Game Thread: MNF - Denver@Seattle 9/12

[kcden]

I agree that Hackett made the wrong call. My point was only that it wasn't a guarantee he would score.

BTW, did you also notice Russ throwing every screen pass right on the money?

I noticed this and was thinking "WTF?"

 

[flyerhawk]

Our screen game sucks, it always has, bad design. Also our defense has a issue stopping screens. KJ Wright was the man that ALWAYS was doing that, They have been sub par ever since he left.

Agreed. But a lot of people pinned our poor screens on Russ.

Our inability to execute a screen drives me crazy.

 

[Screamin12th]

I am getting disgusted with some of the talk also about last night's game. People are also blaming Russell Wilson and I am like WTF! Did Russell have a great game? No he was a little off and expectedly so, You know he was emotional. But hey he balled out and threw for over 300 yards completed 69% of his passes and had a 101 rating. He wasn't the one getting the calls in late or fumbling the ball on the 1 yard line.

 

[flyerhawk]

If someone said that there was a 30% chance of making a 64 yard field goal at that end of Lumen Field, they are smoking fucking crack. Longest in field history is 61 and anyone that has watched this team as long as we have knows that end and the field in general are very difficult for long kicks.

 

[flyerhawk]

I am getting disgusted with some of the talk also about last night's game. People are also blaming Russell Wilson and I am like WTF! Did Russell have a great game? No he was a little off and expectedly so, You know he was emotional. But hey he balled out and threw for over 300 yards completed 69% of his passes and had a 101 rating. He wasn't the one getting the calls in late or fumbling the ball on the 1 yard line.

That's to be expected.

 

[kcden]

It looks like your post is saying they had a 30% chance of making the FG; that tweet implies it was a 7.4% chance (or maybe a little better with there still being a slight chance of the Hawks winning if they make the FG there). I disagree with both of those numbers. 30% chance at the FG is completely ridiculous, and I think 7.4% is still way too high. I would put it at an in-game chance of McManus making that at sub 1%.

 

[flyerhawk]

It looks like your post is saying they had a 30% chance of making the FG; that tweet implies it was a 7.4% chance (or maybe a little better with there still being a slight chance of the Hawks winning if they make the FG there). I disagree with both of those numbers. 30% chance at the FG is completely ridiculous, and I think 7.4% is still way too high. I would put it at an in-game chance of McManus making that at sub 1%.

He missed the kick by a yard and had the distance. Kinda ridiculous to say that he only had a 1% chance of making the kick.

 

[kcden]

He missed the kick by a yard and had the distance. Kinda ridiculous to say that he only had a 1% chance of making the kick.

Doesn't seem ridiculous given he has never made one, and only 2 have ever been made in NFL history and those were in some of the easiest distance-kick stadiums.

 

[JMR]

While Hackett is being rightly criticized for his decision, I also think that people are just assuming that going for it would result in an easy 1st down. Probably a 60% chance for a 1st which was better than the 30% chance of making the field goal. But it wasn't a slam dunk decision.

I think it was definitely a slam dunk decision to go for it, but I don't think it would be an automatic 5 yards. But getting 5 yards there is exponentially more likely (even with an avg NFL QB) than attempting a FG from a range where only 2 have been made in the history of the game. You just traded two 1sts and 2nds for an elite QB, gave him a huge contract extension, and in the very first opportunity for him to show why you made that move (against the team you got him from and in the stadium where he played, no less), you decide to put the game on the foot of your kicker?? It makes zero sense.

Either way, the legend of the north end zone grows....

 

[flyerhawk]

Doesn't seem ridiculous given he has never made one, and only 2 have ever been made in NFL history and those were in some of the easiest distance-kick stadiums.

If he was 5 yards short or wildly off, maybe I could see your point. But he HAD the distance and barely missed.

 

[flyerhawk]

I think it was definitely a slam dunk decision to go for it, but I don't think it would be an automatic 5 yards. But getting 5 yards there is exponentially more likely (even with an avg NFL QB) than attempting a FG from a range where only 2 have been made in the history of the game. You just traded two 1sts and 2nds for an elite QB, gave him a huge contract extension, and in the very first opportunity for him to show why you made that move (against the team you got him from and in the stadium where he played, no less), you decide to put the game on the foot of your kicker?? It makes zero sense.

Either way, the legend of the north end zone grows....

Like I said, I think it was the wrong decision.

But I do sorta understand his reasoning. The Broncos had repeatedly be called for procedures violations. They get another false start and now it is 4th and 10 and no shot at a FG. Also, it's possible that he was protecting his brand new super pricey QB. If Russ fails to convert there, it becomes the national story. It could have affected him for some time.

 

[kcden]

If he was 5 yards short or wildly off, maybe I could see your point. But he HAD the distance and barely missed.

So his absolute best kick and he still missed by a yard (looked like a lot more than a yard from my vantage point, but I haven't seen a replay). I still think if he kicks that IN-GAME 100 times, there is a strong possibility of 100 misses. The only chance they had of winning with that decision, IMO, is if Seattle committed a penalty. I was PISSED at Pete (and let my fellow seatmates know it loudly and with a lot of profanity) for calling that timeout and giving Hackett a chance to rethink his decision and equally as elated as I was pissed when the dumbass "stuck to his guns".

 

[JMR]

So his absolute best kick and he still missed by a yard (looked like a lot more than a yard from my vantage point, but I haven't seen a replay). I still think if he kicks that IN-GAME 100 times, there is a strong possibility of 100 misses. The only chance they had of winning with that decision, IMO, is if Seattle committed a penalty. I was PISSED at Pete (and let my fellow seatmates know it loudly and with a lot of profanity) for calling that timeout and giving Hackett a chance to rethink his decision and equally as elated as I was pissed when the dumbass "stuck to his guns".

I think his absolute best kick would have been somewhere between the uprights instead of wide left. As Flyer points out, he had the distance. Dumb choice to kick though.

 

[kcden]

I think his absolute best kick would have been somewhere between the uprights instead of wide left. As Flyer points out, he had the distance. Dumb choice to kick though.

Sure, in practice. I'll stand by thinking he never makes that kick in that moment, in that stadium.

 

[DHoey]

It looks like your post is saying they had a 30% chance of making the FG; that tweet implies it was a 7.4% chance (or maybe a little better with there still being a slight chance of the Hawks winning if they make the FG there). I disagree with both of those numbers. 30% chance at the FG is completely ridiculous, and I think 7.4% is still way too high. I would put it at an in-game chance of McManus making that at sub 1%.

Why would you even argue over made up numbers???

 

[kcden]

Why would you even argue over made up numbers???

Valid point... I was still stuck on their numbers saying he'd make that kick 1/~14 times, let alone Flyer saying it was more like 1 in 3.

 

[DHoey]

Valid point... I was still stuck on their numbers saying he'd make that kick 1/~14 times, let alone Flyer saying it was more like 1 in 3.

I find a lot of those metrics just dumb. Win probability, catch rate, etc.

 

[flyerhawk]

I find a lot of those metrics just dumb. Win probability, catch rate, etc.

They actually measure win probability against past situations. And they generally reflect those numbers.

So if a given situation has a 60% WP then historically speaking, the outcome usually reflects that number.

Of course it is still just a forecast and it can't factor in things like weather or the specific abilities of the team in question.

For example, the chances of Brandon McManus making that kick are significantly better than Mason Crosby who simply doesn't have the leg to do that. WP doesn't have enough data to factor that in.

 

[seahawksfan234]

Agreed. But a lot of people pinned our poor screens on Russ.

Our inability to execute a screen drives me crazy.

Funny you bring that up because I feel the exact same way and it has nagged me for years.

If I were to give any suggestions to the staff if/when they continue running those plays, they need to utilize personnel better.

A lot of the WR screens go to Metcalf (understandable), but when you have Lockett and Eskridge or Goodwin blocking for him, that's two guys blocking for you who are sub-200 pounds. Perhaps in the future, throw the WR screen to Lockett, Eskridge or Goodwin with Metcalf blocking and Fant in the slot. That gives you some bigger guys who I'd assume can block better.

 

[flyerhawk]

Funny you bring that up because I feel the exact same way and it has nagged me for years.

If I were to give any suggestions to the staff if/when they continue running those plays, they need to utilize personnel better.

A lot of the WR screens go to Metcalf (understandable), but when you have Lockett and Eskridge or Goodwin blocking for him, that's two guys blocking for you who are sub-200 pounds. Perhaps in the future, throw the WR screen to Lockett, Eskridge or Goodwin with Metcalf blocking and Fant in the slot. That gives you some bigger guys who I'd assume can block better.

I don't mind the WR screens as much. It's the RB screens that drive me absolutely bonkers.