When the Seahawks Have The Ball--Matchup Discussion and Analysis

theapportioner

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 9, 2006
5,069
I'd think with Seattle's rather unimpressive passing weapons, the Patriots should be able to cheat a little and have someone like Chung or even Arrington stay close and try to contain Lynch and Wilson when they try to run/do read option. Most of Lynch's big runs occurred in the 2nd half when it seemed like Green Bay's defense just stopped playing. He had 1 run of 10+ yards in the first half, and 5 runs of 10+ yards in the second half.
 
The more I think about this, the more I like the Patriots' chances in this game. The offense is built to exploit the Seattle defense's weakness (not that there's much of one, granted). And the defense -- well, perhaps a lesser secondary could handle the Seattle passing threat, but its versatility should be able to limit the damage from the run, too.
 
Edit: Is Brandon Spikes now a free agent after his one-year deal? Maybe the Pats could give him a 2nd chance for just one game.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,854
theapportioner said:
Edit: Is Brandon Spikes now a free agent after his one-year deal? Maybe the Pats could give him a 2nd chance for just one game.
 

 
I read that over and over and I can't tell if you're just joking, but in the 1% chance you are not--the league year is not over.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,303
deep inside Guido territory
How should the Patriots secondary match up with Seattle's WR's?  Should Revis shadow somebody, be moved around on different players, or play a particular side of the field?
 
Should the Patriots play with an extra player in the box to help in the running game and let the corners play primarily press man? 
 
As I think it should be, is this a game where you'll see Wilfork, Branch, and Siliga getting the majority of snaps on the DL?
 
Will Patricia have somebody spy Wilson?
 
Discuss.
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,677
Revis on Kearse, Arrington on Baldwin. McCourty playing centerfield. I'd use Browner to lay the wood on TE's and WR's. 
 
Yes on #2. Definitely use 8 in the box. 
 
Yes on #3.
 
Either Chandler Jones, Nink or Ayers should be the spy on Russell Wilson.
 

Old Fart Tree

the maven of meat
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2001
14,030
Boulder, CO
They seemed to spy Luck consistently; can someone else confirm from game tape? I expect they'll do the same on Wilson.
 

DaughtersofDougMirabelli

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2006
3,016
I believe they mostly used Nink as the spy. It was very successful.
 
Luck had 3 rushes for 7 yards, prior to the score being 45-7 (one rush for 11 after the fact). 
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
DaughtersofDougMirabelli said:
I believe they mostly used Nink as the spy. It was very successful.
Ninkovich definitely wasn't spying all the time; he was rushing the passer a lot. I think the Patriots will spy Wilson at times, but mix up whether they spy him or not and who is spying.
 
This is a weird matchup. The Seahawks are probably a below-average offense within structure - certainly a below-average passing offense within structure - but they are terrifying outside of structure, which would seem to minimize what should be a good matchup for the Pats on paper. I wonder who simulates Wilson in practice. Does Tebow still have PS eligibility?
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,677
Super Nomario said:
Ninkovich definitely wasn't spying all the time; he was rushing the passer a lot. I think the Patriots will spy Wilson at times, but mix up whether they spy him or not and who is spying.
 
This is a weird matchup. The Seahawks are probably a below-average offense within structure - certainly a below-average passing offense within structure - but they are terrifying outside of structure, which would seem to minimize what should be a good matchup for the Pats on paper. I wonder who simulates Wilson in practice. Does Tebow still have PS eligibility?
 
I wonder if we will have Edelman simulate Wilson a bit in practice.
 

DaughtersofDougMirabelli

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2006
3,016
Super Nomario said:
Ninkovich definitely wasn't spying all the time; he was rushing the passer a lot. I think the Patriots will spy Wilson at times, but mix up whether they spy him or not and who is spying.
 
This is a weird matchup. The Seahawks are probably a below-average offense within structure - certainly a below-average passing offense within structure - but they are terrifying outside of structure, which would seem to minimize what should be a good matchup for the Pats on paper. I wonder who simulates Wilson in practice. Does Tebow still have PS eligibility?
 
I think they did the same thing in the Colts game. I wasn't inferring that Nink was only used as a spy, but that when they spied Nink was choice 1A. Just going off memory of the game here so could still be wrong (can't really tell this from any box scores or on PFF). 
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,674
Since Wilson does most of his damage outside of the pocket and on broken down plays, the goal should be too minimize those plays, no? Seattle's offensive line has had some struggles in pass protection, so why not just rush four most of the time, and let Wilson sit in a pocket and try to beat our strong secondary with his mediocre receivers? I felt like we did a lot of that against Luck, who is a better thrower than Wilson and has much better receivers, and it worked really well.
 
Lynch is going to be the main focus for the defensive, as the Patriots have shown to be vulnerable to the inside rushing game. However, their vulnerability hasn't really hurt them, mainly because they have buckled down when the game gets close. The Baltimore game being a prime example, where Forsett killed it in the first half, but was significantly reduced in the second half. Lynch hurt GB late after they had done a pretty good job in bottling him up, and they don't have a DT the quality of Wilfork, a LB like Collins, and a DB that is even close to Chung against the run. I think the Pats can hold their own.
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,808
The back of your computer
I think we will play more base defense and less nickel.  I could see a lot of Branch/Wilfork/Siliga with Jones/Ninkovich as OLBs and Hightower/Collins as ILBs.  I think they'll rotate the spy on a play-by-play basis, although Collins would be a logical guy (a la Clay Matthews last week).  Jones and Nink will be more for end-containment rather than sacks, forming a containment triangle with the spy.
 
I would guess Revis on Kearse, Arrington on Baldwin, Browner on Willson and McCourty as the rover.
 
In 2012, they mostly kept Wilson in check until the end of the game (sound familiar?).
 
The focus has to be on making Wilson beat them with his arm and shutting down Lynch and Wilson's 3rd down scrambles.
 

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
I'll move this over here:

DanoooME said:
 
Ben Volin is totally wrong.  Tom Cable has long been one of the disciples of the ZBS,
 
Here's more than you'd ever want to know about it.
dynomite said:
This is a really incredible article. ...

I could listen to Gibbs talk about blocking forever. And I absolutely loved hearing his disgust at the individual linemen on each play who didn't use proper technique.

This is going to be a massive test for the Patriots defense, Belichick, and Patricia.

Edit: whoops, someone did make that thread...
I also just checked and saw that in their Oct. 2012 game the Pats held the Seahawks to 85 yards on 26 carries (3.3 YPC), with Lynch at only 41 on 15 carries (2.7), and a long rush of only 7 yards.

Obviously both teams fielded different personnel, but I assume the FC wunderkinds will be lovingly rewatching that one anyway and I'll be interested to see what the Pats did in that game.
 

Soxy

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
6,095
jsinger121 said:
Revis on Kearse, Arrington on Baldwin. McCourty playing centerfield. I'd use Browner to lay the wood on TE's and WR's. 
 
Yes on #2. Definitely use 8 in the box. 
 
Yes on #3.
 
Either Chandler Jones, Nink or Ayers should be the spy on Russell Wilson.
 
I think they'll put Revis on Baldwin.  He led the Seahawks in both targets and receptions.  Take away their #1 WR.
 
Luke Wilson is an interesting guy for the Pats, considering that they have struggled as a defense against TE's all season long, and Wilson averaged 16.5 ypr.  He only caught 22 balls, but he can make big plays.  Do you put Browner on him and Arrington on Kearse?  If you put Browner on Kearse, what do you do about Wilson?  I know he only caught 22 passes, but he's the type of guy who has killed this Pats team. 
 
Losing Paul Richardson is a big loss for Seattle.  Everyone is focusing on the injuries to Sherman and Thomas, and rightfully so, but Richardson had carved out a nice role in the last few weeks for a team that doesn't have a lot of weapons in the passing game.  He was targeted 19 times during weeks 15-17.  The only Seahawk targeted more during that stretch was Baldwin, with 21 targets.  Kearse was targeted a mere 7 times during that three week stretch.  
 
(As an aside, it feels like the worm has turned here a little bit in terms of injury luck for the Pats.  I can't be the only one who was having bad flashbacks during the AFC Championship Game when Revis and Edelman went out with injuries.  But this is a team that is relatively healthy heading into the Super Bowl.  Definitely cannot say the same for Seattle and that honestly could end up being the difference between two evenly matched teams.)
 
Overall, it seems like a pretty good match-up on this side of the ball for the Pats.  They generally excel against teams that have a no-brainer, sure fire, #1 go-to option on offense.  And that guy is unquestionably Marshawn Lynch.  The offenses that seem to give the Pats the most trouble are ones that don't have an obvious go-to guy for them to scheme against.  Though Wilson can kill you with his legs just as easily, Lynch is definitely the straw that stirs the drink.
 
Winning the battle in the trenches and making sure-tackles on Lynch is priority #1.  Keeping Wilson in the pocket and preventing him from making plays with his legs is next.  Also can't give up the deep ball in the passing game, something Seattle seems to do well.  Basically, make Wilson dink and dunk the team down the field.  They do that and this Seattle offense will likely struggle to move the ball.  We may pull our hair out at some 3rd-and-5 to 7ish third down conversions, but I think the Patriots will win those more often than not against this team.
 
Whoever mentioned broken plays being a big factor is spot on as well.  Wilson excels are making chicken salad out of you-know-what.  That said, he can hold the ball too long and takes a lot of sacks (though his offensive line doesn't always help him out a lot either).  Only five QBs took more sacks during the regular season than Wilson, and he's been sacked 7 times in two playoff games.  As much maligned as the Pats pass rush is here on SoSH, they got a ton of pressure on Luck (even though they didn't get any sacks).  Sacks can be drive killers so getting to Wilson 2-3 times could be big.  I saw a stat on twitter during the game Sunday that Wilson has fumbled the ball 13 times this season and not lost any of them.  IIRC, QB fumbles are more likely to be recovered by the offense than fumbles by skill position players, but that's still insanely lucky.  Would be nice for that fumble luck to run out next Sunday.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
7,095
Soxy Brown said:
 
I think they'll put Revis on Baldwin.  He led the Seahawks in both targets and receptions.  Take away their #1 WR.
 
Luke Wilson is an interesting guy for the Pats, considering that they have struggled as a defense against TE's all season long, and Wilson averaged 16.5 ypr.  He only caught 22 balls, but he can make big plays.  Do you put Browner on him and Arrington on Kearse?  If you put Browner on Kearse, what do you do about Wilson?  I know he only caught 22 passes, but he's the type of guy who has killed this Pats team. 
 
Losing Paul Richardson is a big loss for Seattle.  Everyone is focusing on the injuries to Sherman and Thomas, and rightfully so, but Richardson had carved out a nice role in the last few weeks for a team that doesn't have a lot of weapons in the passing game.  He was targeted 19 times during weeks 15-17.  The only Seahawk targeted more during that stretch was Baldwin, with 21 targets.  Kearse was targeted a mere 7 times during that three week stretch.  
 
(As an aside, it feels like the worm has turned here a little bit in terms of injury luck for the Pats.  I can't be the only one who was having bad flashbacks during the AFC Championship Game when Revis and Edelman went out with injuries.  But this is a team that is relatively healthy heading into the Super Bowl.  Definitely cannot say the same for Seattle and that honestly could end up being the difference between two evenly matched teams.)
 
Overall, it seems like a pretty good match-up on this side of the ball for the Pats.  They generally excel against teams that have a no-brainer, sure fire, #1 go-to option on offense.  And that guy is unquestionably Marshawn Lynch.  The offenses that seem to give the Pats the most trouble are ones that don't have an obvious go-to guy for them to scheme against.  Though Wilson can kill you with his legs just as easily, Lynch is definitely the straw that stirs the drink.
 
Winning the battle in the trenches and making sure-tackles on Lynch is priority #1.  Keeping Wilson in the pocket and preventing him from making plays with his legs is next.  Also can't give up the deep ball in the passing game, something Seattle seems to do well.  Basically, make Wilson dink and dunk the team down the field.  They do that and this Seattle offense will likely struggle to move the ball.  We may pull our hair out at some 3rd-and-5 to 7ish third down conversions, but I think the Patriots will win those more often than not against this team.
 
Whoever mentioned broken plays being a big factor is spot on as well.  Wilson excels are making chicken salad out of you-know-what.  That said, he can hold the ball too long and takes a lot of sacks (though his offensive line doesn't always help him out a lot either).  Only five QBs took more sacks during the regular season than Wilson, and he's been sacked 7 times in two playoff games.  As much maligned as the Pats pass rush is here on SoSH, they got a ton of pressure on Luck (even though they didn't get any sacks).  Sacks can be drive killers so getting to Wilson 2-3 times could be big.  I saw a stat on twitter during the game Sunday that Wilson has fumbled the ball 13 times this season and not lost any of them.  IIRC, QB fumbles are more likely to be recovered by the offense than fumbles by skill position players, but that's still insanely lucky.  Would be nice for that fumble luck to run out next Sunday.
I'm with you on a bunch of this. I think the Pats will make Lynch priority 1a, and history shows that they can probably take him away if they're determined to do so.
 
I also think we'll mainly see Revis on Baldwin. The Pats have been going with "double the talented #1 guy, put Revis by himself on #2" - but Baldwin would be a #2 (at best) on most teams, and they need the double guy closer to the line. I think Browner on Kearse with McCourty shaded that way makes the most sense in the secondary.
 
