Who's stoked to watch Paul Richardson this season?

[kearly]

It's difficult to judge the history of the spread because it was uncommon and short lived in the NFL until about five years ago when the Patriots began to increasingly work spread concepts into their offense. We probably need another 20 years of spread dominance before we can know for sure how it impacts championships.

Supposedly the greatest indicator of a champion is their passer rating differential. As long as Seattle builds a team that creates an elite passer rating differential number then I won't be picky about the details.

One thing I liked about Seattle's switch to the spread was the consistency it gave them. When it wasn't pouring rain, or below zero, or on brand new sod with bad cleats, the Seahawks looked amazingly consistent and for the first time in the Pete Carroll era put away bad teams with ease every week. The struggles under poor game conditions is truly alarming, but when game conditions were good, Seattle looked unstoppable.

 

[vin.couve12]

Just os you know, i'm not interested in "getting into it" with you . . . I am really just curious if a gritty spread is even possible.

3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

Enter pehawk . . .

I'm not trying to get into it either and I should really lay the hell off, I know. I just haven't seen championship success in a spread and I think there's a good reason for that at least in the NFL. NE might be a good example, as much as I hate to point it out. Certain games they really go the way of the spread because a certain game might sort of dictate that, but they generally come back to pounding the ball even with less than stellar running backs. I think their longevity has a good foundation in a relative dynamic balance (aside from an annoyingly great QB).

Anyway, I'm going to try to stay out of this thread as I think I've been too much of a jerk already.

 

[Hawks46]

Just os you know, i'm not interested in "getting into it" with you . . . I am really just curious if a gritty spread is even possible.

3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

Enter pehawk . . .

I'm not trying to get into it either and I should really lay the hell off, I know. I just haven't seen championship success in a spread and I think there's a good reason for that at least in the NFL. NE might be a good example, as much as I hate to point it out. Certain games they really go the way of the spread because a certain game might sort of dictate that, but they generally come back to pounding the ball even with less than stellar running backs. I think their longevity has a good foundation in a relative dynamic balance (aside from an annoyingly great QB).

Anyway, I'm going to try to stay out of this thread as I think I've been too much of a jerk already.

So you're saying the Patriots never won with a spread offense ? They may not necessarily spread their OL splits out wide, but trotting out 5 WRs and getting the defense moved out horizontally is still a spread offense. Hell, they beat us with it. They threw out 3 WRs and split Gronk out wide, then attacked Lane's replacement and whoever covered Gronk. It works. The amazing thing about the Patriots is that they can be so changeable. I remember about 4-5 years ago, they played Minnesota, in Minny. That year, the Vikes had the Williams Wall and led the league in rush defense, to the tune of about 64 ypg. The Pats had been making their hay in the run game and were averaging close to 200 ypg the previous few games. The Vikes secondary was considered a weakness. What did the Pats do ? They started the game in a 5 WR set and literally eviscerated that Vikings defense.

I see the Hawks doing the same thing. Working from a spread like last year will help us while we get the OL settled. Once they get seasoned (either vets working together for the first time or rookies), then we can probably run more. In the interim, we'll see Rawls rack up some yards, and that kid likes to run tough. The biggest problem I've had with the "punch you in the mouth" offense we've run is our difficulty in picking up 3rd downs. We didn't see that when we were running spread, we were literally operating near 70% on 3rd down efficiency. A big element to the ground offense we've ran earlier was resting your defense and controlling the clock. We can still do that with our offense last year, as we're picking up more 3rd downs and staying on the field longer.

Need some more evidence ? Lynch was better out of single back, spread formations the last few years. He was more efficient and had more ypc than any other formation. We still beat teams up. We still ground games out. But looking at the difference (and Kearly mentioned this as well) in how we were finishing games, and I'm honestly liking what I saw last year. We really put teams away, we didn't run, run, pass, punt the ball 3 times in the 4th quarter and allow teams to fight back.

Like it or not, we're going to see this next year. I know you don't like it Vin.couve (hell, I'm a defensive guy and always have been, and I love the run game on offense as it's the defense's best friend) but our Offensive Line is still very unsettled, possibly as bad as last year going in. Running smash mouth isn't going to get us anywhere and to avoid a start like last year, we will likely go to the spread earlier, if not start with it. I'd like to see us use a mix of things. it's not horrible to spread a team out and win the TOP the first 3 quarters, then bludgeon them in the 4th quarter to finish them off

 

[vin.couve12]

Game by game basis is a different animal, which is what I was getting at with that post. 70% out of a spread on 3rd down would be the norm. You're not going to go into that with a run formation. There'd be no point.

And NE beat us by dinking and dunking to beat the cover 3, which is where the cover 3 is weak since you commit 3 deep instead of just 2 or even 1. When they went spread they did it to pick on a hobbled Simon. The Gronk sideline pass on Wright, they caught us in man and motioned out....they knew they could get that matchup.

Game by game isn't what I'm talking about, which is why I referenced that. What I don't want to see is a spread emphasis. You don't want to pigeon hole your own game. One of those consequences is a passiveness to your offense (depending on subject matter), but there are others.

OK, I'm really done this time.

EDIT: The Pats actually pass too much for my taste so maybe they aren't the best example, but I do like how they can change it up from game to game.

 

[McGruff]

Just os you know, i'm not interested in "getting into it" with you . . . I am really just curious if a gritty spread is even possible.

3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

Enter pehawk . . .

I'm not trying to get into it either and I should really lay the hell off, I know. I just haven't seen championship success in a spread and I think there's a good reason for that at least in the NFL. NE might be a good example, as much as I hate to point it out. Certain games they really go the way of the spread because a certain game might sort of dictate that, but they generally come back to pounding the ball even with less than stellar running backs. I think their longevity has a good foundation in a relative dynamic balance (aside from an annoyingly great QB).

Anyway, I'm going to try to stay out of this thread as I think I've been too much of a jerk already.

Naw . . . you are good. Bringing a good perspective, and reminding me I have a lot of learning to do.

 

[ZagHawk]

Call me a negative nancy, but I'll be stoked when he makes it through about 3-4 games. The way he went out last year killed any kind of excitement I had for him.

 

[brimsalabim]

We can't have this "patriots style offense" behind this offensive line. Just can't. In order to bring in some real adequate help for the line some of the toys in the toy box will have to go. Richardson is o e of those toys that has potential to bring something decent in a swap!

 

[Scottemojo]

I think the Patriots are a perfect example of the NFL spread. They use it the majority of the time, but can dial it back too.

Why some people think Oregon Ducks every time they hear the word spread is beyond me. It isn't a deep philisophical thing, it is simply getting players, usually receivers, in a little extra space at the LOS. 2W, 3W, 4W, single tight end off tackle and 1 RB (11 personnel), the spread is versatile for all those personnel groups. For some college teams it involves the splits for the linemen, but it doesn't have to. Simply getting two WRs out on the numbers pre snap can keep the 8th guy out of the box to stop the run. Yeah VinCouve, spreading them out can actually help the run game.

Or we could keep lining Graham and Willson up off the tackles, with Tukuafu lumbering into a gap maybe, and run it into 9 defenders because that is what wins championships. Baldwin with 50 catches and 5 TDs worked in 2013 for a title, we should stick with that. (sarcasm note here)

Our personnel suits spreading defenses out. Our shitty line needs spread out defenses. Rawls did some of his best work when the D had to account for 3 or 4 spread out pass catchers. Wilson finished the season just plain killing it with a lot of spread.

For Wilson to keep growing as a QB, (the accellerated plan for Wilson that Pete referred to, and thinks Wilson is ready for) he needs the ability to see the D and shift the entire play to take advantage of the the defensive group on the field. Blocking tight ends and fullbacks don't help that kind of flexibility. I Formations and play action have their place in every game, but making them the staple of our offense is limiting the QB options.

 

[vin.couve12]

What the Patriots do is largely based off of personnel and matchups. They're likely going to be running a lot of 2TE sets this year, actually. Why make a move to do that? I think they're finding that December and Janruary football can be a little grittier than the rest of the season, both in intensity and weather being a factor. Weather is just one of the reasons why heavy passing teams can have a lot of trouble in the postseason. I do admire Bellicheat's ability to seemingly change his whole offensive style, but they still do pass more than I'd like (They have Brady). They're really sort of a bad example of what I'm trying to get at (even though I mentioned them).

Also, I understand the statistical greatness of some of the things we did last year. Did that get us any further in the playoffs? It's as if we have something to prove on offense and I get that, but still don't give two ish's about it. Winning is the end all. If we end up losing site of our identity we're all going to be sounding like Wes Welker in SB 48, "HEY! WE'RE THE BEST DAMN OFFENSE IN HISTORY." and no one will care.

It's enticing like some smoking hot chick, but be careful with it. That's all I'm saying...for really real this time.

 

[McGruff]

Don't give up, vin . . . Or scott! I am loving this interchange. Two great, passionate and knowledgeable fans with great points to make.

This is what makes .net great.

 

[vin.couve12]

Well, one thing Scott is definitely right about that really throws a wrench is Jimmy. As an in-line player...he's kind of a puss. I actually prefer Willson as an actual TE. Having him as a "move TE" or even in line trying to run block didn't work out well at all. He was responsible for Marshawn having to dodge a defender 2 yards behind the LOS on a lot of those runs. Jimmy really is the epitome of the basketball player "TE" and is a square peg for that traditional TE role. That said, I still don't want to see 4 WR sets (Jimmy being one of those) as a dominant base to our offense. I'd like to see 2TE sets, 3 WR I form as well as traditional and strong and weak off set I (I think Cottom is going to be a factor) and obviously we're still going to be using a lot of gun formations and "Move TE" motion like we have for the past few years. Jimmy shouldn't be absolved of run blocking, however. We ran a lot of Twins in the latter half of the year as well, which has been one of our bread a butter formations for a long time. It can be with a FB or with 2TEs.

One of the core beliefs of a Pete lead team is ball control (unlike Chip). Going pass heavy on 1st and 2nd down lead to a lot of 3 and outs and 3rd and longs and the spread is really predicated on the pass setting up the run instead of vice versa. True that you want to get your best players on the field and personnel really should alter the way you play the game. It kind of has to and it is noted that Jimmy throws a wrench in particular, but not at the cost of core beliefs. The same beliefs that brought Seattle it's first NFL championship. I'm a fan of "dancing with the girl that brung ya", particularly if she helped you to the top.

The spread is a part of what we do and it has been. Many players are on record that it was more execution that brought success to the passing game and not wholesale changes. I don't think the emphasis is changing though and if this team sticks to what is tried and true that has netted rings and parades, I don't think you CAN go with an overhaul to a spread.

I also really wouldn't mind if Jimmy was traded for a 2nd or 3rd. I prefer what I call scheme diverse football players on both sides of the ball and he's not that.

 

[kearly]

We can't have this "patriots style offense" behind this offensive line. Just can't. In order to bring in some real adequate help for the line some of the toys in the toy box will have to go. Richardson is o e of those toys that has potential to bring something decent in a swap!

The Patriots OL was pretty terrible last year and the Pats offense still performed at an elite level.

 

[kearly]

Also, I understand the statistical greatness of some of the things we did last year. Did that get us any further in the playoffs?

I'm sure it would have, if not for back to back 10 am starts, two games in horrible game conditions, and the bleak history of teams that "survive" negative degree games (they almost always lose the next week). I doubt we will ever see the deck stacked so highly against Seattle in the playoffs ever again.

Losing Rawls and Graham were big blows too.

 

[pcbball12]

Also, I understand the statistical greatness of some of the things we did last year. Did that get us any further in the playoffs?

I'm sure it would have, if not for back to back 10 am starts, two games in horrible game conditions, and the bleak history of teams that "survive" negative degree games (they almost always lose the next week). I doubt we will ever see the deck stacked so highly against Seattle in the playoffs ever again.

Exactly. Also, Seattle went away from what they were successful at all year to start that game. It was infuriating. Like they wanted to prove with Lynch back they were going to smash mouth. When they went back to spreading out and up tempo offense it was the same result we saw all the second half of the year....just too late.

 

[vin.couve12]

Went through some interesting statistics going back to 2012. We've actually preferred 3 WR sets, weather that be some form of single back or gun, since 2013. There wasn't an increase in run plays out of 3WR sets last year and there was actually a fall off from running out of shotgun in 2014. That likely has to do with our odd excess in handing the ball off to Beast on a inside zone from Shotgun in 2014. In 2015 we ran 205 times out of the gun and 313 times out of a lone setback. In 2014 we ran 278 times out of the gun and 324 times out of a lone setback (remember that the gun often counts as a lone setback and that 3 WRs often follow that too). In 2013 we ran 182 times out of the shotgun and 291 out of the lone setback.

You have to go back to 2012 to see more 2 WR sets in either run or pass.

2015 we had 362 pass attemps out of the gun with the lone back stat following suit since it is also a lone back set more often than not. In 2014 we had 343 pass attempts out of the gun. A slight rise. In 2013 we only had 273 attemps from the gun.

4 WR sets wen up to 145 in 2015 from 120 in 2014.

Overall, I would agree with some of the players who said we didn't really do anything all that different in 2015 from the previous year. There was a slight increase in passes out of the spread, but not the run, which kind of had an opposite affect, oddly enough.

And I'd still prefer to get back closer to the 2013 offense with good mixture. I prefer the consistency of ball control vs the helter skelter pass emphasis where you defense can be out on the field for too long, thus affecting their play and consistency.

I don't know that RW will ever be a consistent 1st and 2nd quarter QB on top of that. He's prone to holding the ball early and also can have jitter/accuracy problems early on. He's not Brady or Manning and doesn't need to be.

 

[Hawk-Lock]

Until he shows he can stay healthy for more than a few games, I'm not expecting anything. To put it nicely, he has been a bust so far. I hope he proves me wrong, but I think he flames out of the NFL within the next year or two due to injuries.

 

[Scottemojo]

Wilson's ability has only begun to be tapped. He can, and will, lead a QB centric offense, like Brady, to a SB victory. I feel much more confident in saying that than calling Willson an inline blocker or predicting Cottam is going to amount to anything.

 

[King Dog]

He had an acl on January 11, 2015. He played in 15 games his rookie season. Rushed back to play last season and got a hammie first game in. My bet is he has a clean season and plays in every game. Book it!

 

[HawKnPeppa]

Would really be cool to have him stay healthy, as his short-to- intermediate route running is money.
I mostly agree with Vin, although run, run, then pass after 1-2 yds/down and a cloud of dust really makes me frustrated when we aren't converting very often.

Appreciate the long-haul perspective of that train of thought, but also am relieved to see we can 'skin the cat' differently when situation dictates a slight morph of our approach.

Sent from my SC-04F using Tapatalk

 

[Crizilla]

im stoked to see him actually stay healthy