FieldGulls: interesting article, mostly not good

[burrrton]

http://www.fieldgulls.com/football-brea ... eff-fisher

It's a fairly critical piece of Wilson and our offense (although I'm not all the way through it yet), but what I found most interesting was this:

Even with all the talk of STL's domination:

1. RW still threw for ~250 yards
2. We had ~350 yards of offense
3. We scored 31 points (which were not all due to the offense, to be fair)
4. The game was in doubt until a 4th-and-1 stop in OT

None of those are eye popping, but they hardly point to the game being a laugher (which I thought the article bordered on implying).

The optimist in me sees this as reason for, well, optimism- we appeared to be outplayed most of the day, and we still ended up with roughly identical production and forced them to beat us in an overtime squeaker.

Any small victory in defeat and all that, but still.

[mykc14]

Yeah, have to agree with a lot of what he says. I don't think it was that harsh on Wilson. He basically says often times when Wilson has a check down or somebody open short, early, and feels like he has some time in the pocket he will look downfield instead of taking that easy quick pass. This has led to a lot of big plays. The problem on Sunday was that the Rams played off that tendency leaving goes open and playing a 5 under zone (basically having 5 guys playing zone from 5-15 yards; really they were playing an intermediate zone) and a 2 over (2 guys covering deep). This took away a lot of those deep throws Wilson usually attempts. That combined with a pocket that closed quickly led to him not hitting some of those early open receivers. To me it explains why the Hawks only attempted 1 pass over 12 yards downfield. It also explains why the Hawks were able to have some success running. The sad thing is they should have been able to run all over that defense. Usually teams commit extra guys to stop the run but the Rams did the opposite, knowing their front 4 was good enough to both pressure RW and stop the run when they had to.

[Anthony]

Yeah, have to agree with a lot of what he says. I don't think it was that harsh on Wilson. He basically says often times when Wilson has a check down or somebody open short, early, and feels like he has some time in the pocket he will look downfield instead of taking that easy quick pass. This has led to a lot of big plays. The problem on Sunday was that the Rams played off that tendency leaving goes open and playing a 5 under zone (basically having 5 guys playing zone from 5-15 yards; really they were playing an intermediate zone) and a 2 over (2 guys covering deep). This took away a lot of those deep throws Wilson usually attempts. That combined with a pocket that closed quickly led to him not hitting some of those early open receivers. To me it explains why the Hawks only attempted 1 pass over 12 yards downfield. It also explains why the Hawks were able to have some success running. The sad thing is they should have been able to run all over that defense. Usually teams commit extra guys to stop the run but the Rams did the opposite, knowing their front 4 was good enough to both pressure RW and stop the run when they had to.

The part that is funny he is completed 78% of his passes and he uses a lot of screen shots to prove a point that cannot be proven with screen shots. Not enough info to know or not to many variables. In the big picture Wilson was down on the list of why we lost.

[HumanCockroach]

So you didn't see the coverage playing "off" ? Interesting, that article sums up a LOT of what I saw during the game, and why I will not simply bury my head in the sand. The line played poorly, but Wilson didn't help the matters, and some of those sacks can be directly attributed to Wilson's choices, don't believe me, ask Carroll, don't believe him, ask WILSON.

[mykc14]

The part that is funny he is completed 78% of his passes and he uses a lot of screen shots to prove a point that cannot be proven with screen shots. Not enough info to know or not to many variables. In the big picture Wilson was down on the list of why we lost.

I don't think he was criticizing RW, just stating what most of us have seen, that he likes to look for the big play. I don't mind that. When he does go for the big play it is usually very calculated and not high risk. I also like how he did criticize the offense, stating that the Hawks didn't use many route combinations that often beat a defense like this and that has to be on Bevell.

[mykc14]

So you didn't see the coverage playing "off" ? Interesting, that article sums up a LOT of what I saw during the game, and why I will not simply bury my head in the sand. The line played poorly, but Wilson didn't help the matters, and some of those sacks can be directly attributed to Wilson's choices, don't believe me, ask Carroll, don't believe him, ask WILSON.

I think this is what a lot of us (including you, well maybe only a few of us) have been saying when we talk about the Oline play. It has been bad in the past but part of that is that RW holds onto the ball, looking for the big play. Also, leaving the pocket when the OL forms a pocket can lead to a sack. All of these things are part of what he brings. He does some things so well he can afford to hold onto the ball and wait for a big play when he historically has not had great receivers.

[burrrton]

It has been bad in the past but part of that is that RW holds onto the ball, looking for the big play. Also, leaving the pocket when the OL forms a pocket can lead to a sack.

No doubt that's a component that the o-line deserves everyone to consider, but there was rarely a clean pocket in that game for, what is it, the 4-5 seconds (?) a QB should expect to have.

I know for sure RW ran into at least one sack, but even this analysis worked under the assumption that any mirage of safety should have been anticipated to be fleeting, that RW should have been getting the ball out in 1-2 seconds to the receiver he knew was open.

It's a valid point, but it hardly reflects well on the o-line, right?

[mykc14]

It's a valid point, but it hardly reflects well on the o-line, right?

Oh, absolutely the OL isn't a top 15 pass blocking unit and hasn't been near there really in RW's tenure.

[burrrton]

Right. Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but it just seems like that line of argument merely shows how RW could have bailed them out, not that the o-line wasn't the problem.

[Vegaseahawk]

This article was very technical & I couldn't really follow all of the points, but I got the gist of it. The 1 thing that kept ringing in my ears is the fact that this was nothing more than a second guess at how Bevell should've game planned. I'm sure they are looking at tape & making adjustments. As for RW's hesitation moments in time, I think that we saw the Seahawks offense produce when they went up tempo like that. I'm referring to the drive when there were like 6 passing plays in a row. Later, I was watching Romo surgically slice the Giants D on that last drive of their game, & I thought, wow, thats exactly what Seattle wants to do. If you look at the Cowboys use of the quick snap counts, & fast play on that drive, & the chosen targets, you'll see the parallel. I think part of it is the fact that we are a run first team & nobody expects us to do that.

[NorthHawk]

I think going up tempo gets the OL into a better rhythm.
That sense of urgency might help them focus on the play at hand.
Whatever the reason, they should do it early in the game to get things rolling.

[Zorn76]

It all starts with the Rams front 4.
They are good up front, which allows them more flexibility in the secondary and the coverages they decide to run.

The lessen here is to take what the D gives you, particularly when they are generating a ton of pressure from beginning to end. That approach may sacrifice some potential big gains, but the real key vs a defense like Stl's is to keep the chains moving.

[savvyman]

I am re-watching the game right now - this article is so spot on - Receivers were left UN-convered for 10 yards the entire first half - the inside slant was wide open the entire first half. Shame on the Seahawks coaching staff for not exploiting this defensive scheme being ran by the Rams.

[Anthony]

I am re-watching the game right now - this article is so spot on - Receivers were left UN-convered for 10 yards the entire first half - the inside slant was wide open the entire first half. Shame on the Seahawks coaching staff for not exploiting this defensive scheme being ran by the Rams.

On of the problem with the staff is as they put it "we run what we run and they have to stop it."Guess what they did. Oh and those open guys were hit once Wilson started calling the plays

[Hawktawk]

The article is dead on. The film doesn't lie. Bevel had a bad game. Russ wasn't Russ regardless of the stats. He left yards on the field with his arm and especially his legs. They were literally daring him to run and he wouldn't take it. And once he ran out of bounds 4 yards short of the marker when he could have clearly gotten a couple more without taking a big shot. Its like all the hits got to him a little bit.Russ is about late game magic and the last 2 games there has been anything but that.
Wags was even worse with his big money deal. Et was off too other than the one big play.Baily looked the fool on the TD but Richard was more foolish to leave a guy who had never started a game on an island to blitz a QB who had burned them all day when blitzed.

And still they were a play or two away from winning a brutal road opener. The article is sprinkled with optimism and Im still optimistic. At least until next Sunday night

[Zorn76]

Am glad this is a primetime game, rather than a typical early start.

Seattle plays well at night, and we should be plenty pissed after what happened last Sunday.

We all know about the CCG with these guys, but I think our motivation will be just as strong.

The guys know that going -2 to start the season is less than ideal, though we are good enough to recover from that if it were to happen.

I see this high scoring, and I see us pulling off a bit of an upset...

Seahawks 31-27.

[obiken]

Ok, I have had 1 bottle of Cabernet, 2 hours ago, but Your drunker than me Zorny, but I hope your right. However, GB is going to kill Seattle 28-17 minimal. They are out for blood and they have a better team than us right now, and its in the house that Lombardi built. Hope I am WRONG.

[RiverDog]

The elephant in the room is that despite scoring 31 points (31 points!), our defense let the game get away. When in the last few years have we scored as much and still lost? I am not looking at Wilson, or Bevell, or the offensive line. I am looking at Richard (defensive coordinator), the Legion of Gloom, and our linebackers. Sherman should have been called for PI early, but the officials missed it. Ram receivers were open all over the field and made Foles look like Unitas. Our defense was not ready for this game, and it was not all Chancellor.

I'm not sure that pass that Sherman almost got flagged for was catchable. It was very close to the sidelines and the officials could have determined that there was no way the receiver could have caught that ball in bounds. I thought it was a good no-call.

But I agree with your statement in general. If any group did not live up to expectations, it was the defense, in particular, our pass defense. The offense performed better than was expected IMO.

As to the OP, I thought the article was very fair and well documented. I do think that Russell does, at times, hold onto the ball too long and he does, indeed, have at times an excessive amount of aversion to turnovers. This helps explain the high number of sacks he takes and the number of times he has to scramble to make something out of a broken play. It is not a bad strategy as he/we have been very successful with it, but there are going to be times when that strategy is going to bite us in the ass.

[Agent 86]

RiverDog wrote:

I do think that Russell does, at times, hold onto the ball too long and he does, indeed, have at times an excessive amount of aversion to turnovers. This helps explain the high number of sacks he takes and the number of times he has to scramble to make something out of a broken play. It is not a bad strategy as he/we have been very successful with it, but there are going to be times when that strategy is going to bite us in the ass

.

Yeah, this is what is good/bad with RW3. Although it is tough to tell on TV sometimes (because we can't see the receivers down field), we all know if the potential pass might mean a 50/50 chance for a catch/INT, he will most likely not throw the ball. He is extremely protective of it, almost always erring on the side of caution. As you said, not a bad strategy as it has led to success knowing there is a solid D to back you up. Nothing wrong with punting.

It is this aversion to turnovers to can be maddening, you watch him throw it away or take a sack and punt, and you think "why didn't he throw it??" Then you think it if was picked, momentum and field position are lost.

Very fine line, and RW3 rarely crosses it. In the end, I think most fans are fine with it, but want to see a little more aggressive approach as he develops through the years of his contract.

[RiverDog]

Yeah, this (aversion to throwing an INT) is what is good/bad with RW3. Although it is tough to tell on TV sometimes (because we can't see the receivers down field), we all know if the potential pass might mean a 50/50 chance for a catch/INT, he will most likely not throw the ball. He is extremely protective of it, almost always erring on the side of caution. As you said, not a bad strategy as it has led to success knowing there is a solid D to back you up. Nothing wrong with punting.

It is this aversion to turnovers to can be maddening, you watch him throw it away or take a sack and punt, and you think "why didn't he throw it??" Then you think it if was picked, momentum and field position are lost.

Very fine line, and RW3 rarely crosses it. In the end, I think most fans are fine with it, but want to see a little more aggressive approach as he develops through the years of his contract.

Russell's aversion to turnovers is exactly the reason that Pete and John went after him in the draft, because Russell's tendency to place a premium on reducing turnovers is a critical component of a run first, defensive orientated team that Pete wanted to build and that has resulted in two SB's and one Lombardi over the past two years. It didn't work last Sunday because we got into a 30+ points scoring contest with the Rams because our defense couldn't stop them.

[kalibane]

1. There were really only a couple of drives where Russell had a clean pocket for more than a couple pass plays in a row, one in the 2nd quarter and one in the 4th quarter that I can remember.
2. It wasn't a defensive dominance it was a pass rush dominance. How many yards you rack up doesn't matter when drive after drive gets killed by poor blocking or holding penalties.
3. It's not just the plays where they actually got pressure. Russell was hurried and hit so much in that game the internal clock in his head speeds up because he has to anticipate the pressure that's been coming all game. That leads to rushed/errant throws and Russell breaking the pocket earlier than he should. And this is the main point that bothers me because line play like this is what ruined David Carr before he had a chance. You simply can't subject your QB to this many hits and this much pressure on a consistent basis.

The offensive line play wasn't just bad it was putrid. You can point out things that other people did wrong all you want but it all started with the domino that the line couldn't protect Wilson or get a consistent push in the running game.

The offense could never get in rhythm and when they started getting stuff going drives would be killed by sacks, penalties and runs getting stuffed at the LOS.

[RiverDog]

The offensive line play wasn't just bad it was putrid.

I'm not trying to be a smart azz and I'm not trying to make excuses, but what were your expectations for the OL in this game? Did anything, good or bad, surprise you?

With the possible exception of the last game, the OL struggled mightily up and down the roster during the preseason. We had a brand new center starting his very first regular season game at that very critical position. Brit was starting his first regular season game at guard, was a tackle in college and in his rookie season with us. It was Gilliam's first regular season start. Graham is a horrible blocker and Willson isn't much better, nothing close to the support that Zach Miller gave us. Our previous units, even when healthy, hasn't played well against the Rams as they have taken even our best OL's over the past 2 years and turned them into Swiss cheese.

So really, what were you expecting?

[NorthHawk]

A competent - not great - NFL OL.
That's not much to ask from a team that has gone to 2 straight Super Bowls and should have won both.

[RiverDog]

A competent - not great - NFL OL.
That's not much to ask from a team that has gone to 2 straight Super Bowls and should have won both.

I agree, but I was speaking specifically about the Rams game last Sunday.

[HumanCockroach]

1. There were really only a couple of drives where Russell had a clean pocket for more than a couple pass plays in a row, one in the 2nd quarter and one in the 4th quarter that I can remember.
2. It wasn't a defensive dominance it was a pass rush dominance. How many yards you rack up doesn't matter when drive after drive gets killed by poor blocking or holding penalties.
3. It's not just the plays where they actually got pressure. Russell was hurried and hit so much in that game the internal clock in his head speeds up because he has to anticipate the pressure that's been coming all game. That leads to rushed/errant throws and Russell breaking the pocket earlier than he should. And this is the main point that bothers me because line play like this is what ruined David Carr before he had a chance. You simply can't subject your QB to this many hits and this much pressure on a consistent basis.

The offensive line play wasn't just bad it was putrid. You can point out things that other people did wrong all you want but it all started with the domino that the line couldn't protect Wilson or get a consistent push in the running game.

The offense could never get in rhythm and when they started getting stuff going drives would be killed by sacks, penalties and runs getting stuffed at the LOS.

To be fair, this article does a pretty bang up job of showing that sometimes, taking what the defense gives you, throwing the ball to open receivers for 12-15 gains, when your line is having trouble with the rush, might be the smarter course of action, instead of holding the ball and absorbing said hits. Also, not leaving a pocket that IS there and running INTO sacks, stepping up INTO the pocket is also possible I promise, or maybe reading the 7 player blitz with 5 blockers, and adjusting the play.

The line played poorly, however, more than the line was an issue, and "putrid" is far to strong of a word to use in regards to the overall performance. The first half, I agree it was putrid. The second half, was not even close.

[kalibane]

Riv,

It isn't a matter of what I expected. I half jokingly said during training camp that I'd just as soon sit Russell Wilson agains the Rams because this is exactly what I expected. The fact that I expected it doesn't make it better. What's really bothersome is the inability to run block. In previous years the line could at least do that.

And sorry HC putrid is an apt word for how the line played. The fact that it improved marginally in the second half didn't make it any better. They got more consistent but they still killed multiple drives.

[RiverDog]

Riv,

It isn't a matter of what I expected. I half jokingly said during training camp that I'd just as soon sit Russell Wilson agains the Rams because this is exactly what I expected. The fact that I expected it doesn't make it better. What's really bothersome is the inability to run block. In previous years the line could at least do that.

And sorry HC putrid is an apt word for how the line played. The fact that it improved marginally in the second half didn't make it any better. They got more consistent but they still killed multiple drives.

It just sounded like you were shocked and stunned that our O line played poorly. You are one of the best football minds on our board and know our team as well as anyone, so for you to make such strong statements and characterizations about their play was a bit curious to me. I expected for them to struggle, and they did, so I didn't feel the need to go overboard on the superlatives. After all, it wasn't a result of years of ineptness and incompetence on the part of those individuals as it was the first time for a lot of those folks. But even that effort, as bad as it was, wasn't any worse than previous efforts put forth by our OL when we've played the Rams, particularly in their house. They've owned our OL for some time now, and probably will continue to own us for the foreseeable future.

[HumanCockroach]

LOL, obviously your definition of putrid and marginally differs greatly from mine.

[kalibane]

Riv,

Let's just say I was drawing blood I was biting my tongue so hard when it came to the subject of the Offensive Line this offseason. I tried to give them every benefit of the doubt I could by just being silent (although it slipped out a couple of times how I felt).

My honest opinion is that the offensive line is going to sink this season. I think the the overal team will put up some good wins (I think they could win this week) but over the long haul it will cost them too many games and the offense won't be able to mount scoring drives when they absolutely need to.

[RiverDog]

Riv,

Let's just say I was drawing blood I was biting my tongue so hard when it came to the subject of the Offensive Line this offseason. I tried to give them every benefit of the doubt I could by just being silent (although it slipped out a couple of times how I felt).

My honest opinion is that the offensive line is going to sink this season. I think the the overal team will put up some good wins (I think they could win this week) but over the long haul it will cost them too many games and the offense won't be able to mount scoring drives when they absolutely need to.

OK, I can handle that. This is really a patchwork OL, more so than any other season in recent memory. In previous years, we had Unger and Okung, two former Pro Bowlers, and Carpenter, a first round pick. We also had a really good blocking tight end in Zach Miller. Although I recognize that Pete's tendency to de-prioritize the OL has resulted in 3 really solid seasons, it's not a given that we can survive despite this continued depletion of resources up front.

I'm with ya on the OL woes. Their current state is not going to win the division for us let alone come close to our '13 or '14 efforts. But it's pretty hard for me to pass judgment on them when they went on the road against the Rams. I was surprised that we ran the ball as well as we did and that we actually managed to put up some points, so by several measures, they achieved better results than previous units. I was trying to get you and some of the others to recognize that fact.

The Packers game will be a little better barometer. We haven't exactly owned their front 7, but they haven't owned us, either, at least not compared to how we have matched up against the Rams. I'm not harboring false hopes but I still want to see a couple of games before I pass judgment and pronounce them the worst in the NFL.