Prevent "from winning" defense

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:07 am
  • It did
    User avatar
    Aristotle22
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 444
    Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:48 pm


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:12 am
  • FWIW former NFL DB and NFL network analyst Eric Davis said he was disappointed in “the legion of boom” for giving such huge cushions to the receivers on those last plays after playing such tight bump for most of the game. He said players play and no matter what the coaches call if you believe you are a top NFL cover man you can’t give that cushion.
    User avatar
    brimsalabim
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1538
    Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:50 am


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:14 am
  • Yeah, I don't understand the rationale behind it. The prevent defense is designed to give up chunks of yards at the expense of the big play. Those chunks of yards are exactly what we couldn't afford to yield. Up only one, why not trust the defense to make a play?

    I thought the Bandit package would have been ideal in that situation.
    User avatar
    Hawk Finn
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1186
    Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:44 am


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:18 am
  • I HATE prevent D but What prevented us from winning this game was going for it on fourth down and not converting. If we had those three points that we gave up on that boneheaded call, we win. You can't control a fumble and things like that but that fourth down call is all on the coaches. They were in panic mode because of being down so far. It's ok for us fans to go into panic mode but coaches should be more professional. They panicked, made the wrong call and paid for it. This loss is all on the coaches. Too bad cause the players played their asses off to come back.
    Yes, I'm a midwest Seahawks fan..... NO, I'm not going to explain why to you.
    User avatar
    Daytomann
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2322
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:39 pm
    Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:24 am
  • Eric Davis also addressed that notion Daytom. His point was whatever wrong decisions Carol, Wilson and company made didn’t matter because the Sea Hawks had the lead with 43 seconds left in the game. He put the loss solely on how the DB’s lined up for those last two plays.
    User avatar
    brimsalabim
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1538
    Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:50 am


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:53 am
  • I hate to say it but I pretty much know when Lynch scored we were still going to lose. I did not go crazy when he scored...because I knew in 31 seconds they could come down and kick a FG. Have seen it too many times this season.

    As painful as it was, I was not surprised they came right down and scored.
    Image

    Win Forever!
    User avatar
    JonRud
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1182
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 7:58 pm
    Location: New Jersey - Site of Super Bowl XLVIII


Re: Prevent
Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:59 am
  • Daytomann wrote:I HATE prevent D but What prevented us from winning this game was going for it on fourth down and not converting. If we had those three points that we gave up on that boneheaded call, we win. You can't control a fumble and things like that but that fourth down call is all on the coaches. They were in panic mode because of being down so far. It's ok for us fans to go into panic mode but coaches should be more professional. They panicked, made the wrong call and paid for it. This loss is all on the coaches. Too bad cause the players played their asses off to come back.

    Tell me how that prevented us from winning...... Did it prevent us from getting the lead? No

    The only coach you can put this on is the DC. Everybody did an amazing job of fighting back, but Gus picked a horrible time to be ultra-conservative.
    User avatar
    Pstark3
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1428
    Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 7:08 pm
    Location: Bellevue


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:02 am
  • Ultra-conservative? I deleted the game already but I swore they blitzed on both plays on the last drive.. that would explain the cushion given..
    _____________________

    Where can I find Seahawks98.com???
    User avatar
    Barthawk
    *Bacon Eating Crusader*
    *Bacon Eating Crusader*
     
    Posts: 2595
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:17 am
    Location: San Antonio, TX by way of Kalispell, MT


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:06 am
  • Barthawk wrote:Ultra-conservative? I deleted the game already but I swore they blitzed on both plays on the last drive.. that would explain the cushion given..

    I was talking more about the cushion. I think we blitzed a safety then a corner? But yeah didnt really matter because neither got anywhere close to Matt

    I'd take our chances running our normal defense against them, and risking a jumpball. They can throw a jumpball to Browner or Sherman anyday IMO, thats 10x better than defenders being 15 yards deeper than their receiver..
    User avatar
    Pstark3
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1428
    Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 7:08 pm
    Location: Bellevue


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:16 am
  • in theory it makes sense IMO.. blitz forces a quicker underneath throw, tackle him inbounds and force them to use a timeout.. ideally it would've been a 10-15 yd throw not 22yds..
    _____________________

    Where can I find Seahawks98.com???
    User avatar
    Barthawk
    *Bacon Eating Crusader*
    *Bacon Eating Crusader*
     
    Posts: 2595
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:17 am
    Location: San Antonio, TX by way of Kalispell, MT


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:16 am
  • Pstark3 - pretty much the same point Davis made on the morning show. He was adament that the cusion did us in. The throw was 22 yards because of the cusion. And davis said no matter what the DC called our DB's should not have given that deep cusion for Matt Ryan to work with.
    User avatar
    brimsalabim
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1538
    Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:50 am


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:45 am
  • Barthawk wrote:Ultra-conservative? I deleted the game already but I swore they blitzed on both plays on the last drive.. that would explain the cushion given..


    They did blitz that's how They were able to get that 2nd big play to give them the FG. Wagner didn't come through on coverage.
    jlwaters1
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2427
    Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:48 pm


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:49 am
  • Not sure what game you guys were watching, but that wasn't the prevent D. The prevent D is what the Broncos got burned on Saturday night.....rush 3 and everyone else drops into zone.

    Both of Atlanta's final two plays we zone blitzed. The same zone blitzes that crushed Cousins and the Skins during the final plays of that game. Except this time Rodgers and the Falcons picked up the blitz both times.

    Compound the fact that Trufant didn't play deep enough on the first play, and Guy waited too long to blitz on the 2nd one. Right play calling, poor defensive execution. Game over.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3457
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:51 am
  • You simply DO NOT leave the middle of the field open. And it was open enough to drive a semi through it. Terrible defensive calls right there, and extremely-poorly executed.
    Image

    R.I.P. Brother Les
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 24230
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: Freddy's favorite song?....Dream On


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:53 am
  • What if they just committed defensive holding and give them five yards and chew up 6-8 seconds. Kind of like fouling at the end of a basketball game
    User avatar
    Aristotle22
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 444
    Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:48 pm


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:54 am
  • On KJR this am, Mitch was talking about the Ian Furness interview with Browner after the game.
    Went something like "What happened there at the end?"
    A very dejected Browner replied, "We went soft zone", then put his head down and walked away. Says a lot.
    Problem I see, especially for a guy like Browner, is when you are taking away his strength by going to the prevent.
    Grahamhawker
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 305
    Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:19 pm
    Location: Graham, WA


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:56 am
  • Hmm... I would say that is a good tactic with the Def Holding if they did not have two timeouts.. say we did employ that tactic and Ryan gets sacked or throws a pick? The .NET whipping boy today would be whoever held on that play..
    _____________________

    Where can I find Seahawks98.com???
    User avatar
    Barthawk
    *Bacon Eating Crusader*
    *Bacon Eating Crusader*
     
    Posts: 2595
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:17 am
    Location: San Antonio, TX by way of Kalispell, MT


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:59 am
  • That awkward moment when you don't know how to react because you see Wintson Guy trying to cover Tony Gonzalez
    Richard Sherman to Skip Bayless: "I'm tired of your ignorant pollution!"

    Follow me on twitter: @seahawks_fan12
    User avatar
    SeahawksFanForever
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1993
    Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:11 pm


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:06 am
  • Grahamhawker wrote:Problem I see, especially for a guy like Browner, is when you are taking away his strength by going to the prevent.


    Again, it wasn't the prevent. We blitzed on both plays.

    If Trufant doesn't bite down on Gonzales the first play and leave too much space behind him for Douglas, then it's an 8-10 yard completion to Gonzales, and not a 20 yard completion to Douglas.

    2nd play Guy didn't time his blitz right and allowed Rodgers time to slide all the way across the line to pick him up.

    Once again, right call..........poor execution. No one was complaining about the zone blitzes last week when we knocked Cousins in the mouth twice at the end of the Redskins game.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3457
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:11 am
  • Not "prevent" techincally, but the corners were definitely in deep/soft coverage.
    Grahamhawker
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 305
    Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:19 pm
    Location: Graham, WA


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:14 am
  • The problem was like Browner said we went Soft Zone, Which no matter if we blitzed or not the CB's should not have been 10 yards up the field. Should have been up to bump the WR to throw them off rout and buy our Dline more time.
    User avatar
    Seahawks4life
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 118
    Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:24 pm
    Location: Vancouver,WA


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:24 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Grahamhawker wrote:Problem I see, especially for a guy like Browner, is when you are taking away his strength by going to the prevent.


    Again, it wasn't the prevent. We blitzed on both plays.

    If Trufant doesn't bite down on Gonzales the first play and leave too much space behind him for Douglas, then it's an 8-10 yard completion to Gonzales, and not a 20 yard completion to Douglas.

    2nd play Guy didn't time his blitz right and allowed Rodgers time to slide all the way across the line to pick him up.

    Once again, right call..........poor execution. No one was complaining about the zone blitzes last week when we knocked Cousins in the mouth twice at the end of the Redskins game.


    good points. The blitz didn't get home and Wagner couldn't stay with Gonzo.
    jlwaters1
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2427
    Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:48 pm


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:24 am
  • I thought they backed off. I don't know enough of the little things that go on. Thank you
    User avatar
    Aristotle22
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 444
    Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:48 pm


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:26 am
  • Grahamhawker wrote:Not "prevent" techincally, but the corners were definitely in deep/soft coverage.


    So what's your solution, to play man on man coverage and risk two of the fastest WR's in the league more time to get open?
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3457
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:27 am
  • Grahamhawker wrote:Not "prevent" techincally, but the corners were definitely in deep/soft coverage.


    This!
    User avatar
    brimsalabim
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1538
    Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:50 am


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:28 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Grahamhawker wrote:Not "prevent" techincally, but the corners were definitely in deep/soft coverage.


    So what's your solution, to play man on man coverage and risk two of the fastest WR's in the league more time to get open?


    I would have rather risked that than give them 10-20 yards to make 2 easy catches on us.. like they did..
    User avatar
    Seahawks4life
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 118
    Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:24 pm
    Location: Vancouver,WA


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:30 am
  • How do you get more time? Less time to get open. As it was they were open the moment the ball was snapped. tighter coverage could have forced Matt to hold on to the ball long enough for pressure to get there.
    User avatar
    brimsalabim
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1538
    Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:50 am


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:43 am
  • Seahawks4life wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Grahamhawker wrote:Not "prevent" techincally, but the corners were definitely in deep/soft coverage.


    So what's your solution, to play man on man coverage and risk two of the fastest WR's in the league more time to get open?


    I would have rather risked that than give them 10-20 yards to make 2 easy catches on us.. like they did..


    .........and I'm telling you with our horrible pass rush, it wouldn't have mattered. Whether you're playing man to man or zone you still have to get pressure on the QB, which we were unable to do.

    So hindsight comments like yours don't matter. Ryan would have had time to throw no matter what coverage we were playing.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3457
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:49 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Grahamhawker wrote:Not "prevent" techincally, but the corners were definitely in deep/soft coverage.


    So what's your solution, to play man on man coverage and risk two of the fastest WR's in the league more time to get open?


    Agreed that that is probably SOP in that situation, and had the players executed better it would have been the correct defense. That said, its clearly not the strength of our secondary. Give Browner a chance for press coverage against anybody in the league and I think he stands a reasonable chance of taking that receiver out of the play.

    I'm sick of "what-iffing" too. But the bitterness has not completely disappeared yet.
    Grahamhawker
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 305
    Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:19 pm
    Location: Graham, WA


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:59 am
  • Grahamhawker wrote:
    I'm sick of "what-iffing" too. But the bitterness has not completely disappeared yet.


    Hey I'm with you. I sat and watched the highlights last night like somehow they'd change.

    I just don't like Monday morning "hindsighting." If people want to criticize play calling or icing the kicker, that's all fine. But the defensive call WAS the correct call, it just wasn't executed. 100% of teams would have done the EXACT same thing, played zone and either blitzed or dropped 8 into coverage.

    Nobody, and I mean nobody presses and plays one on one when you're trying to kill 30 seconds. That's freakin' suicide.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3457
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:16 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Grahamhawker wrote:
    I'm sick of "what-iffing" too. But the bitterness has not completely disappeared yet.


    Hey I'm with you. I sat and watched the highlights last night like somehow they'd change.

    I just don't like Monday morning "hindsighting." If people want to criticize play calling or icing the kicker, that's all fine. But the defensive call WAS the correct call, it just wasn't executed. 100% of teams would have done the EXACT same thing, played zone and either blitzed or dropped 8 into coverage.

    Nobody, and I mean nobody presses and plays one on one when you're trying to kill 30 seconds. That's freakin' suicide.


    If you don't like Monday morning hind-sighting why are you here? We're here to talk football.

    If you'd asked most of us BEFORE the drive if we wanted to blitz one guy and play soft zone, you seriously believe we would have advocated that play? It was not the right play call.

    Seattle has been beaten numerous times on scheme at the end of games this year despite having the #1 scoring defense. We have the talent. Scheme was bad.

    We could have played a tighter zone. I also don't think we would have been killed in man. I would have preferred almost anything to soft zone. Sherman stayed with his guy step for step most of the game. I would have trusted him to make a play if they tried to go deep. Ryan was choking. If you give him easy wide open targets he can hit those. I don't think he could have landed a clutch deep ball.

    Two defensive backs, Browner and Davis, disagree with you. I know who to believe.
    formido
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 481
    Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:41 pm
    Location: Ventura, CA


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:29 am
  • Regardless of pass rush, all Ryan saw was a ton of green grass in front of him. He is good enough, and has done it enough times to take perfect advantage of that situation, and we should not have given it to him.
    Image

    R.I.P. Brother Les
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 24230
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: Freddy's favorite song?....Dream On


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:36 am
  • formido wrote:
    We could have played a tighter zone. I also don't think we would have been killed in man. I would have preferred almost anything to soft zone. Sherman stayed with his guy step for step most of the game. I would have trusted him to make a play if they tried to go deep. Ryan was choking. If you give him easy wide open targets he can hit those. I don't think he could have landed a clutch deep ball.


    If this is true, they why weren't you here last week criticizing the zone blitzes on the final plays of the Skins game? Oh that right, cause they worked.

    This is not a scheme thing, it's an execution thing.

    If Trufant does what he was suppose to do, which is give up the short rout and make sure nothing goes over his head, we're not having this conversation. If Guy doesn't come late on his blitz, we're not having this conversation. If Wagner doesn't get spun around and allow Gonzales the catch and miss the tackle to allow him another 5-6 yards, we're not having this conversation.

    You can hindsight all you want, but be consistent. NOBODY on this entire forum criticized the zone blitz scheme last week.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3457
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:21 pm
  • We have the most physical corners in the nfl why not just play press and if they beat us deep so be it but too let them have 2 passes almost completely undefended until the tackles were made is what is tearing me apart still today its gonna linger till next year....... go hawks
    JERSEYHAWK
    User avatar
    Jersey_Hawk
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 10
    Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:06 am


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:26 pm
  • If Jacquizz Rodgers doesn't stonewall our blitzer, this conversation is entirely different. That single blitz pickup might have been the most important non-scoring play of the game for Atlanta.
    Super Bowl Champions XVLIII

    RIP Radish: Check your PMs. Upper right corner.
    User avatar
    Sarlacc83
    * NET Philistine *
     
    Posts: 15448
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:59 pm
  • Largent80 wrote:You simply DO NOT leave the middle of the field open. And it was open enough to drive a semi through it. Terrible defensive calls right there, and extremely-poorly executed.

    This, the Defense was pretending to blitz Ryan on those last two plays, and most of the secondary foot raced PASSED the recievers, leaving the passing lanes........................W I D E............................. O P E N
    Dumb.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3642
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:09 pm
  • .........and I'm telling you with our horrible pass rush, it wouldn't have mattered. Whether you're playing man to man or zone you still have to get pressure on the QB, which we were unable to do.

    So hindsight comments like yours don't matter. Ryan would have had time to throw no matter what coverage we were playing.


    This. Julio, White, Gonzo, Douglas, etc... One of them would have gotten open. Had they been getting pressure on Ryan at all during the game I might feel different, but he had all day to throw that whole game. Clearly not having Clemons hurt more than some (myself) might have thought.
    ceej22
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 213
    Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:36 pm


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:18 pm
  • Seahawks4life wrote:The problem was like Browner said we went Soft Zone, Which no matter if we blitzed or not the CB's should not have been 10 yards up the field. Should have been up to bump the WR to throw them off rout and buy our Dline more time.

    EXACTLY,,,The Corners played precicely as they were instructed, and the Falcons Coaching found that by watching the Seahawks tendencies from the Redskins game, they already knew how to position their three best recievers to succeed.
    Hell, even IF Browner and Sherman had blanketed Jones & White, that the Seahawks Defense didn't have an answer for Gonzo.
    By the way,, Where the hell was Chancellor?, he did the Kam Bam to Vernon Davis, but came nowhere near Gonzalaz.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3642
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:24 pm
  • Seahawks4life wrote:The problem was like Browner said we went Soft Zone, Which no matter if we blitzed or not the CB's should not have been 10 yards up the field. Should have been up to bump the WR to throw them off rout and buy our Dline more time.


    This would make more sense if EITHER of the two completions were to Cruz or White.

