Interesting stats on Wilson, our RBs (and Bevell)

[SalishHawkFan]

You show 11 for 29 on 3rd down and 4 or less to go. ESPN Split stats show,

3rd and 2 or less to go:
6/9...66.7%...59 yds...8.2 ypa...0 TD...0 Int...1 sack...91.9% rating

3rd and 3-7 yards to go:
14/25...56.0%...204 yds...8.16 ypa...3 TD...1 Int...5 sack...105.7% rating

3rd and >6 yards to go:
16/30...53.3%...221 yds...8.1 ypa...2 TD...1 Int...5 sack...88.6% rating

so based on the stats via the url below the difference from the 3rd and >6 yds to go and what you have for 4 or less to go means 3rd and 5 stats would be 5 completes on 1 attempt (not possible). Sorry but the stats that you posted compared to my link aren't adding up. Perhaps I am wrong but the info via the url is what i posted here.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/splits/_/id/14881/russell-wilson

3rd and 4 or less passing (27 plays)
Wilson is 11/22, 0 TD, 1 INT, 1 FUM, 5 SAK, 9 1st downs (33%), 8.9 Y/A, 61.9 rating



TO GO:
0-3 yards: 18
4 yards: 9

http://pfref.com/tiny/NlS9N

on plays of 3rd and 0-3 yards (18 plays) he's 44% with a passer rating of 93.5.

on plays of 3rd and 4-6 yards (20 plays) he's 30% with a passer rating of 85.2.

The difference between that and what I had by scrolling through every play is that there were a couple "scrambles" that I took as being sacks. Without tape to look at the play, I picked two that may or may not have been sacks. So I had 29 pass plays instead of 27. That would only raise my sack total to 7, but I'm not scrolling through play by play again just to find the variance. I see that they don't count every play as an attempt, which I did in my stats. I counted the sacks in the attempts total. The point of my OP was to do with success rate, not Wilson's completion %.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

I mean their overall conversion % is pretty poor so not passing well on 3rd and short doesn't seem far fetched certainly. It feels like the run is getting stuffed so often on early downs, not sure what the answer is necessarily, but certainly seems 3rd and short should be run heavy.

This sort of speaks to something I posted a couple of weeks back but Lynch seems to be getting stuffed a lot more often than Rawls.

Runs Stuffed:
Lynch: 12 / 55 (21.8%) - that's 2nd worst in the league right now
Rawls: 04 / 59 (06.8%)

I don't know if Lynch is a step slower this year, but Rawls is a step faster and he seemed to be doing well behind that line.

 

[scutterhawk]

Russell Wilson passing stats on 3rd and 4 or less:

11/29...37.9%...196 yds....6.76 ypa...0 TD, 1 INT 1 Fumble return for TD...8 Sacks for -6 yds Two of his completions went for 96 yds, otherwise, he'd have a 3.70 ypa. His sack rate is 28%.

Out of 29 3rd down and 4 or less attempts, Wilson converted 10 first downs, a 34% success rate. 5 of those first downs came vs Chicago.



Now compare that to our RB's on 3rd and 4 or less:

11 carries for 60 yds...5.45 ypc. 7 first downs. That's a success rate of 64%



Now let's talk Bevell. With Wilson sucking ass on 3rd and 4 or less. Sucking so bad that in 27 of the 29 pass plays Bevell called, Wilson had a 3.7 ypa. Not even enough for a first down on average from 4 yds out. With Wilson converting a measly 34% of his third down attempts, Bevell, offensive genius that he is, calls 3 pass plays for every 1 time he runs the ball. Despite the teams 64% success rate on the ground and a dominating 5.45 ypc on 3rd and 4 or less.

He's killing us. We have to balance our offense and run at least half the time in those 3rd down situations.

Bevell killed us in the SB and he's killing us now. Fire Bevell.

Oh, btw, here is Wilson when NOT throwing on 3rd and 4 yds or less:

113/151...74.8%...1237 yds...8.19 ypa...7 TD, 2 INT, 2 Fumbles....18 sacks. A sack rate of 12%.

Here is our RB's when NOT rushing on 3rd and 4 yds or less:

162 carries for 767 yds...4.7 ypc.

So to summarize. Wilson: sucks ass on 3rd and short. Plays much better otherwise. RB's: Kick ass on 3rd and short. Better than any other time in the game. Bevell: Calls pass plays on 3rd and short 3 out of 4 times. Offense is dying on 3rd downs.

Any questions?

ONE Question..... are you daft?, Who sucks ASS??
His SHIT O-Line is sucking monkey dangles, and Wilson is to blame for that ? :roll:
Nice try though :roll:

 

[SalishHawkFan]

Ack, double post.

 

[scutterhawk]

Another way of looking at this:

In 16 games last year, we faced 3rd and 4 or less 63 times (4/game). Failed to convert a first down 20 times. 14 times passing, 6 times rushing. Run-Pass ratio was 34-29.

In 6 games this season, we face 3rd and 4 or less 40 times (7/game). Failed to convert a first down 23 times. 19 times passing, 4 times rushing. Run-Pass ratio was 11-29.

The oline is worse and we've already surpassed all of last years total failures to convert a first down on 3rd and short. But Bevell isn't doing us any favors either, calling up as many pass plays in 6 games as he did all of last year.

Fire Bevell. Run the damn ball.

Fire Cable for NOT producing anything more than scrub O-Line, then, shit-can Bevell for not being able to use Cable's screw-Crew.
Bevel's trying to make up for the Seahawks inept, ball sucking O-Line, and Russell Wilson is caught in the middle of a cluster----k.
Enough with all your Negative crap stats, the Seahawks were still good enough to get enough WINS to make it to TWO Super Bowls in a row eh?, go figure :roll:

 

[SalishHawkFan]

ONE Question..... are you daft?, Who sucks ASS??
His SHIT O-Line is sucking monkey dangles, and Wilson is to blame for that ? :roll:
Nice try though :roll:

Wilson is sucking ass is what I said, because the stats say he is. Note, for the advancement of your reading comprehension skills, that Wilson is sucking ass is not the same as Wilson sucks ass. If Wilson sucked ass, it wouldn't matter how good his oline was. Wilson is sucking ass because the oline is weak. As I also pointed out later in the thread, the passing success rate AND the rushing success rate are both down 20% from last year.

The point being that Wilson is sucking ass nonetheless, and having pass plays succeed 34% of the time and rushing plays succeed 64% of the time, it's the OC's fault that he's called 29 (27 by some counts) pass plays and 11 (13 by some counts) running plays.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

Another way of looking at this:

In 16 games last year, we faced 3rd and 4 or less 63 times (4/game). Failed to convert a first down 20 times. 14 times passing, 6 times rushing. Run-Pass ratio was 34-29.

In 6 games this season, we face 3rd and 4 or less 40 times (7/game). Failed to convert a first down 23 times. 19 times passing, 4 times rushing. Run-Pass ratio was 11-29.

The oline is worse and we've already surpassed all of last years total failures to convert a first down on 3rd and short. But Bevell isn't doing us any favors either, calling up as many pass plays in 6 games as he did all of last year.

Fire Bevell. Run the damn ball.

Fire Cable for NOT producing anything more than scrub O-Line, then, shit-can Bevell for not being able to use Cable's screw-Crew.
Bevel's trying to make up for the Seahawks inept, ball sucking O-Line, and Russell Wilson is caught in the middle of a cluster----k.
Enough with all your Negative crap stats, the Seahawks were still good enough to get enough WINS to make it to TWO Super Bowls in a row eh?, go figure :roll:

Absollutely ZERO idea what going to two super bowls in a row has to do with THIS year. THIS year, Bevell is the one throwing far more than running in those situations. That has nothing to do with the oline sucking. Because even at its current state of suckitude, it can block enough to succeed running 64% (down from 84% last year) a hell of a lot better than it can block enough to succeed passing.

So why is Bevell passing all the damned time THIS year? He ran more than he passed last year when we went to a SB. He's already passed as many times in 6 games this year as he did ALL of last year. Shouldn't he be passing less and running more since that's what's working?

 

[brimsalabim]

:th2thumbs:

Bevell should be like George Costanza where he actively goes against his impulses and does the opposite with good results.

Bizzaro Bevell just might work! :th2thumbs:

 

[Scottemojo]

Of those 11 3rd and short runs where 7 were converted, were any of them Russell scrambles?

 

[Siouxhawk]

Stats are twisted, of course, to serve a purpose. Wouldn't expect anything less.

 

[HomerJHawk]

:th2thumbs:

Bevell should be like George Costanza where he actively goes against his impulses and does the opposite with good results.

Bizzaro Bevell just might work! :th2thumbs:

Beat me to it.

This has to be the best idea yet!

 

[Laloosh]

Of those 11 3rd and short runs where 7 were converted, were any of them Russell scrambles?

Yes and 5 of the 7 were 3rd and 1. The only 3rd and 4 was converted by russ running.

 

[SeahawksFanForever]

I wonder if Wilson's height plays a role in quick short passing game. Maybe that's why we throw bubble screens more than slants?

"Per Football Outsiders, Wilson was 10/16 for 224 yards downfield, and 8/14 for 17 yards on passes 7 yards or shorter".

With our oline issues, we should be excelling more at short quick passing game.

 

[mrt144]

I wonder if Wilson's height plays a role in quick short passing game. Maybe that's why we throw bubble screens more than slants?

"Per Football Outsiders, Wilson was 10/16 for 224 yards downfield, and 8/14 for 17 yards on passes 7 yards or shorter".

With our oline issues, we should be excelling more at short quick passing game.

It's frankly bizarre to rewatch the game and not see many, if any slants and drags. Almost every route, even if it goes across the middle takes 3-4 steps before the break is made, which given the fundamental awfulness of the O-line simply isn't enough time to really develop.

It could be height but if the entire playbook is being altered around that central point and we're not even trying to press it, it's going to be a long dismal day if the defense has even an inkling of competency.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

Of those 11 3rd and short runs where 7 were converted, were any of them Russell scrambles?

Yes and 5 of the 7 were 3rd and 1. The only 3rd and 4 was converted by russ running.

NO. They were NOT counted. I was counting ONLY RB rushes. Lalooshes numbers and mine do not match. I got mine directly from the Play by Play and actually wrote each play down on paper. I feel more confident in my own numbers than in his, because he got his from someone else collecting the numbers off of play by play.

 

[Laloosh]

Of those 11 3rd and short runs where 7 were converted, were any of them Russell scrambles?

Yes and 5 of the 7 were 3rd and 1. The only 3rd and 4 was converted by russ running.

NO. They were NOT counted. I was counting ONLY RB rushes. Lalooshes numbers and mine do not match. I got mine directly from the Play by Play and actually wrote each play down on paper. I feel more confident in my own numbers than in his, because he got his from someone else collecting the numbers off of play by play.

Ok so what are the timestamps on the 3rd and 4 plays converted by running backs, on the ground?

 

[SalishHawkFan]

Of those 11 3rd and short runs where 7 were converted, were any of them Russell scrambles?

Yes and 5 of the 7 were 3rd and 1. The only 3rd and 4 was converted by russ running.

NO. They were NOT counted. I was counting ONLY RB rushes. Lalooshes numbers and mine do not match. I got mine directly from the Play by Play and actually wrote each play down on paper. I feel more confident in my own numbers than in his, because he got his from someone else collecting the numbers off of play by play.

Ok so what are the timestamps on the 3rd and 4 plays converted by running backs, on the ground?

Scotte wasn't asking about only 3rd and 4 plays. He was asking if any of the 7 converted on 3rd and short were Wilson scrambles. They were not, but you had said they were. I would have to scroll through every play once again to find the time stamps. All I know is I scrolled through every play and wrote down if it was a pass or if a RB took the ball. Wilson scrambles are impossible to tell if they're designed runs or if he Houdini'd the play, so they are left off my numbers. That's the primary reason your numbers and mine won't ever match.

