Tim Ruskell Designed the Seattle Seahawks Defense. Now It Will Decide Tim Ruskell's Future.
by John Morgan on Sep 6, 2009 3:05 PM PDT
Email
PrintYesterday was cathartic. It was a final stroke in a dramatic restructuring of the Seattle Seahawks defense. Seattle got younger and substantially more talented. While Mike Holmgren's vision is still recognizable in Seattle's offense, Seattle's defense is now wholly and truly new*. It's fitting that the one holdover from the Holmgren era is not a holdover at all. Ken Lucas was signed cheap and after he was cut by another team. He was a fringe benefit from a masterful negotiation with Leroy Hill.
Hill signed to a six-year, $36 million dollar contract. It's not backloaded and will never cripple Seattle. It is expensive. If Hill develops, Seattle will pay a lower-top tier salary for a top-tier linebacker. If he doesn't develop, but holds his current ability, a virtual guarantee, Seattle will pay a lower-top tier salary for a lower-top tier linebacker. Given the latter scenario, Seattle can opt out of Hill's contract after 2010. Hill is the second oldest linebacker on Seattle's roster; Hill is 26. Special teams ace Lance Laury is 27, Lofa Tatupu is 26, Will Herring turned 26 on August 28, David Hawthorne is 24 and Aaron Curry is 23.
Curry is a starter. Seattle is young at starter and in its depth. It's easy for a bad team to be young, and until the Seahawks shake off the stink of 4-12, that is what we must call them: a bad team. But a bad team can be young but clinging to its veterans for what life it has, or a bad team can be young and building a core of young talent for the future. The Seahawks defense falls into that latter, more hopeful category. Among major contributors this season, only Patrick Kerney is old: 32. Lucas, Cory Redding and Colin Cole are on the verge of old: 30, 28 and 29 respectively. Lucas and Cole are stopgaps, with Cole already less talented than his depth: Red Bryant. Lucas is probably less talented than Josh Wilson, but more skilled, and until Marcus Trufant returns, both are starters. Bryant and Wilson are 25 and 24, respectively.
If we use a player's age on week one of the NFL season, for Seattle September 13, 2009, the Seahawks starters, backups and depth break out like this.
Starters: 32, 30, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 26, 24, 24, 23
Backups: 35, 29, 26, 25, 24, 24, 24
Depth: 30, 27, 26, 24, 23, 22, 22
Trufant: 28
And if I use a subjective ranking of ability, and list just the top 11 defensive talents on Seattle's roster, it would look like this: Tatupu 26, Trufant 28, Brandon Mebane 24, Kerney 32, Hill 26, Curry 23, Deon Grant 30, Wilson 24, Redding 28, Darryl Tapp 25 and Bryant 25. If it runs those starters in 2010, only Patrick Kerney is past his prime. The other ten are starting-caliber and entering or within their prime. Only Grant is even pushing his decline.
But is it good? The parts have been good individually, but never great together. Until now the talent and the coaching staff were at odds. This year, they are united by the vision of one man. Seattle's defense is now Tim Ruskell's living resume. In one week, this ship sets out to sea. It will float or it will sink. It will take this season somewhere wonderful or drag us all to a watery grave. The hull, keel, masts, crew and captain were picked by Ruskell as was the sail. We are below deck, cargo. Now we await the wind.
*Two players remain from Bob Whitsitt's short time in Seattle: Jordan Babineaux and Craig Terrill. Terrill is surrounded by replacements and not long for the team. Babineaux, who joined the Seahawks as a non-drafted free agent in 2004, was adopted by Ruskell. He re-signed him in 2007 and, reading between the lines, made him a starter by announcing the safety competition and subsequently cutting Brian Russell.
135 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It was Ruskell's players playing for Holmgren's coaches
That’s why there was such maddening inconsistency. A bunch of individually pretty damn good players playing great one week a crappy the next.
Now Ruskell’s players playing in the scheme he envisioned all along.
He’s still missing his John Lynch though. Here’s hoping he saw Eric Berry as a feshman in 2007 and decided he had to have him.
John your literary touch on this article
plays on our hopes and emotions tastefully but effectively and I commend you for it. I love this site.
Glenn Beck likes argument, but has a deap-seated hatred for logic.
Agreed.
I’m irritated my writing style has become mundane and pedantic in the past decade. Thanks for reminding me. ;)
Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Sep 6, 2009 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions
You'll enjoy our 35-3 win next week
I’m craving for Seahawks football.
BTW Logan Payne has just been signed to the PS.
9/5/2009: The day the Seahawks cut Brian Russell and set off worldwide jubilation.
Deon Butler will be Engram-esque
9/5/2009: The day the Seahawks cut Brian Russell and set off worldwide jubilation.
Just because raw speed didn't make up a great portion of Engram's play
It doesn’t mean Butler can’t play like Engram or be Engram-esque.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 7, 2009 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions
Engram was a possession receiver. You know, he didn't have the speed to catch the deep passes, so he relied on his hands and quick short routes.
That’s the kind of player Payne could be. Butler actually has the speed to outrun cornerbacks and safeties.
A Mariners fan in Seattle
Butler can be every bit a possession receiver that Engram was.
Being able to outrun cornerbacks and safeties does not mean that Butler can’t be every bit as good with his hands and running short routes as Engram was. That proposition a silly one, given the many facets of being a WR.
What I think you’re really proposing is the categorical role in which a player is used according to his physical traits, rather than a certain caliber of play that distinguishes a player. Nothing in your statements suggests that Butler cannot be Engram-esque if he were used the same way. Besides, Bobby Engram was pretty quick coming out of college, too.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 7, 2009 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Question:
Suppose this season goes something like 2007: Carried by the offense, but the defense is still infuriatingly inconsistent and not truly elite even at the top of their game. The team is still somewhat successful in the win column. What of Ruskell then?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
I'd be stoked if we got close to a repeat of 2007
Flashes of brilliance by players in every position on defense. Tons of sacks, a fair amount of INTs and a top-5 fantasy defense. A passing game running on all cylinders with a ramshackle receiving corps and a horrible starting RB and suckitude at TE. A decent playoff run a freak snowstorm short of an NFC champtionship game.
Compared to 2007, our offensive skill positions are all upgraded. Our defense is bigger and we have more depth at DE.
Brett Favre is the Kenny Powers of football.
That same 2007
Our pass rush disappeared on the road nearly every game.
9/5/2009: The day the Seahawks cut Brian Russell and set off worldwide jubilation.
Yeah, the road-home disparity sucked
but its better than being consistently bad. I think the addition of a couple of years more experience and a little more depth (fresh legs) may help the guys perform a little better on the road (crossed fingers).
Brett Favre is the Kenny Powers of football.
Our defense looked horrible on the road.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 6, 2009 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions
The bad starts would be guaranteed as well
As well as several missed sacks, 3rd and 20+ equalling a first down.
San Francisco was our only complete defensive game. That was dominant from start to finish.
The Cleveland game was the one that pissed me off the most. Not only because Holmgren was starting to do the insanity game (doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results), but our defense made Derek Anderson look like a star.
9/5/2009: The day the Seahawks cut Brian Russell and set off worldwide jubilation.
Sorry
But going for 4th and 1 over and over again by running Mo Morris is stupid.
So was that ridiculous draw play with no timeouts and seconds remaining. We could’ve won that game.
9/5/2009: The day the Seahawks cut Brian Russell and set off worldwide jubilation.
You can't give up 33 points and expect to win!
Holmgrens offense scored 30pts that game…every team in the NFL that scores that many points in a game should win…but not when John Marshall is your Defensive Coordinator. Granted going for it in Overtime wasn’t a good move but that play wouldn’t happened if Seattle’s defense didn’t squander a 21-6 lead. Not to mention a 24-16 lead in the 4th Qt. John Marshall made Derek Anderson look like Brett Farve…We all know what the real Derek Anderson is now. Your point was well taken but we can’t throw Holmgren under the bus for that loss totally. The MVP of that loss was Marshall’s Vanilla Swirl D!
by Mr. Blache III on Sep 7, 2009 12:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Actually they scored 23
Nate had a sick punt return that got us up 21-6.
9/5/2009: The day the Seahawks cut Brian Russell and set off worldwide jubilation.
that really doesn't matter.
21-6 is 21-6…Defense has to protect that not matter what. The Offense didn’t give up a pick 6 or something. Nice try but no dice!
by Mr. Blache III on Sep 7, 2009 9:27 PM PDT up reply actions
The Cleveland and Carolina game pissed me off
I didn’t understand how we could lose in Carolina against some backup that had never started a game or started very few. The defense lost it in the end, but the offense scoring 10 points was pretty lame as well.
Cleveland was just a pathetic loss. You put up 30 points, you should win the game.
The inconsistency on both sides of the ball drives me nuts sometimes. We could have had HFA that year if Seattle had been consistent.
YEP!
Carolina’s D is really good though. But I agree with you all the way.
by Mr. Blache III on Sep 7, 2009 12:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, that was pretty bad
On the bright side, I’m not sure that the disparity between home and away performance could be worse. Hopefully, couple more years of experience for Lofa, Hill, Tapp and Mebane, Babs and Wilson may help them play more consistently on the road.
Brett Favre is the Kenny Powers of football.
We also don't have John Marshall this year
Dialing up cover 2 shell and then having Jennings give 10 yards on 3rd and 5.
9/5/2009: The day the Seahawks cut Brian Russell and set off worldwide jubilation.
I have no idea why this team is bad on the road
It’s a hard to explain phenomena. I hope Mora can get this team more motivated to win on the road and overcome the jet lag that seems to be the reason so many West Coast teams lose when traveling East.
The furthest we'll go in the reg season is Indy
No DST in Indiana so it’s a 12:00 kickoff.
9/5/2009: The day the Seahawks cut Brian Russell and set off worldwide jubilation.
Wrong.
That used to be true, but Mitch Daniels changed it a couple years ago. We go on DST just like everyone else.
by The Ancient Mariner on Sep 6, 2009 9:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Except for Arizona
People there are too old to mess around with time changes. 1PM is 1PM, crops or no crops, damn it!
"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture
During the summer in Phoenix
It often doesn’t drop below 100 degrees until long after the sun sets. Why get up earlier to enjoy the sunlight when you can’t spend any time outside in it?
Brett Favre is the Kenny Powers of football.
Yes, I know there are exceptions
Saskatchewan is another (changing the clocks confuses the cows, and they give less milk). You understood what I meant.
by The Ancient Mariner on Sep 7, 2009 8:22 AM PDT up reply actions
When I was an exchange student in Australia
waaaay back in 1994, the state I was in, Queensland, was having a debate about daylight savings.
A lady called in to a radio station and she was against daylight savings… they asked her why and she said that the extra hour of daylight faded her curtains more.
Dead air.
The DJ Crew didn’t even know what to say…
Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Sep 7, 2009 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Hahahahahaha.. hahahahaha.. hahahaha
.. ha.
God, some people can be idiots.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 7, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions
Hawaii doesn't go on DST
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 6, 2009 9:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, it does.
Trust me, I live here. Time was, it didn’t, but that changed a few years ago, and Hoosiers are still grumbling about it. (For a while, it looked like Mitch Daniels would lose his race for re-election because of it.)
by The Ancient Mariner on Sep 8, 2009 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Ah I see
I have family there, but haven’t actually been to Indiana in years.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 8, 2009 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Ruskell might retain his job
But I don’t know that I’d be real happy. You spend this kind of money and high draft picks on your defense and hire a defensive head coach who hires a group of pretty solid defensive coaches, you expect to get some very good results from a defensive unit that was getting better as recent as 2007.
I want some damn results. I want some domination and some fight on the road from this defense. I hope Mora, Bradley, Quinn, and Lewis can motivate this group to get it done.
Cory Redding is on the edge of old but TJ Duckett is in his prime?
Brett Favre is the Kenny Powers of football.
The "prime age" is different for each position
9/5/2009: The day the Seahawks cut Brian Russell and set off worldwide jubilation.
So DEs drop off more quickly than RBs? That doesn't sound right to me.
Brett Favre is the Kenny Powers of football.
Different contexts
Duckett only mattered for this season. This is about Redding and his future with the team.
But Redding is on a one-year contract and Duckett had a longer (5-year?) contract
Whether he plays well, plays poorly or gets injured there’s no guarantee that he’ll be with the Hawks next year. If he plays well, he may be too expensive. If he plays poorly, he probably won’t be resigned. If any of the younger guys develop enough (LJ, Bennett, Walker), he’ll probably be let go whatever happens.
Brett Favre is the Kenny Powers of football.
It's different contexts
Cory Redding is signed to this year and will perform for the first entirely Tim Ruskell defense. He is within his prime now, but, especially considering his recent knee problems, “pushing old” I.e. nearing a point in his career where we can be reasonably sure his production over the life of a contract will not match his production at the time of the contract’s signing. After this season, Ruskell can attempt to retain Redding or let him sign to another team and reap the compensatory draft pick.
