Seahawk Addicts
i think it shows holmy is a risk taker and part of being a champion is being able to take risks and work them to your favor. if the hawks could do this consistently, holmy would look like a genius. maybe this year the team will have matured to that level. i sure hope so. he's brought us out of the dearth of losing, thru mediocrity, to winning with regularity. now it's time for him to take us over the top.
Football games are more fluid than the Zeus statistical analysis could account for. Our o-line and running game was suspect all year. If Zeus' statistical analysis proved that a run play at a particular time was what had the greatest chance for success, but Holmgren knew there was no chance in Hades of us running the ball well at that particular time of the game, he would choose something different. And well, he should. I think the Zeus model brings up more questions than it provides answers.
I agree with JRuss, programs like this don't take all factors into account. I mean you would have to break down the weakness' and strengths of all the teams and work those numbers into the analysis. Besides football can be unpredictable.
Just like a lie detector test, they say it is 99% accurate then why do people beat them all the time?
Great examples cited, Mike. Decisions to go for 6 instead of 3 have nothing to do with what our offense is capable of, it's about understanding game strategy. That was an issue in the 2 games above.
Going for it on 4th has been a losing proposition for almost 2 seasons as our run blocking deteriorated - so I don't fault Holmgren for those failures. He even tried passing a few times on 4th without success. Can't blame him all the time.
However, I've been wondering about our preparation / repetition / rhythm for the 2 minute offense over the past couple seasons. Has it been what it should be?
I certainly remember 2 game winning FG's against the Lambs (thanks for the memories, Brownie) and a botched handoff in Arizona (ditto, Shaun - and not Holmgren's fault of course) but other times it just seemed we lacked the rhythm to move the ball in the no-huddle offense at the end of the half or game.
Some of this is the o-line missing blocks, or a dropped pass, or Matt audibling into the wrong call... Perhaps it's not Coach but dammit if that area isn't where really good teams pull w's from the loss column.
Here's hoping the new pieces for 08-09 can fit together better in those crunch time situations.
I think the Rams are on top because they were never in a "critical" situations late into the 2nd or 4th quarters. They were getting beat so bad by then, it doesn't really matter what they would have done.
So I think they are in first due to lack of data....and probably some pity :P
***
As for Coach Holmgren...as much as I love him as a coach...I have lost a ton a hair due to some of his "critical" game calling. Most of this falls under clock management for me. Using timeouts at the wrong time, bullheadedly trying to run out the clock when there's still half a game to be played and we're only up by 7, etc. It's almost like he lacks that killer instinct when it comes into situations like that. He doesn't seem to go into overload and start coaching his butt off.
We've had some good moments too, so I'm not saying he's a complete waste in this area....but that is the topic we're discussing, right? hah.
Our two minute drill is freaking terrible. It's worse than terrible. It sucks.
Other than that, I pretty much like the guy and the job he does calling plays.
He's better at game planning for an opponent than he is at making mid-game adjustments, but he's still a fine coach. I'd take him and his flaws over most other coaches in the NFL.
I doubt any of us could have done a great job calling plays last year when we have three terrible run blocking interior linemen and average to below average blocking from WR, TE, and RB (mainly after Mack went down). Shaun was always a bad blocker when called upon and guy like Branch was just too small to pancake anyone in the running game, while guys like Pollard tried but just weren't very good.
OK, I normally just lurk, but I have to point out that the list has the Patriots losing .67 games to bad decisions. That just seems off to a team that lost 0 (that's zero) regular season games. Ummm, I think the list is flawed. The article says it used decisions from the 2007 regular season.
Holmy is definatly suspect in clock managment. We all saw the superbowl and some questionable decisions. They always have that article on espn about how if you never punted your team would score x number of points more but that as has been said doenst tell the whole story. If the offense is struggling or you have a lead and your d is playing lights out. Momentum in a game means a lot. I think he is a bit conservative at times and even he says he has made some mistakes because "I was seeing red and lost track of things" - not exact quote but something like that.
I think his whole thing is if the offense did what it was supposed to he would never have to make those calls. I think he fells he should score a TD on every possesion and then the D holds them the 4th qtr while he calls run plays up the middle and punts.
Bobbyk -As for the 2 min drill, in 05 didnt they score in the last 2 min of a half for almost the entire year? So maybe he just hasnt adjusted to the current personel.
The list is flawed and just kind of stupid. The pats stat that was pointed out and the Giants, who won the only game or thing that really matters were 30th. I would take that stat and a SB win any year.
I love holmey, but he's not an all around great coach. He's really only ever had one offensive stud in seattle (shaun) and we've been consistantly able to move the ball well. Which is his greatest accomplishment.
That being said, his clock management is marginal and "critical decision making" is average. To play both sides, you only make good decisions when the players get the job done and he's never had play makers on the outside that make game breaking plays in critical situations.
Two things,
One, the Giants won the SB with a Zeus rating of 1.10 (worse than the Hawks) so they must have done something right. Also to note, Patriots were 9th and they went undefeated in the regular season, how could they have done better? Doesn't seem to hold too much weight in my opinion.
Two, this system doesn't take into account the previous history of each particular game. For instance, if the Hawks were 4 of 7 in 3rd and short situations vs. a team or if they were 7 of 7 (or 0 of 7 most likely). I'm sure Holmgren takes those things into account when making decisions.
Other than the loss of concentration in clock management, I think Holmgren did ok.
JR25
sorry rrsquid,
I didn't see all the posts when I submitted you already made the point about the Pats...
JR25
The Giants argument in my opinion is a poor one. This was based of regular season games. The Giants were a wild card team and by no means were even considered a possible Superbowl winner until week 17 at the very earliest. So it is quite possible questionable decision making played a role in their season.
The Pats are bit hard to argue, but that said, they did have some games that were pretty close to lost in Philly and Baltimore. The NYG game too was no picnic, so just while they didn't have a loss, it is possible they put themselves in danger of losing, and considering this analysis has them below one, it as not as far fetched.
I am surprised no one has piggy backed on the examples I gave. This analysis has less do with play calls, and more to do with situational strategic decision making, an area which I have seen hoards of Seahawks fans rip Holmgren on before.
Most memorable bad decision... Cardinals game... the botched hand- off to Alexander. Made me cry.
The thing that bugs me the most is Holmy's near refusal to go for it on third and long. They throw a hitch or incomletion. If the offense is clicking they are getting good yardage on 1st and 2nd down but the difference between a good offense like the Hawks and a great one like the colts is in those 3rd and long. Peyton looks exactly the same and they have tons of plays to get them their. For the Hawks it seems like we dont even try that hard and we just accept that we have to punt.
The other knock on Holmy is he knows very little and seems to care very little about Defense. It has been our achilies heal until recently and was ignored all together in drafts for years. When the D was going down in flames they would show him on the sidelines and he would be mad but not as mad as when the offense made a mistake and he would look around as to say "does anyone here know anything about defense that might help?"
Holmgren was the greatest coach this franchise has ever seen. Everyone has their own way of doing things.
Whatever you want to say about Holmgren, his record speaks for itself.
I'll just leave it at that.
Commenting by HaloScan
