Seattle Seahawks Coaching Hire Recap
by John Morgan on Jan 12, 2009 3:21 PM PST
Email
PrintIn which I lazily recap the news, because I'm sick.
The week began with rampant speculation that Seattle would sign Rod Marinelli. The discussion took two sides: A rational audit of his time in Detroit, his impact on its defense, a look at his preferred scheme, and a look at his eye for personnel and matching personnel to scheme. And a more proximal take on Marinelli the coach through exposition of Marinelli the man: His grace suffering failure, his ability to motivate and his purported role in Tampa Bay's great turn of the millennium defenses.
Marinelli's time in Detroit was wrought with failure, defensive failure. He traded away or failed to retain the team's best players and railroaded a system into place that shook the Lions to historic lows. Marinelli eventually signed with Chicago as an assistant head coach/defensive line coach.
Seattle signs Casey "Gus" Bradley to defensive coordinator. Bradley and Buccaneers defensive backs coach Raheem Morris share credit, somewhat disproportionately in favor of Morris, for Tampa Bay's recent defensive revival. Each are protégé of legendary defensive coordinator Monte Kiffin, each are young and perhaps overvalued for their short and spotless résumés, and each detail their résumé with a late career revival, a prospect developed and a talented free agent attained. Bradley's reads: Derrick Brooks, Barrett Ruud, Cato June.
Bradley is a Tampa 2 adherent from his time at North Dakota State University. His hiring, along with the possible hiring of former Lions defensive coordinator Joe Barry, represents a shift towards Tampa 2 principles in Seattle. The team attempted the trick early in the 2008 season to failtacular results. A complete renovation will require major talent acquisition and, in the case of Kelly Jennings and Lawrence Jackson, talent reposition.
Seattle also signed former Jets defensive line coach Dan Quinn to become current Seahawks defensive line coach Dan Quinn.
It's an inexperienced group and one that offers a little hope and little reason for anything more. When the rubber hits the road this August, we can begin our pissing, moaning and second guessing, but, for now, let's accept what little we know and know that that should inspire optimism not dread.
The other notable hire is offensive coordinator Greg Knapp. I like Knapp's system, it's emphasis on running and his willingness to go for it on fourth. The most interesting part of Knapp's signing is its implications to Seattle's offensive personnel. Knapp is a running machine. Even on losing clubs, Knapp typically runs on over half of all plays. He also runs his offense from tighter, more run oriented sets. A team that's long thrived by spreading the field wide and using short, horizontal patterns to set up the run will now pound the rock to set up the pass. Greg Knapp is a play action machine. Scanning Seattle's personnel, it's three wide receivers too rich, a running back too poor, a quality tight end too poor, and, here I go again, a strong armed quarterback too poor. It's unlikely Knapp will overhaul Seattle's roster in one offseason. It's more likely this coming season Seattle's offense will straddle the line, retain much of Holmgren's playbook while gradually inserting more Knapp devised plays as the season progresses, and it's more likely the classic Holmgren style plays will work while the Knapp devised plays will grind gears and sputter. But while the transition will be discordant at times, it's happening.
56 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Jackson
A complete renovation will require major talent acquisition and, in the case of Kelly Jennings and Lawrence Jackson, talent reposition.
What do you forecast as far as Jackson? This statement would lead me to guess about Jackson becoming a defensive tackle. That may be far-fetched to think, but why not ask if you think it’s possible, on a full-time basis? We know he was said to be able to slide inside for pass-rushing situations coming in as a rookie, though I’m not sure how much he actually did, or how successful he was.
We will be down a DT or two if/when Bernard leaves, along w/ Howard also becoming a FA. Quite possibly, you may simply be referring to a switch from starter to backup or left to right, etc. but I though this would be fun to entertain and get clarification on. Hope you feel better soon.
Seattle is not in store for a...
complete renovation. That’s what I was trying to imply, that though Seattle is adopting certain Tampa 2 principles, I don’t think, given two first round picks that don’t fit the system, Seattle will completely rework its defense.
Quality Tight End?
Does that mean that Knapp’s system requires two good tight ends? Or is Carlson not prepared for a more featured role?
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace R.I.P.
Given Knapp's emphasis on the run...
What are the odds we take a running back in round 2 and release JJ?
Knapp coached teams regularly have three players pushing 100 carries
If Jones can accept a committee role, I think he’s safe. Seattle still might add running back talent.
Extension of diehard: Given Knapp's emphasis on the run,
do you think this pushes us towards taking an OT like Smith or Oher with our first pick, so as to provide some stability on the O-line?
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Jan 12, 2009 4:23 PM PST reply actions
I think OL is looking less likely as a high priority
Mainly because I think we’re going to more of a zone-blocking scheme. Solari has a rep for it, and it’s what Mora/Knapp tried to do in ATL.
It puts less of an emphasis on the dominating in-line blockers, and more of an emphasis on teamwork, cohesion. Guys who have an adequate first horizontal step, can chip down and then get into the 2nd level to engage the free LB or S. Theoretically, it allows you to get value out of later round picks for the OL (of course, it never hurts to have those elite guys on your Line, either)
But I don’t think they’ll be as desperate to draft a guy like Oher or Smith as a Jones replacement because a dominating LT won’t be as crucial to running Knapp’s O as it was to Holmgren’s system.
No
Its just a modified WCO
YES YES YES YES YES
by Scruffy Lefty on Jan 12, 2009 4:37 PM PST up reply actions
System vs. Player
I understand a coach having an ideal system that he would like to run and a coordinated collaborative effort with team management to always be seeking players that fit that system. However, it find it more than a little… what’s the word… confining? Having a platform from which to work is one thing, but marrying oneself to an X’s and O’s system come hell or high water makes personnel decisions even more critical than they normally would be. It becomes not good enough to get a “great tackle”, but instead a “great 3-tec”, not enough to get a “great corner”, but to get a “great Tampa-2 corner”.
This plays into my draft-day philosphy of best player avaiable; to pass up an electrifying player because he doesn’t “fit the system” tells me that your system needs to be revisited.
The obvious masters of balancing system and player, I think, would be the New England Patriots under Bellichick and Pioli.
Players that are great in any system are very rare
and even great players have strengths and weakness’s. Sapp would have been great no mater where he played but he was special in a tampa 2. Champ Bailey is awesome but is a far better cover corner than he is in a zone.
The benefits to being “married” to a system is that you don’t necessarily have to get the best of the best if your scheme is good. Players like Ellis Wyms and Chuck Darby suddenly have some value. Some of the corners that Indy has cycled through are examples of that as well, like Jason David.
Back to the "strong armed QB" thing again.
Is that necessarily the case? He’s been working with strong-armed guys the past 5 years (Vick, Russel) but both those guys were forced on him, so it’s quite possible he made adjustments in his scheme to adapt.
The most successful, balanced version of his O came in San Fran, where he had Garcia. And in Atlanta he played a role in drafting and developing Schaub. Neither of those guys have really been known as “strong armed” Instead, they’re more in mold of accurate QB’s whose bread & butter is working the underneath stuff.
I agree that Hass probably doesn’t have much time left as a starter, but I don’t see any reason to think that the 1-2 years he has left will be a mis-match with Knapp, or why when the team does search for a successor, it won’t be someone in the same mold as Hass.
If L. Jackson doesn't have what it takes to play ina Tampa-2 defense,
why then did Ruskell draft him if he foresaw a move to a Tampa-2 in the future?
you can add Jennings to this list
Of all the DB’s I’ve paid attention to, Jennings is the last guy I see working a short zone effectively.
Is there any reason to call
an offense that uses the run to set up the pass “WCO?”
I don’t know Knapp, but I don’t see many recent NFL championship teams that use the run to set up the pass. Like Seattle has done the last few years, they talk a big running game, about how they are going to use the run more, then they soften up the defense with the pass, passing on first down fairly regularly. Once they do that, they run very successfully and end up with about 50/50. Even in 2005 the Seahawks succeeded more when they set up the run with the pass.
"but I don’t see many recent NFL championship teams that use the run to set up the pass"
Super Bowl XL champions: Pittsburgh Steelers.
Also...
XLII – New York Giants…
not to mention most of those Pats teams in the early 00s pounded the football pretty hard to open things up for Tom Brady.
Regardless, a WCO has more to do with the types of passing routes than the actual run/pass balance. West Coast offenses rely on a ton of short and intermediate crossing routes, and are very very timing based. Greg Knapps teams have historically been about 50/50 run-pass, but their passing game is West Coast.
I love it, his success with a stable of reasonably talented RBs and decent but not great WRs is a really good fit for our personnel.
Agree completely, coaching staff sucks
A guy with 3 years in the NFL and who was with North Dakota State when we went to the Super Bowl is now defensive co-ordinator. A dude who hasn’t kept a job for more than two years since he left San Francisco is now our defensive line coach. I was ready burn jersey’s when the word was Joe Barry was going to replace Zerick Rollins as LB coach. Yet they keep a stiff like Larry Marmie (who with Mora presided over one of the most gawd-awful secondaries in the league), DeHaven when special team coverage was awful last year, and the so-called “strength and conditioning” coaches when this team is plagued by injuries every single year, esepcially last year. Gil Haskell really wanted to stay here and finally be able to call plays but was denied the chance to. Who did we get? Not Jeff Jagodzinski, who worked with Hasselbeck at BC and Green Bay, who knows the WCO and even had the prerequisit time in Atlanta. No, we got the reincarnation of Woody Hayes who had the coaching duties taken away from him last year by an interim coach, halfway through the season, and the offense actually improved after that. And a WR coach from Jacksonville, a team that has the worst set of receivers in the league. And I’d like to know when Ruskell is going to be held accountable for the overall collection of stiffs, especially in the 1st round, that he has put together on this team? This guy actually thinks we got a steal with Sims, Willis and Wrotto in the 4th round, because he actually thinks those guys (and Spencer) are good. What is the reason to feel optomistic? “God help us” is right.
And Jack Bauer is a fascist.
Well Jack Bauer the Fascist keeps pulling America the Democracy out of all sorts of shit.
Ergo, fuck democracy, go fascism.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Jan 14, 2009 9:31 AM PST up reply actions
Offer something substantial.
This is not a place for poorly spelled rants.
by John Morgan on Jan 14, 2009 11:26 AM PST up reply actions
I happen to like the coaching hires across the board.
Though we’ve been rated differently from Football Outsiders, we finished no higher than 15th in total defense over the Holmgren years. FO rated the Seahawks weighted defense 5th in 2007, but it’s hard to feel like a 5th ranked defense when you give up 42 points and 200 yards rushing in a playoff game. Based on my eyes, I think our best defense was 2005, which FO rated 13th, and was 7th in points, 16th in yards, but was the beneficiary of a point-scoring offensive machine. The real test of a defense is the ability to play well when your offense sucks.
I think it was time for a switch in defensive philosophy, and I’m very optimistic about our defense going forward.
It was more than one bad game; Green Bay was only one example.
In 2007: Arizona, Cincinnati, New Orleans, Cleveland, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Green Bay were games where I seriously questioned the existing defensive philosophy. Other questionable defensive efforts would include the second Arizona game and Atlanta; Arizona got a lot of their yards and points after the game had really been decided, and in Atlanta the team threw in the towel haflway through.
Compare the ‘Hawks 2007 performance the top 5 2008 defenses: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Minnesota, and Tennessee. We weren’t in that league. Not even close, except when we were punching on wimps like Sanfrancisco and St. Louis.
It's common for good and even great defenses to have bad games.
The 2000 Baltimore Ravens, literally the first team I looked at, allowed 36 points to the Jacksonville Jaguars in week 2. In week 17, they allowed 524 total yards.
by John Morgan on Jan 14, 2009 10:41 AM PST up reply actions
You also use the stat that suits your argument.
Seattle was rated 6th in scoring defense and first in scoring defense per drive. You mention that you questioned the existing defensive philosophy, but neglect to mention the four turnovers forced against Cincinnati, four against the Eagles, the second Arizona game, in which Seattle forced five turnovers and allowed only 355 yards, the fact that Seattle rested its starters and had nothing to play for against Atlanta…and then you say, compare the 2007 Seahawks performance to the top five defenses of 2008, but offer no comparison yourself. The 2008 Vikings, for instance, allowed 42 more points than the 2007 Seahawks.
You’re not working from any sort of objective framework. You’re cherry picking facts that support your conclusion and they’re not even really facts. It’s a smattering of facts mixed with a lot of claims and charged rhetoric.
by John Morgan on Jan 14, 2009 11:24 AM PST up reply actions
Only 355 yards?
If you gave up “only” 355 yards per game, you’d have been 26th in defense this year.
Atlanta wasn’t on my original list of bad defensive games, nor was the second Arizona game.
Turnovers are not always “forced”.
Assuming that my post was “cherry picking… a smattering of facts mixed with a lot of claims and charged rhetoric” please teach me how your above post is an all-inclusive consideration of all facts with nothing but absolute uncontestable facts and truth. Ultimately, I believe that we both watch games and view statistics and form opinions based on that, but you seem to be implying that I have an opinion (in this case, the Seahawks being an above average but not elite defense in 2007 nor any point during the Holmgren years) and am forming facts and statistics to fit. I’m not cherry picking statistics, I just can’t post a novel chronicaling a play-by-play account of the 2007 Seahawks.
355 yards on 14 drives
25.38 yards per drive or sixth best in the NFL (2008 I don’t have 2007 drive stats handy).
The turnovers were forced.
It doesn’t have to be all inclusive, but it does need to follow some kind of logical thread. You say you think Seattle’s defense in 2005 was better than its defense in 2007, but your own facts defy that claim.
You say:
it’s hard to feel like a 5th ranked defense when you give up 42 points and 200 yards rushing in a playoff game
and when challenged with the validity of judging a defense by one game offer:
In 2007: Arizona, Cincinnati, New Orleans, Cleveland, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Green Bay were games where I seriously questioned the existing defensive philosophy. Other questionable defensive efforts would include the second Arizona game and Atlanta; Arizona got a lot of their yards and points after the game had really been decided, and in Atlanta the team threw in the towel haflway through.
There’s no criteria. What defines a good defensive performance? Why would limiting the seventh ranked scoring offense to 23 and 21 points (both below their season average) be a bad defensive performance? There’s global metrics. In those global metrics, Seattle performed like an above average defense.
He's frustrated...
because like all of us, with 11 returning starters from an “above-average defense” with young players that would be taking steps forward and that was on the upswing, a defense that could carry the team was hoped for and expected.
Fair or unfair, based on good logic or faulty, that is how we felt. With last year being the only really above average defense when looking at the amount of yards we give up, last year looks like the abberation and people turn to nitpicking to justify last year’s performance.
If we were the Ravens and our defense was worse(like 2007 for them), we would be pointing at the loss of Chris McAlister, Samuri Rolle and other injuries large or small and nitpicking at the bad year.
Everyone wants to simply. The defense was “good” or “bad.” The truth is we have plenty of talent, our scheme doesn’t fit together correctly with the talent, and we really need some younger guys to improve and step up their games if we want to become that defense…or sign an impact FA.
This may be the heart of the "disagreement"
I agree with you that the 2007 Seahawks defense was above average and I have said as much.
FO rated the 2007 ‘Hawks defense 11th for the whole year with a weighted ranking of 5th (which if I understand correctly is supposed to be indicative of how the team is playing late in the season). Since our defense got blown off the field in Green Bay, it’s hard to justify the designation of the “5th best defense”. However, overall for the season, I do agree that 11th is fair – above average, but not elite. 2007 was also a high point; most years the ’Hawks defense has been middle of the pack.
My original contention was that I was optimistic with the new coach hirings; the Seahawks have failed to put a consistently dominant defense on the field, and I feel that it was time for a change. I’m talking about the Ravens, Steelers, Titans, Eagles, Buccaneers – teams that may have down years but seem to regularly have years where offenses having to deal with them are saying, “oh, crap, we have to play them.” All of these teams have also done it over enough years that one can’t simply point one specific group of personel; either they are consistently getting the players, or the coaches are consistently making the most what talent they have.
I reiterate that the second Cardinals game was not on my list of questionable defensive performances. What I would like to do is look at the game to game DVOA ratings of the 2007 Seahawks, but I can’t find that information; my guess is that it probably jives fairly closely to my list.
Since our defense got blown off the field in Green Bay, it’s hard to justify the designation of the "5th best defense".
Still stupid.
I’m talking about the Ravens, Steelers, Titans, Eagles, Buccaneers
The Seahawks have been unable to duplicate something that only 4 (just two years ago Tennesse was ranked 24th in defensive DVOA, 30th in ’05) of 32 teams have been able to do. Those 4 teams will likely be remembered as having the best defenses of the last 10 years, and the Ravens are likely top 5 all time.
You’re asking a whole lot. Ruskell has been here for 4 drafts and had a mess to clean up on defense when he got here. We all want the team to be amazing year in and year out but you’re not being realistic.
I'm stupid?
I don’t understand your post at all. I never blamed Ruskel for anything. I was optimistic on the new coaching hires of which I assume he was a part. So, if anything, I credited him for the moves. I also believe that the Seahawks have some very excellent defensive pieces which were drafted under Ruskel’s watch. I believe the release of John Marshall is more than warranted.
And I’m sorry, I will always scoff at a defense being labled as 5th of 32 when they give up 42 points and 200 yards rushing. I do not expect the team to be amazing year in and year out – those are your words. I expect the team to have up years and down years, but if the up years are merely above average then the formula needs to change.
Your point about the Green Bay game invalidating what the Hawks did over the course of a year
is dumb. It’s going to be dumb no matter how many times you say it. Being ranked 5th in DVOA is not a label, it isn’t a power ranking that someone threw against the wall. The stats are fallible, but they’re systematic in how they judge a team and it’s parts. So no matter how bad the Hawks were in a playoff game, on the road and against a great offense, they were still the 5th best defense that season.
Can you provide some kind of a formula for what a good defense is? If you expect the Hawks down years to be like our "average" ‘07 then you’re going to be let down. Like John said, you’ve looked at games where very good offenses were held to less than their season average in points and declared them poor defensive performances. What is a good defensive performance?
I'm not sure what you expected
Offensive DVOA rankings for 2007:
Phi – 7
Cin – 6
TB – 9 (held to 6 points)
CLE – 11
GB – 5
Seattles defense wasn’t all world in 2007 but it was a good group that played against some very good offenses.
My point is...
Historically, great defense beats great offense; the Seahawks haven’t had an elite defense since the early ’90’s.
Beyond that, I guess it’ a bit of a “pick your poison” question. There were key words used in Mora’s press conference that got me excited about the 2009 season, words like “attacking” and phrases like “relentless effort”. Whether or not he and his new crew of coaches can pull it off obviously remains to be seen, but at least I like what what they are trying to do. I think that our coaching staff was stale and too conservative from day one.
I’m optimistic; shoot me.
One must have SOME offense
But historically great defense/average offense beats great offense/average defense.
What John said.
I started to think “wow, John is really after people about backing up their claims.” But thinking about it, there are way too many opinions being thrown out as facts around here.
I'm not sure what statistics anyone will believe in
While many Super Bowls have have paired two balanced teams, in the last ten years there have been several matchups that featured one team that relied on defense to win versus another that seemed to rely on offense to win. Looking at DVOA rating over the last ten years (I only started paying attention to FO about a year ago) some of their stats don’t jive with my perception.
‘Defensive teams’ that beat ‘offensive teams’ over the last ten years in Super Bowls: 2007 Giants, 2005 Steelers, 2002 Buccaneers, 2001 Patriots, 2000 Ravens. The 2003-2004 Patriots were both and played against relatively balanced teams themselves, the 2006 Bears were considered the better defensive team but had to cope with Rex Grossman as their quarterback and the 2006 Colts had been good defensively before and after Bob Sanders was hurt (something that was even acknowledge by one of FO’s guys on The Sports Guy’s podcast earlier this week), and barring the Cardinals winning the Super Bowl and all life as we know it ending in a rainstorm of flaming menstral blood, This year’s winner will be a defense-first team.
My opinion is based on 25 years of watching football; I can’t think of many games where a dominant defense met a dominant offense where the dominant offense got the better of it. Even when the 1999 Rams did win the Super Bowl, it was a near thing, and the greatest show on turf put up only 23 points; the week before the Buccaneers had held them to 11. I admit that a lot of this may be perception (based on overall yards and scoring), as teams that are often touted as “top-flight” offenses are usually yardage and scoring hogs, while top DVOA offenses and defenses are based more on consistency and efficiency.
Though FO has not yet gone back and rated them, I would imagine that a team like the 1990 Giants – perceived as a great defense/decent offense – who beat the Bills – perceived as a great offense/decent defense – would rate a much higher DVOA than their overall offensive numbers would lead one to believe (and likewise for the 1990 Bills defense in the face of their own team’s hurry-up offense). This is supported by passing ANY/A and rushing Y/A. I was surprised to notice, above all, that the Giants were actually a pretty sucky running team (25th in Y/A), but passed with great aplomb (5th in offensive ANY/A, a mere .1 behind the Bills).
All that being said, I can remember games in which the self-proclaimed ‘greatest show on turf’ was forced into low-to-moderate-scoring slugfests by defensive-minded opponents; I can’t recall games in which the 2000 Ravens or 2002 Buccaneers participated in shootouts or got blown out. Even the 2006 Colts who won the Super Bowl, and were clearly an offense-first team based on any metric, ultimately had to win low-to-moderate-scoring slugfests against the defense-first teams like Baltimore and Chicago. Indianapolis is also a special case with their injuries in 2006; their defensive DVOA in 2005 was 8th and in 2007 it was 3rd with the squad that was healthy for their playoff run.
This
I admit that a lot of this may be perception (based on overall yards and scoring),
Is your problem.
And a great example of that is this:
Even the 2006 Colts who won the Super Bowl, and were clearly an offense-first team based on any metric, ultimately had to win low-to-moderate-scoring slugfests against the defense-first teams like Baltimore and Chicago.
Indy scored 29 points against the Bears. That was more than their season average and against the third best scoring defense in the NFL. You’re picking and bending facts to your conclusion. You omit 1991-1998, perhaps because the Cowboys, 49ers, Packers and Broncos were all known primarily for their offense.
Defense doesn’t win championships. Offense doesn’t win championships. Great teams that combine very good to great offense and defense win championships.
In the case of the 2006 Colts
Despite 430 yards of total offense, they got only 26.875 yards per drive. Based on the 2006 numbers, that would have been good for 20th. Defensively, the Colts allowed 22.083 yards per drive in that game, which was better than the Bears season average as the number one overall defense in that category.
Based on the numbers that you are convincing me are a better barometer of success, the Colts didn’t win because their offense, but because of their defense (or Chicago’s abysmal offense).
Determine how much better Indy played per drive than Chicago's average opponent.
It’s immaterial anyways. One game could not make the Colts a great defense or a below average offense. Indianapolis was a great offense whose defense got hot and played well enough in the postseason for their total team to win.
If great defenses won championships, you would expect the best defense each season to consistently win championships. As I stated above, a combination of a very good to great offense with a very good to great defense is how a team wins a championship.
For the record
I agree 100% with this statement:
Great teams that combine very good to great offense and defense win championships.
However, there have been years when no such balance existed, or at least the team that won the Super Bowl was not balanced. Looking at the DVOA from 1995-2007, (team/offense/defense), 1995 Cowboys (1/13), 1996 Packers (2/1), 1997 Broncos (2/7), 1998 Broncos (1/19), 1999 Rams (1/3), 2000 Ravens (21/1), 2001 Patriots (14/13), 2002 Buccanneers (21/1), 2003 Patriots (14/2), 2004 Patriots (4/6), 2005 Steelers (8/2), 2006 Colts (1/27), 2007 Giants (19/14)…
…Goddammit. I’ve been brainwashed by stupid sportscasters. The next time I hear a commentator state that defense wins championships, I’m going to punch him in the head. I’m curious to see DVOA as it continues to chart seasons past.
I stand very corrected on this issue. I am a retard and man enough to admit when I’ve been:
The further back it goes,
the less it will tell you. When the league allowed players to become FAs, the league changed, and when it instituted a salary cap it changed again. The salary cap makes the league incredibly competitive, not allowing one team to keep a ton of talent if they can get it.
Just something to remember when looking at statistics, the context changes should be watched and factored in or at least noted.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
