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

[nazz45]

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?

 
I was referring to third down passing situations where a spy is more often assigned if we go by past tendencies like the Packers game.
 
The other aspect is rush lane and contain integrity. Do they scheme pressure, use line stunts, bring blitzes? Or look to work upfield and maintain?
 
One thing to note, the Patriots have tended to shy away from their A-gap pressures against mobile QBs. You can see this in the rush and coverage numbers provided by Pro Football Focus. Collins and Hightower did not rush the passer as much against the Packers, Colts and Jets when compared to the Broncos, Chargers and Lions games. The outlier is the second Dolphins game in which they rushed Collins and Hightower a lot. It should be noted that Hightower has lined up as basically a pass rush DE at times so the PFF numbers are not a perfect indicator of pass rushes from the inside linebackers.

 

[mwonow]

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.

 
On the brighter side of things, the Seahawks top receivers aren't great - how good can their 4-5 be?

 

[Ferm Sheller]

 
On the brighter side of things, the Seahawks top receivers aren't great - how good can their 4-5 be?

One is a mannequin with an apple basket duct-taped to its torso.

 

[Super Nomario]

 
On the brighter side of things, the Seahawks top receivers aren't great - how good can their 4-5 be?

It's not necessarily literally 5 WR; they typically have a TE or back or two out there.

 

[DanoooME]

It's not necessarily literally 5 WR; they typically have a TE or back or two out there.

 
This is true.  One is usually TE Luke Willson, another is sometimes Lynch or Turbin.  If it's a 3 receiver set, it will be Baldwin, Kearse, Lockette.  The 4th will be Norwood (a rookie) or Walters.

 

[mwonow]

It's not necessarily literally 5 WR; they typically have a TE or back or two out there.

 

 
This is true.  One is usually TE Luke Willson, another is sometimes Lynch or Turbin.  If it's a 3 receiver set, it will be Baldwin, Kearse, Lockette.  The 4th will be Norwood (a rookie) or Walters.

 
Thanks - I appreciate the insight.
 
 

One is a mannequin with an apple basket duct-taped to its torso.

 
That mofo better not have a pressure gauge hidden in that basket!

 

[Jnai]

How do people think they're going to defend the read option? GIFs of a few of Lynch's best runs against GB seemed to come when 3-4 guys were all looking into the backfield and getting crushed by blocks rather than going hard at either Lynch or Wilson. I wonder if they try to bait Wilson into holding the ball and try to hit him with Collins or Hightower coming around the edge.
 
I think the possibility that Carroll really takes advantage of Wilson in terms of running the ball is what makes me most scared of this offense. I think during the season, and even early rounds of the playoffs, there's a huge incentive for coaches / QBs to take very few risks when running the ball, even if it's a strong part of their game, because NFL starters are so valuable.

 

[wibi]

How do people think they're going to defend the read option? GIFs of a few of Lynch's best runs against GB seemed to come when 3-4 guys were all looking into the backfield and getting crushed by blocks rather than going hard at either Lynch or Wilson. I wonder if they try to bait Wilson into holding the ball and try to hit him with Collins or Hightower coming around the edge.
 
I think the possibility that Carroll really takes advantage of Wilson in terms of running the ball is what makes me most scared of this offense. I think during the season, and even early rounds of the playoffs, there's a huge incentive for coaches / QBs to take very few risks when running the ball, even if it's a strong part of their game, because NFL starters are so valuable.

 
What makes Wilson's willingness to run even more amazing (scary to opposing teams) is how few real hits he takes when he tucks and runs.  I watched more than 50% of the games this year and I only remember two instances where Wilson took a hard hit going for extra yards instead of making the safe play. 

 

[Super Nomario]

My "when the Seahawks pass" preview piece for SoSH Central. They're not a great passing team, but they do enough things to prevent challenges: http://soshcentral.com/nfl/games/previews/2015/01/29/super-bowl-xlix-preview-seahawks-passing-game-isnt-great/
 
Seattle can do stuff like this:

 
... but then they also do stuff like this:

 

[mascho]

Go. Read that. Now. It's awesome.

 

[JohnnyK]

Good read.
 
Is there any fear of SEA running out of spread formations?

 

[DanoooME]

Good read.
 
Is there any fear of SEA running out of spread formations?

 
There should be.
 
It's covered a little bit here (and you may want to check out part 1 first here), but one of the Seahawks' favorite plays is splitting 4 receivers as far as the can out wide, stacking them and then running the read-option.  I can't find video right away, but I'll show you a rough outline of the offense.
 
              Hash                            Hash
15             |          X X X X X          |          89
83                                                            82
                                  3  24
 
They force 4 DBs outside leaving a max of 6 in the box (assuming a deep safety) making it trouble for the defense to cover everyone because they have to account for both Wilson and Lynch.  If it's cover 2, this play works even better.

 

[JohnnyK]

Thanks!
 
I'll check out the articles, haven't had time to read all the previews yet.

 

[Steve Dillard]

My "when the Seahawks pass" preview piece for SoSH Central. They're not a great passing team, but they do enough things to prevent challenges: http://soshcentral.com/nfl/games/previews/2015/01/29/super-bowl-xlix-preview-seahawks-passing-game-isnt-great/
 
Seattle can do stuff like this:

 
... but then they also do stuff like this:

Those seem like personnel issues, though. The first was an empty backfield but the d had two run stuffing middle linebackers who didn't cover.
The second was third and 7, so GB had more defensive backs.

I'm interested to see what happens on 1st and second. Wilson said in the OT they knew they would get a no-safety show, and when GB put 8 in the box, no safety, he knew he could loft it for Kearse.

Can NE show enough looks to make it look that way but be able to get out of that at snap (Chung, perhaps)? Otherwise, we're limited in the ability to clog Lynch while not getting burned over the top.
 
http://ift.tt/1xuVPug
 

The Packers, clearly expecting a run, came out in "cover zero," meaning there would be no safety in the middle of the field. That was the look Wilson had been waiting for -- and Kearse, running a post from the right side of the field, was the guy he knew he'd target.

 

[Super Nomario]

Those seem like personnel issues, though. The first was an empty backfield but the d had two run stuffing middle linebackers who didn't cover.

The Carolina play? Lynch was in the backfield, and with Wilson's read-option abilities, teams have to respect the run. And the Panthers have really good coverage 'backers.
 

The second was third and 7, so GB had more defensive backs.

I'm interested to see what happens on 1st and second. Wilson said in the OT they knew they would get a no-safety show, and when GB put 8 in the box, no safety, he knew he could loft it for Kearse.

Can NE show enough looks to make it look that way but be able to get out of that at snap (Chung, perhaps)? Otherwise, we're limited in the ability to clog Lynch while not getting burned over the top.
 
http://ift.tt/1xuVPug

Yeah, I think this is the trick. Seattle can pass well enough to take advantage of defenses keying on the run, as in the Kearse bomb above and the bomb against Cover 0 you mention. When they get in obvious passing situations, they're not as successful. Winning on 3rd-and-7 is relatively easy, but winning on first and second down is tougher.

 

[jsinger121]

I'm pretty sure that BB can come up with a game plan to neutralize Lynch in this game. His past performances against New England have been pretty average at best
 
Buffalo Bills
9/23/2007 @ New England 20 carries 74 yards 1 TD 3.7 YPC in a 38-7 loss
11/9/2008 @ New England 14 carries 46 yards 3.29 YPC in a 20-10 loss
12/20/2009 vs. New England 8 carries 25 yards 3.13 YPC in a 17-10 loss
9/26/2010 @ New England 13 carries 79 yards 6.08 YPC in a 38-30 loss
Traded to Seattle
10/14/2012 vs. New England 15 carries 41 yards 2.73 YPC in a 24-23 win
 
 
He has had only 1 game against NE with over 4 yards a carry. Everyone of those defenses weren't that good except for maybe 2007 which was pretty much at the end of the line defensively.

 

[JMDurron]

I'm pretty sure that BB can come up with a game plan to neutralize Lynch in this game. His past performances against New England have been pretty average at best
 
Buffalo Bills
9/23/2007 @ New England 20 carries 74 yards 1 TD 3.7 YPC in a 38-7 loss
11/9/2008 @ New England 14 carries 46 yards 3.29 YPC in a 20-10 loss
12/20/2009 vs. New England 8 carries 25 yards 3.13 YPC in a 17-10 loss
9/26/2010 @ New England 13 carries 79 yards 6.08 YPC in a 38-30 loss
Traded to Seattle
10/14/2012 vs. New England 15 carries 41 yards 2.73 YPC in a 24-23 win
 
 
He has had only 1 game against NE with over 4 yards a carry. Everyone of those defenses weren't that good except for maybe 2007 which was pretty much at the end of the line defensively.

 
As discussed in one of the great SoSH Central articles, though, that 2012 game was early enough in Wilson's career that Seattle's coaching staff weren't letting him loose to run the read option with great frequency yet.  Keying in on Lynch before Wilson was allowed to deliberately run as often was a completely different kettle of fish than the 2014 version of the Seahawks' offense.  Just because Wilson was there then doesn't mean that the team's running game was very similar, with regards to play design.  
 
