The Compelling Case against Seneca Wallace, Starting Quarterback
by John Morgan on Jan 21, 2009 3:56 PM PST
in Analysis
68 comments
Don't know who started this and maybe it's just message board fodder, but Seneca Wallace is not Seattle's quarterback of the future. Wallace represents that rare occasion when we can be absolutely sure an NFL player was playing way over their head. Here's the quick case against Wallace.
Wallace didn't turn a corner. Wallace has two seasons with 100 or more attempts, 2006 and 2008. His adjusted completion percentage in 2006 was 58.2%. His adjusted completion percentage in 2008 was 58.8%. Wallace's quarterback rating and DYAR surged in 2008. Wallace was worth -166 DYAR passing in 2006, but 247 DYAR passing in 2008. The major difference: interceptions, fumbles and yards after catch.
Despite barely edging up his completion percentage, Wallace's interception percentage plummeted. In 2006, he threw an interception on 5.0% of all attempts. In 2008, just 1.2%. 1.2% represents a better interception rate than Peyton Manning has ever achieved. Better than Tom Brady. Better than Dan Marino.
Interceptions and incompletions are products of the same faults: Inaccuracy and poor decision making. A quarterback never wishes to throw an interception and rarely wishes to throw an incomplete, but while incomplete passes are mundane, interceptions are phenomenal, the product of luck and skill, of timing and tips and funny bounces that fly off camera and find a streaking Patrick Willis hell bent to the end zone.
Wallace's fumble percentage improved with his sack percentage. In 2008, Wallace was sacked on just 5.5% of pass attempts. In 2006, Wallace was sacked on 9.0% of pass attempts. In 2008, Wallace fumbled on 1.5% of rush and pass attempts. In 2006, Wallace fumbled on 3.3% of pass attempts. Your opinion of Wallace's improved ability to protect the ball depends on your opinion of his ability to avoid sacks.
The final component is receiver yard after catch. As I've mentioned, the ability to run after the catch correlates much more strongly to the receiver than the quarterback. Wallace benefited greatly from receiver run after catch, something that doesn't show up in traditional or even advanced stats, but is obvious when you look strictly at his Air Yards. Wallace was 32nd in the NFL in Air Yards an attempt. Air Yards does not tell you how good a quarterback is, but it does, as in the case of Wallace, tell us a bit about how much of a quarterback's production was dependent on his receivers.
There're two possible truths. One, that Wallace dramatically improved his interception rate without improving his completion percentage. That Wallace dramatically improved his ability to avoid sacks without shortening his drop backs, learning pocket presence or eliminating his loony tunes scrambles. And that Wallace was responsible for Deion Branch cutting across the field for 63, Koren Robinson coming wide open for 90 and Leonard Weaver busting free for 42 and 63. Or two, that Wallace was playing way over his head.
0 recs |
68 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
He deserves at least some credit for those throws, and he's not forcing things anymore.
Not saying he should start, but I maintain that he is far and away the best backup QB in the NFL.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 21, 2009 4:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I hid my own comment
Sometimes I’m a jerk.
by John Morgan on Jan 21, 2009 5:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My white slave trade is borderline
but internet rudeness is too much.
by John Morgan on Jan 21, 2009 5:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pardon?
Heh, did I misread something or am I not understanding simple humor again?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 21, 2009 6:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I can see it :)
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Jan 21, 2009 10:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's because you're special, Scruffy.
Just like everybody else.
by BrianL on Jan 21, 2009 10:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
better backup than Matt Cassel?
I’m not making a case for anybody, just curious if you are including him in your ‘far and away…best backup’ statement.
by Misfit74 on Jan 21, 2009 5:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I suspect
Matt Cassel is at least to some degree a product of the weapons he’s been given. Besides, he’s probably going to go start somewhere this year anyways, so he wouldn’t be a back up anymore.
by Fear on Jan 21, 2009 6:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Far better than Cassell.
