2 Things About this match up that should make you nervous...

[Gronkzilla]

Hey Hawks Nation! I know most of you probably didn't read my introductory post so I'll once again state that I am in no way here to Troll you guys. I love talking football in an objective sense and find the "takes" of the opposing teams more interesting than the homerism on Pats sites. That being said, there was a thread created for 2 reasons the Pats make Hawks fans feel confident, I just wanted to play Devils Advocate for a moment if you will... I'm interested in what educated responses I can get back on these two topics.

That being said here are my top two reasons that I believe the Seahawks fans should pump the brakes a little..

Reason #1: Lack of quality passers testing the Seahawks defense.

To me this is one of the most overlooked aspects going into the Super Bowl. Reviewing the Seahawks schedule they have not faced a decent quarterback (not here to discuss Kaeperdick) since Week 6. Furthermore in Week 6 that quarterback was Tony Romo who went into Seattle and beat you guys. Even in the two playoff games you have played, Cam Newton isn't scary and Aaron Rodgers was at most 60%. Let me put it out there:

Week 6: Tony Romo
Week 7: Austin Davis
Week 8: Cam Newton
Week 9: Derek Carr
Week 10: Eli Manning
Week 11: Alex Smith
Week 12: Drew Stanton
Week 13: Colin Kaperdick
Week 14: Mark Sanchez
Week 15: Coin Kaperdick
Week 16: Ryan Lindley
Week 17: Shaun Hill
Divisional: Cam Newton
Conference: Aaron Rodgers

There is the list... not very impressive. Now some of those guys I am sure you will debate if they are good or not (i.e. Kaperdick, Manning) but you cannot argue they are in the top 1 or 2 tiers of QBs in the NFL. They are no Rivers, Romo, Rodgers, Peyton, Brady, Roethlisberger, Wilson.

To me I see that the Seahawks defense has absolutely FEASTED on crap quarterbacks. Specifically towards the end of the year when Bobby Wagner game back. There was a lot of noise I heard that when Wagner got back, the defense solidified. I'd say it was bound to solidify based on the insane talent of that defense combined with a tomato can quarterback schedule.

The ONLY respectable quarterback you guys have faced since the Week 6 loss is Aaron Rodgers this past week. I don't have to remind you that a hobbling Rodgers had his team in position to win that game with 5 minutes left and most likely would've too if Mike McCarthey was not possibly the WORST game manager in football. (I am not taking anything away from that Seahawks comeback, that was incredible. Just because the Packers gave the game away, the Seahakws still needed to step up and take it, and they did. So mad props you've earned the Super Bowl.)

But a hobbling Aaron Rodgers is not even near what he would've been if he had full mobility. That mobility is what separates Rodgers from the rest of the crop of elite QBs. Now you guys face a healthy, rested, motivated and fired up Tom Brady who was told in Week 4 by the NFL that his best days were behind him. He has risen to the occasion and finished the season at an elite level. Against the Ravens he was nearly flawless in the divisional round (besides the stupid interception where he locked on Gronk).

What I am getting at is this, the Seahawks defense while elite in their own right, have not had an opposing Quarterback and offense operating at this level since October. That is a long time to go without playing a quarterback of Tom Bradys level. I think we can all agree that quarterback is the most important position in football after all. Brady is sharper and operating at a higher level than Aaron Rodgers at this point of the season (I know, Rodgers isn't playing at this point in the season for you smart asses, but you know what I mean.)

If I were a Seahawks fan, THIS would make me nervous. Especially when I name the 2nd reason....

Reason #2: Lack of 4 man pressure from the Seahawks front 4.

Piggybacking off my first point, in past Patriots losses, typically the way that Brady gets flustered is when he faces a defense that gets pressure with a 4 man rush. This is why the Baltimores, Giants, Dolphins, Jets, Bills of the world tend to have success rushing Brady. Getting pressure with the front 4 allows the secondary to take more chances and cover the entire field. It has been proven that time after time, Brady will eat up blitzes. At this point in his career he has seen it all and besides some exotic looks from the Rex Ryan crew who at this point are in Bradys head, he does NOT get beat consistently by the Blitz. To the contrary, if he knows you are blitzing it often is a benefit to Brady.

The loss of Mebane and Hill is detriment to the Seahawks success against the Patriots. in that aspect, the Pats just match up well against this type of defense (as well I guess as anyone could match up against the best defense in the NFL). I know many Pats fans who would rather face the Broncos than the Dolphins for this exact reason. They types of teams that give the Pats offense problems are 4-3 teams with an elite pass rush (a.k.a Cameron Wake). If you blitz Brady, then he will score points. If you give Brady time, then he will score points. So how will the Seahawks accomplish this?

I understand the Seahawks have the best FS and the best SS in the game. Also arguably the best CB in the game. But the Patriots receivers are many and shifty. Edelman is very underrated and all the attention will be placed on stopping Gronkowski. So in what way do you stop both of them while also not allowing Amendola, Lafell, Vereen and Tim Wright to beat you? (they have proven capable).

