Would the dink and dunk work in Seattle?

HansGruber

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2012
Messages
2,740
Reaction score
0
So far, it looks like the only offensive scheme that works against the Seattle defense is the "dink-and-dunk" - lots of short passes at the line etc, to move the ball 5-6 yards a down. And if you look around the NFL, it seems like that's what is working best everywhere. New England is a great example.

So with a rookie QB and no WRs or TEs that seem capable of getting separation, wouldn't the "dink-and-dunk" seem to make some sense in Seattle? Maybe with a lot of hurry-up no-huddle to keep opponent defenses off-balance? We need to start sustaining drives, and our offense appears totally unable to do that this season.
 

NorCal

New member
Joined
Dec 21, 2011
Messages
270
Reaction score
0
Funny how you call the West Coast Offense the "dink-and-dunk".
 

HawkWow

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
6,740
Reaction score
0
Location
The 5-0
I think it was this that divided this forum regarding Wilson and Flynn. To me, I think Flynn is more adept at a dink and dunk WCO, type offense. I also felt that other than Rice, our receivers were more of that mold as well. I was personally frustrated watching Pete put Wilson in situations where it seemed likely Flynn would do better. That said, this is a new league and I will be the first to say I feel Wilson offers more than Flynn, as long as Pete lets him improvise (but I don't think there is much room for improvisation in a true WCO). As soon as Wilson starts hitting those underneath patterns and slants consistantly, I think this offense is going to be very hard to gameplan for and I assume Pete has some sort've schizo WCO in the works. I'm likin' it.
 

MontanaHawk05

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
17,887
Reaction score
404
The dink-and-dunk is not an offensive scheme. It's a failure for the offense, and a settling compromise for when their opponent takes away everything past 15 yards (or for when your QB lacks the requisite arm strength to threaten at deeper ranges). Forcing an offense to dink-and-dunk is usually quoted as a defensive strategy for stopping elite quarterbacks, because it requires said quarterback to repeatedly make quick, accurate throws into very tight windows and string together drives of 15 or more plays doing it. That increases the chance of a turnover by increasing the fatigue of the offense, manifesting in concentration failures like, oh I dunno, throwing a bad-decision interception to Earl Thomas or a wide-open #1 receiver dropping an easy TD pass. Have we seen that lately?

Only the elite quarterbacks can handle the pressure of a constant dink-and-dunk offense. It's not a desirable strategy at all. The fact that Seattle succeeded in forcing Detroit into it was a victory for our defense, even if there are improvements to be made.
 

HawkWow

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
6,740
Reaction score
0
Location
The 5-0
MontanaHawk05":3544mbjk said:
The dink-and-dunk is not an offensive scheme. It's a failure for the offense, and a settling compromise for when their opponent takes away everything past 15 yards (or for when your QB lacks the requisite arm strength to threaten at deeper ranges). Forcing an offense to dink-and-dunk is usually quoted as a defensive strategy for stopping elite quarterbacks, because it requires said quarterback to repeatedly make quick, accurate throws into very tight windows and string together drives of 15 or more plays doing it. That increases the chance of a turnover by increasing the fatigue of the offense, manifesting in concentration failures like, oh I dunno, throwing a bad-decision interception to Earl Thomas or a wide-open #1 receiver dropping an easy TD pass. Have we seen that lately?

Only the elite quarterbacks can handle the pressure of a constant dink-and-dunk offense. It's not a desirable strategy at all. The fact that Seattle succeeded in forcing Detroit into it was a victory for our defense, even if there are improvements to be made.


Solid points. The a-hole that has / had his name most often tied to this style of play had receivers named Rice and Taylor. That inspired his many students to continue on with the plan, but they didn't have receivers named Rice and Taylor. This is why I am hopeful Pete has some sort've of alternate plan. Apparently he does, and it apparently starts with Russell Wilson.
 

sc85sis

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
8,497
Reaction score
1,347
Location
Houston Suburbs
Wilson has played both West Coast offense and more play action style offense in college between NC State and Wisconsin--he's perfectly comfortable with both.
 

