ReFo: Seahawks @ Eagles, Week 14

Discussing Sherman, Sanchez, and other notable performers, Mike Renner looks at the Week 14 Seahawks-Eagles game.

| 2 years ago
2014-REFO-WK14-SEA@PHI

ReFo: Seahawks @ Eagles, Week 14


2014-REFO-WK14-SEA@PHILincoln Financial Field played host Sunday to an NFC battle with serious playoff implications. The Eagles started the day atop the East at 9-3 while the Seahawks came in a game back of the Cardinals in the West. A game that was billed as Chip Kelly’s offense vs. the Legion of Boom saw the vaunted Seattle defense shut down Kelly like he’s never been shut down before.

The final score of 24-14 doesn’t do justice to performance the Seahawks defense put together on Sunday. The Seahawks outgained the Eagles’ offense by over 300 yards (440 to 139). Maybe more impressive, though, is that the Seahawks ran 40 more offensive plays (85 to 45). Those 45 plays are 35 fewer than the Eagles season average for 2014. Let’s take a look at the performances that led to the lopsided result.

Seattle Seahawks – Performances of Note

Richard Sherman, CB: +1.6

Breakdown: Maxwell may have flashed more on the TV screen as he saw the bulk of the targets, but it was Sherman that turned in the utterly dominant performance. Two targets, zero catches. It’s nothing new, but Sherman just changes how teams approach the Seahawks in an appreciable way. The Eagles attempted just four passes outside the numbers to the right side (Sherman’s side), compared to eight in the middle of the field and eight to the left.

Signature Stat: His 19.2 coverage snaps per reception on the season is the best rate from a starting cornerback since 2010.

Michael Bennett, DE: +4.0

Breakdown: Performances like this are becoming less and less noteworthy and more commonplace for Bennett. Easily the most complete 4-3 defensive end in the league this season, Bennett made his presence felt against both the run and pass Sunday. A sack and two hurries to go along with three stops keyed the Seahawks defensive domination.

Signature Play: It’s easy to recall his sack on the first play of the fourth quarter, but what about the sack he won’t get credit for? A little later on with 6:20 left in the fourth quarter Bennett put the exact same swim move on Andrew Gardener, only this time Mark Sanchez had a just a little more room to maneuver as he avoided Bennett but wound up in the welcoming arms of Jordan Hill who had been completely stoned on his pass rush.

James Carpenter, LG: -3.5

Breakdown: The main culprit on an offensive line that got torn to shreds in the ground game. To the left side A and B gaps, Seahawk running backs carried the ball seven times for 10 yards with all 10 coming after contact. The left guard rarely, if ever, locked in with his hands and gained control of his blocks which is a must against two-gapping defensive linemen. As such, Fletcher Cox and company were able to shed whenever the ball carrier got near enough to make a play.

Signature Play: A great example of Carpenter getting shed came at 11:34 in the fourth quarter. On that play, a simple zone read, Carpenter is just looking to seal out Cox who is lined up at the 3-technique. It’s an easy block as the left guard in that situation already has the leverage and just needs to maintain it. From the snap, though, Cox makes initial contact and gets his left hand into Carpenter’s chest. Carpenter is left to grab the outside of Cox’s shoulder pad and the defensive end is then in complete control. Cox then saw Lynch’s aiming point and easily made his way back inside for the stop.

Philadelphia Eagles – Performances of Note

Lane Johnson, RT: -5.5

Breakdown: The Eagles’ offensive line has been criticized for much of the season as being the reason behind LeSean McCoy’s struggles. While that talk has been completely unfounded, it would finally be deserved for Sunday’s performance. The Eagles came away with their lowest team run blocking grade of the season (-5.7) and the right tackle was the main culprit. Philadelphia thought they had an advantage on the edge and kept going back to their pin-and-pull sweep play. Unfortunately Johnson kept failing to pin the end man on the line of scrimmage, essentially blowing up the whole play. Throw in five pressures in just 25 pass plays and it was a day to forget.

Signature Stat: The Eagles ran the ball six times off right tackle for a total of 7 yards.

Fletcher Cox, DE: +6.4

Breakdown: No signs of slowing down for Cox. The defensive end had a career day against the run with eight stops and 11 total tackles. The former first-round pick dictated the point of attack all day long outside of his two missed tackles. It was just an average day for Cox as a pass rusher, with three hurries in 38 pass rushes, but his run defense more than made up for it.

Signature Play: With 3:58 left in the second quarter the Seahawks ran a stretch play to the left. Cox was lined up as 1-technique in the play side A-gap. Lemuel Jeanpierre was tasked with reach blocking Cox to reopen up that gap, but straight from the snap Cox drove straight through Jeanpierre taking him 3 yards deep in the backfield before shedding and making the tackle for loss.

Mark Sanchez, QB: -1.4

Breakdown: The grade doesn’t quite reflect Sanchez’ complete inability to move the offense, as some of that can be attributed to three poorly timed drops and quick sacks, but the grade does reflect the fact that Sanchez played a significant role in the offensive meltdown Sunday. With the running game at an impasse, Sanchez was given the keys to the offense in the second half and the results were predictable. It wasn’t inaccuracy as much as it was not being able to find open receivers. Of his 10 incompletions, only three were the result off off-target throws.

Signature Stat: On 10 pressured drop-backs, Sanchez went 2-6 for 16 yards with an interception and three sacks.

PFF Game Ball

There were multiple worthy candidates, but Michael Bennett made a considerable impact against both the run and pass and is deserving of this gameball.

 

Follow Mike on Twitter: @PFF_MikeRenner

 

| Senior Analyst

Mike is a Senior Analyst at Pro Football Focus. His work has also been featured on The Washington Post, ESPN Insider, and 120 Sports.

  • [email protected]

    I was shocked at how much the Eagles protected Mark Sanchez. He only made 2 or 3 real pass attempts where he dropped back and scanned the field. It was all clever misdirection, short easy throws.

    This is the gameplan that all backup QB’s should have, but it shows what they really think of Mark Sanchez.

    • nogoodnamesleft90210

      Yet according to PFF grades, Sanchez (-1.4 in 46 snaps) actually outplayed Wilson (-3.5 in 91 snaps) in both total and per snap performance. I would like it if the ReFocus articles would make some effort to reconcile these disparities in grades vs. actual results. If there was any reason Seattle could sustain drives and Philly couldn’t, it was the QB play.

      • [email protected]

        If i had any faith in PFF i would be shocked by that Wilson grade. He was fantastic. I have no idea what game they were watching.

        If you want to argue that despite his good play thats the correct grade, then what good are the grades?

        • Dohkay

          Wilson would be fantastic in the Philly system. All it requires is someone who can run the read-option and have the ability to be halfway decent throwing the ball. Foles had the throwing part of it but lacked the running threat that Wilson has. Sanchez is abysmal in both areas.

          Kelly’s system is why many think Philly is a logical landing spot for RG3. They have been an elite offense despite missing one of the most critical aspects of Kelly’s offense: a mobile QB.

          • [email protected]

            For sure, but he’d never win a championship with Kelly. I think RG3 would make sense, except i fear that his knee is done. Two major knee injuries i bet he’s bone on bone in that knee now.

          • Football

            RGIII is more immature than Sherman, and that’s saying something. He’s done.

          • [email protected]

            The problem with Chip Kelly is that uptempo offense takes a terrible toll on his own defense over the course of a season. I love his play design, if he could just burn clock in the regular season he’d have it.

          • Dohkay

            I disagree. If he can create a defense that forces turnovers coupled with stellar special teams (which he has) then his offense is deadly. He is doing it without his hand-picked players so give him a few years and he will be fine.

            Besides, his read-option offense has certainly become an NFL staple. Your own team has even embraced it. Remember when people said his college-offense wouldn’t survive in the NFL?

          • [email protected]

            I agree with all that, i just don’t like the tempo. I think its destructive to a team over a full season.

          • Dohkay

            It remains to be seen. I agree it would certainly seem destructive but if he fills his team with players that have the stamina to maintain it then it’s an advantage over other teams who cannot keep up.

            It will be a fun experiment to watch.

          • [email protected]

            I guess, all the early evidence is against it. Oregon got destroyed in every BCS game, and the Pats and Broncos ran uptempo last year and by the end of the year their defenses were in shambles. Bill Belichick abandoned it and adopted Seattle’s strategy.

          • [email protected]

            I think its injuries more than stamina, both the injuries that put you out of the game and the ones that just make you not play as well.

        • john doe

          I’m a Seahawk/Packer fan. Wilson was not even good yesterday. He over/ under threw and was rarely on target. if he played on any other team he’d be considered less than ave. Personally I think he’s regressed instead of progressed this year. Currently he’s ranked about 16th or a very middle of the pack QB.

          • [email protected]

            You don’t like 300 yards rushing and passing with 3 TD’s and 0 turnovers? The whole offense was on him with the right side of the offensive line getting dominated. I knew from the first few plays that the Seahawks were going to win because Russell Wilson was in playmaker mode.

          • [email protected]

            Ranked by who? Seahawks are 7th in offensive DVOA and first in rushing.

          • john doe

            see above Homer. Wilson is nothing but middle of the pack. Exchange him with any top QB: Is the team better off with him?? No Fing way. Exchange him with Brady, Brees, Rogers, Manning. are those teams better off?? No Fing way and you know it.

          • [email protected]

            He’s at least the 5th best QB in football. If you dont want to put him over those 4 guys fine. I think he’s better than Drew Brees and Peyton Manning but its open to debate. Seattle has been too offensively brilliant the last 3 years not to acknoledge that Wilson is among the games best.

          • Football

            In other words, your a bandwagon fan

          • john doe

            Oh hardly. I’ve been following pro football since well before you were born. And I stand on what I say. Exchange Wilson with any other top flight QB. Would that team be better than they are now?? NO. Example: Exchange Wilson with Brady are the Pats better No way?? Same with Brees, Rogers, Manning, etc. Right now Wilson is middle of the pack. If not for the D he’s not even be in the conservation.

          • fact

            Good to know that people are not being fooled by Russell Vick anymore, not even the fans.

          • eYeDEF

            Ridiculous. Stop trying to front like you’re a Seahawk fan you poser. Rarely on target my ass, he made one inaccurate throw that should have been a pick. You must have gotten their unified confused mistaking Sanchez for Wilson.

          • [email protected]

            Actually that throw was right on target, he just missed the defender jumping the route. Still no turnovers for Wilson in 4 straight weeks. The seam route on 4 verts for a TD was a pretty throw.

          • eYeDEF

            It doesn’t matter it was still a bad throw he shouldn’t have made because he should have been aware of Jenkins being in position to jump the route. You’re right that it wasn’t ‘inaccurate’ per se, just horrible decision making. It’s hard for me top understand pff’s grade for this game, I’ve generally agreed with his poor grades in the past but unless they’re docking him big time for taking some unnecessary sacks which he will do because it’s part of his style of play when he scrambles I have a hard time seeing where his play was so poor.

          • [email protected]

            Oh sure its a bad play. What i find baffling is how do you reconcile what happened on the field with giving a poor grade to Russell Wilson. If he didn’t play well then who did? Apart from the fact that if you watched the game he played incredible. Seattle is now the #5 team in the NFL in offensive effeciency at some point you have to credit SOMEBODY for that. I can tell you on this day it wasn’t Marshawn Lynch.

          • eYeDEF

            Yeah at halftime you had Jimmy Johnson saying it was clear Wilson was the best player on the field. Peter King called his play ‘spectacular’ in his weekly column. I’m not one to take the opinions of a few talking heads that seriously but that’s just a small sampling of the kind of accolades that he earned from his play last Sunday from those watching. I agree with Elliott Harrison’s take that he wasn’t perfect because of that one bad throw and taking some unnecessary sacks but he was still very impressive and difference maker on offense. He’s had some poor games this year but this was not one of them and it’s hard for me to understand how anyone could claim he did that wasn’t being deliberately obtuse. This is the first game that I have to call pff’s methodoolgy into question. I’ve yet to watch the all 22 to see if I can see what they see on a rewatch because it doesn’t make much sense this game.

          • [email protected]

            Giving someone a negative grade who makes a great play because you think they should have made a different great play is beyond stupid.

            I used to really like PFF because they are contrarian and think outside the box. But the more i see the more it seems like they are just being obtuse.

          • eYeDEF

            I have a hard time seeing your point on this. All evaluation is subjective, that doesn’t make it ‘impossible’ to assign grades in a manner that it’s consistent and respectable so long as the info used to attain it is complete.

          • [email protected]

            They don’t have the information, and they aren’t qualified to do the evaluation. They don’t know what Richard Sherman’s assignment was, theyre just guessing.

          • randy

            Yet their grades and analysis are used extensively throughout the league and about half the league pays them for extra services? Think there’s plenty of credibility there

          • [email protected]

            That is not true. They assert that half the teams pay them for stats. (which we do not know if that is even true). Those stats include very basic housekeeping like numbers of plays. I guarantee their analysis is not used by any winning NFL team. Or maybe we should ask the Vikings about that?

          • eYeDEF

            And you know this how?

          • [email protected]

            Because no winning team could be that stupid. There is a team that was ‘revolutionizing’ the use of statistics in football i read a big article about it 3 years ago. The Jacksonville Jags. They had just made a big decision on a young quarterback and they dug deep into advanced statistics and decided that the QB showed promise and kept him another year. Blaine Gabbert.

          • eYeDEF

            Your anecdote proves nothing. Teams wouldn’t be paying for the analysis if it were useless.

          • [email protected]

            We don’t know if that is true, and bulk stats are not analysis. Whats 20 bucks to a NFL team?

          • Steve Palazzolo

            NFL teams pay for much more than is available on the site – they get access to the entire database including the play by play grading. Feedback has been extremely positive with our clients and that information is certainly worth more than a $26.99 yearly subscription.

          • eYeDEF

            You make it sound like all complicated guess work when it is not. Based on the fact they play a zone and cover 3 most of the time it’s quite easy to deduce who his assignment is. Least of which is just watching who he’s trying to cover. It’s only rare instances where there might be some confusion.

          • [email protected]

            How do you judge coverage if the ball isn’t thrown? The best corners will try to create the illusion that a receiver is open so that the ball will be thrown. If you look at Sherman’s pick of Sanchez in 2012 he clearly did that. He was pretending to take no notice of the receiver.

