The Seattle Seahawks Defense and Third Down Efficiency
While we lost our opening game, the Seahawks posted a pretty noteworthy game on defense, taken at face value: the team held the San Francisco 49ers to 209 total net yards, and its rushing attack to 2.7 yards per carry, both overall and for its lead back Frank Gore. The standout stats are the 49ers efficiency in converting on 3rd down at 1 out of 12, and the 49ers red zone efficiency which was held to 1 out of 5. The San Francisco offense scored only 19 points.
So, despite forcing no turnovers and not sacking Alex Smith once, the defensive performance seems like it's pretty damn good. Traditional stats agree, seeing the Seahawks ranked 1st in 3rd down defense, 2nd in total yards, 4th in the redzone, 4th against the pass (not hard when your opposing QB only has 20 attempts) and 15th against the run. Football Outsider's advanced stats puts us as the worst team in the NFL according to their DAVE (projection + results) system, but does have us as the 6th-best defense in the NFL in VOA.
More than anything, the paragraph above shows the weakness in just looking at the numbers. Football Outsiders doesn't have opponent adjustments yet, and neither do we. It's not really possible to tell how good or bad the 49ers will be based on just one game. But it's still possible to look at an opponent's strengths and proclivities to analyze what this defensive performance means. So, this piece is mostly about the 49ers offense. And if I were a 49ers fan, I would be pretty concerned.
Of 52 plays on offense, the Niners passed 20 times and ran 32 times. That is not a ratio that is realistic in the modern NFL. Throughout the broadcast you could hear the commentators struggle with finding an explanation. "You gotta trust your quarterback", "Harbaugh really trusts his defense". Perhaps, it's hard to tell, but it's also hard to imagine the team not opening it up sooner rather than later. We knew Harbaugh wanted to go back to West Coast offense fundamentals with the 49ers offense, sure, but exactly how core do you want to go into the WCO?
I can't help but feel the offense playcalling was the biggest factor in our defense's performance. Calling only 20 passes, and only three or four of them deep (mostly to Vernon Davis) does indicate a game management performance from Alex Smith, but how well does that work against a Seahawks defense primed to stop the run? The short passing game and rungame became so predictable it felt like watching last year's Raiders-Seahawks game but with the roles flipped, with our safeties constantly sniffing at the line (more on them later when Gamepass unlocks the all-22 footage).
In particular, I want to look at the 3rd down attempts by the 49ers.
3-7-SF 10 (7:46) (Shotgun) 21-F.Gore right guard to SF 13 for 3 yards (59-A.Curry).
The 49ers line up 3 wide, and the Seahawks are in a nickel package with Matt McCoy in. Marcus Trufant, Brandon Browner and Walter Thurmond are in man coverage. Aaron Curry is lined up right next to the LDE (on the strong side). Trufant seems to be making an adjustment just as the ball is snapped but it's fairly irrelevant, as no one is there to block Curry. Iupati was coming around to block for Gore but has no interest in Curry for some reason. Easy tackle for 3.
3-3-SF 36 (4:11) 21-F.Gore right tackle to SF 34 for -2 yards (92-B.Mebane).
Like a mirror image of the first, three wide. This time, the Seahawks stay in base. Curry is lined up on the weakside of the line of scrimmage, Chancellor is moving towards off-man coverage on Michael Crabtree. The 49ers almost create a beauty of a gap between Brandon Mebane and Chris Clemons, but Leroy Hill runs straight into the opening, meeting Chilo Rachal head-on and getting a hand on Gore, slowing him down enough to allow Mebane to mop up.
3-11-SEA 16 (15:00) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith pass short left to 17-B.Edwards to SEA 9 for 7 yards (39-B.Browner). Caught at SEA 9.
This is the third consecutive three-and-out for the 49ers, and by now the Seahawks are stacking the line. On the previous play (a power O run), the Hawks had six guys on the line of scrimmage and 3 guys 4 yards off. Earl Thomas tackled Gore behind the line of scrimmage.
This 49ers finally decide to pass on 3rd. Braylon Edwards runs a quick comeback from the slot, with Aaron Curry covering him fairly badly. It's a good decision and a pass that could've gone for the 1st if not for Earl Thomas arriving immediately to hit Braylon, stopping him dead in his tracks, and Browner then throws him down.
3-6-SEA 6 (11:31) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith pass incomplete short right to 21-F.Gore.
A Tarvaris Jackson fumble gave the 49ers great field position (blindside hit with a blown block from Anthony McCoy). On this play, three receivers and Vernon Davis run into the endzone, but (perhaps hearing Chris Clemons' footsteps) Alex Smith decides to go for the underneath option, Frank Gore on the line of scrimmage. Gore drops it, but that's irrelevant as McCoy and Thurmond were right on him.
3-2-SEA 29 (5:54) 21-F.Gore left end to SEA 28 for 1 yard (29-E.Thomas).
A fairly obvious running situation, a fairly obvious running formation. 49ers have three linemen and tight ends on the line, Seahawks respond with seven defenders, with Kam Chancellor tracking blocking tight end Delanie Walker. Smith pitches it to Gore. Walker ends up picking up Hill, which frees up Chancellor for the tackle. Joe Staley manages to trip him up, but he's still in position to trip up Frank Gore himself. Earl Thomas kind of touches Gore as he goes down, which I guess gives him the tackle.
49ers go for it on 4th, and a penalty keeps the drive going.
3-1-SEA 14 (3:41) 75-A.Boone reported in as eligible. 32-K.Hunter up the middle to SEA 14 for no gain (31-K.Chancellor).
Still in the same drive, the 49ers ran it twice for a total of 9 yards with Frank Gore, and then put in 5'7 190 pound Kendall Hunter to pound in the final yard. Inside the redzone, they don't pass it once on three attempts. If Gore is indeed winded on the sideline, why are you trying to pound a yard with your scatback? KJ Wright, Kam Chancellor and Red Bryant all converge on him. Pretty hopeless from the snap.
3-1-SEA 5 (:21) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith pass incomplete short left to 17-B.Edwards. PENALTY on SEA-39-B.Browner, Defensive Pass Interference, 4 yards, enforced at SEA 5 - No Play.
This is a no play, so it doesn't count towards the 12, but it was still an interesting play to watch. It was pretty much the only Alex Smith pass into the endzone that ever had a shot, and if Browner wasn't clinging to Edwards' jersey it would have been a completion. They're both a little handsy throughout the process, but Browner clearly has a handful of jersey as the ball is in the air, and then grabs Braylon's shoulder pads as the ball arrives. Too obvious for the refs to call, you have to be smarter than that.
3-12-SF 5 (14:09) 21-F.Gore left end to SF 12 for 7 yards (56-L.Hill).
3rd and 12, with the 49ers playing in front their own endzone. Trufant is on the line of scrimmage with 8 Seahawks set to respond to the inevitable run. Clemons runs into the pile for no good reason, which frees up Gore to run around the pile, until Thomas rockets in to hit him while Hill drags him down from behind.
3-10-SF 23 (9:23) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith pass short right to 85-V.Davis to SF 20 for -3 yards (94-T.Hargrove). Caught at SF 15.
This one follows a deep incompletion to Davis that Chancellor really should have been able to pick off, if he hadn't reacted slowly.
Frank Gore motions outside to become the fourth receiving option, but the pressure up the middle is exquisite. Aaron Curry blitzes inside through the right A-gap, and he and Raheem Brock arrive fast, while Anthony Hargrove and Chris Clemons aren't too far behind. Hargrove sees the pass and chases down Davis effectively. Good defensive play.
3-9-SF 21 (5:46) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith scrambles up the middle to SF 28 for 7 yards.
Fox flashes us the stats so far: 5 rushes and 3 passes on 3rd down. Unusual to say the least. 49ers line up with trips right. Alex Smith is flushed out of the pocket by Brock and - to a lesser extent - Hargrove. Smith pumpfakes to Gore while running, and Earl Thomas and Brandon Browner both bite on the fake, opening up a lane for Smith. Curry, McCoy and Branch converge to stop him, but that was a close one.
3-3-SF 34 (13:30) 11-A.Smith pass short right to 17-B.Edwards to SF 46 for 12 yards (29-E.Thomas). Caught SF 41.
The lone 3rd down conversion. Chancellor is right on the line of scrimmage and the linebackers are close behind, as the Seahawks defense isn't taking the 49ers' 3rd down passing very seriously anymore. Trufant steps back about 5 yards before the snap, giving Braylon a comfortable cushion. Because of that, Trufant is behind Braylon when the ball is thrown, which gives the big-bodied receiver a chance to shield the ball from Trufant for an easy catch and run. Thankfully Earl Thomas arrives immediately, or this could have been a much bigger reception. Thomas had quite a game.
