Dan Quinn appreciation thread

[Smellyman]

He is doing a great job, but it also helps to have all the new weapons on the DL that Gus didn't have.

 

[pmedic920]

I'm in the crowd that is worried he won't be around for long. I know it's part of the game, now a days, but I don't have to like it.

 

[kearly]

I think Quinn is doing an amazing job. I also think one of the biggest reasons for his success was what John Schneider did in the offseason snagging Avril, Bennett, and McDaniel. The way that Russell Wilson has a swiss army knife of weapons on offense, that's what Quinn has in the front seven. So many good players, with so much variety among that group.

I has been beautiful to watch Quinn game plan against the short passing game all season, while a pair of DPoY candidates in the secondary and a massive DL run stopping group forces offenses to play right into Quinn's hands.

 

[Zebulon Dak]

I've always felt there is no need to go to a soft zone defense if you have an elite defense; that the whole philosophy behind going to soft zone was for average or poor defenses. I'll be curious to see if this trend continues, or if it was a fluke/one-time thing.

Isn't Gore's big run last week kind of an argument for the "soft zone/prevent" defense? We played em tight and we got burned. That's exactly the type of play the soft zone is meant to prevent, is it not? Give them the under yards but don't let them beat you over the top?

 

[RolandDeschain]

Earl should have had Gore tackled for a mild gain. He whiffed on that tackle in a big way, and whifffing on that if he was thirty yards deep in soft zone would still have resulted in Gore running by him. Your assertion about soft zone is correct, but basically irrelevant in that example. Earl tends to whiff on tackles sometimes, and that time it bit us hard.

 

[Zebulon Dak]

Earl should have had Gore tackled for a mild gain. He whiffed on that tackle in a big way, and whifffing on that if he was thirty yards deep in soft zone would still have resulted in Gore running by him. Your assertion about soft zone is correct, but basically irrelevant in that example. Earl tends to whiff on tackles sometimes, and that time it bit us hard.

But if the play was farther in front of him with help his whiff probably isn't a death blow. Obviously the missed tackle is on him 100% but if the defense is in more of a prevent set they probably don't give up 51 yds or however much it was. That's why for years defensive coordinators have run the prevent even when it seems like folly. It's not always.

 

[Zebulon Dak]

BTW whatever happens and who's right and who's wrong, I don't really care... I love talking football with you guys. Great stuff.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Soft zone/prevent defense is designed to allow an opposing offense to drive all the way down the field in moderate (but never large) chunks, forcing it to take at least several minutes of time. The Seahawks defense is arguably the best in the league at preventing huge plays in our normal base defense. If we could go back in time and replay the last few minutes of that game 10 times, we'd probably have won that game on 8 or 9 of those attempts. Despite losing, it was the right call to not go into soft zone. There was too much time left, remember how Gore stopped and literally sat down in bounds to keep the clock running on that run?

 

[Zebulon Dak]

Soft zone/prevent defense is designed to allow an opposing offense to drive all the way down the field in moderate (but never large) chunks, forcing it to take at least several minutes of time. The Seahawks defense is arguably the best in the league at preventing huge plays in our normal base defense. If we could go back in time and replay the last few minutes of that game 10 times, we'd probably have won that game on 8 or 9 of those attempts. Despite losing, it was the right call to not go into soft zone. There was too much time left, remember how Gore stopped and literally sat down in bounds to keep the clock running on that run?

The soft zone is also designed to keep the play in front of you and to not get burned over the top or on a long run when everybody's up on the line in the box. It's all those thing you and I both mentioned but it can't always be all those things at once.

FWIW I'm not a fan of the soft zone in general, I prefer the attack defense regardless of the situation most of the time.

 

[Scottemojo]

Soft zone/prevent defense is designed to allow an opposing offense to drive all the way down the field in moderate (but never large) chunks, forcing it to take at least several minutes of time. The Seahawks defense is arguably the best in the league at preventing huge plays in our normal base defense. If we could go back in time and replay the last few minutes of that game 10 times, we'd probably have won that game on 8 or 9 of those attempts. Despite losing, it was the right call to not go into soft zone. There was too much time left, remember how Gore stopped and literally sat down in bounds to keep the clock running on that run?

The soft zone is also designed to keep the play in front of you and to not get burned over the top or on a long run when everybody's up on the line in the box. It's all those thing you and I both mentioned but it can't always be all those things at once.

FWIW I'm not a fan of the soft zone in general, I prefer the attack defense regardless of the situation most of the time.

It's now been about a half dozen times that Seattle players have mentioned or alluded to the end of the Atlanta game and in doing so hung the loss on the defenses called. IDK how correct they are, the personnel wasn't the same, but it's clear that Gus and his end of game philosophy is not missed.