Random Assorted Seahawks Thoughts
by Matt Erickson on Sep 27, 2011 3:09 PM PDT
Email
Print
DK Edit: Good fanpost, this.
1st thought- I really like the way this defense has looked so far. Obviously it's young and has its flaws, and there is definite room for improvement. But the attitude that Derek talked about, combined the speed and youth of especially the secondary has me pretty excited for the future. Even this season, this defense will often keep the Hawks in games, except for perhaps against elite QBs--but then that's why they're elite. Coming from behind against this young D will be a chore as well.
As I've watched the last few games, a thought has inched itself more and more into my mind. Seattle's front four (and by extension, Gus Bradley and Pete Carroll) have been faulted for their inability to generate pressure on the QB. As most pigskin enthusiasts are aware, I'm sure, a 4-3 defense generally relies on its four down linemen to generate pressure in the pocket, and the linebackers are primarily responsible for run support and dropping into coverage.
They rarely blitz. In a 3-4, on the other hand, the three down lineman are responsible for holding their ground, occupying blockers, and freeing the backers (who are often bigger than 4-3 backers) to make plays. Actually getting to the QB is a bit of a luxury.
After seeing the way PC & JS have approached the construction of the defense, and watching it in action, I'm beginning to think more and more that this defense is more of a variation of a 3-4, rather than a variation of a 4-3. They clearly are still lacking a bit in personnel (Mebane is quite a bit smaller than a traditional 3-4 NT, and Branch and Bryant are a bit bigger and slower than traditional 3-4 DEs), but I still think that that is what they're building. I think this becomes even more apparent when you look at their approach with their linebackers, particularly KJ Wright. No 4-3 team would ever draft and start a 6'4", 250 lb linebacker.
Even the way they use Chris Clemons often reminds me of a 3-4 rush backer. If you pictured the Seahawks defense as a sort of unconventional 3-4 with Bryant-Branch-Mebane as the down linemen, and Wright/Curry-Heater-Hill-Clemons as the backers, then BBM wouldn't be nearly as responsible for generating pressure as they would be for standing up RBs--which they've actually been pretty good at.
2nd thought- In the aforementioned article by Derek, he stated, "Jackson again held the ball way too long on 3 of the 4 sacks, so I really only chalk up one surrendered sack to this line when considering missed assignments or just getting beat." I thought this was interesting, as I had almost the exact opposite phrase run through my mind as I watched the NFL.com highlight video of the game.
Three of the four sacks are shown in that video, though I'm not sure if they are the same three to which Derek was referring. So I went back and watched them again. I'm a bit of a noob when it comes to watching film, and it's 1:52am and I have class at 9, so I'm gonna make these analyses short and sweet.
1) First possession of the game, snap at the 11:10 mark on the game clock (0:12 mark on the video). From the shotgun, Tarvaris takes the snap with a 5 step drop. Using my incredibly accurate thumb and iPhone stopwatch, he is blindsided by Calais Campbell (who humiliated Paul McQ, leaving me to guess that this may be the sack that Derek blamed on McQ) at the 2.4 second mark. I'm pretty sure a QB should reasonably expect more than 2.4 seconds in the pocket, especially with a 5 step drop in the gun.
2) Second quarter, tied at 3, 11:20 on the game clock (01:11 on the video). Under center, 7 step drop, I think. Campbell blows by McQ on his second effort, and hits Tarvaris as he's stepping up (!) into the "pocket" at the 3.0 mark. I'd say 3.0 is starting to get into the "holding the ball too long" territory, but is still far from Joe Flacco "ordering a pizza in the collapsing pocket" territory.
3) Final sack on the video, second quarter, 1:07 mark on the game clock (01:48 on the video). This one is unquestionably (in my opinion) on the line, specifically Lil' Mr. Moffitt. Darnell Dockett made our hairy little booger-eater his afternoon snack. One quick swim move and he blew past Moffitt right into Jackson's face. Jackson saw him coming immediately and started to duck away to his left but it was far too late.
Despite that attempt at evading an inevitable sack, Dockett still actually made contact with him in 2.4 seconds. I cannot imagine how anyone would accuse Tarvaris of holding onto the ball too long in this situation.
This isn't meant at all as a dig at Derek. I loved that article, and I respect his opinion. This was just my take on those three specific situations. Yes, Tarvaris holds the ball too long. Yes, he's a bad quarterback. But I don't think those three sacks can really be pinned on him.
3rd (and final) thought- After an hour spent analyzing the respective schedules of the Colts, Dolphins, Bengals, Vikings, Browns, Broncos, Rams, Niners, and Seahawks, I have all but completely given up hope of the Seahawks drafting in the top 3, and possibly even the top 5. I think that if we're gonna see Luck or Barkley in blue and green next year, it will either be on a team that recently changed its colours, or on a team with several fewer picks in the next two drafts.
The Dolphins (@SD, NYJ, NYG, KC, DAL, BUF, NE, and vs DEN, WAS, BUF, OAK, PHI, and NYJ) have a ridiculously difficult schedule. They will be lucky (don't even think about a pun) to win three of those games, I think.
The Colts' schedule isn't quite as hard, but still is no cakewalk (@TB, NO, CIN, TEN, NE, BAL, JAC, and vs KC, ATL, JAC, CAR, TEN, and HOU). I could easily see them ending up with only three or four wins.
St. Louis has a schedule comparable to ours, but they already have one loss more than Seattle, and they have games like @GB and NO rather than @CHI and NYG. They could very well end up with only four or five wins.
If I'm completely honest with myself (and I'm in the camp hoping for as high of a draft pick as possible), I could reasonably see the Seahawks winning five or six games this year (ARI obviously, then @CLE and vs CIN, WAS, STL, and SF).
I think their offense will improve just because of regression to the mean. I don't think it is honestly only capable of scoring 10 points a game. As the O-line alone improves, the running game will get better, and I think Tarvaris will learn to trust his receivers more, if only marginally. And most of all, the defense will keep them in a lot of the games I mentioned, and will really be able to step on the throats of the Colt McCoy's, Andy Dalton's, and Rex Grossman's of the NFL.
Anyways, these are just what they were advertised to be: random assorted Seahawks thoughts. If you've made it to this point, I commend you.
74 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
@CLE and WAS will both be tough
Grossman isn’t terrible – he’s performed admirably this year. And a game at Cleveland isn’t a gimme for any team, let alone our team.
Agree with 3 more wins – all against our nfc west rivals @ home. 4 wins probably gives us a pick in the top 5. Barkeley please.
Those two games were the hardest for me to project
And I think perhaps the Hawks season will really swing on them. After watching Grossman against the Cowboys last night, I am not afraid of him at all. Kolb is light-years better than him, and I don’t think Kolb is all that special yet. If the game was @WAS, then I’d give it to the Redskins handily. But if Grossman has to put up with the 12’s screaming at him and Kam & ET running around in his passing lanes, I think he’ll be hardly impressive.
The Cleveland game is the “shouldn’t win it but they surprise everyone and do” game for the Hawks this year, in my opinion.
by Matt Erickson on Sep 27, 2011 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree, Rex is not to be afraid of..
however, their O-Line is better than AZ and their running game is mediocre to good. One could make the case either way.
Cleveland is a different beast. It’s east coast and good defense. If this game was towards the end of the season, I could see the hawks taking this one.
I think we've started to see a pattern in the Seahawks' defense
They stifle the run and force a team to beat them through the air. When that means putting the ball in the hands of Big Ben, Rivers, Orton, Manning, Brees, Freeman, Ryan, etc., they’ve gotten shredded. However, if Seattle “shuts down” the Redskins rushing attack and forces Rexxie to beat them, I don’t think things will fare well for him.
When it comes down to it, I honestly think Seattle will split these two games. That would still leave them at 5-11. If we’re hoping for draft position, they’ll need to lose to SF or STL at the CLink.
by Matt Erickson on Sep 27, 2011 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions
CLE is on the east coast
of Lake Erie.
I had to look that up.
I'm not sold on Kolb being light-years better than Grossman
Sexy Rexy isn’t burning anyone’s house down, but he’s also not burning his own house down. He makes decent decisions and not a ton of mistakes. I wouldn’t count on him giving the game away. They also have a decent O-line and D-line. They almost beat Dallas in Dallas, and they have already beat NYG. Admittedly, though, with NFC East rivalry games, you can almost always throw out the records and expect a close game.
Still, even in seattle, I’m chalking that one up as a L. Which sucks because I work in MD and i’ll be sure to catch shit from my colleagues about it.
I have this weird need to defend Rex Grossman.
It’s more of a need to make sure I hadn’t taken another trip to Crazy Town when I watched him play. The thing I kept hearing about this game was that Dallas has a very good secondary and that they were likely to get a lot of picks. They didn’t and I thought Grossman looked competent working his tight ends against a stingy pass defense without a run game to help him much. He was so good against the Giants that I, like many others, thought NY was in for a butt whoopin’ against the Eagles. We’ll see if he falls apart this year. I don’t think he will. He looks like a patient QB who uses the tools he has and isn’t going to go for more than he can get. Maybe he learned something from all those turnovers in 2009.
by EthelGemerman on Sep 28, 2011 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Agree completely
Rex hasn’t looked bad this year. He has a terrible reputation and it may be deserved overall. But he’s righting the ship somewhat this year, so far. Nice job by Shanahan to recognize that and pick him up for next to nothing.
I'm willing to concede the point, as it doesn't matter too much to me, and I hardly consider myself an expert eye when it comes to QB analysis. :)
But the description you guys are giving of Rex doesn’t sound at all like the guy I watched on Monday night. I saw a relatively toolsy guy who occasionally made a eye-opening, professional QB type of throw, then proceeded to throw behind his receivers and at their feet, completely miss them altogether, and freak the fuck out at the first sign of pressure.
Once Dallas got him out of the pocket, he ran looking behind him with the ball in his outstretched hand. His calling card is definitely not mobility, but he slowed himself up even more staring behind him, and he opened himself up for the strip sack with his careless hold on the ball. I was just generally not impressed by his poise or execution. If he was a young prospect, there’d be hope for him, but given who he is, I’d say a victory for him is not actively giving away the game.
by Matt Erickson on Sep 28, 2011 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions
The WAS game will depend on the defense/coverage we use
The WAS/DAL game showed that the book on Grossman from his Chicago days really hasn’t changed. Rex becomes Wrecks when faced with Zone coverage on Defense. If that is what we throw at him, the Hawks stand a good chance of getting the W.
Procrastination is the Art of Keeping Up with Yesterday.
by Ryche And Roll on Sep 28, 2011 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions
At this point I believe we will win 4 or 5 games. And Denver picked 2nd last season at 4-12.
The year before 4-12 could have gotten you 4th.
Of course, its different every season how many terrible records there are, and the Colts and Chiefs look like locks to finish with less than 4 wins to me, but I think that if the Seahawks are aggressive before the draft then they will get their man.
follow @casetines
I agree.
If the Seahawks are in the top 6, which they almost certainly will be, I think they are at the point where they almost have to trade up (or at least attempt to). Especially in a scenario where perhaps Indy has the #1 overall pick.
Obviously, in that case, the question is then whether it would behoove Indy to pass up Luck in favour of moving down 4 or 5 picks and acquiring a number of additional picks. Personally, I think that given the state of Indy’s team (which has been made painfully apparent with Manning’s injury), they won’t be an Andrew Luck from continued dominance, and would benefit far more from drafting a Ryan Tannehill/Landry Jones/Robert Griffin III type to sit behind Manning for a few years, and use extra picks to fill holes in their roster.
However, if the Chiefs/Broncos/Bengals/Browns/Dolphins/Vikings etc end up #1 overall, there is no chance that Luck survives to the 2nd pick.
by Matt Erickson on Sep 27, 2011 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Im not sold that Bengals/Browns/Vikings couldn't be convinced to stick with their 1st and 2nd year players.
Chiefs/Broncos/Dolphins would be much harder to convince.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Sep 27, 2011 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Good points
Bengals: Depends on Dalton’s performance, obviously. They only committed a high-2nd round pick to him, and I can’t honestly see how Mike Brown could defend passing up on Luck because he had Andy Dalton on the roster. Barkley or Jones? Hmm, perhaps. Of course, Mike Brown doesn’t give a shit.
Browns: They seem fairly committed to Colt McCoy, and I don’t see them being bad enough to even have to worry about Luck, or maybe even Barkley.
Vikings: This will depend a lot on the playing time Ponder gets this year. McNabb will inevitably be replaced, and how Ponder performs will probably determine whether the Vikes go QB in round 1.
by Matt Erickson on Sep 27, 2011 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions
the next few weeks will tell us... something.
