Why is it so easy to complete short passes against us?

1st string, 2nd string, 3rd string - it doesn't matter.
Thoughts?

Because our Defense is designed to never give up the big play.

I've never been an Xs & Os guy.

My uneducated guess is, it's really hard to defend everything, and that's one area that we concede to a point.

Easily could be WAY OFF but it seems reasonable to me.

I'd be curious to see the stats, I wonder if we are as bad in that area as it appears at times.

Also, they did throw a bit more man out there. I think it's that there's enough tape on the Seahawks at this point to compensate for the personnel we have. We're still good but the talent alone can't carry us.

Trenchbroom":3eqhwm3s said:

Because our Defense is designed to never give up the big play.

Click to expand...

At it's core this is absolutely correct.

Basis4day":1boz3b7k said:

Trenchbroom":1boz3b7k said:

Because our Defense is designed to never give up the big play.

Click to expand...

At it's core this is absolutely correct.

Click to expand...

But we're trying a vastly different method to reach the goal under Kris Richard. We used to play Man-Cover 3 that used tight press to kill the short pass and give the pass rush time to reach the QB. Now we're going back to the reverse with soft zone, trying to pressure the QB into panic throws. Problem is, we don't have the horses on the DL to do it.

I was listening to Dave Wyman on the post game show talk about how this is the same defense he ran in his time under Tom Catlain...Basically said you will see those 5 yard gains, quick slants, marginal gains aka "Dink and Dunk" but they will punish you for it and basically keep out the big plays and high scoring.

Aros":374ixs57 said:

I was listening to Dave Wyman on the post game show talk about how this is the same defense he ran in his time under Tom Catlain...Basically said you will see those 5 yard gains, quick slants, marginal gains aka "Dink and Dunk" but they will punish you for it and basically keep out the big plays and high scoring.

Click to expand...

Problem is, the definition of an elite QB is the ability to handle precisely what this defense demands you do - dink and dunk. Too many QBs did exactly that to us last year. Under Quinn and Bradley, we just sacked them to death.

I will say that Pete and Bevell contributed to last year's losses by killing drives with the play-calling and leaving that defense out on the field more. But I still hold the style responsible partially.

Aros":ymkn0sfr said:

I was listening to Dave Wyman on the post game show talk about how this is the same defense he ran in his time under Tom Catlain...Basically said you will see those 5 yard gains, quick slants, marginal gains aka "Dink and Dunk" but they will punish you for it and basically keep out the big plays and high scoring.

Click to expand...

And many teams aren't equipped to do this well. I'm not saying that some of our wins are unearned but there are certainly games where how we play defense is beyond anything the opposing offense can overcome. See Bears Punt Fiasco 2015

MontanaHawk05":q709vnny said:

Basis4day":q709vnny said:

Trenchbroom":q709vnny said:

Because our Defense is designed to never give up the big play.

Click to expand...

At it's core this is absolutely correct.

Click to expand...

But we're trying a vastly different method to reach the goal under Kris Richard. We used to play Man-Cover 3 that used tight press to kill the short pass and give the pass rush time to reach the QB. Now we're going back to the reverse with soft zone, trying to pressure the QB into panic throws. Problem is, we don't have the horses on the DL to do it.

Click to expand...

How did the Kris Richard coordinated defense fair is scoring D last year?

Basis4day":16jexuyt said:

MontanaHawk05":16jexuyt said:

Basis4day":16jexuyt said:

Trenchbroom":16jexuyt said:

Because our Defense is designed to never give up the big play.

Click to expand...

At it's core this is absolutely correct.

Click to expand...

But we're trying a vastly different method to reach the goal under Kris Richard. We used to play Man-Cover 3 that used tight press to kill the short pass and give the pass rush time to reach the QB. Now we're going back to the reverse with soft zone, trying to pressure the QB into panic throws. Problem is, we don't have the horses on the DL to do it.

Click to expand...

How did the Kris Richard coordinated defense fair is scoring D last year?

Click to expand...

10-6.

MontanaHawk05":2v0d9dse said:

Basis4day":2v0d9dse said:

MontanaHawk05":2v0d9dse said:

But we're trying a vastly different method to reach the goal under Kris Richard. We used to play Man-Cover 3 that used tight press to kill the short pass and give the pass rush time to reach the QB. Now we're going back to the reverse with soft zone, trying to pressure the QB into panic throws. Problem is, we don't have the horses on the DL to do it.

