Season Retro: Brian Russell

by John Morgan on Jun 13, 2008 1:55 PM PDT in 2007 Season Review

Brian Russell

Stats*

*Includes all games minus Week 10, Divisional Round and the second half of Week 3 and the first half of week 1.

Highlights

11/25/07

9th play, now from the 2. Rams rush Steven Jackson, Russell comes in for the fill, bounces a bit off to the side, but stalls Jackson's progress. Leroy Hill grasps Jackson's legs and the two combine for the stop. Each play was essential to the Hawks winning. Kudos, guys.

12/16/07

Brian Russell had his best tackle of the season, in what should have been a forced fumble. Russell gets his share of cheepy hits, but in this case, it almost paid off. Brad Hoover was sliding down after a 1 yard dump off by Moore. The typical thing to do here is get a hand on the guy so that he's down. Russell decides he's going to blow Hoover up. The brunt of the hit lands on Hoover's arms and the ball, spitting it up into the air and right back into Hoover's arms. The whole play is called dead on a Kelly Jennings illegal contact, but the effort's appreciated.

Lowlights

Think when he decides to play bad: I was not very high on the Brian Russell signing. At the time I didn't even think he'd make the starting squad. Through training camp and into the preseason it became clear that Russell would be the starter and Michael Boulware's days as a Hawk were over. I was still pretty iffy on Russell - in part because of a natural distrust of players whose "leadership" is touted well above any particular skill or accomplishment. But the defense was playing well, the deep pass wasn't the bugaboo it had been for so many years and it's just plain hard to evaluate the play of a free safety.

Eight games into the season, it's time we start asking ourselves "

what is Brian Russell doing?"

I went back through the entire season's play-by-play (provided by CBS) and recorded every play Russell was listed beside. That encompassed an interception, 3 pass defenses and 38 tackles. For each I recorded the total yardage recorded on the play. The interception and 3 pass defenses each earned 0s. I also recorded if the play was successful or not. First let's establish a baseline. Pro Football Prospectus records very similar stats for all defenders, my 2006 copy was most handy so I grabbed a couple players from it: A Pro Bowler and a Castaway.

Brian Dawkins:

Target: 14% (6th out of 75)

Pass Stop: 53% (33)

Pass Yards: 7.4 (28)

Rush Stop: 46% (24)

Rush Yards: 7.2 (41)

Michael Boulware:

Target: 10% (29)

Pass Stop: 51% (39)

Pass Yards: 9.2 (51)

Run Stop: 33% (47)

Run Yards: 8.4 (51)

Boulware had a decent season, it was 2005 and everything was right in the world of the Seahawks. I provided his data instead of someone who performed worse, because Boulware is the player Russell replaced. It's important to look at these stats together. For instance, if a player's target number is high, he may simply be making up for the failings of others, something important to consider when looking at his Stop Rates and Average Yardage rankings. If his Stop Rate is good, but his average yardage bad, that might indicate his team was able to force their opponent into long yardage situations. Remember, allowing a 17 yard completion on 3 and 20 is a success. And if a player's stop rate is middling or poor, but their total yards allowed rate is poor or worse, it might be a good indication that that player is not only allowing a lot of successful plays, but big yardage plays. That's Boulware. Of course when a player is bad in all categories...

Brian Russell:

Target: 9.6% (estimated)

Pass Stop: 18%

Pass Yards: 13.4

Run Stop: 29%

Run Yards: 11.7

That's staggering. Russell must be one of, if not the worst safety in football in all four ratings. When we gripe about opponents converting long third downs, the poor use of zones, and uninspired blitz packages, we might be missing the forest for the tree. A full 21% of Russell's tackles are 20+ yards downfield. Russell is consistently playing so soft, so conservatively, that he's accomplishing little more than preventing the homerun. None of this should be terribly surprising. Russell is a journeyman FS who's been let go by some iffy pass defenses. With two other viable free safeties on roster, it's time Russell's job security is a least questioned.

11/25/07

Here's Brian Russell's charted stats for the half: Blown Tackle, Blown Assignment, Blown Tackle, Blown Assignment, Blown Tackle.

12/2/07

Shaun Alexander is a once great running back. His play is inextricably linked to the Hawks' Super Bowl run of 2005-2006. He, therefore, deserves some tolerance, some mercy. Brian Russell deserves to be catapulted into the sun. I broke down the Kevin Curtis touchdown for my fiancée and just before the reception paused the game and pointed at Brian Russell, she asked "What's he doing?" My answer was pretty easy "Nothing," or more accurately getting faked out of his shoes on Curtis' double move.

The Hawks are in base formation. The Eagles have two receivers left, Reggie Brown and the aforementioned Curtis. At the snap Brown slants right and into Deon Grant's zone. Grant covers him. Jennings, in man coverage, runs stride for stride with Curtis. Curtis enters Russell's zone and is double covered, briefly. Curtis runs a double move, false step in, slant out, slant in. On the second move, the slant in, he completely sheds Russell. It's now one on one deep. Jennings is a step behind, Feeley finds his man open, and for a second before Curtis hauls in the catch, you can see Russell all alone deep left, covering no one, doing nothing. This is the shot that prompted Alanya to ask the question every informed Seahawks fan has been asking for weeks. Were Jennings better, he still could have stopped the catch, but when a player runs deep left, it's the job of the free safety to pick him up and apply the double cover. In fact, since Russell provides nothing in the way of run support and plays so deep as to rarely be involved in all but the deepest passes, helping out in deep cover is about all Russell is asked to do.

Oh Jesus, do we have to revisit Russell? As long as he's on the field I suppose yes. 4th play, first Eagles drive of the 3rd quarter. Philly's offensive line creates a nice "^" shaped seam for Westbrook to rush through. Given the blocking and Westbrook's ability, this run was destined for at least 10 yards. That's because the only unblocked Hawks are members of the secondary, and one doesn't even come close to Weapon X until he's 10+ yards downfield. That "one" is free safety Brian Russell. Russell's job is to figure out, on the fly, where he can meet Westbrook head on, hopefully tackling him and preventing the score. Because Russell is to the right of Westbrook and because Westbrook is faster than Russell, Russell's vector of pursuit should be flat. That is, he should attempt to use his cushion to meet Westbrook where he'll be. Instead, for what, the third straight week?, Russell takes the wrong angle, pursues where Westbrook was, moves from five yards ahead of the rusher to a half a yard behind and to the side, and attempts a tackle that puts the hopeless in futile. If Russell can't cover deep, can't prevent long rushes from turning into scores, can't pick the ball or prevent long first downs, what is it that he can do?

1/5/08

Finally, further proof that Brian Russell rots. It's 4th and 1, the Skins are on the Hawks 27, a stop for Seattle gives them the ball and a 13 point lead with about 16:00 minutes left in regulation. Important, yousay? The Hawks D is in a base formation, the Skins run a PA out of a heavy package. Russell reads the PA, at the line of scrimmage assumes man coverage on Sellers, and then is Cajun cooked by Washington's 32 y/o, 284 pound fullback. That Russell had to interfere with Sellers to prevent a touchdown reception is, is, - Jesus, Russell, it's just pathetic. Russell pitches a fit to the official, but on replay you can see Russell grabbing Sellers' leg with his right arm. A real "heady" move by a player that would make a better coach.

Outlook

"Russell is the reactionary fling following Ken Hamlin"

That was predictable. The oodles of shit-tastic, phantom safety play by Brian Russell, that is. I was on to Russell August 6th, but the Pale Rider continued to give good quote, "lead", jog to and fro pre-snap, and otherwise appear just in time to catalog the carnage the entire season. No, nothing could stop him. Not his criminal lack of athleticism, his evident poor decision making, his inexplicable angles in run pursuit or the Bouncing Betty I buried in his front lawn. And unless something fortunate happens between now and season's start, Russell will return as the Seahawks’ starting free safety.

Joy.

0 recs | Comment 41 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

So, you like him then?

... :)

I had no idea. Does this mean Mike Green could win his job? Green seems to be fairly highly regarded in some articles I’ve read.

by Misfit74 on Jun 13, 2008 4:11 PM PDT 0 recs

No chance

Coach Owens = No Fun Zone

by Scruffy Lefty on Jun 13, 2008 5:45 PM PDT up 0 recs

Why not? If he is healthy I bet he could.

by xSAMx on Jun 13, 2008 6:08 PM PDT up 0 recs

He was healthy all of last year

and didn’t take any time away from Russell. For all we know Russell did exactly what the coaches were telling him to do, Don’t get burnt deep.

Coach Owens = No Fun Zone

by Scruffy Lefty on Jun 14, 2008 9:12 AM PDT up 0 recs

Most quoted

It seems that Russell is the most oft-quoted member of the Seahawks defense. I’ve always thought that strange, given his apparently minimal contributions to a squad with some tremendous players.

John’s comment about Russell – or at least the way in which Russell was used last season – being an over-reaction to the problems with deep pass plays in previous years is, I think, right on. If the overarching theme of this off-season is to repair the running game, and in particular the short-yardage running game, last off-season’s mandate was to stop the deep pass play. The problem is, in a league with finite personnel, coaching, and schematic resources (i.e., a player can only be in one place on the field at any given time) addressing one shortcoming often creates others. I think that explains some of Russell’s numbers. I hope this off-season’s focus on short-yardage running does not have similarly negative and unintended consequences for the offense.

by jeager on Jun 14, 2008 8:33 AM PDT 0 recs

CBS?

Are you doing this analysis from a radio broadcast? Most of the Seahawks games were on Fox.

by stephentrapani on Jun 14, 2008 9:48 AM PDT 0 recs

I think he is referring to

CBS sportsline play by play game tracker

Coach Owens = No Fun Zone

by Scruffy Lefty on Jun 14, 2008 4:01 PM PDT up 0 recs

?

So why not just compare Russell from the Pro Football Prospectus to the other players in the same book? Why take the tiny sample size from CBS and compare it to the Prospectus?

And isn’t the free safety often assigned to things that don’t get on the TV camera and don’t get in the stats? A good DB who covers a receiver and forces the QB to throw elsewhere doesn’t generate stats. If he did that on every play he’d have no stats, but a well played game. What are Russells assignments in the games? Do all free safeties have similar assignments? If not, comparing their stats make no sense, right?

It just seems that when you start off with an admitted bias and then whip up stats to support that bias, you’re just as likely to come up with the wrong answer as not. Science 101, right?

by stephentrapani on Jun 14, 2008 11:34 PM PDT up 0 recs

You certainly do a nice job of demonstrating that

For starters, you might note that the “lowlight” comment you’re referencing was posted eight games into the season—it was John’s initial evaluation of Russell’s work. You might also note that the play-by-play data was from this season, while the 2005 data from PFP was, as noted in the post, to give a baseline for evaluating that data. You might even note, further, that throwing out random puerile questions without thinking them through or making any effort to see if they’ve been addressed is a pretty poor way to carry out an actual rational conversation.

And if you don’t want to do any of those things, you might at least reflect that trolls have a way of getting banned.

by The Ancient Mariner on Jun 15, 2008 4:52 AM PDT up 0 recs

I must be confused

So he’s not comparing apples to oranges (two stats obtained differently)? I don’t see where it is explained why he didn’t just compare free safety stats from the recent Prospectus. Wouldn’t that be much more accurate?

And he’s not basing this analysis on 42 plays out of Russells approximately 800 plays last season? What’s false regarding my statement about evaluating DBs?

I see what seem to be shaky conclusions based upon sketchy data, I comment on it with probing questions. What am I missing? I’m not trying to be smart. I am genuinely confused. Isn’t that what blogs like this are for?

by stephentrapani on Jun 15, 2008 8:34 AM PDT up 0 recs

I think

That John is trying to draw as comprehensive of a picture of Russell as he can, given the limitations of resources. He’s using single-game data, personal observation, and free safety stats pulled from the recent Prospectus in the attempt to get as close as he can, though there’s never surety in these things. Morgan regularly argues against drawing conclusions based upon highlights and single examples, but I don’t think that’s what he’s doing here. He’s come to certain conclusions based upon overall observation and the compilation of whatever stats might prove useful, and is using specifics as examples and explanations for the rest of us. The individual events aren’t the source of the conclusions, they’re illustrations of Russell’s ability and impact on the football field, yeah?

All that being said, I don’t think you’re out of line with this question at all, this is precisely what blogs like this are for! You didn’t get snarky, and even when called out you responded calmly and rationally, so good on ya! Wait, why am I Australian now?

by jimmimoose on Jun 15, 2008 9:28 AM PDT up 0 recs

Yes, you are

One: that was put up during the season. He didn’t have “the recent Prospectus” to pull stats from, because it hadn’t been put out yet, because the season wasn’t over yet.

Two: no, he’s comparing apples to apples—same stats, same position.

Three: yes, the contexts are slightly different, which would be a problem for tight analysis. He wasn’t, in that instance, doing tight analysis, he was doing initial evaluation; the purpose of those stats from the 2006 PFP was simply to “establish a baseline,” as he said—to give some sort of context to Brian Russell’s numbers, rather than simply presenting them in a vacuum.

Four: no, he’s not “he’s not basing this analysis on 42 plays out of Russells [sic] approximately 800 plays last season,” and I really don’t see where you get the idea that he is.

Five: what you’re missing is that this is a summary of a season’s worth of observation and analysis, not the completed work. A hundred years ago, you would have been going up to Einstein and saying, “E equals mc squared? That’s a shaky conclusion based on sketchy data—where’s the underlying math?” Just because you haven’t been given it doesn’t mean you can assume it’s not there and start claiming bias.

by The Ancient Mariner on Jun 15, 2008 10:18 AM PDT up 0 recs

Ah

“One: that was put up during the season. He didn’t have "the recent Prospectus" to pull stats from, because it hadn’t been put out yet, because the season wasn’t over yet.”

Ah, I thought he wrote this on June 13, 2008

“Four: no, he’s not "he’s not basing this analysis on 42 plays out of Russells [sic] approximately 800 plays last season," and I really don’t see where you get the idea that he is.”

Here’s what he said:

“I went back through the entire season’s play-by-play (provided by CBS) and recorded every play Russell was listed beside. That encompassed an interception, 3 pass defenses and 38 tackles…”

Then he does an analysis of those 42 plays. That’s 42 plays out of the roughly 800 Russell played in the season. What am I missing? How did Russell do in the other 758 plays?

“A hundred years ago, you would have been going up to Einstein and saying, "E equals mc squared? That’s a shaky conclusion based on sketchy data—where’s the underlying math?"”

More like a hundred years ago going up to a guy who’s saying “The moon is made of green cheese, look you can see it plain as day” and saying, dude you have such little information about the moon, why are drawing a conclusion based upon such sketchy information?”

“Just because you haven’t been given it doesn’t mean you can assume it’s not there”

What else can we evaluate besides what he writes in his posts? That’s why I’m asking questions. To see if there is anything substantial behind what he is saying.

"...and start claiming bias."

He said himself he was biased: “I was not very high on the Brian Russell signing. At the time I didn’t even think he’d make the starting squad.”

Thank you for trying to address my questions this time instead of just complaining about what I said.

Stephen

by stephentrapani on Jun 15, 2008 11:34 AM PDT up 0 recs

I'd love to hear your opinions on these topics.

You like to pick at John’s evaluations, but you don’t actually bring anything original to the table. You make a list of everything you see wrong and don’t offer any solutions (short of not talking unless you’ve watched every play from the sidelines). You’ve written quite a bit here but I don’t even know what your stance is on Brian Russell, just that you don’t like how John has broken down his game.

I’ve got no problem with you disagreeing, I’m all for a healthy discussion, but I think it’s pretty cowardly to simply state everything you thing is wrong without putting any of your own thoughts and idea’s out there.

I guess I should probably put my own opinion out there after all of that. I’ll take Brian Russell not getting beat deep over Ken Hamlin / Michael Boulware giving up the home run, everyday. It’s definitely a case of the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction, but I prefer this side much more than the other.

by Nate Dogg on Jun 15, 2008 5:05 PM PDT up 0 recs

Best I can do about that

is believe what the coaches say which was that Russell did a good job last season. I know coaches aren’t truthful about everything, but Holmgren pretty much never praises a player unless he deserves it. If player is doing badly Holmgren usually won’t say so, but he’ll say something like: He’s coming along, or he could be great someday, or it’s time for him to step it up. If the player is average he’ll say: he’s doing okay. If the player is doing well, he says so.

FWIW, this isn’t argument from authority, it is looking to those who have enough data to draw reasonable conclusions and trying to decipher what they think. Not perfect either, but better chance of being right than the type of analysis in Morgan’s post IMO.

by stephentrapani on Jun 15, 2008 6:24 PM PDT up 0 recs

Well

I tell you, Stephen, I was willing to buy your criticism in principle until this posting right here. Believing what a coaching staff says about their own player, particularly a coaching staff that also praised Shaun Alexander at different points last season, then released him during the offseason, that simply CAN’T be a better way of forming an opinion of a player than what Morgan is attempting to do.

His methods might not be perfect, but I think they’re as thorough and researched as they can be, and even to a particular degree regarding Russell, incorporates all the information it possibly can. If you don’t like his methodology here, then you shouldn’t accept anyone’s football criticisms. The coaching staff knows football to a great degree, but they do essentially the same function that Morgan does, observe and form opinion. They’re there more often, and get to see practices and hear first-hand accounts, sure, but Morgan is performing the same actions from a different perspective.

And for someone who was worried about bias from the get-go, how can you possibly take what the staff of a franchise states as gospel, without acknowledging that there are unavoidable conflicts of interest and bias in a team’s evaluation of their own players. Holmgren couldn’t give completely honest appraisals of his players even if he had some magical insight that no one else could possibly tap into. He might be spare with the praise, but why would he say negative things to the media, particularly when he already has a little bit of a history of tension and conflict with the FO he currently works under?

Anyway, I happen to agree with John, based merely on the number of times I would yell at Pip last year during games, “Where is Russell?!! Why is he doing that?!!” God, he killed me. It’s amazing to me to think about how good this defense could be if we put 11 actual players in on every play, since I feel we were largely playing with 10 a lot of the year last year.

by jimmimoose on Jun 15, 2008 7:15 PM PDT up 0 recs

Oh no. I mean oh yes.

“Holmgren couldn’t give completely honest appraisals of his players even if he had some magical insight that no one else could possibly tap into.”

Did you know that unlike Morgan or any reporter or any of us, Holmgren has overhead tape of all 800 of Russell’s plays? With this tape you can see the entire play with all players unfold, or zoom in on a player, rewind and repeat over and over if they want.

And you know that he has watched all 800 plays, or members of his staff have, repeatedly, and conveyed the analysis to Holmgren about Russell and everyone else on the team (they do it after every game, extensively).

And did you know that unlike Morgan, or any reporter or any of us, Holmgren knows exactly what was called on each play and knows exactly whether Russell did what he was supposed to do on each play? How can anything any of us see come anywhere close to that? On TV we can’t even see 90% of what Russell does or doesn’t do, even if we tape the game. Half the time you were yelling for Russell, he probably was doing what he was supposed to off camera..

One crucial skill toward being a good coach is to be able to accurately evaluate all players and how they are playing. Why do you think Holmgren can’t do it? It’s crucial to fielding a good team. These guys are all masters at it.

As far as conflict of interest goes, you’re right, they have it when they speak to the media, but you have to be able to translate “coach-speak’” as the reporters call it. As you say, Holmgren doesn’t say much negative about any players ever, but he doesn’t say positive things about any player who is playing poorly (he never said Alexander was playing well last season, he said he thought Alexander could bounce back). And at the end of the season he specifically said good things about Russell. There is no reason for him to say that if he didn’t think it was true. They sometimes have to lie about, say, whether they are going to trade someone. They don’t have to lie about someone playing well.

I’m not saying my method is infallible, I’m just saying it’s better than the tiny sample size analysis Morgan did.

by stephentrapani on Jun 15, 2008 10:28 PM PDT up 0 recs

...

I see what you are saying, but at the very least Morgan has shown that Russell is a horrible playmaker. We already could see just by watching TV that he is not a good tackler and takes bad angles for the play.

Even if he is good at being where he is supposed to(which I am certainly not convinced of) he is not good at stopping a pass in his area or tackling his man. Holmgren is NOT a defensive-minded coach. He will nit-pick at little mistakes any offensive player does, but says general things about the defense. Personally I’ve always thought that Holmgren’s take on defense is simple. He seems to believes if the trend is good the players are playing well.

I think the improvement came from Grant and Trufant playing well together, Jennings 2nd year improvement in coverage and the pass rush being improved.

by cashless on Jun 16, 2008 5:35 AM PDT up 0 recs

You don't think it's a tad hypocritical

to rail against all of the “sketchy” analysis that John does in favor of breaking down coach speak? You can’t just ignore everything you’ve seen and how all the numbers come out in favor of “Holmgren said he played well, and he never praises players unless they deserve it”.

And as far as Holmgren’s ability to judge talent, he’s shown he’s not the best at it after being fired as the GM. His comments about Alexander were either a lie, which would make his coach speak useless, or he was just completely off base. Alexander can’t get a job in the league right now, and it’s clear to anyone that watched him that he won’t be bouncing back.

by Nate Dogg on Jun 16, 2008 4:16 PM PDT up 0 recs

Yuck.

I knew he was below average, but I didn’t realize how bad he is.

I guess I just figured because we were not beat on the long passes as often that he must be doing something right, even if it meant just playing ultra, ultra conservative. But that’s really not acceptable, and seems to be holding back the potential of our defense.

Free Mike Green? Give another chance to Babs (meh)? (Disclaimer: I have not seen Green play enough or studied him to have any idea if he would be an improvement.)

by AtomicGarden on Jun 14, 2008 8:31 PM PDT 0 recs

Personally

I think Babs would be better than Green.

Coach Owens = No Fun Zone

by Scruffy Lefty on Jun 15, 2008 12:44 PM PDT up 0 recs

With no seriousness whatsoever...

if russel was so bad why not start CJ Wallace. Even though he would probably be just as bad, he seems to be more athletic than russel and he would have Deon Grant to coach him up.

by xSAMx on Jun 14, 2008 11:30 PM PDT 0 recs

First question - Are you a Husky fan?

It would be nice to see what Wallace could do in the SS spot and allow Grant to move back to FS. But Wallace is a unknown in the NFL.

Coach Owens = No Fun Zone

by Scruffy Lefty on Jun 15, 2008 12:46 PM PDT up 0 recs

No, not really

I still root for them though.

by xSAMx on Jun 15, 2008 2:21 PM PDT 0 recs

I was just curious

because Husky fans seem to think he is the 2nd coming of Adrian Wilson

Coach Owens = No Fun Zone

by Scruffy Lefty on Jun 15, 2008 7:24 PM PDT up 0 recs

Some husky fans

Not all of them

Coach Owens = No Fun Zone

by Scruffy Lefty on Jun 15, 2008 7:24 PM PDT up 0 recs

But if he is good enough to make the roster,

then he should have enough talent to push for a starting job is russel is really that bad.

by xSAMx on Jun 15, 2008 7:26 PM PDT up 0 recs

Why Russell will start.

Here’s my take on why Russell’s job is safe.

We like to think of football as a meritocracy. The best, hardest working player plays, right? And the NFL conforms to that principal more than most professions. That’s one of the reasons I love it, but it’s not practical to open every position on the field to a sanguinary, zero sum competition. Russell does what is asked of him, and because he works hard, is a team leader and a veteran, it’s not about what he must do to maintain his job, it’s about what he must do to lose his job. And though it may not always be the best thing for the team, there’s a certain decency in that.

Last season, Chuck Darby kept his starting job despite being outplayed by Brandon Mebane. When Darby was lost for the season it was a barely disguised blessing. Darby was a hard working veteran who hadn’t done enough to lose his job, but one needn’t scour the tape to see the way the front seven took off after he was replaced.

Russell frustrates the crap out of me, but he’s a Hawk and despite the above tirade, I care about as much about the guy as one can a stranger without being fanatical. The team is thin on legitimate safety talent. I’d love to see a dynamic, umbrella deep cover force like LaRon Landry at free safety for Seattle, but the best candidate for that role is playing strong safety. So, depending on what we see from Kelin Johnson, Russell is likely the best the Hawk have at the position, and though I think – assuming Josh Wilson assumes Jordan Babineaux’s nickelback spot – that he’s undoubtedly the worst player on Seattle’s regular defense, I think so little is asked of him that he shouldn’t be a crippling liability.

by John Morgan on Jun 16, 2008 9:07 AM PDT 0 recs

Holmgren Analysis?

I think the entire post about how superior Holmgren’s analysis is and how we can glean his real insights from interpreting his vague statements is absolutely ridiculous. The sports media tries to convince people of this kind of thing, but they are idiots who are usually completely speculating. With safety play we tend to notice only when they get seriously burnt or make a huge play, but this is always the worst way to arrive at reliable analysis. Our minds are very bad at weighting and aggregating events effectively without the aid of a spreadsheet or other data structure.

Supposed ‘sports experts’ like coaches and scouts are very often among the worst at this kind of thing because they have no training in statistics whatsoever. This is why front offices take care of who to sign or draft and the coaches work on a play-by-play basis. Holmgren knows how to show a group of guys how to execute a screen pass, he probably doesn’t know much about taking heaps of data and aggregating it into meaningful metrics.

As for Russell, he sucks. The question is who do we have that is better. I am not sure Babineaux is the answer although he might be OK at SS with Grant at FS. C.J. Wallace’s name has come up, he seems to make plays in practice that we hear about from time to time. Still, he is a huge question mark in every sense of the phrase.

I was hoping we’d draft a safety because it seems to be the position (defensively) we would get the most improvement from. LoJack improves us at end (eventually) on one side. Drafting Kenny Phillips would have improved us at SS and FS, as has been discussed in the past. I like how our DL looks this year though: Bernard, Tubbs, Kerney, Tapp, Jackson, Mebane gives us a very nice rotation without even dipping into Terrell or Atkins.

I think the above post was also right that Russell will likely start all year unless he really sucks it up. It appears the coaching staff isn’t expecting much from him so it will be difficult for this to happen. Since there isn’t anyone else who really looks ready for the job it will probably stay with Russell. Green is too old to commit to and probably isn’t durable enough for full-time duties.

by michaelfox99 on Jun 16, 2008 10:14 AM PDT 0 recs

I don't think you realize

what goes on in the NFL. For example, head coaches typically spend 12+ hours per day at the office. You think they are coaching players all that time? Actually, no, coaching players is a minor part of what they do. The rest of the time they are watching film, often of practices, but certainly putting a huge priority on getting the best players on the field and evaluating what each player is doing wrong and how they can improve.. Even if they have no training in statistics, someone in managment certainly does and they communicate on a regular basis. They know exactly how well each player is playing.

It’s the head coach’s job to decide who plays and who sits. No coach would make it to this level without being a master at evaluating players. Add this to the fact that they have access to literally hundreds of times more actual information about the players to evaluate than any of us, and the idea that anyone besides them is doing a better evaluation is just laughable.

by stephentrapani on Jun 16, 2008 9:11 PM PDT 0 recs

So...

In similar fashion you do not question George W. Bush? Or Bill Clinton before him?

by cashless on Jun 16, 2008 9:36 PM PDT up 0 recs

Bill Bavasi, Matt Millen, Isiah Thomas.

You really don’t get this appeal to authority thing. You can champion their access, resources and expertise all you want, it doesn’t make their opinions correct.

by John Morgan on Jun 17, 2008 3:30 AM PDT up 0 recs

No, it's you

who doesn’t understand appeal to authority:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

You seem to think that any argument based upon an authority is an appeal to authority and fallacious. As you can see, it’s not. Quoting Wikipedia:

“A person who is recognized as an expert authority often has greater experience and knowledge of their field than the average person, so their opinion is more likely than average to be correct.”

I am not using coaches/management as infallible sources of information. That would be an argument from authority. I’m saying they have hundreds of times more information about many of these things than we do, often they are the only ones with enough information to draw reasonable conclusions. So I have a reason for valuing their opinions. So should all of you.

He is wise who knows what he does not know.

by stephentrapani on Jun 17, 2008 2:25 PM PDT up 0 recs

Let's see if I can explain this to you.

Let’s say you dropped an anvil on your foot. It was all swollen, sore and purple. You go to the doctor and say “I think I broke my foot.” The doctor looks at it, leaves a little while, comes back and says “No it’s not broken.” And you say “Are you sure? It sure looks and feels broken, plus I dropped an anvil on it.” And the doctor offers no substantiation for their opinion. The doctor says “I attained my doctorate, excelled at my residency and have access to X-Rays and advanced MRI technology.”

Do you believe what they say even though you’re fairly sure they’re wrong? I mean, they are a doctor and do have access to better information.

No, of course not. The only reason an authority ever has a better opinion than anyone else is because they can substantiate their opinion with information.

You have provided zero substantiation for your opinion. Holmgren has provided zero substantiation for his opinion. He hasn’t presented footage of Brian Russell covering his assignment well. He hasn’t explained his awful routes to the ball carrier, flimsy tackling or terrible rate of success on tackles. When you are pressed to substantiate why we should trust Holmgren’s opinion of Brian Russell (something you’ve dubiously never provided) you talk about Holmgren’s qualifications and access to information that’s not open to the public.

That’s an appeal to authority fallacy. It’s just like if I were to argue that Holmgren doesn’t know jack about defense because he’s A) An offensive minded coach and B) has a lousy record assessing defensive talent. That’s an ad hominem attack. It doesn’t matter whether Holmgren is a defensive genius who has access to the bloody Oracle of Delphi, it doesn’t matter if he’s a mouth-breathing troglodyte, it only matters the validity of his opinion. You’ve done nothing to substantiate that Brian Russell is a good free safety and neither has Holmgren.

Ergo, you are making fallacious arguments. You are arguing that because Holmgren has access to better information, his opinion must be correct. That’s fallacious and provably false. As I mentioned above, Bill Bavasi, Matt Millen and Isiah Thomas each had/have access to better information than the general public and each have made repeated mistakes.

You have no argument. You have fallacious reasoning and charged rhetoric.

by John Morgan on Jun 17, 2008 3:07 PM PDT up 0 recs

Wow

If I forget about this and ever disagree with you…will you go lightly on me? Pleeeease?

I’m curi, do you have any law school experience?

by cashless on Jun 17, 2008 4:51 PM PDT up 0 recs

*

Curious.

by cashless on Jun 17, 2008 4:52 PM PDT up 0 recs

I welcome disagreement.

And 9 times out of 10, I let people speak their piece and reserve my arguments for my posts.

This is a bit of an exception and it won’t go on much longer.

by John Morgan on Jun 17, 2008 5:18 PM PDT up 0 recs

The main thing that you don't seem to understand is that

you have the weak argument. You’re trying to draw conclusions with insufficient data. I prefer believing Holmgren and I’m not trying to win an argument, I’m trying to discern the truth about the Seahawks. The argument you have provided about Russell is sorely lacking, as I have explained. I don’t think I have enough information to make a sufficient argument any more than you do, of course!

Holmgren can substantiate his opinion with information. Because he doesn’t, doesn’t mean he is wrong, it means I can’t fully explain here why he is right with an argument. I’m not saying he must be correct because he has more information, I’m saying he has a much better chance of being correct than you do because he has way way way more relevant information than you do. Stop attacking strawmen. I’ve repeated over and over that I don’t think he must be correct. The key difference between me and you, I think is that I am very tentative making these sorts of conclusions about the Seahawks, where you seem to think you are drawing sound conclusions from sufficient information.

Of course Holmgren and everyone else make mistakes, but the person with a hundred times more relevant information, who is where he is exactly because he has been right about this very thing on a consistent basis, has a much better chance of being right than the guy who builds logic on insufficient information. I have yet to see you address this issue.

Doctors almost never provide full explanations for their diagnoses, which are often very complicated. Some of it you just have to assume they are right about. If you suspect they are wrong, you don’t just do what you think is right. If you’re smart you seek another expert! Why? Because you know you have little hope of knowing everything you need to know to make the right decision by yourself.

We usually can’t get full explanations from Holmgren. So believing him is always wrong? Of course not. If anyone here has the choice of believing a doctor saying you have cancer, who doesn’t provide much explanation, or a layperson who demonstrates they definitely have a small fraction of the relevant information the doctor has, who are you going to believe?

by stephentrapani on Jun 17, 2008 9:24 PM PDT up 0 recs

And nice selective quoting:

2nd paragraph:

On the other hand, there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, in contrast to claiming that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism: It can be true, the truth can merely not be proven, or made probable by attributing it to the authority, and the assumption that the assertion was true might be subject to criticism and turn out to have actually been wrong. If a criticism appears that contradicts the authority’s statement, then merely the fact that the statement originated from the authority is not an argument for ignoring the criticism.

Sound familiar?

by John Morgan on Jun 17, 2008 3:10 PM PDT up 0 recs

I have never said...

to ignore you’re argument because of what Holmren says. I said to ignore your argument because you have insufficient facts to make it and I explaine why. I only tentatively sided with Holmgren in response to a question.

by stephentrapani on Jun 17, 2008 9:30 PM PDT up 0 recs

That's a rather hasty retreat.

I only tentatively sided with Holmgren in response to a question.

One day earlier:

It’s the head coach’s job to decide who plays and who sits. No coach would make it to this level without being a master at evaluating players. Add this to the fact that they have access to literally hundreds of times more actual information about the players to evaluate than any of us, and the idea that anyone besides them is doing a better evaluation is just laughable.

I already responded to your ludicrous arguments when you caused this same stupid flamewar in the Namath thread.

Argument 1: I don’t have sufficient information to prove my argument.

Textbook call to perfection fallacy. I don’t have access to game tapes, but I can provide substantial evidence from stats and game footage to support my argument. Are my assertions categorically true? No, but this is a matter of argumentation and probability, not finding an infallible trajectory to the moon. The preponderance of available information argues that Brian Russell is a poor free safety.

Argument 2: I’m biased.

Textbook ad hominem fallacy, cutely reinforced by begging the question. You say I’m biased against Russell so I’m seeking information to reinforce my bias, you prove this assertion by pointing out that the information I’ve provided about Russell is negative so I must be biased against him. You haven’t, however, ever offered any kind of evidence that I am in fact biased against Russell or have ever shown bias against any player.

No one was more outspoken against the Patrick Kerney signing than me. After week 9, it would have been easy, should I have been so stubbornly biased, to point out that Kerney only had 3.5 sacks, but I didn’t. I didn’t because the evidence, game footage, suggested Kerney was a disruptive force and that the sacks would come. I defended Kerney, and the truth prevailed. Were I biased, my biases would have certainly shown by now, because the truth always prevails.

Argument 3: My opinion cannot possibly be as valid as the coaching staff’s.

Basic appeal to authority fallacy.

It can be true, the truth can merely not be proven, or made probable by attributing it to the authority, and the assumption that the assertion was true might be subject to criticism and turn out to have actually been wrong.

Though, I guess, you’ve abandoned that argument.

Now that we’ve established that, let’s revisit how this illogical, multi-tiered argument began:

CBS?
Are you doing this analysis from a radio broadcast? Most of the Seahawks games were on Fox.

An obnoxious question that implies you either have terrible reading comprehension or are being purposely dense and asinine in an attempt to provoke a fight. Given your sum contributions to the blog since joining, I’m inclined to assume the latter. I’ve already warned you about picking fights. I hear there are message boards where people can pick asinine, illogical arguments until the cows come home.

Now might be a good time to find one.

by John Morgan on Jun 18, 2008 9:45 AM PDT up 0 recs