Also, it's not like Buffalo's offense has been a juggernaut over the same time period, so you have to be fair and look at the other side of the coin from "Well, most of those Patriots defenses weren't that great, so...", which is that Lynch was the key piece in mediocre at best offenses in all of those seasons.  

 

[Super Nomario]

 
As discussed in one of the great SoSH Central articles, though, that 2012 game was early enough in Wilson's career that Seattle's coaching staff weren't letting him loose to run the read option with great frequency yet.  Keying in on Lynch before Wilson was allowed to deliberately run as often was a completely different kettle of fish than the 2014 version of the Seahawks' offense.  Just because Wilson was there then doesn't mean that the team's running game was very similar, with regards to play design. 

That's true, but Seattle probably had a better O line then than now, with three of the pieces (Okung / Carpenter / Unger) the same and the right side (McQuistan -> Sweezy, Giacomini -> Britt / Bailey) downgraded. Willson isn't the blocker Zach Miller is, either. On the season, Lynch averaged 5.0 YPC in 2012, 4.7 this year.
 
It's a good question whether the Pats' run D is better or worse than it was then; they had Spikes and Mayo but no Hightower / Collins; they had probably a better version of Wilfork but also had Cunningham and Love playing extensively. Statistically the run D is similar (4.0 YPC this year vs 3.9 in 2012).

 

[jsinger121]

That's true, but Seattle probably had a better O line then than now, with three of the pieces (Okung / Carpenter / Unger) the same and the right side (McQuistan -> Sweezy, Giacomini -> Britt / Bailey) downgraded. Willson isn't the blocker Zach Miller is, either. On the season, Lynch averaged 5.0 YPC in 2012, 4.7 this year.
 
It's a good question whether the Pats' run D is better or worse than it was then; they had Spikes and Mayo but no Hightower / Collins; they had probably a better version of Wilfork but also had Cunningham and Love playing extensively. Statistically the run D is similar (4.0 YPC this year vs 3.9 in 2012).

 
I think they are bit better this year talent wise. More speed in Collins and Hightower. Alan Branch and Siliga have been pretty good for us and if they are able to use Chung in run support more than should be a big factor. Lynch is a tremendous back but I believe that BB has the ability to take a teams strength away and he should be able to do that with Lynch. He is going to force Russell Wilson to win this game against Revis/Browner/McCourty and company.

 

[DanoooME]

That's true, but Seattle probably had a better O line then than now, with three of the pieces (Okung / Carpenter / Unger) the same and the right side (McQuistan -> Sweezy, Giacomini -> Britt / Bailey) downgraded. Willson isn't the blocker Zach Miller is, either. On the season, Lynch averaged 5.0 YPC in 2012, 4.7 this year.
 
It's a good question whether the Pats' run D is better or worse than it was then; they had Spikes and Mayo but no Hightower / Collins; they had probably a better version of Wilfork but also had Cunningham and Love playing extensively. Statistically the run D is similar (4.0 YPC this year vs 3.9 in 2012).

 
Totally untrue.  McQuistan is just awful.  I'm not even sure if he deserves a roster spot on any team.  And Giacomini was a little below average, exactly the kind of guy you want to upgrade.  I'd say Britt is close to him at this point and Britt should get better.

 

[Super Nomario]

 
Totally untrue.  McQuistan is just awful.  I'm not even sure if he deserves a roster spot on any team.  And Giacomini was a little below average, exactly the kind of guy you want to upgrade.  I'd say Britt is close to him at this point and Britt should get better.

You've seen more of them than I have, but you also have to consider that in addition to being suspect on a talent/skill basis, neither Sweezy nor Britt is a lock to be totally healthy, either.
 
EDIT: To be clear, I'm just talking about in relation to Sunday vs the game early in 2012, not long-term (where getting younger with Sweezy and Britt makes a lot of sense).

 

[Doctor G]

Wilson is Doug Flutie only one inch taller. You absolutely have to maintain contain or he will kill you.his receivers are ordinary until he breaks contain.

 

[Steve Dillard]

Does Chandler Jones have a limited role? He's not particularly stout on the run, and while he can chase the QB out of the pocket, that's not really what you want to do with Wilson. Perhaps Branch gets a lot more subs on 1st and 2nd down?

 

[Tony C]

Or Ayers gets some play. I've been calling for more Ayers/less C Jones for a few weeks as I hate Jones' lack of contain. That goes double for this match-up, but BB knows best.

 

[SumnerH]

McQuistan is just awful.  I'm not even sure if he deserves a roster spot on any team.

He's a lock for the Kurt Rambis All Stars, the cross-sport all-ugly team.