Simms: Packers showed how to keep Wilson in the pocket

Northhawk · Jan 24, 2015

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.

Seafan · Jan 24, 2015

Bevell contained the running game in the first half. The Hawks ran at will.

seahawks08 · Jan 24, 2015

I dont know for sure, but the game plan was to make the throws and keep the receivers hot. They must have seen something on tape that made them game plan throwing the ball and running. However every throw ended up being an interception. I think they don't want RW to be exhausted and not carry the game into the 4th quarter. I was wondering the same thing about scrambling, either it puts strain on WRs and Oline too, or we had critical people missing from the line that they focused on quick throws.

Sarlacc83 · Jan 24, 2015

Seafan":1hu4gfwl said:
Bevell contained the running game in the first half. The Hawks ran at will.

22 plays.

Lynch had 8 rushes for 38 yards. Or a a little ovwr 4.5 ypc.

1 Turbin rush for 3 yards. 1 Lockette end-around for 4 yards.

Yeah. "At Will". "Fire Bevell" Nothing to do with bad weather and poor throws/drops by Wilson and his receivers.

Reaneypark · Jan 24, 2015

I think after the Matthew's cheap shot, they didn't want to get Wilson out of the pocket until there was no other option. I also think Phil Simms is full of crap. The Packers didn't show anything other than how to intercept bad throws and balls that bounce off receivers' hands.

theincrediblesok · Jan 24, 2015

I hope they do try to use the same tactics, cause this time we will run more in the first half unleashing the read option right out of the gates.

theENGLISHseahawk · Jan 24, 2015

This Bevell nonsense has to stop.

For starters -- there isn't a coach in the NFL who would keep going to the run against a stacked box. Green Bay sold out to stop Lynch and pressure Wilson, allowing countless favorable coverage looks and 1v1's. It was up to Wilson to make quick precise reads and get the ball out, and the receivers to make a play. A few conversions early on and Green Bay HAS to adjust, has to drop a few extra bodies into coverage opening up the run. Seattle's passing game failed to capitalize and the Green Bay gamble worked. This is nothing to do with Bevell. It's all about execution.

As for Simms' view -- containing Wilson is easier said than done. 16 opponents in the regular season and two in the post season tried to contain him. Some succeeded, others failed badly. The most mobile quarterback New England faced in 2014 was Ryan Tannehill -- who doesn't run at all. So it's hard to tell how good they'll be working against the read-option. Against Indy they put Hightower on Luck as a spy. The NFL Network put some all-22 to show this and I just kept thinking -- if Wilson breaks contain and gets a 1v1 with Hightower he's just going to run past him every time for a first down.

Jamie Collins is going to be the key IMO. Can he help set edge and play Wilson across the field? Can he do that role and still move around and line up all over the place like usual? There isn't a single other player that worries me on that D-line. And while it's a big name group in the secondary, the Seahawks spread it around and not having a #1 receiver might actually be a benefit -- it'll be easier to avoid Revis (who jumps all over the field too, covering different guys).

As long as they avoid turnovers Seattle should be able to score points against this DEF. The key, no surprises, will be limiting Brady at that offense. New England had something like 8-9 blow outs in 2014. They are very difficult to stop and slow down. And unlike Denver they mix things up -- you don't know what you're going to get. If Seattle can keep it close until half time they'll have a fantastic shot. That's the big thing -- get to HT, adjust to what NE's game plan is and dominate the second half. And avoid turnovers.

That was more than I expected to write. :thirishdrinkers:

onanygivensunday · Jan 24, 2015

I believe that Bevell held back on running the RO until late in the game when GB's defense was more wore down, and also because it gave GB little time left in the game to adjust to it.

Sgt. Largent · Jan 24, 2015

theENGLISHseahawk":1l297b83 said:
This Bevell nonsense has to stop.

For starters -- there isn't a coach in the NFL who would keep going to the run against a stacked box. Green Bay sold out to stop Lynch and pressure Wilson, allowing countless favorable coverage looks and 1v1's. It was up to Wilson to make quick precise reads and get the ball out, and the receivers to make a play. A few conversions early on and Green Bay HAS to adjust, has to drop a few extra bodies into coverage opening up the run. Seattle's passing game failed to capitalize and the Green Bay gamble worked. This is nothing to do with Bevell. It's all about execution.

As for Simms' view -- containing Wilson is easier said than done. 16 opponents in the regular season and two in the post season tried to contain him. Some succeeded, others failed badly. The most mobile quarterback New England faced in 2014 was Ryan Tannehill -- who doesn't run at all. So it's hard to tell how good they'll be working against the read-option. Against Indy they put Hightower on Luck as a spy. The NFL Network put some all-22 to show this and I just kept thinking -- if Wilson breaks contain and gets a 1v1 with Hightower he's just going to run past him every time for a first down.

Jamie Collins is going to be the key IMO. Can he help set edge and play Wilson across the field? Can he do that role and still move around and line up all over the place like usual? There isn't a single other player that worries me on that D-line. And while it's a big name group in the secondary, the Seahawks spread it around and not having a #1 receiver might actually be a benefit -- it'll be easier to avoid Revis (who jumps all over the field too, covering different guys).

As long as they avoid turnovers Seattle should be able to score points against this DEF. The key, no surprises, will be limiting Brady at that offense. New England had something like 8-9 blow outs in 2014. They are very difficult to stop and slow down. And unlike Denver they mix things up -- you don't know what you're going to get. If Seattle can keep it close until half time they'll have a fantastic shot. That's the big thing -- get to HT, adjust to what NE's game plan is and dominate the second half. And avoid turnovers.

That was more than I expected to write. :thirishdrinkers:

What he said.

lukerguy · Jan 24, 2015

Question: How many read options were run prior to the big come back with 4 minutes left. How many were run after and in OT?

MontanaHawk05 · Jan 24, 2015

Our NFC West opponents have been showing how to contain Wilson for years. Rams especially, they have the speed, discipline and talent at DE and LB to pull it off. The scheme has never been a problem. It's the ability that's the question.

BocciHawk · Jan 24, 2015

onanygivensunday":3gxmqj1x said:
I believe that Bevell held back on running the RO until late in the game when GB's defense was more wore down, and also because it gave GB little time left in the game to adjust to it.

I think this is true and I think they are acutely aware of how big of a drop off there is from RW to TJack i.e. if you can win the game without exposing RW to big hits, that is the way you play. It's no coincidence that most games, if RW runs a lot, it's in the 4th quarter.

MizzouHawkGal · Jan 24, 2015

Green Bay contained him by having nearly every pass Wilson threw being intercepted or dropped. Do you really think Wilson is going to throw four interceptions in one game in the near future again?

Sgt. Largent · Jan 24, 2015

lukerguy":1btwrv0i said:
Question: How many read options were run prior to the big come back with 4 minutes left. How many were run after and in OT?

It's not a "hey why didn't we run more RO in the first 3 quarters?" question.

In order for the RO to work, you have to get the safeties and outside LB's out of the box. For 3 quarters we weren't making the passing plays to open up the RO and run game. That's what has to happen, you have to complete those quick slants, post routes and longer crossing routes to back the safeties up out of the box.

Like other teams, the Packers sold out to stop the RO and run game by slow rushing the ends and playing cover zero (safeties in the box).

So will NE do the same? Absolutely, and it's up to our WR's, TE's and RB's to make some big plays downfield to loosen up that.

But this is nothing new, it's how EVERY team has schemed the Hawks since Russell became the QB. IMO if we can be successful loosening up superior front sevens like the Rams, Cards, Niners, Packers and Panthers.......then we can certainly do it against an average front seven like NE.

v1rotv2 · Jan 24, 2015

For all they tried to do Green Bay still lost the game even after we turned the ball over 5 times. Their defensive game plan did not work out well. Close but no cigar. Denver tried stacking the box and containing RW but we see how that worked out. RW is a big proponent of finding away to win. Let the Pats do what they will and let's see how it turns out for them. If they succeed good for them. If I remember correctly the last 2 passes in the Green Bay game was thrown from the pocket.

lukerguy · Jan 24, 2015

Sgt. Largent":1svcbf6k said:
lukerguy":1svcbf6k said:

Question: How many read options were run prior to the big come back with 4 minutes left. How many were run after and in OT?

Click to expand...

