faacts done by experts that puts 1 sack on Wilson. And by the way for a QB to release the ball quick there has to be someone to release it to, hence the term "Coverage Sack" no one was open to release it to.

What exactly did you not say? I quoted you saying that holding on to the ball was not an issue, and that's what I'm disagreeing with. Is saying that you never said something your go-to response for every single debate?

I think I will go with the faacts done by experts that puts 1 sack on Wilson.

My gods, are you freaking serious? First, point me to the expert that said this. Are you referring to Football Outsiders' stat that one sack was the QB's fault? That doesn't mean what you think it means at all. If you actually read the article, they say that such sakcs are when "a quarterback "sacks himself" by tripping on his own feet, his lineman's feet, or just drop[ped] the ball without being hit." Sacks where the QB held it too long don't fall under that, but they're clearly the QB's fault. And a bit of common sense, which you seem to ignore in favor of stats, will tell you that Wilson was responsible for far more than one sack.

And by the way for a QB to release the ball quick there has to be someone to release it to, hence the term "Coverage Sack" no one was open to release it to.

Or, the QB didn't spot an open receiver. Or, the QB didn't move in the pocket correctly to escape a blocker. Or, the QB didn't throw it away when he could have. It's amazing how certain QBs consistently don't have many coverage sacks despite not particularly impressive receiving corps.

I see your agenda. Just focus on one possible cause and intepret data to favor it. Got it!

 

[Scottemojo]

double post

 

[EastCoastHawksFan]

Great Analysis . Very nice read !

It really gives clarity to what we do as an offense as for sometimes "stats" are misinterpreted

 

[Anthony!]

Now it is time for stats.

The average NFL sack takes between 2.7 and 2.8 seconds.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/06/16/qbs-in-focus-time-to-throw/

Look at all those charts on QBs, broken down by the length of time they had to throw the ball.

As per PFF, Wilson had 164 dropbacks where he held the ball for more than 3.6 seconds. 32 of those ended in sacks, 47 in scrambles, and he threw 10 TDs and 3 INTs on those plays. He was right around the league average of 2.78 seconds before being pressured on those plays.

Nobody else in the NFL had as many plays where they held the ball for at least 3.6 seconds as Russell. Few took as many sacks as Russell did when holding on to the ball, and nobody threw as many touchdowns as Russell when holding on the ball.

Like I said, it is kind of his thing.

Of note, Russell took 6 sacks when he held the ball 3.1 to 3.5 seconds,
5 sacks when he led the ball 2.6 to 3.0,
1 sack when holding the ball from 2.1 to 2.5
and 0 sacks on the 109 attempts where he held the ball under 6 seconds.

The question becomes why is he holding the ball from the stats I showed it appears no one is getting open.

 

[Anthony!]

Again I never said that and you do not know if coverage sacks are on Wilson or not, you can only guess. I think I will go with the faacts done by experts that puts 1 sack on Wilson. And by the way for a QB to release the ball quick there has to be someone to release it to, hence the term "Coverage Sack" no one was open to release it to.

What exactly did you not say? I quoted you saying that holding on to the ball was not an issue, and that's what I'm disagreeing with. Is saying that you never said something your go-to response for every single debate?

I think I will go with the faacts done by experts that puts 1 sack on Wilson.

My gods, are you freaking serious? First, point me to the expert that said this. Are you referring to Football Outsiders' stat that one sack was the QB's fault? That doesn't mean what you think it means at all. If you actually read the article, they say that such sakcs are when "a quarterback "sacks himself" by tripping on his own feet, his lineman's feet, or just drop[ped] the ball without being hit." Sacks where the QB held it too long don't fall under that, but they're clearly the QB's fault. And a bit of common sense, which you seem to ignore in favor of stats, will tell you that Wilson was responsible for far more than one sack.

And by the way for a QB to release the ball quick there has to be someone to release it to, hence the term "Coverage Sack" no one was open to release it to.

