Rams @ Seahawks: The Great Unknown and Sweet, Sweet Regression Towards the Mean
Davis makes for a bit of a matchup problem. No, not because he's tall, but because Seattle would like to match him against a DB. You could run Julian Peterson 30 yards downfield, but that's not ideal. Instead, Seattle will likely match Deon Grant, Brian Russell and Josh Wilson against Davis. Wilson might legitimately be short enough to cause a matchup problem. The greater matchup problem, though, is when Seattle matches Grant against Davis, I would guess often, it will leave Russell as the lone deep cover man. Gulp. Against a team that likes to challenge downfield, Seattle will have its worst, slowest DB anchoring its deep coverage.
And the deep attack will be challenged. Morgan, Johnson, Davis and Hill are legitimate deep threats. So how can Seattle counteract?
Blitzing.
San Francisco's downfield passing attack did undo Seattle, blitzing or not, but how did Seattle fare when it blitzed smartly? Stupidly?
Seattle ran a whopping 18 blitzes. 11 were smart. On the whole, smart or stupid, they were a roaring failure. Seattle recorded three sacks on smart blitzes, but also 10.73 NY/A and five first downs. Seattle recorded no sacks on stupid blitzes, 9.0 NY/A and four first downs. The greater NY/A on smart blitzes is dependent on Isaac Bruce's 63 yard reception, without Seattle allowed only 5.5 NY/A. Not that you can remove that reception, but it's worth noting. So, it sounds like John Marshall and I were of like mind, that he blitzed in many smart positions, though certainly too much, but was ripped to shreds anyway.
So it goes.
By almost any measure, the Saint Louis Rams are the worse team in football. Through two games, they've been outscored 79-16. They have an offensive DVOA of -37.9% (31) and defensive DVOA of 62.8% (31). Paired with a bleak forecast for the season, their DAVE is a league worst -46.0%. Statistically, you could slice this game a thousand different ways and argue Seattle could take advantage. The truth is, with Saint Louis playing so poorly, Scott Linehan's job on the line -- this week -- and former head coaches Jim Haslett and Al Saunders manning the defensive and offensive coordinator positions, respectively, I'm not sure almost anything can be predicted about how the Rams will play. I'm not even sure who's in charge.
Of one thing we can be reasonably sure, the Rams blitz. In 2007, Saint Louis rushed four only 52.6% of all plays, 27th in the NFL. They ranked in the top ten rushing 5, 6+ and 7+ men. Haslett blitzes and blitzes and blitzes. Seattle has looked bad against blitzes. Real bad. The easy solution? Well the Eagles and Giants combined for 655 yards passing. The Eagles had three 100 yard receivers. Facile as it sounds and is, Seattle needs someone to catch the ball. The Rams were terrible against number one, 19.1% (27), and number two, 11.8% (22), wide receivers, but at their best against "Other" receivers, -22.6% (6), tight ends, 1.1% (12), and running backs, -3.3% (14). Y'know, the three types of Seattle receivers.
And little wonder. A team that blitzes is forced to sacrifice cover. Against a blitz, a team with good wide receivers can feed them the ball and allow them to exploit that depleted cover. Seattle's still figuring out this "good receiver" thing. In other words, for the second straight week, Seattle faces a team with a piss-poor secondary, but for the second straight week, it lacks the weapons to exploit it.
Seattle's saving grace, beyond being clearly the better team and playing at home, is that despite allowing only 26.89 yards per drive (2007: 11th), Seattle has forced only one turnover. That rate, one turnover in 27 drives (.037) is much, much worse than even the worst team in the NFL in 2007: Philadelphia, .107. Simple regression towards the mean will mean more turnovers forced by Seattle and a better performing defense. Should Seattle eventually force turnovers at a level commensurate to their talent, it could mean the difference between a team that's looked merely average to good on defense to a team that's as dominant as we hoped.
Blitz Appendix

Smart
1-10-SF43(13:40) J.O'Sullivan pass short right to F.Gore to SF 46 for 3 yards (L.Hill). (6)
3-10-SEA49(5:51) J.O'Sullivan pass short right to A.Battle pushed ob at SEA 37 for 12 yards (D.Tapp). (5)
2-2-SF28(2:25) (No Huddle, Shotgun) J.O'Sullivan pass deep right to I.Bruce to SEA 9 for 63 yards (M.Trufant). (5)
2-8-SF32(13:30) J.O'Sullivan pass incomplete short right. (6)
1-10-SEA22(7:49) J.O'Sullivan pass short right to B.Johnson to SEA 9 for 13 yards (B.Russell). (6)
2-9-SF24(13:32) J.O'Sullivan sacked at SF 18 for -6 yards (B.Mebane). (6)
2-9-SF33(6:51) J.O'Sullivan sacked at SF 28 for -5 yards (P.Kerney). (6)
3-8-SEA27(3:50) (Shotgun) J.O'Sullivan scrambles up the middle to SEA 11 for 16 yards (D.Grant). (5)
2-14-SEA15(3:05) J.O'Sullivan pass incomplete short middle to V.Davis.
PENALTY on SEA-D.Grant, Defensive Holding, 5 yards, enforced at SEA 15 - No Play.
1-10-SEA49(1:09) (Shotgun) J.O'Sullivan pass short left to F.Gore to SEA 32 for 17 yards (D.Grant). (6)
2-7-SF23(14:21) J.O'Sullivan pass incomplete short right to I.Bruce. (6)
Stupid
2-7-SF46(13:02) J.O'Sullivan pass incomplete deep middle to V.Davis. (5)
2-8-SF32(13:30) J.O'Sullivan pass incomplete short right. (5)
1-10-SEA41(8:27) J.O'Sullivan pass deep left to B.Johnson to SEA 22 for 19 yards (K.Jennings). (5)
1-10-SEA42(5:47) J.O'Sullivan pass short middle to A.Battle to SEA 29 for 13 yards (J.Babineaux). (5)
2-1-SEA20(4:21) J.O'Sullivan sacked at SEA 27 for -7 yards (L.Jackson). (7)
3-7-SF23(14:15) J.O'Sullivan pass deep right to I.Bruce to SEA 44 for 33 yards (J.Wilson). (7)
3-3-SEA37(12:48) J.O'Sullivan pass short middle to A.Battle to SEA 32 for 5 yards (B.Russell). (6)
0 recs |
13 comments
Comments
i hope i don't sound moronic
but john, i’ve read the post a few times and can’t quite understand what you mean by regressing to the mean. can you elaborate for me?
by Woodinville_12thMan on
Sep 18, 2008 5:15 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I guess that should be regression towards the mean.
It just means that right now Seattle is forcing an abnormally low number of turnovers. Since turnovers are heavily dependent on luck (the link to this is missing because Football Outsider is switching their site over, but it’s via FO)
A defense’s tendency to force turnovers is fairly important to the team’s success, but it seems to be even more unpredictable. In general, a team’s ability to force fumbles seems to be almost entirely luck. There is a little bit more persistence in a team’s ability to force interceptions, though it isn’t clear how much of this ability is just a residual effect of general defensive ability. Again, this only pertains to the team level. Whether there are some individual players with a special ability to force turnovers significantly above average rates would be an interesting subject for further study.
…and since Seattle is showing the other skills you associate with turnovers (pass rush, forcing 3rd and long, etc.) we can assume that as the number of chances to force turnovers increases, the likelihood that Seattle will fall back in line with what’s average or normal also increases. In other words, if you flip a coin, getting heads three times in a row isn’t that unlikely, but getting heads 20 times in a row is. If Seattle plays exactly how it played in its first two games, it will force more fumbles just because of probability.
by John Morgan on
Sep 18, 2008 5:43 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
ahhhh
ok, thanks for clarifying!
by Woodinville_12thMan on
Sep 18, 2008 8:42 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I told myself before last week's game
“how can we lose at home to the 49ers,” and then proceeded to watch in person exactly how that can happen.
Despite myself, I’ll say it again, because it applies even more this week. How can we lose at home to the Rams? They’re terrible. We’re merely injury plagued.
by Omerta on
Sep 19, 2008 1:32 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Differences in overall talent...
often matter less than particular matchups. That, to me, was the SFgame in a nutshell. This team doesn’t have great deep coverage, particularly in nickel and dime, with Jennings and Wilson (who I think will be excellent, but they’re still learning) and where Brian Russell ends up as the line of last defense. The Niners are a one-trick pony under Martz, but putting Seattle in nickel/dime and going deep is the one trick most likely to work against Seattle. (Also, having only listened to the game on Sirius, a tip of the cap seems in order for J.T. O’Sullivan, who apparently dipped his jersey in baby oil prior to each series. He could have easily been sacked 10 or more times but was able to slither away for big gains on numerous occasions.)
Add a couple of unfortunate Seattle turnovers to all of that, and voila…
St. Louis seems less equipped and less inclined to run 4 and 5 wides for the purposes of flinging the ball down the field, consequences be damned. Still, Al Saunders isn’t dumb. They’ll take their shots downfield. This is a game we should win if we get anything approaching competent play from the WRs. But, as one Niners fan said early last week on NFL Radio “we have a real shot vs Seattle because it seems like Hasselbeck is a surgeon operating with a dull blade.”
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on
Sep 19, 2008 3:27 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
We don't need to throw to win
Atleast I don’t believe so, I believe that throwing less will increase our chances of winning. I just finished reading this article from Doug Farrar of FO. He says that the Rams are 1 team that our WRs should have success against. He talks about how their LBs and CBs have been lining up off the line of scrimmage in an attempt to not get beat deep, and how this timid type of play and lack of pass rush will allow us to beat them deep. I say RUN THE DAMN BALL. It’s the 1 thing our offense did effectively last week, and we should be doing it more.
The Rams have given up 308 yards rushing in 2 games, and if they are going to play their defensive personnel off the line we should run straight at them. Our passing attack is an inept and shitty version of itself, and is the weakest link on offense. While our running game features 2 starting caliber backs and some promising blocking, and it was producing last week. We should be able to run on the Rams all day.
Last year, when the running game wasn’t working, we emphasized the pass. This year we should do the opposite until Branch and Engram get back, and the other WRs have a chance to get up to speed.
Remaining cautiously optimistic...
by Badical Turbo Radness on
Sep 19, 2008 4:33 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Nice analysis, thanks John
House of Sparky - www.houseofsparky.com - Go Sun Devils
by ASUBoyd on
Sep 19, 2008 11:32 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
throw deep
If teams are figuring out how to beat us (throw deep) then Ruskell needs to shore up that position, or imagine whut the GOOD teams are going to do to us.
by paul2 on
Sep 19, 2008 2:52 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Colbert
The team has announced that Colbert will start this Sunday, yet I haven’t seen much written about him. Does anyone (John) have an some insight as to what he may have done to separate himself in practice? Obviously, Taylor has shown poorly, and likely ticked Matt off a bit with some of his misplays. That said, how will the team utilize Colbert? I’m unfamiliar with the player, other than the reports about how he had good hands at USC but got shutout by us while we triple-teamed S.Smith in the CAR championship game.
What is the forecast for Colbert?
by Misfit74 on
Sep 19, 2008 3:40 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Are you sure he was shut down?
And it wasn’t just Jake “One eye” Delhomme just focusing all his attention on Smith anyway?
You may gain some yards on the ground, but eventually Lofa will end up biting you in the ass.
by Scruffy Lefty on
Sep 19, 2008 4:26 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I understood that he had 0 catches, for whatever that’s worth. Certainly the QB is part of that equation. I would have to see if I could find his target information for the game to know more…
by Misfit74 on
Sep 19, 2008 6:50 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Ya you could probably prove me wrong with that info
But everytime I watch Delhomme its like watching a Division 2 QB.
You may gain some yards on the ground, but eventually Lofa will end up biting you in the ass.
by Scruffy Lefty on
Sep 19, 2008 6:53 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs












