Finger Prints...

[TwistedHusky]

We knew the defense was going to be a huge weakness this year.

I thought with the guys we have, we could put a high scoring offense in place like the Steeler had. There would have been a lot of shootouts but given Wilson's ability to come back and win games - it looked like our best chance to put up a playoff caliber record.

Many of you are correct though:

1 - Marshall did not work out. We lost that guy as a weapon. (I hope that is what it is. If the Saints end up turning him into a reliable weapon I will be a bit frustrated).

2 - Baldwin is clearly not OK. Literally our most important threat is now gone in the same year we lost Jimmy Graham.

Lockett is much better now but not 'better enough to make up for half-Baldwin better'

So the shootouts probably were not in the cards. I will concede the point.

I did think our defense was artificially inflated by playing some bad teams, though the Rams have a great offense so they looked worse than they do now too. The defense is likely still going to be a weakness, we just do not have the horses there. I will say they do a good job of making the opposing team use a lot of conversions to march the ball down the field. They are not giving up a lot of cheap scores. They are also tightening up in the RZ and at least forcing FGs. And the 3rd and longs with 3 man rushes are on the DC, not really the defensive players.

I don't see anything in this defense that says it will improve significantly over time though. So we have to figure out how to make this offense more effective. We are still squandering possessions. For a OC with a system predicated on making the 3rd downs easy - we have a TERRIBLE 3rd down conversion rate. We have the 27th rated passing offense in the league, with one of the better QBs in the league? (Can we even pay a guy 30M a year that only throws the ball 6 times in the half? for less than 50 yards?)

The football is at least watchable now. I just don't agree on the upside but I don't think we can do better than Carroll right now. If Carroll does more than tread water for a few years until he leaves, I will be shocked. But the alternatives are likely worse.

I think an OC like Haley would have done more with this offense. (Yes I know he was fired but look at what he had to work with). I don't know what to think about Wilson. I think not using him for a half is making him play much less sharply in the 2nd half when we need our comebacks. But maybe he is hurt? Otherwise, I cannot process the lack of use. I don't like how they used him against the pass rush anyway.

The rest is me just being frustrated at losing a winnable game. That sucked. It was so frustrating to see a team that was running our own clock down when we did not even have the lead, and we were even 2 scores down. We ended up really hurting our own ability to come back of that kind of nonchalance.

 

[mrt144]

Yesterday, the Seahawks offense scored 31 points on the road, without assistance from a single big return or defensive turnover. That is tied for the most points that Rams have allowed at home this year. The only team to score more points against the Rams was the Saints.

There are heartening things with our offense but none of them relevant to the passing game or situational football.

“Russell Wilson has a 110.2 QB rating (a career high). He is on pace for over 37 TDs this season (which would also be a career high). “

He is #1 in QB rating against the blitz. They are also one of the most efficient play action passing teams in the league. They are 9th in passing yards per attempt and 5th in passing TDs.

Close calls on game winning drives might make things feel closer than they are but they leave the unspoken question of why the games are close calls and why the need to play perfect football for a drive that they spend nearly a game avoid doing. Of course theyll come up short more often than not fighting uphill against their own talents and an insipid passing game.

Sorry, this makes no sense to me, whatsoever. You’re saying that the failure of the defense to get a stop or force a turnover should be blamed on the passing offense? The offense scored 31 points. Three of those TDs came from the passing game. Those are great offensive outputs that are good enough to win when the defense plays as it should.

You are conflating these issues, and I’m not sure why. It’s true that a failure to run the ball and to control the clock can have a negative impact on your own defense. That is not true of the passing game, generally. The Seahawks are doing those things now. They have the #1 rushing offense in the NFL. They are #8 in time of possession, and that number continues to improve.

I absolutely am not conflating issues. They dawdle when they shouldn't because they have a dysfunctional tactical passing game and they hired someone who is about the last person who could bring that. I think a salve to the issue given very little is changing in regard to personnel on offense until at least 2020 is that the defense simply gets better so they simply aren't put in situations where they will most likely blow it.

I don't know how many ways I can put it - if you wanted an OC who knows how to navigate tactical passing football game, you got the opposite. It will impact games. It has impacted games.

You're just talking past me here - I am looking at a few specific things and looking for hints that Schotty can raise the profile the passing game. I am seeing our passing game seem out of sorts trying to play with the clock in play. I don't think it's completely unrelated. Nor do I think it's a coincidence that our record is what it is despite the stats on our rushing attack. I've given kudos for turning our bereft running game around - that still isn't enough.