Or, the QB didn't spot an open receiver. Or, the QB didn't move in the pocket correctly to escape a blocker. Or, the QB didn't throw it away when he could have. It's amazing how certain QBs consistently don't have many coverage sacks despite not particularly impressive receiving corps.

I see your agenda. Just focus on one possible cause and intepret data to favor it. Got it!

No my agenda is to show and prove my point and then move on unless someone finds something to disprove it, which you did not.

 

[Anthony!]

Now it is time for stats.

The average NFL sack takes between 2.7 and 2.8 seconds.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/06/16/qbs-in-focus-time-to-throw/

Look at all those charts on QBs, broken down by the length of time they had to throw the ball.

As per PFF, Wilson had 164 dropbacks where he held the ball for more than 3.6 seconds. 32 of those ended in sacks, 47 in scrambles, and he threw 10 TDs and 3 INTs on those plays. He was right around the league average of 2.78 seconds before being pressured on those plays.

Nobody else in the NFL had as many plays where they held the ball for at least 3.6 seconds as Russell. Few took as many sacks as Russell did when holding on to the ball, and nobody threw as many touchdowns as Russell when holding on the ball.

Like I said, it is kind of his thing.

Of note, Russell took 6 sacks when he held the ball 3.1 to 3.5 seconds,
5 sacks when he led the ball 2.6 to 3.0,
1 sack when holding the ball from 2.1 to 2.5
and 0 sacks on the 109 attempts where he held the ball under 6 seconds.

The question becomes why is he holding the ball from the stats I showed it appears no one is getting open. Also if he had 0 sacks when he held the ball under 6 seconds how could he have any holding the ball between 3.1-3.6 seconds when both are under 6? In addition the more interesting number to me is time to pressure, for instance in Rws 52 attempts were he had the ball between 3.1-3.6 seconds the time he had until the pressure came was only 2.33 seconds which was the seconds shortest time of any QB and well below the avg of 2.57. In the over 3.6 seconds are his time to pressure was 2.78 seconds The league avg is 2.8. This tells me our o-line was a problem as was our WR not getting open, and to many long patterns with no short ones, substantiated by RW having the 2nd most pass attempts over 20 yards in the NFL http://regressing.deadspin.com/charts-w ... 1469917039, but also the highest completion %.

 

[Scottemojo]

Now it is time for stats.

The average NFL sack takes between 2.7 and 2.8 seconds.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/06/16/qbs-in-focus-time-to-throw/

Look at all those charts on QBs, broken down by the length of time they had to throw the ball.

As per PFF, Wilson had 164 dropbacks where he held the ball for more than 3.6 seconds. 32 of those ended in sacks, 47 in scrambles, and he threw 10 TDs and 3 INTs on those plays. He was right around the league average of 2.78 seconds before being pressured on those plays.

Nobody else in the NFL had as many plays where they held the ball for at least 3.6 seconds as Russell. Few took as many sacks as Russell did when holding on to the ball, and nobody threw as many touchdowns as Russell when holding on the ball.

Like I said, it is kind of his thing.

Of note, Russell took 6 sacks when he held the ball 3.1 to 3.5 seconds,
5 sacks when he led the ball 2.6 to 3.0,
1 sack when holding the ball from 2.1 to 2.5
and 0 sacks on the 109 attempts where he held the ball under 2 seconds.

The question becomes why is he holding the ball from the stats I showed it appears no one is getting open.

He is holding the ball because that is how he kills teams. He was the highest rated QB in the NFL when holding the ball for more than 3 and a half seconds. The 32 sacks just come with that type of play.

I am sure on a bunch of those plays he was running for his life. Doing the Russell Hustle and Bustle. On some nobody was open, or at least no one he could see. On some he missed seeing open guys, it happens to everybody. And on some, he held the ball too long and got sacked.

 

[Anthony!]

Now it is time for stats.

The average NFL sack takes between 2.7 and 2.8 seconds.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/06/16/qbs-in-focus-time-to-throw/

Look at all those charts on QBs, broken down by the length of time they had to throw the ball.

As per PFF, Wilson had 164 dropbacks where he held the ball for more than 3.6 seconds. 32 of those ended in sacks, 47 in scrambles, and he threw 10 TDs and 3 INTs on those plays. He was right around the league average of 2.78 seconds before being pressured on those plays.

Nobody else in the NFL had as many plays where they held the ball for at least 3.6 seconds as Russell. Few took as many sacks as Russell did when holding on to the ball, and nobody threw as many touchdowns as Russell when holding on the ball.

Like I said, it is kind of his thing.

Of note, Russell took 6 sacks when he held the ball 3.1 to 3.5 seconds,
5 sacks when he led the ball 2.6 to 3.0,
1 sack when holding the ball from 2.1 to 2.5
and 0 sacks on the 109 attempts where he held the ball under 2 seconds.

The question becomes why is he holding the ball from the stats I showed it appears no one is getting open.

He is holding the ball because that is how he kills teams. He was the highest rated QB in the NFL when holding the ball for more than 3 and a half seconds. The 32 sacks just come with that type of play.

I am sure on a bunch of those plays he was running for his life. Doing the Russell Hustle and Bustle. On some nobody was open, or at least no one he could see. On some he missed seeing open guys, it happens to everybody. And on some, he held the ball too long and got sacked.

Yeah I go that see my post just above your reply

 

[seedhawk]

:sarcasm_on: Since we all are supposed to know, by now, there is no way Russell the Annointed can make even the smallest mistake, it stands to reason that every sack/hit/hurry is someone else's fault. And, because the over large not photogenic trench maulers get very little face time, let's pick on them. :sarcasm_off:

Seriously now, if we were Steeler fans, would we be bitching out our O-line because Big Ben holds the ball sometimes forever? Plays look like crap, the entire O looks out of sync, and boom, big play for a TD. Considering RW's tendencies, and tenacity about basically never giving up on a play, our O-line does an admirable job. Too much of the time we fan's are just too damn picky!

 

[Anthony!]

:sarcasm_on: Since we all are supposed to know, by now, there is no way Russell the Annointed can make even the smallest mistake, it stands to reason that every sack/hit/hurry is someone else's fault. And, because the over large not photogenic trench maulers get very little face time, let's pick on them. :sarcasm_off:

Seriously now, if we were Steeler fans, would we be bitching out our O-line because Big Ben holds the ball sometimes forever? Plays look like crap, the entire O looks out of sync, and boom, big play for a TD. Considering RW's tendencies, and tenacity about basically never giving up on a play, our O-line does an admirable job. Too much of the time we fan's are just too damn picky!

Glad you were being sarcastic, as to the rest admirable? If that mean bad you are correct, only the most blind would say anything but bad.

 

[volsunghawk]

There are some posters whose agendas are so crystal clear that it's kinda funny. Some folks will tilt at the Bevell windmill without fail, for example. For Anthony, there can be no criticism of Russell Wilson - and that includes offering up perspective on our O-line or acknowledging that Andrew Luck has been pretty good so far.

 

[Anthony!]

There are some posters whose agendas are so crystal clear that it's kinda funny. Some folks will tilt at the Bevell windmill without fail, for example. For Anthony, there can be no criticism of Russell Wilson - and that includes offering up perspective on our O-line or acknowledging that Andrew Luck has been pretty good so far.

Seems for you it is not knowing what you are talking about. I said in this very post one of the sacks was on Rw, I also said the fumble in the NFCG was on Rw, I also said his attempted jump pass INT was on him. I also said while it did hit the ground that attempted pass to baldwin against the Cards was a horrible pass. So your agenda is obviously to not know what you are talking about, because your wrong here.

 

[hawk45]

Having weighed in on the side that our OL pass pro is bad, Russ does hold the ball. Sometimes guys aren't open, sometimes he needs to scoot to get sight lines, but as Mojo points out, it's his thing. I see it like Roethlisberger and Romo, that ability to extend the play can pay off large at times, other times it does contribute to a sack more than a Manning type guy who gets rid of it after 2.5 seconds, out of bounds if nobody's open.