I suspect you could give Cornrow Wallace targets like Randy Moss and Wes “White Lightning” Welker and his stats would be substantially higher.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 21, 2009 6:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
To be fair, there seem to be 4 types of backups.
The I’m a young guy who will start now or soon because I’m a high pick (JaMarcus, Alex Smith, Leinart, A Rodgers)
The I’m a young guy who could start at some point (Cassel, Hasselbeck a while back, Trent Edwards)
The I’m a solid backup and nothing more (Seneca Wallace, Gus Frerrote?, Tim Rattay)
The I’m an old dude who you wouldn’t mind starting once in a while, but not really (Mark Brunell, Doug Flutie, Kitna soon)
by LantermanC on Jan 22, 2009 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not going to agree with far and away...
but he is definitely a QB I love having as a backup. He looked horrible when he had the chance in the first year (perhaps due to his calf), but looked like he knew what he was doing for the second half.
One thing I think is odd, is the fact that he doesn’t run much. He has the talent to run for 60 yards a game, which would make things easier for him to pass, but he doesn’t seem to use his legs much. He ran in two games, but not so much in the other games.
by LantermanC on Jan 21, 2009 7:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It was definitely the calf.
He was like a statue @ Miami and had to force throws in situations he could possibly have run in. And his lack of running is why he’s great. Like a real QB, his first move is to drop back and go through his reads. However, Sen has the dimension of moving around and keeping plays alive with his legs until coverage breaks down (case in point: Deion Branch’s 63 yard weave. Yes, that must be credited to Seneca) or tucking it away and run.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 21, 2009 8:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the 63 yard Branch pass was thrown about 4 yards downfield. Branch made no less than 3 ridiculous moves to get that far downfield.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 21, 2009 9:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But it was all Seneca who kept that play alive by rolling out and scrambling to the right when the play broke down.
Which in caused the Pats D to falter on coverages, allowing Branch to get open and everyone to be in good position to lay blocks. Granted, it was a bad D but its a virtual guarantee most other QBs throw away the ball and that play never happens.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 21, 2009 10:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So give Seneca props for staying on his feet long enough to dump the ball 4 yards.
I still don’t buy that a QB should be given credit for large chunks of yardage the receiver picks up on his own. That stuff is largely outside of the QB’s control.
by BrianL on Jan 21, 2009 10:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But at the same time,
I kind of feel like that if someone stays on his feet for a long time by scrambling, the likelyhood for YAC to be greater is higher. Not sure if this is true though, it just seems that the longer the play goes for, the more spread out the defense thus creating more opportunity for a WR to beat a guy and get more yards because no one else is nearby.
by LantermanC on Jan 22, 2009 9:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Defenses break down
and coverage starts to fall apart. Holes open up in the defense that anyone could run through. That’s why the longer a play drags on, the advantage shifts to the offense. SOMEONE should eventually get open, and they will usually have all kinds of room to run around if they can avoid the first tackler. Of course, the longer the play goes on, eventually the pass rush should get to the QB. Long plays often boil down to which will happen first, the WR getting open or the pass rush getting to the QB.
by Fear on Jan 22, 2009 5:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And this is my problem with QB rating.
by BrianL on Jan 21, 2009 10:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There are tons of problems with QB rating.
For example, if a guy gets sacked, there is no effect (I believe), but if he runs out of the pocket runs for a gain, there is also no effect. Or if he runs out of the pocket and throws it away, there is no effect. Or if he gets called for intentional grounding, there is no effect.
Or if he fumbles, there is no effect.
Or if he throws a ball to a WR and it hits him in the hands and is popped up into the air falling right into a defensive player’s hand, it penalizes the QB.
Or if an idiot player like Desean Jackson throws the ball away before crossing the goal line, and then Brian Westbrook gets the 1 yard td carry, the QB doesn’t get credit for the TD.
I don’t know who thought of the stat, but it is a seriously flawed stat, almost more misleading than anything, though I’ll admit without looking it up that QB’s with higher QB ratings probably tend to win more (more TDs mean higher % of winning, duh).
by LantermanC on Jan 22, 2009 9:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've said it before and I mean it
QB rating is the ERA of football.
by BrianL on Jan 22, 2009 9:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, if he runs out of the pocket and throws it away
there IS an effect, a negative effect, but it is certainly better than getting sacked, which has no effect.
by LantermanC on Jan 22, 2009 9:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
One thing I like about you John
is that you attempt to make bold statements.
But in order for us to be absolutely sure Wallace is not starter material, we have to take into consideration more than you have outlined here. For example, if Wallace had a worse WR corps (or decline in any other supporting staff) this year than in ’06, and he put up better or similar stats, that represents an improvement on his part. No mention of that in your analysis.
Also, while you seem to examine the possibility of improvement between 06 and 08, you fail to consider the possibility of him improving further after 08, as if there is some reason to think this is as good as he can get. Regardless, you failed to provide any reason to think he can’t get any better than he has shown, especially since by all appearances he seems to be improving every year so far.
Without addressing these two issues, you haven’t given good enough reason to think Wallace can’t be a good NFL starting QB in the future.
by VBJohnson on Jan 21, 2009 6:41 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Interceptions and incompletions are products of the same faults: Inaccuracy and poor decision making.
No. You can make the best decision and an accurate throw and have it be an incompletion. The best example of this is a dropped ball. The second example of this is an accurate miss, where the quarterback throws the ball to a location where only his man can catch it (low and to the sidelines on hitches, over the outside shoulder on fades, low and up the field on slants, etc). To truly compare his accuracy as a passer you would have to go back and look at every throw from ‘06 and every throw from ’08 and compare the number of bad balls and the number of “good misses”.
You dismiss the possibility of Seneca becoming more accurate as a passer because his completion percentage didn’t rise much, and claim that a drop in interceptions thrown is an anomaly. Sorry, but that sounds like gerrymandering of statistics to me.
Wallace’s fumble percentage improved with his sack percentage. In 2008, Wallace was sacked on just 5.5% of pass attempts. In 2006, Wallace fumbled on 9.0% of pass attempts. In 2008, Wallace fumbled on 1.5% of rush and pass attempts. In 2006, Wallace fumbled on 3.3% of pass attempts. Your opinion of Wallace’s improved ability to protect the ball depends on your opinion of his ability to avoid sacks.
This is as much an argument for Seneca as it is against him. It’s entirely possible that in the time between 2006 and 2008 his pocket awareness has increased, something that was ignored until the final paragraph when you could dismiss it as ridiculous.
I’m not saying Seneca Wallace is an NFL caliber starting QB (he’s not), but as for your “compelling case against” him, sorry I don’t see it. All you’ve really shown is that he has progressed as a quarterback, and as VBJohnson stated, it’s not impossible that he will continue to do so.
by ACassel on Jan 21, 2009 7:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The best example of this is a dropped ball. The second example of this is an accurate miss, where the quarterback throws the ball to a location where only his man can catch it (low and to the sidelines on hitches, over the outside shoulder on fades, low and up the field on slants, etc).
These are things that all Quarterbacks do. And thus they are all in a sense taken into account for things like pass completion%. While it’s true that some QB’s might be hurt slightly more then another because he throws more balls up to where only the WR can catch it, over the coarse of an entire season this roughly evens out. Also, because such a higher percentage of passes are to the WR and not almost uncatchable balls, you can ignore it. Unless a QB has abnormal wide recievers, such as ones that drop much higher than the league level. But I don’t believe Seattle had this problem this year.
by Fear on Jan 21, 2009 7:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
These are things that all Quarterbacks do
Better quarterbacks are more accurate and thus do them more often, and better quarterbacks throw fewer interceptions for that reason. Seneca Wallace threw very few interceptions last year, so there’s reason to think that his accuracy might have improved even though his completion percentage did not dramatically increase.
I tried to decipher the rest of your post but none of it made much sense.
by ACassel on Jan 21, 2009 8:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So if fewer interceptions = more accurate
this season proved that Seneca Wallace is more accurate than Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Dan Marino.
I’m not buying it.
by BrianL on Jan 21, 2009 8:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, strawman much?
If fewer interceptions = more accurate
this season proved that Seneca Wallace is more accurate now than Seneca Wallace was two years ago.
by ACassel on Jan 21, 2009 9:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Or it shows that Seneca Wallace got lucky this season
and the results you saw weren’t indicative of his true talent level.
by BrianL on Jan 21, 2009 10:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
too vague..
firstly, i wouldn’t say that any statistic or result is the direct indication of a persons true talent level.
2nd, Wallace should not be considered responsible for any YAC that Morgan mentioned, but if he has the capability of getting the ball to a player who does his job, wouldn’t that in turn be considered a successful QB decision, or in the least, a positive play that can’t be twisted around by statistical breakdowns?
Let's go.
by J Hens on Jan 22, 2009 8:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My point was
that all quarterbacks throw the passes that you were basically saying artificially deflated his numbers. It’s pointless to consider them, because ALL quarterbacks have their numbers artificially deflated by those kind of throws. Including 2006 and 2008 Seneca Wallace.
There’s no way to know the exact degree that these things affected each individual QB without looking through each QB’s passes for their entire year. What I CAN say is that those kind of throws are going to be a very low % of each QB’s total number of throws. The difference between QB’s is going to be even smaller. And since the only relevant part of ANY of that is the difference between 2006 and 2008 Seneca Wallace’s perfect throws that were dropped/near impossible catches for the WR, and that is almost guaranteed to be a tiny difference even IF Seneca Wallace took a giant leap forwards, we can safely ignore it. So, recognizing that our data isn’t perfect, we can still ignore the data as having very little to no bearing on the overall data.
Or in other words, who cares if Seneca Wallace threw 3 more incompletions in 2008 than in 2006 because he threw 3 more passes that were perfect but the WR dropped them/couldn’t real in the perfect pass. That’s not going to affect his incompletion % enough to change the results.
by Fear on Jan 21, 2009 10:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This an error JM?
In 2006, Wallace fumbled on 9.0% of pass attempts. In 2008, Wallace fumbled on 1.5% of rush and pass attempts. In 2006, Wallace fumbled on 3.3% of pass attempts.
Wallace fumbled 9.0% of pass attempts in 2006, and fumbled 3.3% of pass attempts in 2006? I’m assuming one should be was sacked on % of pass attempts.
by Fear on Jan 21, 2009 7:49 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yes, thank you
It should read “Wallace was sacked on 9…” and now does.
by John Morgan on Jan 22, 2009 3:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wallace has a noodle-arm
That’s enough to keep him from being a capable starter. Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing him go, especially if we picked up a decent rookie or free agent taller than 5’9".
"It's just one big guy against another big guy, both teams know what's at stake. The one of them comes out on top and it feels good."
-Chris Collinsworth, Madden 09
by Wayward Llama on Jan 21, 2009 8:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Are you kidding? Seneca has a really strong arm. And its unlikely a rookie or FA QB can step in and
play well enough to win games like can.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 21, 2009 10:08 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
For having such a strong arm he sure has bad habit of underthrowing and floating the football
"It's just one big guy against another big guy, both teams know what's at stake. The one of them comes out on top and it feels good."
-Chris Collinsworth, Madden 09
by Wayward Llama on Jan 22, 2009 12:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What games are you basing this off of?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 22, 2009 1:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For one, Wallace is definitely 5'11". That's from a weigh-in before he was drafted.
