Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Indy 500: 'Greatest Spectacle In Racing' Set For Sunday

For Pete Carroll's Seahawks, It's All About The Ball

My high school junior varsity basketball coach was the most intense person I've ever met. Like, he broke his hand punching a wall playing pickup basketball against a bunch of high school kids kind of intense. He was the kind of guy that later, when I was on varsity my last couple of years, would come into the locker room during his own JV game, when we were getting dressed, sort of smile at us, say "I'm gonna go get tossed," walk back out the door to the court, and a few minutes later he'd come back in after getting ejected and just hang out with us until the JV game was over. He was a good motivator, but he was a little crazy. 

But he was also smart. One thing I used to love about him was that he would randomly get up and yell "GET THE BALL!" when he wanted us to completely mug an opposing player. It didn't matter if you fouled him, "just get the damn ball." It was really a euphemism for "foul the dude" but more often than not, when he'd yell that we'd get so aggressive that we'd actually steal the ball and go the other way with it. It's all about attitude. When your main purpose is to steal the ball and you focus entirely on it, it's surprising how easy it is to actually succeed at it. 

If you know Pete Carroll's defensive philosophy or just philosophy of football in general, you know that one of his catch phrases is "it's all about the ball." He stresses taking care of the football on offense above all else, and taking the ball away on defense above all else. During his days at USC, the Trojans would reportedly be seen trying to strip the ball 40 or 50 times a game (to a normal team's 20 or 30... it's not an exact science and I'm not sure if anyone keeps official stats on that, but from what I've read USC was notorious for this). To hell if they missed the tackle on the attempt, getting the ball away from the offense takes precedent. 

The Hawks spend a significant amount of time at each practice in drills that enforce this philosophy on both sides of the ball --  strip drills and fumble recovery drills on defense, ball security drills on offense. 

This 'get the ball' philosophy goes back... well, decades probably but was fully nurtured during Carroll's tenure with the Trojans. Back at USC, he said: "We play defense not just to stop people or make them go three and out. We play defense to get the football. Every time the ball is snapped the defense tries to take the ball away from the offense. If the defense can take the ball away from the offense they are going to give it to the offense which is going to keep it until they can score. The offense can not score without the football. For that matter the defense can score if they get possession of the football."

Now, he's with the Seahawks, and nothing has changed. "It's been our main theme and our approach in our football for as long as I can remember," Carroll said. "It's about taking care of the football and getting it. It's not just one side, it's not just giving up (the ball), it's getting the ball, too. The defense can balance out a mistake or two by an offense by taking the football away. So it's the No. 1 emphasis in the program."

This cornerstone of doctrine was such a point of emphasis at USC because winning the turnover battle (a positive or even ratio of forced turnovers to your own turnovers) often means winning the game. USC was 53-0 during Carroll's time there with an even or plus turnover ratio. They had the best turnover margin in the country during Carroll's time there by a LONG SHOT. As that ESPN article pointed out back in Sept '08, "USC hasn't merely been good in the turnover margin category since Pete Carroll became head coach. The Trojans have been more dominant than the rest of the country. Although some believe that turnover margin is partly a product of luck from the way the ball bounces, there is strong evidence that it also can be a product of coaching."

There's a correlation suggested there that a new coaching staff that narrows its focus and places an emphasis on the turnover margin can have real results. At USC, Carroll's teams usually met their goal of a positive or neutral margin and won a lot of games along the way, and it can be partly attributed to the fact they made it a focal point of practice.

TURNOVER THURSDAYS? That's not just an alliterative way to spice up the week's practice, it's a systematic method of instilling that 'get the ball' mentality. This mentality percolated into the minds of the USC players and in turn translated into their play. 

That's why I'm not even remotely surprised that during Saturday's game against the Vikings, a couple of ex-Trojans forced fumbles on back to back plays. 

Star-divide

The plays came with about 10:00 left in the 4th quarter, the Hawks down 13-7. The Vikings had strung together little drive and were threatening at the Hawks 26 yard line.

2nd and 5. The Vikings Joe Webb drops back to pass and the pocket collapses around him. He steps up and hits his outlet, running back Lorenzo Booker. Weakside linebacker Malcolm Smith takes a good angle on him and instinctively employs the wrapup-punch tackle (I don't really know what else to call it-- if there's a technical name let me know).

Screen_shot_2011-08-23_at_11Screen_shot_2011-08-23_at_11Screen_shot_2011-08-23_at_11

Kind of hard to see, but he BLOINKS the ball out of Booker's hands with his left fist as he's wrapping up -- a great play-- but the ball unfortunately flies out of bounds. Minnesota retains possession but are now faced with a 3rd and 4. 

Vikings come out in a three receiver, two back set. Ball is snapped, Webb play action fakes the draw and rolls to his right. WR Emmanuel Arceneaux runs from the left on a deep drag and Webb hits him on the run beautifully. Arceneaux makes the catch and Seahawks safety Atari Bigby makes a facepalm-inducing play on the ball carrier.

Screen_shot_2011-08-24_at_10

You can see the arrow, which indicates where Arceneaux has come from. You can also see Bigby completely whiff on the tackle, leaving nothing but green between the ex-CFL star and the promised land. Luckily for Bigby, Josh Pinkard is here to save the day.

Screen_shot_2011-08-24_at_12Screen_shot_2011-08-24_at_12Screen_shot_2011-08-24_at_12

BLOINK! (you can just make out the ball flying away and about to go into and out of the back of the endzone for a touchback). Touchdown saving play by the young safety.

Two plays in a row, two Trojans punching the ball out. It's not a coincidence, it's a byproduct. Every football player is taught this as a fundamental when they first start playing in Pop Warner but I would guess very few coaches emphasize it as much as Pete Carroll does, especially at this level. He hammers it into the collective conscious of every defensive player with rhetoric and repetition on a daily basis. (especially on Turnover Thursdays, I would guess). 

This type of play is going to be of paramount importance to this young Seahawks defense in 2011. They're going to give up a LOT of yards, mark my words. Both on the ground and through the air. Don't freak out when they do.They're going to be frustrating at times. They're not going to get the type of pressure on the QB that you'd like. They're young, and they'll struggle at times.

Forcing turnovers will be the way to balance this. You can give up 99 yards as long as you make the turnover on the 1 yard line. That's the bend-but-don't -break philosophy. A key turnover here or there will be the difference between a win and a loss in a few games this year, I'd bet on it. 

The Seahawks finished with a -9 turnover ratio in year one of Carroll's stewardship. 2nd worst in the NFC and near-last in the NFL. Not ... gonna... cut it. 

While at USC, by my calculations, Pete Carroll finished with a +107 turnover margin from 2001-2009. Damn. Seriously, damn. The NFL is a whole new ballgame, but the turnover margin is just as important. Teams with a plus or even turnover margin won something like 85% of the time in 2010. It's not rocket surgery trying to figure out why Carroll is obsessed with it.

Every day is Turnover Thursday in Pete's world. 


 Follow @FieldGulls on Twitter | Like Field Gulls on Facebook


Comment 48 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Arceneaux was carrying the ball too far from his body

Here’s the problem though. It’s possible to maintain a consistent turnover ratio in college, but turnover ratios almost always regress to the mean in the NFL.

In 2008, the top TO teams were the Dolphins, Titans and Ravens, the bottom the Broncos, 49ers and Cowboys. In 2009, the top TO teams were the Packers, Eagles and Saints, the bottom the Lions, Rams and Raiders. In 2010 the top teams were the Steelers, Falcons and Patriots, the bottom Bills, Jags, Dolphins.

Winning the turnover battle correlates really well with winning games, yes. But there is no historical evidence that turnover ratio is something that can be maintained at a high level. If you take two of the most consistent franchises in the NFL, Patriots and Colts, they went +1, +6, +28 and +9, +2, -4. If those frachises can’t keep it up at a high level, why would anyone think the Seahawks could?

There is an amount of coachability here, and a team can certainly opt to give up big plays while chasing the turnover, which is the standard tradeoff an probably knocks down the turnover win correlation a peg. Now the Seahawks have been at the bottom for some time now (-7, -8 and -9 from 2008-2010), so we’re due for regression to the mean, but it won’t be all that meaningful when we do.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 24, 2011 11:47 AM PDT reply actions  

I was using a small sample to illustrate a bigger idea that the Turnover ratio is important to the Seahawks coaching staff

And ultimately, for winning games in the NFL. It may be impossible to carry it over or maintain it for multiple years like Carroll’s teams did at USC, but saying that if we get better at it, that it’s simply due to us being ‘due for it’ dismisses a lot of variables — coaching, players, schemes, etc. I dunno, seems like there is more to it than just “we’re due for regression to the mean”.

I wasn’t so much trying to say the Seahawks should win the turnover battle every year for the next ten years as much as I was pointing out it’s important to this season.

It will be meaningful to me if we get better at it. I suppose you can look at it in any number of ways though and through whatever tinted glasses you choose. The Seahawks got worse at defense in 2010 and that’s partly on Carroll. If they get better, I will be willing to give Carroll some credit.

Proactive-like-Nonstop
FIELDGULLS

by Danny Kelly on Aug 24, 2011 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'd say Danny is on the mark.

It’s a point of emphasis for the staff and schemes. I don’t believe, you simply execute turnovers and become league leaders consistently. I do believe, you focus on it as a technique when tackling or covering a receiver. You practice one man tackling, the other man stripping the ball in specific situations. You can work on wrapping up tackles and getting hands under the ball or punching it; instead of simply wrapping to tackle. I’ve witnessed some coaches not tolerate strip attempts when in 1:1 situations and instead demand his players wrap for a tackle. Little things like this, can improve the chance of a turnover and ultimately deliver improvement in executed turnovers.

It’s also telling, the FO chose to go with a new QB for many reasons. I can only assume, the int’s and fumbles resulting in turnovers from #8 was the biggest detriment to his offseason departure. With this philosophy, that’s simply not tolerable – regardless of protection, pressure or receiving issues.

by GnarlyHawk on Aug 24, 2011 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

I did not disagree with that

But every team in the NFL has some focus on turning the ball over. Some more, like the Chargers, some less. We’re not unique in that sense, we’re just on the high-end scale of it.

I do not disagree that focus on turnovers is a good thing or that it makes sense to train on it with extra intensity, I’m arguing that from an NFL historical perspective there is no such thing as consistency in the turnover battle, just regression to the mean. This isn’t USC where he can out-talent everyone, the NFL just doesn’t work that way, and expecting results other than the regression to the mean any NFL team would see is probably not realistic.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 24, 2011 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

I understand your point and it has strong statistical merit.

Only time can tell on this one. I do like the heavy focus on it. I also like (if indications are correct) that the coaching staff is willing to support the player in making those attempts.

I recall some similar evaluation of “what he did in college won’t work in the NFL based on history or ” reviews on Johnson going from Miami to Dallas. Johnson has been more an exception and rule – but he did buck the trend on a number approaches and yielded unexpected results.

I’m hoping Pete can buck the history of mean averages prevailing and be an anomoly.

by GnarlyHawk on Aug 24, 2011 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

I understand the argument that TO's are partially luck....

but that is only half the argument. Awareness is so underrated on this subject. Pinkard hitting the ball out just like D Branch did for us on an interception one of his first games with us is HUGE! Some players have it and some do not!

Nobody can control how the ball bounces but you can absolutely control having the opportunity to bounce your way. A good well coached team practices the 2nd and 3rd tacklers punch and/or rip the ball out. That same well coached team is aggressive and chasing the ball until the play is over thus having more players in the area for any recovery rather than giving up before the whistle is blown.

I am still amazed how many times every year a blind side pass rusher does not try to cause an easy fumble rather than go for the sack. An aggressive D does get burned time to time but gets more than its share of TO’s. Pressure should cause more QB fumbles and more pressure places more guys in the area to recover that fumble. Pressure causes poor throws and at least makes sure the ball is thrown sooner and with good press CBs that should create even more TOs.

Respect goes a long way....

by Mangolover on Aug 24, 2011 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, look at it this way

Carroll had a full off-season to implement his turnover training last year. Yes, he had less of “his guys” on the field, but still, the TO ratio actually dropped, not increased.

Turnover ratios tend to regress to the mean, and that’s not ignoring the variables, that’s exactly due to the variables: a team adding talent, matchup strength lessening, coaches shifting focus. If our turnover ratio regresses to the mean, well, it probably should, and while it’s an encouraging sign it’s not hugely meaningful because that’s what happens to every franchise in the NFL, including ones that have been badly managed for a decade, like the 49ers. That’s not tinted glasses, that’s just the historic reality of the parity-driven NFL.

The kind of teams that maintain any consistency tend to be teams with franchise QBs, like the Colts and Pats, and like I pointed out, even they do not stomp all over the turnover ratio year-in year-out. I’m not expecting a big improvement out of us particularly because Tarvaris is not a good ball security guy, but an improvement over near-NFL-worst is the least we should be expecting, not something I would find encouraging.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 24, 2011 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

Though regression to the mean might be the wrong term

They tend to be random more than anything, but TO ratio is a factor in regressing to the mean

Here’s a lofty nugget: from 2006-2009, 26 of 31 teams with TO ratios of +10 or higher have seen their win totals go down the next season. Teams with TO ratios of -10 or worse tend to improve by an average of 2 wins. Too bad we missed out on that one. It’s all just part of the nature of the NFL, which pushes everything and everyone to regress to the mean, constantly.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 24, 2011 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

I see what you're saying

I guess that due to the amount of variables it’s probably impossible to quantify the effect his coaching has on the turnover battle.

I guess ‘meaningful’ and ‘good’ aren’t the same thing really - regardless, it will be good if they manage to improve their ratio but not necessarily meaningful in the sense that they can continue the improvement.

Proactive-like-Nonstop
FIELDGULLS

by Danny Kelly on Aug 24, 2011 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

Another way to look at the TO stats

TO margin assumes an offensive TO is equal to the defensive TO. Arguably, they are probably different. I am not going to make an argument in favor of either being more important. However, it might be interesting to look at TO Margin normalized for offensive TOs. For example, a +5 TO margin with only 20 offensive TOs would be equal to +10 TO margin with 40 offensive TOs.

Curious to see how those normalized correlations line up. Just a hypothesis and might be worth a look.

Shanghai Kelly's on Polk St. in San Francisco is the worst bar on the face of the earth (at least on Sunday mornings).

by elfaro47 on Aug 24, 2011 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

Why are they different?

One team’s offensive TO is another team’s defensive TO. If they need any advanced valuation, it’s field position and scoring situation.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 24, 2011 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

Not saying that they are

Looking at the TO margin normalized for offensive or defensive TOs puts the margin level in context could provide some insight if one looked at the stats. It could be totally irrelevant or it could be insightful.

What I am more interested in is why a TO margin of +3 might be more valuable than TO margin of +5. A secondary result would be inference from a TO margin normalized for off/def TOs being correlated with winning. Hence, one could be more related to winning than the other.

Shanghai Kelly's on Polk St. in San Francisco is the worst bar on the face of the earth (at least on Sunday mornings).

by elfaro47 on Aug 24, 2011 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

You can absolutely measure the effect of his coaching on turnovers.

It’s a ‘time until death’ question where you’re looking at how events scatter through time. The distribution is Gamma and since we’re talking about a small number of events relative to totall tests, you’d model turnovers as odds ratios or something. As long as you can decide on a total set of variables, a computer can rank their importance. The more the merrier. Regression only comes into it when you predict what should happen based on past data and decide if what actually happens is outside of standard error. I don’t think any NFL teams employ statisticians to answer these kinds of questions. They really should.

by EthelGemerman on Aug 24, 2011 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

Patriots Revert to the Mean?

Not seeing it. Since Belichick became their coach for the 2001 season their turnover differential has been:

2001 +6
2002 +5
2003 +17
2004 +9
2005 -6
2006 +8
2007 +16
2008 +1
2009 +6
2010 +28

One negative year in 10 does not make it seem that reversion to the mean occurs with the Patriots and probably not coincidentally the Pats were the premier team from 2001 to 2010.

It makes perfect sense to me to stress winning the turnover battle because that’s a pretty key statistic. Pete proved it can happen at USC (and was the premier college team of the decade) just as Belichick did with the Patriots.

by bobbyj0708 on Aug 24, 2011 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Most of those years are not outstanding

It’s not just about the negatives, it’s about how many times you can stand out.

I also already pointed out that teams that are consistently excellent tend to have franchise quarterbacks in place. TO differential consistency tends to be an offensive stat, not a defensive one.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 24, 2011 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

I see there being a pretty big spread from one year to the next...

…but even if 90% of results only occur within, say, 10 TOs one way or the other of the median result, having a median at +10 is a whole lot better than having a median at -10, all other things being equal.

I guess my largest concern here is whether training the TOs this much will hurt the team in other ways. I mean, it’s not like most NFL teams are sitting on their collective rear ends on Turnover Thursday. They’re practicing more plays, reading blitzes, etc… you know, all the things teams do to try to win.

by Johnny Slick on Aug 24, 2011 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yes

I’m going to check out coz I’m going to expand on all this in an article tomorrow.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 24, 2011 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

That's a good point

Although I do believe focusing on turnovers can prove to be valuable, it’s impossible to calculate the loss of film time/opportunity cost on certain plays’ outcomes. In the end, who knows, and it essentially comes down to coach style like the difference between Wade Phillips and Tom Coughlin (for example, just tried to get two contrasting personalities)

by Stay Off the Flowers on Aug 24, 2011 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

Perhaps ratio is not the proper yardstick to evaluate this with.

You can’t isolate the team’s performance independently of their opponents. But being able to consistently maintain a high number of turnovers for your defense or your offense, independent of each other, might actually surface teams that are able to maintain a little more consistency and teams that aren’t able to.

Also, I don’t buy the extent to which fumble recovery is luck, that FO sells — i.e., it’s not pure luck and nothing else — but undeniably luck is a significant factor. Interceptions plus dropped interceptions — charted by FO, at least — plus fumbles caused should equal a defense’s total turnover count, if we’re evaluating whether the coaching & emphasis makes a difference. If we’re considering how good a team is at producing turnovers, I’d only consider fumbles recovered, but in this context I think all fumbles caused should be counted.

For offense it would be reciprocal: count the fumbles, the INTs, and the dropped INTs. If a team consistently maintains a remarkable count over several years, I’d consider it substantiated that it’s something teams can control to a limited extent and the coaching focus makes a difference. If turnover count for either unit of the team is not sustainable, but behaves similar to turnover ratio, then I’d be inclined to believe it’s not something coaches can control to any meaningful extent. Either that or, at the professional level all teams have more or less maximized the extent to which they can control it and the focus on turnovers amounts to a wash, and regression to the mean does indeed drive the bus.

Head of catering.

by jacobstevens on Aug 24, 2011 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

Time, also laziness.

Also if I did have the time & initiative I think FO charges for access to their game charting data. I’ll buy the PDF Almanac but won’t pay for that.

Head of catering.

by jacobstevens on Aug 24, 2011 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

I was somewhat surprised the Seahawks' differential was that poor last year

It felt like we came through with more big play forced turnovers than we had in a long time. Then I remembered what turnover differential means, and the image of Matt throwing ugly ducklings all over the field popped into my head.

by jhmg16 on Aug 24, 2011 12:06 PM PDT reply actions  

Exactly

There were a few games where Hass gives up 3 balls and then it goes from close game to blowout, in a hurry.

Win Forever: Live, Work and Play Like a Champion

by JRock419 on Aug 24, 2011 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yup in the nostalgia of Matt leaving with class and the big win over the Saints...

Many forget just how awful Matt was much of the time the past few years. Wasn’t from lack of trying, but the terrible INTs, hassel-sacks, whirlybirds, etc. Oh, the pain! Matt is a class act, a leader, and did great things for this franchise, but he certainly had some rough patches at the end.

by IslandHawk on Aug 24, 2011 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

Great article, Danny. Probably one of the best I've read of yours.

Always up for some Twitter action @nandron. I only talk NW sports, though.

by Nick Andron on Aug 24, 2011 12:38 PM PDT reply actions  

thank you sir.

Proactive-like-Nonstop
FIELDGULLS

by Danny Kelly on Aug 24, 2011 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

Rocket Surgery.

I love it. I’m gonna start using that now.

by skwid206 on Aug 24, 2011 12:59 PM PDT reply actions  

Quite honestly, regression to the mean would be a fantastic improvement.

And turnovers can be coached. Here’s hoping that the emphasis on 3rd down is to get off the field and make the opposing offense turn it over that way.

And the number is telling that the Colts and Pats between them only had one minus year in the last 3. Even if turnover ratio isn’t off the charts, as long as it’s consistently in the plus column, that will mean more wins.

The other things I’m looking for would be Time of Possession, 3rd down conversion rate, and opponent 3rd down conversion rate. At one point, TOP was quite good in the Vikes game, as were several defensive 3 and outs. We do more of that, and salt in a plus turnover margin, and we win. Ugly wins are wins, baybee!

by bleedshawkblue on Aug 24, 2011 12:59 PM PDT reply actions  

Danny, BEST article ever from you!!!!

I appreciate most your articles and find you to be a more than solid writer witha fair attitude but this was EXCEPTIONAL! Keep up the good work I love the personal touches! I love your old coach….

Respect goes a long way....

by Mangolover on Aug 24, 2011 1:26 PM PDT reply actions  

Thanks!

Proactive-like-Nonstop
FIELDGULLS

by Danny Kelly on Aug 24, 2011 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

Like my old high school football coach used to say, "fumbles are an act of God."

“The act of a god damned idiot!”

I have nothing further to add than this.

by Johnny Slick on Aug 24, 2011 1:38 PM PDT reply actions   1 recs

Above discussion was very good, but I am failing to understand the correlation between

turnover margin and Pete Carroll’s focus on creating turnovers. Turnover margin is a team stat, it includes offensive mistakes. A team that excels at creating turnovers could have an awful turnover margin if the offense gave it away at an even higher rate. If a defense excels at ballhawking, yet was matched with an offense that was turnover prone, margin would suffer, and be a terrible measurement of the defenses ability to cause turnovers.

And interceptions will always fluctuate as a stat, measuring a defense by them would be wildly inconsistent. Just ask Marcus Trufant.

I think if you want to measure a defenses ability to get after the ball, fumbles caused and recovered is the best measure. Chicago, for instance, has been in the top 5 for both causing and recovering fumbles in 4 of the last 5 years. Even in their worst year, they were 16th in recovered fumbles. And the dedication to it shows on the field. They in particular have become known for NOT tackling a player immediately, but if prudent having the ball carrier held up by the first tackler so other defenders can strip the ball. They practice it, and it shows in the stats consistently.

The Bears have for a long time now been a team that excels at causing fumbles

by Harvey Manfrengenson on Aug 24, 2011 3:59 PM PDT reply actions  

Interesting points about the Bears

The post was focused on the defense getting the ball but as it says above, Pete’s number one emphasis for the program is to ‘take care of the ball and get the ball’. It’s two-fold and has to do with both sides of the ball. I didn’t focus on the offense as much here but avoiding turnovers is one of the most basic tenets of his offensive philosophy.

The idea that there’s a correlation between Carroll’s coaching focus and turnover margin is based on what I mentioned above and the ridiculous numbers his teams put up in that area while at USC. Their margin of 107 over the 10 years he was there was probably 40 or so more than any other team, including the SEC. So evidence suggests there is something to the theory, at least at the college level.

Proactive-like-Nonstop
FIELDGULLS

by Danny Kelly on Aug 24, 2011 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

Oh, I understand that, and my comments about margin were directed at the comments discussion.

Mike Martz is the only (pro) coach I ever saw who didn’t give a shit about turnovers on offense, he just wanted to run your ass into the ground. Pete not wanting his offense to turn the ball over is hardly exceptional.

I do think there is something to the theory, but personnel wired to seek turnovers matters as well. I think that is why Kelly Jennings is so damn aggravating, well that and the fact that he has turtle heads where his arms should be. He just isn’t wired to go after the ball.

by Harvey Manfrengenson on Aug 24, 2011 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

Pete's number one priority on offense is taking care of the ball

That’s may be a source of a lot of the conflict between he and Bates. It certainly affected Hasselbeck’s transition to Bates’ offense (especially after the Denver game).

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 24, 2011 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

TO ratio correlates to wins, defensive TO does not

We’re talking about coaching philosophy to improve a team, not just the defense.

The followup piece I wrote is pretty much about what you’re talking about, and the fact that PC does indeed value keeping offensive TOs low, and that consistent TO margins correlate better with elite offenses than defenses.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 24, 2011 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

Of course turnover ration correlates to wins.

But you could so over emphasize preventing turnovers that you strangle the offense as well. Watching Charlie complete 75% of his passes on his way to 5 yards per attempt would do just that.

Which wasn’t my point anyways.
Beekers, you say TO ratio almost always regress to the mean. there was quite a discussion about it up above. I say so what. the stat is a byproduct, a result. Of a philosophy that nearly all good coaches share, and even a few bad ones. Turnover Thursday might have a name given it by Pete, but to pretend it is unique to Seattle is blind. And I know you aren’t pretending it is unique to Seattle.

A successful DEFENSIVE philosophy is stop the run, strip the ball, get pressure on the Q. Those are things the defense can control first if the personnel is correct and second if the scheme (or gap discipline if you prefer) is sound. The interceptions may follow, they may not. That is a stat that fluctuates wildly even in good secondaries. That is Pete’s real philosophy on defense.

His theory on offense isn’t so clear, mostly because his personnel is still in flux. But a look at most of the recent Super Bowl contenders will show that “Don’t eff it up” is hardly the stuff championship offenses are made of. It is a pretty good base for a .500 team, and a starting point we aspire to right now, but an offense that is a match up headache with a QB capable of exploiting match ups and an offensive line that gives him the time to do it is the real goal. preventing turnovers is important, but make it the primary goal and mediocrity will result.

by Harvey Manfrengenson on Aug 25, 2011 6:28 AM PDT up reply actions  

Man Rocket Surgery is my specialty

Loved the article Danny. Trying to read through the comments was like reading a Stats book. I think I’m ready for school to start.

Richie Ross

by Richard Ross on Aug 24, 2011 6:09 PM PDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

SEA!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Just How Much Do Close Games Matter Anyway?
Small
Help Me Understand How Irvin Will be Used
Turbin_game_uni_small
Hand Size and Quarterbacks
Einstein_www-txt2pic-com_small
On Pete Carroll and Previous QB Competitions

Recent FanPosts

Avatar_small
The OT Thread---12thrs, Assemble!
Horsey_small
Results from the 2012 Armchair GM Championship
Tasb_logo_small
Consider it Spun: The 5 Worst Moves of Carroll and Schneider Era in Seattle
Small
Plaxico Burress: viable option, or over the hill?
Small
Portland Seahawks Fans: Where You Be?
Small
Should Seattle Go After Kellen Winslow?
Small
Football where the head is sacred

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managing Editor/Lead Writer

Screen_shot_2012-05-04_at_10 Danny Kelly

Staff Writers/Editors

Screen_shot_2011-01-05_at_9 Scruffy Lefty

Small BrianL

Avatar_small Benne

Olympiabeer_small Tyler Jorgensen

Madhatter_small Thomas Beekers

Profilepic_small DJ C-Raig

897267_o_small Kenneth Arthur

Sbn_pic_small Jacson Bevens

Photo__1__small Charlie Todaro

Staff Writers

Small Joshua Kasparek

Photo_small Matt Erickson

Davis_small Davis Hsu

Profile2_small Rob Staton

208114_505637750968_23709013_30160241_9483_n_small Scott Enyeart

Elephant_pink_clothes_small Chris Sully

Seattle_seahawk_white_1600_reasonably_small_small Derek Stephens

Ace_small Ben Harbaugh

Bu_fb_2_small Daniel Hill

Rob_small Rob Davies