3-4-SEA 4 (9:01) 75-A.Boone reported in as eligible. 21-F.Gore right tackle to SEA 2 for 2 yards (91-C.Clemons).
Three receivers lined up right, and yet the Seahawks have Aaron Curry and Brandon Browner right on the line. Wonder why! Gore runs right at Mebane and Bryant, and while he gets a bit of a second effort in, Chancellor and a whole pile of bodies stop him short.
3-4-SEA 4 (6:44) (Shotgun) 21-F.Gore up the middle to SEA 1 for 3 yards (31-K.Chancellor, 50-K.Wright).
You're not seriously going to run again here, right? From right to left, the 49ers line up Braylon Edwards, Josh Morgan and Delanie Walker. The defensive formation leaves a pretty large gap between Mebane and Clemons, which KJ Wright plugs as he should. Gore and the linemen still power forward and get pretty damn close to a touchdown before a whole mess of bodies converge.
So, that's 13 3rd down attempts, including the no play, six were designed as passes (with one quarterback scramble) and seven as runs. By comparison, for each of our 15 3rd down plays (plenty of which were long and 5 of which were converted), Tarvaris Jackson passed, got sacked or scrambled.
In a lot of ways, this game reminded me of the preseason game against Oakland. Our defense looked better because it was playing an offense that was playing to its strengths: a quarterback working within stringent limitations and with only 20 attempts, while the offense constantly tries to run over our defense.
That doesn't negate this defensive performance, far from it, it highlights our strengths. But it also leaves us without conclusions to draw on our defense as a whole. Can it provide passrush? How is its pass coverage? I don't think the 49ers offense will be very good but if it will be, it certainly won't be with this archaic playcalling. So while it's nice to see the defense hold up where it should, the level of opposition and the unusual playcalling means it doesn't provide a ton of confidence for the future.
58 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Thanks Thomas for this break down.
I am pretty excited about our defense. Especially our third down packages. The Ball Hawking safeties are doing exactly what PC has envisioned and are swarming to the ball making plays. Like I have said before, I am willing to accept interference penalties if the defender is beat. Another set of downs to possibly make a big play and save the team 6 points is worht it.
I wish we'd see more third down packages
B-Mac seems to have stopped doing his Seahawks personnel roundups (booo! Everyone spam him on twitter to get him to start it up again), but I get the sense we rarely even moved to nickel. Don’t think I saw the bandit once. Pete said it himself, we stayed in base a lot for the same reasons outlined in this post: the 49ers playcalling was stupid.
I’ll be curious to see what happens when we face a better offense with a more open playbook, like the Steelers.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 14, 2011 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions
It may have been stupid, but they got the win
I will not criticize their play calling, if they made no mistakes and gave the game away. Granted, special teams sealed it for them and thing ma have been different had we done better on field position. We didn’t they won and their game plan worked. Game manager is good enough to win this division.
stupid no edit
and little keyboards… things may have been different
It worked for one game, but it's pretty clear it won't keep working
And as you mention yourself, special teams bailed them out, if not for that there’s no guarantee they would’ve won. If they’d lost, the expensive playcalling would definitively have been the main issue.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 14, 2011 9:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Agree, had we won - story would have been "rookie coach playing too conservative"
I think he was gambling on field position and that coin toss call was deliberate. He knew we’d stumble moving the ball early. That was well played and wise all things considered. His luck came in the late 4th, when his conservative plan and field position were no longer working. All in all, it was the right plan for us that day.
I bet next time is completely different for both teams. Will be very interesting to see these to staffs go at it over the next couple years. I love well matched teams and staff going at it.
Also forgot to say - great write up
Your points are solid and I look forward to more as we get more data.
Check out Brian Burke's numbers of team efficiency for week 1
and the lack of pass defense quality per play stands out. As opposed to being among the best in the league for a day like the run defense, it’s merely mediocre, and actually a negative impact. 52% success rate against the pass.
Which means the 49er passing game beat itself. And didn’t challenge us much at all. Trufant’s definitely in midseason form and ready to perform the slow burn. I do worry about the corners a bit.
But man the safeties are exciting. A small handful more of plays that Earl Thomas positively impacted that he didn’t get credit for.
Head of catering.
Oh yeah the mention of ANFLS was supposed to be a link.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Sep 14, 2011 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm not sure I understand what the ANFLS mean, based on 1 game
We have nothing to compare, say, the absolute value of our defense vs their offense. This is why FO doesn’t really start using DVOA at the beginning of the season.
Also, many of the failures of the team were on ST, but Burke doesn’t really address those in his system. Does his system penalize the defense for starting a possession in FG range?
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Sep 14, 2011 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Well they're purely results-based, aren't they?
They show what we saw, a good run defensive performance considering context. The passing numbers, though a very small sample size, bring concern, at least for me. It was actually a negative impact for Seattle, considering context, yet kept well in check by the low volume. The success rate against such a poor passing team brings the concern that we could see the same painful thing we’ve seen for a few years, above average run defense, moot, with very soft pass defense that rarely earns its way off the field.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Sep 14, 2011 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Can't really draw any conclusions from that low a volume
The 49ers were too archaic, too stringent. As I argued, all we know from the performance is that we still don’t know anything, and this defense hasn’t been tested yet, except against the run, where they are unsurprisingly good.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 14, 2011 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions
I feel slightly differently, but only due to having comfortable familiarity with the context.
If our pass defense was good, but SanFran was too archaic, then we’d have to acknowledge that our pass defense may not actually be good.
If our pass defense effectiveness was not good, but slightly below average, despite their pass offense not producing much that made any difference, that’s a warning sign.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Sep 14, 2011 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions
That's drawing too many conclusions from advanced stats for my comfort zone
I’d rather just look at the footage, which tells me our pass defense simply wasn’t seriously tested.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 14, 2011 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions
That's fine
but you can’t use advanced stats to make your argument.
You have a gut feeling, be right about it but make a case for it based on lousy evidence. You may be totally right, but that doesn’t make your supporting argument any less holey.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Sep 14, 2011 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions
I see where both of you are coming from.
Let me see if I can set you straight.
I watched the game. I read the article. The 9er passing game barely put up a fight. I checked FO, then ANFLS, and since Thomas had called out FO but not ANFLS, I used Burke out of the two to point out how 1) the stats bear out what we saw with our eyes, and 2) an existing concern I had for our pass defense, remains a concern.
I guess I can sorta see how you can read my words and get the idea that I’m premising the entire idea that our pass defense may be bad, on the pass defense performance from Burke’s calculations. I think you’re both reading a little too much into it, but either way, no matter. To clarify: I’m not making a conclusion, nor am I basing said non-conclusion on Burke’s stats alone. It was merely an observation that the stats show what my eyes saw. Make sense?
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Sep 14, 2011 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm arguing that you may be right but that the use of Burke's stats are too flawed to use
in this instance for two reasons:
(a) Burke’s only comparing the relative value of the two teams at this point (ie our D is better than their O but we don’t know how good either is in absolute terms)
and (b) ST played an enormous role in the outcome of this one game, in everything from field position in the first half to two TDs in the second. Burke doesn’t seem to account for ST play at all.
Using Burke in this instance is like saying “I know that my eyes are blue because I saw it with myself AND I had a hamburger today”. You may be right and you may have some support for your belief but another part just doesn’t belong.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Sep 14, 2011 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think what you're saying has any forbearance on what I was saying.
Anytime stats ever come up, sure as the sun rises Humongous will point out stats have limitations and any takeaway is inconclusive. Which is fine. In principle I pretty much feel the same way.
So if it’s worth bringing up here, it’s fine to bring it up. It’s just rather a peripheral, independent observation because how good either team is in absolute terms is irrelevant. I have a concern that our pass defense may still suck. Why? Because it did last year, because it looked poor in the preseason, because I have a good sense of the personnel, and to a lesser extent the coaching tendencies.
On top of that, an expected poor passing opponent performed even worse than expected, yet both to the eye and to expected points added per play and expected win probability added per play — the baseline for which is not determined by this game, as you know, but by history of games — our pass defense still did not perform in a way to dissuade concerns.
If they had performed admirably, even that wouldn’t dissuade concerns, because it was only one game against a flummoxing opponent. It seems to me that’s basically what you’re trying to say. I don’t know how to tell you that I get that, but I assure you I do. But to me that’s beside the point because it wasn’t what I have been saying.
I’m saying, observed SF incompetence in that game didn’t mask our own pass defense ineffectiveness. I’m not saying, our pass defense is awful & I can prove it because the numbers show we weren’t great and they are guaranteed to be incompetent this year.
Special teams didn’t substantially affect field position as it pertains to our pass defense. 2 turnovers put them in the red zone, and they got FGs out of them. A Seattle 3 & out and a poor punt by Ryan, with a 14-yard return by Ginn put SF at mid-field, which assisted in their scoring their only offensive TD. Ginn’s 14 yards did not skew Seattle’s pass defense performance at all. The 2 turnovers that put them in the red zone may have masked pass defense acumen or deficiencies that could have shown up in longer drives, but really SF’s dearth of pass attempts masked it more than anything.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Sep 15, 2011 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't have a problem with stats. I love stats.
I have a problem with people using stats incorrectly.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Sep 15, 2011 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Sorry I concede my statement. I think this is a valid description of your position.
And I feel the same way. Love them and have kind of a self-commissioned engagement to fight statistical abuse.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Sep 15, 2011 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions
It's not just about sample size, it's about having no real "measuring stick"
ANFLS just used our play to measure the Niners and vice versa. So it can’t really distinguish between a bad run game and a great run defense (or a bad pass offense and a good pass defense). When you couple this with the significant role that ST play had (and then don’t take it into account in your model), then the results don’t really mean much.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Sep 14, 2011 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions
ST is irrelevant in the offense & defense performance calculations.
Yes, Burke’s calculations are purely results-based and so far there’s been one game. Is anyone arguing otherwise?
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Sep 14, 2011 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions
What I'm saying is that the ST play was very important in this one single game
that constitute the entirety of Burke’s 2011 advanced stats. Is the poor ST play reflected in the grade of the defense? I’m asking because I don’t know. We held the Niners to 200 yards of offense but allowed 26 points. Is the defense responsible for all 26 points in Burke’s system (even though they started quite a few drives in FG range)? I’m not sure. I’d think that issues like this would average out over 16 games, but may significantly affect stats when analyzing single games.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Sep 14, 2011 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Usually these ratings don't count points at all but yardage and success rates.
Like if you gain 3 yards on 3rd and 7, whether that’s on your own 40 or the opponents’ 10, that’s a failure (and a success for the D). That’s definitely how DVOA works (more or less) and it at least doesn’t need to take into account special teams or turnovers.
The sample size thing is a really big issue. It’s not just that the team has just 52 plays in the hopper, it’s that it’s played one single team. You don’t get a good inkling of how these teams really are for a month and a half to two months at least.
"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)
by Johnny Slick on Sep 14, 2011 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm talking about Burke's system, not Football Outsiders
Burke bases a significant amount of his work on the expected point value of field position.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Sep 14, 2011 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Which also automatically takes ST play into account.
If you’re expected to get 5 points out of being at the opponents’ 10 yard line and you only get 3, that’s worth -2 just the same as if you are expected to get 2 points from being at the 50 and eventually punt it away to your opponents’ 25.
"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)
by Johnny Slick on Sep 14, 2011 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Not really
When Ted Ginn scored his two touchdowns, who’s fault was that? The offense? The defense? Nobody’s? I’m not sure how Burke takes that into account. Is it the defense’s fault that they’re starting on their own 30 or does Burke’s system give them credit for not giving up TDs?
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Sep 14, 2011 9:22 PM PDT up reply actions
But those plays don't enter into the offense and defense equation at all in Burke's system.
He might have a separate ST section, which is going to be MASSIVELY favoring SF after the first week, but it would say little to nothing about offense or defense because neither were on the field during Ginn’s TDs. It’s similar, really, to how Ginn’s runbacks don’t reflect on the yards from scrimmage stats.
"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)
by Johnny Slick on Sep 14, 2011 9:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Burke doesn't have a separate ST section
He pretty much ignores ST completely.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Sep 14, 2011 10:50 PM PDT up reply actions
It's based off expected points, I believe.
So if the defense goes on the field on their own 30 yard line there is a baseline of expected points based off the data he uses to build the win probability charts that the defense is compared against. I don’t know for sure, but giving up a field goal with that position would have a very minimal negative (as in bad) impact.
That's what I thought
Maybe I was just getting confused by the sign (+/-) of the defensive stats. According to Burke, our defense was 3rd in run success rate, second in run EPA/P and first in run WPA. We were middling in pass defense (17th in pass success rate, 16th in pass WPA, 16th in EPA/P) despite little pass pressure. (based on the one game).
