7 games 31 sacks

[kalibane]

So HC you ready to admit that I wasn't overreacting about the offensive line yet or are you going to continue to be stubborn about this? I mean seriously it's getting ridiculous. Another team that couldn't get pressure on the QB and then they get 5 against us. I guess they were all Wilson's fault?

I normally don't work the I told you so card but you've come at me extra hard on this. And we're in pace for 70 sacks this season.

[obiken]

No doubt. This game should have been, 34 or 41-3. But no, 20-3. Yes a win but it had to be a win, and you are talking the 31 worst defense in the league, we were supposed to win.

[NorthHawk]

Dallas is up next and Hardy can be a nightmare for good OL's so it should be a real test.

The OL looked better in the run game and at times pass blocking, but there's still room for improvement.

[Seahawks4Ever]

Everybody talks about the game in KC where the Chiefs sacked Mudbone about 11 times. What many don't realize that game was in the "in the grasp" era". It was a myopic rule to keep QB's from being hurt so if a defender had a QB "in the grasp" the whistle would blow. That rule didn't last too long, I think of the thousands of plays since, like say of Big Ben, that would have been ruled in the grasp but he got away and made the completion.

None of these sacks against RW is that cheap kind, they are all legit.

[Hawk Sista]

The O-line is clearly the weakest of all links on this 2015 team. It scares the bajeeeezus out of me.

[Hawk Sista]

I've heard a lot about how the spread offenses in college are failing to produce solid o-linemen and the league is suffering as a whole. What are your thoughts, Kali, or the weaker o-lines across the league in general? Not making excuses for this abysmal line, just curious.

[HumanCockroach]

Nowhere have I ever said the line didn't have issues, ever, not once. Nowhere did I say all sacks were on Wilson, nowhere. That said, tonight, and every single game, some of those sacks were on Wilson. Tonight was no different. Two sacks were a direct result of Wilson leaving the pocket and being brought down for a sack, when leaving the pocket was not necessary.

Ignore it all you want, climb under the covers and pretend like it is and always will be the line every time, all the time. Whatever gets you to sleep at night man. Doesn't mean I have to have the same belief.

[HumanCockroach]

I've heard a lot about how the spread offenses in college are failing to produce solid o-linemen and the league is suffering as a whole. What are your thoughts, Kali, or the weaker o-lines across the league in general? Not making excuses for this abysmal line, just curious.

Yep, I have been discussing it for two years, and even posted a link just a couple weeks ago regarding that very subject.

[HumanCockroach]

Everybody talks about the game in KC where the Chiefs sacked Mudbone about 11 times. What many don't realize that game was in the "in the grasp" era". It was a myopic rule to keep QB's from being hurt so if a defender had a QB "in the grasp" the whistle would blow. That rule didn't last too long, I think of the thousands of plays since, like say of Big Ben, that would have been ruled in the grasp but he got away and made the completion.

None of these sacks against RW is that cheap kind, they are all legit.

The in the grasp calls had pretty much died by that game Kreig didn't get anything but a lot of Thomas crushing him over and over again.

[RiverDog]

So HC you ready to admit that I wasn't overreacting about the offensive line yet or are you going to continue to be stubborn about this? I mean seriously it's getting ridiculous. Another team that couldn't get pressure on the QB and then they get 5 against us. I guess they were all Wilson's fault?

I normally don't work the I told you so card but you've come at me extra hard on this. And we're in pace for 70 sacks this season.

I watched the sacks last night with the thought in mind as to who they were on, Russell or the protection. At least two of those 5 sacks were at least partially on Russell. It's not that he made a bad decision, the risk of a 5 yard or less might be outweighed by a possible 20 yard run if he could clear the pocket. Some of those sacks were for really trivial losses. In the first half, he was sacked twice, once for -1 yards, the other for -2. As a matter of fact, we only lost 23 yards on those 5 sacks. You can't attribute those itty bitty sacks to the OL, at least not in their entirety. If that's a different quarterback, a Peyton or Eli Manning, Brees, Bradford, Palmer, Rivers, et al, those sacks would be incomplete passes. It also explains why Russell has always been in the top 10 in completion percentage, because he's not throwing the ball away like other quarterbacks do, and drives down his passing attempts.

Our OL is still horrendous at protecting the quarterback and I'm not defending them, but that 70 sack projection is an inflated number.

[kalibane]

Riv - The point I'm making is that regardless or whether or not Wilson helps to contribute to the sack numbers the line play is abysmal and it's impossible to mount consistent offense against good teams with the line playing this way. Wilson does contribute to some sacks but sacks aren't even the main problem, those are just the worst plays (and there were 2 where Wilson just flat out didn't have a chance). Even on plays where he doesn't get sacked we are seeing linemen not even getting a hand on their blocking assignment with shocking regularity.

HC... no one is putting their head under the covers. You have been acting like the line was bad but it was more the function of a league wide line deficiency instead of this specific line being terrible relative to the rest of the league. Like the Seahawks weren't experiencing anything much different from the rest of the league. You haven't been pushing this rationalization as much recently but you also haven't admitted that even in a league of poor blocking this line is the worst (in terms of pass blocking) and that it's the primary issue on this team and for the ineptitude of the offense. Even plays where Russell breaks the pocket too early some of them are indirectly related to poor line play because when you play behind a line this bad the clock speeds up in QBs heads. They leave the pocket when they don't need to and they rush throws because they are so conditioned to being hit in just 2-3 seconds.

Sis - I think there is something to the whole spread offense hurting the blocking ability of guys coming out of college and I think there is something to the contact limitations in the NFL hurting the opportunity to coach guys up. But in terms of the Seahawks offensive line I think the primary issue is the lack of talent and the resources that have been devoted to acquiring talent for the unit.

[RiverDog]

Riv - The point I'm making is that regardless or whether or not Wilson helps to contribute to the sack numbers the line play is abysmal and it's impossible to mount consistent offense against good teams with the line playing this way. Wilson does contribute to some sacks but sacks aren't even the main problem, those are just the worst plays (and there were 2 where Wilson just flat out didn't have a chance). Even on plays where he doesn't get sacked we are seeing linemen not even getting a hand on their blocking assignment with shocking regularity.

HC... no one is putting their head under the covers. You have been acting like the line was bad but it was more the function of a league wide line deficiency instead of this specific line being terrible relative to the rest of the league. Like the Seahawks weren't experiencing anything much different from the rest of the league. You haven't been pushing this rationalization as much recently but you also haven't admitted that even in a league of poor blocking this line is the worst (in terms of pass blocking) and that it's the primary issue on this team and for the ineptness of the offense. Even plays where Russell breaks the pocket too early some of them are indirectly related to poor line play because when you play behind a line this bad the clock speeds up in QBs heads. They leave the pocket when they don't need to and they rush throws because they are so conditioned to being hit in just 2-3 seconds.

Sis - I think there is something to the whole spread offense hurting the blocking ability of guys coming out of college and I think there is something to the contact limitations in the NFL hurting the opportunity to coach guys up. But in terms of the Seahawks offensive line I think the primary issue is the lack of talent and the resources that have been devoted to acquiring talent for the unit.

Agreed on your judgment about the OL. They're horrible. And I'm not buying the company line that's being used to rationalize bad decisions made over the past 3 years that has been responsible for this rag tag squad in the first place that they'll have some sort of magical metamorphosis into an effective unit around mid season, which at our 7th game, we're already there.

My point was that we can't quantify that opinion by using a sack number as not all sacks are created equally. That 70 sack projection needs to be adjusted way down, to somewhere in the 40's, which would put it to around 3 per game. Still bad, but not outrageously bad.

One stat that I had been harping on, red zone production, did improve some. We had two red zone opportunities and scored a TD on one of those. Our short yardage offense did look better last night, but then again, this was the 49'ers.

If I had one word to describe my sentiment following this game it would be "encouraging" but not to such a degree that I consider us viable SB contenders.

[obiken]

No disrespect to Killi or HS, spreads may play a part, but to me, I think its all about drafting bad and then having to convert DL into OL. Sorry, but when Cable says this the best OL he has ever had after 31 sacks, I would hate to see his average.

[kalibane]

My point was that we can't quantify that opinion by using a sack number as not all sacks are created equally. That 70 sack projection needs to be adjusted way down, to somewhere in the 40's, which would put it to around 3 per game. Still bad, but not outrageously bad.

Oh I agree sacks aren't the best measure of offensive line issues. But most people sack totals are the only thing that grab their eyes. You start talking about hurries and such and their eyes glaze over.

I would disagree that the sack projection needs to be adjusted down. It's one thing when a team like Denver tees off on us. It's another thing when teams like Detroit and San Fran are getting 4 and 5 sacks when they've been terrible at getting to the QB all year. Also I would contend that any adjustment you would make to reflect the sacks that were Wilson's fault would be countered by sacks should have happened but Wilson was able to escape a situation that an average QB in terms of awareness and mobility would be dead to rights. I would say there are at least two times per game where a lineman completely blows their assignment and Wilson manages to either make a play, turn it into a short gain or throw the ball away to avoid the sack.

[NorthHawk]

It's not just sacks, but hits on the QB, too.
Being consistently hit regularly can really have an effect on decision making and productivity.
How can you really measure poor run blocking?
It's gotten better over the last few weeks, but at the beginning of the year the RBs were often being hit in the backfield or have to change course from the intended play.

[kalibane]

Yeah the best way to measure run blocking is generally yards before contact, but it's pretty hard to find those numbers. The run blocking is still not great by any stretch, wouldn't even considered it good, but it's no where near as bad as the pass blocking.

[Zorn76]

While it takes time for an OL to gel, the guys in place now are not worth that process, IMO. The consistent breakdown in pass protection exceeds what you'd expect from a group learning to work together.

They've had a couple of nice outings for the run game (Cincy, SF), but it still doesn't earn them the benefit of the doubt moving forward.

It's beyond tiresome.

But it's also back to square one when it comes to the OL next spring.
We gotta start over, and do it by drafting guys who were meant to play the position, instead of some goofy DL conversion process.

[Hawk Sista]

Yeah the best way to measure run blocking is generally yards before contact, but it's pretty hard to find those numbers. The run blocking is still not great by any stretch, wouldn't even considered it good, but it's no where near as bad as the pass blocking.

I heard Brock say yesterday (before last night's game, so I dunno what the stats are after) that Marshawn was averaging about .43 yards before contact and 2.7 yards after. That got him to 41st out of 46 in YBC out of rushers who had enough rushes to qualify for such things (or something very similar to that). I'm sorry I don't have a link, but the Brock and Salk morning shows are available by podcast on their website.

The Niners are who they are; we beat them on a short week after a brutal 4th quarter loss and we should have. The dominant performance by the D was important, yet the offensive line continues to be the story for this team. I keep hearing people talking about the improved performance last night. Forgive me for not getting excited that RW only got sacked 5 times (and hurried however many more) by a team that had only had 9 sacks on the season. While I agree he can cause a sack from time to time, he also does his fair share of avoiding them. This may be the year that the O-line play is bad enough to keep the team from meeting their lofty goals and force the staff to put more reasonable resources in the trenches.

As an aside, I preferred Bailey to Gilliam. Just an eye test for me, but my eyes tell me that he did a better job at RT when he was in there.

[NorthHawk]

I think they did a better job in the run game. That sets up the pass in our Offense, so it's essential that it improve.
The pass protection did provide a nice pocket a number of times, but it needs a vast improvement against Dallas with Hardy getting back into game shape.

[RiverDog]

Oh I agree sacks aren't the best measure of offensive line issues. But most people sack totals are the only thing that grab their eyes. You start talking about hurries and such and their eyes glaze over.

I would disagree that the sack projection needs to be adjusted down. It's one thing when a team like Denver tees off on us. It's another thing when teams like Detroit and San Fran are getting 4 and 5 sacks when they've been terrible at getting to the QB all year. Also I would contend that any adjustment you would make to reflect the sacks that were Wilson's fault would be countered by sacks should have happened but Wilson was able to escape a situation that an average QB in terms of awareness and mobility would be dead to rights. I would say there are at least two times per game where a lineman completely blows their assignment and Wilson manages to either make a play, turn it into a short gain or throw the ball away to avoid the sack.

I guess it was your thread title that sent my radar up. Russell does create a lot of sacks on his own, a price we have to pay for all those ad lib scrambles for big chunks of yardage, so it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Like you, I am by no means convinced that this OL group has turned the corner. We'll see how they do against the Cow Pukes.

[HumanCockroach]

Really Sis? Bailey was directly responsible for two of the five sacks without so much as slowing the defender down. ( a look out block if ever I have seen one) and that in only spot duty ( 33% of offensive snaps only 24 of 71) To be fair though, one of those is simply stupidity on Bevells part. Who in the world thinks an empty backfield on 3rd and 9, from the shotgun, WITH a five yard drop is going to be successful? Tackles can't push the ends " past " the Q.B. too create a pocket when the QB is dropping five steps, plus the shotgun. They are "creating" a pocket, but unfortunately the Q.B isn't IN the pocket by play design. Not the first time he's done it either, he loves to run it which is stupid.

Would love for a stats guy to break down the sack and pressure numbers by play package. ( ie: under center, empty shotgun, one back shotgun etc) just a feeling, but my gut tells me Wilson is BETTER with a back and under center on those third and longs. Not sure, but it feels right. Also would be sweet if they threw a pass in there in the fourth quarter on first or second down for a GD change. Not real hard to get to the Q.B when every drive goes, dive, dive, empty backfield pass on third and long. Bevell could certainly " help" that line by doing something unexpected once in a while.

[HumanCockroach]

So HC you ready to admit that I wasn't overreacting about the offensive line yet or are you going to continue to be stubborn about this? I mean seriously it's getting ridiculous. Another team that couldn't get pressure on the QB and then they get 5 against us. I guess they were all Wilson's fault?

I normally don't work the I told you so card but you've come at me extra hard on this. And we're in pace for 70 sacks this season.

Have I ever, even a single time said all the sacks were Wilson s fault? Sorry Anthony, err, Bane, Never have I said it, and I NEVER will, because as I have professing ALL along, it's MORE than one player OR group. Wilson holds the ball too long, or decides to scramble early it's a sack, receivers run wrong route or don't get open, it's a sack, the line blows their assignment or miss their block, it's a sack, the defense makes a great play it's a sack, the RB misses his assignment or gets beat, it's a sack. Nowhere have I ever once blamed a single group or player, unlike many, it seems I understand that success or failure does not hinge on a single player or position group.

[RiverDog]

Would love for a stats guy to break down the sack and pressure numbers by play package. ( ie: under center, empty shotgun, one back shotgun etc) just a feeling, but my gut tells me Wilson is BETTER with a back and under center on those third and longs. Not sure, but it feels right. Also would be sweet if they threw a pass in there in the fourth quarter on first or second down for a GD change. Not real hard to get to the Q.B when every drive goes, dive, dive, empty backfield pass on third and long. Bevell could certainly " help" that line by doing something unexpected once in a while.

I'd also like to see some sort of comprehensive stat invented that incorporates sacks within 4 seconds or less after the snap with those that occur after that time, sacks for less than 5 yards vs. more than 5, intentional throw aways, pressured throws, deflections, and other things that affects the quarterback attempting to pass. Perhaps some sort of weighted average that gives a higher value to a sack in under 4 seconds than a deflection, etc.

It's pretty hard to quantify an ineffective or effective pass protection.

[kalibane]

Have I ever, even a single time said all the sacks were Wilson s fault? Sorry Anthony, err, Bane, Never have I said it, and I NEVER will, because as I have professing ALL along, it's MORE than one player OR group. Wilson holds the ball too long, or decides to scramble early it's a sack, receivers run wrong route or don't get open, it's a sack, the line blows their assignment or miss their block, it's a sack, the defense makes a great play it's a sack, the RB misses his assignment or gets beat, it's a sack. Nowhere have I ever once blamed a single group or player, unlike many, it seems I understand that success or failure does not hinge on a single player or position group.

Ha try to smear me with Anthony if you want. You know it's BS though. Yes your standard reply when I've complained about the O-Line is to point out sacks that Wilson was responsible for.

We talked for years about how the O-Line is the foundation of the team. I guess that was only relevant when we had one of the best lines? No one had said the O-Line is the only issue on the team but it is the biggest issue on the team period. And that's all we've been saying.

[burrrton]

I'd also like to see some sort of comprehensive stat invented that incorporates sacks within 4 seconds or less after the snap with those that occur after that time

Shouldn't be too hard, although a play-by-play summary would make it much easier ("Wilson sacked at SEA 43 2:06 Q3" or something?).

Anyone know if that's available in here somewhere:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201510220 ... &tab=recap

I don't have time to dig atm (you seem to be able to find them, but you have to 'scroll' through every play with those arrows to get to them).

[edit]

Hell, maybe I'll sit down with Tivo later and do it- I'd be interested to see that information, too.

[edit2]

NM- found it- someone go here, pull up the play-by-play, find each sack at a glance, the replay it (for those who DVR the games).

http://espn.go.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=400791503

[burrrton]

And yeah, I'm not the first to say it, but I'm not sure "Wilson-caused" sacks should be expected to explain *any* of our high sack numbers because he's one of, if not *the*, most mobile QB in the league. As such, isn't it CW that he'd avoid far more sacks than he'd cause unless he was equally bad about causing his own sacks as he is about escaping them (which I've never heard even his worst critics argue)?

In other words, yeah, he's obviously caused a few, but every QB does that, so our numbers shouldn't be expected to diverge from (or catch up to, in this case?) the rest of the league based on that.

What every other QB *doesn't* do is escape pressure with such effectiveness and regularity, so if anything, Wilson should be suppressing our sack numbers relative to the league, not the other way around.

[kalibane]

Good scrambling QBs traditionally take more sacks because they hold the ball longer based on the belief they can escape the rush, where as guys like Peyton Manning or Tom Brady are focused on getting the ball out before the rush has a chance to get there.

Russell definitely contributes to the sack totals but the play calling and Russell holding the ball are not included in the advanced metrics that people like PFF and Football Outsiders put together. That stuff is based purely on isolating line assignments and recording how well each lineman blocks from play to play whether a sack occurs or even a pressure occurs on the play or not. So like I've seen plays where Gilliam completely whiffs on his block but the ball comes out quickly enough to not result in a pressure. He still gets a failing grade. On the other hand. It doesn't count when Jimmy Graham pulls his Ole routine or when a RB fails to pick up a blitz. And I don't believe they tag lineman for stuff like intentionally pushing a pass rusher up field but the QB doesn't do his part to step up in the pocket and avoid the sack. If that's what the lineman should be doing they will get graded well on the play even if it results in a sack.

[burrrton]

Good points- I guess I've just heard "Think what their sack totals would be if he WASN'T so mobile!" too many times from online talking heads and random posters.

[kalibane]

That's the funny thing. The two are not mutually exclusive. All things being equal, having a scrambling QB generally results in more sacks but when you have a porous offensive line the scrambling QB (and we have to emphasize scrambling as opposed to running) definitely saves the team from taking sacks also. Both things are also true for monsters who can shrug off sacks like Big Ben and Cam.

For the purposes of this particular team I think it's completely fair to say that the sacks that Wilson takes are more or less balanced out by the sacks he avoids and if we had a more traditional, stand tall in the pocket QB he'd just be getting hammered like Matt Stafford is in Detroit (he got hit something like 13 times last week) because he neither has the time to get the ball out nor the athleticism to avoid the sacks.

[c_hawkbob]

Personally I don't think it balances out.

Without quantifying it through extensive all-22 film study I see Wilson running out of at least twice as many sacks as he runs into. Brian Baldinger (he of the grotesquely crooked pinkie finger) said that in his opinion; behind this O-line, if Wilson weren't such a magician scrambling with the ball he'd be on a pace for over 100 sacks this year instead of the 70 or so sack pace he's on now.

I agree with him.

[kalibane]

Well Bob I pretty much agree but generally when I'm arguing a point I will cede some ground in what sometimes may be an overly cautious attempt to nullify any unconscious bias I may have.

[RiverDog]

Personally I don't think it balances out.

Without quantifying it through extensive all-22 film study I see Wilson running out of at least twice as many sacks as he runs into. Brian Baldinger (he of the grotesquely crooked pinkie finger) said that in his opinion; behind this O-line, if Wilson weren't such a magician scrambling with the ball he'd be on a pace for over 100 sacks this year instead of the 70 or so sack pace he's on now.

