It doesn't add up! (Athletic Article)

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
  • Tical21 wrote:
    mrt144 wrote:
    AgentDib wrote:
    mrt144 wrote:
    Thank you for the summary I couldn't bring myself to do. You nailed it!

    Looks like you found another conclusion you agreed with.

    You wouldn't know it from the box scores but there was talent on the Kansas City defense last year. They were still winning games 42-37 and losing them 43-40 because offensive and defensive performance are linked in a complicated manner that even DVOA doesn't account for.


    Kudos on identifying why I shared the article. I think it is worth sharing because I agree with it. I too, am a frail human. ;)


    Seriously though, the point of most analytical writing in sports is to provide critique and insight. The critique is of the stated public approach that our OC takes using some light data analysis to debase the logic of those stated reasons. Does this rationale make sense? Lets see if it does.

    What does KC have to do with the Hawks. I dont have a plan of action or any desire for change to be more like the Chiefs. What will be will be. It is out of our hands and we have no agency.

    This just helps explain what we see a bit more. Like running into stacked boxes. ;)

    FWIW I have tried on numerous occasions to find professionally written articles anywhere, but especially recently in the slack of off season, that paint Schotty in a positive light. I accept my prior statement but most articles are critique and insight but almost all apologetics rest in user chat. There are perilous few professional articles that come to the conclusion that "Schotty is blowing down the houses as OC with his stated approach" but I am looking.

    You're trying too hard. Russ had his most efficient season ever and we were a top 6 offense. With mediocre talent. If that isn't "blowing down houses", I'm not sure what is.
    Go ahead, pass a bunch more. Like in 16 and 17. See how far that gets you.


    You know, if you're just going to ignore what I wrote or haphazardly interpret it to suit your own strawman making ends, I'll just keep you on ignore. ;)

    First, I support a framework that suggests there are upper and lower limits to optimal passing game that factors in available talent. Between these limits of 1/17 passes and 16/17 passes is where the population of NFL teams exists and to maximize their own offensive output, they can marginally adjust.

    Second, I am resigned to dispassionate observation at this point. I just want to understand what is happening little bit by little bit. I have no agency in what the team does and as such I am not going to share opinions on what I think should be done. What's the point? What I can do is contextualize what I'm seeing with some small analysis and writing.

    Third, everything I observed about the Hawks last season under Schotty's first year in the seat seems to suggest we don't have nearly the bare cupboard imagined to seize what is available and possible in the NFL. It isn't about wholesale change in approach, it's about marginal changes to seize opportunity.

    Fourth and this is the biggest, nobody, no team, can do what they think isn't possible. No person or team will do what they think can't be done. For example, I don't see how the OL under Solari is incapable of providing stout run blocking and supporting passes a bit more situationally. I don't think RW is incapable of a marginal situational increase of passing nor are the WRs incapable in holding up their end. Tight Ends, okay, you got me but Dissly might be a ray of light. Nor do I see Schotty as incapable of doing the work that would allow the Hawks to seize the opportunity that exists in the passing game. Nor do I see Pete incapable of making a small change at the right time with his breadth of experience and intuition.

    I believe marginal improvements are absolutely possible with the actors and factors. It's about willpower and taking a step back to actually shoot for that marginal improvement. Whether they do or not is 'whatever'. What will be will be. But we have some fun tools and writers to understand the picture a wee bit more and see where the Hawks fit into the picture. We are so divorced from agency in the situation that's the best we can do.

    The position opposite of mine is that the Hawks are already doing their best and there is no room for improvement. Or that improvement rests on the incoming draft class and FA and trades and that's it. Everything from position coach on up is optimal. That seems a curious incurious position.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4069
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:21 pm


Re: It doesn't add up! (Athletic Article)
Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:06 am
  • mrt144 wrote:Kudos on identifying why I shared the article. I think it is worth sharing because I agree with it....

    You don't see a problem with sharing articles because you agree with their conclusions rather than because they have strong arguments?

    mrt144 wrote:What does KC have to do with the Hawks.

    Presumably you agree that teams should run the ball sometimes and pass the ball at other times. There are advantages and drawbacks to both, and crucially the efficiency of each is linked to the other. All NFL teams are somewhere in the middle of the pass-run spectrum, and the foundation of your discontent is that the Hawks are on the high end of that compared to their peers. Be honest with yourself for a minute - would you feel that we should pass more if we were #32 in rushing percentage? Maybe you'd be arguing for more runs and this is really about not being comfortable with being an outlier.

    KC is one of those peers on the other end of the spectrum (61% pass-39% run) that clearly show the downside to moving too far in that direction. If you don't see what that has to do with the discussion then you're completely missing the link between offense-defense that causes many people to shrug at overly reductive offensive statistics used as a surrogate for winning %.

    Everybody with the interest in football to post on forums like these in the off-season long ago noticed that YPA far exceeds YPC. Yet even the most pass happy NFL team runs the ball 1/3 of the time or more, so presumably there are some good reasons why it's worth taking a lower expected return on a given play in order to increase the chance of winning the game down the road. How many of these reasons are captured in YPA-YPC or EPA? Most of us would argue very few.
    AgentDib
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3763
    Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:08 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: It doesn't add up! (Athletic Article)
Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:21 am
  • AgentDib wrote:
    mrt144 wrote:Kudos on identifying why I shared the article. I think it is worth sharing because I agree with it....

    You don't see a problem with sharing articles because you agree with their conclusions rather than because they have strong arguments?

    mrt144 wrote:What does KC have to do with the Hawks.

    Presumably you agree that teams should run the ball sometimes and pass the ball at other times. There are advantages and drawbacks to both, and crucially the efficiency of each is linked to the other. All NFL teams are somewhere in the middle of the pass-run spectrum, and the foundation of your discontent is that the Hawks are on the high end of that compared to their peers. KC is one of those peers on the other end of the spectrum (61% pass-39% run) that clearly show the downside to moving too far in that direction. If you don't see what that has to do with the discussion then you're completely missing the link between offense-defense that causes many people to shrug at overly reductive offensive statistics used as a surrogate for winning %.

    Everybody with the interest in football to post on forums like these in the off-season long ago noticed that YPA far exceeds YPC. Yet even the most pass happy NFL team runs the ball 1/3 of the time or more, so presumably there are some good reasons why it's worth taking a lower expected return on a given play in order to increase the chance of winning the game down the road. How many of these reasons are captured in YPA-YPC or EPA? Most of us would argue very few.


    The silence of professionals who show their work that carry water for the status quo is deafening, actually. ;)

    And I think I've fleshed out my position capably enough for an impartial observer to think that I want to see what our optimized solution looks like. Not KC's not NO's not anyone else's haphazardly applied to what we have here. Again, marginal adjustments to the overall plan, not a wholesale dismemberment and reconfiguration of the plan to be KC's plan. I've abandoned any desire to see that because it's a hand wave of "if everything was different it might work better". That's nonsense. Things don't need to be drastically different.

    Again, we have a composite picture of what is possible in today's NFL. There need not be a sea change in approach nor will there be. Just small marginal improvements across the board that seize upon what is available and possible in the NFL. I get the grudging sense that there is resistance to these marginal changes because it is unimaginable for various reasons - we don't have the horses, that's not how we do things, it isn't worth making a marginal improvement because of the unknown potential drawbacks (or known ones like our defense can't support an offense that tries to score points at a steady clip.) There are a thousand reasons not to do something. This is a fact of life - we talk ourselves out of trying to do better by laying out all the reasons trying will not work.

    But like the great Earth Wind and Fire sang: You won't find out if you never try. So let's see if the Hawks try to marginally improve how they conduct their offense to seize the opportunity established by their peers in the NFL. What do the Hawks have to lose by pushing themselves out of a comfort zone and taking what's shown to be there for the taking? The dogmatic insistence on rushing to retain possession and draw down time and thus subsequently draw down the amount of possessions in a game will be available.

    I don't even think the notion of limiting the absolute amount of possessions of a game is a bad one, it just rests on having a team that can maximize the value of their possessions (or crush their opponent's) better than the opponent does in kind. With less opportunity for variance, the limited shots you take need to land.
    Last edited by mrt144 on Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4069
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:21 pm


Re: It doesn't add up! (Athletic Article)
Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:30 am
  • Sorry for the interruption ......... I wanted to comment that diversity of opinion enriches and grows our forum.

    If we didn't already have so many forums, I would be inclined to suggest a forum focused on debate over the use and misuse of statistics and the propagation of divergent inferences. There certainly seems to be a thirst for the subject. It keeps showing up. Just don't know how that would read in a space that benefits from maintaining a layman's hierarchy of conversation so as to appeal to a wide spectrum of fans.

    If anyone has any ideas, fill free to PM the administrators. I suspect their in-basket would be open to the subject.

    Meanwhile ........ back to enjoyment of this thread.

    Carry on everyone :2thumbs:
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 8560
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:49 pm


Re: It doesn't add up! (Athletic Article)
Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:02 am
  • mrt144 wrote:The silence of professionals who show their work that carry water for the status quo is deafening, actually. ;)

    NFL teams hire statisticians, they just don't share their opinions for free on the internet. What you are really noticing is applicable to most macro-economic fields. The complicated solution is too difficult to reduce cleanly and so assumptions are liberally applied until the complexities shake out. The final result is then simple enough to be politicized while the few people who understand how the sausage was made post cautions about treating it cautiously due to the assumptions present. The fact that NFL teams continue to run the football after all of the resources and effort they spend on strategy that they keep private should at the minimum lead to some self-reflection on this argument.

    mrt144 wrote:Things don't need to be drastically different... I get the grudging sense that there is resistance to these marginal changes because it is unimaginable for various reasons...