Seattle swapped out Duckett for James midstream. The argument was: How much better is James likely to be this season compared to what Duckett could be for this season and however many seasons afterward. Duckett has had light use and suffered no major injuries. He is within his prime this season and could have an atypical prime. Whatever the case, he had some kind of future and certainly more upside than James. James is well removed from his prime and has proven such on the football field. James has less downside.
So it feels like you are scrutinizing words without context. I don’t think Cory Redding being in his prime but pushing old/nearing his decline in any way contradicts Duckett being in his prime and maybe having a late prime.
I was just being a little pedantic
I think Redding and Duckett probably have a similar number of years left in the league and was trying to give you a little ribbing for your Duckett manlove.
Brett Favre is the Kenny Powers of football.
Actually, I'm not sure that's true
At least according to this chart from here RB’s yards per carry and TD rate decline steadily throughout their career. Anedoctally though, what you said sounds right.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 7, 2009 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions
No
The chart has a sample bias. Running backs that have declined are used less and therefore represent a smaller portion of the chart. Zach Fein says exactly that.
In addition, if a guy is playing into his early-to-mid 30s, chances are he’s been productive late in his career; if a guy fades away at age 31, with, say, a drop of 500 rushing yards from his previous year, he’s going to get little carries the next year—if he isn’t retired by then.
Kyle Williams waived, Brandon Frye of the Dolphins taken off the waiver wire
Per the Rotoworld blurb: “Frye, 26, wasn’t built for Miami’s power running system, but has ideal athleticism for Seattle’s zone-blocking scheme. He can play tackle and guard.”
For all the joking about the Seahawks being filled with Falcons and Bucs retreads
The Lions sure are snapping up a lot former Seahawks.
Brett Favre is the Kenny Powers of football.
The Lions and Redskins are the new Seahawks
9/5/2009: The day the Seahawks cut Brian Russell and set off worldwide jubilation.
Coaches like players they've worked with before
I think that’s one reason why we wouldn’t grab a FA QB from another team (like a Brohm or a Campbell).
Brett Favre is the Kenny Powers of football.
Oh, but I wish
I’d love to see them add Brohm. It might free us up to use the Broncs’ pick next year on another position.
by The Ancient Mariner on Sep 6, 2009 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Assuming they didn't have any problems with those players, yes
You didn’t see Mora pulling strings to bring in the “coach killer”, did you?
Like flesh-eating bacteria is the worst thing in Cleveland
Brett Favre is the Kenny Powers of football.
by ninjasocks on Sep 6, 2009 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Amazingly, I feel really good about our DL
There’s some real upside here.
by The Ancient Mariner on Sep 6, 2009 4:44 PM PDT reply actions
Lets hope so
There’s a good chance we may not have Kerney and Redding next year.
Brett Favre is the Kenny Powers of football.
Yeah, especially if these young guys pan out.
Kerney is expensive as hell.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
09/05
Terminated contracts
S Brian Russell
by Wayward Llama on Sep 6, 2009 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Is there any indication that Redding would be opposed to signing an extension to stay here for the rest of his career?
Football was no longer fun for him in Detroit. He’s said he’s rediscovered some of that fun during training camp and preseason. Hopefully he’ll have a whole lot of fun this year!
I don't think Redding was be opposed to re-signing
I just think that he wouldn’t necessarily take a pay cut to re-sign with us. If he performs really well, he might command more on the open market than we’d be willing to pay. If he plays like crap or gets injured, we may not want to re-sign him.
Brett Favre is the Kenny Powers of football.
I'm more worried about losing Tapp
I figure Kerney’s probably gone after this season, but that Ruskell will keep Redding if he wants him.
by The Ancient Mariner on Sep 6, 2009 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm cautiously optimistic
It will be interesting to see what Reed and Bennett can do against real competition.
Good writeup.
Very good points, but to me age is just a number. Younger guys usually take 2-4 years to develope (Jackson, Cole, Sims, etc), so they still make dumb mistakes . Then players have a prime playing time of 2-4 years, followed by a drop off as injuries catch up to them, not so much age (Kerney for example). There are guys like Favre and Big Walt that go forever (it seems like), but most guys just can’t overcome that first major injury, then the little ones pile up.
Also, it seems that the team added some good depth this year to set up next year at DE. As you said Redding is a one year deal, and Kerney may be on the way out after this year (you may add Jackson to list, if he bombs out this year as well). I like the players the team has on D, but until we see them gel into a solid unit I don’t have the high hopes some may have. They can be top 15, but they could also fall into the bottom 12 if a few things go wrong (left on the field to long). Here’s hoping this defense (and the team for that matter) gel in the first few weeks, so they can make a playoff run.
Only a young whippersnapper would say "age is just a number"
Old farts like me know there’s more to it than that.
But as the years roll by, the distinction between each successive number does get blurred.
You never believe all you hear about age
until you’re older. I used to lift heavy weights for two hours workouts, eat a ton, and recover in a day or two. Now I lift heavy weights, eat, and it takes three or four days to fully recover and get injued alot easier. I’m dealing with some nagging muscle or tendon problem right now that was never a problem when I was younger.
Now I have an understanding of what happens to these athletes as they age. The body can’t maintain a high level of physical activity in those older years. Sad but inevitable.
You just need to change the way you train.
Less is more.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 6, 2009 8:04 PM PDT up reply actions
True.
Both good points Mr, Fish and A Seahawkfan. What I was trying to say is, is it’s the injuries that pile up and end careers, not so much age. As I have gotten older I notice naggin injuries from the past (not taken care of properly at the time) that are now coming back and need surgery. I may not lift weights as heavy as I did in my early 20’s, but I still work out as hard as I did then. I just can’t go long periods of time off, or it is harder to get back to where I was before.
Getting old sucks, but not taking care of nagging injuries, is a quick way to get older much faster.
As has been noted many times here & U.S.S. Mariner ...
Injuries are a part of age.
With the exception of the freaks (e.g. Ichiro or Julian Peterson), injuries don’t necessarily occur more with age, they just hurt more/longer. This happens across the board, without regard to sport. Certain sports and positions age “faster,” like RB, because of stresses put on the joints. Your body twisting in certain ways for prolonged periods can overstress the weak muscle systems, like shoulders and knees. Couple that with advancing age, and you have the makeup for serious injuries, not just nagging ones. It happens with tennis as much as it does with football.
Yes, injuries end most careers, but age is a key component in those injuries. Broken fibulae don’t matter near as much as repeated ACL surgeries. Remember, injuries and age are intertwined.
True.
Not so sure when I said “age” doesn’t play into ending careers, but what I said is that injuries piling up over time are the main cause, and age is just a by product. I’m done with this after this comment. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows age is a factor, but also that same person knows getting hammered over and over and over for years (playing sports like football) plays way more into it than anything. A 30-35 year old football player is like a 50-55 year old normal person, it’s just the truth.
So yes age matters, but the repeted injuries end careers faster than age.
Jimmy Conners said,
“The problem with experience, by the time you get it, you’re too damn old to use it.”
Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Sep 6, 2009 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Red oes look to be more powerful than Cole
That’s one guy I hope pans out and proves to be durable. He seems like he wants to be a top guy in the NFL and has a good mentor in Jacob Green. He improves his technique, proves he can endure the NFL beating, and produces this year and we could have our DT tandem set for the five or six years. Our own version of the Williams. Red is a damn monster. He and Mebane might be a DT tandem worthy of envy around the NFL.
Great Food for Thought John...
I think defensively, the biggest departure from days gone by, is the beefier front line. I never fully bought in to the quick penetrating concept up front.
Marcus Tubbs showed us all the difference between what a Seahawk defense COULD be (when opposing OL’s are neutralized), and what it IS (when our LB’s are using their athleticism to “catch up to plays” instead of forcing the offenses hand).
I feel encouraged by the direction the defense has gone. If Cole and Redding serve as nothing more than bathtub caulk…. I believe it’s a net gain in that our “headhunters” will have more space to move in.
for what it’s worth…
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
This whole Marcus Tubbs made the defense in 2005
makes me want to watch Tennessee and see if they have the same preciptious fall Seattle had when it lost Tubbs. I’ve heard the Tubbs mantra again and again. Haynesworth in 2008 was better than Tubbs in 2005. I expect to see Tennessee’s defense fall off hard after losing their Pro Bowl DT given how many times I’ve been told Tubbs was the reason for Seattle’s horrible defense in 2006.
I hope the people that claim losing your Pro Bowl DT causes your whole defense to fall apart are right. That would make Tennessee alot easier to beat when we play them.
I have my doubts that they will drop off dramatically.
Tennessee’s defense looked dominantg this preseason without Haynesworth. Not saying that they won’t suffer from not having Haynesworth, but if their preseason play is any indicator, they will get along just fine without him. If it isn’t, then you may very well be right.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 6, 2009 9:55 PM PDT up reply actions
I will be real disappointed
If Seattle is somehow the only team that becomes pedestrian or worse after losing their top DT.
Alot of Seattle fans insisted that the loss of Tubbs was the primary reason for Seattle’s defensive downfall in 2006. I thought it was a combination of bad coaching, bad offensive play, and a general down season. The loss of one guy should never collapse your defense if they are really any good.
But I’m hoping the “Loss of Tubbs crowd” is right because it would mean a better chance at a win on the schedule.
Tennessee's defense is stacked.
Fantastic secondary, good linebackers, underrated defensive line. All that may just be able to withstand such a large loss.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 7, 2009 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm not buying it
Seattle had good LBs, decent corners and safeties, and guys that performed well the prior year. Either your defense falls apart or takes a serious step back losing a DT of Haynesworth caliber or there are other things going on that hurt your team like poor coaching, poor scheme, poor drafting, and poor offensive performance.
"decent corners and safeties"
Not a chance in hell.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 7, 2009 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes a chance in hell
Those two not making it was another example of bad coaching. I believe much of the deficiency on the defense is caused by very poor coaching and scheme that was sometimes overcome by talent.
The question is who they have to replace him
The problem with the ‘Hawks is that they had nobody else who could do what Tubbs did. It’s not a generic “losing your Pro Bowl DT causes your whole defense to fall apart,” but was specific to our situation.
That said, I don’t see how the Titans can avoid being weaker after losing somebody that good.
by The Ancient Mariner on Sep 7, 2009 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions
No it was not specific to our situation
We lost one player and the 2006 defense supposedly went into the garbage because of it. Should happen to Tennessee as well or at least a lower defensive performance as they were much better in 2008 than we were in 2005. This whole making excuses for poor play due to the loss of one defensive player cannot continue to cover up poor coaching, poor drafting, bad schemes, bad adjustments and gameplanning, and the effect negative offensive performance has on a defense.
The loss of one guy, no matter how good, destroys a good defense. The loss of Tubbs was another excuse for other problems.
If I’m wrong, the loss of Haynesworth should hurt Tennessee bad. Because Seattle was all things equal and in fact improved in certain areas in 2006 including acquiring Julian Peterson.
The loss of one guy, no matter how good, should not destroy a good defense
Correction to above post.
Yes, it *was* specific to our situation
because we had no one besides Tubbs who could play his role. If you want to conclude from that that the 2006 D was not a good D, feel free—but that’s your thing. I presume you would be consistent on this and argue the same for offense?
by The Ancient Mariner on Sep 8, 2009 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Agree with what everyone is saying
My biggest worry with the defense is still whether or not the “West Coast Defense” involves the dreaded “bend but don’t break” mentality. We saw this in the San Diego and Denver preseason games, where linebackers would be playing 8 yards off the line of scrimmage on 3rd and 5, and it was relatively easy for Orton (ORTON!) to play pitch and catch for a good portion of the first half.
That being said, our defensive line depth is amazing, our linebacking corps is amazing, and Brian Russell is no longer a Seahawk. If Trufant was healthy, this would probably be the most confident I have ever been in our defensive personnel going into a regular season.
"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture
That frightens me as well
“Bend but don’t break” is nothing more than a euphemism for bad defense. Pittsburgh and Baltimore don’t play “bend but don’t break”, they play excellent defense that wears down opposing offenses and looks to hurt and hobble. That’s how you play defense.
I'm OK with bending and not breaking.
The goal is to stop opponents from scoring. I don’t care if the Seahawks allow an opponent to drive 99 yards down the field per drive, if they stop them from scoring, I’m perfectly OK with that.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 6, 2009 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions
99 yards would always end in a touchdown
But I get what you mean. However, it just stands to reason that if a team can move the ball 90 some yards with ease, getting the extra few shouldn’t be all that difficult. I think the worse part about it is it leaves your defense on the field a lot, and your offense off the field, thus decreasing your chance of scoring and their chance of not scoring. It also gives your opponent more plays and with more plays comes more opportunities to score.
