The Great White Blur
by John Morgan on Dec 1, 2010 9:00 AM PST
Email
Print1-10-KC 38 (9:40) Ball spotted on KC 38 after change of possession. 25-J.Charles right end to SEA 35 for 27 yards (29-E.Thomas).
So begins the descent.
Here's how Seattle's defense fails, in a play.
KC sets: WR (left), 2 WR (right), TE (right), RB
Seahawks: 4-2
The Chiefs are unbalanced towards the "field" or wider side. There's isn't much of a field side in the pros because of the narrow hash marks, but it's interesting from a schematic level. Maybe an idea Charlie Weis imported from college.
Seattle is selling out to stop the pass. Ever since Mora brought in Bradley and Quinn, the Seahawks have highly specialized their defensive line. And that doesn't work, at least not on first and ten. Just because the Chiefs field three wide receivers does not mean they can not run the ball. And they do run the ball. Down Seattle's throat.
Seattle is set in nickel, with, from left to right, Chris Clemons-Brandon Mebane-Jay Richardson-Raheem Brock. Clemons is playing five technique, Mebane is over nose, Richardson is playing three, and Brock is also at five on the right. KC runs a stretch right, and things begin to break down right away.
Tony Moeaki is able to block out Brock without assistance.
Babineaux is blocked out by Terrance Copper.
Moeaki's block springs right tackle Ryan O'Callaghan and O'Callaghan blocks out Lofa Tatupu.
Dwayne Bowe runs off Marcus Trufant.
The Seahawks are in bad shape.
Clemons is too far to the left. Ditto Will Herring. Mebane had to get penetration immediately because he's not going to track down Jamaal Charles from behind. He doesn't. Richardson, an end, is playing tackle. He's blocked out. Moeaki sets the edge against the Seahawks strong side end. Brock is out of it. Tatupu is battling a right tackle. That's bad. Babineaux, who must be able to play the run, struggles with Copper and then doesn't land a hit before Charles streaks past him.
There's one fail safe. One player that is supposed to step in when the Seahawks are tossed around. But Lawyer Milloy bones it.
Milloy shoots inside around O'Callaghan and is immediately in a trail position against a much faster player.
Earl Thomas is able to cap it and Herring recovers to seal the tackle.
This is the Seahawks defensive failure in a nutshell. The 4-3 line can not adequately rush the passer. The 4-2 line can not adequately defend the run. They are built to defend the expected in a league built on winning with the unexpected.
1-10-SEA 35 (8:55) 7-M.Cassel pass short middle to 20-T.Jones to SEA 27 for 8 yards (36-L.Milloy).
KC sets two wide, two tight--balanced, somewhat run-leaning formation.
Seahawks are back to the Leo 4-3: Brock, Bane, Junior Siavii, Kentwan Balmer. Brock generates some very late pressure, but Cassel easily avoids him.
It's a play-action, seven-step drop. The snap happens just before 8:55 is about to turn into 8:54, and the pass is out right before 8:51 turns into 8:50. So it's four seconds in. Not all day, but plenty of time. And time creates this reception.
KC runs Seattle's coverage deep. Thomas Jones squirts through the middle and flashes open. Aaron Curry passes Bowe on to Tatupu. You read that right. It's actually done pretty well. He then closes on Jones but tackles high and Jones ducks and breaks through. Milloy closes to down him after eight, but though the missed tackle tacks on another three, time made this reception.
No pressure from the Leo 4-3.
2-2-SEA 27 (8:17) 20-T.Jones up the middle to SEA 24 for 3 yards (92-B.Mebane, 57-D.Hawthorne).
Siavii is doubled back past the first down marker and though Mebane controls and closes from the left, there's just too much push. Jones plunges ahead for three and the first.
1-10-SEA 24 (7:38) 25-J.Charles right tackle to SEA 16 for 8 yards (36-L.Milloy). PENALTY on KC-67-B.Richardson, Clipping, 15 yards, enforced at SEA 16.
This penalty made me so happy.
1-17-SEA 31 (7:06) 7-M.Cassel pass short right to 42-M.Cox to SEA 21 for 10 yards (23-M.Trufant).
This is another play-action, seven-step drop that takes advantage of the Chiefs receivers running coverage deep. Cassel boots right and finds his fullback uncovered running towards the right flat. Looks like David Hawthorne blows coverage biting play action.
2-7-SEA 21 (6:30) 20-T.Jones right tackle to SEA 20 for 1 yard (51-L.Tatupu, 94-J.Siavii).
Siavii and Craig Terrill both get quality jumps off the line and the two make a mess of the interior. That allows Siavii to close on Jones in the backfield. To Jones credit, he doesn't get cute with it. He runs towards daylight, but Siavii and Tatupu are there to close the hole and stop the run.
3-6-SEA 20 (5:54) (Shotgun) 7-M.Cassel pass short right to 20-T.Jones to SEA 25 for -5 yards (57-D.Hawthorne).
Spread formation: 3 WR (left), TE (right), RB (right), Shotgun
Hawks: 4-1
David Hawthorne must enjoy the free tackle for a loss. He wasn't on the field. I hope that didn't factor into negotiations.
Seahawks send Roy Lewis on the dime blitz. Chiefs set up the screen pass on the right. (Didn't Denver destroy Seattle with a screen to Knowshon Moreno out of this exact same formation?) Brock reads it and closes. That buys Jordan Babineaux a little time, and he's able to explode through Casey Wiegmann and catch Jones for a loss of five.
Great play. By Babineaux. And Brock. Not Hawthorne.
Then: The Great White Blur Strikes!
107 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
That 1st play was awful
If I saw the Seahawks nickel defense lined up against me on 1st and 10 I would always run it. The line combination on that play couldn’t stop Shaun Alexander. The highlight on NFL.com perfectly captures the many FAILS of this play. The lineman that popped Lofa in the 2nd level also blocked off Herring from pursuit.
There was a similar run play later in the game that got stuffed because the edge was closed off forcing the RB to cut back inside. Clemons was there on backside pursuit to blow it up for no gain. No edge contain= no chance.
The question about the future (to me at least) is this
How does Seattle invest its defensive resources going forward?
Put another way, is the specialized talent on the roster bad because it’s specialized or because it’s bad? The answer to that question should guide the off-season.
If Seattle simply had better—but equally specialized players—how well could the LEO front adapt on the fly?
I don’t mean to play the “if Seattle had Pro Bowlers at every position” game. I’m asking about whether the LEO front is really all that specialized? To my untrained eye that only seems the case at the LEO spot. I envision guys like Joey Porter, Lance Briggs, or ex-Hawk Chad Brown (in their primes) as able to make the scheme effective—not necessarily Lawrence Taylor or Shawn Merriman. Am I not getting it in terms of what’s needed to be a LEO?
(As a quick aside, at one time I suggested Jeremy Beel at Oklahoma as an end who could make the switch to LEO. Recently OU stood him up as an OLB to improve their pass rush.)
If Seattle keeps Bryant, Mebane, Cole, Clemons—and adds quality depth, or upgrades Cole and Clemons—would the scheme still be overspecialized?
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
I don't believe there is enough talent to generate sustained pressure from any scheme on this roster
That opinion goes for the Lawrence Jacksons and Darryl Tapps of the world in a 4-3 scheme as well.
The beauty of the Elephant scheme early in the season was Red Bryant-Colin Cole-Brandon Mebane-Chris Clemons line. If they stopped the run on 1st and 2nd, the pass rush specialists came in and pinned their ears back. I believe that the scheme worked by first stopping the run, therefore allowing the smaller guys to get after it on 3rd and distance. Injuries have been the biggest issue in my mind.
The Leo to me seemed like a temporary fix to this years pass rush problems
It’s failed, but would this team be better or worse going back to a conventional scheme? Seattle simply doesn’t have the players and apparently a coaching staff that can come up with a scheme that can be adequate with bad players. Are there any coaching staffs that can? I don’t know what to do about this defense.
The LEO isn't a short-term fix
I don’t see evidence that the scheme is failed. It hasn’t been successful when we’ve had to start replacement-level depth, but that could be said for almost any other unit on the field, at this point.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 11:55 AM PST up reply actions
I dunno.
This defense was better at the beginning of the season, in my opinion, because we played shitty teams. When we played Cutler he was fresh off getting shellacked by the Giants, and Orton and Rivers moved the ball at will.
Since then, the Giants, KC, Oakland, and New Orleans all absolutely buried us.
How many starting DL have we been missing during those games?
I’d argue that a Red, Cole, Mebane, Clemons line performs a lot different than a Balmer, Richardson/Terill/Siavii, Richardson, Brock line. One works because it has adequate talent. The other lacks talent and doesn’t work. The problem isn’t one of scheme but of talent and, likely, execution.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 12:18 PM PST up reply actions
Another thing to consider about those early games
was that the offense was even worse then, meaning that the defense’s burden was larger.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 12:19 PM PST up reply actions
That completely misses my point that we DID have those guys against Orton, Rivers, and... Oakland?
And we still got passed on at will. And I do believe Oakland is where our run game started to really show cracks.
The loss of Red and Cole has hurt our run defense, yes, making things even worse than they were. But this defense was not getting anything much done at the start of the year against good/mediocre teams, and blowing shitty teams out of the water.
With those guys in the line, our run defense is good. It SHOULD be good, what with Bryant at the edge and Cole’s bulk inside. But it never generated much pass rush without blitzing, outside of Clemon’s occasional stunts of awesomeness.
Orton is on pace for a nearly 5000-yard season
We’re not the only team that’s getting passed on by him.
Rivers had two extra possessions and really put up a lot of his stats when we lost Mebane, Curry and Trufant.
I don’t think either Cole or Bryant finished the game vs Oakland, but they were certainly playing injured for at least part of the game (injuries which required many weeks of rehab). The defense wasn’t so much of a problem in that game.
Through 9 games, when it had most of its DL healthy, the Seahawks racked up 26 sacks, a pace that would have eclipsed the best NFC defense last year. The problem is that this defense doesn’t work (and few do) when playing replacement-level starters.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 12:50 PM PST up reply actions
I don't care if they're doing well against other teams.
They’re doing well against us. RIDICULOUSLY well. We’re not even grazing the QB’s of better teams, unless we sell out and blitz and then they outlet to a back or something who rambles for ten yards.