Second, Wallace’s arm is much stronger than Matt’s.
by redwolf75 on Jan 22, 2009 8:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I have a feeling that if Wallace were
any shorter than 5’11" he wouldn’t even be given the chance to play QB.
by LantermanC on Jan 22, 2009 9:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I just don't see the arm-strength thing.
Ever since Matt and Seneca have been on the roster together, that’s all I’ve heard. That Wallace has the deep arm & Matt doesn’t. But I’ve never seen any visual evidence of it games. Wallace’s deep balls have always appeared to float a bit to me. I’ve never seen him be able to effectively lead a WR or hit them in stride if the pass is +30yds downfield.. OTOH, I have seen Matt pull that throw off – especially during ‘05-’06 and when he had WR’s like D-Jack that he was comfortable with. IMO, Matt actually shows more touch and throws those passes better.
I don’t get why the perception of the two is so different … maybe because Wallace was more a gunslinger in college? Also maybe different styles of play … when Wallace is in trouble, he scrambles and looks to go deep and launches a few, whereas Matt will usually find the safe dump off or throw it away.
As far as I can tell, neither one of them have the “canon” like a Big Ben or Flacco …. but both have more than adequate arm-strength. And I’ve always felt that Matt suffers a bad rap as far as arm-strength … just looking at basic stats, he regularly produces just as many +20 and +40 yds plays as other ‘strong-armed" QBs. And I don’t think you can dismiss that all as YAC, given the WRs he’s regularly been throwing to.
Of course, the big question is, even if Matt had adequate arm-strength before …. will he still have it now after dealing with the back issues?
by jteckmann on Jan 22, 2009 2:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Seneca Wallace hits Ben Obomanu in stride on a 35 yard pass downfield
In 209 attempts in 2008, Matt Hasselbeck didn’t make a single completion of 40+ yards.
by John Morgan on Jan 22, 2009 2:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't forget Seneca's monster passes
to Branch and Weaver twice that resulted in about 65 yards each (sarcasm)
How was Hasselbeck last year though? If his leg was weak this year, I can understand his hesitance to throw deep.
by LantermanC on Jan 22, 2009 3:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But he had 7 in '07, 5 in '06, and 7 in '05.
I think it’s obvious he wasn’t a full strength in ‘08. Like I said, the big question is how well he recovers from the back thing … so maybe it doesn’t come back.
But before ‘08 I always felt his deep ball was unfairly maligned. I always felt it was more a combo of WRs/playcalling that kept it from being a featured part of the offense, rather than Matt’s deficiencies. Here’s Matt hitting Branch in stride with a ball that travels about 50 yards in the air: Link
At any rate, I don’t think Seneca has a clearly superior arm than Matt’s. Wallace can uncork his while on the run … so you’d expect some inaccuracy in those situations. But IMO his accuracy doesn’t seem to improve much when he sets up … I think they still tend to float, or he sails a lot of passes. Matt can’t throw on the run, but when he does set-up, I think he’s more accurate and places the ball better. And they both appear to have the same amount of zip on the short/intermediate throw to me.
Except when Seneca’s on the run, I’ve never seen him make a throw where I thought, “there’s no way Hass could do that”.
by jteckmann on Jan 22, 2009 5:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
McNabb had 11 in 2008
But where getting kind of far afield. A 40+ yard pass is not a very good indication of a quarterback’s arm strength. A screen pass can go for 40+ yards. Problem is, I can’t offer good evidence that Hasselbeck has a very poor deep pass. The only thing I can say, and I know this is inadequate, that as someone who charted his every pass over the last two seasons and in great detail in 2007, I can say that I feel very confident that Matt Hasselbeck has a very poor deep pass. It wobbles, it hangs and it requires the receiver to have extreme separation to complete it.
by John Morgan on Jan 23, 2009 4:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That may have something to do with us lacking a true deep threat.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 22, 2009 2:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's probably it.
"It's just one big guy against another big guy, both teams know what's at stake. The one of them comes out on top and it feels good."
-Chris Collinsworth, Madden 09
by Wayward Llama on Jan 22, 2009 8:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've never heard of Wallace as having a "deep arm." Ever.
But I’ve been watching some of the games from this year today, and while I think I was wrong about his arm strength, he does float the longer passes. Up until now, whether or not Matt or Seneca had a big arm didn’t really matter in Holmy’s system. Hopefully Knapp’s system will have us taking some shots downfield once in a while…..to a capable reciever.
"It's just one big guy against another big guy, both teams know what's at stake. The one of them comes out on top and it feels good."
-Chris Collinsworth, Madden 09
by Wayward Llama on Jan 22, 2009 8:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd also like to point out
That you’re dismissing the LARGER sample size as the abnormal season, a sample which is larger than the aggregate of every season prior to it. A foolish thing to do, considering he’s still in his prime and would be expected to have improved up to this point and continue to do so over the next three years.
by ACassel on Jan 22, 2009 2:29 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
David Garrard had his largest sample size in 2007
He threw only 3 picks, for a int% of 0.9. Not surprisingly, even though that season represented a 12 start sample size, he regressed to a int% of 2.4. His TD% went from 5.5 to 2.8.
It’s not foolish to expect obsene performances to return to the mean even if the sample size is as large as an entire season.
by Nate Dogg on Jan 22, 2009 4:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Garrard can be attributed to an injured/heavily regressed o-line and classic crappy Jacksonville WRs.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 22, 2009 8:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jacksonville's receiving group didnt get any worse in the offseason (they even brought in more guys)
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 23, 2009 9:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bringing in Troy Williamson is the equivalent of releasing two talented WRs.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 23, 2009 10:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jerry Porter too.
The point is they didn’t lose anyone, so that isn’t really a valid argument.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 23, 2009 2:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But their line and rushing attack was a total 180 from last season.
You can’t just say Garrard’s performance returned to the mean, just like that. He wasn’t in anywhere near the same conditions as last season.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 23, 2009 10:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Whats your point?
Do you honestly believe that a 0.9 int% is Garrards average level of play? In 17 player seasons Tom Brady and Peyton Manning have combined to post 3 sub 2.0 int% seasons (Brady had the best in his record setting 2007 at 1.4%).
by Nate Dogg on Jan 23, 2009 10:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Compare against Matt
How do Seneca’s stats look when compared to Matt’s the first year he played?
Can we really tell anything from the amount of starts he’s had? Matt looked like crap the first year.
by lordtd on Jan 22, 2009 7:38 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I agree he's not our future
But truthfully, as much as I do understand the term ‘playing over your head’, I don’t.
Obviously you’re explaining and giving reasoning for why his hype and on the surface success is misleading, but at the same time, isn’t the result of how he was playing just simply that.. only the result of how he was playing? I read the stats, and can understand where the actual improvement in his game may seem minimal, but are we taking into consideration his mental ability in terms of game management, instincts, play recognition and improvement with experience?
To me the obvious statistics you posted show your point, but aren’t there alot more variables in play to determine if he is truly a successful in regards to his improvement?
Let's go.
by J Hens on Jan 22, 2009 8:20 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
`
In 2006, he threw an interception on 5.0% of all attempts. In 2008, just 1.2. 1.2 represents a better interception rate than Peyton Manning has ever achieved. Better than Tom Brady. Better than Dan Marino.
That’s playing over your head.
by BrianL on Jan 22, 2009 8:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If your judgement is based off of statistical comparison.
But clearly you missed my point.
I completely understand the tone and intention of the phrase ‘playing over your head’, but that result is just as misleading to me.
My point is if the statistical result of how he has played has turned out to be that which was mentioned, are there not other variables showcasing his improvement or lack there of, besides an interception ratio.
There is no doubt if you were to argue his statistical improvement in a comparison form, that he would then in turn be playing over his head. I assume most people would not.
