Will make or break Seattle's season, IMO.
Agreed.
Seattle played a good game on the road against a good KC team but they need to improve on that and find ways to overcome their injuries. Will Seattle build on the KC game or deflate? The Cardinal game will tell us a lot. If they play like last week every game the next 6 weeks (doubtful, but look at the turnarounds with teams like New England) they will be riding high into the playoffs. Looking at the box score it is hard to count Seattle out yet:
Code:
Metric Team A Team B
Total yards 382 298
Passing Yards 178 108
Rushing Yards 204 190
Off Plays 71 46
Time of Poss. 36 min 24 min
Turnovers 0 2
First Downs 25 20
3rd Down % 41% 33%
Score 20 24
It isn't very often that Team A loses a game when they have the ball for 12 more minutes, gain 80 more yards, do better on 3rd down, and win the turnover margin by +2. Team B of course was KC and Team A was Seattle. KC did have a higher avg. per pass and run play and won the penalty battle. And of course the big stat was: Seattle, 0-for-3 on 4th down.
Seattle had played well (for stretches) in their last 4 games and are 3-1. And the loss was the above to KC--there are no moral victories in the standings but it is indicative of a team playing solid football.
I guess we will see if Russ Wilson is an elite QB this year, or was just a product of a physical defense.
I don't agree. But before looking at Wilson let's take up the premise of the margin between being average, above average, good, and great in the NFL.
RE: Seattle has played above average but not good football.
Most agree the margin in the NFL is razor thin between being good and being average.
I also think your record says who you are.
That is a fine line. Is a 6-4 team good or above average? Last year Seattle had close games but found ways to win. Was it luck or was it they were good? They proved they found ways to win because they were GOOD. 13-3 and a dominating Super Bowl victory validated that Seattle was a very good team. The close games were due to the parity in the league but Seattle was definiately "Good."
Jury is out on the 2014 squad.
You cannot win them all but
2014 Seattle is not only
NOT finding ways to win but has
found ways to lose. Look at their four losses.
Dallas: Allowed game a 3&20 conversion that if they Stop that play Seattle wins. They also had the Harvin drama (supposedly would NOT go into the game in the 4th quarter.)
San Diego: Stupid personal foul on 3rd and long by pushing Rivers out of bound when SD was stopped saved the game for San Deigo.
Rams: Totally killing the Rams in the Box sheet (Wilson's 300yard passing/100yard rushing game) but losing the game by getting killed on Special teams--first on a 90 yard fake punt return, allowing a 75yard kick off return with the Rams reeling, and finally allowing a fake punt on 4th&3 and then not getting the fumble recovery. Seattle outplayed the Rams but Seattle was outcoached/executed in Special Teams.
KC: Last week against KC the loss of Defensive Tackle Mebane was exposed and Seattle couldn't score in the red zone many times (a theme under OC Darrel Bevel).
A GOOD team finds a way to win 2 of those, a Great team wins 3 or 4 of those. I am not saying Seattle is having bad luck--what I am saying is through 10 games Seattle is not making the plays to be a good team. They are what they are--an above average team who could either the best team in the league or go fall out of the playoffs.
Seattle has time to right the ship and be a good team. But this years team, besides injuries and lack of depth, lacks discipline (look at the poor tackling this year) and makes mistakes at the worse times. And the passing game is a mess and Wilson is the last person to blame (see below).
RE: Seattle's Defense.
They have faced good offenses and QBs this year. Rodgers (GB), Rivers (SD), Manning (Denver), Romo (Dallas), etc. What is concerning is that some bad QBs have gashed them (Carr/Raiders and Davis/Rams). But Seattle, while a HUGE step back from last year, aren't horrible.
Yards, Defense: # 3 (306/game; Det. is #1 at 290)
Passing, Defense yards per game: # 3 (215ypg)
Yards, Defense yards per play: # 6 (5.1ypc)
Rushing, Defense yards per carry: # 6 (3.6 ypc--but were gashed by KC and Dallas)
Forced Fumbles, Defense: # 1 (21)
Not too bad considering Seattle has had a tough Strength-of-Schedule against good offensive teams. But there are ways they have been exposed. Some things are just things not going their way--e.g. those 21 fumbes, they only recovered 8. Houston has 19 forced fumbles and recovered 12. The lack of pressure is the biggest issue.
# 31t in sacks (13)
No prressure has impacted the LOB. Yes they have been injured: Time out for Maxwell (CB2), Lane (CB3), and Simon (CB4) and Kam Chancellor in/out due to injuiries but it is more the lack of pressure that has killed their INTs.
# 23 in INTs (6)
Cumulative this has allowed teams to pick & choose when they target Sherman (who is having a good year). The lack of pressure and being able to pick on backup CBs and Safeties has resulted in a high 3rd down conversion rate:
# 25 in Defensive 3rd down converion (42.9%)
Which means the defense can get stuck on the field too long which is compounded by too many 3-and-outs by the offense and the Offenses inability to convert in the red zone. All this has led to a defense which is middle of the pack in the most important metric: Scoring.
Scoring Defense: # 12 (21.5/game).
Compare: Detroit is #1 at 15.6, Arizona #3 at 17.6, Cleveland #7 at 19.5, and Houston #8 at 20.5. Seattle is only 1pt/game from being #8 so the margin from good to average is small. But that is the point:
Seattle has not done the things to go from above average to Good.
I guess we will see if Russ Wilson is an elite QB this year, or was just a product of a physical defense.
RE: Russell Wilson.
Elite has no fixed definition so this is hard to argue against. If you mean "Top 5 Right Now" does that mean Top 5 if they were on Seattle? Or Denver? He is # 1 or # 2 for Seattle's Roster--hands down, end of story. No QB other than Wilson or Rodgers would be this good. On Denver? Wilson has shown glimmers of being able to throw the ball but I don't think he has matured to a Top 5 volume passer. But is he 7-3 on Denver? Yes. So is he as good as Manning in Denver? Not in my opinion. But I think Wilson would be a better fit on a lot of bad offensive teams with bad lines than Manning/Brees/Brady would be.
But the second part of your statement, about the Defense Making Wilson, doesn't follow. I am a big fan of what the Defense did last year but the Offense was like #8 in scoring and #6 in DVOA. People forget that because Seattle scores without having a 5,000 yard passer.
Wilson has been fine this year. He clearly isn't a top 3 (Manning, Brady, Rodgers)
yet and at times looks like a good young QB with 2.5 years experience. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Wilson's TANY/A (ANY/A that includes rushing) is off the charts. And the NET result is an UGLY but effective offense in 2014:
Scoring Offense: # 10 (26.0/game). Pittsburg is 6th at 26.2/game so they are a hair away from being in the top 20% in the league.
Wilson has been hurt by Seattle's personell decisions. They lost Rice and Tate from last year. They added--and then jettisoned--Harvin. Wilson has REALLY struggled since Harvin left (he had 8 TDs and only 2INTs when Harvin was here; 5 and 3 since he left). What he is left with is:
5'10" undrafted Doug Baldwin (good #2/3 slot guy)
6'1" undrafted Kearse (a #4 receiver)
6'0" Rookie 2nd rounder Richardson, a 175lb wet rookie who wasn't even active like 5 of the first 6 games
6'2" Rookie 4th rounder Norwood who missed all of training camp and has been inactive most games
6'2" undrafted Lockett who is a practice squad player
Tight end? TE1 Miller is out for the season (played like 2 games). Anthony McCoy (TE2) blew his achilles in camp. TE3 (2nd year mid round pick) Luke Willson has been inconsistant and hurt. They literarlly have two guys off the street at Tight End.
Name the QBs with worse weapons than Seattle/Wilson.
With Harvin gone teams are clamping down as they don't need to respect the receivers. A number of times KC had a guy tight on Baldwin, 5 yards off Richardson, and 9 guys in the box. THAT IS RIDICULOUS. Especially as neither of those 2 can get open. Teams didn't do that when Harvin was here.
And the line has been bad. Again. Sweezy and rookie Britt are OK in run blocking in the field but are too small in short distance (they are athletic, not road graters) and HORRIBLE in pass protection. C Unger has been hurt all year, again & out. LT Okung is hurt, again, and plays poorly when hurt. LG Carpenter is hurt, again, and out. Wilson is pressured on something like 40% of his pass plays. On traditional drop backs it isn't uncommon for guys to get a free run right at Wilson. His "time with the ball" stats are inflated by roll outs and PA.
His OL sucks at Pass Pro.
His TEs are literally off the street.
His WRs are Bottom 5 in the league.
Those would all be reasons for Wilson being a below average QB. But he has been above average and Seattle is 6-4 and in every game.
Wilson is just off the pace for another 26TD/9INT season, 63% completion, 200yards/game season. Hit Passer Rating is down to 90% which is largely related to a big decline in yards per attempt. But he has been more aggressive running with almost 600 yards in 10 games (7.7 average, 4 TD).
There are excuses and then there is reality. The reality is Wilson does struggle at times. He obviously doesn't trust his line. And he trusts his receivers too much--in a recent game Kearse and TE Willson were targetting 12 times. They had 2 combined catches. 2-of-12. That is horrible. And Baldwin has a lot more drops this year. The fact is with Harvin/Tate/Rice gone Baldwin/Kearse/Richardson went from being #4, #5, and #6 receivers to 1/2/3. They obviously aren't ready (experience, talent, or combination) for those roles.
Wilson "just makes plays." Where other QBs get sacked on a pivitol 3rd down situations Wilson scrambles on broken plays and makes a 7 yard pass/run on a 3rd&6. There is no good "stat" for "broken plays salvaged" but Wilson keeps a lot of dead plays alive
*without costly turnovers.* Wilson is asked not to make turnovers. He does that and has the # 10 scoring offense.
The Receivers, OL, Defensive Pass Rush, and Special Teams (Kick/Punt coverages and returns) are not pulling their weight--the hidden hards of having Harvin at Kick Returner really hurt to lose. Seattle isn't a "stat offense" and could be a LOT better.
Wilson could be a lot better. But Wilson is fine even if I think there is some regression. But Wilson is a "franchise" player for Seattle's roster. Who would they be better with?
Manning? Would Seattle be better with Manning back there? No. He would be injured and he would have no weapons.
Brady? Nope, Brady struggles under pressure without a good TE like Gronk.
Rodgers? Yes, Seattle would be better with Rodgers.
Luck? No, those 12 turnovers don't mesh and he has had better weapons--but I don't think Seattle would be significantly worse with Luck, just not better. Luck has more volume and would rate higher with lower volume, but on the flip side Seattle doesn't get blown out because they are conservative which means Wilson has less volume. Chicken-Egg problem.
Even if you said Seattle would be better with sll these guys plus Big Ben, Brees, Romo, etc. there are not 10 better QBs for Seattle's system/roster than Wilson. They can win a Super Bowl with Wilson, not in spite of Wilson.
I don't always agree with Cris Carter but he has made the same observation about Wilson and Seattle's offense. Wilson came to a team that finished 7-9 in 2011 with a better offensive roster (a younger TE Miller, younger Beast Mode, healthy Mike Rob at FB, Rice/Tate/Baldwin, etc.) and he has led a similar offensive roster in Seattle to 11-5 and 13-3 seasons and 4 playoff wins. He isn't the ONLY player making the difference but he was *certainly* a major reason why they went from losing close games in 2011 to winning close games in 2012/13/14 and going deep into the playoffs.
Wilson has flaws. He either cannot see down the middle of the field OR is too risk adverse to throw there (I think it is a combo as there are times he clearly sees guys but won't throw it). While he has shown he can throw receivers open on hitches and outs he has "regressed" as he won't do that with anyone but Baldwin. In clean pockets @ 2 seconds he starts to move as he assumes there will be perssure. (Cannot blame him with almost half your snaps there is pressure and the fact he knows if he moves out of the pocket #1 he is less likely to get hit and #2 can string out the play and make something out of nothing). His deep touch has been average this year. His footwork has been off (see: pressure) so he isn't stepping into throws or is throwing on the run which is making some passes slightly off leading to difficult catches. etc.
But for a 3rd year guy I don't think you can hate what you see. He is smart about running and adds 60 yards a game in running (260 yards passing/rushing game stacks up well against high volume passers with 270 combined yards), forces few turnovers, is accurate, and with a bad line and below average receivers he continues to have a top 10 scoring offense and the last 3 years a very high DVOA (source: footballoutsiders.com)
# 4 Offensive DVOA in 2012
# 7 Offensive DVOA in 2013
# 6 Offensive DVOA in 2014 (through week 11)
In 2011 (7-9 squad), before Wilson came to Seattle? That team was # 22. And that was a team with many of the same offensive weapons (Lynch, Miller, Rice, Tate, Baldwin). Wilson has nothing to prove. But to make a serious Super Bowl run they either need him to play a lot better *or* the OL/Receivers need to improve quickly.
I don't want to be a negative nelly but I watch every Seattle play. They had this SAME issue with the receivers/line last year. I have no reason to think they will improve. And I have no reason to think Wilson will be even better but I am not sure he can be much better with what he has. If he continues they way he is playing good but not great) they go 4-2 down the stretch and miss the playoffs at 10-6.
Facebook
Twitter