I believe that they'll make Wilson outside the pocket priority 1b, with the pressure staying disciplined to prevent (or at least, reduce) scrambles. This didn't work very well with Rodgers, but he's a much better QB than Wilson. If Wilson can beat them from the pocket without a lot from Lynch and with Revis shutting off Baldwin, well, I think points are going to get scored against the Pats, but I believe they'll take that as the least-bad scenario.
 
The TE will be a problem, especially if you need Collins to spy Luck, but I guess it's Chung and hope for the best...
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,597
Here
The TE will be a problem, especially if you need Collins to spy Luck, but I guess it's Chung and hope for the best...
 
I think Browner is a pretty good matchup for Luke Wilson, which should allow Collins/Chung to roam a bit.
 

Soxy

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
6,095
mwonow said:
I also think we'll mainly see Revis on Baldwin. The Pats have been going with "double the talented #1 guy, put Revis by himself on #2" - but Baldwin would be a #2 (at best) on most teams, and they need the double guy closer to the line. I think Browner on Kearse with McCourty shaded that way makes the most sense in the secondary.
Especially because Kearse is more likely to run deep routes. Baldwin is more of a chain mover, short-intermediate route guy, which is where Revis excels. It makes more sense to give safety help to the guy covering the big play WR. Just another reason this D matches up pretty well with this offense, as Revis typically eats guys like Baldwin (who, again, led the Seahawks in targets and receptions) for breakfast.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
7,095
Ed Hillel said:
 
I think Browner is a pretty good matchup for Luke Wilson, which should allow Collins/Chung to roam a bit.
That makes sense, but then you need Arrington to match up with Kearse. Assuming McCourty stays on the field no matter what, if Browner is on Wilson, you either sit Chung or have only 6 guys on the front. They'll probably play this way on some downs, but I think they'll want an extra DL (all of Wilfork/Silaga/Branch, both of Nink and C Jones, and both of Collins and Hightower) on at least early downs. I think that putting Chung on the TE means you get the extra DL instead of the 3rd corner, which should help with what I see as priority #1A, keep Lynch bottled up in the backfield.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,523
Maine
I like the "Heavy" 3-4 with Siliga Vince and Branch  backed up y Nink Collins High Jones as the 4 LBers.
 
Then I am not so sure you need a 5th DB with the "weapons" they have in the passing game.

Chung on TE (close to the line for run support) Browner on Kearse with help from Mccourty and Revise on Baldwin.
 
How much 12 personnel do the Seahawks run?
How much 11 personnel?
 
The 3 Wr with no FB might be the way for them to go if they trust Lynch to be able to get yards without a personal protector.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
7,095
bakahump said:
I like the "Heavy" 3-4 with Siliga Vince and Branch  backed up y Nink Collins High Jones as the 4 LBers.
 
Then I am not so sure you need a 5th DB with the "weapons" they have in the passing game.
Chung on TE (close to the line for run support) Browner on Kearse with help from Mccourty and Revise on Baldwin.
 
How much 12 personnel do the Seahawks run?
How much 11 personnel?
 
The 3 Wr with no FB might be the way for them to go if they trust Lynch to be able to get yards without a personal protector.
 
I guess they could go 3-wide and then run - it would mean the Pats would have to use Arrington instead of one of the Heavy guys (or instead of a LB, but that seems unlikely). Basically, you swap out a blocker to get rid of one of the interior DL. I had the impression that they like to use a FB (am I imagining that?), but removing the FB to get Branch or Siliga off the line might seem like a good trade to Carroll
 

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
bakahump said:
I like the "Heavy" 3-4 with Siliga Vince and Branch  backed up y Nink Collins High Jones as the 4 LBers.
 
Then I am not so sure you need a 5th DB with the "weapons" they have in the passing game.
Chung on TE (close to the line for run support) Browner on Kearse with help from Mccourty and Revise on Baldwin..
Isn't this the same personnel that got gashed by the Ravens, including 136 rushing yards on 28 carries? (There was a lot of Arrington that day, to be fair, and I know the Seahawks and Ravens offenses aren't identical, but I think there are some similarities.)

Do you feel better about that personnel going into this game? There's probably no better option, but I'd be interested to hear more.
 

