Russell Wilson plays poorly in the First Quarter?

[AROS]

He just likes to give the other team a sense of false hope

Win.

 

[KiwiHawk]

As WIlsonMVP pointed out, that wouldn't explain why it was the exact opposite last year, when Wilson was terrific in the first quarter.

Actually it's a league-wide phenomenon that more points are scored in the 2nd quarter than in the first.

Score By Quarter over the last 5,760 NFL games:
Home / Visitor
1st Quarter
4.6 / 3.7
2nd Quarter
6.9 / 5.9
3rd Quarter
4.5 / 4.2
4th Quarter
6.1 / 5.6

Overall that's a 60/40 split between first and 2nd quarter, so half again as many points are scored in the second as opposed to the first. It may have been the opposite last year for Wilson, but you're talking about one data point vs ten years of compiled data. Anomalies happen.

There is a greater urgency to score in the 2nd half, the 2-minute rules are there to promote scoring at the end of the half, and because we defer the kickoff, we are likely to have fewer first-quarter possessions than our opponent.

Combine those factors and Wilson's TD ratio between 1st and 2nd quarters is entirely consistent with the league norm.

 

[Blitzhawk]

I think it is ok to evaluate a QB's play as fans no matter how great they are. You know damn well both Wilson and PC/staff are. That is how you identify flaws and improve.

Personally, I would not say he played poorly....just not as great as later in the game. It is notable he normally takes a couple throws to get in the swing of things and that is fine. He seems to be getting better at getting that under control as we go. Also of note is, as the stats bare out, most teams "struggle" more in the 1st qtr as they feel each other out.

Finally, if I am the coach it seems to me that we moved the ball down the field to the red zone pretty well even during this feeling out period but struggled to come away with TD's. I would make one of our goals to convert more TD's rather than FG's early in games. We do this and we become a scary force to be reckoned with. Talk about dominant games...wowch.

 

[fenderbender123]

He wants to be the most clutch QB to ever play the game. It's all part of his plan.

 

[v1rotv2]

Yes RW does seem to have the jitters and too much adrenaline in the first series of the game. A great case in point is the over throw in the Super Bowl where he over threw Miller when he was wide open. But he has done that kind of thing since he's been here. But he quickly settles down and starts impacting the field. When it's said the RW isn't the best in the 1st quarter it's not like he is laying an egg the whole quarter. He just isn't up to where his standard is for the rest of the game. Again I submit it's not the entire quarter. It's not that he catches up with the game but rather the game catches up with him.

Now I could be wrong, just ask the wife.

 

[warden]

We are a very heavy run orientated team. Establishing the run game early is our philosophy. It takes time to get the run game going so early on you may see more short gains on runs adding more pressure to early passes. This is not Wilson playing poorly, but a team philosophy on how they call plays. This philosophy has helped pave the way to back to back seasons with double digit wins and a Superbowl title.

Sometimes I think the negativity towards Russell is due to the fact that he may not be an ideal fantasy football pick

 

[Anthony!]

We are a very heavy run orientated team. Establishing the run game early is our philosophy. It takes time to get the run game going so early on you may see more short gains on runs adding more pressure to early passes. This is not Wilson playing poorly, but a team philosophy on how they call plays. This philosophy has helped pave the way to back to back double digit wins and a Superbowl title.

Sometimes I think the negativity towards Russell is due to the fact that he may not be an ideal fantasy football pick

Exactly, that and the script all combines for slow starts. IN end who cares it is the end results that matters, and in that Rw is supreme.

 

[KiwiHawk]

Except that it's not a slow start. It's consistent with the league average.

This is an example of someone posting a stat out of context. It's looks significant that he only has 5 TD in the first vs 11 in the 2nd, but the statistical variance on that is going to be huge because of the small sample size, and if you look at the rest of the NFL, half-again as many points are scored in the second quarter as opposed to the first.

So when you put it in context, Wilson's scoring is just like everyone else's, within statistical variance.

Nothing to see here - it's all completely normal.

It's just like if I said among typical office workers 40% of all sick days are taken on a Monday or Friday. People will immediately assume it's due to wanting a 3-day weekend, or Monday-itis, or some other reasoning, but considering the average office worker works Monday through Friday, an even distribution would mean 20% of sick days would fall on each day, so 40% on any two days is completely average.

Statistics without context are meaningless. Always consider variation from the norm and statistical margin of error. In the NFL there are generally so few data points than margins for error are enormous.

 

[hawknation2014]

Except that it's not a slow start. It's consistent with the league average.

This is an example of someone posting a stat out of context.

This would be a good explanation if it were true. Here is a list of PFF's grades for QBs in the First Quarter:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... y-quarter/

"Russell Wilson was by far at his worst in the first quarter (-9.1), as he graded among the top seven quarterbacks in all other quarters"

Now these are only PFF grades (hardly definitive) but they do not show that Wilson's grade was consistent with the league average or that every QB had a negative grade in First Quarter.

 

[Perfundle]

Actually it's a league-wide phenomenon that more points are scored in the 2nd quarter than in the first.

That has nothing to do with Wilson's grade. Teams score more points in the second quarter but they also make more mistakes in the second quarter, WIlson's grade is not based on the fact that he scored more TDs in the second quarter; it's because he simply played poorer than the league average, whereas he played better than the league average in the second quarter.

So when you put it in context, Wilson's scoring is just like everyone else's, within statistical variance.

No, it's not. But I'm not sure why you can't accept that Wilson might have played worse in the first quarter when he played so much better in the second. It all balances out in the end.

 

[Anthony!]

Actually it's a league-wide phenomenon that more points are scored in the 2nd quarter than in the first.

That has nothing to do with Wilson's grade. Teams score more points in the second quarter but they also make more mistakes in the second quarter, WIlson's grade is not based on the fact that he scored more TDs in the second quarter; it's because he simply played poorer than the league average, whereas he played better than the league average in the second quarter.

So when you put it in context, Wilson's scoring is just like everyone else's, within statistical variance.

No, it's not. But I'm not sure why you can't accept that Wilson might have played worse in the first quarter when he played so much better in the second. It all balances out in the end.

again who cares it is the end results and in that RW has been amongst the best. What next Rw is the worst in the first 5 seconds of a game, really.

 

[KiwiHawk]

But I'm not sure why you can't accept that Wilson might have played worse in the first quarter when he played so much better in the second. It all balances out in the end.

Because I understand statistical significance, and there is simply not a large enough sample size to support that his ranking is due to the quality of his play instead of statistical anomaly.

For example, in the 2nd game of the season in the first quarter, Wilson goes long for Golden Tate, who falls down on the route, giving Eric Reed a free interception. This degrades Wilson's performance even though he has little to do with the interception unless somehow he's responsible for Tate's ability to remain upright.

That's a statistical anomaly, and it tanks Wilson's 1st-quarter stats. If completed it goes for a 42-yard gain and changes the statistical analysis completely.

 

[sutz]

Time Tebow sucked in the first half of games, too.

 

[mikeak]

1) Seahawks defer the ball to opposing team's offense and most other teams take the ball = RW has the ball less in 1st quarter

2) first plays are usually scripted and run heavy. RW throws in third and long situations

3) Seahawks is built around minimizing turnovers. I believe some high throws are result of being over cautious to start games. Ball goes out of bounds or gets caught. Live for the next series to avoid turnovers

 

[Anthony!]

1) Seahawks defer the ball to opposing team's offense and most other teams take the ball = RW has the ball less in 1st quarter

2) first plays are usually scripted and run heavy. RW throws in third and long situations

3) Seahawks is built around minimizing turnovers. I believe some high throws are result of being over cautious to start games. Ball goes out of bounds or gets caught. Live for the next series to avoid turnovers

Excellent points and very true.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Can you win the game in the first quarter?

Pete Carroll

 

[Scottemojo]

Matt Flynn, Matt Cassell, and Chad Henne were really good 1st QTR QBs.

Not worried.

 

[LawlessHawk]

Our defense contributes to that stat

Post of the year.

 

[hawknation2014]

Matt Flynn, Matt Cassell, and Chad Henne were really good 1st QTR QBs.

Not worried.

I know what you're getting at, but all three had negative grades in the First Quarter, as well.

 

[Jville]

Matt Flynn, Matt Cassell, and Chad Henne were really good 1st QTR QBs.

Not worried.

I know what you're getting at, but all three had negative grades in the First Quarter, as well.

I think your misusing the presentation.