          • eYeDEF

            Simple. A DB is not graded on plays where a ball doesn’t come his way. It’s not rocket science.

          • [email protected]

            Thats not any better. If the ball isn’t thrown his way he’s at least ostensibly doing his job? This is what i’m saying, its just an impossible task.

            PFF themselves named Sherman and Thomas to their pro bowl list in 2013 despite neither of them being the top in their positions. They don’t even trust their own grades.

          • eYeDEF

            That’s why they have signature stats like receptions per coverage snaps to better take those factors into account when grading cornerbacks, of which Sherman currently leads for the season. It’s only impossible if applying your superficial analysis.

          • [email protected]

            Thats not a solution. One stat is flawed so you bring in another stat that is also flawed to fix the problems in the first stat.

            My superficial analysis? I’m not the one grading players. How is my analysis superficial? Its their grades that are superficial.

          • eYeDEF

            Because you’re doing an inadequate job of explaining why your critique is not superficial. How is receptions per coverage snap a flawed stat? Not to mention, your criticism of their grading of cornerbacks because they aren’t graded when the ball isn’t thrown is frankly ridiculous. It can’t be done because there’s nothing to grade. That would bee like trying to grade a receiver for receptions he never made. PFF doesn’t try to do the impossible. Nor should it. But for some reason the fact that they don’t try to evaluate the impossible is why you think they can’t do anything at all, which is just an absurd argument.

          • [email protected]

            I’m saying that all statistics are flawed. A grading system for individual players is an impossible task. Football is the ultimate team sport. That is what i’m saying.

          • eYeDEF

            And what I’m saying is that you’ve done a wholly inadequate job of explaining why. All you’ve done is throw your hands up in the air and say the equivalent of “I don’t understand stats so it’s impossible to use them” and what I’m saying is that your lack of understanding really has no bearing on the utility of stats.

          • [email protected]

            What utility do they have? Explain it to me i’d like to hear it.

          • eYeDEF

            They provide better insight into player and team performance if interpreted properly. It’s funny and hypocritical that you would dismiss stats yet cite dvoa, like you can’t make up your mind.

          • [email protected]

            What insight do they provide? PFF gets barely 60% in NFL games straight up. You could do better just picking the favorite.

          • eYeDEF

            You’re talking about something completely different. You’re talking about predicting the future. I never said anything about that, I was talking about evaluating performance. I would recommend taking a stat class, because your ignorance of the subject is too profound for me to educate you. If you don’t recognize the value of stats that’s really your issue, but you shouldn’t expect anyone educated to agree with you.

          • [email protected]

            I wasn’t expecting most people to agree with me, considering i came to a statistics website. Statistics is as valid as astrology, i don’t need to take a statistics or astrology class to know that theyre bunk.

          • eYeDEF

            That’s a very predictable response coming from someone that doesn’t understand stats. It makes you come across like a flat earther though.

          • [email protected]

            I understand them perfectly, if i criticized voodoo or astrology they would say the exact same things that you are saying.

          • eYeDEF

            Not at all. Based on the questions you’ve asked me on the topic like why can’t stats help you predict the future it couldn’t be more clear that you’re completely ignorant about there subject matter. You lack any and all credibility to have a relevant opinion on a subject you so fundamentally misunderstand. It’s no wonder you treat it like voodoo. That’s why I think it’s rather hilarious that you think your opinion somehow matters. The academic, scientific, and business communities that use statistics to advance their fields and organizations on a daily basis could care less that you think they’re practicing voodoo. What you think isn’t relevant to anyone.

          • [email protected]

            The great thing about statistics, is that it just doesn’t support the right answer. It supports any possible answer you happen to fancy.

          • eYeDEF

            Nope. That’s a common refrain by those that lack the intellect and sophistication to recognize when stats are being used dishonestly and/or incorrectly, although you’ll sometimes hear it repeated by academics and intellectuals in half jest because it’s true in the sense that they can be used to easily deceive the great unwashed masses who don’t know any better like yourself. The joke is largely on you though. Any first quarter stat student would have been taught the dangers of confusing the ‘signal from the noise’ so to speak in mathematical terms and taught how best to isolate the signal and filter out the noise in striving to come up with the most accurate statistical models. Your propensity to get hoodwinked by charlatans wielding statistics is hardly an indictment of an academic field that has made countless contributions to scientific and industrial progress and advancement. You just look idiotic repeating a statement like that without having a clue about the sentiment behind it.

          • [email protected]

            I didn’t take statistics, i was good at math. Statistics is for people who are majoring in theatre or journalism.

          • eYeDEF

            Maybe at the vocational school you went to. At any legitimate accredited four year university statistics is a requirement for any science, engineering, or business degree.

          • [email protected]

            You sir are on drugs. For science and engineering you take real math.

          • eYeDEF

            The field has come a long way in 50 years. You’re clearly a dinosaur to not be aware of degree requirements requiring stats that have been in effect for at least the last 25 years. You should consider getting up to speed by taking a class or facing what the dinosaurs did … extinction. Because you’re clearly out of touch right now with the modern world.

          • [email protected]

            So what you’re saying is that the field has come a long ways? Theyre no longer participating in genocide?

          • eYeDEF

            Looks like you’re off your meds again old man. You’re babbling gibberish. Your nursing home isn’t doing your senility any favors.

          • [email protected]

            Google eugenics and adolf hitler.

          • eYeDEF

            Dude you’ve seriously lost the plot. Look up ‘dementia’ and ‘non sequiturs’, you’re afflicted with lots of both to go from railing on stats to railing on genocide. Either that or you’re stupider than I even thought.

          • [email protected]

            You obviously didnt do it, because the founders of statistical science also at the same time founded eugenics. Maybe they didn’t commit genocide, but they were cheerleaders for it.

          • eYeDEF

            Wrong again dumb dumb. The field of modern statistics initially emerged in the late 19th century with the work of Sir Francis Galston and Karl Pearson. Your embarrassing yourself again Scott.

          • monkey

            Now there’s a good question!
            We all know that Lynch didn’t do a whole lot, at least not compared to what he so often does, and none of the receivers had a monster game, (though Baldwin had a very good game) in fact, the ball was thrown around, almost evenly distributed to just about everyone who was eligible to catch a pass, (as Wilson virtually always does when he’s really playing good football). The offensive line was fine, hardly anything to write home about…yet they scored points and kept drives alive, out gaining, out converting and out scoring the Eagles by ridiculous amounts.
            So if Russell Wilson wasn’t responsible for that, as a guy who threw two TD ran in another and had zero turnovers, then who was???

          • Dohkay

            Did he play defense too? His performance shouldn’t be graded against the performance of the opposing offense. They are independent of each other. The opposing offense managed 140 yards and 14 points. If that was the bar set for every QB than the grades would be wildly inflated.

          • RA

            Not true, he actually was throwing high quiet a few times. IIRC he had one to Prich and one to Lockette that if thrown in stride could have been HUGE gains.

          • [email protected]

            Who cares? He was off a couple throws. He made plays all day long and didn’t turn the ball over. He’s not an elite pocket passer, but he’s an elite QB. His feet are part of his game.

            He’s much tougher to shut down than a one dimensional QB.

          • monkey

            As someone who has watched every pro game he’s played closely, I call bull on that post john doe!
            He had a terrific game considering how well the Eagles front seven played, and how well they game planned for him, using a spy on some plays, rushing him on others.
            I thought it was one of the best game plans any team has tried to use to stop him all year, and it worked at causing plenty of pass pressure too.
            Wilson still kept drives alive, in spite of the good game plan and pressure, and he did it by converting several third and long situations FROM THE POCKET.

            Regressed? I’m not seeing it.

        • fact

          Wilson is a system QB.

          Right now he is only better than Jay Cutler, the rookies and the sophomores.

          That’s just seven QBs.

          • [email protected]

            Go troll somewhere else.

          • eYeDEF

            What system? There is no system when the play breaks down and he improvised, making something out of nothing. There is no system or way a defense can game plan for that.

          • [email protected]

            Russell Wilson plays in the Russell Wilson system that he’s played in since highschool. He’s only good because of that system.

      • [email protected]

        Let me see if i can find the right way to say this, PFF only likes obscure players. Russell Wilson is now too famous to get a good grade. He got almost nothing but positive grades until he won the superbowl now its been almost nothing but negative.

        They’re like the guy who only likes bands until they become popular. I’m not quite using the right words, but i hope you get what i’m saying.

        • john doe

          BTW did you watch the same game I did??? Or are you just a blind homer??

          • [email protected]

            You mean the game where the Seattle offense went on long drive after long drive eating up the clock and keeping the opposing offense off the field? Where they had 450 yards of offense against a very good defense?

        • Jefferson

          Last two weeks of grading Wilson are even more absurd than usual for this year. Preposterous if you actually watched game with any qualitative grasp of what was going on.

          According to PFF Wilson was the second worst offensive player on the Seahakws, third worst on the field altogether yesterday! A complete liability, OBVIOUSLY. If only they could have swapped out Wilson for Sanchez, with his markedly superior game grade, the Hawks would have truly dominated!!!

          The only rational explanation: PFF has exclusively subcontracted grading of Wilson to Dohkay.

          • Dohkay

            Wilson’s YPA and YIA…

            2012 – 7.93 / 61.6%
            2013 – 8.25 / 56.9%
            2014 – 7.34 / 44.6%

            Gee, I wonder why PFF is so down on him this year???

          • [email protected]

            I can believe that is an explanation. Its totally ass backwards, but i can see them looking at it that way. I give him points for making the offense work despite all the problems (Rice retiring and Tate going to Det) and they dock him points for it not looking pretty.

          • Dohkay

            Scott – you’re free to come up with excuses as to why his passing numbers are so down but PFF doesn’t look at who he’s throwing too but rather what Wilson does independent of anyone else.

            By the way, Harvin had 1 catch in 2013 so he didn’t lose him… he never had him to begin with. Also, one would think losing the YAC leader would INCREASE his YIA… not decrease it.

            Keep fishing.

          • [email protected]

            Rice was the #1 receiver and Tate was #2. Russell Wilson lost his top 2 receivers and his TE. Its not an excuse we’re 9-4, but that is why its not as pretty. We’re still a top 10 offense.

          • Dohkay

            Ah, of course, my mistake… how does one replace 15 catches for 230 yards? That’s almost Julio Jones vs. Green Bay numbers last night!

          • [email protected]

            Are you going to tell me with a straight face you thought Russell Wilson played poorly vs Philly?

          • Dohkay

            Yes. He had 49 touches and produced 300 yards. For a RB – great numbers. For a QB, that’s atrocious.

          • [email protected]

            I’m not talking about stats, when you watched the game with your eyeballs did you think he played poorly?

          • Dohkay

            Yes, and I watched the entire game. The reason Mark Sanchez graded better than Wilson was because he had less touches. If he had 50 touches instead of 25 I’m sure he’d have graded just as poorly as Wilson if it makes you feel better. Both QBs were awful.

          • [email protected]

            If Russell Wilson played poorly and Marshawn Lynch didnt do much and the offensive line got dominated. How did Seattle dominate the game?

          • Dohkay

            Seattle’s defense held Philly to 139 TOTAL yards and 14 points. Prior to the Seattle game Philly was averaging 416 total yards and 31.3 points. Do you honestly think Seattle’s offense was the reason that game was won?

          • [email protected]

            Thats not how it works, you know you’ve backed yourself into a corner. Strength of opponent is NOT a factor in the ratings as you know full well. Its impossible for both offenses to play equally and one outgain the other by 300 yards.

          • Dohkay

            So now we’re arguing about the total PFF grades for both offenses? Volume wise you dominated the game with 85 plays to their 45. On a yards per play basis both offenses were awful, though Philly was still worse and accoridng to PFF’s grades was much worse as well. Their overall offensive grade was lower than Seattle’s despite running half as many plays. Pro-rate it and Philly’s offense would have been far worse, but regardless, Seattle’s offense was bad too.

            If your point is that Philly’s offense was worse I’m in agreement. That doesn’t change the fact that your offense was inefficient and ineffective. The Seattle defense was the reason you won that game. They held Philly to 14 points and even provided a turnover at the PHI 19 which led to an easy Seattle score on offense. It’s clear to most people except you. What a surprise.

          • [email protected]

            Well, let me explain how football works. One team has the ball at a time. When you convert 3rd downs and keep moving the ball thats called an effective offense.

          • Dohkay

            Is it still effective when you put up 24 points on 13 drives? What would you rather have? Long, time-consuming drives that end in nothing or quick drives that result in 7? Can you win games controlling the clock but not scoring?

          • [email protected]

            Obviously you need to score, but they did that too. A long drive that doesn’t score is a lot better than a quick 3 and out. When you use that much clock, 24 points is tough to beat. A lot of games are won by the first team that can move the ball and start wearing down the other defense.

          • Dohkay

            Scott, come on man. You had two drives take over 5 minutes and two drives that covered more than 50 yards. 5 of Seattle’s drives took less than 2 minutes.

            The reason you won was because your defense forced 8 of Philadelphia’s drives to end in 2 minutes or less and allowed ONE DRIVE TO COVER MORE THAN 25 YARDS. It was arguably the best defensive performance of the season.

          • [email protected]

            Offense -> 11 plays(punt), 3 plays, 11 plays(TD), 3 plays, 12 plays(punt), 10 plays(fg), 7 plays (TD)… In first 7 drives only 2 drives were 3 and out and they scored 2 TD’s and a FG.

            This is an offense thats horrible? Just don’t see it.

          • Dohkay

            Nice selection. What if I use the second half string of punt, punt, fumble, punt… adds a little context, no?

            The goal of an offense is to score. You scored on 33% of your possessions (I’m not counting the final drive which ran the clock out). That’s not a good rate. You can BS all you want about TOP but I guarantee if you asked Pete Carroll what he’d rather have, long time-consuming possession ending in a punt or FG or 15 second drive ending in a TD then he would take the latter.

          • [email protected]

            The game was over once the Seahawks went up 17-7. That was just a bunch of running out the clock at the end. It was clear that the Seahawks could score and Sanchez couldnt.