I agree with him.

Russell is on pace for 464 passing attempts this season, so at 100 sacks, that that's a sack on every 4.64 attempts. Or look at it this way: Russell is completing 70% of his passes, which is 325 completions, which only leaves another 139 attempts that is something other than a completion. So out of those 139 attempts, he's going to get sacked on all but 39 of them?

I do understand that my math doesn't work in that situation, that a sack does not count as a pass attempt, but it does illustrate how outlandish a 100+ sacks in a season would be. I call BS. Our OL is bad, worst in the league for sure. But it isn't that bad. Holy cow!

[EmeraldBullet]

Really worried about facing the cowboys defense with our OL.

[depaashaas]

Really worried about facing the cowboys defense with our OL.

Fair point, pretty sure they are not looking forward to see their QB against our defense either. Welcome to the shack bullet

[HumanCockroach]

http://sea.247sports.com/Bolt/Russell-W ... e-40598671

I believe this guy.

[RiverDog]

http://sea.247sports.com/Bolt/Russell-Wilson-Some-of-those-sacks-are-on-me-40598671

I believe this guy.

Right on the mark. And although I would expect nothing less, it's good to hear Russell stick up for his much maligned OL.

[EmeraldBullet]

Looking at other years we also have struggled in letting Wilson get sacked, but no where near as bad as this year. I took the stats for each respective year and posted the stats for number times sacked, rank, and sack per drop back to pass (#sacked/(pass attempt+#sacked)):

2014:
Wilson was sacked 42 times (ranked 6th worst), sacked ~8.5%

2013:
Wilson was sacked 44 times (tied 3rd worst), sacked ~9.75%
(in sack totals this year he was tied with Matt Ryan, but Ryans sack% was only ~6.33%)

2012:
Wilson was sacked 33 times (12th worst), sacked ~7.74%

2011:
Jackson was sacked 42 times (2nd worst), sacked ~8.53%


Now this year so far through 7 games we have:

Wilson sacked 31 times (Worst in NFL), sacked ~13.2%, on pace for 71 sacks this season.

Now undoubtedly, having BeastMode Back should help a lot but these numbers are ridiculous. One other thing to consider though is that in general there appears to be much more sacks so far this season than usual. Maybe if I'm bored later I will determine an adjustment metric (perhaps how many times Wilson is sacked as a league percentage of all sacks or something). Now I'm going to start prepping dinner and get ready for TNF.

*all stats can be found on http://www.nfl.com/stats/player except for the sack percentage, as I explained previously how these rates were determined.

[RiverDog]

Good work, Bullet. That sounds about right, Russell's been under fire a lot more this season than in years past. But as we've discussed on a number of occcasions, it's not entirely the OL's fault. Defenses have adjusted to some of the things Russell used to do to escape pressure, such as sending their DE's a little wider to keep him from getting outside with that little reverse spin move of his. More than a couple times, I've seen Russell try to spin out of a situation only to run smack dab into a DE coming off our OT's attempt to push him to the outside. Plus we don't really have a blocking tight end like we had when Zach Miller was around. That guy was about as good a blocker as any of our OT's, including Okung, and as we all are painfully aware, Jimmy Graham couldn't block his own shadow.

[NorthHawk]

Was it my imagination, or did they have Wilson drop back further this last games than in previous games?
I seem to remember him in the shotgun and taking another 5 or 7 step drop upon occasion.
That might help give him more time and room until the OL starts protecting more consistently.

[HumanCockroach]

They did have him do it in the SF game in the fourth quarter, as well as the Carolina game, and Cincy, all in obvious passing situations, all after running two dives gaining no yardage, all resulting in sacks. IMHO it is the opposite of helping the lineman. One thing about tackles is when blocking on passing downs, they can ride a DE to the outside, problem is, if the QB is already in a shotgun, and then drops even further, riding the DE to the outside actually creates a situation where they are riding him INTO the QB.

You create a situation where they can't block them two ways, they have to beat the DE. Not real conducive to success for tackles and a line already struggling. Pretty damn stupid IMHO.