Click to expand...

How did the Kris Richard coordinated defense fair is scoring D last year?

Click to expand...

10-6.

Click to expand...

:lol: For real though, situationally they sucked but overall were very good. I don't believe that the personnel has dropped off a cliff but there are differences both in coaching and personnel that are tangible.

mrt144":3m07e4li said:

MontanaHawk05":3m07e4li said:

Basis4day":3m07e4li said:

MontanaHawk05":3m07e4li said:

But we're trying a vastly different method to reach the goal under Kris Richard. We used to play Man-Cover 3 that used tight press to kill the short pass and give the pass rush time to reach the QB. Now we're going back to the reverse with soft zone, trying to pressure the QB into panic throws. Problem is, we don't have the horses on the DL to do it.

Click to expand...

How did the Kris Richard coordinated defense fair is scoring D last year?

Click to expand...

10-6.

Click to expand...

:lol: For real though, situationally they sucked but overall were very good. I don't believe that the personnel has dropped off a cliff but there are differences both in coaching and personnel that are tangible.

Click to expand...

How can a defense that finishes 1st in scoring defense for the 4th year in a row only be described as very good and situationally sucking?

The 2013 D was one of the all time greats. Even they gave up big plays on occasion. Hell, they were down by 20 points against the Bucs at home.

Basis4day":1nu88fjq said:

mrt144":1nu88fjq said:

:lol: For real though, situationally they sucked but overall were very good. I don't believe that the personnel has dropped off a cliff but there are differences both in coaching and personnel that are tangible.

Click to expand...

How can a defense that finishes 1st in scoring defense for the 4th year in a row only be described as very good and situationally sucking?

The 2013 D was one of the all time greats. Even they gave up big plays on occasion. Hell, they were down by 20 points against the Bucs at home.

Click to expand...

Because I saw two better defense last year in both Carolina and Denver ergo they were very good, but that Cincinnati game...they screwed the pooch.

Because its pretty hard to get big plays against this defense downfield with guys like sherman and ET back there. So teams are going to try and attack with the short pass. Thats the best option, throwing short passes and hoping the recievers can get some yards after catch. Kam and the linebackers need to start punishing them more when they catch those underneath routes.

Richard is a fan of softer zones.

Quinn was a fan of pressure and man defense.

Every time we're getting beat by an 8 yard pass right off the bat, the defense was in zone. Hell, Shead had his head turned the wrong way on an early pass, even though he was right with the WR. I think he was looking for safety help, or when to pass off the receiver.

How can a defense that finishes 1st in scoring defense for the 4th year in a row only be described as very good and situationally sucking?



The NFL is designed for the offense to win. Our defense had its struggles last year, but thats because thats what happens in the nfl. Nobody shuts teams out consistantly.

Bet you anything you want that the "fans" that say our D sucked last year just started watching football in 2013. No perspective.

gowazzu02":168cbr5g said:

How can a defense that finishes 1st in scoring defense for the 4th year in a row only be described as very good and situationally sucking?



Because some "fans" are irrational "morons" sometimes.

The NFL is designed for the offense to win. Our defense had its struggles last year, but thats because thats what happens in the nfl. Nobody shuts teams out consistantly.

Bet you anything you want that the "fans" that say our D sucked last year just started watching football in 2013. No perspective.

Click to expand...

Situationally struggling does not = sucking. When you lose 5? games last year with 4th quarter leads, I think situational analysis is perfectly valid.

..Or you could call people irrational and morons and claim with great hyperbole that the claim is "sucked entirely" and that they must be less football educated newbs.

1st in scoring defense could mean that less competent teams got dismantled and completely shut down, while the smaller sample size competent offenses could have had more success against us, enough so that we took some pretty tough close losses last year. Well how bout that, that's exactly what transpired.

One might even argue that the less knowledgeable fan is the one using our "ranking" from one single stat to form an opinion that only morons, and irrational ones at that, would question.

:141847_bnono:

Sgt Largent":24pobsl3 said:

gowazzu02":24pobsl3 said:

How can a defense that finishes 1st in scoring defense for the 4th year in a row only be described as very good and situationally sucking?



Because some "fans" are irrational "morons" sometimes.

The NFL is designed for the offense to win. Our defense had its struggles last year, but thats because thats what happens in the nfl. Nobody shuts teams out consistantly.

Bet you anything you want that the "fans" that say our D sucked last year just started watching football in 2013. No perspective.

Click to expand...

Situationally struggling does not = sucking. When you lose 5? games last year with 4th quarter leads, I think situational analysis is perfectly valid.

..Or you could call people irrational and morons and claim with great hyperbole that the claim is "sucked entirely" and that they must be less football educated newbs.

1st in scoring defense could mean that less competent teams got dismantled and completely shut down, while the smaller sample size competent offenses could have had more success against us, enough so that we took some pretty tough close losses last year. Well how bout that, that's exactly what transpired.

One might even argue that the less knowledgeable fan is the one using our "ranking" from one single stat to form an opinion that only morons, and irrational ones at that, would question.

:141847_bnono:

Click to expand...

Again, we beat some teams like the Bears with their Clausen led team mercilessly but is that a reflection of how good we are or how incompetent they are? Little A Little B. But it's inarguable that there was at least one game where they couldn't get a stop to save their lives when it was all they had to do. Very good defenses are not infallible defenses. I don't expect them to be, but to characterize the Seahawks D as the best and thus undeserving of scrutiny...

Well that's boring.

mrt144":8d7b3vyr said:

Sgt Largent":8d7b3vyr said:

gowazzu02":8d7b3vyr said:

How can a defense that finishes 1st in scoring defense for the 4th year in a row only be described as very good and situationally sucking?



Because some "fans" are irrational "morons" sometimes.

The NFL is designed for the offense to win. Our defense had its struggles last year, but thats because thats what happens in the nfl. Nobody shuts teams out consistantly.

Bet you anything you want that the "fans" that say our D sucked last year just started watching football in 2013. No perspective.

Click to expand...

Situationally struggling does not = sucking. When you lose 5? games last year with 4th quarter leads, I think situational analysis is perfectly valid.

..Or you could call people irrational and morons and claim with great hyperbole that the claim is "sucked entirely" and that they must be less football educated newbs.

1st in scoring defense could mean that less competent teams got dismantled and completely shut down, while the smaller sample size competent offenses could have had more success against us, enough so that we took some pretty tough close losses last year. Well how bout that, that's exactly what transpired.

One might even argue that the less knowledgeable fan is the one using our "ranking" from one single stat to form an opinion that only morons, and irrational ones at that, would question.

:141847_bnono:

Click to expand...

Again, we beat some teams like the Bears with their Clausen led team mercilessly but is that a reflection of how good we are or how incompetent they are? Little A Little B. But it's inarguable that there was at least one game where they couldn't get a stop to save their lives when it was all they had to do. Very good defenses are not infallible defenses. I don't expect them to be, but to characterize the Seahawks D as the best and thus undeserving of scrutiny...

Well that's boring.

Click to expand...

Agree that the stats can be skewed by disparate outcomes and wondering how a D that gives up the lowest pts can look so bad at times is not entirely unreasonable. After all, lowest pts is only an average amount of pts. There are good points on both sides of this discussion but to try and demean someone and call them a moron is not acceptable.

I try to look at these types of issues globally, i.e. to look at it in its entirety and determine what other factors may have played a role? I seem to remember an offense that wasn't doing anything to aid the D's cause last year in those comebacks. Then, there are areas of confusion, particularly in those seam routes that are systematically designed to create indecision over whose area of responsibility it is. Also, playing defense is difficult and defenses can be worn down faster than offenses because you are reacting rather than executing.

Lastly, a good example of how our defense works can be rationalized by using the '14 NFC championship game. After we miraculously tied the game after an onside kick and were again very fortunate to get the two-point conversion we were able to send the game into overtime. We were again very fortunate to win the coin toss and put ourselves in position to win the game on a deep downfield pass to Kearse. On that play Green Bay chose to play a press defense and left the deep middle of field unprotected. RW had seen that before and excitedly told Bevell that we were going to win the game on a deep pass down the middle. Sure enough, Kearse got man coverage and the rest is history.

The point of GB playing that coverage is, what if they had employed a more conservative defense that provided opportunities for mistakes that may have placed us in a position to go for a FG? In that instance they could have had an opportunity to win the game on the next possession. It's a little bit of an oversimplification but I think you get my drift, much like a poker player, you are playing the percentages