Zone Cover and No Pass Rush Make Seahawks Something Something

by John Morgan on Aug 26, 2009 3:42 PM PDT Comment 41 comments

More photos » by Elaine Thompson - AP

Want zones to work? Get pressure.

Tony Dungy and Monte Kiffin built the Tampa 2 around Simeon Rice, Warren Sapp, Ronde Barber, John Lynch and Derrick Brooks. All five could make the Hall of Fame. The Tampa 2 spread like wildfire, but Tampa Bay's talent did not. Very few attempted Tampa 2 defenses have succeeded. The two most successful are Indianapolis and Chicago. Both have fielded great and mediocre defenses depending on the season. Both are stacked with great defensive talent.

The Tampa 2 worked because Dungy and Kiffin adapted their scheme to their talent. Any team that adopts a Tampa 2 is violating the very principle that made the original Tampa 2 work. Rod Marinelli forced Detroit into a Tampa 2. He went so far as to trade the team's best player, Shaun Rogers, because he didn't fit. By forcing his team into a system it couldn't execute, he ran the Lions into the ground worse than almost any coach in history. He took a 21^st ranked defense by points allowed and turned it into a 30^th ranked, 32^nd ranked and 32^nd ranked defense. The 2008 team allowed 32.3 points a game.

It's unclear how committed Seattle is to the Tampa 2. Against the Broncos, it seemed committed to generating pressure with its front four and flooding the secondary with zones. The pressure wasn't there and the zones were picked apart. It couldn't stop a drive. Seattle allowed Denver to dink and dunk it's way 78 yards for a score. Then it was gifted first and 25, forfeited 20 yards and allowed Denver to get back into field goal range. Denver's fourth drive it bested even that.

7. A good punt by John Ryan backed Denver to their 14.

6. They picked on Kelly Jennings for 14.

5. They picked on Josh Wilson for 13.

4. They overloaded Leroy Hill's zone with Lamont Jordan and Brandon Stokely and Kyle Orton passed to Stokely for seven.

3. Then Peyton Hillis picked his way around right end for five and the first. The defensive line jammed the middle, but D.D. Lewis lost contain on the right and then lost the tackle when Hillis swatted him away. This is probably the least worrisome play of the drive.

Kyle Orton is called for delay of game.

2. It's first and fifteen. A gain of six yards or more is a success. The Broncos spread Seattle by putting three wide receivers left and two wide receivers right. The Seahawks are in a 4-1 dime. Seattle's front four "pin their ears back" and generate some pressure, but the Seahawks are in a zone. Eddie Royal streaks underneath and then curls roughly opposite the center. Orton finds him. Seahawks surround him. Josh Wilson closes from the left. Lofa Tatupu closes from the top. Jordan Babineaux closes from the underneath. Royal turns, attempts to do too much and loses ground before being tackled by Babineaux. It's a gain of six. A success. Had Royal plunged forward, he could have gained an additional yard or two. Seattle had its pass rush. Its zones surround the eventual receiver. But Kyle Orton found a man underneath and completed a successful pass.

1. So Seattle blitzes. It blitzes six from a 4-3. It blitzes six against Denver's two wide receiver, tight end, I formation. The blitzers don't strike, but they do limit Orton's time. Orton finds Hillis hooking into the flat and completes a pass that streaks up the sideline for 18 and the first.

It's the preseason, but this looks awfully familiar. From Ray Rhoads to John Marshall and now seemingly Jim Mora and Gus Bradley, Seattle has again and again constructed fast, bend but don't break defenses that rely on turnovers. There is no consistent way to force turnovers. Teams can rarely bend without eventually breaking. If the Seahawks think that can lose the battle of yards but win the battle of points, they are creating a flawed system likely to fail. It's the preseason. I hope that's not so.

Tampa was a great collection of defensive talent. The Tampa 2 tapped into the talent. But it was the talent and not the system that made Ruskell's Bucs great. This time, it might be the system and not the talent that makes the Seahawks bad.

1 recs | Comment 41 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Our defense against Hillis didn't make me feel good.

I almost felt like this could be a big problem for us during the season. I don’t even think it was the players’ fault, it just seemed like the schemes being called for the Seahawks were very vulnerable to short passes to a RB and that he had so much space he could get another 5-10 yards half the time.

by LantermanC on Aug 26, 2009 3:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Seattle is vulnerable underneath.

I don’t know where all this under cover is, but Seattle seems right back to allowing the reception and then limiting yards after catch. There’s no way that style of defense works in the modern NFL.

by John Morgan on Aug 26, 2009 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This scheme doesn't look all that much different from last year.

And that scares the crap out of me. Here’s to hoping the new personel (Lucas, Redding, Cole, Curry) make up some of the difference.

by Jo-Jo on Aug 26, 2009 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tru needs to be back

The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.

by Nick Andron on Aug 26, 2009 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Bud even Tru can’t do anything about a quick hitch when he’s stuck in a 10 yard cloud.

by Jo-Jo on Aug 26, 2009 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed on that

We have personnel issues in the secondary, and we have execution issues in pass rush and pass defense, but really none of them are bad enough to think everything will be completely OK if only those change. I still believe talent trumps playcalling, but at this point we simply have to hope the playcalling won’t tax the underneath zone coverage so much, because it’s a significant problem and that would be the only truly effective solution, to adjust the calls.

by jacobstevens on Aug 27, 2009 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not nearly as much as I anticipated

The differences are still pretty substantial, though. In the front 7 there’s an incredible amount of variance, in formation, alignment, assignment, substitution. We’ve at least taken fire zone blitz 101, we have that one blitz in there, shifting the line to one side and dropping back that end, and sending two LBs on the other side.

In the secondary, there’s almost as much of a deviation from Cover Two as there was last year. If I recall you’re a secondary guy, and that’s where most of your concern is. I think one big difference is last year we’d play thirds and use the safety almost exclusively as a blitzer. So far this year when we go post safety, I’ve seen the safety stand up on the line, blitzing, run keying or dropping back, and I’ve seen him take the slot, or take an OLB spot (didn’t notice if either side or specifically strong/weak) while the LB stands up on the line.

That’s still a lot more looks, that — one thing I haven’t seen anyone mention yet, until situational usage patterns develop — other teams will have to account for. Provided any of them at all are effective enough to warrant being accounted for, of course.

by jacobstevens on Aug 27, 2009 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're right

but the end results are looking exactly the same. You can put a fat girl in a prom dress, but that doesn’t make here the Prom Queen. Regardless how they get there this defense (based on what I saw againts Denver) is still all about keeping recievers in front of you trying not to let the big play happen. As the field gets shorter the space closes down and you hope for a TO or allow FG’s instead of TD’s.

Last season they couldn’t even get that done because inappropriate blitz calls at incorect times sabotaged the secondary and left guys like KJennings exposed with his pants around his ankles.

by Jo-Jo on Aug 27, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Go Crazy?

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."

- David Foster Wallace R.I.P.

by phil26687 on Aug 26, 2009 3:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Don't mind if I don't

It’s true that two deep coverage and frequent sending of six — six! Is it just me, John, or are there more pressures of 6 guys on plays you’ve charted than there are 5? — are conflicting approaches, that leave underneath vulnerable. It would make sense to only gamble that pass rush covers up coverage vulnerabilities when your corners can last longer than their tackles, or when your ends can win the prize before their receivers.

Neither is happening for us, yet. Our linemen look good, in my view. But I dunno if I’m being fooled. Blaming the pass defenders lets the playcalling off the hook, and essentially here we’re evaluating whether that’s a myth, whether the pass defenders even without Trufant aren’t the core problem. Not that the problem is necessarily singular.

It’s hard to disagree. I’m excited to see us apply pressure in non-conventional ways, but frequent vacating of coverage assignments was not what I had in mind. I dunno how to read it; it’s the preseason and they’re seeing what works, when. That’s what I most lay my hopes upon, that we won’t be this reckless in the season.

by jacobstevens on Aug 26, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

In the Denver game, at least

I’d say that the scheme was the problem in coverage. I was taught that when you bring the house, you usually stay tight with your coverage, lot leave a huge cushion. This was not the case last Saturday.

by Jo-Jo on Aug 26, 2009 7:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are you saying

you saw cushion in pass defense that looked designed? In underneath zones as well, or just the outside/deep?

by jacobstevens on Aug 27, 2009 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm saying that the scheme allowed the Broncos to have the short game.

They just flat out gave it to them, which is why they dinked and dunked thier way down field.

Especially when the team is blitzing. You can take one of two approaches; 1) you stay tight with your man so that the QB, who has to make a quick read and get the ball out fast (provided the pass rush is effective), doesn’t have a wide open quick option underneath, thus giving the pass rush another split/full second to possibly get there. Or 2.) stay back and allow the hot routes to stay open so that you don’t get beat deep and give up big plays while conceding short passing game.

