Seahawks Insider

Hawks 14th in NFL sudden change situations

Post by Eric Williams on Oct. 16, 2010 at 9:42 am with 26 Comments »
October 16, 2010 9:42 am

Seattle Seahawks head coach Pete Carroll and others around the league call them sudden change situations. Basically they are turnovers – momentum swing moments in the game where a team either creates or loses an opportunity to take control of the game.

Carroll has preached it’s all about the ball, and it’s true if you want to win in the NFL. The team that wins the turnover battle usually wins the game.

However, creating turnovers is only one step in the process. A more important measurement I would argue is what a team does after the turnover has happened.

That’s what I attempt to measure here. Similar to basketball, I’ve taken the points teams score off turnovers and the points teams have given up off turnovers around the league and calculated the point differential in a chart below.

The Seahawks rank 14th overall in the league with a +4 four point differential, scoring 17 points off turnovers and giving up just 13 points of turnovers.

And Seattle is third in the league in terms of number of points the defense has given up when taking the field after a turnover. Baltimore leads the league, giving up just nine points on nine turnovers by the offense.

As you can imagine, teams at the top of the list usually have a winning record. Kansas City at 3-1 top the list, with 27 points off takeaways and no points given up off turnovers.

Leave a comment Comments → 26
  1. Awesome job on this one Eric! These are some really interesting statistics, and it’s nice to know our defense can hold up, when the offense turns the ball over.

  2. Dukeshire says:

    Agreed, very cool stuff Eric. And I totally agree that turnovers are great but you have to convert those into points. That’s the whole point.

    Seattle would be a hell of a lot further up this list by the way, had they not scored only 3 points off of the first 4 turnovers against San Diego.

    The most surprising team to me on this chart is N.O.. That defense lives off turnovers and Brees is usually very careful with the ball. Not this season. They are really crippled without a capable run game.

  3. I think this defense is actually good enough with a competent offense the Seahawks would be the talk of the NFC. I’ve been fairly pleased all year with them. The personnel moves this year were phenomenal. They got rid of the overrated players and brought in some real contributors.

  4. Dukeshire says:

    I dream about a day where the offense again controls the clock and allows the defense to really play aggressively. This unit would really open eyes, I agree with pabs.

  5. This is great, Eric, and I’m sure Coach Carroll tracks stats like these more than most others – along with his ‘it all about the ball’ emphasis.

    But it would be very interesting to see all these stats stratified by ‘HOME’ and ‘AWAY’, since there is s huge effect on turnovers and points off turnovers in some home stadiums, including ours. Seahawks are not the same team on the road vs. at home. Not close. it would be interesting to see how consistent that home field effect is across all 32 teams.

  6. I can’t post tabular stats because they don’t format so you can read them, but using Football Outsiders stats and taking account of SEA’s injuries and an away game, etc, CHI’s D & O holds a 10.5% DVOA advantage over SEA’s O & D, assuming Cutler plays at 75% performance. That doesn’t take into account STs play, where SEA ranks 1st with 16.9% DVOA vs CHI’s 7th ranked 3.9% DVOA. Looking forward to a potentially close, hard-fought battle.

  7. Hawks D away game sacks so far in ’10: 5 in 2 games.
    DEN 1 (R.Brock)
    STL 4 (L.Milloy, W.Herring, C.Clemons got 2)

    Last season Hawks got @SF 4, @IND 0, @DAL 2, @ AZ 0, @MIN 5, @STL 4, @HOU 0, @GB 1 = 16 sacks in their away games.

  8. Dukeshire says:

    “Looking forward to a potentially close, hard-fought battle.” – I totally agree. I typically don’t put much stock into DVOA as a predictor of performance, but in this case it seems to reenforce what I have been seeing when I watch the Bears. I still believe that on paper the Bears are superior at most positions but statistically and performance-wise (records aside) they are closer than one would think.

    I stand by my mid-twenties score prediction.

    D.Branch agreed to reduce his 2011 salary from the nearly $6M he would have made SEA pay to $2.15M to play for NE. (Equals Wes Welker’s salary). DB can also make up to $2M more in incentives. Guess that extra $3.8M is the going rate to get players to play it the NFL’s “Witness Protection Program” in SEA. Who was handling the amount on SEA’s side of that contract? TR or ?

  10. I think it was a given that he was going to have to restructure in NE. He’s where he wants to be and he’s where I want him to be too (not in Seattle). It’s a win-win situation (especially with that high 4th round pick we got for him).

    Maybe Aaron Curry will tweet – “Me miss DB and wisheded dat he still be hear.”

  11. Dukeshire says:

    Yeah, that was a couple days ago. There was no way Seattle was going to be able to deal him without Branch willing to redo his contract.

  12. Only time BUF’s M.Lynch played vs CHI was preseason ’09 when he made 16 yds on 5 carries, 0 TDs, long of 6 yds. Sure hope he has a better ‘Beast Mode’ goin tomorrow. I hoping for 100 yds running + receiving.

  13. Dukeshire says:

    BobbyK – Have you ever read his Twitter page? He bitches about way too much. Yesterday and today alone: the plane sucks (“two thumbs down”). People wanting autographs. “yet another walk through”. I really want to like the guy and he’s playing better, but there’s something about his attitude or demeanor that puts me off. (Not that you can know anyone from Twitter. But still…)

  14. Dukeshire says:

    Kim – Lol, preseason bro. He’ll get more than 5 touches.

  15. John Morgan did make a good point in his Lynch article – Why would Lynch necessarily do more for the Seattle offense than he did for the Buffalo offense over the past year?

  16. Dukeshire says:

    The problem (or one that I had) with that piece is that it began with the premise that Lynch wasn’t playing well, and that simply isn’t true. Last season he received less than half the carries he got in each of the previous two seasons, yet was on track for the same type season totals. It’s a false argument to me. It’s not about him coming in and playing at a higher level than he had in Buffalo, but rather the same level. (Any improvement is a huge plus.) Let’s see what he does with 165+ carries here, the rest of the season. I’d be surprised if he didn’t end with 725 / 750 yards. We would all be very happy with that.

    As for “doing more”, the fact is Seattle is simply more talented than Buffalo and any improvement to their running game improves every aspect of the team.

  17. A chart showing the starting line combinations Seattle has used to this point in the season, with the projected lineup for Week 5 listed at the bottom.

  18. bayareahawkfan says:

    Awesome piece, Eric – this really does get to the heart of what turnovers mean. It’s like the +/- star in hockey – a real solid index which meaningfully distills several meaningful factors into a single value.

    The best part about this chart is that SF is DEAD LAST :).

  19. bayareahawkfan says:

    +/- *stat*, ahem.

  20. I don’t frequent the twitter pages very often, but that doesn’t surprise me about Curry. He seems, plain and simple, to be a douche. A cancer. Someone you wouldn’t want in your foxhole (and, yes, I know war is infinitely more important than a meaningless football game).

    The crazy part is all of these know-it-all “experts” talked about what a great person he was coming out of college and all this other, seemingly, false crap. A great man of character. BS.

    If we could get a 3rd round pick for him, I’d do it (even if he’s worth more). He’s a beast on strong side runs and I think he’ll develop into more of a pass rusher (still sucks dropping back; and wrapping up).

  21. Teams can have plenty of talented morons, but the stars of the team, or highest paid, need to be football driven people who care about winning. I question this with Curry.

    I think about Michael Irvin. He was a moron. But he cared about winning and was extremely passonate about it (in a positive way). I may never have liked him, but I certainly respected him.

    Curry just seems like a self-entitled POS.

  22. bulldog80 says:

    We need to trade Curry to San Diego for Jackson

  23. Not only should they change the rookie pay scales, but also the veteran contracts. Players should be paid based on their current performance. Say, based on how their unit (OL, TEs, WRs, RBs, QB, DL, LBs, DBs, STs) performs as relates to previous season(s) as a first priority, then based on how well the individual player performs relative to the opportunities afforded in game situations. It might tend to accomplish parity in the league quicker, since good players would only want to go to teams that would show the most improvement due to their signing and susequent efforts.

  24. Dukeshire says:

    BobbyK – I’m not sure how to explain it, exactly. But it’s almost as if he has one foot out the door. My impression is (and it’s only an impression so not worth too much) is that he’s not “here” all the way. Not “in”. He’s curious to me and a very difficult guy to really get behind and root for (aside from wanting him to play well for the betterment of the ‘Hawks). An anti-Forsett, who is genuinely humble and gives you every single thing he has, every time, with a fraction of the talent.

  25. Is Mebane playing today?

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0