Did missing our tackles actually helps us last Sunday?

[rjdriver]

Bear with me...

I'm basically elaborating off of @CalgaryFan05 thread on the Lion perspective write up and it got me thinking.

Yes Cross and Lucas are vastly superior to Stone and Jake (yea I used first names because I can't spell Forsi...Forsyit...Forc).

However..

Did the backups force Shane to deviate from what he would have done had our starters been in? Pete is pretty stubborn with sticking to his thing, but considering how we finished the Rams game with the backups in, even Pete knew there had to be offensive scheme changes.

In other words

Beating the blitz with the short passing game. The Seahawks knew they wouldn't have tackles capable of containing the blitz so they effectively schemed out of it. It worked wonderfully. Geno had more time than I had seen in a long time (against a good pass rush to boot) and the offense seemed to really dictate the pace.

Had Lucas and Cross been in, perhaps Pete starts his "taking a long shot" strategy that doesn't bode well if the QB is instantly under duress.

Could it be possibly that having two starting tackles out was an advantage against the Lions?? I'm not saying it was, but how we played offensively sure seemed different to me.

Any thoughs?

 

[sutz]

I know where you're going and I see your logic. They did seem to really scheme to offset the negatives of inexperenced tackles and provide for more effective offense.

Kind of funny. The run D has been pretty decent so far, while the run O has been less effective than we like. The 2-3 TE sets may help there as well, though it didn't so much against Detroit.

 

[FlyingGunHawk]

Agreed. The run O does appear to be lacking so far. I know we're still VERY early into the season but the longest run the seahawks have had through 2 games is 15 yards.

 

[bileever]

Necessity is the mother of invention, the old saying goes. I also think that everyone else stepped up. You could see the tight ends staying and chipping on Detroit's ends before going on their routes. Geno was probably more aware of the need to get rid of the ball quickly.

I think that where we really missed Lucas and Cross was in the running game. There was nowhere for Walker to run most of the time. Of course, this was true at the end of last season as well.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

I have never understood why Pete won't allow our coordinators use all their available players and start scheming until we have major injuries.

 

[Jville]

It's a different match up and a different sequence of play calls resulting in a unique game with it's own story every week.

 

[Dvl Dug]

Bear with me...

I'm basically elaborating off of @CalgaryFan05 thread on the Lion perspective write up and it got me thinking.

Yes Cross and Lucas are vastly superior to Stone and Jake (yea I used first names because I can't spell Forsi...Forsyit...Forc).

However..

Did the backups force Shane to deviate from what he would have done had our starters been in? Pete is pretty stubborn with sticking to his thing, but considering how we finished the Rams game with the backups in, even Pete knew there had to be offensive scheme changes.

In other words

Beating the blitz with the short passing game. The Seahawks knew they wouldn't have tackles capable of containing the blitz so they effectively schemed out of it. It worked wonderfully. Geno had more time than I had seen in a long time (against a good pass rush to boot) and the offense seemed to really dictate the pace.

Had Lucas and Cross been in, perhaps Pete starts his "taking a long shot" strategy that doesn't bode well if the QB is instantly under duress.

Could it be possibly that having two starting tackles out was an advantage against the Lions?? I'm not saying it was, but how we played offensively sure seemed different to me.

Any thoughs?

My first thought goes back to how well the second team offensive line did in pre-season.
They opened running lanes, the quarterback had his 3.0 seconds to throw.
Zero false start penalties (against the o-line), and only two holding penalties.
This is an example of really good depth.

Nah, I still believe that Cross & Lucas are the two offensive tackles that we want to live with for the next 12 years, but just enjoy the depth that this team has now, because very few teams have it.

 

[Dvl Dug]

I have never understood why Pete won't allow our coordinators use all their available players and start scheming until we have major injuries.

Care to rephrase?

 

[Kamcussionator]

I always wonder where people get the idea of Pete being stubborn and unwilling to adapt. It seems to me like he's happy to try anything. You know -- always compete or something.

 

[knownone]

I've never seen evidence that Pete is stubborn on offense. They've always adapted their game plans.

