Bret Bielema Says Talks To Coach Phins Broke Down In 2012 Because Of Russell Wilson

Yeah, also for 2014, RW's rushing yards per game are essentially uncorrelated with total rushing yards of everyone else on the Seahawks. I don't have yards per carry in there yet, but this is true for total rushing yards for 2014. Kind of surprising, but that's the data.

 

No, but there is a lot more to a running game, and Miami's was better, excluding the QB obviously.

 

I've given you the data that concerns Wilson's actual rating when his defense allows more than their average. Now, I didn't go all in-depth, and I'm not going to, on whether or not Wilson played from behind at all in those games, but Wilson's overall rating drops 11 points, from 95 to 84, when his defense allows more than their average of 15.8. So, take that as you will, but I'd argue that that statistic is just as important as Wilson's overall rating remaining constant, when playing from behind.

 

So you prefer impertinent and irrelevant data in order to provide evidence for your theories? You prefer less detail, and data that is muddied by other factors, in order to make the evidence more opaque?

Huh.

Interesting.

Well then you can have your "data" which is completely worthless relative to the theory you're trying to test. I'll keep the actual relevant and pertinent data.

 

Not really.

 

It occurs to me that resnor is not willing to have an honest discussion on the topic. He prefers low quality, opague data of vague relevance to the point he's making, so long as it looks a certain way. So I think I'm gonna bow out of this one.

Have fun hating on a Canton quarterback. Good luck with that.

 

Do you really think giving up 17 points in a game is "worse" than giving up 15.8? Is that really an instance in which the defense played "poorly"?

Once again, over Wilson's career, when his defense gives up 20 points or more (which is probably roughly when "worse than their norm" approaches statistical significance), his QB rating is 95.9 on average, and his YPA is 7.6 on average.

There is no reason to restrict that analysis to 2014 alone if the argument is that Wilson's individual performance is enhanced by the play of his defense.

This case should be closed by now.

 

You can also take a look at whether Wilson's individual play covaries with that of the running game other than Wilson.

It doesn't. There isn't a single other component of the team whose play covaries with how Wilson plays individually.

Perhaps he's just good? Or is that some outlandish possibility? There are players who are good, right?

 

Cool. Have fun in your ivory tower. It's nice to know that data that doesn't support your theory is meaningless and trivial. But I'm not the one willing to have an honest discussion. I bring out statistics that are relevant to when the defense has an off day. You ignore it, and post stats in regards to how Wilson plays from behind, and then tell me that I'm not willing to have the discussion?

BTW, how can data be "impertinent?"

It's all good, dude, I'm just spitballing here. Boring day at work, and I'm looking at how the defense affects Wilson's play. Seems to me that people would be interested in Wilson's rating dropping a bunch when the defense plays outside their averages.

 

I can only speak for myself but all of my analysis has not been based on anything but pure individual Skillset and what that ceiling can do with or without supporting cast...your projecting what ifs when it comes to Ryan.

 

welcome to the board dude,you seem to know your stuff.

 

Thanks dj, it's a good site.

 

I was merely giving all the instances in 2014 where the defense allowed more than their average.

 

And if the game in which they surrendered 17 points would've featured a QB rating of 150 for Wilson, I would've likewise wanted it removed from the analysis.

The Seahawks may have averaged 15.8 points against in 2014, but it's likely that roughly the range of 13 to 20 was their norm. The 20+ point analysis we started with was the better approach.

 

You'd also find that Wilson's individual passing statistics are uncorrelated with the Seahawks' running game variables. On top of that, when Wilson throws off of play-action, his QB rating is 98.3. When he throws off of no play-action, his QB rating is 93.3. He also completed 46.2% of his deep passes (20+ yards in the air), to Ryan Tannehill's 37.7%, in 2014.

 

This thread =

 

Indeed.

It's just remarkable how people with an agenda will say that what they WANT to do is figure out what happens to Russell Wilson when he's put under the strain of his defense not functioning very well, but then they act like data on how Russell Wilson performs when trailing on the scoreboard is not relevant.

It's not only relevant, it is THE single most relevant thing you could cite.

Instead what they do is gather up whole-game data which will include Russell Wilson throwing the football in all manner of situations. He could spend the entire game up on the scoreboard, and if that were the case was he really feeling "pressure"? On the other hand, the defense could be allowing points specifically BECAUSE Russell Wilson is struggling, and so you could be putting the cart before the horse when trying to suggest that Russell Wilson's lower passer ratings in games where the defense gives up points shows a causal relationship. Talk about specious reasoning. Correlation is not causation.

So to get cleaner results, you simplify it. When Russell Wilson is behind on the scoreboard, there's pressure on him to score. Pure and simple. Clean. It doesn't involve assumptions. At any point in the game if you're trailing, there's pressure to get back in front. Doesn't matter whether it's because the defense is giving up a lot of points or not. Every time he drops back and he's behind in the score that's the exact pressure you're wondering how he handles when you start talking about games where the Seattle defense allowed the other team to score. And the fact of the matter is, he outperforms ALL of the other elite quarterbacks in those situations. Pretty clear.

Claiming you're trying to figure out how Russell Wilson does when being pressured by his defense allowing the other team to score, and then eschewing the trailing split data in favor of this whole-game data based on some arbitrary designation of when the Seattle defense gave up "too many" points is like rejecting passer rating data in favor of total passing yards data when you say you're trying to determine who the most efficient quarterback is.

It's just not smart. It reeks of agenda.

 

I thought yoi bowed out? Lol. Nobody has changed their mind it seems. A shocker!

Wilson = Very good/great/elite. No matter who is around him. Team success depends on supporting cast but he contributes a lot.

Kaepernick was helped a lot but Wilson > Kaep by a country mile.

 

I think that you prefer the trailing data because it gives Wilson an 11 jump over the data in which his defense gives up more than their average. We have this weird thing, one set of data shows Wilson having a lower reading when his defense plays below their usual, and we have a set of data that shows no dropoff when playing from behind. What do those two sets of data say? Who knows. They seem to disagree with each other.

I think the scoring data is pretty simple: when the defense allows more than their average, what does Wilson look like? It's not complicated. Maybe it's too simple. I didn't "eschew" anything. I looked at a different set of data. Maybe the Seahawks weren't talking in those Ganges where the defense allowed more, until the very end.

My data seems to correlate more with the Super Bow result, though. Defense gives up more than their usual, and they lost. Wilson played with the lead alot of the game, but still lost. I wasn't trying to look at individual statistics, but at wins and losses.

 

One of the main problems with your "defense gives up more points than average" argument is that a second or two of eyeballing the game-by-game breakdown shows that there is absolutely no pattern whatsoever. In 4 of those 7 games, Wilson's rating was 98+ and the other 3 were under 65. That's not a pattern, that's a jumble of random, unrelated numbers. In two of those sub-65 rating games, the Seahawks gave up 17 and 24 points, which are hardly poor defensive showings. Especially when you consider that 7 of the points in the 24 pt game came on a blocked punt recovered for a TD. In the game they gave up 17 to the Giants, they won 38-17 so there was no pressing or need to press by Wilson. He also ran for 107 yards and a TD, which helped them win that game. Not to mention that a defense giving up 17 points is hardly struggling. If your position is that Wilson panicked and played poorly because the defense gave up 17 points instead of their usual 16, then your argument is completely ridiculous.

 

No, that wasn't my point. And yes, I would agree that there are probably things that I didn't see, as I was just looking at final scores, and stats. I also said that the stats I posted seem to disagree with the trailing splits that CK posted...but instead of simply dismissing the stuff I posted, just do like what you did, and point out where they're flawed. I'm fine with that. I'm not some stats guy, making my living off of my analysis of stats. I was just poking around the internets, looking at things that seemed interesting.

Oh, and I didn't say there was any sort of pattern to it, and, I also said that his rating was wildly inconsistent.

 

That's fine. But if there is no pattern to it, then it suggests that there is no cause-and-effect, which means you have only 7 data points, 4 are contrary to your thesis and the remaining 3 don't really withstand deeper scrutiny.

For good or bad, you have established yourself as a staunch Tannehill supporter who "seems" to be bothered by the notion other young QBs from his draft class (or the ones close to it) might be better. So when you vigorously argue that a guy like Wilson, whose accomplishments and efficiency (not bulk, because he doesn't have the high pass attempt numbers) numbers are among the best of all time for a QB in his first 3 years is somehow far less than he's cracked up to be, it "appears" that you are just pushing an agenda.