          • Dohkay

            Except Philly scored a TD right after to make it a 17-14 game. You actually believe Seattle was more concerned with milking the clock with a 10-point lead and 25 minutes remaining in the game. You are a clown.

            It’s funny when people like eyeDEF and john doe, fellow Seattle fans, are calling you a moron. That’s when you really know you’re a fool. Later Scott.

          • [email protected]

            What happened after that? Russell Wilson went straight down the field and made it a 10 point lead again. Yes, Seattle was milking the clock almost the entire second half. That is EXACTLY what i am saying. I’m glad you finally get it, you aren’t as stupid as i thought.

          • [email protected]

            john doe is NOT a Seahawks fan. He’s just a Packers fan trolling by pretending to be a Hawks fan.

          • eYeDEF

            You can’t be serious. Only one of those qbs consistently extended drives on 3rd down. There’s a reason why Sanchez didn’t play as many snaps, because he wasn’t making the plays to be able to. Looks like the weekly All22 reconcile has begun as Wilson’s grade had already gone up a half point.

          • Dohkay

            The Hawks were 7/16 on 3rd down of which Wilson accounted for 4/14. He was not good. Outside of two long drives, Wilson and Sanchez simply swapped quick, short yardage drives with the exception of one short TD drive by both thanks to TOs by the opposition.

          • [email protected]

            So what you’re saying is. That apart from Russell Wilson the Seahawks converted 3 first downs in only 2 oppportunities? Thats pretty good!

          • Dohkay

            4/13 – so much better now right?

          • [email protected]

            I think its pretty easy to see that your numbers are bs.

          • Dohkay

            Scott – judging by the fact that you apparently troll these boards waiting for people to comment on them I’m confident you can take the time to check the numbers for yourself.

          • [email protected]

            Thats pretty funny, you post more than anybody here. I’m a Seahawks fan what are you doing in the Seahawks games every week? Trolling.

          • Dohkay

            I post when someone replies to my comment. You somehow commented 5 minutes after my reply to eYeDEF despite you not ever being notified of a comment since no one replied to you. Clearly you just patrol the Hawks boards waiting for someone to comment… feel free to refute my point. He was responsible for 4 of the 13 conversions. An offsides and two rushing plays accounted for the other 3.

          • [email protected]

            Yes, thats completely different *rolls eyes*. I saw a ‘new post’ thing pop up while i was writing.

          • eYeDEF

            The Eagles struggled all night defending against Wilson’s deep pass. On deep balls, Wilson went 7-of-12 for 147 yards and a touchdown. A 13th deep ball resulted in a 44-yard DPI.

            You want to know how many deep passes Sanchez completed?

          • Dohkay

            I’m not arguing that Sanchez was better. Re-read my comment. If Sanchez had the opportunity to attempt more passes he would have been even worse. Wilson performing better than Sanchez does not equate to Wilson performing well.

          • [email protected]

            Its cute how you come here to defend your buddies at PFF, do they at least give you a free premium? Nobody in the world thinks Russell Wilson had a bad game other than you and PFF.

            You know i’m not a statistics believer, but its safe to say that no QB in the history of the NFL has had 311 yards rushing and passing with 3 TD’s and 0 turnovers and had a BAD day.

          • Dohkay

            You are the one paying them by reading and commenting on all of their articles. If you are so against them then quit clicking on their content!

            The guy below feels your and Russell’s pain… he racked up 250 yards and 2 TDs with no turnovers in multiple games and got negative grades from PFF. Aw, shucks!

            https://www.profootballfocus.com/data/by_player.php?tab=by_player&season=2011&pre=REG&page=0&surn=tebow&playerid=5550

          • [email protected]

            I’m not paying them, just admit that you’re a brown noser. Its ok. Everybody has a skill.

          • Dohkay

            You realize that by clicking on their article you are making them money, right? Do I need to break that one down for you as well?

          • [email protected]

            I make a lot of people money, its not the same as paying them. Every place i work for i make them a lot of money, but they pay me.

          • eYeDEF

            Ok, I’m re-reading it, and you definitely allude to Wilson playing on some equal level as poorly as Sanchez when that simply wasn’t the case. You also described his performance as ‘awful’ when he was responsible for scoring 3 touchdowns and outscoring his opponent. I’m not sure how anyone could objectively watch that game and call his performance ‘awful’. Awful was his play against the raiders and the giants when he couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn. Not a game where he’s 7 of 12 on deep passes, throws for a couple scores and runs for another, yet this is the worst grade he’s received every from PFF if it remains where it is now.

          • Dohkay

            He was awful and I’m sticking to it. 300 yards on 49 plays is inefficient for a QB whether it’s all passing or running/passing. Tim Tebow had similar games and was graded poorly by PFF. Yards and TDs can be misleading when you leave even more out there.

            Wilson went 7/12 on deep passes – very impressive, no doubt and PFF gave him a +2.1 grade on those. He had a very nice TD run as well but then had 9 rushes for 22 yards.

            In my opinion he made some great plays and then a lot of bad ones. Three TDs and outscoring an opponent that managed 14 on two short fields doesn’t impress me.

            Holding a Chip Kelly offense to FAR below their season averages in yards and points does. If you hold an opponent to 140 yards over an entire game you should probably have the game wrapped up by the first half.

          • eYeDEF

            Interesting, so you’re basing your judgement of his playing ‘awful’ on how many yards he gained per attempt irrespective of how many scores he produced. It really doesn’t matter how many yards the defense held the opposing offense to when 14 points were still put on the board that he had to exceed to win. So you judge qb performance purely by yards per attempt. Well he did have 5 throw aways, but ok, that’s an unusual way of doing things imo but If that’s the way you set your standard I can see how you came to your judgement. But not taking scoring into account seems kind of short sighted to me.

          • Dohkay

            Seattle’s 5 longest drives (out of 13): 91 (TD), 82 (TD), 43 (Punt), 41 (FG), 38 (Punt). I give little credit for a TD when you start a drive in the redzone. He had two great drives. The rest were mediocre or awful (5 resulted in less than 20 yards).

            This is largely the point I’ve been making about Wilson on other posts as well. His defense routinely puts him in favorable positions. For his career, his average starting point is the 31-yard line and he has 0.9 drives per game start inside the opposition’s 35-yard line (i.e. already in FG range). His defense forces over 2 turnovers per game. They surrender 15.9 PPG. All of these factors make his job much easier. I think those factors inflate his stats and last week’s game was a prime example.

            If Philly could have strung together a few decent drives (their longest was 54 yards and next longest was 25…) and put more points on the board then suddenly 24 is not enough. As is almost always the case, Wilson didn’t need to do anything more. When his defense allows 17 or less he’s 29-2. When they allow 18 or more he’s 8-11. Why?

            By the way, I look at yards per play (passes, runs, and sacks) and his 6.12 YPP was below his career average by a half yard. I think that’s pretty telling.

          • eYeDEF

            Okay but you’re kind of contradicting yourself since two of 3 scores he engineered were on long drives. If you’re going to be dismissive of short field scores, then at least be consistent when be scores on long drives. How can you reconcile 2 of 3 scores coming on long drives with calling his play ‘awful’? I’m not saying he played exceptionally but ‘awful’ seems pretty delusional to me. I guess I just value scoring much more than yards than you do since its the difference between winning and losing. Yards per attempt means nothing if they’re not accompanied by a score.

          • Dohkay

            I called them great drives. The problem is he only had 2 compared with 10 mediocre ones (the final drive was to run out the clock). That’s a bad day in my book. Plenty of QBs engineer multiple 80 yard drives and typically with fewer than 12 total drives.

            I value scoring but are you saying Wilson’s day would have been less impressive if those two drives had ended in Lynch TDs? Then you look at his 300 yards and 1 TD and deem it worse simply because he handed it off? That’s why I value YPP. If a QB has 300 yards on 30 touches but his RB finishes off 3 drives for the TD I don’t consider that QB’s line worse than a guy who has 300 yards on 50 touches but also has two TDs. Maybe that’s just me.

          • eYeDEF

            Absolutely not, why would I? I don’t consider a quarterback’s performance as impressive if he’s handing off most of the time than of he’s creating the yardage himself. Why would anyone? Just like how it’s not as impressive if the qb doesn’t score himself but hands it off it’s not as impressive for the qb. If the idea is to isolate and grade on the individual performance of the qb it would be ridiculous to grade him based on the production of his running back.

          • Dohkay

            You didn’t answer my question… Let’s try it again. Both offenses score 24 points. Which QB was better?

            QB A: 22/37, 250 yards and 2 TDs plus 10 carries for 50 yards and 1 TD

            QB B: 22/30, 249 yards and 1 TD plus 5 carries for 49 yards and 0 TDs (his RB finished off two of the drives with 1 yard scores)

            I would say B. Sure, he had less TDs but he scored the same number of points on offense and was more efficient. I don’t penalize him because his RB vultured a few TDs.

          • eYeDEF

            Since we’re isolating for individual performance I would pick A. The flaw in your methodology is that there’s no guarantee the qb would have scored if the running back didn’t, so it’s not really accurate to use the word ‘vultured’. I’ll give you a prime example of how your analysis really falls flat. The seahawks giants game earlier this year when Wilson abandoned the pass early after after being horribly inaccurate on a handful of throws. You would consider his performance in that game more impressive than in the last one even though he was only personally responsible for one of five touchdowns scored. The rest of the time he was handing off to lynch. But using your logic he finished off drives by feeding lynch the ball to score on four drives while running one in himself out of 10 drives total so you would find that a more impressive performance by him. I would point out that you’re adding irrelevant externalities like the performance off his running back in grading his performance PFF goes to lengths to try and avoid.

          • Dohkay

            Yes the Giants game where he also had 2 INTs and a fumble. You’re arguing like Scott now. I’m not saying YPP is the end all be all nor am I saying that handing off is more impressive than throwing it. It’s one factor to look at so that you’re not blinded by TDs. How anyone could look at my example of A and B above in an IDENTICAL game where the only difference is 2 one yard TD runs by the RB but also 12 less plays for A (I.e. Far more efficient) and still choose B is proof of being obtuse and stubborn.

            Wilson had a few fantastic plays last week. Unfortunately he also had many terrible plays. Had Lynch scored those TDs on one yard plunges would you suddenly agree that his performance was awful? Is that all it takes in your book?

          • eYeDEF

            Man you are ruthless. Arguing like Scott eh? So we’re going to get personal are we? Scott resorts to fabricating stuff out of thin air to support his arguments. I don’t do that. I said I would choose A because like I said we’re trying to isolate for a qb’s individual performance and there’s no guarantee the qb in your hypothetical scenario would have been able to score. He might have, but then again he might not have. Had lynch and not Wilson scored on those drives, no it wouldn’t have been as impressive an individual performance by Wilson because he wasn’t the one instrumental to the scoring play. There is such a thing as red zone offense that’s been quite a bit more challenging than merely sustaining drives, not just for Seattle but also for Philly in spite of their high powered offense. So it’s odd you would think I’m being stubborn or obtuse because I place a premium on the player able to complete a drive with 6 points.

            And I have to say, looking at the drive chart right now it looks like you’re the one not being honest here. There weren’t 10 failed drives by Wilson like you keep claiming. Only six ended in punts. Four ended in scores, three by him and one field goal. Two other drives stalled after a fumble by lynch and a fumble by the punter, and the last drive was a kneel down. Neither turnover, obviously, was his fault. So if one of us is arguing like Scott here, sad to say, it appears to be you. And here I thought you were above that.

          • Dohkay

            Haha my bad. That’s a big insult and I shouldn’t have gone there. I’m just going to agree to disagree on the player A and B comparisons. I don’t put a premium on goal line TDs. You do. Neither is wrong.

            By the way, the Ryan fumble was on a fourth down and the Lynch fumble was on a dump off pass on third and long. Both of those drives were going to be failed drives. They just ended in fumbles instead of punts.

          • [email protected]

            I thought he played exceptionally, he was going to win that football game or get carried out on a stretcher.

            I think we can put to bed the myth that you can keep Russell Wilson in the pocket. All you can do is not force him out. He can leave whenever he wants.

          • Dohkay

            LOL at “carried out on a stretcher”. You hear that PFF? I believe that’s worth +5 right there!

          • [email protected]

            Your quarterback from wherever you are from isn’t a winner like Russell Wilson, you’ll understand when you have one.

          • Dohkay

            8-11 when his defense gives up 18 or more. I’m still waiting for your excuse on this LOSING record, Scott…

          • Krap luhC

            4 of those came in his rookie campaign, one in his first start vs AZ, game 4 vs the Rams, a loss to DET on a last minute TD, and to ATL in the playoff loss. Last year, lost to IND although SEA outgained them 423-317, loss to 49ers in a defensive battle. This past year, yeah he played poorly vs DAL, and SD. But what are you trying to point out? That our defense failed to make crucial stops in the ATL, DAL, SD, and KC? He can’t play defense too so I’m trying to figure out where you feel his losing record shows he’s a middle of the pack QB. If you look at the stats in those games I pointed out, his stats were pretty good. If the Hawks defense is so stout then 28, 21, 23, 20, 28 points scored should be good enough to win, right stat guy? He gets the job done. You can cut it up however you want. 26 TD passes with a QB rating of over 100 each of the past 2 seasons (he’s 95 this year) is no fluke.

          • Dohkay

            The quarterback position is much easier when you are not asked to put up 20+ points to win. It’s why Alex Smith has an almost identical record with Wilson over the past three seasons despite being a MASSIVE bust.

            Most QBs don’t have the benefit of having a defense give up 16 points or less on average and often times have to take more risks and score quickly rather than be able to pick your spots and not have to worry about scoring on every drive. Imagine if he had a league average defense…

          • [email protected]

            More statistics than you manipulate to try to prove some point. <– This is me not caring.

          • Dohkay

            I preferred your line about Wilson suffocating the other teams time of possession. Of course you had to edit as usual… Later Scottie.

          • [email protected]

            This is why i hate statistics, he’s lumping running plays in with passing plays and then saying that is too low of an average for passes.

          • Dohkay

            Wilson bails the pocket early and runs too much. Take out his long TD run and his other 9 carries went for 22 yards. I’d venture a guess that a better QB would manage more than 22 yards on 9 pass attempts. Hence, I group them together.

