Seneca Wallace's Top Ten Performance

by John Morgan on Oct 6, 2009 11:28 AM PDT

No disrespect intended Bill Barnwell, but I thought Seahawks fans would get a kick out of this:

Quarterbacks

Rk

Player

Team

CP/AT

Yds

TD

INT

Total
DYAR

Pass
DYAR

Rush
DYAR

8.
Seneca Wallace SEA
33/45

257

1

0

47

39

8

Wallace actually had a pretty good game, with 16 first downs, a passing touchdown, and a seven-yard scramble for another one, but he was sacked five times and fumbled twice.

Quarterbacks
Rk	Player	Team	CP/AT	Yds	TD	INT	Total DYAR	Pass DYAR	Rush DYAR
8.	Seneca Wallace	SEA	33/45	257	1	0	47	39	8
Wallace actually had a pretty good game, with 16 first downs, a passing touchdown, and a seven-yard scramble for another one, but he was sacked five times and fumbled twice.

Seahawks fans might be more forgiving of Wallace's awesome showing if nine of his 16 first downs, and both touchdowns didn't come in the second half, when Seattle was down 28-3*, the Colts win probability exceeded 95%, and, as I explained to my wife last night, the Colts were playing clock-kill defense. Wallace played very poorly. He hurt his team multiple times when his team was still in contention. (That ever so brief period) No point piling on, but if there is such a thing as empty advanced stats, this is an example.

*Or in even more desperate circumstances.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Even so, it was slightly impressive that Seneca got the two TDs.

The game was already over, but you’d think that the backups on Indy would still be trying to get sacks or pass defensed to show their worth.

by LantermanC on Oct 6, 2009 12:04 PM PDT reply actions

It was mercy.

I wasn’t impressed.

by jacobstevens on Oct 6, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions

That was exactly what I thought.

I did, however, love the comparison of the Zorn & Arians decisions, calling out the fallacy of results-based analysis there. That was great.

For the year, Matt Hasselbeck is still ahead of Seneca in DYAR. A cumulative stat.

by jacobstevens on Oct 6, 2009 12:04 PM PDT reply actions

How can you argue with statistics?

Whoever this Seneca Wallace kid is, we should sign him and see if he can play.

""I wanted to be a quarterback, but I got hungry."
-LG Rob Sims

by ninjasocks on Oct 6, 2009 12:58 PM PDT via mobile reply actions 2 recs

I laughed.

Nicely done.

by thebyron on Oct 6, 2009 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions

Wow

With stats like that, I’m sure that other NFL teams are beating down the door trying to trade for him. Maybe we can trade him for a Left Tackle.

by lordtd on Oct 6, 2009 1:30 PM PDT reply actions

Where's the NFL equivalent of

the KC Royals?

by Fear on Oct 6, 2009 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions

Probably the Oakland Raiders.

Both in results and process.

by BrianL on Oct 7, 2009 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions

I like to think this is why I'm awful at fantasy football

by Nate Dogg on Oct 6, 2009 1:56 PM PDT reply actions

You know what Seneca really lacks?

Grit!

by GarethLewin on Oct 6, 2009 4:19 PM PDT reply actions

You know your system has a serious bug in it when it concludes that "Seneca Wallace actually had a pretty good game"

What I find especially damning about that article is that they didn’t recognize that result as an anomaly that needed explanation. It casts doubt on all their other findings.

by Mr Fish on Oct 6, 2009 5:18 PM PDT reply actions