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Sep 15, 2011 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions
I didn't know either so had to check just now.
EPA & WPA both just measure the specific situation, for example, all 1st & 10s from the team’s own 20-yard line. WPA is more dependent on not just situation but game context, so an INT late in Q4 is more impactful than early Q1. EPA is more context-independent so that “the measure of success is linear.” But it does eliminate garbage time & such.
So the ST play is not measured because it’s not applicable. If the results of a 3rd & 7 from an offense’s own 43-yard line in the early 3rd quarter have an average completion rate of 57% over the last decade, a median of 61%, with yards gained averaging 5.7 yards, and a median of 5.1 yards, and the INT % rate is 1.8%, etc. etc. etc., and Seattle gave up a 1st down on a 9 yard gain in that situation, then they’re scoring on the low end. EPA & WPA can be measured per play, against the baseline of history for the situation, so ST is not applicable. The fact that it’s one game is not damning. Each play can be compared to the past decade of results just as much as the entire season can. You can measure total EPA or WPA of the whole season. Or you can measure the results of each play, as they compare to the results of the same situation as it’s arisen over the last decade. The team’s performance in average and in accumulation over the season can go up, down or remain the same. But these plays will remain these plays, and they can be evaluated as such even right now.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Sep 15, 2011 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions
I mean, not trying to put a ribbon on a pig but
you can’t entirely take away the success of the Seahawks in stopping the third and short situations. Should the 49ers have tried to pass more? I guess, I don’t know. With only 20 pass attempts it certainly minimizes the opportunity for interceptions, sacks, etc. I feel as though there’s been a lot of downplaying of what the Seahawks actually did accomplish, which was a more or less return to form of a unit that began the year as a very stout run defense. There will be plenty of time for the pass unit to be tested.
And as an aside, I second Lord Humongous’ observation about drawing conclusions from DVOA in week 1. Or even week 2, for that matter.
I think your right
Our D proved try are beastly against the run. We played a run oriented team and who knows if the miners would have thrown the ball more, thomas could have snagged 3 picks an made Alex cry. Kam may have blown crabtree into San Fran bay. The miners played so conservative it limited our ability to make an capitalize on turnover opportunities. We will see from here on out how they perform. I think we can have An elite unit for years to come.
by Savage Seahawk fan on Sep 14, 2011 12:38 PM PDT via iPhone app up reply actions
*niners... stupid iphone
by Savage Seahawk fan on Sep 14, 2011 12:39 PM PDT via iPhone app up reply actions
Wasn't that the point I made?
We were strong at where we should be strong but this defense hasn’t been tested yet. I’ve seen people put way too much faith in this defense based on this performance, but this performance just isn’t very informative.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 14, 2011 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions
It's entirely possible I misread the tone of the article?
I actually thought you were saying their strength was basically to be explained away by the 49ers predictable play calling? I might have misunderstood.
I think it was more of a "well, we don't know because the 9ers were kind of dumb" than a "actually, it's clear that the Seahawks' D is average".
"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)
by Johnny Slick on Sep 14, 2011 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Their play calling matched up very well with our strengths
That doesn’t negate our strengths in any way, but it’s questionable whether any other team we face will open themselves up to our strengths like that
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 14, 2011 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, if that was the 1999 Seahawks, Gore probably would have ran for 200 yards.
"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)
by Johnny Slick on Sep 14, 2011 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Umm
Did this strike anyone else as to how imbalanced NFL football has now become?
Football Outsider’s advanced stats puts us as the worst team in the NFL according to their DAVE (projection + results) system, but does have us as the 6th-best defense in the NFL in VOA.
So we have the 6th best defense yet the models still have us as last? Maybe the projection of us in the first place is weighing us down, who knows. This also shows how unless your team has a legit passing attack, you most likely wont have any shot at a Super Bowl. It really is becoming the No Defense League and it’s sad. 14 quarterbacks passed for over 300 yards in week 1, I remember when that used to actually mean something, now half the league is doing it every week? Cam Newton 422 yards really? Chad Henne 416??!?! CMON @!I*%!& )!)%
/endrant
The problem is that FO doesn't want to use a single game to generate DVOA numbers
so they made up DAVE to weight the first game at a lower level (using preseason games). I’m not sure it’s ever a good idea to use preseason games as projections of regular season success, but it’s not like you can use the results of a single game to say much about a team.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Sep 14, 2011 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions
I feel comfortable using the results of a single game to say lots about a team.
It just has to be a game that says a lot.
Chiefs vs. Bills: Chiefs are done. They’ll probably win a few games, but they are out if it. (actually factoring in the last preseason game where the Chiefs played their starters the whole game and got whooped by players that got cut the next day.)
Colts vs. Texans: Colts are done. They could actually go winless.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
So...
4 out of 32 teams have defined desitinies? What’s the prognosis for the rest of the league?
by Stay Off the Flowers on Sep 14, 2011 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions
When there's only one game
Then DAVE is largely based on the projection, not on the current performance. Defensive adjustments don’t kick in until the 6th week, and that’s when you can start using DVOA to make useful points. Right now I posted the scorelines to show that while they looked good, closer analysis takes away a lot of the meaning of that.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 14, 2011 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions
With Kam and Thomas
Rushing the LOS you guys were primed for a play action with Vernon Davis running the seam. I waited for it, and waited — and waited. Never happened.
And it can’t be that Harbaugh doesn’t trust Smith to make that throw — it’s the throw he’s most comfortable making. I think the answer is that he didn’t trust our offensive line, and wanted the ball to get out as quickly as possible. That would be consistent with the performances our 1st team offensive line turned in against 1st and 2nd team defenses during the pre-season.
The bright spot for you guys is how your front 4 performed against the run. Our offensive line is horrible in pass protection but can usually maul in the running game. But Mike Iupati and Chilo Rachal were getting stood up and manhandled all game. Inside the tackles there was nothing there.
Of course we had our usual issues with Moran Norris staring at the ground while Kam and one of your LBs went to either side of him to cream Gore in the backfield and outside the tackles we had issues with Frank Gore going down to anything more than a stiff breeze.
But overall, it was an exciting game and I look forward to the re-match nearer the end of the season.
Hearing your offense is horrible in pass protection is about the most damning thing you can say about the Seahawks right now.
We know our pass pro is bad. We know our QB is bad. We know our run blocking is bad, and we worry our pass defense may be poor. We got no pass rush against you, but haven’t been particularly worried. One QB pressure. If we get one QB pressure off horrible pass pro, we are absolutely doomed.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Sep 14, 2011 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions
You didn't know the 49ers pass pro was horrible?
It was terrible all last season, ranked 2nd or 3rd worst according to Football Outsiders, and has seen no significant upgrades. It’s not news to me, we got little to no pressure against a pretty damn bad offensive line.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 14, 2011 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions
No, I didn't know/think it was horrible.
I had thought that a lot of their pressure problems from last year were due to both QBs, didn’t think Staley was horrible, and anticipated some development from Anthony Davis.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Sep 14, 2011 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions
It's young and talented so it could get a lot better this year, that's true
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 14, 2011 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions
We thought the same
However Staley seems to be regressing, perhaps due to being less than 100% from his injury and has developed issues getting his hands on and maintaining contact with edge rushers.
Davis is still very poor in his technique and can’t move his feet. During the pre-season he actually false started by two steps and still got beaten around the edge for a sack. Other times he does not push the edge rusher out and around the pocket, but backs straight into the QB.
We are pretty pleased with Sundays performance but are collectively drinking the Maalox about facing Ware and the Cowboys next week considering that we’ll need to throw much more to keep pace with their passing game.
I won’t exactly be rooting for you guys to bring home a W, but good luck in Pittsburgh and I hope your team stays healthy.
Thanks. Good luck to you as well in the same way.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Sep 14, 2011 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions
If it's a close game,
Romo will come through for you guys.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Good job, Beeks.
This is pretty much what I saw from the game. Whomever runs that 49er offense needs a serious kick in the pants.
Nice breakdown.
I think SF gets a bit of a pass for being conservative – first, they were playing with a lead. Second, they are not that far removed from a preseason game where their QBs got hammered, so perhaps they are wary of passing in obvious situations.
Still, the thing I am most encouraged by is the overall physical play of the team. Other than Rocky’s shiver, shake, and shoulder-shatter, the 49ers have kinda been the bully for the last decade, even when we had the better team. It was pretty shocking to see Vernon get hit pretty hard, and he pulled up on a pass he could have made a play on due to Kam coming over to help.
by PerryCollective on Sep 14, 2011 10:12 PM PDT reply actions

by 

































