The Overmatched Colin Cole and the Undisciplined Red Bryant

by John Morgan on Sep 22, 2009 1:10 PM PDT Comment 34 comments

The Crawl, the MASH unit following the team from city to city, are good distractions. Think long enough about the misfortunes of Seattle and the decisions of its fearless leader and you might forget the Seahawks were kicked around by the 49ers. There is no one player that undermined the Seahawks -- nix that, it was Colin Cole. And Red Bryant. So it was two. One overmatched. The other undisciplined.

San Francisco drove 60 yards on it opening drive. The mechanics of how have all the excitement and complexity of a bull pushing around a stag. Seattle was badly overmatched at the point of attack. It wasn't Craig Terrill. It wasn't only Cole, Red Bryant was bad too. But it was mostly Seattle's newest free agent journeyman turned starter. As much as I love and praise Brandon Mebane, a team's interior run defense should not fall apart minus one man.
Bryant showed an interesting mix of good physicality and poor gap discipline. On the fourth play of the drive following a encroachment penalty on Cory Redding, Bryant weathered a double team and got a body on Frank Gore. He was too deep for it to be a good play, but he held long enough to stop the first. San Francisco converted it on the next play. Cole tackled Gore after five yards. It was second and one.
Ken Lucas showed his versatility, first camping under an underthrown pass by Shaun Hill. Hill has no arm. That, along with a funky delivery, has made him a journeyman quarterback despite his quick read and good decision making. On the next play, Lucas caught Gore in the flat with an ankle tackle and brought him down after two.
That brought up a third and long play that Seattle should have had no trouble defending. Seattle went nickel and keyed on Vernon Davis. Davis was double covered, Curry on the defensive right and Wilson on the left, at least nominally, but neither Josh Wilson nor Aaron Curry actually covered Davis. Both were transfixed on Hill. Davis cut right and away from the two and it took Seattle's entire secondary and Redding to tackle Davis after 15.
That play was worse than it seemed. The 49ers were gouging Seattle's interior line. Bryant held against the Niners double teams, but dropped his gap, flowed too far offensive left and Gore cutback right for an easy six.
Bryant did it again on the next play. He attempted a spin that got caught halfway by Chilo Rachel. He was facing the wrong way when Gore blew past him.
Center Eric Heitmann had no problem single-blocking Cole out of the action on the next play, but a gaping hole and lead blocker was busted by pure talent. Curry hit right tackle Adam Snyder pulling through the hole and knocked him back and through Glenn Coffee for a loss of two. Coffee staggered sideways and Kerney finished the tackle.
Will Herring did his coverage thing. He broke on a short pass to Michael Robinson and was running him into the backfield before he could make a field move. It was Lofa Tatupu's zone, but Herring made a faster read and was faster to his man. Tatupu wasn't 80%. I doubt he was 50%.
Seattle put in its pass rush line: Darryl Tapp, Craig Terrill, Redding and Kerney. Kerney edge rushed Snyder, swam to his outside shoulder, paused briefly as Snyder shaded to catch up, and then swam to his inside shoulder to clear and sack Hill. That sack was pure skill and savvy.

The drive resulted in three points, but the writing was on the wall. The Seahawks coaches were doing all they could to fortify the interior. They cycled Cole and Bryant and sometimes teamed the two, but Cole couldn't hold and Bryant didn't know how to consistently. Jimmy Raye makes no bones about attacking the interior. Seattle proved they couldn't stop him.

0 recs | Comment 34 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Bears have been forcing the ball to Greg Olsen

who hasn’t performed well. Everyone’s been ready for that. Matt Forte was good last year. Don’t fully know how the equation’s changed, and I didn’t notice any real issues with their tackles despite it being their biggest question mark of the offseason. But this matchup doesn’t have the same dynamics that the 9ers one did. I can say that in retrospect.

This is an encouraging post because though we’re aware of Cole’s limitations, this doesn’t speak a great indictment on limitations. Absent run defenders and a developing player. And it’s a matchup dynamic we can adjust for next time, regardless of the personnel. That assumes that the coaching staff sees what you see and concludes that the correct answer isn’t once again putting the two biggest bodies in the middle for as many snaps as they can absorb.

by jacobstevens on Sep 22, 2009 1:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Great post, John.

A quick comment regarding this:

As much as I love and praise Brandon Mebane, a team’s interior run defense should not fall apart minus one man.

Would you agree that early indicators show that it will fall apart when it comes to the Seahawks? Granted, it was the Rams, but we utterly shut down Steven Jackson which then subsequently dropped over 100 on the Redskins the very next next week. The Redskins front 7 are nothing to be scoffed at.

As much as it sucks, our interior line and run-stopping ability really seems to hinge on Mebane’s health and relative performance.

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

by Nick Andron on Sep 22, 2009 1:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

SJax did the WAS what Jones did to STL in week one

3 YPC with one big run for about 60 yards. The difference between SJax performance in week one and week two is that his big run was 22 yards against us and 60 yards against the Skins.

Mike Wahle(OG), Walter Jones(LT), Chris Spencer(C), Marcus Trufant(CB), Deion Branch(WR), Sean Locklear(OT), Brandon Mebane(DT), Leroy Hill(LB), Lofa Tatupu(LB), Josh Wilson(CB), Justin Griffith(FB), Matt Hasselbeck (QB)

by ninjasocks on Sep 22, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm. Ok.

So it sounds like it’s more of their own ability to block and not so much Seattle’s run defense

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

by Nick Andron on Sep 22, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is not true.

Jackson had 11 successful runs against Washington: 62, 4, 3, 5, 4, 5, 6, 6, 6, 5 and 3. He had six unsuccessful rushes: -1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0.

I have no idea who introduced this “minus one run his YPC” theory, but it doesn’t make any sense.

by John Morgan on Sep 22, 2009 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whatever the case may be

Mebane is proving how important he is, and he’s going to demand a huge contract come negotiation time.

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

by Nick Andron on Sep 22, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And for the sake of comparison.

Jackson had six successful rushes against Seattle: 9, 2, 10, 2, 5 and 22.

He had ten unsuccessful rushes: 1, 2, 8, 0, -2, 3, 1, 2, 1 and 1.

by John Morgan on Sep 22, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That 22 yard run came with 4 minutes left to go and the Seahawks up 28-0

Without that run, SJax is averaging about 3 YPC (which is what Jones did when you subtract his big run). Gore also averaged about 3 YPC when you exclude his two huge runs.

by ninjasocks on Sep 22, 2009 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And obviously that's a more nuanced view of the running game that what I presented

I just saw 3 YPC plus a 60 yard run for both SJax and JJones and it looked familiar.

I have no idea who introduced this "minus one run his YPC" theory, but it doesn’t make any sense.

Sando was pretty dismissive of Jones’ week one production because it was 3 YPC after you knock off that big 60 yard run. I also think its dumb to knock off the big runs from YPC numbers because RBs often have short carries early in the game and break long runs later in the game.

by ninjasocks on Sep 22, 2009 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is where it came from

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/5189/personnel-report-seahawks-running-game

The highlights showed Seattle’s Julius Jones breaking a 62-yard touchdown run against the Rams during a 28-0 victory in Week 1.

That run was very much an aberration among the Seahawks’ nine rushing plays from their base offense featuring two backs, two receivers and one tight end. Aberrations count, of course, but the other eight base run plays netted 9 yards total. The chart breaks them out by runner.

A big run by Jones is an “aberration” while later he on includes the meaningless 22 yd run in SJax’s numbers:

The Seahawks put eight defenders in the box four times, allowing 5.3 yards per attempt on these rushes. They allowed 4.0 yards per attempt on 14 rushes with fewer than eight in the box. The Rams had a 10-yard run against and eight-man box.

by ninjasocks on Sep 22, 2009 8:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

To be fair

A 62 yard run skews YPC a heck of a lot more than a 22 yard run.

by Brendan Scolari on Sep 23, 2009 12:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

with these two cases. When backs have fantastic days, with no 80 yarders but a handful of big runs from 15 to 45, it just shows that the guy was breaking through with regularity, and there is no abberation among them.

by jacobstevens on Sep 23, 2009 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Makes perfect sense to me

to illustrate if a long run skewed the results. Not to suggest the runs don’t count. But especially in analyzing how a defensive line does, once the run goes past 15 yards or so, it could be a 15 yard run or a 99 yard TD and their performance is essentially the same.

There’s still a range of conclusions, to be sure. Take away Chris Johnson’s big runs against Houston, and he didn’t look so great. Lot of failed conversion attempts, negligible plays, the yardage provided on the other plays didn’t help the team much.

Take away Frank Gore’s big runs, and he still looks pretty good. Valuable yardage. Conversions. He didn’t look stuck in first gear until two gaffs opened it up for him. As you described earlier, it was evident he was about to bust something out big. And did, and how.

by jacobstevens on Sep 22, 2009 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see that reasoning a lot, but it's wrong.

Not to suggest the runs don’t count. But especially in analyzing how a defensive line does, once the run goes past 15 yards or so, it could be a 15 yard run or a 99 yard TD and their performance is essentially the same.

What happens 15+ yards past the line of scrimmage is greatly influenced by what happened in the first five yards. Was the hole large and the rusher able to hit it fast and before the defense could react. Is the rusher entering the second level untouched and nearing full speed, or did he pick his way there and give the defense time to pursue. Does the offense have lead blockers and how many defenders have been washed out of a play. Etc.

Further, removing one run and stating yards per carry has all sorts of conceptual flaws. We have a general idea of yards per carry set in our heads. Usually, the dividing line between good and bad is 4 YPC. That idea is formed from all run plays, and not run plays minus big run plays. So subtracting a long run creates a new standard we don’t know how to judge. What is a good yard per carry in the NFL if we subtract all runs that go for more than 20 yards? I don’t know, and without that standard, it’s abusive argumentation to create a new stat and compare it to an existing stats’ standard.

It also wholly ignores game situation. Jackson was successful on most of his runs against Washington. He was unsuccessful on most of his runs against Seattle. YPC, given a very large sample, is a somewhat useful stat. But within one game, it’s not. It effectively punishes a player for converting short yardage and rewards a player for getting 15 on a third and 20 draw play.

by John Morgan on Sep 22, 2009 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I still find it informative.

You make very good points about the limitations, and I agree. A lot of parallels can be made to YPA, QB rating, and so on. Rather than dismiss its usefulness altogether I would simply caution the application of it, due to these.

But case in point, in a discussion where we watched the whole game as well as saw Gore’s two big runs, we can evaluate whether the line ought to own all of the yards given up or whether a clear missed tackle tripled the amount.

Since I didn’t see the STL-WAS game, nor see highlights, I can’t speak for it at all. And I am not nearly suggesting the longest run and the least-successful run are always fair game for not counting in order to make these kind of contextual analysis.

But in the context of evaluating whether the line had a bad game or whether the play of the back seven made what they gave up look worse, it can be a useful look. In this case, we still looked bad. There are cases where one or two long blasts make the line look substantially worse than they played, through the lense of the aggregate numbers.

by jacobstevens on Sep 22, 2009 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"and without that standard, it’s abusive argumentation!"

Step back ya’ll, I think John is drinkin his coffee black today!

Of course, he’s right. An average calculated without all the data points is not only meaningless but is misleading.

"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank

by Stevo's on Sep 22, 2009 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Only if the average is applied to the entire context.

If it’s only applied to the context in which it’s culled, it can be useful.

The Seahawks got run over by Frank Fore. Were they all around bad, or were they inconsistent? How do you answer that by applying the whole body of work?

Let’s say for the sake of argument, tossing out the big runs yields a result of them playing OK at times, awful at others (it didn’t in reality, we looked bad all around). If, then, they were inconsistent, that wouldn’t mean they weren’t still bad on the whole. They were.

But if you were to then proceed to identify solutions (as futile of an exercise I realize all of this is) the impact is significant. An all around bad performance points to personnel issues, perhaps matchup issues. An inconsistent performance may point to development, technique, conditioning, or schematic issues.

Not that a single-game’s performance is enough to make any kind of conclusions about. But that’s a very different reason for not tossing out the big ones than just saying you can’t because it’s not a complete picture that accounts for all variables.

by jacobstevens on Sep 22, 2009 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I always drink my coffee black

My bad mood stems from fan reaction when the team loses. Anonymous cat fights are pathetic and patrolling them annoying.

by John Morgan on Sep 22, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"anonymous cat fights"?

That’s a pretty good description of the internet.

by ninjasocks on Sep 22, 2009 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And the picture is descriptive of the internets, not any particular person

by ninjasocks on Sep 22, 2009 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wrong. Not all data points are statistically significant.

In statistics you learn that some data points are outliers that should not be included in the data set. In science you learn that some data points should be thrown out or grouped differently because of context.

I’m not sure if any of this informs our understanding of football though . . .

by ninjasocks on Sep 22, 2009 5:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My view

is inconclusive. One game. Traditional offense not stuck to by many in the league. Three key injuries in run defense, not just one. It was on the road — not an excuse, but a concern. That’s half our games, and it felt typical of the Hawks on the road.

I also think Gore’s better after breaking through the first level than he is doing anything else — which he’s also pretty good at. Not to say it didn’t count — see the other discussion above — but don’t let the two big runs overshadow how the defensive line performed against the run. Without those two runs, it would have looked like a very unspectacular performance. Respectable YPC (for the offense I mean), average net yards. Most runs successes, but no inordinate amount of drives were. A top back and a run heavy offense, expected to get theirs, got theirs. Didn’t shut them down in the slightest. But wasn’t the same embarrassment as the defense and team as a whole deservedly bears.

by jacobstevens on Sep 22, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Barry Sanders is a player that I think of in reading this discussion.

Just because he had 10-15 runs of either ‘no-gain’’ or 1-3 yards and 1 or 2 runs of 80+ over what seems like a typical game for him didn’t make him have a ‘poor game’ or remove him from Hall of Fame status. I think you have to look at the body of work in a game and not get too cute.

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevan 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 Sep 22, 2009 3:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Contribution is contribution

and lack of success is lack of success. Gore had a great game, and looking past the two big runs, you see a performance that made the opportunity for them, not dumb luck. The same is not true for Julius Jones the week prior, who had an unspectacular game but serendipity provided a 60 yarder and points.

You look at the body of work, when you’re looking at the body of work. If you want to see whether the body is comprised of consistent and stellar execution, or an inconsistent mix of success and frustration, the whole body of work isn’t going to tell you very much, is it?

Barry Sanders contributed a lot, more than just yards, with his big runs. He also contributed to put his offense in many more difficult down & distances than a HOF ought to have.

by jacobstevens on Sep 22, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Seattle put in its pass rush line: Darryl Tapp, Craig Terrill, Redding and Kerney. Kerney edge rushed Snyder, swam to his outside shoulder, paused briefly as Snyder shaded to catch up, and then swam to his inside shoulder to clear and sack Hill. That sack was pure skill and savvy.

I don’t remember if Kerney had 2 sacks, but at least one (maybe this one?) was almost solely on Hill. Hill ran right into him scrambling to his right.

by Brendan Scolari on Sep 23, 2009 12:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Often I agree with that sentiment

but you got to give credit. The pass rush gave Hill cause to scramble. Kerney made his opportunity for himself by not being blocked out of the play, by clearing the way for him to get Hill when Hill did scramble. I think it was Kerney’s only sack.

by jacobstevens on Sep 23, 2009 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

True

Although if I remember correctly Hill was in the pocket for awhile. It was more the other rushers who caused Hill to scramble. Kerney was in the right spot but he hadn’t exactly beaten Snyder on the play.

by Brendan Scolari on Sep 23, 2009 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hill scrambled because Kerney edge rushed

then he worked an inside move to tackle the scrambling Hill.

by John Morgan on Sep 23, 2009 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough.

by Brendan Scolari on Sep 23, 2009 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cory Redding at three tech until Mebane is back

Period. If I don’t see Mora and Bradley do this, they are ridiculous fools.

by ASeahawkfan on Sep 23, 2009 6:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

How strong is Cory Redding against the run?

How much weaker would our DEs be against the run if Redding was inside? Smart coaches think about these things. “Ridiculous fools” don’t.

by ninjasocks on Sep 23, 2009 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He hurt his knee last season and slimmed down to play end.

The coaches will not panic and change his position again.

by John Morgan on Sep 23, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cory Redding is a top DT

He had his best year sliding from the DE position to the DT position. 8 sacks collected as a DT after starting as a DE for a Lions. He is very good against the run and is a very strong man easily better, stronger, and faster than Terrill.

We traded Julian Peterson for a top end DT that could slide in and pass rush while not hurting our run stuffing ability in the middle. It’s the whole reason we traded for Cory Redding.

So instead we use Craig Terrill, a poor man’s version of Redding to replace Mebane. It’s ridiculous.

If you have a guy that has excelled at playing the three tech prior to coming to Seattle, you should see that as an asset to strengthen the middle of your line.

by ASeahawkfan on Sep 23, 2009 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

With Shaun Rogers

I dunno how seamless a comparison you can make. Rocky Bernard had 8 sacks in 2005, but watching us lead the league in sacks that year it was plain to see the pass rush wasn’t ferocious. Sacks always seemed to come late, “coverage sacks” if you will, and the sack rate was top 10 and not 1st overall, because we were ahead for a good part of man games.

I’m for Redding sliding inside. I think the concern was Jackson & Tapp. I think they’re fine. They also had a lot of guys. Mora had even mentioned they might effectively use Bennett to replace Mebane if necessary, not to start of course, but it didn’t happen.

It’s just not the clean cut case you see, to me. There are other options. I don’t know that it’s the best solution, but I would support Redding inside more frequently than just the pass rush line.

by jacobstevens on Sep 23, 2009 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs