John Clayton sets the Record Straight

[Tical21]

You guys are too much. John Clayton has no "take" here. The folks with the "take" are the ones claiming the playcalling sabotaged the game. You've been waiting ALL YEAR for the run game to fail so you could say "see, we should have passed more with Russell Wilson!"

Clayton is simply pointing out that their version of playcalling got us to the point where we had a 14-10 lead in the 4th quarter on the road in the playoffs. He's not claiming that we should have kept running after that. He's pointing out, correctly, that they opened it up when they needed to.

Did you guys want them to open it up while it was a one-score game or while we had the lead?

Russell WIlson was fantastic on play-action. I wonder why?

If we had "opened it up" earlier in the game and it didn't work, you'd all, every one of you, be asking why we didn't run the football. Things always work out so well for us when we don't run the ball.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Give it up, Ivotuk. They've got their scapegoat.

"My opinion is the only one that's factual and backed by evidence!!!"

 

[erik2690]

Russell WIlson was fantastic on play-action. I wonder why?

Can you explain what you are implying here in more detail? You are aware that a bunch of data analysis has been done on the idea the PA success is set up by rushing success and/or volume? The data shows nearly no correlation. I get the instinct to think that running sets up play action, but data doesn't show that. It's just not true. So yeah the reason you are somewhat snarkily wondering about is that Russ is very good.

 

[Tical21]

It actually doesn't. If you slant your eyes right it does. Ask your buddy Guga about it.

 

[KARAVARUS]

Just STOP trying to manipulate what everyone saw with their own eyes. We didn’t adjust and insisted that doing the same thing repeatedly was gonna do enough to get us the W. It didn’t and it was pretty obvious in real time. You didn’t even need a second look to say ‘wtf was that?’ Why are people so pressed on defending that garbage? Just admit it was garbage and fix the shit.

 

[erik2690]

It actually doesn't. If you slant your eyes right it does. Ask your buddy Guga about it.

It actually doesn't what? Show almost no correlation? It does, Football Outsiders and others have done pretty big sample size analysis. Can you provide any data to back your position on this? And can you actually use words and detail instead of snark so I actually understand your position. Are you arguing that the years of data is wrong? If so, why? Again I get the instinct to make a run sets up PA connection, but why would it not show in data if it was true? The theory which seems pretty logical is that LB's are keyed to read the OL so strictly that it gets a bite no matter how well or often you are rushing. Very anecdotal and not as pertinent as the larger data set analysis but our 2017 Seahawks had something like the 4th worst RB rushing attack in league history and yet were league average in play action. If there was strong correlation you would certainly expect in a team that was historically bad.

 

[Ozzy]

I love Clayton but he is not an X's and O's kind of guy. I'm not sure why people are still arguing this. Pete and Russ both admitted they waited a little too long to adjust. I'm confident Russ, Schott, Pete will improve in this regard next year......I hope.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

What Karavaris said. Accurate

 

[Tical21]

It actually doesn't. If you slant your eyes right it does. Ask your buddy Guga about it.

It actually doesn't what? Show almost no correlation? It does, Football Outsiders and others have done pretty big sample size analysis. Can you provide any data to back your position on this? And can you actually use words and detail instead of snark so I actually understand your position. Are you arguing that the years of data is wrong? If so, why? Again I get the instinct to make a run sets up PA connection, but why would it not show in data if it was true? The theory which seems pretty logical is that LB's are keyed to read the OL so strictly that it gets a bite no matter how well or often you are rushing. Very anecdotal and not as pertinent as the larger data set analysis but our 2017 Seahawks had something like the 4th worst RB rushing attack in league history and yet were league average in play action. If there was strong correlation you would certainly expect in a team that was historically bad.

Baldwin's work was intellectually dishonest. Look at the data he chose to include vs the data he chose to ignore.

What, would you guess, is the Seahawks play-action success rate this year vs last?

 

[Seymour]

It actually doesn't. If you slant your eyes right it does. Ask your buddy Guga about it.

It actually doesn't what? Show almost no correlation? It does, Football Outsiders and others have done pretty big sample size analysis. Can you provide any data to back your position on this? And can you actually use words and detail instead of snark so I actually understand your position. Are you arguing that the years of data is wrong? If so, why? Again I get the instinct to make a run sets up PA connection, but why would it not show in data if it was true? The theory which seems pretty logical is that LB's are keyed to read the OL so strictly that it gets a bite no matter how well or often you are rushing. Very anecdotal and not as pertinent as the larger data set analysis but our 2017 Seahawks had something like the 4th worst RB rushing attack in league history and yet were league average in play action. If there was strong correlation you would certainly expect in a team that was historically bad.

