deep crossing routes

[SoulfishHawk]

Dilfer won because of his Defense. He needs to get over it, and stop being a whining little bish.
Hawks won the Superbowl by 5 TOUCHDOWNS. Funny, I remember the fans of Seattle chanting his name, and supporting him thru losing his son. Funny how quick he forgets what this organization has done for him.

 

[Scottemojo]

Dilfer is talking football 101 here. The defect isn't in the players, it is in the base cover 3 scheme. Every scheme has weaknesses, and he is describing the weakness of cover 3 press.

The assumption is that a single high safety can't cover 2 guys if they cross. The other assumption is that a technically sound press bail cover 3 corner leaves a vulnerable area on the left or right side of the field when he turns to bail to the deep third.

Both are technically true, but Seattle gave up damn near nothing down the deep middle this year. And Sherm has proven to be able to watch a QB when he turns to bail, and has broken up a number of back shoulder attempt on the right side. Dilfer is spot on in saying Maxwell gets picked on in that left area, SF, Denver, and Nola all exploited it to their advantage.

HOWEVER, Seattle has changed it up just enough to work to some big plays. The Kam pick vs Kaepernick was us knowing they wanted to take advantage of that spot ans sliding Chancellor's zone over to the left to take it away. They showed a tendency, we figured it out, and patched it. Later, they got a completion over Thurmond doing the exact same zone Kam had done, the play worked for SF, but it was still a dangerous pass.

What Dilfer left out is the biggest vulnerability of the Hawks, one that the Colts exploited about 3 times. Catch Seattle in cover 3 press, then send 4 go routes. Simple, but it takes a strong armed guy to do it. Last year, Sherm sealed the home win over the Rams when they tried it, but their QB doesn't have much arm and couldn't get it to one of the two guys Sherm was forced to split his coverage on. 4 go routes doesn't take the time that 2 deep crossers does, so it's a lot less dangerous for a QB's health to call 4 go.

Part of the reason I knew we would beat Denver was that Manning simply doesn't have enough arm to take advantage of those areas of the field. There are really many teams with the combination of strong accurate QB, fearless playcaller, and speedy WR/TE combos to take advantage of our defense with 4 go.

 

[Starrman44]

and throws to Maxwell on the left perimeter..

According to Dilfer, this is where we've "been weak throughout the year"


He also says it's a "foolish conversation" to put us in the all-time list of great defenses.

He says it's foolish because he was on the Bucs when they won with that great Defense. Inside, he knows how truly terrible he was at Quarterback. So, he figures he knows how great that Bucs D was because they had to drag his sorry butt along.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

Interesting that it was Dilfer that got me to quit lurking and actually post, but I have to call B.S. on his deep crossing route analysis. Football Outsiders broke this down in the divisional round. Teams only took a shot deep middle 8 times all season. How can you say that is the way to beat the Hawks, when no one in the league tried it?

His second point in that Denver needed to pick on Maxwell was somewhat correct. If you are going to challenge with throws to the outside, it only makes sense to go after Maxwell. As amazing as he played, he was still not up to Sherman's standard. With that said, teams were statistically far better off to try and beat the Hawks with short crossing patterns in the middle, which is exactly what Denver tried to do. Furthermore, Manning does not have the arm to test teams deep consistently. He may have been able to get a few of them out there, with the major risk of throwing a "duck" up for grabs.

The reality is, Denver had no real option to attack Seattle's D besides being able to consistently run the football, which they made 0 attempt to do so. Seattle can be run on, especially when they have the nascar package out there in passing situations. I know hindsight is 20/20, but Denver would have been far better off coming out to start the game in a conventional jumbo package with an extra blocker and just ran a simple dive play. That way you get the jitters of the first play out, and see how the crowd was going to react to things, while maybe picking up 3-4 yards.

As for Dilfer slobbering all over his 2000 Ravens D, someone should remind him that in week 2 of that season, the D gave up 36 points to a 7-9 Jacksonville team. What did the Seahawks do in week 2 this year? Oh, that's right...

great first post and welcome aboard! I look forward to more.

Adding on to your point about we were only challenged deep 8 times this year (NFL best), we also led the NFL in that stat last year when we were challenged only 15 times deep. That is not a weakness, that's one of our greatest strengths. Dilfer just showed what an absolute idiot he is and proved why no one should listen to anything he has to say.

 

[DavidSeven]

Both are technically true, but Seattle gave up damn near nothing down the deep middle this year. And Sherm has proven to be able to watch a QB when he turns to bail, and has broken up a number of back shoulder attempt on the right side. Dilfer is spot on in saying Maxwell gets picked on in that left area, SF, Denver, and Nola all exploited it to their advantage.

HOWEVER, Seattle has changed it up just enough to work to some big plays. The Kam pick vs Kaepernick was us knowing they wanted to take advantage of that spot ans sliding Chancellor's zone over to the left to take it away. They showed a tendency, we figured it out, and patched it. Later, they got a completion over Thurmond doing the exact same zone Kam had done, the play worked for SF, but it was still a dangerous pass.

Awesome analysis. I've been thinking about this lately, too, and that area on the left is really the only spot you can consistently challenge Seattle. ET has closed off the deep seems and Sherman has all but eliminated the right-side go route/back-shoulder. It's an incredible thing we're witnessing.

I mean, where else is there to go? There's the Indy routes you mentioned, but from listening to Hasselbeck recently, those throws have to be made on a string and perfectly placed within a three yard window. If the throw is too short/soft, Sherman can break off coverage and intercept it. If it's too long, the ball is Earl's. It really takes an elite NFL arm to complete that pass with any consistency and a speedy WR to make it work, as you said.

 

[HawkGA]

Homerism is for fans. Asking a player from the Baltimore team if the Seattle D is better than the Baltimore D is just plain silly. I think a lot of what Dilfer had to say was kind of foolish, even making it sound like there was so much he would have done had he been the QB against the Seahawks . . . but asking if this team is better than the team he played on? It would take a big man to say yes. Dilfer is not a big man.

 

[SHOCKER315]

:sarcasm_on: We all really need to listen carefully to what Dilfer has to say. After all, his Seahawks analysis and pregame predictions have been "spot on" this season.

----------------------

On what matchups are favorable for opponents vs the Seahawks defense in the playoffs:

Dilfer: “I said this the first time, (before the first Saints matchup),... obviously I looked like a fool,.... but I still stand by it. Seattle has a very difficult time covering the tight end."

Jimmy Graham's final stats for the 1st playoff game:

1 catch- 8 yards.

Vernon Davis's final stats for the 2nd playoff game:

2 catches- 18 yards.


--------------------------------------


Dilfer admits the Seahawks make him look like a fool.

So I suppose his analysis of the Seahawks would indeed be just as he says, "a foolish conversation".

 

[Hawks46]

Interesting that it was Dilfer that got me to quit lurking and actually post, but I have to call B.S. on his deep crossing route analysis. Football Outsiders broke this down in the divisional round. Teams only took a shot deep middle 8 times all season. How can you say that is the way to beat the Hawks, when no one in the league tried it?

His second point in that Denver needed to pick on Maxwell was somewhat correct. If you are going to challenge with throws to the outside, it only makes sense to go after Maxwell. As amazing as he played, he was still not up to Sherman's standard. With that said, teams were statistically far better off to try and beat the Hawks with short crossing patterns in the middle, which is exactly what Denver tried to do. Furthermore, Manning does not have the arm to test teams deep consistently. He may have been able to get a few of them out there, with the major risk of throwing a "duck" up for grabs.

The reality is, Denver had no real option to attack Seattle's D besides being able to consistently run the football, which they made 0 attempt to do so. Seattle can be run on, especially when they have the nascar package out there in passing situations. I know hindsight is 20/20, but Denver would have been far better off coming out to start the game in a conventional jumbo package with an extra blocker and just ran a simple dive play. That way you get the jitters of the first play out, and see how the crowd was going to react to things, while maybe picking up 3-4 yards.

As for Dilfer slobbering all over his 2000 Ravens D, someone should remind him that in week 2 of that season, the D gave up 36 points to a 7-9 Jacksonville team. What did the Seahawks do in week 2 this year? Oh, that's right...

Welcome to .Net. Excellent first post.

I also agree with Lady Talon. Maxwell just concluded what is the end of his rookie year, game experience time. It's reasonable to expect he's going to improve and hasn't reached his ceiling yet. Also, he was snakebit (like she also mentioned) earlier in his career, so it's not like he's been getting 3 years worth of practice reps and such.

Honestly, if he starts out next year like he has this year, or actually improves, I think it's prudent to offer him an extension then. We could get it done way cheaper than waiting for him to have a full year like this one.

Also...attacking him as a weakness is just going to make him better. He's going to get even more reps of guys throwing at him. That either exposes you, or makes you better. With the way our secondary has developed, I'm going for what's behind Door B.