SemperFidelisSox

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2008
31,104
Boston, MA
I don't think the problem was personnel but rather the scheme, which they abandoned in the second half. They had much better success containing Forsett after that. Well, not great success, but better than the 1st quarter.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I wonder if Chung and Collins will split time btw covering the TE and bing the spy. Russell Wilson ran a 4.53 40 at the combine; Chung was 4.49 in 2009 and Collins was 4.59. I'd be worried that Nink doesn't have the speed to catch Wilson in the open field.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
mwonow said:
That makes sense, but then you need Arrington to match up with Kearse. Assuming McCourty stays on the field no matter what, if Browner is on Wilson, you either sit Chung or have only 6 guys on the front. They'll probably play this way on some downs, but I think they'll want an extra DL (all of Wilfork/Silaga/Branch, both of Nink and C Jones, and both of Collins and Hightower) on at least early downs. I think that putting Chung on the TE means you get the extra DL instead of the 3rd corner, which should help with what I see as priority #1A, keep Lynch bottled up in the backfield.
Agree. I think Willson can be contained with a smaller DB. He's fast but not exactly great hands. Just tossing out there: Ricardo Lockette is their third WR option, and is a tall, fast guy whom Pats can't sleep on. Maybe Browner can handle him? He's not a great playmaker like Kearse or Baldwin, but he's athletic.
 
[Edit:] I was referring to Willson the TE. Not sure who spies on Wilson the QB.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
Saints Rest said:
I wonder if Chung and Collins will split time btw covering the TE and bing the spy. Russell Wilson ran a 4.53 40 at the combine; Chung was 4.49 in 2009 and Collins was 4.59. I'd be worried that Nink doesn't have the speed to catch Wilson in the open field.
 
Collins or Hightower make by far the most sense to me as the potential spies but I could also see it being one of the 3-4 OLBs as a change of pace (spying instead of rushing or dropping).
 
If we end up playing the 5-2 or 3-4, I wonder whether we might see more Ayers and less Chandler Jones at the ROLB in that alignment.  I think Ayers probably gives you more versatility in terms of dropping into coverage and chasing down Wilson and I'm not sure he really gives much up to Jones as a run defender.  The right side (defensive left) of the Seattle OL is the weaker side in pass protection, so that's the side that I routinely want to be attacking, probably with Nink.  Obviously you want to mix it up, but if you're going to drop one of the OLBs on most plays, better to more often drop the guy matched up with Okung and rush the guy matched up up with their mediocre RT (most likely Justin Britt or Alvin Bailey).
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
 
Collins or Hightower make by far the most sense to me as the potential spies but I could also see it being one of the 3-4 OLBs as a change of pace (spying instead of rushing or dropping).
 
If we end up playing the 5-2 or 3-4, I wonder whether we might see more Ayers and less Chandler Jones at the ROLB in that alignment.  I think Ayers probably gives you more versatility in terms of dropping into coverage and chasing down Wilson and I'm not sure he really gives much up to Jones as a run defender.  The right side (defensive left) of the Seattle OL is the weaker side in pass protection, so that's the side that I routinely want to be attacking, probably with Nink.  Obviously you want to mix it up, but if you're going to drop one of the OLBs on most plays, better to more often drop the guy matched up with Okung and rush the guy matched up up with their mediocre RT (most likely Justin Britt or Alvin Bailey).
Hightower 40 was 4.68 (Nink was 4.91 back in 2006)
 

SoxinSeattle

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 6, 2003
2,369
Here
Super Nomario said:
Ninkovich definitely wasn't spying all the time; he was rushing the passer a lot. I think the Patriots will spy Wilson at times, but mix up whether they spy him or not and who is spying.
 
This is a weird matchup. The Seahawks are probably a below-average offense within structure - certainly a below-average passing offense within structure - but they are terrifying outside of structure, which would seem to minimize what should be a good matchup for the Pats on paper. I wonder who simulates Wilson in practice. Does Tebow still have PS eligibility?
I don't know. We need someone who cries a lot and actually believes jesus made a miracle happen to send the Hawks to victory. Tebow might be the only guy. ;)
 

SoxinSeattle

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 6, 2003
2,369
Here
"I also think we'll mainly see Revis on Baldwin. The Pats have been going with "double the talented #1 guy, put Revis by himself on #2" - but Baldwin would be a #2 (at best) on most teams, and they need the double guy closer to the line. I think Browner on Kearse with McCourty shaded that way makes the most sense in the secondary."
 
I agree along with others. Kearse is too fast for Browner Island without help. Not really their style but I wonder if they will throw deep to Kearse to try to draw the Tori Smith PI/holding on Browner.
 

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)

T&A
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2010
5,302
Providence, RI
Browner kind of feels like a square peg in this games round hole. If the Seahawks are lining up with just two WR, Baldwin and Kearse then I'm not sure Browner is a good fit for either. If you assume Revis can erase Baldwin then I'd rather see Arrington/Ryan to deal with Kearses speed. You lose Browner contributor against the run but you can keep Chung in the game this way.

