The Leo End and the Blitz

by Thomas Beekers on Jul 20, 2011 9:00 AM PDT in Seahawks Scheme Analysis

Blitzes are glitzy plays. Fans love it when teams blitz, but blitzes are often dangerous gambles. Send the house and hope your secondary can hold on long enough for your rushers to reach the quarterback. Ideally, your team doesn't need to blitz to get to the quarterback, and the best defenses tend to be those that can create significant pressure rushing just their front four.

We run a 4-3 under defense but with a twist, playing something like a 3-4/4-3 under hybrid, with two big guys playing two-gap and commanding double teams and the other two ideally shooting gaps to get to the quarterback. On paper, it has a lot of obvious weaknesses. The unbalanced line should be sensitive to running over the Leo end (it wasn't for most of the year), and the specialization means you depend mostly on one end to get sacks. We lined up Chris Clemons along with Raheem Brock on the field as DEs quite a lot, but this was after Red Bryant went down and the Kentwan Balmer experiment was going nowhere.

Another point of criticism is the position needs blitzes to accrue sacks. Is that true? Harder to tell. Sacks are a really limited way to tally pressure, since pressure turns to sacks incidentally based on the QB's pocket skills, the skills of your fellow rushers and the coverage skills of your own secondary. Clemons produced 7 of 11 sacks in the blitz, Brock only 1 of 9. Again, hard to extrapolate much from since sacks are such a limited stat. Football Outsider's hurry charting puts Chris Clemons at 28 pressures and Raheem Brock at 19 pressures. How many of those came out of the blitz? I have no idea. They're good numbers though. Pressures show rushing skills better than sacks do, Julius Peppers having 30 pressures over the year, Mario Williams 35 and Chris Long 43, all excellent pass rushers who you could overlook because they don't have a lot of sacks.

Clemons and Brock produced pressure out of their specialized roles. That's nice but doesn't necessarily improve your defense, not if to get those stats you need to blitz a lot. Clemons needed a lot of blitzing to get sacks, does that mean our system needed a lot of blitzing to get to the quarterback? ESPN's numbers say "not really". We rushed 5+ less frequently than the Rams and Cardinals (but more frequently than the best defense of the division, the 49ers, we're at about league average in blitzing frequency). The sack rate jumped but the sack rate always jumps when you blitz, the more important numbers are that 16 sacks came from rushing four or less (12 of those from Brock/Clemons), and 21 from rushing five or more (8 of those from Brock/Clemons). That's not a noteworthy jump, and it's similar (if on a much lower level) to the output of the Steelers when you compare their blitz to their 4-man rush, a doubling of sack rate but not a big jump in total sacks. So, fairly typical, which is not what I expected. It seemed to me when watching the Seahawks all of last season that we relied on the blitz quite heavily for pressure, yet the stats say otherwise, perhaps partially due to our more traditional formation with both Brock and Clemons on the field in the final handful of games.

What is worrisome is how the interception rate falls in the five-man rush, which shows you're trading getting to the quarterback for giving your secondary a chance at the ball. The overall improvement in defensive performance against passing when blitzing is not too noteworthy. These stats tell us the Seahawks do not need to blitz to get to the quarterback overall, which tells us a bit more about Clemons' role in this scheme and his weaknesses. He needs to be freed to reach the quarterback, but we can reach the quarterback when he is getting blocked out of the play.

I'm not a huge fan or a big critic of this scheme. I think Clemons and Brock's production is largely scheme-based and we need a big talent upgrade on the front four before the scheme can truly be put to the test (or abandoned, depending on PC's preferences). One thing I do like is how creative PC gets with multi-DB packages and blitzing from the secondary, noticeably sending Lawyer Milloy (4 sacks, 6 pressures) and Jordan Babineaux (1.5 sacks, 7 pressures). This is less the case on 1st and 10, but I think further numbers from ESPN should show how important the secondary blitz is to our scheme.

Don't be fooled into thinking our blitz formations necessarily have much to do with our basic 4-3 under and its unbalanced line, as we often blitzed out of the bandit or similarly weird formations. Take this one, 3rd and 8 from the San Fran 15:

The Seahawks have seven men threatening the line: Jordan Babineaux, Raheem Brock, Aaron Curry, Brandon Mebane, Lofa Tatupu, Chris Clemons and Roy Lewis. The down linemen are Brock, Curry, Mebane and Clemons, showing very little relation to our base formation. At the snap, Babineaux and Lewis drop back while Tatupu joins the down linemen in rushing the passer. Tatupu is picked up by the running back, and the blitz/offensive confusion frees up Clemons to go one-on-one with Barry Sims and Curry one-on-one with Chilo Rachal. Both beat their men very quickly and combine to sack Alex Smith for a loss of 10. It's good, it works, and regardless of how our line develops, I think our more creative blitzes will remain key to our defensive formation, both secondary blitzes, formations with two leo ends (though the frequency of these should lessen if Red Bryant is in for all games), and in the form of Aaron Curry blitzing inside, as he's a force at that role (3.5 sacks and 12 pressures over the season, none of the sacks coming from the Sam position).

Tweet Comment 18 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Hey good stuff.

If any of the noticeable stat implications show up for a second year then I’ll be more intrigued. But I don’t mean to say throw out the data, or anything, this was a good look at the right metrics with the proper skepticism and objectivism and reticence to draw conclusions.

The part that strikes me most is the thought that Clemons and/or his role may have a somewhat negligible impact if he and/or his role requires an extra body to get freed up yet we do just as well when he/his role is not on the field. I’m still excited about that role and this hybrid front, I expect the possible weaknesses that we can’t be certain of will substantiate themselves as something of a real thing but the right talent I expect still can give this scheme an edge vs. traditional 4-3.

So this is compelling to me that there’s some indication otherwise at all. It’s exactly the kind of thing to look for in falsifying the viability of the scheme. So far it’s just a hint, but if we see similar things next year, a real pattern might be emerging.

Head of catering.

by jacobstevens on Jul 20, 2011 9:25 AM PDT reply actions

I prefer to think of our defens as a 3-4 using some 4-3 principles, rather than the reverse

In the 3-4, you’ve got 3 big-bodied 2-gappers flanked by 2 LB-sized pass-rushers. The job of the fat guys is to stop the run and keep the LBs clean, rather than get to the QB every time. This seems more like what we’re putting on the field than your standard Tampa-2 4-3.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jul 20, 2011 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions

It's a true hybrid of the two.

Based on your description, the under tackle Mebane is one-gapping and he & the 3-point Leo are schemed to be freed up by the two 2-gappers. And Lofa’s role is more of a lead block smasher; no one’s keeping him clean but he’s essentially keeping the Wil clean. Assigning 4-3 or 3-4 just doesn’t do it justice.

Last World Cup I learned a lot more about footie “shapes” by reading the incredible ZonalMarking site and saw how subtle the differences between these 4-4-2, 4-3-3 shapes, or the hybrid styles of 3-5-2, 3-3-1-3, 4-2-3-1, and so on, can be. There are only a few basic concepts that drive what the shapes look like, attacking, defensive, possession, and of course talent dictates what kind of shape works for a roster. But the difference the subtle variance could make was fascinating to me.

Head of catering.

by jacobstevens on Jul 20, 2011 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions

If we classified the roles of a defensive front with 3 categories instead of 2,

I’d say there are interior linemen (DTs), edge players (DEs and OLBs) and interior backers (MLBs and ILBs). Their responsibilities can still vary a little, but less so compared to siloing the entire league into 3-4/4-3.

Ordering them interior, edge, backer:
There are 2-2-3s, (traditional 4-3).
There are 3-2-2s (many 3-4s).
But you can have 2-3-2s. It makes the taxonomy fuzzy, but when you have a rush-oriented guy lat 3-tech like Tommy Harris or NT like Jay Ratliff, the responsibilities are shifted. Or when you run the Bears 46 defense, then you could call that a 3-4-1.

I’d call our current defense 3-1-3. I wonder if the intent is to be a type of 3-2-2 and the scheme means only the Sam can be a second edge guy cuz WIl is cleanup, or if they’re running it the way they want to, and the additional pressure comes from everywhere, from blitzing and from bandits. But none of the LBs have 3-4-type rush responsibilities. And the Leo clearly has almost zero backing responsibilities.

Anyway a very long way of illustrating how I just don’t think this defense can be shoehorned in to fitting either classical category.

Head of catering.

by jacobstevens on Jul 20, 2011 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions

To complicate things even further

We’re only talking about the base defense. I’m not sure how often it gets used but I’m pretty sure the DC isn’t just firing up base-base-blitz all day. There are all sorts of exotic blitzes, stunts, schemes, etc that get worked into the mix that may not resemble the base defense at all.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jul 20, 2011 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions

Right. I don't think there's wild and exotic variance

but there is definitely variance for every team. Mostly it’s dictated by the personnel groupings the offense rolls out but we are one of the less reactive and more proactive defenses in the packages we put on the field. Which I like, but it, too, is another double-edged sword.

Head of catering.

by jacobstevens on Jul 21, 2011 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions

Good analysis...

You’re very opinionated in your comments sometimes Vasilii but who isn’t. You know your stuff and bring valuable knowledge to our community so kudos for all your hard work. I think this part “and in the form of Aaron Curry blitzing inside, as he’s a force at that role (3.5 sacks and 12 pressures over the season, none of the sacks coming from the Sam position).” Hits the nail on the head, as discussed in the latest Aaron Curry discussion that the Hawks could double there sack number rushing guys from the right spots and just coming with the blitz a lot more in general. Our Safeties are gonna be ball hawking hard this season, excited to see added pressure lead to more picks for Earl the CB’s and whoever plays SS as well. Good write up.

"I was 11 or 12 and Quinton was like 30. He was the only dude on the Pop Warner team who had a full mustache and a beard. And he used to drive to Pop Warner games. You're not supposed to be doing that. It was crazy." -Marshawn Lynch

by IMIN4LIFE on Jul 20, 2011 9:27 AM PDT reply actions

I kinda didn't want to say it,

but the other main takeaway for me is that this adds more weight to the notion that Mebane hasn’t provided enough pressure from the under tackle position and it’s the biggest thing holding the whole scheme back.

It’s not fair to compare Curry’s impact per snap lining up 3-point interior, against Mebane’s, because the situations when Curry’s in those roles are more conducive to pressure. Oh, how I wish I could have seen how Drake Nevis might have developed in that role for Seattle.

Head of catering.

by jacobstevens on Jul 20, 2011 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions

But with Colin Cole injured

We might see Mebane as a 1 tech and that is where he excelled in 2008

by Built2Spill on Jul 20, 2011 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions

If we keep him and if Cole's out for that long,

then that’s a possibility. He did excel at that spot. And even though the defense is different, I think that particular role is the same enough that he’d excel there again.

Provided the corresponding under tackle penetrates. If he doesn’t consistently, Mebane could both not provide additional pass rush (since most of it was cleanup work after enabling teammates to provide initial pressure (in which his enabling was integral)) and not contain the run as well as Cole. He can hold the point better than Cole but with a poor under tackle next to him and less skill at disengaging and stopping runs he could support lesser run defense.

Head of catering.

by jacobstevens on Jul 20, 2011 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions

The responsibilities are a bit different

I don’t think Mebane has the ideal space-eater for our 1-tech. In fact, I think he might be too small for our 3-tech. But I’ve always had a hard time trying to figure out why Mebane doesn’t seem to work that well (though not as terribly as some would indicate) at our 3-tech. By everything I know of him, there’s little reason for him not to excel.

I think the need to resign Mebane has grown with Cole’s injury, and the FO might not want to risk him hit the open market and up the ante in the 3-day window, if they’re going for minimizing risk (that doesn’t seem to be their MO tho). I kind of doubt they’d shove him over to 1-tech but I’d certainly enjoy it if they did, even if only as an experiment.

by Thomas Beekers on Jul 20, 2011 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions

You'd mentioned RFA being deprecated with the new CBA,

and if that’s the case, I’d expect it changes the Mebane valuation equation for the team. So there’s a chance. If those offer sheets and their terms are honored, though, I think they’d much rather take the third and find someone else.

Head of catering.

by jacobstevens on Jul 21, 2011 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions

Kentwan Balmer isn't as bad as we might think and here is why...

He was traded to the Hawks during the second or third week of the preseason. No training camp, a new scheme… He was then thrown into the starting line up because of injury. I was really looking forward to seeing if this kid could turn the corner this season… Looks like he isn’t going get the chance for much of a off season again this year or I’m completely nuts and this guy really isn’t very good.

by Redzone59 on Jul 20, 2011 9:42 AM PDT via mobile reply actions 1 recs

Im with you

He seemed to be good last year. Maybe once he gets settled in he’ll start improving. He’s definately worth the sixth round pick.

canadian eh

by Unidentified flying orgasms on Jul 20, 2011 10:14 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions

He's got talent but the concern all along was whether he could apply it.

Hopefully he gets there. If he could be a half-way decent starting under tackle, this whole thing could be noticeably better than last year because of it. If he can’t, and he’s our guy and Mebane’s gone, the whole thing could be way worse because of it.

Head of catering.

by jacobstevens on Jul 20, 2011 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions

Another thing to muddy the blitz vs non-blitz stats:

Sacks often come on obvious passing downs when the defense knows the QB will have to hold onto the ball for a bit (this is one of the reasons why teams want a more unpredictable, balanced offense). Blitzes are also often called in these situations. On average, I’d expect a higher sack rate when blitzing more most defense purely because of this overlap between sacks and obvious passing downs.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jul 20, 2011 10:13 AM PDT reply actions

Every time I read about our need for a 3 tech that can get to the quarterback...

I want to like send the writer a box of cigars.

by Richard fg7 on Jul 20, 2011 11:00 AM PDT reply actions

Most noteworthy for this reader

Was Curry’s production off the interior rush – he did not do it much, but that was a lot of production for a limited number of snaps.

And there might be something brewing re Mebane’s position. Remember the flap when they took a pass on trading a first and a second plus a 20 million dollar contract for Brandon Marshall after BMFMW tried out last year. Seemed to have worked out okay – anyone want to trade Moffett, Carpenter and 20 mil in cap space for a guy with an attitude that lives up to the name BM?

by bleedshawkblue on Jul 20, 2011 5:18 PM PDT reply actions