Upon further review

[scutterhawk]

IF we are "holding back for the playoffs" then we are too stupid to win a SB and deserve what we get.

I expect it is more that our stiflingly average OC has troubles against better defenses and struggles to make in game adjustments.

This^
Bruce Arians figured it out.
The biggest reason for this loss, was because of some dumb penalties.
Ultra aggressiveness has it's drawbacks, If you live by the sword, you die by the sword.
The Cards Defense isn't better than the Seahawks, but they weren't hampered with all the damned penalties.
Granted, there were a few ticky-tack calls that went against us, there was also several that were deserved, and even a couple that probably got let go without the laundry, but clean most of these up, quit shooting ourselves in the foot, and 9 times out of ten, we win these close games.

 

[Tical21]

Nicely done! I just have a quick question. Are you basing this research off of where the ball was thrown, or who the primary receiver was?

 

[Anthony!]

Nicely done! I just have a quick question. Are you basing this research off of where the ball was thrown, or who the primary receiver was?

Both

 

[MORGULON]

Seems like we're holding back til the playoffs. Guess we will find out next week.

Well, this is the playoffs.

 

[Will I]

IF we are "holding back for the playoffs" then we are too stupid to win a SB and deserve what we get.

I expect it is more that our stiflingly average OC has troubles against better defenses and struggles to make in game adjustments.

Disagree with your first part. If we're not putting things on tape, other teams can't game plan for it. And as far as "deserving it" goes, I've always thought that was the fans cop out in case something goes bad. Such a lame statement IMO.

I'm with your on Bevell being horrible at making the necessary adjustments. Absolutely painful to watch.

 

[12thManNorth]

Great post, I couldn't agree more ! Said this exact thing on twitter after the game. Nice to see in actual numerical form though. Pisses me off as with having smaller quicker wideouts, the quick hitters and crossing patterns are EXACTLY what we should be utilizing. Not sure what's wrong with throwing screens to one of the best RB's in football either. All of this will also help take some of the pressure off of the pass rush too, something we seemingly could use almost every week

 

[LudwigsDrummer]

run between the tackles, run between the tackles, deep pass, punt, repeat.

Not busting your chops, but that is exactly what was said of Knox as he was run out of town.

 

[Tical21]

Nicely done! I just have a quick question. Are you basing this research off of where the ball was thrown, or who the primary receiver was?

Both

Sorry, I may be a bit slow, but I'm not grasping that. So, if the primary receiver was, say, a slant, and it wasn't there, so Russell scrambled and threw the ball downfield, where on your grid are you plotting that play? Both places?

Would you mind sending me the raw data? I'd be really into taking a look at what you've done here. I've been wanting to go back and do something similar this season and just haven't had the time. Thanks!

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

Great post Anthony.

My strictly unsubstantiated opinion: methinks Pete is putting the throttle on the offense a bit here. His primary concern on offense is no turnovers. Playing against very good defenses, I think he reverts to very conservative game planning and pretty much constrains Bevell. Perhaps he sees things in the film that indicates intermediate passing game is too risky as far as probability of a turnover. Pete really hates turnovers.

Pete is a defensive guy as we all know, and would rather put the control of the game in the defenses' hands. History has proven that this has worked for him more often than not, and he will play those odds.

I just hope that IF this is true, that he loosens up a bit in the playoffs.

The problem is, the play calling has been the exact opposite of conservative. You don't abandon short dump-offs and safer screen passes for long bombs under the guise of conservatism. That's the opposite of conservatism. That's trying to force something big to happen at the expense of getting picked off. And we've seen exactly that recently. A couple of un-Wilson-like picks, and several more that really should have been picked. They may be throttling the offense into a limited variety of plays, but it sure isn't because they're playing conservatively.

 

[Sports Hernia]

Great post Anthony.

My strictly unsubstantiated opinion: methinks Pete is putting the throttle on the offense a bit here. His primary concern on offense is no turnovers. Playing against very good defenses, I think he reverts to very conservative game planning and pretty much constrains Bevell. Perhaps he sees things in the film that indicates intermediate passing game is too risky as far as probability of a turnover. Pete really hates turnovers.

Pete is a defensive guy as we all know, and would rather put the control of the game in the defenses' hands. History has proven that this has worked for him more often than not, and he will play those odds.

I just hope that IF this is true, that he loosens up a bit in the playoffs.

The problem is, the play calling has been the exact opposite of conservative. You don't abandon short dump-offs and safer screen passes for long bombs under the guise of conservatism. That's the opposite of conservatism. That's trying to force something big to happen at the expense of getting picked off. And we've seen exactly that recently. A couple of un-Wilson-like picks, and several more that really should have been picked. They may be throttling the offense into a limited variety of plays, but it sure isn't because they're playing conservatively.

How about passive(1st, 2nd downs)-aggressive(3rd down)?

 

[plyka]

So between my friends and I we have been at every home game to date this year, and we have all been plotting the offensive plays called. I have also recorded every game and between that and some analysis available on the internet I have been able to plot most of the plays no the road too. Here are some interesting things of note:

for the purposes of this we will compare NO and before, to the SF game on the road, then to the NY and then to the AZ at home

quick hitters - slants, picks, quick crosses.
From NO and before the number of quick hitters - slants, picks, quick crosses, to the SF game was a decrease of 78%
In the NY game there was only a decrease of 60% form NO and before levels
IN the AZ game they saw a decrease of 84% from NO and before levels.

Screens
From NO and before to SF game a decrease of 65%
From NO and before compared to NY game a decrease of 35%
From NO and before compared to AZ game a decrease of 82%

Intermediate passes
From NO and before to SF game a decrease of 52%
From NO and before compared to NY game a decrease of 42%
From NO and before compared to AZ game a decrease of 90%

Basically we have gone form a team utilizing everything to a team that is basically run or throw long. Usually even on long plays if its not there the WR cut it off, leaving them wide open in the intermediate routes, but in this game it only happened on the one long scoring drive. That all. Our play calling has become stale and predictable, and any time they score it is because they stop and let the players play.

This post is my candidate for best post I have ever read on this forum. Basically many of us have been complaining about he playcalling. We see what we see. I can remember the last game --how many 3rd and 7 or shorter did the Hawsk have? A lot. How many did they run on, even the 3rd and 2 or 3rd and 3 plays? None. They did convert a few, but those were the few times they threw short or intermediate. The rest of the FAILED 3rd down plays, they threw 50 yard bombs.

So most of us knew something was wrong with the playcalling and Bevell. But this post puts FACTS to our eyetest and memory.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

Great post Anthony.

My strictly unsubstantiated opinion: methinks Pete is putting the throttle on the offense a bit here. His primary concern on offense is no turnovers. Playing against very good defenses, I think he reverts to very conservative game planning and pretty much constrains Bevell. Perhaps he sees things in the film that indicates intermediate passing game is too risky as far as probability of a turnover. Pete really hates turnovers.

Pete is a defensive guy as we all know, and would rather put the control of the game in the defenses' hands. History has proven that this has worked for him more often than not, and he will play those odds.

I just hope that IF this is true, that he loosens up a bit in the playoffs.

The problem is, the play calling has been the exact opposite of conservative. You don't abandon short dump-offs and safer screen passes for long bombs under the guise of conservatism. That's the opposite of conservatism. That's trying to force something big to happen at the expense of getting picked off. And we've seen exactly that recently. A couple of un-Wilson-like picks, and several more that really should have been picked. They may be throttling the offense into a limited variety of plays, but it sure isn't because they're playing conservatively.

Its the definition of conservative when the run, run, deep pass off play-action is the bread and butter of your offensive philosophy. Opposing D.C's have known that is pretty much the basis of our offensive scheme since 2011. So the conservatism is in of itself, which is simply limiting the Play-Book in such a way it makes offense wholly predictable for the majority of the time. Plus, the fact that've we haven't seen Bevell come out with balls to the walls game plans the last 3 weeks or hardly make any adjustments at all. Save for same Wilson improvisation that Bevell has no control of also tells us as much. Whether we can execute our seemingly limited play-book properly is an entire different story.

 

[Lords of Scythia]

I noticed a ton of predictable 2nd down handoffs from the Hawks last game. I kept saying to myself on 2nd down, "I bet this is a handoff to Lynch for a short gain." And that would often be followed with, "OK, if I'm seeing this, Arizona is DEFINITELY seeing this." WTF. So frustrating.

It sucks the D up on the run and gives Wilson the opportunity to audible if he sees something downfield. Those aren't just run plays. And also, if you're a championship-caliber team you line up and everybody in the stadium knows what you're gonna do and you do it anyway--and score.

 

[Lords of Scythia]

Great post Anthony.

My strictly unsubstantiated opinion: methinks Pete is putting the throttle on the offense a bit here. His primary concern on offense is no turnovers. Playing against very good defenses, I think he reverts to very conservative game planning and pretty much constrains Bevell. Perhaps he sees things in the film that indicates intermediate passing game is too risky as far as probability of a turnover. Pete really hates turnovers.

Pete is a defensive guy as we all know, and would rather put the control of the game in the defenses' hands. History has proven that this has worked for him more often than not, and he will play those odds.

I just hope that IF this is true, that he loosens up a bit in the playoffs.

Screw that, man. I want to see the ball in Wilson's hands at the end of the game. We got eliminated from the playoffs last year with the D on the field. They also gave up big plays against SF and AZ at the end of games.

 

[Lords of Scythia]

Seems like we're holding back til the playoffs. Guess we will find out next week.

Well, this is the playoffs.

The SL game is the playoffs.

 

[Lords of Scythia]

run between the tackles, run between the tackles, deep pass, punt, repeat.

Not busting your chops, but that is exactly what was said of Knox as he was run out of town.

Ground Chuck.

 

[Seahawks Guy]

I'd like to hear why it's not a good idea to hide your cards before the playoff. What if keeping opponents off-balance in the post-season is more valuable to winning than HFA? And then you consider the risk involved...we're still winning or at least putting ourselves in positions to win games...and even then we don't technically have to keep winning if other outcomes are different. And even if the worst possible outcome happens we are still in the playoffs. And even if it comes down to us really needing a win all we have to do is show our hand a little bit to seal it off but might as well wait until the last game to see if it's necessary. So when you break it down on a risk vs reward level...the risk being a very small percentage chance that we'll miss #1 seed but no risk whatsoever to not making the playoffs and the reward being much easier to win in the playoffs and then Super Bowl, which of course is the goal......