Seattle D-line

[StevenOtero]

A team with a top 3 CB and top 3 Safety and really good LBs and a really good 2nd Safety prove that the game was won in the trenches?

If you're going to quote me at least use my entire post.

I also said: "No way man, the vital role to a good D is a front 7 that can generate pressure. How hard is that?"

You do realize those defensive backs would look like hot garbage if their front 7 did not generate any pressure? It is impossible to cover a receiver forever, no matter how good the DB is.

So, to answer your question, YES it does prove it was won in the trenches.

 

[Alexander]

You two are getting a lot of mileage out of mocking a role player who's shown some potential. Nice work!

Actually it is not mocking him, just the over the top excuse making posters who drop his name into nearly every single discussion on the DL injuries like we lost a proven good player. We do not know who he is or even if he can play effectively any more than any of the collection of street players we brought in off the street. That is just the reality of the situation.

But thanks for the scolding, I feel so ashamed.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

Yes. It's the cornerbacks that make it all go.

Get them up in their face so Tyrone Crawford and Ben Bass can ball.

Agreed, a lot of what that D line does comes from excellent coverage.

 

[casmith07]

Agreed, a lot of what that D line does comes from excellent coverage.

No, just no. As a former DB, no. I don't care how good our high school secondary was (we were really good), we got destroyed by the team that had 5 Division I starters on their offensive line blocking, because we could not get to the QB.

It's almost like throwing a play-action pass on the first play of the game when you have the worst rushing offense in the NFL. **** don't work.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

No, just no. As a former DB, no. I don't care how good our high school secondary was (we were really good), we got destroyed by the team that had 5 Division I starters on their offensive line blocking, because we could not get to the QB.

It's almost like throwing a play-action pass on the first play of the game when you have the worst rushing offense in the NFL. **** don't work.

I didn't say it was all due to the secondary, but when a QB has no open lanes...

 

[JonJon]

It wasn't the secondary that made Manning look pedestrian last night; it was the pressure by the front 7. The first two interceptions were a direct result of pressure by the front 7. If Peyton was comfortable in the pocket last night, he would have picked apart that secondary.

I'm not saying their secondary isn't good, but their effectiveness drops tremendously when you have no rush.

 

[Idgit]

Actually it is not mocking him, just the over the top excuse making posters who drop his name into nearly every single discussion on the DL injuries like we lost a proven good player. We do not know who he is or even if he can play effectively any more than any of the collection of street players we brought in off the street. That is just the reality of the situation.

But thanks for the scolding, I feel so ashamed.

My bad, I thought it was mocking. I didn't know it was just the 'over the top excuse making posters thinking he was going to help us last season' thing. I think my mockery-detector just isn't working, because I think you guys are mocking when you're just helping the rest of us out.

I wasn't trying to scold, though. I just wanted to fit in with the bashing fun, because it's so easy, and, apparently, you guys get a lot out of it. It'd just be nice to be on the fun team sometimes, you know?

Tell us what you think about Tyrone Crawford next, ok? Is *he* ready for this NFL? I bet he's not!

Ben Bass.



Ready for this NFL?

 

[casmith07]

I didn't say it was all due to the secondary, but when a QB has no open lanes...

Fair enough.

 

[Common Sense]

My bad, I thought it was mocking. I didn't know it was just the 'over the top excuse making posters thinking he was going to help us last season' thing. I think my mockery-detector just isn't working, because I think you guys are mocking when you're just helping the rest of us out.

I wasn't trying to scold, though. I just wanted to fit in with the bashing fun, because it's so easy, and, apparently, you guys get a lot out of it. It'd just be nice to be on the fun team sometimes, you know?

Tell us what you think about Tyrone Crawford next, ok? Is *he* ready for this NFL? I bet he's not!

At least Crawford was drafted. Bass MIGHT make the Seahawks practice squad. Maybe.

Ben Bass, by the numbers:

3 college starts
2 injured reserve appearances
1/2 NFL tackle

If this is the start of the next Seahawks D, they should think about naming it the Legion of Booo.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

Fair enough.

It was really just a total team effort by Seattle, on both sides of the ball. MVP should be the entire team, no one standout really.

Personally I loved seeing some good defense.

 

[xwalker]

If you're going to quote me at least use my entire post.

I also said: "No way man, the vital role to a good D is a front 7 that can generate pressure. How hard is that?"

You do realize those defensive backs would look like hot garbage if their front 7 did not generate any pressure? It is impossible to cover a receiver forever, no matter how good the DB is.

So, to answer your question, YES it does prove it was won in the trenches.

No, it does not prove that.

There is no proof that they would have won with their DL and the Cowboys back 7.

On offense, neither team's OLine proved to be significantly if at all better than the Cowboys OLine.

 

[casmith07]

It was really just a total team effort by Seattle, on both sides of the ball. MVP should be the entire team, no one standout really.

Personally I loved seeing some good defense.

So did I. I think we'll try to replicate it somewhat here in Dallas. We're lacking the horses up front as of today, however. We'll get a better idea of what we're going to do as the off-season unfolds.

Seattle's defense really isn't much different from our old defense in the 1990s that Jimmy Johnson ran. The key difference is that Pete likes using a single high safety in Cover 3 instead of our old 4-3 Cover 2.

 

[Common Sense]

So did I. I think we'll try to replicate it somewhat here in Dallas. We're lacking the horses up front as of today, however. We'll get a better idea of what we're going to do as the off-season unfolds.

Seattle's defense really isn't much different from our old defense in the 1990s that Jimmy Johnson ran. The key difference is that Pete likes using a single high safety in Cover 3 instead of our old 4-3 Cover 2.

Seattle's defense is as much rooted in those old 49ers defenses as anything, just with a 4-3 alignment.

 

[casmith07]

Seattle's defense is as much rooted in those old 49ers defenses as anything, just with a 4-3 alignment.

Similar schemes indeed.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

It was amazing watching them catch a 4 yard crossing route and get pushed back to the line of scrimmage. Their defensive linemen ran down 2-3 screens for negative yardage. That is the epitome of "swarming to the ball".

To me, it's a simple and brilliant personnel philosophy. Go big and physical with the DB's. Go smaller and faster with the front seven. This makes for a fast and physical defense. Even slower DB's are still pretty fast. And even smaller front 7 personnel are still pretty big. So by having speed in the front 7, now you have a defense that is *collectively* very fast. And by going big and physical with the DB's, now the defense is collectively very physical.

Dallas does the opposite. You're only as physical as your softest player. And you're only as fast as your slowest player. So having soft DB's makes your defense soft. And going after big, plodding front 7 players only makes your defense slow.

The only upside to this is that Marinelli/Kiffin have similar personnel philosophy because of the defensive scheme. The issue is getting Jerrah to buy into it and get them the right personnel instead of thinking it's 1995 and you can just have 'cover corners' who can't tackle.







YR

 

[KDM256]

Defensive Line applied Pressure and the back 7 didn't allow any additional yards happen after reception simple as that.

The entire defense was a well oiled machine last night clicking on all cylinders. Great game planned from the coaches and great execution from the players.

 

[JonJon]

I'm not saying their secondary isn't good, but their effectiveness drops tremendously when you have no rush. You can't cover receivers

So did I. I think we'll try to replicate it somewhat here in Dallas. We're lacking the horses up front as of today, however. We'll get a better idea of what we're going to do as the off-season unfolds.

Seattle's defense really isn't much different from our old defense in the 1990s that Jimmy Johnson ran. The key difference is that Pete likes using a single high safety in Cover 3 instead of our old 4-3 Cover 2.

I like the look of the single high safety. We would need more experience from the FS position to implement it though. I have high hopes that Wilcox can do that for us in the future as he continues to progress. Let Church wreak havoc near the LOS like Chancellor does for Seattle.

 

[Nova]

No, it does not prove that.

There is no proof that they would have won with their DL and the Cowboys back 7.

On offense, neither team's OLine proved to be significantly if at all better than the Cowboys OLine.

Agreed. I said it in another thread, and I'll say it again here.

It is a fallacy that the Seahawks offensive line is a top unit. They may not even be top 10.

Knighton ate Unger's lunch all night. The biggest issue was that Denver's offense couldn't stay on the field and the defense got tired.

 

[Nova]

No, just no. As a former DB, no. I don't care how good our high school secondary was (we were really good), we got destroyed by the team that had 5 Division I starters on their offensive line blocking, because we could not get to the QB.

It's almost like throwing a play-action pass on the first play of the game when you have the worst rushing offense in the NFL. **** don't work.

In this case it does.

Seattle's legion of boom has been the major proponent of that defense for 3 years.

And last night, we saw Manning have to hold on to the ball longer than he normally does. He rarely was able to snap the ball and immediately fire it to the open man he had from his presnap reads because the DBs were all over them.

The front 7 stepped up for sure, but Manning wasn't able to get any hot passes off because of the DBs, and even when he had time, they were covering very well-- think the Chancellor pass break up to Welker on a cross (may have just been a deep out). Perfect zone coverage.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Argument 1: There's no way any team could be successful with the purely rotational players the Cowboys were trotting out on the defensive line each and every week.

Argument 2: Thanks to Seattle's awesome secondary, they can get away with a bunch of rotational-type guys on their defensive line.

Something is not jiving here. If anything, both Seattle and Denver proved a team must be good everywhere to contend. In my opinion, the Cowboys organization has convinced itself it can win by only being great at a few position and just getting by everywhere else. That's not true.