Why is offense the focus for so many?

[Largent80]

I started 2 threads on the defense, which was embarrassed routinely last year.

 

[Maelstrom787]

It's just the times, man. Passing is exciting to some. Games like the 54-51 Rams-Chiefs game have become what fans crave to see their own team engage in. They don't just equate passing with success, but with fun.

Personally, I'm all for defense this year. An infusion of defensive talent needs to be the focus, with a couple of value offense additions like a WR and draft tackle.

 

[John63]

It's just the times, man. Passing is exciting to some. Games like the 54-51 Rams-Chiefs game have become what fans crave to see their own team engage in. They don't just equate passing with success, but with fun.

Personally, I'm all for defense this year. An infusion of defensive talent needs to be the focus, with a couple of value offense additions like a WR and draft tackle.

For me it is not about excciting or not, it is about getting the most of our team on both sides and we are not. On defense we need bodies good to great bodies. On offense we need a change in scheme. For me it is about playign to win for 4 qtrs not just the 4th qtr. Its about not having such a small magin for error adn allowing us to breath. Its about being the best we can be. If that best means we win 10-7 great if that best means we win 50-10 great.

 

[KiwiHawk]

It's just the times, man. Passing is exciting to some. Games like the 54-51 Rams-Chiefs game have become what fans crave to see their own team engage in. They don't just equate passing with success, but with fun.

Personally, I'm all for defense this year. An infusion of defensive talent needs to be the focus, with a couple of value offense additions like a WR and draft tackle.

For me it is not about excciting or not, it is about getting the most of our team on both sides and we are not. On defense we need bodies good to great bodies. On offense we need a change in scheme. For me it is about playign to win for 4 qtrs not just the 4th qtr. Its about not having such a small magin for error adn allowing us to breath. Its about being the best we can be. If that best means we win 10-7 great if that best means we win 50-10 great.

What you fail to understand is the strategy of the game. We try several kinds of plays to see what the tendencies of the defense are, and then we analyse the results and exploit what we find later in the game. Playing to win in the first quarter looks differently than it does in the 4th quarter, because in order to maximise 4th quarter effectiveness, we need to spend time in the earlier quarters seeing what works best.

Maybe somewhere in statistics-only-football there exists a theoretical team that plays defense exactly the same every game and every quarter of every game. That team, and that team only, you can make a plan to beat that works in all four quarters. This is like the friction-less inclined plane in Physics 101 that doesn't really exist.

In the real world where the games are actually played, you are up against defensive coordinators and coaches who change what they do specifically to avoid being predictable. They disguise schemes, rush different blitzers from similar looks, etc. to try to get an advantage. One week they get torched for 450 passing yards, the next week they come back and hold a team under 200 because they fixed whatever went wrong the previous game.

So in this actual non-static universe where we actually play, part of the game plan HAS TO BE finding out about the opposing team, which is how we play early in games. That's what it looks like to win in every quarter.

As far as bodies go, there just isn't money to sign stars at every position, so you have to pick and choose where you will be strong and where you will be weak. In some cases this makes a team open to injuries, and repeated injuries at the same position (running back, for instance, or the previous year linebackers and DBs) can leave you exposed. That's why winning the NFC Championship takes players, coaches, and at least a little luck.

 

[Largent80]

So, in the salary cap era, we need bodies, lot's of bodies, and those bodies all need to be good to great.

RIGHT.

The defense is appearing to be decent in the secondary. The linebackers are mostly old and slow. The DL just hired 2 33 year olds as situational pass rushers but we need more offense?

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Seems like for years, many people have made excuses for the D. Shoot, even in 49 when they gave up a double digit lead, it seems to rarely get talked about.

 

[TwistedHusky]

You win with what you do best and because your players are better than the opposing ones.

Our advantage is in our offensive players. Our defensive players are not really exceptional, outside of guys like Wagner.

Carroll is a defensive coach. He is going to ride that horse until it collapses dead. But there is nothing that compelling about our defense and our DC is probably below average.

We can try to shore up the defense, but we probably have to acknowledge that the offense is where we have an advantage over the other team. Choosing not to leverage your strength and instead focusing on your weakness is not really a recipe for great success.

We have a number of key positions on our defense we have to fix. The odds we get exceptional players to fill these slots is low. It seems unlikely a strategy of pinning success on average players with a below-average DC is will be a pathway to deep playoff runs.

We can focus on the defense but it isn't special and likely won't be. Whereas our offense can be special.

 

[JGreen79]

Actually you have a point I am completley forgetting all the drives that stall out. According to football outsiders the legue avg per game was 10.8, so you were close, alot closer than me. That said we avg 11.25 this is not a good thing that means we have more failed drives than leagu avg. In fact in pretty much all the dirve categories, out side of INt per drive were we rank 3 in fewest Int per drive and were we start our drive were we are 4th we are middle of the pack imagine if we were just a little higher. But Despite your attacking reply thanks for showing my mistake.


As to the rest of your post, the fact you cant just argue the point and have to ridicule someone who made an honest mistake shows your true collors and as such will now be foed. I dont have time for people who cant have a decent conversation without ridicule.

That said for future referecne let me show you how is shoudl hav ebeen done.

I think you may have made a mistake with your clain of 6 drives. The info I have from (put in your site ) shows this. I woudld have replide well like I did.

that said to the foe you go.

Seattle averaged 1.06 yards less per drive than SF. They also were in the top half of the league in offensive drive stats. (Yards, points, and drive success rate) defensively they ranked in the bottom half.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats ... stats/2019

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

I assume by the post, you're talking about the UFA/Draft process.

I think you're seeing focus largely determined by availability. Every offseason is different, in that it's weaker/stronger at certain areas than others. And the offseason efforts generally extend two to three years into the future.

This was an offseason where offensive talent is just more readily available. There is/was a glut of offensive players -- particularly O line players heading in to a draft with a glut of O line prospects. So the market rates were really deflated for O line talent. Seattle tapped into this market efficiency by adding a host of cheaper yet decently young talent at deflated prices.

Finney (29) on a 2 year deal with easy out in 2021
Ogbuehi (28) on a 1 year deal with low dead money if we cut him
Shell (28) on a 2 year deal with easy out in 2021
Warmack (29) ona 1 year deal with 0 dead money if we cut him

Right now we have hedged with Ogbuehi and Warmack at virtually no risk. Shell and Finney are going to make the team assuredly but are neither owed massive figures, nor do we have to commit beyond this year. Although if we do, the commitment is negligible.

Dorsett (27) same deal. 1 year, extremely low dead money. Hedge.

The UFA period offered us flexibility. Which has great value because we can now take advantage of the draft's uncertain path. If other teams decide to tap into good offensive talent early -- we can tap into defensive talent that falls to us. If other teams seek to go defense early, in hopes of getting good offensive talent later -- we end up being able to acquire MUCH better offensive talent than we would normally have available in any given year.

The focus is on offense, because that's where the talent and reasonable salaries have presented itself. Seattle may have urgent immediate need at DE. But the O line outlook over 2020-2021 is pretty bleak:

Brown (35) age
Haynes (24)
Britt (cap casualty likely)
Fluker (29 - possible cap casualty)
Ifedi (Already gone).

We have an o line that literally could need 3 new starters over last year, with a LT that we absolutely must begin to address in the next 2 years.

LT is one of the hardest positions to fill. It can take years before you hit on one. And most often requires you didn't make the playoffs and spend a day 1 pick to do it. If Seattle is presented with a quality LT prospect at the end of day one -- that is a rare gift. That usually doesn't happen in a 5 year span of drafts.

The worst thing Seattle could do, is the same thing they did in 2017 and 2019. Pass up massive talent at other positions to get lesser value at a need position (DE). That's how teams end up with multiple holes on an aging roster of league average talent.

 

[NJlargent]

Attyla's post immediately above is very good. Do we think there will be OL talent available at the end of day 1?

 

[Ozzy]

I think it's because people view it as a philosophical problem that is easily fixable or can be impoved upon without needing to add any more talent. The ingredients are there for this offense to be truly elite. I think this offense with Wilson, Metcalf, Lockett, Carson/Penny, Dissly, Olsen etc. There is no reason this can't be a top 3 offense and be more consistent. I realize they were 5th last year but still seemed to be a decent drop from the teams above them and lacked consistency. They can be better.

The defense needs more work for sure and should be the focus so not discounting it either.

 

[thegameq]

It's just the times, man. Passing is exciting to some. Games like the 54-51 Rams-Chiefs game have become what fans crave to see their own team engage in. They don't just equate passing with success, but with fun.

