Random thoughts on the Chargers game

[kearly]

I also don't buy that the fumble is why they avoided Percy. Pete's a smart guy, you think he didn't look at the replay of that and see that Percy tucked it away as he should have with two hands? It was bad luck. It happens. It wasn't a mistake by Percy.

I understand why coaches do this. Fumbles often come in bunches. Once a player fumbles, they are seemingly more likely to fumble again later in the same game, and coaches react to this by reducing their workload for a few series until the player simmers down.

Referencing "points per drive" against the Broncos last year is also kind of misleading. We scored fewer than half the average points per game that the Broncos did. Not to beat a dead horse some more, but I was really hoping after we saw a number of slants in the Super Bowl that we'd implement it more into our passing attack. I feel like we really could have used some on Sunday.

Last year the Broncos played the Chargers 3 times, twice at home. They averaged 24 points a game exactly. Doesn't matter how good your offense is when they can't get on the field.

When Seattle had the ball they were explosive. Unfortunately, they only had the ball twice per quarter because of an unreal 3rd down conversion rate by Rivers. Can't really hold that against the O.

Seattle's inability to get a 3rd down stop did our offense no favors, and yet the Hawks O still produced some explosive rate stats.

Honestly, I think Seattle blows SD out if Gates had missed the game with the flu or something.

 

[RolandDeschain]

I understand why coaches do this. Fumbles often come in bunches. Once a player fumbles, they are seemingly more likely to fumble again later in the same game, and coaches react to this by reducing their workload for a few series until the player simmers down.

Well...they shouldn't, when it wasn't "user error" in the first place.

Well, when Seattle had the ball they were explosive. Unfortunately, they only had the ball twice per quarter because of an unreal 3rd down conversion rate by Rivers. Can't really hold that against the O.

We were? I think it'd be significantly more accurate to say "when we got a drive going, we were explosive"; we had five legitimate drive opportunities with time where we couldn't even get into field goal range.

We were extremely feast or famine on offense IMO, and it was more famine than feast. I don't hold our defense's weaknesses in that game on our offense, but I do feel like with all the times we've relied on our defense to win us games, and hell even built the entire team around them basically never screwing up, (our whole offensive philosophy is dependent on that, frankly) that we should be able to look at the offense and say "you need to step up and go win us this game" - not on one final drive in the 4th quarter, but for a whole day, if you get what I mean. I think our fan base is so spoiled by our defense at this point that they almost feel betrayed by its performance as a unit on Sunday and are unfairly criticizing them while giving the offense too much of a pass.

That's what I think.

 

[kearly]

You're being way too picky.

However it happened, Seattle average 2.65 points per drive. That number would have ranked 2nd in the NFL last season.

As said before, I think Seattle blows SD out if not for the performance Gates had on 3rd downs (six third down conversions, all three TDs on 3rd down. All of them on 3rd and long).

 

[RolandDeschain]

It's not that simple of a stat, though...Can't just look at the number and go "Oh my God, #amazeballs!"

Meh, in any case, any idea why we don't do slants more? It may seem like I think it's some magical cure to our offense, and I don't mean it that way, but for the life of me I can't figure out why we don't. If someone that knows more football than I do knows or has an educated guess, I'd honestly love to hear it.

 

[kearly]

It's not that simple of a stat, though...Can't just look at the number and go "Oh my God, #amazeballs!"

7.2 yards per play. 2.65 points per drive. Those are amazing numbers. But just 8 drives. Which isn't the offense's fault.

If the Hawks post those numbers all season they may very well end up 18-1.

Thankfully, there isn't an Antonio Gates type of TE left on Seattle's schedule.

 

[kearly]

I understand why coaches do this. Fumbles often come in bunches. Once a player fumbles, they are seemingly more likely to fumble again later in the same game, and coaches react to this by reducing their workload for a few series until the player simmers down.

Well...they shouldn't, when it wasn't "user error" in the first place.

I don't always agree with these kind of coaching reflexes, but I know they've been around the game a lot longer than I have and I trust their methods for the most part.

I hated it when Pete didn't call a timeout near the end of the 1st half and left Seattle with only a minute to go 80 yards. But, because the offense was so explosive, they did just that. Sometimes those seemingly boneheaded decisions are really just a case of him understanding his team better than we do.

 

[RolandDeschain]

I still have full faith in Papa Pete. He has earned it several times over. Doesn't mean he's infallible is all, though.

 

[rjdriver]

I was at the game and did not get to watch it on TV. One thing I'm not clear on, please help out. On that third and long where RW scrambled and fell 2ish yards short of the first, was he tackled or did he just stumble? It looked like he just tripped over his feet. Did someone get a hand on him.

A part of me wanted to go for it as well, but how do you not trust a defense that (for the most part intact) delivered you multiple games and a Super Bowl the year prior. They were gassed and had a tough game, but you have to trust them. I suppose they did their job, although I was hoping for a quick stop to have better field position. Perhaps the play calling would have been different if we had not been backed up so far.

