Spread spread spread

[Tical21]

It seems just about every thread on the main page right now is wishing that we implore more and more of the "spread" offense. I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more.

If you have a team that has led the NFL in scoring defense each of the past four years, wouldn't you want to run the ball more, resulting in less possessions? This is how having that kind of defense puts pressure on an offense. You hold the ball for 8 minutes, march down the field and score, make the other team go three and out, and lean on them again. That's when everything breaks down and teams start to panic and we get turnovers and get it rolling.

Going to a spread offense to me is nothing more than a gimmick in an attempt to cover up the fact that we can't efficiently execute the running and playaction game that would most compliment our style. Furthermore, the largest reason we've had the success we have had over the past 4 seasons is that we're the toughest team on the block. We're going to man up and go straight through you, and there is nothing you can do about it. By going to a spread attack, you're doing more than simply changing your playbook. You're adopting a new philosophy.

You know what, we'd probably score more points by going to a spread, and we would probably look prettier. However, the psychological effect could mean we lose our identity in the process, and risk putting our defense into shootouts. So, rather than settling for a philosophy change to try to jumpstart our offense, I would prefer to put time and resources into getting us back to winning the way that made us the team that our gave our opponents diarrhea at the mere thought of having to line up against us.

 

[RussB]

I think its best to run the clock out once they have a nice lead. But otherwise the power running scheme pretty much failed every time they used it this year. They seemed more effective and dominant using the spread now that they have such a stacked recieving core.

 

[RussB]

Also combine that with the fact hawks still have a great defense on the other side of the ball and they can win another championship.

 

[Harley CVO]

resources AKA $$ is the tricky part. especially with teams that have success as we have the last few years.
we are hurting with the OL right now so is that where you put the money for next year? if you do, we may lose a couple of guys on defense. or pay to maintain the current D?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. the window is short for the perfect storm team.
so perhaps you do the best you can to balance? Spread may put up points, but at this point I would take that.
at least till the OL can be developed that allows a run game to achieve sustained drives.

But yes, I miss the Swagger that teams feared with the LOB

 

[Yxes1122]

Tical you are one of my favorite posters on this site and in the overall view I agree with you. I also am pretty amateur in my football experience so you're someone (along with guys like Scotte and Kearly) who's insight I really enjoy.

I don't want to become the 2013 Broncos, the Saints of recent memory or any of the other high powered offensive teams, with weak D's that can't play in poor conditions and are entirely dependent on throwing for 300 yards and 35 points to win games.

That said, I think going back to 2012-2013-2014 style ball requires a two (maybe three) year talent injection to get it done. I love Rawls, I really do, I think he is a potential star in the making but he isn't Lynch. I don't think a running back of his size is going to survive the kind of work load Lynch endured over the past four seasons. Even a RB of Lynch's caliber (honestly it will be years before a back runs like him again) broke down in year five. I also don't see a Golden Tate, Sidney Rice, Zach Miller, or Mike Rob on this roster right now. Golden was amazing high pointing the ball, winning one on ones, and playing the red line. Zach Miller and Mike Rob were major contributors to that running game for those seasons and there isn't anyone close to that on this roster right now. It took Pete 3 years to get this team to that level. I'm not going to touch on the OL, other than to say, this isn't a great run-blocking OL right now.

What we do have on offense is three (assuming PRich comes back) WR that are not just good at timing routes, but fantastic at them. Lockett, Baldwin and PRich would be a hard trio to defend in a fast, up tempo timing offense. If Graham comes back he may have numbers similar to his years in NO.

On the Defensive side, we are not the secondary of years past. Maybe it was a bad year, filled with poor communication and adjustments, but this wasn't the D that gave great QBs fits. This was a D that struggled with good QBs, and feasted on bad ones. I think we need depth at corner, I think we need depth on the DL. It's still a good defense but it is one that is not smothering like 2012/13/14. I think our 4th straight year of #1 Scoring D is a product of a beyond easy schedule at the end of the season AND an offensive surge that put most teams into holes early.

In the end, I think we are still a couple years away from being that smash mouth team again. I hope we can go back to that in time, but I think this team's best chance to be competitive over the next few seasons is to play to the strengths of this offense and defense. And I think that's okay. The Patriots don't win every year and they never won when it was purely an offensive team, but they are competitive every year because they adapt to the players they have. So long as Pete is coach and Russ is the QB and we have players like Sherm and Earl, Seattle will always have a shot.

Those are my thoughts anyway. FWIW I do think Pete invests heavily into the OL this offseason. It was the one tidbit for his show with Brock and Salk that he really mentioned. He wants to control the trenches and I think that is the start. So I don't think Pete is going to forget about his core philosophy, but I do think he will see what he has and makes use of it.

 

[Scottemojo]

I absolutely prefer power football.

But this year our personnel favored spread. And the rules of football favor passing. Preference has to take a back seat to reality.

 

[bigDhawk]

I absolutely prefer power football.

But this year our personnel favored spread. And the rules of football favor passing. Preference has to take a back seat to reality.

Yeah, for a team that espouses a power run first philosophy, we have an inexplicable predilection for 'athletic' offensive linemen who can run around fast but don't move anybody or blow them off the line.

 

[seedhawk]

It is interesting that a purported "power" run team has a weak O-line. Power means opening holes, not just cracks or creases. Also seems to me ML spent way too much time dancing and looking for the cutback this year where Rawls just hit the crack/crease and took what he could get.

 

[timmat]

I'm not sure folks are talking apples to apples when using the term "spread offense". Just for clarification, I hope folks are talking about pre-snap alignment, and not a "throw it 75% of the time" sort of deal. During Wilson's historic stretch, our % of run plays on first down actually went up according to KJR. Our pass vs run play splits remained consistent. Russell was insanely efficient, but his overall pass attempt numbers remained in check.

We had more multiple WR sets, but we continued to run pretty consistently from those formations. And if you're going in that direction and are taking pass blockers away to accommodate spread formations, you need a RB that is also a stud pass blocker. One of the best is Marshawn Lynch.

 

[johnnyfever]

Play to your personnel strengths. Right now that is spread for sure. 3 years from now, might be different.

 

[tmobilchawker79]

That's what she said

 

[timmat]

Also seems to me ML spent way too much time dancing and looking for the cutback this year where Rawls just hit the crack/crease and took what he could get.

I don't recall a single time where it looked like Lynch missed a hole or misread blocks. The majority of his carries came this year during the toughest part of our schedule, and also during the time period where the O line play was horrific. Had he been playing during the softer part of the schedule when the O line had a personnel shakeup and actually performed OK, folks might have a different take on his future.

I recall him dancing because two or three defenders were in the backfield just as he received the handoff.

 

[DavidSeven]

I agree.

I think what we saw this year was a last resort effort because we were taking too many negative plays on sacks. We also couldn't block straight up in the run game, or at least we didn't think we could based on Lynch's meager YPC numbers. Push came to shove for Pete, but I don't think "spread spread spread" is at all what Pete wants. We became finesse, and we faltered as soon as the conditions became less pristine, as most high octane offenses tend to do. This isn't who we are, but probably who we had to be this year.

We need OL like we needed DL after the 2012 season. That unit wasn't good enough this year, and to me, that was obvious at Preseason Gm 1. We need to be honest about where we are at each spot on the OL; Tom's word just isn't going to cut it anymore.

We had three pass-catching TEs on the roster. Why? I have no idea, since, early on, we still seemed committed to using TEs as TEs. We've become too fond of specialized skills at this position. Find me a Zach Miller clone and call it a day.

I think we want to get tougher up front and we will.

 

[Rob12]

It seems just about every thread on the main page right now is wishing that we implore more and more of the "spread" offense. I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more.

If you have a team that has led the NFL in scoring defense each of the past four years, wouldn't you want to run the ball more, resulting in less possessions? This is how having that kind of defense puts pressure on an offense. You hold the ball for 8 minutes, march down the field and score, make the other team go three and out, and lean on them again. That's when everything breaks down and teams start to panic and we get turnovers and get it rolling.

Going to a spread offense to me is nothing more than a gimmick in an attempt to cover up the fact that we can't efficiently execute the running and playaction game that would most compliment our style. Furthermore, the largest reason we've had the success we have had over the past 4 seasons is that we're the toughest team on the block. We're going to man up and go straight through you, and there is nothing you can do about it. By going to a spread attack, you're doing more than simply changing your playbook. You're adopting a new philosophy.

You know what, we'd probably score more points by going to a spread, and we would probably look prettier. However, the psychological effect could mean we lose our identity in the process, and risk putting our defense into shootouts. So, rather than settling for a philosophy change to try to jumpstart our offense, I would prefer to put time and resources into getting us back to winning the way that made us the team that our gave our opponents diarrhea at the mere thought of having to line up against us.

Great post. Post more, would you?

I was just looking at some stats... When the Seahawks were beasting in the playoffs, they were gaining some serious numbers on the ground. I like the idea of a more balanced offense, but moving away from the run worries me a little bit. But wasn't this always coming? I mean, Marshawn was going to be gone sooner or later. We'll see if Rawls can fill that void. I think as Russ sets in in his prime, and begins to age a bit, he's going to be a bit more reluctant to tuck it and run.