Oakland scored 33 points. That’s not a problem?
Quality of starter depth is certainly an issue, but it doesn’t excuse the fact that against good passing teams, and WHEN the starters were there, this defense was absolutely rolled over.
We were coming from a pretty bad place last season.
I’m not going to complain that we can’t stop the run without two of our best run defenders. I honestly liked how the defense looked in comparison to last season before we lost Red.
This scheme is completely different from the one that was run last year
The point I was trying to make was that the 2009 Minnesota Vikings (the NFC sack leader that year) is a prototypical 4-3 defense put up 48 sacks in 16 games with 3 elite DL and one above-average DL. Before injuries set in, we were approaching* their production in sacks. That is something to be lauded for a rebuilding team with few dedicated pass-rushers.
*I did my math wrong (26/9 < 48/16) so we wouldn’t have “eclipsed” the 2009 Vikings’ sack rate but rather approached it.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 1:36 PM PST up reply actions
The run game started to show cracks the week before
Arizona rushed for 5.7 yards per attempt, with both Cole and Bryant playing. We won because of a +4 turnover differential.
Our good run defense over the first few weeks of the season were against the #17 (SF), #30(Den.), #15 (SD), #20 (StL.), #21 (Chicago) and #31 (Ariz.) rushing offenses in the league by yards per game.
Of the above teams, the only passing offenses we truly shut down were run by Alex Smith, a recently concussed Jay Cutler, and the two-headed monster of Hall & Pouts (I mean Anderson). A team with either an above league average QB or above league average running game kills us.
by SmartAssCoug on Dec 1, 2010 12:56 PM PST up reply actions
Mebane didn't play against Chicago, Arizona, Oakland, and Giants
With Mebane, Cole, and Bryant together they looked pretty dominant. Albeit against not so great run offenses, but it’d’ve been nice to see them all together for the whole season. They never even got tested as a team.
This is Seattle
History has shown we should never expect any position unit to stay together for the whole season. In fact, find the unit that has the least depth to start the season and there you will find the group that gets injured the most during the year.
So then how should we evaluate this defense?
In the first year of a rebuild should we expect it to be able to shut down elite passing offenses using depth found largely on the waiver wire? Should we further expect consistency under a brand-new and completely-different scheme?
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 2:10 PM PST up reply actions
Something better than 28th place and trending downward would be a start
Don’t understand the rush to destroy the middle. Seattle is playing very poorly. There is criticism to be given. That doesn’t mean we expect the moon. It doesn’t mean expecting better is unreasonable.
I'm saying we shouldn't pretend it is something that it's not
We started the season with a high ranking run defense, and I now believe that was due primarily to playing terrible rush offenses and/or teams with bad QBs who put their teams behind quickly. Yes, injuries have hurt, but hiding behind them, pretending they excuse what we’ve seen the last 5 weeks is asking for the same things to continue happening.
Is there anything we’ve seen in this defensive re-build that looks to be improving since week 1?
The defense is horrible right now
but the framework for the defense is sound. The scheme looks good with the starters in place. Unfortunately, we’ve had a string of injuries and, like many rebuilding teams, our depth is crap. Expecting poor talent to outperform good talent is typically a losing proposition. As this team is built out and replacement-level talent is replaced with improved talent, I expect an injury-depleted defense to perform better.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 2:57 PM PST up reply actions
The concept is valid
If Red Bryant was healthy, and an elite weak side end was drafted or signed, the concept would be sound.
Heck, I think Red plus Clemons would be fine
The problem is that the 5-techs we’ve got now can barely set an edge, let alone squish the pocket.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 3:11 PM PST up reply actions
I hope so.
Sometimes I feel like I bought in earlier and more deeply than many, about this defense. I think in amalgamation what they are doing is pretty unique. Not just unique currently, but never specifically done in college or pros that I am aware of. It’s not dramatically unique, but in amalgamation, unique.
I really badly want it to work. I see reasons in scheme and in results to think it will/would/could. I think it’s too early to be sure. Arizona did something. They might have figured it out and most but not all teams picked up on it.
Truly the schedule and the injury attrition coincided neatly enough together that it’s pointless to try and establish some separation of the two factors. Both factored. Probably any scheme including this one will be fine, with good talent. It would probably have to be very unsound to not work. It’s not that radical. Hopefully it works, but possibly it’s been figured out and is now as sound as the Enigma Machine is today.
I'm not sure that its not
Would you care to elaborate on your thoughts? Maybe talking about how the LEO concept differs from the 3-4 and how those key differences prevent it from being sound?
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 3:10 PM PST up reply actions
It's unbalanced, it sacrifices against the run on one side and pass rush on the other.
I’m not saying that it’s a terrible scheme, but I would not be surprised if in two years we look back at it as a failure.
Aaron Curry
He’s still learning the position, but it looks like that’s going to be his job.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 3:16 PM PST up reply actions
Is it really any more unbalanced than the traditional 4-3
(in the sense of being weaker against the run on one end)? Most base offenses are unbalanced (with a weak side and strong side) as are most defenses. Is this a major weakness of the LEO package? I haven’t seen it.
The problems on the strong-side we currently have are due to a lack of quality personnel. With Red in place, the LEO works. With replacement-level waiver wire-specials, its a lot less effective. This is hopefully a position we can find depth for in future drafts.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 3:28 PM PST up reply actions
Can you think of a pair of ends starting on the same team that are more dissimilar than Clemons and Bryant?
It’s way more unbalanced than any other scheme I can think of.
It depends who you call an end, doesn't it?
Its likely you understand the differences between our scheme and a 3-4 more than I do, but Clemons strikes me as more of a 3-4 rush OLB than a 4-3 DE (with the other 3 DL playing the role of the 3-4 DL). Am I oversimplifying things to think about the line like this?
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 3:40 PM PST up reply actions
Seattle is definitely a 4-3, whatever Clemons size
Coaches would tell you that the fundamental difference is gap assignments. A 3-4 line uses two-gap assignments and a 4-3 uses single gap assignments, but, then, Wade Phillips 3-4 is all single gap, so it’s not that tidy.
Seattle assigns one gap, except I think, and this is as good as it gets for an outsider, I think Cole and Bryant were assigned two gaps. So: penetrate the weakside; Control the strongside.
And that’s different from about every scheme, because it’s the ol’ hybrid that never seems to work.
As far Clemons as a rush linebacker versus Bryant as a 3-4 end, even 3-4 of the Phillips ilk, that use single gaps, play two ends, and the rush linebacker is truly a linebacker and not a smaller end.
So, if Mebane was an end, then we could think of Clemons as a backer and compare Mebane to Bryant, and it wouldn’t be too dissimilar, despite Mebane’s size. But Mebane is a tackle. He’s not playing five tech. Clemons is. And that’s a big reason why Seattle can not contain outside runs.
So, anyway, to get back to what you are asking. It’s not really accurate to compare Clemons to a 3-4 linebacker, because he has end responsibilities. Even if his physical profile is a lot like a 3-4 linebacker.
by John Morgan on Dec 1, 2010 3:48 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Clemmons is like our DeMarcus Ware
I’m curious as to what makes our team all that different from a 3-4? Is a team scheming against a traditional 3-4 any different then against a 4-3 leo? Why don’t the same chinks in the armor apply? Why don’t teams just run the ball at Ware all the time? Maybe they do?
Because in front of Ware is a 3-4 end.
You can’t run at Ware. He’s a linebacker. Ware isn’t fighting off a tackle from the snap.
Against KC I saw Mebane as the over tackle
a couple times. 99 Richardson was under. The under tackle was strong side.
Maybe it was just the personnel. Maybe with the guys they want out there, Mebane and the under tackle position are again next to Leo on the weak side.
But if not, is that new? Have you seen that before? Is it maybe an adjustment that they recognize they need more rush and penetration on the other side of center, and they want to protect Leo more?
Maybe a move to shore up the run defense
or just giving Mebane more looks because he’s one of the few starters that remain. Maybe even testing him out for a position relocation.
Is this because he doesn't line up on the LOS
or because the DE next to him is consistently double-teamed or something about the alignment of the defensive front (that a 3-4 DE is typically 4- or 5- tech rather than 3-tech)?
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 3:56 PM PST up reply actions
It's in part all those things.
The DE is better able to influence blockers.
The DE plays wider, and the interior gaps are manned by an ILB on each side.
Those ILBs tend to be bigger and better able to shed blockers.
The OLB is off the line of scrimmage and thus his agility and quickness is maximized. He doesn’t have to fight in the trenches, where’s he is likely to be outmatched.
(I am spacing this funny, because we’re getting crammed along the border.)
I believe
a 3-4 is designed to generate rush from any direction without the need to blitz. The LEO can only come off one end, or stunt. Sending A-gap pressure or edge rushing off Bryant requires a LB or DB.
3-4s tend to blitz more than 4-3s
The additional LB allows more flexibility in coverage and run support, allowing safeties or LBs to go after the QB more. Safety blitzes are staples of the Cardinal/Steelers defense.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 3:23 PM PST up reply actions
Really?
I don’t think anyone is going to say that this defense has had great production. The question is whether this defense is heading in the right direction. Right now, it looks like some of the biggest problems are injuries (losing key DL for extended periods with replacement-level talent behind them) and growing pains (ET is having a lot of rookie moments, but them’s the breaks of playing youth at a key position). Because we’re the 5th worst defense now, does that mean that we’re headed in the wrong direction?
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 3:04 PM PST up reply actions
What makes you think the defense is heading in the right direction?
Is there evidence to support that? It’s not enough to say you think it’s headed in the right direction, and it would play better without injuries.
Trufant, Tatupu, Curry, Hill, Bryant and Wilson, all missed time last year. I think Seattle suffered more injuries in 2009, and more injuries to critical players, and the 2009 defense outperformed the 2010 defense.
To follow up
Is it work expending the resources necessary to make the defensive concept work while also trying to rebuild an almost as pathetic offense?
As much as I’d love to see Seattle field an elite defense one day, at this point I don’t think we can ever win as a defense-first team. Rules are set to benefit the offense, and as such even an elite DB in Seahawks blue would get hit with ticky-tack PI and illegal contact.
It's a little like what Denver did to their offense, although not nearly as drastic.
Denver was a team with an excellent offense and no defense, so of course MisHandles dismantles the offense and now has to rebuild the offense on top of the defense. Surprise! Their defense is still awful.
Seattle had some young talent of D, although it was no where near as talented as the Denver offense. In changing schemes they schemed out the talent they had and now have to build the defense from scratch while still having all the old offensive problems.
A little perhaps, but not a lot
Denver lost a top ten QB and WR. We lost a nickel cornerback and some backup-potential starter d-lineman and an aging safety. Eh.
I think his point was, that once you've invested in a unit
you need to trust it can develop and begin working on the neglected unit. For Seattle this was the offense. Disassembling the defense puts Seattle back at square one on offense and defense.
Your handle is contradiction in terms.
Do you know the best way to neuter a Coug?
Of course you do. Welcome to Apple Cup week. “if he dies… He dies.”
Love the game, love the beer, love your team.
by THolt on Dec 1, 2010 10:08 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I had no idea Craig Terrill had all of our blocked field goals in the last few seasons
Can we keep him for ST and ban him from defense?
I suffer from IBS, otherwise known as "Influx of Billick Syndrome".
"The 4-3 line can not adequately rush the passer. The 4-2 line can not adequately defend the run. They are built to defend the expected in a league built on winning with the unexpected."
I’ve tried not to argue too strenuously against you this week, about how the team has been constructed because I felt like I mostly agree with you, and the disagreement I have is subtle.
I’m glad I didn’t go on an epic rampage, because this line brought clarity to exactly where I feel like we differ.
I don’t think this defense has been “built” to the creator’s eye, rather it’s been torn down and is being “rebuilt.” We are not a completed defense, we are under construction. Regardless of “win now” bluster, I think that the draft and many of the moves showed that we are in the process of cleaning out the old and building the new.
If you think that we shouldn’t use veterans in some of these positions, are you trying to say we should be playing for draft position? I feel like some of the “younger” players you’ve brought up were players that were not deemed a fit for what is being built, whether right or wrong, and that PC’s finished defense will be athletically much better than Ruskell’s finished defense, if PC is allowed to stay here and finish it.
I think keeping highly regarded youngsters surrounded by veterans who are decent allows them to develop right, rather than in a situation where they try to make up for everyone else and have no discipline. A problem I think Aaron Curry might have had last season.
This is a pretty subtle argument, as was brought up somewhere else. No one is saying “all old guys” or “all rookies,” but how many of each? I do like what they’ve done, and feel like taking a long term view on how they are building, while still enjoying the fact that we’ve been competitive. As much as I would say I’d be willing to suffer through the bad times to get to the good times, I’d still rather watch my team blow out the 49ers, beat the Chargers in an exciting game, blow out the Cardinals, and play with my heart all year than be too uncompetitive.
The changes made to this defense have caused an already bad defense to get worse.
That should be noted. We can’t just sit on our hands and assume everything will work out for the best when early results indicate otherwise. I am not calling for anyone’s head, but I don’t understand objections to rational criticism.
People want this team to improve. Fans want Carroll and Schneider to make this team better. Ignoring the actual results of their work doesn’t make that any more likely.
I just think its a little short-sighted to expect better results now
Last year we had a relatively-finished defense. This year we underwent a total rebuild, dramatically changing the scheme and playing rookies or replacement-level players at a number of positions (mostly due to injury). The main goal is to build the framework for a competitive future, not just to rack up as many wins as possible as soon as possible.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 3:08 PM PST up reply actions
I mean, by what standard?
New coach, younger talent, new scheme—if anything, it was equally unfinished.
Wasn't last year's defense more of a standard 4-3
similar to the one the year before. We’ve certainly seen much more changes in personnel this year, suggesting to me that this defense is still a work in progress.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 3:21 PM PST up reply actions
It was the West Coast defense and the beginning of a lot of what's been done this year.
With both Quinn and Bradley back, Seattle has actually had some kind of consistency.
Much of what we think of that defines this scheme, a large strongside end (last year: Redding), ends substituting at tackle on passing downs, Curry blitzing off strong side, were all in place last year.
I didn’t notice any major upheaval. If we were in year one of this formula, and I hadn’t witnessed the exact same problems last year—no pressure from the base four, no run defense from the situational nickel line—I would be less inclined to criticize, but this is the same Monte Kiffin 4-3 with partial 3-4 personnel that didn’t work last year, and I think we have to start questioning some of the assumptions that underlie the scheme.
We were in year one of the Red Bryant experiment
It looked good initially. By dumping Redding the FO gave Bryant the oppurtunity to match his talents to a scheme (youth!?!). Balmer is quality depth (youth!?!) at the strongside in this scheme. Sending Tapp packing was another upheaval. Clemons is not the future, but who else was available without drafting early on?
I can see that the connection
but it strikes me that the key changes (the establishment of the LEO scheme and a dramatic overhauling of the DE personnel) suggest that there is a further evolution taking place.
Last year we started traditional 4-3 ends (Tapp/Kerney, Jackson/Redding). This year, we’ve got guys that dwarf Jackson on one end and are dwarfed by Kerney on the other.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 3:45 PM PST up reply actions
Some things are changing, but quite a bit changed from Marshall to Bradley/Quinn/Mora too.