It’s all more complicated then this, of course, but I have my doubts of a bend but not breaking philosophy being all that effective.
by B.B.Finnegan on Sep 6, 2009 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Not necessarily.
There’s less space to play with the closer you get to the end zone defenses can use that to their advantage, but easier said than done.
Between the 20’s, I’m very much ok with the bending. In the red zone, they better not fucking break; it matters WHERE adn WHEN you get your stops. That’s all I really care about. But that’s not to say that I won’t say no to a having a defense that makes stops between the 20’s, it’s just that I’m tolerant enough to see a defense that bends but doesn’t allow the score.
The bend but don’t break philosophy works just fine provided that you have an offense to go with that kind of defense. 2005 was a great example of that. 2007 is also another one.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 6, 2009 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions
All defenses play better in the red zone. It is to their advantage.
Or so I used to always think, but then again, maybe that’s not even true:
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/01/is-red-zone-performance-real.html
Red zone is such a small sample size per game, it’s hard to get an accurate analysis. It’s hard even finding stats on it.
I only found these links, but I don’t have time to crunch the data, nor does there seem to be enough data here. If you want to do it to prove yourself right, or find more info, please do.
http://www.twominutewarning.com/red2004.htm
http://www.twominutewarning.com/xxred.htm
http://www.twominutewarning.com/sea.htm
Two other problems I see with bend but don’t break.
1) You would give up a lot of field goals. And did Seattle give up more field gulls?
2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004 they gave up 37 (2nd), 22 (23rd), 23 (16th), 34 (2nd), 27 (4th)
Seems pretty random. In 08 05 and 04 they gave up a lot of field gulls, but this doesn’t correlate to when their redzone defense was supposedly really good. Or maybe this is a bad way to compare.
2) They would be consistently losing the field position battle. Allowing the other team to get past the 50 and then finally stiffening up for the punt (this is for the times you didn’t allow the opponent to get as far as the red zone) would leave you pinned down in your own territory a lot. That’s not good for the offense, or defense. A bend but don’t break defense you would think would allow this to happen a lot.
3) Seattle should be giving up less big plays over the years. Has Seattle given up less big plays vs other defenses? I don’t think they have, but I’m not sure where to find this information.
It’s an interesting discussion and I’d love to see some data comparing a bend but don’t break defense vs a 3 and out defense but I don’t have time or know where to look. It does feel like our defense has been more bend and then break or just plain break right off the bat. Bend but don’t break just seems like a bad strategy to me and not even sure that’s what Seattle has been or will be going for.
It sounds logical that more field goals would be given up, but I'd rather give up field goals than touchdowns.
On your 2nd point, I do agree that it can hurt field positioning for the offense, but when you start factoring in other things like penalties, mistakes, or turnovers, whether on offense or defense, the scope of how effective the bend-but-don’t-break tendency changes dramatically.
For example, let’s say that this year, the Seahawks have a tendency to bend but not break, an opponent who reaches Seattle’s 35 with ease could fumble the ball from getting hit, by say, Aaron Curry, and he picks the ball up and runs with it for 20 yards. Seattle is in excellent field position with the bend-but-don’t-break tendency from the defense. In 2005 and 2007, the Seahawks had a healthy amount of turnovers.
All that said, I’d rather take bad field positioning 99% of the time instead of giving up a field goal.
I believe that in 2007, the Seahawks reduced the amount of big plays against them.
As for bending and not breaking, I’m not sure if it was Seattle’s strategy, at least not intentionally, but more of a tendency.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 7, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions
I prefer a defense
that breaks the hell out of the offense, or at least bends the offense really really badly in ways in which they aren’t flexible….
Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Sep 6, 2009 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Curry and Hill...
seem like guys that could start for Baltimore or Pittsburgh, and I want a defense like theirs, a physical “blow you up” style D that makes the other team not want to come out and play the 4th quarter…
The thing that makes me happy is that I believe Mora wants that too.
Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Sep 8, 2009 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions
and Reed and Bennett
I agree with you, wiskey. Curry, Hill, Tapp, Kerney and Mebane are all guys whose assignment will be “go in and blow that thing up.” Keeping guys like Reed and Bennett on the roster also shows Mora and Bradley want more aggression on this defense.
I'll be satisfied if they can have a good red zone zone defense
but I’ll be genuinely happy if they dominate on yards allowed as well. I want to see lots of three and outs, turnovers, and punishing tackling.
Time of possession
killed us last year. You wana shut down offenses fast so your offense can get on the field and allow you the resting time (and/or momentum) to come out faster and harder on the next defensive series.
Glenn Beck likes argument, but has a deap-seated hatred for logic.
I'm forced to point out, for the umpteenth time
that the defense was failing right out of the gate, before they had any time to get tired.
Look it up. Yards and points yielded in the first and third quarters should be lower than in the second and fourth was the TOP theory is the explanation for the poor defense last year. But the box scores don’t support the theory.
If they’d held opponents to more three and outs, they wouldn’t have had time to get as tired as everyone says they were. They have no one to blame but themselves … and John Marshall.
I hope to see the defense come out strong
right from the beginning of the Rams game. It will give me some confidence if they dominate from beginning to end.
Great write up John.
This is a do or die year for Ruskell. I actually thought he had a pretty good draft this year. I gave him a B. The problem is it’s on the heels of so many medicore drafts that he’s had without plucking impact players the last couple of years. Spencer and Jackson are really looking like early round busts. Can you envision a scenario where if the Hawks don’t make the playoffs this year then Holmgren is brought back as GM?
by Mr. Blache III on Sep 7, 2009 12:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Oh God, no.
I do miss the guy already, but not as a GM.
Walter Jones, Shaun Alexander, Hutch, Hasslebeck.
Oh God Yes as GM. Seattle never saw consistant success under any other Coach with the players he drafted. (God Bless Chuck Knox)…but he took us to the promise land and “really” delivered us a SB win if those dumb Zebras wouldn’t have been paid off by the Steelers…lol..but seriously the refs screwed us out of a Suuper Bowl win. Granted I think he coached better without the GM title, but when he was GM he made some very good picks that built the foundation of the that minnie dynasty we had under him. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want him to have both roles again, but maybe with all his efforts at GM he could bring us some great talent to. And by the way, he would’n’t have let Hutch go, which really turned out to be the unraveling of this franchise.
by Mr. Blache III on Sep 8, 2009 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions
if Spencer recovers as expected
then this should be the year that Spencer and Sims prove they are NOT busts.
If those two are successful, and Julius Jones, Carlson, Housh, and Burleson are successful as well, then Ruskell will have put his stamp on a new offense as well as new defense.
I indeed have hope for Sims, but not Spencer.
You can’t be as injury prone as he is and expect to develop into a quality player.
I'm more concerned about LoJack.
Completely healthy and yet completely invisible. Baraka Atkins has shown far more than he has yet and he’s out of a job
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 7, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Not completely healthy at all
He’s been injured much of camp. And as much as the prospect of him busting rankles, he plays at one of our deepest positions, so it’s hard for me to worry too much.
Really?
I must have overlooked that update, because I don’t recall reading anything about Jackson being hurt. When I personally saw him during a training camp practice he was getting hammered by Ray Willis and Kyle Williams and resorting to some blatant holding.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 7, 2009 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Bendy pre-season defense
I am hoping that all this talk about ‘vanilla’ offense and defense explains some of the bending defense during the Denver game. Hopefully the defense remains aggressive all over the field, because any strategy that allows the opponent easy yards down the field will fail. As many have pointed out, field position, time of possession, preventing field goals, (and one I will add) forcing turnovers is how you win games with defense. Bending between the 20s won’t do.
swagger swagger swagger
every move has improved the mental attitude of the defense, and offense. It seems age, has taken a back seat to ego.
"Superhero like even"
B-RUSS WAS CUT!
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
Late to the party?
;)
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
I would be fine with chanting that every time the secondary makes a good play.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 7, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Pffff
I WAS AT THE PARTY!
http://www.fieldgulls.com/2009/9/5/1017350/yes-seattle-seahawks-cut-brian#20851879
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Sep 7, 2009 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Radio Row Video: Marcell Dareus of the Buffalo Bills
- Not to be outdone, Tecmo Bowl also predicts a Giants win
- Shutdown Corner previews and predicts Super Bowl XLVI
- With help from a police escort, Giants get their hometown pizza in Indianapolis
- ‘Why Is This News’ podcast: Doug Farrar on Super Bowl XLVI
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
