Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Trent Richardson Interviews Fellow Brown Brandon Weeden

Where Will the Seahawks Churn Hit? Offensive Line Edition

120874347_extra_large_medium

In my first article of this series I talked about Pete Carroll's Idea of ground and pound and stretching the field with a vertical passing game. Pete's model is very similar to the Jim Plunkett (First Hispanic player to be drafted 1 overall) Raiders. Pound the middle of the field with carries by a bruising running back. The then Tom Flores' (First Hispanic Head Coach) Oakland Raiders Won Superbowl 15 and 18 riding the same philosophy.

The advent of Bill Walsh's West Coast Offense caused a churning of the cycle that has repeated throughout football; run-heavy leagues turn to pass-heavy leagues, and eventually cycle back to being run-heavy. Note that we are not talking about extremes like the Run n' Shoot offense, or the Three Yards and a Pile of Dust offense. The median style of NFL teams tend to sway back and forth.

If its time for the pendulum to swing back to the NFL as a run-heavy league, the Seahawks are well ahead of the curve, and could be considered front runners. The core of any run game is the offensive line. Great offensive lines can make average backs look great and great backs hall-of-famers. We have a young, massive offensive line, averaging well over 300 pounds each.

Offensive linemen don't score a lot of brownie points from most fans, and are usually invisable to the average fan, until they make a costly mistake. Those costly mistake are usually attributed to rookies, but as our division rival found out, some players, like Richie Incognito, will continue to collect penalties and mental mistakes like its going out of style.

Other linemen become so good at what they do that they become invisible. This is the goal of most linemen. Seahawk fans have had the privilege to see up front when a lineman becomes so elite that they can take over a game. We were lucky to have two of the elite in Walter Jones and Steven Hutchinson for several years. They each could change a game on their own, but together they formed one of the most dominate offensive lines ever, just the two of them alone. They often made Robbie Tobeck and Chris Gray look far better than the average players they were.

By the end of 2009, the Seahawks had one of the worst lines in the NFL. That line consisted of Chris Spencer, who I think is still a decent player, battling through a broken hand. Sean "My joints are stiff" Locklear, journeyman Mike Gibson, Ray Willis and Rookie Max Unger. Max is the only remaining starter remaining as the Seahawks churned everyone out and started from scratch. If Davis' approximate expected churn number, based on the Green Bay model, is anywhere near accurate for this Seattle Seahawks team, we can predict somewhere around 13 players to be lost in the turnover, and one or two of our linemen may be included. Let's take a look at some of the linemen on the roster.

Star-divide

Max Unger as a rookie was playing out of position at guard, and looked like he might be completely outmanned. After a toe injury kept him out of most of 2010, he didnt look to be a key factor to the Seahawks running revival. He did bring one factor with him that both Jim Mora Jr and Pete Carroll can both appriciate - he is a little bit of a dirtbag on the field.

He plays hard and through the whistle. He is always in the middle of any scrum. He is what the Seahawks hoped to become. A tough, throwback, "Nail-eater." Unger has become a very good NFL center, and is now a very important cog in the run game. He also has been entrusted with protection calls. Third year centers who havent seen much play the first two years usually are not trusted with such an important part of the offense, but Unger has shown he is a quick study. His rookie contract goes through this year, he is good and cheap. He should also be a key part of the Seahawks going forward. I wouldnt be surprised to see a contract extension before the new season starts.

In 2010, Pete's first draft pick was used on Russell Okung. He is a beast and a freak of nature. He bench pressed 225 lbs 38 times at the combine, and often shows that dominant upper body strength when manhandling opponents. He has a very good fan move when in pass protection, and has shutdown capability.

He has shutdown big names like Trent Cole, Demarcus Ware and most famously Julius Peppers. He does have small flaws in his pass protection, but they are minor. His biggest liability is his injuries, and he has missed several games so far in only two years. Ankle injuries and a torn pec dont shadow his immense talent, but could be something that shortens his career. In either case, he is far and away our best lineman at this stage. Okung had major pressure placed on him in trying to replace Walter Jones, so far he has lived up to rational expectations. Luckily for Seattle, he is signed through 2015.

Between the two young guys is a grizzled veteran in Robert Gallery and at 6-7, 325 he is a massive human being. He is the epitome of a dirtbag, and often plays not only through the whistle but also loves that 'extra carricular activity,' but is crafty enough to often get away with it. Early in the year Gallary looked like he might be a FA bust, but somewhere before the midway point poured some nitro in his tank. He will be 32 going into next season, but has a lot of fight left in him, if we get a couple more years it wouldnt surprize me at all. We have him signed for two more years, just enough time to finish polishing a project, or pick up a new one as a replacement.

John Moffitt is 6-4 320, and for the better part of the first half of the season was being man handled and abused. Near the end of his season he looked to be "getting it" and then a serious knee injury happened. It is unfortunate for Moffit though because generally speaking, he was performing a whole lot better, and looked to be worth the 3rd round pick. Moffitt is signed through 2015, and with a cheap contract, and showing enough promise before his injury, he will make the team, even if as a back up.

James Carpenter was another first round tackle for the Seahawks. Carpenter is another massive beast on our offensive line, but is average in comparison to our line. The major problem is he doesnt play as fluid or graceful as the other linemen. He often loses the leverage battle to smaller lighter DEs and also had some serious penalty issues coupled with giving up a bunch of sacks as well. Near the end of his season, he started winning more leverage battles, learning better running technique, but over all though he was clearly the biggest disappointment on the line. He is a first round pick and will probably get his shots throughout his rookie contract, that is up after the 2014 season.

Breno Giacomini is only 27 and is very versatile. He plays both guard and tackle positions, and was serviceable in his starts. He started 8 games in three different positions, and could battle both Moffitt and Carpenter for a starting spot. That said, he is now a free agent. He was released at one point last year, but re-signed again in less than a week. Still, he has shown at least some versatility and he might get looks form other teams. The Hawks should re-sign him, but if the price is too high, he could walk.

Paul McQuistan was our 7th Lineman this year, and has some potential, though going into his 6th year, hasn't made any noticable impact. He did fill in rather nicely in 10 games this season, and is the type of depth the team needs to continue to have. He is a free agent, and like Breno, hasnt been in high demand, but played well enough to be considered by other teams.

Lemuel Jeanpierre started 5 games for us and looks to need more experience and better technique. He wasnt overly impressive in his starts but as the 8th player in the depth chart and the fact that he is signed for another two years he will most likely come back as depth. He wasnt so bad in his starts that he should get cut, and with McQuistan and Giacomini both as free agents it looks like he will stick with the team.

Jarriel King is a project player. He has the perfect OT body with broad shoulders and long arms, but character issues and concussion issues were concerns on draft day. He made it to the active game day roster for one game and the coaches have said some possitive stuff about him.

Brent Osborne is another project player. Brent spent most of the season on the PS, and has been signed to a futures contract for next year. This is a clear indication that the Seahawks think he could compete and land on the PS again. He went to Harvard - that assumed intelligence could theoretically help with reading defenses but considering that he is only 285 pounds, it likely means he'll have to put on weight.

Ideally we keep everyone. Re-sign Breno and Paul to small contracts and let them push Moffitt and Carpenter. If two were going to be churned though, Breno and Paul might be the ones to go, considering they are free agents. Most likely King and Osborne will be retained, King on the active roster and Osborne would go back to practice squad. Gallery, Okung, Unger, Moffit, and Carpenter are safe, but no one else should be considered untouchable.

Comment 63 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

We'll probably need to replace Gallery after next season, but I can't see us addressing

longterm line issues until 2013. Unless Carl Nicks really wants to come here on a discount, although he doesn’t seem like much of a scheme fit. Option B we trade down and get two first rounders and use one of them on Decastro. Those options seem extremely unlikely however. The only churn I don’t think we can afford is losing Tom Cable.

"If you want your dreams to come true, don't sleep in."

by kelly20210 on Jan 16, 2012 10:47 PM PST reply actions  

Of those not under contract

I agree not much we cant afford, but with Okungs health issues, maybe a vet Tackle isnt a bad idea.

by Oliudyen on Jan 17, 2012 12:35 AM PST up reply actions  

I think Giacominni/McQuistan would be servicable in the event of a third Okung-acolypse

Perhaps Khalif Barnes with his connections to Tom Cable. would be interested in a back-up role if we lose Giacommini.

"If you want your dreams to come true, don't sleep in."

by kelly20210 on Jan 17, 2012 1:37 AM PST up reply actions  

Our starting line should probably remain the same

Pending competition at RG.

Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 17, 2012 7:44 AM PST up reply actions  

Agree totally...

