For those that have studied debate, it can be frustrating to entertain arguments that contain fundamental logical errors.  Once understood, these fundamentals provide very tight structural frameworks for logical thought formulation. Debating those without this fundamental base, can be an exhausting excersize; however, the subtleties contained within the definitions of logical fallacy can be equally as frustrating to those without the base of knowledge to work from. At times, it appears that the other party is simply debating to hear themselves argue.  It often comes off as "logical snobbery".  

This Fan Post is simply meant to be a reference (I admit I dusted off some of the old college texts for accuracy and have various tidbits from that manuscript scattered throughout).  I won't pretend to know any more than the next guy that has studied the topic, but I figured it would be a good idea to create some material which all Field Gulls could access when formulating arguments. When applicable, I have attempted to tie these thoughts back into real world NFL examples for clarity. 

Continue reading this post »

John... this might be a question for you to ask your developers if you like the idea... but wouldn't it be cool if Field Gulls had a comments HOF?

I guess the premise would be that any "Green-thumbed-Rec" would be an inductee.  You could obviously set the Rec. threshold's at your discretion to capture only the best.

I have often reminisced about some of those great comments from past posts, and thought "Wouldn't it be sweet if John immortalized them in his own Field Gulls Comment Hall of Fame".

I would assume the DEV's could attach a custom field to the ajax comments that could be queried by a plugin and filtered by number of Rec's.

Food for thought...

Just when you thought it was safe...

...to write off Blake Griffin, reports surface like this:

According to some reports, the Thunder and Clippers may swap picks (the Thunder draft third overall), enabling the Thunder to take Griffin and the Clippers to draft Spanish point guard Ricky Rubio. But again, a lot of that is contingent on the Clippers being able to find a taker for Davis.

The Thunder will need to offer more than #3 overall of course, but the deal will NOT include Durant, Green, or Westbrook.  OKC sitting on (2) first rounders this year and (2) first rounders next year have the ammunition to get this done.

A league sources cites:

...Thunder do have is an abundance of future first-round selections. They own two potential lottery choices next season -- their own and Phoenix's -- and a first-rounder in 2011. Two of those choices and this year's No. 3 would likely be enough to land Griffin.

 

The ramifications of such a deal are clear.  The thunder would be able to field a starting 5 capable of getting to the playoffs next year.  

Matchup Problems

Talk about nightmares for opposing defenses.  The flexibility of fielding both big and small lineups of equal quality from both an offensive and defensive standpoint is huge. Both scenarios offer a dynamic mix of slashers, scorers, and willing defenders.  

Tough as nails 'Small ball': Griffin, Green, Durant, Sefalosha, Westbrook

Conventional 'Big Lineup': Kristic, Griffin, Green, Durant, Westbrook.

Fingers Crossed on this one.

There is something to be said...

...for holding onto the 3rd pick in this years draft.  Historically, the top 3 picks dont bust, and rarely end up as role players.  In terms of risk assessment, it makes sense that you take the remainder of Rubio/Thabeet.  But how about value?  Is there an deal out there that makes the Thunder a stronger team, faster?

There is speculation the Wizards could be shopping for Ricky Rubio, and would be willing to part with their #5 selection and Javale McGee to acquire him.  I want to offer an opinion on this deal, and open up discussion on how it would affect OKC.

Continue reading this post »

Note of Qualification

I'd like to qualify my post by saying that I do not pret end to know what will be, and I do not claim that the opinion I am about to express is fact. I will offer it up as a point of debate, in an attempt to discuss what skill set Aaron Curry truly brings to the table.  I believe there is always more than meets the eye (or in this case... the stat sheet).

The Knock on Curry

It has been widely scouted that Aaron curry isn't an elite level pass rusher due to his low sack count.  Others have suggested that while "solid" in all areas, his game isn't that dynamic in that he isn't a difference maker.  His draft tags of "safe pick" and "solid" lead some to associate him with being "serviceable", "un-sexy", or lacking "playmaking ability".  Phrases like durable, intelligent, and productive are used and may unfairly convey that Aaron Curry is not explosive. I believe a closer look may reveal the exact opposite.

Continue reading this post »

The Irony

In 2005, Seattle man-handled defenses at the point of attack.  Walter Jones, Steve Hutchinson, Chris Gray, Robbie Toebeck, and Sean locklear were a man-on run blocking force of nature.  Big, powerful, prototypical offensive linemen.  Teams knew where we were running and when we were running, and could do nothing about it.

At the same time, Seattle implemented a defensive front 4 that were smallish in nature. Fisher, Bernard, Darby, and Wistrom were in the mold of the quick, gap penetrating D-lineman, focused on creating pressure in the backfield.  Somewhat weak against the run at the point of attack, they made up for it with explosion off the ball and disrupted lanes.

The irony that I am seeing as the draft is approaching is that there seems to be a fundamental "flip-flop" in philosophy.  Our defensive line is getting beefier, while our offensive line should be looking to get leaner and more athletic (zone blocking concept).  I see this as a terrific move for the following reasons:

Offensively

From an economic standpoint, smaller, more athletic linemen are historically cheaper, and drafted more easily in the middle rounds.  Teams pay for large immovable men. Fortunately for teams implementing zone blocking, that isn't the skill set most required of the scheme.  

A switch to zone blocking also allows for a quicker learning curve. Zone blocking "rules" don't change depending on what the lineman sees in front of him.   In a "man blocking" system, lineman are assigned defenders according to the desired running lanes. Defensive front changes, stunts and blitzes, create a need for an O-lineman to read the change, and adapt his responsibility. Zone blocking uses rules that do not change according to the adjustments on the defensive line. Since there isn't as much emphasis on reading defensive changes and stunts many of the mistakes caused by lineman misreads are eliminated.

As the Denver Broncos and KC Chiefs have proven, a team that successfully implements a zone blocking scheme becomes far less dependent on RB investment.  A running back that may not possess the combine impressive numbers, yet possesses great field vision can succeed in a ZB system. This dramatically reduces a teams need to pony up big numbers for blue-chip RB's.

Defensively

The move toward larger defensive linemen solves two main problems.  Firstly, the Seahawks become stronger at the line of scrimmage (a weakness over the past few seasons), and second, it keeps more offensive linemen from getting to the second level (where our LB's don't possess great shed and tackle ability).

As it pertains to the Draft

I can't help but feel that our new philosophies may cause some head scratchers come draft time.  It has been widely accepted that OL depth (for example)  is a need, but names like Monroe, Smith, Oher, and Britton may not even be in play.  Fans may be left with that slack jawed "huh" feeling if names like Lydon Murtha or Andrew Gardner are called, but if this is the way it plays out, I fully support it.  Both of these linemen are sub 5 second 40 O-lineman with mobility that I feel have much better value in a ZB system than their second day draft rankings suggest.

Although somewhat surprising (coming from 2005 units that drastically differ in concept) I love the new philosophies TR and Jr. are implementing. It allows us to allocate Seahawk investment into areas that historically win championships (QB, CB, DL), and away from areas that historically are able to be filled later in the draft (OL RB WR)

I love the sound of the following story

Several sources have suggested the Redskins have begun to send out feelers on what it might take to get Seattle's pick, and the Seahawks, at this stage, would likely seek two first-round picks on the high end. That was a price the Redskins were willing to pay for Chad Johnson last year and Jay Cutler a few weeks back, although neither deal was completed.

1. With the Redskins 13th pick Seattle likely would still have a shot at either the OT they need in Oher, or a playmaker like Maclin, Wells, or Moreno.  Andre Smith might also be sitting there.

2. Should the price be (2) firsts, the Seahawks could end up with another high pick next year (due to the strength of the NFC East and the Skins big needs at Tackle, Guard, Defensive end, and linebacker).