    I don't think anybody is concerned that the changes you propose are too radical. You just haven't made a convincing argument that they are in the correct direction.

    Out of the top 10 RUSH% teams last season, 8 of them had double digit wins and the 9th still had a winning season.

    mrt144 wrote:But like the great Earth Wind and Fire sang: You won't find out if you never try.

    This is exactly why we need to look at other teams and other seasons while keeping sample size in mind. We don't have a luxury of a time machine to re-run 2018 with different RUSH% assumptions, and iterating in potentially the wrong direction just for the sake of a "test" is a non-starter in the real world.

    mrt144 wrote:What do the Hawks have to lose by... taking what's shown to be there for the taking?

    Here's a thought experiment for you. Take your favorite simplified statistic that shows the superiority of passing. If you really believed it then why would you not argue that the correct RUSH% is 0%? I don't think it's a lack of courage, but that you would realize the complexities lost along the way to arrive at that statistic are important.
    AgentDib
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3763
    Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:08 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: It doesn't add up! (Athletic Article)
Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:49 am
  • Just to add on a couple of charts.

    Image
    R2 value in this context can be (over)simplified to "how much of the Y statistic is explained by the X statistic".

    The following charts show that PPG is neutral with PASS% while opponent's PPG increases.
    Image
    Of course, that doesn't prove that passing is bad or running is good because the one correct thing in the linked article is that correlation does not equal causation. The complexity here is that teams tend to pass more when they are losing and run out the clock when they are winning.

    That being said, if teams across the NFL were running too often then you would not expect these charts. EPA, AYD, AY/A would all suggest a sharply downward sloping WINS vs RUN% chart but the reality is just more complicated. In simple terms rushing improves the efficiency of the passing attack and the efficiency of the defense. In the complicated analysis that NFL teams are actually performing they are looking at specific individual plays and how they integrate, set up, and/or detract from other specific individual plays.
    AgentDib
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3763
    Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:08 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: It doesn't add up! (Athletic Article)
Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:04 pm
  • AgentDib wrote:
    mrt144 wrote:What do the Hawks have to lose by... taking what's shown to be there for the taking?

    Here's a thought experiment for you. Take your favorite simplified statistic that shows the superiority of passing. If you really believed it then why would you not argue that the correct RUSH% is 0%? I don't think it's a lack of courage, but that you would realize the complexities lost along the way to arrive at that statistic are important.


    Well there's an underlying rationale that suggests pursuing tactics to the limit does not yield optimal outcomes for the respective teams based on their player composition and strategic and tactical pillars from the coaching staff.

    Again, the NFL at large is providing a suggestion that passing is that much more valuable than rushing. The question really is about how much deadweight loss each team experiences discretely in how they accept that and take action on it. It is a complex thing but it's not an inaccessible thing. The article itself states clearly that there is no 'point' of correct amount of plays or that there is a correct amount of passing or rushing. One can use that same rationale to see that there isn't a 'point' for optimal amount of passing plays or rushing plays in aggregate, rather, it's about focusing on what is right for the team itself.

    In my estimation, the magic number rationale publicly stated is not useful or informative towards diving the right mix for the Hawks (and just the Hawks). In my estimation, there are discrete things we see on the field that suggest this rationale does override the right mix of calls for the Hawks and this is buttressed a bit by what tools we do have available.

    Let me ask this: If you and others were trying to divine a methodology for assessing what the right mix of rushing and passing is for each NFL team, where would you start? What would the framework look like? Don't be shy.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4069
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:21 pm


Re: It doesn't add up! (Athletic Article)
Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:32 pm
  • My general rule in life is that when the world zigs, it's usually smart to zag. Not completely, and not to an extent that it completely compromises your life. But when it comes to business, buying homes, etc., it's usually smart to do things a little differently.

    In this case, it's becoming a passing league. Which means, defenses are gearing up to stop the pass. They're no longer built to get punched in the mouth by a power running game, they're built for finesse. Nose tackles are becoming extinct.

    When you can find the perfect balance, and have an elite QB to exploit teams in the air at the same time, you have a great recipe. I guarantee you, if we win a Super Bowl, EVERY TEAM in the league will be trying to adopt to a power running game. Copy cat league, no one thinks outside the box

    Look at Sean McVay. He comes into the league and everyone wants him. Then he gets embarassed by Belicheck and a power running game. Brady barely did a thing. Say what you want about Pete, he has never been completely punked by Belicheck. We lost that last Super Bowl because of Butler's instincts, and arguably a risky playcall
    Scorpion05
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1075
    Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:05 am


  • Scorpion05 wrote:My general rule in life is that when the world zigs, it's usually smart to zag. Not completely, and not to an extent that it completely compromises your life. But when it comes to business, buying homes, etc., it's usually smart to do things a little differently.

    In this case, it's becoming a passing league. Which means, defenses are gearing up to stop the pass. They're no longer built to get punched in the mouth by a power running game, they're built for finesse. Nose tackles are becoming extinct.

    When you can find the perfect balance, and have an elite QB to exploit teams in the air at the same time, you have a great recipe. I guarantee you, if we win a Super Bowl, EVERY TEAM in the league will be trying to adopt to a power running game. Copy cat league, no one thinks outside the box

    Look at Sean McVay. He comes into the league and everyone wants him. Then he gets embarassed by Belicheck and a power running game. Brady barely did a thing. Say what you want about Pete, he has never been completely punked by Belicheck. We lost that last Super Bowl because of Butler's instincts, and arguably a risky playcall


    Well to hold the example of McVay, does one game disrepute what he has done so far? Is getting pantsed by the best in the biz a millstone that discredits what he has achieved so far? I don't think so and the benefit McVay has is time and aging/turnover which is definitely at hand.

    Just as RW is starting to get the deserved shine for being the solid QB he is through his aged comparison peers retiring, McVay could potentially enjoy the same benefit as the guys who have his number leave the stage and do so with a good pantsing for him to learn from.

    Also, absolutely there is potential benefit in being contrarian but it must be sewn with excellence. Simply being contrarian to trend doesn't create positive results. My personal experience with financial markets has reinforced that - I can be right about a trend and operate contra to that trend but if I don't do it excellently I will miss out on returns OR I might not even eek out a return because the contrarian expression was the wrong one at the wrong time.

    So again, I'm led back to the question - if we reject all the different ways to build a composite picture that there is room for improvement in doing the respective aspects of the offense the way the Hawks do it, what is another way to evaluate what the Hawks are doing where we can layer different inferences together that shows "there is no room for improvement at the management/coaching level, just has to be players making plays" It seems that once you start trying to integrate more than three or four different notions, there is room for improvement.

    Or even more wild, is there a way to discombobulate player talent from coaching directive so the basis of 'this is exactly how the team at hand should be playing their talent hand to greatest effect?'

    It's just really hard to wrap my head around the notion that the team is where it absolutely should be in terms of offensive productivity and efficacy. I don't think there's a greater harm in falsifying that notion because ultimately, our work isn't going to change who the coaching staff is and what they do. We can just see if we have a model that explains outcomes a wee bit more than yesterday and maybe glean something from it to apply to our daily lives.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4069
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:21 pm


  • There's room for improvement in every aspect, including coaching. Every successive NFL year demonstrates that across the board and the 2019 Cardinals would wreck the 1985 Bears. I don't think anybody is arguing here that the coaching staff is infallible. 53 "completions + runs" is a meaningless number but you and Baldwin have the causation backwards here; in reality Pete just likes that number because it supports his run philosophy.

    I may be misinterpreting your argument but I believe you are arguing for an overall decrease in the run/pass ratio. You haven't made the case why that is an improvement. The charts I added are not conclusive proof but don't suggest we should rush less, and the best two teams in our conference were also in the top 10 in RUSH% (Rams, Saints).

    mrt144 wrote:Let me ask this: If you and others were trying to divine a methodology for assessing what the right mix of rushing and passing is for each NFL team, where would you start? What would the framework look like? Don't be shy.

    First, it's very clear to me that there are many ways of skinning a cat in the NFL but what is the most important is that your FO and coaching staff are on the same page. Players need to be acquired to fit what the coaching staff is trying to do, and the coaching staff needs to adapt their philosophy to suit the players that they do have rather than the ones they'd like to have. On this front I think the Seahawks are doing an excellent job and the players we are bringing in are well suited to our balanced approach. Pete is a defensive minded guy and it plays into our strengths to embrace that. When Pete retires our philosophy could (and should) change dramatically to suit what our next head coach is best at.

    Second, there are a few nuances that need to be acknowledged:
    -- Some runs function a lot like passes (high ceiling low floor) and some passes function a lot like runs (high floor low ceiling). Jet sweeps are really low variance passes while screen passes are really high variance runs.
    -- Game situation (score/down/distance) plays an increasingly large factor as the game continues. In the fourth quarter is often obvious if we are trying to eat clock or minimize clock. As a result, the balance that we are really talking about is first half rush/pass ratios.
    -- Our strategy should be tailored to counter the opponent's personnel and philosophy. Against our division opponents in 2019 I think we should play the 49ers to our average, pass a bit more against the Cardinals, and run a bit more against the Rams (last in opposing YPC). Of course I could be completely wrong on that and change my opinion over course of the season as we see how the off-season changes translate into 2019 execution. In particular, I could see my opinion of the Rams secondary deteriorate if Rapp struggles as a rookie and Peters continues to have off games.

    All that being said, I think the Seahawks would be well served to continue to lean on their defense in 2019 with lots of early low variance plays: rushing, screen passes, short passes. I view Russ as one of the most efficient QBs in the NFL who can be relied on to convert third and reasonables. I also think a very important psychological key to Pete's defense is keeping them in manageable siutations so he can build their confidence (or feed their egos depending on how you view things). In order to keep the defense from keying on the line of scrimmage we will need to pepper the offense with corner/go/fade routes which on paper seem very strong with our current personnel.
    AgentDib
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3763
    Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:08 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • Ask the Broncos how great a passing attack is without a good running attack.

    Image

    With a great passing game they should have been able to comeback and win based on your theory. But they didn't, in fact forcing things with no running game made it worse, remember they were the best offense in history.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 27083
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • mrt144 wrote:I know it isnt quite kosher to answer a question with a question, but what if doing better than status quo isnt predicated on identifying a discrete equilibrium or optimal point (which is already more nuanced than the stated public rationale of our OC) but rather based on finding the team's own equilibrium for the talent in the stable. Know thyself.

    Instead of asking the team to conform to a specific paradigm like the Chiefs, the question could instead focus on 'are we optimizing our own passing game to the respective talents and game situatuon better or worse than other teams.' What are the limits of the league and how close are we to them? What is currently possible in the league and are the Hawks seizing their share from the table? This seems to be digestible and more straight forward.

    There would be a lot to unpack there. How do you build a framework to determine better or worse (there are some), in what ways are the Hawks better or worse, how do you identify the parts and components that contribute, how much film is needed to buttress data? A lot. But this is what the patchwork of current work strives for at least.

    There isnt a lot out there suggesting that the Hawks are in their own equilibrium or optimization which the article alludes to with the sum being less than the parts, I think at least

    I am excited to see what happens next season and how the team approaches it. There are changes happening about what is possible and valuable all the time in the league and we will see how the Hawks tap into that.

    I would need to see if there is any correlation between passing efficiency and winning games on a macro level; otherwise, I see no point in trying to optimize my team based on a metric that has no transferable benefit other than increasing passing efficiency. That's not to say teams shouldn't be trying to find solutions, just that It wouldn't be my priority based on the information we currently have.

    I view football like boxing. I don't think striving for efficiency in one aspect of the game is necessarily the ideal way to play. For instance, a jab in boxing is a horribly inefficient way to finish a fight. However, despite it's inefficiency if your opponent cannot stop the jab your entire arsenal of punches become less predictable.

    The goal in football (IMO) should not be to become a high efficiency scoring machine all the time. The goal should be to limit your opponents exposure to your most efficient plays in order to maintain an element of surprise for when you actually need those plays. That's precisely why I think smart coaches are running the ball more. The boring and predictable can be less efficient overall, but it may also be the correct long term play in a sport so heavily dependent on attrition.

    Consider a team like the Rams who were unstoppable at the start of the year but slowed down as teams saw more and more of their offense. The problem with optimization in this sport (unlike say basketball) is it's heavy dependency on the defense's inability to stop it. This puts someone like McVay in a race to stay ahead of defensive coordinators because in order to reach optimization you need to run more plays, but in running more plays you give defensive coordinators more information about the intricacies of your scheme.

    That's the thing I wish more people realized about Bill Belichick. Bill is aware that information is the key to winning football games. That's why he filmed his opponents practices. That's why the Patriots scout their own tendencies and consistently break them. That strategy represents a kind of entropy in the context of this article; an optimization on a micro level rather than a macro trend. In other words, being less concerned about your overall long term efficiency and where it ranks amongst your peers, and more concerned about winning the game this week without revealing too much of your long term hand.
    knownone
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1960
    Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:10 am


  • At least half of what the Rams do is based off the stretch play to the left.
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4129
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:37 pm


  • Thank you knownone and AgentDib for the great replies and something to think about! :irishdrinkers:
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4069
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:21 pm


  • N/M
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5069
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:58 am


  • So in to reply of knowone, I found these two articles from the same source:

    http://www.footballperspective.com/any- ... ercentage/

    https://www.footballperspective.com/cor ... with-wins/

    The first paints a picture that ANYA, has a very volatile correlation to winning % over time. Some years high, some years lower. But in the RW era (2012 onward) ANYA has always held a higher correlative value over rushing.

    The 2nd article talks about 'why ANYA' and the various metrics that try to capture QB performance and efficiency and disrules other metrics by their correlation coefficient to winning.

    Let me know your thoughts - I have some more thoughts in mind and how to proceed from here but wanted to hear how you interpret the articles first.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4069
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:21 pm


Re: It doesn't add up! (Athletic Article)
Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:05 am
  • Like any efficiency metric it is intuitive that ANY/A should correlate with winning football games. If everything else is equal then teams that get more bang for their buck from a given play should win more often. The complication is that it is also intuitive that efficient plays will lose efficiency the more they are used. A very effective play often depends on less effective plays setting it up.

    You're probably familiar with the quote about continuing to run an effective play until the opponent shows that they can stop it. The better strategy is of course to run that play one fewer time.

    Another comparison is Tyler Lockett. He had a ridiculously efficient 2018 season - 81% catch rate, 14 yards per target, and RW ended up with a perfect passer rating when throwing to him. There are two different ways of looking at his performance. On the one hand, we should basically throw him the ball on every single play. On the other, his efficiency demonstrates that when Russ targeted him on deep corner/post routes it was enormously successful - in large part because most of the time he wasn't chucking it deep at Tyler.

    History has a comparison in CJ Spiller's 2012 season with the Bills. That season he managed to rush for an amazing 6.0 YPC and 1244 yards on just 13 carries per game. A very common internet take at the time was that it was ridiculous how few carries he was getting given how dominant he was. With the benefit of hindsight we can see that he was benefiting from getting those change of pace carries in advantageous situations where Fred Jackson was doing a lot of the less glamorous work. Spiller went on to average 4.6 the following year, then 3.8, then 3.0 with the Saints and he was effectively done in the NFL.
    AgentDib
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3763
    Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:08 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: It doesn't add up! (Athletic Article)
Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:50 am
  • AgentDib wrote:Like any efficiency metric it is intuitive that ANY/A should correlate with winning football games. If everything else is equal then teams that get more bang for their buck from a given play should win more often. The complication is that it is also intuitive that efficient plays will lose efficiency the more they are used. A very effective play often depends on less effective plays setting it up.

    You're probably familiar with the quote about continuing to run an effective play until the opponent shows that they can stop it. The better strategy is of course to run that play one fewer time.

    Another comparison is Tyler Lockett. He had a ridiculously efficient 2018 season - 81% catch rate, 14 yards per target, and RW ended up with a perfect passer rating when throwing to him. There are two different ways of looking at his performance. On the one hand, we should basically throw him the ball on every single play. On the other, his efficiency demonstrates that when Russ targeted him on deep corner/post routes it was enormously successful - in large part because most of the time he wasn't chucking it deep at Tyler.

    History has a comparison in CJ Spiller's 2012 season with the Bills. That season he managed to rush for an amazing 6.0 YPC and 1244 yards on just 13 carries per game. A very common internet take at the time was that it was ridiculous how few carries he was getting given how dominant he was. With the benefit of hindsight we can see that he was benefiting from getting those change of pace carries in advantageous situations where Fred Jackson was doing a lot of the less glamorous work. Spiller went on to average 4.6 the following year, then 3.8, then 3.0 with the Saints and he was effectively done in the NFL.


    The Tyler Lockett point is a good one that I think clearly illustrates something I'm kind of struggling with - absolute returns vs. relative returns. In both facets he was aces but the relative ones would likely diminish with more balls thrown his way. So perhaps then strict relative returns on usage is just a small element of information of 'what is he capable of'. That still doesn't neatly answer 'then what should we do?'

    Honestly, I would love to see Tyler Lockett get more thrown his way. I guess a side-bar question then becomes, 'how could one illustrate that there is value there for the taking with him?' Or perhaps, 'illustrate expected per play value as volume increases?'

    To the first point, what you're describing sounds like a 'loss leader' from the retail sphere - you take a small loss on tchotchskes and doodads but reap fat profits on other items after the customer has already been lured in by that screaming deal on that doodad. Perhaps a question around that is how do you do 'loss leaders' tactically in game that still provide positive value even if it isn't the greatest possible value on a per play basis.

    To some extent I don't think there needs to absolutely be 'loss leaders' tactically and some of the mythos surrounding that in Play Action concepts has been taken to task

    https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat- ... on-passing
    https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat- ... conditions

    And of course, the most anecdotal of all anecdotal games - the 2017 game between the Texans and Seahawks which debased a lot of that notion to me, visually and experientially. They were running PA passes in spite of the rushing game that day to impressive effect.

    So this kind of leads me to this thought: What if the trick isn't passing more or less but shoring up the absolute value of rushing plays to keep the efficiency and explosiveness of passing (which we know RW is capable of) stable but not eat as much of a 'loss' in the service of doing so. This is predicated on accepting the argument that efficient passing matters more than absolute passing attempts but elevates the importance of the running game to be more than just a pulled punch but a confident jab that wears down the opponent over and over again and even KOs a few chumps.

    I have a somewhat recent idea that perhaps I'm looking at it backwards - perhaps what I'm misinterpreting is that because passing on a per play basis gives a higher expected value, that should be done more often until diminishing returns are seen. Perhaps the inverse picture is more accurate - the gap between the expected values necessitates a stronger rushing game than a lot of current teams, maybe even the Seahawks, have in their stable.

    To put it into some context, what if being the champion of Rushing in 2019 going into 2020 isn't as meaningful because the peer group is developing alternative methods (like a robust short passing game) that would have been called rushes 10-20 years ago? To distill this even further, this is my proactive argument against the argument that the Seahawks rushing game is one of the best if not the best in the NFL currently and going forward. Being the best at a facet reaps outcomes to what end exactly?

    We can be best among the peer group and still experience dead weight loss from the differences between expected values between rushes and passing. Put another way, Rushing, if it is your overriding tactic must achieve value closer to passing for it to really sing and keep the door wide open on those explosive plays which in turn amplify passing efficiency metrics.

    Thoughts?
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4069
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:21 pm


  • And interesting and reoccurring subject.

    I think inferences from statistical studies and the development of models is interesting to those who like to play with them. But, models blow up from time to time. And, I think most of today's trailing enthusiasts are susceptible because of dependency on the use of a very broad paint brush. Composite averaging can only say so much as it ignores match ups, skill set diversity, individual decisions making and scheme/ personnel diversity. A lot of information that is insufficiently identified and quantified is being omitted. In one of the posted links ...... Ben Baldwin acknowledges current limitations with this statement >>> "Perhaps this will look silly later on, but I'm getting the sense that we're beginning to approach the limits of what there is to be learned about play-action without having access to the NFL's player tracking data."

    It should be pointed out that the when Ben says we're beginning to ....... , the we he is referring to is event reviews by a very small group of data enthusiasts. Most of the rest of us are happy watching live events. Many view the game thru the soda straw of a telecast with it's own agenda as to what it is going to show and what it is going to omit. Most of us don't have the time or inclination to participate in any exiting all-22 service. Outside of spot telecast candy, the NFL appears a long way off from packaging it's player tracking data into a readily digestible form for mass consumption.

    Although, the topic is interesting. I question it's usefulness in a forum open to everyone from all walks of life. Like other evolving efforts, a lot of what it promises is over stated and over sold. Everyone is at liberty to subscribe to what interests them. Just be discerning about what to buy into. After all, there is a sizable year round effort at tracking outcomes and trends over at the VMAC. And, those are the real participants preparing for match ups verses real people in live games. And of course, fans are at liberty to continue to pick out what they enjoy and dismiss the rest.

    In any case, those are my thoughts. You'll have to pardon me now as my lawn is calling and the mower is all fueled up.

    Life is good.


    P.S. Too little attention to paid to effects of scale and detail on the dialogue of our time.
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 8560
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:49 pm


  • mrt144 wrote:And of course, the most anecdotal of all anecdotal games - the 2017 game between the Texans and Seahawks which debased a lot of that notion to me, visually and experimentally. They were running PA passes in spite of the rushing game that day to impressive effect.

    I would argue that what matters in regards to the opposing defense is entirely their expectations about what your team is going to do. If you can somehow sell that you are going to be running the ball fifty times up the middle while actually throwing deep every play then you have a ticket to many wins. That explains why just about every team loudly proclaims how much they are committing to the run multiple times each season whether they actually do so or not.

    Expectation is also why our offense has been extremely effective working out of an empty set with Russ even though we very rarely have him run it in that scenario. The defense still has to respect that Russ could run the ball and this next play is the one we've been setting them up for with the previous ten throws. As a result their edge rushers have to worry about contain instead of pure pass rush and they often have a LB drop out of coverage to spy Russ in case he takes off.

    Players themselves leverage expectations within the game when it comes to their own execution. Pass rushers often set up moves many plays (or even quarters) in advance and the sack we see on tape was often the result of lulling the tackle into a false sense of security in regards to a certain move only to suddenly turn up the juice and subvert their expectations. Receivers will sell half-hearted comebacks and double moves only to suddenly tighten them up on a key play.

    mrt144 wrote:perhaps what I'm misinterpreting is that because passing on a per play basis gives a higher expected value, that should be done more often until diminishing returns are seen. Perhaps the inverse picture is more accurate - the gap between the expected values necessitates a stronger rushing game than a lot of current teams, maybe even the Seahawks, have in their stable.

    Of course what makes football great is we don't have a time machine and so either option is possible but not provable. The Seahawks clearly believe that the latter was the case in 2017 if you look at their 2018 and 2019 off-season moves. Drafting Penny in the first, adding Homer this year, signing mammoth run blocking guards in Fluker and Iupati, and drafting another road grading guard in Haynes.

    mrt144 wrote:Rushing, if it is your overriding tactic must achieve value closer to passing for it to really sing and keep the door wide open on those explosive plays which in turn amplify passing efficiency metrics.

    Look at how we used Tyler Lockett in the games Doug Baldwin was out last year, reminiscent of how we tried to use Percy Harvin. Lots of motion and fake jet sweeps, some real jet sweeps, and then a bunch of short routes coming out of motion that had him turning the corner upfield along the sidelines. The creativity is definitely there but with only 50 offensive plays per game the data is extremely noisy. One holding penalty on 2nd and 6 can kill a drive and having a jet sweep get tackled at the LOS vs. turning the corner for 20 yards has a huge effect on our efficiency stats.

    It's also worth pointing out the link between rushing and passing, while important, is the lesser complication in the mind of many. The link between rushing and defense, particularly in regards to Carroll's defensive philosophies, is one of the key reasons cited for our emphasis on the run. The problem with data analysis on that front is there is a very large psychological angle in play in regards to how Carroll motivates his team and defense.

    My best example on that front is how very few teams deferred the initial kickoff back in 2010. The belief at the time was that football was a momentum based sport (easier to play with a lead because you can milk the clock, harder to play from behind because you get too one dimensional) and so everybody wanted the ball first and to try to get an early lead. Our friendly neighborhood ESPN reporter John Clayton was particularly adamant that teams should always start with the ball.

    Of course we know these days teams almost always defer and Pete was one of the coaches leading that transition behind BB. Nobody to date has come up with a good statistical reason to defer but Pete feels very strongly about the psychological benefits and the message it sends his team. "You win the game in the second half" is clearly nonsense, but if it's nonsense that the players buy into and it helps them play better then it's the kind of nonsense he's wise to lean into.
    AgentDib
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3763
    Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:08 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • For computerized table top game I play, that resembles football and rugby in a few ways, the reason for kicking first is simple - you know exactly what you need to do in the 2nd half to win, whereas that information is less known if you receive first. If you received first the execution revolves around "Don't make a mistake, score, and score at the right moment to diminish the chances of a retaliatory score."

    Whereas with kicking first, you have few ways to play it - force an earlier than wanted score, stop the score outright, or score a defensive TD and force them to equalize with diminishing turns available in the half.

    Obviously that's not exactly applicable to the NFL and football but I always like drawing comparisons between the familiar to the unknown to make a little more sense of it. The rationales might be more applicable than the execution.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4069
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:21 pm


  • mrt144 wrote:So in to reply of knowone, I found these two articles from the same source:

    http://www.footballperspective.com/any- ... ercentage/

    https://www.footballperspective.com/cor ... with-wins/

    The first paints a picture that ANYA, has a very volatile correlation to winning % over time. Some years high, some years lower. But in the RW era (2012 onward) ANYA has always held a higher correlative value over rushing.

    The 2nd article talks about 'why ANYA' and the various metrics that try to capture QB performance and efficiency and disrules other metrics by their correlation coefficient to winning.

    Let me know your thoughts - I have some more thoughts in mind and how to proceed from here but wanted to hear how you interpret the articles first.

    It's interesting, but from my perspective it's still a flawed set of data so it's hard to draw any meaningful conclusions from it. Again, that's not me saying it's not correct in the grand scheme of things, it's just that the data isn't particularly great at the moment.

    So, first let's look at the formula for ANY/A :
    (pass yards + 20*(pass TD) - 45*(interceptions thrown) - sack yards)/(passing attempts + sacks)


    Just looking at the formula what is the most logical connection between ANY/A and winning? Teams with great QB's and offensive talent win more games? Does that really tell us the ideal strategy for winning football games? I don't think anyone would argue that QB's have a larger impact on winning than the running game, but that doesn't exactly tell us if passing more with higher efficiency is necessarily a better way to win than emphasizing the running game.

    I've read a lot of these articles over the years. Recently we've had an influx of very well educated people (and they love to advertise that aspect, PhD[Insert school name], Economist, etc...) writing click bait level articles using math to justify their opinions or to create this idea that they are smarter than the NFL. It's important to remember that they are not doing this solely for educational purposes; they are doing it to create a market for themselves to make a living with their writing / opinions. So when in doubt remember these famous words.

    Economists are evaluated on how intelligent they sound, not on a scientific measure of their knowledge of reality.
    knownone
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1960
    Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:10 am


  • knownone wrote:
    mrt144 wrote:So in to reply of knowone, I found these two articles from the same source:

    http://www.footballperspective.com/any- ... ercentage/

    https://www.footballperspective.com/cor ... with-wins/

    The first paints a picture that ANYA, has a very volatile correlation to winning % over time. Some years high, some years lower. But in the RW era (2012 onward) ANYA has always held a higher correlative value over rushing.

    The 2nd article talks about 'why ANYA' and the various metrics that try to capture QB performance and efficiency and disrules other metrics by their correlation coefficient to winning.

    Let me know your thoughts - I have some more thoughts in mind and how to proceed from here but wanted to hear how you interpret the articles first.

    It's interesting, but from my perspective it's still a flawed set of data so it's hard to draw any meaningful conclusions from it. Again, that's not me saying it's not correct in the grand scheme of things, it's just that the data isn't particularly great at the moment.

    So, first let's look at the formula for ANY/A :
    (pass yards + 20*(pass TD) - 45*(interceptions thrown) - sack yards)/(passing attempts + sacks)


    Just looking at the formula what is the most logical connection between ANY/A and winning? Teams with great QB's and offensive talent win more games? Does that really tell us the ideal strategy for winning football games? I don't think anyone would argue that QB's have a larger impact on winning than the running game, but that doesn't exactly tell us if passing more with higher efficiency is necessarily a better way to win than emphasizing the running game.

    I've read a lot of these articles over the years. Recently we've had an influx of very well educated people (and they love to advertise that aspect, PhD[Insert school name], Economist, etc...) writing click bait level articles using math to justify their opinions or to create this idea that they are smarter than the NFL. It's important to remember that they are not doing this solely for educational purposes; they are doing it to create a market for themselves to make a living with their writing / opinions. So when in doubt remember these famous words.

    Economists are evaluated on how intelligent they sound, not on a scientific measure of their knowledge of reality.


    Also they probably have never held a football or watched a game, they just crunch the numbers and don't understand the psychology of the game.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 27083
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • mrt144 wrote:
    Jville wrote:
    mrt144 wrote:
    HawkGA wrote:Interesting. I'm only going off the snippet, as I'm not going to subscribe, but it does sound like they are tackling an interesting question. I've often thought most of our statistics are used in faulty ways. For example ..................................


    Ill post the whole thing after someone assures me they subscribed. It is a bit chart heavy though.


    Let's not revisit that mistake!
    ** Posting Complete Articles or Videos **

    Seahawks.NET/NET Nation does NOT allow complete articles posted from outside sources. Just a short paragraph or so with a link to the rest of the article IS ALLOWED.

    You may NOT post premium or subscription based articles in their entirety, no exceptions. You may NOT post video containing a game or movie in its entirety, no exceptions. We don't want to hear from any more lawyers.


    Reference link >>> http://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=20981#p267096


    Shoot! Well I tried guys!


    Damn that JVille and his rules!

    I like Happy Accidents. :179417:
    ivotuk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 18738
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


  • HawkGA wrote:
    Could you imagine a football player faking an injury?

    I mean, other than Joe Nash and Joe Nash's backup, of course! :irishdrinkers:


    Ugh...don't remind me of that Cincinnati game. It would have been okay if we would have won.

    FYI, all those numbers, ideas, and articles mean Jack. How does Seattle's running game effect the throwing game? Ask Russell Wilson and the Seahawks Offense that scored the 3rd most points (428) in team history. Comparable to 2205 when we scored 452.

    The run sets up the pass. If you force a team to be one dimensional with the pass, then you can "pin your ears back" and rush the passer.

    Wilson, who had his fewest pass attempts since 2013, nonetheless put up some very impressive stats,

    completing 65.6 of his throws for 3,448 yards and a career-best 35 touchdowns, with only seven interceptions.

    He had his highest-ever passer rating of 110.9, which boosted his career mark to 100.3 -- second only to the Packers' Aaron Rodgers on the all-time list. His 67 rushing attempts, a career low, produced another 376 yards.

    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... lay-til-45
    ivotuk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 18738
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


  • mrt144 wrote:
    We can be best among the peer group and still experience dead weight loss from the differences between expected values between rushes and passing. Put another way, Rushing, if it is your overriding tactic must achieve value closer to passing for it to really sing and keep the door wide open on those explosive plays which in turn amplify passing efficiency metrics.

    Thoughts?

    Of course it isn't just rushing attempts, but rushing effectiveness as well, that is required to have the desired effect on passing. If a team isn't built to rush, they can run ineffectively all day long and do nothing to improve passing.

    But this is no revelation. The teams that feast off of play action - Rams and Hawks to name two - don't just run a lot, they run well.

    The problem with taking the analysis much further than it's already gone is that you have a system where each transaction itself depends on matchups, recent history, personnel, a host of other factors, none of which can currently be modeled meaningfully across 32 NFL teams to make comparisons more useful.

    If we want to compare run/pass mixes, the most meaningful comparison would be to teams built like ours, playing opponents like ours.

    Or to put it succinctly like Tical: we've seen what our team looks like when we throw it all over the yard, and offensively that has never looked as good over the long term (final stretch of 2015 notwithstanding) as when we pounded it more.

    The only thing I would change from last year is, I felt like with a run game as dominant as ours, our PA should have been even more deadly. Rams deadly. But we were pretty deadly all the same. But from an overall philosophy standpoint, I would absolutely not be going back to the analytical drawing board. We're talking a change of a few plays here or there.
    hawk45
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8696
    Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:08 pm


  • mrt144 wrote:We can be best among the peer group and still experience dead weight loss from the differences between expected values between rushes and passing. Put another way, Rushing, if it is your overriding tactic must achieve value closer to passing for it to really sing and keep the door wide open on those explosive plays which in turn amplify passing efficiency metrics.

    To equate rushing productivity with passing productivity is to miss the point of rushing.

    Pass plays very often end up with a receiver going out of bounds, an incompletion, or a penalty, all of which stop the clock. It's far rarer for rushing plays to end with a clock stoppage. This means the successful rushing team can control how much clock they consume, or don't consume, based on how quickly they line up to run the next play.

    If, for instance, you are facing a red-hot passing team, you'll want to eat up as much time as possible because you want to keep their powerful offense on the sideline while wearing down their defense and resting yours. The best way to accomplish this is to get as near as possible to 10 yards every 3 downs, without going under that target. That is why consistent rushers like Lynch and Carson make our rushing game work, because they don't tend to break long runs, but frequently get 3-5 yards and usually end up falling forward.

    At the end of the game, if you are ahead, you can grind out a long, slow drive that wins the game because the opponent never gets a chance to take the field. If you are behind, you can speed up your tempo to get more plays in.

    Our rushing efficiency with Lynch was one of the big reasons we almost never lost a game by more than 10 points, because we reduced the number of drives in the game, and thus reduced points-against. Obviously, having a premier defense had something to say in that as well.

    I recall a game vs Denver, around the 1999 season, where Denver was ahead and in position to score. They could have knelt on the ball and run out the clock, but they chose to go for the score. We got the ball, scored quickly, made a successful on-side kick, and scored again to force overtime. Denver eventually won, but the point is had they simply knelt on the ball they would have won in regulation without risk. That's why Pete Carroll so often values ending the game on offense, because you control the outcome. Having a strong rushing game enables that because of the clock control it provides.

    None of that relates to AYPA. AYPA relates to a brute-force game plan with no finesse or strategy. While it works well when it works, there are many times it fails, such as when you meet a great defense, or play in poor conditions, or an off game from your QB.

    We play 8 games outdoors in one of the rainiest cities in the US, but more importantly playoff games are played (when not in domes) in pretty much universally poor conditions. Given the problems prolific passing offenses can have in inclement conditions, having a strong rushing game when we are likely to face those conditions - particularly when it counts - makes a lot of sense.

    Add a potent defense to poor conditions, and you have 2/3 of the causes for a passing offense to falter. In XLVIII, we had the combination of a potent defense and a QB off his game, and they only managed 8 points. Imagine if that game had also been played in the snow.
    KiwiHawk
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 2367
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 4:22 pm
    Location: Auckland, New Zealand


  • hawk45 wrote:
    mrt144 wrote:
    We can be best among the peer group and still experience dead weight loss from the differences between expected values between rushes and passing. Put another way, Rushing, if it is your overriding tactic must achieve value closer to passing for it to really sing and keep the door wide open on those explosive plays which in turn amplify passing efficiency metrics.

    Thoughts?

    Of course it isn't just rushing attempts, but rushing effectiveness as well, that is required to have the desired effect on passing. If a team isn't built to rush, they can run ineffectively all day long and do nothing to improve passing.

    But this is no revelation. The teams that feast off of play action - Rams and Hawks to name two - don't just run a lot, they run well.

    The problem with taking the analysis much further than it's already gone is that you have a system where each transaction itself depends on matchups, recent history, personnel, a host of other factors, none of which can currently be modeled meaningfully across 32 NFL teams to make comparisons more useful.

    If we want to compare run/pass mixes, the most meaningful comparison would be to teams built like ours, playing opponents like ours.

    Or to put it succinctly like Tical: we've seen what our team looks like when we throw it all over the yard, and offensively that has never looked as good over the long term (final stretch of 2015 notwithstanding) as when we pounded it more.

    The only thing I would change from last year is, I felt like with a run game as dominant as ours, our PA should have been even more deadly. Rams deadly. But we were pretty deadly all the same. But from an overall philosophy standpoint, I would absolutely not be going back to the analytical drawing board. We're talking a change of a few plays here or there.


    Well that's part of what is seemingly ineffable - okay, so perhaps it is a few changes here and there, but what informs one of those specific points and gives the 'aha' moment that perhaps there was a better call or action? To refer back to my own gaming hobby, sometimes you can do everything right and the dice don't validate it. Sometimes you can do a lot of 'wrong' stuff and the dice don't care and you waltz away winning 3-0. FWIW I am spearheading the site's annual newsletter and am conducting an interview with the top flight coaches on the site to pick their brain in how they approach Blood Bowl. I digress.

    But what makes the call of spot changes difficult is we aren't privy to the underlying decision theory among the coaching staff. We can only hear what they publicly state and then expressions of their takeaways implemented in game planning and game calling. It's not very satisfying to the curious type who wants to know how things work and how people tick.

    Let's take a step back and think about this in another way - what separates good coaching from great coaching. I would reckon that a lot of it resides in a je ne sais quoi but that is not satisfying (and doesn't speak to characteristics like morale provisioning to players, which is not to be discounted). To me, I think the separation is in intution and manifestations of that intuition. What feels best in the moment given the circumstances and parameter structure of the game itself and being 'correct' more often than the peer group. What one ascribes to luck in poker isn't luck at all (mostly) - it's a better intuition of how to play the hand than the other guys at the table using the information available. It's is better intuitive risk management. I don't think that is a far cry from separation of coaching peers. Where am I going with this?

    Oh right, so where I am going is that even if I am fully disabused of the notion that pass/run ratios matter, if I think that focusing on team strengths and playing towards them is a good thing and having a core consistency and pillars provides stability to launch off from, there is something unsatisfying with the risk intuition of Schotty where it feels like an overtly dogmatic approach overrules adaptability to circumstance and game parameters. And it isn't even rooted in what I would do or what another peer would do. I have wild ideas that are disreputable, I admit. It is rooted in assessing whether the team itself is getting the results it strives for on its own terms. The entire premise of a magic number rubs me wrong so thoroughly. The Dallas playoff game still rubs me the wrong way.

    AgentDib and KiwiHawk, I will respond to your post later but a sexy wife beckons and I am not one to pass or run on that.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4069
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:21 pm


  • What kills me is people want to categorize and Statistic size every Nuance of everything. Football by definition is a game of emotion, passion and psychology. You want to beat a guy and cause doubts, you want to take the heart of a team away, you want to make them remember they had no chance for the next time and create a Aura of a certain image. You want that team to feel they have no chance when they play you.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 27083
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • chris98251 wrote:What kills me is people want to categorize and Statistic size every Nuance of everything. Football by definition is a game of emotion, passion and psychology. You want to beat a guy and cause doubts, you want to take the heart of a team away, you want to make them remember they had no chance for the next time and create a Aura of a certain image. You want that team to feel they have no chance when they play you.


    I mean, isn't one of the most important parts of coaching cladding your team from the emotional roller coaster of a game to help them maintain focus and perform to the best of their ability? I am not discounting that, I just don't speak to it because I think PC is pretty much one of the best if not the best with that in the midst of the game. Intermediate to long term, maybe not as much (as evidenced by the obvious discontent by former players. I don't take it with a grain of salt that some truly excellent and one of a kind players had their issues with leadership - too much 'trust me' and not enough 'accountability') I take it for granted that Pete is an excellent game day coach vis a vis morale. Maybe I should pepper my thoughts with that acknowledgment?

    Let me ask you though - what does all that psychological warfare do when the other coach and team is less susceptible to it? How does one know about this beforehand? On our own end, there is an overriding of philosophy that boils down to "We defy you to stop us despite you having good hunches of what we do." That can be very disruptive and frustrating for the other team. Trying to run a psyche game on a more disciplined team might not lead to that outcome and then what are you left with? Your players and tactics and strategy. I would not make an assumption that other teams and coaches can be manipulated until there is some sort of basis for it in experience - both in tape analysis and in real time events.

    Also consider how this cuts the other way - the Hawks under PC have not been exactly the most disciplined team. Some of that is the talent itself. Ifedi incurring holding penalty works against the psyche game and elevates the tactical and strategic game's importance because when put into a 2nd and 13, setting up your best shot at a first down seems a bit more important than trying set up a con down the road because it possibly allows for more run in setting up the con - you get more inflection points to work your psyche game. Getting a DPI on 3rd and 16 also cuts the other way and is a morale zapper.

    That same notion of 'what are you left with' is the basis of a lot of poking and prodding and subsequent focus on coaching. I see players as something that can only do so much - they either make the plays or they don't make the plays. Coaches get a sense of the talent through direct contact and direction and practice, so in turn, they should have a better sense of how that player makes the team plug along and function. From the perch of a fan, saying that so and so needs to play better and be better is bordering on self evidence. Players, especially team players, don't think how they play is unimpeachable and beyond reproach. From RW to whoever the 46th dude on the game day roster knows, implicitly AND explicitly they need to perform their damn best. Coaching can nurture that or crush it. But alas, it is a domain we have even less access to than what we see on the field.

    Players also suffering injuries and attrition in sports has a real impact. An unavailable yet integral player to how the team operates is not an arbitrary impediment thrown down as a test of grit at mettle, it's the reality of the game that should be accounted for in drawing up plans and ordering actions. I find no solace in excusing outcomes because of injuries or loss of talent. I see that adaptive ability as one integral facet of coaching ability. I am not going to suggest that it is equal to or more important than morale. That isn't the point. The point is impediments allow creativity and adaptability to shine. In the current NBA Finals, the Warriors having so many banged up players isn't an excuse for Steve Kerr or the team itself if they wind up losing. It's their job to find a way to overcome with what is left. If they can do it, praise be, if they can't there is something to learn from it and work on for next season (or next playoffs). A coach's task in my mind is accounting for roster instability. Lack of success isn't lack of trying, I know.

    Let me ask, since I stopped playing football at 15 and have only revisited it via Madden, Fantasy Football, and conversation/analysis on various sites - how do you determine if your psyche game is working in real time? Maybe that's an even more fundamental question that I'm after - how do coaches determine during a game if they're pulling the right moves at the right time and setting the table for success?
    Last edited by mrt144 on Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4069
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:21 pm


Re: It doesn't add up! (Athletic Article)
Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:25 am
  • KiwiHawk wrote:
    mrt144 wrote:We can be best among the peer group and still experience dead weight loss from the differences between expected values between rushes and passing. Put another way, Rushing, if it is your overriding tactic must achieve value closer to passing for it to really sing and keep the door wide open on those explosive plays which in turn amplify passing efficiency metrics.

    To equate rushing productivity with passing productivity is to miss the point of rushing.

    Pass plays very often end up with a receiver going out of bounds, an incompletion, or a penalty, all of which stop the clock. It's far rarer for rushing plays to end with a clock stoppage. This means the successful rushing team can control how much clock they consume, or don't consume, based on how quickly they line up to run the next play.



    This is something that some amount of analytical thought has tried to look at. Are the supposed downsides of passing really as laden with downsides as often as orthodox suggests? I think there is some basis in suggesting that the clock stoppage and clock management issues with passing are not as prominent given the observed passing game in our status quo. A short pass with a >67% chance of being caught functions similarly to rushing but has a higher ceiling in yardage potential - this is what value differences between rushing and passing suggests a wee bit - that the yardage values, even accounting for incompletes and sacks and whatnot are greater with passing. We live in an ecosystem where that is shown as not only possible but is almost a baseline for what qualifies an 'average' QB. Tactically, one can design plays that keep the clock moving on a completion and increase the ceiling of potential yardage. Less out routes and more slants, as a petty example.

    Second, there is the notion that accruing first downs, period, is more efficient in eating clock than the methodology to get there. By example, a 16 play drive clocking in at 10 minutes and yielding 7 points likely eats 5 minutes at least. In contrast, three drives that go three and out yields 0 points and consumes at most 5 and a half minutes. This is to say nothing of what's happening on defense and what they're doing. Between these extremes lies the game of football. Perhaps there should be a time qualified point metric for drives?

    Third, one of the things that works against the idea of setting up stuff for later is an indeterminate game state in the future. You can assume you'll keep the game close and then wallop them when you need to after setting it all up but...that opportunity may not develop and the parameters of what needs to be done may change.

    If, for instance, you are facing a red-hot passing team, you'll want to eat up as much time as possible because you want to keep their powerful offense on the sideline while wearing down their defense and resting yours. The best way to accomplish this is to get as near as possible to 10 yards every 3 downs, without going under that target. That is why consistent rushers like Lynch and Carson make our rushing game work, because they don't tend to break long runs, but frequently get 3-5 yards and usually end up falling forward.


    Agree and let me lay out how I think it works:

    Football is a game of opportunities.

    Offensive objectives:

    Make the most of opportunities by netting points. Failing points, ensure you put the opponent in a spot that is less likely to yield points for themselves. Offense can't control what the opposing offense does with their opportunities and thus are somewhat reactive to the game state.

    Deprive the absolute amount of opportunities for the opposing offense by consuming clock.

    Defensive objectives:

    Limit the value of opportunities by depriving the other team of points.

    Create more absolute offensive opportunities for themselves by truncating clock consumption for the opposing offense and outright stopping drives before points can be netted.

    While defense is mostly reactive on each play, they are less reactive to the game state. There are peculiar instances towards the end of the game where it might behoove the defense to allow a score because of the game state but for most quarters of most games, those two objectives are paramount. And even when the game state suggests that allowing a score to enable your own retaliation to win in the final moments, very few DCs or defensive players will actualize that - they'd prefer to stop it outright, which is their prerogative. Conversely there are the peculiar instances on offense where NOT scoring is more valuable. Players taking a knee on the one yard line in lieu of scoring with less than 90 seconds when they're up by a point and it disallows any potential retaliatory score comes to mind. You allude to that down below.

    Pete Carroll stated public philosophy conforms to this. I don't see how PC and I are a gulf apart on this outlook. You can and will win games in the 4th quarter when the game state allows for it.

    At the end of the game, if you are ahead, you can grind out a long, slow drive that wins the game because the opponent never gets a chance to take the field. If you are behind, you can speed up your tempo to get more plays in.

    Our rushing efficiency with Lynch was one of the big reasons we almost never lost a game by more than 10 points, because we reduced the number of drives in the game, and thus reduced points-against. Obviously, having a premier defense had something to say in that as well.


    Agreed! Even doing a cursory 'hump analysis' shows that Lynch was in fact money (He was a top RB from 2012 to 2014 across the league and fundamental to the Hawks themselves) at doing what was asked and then some to keep the offense humming until the knives could be pulled out to seal it. I am absolutely into the argument that with the right pieces, the Hawks are basically an unstoppable monster. But that kicks the question over to personnel which is an aspect of the team where there are a ton of unknowns and moving parts. Like, I'm way up on Dissly now and cold on Vannett. Are either of these the right players for the Hawks? Well only one is available at the moment soooooo...


