The Defense at Seattle Seahawks Training Camp
by John Morgan on Aug 9, 2009 4:33 PM PDT
33 comments
I wanted to see Seattle's defense. I wanted to see what new Head Coach Jim Mora was shaping it into. I was never an ardent critic of John Marshall, but the team needed new blood. It wasn't going to reach its potential under Marshall. I wanted to see subtle variations on the defensive line. I wanted to see how and how often Seattle would blitz. I wanted to see who was this coaching staff's guys and who was this coaching staff's weapons. So I did.
Brian Russell talks to the coaches and the coaches talk to him. He stands so far back he looks like a coach and at least once when the defense huddled up, Russell stayed back and stayed in the coach's ear. The team respects the importance of leadership and Brian Russell is a leader.
Darryl Tapp was getting shout-outs and he deserved them. He looked like Seattle's single most disruptive edge rusher and possibly Seattle's single best pass rusher. Kerney wasn't limited, but he just didn't show like Tapp. Tapp ran through Kyle Williams on a one-on-one drill and forced a hold. Tapp and Kerney both dropped into zone. Kerney played something like Charles Haley's elephant linebacker position. Standing up as his linemates crouched in a three point, often dropping into cover and should he rush, timing his squat close to the snap. He played in coverage, but he looked limited. Kerney was clearly best covering the flat. He looked a little dizzy too far from the line of scrimmage. Tapp was more versatile. Shortly after Seattle called the aforementioned overload blitz to good effect, Tapp and Aaron Curry broke into adjacent curl zones. It looked confusing from the sidelines and it must have been confusing seen through a boil of stunting, sprinting pass rushers.
The Seahawks defensive line interchanged. It shifted ends and tackles suddenly and discordantly. The left defensive line is set. The right defensive line is a little high on its heels. The offense is settling or motioning. Suddenly the right end shifts in and right tackle out. It was a practiced maneuver done efficiently. And it is the execution that will determine this subtle shift's value. Because it could work, or it could be better left undone. Activity is not progress.
It's just one practice, but it's enough to offer a status report on the composition of Seattle's new defensive scheme. Ends will drop into coverage. The Seahawks will use Marshall style stunts and zone blitzes. Josh Wilson will be an active player and Seattle will not be shy to go nickel. Tweener ends like Tapp and Nick Reed (should he make the squad) might rush from the second level. The secondary will play underneath the receiver and play for the ball. Tweener tackles like Cory Redding and Lawrence Jackson will slide inside. And defenders will get their hands up and attempt to tip the ball. Leroy Hill and Lawrence Jackson each got a piece of one and the resulting wounded duck could've fallen anywhere and to anyone.
0 recs |
33 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
As you say, just one practice, but...
…these are the things that have been reported all week (+) of camp. I’m incredibly excited about everything I’ve read about the D and you just reaffirmed that feeling. I’m so fired up for Tapp and Wilson, both, this year. I look forward to the rest of your reports from camp this week.
I'm gonna go calm submissive on your ass.
by Dukeshire on Aug 9, 2009 4:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Quible
Activity is not progress.
Maybe not, but the problem with the schemes provided by Holmgren and Marshall became stagnant because they didn’t change. According to Sando, Holmgren tended to feel pretty comfortable with his plays and didn’t feel a need to change them much. He became predictable.
Outcomes aside, there is substantial benefit to being unpredictable.
In basketball, a player that can both shoot the ball and drive the lane is harder to defend than one that can only do one or the other. The defender must compromise his defense of the drive and defense of the shot to do both.
A offensive lineman can’t prepare to defend the rush the same way if it he doesn’t know if it will comes from a DT, a DL, a LB or a S (B-Russ FTW!).
While we will all probably miss Holmgren and Marshall at some point this season, I think its great news that, for once, we’re trying something new (even if its only in practice and even if it doesn’t work the first time out).
by ninjasocks on Aug 9, 2009 4:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Link-Fu
Four thoughts on allegations Holmgren mailed it in from Sando’s ESPN Blog
On a second reading, it doesn’t look like Sando says that Holmgren didn’t change his system at all, but he does say, explicitly, that Holmgren didn’t tend to change his system to take into account (1) opponents or (2) his own personnel:
The second thing to know is that Holmgren was much more concerned about teaching his system than adjusting his system for the upcoming opponents. I thought this hurt the Seahawks during Holmgren’s first few years with the team, before the talent level was sufficient to make that system work. Example: Sean Dawkins was not a great receiver, but he gave Seattle a 6-foot-4 target in the passing game. Holmgren refused to change his approach to take advantage of that height against an opponent with an undersized cornerback because Dawkins wasn’t Jerry Rice or another great player, and unless you were a top player, Holmgren wasn’t going to change his approach for you.
I’m sure this will change under the new regime.
by ninjasocks on Aug 9, 2009 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, overall, Holmgren didn't change much for opponents, but he is willing to drastically overhaul how his offense played personnel-wise
Example: 2007.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Aug 9, 2009 11:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree that this was standard Holmgren.
The fact that he went super-spread-pass-happy was seen by most (I believe) as pretty much the first time Holmgren has really altered his plans for anything. I was pretty shocked myself.
by djafrot on Aug 9, 2009 11:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never said that it was standard Holmgren.
But he has shown an inclination to adjust how is offense played based on personnel. In 2005, the Seahawks utilized the run game a lot more often than Holmgren traditionally used it, because that was a strength of the offense given their personnel. 2007, going with a pass-centered offense because of the personnel is another example. I don’t think people give Holmgren enough credit for tweaking his offense in favor of the strength of his personnel. We must also remember that sometimes the changes were subtle infrequent because he had drafted quite a few players who fit his offense, so he didn’t have to constantly change his offense to suit his personnel as much.
However, I do agree that he didn’t change his offense much for opponents.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Aug 10, 2009 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really meant that the change in 2007 was by far an exception.
If he went to the run in 2005 a lot, I believe that was mostly because we were up by so much in so many games.
No, I don’t give Holmgren credit for tweaking his offense to suit his personnell very much, because of any coach I’ve watched on a consistent basis, he does it the least. Every coach does it to some extent, but this guy would just keep running the same bloody stuff over and over for years on end.
Sorry to disagree so vehemently!
by djafrot on Aug 10, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, they Seahawks were up substantially in some games, but some games were also very close.
I don’t think that you can deny that the running game was a strength that year, and that Holmgren knew that he needed to call more running plays given the fact that it was a strong part of their offense. After all, he had slowly been including the running game in his playcalling more and more heading into 2005 since 2002 or 2003. I also think that the Seahawks ran the ball more often to score more than they did it because they were up.
Also, why do you think one of the reasons the Seahawks were building good leads? They scored a good chunk of their TD’s via the run in the first 3 quarters before going conservative. You’d be hard pressed to show if Shaun scored more than 2 or 3 TD’s in the fourth quarter.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Aug 10, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Without any numbers, this is pretty meaningless.
All I know is that Holmgren is well known around the league for being conservative regarding change, which is why his move to an almost all-pass offense in 2007 such a widely-reported maneuver.
You could be right, it just doesn’t feel this way. He always seemed like the mirror image of, dang it, what’s his name, the ex-Browns, ex-KC coach who used to run his backs into the ground all year to great records and then choke in the playoffs. God, I’m getting old, my brain is not working.
by djafrot on Aug 10, 2009 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought it was widely reported
Because of his deviation from predominantly using the pass (to set up the run) in his playcalling to favor including the run at an almost 50/50 ratio over the years?
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Aug 11, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and I'll look up the numbers later.
I think it will support what I’m saying, but we’ll see.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Aug 11, 2009 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was widely reported
Holmgren was writing on top of his play-chart “Run More Often!”. And with SA as a TD machine, you can be sure he deviated from his pass first philosophy in the Red Zone.
Stats aside, I don’t think anyone will argue that SA influenced Holmgren’s playcalling.
I dislike the idea that Holmgren was predictable. He didn’t often change his O schemes to fit his personell, but that was because his playbook worked regardless. It seems contradictory to me for people to say he was an O genius, but that he was too predictable.
by Groundhog on Aug 11, 2009 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does Redding look beastly?
Everyone keeps talking about Redding being a beast. I hope you get a chance to confirm it when you’re at camp.
by ASeahawkfan on Aug 9, 2009 11:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He's a big guy that loves to play.
I didn’t see him do anything beastly. For one, guys aren’t trying to hurt guys out there. It’s fair to say he’s a huge, spirited and well-built guy that can do some damage.
by John Morgan on Aug 9, 2009 11:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope the D-line lives up to expectations
How about Cole? Your confidence in the guy growing or he look like you expected?
by ASeahawkfan on Aug 10, 2009 12:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And can Big Red
give Cole a run for his money?
by Fear on Aug 10, 2009 1:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Were they gearing up specifically for the pass or was that just the stuff you paid the most attention to?
