
http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef
In other news, Seattle's passing offense is now ranked #12!
http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamoff
Largent80 wrote:And we are now scoring in the 20's consistently.
MontanaHawk05 wrote:Largent80 wrote:And we are now scoring in the 20's consistently.
This is a huge factor IMO. Against some offenses, there is no shutting them down, only limiting them and keeping up with your own offense.
Largent80 wrote:Ha...Dom, I love ya. BUT, that was an incredible performance by a very elite RB. It was actually cool to see him do that.
Tech Worlds wrote:Largent80 wrote:Ha...Dom, I love ya. BUT, that was an incredible performance by a very elite RB. It was actually cool to see him do that.
See that's where we disagree. I dont like to see my team get pushed around. No matter what the outcome of the game.
A better performance, for me, would have been to absolutely stone him. Just stuff him and allow zilch.
I am not a fan of his, or really any player or team besides the Hawks.
Peterson embarrassed our run defense last Sunday and I didn't think it was cool.
MontanaHawk05 wrote:In other news, Seattle's passing offense is now ranked #12!
MontanaHawk05 wrote:Tech Worlds wrote:Largent80 wrote:Ha...Dom, I love ya. BUT, that was an incredible performance by a very elite RB. It was actually cool to see him do that.
See that's where we disagree. I dont like to see my team get pushed around. No matter what the outcome of the game.
A better performance, for me, would have been to absolutely stone him. Just stuff him and allow zilch.
I am not a fan of his, or really any player or team besides the Hawks.
Peterson embarrassed our run defense last Sunday and I didn't think it was cool.
You don't have to. But if you're going to use it as a reason to cast an unfavorable light on the defense as a whole, it's a pretty unfair argument. Lots of defenses have trouble with Adrian Peterson. Much more worrisome would be if we struggle with Shonne Greene next week, which I highly doubt we will.
Tech Worlds wrote:MontanaHawk05 wrote:Tech Worlds wrote:See that's where we disagree. I dont like to see my team get pushed around. No matter what the outcome of the game.
A better performance, for me, would have been to absolutely stone him. Just stuff him and allow zilch.
I am not a fan of his, or really any player or team besides the Hawks.
Peterson embarrassed our run defense last Sunday and I didn't think it was cool.
You don't have to. But if you're going to use it as a reason to cast an unfavorable light on the defense as a whole, it's a pretty unfair argument. Lots of defenses have trouble with Adrian Peterson. Much more worrisome would be if we struggle with Shonne Greene next week, which I highly doubt we will.
Yes lots of defenses struggle with him true. But do they let him average 10 yards a carry? .
We played poorly against a great player. Why is that so hard to admit?
MontanaHawk05 wrote:Tech Worlds wrote:MontanaHawk05 wrote:[quote="Tech Worlds"]See that's where we disagree. I dont like to see my team get pushed around. No matter what the outcome of the game.
A better performance, for me, would have been to absolutely stone him. Just stuff him and allow zilch.
I am not a fan of his, or really any player or team besides the Hawks.
Peterson embarrassed our run defense last Sunday and I didn't think it was cool.
You don't have to. But if you're going to use it as a reason to cast an unfavorable light on the defense as a whole, it's a pretty unfair argument. Lots of defenses have trouble with Adrian Peterson. Much more worrisome would be if we struggle with Shonne Greene next week, which I highly doubt we will.
Yes lots of defenses struggle with him true. But do they let him average 10 yards a carry? .
We played poorly against a great player. Why is that so hard to admit?
Hawkadeus wrote:I am not here screaming that the sky is falling. I fully expect the defense to get things turned around. But I dont know how anyone can watch the defense over the course of a month, in consecutive weeks give up 350+ passing to Brady and Stafford and 150-200 to Gore and Peterson, giving up 75% on 3rd down in Detroit, and say "ho hum. so what?"
MontanaHawk05 wrote:Hawkadeus wrote:I am not here screaming that the sky is falling. I fully expect the defense to get things turned around. But I dont know how anyone can watch the defense over the course of a month, in consecutive weeks give up 350+ passing to Brady and Stafford and 150-200 to Gore and Peterson, giving up 75% on 3rd down in Detroit, and say "ho hum. so what?"
Perhaps by remembering that a crucial player is out with an injury?
Hawkadeus wrote:MontanaHawk05 wrote:Hawkadeus wrote:I am not here screaming that the sky is falling. I fully expect the defense to get things turned around. But I dont know how anyone can watch the defense over the course of a month, in consecutive weeks give up 350+ passing to Brady and Stafford and 150-200 to Gore and Peterson, giving up 75% on 3rd down in Detroit, and say "ho hum. so what?"
Perhaps by remembering that a crucial player is out with an injury?
If Jason Jones makes that big a difference, we got problems.
MontanaHawk05 wrote:Hawkadeus wrote:MontanaHawk05 wrote:Perhaps by remembering that a crucial player is out with an injury?
If Jason Jones makes that big a difference, we got problems.
Interior pressure has been the primary difference between this year and last. It's always been a crucial component for pass rush, and Jones hasn't been bad against the run either.
Hawkadeus wrote:MontanaHawk05 wrote:Hawkadeus wrote:
If Jason Jones makes that big a difference, we got problems.
Interior pressure has been the primary difference between this year and last. It's always been a crucial component for pass rush, and Jones hasn't been bad against the run either.
That's fine and all. But if the effectiveness of your entire unit drops off a cliff sans one single player, a rotational back up at that, then you are riding a very fine line. Great defenses can withstand one missing one player.
Tech Worlds wrote:Largent80 wrote:Ha...Dom, I love ya. BUT, that was an incredible performance by a very elite RB. It was actually cool to see him do that.
See that's where we disagree. I dont like to see my team get pushed around. No matter what the outcome of the game.
A better performance, for me, would have been to absolutely stone him. Just stuff him and allow zilch.
I am not a fan of his, or really any player or team besides the Hawks.
Peterson embarrassed our run defense last Sunday and I didn't think it was cool.
Hawkadeus wrote:Believe it or not, I'm with Techworlds on this one. Those DVOA stats are misleading, and most likely propped up a great deal by the first 5 games of the season when the defense was lights out.
cboom wrote:Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.
volsunghawk wrote:Hawkadeus wrote:MontanaHawk05 wrote:Interior pressure has been the primary difference between this year and last. It's always been a crucial component for pass rush, and Jones hasn't been bad against the run either.
That's fine and all. But if the effectiveness of your entire unit drops off a cliff sans one single player, a rotational back up at that, then you are riding a very fine line. Great defenses can withstand one missing one player.
Jones is anything but a rotational backup.
JSeahawks wrote:To all those saying the Minnesota game exposed our defense as not being very good, we gave up 306 yards. Our average is 309.2. So if anything, that performance made our defense (statistically) better.
It just looked bad because it was one player picking up most of the yardage.
JSeahawks wrote:To all those saying the Minnesota game exposed our defense as not being very good, we gave up 306 yards. Our average is 309.2. So if anything, that performance made our defense (statistically) better.
It just looked bad because it was one player picking up most of the yardage.
Hawks46 wrote:I also disagree that it is a 1 game anomaly. SF and Minn gashed us with the run, and Detroit killed us with the pass (since they can't run well, and passing is their strength), it's becoming a trend, and that's worrisome to a lot of us.
kearly wrote:MontanaHawk05 wrote:In other news, Seattle's passing offense is now ranked #12!
Wow.
Something else that's cool? Our overall team DVOA is shoulder to shoulder with the best teams in the NFL. Our team is +30% in DVOA. The #1 team is +37%.
Another thing that's cool? The Seahawks did that while slogging through a brutal schedule. I'm guessing DVOA takes that into account, but still. Damn.
MontanaHawk05 wrote:Hawks46 wrote:I also disagree that it is a 1 game anomaly. SF and Minn gashed us with the run, and Detroit killed us with the pass (since they can't run well, and passing is their strength), it's becoming a trend, and that's worrisome to a lot of us.
The only thing that's really been a significant trend is the quality of opponent we've faced these last four weeks. That was the toughest part of our schedule in terms of offensive strength. It's easier from here.
Hawkadeus wrote:I agree with what you're saying. The opponents defintely factor in to the results. That is true. That said, what you're saying is our defense isn't good enough to stop good offenses. That we should only be expected to stonewall bad to mediocre offenses. If thats the case, I dont see how we can be all too excited over our team and our prospects.