Let's go.
by J Hens on Jan 22, 2009 8:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
INTs are so random though.
It’s like when Mike Cameron or Sean Green had 4 hrs in a game. Are they great HR hitters? No. Are they capable HR hitters? Yes. Too many variables, defense, outfield confines, temperature, all it takes is one mistake to get a HR (or INT).
Or I guess looking at it from a pitchers perspective, a guy like Seneca Wallace is a guy who gives up HRs at a slightly above average rate (or worse than average), and for 5 games he only allowed 1 HR. Has he learned a skill or did he just get lucky because there are so many random variables involved?
by LantermanC on Jan 22, 2009 9:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah i agree they are a large percentage of luck
but there are still defensive coaches who design specific plays to increase the chance of turnovers, so it’s difficult to gauge how much responsibility an INT percentage falls on the QB.
the most telling to me is the decision making process, there are such things as smart throws and safe throws, and to me, i can’t imagine the coaching staff was filling up Seneca’s playsheet with throws as difficult or risky as some of the top QB’s in the league.
Let's go.
by J Hens on Jan 22, 2009 9:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Shawn Green.
Sean Green pitches
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 22, 2009 10:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the correction.
I always hated it when people spelled it ‘Sean Kemp’ or ‘Miguel Bautista’, and now I’m guilty of this myself.
by LantermanC on Jan 22, 2009 1:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also on interceptions
Is there not trained and designed plays that allow players to be in a vague or general area in where a pass may or may not be thrown. Aren’t coaches instilling instincts and training to improve on ball skills, timing, route recognition etc.? A tipped ball is just as much of a result of an athlete’s being there as an interception is as much of a result of a tipped ball.
Basically, if Seneca’s statistics are ballooned, it is not the fault of him, it is the result of many more players than just himself. Therefore, Manning, Brady, Marino.. have likely had ballooned statistics at times as well.
Let's go.
by J Hens on Jan 22, 2009 8:39 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Also
in terms of Air Yards.
are there not plays designed to get the ball to a receiver on the run, out of a break, or in position to gain yards after the catch?
and isn’t it likely that with Seneca starting, and several receivers unfamiliar with his tendency’s and decision making, that the play calling would be different than that of a Manning or Brady? Basically, he is not involved in the same plays as they are, nor the same play calling, and is there no possibility that his statistical results could have been improved because due to play calling as well?
Let's go.
by J Hens on Jan 22, 2009 8:43 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I see your point, but....
One thing to keep in mind, is that Seneca was playing injured after hurting himself trying to get ready to play WR before that first SF home game. The only reason he was starting at midseason was because, even injured, Holmgren felt he gave the team a better chance to win than Charlie Frye after seeing Charlie in action for that one game against GB where we had 83 yards passing.
I think those last 4 games were the only ones where he was near 100% since he had a chance to rest after Matt tried to come back. Also, I hold those last 4 games in much higher regard due to the fact that at that point, the Seahawks actually had some real recieving options. His only recieving options for those 4 midseason games were Engram, Robinson (who was still relearning the offense) and Keary Colbert (who I’m pretty sure was cut right after Wallaces first stretch of starts, having several critical drops in that MIA game).
The final component is receiver yard after catch. As I’ve mentioned, the ability to run after the catch correlates much more strongly to the receiver than the quarterback. Wallace benefited greatly from receiver run after catch, something that doesn’t show up in traditional or even advanced stats, but is obvious when you look strictly at his Air Yards. Wallace was 32nd in the NFL in Air Yards an attempt. Air Yards does not tell you how good a quarterback is, but it does, as in the case of Wallace, tell us a bit about how much of a quarterback’s production was dependent on his receivers.
I know you still need to be able to throw deep from time to time to keep the secondary honest, but isn’t having good “yards after the catch” a key component of a true West Coast Offense?
by Mind of no mind on Jan 22, 2009 5:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