It appears that the ‘Hawks are choosing option 2, which is was they’ve done for years. Unfortunately they couldn’t even execute that last season because of how awesome BRuss is at deep cover support. I know that you and I are on separate sides of the personel/scheme thing, but Russell is one example of where I would agree with you.

by Jo-Jo on Aug 27, 2009 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The million dollar question is

did they give up the short passing game because they weren’t expecting it and didn’t bother to make adjustments or because they’re scared of the big play?

That’s why I’m waiting to see what the weekly game planning looks like. If Bradley and Mora are good at analyzing an opposing team and taking away their weapons, that will help alot. Good D—coordinators don’t run vanilla schemes. John Marshall used to run vanilla just about every week according to many of the QBs we played.

Whereas you hear guys like Peyton Manning wondering what Belichek has dreamt up for him that week.

Weekly gameplanning is one of the traits that separates the great D-coordinators/Defensive coaches from the average to below average guys. If our D-coordinator is any good we won’t see a vanilla scheme every week. We will see team D that is designed for a specific opponent. If it’s effective, our defense will dictate the game to the opposing offense rather than the opposing offense dictating to us the flow of the game.

If the personnel are used right, it should work. And I hope to see Josh Wilson blitzing more. The little man is fast and can pressure the QB or “affect the QB” as Mora likes to say. It’s not always about the sack, sometimes it’s just about the pressure. Josh is probably our best DB blitzer. I can’t remember if Lucas can blitz. I know our safeties are poor blitzers. If Bradley is smart he’ll build his pressures around the front four, the lbs, and Josh Wilson.

by ASeahawkfan on Aug 27, 2009 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

And I am hoping that we haven’t seen much of the playbook at all yet. I did notice that we ran a significantly less amount of the fire-zone blitz package against Denver than we did against SD. Hopefully that means that they liked what they saw and can just pocket that until the season starts.

by Jo-Jo on Aug 27, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The lack of gameplanning

does arguably make for a greater excuse against the Broncos than normal. You say dink & dunk, but really so many of the passes were WR & TE bubble screens. Surely we’d anticipate bubble screens from Josh McDaniels’ team.

There were still some crossing patterns that we just didn’t clamp on, though.

by jacobstevens on Aug 27, 2009 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I say dink & dunk because that would be the terminology that I would use for WR & TE bubble screens

Semantics be damned; I think you and I are just about on the same page here.

In the end, I think John Morgan makes a great point in his next post about the ‘Hawks being a Super Bowl contender (theoretically) based in part on this point about the defense; Seattle has focused it’s defense on stopping the run and containing the pass. I think they’ve noticably done great things with personel to increase the effectiveness on the run defense, while containing the pass has been a part of the Seattle defense for years.

The overall effectiveness of the pass defense (containment) is yet to be seen, and probably will not be seen until the start of the regular season.

by Jo-Jo on Aug 27, 2009 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, we are

I said that wrong, but just wanted to make a distinction between the bubble screens, and underneath crossing and drag routes and stuff, straight out of the WCO playbook. A distinction that’s moderately relevant here when talking about gameplanning and whether the lack of it had any affect.

I, too, thought John made great points in that great post, and it did help put the issues here in perspective.

Still hope they all look fixed against KC and OAK!

by jacobstevens on Aug 28, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Blitzer Selection?

Looked like Tatupu blitzed multiple times, and Russell at least once.

I don’t think Lofa is very good at blitzing. Maybe it’s the blitz “scheme”, or design.

Regardless of his skill at blitzing, I agree with your earlier analysis that he’s at his best when baiting QBs, sitting in zones, reading, etc.

I’d rather see Hill/Curry/Grant do the blitzing. Of course, they can’t blitz Grant and leave Russell back there…so Russell’s number gets called. Even in the rare occasion that he gets through, we all know a whiff of Russellian proportions is eminent.

My question is, would CB blitzes work with the Tampa 2 scheme? I know Babs has blitzed with perhaps the most consistency, but I can’t remember if it’s been while playing CB or S.

by PerryCollective on Aug 26, 2009 4:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think Josh Wilson can be a good blitzer

I’d use him if I were Bradley and Mora. He’s super quick and decent tackler.

by ASeahawkfan on Aug 27, 2009 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good tackler, really.

Just can’t shed a block. At all. He needs to get after quarterbacks when there’s an empty backfield or everyone is out on routes.

by John Morgan on Aug 27, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed. He won't shed blocks

I figure with his speed he can get to the QB if he has a fairly clear path like on a delay where everyone seems occupied. Josh Wilson won’t be a heavy blitz option. But we don’t have a solid blitzing safety, so I think he can be that surprise from the secondary coming after the QB kind of like Polamalu (thought I doubt he’ll be that good).

by ASeahawkfan on Aug 27, 2009 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

From what I can tell Mora likes more beef on the line

That’s why we got bigger on the D-line.

I hope the zones tighten up once they gameplan for a particular team. I can’t stand another year of giving up a constant stream of short passes just to stop the big play. If our DBs aren’t good enough to stop the big play without giving up the short zones, then they should be upgraded period.

I would think Mora after three years would know how to best utilize this talent. But maybe Bradley is dead set on the Tampa 2. We’ll see this season. I hope once the team specific game planning starts things get more interesting and effective on defense.

by ASeahawkfan on Aug 26, 2009 4:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

OK then, let's turn the problem around and ask the obvious question

Given the players we have on the current Seahawks team, what kind of defensive scheme would play to their strengths?

by Mr Fish on Aug 26, 2009 5:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

A blitzing, fire zone scheme that rarely rushed more than five.

by John Morgan on Aug 26, 2009 5:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Get that memo off to Seahawks HQ asap!

by Mr Fish on Aug 26, 2009 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Even if that is the plan...

…would we unveil such a think during the preseason? The element of showing the first reg. season opponent what to prepare for doesn’t seem like sound use of the preseason. Surprise may count for something.

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer

by Misfit74 on Aug 26, 2009 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If it's that finite

Teams will be able to adjust to it in the regular season. Unless Seattle shows me something this weekend, I am going to assume the defense we see is the defense we get.

by John Morgan on Aug 26, 2009 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So I read more about the fire zone last night

I thought I understood it, and thought I knew its place, but I didn’t, quite.

It’s a zone blitz with an end dropping, and generally two guys on the other side coming in. Wikipedia wasn’t my first or only source, but in typically good summation, it appears one of the key things is that it has 3-3 coverage behind it. So what’s the significance of that? Why is that such a key element to the distinction?

It does seem like our talent is well suited to this. It also seems a lot of what we’re establishing so far, regardless of effectiveness, is well suited to it. Not just alignment, and snaps with a 5th guy on the line, and not just personnel, but situational variance.

That encourages me a little bit, with the lack of effectiveness so far, because it’s also a relatively new blitz scheme, and while we even saw the Mike Nolan Broncos do some similar things, a 4-3 Under alignment, a fire zone, and it doesn’t seem to be so unique or revolutionary, we have a handful of rather recent innovations from non-professional levels take this league by storm. Occasionally I still marvel at how the zone blitz is only 15+ years old. The Wild Cat and spread aren’t new, but the spread’s proliferation in college is still pretty recent, and both have shown a lot of effectiveness upon professional introduction. Doesn’t appear to be revolutionary, no, but possibly it still has potential to make more of a splash?

by jacobstevens on Aug 27, 2009 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would add that unless Curry is excessively used as a blitzer

(so, not counting snaps as an end on nickle) a lack of blitzing by any of the back seven doesn’t mitigate very much. If pass coverage is a problem, it’s a problem, and pressuring with only 4 isn’t going to help much. This team really is built to blitz the LBs (I contend that Tatupu is still a pretty effective blitzer), and Wilson, in particular.

by jacobstevens on Aug 26, 2009 6:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think a defense like Philly's would work

You have two LBs that should be able to blitz well. Leroy Hill is a proven blitzer. I’d be surprised if Curry couldn’t learn to blitz.

We could use a bliitzing safety, but for now we could blitz Josh Wilson. The little guy can blitz and at the very least flush the pocket for another to make the tackle.

We don’t have the cover guys and front four for a Tampa 2 scheme. We’re going to have to get by with heavy pressure from whereever we can find it like Philly does. It burns you sometimes, but if you’re guys learn to blitz well you win more often than you lose.

But I guess we’ll see what happens with the front four during the regular season. They may surprise us. And we may not being seeing much right now. I’m pretty sure Jim Johnson and Lebeau save their best pressure packages for the regular season so as not to tip their hands. We’ll see if Bradley and Mora have been keeping their hand tight to avoid other teams from getting tape on their actual gameplan.

by ASeahawkfan on Aug 27, 2009 2:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

...make seahawks a dull boy/team?

Blerg.

by paul2 on Aug 26, 2009 9:57 PM PDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs

Nothing like a dose of Simpsons nostalgia

To go along with your Seahawks coverage/discussion. Props again to you JM!

Glenn Beck likes argument, but has a deap-seated hatred for logic.

by Cheddar28 on Aug 26, 2009 11:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yep.

Rec’d for the title alone….great piece, but pretty depressing.

by thebyron on Aug 27, 2009 8:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't follow the Bucs closely, but is their talent level still really high?

In 2007 they were ranked as the #2 defense and in 2008 they were ranked #9. Simeon Rice, Warren Sapp, and John Lynch have been gone for a few years now. Brooks and Barber were both still very good and made the probowl in 2008, but in 2007 not a single player on the team made the pro bowl (I know that’s not the best way to judge talent, but when you don’t know the players very well, it’s a start).

So exactly what are the positions that they’re so stacked at? In the last two years they’ve had fewer sacks than us, and nobody with more than 8 sacks in 2008 or 6 sacks in 2007. It’s frustrating, because it seems like our overall talent level should match theirs, but the results show that it does not.

by Mind of no mind on Aug 27, 2009 2:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You're right on that

I think they have their system and thus they have been drafting for their system. We have not had the luxury of having an entrenched D-coordinator who drafts players that fit his system. We had John Marshall for a few years, Ray Rhodes a few years, there has been no consistency on the defensive side of the ball during Holmgren’s tenure. He lost his D-coordinator the first year he was here.

I don’t know if Mora and Bradley can get the talent to execute their system this year. But if Mora and Bradley are any good, they’ll be able to ensure we get players that can play their system in the future. Holmgren was always good at picking players for his offense. Some of those players busted, but not for lack of ability.

I think the lack of stable coaching on defense has left us with a group of decent talent that wasn’t really drafted with a particular system in mind. I think future drafts will allow Bradley and Mora to acquire the defensive personnel they need to execute their system if they are given time to do so. The new defense might have trouble this year if the personnel can’t execute, but I’m waiting for the regular season to see how this defense does. It’s the team gameplanning that’s most important, not the vanilla scheme you run for preseason games.

by ASeahawkfan on Aug 27, 2009 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Monte Kiffin.

Of course that brings up the question, why is he so respected (aside from inventing multiple innovative defenses that over time have proven very effective!) as a coordinator if the general idea is, pressure with 4, load up your zones and be real conservative about it, with up to 5 guys potentially covering something deep. If the Tampa 2 coverage shell doesn’t vary much at all, and when teams like Seattle use it it’s called Vanilla, what exactly does he do as a coordinator that’s so effective and thus so respected?

I don’t know. But I don’t think that’s quite a case of designing scheme to match personnel. The old mantra is, man coverage if you got the men, zone coverage if you don’t. So why the most conservative zone coverage around (even resorting to quarters more often than Two Deep or anything else, the past four years) if three of those five potential HOF guys were in frequent pass defense (Lynch, Barber, Brooks)? The Bucs used to be bad, and Dungy always humbly said the Tampa Two wasn’t new, they used it all the time in Pittburgh when he played in the late 70s. I’d say it lends more to a bad team than superior defensive talent.

by jacobstevens on Aug 27, 2009 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kiffin finds players throughout the draft that work in his scheme

and coaches them to be great.

by John Morgan on Aug 27, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Enjoyable speculation, but

I’ve never before seen fans so rabid to criticize every mistake in preseason. In game 2 of the preseason every team has dead legs from two-a-day practices, players working into condition, veterans not yet on top of their game, and younger players thinking too much and and screwing up. That’s what the early preseason is all about.

I think this Saturday night will look a bit different, with less tired legs and better focus, and the first time we will see game planning by the coaches. I don’t think its reasonable to critcize the scheme before the 3rd preseason game, and really not until regular season game one.

Because of the injuries and position changes, I don’t expect the offensive line and run game to come together until September, but I do think we should begin to see the emergence of our starting defensive line this week. That I am looking forward to.

by Stevo's on Aug 27, 2009 8:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I have

But I know what you mean. It’s kind of true. It seems overblown.

But I’ll put it this way. It’s the preseason and you just can’t make conclusions. But concern is natural, seeing this level of play, and warranted, and ultimately stems from prior concerns. We were bad last year. The team addressed how we were bad in certain ways, and we — and the coaches — are watching to see how well the fixes work. So far they’re not. Concern is warranted. Conclusions aren’t.

by jacobstevens on Aug 27, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs