LaTunaNostra
He Made the Difference
- Messages
- 14,985
- Reaction score
- 4
While looking for info on the Seahawks, I came across this piece written before Seattle played the Chargers. A post-game report would have been more informative, perhaps, but there is some food for thought here (flawed or otherwise), schematically speaking.
____________________________________________________
Football Science: West Coast v. 3-4
By John Morgan • Diaries
Posted on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 11:16:12 PM EST
Entering Sunday you don't want the only ray of hope your team to have be the "any given Sunday" cliché. So while scouring for possible advantages Seattle may have against San Diego, one particular idea stuck. Could our offensive style be particularly strong against their defense, a magic bullet against a clearly better team?
My hypothesis: The Holmgren run Walsh offense will pick apart the Chargers' 3-4 defense.
To determine if my hypothesis held water I decided on two experiments to test its validity. First, let's offer some definitions.
Definitions:
Walsh Offense: Typically, though erroneously, called the West Coast offense. Defined by use of an unbalanced line, scripting the first 15 plays and a heavy reliance on 3 and 5 step drops to complete short and mid-range timed pass patterns.
3-4 Defense: Invented by Bud Wilkenson in the late 1940s at the University of Oklahoma. It features 3 down linemen and 4 LBs; the key player is the nose tackle, he lines opposite the center and/or guard and must disrupt the offensive line while defending 2 run lanes.
Experiment One: The Numbers
The first thing I decided to do was see if the Seahawks had actually scored more against teams using the 3-4 than would be expected. I used the years 2003 thru 2006, prorating 2006 to reflect it as a complete season.
The Seahawks scored an average of 24.5 a game against all opponents through those seasons. 2006 is decidedly the lowest at 21.1.
The teams Seattle faced using the 3-4 averaged 22.8 points allowed against all opponents. San Francisco shows up four times in the data set, and between 2005 and 2006 have allowed an abysmal 26.5 a contest. I thought this might skew the results, but guess what?
Despite two 14 point performances against the lowly Niners this year, Seattle averages a robust 26.1 points a game against teams using the 3-4. In 2003 the game against Baltimore went into overtime, but the Ravens won on a first possession field goal therefore having no impact on Seattle's scoring total.
The numbers seem to support my hypothesis, that Seattle's offense is well suited to fight the latest fad D. But I wanted to think over the individual match-ups for Sunday's game, so I decided to break the contest down strategically.
Experiment Two: Strategy
I decided I would list the theoretical individual strengths and weaknesses of each system. To be methodical I decided I would split this into three categories for each: Offense, Defense and Turnovers. That way I could compare one to the other one-for-one.
Walsh Offense:
Passing Strengths:
High completion percentage.
Excellent at producing first downs.
Quick release, i.e. shorter drops, less time in the pocket.
Passing Weaknesses:
Does not stretch field vertically well.
Less big play ability/TE your primary deep threat.
Running Strength:
Stretches the field horizontally, freeing up cut-back lanes.
Scripting lends itself to unpredictable play-calling.
Strong single back and split back runs.
Running Weaknesses:
Benefits strongly from a HB/FB who can catch out of the backfield.
Scripting plays lends itself to nonsensical play-calling.
Turnovers:
Helps minimize Interceptions.
Short slants and curls can quickly lead to nightmare pick-6 interceptions.
3-4
Passing Strengths:
Confusing zones.
Blitz can come from anywhere.
Adjusts well to audibles.
Passing Weaknesses:
Typically a weaker overall pass rush; susceptible to deep passes.
If blitz can be picked up, zone can be picked apart.
Running Strengths:
4 LBs limit long rushes.
NT, Dual ILB stifle cut-back lanes.
Complicated run blitzes can swarm rusher in the backfield.
Running Weaknesses:
Downhill rushers can consistently get positive yards against only three down linemen.
Zone blitzes can be destroyed by the draw.
Miscellaneous:
Zone blitzes are weak against HB screens.
Turnovers:
Complicated zone blitz packages can confuse even the smartest of QBs.
Absolutely requires athletic and versatile LBs.
Hmmm...that doesn't sound too good on paper.
First, Shaun's cutback ability plays poorly against San Diego's 3-4. If ever the team needed to see more Maurice and his slashing style it's Sunday.
Second, the Hawks can effectively pick apart the zone, but only if someone can pick up the blitzing LB. Unfortunately, Stevens, Alexander, Morris and now even Strong have blown blocking assignment after blocking assignment. Free blitzer + complicated zones = Interceptions.
And Third, and perhaps most infuriatingly because how it hurt us in the Super Bowl last year, the Hawks will not be able to exploit passes to the backs. Shaun has become an embarrassing receiver. The Hawks have relied on Strong being the only threat out of the backfield for years, and with his decline have now lost even that.
If Morris sees more playing time as his, and especially Alexander's, performance have merited, one of those Seattle weaknesses is--somewhat--reversed. Maurice is a single cut rusher who finds a seem and hits it hard, Alexander dinks and dunks until he finds daylight. That style of rushing simply doesn't work when you have four LBs in pursuit.
Conclusions:
So after both experiments I get muddy conclusions. Seattle's passing attack with its depth at WR should excel against a middling secondary that uses too many zones. The Walsh offense was designed to quickly and effectively find holes in zone coverage, and exploit them to march down the field. Since 2003, the Hawks have played well against the 3-4, but in the two recent showings against San Francisco have also been throttled by a rather crappy 3-4.
The Hawk's blitz pickup, especially from its skill position players, has been atrocious and it is therefore hard to see Hasselbeck having the time to read the zones and find the open man. San Francisco managed to pressure him despite the league's second worst pass rush as measured by sacks. San Diego will be less forgiving when Alexander or Strong miss a block. Don't be surprised if the effect is cataclysmic.
On the run Seattle could effectively get 3-6 yard gains against the Chargers' 3-4. Unfortunately, Alexander's cut-back style coupled with his clear loss of acceleration facing a strong LB corps is more likely to result in a lot of 1-2 yard gains around the occasional loss of yards. The Hawks badly need to be successful with Morris and Strong on the draw to stay afloat.
My gut tells me Holmgren's stubbornness and Alexander's high profile will once again keep Morris under 10 carries. Seattle will be held well under 100 yards total rushing and badly lose the time of possession battle. That may be fatal, because without sustained drives the Chargers will get chance after chance to feed their rushing Cerberus of Turner and Tomlinson the rock and hell-dogs are not known for their mercy.
http://www.fieldgulls.com/story/2006/12/20/193935/82
____________________________________________________
Football Science: West Coast v. 3-4
By John Morgan • Diaries
Posted on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 11:16:12 PM EST
Entering Sunday you don't want the only ray of hope your team to have be the "any given Sunday" cliché. So while scouring for possible advantages Seattle may have against San Diego, one particular idea stuck. Could our offensive style be particularly strong against their defense, a magic bullet against a clearly better team?
My hypothesis: The Holmgren run Walsh offense will pick apart the Chargers' 3-4 defense.
To determine if my hypothesis held water I decided on two experiments to test its validity. First, let's offer some definitions.
Definitions:
Walsh Offense: Typically, though erroneously, called the West Coast offense. Defined by use of an unbalanced line, scripting the first 15 plays and a heavy reliance on 3 and 5 step drops to complete short and mid-range timed pass patterns.
3-4 Defense: Invented by Bud Wilkenson in the late 1940s at the University of Oklahoma. It features 3 down linemen and 4 LBs; the key player is the nose tackle, he lines opposite the center and/or guard and must disrupt the offensive line while defending 2 run lanes.
Experiment One: The Numbers
The first thing I decided to do was see if the Seahawks had actually scored more against teams using the 3-4 than would be expected. I used the years 2003 thru 2006, prorating 2006 to reflect it as a complete season.
The Seahawks scored an average of 24.5 a game against all opponents through those seasons. 2006 is decidedly the lowest at 21.1.
The teams Seattle faced using the 3-4 averaged 22.8 points allowed against all opponents. San Francisco shows up four times in the data set, and between 2005 and 2006 have allowed an abysmal 26.5 a contest. I thought this might skew the results, but guess what?
Despite two 14 point performances against the lowly Niners this year, Seattle averages a robust 26.1 points a game against teams using the 3-4. In 2003 the game against Baltimore went into overtime, but the Ravens won on a first possession field goal therefore having no impact on Seattle's scoring total.
