Why Seattle's offensive line may not be as bad as you think.

[Scottemojo]

Play action. Zone blocking. Russell holds the ball a bit longer than normal.

Don't get me wrong, our offensive line lacks quite a bit of good pass blocking technique. But it isn't because our staff is unable to identify pass blocking technicians. The Seattle scheme simply puts pass blocking technique lower on the priorty list by necessity.

Seattle runs 55 percent of the time. Even generously saying 5 percent of that is Russell scrambling after a dropback, that is 50 percent, perfect balance commitment to the run. Not bad, eh? Who doesn't want perfect balance?

But when it comes to needing pass blockers or run blockers, Seattle is far from needing perfect balance. The Hawks led the league last year, running play action nearly 40 percent of passing plays. For you math majors, that means about 70 percent of our plays begin with zone blocking linemen at least looking like they are running the ball. You will find fluctuating numbers when you try to find out exactly how much play action Seattle runs, but since our pistol sets are essentially play action, and regardless of the first step the linemen take, there is a handoff fake, it has to be included as play action.

When it works well, it looks like this:

Take your eye off the ball, and what are the linemen doing? They initially step into a run block set, all with one goal, draw 35. 52,53, and 31 into thinking they see a run play. After that initial step, they settle into a pass blocking drop.

It is absolutely vital that our linemen sell that first step for play action to work. The play has to look to the linebackers and safeties like they are about to see this:

70 percent of our plays begin with linemen stepping into a run block. Yeah, there is the occasional man power variation with Sweezy pulling or something like that, but for all practical purposes, on only about 30 percent of Seattle plays do linemen drop back into a traditional pass blocking backpedal.

Does that adequately explain why our coaching staff looks for guys who road grade first, pass block second?

The simple reality is that if the defense is thinking pass rush, hit the QB, play action gives them the advantage over the line. Especially if a linebacker is in pass rush play. The Hawks, for instance, looked inept at the Rams. There were numerous reasons for that. Short week, backups playing, left tackle was a guard fer chrissakes, and the Rams will sell out to pass rush.

Look at the most successful play Seattle ran vs the Rams. The long bomb to Tate, in a pistol play action formation.

The Rams in particular seem to assign a linebacker to pass rush as soon as he sees the play action. This occasion it's Laurinitis, who gets a shot on Wilson. The play worked, but it illustrates the gamble that is play action.

Here is one that didn't.

Seattle wanted to open the game with a big play, gambled the Niners would bite on play action, and it didn't work. Both down field guys are covered, Aldon is looking for a bootleg, Wilson holds the ball too long, and voila, all the ingredients for a play action disaster. The two plays I started with showed how play action can work, that last one shows how it can blow up in your face.

Now, the purpose of this is not to claim that our pass blockers are better than we think when they are not in play action. There are plenty of examples of our linemen getting beat on straight dropbacks, and our blocking success rate in empty backfields last year was pretty bad last year, take the mystery out of it for defensive linemen and our front 5 can be pretty bad. As you might expect from linemen drafted primarily for their ability to run block.

Rather, the purpose was to illustrate that an amount of the QB pressures we see are inherent to being a big play play action team. There is a gambling nature to play action if the defense is thinking pass rush that puts offensive linemen at a disadvantage on 40 percent of our passing plays. From day 1 Pete has talked about the importance of a mobile QB, and this is why, because play action is a risk reward gamble, and when that gamble fails, the QB pays. But the line gets blamed.

 

[LudwigsDrummer]

I think that is a solid analysis.

 

[Anthony!]

Some good stuff however

"In what is one of the more amazing stats of Seattle’s Super Bowl season is that the Seahawks allowed more sacks per pass play than any team in the NFL — 44 on 420 attempts.

The easy culprit is the offensive line, which was the position group hardest hit in 2013 by injuries, particularly to tackles Russell Okung and Breno Giacomini.

FootballOutsiders.com in this piece today helps make better sense of those numbers.

Specifically, FootballOutsiders assesses a primary reason for each sack for every QB in the NFL.

For Seattle’s Russell Wilson, the breakdown looks like this:

20 for what it terms a “blown block.”

14 for good coverage in the secondary

8 for a rusher coming in untouched (so meaning the blame more on scheme or assignment than a physical error).

And one each for it describes as other pressure and “quarterback fault.”


http://blogs.seattletimes.com/seahawks/ ... crambling/

The holding on to the ball to long part is not really a true reason for he sacks, hits, and hurries. OUt of the 44 sacks 28 were on the line for one reason or another.

The o-line was bad when you add in the hurries and hits, Rw was the most hurried, hit and sacked QB in the league the o-line was a huge reason for it, not the only reason but a huge reason.

 

[Scottemojo]

Anthony. Where did I say the O-line was good? I am making the point that a certain amount of pressure on the QB is simply part of relying on play action. As are some big plays. It is THE gamble our offense takes.

I pointed out that a certain amount of pressure is inherent with being a team that relies on play action that much. 4 out of every ten pass plays are play action, and usually begin with offensive linemen trying to sell the defense on a run. If the defense is guessing pass on those plays, the offensive linemen are now at a blocking disadvantage. Can you see how that could make a line look even worse than it really is?

Please answer with no stats. This is a philisophical issue, not a numbers thing. In fact, the entire premise of my post is that the numbers lie. Look at the last GIF. Did the line breakdown on that sack and fumble? Nope. So, if you look at the stat sheet and chalk that up to the line, you are wrong.

Do stats tell you how many of the blown blocks were McQ playing left tackle? Do they tell you if the play was play action? Do they tell you if it was a blitz?

Stats are just a jumping off point. What I have shown you is a possible destination, a conclusion you could make from thinking and digesting visual and conceptual information.

 

[Anonymous]

I like how, on the Tate-bomb play, Marshawn sells it too, then is free to take whomever gets through the line.

Unfortunately, Luaurenaitisopolis had already gotten too far through.

Good stuff.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

Really good post Scotte. You summed up the system and why Pete always wanted a mobile QB better than everyone else has been able to explain it, myself included, since Pete first described what he was going to build.

If we can see some improvement on the offensive line - because the line was pretty bad on many occasions, we can't chalk it all up to the line, but we can't chalk it all up to the system either - but if we see some improvement, and Harvin stays healthy, then the offense will be even deadlier than they were last year.

 

[HawkAroundTheClock]

Goog good stuff. I can't wait to see more Percy, who will further mind-frack defenses with the pre-snap obfuscation between pass/run. That could take a wee bit of pressure off our o-line as well.

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

Good post from a trusted poster. Great examples. Yeah, I've sort of always thought they get a little more flack than they should as a unit. You've nailed probably the primary reason why.

They say it's a game of inches, but it's also a game of milliseconds. A QB holds the ball a 1/2 second too long and disaster can happen. Isn't that a primary reason why the WCO came about?

They do what they're asked to do. But, we've got to remember the athletic pass rushers in this game and only so much can be done to limit their effectiveness. Sometimes it might just be a "chip" (by a receiver or back as well) to buy enough time for the QB to deliver. The game within the game.

Aldon Smith played that perfectly in your example (or, was that a bit of a hold on the TE? Probably within the rules. My purpose isn't to squawk about that. But, he did do a good job of "holding up/ impeding" Zach Miller while pushing him in the direction of Russ and his pursuit of him. By the time Miller was able to release, Smith was already within reach - with his athleticism - of Wilson. Perhaps Russ should have just dumped it off to the TE. Had his eyes down field, I guess. Ah well.)

But, Russell is a special QB that will also use his feet to buy more time once all else has broken down. We love that and we hate that... depending on how well the play turns out. We've seen some spectacular plays because of all this. So, we gotta take the occasional bad with all the good - which has already resulted in a Championship and still strong contenders for continued Championship level play. I'll take that.

So, Tom Cable is a good OL coach for this team, correct? Not only do fans get on the OL... they also point to the coach. This is not anything new with football. It's a passionately followed game. Goes with the territory if you're going to coach on any level. Was just at a high school football meeting last night and the Head Coach was talking about the coaches' perspective of the criticisms they hear in the community and among the parents. It was both hilarious and sad. Funny how conclusions are drawn sometimes.

Compete. Keep Battling. Execute. The OL has the same mantras as the rest of the team. How well they're doing in all that depends somewhat on how you look at it. The content of the OP is something us fans should keep in mind for perspective.

 

[ivotuk]

A lot of the Oline were playing out of position too, with no continuity. So not only were they playing in a spot they were not used to, but they were playing next to a guy, on one side or both, that they weren't familiar with.

Lots of room for error in those situations.

It's a great premise and I'd be interested to see how a similar team (SF) does. The big problem in comparisons though is that the 49ers had a much healthier, established, offensive line. We would need a team that runs a lot, has a mobile QB, and had a decimated line in order to do any kind of comparison.

I really hope that Pete takes a game or two this year and opens up throwing the ball, just to see how the offense would do, and to give other teams something to think about. Part of a game plan is keeping the opposing defense off balance. Right now teams can always count on the Seahawks running the ball a lot.

 

[Anthony!]

Anthony. Where did I say the O-line was good? I am making the point that a certain amount of pressure on the QB is simply part of relying on play action. As are some big plays. It is THE gamble our offense takes.

I pointed out that a certain amount of pressure is inherent with being a team that relies on play action that much. 4 out of every ten pass plays are play action, and usually begin with offensive linemen trying to sell the defense on a run. If the defense is guessing pass on those plays, the offensive linemen are now at a blocking disadvantage. Can you see how that could make a line look even worse than it really is?

Please answer with no stats. This is a philisophical issue, not a numbers thing. In fact, the entire premise of my post is that the numbers lie. Look at the last GIF. Did the line breakdown on that sack and fumble? Nope. So, if you look at the stat sheet and chalk that up to the line, you are wrong.

Do stats tell you how many of the blown blocks were McQ playing left tackle? Do they tell you if the play was play action? Do they tell you if it was a blitz?

Stats are just a jumping off point. What I have shown you is a possible destination, a conclusion you could make from thinking and digesting visual and conceptual information.

I never said you said the o-line was good, were did I say that? I was stating that holding on to the ball was not an issue. and making it clear were the sacks came from.

 

[Kaiser]

Some good stuff however

"In what is one of the more amazing stats of Seattle’s Super Bowl season is that the Seahawks allowed more sacks per pass play than any team in the NFL — 44 on 420 attempts.

The easy culprit is the offensive line, which was the position group hardest hit in 2013 by injuries, particularly to tackles Russell Okung and Breno Giacomini.

FootballOutsiders.com in this piece today helps make better sense of those numbers.

Specifically, FootballOutsiders assesses a primary reason for each sack for every QB in the NFL.

For Seattle’s Russell Wilson, the breakdown looks like this:

20 for what it terms a “blown block.”

14 for good coverage in the secondary

8 for a rusher coming in untouched (so meaning the blame more on scheme or assignment than a physical error).

And one each for it describes as other pressure and “quarterback fault.”


http://blogs.seattletimes.com/seahawks/ ... crambling/

The holding on to the ball to long part is not really a true reason for he sacks, hits, and hurries. OUt of the 44 sacks 28 were on the line for one reason or another.

The o-line was bad when you add in the hurries and hits, Rw was the most hurried, hit and sacked QB in the league the o-line was a huge reason for it, not the only reason but a huge reason.

This post sounds like it should be before the OP, since this is exactly what hes explaining the reasons for.

 

[Anonymous]

Anthony. Where did I say the O-line was good? I am making the point that a certain amount of pressure on the QB is simply part of relying on play action. As are some big plays. It is THE gamble our offense takes.

I pointed out that a certain amount of pressure is inherent with being a team that relies on play action that much. 4 out of every ten pass plays are play action, and usually begin with offensive linemen trying to sell the defense on a run. If the defense is guessing pass on those plays, the offensive linemen are now at a blocking disadvantage. Can you see how that could make a line look even worse than it really is?

Please answer with no stats. This is a philisophical issue, not a numbers thing. In fact, the entire premise of my post is that the numbers lie. Look at the last GIF. Did the line breakdown on that sack and fumble? Nope. So, if you look at the stat sheet and chalk that up to the line, you are wrong.

Do stats tell you how many of the blown blocks were McQ playing left tackle? Do they tell you if the play was play action? Do they tell you if it was a blitz?

Stats are just a jumping off point. What I have shown you is a possible destination, a conclusion you could make from thinking and digesting visual and conceptual information.

I never said you said the o-line was good, were did I say that? I was stating that holding on to the ball was not an issue. and making it clear were the sacks came from.

Oh, yeah? well, my dad can beat up your dad!

He said that you never said that, what he told him about what you said was correct, then you said what he told you to say, then you didn't say that at all, and that's where the confusion lies. :mrgreen:

It's Russell's quick release that makes the difference, IMHO.

 

[Perfundle]

I never said you said the o-line was good, were did I say that? I was stating that holding on to the ball was not an issue. and making it clear were the sacks came from.

Except that, by the numbers that you presented, it was an issue. Wilson had 14 coverage sacks, the second-most out of any QB and 6th-most by percentage. Besides, if a QB releases the ball quick enough, they can prevent blown blocks or untouched rushers from turning into sacks as well, so some of those are on Wilson as well.

 

[hawk45]

On defense our scheme, personnel, and philosophy also create holes that in theory could be exploited. However we're adept at making adjustments in scheme, drafting the right personnel, and developing their games. And in some cases, we just spend a lot of capital e.g. for Earl Thomas, although that's only 1 spot in 4 of the LOB that we spent a high pick on come to think of it. At any rate, the effective holes in our defense are tiny.

On pass protection, we suck, and that's half of the entire job. We don't have schematic answers or adjustments, we have been unable to draft personnel who can pass protect at an adequate level on a regular basis, and we haven't developed those skills well with the personnel we do have. And, we don't spend capital at the position, which is just as well, because when we do spend capital it looks like Moffit and Carp. One busted out of the league, the other we're still waiting for a complete solid season from. We actually shouldn't have to spend much capital there in truth because Okung and Unger are pro-bowlers, although Unger didn't even play like an NFL starter at times this year.

Defense, all things defense, is just a core competency of this team. Pass protection is not, we're mediocre-to-bad at it all the way down the line, and it's much more than play action. The Texans run play action a ton and Schaub is a statue, and their 2012 and 13 adjusted sack rankings from Football Outsiders were 9th and 11th respectively. Because outside of running play action, they've drafted/developed/adjusted better.

Now if we can get our ranking back up near 20th (where it was in 2012) I'll be ecstatic, and I think there's a good chance of that. We are not good at pass pro, but when healthy neither do I think we are last in the league where we ranked in 2013. And with a ranking of 20 or above, I believe that's above the threshold where Russell's attributes pick up the slack and our passing offense functions smoothly.

 

[Anthony!]

I never said you said the o-line was good, were did I say that? I was stating that holding on to the ball was not an issue. and making it clear were the sacks came from.

Except that, by the numbers that you presented, it was an issue. Wilson had 14 coverage sacks, the second-most out of any QB and 6th-most by percentage. Besides, if a QB releases the ball quick enough, they can prevent blown blocks or untouched rushers from turning into sacks as well, so some of those are on Wilson as well.

Again I never said that and you do not know if coverage sacks are on Wilson or not, you can only guess. I think I will go with the faacts done by experts that puts 1 sack on Wilson. And by the way for a QB to release the ball quick there has to be someone to release it to, hence the term "Coverage Sack" no one was open to release it to.

 

[Perfundle]

Again I never said that and you do not know if coverage sacks are on Wilson or not, you can only guess. I think I will go with the faacts done by experts that puts 1 sack on Wilson. And by the way for a QB to release the ball quick there has to be someone to release it to, hence the term "Coverage Sack" no one was open to release it to.

What exactly did you not say? I quoted you saying that holding on to the ball was not an issue, and that's what I'm disagreeing with. Is saying that you never said something your go-to response for every single debate?

I think I will go with the faacts done by experts that puts 1 sack on Wilson.

My gods, are you freaking serious? First, point me to the expert that said this. Are you referring to Football Outsiders' stat that one sack was the QB's fault? That doesn't mean what you think it means at all. If you actually read the article, they say that such sakcs are when "a quarterback "sacks himself" by tripping on his own feet, his lineman's feet, or just drop[ped] the ball without being hit." Sacks where the QB held it too long don't fall under that, but they're clearly the QB's fault. And a bit of common sense, which you seem to ignore in favor of stats, will tell you that Wilson was responsible for far more than one sack.

And by the way for a QB to release the ball quick there has to be someone to release it to, hence the term "Coverage Sack" no one was open to release it to.

Or, the QB didn't spot an open receiver. Or, the QB didn't move in the pocket correctly to escape a blocker. Or, the QB didn't throw it away when he could have. It's amazing how certain QBs consistently don't have many coverage sacks despite not particularly impressive receiving corps.

 

[scutterhawk]

Anthony. Where did I say the O-line was good? I am making the point that a certain amount of pressure on the QB is simply part of relying on play action. As are some big plays. It is THE gamble our offense takes.

I pointed out that a certain amount of pressure is inherent with being a team that relies on play action that much. 4 out of every ten pass plays are play action, and usually begin with offensive linemen trying to sell the defense on a run. If the defense is guessing pass on those plays, the offensive linemen are now at a blocking disadvantage. Can you see how that could make a line look even worse than it really is?

Please answer with no stats. This is a philisophical issue, not a numbers thing. In fact, the entire premise of my post is that the numbers lie. Look at the last GIF. Did the line breakdown on that sack and fumble? Nope. So, if you look at the stat sheet and chalk that up to the line, you are wrong.

Do stats tell you how many of the blown blocks were McQ playing left tackle? Do they tell you if the play was play action? Do they tell you if it was a blitz?

Stats are just a jumping off point. What I have shown you is a possible destination, a conclusion you could make from thinking and digesting visual and conceptual information.