But holding on to the rock does deserve some weight when considering sacks, that point seems fairly obvious to me at least.

 

[volsunghawk]

There are some posters whose agendas are so crystal clear that it's kinda funny. Some folks will tilt at the Bevell windmill without fail, for example. For Anthony, there can be no criticism of Russell Wilson - and that includes offering up perspective on our O-line or acknowledging that Andrew Luck has been pretty good so far.

Seems for you it is not knowing what you are talking about. I said in this very post one of the sacks was on Rw, I also said the fumble in the NFCG was on Rw, I also said his attempted jump pass INT was on him. I also said while it did hit the ground that attempted pass to baldwin against the Cards was a horrible pass. So your agenda is obviously to not know what you are talking about, because your wrong here.

Quite generous of you to acknowledge that Russ might have made three mistakes last season. And out of character.

 

[Anthony!]

Having weighed in on the side that our OL pass pro is bad, Russ does hold the ball. Sometimes guys aren't open, sometimes he needs to scoot to get sight lines, but as Mojo points out, it's his thing. I see it like Roethlisberger and Romo, that ability to extend the play can pay off large at times, other times it does contribute to a sack more than a Manning type guy who gets rid of it after 2.5 seconds, out of bounds if nobody's open.

But holding on to the rock does deserve some weight when considering sacks, that point seems fairly obvious to me at least.

I never said it did not How ever I do not believe and that stats show it is as big a deal as you think hence why the experts only had 1 sack against RW, When your time to pressure is below the avg that is an issue, and that issue goes back to the o-line

 

[Anthony!]

There are some posters whose agendas are so crystal clear that it's kinda funny. Some folks will tilt at the Bevell windmill without fail, for example. For Anthony, there can be no criticism of Russell Wilson - and that includes offering up perspective on our O-line or acknowledging that Andrew Luck has been pretty good so far.

Seems for you it is not knowing what you are talking about. I said in this very post one of the sacks was on Rw, I also said the fumble in the NFCG was on Rw, I also said his attempted jump pass INT was on him. I also said while it did hit the ground that attempted pass to baldwin against the Cards was a horrible pass. So your agenda is obviously to not know what you are talking about, because your wrong here.

Quite generous of you to acknowledge that Russ might have made three mistakes last season. And out of character.

Wrong yet again not out of character nor the only 3 things I have said he made a mistake with, you just are good at forgetting or never bother to check you just make wild accusations with no proof and think you are right, guess what wrong again.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

Reasons Why The O-Line Will Be Better. .

1. Health- Are we going have the same exact injury issues? Its possible yet no one can gaurantee that.

2. Continuity- If the starters stay healthy together, they'll build familarity and chemistry that will make them better.

3. Experience- The collective experience is better than it was a year ago and it will make a huge difference in terms of depth and consistency.

4. Progression- Players will continue to get better each practice, each game especially the youngest.

5. Lord Have Mercy Its Percy- Harvin is a Pressure Killer, Teams that want to stack the box and go all out will get burnt and burnt often.

6. Russell Wilson- He's going into his 3rd year, and he already knows what its like to be David Carr. And that makes him mighty. The O-Line can't get any worse than it was a year ago at times, and we know Russell Wilson was capable of surviving that. So whether the line is good or not we know Wilson will be good. And if the line steps up and does its job, we'll see an even better Russell Wilson.

7. NFC West- The Seahawks O-Line plays 6 games against 3 of the best D-Lines/Front 7s in the game. Add the third year in a row that'll we will play the Panthers that 7 games against the best. And while those games might be difficult, it makes it that much easier against teams with weaker.

For instance playing Saints x2, SFO x2, Cards, and Rams in the Seahawks last 8 games or so before the Superbowl made it that much easier to handle the Broncos Front 7. A front 7 that pretty much shutdown two of the most highly prolific offenses in the NFL last year in the Chargers and Patriots that had better O-Lines than the one the Seahawks had.