Chris Clemons Awarded 10th Sack
The league has retroactively split the ten yard sack of Alex Smith that was initially awarded solely to Aaron Curry. It is now split between Curry and Chris Clemons. That split sack gives Clemons 10 for the season. Though Clemons utility as an every-down defender remains controversial, it is inarguable that he is in the middle of a career season. He has set career highs in starts and sacks and I am sure that is not a coincidence.
The last team to play Clemons as anything more than a situational pass rusher was the 2007 Oakland Raiders. Those Raiders finished dead last in run defense, which might be a coincidence. The Raiders allowed the most yards per attempt, 4.8, the most rushing touchdowns, 24, the second most total rushing yards, 2334, and finished 32nd in run defense DVOA. Oakland finished 13th in pass defense but 22nd in overall defense. That was the year before Nnamdi Asomugha was named first team All-Pro, but despite that always tardy distinction, Asomugha was already in his prime and arguably the best corner in the NFL.
Those Raiders were coached by Lane Kiffin. That is the connection that links Clemons to Pete Carroll. Lane is Monte's son and Lane, Pete and defensive coordinator Gus Bradley each run a version of Monte Kiffin's 4-3. Seattle acquired Clemons as a throw in to the Darryl Tapp trade and almost everyone believes that trade was a success. Clemons is a starter and is tied for fifth in the league in sacks. Tapp is a situational defender and has only three.
There are two remaining questions regarding Chris Clemons:
1. Does he make the defense better?
2. Can Seattle compensate for what Clemons lacks?
The first is virtually impossible to answer. The second is somewhat more interesting. Seattle probably can compensate for Clemons' inability to hold ground, but how, what will it take and what are the trade offs?
Solution one: Push Clemons back to a situational role
This one might be tricky. After being a backup his entire career, Clemons is experiencing a career season and his stats are sterling. That is, he has a lot of sacks. It's a very good draft for defensive ends and an early round pick might justify to fans shifting Clemons down the depth chart, but it's debatable whether Clemons himself would accept the demotion.
Maybe if Seattle drafts an early round end, the Seahawks can then trade Clemons. Teams, especially teams running a 3-4, are always looking for situational pass rushers. Though I am not sure Clemons is any better than say, Travis LaBoy, Marcus Benard or teammate Raheem Brock, it wouldn't surprise me if some team fell in love with his sack total and offered something halfway valuable in return.
Solution two: Upgrade size at under tackle
We all love Brandon Mebane around here, but we all loved Josh Wilson too. It's clear that Carroll and Schneider are rebuilding this roster according to their own plan and an explicit part of that plan is to get bigger. Mebane is a good player but he is not a 3-4 end. Someone that sort of splits the difference between 3-4 end and under tackle might compensate for Clemons lack of stoutness.
Albert Haynesworth is an option, as is Johnny Jolly if he's reinstated. Another option might be drafting Kenrick Ellis out of Hampton. He is probably the most physically talented tackle in the 2011 class and he fits the profile Seattle might want to target: quick, huge and rangy.
Solution three: Improve depth at strong side end
Seattle has no choice but to invest in depth at strong side end. Kentwan Balmer has not matched Red Bryant's production. It's debatable whether Bryant 's injury has in fact led to Seattle's collapsing run defense but it certainly hasn't helped. Seattle needs to add another end that can command and control blockers like Bryant did, especially because Bryant has struggled with injuries throughout his career.
Solution four: Add a superstar strong safety
We all love Lawyer Milloy because Milloy plays hard and has contributed above expectations, but given his function in this defense, Seattle could definitely upgrade. Think of LaRon Landry as the ideal strong safety in Carroll's specialized strong-, free-safety system. Landry has 4.35 speed and that allows him to make plays Milloy can not, but Landry is a rare talent, there is no indication the Redskins are at all interested in letting him leave, and I don't see any safety in this class with his kind of ability. A LaRon Landry the lesser like Bernard Pollard is another potential option.
I would rather Seattle just let Kam Chancellor develop and instead invest resources in more pressing needs, but the Seahawks under Carroll seem scheme-first and sometimes scheme-first teams lock into their perceived needs and overspend.
Of those options, the last is the most demanding and least likely. The second to last is a necessity. The second is the option I assume Seattle will pursue. And the first is the option I think Seattle should pursue. Some combination of the above will be pursued, because despite his career high in sacks, Clemons is playing on a borderline league-worst defense. The Seahawks front office and coaching staff might not agree why the defense is failing, but it knows it is and it knows something must be done.
103 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This was one of the funnier comments I've read in a while.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
Author of The Seahawks Asylum: http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
by Nick Andron on Dec 15, 2010 5:21 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Can we get Clemons to the Pro Bowl?
Voting doesn’t end until next week, I think so if we’re lucky and they let the backup QB throw Clemons can surpass Kerney’s season best with Seattle.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
Let's not forget that Philly also sent us a 4th round pick in the trade
Which was used to obtain Marshawn Lynch. The 4th rounder we now have comes from Denver (via New England). So look at it as Beast Mode/Clemons for Tapp. That might actually make people more upset about the trade based upon Lynch’s production…
Seahawks 2011 Draft Picks (As of Oct 12th, per Eric Williams):
http://blog.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/2010/10/12/morning-links-hawks-2011-draft-picks/
Huh
I thought the 4th was the one we used on EJ Wilson, but I guess I was wrong.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 15, 2010 4:31 PM PST up reply actions
Wasn't correcting you
Saw the “throw in” comment. The way people discuss the trade in the post and thread comments, it seems as if the trade is now viewed aw straight up, Tapp for Clemons. Wanted to educate the general readers.
That's probably because Seattle cut Wilson.
So, in effect, Tapp for Clemons.
I think it’s more accurate to say Tapp for Wilson, because as far as I know, Clemons was probably going to be cut if Seattle didn’t trade for him.
The calculus would be
Tapp for Clemons and E.J. Wilson.
Lynch was acquired in an entirely separate deal, and Seattle may have traded for Lynch independent of trading Tapp.
Schneider has a list of guys he's been drooling over for years
With the Lynch trade rumors going on at the time, it wouldn’t be out of the question that Schneider was stockpiling assets with which to trade for guys like Lynch. I wouldn’t rule it out entirely that JS expected to use that pick (or something in the ballpark) on Lynch.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 15, 2010 4:36 PM PST up reply actions
On paper Clemons seems susceptible to the run
but I don’t know if I’ve seen any statistics to support this (or remember reading any more run defense “lowlights” about him in the weekly game breakdowns). The only thing I stat I seem to remember one way or the other was a 28%-30% split on runs between the right and left sides.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 15, 2010 4:34 PM PST reply actions
Left and right side doesn't say anything, because Clemons plays both sides.
And I have beaten into the ground how Clemons inability to get off a block, even a block from a tight end, severely weakens Seattle’s run defense.
Isn't the idea that teams should run at Clemons all the time?
Yet there doesn’t seem to be much evidence that they do.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 15, 2010 4:42 PM PST up reply actions
The idea is that Seattle has a liability in run defense starting on its defensive line
and that not only creates problems for runs directed at Clemons but also any run Clemons is a defender against.
When Seattle started Jones and Hutch, runs to the right were actually more effective than runs to the left, but not because Gray and Locklear were better, but because teams compensated. Football isn’t so rudimentary that the only way to measure a player’s impact on run defense is to measure runs to one direction or another. It’s an interdependent system, and just like having a superstar receiver can potentially open up plays for a lesser receiver, or having a superstar rusher can open up play action, having a situational pass rusher start at defensive end can cause cascade weaknesses throughout the run defense.
Has it? I certainly think so, because that is what I have observed, but I accept that I can’t know for sure.
That makes sense to me and I think its a compelling idea
but I still don’t think we have a lot of clear evidence for it actually taking place.
I’ve seen a lot of guys on our DL play horribly in run defense, from time to time, but Clemons hasn’t stuck out as an obvious weakness. If anything, our 5-techs seem to be having the worst problems, given their role.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 15, 2010 5:04 PM PST up reply actions
Both Clemons and Balmer are "5-techs" depending on the down
5 is a gap, specifically the “gap” over the opposing offensive tackle.
Balmer might not be a stand out, but there’s no comparison between Balmer’s ability to hold ground and Clemons’. As a strongside end, Balmer is regularly facing tackle-tight end double teams and if he’s not dominating like Bryant, he hasn’t been a huge liability. The problem might be that for this scheme to work, the strongside end has to dominate.
I suspect you think that, that Clemons' run deficiencies are holding Mebane back,
that the under tackle could penetrate more and make plays in his own gap more effectively without the liability at his side.
I don’t think it’s the case, because Mebane’s been about as good as he’s been outside the nose, this year with Clemons, and he’s still winning matchups, just has not been a really good pass rusher, like always. A good pocket collapser and penetrator, and can apply pressure that can be escaped unless an end is also pushing in. Enables the other guys to make a lot more plays by collapsing the pocket and knifing in and flushing stuff out, he truly makes the rest of the guys better. But I don’t think he’s being hurt here.
The weak side guys are supposed to have 1 gap assignments, so I don’t think it would cascade over. If anything, Cole and his 2 gap responsibility would be what could hold Mebane back. He’s doing his job but Mebane penetration plus a double team on Cole equals the next hat on a LB in many cases.
by jacobstevens on Dec 15, 2010 5:21 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think anything is holding Mebane back
He’s a good player with a highly specialized set of skills and this season, he’s mostly playing towards those skills. I actually think Mebane looks better playing beside Cole than he did playing beside Siavii, and recognizing that has led me to appreciate Cole a little bit more.
That said, upgrading on Cole could certainly help out Mebane, as could upgrading on Clemons. But I think there’s probably something systemically wrong with a team whose second best starting pass rusher is Brandon Mebane. Mebane is good at collapsing the pocket, but he’s not really an in-space pass rusher.
I still wish Seattle would have run with Tapp-Mebane-Redding-Jackson, plus whatever talent they could have added, but that’s because I believe in balancing pass rush and run defense, and Seattle seems to think it can specialize and defend the run with one kind of line and the pass with another.
I haven't liked it but have warmed up to the idea greatly.
It’s more exploitable, sure. Hopefully the coaches would just be more cautious and more balanced in less certain situations and when the game is close.
Some downs are simply passing downs. And a draw can get 14 yards. But it’s 3rd & 19. I mean, the entire front seven and the entire defense doesn’t have to be stupid against the run just because the line might be specialized.
Some plays become huge because of how they turn out. Others are huge before the ball is snapped. Goalline, short yardage power situations, teams specialize. Those snaps are important. Passing downs, teams bring in situational guys, and some play-calling packages are situational. Most blitzes have general down & distance parameters.
Being more able to stop the run when it matters most, stop a drive when it matters most, can be more valuable than the balance sacrificed, theoretically. I’m not positive of it, but I am more interested in it, now. The Colts make the run irrelevant, as you said. They invested in pass rush anticipating playing with the lead.
Building a team that plays with the lead solves a lot of personnel, specialization & schematic problems. But just think, tougher opponents, closer games, playoffs, would it be worth it to pursue the edge that specialization (a long, long trend in football more than possibly any other sport) could bring if you could still be competitive when you’re situationally outcoached? Not among the best balanced lines in the league, but average enough that it’s not an achilles? I think so.
by jacobstevens on Dec 15, 2010 6:22 PM PST up reply actions
That's just something that's going to happen, though.
There are very few elite ends who can both stop the run and rush the passer. You have to make sacrifices sometimes.
That's very black and white.
There aren’t three types of ends:
Pass rush + run stopping
Pass rush – run stopping
Run stopping – pass rush
It’s some balance between those qualities, and for most of his career, Clemons was not considered stout enough against the run to start.
You know what I mean.
It’s difficult to find somebody who can excel at both. You make sacrifices when putting Clemons in there by taking the chance that they’ll run to his side. If it’s passing play, however, he’ll do more than a lot of other players.
If we're going to talk about how a player improves a defense...
…then we’d have to ask the same question of Darryl Tapp and Josh Wilson, neither of whom singlehandedly improved this defense.
For me, that leads to two conclusions: either Clemons, Tapp, and Wilson are all equally fungible, or we can’t use an entire defense’s performance to evaluate a single player.
That doesn't make sense.
Every individual player “singlehandedly” improves or damages a defense.
“Clemons, Tapp, and Wilson are all equally fungible” is an irrelevant conclusion, as is “we can’t use an entire defense’s performance to evaluate a single player.”
We are evaluating the individual player within the context of the overall defense’s performance. That doesn’t mean Clemons is expected to fix the defense, but it is very possible he is hurting the defense. For one thing, with a pretty similar collection of talent, the Seahawks run defense has fallen from 10th in 2009 to 23rd in 2010.
Can we be sure that is entirely or even mostly because of Clemons? No, but it’s worth consideration.
2009 Seahawks Defense
-D Line consisted of Tapp, Mebane, Cole, and Redding/Lawrence Jackson
-Tatupu was out most of the year
-Cole was healthy all year
-Milloy was not a huge factor in the scheme, right?
We know that 2009 saw fewer sacks, yet the pass defense this year ranks similarly. That doesn’t add up based solely on line play, does it? Milloy is limited, Thomas takes risks, Jennings sucks and Trufant looks to have regressed. Wilson would have helped here.
Jennings to Wilson probably doesn't mean that much to the run defense
And Trufant missed much of last season and still led the league in PI penalties.
And, again, neither really means much to the run defense.
Agreed entirely
I started to combine thoughts in my reply and started going pass defense. Having more sacks but not moving up in pass d rankings points to decreased secondary play, right?
isn't Wilson an aggressive tackler?
seems like we could have used that against KC, when their wide runs were absolutely murdering us. Mind you, seemed like they were running at Trufant too, and I thought he was always a solid tackler.
Wilson is certainly better in run defense than Jennings, but, big picture, I think that semi-switch is a drop in the bucket.
And you never want to have to depend on your corners
for your run defense.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 15, 2010 6:07 PM PST up reply actions
If Seattle was playing an old school Tampa 2, it wouldn't be a problem
but, as-is, yeah. Most tackles the corners are making in run defense are after something broke down somewhere else.
So in that case...
…if I were to say “Darryl Tapp was not that big a deal” because Seattle’s defense was ranked very poorly while he was here, is that a valid conclusion?
Based on what I’ve read from you, I think you’d disagree with that. I think you’d dive into analysis and tape breakdowns and explain what he offered. Tapp didn’t appreciably improve this overall defense to a significant extent – all through 2009 it was clearly a joke – yet you were very supportive of him. I’m just trying to apply the same rationale to Chris Clemons, that’s all.
And was Tapp that much better than Clemons versus the run?
Both guys are undersized pass-rushing specialists.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 15, 2010 8:30 PM PST up reply actions
Can't possibly argue with that
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 15, 2010 10:06 PM PST up reply actions
I thought you were asking, not positing a rhetorical question.
My bad. I’ll assume the worst next time.
I was looking for answers supported by evidence
Assertions unsupported by evidence and expressed in absolutes just aren’t my thing.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 16, 2010 8:58 AM PST up reply actions
Didn't you do exactly the same thing?
Since you weren’t actually asking a question, but stating the point that you thought Tapp wasn’t better than Clemons against the run, I’d expect some “facts” from you too.
Let’s see some stats, man!
Go back and read what I wrote again
I asked a very reasonable question. I didn’t try to make any statements about either.
Both Tapp and Clemons are undersized pass-rushing specialists. If the claim is that one is bad vs the run just because he’s an undersized pass-rushing specialist, doesn’t it beg the question about whether the other one might be? I’m not giving any answers here (because I don’t have any), I’m just asking the question.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 16, 2010 10:33 AM PST up reply actions
Theres not exactly a load of facts available for that kind of a questions.
Heres something from John’s 2009 season retrospective of Tapp that might help.
If Tapp was the Tapp Seattle drafted, he could still start. That’s the comparative importance of pass defense to run defense. He isn’t that player though. Tapp is more disciplined. He doesn’t start every play sprinting towards the edge. He can hold ground and control. He can cut in and avoid the chip. He can tackle in the open field better than many linebackers. Through fourteen plays in the first quarter, Tapp showed he is a complete end and a vital part of Seattle’s future.
If there aren't a ton of facts to support an argument
why would you make that argument in the strongest terms possible? Its one thing to say “I think . . .” or “Maybe . . .”, but its another thing entirely to state something in absolutes for which you have little evidence (one way or the other).
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 16, 2010 10:44 AM PST up reply actions
I honestly thought you were half-joking when you first asked.
I’m not sure exactly what you want us to say… quote stats? Even quoting John isn’t really going to make a difference, because all John is doing is making subjective observations.
Because anyone who’s watched Tapp play has seen him be fairly stout against the run. I’m not down on Clemons, he’s been quite good as a pass-rusher, even if his run defense leaves something to be desired.
The overall point is that Tapp is a better “all-around” player, in my opinion. He’s not as good of a pass rusher, that’s clear, and that’s why, in my opinion, we’d be better off rotating Clemons in on passing downs.
You seem to be doing a very similar thing in calling both Tapp and Clemons undersized pass rush specialists.
Which is something we have facts for. Tapp is 270lbs, which isn’t too small. He’s more short than undersized. Clemons on the other hand is 30 pounds lighter at 240, which profiles more as a larger linebacker than a smaller end.
Also Tapp has been a starter for the majority of his career, playing every down for the Hawks, while Clemons best year before this season came as a rotational back up.
Tapp wasn't a starter the last 2 years with the Seahawks
http://www.nfl.com/players/darryltapp/profile?id=TAP504282
and Tapp has been described as a 3-4 OLB or undersized pass-rushing specialist by a number of people, including John.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 16, 2010 11:36 AM PST up reply actions
John has said that Tapp would be squandered as a 34 OLB.
I would love to see us really change it up and draft a big guy, say Terrence Cody out of Alabama, and move to a 3-4. We have the starting LB crew to do so.Seattle’s linebackers look nothing like 3-4 linebackers. They’re small and fast and would be liabilities against pulling blockers. Every talented member of the front seven, the linebackers, Kerney, Mebane, Tapp etc, would be squandered. This makes zero sense.
Link.
He also called Tapp a balanced end.
Fundamentally, there is something very cool about moving a balanced end like Darryl Tapp for a pass rush specialist.
It looked to me like Tapp was eating Staley’s lunch… pretty much all game. I think that accounts for SF not running left. Tapp isn’t a great run stopper, but he’s not awful.
John’s say isn’t the be-all and end-all but these kinds of observations are the best we have.
Here's one such description:
ESPN.com’s Scouts Inc. provide an evaluation on defensive end Darryl Tapp, whom the Eagles acquired last week from Seattle …
“The Philadelphia Eagles sent a fourth-round draft pick and Chris Clemons to the Seattle Seahawks in exchange for Darryl Tapp, whom they then promptly signed to a three-year extension.
“Tapp is an undersized defensive end who plays stronger than his size would indicate. He is at his best when attacking upfield. He is very fast, gets off the ball well and plays with a tremendous motor. Tapp will track down running plays from behind and has the get-off and acceleration to beat offensive tackles off the snap while staying low to the ground and maintaining excellent leverage.”
http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/news/Story.asp?story_id=20544
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 16, 2010 11:39 AM PST up reply actions
That doesn't say he's a 3-4 lineback or a pass rushing specialist.
And again, Tapp is short. He’s 6’1. He’s not small.
Tapp was part of the problem insomuch that Tapp wasn't edge rusher enough to make up for his teammates.
And likewise Clemons is a problem insomuch that his weakness against the run can no longer (if it ever truly could) be masked by the his surrounding talent.
I am not blaming Clemons for the defense failing. I pointing out that the run defense has totally collapsed and Clemons—as a part of the Seahawks as constructed—is a big part of that. So how to fix it?
Tapp and Clemons sharing LEO duties
If it was Philly was truly about to dump Clemons, what a great team him and Tapp could have made splitting time. Tapp on 1st downs and run situations, Clemons on nickel D. That would be cool.
We need to draft Tapp 2.0
Seattle attempted that last year, and the base 4-3 couldn't generate enough pressure
which is one reason I think they targeted Clemons.
I like Tapp, but Tapp needs to be a part of an overall talented line. He isn’t going to carry a pass rush.
So why in God's name don't we just go to a standard 4-3?
The linebackers are more appropriate for it. Put Clemons at end, draft another end for the other side. Rotate Bryant and Cole at one tackle, Mebane at the other.
I really, really don’t like this Leo jazz. I hope it proves me wrong, though.
OOH OOH I HAVE A SOLUTION.
You draft a DE, and have him split time at the ends. On running downs he takes Clemons spot and Bryant plays the other end. On passing downs, he moves over to Bryant’s spot and Clemons comes in (maybe Bryant goes to DT? How is he on the rush from DT?).
Of course, you could also have Clemons and Bryant alternate at Leo while the new “star” DE starts all the time.
OK, what’s wrong with this? Huh?
Nothing. I hope Seattle adds an end, but I wonder if the Seahawks coaches and FO thinks it's a need.
do you think Bryant could be a run-down Leo?
Seems like Balmer’s been doing OK there (and I mean OK, not good) and they seem somewhat similar.
I always worry about schematically depending on more subbing, but coaches never seem to have a problem with it.
Subbing occurs a lot more than I feel comfortable with, so maybe it’s a non factor. Unless you face Manning.
Not in any way saying I don’t think it’s a good idea. Just a thought.
by jacobstevens on Dec 15, 2010 5:30 PM PST up reply actions
Why do smaller ends seem to be successful elsewhere, though?
Colts. Previous incarnation of NFL Pete Carroll (Pats back to the 49ers). Some ends have been run liabilities. Some haven’t. Those who have still had not inherently lent to poor run defense teams or overall weakness that weakened the defense and the team.
Generally size and run defense strength correlate. Generally size and speed inversely correlate. The logic makes sense, but the severity of the impact I question. If it’s not working here because Clemons is small, why has it worked elsewhere?
Depends on how you rate success. The Colts have always struggled to defend the run, but have a quarterback that can make the run irrelevant.
As for a comparison to something that occurred more than a decade ago,
I think that’s both very difficult to translate and inaccurate. Carroll started Willie McGinnest in New England. McGinnest wasn’t huge, but he wasn’t undersized.
Colts have Peyton Manning, so the opponent is often playing from behind...
by B.B.Finnegan on Dec 15, 2010 5:37 PM PST up reply actions
Still, Colts run defense has been aweful this year, and now they're 7-6
Apart of that could be due to Peyton Manning’s as of late interception fest
by B.B.Finnegan on Dec 15, 2010 5:42 PM PST up reply actions
I know we have entertained the thought in past,
But I really wish we would switch to a 3-4 Defense. The biggest problem I see, is that currently we obviously don’t have the personnel or talent to field a 3-4. Although with the way Carrol and Schneider cycled through players I think we could rebuild and still use many parts we already have.
What really intrigues me about the Seatlle fielding a 3-4 is we have a freak in Aaron Curry. The man is just extremely physically gifted. As a pass rusher he has shown great improvement and i see no reason for the improvement to halt anytime soon. Hawthorne is also a decent rusher.
The glaring holes that really stand out, are Nose tackle and Another end, because Bryant has shown the ability to dominate at end. Also I’m not sure if Tatupu is the type of line backer for a 3-4.
My questions are, Why would Mebane not be able to play End in a 3-4? and, What are Typical characteristics for 3-4 MLB’s. I just really feel like it could solve a lot of issues switching, although i’m not as bright about all of the technical stuff on Defense.
by Savage Seahawk fan on Dec 15, 2010 8:33 PM PST reply actions
To exploit Curry as a pass-rusher, we could just move him to LEO, I guess
Not only would both Mebane and Cole be replaced in some fashion if we moved to a 3-4, but Bryant is more valuable in his current role as a 5-tech, with two DT’s soaking up o-linemen next to him. Would replacing our most valuable defender (Mebane) really be worth changing our entire scheme, just to deflect Clemons’ inadequacies?
I’m not necessarily against moving to a 3-4, but it would take more than just a few moves to make it happen. It might be easier just to fix the current version of our D, instead.
The other thing about moving Curry to Leo
Is that his overall game seems to be moving forward, if not explosively, at least noticeably. Using the (perhaps dangerous) assumption that he will continue to improve, wouldn’t he make a better “Leo” anyway because he has to potential to be considerably stronger against the run than a pure pass rushing end like Clemons? I know he’s still raw, but we’ve seen Curry shed blocks like water at times, I feel like he has the ability to separate and defend against edge runs, and the strength to close gaps between tackle and guard.
That is to say, I believe he has that ability despite the fact he hasn’t really shown it with consistency to this point in his career.
Maybe the management team should take a long, hard look
at the scheme itself.
Seems set up to allow exploitation.
I just don't get why you would play an end
who couldn’t defend the run and compensate on the other side with one who could only play the run.
By scheming around him
The LEO is suppose to play on the weak side. So you move your Will Backer to his outside and it is his job to contain the edge against the run. You also have your Strong Safety play on the weak side to help out. On the strong side the Linebacker plays inside the Tackle to help control the middle. It is the strong side Ends job to contol the edge.
Unfortunatly we have not just given up big plays to the weak side. Our run defense has been abused all across the line.
IF IT IS TRUE THEN WE ARE SO SCREWED
by eohawkfan on Dec 16, 2010 7:19 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Thanks for this explanation
It seems like a lot of people think that opposing offenses just run over the LEO on every play and this clearly isn’t the case. Rec’d.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 16, 2010 9:01 AM PST up reply actions
Also appreciate the extra description
Not that I thought teams just ran straight at clemons. Still seems like you’re creating a problem then creating a solution.
For reference do other teams use a Leo?
by Scotia Seahawk on Dec 18, 2010 3:55 AM PST up reply actions
Lots of other teams have used hybrid 3-4/4-3 systems
and lots of other teams have used undersized DEs in traditional 4-3s.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 18, 2010 10:13 AM PST up reply actions
If your strong safety plays on the weak side
What does that do to the space-time continuum?
If I where GM we would be in big trouble
But this what I I would like to do. I like Cole but would like to see an upgrade there through free agency. I would also like Tru to take a pay cut and compete with a free agent for the #1 spot. Loser takes Jennings spot. I would pick up a pro ready QB in the draft if possible but it wont be. Oh well we will just have to do the best we can and pick up someone that can sit for a year behind Matt then start. Maybe use the first round pick on a OG or maybe a OT for the right side. Then I just go crazy and suggest to Pete that he tries Curry out at running back.
Tru plays primarily on one side
to protect his previously-injured shoulder (he uses the other one to tackle).
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 16, 2010 9:55 AM PST up reply actions
I did not know that
This must make it much easier for the oposition to get the match up they want.
I just heard about it the other day
Here’s an older PI piece talking about it
While reviewing video of the secondary he had just inherited, Jim Mora had one question:
Why wasn’t cornerback Marcus Trufant playing on the left side?
That was in January, just after the former head coach of the Atlanta Falcons had been hired to help revamp the personnel — and fortunes — of a secondary that was a primary problem for the Seahawks in 2006.
“I didn’t know his history of shoulder injuries,” Mora said this week, between training camp practices.
Trufant had needed surgery on his right shoulder following his rookie and second seasons, the result of leading with it when making tackles against the run while playing on the left side.
So he moved to the right side the past two seasons.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 16, 2010 10:38 AM PST up reply actions
Mora switched him back though
His shoulder’s healed, I think now he mostly just matches up against the opponents #1 receiver.
by B.B.Finnegan on Dec 16, 2010 11:02 AM PST up reply actions
I swear I read the other day that Tru plays mostly on the right now
I can’t find it now, but that article is just one of the first things that showed up in a quick google search.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 16, 2010 11:37 AM PST up reply actions
Well the Hawks have the luxury to do so
Because of the lockdown corner they have starting opposite him.
He did during the 2005-06 seasons to protect his shoulder
Mora switched him back when he became the secondary coach, since he was fully healed.
If you read further down the article you posted, it was written right when he was switched back (august 2007):
But the left side is where the premier cornerbacks in the league play, so Mora made the switch, figuring it would help the former first-round draft choice reach the full potential that has eluded him since the Seahawks made Trufant the 11th pick overall in 2003.
by B.B.Finnegan on Dec 16, 2010 2:17 PM PST up reply actions
But where has he played since 2007, when the article was written?
I read the article and that Mora switched him in 2007, but I wasn’t able to find anything more recent aside from the blurb I read recently.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 16, 2010 2:55 PM PST up reply actions
Here's a link that says Tru played on the right "earlier in his career"
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/28331/rapid-reaction-chiefs-42-seahawks-24
The first blurb I read might have been in error.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 16, 2010 2:57 PM PST up reply actions
Meaning that the switch to the left was permanent
and the writer of the most recent blurb was wrong that Tru was primarily on the right.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 16, 2010 2:58 PM PST up reply actions
Upgrade at SS you say?
Donte Whitner. FA, 2011. Looks like he’d fit the bill for ‘upgrade’ and though he’s not Landry, he’s playing very well for the Bills this season. And, the Bills are both cheap and flush with players at the position.
...

by 


































