Minimal protection on purpose for RW?

Interesting article on Eagles official webpage:

http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/n...e-Champs/a25377c4-a5f9-43ae-90ce-689651994787.

They seem to think we are going 5 man protection heavy (w/ or w/o empty set) to better utilize read-option threat and highlight RW's running/scrambling ability. And here, I thought Bevell was being hare-brained on offense.

How can we run a read option from an empty backfield :?:

sutz":275zqn30 said:

How can we run a read option from an empty backfield :?:

Click to expand...

Last I checked, that's a physical impossibility. Wilson also hasn't been real successful scrambling for yards out of the empty set. Maybe that has something to do with the defenders in his face after he completes his drop back. Maybe, I don't know.

I think he likes us.

But he whiffed on a few points. He called Wright our MLB, when he plays mostly outside when Bobby is healthy.

I'm not sure where he got the "Seahawks are known for their zone defense" line. I thought we showcased the press coverage with single high safety myself. With our corners, why would be primarily zone?

Overall a good read, though. I guess I never though much about why they put Russ in empty backfield so much. I know I don't tend to like it, though this guy makes some good points about it.

I mentioned a similar idea in one of Scottemojo's threads recently. That is, I believe certain of Seattle's plays/route concepts are designed and called with the expectation that Russell can make at least one free rusher miss.

For example, in the Arizona game, some wondered why we had our receivers run three deep verticals when the Cardinals were showing blitz (as opposed to having at least one guy run HOT in front of him). I believed it was because if Russell dodges the free rusher in that situation, then he either has acres of green by running through the trips side or may be able to hit one of his three vertical targets deep on a scramble throw.

The article you posted confirms this for me. It is a boom or bust approach, but the rewards are potentially great. Many of Russell's most explosive passes/runs have come out of empty formations after beating a rusher in a one-on-one. I don't think it's a coincidence that he often finds himself with room to run or multiple deep targets in these situations. Contrary to popular belief, I think this offense is actually schemed carefully to exploit his strengths.

That's a logical theory, DavidSeven. And this staff does think in unconventional ways like that, for sure. It certainly ain't crazy.

pehawk":2s4a1g8r said:

That's a logical theory, DavidSeven. And this staff does think in unconventional ways like that, for sure. It certainly ain't crazy.

Click to expand...

Welcome to #TeamSarlacc

Its open bar here btw.

Of course they go 5 man protection to maximize Russell's ability to run OR throw. They want to get teams into nickel or dime (with empty). Those formations mean there will not be 8, or even 7, in the box. Run on a 6 man front? yes please.

However, show me an empty set where the goal was for Russ to run. There isn't one. He may run from one, but only if protection breaks down. It feels like 3/4 of our empty sets are a cluster **** anyway. They are blitz magnets.

I add this; Lynch has been far better running with 5 man fronts than heavy sets. He benefits greatly from the extra space. There are down and distance where it makes no sense, but by and large he has run better when the offense is 4 wide than when he has tight ends off tackle and fullbacks. For the most part Lynch intimidates the shit out of secondary players, it only makes sense to get a bunch of them on the field, lined up far form the line of scrimmage to maximize Lynch.

It's for the whole offense, not for Russell.

I thought the article was pretty well written.

I do recall a 3rd and long in the Arizona game where Seattle went five-wide; Russell doesn't even look at his receivers before running up the gut for about 15 yards and converting the 1st. I don't know if run was the first read, but they did spread the D out and Russell took it right away without pressure. Might be that he just saw the opening right away and took it.

But yeah, I don't think five-man protections or empties are designed to make him run. More likely, they just semi-rely on his ability to either run (to rush) or scramble (to throw) and are called to optimize that ability. As the article points out, it merely leaves Russell responsible for extra rushers and creates more opps for explosives (either pass or run) downfield if he escapes.

Our biggest plays have come out of empty and/or five-man protections due to Wilson's allusive ability: 60-yard bomb to Kearse, 60-yard toss-and-run to Moeaki, 50 yard rush by Wilson vs. St. Louis, etc. Of course, they are responsible for their share of negative plays as well.

What drives me nuts is when we decide to go empty on 3rd and 3 or 4. It seems like we do this a lot, which is weird. We're a run heavy team and yet we decide quite often to pass on 3rd and short, you would think we'd either run or play action from an I-formation.

sutz":3f6724el said:

I'm not sure where he got the "Seahawks are known for their zone defense" line. I thought we showcased the press coverage with single high safety myself. With our corners, why would be primarily zone?

Click to expand...

Technically we employ a lot of cover 3 press coverage. Our corners use a press and bail technique where they press at the line and then fall back to a deep zone along the sidelines.

We utilize some man coverage, but more often than not we are cover three.

Going empty backfield puts a lot of pressure on their defense. With 5 eligible receivers at nor near the LOS, they are hard pressed to cover all of them and with Russell in the gun, he can see quite quickly where and when the pressure is going to get to him and move away from it. It also spreads things out and gives Russell some potential running alleys. It's a good formation for a 3rd and less than 10.

The guy obviously knows his football.

I found it interesting that many here call Bruce Irvin a bust, and he watches the tape and calls him a "moveable chess piece", "impossible to account for" and "one of the most dynamic edge defenders" in the game.

Hawks46":127t62ce said:

The guy obviously knows his football.

I found it interesting that many here call Bruce Irvin a bust, and he watches the tape and calls him a "moveable chess piece", "impossible to account for" and "one of the most dynamic edge defenders" in the game.

Click to expand...

This^^^ I think it's mostly people looking at what round he was drafted in weighed against how long it took to fully round out his game.
I can honestly say the turnaround has been night and day. He's went from a one-trick pony to one of the most veratile, multi-skilled players on the team. What has blown me away lately is how he's been against the run. I thought that would always be his weakness. He has absolutely beasted against RBs lately. Guess the snaps at LB have really helped to advance that part of his game.