Simms: Packers showed how to keep Wilson in the pocket

[pehawk]

We ran 11 RO plays before Russell's keeper for the TD. It was the first one he kept.

Bevell is A GOD.

I think that's right.

I think Bevell is the coordinator equivalent of an 8-8 HC. He's not bad, he's not great, he's right in the middle. Goldilocks would think he's "just right".

 

[Zebulon Dak]

We ran 11 RO plays before Russell's keeper for the TD. It was the first one he kept.

Bevell is A GOD.

I think that's right.

I think Bevell is the coordinator equivalent of an 8-8 HC. He's not bad, he's not great, he's right in the middle. Goldilocks would think he's "just right".

Yeah, I think he does what Pete wants him to do. I think he's developed a good relationship with Russell and I think that's very important to Pete.

 

[pehawk]

That said, I'd love for Bevell to get a HC gig. It made me sad to hear that the routes and concepts haven't evolved. Maybe he's too much of a pushover for Pete? Maybe he's too easy to drown out.

Whatever the reasoning for Russ not keeping most RO's, I hope it isn't applicable to the SB. That Pats front 7 is slow.

 

[brimsalabim]

As far as I could tell the Packers just spied him with Clay Mathews. The only difference might have been that apparently Mathews was given permission or even encouraged to knock Wilson out.
If the Pats put a spy on him we could always do something different and block the spy! When the defense knows that have some one dedicated to keeping track of Russell I would think the DBs would be more likely to turn their backs when they run. Take out the spy and Russell could have a lot of running room.

 

[bmorepunk]

Phil Simms wasn't "hating on" the Seahawks or Wilson; I watched the episode as well and the conversation they were having about this was reasonable. Simms and Ed Reed disagreed that what the Packers did worked (since the Packers lost).

Simms essentially said that the Packers were pushing their DEs 8 yards back to keep Wilson from making throws outside the pocket. He said that the Patriots would probably do something similar and it seemed to work. This is where Reed disagreed with him.

This does help keep him from scrambling to either side outside the pocket, but it makes it less about sacking and more about containment. It also risks some bad things happening if there is a run up the middle while your DEs are running straight downhill into position.

 

[scutterhawk]

On Inside on the NFL (NFL Network) Simms said a couple times how it expects the Patriots to keep Wilson in the pocket. He went on to say how everyone knows what Wilson does and the Pats will be ready. He pointed out how that's what the Packers did.

Simms may be a Hawks-hater and he repeated a line that many have before - just keep Wilson contained. Few have succeeded but Green Bay did seem to have success in keeping Wilson contained for most of the game. Personally, I think that there was a lot of things going on in that game that the Hawks won't have to deal with in Glendale. And there is no way the Pats will be able to contain Wilson.

But when I was watching the game I wondered why Wilson didn't start running sooner. Was the plan to stay in the pocket or did the Packers really contain him? And will he run more on the Pats? I suspect he will and they'll plan around it.

Yep, for sure.
They contained him...all the way up until they couldn't contain him from winning the game.
As Lynch says, Talkin' Ain't Doin'

 

[Northhawk]

Phil Simms wasn't "hating on" the Seahawks or Wilson; I watched the episode as well and the conversation they were having about this was reasonable. Simms and Ed Reed disagreed that what the Packers did worked (since the Packers lost).
.

If you're going to quote someone, you could at least be accurate. I wrote "Simms may be a Hawk-hater" because I don't see enough of him to know. Usually, when u raise a point from a media talking head, posters are quick to point out if a person has a pattern of being negative toward the Hawks.

It was just a qualification not a statement of fact. Lighten up.

 

[gulliver]

I do think that RW keeps himself in the pocket as much as anything, especially early in games, for the same reasons that he is reluctant to keep the ball on the RO early in the game. It's mostly risk aversion - both personal and team - along with a minor element of wanting to show he can beat teams with his arm and that he is not just a RB playing QB. I've also heard a few suggest that they are intentionally limiting RW's carries before the half in order to reduce half-time adjustments and to have something in reserve, but I'm not sure I buy that angle at all.

I tend to think the big reason they wait on the RO is because they're waiting for it to open up before they run it.

I.E., get Lynch and the receivers going, and when your opponent starts committing resources to stopping one or both of those, Russell can take off.

Why? Because Lynch and the RO is the first thing every opponent gameplans for every Monday. They're expecting it through the first quarter.

 

[hawk45]

I do think that RW keeps himself in the pocket as much as anything, especially early in games, for the same reasons that he is reluctant to keep the ball on the RO early in the game. It's mostly risk aversion - both personal and team - along with a minor element of wanting to show he can beat teams with his arm and that he is not just a RB playing QB. I've also heard a few suggest that they are intentionally limiting RW's carries before the half in order to reduce half-time adjustments and to have something in reserve, but I'm not sure I buy that angle at all.

I tend to think the big reason they wait on the RO is because they're waiting for it to open up before they run it.

I.E., get Lynch and the receivers going, and when your opponent starts committing resources to stopping one or both of those, Russell can take off.

Why? Because Lynch and the RO is the first thing every opponent gameplans for every Monday. They're expecting it through the first quarter.

We have a pattern of waiting until the end of the game for Russ to actually keep it, however. This is something I would expect opponents to have noticed on film and be unlikely to have forgotten in the couple of hours elapsed from the first quarter to the fourth quarter.

So, I'm not convinced that opposing teams do expect it in the first quarter and not in the fourth.

 

[Scottemojo]

Here is what the Pats should do.

Surround Kearse. 3, maybe 4 guys. When the ball bounces off his hands, catch it.

I feel that is the overwhelming lesson learned from the Green Bay game.

 

[HawKnPeppa]

Stacked box and/or spy isn't new. R/O may not gash them but it very well could force them out of their cover 1 and into a zone if Russ does manage to elude the spy.
But if all the read options we saw were true options and Russ just declined to keep it, as Dib said could be Russ being risk averse. Wish we knew on those.

In the Simms interview Simms mentioned Brady threw to his first read a ton vs the colts because the NE route trees and formations almost always get someone open quickly. He contrasted that with Seattle. That's not very helpful for Russ when his receivers are physically limited. Good thing Russ can escape and can throw at guys with little to no separation.
I felt like on the two point conversion we saw a reprise of our favorite 3 wideouts in a phone booth design. Saved by sandlot. Luke wasn't supposed to release but did. Russ whirls and dekes.

...and we suddenly had 'grew a branch' on our route tree (getting someone open quickly) when Richardson reached that point in his learning. This is more of a talent and skillset issue, IMO. We could really use P-Rich right now.

 

[hawk45]

...and we suddenly had 'grew a branch' on our route tree (getting someone open quickly) when Richardson reached that point in his learning. This is more of a talent and skillset issue, IMO. We could really use P-Rich right now.

Simms's point (and I swear it was Simms who was comparing but there's a chance it wasn't) was just that New England has receivers with limited physical ability as well, yet do a better job of mitigating that because of more advanced route concepts.

There is no question that having Tate, Sidney back, or PRich would assist, but that doesn't invalidate the notion that there is more our OC could be doing to get receivers open than he is doing. Even if it is correct that it is more talent/skill - a conclusion it'll be difficult to reach on a message board - I don't see the downside with having better routes.

 

[KatarHol]

Unless the Patriots figure out a way to get it to rain with high winds inside that dome, I doubt they will have much to gain from the Packers defensive strategy.

 

[bmorepunk]

Phil Simms wasn't "hating on" the Seahawks or Wilson; I watched the episode as well and the conversation they were having about this was reasonable. Simms and Ed Reed disagreed that what the Packers did worked (since the Packers lost).
.

If you're going to quote someone, you could at least be accurate. I wrote "Simms may be a Hawk-hater" because I don't see enough of him to know. Usually, when u raise a point from a media talking head, posters are quick to point out if a person has a pattern of being negative toward the Hawks.

It was just a qualification not a statement of fact. Lighten up.

Alright, but I wasn't upset, so the "lighten up" deal is unnecessary.

Unless you add Francis, then it's better.

 

[WilsonMVP]

Seattle has a top ten offense and several clubs are scrambling around to find anyone to run their offense (including San Fran & St. Louis).

Why are people complaining again?

It's not about being beyond criticism. I just don't know what people expect. Seattle has a very good offense. To expect it to be as lights out as the defense is to expect the current incarnation of the Seattle Seahawks to be the greatest football team to ever play the game. That is an unfair expectation IMO.

My problem with the offense is they seem to do nothing for the first 1 and 1/2 quarters. its not until right before half or after half when we actually start to open up and move the ball and score. If we would be able to get out to quick leads I dont think we would ever lose a game because it would force the other team to pass alot more

 

[Mojambo]

My problem with the offense is they seem to do nothing for the first 1 and 1/2 quarters. its not until right before half or after half when we actually start to open up and move the ball and score.

[/quote]

Think of Seattle like a counter-punching boxer. Their defense is like the great footwork which allows them to avoid damage from the more aggressive fighter and then after they've felt the other guy out, and gotten the rhythm of the fight down, then they start throwing punches.

I like the way Seattle fights. They've got the skills to make it work

 

[scutterhawk]

Man oh man, those Coaches in Green bay sure are cagey & shrewd, they taught Billicheat and the rest of the teams in the League how to do something they probably never thought of before LOL

 

[theincrediblesok]

I'm wondering if everything is all conservative in the 1st half all on purpose, it keeps the other team guessing. Run simple plays in the 1st half to see their defensive alignment, and see where their weaknesses are. After our offense pounds the ball, the other teams starts to tire out, then start hitting them with more aggressive plays taking advantage of those formations. You hear it all the time that teams always think they got the Seahawks beat and they never change their plays in the 2nd which is where we start feasting on that mistake. Like a hook, line and sinker.