    I recall a game vs Denver, around the 1999 season, where Denver was ahead and in position to score. They could have knelt on the ball and run out the clock, but they chose to go for the score. We got the ball, scored quickly, made a successful on-side kick, and scored again to force overtime. Denver eventually won, but the point is had they simply knelt on the ball they would have won in regulation without risk. That's why Pete Carroll so often values ending the game on offense, because you control the outcome. Having a strong rushing game enables that because of the clock control it provides.


    Addressed above, but yes, these situations exist. They are not the norm de rigueur for most football games or game states though.


    None of that relates to AYPA. AYPA relates to a brute-force game plan with no finesse or strategy. While it works well when it works, there are many times it fails, such as when you meet a great defense, or play in poor conditions, or an off game from your QB.

    We play 8 games outdoors in one of the rainiest cities in the US, but more importantly playoff games are played (when not in domes) in pretty much universally poor conditions. Given the problems prolific passing offenses can have in inclement conditions, having a strong rushing game when we are likely to face those conditions - particularly when it counts - makes a lot of sense.

    Add a potent defense to poor conditions, and you have 2/3 of the causes for a passing offense to falter. In XLVIII, we had the combination of a potent defense and a QB off his game, and they only managed 8 points. Imagine if that game had also been played in the snow.


    Fair, which leads back to the imperative of 'know thyself' and an interesting question about how exactly you differentiate your strategy and tactics based on venue and opponent. Agentdib has insisted that sizing up the opponent is just as important as sizing yourself up and I agree but havent given it much voice because there is little personal agency in what other teams do. You can't control for whether the opposing team is stout in the run game without putting 8 in the box to seal it. You can't control for whether it'll be a perfect Autumn day in October at the Clink. There are a lot of things out of the control of agents and actors in football that none the less exist as impediments towards running your game how you want to run it. At the player level. At the coaching level.

    This actually leads me to thinking about scouting and self scouting. All things considered do you think the Hawks self scout or scout other teams as well, better or worse than the peers we'd like to whoop on in the playoffs? How would you start to approach that question with the little information we do have, including public statements that effectively state "Try and stop us". I think maybe this is where my ire should be focused but that is so thoroughly behind the veil that trying to tie anything we observe on field or through public statements to that facet of coaching is very high hanging fruit, if it exists at all.
    Last edited by mrt144 on Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4069
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:21 pm


  • mrt144 wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:What kills me is people want to categorize and Statistic size every Nuance of everything. Football by definition is a game of emotion, passion and psychology. You want to beat a guy and cause doubts, you want to take the heart of a team away, you want to make them remember they had no chance for the next time and create a Aura of a certain image. You want that team to feel they have no chance when they play you.


    I mean, isn't one of the most important parts of coaching cladding your team from the emotional roller coaster of a game to help them maintain focus and perform to the best of their ability? I am not discounting that, I just don't speak to it because I think PC is pretty much one of the best if not the best with that in the midst of the game. Intermediate to long term, maybe not as much (as evidenced by the obvious discontent by former players. I don't take it with a grain of salt that some truly excellent and one of a kind players had their issues with leadership - too much 'trust me' and not enough 'accountability') I take it for granted that Pete is an excellent game day coach vis a vis morale. Maybe I should pepper my thoughts with that acknowledgment?

    Let me ask you though - what does all that psychological warfare do when the other coach and team is less susceptible to it? How does one know about this beforehand? On our own end, there is an overriding of philosophy that boils down to "We defy you to stop us despite you having good hunches of what we do." That can be very disruptive and frustrating for the other team. Trying to run a psyche game on a more disciplined team might not lead to that outcome and then what are you left with? Your players and tactics and strategy. I would not make an assumption that other teams and coaches can be manipulated until there is some sort of basis for it in experience - both in tape analysis and in real time events.

    Also consider how this cuts the other way - the Hawks under PC have not been exactly the most disciplined team. Some of that is the talent itself. Ifedi incurring holding penalty works against the psyche game and elevates the tactical and strategic game's importance because when put into a 2nd and 13, setting up your best shot at a first down seems a bit more important than trying set up a con down the road because it possibly allows for more run in setting up the con - you get more inflection points to work your psyche game. Getting a DPI on 3rd and 16 also cuts the other way and is a morale zapper.

    That same notion of 'what are you left with' is the basis of a lot of poking and prodding and subsequent focus on coaching. I see players as something that can only do so much - they either make the plays or they don't make the plays. Coaches get a sense of the talent through direct contact and direction and practice, so in turn, they should have a better sense of how that player makes the team plug along and function. From the perch of a fan, saying that so and so needs to play better and be better is bordering on self evidence. Players, especially team players, don't think how they play is unimpeachable and beyond reproach. From RW to whoever the 46th dude on the game day roster knows, implicitly AND explicitly they need to perform their damn best. Coaching can nurture that or crush it. But alas, it is a domain we have even less access to than what we see on the field.

    Players also suffering injuries and attrition in sports has a real impact. An unavailable yet integral player to how the team operates is not an arbitrary impediment thrown down as a test of grit at mettle, it's the reality of the game that should be accounted for in drawing up plans and ordering actions. I find no solace in excusing outcomes because of injuries or loss of talent. I see that adaptive ability as one integral facet of coaching ability. I am not going to suggest that it is equal to or more important than morale. That isn't the point. The point is impediments allow creativity and adaptability to shine. In the current NBA Finals, the Warriors having so many banged up players isn't an excuse for Steve Kerr or the team itself if they wind up losing. It's their job to find a way to overcome with what is left. If they can do it, praise be, if they can't there is something to learn from it and work on for next season (or next playoffs). A coach's task in my mind is accounting for roster instability. Lack of success isn't lack of trying, I know.

    Let me ask, since I stopped playing football at 15 and have only revisited it via Madden, Fantasy Football, and conversation/analysis on various sites - how do you determine if your psyche game is working in real time? Maybe that's an even more fundamental question that I'm after - how do coaches determine during a game if they're pulling the right moves at the right time and setting the table for success?


    A good example is the Patriot loss in the Super Bowl, until Avril got hurt we were in their heads, once he went down Brady felt safer and they began to pass.

    Then their is the goal line situation with Lynch, we were in their heads then also, but a screw up on our part and trying to out think the situation played into their hands. That's one team trying to go out of their way to make a unique play happen with inferior players in Lockette against a tendency which was a heavy loaded run defense but they went at the strength which was interior and against their Linebacker CB in Browner.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 27083
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • mrt144 wrote:Agreed! Even doing a cursory 'hump analysis' shows that Lynch was in fact money (He was a top RB from 2012 to 2014 across the league and fundamental to the Hawks themselves) at doing what was asked and then some to keep the offense humming until the knives could be pulled out to seal it. I am absolutely into the argument that with the right pieces, the Hawks are basically an unstoppable monster. But that kicks the question over to personnel which is an aspect of the team where there are a ton of unknowns and moving parts. Like, I'm way up on Dissly now and cold on Vannett. Are either of these the right players for the Hawks? Well only one is available at the moment soooooo...

    You are close to understanding, as long as you avoid the analyse-by-statistics trap.

    If you have a running back who consistently gains 3-5 yards, is rarely stuffed, and rarely breaks a long one, then you have the ability to grind out drives little chunks at a time. That eats a lot of clock and reduces the total number of possessions in the game. Because of that, all of the statistics for that game get suppressed.

    For example, success is generally a 300-yard game for a QB, a 100-yard game for a running back or receiver. For simple maths, let's say that's over 10 possessions, so the bar is 30 per possession for QB and 10 per possession for others. Now reduce the number of possessions to 8. The QB comes away with 240 yards, and the other guys get 80 yards. The fans boo, fantasy players lose matches, the OC gets sledged because the YPG is down vs the league. However, those are still top-notch performances on the average per drive, or per attempt.

    Then the funny thing comes in. We don't really want to average 7 yards per carry on the ground if the goal is to keep hot QBs on the bench and our defense rested. We want that 4 YPC butter zone, so our guys are rested and their guys are sucking oxygen. It's really hard to tackle for 10 straight minutes, and if you have to go out and do it again after a 2 minute rest, whether or not your offense scored, you are winded. Come the 4th quarter you are off your feet, and that's where the Carroll Seahawks win games.
    KiwiHawk
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 2367
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 4:22 pm
    Location: Auckland, New Zealand


Re: It doesn't add up! (Athletic Article)
Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:15 pm
  • chris98251 wrote:
    Popeyejones wrote:A few different things, which I'm going to bullet point, just for ease of reading:

    *The basic gist of the article is that in the relationship between run plays + completions and winning, Schotty is confusing the cause for the effect and the effect for the cause. He thinks that the play distributions he wants causes winning but it's the reverse: winning causes the play distributions he's trying to target. Worth noting is that he's not alone in this, as Bill Belichick has made the same mistake in the past.

    *The way you get around all of this cause and effect stuff is to look at expected-points-per play for running and passing, which is what people do. And the data on that is very clear: All things being equal pass plays are more effective than run plays. This is partially driven by innovations in passing attacks in the last 20 years, but also explains why almost all teams most of the time are now passing the ball much more than they used to.

    *Ben Baldwin isn't an outlier on any of this, so going after him for this is kind of missing the point. Many, many people have studied this, and I'm unaware of anyone who has seriously studied it and not come to the same basic conclusion as Baldwin does.

    *If you want to see the consequences of running so much on overall offensive effectiveness, the Seahawks are actually a great example. On a per-play basis last year the Seahawks had the 14th most effective offense in the NFL. That's very middle of the pack, but is only a problem because both in their passing attack AND in their running attack the Seahawks were actually really good. They had the #6 ranked passing attack AND the #6 ranked rushing attack. How do you end up with a Top 6 rushing attack AND passing attack but only end up middle of the pack for overall offensive attack? There's only one way: you're simply rushing the ball way too much and teams with inferior passing and rushing attacks are passing more than you and flying by you in overall offensive effectiveness.


    There is so much wrong here, if your scoring then your not getting more yards and completions, if your defense gives you short fields your offensive output will look worse then teams that have a bad defense and are passing and coming from behind.

    Say what you will, only Statistic that matters is Win / Loss. Everything else can be skewed for one reason or another and people taking snap shots of one aspect and not add in the others which is a shit ton of data and variables are not getting and presenting the whole picture.


    Cable got one thing right. He said "you throw to score and run to win".

    The one thing I haven't seen mentioned is that a very heavy passing attack typically has lower average time of possessions. Outside of turnover differential and actual ppg, that is likely the next most important statistic for an offense. You keep the ball away from other (supposedly) more effective offenses and rest your defense. Throw all you want, you can't win from the sidelines.
    Hawks46
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7498
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:01 pm


  • mrt144 wrote:AgentDib and KiwiHawk, I will respond to your post later but a sexy wife beckons and I am not one to pass or run on that.


    Pics or it didn't happen!
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 106138
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:29 pm


  • Without typing needless walls of text.

    We're going to run the ball. Try and stop it. Because you can't regardless of league trends.
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 34660
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:38 pm



  • Our philosophy is perfect for the personnel we have and that is a testament to JS and Pete.

    It's worked for a DECADE despite all the new trends. The friggin Lambs beat us by a total of 7 points in TWO GAMES. McVay?..What the Hey?....We're kicking your dumb assed motion left offense this year and only spending 2 million combined on our CB's to do it.

    They aren't all that and that was so evident in the SB.

    I'm loving who we are as a team and more importantly, who is in charge.
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 34660
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:38 pm


  • Largent80 wrote:Our philosophy is perfect for the personnel we have and that is a testament to JS and Pete.

    It's worked for a DECADE despite all the new trends. The friggin Lambs beat us by a total of 7 points in TWO GAMES. McVay?..What the Hey?....We're kicking your dumb assed motion left offense this year and only spending 2 million combined on our CB's to do it.

    They aren't all that and that was so evident in the SB.

    I'm loving who we are as a team and more importantly, who is in charge.


    Should correct that statement, worked for DECADES, a purely passing offense to my mind has never won a Super Bowl.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 27083
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: It doesn't add up! (Athletic Article)
Wed Jun 05, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: It doesn't add up! (Athletic Article)
Wed Jun 05, 2019 10:55 pm
  • Hawks46 wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:
    Popeyejones wrote:A few different things, which I'm going to bullet point, just for ease of reading:

    *The basic gist of the article is that in the relationship between run plays + completions and winning, Schotty is confusing the cause for the effect and the effect for the cause. He thinks that the play distributions he wants causes winning but it's the reverse: winning causes the play distributions he's trying to target. Worth noting is that he's not alone in this, as Bill Belichick has made the same mistake in the past.

    *The way you get around all of this cause and effect stuff is to look at expected-points-per play for running and passing, which is what people do. And the data on that is very clear: All things being equal pass plays are more effective than run plays. This is partially driven by innovations in passing attacks in the last 20 years, but also explains why almost all teams most of the time are now passing the ball much more than they used to.

    *Ben Baldwin isn't an outlier on any of this, so going after him for this is kind of missing the point. Many, many people have studied this, and I'm unaware of anyone who has seriously studied it and not come to the same basic conclusion as Baldwin does.

    *If you want to see the consequences of running so much on overall offensive effectiveness, the Seahawks are actually a great example. On a per-play basis last year the Seahawks had the 14th most effective offense in the NFL. That's very middle of the pack, but is only a problem because both in their passing attack AND in their running attack the Seahawks were actually really good. They had the #6 ranked passing attack AND the #6 ranked rushing attack. How do you end up with a Top 6 rushing attack AND passing attack but only end up middle of the pack for overall offensive attack? There's only one way: you're simply rushing the ball way too much and teams with inferior passing and rushing attacks are passing more than you and flying by you in overall offensive effectiveness.


    There is so much wrong here, if your scoring then your not getting more yards and completions, if your defense gives you short fields your offensive output will look worse then teams that have a bad defense and are passing and coming from behind.

    Say what you will, only Statistic that matters is Win / Loss. Everything else can be skewed for one reason or another and people taking snap shots of one aspect and not add in the others which is a shit ton of data and variables are not getting and presenting the whole picture.


    Cable got one thing right. He said "you throw to score and run to win".

    The one thing I haven't seen mentioned is that a very heavy passing attack typically has lower average time of possessions. Outside of turnover differential and actual ppg, that is likely the next most important statistic for an offense. You keep the ball away from other (supposedly) more effective offenses and rest your defense. Throw all you want, you can't win from the sidelines.


    We ranked 14th in time of possesions / drive

    https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats ... atsoff2018

    Guess who was 13th (ie better)?..... KC

    We were predictable, punted to often. The real myth is that passing has to be fast. You can outlet pass and slow the game down. Dunk and dunk for a few yards per play. Seattle did it masterfully against Tennessee. Want to say it was 2015 definately at home.
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7578
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • I need to point out that surfing is the best sport in the world. There is no sport more difficult to master but when the time is spent the rewards far exceed what you will experience in any other sport.
    And I will add that Kelly Slater is the greatest living athlete of our time. 11 time world champion and still competing at 47.
    Lanakila
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 109
    Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:03 pm


Re: It doesn't add up! (Athletic Article)
Sun Jun 09, 2019 11:15 am
  • Lanakila wrote:I need to point out that surfing is the best sport in the world. There is no sport more difficult to master but when the time is spent the rewards far exceed what you will experience in any other sport.
    And I will add that Kelly Slater is the greatest living athlete of our time. 11 time world champion and still competing at 47.


    Until a shark eats the shit out of your leg....
    acer1240
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1312
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Sandpoint , Idaho


Re: It doesn't add up! (Athletic Article)
Sun Jun 09, 2019 11:25 am
  • acer1240 wrote:
    Lanakila wrote:I need to point out that surfing is the best sport in the world. There is no sport more difficult to master but when the time is spent the rewards far exceed what you will experience in any other sport.
    And I will add that Kelly Slater is the greatest living athlete of our time. 11 time world champion and still competing at 47.


    Until a shark eats the shit out of your leg....


    Or a moderator come cruisin by ..................

    ** Thread Hijacking **

    Please make an effort to stay on topic in every thread, regardless of forum.

    If you want to branch out and talk about a different topic, please do so in a new thread!

    We realize that some threads will evolve and change, but do not jump into a topic and change the course of the thread!

    http://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=20981
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 8560
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:49 pm


Re: It doesn't add up! (Athletic Article)
Sun Jun 09, 2019 12:13 pm
  • Jville wrote:
    acer1240 wrote:
    Lanakila wrote:I need to point out that surfing is the best sport in the world. There is no sport more difficult to master but when the time is spent the rewards far exceed what you will experience in any other sport.
    And I will add that Kelly Slater is the greatest living athlete of our time. 11 time world champion and still competing at 47.


    Until a shark eats the shit out of your leg....


    Or a moderator come cruisin by ..................

    ** Thread Hijacking **

    Please make an effort to stay on topic in every thread, regardless of forum.

    If you want to branch out and talk about a different topic, please do so in a new thread!

    We realize that some threads will evolve and change, but do not jump into a topic and change the course of the thread!

    http://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=20981


    Hijacking a thread talking about Moderation, Nice one :)

    I know a good one when I see one !
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 27083
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • Tical21 wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    You're wrong.. unless you think points in hockey and basketball are also happy accidents.soccer is extremely managed and controlled but with a great deal of fluidity.

    Football is far more deliberate. Planning is methodical as the game is not fluid. Everything is planned, scripted and surveyed.

    Two different games and hard to find comparisons.

    Soccer is also the best sport in the world, so comparisons are not fair to American football



    Only in places that don't have American Football. If it were then Networks would be paying the billions a season in advertisement and Merchandise Money etc to have it air on Television.

    Also the argument that Soccer is new to the USA is empty, they have been trying to introduce it successfully for 40 plus years now.


    You clearly need to do a bit more research on how , and how many, Americans watch soccer (a British term by the way, quoting it as condescending fails to acknowledge it's origin).

    It won't surpass football soon, but it is growing very quickly and will challenge it before you know it.

    The same cannot really be said about American football elsewhere. It draws crowds in England, sure, but that's about it.

    I love being a fan of both. I think Seahawks fans would really embrace the fan atmospheres at soccer games, if they tried it.

    Back on topic, not sure there is much data points that could be used by both sports. Hell, even analyzing specific data outside basic statistics us fairly new and innovative in soccer

    Tbf, we have been hearing that soccer popularity has been growing in the US for 40 years. And it may grow, but will always be a distant 4th at best.

    It pains me to say this Tical, but sadly I believe it'll eventually supplant baseball in the #3 spot. I REALLY hope I'm wrong.
    hawksfansinceday1
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 20896
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:38 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


Previous


It is currently Tue Jul 23, 2019 9:32 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online