One thing that was interesting to observe first hand was the energy an opposing stadium has when facing us. This is the game everyone circles. Everyone wants to beat the world champs. It's going to be tough in every stadium we play regardless of the logo. Looking forward to seeing how we respond next week. Should be an awesome game.

 

[Tical21]

Meh. I guess I kind of agree with just about the whole thing. I don't think it goes on the playcalling, but I'm too lazy to be sure. The one thing that may have been a playcalling problem was that it didn't look like our primary got open very often. Which could mean we weren't calling the right plays or anticipating the right defensive looks. It also could be one of those deals where Russell still doesn't quite trust things enough to let the ball go early. Or it could be that our "pedestrian" receivers still can't get open. The only way to figure that out is to figure out the play call, figure out the defense, and figure out the progression.

I've wanted to get the quick passing game going for years now. Somebody else isn't a huge fan of it. Not sure if it is Pete, Bevell, or Russell. I'm not going to jump Bevell for this. I thought his gameplan was pretty effective.

You don't go for it on 4th and 2 from your own 40 or wherever we were. Almost ever. You don't get it, game is over. You don't even do that in college.

At any rate, I thought besides Rivers and Gates, Melvin Ingram was the next most valuable player. Ingram was more athletic and explosive than Russell was. Russell kept holding onto the ball for whatever reason, trying to bail out, and then would see 54 and realize he couldn't roll that way, and got himself all turned around. He might be the type of player that could turn a really bad defense into a formidable one, because they don't have much else to get after the QB with at all. It did also look just a touch bad that the player we passed on was giving us fits while the guy we took instead gave them a bonehead first down and points.

Danny Woodhead is a freakin' gnat. Dude just wouldn't stop getting 6 yard gains when they needed them.

The lack of a consistent pass rush was not a good sign. We did a decent job of getting Rivers off his spot, and Avril got in there a few times, but there was never anybody else coming to clean up. Clinton McDonald would have had a mult-sack day. We need a couple of guys to step up really quickly.

We're starting to see a bit of a trend of teams using the comeback routes effectively. It should be there against our cover-3, and has been. That's fine, we're due to jump one. When you jump a comeback correctly, you take it back to the house. I'd like to see Maxwell take more shots, knowing Earl has his back. We also mixed in a little cover 4 and a couple different variations of cover 3. When we did, Rivers looked stumped, but then we would get to third down and run our cover 3 or even man and he knew where to go with it. We seemed to run more man than we have been. We had to try something. I'm a bit surprised we never saw Sherman on Gates. However, we shut down Graham twice last year with LB's and Kam. When you can isolate Kam or Wright like that consistently, that is a matchup we're not always going to win.

All that, and we still had the ball with 3 minutes left and a TD wins the game. That is kind of cool. We got beat by a team that played a nearly perfect game and barely beat us. I think we'll rebound alright.

 

[CalgaryHawk]

Baldwin was invisible in the game. He also dropped a pass. I'm not sure whether he's failing to get open, or Wilson is just not throwing his way enough. As a starting receiver now with Tate gone, I'd like him to improve his performance.

 

[RolandDeschain]

You don't go for it on 4th and 2 from your own 40 or wherever we were. Almost ever. You don't get it, game is over. You don't even do that in college.

There's VERY strong evidence that NFL coaches should go for it on 4th down a LOT more than they do currently.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upsho ... 0002&abg=1
http://static.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/g ... 53717.html
http://www.sbnation.com/2014/9/8/611961 ... n-4th-down
http://eaglesrewind.com/2013/08/13/nfl- ... 4th-and-1/

 

[rjdriver]

Baldwin was invisible in the game. He also dropped a pass. I'm not sure whether he's failing to get open, or Wilson is just not throwing his way enough. As a starting receiver now with Tate gone, I'd like him to improve his performance.

He went sky high to grab a sweet one in the first, but he was invisible the rest of the game. Doug goes quiet a lot, then come up big when it counts. During the fourth, when we were scoreless, I kept saying "Here comes a big play by ADB". Never happened. We definitely need more consistent contribution from him.

 

[rjdriver]

You don't go for it on 4th and 2 from your own 40 or wherever we were. Almost ever. You don't get it, game is over. You don't even do that in college.

There's VERY strong evidence that NFL coaches should go for it on 4th down a LOT more than they do currently.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upsho ... 0002&abg=1
http://static.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/g ... 53717.html
http://www.sbnation.com/2014/9/8/611961 ... n-4th-down
http://eaglesrewind.com/2013/08/13/nfl- ... 4th-and-1/

I agree Roland, the thing is you need huevos of steel. Remember when Bellicheck (sp) went for it in his own territory to seal a game against the Colts a few years back? He was crucified by everyone for weeks. Not exactly a perfect comparison, because NE was winning that game, but that was the talk of the week, how horrible a decision it was.

 

[RolandDeschain]

I agree Roland, the thing is you need huevos of steel. Remember when Bellicheck (sp) went for it in his own territory to seal a game against the Colts a few years back? He was crucified by everyone for weeks. Not exactly a perfect comparison, because NE was winning that game, but that was the talk of the week, how horrible a decision it was.

I'm pretty sure we have an owner that isn't dumb enough to fall for media outrage over something like that, but I take your point.

 

[rjdriver]

I agree Roland, the thing is you need huevos of steel. Remember when Bellicheck (sp) went for it in his own territory to seal a game against the Colts a few years back? He was crucified by everyone for weeks. Not exactly a perfect comparison, because NE was winning that game, but that was the talk of the week, how horrible a decision it was.

I'm pretty sure we have an owner that isn't dumb enough to fall for media outrage over something like that, but I take your point.

Those links were fascinating man. Thanks for sharing. They say that's the last truly uncharted strategy of the game. Elimination of the punt. I would have loved to see them go for it, unless they didn't make it, then I would have hated it.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Those links were fascinating man. Thanks for sharing. They say that's the last truly uncharted strategy of the game. Elimination of the punt. I would have loved to see them go for it, unless they didn't make it, then I would have hated it.

Ya, it's an interesting topic. There's a similar school of thought about going for two points whenever you score a TD, too. Not as big of an advantage and not as many supporters for it compared to going for it on 4th down, but they're not really directly comparable anyway.

 

[Scottemojo]

Meh. I guess I kind of agree with just about the whole thing. I don't think it goes on the playcalling, but I'm too lazy to be sure. The one thing that may have been a playcalling problem was that it didn't look like our primary got open very often. Which could mean we weren't calling the right plays or anticipating the right defensive looks. It also could be one of those deals where Russell still doesn't quite trust things enough to let the ball go early. Or it could be that our "pedestrian" receivers still can't get open. The only way to figure that out is to figure out the play call, figure out the defense, and figure out the progression.

I've wanted to get the quick passing game going for years now. Somebody else isn't a huge fan of it. Not sure if it is Pete, Bevell, or Russell. I'm not going to jump Bevell for this. I thought his gameplan was pretty effective.

You don't go for it on 4th and 2 from your own 40 or wherever we were. Almost ever. You don't get it, game is over. You don't even do that in college.

At any rate, I thought besides Rivers and Gates, Melvin Ingram was the next most valuable player. Ingram was more athletic and explosive than Russell was. Russell kept holding onto the ball for whatever reason, trying to bail out, and then would see 54 and realize he couldn't roll that way, and got himself all turned around. He might be the type of player that could turn a really bad defense into a formidable one, because they don't have much else to get after the QB with at all. It did also look just a touch bad that the player we passed on was giving us fits while the guy we took instead gave them a bonehead first down and points.

Danny Woodhead is a freakin' gnat. Dude just wouldn't stop getting 6 yard gains when they needed them.

The lack of a consistent pass rush was not a good sign. We did a decent job of getting Rivers off his spot, and Avril got in there a few times, but there was never anybody else coming to clean up. Clinton McDonald would have had a mult-sack day. We need a couple of guys to step up really quickly.

We're starting to see a bit of a trend of teams using the comeback routes effectively. It should be there against our cover-3, and has been. That's fine, we're due to jump one. When you jump a comeback correctly, you take it back to the house. I'd like to see Maxwell take more shots, knowing Earl has his back. We also mixed in a little cover 4 and a couple different variations of cover 3. When we did, Rivers looked stumped, but then we would get to third down and run our cover 3 or even man and he knew where to go with it. We seemed to run more man than we have been. We had to try something. I'm a bit surprised we never saw Sherman on Gates. However, we shut down Graham twice last year with LB's and Kam. When you can isolate Kam or Wright like that consistently, that is a matchup we're not always going to win.

All that, and we still had the ball with 3 minutes left and a TD wins the game. That is kind of cool. We got beat by a team that played a nearly perfect game and barely beat us. I think we'll rebound alright.

Best take yet.

 

[Scottemojo]

Hey Roland, how do you feel about time of possession now?

 

[RolandDeschain]

Hey Roland, how do you feel about time of possession now?

I feel like pointing out that we could have still won the game handily while losing

THE FIERCE TIME OF POSSESSION BATTLE THAT MEANS EVERYTHING!



In all seriousness, what kind of response are you expecting from me, here? I wouldn't want to let you down. Do I suddenly think whomever wins ToP wins the game? No, because it's not true and the proof's there for anyone that wants to take a peek. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to have your offense keep the ball and drive down the field every time they get it, of course they should, but ToP is just a very misguided attempt at describing something else that does matter.

 

[lobohawk]

You don't go for it on 4th and 2 from your own 40 or wherever we were. Almost ever. You don't get it, game is over. You don't even do that in college.

There's VERY strong evidence that NFL coaches should go for it on 4th down a LOT more than they do currently.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upsho ... 0002&abg=1
http://static.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/g ... 53717.html
http://www.sbnation.com/2014/9/8/611961 ... n-4th-down
http://eaglesrewind.com/2013/08/13/nfl- ... 4th-and-1/

One of the ways of looking at that 4th and 2 is that your telling your offense that they can't get 2 yards. Forget the costs....just look at that moment. Can our offense get 2 yards if they need to? If yes, then go for it.