And maybe I'm jumping the gun on writing off the possibility of growth with our passing game, I'll totally cop to that. But I also don't have any persuasive arguments coming towards me that Schotty can help us in that regard.

To an extent - yes I am just bitching because I see a flaw but it's a pretty big flaw man. And everyone always has something they can try and improve.

 

[mrt144]

It just feels like they are real close, maybe just my ridiculous positive side, but I have a good feeling about this team.

And thats the thing. I am excited for the team in 2019 and 2020. This season isnt lost and I will no doubt be entertained for the rest but...the future looks a bit brighter than the present and the present brighter than the most recent past.

 

[Chawker]

"OTHER FUN THINGS"!

So blasting your own team is fun for you??? Dude you need to check yourself....I mean REALLY!

Now, if we were shut out 1 or 2 games this year I could understand a little of your "fun" but we just put up 31 points on the Rams for gods shake, what more do you expected from our team? We made one mistake in the forth quarter! I make 2or 3 before breakfast.
Cheers

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

I don't see anything in this defense that says it will improve significantly over time though. So we have to figure out how to make this offense more effective.

Completely agree on the first point. This defense needs more talent. Not only pass rushers. The deep middle is just wide open and it's completely obvious to me how critical having Earl is/was to our defense. It was never about the plays he made. But about the plays that other teams didn't even attempt.

First and foremost, Seattle needs to get whole there. Not sure it's entirely possible with Earl now. But if we don't get Earl back, we have to get Earl's successor. This upcoming year. I think there is a guy in this draft that can provide that.

Teams are gashing us for huge chunk plays in a space they never dared tread.

On the second point, I think that's just short sighted. Or rather it's reactionary to today's reality. But it doesn't help to build the team as a whole.

This offense is WAY more effective than it needs to be. Seattle is producing points. It's sustaining soul crushing drives. It's dominating in the red zone. It's doing everything it should working on all cylinders.

To try and break this offense so that it tries to survive shootouts is to try to be something that we are not. It's to embrace a rudderless vision of what you want your team to be. It doesn't make us better in the long term. Just possibly marginally better right now.

Defenses are far easier to fix than offenses. This offense should be considered totally fixed. We are moving and scoring at a winning rate for the formula we want to use for winning. We're just not stopping anyone. I would much rather we not only continue what we are doing now. But to enhance and become better at it. To hone this style and become organically better. This is a winning course on this side of the ball.

The defense needs a complete tear down. Actually that already happened last offseason. We just haven't rebuilt it at all. We really have just one aspect to fix. It needs major fixing. But it also has good parts to it right now. At minimum, we need the next great free safety and a pass rusher. That gets us in the ball park.

 

[mrt144]

"OTHER FUN THINGS"!

So blasting your own team is fun for you??? Dude you need to check yourself....I mean REALLY!

Now, if we were shut out 1 or 2 games this year I could understand a little of your "fun" but we just put up 31 points on the Rams for gods shake, what more do you expected from our team? We made one mistake in the forth quarter! I make 2or 3 before breakfast.
Cheers

Well for your sake be thankful I didnt plumb the depths of Nagy and Trubisky

Im not even blasting. There are a lot of rosy things in our future but it doesnt feel like the passing game is one of them. Average at best is what I expect and average at best likely has us losing close ones - so I really do hope we get back onto the firmest footing with our D because Im am being defeatest with the progress of our passing game.

Its not just the output that has me down, its the constituent parts dont add up to a sum greater than their parts. But it is what it is and it has Petes fingerprints all over it.

 

[Seymour]

Well guess your a Cowboys fan next year then, Jerry has Money.

Nobody has bought us yet, teams have won Super Bowls without Paul Allen owning them, things change, sometimes for worse and sometimes for better. We don't know what we will have so dooming us to failure is a bit over the top.


One other aspect unless he is fired Pete has a contract making him the controller of this franchise from the on Field point up to personnel and staff still. Three more years I think is left on it.

No sir! Pete is only signed through 2019. Him and Russell could conceivably be finished here together after next season.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Attyla,

The best analogy I can use for you is to look at Georgia Tech.

GA Tech is (or was?) an odd duck. It had a weird option attack and was extremely hard to defend.

Even very good teams came in and played games that were remarkably close.

That makes sense. As a defense you spend a bulk of your practice time facing one type of offense, then suddenly find this other offense that you have deal with and get ready for? You are going to miss things as a defense. Now, an option has specific reasons it is harder to defend but we are doing a run first offense where we just pull the TE and force the RB even into packed boxes. And it is not something the defenses are used to at all.

It isn't a brand of football that lighter faster defenses are good at dealing with. So you give up yards. But interestingly enough, while it keeps the team competitive - it doesn't change the outcomes against the good teams. For the most part it just keeps the games close. GA Tech gets some chances to win occasionally, so there is that. Though as teams deal with them, they get better at stopping the offense. Ultimately it made GA Tech competitive without a great talent base to work with - but it never made them great.

Our offense is not novel, but it isn't standard. Not in today's NFL. And against today's defenses we are having some success with it. But it isn't going to put us on top or even as a great playoff contender. It is going to keep us close in games, but switching our offense in the 4th quarter to take advantage of the close game has proven to be difficult for us.

Now why? Is the problem the switch or is the reason we went to this offense because our standard offense was so hamstrung we wouldn't be effective (no Baldwin, Graham, etc.)? I don't know. And Wilson has done a tremendous job in 4th quarter comebacks so maybe this is just the #s reverting back to reasonable % after that string of successes.

Yet the approach works for looking good and keeping games close. I don't think it will do more than that against the better teams, namely because you lose your ability to come from behind - and your defense is going to give up scores.

I get why we are doing it. But I don't think it is a sign of anything good for the future. Teams generally do this kind of thing because they have to - not because they found some magic elixir.

 

[Chawker]

Ok, I realize that alot of you in this forum think that we should be passing the ball 35 to 40 times a game, this team isn't set up for doing it. If we tried it Russ would get hurt for sure, this team (O-line) isn't design for it. Run on 1st and 2nd downs will usually leave us with 3rd and very manageable short yardage. Its all about get a first down and keep moving those sticks.

I just don't get you guys after put up that many points on the Rams why are people so down on such brilliant philosophy?

Cheers

 

[mikeak]

YAC is down because of the deep play action passes going for lots of yards and getting caught in the endzone

There is zero YAC on all those TDs

 

[mrt144]

To try and break this offense so that it tries to survive shootouts is to try to be something that we are not. It's to embrace a rudderless vision of what you want your team to be. It doesn't make us better in the long term. Just possibly marginally better right now.

But see, this is where my bone to pick is. A self sustaining running game doesn't reinforce things that you might need to draw upon in the likely scenario that the Hawks need to come from behind. It is the means to its own end for most of the game.

And I argue that many teams have figured out a cogent, chain moving, crunch time passing game because they put their full weight and interest behind it and the details that go into it are important - QB drop depth, route combos, route feints, etc etc. I think there might be some runoff benefit in having a cogent passing game normally and then applying that cogency to crunch time.

In a way this is like an inverse of last season - last season we were passing all the dang time because we were truly that bad rushing. Now we aren't passing as much because we are proficient at rushing. In neither case is the passing game itself really proficient. It was a necessity and then an afterthought.

I know this is really ungenerous to Pete and Schotty but the passing game seemingly has all the thought and care put into it that someone apathetic towards its overall value would put into it. By the same token, the Rams and Chiefs seem to put a LOT of thought and care into it. And the results couldn't be more divergent. And there isn't some grand sacrifice in the competency of the rushing game to get it.

So that's why I'm kind of resigned to thinking that as good as one aspect of our team is, it's showing the warts of other parts of the team from coaching to coordination to talent on both sides of the ball. And that is something I didn't expect at all going into the season - to have a strength reveal weaknesses.

Which is why once again I'll reiterate - I am longing for a resurgence on defense and stoked for the 2019 2020 seasons. Because I have more hope for the defense improving with the players and Norton and PC than the offense improving in its weak spots. I preclude the possibility of much improvement in one regard so I pin all my hopes on something that integrates more with what they are currently doing well.

 

[mrt144]

Ok, I realize that alot of you in this forum think that we should be passing the ball 35 to 40 times a game, this team isn't set up for doing it. If we tried it Russ would get hurt for sure, this team (O-line) isn't design for it. Run on 1st and 2nd downs will usually leave us with 3rd and very manageable short yardage. Its all about get a first down and keep moving those sticks.

