Major Minor Moves of the Off-Season: Less Futile Coverage Schemes?
There are few things on a football field more difficult for a fan to grasp than the play of the coverage. I say "coverage" instead of secondary because on most snaps, it is not the two corners and two safeties that cover receivers, but all seven players not rushing the passer. By numbers alone, coverage is the single most important task of a defense. It consumes most of the defensive personnel, and defends the offense's most dangerous weapon, the passing game. Yet, this essential function, this foundation of the pass defense, is easily the hardest to analyze, hardest to understand and most easily misinterpreted.
We see the coverage briefly and out of context. We see a defensive back chasing a receiver. Or a defensive back attempting to tip a pass. Or a defensive back intercepting a pass, but we do not see the spacing between the middle linebacker and the strong safety, or the how the corner controls the receiver's route, or why Marcus Trfuant is in single coverage on a go route without a free safety within twenty yards. We see outcomes and almost no part of the process.
It's been a fascination of mine to try and piece out just what the coverage is doing. It's hard, of course, and slippery because as soon as you think you know something, watch again, and you throw all that understanding out the window. It takes a lot of time, a lot of notes, a lot guess work, and it's only possible on a handful of plays when the broadcasters deign to let us see what is happening on the other 70% of the field. Over enough time though, and with enough theories tested and a very few that survive, I think it's possible to have some understanding of a team's coverage.
I can't say this with confidence, but I believe it nevertheless, Jim Mora made Seattle's coverage worse. Much worse. As I have argued over the seasons, Mora believed in a bend-but-don't-break, play-the-ball defense to the ruin of his coverage.
It started in 2007, when Seattle decided to gut their safeties and start over. Seattle ran symmetrical safeties and so "free" and "strong" were nominal classifications. One safety played near the line or in the box and the other played so far you couldn't spot him with a telescope. Corners played the ball. Distilled, the philosophy was: allow receptions, allow yards, but attempt the pick and get stingy in the red zone. It worked amazingly well against Jeff Garcia, Matt Leinart, Gus Frerotte, A.J. Feeley, Matt Moore, Rex Grossman, Todd Collins, Troy Smith, Derek Anderson and Chris Redman. Actually, it didn't work particularly well against Anderson and Redman, and maybe that should have told us something.
We learned soon enough. Seattle's pass defense collapsed in 2008. The interceptions, as interceptions do, disappeared. No longer facing jobbers and career backups, Seattle's secondary tumbled from sixth best in completion percentage allowed to sixth worst. Seattle was bending and breaking.
Was it all Mora's fault? I wish I knew. I am sure it wasn't all his fault, but I also think he owned some responsibility.
Mora became the Chargers secondary coach in 1989 after working three seasons as a defensive quality control coach. In his 21 seasons as either a secondary coach, defensive coordinator or head coach, his defenses have finished above average at stopping completions eight times, and below average 13. His best work was with the Niners, but he inherited a very good defense. San Francisco had finished 10th, 6th, and 1st in completion percentage allowed in 1994, 1995 and 1996 before finishing 1st, 3rd and 28th in 1997, 1998 and 1999. 1999 was his first season as defensive coordinator. Most of his good seasons were early in his career. Since his promotion to defensive coordinator in 1999, three of his defenses finished above average at stopping completions, 2000, 2001 and the aforementioned 2007 Seahawks, and eight finished below average. The average ranking of those 11 is 22nd. His overall average is 18th.
That doesn't tell us a ton, necessarily, and doesn't answer the question I am asking, and that is: Did Mora believe in allowing receptions to gain some perceived advantage at picking passes and preventing touchdowns? I think he did, and I think if Pete Carroll and Jerry Gray can change that strategy, the Seahawks will benefit.
Coaching a secondary is tough. One must constantly adjust their scheme to both the routes that are most efficient based on that season's rule changes and changes of emphasis, and on what routes an opponent runs and is best at. Seattle must do a much better job at preventing completions and not simply preventing yards after catch. It can not depend on interceptions and timely goal line stands. It must stop drives, hold the line on third down, improve that fundamental part of the defense, that part that is consistent like interceptions can not be, preventing yards gained.