The reason why I picked 3rd and 4 or less instead of the more easily tracked 3rd and 3 is because I did this research in response to the Cincinatti game in which Bevell called four straight passes on 3rd and 2, 3rd and 1 and 3rd and 4 (twice). All of which failed. So I picked that as my cut off point.

In retrospect, 3rd and exactly 4 is a bit unfair, as the Hawks seldom run on 3rd and 4 historically. From 2012 to 2014, Lynch has 3 rushes from that distance and converted on 2 of them, a 66% success rate. But small sample size. Wilson scrambled 6 times during that stretch, but again, I'm not including Wilson scrambles. Were they designed runs or pass plays? During that same period, when passing, Wilson had a 54% success rate, per PFR, which is what I found they had scrolling through 2014's play by plays as well. That is down to 34% this year.

So be it simply 3rd and 4 or be it 3rd and 4 or less, the %'s still stand up. We are down 20% across the board converting 3rd downs from 4 yds or less.

If you take out exactly 3rd and 4 plays, you lose none of the rushing plays, but the passing % gets even worse as Wilson succeeded in 2 of 5 passes on 3rd and 4. So probably I should have just stuck with analyzing 3rd and 3 or less.

 

[Laloosh]

Scotte wasn't asking about only 3rd and 4 plays. He was asking if any of the 7 converted on 3rd and short were Wilson scrambles. They were not, but you had said they were. I would have to scroll through every play once again to find the time stamps. All I know is I scrolled through every play and wrote down if it was a pass or if a RB took the ball. Wilson scrambles are impossible to tell if they're designed runs or if he Houdini'd the play, so they are left off my numbers. That's the primary reason your numbers and mine won't ever match.

There have only been 7 converted rushes on 3rd and 4 or less. The score board at the stadium read 3rd and 5 for the ONLY 3rd and 4 (well, 3rd and 4.5) that we've had and rushed/scrambled on.

Here's the play:

Here is the entire list of 3rd and 4 or less that have been converted on the ground (which I already provided).


You tell me how you got to 7 without including Russell's scramble. I don't understand why the correction bothered you. I answered the question w/out an agenda. Your use of 3rd and 4 or less rather than "mostly 3rd and 1" in the OP is misleading at best but you're upset by my pointing out that yes, one of them is a RW scramble?

Feel free to show me the error of my ways.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

Scotte wasn't asking about only 3rd and 4 plays. He was asking if any of the 7 converted on 3rd and short were Wilson scrambles. They were not, but you had said they were. I would have to scroll through every play once again to find the time stamps. All I know is I scrolled through every play and wrote down if it was a pass or if a RB took the ball. Wilson scrambles are impossible to tell if they're designed runs or if he Houdini'd the play, so they are left off my numbers. That's the primary reason your numbers and mine won't ever match.

There have only been 7 converted rushes on 3rd and 4 or less. The score board at the stadium read 3rd and 5 for the ONLY 3rd and 4 (well, 3rd and 4.5) that we've had and rushed/scrambled on.

Here's the play:

Here is the entire list of 3rd and 4 or less that have been converted on the ground (which I already provided).


You tell me how you got to 7 without including Russell's scramble. I don't understand why the correction bothered you. I answered the question w/out an agenda. Your use of 3rd and 4 or less rather than "mostly 3rd and 1" in the OP is misleading at best but you're upset by my pointing out that yes, one of them is a RW scramble?

Feel free to show me the error of my ways.

It doesn't bother me, I'm just trying to explain. Could I have made a mistake? Certainly. Your list you provided, could THEY have made a mistake? They admit they do all the time. One of us made a mistake. For me to go through and find the mistake, if I made it, would require a lengthy search through the play by plays. That's exactly how I came up with my numbers. Scrolling through the entire seasons full play by play and jotting down, on paper, every relevant play.

The odds are LESS likely that I jotted down a phantom play than that PFR simply missed one of them. It would have been nice if I had kept the paper I wrote it all down on, but once the post was made, that became part of the garbage can family.