I just don't get you guys after put up that many points on the Rams why are people so down on such brilliant philosophy?

Cheers

I don't think we should be passing 35-40 times a game if we don't have to. And in a fair share of games we haven't had to this season. It isn't about tactics and strategy revolving around our aptitudes, it's about tactics and strategy revolving around necessity.

And if the you think the team isn't built to have a passing game that rises above average at best, then join me for the occult ceremony later today where we will sacrifice all manner of rams, bears and lions to summon a beastly defense.

To me it seems you are resigned as I am but you don't think it's nearly as arresting to the overall prospects of the team like I do.

 

[mrt144]

Attyla,

The best analogy I can use for you is to look at Georgia Tech.

GA Tech is (or was?) an odd duck. It had a weird option attack and was extremely hard to defend.

Even very good teams came in and played games that were remarkably close.

That makes sense. As a defense you spend a bulk of your practice time facing one type of offense, then suddenly find this other offense that you have deal with and get ready for? You are going to miss things as a defense. Now, an option has specific reasons it is harder to defend but we are doing a run first offense where we just pull the TE and force the RB even into packed boxes. And it is not something the defenses are used to at all.

It isn't a brand of football that lighter faster defenses are good at dealing with. So you give up yards. But interestingly enough, while it keeps the team competitive - it doesn't change the outcomes against the good teams. For the most part it just keeps the games close. GA Tech gets some chances to win occasionally, so there is that. Though as teams deal with them, they get better at stopping the offense. Ultimately it made GA Tech competitive without a great talent base to work with - but it never made them great.

Our offense is not novel, but it isn't standard. Not in today's NFL. And against today's defenses we are having some success with it. But it isn't going to put us on top or even as a great playoff contender. It is going to keep us close in games, but switching our offense in the 4th quarter to take advantage of the close game has proven to be difficult for us.

Now why? Is the problem the switch or is the reason we went to this offense because our standard offense was so hamstrung we wouldn't be effective (no Baldwin, Graham, etc.)? I don't know. And Wilson has done a tremendous job in 4th quarter comebacks so maybe this is just the #s reverting back to reasonable % after that string of successes.

Yet the approach works for looking good and keeping games close. I don't think it will do more than that against the better teams, namely because you lose your ability to come from behind - and your defense is going to give up scores.

I get why we are doing it. But I don't think it is a sign of anything good for the future. Teams generally do this kind of thing because they have to - not because they found some magic elixir.

Thank you for putting into words what I was struggling at times to do. It's funny to see you and me aligning on outlook (at least in my mind) this season to the degree it has. Didn't expect to be nodding my head along with you like this.

One thing I disagree with though is that this was borne out of necessity though. 2017 was a highlight of running your offense a certain way out of necessity. This seems to be playing towards and honing aptitude, not because we necessarily lack the horses to do otherwise like GT does, but because it is a top down vision with all supporting beams driving towards that vision. In the NFL you might gravitate towards one end of the spectrum or the other but you have way more agency is cultivating your vision based on the latent aptitudes of your players you bring in, the coaching staff you bring on to devise a strategy and tactics, and how you coordinate other aspects of the game to dovetail with it. I don't believe in 'wanting it more' but to me, it really does seem like there is an enthusiasm or creativity gap between a team like the Rams or Chiefs and the Seahawks. I also believe that many of these same teams don't sacrifice elements of their rushing attack to support their passing game in much else but the discrete calls during the game.

Even with that slight disagreement though, I agree with the conclusion - I get the why and struggle to see how their pursuit of this strategic imperative shores up the weaknesses or covers for the non offensive weaknesses of the team.

 

[mrt144]

3rd down Passing conversion rates

3rd Down Passing Conversion Rate / Avg Distance to 1st (Lower is better) / Avg Yard Per Play (Higher is Better)


Seahawks

2018: 34.1% 7.69 / 5.31
2017: 34.6% 8.38 / 4.12 !!!
2016: 36.7% 8.14 / 6.22
2015: 45.3% 7.39 / 7.23
2014: 34.2% 8.32 / 6.07
2013: 37.7% 7.46 / 5.74
2012: 41.7% 6.91 / 6.63

Rams

2014: 37.9% / 7.8 / 5.34
2013: 37.3% / 7.11 / 6.08
2012: 32.5% / 7.51 / 4.83

Jets

2011: 31.0% / 7.54 / 4.7
2010: 34.3% / 7.21 / 5.15
2009:33.1% / 7.48 / 4.82
2008: 40.6% / 6.85 / 5.02
2007: 33.9% / 7.76 / 5.43
2006 44.9% 6.55 / 6.93 !!!

First thing that leaps out to me is that the delta between Avg Distance to Down and Avg Yards Per Play seems somewhat correlated towards conversion rates. There seems to be a soft floor on conversion rates around 34% though.

Second thing is that damn 2015 year again. It feels like football malpractice to seemingly either move away from it by design or to somehow just not be good at it anymore. Similarly what the heck was 2006 about with teh Jets? Several conversions that went way way beyond the distance needed?

Third thing is that the Distance to Down also seems sticky and cross checking with a bunch of other teams across year it most fall in within the 7-8 yards average as you would expect with the scope of the search looking only at 3rd down passing plays Average Yards per Play on these plays reflect in the conversion rates in these cross checks where a delta of 2 or greater in relation to Average Distance to Down routinely had the team converting around 34% irrespective of the distance to down.

The last thing is that there is variability from season to season among most teams in all of the stats where teams will whipsaw up and down in the Distance to Down, Conversion Rates, etc etc. The Saints though...they are consistently above 40% on passing 3rd down conversion. And I have to believe some part of that isn't just Brees doing Brees things, it's that the entire approach to the game by the offense revolves around getting the Breesian Maximum out of every play. It is in part a choice supported by action and personnel that they do what they do.

So the reason why I bring this up is again a career perspective where I think it doesn't look like there's much reason to think that Schotty would improve in regard to Bevell. Is it unfair to hang a 9 year career as OC over Schotty when trying develop some sense of what the future holds?

And again, I think that how the Hawks have conducted business with their passing offense is Pete's desire and again his fingerprints are on it and the hire is just more of it.

Also I think this might slightly buttress the point that no matter how good your rushing game is, you can be deficient in the execution and design of how you approach a specific situation.

FWIW I tried to narrow down the query to the last 2 minutes of each half but that cut the data set down to around 10% of all third downs over a season to the tune of anywhere from 12 to 21 plays. Doing a season by season look wouldn't be helpful. So I looked at the situation over the tenures of the OCs

Bevell

36.5% / 8.11 / 5.64

Schotty

Rams: 31.9% / 7.11 / 4.09

Jets: 35.1% 7.9 / 5.59

I just keep thinking we got no better than Bevell on our hands because I can't even begin to speculate how much of the OL stuff was Cable's fault. Every passing day has me thinking the fall of our rushing game was squarely on his hands. And being the Bevell hater that I was, it is some kind of justice I suppose that I feel bad for him now I guess. To be anchored to a guy who potentially undermined you through plain incompetence...sheesh!

Even if you take the holistic view that we have better talent than Schotty ever had isn't there the real possibility that he contributes to the ceilings of his talent? I guess you can hold out hope that this is just some first year mesh stuff and perhaps Schotty having to rotate through several QBs has that impediment working against him most the time?

I don't know man, I guess I need more patience but again, I'm pinning my hopes on the D to making the limits of our passing game inconsequential.

 

[justafan]

So I got another 'I wonder' moment today while using the urinal - always the best place to be when thinking about the Schotty. So it came to me pretty easily - I wonder where the Seahawks rank in terms of YAC.

Why would I be curious about this? Well, I have a hunch that one of the more ailing aspects of our offense is passing (okay, I didn't really go out on a limb there, did I?) but I was curious where the smoke in the forest is coming from.

Some things to get out of the way:

RW Net Yards Per Attempt / Rank

2018: 6.39 (Schotty) / 17th
2017: 6.11 (Bevell on Down) / 17th
2016: 6.65 / 11th
2015: 7.73 / 4th
2014: 6.54 / 17th
2013: 6.84 / 7th
2012: 6.84 / 9th


STL QB Net Yards Per Attempt -

2014: 6.24 (Hill) / 20th
2014: 5.82 (Davis) / 30th
2013: 5.84 (Clemens) / 23rd
2013: 5.74 (Bradford) / 26th
2012: 5.92 (Bradford) / 23rd

NYJ QB Net Yards Per Attempt

2011: 5.55 (Sanchez) / 27th
2010: 5.84 (Sanchez) / 29th
2009: 5.77 (Sanchez) / 21st
2008: 5.90 (Favre) / 20th
2007: 4.83 (Pennington) / 24th
2007: 5.02 (Clemens) / 30th
2006: 6.17 (Pennington) / 13th



Alright, so we've covered QBs under Schotty, and whatever you think is the biggest cause of mediocre at best is over his career, just know that Schotty tied to any one QB is mediocre.