SalishHawkFan wrote:1st round: Seattle at SF, GB at NYG
hedgehawk wrote:I have a hard time believing any defensive stat that has the 49ers below us. Doesn't fit the eye test.
Navyhawkfan187 wrote:hedgehawk wrote:I have a hard time believing any defensive stat that has the 49ers below us. Doesn't fit the eye test.
That 49er Defense has been manhandled at home, and got manhandled by the offense we just beat.
Hawkadeus wrote:We played great for one month, then crapply for one month. Which should be more applicable right now? Im sorry, but for me, its the most recent one. Just as I would be saying if we played one month of crap defense followed by a month of great d. Which is the case for our offense. I dont know why one would try to fight against trends and say that we should assume current trends mean nothing and that we should go with what was happening a month ago. only reason is foolish homerism. If you disagree, then you should not be buying into the Hawks offense improving. Because who cares about the last month. the previous one is what matters most. Right?
Scottemojo wrote:Hawkadeus wrote:We played great for one month, then crapply for one month. Which should be more applicable right now? Im sorry, but for me, its the most recent one. Just as I would be saying if we played one month of crap defense followed by a month of great d. Which is the case for our offense. I dont know why one would try to fight against trends and say that we should assume current trends mean nothing and that we should go with what was happening a month ago. only reason is foolish homerism. If you disagree, then you should not be buying into the Hawks offense improving. Because who cares about the last month. the previous one is what matters most. Right?
Results based analysis is giving you diarrhea of the keyboard. Look at the individual and collective matchups to forecast, not what happened last game. Trends don't mean a damn thing, it is all about the matchups.
For instance, did we actually play bad D against the Patriots, as you say? I recall a D that stopped the run fairly well, dished out enough hits to give Patriot receivers short arms as the game wore on, and stiffened in the redzone and at the end of the game on Brady's last two drives. Go to the box score and look at Brady's yards and you will hiccup, but then figure out his YPA and understand that we got them out of their game. It was actually a good defensive performance. Because we won enough matchups.
Then the Niners. Gore had two really good runs and a handful of decent runs. Give him and them credit. How many points did they get in that game? 14? And Alex Smith looked terrible? So why did they run so well? Look at that offensive line, which is the best run blocking group in football. The simple fact is that you can cry about bad run D all you want, 14 points says that our offense lost that game, not the run D. Our receivers faced a D as violent as ours, and they got short arms. Don't pin that loss on the D. But we did lose too many individual matchups, thus Gore's run totals.
The Lions game certainly didn't feature much good running by the Lions, but that is one loss you can pin on the D. That was a legit 28 they hung on us. Still, we were one defensive play away from stealing a win. But in choosing to shut down Megatron, we put our secondary and linebackers into some unfavorable individual matchups and gambled wrong on Stafford's supposed impatience and desire to throw into the short middle.
And then the Vikings. Yeah, watching us get gashed by purple Jesus was tough, but we lost a starting LB early in that game. I don't think Jason Jones being gone had that big an effect beyond keeping some of of our other DT's on the field a bit too much, but look at the matchups. Loadholt can't pass block for shit, but he can single block Red Bryant. He's good. Mebane's penetration actually worked against the Hawks, it created cut back lanes that only scatbacks should be physically capable of exloiting, but hey, purple Jesus. Kalil was in the 2nd level constantly too, and actually had one of the best performances of the week according to Football Outsiders. We lost straight up matchups. Get your brain off the yards, look at the matchups. We didn't play terrible defense, they played great run offense. How many teams are built to do that? Not very many. There is no trend, though.
Now look at the Jets. Can Shonne Greene exploit a cut back lane? Not really. Do their tackles road grade like the Vikings? Nope. Does their center guard combination do a good job of creating run space in the middle? Kind of, yeah, but not like the Vikings or Niners. Our Run D should win the matchups this week. Does that mean some trick play with Tebow won't gash our run D? Does that mean that if Wright can't go we might surrender a couple of run plays that look bad? It just might, but over all we should stop the run against THIS team. And once the Jets go one dimensional, they are toast. Because there are no matchups that favor them in our secondary.
It is currently Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:20 pm
Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]