Scottemojo

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
14,663
Reaction score
1
Just watch Ponder this weekend, then tell me if you want a lot more dink and dunk.
 

Tical21

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
82
The problem is that when your running game is way more efficient than your passing game, the defense comes forward. They press the outside receivers, do everything they can to take away the quick and easy stuff, and dare you to beat them down the field. The "dink-and-dunk" game isn't available until Wilson proves he can burn teams down the field. Then the safeties have to stay on top, the corners have to respect the deeper routes, and the underneath stuff opens up. You have seen guys like Brady and Brees come full circle. When they started, they were crowded. Then, for a few years they made teams pay for this by throwing the deep ball. A few years later, teams adjusted and took that away, leaving the underneath stuff open. Now they just take whatever the defense gives them. If you crowd them, they'll hurt you deep. If you take that away, they'll rip you apart underneath. Right now, Wilson is still in phase one. He has a ways to go until the dink-and-dunk game will be effective for him.
 

Happypuppy

New member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
1,975
Reaction score
0
Yes it would work. But why? We have Lynch and Turbin both good backs. We are weak at receiver
 

manders2600

New member
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
203
Reaction score
0
MontanaHawk05":3uw8al8d said:
The dink-and-dunk is not an offensive scheme. It's a failure for the offense, and a settling compromise for when their opponent takes away everything past 15 yards (or for when your QB lacks the requisite arm strength to threaten at deeper ranges). Forcing an offense to dink-and-dunk is usually quoted as a defensive strategy for stopping elite quarterbacks, because it requires said quarterback to repeatedly make quick, accurate throws into very tight windows and string together drives of 15 or more plays doing it. That increases the chance of a turnover by increasing the fatigue of the offense, manifesting in concentration failures like, oh I dunno, throwing a bad-decision interception to Earl Thomas or a wide-open #1 receiver dropping an easy TD pass. Have we seen that lately?

Only the elite quarterbacks can handle the pressure of a constant dink-and-dunk offense. It's not a desirable strategy at all. The fact that Seattle succeeded in forcing Detroit into it was a victory for our defense, even if there are improvements to be made.

10+ play drives also tend to fatigue the defense, which sets up the run in the second half of games.

It is true that a team needs a QB and receivers capable of executing this type of attack. However, quick, short passes also take pressure off the offensive line, and these are higher-percentage throws than the deep ball.
 

MontanaHawk05

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
17,887
Reaction score
404
manders2600":jxkkxruj said:
10+ play drives also tend to fatigue the defense, which sets up the run in the second half of games.

It is true that a team needs a QB and receivers capable of executing this type of attack. However, quick, short passes also take pressure off the offensive line, and these are higher-percentage throws than the deep ball.

They may be higher-percentage, but a lot more of them have to be made than deep balls.

Also, quick passing games aren't exactly the same thing as dink-and-dunk. Quick passes can still be 10-15 yards and merely involve the QB getting the ball out to a receiver whose timing will have him right where he needs to. Dink-and-dunk might just involve repeatedly losing your deeper routes and settling for what's underneath.

Stafford had a lot of the latter Sunday night, IIRC. He held onto the ball quite a bit, indicating that the shorter routes weren't really the intention. Then he'd go for the underneath stuff and our zones would prove not to be a little too big.
 

ImTheScientist

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2012
Messages
3,724
Reaction score
63
HansGruber":1h8tcnkm said:
So far, it looks like the only offensive scheme that works against the Seattle defense is the "dink-and-dunk" - lots of short passes at the line etc, to move the ball 5-6 yards a down. And if you look around the NFL, it seems like that's what is working best everywhere. New England is a great example.

So with a rookie QB and no WRs or TEs that seem capable of getting separation, wouldn't the "dink-and-dunk" seem to make some sense in Seattle? Maybe with a lot of hurry-up no-huddle to keep opponent defenses off-balance? We need to start sustaining drives, and our offense appears totally unable to do that this season.

