Where are we on Kris Richard?

[cdallan]

Richard has a much different job than his predecessors. Our cover-3 isn't going to sneak up on anyone anymore. Quinn and Bradley could lean on it, and the good QB's still hadn't come up with a real gameplan for how to beat us. Last year, you saw good teams just waiting for us to get into it. There were games where we had to call predominately cover-2 in the second half, and since we don't practice it a ton, and it puts a bunch more pressure on Chancellor, we didn't execute it all that well. If I had to guess, I think we'll see more man this year, especially if Browner is going to play some LB. We'll still see a lot of base cover-3 against the subpar QB's, but we're going to have to mix it up a lot more against the good ones.

Cover 3 is still impenetrable with a pass rush. At least for Seattle and IMO.

I actually think interior pass rush is the key, given where the holes are in cover 3

 

[pehawk]

Richard has a much different job than his predecessors. Our cover-3 isn't going to sneak up on anyone anymore. Quinn and Bradley could lean on it, and the good QB's still hadn't come up with a real gameplan for how to beat us. Last year, you saw good teams just waiting for us to get into it. There were games where we had to call predominately cover-2 in the second half, and since we don't practice it a ton, and it puts a bunch more pressure on Chancellor, we didn't execute it all that well. If I had to guess, I think we'll see more man this year, especially if Browner is going to play some LB. We'll still see a lot of base cover-3 against the subpar QB's, but we're going to have to mix it up a lot more against the good ones.

Cover 3 is still impenetrable with a pass rush. At least for Seattle and IMO.

I actually think interior pass rush is the key, given where the holes are in cover 3

Yessir. Which speaks to my assessment Richard may've botched the DL rotation, at times.

Mebane consistently collapsed pockets but was never available in nickel on key drives. I could be wrong, but I think a little better management of Mebane's snaps could've reversed a late game collapse. Or two.

 

[HawkFan72]

He didn't have the pass rush that Quinn had during our superb owl championship.

Until we get more pressure on the qb our defense is going to fall apart against good qbs.

I think this is a fair assessment.

 

[Tical21]

Richard has a much different job than his predecessors. Our cover-3 isn't going to sneak up on anyone anymore. Quinn and Bradley could lean on it, and the good QB's still hadn't come up with a real gameplan for how to beat us. Last year, you saw good teams just waiting for us to get into it. There were games where we had to call predominately cover-2 in the second half, and since we don't practice it a ton, and it puts a bunch more pressure on Chancellor, we didn't execute it all that well. If I had to guess, I think we'll see more man this year, especially if Browner is going to play some LB. We'll still see a lot of base cover-3 against the subpar QB's, but we're going to have to mix it up a lot more against the good ones.

Cover 3 is still impenetrable with a pass rush. At least for Seattle and IMO.

Curious, is the cover-3's success more tied to pass rush than other defenses?

I know we still execute it very well and it is going to be tough for any QB to play against, especially with a pass rush, but there were a bunch of times where you could tell the opposition really liked the play the called, they snapped the ball quickly without having to decipher the defense or change anything, the quarterback hit his back foot and threw the ball. Some of these were on outside comebacks, some were on clear out type routes underneath, some were between the LB's and safeties. Some, which are the ones that a pass rush would completely disrupt, were shot plays where they run a deep guy on the outside knowing our corner has to vacate to run with him, opening up everything underneath him. These are where Kam got exposed a little in some complicated ways, and where Richard got caught a few times trying to do two things at once. A pass rush would completely disrupt plays like those, but I'm more concerned with the 3rd and 5 play where we leave an angle route wide open. If they have a play like that called, and we come out in cover 2 or man, our chances of winning that play go up quite a bit if we execute.

 

[OkieHawk]

I think the real Richard will show up this season. I count last season as a learning curve with unintentional speed bumps. I like his blitzes as well, which I believe Montana and Kearly has already stated.

 

[pehawk]

I think Pete's ability to coach his DB's into winning the first 5 is the key to removing the plays you mentioned, Tical. Cary was supposed to be able to do at least that, but he couldn't. Lane and Simon being out didn't help either.
Long, physical corners remove those routes...pass rush the others.

Good news is Browner should be able to win the first 5. It's what he does. In fact he could probably do at least that for the next decade. Dude would've been all world in the '70's.

 

[fire_marshall_bill]

I'd give him a C - for the first six or seven games and all those collapses. There's just no excuse for all of those collapses, especially against the Panthers. That last play (sCam to Olson) was probably preventable. They should have at least been in proper position. Some were man, and some zone. Yes, some of the blame falls on the offense too.

 

[pehawk]

I'd give him a C - for the first six or seven games and all those collapses. There's just no excuse for all of those collapses, especially against the Panthers. That last play (sCam to Olson) was probably preventable. They should have at least been in proper position. Some were man, and some zone. Yes, some of the blame falls on the offense too.

That Panthers last drive was basically Mike Shula stuffing Richard into a locker. IIRC it was the last (or second to last?) drive but there was one 3rd down where the Panthers formation, down, distance SCREAMED screen. Welp, Richard gave them the perfect playcall to run a screen against.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

I think its completely asinine to not think Richard can grow and learn.

I dont understand the logic that here that players specifically and now coaches that are young or raw dont have the potential to improve.

If anything Richard had the hardest job than any DC since 2011.

Seahawks lost pretty much the entire defensive coaching roster in 2015:

DC Quinn
LB Norton
DB Manuel

And Richard moved to DC at a time when the LOB was in complete shambles with holdouts, injuries, inexperience, and Cary Williams.

Yet the team adjusted and still finished #1 in scoring despite everything.

Coming into 2016, there seems to be less distractions (Coaching loss, SB loss, Kam, Bennett, Clark) less learning curves all around as the team returned much of thier depth, and at least filled Mebanes role and Irvins pass-rush role.

Above anything else the defense in whole looks completely healthy, LOB is going to be full force, and Clemons and Browner were signed to help re-establish the physicality and bully identity.

If anything judge Richard after this season, see if he has grown, with a more settled coaching staff, and with a defensive roster that is healthy and focused at his disposal.

Just saying.

 

[Laloosh]

Richard has a much different job than his predecessors. Our cover-3 isn't going to sneak up on anyone anymore. Quinn and Bradley could lean on it, and the good QB's still hadn't come up with a real gameplan for how to beat us. Last year, you saw good teams just waiting for us to get into it. There were games where we had to call predominately cover-2 in the second half, and since we don't practice it a ton, and it puts a bunch more pressure on Chancellor, we didn't execute it all that well. If I had to guess, I think we'll see more man this year, especially if Browner is going to play some LB. We'll still see a lot of base cover-3 against the subpar QB's, but we're going to have to mix it up a lot more against the good ones.

Cover 3 is still impenetrable with a pass rush. At least for Seattle and IMO.

Curious, is the cover-3's success more tied to pass rush than other defenses?

I know we still execute it very well and it is going to be tough for any QB to play against, especially with a pass rush, but there were a bunch of times where you could tell the opposition really liked the play the called, they snapped the ball quickly without having to decipher the defense or change anything, the quarterback hit his back foot and threw the ball. Some of these were on outside comebacks, some were on clear out type routes underneath, some were between the LB's and safeties. Some, which are the ones that a pass rush would completely disrupt, were shot plays where they run a deep guy on the outside knowing our corner has to vacate to run with him, opening up everything underneath him. These are where Kam got exposed a little in some complicated ways, and where Richard got caught a few times trying to do two things at once. A pass rush would completely disrupt plays like those, but I'm more concerned with the 3rd and 5 play where we leave an angle route wide open. If they have a play like that called, and we come out in cover 2 or man, our chances of winning that play go up quite a bit if we execute.

I think K.J. and Bobby could do better at anticipating placement of those slants to the TE coming out of the slot or the little out then in stuff (not sure what you call it but the receiver always seems to be in front of them, leading to a completion). Not sure if they're coached to keep the play in front of them but they could jump some of those and completely blow a lot of the third downs we've given up.

We get beat on a lot of the shallow crossing routes that used to get blown up. Bobby and K.J. covering a receiver doesn't usually end well in that situation.

Kam just didn't seem to have the same instinctive play in 2015 that put him in the right spot to make a play. Wasn't wrapping up at times (trying too hard to blow people up), etc.

I think pass rush is the biggest issue though. We get pressure on the outside but not up the middle. QBs make poorer decisions when they can't step up into the pocket and unfortunately, a lot of our pass rush was mitigated by doing just that.

(imo)

 

[sutz]

I think its completely asinine to not think Richard can grow and learn.

I dont understand the logic that here that players specifically and now coaches that are young or raw dont have the potential to improve.

If anything Richard had the hardest job than any DC since 2011.

Seahawks lost pretty much the entire defensive coaching roster in 2015:

DC Quinn
LB Norton
DB Manuel

And Richard moved to DC at a time when the LOB was in complete shambles with holdouts, injuries, inexperience, and Cary Williams.

Yet the team adjusted and still finished #1 in scoring despite everything.

Coming into 2016, there seems to be less distractions (Coaching loss, SB loss, Kam, Bennett, Clark) less learning curves all around as the team returned much of thier depth, and at least filled Mebanes role and Irvins pass-rush role.

Above anything else the defense in whole looks completely healthy, LOB is going to be full force, and Clemons and Browner were signed to help re-establish the physicality and bully identity.

If anything judge Richard after this season, see if he has grown, with a more settled coaching staff, and with a defensive roster that is healthy and focused at his disposal.

Just saying.

What he said. ^ ^ ^ Although I don't recall reading that many posters saying that Richard 'won't improve' with experience.

 

[vin.couve12]

We didn't run a lot of cover 2 at any point last year. It's mixed in very, very lightly and usually used towards the RZ. I was actually about to crawl out of my skin in that Cinci game where we were continually in cover 3 in the RZ where Cinci kept throwing past the short zone (Chancellor) and between the two deep zones (ET and Carey W) by lining up the TE out bunched with the WR. It was easy and we should have been in cover 2, but we weren't.

And the Cover 3 is not impenetrable in any way. There is no zone coverage that is.

 

[TheRealDTM]

I still think we let the wrong guy go, should have made norton the DC, could have maybe kept richard on as DB coach. Seems/seemed like a slight to pass over the much more tenured and respected coach.

 

[Mojambo]

Too much turmoil to completely judge.

Going to go with Pete Carroll's judgement though.

 

[vin.couve12]

One of Pete's main emphasis and really the main emphasis of the cover 3 coverage in general. You dedicate 3 people to deep zones and leave a lot more space to be covered by 4 people underneath the deep zones.

Conversely, in a cover 2 you only dedicate 2 people to deep zones and have 5 in the shorter zones. Windows are much much tighter in the shorter zones against cover 2. That is, unless you run a cover 2 buc where the MLB can bail to a deeper zone between the 2 deep safeties, which is where one of the weaknesses of a cover 2 is. Reason being is that the safeties are usually backpedaling at around 45 degrees to the sideline in the event that the corner releases the WR on the sideline deep. That said, if the safety is back and out 45 degrees to the sideline you're incline to sneak a player on his inside hip whether that be a TE on a seam or a WR on a post route. Geometry generally dictates that the TE is going to get there sooner, however. But again if you're in the Buc variant the MLB can help that.

What people really need to understand is that the bend but don't break mentality isn't going anywhere. It's been that way and should remain that way.

If you don't, you're gambling....and you'd better damn well be right.

All of this stuff about the TE being this chronic problem is somewhat true, but also kind of a sham. Off the top of my head, 3 TDs that we gave up to TEs last year were due to miscommunication. That's fixable. If you change your approach, especially away from cover 3, you're going to be more susceptible to getting beat deep on a more regular basis.

Our defense is based on forcing teams to be patient and really have to work for it. Nobody wants to dink and dunk down the field. They're like fans in that way...impatient and want the high flying, big bucks, star studded stuff. They want it to be easier. They want to dominate. Yes, we have some trouble with the more veteran QBs who are more than willing to play that game and maybe we might have to be a little bit more imaginative and a small scale with a play here and a play there, but as a whole it's going to stay.

I know it's easier to sick back and blame some players here or a DC there, but that's not the truth. I think we can do a better job of communication and also do a better job of playing situational football and that will "fix" what was yet again the leagues best scoring D for the 4th strait year.

 

[A-Dog]

I think its completely asinine to not think Richard can grow and learn.

I dont understand the logic that here that players specifically and now coaches that are young or raw dont have the potential to improve.

If anything Richard had the hardest job than any DC since 2011.

Seahawks lost pretty much the entire defensive coaching roster in 2015:

DC Quinn
LB Norton
DB Manuel

And Richard moved to DC at a time when the LOB was in complete shambles with holdouts, injuries, inexperience, and Cary Williams.

Yet the team adjusted and still finished #1 in scoring despite everything.

Coming into 2016, there seems to be less distractions (Coaching loss, SB loss, Kam, Bennett, Clark) less learning curves all around as the team returned much of thier depth, and at least filled Mebanes role and Irvins pass-rush role.

Above anything else the defense in whole looks completely healthy, LOB is going to be full force, and Clemons and Browner were signed to help re-establish the physicality and bully identity.

If anything judge Richard after this season, see if he has grown, with a more settled coaching staff, and with a defensive roster that is healthy and focused at his disposal.

Just saying.

That and we lost Chris Richard as the DB coach.

Yet still we led the NFL in scoring defense.

I think he's a talented coach who dealt with a lot of adversity last year, his first as a DC, and I think he's destined for greatness. Someday he'll be a head coach on a Championship-contending team (maybe ours).

 

[Tical21]

One of Pete's main emphasis and really the main emphasis of the cover 3 coverage in general. You dedicate 3 people to deep zones and leave a lot more space to be covered by 4 people underneath the deep zones.

Conversely, in a cover 2 you only dedicate 2 people to deep zones and have 5 in the shorter zones. Windows are much much tighter in the shorter zones against cover 2. That is, unless you run a cover 2 buc where the MLB can bail to a deeper zone between the 2 deep safeties, which is where one of the weaknesses of a cover 2 is. Reason being is that the safeties are usually backpedaling at around 45 degrees to the sideline in the event that the corner releases the WR on the sideline deep. That said, if the safety is back and out 45 degrees to the sideline you're incline to sneak a player on his inside hip whether that be a TE on a seam or a WR on a post route. Geometry generally dictates that the TE is going to get there sooner, however. But again if you're in the Buc variant the MLB can help that.

What people really need to understand is that the bend but don't break mentality isn't going anywhere. It's been that way and should remain that way.

If you don't, you're gambling....and you'd better damn well be right.

All of this stuff about the TE being this chronic problem is somewhat true, but also kind of a sham. Off the top of my head, 3 TDs that we gave up to TEs last year were due to miscommunication. That's fixable. If you change your approach, especially away from cover 3, you're going to be more susceptible to getting beat deep on a more regular basis.

Our defense is based on forcing teams to be patient and really have to work for it. Nobody wants to dink and dunk down the field. They're like fans in that way...impatient and want the high flying, big bucks, star studded stuff. They want it to be easier. They want to dominate. Yes, we have some trouble with the more veteran QBs who are more than willing to play that game and maybe we might have to be a little bit more imaginative and a small scale with a play here and a play there, but as a whole it's going to stay.

I know it's easier to sick back and blame some players here or a DC there, but that's not the truth. I think we can do a better job of communication and also do a better job of playing situational football and that will "fix" what was yet again the leagues best scoring D for the 4th strait year.

Some great points here. In general, teams that don't want to give up the deep pass would run some version of cover-2, or Tampa 2, which would put Wagner in the deep middle. As a general rule, two deep safeties is better at stopping the deep pass than one deep safety would be, plus when you run cover-2, you get press coverage across the board.

The problem we get into when we run cover-2 is that we have the best cover-3 corner in the game, we have the best single high safety in the game, and we have the best in the box safety in the game. When we run cover-2, we aren't taking advantage of Sherman's length, we are negating Earl's range, and we're making Kam play deep coverage. As long as we have this personnel, we're committed to running cover-3. If we only give up the stuff over the middle, we're probably fine as a whole, and hopefully the pass rush gets home to stop the deeper cover-3 beaters. Richard's challenge is to win the chess match and guess when running a cover-2 would stifle the offensive playcall. I'd still like to see a little more man-1, with Earl deep and Kam playing the robber or blitzing.

 

[vin.couve12]

Earl is not a single high. The last time he made a PBU or INT on the sideline that Sherm didn't tap to him was the INT he had in the playoff game against WAS. He is a cover 3 FS and, for the most part, he doesn't have to worry about the sideline. As far as the FS position goes, his job is easier if not different than a cover 2 or actual single high (cover 1) safety. Kam also played deep more last year, whether that be robber or lines up as the FS, than he has any other year. Even before last year he played deep quite a bit and has played it very well. Playing cover 2 for Sherm would also play to a lot of his strengths. He isn't the best athlete out there, but he has basketball length and that could be maximized in that 10 yard area that a cover 2 corner covers.

Cover 1 or man 1 is a real single high type of defense and will either leave you with a spy, lone mid zone, or extra blitzer in the short area. Depends on how you call it. Man coverage usually comes by way of a cover 2 man, 2 man under, or 2 deep man. Cover 1 is a Chip Kelly defense and it requires that your defenders are either better athletes than their opposition or they are that much smarter that they are a step ahead. As Chip found out, it should be used sparingly in the NFL. It isn't college football where there is some great, massive disparity between players and that's something he really needed to learn if he's ever going to be successful in the NFL. The latter version with everyone in man with the exception of the two deep safeties is much safer as far as the deep game goes, but you can still be cut up underneath as the offense can dictate matchups and isolate better offensive players against slower defenders, which we've seen at times in the case of Wright, in particular.

When it comes to man coverage, the defender is in a reactionary state 95% of the time unless he watches enough film that he recognizes the formation the offense is in as it pertains to situational football. In a purely reactional state, the defender must be either that much better of an athlete to negate the timing of a ball arriving as the receiver is turning his head or he has to know it is coming. When we talk about having these better QBs who are patient enough to dink and dunk against a cover 3 that almost makes them, they will also surely recognize man coverage with motion and start calling natural "rub" routes or pick plays for very easy completions.

There isn't an easy answer. Cover 3 will do the job well most of the time. When it doesn't we'll have to mix it up a bit and try to disguise and surprise. Brady, for instance, will kill you if he sees man coverage.

 

[vin.couve12]

I kind of just had a clear thought about what zone coverage really boils down to and you could really equate it to equal mass displacement.

Since you need to have a least 4 and generally hope to generate enough pressure with said 4, you're left with 7 on the back end and it just happens to be an odd number. Even when talking about base defenses, which have nomenclature by that same number of 7, you're still limited to at least 7 on the back end because you still rush 4. Normally anyway...

3 deep
4 short

2 deep
5 short

You could bring in 4 deep, but that's entirely more situational than the other two. With the other two you can try to create as much movement as you can, but personnel usually has some measure in how successful that's going to be. Either way though, you're working with those same numbers in either scenario and it can't be even. You're almost forced to have emphasis.

Then you could get into bringing 5 on a pass rush, but then I'd have to get into zone dogs (blitzes) back from Buddy Ryan and Jim Johnson in the great defenses of the Bears and Eagles in those respective times.

 

[vin.couve12]

I HAVE AN ANSWER!!!!

:thirishdrinkers:

If you had Reggie White, Richard Dent, and Tez inside you could only rush 3 and go 4-4 on the back end or 5-3.



EDIT: Sorry...bit of sarcasm there, but one can also dream.

This post brought to you by Jim Beam and sweet tea.