…and this season proved the back-ups are very serviceable as well. This team and FO what it is, surely they will not resist picking up an OL (or two) in the draft, but it would hardly be a disaster if the players on the roster at the start of next season were as per this one.

by Brunanburh on Jan 17, 2012 7:59 AM PST up reply actions  

Do you mean RT?

I thought that Carpenter was struggling a lot more at Tackle than Moffitt at Guard…

Eternally looking forward to someone making a Seahawks song based off of Lil' Jon's "Shots" song named "Hawks!"

by Bobby Cink on Jan 17, 2012 4:50 PM PST up reply actions  

Or do you mean Gallery?

Eternally looking forward to someone making a Seahawks song based off of Lil' Jon's "Shots" song named "Hawks!"

by Bobby Cink on Jan 17, 2012 4:50 PM PST up reply actions  

They both struggled

I’m just seeing more competition for Moffitt than Carpenter.

Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 17, 2012 5:06 PM PST up reply actions  

I definately agree that Carpenter struggled the most

But the back ups are closer to Moffitt skill wise.
Not saying Guard is easy by any means, but it is easier than Tackle, especially in pass protection. Be dont have anyone right now who will push Carpenter.

by Oliudyen on Jan 17, 2012 8:17 PM PST up reply actions  

Yes that is probably correct

Keep in mind though that Guard is easier than Tackle, if the two were switched you would probably see Carpenter as the better player and Moffitt really struggle.

Here is the thing. Moffits issues are mental, not physical.
Carpenters problems are physical (mostly utilizing leverage better, using better fanning technique as well.)

In pass pro a guard is one on one with a tackle, but often gets chips from backs and the center usually helps one or both. Usually a tackle is expected to go one on one. To do this they have to use le verage and technique both of the things caprenter struggles at, so he is gonna look bad until that is fixed. Moffitt doesnt have to have exceptional technique though because he is against aq bigger and usually slower guy, so he just has to muscle him (over simplification)

by Oliudyen on Jan 18, 2012 3:57 AM PST up reply actions  

General note to all (Not picking on you, Oliudyen).

This is extremely important to me as a person with a degree in English.


Be careful with assumptions/comments like “a player’s issues are mental.”

If you’ve seen any videos/interviews on Moffitt he is an incredibly smart and funny person. I’m not so sold that someone who is that good on an interview has issues with the mental part of the game.

Nor am I sold that someone who is slow of speech and quiet or “poorly spoken” struggles with the mental aspect of the game either. Ever hear Eric Dickerson give an interview? Emmitt Smith? Ever see them run the football? Non-connected.

I encourage you to do what I do, as it makes for a better more productive discourse in general.

I Try to avoid commenting on the desire, heart or intelligence of a football player, and when I do I’m very specific. “Moffitt has struggled to adjust to the read and react aspects of the ZBS” sounds a lot more specific and potentially correct than “he struggles mentally.” “Tavaris Jackson is weak when it comes to pocket/spacial recognition” not, “Tavaris isn’t smart in the pocket.”

It isn’t “Politically Correct” language, it is being precise with language, vocabulary and the intent of your meaning, and being more true to the actual dynamic game/players/events you are describing.

PSA over. Resume business as usual, but (hopefully) with a higher level of discourse.

I've put away the whiskey and the chainsaw and gone responsible. I'd like to say "Danny Kelly made me do it!" but that would be a lie. I chose to shave, put on a suit and tie and pretend I'm more important than I really am...

by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 18, 2012 5:48 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

I understand your point of view.

I dont confess to being any sort of english major or have exceptional grammar
but I disagree.

You assume a mental issue means he is slow or stupid, though I never said this. A mental issue could be false starting, lack of confidence, not having the game slow down yet (usually aquired from watching video and repetition), or learning a new offense.

I could have been more specific, though the point here was that Carpenter has physical issues to deal with, in which I clarified those particular issues.

I didnt say he had intellegence issues or was slow of speech, but to denotate in a general category. Example is saying a player has emotional issues, like Browner wouldnt be in correct considering he was unable to control his anger and suplexed a player.

As for politically correct I didnt say he had a mental defect, or he was retarded (a completely different and severe handicap)

by Oliudyen on Jan 18, 2012 6:55 PM PST up reply actions  

You're going the wrong way with this.

I didn’t assume anything. Your language needs to be precise and specific when commenting on another person’s desire, intelligence, “mental issues” etc.

“Mental issues” is a very vague and rather onerous comment. Be precise be specific. If you aren’t, the reader will make the assumption you don’t clarify and perhaps go a direction you never intended.