So let's look at this from another perspective, the WR corps specifically what may or may not be happening vis a vis YAC and YAC per reception. Why the YAC per reception as well? Believe it or not (believe it!) there are several teams with a low absolute YAC that have a high YAC per reception relative to other teams. Also I'll append the rank for the year for both and also include the league average for both.

YAC / YAC Per Reception / League Average YAC / League Average YAC Per Reception/ Rank YAC / Rank YAC per Reception

Hawks:

2018: 781 / 4.91 / 1165 / 5.51 / 31st / 23rd
2017: 1583 / 4.66 / 1776 / 5.23 / 25th / 25th
2016: 1833 / 4.98 / 1824 / 5.05 / 17th / 17th
2015: 1826 / 5.48 / 1892 / 5.25 / 20th / 11th
2014: 1850 / 6.45 / 1856 / 6.45 / 17th / 2nd
2013: 1529 / 5.73 / 1834 / 5.29 / 28th / 6th
2012: 1024 / 4.94 / 1706 / 5.04 / 29th / 18th


2011: 1498 / 5.01 1739 / 5.29 / 21st / 22nd
2010: 1538 / 4.75 / 1709 / 5.22 / 23rd / 21st
2009: 2054 / 5.52 / 1661.9 / 5.08 / 5th / 8th
2008: 987 / 3.77 / 987 / 3.77 / 32nd / 32nd
2007: 1786 / 4.81 / 1520 / 4.66 / 5th / 14th
2006: 1024 / 3.51 / 1473 / 4.8 / 30th / 32nd

Rams:

2014: 1727/ 5.28 / 1856 / 5.31 / 23rd / 17th
2013: 1620 / 5.38 / 1834 / 5.29 / 24th / 15th
2012: 1585 / 4.77 / 1706 / 5.04 / 22nd / 21st

Jets:

2011: 1622 / 5.23 / 1739 / 5.29 / 20th / 17th
2010: 1378 / 4.73 / 1709 / 5.22 / 29th / 29th
2009: 1042 / 4.96 / 1661.9 / 5.0875 / 31st / 18th
2008: 1590 / 4.58 / 1391 / 4.41 / 8th / 10th
2007: 1316 / 4.25 / 1520 / 4.66 / 25th / 27th
2006: 1391 / 4.4 / 1473 / 4.8 / 21st / 28th

So that's a lot of numbers and I'll try to add some context.

Schotty has only ever commanded an offense that was above average on Yards after Catch once - in 2008 with Favre at QB. Favre's NY/A was easily within 1 Standard Deviation of Mean Jets QB Performance but the YAC was nearly 1 Standard Deviation above Mean Jets YAC but only half a Standard Deviation above the combined Jets Rams Standard Deviation. So a relatively small blip on an ontherwise consistently below average passing game measured in two ways by the relative performance of the QBs and the YACs under his stead.

But let's go back up to the top. One thing you might notice right away is that RW has never dropped below 17th in NY/A and even peaked at 4th. 2015. I think we know that back half was huge there and we all have some ideas about why it worked then. Even so the YAC didnt vary that much as time wore on and passing volume went up. I included the Pre RW years just to get an eyeball comparison for YAC when Schotty was actively coaching in the NFL. The variance is mind boggling.

So I have a few questions:

1. How much of Schotty's mediocrity is attributable to him and how much to the seemingly abundantly average players he's been surrounded with?

2. How much of our YAC mediocrity is attributable to PC, Bevell and the player talent?

3. How could Pete possibly have hired anyone else for OC?

Other fun things!

Do you think it's a coincidence that the Rams under McVay were near the very top last season and currently top 5 or that the Chiefs since 2016 have always been top 5? Or the Saints?

Even if I'm off the mark in thinking that this hints that what we do on offense has Pete's fingerprints all over it, I think it was pretty bad to hire someone that seemingly will reinforce things that we lack in the passing game while being neutral to negative in other aspects like time management and pacing towards the end of games.

It seems to me that how you actually design a passing game matters to some extent and that's reflected not only over the relative stickiness of some teams (although again that varaince of the mid '00 Hawks is crazy) but how someone could consistently perform in a band with longish tenures.

I pulled most of this from Football Outsiders but the YAC data was a pain in the ass pulling from a few sources.

You put a lot of time and effort into that post. I appreciate it.

The only thing i can come up with is Wilson is the only top flight QB he has had but he hasnt had much time in his system. I also like him running more and creating chaos for the D.

I wasnt excited about the hire but I love the brand of football and the toughness he has instilled.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Something is weird.

You don't take one of the better QBs in the league, and just gameplan in a way that almost shuts him down.

Unless you have no choice.

Either our OC has an issue with Wilson (?) or more likely, we have so many issues with injury and attrition on offense that we cannot sustain a reliable passing offense.

(you could argue some of this is built to hide the defense and stretch out the game a bit, but so would a short passing game like WCO )

I cannot imagine we literally are so focused on the run we could care less about the pass but what kind of coach allows his start QB and BEST player to only throw 6 times before the half? For less than 50 yards?

Something is really odd and I have to believe there is a personnel issue that is driving us to make what seems a nonsensical choice here.

 

[mrt144]

Something is weird.

You don't take one of the better QBs in the league, and just gameplan in a way that almost shuts him down.

Unless you have no choice.

Either our OC has an issue with Wilson (?) or more likely, we have so many issues with injury and attrition on offense that we cannot sustain a reliable passing offense.

(you could argue some of this is built to hide the defense and stretch out the game a bit, but so would a short passing game like WCO )

I cannot imagine we literally are so focused on the run we could care less about the pass but what kind of coach allows his start QB and BEST player to only throw 6 times before the half? For less than 50 yards?

Something is really odd and I have to believe there is a personnel issue that is driving us to make what seems a nonsensical choice here.

Possibly they're so validated by the success of the run game that they don't entertain the possibility of deviating from it until they have to? It's basically the underlying message of the 'how can you not like all these yards?' rebuttal to this post - why go away from what is working and keeping you in striking distance?

That's all I really have as an alternate here.

 

[mrt144]

One last one - I changed the time till end of half to 4 minutes and something crazy happened.

3rd Down Passing Conversion Rate / Avg Distance to Down / Avg Yards Per Play / Sacks

Hawks
2018: 26.3% / 8.95 / 5.58 (1)
2012-2017: 41.3% / 7.76 / 7.24 / 17 (Tied with for 4 other teams for 3rd with 3 teams sharing 22 to lead the NFL)

Rams
2012-2014: 34.1% / 7.11 / 3.81 / 12 (2nd in the NFL during that time)

Jets
2006-2011: 33.1% / 7.91 / 5.27 / 17 (Tied for 3rd in the NFL during that time after KC with 18 and PIT with 22!)

Huh! So the hawks were near the top in the NFL in 3rd down passing conversion rates during Bevell's tenure. That is something. Huh. Stunned man. And not only that, a Schotty's offenses in teh last 4 minutes passing on 3rd down somehow generate a lot of sacks? And that this year has RW has only been sacked one such time although there is the fumbbl as well. Interesting reading the chicken entrails and trying to divine some sense but there's nothing popping out from the cosmos that says 'cogent passing game'

 

[chris98251]

Lets look at what we have, 80 percent Baldwin that can't cut or accelerate like he has in the past, Lockett a fast shifty guy but not a guy that's going to go across the middle, Moore learning the ropes and has shown to be more a deep ball guy so far, Dickson coming off a injury, Dissley Injured, Fant not a threat in the passing game, Vannett showing he can catch but not seemingly involved much due to his lack of physical skills in the run game.


Start of the Season we were using Dissley a lot and when he got hurt the passing game took a step back, Baldwin out originally and even now takes away a go to guy for Russell, he can't run the routes like he did before being hurt.


We have pieces but they are on the injury report or IR. Fant has been a great asset for us running the ball, but the defense doesn't have to really even cover him which makes us one man down when we pass if he is on the field and easier to defend.

We're a man down every play really when it comes to a passing game, right now.

The fix is getting Moore involved in different routes and Baldwin getting healthy or someone taking his roll and Dickson stepping up as a threat.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Guys like Chris have convinced me this is exactly the issue.

If I thought this was an intentional decision I suppose I would be more upset.

But Chris is likely right. We probably have little other choice.