Almost Pressure
FO's QB hits for 2009. Tapp & Curry are among the top of the league in the stat, despite combining for 4 sacks this year.
A better team would surely have made it easier to get more actual sacks and disrupted plays. Also keep in mind that this bad team led to its facing the 8th most passing attempts.
about 2 years ago
jacobstevens
38 comments
1 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I sense sometimes that people think I am nuts about Tapp
Or that I love him with Seahawks colored glasses. And yet, watch a game and the guy is making plays, pressuring, owning tackles and generally contributing on every snap.
You were always so convincing
and then as the defense got eaten alive repeatedly by QBs it was hard not to see what you described manifested and still come away feeling, this wasn’t horseshoes or hand-grenades. There’s only sixteen 3-hour games in the course of 365 days, so it’s easy to lose your frame of reference in terms of watching what a pass rusher does and gauging whether the pressure is fast enough to get home in other circumstances. But my faith is renewed!
by jacobstevens on Jan 13, 2010 2:05 PM PST up reply actions
You'll get no argument from me.
I’ve seen the same thing. Tapp is a beast. Very unheralded. Very important to our team.
Tapp is a role player
so he won’t get the recognition he deserves until his sack numbers come up which won’t happen until we get a better secondary.
by Generzal Zod on Jan 13, 2010 6:01 PM PST up reply actions
And a better offense.
Also a die-hard Hawks fan.
by Hopefulmsfan on Jan 13, 2010 7:07 PM PST up reply actions
Since we were such a great team
wouldn’t we have faced more run plays this year? Or is it more because other teams saw that our pass defense was so incredible that they were passing that much on us? Usually when a team is bad, they are facing more rushes because the opposing offense will want to run to keep time of possesion on their side.
by seattle_since_81 on Jan 13, 2010 1:40 PM PST reply actions
Yeah, I got that
I was wondering if the reasoning that we were a bad team is the reason that we saw the 8th most passes or was it because of our defensive scheme. Usually bad teams face more rushing plays because in losses (especially blowout losses which happened to the ’Hawks quite a bit this year) the opposing team will rush more to control the clock.
by seattle_since_81 on Jan 13, 2010 1:56 PM PST up reply actions
Seattle had a very good rush defense for most of the season and a terrible pass defense
and so teams continued to pass even when ahead.
and we faced some dominant passing teams
compounding the issue and resulting in all the blowouts.
by Hancock.Brett on Jan 13, 2010 2:01 PM PST up reply actions
woops correction
we faced some dominant passing teams…..and we have no passing game, compounding the issue and resulting in the blowouts.
by Hancock.Brett on Jan 13, 2010 2:04 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, that's basically what I was trying to insinuate
I’m not sure how much of it was because we were a bad team, and how much of it was because we had a pretty good run defense. Being a bad offensive team definitely led to the defense seeing more snaps per game over the season. The funny thing is, looking at the list, 5 of the top 7 teams are playoff teams. Maybe my intent in the original post didn’t come across the way I meant it. There was some sarcasm in it. Who wants to help me invent a sarcasm font?
by seattle_since_81 on Jan 13, 2010 3:47 PM PST up reply actions
I've argued this for years
Either a font or some sort of sarcastic punctuation mark.
We face the 18th most rushing attempts, average.
Sometimes it feels like an inordinate amount of passing or rushing indicates something about the other type of play, but when you’re bad, you generally face more snaps period. Can’t get off the field.
I don’t know if you call it scheme, but it’s reasonable to think the strategic emphasis on the run was detrimental to the team overall as excessive emphasis on the pass would have still probably allowed us to more or less keep the running game in check, still providing 3rd down opportunities to stop a drive, and keeping us in games longer.
by jacobstevens on Jan 13, 2010 2:10 PM PST up reply actions
Except our secondary was so awful
We had a decent D-Line (good DT’s and fair DE’s – excepting Tapp) and good linebackers that were good in run stopping.
by Generzal Zod on Jan 13, 2010 6:03 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah Tapp is my favourite Seahawk
I’m glad hes getting credit from someone other then John and I. Tapp <3
Btw, do you have to buy premium to get the full list?
I cannot find a link to the full listing to save my life. Same w/ the one about DB tackles the other day. Where are the lists hidden? Maybe I’m just slow. Can someone help me out?
I'm suspecting they've only just been tallied, and the XPs are just the notable results so far
probably the only place published yet. Premium might have it, dunno.
by jacobstevens on Jan 13, 2010 3:53 PM PST up reply actions
It's not a FO stat
Though the link certainly implies that. It’s a league stat recorded in the play by play and probably available through a service like Stats Inc.
Thanks.
So, they are geniuses by allowing us a glimpse at a league stat and in the process taking (implying) credit for it? Wow. Wouldn’t they have to cite a source for the info if it is not their own? Smells fishy. And lame.
They compile, which is no small feat.
Shouldn’t knock FO. They offer the information for free. Stats charges.
Of course, it would be easy enough for a group of people to each contribute a small amount of time and compile the same stats. It’s sort of a convenience fee.
I understand better now.
I didn’t realize they were compiled meaning they had worked with the info available from Stats, inc to present this data. It made it sound that they were simply passing them from one place to another. I happen to like FO quite a bit. At least enough to buy their book once a year, anyway, and read a few features regularly (Audibles, etc.).
Encouraged about Curry
At times it seemed like he was totally lost out there, but maybe that was mostly in coverage that I noticed him. Good to see he was doing something (at least close to) right consistently.
How many of those other guys are 4-3 OLBs?
Most impressive I think is Kampman with 14 in only 9 games.
If he’s healthy, I’d love a run at him in FA. Concerned that he’s at that age where injuries may start to affect his production, like 2009, but if we got 1-2 years of Kerney circa 2007 it would be worth it. Based on PC’s writings, one of the most important facets of his 4-3 under scheme is the necessity to get pressure from one DE. (The other DE needs to be more of a run stuffer). Tapp might be capable of being that guy, and Kerney may rebound, but Kampman looks like more of a sure thing.
The thing is, Kampman is both.
He is good in the run game, was known for that before he broke out as a pass rusher. So he could play that other spot most likely.
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
- Peyton Manning’s face on all 32 NFL logos
- Todd Haley could be in for a bumpy ride in Pittsburgh
- Alex Smith caddied for Jim Harbaugh at AT&T Pro-Am
- Boston (in) Common: Kevin Youkilis set to marry Tom Brady’s sister
- Giants to be honored with commemorative NY license plate; some would rather see a 9/11 plate
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.