I like Browner and he has his role, but I don't think he is a matchup win vs Seattle.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,831
Henderson, NV
bakahump said:
I like the "Heavy" 3-4 with Siliga Vince and Branch  backed up y Nink Collins High Jones as the 4 LBers.
 
Then I am not so sure you need a 5th DB with the "weapons" they have in the passing game.
Chung on TE (close to the line for run support) Browner on Kearse with help from Mccourty and Revise on Baldwin.
 
How much 12 personnel do the Seahawks run?
How much 11 personnel?
 
The 3 Wr with no FB might be the way for them to go if they trust Lynch to be able to get yards without a personal protector.
 
I don't have actual numbers for this, but in my opinion, they run a mix of 12, 11 and 21 for the most part.  They will go 4 and 5 wide on occasion with Lynch or Turbin on the outside trying to draw LB coverage.
 

GBrushTWood

New Member
Jul 12, 2005
372
Brookline
I am curious to see a SOSH Central analysis of defensive schemes that have had success containing Marshawn Lynch this year. It's one thing to say we need to take away their #1 weapon, but how they do so is the interesting part. The Pats struggled facing a similar type of runner in Eddie Lacy earlier this year (4.6 YPC vs the Pats earlier this year). I'm interested in seeing how the gameplan ends up.
 
If you don't contain Lynch (i.e. - no 30+ yard beast/earthquake type runs for TD), you don't win the game.
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
I'd be really curious what the game plan ought to be around Luke Willson and lining up against him as a run blocker / play action threat. The thought of him running down the seam against a heavy Pats front geared up to stop the run makes me nervous. How do they maul him coming off the line, stay home on the run and cover on the back end? It seems like having an OLB blast him and pass him off to Chung is a good option in obvious passing situations, but not sure how that would affect gap assignments in the run D... can someone smarter than me break this down a bit?
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,696
Won't Browner naturally match w Willson? I know there was preseason concern about him v TEs, but did an excellent job v Fleener. I love the idea of that, Revis on Baldwin and Kearse bracketed by Arrington and McD. And stack the box with a heavy front against Lynch.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,751
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
GBrushTWood said:
I am curious to see a SOSH Central analysis of defensive schemes that have had success containing Marshawn Lynch this year. It's one thing to say we need to take away their #1 weapon, but how they do so is the interesting part. The Pats struggled facing a similar type of runner in Eddie Lacy earlier this year (4.6 YPC vs the Pats earlier this year). I'm interested in seeing how the gameplan ends up.
 
If you don't contain Lynch (i.e. - no 30+ yard beast/earthquake type runs for TD), you don't win the game.
The Packers have a whole lot more weapons and a much better quarterback, so stopping Lacy wasn't exactly the top priority in that game.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Tony C said:
Won't Browner naturally match w Willson? I know there was preseason concern about him v TEs, but did an excellent job v Fleener. I love the idea of that, Revis on Baldwin and Kearse bracketed by Arrington and McD. And stack the box with a heavy front against Lynch.
I think we'll see some of this in passing situations, but only early downs you'd be matching 3 corners against the Seahawks' base D. I think I'd rather have Chung in there for run support. Willson also doesn't spend as much time in the slot as Fleener, so Browner would be essentially playing linebacker ~80% of the time.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,429
GBrushTWood said:
I am curious to see a SOSH Central analysis of defensive schemes that have had success containing Marshawn Lynch this year. It's one thing to say we need to take away their #1 weapon, but how they do so is the interesting part. The Pats struggled facing a similar type of runner in Eddie Lacy earlier this year (4.6 YPC vs the Pats earlier this year). I'm interested in seeing how the gameplan ends up.
 
If you don't contain Lynch (i.e. - no 30+ yard beast/earthquake type runs for TD), you don't win the game.
I'm on my cell, but look up the boxscore. Other than a large run on the first drive, they pretty much kept him in check.
 

Curtis Pride

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
1,374
Watertown, MA
Kenny F'ing Powers said:
I'm on my cell, but look up the boxscore. Other than a large run on the first drive, they pretty much kept him in check.
Lacy had four long runs:
24 yards and 13 yards in the opening drive, a 14-yard run in the third quarter, and a 17-yarder in the fourth.
 
He had five rushes for 20 yards, or 4 yards per carry.
 