Patriots are a team that executes on an elite level offensively and defensively while making few mistakes (i.e. Packers). I expect the Seahawks to play better than they did against the Packers but I would like to hear some educated responses from the Hawks nation regarding these two above points. I cannot wait for this game and I think it'll be absolutely enthralling from the kickoff. Even the halftime show has my interest in hopefully there will be another wardrobe malfunction for Katie Perry haha. (May we all be so lucky).

Cheers!

 

[12thbrah]

Thanks for sharing. Still not nervous

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

We rarely blitz. Also understand Russell Wilson just had the worst game of his career yet when the game was on the line he drove the team down the field 80+ yards in 3 plays like clockwork. He was nails when in counted as usual. I wouldn't count on the Seahawks turning the ball over 5 times and Wilson throwing another 4 interceptions (2 of which should have been caught anyway).

 

[SonicHawk]

Green Bay's receivers are significantly better than NE. There is no need to only rush 4.

Anyways, the front 4 did enough to hold GB to only 22 points when they had amazing field position the entire game.

Sure, they didn't sack a hobbling Rodgers, but Lacy also didn't blow for 140 yards.

The Seahawks haven't faced... BLAH BLAH BLAH, 12-4... in the Super Bowl, your argument is invalid.

 

[DannyMcGwire]

Rodgers at 60% is probably better then the last two QB's you faced. Not sure what you are trying to argue here?

 

[iigakusei]

#2 is my only concern going into this game on defense. Absolutely agree with you.
#1 doesn't concern me too much - it isn't like our defense has gone through major changes over the past 2 years.

 

[Gronkzilla]

Rodgers at 60% is probably better then the last two QB's you faced. Not sure what you are trying to argue here?

I will condense my argument to just two sentences. Then you can read my explanation for why I feel that way above...

Reason 1: Seahawks have been playing sub-par quarterbacks since Week 6. They have not since faced a Quarterback playing at an "ELITE" level.

Reason 2: Seahawks don't have a 4 man pass rush that can consistently get after Brady.

I was hoping for some more educated responses but alas I may not get a return volley.

 

[brettb3]

Your #1 point is just silly. This defense has more than proven themselves against elite QBs.

 

[Gronkzilla]

Your #1 point is just silly. This defense has more than proven themselves against elite QBs.

Actually the Seahawks are only 3-2 against top level quarterbacks this season...(counting this last weekend)

 

[marko358]

Now some of those guys I am sure you will debate if they are good or not (i.e. Kaperdick, Manning)

If you're discounting Eli's season then you're discounting Brady's since their numbers this year are nearly identical.

 

[sutz]

Point #1 We don't play against QBs. We play against teams. Besides, we play the kind of defense that channels other teams into our strength, which is the secondary. I know Belly is good at finding team weaknesses and exploiting them, but I don't think you have the kind of running game that can win this game on its own. And I don't know that your WRs can handle the pounding they'll get if the Pats try to dink and dunk for 4 qtrs.

Point #2 We don't blitz a lot. It's not a big part of our game plans. Generally we do coverages more than blitz packages. Even in that we tend to hold YAC to an absolute minimum. Our DBs are good to great across the board, even coming off the bench, and our LBs have the kind of speed to minimize teams' TEs underneath.

Our secondary does a lot of single high safety, because Thomas can get from sideline to sideline in the time it takes the ball to get 30 yards downfield, and we do a lot of 3 deep zones, because our CBs have the speed and agility to drop quickly into them, while maintaining position on the WRs. We don't turn defensive schemes into rocket science, we keep it simple and rely on superior talent and speed. It's been working pretty well so far.

We have great team speed on D, and pretty much all of them are above average tacklers, too. Our ratio of big plays given up to made is pretty damn good in our direction.

Oh, and when we do blitz, I think you'll be shocked at how fast Irvin is. We've been kind of keeping him under wraps the past few games. I expect him to step up big time.

 

[DannyMcGwire]

Pretty sure Wilson and the Seahawks are 10-0 against Super Bowl winning QBs, which includes 3-0 this year, both of whom had previously won League MVP honours. The team doesn't get to pick the schedule.

 

[SomersetHawk]

I was worried about the same thing. Then we ran into Erin Rodgers pretending to be injured and still shut him down and intercepted him twice. We gave them the ball back five times and they only put up 22 points on us.

By all means comfort yourself with this for 10 days though, the hit will be harder.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

So let me get this straight...

1. Luck
2. Flacco
3. Orton
4. G. Smith
5. Tannehill
6. Rivers (injured)
7. Rodgers (injured)
8. Stafford

And so forth are all "elite"?

Again for a second time WE DON'T BLITZ A LOT because we get enough pressure with 4 guys on a regular basis.

 

[volsunghawk]

Your #1 point is just silly. This defense has more than proven themselves against elite QBs.

Actually the Seahawks are only 3-2 against top level quarterbacks this season...(counting this last weekend)

And those two losses both happened early in the year when Kam Chancellor was hobbled and Bobby Wagner was injured (at least in the Dallas game).

As others have noted, I am more concerned about the pass rush element than I am about the "elite QB" element. This team is largely the same team as last season - at least on defense - and they handled themselves pretty well against elite QBs that year. Do you think they'll be surprised by Brady in some way? I mean, come on... I realize that since the team is in Seattle, people might want to think the cloud of pot smoke up there is going to lead to poor short-term memory for everyone in the area, but....


wait, what was I saying?

 

[Seafan]

Your #1 point is just silly. This defense has more than proven themselves against elite QBs.

Actually the Seahawks are only 3-2 against top level quarterbacks this season...(counting this last weekend)

If the Hawks have to play another top level QB I might be worried. Maybe not.

 

[kjreid]

Pats played 4 meaningful games on their schedule (meaning playoff teams) Hawks played 6 so your logic must mean that the hawks play far superior during the season since they played 6 playoff teams as opposed to the Pats "pat" schedule on mediocrity.

 

[brettb3]

Your #1 point is just silly. This defense has more than proven themselves against elite QBs.

Actually the Seahawks are only 3-2 against top level quarterbacks this season...(counting this last weekend)

So even under your generous idea of what constitutes a top level QB the Seahawks have a winning record. Against Super Bowl winning QBs since 2012 they're 10-0. Against the four "elites" (Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Brees) over that same time span they're 8-0.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Finally, an actual well thought out post by a Pats fan.

I agree that the interior pressure will be key for the Hawks D to make the pocket uncomfortable for Brady and allow our edge rushers to create problems. Luckily the Hawks have 3-4 good edge rushers (Irvin, Avril, Bennett and Schoefield), so that if needed they can drop Bennett inside to help collapse the pocket.

To counter your first argument, the teams that have given the Hawks D problems are superior O-line teams that can match the Hawks front 7 physcially to really move the ball on the ground.

Dallas did this, and the Chiefs did this. But the Pat's O-line is average at best, and your RB's are a joke. Your best back right now is someone you got off the scrap heap. You DO NOT have an elite back that can take advantage of run space against a front 7 like the Hawks have.

That means the Hawks can commit more rushers if need be because they know the Pats have a weak sauce run game that Wagner and Kam can easily snuff out in the A&B gaps inside.

There you go, problem solved my friend.

 

[Alexander]

Your first point has been brought up ad infinitum ever since the Hawks got on a roll, and it's a lazy talking point. Let me explain why:

1) You have no control over the schedule you play. The only thing you can do is play to the best of your ability against the schedule you've been given. And while I agree the Hawks played mostly below average offenses to end the year, they destroyed them. Take any other defense in the NFL and give them that schedule of offenses and I guarantee you none of them come close to the level of dominance the Hawks displayed. They haven't just beaten bad defenses; they've annihilated them, over a sufficiently long stretch of games that it can't be dismissed as a fluke.

2) Football Outsiders adjusts for the quality of opposition, and even they have the Hawks' defense as improving toward the end of the year. This relates to my point above: they haven't just beaten opposing offenses, they've destroyed them.

3) It's not like the defense has a track record of beating up on soft competition and then crapping the bed against the elite quarterbacks. Quite the opposite, as they've largely FEASTED on the elite quarterbacks in the game. This includes Peyton Manning twice (BEFORE his body fell apart), Drew Brees twice, and Aaron Rodgers THREE TIMES (both the gimpy version and the fully healthy version). Obviously some of those games were a long time ago, but even with personnel changes and injuries, which obviously impact the overall quality of the defense, I think it's fair to say the defense typically matches up well with the elite quarterbacks.

4) There are a few exceptions, like Phillip Rivers and Tony Romo, and I'd throw Andrew Luck in there as well. All these quarterbacks possess unique qualities, and their offenses feature unique strengths, that allow them to challenge the Hawks' defense in a way other elite quarterbacks cannot. Romo is probably the most elusive quarterback in the game, and has a Wilson-like knack for making a big play even when the defense has initially won the battle. He also has an elite O-line and running game to back him up. (In 2012 when he did not, he struggled against a version of this defense that I believe to be inferior to this year's version.) Andrew Luck has the physical ability, and the deep-threat WR in TY Hilton, to stretch the defense vertically.

Luck and Romo are obviously both poor comparisons for Brady. Brady is not a mobile, scrambling quarterback. He doesn't have an elite O-line or running game to fall back on. He doesn't have a big arm anymore, and he certainly doesn't have a TY Hilton in his arsenal. The best comparison is Rivers. Like Brady, his offense largely revolves around shorter throws, and he has tremendous chemistry with an elite tight end. Even then, I'd caution against reading too much into it because (a) Rivers is more mobile than Brady, which matters against this defense, and (b) his performance in that game was arguably a bit unsustainable (he had to make a LOT of 3rd down conversions, including several very long ones).

5) Aaron Rodgers was not at 60%. I don't know how anyone could watch him from Week 16 onward (when he first got injured) and say he wasn't still playing at an elite level. Rodgers also has better receivers and a better O-line than Brady, and I don't think it's close.