            There’s a reason Peyton Manning still has a higher yards per play than Wilson even though he’s a statue in the pocket. Passing is almost always the most efficient play for a QB.

          • [email protected]

            Lol, Russell Wilson had top 5 yards per attempt until he lost all his receivers. Both in 2012 and 2013.

          • Dohkay

            He didn’t lose all his WRs. Sidney Rice, Golden Tate, and Percy Harvin accounted for 1/3 of his passing yards last season and I seem to recall Seattle drafting a rookie in the 2nd round this year…

          • Jefferson

            You wouldn’t know a good play, by Wilson at least, if it hit you in the head. Your lack of fundamental football knowledge has been exposed time and again here. Quit while you’re behind.

            Each week Wilson overcomes shockingly bad OL and terribly limited WR play to win ball games. The Seahawks were bad until he arrived and have been Superbowl contenders on a consistent basis ever since. Coincidence? It’s just the defense? Yeah right. Take your axe and grind it somewhere else you brainless, stat-distorting troll.

          • Dohkay

            Back to back 7-9 seasons including a playoff win equates to being bad? Matt Hasselbeck and Tavaris Jackson won 7 games with half the defense that Wilson had. Chancellor, Sherman, wright, Thomas, etc. all hit their 2nd or 3rd years in Wilson’s rookie season. That would certainly help don’t you think? Look at their defensive rank over the past 5 seasons and tell me that it was the same please. Talk about stat distorting.

            I enjoy watching the Hawks play because you have one of the hardest hitting defenses since the 2000 Ravens teams. I dislike hearing that Wilson is the reason you win since it’s painfully obvious to most people that Lynch and the defense are the main reason they succeed. You and Scott are a couple of clowns unwilling to accept that.

          • Dohkay

            Will you stop editing your posts??? Every time I respond your comment changes.

          • Jefferson

            Interesting that Dohkay has come full circle now, backing the absolute authority of PFF grades. Obviously then he has finally come to accept why Russell Wilson’s career grades are superior to those of Andrew Luck, for good reason. I’m sooooo glad we don’t have to talk about that anymore.

            Now, back to this GAME and Wilson’s epic near league-wide low performance, which is the relevant topic (not Wilson’s entire season which of course is somewhat down from baseline set over the last two years).

            The evidence is in and once again it is clear that broadcast footage is not sufficient to grade a QB. Case closed:

            http://www.fieldgulls.com/football-breakdowns/2014/12/10/7363165/russell-wilsons-all-22-quarterback-evaluation-nfl

          • [email protected]

            I agree about the footage but that is not the only problem. You also have this formulaic system where each play is graded independently instead of looking at the whole picture.

          • Dohkay

            Which is why they have signature stats… the grades are counting plays. That’s why Wilson graded worse than Sanchez. He had double the snaps… are you really that dense?

          • [email protected]

            Do you even have a point? We’re talking about grades. I guess you are agreeing with me that the grades are flawed? Thanks i guess?

          • Dohkay

            If you only use the grades you miss out on a lot. Just like if you only look at TDs or only look at yards. It only tells part of the story. Richard Sherman ranks 4th in cumulative grades for CBs. As we know, most QBs avoid Sherman (unless you’re Kaep). That’s why refer to their signature stats for Coverage which has Sherman in 1st by a wide margin.

          • Dohkay

            I’ve never blindly accepted their grades. The main issue of course is competition which they don’t adjust for along with not adjusting for what’s asked of a QB. Wilson has the least amount on his shoulders. Hand it off, hand it off, don’t throw an INT we have the lead and our defense never gives up more than a few TDs!

            29-2 when the D surrenders 17 or less. 8-11 when they give up 18 or more. I’ll await your explanation on that one…

            By the way, PFF revises their grades after the All-22. He still graded out at -3 after the revision. Sorry bud. Back to field gulls to commiserate!

  • Football

    And the Seahawks cheat their way to another win

    • [email protected]

      When the big bad Seahawks come to town you have to beg for help from the officials.

      • Football

        Or pay them, like Pete Carroll

        • [email protected]

          He should stop paying them then, because we have the largest penalty differential in the league.

          • Football

            You’d have more if the refs called defensive holding on every play like they should

          • [email protected]

            I never thought i’d say this: i hate Football.

          • Griffonian

            Damn man, the refs changed how they’re calling pass defense because of the Seahawks and yet it still isn’t good enough for crybabies like you.

            The Seahawks just have the most talented secondary in the league, bar none. They can cover any team.

            It’s football, the more aggressive team tends to win. Finesse teams like the Eagles get manhandled, so whiney fans like you complain. It’s a pretty funny cycle.

          • Football

            They can cover anyone because the refs don’t call defensive holding on them every play, like they should. Pretty simple.

          • eYeDEF

            It’s pretty simple that you don’t understand what DPI is.

          • [email protected]

            He’s just a troll. Don’t bother he’s just going to repeat boring ad hominem attacks.

          • eYeDEF

            If your theory had any merit the seahawks would lead the league in DPI penalties. Instead they have a grand total of 5 which is totally middle of the pack, and which pretty much destroys your narrative. IME, those like you that whine about DPI generally don’t have any understanding of what is and isn’t DPI. I encourage you to become more familiar with the rules…

    • john doe

      Listen to the crybaby.

  • Anicra

    Until this year, I could watch the game and be pretty dang close to what PFF scores. This year you constantly see goofy scores where you have to wonder, are they watching the same game.

    Whats the most concerning…Screen shot the scores and then check in 4 days, the values will change again.

    • [email protected]

      http://www.nfl.com/videos/seattle-seahawks/0ap3000000440611/Week-14-Russell-Wilson-highlights

      If you think this is a player who had a bad game, i don’t have anything to say to you.

      • Mike Renner

        Lot of discussion about Wilson’s grade in the comments and how it didn’t match up with the stats so I thought I’d respond with what I saw.

        First off the grading process for quarterbacks hasn’t changed one bit from last year and it’s the same criteria that saw Wilson grade in the top 10 his first two seasons.

        As a passer this season he’s simply been less of a downfield threat as a passer and that has shown in his considerably lower yards per attempt this season. He’s also made some poor decisions that went unpenalized with seven dropped interceptions on the year by our count.

        This was no different on Sunday with two dropped interceptions that would have made his performance look a lot different on a stat sheet, especially the one dropped my Malcolm Jenkins midway through the fourth quarter. Wilson also took two delay of game penalties and waited too long in the pocket before taking an intentional grounding penalty that took them out of field goal range. He also got lucky to not get hit with an illegal man downfield penalty on a busted screen that went for a 25 yard pass to Baldwin late in the first quarter.

        Throw in a handful of missed throws to go along with the great plays that he made that everyone remembers and that’s how you get to the negative grade.

        As always if you want grades or things I said explained further feel free to ask me on Twitter or leave comments here which I’ll check throughout the week.

        • RA

          http://www.fieldgulls.com/football-breakdowns/2014/12/10/7363165/russell-wilsons-all-22-quarterback-evaluation-nfl

          2 near INT’s? Are you considering the PI call a possible INT? Your explanation would make sense if Sanchez didnt grade higher. For me this is a perfect example of how the grading system is broken. No single person in their right mind would say Sanchez had a better game than Wilson. I know it, You know it, The Eagles know it, everyone knows it.

          • Mike Renner

            Q3-0.12 and Q4-7:52 were both dropped interceptions. Not sure either are really debatable. The 3rd quarter one was obviously more him taking a chance on third down, but it still wasn’t a good throw and took a downgrade. The fourth quarter one could have easily been a pick-six and resulted in a bigger downgrade.

            I wouldn’t say Sanchez had a better game than Wilson either. And our grades bear that out on a per-dropback basis. I wonder how you would feel about their respective performances though if instead it was the Eagles running backs who ran for 4ypc and the Seahawks running backs only ran for 2.4ypc. Or if the Seahawks receivers dropped three passes, included a critical one on 3rd down, and the Eagles receivers didn’t drop any.

          • RA

            Few things…

            1 – By your grades this was the worst game of Wilsons entire pro career. That in itself is just ridiculous.

            2 – Im not saying he was playing at an elite level but the grade suggest he was a downright liability. Obviously something is wrong with that picture.

            3 – Philly did a good job against the run. The fact that SEA was averaging only 2.4 ypc yet converted 4 of 7 on 3rd down in 2Q alone and converted multiple 3rd and 15’s says that Wilson was doing something right.

            Its just ridiculous. There is no justifiable reason that you could say to anyone that would justify the grade. These are the type of grades that make people question your grading system.

            I am a fan of the site, I feel that I am as non biased as a fan can be but something just doesnt add up. This WAS NOT Wilsons worst game as a pro qb in the nfl. Period.

          • Mike Renner

            I agree this wasn’t his worst game. You won’t find an analyst here that just uses overall grade. In fact Neil was hesitant to even include it when he started the site because he thought it would lead to people only using that and not digging further.

            Wilson’s grade was swung largely here by his penalties in this one, and that really doesn’t change my opinion of a quarterback’s play unless they are a large problem of the course of a season. Ignoring that it was a decidedly better game than his performance against Dallas earlier this year.

          • [email protected]

            As much as ive been critical of this site lately, i agree with that 100%. The grades are fine as long as people don’t take them too seriously, they really don’t mean anything.

          • [email protected]

            I think you’re right about the specific plays that you grade negatively, but how do you not have more positive marks to outbalance them? You didn’t like that 26 yard TD run? The TD pass on 4 verts that he dropped right in the bucket? Breaking ankles of an unblocked defender and then throwing a nice pass to Paul Richardson to convert a long third down?

          • Guest

            “I don’t care if a corner has soft or sloppy coverage on 5 plays if on the 6th time he baits the QB into a trap and picks it off.”

            “I think you’re right about the specific plays that you grade negatively, but how do you not have more positive marks to outbalance them?”

            You say you don’t care about all the little plays and that the big plays should have more weight. But then you want the little plays to offset the big plays. What, only care about the big plays when they are positive? Make up your mind.

          • [email protected]

            What are you talking about? His mistakes were little things. Him making up for them are big things.

            The PFF dude said that the negative grades were mainly from penalties and taking sacks. Those are little things. Throwing TD’s and converting 3rd downs and not committing turnovers are big things.

          • monkey

            Couldn’t have said it better myself. The Eagles know it better than anyone.

  • Jason Williams

    The Seahawks are the late 1980’s Detroit Pistons of the NFL. So easy to hate.

    • [email protected]

      Nobody hates a bad team, we must be doing something right. I would hate the Cowboys if they’d win more.

      • Jason Williams

        Bad in terms of wins and losses or bad in terms of sportsmanship and quality of play?

        Because I’ll watch and root for Denver all day long because they’re fun to watch and they don’t run their mouths.

        Seattle is boring and they like to run their mouths.

        • [email protected]

          Really? Peyton Manning is a pretty big talker. He got flagged for taunting more than once.

          • Football

            Seattle is boring to watch

          • Tom

            You do not like hard-hitting defenses then go root for a bum ass fragile team like the giants or the jets

          • Football

            I love watching their hard-hitting front seven. It’s the secondary holding every play, and their terrible receiving corps that’s a real bore. That, and Richard Sherman’s antics

          • Tom

            ok I see where you are coming from their receiving corps is trash.

          • [email protected]

            Every secondary holds every play, i see a lot worse than Seattle. Every receiver pushes off. I thought this was a contact sport? They should just make contact legal until right before the catch, the only reason holding works is the receivers start to flop instead of breaking away from it.

            If you want to talk about illegal how about all the stuff the offense does, the corners have to hold just to keep an even playing field.

        • Dohkay

          I’d argue that running their mouths makes Seattle fun to watch. Watching Sherman clown WRs and then actually back it up is entertaining, as is watching his rare slip-ups.

          • Football

            Sherman is plain obnoxious. He should just shut up and do his damn job, instead of looking like an immature fool

          • Dohkay

            He does his job better than every other CB in the NFL.

          • Football

            Chris Harris Jr. and Darrelle Revis are much better. Plus, Sherman plays against 2’s and 3’s, and has to hold every single play. He’s just mediocre when not cheating.

          • [email protected]

            Sherman lines up on the same side every play, with very little safety help. If he was so mediocre teams would line their #1 up there.

          • Football

            And he holds the opposing reciever clear as day.

          • eYeDEF

            Ah I seed you’re a conspiracy theorist that sees phantom holds that don’t exist. Ok, well that doesn’t do much for your credibility

          • john doe

            Oh right. I watched my Pack destroy the Pats. We burned Revis several times. When, or if, these guys make the playoffs the Hawks or the Pack will destroy them again.

          • Football

            You own the Packers? Good for you.

          • [email protected]

            Seahawks own the Packers.

          • Steve

            Correction they own the 49ers and The Packers

          • eYeDEF

            You obviously don’t follow Sherman that closely if you think that. When Maxwell spent extended time out injured this year Sherman was assigned to shadow opposing number ones to prevent them from exploiting the inexperienced cornerback playing on his opposite side. You’re peddling an old argument from 2013 as if this season hasn’t happened. Get with the times buddy.

        • john doe

          Another crybaby. Boo hoo.

    • Bill

      Horrible comparison not even close.

  • Fintasy

    Seems a week or two ago Foles was deemed expendable…..

    • [email protected]

      I never believed the Mark Sanchez hype.

  • [email protected]

    How does PFF explain the constant production from the Seattle offense when they give everybody constant negative grades? Apparently everybody is terrible yet its one of the best offenses in the league.

  • Guest

    Good discussion guys, and nice write-up of the game. Fletcher Cox does look really good lately

  • flyerhawk

    So Russell Wilson was considerably worse than Mark Sanchez? Seems legit.

    • Dohkay

      Not on a per play basis. The grades are given for every play and Wilson had double the plays of Sanchez.

  • RA

    Have a really hard time buying that the grading system is the same since by your #’s this was the worst game of Wilsons entire career.

    • [email protected]

      What he’s saying is that the grading system was equally bad when Wilson was getting good grades.

  • monkey

    If you grade Wilson out as a -3.2 for that game, and give Sanchez a -1.5, you have lost all credibility in your ability to grade the QB position. Your rating system is clearly broken.

    • Dohkay

      They are based off of snap counts. Pro-rate Sanchez’ total over Wilson’s and it’s about the same. This shouldn’t be hard to understand.