Early in the season fans were complaining Russell Wilson was "dinking-and-dunking" and not taking shots down field. Now we are throwing long and people want "dink-and-dunk".....confusing.
 

themunn

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
3,946
Reaction score
463
You need consistent WR's for the short passing game - if you go out on first down and throw a 5 yard pass, then on second down it's incomplete, you're left with an undesirable 3rd and 5 situation.

I'd prefer if we had a 40/40/20 split between running the ball, throwing it deep and throwing it short, particularly on first down.
Such a strategy would keep defenses honest, and as such mismatches would occur all over the field leading to big gains in all 3 areas
 

Basis4day

Active member
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
5,924
Reaction score
0
So let me get this straight. Many on this board were frustrated by dink and dunk and checkdowns early in the season... now it's what you want?

The second we start doing this, you will complain about the lack of chunk plays.

I'm starting to think that many will complain no matter what we do.
 

hawker84

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
5,603
Reaction score
318
Location
Tri Cities, WA
i'm not seeing where our offense is a huge problem, we're moving the ball , cutting down on penalties, scoring td's , we're appearing to be getting better every week, not sure what you guys are looking for, we went down and scored a 4th qtr td last week for a win, and th D took a big dump... i would like to see the play calling mixed up a bit, and stop running on every 1st down, or every 3rd and long, but the offense is definately improving... just need to get better on 3rd downs.
 

scutterhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
9,806
Reaction score
1,759
HansGruber":220rxsj4 said:
So far, it looks like the only offensive scheme that works against the Seattle defense is the "dink-and-dunk" - lots of short passes at the line etc, to move the ball 5-6 yards a down. And if you look around the NFL, it seems like that's what is working best everywhere. New England is a great example.

So with a rookie QB and no WRs or TEs that seem capable of getting separation, wouldn't the "dink-and-dunk" seem to make some sense in Seattle? Maybe with a lot of hurry-up no-huddle to keep opponent defenses off-balance? We need to start sustaining drives, and our offense appears totally unable to do that this season.
Not if that's all you do,,It is just another gismo in the bag of tricks that the QB's can use to move the ball.
I don't believe that, by itself, it can be a sustainable plan of attack, because Defenses play your tendencies.
 

SoulfishHawk

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
29,421
Reaction score
9,872
Location
Sammamish, WA
Unfortunately, for a lot of fans, it will never be good enough w/Wilson, they have already decided they want Flynn etc. I was thinking about how before the season a lot of ppl were saying they would be happy with 4-4 considering our schedule. Now it seems like a ton of ppl are pissed off about that exact record. It just is whining for the sake of whining imo.
 

NorCal

New member
Joined
Dec 21, 2011
Messages
270
Reaction score
0
HawkWow":10xsaifc said:
MontanaHawk05":10xsaifc said:
The dink-and-dunk is not an offensive scheme. It's a failure for the offense, and a settling compromise for when their opponent takes away everything past 15 yards (or for when your QB lacks the requisite arm strength to threaten at deeper ranges). Forcing an offense to dink-and-dunk is usually quoted as a defensive strategy for stopping elite quarterbacks, because it requires said quarterback to repeatedly make quick, accurate throws into very tight windows and string together drives of 15 or more plays doing it. That increases the chance of a turnover by increasing the fatigue of the offense, manifesting in concentration failures like, oh I dunno, throwing a bad-decision interception to Earl Thomas or a wide-open #1 receiver dropping an easy TD pass. Have we seen that lately?

Only the elite quarterbacks can handle the pressure of a constant dink-and-dunk offense. It's not a desirable strategy at all. The fact that Seattle succeeded in forcing Detroit into it was a victory for our defense, even if there are improvements to be made.


Solid points. The a-hole that has / had his name most often tied to this style of play had receivers named Rice and Taylor. That inspired his many students to continue on with the plan, but they didn't have receivers named Rice and Taylor. This is why I am hopeful Pete has some sort've of alternate plan. Apparently he does, and it apparently starts with Russell Wilson.

Bill Walsh won 2 Super Bowls before Jerry Rice was even drafted. Just felt like I had to point that out to you.
 
Top