Re-watched the game

[hawksfansinceday1]

Thanks for your thoughts Kip. As always, I appreciate your efforts a great deal and you have lots of excellent insights.

I'm not surprised to see that you backtracked on our offensive approach yesterday. I was watching to see what we were running while at the game, and I saw a lot of three and four wide receiver sets so I was surprised at some of your posts yesterday afternoon and evening. But I figured you would re-watch the game and see that we were running the spread approach much more than you originally thought.

 

[LeftHandSmoke]

Where in the game did Mario get the concussion?

Am curious how that happened and don't want to FFD through it tonight.

 

[dopeboy206]

No mention of Earl Thomas?

 

[kearly]

@Hawknation

As PFF pointed out, NFL QBs tend to take 2.5 to 3.0 seconds to throw the football on average. Usually, time to sack is around 3-4 seconds on average. I actually went conservative and made 4.0 seconds my threshold to determine pass rush pressure vs coverage pressure, but I could have easily made it 3.0 or 3.5 seconds.

As far as stunt vs. vanilla. I love it when Seattle calls stunts and blitzes under Richard because our personnel does so well with them, but in an ideal world a high pressure rate out of vanilla is a best case scenario. Stunts run a real risk of opening up running lanes for a mobile QB, and if they fail, they take longer to fail than a vanilla rush would. In a way, calling a stunt is a little like a blitz, it's a little extra risk for a little extra reward. If you can get the reward without taking the risk, that is what you would prefer. We'll have to settle for being a risk taking defense for this defense to be its very best. And I'm fine with that.

As far as the vanilla plays. In the 10 such plays I had written down, it was 1 sack by a pass rusher, 1 QB hit, and 1 pressure. The two 3 man rushes were both disasters. I am just giving you my observations.

 

[sutz]

I was seriously amazed at the plays using 3 man rush. That was a major WTF? time for me. That's the kind of thing you use when you're protecting a 10-15 point lead, not a bare 3 point lead.

:34853_doh:

 

[theincrediblesok]

Wilson got blasted by Jason Jones on that interception play. Can't tell from the video angle if it was helmet to helmet or not. Might of been a bang bang play but looked like Wilson got it off before Jones got there.

 

[falcongoggles]

I got so lost in the action during Sunday's game that I assumed Seattle was still running out of this "2012 style" offense as their staple. I was wrong. Against the Dolphins Seattle ran most of their plays out of the spread with 3+ WRs. At times, Seattle had as many as 5 wide with an empty backfield. I didn't chart the play designs, but I would guess that Seattle had at least 3 WRs on the field at least 75% of the snaps if not more.

Seattle did get a little cute with some under center stuff in the first half with bad results, but it didn't last long. For most of the game, Seattle was running the second half of 2015 style of offense.

I was wondering what people were seeing after the game when they kept talking about 2012 playcalling. Seattle's play choices looked a lot more like latter half 2015 than anything else, I thought.

The game wasn't as close as the scoreboard. A couple of Tyler Lockett drops and Earl Thomas whiffs away from a much bigger win.

Kearly, everyone really appreciates your writeups, as usual. You make a good point that second viewings are valuable.

I think the big difference between this game and last year's spread offense was the willingness to throw 10+ yards downfield. Seattle had a lot of receivers, but all the throws were within 5 yards of the LOS. It wasn't until midway through the 4th quarter that RW threw the ball 10 yards past the LOS.

It was extremely frustrating style of play to watch. As Kearly has pointed out multiple times, you can beat Seattle by playing the short game, but it is extremely difficult to execute. Sure enough, with just a handful of drops and line brain farts we ended up with just 3 points in the first half. Additionally, we weren't playing a crushing Seattle offense, but the Miami Dolphins, thus adopting our kryptonite gameplan was very odd.

 

[hawknation2016]

As far as the vanilla plays. In the 10 such plays I had written down, it was 1 sack by a pass rusher, 1 QB hit, and 1 pressure. The two 3 man rushes were both disasters. I am just giving you my observations.

I get that. It just doesn't make much sense to say there was only "1 pressure."

Just this sample of clips show at least seven pressures with two sacks.

 

[Mick063]

Wilson was much better after his ankle got hurt. It forced him into throwing on time from the pocket instead of extending plays with his feet.

Defense was great. A couple plays got away from them, but otherwise smothering.

 

[Ruminator]

Are Wagner and Kam looking more like 2013 Wagner and Kam to you?

It's one game, but yes.

Wagner was a screaming missile aimed right at the QB a few times -- more than I've ever seen from him in the prior season. REALLY enjoyed that!

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

I got so lost in the action during Sunday's game that I assumed Seattle was still running out of this "2012 style" offense as their staple. I was wrong. Against the Dolphins Seattle ran most of their plays out of the spread with 3+ WRs. At times, Seattle had as many as 5 wide with an empty backfield. I didn't chart the play designs, but I would guess that Seattle had at least 3 WRs on the field at least 75% of the snaps if not more.

Seattle did get a little cute with some under center stuff in the first half with bad results, but it didn't last long. For most of the game, Seattle was running the second half of 2015 style of offense.

I was wondering what people were seeing after the game when they kept talking about 2012 playcalling. Seattle's play choices looked a lot more like latter half 2015 than anything else, I thought.

The game wasn't as close as the scoreboard. A couple of Tyler Lockett drops and Earl Thomas whiffs away from a much bigger win.

Kearly, everyone really appreciates your writeups, as usual. You make a good point that second viewings are valuable.

I think the big difference between this game and last year's spread offense was the willingness to throw 10+ yards downfield. Seattle had a lot of receivers, but all the throws were within 5 yards of the LOS. It wasn't until midway through the 4th quarter that RW threw the ball 10 yards past the LOS.

It was extremely frustrating style of play to watch. As Kearly has pointed out multiple times, you can beat Seattle by playing the short game, but it is extremely difficult to execute. Sure enough, with just a handful of drops and line brain farts we ended up with just 3 points in the first half. Additionally, we weren't playing a crushing Seattle offense, but the Miami Dolphins, thus adopting our kryptonite gameplan was very odd.

Completely agree with you falcongoggles. Seattle's pass game out of the 3 & 4 WR sets seemed to me to be mostly horizontal for a good portion of the game and only started going downfield and across the middle late. I understand that quick passing out of those sets is needed to offset the difficulties in pass pro, but you can still get the ball out relatively quickly and still attack vertically in the middle of the field and down the sidelines.

 

[WindCityHawk]

The idea of an "ahead of schedule" Frank Clark is pretty savory.

 

[theincrediblesok]

Well just got done re-watching the game again. I was wrong about the play-calling, and there were no slow developing plays. Like Kearly had said we went spread alot and were successful in alot of them.

Lockett gave us really good field position but two times the penalty took us back.

There were also crucial 3rd downs that needed to be converted, two of which Lockett should of had (I'll give him a pass on one since Maxwell knocks it out) and a few if Michael just inch a bit more those are 4 drives that could of resulted in at least 3 points each if we were just going to get field goals.

The 4th and 1, should of ran it or take the point.

After Wilson got hurt he couldn't adjust during that drive and it showed. He didn't get better until two more drives which then he was able to plant more on his foot, I think by this time his foot felt better as he was able to run.

Once Ifedi gets back hopefully next week, I think that right side will be wide open for our guys to run through.

Overall the offense was moving, just some miscommunication here and there but it's early and give them time after 3-4 games to gel.

I think our offense could of scored around 27-30 points in this game if the execution was right on the money.

At the same time the team learned that no game is given and that it's hard to win in the NFL, hopefully that sticks in their minds like it did in 2013.

 

[ivotuk]

As far as the vanilla plays. In the 10 such plays I had written down, it was 1 sack by a pass rusher, 1 QB hit, and 1 pressure. The two 3 man rushes were both disasters. I am just giving you my observations.

I get that. It just doesn't make much sense to say there was only "1 pressure."

Just this sample of clips show at least seven pressures with two sacks.

I think it would be a great idea Hawknation if you posted a thread on your game review. Posting a bunch of random gifs and talking about someone else's breakdown becomes very disconnected and it's hard to make heads or tails of what you are talking about.

I have a friend who likes to talk in acronyms, it may sound perfectly fine to him, but it leaves everyone else going "huh?"

 

[hawknation2016]

I think it would be a great idea Hawknation if you posted a thread on your game review. Posting a bunch of random gifs and talking about someone else's breakdown becomes very disconnected and it's hard to make heads or tails of what you are talking about.

I have a friend who likes to talk in acronyms, it may sound perfectly fine to him, but it leaves everyone else going "huh?"

Oh, sorry. I thought it was clear that I was discussing the number of pressures generated by our four-man rush, which was more than one. If I failed to do that in this thread, then people might believe our four-man rush was not effective because it only generated one pressure, which is not true.

Sorry if that was confusing. :2thumbs:

 

[two dog]

Kearly, thank you very much for sharing your post-mortem with us.

I actually look forward to your day-after analysis as much as any post made during
the week. Strong stuff.

I noticed a couple of plays where Kam Chancellor was a very good approximation
of his old fearsome self. He's still a full grown man.

I too would like to see Hawk Nation, whose opinion I deeply respect, share day
after impressions with us.

 

[Scottemojo]

Anyone else mystified as to why HawkNation included 2 screen plays as a 4 man pressures? It does seem a bit hinky, and makes you wonder who really has the confirmation bias.
He also included a shallow crosser where drawing the rush in opens the throwing lane and the 2 yard deep route, several plays where the QB had 3,4,5 seconds to pass, includes stunts (which only supports the notion that stunting increased the amount of pressure) and includes the final play of the game, where Miami's WRs would have had to take probably 4 or 5 seconds just to set up whatever tricky play they want to run to get some chance to win.

There are legit 4 man no stunt pressures from that game. those couple of gifs would have been sufficient to support your notions for discussion, rather than a shotgun blast of poorly chosen, poorly edited(since time to throw is a huge part of establishing legit pressure, I would call any gif that left out the snap, or for that matter any blitz faking before the snap that sets up a four man rush) seeming intended to take down the BMOC from his perch.

Really, including two screens. SMDH.

I love gifs.

 

[Anonymous]

Makes me wonder if what appears to not be a stunt, actually IS a stunt.

The guys whisper between plays and get a call for a defensive play, but how much is dependent on motion, which O-lineman is using what technique after the snap or, what tight end is in the game, etc.?

There has got to be a measureable amount of what appears vanilla, but freestyle's into what appears a designed stunt when its re-watched. Is it possible eyes are being deceived?

 

[Hawks46]

Anyone else mystified as to why HawkNation included 2 screen plays as a 4 man pressures? It does seem a bit hinky, and makes you wonder who really has the confirmation bias.
He also included a shallow crosser where drawing the rush in opens the throwing lane and the 2 yard deep route, several plays where the QB had 3,4,5 seconds to pass, includes stunts (which only supports the notion that stunting increased the amount of pressure) and includes the final play of the game, where Miami's WRs would have had to take probably 4 or 5 seconds just to set up whatever tricky play they want to run to get some chance to win.

There are legit 4 man no stunt pressures from that game. those couple of gifs would have been sufficient to support your notions for discussion, rather than a shotgun blast of poorly chosen, poorly edited(since time to throw is a huge part of establishing legit pressure, I would call any gif that left out the snap, or for that matter any blitz faking before the snap that sets up a four man rush) seeming intended to take down the BMOC from his perch.

Really, including two screens. SMDH.

I love gifs.

You're not the only one, I watched those gifs and it's the first thing that popped into my mind.

I don't know how statistics are parsed, but personally I wouldn't count screen plays as pressures. The OL is purposefully letting the DL behind them so the ball carrier can get behind the DL.

On some of these it's pretty hard to tell what's going on. On Clark's sack, he bull rushed his man and got him standing up. Then he disengages and loops around the Guard to come straight up the middle. That could be designed, or he could've just saw something that he liked and went with it.

On Marsh's last good play, you could see it was intentional. Clark took the ouside shoulder of the Guard and drove into the Tackle. Marsh looped around, and the Guard should've disengaged (it still wouldn't have mattered, I don't think the Guard was quick enough to get Marsh). The Guard was Laremy Tunsil, a rookie.

 

[Scottemojo]

Anyone else mystified as to why HawkNation included a screen play as a 4 man pressure? It does seem a bit hinky, and makes you wonder who really has the confirmation bias.
He also included a shallow crosser where drawing the rush in opens the throwing lane and the 2 yard deep route, several plays where the QB had 3,4,5 seconds to pass, includes stunts (which only supports the notion that stunting increased the amount of pressure) and includes the final play of the game, where Miami's WRs would have had to take probably 4 or 5 seconds just to set up whatever tricky play they want to run to get some chance to win.

I love gifs.

Honestly, no, because that isn't what confirmation bias is. Kearly clearly had a narrative he wanted to talk about before the game even started based on his posts leading up the game and immediately after. HN2016 is providing context to the discussion with visual aid rather than having people take certain posters at their word. When you start throwing around stuff like Seattle's push rush was lacking, hit or miss, they didn't get pressure with 4 rushers, etc, and we have distinct visual evidence of the opposite, it isn't "hinky" if maybe he maybe miss reads a play or two. "Hinky" would be trying to push a narrative that isn't there, or defend someone doing so. These things aren't hard absolutes, and some people try to make them that way, because they don't take their emotional perspective out of it. Having unemotional visual evidence is MUCH better than relying on a biased recap of the game, so we can all make our own observations.

I said confirmation bias, and it was a poor choice of words.
I should have said axe to grind.

IIRC, you have a history of trying to battle with kip too, especially when you don't like his take on social issues. Which is silly, while not always right (he forgot that the foster big play was a blitz by us), he consistently tries to contribute to discussion, while a small handful of posters, almost always the same ones, go after him. But not for discussion, for some strange desire to take him down a peg. Agendas suck.

Explain to me how gifs of screens illustrate 4 man pressure. I will be waiting.