Baldwin's work was intellectually dishonest. Look at the data he chose to include vs the data he chose to ignore.

What, would you guess, is the Seahawks play-action success rate this year vs last?

Why guess? His completion % in play action was up 6.2 points from 63.6% in 2017 to 69.8% in 2018.

Guess again. :roll:

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Like when the announcers said that Russ struggles against the blitz. When the numbers show quite a different story.

 

[Tical21]

He does often "struggle" against the blitz, but makes plays to offset the "struggle."

 

[Tical21]

It actually doesn't. If you slant your eyes right it does. Ask your buddy Guga about it.

It actually doesn't what? Show almost no correlation? It does, Football Outsiders and others have done pretty big sample size analysis. Can you provide any data to back your position on this? And can you actually use words and detail instead of snark so I actually understand your position. Are you arguing that the years of data is wrong? If so, why? Again I get the instinct to make a run sets up PA connection, but why would it not show in data if it was true? The theory which seems pretty logical is that LB's are keyed to read the OL so strictly that it gets a bite no matter how well or often you are rushing. Very anecdotal and not as pertinent as the larger data set analysis but our 2017 Seahawks had something like the 4th worst RB rushing attack in league history and yet were league average in play action. If there was strong correlation you would certainly expect in a team that was historically bad.

Baldwin's work was intellectually dishonest. Look at the data he chose to include vs the data he chose to ignore.

What, would you guess, is the Seahawks play-action success rate this year vs last?

Why guess? His completion % in play action was up 6.2 points from 63.6% in 2017 to 69.8% in 2018.

Guess again. :roll:

Thanks! No correlation my buttocks.

 

[Seymour]

He does often "struggle" against the blitz, but makes plays to offset the "struggle."

That is like saying you struggle to live through a tornado when 99 people died and you lived.

It is how he does OVERALL compared to the field that matters, nothing more.

 

[jlwaters1]

14 - 10 is "down 2 scores?" And they did throw it in the 4th quarter.

What about the Defense letting the Cowboys chew up clock and score 14 points late?

The Seahawks were down 2 scores in the 4th qtr.

14 to 24.

Clayton arguing that throwing too much at the end of the game is a false correlation and is asinine, especially when they were far more effective throwing the whole night than running.


The defense was gassed because the offense forced the run and continued going 3-'n-out too many times.

First 3 possessions. All 3-'n-outs, 9 plays 5 yards total.


Pete Carroll, Russell Wilson, and many intelligent football people have admitted, or stated they should've thrown more.

All the defense had to do was stop a QB Draw on 3rd and 14,, that's not exactly asking too much. You stop them there and it's still a 1 score game. The Defense lost the game. When they needed 1 play they crapped the bed. That was the most disappointing play of the entire season. There's no excuse, you can't let them convert on such a play.

The most disappointing player of the game was Shaq Griffin-- He sucks in for some unknown reason allowing Zeke a 40-50 yard run breaking containment right before halftime. He finishes that drive off by allowed a TD pass. yes the coverage was tight but he's done that all season. Allowing catch after catch despite "good" coverage. Then he gets stiff armed and thrown aside by Zeke on another drive..

The big culprits in this game was 3rd down conversion -- Seattle sucked. We should have passed more for sure. We fell into a rut of -- Run, run, pass. But that doesn't excuse the defense for caving in at the end.

 

[John63]

Like when the announcers said that Russ struggles against the blitz. When the numbers show quite a different story.

That is true, unfortunately, a lot of people to include some on this board like to just spout off things figuring no one will question them. A lot of time they are wrong. Lets use Clayton, so to totally believe what he said you have to also believe both Pete Carrol and Russell Wilson, and Doug Baldwin, and most every other expert, and anyone who watched the game with unbiased eyes are lying. As all have said they should have started throwing sooner.

The thing is and I am on other boards, there is a bigger contingent of Wilson "haters", their words not mine, in this bard than almost all the others combined. You have the ones that don't hide it, and the ones that try to be cute and say things like "Wilson is having his best year thanks to Schotty" meaning not giving Wilson any credit and instead giving it to someone else. I find it hilarious since there is virtually know Facts to support them at all. I don't reply to much to them, because I usually foe them if they are that over the top. I have better things to do with my time, than argue with someone who is making a non-fact based irrational argument. Now the ones who use facts I will discuss things with and have a nice dialogue.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

You'll learn real quick, anything he does is clearly because of something else. Never because he's a great QB.