It's not a "hey why didn't we run more RO in the first 3 quarters?" question.

In order for the RO to work, you have to get the safeties and outside LB's out of the box. For 3 quarters we weren't making the passing plays to open up the RO and run game. That's what has to happen, you have to complete those quick slants, post routes and longer crossing routes to back the safeties up out of the box.

Like other teams, the Packers sold out to stop the RO and run game by slow rushing the ends and playing cover zero (safeties in the box).

So will NE do the same? Absolutely, and it's up to our WR's, TE's and RB's to make some big plays downfield to loosen up that.

But this is nothing new, it's how EVERY team has schemed the Hawks since Russell became the QB. IMO if we can be successful loosening up superior front sevens like the Rams, Cards, Niners, Packers and Panthers.......then we can certainly do it against an average front seven like NE.

I disagree. GB didn't start playing Zero coverage until the running game and RO started clicking. HaHa CD was in center field for a lot of the game until RW and Lynch started shredding them at the end.

Bobblehead · Jan 24, 2015

Northhawk":20iu1cpk said:
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.

It appears to me, that he's done this all year, he just doesn't like to run in the 1st half unless it's necessary and won't run until he thinks the games in jeopardy.

I've been keeping a casual lookout for this, because i' notice some interesting correlation when this happens. When he doesn't run, the defense basically stacks all 8 to stop Lynch. They have no regard for our receivers and their whole emphases is on stopping Lynch. You ever notice that Lynch doesn't ever get going until the 2nd half?

Funny thing happens when Russell makes a few deliberate runs.. all of a sudden the defense, which until that point has been so aggressive in containing Lynch now has to pause to check Wilson, giving Lynch some holes. Another, factor is the DB's now have to make a decision, do they continue to cover, risking the receivers to separate, or do they break of to help contain Wilson's outside sweeps?

In the end, I just think Wilson Running gives the offense a whole new element for the D to think about.
Frankly I wish he would just rush a few times earlier to keep the defense honest.

Just an observation.

SoCalSeahawk · Jan 24, 2015

Northhawk":g7bmp2je said:
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.

The Packer's secret? Line up Julius Peppers over a guy making his first start ever at RT. I mean really, truly genius! Who would have ever thought of that? I'm not sure if it was Peppers every time, but the right side of the O-line was getting worked in the first half. It seemed like Bailey settled in after the initial burst of the game though.

pehawk · Jan 24, 2015

Heaven forbid we criticize Bevell. He's above reproach. The Hawks route concepts and designs are top shelf. He's quick to adjust and always has an answers for the blitz.

Bevell is average. The best part of Bevell is Cable's run concepts. The passing attack hasn't progressed in his time here. He's still prone to odd decisions that defy common sense. He's an incredibly slow starter, who's slow starts get masked by an elite defense.

The pavlovian response to any criticism to him is ridiculous. He's average. X and O analysts routinely call the passing game a high school offense. And average is okay on this team, it truly is.

What's amazing all year theres been good discussions, after every game, talking in very specific terms, and none of the Bevell defenders have ever participated in those threads. None of them participated in a thread by me, giving him props, for the blitz beaters installed in Arizona game. None of the defenders participated in any of those weekly threads, just the threads where they can safely hide behind vague catch phrases.

No one is saying he sucks. He's Andy Dalton.

MizzouHawkGal · Jan 24, 2015

In the end, I just think Wilson Running gives the offense a whole new element for the D to think about.
Frankly I wish he would just rush a few times earlier to keep the defense honest.

Logically that makes sense but I don't think they do it because Wilson really doesn't want to run anymore then he has to and he knows that the game is always decided in the 4th quarter unless for some reason we're down by 20+ points (Atlanta). So I think he's thinking why run unless absolutely necessary because of the above and the fact that he trusts that his teammates are capable of making a play, it's pretty obvious he trusts Kearse given he threw to him five times with four of them being intercepted and the last one being the money play.

Basically is it wrong to assume that if you're an NFL quarterback that your wide receivers are capable of doing their damned jobs and catching a ball now and again? Given if they do then Wilson doesn't need to be running like a running back. Scramble around? Sure, but designed running ten times a game? No.

Simms: Packers showed how to keep Wilson in the pocket

Member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads