The D, what are the problems?

[SoulfishHawk]

So much cushion and guys just being wide open. Over and over and over again. It's ridiculous. Get up on someone and stop playing such a soft D. This everything in front of you D can only work so often. Evans was wide open, often. No excuse for it.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

Defensive line.

Everything else is just fine. Secondary, despite no pass rush at all, is still covering at a barely above average rate. Blair has definitely changed the calculus for how the secondary shapes up. Diggs and return of McDougald could strengthen it more.

Griffin has been really solid this year. Probably to the point where we won't be able to retain him. Flowers is getting picked on. But I really do think that's more a function of lack of pressure. He is more of a Brandon Browner type of CB. Bigger, not fast. And with no expected pressure, he has to play back and guard the 9 allowing a lot of easy stuff underneath. He'd vastly improve with increased pressure.

It is all about the putrid pass rush. And it's personnel. Fix that and you can play tighter. We have the pieces on the roster to play that way. But can't because opponents can call long developing plays and use double moves at will.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

OK, but is that on the personnel, tackling, or scheme? I do believe Norton is over his head as a DC, he is very poor at adjusting his D to counter what is working against it..

IMO it's 75% personnel and 25% scheme.........but the scheme is a result of the lack of talent on the personnel side.

Pete didn't all of a sudden forget how to build and coach a great defense, it's the players he has to work with that are giving him problems figuring it out.

Pete wants to play cover 3 with his CB's pressing, his strong safety down in the box and a dynamic aggressive versatile D-line getting after the QB.

But he doesn't have the talent to run it, so instead of exposing himself to giving up 4-5 explosive plays a game because his D-line can't get any pressure on the QB, and a bad secondary that can't stay with WR's for more than 2-3 seconds so he's resorted to playing base and giving cushion because he's scared to death of being exposed over the top.

And maybe Reed will start coming on now that he's had three weeks to get into game shape, and maybe Diggs will give our secondary some help in nickel, and maybe Blair will continue to improve, and maybe McDougald will get healthier and get back to his form of last year?

That's a LOT of maybes.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Makes you wonder if we might have gotten some better pass rush results with someone like a Michael Bennett.

I personally don't care if he is kneeling, lighting the flag on fire, or murdering tourists on off-days. He would pressure the quarterback and he would get the double teams off Clowney.

But that was a lost opportunity.....

Even so, the idea that Pete is just running the defense so the DC does not matter is laughable. There were differences in what this team looked like with Richard vs Norton, with some of the same people. Admittedly Norton has a rougher job now because our roster is much worse this year vs last year. But a HC cannot devote the time and attention to being an effective coordinator, that is why they hire them.

We looked better with Quinn vs Bradley, Pete was still the coach of both. We looked better with Richard vs Norton, even though we had no offense for half of what Richard was doing with some of his key people injured.

To just make the assumption that :

Pete is the coach = good to great defense?

That is folly. Especially considering how Pete tends to not try to hide anything he is doing. Usually a defense tries to deceive the opponent. Pete also is relentlessly committed to stopping the run, in a league where 70% of the success comes from the passing game. If anything, Pete's predilections holds us back in terms of being a better defense. Especially because his approach depends on having great players (notably great safeties).

(That is also why Saleh struggled getting good results in implementing the 'Seahawk defense' elsewhere. It wasn't until he scrapped it and went to the Wide-9 that he got the great defense he was seeking. )

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Even so, the idea that Pete is just running the defense so the DC does not matter is laughable. There were differences in what this team looked like with Richard vs Norton, with some of the same people. Admittedly Norton has a rougher job now because our roster is much worse this year vs last year. But a HC cannot devote the time and attention to being an effective coordinator, that is why they hire them. )

Maybe there are some nuances and coaching style differences between Norton and Richard, but they're both running the same defensive concepts and techniques, the one's Pete's taught them to run over the past 10-15 years.

Our defense was already declining when Richard was here, that's why he's not here anymore.

So to think Norton's the problem makes no sense. Talent, that's the problem, not much of it.......and you can scheme and try and compensate when one level of your defense weak, but two levels? Impossible.

So the fix is this, the defensive players have to play better and improve. Cause Norton isn't going anywhere, at least not this year.

 

[iigakusei]

OK, but is that on the personnel, tackling, or scheme? I do believe Norton is over his head as a DC, he is very poor at adjusting his D to counter what is working against it.

Please indicate your specific concerns, it’s clear they are giving up lots of yardage.

To me, the DBs are not playing press and man enough, the OLBs are playing off and in zone coverage too and are tackling poorly, there are far too many missed or broken first tackles which are happening beyond not at the LOS. They are inconsistent. Worst of all is the seeming invisibility of the Leo and any interior pass pressure. I truly believe the only DLine players who have shown much of anything are Clowney and Jefferson.

The team plays a soft zone coverage and are not often beaten over the top, but when they are the results are dramatically awful, T2 showed us some ugly instances. This is intentional but allows teams to have free releases from the LOS. The worst part of that is when a solid RAC player like Julio or Evans shows up the opposition eats the D’s lunch all day. Of course both those players are amazing at catching contested balls as well. Too me scheme is a problem and tweak tackling demonstrates poor positional coaching.

Great post and I think you nailed it. The "keep everything in front soft zone" works if you can get pressure because eventually the QB will get sacked or make a mistake. If there is no pressure and soft coverage, well then you have big problems. Just think if you were the OC of the opposing team, how would you attack this defense? Probably took 3 seconds to come up with the answer - and you don't need a Brees, Rodgers, Brady to do it.

 

[TwistedHusky]

We have a defensive staff that is best when using players that are great at positions we don't have great players and won't get great players.

Norton was garbage in Oakland. He is garbage here. Maybe there is an upside to being mediocre but that is it.

Richard might have been let go because he could not do whatever here. But he would have been better than Norton.

And there are plenty of DCs that would be better than Norton here.

But a larger issue is going to be whether Pete will leave a defensive philosophy that he believes in but cannot be successful with this roster and adopt another approach that will work better with this group. Pete likes to play the way he likes to play, but sometimes he insists on doing this when he simply does not have the horses for it.

But horses or not, there is no upside to Norton. He might figure it out eventually, but hope is not a strategy. Hoping for him to get better when the only reason we should expect better is that it would hard to be worse? That isn't tremendously wise.

There was no reason to expect him to be successful here. He was struggling elsewhere, came here, struggling here. It takes time to learn to be good at your job but time is an issue when you have only a limited amount of time your QB is at his peak. That is now. So Norton should be learning with another roster.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

OK, but is that on the personnel, tackling, or scheme? I do believe Norton is over his head as a DC, he is very poor at adjusting his D to counter what is working against it.

Please indicate your specific concerns, it’s clear they are giving up lots of yardage.

To me, the DBs are not playing press and man enough, the OLBs are playing off and in zone coverage too and are tackling poorly, there are far too many missed or broken first tackles which are happening beyond not at the LOS. They are inconsistent. Worst of all is the seeming invisibility of the Leo and any interior pass pressure. I truly believe the only DLine players who have shown much of anything are Clowney and Jefferson.

The team plays a soft zone coverage and are not often beaten over the top, but when they are the results are dramatically awful, T2 showed us some ugly instances. This is intentional but allows teams to have free releases from the LOS. The worst part of that is when a solid RAC player like Julio or Evans shows up the opposition eats the D’s lunch all day. Of course both those players are amazing at catching contested balls as well. Too me scheme is a problem and tweak tackling demonstrates poor positional coaching.

Great post and I think you nailed it. The "keep everything in front soft zone" works if you can get pressure because eventually the QB will get sacked or make a mistake. If there is no pressure and soft coverage, well then you have big problems. Just think if you were the OC of the opposing team, how would you attack this defense? Probably took 3 seconds to come up with the answer - and you don't need a Brees, Rodgers, Brady to do it.

Nothing works if you can't get pressure. So your other option is to press cover and not allow those soft zones and easy 5-8 yard outs and slants.

So then you're trusting your two DB's and safeties who ALSO don't cover well. You guys are acting like Pete's an idiot and didn't think of these very rudimentary scheme fixes.

HE DOESN'T TRUST HIS DEFENSIVE BACKFIELD...........AT ALL. Do you think he loves playing base and seeing Matt Schaub and Jameis Winston have career passing days dinking and dunking down the field for 7-8 minute drives?

Of course not, but the alternative is to play man press and watch Flowers and two mediocre safeties, one of which is a rookie cover WR's for 6-7 seconds because your D-line can't get home.

Which would you choose? Keep everything in front and hope Russell and your offense outscore the other team, or get burnt all game long giving up big play after big play?

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

Can't stop the run or pass consistently . Just not a very good across the board ; which includes the coaching .

fire Pete

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Can you imagine this place if the Hawks lose on Monday. Holy hell...……

 

[HawkerD]

I don't see Ken Norton as the issue although he might not be a very capable DC. Pete is the DC for all intents and purposes. Pete is known as a defensive minded coach but that doesn't make him a good defensive coach and he is probably closer to an average coach in terms of scheme development and play calling. He is like most coaches and will go only as far as the talent will take him.

For a defensive minded coach, he has done a poor job over the last 5-6 years in adding talent from the draft and UDFA market. It is now evident that his picks from 2012/2013 were an anomaly and not close to something you could expect each year. The secondary players have just not panned out. Now maybe Shaq is coming on as well as Blair but I don't think either of those guys are Pro-Bowl caliber. Some may point to Clark but even Pete knew when to cut him loose (kudos for that).

Honestly Pete is just like most coaches, give them superior talent and they will look good other wise it is regression to the mean. He really isn't an innovator in terms of the defenses he runs. In 2013 he ran an unsophisticated defense with multiple All Pros. That was his not so secret sauce.

To sum it up the main on the field problem with the D is TALENT, TALENT and TALENT with a bit of scheme thrown in. Yes they could tackle better but again that goes back to talent. To find the root cause, talent evaluation has to be called into question.

 

[jammerhawk]

Can't stop the run or pass consistently . Just not a very good across the board ; which includes the coaching .

fire Pete

Somehow I suspect your tongue was in your cheek; but if not then replace him with who exactly? Won't the new guy have the same problems if the personnel is as bad as some here think it is?

 

[bbsplitter]

The turn and bail by the corners is not working. They are not good at. Sherman was an absolute surgeon and doing it.

Flowers and Griffin are strong fellows. Need more jamming at the line. Now having poor safeties to cover deep could be an issue, but Blair is coming on and Diggs could be an answer too.

Giving up 12 yard catches at will won't get it done though.


Edit: this effects the pass rush too. I swear teams get it out quicker, under 2 secs, against the Hawks than other teams (no stats, just a feeling). Why hold it when easy pitch and catches are ripe for the picking.

Griffin is doing fine, Evans was just a monster yesterday but Flowers....damn....his bail technique was just so bad against Godwin and Evans. Taylor is awful, hope Diggs takes his spot.

I don't agree that Taylor is awful. Taylor has been pretty good in coverage most games he has been active, it has just been his tackling that has been suspect at times. Which honestly is a trade off I would take on a nickel corner any day.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Can you imagine this place if the Hawks lose on Monday. Holy hell...……

I'd imagine most sensible and objective Hawk fans are expecting us to lose. So unless it's a epic beatdown of biblical proportions, I doubt most of us sane fans aren't going to treat a loss to the Niners any worse than a normal loss.

45-10 type loss? Yeah, this place will be on fire. But 27-21 type loss? Nah.

 

[bmorepunk]

Can you imagine this place if the Hawks lose on Monday. Holy hell...……

They probably will, but who knows what will happen. But it's gonna be kind of a bloodbath if they do lose.

They've done a good job of getting wins despite the issues on defense, but every week that goes by without a significant improvement on that front means we're likely headed for a real rough last seven games or a KC-style shoot em up offensive run into the playoffs. If we can't get defense, hopefully we get the latter because watching a team not being able to play defense and lose a bunch is going to suck.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

I can easily see a home and home split. I suspect this is gonna' be a hell of a game, win or lose.

 

[jammerhawk]

Can you imagine this place if the Hawks lose on Monday. Holy hell...……

I'd imagine most sensible and objective Hawk fans are expecting us to lose. So unless it's a epic beatdown of biblical proportions, I doubt most of us sane fans aren't going to treat a loss to the Niners any worse than a normal loss.

45-10 type loss? Yeah, this place will be on fire. But 27-21 type loss? Nah.

I agree but wonder what the place will be like if the team actually you know wins on Monday? I'd bet the same suspects will still be complaining about Pete's coaching.

 

[jammerhawk]

Here is an interesting statistic examination of the team's D:

http://seahawksdraftblog.com/what-the-n ... es-defense

The problems on D seems to clearly point out that the lack of a pass rush is the culprit. That appears to be personnel.

However, the team is winning spite of poor defensive play.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Why would people be freaking out about seeing us lose to a team that is undefeated this year, the likely division winner, and might be one of the NFC's best teams?

As fans of one of the greatest defenses ever fielded, we should be well aware that a great defense generally trumps a great offense (remember the Broncos had one of the best offenses in history?).

A great defense beating our team (considering our team is really just a great QB, very good RB and WR, middling defense and 3000 years old but yet non-middling Bobby Wagner) isn't that hard to imagine. We used to beat the old Packers all the time, and they were winning the way we will have to win.

We can win that game against SF, but expecting us to win it is ridiculous. They are better at everything but QB and WR.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

While I expect us to lose a close game, why is it ridiculous that someone would expect the Hawks to win? Did the Rams fans or players expect them to get smoked at home to a team who now sits at 2-6? You still gotta' lace em up. Shoot, the Niners almost lost to a crap Cards team.

I'm glad the team doesn't think like that. I guarantee every player on that team expects to win, along with the coaches. Having hope and expecting them to win isn't a bad thing, and it certainly isn't ridiculous.
What's ridiculous is someone saying the Hawks have "NO CHANCE" That's just plain stupid. They clearly do have a shot at winning this game. So called "upsets" happen with regularity in the NFL.