Will it? I guess we shall see. Against the four starting quarterbacks Seattle faced in the pre-season, it seemed like business as usual. Vince Young, Aaron Rodgers and Brett Favre combined to complete 67.4% of their pass attempts. That won't do. At best, Seattle will luck into another run of bad quarterbacks and turn an aberrant run of goal line stands and interceptions into an exciting if porous defense. At worst, it will crumble when it faces the best, the teams and quarterbacks it must beat to be the best. The best and worst are two products of the same bad process. Ask Jim Mora.
35 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I haven't been encouraged from what little I could glean of preseason zones.
I wonder if Bradley isn’t a subscriber to the same ideas as Mora. And the pass rush the Hawks have had the past three years can’t have helped anything.
That's a very good question, what Bradley might believe.
It’s also worth nothing that Holmgren’s established near-apathy for the defense other than for them to be good, enabled the defensive coaches to do things as they saw fit. Not necessarily haphazardly. But an approach like this alleged Mora one, could easily be implanted.
Carroll’s a defensive coach who clearly holds systemic harmony important, and he & Bradley both come from Kiffin. The idea like an infection (yes I saw Inception) could still be in place having come in prior to Carroll, but at least I would expect that nothing of the sort would be implemented on his defense without his explicit buyoff.
None of that tells us what Bradley or Carroll think, just some food for thought.
I'd wonder if Mora didn't ascribe to those same ideas
He’s a Monte Kiffin-influenced coach, and Kiffin had a very bend-don’t-break approach to defense. Now Kiffin’s a much better defensive coordinator than Mora, but the bend-don’t-break is a core idea of the Tampa 2, which Monte Kiffin alongside Tony Dungy created.
The Tampa Two's 4 in pressure, 7 in coverage, keeping everything in front of your back 4
is kind of bend-don’t-break, but mostly by allowing dink-n-dunk underneath, and plays the game of averages, anticipating being able to get a 3rd down stop over the course of a longer drive.
Which, since you brought it up, still viable, but less viable, today, because approaching and even surpassing 70% pass efficiency even outside of slants and dump offs, makes playing averages a riskier gamble.
But anyway, that’s different from playing for INTs. Which is probably a stretch to call bend-don’t-break, because philosophically I doubt there was that degree of forsaking basic pass defense. But to some extent there had to be a focus on INTs that did forsake pass defense, I’m certain. I dunno where Mora got the idea, and frankly it didn’t seem like the secondary put themselves in position for picks unless they expected an endemic of overthrows. They kept everything in front of them.
But Mora didn’t get the idea from Kiffin, or if he did it was indirectly from Bradley. Mora probably learned from his father, before going to San Francisco and integrating with the leftover coaches from George Siefert. He didn’t stem from the Kiffin coaching tree, but Kiffin highly recommended Bradley. And then Mora and Bradley chatted for 11 hours and came up with a defense, that was supposed to be innovative and different.
But now re-reading your post, I wonder, did you mean to say, “I wonder if Carroll didn’t ascribe to those same ideas”?
by jacobstevens on Sep 9, 2010 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, I was talking about Carroll, no clue why I wrote Mora instead
You’re right about the Tampa 2, by the way. It is bend-don’t-break, but it isn’t about gambling for INTs to give up receptions – I’d say it’s actually the opposite. In the Tampa 2 a player has to execute his assignment and the focus is on being consistent and allowing short stuff to eliminate long gains. It isn’t about allowing completions to get a turnover at some point – though that is the consequence, to some extent, of forcing a team to execute 15-odd consecutive plays well to get points.
This, of course, means that Carroll probably isn’t going to try to run the defense the same way Mora did.
Still, the Tampa 2 requires a high level of talent because you’re relying on your front four to get pass pressure consistently, and you don’t think you see any succesful Tampa 2 defenses without that pass rush.
I wonder how much you can really glean from pre-season "scheme" though.
Aside from the obvious observation about the D playing fairly “vanilla” in the pre-season games, there’s been a ton of roster turnover as well, and I’m thinking we probably won’t recognize the D that steps on the field on Sunday on a number of levels.
Wow, hadn't seen the Cardinals' black uniforms, I like them.
I especially like #3 lining up under center, now that looks really nice.
This is interesting
It’s easy to see where a coach might, if you are correct about Mora, design a scheme to “allow” passes with the hope of getting picks and tightening up in the red zone.
On the other hand, it is very difficult to see how one schemes to “allow” fewer passes in the first place. Completing a pass is in some respects the easiest thing in the game to do. Other than “get better defenders” what can one do with scheme, even assuming reasonable talent? Blitz? Flood zones by dropping an 8th player in coverage? It boggles the mind.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
that's a good question
lazy answer:
-Knowing all the wrinkles that offense can throw at you from whatever formation and personnel they’re playing in that situation.
-The disguising your defensive look to present something the offense sees as favorable in terms of what they like to do on a certain down, distance and field position.
and lastly be really f*cking intimidating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZDUh9yboqI
Your culture is primitive; yet so funky!
I vividly remember Derek Anderson and Kellen Winslow nickle-and-diming us to death in the 4th quarter
We just couldn’t get a stop to save our lives….when Romeo Crennel is out-scheming you on offense and Derek Anderson is as accurate as Joe Montana, that should tell us that something is wrong.
That was a game Holmgren lost
As much as the Browns won.
We had no timeouts and he called a draw play and we had to rush the FG unit on, then he went for it on 4th and 1 with Mo Morris in OT and gave the Browns a short field, which they took advantage of.
Cleveland wasn’t that bad of a team that year and Anderson had a statistical outlier of a season.
Mo Johnston is what John Schneider could be in 4 years.
Anderson was good that year, but he was still a sub-60% thrower
I agree Holmgren’s decisions were just as culpable, or even more so….but Anderson was a much moire accurate a passer at the end of that game than he had any business being. It was an embarrassment for the defense.
I also remember the Steelers using up practically thee entire 3rd quarter on one drive, because we COULD NOT stop 3rd-and-long….if it was 3rd-and-24, they would somehow get 25 yards. A pattern certainly developed that season, and it played a part in ruining the two subsequent seasons (maybe not the biggest part, but still a factor).
That's a problem we've had for years
The huge play in Super Bowl XL was when we couldn’t defend 3rd and 28 and they ended up converting.
Mo Johnston is what John Schneider could be in 4 years.
3rd down defense
I was at the game n Baltimore in 02 or 03 when the Hawks lost 44-41 in OT. Baltimore had Wright at QB and he was just throwing the ball up for grabs the whole second half, and the defensive backs just watched as the baltimore receivers jumped up and caught the ball.
This has been a problem from way back.
Just so you know, Crennel was a defensive coordinator before becoming a head coach.
It’s very unlikely that he was scheming anything on offense. Rob Chudzinski is probably who you want to give credit to.
Who was the head coach of the Browns in 2007?
But it probably was the OC doing the work….I didn’t feel like looking up his name.
I'm biased, because I saw the results of the attempted "bend but don't break" scheme
But regardless, I have a hard time seeing the benefit in allowing receptions. Even in the name of more attempted interceptions, etc.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
Ah, the ol' "Cut off my nose to spite my face" defense
I think I read somewhere the an interception is worth something like 70 yards….I don’t know, but I can’t believe playing for an extra pick would be worth giving up so many receptions. It was one thing to see that defense and chalk it up to being out-played or out-coached by the opposition, but do that shit on purpose?
Damn, Mora couldn’t have gotten fired soon enough.
See the top Tampa Bay defenses ('99, '02) as examples of what this kind of defense can do
You need superior talent at a lot of positions to run it, but the point is to keep everything in front of you, don’t allow a big play, and have a strong enough pass rush to make the QB throw the ball before he’s ready – and when he does that, capitalize on those throws.
As with any defense pass rush is important, but its importance probably can’t be overstated in a bend-don’t-break defense. If you don’t have a pass rush, it all falls apart.
Great stuff, as usual.
I noticed that Football Outsiders lists Seattle 7th in projected defensive DVOA for 2010 and 6th in Special Teams. I don’t understand it. Does it mean anything to you?