Your post definitely made me think Tical, like usual. You're like the equivalent of Vetamur in the PWR when it comes to talking straight football in the Main Forum.

 

[HawKnPeppa]

I absolutely prefer power football.

But this year our personnel favored spread. And the rules of football favor passing. Preference has to take a back seat to reality.

Good point. I'd rather stay sorta hybrid, where we can switch as the situation dictates. Russ has proven he can move the ball masterfully with more options at his disposal. As the OL improves (fingers crossed) we can go back to run and PA, but we have to show we can move the ball and keep Russ from getting bludgeoned. The 'spread' scheme can be kept in the hip pocket, as it has come in handy quite few times.

 

[Sgt Largent]

It seems just about every thread on the main page right now is wishing that we implore more and more of the "spread" offense. I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more.

If you have a team that has led the NFL in scoring defense each of the past four years, wouldn't you want to run the ball more, resulting in less possessions? This is how having that kind of defense puts pressure on an offense. You hold the ball for 8 minutes, march down the field and score, make the other team go three and out, and lean on them again. That's when everything breaks down and teams start to panic and we get turnovers and get it rolling.

Going to a spread offense to me is nothing more than a gimmick in an attempt to cover up the fact that we can't efficiently execute the running and playaction game that would most compliment our style. Furthermore, the largest reason we've had the success we have had over the past 4 seasons is that we're the toughest team on the block. We're going to man up and go straight through you, and there is nothing you can do about it. By going to a spread attack, you're doing more than simply changing your playbook. You're adopting a new philosophy.

You know what, we'd probably score more points by going to a spread, and we would probably look prettier. However, the psychological effect could mean we lose our identity in the process, and risk putting our defense into shootouts. So, rather than settling for a philosophy change to try to jumpstart our offense, I would prefer to put time and resources into getting us back to winning the way that made us the team that our gave our opponents diarrhea at the mere thought of having to line up against us.

Tical21 I always enjoy reading your stuff. Clearly a knowledgeable poster. What I highlighted above is a false premise I see made alot, though. It seems to make sense, right? Clock runs unless you go out of bounds, but here are the numbers. I think we can all agree that this season, we played run heavy games and some air attack games, so a pretty good mix. We all know it's not "make it take it" so the other team is equal to +- one series either way usually. Here are how many possessions we had in each game:

11, 11, 11, 11, 12, 13, 11, 10, 12, 11, 13, 10, 10, 8, 11, 11, 11, 11.

02 games = 13
02 games = 12
10 games = 11
03 games = 10
01 games = 08

It's not the type of play (run,pass) but amount of plays on each drive that can be effective. It's what Tom Brady does. They run the ball by passing. 4 and 5 yds a clip. The great benefit to "running" the ball this way is no negative plays if you commit and consistently get rid of the ball in less than 2 seconds. See Superbowl last year.

Lots of us love hard hitting, bad ass football, but that's preference, not backed up by things like "limiting possessions".

 

[Largent80]

Our O-Line is hell bent on getting to the 2nd level. Problem is they dive on the ground blocking nobody. Defenses are allowed to freely roam our side of the ball and "waiting fo the line to gel" cost us any chance at the division or HFA in the playoffs.

 

[London12]

I would always look to be pragmatic and play to our strengths which seems to be a more mixed style whilst our OL is a mess. Those who resist change get left behind (IMO).

 

[Scottemojo]

I think it is very important to identify what makes a spread offense.
You will find lots of descriptions, often from sources trying to differentiate their brand of football from others slightly different.

I simplify it to the extreme. Shotgun, usually with WRs outside the numbers, usually single back.

I tend to think of traditional formations as working from the inside out, and spread offenses intend to open the middle of the field. A spread QB isn't required to have a cannon arm, but must have a quick release, and quick decision making. Spread offenses require is an element of timing, a lineman might cut a DT to open a lane for a slant, and it will only be there for a second.

There are spread offenses that dabble in power football, but I am hard pressed to think of power football teams that effectively dabble in spread offense.

Add to that, I think power ball guys tend to think of spread offense in a negative and gimmicky way, as some level the recruiting field college gimmick that allows a weak armed QB to compete. Perhaps that explains the reluctance of our staff to fully embrace it.

However, guys like Urban Meyer have shown that it does not have to be a scheme that ignores power football. As have the Patriots.

Also, and this is a big deal, it allows rookies to get on the field faster. Tyler Lockett played in a spread in college, and no doubt it eased his transition to the NFL. Rawls is comfortable as a single back in a spread.

And to me, that is the next evolution for us. A spread O that can play some power football.

 

[djb28]

We need to have some power running. My heart cant take offensive shootouts. Im getting old.