I like the idea that their goal is to stop the pass, none of the typical coach talk about wanting to run the ball and stop the run.
by Nate Dogg on Aug 10, 2009 9:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I am so damned excited about this defense.
You’re right, though, change isn’t always for the better. One other big thing I’m watching for from the coaches is discretion. If they can tweak it, if/when parts of it don’t work, and still have a well-founded scheme, and still have effective parts, I would be very happy to see that.
This new thing about longer time in between practices: are the Seahawks the only team that’s doing this? Or was it a league change? I can’t imagine the NFLPA would allow this kind of change without their approval, but in one interview, Knapp made it sound like it was Mora’s invention.
by jacobstevens on Aug 10, 2009 10:25 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Hmm, it's training camp
I think the union can go pound sand. You’re on the hook for two-a-days and a a ton of film and meetings; who cares what order it’s in?
by shams on Aug 10, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno, maybe they don't care
and maybe that’s why it’s allowed. I’m pretty sure a number of things germane to training camp are specified in the CBA, though. I remember when Mike Nolan was the coach in SF, since they played in the MNF game of Preseason week 1, they (and the other team) had to start camp up to 4 days later than other teams (since preseason games started on Thursday), and he was steamed about it. But the CBA dictated that TC would start something like 12 days, or 14 days, before the first preseason game.
So, to have two-a-days, but have them in a split shift so that you’re out there from morning til 9 or 10 at night, after the showers and such, with some time in between (possibly taken up by meetings?) rather than morning and afternoon, that might be something a number of players would not be down with, and the Union might try to step on. But I dunno, that’s only speculation, and part of why I’m asking if anyone knows if it’s a Seahawk thing, or a league thing.
by jacobstevens on Aug 10, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wouldn't the Union be very happy
with the idea of their players having more time between workouts? Seems like it would be a little easier on the players physically, which the Union has to love.
by Fear on Aug 10, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They might, I dunno
It might even be that the Union demanded it. I think it is a little easier on the players. But I don’t know. I spose it’s time to stop surfing FG all morning long and do a little sleuthing to see if I can answer my own question.
by jacobstevens on Aug 10, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mike Sando has some interesting info
over here
Sorry I couldn’t get it to open in a new window, the link refused to appear in my post unless I did it this way.
What interested me was that he said Kerney is deliberately not going all out, in order to keep from doing any soft tissue damage in the preseason. Apparently that’s been a problem in the past coming out of preseason, and he hopes to avoid it this year so he’s 100% going into the regular season. Also, there’s some interesting tidbits about how the offense operates now with Knapp. Namely, more communication between QB and OC.
by Fear on Aug 10, 2009 10:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
And they said things were different
The team recently practiced third-and-10 running plays against a nickel defense.
by jacobstevens on Aug 10, 2009 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Epic.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 10, 2009 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Question on Safety Responsibility
Hey John (and others)
Somewhat off topic here and I can’t remember the details but a while ago I thought you did a piece analyzing the differences in safety responsibilities, namely Russell’s, in the primary defensive packages from 2007 to 2008. I recall that you said that in 2007 they played more cover two and in 2008 more cover 1, which exposed Russell’s athletic limitations as it required him to cover deep sideline to sideline.
Mora has said they are going to do a lot out of a base cover 2 shell this year, right? Assuming pass rush is somewhat fixed and all other things being relatively equal, shouldn’t Russell’s (and the secondary’s) numbers go back to where they were in 2007? How do you think Russell and Grant project in this scheme? Don’t you think it will hide Rusell’s limitations as it allows him to play over the top, largely on the strong side (trufant’s)?
by fadasan on Aug 10, 2009 11:14 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Though any answer is bound to be an oversimplification
I think it’s yes, we can reasonably expect Russell’s impact to not be as bad this year compared to last year, with a more consistent return to two deep safeties.
by jacobstevens on Aug 10, 2009 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I might add: along w/ improved play from the D-line
specifically the pass-rush.
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 10, 2009 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am SO excited to hear about this creativity in scheme
Not sure if perception was reality, but man it sure seemed like we were pretty vanilla on defense. I love the idea of moving guys around, creating angles and confusion — seems like this is the primary reason many teams are moving to a 3-4. If Mora and his staff can use the versatility of his personnel more effectively than Marshall did, I’m all for it.
That said, I agree that activity doesn’t always equal productivity. But I’d certainly rather fail being active than fail being vanilla.
by Jeff Nusser on Aug 10, 2009 12:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
