Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: News And Other Updates Leading Up To Pats-Giants

Fixing the Pass Rush, Part Three: Winning

We must establish the run. We must control the clock. We must force turnovers. We must pressure with our front four. We must disrupt the quarterback's timing.

Seattle didn't always use its best personnel. It worried too much about rush defense and sacrificed vital pass rush for stouter men in the middle. Seattle schemed its secondary ..weirdly. It dropped zones that seemed committed to playing the ball even at the expense of allowing receptions. Seattle's pass rush evaporated against better opponents. It was overpowered, players quit, players didn't show up; The Seahawks could pile on weaker opponents, but disappeared against contenders. The defense was walked over.

Coaches preach the former. Fans complain about the latter. And yet, are coaches preaching, are fans bemoaning, the cause of winning or the effect?

The final and most important part of fixing the Seahawks pass rush is building an offense that can put the Seahawks defense in position to attack. Seattle played far too much on the defensive, played a staggering amount of their minutes with less than 25% chance of winning. Maybe the missing rush wasn't the cause but the symptom. I endeavored to find out, or at least explore the idea, and so strapped on the headphones and began tabulating every Seahawk sack and the game situation it happened in.

  • Seattle had six sacks in situations where it had a 1-25% chance of winning.
  • It had 10 sacks in situations where it had a 26-50% chance of winning.
  • It had three sacks in situations where it had a 51-75% chance of winning.
  • And nine in situations where it had a 76-100% of winning.

To determine the significance of that, I approximated the minutes it spent in each game state.

  • 151 minutes between 76-100%
  • 211 51-75%
  • 209 26-50%
  • And a discouraging 337 minutes between 1-25%.

Counting off ANS win probability charts is not exacting, and 52 minutes were "contested" between zones, but it's evident that Seattle was able to pass rush better during blowouts than when blown out.

It averaged one sack for every 16:46 minutes of game clock when its win probability was above 76% and one sack for every 56:10 minutes of game clock when its win probability was below 25%. Sacks vanished as teams had less incentive to attempt risky passes and appeared again when opponents traded sacks for any chance of victory.

Nearly half of Seattle's season took place during non-competitive snaps. It could pile on opponents it achieved an early lead on, but much more often, it could fall so far behind early that the pass rush was neutralized through irrelevance. Against the Texans, Seattle spent 59 minutes of game clock with less than 25% chance of winning. The pass rush was shut out.

The Seahawks offense is not barren, but its lacking vital pieces and because of that, its among the worst performing offenses in the NFL. The ultimate and perhaps most important step towards repairing the pass rush is repairing the offense. When Seattle can generate pressure on the scoreboard, its talented, young and underestimated corps of pass rushers -Darryl Tapp, Aaron Curry, Brandon Mebane, Lawrence Jackson, Leroy Hill, David Hawthorne and Josh Wilson- will seemingly grow before our eyes. That split second cushion excised from opposing quarterbacks, and where empty rush was, sacks will be.

Star-divide

Seahawks Sacks Ordered by Win Probability

1-25

Hawthorne: 1

Kerney: 10

Kerney: 11

Jackson: 15

Terrill: 19

Jackson: 22

26-50

Kerney: 30

Tapp: 30

Kerney: 33

Redding: 39

Hawthorne: 42

Kerney: 43

Babs and Bane: 46

Tapp and Jackson: 47

Tapp: 47

Curry: 49

51-75

Hawthorne: 61

Redding: 68

Kerney: 73

76-100

Tatupu: 76

Hill: 81

Tapp: 88

Curry: 93

Wilson: 97

Jackson: 98

Jackson: 98

Reed: 99

Mebane: 99

Comment 24 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Big uglies can't play for 30+ minutes a game

I think we may be a case where the offense is so bad that it makes our defense bad.

Give me an offensive line or give me death!

by Generzal Zod on Feb 4, 2010 6:05 PM PST reply actions  

This isn't about time of possession

Seattle was pretty close to Green Bay and Houston in time of possession, but battling against a blowout. It’s about pressuring an offense to convert by winning.

by John Morgan on Feb 4, 2010 6:17 PM PST up reply actions  

Well what did GB & Houston do with their time of possesion?

score quickly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZDUh9yboqI

Your culture is primitive; yet so funky!

by jubelthebear on Feb 5, 2010 5:24 PM PST up reply actions  

err-an effective offense

I saw glimmers of hope with our defense, it seemed like looked defeated waiting for the offense to start sucking.

Give me an offensive line or give me death!

by Generzal Zod on Feb 4, 2010 6:24 PM PST reply actions  

I also see glimmers of hope

All they need is a league-average offense and an above-average pass rush.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 4, 2010 7:09 PM PST up reply actions  

What this picture doesn't show

is Cole catching up to, and eating, Andre Johnson.

It's Great to be a Florida Gator!

"I never met a llama I didn't like." - TJ Duckett

by Wayward Llama on Feb 4, 2010 6:57 PM PST reply actions  

Nick Reed beats him to it.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 4, 2010 7:06 PM PST up reply actions  

Fantastic stuff. That's a rec.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 4, 2010 7:45 PM PST up reply actions  

Not sure I get the list at the end...

I get the ordering by win probability, but what is the #? Attempts per sack?

"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin

by dcrockett17 on Feb 4, 2010 7:59 PM PST reply actions  

I recall sir

That you had, some time ago, said something to the effect of: Jared Allen needs the lead to generate pressure. Could one also say: the Tampa 2 needs the lead to be effective?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZDUh9yboqI

Your culture is primitive; yet so funky!

by jubelthebear on Feb 5, 2010 5:31 PM PST up reply actions  

I wouldn't say anything so definitive

My point is that if Seattle wants a better defense, if not categorically, at least in how we perceive it, it can contribute by improving its offense. An offense like the Colts puts pressure on the opposing offense indirectly by scoring points and forcing it into more and more desperate situations.

by John Morgan on Feb 5, 2010 6:43 PM PST up reply actions  

Thanks a lot

I was having trouble with that too

by Jackrabbit5683 on Feb 4, 2010 8:33 PM PST up reply actions  

You did something similar with Jared Allen for a post a while back

and found that he hadn’t recorded a sack when his team was down by 10 points or more. How did you go about doing that? I’d like to try it with other players but I’m not sure where to start.

by Nate Dogg on Feb 4, 2010 10:05 PM PST reply actions  

I use play by play

Just look through a player’s game log.

by John Morgan on Feb 4, 2010 10:20 PM PST up reply actions  

I think this post (and most of the comments) are unnecessarily biased in favor of the defense

I’m not going to tell you that the offense was good, but the defense didn’t do itself any favors. I’d like to see similar stats on the offensive side of the ball, i.e. what our sacks looked like when we were down by big amounts, broken down the same way. There were a lot of times where the defense looked bad because they were.

The offense wasn’t very good, but from what I saw the defense was worse. We didn’t cover any one, and rarely had QB pressure (as we see above) when it mattered.

I’m also not sure that sacks is the best measure. Is there some other way of measuring pressure? It was my perception that we when we got sacks I was normally surprised, because it didn’t appear that we were regularly getting pressure. The sacks seemed more flukes to me than the result of regular pressure that eventually got home. Perhaps that’s just a perception…

I disagree that the biggest thing we can do to fix the defense is to fix the offense. It certainly won’t hurt, but the defense simply needs to get pressure when we have 4 guys rushing. I don’t think that happens. How many times did the defense give up TDs on opening drives? Go look at the losses we had this year, and you’ll see that while the offense wasn’t stellar, most of the time the defense gave up long drives for TDs in the first quarter.

The offense isn’t always going to score on their first possession, or even their second, but they can’t start the game down 14-0 before they get the ball, or see an 80 yard TD on the first play from scrimmage. We had 14-0 and 13-0 leads against Chicago and Arizona that the defense squandered, I have a hard time laying that on the offense.

Check out the big blow-outs, Indy, Arizona (in Seattle), Dallas, Minnesota, Houston, GB. In these games the defense gave up TDs right away on long drives, often the first drive. This has nothing to do with the offense. Maybe the offense would play better if they weren’t always down by 7 or 14 every time they took the field. Sure Matt had lousy games (TB, GB, etc), but we should be fair about this. The defense had more lousy games than Matt did.

Sure it helps when the offense is good, but in 1992 we didn’t have any offense and you didn’t see that defense tanking it regularly by 40 points.

I think there’s just a tad bit of kool-aid drinking going on here. I know we’d all like to think that keeping the 2 defensive coaches was justified, but I don’t think that justification came from very much that happened on the defensive side of the ball last year. For whatever reason, Pete was able to see past that and figure out that these coaches should do well regardless of last year, and he kept them.

by lordtd on Feb 5, 2010 1:40 AM PST reply actions  

You have solid points.

And he covered a lot of this in Part 2 a couple days ago.

Also a die-hard Hawks fan.

by Hopefulmsfan on Feb 5, 2010 2:45 AM PST up reply actions  

You know, I get the feeling that you would not have made such a big post if you also read the other two parts.

John had a multi-faceted look at fixing the pass rush, and thus far, he broke it down into three parts. First was the D-line, where he proposed an idea for what the current personnel should be used on D-line. And then he looked at the secondary in part two. Now he’s also looking at the offense in part 3. Combine them together, and you have what should hypothetically be a considerably improved pass rush.

Talents that I covet:

Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes

by Carl Shinyama on Feb 5, 2010 7:30 AM PST up reply actions  

Like everyone else has said, I'd recommend you read the first two parts

I think you’re giving the offense way too much credit though. In the Chicago and Arizona games the offense had as much to do with giving up leads as the defense.

When they were up 13-0 on Chicago the offenses next drives went 3 and out, missed FG, fumble, missed field goal, pick. In the second half against Arizona the offense went 3 and out, field goal, punt, 3 and out, pick, pick, pick.

In the blow outs the offense was the first to let the team down. Against Green Bay the offense had two picks and two three and outs in the first quarter when then where withing a touchdown. Against Dallas they were down a point coming out of half time and went punt, three and out, three and out, punt, punt, touchdown, fumble. Against Minnesota the offense went three and out on their first two possesions before the Vikings had scored their first points.

by Nate Dogg on Feb 5, 2010 8:31 AM PST up reply actions   2 recs

Short field

How many times after the defense allowed a long scoring drive to start the game did the offense or special teams give the ball right back to the other team with a short field? Causing us to go down by 2 scores instead of 1.

The future is looking better

by eohawkfan on Feb 5, 2010 12:54 PM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

SEA!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Avatar_small
The Official Field Gulls OT Thread - In Which We Gush About Our Favorite TV Shows
Hatersgonnahate_small
A short note on what worked for the 49ers, but isn't really a "model"
Halloween_mobster_small
Come on in!
Mail
A Reply to Beekers and Some Comments About Comments

Recent FanPosts

208114_505637750968_23709013_30160241_9483_n_small
GM John Schneider On The Ideal QB
Bodypaint_small
Delocated ad
Beast_mode_tshirt_small
Tats Comeback Attempt?
994_small
Free Agents vs. NFL Draft - Wide Receivers
Small
Where Will the Seahawks' Churn Hit? Defensive Line Edition
Small
Expanding Our Football Knowledge
994_small
Free Agents vs. NFL Draft - Defensive End

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managing Editor/Lead Writer

284430_601240951600_44900771_32958650_2317286_n_small Danny Kelly

Staff Writers/Editors

Screen_shot_2011-01-05_at_9 Scruffy Lefty

Small BrianL

Avatar_small Benne

Olympiabeer_small Tyler Jorgensen

Hatersgonnahate_small Thomas Beekers

Profilepic_small DJ C-Raig

897267_o_small Kenneth Arthur

Halloween_mobster_small Jacson Bevens

Photo__1__small Charlie Todaro

Staff Writers

Small Joshua Kasparek

Mail Matt Erickson

Davis_small Davis Hsu

Profile2_small Rob Staton

208114_505637750968_23709013_30160241_9483_n_small Scott Enyeart

Elephant_pink_clothes_small Chris Sully

Seattle_seahawk_white_1600_reasonably_small_small Derek Stephens

Osprey1_small Ben Harbaugh

Bu_fb_2_small Daniel Hill