3. Next year looks to be a very strong year for QB's, and it could very well be the first capped year for rookies (adding to the value of the pick).  Seattle could pass on Sanchez this year, and end up with an equally talented prospect at a much friendlier cap number.

Here's the link from the Tribune

Hypothesis: Completion percentage is the single best statistical indicator of NFL QB success.

There hasn't been a more discussed draft topic lately than the annual debate about what types of college quarterbacks translate into successful NFL quarterbacks. Opinions seem to differ as to whether the quintessential "gunslinger", or the more cerebral "accurate" passer is a safer 1st round pick.

Specifically, as it relates to the Seattle Seahawks, the debate over whether or not the Seahawks should draft Stafford (or Sanchez for that matter) is complex to say the least.  Conventional wisdom would lead us to believe that any single statistic cannot predict success in a draftee.  I thought the theory deserved to be tested and found that, as odd as it seems, there may be a statistical category that can predict NFL QB success better than others.

After some research, there does seem to be a very interesting correlation between QB completion percentage and subsequent success in the NFL. The premise is that collegiate QB's that complete more than 60% of their passes in their final season, have a better chance of NFL success, while QB's that complete LESS than 60% are substantially more likely to fail.

The following group of QB's drafted in the first round (1997-2004 ... stopped in 2004 to allow for a development window) completed LESS THAN 60% of their passes during their final collegiate season. This list is complete .

1997: Jim Druckenmiller, Virginia Tech (Completion Percentage: 54 percent)

1998: Ryan Leaf, Washington State (Completion Percentage: 55 percent). The (1) QB taken in Round 1 with better than 60% (Manning).

1999: Akili Smith, Oregon (Completion Percentage: 58 percent); Cade McNown, UCLA (Completion Percentage: 58 percent). The three QB's taken in round 1 with better than 60% (Couch, McNabb, Culpepper)

2000 Only 1 QB selected in Round 1. Pennington had higher than 60% completion percentage.

2001: Michael Vick, Virginia Tech (Completion Percentage: 54 percent)

2002: Joey Harrington, Oregon (Completion Percentage: 59 percent); Patrick Ramsey, Tulane (Completion Percentage: 57 percent. The (1) QB taken in Round 1 with better than 60% (Carr).

2003: Kyle Boller, California (Completion Percentage: 53 percent); Rex Grossman, Florida (Completion Percentage: 57 percent). The two QB's taken in round 1 with better than 60% (Palmer and Leftwich)

2004 J.P. Losman, Tulane (Completion Percentage: 59 percent). The three QB's taken in round 1 with better than 60% (Manning, Rivers, Rothlisberger).

10 out of the 21 QB's completed less than 60% of their final collegiate season:

Legends: None

Pro Bowl: Michael Vick

Stars: None

Some Success: Rex Grossman

Limited  to No Success: Kyle Boller, Patrick Ramsey, Cade McNown, Joey Harrington, JP Losman

Failure: Ryan Leaf, Jim Druckenmiller, Akili Smith

11 Completed more than 60% of their passes in their final collegiate year.

Legends: Peyton Manning

Pro Bowlers Carson Palmer, Donovan McNabb, Ben Rothlisberger, Eli Manning, Chad Pennington, Dante Culpepper

Stars: Philip Rivers

Some Success: Byron Leftwich

Limited  to No Success: David Carr, Tim Couch

Thats a staggering 80% of the "Less Than 60%" group that have experienced little or no NFL success (based on a subjective common sense filter)

. . . and an equally staggering 73% of the "More Than 60%" group that are stars or better (Obviously there is some room for debate as to which categories I have ranked them in, but they should be fairly representative of the collective consensus).

With this is mind:

What do this years 1st Round Draft Picks bring to the table?

Mark Sanchez: 65.8%

Matt Stafford: 61.4%

Josh Freeman: 58.6%

Time will tell if this Statistical Model holds up for these 3.