Personally, I'm all for defense this year. An infusion of defensive talent needs to be the focus, with a couple of value offense additions like a WR and draft tackle.

For me it is not about excciting or not, it is about getting the most of our team on both sides and we are not. On defense we need bodies good to great bodies. On offense we need a change in scheme. For me it is about playign to win for 4 qtrs not just the 4th qtr. Its about not having such a small magin for error adn allowing us to breath. Its about being the best we can be. If that best means we win 10-7 great if that best means we win 50-10 great.

What you fail to understand is the strategy of the game. We try several kinds of plays to see what the tendencies of the defense are, and then we analyse the results and exploit what we find later in the game. Playing to win in the first quarter looks differently than it does in the 4th quarter, because in order to maximise 4th quarter effectiveness, we need to spend time in the earlier quarters seeing what works best.

Maybe somewhere in statistics-only-football there exists a theoretical team that plays defense exactly the same every game and every quarter of every game. That team, and that team only, you can make a plan to beat that works in all four quarters. This is like the friction-less inclined plane in Physics 101 that doesn't really exist.

In the real world where the games are actually played, you are up against defensive coordinators and coaches who change what they do specifically to avoid being predictable. They disguise schemes, rush different blitzers from similar looks, etc. to try to get an advantage. One week they get torched for 450 passing yards, the next week they come back and hold a team under 200 because they fixed whatever went wrong the previous game.

So in this actual non-static universe where we actually play, part of the game plan HAS TO BE finding out about the opposing team, which is how we play early in games. That's what it looks like to win in every quarter.

As far as bodies go, there just isn't money to sign stars at every position, so you have to pick and choose where you will be strong and where you will be weak. In some cases this makes a team open to injuries, and repeated injuries at the same position (running back, for instance, or the previous year linebackers and DBs) can leave you exposed. That's why winning the NFC Championship takes players, coaches, and at least a little luck.

But Kiwi, they need a whole half of football to test the defense or see tendencies? I thought that's what watching film was for. I don't discount strategy, but this team looks outright lost on offense for 2 to 3 quarters. How can New England have a game plan to attack defenses from the start--pick them apart, through the air and on the ground--yet it takes the Seahawks 2 to 3 quarters to figure out what to do? Come on man. Something is wrong and needs to change.

 

[John63]

It's just the times, man. Passing is exciting to some. Games like the 54-51 Rams-Chiefs game have become what fans crave to see their own team engage in. They don't just equate passing with success, but with fun.

Personally, I'm all for defense this year. An infusion of defensive talent needs to be the focus, with a couple of value offense additions like a WR and draft tackle.

For me it is not about excciting or not, it is about getting the most of our team on both sides and we are not. On defense we need bodies good to great bodies. On offense we need a change in scheme. For me it is about playign to win for 4 qtrs not just the 4th qtr. Its about not having such a small magin for error adn allowing us to breath. Its about being the best we can be. If that best means we win 10-7 great if that best means we win 50-10 great.

What you fail to understand is the strategy of the game. We try several kinds of plays to see what the tendencies of the defense are, and then we analyse the results and exploit what we find later in the game. Playing to win in the first quarter looks differently than it does in the 4th quarter, because in order to maximise 4th quarter effectiveness, we need to spend time in the earlier quarters seeing what works best.

Maybe somewhere in statistics-only-football there exists a theoretical team that plays defense exactly the same every game and every quarter of every game. That team, and that team only, you can make a plan to beat that works in all four quarters. This is like the friction-less inclined plane in Physics 101 that doesn't really exist.

In the real world where the games are actually played, you are up against defensive coordinators and coaches who change what they do specifically to avoid being predictable. They disguise schemes, rush different blitzers from similar looks, etc. to try to get an advantage. One week they get torched for 450 passing yards, the next week they come back and hold a team under 200 because they fixed whatever went wrong the previous game.

So in this actual non-static universe where we actually play, part of the game plan HAS TO BE finding out about the opposing team, which is how we play early in games. That's what it looks like to win in every quarter.

As far as bodies go, there just isn't money to sign stars at every position, so you have to pick and choose where you will be strong and where you will be weak. In some cases this makes a team open to injuries, and repeated injuries at the same position (running back, for instance, or the previous year linebackers and DBs) can leave you exposed. That's why winning the NFC Championship takes players, coaches, and at least a little luck.

But Kiwi, they need a whole half of football to test the defense or see tendencies? I thought that's what watching film was for. I don't discount strategy, but this team looks outright lost on offense for 2 to 3 quarters. How can New England have a game plan to attack defenses from the start--pick them apart, through the air and on the ground--yet it takes the Seahawks 2 to 3 quarters to figure out what to do? Come on man. Something is wrong and needs to change.

unfortunately a lot of people see it, a lot of experts see it, the players see it, but some fans just don't.

 

[scutterhawk]

As we get deeper and deeper into the offseason and as so many are bored from being at home, there are more and more posters who are banging their drum to improve the offense. Why is it that the team was ninth in points scored and eighth in yards gained, but that isn't enough? I decided I needed to dig little deeper to figure out why so many seem to think our offense isn't good enough.

On a team that had the tenth lowest attempts, they ranked fourteenth in passing yards and fourth in passing touchdowns. It is almost like we have a seriously good passing attack and if we had more attempts, we would probably ranked in the top ten in yards and number one in touchdowns. All that success seems to indicate quite a bit of talent in the passing game. I wonder if it means that these people are looking to gain more yards through passing, but I found it interesting that only three of the top ten teams in passing yards made the playoffs. I also found it interesting that of the top half of the league in attempts, only four of the sixteen teams made the playoffs. Only two playoff teams were in the top ten of attempts. So, what is the obsession with improving our passing game?

In regards to rushing attack, we have some serious questions regarding the health of our running backs, but our success was obvious until the injuries. Even after the injuries, the Seahawks finished third in attempts and fourth in yards. They finished a perplexing fifteenth in rushing touchdowns, but there were obviously more opportunities for play action when we made the red zone as our coaches intelligently took advantage of our propensity to run. I found it interesting that eight of the top ten teams in rushing attempts made the playoffs. So, our running game is honestly our biggest question mark on offense, yet I keep seeing people posting about needing to improve the passing game. I would like to know why.

All of that is ignoring the most obvious glaring weakness on the Seahawks which has been discussed to death and needs to be addressed far more than anything offensively. Twenty-sixth in yards allowed overall, and with having faced only the seventh lowest amount of rushing attempts, it was obvious the teams we faced did not respect our passing defense at all. Why would they? For a team to have faced the sixth most pass attempts to finish thirty-first in sacks is horrendously bad. While they did finish fifth in interceptions, that was pretty much in line with everyone else who faced a lot of pass attempts.

Oh, I don't know,, A wild stab here.. maybe because everyone believes that the Seahawks has one of the greatest Quarterbacks to ever play the game, & that they SHOULD play to his strengths?....No reason they can't walk & chew bubblegum at the same time.....Shore up the ATTACK, & bolster the Defense TOO.

 

[AgentDib]

Defensive End is currently getting the most "excess" focus.

The Hawks have added Irvin and Mayowa in free agency, tendered Jackson, and should be significantly increasing the snap count for both Green and Collier who were both highly drafted and are still quite young. There is also still every sign that they are attempting to bring in a third veteran, whether that is Clowney, Griffen or somebody else. That is 6 DEs when we normally keep 5, and most of the people here assume that we are still going to be spending heavy resources on a couple more for some reason.

Meanwhile, at DT we have not yet replaced AL Woods. Ford is only a situational run stuffer, and in my book Reed was the main disappointment on the defensive line last season.

 

[chris98251]

Christmas.

 

[Subzero717]

It's just the times, man. Passing is exciting to some. Games like the 54-51 Rams-Chiefs game have become what fans crave to see their own team engage in. They don't just equate passing with success, but with fun.

Personally, I'm all for defense this year. An infusion of defensive talent needs to be the focus, with a couple of value offense additions like a WR and draft tackle.

54-51 happened once and was blatant propaganda sell job by the NFL. I could go down a rabbit hole on that subject alone but Ill spare. My point is the 54 point team scored a grand total of 3 points in the SB that year. The 51 point team put a h uh fe emphasis on their defense in that offseason and won the SB. Sure they have the best QB in the game but they realized with their ddfense the way it was it was a liability. They went all in adding Honey Badger, traded for amd paid an elite edge rusher to pair with Jones. Voila. SB Champs.