Was it an advantage? I don't know. They probably have more success running the ball if the tackles were healthy. That's the thing: Stone and Jake are decent pass blockers and mostly terrible run blockers. Once it became clear that the running game wasn't working, Waldron started utilizing the short passing game to compensate. I do think that's something the coaches should keep in their back pocket. The short passing game is arguably Geno's greatest strength, yet they tend to default to the running game.

 

[rjdriver]

I always wonder where people get the idea of Pete being stubborn and unwilling to adapt. It seems to me like he's happy to try anything. You know -- always compete or something.

It might be a single event traumatic episode I had a few years back involving the Cowboys and the wildcard.

I need Robin Williams and a Carlton Fisk story to fully heal from it and see clearly again.

 

[HawkRiderFan]

Despite the fact these guys are pros I wonder how hard it is to completely shift your game plan on the fly. The O seemed totally unprepared to handle the 2 starting tackles being in the 2nd half of week 1, but did a lot better on the road in week 2. The difference being having a full week of practice and prep to game plan for it?

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Care to rephrase?

ie. The second half last week or the Dallas game until the second half. It seems to me that unless forced they either never adjust or adjust very late when it's obvious an adjustment is required from the start.

 

[Lagartixa]

I've never seen evidence that Pete is stubborn on offense. They've always adapted their game plans.

Was it an advantage? I don't know. They probably have more success running the ball if the tackles were healthy. That's the thing: Stone and Jake are decent pass blockers and mostly terrible run blockers. Once it became clear that the running game wasn't working, Waldron started utilizing the short passing game to compensate. I do think that's something the coaches should keep in their back pocket. The short passing game is arguably Geno's greatest strength, yet they tend to default to the running game.

I think there were multiple seasons when the Patriots mostly replaced their running game with the short passing game, even frequently making short passes to running backs rather than handing off to them. By that time, Brady was lightning-quick to get rid of the ball.
I don't remember, but it might be that Belichick and his offensive coördinator did that because their offensive line was either bad or better at pass blocking than run blocking.

Before posting this comment, I did a quick Google search to see if I could find stuff about the Cheatriots' short passing game, and I found this article from 2016.

 

[MagnificentSeven]

My 2 cents: You can't underplay the role of effort/self-preservation in this whole thing. Curran and Forsythe have both been in the league a couple of years, and I'm sure they knew they stunk it up in the 2nd half of the Rams game. With the Hawks signing Line-men all week, and with another abysmal performance perhaps opening the door to the end of their Seahawks career, both guys focused, realized their roles and shouldered the new responsibility. The short-pass schemes helped, but there were plenty of intermediate level things that developed with Gino not under any significant pressure. Always ComPETE certainly applies when you are one bad game away from being shown the door.

 

[Dvl Dug]

ie. The second half last week or the Dallas game until the second half. It seems to me that unless forced they either never adjust or adjust very late when it's obvious an adjustment is required from the start.

MizzouHawkGal:

Defensively - I'm inclined to agree with you regarding your own "adjustments from the start" point of view. My assessment is that for the life of it, the 3-4 scheme has mostly been inferior to the 4-3 scheme. The 3-4 leaks rushing yards like a sieve, while the 4-3 allows for a lot more defensive line penetrations. Speed on the line, usually wins!

Offensively - My desire is to see a real Full Back again. I formation... T formation... H formation... While our team's tight ends have done a serviceable job so far of acting like Full Backs, they are not true Full Backs. Without that true Full Back, the Half Backs take on twice as many punishing hits, and it's ending their useful careers way to early. It's almost like broken bottles and crushed aluminum cans have a higher California State Redemption Value than NFL Half Backs have anymore.

Well, my best to ya!

 

[Mase]

-- Do you understand the concept of a gameplan? If the split second the defense has some success in stopping it, you change, why even bother. Keep in mind the Hawks had the lead at half vs. the Lambs, and the lead should have been bigger (freaking kickers). I think the Hawks trust their starting tackles to handle most dlinemen one on one. If one goes down, there a some pretty easy shift and chip assignments you can give to backs and tight ends. When you lose both, and both replacements are struggling, it is much more difficult to "just adjust" than you guys make it sound. You have worked on a game plan, maybe lots of targets to TEs or a lot of screens, that gets blown to hell when you have to help both your tackles. This isn't Madden, you can't just reset and entire game plan with Z LB X.

Mase