Russell told Bevell to HIS FACE

[RolandDeschain]

How much has losing Rice affected our numbers of deep passes? He was healthy Russ' first year, barely played last year and is retired now.

Russell basically had identical years for deep passing in 2012 and 2013. (Nine TDs to five ints in both of them, and only a tenth of a percentage point's difference in the accuracy of them.) 2014 he had five TDs to three ints.

 

[kearly]

I could be mistaken, but I hear "Man, I want it, I want it! I hate losing!"

That's what I heard too, or something very close to that.

 

[kearly]

Just let Russell run the entire offense and call all the plays, please.

You do realize that "check" was designed before the game based on a look that the Packers had shown on film throughout the season, right? It was not a spontaneous play-call. Carroll said the entire staff knew it was coming based on the formation that Green Bay was in. Russell was responsible for making the check, but that is just a mechanical piece of what was already planned by the offense prior to the game.

When Russell told Bevell, "we're going to win on the check to Kearse," he is saying he expects GB to be in the cover-0 formation that they had been preparing for before the game. In fact, Bevell is the one who forces the look by putting in the I-formation personnel. On Turning Point, Bevell reminds him to look out for the check (because he is going to call a play that will potentially push GB into Cover-0).

Great post.

I agree, I think our running game and read-option game setup the deep ball greatly. I also think we call as many deep routes as any team in football. However, if you're a QB and your first option is a fade or deep post, and your guy is blanketed, you're not going to throw the ball, unless you are quite sure that your guy is going to win a jump-ball situation. I guess we could throw a few more up to Kearse, but how confident are you that he's going to win a bunch of those? Also, we don't always have enough pass pro to get off a deeper post style route.
I'd like to see us take more good shots, but good shots are hard to come by. I don't want to see us take more bad shots. I'd rather hit a cross or a sit-down.

Back in 2012 it felt like Seattle's entire offense was run or throw deep. It was a damn effective offense, ranking #1 in DVOA that year, but it was also ultra predictable and needed to adapt after the NFL used the 2012-2013 offseason to adjust. You make a great point about why it is that Seattle can't just check to a deep look every time they see a certain formation. Seattle could have maybe gotten away with that in year one, but in year three they have to be a bit sneakier. Seattle had been more of a quick hit offense in 2014 and it lulled the Packers to sleep on that check.

 

[themunn]

If we define "going deep" as any pass that is 20+ yards in the air, then here are Russell's deep passing attempt percentages to date in the NFL:

2012 regular season: 16.3%
2013 regular season: 14.7%
2014 regular season: 11.5%

You also have to remember that when Wilson's receivers go deep the defenders go deep. That leaves a nice big gap in the middle to run in to, which is why he both ran more this year and ran for more yards when he did so (on non-designed runs, anyway). Additionally, Wilson attempted a lot more passes this year, in absolute numbers (based on your percentages anyway) he threw 64, 60 and 51 deep attempts, a definite drop, but only from around 4 a game to 3 a game.

But that's without two guys in Rice and Tate who were much better deep threats than any player we have on the roster (though Kearse runs them close).

If we threw the ball deep more often would GB have gone into cover 0 when we lined up in I-formation? Probably not. After completing the deep pass to Baldwin they also probably figured we wouldn't have the balls to try a deep pass twice in a row, so they cheated up. Predictability is useful if you change it up at the right moment. Like a game of poker.

 

[Hawk-A-Loogie]

"THEY DON'T WANT! THEY DON'T WANT IT!"

I could be mistaken, but I hear "Man, I want it, I want it! I hate losing!"

It's "They don't want it" but you do have the "I hate losing!" part spot on.

I hear: "Man I want it! I want it! I aint losing!"

But that's just me.

 

[ivotuk]

Bump

 

[RolandDeschain]

Aye. For any given formation (of which we have, what, 100+?) you can't have an infinite number of checks. When you give your check call at the line, how are you going to choose from 20 plays? Think about it. You practice a couple specific checks to have them ready for that particular game.

That check was, per the Sound FX recap, "check 50". Just curious, how many checks do you think Russell has that he can check to in a game?

 

[Swedishhawkfan]

Aye. For any given formation (of which we have, what, 100+?) you can't have an infinite number of checks. When you give your check call at the line, how are you going to choose from 20 plays? Think about it. You practice a couple specific checks to have them ready for that particular game.

That check was, per the Sound FX recap, "check 50". Just curious, how many checks do you think Russell has that he can check to in a game?

On this play, Russ called the check right before the snap leaving the D no time to adjust. But I do expect them to have BS cheks to, where they say check whatever and still run the play they intended to run. the numbers 50 could have something to do with the route combo, but it probably is just cause numbers gives you more options than colors (you dont wanna go "check teal" or "check maroon"...