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.

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".

Awesome post! A lot to think about here. I would want to look at the last couple of years to get a lot better picture of what is going on, but assuming the possessions you posted are in order, we were 4-0 in games where we had under 11 possessions, and held the opponents to 12, 30 (Steelers), 8, and 6 in those four games. We were 1-3 in games with 12 or more possessions.

Either way, more than any of this stuff, to me is the physical nature of the whole thing. This team plays with a real edge when they think they're the toughest guy in the fight, and I think style has as much to do with that as personnel does.

 

[Tical21]

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.

Yeah, maybe you're right, but phoooey. I still freaking despise the spread. That's annoying, cute, girly football. I know the Ducks run the ball a lot or whatever, but that doesn't make them tough.

 

[Optimus25]

I think the solution is that we evolve to a chameleon offense to fit each particular game.

No matter how we draft or build we won't scare los Angeles or Carolina.

But if we can play power football against the saints and finesse against the rams, i think we got something incredible.

 

[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..

It's not just kill the run game and go spread............for me it's shift philosophy to being an unpredictable dynamic offense that can be all things.

Like the Patriots and their schemes depending on who they're playing. Some games they pass the ball 40 times, some games they run the ball 30 times.

When you're that type of unpredictable offense than can chameleon into 100 different schemes, sets, formations, etc? It's a nightmare to prepare for...........and thus why the Patriots are perennial playoff and SB contenders.

That's all I'm saying, let's evolve the offense. Don't stay predictable, we have a dynamic smart clutch QB, wring 100% of that out of him.

 

[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.

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.

Heyyy, thanks so much for the kind words!! I'd love to post more, debating sports is my favorite thing on the planet, life is just crazy busy lately, I'm transitioning careers and juggling school/work/parenting, yada yada.

You're right, I think it's only natural that when you find a great quarterback, and pay him as such, you're going to put more on his plate. It isn't terribly dissimilar to Brees, Brady, Ben, etc. I'm sure at some point in his career, we're going to need Russell to throw it around and put up a bunch of points. However, right now, we've still got the best, most physical defense in the game, and doing whatever we can do to emphasize that should be our priority in my opinion. I do think that includes overall philosophy and attitude, not just results.

 

[Seahawks Guy]

That's what she said

This response would have been better in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=122394

 

[kearly]

I think the ideal Russell Wilson offense is one that can score 30+ out of the spread in typical game conditions, but have the versatility to succeed as a power team when the situation calls for it. This is exactly the mentality Bill Belichick has. If the team doesn't want him to pass, he'll pass it 50 times. But if the team doesn't want him to run, he'll run it 50 times. Saying that we should be a "spread" team or a "power" team misses the point, Seattle should be good at both areas and use them based on game situations.

Rawls first 2.5 games were against Chicago, Detroit, and Cincy. Seattle was still a power football team in those games, and Rawls ran the ball very well. Michael ran the ball well out of both spread and bunch formations. So I think versatility should be in play for 2016, especially if the team makes improvements to the OL.

I do think the spread is going to be our team's main staple though, it just fits our QB and receivers so well. And it helps mask some serious issues on the OL. Pete wouldn't have done this if he didn't have to, but he had to.

And while I definitely think Wilson plays much better in pristine conditions, that's been true going back years. A power team can mask a struggling QB better than a spread team can, but that doesn't mean that Seattle needs to be a power team all the time, it just means they need to be able to switch to that mode when the game conditions call for it.

 

[Harley CVO]

Yes, very good post........
But work on the titles.. i thought it was an Adult DVD review :th2thumbs:

 

[TCS]

I agree with the OP. However... IMO, I do not see how we can sustain a power run philosophy without the ML of yore. ML made our OL look better than it is. It's no coincidence that when ML was out, RW's passing numbers went up. I realize the Rawls looked good, but I believe it wasn't just him being a good back, but also a bi-product of defenses having to respect the pass more.

I don't think we need to go to the spread O, but simply stick with the passing trees/plays that get the ball out of RW's hands quicker. We obviously have those plays in the book, as proven by most of the games of the second half of the season. It's a shift in play calling philosophy, not an overhaul of the offensive philosophy as a whole. But this has been discussed a bunch on .net, and I'm not spouting revelations here...

It was painfully obvious that Bevell (Probably per PC) went back to calling plays the way he used to when ML was in the game. Even though that was my worst nightmare going into this game, I don't really blame him. The OL has been built with Lynch's running style in mind (Yards after contact - where contact usual comes at the LOS), so why not see if it still works? However, we all know that Bevell's strength is not on the fly in game adjustments, so we had to wait until halftime for the revert to the quick passing attack (And more aggressive play calling due to being so far behind in points).

Whether ML is done in Seattle or not, there is no way our "old" offensive philosophy will work with our current OL, IMO, unless Rawls picks up where ML left off, and can take the punishment and get the same yards after contact that ML did.

Either way, I'm confident that there are good things to come with this offense. I do enjoy me some power running, but a little pomp and fanfare though the passing game is always fun too...

Go Hawks!

tcs

 

[CodeWarrior]

I want to move to spread or at least a more opened up offensive attack out of necessity. Where the Seahawks have elected to spend money all but mandates it. Maintaining a truly elite defense is impossible. Look at how much we have changed since 2013. Other examples that spring to mind are 2000 Ravens and 2006 Bears.

Give Russell the keys to the kingdom. In today's NFL it is the only way to achieve extended success.

 

[Anthony!]

so lets see the OP wants an old style power running game, like the one we ran the first 8 games. Most everyone wants what works the spread offense were we can run and throw. like the one that Avg 30+ points a game and plays to the strength of our Elite/Franchise QB. Lets see win or lose. Yeah seems like a no brainer

 

[seedhawk]

I think too many have the wrong impression of the "spread" offense. It can could and should be a dynamic run based offense if utilized correctly. Only a couple years ago many here bemoaned the fact that our opponents stacked 8 or 9 defenders in the "box". What the spread really does is, it expands that box from sideline to sideline. More passing lanes for sure, but also less traffic and impediments for running backs.

Helps our Hawks out several ways. While our Wr's are not the fastest group, they are shifty, quick, and run super routes. Hawks are transitioning from a Rb who made his name and money by running over and thru defenders to guys now who make guys miss. Also, the spread makes the O-lines life a bit easier because the ball just gets out quicker. Spread is more reliant on YAC instead of longer developing downfield plays.

In old school formations, you have 5 linemen, a TE, FB RB and QB and their corresponding defensive counterparts jammed into a box the equivalent of a basketball court. The spread multiplies that by at least 3. Makes it easier for a guy like RW to utilize his legs to our advantage also.

 

[Anthony!]

I think too many have the wrong impression of the "spread" offense. It can could and should be a dynamic run based offense if utilized correctly. Only a couple years ago many here bemoaned the fact that our opponents stacked 8 or 9 defenders in the "box". What the spread really does is, it expands that box from sideline to sideline. More passing lanes for sure, but also less traffic and impediments for running backs.

Helps our Hawks out several ways. While our Wr's are not the fastest group, they are shifty, quick, and run super routes. Hawks are transitioning from a Rb who made his name and money by running over and thru defenders to guys now who make guys miss. Also, the spread makes the O-lines life a bit easier because the ball just gets out quicker. Spread is more reliant on YAC instead of longer developing downfield plays.

In old school formations, you have 5 linemen, a TE, FB RB and QB and their corresponding defensive counterparts jammed into a box the equivalent of a basketball court. The spread multiplies that by at least 3. Makes it easier for a guy like RW to utilize his legs to our advantage also.

exactly plus we can still go for big plays when needed. Its called playing to your strengths

 

[WilsonMVP]

I think too many have the wrong impression of the "spread" offense. It can could and should be a dynamic run based offense if utilized correctly. Only a couple years ago many here bemoaned the fact that our opponents stacked 8 or 9 defenders in the "box". What the spread really does is, it expands that box from sideline to sideline. More passing lanes for sure, but also less traffic and impediments for running backs.

Helps our Hawks out several ways. While our Wr's are not the fastest group, they are shifty, quick, and run super routes. Hawks are transitioning from a Rb who made his name and money by running over and thru defenders to guys now who make guys miss. Also, the spread makes the O-lines life a bit easier because the ball just gets out quicker. Spread is more reliant on YAC instead of longer developing downfield plays.

In old school formations, you have 5 linemen, a TE, FB RB and QB and their corresponding defensive counterparts jammed into a box the equivalent of a basketball court. The spread multiplies that by at least 3. Makes it easier for a guy like RW to utilize his legs to our advantage also.

exactly plus we can still go for big plays when needed. Its called playing to your strengths

Playing to your strengths and playing the game the NFL wants you to play. Clearly the NFL wants to have high powered passing offenses based on all the rules accomadating it.

I just want to use the offense that helps us score points and win...I dont care how that happens.

 

[DavidSeven]

I think too many have the wrong impression of the "spread" offense. It can could and should be a dynamic run based offense if utilized correctly.

I don't think this is really the issue people have, though. The Ducks and Eagles ran the ball well under Chip. But were they tough? Did the style compliment the defense? Can your team be "physical" if your scheme is designed to run around people rather than straight through them? If Pete could mold his perfect team, we'd probably have a TE tough enough to stay in-line 70% of the time but skilled enough to catch redzone passes, a fullback who can block and catch off play-action, and a big physical X receiver who's either running verticals or clearing out DBs.

That said, Pete has experimented with some horizontal/finesse concepts in the past when it suited his personnel. Most obviously when we had Harvin, but a lot of those things are still in our offense. I think he also wants to highlight the talent we have -- and with guys like Graham, Baldwin and Lockett as your TE1, WR1 and WR2, you're almost compelled to play more spread. In thinking about it, not sure there's any other way to do it with that particular group.

 

[Tical21]

so lets see the OP wants an old style power running game, like the one we ran the first 8 games. Most everyone wants what works the spread offense were we can run and throw. like the one that Avg 30+ points a game and plays to the strength of our Elite/Franchise QB. Lets see win or lose. Yeah seems like a no brainer

Yep

 

[Tical21]

I think the ideal Russell Wilson offense is one that can score 30+ out of the spread in typical game conditions, but have the versatility to succeed as a power team when the situation calls for it. This is exactly the mentality Bill Belichick has. If the team doesn't want him to pass, he'll pass it 50 times. But if the team doesn't want him to run, he'll run it 50 times. Saying that we should be a "spread" team or a "power" team misses the point, Seattle should be good at both areas and use them based on game situations.

Rawls first 2.5 games were against Chicago, Detroit, and Cincy. Seattle was still a power football team in those games, and Rawls ran the ball very well. Michael ran the ball well out of both spread and bunch formations. So I think versatility should be in play for 2016, especially if the team makes improvements to the OL.

I do think the spread is going to be our team's main staple though, it just fits our QB and receivers so well. And it helps mask some serious issues on the OL. Pete wouldn't have done this if he didn't have to, but he had to.

And while I definitely think Wilson plays much better in pristine conditions, that's been true going back years. A power team can mask a struggling QB better than a spread team can, but that doesn't mean that Seattle needs to be a power team all the time, it just means they need to be able to switch to that mode when the game conditions call for it.

That's all more than fair, and I think Russell can play that kind of role. But the Pats haven't had this kind of defense. To me, more important than points scored, is doing whatever it takes to help the defense give up as few points as possible. More importantly, beating the crap out of people, all the time, on both sides of the ball, not just on defense. I think you kind of send mixed messages that way. If we take care of the ball and win the field position battle, and beat people up, I think we win championships. More passes equals more sacks and more penalties, as well as turnovers. That, and oh yeah, I hate the stupid spread!

 

[AirStrike]

The power running game for all intents and purposes is dead. 3-4 WR sets and a mobile, shifty back with speed is what is winning in todays NFL. The days of Shaun Alexander and Jerome Bettis are over. The only way a power running game works is if you have a freak of nature like Adrian Peterson in the backfield.

 

[IndyHawk]

Tical your way of thinking is fine and some really good posts from others too.My 2 cents is the spread is ran so much below the NFL level that expecting guys to unlearn the stuff and switch to something they never have been in proves to just be too much.I'm a smash mouth guy but things have changed to the point where you have to adapt and it is going to involve variations of the spread.

 

[Anthony!]

so lets see the OP wants an old style power running game, like the one we ran the first 8 games. Most everyone wants what works the spread offense were we can run and throw. like the one that Avg 30+ points a game and plays to the strength of our Elite/Franchise QB. Lets see win or lose. Yeah seems like a no brainer

Yep

Okay so as long as we run your power run game you are fine with 8-8 or less and no playoffs, got it, Glad your not in charge. However it does explain you disdain for Wilson, he presents the opposite of what you want. So glad your not in charge