Oh, and I'm not upset by you pointing out anything. That's what this site is for. You're adding to the knowledge Laloosh. As I added on to a post above, which in fairness to you, you may have missed, I admit in retrospect cutting off at 3rd and 4 may have been unfair. My only reason for doing so was the Cincy game where Bevell passed 4 times on 3rd and 4 or less and I wanted to know if those were playing the odds correctly.

In the end, I still don't think it was smart to pass all four times. At the least, run it on 3rd and 2 or 3rd and 1. Don't pass EVERY damned time. The oline is definitely the problem here. They are why the success rate is down 20% across the board. If it were just the passing game or just the running game, one could blame elsewhere, but it is a complete degradation across the board. So it's the oline. What used to be 84% on the ground is now 64%. Historically, though too small sample size, Lynch is 66% from exactly 3rd and 4. Probably now that's less than a 50/50 proposition with this oline.

HOWEVER, that said, passing the ball is even worse, across the board.

Yet in the last two losses, in the 4th qtr when we needed a first down, Bevell has called passes 6 of 7 times, IIRC without looking it up. Vs Cincy it was 4 straight passes. Guy has got to open his eyes and see that this oline can't succeed in those passing situations very often, we have a better chance running it.

 

[Laloosh]

Scotte wasn't asking about only 3rd and 4 plays. He was asking if any of the 7 converted on 3rd and short were Wilson scrambles. They were not, but you had said they were. I would have to scroll through every play once again to find the time stamps. All I know is I scrolled through every play and wrote down if it was a pass or if a RB took the ball. Wilson scrambles are impossible to tell if they're designed runs or if he Houdini'd the play, so they are left off my numbers. That's the primary reason your numbers and mine won't ever match.

There have only been 7 converted rushes on 3rd and 4 or less. The score board at the stadium read 3rd and 5 for the ONLY 3rd and 4 (well, 3rd and 4.5) that we've had and rushed/scrambled on.

Here's the play:

Here is the entire list of 3rd and 4 or less that have been converted on the ground (which I already provided).


You tell me how you got to 7 without including Russell's scramble. I don't understand why the correction bothered you. I answered the question w/out an agenda. Your use of 3rd and 4 or less rather than "mostly 3rd and 1" in the OP is misleading at best but you're upset by my pointing out that yes, one of them is a RW scramble?

Feel free to show me the error of my ways.

It doesn't bother me, I'm just trying to explain. Could I have made a mistake? Certainly. Your list you provided, could THEY have made a mistake? They admit they do all the time. One of us made a mistake. For me to go through and find the mistake, if I made it, would require a lengthy search through the play by plays. That's exactly how I came up with my numbers. Scrolling through the entire seasons full play by play and jotting down, on paper, every relevant play.

The odds are LESS likely that I jotted down a phantom play than that PFR simply missed one of them. It would have been nice if I had kept the paper I wrote it all down on, but once the post was made, that became part of the garbage can family.

Oh, and I'm not upset by you pointing out anything. That's what this site is for. You're adding to the knowledge Laloosh. As I added on to a post above, which in fairness to you, you may have missed, I admit in retrospect cutting off at 3rd and 4 may have been unfair. My only reason for doing so was the Cincy game where Bevell passed 4 times on 3rd and 4 or less and I wanted to know if those were playing the odds correctly.

In the end, I still don't think it was smart to pass all four times. At the least, run it on 3rd and 2 or 3rd and 1. Don't pass EVERY damned time. The oline is definitely the problem here. They are why the success rate is down 20% across the board. If it were just the passing game or just the running game, one could blame elsewhere, but it is a complete degradation across the board. So it's the oline. What used to be 84% on the ground is now 64%. Historically, though too small sample size, Lynch is 66% from exactly 3rd and 4. Probably now that's less than a 50/50 proposition with this oline.

HOWEVER, that said, passing the ball is even worse, across the board.

Yet in the last two losses, in the 4th qtr when we needed a first down, Bevell has called passes 6 of 7 times, IIRC without looking it up. Vs Cincy it was 4 straight passes. Guy has got to open his eyes and see that this oline can't succeed in those passing situations very often, we have a better chance running it.

Fair enough and thanks for the post.