Seahawks Defensive Scheme created from scratch?

As head coach, Mora's fingerprints will be all over the defense.

"I intend to be very, very involved with the defense," he said. "It's my passion. It's what I love to do. It's something I believe I'm pretty good at."

But it's more than just his voice that will be heard.

"I've hired a tremendous defensive staff," Mora said. "We've added some outstanding coaches who have a very similar philosophy to me in terms of how you become a great defensive football team."

And for the past few weeks, the staff has begun drawing up a blueprint for that defense, starting with the ground floor of the playbook.

"We're starting to put the book together from the very basics," Lewis said. "It's kind of amazing, but it's very good. It's refreshing."

They've sat around a table, discussing ideas and concepts with Mora and Bradley both moderating and making sure everyone has a chance to offer input.

"We're sitting around a table like this; nothing gets typed or written really until everybody has a say-so," Lewis said. "It's really dynamic. It gives me a chill."

about 1 year ago cashless 7 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Sounds awesome

or like a fantastic mess.

by John Morgan on Feb 9, 2009 4:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Either way

It will be infinately more fun to watch than the John Marshall defense of last year.

Also, this explains the “West Coast Defense” randomness from before. I had no clue what he was talking about, but it makes more sense now.

by cashless on Feb 9, 2009 4:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This seems to be a theme with the coaching staff so far

by Nate Dogg on Feb 10, 2009 4:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's good that they're tearing it down and starting over.

We have arguably one of the most talented defenses in the league. About time we use them to their strengths.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Feb 9, 2009 7:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

the difference between creating from scratch, and re-tooling a playbook in the offseason by an established staff working with an established scheme is probably nebulous, and Danny O’Neil’s choice of words maybe suggests more than they ought. I won’t say there’s only so many football plays, but there are very many established effective plays and established effective counters to them, and that’s the lion’s share of any offensive or defensive playbook for any team.

A thorough review of all plays and their results according to the personnel, resulting in conclusions that add and remove dozens of plays and calls from down-n-distances, situationals, compared to an “overhaul” or “starting from the ground up” might be ultimately very similar. And it might be commonplace every offseason throughout the league. I honestly don’t know, but I get the feeling.

One thing I hope I don’t end up missing from John Marshall was his effective use of stunts and twists on the line in the 2 years prior to 2008. The one-word stated difference between the Mora regime and Marshall’s approach so far is undeniably “attacking,” but the same word was just as generously applied to the Ray Rhodes defenses. I found the main difference between Rhodes and Marshall to be the stunts and twists.

The review of Lawrence Jackson’s season on here was actually very encouraging, because it might well have explained so incredibly much of the entire season. Here’s to seeing a revival of the stunt in 2009.

by jacobstevens on Feb 10, 2009 2:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

While I agree

with what you said, I think the more important difference is the plays actually called. While defensive play books may often look the same, each DC calls different plays more than others. For example, the infamous 3rd and long blitzs that Marshall loved. My hope is that the plays called will more accurately reflect the strengths and weaknesses of the team.

by Fear on Feb 12, 2009 6:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You mean the ones Pendergast got fired for?

I’ve heard that sentiment before, but I don’t think it was often at all until the final 2/3rds of 2008. And yeah, it was there, and it made things worse. It almost felt imposed, by coach Holmgren or Ruskell or something, I dunno, it didn’t feel natural. But at any rate, what I think Marshall did wrong was rest on his laurels and the talent on the field. I think he actually made a difference in the prior years with us, but the blitzing this this year was pathetic. Pathetic in cloaking them, their creativity, the timing of them, and above all, the execution, but that too relfected on Marshall because he didn’t change things up or call different numbers.

I think he was trying to cover up the Brian Russell coverage issues. He either has Brian deep, which was effective but profoundly easy to spot by the QB and underneath chunks were given up regularly. Or, since the reaction and speed had dropped, they’d try to blitz with him, often, so they’re sending another guy while coverage is arguably improved. Just never got home, and neither did Lofa. We used the delayed middle blitz with those two so often, and that has blown up countless Seahawk plays, the past 5 years, but it always seemed when we called that blitz, Center was free. Picked up his man, big pass.

So, Marshall didn’t adjust well. Still more of a problem with the talent and execution, but he didn’t adjust well. I think it was imposed on him but he did it poorly. I understand. I still am grateful for what he gave us in the 3 years prior.

by jacobstevens on Feb 13, 2009 10:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs