Week 12 Quick Reads
by Vincent Verhei
To the surprise of nobody who watched Sunday's game between the Steelers and Seahawks, Russell Wilson was one of the best quarterbacks in Week 12. That will happen when you throw for five touchdowns and average 11.6 yards per pass. With five third-down conversions with 10 or more yards to go, Wilson was like an action hero, always saving the day when all hope seemed lost, like a John McClain or Captain America clad in College Navy and Action Green.
On other occasions, though, Wilson was like Frank Drebin or Condorman, stumbling and pratfalling his way around the field and making the worst out of good situations. Weirdly, Wilson fared much better on third-and-long than he did on shorter third-down throws. On third down with 5 yards or less to go for a first down, he went 1-of-4 for minus-1 yard and (obviously) no conversions. With 6 or more yards to go, he went 7-of-7 for 171 yards, with one sack and six conversions, including touchdowns of 16 and 80 yards.
And as it turns out, this is nothing new for Wilson, who has been very good in third-and-long this year, but has struggled in third-and-short -- or, more accurately, in third-and-medium. Here are Wilson's third-down splits this year, along with a league-wide average for all players:
| Russell Wilson Third-Down Passing, 2015 | |||||||||
| Short (1-3 Yards To Go) | Medium (4-6 Yards To Go) | Long (7-Plus Yards To Go) | |||||||
| DVOA | Yd/Play | Suc% | DVOA | Yd/Play | Suc% | DVOA | Yd/Play | Suc% | |
| Russell Wilson | 16.6% | 7.6 | 57.7% | -55.8% | 3.8 | 29.0% | 116.8% | 8.0 | 34.8% |
| NFL Average | -4.4% | 5.8 | 51.9% | 2.8% | 6.1 | 44.8% | 1.8% | 6.1 | 27.5% |
Comments
73 comments, Last at 03 Dec 2015, 10:35am
#12 by cstoos // Dec 01, 2015 - 8:56am
I always feel bad for quarterbacks that get drafted by teams like Jacksonville. The guy was running for his life his whole career, never able to get used to the speed of the game or develop an understanding of the pocket (which was his biggest issue in college).
I don't expect him to ever be a top 15 starter in the league, but it would be nice to see him have some success after being labeled a bust on the level of JaMarcus Russell.
#3 by Oligator83 // Dec 01, 2015 - 5:38am
I find it a little weird that Alex Smith has 0 Rushing DYAR:
These are his 6 runs of the day good for 35 yards and 2 3rd down conversion...
2nd Quarter
3-9-KC 30 (:47) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith left end ran ob at KC 40 for 10 yards (53-N.Bradham). 3-10-BUF 44 (:11) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith right end pushed ob at BUF 36 for 8 yards (37-N.Robey).
3rd Quarter
1-10-BUF 19 (11:52) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith left end pushed ob at BUF 15 for 4 yards
2-5-KC 26 (2:30) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith up the middle to KC 29 for 3 yards (20-C.Graham).
3-11-BUF 34 (:26) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith up the middle to BUF 23 for 11 yards (28-R.Darby).
4th Quarter
1-10-BUF 18 (:27) 11-A.Smith kneels to BUF 19 for -1 yards.
#7 by Perfundle // Dec 01, 2015 - 6:48am
QB runs are graded more harshly than RB runs because QB runs are more successful on average. Also, Buffalo has a horrible run defense; opposing QBs have picked up first downs on 47.6% of non-kneeldown rushing attempts.
#2 by Snoth // Dec 01, 2015 - 5:38am
I know people are talking about all of the injuries the Pats have on offense and now defense. But what's up with Blount? His formula of ramming threw the line of scrimmage and breaking off a big run just hasn't been there this year, it seems like every time blount runs the ball he hits the LOS hesitates then falls down for 2 yards. It doesn't fare well for your offense when brandon Bolden is your best receiver/deep threat/running back and one also one of your best ST players
Also I won 5 dollars Sunday because of Blain gabberts montana like career resurgance.
#13 by cstoos // Dec 01, 2015 - 9:01am
I think Blount this season has been more affected by the Pats play calling than his ability. Against the Jets in week 7 Brady had 54 pass attempts AND had more rushing attempts (4) than Blount (3).
Similar this weekend, at 42 pass attempts and 9 rushes for Blount. He is a bigger guy that wears teams down a bit and generally performs better with more carries. The Pats aren't willing to do that for the most part.
#4 by ammek // Dec 01, 2015 - 5:49am
I do find the third-down numbers interesting, yes. Amazing to see that Brady, Rodgers, Manning and Rivers are all doing so badly on third-and-short this year. I assume 2015 is a blip in all four cases.
It beggars belief that there was a receiver worse than Davante Adams this week. In recent weeks we've seen a handful of these statlines where a WR is targeted a lot and catches a very small percentage of those passes. Apparently Demariyus Thomas is only the second receiver to have as many as 13 targets, and to catch just one of them (Tony Martin, SD vs TB in 1996). The list of players who've had more than 10 targets and caught fewer than one-quarter of them is full of deep threats in games where their team played from behind (Yatil Green, Chris Chambers, Travis Taylor), and aging receivers on bad teams, plus some players I have literally no recollection of (Stephen Baker? Chris Calloway? Bryan Gilmore?). In other words, a lot of Giants and Dolphins. It doesn't seem to be a trend, though. The games by Thomas and Adams are unusual, although from recent seasons Dez Bryant and Larry Fitzgerald are high on the list, suggesting that some teams' strategy when they're losing is 'Keep throwing it to our only half-decent receiver, even if he's triple covered'. Not sure how Davante Adams fits into that picture, though.
#19 by Hang50 // Dec 01, 2015 - 10:42am
It was painful to watch DT implode on Sunday night.
I don't think it was anything that Osweiler was doing. He wasn't throwing with unusual velocity. (No one will compare his throws with those of Denver's current GM, which threatened to crush the bones in a receiver's hands.) Osweiler's accuracy was sometimes suspect, but not consistently bad.
Nor did Thomas look injured. He doesn't run the tightest routes, but he was getting separation often enough.
The problem had to be of the mental variety. My theory is that DT's attention was captured and kept in a different ZIP code until regulation time had expired. (The alternative, that the Spirit of Knoblauch was involved, is too ghastly to consider.)
#28 by deus01 // Dec 01, 2015 - 11:23am
I think Thomas had about 3 drops. I think there were also three or four times where he waited for the ball to get to him instead of closing on it which gave the corner time to close and defend the pass.
His problems in this game did seem to be most mental, though I do think that he doesn't consistently play aggressively enough for a receiver of his size.
#29 by Ryan // Dec 01, 2015 - 11:30am
Watching him Sunday made me wonder if he was a bit spoiled by Peyton. It just seemed like he's too used to the ball landing exactly where it should and he would not make even the slightest adjustments while the ball was in the air. (Of course, over the last few months of play, he should have gotten used to adjusting to inaccurate passes...) I recall at least two distinct scenarios where his running toward the pass would have resulted in a catch.
#30 by Hang50 // Dec 01, 2015 - 11:37am
Collinsworth called attention to at least one play in which Thomas turned and waited for the ball, allowing the DB to defend as you noted. I don't disagree with your assessment that he could play more aggressively.
I do wonder, however, if he's still running routes expecting Manning's timing on curls and outs. I hope Osweiler will learn to throw to his receivers as they cut, but his timing has been average-to-late so far.
#32 by deus01 // Dec 01, 2015 - 11:41am
That's a good point, maybe he was expecting the ball to already be there when he turned which is why he wasn't prepared to close on it.
I have noticed that he sometimes lacks aggressiveness in games with Manning (and in previous seasons).
#5 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Dec 01, 2015 - 6:00am
Not to defend Chip Kelly, but should we give him credit for getting one amazing season and one mediocre season out of Nick Foles, given what Foles looks like now? Or was that just random variance (like Matt Flynn 2011 week 17)?
#14 by bubqr // Dec 01, 2015 - 9:38am
He had a solid playbook, a great OL, a very good RB, the element of surprise(playbook + high tempo) and one of the best deep threat in the league to make things worse for those sometimes confused defenses.
On a similar topic, I find the complete disappearance of the zone read in the Eagles offense following Suggs' preseason hit on Bradford a bit of a forgotten element in how this season played out. Especially given what we know about the effect of running QBs on running games, and therefore offenses, overall. That was a key point of this season for the Eagles.
#18 by Mike B. In Va // Dec 01, 2015 - 10:24am
Yeah, it's really interesting that Philly loses both its major WR threats and a consistently Pro Bowl-level RB that's perfect for their system and the offense takes a nosedive, huh?
I think Kelly is learning the hard way that just plugging in the next guy doesn't work at the NFL level.
Foles was never great. He had a fluky great season, played about at his ceiling last year and now has almost nothing to work with. I don't know that Aaron Rodgers would be a good QB in the Rams' system and with their personnel.
#8 by Otis Taylor89 // Dec 01, 2015 - 7:05am
So it looks like Blaine Gabbert,Tyrod Taylor and (eyeball test only) Brock Osweiler can play QB in the NFL when given a chance and Nick Foles can not.
Raise your hand if you would have thought that 2 years ago?
#9 by Will Allen // Dec 01, 2015 - 7:52am
Osweiler's gonna be an interesting guy to watch, at least to me. His height brings good and bad things to the offense. He's the anti-Wilson in terms of vision, but I hate the inevitably larger wind-up such a tall guy has, although Osweiler's obviously been coached to minimize it as much as possible. There's a reason not many guys taller than 6-6 have played the position, and it isn't only simply because not many taller guys get funneled to the position. He seems to have decent mobility and the game doesn't seem to overwhelm him. No matter who comes and goes, it seems the Broncos are always an interesting team to watch.
#39 by mehllageman56 // Dec 01, 2015 - 12:10pm
I thought the main issue with quarterbacks that tall was footwork, their drop from center being off, etc. Had a conversation in a thread a couple of years ago about this. It seems like Osweiler's footwork is ok, but the Patriots' defense is so banged up they might not be the toughest test for him. He does seem mobile enough, and that's a good sign for him.
#46 by Will Allen // Dec 01, 2015 - 12:28pm
Oh, they are all issues. I have a particular dislike for big wind-ups, and that dislike has grown over time, as pass rushers have become more and more adept, at slapping at the ball. Going from throwing decision made, to ball out of hand, as quickly as possible, is just extremely valuable, and the inability to do so quickly is a real handicap. Like I said, it certainly appears that Osweiler has worked hard at minimizing this handicap as much as possible, for a guy with his wingspan, but he is likely always going to be below average at getting the ball out quickly once he makes his decision. However, he has pretty decent mobility and maybe he'll obtain good good pocket presence which, in combination with Kubiak's offense lessening the effect of this particular issue, means he never enters Byron Leftwich (who was a real clubfoot, too) territory. It was an issue that really hurt Randall Cunningham from time to time (NFCCG in January 1999, sigh), and he still had some really great seasons.
#53 by poplar cove // Dec 01, 2015 - 1:48pm
The thing though with Osweiler I think is that he's actually a pretty decent athlete for a guy that tall. Remember he was offered a scholarship to play for Gonzaga in basketball. He doesn't seem as tall as he actually is when he's on the field, if that makes any sense.
#10 by Travis // Dec 01, 2015 - 8:13am
Inside the red zone, Fitzpatrick went 4-of-7 for 38 yards, with all four completions going for touchdowns. All four of those scoring plays were completed at the 1, with 1 yard after the catch.
Something's wrong with the play-by-play, since the second and fourth touchdowns were clearly caught in the end zone, and the first arguably was. Full highlights here.
#11 by jtr // Dec 01, 2015 - 8:36am
The opponent adjustment for Pittsburgh D is going to be weird in everyone's DVOA for this season. Since their overall defensive DVOA is around average, there's not going to be much of an adjustment applied to Brady in week 1 or Wilson this week even though the Pittsburgh secondary took those entire weeks off from covering anybody.
#40 by jtr // Dec 01, 2015 - 12:13pm
I know FO has demonstrated in the past that DVOA's predictive value doesn't increase by removing particularly good or bad performances. It just seems like Pittsburgh has had two games where they've made things extremely easy for the opposing QB, and there's no way for the opponent adjustment to capture that since they've been about average the rest of the time.
#45 by mehllageman56 // Dec 01, 2015 - 12:21pm
Perhaps it's a matter of the secondary being properly exploited. Both of those games are on the road, against perennial contenders. The Raiders were also able to put up 35 points, and that was in Pittsburgh. Their best performance was against the Cardinals and Bengals, and both games were at home.
#16 by andrew // Dec 01, 2015 - 9:51am
This is very interesting.
I would like to see the breakdowns on how defenses stack vs the short/medium/long splits as well.... it is probably anecdotal but in years past (pre-Zimmer) with the vikings I felt a lot more comfortable with them defending third and short than I did with them vs third and long.
#27 by Will Allen // Dec 01, 2015 - 11:23am
Bad is bad, and from 2010-2013, there were a lot of bad players, and poorly coached players with talent, in the Vikings defensive backfield. Guys like Chris Cook, Asher Allen, Jamarca Sanford, Josh Robinson, etc. have no business getting a large number of snaps in an NFL game, if they even belonged in the league. Toss in that they were poorly coached as well (I'll be interested to see if Frazier sticks on Lovie's staff), and, well, you end up with what I still believe is the worst game a NFL defensive backfield has ever played (and I saw every Vikings game in 2000), which was when they made Tim Tebow look like Steve Young in his prime.
#17 by nat // Dec 01, 2015 - 10:17am
Brady didn't just get the biggest boost in opponent adjustments this week, he got more than twice the boost of any other quarterback.
Okay, I'll bite. What was Brady's YAR without the D?
Make that a permanent request.
Please publish the Total YAR numbers in these tables.
Putting them in the table is an obvious thing to do. You refer to the adjustments almost every week, and almost every week someone asks.
#42 by nat // Dec 01, 2015 - 12:14pm
Brady did have the second best DYAR against the Broncos this year, putting up unadjusted numbers that weren't all that bad (e.g. 99.3 passer rating). It was a good effort. When you consider the injuries and weather, it was a very good effort. DYAR has it about right.
Still, YAR would tell you what he accomplished as opposed to how well he played. Both are useful to know. Having both would be interesting fodder for discussion. It's a little harder to have that discussion when we only have DYAR to work with.
#44 by dmstorm22 // Dec 01, 2015 - 12:17pm
I'm probably somewhat underrating his performance, as he had stretches where nothing much happened, and I think they struggled on third down. Three sacks also.
Still, I would like to see how big is the adjustment. In a one-game sample, does it go from ~80 YAR to ~125 DYAR, or is the biggest adjustment just raising an already ~110 YAR to ~125 DYAR.
#22 by Hoodie_Sleeves // Dec 01, 2015 - 11:00am
Blount is a really poor fit for the Patriots offense as currently constructed - one of his primary strengths is that he's patient, follows his blockers, and waits for the hole - that's a really good thing when your team is blocking well, but when they're not, it ends up with a whole lot of nowhere.
If they start blocking better, you'll see him looking a lot more decisive.
#38 by MilkmanDanimal // Dec 01, 2015 - 12:08pm
I would think the offensive line problems the Patriots are having are an issue; Blount's tenure in Tampa was pretty much him running into his blockers and falling down for two yards a whole lot, and then exploding for some highlight-reel hurdling long run to pad his numbers. He always struck me as a guy who was built like a power back, but ran like a scatback and spent too much time dancing around before getting panicked and running straight forward. He was an incredibly frustrating guy to watch.
#65 by ClavisRa // Dec 01, 2015 - 10:38pm
Correct. Blount is not a power back, not in the least. He's not quick, either. But he's pretty fast once he gets going, has pretty good vision, and good timing on his cuts to make the first guy miss if he has a little space to work with.
The Pats don't have a power back at the moment, at exactly a time they're reshuffling the receivers. However Amendola should be back this week, and Gronk one of the following two weeks; regardless of exactly when, the Pats are on course for a health o-line and receiving corps come the playoffs, and minimal need for a power back.
#26 by ChrisS // Dec 01, 2015 - 11:16am
Stafford is one of two QB's with negative DVOA in all three 3rd down passing situations. Perhaps the Lions should punt on 3rd down. Although given some play calling (as shown in the ALEX columns) on 3rd downs many teams should just punt on 3rd down. The las team I remember doing this somewhat frequently was the Bears with Booby Douglas at QB and with him at QB the fewer passe the better.
#43 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Dec 01, 2015 - 12:14pm
Which is why his not-infrequent appearances at/near the top of the DYAR charts is so frustrating. He's shown he can play at a high level, but he just never seems to sustain it for long. Even his best season (2011) was marred by 4-5 games where he was just awful.
#33 by Tofino // Dec 01, 2015 - 11:48am
I can't get past the Condorman mention. Back in the day, my brother and I could quote most of the damn movie and nothing replaced it for cheesy cool until Remo Williams came out. Cheers Vince, a triple Istanbul Express for you.
#47 by gomer_rs // Dec 01, 2015 - 12:54pm
Is the RW DYAR inversion a sign that the Seahawks aren't willing to be aggressive enough on 3rd and short. They could still try for 15 yard gains on 3rd and short and with the D alignment in those situations might be more successful.
_______
I remember when they were the Sea-chickens.
#49 by RickD // Dec 01, 2015 - 1:01pm
A question regarding the new playoff odds page, where you discuss the two DVOA values for the Colts:
"The rating for Indianapolis is lower when Matt Hasselbeck is expected to start at quarterback instead of Andrew Luck."
But Hasselbeck has been a better QB than Luck this year, by DVOA and by the other stats that I can see you using. How do derive the two different values?
#57 by Vincent Verhei // Dec 01, 2015 - 5:05pm
I find it a little weird that Alex Smith has 0 Rushing DYAR:
These are his 6 runs of the day good for 35 yards and 2 3rd down conversion...
2nd Quarter
3-9-KC 30 (:47) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith left end ran ob at KC 40 for 10 yards (53-N.Bradham).
3-10-BUF 44 (:11) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith right end pushed ob at BUF 36 for 8 yards (37-N.Robey).
3rd Quarter
1-10-BUF 19 (11:52) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith left end pushed ob at BUF 15 for 4 yards
2-5-KC 26 (2:30) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith up the middle to KC 29 for 3 yards (20-C.Graham).
3-11-BUF 34 (:26) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith up the middle to BUF 23 for 11 yards (28-R.Darby).
4th Quarter
1-10-BUF 18 (:27) 11-A.Smith kneels to BUF 19 for -1 yards.
Somebody else mentioned this, but yes, the bar for rushing DYAR for quarterbacks is very high. That 8-yard run on third-and-10? The average QB run on third-and-10 this year has gained 9.2 yards, and 48 percent of them have gained first downs, so that works out as negative DYAR for Smith. Same story for the 4- and 3-yard runs. The average QB this year, at that down and distance would have gained 6.7 and 5.4 yards. So those are also negative DYAR plays.
It beggars belief that there was a receiver worse than Davante Adams this week.
He was second worst. But hey, he had twice as many catches as Thomas.
Something's wrong with the play-by-play, since the second and fourth touchdowns were clearly caught in the end zone, and the first arguably was. Full highlights here.
Whoops! I read the wrong column in the spreadsheet. I'll just erase that comment.
Where did Donte Moncrief end up on the WR list? He didn't have huge numbers but he seemed to be very efficient while watching the game.
Eighth. Yes, all of his receptions produced first downs, but he didn't score and averaged only 14.3 yards per catch -- which is not a ton, for a single game. Plus, Tampa Bay's defense stinks.
Okay, I'll bite. What was Brady's YAR without the D?
Brady had 39 YAR, 125 DYAR.
We do not print YAR because A) We don't want these tables to turn into an illegible wall of numbers, and B) most of the time it's redundant info. The correlation between YAR and DYAR for quarterbacks this week was 0.935. The difference between DYAR and YAR rankings for most quarterbacks is only one or two spots in the tables. Plus, these tables are produced automatically, and it's not the easiest thing in the world to change that code when we're all up to our eyeballs with work. It's easier to mention it in the comments every week for the handful of players who do see massive swings in their numbers — basically, everyone who plays Denver or Carolina at one end, New Orleans on the other.
#62 by Karl Cuba // Dec 01, 2015 - 6:52pm
Can I ask about Quinton Patton? I read somewhere he had six targets that yielded only one catch and a pick, though that was more a very under thrown ball. That would normally get you the worst receiver of the week prize but Thomas just anti excelled there.
#64 by eagle97a // Dec 01, 2015 - 8:00pm
I just find it funny that Alex Smith which has a metric named after him for mediocrity when it comes to converting 3rd down passing is also mediocre when it comes to 3rd down rushing for qbs. Obviously sample size issues and I have no idea if Alex has been really good throughout his career when it comes to 3rd down rushing relative to his qb peers but nevertheless still gave me a chuckle.
#68 by Oligator83 // Dec 02, 2015 - 12:56am
Thanks to you and also @Perfundle for the answers.
Seeing these really high numbers for QB run 3rd and long conversion made me think that maybe teams should consider designed runs by the QB more often in these situations.
#73 by jtr // Dec 03, 2015 - 10:35am
That's basically the QB draw play. I think part of the reason that teams don't seem to draw up intentional scrambles is because scrambling is more effective vs man than zone (eyes on the receivers vs eyes on the QB), so it makes more sense to scramble once you've started the play and seen what the defense is doing. And besides, if you're already planning on having your QB hang out in the pocket for a moment and then take off, you might as well have him spend that moment reading the field since somebody might get open.
#60 by cjfarls // Dec 01, 2015 - 6:14pm
My sense is Osweilers' performance against NE was better than reflected here in these middling/poor DYAR ratings. He had 6 receiver drops, and his INT was a ball that popped up when hit as throwing at the line. He takes too many bad sacks and his pocket presence is pretty awful (not good given his lousy oline), but otherwise seems pretty efficient.
#61 by Will Allen // Dec 01, 2015 - 6:49pm
He has a chance. The tough thing is that, assuming Peyton is done or the Broncos aren't interested, is that Osweiler is a UFA this spring, meaning the Broncos will likely have to make a significant commitment to him on a small body of work, or no doubt some desperate (cough! Browns! Texans! cough!) team will.
Well, if the Broncos decline to do so, after having him in their building for years, that oughta' be a red flag to everybody else, but that's rarely what desperate teams take heed of.
#66 by ClavisRa // Dec 01, 2015 - 10:44pm
His performance might even be worse, although some of his bad misses on short passes to receivers were likely them not being on the same page. He looked good at the end when he was forced to 'take chances' and just threw the ball to a spot downfield regardless of coverage and let his receiver make the play. Of course, the downside of that is the coverage will win a lot of those too over time.
Brock shouldn't have even had that final possession of the game, nor overtime (thanks refs!). The numbers he would have had minus those are more reflective of his performance.
#67 by RickD // Dec 02, 2015 - 12:35am
I wouldn't excuse the INT that easily. It's part of the QB's job to throw the ball in the right direction. Avoiding pressure long enough to get a pass off cleanly is his responsibility. At least partly.
He does have a good strong arm. Even the healthy version of Manning could not make those downfield throws any more. Manning is done.
#71 by dmstorm22 // Dec 02, 2015 - 7:16pm
Manning made two throws that deep in his last real game (Indy), the TD to Sanders, and an across the field throw to Daniels.
The throw to DT by Osweiler was essentially underthrown and relied and DT stopping and jumping to catch the ball at its highest point, something Manning did a lot early in the season.