I would not be at all surprised to see us trade away a few players in the next 3 weeks… entirely for 2012 picks. That will be our tradeup fodder if we end up needing it.
by TrynZushi on Sep 27, 2011 4:44 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
You can say that Mebane is small for a NT,
but B.J. Raji has a similar skill set and played NT last year, at least nominally.
The statistics you don't compile never lie.
-Stephen Colbert
Raji plays a Phillips 3-4 NT
So he’s a one-gap player, not a two-gap. Big difference.
Baseball isn't played because it's *interesting*. Baseball is played because without darkness we would not appreciate the light: without sorrow, we would not appreciate joy. Baseball makes us savour life and reminds us to treasure every second we have on this beautiful planet, because such moments may never come again. Baseball is played, my dear friend, because without it we would not appreciate the time we don't have to play baseball.
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 28, 2011 4:40 AM PDT up reply actions
I think Rajii
Is usually 30 lbs heavier than Mebane but thats just the eye test.
Raji has at least 25-30 pounds on Bane though
And I’d say that he’s still at least as quick and is definitely stronger. Raji is actually exactly who I think of when I think of a 3-4 NT.
You don't think of Gilbert Brown?
That man could play both DT positions at the same time
by Crominator56 on Sep 27, 2011 6:24 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
The Gravedigger!
Man, that was a flashback. I’d forgotten about him. Ok, yeah, that’s the prototype for 3-4 NT.
by Matt Erickson on Sep 27, 2011 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions
I wish I could say I think they'll win less, but i think it's another 7 wins this year.
Head of catering.
Same Thoughts here
On that, I think the team will catch some momentum after the bye, surprise a few teams and still be in it around the end of the year.
This puts them into the same situation as last year, but arguably a much better class of QB in this draft.
Live work and breathe like an optimist.
Some questions...
…trying to project the effectiveness of this hybrid defense.
1. A part of me wants to huff and go “Variations schmariations…if there are 4 linemen and 3 linebackers, it’s a 4-3.” Reason for that: no matter how they’re ultimately used, won’t a 4-3 alignment require sharper angles from edge blitzers to get around the wider front? That doesn’t serve the blitzes very well.
2. Another problem my amateur football mind might envision is that a heavily blitzing 4-3 has one less guy to drop into coverage than a 3-4 does. This isn’t a problem if Clemons drops back regularly, as the net effect would be the same. But I don’t see him being used that way very often if Clemons is being relied on solely for pass pressure. Anyone know offhand how much coverage action Clemons is being used for?
3. Speaking of which, I know Brock has been getting a lot of usage lately, but in Bryant sets, if the pressure is clearly coming from only one likely place, doesn’t that hinder some of the unpredictability that 3-4’s are known for? One of the things that helps it work is the ability to bring pressure from more places.
http://17power.blogspot.com
3-4 vs 4-3
when sending only one linebacker it is not considered blitzing, the traditional term of blitz means sending more than 4. What the 3-4 gives up in run protection it makes up for in coverage and uncertainty of where the pressure is coming from.
When utilizing an outside blitzer in the 4-3, the DE on that end usually ends up pinching down on the guard leaving the outside blitzer one on one with the tackle. This is highly effective with a speed rusher like a DB or fast LB.
Though when its disquised like a cb blitz, the de could end up doubled by guard and tackle, and the pressure gets home free. Generally though the line blocks inside out. This is where the 4-3 is good becuase you have two big strong guys in the middle collapsing the pocket while the DE (usually)speed rush. it takes both to “collapse the pocket” if you only get the middle rush the qb scrambles left or right and throws it down field, and if you only get the outside pressure the QB steps up into it and throws it down field.
Another difference is that almost all 3-4 schemes are 2 gap, that is where each of the three linemen control two gaps while the backers either cover or flow to the ball. in a 4-3 its almost always a one gap scheme where 2 backers have only 1 gap responsibility and the best backer (usually the MLB) covers two gaps. in he 4-3 under, you can actually do both. Red, mebane, and branch are all very good 2 gap linemen, though mebane is definately beter as a one gap. clemons, brock are both 1 gap type players.
During a game you will often see two gap on first and second, and 1 gap on 3rd(were brock comes in to replace red bryant.)
I understand the difference between the two schemes...
Believe me, I’ve been harping about uor lack of pocket-collapsing for months now. :)
What I’m basically asking is whether our hybrid scheme is limiting the unpredictability of our rushing by always demanding it from the same place (Clemons). Even if a 4th rusher in a 3-4 isn’t considered a blitzer, he can still come from anywhere.
http://17power.blogspot.com
I dont think so
most of the high pressure teams pretty much use the same player over and over again. IE demarcus ware, cole, babin. The saints use a ton of safety blitzes ect. most of our sacks come from clemons, brock, and the occasional DB blitz from the bandit.
Good discussion points.
1. John Morgan raised a good question on the distinction between how linemen & linebackers are defined. 3-4 OLBs are often on the line, so are they backers? Or, it’s “down linemen,” but sometimes they rush from a 3-point stance, too. LB-sized & linemen-sized? Clemons is LB sized and as you mention, occasionally drops back. But so has Peppers. Even Strahan did once in a while! It’s something DEs are called upon to do, but they are pure ends and not LBs. Then you have the dedicated pass rushing Merriman style 3-4 guys. How do you classify them?
Morgan pointed out coaches distinguish by skillset, sometimes, rather than use/purpose. Of course use & purpose varies, as well, but it doesn’t make sense to distinguish any other way. Regardless, there is enough variation that the distinction will always be blurred, whether by protypical size (Seattle is a variation), skillset (Wade Phillips runs a variation), or use/purpose (New England is a variation).
How this affects us is, we don’t have guys who are as suited to drop back into coverage. Hill & Hawthorne (while he was Wil) haven’t been average at it, Curry had way above average talent for it but also was below average. Clemons is maybe average for a DE, but that’s still a package where the dropback’s value is in surprise, not a reliable coverage provision. Bryant? Forget it.
I don’t think the angles matter. Against a TE on something more like a passing down, when Bryant is in, I’ve seen him move to 9-tech alignment. Clemons is often lined up 9-, and this is usually where 3-4 edge rushers come from. There is some variation, where they try to surprise & trick, more, but offenses know who will rush the passer most, and on many snaps, where they just want to get him close enough to zip around the end, they put him at 9-.
Note: James Harrison had B-gap responsibility against Seattle and Baltimore. I’m guessing this is standard for them. Depending on whether we motioned the TE or where the FB was aligned, he would move from 9- back to 5-, and in all cases when the play was a run he contained the B gap, between tackle & guard. I dunno whether Woodley or Farrior switch sides or what, but an ILB was responsible for setting the edge, and they were surprisingly capable (to me at least) of doing that from the ILB position, when Curry sometimes had trouble from the strong-side under alignment (a step off the TE).
I bring that up because Clemons often has B-gap responsibility, I can see. Maybe always, I’m not sure. But he’s done it well. Our Wils have been good in covering the edge. When the TE motions strong to weak you can see Clemons slide inside more. Anyway, that illustrates more similarity with a 3-4.
2. Yes, by not being a proper 3-4, our dropback coverage abilities aren’t as good as Pittsburgh’s and others. In contrast, we should be more capable of penetrating gaps from the interior, by anyone, but for whatever reason we’re not. Maybe scheme issue, maybe personnel issue, maybe personnel philosophy issue (what I suspect). I’ve only noticed a few DE dropbacks. It seems like more than last year, but by more, I mean maybe 4 times over 3 games.
3. Yes, since our specialization & variation of front isn’t pure 3-4, our ability to surprise with unaccounted-for pressure is hindered, you’re right.
The only advantage over a proper 3-4 I can think of, is the single-gap responsibility of at least one of the interior linemen ought to give us more interior pressure and open up more A & B-gap blitzes, stunts & twists. We don’t seem to run many stunts at all. And the 3-tech just has not been a pressure factor.
So I dunno. I still think, if we had an interior linemen who could pressure — basically Darnell Docket — then it would be like a 3-4 front that penetrates the middle, while being more conservative. Like the Cardinals without Pendergast or Horton (more conservative and assignment correct). The Cardinals are not an aspiring model or analogy, but the idea would be a 3-4 that is conservative, with the added interior rush.
I still think that could work and work well. But if we get a good 3-tech, and he struggles, or even still performs well but we still see the same issues we see today, then I’ll stop supporting the idea of this scheme.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Sep 28, 2011 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
So you agree that 3-tech is still the missing piece.
Because this defense has performed well in some aspects – solid against the run, capable of racking up sacks. The difference is that QB play is ultimately unhindered, and I’ve always attributed that to the pocket remaining unmolested and thus the offensive playbook remaining intact with its split-second-longer routes. It’s the only explanation I can think of for the paradox where Clemons can enjoy one-on-one matchups and exploit them with a quick first step, yet ultimately not make a difference.
http://17power.blogspot.com
Partnered with better CB play, I think.
I’ve said it before, Planet Theory needs to be adjusted, because good corners have become harder to find than big men who can move fast. The demands of a cornerback have made finding a good one harder than finding a good large and fast lineman. They have to be ultra-fast, rapid reaction and COD, and have the height, length & vertical to defend the big, body-controlling receivers.
The last time we had good years out of 2 cornerbacks was 2004. That ill-fated, 3x losing to the Rams season that started off with Seattle-historic defense until they got cocky & gave the game away. Terreal Bierra was exposed, the pass rush was anemic, and they never recovered from that loss.
But Ken Lucas’ 2004 contract year was comparable to Trufant’s 2007 contract year. Only other notable cornerback season we’ve had since then was Josh Wilson’s 2008, which was nearly as good.
But in 2004 we had performance on par with Devin McCourty & Ronde Barber (still playing at a high level) from last year. The pass rush was so bad, but it only looked half as bad as it was because the corners played so well.
They’re picking up some intriguing guys, and maybe it will work out. But the 3-tech and CB holes still are 1st-round worthy costs, so trading up for an uncertain top-draft QB gives me hesitation. If these drafts work out, those 3 pieces left could make this a super contender. Sorry for getting ahead of ourselves, but it’s just an exciting thought.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Sep 28, 2011 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm actually working on another FanPost (spoiler alert!) addressing just this kind of issue.
But the 3-tech and CB holes still are 1st-round worthy costs, so trading up for an uncertain top-draft QB gives me hesitation. If these drafts work out, those 3 pieces left could make this a super contender.
by Matt Erickson on Sep 28, 2011 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Good luck with that, I banged that CB drum long enough
But as Enyeart correctly pointed out prior to the draft/FA period, PC simply doesn’t value elite cornerbacks highly.
Baseball isn't played because it's *interesting*. Baseball is played because without darkness we would not appreciate the light: without sorrow, we would not appreciate joy. Baseball makes us savour life and reminds us to treasure every second we have on this beautiful planet, because such moments may never come again. Baseball is played, my dear friend, because without it we would not appreciate the time we don't have to play baseball.
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 29, 2011 5:04 AM PDT up reply actions
Sorry one final thought:
KJ Wright has a Julian Peterson kind of body. If they have greater plans for Sam than what they’ve gotten so far, it could be so close to a proper 3-4 as to be indistinguishable, and could really transcend the whole front 7’s capabilities, if Wright works out like that.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Sep 28, 2011 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions
As long as we're on random assorted thoughts,
I think Sidney Rice is really going to add to this offense down the stretch. He looks like the best receiver we’ve had since Engram or…….I mean my memory only goes back to about ’04, ’05 so I dunno!
But seriously, he creates separation, makes tough catches, has wheels, is a huge target.
As for the Seahawks, they shall have stars at elbow and foot...Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion.
and by "really" I meant that as a superlative, not "truly".
Duh, he contributes on offense…
As for the Seahawks, they shall have stars at elbow and foot...Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion.
So the Seahawks are running the 4-3 Under...
…with players whose skillsets are normally found in traditional 3-4 Defences.
Whatever works, I’ll be happy with the outcome. Nasty defence is a dangerous defence (Just ask the Ravens and other hard-hitting teams).
Futurely known as BundyBundyBear (Aussie homer)
QB of the Future:
The only potential QB of the Future that is currently on the team is Josh Portis. This year, Charlie-Boy should get a chance to start, but only he or TJ will be on the roster next year, not both. The draft class of 2012 looks to be pretty deep at QB. The Hawks will either sign a young back up from another team (Green Bay?) or will draft one next year.
The competition for starting next year will be either CW or TJ, Josh Portis and the new guy. That seems like a pretty healthy situation. If we don’t suck bad enough for Luck, or suck bad enough for a top 5 draft pick, I won’t be disappointed.
Yah I agree, don't discount Portis.
He is tall, very athletic and has a cannon. He may not be better than any of the qbs in next years draft class but strictly speaking his “tools” are better than any of the 2012 qbotfs (not counting accuracy).
Really the only guy who has better tools than him that I have seen is Cam Newton. Honestly the jury is still out on Cam Newton (and I thought he would suck) but he is exactly how I would build a qb in madden. He looks like a football throwing machine.
So of we are building towards the future...
We no Tavaris a)isn’t the guy and b) will be of no trade value. We basically know Whitehurst is the guy either. So rather than give meaningful snaps to either of them, consider starting Portis for the rest of the year. If he is awesome and we win 6-8 games, then awesome: we have a QBotF. If he is decent and we win 4-5, maybe he is tradebait to help us move up and take Luckley. If he is horrible, then we lose a lot and get Luckley without too much draft pick haggling.
Seems like these coaches are all about getting the raw guys with big upsides on the field, even at the expense of fielding a rookie team. Who does that describe on our QB staff?
Also, who on our team is expendable in terms of a trade? Curry? no one would pay when they can sign him in the off season (looking at you, New England. The Hoodie is going to pay him a ham sandwich and make him a pro bowler). Don’t see much else we can afford to do without except maybe Tate or Obamanu, but what are they worth?
by Crominator56 on Sep 27, 2011 6:38 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Mobile typing sucks
We *know Tavaris isn’t the guy and we think Whitehurst ISN’T the guy either… Sigh
by Crominator56 on Sep 27, 2011 6:39 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Portis is QB3 for a reason right now.
If people didn’t already think PC was trying to tank the season by starting TJ, they would be absolutely sure of it if he decided to start Portis without Portis clearly winning an open QB competition.
Eternally looking forward to someone making a Seahawks song based off of Lil' Jon's "Shots" song named "Hawks!"
An excellent point
Maybe we could start by opening up the QB competition. Operation Tavaris Self Esteem was, as was well documented here, a major disconnect from the PC philosophy.
by Crominator56 on Sep 27, 2011 7:14 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Major disconnect?
I could be wrong here, but doesn’t PC have a Sports Psychology degree? I wouldn’t call it a major shift from philosophy to give your starting QB all the support when he has the whole locker room looking to him as their leader. If this was some major experiment, I think the whole locker room would turn on PC just like they did on Mora.
by Heliocopris Dominus on Sep 27, 2011 10:01 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Just in the sense
That he was declared the starter without any competition. Seems like you throw your weight behind him after he shows something. But hey, I’ve never coached a team, and indefinitely don’t have a sports psychology degree. Regardless of whether it’s a smart move, it just felt inconsistent.
by Crominator56 on Sep 27, 2011 10:16 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Pete pretty much gave Hasslebeck the same nod
but called it a competition. He knows what he had in charlie and must really have not liked it.
TJ has 2 int on hail mary passes, and aside from a few fumbles(didnt notice any the last two weeks)He takes care of the ball. now, im not defending him, cause i dont think he is great, but lets remembder that hasslbeck had a two game strech last year(games 7-8)where he was sacked 13 times, Tj was sacked 14 in 3 games. in those two games hass had a qb rating of 59.9. Hass’s qb rating last year 73.2, TJs this year 73.7.
Both are terrible with the seahawks line we have and have had. we havent had a great run game for years. with rice’s return, with a solid defense, all we really need tj to do is not turn it over, and get us 40% on 3rd downs (by spreading the ball around to everyone) and you will see a lot better team as a whole.
He has a 73.7 rating with 527 pass yards in 3 games.
And his career yards/game is 111, so ‘regressing to the mean’ for him would mean even fewer attempts (more sacks) because he’s below his career average yards per attempt.
by EthelGemerman on Sep 28, 2011 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
He did the same with Leinart at SC
He thought Leinart was struggling because of the uncertainty and that he would excel if he didn’t have to look over his shoulder constantly. He did alright as the starter at SC.
I personally think he sees the same with T-Jax. Additionally, the guy is a solid team mate and has all the makings of a good leader. At some point he has to get fired up and put some emotion into it.
I also believe Bevel should loosen the reigns a bit and give him some expansive options from the huddle. Allow him to make some audibles.
So, I bleed seahawks blue and green
And I am saying we suck exactly enough for a top 5 pick. Just saying. No negativity about the only team in professional sports that means anything to me, but I believe a 4-5 win season will land us there.
by Brendan O'Leary on Sep 28, 2011 1:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Also, "Good fanpost this"
“Good bread this”
Titus Pullo is a beast
by Brendan O'Leary on Sep 28, 2011 2:09 AM PDT up reply actions
watching rome season two right now haha
"Scored a Deer Head" - Scruffy Lefty
Field Gulls | Follow me on the Twitters
Nicely put together
Thanks for the pretend beer.
by BrooklynPreacher on Sep 27, 2011 4:50 PM PDT reply actions
5-6 wins means..
we draft RG3. I want a RG3 jersey so i’m okay with that. I see other teams being worse than us so Luck is out of the question. The only way it happens is it Tjack and CBJ get hurt and we play Portis.
Who is RG3?
Eternally looking forward to someone making a Seahawks song based off of Lil' Jon's "Shots" song named "Hawks!"
Robert Griffin III, the quarterback for Baylor.
by Matt Erickson on Sep 27, 2011 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Anyone know...
Where I can find a good scouting report for RG3?
Elapsed time prior to being sacked.
I found the time to being sacked info interesting. Although it probably doesn’t translate, as a d-lineman in college the expectation was to arrive at the QB in less than 3.7 seconds…. In the sampling above TJ is hit in much less time.
I wonder if there is any obtainable data comparing the average time from snap to “QB hits” and sacks among all NFL QBs. It would be interesting to see if Cutler and TJ are being hit due to holding the ball longer than other QBs or they have less actual time. Certainly neither are Curt Warner or Dan Marino with respect to getting to ball off; but, maybe not as much out of the norm as one would think.
I believe football outsiders did just such a thing.
I’m on mobile so finding the link will require a bit of effort. They posted the article about a week ago so it should be easy to find.
by brugg on Sep 27, 2011 10:23 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Not to be picky
Kurt warner was the QB, Curt Warner was the HB
Yes.
Or Bryant-Branch-Mebane. Whichever makes you happier.
by Matt Erickson on Sep 27, 2011 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Next time you buy me a pretend beer
don’t get the cheap stuff.
by broadbill birdwatcher on Sep 27, 2011 6:14 PM PDT reply actions
If 4-5 wins was an option I'm pretty sure that would have gotten 90% of the votes.
My initial bet is 4 wins, but I wouldn’t be altogether surprised to see 5.
Eternally looking forward to someone making a Seahawks song based off of Lil' Jon's "Shots" song named "Hawks!"
Why is 17-2 not an option?
Learn JiuJitsu.
"Gelato isn't Vegan?" -- Superman
"It's milk and eggs bitch." -- The Punisher
It is.
So far, 20 people have voted for it.
by Matt Erickson on Sep 27, 2011 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Great write up
I couldn’t agree more about points 1 and 2. I had very similar observations of my own in my post-game writeup at 17power.
The way our defense is built does look closer to a 3-4 than a 4-3, which means its probably better to expect pressure to arrive in a 3-4 sense (via blitz) than a 4-3 sense (via front 4).
Similarly, I felt that Jackson actually did an improved job of avoiding sacks against the Cardinals. Still not “good enough”, but its a start. He reacted quicker to pressure, bought time with his legs (more than before), and finally showed a willingness to take off and run when nothing was there. As you show by charting the plays, it really was on the line at least 3 out of 4 times. That isn’t to excuse Jackson for his poor pocket presence in previous games, but against AZ he gets a pass. His poor habit of hesitating on passes is still a problem. Hopefully he can improve in that area as well.
After the Pittsburgh game, I don't see the Colts
as the worst team in football. Really, I think they are very, very similar to the Seahawks. I mean, they run a different defense but generally the same kind of quality. Mathis and Freeney are playing well on the line. They have one young, good linebacker in Angerer. ET and Trufant are better than Bullitt and Lacey but their backfield is about as good as ours. They’ve got good receivers and tight ends. They’ve got a mediocre running game. Who wins more games between the two teams comes down to who plays better: Jackson or Curtis Painter. It’s a toss-up to me right now.
Jacksonville and KC are the only teams I think are clearly worse than we are. Total wins and losses don’t matter. Draft order does. When all is said and done, we could be #3-#5.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
