A stat that Pete talked about on Brock & Salk

I believe it was on the coach's show. May have just been them quoting him from something else but in any case, Pete mentioned that one of their goals each week is to see the sum of passing completions and rushing attempts be above 50.

Thought it was curious and meant to look at results (with Russell) based on this number. Turns out it's not a bad indicator.

2012 - 2015 (wk 07)
Avg in Wins: 51.8
Avg in Losses: 44.9

in 55 games, Seattle has only lost 5 where Pass Cmp + Rush Att >= 50.



Just thought it was interesting.

Very interesting. And that dang Rams game keeps popping back up. That one is going to haunt us all year, especially for playoff seeding if the Hawks go on a run. That's one that so easily could have been a W.

This formula is definitely one the Hawks are going to stick with given it's track record of success. Lots of rushing attempts and passes designed to rack up completions. A lot of fans think it's boring and predictable, but it's hard to argue with the success when the Hawks make it work.

HE's mentioned that stat in the past too. It's something that he keeps coming back to.

All coaches tend to get in a bit of a rut when they've had success (except for bellicheck), and when things start going downhill, the good ones go back to what got them there in the first place.

HawkFan72":19if3e6o said:

Very interesting. And that dang Rams game keeps popping back up. That one is going to haunt us all year, especially for playoff seeding if the Hawks go on a run. That's one that so easily could have been a W.

This formula is definitely one the Hawks are going to stick with given it's track record of success. Lots of rushing attempts and passes designed to rack up completions. A lot of fans think it's boring and predictable, but it's hard to argue with the success when the Hawks make it work.

Click to expand...

Well, clearly it's not just the numbers as you've got to have the Y/A to go with them but I get what you're saying. Just don't want anyone to misunderstand your post.

HawkFan72":1dj5ufoi said:

Very interesting. And that dang Rams game keeps popping back up. That one is going to haunt us all year, especially for playoff seeding if the Hawks go on a run. That's one that so easily could have been a W.

This formula is definitely one the Hawks are going to stick with given it's track record of success. Lots of rushing attempts and passes designed to rack up completions. A lot of fans think it's boring and predictable, but it's hard to argue with the success when the Hawks make it work.

Click to expand...

Boring and predictable in the sense of moving the chains is ok

Boring and predictable in the sense of running WRs in routes that puts them in the same area and being predictable so that you don't move the chain is ok

Running only short plays and not opening it up - not ok because it will drop down your success on short plays and lead to fewer plays.

You still need a balance and using the whole field. The Seahawks of 2012-2014 did that more than we have done in our losses

This is basically just another way of saying, "We want to win the TOP battle."

High 3rd down conversion % = More plays = Wins
Low 3rd down conversion % = Less plays = losses

MontanaHawk05":3coazkm3 said:

This is basically just another way of saying, "We want to win the TOP battle."

Click to expand...

Recon_Hawk":3coazkm3 said:

High 3rd down conversion % = More plays = Wins
Low 3rd down conversion % = Less plays = losses

Click to expand...

I'm not propping up the stat but I have to ask, why didn't he just mention TOP or 3rd down conversion rather than this stat?

Maybe someone can compare it's accuracy to TOP or 3rd down conversions above a particular threshold? Just saying, it's interesting that it's this stat.

This can represent a lot of different stats. For example, I am thinking time of possession is the battle the Seahawks need to win. Guess what? More time of possession can usually mean more pass and rush attempts.

Time of possession can also mean less time the defense is on the field.

I am much more interested (probably could not be pulled up easily) in stats affecting the 4th quarter defensive breakdowns. Perhaps there is a bit of a diminishing return stat here to be explored, for example we find the defense effectiveness seems to be gangbusters through X minutes of time on field, and after X minutes of time on field is when we see severe decreases in effectiveness.

Can you imagine if this were true how you would structure a playcall for O and D to make sure your D does not spend more than X minutes on the field?

Maybe be willing to take a few delay of games just to get the defense a bit more rest?



Okay that's enough way-out-there thinking for today.

Laloosh":3r179w4b said:

MontanaHawk05":3r179w4b said:

This is basically just another way of saying, "We want to win the TOP battle."

Click to expand...

Recon_Hawk":3r179w4b said:

High 3rd down conversion % = More plays = Wins
Low 3rd down conversion % = Less plays = losses

Click to expand...

I'm not propping up the stat but I have to ask, why didn't he just mention TOP or 3rd down conversion rather than this stat?

Maybe someone can compare it's accuracy to TOP or 3rd down conversions above a particular threshold? Just saying, it's interesting that it's this stat.

Click to expand...

Not sure. Maybe because the overall plays stat encompasses both TOP and 3rd down conversion into it? It would be interesting to check that against each other. Sorry wish I had the time to do so.

One interesting thing about TOP and total plays is that it could together be an indicator for wins & losses for the Seahawks, but a system like the Eagles TOP wouldn't matter as much as total plays.

Laloosh":1ppqwg6k said:

I believe it was on the coach's show. May have just been them quoting him from something else but in any case, Pete mentioned that one of their goals each week is to see the sum of passing completions and rushing attempts be above 50.

Thought it was curious and meant to look at results (with Russell) based on this number. Turns out it's not a bad indicator.

2012 - 2015 (wk 07)
Avg in Wins: 51.8
Avg in Losses: 44.9

in 55 games, Seattle has only lost 5 where Pass Cmp + Rush Att >= 50.



Just thought it was interesting.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's so much a goal, but rather a way of looking back and knowing if you executed. As part of the game analysis you see that you had the 50 plays and still lost what else went wrong?

I've found that the best stat to look at—as far as wins and losses go—is, at the end of the game, does your team have more or less points than the opponent? That stat right there is the strongest indication for telling you who won or who lost the game.

There has been a couple stats that are different this year than the past couple years that have hurt us. Turnover ratio is one of the big ones. We're at -1. "Protect the ball". Redzone TD % is something we haven't been stellar at but this year it has been abysmal, 33%- dead last.

All three Rams losses are among the five. And Wilson's 1st career start at Arizona was one of the others. All four of those were bizarre games.

You take those four weird wacky division games out and it's 50 for 51.

seahawkfreak":13ogntqr said:

There has been a couple stats that are different this year than the past couple years that have hurt us. Turnover ratio is one of the big ones. We're at -1. "Protect the ball". Redzone TD % is something we haven't been stellar at but this year it has been abysmal, 33%- dead last.

Click to expand...

Turnover ratio has actually hurt is in a very weird way.

In all of our losses, we were positive in turnover ratio. In all of our wins except the last one, we were negative in turnover ratio. Pete couldn't figure it out. I couldn't tell you what the heck it means.

When you look at that list, you notice they had 31+ carries in every game.

In three of our four losses, we had 25, 26, and 30 carries.

Pete, after the Carolina game, said we needed to get back to running the ball more.

Last week we had 41 carries.

byau":3ik7ys50 said:

Maybe be willing to take a few delay of games just to get the defense a bit more rest?

Click to expand...

Different discussion, but at least be willing to take a delay versus wasting a TO when you're about to punt anyway.

Hawks46":2t49r31o said:

seahawkfreak":2t49r31o said:

There has been a couple stats that are different this year than the past couple years that have hurt us. Turnover ratio is one of the big ones. We're at -1. "Protect the ball". Redzone TD % is something we haven't been stellar at but this year it has been abysmal, 33%- dead last.

Click to expand...

Turnover ratio has actually hurt is in a very weird way.

In all of our losses, we were positive in turnover ratio. In all of our wins except the last one, we were negative in turnover ratio. Pete couldn't figure it out. I couldn't tell you what the heck it means.

Click to expand...

The turnover margin hasn't directly hurt us. What it tells you is that not all turnovers are the same and sometimes you sacrifice too much other stuff in overvaluing turnovers.

seahawkfreak":2ebpz88i said:

There has been a couple stats that are different this year than the past couple years that have hurt us. Turnover ratio is one of the big ones. We're at -1. "Protect the ball". Redzone TD % is something we haven't been stellar at but this year it has been abysmal, 33%- dead last.

Click to expand...

this made me think of another reliable marker for us over the last few years, toxic differential. i figured we wouldn't be doing that well in this because of the TO ratio but we're currently #2. i'm assuming the site (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats ... tial/2015/) is updated but they have TO ratio at zero and you have -1. Either way, top 5.

Team Turnover Differential Big Play Differential Toxic Differential
1 Carolina Panthers 4 17 21
2 Seattle Seahawks 0 17 17
3 New York Jets 4 12 16
4 Cincinnati Bengals 3 13 16
5 Pittsburgh Steelers 3 12 15
6 Arizona Cardinals 5 9 14
7 St. Louis Rams 4 9 13
8 Green Bay Packers 6 6 12
9 Atlanta Falcons 2 9 11
10 Buffalo Bills 0 10 10