good write-up explaining the Hawks new philosophy

sheds some light on the cuts that have been announced and potentially those to come. Really nice piece.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/football-brea ... hawn-lynch

interesting quote that might explain the Mrob move...

'...In fact, per Football Outsiders' tracking, 52% of Seattle's league-high 536 rushes in 2012 came from two-back sets. Their rush DVOA from two back sets was a solid 4.6% - fifth best in the NFL. However, their DVOA running from one-back sets was much better - 11.8%, which was 2nd only to San Francisco in the entire NFL. They were the 2nd best running team by DVOA in one-back sets.'

by the sounds of it, our hawks are reshaping not only the way teams are built in the NFL of today, but also the way the game is played on both sides of the ball.
pretty cool.

another snipit...

'...In other words, Seattle was actually much more successful running the football, per DVOA, in one-back sets than they were in two-back sets. Part of this was probably due to the advent of the read-option in the second half of the year, but another part of it was surely due to the fact that you're more or less telling your opponent that you're planning on running the football when you come out in two-back sets, which means teams are geared up to stop you (you don't always run, of course, but that's what teams expect).

So why did the Hawks run half of the time with a lead-blocking fullback? Why did they consistently run into an 8-man box when running with a one-back formation is more likely to give you a 7-man defensive front? Why make it harder on yourself?

To give Russell Wilson one-on-one passing opportunities on the outside. That's why.... '

Stats don't lie... good post and find. I think this also comes with the confidence of having 4 legit targets in an 2TE, 2WR formation that you can pass or throw from, plus strength in a 3 or 4 WR formation - may also explain why they played a lot of Tackle-Eligible in the Raiders game. This is going to be a fun year!

If you go with 2 backs though then the defense expects you to rush more often than not.
1 back they expect you to pass more often than not.

I want to know the difference in passing stats in 1/2 back formations.

That said, I do imagine the results are going to be skewed somewhat by the late introduction of the read option, which is a 1 back formation that was effective in both the pass AND run. That might be part of the reason MRob was considered expendable

and one more...

'...Now, again, obviously Pete Carroll and Tom Cable are not Gibbs. They like running two-back I-formation stuff because it gives your quarteraback the one-on-one on the outside, but they also like the versatility that Mike Rob provides as a receiving option. Davis and I worked on this little research project together, and as he wrote to me while we were putting everything together,

This is another reason why Spencer Ware is interesting to Pete Carroll. He is a better runner than Mike Rob, and he can catch the ball at an even higher level. Mike Rob caught the passes he was supposed to catch just fine (wide open in the flat, sometimes off play action), but Ware can catch a contested ball. Ware also has more wiggle after the catch.

Mike Rob can take it for 7 or 17 yards, but as we saw with against Denver, Ware can take the catch for 17 or 27 yards.

Can Ware block like Mike Rob? No, not at this point, but if he can pick up this skill by 2014, the Seahawks can have a triple threat type player at a position that is dying and only sees the field 31% of the time (and that is in the runningest offense in the NFL).
We haven't even seen what the Hawks plan to do in Pistol or split-back shotgun sets. This is another place that Ware can find a niche, assuming he makes the team. Robert Turbin too can probably play this role as well, because he's another great receiving running back...'

i think this one pretty much sums up the mrob move. Loved the guy, but this team has a plan... a really good plan. thing is, as has been evidenced by the many, initially, head scratching moves pete and john have made in the last few years, the stuff we're doing is so innovative, its difficult for most fans to understand what they're doing or thinking.

I trust them. Dont aways get it ( CIP, the mrob announcement), but i trust them. I feel really fortunate we've got these guys running the organization.

keasley45":14a7eupi said:

sheds some light on the cuts that have been announced and potentially those to come. Really nice piece.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/football-brea ... hawn-lynch

interesting quote that might explain the Mrob move...

'...In fact, per Football Outsiders' tracking, 52% of Seattle's league-high 536 rushes in 2012 came from two-back sets. Their rush DVOA from two back sets was a solid 4.6% - fifth best in the NFL. However, their DVOA running from one-back sets was much better - 11.8%, which was 2nd only to San Francisco in the entire NFL. They were the 2nd best running team by DVOA in one-back sets.'

by the sounds of it, our hawks are reshaping not only the way teams are built in the NFL of today, but also the way the game is played on both sides of the ball.
pretty cool.

Click to expand...

I said this in the Mike Rob thread and people got upset. Just sayin. :17:

if we win at least 1 SB Pete Carrol is going to go from butt of everyone's joke to one of the most respected coaches in the league in the last few decades instantly.

Hawknballs":1yauc97e said:

if we win at least 1 SB Pete Carrol is going to go from butt of everyone's joke to one of the most respected coaches in the league in the last few decades instantly.

Click to expand...

I'd agree with that, but i dont even know that a SB is necessary. The 'compete' mantra is already viral throughout the league, mass roster turnover combined with building through the draft is becoming the 'new way' to construct a team that can win over the long haul, and now everybody wants big corners. the dude (+ John) is already changing the game.

One more tidbit from the article that i loved. Its followed by a gif of the CMic TD run at GB a few weeks back:

Davis writes:

The Fullback has to be a threat to catch the ball and run the ball, he can't be a blocker only, or it tips off the defense to what is coming. Luke Willson as a fullback at times is very intriguing. He has the speed to threaten the seam, and when he does, the safeties have to respect it. With focus on Willson, this should leave the outside WR one on one for "redline" type catches. (As seen above)

If you take Luke Willson, with 4.5 speed, and also line him up at times effectively as a fullback - he helps create explosive plays in another way, as the defense is not geared up to stop the run.
Willson reminds me of James Casey in some ways. Casey is an athletic H-back type that had been used in Houston the last couple years as a fullback/tight end hybrid, and he emerged as a legit threat in that role. Importantly though, he wasn't a true lead blocker, but was still very effective in the Texans' zone blocking scheme.

Davis expounds:

Mike Holmgren liked the I-formation in a 3 WR set (20 personnel - two backs, no tight ends). Of course, he had Mack Strong as his fullback.

The Seahawks' twist on this formation is using a TE as a fullback in their 11 personnel (one back, one tight end). This is essentially '20' personnel as the TE becomes a FB.

The defense is usually in nickel when they see three receivers head into the huddle, so they are not geared up to stop the run, especially when the TE moves to play FB. (The cool thing is that the TE could also line up on the LOS and run a route.)

This could be scary for a defense, and moving the TE behind the LOS in the I-formation means that no "strong side" is declared, so the defense may be a man short on the playside - meaning the defense needs a defender to shed the block or a backside defender needs to be awesome in pursuit across trash.

Willson as hybrid TE/FB is an interesting thought. USC made extensive use of FB for both blocking and receiving (plus the occasional FB run). This was particularly true with Stanley Havili who was a RB converted to FB because Pete liked his athleticism. Willson obviously is very athletic as well.

I can also see Pete wanting to use Ware as more of a Havili type player.

Time will tell.

I agree, sc85sis. I think one of the most exciting things I saw in preseason was the emergence of Luke Willson as not just a receiving option, but a capable blocker as well. Dare I say Pete 'n John may have found us yet another fifth round steal?

Good find, good topic, good posts. Nice insights.

Thanks. The article was probably the best and most informative i've read on the hawks offensive and defensive approach in a long time. Really explains (in my opinion) the MRob move. There's a lot of speculation that his release was primarily due to illness. Maybe, bit it really seems as though it has more, if not everything to do with scheme and philosophy... being less predictable, keeping defenses off balance and getting more versatility out of the position.
Bitter sweet for sure...

SmokinHawk":3883pxed said:

I agree, sc85sis. I think one of the most exciting things I saw in preseason was the emergence of Luke Willson as not just a receiving option, but a capable blocker as well. Dare I say Pete 'n John may have found us yet another fifth round steal?

Click to expand...

Bingo. I think in the end he may even be more valuable (and a better fit) than Miller. If the TE/HB/FB hybrid (20,21 / 11 personnel 'situational' packages) work the way they are planning, we are going to be dangerous.

A hybrid TE/FB and the headaches this going to cause Defenses= MIND BLOWIN'!

Lynch would have hit 1900+ yards behind SF's O-line, IMO.