Seattle didn’t call Kerney a Leo end, but that’s more or less how he played. The guy was on the brink of retirement with two bad shoulders. He was strictly a pass rusher.
Redding played the Bryant role and played it well, and now is doing the same thing for Baltimore.
Terminology changes, but the concepts have been pretty consistent. I am patient with change and understand sometimes it takes things getting worse as the ideas are felt out, but I think the Red Bryant injury has become a convenient excuse. Defenses have lost better players than Bryant and not collapsed. I sincerely doubt this defense has collapsed because of one injury. It’s certainly attractive as a concept. It implies Seattle could be much better next season just because one player returns from injury. But it seems rather far fetched to me.
It is not just the Red Bryant Injury, however.
It is the Colin Cole, Red Bryant and for a time Mebane injuries that have strongly contributed to this slide. Yes, teams have lost better players than Red and not collapsed, but very, very few teams can handle the loss of 3/4 of their starting DL and not collapse.
by Fightfightfight on Dec 1, 2010 4:04 PM PST up reply actions
Mebane is back, and Seattle wasn't without Mebane, Cole and Bryant
and though Cole isn’t bad, I haven’t noticed a lot of difference between Cole and Siavii. Before he was injured, Cole was averaging about four tackles a game. Siavii is averaging about four tackles a game since taking over. Neither player is particularly good at holding the point. Cole is a better tackler. Siavii is a better pass rusher. Cole has a little better success rate than Siavii, but that’s a tiny sample, and success rate could mean a lot things. Maybe Siavii is just a little better at tracking down a player from behind.
I’m not going to lie. I could be biased against Cole because I didn’t like the signing, but I don’t see much difference between the two. So, Mebane has missed time but he’s back. Cole has been replaced by someone that seems pretty similar. Balmer hasn’t matched Bryant’s production and that’s hurt, but I don’t think it’s sunk the defense.
Although I agree with most of what you have said on this topic
I do feel that losing Bryant and Cole has hurt our D-line rotation in a big way. In an ideal world, we would be able to separate the independent variables of schedule and players, but alas, we can’t.
For me personally, I am still not confident I can say our defense is good or bad at full strength, because we certainly looked good (against inferior teams) early in the season at full strength, and have looked terrible (against better teams), when playing without two of our starters.
Clearly, the current defense is terrible. I just don’t know how much is inherent in the scheme and the overall talent, and how much is because of the attrition of starters.
Cole seemed much better to me this year, for what it’s worth. He seems to play much wider and stouter than Siavii, and seems somewhat harder to move (like you said, though, at the determent to the pass rush)
It is clear to me that this FO failed this defense
they have failed to upgrade the talent level. Forget scheme. Scheme’s come and go all the time. Talent is what will be required to bring this defense to respectability. Other than the acquisition of Clemons and drafting of Thomas, how is this defense really an upgrade (and this is assuming that Clemons is an upgrade, overall he may be a wash vs. Tapp) from last year? I look at our starting unit and I see the same cast of characters with the exception of some spare parts brought in after camp cuts and Thomas.
Who was available?
With the lapse of the CBA, the free-agent market was incredibly sparse (I think 5 or 6 years of service were required for UFA). Most young players worth their salt were locked up as RFAs for cheap. The only options were (a) dramatically overspending on the FA market or (b) dramatically overspending in a trade. I think Brandon Graham may have been an option in the draft, but we was taken with the 13th pick.
The new FO made a decision to overhaul this team, not just patch it. This means that the roster may look bare for a while.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 4:26 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, i agree, this defense stinks regardless of scheme
There really wasn’t much the FO could do other then what they did. This defense needs talent (so does the offense) and they have a tough road ahead of them in finding it.
I think the loss of Red/Cole is so impactful is not because they are great
but rather that the guys replacing them aren’t even close. We’re fringe players a lot of significant snaps.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 4:17 PM PST up reply actions
*playing fringe players a lot of significant snaps
Hopefully we’ll be able to strengthen the depth in the DL with future drafts and a more permissive free agency.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 4:18 PM PST up reply actions
Redding = old
Bryant played at the same level, or above, with years left in the tank. Health? Maybe not so much, but we shall see.
We keep circling the same tower. There are those here who want to tank this defensive scheme based upon one year with some stop-gaps at key positions and injury issues. There are others who wish for more time allowed to Carroll/Schneider. Bradley can only play with the pieces given to him. He has two new safeties, two new ends, and a corner and middle linebacker on the decline.
Who’s to say what this defense can do with an elite small end, a better nose tackle, and some help from the secondary? Scheme may be the problem, but this is not the same defense. Almost half the personnel are different.
One thing I still can't stand about Bradley is the play of the DBs
We got rid of Pistol because he was “too small for press coverage”, yet we sit back 10-15yds off the receivers, and good QBs pick us apart, game after game.
I wish we would at least be closer than 5 yards from receivers when they are catching the ball. The level of difficulty for opposing offenses is so low in the passing game. Yeah, a better pass rush would do wonders as well, but I sure wish our guys could cover better, and execute better. Too many busted coverages this year as well.
Maybe our DBs just suck much worse than the rest of the league, and Bradley is already working wonders, and the players have been coached up and are just not executing properly. But I am not yet convinced. Probably somewhere in the middle, but I just feel that there are others who could make more out of our talent we do have…
I think both the off coverage and how it frustrates us
is partially, perhaps mostly, accredited to lack of pass rush. An unhurried, unharassed quarterback is going to make an accurate throw, and an accurate throw beats most kinds of coverage. Because of that, Seattle is very conservative about their coverage, because they know they can’t force errant throws through pressure. So, we get the off coverage.
I don’t think anyone wants off coverage. Ideally, we’d run man. But man can become a nightmare without pass rush, so the coverage scheme attempts to staunch the bleeding. It’s conservative by necessity.
True
I think part of the frustration, is that the guys are so open, even Hass and his noodle arm can get it to them. It isn’t a tight window with a laser to beat us, it is “anywhere close” because our DBs are so far away from the receivers so often.
That is the frustration for me. The whole thing about doing the same things and expecting different results. I’d rather see some more tight man coverage, because we are getting walked down the field and scored on anyway.
In hindsight I agree with you
but then again going into the 4th quarter I thought we still had a chance to win and therefore a cautious approach on defense was warranted. Looking back that seems silly. We got smoked. Taking chances on defense is mostly valid when you nothing to lose.
Understand the frustration, but think about man or under coverage, for instance
So, we have Kelly Jennings matched against receiver X. Jennings is either one-on-one with receiver X or maybe even under, with Earl Thomas over top. This means interceptions and passes defended might be more likely, because Jennings is tighter, and more likely to be in the throwing lane.
But throwing to receiver X is quarterback Z, and quarterback Z has a pristine pocket on, I don’t, 80% of snaps. So, he’s making accurate throws and accurate throws greatly favor the receiver, because the receiver actually know where the ball is supposed to go.
With man and under coverage, a reception is a disaster. Man, it’s one on one, and if Jennings can’t tackle, it’s a clear path to the end zone. If it’s under, and the receiver catches behind Jennings, it’s up to Thomas to take an angle and hopefully tackle the defender before the end zone. Either way, every completion risks total meltdown.
So, since we know completions will happen, because we know the pass rush can not disrupt the quarterback and force bad reads or errant passes, the Seahawks have to play over and off to minimize the damage of the completion.
It looks awful, but I think it probably beats the alternative.
the alternative being...
a lot blitzes with Jennings (eek!) on an island. Jennings island lol.
by farmer cam on Dec 1, 2010 4:42 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Blitz Jennings then
Not like leaving a guy wide open in the flat is a far cry from Jennings “covering” him most of the time.
If Jennings is on an island
does that mean the opposing WR is on a boat, running routes in his flippy flops?
If Jennings is on an island
The wide receiver is the island. And pretty big island. Maybe more a continent.
So basically the only difference between this defense and the defenses of the past
Is a healthy Patrick Kearney. Not that simple, but no pass rush is absolutely what sink this (and most) defenses. Which is why Carroll is trying the Leo, for pass rush. It’s sometimes working. Or works against bad teams that can’t handle Clemmons, but that’s it. But it’s the best these coaches can come up with. Is it unfair to fault them? i don’t know.
You are framing it so that, for one, there are two distinct sides, which there is not
and, also, that one side, the side that asks for patience, is the only rational seeming side. That’s not true.
There is cause and reason for criticism. There is defense of that criticism. Both are valid. Neither is right.
I didn't have to frame it, it is evolving on it's own
as most debates on Field Gulls do.
Criticism is a good thing here. We have gotten our asses kicked several times this year. I’ve been at two horrible defeats- the Giants and Chiefs games. The coordinators and Pete should mantel a heavy share of the blame. I want the criticism to be directed at game-time decisions and personnel groupings though.
The scheme is not above reproach, but I believe we would be short-sighted to not give it more time.
But it's older than 26.
How many 6’4", 330 lb guys do you know that can hold the edge on one play, then beat a tackle for pressure on the next?
but in hindsight, we probably should've kept Redding for backup
So when Bryant went down, we’d have Redding. He signed a 2 year deal 6 mil with the Ravens, doesn’t seem like anything we couldn’t have done. But would he have accepted a backup role? I don’t know.
Or another way to put it: collapsing due to losing Bryant is an indictment of the scheme.
This isn’t the same as what Carroll had at USC, but we all talked a lot about his 4-3 Under/Over after Mora had used that term re: Curry. I have read the transcript of that Nike Clinic Carroll talk a half dozen times at least.
He did seem to subtly acknowledge that one weakness of the scheme is the failure of a single guy at the point, within the front 7, the gap that they own, if the runner takes that gap and that single man fails to execute, it’s vulnerable to big runs into the 3rd level.
I remember at one point he basically said, “the success of this entire defense is predicated upon the 3 tech not getting hooked. He can’t get hooked.”
collapsing due to losing players is and indictment of overall depth...
not scheme. Bryant is not an exceptional player and Balmer playing in his stead does not represent a major downgrade. The problem with this defense is an overall lack of talent. And the FO has failed to address this problem (so far).
There might be more talent
if so many of the young players that were still growing into their roles weren’t sent packing because they didn’t fit the scheme.
Well, and the talent argument is kind of slippery
How do we know exactly how talented Seattle is, right? Bryant wasn’t a talented DT, but he proved to be a talented DE. Can we be sure that Seattle simply isn’t talented, or is it maybe that some of the talent is being misused.
At some point, a bad defensive coordinator is always going to look like he lacks talent, but it’s because that coordinator lacks the talent to find the talent in the players he has.
Not to say Seattle is particularly talented, but a poorly performing defense is always going to look like it lacks talent. The “no talent” argument kind of extends forever without any shape. It’s ambiguous and applicable whenever needed.
ok, but...
it’s not hard to say we’re lacking in the talent department when significant positions are being filled with various castoffs and camp casualties. I would have to argue that the ‘no talent’ argument extends every bit as far as the ‘bad coaching’ or ‘bad scheme’ arguments. Of course I would never try to argue that the problem is simple, but I do contend that this roster lacks talent on defense. It may be easier to find another scheme or another coach but I doubt it improves things much without an influx of young talent soon.
I don't think anyone is saying this is a bad coach or this is a bad scheme
but, this run went for 27 yards because Brock was blocked out by a tight end and the right tackle had a free release to Tatupu, and that happened because of the personnel and the scheme, and that has happened in some capacity multiple times, and if we know there is this weakness and there isn’t an obvious solution to this weakness, then maybe, yes, the scheme is a problem. It might be a bad scheme, especially for Seattle’s personnel.
That argument has details that can be interpreted and argued. The argument that Seattle simply lacks talent is hard to grasp. It’s ambiguous.
This defense would look remarkably better in both talent and schme
if we had an offense putting up 30+ points a game.
Only one team in the league is averaging 30 points per game
We’re certainly near the bottom of the league in points scored, though.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 5:04 PM PST up reply actions
I realize that
I also realize they have a defensive raking just about as bad as ours, and yet are 9-2 and considered one of the top 5 teams in the league.
So trade for Tom Brady then
Until then, we nor any other team won’t have an offense scoring 30 plus a game
We're only going to be able to acquire x amount of quality talent the next few years
Whether it be due to free-agent money available, draft position or trade chips. We clearly need drastic improvement on both defense and offense to resemble a contending team in the future.
As it stands, the defensive scheme appears to have significant deficiencies which improved talent may or may not be capable of repairing. As this thread shows, we can’t quantitatively or qualitatively determine why this defense is so bad. Does it make sense to dump limited resources into a defense with no guarantee of success, especially one with very specialized positional requirements making them virtually useless in a different scheme?
I think at this point I’m willing to dump those resources into creating a juggernaut of an offense and let the existing defensive scheme/talent sink or swim. A good offense makes the defense better.
I guess the question is, are these coordinators running the defense the best they can with what they got?
Or are they running the ideal defense they want to run? Because if they’re running the defense they want to run, they should all be fired haha.
You say haha
…but I think it is a very valid question. If our defense personnel is so bad we can’t stand to lose a starter or two, or the scheme falls apart, we should probably re-evaluate everything.
Dumping Sims (on offense), Tapp, Pistol, LoJack, etc. because they don’t fit our scheme seems a bit mad at this point.
Why?
If the problem is that we don’t have enough quality depth that fits the system (in the first year of a rebuild), why would you want to retain a bunch of other players on the roster that also don’t fit the system? Think long-term.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 6:14 PM PST up reply actions
This is a rehash
but Sims would be fine on our line, and Hamilton is old and not an improvement. We could certainly use Tapp and LoJack on our D-Line. Pistol wouldn’t be playing press coverage, because we haven’t done much of that. We lost a bunch of our developing younger guys, and we don’t seem better off. All these guys were young and had some promise, and they are no longer on the team. Long term = young developing guys. We got rid of a bunch of them (although we did get some new ones).
I'm not sure you understood me and then disagreed.
I am not saying, if you get injured and then are worse, that means your scheme is bad.
I am saying, this defense has a 5 tech DE that is apparently a 2-gap player. He controls the strong side, and achieving that is a foundational aspect of the defense being effective.
If beating that 5 tech to set the edge is the key element to being able to serve up strong potential for 27 yard runs, that’s a problem.
Perhaps you’re countering that if the backup can’t do that, then it means there’s a talent issue. The problem there is you’re endorsing covering a significant exploit with the presumption that you will be able to acquire enough talent as needed.
Personnel is not a schematic adjustment, and we know schematic adjustments are not only important and effective, but routine and commonplace. They take place at halftime.
I contend that what Bryant executed was difficult to achieve. Maybe exceptional is not the right word, but difficult to consistently achieve. Whatever his talent, that was quite an accomplishment and I don’t think you can just count on being able to consistently achieve it.
I remember reading about how texas defense suffered when Red was out.
The numbers were like from a 70 yard av. per game to like 170 with-out Red (at tackle)
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.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Donald Driver compared winning ‘Dancing With The Stars’ to winning Super Bowl
- Report: Most NFL players would have no problem with an openly gay teammate
- Donald Driver wins ‘Dancing With the Stars’
- Student has diploma withheld after Tebowing at graduation
- NFL to mandate knee and thigh pads for players