 

This is spot on. Earlier in the year "some" tried to discount Andrew Luck to support this mess. Not everyone can handle having a GOOD QB I suppose.

 

Well, I guess the biggest issue is that the ones who were pushing the arguments aren't in this thread commenting now. I do support Tannehill, and I do think he's going to be very good. I have seen many posts on the forum comparing Tannehill to Wilson, and concluding that Tannehill isn't good because he hasn't had the same success as him.

I've been a pretty big proponent of wins/losses aren't reflective of QB play, in and of themselves, all along.

Wilson is good. I agree. I'm just not convinced that he's elite right now. Some are. I'll leave it at that.

 

It's actually true, however, that Wilson is playing at a level individually that's more strongly associated with winning than is Tannehill. In a hypothetical scenario in which both players play the same as they do individually, and all else is somehow made equal between their two teams, Wilson's team would win significantly more than Tannehill's. The one area in which this is most true is with regard to passing efficiency (YPA), which is strongly associated with winning across the league, and where Wilson is currently well above Tannehill. And the available evidence suggests that that doesn't have anything to do with any other components of their teams (defense, running game, etc.).

 

Our run game consists of Lamar Miller, who loses steam after 12-15 carries, two backs who shouldnt be on the field, and some Tannehill read option.

Seattle has Lynch, elite back, who can carry 20+ times pretty much any week. Their run game is not only more effective, it's more consistent and it also sets the table for the rest of their offense. Watch the Super Bowl (or any Seattle game) NE was selling out vs the run all game long, leaving their CBs one on one all game long, allowing deep balls to crappy WRa all game long, and they still had trouble stopping the run.

You could say that our run blocking is as good as theirs, but the run game as a whole is not even close.

 

Neither of those guys are close to Luck right now.

 

I don't see an anti Wilson agenda. Frankly, there seems to be an anti- all Seahawks other than Wilson agenda. They have a great TEAM.

 

Lol you guys keep building these straw men. No one said he wasn't a good QB.

I'm no math expert but I can count to 11. If 8 guys are committed to stopping the run that makes it easier to pass. An extra safety in the box, LBs flying downhill to attack run lanes and leaving open zones behind them, when that's happening you should expect the passing numbers to improve but I'm willing to bet those variables aren't included in your numbers.

 

You would say that. I wouldn't . Luck is kinda what youd get if you took Wilson and Tannehill and combined them in a lab somewhere, with a little Roethlisberger on the side.

 

And I'm willing to bet that you have no way of verifying whether the Seahawks face that sort of coverage any more than the average team. Should we trust they do simply because some guy named "Piston Honda" on a message board says they do? In other words "my" numbers (which are really not "mine") can be verified, whereas "your" hypothesis cannot.

 

I pointed out a number of flaws in that kind of data. There are enough theoretical flaws that it doesn't even merit closer scrutiny in order to enumerate the obvious problems, ESPECIALLY since we have a split that literally and succinctly tells us exactly what we need to know (efficiency while trailing). But you dismissed the much, much, much, much, much more relevant data of hand because it didn't look the way you wanted it to look.

 

It's called game rewind. They have broadcast, condensed and overhead/coaches tape. Sooo yeah there's a way to verify it and yeah I've studied ALL of Wilson's first two seasons plus 6-7 of this year's games and I'll review all of 2014 over the summer.

Any more bets you wanna lose?

 

Efficiency while trailing is pretty useless if you don't know how much a team is trailing by or how much time is remaining. It's like grading 3rd and 12 on the same scale as 3rd and 2.

 

And I assume you've watched the rest of the league's teams in this way, so that you'd have the data necessary to determine whether the Seahawks face significantly more coverages of that type than the average team?

 

Which is actually a thing. Comparing quarterbacks' efficiency on 3rd down. Actually a well known and useful split.

 

By the way, Russell Wilson had a 131.4 passer rating while trailing by between 9 and 16 points.

So there goes that theory.

"But what I meant to say was..."

 

What are the odds they're facing predominantly eight in the box in those situations? What are the odds that Wilson is "feeling less pressure" in those situations?

What people seem to need to realize here is that, sometimes when you have a hypothesis, you can actually investigate it further with objective data that actually exists in the world. There is no reason to stop at the level of a hypothesis just because it sounds plausible and makes sense theoretically. Go ahead and test your hypotheses!