LOL, you're wanting him to answer without using stats, yet it's stats that you've used to make your point?
The bottom line is as much the argument for using the stats.
44 sacks, one in approximately every 10 attempted passes, that's 10 %, and the O-Line isn't doing that bad a job?
There were some injury issues early on last Year, that undoubtedly had played into why those Sack/hits/hurries numbers were so drastic.
I think it's a legit concern by the fans, they're not wanting their Franchise Quarterback getting unnecessarily pummeled that much.
There's a lot of room for improvement from the Offensive Line this Season....example - see 2005 Seahawks, where there was great Quarterback protection, as well as superior Run Blocking.

 

[Jville]

Anthony. Where did I say the O-line was good? I am making the point that a certain amount of pressure on the QB is simply part of relying on play action. As are some big plays. It is THE gamble our offense takes.

I pointed out that a certain amount of pressure is inherent with being a team that relies on play action that much. 4 out of every ten pass plays are play action, and usually begin with offensive linemen trying to sell the defense on a run. If the defense is guessing pass on those plays, the offensive linemen are now at a blocking disadvantage. Can you see how that could make a line look even worse than it really is?

Please answer with no stats. This is a philisophical issue, not a numbers thing. In fact, the entire premise of my post is that the numbers lie. Look at the last GIF. Did the line breakdown on that sack and fumble? Nope. So, if you look at the stat sheet and chalk that up to the line, you are wrong.

Do stats tell you how many of the blown blocks were McQ playing left tackle? Do they tell you if the play was play action? Do they tell you if it was a blitz?

Stats are just a jumping off point. What I have shown you is a possible destination, a conclusion you could make from thinking and digesting visual and conceptual information.

Scottemojo ..... very nice presentation in the original (1st) post.

I remember when terms like influence blocking and finesse blocking were in common usage when referring to previous Seahawk line blocking eras. When it worked it was judged by 3rd parties to be a block. When it didn't .... many asssumed a blown block by default. The actual offensive line coach of record, back then as well as now, process a much more useful understanding of what actually happens.

I think many of today's sports fans have the additional burden of struggling with the impacted of Billy Bean .... including the many unintended consequences of the Bill Bean phenomena. Perhaps someday someone might succeed in presenting the difference between a 3rd party judgement call of a black and white outcome and a 3rd party judgement call on a more subjective gray area outcome. Something powerful enough to register.

It is certainly not something I'm going to attempt to present ....... :177692: no way.

Carry on ..... your contribution is appreciated.

 

[Scottemojo]

Before excoriating Russell for holding the ball too long, that is kind of his thing. It can break a defenses back when he holds the ball forever and his guy gets free eventually, like Baldwin did in the NFCCG. It isn't a negative, it's just a thing he does that can go bad sometimes. Or be a long TD.

I noticed a tendency of the Rams and Cardinals, as well as the shown play by the Niners, in particular to send a free linebacker on either edge just in case Seattle bootlegs their play action. If Russ has an OLB spy, the bootleg can be a disaster. The Sherman play that tied the game at the Texans was our defense guessing bootleg and sending a rusher right to that spot, it can be the rudest of surprises for a QB. That is a bad play that ultimately lies on the offensive coordinator.

One poster mentioned lack of continuity with all the different starters we have had. But some of that lies on Pete/and or Cable too. Pete has played mix and match with his O-line, like he did Carp in the playoffs last year. Whether he was playing the matchups (he loves Carp opposite Justin Smith) or trying to get through with a message to the player by taking him out of the lineup (like Carp vs the Saints), there has been a definite lack of consistency when that happens. IMO, they have relied on zone blocking play action to help mitigate some of that lack of continuity. A couple of rookies on the line? play action it is! At one point last season I tracked some of the more insane play action calls, like when Russell ran a play action on 4th and 15 or something like that at the end of the Colts game. What idiot safety or linebacker would honestly bite on the run in that scenario? But it was the 2nd game starting for our thrown into the fire rookie pass blockers, who had to stop Mathis, so it was probably the go to for simplifying the game for them.

I am curious to see if as Russell evolves they get away from having quite as much play action. I am very impressed with Russell as a straight drop back passer. I think for sure it will have to scale back in our own division, the way those 3 teams play Russell seems to require it.

 

[scutterhawk]

I never said you said the o-line was good, were did I say that? I was stating that holding on to the ball was not an issue. and making it clear were the sacks came from.

Except that, by the numbers that you presented, it was an issue. Wilson had 14 coverage sacks, the second-most out of any QB and 6th-most by percentage. Besides, if a QB releases the ball quick enough, they can prevent blown blocks or untouched rushers from turning into sacks as well, so some of those are on Wilson as well.

Yeah...We shouldn't be blaming the O-Line for most of those sacks, and especially the ones where the Defenders come through UNTOUCHED.