On Zone Defense and Aaron Curry's First Two Drives
Zone defense looks comically inadequate when defenders are not executing. Houston Texans receivers were flashing open, sometimes in pairs, before Seahawks defenders could finish their backpedal. Quick hitters attacking Seattle's off coverage have been a staple attack for Seahawks opponents since at least 2007. Sometimes what we perceive as poor planning is poor execution and sometimes what we perceive as poor execution is poor planning.
Consider this set of plays by Aaron Curry. In the first, both Curry and David Hawthorne backpedal too deep and allow indefensible space underneath.
The result: 1-10-SEA 31 (11:53) 8-M.Schaub pass short left to 44-V.Leach to SEA 22 for 9 yards (59-A.Curry, 27-J.Babineaux).
Nine yards on first down is a sizable blow to a defense. Curry dropped too deep, but his misread may have only meant the difference between five or nine yards gained. It didn't impact the reception. That was obvious later in the quarter when Curry did everything right and still allowed an easy and successful reception. He read the target, avoided a built-in pick and closed on his receiver as he approached the right sideline.
The result: 2-7-SEA 9 (3:39) 8-M.Schaub pass short right to 85-J.Dreessen to SEA 4 for 5 yards (59-A.Curry).
Which tells you something about Seattle's zone defense: It breaks down when its players fail to react and execute and it breaks down when its opponent calls the right play. I hope the coaches witness plays like the latter and debit themselves. Curry could not have reacted to the play faster, better avoided the pick, or closed quicker, and he's among the fastest linebackers in the NFL, yet the Texans achieved 71% of the yardage needed to achieve first down. The Texans ran a quick out to their second string tight end and made it look like an unstoppable new tactic. They would score a touchdown on the next play.
I am looking at Aaron Curry this week. He had a terrifically bad first quarter. Sometimes though, it looks like he and most of Seattle's defense is running a flawed scheme that cannot succeed even when executed to perfection. Months back, I mentioned how Brian Russell personified a incorrect belief that a team could allow yardage if it avoided touchdown scoring plays. Russell is gone, but that thinking persists.
Curry moved towards the left offensive flat before being panned into oblivion. The camera tracked Andre Johnson running uncontested towards the end zone. Curry did not factor.
He next series went:
1. [Out]
2. Cut-blocked out of the play.
3. Pursues horizontally left and chases Ryan Moats as Moats turns the corner runs for the first down.
4. The aforementioned reception to Leach.
5. Pursues end-around motion and blows containment.
6. Drops too deep into his zone.
7. Caught watching the quarterback at the snap, misreads play and takes a poor angle to the ball carrier.
8. Again caught idle at the snap, botches the blitz entirely, so that he never impacts but does remove himself from the play, and is saved when Brandon Mebane tears through the interior and forces an incomplete pass.
0 recs |
13 comments
|
Comments
I find Seattle's constant use of the zone defense to be extremely aggravating when the pass rush isn't what it used to be.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 15, 2009 7:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
So let's go into zone defense a little bit more.
The ultra-simplistic maxim I more or less understood when it comes to coverage was something like
man if you got em, zone if you don’t.
Now I know that zone is also schematically employed, and not because the DBs aren’t good enough. It’s a combo of lower risk and higher reward, in terms of big plays and INTs, respectively. But I always held that connotation of ability, that zone coverage was for covering up inadequacies.
And then this year I think for the first time, I read the concept that maybe zone defense is becoming obsolete in the game. And since then have seen at least half a dozen similar voices.
So what does everyone think? Is zone no longer relevant? Is it really not good enough against the evolution of superhuman QBs? Is it the rules? Or is it just the talent hasn’t been enough to field even a handful of good zone coverage teams?
by jacobstevens on Dec 18, 2009 1:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
LOL John @
" Maybe the Seahawks defense is too practiced defending Matt Hasselbeck. It’s zone scheme could dominate an indecisive and weak-armed quarterback, but looks inherently flawed against Peyton Manning, Brett Favre, Kurt Warner and now Matt Schaub. "
That made my day.
by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Dec 15, 2009 8:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
So, Hasselbeck=Terrill=Russell=Alexander, I guess
I don’t know. I seem to remember seeing some quotes on this site oh, about 8 weeks ago, when Matt was fresh back from nursing his rib injury, using stats to show that whenever Matt’s in the game, we dominate other teams the way Team Jacob dominates Team Edward. Then he starts throwing some weak shit and holding onto the ball too long and missing 30 yard strikes to Burleson by one yard (or, less frequently, missing Branch by five), and boom, just like that FG sends the guy packing, saying his arm has become irremediably weak or, what is worse, that he has grit.
I get it that his arm seems pretty weak, and yes, he’s spent way too much time injured, and his frailty IS a problem, and that pick-six pass last Sunday was uglier than this Christmas tree

but I’m not entirely convinced we can extrapolate to conclude that Matt has suffered a precipitous and irreversible slide towards an early retirement to Galt’s Gulch. To me it looks like opponents know Matt’s hurt, and they’re teeing off and aiming for his throwing shoulder, keeping it hurt. There’s also other variables, which are hard to separate: how Knapp’s offense may be affecting things, how Carlson’s getting knocked off his routes this year, and so on. I expect the Seahawks will figure out at the end of the season whether permanent damage has been done to Matt’s throwing arm or whether he can build that shoulder back up. At the rate folks on this site are tearing him down, though, he might need more than PT to fully recover.
Can’t we just go back to dissing Craig Terrill and his band for a while? Or did he win a week’s reprieve with his blocked kick?
by dagraham on Dec 16, 2009 1:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I want to clarify
that while I’m replying to A’Seahawks_Warriors, I’m also referencing a general, recent trend on these posts, for which I am not meaning to hold ASW answerable. I hope I’m not committing a major breach of etiquette for rambling as I have.
by dagraham on Dec 16, 2009 2:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh...
I also want to clarify that I’m not meaning to sound like a crypto-JM basher here. I’ve just been sitting back and reading a lot of collective wailing and gnashing of teeth, with a whole lot of energy being spent on how spent Matt is. And he may well be. But I think it’s possible—just possible, mind you—that Matt’s passing problem might be a passing problem.
by dagraham on Dec 16, 2009 2:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't get high on Matt
When we stopped the jags I’ve been calling for a chance since last years loss at home to S.F. I felt he had nothing left in the tank then.
by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Dec 16, 2009 2:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In other words, fewer words
You think Matt might recover. He might, and then he might be injured again.
by John Morgan on Dec 16, 2009 3:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just doing my part
to even up the word count on the Hasselbeck Debate so maybe Matt will make me his FB friend.
On the other hand, I think I might get more enjoyment watching him show up on Dancing with the Stars next year than enduring another season of Survivor: Seahawks’ Backfield.
by dagraham on Dec 16, 2009 10:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Guilty as charged.
On the other hand, I’m a great fan of Darth Marenghi’s Darkplace, which ought to be worth something.
by dagraham on Dec 16, 2009 10:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't want to get into most of what you're getting at, here
but I’d like to respond to one thing. If there is a notable difference between the consensus on Matt 8 weeks ago to now, it might be hard to argue against an accusation of fickleness.
But minuscule changes in performance, at this most elite level of competition, can make a very big impact. The relatively minuscule drop you describe
Then he starts throwing some weak shit and holding onto the ball too long and missing 30 yard strikes to Burleson by one yard (or, less frequently, missing Branch by five)
is quite more than enough to hamstring a team. Fickle, maybe. But it’s not like he went from Tom Brady 2007 to Peyton Manning 2004. It’s a pretty substantial and debilitating weakness to the team.
by jacobstevens on Dec 18, 2009 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by 

















