Josh Wilson's Annotated Hit Parade

by John Morgan on Nov 20, 2008 2:56 PM PST in Seahawks Game Recaps

Conventional wisdom argues tackles are good. A defender records a tackle by stopping the progress of the ball carrier, by being involved, by doing his job. Modern analysis argues that it's frequently not good when a corner records a tackle. Tackles are typically the end product of blown coverage. For instance, unanimous best corner in football Nnandi Asomugha has 34 all season. Josh Wilson had ten. On Sunday. All ten were solo tackles. Everything about that sounds bad. He also had a forced fumble, interception and pass defense. One might call his performance uneven. If Wilson were debited for yardage allowed on every tackle, his deductions would rival Seattle's net passing yards: 146 to 153. 14.6 per target and a 90% success rating - that's bad.

From those two schools an interesting and superior synthesis can be created. A tackle is not bad, but is often indicative of blown coverage. It's also indicative of awareness, closing speed, ability to fight off blockers and, of course, ability to tackle. If we provide context for Wilson's ten tackles, the kid doesn't look so bad. He looks quite good. I'm not adding rationalizations, only context. Here's Wilson's list of non-special teams plays that accrued an official stat, and the context of that play. In parentheses is a running tally of the yards allowed that Wilson is directly responsible for.

First and ten, Josh Wilson's assignment, Larry Fitzgerald, receives for nine. (9)
Third and one, Wilson's assignment, Fitzgerald, receives for three and the first. (12)
Arizona attempts an end around, Anquan Boldin holds Wilson. Net lost yards: 10. (2)
First and ten, Wilson's assignment, Boldin, receives for nine. (11)
Kelly Jennings' assignment, Boldin, breaks tackles by Jennings and Brian Russell and receives for 45. Wilson tackles. (11)
First and ten, Wilson's assignment, Fitzgerald, receives for 33. (44)
First and ten, Jordan Babineaux's assignment, Boldin, receives for nine. Wilson tackles. (44)
Third and four, Babineaux's assignment, Steve Breaston, receives for six. Wilson tackles. (44)
First and ten, Wilson is assigned Jerheme Urban, picks Kurt Warner's pass, returns the ball 58 yards. (-14).
First and ten, Wilson's assignment, Fitzgerald, receives for eight. (-6)
Third and seven, Wilson's assignment, Fitzgerald, receives for 21. Wilson forces Fitzgerald to fumble. (15)
First and ten, Boldin is targeted on a wide receiver screen, Fitzgerald attempts to block Wilson, but Wilson squirts under and records the tackle after only 4. (15)

Giving Wilson no credit for stopping an offensive player he was not assigned, something he did four times, and no credit for forcing a fumble that Seattle didn't recover, Wilson's net yards allowed is 15. 15 yards allowed on twelve plays. If you didn't chart it, you didn't see it, but Josh Wilson had a mighty fine afternoon against the best wide receiver corps in the NFL.

Get better soon Pistol.

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

This is why I love this site

I saw the box score after the game, saw all the solo tackles and the receiving yards for Fitz and Boldin and thought… Pistol got torched.

If Jennings keeps getting beat like a rented redheaded step-mule (yes, I amalgamated similes) and doesn’t tackle well (understatement), how can he be best served? The nickle guy usually has to make a good amount of tackles as they are generally over the slot and more involved in run stopping.

Can't wait for Ruskell to knock this one out of the park.

by abender20 on Nov 20, 2008 3:30 PM PST reply actions

What they're doing works.

Putting Wilson in at nickel and Jennings over the 2 helps both. If Jennings gets his coverage skills back, he’s the perfect corner for when Seattle wants to blitz: one that removes his receiver as an option.

by John Morgan on Nov 20, 2008 3:38 PM PST up reply actions

I thought Jennings had his best game of the year against Arizona

by Nate Dogg on Nov 20, 2008 4:41 PM PST up reply actions

Yeah, Jennings did make quite a few good plays.

by redwolf75 on Nov 20, 2008 9:02 PM PST up reply actions

I think this analysis is a bit biased.

I typically discredit a subjective evaluation of performance that doesn’t defer (at least to some extent) to the statistics. I feel that there is a need to intervene here. We are lauding our corners in a game where the opposing team threw for 395 yards. Their top 2 receivers accounted for 23 of 32 catches and 337 of those 395 yards. That is without any gain bigger than 45, so there isn’t some 95 yard outlier skewing these numbers.

Arizona has a horrible running game (ranked 26th by FO). What we had to do to win this game was limit, not shut down, but just LIMIT, Boldin and Fitzgerald. We couldn’t do it.

Trufant- Your off the hook. I am not so sure Trufant played a great game, but clearly Arizona’s gameplan was to exploit our younger, smaller corners. Still, that Trufant gets respect like this is a plus and he has in general brought up his level of play from early in the season when he was sort of sucking.

Tatupu- Where are you bro? Tatupu looked pretty clueless in coverage. He isn’t a great pass rusher and his coverage ability has really dipped this year. I am hoping he will turn it around, but an MLB who is only good against the run is not worth what we are paying him.

Now onto Wilson and Jennings who you all seem to think played very well against the Cards. I disagree.

Now Jennings was just terrible. Not much more to say about that. As for Wilson I think the numbers above don’t accurately represent Wilson’s game. Taking 58 yards off of Wilson’s allowed yards because he ran back a pick is silly. I mean, he has two picks in 10 games this season so I don’t think it’s fair to subtract it from his yards allowed. It adds heavy, heavy noise to the stat. Better to count a pick as a PD, or something like that. The 58 yards depend somewhat on how well the Cards offense can cover a return, which has nothing to do with Wilson in coverage. I mean I love that he is getting picks and turning them into big returns, but you have to look at this game as one where the kid gave up a lot of yards and had a pick. I don’t think combining the two (and penalties by guys he is covering) vindicates what I saw to be a poor performance.

When I say Wilson played poorly, I mean he was outmatched. I think he played well, but just wasn’t good enough to handle Fitz or Boldin. Most weeks he will be matched up against lesser wide outs, but I would like to see the kid not get completely punched in the mouth like that. The thing the numbers don’t tell you is that typically, Warner was just throwing it up there to whichever of Fitz or Boldin didn’t have Tru on him. He didn’t let them get open so much, but it didn’t matter. They were able to use their size and length advantages to come up with the ball against Wilson or Jennings. This mostly negated our pass rush (which was actually pretty decent) because Warner could just throw immediately, and knew where to throw pre-snap. No need to protect and buy time long enough for a route to develop. This was the game story, in my opinion.

Now I am not saying that Wilson and Jennings won’t ever be good. I think that coaching is hurting them. I also think that lack of FS help is forcing them to give up completions to stop the home run.

by michaelfox99 on Nov 21, 2008 6:53 AM PST reply actions

I never said Jennings played well. Further, if you think something is biased, dignify why. What within the analysis is biased?

Saying something is “silly” is not an argument. The yardage Wilson contributed returning his interception was instrumental to Seattle’s first score. Why should we discount that? Was it not an act of skill to jump a route and return it? All stats are dependent on the opponent’s ability, the context of the play, but we don’t give someone half a tackle when they tackle Shaun Alexander and two tackles when they tackle Brandon Jacobs. Why would we count a pick as a pass defense? They have massively different values. That’s like saying we should count a home run as a double.

What actual evidence do you have that Wilson was “punched in the mouth”? You seem convinced that Wilson couldn’t have played well because Arizona passed for so many yards. That’s a completely flawed premise. Should I assume Asomugha played poorly against Denver because Cutler went 16/24, 300 yards, 2td/0int? Or that he played poorly against New Orleans because Brees went 26/30 for 320 and 3td/0int? Wilson allowed completions, that’s indisputable. Of Wilson’s ten tackles, six were by players he was assigned. One of those tackles included a forced fumble. Those six tackles were after 82 yards of passing yards. If we go by the Hidden Game of Football standards for the value of an interception and a fumble, Wilson’s forced fumble and interception were worth 95 yards. Seattle didn’t recover Wilson’s fumble, so it didn’t actually gain anything from the action, but that’s hardly Wilson’s fault and hardly a knock on anyone’s skill. The ball bounced towards Anquan Boldin. Next time maybe it won’t. Wilson’s contributions came in big plays. Maybe he can’t maintain that ability. That’s debatable. But Wilson did more for Seattle than any other Seahawk. The unit fans should be excoriating is Seattle’s offense. It absolutely sunk Seattle’s defense and special teams and made the game almost unwinnable.

Trufant only played half the game. His side of the field was less targeted, that’s not the same as “Warner was just throwing it up there to whichever of Fitz or Boldin didn’t have Tru on him.” Not remotely. From the time Trufant left the game, Warner targeted the right side of the field three times. All three were incompletions. Jennings was targeted twice and recorded two pass defenses. What you credit Trufant is the combined impact of Seattle’s defensive right side, including the line creating rush or blocking throwing lanes, the formations and plays Seattle was calling, the formations and plays Arizona was calling and the dumb luck inherent in such a small sample size.

by John Morgan on Nov 21, 2008 12:22 PM PST up reply actions

huh?

Saying something is "silly" is not an argument.

Right, but I said:

Taking 58 yards off of Wilson’s allowed yards because he ran back a pick is silly. I mean, he has two picks in 10 games this season so I don’t think it’s fair to subtract it from his yards allowed. It adds heavy, heavy noise to the stat. Better to count a pick as a PD, or something like that. The 58 yards depend somewhat on how well the Cards offense can cover a return, which has nothing to do with Wilson in coverage.

