The Seattle comparison: I don't see it

[Common Sense]

I'm only talking about Xs and Os. Nothing else. Don't even talk about talent. I don't care. This is a nerd thread.

The only similarities between the Dallas and Seattle schemes that I can really tell are a general desire to play mostly single-high safety coverage (which we unfortunately don't have the secondary for) and a tendency towards a 4-3 "under" scheme (a comparison that is so generic it's just a step up from "both teams wear shoulder pads").

Did I miss something along the way? Rex Ryan played Ware more similarly to the way Seattle plays Chris Clemons and Cliff Avril. A lot of what Seattle does looks more like Wade Phillips to me than Monte Kiffin. The way I see it, two of the four down linemen in the Seattle scheme play like they're in a 3-4/50/Bear-type defense. It's the same with Jacksonville under Gus Bradley. Am I wrong? Did I simply notice a few hybrid wrinkles here and there and start developing a narrative to bend around them? I don't think this is a Kiffin/Marinelli 4-3 at all.

 

[CyberB0b]

Cowboys didn't have an identity on defense last year, that was part of the problem. They mixed it up too much, in my opinion.

Carroll runs a one gap 4-3 Under with a Cover 3 shell, for the most part. It is unique, because they have the strong side DE 2 gapping. The Cover 3 allows them to keep a safety down in the box for run coverage.

 

[Common Sense]

Cowboys didn't have an identity on defense last year, that was part of the problem. They mixed it up too much, in my opinion.

Carroll runs a one gap 4-3 Under with a Cover 3 shell, for the most part. It is unique, because they have the strong side DE 2 gapping. The Cover 3 allows them to keep a safety down in the box for run coverage.

One thing I expected to see more was Ware being played as that DE/LB hybrid position that Seattle uses on the weakside. It would have especially made sense if they would have had Bass two-gapping at the other DE position (I'm jumping to a conclusion here because I can't imagine what else he would have done over there) -- but what I don't understand is that if they seriously considered a front like that, why didn't they find another two-gapper once Bass went down? I would imagine there are more of those guys on the street than quick-twitch "rushmen".

I guess it goes back to the whole "identity" thing, but that's on Kiffin.

 

[jterrell]

The comparison is about hope not reality.

Seattle runs man to man and cover 3. Man to man is cover 1 or cover 0 depending upon what the FS is assigned to do.
Seattle generally uses him as a single high and he covers sideline to sideline.

Our CB investment and talent make the cover 1 concept our best defense. But our lack of a centerfielder FS makes it impossible.
Our current talent says we need to run man cover ont he corners plus two deep safeties.
That leaves miles of open field and is why we were to terrible versus TE and RB.
Carr and Mo are not good cover 3 players at this point. They dont handle drops well. Both play better in contact with the receiver.
Carr actually relies upon that physical contact because he lacks NFL CB speed.
And our LB(aside form Lee) can't cover underneath enough to go 3 deep.

Our best success in 2013 was with man to man coverage on the corners and Church up top.
Church is far from ideal but was the best option on the team.
JJ Wilcox would man up on someone in those scenarios.

That coverage failed versus elite WRs... duh or with Wilcox out.
Heath could not man cover and thus they had to move that job to Church who struggled as well in man coverage versus TE.
And of course with Heath up top we saw the big plays pour in non-stop regardless of scheme.

Going forward Dallas needs a safety that can make plays on the ball up top and they need pass rush pressure back to the level of the first month of 2013.

Scheme-wise with the corners we have we man coverage outside is a must. To be truly successful doing that we need much improved area coverage at WLB and FS.

 

[Nova]

Agreed.

To put it extremely simple, Dallas runs very true 4-3 under, and 4-3 over base schemes. Seattle's 4-3 over/under base schemes are a hybrid that I mostly associate with a traditional 3-4, but you wouldn't be wrong to call it a 4-3 under/over either.


Seattle has a hodgepodge of players. A lot of the guys are prototypical fits in conflicting defenses... for instance Red Bryant (6'4" 323lbs) and Michael Bennett (6'4" 274) take turns at strong side DE although they are obviously completely different builds. But they somehow just stick them in and adjust the scheme slightly to make it work.

 

[Doomsday101]

People may like saying injuries do not matter but the reality is you can't have that much turnover week to week along the front line and expect to play solid football. Dallas was pulling street free agents into Valley ranch signing them on a monday and playing them the following sunday. You had 2 raw rookies at safety fighting injuries. This defense was in trouble from the get go so you will not see anything close to what the Seahawks did.

 

[xwalker]

I'm only talking about Xs and Os. Nothing else. Don't even talk about talent. I don't care. This is a nerd thread.

The only similarities between the Dallas and Seattle schemes that I can really tell are a general desire to play mostly single-high safety coverage (which we unfortunately don't have the secondary for) and a tendency towards a 4-3 "under" scheme (a comparison that is so generic it's just a step up from "both teams wear shoulder pads").

Did I miss something along the way? Rex Ryan played Ware more similarly to the way Seattle plays Chris Clemons and Cliff Avril. A lot of what Seattle does looks more like Wade Phillips to me than Monte Kiffin. The way I see it, two of the four down linemen in the Seattle scheme play like they're in a 3-4/50/Bear-type defense. It's the same with Jacksonville under Gus Bradley. Am I wrong? Did I simply notice a few hybrid wrinkles here and there and start developing a narrative to bend around them? I don't think this is a Kiffin/Marinelli 4-3 at all.

The Cowboys 2013 defense is not a good indicator of their preferred scheme. It was the 1st year in the scheme, they had many young inexperienced players in the lineup and they cycled through an unprecedented number of players with about 19 just on the DL.

Kiffin was just trying to run something simple and was trying to mask the player deficiencies the best that he could.

Seattle's defense has evolved into what you saw in 2013. It didn't happen from day 1 or season 1.

 

[Doomsday101]

The Cowboys 2013 defense is not a good indicator of their preferred scheme. It was the 1st year in the scheme, they had many young inexperienced players in the lineup and they cycled through an unprecedented number of players with about 19 just on the DL.

Kiffin was just trying to run something simple and was trying to mask the player deficiencies the best that he could.

Seattle's defense has evolved into what you saw in 2013. It didn't happen from day 1 or season 1.

I agree. They were the 27th ranked defense in 2010 and progressed into the #1 that we saw this past season. Did not happen right away.

 

[jterrell]

The Cowboys 2013 defense is not a good indicator of their preferred scheme. It was the 1st year in the scheme, they had many young inexperienced players in the lineup and they cycled through an unprecedented number of players with about 19 just on the DL.

Kiffin was just trying to run something simple and was trying to mask the player deficiencies the best that he could.

Seattle's defense has evolved into what you saw in 2013. It didn't happen from day 1 or season 1.

an underrated point in there about that seattle defense having years to be built, gel and come together.

 

[CyberB0b]

The Cowboys 2013 defense is not a good indicator of their preferred scheme. It was the 1st year in the scheme, they had many young inexperienced players in the lineup and they cycled through an unprecedented number of players with about 19 just on the DL.

Wasn't that supposed to be the strength of Monte Kiffin's defense? That it was so simple, anyone could walk in and play? Mean old Rob Ryan was just too wild and crazy and these poor little fellas just couldn't handle it. Sorry, but I don't buy it. A guy like Kiffin shouldn't need to burn a season to get the players acclimated to the scheme.

 

[Common Sense]

Wasn't that supposed to be the strength of Monte Kiffin's defense? That it was so simple, anyone could walk in and play? Mean old Rob Ryan was just too wild and crazy and these poor little fellas just couldn't handle it. Sorry, but I don't buy it. A guy like Kiffin shouldn't need to burn a season to get the players acclimated to the scheme.

That's also not to mention that most of the major schematic differences were present in Seattle year one. Sure, it took time to refine the personnel, but this is an Xs and Os discussion.

 

[Doomsday101]

Wasn't that supposed to be the strength of Monte Kiffin's defense? That it was so simple, anyone could walk in and play? Mean old Rob Ryan was just too wild and crazy and these poor little fellas just couldn't handle it. Sorry, but I don't buy it. A guy like Kiffin shouldn't need to burn a season to get the players acclimated to the scheme.

To an extent but when you have guys who are sitting at home getting phone calls signing on Monday and playing on sunday the scheme is not the issue it is the talent of the players being asked to do the job. Lee is right it is the players not the scheme.

 

[CyberB0b]

The Cowboys didn't even run that much 4-3 Under. I have an NFL account and can watch the gamefilm if someone wants me to look at a certain game.

 

[Idgit]

Wasn't that supposed to be the strength of Monte Kiffin's defense? That it was so simple, anyone could walk in and play? Mean old Rob Ryan was just too wild and crazy and these poor little fellas just couldn't handle it. Sorry, but I don't buy it. A guy like Kiffin shouldn't need to burn a season to get the players acclimated to the scheme.

It was. But we were still reliant on having sufficient pressure CBs to put on the field at a time. And you can't sit in press coverage, single high, and have zero pass rush. Or LBs who can't both shed blocks and cover.

I think what we wanted to run and what we were running by the time November rolled around this season were very different things. Not that they shouldn't have planned for the possibility of what we got last year. There's little that can or should have been done about losing all the starting DL snaps, but we misread Webb's ability to help as a rookie in the defense, and we missed the boat on the ability of our LBers to adapt quickly. It was rougher than it needed to be, in more than one area.

 

[TheCount]

Cowboys didn't have an identity on defense last year, that was part of the problem. They mixed it up too much, in my opinion.

Carroll runs a one gap 4-3 Under with a Cover 3 shell, for the most part. It is unique, because they have the strong side DE 2 gapping. The Cover 3 allows them to keep a safety down in the box for run coverage.

The "identify" was supposed to be the "rush men". The idea being that all 4 guys were about getting to the QB. It never panned out, but there was an idea there.

As far as similarities to Seattle. I agree, there are none. Seattle plays a 310lb strongside DE. They play with tall, physical corners. Their safeties don't back up 20 yards at ever snap of the ball, etc.

It's all wishful thinking, but it's understandable.

 

[CyberB0b]

It was. But we were still reliant on having sufficient pressure CBs to put on the field at a time. And you can't sit in press coverage, single high, and have zero pass rush. Or LBs who can't both shed blocks and cover.

I think what we wanted to run and what we were running by the time November rolled around this season were very different things. Not that they shouldn't have planned for the possibility of what we got last year. There's little that can or should have been done about losing all the starting DL snaps, but we misread Webb's ability to help as a rookie in the defense, and we missed the boat on the ability of our LBers to adapt quickly. It was rougher than it needed to be, in more than one area.

You are right, the problems are systematic, but the OP wants to focus on X's and O's.

 

[Common Sense]

You are right, the problems are systematic, but the OP wants to focus on X's and O's.

The reason I say that is because it always ends up becoming a discussion of talent acquisition and finger pointing. The truth is this team doesn't have the defensive personnel to run ANY scheme well, so I'd rather try to decipher what they tried to do.

 

[DFWJC]

Wasn't that supposed to be the strength of Monte Kiffin's defense? That it was so simple, anyone could walk in and play? Mean old Rob Ryan was just too wild and crazy and these poor little fellas just couldn't handle it. Sorry, but I don't buy it. A guy like Kiffin shouldn't need to burn a season to get the players acclimated to the scheme.

Some truth there.
But it does depend on the players. I mean, nearly half (or more) of the guys out there would not start for most teams.

 

[CyberB0b]

I decided to break down the Cowboys pass defense in the first quarter of Week 17. Keep in mind, I have no coaching experience and am just a casual fan, so I may be way off. Please correct me if I am wrong.



10:42 - Nickel 2 Man Under look presnap. There is a motion, which causes an assignment change, but the pass was incomplete.

10:02 - Wide 9 Nickel 2 Man Under presnap. Holloman is late to cover the RB in the flat for a big gain.

7:55 - Nickel 2 Man Under look presnap. Ware is in a 2 point stance, out wide. What alignment is this? The corners back up before the snap and the safety rotates. It looks like they were trying to diguise a Cover 3 zone. Coverage was good, but a tight throw for a big completion to Cooper

3:33 - Nickel 3-3-5 Cover 1 man presnap, showing blitz. Hayden is lined up at the nose, with Ware and Selvie at OLB, blitzing from a Wide, 2 point stance. Heath is 1 on 1 and gets burned on a deep out. This is like a 3-3-5 Bear look or something.

2:43 - Odd Nickle Sub Package. Scandrick comes up to blitz. Not sure if this was a designed fake blitz, or Scandrick just broke it off, but it looked to be a Cover 4 type of zone, but I have no idea. There was a presnap motion from Jackson which caused a lot of confusion. Again, what alignment is this? It's designed to get Scandrick and Ware against the LT, hopefully, getting Scandrick free.

1:59 - Nickel 0 blitz formation presnap. They check out of this and Church goes back to deep center field for a Cover 1 look. Heath gets burned again on a deep crossing route by the TE. There was good pressure, but Foles avoided it. They seem to like this alignment. It's a wide 9 with Ware in a 2 point stance.

:37 - Nickel Cover 1 man look presnap. We only bring 4, instead of 5, as they double the TE over the middle. Good pressure.

Here is what I noted:

Kelly's offense moves DeSean Jackson around a LOT presnap. He starts off in the backfield sometimes, other times, he motions for a fake reverse. This causes a lot of confusion and assignment switching against man defense, giving the receiver the advantage. This works well with a guy like Jackson, who is explosive in space.

Cowboys primarily played Nickel, with man coverage. I only saw 1 zone look the whole quarter. They mixed up blitzing and coverage, and were pretty aggressive. They were able to get pressure sending 4, but Foles moved around pretty well and the coverage on the back end wasn't as tight as it needed to be. What do you guys think?

 

[jterrell]

Nice post CB.
It pretty much indicates that Monte did in fact learn some things about the defensive talent this year.

Our man coverage is decent as a package except versus elite talent, versus RB or TE(doubling a TE... sad).
Not so good in zone.

Our LBs do not cover well at all (except Lee). Drafting a solid coverage LB would probably move up my list of needs after looking more and more at play by play results that showed RB and TE murder us.

Ware standing up is something I suspect we'll see more of. He's used to it and whatever makes him comfortable is a good thing.
Its a pretty basic 3-4 look imho.

The wide 9 sets are basically thing, an effort to get to what he does best.