I still don’t know what you mean when you say “Moffitt’s issues are mental.” Everything I ever read prior to your comment seemed to indicate he was smart and competitive but lacked the athleticism you would like out of a high round offensive guard pick. Now I hear his issues are mental, but with no backing whatsoever. That leaves me thinking you think he’s got some lack of clarity, focus, intelligence or whatever. But I don’t know, other than you summed up in a sentence that "his problems are mental not physical.

Explain why precisely, or refrain from making such a statement. And if you can’t, then it may not be the right thing to say in the first place. Take Aaron Curry for example. Calling Curry “a mistake ridden football player who seemed to lack the ability to play within the scheme” is a lot more clear (and true) than saying, “Aaron Curry’s issues were mental.”

I know you didn’t say he had intelligence issues or is slow of speech. But you weren’t clear, and it was a throwaway comment that you should either be precise and clear on, or throw it away without writing it. Even one of your examples, “lacks confidence” is a vague and possibly unreasonable evaluation to make from afar. “Appears to lack confidence to attack his block without hesitation” is a great statement. “Lacks confidence” is vague and assumes you have inside knowledge of the individual. Do you see the difference and why it is important when evaluating and commenting on a player’s heart or intelligence?

And on the last sentence about being politically correct, don’t worry about that. I’m not talking about being politically correct. I’m talking about being precise and accurate with claims about another individual that are incredibly difficult to measure. Yours was by no means a terrible infringement, but typically when I see a comment like this, I add some input so that you understand the power of your own words to impact a reader and how clear language— not politically correct language— is critical in making your point.

The fact that we police ourselves and communicate expectations like this is why we are a higher standard of sports dialogue on the web. Visit other sports comment sections — even other SB Nation sites, and you will see lower standards and expectations. That isn’t a good thing. What we have here IS a good thing, and constructive criticism like this is part of the reason why.

I've put away the whiskey and the chainsaw and gone responsible. I'd like to say "Danny Kelly made me do it!" but that would be a lie. I chose to shave, put on a suit and tie and pretend I'm more important than I really am...

by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 18, 2012 7:48 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

I get you now.

You want specifics, gotcha!

by Oliudyen on Jan 18, 2012 7:53 PM PST up reply actions  

and thats why i love this site so much,

details details details. how specific most posts are make me check for posts like 5 times a day while im at work. i dont get super deep into stats n stuff, but seeing that you all do boggles my mind.

Enter the 37th chamber: BEASTMODE

by RunMarshawnRun on Jan 19, 2012 9:14 AM PST up reply actions  

I'm not sure I'm really buying into the whole "ahead of the curve" thing

Seems more like wishful thinking due to wanting our team to succeed, rather than recognizing that defensive-minded coaches have the lowest success rate exactly because they tend to be too safe and traditional on offense.

There’s always a movement of adaptation, counter-adaptation, and so on, but it seems to me the rules have changed too much to really bring the run back to balance back with the pass. I don’t mind playing offense to your strengths, but our sell-out-to-stop-the-run defense is a concern.

Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 17, 2012 11:25 AM PST reply actions  

So how would you characterize the SF defense?

Seems to me they are a run-focused defense, and I was salivating for them to face a high-octane passing offense all season (because, you know, I HATE the Niners). Detroit was entering a slump when they faced them, as were Giants midseason, as were the Steelers at the end. So here come the Saints, right? But that stiff run defense was able to get in Drew’s face enough to get the job done. Though I think SFs defensive backs played much better than they actually are, the one positive thing I pulled from it was that maybe a run-stuffing Seattle defense with ball hawks in support could work in this league.

It was just intense, and it was ball, and it was juice. The juice level in that room was high, and it was awesome.

by mister bunny on Jan 17, 2012 1:42 PM PST up reply actions  

Niners have the two mister smiths.

That get sacks and create havoc. So they aren’t one dimensional in run stuffing line like ours.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Jan 17, 2012 2:27 PM PST up reply actions  

Aldon pretty much only plays on passing downs

The other Smith is playing out of his mind on a 3-down basis, though.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 17, 2012 3:37 PM PST up reply actions  

Yeah, I know.

We’ve got neither of those things.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Jan 17, 2012 3:48 PM PST up reply actions  

We're currently ranked 28th in adjusted sack rate (by FO)

and the Niners are 22nd in adjusted sack rate. It wouldn’t take much (maybe one offseason) for us to match the Niners.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 17, 2012 4:03 PM PST up reply actions  

For Seattle to match the 2011 Niners.

San Francisco is likely also looking to improve there this off-season.

by Nate Dogg on Jan 17, 2012 4:40 PM PST up reply actions  

That's not really what I'm talking about

The 2011 49ers defense is very good at stopping the run and mediocre at getting to the passer. Is our defense there yet? No, but it could be that good with another offseason. Notice, I’m not talking about who’s defense is better (or will be better) but whether our team, with our defense, could do what the Niners have done this year.

I think the Niners’ D is clearly run-oriented. While Justin Smith is a monster against both the pass and the run, Aldon Smith is monster pass-rusher that doesn’t play much in the base defense.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 17, 2012 4:54 PM PST up reply actions  

In compairing us to the 49ers

The 9ers, in my opinion are peaking. They are about as good as they will get, though i think they do have sustainability.

I think every educated Seahawks fan can find atleast two or three positions(Even substitutionally speaking) places the seahawks could get better quickly on defense. The same cant really be said of the 49ers.

by Oliudyen on Jan 17, 2012 8:24 PM PST up reply actions  

Justin Smith is doing amazing things this year

and he’ll be 33 next year, so his production will likely decline, but Aldon Smith’s production will likely improve as he becomes an every-down LB.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 17, 2012 10:09 PM PST up reply actions  

Justin Smith played the game of his life.

In addition, that playoff game played at San Francisco was not officiated according to the current rules. San Francisco was blatantly playing overly physical beyond what the current rules allow, flaunting their physicality and the officials consistently backed down from making tough calls on them.

I’m not saying the same thing wont/can’t happen in other places, but from borderline late hits to contact downfield on receivers to giving Brees chucks after he passed that weren’t called, I was really surprised at what was being let pass.

And despite all that, a 13-3 record and playing at home, it took the loss of the Saints top two receivers (for a while with Graham as he returned) and the loss of their big “grind it out” running back (Pierre Thomas) and a monumentally stupid decision of blitzing 5 and running press coverage on one of the fastest TE’s in the game when field position and the clock are your friend in order to give up a long pass play and a fantastic 2nd catch through contact by the same guy to escape with victory.

And it was escape. And I can’t help but to think that if we beat SF in Seattle and that game was at home for New Orleans that the outcome would have been much different.

I just am agreeing with Beekers that it is much too soon to imply that the pendulum is swinging back to run-first offenses.

I've put away the whiskey and the chainsaw and gone responsible. I'd like to say "Danny Kelly made me do it!" but that would be a lie. I chose to shave, put on a suit and tie and pretend I'm more important than I really am...

by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 18, 2012 5:56 PM PST up reply actions  

Yes, and it makes zero sense.

“Build your team THIS way, but then come playoffs expect something different to allowed.”

That game in particular I thought was poorly officiated from an overall balance standpoint. I think there were some key calls, the instant replay not being overturned the worst offender— that really fell in Green Bay’s favor. But the SF game it was more about what WASN’T called that should have been, as opposed to what was called incorrectly or poorly.

I've put away the whiskey and the chainsaw and gone responsible. I'd like to say "Danny Kelly made me do it!" but that would be a lie. I chose to shave, put on a suit and tie and pretend I'm more important than I really am...

by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 18, 2012 7:52 PM PST up reply actions  

I think its more about

Letting the players talent win or lose a game. instead of botching it like they did in Super Bowl XL.

The refs should never be the star of the game, even Goodel in all his inconsistencies would get roasted, nationally by the media if he allowed it. Its why we still talk about the tuck rule.

by Oliudyen on Jan 18, 2012 7:55 PM PST up reply actions  

The Saints

in the NFC Championship vs. the Vikings was probably the dirtiest game I’ve ever seen. I’ve got no sympathy for them.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Jan 19, 2012 8:06 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

amen

Smashmouth is the new sexy!

by pqlqi on Jan 20, 2012 12:04 AM PST up reply actions  

SF defense isn't run-focused at all

It’s just better against the run than the pass. Their front seven isn’t as slow and reactive as ours, it plays to disrupt the passing game. And they have a good secondary. They’re more of an all-around good defense.

Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 17, 2012 5:09 PM PST up reply actions  

They're not all that great at getting to the passer

and they pull one of their best pass-rushers on base downs. They sacrifice pass-rush for run defense on base downs.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 17, 2012 5:50 PM PST up reply actions  

Agreed. I think they have to because they probably believe Aldon Smith

would fall apart as an every down player at this point.

"If you want your dreams to come true, don't sleep in."

by kelly20210 on Jan 17, 2012 6:44 PM PST up reply actions  

I wouldn't say so

They sacrifice pass-rush for pass coverage, because Aldon Smith isn’t ready to be an every-down OLB yet. He isn’t because his job as an OLB doesn’t just include rushing the passer.

Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 17, 2012 6:58 PM PST up reply actions  

That doesn't make any sense.

The Niners aren’t going to improve their pass defense by replacing a pass-rushing Aldon Smith with a different OLB in pass coverage. By taking Smith out of the lineup, they’re making their pass defense worse in order to bolster their run defense.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 17, 2012 7:28 PM PST up reply actions  

Parys Haralson

http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/depth/_/name/sf/formation/3-4-defense

2 sacks, no passes defensed, no INTs during the regular season.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/_/id/9726/parys-haralson

Sando has Smith at slightly less than 50% of all defensive snaps through the regular season:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/56622/top-rookie-49ers-smith-vs-cards-peterson

Haralson is expected to “rush the passer, set the edge (against the run) and drop into coverage some.” so his contributions to pass defense are less focused than Smiths’s. He also notes the emphasis on a run-stopping base defense:

“I’ve been doing this for six years now. I understand the 3-4 defense. I know that in order to get a team to pass on third down, you have to stop the run. First and second downs are very important. I’m just doing my job, whatever it’s called to be.”

http://www.csnbayarea.com/blog/niners-talk/post/Haralson-adapting-to-new-role-in-49ers-d?blockID=587772&feedID=5936

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 17, 2012 10:22 PM PST up reply actions  

And yet, that's how it works

3-4 OLBs have the job to drop into the flats and with that also present outside contain. Smith would probably be fine in outside contain, but he can’t really drop into any kind of coverage on TEs, and that’s why they pull him.

It’s a common misconception to think 3-4 OLB are “just” pass rushers, it’s a difficult, versatile job. 3-4 ILBs by comparison have a simpler job, usually just containing gaps and stopping the run. Aldon Smith can’t start because he can only rush the passer.

Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 18, 2012 9:14 AM PST up reply actions  

Heh, Doug Farrar just happens to write on the same subject
Watch for 49ers LOLB Ahmad Brooks to read and react to Eli Manning’s right sideline passes. This stuck out right away on the Week 10 tape. Manning threw 164 passes to the right sideline, more than to any other area of the field, and his numbers weren’t great — 83 completions in 164 attempts for 1,318 yards, six touchdowns, and six interceptions. Brooks didn’t seem to read run a lot; he was more about either providing an every-down pass rush as Aldon Smith was getting up to speed or dropping back in coverage to take away the flat routes.

Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 19, 2012 11:08 PM PST up reply actions  

Well let's see they have an elite linebacker in Willis and a great one in Bowman

and we have 3 average to above average level players depending on the game. If the Hawks can’t land a QB/DE/DT early in the draft I would love to see them target Upshaw or Zach Brown. And then look at a guy like Bobby Wagner later on.

"If you want your dreams to come true, don't sleep in."

by kelly20210 on Jan 17, 2012 6:43 PM PST up reply actions  

That's the thing, though, their best two defensive players might well be Willis and Bowman

And being ILBs, those are run-focused guys primarily. That skews what they’re best at, but it shouldn’t negate that as a defense they’re basically pretty good at everything.

Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 17, 2012 6:59 PM PST up reply actions  

No, they don't

Aldon Smith isn’t ready to play every aspect of the 3-4 OLB position. Which isn’t surprising, considering he’s converting. If he were a DE, he’d be starting.

Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 18, 2012 9:14 AM PST up reply actions  

I take your point regarding talent levels.

But what about scheme-wise (I’m seriously asking here…I have no wisdom on such matters)? What do they run compared to our 4-3 under, and what are that scheme’s tendencies against the run/pass?

Without reference to scheme, it seems that the point about talent skewing what they’re best at would simply mean we need talented coverage guys and D-lineman and we’ll be fine against the pass. But obviously the story is deeper than that.

It was just intense, and it was ball, and it was juice. The juice level in that room was high, and it was awesome.

by mister bunny on Jan 17, 2012 8:04 PM PST up reply actions  

A lot of people would argue the 3-4 is schematically superior to 4-3

And it does tend to be, but everything depends on details in talent and scheming, I find the terms 3-4 and 4-3 to be a bit useless when looking at defensive identities.

Say, we run a 4-3 under, but each 4-3 under is different. If we ran a Kiffin-style one-gap attacking 4-3, it’d be different. That kind of defense is predicated on beating the offense at their game BEFORE they can get into their game, it is attacking, and it is weak against the run. That has its problems too, but it’s great with the right personnel (see Tampa Bay). We don’t have that personnel, and we run a 4-3 under, one-gap, hold-gap-and-wait style. It’s reactive, it wants the offense to move before we do. And it’s predicated on beating the run because the entire front seven is, as a whole, too slow, too large, too powerful. It wants to overpower, not out-finesse. I really, really don’t like it.

But the question is, chicken or egg. PC has shown great flexibility in his defense from 2010 to 2011, those defenses are pretty different both in front seven and secondary, based on the personnel available. We can’t just plug talent into this system and then expect greatness. Talent should mold the system, and unless you have a very stubborn, scheme-obsessed coach, it usually does.

The question is more: is our scheme run-based, or is our entire identity run-based. I’m arguing for the former, both on offense and defense, and expecting more of a passing attack and defense once the personnel is in place, as I just think PC is playing the team to its strength now. This article, and others, have argued our identity is run-based, and in doing so we’re ahead of the curve. I’m not seeing it.

Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 18, 2012 10:16 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

I agree with the idea that Pete is flexible.

The scheme seems to have been set to take advantage of the talent on hand. What they did with Red Bryant seems to show that to me. They had this guy that didn’t really fit anywhere and decided to try him at DE. Is that their ideal type of player for DE? Or did they just tinker with what they had to cobble something together?

I tend to think this D is going to take on a few different looks until Pete’s got the talent that he wants and the D ends up looking more like the USC version.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Jan 18, 2012 11:11 AM PST up reply actions  

I think you misinterpret PCs approach

As a defensive coach, it’s obvious that he recognizes the weakness at DL and weakness at LB – just see his postseason comments about needing better pass rush and specifically noting the need for faster LBs. The first two years most of the draft capital and FA budget was almost entirely spent addressing OL, WR, and the secondary. There is only so much that can be rebuilt in any given time, and my assumption was the FO started with OL and secondary because they take longer to build chemistry than any other unit, and WR b/c although chemistry is not necessarily required among the group, most WRs take several years to adopt to the league and build good routes.

As far as the front 7, I see PC realizing that he has so far had to settle at DL, and given what we had when he arrived, realized it had no talent to pressure the QB, but had enough talent to be upper tier against the run, and has gone in that direction. I think he is in the process of building a physically intimidating front 4 that stops the run, backed by a rangy and fast LB corps as evidenced by drafting KJ and Malcolm Smith, and releasing Lofa and Herring. Elite pass rushing DEs are hard to come by in the draft, especially when you have as many holes to fill as the FO did several years ago, and typically an edge pass rush specialist is a plug and play individual (see the success of Suh, Aldon Smith, Paul Pierre NYG over the last 2 years – who produce as early as their first few games). In a total roster rebuild, plug and play players are the last thing to address. So your concern is noted, but I think not really valid (unless we draft slow LBs and don’t find a pass rushing DE).

Smashmouth is the new sexy!

by pqlqi on Jan 19, 2012 3:20 AM PST up reply actions  

doh, i guess i didn't finish reading your last paragraph and was

responding to the implications in some of your prior posts as well as much of this thread

Smashmouth is the new sexy!

by pqlqi on Jan 19, 2012 3:21 AM PST up reply actions  

Minor grammar thing

but it was a ‘dominant’ offensive line, not a ‘dominate’ offensive line

by kow on Jan 17, 2012 1:16 PM PST reply actions  

Thank you.

I can’t believe how often I see this mistake.

"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."

by shams on Jan 17, 2012 1:52 PM PST up reply actions  

I like to think it's because "predominate" is an adjective.

"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."

by shams on Jan 17, 2012 1:53 PM PST up reply actions  

Huh?

what does “predominate” mean?

Or do you mean predominant?

Now I’m confusing myself.

by djafrot on Jan 17, 2012 6:48 PM PST up reply actions  

predominate, verb;

1) To dominate an opponent in advance, such that they enter the contest already defeated. “Nice stare-down at the coin-toss, bro — you totally predominated that guy.”
2) To dominate a vastly weaker opponent in preparation for a more difficult one. “We really need to predominate these ass-wipes before facing the Patriots.”

It was just intense, and it was ball, and it was juice. The juice level in that room was high, and it was awesome.

by mister bunny on Jan 17, 2012 8:12 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Awesome.

I've put away the whiskey and the chainsaw and gone responsible. I'd like to say "Danny Kelly made me do it!" but that would be a lie. I chose to shave, put on a suit and tie and pretend I'm more important than I really am...

by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 18, 2012 6:01 PM PST up reply actions  

Right, I messed that up pretty good. :)

"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."

by shams on Jan 17, 2012 9:32 PM PST up reply actions  

This thread:

officially hi-jacked. Back to Seahawks O-Line.

"If you want your dreams to come true, don't sleep in."

by kelly20210 on Jan 17, 2012 8:35 PM PST reply actions  

area lineman really that simple to pick up and replace

it sounds like it takes practice and longevity to run the type of offense we have in seattle. i think as porous as our line has been the last couple of years signing some vets who know our system at costs or little higher is ideal

by genax on Jan 17, 2012 9:21 PM PST reply actions  

If we are going to continue to churn and only really keep the realy good players,

You can expect the back ups to have a year or two to learn before they are really called on. In this casem if Breno and/or Paul leave we have atleast two other linemen who had a year of practice and can contribute. I wouldnt be surprised at all to see King and or Osbourne step into their spots and we bring in two more practice squad players. Usually a team will keep 7-8 linemen on the 53 man roster, Carroll has shown he isnt adverse to holding another on the 53 man roster and a few on the practice squad.

Elite Linemen are hard to find, mediocre linemen are not hard to find, take a mediocre lineman and have him learn this system and he can be good. aquire a free agent and he might take a year to really grasp it, that is why they are planning to use in house players in the future. As for now, Pete has said he does not expect to use draft capitol on the offensive line, though if an opportunity presents itself, they will pull the trigger (Seems like this is a catch all for all positions too.) He is always looking to “ComPete” or find bigger and better players. He isnt completely oblivious that we still have needs that will take top level talent to fill.

I wouldnt expect to pick up a verteran though, considering we already have 7 linemen undercontracts for the next season. We may sign Breno or Paul or both. If not expect a few undrafted linemen to fill in the practice squad.

by Oliudyen on Jan 18, 2012 3:47 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

"ComPete" that's good I've never seen that before.

I think you’re right about continuing to use in house guys. I think Paul and Breno earned spots on the team for next year with their play. The question now is will they play for the rate the team wants to pay them otherwise I’m sure we’ll just let them walk and bring in two UDFAs and promote the PS guys.

"If you want your dreams to come true, don't sleep in."

by kelly20210 on Jan 18, 2012 10:03 AM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

SEA!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Avatar_small
The OT Thread---12thrs, Assemble!
Small
Just How Much Do Close Games Matter Anyway?
Small
Help Me Understand How Irvin Will be Used
Turbin_game_uni_small
Hand Size and Quarterbacks
Einstein_www-txt2pic-com_small
On Pete Carroll and Previous QB Competitions

Recent FanPosts

Horsey_small
Results from the 2012 Armchair GM Championship
Tasb_logo_small
Consider it Spun: The 5 Worst Moves of Carroll and Schneider Era in Seattle
Small
Plaxico Burress: viable option, or over the hill?
Small
Portland Seahawks Fans: Where You Be?
Small
Should Seattle Go After Kellen Winslow?
Small
Football where the head is sacred

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managing Editor/Lead Writer

Screen_shot_2012-05-04_at_10 Danny Kelly

Staff Writers/Editors

Screen_shot_2011-01-05_at_9 Scruffy Lefty

Small BrianL

Avatar_small Benne

Olympiabeer_small Tyler Jorgensen

Madhatter_small Thomas Beekers

Profilepic_small DJ C-Raig

897267_o_small Kenneth Arthur

Sbn_pic_small Jacson Bevens

Photo__1__small Charlie Todaro

Staff Writers

Small Joshua Kasparek

Photo_small Matt Erickson

Davis_small Davis Hsu

Profile2_small Rob Staton

208114_505637750968_23709013_30160241_9483_n_small Scott Enyeart

Elephant_pink_clothes_small Chris Sully

Seattle_seahawk_white_1600_reasonably_small_small Derek Stephens

Ace_small Ben Harbaugh

Bu_fb_2_small Daniel Hill

Rob_small Rob Davies