His remaining 12 carries were for 2 yards or less, including 2 for a loss. (total 10 yards)
 
That's how he ended up with 21 carries for 98 yards (4.7 YPC)
 
Lynch has had similar games, which makes Lacy an apt comparison. In spite of all his "Beast Mode" runs, only two of his TDs were for longer than 10 yards: a 79-yard run in a Week 16 game against Arizona, and a 16-yarder against the Giants. The other 33 long runs ended with a tackle.
 

Soxy

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
6,095
Listened to the excellent MMQB podcast with Andy Benoit, who I've followed for years now and always found to be a good X's and O's guy.  He suggests using Collins as a spy on Wilson in some capacity, possibly in a Man Free Lurk scheme as the "lurker."  My first thought was that you don't want to tie up Collins exclusively to that role, as his multi-dimensional skill set is part of what makes him so effective.  But Benoit brought up something that I hadn't really considered, which is the idea that Wilson is actually the most important player for the Seattle offense, not Lynch.  He argues that preventing Wilson from making big plays is the key to slowing down this offense, which ties into what I said upthread: make Seattle dink and dunk their way down the field and you'll probably succeed as a defense.  I can't seem to find it but I read a stat that Seattle's passing game is something like 25th in the league in Success Rate.
 
What do the X's and O's gurus here (which I am far from) think about the idea of using Collins as the spy on Wilson?
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
Soxy Brown said:
Listened to the excellent MMQB podcast with Andy Benoit, who I've followed for years now and always found to be a good X's and O's guy.  He suggests using Collins as a spy on Wilson in some capacity, possibly in a Man Free Lurk scheme as the "lurker."  My first thought was that you don't want to tie up Collins exclusively to that role, as his multi-dimensional skill set is part of what makes him so effective.  But Benoit brought up something that I hadn't really considered, which is the idea that Wilson is actually the most important player for the Seattle offense, not Lynch.  He argues that preventing Wilson from making big plays is the key to slowing down this offense, which ties into what I said upthread: make Seattle dink and dunk their way down the field and you'll probably succeed as a defense.  I can't seem to find it but I read a stat that Seattle's passing game is something like 25th in the league in Success Rate.
 
What do the X's and O's gurus here (which I am far from) think about the idea of using Collins as the spy on Wilson?
 
I don't think there's any question about that point.
 
As far as Collins as the spy, he's obviously our fastest and most athletic LB but I'm not sure that's really necessary for the role or that Hightower couldn't do the job as well or better.  The spy isn't often going to be in a sprint competition with Wilson - its more about reading the game, diagnosing what's happening, keeping some element of contain on Wilson so that you slow him down if he starts to run, and tackling well.  I don't think the Packers used Clay Matthews as their spy because he was the fastest LB they had (he clearly wasn't).  In any case, there's probably value in changing up whether or not you're spying and who the spy is over the course of the game, so I think we could see either Collins or Hightower in that role at different times.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,303
deep inside Guido territory
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
 
I don't think there's any question about that point.
 
As far as Collins as the spy, he's obviously our fastest and most athletic LB but I'm not sure that's really necessary for the role or that Hightower couldn't do the job as well or better.  The spy isn't often going to be in a sprint competition with Wilson - its more about reading the game, diagnosing what's happening, keeping some element of contain on Wilson so that you slow him down if he starts to run, and tackling well.  I don't think the Packers used Clay Matthews as their spy because he was the fastest LB they had (he clearly wasn't).  In any case, there's probably value in changing up whether or not you're spying and who the spy is over the course of the game, so I think we could see either Collins or Hightower in that role at different times.
It's not just the spy's role to keep him contained either.  It's the job of the front 4 to not lose their gap and lane integrity especially on the backside of the play. You need to umbrella him in the pocket.  The times where Wilson runs for long gains are when ends are washed up the field trying to get around the OT and also when the DT's rush right past him.  It would be nice to get sacks on Wilson, but the most important thing is to get a controlled rush on him and squeeze him in.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,597
Here
I think you'll see Chung playing the role at least a few times as well, depending on how they feel about which of the two is better equipped to face up a TE or RB.
 

Gambler7

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2003
3,752
RedOctober3829 said:
It's not just the spy's role to keep him contained either.  It's the job of the front 4 to not lose their gap and lane integrity especially on the backside of the play. You need to umbrella him in the pocket.  The times where Wilson runs for long gains are when ends are washed up the field trying to get around the OT and also when the DT's rush right past him.  It would be nice to get sacks on Wilson, but the most important thing is to get a controlled rush on him and squeeze him in.
This is right. I think they did a good job with this against Rodgers. They seemed to not really care about getting a ton of pressure on him. Remember the few times he seemed to have 20 seconds to throw. Seattle's receivers are no where near Green Bay, so it's likely definitely the way to go. 
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,523
Maine
Arrington, Kyle Arrington.
 
I could see him used to spy a bit.  I know it takes one of our better cover corners out of the pass defense....but as has been mentioned the Seattle passing attack is not terribly scary.  Plus while his coverage ability in the slot is very good....his run support from this position is also very strong.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
bakahump said:
Arrington, Kyle Arrington.
 
I could see him used to spy a bit.  I know it takes one of our better cover corners out of the pass defense....but as has been mentioned the Seattle passing attack is not terribly scary.  Plus while his coverage ability in the slot is very good....his run support from this position is also very strong.
The problem with Arrington as a spy is that it makes you smaller in run defense, unless you want to put a safety on a WR.
 
 
Gambler7 said:
This is right. I think they did a good job with this against Rodgers. They seemed to not really care about getting a ton of pressure on him. Remember the few times he seemed to have 20 seconds to throw. Seattle's receivers are no where near Green Bay, so it's likely definitely the way to go. 
Seattle's receivers are weak, but if they give Wilson as much time as they gave Rodgers, he can carve them up. The D was horrible against Green Bay; Seattle isn't as good on paper, but I'm not excited by re-living that defensive plan.
 

nazz45

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2003
2,919
Eternia
Defensive end Kyle Arrington!

I think they'll designate a spy only on obvious passing situations on third downs similar to the Green Bay game. Of course, you hope to have a lot of those because that means you are winning on first and second downs.

They will mix it up but one thing you may see is them dropping a defensive end in coverage and use Collins/Hightower or a safety as the spy. You replace the 4-man rush with three and a spy and don't weaken coverage over the short middle.

Tavon Wilson could be a guy to look out for on these third and longs.
 

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
I think this is one of the most crucial decisions the Pats coaching staff will make about Sunday. If I'm reading right, aren't these points in direct contrast?

nazz45 said:
They will mix it up but one thing you may see is them dropping a defensive end in coverage and use Collins/Hightower or a safety as the spy. You replace the 4-man rush with three and a spy and don't weaken coverage over the short middle.
Super Nomario said:
 
Seattle's receivers are weak, but if they give Wilson as much time as they gave Rodgers, he can carve them up. The D was horrible against Green Bay; Seattle isn't as good on paper, but I'm not excited by re-living that defensive plan.
Isn't Nazz suggesting a similar defensive game plan to the one we employed against Green Bay, while SN is hoping for a change of pace?

Edit: to add a little more substance, while I haven't gone back to the Green Bay film, I do remember a lot of 3-man + spy fronts, and the results weren't pretty.

Of the Packers 8 drives (excluding the last drive where they got a 1st down and kneeled):
- the Patriots only forced 1 punt
- the Packers scored on their first 5 possessions (EVERY 1st half possession resulted in a score)
- the Patriots would have allowed the Packers to score on 7 of 8 possessions had Crosby not missed from 40.

Now, perhaps the key is that Wilson isn't Rodgers? And clearly the Packers WRs are more talented than pretty much anyone in the league.

And it should also be mentioned that the 26 points the Patriots allowed were tied for the fewest points the Packers scored at home this season (with the Cowboys in the Divisional Round).

So? Or am I oversimplifying the point, which is 3-man rush + spy on 3rd down and other looks on 1st and 2nd down? Or should I just wait for the full FC previews?
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Saints Rest said:
I would say that we want to mix it.  In the same fashion, you don't want to let a team know who is rushing and who is covering, don't let them know how is spying.  I think COllins, Hightower, Chung or Arrington could all do the job.
Yeah, I think you have options. You can't let Wilson beat you with his legs, but you can't let him sit in the pocket forever either. Maybe one play Ninkovich jams the TE, then spies, the next he jams the TE and rushes. One play Collins blitzes up the middle, the next he shows a blitz and drops into a spy / shallow zone role. One play you spy Wilson, the next you run zone (and I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot more zone Sunday than we typically see), and maybe the one after that you play zone on one side, man on the other, and have the man-side DE mush-rush to contain. You don't want to blitz if you can possibly help it, but you probably have to mix things up because it's not clear to me that any of the Patriots' DL can consistently win up front in the passing game.
 
What makes this somewhat difficult (and I have an article coming out soon on Seattle's offense) is that the Seahawks run a lot of 5-wide in passing situations, which limits options because there aren't as many players in the middle you can mix-and-match with.