 

[erik2690]

It actually doesn't. If you slant your eyes right it does. Ask your buddy Guga about it.

It actually doesn't what? Show almost no correlation? It does, Football Outsiders and others have done pretty big sample size analysis. Can you provide any data to back your position on this? And can you actually use words and detail instead of snark so I actually understand your position. Are you arguing that the years of data is wrong? If so, why? Again I get the instinct to make a run sets up PA connection, but why would it not show in data if it was true? The theory which seems pretty logical is that LB's are keyed to read the OL so strictly that it gets a bite no matter how well or often you are rushing. Very anecdotal and not as pertinent as the larger data set analysis but our 2017 Seahawks had something like the 4th worst RB rushing attack in league history and yet were league average in play action. If there was strong correlation you would certainly expect in a team that was historically bad.

Baldwin's work was intellectually dishonest. Look at the data he chose to include vs the data he chose to ignore.

What, would you guess, is the Seahawks play-action success rate this year vs last?

Either you are trolling or being silly. You throw out the 7 years of data Football Outsiders looked at for some vague reason you won't explain and then try to draw causation argument from 1 year of data from a single team? That's an insane way to show causation. Like it makes no sense to take that small of a sample size and point to it as proof. So what specifically did FO miss that no one else has been able to disprove and do you have data sets larger than 1 year? No one has said PA rates don't vary, you tying it to rushing b/c they improved in both PA and rushing is almost a textbook case of correlation is not causation. That's the whole point of using large sample sizes over time. I'll show you why your argument is bad. We rushed better and more often in 2015 than 2016 by a decent margin. Yet in PA passing we had almost 3 extra yards per attempt and a higher DVOA in 2016. How do you explain this via your '1 year changes prove everything' style of stat analysis? What a great example of the lack of correlation. Even within the same team and same QB the PA success can fluctuate up or down regardless of rush success. Amazing stuff.

 

[DomeHawk]

Just STOP trying to manipulate what everyone saw with their own eyes. We didn’t adjust and insisted that doing the same thing repeatedly was gonna do enough to get us the W. It didn’t and it was pretty obvious in real time. You didn’t even need a second look to say ‘wtf was that?’ Why are people so pressed on defending that garbage? Just admit it was garbage and fix the shit.

^^^^This.

 

[Seymour]

It actually doesn't. If you slant your eyes right it does. Ask your buddy Guga about it.

It actually doesn't what? Show almost no correlation? It does, Football Outsiders and others have done pretty big sample size analysis. Can you provide any data to back your position on this? And can you actually use words and detail instead of snark so I actually understand your position. Are you arguing that the years of data is wrong? If so, why? Again I get the instinct to make a run sets up PA connection, but why would it not show in data if it was true? The theory which seems pretty logical is that LB's are keyed to read the OL so strictly that it gets a bite no matter how well or often you are rushing. Very anecdotal and not as pertinent as the larger data set analysis but our 2017 Seahawks had something like the 4th worst RB rushing attack in league history and yet were league average in play action. If there was strong correlation you would certainly expect in a team that was historically bad.

Baldwin's work was intellectually dishonest. Look at the data he chose to include vs the data he chose to ignore.

What, would you guess, is the Seahawks play-action success rate this year vs last?

Either you are trolling or being silly. You throw out the 7 years of data Football Outsiders looked at for some vague reason you won't explain and then try to draw causation argument from 1 year of data from a single team? That's an insane way to show causation. Like it makes no sense to take that small of a sample size and point to it as proof. So what specifically did FO miss that no one else has been able to disprove and do you have data sets larger than 1 year? No one has said PA rates don't vary, you tying it to rushing b/c they improved in both PA and rushing is almost a textbook case of correlation is not causation. That's the whole point of using large sample sizes over time. I'll show you why your argument is bad. We rushed better and more often in 2015 than 2016 by a decent margin. Yet in PA passing we had almost 3 extra yards per attempt and a higher DVOA in 2016. How do you explain this via your '1 year changes prove everything' style of stat analysis? What a great example of the lack of correlation. Even within the same team and same QB the PA success can fluctuate up or down regardless of rush success. Amazing stuff.

Not really though in some cases at least. It would depend on what the average team struggles with the most offensively. If your team is poor at pass blocking then it will help more than say just the average line. Our team still does not pass block well, and Wilson doesn't help them with his never give up attitude. Give him 1 extra second and you'll see the results. That extra second in his case is closer to the same average time to throw as other QB's with better pass blocking lines so it would effect them less.

Doesn't mean you ignore the data, it means you should determine if that data is useful for your exact situation.