The numbers seem to support my hypothesis, that Seattle's offense is well suited to fight the latest fad D. But I wanted to think over the individual match-ups for Sunday's game, so I decided to break the contest down strategically.
Experiment Two: Strategy
I decided I would list the theoretical individual strengths and weaknesses of each system. To be methodical I decided I would split this into three categories for each: Offense, Defense and Turnovers. That way I could compare one to the other one-for-one.
Walsh Offense:
Passing Strengths:
High completion percentage.
Excellent at producing first downs.
Quick release, i.e. shorter drops, less time in the pocket.
Passing Weaknesses:
Does not stretch field vertically well.
Less big play ability/TE your primary deep threat.
Running Strength:
Stretches the field horizontally, freeing up cut-back lanes.
Scripting lends itself to unpredictable play-calling.
Strong single back and split back runs.
Running Weaknesses:
Benefits strongly from a HB/FB who can catch out of the backfield.
Scripting plays lends itself to nonsensical play-calling.
Turnovers:
Helps minimize Interceptions.
Short slants and curls can quickly lead to nightmare pick-6 interceptions.
3-4
Passing Strengths:
Confusing zones.
Blitz can come from anywhere.
Adjusts well to audibles.
Passing Weaknesses:
Typically a weaker overall pass rush; susceptible to deep passes.
If blitz can be picked up, zone can be picked apart.
Running Strengths:
4 LBs limit long rushes.
NT, Dual ILB stifle cut-back lanes.
Complicated run blitzes can swarm rusher in the backfield.
Running Weaknesses:
Downhill rushers can consistently get positive yards against only three down linemen.
Zone blitzes can be destroyed by the draw.
Miscellaneous:
Zone blitzes are weak against HB screens.
Turnovers:
Complicated zone blitz packages can confuse even the smartest of QBs.
Absolutely requires athletic and versatile LBs.
Hmmm...that doesn't sound too good on paper.
First, Shaun's cutback ability plays poorly against San Diego's 3-4. If ever the team needed to see more Maurice and his slashing style it's Sunday.
Second, the Hawks can effectively pick apart the zone, but only if someone can pick up the blitzing LB. Unfortunately, Stevens, Alexander, Morris and now even Strong have blown blocking assignment after blocking assignment. Free blitzer + complicated zones = Interceptions.
And Third, and perhaps most infuriatingly because how it hurt us in the Super Bowl last year, the Hawks will not be able to exploit passes to the backs. Shaun has become an embarrassing receiver. The Hawks have relied on Strong being the only threat out of the backfield for years, and with his decline have now lost even that.
If Morris sees more playing time as his, and especially Alexander's, performance have merited, one of those Seattle weaknesses is--somewhat--reversed. Maurice is a single cut rusher who finds a seem and hits it hard, Alexander dinks and dunks until he finds daylight. That style of rushing simply doesn't work when you have four LBs in pursuit.
Conclusions:
So after both experiments I get muddy conclusions. Seattle's passing attack with its depth at WR should excel against a middling secondary that uses too many zones. The Walsh offense was designed to quickly and effectively find holes in zone coverage, and exploit them to march down the field. Since 2003, the Hawks have played well against the 3-4, but in the two recent showings against San Francisco have also been throttled by a rather crappy 3-4.
The Hawk's blitz pickup, especially from its skill position players, has been atrocious and it is therefore hard to see Hasselbeck having the time to read the zones and find the open man. San Francisco managed to pressure him despite the league's second worst pass rush as measured by sacks. San Diego will be less forgiving when Alexander or Strong miss a block. Don't be surprised if the effect is cataclysmic.
On the run Seattle could effectively get 3-6 yard gains against the Chargers' 3-4. Unfortunately, Alexander's cut-back style coupled with his clear loss of acceleration facing a strong LB corps is more likely to result in a lot of 1-2 yard gains around the occasional loss of yards. The Hawks badly need to be successful with Morris and Strong on the draw to stay afloat.
My gut tells me Holmgren's stubbornness and Alexander's high profile will once again keep Morris under 10 carries. Seattle will be held well under 100 yards total rushing and badly lose the time of possession battle. That may be fatal, because without sustained drives the Chargers will get chance after chance to feed their rushing Cerberus of Turner and Tomlinson the rock and hell-dogs are not known for their mercy.
http://www.fieldgulls.com/story/2006/12/20/193935/82