So you used one word of my argument and said that one word wasn’t an argument. OK. I think it is bad statistics to count picks as -1*{number of return yards} in an aggregate statistic of yards allowed by a corner in coverage. It is a noisy unreliable state. It is a skill, but the total number of yards is far too noisy. Arizona had to get well into Seattle territory for him to be able to bring a pick back that far anyways.

Ignoring the pick, Wilson gave up a healthy number of yards. I would say it was a not-so-hot afternoon in coverage with the performance to some extent vindicated by the pick. I would not add everything up and call it a great day in coverage. I think if you repeat these matchups 100 times, you get INT’s in a small percentage of the games, but Wilson gives up completions pretty uniformly.

My observation was that Warner was able to throw to Fitz or Q with Wilson or Jennings covering without them really being open. He would just throw it up and Fitz or Q would body off the CB and get it. I saw it. I don’t have DVR, I am going off of memories. But I said to myself several times, ‘he just threw it right up there, no need to get open’. That Wilson was ‘punched in the mouth’ in the mouth was a non-literal figure of speech. As such, I have no evidence for that. My statement was that it was important to consider ‘how’ the completions were coming. Arizona’s routes and protections weren’t getting Fitz and Q wide open. Their ability to box out our corners made a huge difference.

So to sum up what I am saying. I love the pick. It made him probably a plus contributor on the day. In coverage, he looked outmatched. I say that because he did what he was supposed to but his opponent could catch the ball. Not as horribly, terribly outmatched as Jennings, but outmatched.

I couldn’t see who was lining up and I didn’t know Tru went out. I assumed they were not throwing at him. It seemed like they had good reason to with the getting being so good throwing at everyone else. my bad.

When I said ‘you all’ thought that Jennings played well, I was responding to those people who had previously commented that they thought Jennings had a great game. You said nothing on that subject, so I did not mean your analysis of Jennings was off.

I like Wilson. My observation is simply that he was outmatched physically defending Q or Fitz because they could generate completions literally out of thin air against him, and to a larger extent, Jennings. I think if they had confidence that there was FS help should Q or Fitz get by them, they could have been more aggressive and limited the number of completions and yards better. You are definitely right about the offense too, it is difficult for a defense to look good when there is nearly 10 full minutes of time of possession discrepancy.

I am really not sure Jennings cover skills will return. I am not sure they won’t return, just not sure they will. I think it is pretty clear Wilson is taking his job either way, so it is a more marginal issue.

by michaelfox99 on Nov 21, 2008 1:09 PM PST up reply actions

Like most arguments, the problem is that we're not even talking about the same thing. I

Taking 58 yards off of Wilson’s allowed yards because he ran back a pick is silly. I mean, he has two picks in 10 games this season so I don’t think it’s fair to subtract it from his yards allowed.

False conclusion. You’re implying the frequency of picks by Wilson denotes their value. The two have no connection. A pick has an intrinsic value regardless of its frequency. You’re conclusion doesn’t all follow your premise. You’re also using a purposely nebulous division of play. Wilson played in what capacity in ten games?

Better to count a pick as a PD, or something like that.

Why? You’ve said this twice but it defies common sense. Why should the interception be devalued?

The 58 yards depend somewhat on how well the Cards offense can cover a return, which has nothing to do with Wilson in coverage.

This is a repeated straw man. You’re arguing Wilson’s skill in coverage. I am not. I am arguing Wilson’s contributions at corner. I did not make a single assertion about Wilson’s skill in coverage. I am arguing only Wilson’s total contributions at corner.

I think it is bad statistics to count picks as -1*{number of return yards} in an aggregate statistic of yards allowed by a corner in coverage. It is a noisy unreliable state. It is a skill, but the total number of yards is far too noisy.

You’re confusing two entirely different ideas. Wilson’s return yardage may not be repeatable, that is, the play itself might be dependent on things Wilson cannot control, but that has nothing to do with its value. Its value was the change of possession plus the 58 yards of field position.

Ignoring the pick, Wilson gave up a healthy number of yards.

I would say it was a not-so-hot afternoon in coverage with the performance to some extent vindicated by the pick.

I never argued about Wilson’s coverage ability. The pick itself, adjusted for nothing, giving no credit for Wilson’s excellent ability to return interceptions, is worth 45 yards of field position.

I would not add everything up and call it a great day in coverage.

I stated exactly how many yards Wilson gave up. It’s above in my response. I also stated exactly how much his forced fumble and interception were worth. Strictly playing corner and not accounting for special teams, Wilson’s contributions were a net positive of 13 yards. You’re argument seems to be that Sunday’s performance doesn’t prove Wilson is good in coverage. I never argued Wilson was good in coverage. That’s a straw man. I’ve argued only that Wilson contributed at corner. If he had six sacks, three forced fumbles and a fumble return for a touchdown but allowed 100 yards and a TD in cover, I would again argue his contributions far outweighed his failures.

I think if you repeat these matchups 100 times, you get INT’s in a small percentage of the games, but Wilson gives up completions pretty uniformly.

What is this based on? I’ve never read anything evaluating repeatability of a corner’s completion percentage allowed. Watching the game, Wilson had at least two passes (a jump ball for 33 and the pass he nearly picked from Boldin. On the jump ball, he was all over Fitzgerald but jumped too early and was coming down when Fitzgerald caught it) that could have easily gone either way.

My observation was that Warner was able to throw to Fitz or Q with Wilson or Jennings covering without them really being open. He would just throw it up and Fitz or Q would body off the CB and get it. I saw it. I don’t have DVR, I am going off of memories. But I said to myself several times, ‘he just threw it right up there, no need to get open’.

21 of Wilson’s, not Jennings’, 82 yards allowed came on a play Fitzgerald came open because of his route running. It wasn’t tossed up and it wasn’t a body shield, it was getting open off a cut. Wilson gained position on Boldin’s nine yard reception that Wilson nearly picked. He wasn’t bullied at all, he just didn’t catch the ball and it happened to bounce into Boldin’s arms. Fitzgerald did body off Wilson, I think three times, but I can’t think of a corner in football he couldn’t do that against. Citing a single weakness as proof that Wilson was overmatched is no more correct than saying Walt Harris can’t cover Lee Evans because Evans is faster.

I’m not arguing that Wilson is adept in cover. In fact, my own words:

Wilson deserves consideration for his pick, forced fumble and strong game returning, but was kind of abused in coverage.

I argued that the sum of his contributions at corner, including his forced fumble, interception and interception return, were positive. Positive, and against the best wide receiver corps in football.

by John Morgan on Nov 21, 2008 2:38 PM PST up reply actions

OK

I think we are pretty much agreeing, with some semantic differences. Statements like “Josh Wilson had a mighty fine afternoon against the best wide receiver corps in the NFL”

Sort of indicates he did well in coverage. I now understand you meant total game contribution. In which case, you might include his kick return contribution too. I think you can therefore drop your persistent insistence that I am building up straw men. Just reason, don’t describe your feelings about my reasoning.

I did not mean that the frequency of the picks is related to their value. I mean that they are a pure indicator of coverage ability. Again, semantics.

“Fitzgerald did body off Wilson, I think three times, but I can’t think of a corner in football he couldn’t do that against.”

I dunno. It looked like a pretty unfortunate situation out there to me. This is something that isn’t very analytical in nature. We can agree to disagree on this.

I didn’t mean he would give up the same catch rate if you ran the game 100 times. I mean he would give up a lot more than the number of yards you tallied because the return yardage would be a lot less consistent than the yards he gave up. I think thats a fair statement. I don’t think it is that hard to see that is what I mean too. Please avoid all this “What is this based on?” type of rhetorical questions in the future.

I don’t thing anything in my reasoning is the least bit outlandish and when you correct for the coverage vs. game contribution semantic discrepancy we haven’t really disagreed about anything here.

Keep up the good work! Another fine post!

Enjoy the game Sunday!

by michaelfox99 on Nov 21, 2008 3:01 PM PST up reply actions

i mean not a good indicator of coverage ability, whoops.

by michaelfox99 on Nov 21, 2008 3:02 PM PST up reply actions

Agreed on the "what is this based on?" type of rhetorical questions.

They add nothing to my arguments and sound kind of dick-ish.

I just got a little pissed because your first subject head was “I think this analysis is a bit biased.” That’s something I take seriously. In fact, I’m open about players I like because I want people to know the innate biases I can’t really control. When someone (non-troll, good commenter, someone I respect) says something I wrote is biased, but I don’t feel like they substantiate why, it bothers me because I think it impugns my credibility. And without access of any kind, credibility is really all I have.

And, apropos of very little, I like the format for this piece and think it will become a regular feature.

by John Morgan on Nov 21, 2008 3:20 PM PST up reply actions

Biased...

was not a good word choice. I try to be very biased towards the Seahawks, although its gotten difficult. It was a flaw in the analysis I thought I was pointing out, a flaw which was related to my misreading anyways. That wouldn’t have been ‘bias’ anyways. Not in the framework of this being a Hawks blog.

I am hoping that this new ‘regular feature’ is short lived. That is, I hope that at this point in the season next year, we are discussing matchups and recapping awesome plays from the previous week, not scouting young corners.

by michaelfox99 on Nov 21, 2008 4:56 PM PST up reply actions