Preseason Preview: Chris Clemons and the Leo Package

by John Morgan on Aug 12, 2010 3:30 PM PDT

Simple one here and one that should be immediately discernible.

Is Pete Carroll's 4-3 Leo package tenable, or as ludicrous and structurally unsound as the worst of the West Coast Defense?

Seattle has three big bodies on the line. It hopes to create some kind of pressure from Brandon Mebane and Red Bryant. Mebane and Bryant will rush the ball carrier on nearly every snap. And I love those two guys, and I am even warming to the notion of Bryant at end, but that is lousy foundation for a pass rush.

Seattle has four smaller, quicker, more agile players standing. One is a "Leo" which is nothing more than a defensive end that stands. The starting Leo is Chris Clemons, and ignoring from the ludicrous assertion that because Clemons is a nominal starter and Darryl Tapp is a backup on a much more talented defensive line, that Seattle has won or is winning the trade, the Clemons experiment is ongoing and no more or less promising today than it was in March. He can be competent and that is be awesome -- better than I originally expected. He could be overmatched, overworked, eventually injured and an insurmountable liability.

The best case scenario is that Seattle is not reliant on Clemons for the core of its pass rush. That it creates pass rush through its defensive backs and linebackers, especially Aaron Curry, and that though Clemons is the starting defense's one and only primary pass rusher, if and when he falters, the pass rush is not entirely screwed.

Apart from pass rush, we shall see if Clemons is anything but a woeful mess in run support. I can almost tolerate the notion that he will be bad as a run defender if he can generate sufficient pass rush, but since I think the latter is somewhat unlikely, having Clemons be both cipher as a pass rusher and doormat as a run defender would be intolerable. It would almost necessitate a scheme switch.

Nick Reed dominated the 2009 preseason. It's not enough that Clemons can show up on Saturday, but it would be a nice start. It isn't conclusive but it is meaningful. It would, at least, make the lying to myself less preposterous. Prove to me this package can work, with the personnel assembled, even if it is against inferior competition, and Pete Carroll will have assuaged this doubter.

For now.

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

And hopefully we'll get to see Aaron Curry transform into RDM

And exterminate in a big way.

by DJ C-Raig on Aug 12, 2010 4:21 PM PDT reply actions

RDM. Yes.

I think it’s starting to stick. Love it.

"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM

by Nick Andron on Aug 12, 2010 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions

Damn that caption is indicting.

Some dude named Scott told on you.

Bryan’s link to the Philly article on Tapp was interesting. 3-point with your outside arm, it takes 3 steps to engage with a guard if you stunt or go inside. So they have him 3-point with his inside arm. Which loses some explosion in your first step if you’re going to edge rush. I tried both.

Is the element of surprise that valuable? You can’t switch arms for a stunt or you’ll get found out and broadcast the play. Right? Or maybe you can, right before the snap before they can adjust if they want to. Sure, mixing it up, twisting & stunting and engaging the tackle inside or out, makes a big difference. But I would think the margin for error is so infinitely small any pass rusher would need to maximize his potential for an edge rush, which you’d think would also help his ability to rush inside. Keep the tackle “honest.” Right?

But it’s the Eagles. Shouldn’t doubt them, I guess.

by jacobstevens on Aug 12, 2010 4:50 PM PDT reply actions

Need a little polish John

ignoring from the ludicrous assertion
and that is be awesome

I’m curious about the pass rush and system in general, not so much Clemons in particular. I just hope it works, with whatever player.

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 12, 2010 5:09 PM PDT reply actions

I also, hope for that, too.

With me at least, I don’t think it will be easy to observe and feel confident the position and system are effective but just needs a better player. It will be hard to distinguish.

by jacobstevens on Aug 12, 2010 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions

I am hoping that this scheme isn't quite so narrowly dependent on rush from the front 4

and that Seattle goes to its defensive backs and LBs to create pass rush from all over the place.

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

by dcrockett17 on Aug 12, 2010 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions

I am hoping this scheme allows for more exotic blitzing

Which might come in handy with disrupting the more inexperienced QBs the Seahawks will be facing this season…..like Matt Leinart, Alex Smith and Sam Bradford. A hybrid 4-3/3-4 defense might prove quite confusing at times, if implemented properly.

by J.L. White on Aug 12, 2010 7:34 PM PDT up reply actions

Well that's the goal of a 3-4, right?

The linemen create rushing lanes within the offensive line through which linebackers and DBs blitz.

That’s what could save our pass rush … have 4-5 competent blitzers in our LB/DB corps.

"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM

by Nick Andron on Aug 13, 2010 8:16 AM PDT up reply actions

At the risk of stating the obvious...

In a normal 3-4, you can send in one linebacker to rush the passer and still have the standard 7 guys defending the receivers (3 linebackers, 2 corners, & 2 safeties).

You can send a different LB (from a different direction) each time, making it difficult to set up the pass blocking. And if you send two linebackers, you essentially have two surprise blitzers while still retaining six suitable coverage men.