    Pressing WR's doesn't matter if your LB's and nickel DB can't cover my grandma. Press coverage requires getting to the QB just as much as zone coverage does. More time = someone's open.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3457
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:27 pm
  • Largent80 wrote:You simply DO NOT leave the middle of the field open. And it was open enough to drive a semi through it. Terrible defensive calls right there, and extremely-poorly executed.


    This ^^^

    My gut sank through the floor when we scored and 30 seconds remained. I had a bad feeling we would sit back and let them get the yards. Man...I cant stop replaying that last ATL drive through my head...:(
    **ME LONG YOU LOVE TIME**
    Seattle_Stunna_MD
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 281
    Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 10:03 am
    Location: MD


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:08 pm
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    I would have rather risked that than give them 10-20 yards to make 2 easy catches on us.. like they did..

    .........and I'm telling you with our horrible pass rush, it wouldn't have mattered. Whether you're playing man to man or zone you still have to get pressure on the QB, which we were unable to do.

    So hindsight comments like yours don't matter. Ryan would have had time to throw no matter what coverage we were playing.

    You a peewee coach?
    SEATTLE SEAHAWKS SUPERBOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS!

    May the spirit of our friend The Radish live on forever!
    User avatar
    Sports Hernia
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11938
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
    Location: Lombardi Land


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:34 pm
  • Sarlacc83 wrote:If Jacquizz Rodgers doesn't stonewall our blitzer, this conversation is entirely different. That single blitz pickup might have been the most important non-scoring play of the game for Atlanta.


    I agree,I didn't notice myself. One of the sports shows highlighted Rogers. A great lock unfortunately
    User avatar
    Aristotle22
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 444
    Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:48 pm


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:19 pm
  • Not an X's and O's guy,

    but my question is:

    Since we use a Press coverage for our Corners to disrupt get-off of receivers and thereby disrupt the timing of the route and make the QB
    hold the ball longer so the blitz or pressure can get there at the very least to impact the accuracy of the throw

    Why don't we use a similar Press/Bump coverage at the line on the slot receiver or TE for the same purpose?
    GoHawks
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 489
    Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 3:49 pm


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:41 pm
  • The first play, Browner was assigned deep third. Rule 1 = Don't get beat deep. He got to the spot on time to make a hit and the underneath guy was a foot away from making the play as well. The OC guessed right. It was a perfect offensive playcall, a perfect route, a perfect throw, and the guy held onto the catch. Not a lot you can do.

    The second play was a fantastic playcall, and great chemistry between Gonzalez and Ryan. You don't see that kind of stuff to a TE. It was a special play. Gonzalez gave a post look, and Wagner took a step to be all over it. Then right when it looked like Ryan was going to throw the post, Gonzales comes to a dead stop and turns the other direction. Must have been some kind of option route with just perfect timing. When you time it the way they did, it is almost an unstoppable play. They executed it perfectly.

    They could have gone press on the first play I guess, but after watching the Ravens game, you know the coaches don't want to get beat deep and lose the game on one play. Besides that, I really don't know what other coaches would have done differently. The Atlanta OC called two perfect plays and a good QB and receivers executed the plays flawlessly. I know it hurts, but you just gotta tip your cap and move on.
    "So between my friends and I we have been at every home game to date this year, and we have all been plotting the offensive plays called. " ------Anthony!
    User avatar
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1499
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:37 pm


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:01 pm
  • brimsalabim wrote:FWIW former NFL DB and NFL network analyst Eric Davis said he was disappointed in “the legion of boom” for giving such huge cushions to the receivers on those last plays after playing such tight bump for most of the game. He said players play and no matter what the coaches call if you believe you are a top NFL cover man you can’t give that cushion.


    seriously though, jeez, Matt was told to do one thing and one thing only, sideline receptions, stop clock, repeat

    how was that NOT visioned by every one on the Seahawks team?

    maybe just caught up?
    GO HAWKS!!!
    User avatar
    Twisted
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1554
    Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:29 pm


Re: Prevent "from winning" defense
Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:03 pm
  • Tical21 wrote:I know it hurts, but you just gotta tip your cap and move on.


    you can't move on if you cant realize your mistakes and fix them, however, you can think you have moved on and fixed them...

    critical thinking, its huge

    http://editorialnation.hubpages.com/hub ... ing-Skills
    GO HAWKS!!!
    User avatar
    Twisted
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1554
    Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:29 pm




It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:37 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online