Red Bryant: surprise us!
Special teams makes some sense with Ryan, Mare, Washington etc.
I can’t see any way we finish with the 7th best defense in the NFL, unless Curry goes nuts and Lofa bounces back to all-pro form and even then…
They weigh strength of schedule a little too heavily.
So it’s the schedule. And the low INTs, sacks & 3rd down discrepancy relative to 1st & 2nd: figuring regression to the mean means we’ll bounce back somehow. It’s a little too simplistic.
If you look deeper than the overall strength of the offenses we’ll face, John has picked up on the potential for more picks yet the dearth of the same kind of potential for sacks. When there are personnel changes at starter, they use baseline predictions based on how most teams historically turn out after making those changes.
But we know despite the roster churn pass rush is still a concern. We know the LBs have been dramatically underwhelming across the board for a couple years now. We know who was kept and who was traded. Their model is often applicable to alt of situations, and in those situations, more predictable than less complicated stuff.
But I don’t think their model is applicable to our situation. We could be that good, we could be 7th in DVOA, and it would likely be for other reasons than they predict. We also have a strong possibility of sucking.
Bend but don't break has got to be the most annoying defense ever
Although kinda fun when you’re playing against them. Another bad part about that strategy is you’re going constantly be allowing the opponent near midfield, but adds a strain on your offense, and will keep you playing catchup in a tight field position game. Never mind at the end of games when all the opponent needs is a field goal. It’s just a bad idea. I think i’m beginning to hate it.
hey john good observation.
correct me if im wrong but aren’t interceptions mostly dependent on the pressure caused by the defensive line. I would assume from listening to broadcasters, a little bit of john madden football, and from playing some flag football.
When a qb is given any amount of time, and space. The qb will hit there target. if the defensive line can disrupt the line and force the qb out of his timing, line of sight, and our of the pocket. Results in forced passes and the frustration can lead to qb’s holding onto the ball longer, forcing even more difficult passes, etc.
As long as I have been a seahawks fan, i can only recall Seattle spending most of their resources into the offense. Jim Mora is definitely not defensive minded.
It would be wonderful, if Seattle would focus less on the offensive side of the ball and money and look towards the defense, especially the defensive line.
What do you think?
Please use the subject line
As for Mora, the dude was a defensive coach by background and training . . . if you have a defensive coach who doesn’t appear to be defensive minded, what the heck is he good for?
by The Ancient Mariner on Sep 8, 2010 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Not too sure about 'spending most of their resources into the offense.'
A pretty common gripe was Ruskell’s desire for grabbing defensive players in the draft, especially in the early rounds. I know it’s not the whole story, but it’s probably fair to say that if most early draftees are defensive players, that’s where most ‘resources’ (money, time) are spent.
Looking at Seahawks drafts since 2005 until 2009 (Ruskell’s drafts):
2005: Round 1: Spencer ©, Round 2: Tatupu (MLB)
2006: Round 1: Jennings (CB), Round 2: Tapp (DE)
2007: [No first round pick- trade for Deion Branch] Round 2: Wilson (CB), Round 3: Mebane (DT)
2008: Round 1: Jackson (DE), Round 2: Carlson (TE)
2009: Round 1: Curry (OLB), Round 2: Unger ©
So in the Ruskell period, out of our top 2 draft picks, we selected 7 defensive players opposed to 3 offensive players (4 if you count the Branch trade).
by Mickapeckalin on Sep 9, 2010 12:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Rivers and Brees are on the schedule
and not much else.
I like Carroll's approach so far.
He’s opting for a more physical defense. Having CB’s get in the face of WR’s and disrupting there routes. Too many times in the last few seasons had the Hawk’s CB’s playing 5-10 yards off their man. Allowing passes being caught for 5-7 yards at a time. I remember screaming at the tv all the time during 3rd down plays as we lined up in soft coverage. Carroll will be leaps and bounds better than Mora’s predictable ass. Remember Grudens play by play announcing during the Texans game last year. He was shredding Mora’s strategy. Stating that Mora hasn’t changed and is easy to plan against.

by 
