It doesn’t help as much that Clemons/Leo is standing up, or even that he has the speed of a linebacker, if he’s not capable of covering a receiver. His role as a rusher is predictable. You have to cut down to 6 coverage men every time you send in a true linebacker or a DB; you have to cut down to 5 in coverage if you want two surprise blitzers.

Also, if the opposing offense decides to run, the reduction in receiver coverage becomes a reduction in gap coverage.

3-1-3 (Leo/hybrid thingy) versus 3-4 (by my estimate)

Early downs pass defense: Inferior for reasons stated above. The scheme provides almost nothing. You’re really just blitzing.

Rush defense: Equal I hope. The loss in gap coverage should be compensated by having an extra man on the line, even if he’s a slightly-undersized DE.

Passing situation and/or 3-receiver sets: Superior… again, I hope. The 3-4 loses a pass-rushing option when it has to pull a linebacker and bring in another defensive back. The 3-4 is then left with three lane-making, block-eating defensive linemen and fewer speed rushers to exploit those lanes. In this situation, Seattle should be able to send in all of its undersized, run-vulnerable linemen and generate a legitimate pass rush without depleting the secondary.

by Jason_D on Aug 13, 2010 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions

That's a good evaluation.

It’s true that the Leo 2-point stance doesn’t help as much,if you aren’t capable of mixing it up, but Wade Phillips had Merriman and Ware in pass rush mode almost exclusively, and they did well. They did well because they’re talented. And I don’t know if they wouldn’t be better 3-point edge rushers (Freeney is 240). But having that position rush more frequently than “typical” 3-4 OLBs, even near-exlusively, has shown to work.

by jacobstevens on Aug 13, 2010 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions

That's encouraging.

I didn’t know Freeney was that small.

I guess I just don’t see the point in calling it a “defensive scheme” because the only apparent difference is the heavy use of a pass-rush specialist at DE.

More specifically, the cost, benefit, decisions and effectiveness regarding linebacker blitzes are the same as in a normal 4-3.

But if it generates something from the Leo position, I’m all for it. I’d rather have an effective pass rush and take a hit on run defense than visa versa.

by Jason_D on Aug 13, 2010 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions

cost, benefit, decisions and effectiveness of LB blitzing being the same,

that’s an interesting thought. Hadn’t thought of that before.

by jacobstevens on Aug 13, 2010 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions

I'll admit I did find it odd that Philly drafted Graham after trading a 4th and Clemons for Tapp.

But good depth is an indication of a great line. Ludicrous indeed.

by MT Olson on Aug 12, 2010 7:51 PM PDT reply actions

If the Niners were waive Balmer, would we be interested?

Obviously there’s history with One-T-Scot.

by DJ C-Raig on Aug 13, 2010 8:53 AM PDT via mobile reply actions

Can the scheme work in theory if you get an elite talent at Leo?

Clemons may be just a stopgap for the Leo of the future.

If the Hawks were to draft Von Miller, Robert Quinn, Sam Acho or Ryan Kerrigan and one of them became a very good Leo could that make for a quality scheme, or is it flawed no matter who the personnell is?

by puerto on Aug 13, 2010 1:02 PM PDT reply actions

I think so. If pass rusher isn't our top or 2nd priority going into the offseason, then this season will have been quite a success.

by jacobstevens on Aug 13, 2010 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions

Anyone mind if I geek out here

and vote that we pick up Ryan Kerrigan no matter what? Just for his name? Just imagine him doing a victory dance after destroying Leinart: “Kerrigan! What mockery is this??”

Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...

by Cheddar28 on Aug 14, 2010 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions

Run vs Pass

I would prefer a front 7 that is better against the run. The issue lies with the oposing coach also understands your teams personnel. Just like when Levon kirkland was a seahawk. At that point in his career he was a 2 down linebacker in a 4-3 scheme. So the opposing team would throw while he was on the field.

The hope is that the defense is equally effective against the run and pass and the scheme and personnel does not dictate to what the other coaching staff calls because they can expose your weakness.

If you have personnel on your ench that are undersized but effective against the pass, you hope that the starting personnel can hold on running plays and be marginally effective on passing plays on downs 1 and 2 in order to create the 3rd and longs, which you can make the personnel change. If the opposing team is always in 3rd and 6 and longer you should be pretty effective at getting off the field.

by Ratman44 on Aug 13, 2010 8:41 PM PDT reply actions

Sure but...

by DJ C-Raig on Aug 14, 2010 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions

Looks like you're relatively new and not a frequent poster, so to expand on Craig's image,

most of us here, I think, are believers that it’s a lot more valuable to focus on being good against the pass. Most of the reason why is from a lot of the work here:

http://www.advancednflstats.com/search/label/run-pass%20balance?max-results=100

You raise a good point about being good against the run, and having situational pass rush and nickel/dime pass defense off the bench, but that is very situation-contingent. Lot of teams throw very frequently on 1st down. Over the long-haul, I think it’s a losing proposition.

by jacobstevens on Aug 16, 2010 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions